Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11335 October 30, 1958
SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO and MANUEL GANGCAYCO, petitioners, HON. EMILIO BENITEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch II, ALIPIO N. CASILAN and PURITA GALAGNARA, respondents.
G.R. No. L-11450 October 30, 1958
RAYMOND TOMASSI, SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, and MANUEL GANGCAYCO, petitioners, HON. EMILIO BENITEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch II. ALIPIO N. CASILAN and PURITA GALAGNARA, respondents.
Benjamin J. Molina for petitioners Santiago and Manuel Gangcayco.
PADILLA, J.:
In G. R. Nos. L-9320 and L-9321 (98 Phil., 360), this Court reversed an order of the Court of First Instance of Samar (Annex S. G. R. No. L-11335) dismissing civil cases Nos. 486123Canlas vs. David, 50 Off. Gaz. 234, decided by the Court of Appeals (Annex U, G. R. No. L-11335; Annex B, G. R. No. L-11450). Motions for reconsideration filed by the defendants (Annexes V & W, G. R. No. L-11335), were denied on 17 September 1956 (Annex X, G. R. No. L-11335; Annex C, G. R. No. L-11450). The defendants are now before this Court praying for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the orders of 15 May 1956 dismissing their appeals and of 17 September 1956 denying their motions for reconsideration.
Section 13, Rule 4, provides:
If the defendant does not appear at the time and place designated in the summons, he may be declared in default, and the court shall thereupon proceed to hear the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and shall render judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the facts alleged and proved.
In justice of the peace and municipal courts, failure to appear in civil cases is as the only ground when a defendant may be declared in default and not failure to answer the complaint.4
In case No. 39 of the Justice of the Peace Court of Guiuan, it appears that the petitioner Manuel Gangcayco received copy of the summons issued by the Court to appear before it on 26 April 1950 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. and answer the complaint (Annex B, answer of the respondent judge); that on 26 April 1950 the petitioner Manuel Gancayco personally appeared in Court in his own behalf and of his father Santiago Gangcayco, answered the complaint and joined counsel for the respondent spouses in asking for postponement of the hearing of the case; that the Court set the hearing of the case for 29 May 1950; that on 25 May 1950 counsel for the petitioners Gangcaycos filed a motion for postponement of the hearing of cases Nos. 39 and 40 set for 29 May Annex E, G. R. No. L-11335); that on 29 May 1950 the Court set the hearing of the cases for 7 June 1950; that on 6 June 1950 counsel for the petitioners Gangcaycos sent a telegram to the Court praying for postponement of the hearing of the cases (see p. 7, record on appeal, G. R. No. L-9321); that on the day set for the hearing of the cases, counsel for the respondent spouses opposed the motion for postponement; and that the Court denied the continuance prayed for and proceeded to hear the evidence for the respondent spouses.
In case No. 40 of the same Court, it appears that the petitioners Gangcaycos and Tomassi received copy of the summons issued by the Court to appear before it on 6 May 1950 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. and answer the complaint (Annex C, answer of the respondent judge); that on 3 May 1950 the petitioner Tomassi filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Annex C, G. R. No. L-11335); that the Court postponed the hearing of the cases to 29 May 1950; and that on 29 May 1950 the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner Tomassi and reset the hearing of the cases for 7 June 1950.
The petitioner Manuel Gangcayco having appeared and answered the complaint against him; the petitioner Santiago Gangcayco having also appeared by joining his co-petitioner in moving for postponement of the hearing of the two cases; and the petitioner Tomassi having filed a motion to dismiss the case against him, although on the day set for the hearing of the cases they or their counsel did not appear, they were not in default.
The writ prayed for is granted. The orders of 15 May and 17 September 1956 complained of are set aside. The respondent court is directed to proceed with the trial of the two appealed cases, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Alipio N. Casilan and Purita Galagnara, plaintiffs vs. Raymond Tomassi, Santiago Gangcayco and Manuel Gangcayco, defendants, for recovery of possession of two quonset huts. Civil No. 40, Justice of the Peace Court of Guiuan, Samar. Annex B, G. R. No. L-11335.
2 Alipio N. Casilan and Purita Galagnara, plaintiffs vs. Santiago Gangcayco and Manuel Gangcayco defendants for recovery of personal property. Civil No. 39, Justice of the Peace Court of Guiuan, Samar. Annex A, G. R. No. L-11335.
3 52 Off. Gaz. 806; 98 Phil., 360.
4 Section 13, Rule 4; Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, 42 Phil. 557; Quisan vs. Arellano, 90 Phil. 644; Carballo vs. Encarnacion, 49 Off. Gaz., 1383; 92 Phil., 974; Makabenta vs. Bocar, 50 Off. Gaz., 3549; 95 Phil., 634.
Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al.
G.R. No. L-114506 min read
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on October 30, 1958. The case involves petitioners Santiago Gancayco, Manuel Gancayco, and Raymond Tomassi who sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus against the dismissal of their appeals in civil cases Nos. 486 and 487 by the Court of First Instance of Samar. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the orders of dismissal. The Court held that the petitioners were not in default in the justice of the peace court, as they had either appeared personally or through counsel, or had filed motions in the cases. Therefore, they had the right to appeal the judgments rendered against them. The Court also clarified that in justice of the peace and municipal courts, failure to appear in civil cases is the only ground when a defendant may be declared in default, and not failure to answer the complaint.
Quick Answers
- What is Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al. about?
- This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on October 30, 1958. The case involves petitioners Santiago Gancayco, Manuel Gancayco, and Raymond Tomassi who sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus against the dismissal of their appeals in civil cases Nos. 486 and 487 by the Court of First Instance of Samar. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the orders of dismissal. The Court held that the petitioners were not in default in the justice of the peace court, as they had either appeared personally or through counsel, or had filed motions in the cases. Therefore, they had the right to appeal the judgments rendered against them. The Court also clarified that in justice of the peace and municipal courts, failure to appear in civil cases is the only ground when a defendant may be declared in default, and not failure to answer the complaint.
- Which court decided Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al.?
- Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al. was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al. decided?
- Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al. (G.R. No. L-11450) was decided on Oct 30, 1958.
- What is the citation for Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al.?
- Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al., G.R. No. L-11450, Oct 30, 1958 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- G.R. No. L-11450
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Standard Citation
Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al., G.R. No. L-11450, Oct 30, 1958 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
APA Style
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1958). Raymond Tomassi, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al. (G.R. No. L-11450). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/raymond-tomassi-et-al-vs-hon-emilio-benitez-et-al
Related Cases
- Gangcayco v. BenitezG.R. No. L-11335, L-11450 • Oct 30, 1958
- Casilan v. TomassiG.R. Nos. L-9320 & L-9321 • Jan 31, 1956
- Tomassi v. Villa-AbrilleG.R. No. L-7047 • Aug 21, 1958
- Emilio Venegas vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.G.R. No. 92758 • Aug 31, 1992
- Macaria Joya, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.G.R. No. 89734 • Feb 27, 1991
- Casiano Ampoloquio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.G.R. No. L-46800-01 • Apr 29, 1994
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case