Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > August 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16182 August 29, 1961 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING COMPANY v. JOSE ROBLES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16182. August 29, 1961.]

ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose P. Bengzon, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Hermenegildo Atienza, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; APPEAL FROM INFERIOR COURTS; ISSUES NOT RAISED IN INFERIOR COURT. — Section 9, Rule 40, of the Rules of Court, which provides that upon appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace court to the court of first instance the case shall stand for trial de novo, means that parties are prevented from raising issues in the court of first instance which were not raised in the justice of the peace court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COUNTERCLAIMS NOT ALLOWED. — The Rules of Court, which have the force of law, provide the manner and occasions when issues are to be raised for adjudication. If the rules were to be ignored and litigants were permitted to raise issues without order and regulation, confusion would arise. This would happen if in case appealed to the court of first instance the defendant were allowed to raise counterclaims which were not raised in the inferior court.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal for an order of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Honorable Lucas Lacson, presiding, dismissing the counterclaims presented in defendant’s answer to the complaint in above-entitled Civil Case No. 2113, appealed to it from the Justice of the Peace Court of Sta. Cruz, Zambales.

On November 2, 1956 the Zambales Chromite Mining Company filed a complaint against Jose Robles asking for an order against the defendant to vacate immediately certain mines and mineral claims in the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, belonging to plaintiff and for the payment by the defendant of the sum of P425,573.75 as rentals for said claims, P12,000.00 as monthly royalties, and attorney’s fees. The defendant did not file any written answer in the justice of the peace court; he only made a verbal denial of the allegations of the complaint. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the case was appealed by the defendant to the Court of First Instance.

In said court, the complaint of plaintiff with the prayers above indicated having been reproduced, defendant filed his answer containing denials of the material allegations of the complaint and the following counterclaims; for P19,832.69, representing sums overpaid by defendant to plaintiff in royalties; for P5,000.00, representing the cash bond put up by defendant in favor of plaintiff, which amount is reimbursable to the defendant; for P150,000.00, as damages caused by the strike of defendant’s laborers instigated by the plaintiff; for P1,250,000 as profits defendant would have obtained from Japanese contracts cancelled due to misrepresentations of plaintiff among the Japanese buyers; for P500,000.00 representing amount of profits defendant would have obtained from the exportation of 30,000 tons of chromite ore to Japan under the barter permit; for P250,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the ground that the issues raised in the counterclaims were not raised in the defendant’s answer in the Justice of the peace court. This motion to dismiss was granted by the court below. Against this dismissal the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.

In this Court, the attorney for the defendant argues that inasmuch as no injury has been caused to the substantial rights of the plaintiff’s appeal, and neither has the counterclaims prejudiced the cause of justice and equity, defendant should not be precluded from interposing them in the court of first instance. The Rules expressly provide that upon appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace court to the court of first instance the case shall stand for trial de novo (Section 9, Rule 40). This provision has been interpreted to mean that parties are prevented from raising issues in the court of first instance which were not raised in the justice of the peace court.

"From the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that under the provisions of the law on the subject, upon appeal to the Court of First Instance, the parties cannot file any pleading which raises questions essentially distinct from those lawfully and duly raised in the Court of origin." (Yu Lay v. Galmes, 40 Phil., 651)

"As to defendant’s counterclaim, it is true that the same could not have been entertained in the Court of First Instance on appeal, if it clearly appears that it was not presented in the justice of the Peace Court." (Sarreal v. Tan, 49 O.G. 4099)

Counsel for the appellant argues that the law should not countenance a mere technicality preventing litigants from settling their disputes and claims against each other in as expeditious and thorough a manner as possible. In answer to this argument, we must call attention to the fact that the rules, which have the force of law, provide the manner and occasion when issues are to be raised for adjudication. If the rules were to be ignored and we permit litigants to raise issues without order and regulation, confusion would arise. This would certainly happen were we to allow the issues the defendant has raised in his answer in the court of first instance. The defendant-appellant is not precluded from raising his counterclaims in a separate action if he decides to do so. But in view of the fact that the trial in the court of first instance in an appeal is merely a trial de novo, we are constrained to dismiss the counterclaims in pursuance of the dictates and mandate of the rules.

Finding absolutely no merit to the appeal, we hereby affirm the order of dismissal appealed from with costs against the Appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.J., Paredes, Dizon, de Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., concurs in the result.




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






August-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • UNAV August 15, 1961 - IN RE: PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking the examination

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 and L-17537 to 17559 August 15, 1961 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16779 August 16, 1961 - NATIONAL ABACA AND OTHER FIBERS CORP. v. APOLONIA PORE

  • G.R. No. L-15658 August 21, 1961 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CRISTETA VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-10774 August 24, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11976 August 29, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO PRIETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12760 August 29, 1961 - IN RE: MARIANO D. SEVERO TUASON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY

  • G.R. No. L-13114 August 29, 1961 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA, ET AL. v. ESTHER PERALTA

  • G.R. No. L-14305 August 29, 1961 - GAUDENCIO T. MENDOZA v. MAXIMO M. ALCALA

  • G.R. No. L-15417 August 29, 1961 - FELIX MONTE v. SANTIAGO G. ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16115 August 29, 1961 - BENITO SY HUAN v. JOSE P. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16182 August 29, 1961 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING COMPANY v. JOSE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-16494 August 29, 1961 - PRISCILLA FERNANDEZ-SUBIDO v. ARSENIO LACSON

  • G.R. No. L-17219 August 29, 1961 - SOUTHWESTERN SUGAR & MOLASSES (Far East), INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15809 August 30, 1961 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JOSE M. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-12481 August 31, 1961 - CO TUAN v. CITY OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-12599 August 31, 1961 - PHILIPPINE IRON MINES, INC. v. PEDRO A. VENlDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12682 August 31, 1961 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL. v. PETER C. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13347 August 31, 1961 - IN RE: KENG GIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13757 August 31, 1961 - SEBASTIAN COSCOLLUELA v. TRANQUILINO H. VALDERRAMA

  • G.R. No. L-13817 August 31, 1961 - MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC. v. PERFECTO PIÑON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13974 August 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14173 August 31, 1961 - TOMAS RAMOS v. GENESIS L. DELIZO

  • G.R. No. L-14851 August 31, 1961 - MARCELO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. JOSE DE BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-14965 August 31, 1961 - DAVID FUENTES v. ISABELO V. BINAMIRA

  • G.R. No. L-15013 August 31, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15799 August 31, 1961 - ANGEL VILLARICA, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PALMA GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15869 August 31, 1961 - AMANDA TRIGAL, ET AL. v. SABINA TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16017 August 31, 1961 - PHILIPPINES TOBACCO FLUE-CURING & REDRYING CORPORATION v. MANUEL SABUGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16039 August 31, 1961 - CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. F. A. FUENTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16258 August 31, 1961 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. ELIGIO SAYSON

  • G.R. No. L-16301 August 31, 1961 - DIMITRY SUGANOFF v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16478 August 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO A. MALABANAN

  • G.R. No. L-16566 August 31, 1961 - JOSE I. LIM v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17621 August 31, 1961 - TOMAS MALLORCA v. NICOLAS C. ADOLFO

  • G.R. No. L-18755 August 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ANGEL MOJICA, ETC., ET AL.