ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Search

Philippine Suprem e Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > Decem ber 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 5202
Decem ber 16, 1909 - YAP UNKI v. CHUA JAMCO

014 Phil 602:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5202. December 16, 1909. ]
YAP UNKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHUA JAMCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Rafael Del-Panfor Appellant.
Thomas D. Aitken for Appellee.

SYLLABUS
1. PENAL C ODE; FALSE AC C USATION; PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. — The provisions of article 326
of the Penal C ode which forbid the institution of a criminal, and inferentially, of a civil action based on
defendant’s commission of the crime of acusacion o denuncia falsa (false charge or accusation)
unless the court which investigated the crime falsely charged or accused directed the institution of
criminal proceedings against the false accuser, are not applicable where one makes a complaint to a
policeman falsely charging a third person with the commission of an offense, the policeman not being
an administrative or judicial officer in the sense in which those words are used in that article. (5 Phil.
Rep., 675; 7 Phil. Rep., 388.)
2. DAMAGES FOR PROC URING APPOINTMENT OF REC EIVER WITHOUT C AUSE; "RES ADJUDIC ATA."
— Damages for the procurement of the appointment of a receiver without sufficient cause, are to be
ascertained and decreed in the action wherein the receiver is appointed, and final judgment having
been rendered in that action, the question of damages on this ground is res adjudicata. (Sec. 177,
C ode of C ivil Procedure.)
DebtKollect Company, Inc. 3. C IVIL C ODE; C OMPENSATION DISTINGUISHED FROM SET-OFF AND C OUNTERC LAIM. —
C ompensation as defined in articles 1195 and 1196 of the C ivil C ode, while it resembles in many
respects the common-law set-off, and certain counterclaims provided for in the C ode of C ivil
Procedure, differs therefrom in that compensation takes place by mere operation of law, and
extinguishers reciprocally the two debts as soon as they exist simultaneously, while a set-off or
counterclaim must be pleaded to be effectual.

4. C IVIL PROC EDURE; SETTLEMENT OF ALL C LAIMS IN ONE AC TION. — The defendant, in any action,
has the right, if he so desire, to secure in that action the final disposition of all claims, whatever their
nature or origin, which he may have against the plaintiff. (C hap. 5, C ode of C ivil Procedure.)

DECISION

CARSON, J. :

ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
On November 10,1906, plaintiff and defendant executed a written agreement whereby the business
partnership then existing between them was dissolved, and plaintiff sold and defendant bought
plaintiff’s interest in the partnership for the sum of P1,728.94, payable in three installments, as set
out in the agreement. The amended complaint alleged that the total indebtedness thus contracted by
the defendant had become due and payable and had not been paid in whole or in part at the time
when that complaint was filed. Judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant for P1,728.94 together with interest upon the various installments from the
date when they fell due. From this judgment defendant appealed, and the case is now before us on
his bill of exceptions.
Some question arose in the court below as to whether all of the deferred payments had become due
and payable when the original complaint was filed in this action, but appellant having made no
assignment of error on this ground we are not called upon to review the action of the court in this
regard.

Appellant admits the execution of the contract, but denies plaintiff’s right to a recovery thereunder,
on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with his obligation to deliver the property sold to the
purchaser and to secure to him the peaceable possession thereof (entregar y sanear), as prescribed
in article 1461 of the C ivil C ode. But it affirmatively appears, both from the admissions of the
defendant on the witness stand, and from the fact that the sale was made by means of a notarial
instrument (art. 1462, C ivil C ode), that the property sold was in fact delivered to the defendant. And
while it appears that plaintiff, after the sale had been consummated, improperly instituted an action
for the dissolution of the partnership and the distribution of the partnership assets, and procured the
appointment of a receiver for the partnership property, it also affirmatively appears that defendant

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
 appointment of a receiver for the partnership property, it also affirmatively appears that defendant
vigorously opposed the appointment of the receiver, and secured his discharge and the dismissal of
the complaint praying for the dissolution of the partnership, by asserting his right to the whole
property under the very contract the enforcement of which he now resists. Article 1124 of the C ivil
C ode, which recognizes and defines the right of either party to a conditional contract (obligacion
condicional) to rescind (resolver) the contract upon the failure of the other to perform the obligations
assumed thereunder, gives to the injured party the right to elect whether he will enforce or rescind
(resolver), but it need hardly be said that he can not do both. Appellant, after the receiver was
appointed, insisted upon the enforcement of his contract, secured the discharge of the receiver, and
the return of the property to his possession and control. C learly he is not entitled now to claim that
the commission of the property to the hands of a receiver entitles him to rescind the very contract
which he elected to enforce for the purpose of taking the property out of the hands of the receiver;
and the trial court property held that he is bound by its terms.
The defendant set up several counterclaims alleging various causes of action against the plaintiff,
only two of which need to be considered upon this appeal, no assignment of error having been made
as to the disposition of the others by the trial court.
The basis of the firs counterclaim to be considered is the alleged damage occasioned by the
deterioration of defendant’s goods as a result of their detention, after the dissolution of the
partnership, in the hands of the receiver appointed in the action above mentioned. The trial court
properly, as we hold, excluded the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of this cause of
action on the ground that the damages claimed were res adjudicata. It appears that in the course of
the action out of which the appointment of the receiver arose, defendant in this action, who was also
defendant in that action, prayed for the discharge of the receiver and damages occasioned by the
action of the plaintiff in procuring his appointment. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant
in that action and the receiver discharged, but nothing was said therein as to defendant’s claim for
damages, and the claim of the defendant for damages must, therefore, be taken to have been
disallowed.

Section 97 of the C ode of C ivil Procedure provides that —

"If the right out of which the counterclaim arises exists at the time of the commencement of the
action and arises out of the transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s
claim, or is necessarily connected with the subject of the action, neither the defendant nor his
assignee can afterwards maintain an action against the plaintiff therefor, if the defendant omits to set
up a counterclaim for the same." cr al aw vi r t ua1aw l i br ar y

Section 177 provides that the damages resulting from the unlawful procurement of the appointment
of a receiver "shall be ascertained by the court and, in its final judgment in the action, shall be
decreed against the plaintiff and the sureties on the obligation." cr al aw vi r t ua1aw l i br ar y

Section 307 of the C ode of C ivil Procedure provides that —

"That only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to
have been so adjudged or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto."cr al aw vi r t ua1aw l i br ar y

December-1909 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 5208 December 1, 1909 - KUENZLE &
STREIFF v. JOSE TA N SUNCO ET A L.
016 Phil 670
G.R. No. 5044 December 1, 1909 - EDWIN CA SE v.
HEIRS OF TUA SON Y SA NTIBA ÑEZ
014 Phil 521
G.R. No. 5075 December 1, 1909 - MA URICIO
RA MIREZ v. SIMEON BA UTISTA , ET A L.
014 Phil 528
G.R. No. 4815 December 2, 1909 - LA YEBA NA CO. v.
FRA NCISCO CHUA SECO & CO.
014 Phil 535
G.R. No. 5096 December 2, 1909 - RA MON MORTERA
v. INOCENTE MA RTINEZ, ET A L.
014 Phil 541
G.R. No. 5244 December 2, 1909 - EULOGIO TRIA v.
RA MON ORTIZ
014 Phil 551
G.R. No. 5306 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STA TES v.
FERNA NDO JA RA BA S
014 Phil 558
Manifestly, under these provisions, the question of damages resulting from the improper procurement
of the appointment of a receiver by the plaintiff in the former action was properly held by the trial
court in this action to be res adjudicata, and, therefore, not a proper subject of inquiry in this action
C ounsel urges that in so far as the decision in the former case was silent on the question of damages
it was manifestly erroneous, because the court having declared that the receiver had been
improvidently and unnecessarily appointed, and that the defendant had been unlawfully deprived of
his property at the instance of the plaintiff, defendant was clearly entitled to damages. But an
examination of the record discloses that defendant accepted the judgment in that case, made no
objection thereto on the ground he now urges as a reason why he should not be bound thereby, and
took no appeal therefrom. In explanation he says that he was so anxious to secure the dismissal of
the receiver and the return of the property to his possession, because it was rapidly deteriorating and
losing its value as time went by, that he could not afford to appeal, and thus continue the possession
of the property in the hand of the receiver pending the course of the appeal on the question of
damages. But the reasons which it is alleged induced defendant to accept without appeal the decision
of the court in the former case in no wise effect the legal consequences flowing from his conduct in
that regard; and we may add that the record discloses that defendant did not even move the trial
judge to modify or to amplify his decision so as to settle expressly the question of damages, a motion
which would not necessarily have involved any considerable delay, and that even had defendant
been compelled to appeal, the bond given when the receiver was appointed must be taken to have
been sufficient to protect the defendant for all losses and damages arising from the improper
detention of the goods in the hands of the receiver.
The second cause of action set up by the defendant by way of counterclaim is his alleged unlawful
detention at the instance of the plaintiff on the 21st day of November, 1906, eleven days after the
contract of sale had been entered into. It is alleged that upon that occasion plaintiff, seeing the
defendant at the dock at Legaspi en route with various boxes of merchandise to Manila, called a
policeman, charged the defendant with robbery, and procured his arrest without a warrant and his
detention at the police station for a few hours, after which defendant was released without further
proceedings; and that as a result of this unlawful detention defendant missed his boat and suffered
heavy damages because of his failure to reach the C hristmas and New Year’s market in Manila, for
which he was bound with his goods, and because of the deterioration of these goods as a result of his
failure to find an immediate sale therefor. The trial court appears to have been of opinion that the
alleged unlawful acts of the plaintiff from which the alleged damages to the defendant arose would
constitute, if proven, the crime of acusacion o denuncia falsa, as defined and penalized in article 326
of the Penal C ode, and excluded all evidence as to this cause of action relying upon the decision of
this court in the case of Quiros v. Tan-Guinlay (5 Phil. Rep., 675), wherein we held that —

G.R. No. 5307 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STA TES v. "Neither a civil nor criminal action for damages arising from the commission of the crime of acusacion
JOSE GONZA GA CHA NGCO o denuncia falsa can be instituted unless the court which investigated the crime falsely charged or
accused directed the institution of criminal proceedings against the false accuser." cr al aw vi r t ua1aw l i br ar y

014 Phil 562

The allegations of defendant’s counterclaim not disclosing that any court had directed the institution
G.R. No. 5210 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STA TES v. of criminal proceedings based on the alleged unlawful acts of the plaintiff, and affirmatively disclosing
VA LERIA DE CHA VES that no investigation of the crime falsely charged had ever been made, the trial court was of opinion
014 Phil 565 that a civil action for damages could not be instituted in the absence of such directions.
G.R. No. 5385 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STA TES v. But in the decision of this court in the case of the United States v. Quiroga (7 Phil. Rep., 388), we
GREGORIO DOMINGO, ET A L. held that-
014 Phil 569 "One who makes a complaint to a policeman, charging a third person with the commission of an
G.R. No. 5275 December 9, 1909 - UNITED STA TES v. offense can not be tried and convicted under article 326 of the Penal C ode for the crime of acusacion
A LEJA NDRO BA UTISTA of denuncia falsa. A policeman is not an administrative or judicial officer in the sense in which those
words are used in the said article 326." cr al aw vi r t ua1aw l i br ar y

014 Phil 579

G.R. No. 4871 December 10, 1909 - LEONCIO
IMPERIA L v. A LFONSA TOLEDO
014 Phil 584
It is evident, therefore, that the provisions of that article are in no wise applicable to the case under
review, and we are of opinion that the defendant was entitled to a hearing upon his counterclaim, to
an opportunity to prove the damages alleged therein, and to have such damages, if proven,
recognized and provided for in the judgment in this action.

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
014 Phil 584
In the discussion of the case by the members of this court after submission on appeal, it was
G.R. No. 5313 December 10, 1909 - JUA NA ESPIRITU suggested that the provisions of articles 1195 and 1196 of the C ivil C ode deny to the defendant the
v. A . S. CROSSFIELD, ET A L.
right to set up a counterclaim for unliquidated damages against plaintiff’s claim based on the
014 Phil 588 contractual obligation set out in the complaint.

