Pabico v. Jaranilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In civil case No. 40283, Hidalgo, Cuyugan & Co. obtained a judgment against Rufino Pabico for P43,074 with interest. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. He then presented a bill of exceptions, which was still pending approval. Procedural History: On June 19, 1934, the defendant's counsel suggested the death of Rufino Pabico, which occurred on May 22, 1934, and prayed for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The respondent judge denied this petition. The Petition: One of the heirs of the deceased defendant instituted mandamus proceedings to compel the respondent judge to dismiss the case due to the death of the party.
Issue(s)
Whether an action for the recovery of money, debt, or damages, pending appeal, should be dismissed upon the death of the defendant. Whether mandamus lies to compel the dismissal of such an action.
Ruling
The Court granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the respondent judge to dismiss the case without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to present its claim before the committee on claims in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased Rufino Pabico.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether an action for the recovery of money, debt, or damages, pending appeal, should be dismissed upon the death of the defendant: The Court held that Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by Sections 686, 699, 700, and 703, mandates the discontinuance of actions for the recovery of money, debt, or damages against a deceased party when such actions are still pending and have not become final and executory. The law explicitly states that such claims shall be prosecuted as provided in Section 686, which refers to claims presented before a committee appointed in testamentary or intestate proceedings. The action for the recovery of money or debt is not among those actions enumerated in Section 703 that survive the death of a party. Therefore, it must be discontinued and presented as a claim to the committee. The Court emphasized that the provisions requiring discontinuance are mandatory and confer no discretion upon the court. The fact that a judgment has been rendered does not make the action final and executory if an appeal is pending and the bill of exceptions is still awaiting approval. The doctrine of merger is also inapplicable as it only applies to cases where a final judgment has been obtained. On whether mandamus lies to compel the dismissal of such an action: The Court affirmed that mandamus lies when a court refuses to dismiss a pending case that falls under the mandatory provisions of Sections 119 and 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the law mandates the dismissal of actions for the recovery of money upon the death of a party while the action is pending appeal, and the respondent judge refused to do so, the writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with the law. The petitioner, as an heir of the deceased defendant, has a material and direct interest in the proceedings, thus possessing the legal personality to file the petition.
Main Doctrine
An action for the recovery of money, debt, or damages against a deceased defendant, which is pending appeal and has not yet become final and executory, shall be discontinued and the claim presented to the committee appointed in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased. Mandamus lies to compel a court to dismiss such a case.