G.R. No. L-6991 - NOVEMBER 1957 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-6991November 29, 1957 John Landahl, Inc. vs. Francisco Monroy G.R. No. L-7923November 29, 1957 In Re: Eligio Naval. Potenciano Gabriel, et al. vs. Isabel Gabriel Vda. De Naval, et al. G.R. No. L-7928November 29, 1957 People of the Philippines vs. Emma Sevilla Cruz G.R. No. L-8022November 29, 1957 Geronimo de Los Reyes vs. Simeon Capule, et al. G.R. No. L-8035November 29, 1957 Ong Peng Oan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-8100November 29, 1957 Hotel and Restaurant Free Workers (FFW) vs. Kim San Cafe and Restaurant, et al. G.R. No. L-8612November 29, 1957 Juan Tiongko, et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-8888November 29, 1957 Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-8937November 29, 1957 Olegario Brito Sy vs. Malate Taxi Cab & Garage, Inc. G.R. No. L-8948November 29, 1957 Agustin Liboro, et al. vs. Finance and Mining Investments Corp. G.R. No. L-9217November 29, 1957 Nicolas Diego vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-9490November 29, 1957 People of the Philippines vs. Wenceslao Pascual, et al. G.R. Nos. L-9797 and L-9834November 29, 1957 Price Stabilization Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-9832November 29, 1957 Benigno C. Gutierrez vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. G.R. No. L-10112November 29, 1957 Radio Operators Association of the Philippines vs. Philippines Marine Radio Officers Association, et al. G.R. No. L-10225November 29, 1957 Ang It vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.R. No. L-10339November 29, 1957 G.P.T.C. Employees Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-10512November 29, 1957 Anselma Abella, et al. vs. Jose Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-10518November 29, 1957 Sancho Montoya, et al. vs. Marcelino Ignacio, et al. G.R. No. L-11373November 29, 1957 Heirs of Gregorio Lachica, et al. vs. Fermin Ducusin, et al. G.R. No. L-10486November 27, 1957 Sergio F. del Castillo vs. Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-10114November 26, 1957 Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-10567November 26, 1957 Ana Dionisio, et al. vs. Carmelino G. Alvendia, et al. G.R. No. L-8769November 21, 1957 Dominga Miciano vs. Emiliano Watiwat, et al. G.R. Nos. L-10708 and L-10709November 21, 1957 Felipe Castillo, et al. vs. Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-10421November 20, 1957 Eulogio V. Rocas vs. Primitivo L. Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-10082November 19, 1957 In Re: Salvador Araneta. Salvador Araneta vs. Tomas Hashim G.R. No. L-9061November 18, 1957 Ricardo Velayo vs. Fernando Ordoveza, et al. G.R. Nos. L-9929-30November 18, 1957 Teng Giok Yan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. John Landahl, Inc. vs. Francisco Monroy In Re: Eligio Naval. Potenciano Gabriel, et al. vs. Isabel Gabriel Vda. De Naval, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Emma Sevilla Cruz Geronimo de Los Reyes vs. Simeon Capule, et al. Ong Peng Oan vs. Republic of the Philippines Hotel and Restaurant Free Workers (FFW) vs. Kim San Cafe and Restaurant, et al. Juan Tiongko, et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. Olegario Brito Sy vs. Malate Taxi Cab & Garage, Inc. Agustin Liboro, et al. vs. Finance and Mining Investments Corp. Nicolas Diego vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Wenceslao Pascual, et al. Price Stabilization Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Benigno C. Gutierrez vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Radio Operators Association of the Philippines vs. Philippines Marine Radio Officers Association, et al. Ang It vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.P.T.C. Employees Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Anselma Abella, et al. vs. Jose Rodriguez, et al. Sancho Montoya, et al. vs. Marcelino Ignacio, et al. Heirs of Gregorio Lachica, et al. vs. Fermin Ducusin, et al. Sergio F. del Castillo vs. Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Ana Dionisio, et al. vs. Carmelino G. Alvendia, et al. Dominga Miciano vs. Emiliano Watiwat, et al. Felipe Castillo, et al. vs. Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc., et al. Eulogio V. Rocas vs. Primitivo L. Gonzales, et al. In Re: Salvador Araneta. Salvador Araneta vs. Tomas Hashim Ricardo Velayo vs. Fernando Ordoveza, et al. Teng Giok Yan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6991 November 29, 1957
JOHN LANDAHL, INC.,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO MONROY,defendant-appellant.
Ernesto Zarragoza for appellee.
Antonio Gonzales for appellant.
BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:
On January 17, 1952, plaintiff brought an action against defendant in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the sum of P6,939.98, plus interest and attorneys' fees.
Defendant set up the defense that on March 3, 1951 plaintiff impleaded defendant in the Municipal Court of Manila to recover an account which became due on June 19, 1948 and if it were true that the accounts which plaintiff seeks now to collect were already due on that date, the same should have been included in the former action and having failed to do so, plaintiff is now barred to institute the present action.
After hearing, the court found this defense untenable and rendered judgment sentencing defendant to pay the plaintiff the amounts claimed in the complaint. Hence this appeal.
It appears that defendant received from plaintiff several articles for sale on different dates with the obligation to pay their value within a period of 30 days. The first set was received on April 26, 1948, the second on May 3, 1948, and the third on May 12, 1948 and their aggregate value was P6,939.98. It likewise appears that the action filed in the Municipal Court of Manila is for the recovery of an account which became due on June 19, 1948. Since at the time of the filing of the action before the Municipal Court the accounts which plaintiff now seeks to collect had already matured, it is now contended that these accounts should have been included in the former action and that the failure to do so has the effect of barring the present action. Appellant invokes in his favor the following comment of Chief Justice Moran:
A contract providing for several obligations to be at different times, gives rise to a single and independent cause of action for each obligation that is not performed at the proper time; but if upon the filing of the complaint several obligations have already matured, all of them shall be considered as integrating a single cause of action and must all be included in the complaint, otherwise those that are not thus included are barred forever. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. I, 1952 Ed., p. 19.)
This contention is without merit. As the trial court well said: "An examination of the allegations of the complaint shows that the defendant had received offers on four different occasions to sell on commission several cases of merchandise under the express obligation of selling the same and accounting for the proceeds of the sale thereof within 30 days from receipt of each case, to wit, 30 days after April 26, 1948, 30 days after May 3, 1948, and 30 days after May 19, 1948: the last one being the basis of the action filed in the Municipal Court.Since these contracts are separate and distinct from each other, it is evident that they constitute different causes of action." (Emphasis supplied.) The rule, therefore, against splitting a cause of action does not here apply because the different obligations subject of the present action are covered by separate transactions.
But there is one reason why the accounts now involved in the present action were not included in the former action taken by plaintiff against defendant before the Municipal Court. It appears that at the time the first action was instituted the vouchers covering the accounts involved in the second action have not as yet been found and the defendant was not then disposed to acknowledge them unless they were produced, as shown by the correspondence coursed between them which is not disputed. And said vouchers only became available after the institution of the first action. This situation can be considered as an exception to the rule which prohibits the splitting of a cause of action. We find therefore no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ.,concur.