Court of Appeals decision

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Court of Appeals decision
Language: English
Year: 1960
Subject: Judgments (Law); Courts.; Philippines -- Law and legislation.; Bagumbayan Productions Inc. vs Balatbat Productions Inc.
Rights
Fulltext: COURT OF APPEALS DECISION Bagam.6apn. Protluctiou, Ino., P.Utioilar, w. BUtbat Produotiona, Inc. tJ1zd Hon. Greoorio S. NtW1JtHG, Jud(le, Manila. Caurt of Firat lnatanee, R88pondetitl', CA·G. B. Nq. 26486-R, Fdruarr 2, 1960, CslHihug, J. CIVIL PROCEDURE; TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER; SEC'l'ION 1 RULE 8' OF RULES OF COURT CONSTRUED. - Under the provision of Seetion t, Rule 84 of the Rules of CoU1·t "By written consent of both parties, filed with the clerk, the court may oi-der any ~ all of the iuues in a erase to be referred to a eommissioner to be agreed upon by the part.lea or tOI be appointed by the C"OUrt.'' In the cue· at bar, although there was no written consent aicned by the parties filed with the clerk of court in °Ci'ril Cue No. 85118 but the :Parties therein havinc manifested to rea. pondent judce tn open court their agreement to the continuation of the proceedinp before the elark. of court and the same agree. ment havin&' been incorporated in the order of August .10, 1969, the provision of Section 1, Rule .S4 of the Rules of Court ha• been substantially complied with. Vicnte J. FrtmOi.lco, for respondents. Luil .Manaltinp, for petitioner. 'DECISION In an original petition 'filed with this court petitioner praya that a) the order of the court referring erosa-eumination of petioner'.i witnesaea and the introduetion of evidence by respondent before the eommissioner and all other proceedings by nature included· therein as well as the few C!l'Ola-question already propounded by the respondent's counsel before the commissioner, clerk Macario M. Ofilada, be deelaljed. null and void; b) ordering the rupondent honorable" judge to ftt the ·hearing befo1"e the court and prohibiting him to refer to a commissioner the eross-n:amtnatlon and introduction of evidence of respondent i e) that the respondent, a.eept the respondent honorable judge, be ordered to pa~ actual dam~ in tbe amount of P2,000 for attorney's fees and other incidental ex pensee of the litigation and moral damages in the a~unt of Pl-0,000, plus coats.'' The record .diaeloses that herein petitioner was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 36118 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, while herein respondent Balat.bat- Productions, lne. was the de· fenda.nt therein. When the trial of that eaae was called on June 29, 1969, neither the defendant nor its counsel .appeared; whereupon Judp Gregorio S. Narvasa, presiding over branch V of the same cou1-t issued an Order allowing the plaintiff to present its evidence before Clerk of Court Maeario M. Ofliada. Upon the de· fendant's motion and despite the plaintiff 8tron1 opposition, the court, on July 6, 1969, gave the "defendUit•, counsel an opportu· nltJ' to erooaa.examine the witnesaes presented by the plaintiff durinc the ex-parte reception of the latter's evidence, and adduce evidence for aaid defendant." For this purpoae the bearing of the ease wu Ht for July 27, 1969. A petition for the reconsideration of thta order was denied on the 16th of the same month. Alleging that he would be in llollo City to attend to some pending eases before the Iloilo branch of the Court of -Industrial Relations, on July 14., 1969 counsel for plaintiff moved for the cancellation of the hearing set fo1· July 22, 1969 and that it be reset for the following month, which motion wsa opposed by the defendant. Neither the herein petitioner nor. the respondents attached to their petition and answer the ordet reaol:ring this motion :fo1• postponement of plaintiff, but it is preBUmed that the same waa granted and the hearing was postponed on August 10, 19&9; for on tbla date, herein respondent judge i881led. the following order: "By agreement of the parties, the continuation of the proceedings in this case may be had before the Clerk of Court who is hereby authorized · to receive the evidence the parties may. present.'' It appears that immediately after the lasuanee of this order, the partiea in the above numbered civil cue appeared before Clerk of Court Maeario M. Ofilada who, at 9:06 a.m. of the same day. opened the hearinc with plaintiff's wttneaa Jose MW Remandez testifying on erosa-examinatlon. However, this erou.examination had to be suspended because ae«1rding to the plaintiff's eounael, he 11"A"Ould like to avail 1117self of the provilo of the order of the Honorable Court