Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25529. February 22, 1968.]

BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN and MARIA CASTOR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA and FEDERICO STO. TOMAS, Defendants-Appellees.

Panganiban, Abad & Associates, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Tomas S. Macasaet for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; NOTICE OF APPEAL; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO STATE THEREIN APPEAL FROM ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. — Where plaintiffs-appellants failed to state in the notice of appeal that they were likewise appealing from the order denying their motion for summary judgment, i. e. from the order of March 16, 1965, said point cannot be properly raised in the appellate court, for Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that: "the notice of appeal shall specify the parties to the appeal; shall designate the judgment or order or part thereof; appealed from, and shall specify the court to which the appeal is taken" The word shall is used thrice obviously to lend emphasis to the nature of the provision. And this is as it should be. For otherwise, if the party appealing is free to question on appeal even orders not included in the notice of appeal, the parties and the court a quo would be at a loss in determining which orders are appealed and which are not, for purposes of execution of orders not included in the appeal.

2. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; POSTPONEMENT, MOTION FOR; COURT’S DISCRETION TEMPERED. — The allowance or denial of petition for postponement and the setting aside of orders previously issued, rest principally upon the sound discretion of the judge to whom they are addressed, but always predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties of the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest, having been filed accordingly, it is sound judicial discretion to allow them. (Camara Vda de Zubiri v. Zubiri, Et Al., L-16745, Dec. 17, 1966; Rexwell Corporation v. Canlas, L-16746, Dec. 30, 1961.

3. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF MOTION SEASONABLY FILED. — Where it appears that plaintiffs-appellants seasonably filed a motion for postponement with the conformity of defendants-appellees’ counsel, which was received by the clerk of the lower court four (4) days before the scheduled hearing; and that the allowance of such petition for postponement would not affect substantial rights nor occasion damage or prejudice to the defendants; and that the intention to delay by such postponement was not manifest; the lower court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint on the day of the hearing for non-appearance of plaintiffs and their counsel should be reversed and set aside, and the case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


The antecedent facts alleged in this appeal from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On May 1, 1961, Benjamin Panganiban and Maria Castor entered into a Contract of Lease (Exh. "A" of the Complaint) over a piece of land located in Dulong Ilog, Paligui, Candaba, Pampanga, containing more or less 950,000 square meters. 1

By letter dated February 5, 1964 2 of the Acting Director of Public Works, Panganiban and Castor were informed that they were granted water rights on January 17, 1964 by the Secretary of Public Works, after due hearing and as recommended by the Bureau of Public Works, enabling them to draw water from the Maasim River, otherwise known as the Bahay Pare River, which is adjacent to the above mentioned property. And for this purpose they were authorized to construct the necessary structures, including an earth dam. 3 Pursuant to this authority, Panganiban and Castor caused the construction of an earth dam across said river in order to impound sufficient water to enable them to plant and irrigate the plants and crops in said land.

On February 9, 1964, Araceli Vda. de Sta. Maria and Federico Sto. Tomas caused the construction of another earth dam across the Maasim River about a kilometer upstream from the dam constructed by Panganiban and Castor and adjacent to the latter’s property.

Panganiban and Castor on September 8, 1964 filed a complaint for actual, moral and exemplary damages, 6% interest thereon, and 20% of the sum due as attorney’s fees, alleging that despite their repeated demands Sta. Maria and Sto. Tomas refused and failed to remove said erected dam nor to release any water from said river. The alleged actual damages suffered by Panganiban total P28,984.00. 4

On September 28, 1964, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and after its denial, they filed their answer with counterclaim on October 15, 1964. Plaintiffs filed their answer to the counterclaim on October 26, 1964.

On November 3, 1964, plaintiffs filed a request for admission addressed to defendants thru the latter’s counsel. This was opposed by defendants with general and unspecific denials on November 14, 1964.

The lower court on November 23, 1964 issued an order denying plaintiffs’ request for admission and setting the case for hearing on December 29, 1964. On December 8, 1964, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of said order and for the postponement of the scheduled hearing.

