Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > May 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12759 May 27, 1959 - TOMAS FERNANDO v. LUIS ABALOS, ET AL.

105 Phil 830:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12759. May 27, 1959.]

TOMAS FERNANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUIS ABALOS, CONRADO ABALOS, HON. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, RICARDO L. CASTELO as provincial Sheriff, ex-officio of Nueva Ecija, Defendant-Appellees.

E.A. Beltran for Appellant.

Agustin Pelmoka for appellees Luis and Conrado Abalos.

Nora G. Nostratis for the appellee CAR.

Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiazon for appellee Provincial Sheriff.


SYLLABUS


1. JURISDICTION; AGRARIAN CASES IN COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TRANSFERRED TO COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS CREATION OF THE LATTER. — The meaning of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1409 is that cases which started in the Court of Industrial Relations, because the Court of Agrarian Relation had not yet been established when they were pending in the Court of Industrial Relations, should be transferred to and the proceedings thereon on the latter court. The intention precisely, of the aforesaid Republic Act is to transfer cases then pending in the Court of Industrial Relation to the Court of Agrarian Relations.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Hon. Eulogio Mencias, presiding, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff brought this action as landowner against tenants Luis Abalos and Conrado Abalos, the Court of Industrial Relations and the provincial sheriff of Nueva Ecija to annul a judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations in its cases Nos. 838 and 839 NE, Carlos Abalos and Luis Abalos v. Tomas Fernando, ordering the latter to restore plaintiff to the possession of a parcel of land subject of the action, and to pay Carlos Abalos 28 2/3 cavanes of palay and Luis Abalos 31.64 cavanes of palay. The grounds upon which the action for annulment of the judgment is based are : (a) that the Court of Agrarian Relations had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case and (b) that the writ of execution for the above-mentioned judgment had caused damages to Tomas Fernando in the amount of P5,000.00.

The action was filed on November 26, 1956 and on December 12, 1956, the court dismissed the action. Upon motion of plaintiff, however, the court reconsidered its former order of dismissal and issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the sheriff of Nueva Ecija to stop it from executing the judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relation. The provincial sheriff and the Court of Agrarian Relations moved to reconsider the order of the Court of First Instance setting aside its previous order of dismissal, on December 24, 1956 and on December 28, 1956, respectively. On January 12, 1957 Luis Abalos and Conrado Abalos also filed a joint motion to dismiss. Counsel for Tomas Fernando filed replies to the above motions for dismissal.

On February 19, 1957, the court denied the motions for dismissal. Thereupon the parties filed their respective answers, the provincial sheriff on March 9, 1957, Luis Abalos and Conrado Abalos on March 11, 1957. On March 11, 1957, Luis and Conrado Abalos presented a motion for the reconsideration of the order denying their motions to dismiss and so did the Court of Agrarian Relations on March 16, 1957. The motion for reconsideration presented by the defendants Abalos was set for hearing on March 20, 1957, that of the Court of Agrarian Relations on March 23, 1957. Counsel for Tomas Fernando filed his opposition to the motions for reconsideration on March 22, 1957. On April 2, 1957 counsel for the Court of Agrarian Relations also presented a motion to reconsider the order setting aside the dismissal and cousel for Tomas Fernando answered this motion on April 5, 1957. The Court of Agrarian Relations replied to the answer of Tomas Fernando by its pleading of April 8, 1957.

It further appears that on April 15, 1957, Judge Mencias was transferre and assigned to Rizal. Notwithstanding this assignment he issued an order on April 30, 1957 dismissing the original petition, setting aside his previous order February 19, 1957 as well as its order for a writ of preliminary injunction. The order of dismissal is dated at "Pasig, Rizal for Malolos, Bulacan, April 30, 1957."cralaw virtua1aw library

