SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-1864. October 16, 1948. ]
THE MANILA POST PUBLISHING COMPANY, recurrente, contra CONRADO SANCHEZ, Juez del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila, EMETERIO PASCUAL y EUGENIO LOPEZ, recurridos.
Sres. Francisco y Jacinto y D. Abelardo Subido en representacion del recurrente.
Sres. Tañada, Pelaez y Teehankee en representacion del recurrido E. Pascual.
D. Vicente J. Francisco en representacion del recurrido E. Lopez.
SYLLABUS
1. "CERTIORARI" ; MOCION DE RECONSIDERACION; NECESIDAD. — Ha sido la constante practica de este Tribunal la de exigir a las partes interesadas que den oportunidad a los Juzgados inferiores para reconsiderar con detenimiento sus ordenes y no elevarlas sumariamente aqui en recursos de certiorari.
Per PERFECTO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2. Sections 5 and 6 OF RULE 62, MANDATORY. — Petitioner, upon the facts, is entitled to have delivered to it the linotype machines in question, in view of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of Rule 62, which are mandatory.
3. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, UNNECESSARY. — Petitioner need not file any motion for reconsideration with the lower court before filing with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari. The urgency of the case justifies its coming immediately to us.
4. REPLEVIN, URGENT REMEDY. — Replevin is one of the most urgent remedies known in law. The urgency arises from the very nature of chattels, which can be easily transferred from place to place and are liable to disappear or be destroyed, thereby defeating the purpose of the administration of justice.
5. LINOTYPE MACHINES VITAL TO A DAILY NEWSPAPER. — The possession of the linotype machines in question was vital to the continued publication of "The Manila Post", one of the most popular dailies published in Manila, which ceased to be published since December, 1947.
6. DOCTRINE NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW OR BY REASON. — The doctrine in Herrera v. Barretto (25 Phil., 245), Uy Chu v. Imperial (44 Phil., 27), Amante v. Sison (60 Phil., 949), invoked by the majority is not supported either by express provision of law or by reason. Section 1 of Rule 67 does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the erring tribunal, board, or officer.
7. REASON OF "POLICY AND COURTESY" IS NO LEGAL GROUND. — The doctrine in Herrera v. Barretto (25 Phil., 245), as stated by the author of the decision, is not based on any law, but on reasons of "policy and courtesy."
8. SILLY AND UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT. — To require the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the lower court before coming to the Supreme Court is unreasonable and silly, besides being highly insulting to the sense of official duty and responsibility of the court concerned. It is repugnant to the spirit and character of the Rules of Court which would not countenance any empty rituals in judicial proceedings.
Per PERFECTO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2. Sections 5 and 6 OF RULE 62, MANDATORY. — Petitioner, upon the facts, is entitled to have delivered to it the linotype machines in question, in view of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of Rule 62, which are mandatory.
3. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, UNNECESSARY. — Petitioner need not file any motion for reconsideration with the lower court before filing with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari. The urgency of the case justifies its coming immediately to us.
4. REPLEVIN, URGENT REMEDY. — Replevin is one of the most urgent remedies known in law. The urgency arises from the very nature of chattels, which can be easily transferred from place to place and are liable to disappear or be destroyed, thereby defeating the purpose of the administration of justice.
5. LINOTYPE MACHINES VITAL TO A DAILY NEWSPAPER. — The possession of the linotype machines in question was vital to the continued publication of "The Manila Post", one of the most popular dailies published in Manila, which ceased to be published since December, 1947.
6. DOCTRINE NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW OR BY REASON. — The doctrine in Herrera v. Barretto (25 Phil., 245), Uy Chu v. Imperial (44 Phil., 27), Amante v. Sison (60 Phil., 949), invoked by the majority is not supported either by express provision of law or by reason. Section 1 of Rule 67 does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the erring tribunal, board, or officer.
7. REASON OF "POLICY AND COURTESY" IS NO LEGAL GROUND. — The doctrine in Herrera v. Barretto (25 Phil., 245), as stated by the author of the decision, is not based on any law, but on reasons of "policy and courtesy."
8. SILLY AND UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT. — To require the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the lower court before coming to the Supreme Court is unreasonable and silly, besides being highly insulting to the sense of official duty and responsibility of the court concerned. It is repugnant to the spirit and character of the Rules of Court which would not countenance any empty rituals in judicial proceedings.
D E C I S I O N
PABLO, J.:
En 27 de Noviembre de 1947, la recurrente presento la demanda en la causa civil No. 4112 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila, contra Emeterio Pascual y John Doe, reclamando la entrega de los bienes muebles relacionados en el Annex "A" (replevin) y pidiendo al mismo tiempo su secuestro bajo fianza de P94,000. El sheriff de Manila se incauto de algunos de dichos efectos que estaban en posesion de los recurridos Emeterio Pascual y Eugenio Lopez.
En 29 de Noviembre de 1947, Emeterio Pascual presento una mocion urgente pidiendo (1) la especificacion de los valores de los efectos relacionados en el afidavit de la demandante Annex "A", (2) que el periodo de cinco dias dispuesto por el articulo 5, Regla 62, sea suspendido, y (3) que se ordenase al sheriff que retenga los muebles de que se habia incautado.
En 2 de Diciembre (en el ultimo dia del plazo de cinco dias en que debe presentarse la fianza para la devolucion de los bienes incautados) el recurrido Eugenio Lopez presento una mocion en que alegaba que en 25 de Noviembre habia comprado de Emeterio Pascual por la cantidad de P33,896.31 las dos maquinas de linotipia con sus accesorios secuestrados por el sheriff en virtud de una peticion presentada por la demandante bajo fianza de P94,000; que el John Doe, uno de los demandados, indudablemente se refiere a el porque tenia en su poder las dos maquinas al apoderarse de ellas el sheriff. Juntamente con su mocion presentaba una fianza de P67,792.62, pidiendo (a) la aprobacion de dicha fianza y la devolucion por el sheriff a el de las dos maquinas; (b) que se ordenase a la demandante que incluya como uno de los demandados a el (Eugenio Lopez) en vez de John Doe; y (c) que se le conceda 15 dias de plazo para presentar su contestacion.
El Honorable Juez recurrido en su orden de 1.
En 29 de Noviembre de 1947, Emeterio Pascual presento una mocion urgente pidiendo (1) la especificacion de los valores de los efectos relacionados en el afidavit de la demandante Annex "A", (2) que el periodo de cinco dias dispuesto por el articulo 5, Regla 62, sea suspendido, y (3) que se ordenase al sheriff que retenga los muebles de que se habia incautado.
En 2 de Diciembre (en el ultimo dia del plazo de cinco dias en que debe presentarse la fianza para la devolucion de los bienes incautados) el recurrido Eugenio Lopez presento una mocion en que alegaba que en 25 de Noviembre habia comprado de Emeterio Pascual por la cantidad de P33,896.31 las dos maquinas de linotipia con sus accesorios secuestrados por el sheriff en virtud de una peticion presentada por la demandante bajo fianza de P94,000; que el John Doe, uno de los demandados, indudablemente se refiere a el porque tenia en su poder las dos maquinas al apoderarse de ellas el sheriff. Juntamente con su mocion presentaba una fianza de P67,792.62, pidiendo (a) la aprobacion de dicha fianza y la devolucion por el sheriff a el de las dos maquinas; (b) que se ordenase a la demandante que incluya como uno de los demandados a el (Eugenio Lopez) en vez de John Doe; y (c) que se le conceda 15 dias de plazo para presentar su contestacion.
El Honorable Juez recurrido en su orden de 1.
