View full case

ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Order dated March 22, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Digos City, Davao del Sur, in Civil Case No. 3488. The petitioner, Patricio Sereno, was illegally dismissed by Teodoro Gasing/Truck Operator.

The Labor Arbiter ordered Gasing to pay Sereno his monetary claims but the Writ of Execution was returned unsatisfied. An Alias Writ of Execution was issued directing a sheriff to satisfy the judgment award. The sheriff, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel, levied a truck owned by Gasing and sold it at public auction with Sereno as the highest bidder.

Meanwhile, respondent Fe Vda. de Te filed a Complaint for recovery of the truck against Sereno, the sheriff, and the NLRC. She alleged that she was the wife of the late Pedro Te, the registered owner of the truck, and that Gasing merely rented the truck from her. She claimed that the sheriff erroneously assumed that Gasing owned the truck and sought to be exempted from the judgment award.

Petitioner and the NLRC filed Motions to Dismiss, while the sheriff filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint. The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of legal personality of the attorney-in-fact of the deceased respondent. Respondent died, but her lawyer argued that her death did not affect her right to sue. The RTC denied petitioner's motion. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming bias and partiality of the judge who issued the Order.

This case involves a petition filed directly from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which issued an Order in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The petitioner sought recourse from the Court, claiming that the RTC resolved pure questions of law contrary to law, rules, and existing jurisprudence.

The issues raised by the petitioner involve the jurisdiction of the court over the person of one of the defendants who had already died and the legal effect of the death of the plaintiff during the pendency of the case.

However, before delving into the merits of the case, certain procedural issues must be resolved. The question before the Court is whether the petitioner correctly availed of the mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule on appeals states that appeals from the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may be made to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal if questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law are raised. On the other hand, appeals raising only questions of law must be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

An order or judgment of the RTC is considered final if it completely disposes of the case or a particular matter therein. In this case, the RTC's Order denying the petitioner's Omnibus Motion to Dismiss is deemed interlocutory, and thus not appealable.

The proper procedure would be to cite such order as an error in the appeal of the case if ruled in favor of the respondent. Alternatively, the petitioner may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Order of the RTC is considered interlocutory and not a proper subject of an appeal.

The petitioner in this case filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of a city. The petitioner argued that the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he denied petitioner's Motion to Quash the Information filed against him, and when he issued an Order denying the Motion to Suspend Proceedings. The petitioner claimed that the RTC judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the said motions.

The RTC issued an Order directing the petitioner to proceed with the presentation of his evidence, despite the pending Petition before the court. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, assailing the RTC's Order. The RTC, however, dismissed the Notice of Appeal on the ground that it was premature, as the Order was merely interlocutory in nature.

The RTC reasoned that the petitioner should proceed with the trial of the case and, if the RTC renders an unfavorable verdict, the petitioner can then appeal, including the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the RTC dismissal, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Notice of Appeal.

Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is considered interlocutory and not subject to appeal.

  2. Whether the petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly resorting to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari.

  3. Whether the failure to serve summons on one defendant will be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint against all defendants

  4. Whether there was a valid substitution of the deceased party in the case

RULING:

  1. The Order of the RTC is considered interlocutory and not subject to appeal. The proper remedy is to proceed with the trial and appeal the final judgment that may be rendered in the case. Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in multiple appeals and unnecessary delays in the trial proceedings.

  2. The petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly resorting to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. Generally, recourse must first be made to the lower court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. However, a strict application of the rule is not necessary in cases involving pure questions of law and not factual issues.

  3. The failure to serve summons on one defendant will not be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint against all defendants. The court's failure to acquire jurisdiction over one's person is a defense personal to the person claiming it. Only the case against the defendant on whom summons was not served will be dismissed, while the case will proceed against the other defendants who have been served with summons and have already filed their responsive pleadings.

  4. While the respondent's attorney-in-fact failed to inform the court of the death of the client and did not show proof of being retained by the legal representative or successor of the deceased, the proceedings and judgment rendered thereon will not be invalidated. The trial court's jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the death of the party. The failure of the counsel to comply with his duty to inform the court will not invalidate the proceedings and judgment if the action survives the death of the party.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An interlocutory order cannot be challenged by an appeal. The proper remedy is to incorporate the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order in an appeal from an adverse judgment on the merits.

  • Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in multiplicity of appeals in a single action and delay the trial on the merits of the case.

  • The principle of hierarchy of courts requires resorting to the lower-ranked court before seeking relief from a higher court. However, this principle may be relaxed in cases involving pure questions of law.

  • Jurisdiction over a party is acquired through the service of summons, either personally or by substituted service.

  • A motion to dismiss may be filed within the time for but before the filing of an answer, raising the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party.

  • All defenses and objections not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived, except in cases where the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is another action pending between the parties for the same cause, or the action is barred by prior judgment or statute of limitations.

  • The court's failure to acquire jurisdiction over a party's person is a defense personal to that party and cannot be raised by other defendants on that party's behalf.

  • A valid substitution of a deceased party is required in order to protect the right to due process and ensure proper representation in the suit through the legal representative or heir of the deceased party.

  • Failure of counsel to inform the court of the death of a client will not invalidate the proceedings and judgment if the action survives the death of the party.

  • A special power of attorney is valid and enforceable only if it was constituted for the common interest of the principal and the agent, or for the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor.

  • An action for recovery of personal property, if the causes of action primarily affect property and property rights, survives the death of the plaintiff.