Case Digest (G.R. No. 213230)
Facts:
Naoaki Hirakawa represented by Erica M. Shibamura v. Lopzcom Realty Corporation and Atty. Gari M. Tiongco, G.R. No. 213230, December 05, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Naoaki Hirakawa (through agent Erica Shibamura) sued Lopzcom Realty Corporation and its President/Chairman Atty. Gari M. Tiongco for collection of money, damages and attachment arising from a series of postdated checks and an alleged failed assignment of shares as settlement. Hirakawa alleged that in connection with Lopzcom’s December 28, 1995 purchase of the Windfields Subdivision from Takezo Sakai, Tiongco delivered nine postdated Westmont checks as part of the P100,000,000 purchase price; Sakai later assigned to Hirakawa four of those checks (totaling P65,000,000) and Hirakawa caused the payees on the remaining checks to be changed to his name. When several replacement checks were dishonored and respondents later purportedly assigned golf-course shares as full settlement of a P40,000,000 balance, no shares were delivered and subsequent postdated PNB checks were likewise unfunded.
Hirakawa filed his complaint (filed June 22, 2010) for breach of contract and attachment and sought P114,027,812.22 (inclusive of interest) plus damages. The trial court issued an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment on October 1, 2010; that writ was discharged on October 21, 2010 upon respondents’ posting of a counter-bond. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint (filed November 5, 2010) arguing, inter alia, that Hirakawa lacked cause of action because he was not a party to the Deed of Sale and had no legal capacity as a foreign national. By Order dated May 15, 2012, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss (and denied reconsideration on August 28, 2012), finding the complaint alleged causes beyond mere breach of contract (fraud, issuance of worthless checks) and that Hirakawa, as a natural person, had juridical capacity to sue.
Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on November 5, 2012. The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated November 19, 2013 (Noel G. Tijam, J., penned), reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, reasoning that Hirakawa was not a party to the Deed of Sale and therefore could not ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in dismissing the complaint below on the ground that Hirakawa had no cause of action against responde...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)