Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > February 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10919 February 28, 1958 - LORETO LORCA v. JOSE S. DINEROS

103 Phil 122:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10919. February 28, 1958.]

LORETO LORCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE S. DINEROS, Defendant-Appellee.

Pedro B. Puya for Appellant.

Manuel F. Zamora for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; DEPUTY SHERIFF; LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM PUBLIC AUCTION SALE. — The liability of the deputy sheriff for damages resulting from sale at public auction of properties attached, arises only where he acts in his own name or is guilty of active malfeasance or possibly where he exceeds the limits of his agency. Where, as in the present case, he acted all the time in the name of the sheriff, the latter would be liable to third persons for the acts of his deputy.

2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; PARTIES; SUBSCRIPTION OF PARTY DEFENDANT. — Where there is need for substitution of party defendant, the complaint may be dismissed.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This action for damages against Deputy Sheriff Jose S. Dineros was dismissed by Hon. Pantaleon Pelayo, Judge of Iloilo, on the ground that it is the Sheriff who is responsible, if at all — not this deputy.

Such decision resulted from a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The facts are short and simple:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Pursuant to a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 1062 entitled "Rosario Suero v. José Morata" José S. Dineros as Deputy Sheriff and in the name of the Sheriff sold at public auction to José Bermejo and Rosario Suero the property attached therein, disregarding the third-party claim of Loreto Lorca (herein Plaintiff) who asserted ownership over said property. This suit for damages is the result of said auction sale. Defendant, in his answer, denied liability, pointing out that he had merely acted for and on behalf of Provincial Sheriff, Cipriano Cabaluna.

The appellant insists here that Dineros was responsible in view of sec. 334 of the Revised Administrative Code and sec. 15, Rule 39, Rules of Court, which provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 334 — Right of Bonded Officer to Require Bond from Deputy or assistant. — A sheriff or other accountable official may require any of his deputies or assistants, not bonded in the fidelity fund, to give an adequate personal bond as security against loss by reason of any wrongdoing on the part of such deputy or assistant. The taking of such security shall in no wise impair the independent civil liability of any of the parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

". . . and in case the sheriff or attaching officer is sued for damages as a result of the attachment . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the light of section 330 of the Administrative Code we think the above provisions apply where the deputy acts in his own name or is guilty of active malfeasance 1 or possibly where he exceeds the limits of his agency. In this case it is clear from the certificate of sale attached to the complaint as Annex C that Dineros acted all the time in the name of the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo; and no allegations of misfeasance are made. The Sheriff is liable to third persons on the acts of his deputy, 2 in the same manner that the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent. That is why he is required to post a bond for "the benefit of whom it may concern," (Section 330, Revised Administrative Code) for instance the owners of property unlawfully sold by him on execution. 3

The complaint should not have been dismissed, appellant argues, since the court could have included the Sheriff as party defendant, in line with Rule 3, section 11 of the Rules of Court. However, what should have been done was not "inclusion" as plaintiff asked, nor "exclusion" under said section 11. It was "substitution" of the deputy by the Sheriff. Anyway, the word "may" in said sec. 11 implies discretion of the court; and we are shown no reasons indicating abuse thereof.

This is not the first time an action is dismissed for the reason that the agent - instead of his principal — was made the party defendant. (See Macias & Co. v. Warner Barnes, 43 Phil., 155; Banque Generale Belge v. Walter Bull & Co., 84 Phil., 164, 47 Off. Gaz., 138.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Cf. Singh v. Sulce, 49 Phil., 563.

2. Basco v. Gonzales, 59 Phil., 1, 6; Singh v. Sulce, supra.

3. Walker v. McMicking, 14 Phil., 668; Osorio v. Cortes, 24 Phil., 653; Basco v. Gonzales supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





February-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11264 February 10, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALFONSO AGODO

    102 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-9198 February 13, 1958 - VALENTINA CADIZ v. FRANCISCO NICOLAS

    102 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-10865 February 13, 1958 - EUFROSINA v. HON. JUDGE HILARION U. JARENCIO

    102 Phil 1040

  • G.R. No. L-10226 February 14, 1958 - VIRGINIA ANSALDO v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10598 February 14, 1958 - IN RE: LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MLA. JOAQUIN P. ROCES v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MLA.

    102 Phil 1050

  • G.R. Nos. L-11483-84 February 14, 1958 - IN RE: Edward E. Christensen v. MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

    102 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-10472 February 26, 1958 - IN RE: DIONISIO SY v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 1071

  • G.R. No. L-11143 February 26, 1958 - ELIZALDE TRADING CORPORATION v. HON. S. C. MOSCOSO

    102 Phil 1074

  • G.R. No. L-6184 February 28, 1958 - VICENTE SANTANDER v. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1

  • G.R. Nos. L-6652-54 February 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO COLMAN, ET AL.

    103 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-8476 February 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO ROMAGOSA

    103 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-9390 February 28, 1958 - ADELINA SEVERO v. PANTALEON PELAYO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-9550 February 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANGCO

    103 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-10221 February 28, 1958 - LUTHER YOUNG, ET AL. v. JOSE BUCOY

    103 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-10232 February 28, 1958 - CONVETS, INC. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    103 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-10235 February 28, 1958 - IN RE: LIM HAM CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-10292 February 28, 1958 - PAO CHUAN WEI v. REPOSITO NOMOROSA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10301 February 28, 1958 - MARIA JAVIER CRUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    103 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-10307 February 28, 1958 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. SALVADOR ASUNCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-10474 February 28, 1958 - BENNY SAMPILO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-10549 February 28, 1958 - JOSE LEE DY PIAO v. PAZ TY SIN TEI

    103 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-10619 February 28, 1958 - LEOGARIO RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. JOSE ROCO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-10808 February 28, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARCELINO T. VIDUYA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 93

  • G.R. Nos. L-10817-18 February 28, 1958 - ENRIQUE LOPEZ v. VICENTE OROSA

    103 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-10824 February 28, 1958 - JOSE BENARES MONTELIBANO v. CARLOS BENARES

    103 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-10872 February 28, 1958 - JOSE DOMINGDING, ET AL. v. TRINIDAD NG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-10877 February 28, 1958 - MARIA C. ROA v. SEGUNDA DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-10919 February 28, 1958 - LORETO LORCA v. JOSE S. DINEROS

    103 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-11269 February 28, 1958 - SILVERIO FELICES v. MAMERTO IRIOLA

    103 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-11476 February 28, 1958 - MUNICIPALITY OF CAMILING v. BERNABE DE AQUINO

    103 Phil 128