G.R. No. L-12289; May 28, 1958
Lim Siok Huey, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Alfredo Lapiz, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, Lim Siok Huey (surviving spouse) and her four children (Pua Yek Ben, Pua Chok Ben, Pua Sam Ben, and Pua Go Kuan), all citizens and residents of Communist China, filed an action for damages amounting to P83,701.30 through counsel in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The damages arose from the death of Chua Pua Lun due to a collision between a jeepney, driven by defendant Alfredo Lapiz, and a bus, driven by defendant Vicente Reyes and owned by defendant Lazaro Limjuco. Defendant Victorino Sapin denied ownership of the jeepney. The defendants raised cross-claims against each other, alleging negligence. The trial court, upon motion, appointed Chua Pua Tam (brother of the deceased) as guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiffs, Pua Sam Ben and Pua Go Kuan. After trial, the court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had not authorized anyone to file the action. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not communicated any authorization from China; the only letters presented (Exhibits J and K) were mere inquiries about the case and a duck-raising business, not an authorization to sue. The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs, being residents of Communist China, did not authorize the filing of the action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing the complaint. The Court held:
1. The trial court correctly found that the plaintiffs did not authorize the filing of the case. The evidence showed no communication from the plaintiffs in China granting such authority. The letters presented did not intimate or authorize the lawsuit.
2. The presumption that an attorney is authorized to represent a client was destroyed by the evidence presented by plaintiffs’ own counsel.
3. The appointment of Chua Pua Tam as guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiffs was insufficient, as he also lacked authorization from the heirs abroad to act on their behalf. The trial court properly considered his representation ineffective upon discovering he had no communication or authority from the plaintiffs.
4. The doctrine of negotiorum gestio (management of another’s affairs without authority) is inapplicable because, under the Rules of Court, express authority is required for representation in such an action.
5. The issue of lack of authority was properly raised by the defendants in their answers and during trial, and the trial court rightly took notice of it based on the evidence presented.
The dismissal of the complaint was affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Separate Opinion:
Justice J.B.L. Reyes concurred, adding that negotiorum gestio cannot exist where the alleged gestor’s authority is disputed, as it presupposes that his authority is taken for granted by those he deals with.