Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > March 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 11550 March 14, 1917 - LUPO MERCADO v. ANANIAS VICENCIO

036 Phil 414:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 11550. March 14, 1917. ]

LUPO MERCADO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANANIAS VICENCIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Campomanes & Concepcion for Appellant.

Pedro de Leon for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING; DEMURRER OVERRULED; DUTY OF PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE; WAIVER BY DEFENDANT; JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. — Rule 9 of the Courts of First Instance provides that, when a demurrer to a complaint is overruled, the defendant shall answer within five days after service upon him of written notice of the order, which notice the plaintiff shall give. If the defendant, however, accepts written notice given by the court of the order overruling his demurrer and acts thereon by noting his exception, he waives his right to have the notice given him by the plaintiff.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P348, together with interest and costs.

It is now urged that the trial court erred (1) in overruling the defendant’s demurrer; (2) in declaring the defendant in default for a failure to answer the complaint within the time prescribed by the rules of the court; and (3) in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P348.

The plaintiff alleged that he leased to the defendant on the 20th of December, 1914, a casco for P4 a day; that the defendant used the casco from that date until January 22, 1915; that the defendant paid P60 for the use of the casco; that due to the negligence of the defendant the casco, which had been abandoned on the rocks near the shore in Manila, was badly damaged; that it required twenty days in which to repair the casco at a cost of P200; and P80. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it was vague, uncertain, and unintelligible. The demurrer was overruled and, according to the bill of exceptions, the demurrer on September 18, 1915, and the defendant noted his exception in the record on the same day. The defendant having failed to answer him on motion of the plaintiff on October 2, 1915. Final judgment was rendered for the amount above indicated, after hearing and considering the plaintiff’s proof, on November 19, 1915, and exception taken on the same day. It is not now contended that the testimony does not support the findings of fact upon which the judgment rests.

The first assignment of error is entirely without merit, because the complaint clearly alleges in a legal, logical form a cause of action. The only question to be determined is whether or not the defendant can now insist that the notice served upon him by the court that his demurrer had been overruled was not a compliance with the rules of the court in view of the fact that the defendant accepted such notice by noting his exception thereto. In Duran v. Arboleda (20 Phil. Rep., 253), the demurrer to the complaint was overruled by an oral order of the court delivered in the presence of both parties and their lawyers. The order gave the defendant five days within which to answer. On gave the defendant five days within which to answer. On the 6th day, the answer not having been filed, the plaintiff presented a motion to have the defendant declared in default and for permission to prove the allegations of his complaint. Within a few minutes after such motion was made, the defendant came into court and presented her answer. The court refused to receive the answer upon the ground that it had not been filed within the five days. Thereupon the defendant was declared in default and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the merits. On appeal the defendant contended that the plaintiff gave her no notice in writing of the order overruling her demurrer. This contention was sustained, the court saying:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court below having overruled the demurrer and having given the defendant the regular time in which to answer, as prescribed by the rules, the defendant had a right to expect that the proceedings were to be conducted according to the rules of the court as laid down. The defendant had a right to rely upon the express provisions of Rule 9 and to expect that she would be served by the plaintiff himself with a written notice of the entry of the order. She had a right to wait before moving further until the expiration of five days from the time when such notice was given. The plaintiff never gave the defendant any notice whatever of the entry of said order, relying upon the fact that the defendant was in court at the time the demurrer was overruled and that she received thereby sufficient notice of such order and that the five days began to run from that time. The defendant had a right to rely upon the rules of court and to expect that she would be given notice as required thereby. No negligence or fault can be imputed to her in so doing."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case just cited the defendant did not act upon the oral order of the court overruling her demurrer and giving her five days within which to answer the complaint. She had a right, as this court stated, to expect that the plaintiff would give her a written notice of the order of the court in accordance with Rule 9. She was not required to take any action in the premises until this written notice was given. She could have, of course, accepted the oral order delivered in her presence and acted thereon.

