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
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46100   May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO<br /><br />068 Phil 231

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46100. May 26, 1939.]

    ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL, Petitioner, v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO ET AL., Respondents.

    Claro M. Recto and Hidalgo Rizal for Petitioner.

    Cardenas & Casal for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    APPEAL; COMPUTATION OF TIME FOR FILING OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAL. — If the filing of a notice of intention to appeal in an ordinary civil case is done within the period remaining for the presentation of another motion for new trial, the filing is timely, although five days may have elapsed from the denial of the last motion for new trial, as long as it is done within the thirty days authorized by law for the presentation of motions for new trial, not including the time which the trial court may have spent to decide said motions.

    DECISION UPON NEW TRIAL 1

    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    We are here concerned with a new trial of the present petition for certiorari granted the petitioner Alfredo Hidalgo Rizal by resolution of this court dated February 4, 1939, in which each of the parties submitted a memorandum in support of his contention.

    Alfredo Hidalgo Rizal petitions this court to reverse the decision rendered by the second division of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal taken by petitioner from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and to order the said Court of Appeals to reinstate the appeal thus dismissed by it and to decide said appeal on its merits.

    In answer to the petition, respondents Josefa Rizal Mercado Et. Al., express their assent to what is prayed for therein in order that they may not be condemned to pay costs and ask that judgment be rendered on the merits.

    The ultimate facts which the second division of the Court of Appeals took into consideration and upon which it relied in dismissing the appeal above-mentioned, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On January 10, 1935, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered in civil case No. 44808 a judgment against the therein defendant and herein petitioner, Alfredo Hidalgo Rizal. On the fourteenth of the same month and year, he received notice of said judgment. On the twenty-third, also of the same month and year, the aforesaid defendant and petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration based on the ground that the judgment is contrary to law and the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration by order of January 30, 1935. On February 6, 1935, the defendant and petitioner received notice of the order denying his motion for reconsideration and on the eighth of that month and year he excepted to said order and asked for a new trial on the same ground that the judgment rendered in the case is contrary to law and the weight of the evidence. By order of February 16. 1935, the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the motion for new trial, and on February 21, 1935 defendant filed his exception and notice of appeal. On March 2, 193. he filed the corresponding bill of exceptions.

    From January 14, 1935, when defendant received notice of the judgment against him, to January 23, 1935, when he filed his motion for reconsideration — which is equivalent to a motion for new trial (Pascua v. Ocampo and Aguilar, 59 Phil., 48; Blouse v. Moreno and Garcia, 60 Phil., 741; Levett v. Sy Quia, 61 Phil., 847; Rodriguez v. Rovira, 63 Phil., 476) — nine days elapsed with twenty-one of the thirty days within which he is entitled to file his motions referred to, still remaining. The filing of his said motion for new trial suspended the running of the twenty-one days left to him and they did not begin to run again until February 6, 1935 on which date he was notified of the order denying his motion for new trial (Layda v. Legazpi, 39 Phil., 83, and cases therein cited; San Miguel Brewery v. Legarda, 48 Phil., 507; Agra v. Zandueta, 56 Phil., 528; and cases therein cited). The filing of his second motion for new trial on February 8, 1935, did not suspend the running of the twenty-one days left to him, inasmuch as it was based on the same grounds relied upon in the first motion.

    In the case of Aquino v. Tongco (61 Phil., 840), this court enunciated the doctrine that a party desiring to appeal from a judgment rendered against him may file several motions for new trial within the period of thirty days, but that each of them must have to be based on different legal grounds. According to this doctrine, the petitioner could file other motions for new trial within the twenty-one days which he still had. If, instead of excepting to the resolution which denied his second motion for new trial and of filing his notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals, he had filed a third motion for new trial, this would have been proper, since no more than thirteen days would have had elapsed, with eight days still remaining within which he could file another motion for new trial. If the third motion for new trial which he could file on February 21, 1935, were valid; but nevertheless the same is denied by the court, the petitioner would have five days to file his exception and notice of intention to appeal if he had no wish to take advantage of the remaining period to file another motion for new trial; or if the third motion were not valid and had not suspended the running of the remaining period of eight days, said period would have expired on the eighth day, or on March 1, 1935. In that event, the expiration of. the period would be equivalent to the denial of his third motion for new trial, and he would have the right to file his exception and notice of intention to appeal within five days. Hence, from whatever point of view the question of the filing of the exception and notice of intention to appeal on February 21, 1935 may be considered, said filing was done on time and the submission of the bill of exceptions on March 2, 1935, or nine (9) days thereafter, was also done on time because for that purpose petitioner had ten days counting from the date of the notice of intention to appeal referred to.

    For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that if the filing of a notice of intention to appeal in an ordinary civil case is done within the period remaining for the presentation of another motion for new trial, the filing is timely, although five days may have elapsed from the denial of the last motion for new trial, as long as it is done within the thirty days authorized by law for the presentation of motions for new trial, not including the time which the trial court may have spent to decide said motions.

    Wherefore, the writ prayed for is granted, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the case is ordered returned to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, with costs against the respondents. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Original decision in this case, October 28, 1938, had not been published.

    G.R. No. 46100   May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO<br /><br />068 Phil 231


    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