Spouses Wee v. Galvez

NATURE

For review is the decision of the CA which denied special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by petitioners Manuel and Rosemarie Wee.  

Wees sought to:

(1)      annul and set aside the Order of the RTC denying their MTD and MR

(2)      order the trial court to desist from further proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-99-37372; and

(3)      order the trial court to dismiss the said action.

(4)      CA resolution denying their MR. 

facts

·          Rosemarie Wee and Rosario D. Galvez are sisters.

·          Rosemarie lives with her husband, Manuel Wee, in Balanga, Bataan, while Rosario resides in New York, U.S.A. The present controversy stemmed from an investment agreement between the two sisters, which had gone sour along the way.

·          Rosario, represented by Grace Galvez (daughter) as her attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint before the RTC to collect a sum of money from Manuel and Rosemarie Wee.  The amount for collection was US$20,000 at the exchange rate of P38.30 per dollar.  

·          The complaint alleged that Rosario and Rosemarie entered into an agreement whereby Rosario would send Rosemarie US$20,000, half of said amount to be deposited in a savings account while the balance could be invested in the money market.  The interest to be earned therefrom would be given to Rosario’s son, Manolito Galvez, as his allowance.

·          Rosario sent five (5) Chemical Bank checks ($20,050.00)

·          All of the checks were deposited and encashed by Rosemarie, except for the first check, Chemical Bank Check No. 97, which was issued to one Zenedes Mariano, who gave the cash equivalent of US$2,000 to Rosemarie.

·          Rosemarie gave Manolito his monthly allowance ranging from P2,000 to P4,000 a month from 1993 to Jan 1999.

·          In 1995, Rosario asked for the return of the US$20,000 and for an accounting.  

·          Rosario sent Rosemarie a written demand for her US$20,000 and an accounting.  

MTD

·          Wees moved to dismiss on the following grounds:  

o    lack of allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise (FC 151

o    failure to state a valid cause of action, the action being premature in the absence of previous earnest efforts toward a compromise

o    certification against forum shopping was defective, having been executed by an attorney-in-fact and not the plaintiff, (Rule 7.5)

Rosario amended her complaint with the addition of the following par:

9-A. Earnest efforts towards (sic) have been made but the same have failed.  Plaintiff thru her daughter as Attorney-In-Fact caused the sending of a Demand Letter dated Jan 4, 1999and the last par of which reads as follows:

Trusting this will merit your utmost peaches preferential attention and consideration in as much as you and our client are sisters and in order that [earnest] efforts toward a compromise could be obtained.

·          Wees opposed Rosario’s motion to have the Amended Complaint admitted. They contended that said motion was a mere scrap of paper for being in violation of the 3-day notice requirement of Rule 15, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and for having the notice of hearing addressed to the Clerk of Court and not to the adverse party as required by Section 5 of the same Rule.

·          Trial court denied the MTD of the Wees for being “moot and academic”  

·          Wees MR denied by the lower court.

court ofappeals

·          Wees brought it to CA via a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. (TC acted with GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for issuing the interlocutory orders instead of granting the MTD.

·          CA Galvez’ amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action.

·          The questioned certification against forum shopping appended thereto was not so defective as to warrant the dismissal of the complaint.

·          MR at CA denied

WON THE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING EXECUTED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY-IN-FACT IS DEFECTIVE

wee:

·          Certification against forum shopping was invalid since it was NOT Rosario who executed and signed the same, but her attorney-in-fact, Grace Galvez.

·          there was nothing in the SPA which expressly conferred upon the latter the authority to execute and sign, on behalf of the former, the CNFS.

·          BA Savings Bank v. Sia: where the parties in an action are natural persons, the party himself is required to sign the certification, and where a representative is allowed in case of artificial persons, he must be specifically authorized to execute and sign the certification.  

·          Galvez failed to show any justifiable reason why her attorney-in-fact should be the one to sign the certification against forum shopping, instead of herself as the party, as required by Santos v. CA.

galvez:

·          In the SPA, Grace Galvez is given the authority to institute both civil and criminal actions against any person, natural or juridical, who may be obliged or answerable to the respondent.

·          Corollary with this power is the authority to sign all papers, documents, and pleadings necessary for the accomplishment of the said purpose.  

·          Since Grace Galvez is the one authorized to file any action in the PHs on behalf of her principal, she is in the best position to know whether there are other cases involving the same parties and the same subject matter instituted with or pending before any other court or tribunal in this jurisdiction.

