G.R. No. L-7352; March 15, 1913
CATALINO HILARIO, representing Andres Garcia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL, ROBERT M. LOPER, and HENRY M. JONES, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Catalino Hilario, purporting to represent Andres Garcia under a power of attorney, filed a complaint for damages. He alleged that he had an indefinite lease agreement with defendant La Congregacion de San Vicente de Paul over certain lands. The Congregacion repudiated this agreement and leased the same premises to defendants Loper and Jones, guaranteeing that Hilario had no interest and authorizing them to remove him. Loper and Jones subsequently filed and won an ejectment case against Hilario before a justice of the peace, resulting in a judgment ordering him to vacate. Hilario complied, necessitating the removal of a house he had built on the land, causing him damage. The defendants demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUE

1. Whether the action was properly brought by Catalino Hilario in representation of Andres Garcia. 2. Whether the complaint states a cause of action for damages against defendants Loper and Jones. 3. Whether the complaint states a cause of action for damages against defendant La Congregacion de San Vicente de Paul.

RULING

1. No. The action cannot be maintained as filed. The complaint shows the real party in interest is Andres Garcia, not the named plaintiff Catalino Hilario. Hilario is a mere representative with no personal interest in the controversy. A judgment rendered would have no force against Garcia, who is not a party to the action. The Court, on its own motion, refuses to proceed with such an action, and the complaint fails to state a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff of record.
2. No. The demurrer as to Loper and Jones was properly sustained. Their act of filing and winning an ejectment case in a court of competent jurisdiction, resulting in a judgment against Hilario, cannot be the basis for a damage claim unless done maliciously and without probable cause (an action for malicious prosecution). The complaint alleges no such malice or lack of probable cause. The judgment in the ejectment case protects Loper and Jones from a subsequent damage action based on the effects of that judgment.
3. No. The demurrer as to La Congregacion was also properly sustained. The ejectment judgment is res judicata on the issue of Hilario’s right to possession. Loper and Jones, in bringing the ejectment suit, were acting under the authority and for the benefit of the Congregacion, which had guaranteed their possession. There was privity of representation. The Congregacion would have been bound had the ejectment failed; conversely, Hilario is bound by the adverse judgment. He is estopped from relitigating the validity of his lease (the core issue in the ejectment) in a separate action for damages against the Congregacion. Since his dispossession resulted from the execution of a valid court judgment, no action for damages arising from that dispossession lies against any party to that judgment or their privies.
The judgment of the trial court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.