7. Supreme Court Decisions, Mercader v. Hon. Valila et al. - Justice Bengzon.pdf · Rare Periodicals

7. Supreme Court Decisions, Mercader v. Hon. Valila et al. - Justice Bengzon.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: Articles 1278, 1279, and 1286 and 1290 of our Civil Code read: "ART. 1278. Compcm,ation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, arc creditors a nd debtors of each vt.her.'' "ART. 1279. In order that compensation ma y ~ proper, it is necessary: ( l ) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) T hat both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due arc consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be <Inc: (i) That they he liquicl:ltcd .:tnd dcmandablc; (6) That over neither of them th•·rt' be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and conununicated in due time to the debtor." "ART. 1286. Compensation takes place by operation of 2. ID. ; VF.NUE OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WHERE LIBEL JS CIRCULATED JN PROVI NCE OR CITY WHERE NEITHER OFFENDED PARTY NOR OFFENDER RESIDES.- Petitior.er here maintains that even if t he justice of the peace com·ts have jurisdiction to conduct prelimin:uy invl:!stigations, the Hnue was improperly laid in Bohon, because neither the complainant nor the defendant. resided there. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republie Ad 1289 provides that where the libel is published or circulated in a province or city wherein neither the offended pa~i:y nor the offender resides, the action may be brought therf'i;i; and the complaint herein questioned, a!kges that the libel h!l.d been pubfishctl and circu/a'tetl in B obm1 and other ttmnicipalilies of Samar. Bohon and Sama1·, therefore, constituted propct· venue. DEC J SION On April 20, 1959, Amancio Balite, filed with the justice of the peace court of Bohon, Samar, a criminal complaint for libel law, even though the debts may be payable at different places, against Delfin Mcrcader. After making the preliminary examinbut there shall be an indemnity for expenses of ru.:changc or transportation to the place of payment." "ART. 1290. When ail thf' requisites mentioned in arti,.le 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and ru.:tinguishes both debt:;; to the concurrent amount, even though the Cl'editors and debtoi·s are not aware of. the compensation." Pursuant to these provisions, defendant would have been entitled to deduct from plaintiff's claims of P20,000 - if the latter were established - the sum of Pl5G involved in her first counterclaim, if the al.ego.lion thereof were ti·ue, evc11 if no srtch co1rnterclaim had be~m set up iJ1 he1· answer, for "when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 a1·c present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of'" - and, hence, did not plead - "the compensation''. Moreover, it ls dear f1om the reco'rd before us that said eounterdaim was set 1111, not so much to obtain a money judgment against plaintiff, as by way of set-off, to reduce the sum collectible by the latter, if successful to the extent of the ::oncurrent nmC'ur.t (Moore'!! FedNal Practice, Vol. l, pp. 69&-696) (See, also, Wisdom vs. Guess Drycleaning Co., 5 Fed. Sup!., 762-767). WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby reversed, insofar as it dismisses defendant's first counterclaim, and the case, is, accordingly, remanded t<i the lower court for f url.her pr<>c:eedings, not inconsi!>tent with t his decision, with costs ag:.i.iust plaintifi-appellee, Enrique Icasiano. IT SO ORDERED. Bengwn., C. J., Pridil!a, l1•rntistr1 Aliyrlo. f_,rtbnulor, J.IJ.l. Reyes, P4redc8 mul De l-1'011, JJ., concuri°1!d. Bar-rtra tin<l Di::ou, JJ., to::ik no part. Ill Delffo Mercader, Petitioner, v11. Hon. Frrrncillc.J Valila of the J1111tice of the Peace C'ou:rt of Bobon, Samar and Amancio /Jnlitt;, Respondents, G.R. No. L-16118, February 16, 1961, BengZ<Yn, J . 1. LIBEL; VENUE FOR CRIMINAL ACTION A ND Cl\°!L ACTIO N FOR DA!>.IAGES.- The riimina\ and civil act!ol" for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of tho province or city where any of the accused or any of the offended parties resides at the time of the commission of the offense. Where the libel is pt:iblished, circulated, displayed or PXhibited in a province or city wherein neither lhe offender nor the offended party resides the civil and criminal actions may be brought in the Court of First Instance thereof. (Art. 360, Rev. Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act 1289). ation, the judge issued the corresponding warrant of a rrest. The accused moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and cause nf action. Upon denial thei:eof, the accused filed in September 1959, this petition for certiorari, based mainly on the alleg-ed want of jurisdiction of the aforesaid inferior court. In ordinary l'ircumstanccs, the petition would have been Cif;· missed, witho1.:t prejudice to its presentation before the local eom-t o! first instance. But at that time then• were pending before this Tribunal some cases involving the jurisdiction, or lack of jurisdi"~ 1 ion, of justic<:f; of the peace over e;·iminal libel, in the light of llepublic Act 1289, ap1>roved .lune 15, 1955.