Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tempongko
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines instituted a collection action against defendant Fernando Tempongko. In the course of the proceedings, defendant Tempongko obtained leave to file a third-party complaint against Antonio Luna. Procedural History: The City Court of Manila rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the principal sum, interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Simultaneously, it rendered judgment on the third-party complaint in favor of the defendant (as third-party plaintiff) and against the third-party defendant, ordering the latter to reimburse the defendant for any amount the defendant would have to pay the plaintiff, plus attorney's fees. Only the third-party defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. The Petition: The plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand Case to the lower court for execution of its judgment against the defendant, arguing that the judgment against the defendant had become final and executory due to the defendant's failure to appeal. The CFI granted the motion, ordering the remand for execution against the defendant and a trial de novo for the third-party case. The defendant appealed this order of execution to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal taken solely by a third-party defendant from a judgment rendered by an inferior court vacates the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant who did not appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Order of the Court of First Instance granting the motion for remand and execution of the judgment on the principal complaint in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that because the defendant Tempongko did not appeal from the adverse decision of the City Court, that judgment became final and executory as against him. Following the precedent in Singh vs. Liberty Insurance Corporation, the Court held that while an appeal from an inferior court generally operates to vacate the decision for a trial de novo, this only applies to the party who actually took the appeal. As against other parties adversely affected by the decision who did not appeal, the decision must be deemed to have become final and executory. A third-party complaint is a procedural device defined under Rule 6, Section 12, as a claim for contribution, indemnity, or subrogation, and it is fundamentally independent of the plaintiff's original complaint. The rules allow the joinder of these actions only to avoid circuitry of action and to dispose of the entire subject matter arising from one set of facts in a single litigation. However, the court in such instances is effectively rendering two judgments in the same case. Therefore, the appeal by the third-party defendant does not inure to the benefit of the original defendant, nor does it suspend the finality of the judgment in the principal action.
Main Doctrine
An appeal filed by a third-party defendant from a judgment on a third-party complaint does not vacate the judgment on the principal complaint against the defendant who did not appeal, and such judgment becomes final and executory as against the non-appealing defendant.