G.R. No. 43462; March 25, 1936
HONORATO GADIER and ELISEO GADIER, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. BASILIO GONZALEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Honorato Gadier was arrested for driving a carromata with a lame horse, in violation of an ordinance. The horse and carromata were taken to the office of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). The defendant, Basilio Gonzalez, was the chief of the squad employed by the SPCA. Vicente Acuña, the former owner of the horse and carromata, claimed them, but Gonzalez only released the carromata because Acuña refused to sign a receipt for the lame horse. Gonzalez informed Acuña and Gadier that they could take the horse upon payment of 50 centavos daily for its maintenance. They refused, and the horse was retained as evidence. Gadier later pleaded guilty to the violation. After conviction, he demanded the horse but again refused to pay the maintenance expenses, so Gonzalez retained possession. Gadier filed an action for recovery of the horse against Gonzalez alone.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint for nonjoinder of a necessary party.
2. Whether the trial court erred in overruling the SPCA’s motion to intervene and its complaint in intervention.
3. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to deliver the horse to its owner.

RULING

1. Yes. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer. The SPCA is a necessary party defendant because Gonzalez was acting as its agent within the scope of his authority. Under Article 1727 of the Civil Code, the principal (SPCA) is liable for the acts of its agent. Joinder of the SPCA is necessary for a complete determination of the case and does not alter the nature of the action.
2. Yes. The trial court erred in denying the intervention. Although filing a complaint in intervention on appeal is generally improper, the SPCA’s pleading could have been treated as a special defense and cross-complaint, as the amount claimed for maintenance fell within the concurrent jurisdiction of the municipal court and the Court of First Instance.
3. Yes. The trial court erred in ordering the delivery of the horse without payment. The SPCA, through Gonzalez, lawfully retained the horse as corpus delicti for use as evidence. By refusing to sign the receipt and take the horse after being informed of the maintenance costs, Gadier impliedly consented to its retention and became obligated to pay the expenses before recovery.

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment and REMANDED the case to the trial court with instructions to direct the amendment of the complaint to join the SPCA as a defendant and for further proceedings.

AI Generated by Armztrong.