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-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    CA. No. 332   April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER<br /><br />083 Phil 459

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [CA. No. 332. April 29, 1949.]

    CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER, Defendant-Appellant.

    Araneta & Araneta and Jesus G. Barrera for plaintiff and Appellant.

    Roxas, Picazo & Mejia for defendant and Appellant.

    SYLLABUS


    1. RECONSTITUTION OF APPEALED BELOW AND BRIEFS ARE MISSING, RECORD CANNOT BE DECLARED RECONSTITUTED. — With nothing but papers relating to defendant-appellant’s consignation of P23,489.35 in military notes with the clerk of the Court of Appeals, it is obvious that the appeal can not be decided on the merits. Missing are the pleadings, evidence and decision below and the briefs presented on appeal. This court is, therefore, not sufficiently informed about the issues of fact and law involved to enable it to arrive at a correct decision of the case. The petition to have the record of the case declared completely reconstituted must, therefore be denied.

    2. ID.; PARTIAL RECONSTITUTION OF CONSIGNATION’S RECORDS VALIDITY OF; ESSENTIALS OF VALID CONSIGNATION REQUIRED. — The reconstituted documents show that, while the consignation was really made and the adverse party notified thereof, the same has neither been accepted by the latter nor approval by the court, and in any event there is no clear proof before us that the essentials of a valid consignation are here present, specially the conformity of the proffered payment to the terms of the obligation which is to be paid. It should be marked in this connection that strict conformity in that regard is required.

    3. ID.; CONSIGNATION, VALIDITY OF; ABSENCE OF PROOF OF AMOUNT TO BE DISCHARGED. — Since the appealed decision is not before us and there is no certain proof of the amount and terms of the obligation which defendant-appellant is required to discharged under judgment, it is not possible for this court to pass upon the validity of the consignation in question.

    4. ID.; CONSIGNATION. OFFER OF; NOT ESTOPPEL TO APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT. — Rather than a recognition of the validity of the judgment appealed from, the consignation made in this case may, pending its acceptance by the adverse party or a court declaration that it was properly made (art. 1180, Civil Code), be regarded as a mere attempt at compromise without prejudice to the prosecution of the appeal if no settlement is effected.

    5. ID.; WHEN EITHER FULL OR PARTIAL RECONSTITUTION CANNOT BE DECLARED; NEW ACTION AS PROPER REMEDY. — ON the basis of the documents presented, the record of this case can not be declared reconstituted either fully, as plaintiff-appellant asks, or partially, as defendant-appellant suggests, so that, in default of agreement to take the place of vital documents essential to a correct determination of the case on appeal as contemplated in section 60 of Act No. 3110, the proper remedy is for plaintiff-appellant to file its action anew in accordance with section 30 of the same act.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    This case is now before this Court on a petition for reconstitution, the record of the case having been destroyed as a result of the military operations for the liberation of the City of Manila. At the time of the destruction of the record, the case was pending in the Court of Appeals upon appeal by both parties from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

    In the proceeding for reconstitution conducted by the commissioner appointed by this Court (the Court of Appeals not being then in existence), the only portions of the record the parties were able to reconstruct were the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Petition dated October 27, 1944, filed by Atty. Antonio Carrascoso, Jr., for the defendant-appellant in this case, wherein the defendant-appellant seeks to consign to the Clerk of Court of Appeals the sum of P23,489.35, in satisfaction of the judgment which had been rendered in the lower court in favor of the plaintiff-appellant and prays for the withdrawal of his appeal;

    "2. Notice of consignation, dated October 26, 1944, signed by Atty. Antonio Carrascoso, Jr., for and in behalf of the defendant- appellant, sent to the China Insurance Surety Co., Inc.;

    "3. Notice of the resolution of the Court of Appeals of November 2, 1944, to the parties in this case;

    "4. The pleading of plaintiff-appellee in this case, bearing the following headings: (1) Opposition to the petition of defendant- appellant; (2) Motion asking triple cost and damages against said defendant; and (3) Motion of reconsideration in case the said petition has been granted before this opposition has been received by the Court of Appeals (this last item consisting only of two pages, the third page thereof having been lost.)"

    No copy of the pleadings, evidence, decision, and briefs was available. The record could not, therefore, be fully or even substantially reconstituted. But notwithstanding this state of affairs, plaintiff-appellant asks that the case be declared reconstituted, and, on the theory that by defendant-appellant’s offer of consignation contained in his petition of October 27, 1944, he should be deemed to have recognized the validity of the judgment rendered against him in the lower court and, consequently, estopped from prosecuting his appeal, plaintiff-appellant further prays to order defendant-appellant to pay the amount of the judgment below.

    Defendant-appellant objects to both of the above prayers and, on his part, asks that the case be declared reconstituted "in so far only as it refers to defendant’s petition of October 27, 1944," and, once that is done, his offer of consignation declared valid and his obligation to plaintiff fully paid and discharged.

    With nothing but papers relating to defendant-appellant’s consignation of P23,489.35 in military notes with the clerk of the Court of Appeals, it is obvious that the appeal can not be decided on the merits. Missing are the pleadings, evidence and decision below and the briefs presented on appeal. This Court is, therefore, not sufficiently informed about the issues of fact and law involved to enable it to arrive at a correct decision of the case. The petition to have the record of the case declared completely reconstituted must, therefore, be denied.

    This leaves the other question of whether or not the record may be deemed reconstituted in so far only as it refers to defendant’s petition of October 27, 1944, with the object in view of determining whether the consignation made by the defendant-appellant was valid or not. On this point, the reconstituted documents show that, while the consignation was ready made and the adverse party notified thereof, the same has neither been accepted by the latter nor approved by the court, and in any event there is no clear proof before us that the essentials of a valid consignation are here present, specially the conformity of the proffered payment to the terms of the obligation which is to be paid. It should be remarked in this connection that strict conformity in that regard is required, for, as Manresa says,." . . el acreedor tan solo, y no el juez, puede autorizar la variacion que para los derechos de aquel suponga la que se intente en el objeto, cuantia o forma de las obligaciones." (8 Manresa, 312.) Since the appealed decision is not before us and there is no certain proof of the amount and terms of the obligation which defendant-appellant is required to discharge under the judgment, it is not possible for this Court to pass upon the validity of the consignation in question. Consequently, Defendant-Appellant’s suggestion to have the case declared partially reconstituted for the specific purpose he has in view cannot be entertained.

    As to the question of whether or not defendant-appellant is now estopped from prosecuting his appeal on the theory that his offer of consignation amounts to a recognition of the validity of the judgment against him, it appears that the consignation was made at a time (October 27, 1944) when the Japanese military notes were already, to use counsel’s own phrase, "almost worthless." Rather than a recognition of the validity of the judgment appealed from, the consignation made in this case may, pending its acceptance by the adverse party or a court declaration that it was properly made (Art. 1180, Civil Code), be regarded as a mere attempt at compromise without prejudice to the prosecution of the appeal if no settlement is effected.

    Our conclusion, therefore, is that, on the basis of the documents presented, the record of this case can not be declared reconstituted either fully, as plaintiff-appellant asks, or partially, as defendant appellant suggests, so that, in default of agreement to take the place of vital documents essential to a correct determination of the case on appeal as contemplated in section 60 of Act No. 3110, the proper remedy is for plaintiff-appellant to file its action anew in accordance with section 30 of the same act.

    Wherefore, the petition to have the record of the case declared reconstituted either fully or partially and the petition to order defendant-appellant to pay the amount of the judgment appealed from are hereby denied.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto Bengzon, Briones, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    CA. No. 332   April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER<br /><br />083 Phil 459


    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