ATTY.SARSABAvs.VDA.DETE byoneMatias(whoboughtitfromSps.Te).

July30,2009|Peralta,J.|PetitionforReviewonCertiorari|ActionsbyandAgainst 8. TheSherifffiledaMotionforInhibition,whichwasopposedbyTe.
ExecutorsandAdministratorsR87 9. October13,2000:RTCBranch18issuedanOrderofinhibitionanddirectedthe
transferoftherecordstoBranch19.
PETITIONER:Atty.RogelioE.Sarsaba(counselforSereno) 10. RTCBranch19returnedtherecordstoBranch18inviewoftheappointmentof
a new judge in place of Judge Escovilla (Branch 18s original judge). Yet,
RESPONDENT:FeVda.DeTe
Branch19issuedanotherOrderretainingthecaseinsaidbranch.
11. May19,2003:TheRTCdeniedtheMTDfiledbytheNLRCandsetPretrial
SUMMARY:Serenowonalaborcase(IllegalDismissal)intheNLRCagainst Conference.
Gasing.AtruckinthepossessionofGasingwasleviedupon.Vda.DeTefiled 12. October17,2005:PetitionerAtty.SarsabafiledanOmnibusMTDtheCase.
withtheRTCacomplaintforrecoveryofthetruck,claimingthatthetruckwas 13. April12,2005:RespondentVda.DeTedied.
reallyhers,andthatitshouldnotbelevieduponsinceshewasnotevenpartof
a. Throughherlawyer,RespondentfiledanOpposition,contendingthat
the labor case. Serenos counsel, Atty. Sarsaba, filed a MTD Vda. De Tes
failuretoservesummonsuponSereno(onaccountofhisdeath)isnota
complaint.BothSerenoandTediedatsomepointintheproceedings.Sarsaba
groundfordismissingthecomplaintbecausetheotherdefendantshave
claimsthatTesattyinfact,Castaeda,cannolongersueonTesbehalfinview
alreadysubmittedtheirrespectiveresponsivepleadings.
ofherdeath.TheSCallowedCastaedatosueonTesbehalf.
b. AlsoclaimedthatRespondentVda.DeTesdeathdidnotrender
DOCTRINE:SEERatioinBOLD. functusofficioherrighttosuesinceherattyinfact,Castaeda,had
longtestifiedonthecomplaintonMarch13,1998foranonher
behalf and submitted documentary exhibits in support of the
complaint.
FACTS:
14. March22,2006:TheRTCissuedtheassailedOrder,denyingAtty.Sarsabas
1. Feb.14,1995:aDecisionwasrenderedintheNLRCfindingSerenotohavebeen
motion(SEEFact12).
illegallydismissedandorderingGasing(truckoperator)topayhimP43k.
15. Atty.SarsabafiledanMRwithMotionforInhibition.
2. AftertheWritofExecutionwasreturnedunsatisfied,LaborArbiterSanchoissued
a. Claimedthatthejudgewasbiased(thatherhusbandwasthedefendant
anAliasWrit,directingSherriffLavarez(theSheriff)oftheNLRCtosatisfythe
inapetitionforjudicialrecognitionofwhichhewasthecounsel).
judgmentaward.
16. JudgeSarnoDavingranteditandorderedthecasetobereraffledtoBranch18.
3. The Sheriff, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel, Petitioner Atty. Sarsaba,
17. October16,2006:RTCBranch18deniedAtty.SarsabasMR(SEEFact15).
leviedaFusoTruck,whichatthetimewasinthepossessionofGasing.
18. Hence,Atty.SarsabadirectlysoughtrecoursefromtheSC(purequestionsof
a. ThetruckwassoldatpublicauctionwithSerenoashighestbidder.
law).
4. RespondentFeVde.DeTe(Te)filedwiththeRTCaComplaintforrecoveryof
motorvehicleagainstSereno,theSheriff,andtheNLRCofDavao
ISSUE:CivProIssue:WoNfailuretoservesummonsonSerenoonaccountofhisdeath
a. SheallegedthatsheisthewifeofthelatePedroTe,theregistered
ownerofthetruck,thatGasingmerelyrentedthetruckfromher,thatisagroundfordismissalofthecomplaint(SEEFact13.a.)NO.
theSherifferroneouslyassumedthatGasingownedthetruck,andthat SpecProIssue:WoNRespondentVdadeTemaystillsuenotwithstandingher
since neither she nor her husband were parties to the labor case deathduringthependencyofthecase(SEEFact13.b.)YES.
betweenSerenoandGasing,sheshouldnothavetobeartheloss.
5. Atty. Sarsaba filed an MTD. The NLRC also filed a MTD. The Sheriff, *NOTE:BOTHSerenoandTediedatsomepoint.
however,filedanAnswer.
6. January21,2000:TheRTCdeniedAtty.SarsabasMTD. RULING:PetitionDENIED.
7. Atty. Sarsaba (counsel for Sereno) denied the material allegations in the
complaint. RATIO:
a. That there was no showing that the heirs have filed intestateCivProIssue:
proceedings(fortheestateofPedroTe),orthatTewasauthorizedby 1. The RTC Order denying Atty. Sarsabas Omnibus MTD (SEE Fact 14) is not
hercoheirstofilethecase,orthatthetruckwasalreadysoldtoGasing appealable even on pure questions of law since is it interlocutory (since an
 interlocutoryorderisnotappealable).Sarsabashouldhaveproceededwiththetrial
of the case, and should the RTC eventually render an unfavourable verdict, he
should assail the Order as part of an appeal that may be taken from the final
judgmenttoberenderedinthiscase.
