Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > October 1946 Decisions > G.R. No. 8197 October 2, 1946 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MARCELINO ADORABLE, ET AL.

077 Phil 470:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 8197. October 2, 1946.]

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, v. MARCELINO ADORABLE, ET AL., claimants; MIGUEL PEÑARANDA, claimant-appellant; PURIFICACION SOLINAP, ET AL., Claimants-Appellees.

Evidente, Butalid & Peñaranda, for claimant-appellant.

Manuel F. Zamora, for Claimants-Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; STANDARDS OF TRUTHFULNESS, FAIR PLAY AND NOBILITY; CASE AT BAR, AN EXAMPLE TO BE REMEMBERED. — In this case the attorney for the claimants and appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant and appellant’s ignorance of what really happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided. This is an example worth remembering by all members of the bar.


R E S O L U T I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


At the reconstitution of the above-entitled case, claimant-appellant presented copies of several papers, exhibits, pleadings, motions and orders, including copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, record on appeal, and the time the printed brief of said claimant-appellant who, at the time he filed his motion for reconstitution on February 26, 1946, was under the impression that the case, which was pending decision in the Court of Appeals when the war broke out, remained unacted upon by said court until the motion for reconstitution was filed.

On June 25, 1946, Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant-appellant’s ignorance of what really happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.

Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora, claimant appellant’s attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for reconstitution to make a report to this Court that the records be declared reconstituted, together with the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 9, 1942, and that said records be remanded to the lower court for execution of the decision.

The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to order that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on September 9, 1942, be sent to the lower court for execution. This resolution is being adopted not without making of record that the action taken by Attorney Manuel F Zamora should be considered as an example worthy to be remembered by all members of the bar.

Paras, Pablo and Padilla, 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





October-1946 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-600 October 1, 1946 - SOLEDAD PEÑA DE LUZ v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    077 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-879 October 2, 1946 - EDUARDO GOMEZ v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    077 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-982 October 2, 1946 - FRANCISCO C. DE LA RAMA v. PEOPLE’S COURT

    077 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 8197 October 2, 1946 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MARCELINO ADORABLE, ET AL.

    077 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. L-264 October 4, 1946 - VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION v. JACINTA BALDOMAR, ET AL.

    077 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-142 October 5, 1946 - URSU LUANGCO, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF TACLOBAN

    077 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-608 October 7, 1946 - PROCOPIO BELTRAN v. POMPEYO DIAZ, ET AL.

    077 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-425 October 10, 1946 - SEVERINA BONOAN DE YABUT v. JUAN VENTURA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-47673 October 10, 1946 - KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    077 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-832 October 10, 1946 - ETHEL CASE, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-708 October 24, 1946 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. MILAGROS S. LEGASPI, ET AL.

    077 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-337 October 25, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO FELICIANO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-387 October 25, 1946 - BALBINA MENDOZA v. PACIANO DIZON

    077 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. L-658 October 25, 1946 - GABRIEL VDA. DE MENDOZA v. GREGORIO PALACIO

    077 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-64 October 28, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL M. MORENO

    077 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-49887 October 28, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO TOLENTINO

    077 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. L-283 October 30, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVESTRE CARILLO

    077 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-49200 October 30, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA ABAD

    077 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-827 October 31, 1946 - MATEO PERALTA v. ROMUALDO

    077 Phil 615