SECOND DIVISION
G.R. NO. 222798, June 19, 2019
ALFREDO PILI, JR., PETITIONER, v. MARY ANN RESURRECCION., RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the May 22, 2015 Decision1 (assailed Decision) and January 29, 2016 Resolution2 (assailed Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35178. The CA granted the appeal of respondent Mary Ann Resurreccion (respondent) regarding the civil aspect of a criminal case for Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 22 and reversed and set aside the July 25, 2011 Decision3 and September 26, 2011 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna Branch 93 (RTC), which affirmed the February 2, 2011 Judgment5 of the Municipal Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 2 (MTC). The MTC acquitted respondent but nonetheless ordered her to pay P500.000 by way of civil indemnity.
The evidence presented by the prosecution, however, sufficiently established the civil liability of the accused for the amount of P500,000.00 as indicated in the subject check. There is no dispute that the accused purchased from Conpil a house and lot with a purchase price of P 1,011,000.00 x x x. Part of the said purchase price to be paid from the proceeds of the loan of the accused from Pag-ibig and the balance to be paid by the accused herself. Pursuant to the Reservation Agreement x x x, the amount of P500,000.00 shall be loaned from Pag-ibig and it is for this amount according to the accused that she drew the subject check which she issued for collateral only. While accused paid a total of P456,000.00, the same refers to the amount of the equity on the purchase price of the house and lot. However, the loan amount remained unpaid which the accused is bound to pay Conpil pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement x x x. Consequently, accused is under obligation to pay complainant the sum of P500,000.00 which represents the amount of the face value of the subject check.17Respondent appealed the MTC's ruling on her civil liability to the RTC under Rule 122 in relation to Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The appeal that respondent filed was titled, "People of the Philippines v. Mary Ann Resurreccion" and was docketed as Crim. Case No. 11-7661-SPL.18 The RTC, however, affirmed the Judgment of the MTC.19 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was, however, likewise denied.20
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated July 25, 2011 and Order dated September 26, 2011, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93 in its appellate jurisdiction in Criminal Case No. 11-7661-[SPL] are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the filing of an action by the real party in interest against Petitioner-Appellant.Curiously, the CA held that the criminal case was not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest28 as Conpil was not included in the title of the case29 even if it was the party: 1) that signed the contract and 2) in whose favor the checks were issued.30 On the other hand, it was petitioner who signed the complaint31 and it was his name that appeared in the title of the case, even though he was not a party to any of the documents or checks.32
SO ORDERED27
x x x The RTC Decision absolving Magallanes from civil liability has attained finality, since no appeal was interposed by the private complainant, Andrews. While Palmer filed a petition for review before the CA, it is not the real party in interest; it was never a party to the proceedings at the trial court.Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that the People is the real party-in-interest in criminal proceedings. As the criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 was filed in the MTC, necessarily the criminal case before it was prosecuted "in the name of the People of the Philippines."43 This very basic understanding of what transpired shows ineluctably the egregious error by the CA in ruling that the Conpil should have been "included in the title of the case."44
Under our procedural rules, "a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action." In the instant case, Magallanes filed a motion to dismiss in accordance with the Rules of Court, wherein he claimed that:x x x the obvious and only real party in interest in the filing and prosecution of the civil aspect impliedly instituted with x x x the filing of the foregoing Criminal Cases for B.P. 22 is Andrews International Products, Inc.The real party in this case is Andrews, not Palmer. Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
The alleged bounced checks issued by x x x Magallanes were issued payable in the name of Andrews International Products, Inc. The [n]arration of [facts] in the several Informations for violation of B.P. 22 filed against Magallanes solely mentioned the name of Andrews International Products, Inc.Sec. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.In Goco v. Court of Appeals, we explained that:This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action.Parties who are not the real parties in interest may be included in a suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court:Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.The CA erred in stating that Palmer and Andrews are the same entity. These are two separate and distinct entities claiming civil liability against Magallanes. Andrews was the payee of the bum checks, and the former employer of Magallanes. It filed the complaint for B.P. 22 before MeTC Branch 62. Thus when the MeTC Branch 62 ordered Magallanes to "pay the private complainant the corresponding face value of the checks x x x", it was referring to Andrews, not Palmer.
x x x x
Given the foregoing facts, it is clear that the real party in interest here is Andrews. Following the Rules of Court, the action should be in the name of Andrews. As previously mentioned, Andrews instituted the action before the MeTC Branch 62 but it was Palmer which filed a petition for review before the CA x x x.
x x x x
x x x The corporation that initiated the complaint for B.P. 22 is different from the corporation that t1led the memorandum at the RTC and the petition for review before the CA. It appears that Palmer is suing Magallanes in its own right, not as agent of Andrews, the real party in interest.
Even assuming arguendo that Palmer is correct in asserting that it is the agent of Andrews, the latter should have been included in the title of the case, in accordance with procedural rules.42
The inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a complaint is a formal requirement under Section 3, Rule 7. However, the rules of pleadings require courts to pierce the form and go into the substance, and not to be misled by a false or wrong name given to a pleading. The averments in the complaint, not the title, are controlling. Although the general rule requires the inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a complaint, the non-inclusion of one or some of them is not fatal to the cause of action of a plaintiff, provided there is a statement in the body of the petition indicating that a defendant was made a party to such action.A more assiduous review of the records would have obviated the instant appeal and more speedily and inexpensively resolved the issues to the benefit of all parties.
x x x x
x x x In any event, we reiterate that, as a general rule, mere failure to include the name of a party in the title of a complaint is not fatal by itself.56
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 26-34. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a retired Member of this Court), with Associate !ust1ces Mario V. Lopez and Myra G. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2 Id. at 35-36.
3 Id. at. 51-53. Penned by Judge Francisco Dizon Paño.
4 Id at 54.
5 Id. at. 44-50. Penned by Judge Ralph S. Arellano.
6 Id. at 26-27.
7 Id. at 12 and 27.
8 Id. at 44.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 43.
11 Id. at 100.
12 Id. at 101-102
13 Id. at 100.
14 Id. at 45.
15 Id. at 18.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 49.
18 Id. at 51.
19 Id. at 53.
20 Id. at 54.
21 Id. at 26.
22 Id. at 18.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 30.
26 Id. at 32.
27 Id. at 33.
28 Id. at 30-31.
29 Id. at 32.
30 Id. at 31.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id. at 17.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 18.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 18.
38 Id. at 17-18.
39Bumatay v. Bumatay, 809 Phil. 302, 312 (2017).
40Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 641, 652-653 (2002)41 739 Phil. 231 (2014).
42 Id. at 238-242. Underscoring supplied.
43 RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 2.
44Rollo, p. 32.
45 Id. at 101
46 Id. at 100.
47 Id. at 18.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 30-33.
50 Id. at 32.
51 Id. at 17-18.
52 Memorandum dated October 18, 2012, p. 4.
53 Id.
54Vlason Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 269, 304 (1999).
55 Id.
56 Id.