G.R. No. L-4708 June 30, 1952
VALENTIN R. MALINAO, petitioner, vs. JUAN L. BOCAR, as Judge of the First Instance of Cebu, JOSE AVILA, DIEGO CANIZARES and JESUS AVILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Valentin R. Malinao filed an action in the municipal court of Cebu against respondent Jose Avila to recover a 5 percent commission on a payment Avila received from the Philippine War Damage Commission. Avila answered with a counterclaim, asserting that the work for the claim was done by his son Jesus Avila and son-in-law Diego Canizares, and that Malinao merely typed and submitted the claim. The municipal court rendered judgment for Malinao. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, Avila reiterated his answer and later filed a motion for authority to file a third-party complaint against Malinao, Jesus Avila, and Diego Canizares, alleging conflicting claims for the same commission. The respondent judge granted the motion over Malinao’s objection. Malinao then filed this petition for certiorari, contending the judge abused his discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in admitting the third-party complaint filed by Jose Avila in the Court of First Instance.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order admitting the third-party complaint. The Court held that the conflicting claims could be threshed out by presenting the sons as witnesses, as was done in the municipal court, making the third-party complaint unnecessary and dilatory. The Court found the attempt to bring the sons into the case was an eleventh-hour scheme to defeat Malinao’s claim, noting that the sons had refused payment according to the municipal court decision. Furthermore, the petition for interpleading constituted a new defense not raised in the municipal court. Under established principle, parties cannot allege new defenses in the Court of First Instance on appeal from an inferior court, even in a trial de novo. The respondent judge thus abused his discretion. The writ of injunction was made final.