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
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA<br /><br />102 Phil 899

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9689. January 27, 1958.]

    JESUS T. QUIAMBAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEDRO R. PERALTA, Defendant-Appellee.

    Santiago F. Alidio for Appellant.

    Zavalla, Bautista & Nuevas for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOTION TO DISMISS; ADMISSION; CONCLUSION; CASE AT BAR. — Appellant’s contention that the motion to dismiss admits the allegations of the complaint where it is alleged that the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 1783 by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and that rendered on appeal in C.A. -G.R. No. 11104-R by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed it, are null and void, such nullity should be deemed admitted, is preposterous, because the ground relied upon in the motion to dismiss that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment admits only the material allegations of the complaint. The allegations of nullity of a judgment in a complaint being a conclusion and not a material allegation is not deemed admitted by the party who files a motion to dismiss.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    Pedro R. Peralta brought an action against Jesus T. Quiambao (civil case No. 1783 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal) to recover from the latter P12,000 interest thereon from 9 February 1949 until paid; P15,000 for actual, moral and exemplary damages; and P5,200 for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. After issues had been joined and trial held, the Court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the defendant: (1) to pay the plaintiff the sum of P12,000 plus interest at the legal rate, from the time of the presentation of this complaint up to the time that the said sum of P12,000 is fully paid; (2) to pay the plaintiff the sum of P5,000 as moral and exemplary damages because the defendant had taken advantage of the ignorance and lack of education of the plaintiff, and has made full use of his intelligence to defraud the plaintiff, an old man, of his money; (3) to pay the plaintiff P1,000 as attorney’s fees; and (4) to pay the costs of this action. (Annex I, pp. 82, 87, Record on Appeal.)

    On appeal by Jesus T. Quiambao from the judgment, the Court of Appeals affirmed it. The appellate court ordered the transmittal of the record of the case to this Court for whatever action it might deem proper to take against Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao for having committed acts unbecoming a member of the bar.

    Jesus T. Quiambao brought an action against Pedro R. Peralta (civil case No. 2917 of the same Court) seeking to annul the judgment rendered in civil case No. 1783 and that of the Court of Appeals which affirmed it (CA-G.R. No. 11104-R), on the ground that the defendant committed fraud upon the plaintiff by concealing material and true facts; to suspend the execution of the judgment in said civil case, or, if already executed, to recover from the defendant the sum of P12,000, interest thereon from 30 June 1952, P5,000 for moral and exemplary damages, P1,000 for attorney’s fees, all awarded in the former case and P10,000 for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation spent and to be incurred in this last case, and costs.

    The defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment; the complaint states no cause of action the plaintiff is in estoppel; and the action is not the proper remedy. The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion and the defendant a reply thereto.

    The Court dismissed the complaint and dissolved the writ of attachment therefore issued, from which order the plaintiff has appealed.

    The appellant argues and contends that as the motion to dismiss admits the allegations of the complaint where it is alleged that the judgment rendered in civil case No. 1783 by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and that rendered on appeal in CA-GR No. 11104-R by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed it, are null and void, such nullity should be deemed admitted. This contention is preposterous, because the ground relied upon in the motion to dismiss that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment, admits only the material allegations of the complaint. The allegation of nullity of a judgment in a complaint being a conclusion and not a material allegation is not deemed admitted by the party who files a motion to dismiss. The grounds invoked by the appellant to annul the judgment rendered in civil case No. 1783 by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 11104-R cannot be availed of, because the same are proper for an appeal, they constitute a direct attack on the judgment sought to be reversed which may not be attacked collaterally by another action. In connection with the judgment rendered in civil case No. 1783 against the herein appellant, then defendant, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 11104-R, the herein appellant sought a review thereof by a petition for a writ of certiorari but this Court denied it for lack of merit. 1

    A perusal of the judgment rendered in civil case No. 1783 by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and of that rendered on appeal in CA- GR No. 11104-R by the Court of Appeals discloses that the facts alleged by the appellant in his complaint which he claims constitute fraud committed upon him by the appellee, were considered and passed upon by both Courts; and the fact that the appellant’s claim was neither given credence nor sustained by both Courts is no reason for concluding that fraud was committed by the appellee upon the Appellant.

    The order appealed from is affirmed, with treble costs against the Appellant.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. G.R. No. L-7986, minute resolution of 29 July 1954.

    G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA<br /><br />102 Phil 899


    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