Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc. vs. Rodel Tinghil February 3, 2005 Facts: Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc. (Pamplona for brevity) is engaged in the operation of coconut and sugar plantation in Hacienda Pamplona, Negros Oriental. While, Pamplona Plantation Leisure Company (Leisure for brevity) was established for the purpose of rendering entertainment and leisure facilities and services. Tinghil and his other corespondents are the members of union which Pamplona hired during harvest season of the coconut and sugar cane. Thereafter, the said union conducted a meeting. A certain Luis Bondoc, manager of Pamplona, upon learning that a meeting of union was held, did not allow the respondents work. Respondents filed a complaint against Pamplona before the NLRC for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and other claims. Meanwhile before the judgment of the NLRC, Tinghil amended the comnplaint to implead Pamplona. The NLRC however ruled that only Tinghil may be considered as a real party and his other corespondents failed to implead Pamplona Plantation Leisure Co. an indispensable party, thus no employer-employee relationship. When the case was appealed in the CA after the denial of MR of the respondents, the former ruled that the dismissal by Pamplona to respondents is illegal. Issue: *Rule which governs the failure to implead an indispensable party. Ruling: The SC ruled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at
such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Atty. Laviña vs. CA and Josephina Gabriel April 10, 1989 Facts: In 1983, a certain Maria Carmen Gabriel executed a donation mortis causa in favor of her sister Josephina. The said deed was notarized and accepted by the donee (Josephina). Subsequently later, Carmen executed a Last Will and Testament disposing the same property in her Deed of Donation. A certain Remedios Muyot was appointed by the testator to be the latter’s Attorney-in-fact in order to execute the will and to liquidate the debts and other obligations prior to the transfer of estate, and to perform faithfully her trust. Thereafter, Josephina filed an adverse claim on the title of the subject property (also the subject in the Donation Mortis Causa). Remedios, through the help of her hired lawyer, Atty. Laviña, tendered an Affidavit repudiating the donation of the said property considering that it was allegedly procured through fraud and trickery. Few months later, Carmen died and Remedios filed an Action for Revocation of Donation before the court. The CA, upon motion of Josephina held that Atty. Laviña may no longer appear as the counsel of Carmen’s estate.
the plaintiffs amended their complaint and had included the heirs of the deceased and their claims for damages be chargeable against the estate of the deceased. real or personal. Carmen’s death divested Atty. 1976 Facts: Sulo ng Bayan is a non-stock corporation. otherwise they are barred forever xxx” Rule 87. Instead. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. must be filed within the time limited in the notice. the defendant (Llemos). Sulo ng Bayan vs. However. the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the heirs should not be a party in the complaint and instead. Hence. al.A. Hermogenes Llemos August 30. Maria Aguas. 1962 Facts: Sometime in March 1960.
. organized under an existing laws of the Philippines and the members are natural persons residing in Bulacan (and the plaintiff in this case). The heirs of the Llemos then filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent. whether the same be due. the plaintiffs action is not proper to be filed against the estate of the deceased with respect to the abovementioned rule. express or implied. and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property. M. may be commenced against him xxx” Thus. before answering the complaint against him a month after the said complaint was filed. and judgment for money against the decedent. Section 5 of the Rules of Court. But it was also denied by the court. et. Section 1 of the Rules of Court: “Sec. or to enforce a lien thereon. 1.
Ruling: The SC ruled that as to the petitioner’s contention. xxx but actions to recover real or personal property. Laviña of authority to represent her as counsel. arising from contract. an instant appeal before a higher court. Carmen P. A dead client has no personality to be represented by an attorney. the agency was "constituted in the common interest of the principal and the agent" and that hence it was not extinguished by the death of the principal (Art. which reads: “xxx All claims for money against the decedent. Plaintiffs filed a Mr. Civil Code) is refuted by the instrument itself which explicitly provided that the powers conferred on the agent were to be exercised for the "sole benefit" of the principal. vs.in-interest in the settlement of estate proceedings to secure their claim? Ruling: Rule 86. 1930. Moreover. Gabriel. it can be filed against the executor of administrator of the estate as a contingent claim. Araneta August 17.
Issue: Do the plaintiffs have legal personalities to file their claims for damages against the estate or can they be parties. certain sps. Thereafter. or an interest therein. a legal representative should have been made a party in the same. not due. Meanwhile. Felix Guardino and Maria Aguas filed an action for recovery of damages before the CFI of Samar against the Hermogenes Llemos.Remedial Law
Cureg. or contingent. from the estate.
if any. as one of his heirs. a petition for probate of the will of the testator. Atty. Aquino and his partners and associates appeared as a counsel for Federico. is barred by prescription and laches. Hon. The plaintiff filed a petition with a prayer for the nullification of TCT obtained by Araneta as well as the declaration of the plaintiffs as the lawful owner of the subject real property. as a counsel for the probate of estate of San Juan. The appellant corporation contended that the trial court acted without authority and jurisdiction in dismissing the amended complaint when the Secretary of Justice had already approved the transfer of the case to anyone of the two branches of the CFI of Malolos. The trial court is not without power to either grant or deny the motion. The laying of venue is not left to the caprice of plaintiff. Bulacan before the CFI of Bulacan. non-existent and devoid of legal effect due to the fact that "no original survey nor plan whatsoever" appears to have been submitted in the court.Remedial Law
Cureg. Epifanio San Juan vs.A. However. The trial court then denied the entry of the Law Firm of Atty. Epifanio San Juan filed a Motion before the court for the appointment of an administrator as it is inadequate/insufficient. holding that Federico Casa was not an executor or administrator of the estate of the devisee to represent him in the devise of the estate of loreto San Juan. Aquino and his partners. while venue is the place where the action should be settled. It is alleged that certain Gregorio Araneta (appellee) through force. Later. much less does it change the venue of the action. the testator died and his counsel Atty. Oscar Casa died intestate leaving Federico Casa. The mere fact that a request for the transfer of a case to another branch of the same court has
been approved by the Secretary of Justice does not divest the court originally taking cognizance thereof of its jurisdiction. Aquino filed before the court. Jr.
. ejected the members of the plaintiff corporation in the open and notorious cultivation of the said real property for the reason that their title over the same was fictitious. However. M. Later. especially in the light of a strong opposition thereto filed by the defendant. Aquino alone. Ramon Cruz July 31. Issue: *Distinction of Jurisdiction and Venue.
The plaintiff filed an accion reinvindicatoria (action for vindication) to recover the ownership or possession of a vast tract of land situated in San Jose Del Monte. ordered by the court to secure the appointment of an administrator. but must be in accordance with the provision of the Rules of Court. while the case for the probate of the aforementioned will is pending. Araneta filed a MTD on the ground that the cause of action. Atty. Bulacan. Thereafter. 2006 Facts: Loreto San Juan executed a Last Will and Testament and named a certain Oscar Casa as one of the devisees of the testator. Instead of the foregoing. Ruling: Jurisdiction implies the power of the court to decide a case. Aquino then argued that Oscar may be substituted for the devisee of the deceased without the appointment of an administrator or executor within a prescribed period.
affords no ground of action unless it be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the personality of the individual defamed. duty of counsel. Petitioner filed a MTD on the ground that the article being sued is not actionable in fact and in law and the complaint is bereft of allegations that state. Thus. much less support a cause of action. Issue: WON. Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads: Sec. and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. The petitioner then filed a petition for Certiorari before IAC on the ground of the lower court’s gave abuse of discretion. Newsweek. licensed to do business in the Philippines. the SC ruled that the heirs of the estate of Oscar Casa do not need to first secure the appointment of an administrator of his estate. 1986 Facts: Newsweek. Inc. The private respondents which consist of several sugarcane planters in Negros Occidental. Moreover. (petitioner) is a foreign corporation.
San Juan argued that it is only in the case of the absence of the executor or administrator that the heirs may be allowed to substitute the deceased. defamatory matter which does not reveal the Identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast. the present case is not a class suit where one or more may sue for the benefit of all. – Whenever a party to a pending action dies. an instant petition was filed before the SC.
. Ruling: Section 16. a person nominated as administrator by purported heirs of a devisee or legatee in a will under probate may validly substitute for that devisee or legatee in the probate proceedings despite the fact that such administrator is not the courtappointed administrator of the estate of the deceased devisee/legatee.
Ruling: The SC agreed with the petitioner that in order to maintain a libel suit. IAC affirmed with the decision of the lower court. Hence. xxx The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.A. M. they stepped into his shoes and acquired his rights as devisee/legatee of the deceased Loreto San Juan. the SC also agreed with the argument of the petitioner that any actionable basis in the complaint cannot be cured by filing of a class suit. Inc. However. filed a class suit (libel) against the petitioner for the publication of the latter’s article entitled “An island of Fear”. 16. Death of party. because from the very moment of his death. Additionally. The court denied the MTD. According to the SC. IAC (and other private respondents) May 30. it is essential that the victim be identifiable. in line with the foregoing.Remedial Law
Cureg. and the claim is not thereby extinguished. it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof. vs.