Case Summary (G.R. No. 248682)
Relevant Dates
- February 14, 1995: NLRC Decision finding illegal dismissal and ordering payment of monetary claims
- June 10, 1996: Alias Writ of Execution issued
- July 23 & 30, 1996: Truck levied and sold at public auction
- April 12, 2005: Death of Fe Vda. de Te (respondent)
- March 22, 2006: RTC Order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss (subject of the petition)
- July 30, 2009: Supreme Court decision date
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (due to case decision post-1990)
- 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 16, 41, 42, 45, 65, and 87
- New Civil Code provisions on agency and succession
- Relevant jurisprudence regarding interlocutory orders, substitution of parties, and agency
Background of the Case and Proceedings
The controversy arose from a labor case where Patricio Sereno was found to have been illegally dismissed by Teodoro Gasing and ordered paid monetary claims. Following an unsatisfied writ of execution, the sheriff levied a truck in Gasing's possession and sold it at public auction with Sereno as the highest bidder. Respondent Fe Vda. de Te, owner of the truck (registered under her late husband's name), filed a civil complaint for recovery of the truck alleging Gasing only rented the truck from her and that neither she nor her husband were parties in the labor case. The RTC denied petitioner’s initial motions to dismiss, and procedural delays ensued including issues on judicial inhibition and change of presiding judges.
Issues Presented
- Whether the RTC Order denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss is appealable before the Supreme Court via a petition for review under Rule 45, being a matter of pure questions of law.
- The effect of the death of one of the defendants, Patricio Sereno, before service of summons and whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over his person.
- The legal consequences of the death of the plaintiff, Fe Vda. de Te, during the pendency of the case, specifically the authority of her attorney-in-fact to continue prosecution of the case.
Appealability of the RTC Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
The Court ruled that the RTC’s March 22, 2006 Order denying the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory in nature since it did not dispose of the case in its entirety but only resolved a preliminary issue. Under Rule 41, Section 1(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, interlocutory orders are not appealable. Consequently, the petition for review on certiorari filed directly before the Supreme Court was procedurally improper. The appropriate remedy was either to file an answer and raise objections in the proceedings or to later include the interlocutory orders as errors in an appeal from a final judgment.
The Court emphasized that allowing immediate appeals from interlocutory orders would result in multiplicity of appeals, delay, and inconvenience. Even if the petition were treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, it still failed for not satisfying the requirements of hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court reiterated its role as court of last resort and cautioned parties and lawyers against circumventing established judicial procedures.
Jurisdiction Over the Person of Deceased Defendant (Patricio Sereno)
The Court recognized that summons must be served to acquire jurisdiction over a party. Since Sereno died before summons could be served, there was no valid service, and hence the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over his person. However, petitioner’s motion to dismiss did not raise this objection at the proper time (either by motion to dismiss or in his answer), but rather only in the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, which was too late and thus waived.
Moreover, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person is personal and cannot be asserted by another party on behalf of the deceased. Failure to acquire jurisdiction over Sereno’s person did not render the complaint against other defendants dismissible because they were validly served and had filed pleadings. The Court affirmed the RTC’s reasoning: the complaint against Sereno should be dismissed and may be refiled against his estate, but the case against other defendants shall proceed.
Effect of Death of Plaintiff (Fe Vda. de Te) on the Authority of Attorney-in-Fact
Respondent Fe Vda. de Te died during the pendency of the case. The petitioner argued that her attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castañeda, lost legal personality to continue prosecution because agency generally terminates upon the death of the principal. The Court acknowledged that agency is extinguished by death except if constituted for the common interest of principal and agent or a third party—conditions not present here. Thus, the attorney-in-fact no longer had authority post-death.
However, the Court held that the death of Fe Vda. de Te did not extinguish the action, as it was one to recover personal property, an action which survives under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. The proper procedure is substitution of heirs or legal representatives, not dismissal. Although counsel did not notify the court of the death or substitution, nor showed proof of retention by heirs or representatives, these procedural lapses do not void the proceedings or jurisdiction of the court. The Court emphasized the protection of due process rights of all parties, including successors in interest, and ruled that the case must proceed with substitution of the legal heirs. The heirs may decide to continue engaging the attorney-in-fact if they so desire.
Summary of the Court’s Holding
- The RTC Order denying
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248682)
Background and Procedural History
- The case arises from a petition for review on certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction, challenging an RTC Order dated March 22, 2006 in Civil Case No. 3488.
- The underlying facts stem from NLRC Case No. RAB-11-07-00608-93, where Patricio Sereno was found illegally dismissed and awarded monetary claims against Teodoro Gasing.
- Execution efforts led to the levy and public auction sale of a Fuso truck, allegedly belonging to respondent Fe Vda. de Te.
- Respondent Fe Vda. de Te initiated a civil complaint for recovery of the truck, damages, and a prayer for delivery of the truck pendente lite against the petitioner, Sereno, Lavarez (Sheriff), and the NLRC.
- Petitioner filed motions to dismiss citing lack of legal personality, insufficiency of cause of action, and procedural defects, all denied by the RTC.
- Over time, the case witnessed judicial transfers, motions for inhibition, and continued procedural pleadings.
- Fe Vda. de Te passed away during the pendency of the case, raising issues about substitution and the capacity of her attorney-in-fact to continue prosecuting the case.
- The RTC denied petitioner's omnibus motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction and legal personality, the decision of which was directly appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s appeal was properly taken directly to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
- The effect of non-service of summons on a deceased defendant (Sereno) and the impact on RTC’s jurisdiction over the entire complaint.
- The legal consequences of the death of the plaintiff (Fe Vda. de Te) during the pendency of the case and the validity of the attorney-in-fact continuing prosecution without substitution.
- Whether the special power of attorney executed in favor of the attorney-in-fact remains effective after the principal’s death.
Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction and Mode of Appeal
- There are three modes of appeal from RTC decisions depending on whether questions are of fact, law, or mixed, and whether RTC is exercising original or appellate jurisdiction.
- Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court is correct only when pure questions of law are raised from RTC decisions rendered in original jurisdiction.
- An order denying a motion to dismiss, as in this case, is interlocutory, not final, and thus not appealable.
- The proper remedy for interlocutory orders is to file an answer and proceed to trial or seek certiorari under Rule 65 upon grave abuse of discretion.
- Direct petition to the Supreme Court from RTC interlocutory orders contravenes rules on appeal and judicial hierarchy.
- The Supreme Court relaxed the strict judicial hierarchy rule to address pure questions of law for judicial clarity and prevent tri