Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1720             March 4, 1950

SIA SUAN and GAW CHIAO, petitioners, vs.RAMON ALCANTARA, respondent.

Antonio Barredo for petitioners.Zosimo D. Tanalega for respondents.

PARAS, J.:

On August 3, 1931, a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso Alcantara and Ramon Alcantara conveying to Sia Suan five parcels of land. Ramon Alcantara was then 17 years, 10 months and 22 days old. On August 27, 1931, Gaw Chiao (husband of Sia Suan) received a letter from Francisco Alfonso, attorney of Ramon Alcantara, informing Gaw Chiao that Ramon Alcantara was a minor and accordingly disavowing the contract. After being contacted by Gaw Chiao, however, Ramon Alcantara executed an affidavit in the office of Jose Gomez, attorney of Gaw Chiao, wherein Ramon Alcantara ratified the deed of sale. On said occasion Ramon Alcantara received from Gaw Chiao the sum of P500. In the meantime, Sia Suan sold one of the lots to Nicolas Azores from whom Antonio Azores inherited the same.

On August 8, 1940, an action was instituted by Ramon Alcantara in the Court of First Instance of Laguna for the annulment of the deed of sale as regards his undivided share in the two parcels of land covered by certificates of title Nos. 751 and 752 of Laguna. Said action was against Sia Suan and her husband Gaw Chiao, Antonio, Azores, Damaso Alcantara and Rufino Alcantara (the latter two being, respectively, the brother and father of Ramon Alcantara appealed to the Court of Appealed which reversed the decision of the trial court, on the ground that the deed of sale is not binding against Ramon Alcantara in view of his minority on the date of its execution, and accordingly sentenced Sia Suan to pay to Ramon Alcantara the sum of P1,750, with legal interest from December 17, 1931, in lieu of his share in the lot sold to Antonio Azores (who was absolved from the complaint), and to reconvey to Ramon Alcantara an undivided one-fourth interest in the lot originally covered by certificate of title NO. 752 of Laguna plus the cost of the suit. From this judgment Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao have come to us on appeal by certiorari.

It is undeniable that the deed of sale signed by the appellee, Ramon Alcantara, On August 3, 1931, showed that he, like his co-signers (father and brother), was then of legal age. It is not pretend and there is nothing to indicate that the appellants did not believe and rely on such recital of fact. This conclusion is decisive and very obvious in the decision of the Court of Appeals It is true that in the resolution on the for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals remarked that "The fact that when informed of appellant's minority, the appellees too no steps for nine years to protect their interest beyond requiring the appellant to execute a ratification of the sale while still a minor, strongly indicates that the appellees knew of his minority when the deed of sale was executed." But the feeble insinuation is sufficiently negative by the following positive pronouncements of the Court of Appeals as well in said resolution as in the decision.

As to the complaint that the defendant is guilty of laches, suffice it to say that the appellees were informed of his minority within one (1) month after the transaction was completed. (Resolution.)

Finally, the appellees were equally negligent in not taking any action to protect their interest form and after August 27, 1931, when they were notified in writing of appellant's minority. (Resolution.)

. . . The fact remains that the appellees were advised within the month that appellant was a minor, through the letter of Attorney Alfonso (Exhibit 1) informing appellees of his client's desire to disaffirm the contract . . . (Decision.)

The purchaser having been apprised of incapacity of his vendor shortly after the contract was made, the delay in bringing the action of annulment will not serve to bar it unless the period fixed by the statute of limitations expired before the filing of the complaint. . . . (Decision.)

In support of the contend that the deed of sale is binding on the appellee, counsel for the appellants invokes the decision in Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu (37 Phil., 215), wherein this court held:

The courts, in their interpretation of the law, have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, made by minors who pretend to be of legal age, when it fact they are not, is valid, and they will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them, or to have them annulled in pursuance of the provisions of Law 6 title 19, of the 6th Partida; and the judgment that holds such a sale to valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed against him does not violate the laws relative to the sale of minors' property, nor the juridical rules established in consonance therewith. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, of April 27, 1840, July 11, 1868, and March 1, 1875.)

The Court of Appeals has refused to apply this doctrine on the ground that the appellants did not actually pay any amount in cash to the appellee and therefore did not suffer any detriment by reason of the deed of sale, it being stipulated that the consideration therefore was a pre-existing indebtedness of appellee's father, Rufino Alcantara. We are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred. In the first place, in the case cited, the consideration for sale consisted in greater part of pre-existing obligation. In the second place, under the doctrine, to bind a minor who represents himself to be of legal age, it is not necessary for his vendee to actually part with cash, as long as the contract is supported by a valid consideration. Since appellee's conveyance to the appellants was admittedly for and in virtue of a pre-existing indebtedness (unquestionably a valid consideration), it should produce its full force and effect in the absence of any other vice that may legally invalidate the same. It is not here claimed that the deed of sale is null and void on any ground other than the appellee's minority. Appellee's contract has become fully efficacious as a contract executed by parties with full legal capacity.

The circumstance that, about one month after the date of the conveyance, the appellee informed the appellants of his minority, is of no moment, because appellee's previous misrepresentation had already estopped him from disavowing the contract. Said belated information merely leads to the inference that the appellants in fact did not know that the appellee was a minor on the date of the contract, and somewhat emphasizes appellee's had faith, when it is borne in mind that no sooner had he given said information than he ratified his deed of sale upon receiving from the appellants the sum of P500.

Counsel for the appellees argues that the appellants could not have been misled as to the real age of the appellee because they were free to make the necessary investigation. The suggestion, while perhaps practicable, is conspicuously unbusinesslike and beside the point, because the findings of the Court of Appeals do not show that the appellants knew or could suspected appellee's minority.

The Court of Appeals seems to be of the opinion that the letter written by the appellee informing the appellants of his minority constituted an effective disaffirmance of the sale, and that although the choice to disaffirm will not by itself avoid the contract until the courts adjudge the agreement to be invalid, said notice shielded the appellee from laches and consequent estoppel. This position is untenable since the effect of estoppel in proper cases is unaffected by the promptness with which a notice to disaffirm is made.

The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the appellants absolved from the complaint, with costs against the appellee, Ramon Alcantara. So ordered.

Ozaeta, Tuason, Montemayor and Torres, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., concurring:

I concur in the result not upon the grounds stated in the majority opinion but for the following reasons: The deed of sale executed by Ramon Alcantara on 3 August 1931 conveying to Sia Suan five parcels of land is null and void

insofar as the interest, share, or participation of Ramon Alcantara in two parcels of land is concerned, because on the date of sale he was 17 years, 10 months and 22 days old only. Consent being one of the essential requisites for the execution of a valid contract, a minor, such as Ramon Alcantara was, could not give his consent thereof. The only misrepresentation as to his age, if any, was the statement appearing in the instrument that he was of age. On 27 August 1931, or 24 days after the deed was executed, Gaw Chiao, the husband of the vendee Sia Suan, was advised by Atty. Francisco Alfonso of the fact that his client Ramon Alcantara was a minor. The fact that the latter, for and in consideration of P500, executed an affidavit, whereby he ratified the deed of sale, is of no moment. He was still minor. The majority opinion invokes the rule laid down in the case of Mercado et al. vs. Espiritu, 37 Phil., 215. The rule laid down by this Court in that case is based on three judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Spain on 27 April 1960, 11 July 1868, and 1 March 1875. In these decisions the Supreme Court of Spain applied Law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida which expressly provides:

"Diziendo o ortogando el que fuese menor, que era mayor de XXV años, si ouiesse persona que paresciesse de tal tiempo, si lo faze enganosamente, valdria el pleyto que assi fuere fecho con el e non deue ser desatado despues, como quier que non era de edad quando lo fizo: esto es, porque las leyes ayudan a los enganados, e non a los enganadores. . . ." (Alcubilla, Codigos Antigous de España, p. 613.)

