Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 116

Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A.

Avena
JUDICIAL POWER ISSUE ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the
WON the Department of Agrarian Reform subject matter
Adjudication Board (DARAB) has original and
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar FACTS
- On Dec 1907, Mla Railroad Co. began an action in
PRESCRIBED JURISDICTION i.e. OVER HELD CFI Tarlac for the condemnation of 69,910 sq. m. real
No. estate located in Tarlac. This is for construction of a
SUBJECT MATTER, BY LAW Ratio. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is railroad line "from Paniqui to Tayug in Tarlac," as
determined by the allegations of the complaint. It is authorized by law.
SINDICO V DIAZ not affected by the pleas set up by the defendant in - Before beginning the action, Mla Railroad had
440 SCRA 50 his answer or in a motion to dismiss, otherwise, caused to be made a thorough search in the Office of
jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims. the Registry of Property and of the Tax where the
CARPIO-MORALES; October 1, 2004 Reasoning.The allegations in petitioner’s complaint lands sought to be condemned were located and to
show that the action is one for recovery of whom they belonged. As a result of such
NATURE
possession, not one which involves an agrarian investigations, it alleged that the lands in question
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the
dispute. were located in Tarlac.
RTC of Iloilo
-Section 3(d) of RA 6657 or the CARP Law defines - After filing and duly serving the complaint, the
"agrarian dispute" over which the DARAB has plaintiff, pursuant to law and pending final
FACTS
exclusive original jurisdiction as: determination of the action, took possession of and
-Virgilio Sindico, is the registered owner of a parcel of
(d) any controversy relating to tenurial occupied the lands described in the complaint,
land, which he let the spouses Eulalio and Concordia
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, building its line and putting the same in operation.
Sombrea cultivate, without him sharing in the
stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to - On Oct 4, Mla Railroad gave notice to the
produce, as his "assistance in the education of his
agriculture, including disputes concerning defendants that on Oct. 9, a motion would be made
cousins" including defendant Felipe Sombrea
farmworkers associations or representation of to the court to dismiss the action upon the ground
-After the death of the Eulalio Sombrea, Felipe
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject
continued to cultivate the lot
or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such matter, it having just been ascertained by the
-On June 20, 1993, Sindico requested Felipe’s wife for
tenurial arrangements including any controversy plaintiff that the land sought to be condemned was
the return of the possession of the lot but the latter
relating to compensation of lands acquired under this situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija, instead of the
requested time to advise her husband
Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of Province of Tarlac, as alleged in the complaint. This
-Repeated demands for the return of the possession
ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants motion was heard and, after due consideration, the
of the lot remained unheeded, forcing Sindico to file
and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the trial court dismissed the action upon the ground
a civil case before the RTC against the spouses
disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm presented by the plaintiff.
Sombrea for Accion Reivindicatoria with Preliminary
operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or
Mandatory Injunction
lessor and lessee. ISSUE/S
-The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging
-Since petitioners’ action is one for recovery of 1. WON CFI Tarlac has power and authority to take
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over their person and
possession and does not involve an agrarian cognizance of condemnation of real estate located in
that as the subject matter of the case is an
dispute, the RTC has jurisdiction over it. another province
agricultural land which is covered by the
2. WON Sec. 3771 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of
Disposition Petition is granted.
the government, the case is within the exclusive 1
SEC. 377. Venue of actions. Actions to confirm title to real
original jurisdiction of the DARAB in accordance with estate, or to secure a partition of real estate, or to cancel clouds,
Section 50 of Republic Act 6657 (THE JURISDICTION DISTINGUISHED FROM or remove doubts from the title to real estate, or to obtain
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988) VENUE possession of real estate, or to recover damages for injuries to
real estate, or to establish any interest, right, or title in or to real
-The plaintiff filed an Opposition alleging that the
estate, or actions for the condemnation of real estate for public
case does not involve an agrarian dispute, there use, shall be brought in the province were the lands, or some part
being no tenancy relationship or leasehold MANILA RAILROAD V ATTY. GENERAL thereof, is situated; actions against executors, administrators,
agreement with the defendants. 20 PHIL 523 and guardians touching the performance of their official duties,
and actions for account and settlement by them, and actions for
-The RTC of Iloilo granted the Motion to Dismiss MORELAND; December 11, 1911 the distribution of the estates of deceased persons among the
-As their Motion for Reconsideration was denied by heirs and distributes, and actions for the payment of legacies,
the trial court, the plaintiffs, herein petitioners, NATURE shall be brought in the province in which the will was admitted to
lodged the present Petition for Review on Certiorari Appeal from CFI Tarlac’s judgment dismissing the probate, or letters of administration were granted, or the
guardian was appointed. And all actions not herein otherwise
action before it on motion of the plaintiff upon the provided for may be brought in any province where the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 2

Avena
Act. No. 1258 are applicable and so the CFI has no - Procedure does not alter or change that power or itself to the jurisdiction by beginning the action. The
jurisdiction authority; it simply directs the manner in which it defendants are now in this court asking that the
shall be fully and justly exercised. To be sure, in action be not dismissed but continued. They are not
HELD certain cases, if that power is not exercised in only nor objecting to the jurisdiction of the court but,
1.YES conformity with the provisions of the procedural law, rather, are here on this appeal for the purpose of
Ratio Sections 55 and 562 of Act No. 136 of the purely, the court attempting to exercise it loses the maintaining that very jurisdiction over them. Nor is
Philippine Commission confer perfect and complete power to exercise it legally. This does not mean that the plaintiff in any position to asked for favors. It is
jurisdiction upon the CFI of these Islands with respect it loses jurisdiction of the subject matter. It means clearly guilty of gross negligence in the allegations of
to real estate in the Philippine Islands. Such simply that he may thereby lose jurisdiction of the its complaint, if the land does not lie in Tarlac as it
jurisdiction is not made to depend upon locality. person or that the judgment may thereby be now asserts.
There is no suggestion of limitation. The jurisdiction rendered defective for lack of something essential to
is universal. It is nowhere suggested, much less sustain it. There is, of course, an important *DISTINGUISHED FROM VENUE
provided, that a CFI of one province, regularly sitting distinction between person and subject matter are - The fact that such a provision appears in the
in said province, may not under certain conditions both conferred by law. As to the subject matter, procedural law at once raises a strong presumption
take cognizance of an action arising in another nothing can change the jurisdiction of the court over that it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the
province or of an action relating to real estate diminish it or dictate when it shall attach or when it court over the subject matter. It becomes merely a
located outside of the boundaries of the province to shall be removed. That is a matter of legislative matter of method, of convenience to the parties
which it may at the time be assigned. enactment which none but the legislature may litigant. If their interests are best subserved by
change. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the bringing in the Court Instance of the city of Manila an
JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF THE PLAINTIFF court over the person is, in some instances, made to action affecting lands in the Province of Ilocos Norte,
defend on the consent or objection, on the acts or there is no controlling reason why such a course
defendant or any necessary party defendant may reside or be omissions of the parties or any of them. Jurisdiction should not be followed. The matter is, under the law,
found, or in any province where the plaintiff, except in cases over the person, however, may be conferred by entirely within the control of either party. The
were other special provision is made in this Code. In case neither consent, expressly or impliedly given, or it may, by plaintiff's interests select the venue. If such selection
the plaintiff nor the defendant resides within the Philippine
Islands and the action is brought to seize or obtain title to an objection, be prevented from attaching or is not in accordance with section 377, the defendant
property of the defendant within the Philippine Islands and the removed after it has attached. may make timely objection and, as a result, the
action is brought to seize or obtain title to property of the venue is changed to meet the requirements of the
defendant within the Philippine Islands, the action shall be 2. NO law.
brought in the province where the property which the plaintiff
seeks to seize or to obtain title to is situated or is found:
Ratio Sec. 377 contains no express inhibition against - Section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not
Provided, that in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the court. The prohibition provided therein is clearly applicable to actions by railroad corporations to
real estate, when the service upon the defendant is not personal, directed against the one who begins the action and condemn lands; and that, while with the consent of
but is by publication, in accordance with law, the action must be lays the venue. The court, before the action is defendants express or implied the venue may be laid
brought in the province where the land lies. And in all cases commenced, has nothing to do with it either. The and the action tried in any province selected by the
process may issue from the court in which an action or special
proceeding is pending, to be enforced in any province to bring in plaintiff does both. Only when that is done does the plaintiff nevertheless the defendants whose lands lie
defendants and to enforce all orders and decrees of the court. section begin to operate effectively so far as the in one province, or any one of such defendants, may,
The failure of a defendant to object to the venue of the action at court is concerned. The prohibition is not a limitation by timely application to the court, require the venue
the time of entering his appearance in the action shall be on the power of the court but on the rights of the as to their, or, if one defendant, his, lands to be
deemed a waiver on his part of all objection to the place or
tribunal in which the action is brought, except in the actions plaintiff. It establishes a relation not between the changed to the province where their or his lands lie.
referred to in the first sixteen lines of this section relating to real court and the subject, but between the plaintiff and In such case the action as to all of the defendants not
estate, and actions against executors, administrators, and the defendant. It relates not to jurisdiction but to objecting would continue in the province where
guardians, and for the distribution of estates and payment of trial. It simply gives to defendant the unqualified originally begun. It would be severed as to the
legacies.
right, if he desires it, to have the trial take place objecting defendants and ordered continued before
2
SEC. 55. Jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance. The where his land lies and where, probably, all of his the court of the appropriate province or provinces.
jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance shall be of two kinds: witnesses live. Its object is to secure to him a While we are of that opinion and so hold it can not
1. Original; and 2. Appellate. convenient trial. affect the decision in the case before us for the
SEC. 56. Its original jurisdiction. Courts of First Instance reason that the defendants are not objecting to
shall have original jurisdiction: JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF THE PLAINTIFF the venue and are not asking for a change
2. In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession - That it had jurisdiction of the persons of all the thereof. They have not only expressly submitted
of real property, or any interest therein, or the legality of any
parties is indisputable. That jurisdiction was obtained themselves to the jurisdiction of the court but are
tax, impost, or assessment, except actions of forcible entry
into, and detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction not only by the usual course of practice - that is, by here asking that that jurisdiction be maintained
of which is by this Act conferred upon courts of justice of the the process of the court - but also by consent against the efforts of the plaintiff to remove it.
peace. expressly given, is apparent. The plaintiff submitted
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 3

Avena
Disposition The judgment must be REVERSED and jurisdiction over the civil case and that said case Sec. 7, RA 1267, creating the First Court of Agrarian
the case REMANDED to the trial court with direction was within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Relations, effective June 14, 1955, as amended by
to proceed with the action according to law. the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR). Republic Act 1409 which took effect on September 9,
CFI of Sulu: petition dismissed without cause 1955,provides:
-“petitioner has not presented any proof or showing "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court. — The Court shall
JURISDITION VOID of landlord and tenant relationship between the have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
parties" to bring the case within the jurisdiction of entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide,
the CAR, and that upon the allegations of the and settle all questions, matters, controversies or
ABBAIN V. CHUA complaint, the case is "clearly one of ejectment." disputes involving all those relationships established
22 SCRA 748 by law which determine the varying rights of persons
Sanchez; February 26, 1968 in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where
ISSUE
one of the parties works the land."
WON the JOTP Court has jurisdiction over the case
- Chua's complaint was filed on March 12, 1958 —
NATURE filed by Chua
long after RA’s 1199, 1267 and 1409 were
Direct appeal to the SC
incorporated in our statute books. Chua's complaint
HELD
positively averred that Hatib Abbain is his tenant on
FACTS NO
a 50-50 sharing basis of the harvest; and that he
- March 12, 1958: Tongham Chua commenced Ratio. Where a judgment or judicial order is void in
seeks ejectment of Hatib Abbain "due to his non-
suit for forcible entry and illegal detainer against this sense it may be said to be a lawless thing, which
compliance of our agreement of his giving my share
Hatib Abbain with the Justice of the Peace (JOP) Court can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
of the several harvests he made." The JOTP Court
of Bongao, Sulu. Chua's averred that he is the owner ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.
itself found that Abbain continued to be the tenant of
of a 4-hectare land together with the improvements And in Gomez vs. Concepcion, this Court quoted
Chua after the latter became owner of the plantation
thereon mostly coconut trees located in Maraning, with approval the following from Freeman on
which he acquired from his father by virtue of a
Bongao, Sulu; that this land was donated to him by Judgments: "A void judgment is in legal effect no
donation; and that Abbain refused to give "the share
his father, Subing Chua, in 1952 and from that date judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no
of his landlord of the harvest."
he has assumed ownership thereof, taken possession rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all
- If both the complaint and the inferior court's
of the land and paid the corresponding taxes yearly; proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It
judgment have any meaning at all, it is that the JOTP
that from 1952-1958, Abbain has been his tenant neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed
Court had no jurisdiction over the case. Right at the
and the two divided the fruits or copra harvested under it and all claims flowing out of it are void. The
outset, the complaint should have been rejected.
therefrom on 50-50basis; that in 1957, Abbain by parties attempting to enforce it may be responsible
Failing in this, the case should have been dismissed
means of force, strategy and stealth unlawfully as trespassers. The purchaser at a sale by virtue of
during the course of the trial, when it became all the
entered and still occupies the land in question after its authority finds himself without title and without
more evident that a landlord-tenant relationship
Chua have repeatedly demanded of him to vacate redress."
existed. The judge had no power to determine the
the premises due to his failure to give chua’s share Since the judgment here on its face is void ab initio,
case. Because Chua's suit comes within the
of the several harvests. the limited periods for relief from judgment in Rule
coverage of Sec. 21, R.A. 1199 - that "cases involving
LC: JOP Managula rendered judgment directing 38 are inapplicable. That judgment is vulnerable to
the dispossession of a tenant by the landholder,"
Abbain to vacate the premises and place Chua in attack "in any way and at any time, even when no
shall be under the "original and exclusive jurisdiction
possession of the plantation, with costs. This appeal has been taken."
of such court as may now or hereafter be authorized
judgment was predicated upon the findings that Reasoning. The provisions of Sec. 21 of RA 1199
by law to take cognizance of tenancy relations and
sometime before WWII, Abbain, because of financial (approved August 30, 1954), known as the
disputes", and the broad sweep of Section 7, RA
hardship, sold for P225 to Subing Chua the coconut Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, read:
1267, which lodged with the CAR "original and
plantation; that after the sale, Abbain became the "SEC. 21. Ejectment; violation; jurisdiction. — All
exclusive jurisdiction . . . to consider, investigate,
tenant of Chua, the harvests of the land divided on a cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the
decide, and settle all questions, matters,
50-50 basis; that subsequently, Subing Chua donated landholder or by a third party and/or the settlement
controversies or disputes involving all those
the plantation to his son, Tongham Chua, and and disposition of disputes arising from the
relationships established by law which determine the
Abbain, the same tenant of the father, continued to relationship of landholder and tenant, as well as the
varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of
be the tenant on the land. violation of any of the provisions of this Act, shall be
agricultural land where one of the parties works the
- Abbain filed a petition in the CFI of Sulu against under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of such
land."
Tongham Chua and Judge Managula, seeking relief court as may now or hereafter be authorized by law
Jurisprudence has since stabilized the jurisdiction of
from the judgment of the JOTP Court anr/or to take cognizance of tenancy relations
the CAR over cases of this nature. Such exclusive
annulment of its decision with preliminary injunction. anddisputes."
authority is not divested by a mere averment on the
He averred that the JOTP Court did not have
part of the tenant that he asserts ownership over the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 4

