Case Digest (G.R. No. 147394)
Facts:
Spouses Manuel and Rosemarie Wee filed a special civil action after the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, admitted the amended complaint in Civil Case No. Q-99-37372 filed by Rosario D. Galvez on April 20, 1999 to collect US$20,000, and denied the Wees' motion to dismiss on July 29, 1999 and their motion for reconsideration on September 20, 1999. The Court of Appeals denied the Wees' petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus on December 4, 2000 and denied reconsideration on March 7, 2001, prompting this petition for review under Rule 45.Issues:
- Is a petition for review under Rule 45 the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the Wees' special civil action?
- Was the certification against forum shopping signed by the plaintiff's attorney-in-fact valid under Rule 7, Section 5?
- Did the amended complaint sufficiently state a cause of action given Art. 151 of the Family Code and Rule 8 requirements?
Ruling:
The Court held that a petit Case Digest (G.R. No. 147394)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Parties: Spouses Manuel and Rosemarie Wee (petitioners), Rosario D. Galvez (respondent), and Grace Galvez as attorney-in-fact for respondent.
- Relationship and residence: Rosario D. Galvez and Rosemarie Wee are sisters; Rosemarie resided with petitioner Manuel in Balanga, Bataan; Rosario resided in New York, U.S.A.
- Underlying transaction: Rosario allegedly advanced funds to Rosemarie pursuant to an investment agreement under which US$20,000 was to be sent, half for a savings account and the balance for money market investment, the interest to be given to Rosario’s son, Manolito Galvez, as allowance.
- Mode and amounts of remittances: Rosario allegedly sent five (5) Chemical Bank checks on various dates in 1993–1994, aggregating US$20,050.00 as follows: Check No. 97 dated 05-24-93 for US$1,550.00; Check No. 101 dated 06-11-93 for US$10,000.00; Check No. 104 dated 11-12-93 for US$5,500.00; Check No. 105 dated 02-01-94 for US$2,000.00; Check No. 123 dated 03-03-94 for US$1,000.00; exchange rate alleged P38.30 per dollar.
- Alleged encashments and diversion: Rosario alleged that all checks were deposited and encashed by Rosemarie, except Check No. 97 which was issued to Zenedes Mariano who allegedly gave US$2,000 cash to Rosemarie.
- Allowances and demand: Rosemarie allegedly paid Manolito monthly allowances ranging from P2,000 to P4,000 from 1993 to January 1999; Rosario asked for return of US$20,000 and an accounting in 1995 and again by written demand dated January 4, 1999; Rosemarie allegedly failed or refused to comply.
- Trial court pleadings, motions, and interlocutory orders
- Filing of suit: On April 20, 1999, Rosario, through Grace Galvez as attorney-in-fact, filed before the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for collection, docketed Civil Case No. Q-99-37372, seeking recovery of the US$20,000 (as pleaded).
- Defendants’ motion to dismiss: On May 18, 1999, petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds: (a) absence of allegation of *earnest efforts toward a compromise* as required by Art. 151 of the *Family Code*; (b) failure to state a cause of action and prematurity for lack of prior earnest efforts at compromise; and (c) defective certification against forum shopping because it was executed by an attorney-in-fact rather than the plaintiff as required by Rule 7, Section 5, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Amendment and paragraph 9-A: Pursuant to Rule 10, Sections 1 and 3, Rosario filed an Amended Complaint adding paragraph 9-A stating: “Earnest efforts towards (sic) have been made but the same have failed,” and referring to the January 4, 1999 Demand Letter sent by plaintiff through her daughter as attorney-in-fact.
- Opposition to admission of amended complaint: Petitioners opposed admission of the Amended Complaint on grounds of noncompliance with the three-day notice requirement of Rule 15, Section 4 and defective notice addressed to the Clerk instead of the adverse party in violation of Rule 15, Section 5.
- RTC orders: On July 29, 1999, the RTC, Branch 80, denied the motion to dismiss as moot and academic and admitted the Amended Complaint, directing defendants to answer within the reglementary period; on September 20, 1999, the RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
- Appeals and further proceedings
- Petition to Court of Appeals: On October 18, 1999, petitioners filed a special civil action ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Properness of petition under Rule 45
- Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper remedy to challenge the Court of Appeals’ denial of petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in CA-G.R. SP No. 55415.
- Validity of certification against forum shopping signed by attorney-in-fact
- Whether the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping executed and signed by Grace Galvez as attorney-in-fact for Rosario D. Galvez was defective under Rule 7, Section 5, given that the rule requires the plaintiff or principal party to sign.
- Whether the Special Power of Attorney granted to Grace Galvez conferred authority to execute the certification.
- Sufficiency of the Amended Complaint to state a cause of action
- Whether paragraph 9-A of the Amended Complaint and accompanyin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)