Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > March 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12286 March 27, 1917 - C. E. SALMON, ET AL. v. CHINO TAN CUECO, ET AL.

036 Phil 556:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12286. March 27, 1917. ]

C. E. SALMON AND PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY, Petitioners, v. CHINO TAN CUECO, VICENTE JOCSON, judge of Thirteenth Judicial District, ANTONIO BABASA, provincial sheriff of Batangas, and GAVINO SINGIMOTO, Respondents.

Cyrus J. Francis, for Petitioners.

Judge Jocson in his own behalf.

No appearance for the other respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; HOW ACQUIRED; SERVICE OF SUMMONS. — Courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of a party defendant and of the subject-matter of the action by virtue of the service of a summons in the manner required by law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Where there is no service of the summons or a voluntary general appearance by the defendant the court acquires no jurisdiction to pronounce a judgment in the cause.

3. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT; PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS. — Where a defendant neither appears nor answers, the court should, before entering a judgment by default, require the plaintiff to prove the due service of the summons upon him.

4. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT; ACTIONS; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. — An action on behalf and for the benefit of a principal cannot be brought in the name of his agent or attorney in fact. The action must be brought in the name of the real party in interest.

5. APPEARANCE AS EQUIVALENT TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS. — A voluntary general appearance by an attorney is equivalent to a service of a summons and gives the court jurisdiction over the person of the party appearing and over the subject-matter of the action.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the Court of First Instance of the Thirteenth Judicial District to obtain a review of a judgment entered by that court against the plaintiffs which, it is alleged, was entered without jurisdiction and is void on the ground that the applicants here were not served with process and were not at any time parties to the action.

It appears from the record that on the 21st day of February, 1916, a complaint was duly filed in the Court of First Instance of the Thirteenth Judicial District in an action entitled Chino Tan Cueco v. Antonio Babasa, sheriff of the Province of Batangas, Agapito E. Garcia, attorney-in-fact of the Pacific Commercial Company, and C. E. Salmon, Defendants. The action went to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Execution was issued and was about to be levied and executed when this proceeding was begun and a preliminary injunction issued by this court to prevent further proceedings until this court could pass upon the validity of the judgment.

It is unquestioned that the petitioner, the Pacific Commercial Company, did not appear in the action; and that the only evidence of service of the summons and complaint upon it is a certificate of the deputy sheriff to the following effect: "I have this day served a copy of the within complaint and process upon Agapito E. Garcia personally."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the applicant the Pacific Commercial Company there can be no question to that the judgment obtained below is void. According to the record, not only was the Pacific Commercial Company not served with summons, but it was not even named in the process or pleadings as a party to the action. The title of the case shows that the company was not a party. The making of Agapito E. Garcia, attorney-in-fact of the Pacific Commercial Company, a party defendant does not make the company a party defendant. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires an action to be brought in the name of the real party in interest; and a corollary proposition requires that an action shall be brought against the persons or entities which are to be bound by the judgment obtained therein. An action upon a cause of action pertaining to his principal cannot be brought by an attorney-in-fact in his name (Arroyo v. Granada and Gentero, 18 Phil. Rep., 484); nor can an action based upon a right of action belonging to a principal be brought in the name of his representative (Lichauco v. Limjuco and Gonzalo, 19 Phil. Rep., 12). Actions must be brought by the real parties in interest and against the persons who are to be bound by the judgment obtained therein.

As to the applicant Salmon we have a different situation. It appears from the record that on April 12, 1916, he appeared by Booram & Mahoney and answered the complaint by a general denial. On the 15th of August Booram & Mahoney withdrew their appearance and, on the same day, Cyrus J. Francis appeared for Salmon. As to the defendant Salmon, then, the court obtained jurisdiction over him by virtue of his general appearance and answer and, on his failure to appear at the trial, judgment was entered against him by default. The court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the person, its judgment was valid and cannot be attacked in this proceeding.

