Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > January 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11263 January 30, 1959 - OSMUNDO C. RAMOS v. R. C. DEANE, ET AL.

105 Phil 110:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11263. January 30, 1959.]

OSMUNDO C. RAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. C. DEANE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Villasis & Velante for Appellant.

Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; DISMISSAL OF APPEAL; EFFECT OF. — When an appeal is dismissed for appellant’s failure to deposit on time the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal, the judgment or order appealed from stands as though no appeal has been taken. (Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.)

2. DISMISSAL; WHEN IT OPERATES AS ADJUDICATION UPON THE MERITS. — Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any dismissal not provided for under Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, operates as an adjudication upon the merits. (Enriquez v. Perez, 93 Phil., 246.)


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Osmundo C. Ramos appeals from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing his complaint in civil case No. 16051.

In his complaint the appellant alleges that he was a licensed real estate broker who was authorized and commissioned by the appellee R. C. Deane p attorney-in-fact of the appellees Minka, Walter, Conrad and Carl Weinzheimer, surviving spouse and heirs of the late Ludwig Weinzheimer, to sell two parcels of land containing an area of 13,409 square meters more or less, situated at barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Paranaque, province of Rizal, covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. 14570 and 16776, belonging to the estate of the deceased; that the appellee Robert O. Ferguson, judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased (special proceedings No. 70808, Court of First Instance of Manila), confirmed and ratified the agreement entered into by and between the appellant and the appellee R. C. Deane, fixed the selling price of the two parcels of land at P75,000 and agreed to pay the appellant a 5 per cent commission of the selling price; that the appellant offered for sale the aforesaid parcels of land to Alberto Guevara y Sanchez who bid to buy them at P53,000; that at his (appellant’s) suggestion, the prospective buyer conferred with the appellees R. C. Deane and Robert O. Ferguson and after negotiations, the sale was consummated at a price of P65,000, which transaction redounded to the benefit of the appellees, heirs of the deceased; that after the sale was effected, the appellant demanded from the appellees his commission on P65,000 or P3,250, but they refused to pay him; that the appellant brought an action against the first two appellees in the Court of First Instance of Manila to collect from them his commission (case No. 8898) and also filed a claim in special proceedings No. 70808, "Testate estate of Ludwig Weinzheimer;" for payment of the commission; that the appellant’s claim was denied by the probate court because it was not a money claim against or a debt of the estate or an expense of administration, and his complaint was dismissed by the Court because of the pendency of his claim in the probate court; and that the dismissal of his complaint in civil No. 8898 was predicated on a mistake of fact, because when the order dismissing it was entered on 26 May 1950, the appellant’s claim had already been dismissed by the probate court on 22 February 1950. Upon the foregoing averments the appellant prays that judgment be rendered setting aside its order in civil case No. 8898 which dismissed his complaint and ordering the appellees, jointly and severally, to pay him the sums of P3,250, with interest thereon at the legal rate from 12 August 1948 until paid, and P10,000 as damages and the costs of the suit. He also prays that judgment be rendered upon the evidence presented at the trial in civil case No. 8898 or that a new trial be held and judgment be rendered after such trial, and that the service of summons upon the appellees, heirs of the late Ludwig Weinzheimer, residents of Sacramento, California, U.S.A., be made by registered mail as provided for in section 17, Rule 7.

The appellees moved that the appellant’s complaint be dismissed upon the ground that it is barred by a prior judgment, the appeal taken by him from the order dismissing his complaint in civil case No. 8898 having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failure to deposit within the reglementary period the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal, and that pursuant to section 4, Rule 30, such dismissal operated as an adjudication upon the merits of the case. The appellant objected to the motion. The Court denied the motion to dismiss. Answering the appellant’s complaint, the appellees allege that they did not authorize and commission the appellant to sell the property in question and as special defense invoke the ground relied upon in their motion to dismiss. By way of counterclaim they pray that the appellant be sentenced to pay them P5,000 as damages and P2,000 for attorney’s fees for bringing a clearly unfounded civil action against them. The appellant controverted the appellees’ counterclaim. Both parties submitted the case for judgment upon the evidence adduced in civil case No. 8898. On 21 February 1955 the Court rendered judgment dismissing the appellant’s complaint on the ground that it is barred by a prior judgment. Motion for reconsideration having been denied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the appeal to this Court for the reason that it only involves a question of law.

