ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 21924, May 12, 2010] SING JUCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. BENJAMIN CUAYCONG, AGATON TONGOY AND MARIANO RAMOS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

  • [G.R. No. 47864 : May 12, 2010] GAUDENCIO C. HIQUIANA ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. ISMAEL L. VELOSO, ETC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174719 : May 05, 2010] HEIRS OF MARIO PACRES, NAMELY: VALENTINA VDA. DE PACRES, JOSERINO, ELENA, LEOVIGILDO, LELISA, AND LOURDES ALL SURNAMED PACRES, AND VEÑARANDA VDA. DE ABABA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF CECILIA YGOÑA, NAMELY BAUDILLO YGOÑA YAP, MARIA YAP DETUYA, JOSEFINA YAP, EGYPTIANA YAP BANZON, AND VICENTE YAP[1] AND HILARIO RAMIREZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164703 : May 04, 2010] ALLAN C. GO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "ACG EXPRESS LINER," PETITIONER, VS. MORTIMER F. CORDERO, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 164747] MORTIMER F. CORDERO, PETITIONER, VS. ALLAN C. GO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "ACG EXPRESS LINER," FELIPE M. LANDICHO AND VINCENT D. TECSON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175200 : May 04, 2010] NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD AND MATEO VILLARUZ, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY, SONIA VILLARUZ, MARGARITA VILLARUZ AND CARLOS H. VILLARUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181068 : May 04, 2010] PEOPLE'S AIR CARGO AND WAREHOUSING CO., INC, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE FRANCISCO G. MENDIOLA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY, BRANCH 115, AND CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187049 : May 04, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191550 : May 04, 2010] HENRY "JUN" DUEÑAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND ANGELITO "JETT" P. REYES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180062 : May 05, 2010] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (2ND DIVISION), BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB) HLURB NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION FIELD OFFICE, SPOUSES MARCELINO H. DE LOS REYES AND ALMA T. DE LOS REYES, AND NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 141508 : May 05, 2010] ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO AND TRADERS ROYAL BANK, PETITIONERS, VS. MANUEL LACSON, A & A MONTELIBANO HIJOS, INC., ROBERTO ABELLO, DOMINADOR AGRAVANTE, LUISA ALANO, ALEXANDER FARMS, INC., ANGELA ESTATE, INC., GUILLERMO AND DOROTHY ARANETA, LETECIA ARANETA, ARCEO RAMOS & SONS, INC., SPOUSES GEORGE & LOURDES ARGUELLES, ASOSACION DE HACENDEROS DE SILAY-SARAVIA, INC. (AHSSI), SALVADOR BAUTISTA, BJB AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORP., EUGENIO BAUTISTA, LUZ RAMOS BAYOT, CYNTHIA BENEDICTO, EVA BENEDICTO, LEOPOLDO BENEDICTO, MARY JANE BENEDICTO, FLORO BONGCO, FRANCISCO BONGCO, GERARDO BONGCO, MAXCY BORROMEO, QUIRICO CAMUS, CELSO AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORP., JULIA SO DE UYCHIAT, ARTURO UYCHIAT, LUIS UYCHIAT, ELISE UYCHIAT, CIRO LOCSIN AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, CLAMONT FARMS, INC., SAGRARIO CLAPAROLS, JAIME CLAPAROLS, CLAUDIO LOPEZ, INC., RAMON CLEMENTE, SPOUSES ROMY CONLU AND ASUCENA DIASATA, SPOUSES CORNELIO AND DOLORES CONSING, LOPE CONSING, SPOUSES RAFAEL AND JULIETA CONSOLACION, BALCONER CORDOVA, CONSOLING CORDOVA, RAFAEL COSCULLUELA, CLK AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORP., EMILIO CUAYCONG, JR., SPOUSES JOSE ROBERTO AND PATRICIO CUAYCONG, ROMELI CUAYCONG, SONYA CUAYCONG, FELIPE DALIMO-OS, UBERTA DALIMO-OS, DELARICA REALTY, DOLL AGRICULTURAL CORP., DR. ANTONIO LIZARES CO., INC., SPOUSES BONIFACIO AND URBANA DUJON, ELAR AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORP., ELCEE FARMS, INC., ESTATE OF FERNANDO ERENETA, SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND TERESITA ESTACIO, EUSEBIO INCORPORATED, FARMLAND INCORPORATED, FELICIA AGRI DEVELOPMENT CORP., FELISA AGRI CORPORATION, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND NELLY FERMIN, FERTI-ACRES AGRI-CULTURAL CORPORATION, FRANCISCO JAVIER LACSON Y HERMANOS, GAMBOA HERMANOS, INC., HONORATO GAMBOA, ESTATE OF REMEDIOS GAMBOA, ANTONIO GASTON, HEIRS OF GERARDO GASTON, ESTATE OF JOSE MA. GASTON, VICTOR MA. GASTON, JOSE MA. GASTON, JOSE MA. GOLEZ, ANTONIO GONZAGA, ERNESTO GONZAGA, JESUS GONZAGA, LUIS GONZAGA, GONZAGA REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES, INC., ROBERT GONZAGA, GREEN SOILS AGRICULTURE, INC., ESTATE OF REMEDIOS L. VDA. DE GUINTO, WARLITO USTILO, G.V. & SONS, INC., ENCARNACION HERNAEZ, SPOUSES MIGUEL AND CECILIA MAGSAYSAY, ADELINO HERNANDEZ, SPOUSES ABELARDO AND EMILY HILADO, SPOUSES ALFREDO AND TERESITA HILADO, RAMON HILADO, SPOUSES REMO AND ELSIE HINLO, SPOUSES DANILO AND NIMFA HINLO, MA. CRISTINA HOJILLA, DIOSDADO AND DIONISIO HOSALLA, JALIMONT REALTY, INC., ALBERTO AND BENJAMIN JALANDONI, DANIEL JALANDONI, JALKK CORPORATION, LEONOR JAVELLANA, ERIBERTO JESENA, PISON JESUSA AND SISTERS, JISARA AGRI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, J.H. TAMPINCO AGRICULTURAL CORP., LILIA LOPEZ DE JISON, ROBERTO JISON, JOMILLA AGRO INDUSTRIAL VENTURES, INC., BENIGNA JONOTA, JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ AGRICULTURAL CORP., JT ALUNAN AGRI. CORP., ANTONIO JUGO, SPOUSES JUANITO JUMILLA AND SANTAS DALIMO-OS, ESTATE OF CASILDA JUSTINIANI, SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND ANTONIO KANA- AN, AGUSTIN KILAYCO, SPOUSES RODOLFO AND EMMA LACSON, EMMANUEL LACSON, ESTATE