Case Digest (G.R. No. 45072)
Facts:
- The case involves Juan Ruiz (plaintiff) and Jose Topacio (defendant).
- The Supreme Court of the Philippines rendered its decision on June 29, 1940.
- The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- Juan Ruiz, the Director of Posts, filed a civil suit against his predecessor, Jose Topacio, for libel.
- The lower court ruled in favor of Ruiz, awarding him P30,000 in damages (P25,000 for reputation and feelings, P5,000 as punitive damages).
- Topacio appealed, claiming twenty errors by the trial judge, focusing on two preliminary legal issues.
- Topacio argued that the judgment was null due to the trial court's lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Judge Pedro Ma. Sison lacked authority as the case was assigned to a different sala.
- The court noted that Sison had presided over the case from the beginning and heard all evidence.
- The appeal also questioned the legal basis of the action, including claims of prescription and the applicability of the repealed Libel Law.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, validating Judge Sison's authority.
- The Court held that the action for damages was legally sustainable, as claims of prescription did not apply to all libelous statements, and the action arose under the repe...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law, not merely by case assignment among judges.
- Judge Sison was duly assigned and presided over the case, affirming his jurisdiction.
- The ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 45072)
Facts:
The case involves Juan Ruiz as the plaintiff and Jose Topacio as the defendant, with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 29, 1940. The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where Juan Ruiz, the Director of Posts, filed a civil suit against his predecessor, Jose Topacio, seeking damages for libel. The lower court ruled in favor of Ruiz, ordering Topacio to pay P30,000, which included P25,000 for damages to Ruiz's reputation and feelings, and P5,000 as punitive damages. Topacio appealed the decision, claiming that the trial judge had committed twenty errors, with particular emphasis on two errors that raised preliminary legal issues.
On May 15, 1936, Topacio filed a motion asserting that the judgment was null and void due to the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. He argued that when Judge Pedro Ma. Sison issued the decision on October 5, 1935, the case was assigned to a different sala (division) of the court, and thus Sison lacked the authority to decide the matter. However, the court noted that Sison had presided over the case from the beginning and had heard all evidence presented by both parties. The appeal also raised issues regarding the legal basis of the action, including claims of prescription and...