Avena
land, "since the law does not exclude from the separation benefits, plus moral damages and -The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at
jurisdiction" of the CAR, "cases in which a tenant attorney’s fees with the NLRC. any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.
claims ownership over the land given to him for -In their ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM, SEAFDEC -The issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by
cultivation by the landlord." alleged that NLRC has no jurisdiction over the estoppel
The judgment and proceedings of the Justice of the case because: (1) It is an international organization;
Peace Court are null and void. (2) Lazaga must first secure clearances from the
Exception:
The judgment of the JOTP Court is not merely a proper departments for property or money
voidable judgment. It is void on its face. It may accountability before any claim for separation pay
be attacked directly or collaterally. Here, the will be paid (and clearances has not been paid) SOLIVEN vs FASTFORMS PHILS.
attack is direct. Abbain sought to annul the COUNTERCLAIM: Lazaga had property accountability 440 SCRA 389
judgment. Even after the time for appeal or review and outstanding obligation to SEAFDEC-AQD
Sandoval-Gutierrez, October 18, 2004
had elapsed, appellant could bring, as he brought, amounting to P27, 532.11 and that Lazaga was not
such an action. More, he also sought to enjoin entitled to the accrued sick leave benefits due to his
NATURE
enforcement of that judgment. In varying language, failure to avail of the same during his employment
-petition for review on certiorari
the Court has expressed its reprobation for -LA: for Lazaga
judgments rendered by a court without jurisdiction. -NLRC: affirmed LA, deleted attorney’s fees and
FACTS
Such a judgment is held to be a dead limb on the actual damages
-Petitioner Marie Antoinette Soliven filed a complaint
judicial tree, which should be lopped of' or -SEAFDEC-AQD filed MFR, denied
for P195,155 as actual damages with P200k as moral
wholly disregarded as the circumstances
damages, P100k as exemplary damages and P100k
require. ISSUES
as attorney’s fees against respondent Fastform
1. WON SEAFEC-AQD is immune from suit owing to
Phils., with the Makati RTC. It alleged that
Disposition The decision of the JOTP Court of Sulu is its international character
respondent, through its president Dr. Escobar,
annulled. 2. WON SEAFDEC-AQD is estopped from claiming
obtained a loan from petitioner (P170k) payable
that the court had no jurisdiction
within 21 days with 3% interest. On the same day,
respondent issued a postdated check for P170k +
HELD
JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL 1. YES
P5k int. 3 weeks later, Escobar advised petitioner not
to deposit the check as the account from where it
General rule: Ratio. Being an intergovernmental organization,
was drawn had insufficient funds and instead
SEAFDEC including its departments enjoys functional
proposed that the P175k be rolled-over with 5%
independence and freedom from control of the state
SEAFDEC V NLRC (LAZAGA) monthly interest, to which the latter agreed.
in whose territory its office is located.
206 SCRA 283 Reasoning. One of the basic immunities of an
Respondent issued several checks as payment for
interests for 5 months but thereafter refused to pay
NOCON, February 14, 1994 international organization is immunity from local
its principal obligation despite petitioner’s repeated
jurisdiction (immune from legal writs and processes
demands.
NATURE issued by the tribunals of the country where it is
-In its counterclaim, respondent denied obtaining the
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the found) that the subjection of such an organization to
loan and that it did not authorize Escobar to secure
NLRC the authority of the local courts would afford a
said loan or issue checks as payment for interests.
convenient medium thru which the host government
After a trial on the merits, the court ordered
FACTS may interfere in their operations or even influence or
respondent to pay the amount of the loan plus
-SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international control its policies and decisions of the organization.
interest and attorneys fees, but moral and exemplary
organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Such subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the
damages as well as the counterclaim were
Development Center. Private Respondent Lazaga was capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities
dismissed.
hired as a Research Associate and eventually impartially on behalf of its member-states.
-Respondent filed a MFR questioning the court’s
became the Head of External Affairs Office of jurisdiction alleging that since the principal demand
SEAFDEC-AQD. However, he was terminated 2. NO
(P195,155) did not exceed P200k, the complaint
allegedly due to financial constraints being Ratio. Estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction
should have been filed with the MTC, pursuant to RA
experienced by SEAFEC-AQD. He was supposed to to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action.
7691. The TC denied the MFR since the totality of the
receive separation benefits but SEAFDEC-AQD failed Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where there is none,
claim exceeded 200k and since respondent was
to pay private respondent his separation pay so no agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled
estopped from questioning jurisdiction. On appeal,
Lazaga filed a complaint for non-payment of is the rule that the decision of a tribunal not vested
the CA reversed the TC decision on the ground of
with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.
lack of jurisdiction and that respondent may assail
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 5

Avena
jurisdiction of the TC anytime even for the first time and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
on appeal. Petitioner filed an MFR which was denied NATURE claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
by the CA, hence this petition. Petition for certiorari forms of damages arising from an employer-
employee relationship. However, when the civil
ISSUE (Members of religious group) FACTS case for damages was instituted in 1979, the
WON the trial court has jurisdiction over the case - July 1979 – Private respondent Laurente (former applicable law then was Article 217 (a) (3) of the
sale supervisor of petitioner corporation) was notified Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree
HELD and advised of his immediate termination for gross No. 1367 (May 1, 1978) which provides that
NO. neglect of duty and/or dishonesty Labor Arbiters shall not entertain claims for
Ratio. While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised - August 1979 - Laurente instituted a civil action for moral or other forms of damages.
at any time, this rule presupposes that estoppel has damages against SFSC and Siao, its manager b. To require the private respondent to file a single
not supervened. Since respondent actively - Laurente filed a complaint for illegal dismissal suit combining his actions for illegal dismissal
participated in all stages of the proceedings before (labor case). and damages in the NLRC would be to sanction
the TC and even sought affirmative relief, it is - January 1980 - Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the retroactivity of Republic Act No. 6715 which
estopped from challenging the TC’s jurisdiction, on Civil Case, claiming that the jurisdiction should be took effect on March 21, 1989, where the same
especially since an adverse judgment had been vested with the NLRC. law does not expressly so provide, or does not
rendered. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a - February 5, 1980 - it was found that the intend to operate as to actions pending before
court to secure affirmative relief against his termination of the complainant was for a just and its enactment, hence prejudicial to the orderly
opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such valid cause administration of justice.
relief, repudiate that same jurisdiction. - February 28, 1980 – The court in Civil Case
Reasoning. Section 3 of RA 7691 provides that deferred the determination of the motion to dismiss Disposition. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of
where the amount of the demand in the complaint until after trial. merit.
instituted in Metro Manila does not exceed P200k, - Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, was denied. Thus, this petition for the issuance of a ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
atty’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, the writ of preliminary injunction. PERSON
exclusive jurisdiction over the same is vested in the
Metropolitan Trial court, Municipal Trial Court and Of the plaintiff
ISSUE
Municipal Circuit Trial Court. WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse
-Administrative Circular 09-94 specifies guidelines in of discretion when it deferred the determination or MANILA RAILROAD V ATTY. GENERAL
the implementation of RA 7691. Par 2 of the Circular resolution of the motion to dismiss questioning the (page 1)
provides that the term “damages of whatever kind” jurisdiction of the court over claims for damages. FACTS
applies only to cases where damages are merely a
-Manila Railroad filed an action for condemnation
consequence of the main action. In the instant case, HELD proceedings in CFI of Tarlac when they knew that the
the main cause of action is the collection of the debt NO. lands concerned are found in Nueva Ecija. Now they
amounting to P195k. The damages being claimed are Ratio "(t)he rule is that where a court has already are assailing the jurisdiction of CFI Tarlac.
merely incidental and are thus not included in obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a
determining the jurisdictional amount. controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON Of
determination of the cause is not affected by new the plaintiff: Procedure does not alter or change
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings that power or authority; it simply directs the manner
GRANTED in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is in which it shall be fully and justly exercised. To be
where the statute expressly provides, or is construed sure, in certain cases, if that power is not exercised
ONCE ATTACHED, JURISDICTION NOT to the effect that it is intended to operate as to in conformity with the provisions of the procedural
actions pending before its enactment. Where a
OUSTED BY SUBSEQUENT STATUTE law, purely, the court attempting to exercise it loses
statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no the power to exercise it legally. This does not mean
UNLESS SO PROVIDED retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that that it loses jurisdiction of the subject matter. It
was pending prior to the enactment of the statute." means simply that he may thereby lose jurisdiction
SOUTHERN FOOD SALES (Bengzon v. Inciong) of the person or that the judgment may thereby be
CORPORATION vs. SALAS Reasoning rendered defective for lack of something essential to
206 SCRA 333 a. Article 217 (a) (4) of the Labor Code as amended sustain it. There is, of course, an important
by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6715 clearly distinction between person and subject matter are
MEDIALDEA; Feb 18, 1992
provides that the labor arbiter shall have original both conferred by law. As to the subject matter,
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 6

Avena
nothing can change the jurisdiction of the court over complaint at the CFI at Cabanatuan against Chu and 3. by voluntary submission
diminish it or dictate when it shall attach or when it Sigua. Summons were issued but one was returned
shall be removed. That is a matter of legislative unserved for Sigua wile the other served thru Chu’s
enactment which none but the legislature may wife. RODRIGUEZ VS ALIKPALA
change. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the - Boticano moved to dismiss the case against Sigua 57 SCRA 455
court over the person is, in some instances, made to and to declare Chu in default. The Court granted the CASTRO; June 25, 1974
defend on the consent or objection, on the acts or motions and adduced from evidence that Chu is
omissions of the parties or any of them. Jurisdiction responsible for the fault and negligence of the driver NATURE
over the person, however, may be conferred by under Art 2180 CC. Petition for certiorari
consent, expressly or impliedly given, or it may, by - Chu filed with the TC a notice of appeal and an
an objection, be prevented from attaching or urgent motion for extension of time to file record on FACTS
removed after it has attached. appeal. Court granted the motions. -Petitioner Rodriguez filed a case for recovery of the
- That it had jurisdiction of the persons of all the - Boticano filed a MTD the appeal and for execution, sum of P5,320.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees and
parties is indisputable. That jurisdiction was obtained but the appeal was still approved. The case was cost against Sps. Robellado.
not only by the usual course of practice - that is, by brought to the CA. CA set aside the TC decision for -A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and
the process of the court - but also by consent being null and void. served to Fe Robellado at their store in Divisoria. Sps
expressly given, is apparent. The plaintiff submitted - Boticano filed an MFR with the CA to which CA Robellado pleaded to the Rodriguez for time before
itself to the jurisdiction by beginning the action. The denied. the attachment to be effectively enforced. Rodriguez
defendants are now in this court asking that the agreed to the suspension of the judgment on the
action be not dismissed but continued. They are not ISSUE/S condition that Fe Robellado’s parents, the now
only nor objecting to the jurisdiction of the court but, 1. WON the question of jurisdiction of the court over respondents, Federico & Felisa Tolentino, to bind
rather, are here on this appeal for the purpose of the person of the defendant cannot be raised for the themselves jointly and severally with the Robellados,
maintaining that very jurisdiction over them. Nor is first time on appeal to pay the entire obligation subject of the suit. Felisa
the plaintiff in any position to asked for favors. It is 2. WON CA erred in holding that Chu did not Tolentino, being present, immediately agreed to this
clearly guilty of gross negligence in the allegations of voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the TC proposal.
its complaint, if the land does not lie in Tarlac as it despite his voluntary appearance -A compromise agreement was then entered to by
now asserts. the parties. The Rebellados subsequently failed to
HELD comply with the terms of the compromise
Of the defendant 1. NO agreement, thus prompting petitioner Rodriguez to
Ratio The defects in jurisdiction arising from
1. by service of summons request the City Court for a writ of execution on the
irregularities in the commencement of the properties of the Robellados and also of the
2. by voluntary appearance proceedings, defective process or even absence of Tolentinos. The request was granted by the City
process may be waived for failure to make seasonal Court. The Tolentinos brought an action for certiorari
BOTICANO V CHU, JR objections. with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The CFI
Reasoning The circumstances appear to show that rendered judgment excluding the Tolentinos from the
148 SCRA 541 there was waiver by the defendant to allege such effects of the writ of execution. Thus this appeal.
PARAS; March 16, 1987 defect when he failed to raise the question in the CFI
and at the first opportunity. ISSUE
NATURE
WON the CFI erred in excluding the Tolentinos from
Petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse 2. YES, he voluntarily submitted himself to the the effects of the writ of execution.
and set aside CA ruling of denying MFR. court’s jurisdiction.
Ratio Under Sec 23, Rule 14 ROC, the defendant’s HELD
FACTS voluntary appearance in court shall be equivalent to YES
- Eliseo Boticano is the registered owner of a Bedford service. It has been held by the court that the defect -The contention of the CFI that the dispositive portion
truck which is used in hauling logs for a fee. It was hit of summons is cured by the voluntary appearance by of the judgment of the City Court does not explicitly
at the rear by another Bedford truck owned by the appearance of the defendant. enjoin the Tolentinos to pay jointly and severally with
Manuel Chu and driven by Jaime Sigua while loaded Disposition The assailed decision and resolution of the Rebellados the amount due to the plaintiff, and
with logs and parked properly by the driver Maximo CA are reversed and set aside. The decision of the that the City Court never acquired jurisdiction over
Dalangin at the shoulder of the national highway. CFI (now RTC) is reinstated. Tolentinos and therefore cannot be bound by the
- Chu acknowledged ownership and agreed to
judgment rendered by said court, is erroneous.
shoulder the expenses of the repair, but failed to
comply with the agreement. Boticano filed a
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 7

Avena
-The dispositive portion of the judgment of the City - The order of the court was entered directing that designated. The judgment entered in these
Court approving the compromise and enjoining strict publication should be made in a newspaper, the proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.
compliance thereto by the parties is adequate for the court directed that the clerk of the court should - Several principles: (1) That the jurisdiction of the
purpose of execution. Judgment on a compromise deposit in the post office in a stamped envelope a court is derived from the power which it possesses
need not specifically name a person to be subject of copy of the summons and complaint directed to over the property; (II) that jurisdiction over the
execution thereof in obvious avoidance of repetition. Palanca at his last place of residence. person is not acquired and is nonessential; (III) that
-On lack of jurisdiction of the court over the - The cause proceeded in the CFI and Palanca not the relief granted by the court must be limited to
Tolentinos: the Tolentinos freely and voluntarily having appeared, judgment was taken against him such as can be enforced against the property itself.
entered into the compromise agreement which by default. It was ordered that Palanca should deliver - In a foreclosure proceeding against a nonresident
became the basis of judgment of the City Court. said amount to the clerk of the court to be applied to owner it is necessary for the court, as in all cases of
Under the circumstances, the Tolentinos are the satisfaction of the judgment, and it was declared foreclosure, to ascertain the amount due, as
estopped the very authority they invoked. And even that in case of failure to satisfy the judgment, the prescribed in section 256 of the Code of Civil
assuming that estoppel lies, we cannot set aside the mortgage property located in the city of Manila Procedure, and to make an order requiring the
principle of equity that jurisdiction over a person should be exposed to public sale. defendant to pay the money into court. This step is a
not originally a party to a case may be - Payment was never made and the court ordered the necessary precursor of the order of sale. It is clearly
acquired, upon proper conditions, thru the sale of the property. The property was brought in by intended merely as compliance with the requirement
voluntary appearance of the person before the the bank. that the amount due shall be ascertained and that
court. By coming forward with the original litigants - About seven years after the confirmation of this the defendant shall be required to pay it. As further
in moving for a judgment on compromise and by sale, a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as evidence of this it may be observed that according to
assuming such interest in the final adjudication of administrator of the estate of the original defendant, the Code of Civil Procedure a personal judgment
the case together with the Robellados, the Tolentinos wherein the applicant requested the court to set against the debtor for the deficiency is not to be
effectively submitted themselves to the jurisdiction aside the order. rendered until after the property has been sold and
of the City Court. the proceeds applied to the mortgage debt (sec. 260)
-Jurisdiction over the plaintiff can be acquired by ISSUE - Whatever may be the effect in other respects of the
the court upon filing of the complaint. On the other 1. WON the order of default and the judgment failure of the clerk of the CFI to mail the proper
hand, jurisdiction over the defendants can be rendered thereon were void because the court had papers to the defendant in China, such irregularity
acquired by the court upon service of valid summons never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or could in no wise impair or defeat the jurisdiction of
and upon voluntary appearance/submission of a over the subject of the action. the court, for in our opinion that jurisdiction rests
person in court. 2. WON the supposed irregularity in the proceedings upon a basis much more secure than would be
was of such gravity as to amount to a denial of due supplied by any form of notice that could be given to
process of law. a resident of a foreign country.
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
RULING 2. NO.
RES
1. NO. - In a foreclosure case, some notification of the
- The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a proceedings to the nonresident owner, prescribing
EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILINO v. proceeding quasi in rem, by which is expressed the time within which appearance must be made, is
PALANCA the idea that while it is not strictly speaking an action everywhere recognized as essential. To answer this
in rem yet it partakes of that nature and is necessity the statutes generally provide for
37 Phil. 921 substantially such. The expression, "action in rem' publication, and usually in addition thereto, for the
STREET; March 26, 1918 is, in its narrow application, used only with reference mailing of notice to the defendant, if his residence is
to certain proceedings in courts of admiralty wherein known. It is merely a means provided by law
FACTS the property alone is treated as responsible for the whereby the owner may be admonished by his
- A mortgage was executed by Palanca, as security claim or obligation upon which the proceedings are property is the subject of judicial proceedings and
for a debt owing to him to the bank. After the based. The action quasi in rem differs from the true that it is incumbent upon him to take such steps as
execution of this instrument, Palanca returned to action in rem in the circumstance that in the former he sees fit to protect it.
China where he died. an individual is named as defendant, and the - This mode of notification does not involve any
- As Palanca was a nonresident, it was necessary for purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest absolute assurance that the absent owner shall
the bank to give notice to him by publication therein to the obligation or lien burdening the thereby receive actual notice. The idea upon which
pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil property. All proceedings having for their sole object the law proceeds in recognizing the efficacy of a
Procedure. An order for publication was accordingly the sale or other disposition of the property of the means of notification which may fall short of actual
obtained from the court, and publication was made in defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or notice is apparently this: Property is always assumed
due form in a newspaper of the city of Manila. other form of remedy, are in general way thus to be in the possession of its owner, in person or by
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 8

