ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43850 April 3, 1939 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. JOHN R. MCFIE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45080 April 3, 1939 - FLORENCIA DUQUILLO v. PAZ BAYOT

    067 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 45112 April 3, 1939 - APOLONIA GOMEZ v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC.

    067 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45144 April 3, 1939 - M. E. GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    067 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 45696 April 3, 1939 - PLACIDA PASCASIO, ET AL. v. BENITO GUIDO

    067 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 45159 April 4, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO MA. DE MORETA

    067 Phil 146

  • G.R. Nos. 46231-46235 April 4, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO B. GONZALEZ

    067 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46239 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. ROSENDO MARCOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 46247 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 45177 April 5, 1939 - JOSE MARTINEZ v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA

    067 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 45193 April 6, 1939 - EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, ET AL. v. STEWART EDDIE TAIT

    067 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46510 April 5, 1939 - ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO RAMOS

    067 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 45517 April 5, 1939 - TARCILA L. TRINIDAD v. ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

    067 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 45738 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO CELORICO

    067 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 45748 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO VERA REYES

    067 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45955 April 5, 1939 - TEODORICA R. VIUDA DE JOSE v. JULIO VELOSO BARRUECO

    067 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 46144 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CINCO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 46409 April 5, 1939 - INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 46478 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO UG, ET AL.

    067 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 43822 April 10, 1939 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANCHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    067 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 45152 April 10, 1939 - HILARIA SIKAT v. JOHN CANSON

    067 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 45170 April 10, 1939 - ARSENIO DE VERA, ET AL. v. CLEOTILDE GALAURAN

    067 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45171 April 10, 1939 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MONTILLA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 45192 April 10, 1939 - IN RE: VICENTE J. FRANCISCO

    067 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 45200 April 10, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 45246 April 10, 1939 - CARLOS N. FRANCISCO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    067 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45273 April 10, 1939 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. FEDERICO ABAD

    067 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 45295 April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45302 April 10, 1939 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 45337 April 10, 1939 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. ANICETO MARAÑA

    067 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 45381 April 10, 1939 - FELIX BENEDICTO v. PERFECTO ESPINO

    067 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 45898 April 10, 1939 - JOVITA JOVEN v. MARCELO T. BONCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 46530 April 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO RABAO

    067 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 45123 April 12, 1939 - AGRIPINO INFANTE v. MARCOS DULAY

    067 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 45165 April 12, 1939 - GREGORIA JIMENEZ v. GEROMIMO JIMENEZ

    067 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 45277 April 12, 1939 - TORIBIO TEODORO v. JUAN POSADAS

    067 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 45306 April 12, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. LA URBANA

    067 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 45365 April 12, 1939 - FULTON IRON WORKS CO. v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    067 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 45375 April 12, 1939 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA BALDELLO

    067 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 45454 April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL.

    067 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 45515 April 12, 1939 - TOLARAM MENGHRA v. BULCHAND ARACHAND, ET AL.

    067 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 45742 April 12, 1939 - TIBURCIO MAMUYAC v. PEDRO ABENA

    067 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 45752 April 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN PERALTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 45821 April 12, 1939 - SOCONY-VACUUM CORPORATION v. LEON C. MIRAFLORES

    067 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 45899 April 12, 1939 - RAYMUNDO VARGAS v. NIEVES TANCIOCO,, ET AL.

    067 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 45405 April 13, 1939 - IN RE: ANTONIO FRANCO

    067 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45529 April 13, 1939 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO

    067 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 46428 April 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO TUMLOS

    067 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 45253 April 14, 1939 - FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 45310 April 14, 1939 - MARCOS J. ROTEA v. FRANCISCA DELUPIO

    067 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 45400 April 14, 1939 - MARCIANA LUNASCO v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 45536 April 14, 1939 - PEDRO AMANTE v. SERAFIN P. HILADO

    067 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 45601 April 14, 1939 - TAVERA-LUNA v. MARIANO NABLE

    067 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 45687 April 14, 1939 - CARIDAD ESTATE OF CAVITE, INC. v. VICENTE AVILA

    067 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 45931 April 14, 1939 - URBANO SERRANO v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ

    067 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 45340 April 15, 1939 - MARCELA BALLESTEROS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 45430 April 15, 1939 - TERESA GARCIA v. LUISA GARCIA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 45643 April 16, 1939 - RAYMUNDO CORDERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, Respondents.

