GR L 4461; (December, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4461 December 28, 1951
FRANCISCA QUIZAN, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, and ANGEL GARRIDO, respondents.
FACTS
Angel Garrido filed an action for forcible entry and damages in the justice of the peace court of Ilog, Negros Occidental, against Francisca Quizan and three others. On the scheduled hearing date, the defendants’ attorney moved to dismiss on the ground of a pending action in the Court of First Instance. The motion was denied, and the defendants’ counsel walked out, announcing an appeal from any adverse judgment. The justice of the peace proceeded with the trial and rendered a judgment against the defendants. Francisca Quizan appealed to the Court of First Instance within the prescribed period. In the Court of First Instance, Quizan filed a written answer containing special denials, special defenses, and counterclaims. Garrido moved to dismiss the appeal and strike out the answer. Judge Francisco Arellano granted the motion, ruling that an appellant in a case appealed from a justice of the peace may not raise questions essentially distinct from those raised in the lower court.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the appeal and striking out the answer filed in the Court of First Instance.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge erred. The inclusion of special defenses and counterclaims not pleaded in the justice of the peace court did not nullify the parts of the pleading that were in reality special denials. Since written answers are not required in justice of the peace courts, and the defendant was not in default, such special denials are deemed to have been interposed in the court of origin. The proper course was to eliminate the special defenses and counterclaims from the answer but allow the special denials to remain. The appeal had been duly taken, and under Section 9, Rule 40, an appeal vacates the justice of the peace’s judgment, and the case stands as if originally commenced in the Court of First Instance. Failure to answer does not justify dismissal of the appeal or execution of the lower court’s judgment; the court should proceed to hear the case on the merits. The Supreme Court granted the petition, treating it as one for mandamus, and directed the respondent Judge to proceed with the case after ordering the exclusion of the improper allegations from the answer. Costs were charged against respondent Angel Garrido.