Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > November 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3610 November 20, 1907 - JOSE CAMPS v. PEDRO A. PATERNO

009 Phil 229:



[G.R. No. L-3610. November 20, 1907. ]

JOSE CAMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEDRO A. PATERNO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Manuel G. Gavieres, for Appellant.

Rafael Palma, for Appellees.


1. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT; FINAL JUDGMENT. — Where judgment has been rendered by default, under the provisions of section 128, Act No. 190, final judgment in favor of the plaintiff can not be entered until and unless the essential allegations of the complaint are established by competent evidence.



The complaint in this action alleges that the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1,850 for a banquet to be furnished by the plaintiff on the 16th of March 1905; and, in addition, to pay the value of the wine and other liquors which might be drunk upon that occasion. The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff furnished the banquet in fulfillment of the agreement; that the wine consumed on that occasion amounted to P160; that the defendants, although oftentimes, requested so to do, had paid but P1,000 in accordance with their agreement; and that the balance of P1,093 was still due and payable at the date of the filing of the complaint.

The defendants, Paterno and Velarde, failed to appear or to answer the complaint. Against them judgment was entered in default, and thereupon, in conformity with the provisions of section 128 of Act No. 190, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to submit his evidence in support of allegations of the complaint. Thereafter final judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in default, for the sum of P261, with interest thereon from the 16th day of November, 1905, the date of the filing of the complaint. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed, and insists that he is entitled to judgment in his favor for the entire amount prayed for, less P439, which he appears to have been paid after the filing of the complaint.

We think that the judgment of the trial court is in strict conformity with the testimony of record. The only witnesses called by the plaintiff to prove the allegations of his complaint were the two defendants, Martin and Pablo Ocampo. Martin Ocampo testified that, in company with the defendant Velarde and at the request and on behalf of the defendant Paterno, he entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff was to furnish the banquet for the sum of P1,700. Pablo Ocampo testified that under the contract the amount which was to be paid for the banquet was P1,700 and no more. These witnesses positively denied that there was any agreement that Paterno or the banquet committee would be responsible for the wines and liquors furnished in the manner and form alleged in the complaint, and stated that these wines and refreshments were furnished separately by the plaintiff without the authority of the defendants or of the banquet committee. There is no other evidence in the record to support the allegations of the plaintiff as to the responsibility of the defendants in default, for the payment on account of the wines and liquors furnished at the banquet; hence the trial judge properly held that the allegation of the complaint as to indebtedness of the defendants in default, for the wines and liquors furnished, had not been sustained.

There is no proof in the record as to demand for payment upon any of the defendants, prior to the filing of the complaint in this action, and interest was properly allowed only from the date of the filing of the action, and not from the date when it is alleged in the complaint extrajudicial demand had first been made.

It is not entirely clear from the testimony adduced at the trial that the defendant Velarde contracted for himself as well as for the defendant Paterno, though this might perhaps be inferred from the language used by the witness Martin Ocampo. It is not necessary to enter into this question, however, since Velarde did not appeal from the judgment.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and it is so ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

November-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3908 November 1, 1907 - ENRIQUE SERRANO v. LEANDRO SERRANO

    009 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3732 November 2, 1907 - CLEMENCIA FELIX v. MATEO A FELIX

    009 Phil 144


    009 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-3623 November 6, 1907 - RUPERTO RELOVA v. ELENA LAVAREZ

    009 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-3661 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-3985 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANANIAS CERVO, ET AL.

    009 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3986 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO GESMUNDO

    009 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-3996 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN BAILON

    009 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3852 November 11, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO MONTIEL

    009 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3779 November 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. OTIS G. FREEMAN

    009 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-3787 November 14, 1907 - TEODORICA ENDENCIA v. EDUARDO LOALHATI

    009 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-3754 November 15, 1907 - ANGELA OJINAGA v. ESTATE OF TOMAS R. PEREZ

    009 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3516 November 16, 1907 - FELISA NEPOMUCENO v. CIRILO A. CARLOS

    009 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-3838 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-3840 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO BORSED

    009 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-3878 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ATANACIO MACASPAC

    009 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4123 November 16, 1907 - LA YEBANA COMPANY v. TIMOTEO SEVILLA

    009 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-4018 November 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DEMETRIO SALUDO

    009 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-3144 November 19, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    009 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-3638 November 19, 1907 - FAUSTINO GUERRA v. BLANCO SENDAGORTA, ET AL.

    009 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3662 November 19, 1907 - VICENTA ACUÑA v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    009 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3610 November 20, 1907 - JOSE CAMPS v. PEDRO A. PATERNO

    009 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-3774 November 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    009 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-4069 November 20, 1907 - JUAN JAUCIAN v. ROBERTO FLORANZA

    009 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. L-2786 November 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO ASEBUQUE

    009 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-3900 November 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO

    009 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4357 November 21, 1907 - MIGUEL PAVON v. PHIL. ISLANDS TELEPHONE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 3747 November 22, 1907 - YU CHENGCO v. ALFONSO TIAOQUI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-3755 November 23, 1907 - C. C. PYLE v. ROY W. JOHNSON

    009 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-3823 November 23, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. MARIA DE LA PAZ MIJARES

    009 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3750 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO GAMIS

    009 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-3964 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN MALABANAN

    009 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-3973 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SOL

    009 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3741 November 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AFRONIANO FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3702 November 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESCOLASTICO DE LA CRUZ

    009 Phil 276