EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-21118. April 27, 1967.]
LEON CLIMACO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Climaco & Climaco, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paredes, Gan & Associates for Defendants-Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; WHERE CLAIM DOES NOT SURVIVE; RECOVERY OF DAMAGES; MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE HEIRS OF DECEASED DEFENDANT NOT ALLOWABLE. — Upon the facts alleged in the complaint it is clear that Climaco had a cause of action against the persons named therein. It was, however, a cause of action for the recovery of damages, that is, a sum of money, and the corresponding action is, unfortunately, one that does not survive upon the death of defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court. Neither could the suit be maintained as against the deceased Siy Uy under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, because in this case the damages which Climaco sought to recover from the deceased Siy Uy did not spring from any injury caused to his (Climaco’s) person. Therefore, in so far as the appealed order denied Climaco’s motion for leave to amend the complaint in the sense stated there, the same is correct.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEATH OF ONLY ONE OR THE DEFENDANTS; EFFECT THEREOF. — The deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant. Manuel Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously the complaint against him should not have been likewise dismissed.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEATH OF ONLY ONE OR THE DEFENDANTS; EFFECT THEREOF. — The deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant. Manuel Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously the complaint against him should not have been likewise dismissed.
D E C I S I O N
DIZON, J.:
Appeal taken by Leon Climaco from the order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga dated January 12, 1959 in Civil Case No. 740 entitled "Leon Climaco, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Siy Uy and Manuel Co, Defendants," denying the admission of his amended complaint for the substitution of a deceased party-defendant, and dismissing the action.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On August 21, 1958 Climaco filed with the lower court an action for damages against (1) Carlos Siy Uy and (2) Manuel Co, his complaint alleging: that sometime in May, 1957, defendants maliciously charged him with the crime of estafa before the City Fiscal of Manila; that, conspiring with each other, they gave the latter a false Manila address for plaintiff in order to mislead said officer into filing, as he did file, Criminal Case No. 399622 with the Court of First Instance of Manila against him, without giving him an opportunity to present his side of the case; that, besides, defendants had arranged to have plaintiff arrested and taken to Manila, without giving him a chance to file a bond, albeit this part of the plan failed; that to defend himself, plaintiff and his counsel had to make several trips to Manila by plane and boat, thus, incurring extraordinary expenses; that, after trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case; that the said prosecution hurt the business credit and reputation of plaintiff, wounded his feelings, and caused him suffering, anguish, humiliation, and damages in the total amount of P19,000.00.
On September 8, 1958 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action and that the Court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant Carlos Siy Uy who died on August 27, 1958 before summons could be served upon him. Pending resolution of this motion, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to substitute the heirs of Carlos Siy Uy — and eventually, the Executor of his Estate — as defendants in the action. On October 11, 1958, the lower court issued an order granting the motion, but subsequently, defendants moved for a reconsideration of said order and, on January 12, 1959, the court issued the appealed order not only setting aside its previous order of October 11, 1958 but also dismissing the complaint.
Thereupon the plaintiff took the present appeal.
Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that Climaco had a cause of action against the persons named as defendants therein. It was, however, a cause of action for the recovery of damages, that is, a sum of money, and the corresponding action is, unfortunately, one that does not survive upon the death of the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
Neither could the action as against the deceased Siy Uy be maintained under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court because this legal provision only authorizes actions against the Executor or Administrator when they are for the recovery of real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, or when the action is to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal. In this case the damages which Climaco sought to recover from the deceased Siy Uy did not spring from any injury caused to his person. Therefore, in so far as the appealed order denied Climaco’s motion for leave to amend his complaint in the sense stated therein, the same is correct.
However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant. Manuel Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously, therefore, the order appealed from is erroneous insofar as it dismissed the case against Co.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside insofar, as it dismissed the case against defendant Manuel Co, and the record of this case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. With costs.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J .B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.
On August 21, 1958 Climaco filed with the lower court an action for damages against (1) Carlos Siy Uy and (2) Manuel Co, his complaint alleging: that sometime in May, 1957, defendants maliciously charged him with the crime of estafa before the City Fiscal of Manila; that, conspiring with each other, they gave the latter a false Manila address for plaintiff in order to mislead said officer into filing, as he did file, Criminal Case No. 399622 with the Court of First Instance of Manila against him, without giving him an opportunity to present his side of the case; that, besides, defendants had arranged to have plaintiff arrested and taken to Manila, without giving him a chance to file a bond, albeit this part of the plan failed; that to defend himself, plaintiff and his counsel had to make several trips to Manila by plane and boat, thus, incurring extraordinary expenses; that, after trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case; that the said prosecution hurt the business credit and reputation of plaintiff, wounded his feelings, and caused him suffering, anguish, humiliation, and damages in the total amount of P19,000.00.
On September 8, 1958 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action and that the Court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant Carlos Siy Uy who died on August 27, 1958 before summons could be served upon him. Pending resolution of this motion, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to substitute the heirs of Carlos Siy Uy — and eventually, the Executor of his Estate — as defendants in the action. On October 11, 1958, the lower court issued an order granting the motion, but subsequently, defendants moved for a reconsideration of said order and, on January 12, 1959, the court issued the appealed order not only setting aside its previous order of October 11, 1958 but also dismissing the complaint.
Thereupon the plaintiff took the present appeal.
Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that Climaco had a cause of action against the persons named as defendants therein. It was, however, a cause of action for the recovery of damages, that is, a sum of money, and the corresponding action is, unfortunately, one that does not survive upon the death of the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
Neither could the action as against the deceased Siy Uy be maintained under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court because this legal provision only authorizes actions against the Executor or Administrator when they are for the recovery of real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, or when the action is to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal. In this case the damages which Climaco sought to recover from the deceased Siy Uy did not spring from any injury caused to his person. Therefore, in so far as the appealed order denied Climaco’s motion for leave to amend his complaint in the sense stated therein, the same is correct.
However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant. Manuel Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously, therefore, the order appealed from is erroneous insofar as it dismissed the case against Co.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside insofar, as it dismissed the case against defendant Manuel Co, and the record of this case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. With costs.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J .B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.