In the case under consideration the defendant accepted the notice given him by the court of the order overruling his demurrer by noting his exception on the same day that he received the notice. He could have declined to accept this notice by taking no action on it and required the plaintiff himself to have given him the written notice provided for in Rule 9, but when he accepted the court’s notice by noting his exception, he waived his rights under Rule 9 and cannot now say that he was not notified in accordance with law.

For the foregoing reason the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I agree on the ground (1) that an appeal from a judgment by default does not raise any question concerning the regularity of the proceedings upon which the defendant was declared in default; and (2) that the appellant has not properly shown the existence of the facts relative to the default upon which he relies.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11257 March 1, 1917 - MARTIN QUILOP v. MARIA U. COTTONG

    044 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. 11409 March 12, 1917 - RAMON ONGPIN v. VICENTA RIVERA

    044 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11374 March 14, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    041 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10152 March 29, 1917 - FELIX ROBLES v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    041 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 9802 March 31, 1917 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA & CHINA

    041 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. 10551 March 3, 1917 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. ALFRED BERWIN

    036 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 11067 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    036 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11602 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER E. OLSEN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 12581 March 13, 1917 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ

    036 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 11179 March 14, 1917 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    036 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 11471 March 14, 1917 - CO PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 11550 March 14, 1917 - LUPO MERCADO v. ANANIAS VICENCIO

    036 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 11994 March 14, 1917 - STAPLES-HOWE PRINTING COMPANY v. MANILA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    036 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 12117 March 14, 1917 - LIM YIONG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 12180 March 14, 1917 - MARIANO CAÑETE v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 12379 March 14, 1917 - LAO HU NIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 11476 March 15, 1917 - MAGDALENO AGATEP v. JUAN TAGUINOD

    036 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 11686 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO CARDONA

    036 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 11696 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA GUILLERMA PALISOC, ET AL.

    036 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 10559 March 16, 1917 - AGUSTIN ASENCIO v. ROMAN BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 11759 March 16, 1917 - CAYETANO LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 11681 March 17, 1917 - JOSE VILLAREAL v. RAFAEL CORPUS

    036 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 12354 March 17, 1917 - GREGORIO REMATA v. JUAN JAVIER

    036 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 12508 March 17, 1917 - JOSE DEOGRACIAS v. JOSE C. ABREU, ET AL.

    036 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 11441 March 19, 1917 - MARIA ELOISA ROCHA v. EMILIA P. TUASON

    036 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 10598 March 20, 1917 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ANASTACIO ALANO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 11198 March 20, 1917 - THOS B. AITKEN v. JULIAN LA O

    036 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 11548 March 24, 1917 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    036 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 11730 March 24, 1917 - FELIX NATE v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    036 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 12391 March 26, 1917 - UNITES STATES v. TEOPISTA VERAY

    036 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 12454 March 26, 1917 - ANGEL PALMA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 12706 March 26, 1917 - RUPERTO VENTURANZA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 27, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF CARDONA v. MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11767 March 27, 1917 - LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI v. MANUELA SARTE

    036 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 12286 March 27, 1917 - C. E. SALMON, ET AL. v. CHINO TAN CUECO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 12551 March 27, 1917 - BENITO POBLETE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 12623 March 27, 1917 - CHAN LIN, ET AL. v. M. VIVENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 11189 March 29, 1917 - EUSEBIO LOPEZ v. FRANCISCO ABELARDE

    036 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 11474 March 29, 1917 - PASIG STEAMER AND LIGHTER COMPANY v. VICENTE MADRIGAL

    036 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 11030 March 30, 1917 - DOMINGO ENRILE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 11629 March 30, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    036 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 12122 March 30, 1917 - FRANCISCO VILLAESTAR v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    036 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 12590 March 30, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 10986 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE v. HAMBURG AMERIKA

    036 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 11169 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE FRANCO-INDOCHINOISE v. DEUTSCH AUSTRALISCHE DAMPSCHIFFS GESELLSCHAFT

    036 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 11386 March 31, 1917 - EMILIO NATIVIDAD v. BASILIA GABINO

    036 Phil 663

  • G.R. Nos. 11447, 11448 & 11449 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. 11457 & 11458 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO LAXA

    036 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 11841 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO LIM

    036 Phil 682