Avena
agent; and he may be safely held, under certain Midgely and Pastor, Jr. at their respective addresses required merely to satisfy the constitutional
conditions, to be affected with knowledge that in Alicante and Barcelona. requirement of due process. The judgment of the
proceedings have been instituted for its - Both De Midgely and Pastor entered a special court would settle the title to the properties and to
condemnation and sale. appearance and filed a motion to dismiss on the that extent it partakes of the nature of judgment in
- Failure of the clerk to mail the notice, if in fact he ground of lack of jurisdiction as they are non- rem. The judgment is confined to the res (properties)
did so fail in his duty, is not such as irregularity as residents. They further alleged that earnest efforts and no personal judgment could be rendered against
amounts to a denial of due process of law; and hence toward a compromise have not been made as the non resident. It should be noted that the civil
in our opinion that irregularity, if proved, would not required in the Civil Code in suits between members case filed by Quemada is related to a testamentary
avoid the judgment in this case. Notice was given by of the same family, The motion was denied by Judge proceeding as it was filed for the purpose of
publication in a newspaper and this is the only form Ferandos and he ruled that the respondents were recovering the properties which in the understanding
of notice which the law unconditionally requires. properly summoned. of Quemada, belonged to the estate of the Late
- The subsequent motion for reconsideration was Pastor, Sr. and which were held by De Midgely and
Separate Opinion denied by Ferandos indicating in the order that the her brother.
MALCOLM; dissent action of Quemada was for the recovery of real
- The fundamental idea of due process of law is that property and real rights. The respondents were Disposition. Petition is dismissed
no man shall be condemned in his person or property instructed to file their answer.
without notice and an opportunity of being heard in - De Midgely filed this action with the Supreme Court.
his defense.
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
- "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which ISSUE/S
requires only in inspection of the judgment roll to WON Judge Ferandos gravely abused his discretion in ISSUES
demonstrate it want of vitality is a dead limb upon denying De Midgely’s motion to dismissed based on
the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the the lack of jurisdiction over her person. SPS GONZAGA V CA (SPS ABAGAT)
power so to do exists. It can bear no fruit to the
SCRA
plaintiff, but is a constant menace to the defendant." HELD
NO. The fact that she alleged as a ground for CALLEJO SR; October 18, 2004
dismissal the lack of earnest effort to compromise is
deemed as abandonment of her special appearance NATURE
DE MIDGELY VS FERANDOS Petition for the Review of the Decision and resolution
and as voluntary submission to the courts
64 SCRA 23 jurisdiction. of CA
AQUINO, May 13, 1975 Ratio. When the appearance is by motion for the
purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court FACTS
NATURE over the person, it must be for the sole and separate - October 22, 1991 > Sps Abagat filed complaint
Original Actions. Certiorari and contempt. purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. If against Sps Gonzaga for recovery of possession of
the motion is for any other purpose than to object to land in Baclaran, Parañaque issued in their names, as
FACTS the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he owners. Sps Abagat alleged in their complaint that
- Quemada, allegedly the illegitimate son of Alvaro thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the they were the owners of a small hut (barong-barong)
Pastor, Sr., was appointed as special administrator of court, constructed on the lot, which was then owned by the
the latter’s estate by the CFI of Cebu. As such, he Reasoning. Even if the lower court did not acquire government
filed a complaint against his half siblings, the jurisdiction over De Midgely, her motion to dismiss - February 22, 1961 > Abagat filed an application for
spouses Alvaro Pastor, Jr. and Maria Elena Achaval, was properly denied because Quemada’s action sales patent over the land
and Sofia Midgely, who were all at that time citizens against her maybe regarded as a quasi in rem - January 26, 1973 > hut was gutted by fire and after
of Spain and residing in that country. The suit also where jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident that, Sps Gregorio built a two-storey house on the
named Atlas Mining as co-respondent. The suit was defendant is not necessary and where the service of property without their consent. Sps Abagat filed a
to settle the question of ownership over certain summons is required only for the purpose of complaint for ejectment against Sps Gregorio but
properties and rights in some mining claims as complying with the requirement of due process. complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Quemada believed that those properties belong to Quasi in rem is an action between parties where because in their answer to the complaint, the Sps
the estate of Alvaro Pastor, Sr. the direct object is to reach and dispose of property Gregorio claimed ownership over the house
- Quemada, on his own, caused extraterritorial owed by the parties or of some interest therein. - Sps Gregorio sold house to Sps Gonzaga for
service of summons to be made through the - The SC cited the Perkins case as a precedent. In P100,000 under a deed of conditional sale, in which
Department of Foreign Affairs and the Philippine that case, it ruled that in a quasi in rem action Sps Gregorio undertook to secure an award of the
Embassy in Madrid, Spain, which effected the service jurisdiction over a non resident defendant is not land by the government in favor of Sps Gonzaga. In
of the summons through registered mail upon De essential. The service of summons by publication is an MOA, Sps Gregorio indicated that if they would
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 9

Avena
not secure such, they would return P90,000 as P90,000.00 paid by them to the Sps Gregorio. Sps of the Phils (counsel at the first instance is the
payment for the house Gonzaga failed to assail the trial court’s order of provincial/ state prosecutor).
- January 2, 1986 > Bureau of Lands granted the denial in the appellate court. Even after the trial - in the action for damages, the OSG likewise acted
application of Abagat for a sales patent over the court had granted leave to the Sps Gregorio to as counsel for Chavez, who was then the SolGen and
property. TCT No. 128186 was issued by the intervene as parties-defendants and the latter filed counsel for PCGG, the agency responsible for the
Register of Deeds in his name. Sps Abagat their Answer-in-Intervention, Sps Gonzaga failed to investigation of graft and corrupt practices of the
demanded that Sps Gonzaga vacate the property, file a cross-claim against the intervenors for specific Marcoses. The OSG filed for extension of time to file
but latter refused performance for the refund of the P90,000.00 they required pleading, and afterwards filed a motion to
- September 29, 1992 > Sps Abagat filed a motion had received from the petitioners under their deed of dismiss on behalf of Chavez. Petitioner Co objected
for leave to file a third-party complaint against the conditional sale, the deed of final and absolute sale to appearance of OSG as counsel, contending that he
Sps Gregorio. TC no longer resolved the motion for and the memorandum of agreement and pay filing is suing Chavez in his personal capacity.
leave to file a third-party complaint and docket fees therefor. - OSG manifested that it is authorized to represent
- Trial Court > October 10, 1994, in favor of Sps Chavez or any public official even if the said official is
Abagat Disposition Petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. CA sued in his personal capacity pursuant to the
- CA > December 19, 1997, affirmed the decision of decision and resolution are AFFIRMED. unconditional provisions of PD478 which defines the
the trial court on. On the plea of Sps Gonzaga that functions of OSG, as well as EO300 which made OSG
the TC should have ordered the Sps Gregorio to an independent agency under the Office of the
refund to them the P90,000.00 the latter had President
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF
received as payment for the house, CA ruled that a - RTC denied the petition, thus allowing the
separate complaint should have been filed against COURTS appearance of OSG as counsel. It also denied the
the Sps Gregorio, instead of appealing the decision of A. SUPREME COURT MFR. Thus, this petition for review
the TC. Question of law
ISSUE/S
ISSUE 1. WON the OSG has authority to appear for (a) a
WON RTC and CA erred in not ordering Sps Gregorio URBANO V CHAVEZ certain gov’t official in the PI of their case before the
to refund to them the P90,000 they had paid for the 183 SCRA 347 Ombudsman and (b) the SolGen in a suit for
house and which the latter promised to do so under GANCAYCO; March 19, 1990 damages arising from a crime
their Memorandum of Agreement
NATURE HELD
HELD Petition to review decision of RTC Pasig 1. NO
NO Ratio The OSG is not authorized to represent a
Ratio The rule is that a party is entitled only to such FACTS public official at ANY stage of a criminal case or in a
relief consistent with and limited to that sought by - there are 2 cases involved here: a criminal action civil suit for damages arising from a felony (applies
the pleadings or incidental thereto. A trial court for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices to all public officials and employees in the executive,
would be acting beyond its jurisdiction if it grants Act (RA 3019) and an civil action for damages arising legislative and judicial branches).
relief to a party beyond the scope of the pleadings. from a felony (defamation through a published Reasoning PD47811 defines the duties and
Moreover, the right of a party to recover depends, interview whereby Chavez imputed that Nemesio Co functions of OSG:
not on the prayer, but on the scope of the pleadings, was a close associate (crony?) of Marcos), both SEC1. The OSG shall represent the Gov’t of the Phils,
the issues made and the law. against Solicitor General Francisco Chavez (among its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and
Reasoning others) agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or
- Sps Gonzaga failed to file any pleading against Sps - in the criminal case (filed in the Office of the matter requiring the services of a lawyer. x x x
Gregorio for the enforcement of the deed of Ombudsman), the Office of the SolGen (OSG) entered - the OSG submits that since there is no qualification,
conditional sale, the deed of final and absolute sale, its appearance for Chavez and the other accused it can represent any public official without any
and the Memorandum of Agreement executed by (DILG Sec and 2 sectoral reps) as far as the Prelim qualification or distinction in any litigation.
them. The petitioners filed their motion for leave to Investigation is concerned. Urbano et. al. filed a - Same argument seems to apply to a similar
file a third-party complaint against the intervenors, special civil action for prohibition in the SC to enjoin provision in the Rev Admin Code (Sec. 1661: As
Sps Gregorio, and appended thereto their third-party the SolGen and his associates from acting as counsel principal law officer of the Gov’t, the SolGen shall
complaint for indemnity for any judgment that may for Chavez in the PI. The contention is in the event have the authority to act for and represent the
be rendered by the court against them and in favor that an information is filed against the accused, the Gov’t , its officers and agents in any official
of the respondents. However, Sps Gonzaga did not appearance of the OSG in the PI would be in conflict investigation, proceeding or matter requiring the
include in their prayer that judgment be rendered with its role as the appellate counsel for the People services of a lawyer). In Anti-Graft League v Ortega,
against the third-party defendants to refund the SC interpreted Sec. 1661 to embrace PI. However,
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 10

Avena
should an info be filed after, then OSG can no longer NATURE payments but also prays that the residential building
act as counsel. The rationale given was that public Petition for review of the decision of the CA constructed by the buyer be forfeited in plaintiff's
officials are subjected to numerous suits, and threats favor, jurisdiction over the case belongs to the CFI
of criminal prosecution could stay the hand of the FACTS not the MC in an ejectment case. The issues raised
public official. OSG provides assurance against -In 1974, Ortigas and Co. filed a complaint for before the inferior court did not only involved the
timidity in that they will be duly represented by unlawful detainer against Maximo Belmonte in the possession of the lot but also rights and obligations
counsel in the PI. Municipal Court of San Juan Rizal, praying that of the parties to the residential building which under
- However, the court declared this ruling abandoned judgment be rendered 1.) ordering the defendant his Art. 45 of the CC is real property. Aslo, plaintiff's
in this case. The anomaly in this ruling becomes successors-in-interest to vacate and surrender the lot claim to the bldg raises question of ownership.
obvious when, in the event of a judgment of to plaintiff; 2.) declaring the residential building -A CFI cannot assume jurisdiction in a case appealed
conviction, the case is brought on appeal to the constructed on the lot by defendant as forfeited in to it under SECII Rule 40 where one of the parties
appellate courts. The OSG, as the appellate counsel favor of plaintiff; 3.0 condeming defendant to pay objected to its jurisdiction. Since the original case
of the People, is expected to take a stand against the monthly rent of 5,000 from July 18, 1971 up to the was decided by the MC without jurisdiction over the
accused. More often than not, it does. Accordingly, time he vacates, together with attorney's fees and subject matter thereof, the CFI should have
there is a clear conflict of interest here, and one exemplary damages. The Ruled in favor of plaintiff dismissed the cases when it was brought before it on
which smacks of ethical considerations, where the and granted the relieves prayed for. appeal.
OSG, as counsel for the public official, defends the -Belmonte filed a motion to dismiss in the Cfi based
latter in the PI, and where the same office, as on lack of jurisdiction on the part of the MC. CFI Disposition. Without prejudice to the right of
appellate counsel of the People, represents the denied motion and affirmed in totot the MC Ortigas to file the proper action in the proper court,
prosecution when the case is brought on appeal. This judgment. The said court also issued a writ of the decisions of the CA, CFI and MC of San Juan Rizal
anomalous situation could not have been execution. Belmonte filed a petition for certiorari and are set aside.
contemplated and allowed by the law. It is a situation prohibition with preliminsry injunction in the CA,
which cannot be countenanced by the Court. assiling the 1.) the jurisdiction of the CFI andf MC; 2.)
JOSEFA V ZHANDONG
- another reason why the OSG can’t represent an the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings
accused in a crim case: the State can speak and act rendered by the MC; and 3.) the propriety of the GR 150903
only by law, whatever it says or does is lawful, and issuance of the writ of execution issued by the CFI. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; December 8,
that which is unlawful is not the word or deed of the The Ca ruled in favor of Belmonte, holding that the 2003
state. As such, a public official who is sued criminally MC has no jurisdiction. Hence the present petition.
is actually sued in his personal capacity inasmuch as NATURE
his principal (the State) can never the author of a ISSUES Petition for review on certiorari
wrongful act. The same applies to a suit for damages 1. WON the CA has appellate jurisdiction over this
arising from a felony, where the public official is held case FACTS
accountable for his act; the state is not liable. 2. WON the MC had jurisdiction to resolve the issues Tan represented himself to be the owner of
** Re: Question of Law (copied verbatim. This is all in the original complaint hardboards and sold them to Josefa. Josefa paid all
that is mentioned) his obligations to Tan. The hardboards apparently
-both issues raise pure questions of law inasmuch as HELD belonged to Zhandong. When Tan failed to pay
there are no evidentiary matters to be evaluated by 1. NO. Zhandong, it sent a demand letter for the payment of
this Court. Moreover, if the only issue is whether or Reasoning. After analyzing the issues raised by the hardboards to both Tan and Josefa.
not the conclusions of the trial court are in Belmonte before the CA, namely 1.) the jurisdiction Trial Court ruled in favor of Zhandong
consonance with law and jurisprudence, then the of the CFI andf MC; 2.) the propriety of the judgment The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
issue is a pure question of law (Torres v Yu). Thus, on the pleadings rendered by the MC; and 3.) the Decision.
the Court resolved to consolidate both Petitions and propriety of the issuance of the writ of execution Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
to treat them as Petitions for certiorari on pure issued by the CFI, the SC held that the same are denied.
questions of law in accordance with the provisions of purely legal in nature. Since appellate jurisdiction Petitioner ascribes to the CA the error in affirming
the Rules of Court. over cases involving purely legal questions is the ruling of the trial court that Josefa is liabe to
Disposition Petition is granted. exclusively vested in the SC by Sec. 17 of the Zhandong despite “THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE”
Judiciary Act (RA 296), it is apparent that the decision showing that they had no business transaction with
ORTIGAS V. CA under review rendered by the CA without jurisdiction each other and that it was Tan who was solely
should be set aside.
106 SCRA 121 responsible to Zhandong for the payment of the
2. NO. goods.
ABAD SANTOS, 1981 Reasoning. Where a subdivision owner seeks not
just to eject the lot buyer who defaulted in his
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 11

