Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > December 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17237 December 28, 1961 - GREGORIA BARTOLO v. PRIMO G. MALIWANAG, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17237. December 28, 1961.]

GREGORIA BARTOLO, Petitioner, v. PRIMO G. MALIWANAG and HONORABLE NICASIO YATCO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, Quezon City, Respondents.

F.A. Pelmoka for Petitioner.

A.A. Dimaculangan for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; RECORD ON APPEAL; MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE IF RECORD ON APPEAL IS INCOMPLETE. — The question of what matters should be included in a record on appeal should be addressed to the sound discretion of the judge who heard the case and is, therefore, aware of the questions and issues that were raised in court and which might again be raised on appeal. Mandamus will not lie to compel a court to certify an amended record on appeal which is not in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and which does not include all the papers inquired by the court to be included therein, especially where the said action has been filed obviously for the purpose of delay.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an original action of mandamus to compel respondent judge Nicasio Yatco of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, to order the exclusion of a "Manifestation of Defendant," dated March 18, 1959, and the inclusion of the order of the court denying the motion to dismiss, both in the record on appeal, and thereafter to approve and certify the said record on appeal, all of which proceedings refer to Civil Case No. Q-3927 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal entitled "Gregoria Bartolo v. Primo G. Maliwanag."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the civil case above mentioned, No. Q-3927, after Judge Yatco rendered a decision favorable to the defendant, petitioner Gregoria Bartolo, plaintiff in said case, presented a record on appeal, which included the complaint, the answer and the decision of the court dismissing the action. Upon its submission the defendant interposed an objection to its approval on the ground that it fails to include (1) a motion to dismiss, (2) opposition to motion to dismiss, (3) reply to opposition, (4) rejoinder to reply, and (5) manifestation of defendant dated March 18, 1959, submitting the motion to dismiss for decision. Other objections are (6) non-inclusion of order dated April 3, 1959, (7) memorandum for plaintiff, (8) memorandum for defendant. The judge, upon hearing the motion, resolved to require the inclusion of the papers numbered (1) to (5) but denied the inclusion of the papers numbered (6) to (8). This order was dated November 21, 1959. On December 16, 1959, attorney for plaintiff asked for a reconsideration of the order, alleging that the manifestation of defendant on his motion to dismiss should not be included. This motion was denied on December 19, 1959. On January 7, 1960, the plaintiff again filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 21, arguing that document No. (6) (court order dated April 3, 1959, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss) should be included. The court denied this motion for reconsideration on January 23, 1959. A motion for leave of court to file a third motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 21, 1959, was also presented on February 8, 1960. This motion was denied by the court on February 22, 1960. Upon the denial of the said motion, petitioner herein filed this petition for mandamus on August 9, 1960.

The petition for mandamus is absolutely without any legal basis to stand on. In the first place, no amended record on appeal was presented in accordance with section 7 of Rule 41 including the papers that were required by the court to be included in the record on appeal. In the second place, the petitioner had wasted six months before filing the action of mandamus to compel certification of his record on appeal. The argument of counsel for respondent that the present action is merely for the purpose of delay finds support in this belated action of mandamus.

Regarding the matters to be included in a record on appeal, the same should be addressed to the sound discretion of the judge who heard the case and is aware of the questions and issues that have been raised and which might again be raised on appeal. Lastly, the second and third motions for reconsideration are superfluous, as the question raised therein had already been raised when the first motion for reconsideration was denied.

For all the foregoing the petition for mandamus is hereby dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, 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






December-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15264 December 22, 1961 - GARCIA SAMSON v. RAMON ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15763 December 22, 1961 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16806 December 22, 1961 - SERGIO DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16825 December 22, 1961 - IN RE: CHUA PUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16950 December 22, 1961 - SIMEON T. GARCIA v. ARTURO B. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-18054 December 22, 1961 - CITY OF BUTUAN v. HON. JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19168 December 22, 1961 - ANSBERTO P. PAREDES v. ROSALIND B. ANTILLON

  • G.R. No. L-16173 December 23, 1961 - PASCUALA R. VITO v. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16992 December 23, 1961 - ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-8748 December 26, 1961 - ISABEL B. VDA. DE PADILLA v. CONCEPCION PATERNO

  • G.R. No. L-15365 December 26, 1961 - ASUNCION FRANCISCO, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18128 December 26, 1961 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16600 December 27, 1961 - ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL v. LEONORA FABRIGAR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-12996 December 28, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-14337 December 28, 1961 - AGAPITO TRIA, ET AL v. PEDRO ZABALLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14823 December 28, 1961 - ANACLETA BARILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15013 December 28, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15091 December 28, 1961 - GENOVEVA CATALAN PAULINO, ET AL v. PAZ H. PAULINO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15798 December 28, 1961 - JOSE P. TECSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16359 December 28, 1961 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-16563 December 28, 1961 - Z. E. LOTHO, INC. v. ICE & COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17066 December 28, 1961 - IN RE: CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON v. PHIL. NAT’L., BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17135 December 28, 1961 - MANILA CORDAGE CO. v. HON. MAGNO GATMAITAN, ETC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17196 December 28, 1961 - TEODORICO B. SANTOS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17237 December 28, 1961 - GREGORIA BARTOLO v. PRIMO G. MALIWANAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17535 December 28, 1961 - H. G. HENARES & SONS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17661 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL TIBERIO v. MANILA PILOTS ASSO.

  • G.R. No. L-17687 December 28, 1961 - JANUARIO L. JISON, SR. v. IGNACIO DEBUQUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17690 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL DIVINAGRACIA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MLA., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17934 December 28, 1961 - ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION v. HON. JUDGE MANUEL ESTIPONA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17937 December 28, 1961 - COMMUNITY SAWMILL CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-13254 December 30, 1961 - CALIFORNIA LINES INC. v. AMPARO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13415 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BOLLENA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14814 December 30, 1961 - EARNSHAWS DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. PEDRO GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 1-14999 December 30, 1961 - NARIC WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15436 December 30, 1961 - EUSEBIO G. DIMAANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15759 December 30, 1961 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL v. MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-15812 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RACCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15901 December 30, 1961 - ALIPIO GONZALES v. Hon. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16106 December 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PNB, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16124 December 30, 1961 - ESPERANZA FERNANDEZ v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16381 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO FAUSTO Y TOMAS

  • G.R. No. L-16486 December 30, 1961 - SHIU SHUN MAN v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-16746 December 30, 1961 - REXWELL CORP. v. DOMINADOR P. CANLAS

  • G.R. No. L-16988 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17061 December 30, 1961 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ANGEL DIMAGIBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17068 December 30, 1961 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17400 December 30, 1961 - EPIFANIA M. CUENCA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

  • G.R. No. L-17477 December 30, 1961 - POLO FIANZA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17669 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LONGENOS PEÑAFIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17883 December 30, 1961 - RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, ETC. v. AMADO DIMAYUGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-18734 December 30, 1961 - GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.