Donald Gaffney vs Gina Butler

Facts of the case:

Respondent led a Complaint against petitioner for sum of money. Respondent
alleged that sometime between the years 2006 to 2007, petitioner and her husband
Anthony Richard Butler approached and invited private respondent to invest in
ActiveFun Corporation ("ActiveFun"), an entity engaged in the construction, operation
and management of children's play and party facilities. Petitioner was the President of
ActiveFun while her husband was its Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer. Private
respondent advanced the approximate amount of PhP12,500,000.00 representing his
initial investment in ActiveFun. However, petitioner's husband passed away sometime
in December 2009. Consequently, the proposed investment agreement did not
materialize. Private respondent then demanded the return of his investments from
petitioner, who personally undertook to repay the total amount of his investments plus
accrued interest. However, despite the lapse of a considerable period of time,
petitioner was only able to pay private respondent on October 15, 2010 an initial
amount of PhP1,000,000.00, receipt of which was duly acknowledged in writing by
private respondent. Several demands through phone calls and e-mails were made to
petitioner for her to comply with her undertaking to return the investments of
private respondent but to no avail.

Procedural History:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court ed by petitioner against respondent, assailing the Decision dated February 6,
2015 and Resolution dated July 14, 2015, both of the CA Special Twelfth (12th)
Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 133762. The CA reversed and set aside the Orders
dated August 15, 2013 4 and November 25, 2013 5 (denying the corresponding
Motion for Reconsideration) of the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70, in Civil Case No.
73187. Said RTC Orders dismissed Gina's Motion to Dismiss and Donald's Motion to
Declare Defendant in Default as well as the Motion for Reconsideration against the
denial of the Motion to Dismiss subsequently filed by Gina.

Statement of Issues:
Whether or not the CA committed reversible error when it set aside the RTC's
ruling that the estate or heirs of Anthony, represented by his surviving spouse Gina,
could be named as additional defendant in the present case and dismissed the entire
complaint when dismissal of the same was not raised as an issue nor prayed for in
the petition before it.

Holding:
A deceased person does not have the capacity to be sued and may not be made a
defendant in a case. Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court unequivocally
states that "only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action."

PNB vs Teodoro
Facts of the case:
PNB alleges that while the herein controversy was pending before the lower court,
the GRP, pursuant to the authority granted to it by Administrative Order No. 14,
entered into a Deed of Transfer with PNB as part of the GRP's economic recovery
program. Based on the said Deed of Transfer, PNB maintains that the GRP agreed to
assume certain liabilities of PNB in consideration of the transfer to the GRP of certain
bank assets. According to PNB, those included in the transfer of interest in favor of
the GRP are the claims and obligations which are the subject of the present litigation
particularly that of the loan and loan-related accounts as of June 30, 1986 of D.B.
Teodoro Development Corporation, who are the named respondents in these
consolidated cases. PNB claims that said interests were assigned in favor of the APT,
now called PMO, which was created by the GRP under Proclamation No. 50 dated
December 8, 1986, as amended, and tasked to provisionally manage and dispose of
non-performing assets of government financial institutions. On the basis of the above
premise, PNB argues that there had been an effective transfer pendente lite of the
obligations of respondents from PNB to the GRP through APT (now PMO). Therefore,
a substitution by APT (now PMO) as sole petitioner in this legal proceeding is proper
in accordance with Section 19, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,

Procedural History:

Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Attached Motion for Clarification and the
Motion for Clarification (Re: Resolution dated 25 November 2015) led by petitioner
PNB. In said motions, PNB prays that this Court resolve the Motion for Substitution it
led on July 24, 2012 wherein PNB requested for the issuance of an order substituting
it with petitioner APT, now renamed as PMO, and amending the title of the instant
consolidated cases to APT, now PMO v. D.B. TEODORO, ET AL." PNB points out
that the Court did not pass upon its Motion for Substitution in the Resolution dated
July 29, 2015, which disposed of these consolidated cases, and in the Resolution
dated November 25, 2015, which denied the Motions for Reconsideration of the July
29, 2015 Resolution.

Statement of Issues:
 Whether or not the substitution of APT (now PMO) for PNB should be granted

Ruling:
The rule allows for discretion, the paramount consideration for the exercise
thereof should be the protection of the parties' interests and their rights to due
process. It is therefore discretionary upon this Court to continue the case in the name
of the original party or direct the substitution of the transferee or to order the
transferee as jointly impleaded in the case. In any which way this Court chooses to
act, the transferee is still bound by the judgment even if not formally impleaded.

Alfredo Pili Jr. Vs Mary Ann Resurreccion

Facts of the case:
Respondent entered into an agreement with Conpil Realty Corporation (Conpil)
for the purchase of a house and lot and issued two checks in favor of the latter. When
Conpil deposited the checks, the same were dishonored and stamped as "Account
Closed." On February 4, 2000, a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 was Bled
before the MTC. The criminal case was titled, "People of the Philippines v. Mary Ann
Resurreccion," and was docketed as Crim. Case No. 35066. Although the checks
were issued in favor of Conpil, the criminal complaint for B.P. 22 was signed by
petitioner Alfredo C. Pili, Jr. (petitioner) as "Complainant." Petitioner was, at that time,
the President of Conpil. After trial, the MTC rendered a Judgment acquitting
respondent. However, it ordered respondent to pay the amount of P500,000.00 by
way of civil indemnity,Respondent 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. Respondent thus
Bled a petition for review under Rule 122, Section 3 (b) in relation to Rule 42 of the
Rules of Court with the CA. In the CA, respondent claimed, among others, that
petitioner "is not the real party in interest and cannot be the criminal complaint in his
personal capacity."On the other hand, petitioner claimed that "he did not sue in his
personal capacity but as a President of Conpil."the CA held that the criminal case was
not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest as Conpil was not included in
the title of the case even if it was the party: 1) that signed the contract and 2) in whose
favor the checks were issued. On the other hand, it was petitioner who signed the
complaint 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.

Procedural History:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the May 22, 2015 Decision
and January 29, 2016 Resolution of the (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35178. The CA
granted the appeal of respondent regarding the civil aspect of a criminal case for B.P.
22 and reversed and set aside the July 25, 2011 Decision and September 26, 2011
Order of the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna Branch 93, which affirmed the February 2,
2011 Judgments of the MTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 2. The MTC acquitted
respondent but nonetheless ordered her to pay P500,000 by way of civil indemnity.

Statement of Issues:
Whether or not CA grossly erred when it faulted petitioner for not having included
Conpil in the title of the petition for review under Rule 42

Holding:
Yes. The CA closed its eyes to this constitutes not only gross manifest error but grave
abuse of discretion. To be sure, the whole matter was exacerbated when the CA
senselessly ascribed this mistitling to petitioner and punished Conpil by dismissing
the appeal and setting aside the civil liability awarded by both the MTC and the RTC
without carefully reviewing the records. The Petition has merit.
Aniceto G. Saludo Jr. Vs. PNB
Facts of the case:
Saludo Agpalo Fernandez and Aquino Law Office entered into a Contract of
Lease with PNB, whereby the latter agreed to lease 632 square meters of the second
floor of the PNB Financial Center Building in Quezon City for a period of three years
and for a monthly rental fee of P189,600.00. SAFA Law Office then occupied the
leased premises. The Contract of Lease expired. According to PNB, SAFA Law
Office continued to occupy the leased premises until February 2005, but discontinued
paying its monthly rental obligations after December 2002. Consequently, PNB sent a
demand letter for SAFA Law Office to pay its outstanding unpaid rents. SAFA Law
Office expressed its intention to negotiate. In February 2005, SAFA Law Office
vacated the leased premises. PNB sent a demand requiring the firm to pay its rental
arrears in the total amount of P10,951,948.32. In response, SAFA Law Office sent a
letter, proposing a settlement. PNB, however, declined the settlement proposal,
stating that it was not amenable to the settlement's terms. PNB then made a final
demand for SAFA Law Office to pay its outstanding rental obligations in the amount of
P25,587,838.09.Saludo, in his capacity as managing partner of SAFA Law Office,
filed an amended complaint for accounting and/or recomputation of unpaid rentals
and damages against PNB in relation to the Contract of Lease. PNB filed a motion to
include an indispensable party as plaintiff, praying that Saludo be ordered to amend
anew his complaint to include SAFA Law Office as principal plaintiff. PNB argued that
the lessee in the Contract of Lease is not Saludo but SAFA Law Office, and
that Saludo merely signed the Contract of Lease as the managing partner of the law
firm. Thus, SAFA Law Office must be joined as a plaintiff in the complaint because it is
considered an indispensable party under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

Procedural History:

Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari assailing the February 8, 2010
Decision and August 2, 2010 Resolution issued by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 98898.
The CA affirmed with modification the January 11, 2007 Omnibus Order issued by
Branch 58 of the RTC of Makati City in Civil Case No. 06-678, and ruled that
respondent PNB counterclaims against Saludo and the SAFA Law Office should be
reinstated in its answer.

Statement of the Issues:

Whether or not SAFA Law Office is a sole proprietorship and if it has a
separate and distinct juridical personality or if SAFA is the real party-in-interest

Holding:
No, it is a partnership. It acquired juridical personality by operation of law. SAFA Law
Office is the party that would be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit before
the RTC. Particularly, it is the party interested in the accounting and/or recomputation
of unpaid rentals and damages in relation to the contract of lease.

Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management Inc. Vs Fidel O. Chua and Filiden

Realty and Development Corp
Facts of the case:
Respondents obtained an initial loan of P4 million from the Metrobank. The loan
was secured by a real estate mortgage constituted over three parcels of land located
in Parañaque City. The real estate mortgage was amended several times to
accommodate additional loans they incurred over the years. Respondents and
Metrobank restructured the obligation through a Debt Settlement Agreement over the
outstanding obligation of P88,101,093.98. For failure of respondents to pay,
Metrobank sought the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage over the
subject property. It sent them a Notice of Sale setting the public auction on. Seeking
to stop the intended public auction, respondents filed a Complaint docketed as Civil
Case No. 01- 0207 for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, preliminary
injunction and damages. The RTC of Parañaque City issued a TRO. However, upon
the expiration of the TRO, Metrobank scheduled another public auction. On the
morning of that day, RTC Branch 257 issued an Order directing Metrobank to
reschedule the intended sale to a date after the resolution of the application for
preliminary injunction. However, the latter allegedly received the Order only on 12
November 2001 and pushed through with the scheduled public auction on 8
November 2001. A Certificate of Sale was thereafter issued in its favor on 9
November 2001. In an Order dated 6 March 2002, the application for preliminary
injunction by respondents was denied for mootness in view of the consummated
public auction sale. Respondents a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint with
attached Amended Verified Complaint for annulment of foreclosure of mortgage,
declaration of nullity of certificate of sale, and injunction. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Joinder of Party and/or Substitution. It alleged that by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
Sale, Metrobank sold to Asia Recovery Corporation its credit against respondents
including all rights, interests, claims and causes of action arising out of the loan and
mortgage agreements between Metrobank and respondents.

Procedural History:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to nullify the CA Decision and
Resolution in CA-G.R.SP No. 103809. The CA Decision annulled the Orders of the
RTC of Parañaque City, which joined petitioner as party-defendant in Civil Case No.
01-0207. The CA Resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Statement of the Issues:

Whether petitioner may be joined as party-defendant in Civil Case No. 01-0207.

Holding:
Court grants the petition. The task of the court in these cases is not to determine the
correctness of the ruling of the trial court, but to examine whether the CA correctly
determined the existence of grave abuse of discretion in the Orders of RTC Branch
258 allowing the joinder of petitioner in Civil Case No. 01-0207.

Donald Gaffney vs Gina Butler
G.R No 219408. November 8, 2017
Sec 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
unequivocally states that only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action.

PNB vs Teodoro Sec 19 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court

indicates that the substitution of parties
G.R. No 167925. September 5, 2016 on account of a transfer of interest is not

mandatory. As we held in the past, the

rule in case of a transfer of interest
pendente lite

is that the action may be continued by or

against the original party unless the court,

upon motion, directs the person to whom

the interest is transferred to be
substituted in

the action or joined with the original party.

Alfredo Pili Jr. Vs Mary Ann Sec 2 Rule 3 of Rules of Court indicates
Resurreccion that "a case is dismissible for lack of
G.R. No 222798 June 19, 2019 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.

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 Bled in the
MTC, necessarily the criminal case
before it was prosecuted "in the name of

the People of the Philippines." 4433 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

Aniceto G. Saludo Jr. Vs. PNB
G.R. No. 193138 August 20, 2018
Sec 7 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
discusses Indispensable Parties. On the
question of whether SAFA Law Office is
an indispensable party, the CA
held that it is not. As a partnership, it may
sue or be sued in its name or by its duly

authorized representative. Saludo, as

managing partner, may execute all acts of
administration, including the right to sue.

While SAFA Law Office is not a legal

entity, it can still be sued

under Section 15

Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court

defines a real party-in-interest as the one
"who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit." In "real
party-in-interest plaintiff is one who has a
legal right, while a real
party-in-interest-defendant is one who
has a correlative legal obligation whose
act or omission violates the legal rights of
the former

Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that by a

contract of partnership, two or

more persons bind themselves to contribute

money, property, or industry to a common

fund, with the intention of dividing the pro>ts

among themselves. Two or more persons

may also form a partnership for the exercise of

a profession. Under Article 1771, a

partnership may be constituted in any form,

except where immovable property or real
 rights are contributed thereto, in which case a
public instrument shall be necessary.

Article 1784, on the other hand, provides that a

partnership begins from the moment of

the execution of the contract, unless it is

otherwise stipulated.

Article 46 of the Civil Code provides that

juridical

persons may acquire and possess

property of all kinds, as well as incur
obligations and

bring civil or criminal actions, in

conformity with the laws and regulations
of their

organization.

Cameron Granville 3 Asset Section 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,

Management Inc. Vs Fidel O. Chua and provides the rule on the joinder of parties
Filiden Realty and Development Corp
G.R. No 191170 September 14, 2016
The rationale for allowing parties to join in
a proceeding that delves on a common
question of law or fact concerning them is
trial convenience; i.e., to save the parties
unnecessary work, trouble and expense.
In order to meet the requirements of
justice and convenience, the rule on the
joinder of parties is construed with
considerable fIexibility. Hence, courts are
given broad discretion in determining who
may properly be joined in a proceeding