Title
Bartolome vs. Mandac
Case
G.R. No. L-2997
Decision Date
Jul 27, 1907
Plaintiff Andres Bartolome won in justice court; defendants appealed but failed to pay fees. Appeal dismissed without notice, violating due process. Supreme Court annulled dismissal, citing lack of notice as procedural error.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2997)

Facts:

  1. Commencement of the Case:

    • The plaintiff, Andres Bartolome, initiated an action in 1904 in the justice of the peace court of Dingras, Ilocos Norte.
    • The justice of the peace ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants, Simeon Mandac et al., appealed to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, posting a bond of P100.
  2. Appeal and Motion to Dismiss:

    • The appeal was received by the Court of First Instance on October 27, 1904.
    • On July 19, 1905, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, citing the defendants' failure to pay the docket fee and requesting the case be returned to the justice of the peace for execution of the judgment.
    • On July 21, 1905, the Court of First Instance granted the motion, dismissing the appeal and ordering the case returned to the justice of the peace.
  3. Notice and Defendants' Response:

    • The defendants received notice of the dismissal on August 4, 1905.
    • On August 7, 1905, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the dismissal, which was denied on September 4, 1905.
    • The defendants attempted to appeal this denial, but the judge refused to sign the bill of exceptions, claiming the order was not appealable.
  4. Petition for Mandamus:

    • On November 13, 1905, the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to certify the bill of exceptions.
    • The Supreme Court granted the writ on March 14, 1906, and the bill of exceptions was certified on April 16, 1906.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal from the justice of the peace's judgment without giving the defendants prior notice of the motion to dismiss.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, annulling the order of the Court of First Instance dated July 21, 1905, which dismissed the appeal.

Ratio:

  1. Notice Requirement:

    • Rule 10 of the Rules of the Courts of First Instance mandates that no action shall be taken on any motion unless the adverse party has been given notice three days before the hearing.
    • In this case, the defendants were not given notice of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal before the court ruled on it.
  2. Due Process Violation:

    • The lack of notice deprived the defendants of the opportunity to present their defense, violating their right to due process.
  3. No Legal Justification:

    • No provision of law justified the dismissal of the appeal without prior notice to the defendants.
  4. Precedent:

    • The Court cited Reyes vs. Alburo et al., which reinforced the principle that motions must comply with notice requirements to ensure fairness and due process.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.