Inciong v. Tolentino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Miguel Tolentino filed a complaint for damages against Ceferino Inciong and his wife Concepcion G. Inciong in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 17822) for libel allegedly committed by Ceferino Inciong. This case was dismissed for improper venue upon the defendants' representation that the plaintiff was a resident of Balayan, Batangas. Procedural History: Tolentino refiled the case in the Court of First Instance of Batangas (Civil Case No. 256) against Ceferino Inciong alone. Inciong filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages, alleging that the complaint contained false allegations. Subsequently, Ceferino Inciong and his wife Concepcion G. Inciong filed a separate action for damages (Civil Case No. 380) against Miguel Tolentino, claiming that his complaint in Civil Case No. 17722 contained false and libelous allegations. The alleged libelous allegations included that Inciong was the "Supremo of the Samahang Magbubukid," that Inciong and his wife owned real and personal properties including income from the Samahang Magbubukid, and that Inciong had an "unlawful record, being the permanent Supremo of the Samahang Magbubukid." The Petition: Instead of answering the complaint in Civil Case No. 380, Tolentino filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action and prescription. The Court of First Instance of Batangas sustained the motion to dismiss on the ground of another action pending, dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the plaintiffs including their causes of action as counterclaim in Civil Case No. 256. The plaintiffs appealed this order of dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action is proper. Whether the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription is proper.
Ruling
The order of dismissal is affirmed. The Court held that the dismissal was proper on the grounds of another action pending and prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of another action pending: The Court found that Tolentino's complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 256 was substantially a reproduction of the complaint in Civil Case No. 17722, which formed the basis of the present action. Since Ceferino Inciong, as defendant in Civil Case No. 256, had already filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages based on the same alleged libelous allegations, allowing the present action to continue would encourage a multiplicity of suits. The Court noted that the argument that Concepcion G. Inciong could not file a counterclaim in Civil Case No. 256 because she was not a party defendant did not preclude the dismissal of the present complaint. Furthermore, the Court found it difficult to see how the allegation of ownership of conjugal property, which was omitted in the refiled case, could constitute a valid cause of action for damages. On the issue of prescription: The Court upheld the dismissal on the ground of prescription. It reiterated the ruling in Tejuco vs. E. R. Squibb & Son Phil. Corp., et al. that a civil action arising from libel prescribes in one year. The Court observed that more than one year had elapsed from the filing of the alleged libelous complaint in Civil Case No. 17722 on October 8, 1952, and the institution of the present action on May 24, 1954. Therefore, the action had clearly prescribed under Article 1147 of the New Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
A civil action arising from libel prescribes in one year. An order of dismissal based on prescription and another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action will be upheld.