The contract of sale involved in the case of Mercado vs. Espiritu, supra, was executed by the minors on 17 May 1910. The Law in force on this last-mentioned date was not Las Siete Partidas, 1 which was the in force at the time the cases decided by the Supreme Court of Spain referred to, but the Civil Code which took effect in the Philippines on 8 December 1889. As already stated, the Civil Code requires the consent of both parties for the valid execution of a contract (art. 1261, Civil Code). As a minor cannot give his consent, the contract made or executed by him has no validity and legal effect. There is no provision in the Civil Code similar to that of Law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida which is equivalent to the common law principle of estoppel. If there be an express provision in the Civil Code similar law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida, I would agree to the reasoning of the majority. The absence of such provision in the Civil Code is fatal to the validity of the contract executed by a minor. It would be illogical to uphold the validity of a contract on the ground of estoppel, because if the contract executed by a minor is null and void for lack of consent and produces no legal effect, how could such a minor be bound by misrepresentation about his age? If he could not be bound by a direct act, such as the execution of a deed of sale, how could he be bound by an indirect act, such as misrepresentation as to his age? The rule laid down in Young vs. Tecson, 39 O. G. 953, in my opinion, is the correct one.

Nevertheless, as the action in this case was brought on 8 August 1940, the same was barred, because it was not brought within four (4) years after the minor had become of age, pursuant to article 1301 of the Civil Code. Ramon Alcantara became of age sometime in September 1934.

Moran, C.J. and Bengzon, J., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16439             July 20, 1961

ANTONIO GELUZ, petitioner, vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR LAZO, respondents.

Mariano H. de Joya for petitioner.A.P. Salvador for respondents.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

This petition for certiorari brings up for review question whether the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover damages from physician who caused the same.

The litigation was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by respondent Oscar Lazo, the of Nita Villanueva, against petitioner Antonio Geluz, a physician. Convinced of the merits of the complaint upon the evidence adduced, the trial court rendered judgment favor of plaintiff Lazo and against defendant Geluz, ordering the latter to pay P3,000.00 as damages, P700.00 attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. On appeal, Court of Appeals, in a special division of five, sustained the award by a majority vote of three justices as against two, who rendered a separate dissenting opinion.

The facts are set forth in the majority opinion as follows:

Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948 — through her aunt Paula Yambot. In 1950 she became pregnant by her present husband before they were legally married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, and acting on the advice of her aunt, she had herself aborted by the defendant. After her marriage with the plaintiff, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed in the Commission on Elections and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by the defendant in October 1953. Less than two years later, she again became pregnant. On February 21, 1955, accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter's daughter Lucida, she again repaired to the defendant's clinic on Carriedo and P. Gomez streets in Manila, where the three met the defendant and his wife. Nita was again aborted, of a two-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of fifty pesos, Philippine currency. The plaintiff was at this time in the province of Cagayan, campaigning for his election to the provincial board; he did not know of, nor gave his consent, to the abortion.

It is the third and last abortion that constitutes plaintiff's basis in filing this action and award of damages. Upon application of the defendant Geluz we granted certiorari.

The Court of Appeals and the trial court predicated the award of damages in the sum of P3,000.06 upon the provisions of the initial paragraph of Article 2206 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This we believe to be error, for the said article, in fixing a minimum award of P3,000.00 for the death of a person, does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed with personality. Under the system of our Civil Code, "la criatura abortiva no alcanza la categoria de persona natural y en consscuencia es un ser no nacido a la vida del Derecho" (Casso-Cervera, "Diccionario de Derecho Privado", Vol. 1, p. 49), being incapable of having rights and obligations.

Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished

from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Code, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.

The prevailing American jurisprudence is to the same effect; and it is generally held that recovery can not had for the death of an unborn child (Stafford vs. Roadway Transit Co., 70 F. Supp. 555; Dietrich vs. Northampton, 52 Am. Rep. 242; and numerous cases collated in the editorial note, 10 ALR, (2d) 639).

This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages at all. But such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity. Because the parents can not expect either help, support or services from an unborn child, they would normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that was the foetus, i.e., on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the disappointment of their parental expectations (Civ. Code Art. 2217), as well as to exemplary damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230). But in the case before us, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals have not found any basis for an award of moral damages, evidently because the appellee's indifference to the previous abortions of his wife, also caused by the appellant herein, clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affections. The lower court expressly found, and the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals did not contradict it, that the appellee was aware of the second abortion; and the probabilities are that he was likewise aware of the first. Yet despite the suspicious repetition of the event, he appeared to have taken no steps to investigate or pinpoint the causes thereof, and secure the punishment of the responsible practitioner. Even after learning of the third abortion, the appellee does not seem to have taken interest in the administrative and criminal cases against the appellant. His only concern appears to have been directed at obtaining from the doctor a large money payment, since he sued for P50,000.00 damages and P3,000.00 attorney's fees, an "indemnity" claim that, under the circumstances of record, was clearly exaggerated.

The dissenting Justices of the Court of Appeals have aptly remarked that:

It seems to us that the normal reaction of a husband who righteously feels outraged by the abortion which his wife has deliberately sought at the hands of a physician would be highminded rather than mercenary; and that his primary concern would be to see to it that the medical profession was purged of an unworthy member rather than turn his wife's indiscretion to personal profit, and with that idea in mind to press either the administrative or the criminal cases he had filed, or both, instead of abandoning them in favor of a civil action for damages of which not only he, but also his wife, would be the beneficiaries.

It is unquestionable that the appellant's act in provoking the abortion of appellee's wife, without medical necessity to warrant it, was a criminal and morally reprehensible act, that can not be too severely condemned; and the consent of the woman or that of her husband does not excuse it. But the immorality or illegality of the act does not justify an award of damage that, under the circumstances on record, have no factual or legal basis.

The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint ordered dismissed. Without costs.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Department of Justice and the Board of Medical Examiners for their information and such investigation and action against the appellee Antonio Geluz as the facts may warrant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Natividad, JJ., concur.Concepcion, J., took no part.De Leon, J., took no part.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 26795 July 31, 1970

CARMEN QUIMIGUING, Suing through her parents, ANTONIO QUIMIGUING and JACOBA CABILIN,plaintiffs-appellants, vs.FELIX ICAO, defendant-appellee.

Torcuato L. Galon for plaintiffs-appellants.

Godardo Jacinto for defendant-appellee.

 

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal on points of law from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte (Judge Onofre Sison Abalos, presiding), in its Civil Case No. 1590, dismissing a complaint for support and damages, and another order denying amendment of the same pleading.

The events in the court of origin can be summarized as follows:

Appellant, Carmen Quimiguing, assisted by her parents, sued Felix Icao in the court below. In her complaint it was averred that the parties were neighbors in Dapitan City, and had close and confidential relations; that defendant Icao, although married, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times by force and intimidation, and without her consent; that as a result she became pregnant, despite efforts and drugs supplied by defendant, and plaintiff had to stop studying. Hence, she claimed support at P120.00 per month, damages and attorney's fees.

Duly summoned, defendant Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the complaint did not allege that the child had been born; and after hearing arguments, the trial judge sustained defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to allege that as a result of the intercourse, plaintiff had later given birth to a baby girl; but the court, sustaining defendant's objection, ruled that no amendment was allowable, since the original complaint averred no cause of action. Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court.

We find the appealed orders of the court below to be untenable. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors, particularly of the defendant-appellee (whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), even if the said child is only "en ventre de sa mere;" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and its being ignored by the parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the institution of the testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the death of the testator Article 854, Civil Code).

ART. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be accepted by those persons who would legally represent them if they were already born.

ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.

If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of 'representation.

It is thus clear that the lower court's theory that Article 291 of the Civil Code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children "does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn," violates Article 40 aforesaid, besides imposing a condition that nowhere appears in the text of Article 291. It is true that Article 40 prescribing that "the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it" adds further "provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article" (i.e., that the foetus be alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition precedent to the right of the conceived child; for if it were, the first part of Article 40 would become entirely useless and ineffective. Manresa, in his Commentaries (5th Ed.) to the corresponding Article 29 of the Spanish Civil Code, clearly points this out:

Los derechos atribuidos al nasciturus no son simples expectativas, ni aun en el sentido tecnico que la moderna doctrina da a esta figura juridica sino que constituyen un caso de los propiamente Ilamados 'derechos en estado de pendenci'; el nacimiento del sujeto en las condiciones previstas por el art. 30, no determina el nacimiento de aquellos derechos (que ya existian de antemano), sino que se trata de un hecho que tiene efectos declarativos. (1 Manresa, Op. cit., page 271)

A second reason for reversing the orders appealed from is that for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case) constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

The rule of Article 21 is supported by Article 2219 of the same Code:

ART 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts:

xxx xxx xxx

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28 ....

Thus, independently of the right to Support of the child she was carrying, plaintiff herself had a cause of action for damages under the terms of the complaint; and the order dismissing it for failure to state a cause of action was doubly in error.

WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision. Costs against appellee Felix Icao. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-34581             March 31, 1932

ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LAZARO MOTA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.VENANCIO CONCEPCION, ET AL., defendants. SALVADOR SERRA, intervenor-appellee.

Agustin, De Joya, Zaragoza & Araneta and Hilado & Hilado for appellee.

VILLAMOR, J.:

In the amended complaint in the present case, the plaintiffs seek to recover of the defendants Venancio Concepcion and P.C. Whitaker the amount of P283,786.59 with interest from October, 1927, being the unpaid balance of the selling price of a railway for transporting sugar cane from certain plantations situated in the municipalities of Ylog and Kabankalan in the Province of Occidental Negros, and in default of the payment thereof, to foreclose the mortgage upon said railway, and also to collect the sum of P808,375.02 by way of damages arising from the alleged negligence of the defendants in maintaining said railway in a proper condition for the transportation service for which it was intended.

With permission of the court, Salvador Serra intervened as a third-party claimant against the plaintiffs and the defendants, praying: (1) That his conveyance of a half interest in said railway to the defendants be rescinded, and that the railway or his interest therein be returned to him, or damages paid him in lieu thereof; and (2) that plaintiffs and defendants be required to render an accounting of one-half of the returns from the management of the railway line after May 15, 1920.

The principal defendants did not appear to defend themselves and the court rendered judgment against them and for the plaintiffs in the sum of P245,804.65 with legal interest from October 31, 1925, at the same time declaring that the mortgage upon the railway in favor of the plaintiffs is null and void, and that the claim of damages against the defendants had not been proved.

As to the complaint of the intervenor, the court held that the conveyance of a half interest in the railroad made by Serra to Concepcion and Whitaker was rescind, and rendered judgment in favor of Serra against the plaintiffs for the sum of P150,000 instead of the railway, but denied his petition for an accounting, with costs in favor of said intervenor.

From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

At the beginning of the year 1919, Lazaro Mota, now deceased, and Salvador Serra entered into a partnership to construct several kilometers of railroad in the municipalities of Ylog and Kabankalan, Occidental Negros, in order to facilitate the transportation of sugar cane to two sugar centrals named San Isidro and Palma of which they were the respective owners. In January 1920 Serra transferred his half interest to the defendants Concepcion and Whitaker in connection with the sale of the Palma central. In December 1920, Mota also sold his half interest in the railroad to the same purchasers, Concepcion and Whitaker. At this last sale, only part of the price was paid down, and in order to secure the payment of the remainder, Concepcion and Whitaker mortgage to Mota the entire railroad. The present action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the unpaid balance and to foreclose the mortgage. As the mortgage included not only the railroad, which is real property, but also the rolling stock, which is movable, and therefore personal property, Mota had the contract recorded in the registry, not only as a mortgage upon registered reap property, according to Act No. 3344, but also as a mortgage of personal property. However, we are here concerned only with the contract as a mortgage upon unregistered real property.

The trial court erred in holding that the mortgage was null and void. It is true that the contract does not contain some of the data mentioned in section 194 of the Administrative Code, but the mortgage was actually recorded in the registry of deeds by the registrar, and we are of the opinion that it is valid between the contracting parties, as it would be even if it had not been recorded. From among the decisions of this court cases may be cited wherein it is held that a mortgage upon unregistered real property is void under the Spanish Mortgage Law, but the rule upon this point has been modified by section 194 of the Administrative Code, as amended, which clearly recognizes the validity of such a contract between the contracting parties. (Standard Oil Co. vs. Castro, 54 Phil., 716.)

On the other hand, we agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages of the defendants, as claimed in the second cause of action. Such damages, in addition to being speculative in nature, have not been proved.

Taking up once more the matter of the intervention, we hold that the court below did not err in permitting it. Supposing that Serra's contention were well-founded upon its merits, his interest in the litigated property would be a sufficient justification for the court to grant him permission to intervene and litigate with plaintiffs and defendants upon said interest. But the intervenor's contention is, we find, wholly untenable upon the merits. His right to rescission, which he could once have exercised against Concepcion and Whitaker, has lapsed. With regard to this, it is to be noticed that the transfer of Serra's one-half interest in the railway to Concepcion and Whitaker is evidenced by a document whereby he sold to them the Palma central. It is clear that this conveyance of Serra's half interest in the railroad to them was an actual sale, and not a mere assignment, as Serra now pretends. In the case of Estate of Mota vs. Serra (47 Phil., 464), which refers to another aspect of the controversy between the parties here litigant, this court held that all of the railway together with the Palma plantation was the property of Whitaker and Concepcion in consequence of the contract here in question. We see no reason for arriving at a different conclusion now. In paragraph VI of said contract the railway is mentioned, and Concepcion and Whitaker are said to be subrogated to all the rights and obligations arising from said contract, binding themselves likewise to comply with all the contracts entered into between the vendor and the partners, tenants on shares, and employees. The words "were subrogated" used in said contract evidently mean "succeeded", and one who succeeds to the rights and obligations created by a contract becomes, to all intents and purposes, the owner of the property which is the subject of such rights and obligations.

Now then, when the Palma plantation was sold with Serra's half interest in the railroad, as stated above, Serra was given a mortgage upon said plantation, though not upon the railway, to secure the payment of some hundred thousand pesos, having received only the sum of P945,861.90 cash. The balance of the price was never paid, with the result that Serra foreclosed the mortgage upon the Palma plantation, and upon execution, he bought it with the improvements made thereon by the vendees, for the sum of P500,000. It is evident that having foreclosed the mortgage given him to secure the unpaid portion of the selling price of plantation and railway, Serra cannot now maintain another action to rescind the sale of his half interest in the railway. Having demanded the fulfillment of the contract in another action for the foreclosure of the mortgage, his right to rescission has been extinguished. Furthermore, even supposing that Serra could have exercised the right of rescission against his vendees, he could not do so against the Estate of Mota, because the latter was a third party in the contract between Serra and the vendees, and is, moreover, an innocent creditor for value.

In view of the conclusion that Serra's alleged right to rescind that contract does not exist, his claim for damages, instead of the return of the railway, becomes of necessity unfounded, and the judgment of the court granting Serra the sum of P150,000 erroneous.

For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed so far as it holds that defendants Concepcion and Whitaker are indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount of P245,804.69 with legal interest from October 31, 1925 until fully paid, and reversed with regard to the rest of it; wherefore, plaintiffs and defendants are absolved from Serra's cross-complaint, and let the cause be remanded to the court of origin with instructions that unless the debt of Concepcion and Whitaker is paid within ninety days from notice hereof, the railway shall be sold for the payment of said debt and the incidental expenses in the foreclosure of the mortgage. Without special award of costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125027.  August 12, 2002]

ANITA MANGILA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LORETA GUINA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition fore review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City. The trial court upheld the writ of attachment and the declaration of default on petitioner while ordering her to pay private respondent P109,376.95 plus 18 percent interest per annum, 25 percent attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The Facts

Petitioner Anita Mangila (“petitioner” for brevity) is an exporter of sea foods and doing business under the name and style of Seafoods Products. Private respondent Loreta Guina (“private respondent” for brevity) is the President and General Manager of Air Swift International, a single registered proprietorship engaged in the freight forwarding business.

