Case Digest (G.R. No. 193138)
Facts:
Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 193138, August 20, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. (Saludo) sued respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) for accounting and/or recomputation of unpaid rentals and damages under a lease. The lease (dated June 11, 1998) was executed between PNB as lessor and Saludo Agpalo Fernandez & Aquino Law Office (“SAFA Law Office”) as lessee for 632 sq. m. at PNB Financial Center, Quezon City for three years, with a monthly rental and annual escalation; SAFA paid advance rentals and a security deposit. The lease expired August 1, 2001; PNB alleges SAFA continued occupying until February 2005 but stopped paying rent after December 2002 and presented successive demand letters for unpaid rents.
Believing himself aggrieved, Saludo — in his capacity as managing partner — filed an amended complaint on September 1, 2006 naming himself as plaintiff. PNB moved to include SAFA Law Office as indispensable co‑plaintiff on October 4, 2006 and, in its October 13, 2006 Answer, asserted a compulsory counterclaim against SAFA and Saludo for unpaid rentals (about P25.6 million). Saludo moved to dismiss PNB’s counterclaims on the ground that SAFA was not a juridical entity but a mere sole proprietorship or simple association that must be sued through its proprietor.
On January 11, 2007, Branch 58, RTC Makati (Presiding Judge Eugene C. Paras) issued an Omnibus Order denying PNB’s motion to include SAFA and granting Saludo’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims on the ground that SAFA was a non‑legal entity and could not be sued. The RTC denied PNB’s motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2007. PNB filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On February 8, 2010 the CA (Macalino, J., with concurring justices) partially granted the petition: it affirmed the RTC’s omnibus order with modification and ordered PNB’s counterclaims reinstated, concluding that (a) SAFA was a partnership (indeed registered with the SEC) and (b) while a partnership for the practice of law was not a “legal entity” in some prior dicta, SAFA could be sued under Rule 3, Sec. 15 or brought in as a necessary party for complete relief under Rule 6, Sec. 12; thus the counterclaims were compulsory and should not have been dismissed. The CA denied motions for partial reconsideration on August 2, 2010.
Saludo filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging (1) the CA’s inclusion of SAFA as...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in including SAFA Law Office as a defendant to PNB’s counterclaim despite holding that SAFA is neither an indispensable party nor a legal entity?
- Did the Court of Appeals exceed the issues in the certiorari petition by prematurely addressing the merits of PNB’s counterclaim?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to PNB’s petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the RT...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)