November 1941 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1941 > November 1941 Decisions >
G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA
073 Phil 452:
073 Phil 452:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 47988. November 24, 1941.]
H. S. FENWICK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. APPEAL; FRIVOLOUS, WHEN. — The court finds the appeal in this case to be frivolous, there being absolutely no basis in fact or in law for the defense of prescription. To discourage such an appeal, double costs in the last instance is imposed on the appellant.
D E C I S I O N
OZAETA, J.:
On August 4, 1930, appellee obtained judgment against appellant for the sum of P1,400 together with interest thereon at twelve per centum per annum from February 11, 1929, until the date of payment, plus the costs of suit.
That judgment has not been paid, altho as late as July 5, 1940, appellant acknowledged the indebtedness and offered to pay it in instalments at the rate of P50 a month beginning August 16, 1940. On July 19, 1940, appellee instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to revive said judgment. The trial court overruled appellant’s defense of prescription and rendered judgment as prayed for by appellee.
The court finds this appeal to be frivolous, there being absolutely no basis in fact or in law for the defense of prescription. To discourage such an appeal and following our recent decision in Piñon v. Lubuguin Et. Al., G. R. No. 47805 (promulgated November 19, 1941), we affirm the judgment of the lower court, with double costs in this instance. So ordered.
Abad Santos, Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
That judgment has not been paid, altho as late as July 5, 1940, appellant acknowledged the indebtedness and offered to pay it in instalments at the rate of P50 a month beginning August 16, 1940. On July 19, 1940, appellee instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to revive said judgment. The trial court overruled appellant’s defense of prescription and rendered judgment as prayed for by appellee.
The court finds this appeal to be frivolous, there being absolutely no basis in fact or in law for the defense of prescription. To discourage such an appeal and following our recent decision in Piñon v. Lubuguin Et. Al., G. R. No. 47805 (promulgated November 19, 1941), we affirm the judgment of the lower court, with double costs in this instance. So ordered.
Abad Santos, Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
