G.R. No. L-3466 - DECEMBER 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3466December 29, 1906 Meyer Herman vs. A.S. Crossfield, et al. G.R. No. L-3120December 29, 1906 Bryan, Landon Co. vs. American Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-2966December 29, 1906 Nicolas Conception Tan Taco vs. Vicente Gay G.R. No. L-2916December 29, 1906 United States vs. Vicente Orosa G.R. No. L-2825December 29, 1906 United States vs. Paul A. Weems G.R. No. L-2395December 29, 1906 Doroteo Cortes vs. Dy-Jia, et al. G.R. No. L-3249December 28, 1906 United States vs. Jose Flor Mata G.R. No. L-2765December 27, 1906 Jose Doliendo vs. Domingo Biarnesa G.R. No. L-1999December 27, 1906 United States vs. Vicente Manuel G.R. No. L-2541December 26, 1906 Ignacio Icaza, et al. vs. Ricardo Flores, et al. G.R. No. L-3093December 22, 1906 United States vs. Regino Manabat G.R. No. L-3119December 20, 1906 United States vs. Estanislao Cagaoaan, et al. G.R. No. L-2908December 20, 1906 Antonio Torres Y Roxas, et al. vs. Ramon B. Genato G.R. No. L-2757December 20, 1906 United States vs. Chan Lim Alan G.R. No. L-2855December 19, 1906 Fleming & Company, et al. vs. The Lorcha "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" G.R. No. L-3204December 17, 1906 United States vs. Flaviano Salanatin G.R. No. L-2828December 14, 1906 United States vs. Juan Solis G.R. No. L-3094December 12, 1906 Fred Sparrevohn vs. Emil M. Bachrach, et al. G.R. No. L-2766December 12, 1906 United States vs. Paulo Cabamngan, et al. G.R. No. L-3117December 11, 1906 United States vs. Macario Adriatico G.R. No. L-3050December 11, 1906 Luis Santos vs. Silvestre Dilag G.R. No. L-3010December 11, 1906 Julian Tubucon vs. Petrona Dalisay G.R. No. L-2787December 11, 1906 Celso Dayrit vs. Gil Gonzalez G.R. No. L-2532December 11, 1906 In Re: Macario Adriatico G.R. No. L-2777December 10, 1906 Maria Casal vs. Emilio Moreta G.R. No. L-3495December 7, 1906 James J. Rafferty vs. The Judge of the Court of First Instance for the Province of Cebu, et al. G.R. No. L-3078December 7, 1906 Fernando Perez vs. Juan Garcia Bosque G.R. No. L-3062December 7, 1906 Maria Magallanes vs. Teodora Cañeta G.R. No. L-3006December 7, 1906 Jose Gonzalez vs. Agustin Bañes G.R. No. L-2929December 7, 1906 Fausta Batarra vs. Francisco Marcos G.R. No. L-2890December 7, 1906 Valentina Palma vs. Jorge Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-2803December 7, 1906 Damasa Alcala vs. Francisco Salgado G.R. No. L-2472-73December 7, 1906 United States vs. Tomas Cortes, et al. G.R. No. L-3429December 6, 1906 Castle Bros. vs. Go-Juno G.R. No. L-3022December 6, 1906 United States vs. Sebastian Lozano G.R. No. L-2921December 6, 1906 Lucas Gonzalez vs. Rosendo del Rosario G.R. No. L-2746December 6, 1906 Mateo Cariño vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-2704December 6, 1906 United States vs. Federico Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-1952December 6, 1906 Carlos Gsell vs. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue G.R. No. L-2671December 5, 1906 United States vs. Victoriano Poblete, et al. G.R. No. L-3534December 4, 1906 To Guioc-Co vs. Lorenzo del Rosario G.R. No. L-3009December 4, 1906 Felicidad Bustamante, et al. vs. Cristobal Bustamante G.R. No. L-2923December 4, 1906 United States vs. Pedro Palmadres G.R. No. L-2880December 4, 1906 Frank S. Bourns vs. D. M. Carman, et al. G.R. No. L-2718December 4, 1906 Jose Emeterio Guevara vs. Hipolito de Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-2530December 3, 1906 Order of Dominicans vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-2242December 1, 1906 Houston B. Parot vs. Carlos Gemora The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Meyer Herman vs. A.S. Crossfield, et al. Bryan, Landon Co. vs. American Bank, et al. Nicolas Conception Tan Taco vs. Vicente Gay United States vs. Vicente Orosa United States vs. Paul A. Weems Doroteo Cortes vs. Dy-Jia, et al. United States vs. Jose Flor Mata Jose Doliendo vs. Domingo Biarnesa United States vs. Vicente Manuel Ignacio Icaza, et al. vs. Ricardo Flores, et al. United States vs. Regino Manabat United States vs. Estanislao Cagaoaan, et al. Antonio Torres Y Roxas, et al. vs. Ramon B. Genato United States vs. Chan Lim Alan Fleming & Company, et al. vs. The Lorcha "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" United States vs. Flaviano Salanatin United States vs. Juan Solis Fred Sparrevohn vs. Emil M. Bachrach, et al. United States vs. Paulo Cabamngan, et al. United States vs. Macario Adriatico Luis Santos vs. Silvestre Dilag Julian Tubucon vs. Petrona Dalisay Celso Dayrit vs. Gil Gonzalez In Re: Macario Adriatico Maria Casal vs. Emilio Moreta James J. Rafferty vs. The Judge of the Court of First Instance for the Province of Cebu, et al. Fernando Perez vs. Juan Garcia Bosque Maria Magallanes vs. Teodora Cañeta Jose Gonzalez vs. Agustin Bañes Fausta Batarra vs. Francisco Marcos Valentina Palma vs. Jorge Fernandez, et al. Damasa Alcala vs. Francisco Salgado United States vs. Tomas Cortes, et al. Castle Bros. vs. Go-Juno United States vs. Sebastian Lozano Lucas Gonzalez vs. Rosendo del Rosario Mateo Cariño vs. Insular Government United States vs. Federico Ortiz, et al. Carlos Gsell vs. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue United States vs. Victoriano Poblete, et al. To Guioc-Co vs. Lorenzo del Rosario Felicidad Bustamante, et al. vs. Cristobal Bustamante United States vs. Pedro Palmadres Frank S. Bourns vs. D. M. Carman, et al. Jose Emeterio Guevara vs. Hipolito de Ocampo, et al. Order of Dominicans vs. Insular Government, et al. Houston B. Parot vs. Carlos Gemora The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906
MEYER HERMAN,petitioner,
vs.
A. S. CROSSFIELD, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, AND RUBERT AND GUAMIS,respondents.
Thos. D. Aitken for petitioner.
Ney & Bosque for respondents.
WILLARD,J.:
On the 8th day of March, 1906, in an action pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila in which Rubert and Guamis were the plaintiffs and Meyer Herman was the defendant, a final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. On the 14th day of March of the same year the plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial on the ground that the findings of the court were plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. It does not appear that any order was made upon this motion. On the 26th day of March the plaintiffs made another motion asking that the decision be set aside and that the case be opened for the purpose of taking the testimony of Dr. Altman, and for such other proceedings as the court might deem just and equitable. Notice was given that this motion would be heard on the 31st day of March, which was the last day of the term of court. Nothing appear to the contrary, we assume that the motion was argued on that day. It was not decided, however, until the 14th day of April, and after the term at which the judgment had been entered had and closed. The order then made was that the case be reopened for the purpose of receiving the testimony of Dr. Altman, the court saying in its order that there was no showing that this evidence was newly discovered. On the 12th day of July, 1906, the defendant in the case in the court below, Meyer Herman, commenced this original action ofcertiorariin this court, claiming that the order made in the court below on the 14th day of April was void because at that time that court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for a new trial, the term at which the judgment was entered having expired.lawphil.net
The defendants in this original action have demurred to the complaint and the case is now before the court for the resolution of the demurrer.
The contention of the plaintiff that at the expiration of the term the court was without jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for a new trial can not be sustained in view of the decision of this court in the case ofSantos vs. Villafuerte1(4 Off. Gaz., 359).
In that case and other cases cited therein, it was held that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to entertain and decide a motion for a new trial after the term at which the decision was rendered had expired. The ruling announced in those cases disposes of this case.
Whether the order made on the 14th of April was right or wrong is not before us for decision. The court had jurisdiction to decide the motion, even if it were a motion for a new trial, a point which we do not determine. If it decided it incorrectly, the plaintiff, who was the defendant in that case, had the right to except to the order and, although he could not bring the case here at once for decision because the order was not a final judgment, yet he could do so after final judgment had been entered and could then have the order in question reviewed.
The demurrer is sustained and the plaintiff is allowed ten days from the notification of the order in which to amend his complaint. If no amended complaint is presented within that time of the clerk will, without further order from this court, enter final judgment in this case in favor of the defendants, with costs. So ordered.lawphil.net
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., dissents.
Footnotes
1 5 Phil. Rep., 739.