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
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46497   September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS<br /><br />068 Phil 475

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46497. September 18, 1939.]

    ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. CONRADO BARRIOS, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, EULOGIO GARGANERA, SERAPION C. TORRE, EVELIO ZALDIVAR, EORTUNATO R. YBIERNAS, SERAFIN DE LA CRUZ, LEOPOLDO GANZON, and CRISPINO MELOCOTON, Respondents.

    Jose G. Ganzon for Petitioner.

    C. M. Zulueta for respondent Melocoton.

    No appearance for other respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; ELECTIONS; CERTIORARI. — A judge may be required "to decide a question, but not to decide it in a particular way" (Arteche v. De la Rosa, 58 Phil., 589), and that it will not, through mandamus, "order or direct what judgment shall be rendered in any given case" (Sanson v. Barrios, G. R. No. 45086, promulgated August 22, 1936).

    2. ID.; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; CHANGE OF THEORY. — A party is not permitted to shift from one theory at the trial to a new and different theory in the appellate court. (Toribio v. Decasa, 55 Phil., 461, citing Williams v. McMicking, 17 Phil., 408; and Agoncillo and Mariño v. Javier, 38 Phil., 424; American Express Co. v. Natividad, 46 Phil., 207.)


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    On December 31, 1937, the herein petitioner Antonio S. Sanagustin, one of the candidates for the office of councilor of the City of Iloilo in the election held on December 14, 1937, filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a protest against the proclaimed election of the herein respondents other than the respondent judge as councilors of said city. After hearing the protest, the respondent judge rendered a decision confirming the disputed election and finding the votes received by each candidate to be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Eulogio Garganera 5737

    Serapion Torre 5295

    Fortunato R. Ybiernas 5198

    Evelio Zaldivar 5174

    Serafin de la Cruz 5032

    Leopoldo Ganzon 4551

    Crispino Melocoton 4222

    Antonio Sanagustin 4207

    In case G. R. No. 46196, an original action instituted by the herein petitioner for the purpose of securing a reversal of the aforesaid decision together with a declaration that he was elected a councilor of the City of Iloilo, with a plurality of three votes over the herein respondent Cripino Melocoton, this court, on September 12, 1938, l rendered judgment the dispositive part of which is worded as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the decision of the honorable respondent judge is reversed and set aside, and he is ordered to reopen the election protest and to consider the 38 stubless ballots found in the red box of precinct No. 32 of the City of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, to separate the excess ballots from those which were rejected by the majority of the board of canvassers as marked or countersigned, and to determine if their rejection was erroneous or not, thereafter rendering another decision, without special pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In pursuance of the decision of this court, the respondent judge reopened the election proceedings in question and, after due trial, decreed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Por lo tanto, el Juzgado falla de nuevo este expediente, reiterando su fallo anterior de 29 de marzo, 1938, y declara a los Sres. Eulogio Garganera, Serapion Torre, Fortunato R. Ybiernas, Evelio Zaldivar, Serafin de la Cruz, Leopoldo Ganzon y Crispino Melocoton, concejales legalmente electos de la Ciudad de Iloilo, Provincia de Iloilo, Filipinas, por haber obtenido mayor numero de votos que el recurrente Dr. Antonio Sanagustin, con exceso de 16 votos el recurrido Melocoton que es el que obtuvo menor numero de votos entre los seis ya mencionados, sobre el recurrente Dr. Antonio Sanagustin, y tienen derecho a permanecer como concejales de la Ciudad de Iloilo. Y sobresee la protesta del recurrente Dr. Antonio Sanagustin, con costas."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The present petition for certiorari was brought by the herein petitioner with a view to obtaining a revocation of the last decision of the respondent judge and having this court order said respondent to comply with its decision of September 12, 1938, it being contended that the respondent judge had not properly segregated the excess ballots from those held by the board of canvassers to be marked and had failed to decide whether the rejection by the board of said marked ballots was right or not.

    We are of the opinion and so hold that these contentions are groundless. The respondent judge, in the decision herein complained of, set forth the following pronouncements:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Examinadas las 38 balotas del precinto 32, ambas partes concurrieron en que las balotas Exhibits 37, 38 y 39 deben considerarse ’balotas sobrantes’,, y sometieron el expediente para el fallo del juzgado.

    x       x       x


    "El acta electoral (tres ejemplares) del precinto No. 32 de la Ciudad de Iloilo (Exhibit R), referente a las elecciones de diciembre 14, 1937, esta fechada en diciembre 14, 1937 y firmada en cada ejemplar por el presidente le inspectores de eleccion, Walfredo J. Jaranilla, M. J. Obregon y J. M. Dizon. Segun dicha acta votaron 802 personas, y las balotas usadas y encontradas en la urna de balotas utiles fueron asimismo 802, con diez balotas mas o menos sobrantes que fueron retiradas sin abrirlas y marcadas como ’balotas sobrantes’. Esta acta Exhibit R ha sido admitida sin discusion, por tanto, su valor probatorio es de mas peso que la declaracion del presidente de la junta Walfredo J. Jaranilla que dijo que la mayoria de la junta rechazo las balotas Exhibits X al OO por estar manchadas, diciendo que aquellas manchas las encontraron durante el escrutinio sin poder determinar quienes han puesto dichas marcas.