    067 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 45576 April 19, 1939 - MAXIMIANO FUENTES v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PILA, LAGUNA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 45248 April 18, 1939 - VICENTE REYES VILLAVICENCIO v. SANTIAGO QUINIO

    067 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45418 April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 45701 April 18, 1939 - TIRSO GARCIA v. TY CAMCO SOBRINO

    067 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 45721 April 18, 1939 - MELCHOR LAMPREA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 45803 April 18, 1939 - VICENTA C. VDA. DE GUIDOTE v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    067 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 45923 Abril 18, 1939 - CHOA FUN v. EL SECRETARIO DEL TRABAJO

    067 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 46015 April 18, 1939 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. INES DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46043 April 18, 1939 - TERESA LANDRITO, ET AL. v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 46134 April 18, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    067 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 46317 April 18, 1939 - JUSTO QUIMING v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    067 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 45290 April 19, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAULA MERCADO

    067 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 45126 April 19, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALBINO PANUNCIO

    067 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 45166 April 19, 1939 - LEON C. VIARDO v. GALICANO GUTIERREZ

    067 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 45190 April 19, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO APAREJADO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 45531 April 19, 1939 - FRED OMNAS, ET AL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    067 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 46002 April 19, 1939 - SALVACION RIOSA v. STILIANOPULOS, INC.

    067 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 45715 April 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO OLIVERIA

    067 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 45934 April 20, 1939 - FORTUNATO DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45980 April 20, 1939 - MARIA MARTINEZ v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

    067 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 45493 April 21, 1939 - GERARDO GARCIA v. ANGEL SUAREZ

    067 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 45595 April 21, 1939 - JUAN POSADAS, ET AL. v. GO HAP, ET AL.

    067 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46046 April 21, 1939 - PROCOPIO GAQUIT v. DOROTEO CONUI

    067 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46570 April 21, 1939 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    067 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 45449 April 22, 1939 - TOMAS S. OCEJO v. CONSUL GENERAL OF SPAIN

    067 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46330 April 22, 1939 - IRENEO ABAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    067 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 45413 April 24, 1939 - LA YEBANA, CO., INC. v. JULIO L. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 45666 April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 45978 April 24, 1939 - MIGUELA ELEAZAR v. EUSEBIO ELEAZAR

    067 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 46029 April 24, 1939 - NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD v. LUIS MENESES

    067 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 45369 April 25, 1939 - ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. ALFFREDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 45544 April 25, 1939 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LORENZO ECHARRI

    067 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 45624 April 25, 1939 - GEORGE LITTON v. HILL & CERON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 45739 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA

    067 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 45755 April 25, 1939 - ASUNCION ABAD v. AMANDO AQUINO

    067 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45964 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITURO FALLER

    067 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 46035 April 25, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    067 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 46260 April 26, 1939 - PABLO TAMAYO v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 46356 April 25, 1939 - FRUCTUOSA VELASCO VDA. DE TALAVERA v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

    067 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 45403 April 26, 1939 - NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TONG LIN & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

    067 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 45519 April 26, 1939 - RUFINA SALAO, ET AL. v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 45521 April 26, 1939 - JOSE MORENO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO SAN MATEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 45598 April 26, 1939 - TAN PHO v. HASSAMAL DALAMAL

    067 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 45614 April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON

    067 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 45662 April 26, 1939 - ENRIQUE CLEMENTE v. DIONISIO GALVAN

    067 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 46366 April 26, 1939 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AI. .

    067 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 46492 April 26, 1939 - RAMON SOTELO v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 45173 April 27, 1939 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

    067 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 45359 April 27, 1939 - JACINTO M. DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR ARANETA

    067 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 45506 April 27, 1939 - FORTUNATO MANZANERO v. REMEDIOS BONGON

    067 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 45508 April 27, 1939 - SEGUNDA DEVEZA v. ERIBERTO BALMEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 45534 April 27, 1939 - JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO HIDALGO REAL

    067 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45694 April 27, 1939 - FRANCISCO YATCO v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    067 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 45724 April 27, 1939 - IGNACIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. TEODORO IBEA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 45741 April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 45185 April 28, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD ALDEGUER VIUDA DE ROMERO SALAS

    067 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 45464 April 28, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. CARMEN DE LUNA

    067 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 45625 April 28, 1939 - MARGARITA VILLANUEVA v. JUAN SANTOS

    067 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 45761 April 28, 1939 - JULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 45266 April 29, 1939 - SIMEON RAEL v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL

    067 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 45410 April 29, 1939 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. JOSE BERNABE

    067 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 45412 April 29, 1939 - COSME CARLOS, ET AL. v. COSME CARLOS

    067 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 45425 April 29, 1939 - JOSE GATCHALIAN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    067 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 45479 April 29, 1939 - FELIX ATACADOR v. HILARION SILAYAN

    067 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 45597 April 29, 1939 - MACARIA PASCUAL v. LORENZA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 45965 April 29, 1939 - AMPARO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    067 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46003 April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS

    067 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 46026 April 29, 1939 - JESUSA PORTILLO-RIVERA v. STRACHAN, MACMURRAY & CO., LTD.