OF ERNESTO LACSON, LACSON HERMANOS, INC., ESTATE OF FELIPE LACSON, MANUEL LACSON, ESTATE OF MANUELA VDA. DE LACSON, PEDRO LACSON, RAMON LACSON, SR., TERESA LACSON, RODRIGO LACSON, LACTOR ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., LIBERTINO AGUTANG, CARMEN CONSING LA'O, JOSE LA'O, JULIA LA'O, LA SALVACION AGRICULTURAL CORP., ENRIQUE LEDESMA, LEDESMA HERMANOS, INC., JESUS LEDESMA, SPOUSES JOSE MA. AND EVA LEDESMA, LEGA FARMS, CORP., ESTATE OF ANASTACIO LEGARDE, LIMJAP-ALUNAN AGRI, JESUS LIZARES, JOSE LIZARES, LUIS LIZARES, NILO LIZARES, SR. AND JR., SPOUSES JOSE AND PERLA LIZARES, ROBERTO LIZARES, ANTONIO LOCSIN, FEDERICO LOCSIN, JR., SPS. ROBERT AND JEAN MARIE WINEBURGER, ESTATE OF JOSE LOCSIN, OSCAR LOCSIN, SPOUSES JOSE MA. AND MARGARITA LOCSIN, VICENTE LOCSIN, LONOY AGRICULTURAL CORP., DOLORES LOLITA VDA. DE LOPEZ, FORTUNATO LOPEZ, NER LOPEZ, ESTATE OF NIEVES LOPEZ, POMPEYO LOPEZ, ROSENDO LOPEZ, ARTURO DE LUZURIAGA, CLAUDIO DE LUZURIAGA, CATALINA VDA. DE MAKILAN, BENITO MALAN, BASILIO MANALO, MANCY & SONS, INC., MANILAC AGRO COMMERCIAL CORP., SPOUSES MANUEL AND LUISA MANOSA, JULIO AND GENEVIEVE MAPA, MAPLE AGRI-CORP., INC., MARLAND AGRICULTURAL CORP., MARVIA & CO., INC., ANTONIO MENDOZA, BERNARDO MENDOZA, JR., SPOUSES BERNARDO AND ROSARIO MENDOZA, MALAURIE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., HEIRS OF MANUEL AND CEFERINO MONFORT, ESTATE OF MANUEL MONFORT, JR., SPOUSES EMILIO AND LINDA MONTALVO, MONTILLA SISTERS AGRICULTURAL CORP., ANTONIO MONTINOLA, NIEVES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., MAMERTO DE OCA, O. LEDESMA & CO., INC., HEIRS OF MERCEDES PABIANA, TEODULO PABIANA, ESTATE OF ROSARIO PALENZUELA, ESTATE OF ENCARNACION PANLILIO, JOSE PASCUAL, JOHNNY DE LA PENA, ANICETA PERDIGUEROS, AQUILES PERDIGUEROS, LUISA PEREZ, CRISTINA PERTIERRA, PHISON FARMS, INC., ESTATE OF JOSEFINA PICCIO, PISON-LOCSIN KAUTURAN, NICOLAS POLINARIO, PUYAS AGRO, INC., ESTATE OF LEONOR DE LA RAMA, LUIS RAMA, RAMON DE LA RAMA AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORP., REMO RAMOS, BENJAMIN RAMOS, MARIANO RAMOS, SPOUSES ENRIQUE AND TERESITA REGALADO, SPS. JOSE MA. AND AMELIA REGALADO, MANUEL REGALADO, AQUILINO REONIR, RHE & SONS AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORP., ROAM AGRICULTURAL CORP., AMANDO ROBILLO, ROMALUX AGRI FARMS, INC., LETECIA DEL ROSARIO, MANUEL DEL ROSARIO, EULALIA ROSELLO, ROSENDO H. DE LA RAMA & CO., BIBIANO SABINO, SPOUSES REINHARDT AND CORAZON SAGEMULLER, PEDRO SAJO, SPOUSES AQUILES AND MA. CRISTINA SAJO, SAN ANTONIO FARMS, JOSE MA. SANTOS, MARCELINO SAUSI, STA. CLARA ESTATE, INC., SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND JULITA SERRIOS, ANTONIO SIAN, SIASON- DITCHING AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORP., SPOUSES LUCRECIO SORIANO AND LIBERATA DALIMO- OS, IMELDA TAMPINCO, T. GENSOLI & CO., TINIHABAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., SPOUSES LINO AND THELMA TOLEDO, FRANCISCO TORIANO, GODOFREDO TORIANO, LUCRECIO TORIANO, MOISES TORIANO, TOTA, INC., DEMOCRITO TRECHO, JESUSA TRECHO, PABIO TRECHO, RUFINO TRECHO, ESTATE OF FLORENTINO TREYES, ESTATE OF VICTOR TREYES, FERNANDO TREYES, LILIA TREYES, SOCORRO TUVILLA, FRANCIS TUVILLA, SPS. JOE MARIE AND VICTORIA TUVILLA, JOSE URBANOZO, JR., ESTATE OF ROSARIO VALENCIA, EDUARDO DE VENECIA, VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC., SPOUSES EDSEL AND RITA VILLACIN, JOSEFA VILLAERA, VILLALAYA AGRO DEVELOPMENT, SERAFIN VILLANUEVA, IRVING VILLASOR, DOMINICIANO VINARTA, ROSENDO AND CANDIDO VINARTA, BERNARD YBIERNAS, ESTRELLA YBIERNAS, SPOUSES CARLOS AND EDITH YLANAN, BENITO YOUNG, SPOUSES RENATO AND VICTORIA YULO, AND JESUS YUSAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 143591 : May 05, 2010] TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E.MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DELFIN C. GONZALES, JR., AND BEN YU LIM, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA AND HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., AS JUDGE DESIGNATE OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BAGO CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163267 : May 05, 2010] TEOFILO EVANGELISTA, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172708 : May 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH AMPER Y REPASO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178087 : May 05, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. KUDOS METAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184800 : May 05, 2010] WONINA M. BONIFACIO, JOCELYN UPANO, VICENTE ORTUOSTE AND JOVENCIO PERECHE, SR., PETITIONERS,VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 149, AND JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181847 : May 05, 2010] PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY NOW PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, PETITIONER,VS. ESTATE OF JESUS S. YUJUICO, REPRESENTED BY BENEDICTO V. YUJUICO AND EDILBERTO V. YUJUICO; AND AUGUSTO Y. CARPIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187556 : May 05, 2010] PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, PETITIONER, VS. JAMES NG AND ANTHONY NG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187200 : May 05, 2010] GOLDEN ACE BUILDERS AND ARNOLD U. AZUL, PETITIONERS,VS. JOSE A. TALDE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 148892 : May 06, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. LUZ L. RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 09-9-163-MTC : May 06, 2010] RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE HON. TERESITO A. ANDOY, FORMER JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CAINTA, RIZAL.

