G.R. No. L-10495; February 11, 1915
MANUEL MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. E.C. MCCULLOUGH and CO., P. M. MOIR and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BULACAN, respondents.

FACTS:
On October 21, 1913, E.C. McCullough and Co. filed a civil action against Manuel Mendoza in the justice’s court of San Miguel, Bulacan. The justice’s court ruled in favor of Mendoza, dismissing the complaint on the merits. McCullough appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan but did not file a new complaint, instead electing to rely on the original complaint filed in the justice’s court. When the case was called for trial in the CFI, Mendoza did not file an answer. McCullough moved for a default judgment. Mendoza opposed, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed because McCullough failed to file a new complaint in the appellate court as allegedly required by Act No. 2111 . The CFI denied Mendoza’s motion and, after warnings, rendered a default judgment against him. Mendoza then filed a petition for mandamus to compel the CFI to dismiss the appealed case for lack of a new complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted unlawfully in not dismissing the appealed case despite the appellant’s failure to file a new complaint in the appellate court.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus.

The Court harmonized Section 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 78 (as amended by Act No. 2111 ). Section 112 explicitly allows an appellant in an appealed case from a justice’s court to either file a new complaint or rely on the original complaint filed before the justice of the peace. Section 78, which requires the plaintiff to file a complaint within a specified period after notice, was not repugnant to Section 112; rather, the appellant must make an election to either file a new complaint or notify the court of reliance on the original complaint. Here, McCullough validly elected to stand on the original complaint, which was already part of the record transmitted to the CFI.

Thus, the CFI did not unlawfully neglect any duty, and its judgment by default was valid. The appeal itself vested the CFI with jurisdiction over the parties, making further summons unnecessary. The demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the petition was ultimately dismissed.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.