It appears that on 12 August 1949 the appellant commenced civil case No. 8898 to collect from the appellees Robert O. Ferguson, as administrator of the estate of the late Ludwig Weinzheimer, and R. C. Deane, as attorney in-fact of the appellees Minka, Walter, Conrad and Carl Weinzheimer, a sum of money claimed due him as commission for the sale of two parcels of land (pp. 27-30, record on appeal; Exhibit 1); that on 13 October 1949 and 5 May 1951, while the aforesaid case was pending determination, the appellant filed a claim in special proceedings No. 70808 for collection of the same commission which was dismissed by the probate court on 22 February 1950 and the order of dismissal reiterated by the same court on 19 June 1951, because the claim did not involve a money claim against or a debt of the estate or an expense of administration (pp. 22-23; 23-26, record on appeal; Exhibit 4; Exhibit B) from which orders the appellant did not appeal; that on 26 May 1950 the Court dismissed the appellant’s complaint in civil case No 8898 in view of the pendency of his claim in special proceedings No. 70808; and that the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed for failure to deposit within the reglementary period the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal.

There is no doubt that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellant’s complaint for collection of the sum of P3,250 in civil case No. 8898 and that the dismissal thereof was in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The dismissal was regular on its face and not tainted with fraud in its procurement and issuance. If the dismissal was erroneous, as it seems to be, the aggrieved party’s remedy was appeal, a direct attack, and not another action to set it aside, a collateral attack. Since the appellant’s appeal was dismissed for his failure to deposit on time the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal, the dismissal of the action in the lower court stood as though no appeal had been taken. 1 Inasmuch as "Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, operates as an adjudication upon the merits," 2 and the dismissal of the appellant’s action in civil case No. 8898 was not for lack of jurisdiction but on account of the pendency of his claim in special proceedings No. 70808, the said dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits. Hence the appellant’s second complaint is barred by prior judgment.

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

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

Endnotes:



1. Section 2, Rule 52.

2. Section 4, Rule 30, Enriquez v. Perez, 93 Phil., 246.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10701 January 16, 1959 - MARIA CANO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10910 January 16, 1959 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. ANTONIO LEJANO

    105 Phil 6

  • G.R. Nos. L-11298, L-11586 & L-11603 January 19, 1959 - RICARDO GUTIERREZ v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC.

    105 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-10802 January 22, 1959 - PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. BARTOLOME SAN DIEGO

    105 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 12448 January 22, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-11575 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA PADILLA

    105 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. L-12056 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GONZALES

    105 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-12194 January 24, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANNA HARRIET CLEMENT, ET AL.

    105 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-12772 January 24, 1959 - SUSANA MACAZO, ET AL. v. BENILDO NUÑEZ

    105 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-9146 January 27, 1959 - TERESA VDA. DE FERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 11598 January 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BUSTAMANTE

    105 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-12623 January 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO GUIAO Y DAVID

    105 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-12731 January 27, 1959 - FAUSTO CATAGONA v. SEGUNDO DIONISIO

    105 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-11831 January 29, 1959 - ISIDORA AUREO v. FUNDADOR AUREO

    105 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9585 January 30, 1959 - PETRITA PASCUAL, ET AL. v. RUDYARDO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-11169 January 30, 1959 - FELIPE HORTILLOSA v. RODOLFO GANZON

    105 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-11263 January 30, 1959 - OSMUNDO C. RAMOS v. R. C. DEANE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-11486 January 30, 1959 - JESUS ALVAREZ v. DIRECTOR of LANDS

    105 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. L-11836 January 30, 1959 - MANUEL M. COSTA v. GENOVEVA V. BALMES

    105 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-11932 January 30, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA

    105 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. L-13709 January 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO TOGLE

    105 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-11090 January 31, 1959 - VICENTE E. GROSPE v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-11764 January 31, 1959 - ENRIQUE CUISON, ET AL. v. ISIDRO G. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    105 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-12054 January 31, 1959 - JOSE ESCAY v. JOSE TEODORO, SR. ., ETC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-12111 January 31, 1959 - AGATONA GERONIMO, ET AL. v. JOSE NAVA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-12520 January 31, 1959 - SEISMUNDO RAMOS v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF DAET, ET AL.

    105 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-12271 January 31, 1959 - JOSEPH ABELOW v. JOSE DE LA RIVA

    105 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-13059 January 31, 1959 - TIMOTEO VALENCIA, JR. v. FELIPE MABILANGAN

    105 Phil 162