Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > December 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

009 Phil 381:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3128. December 19, 1907 1 . ]

UN PAK LEUNG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN NIGORRA, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.

F. Dominguez, for appellant Juan Nigorra.

Haussermann, Cohn and Williams, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; REVIEW. — When the appellant desires the Supreme Court to review the evidence adduced at the trial, it is his duty to make the motion for a new trial in the lower court and then bring into the appellate court all evidence in the case and not merely a part of it. (Ferrer v. Abejuela, 9 Phil. Rep., 324.)

2. CONTRACT; JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. — Parties to a contract are not severally liable for the obligation thereby created, in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. (Art. 1137, Civil Code.)


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This action was originally commenced in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila for the purpose of recovering of the defendants the sum of P443.35. Upon a consideration of the facts adduced during the trial of said cause in the court of the justice of the peace, the justice of the peace rendered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P443.35, with interest from the 23d day of March, 1905, and the costs. From this decision of the justice of the peace the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance and the case was tried de novo in said court.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the judge of the Court of First Instance on the 2d day of December, 1905, found that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of P443.35, and rendered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff for the said sum, including the said costs incurred in the Court of First Instance. From this decision of the Court of First Instance the defendant, Juan Nigorra, only, appealed to this court, after having made a motion for a new trial in the lower court, and made six assignments of error in this court. All of these assignments of error, except the sixth, relate to the sufficiency of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause in the lower court.

Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant Juan Nigorra made a motion for a new trial in the Court of First Instance, for the purpose evidently of enabling this court to examine the evidence adduced during the trial, he has failed to bring to this court all of the evidence, a part of the evidence only being brought here. We therefore refuse to examine part of the evidence only, for the purpose of ascertaining what facts were presented to the lower court. We must confine ourselves to the facts stated in the complaint and answer presented in the lower court, together with the facts found in the decision of the court, for the purpose of ascertaining what the facts were. (Ferrer v. Abejuela.) 1 If parties desire this court to examine the evidence adduced in causes in the lower courts they must make a motion for a new trial, basing the same upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of facts of the lower court, and then they must bring all of such evidence to this court.

The sixth assignment of error made by the appellant, Juan Nigorra, is "that the lower court committed an error in decreeing that both of the defendants "como razon social," and each of them were individually liable for the payment of the amount claimed by the plaintiff." The lower court found as a fact from the proof adduced during the trial of the cause that the defendants were partners in the management of the bakery La Isleña and from this finding of facts held that the defendants were jointly and individually liable for the payment of the sum claimed by the plaintiff. This finding of fact must be accepted by us inasmuch as the proof is not here.

The lower court made no finding of fact which in any way shows that the defendants were individually liable by virtue of any agreement, or contract, between the defendants and the plaintiff, whereby they became jointly and individually liable. Upon the finding of facts of the lower court the defendants were liable only for their respective share of said obligation. Article 1137 of the Civil Code provides that parties to a contract are not severally liable for the obligation created thereby in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. Said article 1137 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The concurrence of two or more creditors, or of two or more debtors in a single obligation, does not imply that each one of the former has a right to ask, nor that each one of the latter is bound to comply in full with the things which are the object of the same. This shall only take place when the obligation determines it expressly, being constituted as a joint obligation."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the absence of a finding of facts therefore that the defendants made themselves individually liable for the debt incurred, they are each liable for one-half of said obligation.

For these reasons the judgment of the lower court, holding that the appellant was individually liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of the obligation incurred by the defendants, is hereby modified as to this appellant and it is hereby ordered that a judgment be rendered against the appellant, Juan Nigorra, for one-half of the sum claimed by the plaintiff, together with one-half the costs incurred in the court of the justice of the peace, the Court of First Instance, as well as this court, and interest upon said amount at the rate of 6 percent from the 23d day of March, 1905. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rehearing, page 486, post.

1. Page 324, supra.




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-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4338 December 2, 1907 - ALFRED B. JONES v. J. E. HARDING

    009 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3738 December 3, 1907 - JOSE ACOSTA v. ANDRES DOMINGO

    009 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-3190 December 4, 1907 - ASUNCION ALBERT Y MAYORALGO, ET AL v. MARTINIANO PUNSALAN

    009 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-3935 December 4, 1907 - UY PIAOCO v. SERGIO OSMENA

    009 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-3378 December 5, 1907 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    009 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-3713 December 5, 1907 - UNION FARMACEUTICA FILIPINA v. FRANCISCO ICASIANO

    009 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    009 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-3847 December 7, 1907 - LEOPOLDO FERRER v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    009 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-3704 December 12, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ

    009 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-3895 December 14, 1907 - In the matter of A. K. JONES

    009 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3899 December 16, 1907 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS

    009 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-3933 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO SAN ANDRES

    009 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-3959 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO PARAS

    009 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-3972 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO GUANZON

    009 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3596 December 17, 1907 - LUCHSINGER & CO. v. CORNELIO MELLIZA

    009 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3688 December 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN HAZLEY

    009 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-3891 December 19, 1907 - ELENA MORENTE v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-3505 December 20, 1907 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. GAUDENCIO TABOTABO

    009 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. L-3980 December 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO GOROSPE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-4061 December 20, 1907 - MANUEL TAGUINOT v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAY

    009 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-3483 December 21, 1907 - BENITO MOJICA v. JUANA FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-3788 December 21, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. JULIA TUASON

    009 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3936 December 21, 1907 - JOSE VILLEGAS v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    009 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3991 December 21, 1907 - SIMEON ROQUE v. RUFINO NAVARRO

    009 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-3992 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENO MENDEZ

    009 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-4086 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO BRELLO

    009 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-4201 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESPIRIDION ROTA

    009 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-3570 December 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO C. GARCIA

    009 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-3948 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3969 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO SANTILLAN

    009 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-3212 December 28, 1907 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    009 Phil 450