Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > September 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12765 September 26, 1917 - GISBURNE SUPPLY CO. v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

036 Phil 913:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12765. September 26, 1917. ]

GISBURNE SUPPLY CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VICENTE QUIOGUE, Defendant-Appellee.

Wolfson & Wolfson for Appellant.

Molina & Roxas for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; NEW TRIAL. — Accident and surprise and newly discovered evidence are proper grounds, within the prescriptions of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the granting of a new trial. Where one party to an action is misled by the other, justice demands that a new trial be granted.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J. :


The plaintiff and appellant moves in this court for a new trial upon the grounds of accident and surprise and newly discovered evidence. The motion is based upon section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel for defendant were notified, and filed a memorandum in opposition.

The record discloses a complaint filed by the Gisburne Supply Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, against Vicente Quiogue of the city of Manila for the sum of P450 for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered to defendant by plaintiff. Judgment was rendered below absolving the defendant of the complaint. Plaintiff excepted and moved for a new trial. Motion denied. Appeal to the Supreme Court with a renewal of the motion for a new trial with affidavits attached.

Under the law (section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended) we are to determine whether or not new and material evidence has been discovered by the plaintiff, which could not have been discovered before the trial in the court below, by the exercise of due diligence, and which is of such a character as probably to change the result.

Statements of counsel and the affidavits disclosed as tending to substantiate the affirmative of this question:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) Plaintiff entered into a stipulation with the defendant to the effect that about the middle of October, 1914, defendant received a draft from plaintiff; but the affidavits disclose that the usual banking custom was not followed and that the defendant had no notice of the draft until December 28, 1914, so that the finding of the trial court that plaintiff was negligent in not forwarding a duplicate bill of lading until February, 1915, based upon the assumption that defendant received the draft in October, 1914, would appear to be untenable.

"(2) The original order taken by plaintiff’s salesman was introduced in evidence; defendant testified and the trial court found that it was a conditional sale; the affidavit of the salesman now filed seems to show the contract to have been an absolute and unconditional sale.

"(3) The defendant offered in evidence a copy of a letter said to have been sent by defendant to plaintiff, in which defendant advised plaintiff of his failure to receive a bill of lading, which letter was admitted without objection; but the affidavit of the President of the plaintiff company sets out that no letter of any kind was received by plaintiff from defendant prior to the return of the draft on February 5, 1915."cralaw virtua1aw library

These alleged facts together lead one to believe that the defendant misled the plaintiff and that because of the distance of the offices of the plaintiff company from the seat of the trial, counsel used all possible diligence in protecting the company’s interests. Plaintiff’s fault, if any, was in not asking for a continuance or in not moving to set aside the judgment. Nevertheless, under our statute and the authorities, the rule is that where one party to an action is misled by the other, justice demands that a new trial should be granted. (Pinkham & McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod [1855], 5 Cal., 137.) Moreover the motion for a new trial presented in this court gives grounds additional to those on which the motion was based in the lower court. (Fleming & Co. v. Lorcha "Nuestra Senora del Carmen" [1906], 7 Phil., 200.) Ordinary prudence, apparently, could not have guarded against accident or surprise on the facts suggested in this case.

The motion for a new trial is granted. Let the usual order issue.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo and Street, JJ., concur.




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






September-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9487 September 4, 1917 - SOFIA P. O’FARREL, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA VICTORIA

    036 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. 12700 September 4, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON OLAIS

    036 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 12423 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHOA CHIOK, ET AL.

    036 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. 12710 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 12502 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN DRILON

    036 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 12564 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO M. CORTES

    036 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. 12694 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BALDOMERA ESPARCIA

    036 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 12701 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIA SALAMAT

    036 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. 12710 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 12756 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINA SILVANO

    036 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. 12857 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ALFREDO MANIQUIS

    036 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 12412 September 7, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MAIDO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. 12697 September 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO BARNEDO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 12779 September 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO SANTOS

    036 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. 11094 September 12, 1917 - SABINO LIWAG, ET AL. v. EXEQUIEL YAUCO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 12213 September 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    036 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 12320 September 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE IGUIDEZ

    036 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. 12091 September 13, 1917 - SIMEON ROQUE v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    036 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. 12473 September 18, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LOO HOE

    036 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. 11080 September 19, 1917 - MARCELINO VILLAFUERTE v. MIGUEL EREGA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 11599 September 20, 1917 - MAURA RAMOS v. MARIA CASTELO

    036 Phil 876

  • G.R. No. 10513 September 21, 1917 - URQUIJO, ZULUAGA & ESCUBI v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. 11353 September 21, 1917 - AURELIO ASOMBRA v. BENITA DORADO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 12596 September 21, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO AZTIGARRAGA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 11952 September 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MACAMAY

    036 Phil 893

  • G.R. No. 12590 September 25, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 12635 September 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES

    036 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. 11647 September 26, 1917 - RAFAEL C. DE YNCHAUSTI v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    036 Phil 908

  • G.R. No. 12765 September 26, 1917 - GISBURNE SUPPLY CO. v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    036 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. 12845 September 26, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GAFFUD, ET AL.

    036 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. 12184 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHIU GUIMCO

    036 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. 12607 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO PARRO

    036 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. 12690 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LIM BIN

    036 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. 13122 September 27, 1917 - JOSE FELIPE BRACA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. 9576 September 28, 1917 - HILARIO TANATO v. GAUDENCIO SANIEL, ET AL.

    036 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. 12921 September 29, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MATEA CAÑETE

    036 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. 12632 September 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO CARA

    041 Phil 828