Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > September 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15092 September 29, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15092. September 29, 1962.]

ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., Defendants-Appellee.


R E S O L U T I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


The appellee Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company has filed two motions to reconsider, urging that our decision be set aside to gibe way for the consideration of the issues of fact raised in its original answer to appellant’s complaints, and for their resolution either by the court a quo or by the Court of Appeals.

We can not see our way clear to granting the motions, taking into account that the court of first instance, in its appealed decision dismissing the complaint, limited itself exclusively to the questions of law posited by the defendant Company, now appellee, and ignored all its other defenses based on questions of fact. The appellee Company, in turn, even when made aware of the intention of the plaintiffs to appeal to this Court, did not ask the court below to make any findings on the issues of fact raised by its other defenses. Neither has it called our attention, during the period of more than two years that the appeal has been pending in this Court, to the necessity of considering such factual defenses. Indeed, appellee’s brief has been limited to argue the issue of law that was raised by it and which was upheld by the court of origin.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellee had more than ample opportunity to point out to the Court that the resolution of the issues of law would not bar its other defenses. Even more, as appellee, it could have discussed, under the Court’s doctrines, its other defenses in its brief, by way of support of the dismissal made by the court of first instance. As pointed out in several decisions, an appellee, who is not an appellant, may even assign errors in his brief where his purpose is only to maintain the judgment on other grounds, although not to have the judgment modified or reversed. 1 In fact, appellee could have asked this Court to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for resolution of the issues of fact.

Appellee has taken none of these various options. Instead, it submitted the case for decision exclusively on the issue of law, and has called attention to the issues of fact only when the decision went against it. Now it wants the case remanded for another trial, another decision, and in all probability, another appeal, with all the attendant delays.

Plainly, the course suggested can not be countenanced. The delay in the administration of justice and the clogging of court dockets have been a constant source of complaints in our country, and the policy of this court has ever been to discourage piecemeal appeals. Thus, this Court has consistently ruled that a party defendant who demurs to the evidence presented by the plaintiff, and obtains a dismissal on the basis of its insufficiency, should not, in case that the dismissal is reversed on appeal, be allowed to submit evidence in its own behalf. As ruled in Moody, Aronson & Company v. Hotel Bilbao, 50 Phil. 198 (followed in many subsequent cases),

"The efforts of the courts should be concentrated on providing rules which will avoid lengthy and expensive litigation, and which will assist in the speedy disposition of cases." 2

Again, by resolution of 23 March 1956, this Court refused to entertain a claim that a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was void for lack of jurisdiction over the amount in issue, ruling that a party who allows an appeal to be considered and decided by the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have waived so much of its claim as is in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in order to discourage the practice of accepting a decision, if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse. 3

Consistently with these precedents, the appellee in the case at bar, having submitted the case on its legal issue without adverting to its factual defenses until the case was decided, despite ample opportunity to do so, must be regarded as having waived all such defenses. Its inaction, in fact, is evidence of its intention to so waive.

Finally, the appellee Company contends that our judgment is illegal in that the precise amount of sugar to which appellants are entitled is not determined. This argument is untenable, for the court has fixed the additional percentages of sugar that under the contract appellants ought to have received in each of the crop years specified in the decision, so that the exact amount of piculs due becomes a matter of arithmetical computation on the basis of the production records for each year. This determination, like that of the interest on the market value of the sugar improperly withheld by the milling Company, to run from the time the various quantities of sugar should have been delivered, can be ascertained by the court of origin in supplementary proceedings in aid of execution under Rule 34, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court (Buenaventura v. Fernan, G.R. No. L-14282, December 29, 1959; Deliva v. Surtida, 48 O.G. (10) 4339; Villones v. Nable, 85 Phil. 43). Such supplementary proceedings in aid of execution are neither a new trial nor a rehearing of the original case (Villones v. Nable, ante).

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are denied.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Regala and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. See cases collected in I Moran Comments on the Rules of Court p. 712, footnotes 19 and 20.

2. see Arroyo v. Azur, 76 Phil. 499; Demetrio v. Lopez, 50 Phil. 45; Abriol v. Homeres, 84 Phil. 531.

3. L-10096, Tyson Tan v. Filipinas Cia Seguros.




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






September-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19748 September 13, 1962 - PAULINO J. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 September 24, 1962 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14591 September 26, 1962 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE P. DANS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17165 September 26, 1962 - EMMA R. GENIZA, ET AL. v. HENRY SY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17683 September 26, 1962 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-13827 September 28, 1962 - BENJAMIN MASANGCAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17163 September 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18185 September 28, 1962 - VALLESON, INC. v. BESSIE C. TIBURCIO

  • G.R. No. L-19605 September 28, 1962 - AUGUSTO R. VILLAROSA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON

  • A.C. No. 219 September 29, 1962 - CASIANO U. LAPUT v. FRANCISCO E. F. REMOTIGUE, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 434 September 29, 1962 - CASIANO U. LAPUT v. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE

  • G.R. No. L-13289 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO RAFANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13967 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO SOLAÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14495 September 29, 1962 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14634 September 29, 1962 - ARTURO NIETO v. BARTOLOME QUINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14875 September 29, 1962 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 September 29, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15819 September 29, 1962 - IN RE: WANG I FU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15836 September 29, 1962 - APOLINARIO DEE, ET AL. v. IGOR A. MASLOFF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16033 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO ORTEZA

  • G.R. No. L-16227 September 29, 1962 - PILAR GREGORIO, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16298 September 29, 1962 - ESTEBAN CUAJAO v. CHUA LO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16481 September 29, 1962 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. SANTIAGO PEPITO

  • G.R. No. L-16742 September 29, 1962 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. MANUEL H. JAVELONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16771 September 29, 1962 - VICENTE ALDABA, ET AL. v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16919-20 September 29, 1962 - RUFINO GALLARDO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY]

  • G.R. No. L-17193 September 29, 1962 - MAXIMO MORALES v. MARIA BIAGTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17197 September 29, 1962 - MANUEL S. GALVEZ, ET AL. v. VALENTINA TAGLE VDA. DE KANGLEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17233 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. TABANAO

  • G.R. No. L-17459 September 29, 1962 - DIWATA VARGAS v. SALVADOR LANGCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17730 September 29, 1962 - F. H. STEVENS & CO., INC. v. NORDDEUSCHER LLOYD

  • G.R. No. L-17734 September 29, 1962 - ANTONIO TORRIJOS v. GUILLERMO CRISOLOGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17786 September 29, 1962 - CAMILO P. CABILI, ET AL. v. MARIANO LL. BADELLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17834 September 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATRICIO C. CENIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17870 September 29, 1962 - MINDANAO BUS COMPANY v. CITY ASSESSOR & TREASURER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17892 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE REPATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17985 September 29, 1962 - GIL SAN DIEGO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18003 September 29, 1962 - ROSARIO GREY VDA. DE ALBAR, ET AL. v. JOSEFA FABIE DE CARANDANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18077 September 29, 1962 - RODRlGO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. SOCORRO A. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-18157 September 29, 1962 - DOLORES EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF PAOMBONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18217 September 29, 1962 - FINDLAY MILLAR TIMBER COMPANY v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18315 September 29, 1962 - ERNESTO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18453 September 29, 1962 - CAMPOS RUEDA CORPORATION v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18459 September 29, 1962 - NARCEO SAMBRANO, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.