(1) So, we gave due course to this petition. In his answer, the respondent judg(' <!Xrlained that he had taken cognizance of the case for purposes of preliminary investigation. I n fact, he stated, as the accused h~1d failed to attend the hearing, and there was prima facie evidence, he fonvardcd the exvediente to the •_·e>urt of first instance for the · trial on the merits. The controversy is thus reduced to the question whether the infet'ior coul't!: may, after the passage o! Republic Act 1289, ent:::rt11in cnminal eompl<lints for written defamation, not for trial on the merits, but for purposes of preliminary investigation. It is cnntcnded by those who would deny such authority, that Republic A rt. 1289 had the effect of depriving justice of the peace court'! of their power even to conduct preliminary investigations b the m:;i.tter of libel or written defamation. 'fhe question has been decifled in the affirmative in People v. Olarte, L-13027, June 30, 196fl. Tllrough Mr. Justice Concepcion, this Court said: "Can we justly hold that by fixing for said offense' a penalty falling under the original jurisdiction of courts of fir!lt instance, the framel'S of section 2 of Act No. 277 had cYince:t the intent,, either to establish an exception to the proviskn= of Ad No. 194, authori2.ing i:very ju~tice of the peace, to mo.lie pn~limina1·y investigation ~if any crime ali"eia-ed to have het:n committed within his municipality, jurisdiction to hear and determine which is by Jaw x x x vested in the judges of Cou!·ts of First Instance,' or to divest justice of th<! peace Of such authority, as regards the crime of libet?" (') Amt>nding Art. 361} of the Revised Pen:il Code to read :i~ follows: "x x x The criminal ar.d ci~·il action for dan~nges in cnee;:: of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be <ile<I !.;imultaneously or Sf'parate\y with the Court of First Instanc~ of the province or city where any of 1 he ro.ccl!.;;eJ or :my of the "ffcndect pai·ties resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Prnvidecl, however. that whertJ the libel is published, circulated. <lisplayed or f'xhibited in a province or city wherein neither the offender nor the offendc>d party resides the civil and criminal adions may ~ brought in the Court of F irst Instnnct! the!'eof. x x x." November 30. 1961 LA WYERS \JOURNAL Page 33f.s "It is ob\'10us to us that such inference is unwarranted. To · begin with, there is absolutely nothing in Act No, 27ri' to indicate the aforementioned intent. Secondly, r.'.lpea1 or amendments by implication are neither presumed nor favored. On the contrary, every statute should be harmonized with them. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of courts o! first instance to hear anrl determine crimina l· actions within the original jurisdiction thereof !s far from inconsistent with tho authority of justices of the peace to make preliminary investigations in such actions. What is more, this authority has beC\n vested to relieve courts of first instance of the duty to hear cases which are devcir! of' probablo cause, thereby paving the way for the effective exel"cise of the original jurisdiction ol' said courts and expc:!itious disposal by the S!l.me of criminal cases which a1·e prima facie meritorious. x x x." ''Jt is apparent, from a 1 >erusal of the t hree (3) provisions aforementioned, that the !rnmers of Article 360 of the R~vised Penal Code intended "to introduce no substantial ch!lng<> in the existing Jaw, except as regards venue, and that, in all other respech, they meant to preserve and continue the status quo under sections 2 and 11 of Aot No. 2117. ~heh. was, n!i:io the purpose of Congress in passing House Bill No. 2695, whir.h eventually became Republic Act No. 1289." The Bohon .iustice of th~ peace has thus al'led within hie Samuel A. Arcamo, J ustice of the Peace of Malangas, Zamboanga q"el Sul", Ong Peng Kee and Ad£:lia Ong. Petitif•llCr Petru Carpio Vdu. De Camilo, had been by herself and predecessors-in-interest in peaceful, open and adverse post-t:ssion of a parcel of public foreshore !and situated in Mnlangas, Zamboanga de! Sur, containing an a rea of about 400 square meters. A commercial building was erected on the property which was declared under Tax Dec. No. 5286 and assessed at P7,400.00. Rrropondent Ong Peng Kee was a !£:ssee, of one of the apartments of ~aid commercial building since June 1, 1957. On August 1 1957, Arthur Evert Bannister filed an unlawful Uctuincr case against both De Camilo and Ong Peng Kee (Ch-ii Case No. 64) wit!-1 the JP of Malangas. For failure of Bannister and/ or counsel to appear at the trial they were declared in default nnd Pl00.00 was awarded to De Camilo on her counterclaim. The motion for reconsideration presented by Bannister was denied. T~e other petitior:crs, Severino Estrada, F elisa, Susana , Antonio and the minors Isabelo, Rene and Ruben, all surnamed Francisco, the said minors represented by their mother Susana, had also been in possession (in common). peaceful, open and adverse, sinrc 1937, of a parcel of public fore.