Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > May 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-8276 May 17, 1955 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

097 Phil 34:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-8276. May 17, 1955.]

JOSE B. GAMBOA, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, JOSE V. BUENAVENTURA, PEDRO H. PILAR and FELIX PERONILLA.

Jose B. Gamboa in his own behalf.

Ramon B. de los Reyes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; ORDER DENYING ADMISSION OF AMENDED COMPLAINT APPEALABLE. — The order denying the admission of the amended complaint being final and appealable, the respondent court cannot disallow or refuse approval of the record on appeal filed by the plaintiff within the period as provided for in the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a petition for a writ to compel the respondent court to allow a record on appeal tendered by the plaintiff in civil case No. 2865 entitled "Jose B. Gamboa, Plaintiff, v. Philippine National Bank, Jose V. Buenaventura, Pedro H. Pilar and Felix Peronilla, Defendants," the allowance of which was denied by the respondent court in its order of 18 September 1954, and for a writ to enjoin the respondent court from hearing or proceeding with the trial of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant Philippine National Bank until further order from this Court. The last writ prayed for was issued after the filing and approval of a bond for P1,000. By the allowance of the record on appeal the plaintiff seeks to secure a reversal of the order of the respondent court entered on 16 August 1954 which denied the admission of an amended complaint after the original complaint had been dismissed on 25 March 1954 as to the three individual defendants for lack of cause of section as to or against them.

The fact that the notice of appeal, the appeal bond and the record on appeal were filed within the reglementary period is not disputed.

The order of the respondent court dismissing the complaint against the three individual defendants on the ground that it states no cause of action against them is appealable, because it is not interlocutory but final. The fact that the case between the plaintiff and the defendant Philippine National Bank is to be tried does not mean that, in so far as the three individual defendants are concerned, there is something left to be done, because as to them the order dismissing the complaint is not interlocutory but final and appealable. The rule that "No interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action, nor shall it be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other," 1 does not apply to the order of dismissal of the complaint against the three individual defendants for lack of cause of action, because such order is not interlocutory but final and appealable. The plaintiff could have amended his complaint once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading was served. 2 However, the Philippine National Bank having filed its answer in which a counterclaim is set up against the plaintiff, the latter could not have amended it without leave of court because a responsive pleading had already been filed. 3 If the plaintiff was of the belief and opinion that in the original complaint he had pleaded facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the three individual defendants, he could have appealed from the order of dismissal because the same was not interlocutory but final. And the fact that the case was to be tried between the plaintiff and the defendant Philippine National Bank because there was a cause of action against the latter and because of the counterclaim filed by it against the former, did not make interlocutory the order of dismissal of the complaint as to or against the three individual defendants. 4 If, on the other hand, the plaintiff was convinced that the order of dismissal of the complaint against the three individual defendants was correct, he could amend the complaint by pleading facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them without altering the original complaint against the defendant Philippine National Bank. There is nothing in the Rules of Court which prevents the plaintiff from making such amendment as against the three individual defendants. True, the amendment must be with leave of court and upon motion of the plaintiff. Leave of court implies discretion. As a rule a discretionary power cannot be controlled by mandamus. But that is not the point at issue here. The respondent court in the exercise of its discretion denied the admission of the amended complaint. The order denying admission of the amended complaint is final. From this order the plaintiff wants to appeal. And to that effect he filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond and the record on appeal which the court below refused to allow. Hence this petition that seeks to compel the respondent court to allow the record on appeal. Whether the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to admit the amended complaint; whether the amended complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the three individual defendants, are not passed upon in this opinion. The only point decided is that the order denying the admission of the amended complaint being final and appealable, the respondent court cannot disallow, or refuse approval of, the record on appeal filed by the plaintiff within the period as provided for in the Rules of Court.

The writ prayed for is granted. The respondent court is directed to approve or allow the record on appeal filed by the plaintiff. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved and the trial of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant Philippine National Bank upon the original complaint, answer and counterclaim set up by the bank may proceed to its final stage or conclusion. No costs shall be taxed.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 2, Rule 41.

