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-2634   December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 239

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-2634. December 29, 1949.]

    PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO., Petitioner, v. CATALINO TINIO, F. C. STELTON, and POTENCIANO PECSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondents.

    Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for Petitioner.

    Jose S. Galang for respondents Judge Pecson and Tinio.

    Felix P. David for respondent Stelton.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; JURISDICTION POWER TO SET ASIDE FINAL ORDER OR JUDGMENT AND AFTER THE LAPSE OF SIX-MONTH PERIOD. — A Court has no jurisdiction to set aside an order or judgment that had become final and the six-month period as provided in Rule 38 of the Rules of Court within which relief could be asked expired.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    This is a petition to annul the order of the respondent judge of Manila dated February 10, 1948, revoking a previous order of the court of May 30, 1947 that definitely dismissed a certain civil case. The facts are these:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. On April 15, 1947, respondent Catalino Tinio filed, in the Manila Court of First Instance, a complaint to recover from herein petitioner Pacific Importing & Exporting Co. (hereafter called Pacific Company) the sum of P24,722.78 as commissions due him for sales of merchandise, and from the Manila manager of same defendant (F. C. Stelton) the sum of P1,150 as commission for sales of other goods (civil case No. 2278).

    2. By its answer of April 30, 1947, the Pacific Company denied liability, alleged that Tinio’s employer was F. C. Stelton, and submitted a counterclaim for over-payment of commissions.

    3. On May 12, 1947, the Pacific Company and respondent Tinio filed in the said civil case No. 2278 a statement praying for its definite dismissal, and declaring that the Pacific Company ceased to be the employer of Tinio as of October 1, 1946, and that F. C. Stelton stood liable to Tinio for commissions after that date and that the Pacific Company had paid Tinio all commissions due before October, 1946.

    4. As prayed for, an order of definite dismissal was issued on May 30, 1947. The Pacific Company alleges (and respondents do not deny) that such order became final on June 29, 1947, there having been no appeal.

    5. However, on February 3, 1948, Catalino Tinio filed a petition to set aside the order of dismissal, explaining that he had been fraudulently induced to sign it upon the strength of certain specific promises and manifestations made to him by the representative of the Pacific Company, promises which said company subsequently failed to honor and manifestations which turned out to be untrue.

    6. On February 10, 1948, the court set aside the order of dismissal, dated May 30, 1947, and revived the case. Then on July 13, 1948, upon a motion for reconsideration, it entered an order setting forth that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "El arreglo habido entre el demandante y la referida entidad demandada que culmino en la peticion de sobreseimiento de esta causa con respecto a la referida demandada, se fundo en que dicha demandada ayudaria y facilitara al demandante todas las pruebas necesarias para establecer el hecho de que entre dicha demandada y el otro demandado F. C. Stelton hubo un contrato, en virtud del cual este ultimo asumia la responsabilidad exclusiva de todos cuantos contratos de empleo celebrados por el con las respectivas partes interesadas, entre ellos, el contrato celebrado con el aqui demandante. Esta promesa se hizo, no solo por la entidad demandada al hacerse el arreglo entre ella y el demandante, sino tambien por sus abogados ante este Juzgado, prometiendo facilitar el documento o documentos que el demandante necesitaria para probar su accion contra el otro demandado Stelton, pero es el hecho que dicha entidad demandada no ha cumplido, ni ha querido cumplir, pues al parecer no existe el documento o documentos que ha prometido facilitar al demandante."cralaw virtua1aw library

    7. Another motion to reconsider was filed. It was also denied.

    8. Hence this petition which is planted on the proposition that the court had no jurisdiction to act on the motion of February 3, 1948, because at that time the order of dismissal had become final and the six-month period (Rule 38, sec. 3) within which relief could be asked on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence had expired.

    The petitioner is right. From May 30, 1947 to February 3, 1948 more than seven months had elapsed. Six months after May 30, 1947 the court lost all jurisdiction to entertain motions for relief.

    Wherefore, although we are satisfied, like the court below, that plaintiff Tinio had been induced to consent to the dismissal through the fraudulent misrepresentations of the Pacific Company, however, due to the expiration of the six-month period, we must declare the court without jurisdiction to reopen the civil case No. 2278. This, however, will be without prejudice to Tinio’s right to bring another suit to annul the order of May 30, 1947 on the ground of fraud (which is obviously extrinsic as distinguished from intrinsic) 1 and at the same time, to claim as a second cause of action for recovery of the commissions which he has tried to obtain in the aforesaid civil case. On the other hand, the Pacific Company should be allowed to repeat, if it so desires, the counterclaim it has previously presented against respondent Catalino Tinio. The writ is granted, without costs.

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

    Endnotes:



    1. Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, page 633 citing Anuran v. Aquino, 38 Phil., 29, 32; Francisco v. David and other cases.

    G.R. No. L-2634   December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 239


    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