    "En el acta antes mencionada. Exhibit R, no aparece el numero de balotas rechazadas como marcadas; el paquete de las diez balotas ’sobrantes’ no se ha encontrado dentro de la urna blanca ni cualquiera otra balota tachada como marcada. (Arts. 462 y 463, Nueva Ley Electoral.) Luego las citadas balotas Exhibits X al OO excepto los Exhibits Y y MM han sido debidamente rechazadas por toda la junta de inspectores, cuyos miembros firmaron sin protesta la referida acta Exhibit R.

    x       x       x


    "En vista de las disposiciones legales antes mencionadas y de los hechos probados, el juzgado resuelve que de las 38 balotas sin cupones encontradas en la urna encarnada de balotas inutilizadas, solamente, los Exhibits Y, MM, 40, 41, 42 y 46 que no estan manchadas ni marcadas, aunque al dorso aparecen las notas puestas indebidamente por 109 inspectores pueden ser consideradas como balotas sobrantes, juntamente con los Exhibits 37, 38 y 39 que las partes consideraron tambien como sobrantes, haciendo un total de 9 balotas; y el resto de 29 balotas deben ser consideradas debidamente rechazadas por la junta de inspectores por estar marcadas o contrasenadas, pues de la declaracion del mismo presidente de la junta Walfredo J. Jaranilla, se desprende que ninguno de los inspectores ha puesto tales manchas, y debe concluirse por tanto, que las marcas ya estaban puestas antes del escrutinio; aparte de las razones ya arriba expuestas, pues no han sido empaquetadas dichas balotas marcadas, ni las balotas sobrantes como ordena la ley, ni fueron colocadas en la urna blanca, ni se han mencionado en el Exhibit R que es una prueba admitida por las partes contendientes."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is quite obvious from the above-quoted passages of the decision of the respondent judge that the latter had considered the thirty-eight ballots found in the red box of precinct No. 32 of the City of Iloilo and determined what were excess ballots (Exhibits Y, MM, 40, 41, 42, 46, 37, 38 and 39) and what were marked (the remaining twenty-nine ballots), without forgetting to state in this connection that "el resto de 29 balotas deben ser consideradas debidamente rechazadas por la junta de inspectores por estar marcadas o contrasenadas" and to particularize the inscriptions and marks found and appearing on the ballots here in controversy. This, we think, is a sufficient compliance on the part of the respondent judge. This court has already held that a judge may be required "to decide a question, but not to decide it in a particular way" (Arteche v. De la Rosa, 68 Phil., 589) and that it will not, through mandamus, "order or direct what judgment shall be rendered in any given case" (Sanson v. Barrios, G. R. No. 45086, promulgated August 22, 1936).

    It appears from the record before us (Answer, p. 2) that when the respondent judge reopened the election case here involved, "El recurrido Melocoton ha pedido al Juzgado, en vista de ello, que la separacion de las sobrantes se hiciera por sorteo como unica manera de hacer justicia a las partes; pero el recurrente Sanagustin se opuso a ello y sostuvo que las balotas no manchadas o no contrasenadas debieran ser las sobrantes, y las manchadas son las que faltaban el la urna blanca y deberian ser apreciadas por el Juzgado si eran o no realmente contrasenadas. El Juzgado obro de acuerdo con la teoria del recurrente . . ." The petitioner cannot therefore now avail himself of the criticism that the respondent judge had not properly segregated the excess ballots, for the reason that he is not permitted to shift from one theory at the trial to a new and different theory in the appellate court. (Toribio v. Decasa, 55 Phil., 461, citing Williams V8. McMicking, 17 Phil., 408; and Agoncillo and Mariño v. Javier, 38 Phil., 424; American Express Co. v. Natividad, 46 Phil., 207.)

    Much less can the petitioner fruitfully argue that the respondent judge erred in finding Exhibits Y, MM, 40, 41, 42, 46, 37, 38 and 39 as excess ballots on the ground that Exhibits Y and MM bore on their reverse sides the note "mark ballot." For, as correctly remarked by the respondent judge, "aun dando de barato en gracia al argumento de la parte recurrente, considerando como balotas limpias y buenas las 9 balotas Exhibits Y, MM, 40, 41, 42, 46, 37, 38 Y 39, que el juzgado ha considerado sobrantes, resulta que el Dr. Sanagustin aparece votado en los Exhibits Y y MM. Y adjudicandole estos dos votos solamente tendria un total de 4209 contra 4222 de Melocoton, quedando todavia a este una diferencia a su favor de 13 votos."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Finding the instant petition to be lacking in merit, it is the judgment of this court that the same be as it is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46497   September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS<br /><br />068 Phil 475


    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