Sometime in January 1988, petitioner contracted the freight forwarding services of private respondent for shipment of petitioner’s products, such as crabs, prawns and assorted fishes, to Guam (USA) where petitioner maintains an outlet. Petitioner agreed to pay private respondent cash on delivery. Private respondent’s invoice stipulates a charge of 18 percent interest per annum on all overdue accounts. In case of suit, the same invoice stipulates attorney’s fees equivalent to 25 percent of the amount due plus costs of suit.[3]

On the first shipment, petitioner requested for seven days within which to pay private respondent. However, for the next three shipments, March 17, 24 and 31, 1988, petitioner failed to pay private respondent shipping charges amounting to P109, 376.95.[4]

Despite several demands, petitioner never paid private respondent. Thus, on June 10, 1988, private respondent filed Civil Case No. 5875 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for collection of sum of money.

On August 1, 1988, the sheriff filed his Sheriff’s Return showing that summons was not served on petitioner. A woman found at petitioner’s house informed the sheriff that petitioner transferred her residence to Sto. Niño, Guagua, Pampanga. The sheriff found out further that petitioner had left the Philippines for Guam. [5]

Thus, on September 13, 1988, construing petitioner’s departure from the Philippines as done with intent to defraud her creditors, private respondent filed a Motion for Preliminary Attachment. On September 26, 1988, the trial court issued an Order of Preliminary Attachment[6] against petitioner. The following day, the trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.

The trial court granted the request of its sheriff for assistance from their counterparts in RTC, Pampanga. Thus, on October 28, 1988, Sheriff Alfredo San Miguel of RTC Pampanga served on petitioner’s household help in San Fernando, Pampanga, the Notice of Levy with the Order, Affidavit and Bond.[7]

On November 7, 1988, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment[8] without submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. She pointed out that up to then, she had not been served a copy of the Complaint and the summons. Hence, petitioner claimed the court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person.[9]

In the hearing of the Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment on November 11, 1988, private respondent sought and was granted a re-setting to December 9, 1988. On that date, private respondent’s counsel did not appear, so the Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment was deemed submitted for resolution.[10]

The trial court granted the Motion to Discharge Attachment on January 13, 1989 upon filing of petitioner’s counter-bond. The trial court, however, did not rule on the question of jurisdiction and on the validity of the writ of preliminary attachment.

On December 26, 1988, private respondent applied for an alias summons, which the trial court issued on January 19, 1989.[11] It was only on January 26, 1989 that summons was finally served on petitioner.[12]

On February 9, 1989, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of improper venue. Private respondent’s invoice for the freight forwarding service stipulates that “if court litigation becomes necessary to enforce collection xxx the agreed venue for such action is Makati, Metro Manila.”[13] Private respondent filed an Opposition asserting that although “Makati” appears as the stipulated venue, the same was merely an inadvertence by the printing press whose general manager executed an affidavit[14] admitting such inadvertence. Moreover, private respondent claimed that petitioner knew that private respondent was holding office in Pasay City and not in Makati.[15] The lower court, finding credence in private respondent’s assertion, denied the Motion to Dismiss and gave petitioner five days to file her Answer. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this too was denied.

Petitioner filed her Answer[16] on June 16, 1989, maintaining her contention that the venue was improperly laid.

On June 26, 1989, the trial court issued an Order setting the pre-trial for July 18, 1989 at 8:30 a.m. and requiring the parties to submit their pre-trial briefs. Meanwhile, private respondent filed a Motion to Sell Attached Properties but the trial court denied the motion.

On motion of petitioner, the trial court issued an Order resetting the pre-trial from July 18, 1989 to August 24, 1989 at 8:30 a.m..

On August 24, 1989, the day of the pre-trial, the trial court issued an Order[17] terminating the pre-trial and allowing the private respondent to present evidence ex-parte on September 12, 1989 at 8:30 a.m.. The Order stated that when the case was called for pre-trial at 8:31 a.m., only the counsel for private respondent appeared. Upon the trial court’s second call 20 minutes later, petitioner’s counsel was still nowhere to be found. Thus, upon motion of private respondent, the pre-trial was considered terminated.

On September 12, 1989, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration of the Order terminating the pre-trial. Petitioner explained that her counsel arrived 5 minutes after the second call, as shown by the transcript of stenographic notes, and was late because of heavy traffic. Petitioner claims that the lower court erred in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex-parte since there was no Order considering the petitioner as in default. Petitioner contends that the Order of August 24, 1989 did not state that petitioner was declared as in default but still the court allowed private respondent to present evidence ex-parte.[18]

On October 6, 1989, the trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and scheduled the presentation of private respondent’s evidence ex-parte on October 10, 1989.

On October 10, 1989, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion stating that the presentation of evidence ex-parte should be suspended because there was no declaration of petitioner as in default and petitioner’s counsel was not absent, but merely late.

On October 18, 1989, the trial court denied the Omnibus Motion.[19]

On November 20, 1989, the petitioner received a copy of the Decision of November 10, 1989, ordering petitioner to pay respondent P109,376.95 plus 18 percent interest per annum, 25 percent attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Private respondent filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal but the trial court denied the same.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On December 15, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the issuance of the writ of attachment and sustained the filing of the action in the

RTC of Pasay. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the declaration of default on petitioner and concluded that the trial court did not commit any reversible error.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 5, 1996 but the Court of Appeals denied the same in a Resolution dated May 20, 1996.

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

The issues raised by petitioner may be re-stated as follows:

I.

WHETHER RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUED AND SERVED;

II.

WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID DECLARATION OF DEFAULT;

III.

WHETHER THERE WAS IMPROPER VENUE.

IV.

WHETHER RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PETITIONER IS OBLIGED TO PAY P109, 376.95, PLUS ATTORNEY’S FEES.[20]

The Ruling of the Court

Improper Issuance and Service of Writ of Attachment

Petitioner ascribes several errors to the issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. Among petitioner’s arguments are: first, there was no ground for the issuance of the writ since the intent to defraud her creditors had not been established; second, the value of the properties levied exceeded the value of private respondent’s claim. However, the crux of petitioner’s arguments rests on the question of the validity of the writ of attachment. Because of failure to serve summons on her before or simultaneously with the writ’s implementation, petitioner claims that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person and thus the service of the writ is void.

As a preliminary note, a distinction should be made between issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. It is necessary to distinguish between the two to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired to validly implement the writ. This distinction is crucial in resolving whether there is merit in petitioner’s argument.

This Court has long settled the issue of when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional remedies. A party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter.”[21] This phrase refers to the date of filing of the complaint which is the moment that marks “the commencement of the action.” The reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues.

In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[22] this Court clarified the actual time when jurisdiction should be had:

“It goes without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant - issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of attachment - these do not and cannot bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him of summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission to the court’s authority. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the applicant’s affidavit and attachment bond, and of the order of attachment, as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of the complaint xxx.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Furthermore, we have held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant. [23]

In the instant case, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and implemented on October 28, 1988. However, the alias summons was served only on January 26, 1989 or almost three months after the implementation of the writ of attachment.

The trial court had the authority to issue the Writ of Attachment on September 27 since a motion for its issuance can be filed “at the commencement of the action.” However, on the day the writ was implemented, the trial court should have, previously or simultaneously with the implementation of the writ, acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Yet, as was shown in the records of the case, the summons was actually served on petitioner several months after the writ had been implemented.

Private respondent, nevertheless, claims that the prior or contemporaneous service of summons contemplated in Section 5 of Rule 57 provides for exceptions. Among such exceptions are “where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts or where the defendant is a resident temporarily absent therefrom x x x.” Private respondent asserts that when she commenced this action, she tried to serve summons on petitioner but the latter could not be located at her customary address in Kamuning, Quezon City or at her new address in Guagua, Pampanga.[24] Furthermore, respondent claims that petitioner was not even in Pampanga; rather, she was in Guam purportedly on a business trip.

Private respondent never showed that she effected substituted service on petitioner after her personal service failed. Likewise, if it were true that private respondent could not ascertain the whereabouts of petitioner after a diligent inquiry, still she had some other recourse under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The rules provide for certain remedies in cases where personal service could not be effected on a party. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever the defendant’s “whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation x x x.” Thus, if petitioner’s whereabouts could not be ascertained after the sheriff had served the summons at her given address, then respondent could have immediately asked the court for service of summons by publication on petitioner.[25]

Moreover, as private respondent also claims that petitioner was abroad at the time of the service of summons, this made petitioner a resident who is temporarily out of the country. This is the exact situation contemplated in Section 16,[26] Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, providing for service of summons by publication.

In conclusion, we hold that the alias summons belatedly served on petitioner cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on petitioner without first obtaining jurisdiction over her person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case.[27] The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service.

Improper Venue

Petitioner assails the filing of this case in the RTC of Pasay and points to a provision in private respondent’s invoice which contains the following:

“3. If court litigation becomes necessary to enforce collection, an additional equivalent (sic) to 25% of the principal amount will be charged. The agreed venue for such action is Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines.”[28]

Based on this provision, petitioner contends that the action should have been instituted in the RTC of Makati and to do otherwise would be a ground for the dismissal of the case.

We resolve to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue but not for the reason stated by petitioner.

The Rules of Court provide that parties to an action may agree in writing on the venue on which an action should be brought.[29] However, a mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues.[30] The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. Thus, absent words that show the parties’ intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular place, courts will allow the filing of a case in any venue, as long as jurisdictional requirements are followed. Venue stipulations in a contract, while considered valid and enforceable, do not as a rule supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. [31] In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, they should be considered merely as an agreement on additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.[32]

In the instant case, the stipulation does not limit the venue exclusively to Makati. There are no qualifying or restrictive words in the invoice that would evince the intention of the parties that Makati is the “only or exclusive” venue where the action could be instituted. We therefore agree with private respondent that Makati is not the only venue where this case could be filed.

Nevertheless, we hold that Pasay is not the proper venue for this case.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rule is venue in personal actions is “where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.”[33] The exception to this rule is when the parties agree on an exclusive venue other than the places mentioned in the rules. But, as we have discussed, this exception is not applicable in this case. Hence, following the general rule, the instant case may be brought in the place of residence of the plaintiff or defendant, at the election of the plaintiff (private respondent herein).

In the instant case, the residence of private respondent (plaintiff in the lower court) was not alleged in the complaint. Rather, what was alleged was the postal address of her sole proprietorship, Air Swift International. It was only when private respondent testified in court, after petitioner was declared in default, that she mentioned her residence to be in Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque City.

In the earlier case of Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc.,[34] the reverse happened. The plaintiff in that case was Tyson Enterprises, Inc., a corporation owned and managed by Dominador Ti. The complaint, however, did not allege the office or place of business of the corporation, which was in Binondo, Manila. What was alleged was the residence of Dominador Ti, who lived in San Juan, Rizal. The case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig. The Court there held that the evident purpose of alleging the address of the corporation’s president and manager was to justify the filing of the suit in Rizal, Pasig instead of in Manila. Thus, the Court ruled that there was no question that venue was improperly laid in that case and held that the place of business of Tyson Enterpises, Inc. is considered as its residence for purposes of venue. Furthermore, the Court held that the residence of its president is not the residence of the corporation because a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and stockholders.

In the instant case, it was established in the lower court that petitioner resides in San Fernando, Pampanga [35] while private respondent resides in Parañaque City.[36] However, this case was brought in Pasay City, where the business of private respondent is found. This would have been permissible had private respondent’s business been a corporation, just like the case in Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc. However, as admitted by private respondent in her

Complaint[37] in the lower court, her business is a sole proprietorship, and as such, does not have a separate juridical personality that could enable it to file a suit in court.[38] In fact, there is no law authorizing sole proprietorships to file a suit in court.[39]

A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise.[40] The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual and requires its proprietor or owner to secure licenses and permits, register its business name, and pay taxes to the national government.[41] The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an action in court.[42]

Thus, not being vested with legal personality to file this case, the sole proprietorship is not the plaintiff in this case but rather Loreta Guina in her personal capacity. In fact, the complaint in the lower court acknowledges in its caption that the plaintiff and defendant are Loreta Guina and Anita Mangila, respectively. The title of the petition before us does not state, and rightly so, Anita Mangila v. Air Swift International, but rather Anita Mangila v. Loreta Guina. Logically then, it is the residence of private respondent Guina, the proprietor with the juridical personality, which should be considered as one of the proper venues for this case.

All these considered, private respondent should have filed this case either in San Fernando, Pampanga (petitioner’s residence) or Parañaque (private respondent’s residence). Since private respondent (complainant below) filed this case in Pasay, we hold that the case should be dismissed on the ground of improper venue.

Although petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment in the lower court, petitioner expressly stated that she was filing the motion without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. At that time, petitioner had not been served the summons and a copy of the complaint.[43] Thereafter, petitioner timely filed a Motion to Dismiss[44] on the ground of improper venue. Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that a motion to dismiss may be filed “[W]ithin the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim.” Petitioner even raised the issue of improper venue in his Answer[45] as a special and affirmative defense. Petitioner also continued to raise the issue of improper venue in her Petition for Review[46] before this Court. We thus hold that the dismissal of this case on the ground of improper venue is warranted.

The rules on venue, like other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding. Obviously, this objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to choose where to file the complaint or petition. [47]

We find no reason to rule on the other issues raised by petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED on the grounds of improper venue and invalidity of the service of the writ of attachment. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of respondent judge denying the motion to dismiss are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 5875 is hereby dismissed without prejudice to refiling it in the proper venue. The attached properties of petitioner are ordered returned to her immediately.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

 

A.C. No. 4017 September 29, 1999

GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL, INC., complainant, vs.ATTY. PRIMO R. NALDOZA, respondent.

 

PER CURIAM:

On April 19, 1993, Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc., filed before this Court a Petition for disbarment against Attorney Primo R. Naldoza. The precursor of this Petition was the action of respondent, as counsel for complainant, appealing a Decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). In relation to the appeal, complainant asserts that respondent should be disbarred for the following acts:

1. Appealing a decision, knowing that the same was already final and executory

2. Deceitfully obtaining two thousand, five hundred and fifty-five US dollars (US$2,555) from complainant, allegedly for "cash bond" in the appealed case

3. Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act 1

In his Answer, 2 respondent denies that he persuaded complainant to file an appeal. On the contrary, he asserts that it was the complainant who insisted on appealing the case in order to delay the execution of the POEA Decision. 3 He also controverts complainant's allegation that he asked for a cash bond and that he issued the fake receipt. 4

In a Resolution dated May 17, 1993, this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

The pertinent portions of the Complaint were summarized by the IBP in this wise:

Under its petition, complainant alleges that the respondent was given the task to defend the interest of the complainant corporation in POEA Case No. 8888-06-468, entitled Olano, et al. versus Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc., et al.; that when the said case was resolved in favor of the complainant therein on October 5, 1992, the respondent Atty. Naldoza knowing fully well that the said decision had already become final and unappealable[,] through malpractice in [an] apparent desire to collect or to "bleed" his client of several thousand pesos of attorney's fees, convinced the complainant to appeal the case before the Supreme Court. Thus, on December 14, 1992, the respondent filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Review which was docketed as G.R. No. 107984 and that two (2) days thereafter misrepresented to the complainant corporation that the complainant ha[d] to pay, which it did, [a] "Cash Bond" in UNITED STATES DOLLAR amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (U.S. $2,555.00) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court. The said amount was given to the respondent.1âwphi1.nêt

. . . [S]ubsequently the complainant corporation came to know that the fees to be paid to the Supreme Court consist[ed] only of nominal filing and docket fees for such kind of appeal but in order to cover up respondent's misrepresentation, Atty. Naldoza presented complainant a fake xerox copy of an alleged Supreme Court receipt representing payment of U.S. $2,555.00.

Subsequent verification from the Supreme Court made by the complainant corporation revealed that the said receipt issued by the treasurer's office of the Supreme Court . . . [was] spurious, meaning a fake receipt. The said verification revealed that what was only paid by the respondent to the Supreme Court was the amount of P622.00 as shown by the enumerated legal fees of the Supreme Court Docket-Receiving Section showing the handwritten name of the respondent for purpose of showing that the said computation was requested by and addressed to the respondent. 5 (citations omitted)

Meanwhile, a criminal case 6 for estafa based on the same facts was filed against herein respondent before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 141. Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, he was declared civilly liable in the amount of US$ 2,555.

Thereafter, respondent filed before the IBP a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 1996, on the ground that he had already been acquitted in the criminal case for estafa. Complainant opposed the Motion. 7

On February 16, 1998, this Court received the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution, which approved the investigating commissioner's report 8 and recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. In his Report, Investigating Commissioner Plaridel Jose justified his recommendation in this manner:

. . . [R]espondent fails to rebut the position of the complainant that the signature [on the receipt for the amount of $2,555.00] was his. Hence, respondent anchors his position on a mere denial that it is not his signature. Likewise, the respondent denies the check voucher dated December 15, 1992, and the encircled signature of the respondent, which . . . according to him is falsified and irregular. No evidence, however, was presented by the respondent that his signature therein was falsified and irregular. [As to the altered Supreme Court Official Receipt, the respondent denied] that he ha[d] anything to do with it because it was the complainant who signed the Petition for Review and tried to explain that his name appear[ed] to be the payee because he [was] the counsel of record of the petitioner. But while it is true that the affiant in the said Petition for Review [was] Mr. Rogelio G. Gatchalian, president of the complainant company, the respondent does not deny that he signed the said petition as counsel of the petitioner corporation and that he was actually the one who prepared the same and the notary public before whom the affiant subscribed and [swore] as the one who "caused the preparation" of the said petition.

The legal form (Exh. "G") of the legal fees for the Petition for Review re G.R. 107984 was denied by the respondent because according to him he was never given a chance to cross-examine the person who issued the [certification] . . . . However, respondent does not deny that he is the person referred to by the handwritten name P.R. Naldoza who paid the legal fees of P622.00.

In addition to the said respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence, he submitted to this Commission as his most important piece of evidence the Decision of acquittal in Criminal Case No. 93-8748 entitled "People of the Philippines versus Primo R. Naldoza", the copy of which Decision is appended to his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss dated July 22, 1996 praying for the dismissal of the present administrative case in view of his being exonerated in the said criminal case based on the same facts and evidence. 9 (citations omitted)

Commissioner Jose brushed aside respondent's contention that his acquittal in the companion criminal case should result in the dismissal of this administrative complaint. The commissioner emphasized that the criminal case for estafa 10 was completely different from the proceedings before him; acquittal in the former did not exonerate respondent in the latter. 11 He further noted that the RTC Decision itself hinted at the administrative liability of respondent, since it found him civilly liable to herein complainant for $2,555. 12

We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be sanctioned. However, the recommended penalty is not commensurate to the gravity of the wrong perpetrated.

At the outset, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondent's Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In that Motion, he maintains that he should be cleared of administrative liability, because he has been acquitted of estafa which involved the same facts. He argues that the issue involved there was "the very same issue litigated in this case," 13 and that his exoneration "was a result of a full blown trial on the merits of this case." 14

In a similar case, we have said:

. . . The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of . . . criminal law. Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases. 15

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. 16 They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; 17 in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, "clearly preponderant evidence" is all that is required. 18 Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. 19

It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. 20 Conversely, respondent's acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In the same vein, the trial court's finding of civil liability against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the administrative action before this Court. Neither will a favorable disposition in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of the lawyer. 21 The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. For this reason, it would be well to remember the Court's ruling in In re Almacen, 22 which we quote:

. . . Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. . . . (emphasis ours)

We shall now discuss seriatim the specific charges against respondent.

First. Complainant alleges that respondent appealed the POEA Decision, despite knowing that it had already become final and executory. The IBP investigating commissioner had no explicit finding on this point. Rogelio G. Gatchalian testified that during the pendency of the appeal, his company had received from the POEA a Writ of Execution which led him to the conclusion that "they [had] lost the case before the Supreme Court." 23 This, however, does not substantiate the charge.

Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the appeal. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final and executory. Worse, there has been no evidence that respondent knew that the case was unappealable. Indeed, the records of this Court shows that the Petition for Review was dismissed for petitioner's failure to submit an Affidavit of Service and a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has no leg to stand on.

Second. Be that as it may, we agree with the IBP that respondent obtained from complainant the amount of $2,555, on the false representation that it was needed for the appeal before this Court. According to Gatchalian, 24 respondent explained that the amount would "cover all the expenses to be incurred in the Petition for Review with the Supreme Court and which amount also will answer for the payment as sort of deposit so that if our case is lost, the money will be given or paid to the complainant in that case so that our deposit with the bank would not be garnished." 25 Corroborating Gatchalian's testimony, Edna Deles declared that respondent received the amount on the representation that it "would be paid to the Supreme Court in connection with the Olano case." 26

The defense of denial proffered by respondent is not convincing. Quite the contrary, when he paid P10,000 and issued a check to complainant as his "moral obligation," he indirectly admitted the charge. Normally, this is not the

actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriating the money of another. This is an admission of misconduct. 27 In his Answer submitted to this Court, he declared:

(8). That I have no knowledge, information or belief as to truthfulness of the allegation of the Petitioner, on his allegation no. 8 and no. 9, the truth being that in all the cases and assignments made by the Petitioner to me, I was made to report to him personally and to his Board of Directors the progress of the cases both orally and in writing. I even [went] to the extent of paying him P10,000.00 as my moral obligation only to find after accounting that he still owes me P180,000.00 as attorney's fee [to] which I am entitled under rule 130 of the rules of court sec. 24, and under sec. 37 of the above-cited rules, I have the right to apply the funds received from Gatchalian in satisfaction of my claim for Professional Services, otherwise known as Attorney's Lien, as shown in my Service Billings and Statement of Accounts." 28 (emphasis ours)

Contrary to respondent's claim, the amount of $2,555 was not a part of his attorney's lien. He demanded the money from his client on the pretext that it was needed for the Petition before the Supreme Court, but he actually converted it to his personal gain. This act clearly constitutes malpractice. 29 The claim that respondent merely applied his lien over the funds of his client is just an afterthought, the accounting being made after the fact. It is settled that the conversion by a lawyer of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 30

Third. In an effort to conceal his misappropriation of the money entrusted to him, respondent gave complainant a photocopy of a receipt purportedly showing that the Supreme Court had received the sum of $2,555 from him. Again, the testimonies of Gatchalian 31 and Deles 32 were equally clear on this point. After respondent had presented the false receipt, Gatchalian learned that no such payment was made. Ms Araceli Bayuga of the Supreme Court Cash Collection and Disbursement Division issued a certification that respondent had paid the amount of P622 only, not $2,555. In fact, the records of the said case 33 contain no indication at all that the Court has required the payment of the latter sum, or that it has been paid at all.

Juxtaposed to the complainant's evidence, the bare denials of respondent cannot overturn the IBP's findings that he has indeed presented a false receipt to conceal his misappropriation of his client's money. We agree with the IBP that "it is unbelievable that the complainant in the person of Rogelio Gatchalian, being a layman as he is without any knowledge in the procedure of filing a case before the Supreme Court, could spuriously weave such documents which are denied by the respondent." 34

In view of the foregoing, respondent has clearly failed the standards of his noble profession. As we have stated in Resurrecion v. Sayson: 35

[L]awyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.

Clearly reprehensible are the established facts that he demanded money from his client for a bogus reason, misappropriated the same, and then issued a fake receipt to hide his deed. In Dumadag v. Lumaya, 36 the Court ordered the indefinite suspension of a lawyer for not remitting to his client the amount he had received pursuant to an execution, viz.:

[E]ven as respondent consistently denied liability to Dumadag, his former client, the records abundantly point to his receipt of and failure to deliver the amount of P4,344.00 to his client, the herein complainant, a clear breach of the canons of professional responsibility.

In Obia v. Catimbang, 37 we meted out the same penalty to a lawyer who had misappropriated the money entrusted to him:

The acts committed by respondent definitely constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. These acts are noted with disapproval by the Court; they are in violation of his duty, as a lawyer, to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to engage in no conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Such misconduct discredits the legal profession.