  • [G.R. No. 170515 : May 06, 2010] MARMOSY TRADING, INC. AND VICTOR MORALES, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER ELIAS H. SALINAS AND JOSELITO HUBILLA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 180772 and 180776 : May 06, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES [LBP], PETITIONER, VS. DOMINGO AND MAMERTO SORIANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179038 : May 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH SERRANO AND ANTHONY SERRANO,ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186134 : May 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEL ROA Y VILLALUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 189402 : May 06, 2010] LIGAYA SANTOS AND ROBERT BUNDA, PETITIONERS, VS. DOMINGO I. ORDA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189602 : May 06, 2010] HEIRS OF ALFREDO ZABALA, REPRESENTED BY MENEGILDA ZABALA, ROLANDO ZABALA, MANUEL ZABALA, MARILYN ZABALA, AND ADELINA ZABALA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, VICENTE T. MANUEL AND/OR HEIRS OF VICENTE T. MANUEL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191771 : May 06, 2010] LIBERAL PARTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MANUEL A. ROXAS II AND SECRETARY GENERAL JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NACIONALISTA PARTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MANUEL B. VILLAR AND NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN FAUSTINO S. DY, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191846 : May 06, 2010] TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., BISHOP LEO A. SORIANO, FE MARIA ARRIOLA, ISAGANI R. SERRANO, AND ENGR. RODOLFO LOZADA, CORONA, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160718 : May 12, 2010] ANUNCIO C. BUSTILLO, EMILIO SUMILHIG, JR., AND AGUSTIN BILLEDO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170956 : May 12, 2010] FELISA R. FERRER, PETITIONER, DOMINGO CARGANILLO, SERGIO CARGANILLO, SOLEDAD AGUSTIN AND MARCELINA SOLIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180050 : May 12, 2010] RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VICTOR F. BERNAL, AND RENE O. MEDINA, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES; SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE HOUSE SPEAKER; GOVERNOR ROBERT ACE S. BARBERS, REPRESENTING THE MOTHER PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL NORTE; GOVERNOR GERALDINE ECLEO VILLAROMAN, REPRESENTING THE NEW PROVINCE OF DINAGAT ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178202 : May 14, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NORMAN SITCO AND RAYMUNDO BAGTAS (DECEASED), ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 47864 : May 12, 2010]   GAUDENCIO C. HIQUIANA ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. ISMAEL L. VELOSO, ETC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

