Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

110 Phil 127:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12508. November 29, 1960.]

JOSE L. LAGRIMAS, Provincial Fiscal of Antique, Petitioner, v. HON. ROBERTO ZURBANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Antique, Respondent.

Prov. Fiscal J.L. Lagrimas for Petitioner.

Judge Roberto Zurbano in his own behalf.


SYLLABUS


APPEAL AND ERROR; CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ORDER DENYING ADMISSION OF THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT APPEALABLE; TEST FOR DETERMINING FINALITY OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT; MANDAMUS PROPER REMEDY. — An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court (I Moran Rules of Court, 1957 Ed., p. 638). In the instant case, the order denying admission of petitioner’s third-party complaint appealed because as far as his third-party complaint is concerned, that order finally disposed of it by throwing it out of court, a situation which only an appeal therefrom could have remedied. Consequently, mandamus will lie to compel the respondent Judge to approve the appeal therefrom could have remedied. Consequently, mandamus will lie to compel the respondent Judge to approve the appeal taken therefrom, considering the fact that the petitioner has established a clear and certain right to invoke it (Zamora v. Wright, 53 Phil., 613).


D E C I S I O N


PAREDES, J.:


In an amended complaint for Damages, resulting allegedly from a violation of contractual rights over fish corrals, filed by Florentino Important against the municipality of Tabiao, Antique, its Mayor, members of the council and four (4) private individuals, petitioner Jose L. Lagrimas, Provincial Fiscal of Antique, was included as defendant, in his capacity as such (CFI Case No. 836). The basis of his inclusion as a co-defendant, may be gleaned from the following allegations in the amended, complaint, signed by Atty. Buenaventura Tolentino, Esdras F. Tayco and Calixto O. Zaldivar.

"14. That on January 23, 1956, the Chief of Police of Tibiao, Antique, filed Criminal Case No. 1185, in the Justice of the Peace of Tibiao, Antique, entitled ‘People of the Philippines v. Lydia Sarmiento, Felipe Sarmiento, Victor Gindap and Norberto Faren, Accused, for violation of Paragraph (b) Section 25, of Ordinance No. 9, in connection with Schedule G-1-Y, of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1954, of the Municipality of Tibiao, Antique, but on February 25, 1956, the Provincial Fiscal personally citing his opinions of December 24, 1955, and February 3, 1956, respectively filed a Motion for the Dismissal of the above-entitled case, and the same was dismissed;

15. That Criminal Case No. 1185, against the defendants Lydia Sarmiento, Felipe Sarmiento Victor Gindap and Norberto Faren was a meritorious case and had it been prosecuted the fish corral of the defendants would have been removed or demolished and the rights of plaintiff safeguard."cralaw virtua1aw library

On December 22, 1956, the petitioner Provincial Fiscal presented his Answer to the amended complaint with the Counterclaim. On March 13, 1957, believing that counsel for plaintiff Importante were responsible for his (Petitioner’s) inclusion in the amended complaint, the petitioner caused to be filed a Third-Party complaint for damages against said lawyers, alleging among others, the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"6. That third-party defendants, Attys. Buenaventura Tolentino, Esdras F. Tayco and Calixto O. Zaldivar, through mutual understanding and combination with the original plaintiff - Florentino Importante know full well that the amended complaint, with particular reference to the third-party plaintiff Fiscal Jose L. Lagrimas, is not only frivolously grounded and devoid of merit based on bad faith, but same is designed to further third-party defendants’ professional propaganda, and wanton desire to cause insult, indignity, social humiliation, wounded feelings and mental suffering of the latter (Fiscal Lagrimas), and to besmirch his reputation, integrity, good name and standing of said third-party plaintiff, both in his private capacity as a lawyer and official capacity as Provincial Fiscal of Antique thereby causing him endless professional and official embarrassment, and in contempt and public ridicule."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 19, 1957, the trial court denied admission of the third- party complaint, stating that it did not meet the requirements of Section 1 and 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, as his claim for damages was not in any manner related to the claim of the plaintiff. In support of its ruling, the respondent judge cited the case of Cayapas v. Court of First Instance of Albay, 77 Phil., 181, holding that it is not a court’s duty especially enjoined by law to admit a third-party complaint and that whether a party to an action shall be allowed to implead an additional party, rests in the discretion of the court. A motion for reconsideration was seasonably presented, petitioner Lagrimas contending that it is immaterial that a third- party plaintiff states a cause of action against the third-party defendant on a theory different from that asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant. He also pointed out that the rival claims of plaintiff Importante and his (Lagrimas) arose and descended from the same network of correlated circumstances and incidents brought about by unlawful acts or omissions described in the pleadings of the parties concerned; that third-party plaintiff would not have suffered his claim for damages, if the original plaintiff through the instrumentality and legal guidance of his counsel, had not unnecessarily and unlawfully included him as a co-defendant in the amended complaint. The motion for reconsideration was denied on March 30, 1957.

An appeal from the orders of March 19 and 30, 1957, was perfected within the reglementary period. On April 6, 1957, however, the respondent judge disapproved said appeal on the ground that the orders are interlocutory and, therefore, not subject of appeal. The motion for reconsideration on the order disapproving the appeal was denied on June 15, 1957.

The matter is now before us on Certiorari and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction, petitioner alleging that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of his jurisdiction, in disallowing his appeal from the orders complained of and that he has unlawfully neglected in the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from his office, and/or has unlawfully excluded petitioner from his right to appeal, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law within the proceedings of the basic civil case No. 836 available to petitioner. Respondent judge denied knowledge and/or information regarding the inclusion of petitioner as a party defendant, upon the advice and guidance of counsel for plaintiff Importante.

Under the facts of records, it seems that the dominant issue in the case is whether or not mandamus will lie, which necessarily involves the determination of the character or nature of the orders in question.

We are of the opinion that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to approve the appeal taken, considering the fact that the petitioner has established a clear and certain right to invoke it. (Zamora v. Wright, 53 Phil., 613). The orders appealed from are not interlocutory in nature, but are final and appealable and, therefore, come within the pale of the last portion of Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action, nor shall it be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

When the respondent Court declared that its order of March 19, 1957, denying the admission of the third-party complaint, was interlocutory, if finally disposed of third party plaintiff’s action within the proceedings of civil case No. 836, leaving nothing more that can be done with it in the Court of First Instance of Antique. The declaration was a final order or judgment rendered against the action of the third-party plaintiff, which automatically threw his case (third-party complaint) out of court, a situation which only an appeal therefrom could have remedied, while it may be true that the proceedings in the main case could continue, the pending matter litigated between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendants was finally terminated by the orders in question. "An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court (I Moran’s Rules of Court, 1957 Ed., p. 638).

In view of the conclusions reaches, it is deemed unnecessary for the purposes of this opinion, to pass upon the merits of the petition for certiorari.

Wherefore, the order of the respondent court dated April 6, 1957, disapproving the record on appeal filed by petitioner, dated April 2, 1957 (Annex I, petition) and the order of the respondent court denying the motion for reconsideration of said order dated June 15, 1957 (Annex K) are hereby set aside and annulled; and the respondent court is directed to approve, certify and elevate the record is directed to approve, certify and elevate the record on appeal to the appropriate appellate court in accordance with law.

Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, and Dizon, JJ., concur.




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






November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301