G.R. No. 46635 - OCTOBER 1939 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 46635October 31, 1939 Escolastico Buenaventura vs. Isabelo Z. Echabez, et al. G.R. No. 46526 and 46527October 31, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Berang (Bagobo) G.R. No. 46455October 31, 1939 Eusebio Pelino vs. Jose Ichon, et al. G.R. No. 46310October 31, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Gonzales G.R. No. 46261October 31, 1939 Pacific Commercial Co., vs. Rosario Geaga G.R. No. 46700October 30, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Gemora G.R. No. 46666October 30, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Casimiro Concepcion G.R. No. 46533October 28, 1939 Manila Racing Club, Inc. vs. Manila Jockey Club, et al. G.R. No. 46306October 27, 1939 Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Lazaro Blas Gervacio G.R. No. 46278October 26, 1939 Menzi and Company, Inc, vs. Quing Chuan, et al. G.R. No. 46386October 26, 1939 Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Benjamin A. Ledesma G.R. No. 46242October 20, 1939 In re: Diego dela Viña Jose Maria R. dela Viña vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 46825October 18, 1939 Arsenio C. Roldan, et al. vs. Pedro Villaroman, et al. G.R. No. 46454October 18, 1939 Dionisia Jamora vs. Dominga Duran G.R. No. 46249October 18, 1939 Intestate Estate of Rafael Jocson Conception Jocson de Hilado vs. Jesus R. Nava G.R. No. 46097October 18, 1939 Teofila Adeva Viuda de Leynez vs. Ignacio Leynez G.R. No. 46591October 16, 1939 Tan Tiong Gong vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. G.R. No. 46534October 16, 1939 J. V. House vs. Sixto dela Costa, et al. G.R. No. 46612October 14, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Teodulo Yecla, et al. G.R. No. 46598October 14, 1939 National Labor Union, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. 46540October 14, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Hilarion Camaclang G.R. No. 46521October 14, 1939 In re: Paulino Diancin Teopista Dolar vs. Roman Catholic Bishiop of Jaro G.R. No. 46246October 14, 1939 Teodoro L. Mariano vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 46459October 13, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo del Rosario G.R. No. 46628October 13, 1939 Radio Theater, Inc., et al. vs. Vicente de Vera, et al. G.R. No. 46457October 12, 1939 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Antonio de Asis G.R. No. 46285October 12, 1939 Manuel Diaz vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 45963October 12, 1939 Carlos Pardo de Tavera, et al. vs. El Hogar Filipino, Inc. G.R. No. 46207October 10, 1939 Victoriano Gatchalian vs. Mamerto Manalo, et al. G.R. No. 45793October 9, 1939 Testate Estate of Jose Laserna Paro Aristona Laserna vs. Jose Altavas G.R. No. 46702October 7, 1939 Aleida Saavedra vs. W. S. Price, et al. G.R. No. 46625October 6, 1939 Batangas Transportation Company, et al. vs. Vicente de Vera G.R. No. 46589October 6, 1939 National Navigation Company, Inc. vs. Jose T. Tinsay, et al. G.R. No. 46573October 5, 1939 Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Juan G. Lesaca, et al. G.R. No. 46501October 5, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Marcos K. Arellano G.R. No. 46413October 5, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Anselmo M. Balagtas, et al. G.R. No. 46320October 5, 1939 In re: Proceso de Guzman Nicolasa de Guzman vs. Angela Limcolioc G.R. No. 46264October 3, 1939 Domingo Ferrer, et al. vs. Jose S. Lopez G.R. No. 46714October 2, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus R. Acha The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Escolastico Buenaventura vs. Isabelo Z. Echabez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Berang (Bagobo) Eusebio Pelino vs. Jose Ichon, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Gonzales Pacific Commercial Co., vs. Rosario Geaga People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Gemora People of the Philippines vs. Casimiro Concepcion Manila Racing Club, Inc. vs. Manila Jockey Club, et al. Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Lazaro Blas Gervacio Menzi and Company, Inc, vs. Quing Chuan, et al. Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Benjamin A. Ledesma In re: Diego dela Viña Jose Maria R. dela Viña vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Arsenio C. Roldan, et al. vs. Pedro Villaroman, et al. Dionisia Jamora vs. Dominga Duran Intestate Estate of Rafael Jocson Conception Jocson de Hilado vs. Jesus R. Nava Teofila Adeva Viuda de Leynez vs. Ignacio Leynez Tan Tiong Gong vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. J. V. House vs. Sixto dela Costa, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teodulo Yecla, et al. National Labor Union, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Hilarion Camaclang In re: Paulino Diancin Teopista Dolar vs. Roman Catholic Bishiop of Jaro Teodoro L. Mariano vs. People of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo del Rosario Radio Theater, Inc., et al. vs. Vicente de Vera, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Antonio de Asis Manuel Diaz vs. People of the Philippines Carlos Pardo de Tavera, et al. vs. El Hogar Filipino, Inc. Victoriano Gatchalian vs. Mamerto Manalo, et al. Testate Estate of Jose Laserna Paro Aristona Laserna vs. Jose Altavas Aleida Saavedra vs. W. S. Price, et al. Batangas Transportation Company, et al. vs. Vicente de Vera National Navigation Company, Inc. vs. Jose T. Tinsay, et al. Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Juan G. Lesaca, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marcos K. Arellano People of the Philippines vs. Anselmo M. Balagtas, et al. In re: Proceso de Guzman Nicolasa de Guzman vs. Angela Limcolioc Domingo Ferrer, et al. vs. Jose S. Lopez People of the Philippines vs. Jesus R. Acha The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 46635 October 31, 1939
ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA,petitioner,
vs.