     


    [G.R. No. 47864 : May 12, 2010]

    GAUDENCIO C. HIQUIANA ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. ISMAEL L. VELOSO, ETC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:

    The only question raised in this appeal is whether or not a justice of the peace has authority to grant a new trial in a criminal case.

    In the justice of the peace court of Malita, Davao, four persons were accused of theft. Two of them were convicted and two acquitted by Acting Justice of the Peace Valerio P. Reyes in a decision dated April 22, 1940, wichh wee read to the accused on May 11, 1940. On the last-mentioned date the two accused who were convicted, presented a motion for new trial, which was submitted to Justice of the Peace Ismael L. Veloso, who in the meantime had relieved Acting Justice of the Peace Reyes. Without expressly setting aside the decision, Justice of the Peace Veloso granted a new trial, saying that "the court is convinced that a review of the case is necessary," and announcing its intention to make an ocular inspection of the place of the crime. A motion for reconsideration was presented by the offended party, but it was denied by the justice of the peace, who in the same order set the case for new trial on June 22, 1940. Thereupon the offended party and the chief of police who acted as prosecutor instituted the present certiorari proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Davao to annul the order of the respondent justice of the peace granting the motion for new trial. The Court of First Instance (Judge Fernando Hernandez presiding) granted the writ prayed for and ordered the justice of the peace to abstain from holding a new trial in said criminal case, instructing him to elevate the case to the Court of First Instance as if it had been appealed by the accused. From that decision the respondent justice of the peace appealed to this Court.