Avena
ISSUE Petition for certiorari3 Cabral availed themselves of this right and have
1. WON Josefa is liable to Zhandong for the payment since been released from detention.
of the merchandise FACTS -In a parallel development, the witnesses in the
-September 15, 1980: acting on the evidence murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears
HELD presented by the Philippine Constabulary that if the trial is held at the Court of First Instance
1. NO commander at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, the CFI branch in Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers
Reasoning. Evidence indicate that Tan bought the of that province issued a search warrant for the from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized.
hardboards from Zhandong and, in turn, sold them to search and seizure of the deceased bodies of seven At least two of the accused are officials with power
petitioner. However, both the trial court and the persons believed in the possession of the accused and influence in Kabankalan and they have been
Court of Appeals ignored this glaring reality and MAYOR Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta. Isabel, released on bail. In addition, most of the accused
instead held that petitioner purchased the boards Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. remained at large. Indeed, there have been reports
directly from respondent. -September 16, 1980: armed with warrant, made to police authorities of threats made on the
General Rule : Only questions of law may be elements of the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded families of the witnesses." The facts alleged argue
entertained by the Supreme Court in a petition for to the place of Sola. Diggings made in a canefield strongly for the remedies sought, namely a change of
review on certiorari yielded two common graves containing the bodies of venue and the cancellation of the bail bonds.
Exceptions: Fernando Fernandez, Mateo Olimpos, Alfredo Perez, -March 15, 1981: this Court issued the following
(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, Custodio Juanica, Arsolo Juanica, Rollie Callet and resolution: "The Court Resolved to: (A) [Note] the
surmises or conjectures; Bienvenido Emperado. comment of the Solicitor General on the urgent
(2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or -September 23 and October 1, 1980: the PC petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail
impossible; provincial commander of Negros Occidental filed bonds, adopting the plea of the petition, namely, (1)
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion; seven (7) separate complaints for murder against the the setting aside, by certiorari, of the order of the
(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of accused Pablo Sola, Francisco Garcia, Ricardo Garcia, Municipal Court of Kabankalan, presided over by
facts; Jose Bethoven Cabral, Florendo Baliscao and fourteen Judge Rafael Gasataya, granting bail to the accused
(5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (14) other persons of unknown names. After due (2) the petition for a change of venue or place of trial
(6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which preliminary examination of the complainant's of the same criminal cases to avoid a miscarriage of
the factual findings are based; witnesses and his other evidence, the municipal justice;
(7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by court found probable cause against the accused. It (B) [Transfer] the venue of the aforesaid criminal
the presence of evidence on record; thus issued an order for their arrest. cases to Branch V of the Court of First Instance of
(8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary -However, without giving the prosecution the Negros Occidental at Bacolod City, presided by
to those of the trial court; opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio, considering that
(9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked accused is strong, the court granted them the right District Judge Ostervaldo Emilia of the Court of First
certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly to post bail for their temporary release. The accused Instance, Negros Occidental, Branch VI at
considered, would justify a different conclusion; Pablo Sola, Francisco Garcia, and Jose Bethoven Himamaylan has an approved leave of absence
(10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond covering the period from January 12 to March 12,
the issues of the case; 1981 due to a mild attack of cerebral thrombosis and
(11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of 3 The one who filed this appeal which partakes of a nature of certiorari are private that the said Branch V is the nearest court station to
both parties. Himamaylan; and
prosecutors Francisco Cruz and Renecio Espiritu. The assertion of the petitioner private
(C) [Await] the comment of respondents on the
prosecutors is that they are instituting the action `subject to the control and supervision of
Disposition Petition is granted. petition to cancel bail, without prejudice to the public
the Fiscal. (CJ Fernando’s prefatory statement states that the two have no legal standing to
officials concerned taking the necessary measures to
raise this petition. Since Sol Gen Mendoza never bothered to question their legal standing,
assure the safety of the witnesses of the
the Court contented itself with the fact that the Solicitor General has authority to raise this
prosecution." THUS, THE ISSUE OF A CHANGE OF
Change of venue petition in behalf of the People of the Philippines)
VENUE HAS BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
-The comments respectively submitted by
PEOPLE v. MAYOR PABLO SOLA The Solicitor General adopted a two-pronged thrusts in this petition: 1. the setting aside, by respondent Florendo Baliscao on March 5, 1981,
respondent Francisco Garcia on March 11, 1981 and
103 SCRA 393 (1981) certiorari, of the order of the Municipal Court of Kabankalan, presided over by Judge Rafael

Gasataya, granting bail to the accused in the criminal cases mentioned above, and 2. the respondent Pablo Sola on March 16, 1981, dealt
FERNANDO, C.J. petition for a change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal cases to avoid a solely with the question of the cancellation of the bail
miscarriage of justice." bonds. Such comments were considered as answers,
NATURE with the case thereafter deemed submitted for
decision.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 12

Avena
ISSUE questions asked by the municipal judge before bail
Whether or not the bail bonds of respondents should was granted could be characterized as searching. NATURE
be cancelled The fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional
character. Petition for certiorari which stemmed from a
HELD ON CHANGE OF VENUE: The constitution is quite complaint for illegal dismissal filed by herein private
YES. explicit. The Supreme Court could order "a change of respondent before the NLRC
Ratio. There being a failure to abide by the basic venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case justice." FACTS
where the accused is charged with a capital offense, -People v. Gutierrez, J.B.L. Reyes: "…to compel the - . Private respondent alleges that he started working
prior to bail being granted, must be decided in favor prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its as Operations Manager of petitioner St. Martin
of petitioner. The bail bonds must be cancelled and witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there
the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, was no contract of employment executed between
Alfonso Baguio for such hearing. and to betray the very purpose for which courts have him and petitioner nor was his name included in the
Reasoning. Bail was granted to the accused in the been established. semi-monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was
Order of the Municipal Court without hearing the -The exercise by this Honorable Court of its above dismissed from his employment for allegedly
prosecution. That is to disregard the authoritative constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. misappropriating P38,000.00 which was intended for
doctrine enunciated in People v. San Diego. The witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. payment by petitioner of its value added tax (VAT) to
-Justice Capistrano: "The question presented before They are afraid they would be killed on their way to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Petitioner on
us is, whether the prosecution was deprived of or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. the other hand claims that private respondent was
procedural due process. The answer is in the Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita
affirmative. We are of the considered opinion that or testify falsely to save their lives. Malabed, the owner of petitioner St. Martin's Funeral
whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in -there may be cases where the fear, objectively Home. Sometime in 1995, private respondent, who
custody for a capital offense be resolved in a viewed, may, to some individuals, be less than was formerly working as an overseas contract
summary proceeding or in the course of a regular terrifying, but the question must always be the effect worker, asked for financial assistance from the
trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to it has on the witnesses who will testify. mother of Amelita. Since then, as an indication of
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence -The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution gratitude, private respondent voluntarily helped the
that it may desire to introduce before the court must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should mother of Amelita in overseeing the business.
should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the be resolved in favor of a change of venue, - In January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed
criminal case involved in the instant special civil away, so the latter then took over the management
action, the prosecution should be denied such an Dispositive. WHEREFORE, the assailed order of of the business. She then discovered that there were
opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural judge Rafael Gasataya granting bail to private arrears in the payment of taxes and other
due process, and the order of the court granting bail respondents is nullified, set aside, and declared to be government fees, although the records purported to
should be considered void on that ground." without force and effect. Executive Judge Alfonso show that the same were already paid. Amelita then
-J. Cardozo: "THE LAW, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS Baguio of the Court of First Instance of Negros made some changes in the business operation and
SEDULOUS IN MAINTAINING FOR A DEFENDANT Occidental, to whose sala the cases had been private respondent and his wife were no longer
CHARGED WITH CRIME WHATEVER FORMS OF transferred by virtue of the resolution of this Court of allowed to participate in the management thereof. As
PROCEDURE ARE OF THE ESSENCE OF AN March 5, 1981, is directed forthwith to hear the a consequence, the latter filed a complaint charging
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND. PRIVILEGES SO petitions for bail of private respondents, with the that petitioner had illegally terminated his
FUNDAMENTAL AS TO BE INHERENT IN EVERY prosecution being duly heard on the question of employment.
CONCEPT OF A FAIR TRIAL THAT COULD BE whether or not the evidence of guilt against the - Private respondent appealed to the NLRC. On June
ACCEPTABLE TO THE THOUGHT OF REASONABLE respondents is strong. This decision is immediately 13, 1997, the NLRC rendered a resolution setting
MEN WILL BE KEPT INVIOLATE AND INVIOLABLE, executory. No costs. aside the questioned decision and remanding the
HOWEVER CRUSHING MAY BE THE PRESSURE OF case to the labor arbiter for immediate appropriate
INCRIMINATING PROOF. BUT JUSTICE, THOUGH DUE proceedings. Petitioner then filed a motion for
TO THE ACCUSED, IS DUE TO THE ACCUSER ALSO. reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in its
B. COURT OF APPEALS
The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is resolution dated August 18, 1997 for lack of merit,
narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance hence the present petition alleging that the NLRC
true." committed grave abuse of discretion.
-the very essence of due process as the embodiment ST MARTIN FUNERAL HOME VS NLRC
of justice requires that the prosecution be given the
G.R. No. 130866 ISSUE
opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of
REGALADO; Sept 16, 1998 WON the SC should entertain the present petition
guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 13

Avena
he commendably and realistically emphasized, that 208 SCRA 652
HELD procedure would be advantageous to the aggrieved
DAVIDE; May 8, 1992
NO (should be remanded to CA) party on this reasoning: i.e., , to allow these cases to
Ratio. All references in the amended Sec 9 of BP No. be appealed to the Court of Appeals would give
NATURE
129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the SC litigants the advantage to have all the evidence on
The common origin of these cases is Producers Bank
are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and record be reexamined and reweighed after which the
of the Philippines and Producers Properties, Inc. vs
refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. findings of facts and conclusions of said bodies are
CB, Jose B. Fernandez. Jr. and the Monetary Board
Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be correspondingly affirmed, modified or reversed.
filed before the Makati RTC.
initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the -Under such guarantee, the Supreme Court can then
- the consolidation of the 2 cases was ordered:
doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate apply strictly the axiom that factual findings of the
FIRST CASE- a petition for review on certiorari of the
forum for the relief desired. Court of Appeals are final and may not be reversed
decision and the resolution of the CA. The impugned
Reasoning. It will be noted that paragraph (3), on appeal to the Supreme Court. A perusal of the
decision upheld the Order of respondent Judge
Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 now grants exclusive records will reveal appeals which are factual in
Guadiz granting the motion for issuance of a writ of
appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals over all nature and may, therefore, be dismissed outright by
preliminary injunction enjoining CB, Fernandez and
final adjudications of the Regional Trial Courts and minute resolutions.
the Monetary Board from implementing Monetary
the quasi-judicial agencies generally or specifically -While the SC does not wish to intrude into the
Board Resolutions No. 649 and No. 751, or from
referred to therein except, among others, "those Congressional sphere on the matter of the wisdom of
taking the threatened appropriate alternative action
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the a law, on this score it adds the further observations
and the Order in the same case denying petitioners'
Supreme Court in accordance with . . . the Labor that there is a growing number of labor cases being
motion to dismiss and vacate said injunction. The
Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. elevated to this Court which, not being a trier of fact,
challenged resolution, on the other hand, denied
442, as amended, . . . ." This would necessarily has at times been constrained to remand the case to
petitioners' MFR.
contradict what has been ruled and said all along the NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous
SECOND CASE- a petition for review directed
that appeal does not lie from decisions of the NLRC. factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is
principally against the decision of the CA dismissing
Yet, under such excepting clause literally construed, procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from
the petition therein filed and sustained the various
the appeal from the NLRC cannot be brought to the the increased number of its component divisions;
Orders of the respondent Judge, but directed the
Court of Appeals, but to this Court by necessary and that there is undeniably an imperative need for
plaintiffs therein to amend the amended complaint
implication. expeditious action on labor cases as a major aspect
by stating in its prayer the specific amount of
The same exceptive clause further confuses the of constitutional protection to labor.
damages which Producers Bank of the Philippines
situation by declaring that the Court of Appeals has -This case therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that
(PBP) claims to have sustained as a result of losses of
no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the Supreme Court will not entertain direct resort to
operation and the conservator's bank frauds and
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
abuses; the Clerk of Court was also ordered to
accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of the appropriate courts or where exceptional and
determine the amount of filing fees which should be
B.P. No. 129, and those specified cases in Section 17 compelling circumstances justify availment of a
paid by the plaintiffs within the applicable
of the Judiciary Act of 1948. These cases can, of remedy within and calling for the exercise of its
prescriptive or reglementary period.
course, be properly excluded from the exclusive primary jurisdiction.
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS
However, because of the aforementioned Disposition.The instant petition for certiorari is
- Petitioners claim that during the regular
amendment by transposition, also supposedly hereby REMANDED, and all pertinent records thereof
examination of the PBP, CB examiners stumbled
excluded are cases falling within the appellate ordered to be FORWARDED, to the Court of Appeals
upon some highly questionable loans which had been
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with for appropriate action and disposition consistent with
extended by the PBP management to several
the Labor Code. This is illogical and impracticable, the views and ruling herein set forth, without
entities. Upon further examination, it was discovered
and Congress could not have intended that pronouncement as to costs.
that these loans, totalling approximately P300
procedural gaffe, since there are no cases in the
million, were "fictitious" as they were extended,
Labor Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or C. RTC without collateral, to certain interests related to PBP
awards wherein are within the appellate jurisdiction
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES owners themselves. Said loans were deemed to be
of the Supreme Court or of any other court for that
matter. and HON. JOSE B. FERNANDEZ, VS CA, anomalous particularly because the total paid-in
capital of PBP at that time was only P 140.544
-Incidentally, it was noted by the sponsor therein that JUDGE TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR.,
million. This means that the entire paid-in capital of
some quarters were of the opinion that recourse from PRODUCERS BANK OF THE the bank, together with some P160 million of
the NLRC to the Court of Appeals as an initial step in
PHILIPPINES and PRODUCERS depositors' money, was utilized by PBP management
the process of judicial review would be circuitous and
PROPERTIES, INC. to fund these unsecured loans.
would prolong the proceedings. On the contrary, as
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 14

