Title
Dangalan vs. Marticio y Otro
Case
G.R. No. 47848
Decision Date
Jun 17, 1941
Plaintiff sued defendants for damages after salted fish cargo was stolen when their truck broke down and was abandoned during transport. Trial court ruled for plaintiff; defendants' motion for reconsideration denied due to procedural noncompliance. Supreme Court affirmed, upholding judgment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 47848)

Case Background and Proceedings

Dangalán filed a complaint demanding payment of PHP 584.20 for the value of salted fish that he claimed was lost during transportation on a vehicle operated by the defendants. He also sought PHP 116 in damages for lost profit. Dangalán alleged that the defendants had agreed to transport his goods from Putiao, Sorsogon, to Tabaco, Albay, for a rental fee of PHP 7. The incident occurred on December 1, 1936, when the vehicle broke down and was subsequently abandoned during a storm, leading to the loss of the cargo due to theft.

Judgment and Initial Rulings

On February 6, 1939, the Court ruled in favor of Dangalán after he presented evidence without opposition from the defendants. The court ordered the defendants to pay the claimed amounts along with legal costs. Shortly thereafter, on February 9, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the defendants’ attorney, who claimed that he could not attend due to commitments in a different case and alleged prior agreement on postponement with the plaintiff’s counsel.

Motion for Reconsideration and Court Orders

The initial motion for reconsideration was granted, and the trial was reopened to allow the defendants to present their evidence. Dangalán contested this ruling, arguing that the reconsideration did not meet the legal requirements such as being duly sworn or supported by affidavits establishing the merit of the motion. On September 19, 1939, the Court reviewed the motion and, finding it unsupported by required affidavits and verifying that no agreement for postponement existed, reinstated the original decision.

Legal Reasoning and Conclusions

The Court upheld the initial judgment, asserting that the defendants failed to demonstrate that significant new evidence would alter the case's outcome. Fu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.