    067 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 46604 April 29, 1939 - FRANCISCO MORFE, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 696

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45741   April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 637

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45741. April 27, 1939.]

    F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO (VELA HERMANOS), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Manly & Reyes for Appellant.

    Cavana & Nisolada for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ERROR; DISAPPROVAL OF THE REPORT OF A COMMISSIONER. — As to the first error which plaintiff and appellant attributes to the lower court to the effect that it failed to approve the report of the commissioner, it should be said that, granting for the sake of argument that said error was committed, no substantial prejudice was caused to the appellant for the reason that the court considered it better to take cognizance of the case directly in order to do justice to the parties upon previous appointment of a guardian who might duly represent the defendants who were minors.

    2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AFTER THE COURT HAS AGREED TO TAKE DIRECT COGNIZANCE THEREOF. — The action taken by the lower court in dismissing the case after it had itself agreed to take direct cognizance of the case but without doing so, was undoubtedly an error inasmuch as the reasons upon which it relied in ordering said dismissal cannot justify it. This appears clear because from the allegations of the complaint, those of the answer itself of defendants and even those found in their motion for dismissal, it is inferred that plaintiff was and is an entity engaged in commerce and is, therefore, a merchant within the meaning of the law. If this is the case, then the action of plaintiff was not prematurely brought in view of the provisions of articles 62, 311, 32S and 2 of the Code of Commerce, and section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031).

    3. ID.; PERIOD FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATIONS — In the case under consideration there was surely no necessity for the plaintiff to ask the courts first to fix the period within which defendants should pay their pending obligations to it. Said period expired after ten days from the execution of the documents aforementioned. And on the other hand, before plaintiff instituted its action, it required defendants at one or other time, according to the complaint, to pay the amounts set forth therein.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    This case involves an appeal taken by plaintiff from the order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissing the same for the following reasons: First, that from the terms of the documents transcribed in the complaint whereby plaintiff desires to prove the existence of the obligations whose fulfillment it is attempting to enforce against defendants it is deduced that a period has been given them for that purpose, which period must be previously fixed; and second, that the action instituted by plaintiff is, for that reason, premature.

    The facts which may be gleaned from the allegations of the complaint in question are the following: Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against defendants on January 30, 1935 praying that they be sentenced to pay it the following sums: P1,070.90 and interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent per month from March 23, 1931; and P279.37 and interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent per month from February 5, 1932, plus an additional sum equivalent to 30 per cent of the aforesaid sum as attorney’s fees and costs of collection. In the complaint referred to are embodied the documents on which plaintiff bases its alleged right to collect from defendants the sums above set forth. Said documents are of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Our accounts having been fixed; I hereby state that I am on this date indebted to Messrs. F. and A. Garcia Diego in the amount of One thousand seventy pesos and ninety centavos (P1,070.90). This amount will earn an interest of one (1%) per cent per month.

    "Iriga, March 23, 1931.

    "ESTANISLAO AND GLORIA

    DE ANTONIO

    (Sgd.) "JUAN BARDAJI

    "No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    "I have received from the mercantile partnership, F. y A. Garcia Diego, styled Vela Hermanos, the sum of two hundred and seventy-nine and 37/100 pesos on account of; the ____ kilos of ____ which I shall deliver _____ at its store in Iriga on or before _____ of _____, 193 _____ at the price of P _____ per ______.

    ‘This sum shall earn 1 per cent interest per month until fully paid and should recourse to the courts be necessary for the collection of the same or any part thereof, I shall pay _____ besides the debt, interest and costs, by an additional 30 per cent of this sum of P ____ as fees for the attorney or person designated by the creditor to enforce collection.

    "Iriga, February 5, 1932.

    "ESTANISLAO AND GLORIA

    DE ANTONIO

    (Sgd.) "JUAN BARDAJI

    "P279.37.

    "In the presence of:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    " __________________"

    Juan Bardaji, whose signature appears on the documents referred to, was and is the agent and attorney-in-fact of Gloria de Antonio who is married to Francisco Royo, as well as of Felipa Rodriguez Narva and the latter’s children named Ernesto, Enrique, Ester and Elena, surnamed Antonio. Joaquin Mendez and Jose Alvarez Ruibamba, who are respectively the third and second from the last of the defendants, are likewise agents and attorneys-in-fact of the aforementioned Felisa Rodriguez Narva and her four children.

