ATTY. FE Q. PALMIANO-SALVADOR, petitioner, vs. CONSTANTINO
ANGELES, substituted by LUZ G. ANGELES, respondent.G.R. No. 171219 | September 3, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent-appellee ANGELES is one of the registered owners
of a parcel of land located at 1287 Castanos Street, Sampaloc, Manila. The subject parcel of land was occupied by one
Jelly Galiga from 1979 up to 1993, as a lessee with a lease contract.
Subsequently, Fe Salvador alleged that she bought on September 7, 1993 the
subject parcel of land from GALIGA who represented that he was the owner, being
one in possession. Petitioner-appellant SALVADOR remained in possession of said
subject property from November 1993 up to the present.
On November 18, 1993, the registered owner, the
respondent-appellee ANGELES, sent a letter to petitioner-appellant SALVADOR
demanding that the latter vacate the subject property, which was not heeded by
petitioner-appellant SALVADOR. Respondent-appellee ANGELES, thru one Rosauro
Diaz, Jr., filed a complaint for ejectment on October 12, 1994 with the MeTC of
Manila.
The complaint before the MeTC was filed in the name of
respondent, but it was one Rosauro Diaz who executed the verification and
certification, alleging therein that he was respondent’s attorney-in-fact.
There was, however, no copy of any document attached to the complaint to prove
Diaz’s allegation regarding the authority supposedly granted to him.
This prompted petitioner to raise in her Answer the issue of
Diaz’s authority to file the case. On December 11, 1995, more than a year after
the complaint was filed, respondent attached to his Reply, a document entitled Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) supposedly executed by respondent in favor of Rosauro Diaz. However, said
SPA was executed only on November 16, 1994, or more than a month after the
complaint was filed, appearing to have been notarized by one Robert F. McGuire
of Santa Clara County. Observe, further, that there was no certification from
the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A, that said
person is indeed a notary public in Santa Clara County, California.
The MeTC ruled in favor of Angeles.
ISSUE:
Effect of Diaz’s failure to present proof of his authority
to represent Angeles
RULING:
In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically
stated that “[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by
one] who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An
unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court
should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the
complaint and the plaintiff.” This ruling was reiterated in Cosco Philippines
Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, where the Court went on to say that
“[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the
merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the
complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to
the court’s jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with
the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent
[plaintiff before the lower court].”
Pursuant to the foregoing rulings, therefore, the MeTC never
acquired jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were null
and void. The courts could not have delved into the very merits of the case,
because legally, there was no complaint to speak of. The court’s jurisdiction
cannot be deemed to have been invoked at all.
Comments
Post a Comment