Garcia v. Mathis
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Sulpicio Garcia, a former civilian employee at Clark Air Force Base, was dismissed on August 23, 1956, for alleged bribery and collusion. He sought reinstatement, back wages, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: Garcia filed a complaint against Colonel Paul C. Mathis, the Base Commander of Clark Air Force Base, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Colonel Mathis entered a special appearance and moved for dismissal, arguing lack of jurisdiction over his person as a representative of a foreign sovereign. The respondent judge dismissed the complaint not on jurisdictional grounds, but on the basis of prescription, noting that the action was filed over 21 years after Garcia's dismissal. 3. The Petition: Garcia filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the dismissal orders. He argued that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the case on prescription, a ground not raised by the respondent, and contended that the judge should have first addressed the jurisdictional issue raised by Colonel Mathis.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, even though the defendant did not raise it in any of his pleadings, and whether the petitioner's own allegations demonstrated prescription. Whether the petitioner's action had prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the judge's discretion and prescription: The Court held that while generally an action will not be considered prescribed if the defense is not expressly invoked, there is an exception when the plaintiff's own allegations in the complaint clearly show that the action has prescribed. In this case, the petitioner alleged his termination on August 23, 1956, and filed the case on November 8, 1977, more than 21 years later. This clearly indicated that the action had prescribed based on his own averments. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on this ground was proper, irrespective of whether the defendant raised it. The Court cited Philippine National Bank vs. Pacific Commission House as authority for this exception. The Court further noted that the defendant's special appearance constrained him to limit his motion to dismiss to jurisdictional grounds; otherwise, he would be deemed to have waived it. Thus, the judge was within his rights to consider the non-jurisdictional ground of prescription based on the face of the complaint. The judge's action, therefore, did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court also acknowledged the separate opinion of Justice Aquino regarding sovereign immunity, which would have also been a valid ground for dismissal. On the issue of prescription: As stated above, the petitioner's own allegations demonstrated that the action had prescribed.
Main Doctrine
A court may dismiss a complaint on the ground of prescription, even if not raised by the defendant, if the plaintiff's own allegations clearly show that the action has prescribed.