Case Summary (G.R. No. 219157)
Background of the Case
On May 3, 1963, Pastor D. Ago, acting as the attorney-in-fact for Francisco Laiz, initiated Civil Case No. Q-7228 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against several defendants, including the petitioners, seeking damages alongside a request for preliminary attachment and injunction. The various defendants, including corporations and individuals, are residents of either General Santos or Davao City, complicating the issue of proper venue.
Venue and Motion to Dismiss
The petitioners filed an urgent motion to dismiss the complaint on May 16, 1963, arguing the venue was improperly laid since the action is personal and the real party in interest (Laiz) resides outside Quezon City. They claimed that, according to Section 1 of Rule 5 of the old Rules of Court, the suit should be initiated in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato or Davao City. This was followed by a supplemental motion asserting additional grounds based on the real party in interest requirement.
Opposition to the Motion
Pastor Ago opposed the motion, arguing that as the named plaintiff residing in Quezon City, he had the right to file the suit there. He contended that even if he was deemed an attorney-in-fact for Laiz, the waiver of any venue defect had occurred due to the defendants appearing before the court on various motions subsequent to the complaint being filed.
Judge's Ruling and Petitioners' Response
Respondent Judge Lourdes P. San Diego denied the motions to dismiss, asserting that a duly authorized agent may indeed sue in his own name. The judge ruled that any judgment rendered would affect Francisco Laiz due to the agent's status. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, asserting that the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the governing legal principles, particularly the requirement that actions must be filed in the name of the real party in interest.
Court's Analysis on Real Party in Interest
The Supreme Court underscored the principle established under Section 2 of Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court, which mandates every action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The Court reviewed precedents that affirm an attorney-in-fact cannot bring an action in their own name if they do not hold a direct interest in the matter. The rationale stated is that the principal retains the rights to any judgment rendered, and thus actions must be filed in the principal's name.
Denial of Authority for Action in Personal Name
The Court emphasized decisions where prior rulings established that any
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 219157)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari with a preliminary injunction filed by the petitioners, seeking to prevent the respondent Judge from further proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-7228 and to have the complaint dismissed.
- The complaint was filed by Pastor D. Ago, acting as the attorney-in-fact for Francisco Laiz, asserting claims for damages, preliminary attachment, and injunction against the petitioners.
Parties Involved
- Petitioners:
- Filipinas Industrial Corporation
- Ruben & Company, Incorporated
- Honorio Allado
- Respondents:
- Hon. Lourdes P. San Diego, Presiding Judge, Branch IX, Court of First Instance of Rizal
- Pastor D. Ago (acting as the plaintiff)
Background of the Case
- On May 3, 1963, Pastor D. Ago filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, claiming damages and requesting preliminary attachment and injunction.
- The complaint indicated that Pastor D. Ago was duly authorized by Francisco Laiz to file the action as his attorney-in-fact.
Venue and Jurisdiction Issues
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 1963, arguing that the venue was improperly laid because the real party in interest, Francisco Laiz, was a resident of General Santos, Cotabato.
- They emphasized that personal actions must be filed in the courts of the province where the defendants reside or where the real party in interest is located.
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- Pastor D. Ago opposed the motion, contending that he was the plaintiff and thus had the right t