Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 1
UN PAK LEUNG, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JUAN NIGORRA, ET AL, defendants-appellants.
F. Dominguez, for appellant Juan Nigorra.
Haussermann, Cohn and Williams, for appellee.
JOHNSON, J.:
This action was originally commenced in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila for the purpose of recovering of the defendants the sum of P443.35. Upon a consideration of the facts adduced during the trial of said cause in the court of the justice of the peace, the justice of the peace rendered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P443.35, with interest from the 23rd day of March, 1905, and the costs. From this decision of the justice of the peace the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance and the case was tried de novo in said court.
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the judge of the Court of First Instance on the 2d day of December, 1905, found that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of P443.35, and rendered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff for the said sum, including the said costs incurred in the Court of First Instance. From this decision of the Court of First Instance the defendant, Juan Nigorra, only, appealed to this court, after having made a motion for a new trial in the lower court, and made six assignments of error in this court. All of these assignments of error, except the sixth, relate to the sufficiency of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause in the lower court.
Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant Juan Nigorra made a motion for a new trial in the Court of First Instance, for the purpose evidently of enabling this court to examine the evidence adduced during the trial, he has failed to bring to this court all of the evidence, a part of the evidence only being brought here. We therefore refuse to examine part of the evidence only, for the purpose of ascertaining what facts were presented to the lower court. We must confine ourselves to the facts stated in the complaint and answer presented in the lower court, together with the facts found in the decision of the court, for the purpose of ascertaining what the facts were. (Ferrer vs. Abejuela.) 2 If parties desire this court to examine the evidence adduced in causes in the lower courts they must make a motion for a new trial, basing the same upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of facts of the lower court, and then they must bring all of such evidence to this court.lawphil.net
The sixth assignment of error made by the appellant, Juan Nigorra, is "that the lower court committed an error in decreeing that both of the defendants "como razon social," and each of them were individually liable for the payment of the amount claimed by the plaintiff." The lower court found as a fact from the proof adduced during the trial of the cause that the defendants were partners in the management of the bakery La Isleña and from this finding of facts held that the defendants were jointly and individually liable for the payment of the sum claimed by the plaintiff. This finding of fact must be accepted by us inasmuch as the proof is not here. lawphil.net
The lower court made no finding of fact which in any way shows that the defendants were individually liable by virtue of any agreement, or contract, between the defendants and the plaintiff, whereby they became jointly and individually liable. Upon the finding of facts of the lower court the defendants were liable only for their respective share of said obligation. Article 1137 of the Civil Code provides that parties to a contract are not severally liable for the obligation created thereby in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. Said article 1137 provides:
The concurrence of two or more creditors, or of two or more debtors in a single obligation, does not imply that each one of the former has a right to ask, nor that each one of the latter is bound to comply in full with the things which are the object of the same. This shall only take place when the obligation determines it expressly, being constituted as a joint obligation.
In the absence of a finding of facts therefore that the defendants made themselves individually liable for the debt incurred, they are each liable for one-half of said obligation.
For these reasons the judgment of the lower court, holding that the appellant was individually liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of the obligation incurred by the defendants, is hereby modified as to this appellant and it is hereby ordered that a judgment be rendered against the appellant, Juan Nigorra, for one-half of the sum claimed by the plaintiff, together with one-half the costs incurred in the court of the justice of the peace, the Court of First Instance, as well as this court, and interest upon said amount at the rate of 6 percent from the 23rd day of March, 1905. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rehearing, page 486, post.
2 Page 324, supra.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