Avena
- at the height of the controversy surrounding the accumulate. Consequently, per Resolution No. 649, - the respondent Judge handed down an Order
discovery of the anomalous loans, several blind items the CB Monetary Board decided to approve in denying the motion to dismiss on the following
about a family-owned bank in Binondo which granted principle what it considered a viable rehabilitation grounds: (a) the amended complaint alleges ultimate
fictitious loans to its stockholders appeared in major program for PBP. facts showing that plaintiff has a right and that such
newspapers. These news items triggered a bank-run - There being no response from both PBP and PPI on a right has been violated by defendant; the
in PBP which resulted in continuous over-drawings on the proposed rehabilitation plan, the MB issued questioned MB Resolutions were issued arbitrarily
the bank's demand deposit account with the CB. On Resolution No. 751 on 7 August 1987 instructing CB and with bad faith, "being a part of a scheme to
the basis of the report submitted by the Supervision management to advise the bank that: divest plaintiff's present stockholders of their control
and Examination Sector, Department I of the CB, the a. The CB conservatorship over PBP may be lifted of PBP and to award the same to the PDIC or its
Monetary Board (MB placed PBP under only after PBP shall have identified the new group of unknown transferees"; and the averments of legality
conservatorship. stockholders who will put in new capital in PBP and or illegality of the conservatorship are relevant to the
- PBP nonetheless requested that the same be lifted after the Monetary Board shall have considered such cause of action since the complaint seeks the lifting
by the CB. Consequently, the MB directed the new stockholders as acceptable; and of the conservatorship; (b) While it is true that under
principal stockholders of PBP to increase its capital b. The stockholders of PBP have to decide whether or Section 28-A of the Central Bank Act the conservator
accounts by such an amount that would be not to accept the terms of the rehabilitation plan as takes over the management of a bank, the Board of
necessary for the elimination of PBP's negative net provided under Resolution Directors of such bank is not prohibited from filing a
worth. No. 649 within one week from receipt of notice suit to lift the conservatorship and from questioning
- CB senior deputy Governor Gabriel Singson hereof and if such terms are not acceptable to them, the validity of both the conservator's fraudulent acts
informed PBP that the CB would be willing to lift the the Central Bank will take appropriate alternative and abuses and its principal's (MB) arbitrary action;
conservatorship under the following conditions: action on the matter; . . . besides, PPI is now a party-plaintiff in the action; and
(a) PBP's unsecured overdraft with the Central Bank - the PBP, without responding to the communications (c) plaintiffs have paid the correct filing fees since
will be converted into an emergency loan, to be of the CB, filed a complaint against the CB, the MB "the value of the case cannot be estimated."
secured by sufficient collateral and CB Governor Jose B. Fernandez, Jr. The FIRST CASE
(b) A comptroller for PBP and any number of bank complaint, alleged that the conservatorship was - Unable to accept the above Order, CB and
examiners deemed necessary to oversee PBP's unwarranted, ill-motivated, illegal, utterly Fernandez filed with respondent CA a petition for
operations shall be designated by the CB, under unnecessary and unjustified; that the appointment of certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul the
terms of reference to be determined by the the conservator was arbitrary; that herein petitioners Orders of the respondent Judge, restrain the
Governor; acted in bad faith; that the CB-designated implementation of the same and nullify the writ of
(c) A letter from the Management of PBP authorizing conservators committed bank frauds and abuses; preliminary injunction. They contend therein that: 1.
the CB to automatically return clearing items that that the CB is guilty of promissory estoppel; and that The trial court's injunctive order and writ are
would result in an overdraft in its CB account shall be by reason of the conservatorship, it suffered losses. anomalous and illegal because they are directed
submitted to the CB. It prayed for a judicial review of the MB Resolutions against CB acts and measures which constitute no
- the MB approved the consolidation of PBP's other and the issuance of a TRO. invasion of plaintiff's rights; and 2. The complaint
unsecured obligations to the CB with its overdraft - The case was raffled to Branch 147 of Makati RTC filed was, on its face, dismissible: (a) for failure to
and authorizing the conversion thereof into an court which was then presided over by respondent state a cause of action, (b) for being unauthorized by
emergency loan. The same resolution authorized the Judge. the party in whose name it purports to have been
CB Governor to lift the conservatorship and return - respondent Judge issued a TRO; Subsequently, he filed, and (c) for failure of the purported plaintiff to
PBP's management to its principal stockholders upon issued an Order enjoining defendant-petitioners or pay the required filing fees.
completion of the documentation and full any of their agents from implementing Monetary - CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling
collateralization of the emergency loan, but directed Board Resolutions Nos. 649 and 751 or from taking that the CB's sudden and untimely announcement of
PBP to pay the emergency loan in 5 equal annual the threatened "appropriate alternative action" the conservatorship over PBP eroded the confidence
installments, with interest and penalty rates at MRR including exclusion of plaintiff bank from settlement which the banking public had hitherto reposed on the
180 days plus 48% per annum, and liquidated of clearing balances at the Central Bank clearing bank and resulted in the bank-run; it then concluded
damages of 5% for delayed payments. house or any other action that will disturb the status that when the CB "peremptorily and illtimely
- PBP submitted a rehabilitation plan to the CB. quo or the viability of plaintiff bank during the announced" the conservatorship, PBP was not given
Although said proposal was explored and discussed, pendency of this case conditioned upon the posting an opportunity to be heard since the CB arbitrarily
no program acceptable to both the CB and PPI was of a bond in the amount of P2,000,000.00. brushed aside administrative due process
arrived at because of disagreements on certain - PBP filed the Amended Complaint impleading PPI as notwithstanding PBP's having sufficiently established
matters such as interest rates, penalties and an additional plaintiff. No new allegations or causes its inherent corporate right to autonomously perform
liquidated damages. No other rehabilitation program of action for said plaintiff were made. Petitioners filed its banking activities without undue governmental
was submitted by PBP for almost 3 years; as a result a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. interference that would in effect divest its
thereof, its overdrafts with the CB continued to stockholders of their control over the operations of
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 15

Avena
the bank." It further held that the challenged - Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred amended, it was filed after the ten (10) day period
resolutions of the MB are not just advisory in upon her by the Central Bank, Atty. Leonida prescribed by Section 29 of R.A. No. 265, as
character "because the same sought to impose upon Tansinsin-Encarnacion, in her capacity as amended, and the correct docket fees were not paid;
the respondent bank petitioners' governmental acts conservator, instituted reforms aimed at making PBP (2) respondent Judge illegally ordered her to return
that were specifically designed and executed to more viable. With this purpose in mind, she started to PPI the administration of the bank's three (3)
devise a scheme that would irreparably divest from reorganizing the bank's personnel and committees. properties, contrary to his own writ of preliminary
the stockholders of the respondent bank control of - In order to prevent her from continuing with the injunction and earlier order to make the bank viable,
the same." reorganization, PBP filed an Omnibus Motion asking and to publish the alleged "suspense accounts"
On the issue of the non-payment of the correct the trial court for an order: contrary to Section 28-A of R.A. No. 265, as
docket fees, the said court, in ruling that the correct (a) reinstating PBP officers to their original positions amended, the writ of preliminary injunction and her
amount was paid, said that "the instant case is and restoring the bank's standing committees to constitutional right to silence; (3) respondent Judge
incapable of pecuniary estimation because the value their respective compositions prior to said erred in declaring her in contempt of court
of the losses incurred by the respondent bank cannot reorganization; (b) enjoining the lease of any portion notwithstanding his lack of jurisdiction over the case
be calibrated nor pinned down to a specific amount of the bank's space in Producers Bank Centre and failure to set any date for the hearing and
in view of the damage that may be caused by the building to third parties and the relocation of reception of evidence, in violation of her right to due
appointment of a conservator to its goodwill and departments/offices of PBP as was contemplated; process of law; and (4) respondents Judge and
standing in the community." and (c) to hold, after an opportunity to be heard is lawyers are administratively liable for their grossly
- petitioners filed with this Court the instant petition given her, said conservator in contempt of court for illegal actuations and for depriving the Government
for review. It is alleged therein that the respondent disobedience of and resistance to the writ of of at least P13.2 million in filing fees.
Court committed grave abuse of discretion in: injunction. An opposition to the contempt charge was - In disposing of the issues raised, respondent Court
(1) Ignoring petitioners' contention that since PBP did later filed by said petitioner. merely adopted with approval the ruling of the
not pay the correct filing fees, the trial court did not - respondent Judge issued an Order (a) requiring respondent Judge on the question of jurisdiction,
acquire jurisdiction over the case; hence, pursuant to conservator Tansinsin-Encarnacion to reinstate PBP sustaining the respondent Judge's ruling. As to the
Manchester Development Corp., et al. vs. Court of officers to their original positions prior to the filing of the complaint after the lapse of the 10-day
Appeals, et al., the complaint should have been reorganization of the bank's personnel and restore period provided for in Section 29 of R.A. No. 265, it
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the PBP's standing committees to their original ruled that the Section does not apply because the
court; compositions, and (b) restraining her from leasing complaint essentially seeks to compel the
(2) . . . ruling on the propriety or impropriety of the out to third parties any portion of PBP's space in the conservator to perform his duties and refers to
conservatorship as a basis for determining the Producers Bank Centre building. circumstances and incidents which transpired after
existence of a cause of action since the amended - A second Order directed Tansinsin-Encarnacion to said 10-day period.
complaint does not seek the annulment or lifting of publish the financial statement of PBP - On the issue of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment
the conservatorship; - On several occasions thereafter, conservator of correct filing fees, to which an exception was
(3) . . . not holding that the amended complaint Tansinsin-Encarnacion caused the publication of made in the dispositive portion, the respondent Court
should have been dismissed because it was filed in PBP's financial statement as required by regulations, found the same to be "partly" meritorious. It agreed
the name of PBP without the authority of its without, however, carrying the items enumerated by with petitioner that while the other losses and
conservator; and the trial court as "suspense accounts." Consequently, damages sought to be recovered are incapable of
(4) . . . not setting aside the Order of the trial court contempt charges were filed against her, of which pecuniary estimation, the damages inflicted on PBP
granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary she was found guilty. Tansinsin-Encarnacion filed a due to losses of operation and the conservator's bank
injunction which unlawfully restrained the CB from petition for certiorari against respondent Judge, frauds and abuses were in fact pegged at
exercising its mandated responsibilities and Henry L. Co and the law firm of Quisumbing, Torres P108,479,771.00 in paragraph 26 of the amended
effectively compelled it to allow the PBP to continue and Evangelista. She prays therein for judgment complaint. This specific amount, however, should
incurring overdrafts with it. declaring respondent judge to be without jurisdiction have been stated in the prayer of the complaint. It
- private respondents argue that the Manchester rule to entertain both the complaint and amended also held that the Manchester case "has been legally
is not applicable in the case at bar because what is complaint; declaring null and void all his orders, construed in the subsequent case of Sun Insurance
primarily sought for herein is a writ of injunction and specially the contempt orders; and finding Office Ltd. and the case of Filipinas Shell Petroleum
not an award for damages; it is further alleged that respondent Judge and respondent lawyers guilty of Corp. to the effect that applying the doctrine
an order denying a motion to dismiss is neither violating their respective oaths of office. initiated in the case of Manchester, together with
appealable nor be made the proper subject of a - In her Memorandum submitted to the CA, Tansinsin- said subsequent thereto (sic), plaintiffs in the original
petition for certiorari absent a clear showing of lack Encarnacion alleged that: (1) respondent Judge has case should be given a reasonable time to amend
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. no jurisdiction because the filing of the case was not their complaint, more particularly, to state in their
SECOND CASE authorized by the petitioner or the conservator in prayer in the amended complaint the specific
violation of Section 28-A of R.A. No. 265, as amount of damages . . ."
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 16

Avena
- On the orders of contempt and the reasons - While PBP cleverly worded its complaint to make it the action. Where the filling of the initiatory pleading
therefor, respondent Court merely stated: appear as one principally for injunction, deliberately is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
. . . Generally, when the court has jurisdiction over omitting the claim for damages as a specific cause of the court may allow the payment of the fee within a
the subject matter and of the person, decisions upon action, a careful examination thereof bears that the reasonable time but in no case beyond the
or questions pertinent to the cause are decisions same is in reality an action for damages arising out applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
within its jurisdiction, and however, irregular or of the alleged "unwarranted, ill-motivated and illegal - The prescriptive period therein mentioned refers to
erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by conservatorship," or a conservatorship which "was the period within which a specific action must be
certiorari. utterly unnecessary and unjustified," and the filed. It means that in every case, the docket fee
- Finally, on the administrative liability of the "arbitrary" appointment of a conservator. Thus, as must be paid before the lapse of the prescriptive
respondent Judge and the lawyers, the respondent stated earlier, it devoted the bulk of its petition to period.
Court declared the claim to be without merit. detailed events, occurrences and transactions in - There can be no question that in the instant case,
support thereof and patiently enumerated the losses PBP's claims for damages arise out of an injury to its
ISSUE it sustained and suffered. rights. Pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, the
WON the respondent Judge committed grave abuse - These are the very damages referred to in the action therefor must be initiated within 4 years from
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not prayer: the time the cause of action accrued. Since the
dismissing the Civil Case on the ground of non- “to fully repair the damages inflicted on PBP damages arose out of the alleged unwarranted, ill-
payment of the correct amount of docket fee in consisting of losses of operation and the motivated, illegal, unnecessary and unjustified
violation of the rule enunciated in Manchester conservators' bank frauds and abuses” conservatorship, the cause of action, if any, first
Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. but not specified therein. To this Court's mind, this accrued in 1984 and continued until 1987, when the
was done to evade the payment of the corresponding original complaint was filed. There is no showing that
HELD filing fees which, as computed by petitioner on the PBP paid the correct filing fee for the claim within the
Ratio The action must be dismissed for failure of the basis alone of the specified losses of prescribed period. Hence, nothing can save the case
plaintiffs therein to pay the correct docket fees, P108,479,771.00, would amount to about P from being dismissed.
pursuant to Manchester. The said case was decided 437,000.00. The PBP then clearly acted with manifest
by this Court on 7 May 1987, exactly 3 months and bad faith in resorting to the foregoing clever strategy DISPOSITION
20 days before the filing of the original complaint to avoid paying the correct filing fees. The PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are GRANTED.
and 5 months and 18 days before the filing of the pronouncements in the Manchester case should thus The decision and resolution of the CA are REVERSED
Amended Complaint. It was ruled therein that: be reiterated: and SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge is ordered to
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case The Court cannot close this case without making the dismiss Civil Case. All proceedings undertaken and
only upon the payment of the prescribed observation that it frowns at the practice of counsel all orders issued by respondent Judge are hereby SET
docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or who filed the original complaint in this case of ASIDE for being null and void.
similar pleading will not thereby vest omitting any specification of the amount of damages
jurisdiction in the Court, much less the in the prayer although the amount of over P78
ASCUE v CA (ANTONIO)
payment of the docket fee based on the million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This is
amounts sought in the amended pleading. clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade GR No. 84330
Reasoning The respondent Judge, in ruling that PBP the payment of the correct filing fees if not to Padilla; May 8, 1991
and PPI had paid the correct docket fee of P102.00, mislead the docket clerk in the assessment of the
said that "the value of the case cannot be estimated" filing fee. . . . NATURE
since what is sought is an injunction against the - The respondent Court itself, confronted by the same Petition for review on certiorari
enforcement of the challenged resolutions of the MB; issue, but perhaps unaware of its earlier Resolution,
in short, the claim for damages is merely incidental. ruled that PBP and PPI are liable for the filing fees on FACTS
Upon the other hand, respondent Court, in its the claim for damages. - Private respondents Ramon Antonio, Salvador
Resolution, ruled that the case is "incapable of - respondent Court applied the rule laid down in Sun Salenga and Ulipia Fernandez (lessees) filed a
pecuniary estimation" because the value of the Insurance Office and Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. complaint with the MetroTC alleging that petitioner
losses incurred by the PBP "cannot be calibrated nor which were, by then, already overturned by Ascue (lessor) refused to collect their rentals. Hence,
pinned down to a specific amount in view of the Manchester. Even granting for the sake of argument they sought consignation of the payments with the
damage that may be caused by the appointment of a that Sun Insurance and Pilipinas Shell may apply in MetroTC.
conservator to its goodwill and standing in the this case, the Court categorically stated: - Ascue filed a motion to dismiss complaint on the
community." It is not simply the filing of the complaint or ground that it is the RTC not MTC which has
Both conclusions are unfounded and are the result of appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of jurisdiction over consignation cases, the subject
a misapprehension of the allegations and causes of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court matter of litigation being incapable of pecuniary
action in both the complaint and amended complaint. with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 17