    The reasoning of the court below may be summarized as follows: The granting of a new trial is practically a revision of the case, which pertains to the appellate court and not to the respondent justice of the peace. There is no provision in General Orders No. 58 authorizing justices of the peace to grant a new trial in criminal cases. Neither is there any provision in Rule 119 of the new Rules of Court for such authorization. It is only in civil cases that a justice of the peace may grant a new trial, under the authority of Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya (42 Phil., 557). To authorize a justice of the peace to grant a new trial would constitute a bad precedent because it would merely delay the proceedings, inasmuch, as the accused can appeal to the Court of First Instance, where a trial de novo is held. A justice of the peace, according to the trial court, may grant a motion for reconsideration but not a new trial.

    We think the opinion of the court below is neither sound nor logical. In the Veluz case (supra) this Court admitted "that there is no statutory provision granting the justice of the peace authority to consider a motion for a new trial," but held nevertheless that "it does not require statutory authority for a court to correct its errors or mistakes during the time which if has control over its decisions," citing paragraph 7 of section 11 of Act No. 190, which provides that the court may, as one of its incidental powers, "amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice." In other words the authority to grant a motion for reconsideration or a new trial is implied from the inherent power of the court to correct its own error before its decision becomes final; and what is implied need not be expressed. Such authority is clearly deduced by implication from the provision of section 6 of Rule 119 of the new Rules of Court, referring to appeals from judgments of the justice of the peace or municipal court in criminal cases, which says that "the period of appeal shall be interrupted from the date a motion for new trial is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the defendant or his attorney."

    Resolving the question in the affirmative, we reverse the decision appealed from, with costs.

    Yulo, C. J., Paras and Bocobo, JJ., concur.





    DISSENTING

    MORAN, J.,

    On a case of theft instituted in the justice of the peace court of Malita, Davao, Acting Justice of the Peace Valerio P. Reyes, after due trial, rendered judgment which was read to the four accused on May 11, 1940. Two of the accused who were convicted presented, on the same day, a motion for new trial before Justice of the Peace Ismael L. Veloso, who had then relieved Acting Justice of the Peace Reyes. Without vacating the judgment rendered by his predecessor, and without specifying any mistake found to have been committed and which called for correction. Justice of the Peace Veloso declared that "a review is necessary and in order to be in a position to render judgment accordingly," ordered the parties to introduce anew all the evidence already presented before Justice of the Peace Reyes, and announced his intention for an ocular inspection of the place of the crime thereafter. The Court of First Instance of Davao, before which the legal propriety of this procedure was challenged, held that "el juez recurrido al die tar la orden de nueva vista y senalar de nuevo a vista la causa para la recepcion de las mismas pruebas ya aportadas por las partes, ha obrado sin competencia ni jurisdiccion." This certiorari proceding aims to test the correctness of such ruling.

    Justice of the peace courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such they can exercise no powers which are not expressly granted them by law (Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring, 12 Phil., 384; Tuason vs. Crossfield, 30 Phil., 543; Africa vs. Gronke, 34 Phil., 50; Romy vs. Roxas, 40 Off. Gaz.. 8th Sup., p. 240). It has been held that "inferior courts have no authority to grant new trials except such as is given by the statutes. It follows that they may grant new trials only upon the grounds and in the manner authorized by the statutes." (Italics mine—46 C. J., p. 60.) Thus, when a justice of the peace court is given the power to grant a new trial on several grounds, it cannot grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, if such ground is not one of those expressly mentioned by law. (De Lemos vs. Cohen, 28 Mich., 579; 59 N. Y. S., 498.)

    That in the Philippines a justice of the peace may, under the new Rules of Court, grant a new trial, is conceded (Rule 119, sec. 6), but only on the ground of actual mistake shown to have been committed and which calls for correction (Vetuz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, 42 Phil., 657). In the present case, upon what ground has the new trial been granted by the respondent justice of the peace? In the order for new trial, he specifies no actual mistake or irregularity calling for correction, but simply states that "a review is necessary" without indicating the reasons therefor, and "in order to be in a position to render judgment accordingly," he ordered the presentation of all the evidence already adduced before the other justice of the peace. It is thus clear that the purpose of the retrial is to enable the respondent justice of the peace to make his own appraisal of the case, to find out whether in the first trial any mistakes had been committed requiring the rendition of a new and different judgment. Narrowed to more concise terms, tho question is whether a justice of the peace may grant a new trial not on the ground of actual mistakes calling for correction, but on the ground of possible mistakes he has yet to discover. A desire to search for error is not a ground for new trial under the law. The mistake for which the law authorizes a new trial is not merely a possible, but an actual, mistake shown to have been committed. If possibilities of error constitute sufficient grounds, then new trials will have to be granted ad infinitum because such possibilities are always present in any kind of judicial inquiry.

