Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

060 Phil 419:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 41002. August 29, 1934.]

THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, Defendant-Appellee.

Mariano Ezpeleta for Appellant.

Provincial Fiscal Santos of Nueva Ecija for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; COMPLAINT; DEMURRER; OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND COMPLAINT. — Where it is manifest that a petitioner has stated his whole case in his petition and no amendment thereof could render it proof against a demurrer, the court may dismiss the petition when it sustains a demurrer. But in the case before us the petition was dismissed on the first demurrer and there is nothing in the decision of the court below nor in the record which indicates any ground for denying the petitioner the opportunity to file an amended petition.

2. ID.; COSTS; JUDGMENT FOR COSTS AGAINST PROVINCES. — Each province is a political body corporate which among other powers granted by section 2067 of the Administrative Code, may sue and be sued. Hence it may be held for the costs in a civil action. (cf. Palanca v. City of Manila and Trinidad, 41 Phil., 125, 133.)


D E C I S I O N


BUTTE, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining a demurrer of the defendant and dismissing plaintiff’s petition without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.

The plaintiff’s petition alleges in substance that it operates a transportation business by means of auto-trucks in the Province of Nueva Ecija; that in the year 1930 the defendant constructed a bridge known as Cabu Bridge which construction was financed not from any loan or bond issue but out of the current revenues of the defendant; that the provincial board of the defendant, by resolution No. 5160 dated September 14, 1931, declared the said bridge to be a toll bridge and constructed toll gates thereon and collected toll from all vehicles passing over the same, charging forty centavos for each auto-truck; that on January 1, 1932, the total cost of construction of said Cabu Bridge including its operation and maintenance charges were completely covered and paid from the collection of said toll; that on March 7, 1932, the said provincial board passed resolution No. 318 redeclaring the said Cabu Bridge to be a toll bridge and increasing the rate of tolls collected thereon to the rate of sixty-five centavos per truck; that on December 2, 1932, the Legislature passed Act No. 3965 which amended sections 2131 and 2132 of the Revised Administrative Code to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2131. Provincial toll roads, bridges and ferries. — When the provincial board of any province shall deem such course to be necessary for the proper maintenance of any provincial road within the province, it may designate such road, or part thereof, or any bridge, or ferry built, or to be built or maintained as part thereof, as a toll road, bridge or ferry, and may fix the toll rates to be paid for the use thereof upon authorization by the Governor-General and the recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications in the case of roads, and in the case of bridges or ferries upon authorization and approval by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications: Provided, That the rates fixed shall not be subject to revision by the Public Service Commission.

"SEC. 2132. Collection and application of tolls. — In the exercise of the authority hereinabove conferred, the provincial board may erect toll gates or equip ferries and may employ the persons necessary to operate the same. The proceeds derived from such sources shall be applied only to the payment of interest and sinking fund charges in case the toll road or bridge has been financed from loans or bond issues, and to the repair and maintenance of the road, bridge or ferry for which the collections are made: Provided, That the collection of tolls on roads and bridges shall be discontinued when adequate funds have been collected to repay or retire the indebtedness."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since January 1, 1933, the auto-trucks of the plaintiff passing over said Cabu Bridge were obliged to pay said tolls in violation of the provisions of said Act No. 3965; that the plaintiff has demanded reimbursement of said tolls illegally collected but the defendant has refused to make said reimbursement and continues to demand said illegal tolls and will continue so to do unless restrained by injunction. The plaintiff prays for a temporary injunction and for a judgment declaring said resolution 318 series of 1932 of the defendant to be null and void; for judgment against the defendant for all tolls illegally collected as aforesaid; and that upon final hearing the injunction be made permanent.

The defendant filed a demurrer alleging that the allegations of the petition do not state a cause of action. On September 22, 1933, the court a quo sustained said demurrer on the ground that said resolution No. 318 series of 1932 of the provincial board of Nueva Ecija is valid because section 2131 of the Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3965 "expressly permits the defendant to designate any bridge as a toll bridge for the proper maintenance of any provincial road within the province." No reason is given for dismissing the complaint without giving the petitioner the opportunity to amend.

The appellant submits the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The trial court erred in holding that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"2. The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend it."cralaw virtua1aw library

We think the second error assigned is well taken and should be sustained. (See section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.) The argument of the appellee that it is impossible for the plaintiff so to amend its petition as to state a cause of action and therefore the opportunity to amend would only result in a useless delay, assumes too much. The basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action is the nullity of the said resolution No. 318 of the provincial board of Nueva Ecija. Even if it should be held that said resolution does not contravene Act No. 3965 — upon which question we express no opinion on this appeal — the petitioner may have other grounds to establish the nullity of said resolution which it should be permitted to set up by amendment of its petition. Undoubtedly, where it is manifest that a petitioner has stated his whole case in his petition and no amendment thereof could render it proof against a demurrer, the court may dismiss the petition when it sustains a demurrer. If this were not so, the right of amendment might be abused and the resort to fictitious and inconsequential amendments calling for renewed and repeated demurrers would delay the case and convert the proceeding into a travesty. But in the case before us the petition was dismissed on the first demurrer and there is nothing in the decision of the court below nor in the record which indicates any ground for denying the petitioner the opportunity to file an amended petition.

The judgment is reversed with costs against the appellee.

Each province is a political body corporate which, among other powers granted by section 2067 of the Administrative Code, may sue and be sued. Hence it may be held for the costs in a civil action. (Cf. Palanca v. City of Manila and Trinidad, 41 Phil., 125, 133.)

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial and Goddard, 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






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511