    After the defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint had been filed, the lower court designated its clerk to receive the evidence which the parties might desire to adduce; and it did so because the parties expressly asked therefor. The clerk, after concluding his work as commissioner, rendered his report recommending therein that defendants be made to pay the sums claimed by plaintiff. Before the court could act on the report of said commissioner, defendants asked that all the actuations of the latter be declared void because, in the first place, he had not duly qualified by subscribing the corresponding oath; and in the second place, some of the defendants were minors and were not provided with a guardian. In view of this objection which the court considered to be of great weight, it disapproved the report referred to and ordered that the case be heard before him personally. However, before any other step could be taken defendants raised the questions which gave rise to the dismissal of the case.

    In its brief plaintiff contends that the lower court committed the following errors: First, in failing to approve the report of the commissioner; second, in not rendering judgment in accordance with the recommendation made by said commissioner; third, in dismissing the case without having given plaintiff opportunity to amend its complaint; fourth, in finding that according to the nature of the obligations set forth in the complaint, there was an intention on the part of plaintiff to allow defendants a period within which to fulfill their obligations; fifth, in having applied the provisions of article 1128 of the Civil Code, instead of those of article 1113 of the same Code; and sixth, in finding that the action which ought to have been first instituted was for the purpose of asking the court to fix a period within which defendants should comply with their obligations.

    1. As to the first error which the appellant attributes to the lower court, it should be said that, even granting the commission of said error for the sake of argument, no substantial prejudice was caused to the appellant for the reason that the court considered it better to take cognizance of the case directly in order to do justice to the parties upon previous appointment of a guardian who might duly represent the defendants who were minors.

    2. The action taken by the lower court in dismissing the case after it had itself agreed to take direct cognizance of the case was undoubtedly an error because the reasons upon which it relied in so doing, cannot justify it. This appears clear because from the allegations of the complaint, those of the answer itself of defendants and even those found in their motion for dismissal it may be inferred that plaintiff was and is an entity engaged in commerce, and is, therefore, a merchant within the meaning of the law. If this is the case, then the action of plaintiff was not prematurely brought in view of the provisions of articles 62, 311, 325 and 2 of the Code of Commerce, and section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031), which read respectively as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 62. Obligations which do not have a period previously fixed by the parties, or by the provisions of this Code, shall be demandable ten days after having been contracted, if they can only be the basis for an ordinary action, and on the next day if execution lies."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "ART. 311. A loan shall be considered commercial when the following conditions are present:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. If one of the contracting parties is a merchant.

    "2. If the articles loaned are destined to commercial transactions."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "ART. 325. A purchase and sale of personal property for the purpose of resale, either in the form purchased or in a different form, for the purpose of deriving profit in the resale, shall be considered commercial."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "ART. 2 Commercial transactions, be they performed by merchants or not, whether they are specified in this Code to or not, shall be governed by the provisions contained in the same; in the absence of such provisions, by the commercial customs generally observed in each place; and in the absence of both, by those of the common law.

    "Commercial transactions shall be considered those enumerated in this Code and any others of a similar character."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "SEC. 7. When payable on demand. — An instrument is payable on demand —

    "(a) Where it is expressed to be payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation; or

    "(b) In which no time for payment is expressed.

    "Where an instrument is issued, accepted, or indorsed when overdue, it is, as regards the person so issuing, accepting, or indorsing it, payable on demand."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case under consideration there was surely no necessity for the plaintiff to ask the courts to fix the period within which defendants should pay their pending obligations to it. Said period expired after ten days from the execution of the documents aforementioned. And on the other hand, before plaintiff instituted its action, it required defendants at one time or another, according to the complaint, to pay the amount set forth therein.

    Having arrived at the foregoing conclusion, we find no occasion to go further into the other alleged errors assigned by plaintiff. In the circumstances in which the case was found, ready as it was to be heard by the same judge who rendered the appealed order, because of the disapproval of the report of the commissioner before whom the parties adduced their evidence, he should have heard the same as if he had not previously taken cognizance thereof, received the evidence and rendered judgment thereafter according to the evidence and the law.

    In view of all the foregoing, we find that the order appealed from should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and it is ordered that the case be remanded to the lower court in order that it may proceed with the corresponding trial, receiving the evidence which the parties mar adduce and thereafter rendering judgment in accordance with law.

    Costs shall be assessed against the appellees. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45741   April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 637


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED