Guioc-Co v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, To Guioc-Co, sought to recover damages for the death of his brother, To-Tico, who died when a building under construction by the defendant, Lorenzo del Rosario, collapsed. The plaintiff alleged he was the sole brother and heir of the deceased. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to state that the plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of To-Tico, appointed by the Court of First Instance. Procedural History: The trial judge who heard the evidence retired and was succeeded by another judge who rendered the judgment. The judgment stated that the plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of To-Tico, that the defendant ordered the removal of stays and braces from an unfinished building, rendering it unstable, and that the building collapsed, killing To-Tico. Damages were assessed at P3,000, and the court ruled that the administrator was entitled to collect such damages. The judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff as administrator. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, raising the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover either as administrator, inheritor, or next of kin.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the deceased, can maintain an action for damages for the death of the intestate. Whether the plaintiff, as brother and inheritor of the deceased, can maintain an action for damages for the death of the intestate.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in favor of the plaintiff is reversed. The case is remanded for amendment of the pleadings, further testimony on the subject of relationship and qualification of the plaintiff, and as to damages, for adjudication upon the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the administrator's right to sue for damages for death: The Court held that under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is nothing authorizing administrators to sue for injuries causing the death of their intestates. Unlike in England and America where statutes like "Lord Campbell's Act" confer such rights upon personal representatives, Philippine legislation at the time did not provide for such a remedy for administrators. The Spanish codes, which were then applicable, lodged such a right, when it existed, in the surviving next of kin, not in an executor or administrator. The Court cited numerous American and English cases establishing the common law principle that no civil action lies for an injury resulting in death without an enabling statute. The recovery for wrongful death, where permitted, generally forms no part of the decedent's estate and must be prosecuted by the relatives personally. On the issue of the plaintiff's right to sue as brother and inheritor: The Court stated that this claim could best be determined after presentation of the question to the trial court, upon further evidence regarding the plaintiff's relationship, qualification, and the damages suffered. The amendment to the complaint, adding the plaintiff's capacity as administrator, was considered unnecessary and could be treated as surplusage, potentially allowing the pleadings to revert to their original form where the plaintiff claimed as brother and inheritor.
Main Doctrine
Under Philippine law at the time of the decision, an administrator could not maintain an action for damages for the death of an intestate, as such a right of action, if it existed, was lodged in the surviving next of kin, not in the executor or administrator.