As to the applicant Salmon, the proceedings are dismissed with costs. As to the Pacific Commercial Company the judgment to which proceedings refer, namely, that obtained in the case entitled Chino Tan Cueco v. Antonio Babasa, sheriff of the Province of Batangas, Agapito E. Garcia, attorney-in-fact of the Pacific Commercial Company, and C.E. Salmon, is declared void and of no effect as against the said company, with costs against Chino Tan Cueco. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11257 March 1, 1917 - MARTIN QUILOP v. MARIA U. COTTONG

    044 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. 11409 March 12, 1917 - RAMON ONGPIN v. VICENTA RIVERA

    044 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11374 March 14, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    041 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10152 March 29, 1917 - FELIX ROBLES v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    041 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 9802 March 31, 1917 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA & CHINA

    041 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. 10551 March 3, 1917 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. ALFRED BERWIN

    036 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 11067 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    036 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11602 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER E. OLSEN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 12581 March 13, 1917 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ

    036 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 11179 March 14, 1917 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    036 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 11471 March 14, 1917 - CO PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 11550 March 14, 1917 - LUPO MERCADO v. ANANIAS VICENCIO

    036 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 11994 March 14, 1917 - STAPLES-HOWE PRINTING COMPANY v. MANILA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    036 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 12117 March 14, 1917 - LIM YIONG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 12180 March 14, 1917 - MARIANO CAÑETE v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 12379 March 14, 1917 - LAO HU NIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 11476 March 15, 1917 - MAGDALENO AGATEP v. JUAN TAGUINOD

    036 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 11686 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO CARDONA

    036 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 11696 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA GUILLERMA PALISOC, ET AL.

    036 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 10559 March 16, 1917 - AGUSTIN ASENCIO v. ROMAN BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 11759 March 16, 1917 - CAYETANO LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 11681 March 17, 1917 - JOSE VILLAREAL v. RAFAEL CORPUS

    036 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 12354 March 17, 1917 - GREGORIO REMATA v. JUAN JAVIER

    036 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 12508 March 17, 1917 - JOSE DEOGRACIAS v. JOSE C. ABREU, ET AL.

    036 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 11441 March 19, 1917 - MARIA ELOISA ROCHA v. EMILIA P. TUASON

    036 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 10598 March 20, 1917 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ANASTACIO ALANO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 11198 March 20, 1917 - THOS B. AITKEN v. JULIAN LA O

    036 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 11548 March 24, 1917 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    036 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 11730 March 24, 1917 - FELIX NATE v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    036 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 12391 March 26, 1917 - UNITES STATES v. TEOPISTA VERAY

    036 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 12454 March 26, 1917 - ANGEL PALMA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 12706 March 26, 1917 - RUPERTO VENTURANZA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 27, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF CARDONA v. MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11767 March 27, 1917 - LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI v. MANUELA SARTE

    036 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 12286 March 27, 1917 - C. E. SALMON, ET AL. v. CHINO TAN CUECO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 12551 March 27, 1917 - BENITO POBLETE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 12623 March 27, 1917 - CHAN LIN, ET AL. v. M. VIVENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 11189 March 29, 1917 - EUSEBIO LOPEZ v. FRANCISCO ABELARDE

    036 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 11474 March 29, 1917 - PASIG STEAMER AND LIGHTER COMPANY v. VICENTE MADRIGAL

    036 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 11030 March 30, 1917 - DOMINGO ENRILE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 11629 March 30, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    036 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 12122 March 30, 1917 - FRANCISCO VILLAESTAR v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    036 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 12590 March 30, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 10986 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE v. HAMBURG AMERIKA

    036 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 11169 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE FRANCO-INDOCHINOISE v. DEUTSCH AUSTRALISCHE DAMPSCHIFFS GESELLSCHAFT

    036 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 11386 March 31, 1917 - EMILIO NATIVIDAD v. BASILIA GABINO

    036 Phil 663

  • G.R. Nos. 11447, 11448 & 11449 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. 11457 & 11458 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO LAXA

    036 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 11841 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO LIM

    036 Phil 682