7/28/2019 Tumang vs. Bautista

1/2

1

Tumang v. BautistaG.R. No. L-69098; May 31, 1985; Abad-Santos, J.Digest prepared by S.J. Lora

DoctrineWhile the Supreme Court found merit in the petition that the sakdal should have been written in

English not in Tagalog, it declared that the petitioner cannot now raise the question of language before the

Court, for in the motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants tacitly submitted to the trial court's rulingthat the sakdal did not have to be translated to English; they analyzed the sakdal in arguing that it statedno cause of action. Such analysis demonstrated that they understood its contents although it was not inEnglish.

SynopsisJavier filed a complaint against the Tumangs written in Tagalog, without English translation. The

Tumangs in turn filed a motion to order Javier to file the complaint in English. The Trial Court ruled that thecomplaint in Pilipino sufficed as Pilipino is an official language and the words in the complaint were easilyunderstood. While the Supreme Court ruled that the courts should be confined to the English language, itdeclared that the petitioners could not use this argument anymore as by analyzing the motion, theydemonstrated understanding of the contents even if these were not in English.

I. Facts This is a petition to review and annul certain orders of Judge Bautista of RTC Laguna in a civil case

for unjust vexation.

In the said case, Emilio Javier filed a Sakdal (complaint) against Enrique Tumang and his daughter

to recover compensation for damages; it was written in Tagalog without English translation.

In a motion for bill of particulars, the Tumangs prayed that Javier:

o 1) be ordered to file the complaint in English as this was the language recognized by the

courts;o 2) furnish a copy of abovementioned + copy of the criminal complaint + decision of acquitta

in the case

The Trial Court (TC) ruled that:

o 1) The complaint in Pilipino sufficed, as Pilipino is an official language, and the words used

where clear and easily understood.o 2) The motion be grantedJavier must state the docket number of the case + name,

location, branch number of Court where it was filed

Defendants Tumangs did not answer the sakdal and were declared in default; they thereaftersought reconsideration for the TC ruling + order of default.

o TC refused to reconsider saying that the motion was well-founded: there is no law

prohibiting a pleading in Pilipino, and in fact the defendants understood the complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that it did not state a cause of action

and that the venue was improper.o TC ruled: on the 1st ground that is a matter of evidence and cannot be sustained by the

court; on the 2nd ground that the plaintiffs residence was w/in the territorial jurisdiction ofthe court.

II. Issues1. WON the Sakdal should have been written in English and not Tagalog.

Yes, but petitioner cannot raise this argument anymore as he demonstrated understanding

of its contents even if it was in Tagalog.2. WON the complaint should have been amended and submission of the requiredinformation by

means of the compliance was insufficient.

No, this claim deserves scant consideration.

III. HeldThe trial court did not commit any error. Petition denied for lack of merit w/ costs against the

petitioner.IV. Ratio

1. While the Constitution states that 'Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be theofficial languages. (Art. XV, Sec. 3, par. 3.), English is almost exclusively used as Pilipino is still agestating language, still being developed by the Batasang Pambansa. However, in this case,

7/28/2019 Tumang vs. Bautista

2/2

2

petitioners cannot raise the argument of language anymore because in the motion to dismiss thecomplaint, they actually analyzed the Sakdal, therefore demonstrating that they understood itscontents even if these were not in English.

2. The claim deserves scant consideration because: (a) the order granting partly the motion for a billof particulars did not require amendment of the complaint and (b) this question is being raised forthe first time only.