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
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2580   December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 88

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2580. December 7, 1949.]

    PABLO RICOHERMOSO, Petitioner, v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ and BERNARDINO RICOHERMOSO, Respondents.

    F. Milambiling for Petitioner.

    Panfilo M. Manguera for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEAL; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; PERFECTED APPEAL IN ORDINARY CIVIL CASES VACATES JUDGMENT, BUT NOT IN FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER CASES. — Under section 9, of Rule of Court No. 40, "a perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace or the municipal court, and the action when duly entered in the Court of First Instance shall stand trial de novo upon its merits in accordance with the regular procedure in that court as though the same had never been tried before and had been originally there commenced." except of course in forcible entry and detainer cases when, upon failure of the defendant to comply with the conditions for staying execution, the Court of First Instance orders the execution of the appealed judgment which does not, however, bar the appeal from taking its course.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    In an action for forcible entry instituted in the justice of the peace court of Santa Cruz, Marinduque by the herein respondent Bernardino Ricohermoso against the herein petitioner Pablo Ricohermoso, judgment was rendered in favor of the former. The petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance of Marinduque which set the trial of the case for July 15, 1947. This trial was postponed upon motion of the petitioner who did not even bother about appearing before the court, on the ground of sickness of one of his witnesses. Trial was reset for July 16, 1948, on which date attorney for the petitioner filed a motion praying that the case be transferred to July 20, 1948, for failure of the petitioner and his witnesses to show up. In an order dated July 21, 1948, the respondent judge denied the motion for lack of merit and dismissed petitioner’s appeal without costs. The petitioner has filed the present special civil action for certiorari aimed at setting aside said order.

    The contention that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion is untenable. In the first place, the motion for postponement was not accompanied by affidavits of merit as required by section 5 of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. In the second place, the action is one of forcible entry filed in and decided by the justice of the peace court in 1946, and set for trial by the Court of First Instance first on July 15, 1947, and again on July 16, 1948, or one year apart. Considering the summary nature of the action, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been given enough time to be in readiness for trial.

    While the respondent judge properly denied the postponement, he committed an error in dismissing the appeal. Under section 9, of Rule of Court No. 40, "a perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace or the municipal court, and the action when duly entered in the Court of First Instance shall stand for trial de novo upon its merits in accordance with the regular procedure in that court, as though the same had never been tried before and had been originally there commenced," except of course in forcible entry and detainer cases when, upon failure of the defendant to comply with the conditions for staying execution, the Court of First Instance orders the execution of the appealed judgment which does not, however, bar the appeal from taking its course. The respondent judge was accordingly bound to proceed with the trial and decision of the case after he had denied petitioner’s motion for postponement.

    Wherefore, the order of the respondent judge dismissing petitioner’s appeal is set aside and the case is restored for further proceedings. So ordered without costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2580   December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 88


    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