Case Digest (G.R. No. 90213)
Facts:
The case revolves around Agustin P. Regala, represented by his daughter, Teresita F. Regala, as the petitioner against the Court of Appeals and Orville Odicta (the private respondent), adjudicated by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 90213) on March 22, 1990. The proceedings began when Orville Odicta filed a complaint against Agustin Regala on November 23, 1988, in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the amount of P503,048.00—representing the balance of the purchase price for a set of assorted knocked-down motor vehicles and spare parts. On March 10, 1989, the court granted Odicta’s request for a writ of preliminary attachment to secure Regala's assets against the claim. Although the trial commenced, tragedy struck when Regala died on June 7, 1989, during the presentation of the defense’s evidence. Following his death, the trial court acknowledged the situation but still allowed the defense ten days to submit documentary evidence. It also permitted both parties
Case Digest (G.R. No. 90213)
Facts:
- Facts of the Case
- On November 23, 1988, Orville Odicta (private respondent) filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Manila against Agustin Regala for the recovery of P503,048.00, representing the balance of the purchase price of assorted knocked-down motor vehicles and spare parts.
- On March 10, 1989, Judge Artemon D. Luna granted the plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant’s properties.
- The trial commenced normally; however, during the presentation of the defense's evidence, the defendant Agustin Regala died on June 7, 1989.
- The trial court was duly informed of Regala’s death, yet in its order dated June 14, 1989, the court allowed the defendant (through his representative) 10 days to formally offer his documentary evidence and rest his case, while also setting a 30‑day period for both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda. The plaintiff was further required to comment within 5 days following the defendant’s urgent motion to discharge the attachment.
- On June 19, 1989, the defense filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order and for the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 3, Section 21 of the Rules of Court. This motion was denied on June 23, 1989.
- Teresita F. Regala, acting in representation of her deceased father, subsequently sought relief from the Court of Appeals by petitioning for certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary injunction to question the trial court’s orders. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the trial court had not committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
- The petitioner later contended that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s orders by denying the dismissal of the complaint and by maintaining the writ of preliminary attachment, notwithstanding the death of the defendant.
- The trial court and the Court of Appeals relied on the case of Macondray & Co., Inc. v. Dungao to argue that an attachment on a defendant’s property might constitute an exception to the general rule of dismissal under Rule 3, Section 21 of the Rules of Court.
- However, contrasting jurisprudence, notably Malolos v. Asia Pacific Finance Corporation and decisions in Dy v. Enage and Pabico v. Jaranilla, underscored that an action for recovery of money, debt, or interest does not survive the death of the defendant and must be dismissed.
- The underlying purpose of Rule 3, Section 21 of the Rules of Court is to avoid duplicative proceedings by requiring that, upon the defendant’s death, claims must be pursued in the proper probate court where the decedent’s creditors are consolidated and treated equitably.
Issues:
- Whether an action for the recovery of money, debt, or interest should be dismissed when the defendant dies before a final judgment is rendered in the court of first instance.
- Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment constitutes an exception to the mandatory dismissal rule set forth in Rule 3, Section 21 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the trial court’s order allowing further presentation of evidence and treatment of the ongoing proceedings despite the defendant’s death amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether the case law cited by the private respondent (Macondray & Co., Inc. v. Dungao) appropriately applies to a pure mortgage or installment contract scenario as opposed to a simple monetary debt recovery claim.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)