Avena
estimation. The MetroTC denied Ascue’s motion to jurisdiction, it has also been held, extends to all
dismiss and held that the inferior court had maritime torts.
NEGRE v CABAHUG SHIPPING
jurisdiction since the consigned amount was P5,625 Reasoning. The action was based upon an oral
(well below 20K). 16 SCRA 655 contract for the transportation of goods by water.
- Ascue later appealed to the RTC but the same DIZON; April 29, 1966 -Moreover, the allegations of the complaint clearly
dismissed the appeal for being premature. Ascue show: first, that the contract entered into between
brought the case to the SC on direct appeal but the NATURE the parties had already been partially performed with
case was referred back to the CA. The CA then Appeal the loading of the goods subject-matter thereof on
dismissed the petition and ruled that the jurisdiction board appellee's vessel and the acceptance thereof
of a court in consignation cases depends on the FACTS by said appellee, and second, that the maritime
amount consigned, consignation being merely a form - On August 14, 1961, Negre (appellant) filed contract binding the parties was breached by the
of payment and the opposite of a demand by a his complaint against Cabahug Shipping & carrier because through his fault and that of his
creditor for payment. Co (appellee), a common carrier engaged in agents and representatives the cargo became a total
the business of transporting persons and loss.
ISSUE goods for a price within Philippine waters, to
WON the CA erred in holding that consignation cases recover the sum of P3,774.90, representing Disposition Reversed.
fall within the jurisdiction of the MetroTC and that the the value of a cargo of dried fish belonging
amount consigned determines said jurisdiction to him which was loaded on the latter's BAITO V SARMIENTO
vessel, and which was totally destroyed on
109 Phil. 148
HELD board thereof, before it could be transported
No. to its place of destination, due to the gross PADILLA; APR 25, 1960
Ratio In valid consignation cases, where the thing negligence of the officers and members of
sought to be deposited is a sum of money, the the crew of said vessel NATURE
amount of debt due is determinable, hence, the - As Cabahug’s answer admitted liability for Appeal from CFI Samar
subject matter is capable of pecuniary estimation. the loss of said cargo, but only up to the
This amount sought to be consigned then determines amount of P3,733,78, appellant moved for a FACTS
the jurisdiction of the court. judgment on the pleadings. In replying -Lucina Baito filed action for support against
Reasoning petitioner is of the belief that it is the thereto, however, appellee moved to her husband Anatalio Sarmiento.
RTC, not the MTC, which has jurisdiction over the dismiss the case on the ground that the -CFI Samar dismissed her complaint on the
case, inasmuch as the subject matter of litigation amount of the claim did not fall within the ground that it has no jurisdiction, the amount
(the amount to be consigned) is incapable of jurisdiction of the court. Resolving this demanded as support being only P720
pecuniary estimation. This is wrong. Consignation is motion, the court dismissed the complaint
the act of depositing the thing due with the court or for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to ISSUE
judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot the right of appellant to file the same with WON the CFI has jurisdiction over an action for
accept or refuses to accept payment and it generally the corresponding municipal court. support if the amount claimed or demanded as
requires a prior tender of payment. Two of the - Appellant maintains in this appeal that his support is only P720, or not more than P2,000 (now
requisites of it valid consignation are (1) that there is action is one in admiralty and maritime P5,000)
a debt due. and (2) the amount is placed it the jurisdiction, which, pursuant to the
disposal of the court. Thus, where no debt is due and provisions of Section 44 of the Judiciary Act, HELD
owing, consignation is not proper. In a valid as amended, falls within the exclusive Ratio. An action for support does not only involve
consignation where the thing sought to be deposited original jurisdiction of the courts of first the determination of the amount to be given as
is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is instance, irrespective of the amount or the support, but also the relation of the parties, the right
determinable. Clearly, the subject matter (i.e., the value of the goods involved. to support created by the relation, the needs of the
amount due) in consignation cases is capable of claimant, the financial resources of the person from
pecuniary estimation. This amount sought to be ISSUE/S whom support is sought, all of which are not capable
consigned determines the jurisdiction of the court. WON the case falls within the jurisdiction of CFI (RTC) of pecuniary estimation.
- In the case at bar. the amount consigned being Reasoning. An action for support falls within the
P5,625.00, the respondent metropolitan trial court HELD original jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance under
correctly assumed jurisdiction over the same in YES section 44(a) of Republic Act No. 296, as amended
accordance with Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129. Ratio. It has been held that, to give admiralty by Republic Act No. 2613.
Disposition Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED. jurisdiction over a contract, the same must relate to
the trade and business of the sea Admiralty Disposition The order appealed from is set aside
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 18

Avena
and the case is remanded jurisdiction. ISSUE
- October 23, 1987 – Another complaint was WON the action for specific performance in this case
D. METROPOLITAN, MUNICIPAL, instituted in the MTC which had the same allegations. falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC
Reginaldo alleges that he has a clear and
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
unmistakable right to the use of said room, entitling HELD
Exclusive original jurisdiction in civil him to the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction NO
and estate settlement to command petitioner to provide him the Ratio In Vichanco vs. Laurilla, it was held that what
proceedings/over provisional appropriate key to the lock of the main building; and confers jurisdiction on the inferior court in forcible
to pay damages in the amount of P1,253.00, entry and illegal detainer cases is not the amount of
remedies P5,000.00 attorney's fees and costs of the suit. unpaid rentals or damages involved, but rather the
- November 2, 1987 - A temporary restraining order nature of the action because the rents or damages
Exclusive original jurisdiction in was issued by respondent judge pending trial on the are only incidental to the main action.
forcible entry and unlawful detainer merits, commanding LKT, Inc. to deliver the Reasoning
appropriate keys to Reginaldo and to allow him to - The suit is one for forcible entry and detainer under
cases enter the premises and Room 301 of the building. - Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. It was through stealth
November 3, 1987 – LKT, Inc. instituted the instant that LKT, Inc. prevented Reginaldo from using the
LIM V CA (PIZARRO) petition. room.
00 SCRA 00 - The Executive Judge issued a temporary restraining - Any person deprived of possession of any land or
order, enjoining the enforcement of the temporary building or part thereof, may file an action for
GANCAYCO; March 18, 1991 restraining order earlier issued by respondent judge forcible entry and detainer in the proper inferior
and from further taking cognizance of said civil case. court against the person unlawfully depriving or
NATURE
With regard to the issue of possession: Force withholding possession from him.
Petition to review the decision and resolution of the
was used by LKT, Inc. in depriving Reginaldo of - This relief is available to a landlord, vendor and
Court of Appeals
physical possession of the room when the main vendee and also to a tenant or lessee or any other
door’s lock was changed without the knowledge and person against whom the possession of any land or
FACTS
consent of Reginaldo. building, or a part of it, is unlawfully withheld, or is
- Lim Kieh Tong, Inc. owns a building in Manila. One
- The issue involved is mere physical possession otherwise unlawfully deprived possession within 1
of the rooms in the building (Room 301) is occupied
(possession de facto) and not juridical possession year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding
by Reginaldo Lim, an MTC judge.
(possession de jure) nor ownership. possession.
- The original occupant of Room 103 was Lim Eng
- The purpose of forcible entry is that regardless of Disposition Petition is denied. No costs.
Piao, the father of Reginaldo. When Lim Eng Piao
the actual condition of the title to property, the party
died, the occupancy was continued by Reginaldo.
in peaceable and quiet possession shall not be
Eventually, Reginaldo was able to acquire a house
and lot in Quezon City but he still used the room
turned out by strong hand, violence or terror. Exclusive original jurisdiction
- Considering that respondent judge found the
where he kept his books, documents, appliances and in civil actions involving title to
applicability of the Rule in Summary Procedure, the
other important belongings.
motion to dismiss was correctly denied, a motion to or possession of real property
- September 1987 – LKT, Inc. changed the lock of the
dismiss being one of the prohibited pleadings and
main door of the building which was commonly used RUSSELL V VESTIL
motions under Section 15 of the 1983 Rules on
by all the occupants of the building.
Summary Procedure. 304 SCRA 738
- September 30, 1987 – Reginaldo was unable to
With regard to the issue of jurisdiction:
enter the building because he did not have a key to KAPUNAN; March 17, 1999
- LKT, Inc. argued that when the amount of damages
the new lock. He was unable to get his law books for
claimed is not specifically alleged in the complaint,
a case he was working on so he had to purchase new NATURE
jurisdiction over the case would fall under the RTC as
ones which cost him P1,235.00. Petition for Certiorari
the failure to so allege would characterize the subject
- October 1, 1987 - He requested for a new key from
matter as one which is incapable of pecuniary
the OIC of the buiding but his request was not FACTS
estimation.
complied with. - Petitioners filed a complaint against respondents,
- In Singson vs. Aragon, the SC held that exemplary
- October 2, 1987 – Reginaldo instituted a civil case denominated "DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND
damages must be specified and if not, the municipal
against Rafael Lim and Lim Kieh Tong, Inc. before the PARTITION," with the RTC of Mandaue City
trial court could still grant it, if together with the
Metropolitan Trial Court. The complaint was - The complaint alleged that petitioners are co-
other money claims, the amount of the total claim
denominated as an action for damages with owners of that parcel of land in Liloan, Cebu. The
does not exceed P10,000.00 (now P20,000).
injunction but was subsequently dismissed for lack of
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 19

Avena
land was previously owned by the spouses Casimero and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or MANUFACTURER'S DISTRIBUTORS,
Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. in the courts of first instance would depend on the
INC., V
- Upon the death of said spouses, the property was amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue
inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and is something other than the right to recover a sum of YU SIU LIONG
private respondents. Since then, the lot had money, where the money claim is purely incidental 11 SCRA 680
remained undivided until petitioners discovered a to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, REYES, JBL; April 29 1966
public document denominated "DECLARATION OF this Court has considered such actions as cases
HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS where the subject of the litigation may not be
NATURE
ORAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION" estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
Appeal on points of law from an order of the CFI
- By virtue of this deed, respondents divided the exclusively by courts of first instance Examples of
Manila sustaining and affirming an order of the MTC
property among themselves to the exclusion of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those
Manila dismissing the original complaint for want of
petitioners. for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of
jurisdiction.
- The complaint prayed that the document be mortgage or annulment of judgment; also actions
declared null and void and an order be issued to questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a
FACTS
partition the land among all the heirs. deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price
-Manufacturer's Distributors, Inc. had filed action in
- Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the paid and for rescission, which is a counterpart of
MTC Manila, Branch III, seeking to compel Yu Siu
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over specific performance.
Liong to accept delivery of 74,500 pieces of plastifilm
the nature of the case as the action is one for re- While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also
bags, balance of 100,000 pieces ordered by said Yu
partition and since the assessed value of the incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law
Sio Liong and supplied by the Manufacturer’s
property as stated in the complaint is P5,000.00, specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the
Distributors; to pay P3,376.00, the value of the
then, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the
100,000 pieces of plastifilm bags ordered by him,
MCTC of Liloan, Compostela, Cebu real property involved does exceed P20,000.00 in
plus 12% interest per annum thereon until fully paid;
- Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If
and to pay the amount of P844.00, for and as
Dismiss saying that the complaint is for the the value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as the
stipulated attorney's fees. Manuufacturer’s
annulment of a document denominated as case may be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which
Distributors also prayed for such other reliefs as may
"DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2).
be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION," Reasoning The subject matter of the complaint in
-Yu Sio Liong filed MTD on the ground that, the
which is clearly one incapable of pecuniary this case is annulment of a document denominated
subject of the litigation being specific performance,
estimation, thus, cognizable by the RTC as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
the same lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
- The respondent judge issued an Order granting the CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION." The
CFI. MTC upheld Yu Sio Liong and dismissed the
Motion to Dismiss. main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is
complaint.
- A Motion for Reconsideration of said order was filed to declare null and void the document in which
-CFI affirmed the order of dismissal with costs,
by petitioners private respondents declared themselves as the only
saying: “Manufacturer’s Distributors's action before
- Respondents did not oppose the motion for heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and
the MTC was one for specific performance… Whether
reconsideration. Cesaria Tautho and divided his property among
refusal to accept delivery of said plastifilms was
- Respondent judge issued another Order denying themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who also
justified or not is not capable of pecuniary estimation
the motion for reconsideration. claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property.
and was, therefore, not cognizable by the Municipal
- Hence, this petition While the complaint also prays for the partition of the
Court."
property, this is just incidental to the main action,
-Manufacturer’s Distributors contend that the
ISSUE which is the declaration of nullity of the document
subject of the litigation were the 100,000 plastifilm
WON the RTC has jurisdiction to entertain the civil above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction
bags, contracted for by Yu Sio Liong at a total price
case. over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law
of P3,376.00, and, therefore, it was susceptible of
and is determined by the allegations in the complaint
pecuniary estimation.
HELD and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of
YES. whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
ISSUE
Ratio Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill: In determining claims asserted therein.
WON the issue is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
whether an action is one the subject matter of which Disposition The petition was GRANTED.
and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of MTC
is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature E. SPECIAL RULES HELD
of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
YES.
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation,
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 20

Avena
-There is no controversy, as to the contractual price payment of the latter sum was a pecuniary Ratio The jurisdiction of the respective courts is
for the plastifilm bags; the dispute is whether or not estimation of the specific performance sought, since determined by the value of the demand and not the
Yu Sio Liong was justified in its refusal to accept the it would equally satisfy the claims of the plaintiffs. In value of the transaction out of which the demand
delivery of the bags. This matter plainly is not the present case, the payment in money is not an arose.
capable of pecuniary estimation, and, therefore, is alternative equivalent, but a consequence or result of Reasoning
not within the jurisdiction of the MTC. the specific performance, and hence can not - The case comes within the exclusive original
-Speaking of the original jurisdiction of the Justice of constitute a pecuniary estimation thereof. jurisdiction of the municipal court or justice of the
the Peace and Municipal Courts, the Judiciary Act, as Disposition CFI order affirmed. peace court.
amended, in its sec88, after conferring original Judiciary Act of 1948
jurisdiction in Justice of the Peace and Municipal CRUZ V TAN SEC. 44. Original jurisdiction.—CFI shall have original
Courts over cases where the value of the subject jurisdiction:
87 SCRA 627
matter or amount of the demand does not exceed (c) In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of
P5,000.00, provides nevertheless in its par2 that JUGO; November 27, 1950 interest, or the value of the property in
"The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace and judge controversy, amounts to more than two thousand
of a municipal court shall not extend to civil actions NATURE pesos.
in which the subject of litigation is not capable of Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and SEC. 86. Jurisdiction of justices of the peace and
pecuniary estimation, except in forcible entry and prohibition with injunction. judges of municipal courts of chartered cities.—
detainer cases; nor to those which involve the (b) Original jurisdiction in civil actions arising in
legality of any tax, impost or assessment; nor to FACTS their respective municipalities, and not exclusively
actions involving admiralty or maritime jurisdiction; - August 3, 1949: respondent Telesfora Yambao filed cognizable by the CFI.
nor to matters of probate, the appointments of a complaint against the petitioner Manuel Cruz, SEC. 88. Original Jurisdiction in civil cases.—
trustees or receiver; nor to actions for annulment of praying that the latter be ordered to finish the Xxx exclusive original jurisdiction where the value
marriages; . . ." Jurisdiction over the classes of cases construction of a house mentioned in the complaint, of the subject-matter or amount of the demand
thus excluded is conferred on the CFI (Judiciary Act, or to pay her the sum of P644.31. does not exceed two thousand pesos, exclusive of
sec44). - Within ten days from the receipt of the summons, interest and costs.
-That Manufacturer’s Distributors's complaint also the petitioner filed a motion for a bill of particulars, - The alternative prayer for specific performance is
sought the payment by Yu Sio Liong of P3,376.00 which was denied by the court. also of the same value, for the alternative prayers
plus interest and attorney's fees, does not give a - September 19, 1949: petitioner filed a motion to would not have been made in the complaint if one
pecuniary estimation to the litigation, for the dismiss the case on the ground that the CFI has no was more valuable than the other; the specific
payment of such amounts can only be ordered as a jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit—the performance alternatively prayed for is capable of
consequence of the specific performance primarily demand contained in the prayer is only for P644.31, pecuniary estimation at P644.31.
sought. In other words, such payment would be but which falls under the Justice of the Peace or the
an incident or consequence of Yu Sio Liong's liability Judge of the Municipal Court. The motion to dismiss DISPOSITION
for specific performance. If no such liability is was denied by the court, and trial for the merits was Judge of CFI is declared without jurisdiction to try the
judicially declared, the payment cannot be awarded. also set. case, and is ordered to stop further proceedings by
Hence, the amounts sought do not represent the - Order setting the case for trial on October 10, 1949 dismissing the case.
value of the subject of litigation. was received by petitioner’s counsel on October 12
-Subject matter over which jurisdiction cannot be (two days after). Since the parties did not appear at
LAPITAN V SCANDIA
conferred by consent, has reference, not to the res or the trial, the court dismissed the case for lack of
property involved in the litigation nor to a particular interest of the parties on October 10, 1949. 24 SCRA 477
case, but to the class of cases, the purported subject - October 12, 1949: respondent Yambao filed a REYES, J.B.L., July 31, 1968
of litigation, the nature of the action and of the relief motion praying that the trial of the case be set for
sought. November 14, 1949. The motion was heard on FACTS
-The [Municipal Trial] Court has no jurisdiction of a October 15, 1949, but as the petitioner’s counsel - Andres Lapitan has appealed directly to this Court
suit for specific performance of a contract, although received notice of the said motion on Oct. 15, he against an order of the CFI of Cebu, dismissing, for
the damages alleged for its breach, if permitted, are could not appear in the said hearing. lack of jurisdiction, his complaint for rescission and
within the amount of which that court has damages against appellees Scandia, Inc., of Manila
jurisdiction. ISSUE and General Engineering Co. of Cebu. Plaintiff avers
-Cruz vs. Tan (87 Phil. 627) is inapplicable. In said 1. WON CFI has jurisdiction over the case. that on April 17, 1963 he purchased from Scandia,
case, the plaintiff had made an alternative prayer: Inc., one ABC Diesel Engine; that he bought the
specific performance or payment of the sum of HELD engine for running a rice and corn mill; that
P644.31. The alternative prayer meant that the NO defendants had warranted and assured him that all
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 21

