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-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11629   May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO<br /><br />103 Phil 672

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11629. May 14, 1958.]

    CELEDONIO ESCUDERO Y ESCORPESO, Petitioner, v. HON. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XI and the MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Branch I, Respondents.

    Angel Al. Caluntad for Petitioner.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Lauro Maiquez for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; APPEAL FROM DECISION OF INFERIOR COURT; EFFECT OF; DISCRETION OF COURT TO ALLOW WITHDRAWAL AND REVIVE JUDGMENT. — An appeal from a decision of the justice of the peace court or municipal court does not necessarily place the decision of said court beyond the reach or jurisdiction of the court of first instance or of the inferior court. The revival of the decision of the justice of the peace or municipal court, under section 12, Rule 118 and section 9, Rule 119, shows that, although said decision is vacated by the appeal, such effect is neither final nor permanent, but subject to the authority of said inferior courts and/or Court of First Instance, as the case may be. Said courts have, in the respective cases, discretion to allow the withdrawal of appeal and revive the decision appealed from.

    2. COURTS; JURISDICTION; PERTINENT POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT. — The Rules of Court should not be so construed as to affect the jurisdiction of the courts as determined by the Constitution and statutes. The pertinent power of the Supreme Court is limited to the promulgation of "rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts," and, consequently, to the determination of the means, ways, or manner in which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    Petitioner herein, Celedonio Escudero y Escorpeso, seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside an order of respondent, Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Upon the filing of the petition and the posting of the corresponding bond, this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement or execution of said order.

    Petitioner was, on January 19, 1956, convicted by the Municipal Court of Manila, in Criminal Case No. D-43383 thereof, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Celedonio Escudero y Escorpeso", of the crime of "estafa" and sentenced accordingly. On appeal taken by Escudero from the decision of the municipal court, the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 34136 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and assigned to Branch I thereof, presided over by Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, Judge. Sometime later, the trial of the case began, but it was not completed. What transpired next is set forth in the order complained of, from which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . When the case was called for continuation of trial on August 2, 1956, despite the fact that he signed the notice for his appearance on that date and despite the fact that the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company was notified, he failed to appear, and this is the reason why said bonding company had to ask for various extensions within which to arrest him and to products his person. On October 11, 1956, when the case was again called for trial, said bonding company was unable to present him and his counsel, Atty. Flaviano Manalo, moved that he be allowed to withdraw his appearance on the ground that he could not contact his client, the herein accused, and it was only after much efforts that the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company was able to turn him over to the MPD on November 6, 1956. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Accordingly, on November 14, 1956, respondent Judge issued an order, the pertinent parts of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . Considering these factual circumstances; considering that the right to appeal is merely statutory; and considering his unwillingness to appear before this Court; and considering further that, from the record, it appears that even in the Municipal Court the Alto Surety & Insurance Company and the Consolidated Under writers, Inc., who posted bonds for him one after the other, had to surrender him for his unwillingness to appear presumably due to the fact that there are other criminal charges pending against him, this Court believes, and is of the opinion, that he had abandoned his appeal, as the Supreme Court has held that waiver of his appeal may be implied from his flight. (P. v. Ang Giok, 73 Phil., 366.)

    "WHEREFORE, this Court hereby declares that, by the accused’s conduct, he has abandoned his appeal, and the Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case to the Municipal Court for the Promulgation of the decision rendered by Judge Ramon A. Yno on January 19, 1956."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Hence, the present petition for certiorari to set aside said order and reinstate Escudero’s appeal.

    Pursuant to section 8 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, upon appeal from a decision of a justice of the peace or municipal court, said decision is vacated, and the case shall be tried in all respects anew in the Court of First as if it were a case originally instituted in that court. This, notwithstanding, section 9 of the same Rule provides that, "before the papers and transcript have been forwarded to the court of first instance," the justice of the peace or the judge of the municipal court may "allow the appellant to withdraw his appeal, in which case the judgment of the justice of the peace or judge of the municipal court shall be revived and become final." Even after the transmittal of said papers and transcript to the Court of First Instance, the same is explicitly authorized by section 12 of Rule 118, "in its discretion," to "allow the appellant . . . to withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before the trial of the case on appeal, in which case the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court shall become final, the provision of section 8, Rule 119 to the contrary notwithstanding, and the case shall be remanded to the court a quo for execution of the judgment." From these provisions, petitioner seemingly deduces that, once the trial of the case, on appeal to the Court of First Instance, has started therein, the appeal may no longer be withdrawn by appellant, and that the Court of First Instance has no authority to revive the decision appealed from and remand the case to the court of origin for execution of the decision thereof, even if the accused had, by his behavior, shown no interest in the appeal and the intent to abandon it. It is our considered opinion that this conclusion does not follow.

    To begin with, section 9, Rule 119, and section 12, Rule 119, regulate the right of the accused to withdraw his appeal. These provisions do not control the authority of the Court to dismiss the appeal or declare it abandoned, regardless of the will of the accused.

    Secondly, the revival of the decision of the justice of the peace or municipal court, under said Rules 118 (section 12) and 119 (section 9), shows that, although said decision is vacated by the appeal, such effect is neither final nor permanent, but subject to the authority of said inferior courts and/or Court of First Instance, as the case may be. Said courts have, in the respective cases discretion to allow the withdrawal of appeal and revive the decision appealed from. Thus, the appeal does not necessarily place such decision beyond the reach or jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance or of the inferior court.

    Thirdly, "the power to define, prescribed and apportion the jurisdiction of the various court" is vested by the Constitution in "the Congress" (Section 1, Article VIII, of the Constitution). The Rules of Court should not be so construed, therefore, as to affect the jurisdiction of the courts, as determined by the fundamental law and statutes. The pertinent power of the Supreme Court is limited to the promulgation of "rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts," and, consequently, to the determination of the means, ways, or manner in which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.

    Petitioner alleges that he was not unwilling to appear for trial and that his failure to do so was due to lack of notice from his bondsmen. But, this pretense is contrary to the facts set forth in the order complained of, to wit: that petitioner was personally served with notice of the hearing, on which he signed; that the bonding company had to ask several extensions of time within which to arrest him and produce his person; that when the case was called for trial on October 11, 1956, said bonding company was unable to present him and his counsel, Atty. Flaviano Manalo, moved that he be allowed to withdraw his appearance on the ground that he could not contact his client; and that "it was only after much efforts that the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company was able to turn him over to the MPD on November 6, 1956." None of these facts is denied by petitioner.

    In view of the foregoing, we find that respondent Judge had acted neither without jurisdiction nor in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the order complained of, for which reason the petition in this case is hereby dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued herein is dissolved, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

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

    G.R. No. L-11629   May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO<br /><br />103 Phil 672


    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