Respondent's acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted to him; he also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Worse, he had the gall to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue being a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, Primo R. Naldoza is hereby DISBARRED. The Office of the Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys and to inform all courts of this Decision.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988

LEONILO C. DONATO, petitioners, vs.HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANIIA, BRANCH XXXII HON. JOSE FLAMINIANO, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA; PAZ B. ABAYAN, respondents.

Leopoldo P. Dela Rosa for petitioner.

Emiterio C. Manibog for private respondent.

City Fiscal of Manila for public respondent.

 

GANCAYCO, J.:

In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, the question for the resolution of the Court is whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila should be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial question. The respondent judge ruled in the negative. We sustain him.

The pertinent facts as set forth in the records follow. On January 23, 1979, the City Fiscal of Manila acting thru Assistant City Fiscal Amado N. Cantor filed an information for bigamy against herein petitioner, Leonilo C. Donato with the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 43554 and assigned to Branch XXXII of said court. The information was filed based on the complaint of private respondent Paz B. Abayan.

On September 28, 1979, before the petitioner's arraignment, private respondent filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner contracted on September 26, 1978, which action was docketed as Civil Case No. E-02627. Said civil case was based on the ground that private respondent consented to entering into the marriage, which was petitioner Donato's second one, since she had no previous knowledge that petitioner was already married to a certain Rosalinda R. Maluping on June 30, 1978. Petitioner Donato's answer in the civil case for nullity interposed the defense that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain petitioner's consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization of the subsequent or second marriage, petitioner and private respondent had lived together and deported themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for a period of at least five years as evidenced by a joint affidavit executed by them on September 26, 1978, for which reason, the requisite marriage license was dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of the New Civil Code pertaining to marriages of exceptional character.

Prior to the date set for the trial on the merits of Criminal Case No. 43554, petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of said case contending that Civil Case No. E-02627 seeking the annulment of his second marriage filed by private respondent raises a prejudicial question which must first be determined or decided before the criminal case can proceed.

In an order dated April 7, 1980. Hon. Artemon D. Luna denied the motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 43554 for bigamy. Respondent judge's basis for denial is the ruling laid down in the case of Landicho vs. Relova. 1 The order further directed that the proceedings in the criminal case can proceed as scheduled.

A motion for reconsideration was flied by herein petitioner thru counsel citing as one of his grounds for suspension of proceedings the ruling laid down by this Court in the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito 2 which was a much later case than that cited by respondent judge in his order of denial.

The motion for reconsideration of the said order was likewise denied in an order dated April 14, 1980, for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.

A prejudicial question has been defined to be one which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. 3 It is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. 4 A prejudicial question usually comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case. 5

The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. It must be noted that the issue before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court touching upon the nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of petitioner Donato's guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy. Furthermore, it was petitioner's second wife, the herein private respondent Paz B. Abayan who filed the complaint for annulment of the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit.

Petitioner Donato raised the argument that the second marriage should have been declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation allegedly employed against him by private respondent only sometime later when he was required to answer the civil action for anulment of the second marriage. The doctrine elucidated upon by the case of Landicho vs. Relova 6 may be applied to the present case. Said case states that:

The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered into by the accused in a bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil actions as to warrant the suspension of the case. In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that the petitioner's consent to such marriage must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy. The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy on February 27, 1963, the fact that two marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared to be indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the petitioner who filed the action for nullity on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. And it was only on June 15, 1963, that petitioner, as defendant in the civil action, filed a third-party complaint against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with her should be declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. Assuming that the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, the fact would not be material to the outcome of the case. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. The lower court therefore, has not abused much less gravely abused, its discretion in failing to suspend the hearing as sought by petitioner.

In the case at bar, petitioner has not even sufficiently shown that his consent to the second marriage has been obtained by the use of threats, force and intimidation.

Petitioner calls the attention of this Court to the fact that the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito is a later case and as such it should be the one applied to the case at bar. We cannot agree. The situation in the case at bar is markedly different. In the aforecited case it was accused Milagros dela Cruz who was charged with bigamy for having contracted a second marriage while a previous one existed. Likewise, Milagros dela Cruz was also the one who filed an action for annulment on the ground of duress, as contra-distinguished from the present case wherein it was private

respondent Paz B. Abayan, petitioner's second wife, who filed a complaint for annulment of the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit since she was not aware that petitioner's marriage was still subsisting. Moreover, in De la Cruz, a judgment was already rendered in the civil case that the second marriage of De la Cruz was null and void, thus determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. In the present case, there is as yet no such judgment in the civil case.

Pursuant to the doctrine discussed in Landicho vs. Relova, petitioner Donato cannot apply the rule on prejudicial questions since a case for annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner's consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same cannot be the basis for conviction. The preceding elements do not exist in the case at bar.

Obviously, petitioner merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of the criminal case. The records reveal that prior to petitioner's second marriage on September 26, 1978, he had been living with private respondent Paz B. Abayan as husband and wife for more than five years without the benefit of marriage. Thus, petitioner's averments that his consent was obtained by private respondent through force, violence, intimidation and undue influence in entering a subsequent marriage is belled by the fact that both petitioner and private respondent executed an affidavit which stated that they had lived together as husband and wife without benefit of marriage for five years, one month and one day until their marital union was formally ratified by the second marriage and that it was private respondent who eventually filed the civil action for nullity.

Another event which militates against petitioner's contentions is the fact hat it was only when Civil Case No. E-02627 was filed on September 28, 1979, or more than the lapse of one year from the solemnization of the second marriage that petitioner came up with the story that his consent to the marriage was secured through the use of force, violence, intimidation and undue influence. Petitioner also continued to live with private respondent until November 1978, when the latter left their abode upon learning that Leonilo Donato was already previously married.

In the light of the preceding factual circumstances, it can be seen that the respondent Judge did not err in his earlier order. There is no pivotal issue that must be pre-emptively resolved in Civil Case No. E-02627 before proceedings in the criminal action for bigamy can be undertaken.

Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown to exit the order of denial issued by the respondent judge dated April 14, 1980 should be sustained.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

CASE DIGEST:

SIA SUAN AND GAW CHIAO VS. RAMON ALCANTARA by MartinPARAS; MARCH 4, 1950

FACTS:

Rufino Alcantara and sons (including respondent Ramon) executed a deed of sale dated August 3, 1931, conveying five parcels of land to petitioner Sia Suan

A few days later (within the month after the sale of the parcels of land), Ramon’s counsel wrote to Suan’s husband, Gaw Chiao, disavowing the contract on the ground that Ramon was a minor when the signing took place

After Gaw Chiao responded to the letter, Ramon went to the office of Gaw Chiao’s counsel to ratify the sale After ratification, Ramon received Php 500.00 from Gaw Chiao, as payment for the sold parcels of land Meanwhile, Sia Suan sold the parcels of land to Nicolas Azores; his son Antonio inherited it NINE YEARS LATER, Ramon filed a case at the Court of First Instance of Laguna, praying that the deed of

sale may be annulled on the ground of his minority at the time of its sale to Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao; action was denied and Sia Suan, Gaw Chiao, Ramon’s father and brother, Nicolas and Antonio Azores were absolved

Ramon brought case to the Court of Appeals; CFI Decision reversedo Deed of sale not binding against Ramon due to his minority at the time of the saleo His counsel’s letter to Gaw Chiao is an indication that the sale was not affirmed; Ramon was thus

shielded from laches and estoppelo Sia Suan and Gao Chiao was negligent in protecting their interests to the property since they did

nothing when they were informed of Ramon’s minorityo Delay in filing action for annulment filed by Ramon does not bar the said action to prosper; may be

barred only when the time period of filing prescribed by law has expiredo CA refuses to use the doctrine in Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu:

Sale of real estate done by minors is VALID Minors are NOT EXEMPT from fulfilling the obligations in the contract Minors are NOT ALLOWED to annul the contract by invoking that he/she was a minor at

the time of the signingo The only protection utilized by Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao here is the ratification done by Ramono The letter of Ramon’s counsel duly informed them of his minority

Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao files petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Ramon Alcantara’s execution of the deed of sale is valid, despite being a minor at the time of its execution

Whether or not Ramon is bound by the deed of sale, despite his minority at the time of its execution Whether or not Ramon is allowed to annul the deed of sale

HELD/RULING:

RELATED PROVISIONS:

Art. 1327, NCC: The following cannot give consent to a contract:

Unemancipated minors;

Art. 1390, NCC: The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:

Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;

x x x

These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.

