Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

G.R. No. 3466, December 29, 1906

The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer to the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner argued that the lower court lost jurisdiction to decide a motion for a new trial after the term expired. However, the Supreme Court cited a prior case that held lower courts have jurisdiction to decide new trial motions even after the term expires. Therefore, while the petitioner may argue the lower court's order was incorrect, it had jurisdiction to issue the order. The petitioner could have appealed the order after final judgment. The petitioner was given 10 days to amend the complaint before final judgment would be entered in favor of the respondents.

Uploaded by

JB Andes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

G.R. No. 3466, December 29, 1906

The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer to the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner argued that the lower court lost jurisdiction to decide a motion for a new trial after the term expired. However, the Supreme Court cited a prior case that held lower courts have jurisdiction to decide new trial motions even after the term expires. Therefore, while the petitioner may argue the lower court's order was incorrect, it had jurisdiction to issue the order. The petitioner could have appealed the order after final judgment. The petitioner was given 10 days to amend the complaint before final judgment would be entered in favor of the respondents.

Uploaded by

JB Andes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

7 Phil.

259

[ G.R. No. 3466, December 29, 1906 ]

MEYER HERMAN, PETITIONER, VS. A. S. CROSSFIELD, JUDGE OF


THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, AND RUBERT &
GUAMIS, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

WILLARD, J.:
On the 8th day of March, 1906, in an action pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila
in which Robert & Guam is were the plaintiifs and Meyer Herman was the defendant, a final
judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. On the 14th dav of March of the same year
the plaintiff's made a motion for a new trial on the ground that the findings of the court were
plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. It does not appear that any order
was made upon this motion. On the 26th day of March the. plaintiffs made another motion
asking that the decision be set aside and that the case be opened for the purpose of taking the
testimony of Dr. Altman, and for such other proceedings as the court might deem just and
equitable. Notice was given that this motion would be heard on the 31st day of March, which
was the last day of the term of court. Nothing appearing to the contrary, we assume that the
motion was argued on that day. It was not decided, however, until the 14th day of April, and
after the term at which the judgment had been entered had closed. The order then made was
that the case be reopened for the purpose of receiving the testimony of Dr. Altman, the court
saying in its order that there was no showing that this evidence was newly discovered. On the
12th day of July, 1906, the defendant in the case in the court below, Meyer Herman,
commenced this original action of certiorari in this court, claiming that the order made in the
court below on the 14th day of April was void because at that time that court had no
jurisdiction to enter!ain or decide a motion for u new trial, the term at which the judgment
was entered having expired. The defendants in this original action have demurred to the
complaint and the case is now before the court for the resolution of the demurrer.
The contention of the plaintiff that at the expiration of the term the court was without
jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for a new trial can not be sustained in view of I he
decision of this court in the case of Santos vs. Villafuerte[1] (4 Off. Gaz., 850).
In that case and other cases cited therein, it was held that4he Court of First Instance had
jurisdiction to entertain and decide a motion for a new trial after the term at which the
decision was rendered had expired. The ruling announced in those cases disposes of this case.
Whether the order made on t!ie 14th of April was right or wrong is not before us for decision.
The court' had jurisdiction to decide the motion, even if it were a motion for a new trial, a
point which we do not detenu inc. If it decided it incorrectly, the plaintiff, who was the
defendant in that case, had the right to except to the order and, although he could not bring
the case here at once for decision because that order was not a final judgment, yet he could do
bo after final judgment had been entered and could then have the order in question reviewed.
The demurrer is sustained and the plaintiff is allowed ten days from the notification of this
order in which to amend his complaint. If no amended complaint is presented within that time
the clerk will, without further order from this court, enter final judgment in this case in favor
of the defendants, with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., dissents.

[1] 5 Phil. Rep., 739.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy