G.R. No. L-21118; April 27, 1967
LEON CLIMACO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On August 21, 1958, Leon Climaco filed a complaint for damages against Carlos Siy Uy and Manuel Co in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. He alleged that in May 1957, the defendants maliciously charged him with estafa before the City Fiscal of Manila, conspired to provide a false Manila address for him to mislead the fiscal, and caused the filing of Criminal Case No. 399622 without giving him a chance to present his side. They also allegedly arranged for his arrest without allowing him to post bail. Climaco incurred expenses from trips to Manila for his defense, and after trial, the Manila court dismissed the case. He claimed damages totaling P19,000.00 for injury to his business credit, reputation, feelings, and suffering. On September 8, 1958, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, stating it alleged no cause of action and that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over Carlos Siy Uy, who died on August 27, 1958, before summons could be served. Pending resolution, Climaco moved to amend his complaint to substitute Siy Uy’s heirs or the executor of his estate as defendants. The lower court initially granted the motion on October 11, 1958, but upon reconsideration, issued an order on January 12, 1959, setting aside the previous order and dismissing the complaint. Climaco appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly denied the admission of the amended complaint for substitution of the deceased defendant Carlos Siy Uy and correctly dismissed the entire action.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court’s order. It held that the cause of action for damages, being a personal action for a sum of money, did not survive the death of defendant Carlos Siy Uy under Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the action could not be maintained against his estate under Section 1, Rule 87, as that provision only allows actions for recovery of property, enforcement of a lien, or damages for injury to person or property, and Climaco’s claim was not for injury to person or property. Therefore, the denial of the motion to amend the complaint to substitute Siy Uy’s heirs or executor was correct. However, the lower court erred in dismissing the case against the other defendant, Manuel Co, who was alive and properly included in the complaint. The order was set aside insofar as it dismissed the case against Manuel Co, and the record was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings against him. Costs were imposed.