Avena
spare parts for said engine are kept in stock in their exclusively by theCFI. Actions for specific Ratio Although the purpose of the action is to
stores, enabling him to avoid loss due to long periods performance of contracts have been expressly recover an amount plus interest which comes within
of waiting, and that defendants would replace any pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by the CFI. the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace
part of the engine that might break within 12 months And no cogent reason appears why an action for Court, yet when said action involves foreclosure of
after delivery. rescission should be differently treated. We, chattel mortgage covering properties valued at more
- The cam rocker arm of the engine broke due to therefore, rule that the subject matter of actions for than P10,000, the action should be instituted before
faulty material and workmanship and it stopped rescission of contracts are not capable of pecuniary the CFI.
functioning; the sellers were unable to send a estimation.
replacement until August 29, 1963; barely six days Reasoning In the case at bar, the amount sought to
after replacement the new part broke again due to THE GOOD DEVELOPMENT be recovered is P1520 plus interest and costs, and
faulty casting and poor material, so Lapitan notified chattel mortgage of properties valued at P15340. It is
CORPORATION V TUTAAN
the sellers and demanded rescission of the contract therefore within the jurisdiction of the CFI.
of sale; he sought return of the price and damages 73 SCRA 189
but defendants did not pay. CONCEPCION; September 30, 1976 Disposition Petition granted
- Scandia, Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the total amount claimed was only NATURE
P8,735.00, and was within the exclusive jurisdiction Petition for certiorari
of the municipal court, under RA 3828, amending the 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Judiciary Act by increasing the jurisdiction of FACTS SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION
municipal courts to civil cases involving P10,000.00 - A complaint was filed before the CFI of Rizal against UNIFORM PROCEDURE
or less. The CFI dismissed the action for lack of private respondents Guillermo delos Reyes and
ACTIONS
jurisdiction. Lapitan appealed directly to this Court, Marcelina Marcelo for the recovery of the sum of
arguing (1) that rescission was incapable of P1520 plus interest and the sum equivalent to 25% NATURE
pecuniary estimation, and (2) that as he claimed of the total amount due as attorney’s fees, and in Real/personal/mixed
moral and exemplary damages, besides the price of default of payment thereof, to order the foreclosure
P3,735.00, P4,000.00 actual damages, and P1,000.00 of the chattel mortgage (worth P15,340) executed by
attorneys' fees, the value of his demand exceeded
HERNANDEZ V. RURAL BANK OF
the said respondents. Gregorio Emperado and
the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Leonarda de la Cruz were made party defendants LUCENA
since they were co-makers of the promissory note. 81 SCRA 75
ISSUE - Private respondents, in their answer claims that the AQUINO, 10 Jan. 1978
WON CFI had jurisdiction loaned sued upon is only one of five loans secured by
them from the petitioner wherein they were charged FACTS
HELD usurious interest. They claim that the balance due is -This case is about the propriety of a separate action
YES. only P1260. to compel a distressed rural bank, which is under
Ratio. In determining whether an action is one the - For failure to plead, Emperado was declared in judicial liquidation, to accept a check in payment of a
subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary default while the case against de la Cruz was mortgage debt.
estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of dismissed w/o prejudice. -Spouses Francisco S. Hernandez and Josefa U.
first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or - Respondents file a motion to dismiss for lack of Atienza obtained from the Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc.
remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a jurisdiction since the petitioner only prays for P1520. a loan of P6,000 secured by a mortgage on their two
sum of money, the claim is considered capable of It therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the lots situated in Cubao, Quezon City. Three months
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in original jurisdiction of the municipal court. Also, since after that loan was obtained, the Lucena bank
the municipal courts or in the CFI would depend on the petitioner prays for foreclosure of chattel in became a distressed bank.
the amount of the claim. However, where the basic Bulacan, it should have been filed there where the -Before the expiration of the one year term of the
issue is something other than the right to recover a deed of chattel mortgage is located. The CFI loan, or on August 22, 1961, Hernandez went to the
sum of money, or where the money claim is purely dismissed the case. Motion for reconsideration was Lucena bank and offered to pay the loan by means of
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief likewise denied. a check for P6,000 which was drawn against the bank
sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform by a depositor, the San Pablo Colleges, and which
his part of the contract and in actions for support, or ISSUE/S was payable to Hernandez. As the bank's executive
for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a 1. WON the city court has jurisdiction vice-president was not available, the payment was
mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as not consummated. At the time that the check was
cases where the subject of the litigation may not be HELD issued, the San Pablo Colleges had a deposit in the
estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable 1. YES.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 22

Avena
Lucena bank amounting to P11,890.16. Instead of -Monetary Board had decided to liquidate the Lucena - Central Bank filed a motion to dismiss. It contended
withdrawing P6,000 from that deposit, the San Pablo bank. To implement the resolution of the Monetary that there was improper venue because, as the
Colleges chose to issue a check for that amount to Board for the Liquidation of the Lucena bank, the action allegedly involved title to real property, it
Hernandez. He sent to the bank by registered mail a Central Bank, pursuant to section 29 of its charter should have been instituted in Quezon City where the
photostat of the check and a letter inquiring whether and on the assumption that the Lucena bank was encumbered lots are situated. It further contended
the bank would honor the check and when he could insolvent, filed with the Court of First Instance of that since the Lucena bank is under liquidation and is
go personally to the bank for that purpose. That Manila a petition dated March 27, 1962 for assistance in the hands of a receiver, its properties and assets
letter was received by the bank. The executive vice- and supervision in the liquidation of the Lucena bank. are in custodia legis and may, therefore, be reached
president wrote to Hernandez and informed him that Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order only by motion or petition in Civil Case No. 50019 of
the check could not be honored for the time being directing the Lucena bank to turn over its assets to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The motion was
because of adverse events that had disrupted the the Central Bank's authorized representative. denied.
bank's operations. What the vice-president meant -Among the accounts receivable of the Lucena bank -Counsel for the Lucena bank on January 30, 1967
was that by reason of the letter of the Central Bank inventoried by the Central Bank's representative was offered to compromise the case by stipulating that
Governor dated June 16, 1961 the operations of the the account of Hernandez. In a letter dated October the Central Bank would apply the check in question
Lucena bank were suspended. The vice-president 29, 1963 Hernandez informed the Central Bank that to the mortgage debt of Hernandez if the balance of
explained that because there was a run on the bank he had sent to the Lucena bank on April 25, 1962 the the deposit of the San Pablo Colleges would be
its assets were exhausted, and so the check sent by check for P6,000. He again requested that his enough to cover the amount of the check of P6,000
Hernandez, which check was drawn against the mortgage be cancelled. The Associate and that, by virtue of that compromise, the
Lucena bank, could not be accepted. The vice- Superintendent of Banks in his answer returned the complaint and counterclaim would be dismissed.That
president said that when Hernandez presented the check to Hernandez and informed him that, conditional and equivocal compromise offer fizzled
check, the Lucena bank was no longer in a position to according to the Lucena bank's executive vice- out because the lawyers of Hernandez and the
honor withdrawals and that had Hernandez paid president, the check could not be applied to the Central Bank did not assent to it.
cash, his payment would have been accepted. To payment of Hernandez' loan because the bank was -Lower court ordered the Lucena bank or the Central
honor the check would have been tantamount to already closed when he received the check. Bank, as liquidator, to accept and honor the check, to
allowing a depositor (San Pablo Colleges) to make a Moreover, the check was drawn against the current cancel the mortgage, and to pay the Hernandez
withdrawal but the Lucena bank could not entertain deposits of the San Pablo Colleges in the Lucena spouse P25,000 as moral damages (not P10,000 as
withdrawals without the consent of the Central Bank bank which was in the process of liquidation. prayed for in the complaint) plus P1,000 as
examiners. Payment by check was a disbursement. Hernandez was advised to settle his account by attorney's fees.
Apparently, the vice-president did not take the paying cash or by means of a check drawn against a -The Lucena bank, the Central Bank and its
trouble of asking the Central Bank examiners bank other than the Lucena bank. employee, the receiver, appealed to the SC.
whether the payment by check made by Hernandez -Disregarding that suggestion, Hernandez announced
could be accepted. Hernandez himself who should to the Associate Superintendent of Banks in his letter ISSUE/S
have known that the bank was a distressed bank that he was going to deposit the said check in the 1. WON the action of the Hernandez spouses to
which had suspended operations and which was Court of First Instance of Lipa City on or before compel them to honor the check in question and to
under the supervision of Central Bank examiners, did December 26, 1963. cancel the mortgage on their two lots is a real action
not bother to take up his problem with the said -Instead of filing a consignation complaint. affecting title to real property which should have
examiners. Hernandez enclosed the check with his letter to the been filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal at
-Hernandez again asked the bank when he could clerk of court of the Court of First Instance at Lipa Quezon City where the mortgaged lots are situated.
deliver the check. The executive vice-president told City. Hernandez wrote a letter dated January 11, 2. WON Lucena bank had not lost its juridical
Hernandez that the bank could not yet honor the 1964 informing the Associate Superintendent of personality after it was placed under liquidation thus
check because it had not resumed its banking Banks of the judicial deposit of the check. Copies of making it not fall under the jurisdiction of the
operations; that it was awaiting the outcome of a that letter were furnished the Lucena bank and the liquidation court
case filed by the bank against the Central Bank; that San Pablo Colleges.
it might reopen in January, 1962, and that, anyway, - Hernandez and his wife filed an action in the Court HELD
the loan would not be due until March 21, 1962. of First Instance at Lipa City to compel the Rural 1. No it is a personal action.
Hernandez sent another letter and enclosed the Bank of Lucena, Inc., the Central Bank as liquidator, Section 2(a), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides
original check (duly endorsed) with his letter to the and Jose S. Martinez as receiver, to accept the check that "actions affecting title to, or for recovery of
bank sent by registered mail and special delivery. and to execute the cancellation of the real estate possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or
Letter was returned to Hernandez because the mortgage. The Hernandez spouses also asked for foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, shall be
bank's manager was allegedly in Manila. Undeterred, moral damages in the amount of P10,000 and commenced and tried in the province where the
Hernandez again mailed the check to the bank with attorney's fees of P3,000. property or any part thereof lies"
the request that his mortgage be cancelled.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 23

Avena
Note that the rule mentions an action for foreclosure residence is at 11 Chicago Street, Cubao, Quezon for P6,000 was drawn. It was that check which the
of a real estate mortgage but does not mention an City, which apparently is the place where the said Hernandez spouses had issued to pay their mortgage
action for the cancellation of a real mortgage. In the lots are located. The plaintiffs did not testify during debt to the Lucena bank.
instant case, the action is primarily to compel the the trial, So, they have no testimony in the records Under section 29 of the Central Bank Act, Republic
mortgagee to accept payment of the mortgage debt as to their actual residence. Act No. 265, when the Monetary Board, upon
and to release the mortgage. We hold that the trial court should have information submitted by the Superintendent of
That action, which is not expressly included in dismissed the action because the venue Banks, finds a bank to be insolvent, it shall forbid the
the enumeration found in section 2(a) of Rule thereof was improperly laid in Batangas. The bank to do business and it shall take care of its
4, does not involve the title to the mortgage term "resides" in section 2[b] of Rule 4 refers assets according to law.
lots. It is a personal action and not a real to the place of actual residence or the place of In that case, if the Monetary Board finds out that the
action. The mortgagee has not foreclosed the abode and not necessarily to the legal insolvent bank cannot resume business with safety
mortgage. Plaintiffs' title is not in question. residence or domicile (Dangwa Transportation to its creditors, it shall through the Solicitor General,
They are in possession of the mortgaged lots. Co., Inc. vs. Sarmiento, L-22795, January 31, file a petition in the Court of First Instance, praying
Hence, the venue of plaintiffs' personal action is the 1977, 75 SCRA 124, 128). (Of course, the actual for the assistance and super vision of the court in the
place where the defendant or any of the defendants residence may also in some cases be the legal liquidation of the bank's affairs. Thereafter, the
resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any residence or domicile.). Superintendent of Banks, upon order of the Monetary
of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff San Juan, Batangas might be the place where the Board and under the supervision of the court, shall
(Sec. 2[b], Rule 4). plaintiffs have their domicile or legal residence but convert to money the bank's assets. "Sabido es que
The plaintiffs in their brief confound a real action with there is no question that 11 Chicago Street, Cubao, uno de los deberes primordiales de un depositario es
an action in rem and a personal action with an action Quezon City is their place of abode or the place hacerse cargo inmediatamente de todo el activo y
in personam. They argue that their action is not an where they actually reside. So, the action in this pasivo de un banco" (Luy Lam & Co. vs. Mercantile
action in rem and, therefore, it could be brought in a case, which is a personal action to compel the Bank of China, 71 Phil. 573, 576).
place other than the place where the mortgaged lots defendants to honor the check in question and to The fact that the insolvent bank is forbidden to
are located. cancel the mortgage, should have been filed in do business, that its assets are turned over to
A real action is not the same as an action in Quezon City if the plaintiffs intended to use their the Superintendent of Banks, as a receiver, for
rem and a personal action is not the same as residence as the basis for their choice of venue. conversion into cash, and that its liquidation is
an action in personam. The Central Bank points out that the redemption undertaken with judicial intervention means
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the action of the Hernandez spouses would ultimately that, as far as lawful and practicable, all claims
recovery of personal property, the affect the funds and property of the Lucena Bank. against the insolvent bank should be filed in
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of Hence, the liquidation court is the competent tribunal the liquidation proceeding.
damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks to pass upon the issue as to whether the Hernandez The judicial liquidation is intended to prevent
the recovery of real property, or, as indicated spouses could validly pay their mortgage debt by multiplicity of actions against the insolvent bank. The
in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an means of the check of the San Pablo Colleges. lawmaking body contemplated that for convenience
action affecting title to real property or for the only one court, if possible should pass upon the
recovery of possession, or for partition or 2. No. The liquidation court or the Manila court has claims against the insolvent bank and that the
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the liquidation court should assist the Superintendent of
on, real property. Hernandez spouses. Banks and control his operations.
An action in personam is an action against a At the time the Hernandez spouses filed in 1964 their In the course of the liquidation, contentious cases
person on the basis of his personal liability, consignation complaint the Lucena bank was already might arise wherein a full-dress hearing would be
while an action in rem is an action against the under liquidation. The Manila court in its order of required and legal issues would have to be resolved.
thing itself, instead of against the person (1 C. March 28, 1963 had ordered the officers of the Hence, it would be necessary in justice to all
J. S. 943-4), Hence, a real action may at the Lucena bank to turn over to the Central Bank or to concerned that a Court of First Instance should assist
same time be an action, in personam and not the receiver, the Superintendent of Banks, all of its and supervise the liquidation and should act as
necessarily an action in rem. In this case, the assets, properties and papers. Among the assets umpire and arbitrator in the allowance and
plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they turned over to the receiver was the outstanding or disallowance of claims.
were residents of San Juan, Batangas, which in unpaid account of the Hernandez spouses which The judicial liquidation is a pragmatic
their brief they characterize as their legal appears in the inventory as: "393. Hernandez, arrangement designed to establish due
residence and which appears to be their Francisco S., 11 Chicago St., Cubao, Q. C. process and orderliness in the liquidation of
domicile of origin. And among the papers or obligations turned over to the bank, to obviate the proliferation of
On the other hand, it is indicated in the promissory the receiver was Ledger No. 056 evidencing the litigations and to avoid injustice and
note and mortgage signed by them and in the deposit of the San Pablo Colleges in the Lucena bank arbitrariness.
Torrens title covering the mortgaged lots that their in the sum of P11,890.16, against which the check
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 24