2. Section 1, Rule 17.

3. Section 2, Rule 17.

4. Section 2, Rule 41.




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





May-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7331 May 6, 1955 - CLEMENTE PASILAN v. FRANCISCO VILLAGONZA

    097 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIO HERNANDEZ

    097 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-7684 May 10, 1955 - AGRIPINO JOCSON v. ESPERIDION PRESBITERIO

    097 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-7516 May 12, 1955 - LEONOR P. REYES v. THE HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-8045 May 12, 1955 - VALENTINO TAYLO Y REYES v. TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

    097 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6963 May 13, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS PADIOS and FILEMON PADIOS

    097 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-7574 May 17, 1955 - FRANCISCO EPANG v. MARIA ORTIN DE LEYCO

    097 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO

    097 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-7894 May 17, 1955 - FERNANDO NIETO v. HON. BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-8276 May 17, 1955 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    097 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-7937 May 18, 1955 - JUANITA RONQUILLO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    097 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-7083 May 19, 1955 - JUAN EUGENIO ET AL. v. SILVINA PERDIDO

    097 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-7307 May 19, 1955 - PACITA ORTIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

    097 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-7385 May 19, 1955 - QUIRICO L. SATURNINO v. FELIZA LUZ PAULINO

    097 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-6776 May 21, 1955 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL v. UNG SIU SI TEMPLE

    097 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-7112 May 21, 1955 - TOMAS Q. SORIANO v. F. R. OMILA

    097 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-7234 May 21, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ M. DEL ROSARIO

    097 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-7595 May 21, 1955 - TEODORA DEMORAR v. HON. JUDGE ROMAN IBAÑEZ ET AL.

    097 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-7926 May 21, 1955 - OSCAR OLEGARIO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    097 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-7583 May 25, 1955 - JAMIE T. BUENAFLOR ET AL. v. CESARIO DE LEON

    097 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-7918 May 25, 1955 - MARIA GALASINAO v. ROSA M. AUSTRIA ET AL.

    097 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-8114 May 25, 1955 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

    097 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-8238 May 25, 1955 - CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    097 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-8806 May 25, 1955 - MARIA N. BANZON v. PEDRO ALVIAR

    097 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-6869 May 27, 1955 - SOLEDAD BELANDRES v. LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC.

    097 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-7224 May 27, 1955 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. A. GERGARAY TANCHINGCO

    097 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-7383 May 27, 1955 - XERXES G. GARCIA v. DAMIANA SANTICO

    097 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-7518 May 27, 1955 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO ET AL.

    097 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-7622 May 27, 1955 - GABRIEL MACLAN v. RUBEN GARCIA

    097 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7752 May 27, 1955 - SEC. OF AGRI. AND NAT. RESOURCES, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE, CFI OF MLA., ET AL.

    097 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-7248 May 28, 1955 - AMADO BERNARDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-8040 May 28, 1955 - VICENTE K. LAY v. ROCES HERMANOS INC., ET AL.

    097 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-7708 May 30, 1955 - JOSE MONDANO v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    097 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-7738 May 30, 1955 - BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO

    097 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-7959 May 30, 1955 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP., v. JUDGE OF CFI, ET AL.

    097 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-6707 May 31, 1955 - R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. JOSE ANG, ET AL.

    097 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-7019 May 31, 1955 - IN RE: EULOGIO S. EUSEBIO v. DOMINGO VALMORES

    097 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-7144 May 31, 1955 - FAR EASTERN EXPORT & IMPORT CO. v. LIM TECK SUAN

    097 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-7338 May 31, 1955 - PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN.

    097 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-7358 May 31, 1955 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. AGUINALDO’S ECHAGUE, INC.

    097 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-7376 May 31, 1955 - FRANCISCO MARIANO v. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-7614 May 31, 1955 - CONRADO POTENCIANO v. NAPOLEON DINEROS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 196

  • G.R. Nos. L-7771-73 May 31, 1955 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASSN. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    097 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-7887 May 31, 1955 - MACLEOD & CO. OF THE PHIL. v. PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF LABOR

    097 Phil 205