G.R. No. L-5805. October 07, 1954

This case was, on appeal, taken directly to this tribunal by the
plaintiffs-appellants as per their notice of appeal dated January 21,
1952, from the decision of the trial court dated December 29, 1951. Studying the case, however, we found that several questions of fact
have been raised and discussed by the plaintiffs-appellants and
discussed by the appellee in their respective briefs. The following
assignment of errors by appellants will show this:

I

The
trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff is the dummy of the
defendant and in not finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the
concession and that the defendant is merely the agent of the plaintiff.

II

The trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff did not have any intervention in the operation of his concession.

III

The trial court erred in finding that the defendant operated the concession of the plaintiff with, his (defendant’s) money.

IV

The lower court erred in finding-that the plaintiff had not invested any money in the operation of his concession.

V

The
trial court erred in finding-that plaintiff did not have any interest
in the equipments used in the operation of the concession.

VI

The trial court erred in not giving more weight to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff than that submitted by the defendant.

In fact, the Attorney for plaintiffs-appellants in his prayer before
the trial court for the approval and transmission of his Record on
Appeal said the following:

“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this record on Appeal be approved and duly transmitted to the Supreme Court. An
issue of fact and of law being raised in this appeal, the whole oral
and documentary evidence are hereby included by reference in this
Record on Appeal.”

In similar cases^[1] where we
found that questions of fact were raised either by appellant or
appellee, or by both, we have sent the same to the Court of Appeals for
their consideration and decision, pursuant to the provisions of
Sections 17 and 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

In view of the foregoing, and because the present appeal involves
questions both of law and fact, let the present case be sent to the
Court of Appeals for consideration and decision.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Justo et al., vs. Hernando, 89 Phil. 268 and Samson vs. Andal, 89 Phil. 627.