Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83219:57206&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:37:41+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 205179, July 18, 2014 - GERVE MAGALLANES, Petitioner, v. PALMER ASIA, INC., Respondent.
GERVE MAGALLANES, Petitioner, v. PALMER ASIA, INC., Respondent.
This is a petition for review that seeks to set aside the Decision1 dated 17 September 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111314 and the Resolution2 dated 14 January 2013 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 September 2012.
However, Magallanes’ checks were dishonored upon presentment to the bank.
3.01.4 As a marketing strategy, Andrews International’s business thus operated under the banner of Palmer Asia. Palmer Asia had exactly the same officers, occupied the same business office, retained all its employees and agents, had the same customers and sold the same products.
Wherefore, foregoing considered, the accused Gerve Magallanes is acquitted of the offense charged for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Cases No. 211340, 211341, 211341, 211342, 211343 and 211344. He is ordered to pay the private complainant, the corresponding face value of the checks subject of the Criminal Cases No. 211340, 211341, 211342, 211343 and 211344, by way of civil liability, with 12% interest per annum counted from June 10, 1994, until the amount shall have been paid; attorney’s fees at 10% of the total face value of the subject checks; and to pay the costs.
In case of execution of civil liability, the Clerk of Court is directed to determine and enforce collection of any unpaid docket or other lawful fees in accordance with Rule 111, Sec. 1-b in relation to Rule 141.
Magallanes filed a Partial Appeal before Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (RTC Branch 61). According to Magallanes, the checks were not issued for valuable consideration since the Sales Invoices, as well as the transactions reflected in the invoices were simulated and fictitious. He also claimed that as a Sales Agent, he is not liable for the bum checks issued by the prospective buyers of Andrews.15 Andrews, as the private complainant mentioned in the Joint Decision of MeTC Branch 62, did not file any appeal.
The RTC Branch 61, in its Decision18 dated 25 May 2009, held that Magallanes was not civilly liable for the value of the checks because “the x x x complaining juridical entity has not fully established the existence of a debt by Mr. Magallanes in its favor.”19 Thus, Palmer filed a motion for reconsideration on 15 June 2009,20 which was denied by the RTC in its Resolution dated 14 October 2009.21 Andrews did not file a motion for reconsideration.
Thus, Palmer filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the CA. It alleged that the RTC erred in reversing the decision of the MeTC Branch 62 and absolving Magallanes from civil liability. Andrews did not file a petition for review with the CA.
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City dated 25 May 2003 has already attained finality there being no appeal interposed by Andrews International Products, Inc.
Aggrieved, Magallanes then filed the instant petition before this Court.
We grant the petition. The RTC Decision absolving Magallanes from civil liability has attained finality, since no appeal was interposed by the private complainant, Andrews. While Palmer filed a petition for review before the CA, it is not the real party in interest; it was never a party to the proceedings at the trial court.
x x x the obvious and only real party in interest in the filing and prosecution of the civil aspect impliedly instituted with x x x the filing of the foregoing Criminal Cases for B.P. 22 is Andrews International Products, Inc.
This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action.
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
The CA erred in stating that Palmer and Andrews are the same entity.29 These are two separate and distinct entities claiming civil liability against Magallanes. Andrews was the payee of the bum checks, and the former employer of Magallanes. It filed the complaint for B.P. 22 before MeTC Branch 62. Thus when the MeTC Branch 62 ordered Magallanes to “pay the private complainant the corresponding face value of the checks x x x”,30 it was referring to Andrews, not Palmer.
Palmer, on the other hand, was first mentioned in an Entry of Appearance filed by its counsel EMSAVILL (also the counsel of Andrews) before MeTC Branch 67 in connection with Palmer Asia, Inc. v. Gerve Magallanes. Palmer also filed the Memorandum required by the RTC.
Given the foregoing facts, it is clear that the real party in interest here is Andrews. Following the Rules of Court, the action should be in the name of Andrews. As previously mentioned, Andrews instituted the action before the MeTC Branch 62 but it was Palmer which filed a petition for review before the CA. In fact, the case at the CA was entitled Palmer Asia, Inc. v. Gerve Magallanes.
This case is different, however, because it involves two separate and distinct entities. The corporation that initiated the complaint for B.P. 22 is different from the corporation that filed the memorandum at the RTC and the petition for review before the CA. It appears that Palmer is suing Magallanes in its own right, not as agent of Andrews, the real party in interest.
Even assuming arguendo that Palmer is correct in asserting that it is the agent of Andrews, the latter should have been included in the title of the case, in accordance with procedural rules.
[a] comprehensive and orderly mental arrangement of principle and facts, conceived and constructed for the purpose of securing a judgment or decree of a court in favor of a litigant; the particular line of reasoning of either party to a suit, the purpose being to bring together certain facts of the case in a logical sequence and to correlate them in a way that produces in the decision maker’s mind a definite result or conclusion favored by the advocate.
[Changing the theory of the case] violates basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. Our rulings are clear - “a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case was decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change [it] on appeal”; otherwise, the lower courts will effectively be deprived of the opportunity to decide the merits of the case fairly. Besides, courts of justice are devoid of jurisdiction to resolve a question not in issue.
Atty. Bermudez: Mr. Palmiery, the last hearing you undertook to bring before this Court the Deed of Assignment and Liabilities of Andrews to Palmer Asia, do you have it with you now?
A: There is no assignment.
Q: There was no assignment?
Thus, since Magallanes timely filed a motion to dismiss based on valid grounds, we rule that the CA erred in denying the said motion.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 17 September 2012 and the Resolution dated 14 January 2013 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, is hereby REINSTATED.
1Rollo, pp. 26-38. Penned by Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
2 Id. at 40-41. Penned by Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
13 Id. at 59-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Carlito B. Calpatura.
18 Id. at 43-58. Penned by Presiding Judge J. Cedrick O. Ruiz.
23 Id. at 33-34. Citations omitted.
26 Evangelista v. Santiago, 497 Phil. 269, 285 (2005).
28 G.R. No. 157449, 6 April 2010, 617 SCRA 397, 405.
33 G.R. No. 175799, 28 November 2011, 661 SCRA 328.
36 G.R. No. 194270, 3 December 2012, 686 SCRA 759, 766.
37 G.R. No. 179096, 6 February 2013, 690 SCRA 79, 88.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v.