Art. 1403, NCC: The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:

x x x

(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a contract.

Art. 1399, NCC: When the defect of the contract consists in the incapacity of one of the parties, the incapacitated person is not obliged to make any restitution except insofar as he has been benefited by the thing or price received by him.

Ramon may not be allowed to execute deed of sale, but due to his act of ratification, the contract was given its binding effect

The deed of sale is binding on Ramon, because he ratified it Ramon is not allowed to annul such deed, because he already ratified it Mercado doctrine is applicable in this case Ramon may have executed his acts in bad faith; he earned money from Gaw Chiao as a result of the sale

and its ratification, yet he summons the courts to annul the sale because he executed it while still a minor “…previous misinterpretation has already estopped him from disavowing the contract” The Court of Appeals said that Ramon may not be stopped because of the letter, yet the Supreme Court

holds that he is already stopped by his misrepresentation in the deed of sale, due to his minority The Supreme Court is of the opinion that Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao is hereby absolved, without incurring any

costs on their part

Geluz vs. Court of Appeals

2 SCRA 801 July 20 1961

Fact of the Case:

Respondent Oscar Lazo, the husband of Nita Villanueva who voluntarily procured her abortion, filed an action to recover damages against petitioner Antonio Lazo who caused the same. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Lazo. When the case reached the Court of Appeals but it sustained the award to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals and the Trial Court predicated the award of damages in the amount of P3,000 upon the provision of Article 2206 of the Civil Code for the death of person.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not an action for damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child.

(2) Whether or not the unborn child acquires civil personality.

Held:

No action for damages could be instituted on unborn child on account of injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parent or heirs. The laws states that civil personality of the child commences at the time of its conception, provided that it be born alive or if it had an intrauterine life of less the seven months, the foetus is not deemed born if it dies within twenty four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.

GELUZ v COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: 

Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948 — through her aunt Paula Yambot. In 1950 she became pregnant by her present husband before they were legally married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, and acting on the advice of her aunt, she had herself aborted by the defendant. After her marriage with the plaintiff, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed in the Commission on Elections and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by the defendant in October 1953. Less than two years later, she again became pregnant. On February 21, 1955, accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter's daughter Lucida, she again repaired to the defendant's clinic on Carriedo and P. Gomez streets in Manila, where the three met the defendant and his wife. Nita was again aborted, of a two-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of fifty pesos, Philippine currency. The plaintiff was at this time in the province of Cagayan, campaigning for his election to the provincial board; he did not know of, nor gave his consent, to the abortion.

It is the third and last abortion that constitutes plaintiff's basis in filing this action and award of damages. Upon application of the defendant Geluz we granted certiorari.

ISSUE: 

Did the Plaintiff have the right for damages in behalf of his unborn child? 

RATIO:

Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Code, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.

Quimiguing vs. IcaoG.R. No. L-26795. 31 July 1970.REYES, J.B.L., J.:Appeal on points of law from an order of the CFI of Zamboanga del Norte.

Facts: Plaintiff and defendant were neighbors and had close and confidential relations. Defendant, although married, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with the plaintiff several times by force and intimidation and without her consent. As a result she became pregnant and had to stop studying. Later she gave birth to a baby girl. She instituted an action to recover damages from the defendant. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the original complaint averred no cause of action. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue: W/N defendant is liable for damages.

Held: The orders under appeal are reversed and set aside.

Ratio: “A second reason for reversing the orders appealed from is that for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case) constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of Civil Code of the Philippines: “ ‘Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.’ “

Quimiguing vs Icao

TITLE: Quimiguing vs Icao

CITATION: 34 SCRA 132

FACTS:

Carmen Quimiguing, the petitioner, and Felix Icao, the defendant, were neighbors in Dapitan City and had close and confidential relations.  Despite the fact that Icao was married, he succeeded to have carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times under force and intimidation and without her consent.  As a result, Carmen became pregnant despite drugs supplied by defendant and as a consequence, Carmen stopped studying.  Plaintiff claimed for support at P120 per month, damages and attorney’s fees.  The complaint was dismissed by the lower court in Zamboanga del Norte on the ground lack of cause of action.  Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint that as a result of the intercourse, she gave birth to a baby girl but the court ruled that “no amendment was allowable since the original complaint averred no cause of action”. 

ISSUE: Whether plaintiff has a right to claim damages.

HELD:

Supreme Court held  that “a conceive child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines”.  The conceive child may also receive donations and be accepted by those persons who will legally represent them if they were already born as prescribed in Article 742.

Lower court’s theory on article 291 of the civil code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn violates article 40 aforementioned.

Another reason for reversal of the order is that Icao being a married man forced a woman not his wife to yield to his lust and this constitutes a clear violation of Carmen’s rights.  Thus, she is entitled to claim compensation for the damage caused.

WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision. Costs against appellee Felix Icao. So ordered.

DONATO VS LUNA

160 scra 441

Prejudicial Question

Leonilo C. Donato was married to Rosalinda Malupig and without such marriage having been legally dissolved; he contracted a second marriage with Paz Abayan. Facing bigamy charges by the latter, petitioner alleged force, intimidation and undue influence employed by Paz which forced him into marriage. A complaint of annulment of the second marriage was instituted on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit. He is raising the issue of prejudicial question.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the action to annul the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the prosecution for bigamy.

 

HELD: The court averred that the requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. The nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of petitioner Donato’s guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy.

TITLE: Donato vs. Luna

CITATION: GR No. 53642, April 15, 1988

FACTS:

An information for bigamy against petitioner Leonilo Donato was filed on January 23, 1979 with the lower court in Manila.  This was based on the complaint of private respondent Paz Abayan.  Before the petitioner’s arraignment on September 28, 1979, Paz filed with Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner contracted on September 26, 1978.  Said civil case was based on the ground that Paz consented to entering into the marriage which was Donato’s second since she had no previous knowledge that Donato was already married to a certain Rosalinda Maluping on June 30, 1978.  Donato defensed that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain petitioner's consent to the marriage.  Prior to the solemnization of the second marriage, Paz and Donato had lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for 5 years proven by a joint affidavit executed by them on September 26, 1978 for which reason, the requisite marriage license was dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of the Civil Code.  Donato continued to live with Paz until November 1978 where Paz left their home upon learning that Donato already previously married.

ISSUE: Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the lower court be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the juvenile and domestic relations court on the ground that latter constitutes a prejudicial question.

HELD:

Petitioner Leonilo Donato can’t apply rule on prejudicial question since a case for annulment of marriage can only be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused if it was proved that petitioners consent to such marriage and was obtained by means of duress violence and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy.

Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown to exit the order of denial issued by the respondent judge dated April 14, 1980 should be sustained.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.

Donato vs. Luna

FACTS:Paz Abayan filed an information for Bigamy against petitioner Leonilo Donato. She also filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court a civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage to petitioner because of a prior marriage of petitioner. In his answer petitioner claimed that his 2nd marriage was void because it was solemnized without a valid marriage license and that violence, intimation and undue influence were employed by Paz to obtain his consent.Prior to the date set for the trial of the criminal case, petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of the case because the civil action raises a prejudicial question which must first be determined before the criminal case can proceed.

ISSUE:Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila should be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial question. 

HELD:NO. The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. It must be noted that the issue before the JDRC touching upon the nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of petitioner Donato's guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy.Pursuant to the doctrine discussed in Landicho vs. Relova, petitioner Donato cannot apply the rule on prejudicial questions since a case for annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner's consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same cannot be the basis for conviction. The preceding elements do not exist in the case at bar.