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-2099   May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN<br /><br />083 Phil 834

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2099. May 30, 1949.]

    JOSE ONG, Petitioner, v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and MACCARIO FELIPE, Respondents.

    Del Pilar & Alvir for Petitioner.

    Nicodemus L. Dasig for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. TRIAL; FAILURE TO APPEAL AT THE HEARING JUSTIFIED DUE TO IMPROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE. — A litigant’s failure to be present at the hearing of a case is justified when it is due to improper service of the notice of the entry of the appeal in the Court of First Instance and that he was not duly notified of the pending of said appeal.

    2. DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR WHEN IMPROPER. — The dismissal by the trial court of the complaint due to petitioner’s failure to appear is improper, it appearing that the alleged due notification is not supported and warranted by section 22, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires the affidavit of the sheriff serving the notice by registered mail and the attachment thereto of the registry receipt and return card, — Both requirements not having been fulfilled.

    3. TRIAL; WHEN REFERENCE OF THE CASE TO CLERK OF COURT IS IMPROPER. — The reference of the case by the trial court to the clerk of court to receive evidence in support of defendant’s cross-complaint does not seem to be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 34, section 2 of the Rules of Court.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    On September 8, 1945, the petitioner Jose Ong filed before the justice of the peace court of Pasay (now Rizal City) an action for forcible entry and detainer against the respondent Macario Felipe regarding the possession of a house situated at No. 248 Apelo Cruz Street, Pasay. On September 11, 1945, the justice of the peace court handed down its decision ordering the defendant Felipe to vacate the house in question and to pay the costs, at the same time dismissing the counterclaim interposed by the defendant. The present petition for certiorari, filed by Jose Ong with this Tribunal, alleges that the defendant Felipe was ejected from the house in question after the decision of the justice of the peace court was rendered in spite of his appeal. The appeal was given due course, was docketed as civil case No. 7526 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and on December 6, 1945, the copy of the notice of entry of appeal in the docket of said court, intended for the plaintiff-petitioner, was sent not to him but to one Atty. Arturo Mendoza, Pasay, who does not appear as his attorney of record. In support of his allegation, petitioner points out that the Court of First Instance of Rizal refused to hear Felipe’s motion for dismissal on the ground that Atty. Arturo Mendoza did not appear in the record as counsel for plaintiff Ong, so Felipe’s counsel was ordered to serve copy of his motion on the plaintiff himself, setting said motion again for hearing.

    Petitioner further alleges that on May 21, 1947, that is, one year and eight months after he won the case for forcible entry against respondent Felipe in the justice of the peace court of Pasay, and unaware that it had been duly appealed and was pending trial in the Court of First Instance, he left the Philippines for China and returned to these Islands only on January 29, 1948. In June 1947, after Ong had left for China, the defendant-respondent filed his answer and cross-complaint before the Court of First Instance, and on August 23, 1947, the first notice of the hearing set for September 10, 1947, was sent to plaintiff-petitioner by registered mail; but, inasmuch as he was then in China, he could neither claim nor receive it. On September 10, 1947, respondent Judge Bienvenido A. Tan declared the plaintiff-petitioner in default, dismissing his complaint and ordering the clerk of court to receive the evidence in support of defendant’s counterclaim, and, on September 20, 1947, said judge rendered judgment sentencing plaintiff-petitioner to pay defendant P25 a month from October 1, 1946, until he vacated the house, and ordering him or anyone occupying the house to vacate and deliver it to the defendant.

    On March 10, 1948, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a motion before respondent Judge Tan asking that the decision of September 20, 1947, be set aside and the case retried on the ground that due notice of the appeal was not made to him or his attorney; that plaintiff was not duly notified of the hearing of the case; and that the reception of the evidence for the defendant by the clerk of court, as ordered by the court, was not authorized by the Rules of Court. Said motion was, however, denied by the respondent judge in his order of March 13, 1948, on the ground that it was the duty of a party-litigant to notify the court of any change in his address. On March 13, 1948, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration stating that he did not notify the court of his change of address because he was not aware of the pendency in the Court of First Instance of Rizal of any case in which he was a party litigant. This motion for reconsideration was equally denied on March 18, 1948. The respondent judge has already issued the writ of execution ordering the sheriff of Rizal to evict the plaintiff-petitioner or anyone occupying the house in question.

    Claiming that in denying the motion of plaintiff-petitioner to set aside the decision of September 20, 1947, the respondent judge acted with abuse of judicial discretion for the reason that the failure of the plaintiff-petitioner to be present at the trial of the case on appeal was not due to any fault or negligence on his part but rather to wrongful service of a judicial notice, and that, therefore, the decision of September 20, 1947 is a nullity due to the defect of jurisdiction and that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law, specially in view of the writ of execution already issued to the sheriff, petitioner has filed this petition for certiorari, asking that an order be issued directing the respondent judge to desist from acting further on the case at bar until this incident is solved, and ordering that the writ of execution issued by the said judge be stayed pending resolution of this petition, and that an order be issued commanding the respondent judge to set aside his decision of September 20, 1947, and to order a retrial in civil case No. 7526.

    Upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P200 fixed by this Court, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued commanding the respondent judge and the sheriff "to desist from acting further in civil case No. 7526 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and from executing the writ of execution issued in said civil case until further order from this Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Considering the facts in this case and the circumstances surrounding the same, we are satisfied that petitioner’s failure to be present at the hearing of the appealed case on September 10, 1947, was not due to his fault. Through improper service of the notice of the entry of the appeal in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, petitioner was not duly notified of the pendency of said appeal. When, after winning the case in the justice of the peace court on September 11, 1945, he failed to be informed officially or judicially of the pendency of the appeal as late as May 21, 1947, that is, one year and eight months after the decision of the justice of the peace court was rendered, he was warranted in believing and taking for granted that the case had been terminated and that he could well and without any risk leave the Islands on a trip abroad, which he did. Not knowing or suspecting that there was any litigation pending against him, it was not necessary for him to notify the court of his imminent absence from the Philippines, or to appoint a representative to receive court notices and act for him in his absence. And the ground alleged by the respondent judge in his order of September 10, 1947, dismissing the complaint due to petitioner’s failure to appear despite due notification, is not supported and warranted by section 22, Rule 7, of the Rules of Court, which requires the affidavit of the sheriff serving the notice by registered mail and the attachment thereto of the registry receipt and return card, — both requirements not having been fulfilled. Furthermore, as pointed out by the petitioner, the reference of the case to the clerk of court to receive evidence in support of the defendant’s cross-complaint, does not seem to be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 34, section 2, of the Rules of Court. In this connection, it may be added that, because of the absence of the plaintiff-petitioner from the Philippines, he did not receive copy of the answer and of the cross-complaint filed by the defendant, the evidence for which the clerk of court was erroneously commissioned to receive.

    In view of all the foregoing, the petition is granted, the decision of September 20, 1947 is set aside, including the writ of execution issued in pursuance thereof, and the respondent judge is directed to hold a rehearing or retrial of the case with due notification of the parties. No pronouncement of costs.

    Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2099   May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN<br /><br />083 Phil 834


    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