Case Digest (G.R. No. 219408)
Facts:
Donald Francis Gaffney v. Gina V. Butler, G.R. No. 219408, November 08, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Donald Francis Gaffney filed a Complaint for sum of money on September 21, 2011, alleging that he advanced approximately PHP12,500,000 as an investment in ActiveFun Corporation, whose President was respondent Gina V. Butler and whose Treasurer/CEO was her husband, Anthony Richard Butler. Donald alleged that the proposed investment agreement did not materialize after Anthony’s death in December 2009, and that Gina personally undertook to repay the investment; she made a partial payment of PHP1,000,000 on October 15, 2010, which Donald acknowledged in writing. Donald later demanded payment and when demands failed instituted suit.
Gina answered on April 23, 2012, admitting payment of PHP1,000,000 but contending it was an undue payment obtained by intimidation and denying the authenticity of the signature on the Acknowledgment Receipt. During pre-trial Gina pre-marked a handwritten note in which Donald purportedly acknowledged that the PHP1,000,000 was payment for money owed by Anthony. Because relief against Anthony’s estate could not be obtained under the original complaint, Donald sought and obtained leave to file an Amended Complaint (October 1, 2012) impleading the estate or heirs of the late Anthony Richard Butler as an additional defendant; an alias summons was thereafter served on Gina as purported representative of Anthony’s estate.
Gina filed a Motion to Dismiss Ad Cautelam in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70, contending that a deceased person or his estate lacks legal personality and thus cannot be impleaded in an ordinary civil action (Rule 86 settlement proceedings are the proper forum). The RTC denied Gina’s Motion to Dismiss and also denied Donald’s Motion to Declare Defendant in Default in its Order dated August 15, 2013 (denial of reconsideration in an Order dated November 25, 2013). The RTC reasoned that impleading Anthony’s estate was necessary for complete relief and that Gina had filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint.
Gina petitioned the Court of Appeals by a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in allowing the estate to be named and in treating Gina as its legal representative. In its Decision dated February 6, 2015, the CA granted the petition, set aside the RTC Orders, and dismissed the entire complaint, reasoning that a deceased person or estate lacks legal personality under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and concluding the handwritten receipt’s genuineness was undisputed, making the estate indispensable. The CA denied Donald’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 14, 2015.
Donald thereup...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the RTC’s ruling that the estate or heirs of Anthony, represented by his surviving spouse Gina, could be named as additional defendant in the present case?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the entire complaint when dismissal of the entire case was neither raised as an issue nor prayed fo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)