ISABELO Z. ECHAVEZ, ET AL.,respondents.
Escolastico Buenaventura in his own behalf.
Isabelo Z. Echavez for respondents.
CONCEPCION,J.:
Isabelo Z. Echavez, receiver of certain property in litigation, filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, a rendition of accounts which was assailed by the herein plaintiff-appellant Escolastico Buenaventura. Said accounts appears in the amended bill of exceptions which the appellant filed in civil case No. 493 of the said Court of First Instance of Zamboanga in Dipolog, as well as the opposition or objections made by him, to whom the property in receivership was adjudicated. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga in Dipolog approved the accounts ordering, however, the deduction of the sum of P102.30 from the total balance in favor of the owner. The order thus issued on August 18, 1934, was amended by another order of May 6, 1935, upon motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff-appellant. in said amendatory order the court held that the balance in favor of the receivership is the sum of P11.50 which should be turned over to the plaintiff. On July 11, 1935, the receiver Isabelo Z. Echavez filed a motion asking that the court set aside the amendatory order of May 6, 1935, and reinstate the amended order of August 18, 1934, without alteration. the court granted the motion by its order of July 11, 1935, and to this last order the plaintiff excepted and announced his intention to appeal. The bill of exceptions concluded with the prayer that the court approve and certify the same, and once approved, certified and signed, that its elevate the same to the Supreme Court together with all the documentary evidence presented, without specifying the said evidence.
On October 31, 1938, the Court of Appeals rendered the following decision:
This case has been elevated to this court on appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga approving an accounting of a former receiver of a property involved in a litigation, which finally was adjudicated to the appellant.
The appeal raises only questions of fact. Yet if any evidence on the points in dispute was presented before the commissioner appointed by the court, the deputy clerk of court,such evidence has not been sent up; and without the evidence before us no review of the facts is possible. This would be true even if the so-called affidavits of Pascual Cajocon and Juan Elumbaring transcribed in the bill of exceptions be considered as evidence for the appellant, since these statements are mere conclusions of the declarants.
For this reason, the order appealed from is affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
On November 14, 1938, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration asking for the annulment of the aforesaid decision and for the entry of another after ordering the deputy clerk of court of Dipolog, Zamboanga, to forward the evidence found in the 7 documents attached to the record of the same case, specified — it is said — in the motion filed on June 15, 1937, in accordance with the prayer of the bill of exceptions or record on appeal. The Court of Appeals denied this motion on December 13, 1938. Hence, this position forcertiorariasking that we order "the Honorable Court of Appeals to elevate to this court all the record of the above-entitled case, and to desist from taking any action in the case during the pendency of the present petition."
We do not believe that the Court of Appeals, in deciding this case as it did, has exceeded its jurisdiction, as alleged in the petition, because the evidence not having been elevated to it. it was not possible to pass upon the questions of facts involved in the appeal, wherefore, it was justified in affirming the appealed order.
In his brief the appellant assigns various errors allegedly committed by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, but no specific one committed by the Court of Appeals. He merely contends that the Court of Appeals should have ordered that all the evidence in support of his case be brought together for the correct decision of the case. In this connection there appears in the petition filed by the appellant with the Court of Appeals on June 15, 1937, a motion asking that the deputy clerk of Zamboanga forward to said Court the papers or documents specified in his motion.lâwphi1.nêt
On July 25, 1937, the Court of Appeals ordered that the said motion of the appellant be attached to the record and that the court's attention be called thereto when the case is considered on the merits. The appellant did nothing to have said papers and documents mentioned in his motion elevated to the Court of Appeals, despite the fact that on November 19, 1937, he was notified that this will be included for consideration in the calendar for January, 1938; and from said notice until the date of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on October 31, 1938, almost a year has gone by. For this length of time the appellant likewise made no effort to have the pertinent papers of documents forwarded to the Court of Appeals. He contends that it was not his duty, but that of the clerk of the court of Appeals, to require the elevation of the said papers and documents to the court; but this does not discharge him from the duty of requiring the clerk of court to comply with his duty, because no one better than that appellant can and should take the requisite steps to have all the evidence forwarded to the Court of Appeals by making all the proper arrangements and payments of fees and expenses necessary for this purpose..
The Court of Appeals not having exceeded its jurisdiction, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Moran, JJ., concur.