Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8431)
Facts:
Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-8431, October 30, 1958, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Respondents Jesus G. Ogilvie, Salvador Ortile, Miguel M. Fermin and Antonio C. Militar (seamen) sued Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil No. 8446) to recover P12,104.50 for salaries and subsistence from March 19 to September 30, 1948. The petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The trial court denied the motion, ordered the defendant to answer, and, when the defendant failed to answer, declared it in default and set the case for hearing.
Petitioner filed a motion to set aside the default which the trial court denied; a motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Petitioner sought certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court to annul the order of default, but that petition was dismissed on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy. The trial court proceeded; after hearing it initially dismissed the complaint for failure to prove that the defendant was a corporation organized under Philippine laws. The plaintiffs were then allowed to submit additional evidence proving corporate existence; the trial court nevertheless dismissed the complaint again on the ground that the evidence was not new but merely forgotten.
The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. A special division of the Court of Appeals — over the objection that petitioner had not been served with appellants' brief because of the prior default — reversed the trial court and awarded specific amounts to each respondent (P3,226.50 to Ogilvie; P2,934 each to the other three). Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals judgment.
On the merits the Court of Appeals found contracts (one dated December 24, 1947, another January 7, 1948 before the Panamanian Consul) by which the respondents were engaged to man the S.S. Bridge, were carried to Sasebu, Japan, manned the ship, were discharged at Hong Kong on March 16, 1948, flown back to Manila and paid up to that date, but claim salaries and subsistence until the vessel's arrival at Manila on September 30, 1948. Petitioner’s original motion to dismiss had alleged only lack of jurisdiction and did not deny ownership of the S.S. Bridge or the authority of its captain to engage the crew; further testimonial evidence by pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner deprived of due process or its right to be heard on appeal when the Court of Appeals decided the appeal without service of appellants’ brief because petitioner had been declared in default in the trial court?
- On the merits, is petitioner liable to the respondents for salaries and subsistence from their dismissal in Hong Kong to the ship’s arrival at Manila, and did the trial court err in dismissing the complaint fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)