JULIAN TAMAYO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. GRACIANO BARCENA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Tamayo versus Barcena

The Case

This is the case of Tamayo versus Barcena, decided by the Supreme Court in May 1934. Julian Tamayo was the plaintiff and appellant; Graciano Barcena was the defendant and appellee. The action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Abra, and the appeal before the Supreme Court was taken from an order of that court dated the sixteenth of October, 1931. The case matters to a reviewee for one narrow but recurring reason: it shows how the Supreme Court treats an appeal that is brought up on the record without the appellant having preserved, in the manner the law requires, the very questions he later asks the Court to review. It is a lesson in procedure, not in substantive law, and it is the kind of lesson examiners test when they ask what happens to an appeal that attacks an order of the trial court without a proper assignment of error.

Procedural History

The action was filed by Julian Tamayo against Graciano Barcena in the Court of First Instance of Abra. That court, by order dated the sixteenth of October, 1931, resolved the matter against the plaintiff. From that order the plaintiff took an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal was submitted by both parties for decision, and the Supreme Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction over the cause, rendered its decision and order for judgment on the twenty-fourth of May, 1934. The Court affirmed the order appealed from, with costs of that instance against the appellant, and further ordered the appellee to recover from the appellant the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Facts

Julian Tamayo brought suit against Graciano Barcena in the Court of First Instance of Abra. The trial court resolved the controversy by an order dated the sixteenth of October, 1931, and that order was adverse to Tamayo.

Tamayo appealed from that order to the Supreme Court. The record of the appeal was submitted by both parties for decision, and the Court treated the appeal as one taken on the record from the order of the Court of First Instance.

The Supreme Court, upon consideration of the record, found no ground to disturb the order of the trial court. It accordingly affirmed that order, with costs of the instance against the appellant, and fixed the appellee's costs at forty pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Court of First Instance of Abra dated the sixteenth of October, 1931, should be reversed on appeal.
• Whether or not the appellant is entitled to relief from the Supreme Court upon an appeal taken on the record from that order.
• Whether or not the appellant must bear the costs of the instance, and in what amount.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any statutory provision. It rests entirely on the record of the appeal and on the settled rule that an appellate court will affirm an order of the trial court when the record discloses no ground for reversal. No article of the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, or any other statute is quoted or discussed in the decision text, and none is supplied here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Abra dated the sixteenth of October, 1931. Having regularly acquired jurisdiction for the trial of the cause, and having considered it upon the record submitted by both parties, the Court found no reason to set that order aside.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellant was not entitled to relief. The appeal was taken from the order of the trial court, and the Court, upon the record, affirmed that order rather than reversing it. The judgment of the Court reads that the order from which the appeal was taken "be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with cost for this instance against the appellant."

On the third issue, the Court assessed costs against the appellant. It ordered that the appellee recover from the appellant the sum of forty pesos as costs. The rule applied is the ordinary one that costs follow the result of the appeal, and the appellant, having lost, bears them.

Doctrine

Three rules may be drawn from this case and written in an answer.

• An appellate court affirms an order of the trial court when the record discloses no ground for reversal. The Supreme Court, having acquired jurisdiction and having considered the cause upon the record submitted by both parties, affirmed the order appealed from.
• Costs follow the result of the appeal. The appellant who fails on appeal bears the costs of that instance, and the appellee is entitled to recover them from him, here in the fixed sum of forty pesos.
• The judgment of affirmance is the operative act. The Court's decree is that the order appealed from "be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with cost for this instance against the appellant," and that the appellee recover from the appellant the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Abra dated the sixteenth of October, 1931, with costs of the instance against the appellant, and ordered the appellee to recover from the appellant forty pesos as costs.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that an order of the trial court stands on appeal when the record discloses no ground for reversal, and the losing appellant pays the costs. Examiners use this case to test the rule on affirmance of trial court orders and the ordinary rule that costs follow the result of the appeal.