Gadier v. Gonzalez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 13, 1934, Honorato Gadier was arrested for driving a carromata pulled by a lame horse. The horse and carromata were brought to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Vicente Acuña, the former owner, came for them. The defendant, Basilio Gonzalez, SPCA's chief of squad, released the carromata but refused to release the horse because Acuña refused to sign a receipt for a lame horse. Gonzalez informed Acuña and Gadier that they would have to pay P0.50 daily for the horse's maintenance if they did not take it, and could retrieve it upon payment of expenses. Procedural History: Honorato Gadier pleaded guilty to violating an ordinance for the prevention of cruelty to animals and was sentenced to seven days of arresto. After his conviction, Gadier went to the SPCA to retrieve his horse, but Gonzalez refused delivery unless Gadier paid the maintenance expenses incurred by the SPCA. Gadier refused to pay. The Petition: The plaintiffs-appellees, Honorato and Eliseo Gadier, filed a complaint against Basilio Gonzalez. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment ordering the defendant to deliver the horse to its owner, but the plaintiff takes nothing from the defendant. The defendant appealed.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's original complaint on the ground of nonjoinder of parties defendant. Whether the lower court erred in overruling the SPCA's motion to intervene and its complaint in intervention. Whether the lower court erred in ordering the defendant to deliver the horse to its owner.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is reversed. The case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Manila for the purpose of directing the amendment of the complaint and the joinder of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as defendant, and for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of nonjoinder of parties defendant: The Court held that the demurrer to the complaint was erroneously overruled. The defendant, Basilio Gonzalez, as chief of the squad of employed men hired by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), was admitted to be a mere agent of the SPCA. As such agent, the principal (SPCA) is liable for the acts performed by the agent within the scope of his authority, pursuant to Article 1727 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the SPCA should have been joined as a defendant, as its joinder does not alter the nature of the action and is necessary for the final determination of the case, citing Arroyo vs. Granada and Gentero and Salmon and Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Tan Cueco. The lower court erred in overruling the demurrer and not requiring the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include the SPCA as a defendant. On the issue of the SPCA's intervention: Although the filing of the complaint in intervention in the Court of First Instance was improper because the case was on appeal, the Court noted that the complaint contained only special defenses and a cross-complaint for an amount within the concurrent jurisdiction of the municipal court. Thus, the Court of First Instance could have admitted it as a pleading of special defense and cross-complaint. On the issue of ordering the defendant to deliver the horse: The Court found that the defendant, Basilio Gonzalez, acted within the scope of his police power as chief of the squad employed by the SPCA. He was authorized by Section 4 of Act No. 1285, as amended by Act No. 3548, to make arrests and serve processes for violations of laws preventing cruelty to animals. The retention of the lame horse as corpus delicti for the violation of the ordinance was a lawful act. By refusing to sign the receipt for the horse despite being warned of daily maintenance charges, Honorato Gadier impliedly consented to the SPCA retaining the animal and answering for its maintenance. Consequently, the SPCA had the right to retain the animal pending reimbursement of expenses for its care and maintenance. The owner is obliged to pay for such maintenance before recovering possession of the animal.
Main Doctrine
An agent acting within the scope of authority is not personally liable if the principal is the proper party to the suit. The principal has the right to retain an animal as corpus delicti for violations of animal cruelty laws and is entitled to reimbursement for maintenance expenses before its return.