G.R. No. 2124. October 07, 1905

On the 30th day of March, 1904, a Chinaman, Simeon Du-Yungco,
brought an action for damages in the justice court of the municipality
of Langaran, Province of Misamis, against the defendant, Macario
Barrera, the customs inspector at the port of that province. Judgment
was entered on the 10th of May, of the same year directing that the
defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of 551.25 pesos, from which
judgment the defendant appealed to the Court of Customs Appeals on the
13th of the same month, under Act No. 355 of the Civil Commission,
after giving the necessary bond.

On the 16th of July, 1904, the plaintiff, Simeon Du-Yungco,
presented a motion to the Court of First Instance of Misamis asking
that the case be remanded to the justice court from whence it came, for
the reason that the appeal had not been taken in accordance with the
law. This motion was overruled on the same day on the ground that the
law did not authorize an appeal from the justice court to the Court of
Customs Appeals, but to the Court of First Instance, and the court held
that this error did not vitiate the notice of appeal and that the
appeal could properly be considered by the Court of First Instance. To
this ruling of the court, the defendant excepted. On the 18th of July
of the same year, 1904, Simeon Du-Yungco filed a complaint in the Court
of First Instance, which was a reproduction of the one formerly filed
in the justice court of Langaran, against the defendant, Macario
Barrera, alleging that he was a resident of the said town, and that the
defendant was a customs subinspector of the same; that on the 28th day
of March of the same year there arrived at Langaran a baroto
loaded with goods belonging to the plaintiff, the total value of which
was 460.25 pesos, Mexican currency; that the defendant maliciously and
without reasonable ground therefor, taking, advantage of his office,
refused to allow the plaintiff to land his goods, which in consequence
thereof got wet and became a total loss, and that he had thereby
suffered damages to the extent of 500 pesos, Philippine currency, and
prayed that judgment be entered against the defendant for the sum of
500 pesos, Philippine currency, with costs, and for such other and
further relief as might be just and equitable.

The defendant, in his answer, alleged that about 4 o’clock p.m., on
the said 28th day of March there arrived at Langaran a boat, the Armario,
loaded with goods consigned to the plaintiff; that he, the defendant,
by reason of his office as customs inspector at that port, and in
performance of his duty, detained the said boat on the ground that it
had violated the customs regulations relating to coastwise trade; that
it is absolutely false that all of the goods described in the complaint
were lost on account of having gotten wet, and that, assuming that part
of the goods loaded on said boat, as aforesaid, had been damaged, it
was due ,to the negligence of the plaintiff, or of his agents or to a
fortuitous accident; and he therefore prayed that judgment be entered,
dismissing the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.

The brief filed by the appellant in this court contains no
assignment of errors. It is therein alleged, however, that the court
committed an error of law in considering as sufficient the appeal taken
by the defendant from the judgment of the justice court, so as to give
the court of First Instance of Misamis the necessary jurisdiction ,,to
take cognizance of the case, notwithstanding the fact that the appeal
was actually taken to the Court of Customs Appeals, which was a
competent tribunal under Act No. 355 above cited. The appellant
contends that the judgment of the court below was null and void, and
asks the court to reverse the same with ,the direction that the
judgment of the justice court be executed.

Section 20 of the rules of this court provides:

“No error not affecting the jurisdiction over the
subject-matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of
error and relied upon in the brief.”

Under the above-quoted section of our rules, the error alleged in
that brief—to wit, that the order of the court below, made and entered
on the 16,th of July, 1904, overruling plaintiff’s motion to remand the
case to the justice court for the reason that the appeal had not been
taken in accordance with the law, was erroneous, and hence that the
exception taken by the plaintiff, and the judgment of the trial court
can not be sustained—is the only error which can be considered in the
final disposition of this case.

An appeal may be taken from a judgment rendered in an action in a
justice court to the Court of First Instance of the province in which
it is rendered. (Section 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)

When a party to an action appeals from an order or judgment which he
believes prejudicial to his interests it is not absolutely necessary
that he should state to what court he appeals, because such an appeal
must be understood to be to the court empowered by law to take
cognizance of the matter on appeal.

Neither Act No. 355 nor any other act provides that a party may
appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace to the Court of
Customs Appeals; and in the case at bar it is evident that it was the
defendant’s intention to appeal from the judgment of the justice court,
although he was mistaken in his belief that he should take his appeal
to the aforesaid special tribunal created by said act. Assuming that
this was an error on the part of the appellant—that is, that it was his
intention to appeal from the judgment of the justice court—it would not
be just to hold that he must abide by the judgment of the said justice
of the peace and that he had waived his right to appeal therefrom,
since it appears very clear that it was his express intention to appeal
from that decision, and that he took his appeal in due time. This
appeal should be always understood to be to the Court of First Instance
mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, under the provisions of which
this case was tried. The error committed by the appellant in
designating the court to which he appealed does not affect the appeal
taken by him, or make it necessary to vacate the judgment appealed from
under section 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, the mere statement of a party that he appeals from the
judgment of the justice of the peace, without naming the court to which
the appeal is taken, should under all circumstances be understood to
have been taken to the Court of First Instance as provided by law, for
the reason that the statute does not designate any other court. It is
not even necessary to refer to section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
relating to the construction of the provisions of that code, for the
reason that the provisions of sections 71 to 79, inclusive, of the same
code are very plain.

It is true that the plaintiff and appellee excepted to the order
overruling his motion to dismiss, and that he thereafter excepted to
the final judgment entered in the case. But it is none the less true
that he filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Misamis, a
reproduction of the complaint filed by him in the justice court, and
that he prosecuted this new action to final judgment. This judgment was
in accordance with the law.

For the reasons above stated the exception to the order of the court
below, dated the 16th of July, 1904,. can not be sustained, and the
said order is hereby affirmed, as is also the judgment of the 21st of
the same month, with the costs against the appellant Simeon Du-Yungco.

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in
accordance herewith, and let the record be remanded to the Court of
First Instance for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., dissents.