2. SarsabaraisestheissueoflackofjurisdictionoverthepersonofSereno,notinhis
MTDorinhisAnswerbutonlyinhisOmnibusMTD.Havingfailedtoinvokethis
groundatthepropertime,thatis,inaMTD,hecannotraiseitnowforthefirsttime
onappeal.
3. Also,thecourtsfailuretoacquirejurisdictionoveronespersonisadefense,which
ispersonaltothepersonclaimingit.Obviously,itisnowimpossibleforSerenoto
invokethesameinviewofhisdeath.
4. FailuretoservesummonsonSerenospersonwillnotbeacauseforthedismissalof
thecomplaintagainsttheotherdefendants,consideringthattheyhavebeenserved
with copies of the summons and complaints and have long submitted their
respectiveresponsivepleadings.
5. Hence,onlythecaseagainstSereneowillbedismissed.
SpecProIssue:
6. Whenapartytoapendingactiondiesandtheclaimisnotextinguished,the
RulesofCourtrequireasubstitutionofthedeceased.Section1,Rule87ofthe
RulesofCourtenumeratestheactionsthatsurvivedandmaybefiledagainst
thedecedent'srepresentativesasfollows:(1)actionstorecoverrealorpersonal
propertyoraninterestthereon,(2)actionstoenforceliensthereon,and(3)
actionstorecoverdamagesforaninjurytoapersonoraproperty.Insuch
cases,acounselisobligedtoinformthecourtofthedeathofhisclientandgive
thenameandaddressofthelatter'slegalrepresentative.
7. Strictlyspeaking,theruleonsubstitutionbyheirsisnotamatterofjurisdiction,but
arequirementofdueprocess.Itwasdesignedtoensurethatthedeceasedparty
wouldcontinuetobeproperlyrepresentedinthesuitthroughhisheirsortheduly
appointedlegalrepresentativeofhisestate.Itisonlywhenthereisadenialofdue
process,aswhenthedeceasedisnotrepresentedbyanylegalrepresentativeorheir,
thatthecourtnullifiesthetrialproceedingsandtheresultingjudgmenttherein.
8. Te'scounseldidnotmakeanymanifestationbeforetheRTCastoherdeath.In
fact,hehadactivelyparticipatedintheproceedings.Neitherhadheshownany
proofthathehadbeenretainedbyrespondent'slegalrepresentativeoranyone
whosucceededher.
9. HOWEVER, such failure of Tes counsel would not lead the Court to damagesuedfor.Ifthecausesofactionwhichsurvivethewrongcomplained[of]affectsprimarily
invalidate theproceedingsthathavelongtaken placebeforethe RTC. The andprincipallypropertyandpropertyrights,theinjuriestothepersonbeingmerelyincidental,
Courthasrepeatedlydeclaredthatfailureofthecounseltocomplywithhis whileinthecausesofactionwhichdonotsurvivetheinjurycomplainedofistothepersonthe
dutytoinformthecourtofthedeathofhisclient,suchthatnosubstitutionis
effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment rendered
thereon if the action survives the death of such party. The trial court's
jurisdictionoverthecasesubsistsdespitethedeathoftheTe.
10. Atty.SarsabaclaimedthattheSPAexecutedbyTeinfavorofCastaeda(SEEFact
13.b.)hasbecomefunctusofficioandthattheagencyconstitutedbetweenthemhad
beenextinguisheduponTesdeath.Thus,accordingtoSarsaba,Castaedahadno
morepersonalitytoappearandprosecutethecaseonTesbehalf.
11. TheCourtsaidthatwhileasageneralruleagencyisextinguishedbythedeath
oftheprincipal,theexceptionwheretheagencywillremaineffectiveevenafter
thedeathoftheprincipaliswhenifithadbeenconstitutedinthecommon
interestofthelatterandoftheagent,orintheinterestofathirdpersonwho
hasacceptedthestipulationinhisfavor.
12. Inthiscase,aperusaloftheSPAshowsthatitwasconstitutedforthebenefit
solelyofTe. Nowherecanitbeinferredthatitwascreatedforthecommon
interestofTeandCastaeda.Neitherwasthereanymentiondthatitwasto
benefitathirdpersonthathasacceptedit.
13. On that ground (SEE Ratio 12 above), the SC agreed with Sarsaba.
HOWEVER,suchgroundshouldnotcausethedismissalofthecomplaint.The
actionwasforrecoveryofpersonalproperty(motorvehicle)(SEEFact4),and
itisanactionthatsurvivespursuanttoSection1ofRule87.Assuch,itisnot
extinguishedbythedeathofaparty.
14. TheSCcitedGonzalesvs.Phil.AmusementandGamingCorp.,whereitlaiddown
the criteria for determining whether an action survives the death of a
plaintiff/petitioner.1
15. TheCourtalsonotedthatwhenthecasewasinitiated/filedbytheAttorneyinfact
Castaeda, the plaintiff Te was still very much alive. Records reveal that the
CastaedahadtestifiedlongbeforeinbehalfofTeandmoreparticularlyduringthe
state when Te was vehemently opposing the dismissal of the complaint.
Subsequentlythereto,Castaedaevenoffereddocumentaryevidenceinsupportof
thecomplaint,andthelowercourtadmittedthesame.
16. Thus,theproperremedyhereistheSubstitutionofHeirsandnotthedismissal
ofthiscasewhichwouldworkinjusticetoplaintiffTe.
1"Thequestionastowhetheranactionsurvivesornotdependsonthenatureoftheactionandthe
propertyandrightsofpropertyaffectedbeingincidental.