Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > January 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12487 January 30, 1962 - CASTOR CUSTODIO v. PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL, ETC., ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12487. January 30, 1962.]

CASTOR CUSTODIO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JUDGE PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL, ETC., ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

Braganza & Castillo and Pacifico M. Braganza for Petitioner-Appellant.

Andres L. Vera for Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; AMENDMENT OF PLEADING ORDERED BY COURT; DISMISSAL OF CASE FOR FAILURE TO AMEND. — When the trial Court motu propio requires a petitioner to amend his petition in order to include other parties thereto pursuant to section 5 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, and petitioner files a manifestation that the desired inclusion of the parties is not necessary which explanation is not satisfactory to the Court and the latter dismisses the petition. Held: That the step taken by the court is somewhat harsh in dismissing the case outright without giving petitioners an opportunity to amend the petition as desired by it.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR; COMMITMENT PENDING PERFECTION OF APPEAL NOT SERVICE OF SENTENCE; RECOMMITMENT MAY BE SUBJECT OF CERTIORARI. — When an accused after promulgation of the decision was merely committed to jail pending the perfection of his appeal and thereafter released upon the filing of the corresponding bond, an order for his recommitment upon the belief that he already begun serving his sentence may be a seasonable subject of a writ of certiorari.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Castor Custodio and three others were accused of malicious mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of Mabini, Pangasinan, upon the complaint filed by Ladislava Balgua. After trial they were all convicted, Castor Custodio having been sentenced to suffer 20 days of arresto menor, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P80.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The sentence was promulgated on June 20, 1955 on which date the accused, including Castor, were committed to the municipal jail. On June 22, 1955, Castor Custodio gave notice of his intention to appeal and was at the same time ordered released provisionally after filing the corresponding appeal bond. On June 24, 1955, counsel for the complainant filed a motion to lift the order of release with the justice of the peace court alleging that he could no longer be released inasmuch as he had already begun serving his sentence since June 20, 1955 for which reason his recommitment should be ordered so that he may serve the balance of his sentence. Finding the motion well-taken, the justice of the peace set aside his previous order of release and ordered the recommitment of Castor Custodio in an order issued on July 5, 1955. His order was given to the chief of police in order that it may be carried out, but before it could be implemented Castor Custodio lost no time in filing a petition for certiorari with injunction before the court of first instance against the justice of the peace and the chief of police praying that said justice of the peace be enjoined to carry out his aforesaid order it having been issued in excess of his jurisdiction.

Finding that the petition has on its face a prima facie case for the issuance of the preliminary injunction prayed for, the court of first instance granted the same upon the filing by petitioner of a bond in the amount of P200.00. Accordingly, on July 18, 1955, the clerk of court issued the requisite writ.

On August 5, 1955, respondents filed their answer stating that the order lifting the order of release and ordering the recommitment of petitioner was issued in accordance with law it appearing that said petitioner had already begun serving his sentence since June 20, 1955, and so he could no longer appeal, and the next step is to serve the balance of his sentence as stated in the original decision.

On September 17, 1956, the court issued an order requiring petitioner to include as parties-respondents the complainants or persons interested in sustaining the action of respondent justice of the peace pursuant to Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, giving petitioner 5 days from receipt of the order within which to make the necessary amendment of his petition.

On October 1, 1956, petitioner filed a written "manifestation" by way of answer stating that in his opinion the only persons who should be included as respondents in the certiorari case were the justice of the peace who issued the order of recommitment and the chief of police who was required to implement it, aside from the fact that said chief of police was the one who signed the complaint which initiated the criminal case against him. On October 11, 1956, finding that petitioner has failed to comply with its order, and the written manifestation submitted by him was not well-founded, the court dismissed the case without costs. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, and when the same was denied, he interposed the present appeal.

Appellant contends that the inclusion of the complainants as respondents in the certiorari case as required by the lower court is not necessary considering that the ones who were responsible for the issuance and implementation of the order of recommitment the validity of which is disputed were the justice of the peace and the chief of police of Mabini, Pangasinan, who were made the only respondents in said case, aside from the fact that the case wherein the order was issued being criminal in nature the real party in interest, if any, is the people who is under the control of the public prosecutor. Moreover, even granting arguendo that the lower court was correct in its theory that the complainants should be included as co-respondents because they are the parties who under the rules should sustain and defend the stand of the justice of the peace, the trial court should not have dismissed the case outright but should have given petitioner an opportunity to amend his petition.

We agree to this view. When the trial court motu proprio required petitioner to amend his petition in order to include the complainants as respondents in the belief that they are the ones most interested in sustaining the action of the justice of the peace pursuant to Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, appellant submitted a written manifestation expressing the view that the required amendment was not necessary because in his opinion the justice of the peace and the chief of police were the only parties in interest because they are the ones who caused the order in question to be issued and implemented. Appellant was even of the impression that the chief of police was the one who signed the complaint which gave rise to the case of malicious mischief which resulted in his conviction. This view may not be correct, even if it may be contended that in a criminal case the real party in interest is the people who is under the control and direction of the government prosecutor; nevertheless, the trial court was somewhat harsh in dismissing the case outright without giving appellant an opportunity to amend the petition as desired by it.

