FELIPE L. CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSEFINA E. SISCAR, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA CITY, BRANCH 55 AND ISIDORO Y. CO., RESPONDENTS.

Chua versus Siscar

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition filed by Felipe L. Chua against Judge Josefina E. Siscar, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 55, and against Isidoro Y. Co. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's orders and to stop the judge from proceeding with the civil case filed against him by Co. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of two things examiners love: the requisites of a valid substitution of a deceased party, and the rule that a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be resolved on the allegations of the complaint, not on the defendant's own evidence.

Procedural History

Isidoro Y. Co filed a complaint for sum of money against Felipe L. Chua before the Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 55, presided over by Judge Siscar. Chua moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over his person. The trial court denied the motion. Chua moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied that too. Chua then went up to the Supreme Court by a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition, impleading the judge and Co as respondents, and asking that the trial court's orders be set aside and that the judge be enjoined from further proceeding with the civil case.

Facts

Isidoro Y. Co sued Felipe L. Chua for a sum of money in the Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 55. Chua responded not with an answer but with a motion to dismiss, contending that the trial court had never acquired jurisdiction over his person.

To support that contention, Chua relied on his own evidence — matters outside the four corners of the complaint. The trial court was not persuaded. It denied the motion to dismiss, and it likewise denied Chua's motion for reconsideration.

Chua then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari and prohibition, naming Judge Siscar and Isidoro Y. Co as respondents. The Court, however, did not reach the merits of Chua's jurisdictional argument, because the petition itself was procedurally defective.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over his person.
• Whether or not the petitioner's evidence, submitted to show that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person, may be considered in resolving a motion to dismiss grounded on that defense.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari and prohibition may be given due course despite its procedural defects.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, on the substitution of a deceased party, provides:

Section 16. Duty of attorney upon death, incapacity, or incompetency of party. — Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court promptly of such death, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

This provision governs the substitution of a party who dies during the pendency of the case, and it explains why the Court required the petitioner to implead the proper party in the body of the petition and not merely in its caption.

Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, on the same subject, provides:

Section 17. Remedy in case of death of party. — If the action is for the recovery of money, and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules. If the action is for the recovery of real or personal property, and the defendant dies before final judgment, the action may be continued against the legal representative of the deceased.

This provision determines what happens to a money claim when a party dies before final judgment, and it bears directly on the Court's insistence that the proper party be impleaded in the petition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The settled rule is that a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be resolved on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, and not on the evidence submitted by the movant. The trial court therefore acted correctly when it refused to look beyond the complaint and to accept the petitioner's own evidence as the measure of its jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner's evidence could not be considered for the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss. The question of jurisdiction over the person is determined from the complaint itself, and the defendant cannot defeat the court's jurisdiction by presenting matters outside the pleading.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petition could not be given due course because of its procedural defects. The Court had earlier found the petitioner's compliance and manifestation insufficient for his failure to file the appropriate amended petition impleading the People of the Philippines not only in the caption but also in the body of the petition. The Court directed the petitioner anew to submit an amended petition and the special power of attorney executed in favor of his alleged attorney-in-fact, within ten days from notice, with the warning that otherwise the petition would be dismissed. The petitioner filed no compliance with that resolution. The Court therefore dismissed the petition.

Doctrine

A motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is resolved on the allegations of the complaint, not on the evidence offered by the movant. The defendant cannot oust the court of jurisdiction over his person by submitting matters outside the complaint.

When the Court directs a petitioner to file an amended petition impleading the proper party, the party must be impleaded both in the caption and in the body of the petition. A compliance that does not do so is insufficient, and failure to comply with the Court's directive within the period fixed results in dismissal of the petition.

These rules tie back to Rule 3, Section 16 and Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, which govern substitution of parties and the remedy upon the death of a party, and which supply the reason why the proper party must be brought into the case in the body of the pleading itself.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is resolved on the allegations of the complaint, never on the defendant's own evidence. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a valid substitution of a deceased party and the consequences of failing to comply with the Court's directive to file an amended petition impleading the proper party in both the caption and the body.