Case Digest (G.R. No. 175910) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case arose from Civil Case No. 3488 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Digos City, Davao del Sur, involving petitioner Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba and respondents Fe Vda. de Te, represented by her attorney-in-fact Faustino Castañeda, among others. On February 14, 1995, a decision was rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. RAB-11-07-00608-93, ruling that Patricio Sereno was illegally dismissed by Teodoro Gasing, ordering payment of monetary claims amounting to ₱43,606.47. Execution process was unsatisfied leading the Labor Arbiter to issue an alias writ of execution on June 10, 1996, directing the sheriff to levy the judgment against Gasing. On July 23, 1996, a Fuso truck (LBR-514) in Gasing's possession was levied and sold in a public auction on July 30, 1996, where Sereno was the highest bidder.
Respondent Fe Vda. de Te, claiming to be the registered owner of the truck by virtue of her marriage to the late Pedro Te, fil
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 175910) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Prior Labor Case
- On February 14, 1995, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision in NLRC Case No. RAB-11-07-00608-93 (Patricio Sereno v. Teodoro Gasing/Truck Operator), finding Sereno to have been illegally dismissed and ordering Teodoro Gasing to pay Sereno monetary claims amounting to ₱43,606.47.
- After the Writ of Execution was returned unsatisfied, Labor Arbiter Newton R. Sancho issued an Alias Writ of Execution on June 10, 1996, directing Sheriff Fulgencio R. Lavarez to satisfy the judgment award.
- On July 23, 1996, Lavarez levied a Fuso Truck (License Plate No. LBR-514), then in Gasing's possession. On July 30, 1996, the truck was sold at a public auction, with Sereno as the highest bidder.
- Subsequent Civil Case for Recovery of Motor Vehicle
- Respondent Fe Vda. de Te, represented by her attorney-in-fact Faustino Castañeda, filed a Complaint for recovery of motor vehicle, damages, and prayed for delivery of the truck pendente lite against petitioner Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba, Sereno, Lavarez, and the NLRC, docketed as Civil Case No. 3488 before RTC Branch 18, Digos City.
- Respondent alleged: (a) she was wife of the late Pedro Te, lawful registered owner of the truck as evidenced by official receipt and certificate of registration; (b) Gasing merely rented the truck and was not the owner; (c) the sheriff erroneously assumed Gasing was owner due to possession; and (d) neither she nor her husband was a party in the labor case and should not be deprived of the truck.
- Motions, Pleadings, and Court Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds including respondent's lack of legal personality to sue, insufficiency of cause of action, and absence of an affidavit of merit and bond for delivery of the vehicle pendente lite.
- The NLRC also moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action; Lavarez filed Answer with Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint, asserting lack of jurisdiction and failure of complaint to state cause of action.
- On January 21, 2000, the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner then filed an Answer denying material allegations and raised affirmative defenses including no legal interest of respondent and that Gasing had acquired ownership of the truck in 1986.
- Lavarez filed a Motion for Inhibition, opposed by respondent; subsequent orders on inhibitions, transfers, and retention of the case followed between RTC Branches 18 and 19.
- On May 19, 2003, RTC denied the separate motions to dismiss of NLRC and Lavarez and set the pre-trial on July 25, 2003.
- On October 17, 2005, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over one defendant and lack of legal personality of respondent’s attorney-in-fact, noting that Fe Vda. de Te died on April 12, 2005.
- Respondent’s counsel opposed the motion, arguing failure to serve summons on Sereno is not grounds for dismissal due to other defendants’ participation; respondent’s death did not extinguish her right to sue because of the attorney-in-fact’s continued representation.
- On March 22, 2006, RTC Branch 19 denied petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition due to alleged bias of the judge; the judge inhibited herself and the case was re-raffled to Branch 18.
- On October 16, 2006, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
- Petition for Review before the Supreme Court
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court raising questions of law concerning: (a) jurisdiction over the person of Sereno who died before summons service; and (b) the legal effect of the death of the plaintiff (Fe Vda. de Te) during pendency of the case and whether her attorney-in-fact retained legal personality to continue prosecution.
- The petition assailed the interlocutory Order denying the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss.
Issues:
- Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant Patricio Sereno despite the failure to serve summons caused by his death before service.
- Whether the complaint must be dismissed as to all defendants due to lack of jurisdiction over Sereno.
- Whether the death of plaintiff Fe Vda. de Te during the pendency of the case extinguished her cause of action or affected the legal personality of her attorney-in-fact to continue prosecuting the case.
- Whether the RTC Order denying the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss is appealable before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, or if the proper mode of appeal was to the Court of Appeals or by certiorari under Rule 65.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)