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-2850   December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 261

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2850. December 29, 1949.]

    ONG KIM PAN (alias PABLO ONG) and ONG WA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, and BENITO GONZALES, Respondents-Appellees.

    Jose Sarte for Appellants.

    Mariano A. Albert for appellee Gonzales.

    No appearance for the other appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. TRIAL; ABATEMENT; SUSPENSION OR STAY OF TRIAL OF EJECTMENT DUE TO PENDENCY OF ANOTHER ACTION. — It is within the sound discretion of a court to hold one lawsuit in abeyance to abide the outcome of another where the parties and the issues are the same. But it is equally within the court’s discretion to refuse a stay where it appears that whatever may be the result of the first action, a trial of the second would still be necessary.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing an action for prohibition directed against a municipal judge.

    It appears that appellants are, and for some time have been, tenants of certain accesorias comprised in a building located at Muelle de Binondo, Manila, and belonging to the appellee, Benito Gonzales. Early in 1947 the tenants were required to pay higher rent, but as they refused to do so, the landlord chose to terminate the lease with notice for them to vacate the premises. Thus faced with imminent ouster, but before they could be taken to court, the tenants stole a march on their landlord by interposing, each of them, an action in the Court of First Instance to compel him to accept a lesser amount consigned in court as tendered rent, followed shortly thereafter by a joint action for declaratory relief to have the leased premises declared residential in nature for the purposes of the rent thereof. All these actions were dismissed by the trial court and are now on appeal.

    After the tenants had filed their actions, the landlord, on his part, instituted proceedings in the municipal court to eject them from the leased premises on the ground that their lease, which was from month to month, had already terminated. Trial of these cases for ejection was, at first, suspended pending the outcome of the actions for consignation and declaratory relief. But, following the dismissal of these actions the suspension was lifted, and trial was about to be resumed when herein appellants sought to restrain it through an action for prohibition in the Court of First Instance. It is the dismissal of this action by that court that is now before us for review.

    Appellants’ claim to stay of trial in the actions for ejection is predicated on the existence of other pending cases between the same parties and relating to the same subject-matter. But we note that the issue is not the same in all the actions. Whereas the ejection cases pose the issue of the alleged termination of the lease, the question for adjudication in the consignation and declaratory relief cases refers merely to the amount of lawful rent. It is obvious that the decision in the cases last mentioned will not necessarily dispose of the issue in the others and conclude the controversy between the parties. It is, of course, within the sound discretion of a court to hold one lawsuit in abeyance to abide the outcome of another where the parties and the issues are the same. But it is equally within the court’s discretion to refuse a stay "where it appears that whatever may be the result of the first action, a trial of the second will be necessary." (53 Am. Jur., 36.) As was said in a case, "it is only where the decision in one action will determine all the questions in the other action, and the judgment on one trial will dispose of the controversy in both actions, that a case for a stay is presented." (Rosenberg v. Slotchin [1917], 181 App. Div., 137, 168 N.Y.S., 101; 81 Law. ed., 168.) Under this salutary rule of practice, appellants’ claim to a stay cannot successfully be urged.

    It should also be borne in mind that the practice of allowing a stay in one action pending the outcome of another is not of universal application. In every case the court will consider whether justice will be done by granting the stay, always mindful of the possibility that it may work damage to someone else. (53 Am. Jur., 36.) In the present case, the suspension of proceedings in the ejection cases would work injustice to the landlord with the paralization of his summary remedy for the ouster of tenants who insist on occupying his property against his will beyond the period of their lease.

    As we see it, the whole controversy between landlord and tenant in the present case may be resolved in the actions for desahucio so that if any stay should be granted at all it should be in the consignation and declaratory relief cases. A contrary ruling would allow a circumvention of the rules by frustrating the purpose of desahucio as a summary remedy. Such a result should be avoided.

    We are, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent judge made a good use of his discretion in denying the suspension of trial of the desahucio cases, so that the petition for prohibition was properly denied by the Court of First Instance.

    The decision appealed from is, therefore, affirmed with costs against the appellants.

    Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Torres, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORAN, C.J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur in the result upon the rule that the pendency of another action may be pleaded "only when the judgment to be rendered in the action first instituted will be such that, regardless of what party is successful, it will amount to res adjudicata against the second action." For instance, a pending action to annul a mortgage is not a bar to an action for foreclosure of the same mortgage, for the reason that, although the parties are or may be the same, if the decision in the first action upholds the validity of the mortgage, then it is no obstacle to the prosecution of the action for foreclosure. (Manuel v. Wiggett, 14 Phil., 9; Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Aldecoa & Co., 30 Phil., 255; see also Viuda de Hernaez v. Jison, 40 Off. Gaz., 3646.) 1 In other words "it is not sufficient that the result of the first action may be determinative of the second in a certain contingency; the situation must be such that the result of the first will be determinative of the second in any event." (Italics ours.) For instance, an action brought by the holder of an insurance policy to reform the contract, and in the alternative, if the granting of this relief be found impracticable, to rescind the same, constitutes no obstacle to the maintenance of an action by the general agent of the insurance company to recover on the note given for the first premium. (J. Northcott & Co. v. Villa-Abrille, 41 Phil., 462.)

    It is obvious that in the instant appeal the consignation and declaratory relief cases which have reference merely to the amount of lawful rent do not bar the ejection cases, because if it is adjudged in the former cases that the rent agreed upon by the parties is reasonable then the ejection cases may go on.

    Endnotes:



    1. 72 Phil., 203.

    G.R. No. L-2850   December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 261


    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