It should be observed that the claim of appellant in the certiorari case is not without any basis it appearing that his recommitment was ordered upon the belief: that he already begun serving his sentence when the truth is that he was merely committed to jail pending the perfection of his appeal. If this certiorari case should be dismissed on a mere technicality his right to appeal would be lost and his damage would be irreparable. Justice demands that he be given relief.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings giving appellant 5 days from receipt of this decision within which to amend his petition as desired by said court. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepción, 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






January-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19313 January 19, 1962 - DOMINADOR R. AYTONA v. ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17076 January 29, 1962 - AUGUSTO G. GAMBOA v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17078 January 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FRANCISCO BUENASEDA

  • G.R. No. L-17079 January 29, 1962 - BRAULIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11037 January 30, 1962 - EDGARDO CARIAGA, ET AL. v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17248 January 29, 1962 - BEATRIZ GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12141 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL LASALA

  • G.R. No. L-12487 January 30, 1962 - CASTOR CUSTODIO v. PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14662 January 30, 1962 - GENOVEVA BELTRAN, ET AL. v. CORAZON AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14715 January 30, 1962 - MARCELA JULIAN, ET AL. v. MARTA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14913 January 30, 1962 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. ZOILO HILARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15047 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DIONISIO PALARAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15539 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ADOLFO MAGDANGAL

  • G.R. No. L-15964 January 30, 1962 - EZEQUIEL S. CONSULTA v. NICASlO YATCO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15974 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL SILVA

  • G.R. No. L-16020 January 30, 1962 - VICENTE FRAGANTE v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-16667 January 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16693-4-5 January 30, 1962 - GODOFREDO I. MOSUELA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16796 January 30, 1962 - ALEJANDRO ABAO, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16836 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO SANVICTORES

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16959 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DONATA MONTEMAYOR v. EDUARDO D. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16970 January 30, 1962 - ELOY B. BELLO v. VALENTIN A. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-17384 January 30, 1962 - NESTORA RIGOR VDA. DE QUIAMBAO, ET AL. v. MANILA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17398 January 30, 1962 - ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL. v. SANTOS VILLAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17689 January 30, 1962 - JOSE BELEY v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17936 January 30, 1962 - CITY OF LEGASPI v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12396 January 31, 1962 - KER & COMPANY, LTD. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12960 January 31, 1962 - CIRILO VENTURA, ET AL. v. ANASTACIA BAYSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12996 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-13374 January 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO BAUTISTA v. GERARDO MURILLO

  • G.R. No. L-13439 January 31, 1962 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13656 January 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALBERTO D. BENIPAYO

  • G.R. No. L-13924 January 31, 1962 - JACOBO DIVINO v. RAMONA FABIE DE MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14106 January 31, 1962 - EMILIANA EMPAMANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-14834 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14891 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FILADELFO S. ROJAS

  • G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA

  • G.R. Nos. L-15447-48 January 31, 1962 - ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15976 January 31, 1962 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. BENJAMIN V. LIMBAGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-16386 January 31, 1962 - RAMON VELEZ v. GABINO SAAVEDRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16460 January 31, 1962 - ADELA SILPAO v. LOPE PAGLOMOTAN

  • G.R. No. L-16474 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16480 January 31, 1962 - ARTEMIO KATIGBAK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16513 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ ARGUELLES VDA. DE LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16550 January 31, 1962 - ALLEN McCONN v. PAUL HARAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16558 January 31, 1962 - CASIANO MAGISTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16629 January 31, 1962 - SOUTHERN LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16661 January 31, 1962 - CLARA DILUANGCO PALANCA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16662 January 31, 1962 - VET BROS. & CO., INC. v. JOSE S. MOVIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16668 and L-16669 January 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ETC. v. BIENVENIDO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-16683 January 31, 1962 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CEBU v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. Nos. L-16696 and L-16702 January 31, 1962 - LUCIANO ESCOSURA, ET AL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16714 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXENCIO MORADO

  • G.R. No. L-16741 January 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA Q. DE ABRAHAM, ET AL. v. PRISCILLA RECTO- KASTEN

  • G.R. No. L-16809 January 31, 1962 - UNION GARMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16872 January 31, 1962 - THEODORE LEWIN v. DEPORTATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16897 January 31, 1962 - GREGORIO M. MATAS v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16926 January 31, 1962 - FELIPE TANCHOCO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17240 January 31, 1962 - CLEMENCIA B. VDA. DE VILLONGCO, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17250 January 31, 1962 - JOSE DE LUNA GONZALES, ET AL. v. GENEROSA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17335 January 31, 1962 - RAUL H. TANPINCO v. ANTONIO T. LOZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17436 January 31, 1962 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17451 January 31, 1962 - DOMINADOR S. ASIS v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17533 January 31, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEER’S SYNDICATE, INC. v. FLORA S. MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17564 January 31, 1962 - ARTURO DE SANTOS, ET AL. v. PETRONILO ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17746 and L-17807 January 31, 1962 - ALEJANDRO FACUNDO v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19260 January 31, 1962 - DELFIN ALBANO v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.