February 1918 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1918 > February 1918 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-12354 February 23, 1918 - GREGORIO REMATA v. JUAN JAVIER
037 Phil 699:
037 Phil 699:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-12354. February 23, 1918. ]
GREGORIO REMATA, Petitioner, v. JUAN JAVIER, Respondent.
Godofredo Reyes and Mariano A. Albert for Petitioner.
Jose G. Generoso for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. USURPATION OF PUBLIC OFFICE; SPEEDY DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES. — The public interests demand that controversies over public office be determined as speedily as may be consistent with the rights of the parties to a full and fair hearing, and the courts will not brook any attempt by a party to such proceedings to delay the course of justice by the filing of sham or irrelevant pleadings, or by any course of procedure which appears to have been adopted with no other object than that of delaying justice and unduly prolonging the period during which the opposing party may be wrongfully deprived of an office to which he is lawfully entitled.
2. ID.; ID.; EFFORTS TO SECURE DELAY; ANSWER STRICKEN FROM RECORD. — In proceedings in the nature of quo warranto proceedings wherein the facts alleged in the petition are verified by the oath of the petitioner; and wherein the only real questions involved turn upon the construction of the provision of statutory law on which respondents base their claim of title to the office in question; and wherein these questions have been decided upon demurrer adversely to the contentions of the respondents; and wherein a review of the whole record, having in mind the admissions and statements of counsel on oral argument, discloses that there is no genuine controversy as to any of the material facts alleged by the petitioner; and wherein from their very nature the material allegations of the petitioner are such as to preclude the probability of mistake or misunderstanding; and wherein a general denial appears to be filed for the sole purpose of securing delay in any effort to prolong the already long drawn out during which the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of an office to which he appears to be entitled; Held: That the answer should be stricken from the record unless the respondents specify forthwith in writing, duly verified under oath, some material averment or averments of the original or supplementary petition the truth and accuracy of which is denied.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; MOTION FOR TRIPLE COSTS. — Permission given the petitioner, under the circumstances detailed in the opinion, to move the court to impose triple costs and to take such other disciplinary measures as may be deemed proper, in the event that it appears that any measure adopted by the respondents in the further course of these proceedings, is taken solely for delay and not for the purpose of securing the adjudication of a bona fide claim of right.
2. ID.; ID.; EFFORTS TO SECURE DELAY; ANSWER STRICKEN FROM RECORD. — In proceedings in the nature of quo warranto proceedings wherein the facts alleged in the petition are verified by the oath of the petitioner; and wherein the only real questions involved turn upon the construction of the provision of statutory law on which respondents base their claim of title to the office in question; and wherein these questions have been decided upon demurrer adversely to the contentions of the respondents; and wherein a review of the whole record, having in mind the admissions and statements of counsel on oral argument, discloses that there is no genuine controversy as to any of the material facts alleged by the petitioner; and wherein from their very nature the material allegations of the petitioner are such as to preclude the probability of mistake or misunderstanding; and wherein a general denial appears to be filed for the sole purpose of securing delay in any effort to prolong the already long drawn out during which the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of an office to which he appears to be entitled; Held: That the answer should be stricken from the record unless the respondents specify forthwith in writing, duly verified under oath, some material averment or averments of the original or supplementary petition the truth and accuracy of which is denied.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; MOTION FOR TRIPLE COSTS. — Permission given the petitioner, under the circumstances detailed in the opinion, to move the court to impose triple costs and to take such other disciplinary measures as may be deemed proper, in the event that it appears that any measure adopted by the respondents in the further course of these proceedings, is taken solely for delay and not for the purpose of securing the adjudication of a bona fide claim of right.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J. :
This is an original action brought in this court under authority of section 197, 201, 202 and 519 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of the alleged usurpation of a public office.
The facts upon which the petitioner relies for relief are set out at length in our judgment in the demurrer to the original petition filed March 17, 1917, 1 and our judgment on the demurrer to the supplemental petition filed February 4, 1918 p. 571, ante.
We conclude that the demurrer to the amended petition should be overruled, and that unless an answer is filed within ten days (which we do not anticipate, as there is no real dispute as to the facts), judgment should be entered declaring the petitioner to be lawfully entitled to the office of municipal president of Candelaria, and the respondent De Gala to be unlawfully in possession of the same, with the costs of these proceedings against the latter.
"We assume that after the promulgation of our rulings as to the respective rights of the parties, the office in question will be promptly surrendered to the petitioner upon demand, and we shall not, for the present, make any provision for the forcible ouster of the respondent therefrom; but in the event that out anticipations are not verified in this regard, the petitioner is expressly authorized to make application for such further orders and reliefs as may be necessary to secure his right in the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library
After waiting the full period of ten days allowed for the filing of the answer, counsel for each of the respondent now appears and enters a general denial on behalf of each of them; the answer on behalf of Generoso de Gala being couched in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The defendant, Generoso de Gala, in answering the complaints alleges that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"He makes a general and specific denial to each and all the allegation contained in both the original and supplemental complaints filed in this case.
"Wherefore he prays the honorable court to deny the petition with costs against petition."cralaw virtua1aw library
We are well satisfied that these answers have been filed for the sole purpose of securing delay, in an effort on the part of the respondents to extend the already long drawn out period during which the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of the office now occupied by the respondent De Gala.