~hore land about 185 square metei·s which is ~1djoining that lali.d occupied by de Camilo. On this parcel, o commercial building assessed at Pl,000.00 was ne~ted by th~ Francisco's, and had the same declared under Tax Dec. No. ·1911. On Septemher 1, 1957, the two commercial buildings were hurnpowers, and this pelition will have to be dismissed. Petitioner here maint.:i.in3 that (.\'en if \he justice of thc €d <lown. Two weeks thereafter, l"espondents Onq Peng Kee anr! Adelia Ong, conslJ"Ucted a building of their own, vccupying abo11t 120 squa1<' meters. T he buildmg, howevel", was so built that portions of the lands previously xcupied by petitioners (De Ca'lli l~ and the Frimciscos) wcrC' encroached npon. pence cou.rls have jurisdiction to conduct prelimir.ary investigations, the vcm1e was impr?pei·ly laid In Bobon, bt>cause neither th: t·vmplainant nor the defendant resided ther<'. The statute(2) prnvides th:i.t whe1·e the libel is published or ci1 cuJated in a province or city wherein neither the offended party nor t he offender r esides, the action may be brougt.t therein; and the complaint herein questioned, alleges that the libel had ht>t:n published and ci-rculated in Bobon and other municipalities of Sam(lT. Bohon and Samat, therefore, constituted a prope::- venue. Petitioner's last contention that the complaint stated no eau~e flf action, may not be considered now. It. is unimportant in a Cl"I'tiorari proceeding, specially because petitioner has the remedy of diScussin~ the issue before the court of first instance, and then if a fter hearinK he is conYicted, to appeal in due time. Petition dismissed. ~o costs. Padilla, Bautista .4 pqelo1 Lrf>ra•/or, Cuncepcioi,, J.B.l... Reyes, Earrera, Paredes and Diz{)1?, ./J., concurred. IV Petra Carpio V!la. d6 Ca1nllo 6t al., Pf,ltitioner•-wppelle.e•. VB. The Hon. Justice of the Peace Sa?f1,1tel A. Arcp.1no1 Ong reng Kee <rnd Adeli.p. Onf11 Re~p~nc.ients-uppellants, G.R. No. L-15653, Sep· tembe.-r !!9, 1961, Pwedes, J. INTERPJ-iEADER; WH~N JU:-iTICE OF THE PEACF. COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION.- The complaint asking the petitioners to iriterplead, practically took the case out of the jurisdiction of the I.JP court, becaus~ the action would then necessarily "involve the title to or POSS<!Ssion of real property qr aqy interest the1·~in" O\'er which thl' CFJ has original jurisdiction (par. [b], S<'C. 44, Judicia:·y Act, as amended). Then also, ttie subject-matter of the complaint (interpleader) would come under thl! original jurisdiction of the OFI, because it would n<Jt be capable of pecunia r:y estimation (Sec. 44, par. (a], t.Tudiciary Act), there having bcftll no showing that rentals were asked by the petitioners from respondents. DE C r SJON This appeal stemmed from a petition for Certiorari and Manclamus .filed by Petra Carpio Vda. de Camilo and others, agai?lst (2) Quoted in the margin, s1wn1. Under date of December 3, 19C.7, De Camilo filed a Civil Cao;I' No. 78 for Forcible Entry against Ong Peng Kee nnd Adelia Or:gwith the JP of Malangas with respect to the portion belonging to her wherein the building of Ong Peng Kee was erected. On A1:gust 8, 1958, Severino Estrnda and the Fn!.nciscos filerl a similar case (No. 105). Jn answer to the complaints, the defendants (Ong Peng Keo and Adelia Ong), claimed that th(' land whe-re they constructed their building was leased to them by the Municipality of Malangas. Pending trial of the two Ct.SC!J, thfl rcsppn4cnt Ong Peng Ke::: .1r.d A1clia Ong filed a complaint for l11terpieader :-:gninst De Camilo. SeyerinQ Estrada, thti franciscos 1 Arthur Evert Bannister, the Mayor and Treasurer of ?ofalangas (Civ. Case No. 108), alleg-;ng tl)p.t the filing of the three cases of forcible entry (Civ. Cases No.<>. f.41 7a and JOG). indicated that the defendants, (in the Inte?·pleader) had conflicting interests since they a!l claimed to be er.titled to thl" possession of the lot in question and they (Pfng Ke~ and Ad~lia). rould not determine without hazard to themselves who of the defendants wa3 entitled to the 1mssessiM1. lnterpleader plaintiff'! fut·ther a!!cged that they had no interest in thl" property other than as mere lessees. A motion to dismiss .lhe Complaint for Interplcader was presented )ly the defcndan:s ti1erein (now petitioners), con.tending tha.t (1) the JP tia4 no ju1·isd!ction to try and to hear the case: (2) There were pending other actions bei')\tC'En the parties for the same cause; and ( 3) The complaint for Interpleader did not state a cause of action. Peng Kee and Adelia registered their opposition to the motion and on Septembc1· 30, 1957, respondent Justice of the I'£:ace denied the motion to dismiss and O!'<lered the defendants ~here in to interplead (Annex D). The two forcible entry casc-s were disnlissed. The defendants (now petitioners) instituted th<' present proceedings, for ccrtforari ltn<l manda11ms before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, claiming that re<;pondent JP in denying tl-c motion to dismiss acted without jurisdir:tion, and for having given <lue course to the complaint for Jnterpleader, the respondent JP gravely abused his discretion, and unlawfully neglected the perPage 234 LAWYERS \JOURNAL Novo~r 3(!, 1961
Date: 1961
Rights