·          As an attorney-in-fact, Grace Galvez is deemed to be a party, pursuant to Rule 3.3 

supreme court

·          Galvez is already a resident of the US.

·          It was proper for her to appoint her daughter, Grace Galvez, to act as her attorney-in-fact in the PHs.

·          SPA grants the ff:

1.        To ask, demand and claim any sum of money that is duly [due] from any person natural, juridical and/or CORP in the PHs;

2.        To file criminal and/or civil complaints before the courts of justice in the PHs to enforce my rights and interest[s];

3.        To attend hearings and/or Preliminary Conference[s], to make stipulations, adjust claims, to settle and/or enter into Compromise Agreement[s], to litigate and to terminate such proceedings; [and]

4.        To sign all papers, documents and pleadings necessary for the accomplishment of the above purposes.

·          Grace Galvez was duly authorized and empowered not just to initiate complaints but is specifically authorized to sign all “papers, documents, and pleadings” necessarily connected with the filing of a complaint.

discussion about forum shopping

·          Forum shopping “occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict.”

·          It has taken the form of filing multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues before two or more tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

·          There is also forum shopping when, because of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another.

·          Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, requires that the certification should be signed by the “petitioner or principal party” himself. The rationale behind this is “because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of WON he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies.”

·          The rationale does not apply where, as in this case, it is the attorney-in-fact who instituted the action.  

·          Grace Galvez has actual and personal knowledge whether she initiated similar actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on respondent’s behalf.

·          There has been proper compliance with the rule proscribing forum shopping

·          The fact that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.

·          AC No. 04-94 is now incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as Rule 7, Section 5. The Rules “shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”

·          The rule requiring a certification of forum shopping to accompany every initiatory pleading, “should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure – which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.”

WON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE THE RTC SUFFICIENTLY STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS.

Wee

·          amended complaint violates Rule 8.1 as there is no plain and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for her claim.

·          the allegation in par 9-A  of the amended complaint that “Earnest efforts towards have been made but the same have failed” is clearly insufficient.  

·          The sentence is incomplete, thus requires the reader of the pleading to engage in deductions or inferences in order to get a complete sense of the cause of action, according to petitioners.

galvez

·          amended complaint as well as the annexes attached to the pleadings should be taken in their entirety in determining whether a cause of action was validly stated in the complaint.  

supreme court

·          FC 151: a suit between members of the same family shall not be entertained, unless it is alleged in the complaint or petition that the disputants have made earnest efforts to resolve their differences through compromise, but these efforts have not succeeded.  

·          Rule 8.3  provides that conditions precedent may be generally averred in the pleadings.

·          Par 9-A of the Amended Complaint shows that respondent has complied with this requirement of a general averment.  

·          It is true that the lead sentence of par 9-A, which reads “Earnest efforts towards have been made but the same have failed” may be incomplete or even grammatically incorrect as there might be a missing word or phrase, but to our mind, a lacking word like “compromise” could be supplied by the rest of the par.

·          There is no need for guesswork or complicated deductions in order to derive the point that earnest efforts to compromise the differences between the disputants were made but to no avail.

·          The Amended Complaint in its entirety as well as the documents attached thereto, following the rule that documents attached to a pleading are considered both as evidence and as part of the pleading.

WON THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 IS THE PROPER REMEDY FOR PETITIONERS UPON THE DENIAL OF THEIR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS BY THE CA

wee

·          a petition for review under Rule 45.1 could be brought before us, regardless of whether the assailed decision of the CA involves an appeal on the merits from the trial court’s judgment or the dismissal of a special civil action questioning an interlocutory order of the trial court.  

·          What is important is that the assailed decision of the CA is final and that the petition before this Court should raise only questions of law.

galvez

·          dismissal by the CA of special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is not the final judgment or order, which could be the subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

·          certiorari as a mode of appeal involves the review of a judgment, final order, or award on the merits.  

·          CA’s ruling did not dispose of the case on the merits, as the orders of the trial court were all interlocutory.

SC

·          Present petition is proper remedy to challenge the CA’s judgment.

·          CA’s decision on said petition is final for it disposes of the original action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus directed against the interlocutory orders of the RTC.

·          there is nothing more left to be done as far as the CA is concerned.

·          In special civil actions for certiorari the only issue before the CA is whether the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  

·          in a certiorari petition the CA is not tasked to adjudicate the merits of the respondent’s claims before the trial court.  

·          CA properly ruled that the trial court committed no GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction so as to warrant the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus that petitioners sought.

Petition denied. CA AFFIRMED.