G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968
FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RUBEN CO., INC. and HONORIO ALLADO, petitioners, vs. HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, Presiding Judge, Branch IX, Court of First Instance of Rizal and PASTOR D. AGO, respondents.

FACTS

On May 3, 1963, respondent Pastor D. Ago filed a complaint for damages with preliminary attachment and injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Francisco Laiz. The complaint was against several defendants, including the petitioners. A copy of the special power of attorney executed by Francisco Laiz in favor of Ago was attached to the complaint, showing Laiz as a resident of General Santos, Cotabato. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue and that the action was not brought in the name of the real party in interest. They argued that since the action was personal and the real party in interest, Francisco Laiz, resided in Cotabato, and the defendants resided in Cotabato or Davao City, the venue should be in either of those places, not Quezon City. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that an agent, when expressly authorized, could sue in his own name for and in behalf of the principal, and since Ago resided in Quezon City, he could file the suit there. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

May an attorney-in-fact, when so authorized in the power of attorney, bring an action in his own name for a disclosed principal?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari. The Court held that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, as mandated by Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. Citing previous jurisprudence, the Court ruled that an attorney-in-fact is not a real party in interest, and there is no law permitting an action to be brought by an attorney-in-fact. Therefore, an action brought by him in his own name cannot be maintained, even if the power of attorney authorizes him to sue. The action commenced by respondent Pastor D. Ago could not prosper, and any decision rendered would not bind the parties. The respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court enjoined the respondent judge from further proceeding with the civil case and ordered the complaint dismissed.