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
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46133   November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 650

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 46133. November 29, 1938.]

    PLACIDO ROSAL, Petitioner, v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ANTONIO ORDAS, and FUNDADOR VARILLA, Respondents.

    Placido Rosal in his own behalf.

    Carag, Singson, De Leon & Alonso, for respondent Foronda.

    No appearance, for other respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTIONS; PROMPT DISPATCH OF ELECTION CONTESTS. — The trial court was justified and it did not exceed the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by law when it proceeded with the trial and prompt disposal of the case because section 479 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3834, which was then in force, provides that election protests must be terminated and decided within one year from the filing thereof (Portillo v. Salvani, 54 Phil., 543).

    2. ID.; ID. — According to section 154 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by section 2 of the Commonwealth Act No. 145, the judge which took cognizance of said protest had his permanent residence in the Province of Cagayan, the capital of which is Tuguegarao. Section 161 of said Code, as amended by section 4 of Act No. 145, provides that the Court of First Instance of Cagayan shall hold sessions in Aparri yearly on the first Tuesday of January. Except during this period the court shall divide its time for holding sessions between the other places fixed by law, including the capital of the province. Had the court postponed the trial of February 15th for the purpose of holding it in Aparri on March 22, 1938, it would have disregarded the law and employed part of its time for holding sessions in the capital and in the municipalities of Abulog and Tuao. This was undoubtedly the other reason which the trial court took into consideration in denying the postponement of the trial and holding the same in Aparri.

    3. ID.; ID. — In election cases the parties and their attorneys should co÷perate with the court in the prompt disposal of the same because the law directs that said cases be decided within one year. If the petitioner and his attorney desired to co÷perate with the court they would have brought along their witnesses to Tuguegarao, or had they wished to save expenses, they would have taken the deposition of said witnesses for presentation at the trial.

    4. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF PROTEST. — With respect to the last assignment of error, it seems to use evident that the trial court did not err in finally dismissing the protest. The petitioner cannot complain that he was unable to present his evidence because he was given ample opportunity to do so. With a little diligence and without extraordinary effort he could have presented all his witnesses or in lieu thereof their depositions, for the taking of which there was sufficient and reasonable time.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    As a result of the election for the office of mayor held on December 14, 1937 in the municipality of Buguey, Province of Cagayan, Placido Rosal, the petitioner, received 608 votes, Dionisio Foronda 672 votes, Antonio Ordas 443 votes and Fundador Varilla 234 votes, respectively. Consequently the respondent Dionisio Foronda was proclaimed mayor elect of said municipality on December 16, 1937 by the municipal council of Buguey, acting as a board of canvassers. Placido Rosal contested the election of Dionisio Foronda, including as respondents the other candidates who received votes, and in the motion filed by him it was alleged that frauds and irregularities were committed in precincts 4, 6 and 7 and that if the votes cast for the office of mayor were recounted he would be elected with a plurality of votes over his opponents. The respondent answered the motion of protest, denying under oath the allegations therein, and in turn interposed a counter-protest wherein it was alleged that frauds and irregularities were also committed in precincts 1 and 5, and that if the votes were recounted his plurality over the petitioner would be increased, so that his plurality over the petitioner would be increased, so that his election should be confirmed. The trial court set the case for hearing on February 15, 1938 and on said date appointed as commissioners for the revision of votes the attorneys for both the petitioner and the Respondent. Said commissioners reopened the ballot boxes of precinct No. 4 and on February 17, 1938 submitted their written memorandum. The trial of February 15, 1938 was held in Aparri and its continuance was set for March 22d of the same year at Tuguegarao. On this latter date the parties appeared before the court with their respective counsel and the petitioner through his counsel asked that the hearing of the case be transferred to some other date and that it be held in Aparri instead of Tuguegarao, on the ground that some seventy-five witnesses were to testify for the petitioner and that to bring them to Tuguegarao would cause the petitioner considerable and unnecessary expense. The attorneys for the respondent objected to said petition on the ground that the petitioner had been duly notified of the continuation of the hearing and that the respondent was then ready to enter into trial, having brought with him fifteen witnesses who were then present in court. After hearing the counsel for both parties the trial judge denied the petition and, as counsel for the petitioner could not adduced any evidence, definitely dismissed the case, without costs, but with the expenses theretofore incurred to be charged against said petitioner. The latter appealed from the order thus issued.

    It is alleged by the petitioner that the trial court erred in refusing to postpone the hearing of the case and to transfer it to Aparri, and in dismissing definitely said case without giving him the opportunity to be heard and to present his evidence.

    The trial court was justified and it did not exceed the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by law when to proceeded with the trial and prompt disposal of the case because section 479 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3834, which was then in force, provides that election protests must be terminated and decided within one year from the filing thereof (Portillo v. Salvani, 54 Phil., 543). According to section 154 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 145, the judge which took cognizance of said protest had his permanent residence in the Province of Cagayan, the capital of which is Tuguegarao. Section 161 of said Code, as amended by section 4 of Act No. 145, provides that the Court of First Instance of Cagayan shall hold sessions in Aparri yearly on the first Tuesday of January. Except during this period the court shall divide its time for holding sessions between the other places fixed by law, including the capital of the province. Had the court postponed the trial of February 15th for the purpose of holding it in Aparri on March 22, 1938, it would have disregarded the law and employed part of its time for holding sessions in the capital and in the municipalities of Abulog and Tuao. This was undoubtedly the other reason which the trial court took into consideration in denying the postponement of the trial and holding the same in Aparri. When the case was called for hearing for the first time on February 15, 1938 the ballot boxes in precinct No. 4 were opened and the commissioners for the revision of votes were appointed, one of them being the attorney for the petitioner, said attorney being notified that the hearing would be continued on the 22d day of the next month and that then the parties could present all the evidence they desire to present. In election cases the parties and their attorneys should co÷perate with the court in the prompt disposal of the same because the law directs that said cases be decided within one year. If the petitioner and his attorney desired to co÷perate with the court they would have brought along their witnesses to Tuguegarao, or had they wished to save expenses, they would have taken the deposition of said witnesses for presentation at the trial.

    With respect to the last assignment of error, it seems to us evident that the trial court did not err in finally dismissing the protest. The petitioner cannot complain that he was unable to present his evidence because he was given ample opportunity to do so. With a little diligence and without extraordinary effort he could have presented all his witnesses or in lieu thereof their depositions, for the taking of which there was sufficient and reasonable time.

    The trial court not having committed any of the errors assigned, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46133   November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 650


    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