On December 14, 1964, the lower court issued an order reconsidering its order of November 23, 1964, and decreeing that the request for admission and opposition thereto be retained in the record.

Plaintiffs on January 27, 1965 filed a motion for summary judgment. This was opposed by defendants on February 5, 1965.

On March 16, 1965, the lower court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider this order on March 31, 1965, but the lower court denied said motion on April 29, 1965 and set the case for hearing on the merits on May 31, 1965.

Plaintiffs Panganiban and Castor elevated the matter to this Court in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction. On May 31, 1965 We dismissed the petition on the ground that appeal in due time was the proper remedy. 5 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration in said case was likewise denied by Us.

On July 3, 1965, plaintiffs’ counsel, with the conformity of defendants’ counsel, moved for the postponement of the hearing scheduled for July 7, 1965 on the ground that he was scheduled to leave for abroad on July 3, 1965 and would not be back until July 10, 1965.

On July 7, 1965, the lower court ordered the dismissal of the complaint as well as defendants’ counterclaim for failure to prosecute, without pronouncement as to costs, on the ground that when the case was called in the morning of that date neither the parties nor their respective counsel appeared, notwithstanding notice to them.

Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the above order was denied by the lower court in its order of August 3, 1965.

Plaintiffs appealed. Appellants in their brief would raise two points: (1) Did the lower court err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment? (2) Did the lower court err in dismissing the suit for failure to prosecute?

Appellants cannot properly raise the first point, for their failure to state in their notice of appeal that they are likewise appealing from the order of March 16, 1965 denying their motion for summary judgment.

Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that: "The notice of appeal shall specify the parties to the appeal; shall designate the judgment or order or part thereof, appealed from, and shall specify the court to which appeal is taken." (Emphasis supplied) It is to be noted that the word shall is used thrice, obviously to lend emphasis to the mandatory nature of the provision. And this is as it should be. For otherwise, if the party appealing is free to question on appeal even orders not included in the notice of appeal, the parties and the court a quo would be at a loss in determining which orders are appealed and which are not, for purposes of execution of orders not included in the appeal.

As to the other point, however, plaintiffs-appellants seasonably filed a motion for postponement which was received by the clerk of the lower court four (4) days before the scheduled hearing. Defendants- appellees’ counsel agreed to said postponement, as evidenced by his conforme appearing at the foot of said motion. 6 And it was plaintiffs’ first motion exclusively for postponement, because their two other motions for postponement, filed on December 8, 1964 and April 23, 1965, were incidental to their request for admission and their motion for summary judgment, respectively. Furthermore, said motion for postponement had an impelling reason, plaintiffs’ counsel had to go, and did go abroad, in his professional capacity. It was not filed to delay or gain time.

Moreover, it is not entirely the parties’ fault that the case was not earlier set for hearing, because the lower court motu propio cancelled the hearing on January 29, 1965 in order to attend the convention of all judges held in the City of Manila. Besides, the plaintiffs-appellants had only one counsel and therefore the absence of their lawyer left them without counsel in the case.

It is true that the allowance or denial of petitions for postponement and the setting aside of orders previously issued, rest principally upon the sound discretion of the judge to whom they are addressed, but always predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties of the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. 7 When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest, the corresponding motion to transfer the hearing having been filed accordingly, it is sound judicial discretion to allow them. 8

Defendants-appellees, through counsel, having given their conformity to the postponement asked for by the appellants, it is safe to assume that no damage or prejudice would be suffered by them because of said postponement. As a matter of fact, neither they nor their counsel likewise appeared on the date set for trial.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and the case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Record on Appeal, pp. 18-21.

2. Record on Appeal, pp. 21-23.

3. Record on Appeal, p. 13.

4. Record on Appeal, p. 17.

5. Resolution in L-24567 (Panganiban v. Romero).

6. Record on Appeal, p. 43.

7. Camara Vda. de Zubiri v. Zubiri, Et Al., L-16745, December 17, 1966.

8. Rexwell Corporation v. Canlas, L-16746, December 30, 1961.




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






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA