Sarsaba v. Te
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a labor dispute where Patricio Sereno was found to have been illegally dismissed and awarded monetary claims. Following an unsatisfied writ of execution, a truck, License Plate No. LBR-514, was levied and subsequently sold at public auction. The respondent, Fe Vda. de Te, claiming to be the wife of the registered owner, Pedro Te, asserted that the truck was merely rented to the judgment debtor, Teodoro Gasing, and was erroneously levied upon as Gasing's property. She contended that neither she nor her deceased husband were parties to the labor case and thus should not be deprived of their property. Procedural History: Respondent Fe Vda. de Te filed a complaint for recovery of the motor vehicle and damages against petitioner Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba, the sheriff, and the NLRC. Petitioner and the NLRC filed motions to dismiss, which were denied. The case was transferred between RTC branches due to judicial inhibition. Petitioner later filed an omnibus motion to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction over a defendant who had died before service of summons and the discharge of respondent's attorney-in-fact due to the respondent's death. The RTC denied this motion. After a motion for reconsideration and inhibition, the case was re-raffled, and the RTC ultimately denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the RTC's order denying his omnibus motion to dismiss. He argues that the RTC should have dismissed the complaint against all defendants due to the death of one defendant before service of summons, and that the respondent's attorney-in-fact no longer had legal personality to sue after the respondent's death. The Supreme Court, however, found the RTC's order to be interlocutory and thus not a proper subject for an appeal under Rule 45, nor a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 due to the violation of the judicial hierarchy, though it ultimately ruled on the substantive issues.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for review on certiorari assailing an interlocutory order of the Regional Trial Court. Whether the failure to serve summons on a deceased defendant warrants the dismissal of the complaint against all defendants. Whether the death of the plaintiff during the pendency of a case for recovery of personal property extinguishes the authority of her attorney-in-fact and necessitates the dismissal of the case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Order dated March 22, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Digos, Davao del Sur in Civil Case No. 3488, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the appeal: The Supreme Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable under Section 1(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The proper remedy is to proceed with the trial and, if an unfavorable verdict is rendered, to assail the interlocutory order as part of an appeal from the final judgment. Direct resort to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari is improper for interlocutory orders. Even if treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it would be dismissible for violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, although the Court relaxed this rule due to the pure questions of law involved. On the effect of non-service of summons on a deceased defendant: The Court ruled that the failure to acquire jurisdiction over one defendant (Patricio Sereno) is a defense personal to that defendant. Since Sereno died before summons could be served, he could not invoke this defense. The petitioner could not invoke it on Sereno's behalf to have the case dismissed against all defendants. The failure to serve summons on Sereno does not cause the dismissal of the complaint against the other defendants who were validly served and submitted responsive pleadings. The RTC correctly ruled that only the case against Sereno would be dismissed, and the case against the other defendants could proceed independently. On the effect of the plaintiff's death and the attorney-in-fact's authority: The Court acknowledged that agency is generally extinguished by the death of the principal. However, it clarified that an action for recovery of personal property, such as the truck in this case, survives the death of a party under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. While the attorney-in-fact's special power of attorney became functus officio, the action itself did not abate. The proper remedy was substitution of heirs, not dismissal of the case. The RTC correctly noted that the attorney-in-fact had already testified and presented evidence before the plaintiff's death, and the court had already acquired jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable, even if pure questions of law are raised. The proper remedy is to proceed with the trial and, if an unfavorable verdict is rendered, to assail the interlocutory order as part of an appeal from the final judgment. Direct resort to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari from such an order is improper, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, unless exceptional circumstances warrant relaxation.