The first questions raised on this appeal is whether Judge Mencias who was transferred to Rizal on April 15, 1957 still had the right to issue its order of dismissal dated April 30, 1957, when he was already holding court in Pasig, Rizal. The second question refers to the sufficiency of the complaint which was dismissed by the order of Judge Mencias on April 30, 1957. The legal authority for Judge Mencias to decide the action instituted by Tomas Fernando against Luis Abalos and others, Civil Case No. 1414, Court of First Instance of Bulacan, is Section 51 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 1404, which provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Whenever a judge appointed or assigned in any province or branch of a court in a province shall leave the province by transfer or assignment to another court of equal jurisdiction without having decided a case totally heard by him and which was duly argued or opportunity given for argument to the parties or their counsel, it shall be lawful for him to prepare and sign decision in said case anywhere within the Philippines and send the same by registered mail to the clerk of the Court to be filed in the court as of the date when the same was received by the clerk, in the same manner as if the judge had been present in the court to direct the filing of the judgment: Provided, however, That if a case has been heard only in part, the Supreme Court, upon petition of any of the parties to the case and the recommendatin of the respective district judge, may also authorize the judge who has partly heard the case to continue hearing and to decide said case notwithstanding his transfer or appointment to another court of equal jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

The argument of appellant Tomas Fernando against the validity of the order of Judge Mencias is predicated on Section 51 of Republic Act No. 196, as previously amended by Republic Act No. 1186. It reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 51. Detail of judge to another district or province. — When ever a judge stationed in any province or branch of a court in a province shall certify to the Secretary of Justice that the condition of the docket in his court is such as to require the assistance of an additional judge, or when there is any vacancy in any court or branch of a court in a province, the Secretary of Justice may, in the interest of justice, with the approval of the Supreme Court and for a period of not more than threee months for each time, assign any judge of any other court or province whose docket permits his temporary absence from said court, to hold sessions in the court needing such assistance, or where such vacancy exists. No judge so detailed shall take cognizance of any case when any of the parties thereto objects and the objection is sustained by the Supreme Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Counsel for Tomas Fernando has evidently ovelooked the fact that Section 51 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 1186, was subsequently amended by Republic Act No. 1404, which was approved on September 9, 1955, as above-quoted. Under the provision of this last amendment it is apparent that Judge Mencias had the right to issue the order of dismissal of the action filed by Tomas Fernando against Luis Abalos and others. Besides, when the proceedings stated in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan by the filing of the present action on November 26, 1956, Republic Act No. 1404 had already been approved and all the proceedings had in the case took place after its promulgation.

As to the correctness of the order of Judge Mencias dismissing the cause of action, plaintiff-appellant argues that the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations is null and void for the reason that the case, which originally started in the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Tenancy Division, could not be transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations. Continuing the argument it is claimed that as the action between the Abalos, complainants, and Tomas Fernando, defendant, occurred in the year 1952-1953, at which time the Court was created only on June 14, 1955 by Republic Act No. 1267, the case could not be transferred to the latter court, because the case is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. This argument is based on the langauge of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1409, which was made effective on September 9, 1955.

"SEC. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court. — The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settler all questions, matters, controversies or disputes involving all those relationships established by law which determine the varying right of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land: Provided, however, That cases pending in the Court of Industrial Relations upon approval of this Act which are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, shall be transferred to, and the proceedings therein continued in, the latter court."cralaw virtua1aw library

The apparent meaning of the above-quoted provision is that those cases which started in the Court of Industrial Relations, because the Court of Agrarian Relations had not yet been established when they were pending in the Court of Industrial Relations, should be transferred to the latter court. If were to follow the argument of counsel for the appellant to the effect that the original case of "Luis Abalos and Carlos Abalos v. Tomas Fernando" may not be transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations, because when the action was instituted the Court of Agrarian Relations did not yet exist and therefore the action is not within the jurisdiction of the said agrarian court, there would be no meaning to the above quoted provision of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1409. The intention, precisely, of Republic Act No. 1409, is to transfer cases then pending in the Court of Industrial Relations to the Court of Agrarian Relations. The pending cases were those, like the one in which the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered, brought before the Court of Industrial Relations before the creation of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The argument of counsel for plaintiff-appellant would lead to a clearly absurd proposition not contemplated by the intention of the legislature.

The judgment of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Endencia, 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






May-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9553 May 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ERNEST JOLLIFFE

    105 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-2331 May 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMPOS

    105 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-11474 May 13, 1959 - CANDIDO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. CRISPIN PARAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-9636 May 15, 1959 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ILONE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-11334 May 15, 1959 - SALVADOR CRUZ v. TITA TIRONA MALABAYASBAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-10853 May 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR I. PONELAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-9873 May 20, 1959 - UY HOO & CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    105 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-12044 May 20, 1959 - BRIGIDO JUGUETA, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    105 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-12057 May 20, 1959 - FRANCISCO MARTIR v. PEDRO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    105 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-12696 May 20, 1959 - PERFECTO DIZON, ET AL. v. FERMIN LEAL

    105 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-9102 May 22, 1959 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

    105 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-12164 May 22, 1959 - BENITO LIWANAG, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    105 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-12334 May 22, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. INC. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-12439 May 22, 1959 - FELICIANO MARTIN v. PRUDENCIO MARTIN, ET AL.