G.R. No. 5217 December 13, 1909 - UNITED STA TES These articles are as follows: j gc: chanr obl es. com . ph

v. DA NIEL LOPEZ
"ART. 1195. C ompensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are mutually
014 Phil 593 creditors and debtors of each other.
G.R. No. 5344 December 14, 1909 - UNITED STA TES "ART. 1196. In order that compensation may be proper, it is required.
v. VA LERIA NA DEUDA , ET A L.
"1. That each of the persons bound should be so principally, and that he be at the same time the
014 Phil 595 principal creditor of the other.
G.R. No. 5202 December 16, 1909 - YA P UNKI v.
CHUA JA MCO "2. That both debts consist of a sum of money or, when the things due are perishable, that they be of
the same kind and also of the same quality, if the latter should have been stipulated.
014 Phil 602
"3. That both debts be due.
G.R. No. 5295 December 16, 1909 - KUENZLE &
STREIFF v. MA CKE & CHA NDLER, ET A L. "4. That they be determined and demandable.
014 Phil 610 "5. That none of them is subject to any retention or suit instituted by a third person, and of which due
notice has been given the debtor." cr al aw vi r t ua1aw l i br ar y

G.R. No. 5393 December 16, 1909 - PEDRO

TIRA NGBUA YA , ET A L. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTA NCE It will be seen, however, that the compensation here provided for while it resembles in many
OF RIZA L, ET A L. respects the common law set-off, and certain counterclaims provided for in the C ode of C ivil
014 Phil 613 Procedure, differs therefrom in that a set-off or a counterclaim must be pleaded to be effectual;
whereas compensation takes place by mere operation of law, and extinguishes reciprocally the two
G.R. No. 5200 December 17, 1909 - VICENTE debts as soon as they exist simultaneously, to the amount of their respective sums. (11 La. Ann.,
BA NDOY, ET A L. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTA NCE OF LA 520; 16 La. Ann., 181.)
LA GUNA , ET A L.
We think that the provisions of chapter 5 of the new C ode of C ivil Procedure, and especially section
014 Phil 621 95 thereof, which is as follows: j gc: chanr obl es. com . ph

G.R. No. 5397 December 17, 1909 - FA BIA NA C.
A RRIOLA v. CA ROLINA GOMEZ DE LA SERNA
014 Phil 627
G.R. No. 4667 December 18, 1909 - GEO. M. LA CK, ET
A L. v. PA NTA LEONA A LONSO Y SA N LUIS, ET A L.
014 Phil 630
G.R. No. 5256 December 21, 1909 - UNITED STA TES
v. EUSTA SIO HERNA NDEZ, ET A L.
014 Phil 638
G.R. No. 5329 December 21, 1909 - SA BINA CRUZ
HERRERA DE LUKBA N v. JOSE McMICKING
"SEC . 95. The defendant may set forth by answer as many defenses and counterclaims as he may
have, whatever their nature. They must be separately stated, and the several defenses must refer to
the cause of action which they are intended to answer in a manner by which they may be intelligibly
distinguished. The defendant may also answer one or more of the several causes of action stated in
the complaint, and demur to the residue —"
give to the defendant, in any action instituted against him, the right, if he so desires, to secure in that
action the final disposition of all claims which he may have against the plaintiff, whatever may be
their nature or origin, and the judgment appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, and the
record returned to the trial court, where the parties will be given an opportunity to submit evidence
upon the last above-mentioned cause of action set up in defendant’s counterclaim, and the judgment
already rendered will be modified or not in accordance with defendant’s success or failure in
establishing the damages alleged in this counterclaim.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

014 Phil 641

G.R. No. 5318 December 23, 1909 - UNITED STA TES Ads by Google ► GR ► Law Courses ► GR GR L ► Company Law
v. RA FA EL BUMA NGLA G, ET A L. Ads by Google ► Company Law ► Court Cases ► Law Cases ► Court Judge
014 Phil 644
Ads by Google ► Court Order ► Court Law ► Court Court ► School Law

G.R. No. 5534 December 23, 1909 - HERBERT S.

WA LKER, ET A L. v. JOSE MCMICKING Back to Home | Back to Main
014 Phil 668

G.R. No. 4724 December 24, 1909 - GREGORIA QUICK SEARCH

MONTA ÑA NO v. SILVESTRE SUESA
014 Phil 676

G.R. No. 5760 December 24, 1909 - MA RTIN 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
OCA MPO, ET A L. v. J. C. JENKINS, ET A L. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
014 Phil 681
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
Copyright © 1998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com