Our intimate knowledge of the whole course of these proceedings lead us to believe that the only real questions involved in this controversy arose out of the misapprehension by the respondents of the provisions of statutory law on which they based their claim of title to the office. After due deliberation we have ruled against them on all their contentions in this regard. A careful review of the whole record, having in mind admissions and statements of counsel in oral arguments with regard to the holding of the general elections of 1916, leaves little room for doubt that there is no genuine controversy as to any of the material facts alleged by the petitioner.
The allegations of the original and the supplementary petitions are few and simple and are supported by the oath of the petitioner. In their very nature, the material allegations in both petitions are such as to preclude the probability of mistake or misunderstanding. They consist, for the most part, of averments as to official action taken by various boards and officers under color of which the respondents denied petitioner’s right to the office; and in the absence of willful, malicious and at the same time utterly purposeless prevention of the truth by the petitioner, it is in the highest degree improbable that any material allegation in either petition can be successfully controverted or traversed in good faith.
The public interests demands that controversies over public office be determined as speedily as may be consistent with the rights of parties to a full and fair hearing, and this court will not brook any attempt by a party to such proceedings to delay the course of justice by the filing of sham or irrelevant pleadings, or by any course of procedure which appears to have been adopted with no other abject than that of delaying justice and unduly prolonging the period during which the opposing party may be wrongfully deprived of an office to which he is lawfully entitled.
Let the following order be entered of record forthwith:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Under authority of the provisions of section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, let the answer of both the respondents in these proceedings be stricken from the record, and judgment entered in accord with the order heretofore entered upon demurrer, unless within three days from notice of this order, either or both of the respondents specify in writing, duly verified under oath, some material averment or avertments of the original or supplementary petition the truth and accuracy of which is denied; and permission is given the petitioner to move the court to impose triple costs and to take such other disciplinary measures as may seem proper in the event that it appears that any course of these proceedings, is taken solely for delay and not for the purpose of securing the adjudication of a bona fide claim of right."cralaw virtua1aw library
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street, Malcolm, and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Avanceña, J., did not take part.
The facts upon which the petitioner relies for relief are set out at length in our judgment in the demurrer to the original petition filed March 17, 1917, 1 and our judgment on the demurrer to the supplemental petition filed February 4, 1918 p. 571, ante.
We conclude that the demurrer to the amended petition should be overruled, and that unless an answer is filed within ten days (which we do not anticipate, as there is no real dispute as to the facts), judgment should be entered declaring the petitioner to be lawfully entitled to the office of municipal president of Candelaria, and the respondent De Gala to be unlawfully in possession of the same, with the costs of these proceedings against the latter.
"We assume that after the promulgation of our rulings as to the respective rights of the parties, the office in question will be promptly surrendered to the petitioner upon demand, and we shall not, for the present, make any provision for the forcible ouster of the respondent therefrom; but in the event that out anticipations are not verified in this regard, the petitioner is expressly authorized to make application for such further orders and reliefs as may be necessary to secure his right in the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library
After waiting the full period of ten days allowed for the filing of the answer, counsel for each of the respondent now appears and enters a general denial on behalf of each of them; the answer on behalf of Generoso de Gala being couched in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The defendant, Generoso de Gala, in answering the complaints alleges that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"He makes a general and specific denial to each and all the allegation contained in both the original and supplemental complaints filed in this case.
"Wherefore he prays the honorable court to deny the petition with costs against petition."cralaw virtua1aw library
We are well satisfied that these answers have been filed for the sole purpose of securing delay, in an effort on the part of the respondents to extend the already long drawn out period during which the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of the office now occupied by the respondent De Gala.
Our intimate knowledge of the whole course of these proceedings lead us to believe that the only real questions involved in this controversy arose out of the misapprehension by the respondents of the provisions of statutory law on which they based their claim of title to the office. After due deliberation we have ruled against them on all their contentions in this regard. A careful review of the whole record, having in mind admissions and statements of counsel in oral arguments with regard to the holding of the general elections of 1916, leaves little room for doubt that there is no genuine controversy as to any of the material facts alleged by the petitioner.
The allegations of the original and the supplementary petitions are few and simple and are supported by the oath of the petitioner. In their very nature, the material allegations in both petitions are such as to preclude the probability of mistake or misunderstanding. They consist, for the most part, of averments as to official action taken by various boards and officers under color of which the respondents denied petitioner’s right to the office; and in the absence of willful, malicious and at the same time utterly purposeless prevention of the truth by the petitioner, it is in the highest degree improbable that any material allegation in either petition can be successfully controverted or traversed in good faith.
The public interests demands that controversies over public office be determined as speedily as may be consistent with the rights of parties to a full and fair hearing, and this court will not brook any attempt by a party to such proceedings to delay the course of justice by the filing of sham or irrelevant pleadings, or by any course of procedure which appears to have been adopted with no other abject than that of delaying justice and unduly prolonging the period during which the opposing party may be wrongfully deprived of an office to which he is lawfully entitled.
Let the following order be entered of record forthwith:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Under authority of the provisions of section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, let the answer of both the respondents in these proceedings be stricken from the record, and judgment entered in accord with the order heretofore entered upon demurrer, unless within three days from notice of this order, either or both of the respondents specify in writing, duly verified under oath, some material averment or avertments of the original or supplementary petition the truth and accuracy of which is denied; and permission is given the petitioner to move the court to impose triple costs and to take such other disciplinary measures as may seem proper in the event that it appears that any course of these proceedings, is taken solely for delay and not for the purpose of securing the adjudication of a bona fide claim of right."cralaw virtua1aw library
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street, Malcolm, and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Avanceña, J., did not take part.