that in ease we did not get along all right, beeauae o:f so many legal queationa that are being raised, we can have the ease returned to the Honprable Judge." And In a motion bearing the same date of August 10, 1969 but filed on the 18th, the plaintiff asked that the hearing of the ease be conducted on" September 2, 190 before ihe respondent judge and not before the C'Ommlsaioner. Upon the denial of this last motion on August 18, 1959, the plaintiff filed an urgent motion for reeonslderateon praying that this last order of denial be reconsidered and a~ be entered orderinc the continuance of the hearing before the court and not before the commissioner. Acting on this mqtion for reeonaideration and the ~position thereto, respondent judge i88Ued September 18, 1969 the order hereinbelow quoted: "After careful c:onsideration of plaintiff's urgent motion for reconsideration of Order of August 13, 1968, denying said plaintiff's motion to continue hearing of this ease before the Judge himself Instead of this ease before the Clerk of Court, u per Order of August 10, 1969, and of defendant's opposition thereto,' the court hereby de~iea the said motion for reconsideration, and maintaipa its Order of August 10, 1969.'' (an nex B) Hence the filing of the inatant p~ition. The petitioner contends that there being no written '1>nsent of both parties as required by section 1, rule 84 of the Rulea of Court, the respondent judge committed a grave abuae of . discretion in ordering that the ero1a examination of ita witnesses and the reception of the reapondent corporation's nidenee in Civil Case No. 36118 be made before a com.misaioner, and in neglecting or refusing to do his duty as enjoined by law. On the other hand, respondents maintain that the agreement entered into by and between the parties In open C!Ou1t, which agreement was incorporated in the controverted order of August 10, 1969, is a 1ubst.anttal compliance with the p1"0"rision of ·the section aforecited, which provides: "By written consent of both parties, filed with the clerk, the court may order ani or all of the iuues in a case to be referred to a eommiaaioner to be agreed upon by the partiea or to be appointed b7 the court.'' Indeed, there was no w1·itten consent signed by the parties filed with the clerk of eou1-t in Civil Case No. 86118; but the parties therein having manifested to respondent judp in open court their agreement to the continuation of the proeeedinp before the clerk of court, and the same agreement having been inC'Orporated. in the order of August 10, 1969, we are of the opinion and 10 held that the pl'OYision of section 1, rule 8', Rule9 of Court, cited by the petitioner, has been 1111batantlally complied with. Consequently, in issuing the 01"der complained of the respondent judge acted perfectly in accordance with the mandli.te. of the law and he did not • eiommlt any semblance of an abuae, much lesa IJl'ave abuae, of dilC'l'etion; nor did he l'efUSe or nee-(Continued on pag~ 68) 60 LAWYERS JOURNAL February 29, 1960 with him. It turned out later that .the affidavit contained allegationa that B, a married man, had agreed to live separatiel;v from hi1 wife, eonflrmhqr that each of them could ehooae another lifetime partner without interference from the ·other. Can the act of Att,'. A, in ratifyins the affidavit subject him to dllbarment, ! BrieflJ" l'UIOD out your answer. V. (a) F is the leading law;ver in hi1 province. C, a resident of the same province, havinc a doubtful claim against P, another resident, consult with F, showing him papera and giving him facts relative to the claim. F thereafter tells C he believes that C does not have a case against P and politel;v refuses to handle the ease Subsequ.entq, C hirea the services of another laW)'er and files auit apinat P. P now approaches and aak F to represent him. (1) What eonaideratioil. may be Invoked tn support of F's aceeptanee of the reques~ that he represent P in the ease! (2) What consideration in contra may be in'lOked! (3) State whether the Supreme Court has decided any ·case with similar facts; and if so, give the ruling enuneiated. by the Court. (b) Suppoae that next month after the bar examinations are over but befo1'8 the reaults are published, you are engaged to repreaent the accused tn a criminal ease of damage to property throuch reeklesa imprudenee pending before the Municipal Court of Manila. Can you legally represent the accu1ed T Briefly explain ;rour answer. VI. (a) After a pre-trial was had in a civil cue, Judge B caaually state. the followinc to the attorney for· the plaintiff: "Atty. X, I do not believe in the veracity of or relevancy of your evidence. I