Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > August 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20872 August 10, 1968 - DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ v. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20872. August 10, 1968.]

DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA, Defendant-Appellee.

Romeo G. Bernaje, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Abeto, Miranda & Trocino, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; DISMISSAL; TIMELINESS; DISCRETION OF COURT. — Whether or not to dismiss an appeal from the municipal court on the alleged ground that it had been perfected out of time, depended on whether or not appellant’s counsel’s failure to claim his mail containing a copy of the decision appealed from was for a justifiable reason, and is a matter that is addressed principally to the discretion of the trial court.

2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. — It is error for a Court of First Instance to dismiss an appealed case for failure of the plaintiff to appear at the trial, where she had a motion for reconsideration of the order denying dismissal of defendant’s appeal, considering that she had a meritorious claim against the defendant, as shown by the fact that the judgment of the municipal court was in her favor, and such dismissal had the effect of an adjudication on the ments. At the risk of some delay — for which both parties appear to be at fault — plaintiff should be given a fair chance to vindicate her asserted right.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, reproduced therein on appeal by defendant from a judgment rendered against the latter by the municipal court of Bacolod City. Plaintiff in turn appealed directly to us from the order of dismissal.

The action was for recovery of money. The municipal court sentenced defendant to pay P3,200, with interest, attorney’s fees and costs. Both parties adopted their respective pleadings in the Court of First Instance, and the case was set for hearing. After several postponements and some six months following the perfection of the appeal, plaintiff moved to dismiss the same on the ground that it had been filed out of time. Specifically, it was alleged that copy of the decision of the municipal court was posted in the mail on January 3, 1962, addressed to defendant’s counsel, and that the appeal was perfected after the lapse of the reglementary period of fifteen days thereafter, or on January 30, 1962. The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied by the Court of First Instance, which found that although notices of the registered mail containing copy of the decision had been sent to defendant’s counsel he failed to claim the same and his failure was excusable.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal in an order dated September 18, 1962, at the same time setting the case for trial on the following October 12. On October 10, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of denial and set the motion for hearing also on October 12. On this latter date the Court of First Instance not only denied the motion in a formal order but also dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff to prosecute, since she was not ready to present evidence while defendant was ready for trial.

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal, dated October 30, 1962, is "from the order dismissing the complaint rendered . . . (on) October 12, 1962, the said order being contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

In her brief on appeal, plaintiff devotes the first two of the three errors she assigns to a discussion of the order of the Court of First Instance denying her motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal from the judgment of the municipal court. We agree with defendant that the correctness of that order is a moot and academic question, since the present appeal to us is only from the dismissal of the complaint. In any case, whether or not to dismiss defendant’s appeal from the municipal court on the alleged ground that it had been perfected out of time depended on whether or not the failure of defendant’s counsel to claim his mail containing a copy of the decision appealed from was for a justifiable reason, and is a matter that is addressed principally to the discretion of the trial court. We are not prepared to say that the said court committed a reversible error in ruling that the delay was excusable and therefore the appeal was on time.

On the other hand, we are loath to deny liberal treatment to plaintiff similar to that extended by the lower court to defendant. It is true that plaintiff did not come prepared for trial on October 12, 1962, nor had she previously filed a motion for its postponement. But then she had a motion for reconsideration of the order denying dismissal of defendant’s appeal, and was intending — as in fact she announced such intention in open court — to elevate the matter to a higher court should her motion be turned down. Apparently she had a meritorious claim against defendant, as shown by the fact that the judgment of the municipal court was in her favor. The dismissal of her complaint virtually wrote finis to her claim, since such dismissal had the effect of an adjudication on the merits (Sec. 3, Rule 17).

We believe that at the risk of some delay in this case — for which both parties appear to be at fault — plaintiff should be given a fair chance to vindicate her asserted right.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded for trial and judgment on the merits. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, 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






August-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23129 August 2, 1968 - ISIDRA FARAON, ET AL v. TOMAS PRIELA

  • G.R. No. L-27260 August 8, 1968 - NAMARCO, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20872 August 10, 1968 - DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ v. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA

  • G.R. No. L-19791 August 14, 1968 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24954 August 14, 1968 - CITY OF NAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25729 August 14, 1968 - PERFECTO CORDERO, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25295 August 14, 1968 - CONCORDIA T. ARONG v. CONRADA SENO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24493 August 14, 1968 - ADOLFO C. NAVARRO v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-27205 August 15, 1968 - PCI BANK v. JUAN GRIÑO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29044 August 15, 1968 - WORKMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19880 August 15, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19149 August 16, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29169 August 19, 1968 - ROGER CHAVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24774 August 21, 1968 - RAUL CIPRIANO v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-28903 August 22, 1968 - MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. SANTIAGO YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 24116-17 August 22, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28511 August 22, 1968 - ARTURO SERIÑA v. CFI OF BUKIDNON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24845 August 22, 1968 - ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA v. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23768 August 23, 1968 - JOSE GARRIDO v. PILAR G. TUASON

  • A.C. No. 549 August 26, 1968 - MAXIMA C. LOPEZ v. MANUEL B. CASACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-19490 August 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19737 August 26, 1968 - HENG TONG TEXTILES CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24405 August 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DINGALAN FOREST PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28188 August 27, 1968 - J.M. JAVIER LOGGING CORP. v. ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28613 August 27, 1968 - AMBROCIO LACUNA v. BENJAMIN H. ABES

  • G.R. No. L-25029 August 28, 1968 - PROCESO VINLUAN v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22814 August 28, 1968 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHIL. INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22822 August 30, 1968 - GREGORIA PALANCA v. AMERICAN FOOD MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968 - JUANITO CARLOS v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23482 August 30, 1968 - ALFONSO LACSON v. CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23541 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO GUARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23979 August 30, 1968 - HOMEOWNERS’ ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF MLA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24165 August 30, 1968 - JUAN M. SERRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24189 August 30, 1968 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. SAÑGILO-ITOGON WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24471 August 30, 1968 - SILVERIO MARCHAN, ET AL v. ARSENIO MENDOZA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22766 August 30, 1968 - SURIGAO ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL v. MUN. OF SURIGAO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22212 August 30, 1968 - FARM IMPLEMENT & MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25049 August 30, 1968 - FILEMON RAMIREZ, ET AL v. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28223 August 30, 1968 - MECH. DEPT. LABOR UNION SA PHIL. NATL. RAILWAYS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28891 August 30, 1968 - DBP v. ESTANISLAO D. SARTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25059 August 30, 1968 - FOITAF v. ANGEL MOJICA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28751 August 30, 1968 - JOSE TUBURAN v. FRANK BALLENER, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26197 August 30, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22769 August 30, 1968 - JUAN ISBERTO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21965 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO S. GERVACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22183 August 30, 1968 - RECEIVER FOR NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. INC. v. PEDRO V. YBAÑEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-22359 & L-22524-25 August 30, 1968 - MATEO CORONEL, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29223 August 30, 1968 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20495 August 31, 1968 - BELEN CRUZ v. LUIS M. SIMON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20831 August 31, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL v. LUIS U. GO

  • G.R. No. L-23023 August 31, 1968 - JOSE P. STA. ANA v. FLORENTINO MALIWAT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24884 August 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIO PELAGO Y BEKILLA

  • G.R. No. L-24606 August 31, 1968 - JOSE T. JAMANDRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL