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-11444   May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO<br /><br />103 Phil 1004

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11444. May 30, 1958.]

    VICENTE ROULLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO, Defendant-Appellee.

    Gabriel Benedicto for Appellant.

    Delfin Carreon for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL, WHEN COMPLETE. — In the absence of an allegation nor proof that a first notice of the registered mail was given to the addressee by the postmaster, the addressee should be deemed to have received the registered mail upon actual receipt thereof.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    This appeal involves the application of Rule 27, sec. 8, of the Rules of Court which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, the service shall take effect at the expiration of such time."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Rendered after a trial on the merits and dated April 23, 1956, the decision of the Negros Occidental court of first instance in the above entitled case required defendant to deliver unto plaintiff the total sum of P1,960.00 plus interest and to pay costs.

    On June 22, 1956, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration discussing at length certain questions of fact and claiming for additional damages against defendant. The latter objected to the motion, partly on the ground that the decision had become final, inasmuch as the said motion had been submitted beyond the 30-day period fixed by the Rules. And on that very ground, the judge denied the motion by his order of July 2, 1956. Having failed on a move to reconsider, plaintiff appealed to this Court, on the question whether his said motion for reconsideration of June 22, 1956, had been submitted in due time.

    It was belated, contends the defendant, because copy of the decision having been sent April 27, 1956 1 by registered mail to plaintiff’s counsel, "the service of said decision was completed (under Rule 27, sec. 8) 5 days after the first notice on or about May 3, 1956" ; and from May 3 to June 22 when the motion to reconsider was filed, more than 30 days had elapsed.

    Apparently, the court below approved defendant’s computation, and threw out the motion to reconsider in the aforesaid order of July 2, 1956.

    Nevertheless plaintiff submitted to the Court the postmaster’s statement to the effect that the registered mail addressed to him had actually been received by him on May 24, 1956. And on the basis of such statement, he asked the court to declare his motion to have been timely inasmuch as less than thirty days had passed from May 24 to June 22. He argued that his time to move should not be counted from May 3, 1956, (nor from any other days before May 24) because there was no allegation nor showing that his counsel had received "the first notice from the postmaster" as contemplated in Rule 27, sec. 8 above quoted. His request was denied.

    According to the first part of the above Rule, the time within which plaintiff had to move for reconsideration began from May 24, 1956, when his counsel receive the registered mail. The second part about failure-to-claim-within-five-days is not to be applied, because there is no proof, nor allegation that a first notice was given to him by the postmaster. The defendant seemed to have acted on the idea that the sending of the letter on April 27, 1956, constituted the first notice within the meaning of Rule 27, sec. 8. Here is what he represented to the court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . Consequently if the decision was mailed to the counsel for plaintiff on April 26, 1965, the service of said decision was complete under Rule 27, sec. 8 (5) days after the first notice on or about May 3, 1956. The (30) days period for decision to be final shall be computed as of May 3, 1956, and said motion for reconsideration was filed on June 22. 1956 beyond the period provided by the Rules of Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Observe that no statement may be found therein that the first notice was given by the postmaster. It can not be implied that the first notice was given on May 3, 1956, because according to the above, May 3, was the last day of the five-day period. Consequently, the above must be interpreted to mean that in the opinion of defendant the "first notice" took place on April 27 2 when the copy of decision was deposited in the mail.

    Indeed, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff insisted in the court below, and before this court on appeal, on such lack of notice by the postmaster, We find neither in the court’s orders, nor in defendant’s pleadings and brief any statement as to the date when plaintiff’s counsel was notified by the postmaster to get the registered mail addressed to him.

    The form of such notice written on a card about 5" X 3" reads like this:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    FORM 1525

    Post Mark of BUREAU OF POSTS drawing

    PHILIPPINES

    M _____________________________________________

    _____________________________________________

    Present this notice at this Office and receipt for _______ registered letters/parcels addressed to you numbered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    =========================================

    — | — | — | — | — | — | — | See Other Side

    =========================================

    In the absence of such notice by the postmaster, the plaintiff is deemed to have received copy of the decision only upon actual receipt thereof, (May 24).

    At the risk of being repetitious, We should explain: The plaintiff proved he actually received on May 24, the copy of the decision sent by registered mail; according to the first part of above Rule 27, his time to move for new trial or reconsideration began on May 24; as the defendant contended that plaintiff’s time began earlier, i. e., at the expiration of five days after first notice by the postmaster, it was his duty to prove the date when such first notice had been given. In default of such proof, May 24 must be deemed the starting point. From May 24 to June 22 less than thirty days had elapsed; so on June 22 the decision had not yet become final.

    And the court below still had jurisdiction to act upon plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on the merits. Consequently, its order of July 2, 1956, is reversed, and the record remanded for further proceedings. Costs against appellee.

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

    Endnotes:



    1. Appellee’s brief, p. 4.

    2. Page 4, defendant’s brief.

    G.R. No. L-11444   May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO<br /><br />103 Phil 1004


    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