advise you to compromise your eaae." COURT OF APPEALS ••• (ConUnUB<i frum pog• 60) leet to perform any duty specifieall:v enjoined. b;v law. .The petitioner alleges that it orally acquiesced to tbe .cross examination of its witne1s before a eomnUsaioner subject "to the proviso that in the event man,- legal questions or iBSUes arise dudng the eroq.uamination before th& commissioner, the same shall" be retunred to the court aa the commissioner is powerleaa to rule on them." However, the order of August 10, 1959 eompletel;v belies this allegation - which is probabl;v the reaaon why it is not among the annexes 1ubmitted with the petition, despite the fact that it is precisely the same order being questioned. Upon the other hand, it ('8.nnot be successfully denied that the principal isaue of Civil Case No. 36113 requires a tedioua examinatiori of a lengtl\;v and complicated account. Aside from the Pl60,000.00 for moral and exempla1-y damages and attorney's fees, the plaintiff therein, herein petitioner, asked for the p&Jlllent of P36,000.00 repruen:till&' its capital contribution to the filming of "Buhay at Pac--ibiel ni Dr.· Jose Rizal"; 1'31,000.00 represmting dam· ages due to padded production eoata; Pl0,000.00 repreaenting earned and eoncealed profits; and P60,000.00 for unrealized but expected profits. While the defendant therein, herein respondmt corporation, alleged that the total cost of the production of the film was not only P'l0,000.00 as previoual1 estimated, but PlOl,424.86 ; that ever;v item of expense is support.ed by invoices and vouchers; that the more than six months' sbowinc of the film in different theaters would require the report of the ticket aellei·1; and that the statement Of account .eovering all income and ezpen1es would demand the intervention and testimollJ' of public accountants. It is therefore indisputable that the respondent judp on his (1) Bu the judp eomnrltted - breach of judicial ethics! Ezplain you answer. (2) What remedy, if &DJ' does the plaintiff have? Explain. (a) A bua, dliven by X collided with and damaged the car of Y. In the criminal ease filed for ph)'sieal injuries and damage to the property through reckleaa Imprudence, Judge G acquitted the accused X. Subsequently, Y fi~ a civil action for damages against X. The civil case was auigned to the sala of Judp G. (1) Can Judge G be diaqualified from hearing the ei:ril ease! Briefly give your realOlls. (£) If X 1hould seek to disqualify Judp G, how should he go about it? VII. (a) SW, a woman married to FH, sold two parcels of land located in Quezon City for '20,000.00 to Mr. &: Mrs. AB. Prepare the notarial acknowledgment for a simple unilateral deed of absolute sale to eover the •transaction, supplJ'lng all neeesllll'1 data. "(b) Prepare a simple negotiable promissoey note with an acceleration clause. VIII. (a) Using your own facts, prepare a paragraph for inclusion in the articles of incorporation of a compaey . providing for It.a authorized capitalization. (b) Supplying your own facts, prepare a simple bill of exchange. IX. (a~ T is the owner of an apartment house. He leased apartment No. 2 to H for a year, tel'minatinc on JulJ 81, 1969. Although no atension to the lease waa granted, B refuaed to vacate. On Aupllt 16th, aa Attorney for T, you filed a complaint for ejeetment apinlt B. Reproduce your entire complaint. X. (a) Omittina' caption and title, and supplying all necessary facts, prepare the body of an tnfo1"111ation' 1eharging the accused with bi&'amy. Manila. Aukust 30, 1959 own motion arid even without the consent of the partlu, could have legall;v refened. the aforementioned civil case to the eomJnia.. 1loner direCtinc the latter to hear and report upon the entire Issue, pursuant to section 2 of the rule aforeeited. · WHEREFORE, the inltant petition is· denied and diemilsed, with costs against the petitioner. IT IS SO ORDERED. Di.on and Pefits, JJ., concurred. ---oOo---NO MONEY! A famous lawyer was called in to see a man in the county jail accused of murder. When he returned to his office, his 1eeretacy said, "Well, did you take the · ea1e, Mr. Blank!" "No, I didn't take it." "Why, didn't you think the man was justified in his acts!" 11MJ dear young lady,' 1aid the lawyer, "he certainly was not finaneially juatified in committing murder." - Na.pies (N.Y.) R ... rd. NONE WHATSOEVER Judge: This is a malpractice ease, and the defendant ia a doctor. Does that create any bias or prejUdice in you in any respeet; because the defendant is of that profession? Juro1·: No, Your Honor. Judge: What is your occupation? Juror: Undertaker. - MinttUOilll Bulletin. F"ebruat;v 29, 1960 LAWYERS IO'i!RNAL. ••