EN
BANC
HONORATO
GADIER
AND
ELISEO GADIER,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
G.
R.
No. 43462
March
25, 1936
-versus-
BASILIO
GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
VILLA-REAL,
J :
This case is before Us
on an appeal taken by the defendant Basilio Gonzalez from the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:
"In view of the
foregoing,
judgment is hereby rendered in this case, to the effect that the
plaintiff
takes nothing from the defendant Basilio Gonzalez, without any special
pronouncement as to costs. The said defendant is, however, ordered to
forthwith
deliver said horse to its owner as was ordered by the municipal court
of
Manila. It is so ordered."
In support of his appeal,
the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the
Court a quo in its said judgment, to wit:
"1. The lower court
erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's original
complaint.
"2. The lower court
erred in overruling the S. P. C. A.'s motion to intervene and its
complaint
in intervention.
"3. The lower court
erred in ordering the defendant to deliver the horse to its owner."
The first assignment of
alleged error refers to the court a quo's having overruled the
demurrer
filed by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiffs' original complaint
on the ground of nonjoinder of parties defendant.
In the first paragraph
of the original complaint reproduced on appeal, it is alleged:
"That the plaintiffs
are joint owners of four horses and a calesa, of age and both residing
at 1929 Felix Huertas and that the defendant, of age, is chief of the
squad
of employed men hired by Sociedad Protectora de Animales, and resides
at
the office of the said society at Azcarraga."
It is, therefore, admitted
in the above quoted paragraph that the defendant Basilio Gonzalez is
"chief
of the squad of employed men hired by Sociedad Protectora de Animales."
As such chief of the squad of employed men hired by the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said defendant was and is a mere
agent
of said society which, as principal, is liable for the former's acts
performed
within the scope of his authority [Art. 1727, Civil Code]; therefore,
said
society should be joined as defendant although the case is in the Court
of First Instance of Manila on appeal from the Municipal Court of
Manila,
inasmuch as its joinder as such defendant does not alter the nature of
the action [35 Corpus Juris, 821], and is necessary for the final
determination
of the case [Sec. 114, Code of Civ. Proc.; Arroyo vs. Granada and
Gentero,
18 Phil., 484; Salmon and Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Tan Cueco, 36
Phil.,
556].
Therefore, the Court
a quo erred in overruling the demurrer filed by the
defendant
Basilio
Gonzalez and in not requiring the plaintiffs to amend their complaint
by
joining the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as
defendant.
As to the second
assignment
of alleged error, although the filing of the complaint in intervention
in the Court of First Instance of Manila was improper because the case
was before it on appeal [35 Corpus Juris, 742], however, as said
complaint
in intervention contained only special defenses and a cross-complaint
for
an amount not exceeding that over which the municipal court of Manila
has
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance of Manila, the
latter court could have admitted it as a pleading of special defense
and
cross-complaint [35 Corpus Juris, 830].
Although the resolution
of the first two assignments of error disposes of this case without
discussing
and passing upon the third assignment of error, however availing
ourselves
of the power under Section 496 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
reverse
or modify any final judgment and direct the proper judgment, order or
decree
to be entered, and in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and the
raising
of this same question anew in this court, we shall pass on the third
assignment
of alleged error, taking into consideration the stipulation of facts
entered
into by the parties. [Arroyo vs. Granada and Gentero, supra;
Lichauco
vs. Limjuco and Gonzalo, 19 Phil., 12; Zook vs. Coker, 24 Phil., 434;
Hilario
vs. Congregacion de San Vicente de Paul, 27 Phil., 593; Esperanza and
Bullo
vs. Catinding, 27 Phil., 397].
From the pleadings
and the said stipulation of facts approved by this court in its
resolution
of July 27, 1935, the following appears:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On May 13, 1934, the
plaintiff Honorato Gadier was arrested for driving a carromata pulled
by
a horse that had been lame for some time. After the plaintiff, together
with the carromata and the horse, had been brought to the office of the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Vicente Acuña,
the former owner of the vehicle and of the horse came for them. The
defendant
Basilio Gonzalez gave him only the carromata because Acuña
refused
to sign a receipt for a lame horse. Gonzalez informed Vicente
Acuña
and Honorato Gadier that if they did not take the horse they would have
to pay fifty centavos daily for its maintenance and that they could
take
it any time upon payment of the expenses incurred by the society for
the
care and maintenance of the animal. In view of their refusal, the horse
remained in the possession of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals to be used as evidence in the charges to be brought against
said plaintiff Honorato Gadier for violation of the ordinance for the
prevention
of cruelty to animals. However, there was no need of presenting the
animal
to the court because said plaintiff Honorato Gadier pleaded guilty to
the
infringement with which he was charged and was sentenced to seven days
of arresto. After his conviction, Honorato Gadier went to the office of
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the defendant
Basilio Gonzalez told him that he could take his horse upon payment of
the expenses incurred by the society for its care and maintenance.
Honorato
Gadier refused to make said payment and the development Basilio
Gonzalez
did not deliver the horse to him.
There is no doubt that
the development Basilio Gonzalez, as chief of the squad employed by the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and authorized by
Section
4 of Act No. 1285, as amended by Act No. 3548, "to make arrests for
violations
of the laws enacted for the prevention of cruelty to animals and the
protection
of animals, and to serve any process in connection with the execution
of
such laws" acted within the scope of his police power in retaining as
corpus
delicti the lame horse for which the plaintiff-appellee refused to sign
the corresponding receipt. In refusing to sign the receipt for the
return
of the horse notwithstanding the warning that if he did not take it he
would have to pay fifty centavos daily for its maintenance, Honorato
Gadier
impliedly consented to the retention of the animal by the Society for
the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, answering for the payment of its
maintenance.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, therefore, had
the
right to retain the animal pending refund of expenses for its care and
maintenance.
For the foregoing
considerations,
We are of the opinion and so hold: [1] that the Society for the
Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals is a necessary development in an action brought
against
one of its agents for acts performed by him within the scope of his
authority
as such agent; [2] that as such necessary development, it has the right
to file a cross-complaint even on appeal from the Municipal Court of
Manila
to the Court of First Instance; [3] that the Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, which makes an arrest through one of its duly
appointed
agents for using a lame horse in violation of an ordinance for the
prevention
of cruelty to animals, is empowered to retain said animals as corpus
delicti to be used as evidence of the infringement before the
competent
court; and (4) that the owner of a lame horse, who has been arrested
for
having hitched it and who refuses to sign a receipt evidencing the
return
of such lame animal after having been informed that he would have to
pay
for its maintenance, is obliged to pay for such maintenance before he
can
recover its possession.
Wherefore, the appealed
judgment is hereby reversed and it is ordered that the case be remanded
to the Court of First Instance of Manila for the purpose of directing
the
amendment of the complaint and the joinder of the Society for the
Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals as defendant, and for further proceedings,
without
special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J.,
Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Recto and Laurel, JJ., concur. |