Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10923)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10923)
Facts:
Ceferino Inciong and Concepcion G. Inciong v. Miguel Tolentino, G.R. No. L-10923, September 23, 1959, Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez David, J., writing for the Court. This is a direct appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
On October 8, 1952 Miguel Tolentino filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 17722) against Ceferino Inciong and Concepcion G. Inciong to recover damages for libel, the alleged libel being the same matter for which Ceferino had previously been convicted in a criminal case. That Manila action was dismissed for improper venue after defendants represented that they were residents of Balayan, Batangas.
Tolentino then refiled his civil action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas as Civil Case No. 256, this time naming Ceferino Inciong alone as defendant. Ceferino answered and, according to the lower court, filed a counterclaim alleging that Tolentino's civil complaint contained false and baseless allegations. Subsequently the spouses Ceferino and Concepcion filed a separate action in the Batangas court (Civil Case No. 380) against Tolentino, alleging that the original complaint filed in Manila contained defamatory statements (e.g., that Ceferino was "Supremo of the Samahang Magbubukid," that the spouses owned conjugal property including income from the Samahang Magbubukid, and that Ceferino had an "awful record").
Tolentino moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 380 on the grounds that another action between the same parties for the same cause was pending (Civil Case No. 256) and that the complaint stated no cause of action; he later also pleaded prescription under Article 1147 of the New Civil Code, arguing the spouses filed the present action on May 24, 1954, more than one year after the alleged libel arose in October 1952. The Court of First Instance of Batangas sustained the motion and dismissed Civil Case No. 380 on the ground of another action pending, adding that plaintiffs could include their causes of action as a counterclaim in Civil Case No. 256. The spouses appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of Civil Case No. 380 proper on the ground that another action between the same parties for the same cause was pending (thus preventing multiplicity of suits)?
- Alternatively, was the action barred by prescription under Article 1147 of the New Civil Code (one-year prescriptive period for actions arising from libel)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)