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-2758   December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 97

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2758. December 7, 1949.]

    CLARO J. GIL and (MRS.) CLARO J. GIL, Petitioners, v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, CONSTANTINO Z. CANTO, Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, REGOBERTO A. AGUIRRE, MARIA JEREOS and SOFRONIO FLORES, Register of Deeds, Respondents.

    Alfredo C. Zerrudo and Luis S. Estrella, for Petitioners.

    Luis G. Hofileña and Juan Jamora, Jr. for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; EVIDENT FAILURE OR NEGLECT OF LITIGANT OR HIS COUNSEL TO INVOKE PROPER REMEDY ON TIME. — When a litigant or his counsel has been given or allowed ample opportunity and time to invoke the proper remedy to protect his interest in a case, but instead of availing himself thereof persisted in too much negligence or indifference, such attitude would not be recognized as ground for relief thru the extraordinary legal remedies.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    In civil case No. 928 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, for annulment of contract, the herein petitioners are the plaintiffs and the herein respondents Regoberto A. Aguirre, Maria Jereos and Sofronio Flores are the defendants. Trial was set for July 2, 1948, notice of which was received on June 22, 1948, by Atty. Gaudencio D. Demaisip, representing the petitioners.

    On the date of trial, as neither Attorney Demaisip nor the petitioners appeared, the court, upon motion of respondents, dismissed the complaint and rendered judgment on the pleadings as to the counterclaim of respondents. Copy of the judgment dated July 3, 1948, was received by Attorney Demaisip on July 3, 1948. On July 24, 1948, the petitioners, through Atty. Alfredo Zerrudo, filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that petitioners’ failure to appear at the trial was due to excusable negligence, in that their former attorney, Gaudencio D. Demaisip, received notice of trial in Manila; that thereupon Attorney Demaisip wrote the petitioners, advising the latter to secure the services of another attorney; that petitioners received Attorney Demaisip’s letter on July 3, 1948, or one day after the date fixed for the trial. Hearing of the motion for reconsideration was set for August 7, 1948; but upon request of Attorney Zerrudo, the court, in spite of strong opposition by attorneys for respondents, postponed said hearing to November 5, 1948. After hearing, the motion for reconsideration was denied in the order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo of November 5, 1948, notice of which was received by Attorney Zerrudo on November 8, 1948. On December 14, 1948, a writ of execution was issued and several properties of petitioners were levied upon by the provincial sheriff of Iloilo who advertised the same for sale on February 10, 1949. No steps were taken by the petitioners or the attorney until February 3, 1949, when the present petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed in this Court by the petitioners against the respondents seeking the annulment of decision of the respondent judge of July 2, 1948, and the reopening of civil case No. 938. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by this court on February 10, 1949.

    The respondent judge did not commit any abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The former attorney of petitioners received notice nine days before the date of the trial. Although he was in Manila, there was ample time for him to notify, by adequate means of communication, the petitioners regarding any step to be taken in connection with said trial. It is of common knowledge that, between Manila and Iloilo, there was at the time telegraphic service, aside from regular mails by air and steamers. At the least, it was to be expected that if the attorney of record was not sure of contacting the petitioners on time, he should have filed a timely motion for postponement. This was not done in the case at bar. At any rate, the new attorney of petitioners, could have properly interposed an appeal from the decision of July 2, 1948, and the order denying the motion for reconsideration, — a remedy which, however, said attorney had filed to avail himself of. Indeed, it may be remarked that there was rather too much negligence or indifference on the part of petitioners and their counsel.

    Wherefore, the petition will be as the same is hereby dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved. So ordered, with costs against the petitioners.

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

    Separate Opinions


    OZAETA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I feel that miscarriage of justice was committed by the respondent judge in refusing to reopen the case and to try it on the merits. As a result the petitioners (plaintiffs below) not only lost or forfeited to the respondents their land of 45,067 square meters worth more than P1,200, for an allegedly usurious loan of P360, but were also adjudged to pay to the defendants by way of damages 40 cavans of palay a year from 1942 to the date of the payment, or a total of not less than 280 cavans of palay, or its value at the current price of that commodity. By the time the judgment is executed, the damages so adjudged in favor of the defendants will aggregate about P4,000.

    I hold that the judgment for damages, which was awarded without proof but upon the sole allegation of defendants’ counterclaim, was rendered without due process of law and therefore null and void. It is true that the defendants alleged in their answer by way of counterclaim that in view of the refusal of the plaintiffs to deliver the possession of the land in question to the defendants the latter suffered damages at the rate of 40 cavans of palay a year. It is likewise true that the plaintiffs, answering said counterclaim, merely set up a general denial. But that did not authorize the trial court to render judgment for damages without proof; for section 8 of Rule 10 provides that "material averment in the complaint (in this counterclaim), other than those as to the amount of damage, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied."cralaw virtua1aw library

    TUASON, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I agree with the majority decision in so far as it affirms the dismissal of the complaint. I dissent in so far as it sanctions the award of damages to the defendants based on the allegations in the counterclaim not substantiated by proofs. Even in cases of default such judgment is not allowed: the plaintiff is required to prove his allegations by competent evidence.

    PADILLA, J.:


    I concur.

    G.R. No. L-2758   December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 97


    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