You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c206d?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[RICHARD SHERMAN v. ANTONIO HORRILLENO](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c206d?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c206d}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 37372, Jul 26, 1932 ]

RICHARD SHERMAN v. ANTONIO HORRILLENO +

DECISION

57 Phil. 13

[ G.R. No. 37372, July 26, 1932 ]

RICHARD SHERMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO HORRILLENO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, ACTING JUDGE IN THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND HERMAN SCHUCK, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

HULL, J.:

This is an application for a writ of mandamus, to be directed to the respondent judge, praying that this court shall command him immediately after the receipt of such order, to annul all orders dismissing the appeal of petitioner and to allow saM appeal. The question arises out of a suit by Herman Schuck against petitioner in the justice oi the peace court of the municipal district of Talipao, Province of Sulu, in which after trial of the case, judgment was rendered in favor of said respondent. Thereafter, and within the period of time authorized by law, petitioner filed his notice of appeal and the said appeal was filed, registered, and docketed in the Court of First Instance, for the Province of Sulu, within the period allowed for making the appeal. Respondent, Herman Schuck, filed a motion to dismiss said appeal on the grounds that the petitioner had not complied with the "requirements of section 76, of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 3615.

The respondent judge held, that the appeal had not been properly perfected according to law, and dismissed the appeal. This was a final disposition of the legal proceeding then pending in the Court of First Instance of Sulu.(Mejia vs. Alimorong, 4 Phil., 572.)

The allegations in the petition that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law wherein petitioner may enforce his rights as required by section 222, Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be admitted. (Fajardo vs. Llorente, 6 Phil., 426.) Petition denied, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Vickers, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.


tags