    105 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-12666 May 22, 1959 - JUAN CLARIDAD v. ISABEL NOVELLA

    105 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-13141 May 22, 1959 - VICENTA PANTALEON v. HONORATO ASUNCION

    105 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-10732 May 23, 1959 - VICTORIANO GAMIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-11316 May 23, 1959 - ADELAIDA P. IZON v. CREDIT UNION KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR

    105 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-12492 May 23, 1959 - ANDRES DE LA CERNA v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR.

    105 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-12534 May 23, 1959 - ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 777

  • G.R. Nos. L-9616 & L-11783 May 25, 1959 - HOA HIN CO., INC. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    105 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-10454 May 25, 1959 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    105 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-11415 May 25, 1959 - MANUEL BUASON, ET AL. v. MARIANO PANUYAS

    105 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-11743 May 25, 1959 - ASUNCION LIM, ET AL. v. ROQUE VELASCO

    105 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-11506 May 26, 1959 - SIXTO CASTRO, ET AL. v. JUSTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-12737 May 26, 1959 - LORENZO MANUEL v. REMEDIOS TIONG VDA. DE NAOE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-12794 May 26, 1959 - ANASTACIO MORELOS v. GO CHIN LING, ET AL.

    105 Phil 814

  • G.R. No. L-10956 May 27, 1959 - CHEE NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. L-11362 May 27, 1959 - IN RE: SIMEON LIM HAM YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-11554 May 27, 1959 - SEVERINO DAGDAG v. DELFIN FLORES

    105 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-11597 May 27, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO GARCIA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-12759 May 27, 1959 - TOMAS FERNANDO v. LUIS ABALOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14143 May 27, 1959 - MARIANO B. DELGADO v. ANGEL B. TIU, ET AL.

    105 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-7839 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DELIMIOS

    105 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-10781 May 29, 1959 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. MAXIMO J. SAVELLANO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 856

  • G.R. Nos. L-10829-30 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. HENDERSON III, ET AL.

    105 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11563 May 29, 1959 - ROSITA H. PORCUNA v. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    105 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-11860 May 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. LT. COL. LEOPOLDO RELUNIA

    105 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11990 May 29, 1959 - JOSE MOVIDO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    105 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. L-12075 May 29, 1959 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC) v. NARIC WORKERS UNION

    105 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-12183 May 29, 1959 - SIXTO CELESTINO v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    105 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-12184 May 29, 1959 - CHAN KIAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-12299 May 29, 1959 - FRANCISCO M. ORTEGA v. SAULOG TRANSIT

    105 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12331 May 29, 1959 - LAURO B. ISIDRO v. RAYMUNDO OCAMPO

    105 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12394 May 29, 1959 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU)

    105 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12399 May 29, 1959 - RUFINO ADAN, ET AL. v. NICASIA PANTALLA

    105 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12407 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO T. KOH, ET AL.

    105 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-12465 May 29, 1959 - YU PANG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 930

  • G.R. Nos. L-12502 & L-12512 May 29, 1959 - WALKER RUBBER CORPORATION v. NEDERLANDSCH INDISCHE & HANDELSBANK, ET AL.

    105 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-12581 May 29, 1959 - MAXIMO GALVEZ v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    105 Phil 944

  • G.R. Nos. L-12634 & L-12720 May 29, 1959 - JOSE G. TAMAYO v. INOCENCIO AQUINO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-12693 May 29, 1959 - FLORENTINA J. TECHICO v. AMALIA SERRANO

    105 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-12757 May 29, 1959 - MUNICIPALITY OF COTABATO, ET AL. v. ROMAN R. SANTOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-14723 May 29, 1959 - NORBERTO LUMPAY. VALENTIN SUPERABLE v. SEGUNDO MOSCOSO

    105 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. 12157 May 30, 1959 - MARIANO MARQUEZ LIM v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 974