Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 45282 September 21, 1936 - BENITO MATEO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

063 Phil 470:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45282. September 21, 1936.]

BENITO MATEO, in behalf of his son, Sim It, Petitioner, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Pompeyo Diaz and Vicente del Rosario for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. — Review of judgments and decrees of the Court of Appeals is limited to "cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved." (Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending section 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to section 2, Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines.)

2. ID.; ID.; RULE 47, OF THE SUPREME COURT. — Rule 47 of this court, as amended, prescribes the mode in respect to cases brought to the Supreme Court by appeal or bill of exceptions or on certiorari.

3. ID.; ID. — Under the circumstances of the present case the court held that it would hardly be possible to set any limit to the recurrence to this court in cases which under the law should terminate in the Court of Appeals. When the Court of Appeals has decided the appeal before it in accordance with the applicable decisions of this court (Tan Chin Hin v. Collector of Customs, 27 Phil., 521; Sing Jing Talento v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 82), the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in case G.R. No. 140 of that court, entitled Benito Mateo v. The Insular Collector of Customs.

It appears that on December 21, 1935 Sim It arrived at the port of Manila and sought admission into the country as a son of the petitioner Benito Mateo, a Filipino citizen. On December 28, 1935, the board of special inquiry conducted an investigation and denied the application for admission. The action of the board of special inquiry was approved by the Insular Collector of Customs. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila. On February 5, 1936, Judge Marcelo T. Boncan of the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered the release of Sim It who was then in the custody of the customs authorities. From this decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals which on July 27, 1936, reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. Hence this petition.

Review of judgments and decrees of the Court of Appeals is limited to "cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved" (sec. 2, Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending sec. 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to sec. 2, Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines). Rule 47 of this court, as amended, prescribes the mode in respect to cases brought to the Supreme Court by appeal or bill of exceptions or on certiorari. The pertinent portions of this rule are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE — REVIEW ON APPEAL

"47. (a) In any of the cases enumerated under the second paragraph of section 138 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3 of the National Assembly, the party aggrieved by the decision, order, or decree of any Court of First Instance may appeal to this court in accordance with the rules heretofore followed in respect to cases of similar nature brought to this court by appeal or bill of exceptions.

"JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS — PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

"(b) A petition to this court for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeal shall contain only a summary statement of the matter involved and the reasons relied on for the allowance of the writ. Only questions of law may be raised and must be distinctly set forth. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the decision sought to be reviewed, and both documents, together with 10 copies of the bill of exceptions or record on appeal as printed below, shall be filed with the clerk within ten days from the date of entry of the judgment involved. This court may, on its own motion or on motion of the respondent, dismiss the petition on the ground that it is manifest that the same was filed for delay only, or that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument. . . . .

x       x       x


"(e) A review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be considered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by this court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of this court.

"(2) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this court’s power of supervision."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petition in the present case does not raise any question of law. The board of special inquiry upon investigation found that the evidence in behalf of the applicant for admission was insufficient and contradictory and denied the application. This finding of the board of special inquiry, as stated, was approved by the Collector of Customs. The Court of First Instance of Manila disagreed with the board of special inquiry and the Collector of Customs on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented and reversed the action of the board of special inquiry as approved by the Collector of Customs by granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in turn, disagreed with the Court of First Instance on the appreciation of the evidence and reversed the latter’s decision. Under these circumstances, we cannot review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Were we to do so it would hardly be possible to set any limit to the recurrence to this court in cases which under the law should terminate in the Court of Appeals. Upon the other hand, it should be observed that the Court of Appeals has decided the appeal before it in accordance with the applicable decisions of this court (Tan Chin Hin v. Collector of Customs, 27 Phil., 521; Sing Jing Talento v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 82), and this is another reason why the present petition should not be entertained. The petition is hereby dismissed with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial and Recto, 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






September-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42258 September 5, 1936 - IN RE: VICTORIO PAYAD v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

    063 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 45174 September 5, 1936 - MAURICIO CRUZ & CO., INC. v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 44861 September 8, 1936 - EUGENIO TESTA v. C.A. VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 43206 September 9, 1936 - FELIX SEPAGAN v. PAULINO DACILLO

    063 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 43367 September 9, 1936 - MARIETA GARCIA, ET AL. v. TERESA GARCIA DE BARTOLOME

    063 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 45134 September 10, 1936 - GENANICHI ISHI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    063 Phil 428

  • Adm. Case No. 786 September 15, 1936 - TRANQUILINO MARAVILLA v. CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL

    063 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45141 September 15, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO VENUS

    063 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 45089 September 17, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR A. FLORES

    063 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 45116 September 17, 1936 - GO OCCO & CO. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 45125 September 17, 1936 - RICARDO CARREON v. M. BUYSON LAMPA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 45131 September 17, 1936 - RAMON SANTARROMANA, ET AL. v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 45224 September 17, 1936 - MARIA D. CABUHAT v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 45220 September 18, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TAPEL

    063 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 45250 September 21, 1936 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 45282 September 21, 1936 - BENITO MATEO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 45129 September 24, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO FOLLANTES, ET AL.

    063 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 45252 September 24, 1936 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 42884 September 28, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 41376 September 29, 1936 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ABALOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 43101 September 29, 1936 - CIRIACO CHUNACO v. DELFINA TRIA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 42832 September 30, 1936 - LOURDES CATALA v. NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL.

    063 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 43486 September 30, 1936 - MUNICIPALITY OF GASAN v. MIGUEL MARASIGAN, ET AL.

    063 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 43824 September 30, 1936 - LEOCADIA SALOMON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DANTES

    063 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 44523 September 30, 1936 - ALEOSAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    063 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 44934 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON FRESCO

    063 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45178 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO S. OCBINA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINA BANDIAN

    063 Phil 530