EN BANC

G.R. No. 45116           September 17, 1936

GO OCCO & CO., Petitioner, vs. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of

Cebu, and ALEJANDRO S. REYES, as administrator of the estate of Laureana
Antonio, Respondents.

Savellon and Estenzo and Manuel A. Zosa for petitioner.

Vicente Zacarias and Tomas L. Borromeo for the respondent Reyes.
The respondent Judge in his own behalf.

LAUREL, J.:

This is a petition for a writ of  certiorari  filed with this court by Go Occo & Co. against
Sixto de la Costa, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The complaint recites the
following:

That the plaintiff is a duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines, with domicile at Cebu, Cebu, and the defendant is a judge of the
Court of First Instance for the Province of Cebu; chanrobles virtual law library

For its cause of action, the plaintiff alleges: chanrobles virtual law library

1. That, on March 25, 1935, plaintiff Go Occo & Co. filed an action with the
justice of the peace court of Cebu, Cebu, to recover the amount of P467.25
against People's Bazar representing the purchase price of goods taken on
credit. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on the same against the
defendant, and same was levied upon merchandise belonging to the defendant
and taken possession of by the provincial sheriff of Cebu. On March 29, 1935,
the estate of Laureana Antonio, through its administrator Alejandro S. Reyes,
filed an intervention complaint claiming the sum of P1,380 representing unpaid
rent of a house occupied by the defendant's in Cebu, Cebu. Over the verbal
objection of the plaintiff to the admission of the intervenor's intervention
complaint on the ground that intervention complaint cannot be led in the
justice of the peace of court and that intervenor's intervention complaint the
amount of P1,380 which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace
court of Cebu tried the case and rendered judgment declaring plaintiff's claim
preferred to that of intervenor's. On May 4, 1935, the intervenor appealed from
the judgment of the justice of the peace court, paying the amount of P16 for
docket fee on that same day. On June 28, 1935, the clerk of Court of First
Instance of Cebu addressed a letter to the intervenor informing him that he
had to pay still he amount of P4 as the docket fee on that appeal was P20. Up
to the present time the said intervenor has not made good the payment of the
said P4.  
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
2. That, intervention complaint filed in the justice of the peace court was not
reproduced by the intervenor on appeal in the Court of First Instance.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. That, for non-payment of the full docket fees, the case was not ready for
trial, even if initiated originally in the Court of First Instance.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. That, on January 18, 1936, the defendant judge entered an order declaring
the plaintiff Go Occo & Co., in default on the intervenor's intervention
complaint. On the same date the said defendant judge entered a judgment
declaring that the said defendant People's Bazar was in debt to the said
intervenor's estate in the amount of P1,380 and that the said intervenor
estate's claim was superior to any other credit. Upon being notified of the order
of default and of the judgment, plaintiff Go Occo & Co. filed a motion on
February 5, 1936, asking for the reinstatement of the case and for the
dismissal of the intervenor's appeal. (Here motion is reproduced in full.) chanrobles virtual law library

5. That, on motion by the attorney for the intervenor, the hearing of the
aforesaid plaintiff's motion which was set for February 11, 1936, was
postponed by defendant judge to February 25, 1936, over the objection of the
plaintiff's attorneys, the objection being for the reason that the plaintiff's right
to appeal might lapse. To assure plaintiff's right of appeal, plaintiff filed an
amended motion for reconsideration and for dismissal of intervenor's appeal on
February 12, 1936. (Here motion is also reproduced in full.) chanrobles virtual law library

6. On March 2, 1936, the defendant judge entered an order denying the

motion for reconsideration and ordering the execution of the judgment. (Here
order is reproduced.) chanrobles virtual law library

7. That, as aforesaid, the defendant judge has ordered the execution of the
judgment in the said case, and that unless enjoined not to do so, the said
judge will proceed to have his order executed.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
 8. That, there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
for the plaintiff.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, this Honorable Court is respectfully prayed to order the defendant

judge to certify the records of this case for a review by that Honorable Court
and to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction requiring the said judge
to recall the order of execution of the judgment aforesaid.

It will be observed that, according to the foregoing petition, the court below issued
various orders in civil case No. 10606, Court of First Instance of Cebu, entitled "Go Occo
& Co., plaintiff, vs. People's Bazar, defendant, versus Alejandro S. Reyes, administrator of
the estate of the deceased, Laureana Antonio, intervenor." Among these orders are: The
order of January 18, 1936, declaring the plaintiff therein in default, that of the same date
in favor of the intervenor's claim, and that of March 2, 1936, disallowing the motion for
reconsideration presented by the plaintiff therein and ordering the issuance of a writ of
execution. The petition does not state which of these orders is assailed or was issued by
the inferior court in excess or extra imitation of its jurisdiction or with manifest abuse of
its discretion. Worse than this, the petition does not even contain a general averment
that the Court of First Instance of Cebu in taking cognizance of the civil case
aforementioned acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. It simply alleges, paragraph
8 thereof that "there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy for
the plaintiff." chanrobles virtual law library

The petition in this case is vague and indefinite. The administration of justice is not a
matter of guess work. While pleadings should be liberally construed with a view to
substantial justice between the parties, courts should not be left to conjectures in the
determination of issues submitted by the parties litigant or their attorneys. Where,
therefore, the pleading is, as in the case, vague, and uncertain, courts will not allow
themselves to be led to the commission of error or injustice by exploring in the midst of
uncertainty and divining the intention of the parties of their counsel.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with costs against the petitioner. So
ordered.  
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.