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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2831   May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO<br /><br />083 Phil 642

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2831. May 20, 1949.]

    BERNARDO TORRES, protestant-appellee, v. MAMERTO S. RIBO, protestee-appellant.

    Mamerto Ribo, Francisco Pajao, and Antonio Montilla for Appellant.

    Mateo Canonoy & Alegario Lastrilla for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTIONS; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; TIME WITHIN WHICH PROTESTEE SHALL FILE ANSWER. — The protestee shall answer the protest within five days after being summoned or, in case there has been no summons, from the date of his appearance, and in all cases before the commencement of the hearing of the protest; and if the protestee should desire to impugn the votes received by the protestant in other precincts, he shall file a counterprotest within the same period fixed for the answer.

    2. ID.; ID.; THE FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SUSPENDS THE PERIOD TO ANSWER. — When the protestee files a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the dismissal of the protest, the period to file the answer is suspended, until that motion is finally decided.

    3. ID.; ID.; WHEN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED, THE PERIOD TO ANSWER CONTINUED TO BE SUSPENDED. — When a motion for reconsideration is granted by the trial court, the period to answer continues to be suspended until the appeal of the protestant from the order dismissing his protest is finally decided.

    4. ID.; ID.; THE FILING OF MOTION TO DISMISS PROTEST SUSPENDS THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH PROTESTEE SHOULD FILE HIS ANSWER. — A bona-fide motion to dismiss an election protest suspends the period within which the protestee should file his answer until said motion is finally decide, for the reason that should said motion for dismissal prosper there would be no need for the protestee to answer.


    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:


    This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte declaring the protestee-appellant’s counterprotest to have been filed out of time and ordering it stricken out of the record.

    Bernardo Torres and mamerto S. Ribo were candidates for the office of provincial governor of Leyte in the general elections held on November 11, 1947. Ribo was proclaimed elected, and torres protested. Summons was served upon the protestee on December 12, 1947. On December 15 the protestee filed a motion to dismiss the protest. That motion was denied by the court, which gave him five days from the receipt of the order within which to file his answer. The protestee received copy of that order on January 6 and on the following day, January 7, he moved for a reconsideration of the order denying his motion to dismiss. The court granted that motion for reconsideration and dismissed the protest. The protestant appealed to this court, which on May 21, 1948, reversed the order of dismissal. On May 24 the protestee received copy of the decision of this court. On May 29, pending the entry of final judgment by this court, the protestee filed his answer and counterprotest.

    The protestant filed a motion to dismiss and strike out the protestee’s answer and counterprotest on the ground that it was filed out of time. That motion was granted by the trial court. Hence this appeal.

    The theory of the protestant-appellee, which the trial court sustained, is that the answer and counterprotest should have been filed within five days from December 12, 1947, the date on which the protestee was served with summons.

    Section 176 of the Revised Election Code provides among other things that the protestee shall answer the protest within five days after being summoned or, in case there has been no summons, from the date of his appearance, and in all cases before the commencement of the hearing of the protest; and that if the protestee should desire to impugn the votes received by the protestant in other precincts, he shall file a counterprotest within the same period fixed for the answer.

    It will be noted that after denying the protestee’s motion to dismiss the protest the trial court, in an order copy of which was received by the protestee on January 6, 1948, gave him five days within which to file an answer. The validity of that order cannot be seriously questioned, since the protestee could not be expected to answer the petition of protest pending resolution of his motion to dismiss it. The law does not prohibit the court in such a case from giving the protestee an opportunity to answer the protest. What the law inferentially prohibits is the filing of an answer after the commencement of the hearing of the protest.

    Therefore, the period of five days within which to answer commenced on January 6, 1948. That period, however, was suspended on January 7, when the protestee filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the dismissal of the protest, until that motion was finally decided. That motion for reconsideration having been granted by the trial court, the period to answer continued to be suspended until the appeal of the protestant from the order dismissing his protest was finally decided by this court. It is true that on May 21, 1948, this court rendered its decision reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal of the protest, and the protestee received copy of said decision on May 24. But that decision was not final and executory until after the lapse of fifteen days, during which the losing party could file a motion for reconsideration. In this case, however, the protestee did not avail himself of the right to file a motion for reconsideration, for, without waiting for the entry of final judgment, he acquiesced in or accepted the decision of this court by filing his answer and counterprotest on May 29, 1948. On that date, therefore, the decision of this court became final by virtue of the losing party’s compliance therewith.

    We hold that a bona-fide motion to dismiss an election protest suspends the period within which the protestee should file his answer until said motion is finally decided, for the reason that should said motion for dismissal prosper there would be no need for the protestee to answer. In the present case the decision of this court, to which the protestant had appealed from the trial court’s order of dismissal, became final, as we have explained, on May 29, 1948. Since on said date the protestee filed his answer and counterprotest, and since only one day had passed from the time the protestee received copy of the order of the trial court giving him five days within which to answer until he filed his motion for reconsideration which resulted in the trial court’s dismissal of the protest, it follows that said answer and counterprotest was filed well within the period of five days granted by the court.

    The order appealed from is reversed and the case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    FERIA, J.:


    I concur in the result.

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

    Section 176 (b) and (c) of the Revised Election Code read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(b) The protestee shall answer the protest within five days after being summoned or, in case there has been no summons, from the date of his appearance and in all cases before the commencement of the hearing of the protest. The answer shall deal only with the election in the precincts which are covered by the allegations of the protests.

    "(c) Should the protestee desire to impugn the votes received by the protestant in other precincts, he shall file a counter-protest within the same period fixed for the answer, serving a copy thereof upon the protestant by registered mail or by personal delivery or through the sheriff."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It appears that the protestee in this case was served with summons on December 12, 1947. Accordingly, he should have filed his answer and counter-protest not later than December 17, 1947. Protestee filed, however, his answer and counter-protest much later, that is, on May 29, 1948. It is evident that they were filed out of time under the above quoted provisions of the Revised Election Code.

    In our opinion, the filing of the motion to dismiss the protest had not and could have not the effect of suspending the five-day period provided by section 176 for filing an answer and counter- protest. The protestee should have filed his answer and counter- protest within the period provided by law, notwithstanding the filing of his motion to dismiss. There is no provisions of law that would authorize the suspension of the five-day period provided for by section 176 of the Revised Election Code. The purpose of the law is the early disposal of election protests.

    There is no incompatibility between the filing of an answer and counter-protest and of a motion to dismiss the protest.

    The majority’s position is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Revised Election Code. We vote to affirm the appealed order.

    G.R. No. L-2831   May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO<br /><br />083 Phil 642


    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