    What, in truth, the respondent justice of the peace attempted to do in not to hold a new trial as a means for correction, but to make a review in search for error since, in the motion for new trial, he was told that certain mistakes had been committed in the first trial, without ascertaining what such mistakes were, he wanted to hold the second trial for no other purpose than to test the correctness of the judgment rendered by the other justice of the peace. This is a true procedure for review which is not expressly authorized by law in a justice of the peace court, it being the appellate function of the Court of First Instance.

    It may be argued that the second trial may be deemed proper since it was the only means by which the respondent justice of the peace could ascertain the existence of the mistakes attributed to the first justice of the peace. To this the answer is that the law denies the respondent justice of the peace authority to inquire as to mistakes committed by another justice of the peace if his only means to that effect is a new trial. The reason is, as I have stated before, that a justice of the peace is not expressly authorized by law to grant a new trial merely for the purpose of making such inquiry. This function, I repeat, belongs to the Court of First Instance by appeal. Indeed, there is authority to the effect that "one justice has no power to set aside an order made by another justice." (35 C. J., 679; In re National Trint Co., 4 N. Y. Civ. Froc., 203; Com. vs. City Prison, 24 Pa. Dist, 175.) And I think Mr. Justice Street was more than right, when, upon a similar question, he said: "If the provisions relative to proceedings in the courts of the justice of the peace be carefully examined, it will be found that those provisions are clearly designed for the accomplishment of a speedy trial in the inferior court and a quick removal to the Court of First Instance when the losing party deems himself aggrieved. Even under the provisions contained in sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing for relief from judgments obtained by fraud, accident or mistake, the law does not provide for a new trial, or for any trial, in the court of the justice of the peace, but . . . and this is remarkable . . . directs that the ease be removed at once to the Court of First Instance for trial there." (Colegio de San Jose vs. Sison, 56 Phil., 344, 350-351.)

    The action taken by the respondent justice of the peace is not only unauthorized by law but it is unjust, vexatious to the parties. Unjust, because there is no justification in principle for allowing a justice of the peace to review and test the correctness of the judgment rendered by another justice of the peace, both justices having the same qualifications and belonging to the same class in the judiciary. The degree of probability of error is the same for both, aside from the circumstance that a second trial is not always a good means for review as the witnesses would not probably testify in exactly the same manner as they did in the first trial. Vexatious, because a second trial compels the parties to the trouble and expense of a trial which is the same as the first already had without any assurance of advantage to them or benefit to the interest of justice, there being no probability that the second judgment would be better than the first. As the petitioner claims, he "has to bear the hardship of re-appearing with all his witnesses at the poblacion of Malita, Davao, hiking one whole day through mountains and forests; or depend upon the irregular transportation of the launches at sea, oftentimes via the city of Davao." And if after the second trial in the justice of the peace court an appeal is taken by the losing party to the Court of First Instance, then there will be a third trial of the case; and if after the third trial, another Judge of First Instance wishes to review by means of new trial the judgment rendered by the former, a fourth trial will follow, and so on. This is the doctrine laid down by the majority pursued to its ultimate consequences.

    Lastly, the majority rule permits a trifling with the seriousness of judicial proceedings and is offensive to the spirit of the new Rules of Court. Here, there had been a regular trial where both parties had full opportunity to present their evidence and a judgment was rendered in the course of a regular procedure. To hold a second trial for no other reason than the possibility of mistakes in the former proceedings, is to permit gambling with the administration of the law, to the detriment of the dignity of courts of justice. In the past, there had been instances of petty cases coming from justice of the peace courts and which had lasted for years before they were finally disposed of because of delays in our procedure. This Court in the new Rules has exerted every effort to eliminate the sources of such delays with a view to assisting the parties "in obtaining just, speedy and in-expensive determination of every action and proceeding." It is unfortunate, however, that the ruling laid down by the majority frustrates this most important aim of the new Rules of Court.

    [G.R. No. 47864 : May 12, 2010]   GAUDENCIO C. HIQUIANA ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. ISMAEL L. VELOSO, ETC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED