ATTY. SARSABA vs. VDA. DE TE July 30, 2009| Peralta, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators – R87 PETITIONER: PETITIONER: Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba (counsel for Sereno) RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT : Fe Vda. De Te SUMMARY: SUMMARY : Sereno won a labor case (Illegal Dismissal) in the NLRC against Gasing. A truck in the possession of Gasing was levied upon. Vda. De Te filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery of the truck, claiming that the truck was really hers, and that it should not be levied upon since she was not even part of the labor case. Sereno’s counsel, Atty. Sarsaba, filed a MTD Vda. De Te’s complaint. Both Sereno and Te died at some point in the proceedings. Sarsaba claims that Te’s atty-in-fact, Castaeda, can no longer sue on Te’s behalf in view of her death. The SC allowed Castaeda to sue on Te’s behalf. DOCTRINE: DOCTRINE : SEE Ratio in BOLD.
8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13.
by one Matias (who bought it from Sps. Te). The Sheriff Sheriff filed filed a Motion Motion for Inhibit Inhibition, ion, which which was opposed opposed by by Te. October October 13, 2000: 2000: RTC Branch Branch 18 issued issued an Order of of inhibition inhibition and and directed directed the transfer of the records to Branch 19. RTC Branch 19 returned the records to Branch 18 18 in view of the appointment of a new judge in place of Judge Escovilla (Branch 18’s original judge). Yet, Branch 19 issued another Order retaining the case in said branch. May 19, 2003: 2003: The RTC denied the MTD filed by the NLRC and set Pre-trial Pre-trial Conference. October 17, 2005: 2005: Petitioner Atty. Sarsaba filed an Omnibus MTD the Case. April 12, 2005: Respondent Respondent Vda. De Te died. a. Through her lawyer, Respondent filed an Opposition, contending that failure to serve summons upon Sereno (on account of his death) is not a ground for dismissing the complaint because the other defendants have already submitted their respective responsive pleadings. b. Also claimed claimed that that Respond Respondent ent Vda. Vda. De Te’s death death did not not render render functus officio her right to sue since her atty-in-fact, Castaeda, had long testified on the complaint on March 13, 1998 for an on her behalf behalf and submitted submitted document documentary ary exhibits in support support of the complaint. March 22, 2006: 2006: The RTC issued issued the assailed Order, denying denying Atty. Sarsaba’s Sarsaba’s motion (SEE Fact 12). Atty. Sarsaba filed an MR with Motion for Inhibition. a. Claimed Claimed that the judge judge was biased biased (that (that her husband husband was the the defendan defendantt in a petition for judicial recognition of which he was the counsel). Judge Sarno-Davin granted granted it and ordered the the case to be re-raffled to Branch Branch 18. October 16, 2006: RTC Branch 18 denied Atty. Sarsaba’s MR (SEE Fact 15). Hence, Atty. Sarsaba Sarsaba directly sought sought recourse recourse from the SC (pure questions questions of law).
FACTS: 14. 1. Feb. 14, 1995: 1995: a Decision Decision was was rendered rendered in the NLRC NLRC finding finding Sereno Sereno to have been been illegally dismissed and ordering Gasing (truck operator) to pay him P43k. 15. 2. After the Writ Writ of Execution Execution was returned returned unsatisfi unsatisfied, ed, Labor Arbiter Arbiter Sancho Sancho issued issued an Alias Writ, directing Sherriff Lavarez (the Sheriff) of the NLRC to satisfy the judgment award. 16. 3. The Sheriff, Sheriff, accompan accompanied ied by Sereno Sereno and his counse counsel, l, Petitione Petitionerr Atty. Atty. Sarsaba, Sarsaba, 17. levied a Fuso Truck, which at the time was in the possession of Gasing. 18. a. The truck truck was sold at public public auction auction with with Sereno as highest highest bidder. bidder. 4. Respondent Respondent Fe Fe Vde. De Te (Te) filed filed with with the RTC a Complain Complaintt for recovery recovery of motor vehicle against Sereno, the Sheriff, and the NLRC of Davao ISSUE: CivPro ISSUE: CivPro Issue: WoN failure to serve summons on Sereno on account of his death a. She alleg alleged ed that that she is the wife wife of the late late Pedro Pedro Te, the regist registered ered is a ground for dismissal of the complaint complaint (SEE Fact 13.a.) – NO. owner of the truck, that Gasing merely rented the truck from her, that WoN Respondent Vda de Te may still sue notwithstanding her SpecPro Issue: WoN Issue: the Sheriff erroneously assumed that Gasing owned the truck, and that death during the pendency of the case (SEE Fact 13.b.) – YES. since since neithe neitherr she nor her husband husband were partie partiess to the labor labor case between Sereno and Gasing, she should not have to bear the loss. *NOTE: BOTH Sereno and Te died at some point. 5. Atty Atty.. Sars Sarsab abaa file filed d an MTD. MTD. The The NLRC NLRC also filed filed a MTD. MTD. The Sherif Sheriff, f, however, filed an Answer. RULING: Petition DENIED. 6. January January 21, 21, 2000: 2000: The The RTC denied denied Atty. Atty. Sarsaba’s Sarsaba’s MTD. 7. Atty. Atty. Sarsaba Sarsaba (counsel (counsel for Sereno) Sereno) denied denied the material material allegati allegations ons in the complaint. RATIO: a. That That ther theree was was no show showin ing g that that the the heir heirss have have file filed d inte intest stat ateeCivPro Issue: proceedings (for the estate of Pedro Te), or that Te was authorized by 1. The RTC Order Order denying denying Atty. Atty. Sarsaba Sarsaba’s ’s Omnibus Omnibus MTD MTD (SEE Fact 14) 14) is not her co-heirs to file the case, or that the truck was already sold to Gasing appeal appealabl ablee even even on pure pure questi questions ons of law since since is it interl interlocu ocutor tory y (since (since an
interlocutory order is not appealable). Sarsaba should have proceeded with the trial 10. of the case, and should the RTC eventually render an unfavourable verdict, he should assail the Order as part of an appeal that may be taken from the final judgment to be rendered in this case. Sarsaba raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the person of Sereno, not in his 11. MTD or in his Answer but only in his Omnibus MTD. Having failed to invoke this ground at the proper time, that is, in a MTD, he cannot raise it now for the first time on appeal. Also, the court’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over one’s person is a defense, which is personal to the person claiming it. Obviously, it is now impossible for Sereno to 12. invoke the same in view of his death. Failure to serve summons on Sereno’s person will not be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint against the other defendants, considering that they have been served with copies of the summons and complaints and have long submitted their 13. respective responsive pleadings. Hence, only the case against Sereneo will be dismissed.
Atty. Sarsaba claimed that the SPA executed by Te in favor of Castaeda (SEE Fact 13.b.) has become functus officio and that the agency constituted between them had been extinguished upon Te’s death. Thus, according to Sarsaba, Castaeda had no more personality to appear and prosecute the case on Te’s behalf. 2. The Court said that while as a general rule agency is extinguished by the death of the principal, the exception where the agency will remain effective even after the death of the principal is when if it had been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who 3. has accepted the stipulation in his favor. In this case, a perusal of the SPA shows that it was constituted for the benefit solely of Te. Nowhere can it be inferred that it was created for the common 4. interest of Te and Castaeda. Neither was there any mentiond that it was to benefit a third person that has accepted it. On that ground (SEE Ratio 12 above), the SC agreed with Sarsaba. HOWEVER, such ground should not cause the dismissal of the complaint. The 5. action was for recovery of personal property (motor vehicle) (SEE Fact 4), and it is an action that survives pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 87. As such, it is not SpecPro Issue: extinguished by the death of a party. 6. When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Court require a substitution of the deceased. Section 1, Rule 87 of the 14. The SC cited Gonzales vs. Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corp., where it laid down the criteria for determining whether an action survives the death of a Rules of Court enumerates the actions that survived and may be filed against plaintiff/petitioner.1 the decedent's representatives as follows: (1) actions to recover real or personal property or an interest thereon, (2) actions to enforce liens thereon, and (3) 15. The Court also noted that when the case was initiated/filed by the Attorney-in-fact Castaeda, the plaintiff Te was still very much alive. Records reveal that the actions to recover damages for an injury to a person or a property. In such Castaeda had testified long before in behalf of Te and more particularly during the cases, a counsel is obliged to inform the court of the death of his client and give state when Te was vehemently opposing the dismissal of the complaint. the name and address of the latter's legal representative. Subsequently thereto, Castaeda even offered documentary evidence in support of 7. Strictly speaking, the rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but the complaint, and the lower court admitted the same. a requirement of due process. It was designed to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the suit through his heirs or the duly 16. Thus, the proper remedy here is the Substitution of Heirs and not the dismissal of this case which would work injustice to plaintiff Te. appointed legal representative of his estate. It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the resulting judgment therein. 8. Te's counsel did not make any manifestation before the RTC as to her death. In fact, he had actively participated in the proceedings. Neither had he shown any proof that he had been retained by respondent's legal representative or any one 1 "The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the who succeeded her. 9. HOWEVER, such failure of Te’s counsel would not lead the Court todamage sued for. If the causes of action which survive the wrong complained [of] affects primarily invalidate the proceedings that have long taken place before the RTC. The and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive the injury complained of is to the person the Court has repeatedly declared that failure of the counsel to comply with his property and rights of property affected being incidental.” duty to inform the court of the death of his client, such that no substitution is effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment rendered thereon if the action survives the death of such party. The trial court's jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the death of the Te.
