Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > March 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

022 Phil 292:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7027. March 20, 1912. ]

GEORGE E. WORCESTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES, LTD., Defendant-Appellant.

Thos. D. Aitken, for Appellant.

W. A. Kincaid and Thos. L. Hartigan, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. NEW TRIAL; NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. — A new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence granted on the conditions set out in the opinion, it appearing that appellant was not wholly without fault in his failure to procure the newly discovered evidence for submission in the court below, but that under all the circumstances of the case his failure so to do should not be held to be inexcusable negligence on his part.

2. ID.; ID. — New trial granted upon payment by the defendant and appellant of all costs accrued in both instances up to the date of the entry of judgment in this court, and upon the further condition that the plaintiff will be permitted, if he elects to do so, to dismiss his complaint at any time within thirty days from the return of the record to the court below, without further special condemnation of costs.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


After the entry of judgment in the court below, and pending the submission of the case to this court on the bill of exceptions, a motion was submitted by the defendant-appellant for a new trial, based on the discovery of new evidence. This new evidence consists, substantially, of a deposition of the master of the steamship Kaloma touching the destruction and loss of her cargo as a result of the sinking of the ship in the harbor of Singapore for the purpose of extinguishing a dangerous fire which had broken out in the case-oil section of the cargo.

Ruling upon this motion was reserved pending the submission of the appeal, and it now becomes our duty to determine its admissibility in the light of the facts developed by the whole record and the argument of counsel upon the whole case.

Upon a review of the whole record we are satisfied that if it be held that a new trial should not be granted for the purpose of admitting the above-mentioned deposition, then the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed; but that if a new trial should be granted, and this deposition is offered in evidence on this new trial, it is "of such a character" that in all probability it would change the result. If the deposition of the master of the Kaloma is to be believed, and there is nothing at present in the record to put it in doubt, the fire which broke out in her cargo at Singapore was not "caused by the design or neglect" of the owners or of any of their employees, and the loss of the goods of the plaintiff which was occasioned thereby gave him no cause of action against the defendant, in view of the express provisions of the bill of lading, and of section 4282 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The question as to the right of the defendant to have a new trial on the ground that the evidence in question is newly discovered presents some difficulty. We recognize the difficulty which, in the ordinary course of events, would be encountered in securing the testimony of the responsible officers of an ocean-going ship as to the facts and circumstances attendant upon a fire aboard ship which occurred in a foreign port, many months prior to the institution of an action in our courts wherein the truth as to such facts and circumstances may be found to be of vital importance. At the same time we can not lose sight of the fact that the master of the Kaloma continued in the employ of the defendant after the fire took place and up to the time when his deposition was actually taken, so that, in these days of cables and rapid transportation, there would not seem to have been an absolutely insuperable difficulty in securing from him such information supported by affidavits as would doubtless have secured the necessary continuance in the court below to give opportunity for the taking and submission of the deposition before the entry of judgment in first instance.

Having in mind, however, the amount involved and all the circumstances of the case, we think that under the provisions of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure we should grant a new trial upon the payment by defendant and appellant of all the costs accrued in both instances up to the date of the entry of judgment in this court, and upon the further condition that plaintiff will be permitted, if he elects so to do, to dismiss his complaint at any time within thirty days from the return of the record to the court below, without further special condemnation of costs.

Twenty days after notification of this decision to counsel for appellant, let judgment be entered affirming the judgment of the court below with the costs of this instance in favor of appellee, unless prior thereto the defendant-appellant shall have filed with the clerk of this court a written acceptance of the conditions provided for the allowance of a new trial, in which event judgment will be entered reversing the judgment of the court below without costs in this instance and directing a new trial, wherein such further and additional evidence will be admitted as either of the parties desire to submit touching the loss of the goods of the plaintiff in the harbor at Singapore. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

    022 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6183 March 2, 1912 - JUAN SAMBRANO v. BALDOMERO AR ZAGA, ET AL

    022 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5902 March 7, 1912 - P. P. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL v. Chinaman FELIX MELLIZA

    022 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6472 March 7, 1912 - MANUELA ROSARIO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6092 March 8, 1912 - TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI & Co.

    022 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 6874 March 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO RAMAYRAT

    022 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6891 March 8, 1912 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 7350 March 8, 1912 - EUGENIA SAVILLA v. ESTEBAN SABELLANO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 5735 March 9, 1912 - ESTATE OF LUIS R. YANGCO v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    022 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 7189 March 9, 1912 - ADOLFO RAZLAG v. SANCHO BALANTACBO

    022 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 6163 March 14, 1912 - SON CUI, ET AL v. ATANASIA M. GUEPANGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 6801 March 14, 1912 - JULIANA BAGTAS v. ISIDORO PAGUIO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6962 March 14, 1912 - INES FELICIANO v. ELISA CAMAHORT

    022 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 7117 March 14, 1912 - AGUSTINA RAFOLS v. EMILIA RAFOLS, ET AL.

    022 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 6622 March 15, 1912 - PAULA DIRILO v. INOCENCIO ROPERES, ET AL.

    022 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 7020 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN SANTA ANA, ET AL

    022 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 7037 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 6748 March 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA

    022 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 6574 March 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE

    022 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

    022 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5935 March 22, 1912 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY v. SEGUNDO EMALDI

    022 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 6585 March 22, 1912 - EULALIO LAGARIZA v. COMMANDING GEN. OF THE DIV. OF THE PHIL.

    022 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 6809 March 22, 1912 - GREGORIO PEÑALOSA v. DEMETRIO TUASON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 7040 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    022 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

    022 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 7294 March 22, 1912 - G. URRUTIA & COMPANY v. PASIG STEAMER & LIGHTER CO.

    022 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7144 March 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Co CHICUYCO

    022 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 6918 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. YAP KIN CO

    022 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 7075 March 25, 1912 - RODRIGO ALBANO v. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL.

    022 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 7124 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA ASUNCION

    022 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 7474 March 25, 1912 - HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS v. H. B. McCOY

    022 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 6286 March 26, 1912 - GAVINA FERNANDEZ v. EULOGIO TRIA

    022 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 6579 March 26, 1912 - CHIENG AH SUI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    022 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 6694 March 26, 1912 - MARIANO NARCIDA, ET AL v. BURTON E. BOWEN

    022 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 6729 March 26, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO FIDELDIA

    022 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 7165 March 26, 1912 - DAMASA LAFORGA, ET AL. v. BRUNO LAFORGA

    022 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 6651 March 28, 1912 - PAULINO JACINTO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    022 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 6733 March 28, 1912 - VICTORIANO S. LAZO v. MARIANO N. LAZO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 6920 March 28, 1912 - ALEJANDRA IRLANDA v. CATALINA PITARGUE, ET AL.

    022 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7289 March 28, 1912 - ANDRES S. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. GABRIEL C. ENRICO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6164 March 29, 1912 - JUAN MARBELLA v. DOMINGO SAMSON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

    022 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6690 March 29, 1912 - SILVESTRA V. TENORIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 6886 March 29, 1912 - GAUDENCIO TABOTABO v. GREGORIA MOLERO

    022 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    022 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7089 March 29, 1912 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. PEDRO AGUILA, ET AL

    022 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 7094 March 29, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ

    022 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7688 March 29, 1912 - MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    022 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

    022 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 6912 March 30, 1912 - JOSE ARGUELLES v. PEDRO SYYAP, ET AL

    022 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 7386 March 30, 1912 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. PEDRO P. ROXAS

    022 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7180 March 30, 1912 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. A. S. WATSON & CO. LTD.

    022 Phil 623