FIRST
DIVISION
DARIO ELEIZEGUI,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
G.
R.
No. 967
July
25,
1902 -versus-
THE MANILA
LAWN
TENNIS CLUB,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
COOPER, J :
The appellee has
moved
the Court to dismiss the appeal taken against the judgment rendered by
the Court of First Instance of Manila, upon the ground that the Supreme
Court is without jurisdiction in cases tried by the Court of First
Instance
in the exercise of its jurisdiction over cases appealed from justice
courts.
Article
74 of the Code
of Civil Procedure of 1901 provides that either of the parties to an
action
pending before a justice court may appeal against a judgment of a
justice
of the peace to a Court of First Instance, the appeal to be tried at
the
next regular term of the said court. In accordance with the provisions
of Article 75 the effect of an appeal so taken is to vacate the
judgment
of the justice court, and the case, when duly entered in the Court of
First
Instance, is tried de novo on the merits, in accordance with
the
regular procedure of that court, as though it had not been tried before
and had originally been brought therein. Article 143 of the Code of
Civil
Procedure provides that upon the rendition of a final judgment by a
Court
of First Instance disposing of the action either of the parties shall
be
entitled to perfect a bill of exceptions for a review by the Supreme
Court
of all rulings, orders, and judgments made in the action to which the
party
has duly excepted at the time of making such ruling, order, or
judgment.
No limitation whatever has been fixed with respect to the right of the
parties to appeal against a judgment of a Court of First Instance, nor
has any distinction been made as to whether the case was commenced in
the
Court of First Instance or whether it was brought before it by appeal
from
a justice court. We hold that Article 143 confers jurisdiction upon the
Supreme Court in all cases of final judgments rendered by the Court of
First Instance, either in the exercise of its original jurisdiction or
its appellate jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss
is, therefore, overruled. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Willard and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J.,
did
not sit in this case. |