Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    G. R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

    Uploaded by

    MATANG Pilipino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G. R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

    Uploaded by

    MATANG Pilipino
    2 views5 pages

    Original Title

    G. R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2 views5 pages

    G. R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

    Uploaded by

    MATANG Pilipino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    Supreme Court of the Philippines

    63 Phil. 445

    G. R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936


    GO OCCO & CO., PETITIONER, VS. SIXTO DE LA COSTA,
    JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, AND ALEJANDRO
    S. REYES, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
    LAUREANA ANTONIO, RESPONDENTS.

    DECISION

    LAUREL, J.:
    This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with
    this court by Go Occo & Co. against Sixto de la
    Costa, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
    The complaint recites the following":
    "That the plaintiff is a corporation duly
    organized and existing under the laws of the
    Philippines, with domicile at Cebu, Cebu,
    and the defendant is a Judge of the Court of
    First Instance for the Province of Cebu;
    "For its cause of action, the plaintiff alleges:
    1. That, on March 25, 1935, plaintiff Go
    Occo & Co. filed an action with the
    justice of the peace court of Cebu, Cebu,
    to recover the amount of P467.25
    against People's Bazar representing the
    purchase price of goods taken on credit.
    A writ of preliminary attachment was
    issued on the same against the
    defendant, and same was levied upon
    merchandise belonging to the defendant
    and taken possession of by the
    provincial sheriff of Cebu. On March 29,
    1935, the estate of Laureana Antonio,
    through its administrator Alejandro S.
    Reyes, filed an intervention complaint
    claiming the sum of P1,380 representing
    unpaid rent of a house occupied by the
    defendant's store in Cebu, Cebu. Over
    the verbal objection of the plaintiff to
    the admission of the intervenor's
    intervention complaint on the ground
    that intervention complaint cannot be
    filed in the justice of the peace court and
    that intervenor's intervention complaint
    claimed the amount of P1,380 which was
    beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of
    the peace court, the justice of the peace
    court of Cebu tried the case and
    rendered judgment declaring plaintiffs
    claim preferred to that of
    intervetnor's. On May 4, 1935, the
    intervenor appealed from the judgment
    of the justice of the peace court, paying
    the amount of P16 for docket fee on
    that same day. On June 28, 1935, the
    clerk of Court of First Instance of Cebu
    addressed a letter to the intervenor
    informing him that he had to pay still the
    amount of P4 as the docket fee on that
    appeal was P20. Up to the present time
    the said intervenor has not made good
    the payment of the said P4.
    2. That, intervention complaint filed in the
    justice of the peace court was not
    reproduced by the intervenor on appeal
    in the Court of First Instance.
    3. That, for non-payment of the full
    docket fees, the case was not ready for
    trial, even if initiated originally in the
    Court of First Instance.
    4. That, on January 18, 1936, the
    defendant judge entered on order
    declaring the plaintiff Go Occo & Co., in
    default on the intervenor's intervention
    complaint. On that same date the said
    defendant judge entered a judgment
    declaring that the said defendant
    People's Bazar was in debt to the said
    intervenor's estate in the amount of
    Pl,380 and that the said intervenor
    estate's claim was superior to any other
    credit. Upon being notified of the
    order of default and of the judgment,
    plaintiff Go Occo & Co. filed a motion
    on February 5, 1936, asking for the
    reinstatement of the case and for the
    dismissal of the intervenor's appeal.
    (Here motion is reproduced in full.)
    5. That, on motion by the attorney for the
    intervenor, the hearing of the. aforesaid
    plaintiff's motion which was set for
    February 11, 1936, was postponed by
    defendant judge to February 25, 1936,
    over the objection of the plaintiffs
    attorneys, the objection being for the
    reason that plaintiff's right to appeal
    might lapse. To assure plaintiff's right
    of appeal, plaintiff filed an amended
    motion for reconsideration and for
    dismissal of intervenor's appeal on
    February 12, 1936. (Here motion is
    also reproduced in full.)
    6. On March 2, 1936, the defendant judge
    entered an order denying the motion for
    reconsideration and ordering the
    execution of the judgment. (Here
    order is reproduced.)
    7. That, as aforesaid, the defendant judge
    has ordered the execution of the
    judgment in the said case, and that
    unless enjoined not to do so, the said
    judge will proceed to have his order
    executed.
    8. That, there is no appeal nor any other
    plain, speedy and adequate remedy for
    the plaintiff.
    "Wherefore, this Honorable Court is
    respectfully prayed to order the defendant
    judge to certify the records of this case for a
    review by that Honorable Court and to issue
    a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
    requiring the said judge to recall the order
    of execution of the judgment aforesaid."
    It will be observed that according to the foregoing
    petition, the court below issued various orders in
    civil case No. 10606, Court of First Instance of Cebu,
    entitled "Go Occo & Co., plaintiff, vs. People's
    Bazar, defendant, versus Alejandro S. Reyes,
    administrator of the estate of the deceased,
    Laureana Antonio, intervenor." Among these orders
    are: The order of January 18,1936, declaring the
    plaintiff therein in default, that of the same date in
    favor of the intervenor's claim, and that of March
    2,1936, disallowing the motion for reconsideration
    presented by the plaintiff therein and ordering the
    issuance of a writ of execution. The petition does
    not state which of these orders is assailed or was
    issued by the inferior court in excess or extra-
    limitation of its jurisdiction or with manifest abuse
    of its discretion. Worse than this, the petition does
    not even contain a general averment that the Court
    of First Instance of Cebu in taking cognizance of the
    civil case aforementioned acted without or in
    excess of its jurisdiction. It simply alleges in
    paragraph 8 thereof that "there is no appeal nor
    any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the
    plaintiff."

    The petition in this case is vague and indefinite. The


    administration of justice is not a mattes of guess
    work. While pleadings should be liberally construed
    with a view to substantial justice between the
    parties, courts should not be left, to conjectures in
    the determination of issues submitted by the parties
    litigant or their attorneys. Where, therefore, the
    pleading is, as in this case, vague and uncertain,
    courts will not allow themselves to be led to the
    commission of error or injustice by exploring in the
    midst of uncertainty and divining the intention of the
    parties or their counsel.

    Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with


    costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial,


    and Diaz, JJ., concur.
    Batas.org

    You might also like