Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > October 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2934 October 26, 1906 - JUAN MOLINA v. LA ELECTRICISTA

006 Phil 519:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2934. October 26, 1906. ]

JUAN MOLINA, administrator of the estate of Anastasio Mora, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LA ELECTRICISTA, Defendant-Appellee.

W. L. Wright, for Appellant.

Jose R. Lahesa, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; DEMURRER; COMPLAINT. — When a demurrer to any pleading is sustained, the court shall give to the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, fixing a reasonable time for this purpose, instead of dismissing the action. (Sec. 101, Code of Civil Procedure.)


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The plaintiff in this case alleges that he is the administrator of the estate of Anastasio Mora. In his capacity as such he brought this action to recover from the defendant the sum of 6,000 pesos as damages for the death of the said Mora, who he claims was killed through the fault and negligence of the said defendant. The latter demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not set out facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On the 24th of July, 1905, the court made an order sustaining the demurrer and directing that the case be dismissed. On the 28th of the said month of July the plaintiff excepted to this ruling of the court and at the same time asked that it be modified so as to permit him to amend his complaint, which petition he reiterated on the 17th of August, attaching thereto an amended complaint. This motion of the plaintiff was overruled on the 26th of August. He thereupon excepted to the order of the court overruling said motion and gave notice of his intention to prosecute a bill of exceptions, which he subsequently presented within the time prescribed by law.

Section 101 of the Code Procedure in Civil Actions provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When a demurrer to any pleading is sustained, the party whose pleading in thus adjudged defective may amend his pleading within a time to be fixed by the court, with or without terms, as to the court shall seem just . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the above-quoted provision when the demurrer in this case was sustained the court should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, fixing a reasonable time for this purpose instead of dismissing the action, because the right of the plaintiff to amend his complaint in such cases is expressly recognized by the provisions of the above section of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that "the party whose pleading is thus adjudged defective may amend his pleading . . . ." The ruling of the court below upon this point was obviously erroneous.

The question as to whether the demurrer was properly or improperly sustained it is not necessary for us to decide, because although the plaintiff excepted to the order of the 24th of July 1905, sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, still we think he abandoned his exception when he amend his complaint. This petition, in our judgment, necessarily implied that the plaintiff had no objection to the demurrer being sustained. If the court below had granted plaintiff’s petition allowing him to amend his complaint, the case would have not been sent to this court on appeal, this being all that the said plaintiff apparently wished to do after the demurrer had been sustained. In such case he would have obtained what he sought by his motion, and consequently there would have been ground for his appeal. The order of the court below made and entered on the 26th of August, 1905, is hereby reversed and the plaintiff is allowed five days within which to amend his complaint if he so desires. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, 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






October-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2886 October 2, 1906 - VALENTIN REYES v. JUANA TANCHIATCO

    006 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2939 October 2, 1906 - JAIME SERRA v. GO-HUNA

    006 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 3038 October 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CENON ANGELES

    006 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 2875 October 3, 1906 - ELENA JAVIER v. CEFERINO SUICO

    006 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 2977 October 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JERRY CLAUCK

    006 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 2919 October 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LUCAS KANLEON

    006 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 3242 October 17, 1906 - DANIEL TANCHOCO v. SIMPLICIO SUAREZ

    006 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 2812 October 18, 1906 - LONGINOS JAVIER v. SEGUNDO JAVIER

    006 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2947 October 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE RUIZ

    006 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2888 October 23, 1906 - HUNG-MAN-YOC v. KIENG-CHIONG-SENG

    006 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 2900 October 23, 1906 - MAXIMO CORTES v. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB

    006 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2589 October 24, 1906 - MARIANO DEVESA v. ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO

    006 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 2999 October 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO VILLOS

    006 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 1382 October 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. QUE BING

    006 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 2278 October 26, 1906 - SUA TICO v. CARLOS GEMORA

    006 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 2902 October 26, 1906 - NATALIA CATINDIG v. FRANCISCO CATINDIG

    006 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 2934 October 26, 1906 - JUAN MOLINA v. LA ELECTRICISTA

    006 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 3547 October 26, 1906 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    006 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 1664 October 27, 1906 - ESTEBAN ARABES v. DIEGO URIAN

    006 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 2776 October 27, 1906 - BRUNO REMENTERIA v. LOPE DE LARA

    006 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 2685 October 29, 1906 - C. M. COTHERMAN v. CU PONGCO

    006 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 2944 October 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO BACARRISAS

    006 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 3291 October 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO TALBANOS

    006 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2024 October 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. W. W. RICHARDS

    006 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2486 October 30, 1906 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. LAMBERTO AVELLANO

    006 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2822 October 30, 1906 - VALENTIN SANTOS v. LEONIZA YTURRALDE

    006 Phil 554