Avena
DispositioN. WHEREFORE, the trial court judgment CB V. CA - Case pending, Go’s son, George, filed a criminal
is reversed and set aside. The case is dismissed complaint against Tong falsification of the check. The
(supra)
without prejudice to the right of the Hernandez criminal complaint was dismissed.
FACTS
spouses to take up with the liquidation court the - Tong filed ‘Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental
Consolidated cases. Issue was regarding the
settlement of their mortgage obligation. Costs Complaint and to Admit the Attached Supplemental
payment of the correct docket fee.
against the plaintiffs appellees. SO ORDERED. Complaint’ which Supplemental Complaint alleged
that Sps. Go’s ‘used’ their son to file the criminal
RULING ON COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
complaint against him which caused damages,
In personam/ in rem/ quasi in rem -It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
hence, the prayer for an increase in the amount of
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
MD and ED sought to be recovered from P2.5M to
DE MIDGELY VS FERANDOS the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
P55M and praying for the award of AD of P58K. RTC
with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of
(SUPRA) granted the motion and admitted the Supplemental
the action. Where the filling of the initiatory pleading
Complaint.
is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
FACTS - Go filed a Manifestation of Deposit and deposited to
the court may allow the payment of the fee within a
Half-brother appointed as administrator, caused the the RTC Clerk of Court P500K representing the
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
extraterritorial service of summons to half siblings amount of the check, ‘subject to the condition that it
prescriptive or reglementary period.
living in Spain to settle the question of ownership shall remain deposited until the disposition of the
- The prescriptive period therein mentioned refers to
over certain properties and rights in some mining case.’ MFRs of FEBTC and Go were denied.
the period within which a specific action must be
claims as Quemada believed that those properties - One of the defenses of FEBTC and Go: Tong cannot
filed. It means that in every case, the docket fee
belong to the estate of Alvaro Pastor, Sr. De Midgely prosecute his Supplemental Complaint, and the same
must be paid before the lapse of the prescriptive
and Pastor both filed a motion to dismiss on the should be dismissed, unless the corresponding
period.
ground of lack of jurisdiction BUT further alleged that docket fee and legal fees for the monetary claims of
earnest efforts towards a compromise have not been P55M are paid for.
made GO V TONG - On Feb. 5, 1999, RTC, acting on the verbal motion
G.R. No. 151942. of Tong’s counsel, allowed the release of petitioners’
P500K deposit to Tong. Later, RTC, in the interest of
ON ACTIONS IN REM PANGANIBAN; November 27, 2003
Even if the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction justice and because of the huge amount of outlay
over De Midgely, her motion to dismiss was properly involved (the Court considers the business climate
NATURE
denied because Quemada’s action against her and the peso crunch prevailing), allowed Tong to first
Petition for review on Certiorari
maybe regarded as a quasi in rem where deposit P25K on or before Dec.15, 1999 and P20K
jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident every month thereafter until the full amount of
FACTS
defendant is not necessary and where the service of docket fees is paid, and “only then shall the deposits
- Petitioner Juana Go purchased a cashier’s check of
summons is required only for the purpose of be considered as payment of docket fees.” FEBTC
P500K from the Far East Bank and Trust Company
complying with the requirement of due process. and Go filed MFR but was denied. Hence, this case.
(FEBTC), private respondent Tong. On Go’s
Quasi in rem is an action between parties where instruction, the cashier’s check bore the words ‘Final
the direct object is to reach and dispose of property ISSUE
Payment/Quitclaim’ after the name of payee Tong
owed by the parties or of some interest therein. WON respondent judge and the CA erred in allowing
allegedly to insure that Tong would honor his
-in a quasi in rem action jurisdiction over a non private respondent to pay the docket fee on a
commitment that he would no longer ask for further
resident defendant is not essential. The service of staggered basis.
payments for his interest in the ‘informal business
summons by publication is required merely to satisfy partnership’ which he and she had earlier dissolved.
the constitutional requirement of due process. The HELD
Tong deposited it with the words ‘Final
judgment of the court would settle the title to the NO
Payment/Quitclaim’ already erased, hence, it was not
properties and to that extent it partakes of the Ratio Docket fees should be paid upon the filing of
honored.
nature of judgment in rem. The judgment is confined the initiatory pleadings. However, for cogent reasons
- Tong’s lawyer requested that the check be replaced
to the res (properties) and no personal judgment to be determined by the trial judge, staggered
with another payable to ‘Johnson Tong-Final
could be rendered against the non resident. payment thereof within a reasonable period may be
Settlement/Quitclaim’ with same amount, the bank
allowed. Unless grave abuse of discretion is
charges to be paid by his client-Tong, which was
demonstrated, the discretion of the trial judge in
denied by FEBTC. So, Tong filed complaint against
granting staggered payment shall not be disturbed.
FEBTC and Go at RTC Manila. FEBTC and Go
Reasoning An action commences from the filing of
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION answered that erasure was intentional, which
the original complaint and the payment of the
justified the dishonor and refusal to replace check.
prescribed docket fees. However, where the filing of
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 25

Avena
the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by that private respondents failed to specify in the issued the second assailed Order on August 13,
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow complaint the amount of damages claimed so as to 1999, essentially denying petitioners’
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in pay the correct docket fees; and that under manifestation/rejoinder. The trial court held that the
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of issues raised in such manifestation/rejoinder are
reglementary period. (Sun Insurance Office Ltd. V Appeals, non-payment of the correct docket fee is practically the same as those raised in the amended
Asuncion) In other words, while the payment of the jurisdictional. It was further alleged that the private motion to expunge which had already been passed
prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, respondents failed to pay the correct docket fee upon in the Order dated January 21, 1999. Moreover,
even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not since the main subject matter of the case cannot be the trial court observed that the Order dated March
automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as estimated as it is for recovery of ownership, 22, 1999 which reinstated the case was not objected
long as the fee is paid within the applicable possession and removal of construction. to by petitioners within the reglementary period or
prescriptive or reglementary period; more so when - Private respondents opposed the motion to even thereafter via a motion for reconsideration
the party involved demonstrates a willingness to expunge on the following grounds: (a) said motion despite receipt thereof on March 26, 1999.
abide by the rules prescribing such payment. was filed more than seven years from the institution - On August 25, 1999, petitioners filed a motion for
Disposition Petition is DENIED. of the case; (b) Atty. Petalcorin has not complied reconsideration but the same was denied by the trial
with Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which court in its third assailed Order dated October 15,
HEIRS OF HINOG V MELICOR provides that the death of the original defendant 1999. Hence, this petition.
requires a substitution of parties before a lawyer can
G.R. No. 140954
have legal personality to represent a litigant and the ISSUE
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; April 12, 2005 motion to expunge does not mention of any specific WON grave abuse of discretion was committed by
party whom he is representing [this was later on the trial court in reinstating the complaint upon the
NATURE complied with by Atty. Petalcorin]; (c) collectible fees payment of deficiency docket fees
Petition for certiorari and prohibition due the court can be charged as lien on the
judgment; and (d) considering the lapse of time, the HELD
FACTS motion is merely a dilatory scheme employed by NO
- Private respondents Custodio, Rufo, Tomas and petitioners. - The unavailability of the writ of certiorari and
Honorio, all surnamed Balane own a 1,399- square - In their Rejoinder, petitioners manifested that the prohibition in this case is borne out of the fact that
meter parcel of land situated in Malayo Norte, Cortes, lapse of time does not vest the court with jurisdiction petitioners principally assail the Order dated March
Bohol, designated as Lot No. 1714. Sometime in over the case due to failure to pay the correct docket 22, 1999 which they never sought reconsideration of,
March 1980, they allowed Bertuldo Hinog to use a fees. As to the contention that deficiency in payment in due time, despite receipt thereof on March 26,
portion of the said property for a period of ten years of docket fees can be made as a lien on the 1999. Instead, petitioners went through the motion
and construct thereon a small house of light judgment, petitioners argued that the payment of of filing a supplemental pleading and only when the
materials at a nominal annual rental of P100.00 only, filing fees cannot be made dependent on the result latter was denied, or after more than three months
considering the close relations of the parties. After of the action taken. have passed, did they raise the issue that the
the expiration of the ten-year period, they demanded - On January 21, 1999, the trial court ordered the complaint should not have been reinstated in the
the return of the occupied portion and removal of the complaint to be expunged from the records and the first place because the trial court had no jurisdiction
house constructed thereon but Bertuldo refused and nullification of all court proceedings taken for failure to do so, having already ruled that the complaint
instead claimed ownership of the entire property by to pay the correct docket fees. shall be expunged.
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 2, 1980, - On January 28, 1999, upon payment of deficiency - After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court
executed by one Tomas Pahac with the knowledge docket fee, private respondents filed a manifestation by seeking affirmative relief in their motion to serve
and conformity of private respondents. with prayer to reinstate the case. Petitioners opposed supplemental pleading upon private respondents,
- Accordingly, private respondents filed a complaint the reinstatement but on March 22, 1999, the trial petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from
for “Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Removal court issued the first assailed Order reinstating the challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction. If a party
of Construction and Damages” against Bertuldo. case. invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot
- Trial ensued but on June 24, 1998, Bertuldo died - On July 14, 1999, petitioners manifested that the thereafter challenge the court’s jurisdiction in the
without completing his evidence. Atty. Sulpicio A. trial court having expunged the complaint and same case. To rule otherwise would amount to
Tinampay withdrew as counsel for Bertuldo as his nullified all court proceedings, there is no valid case speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is
services were terminated by petitioner Bertuldo and the complaint should not be admitted for failure against the policy of the Court.
Hinog III. Atty. Veronico G. Petalcorin then entered to pay the correct docket fees; that there should be - It must be clarified that the said order is but a
his appearance as new counsel for Bertuldo. no case to be reinstated and no case to proceed as resolution on an incidental matter which does not
- On September 22, 1998, Atty. Petalcorin filed a there is no complaint filed. touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the
motion to expunge the complaint from the record - After the submission of private respondents’ proceedings. It is an interlocutory order since there
and nullify all court proceedings on the ground opposition and petitioners’ rejoinder, the trial court leaves something else to be done by the trial court
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 26

Avena
with respect to the merits of the case. The remedy Bengzon; May 30, 1952 SANTIAGO V BAUTISTA
against an interlocutory order is generally not to
32 SCRA 188
resort forthwith to certiorari, but to continue with the
case in due course and, when an unfavorable verdict
NATURE BARREDO : MARCH 30, 1970
Original Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner
authorized by law. Only when the court issued such NATURE
FACTS: Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance
order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
In an oratorical contest held in Naga, Camarines' Sur, of Cotabato dismissing, on a motion to dismiss, its
grave abuse of discretion and when the assailed
first honor was given by the board of five judges to Civil Case No. 2012 for certiorari, injunction and
interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the
Nestor Nosce, and second honor to Emma Imperial. damages on the ground that the complaint therein
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
Six days later, Emma asked the court of first instance states no cause of action, and from the subsequent
expeditious relief will certiorari be considered an
of that province to reverse the award, alleging that order of the court a quo denying the motion for the
appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order.
one of the judges had fallen into error in grading her reconsideration of the said order of dismissal.
Such special circumstances are absolutely wanting in
performance. After a hearing, and over the objection.
the present case.
of the other four judges of the contest, the court FACTS
- Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket
declared Emma Imperial winner of the first place -Appellant Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a pupil in Grade
fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-
payment at the time of filing does not automatically Six at the Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City.
ISSUE -When the school year was about to end the
cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is
WON the courts have the authority to reverse the "Committee On The Rating Of Students For Honor"
paid within the applicable prescriptive or
award of the board of judges of an oratorical was constituted by the teachers concerned at said
reglementary period, more so when the party
competition school for the purpose of selecting the "honor
involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the
rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when students" of its graduating class. The above-named
HELD committee deliberated and finally adjudged Teodoro
insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
No. C. Santiago, Jr. as third honor. The school's
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
Reasoning.. The Court held: “We observe that in graduation exercises were thereafter set for May 21,
government, the Manchester rule does not apply.
assuming jurisdiction over the matter, the 1965; but three days before that date, the "third
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the
respondent judge reasoned out that where there is a placer" Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his
reinstatement of the complaint was just and proper
wrong there is a remedy and that courts of first mother, and with his father as counsel, sought the
considering that the cause of action of private
instance are courts of general jurisdiction. invalidation of the "ranking of honor students" thus
respondents, being a real action, prescribes in thirty
The flaw in his reasoning lies in the assumption that made, by instituting the civil case in the Court of First
years, and private respondents did not really intend
Imperial suffered some wrong at the hands of the Instance of Cotabato, against the committee
to evade the payment of the prescribed docket fee
board of judges. If at all, there was error on the part members along with the District Supervisor and the
but simply contend that they could not be faulted for
of one judge, at most. Error and wrong do not mean Academic Supervisor of the place.
inadequate assessment because the clerk of court
the same thing. "Wrong" as used in the aforesaid SANTIAGOs alleged that: (1) Plaintiff-petitioner
made no notice of demand or reassessment. They
legal principle is the deprivation or violation of a Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. is a sixth grader at the Sero
were in good faith and simply relied on the
right. As stated before, a contestant has no right to Elementary School in Cotabato City scheduled to be
assessment of the clerk of court.
the prize unless and until he or she is declared graduated on May 21st, 1965 with the honor rank of
- While the docket fees were based only on the real
winner by the board of referees or judges third place, which is disputed; (2) That the teachers
property valuation, the trial court acquired
Granting that Imperial suffered some loss or injury, of the school had been made respondents as they
jurisdiction over the action, and judgment awards
yet in law there are instances of "damnum absque compose the "Committee on the Rating of Student
which were left for determination by the court or as
injuria". This is one of them. If fraud or malice had for Honor", whoserave abuse of official discretion is
may be proven during trial would still be subject to
been proven, it would be a different proposition. But the subject of suit, while the other defendants were
additional filing fees which shall constitute a lien on
then her action should be directed against the included as Principal, District Supervisor and
the judgment. It would then be the responsibility of
individual judge or judges who fraudulently or Academic Supervisor of the school; (3) That Teodoro
the Clerk of Court of the trial court or his duly
maliciously injured her. Not against the other judges Santiago, Jr. had been a consistent honor pupil from
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fees. Grade I to Grade V of the Sero Elementary School,
Disposition. The judiciary has no power to reverse while Patricia Liñgat (second placer in the disputed
the award of the board of judges of an oratorical ranking in Grade VI) had never been a close rival of
contest. For that matter it would not interfere in petitioner before, except in Grade V wherein she
CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFINED literary contests, beauty contests and similar ranked third; (4) That Santiago, Jr. had been
FELIPE V LEUTERIO competitions prejudiced, while his closest rival had been so much
91 Phil 482 benefited, by the circumstance that the latter,
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 27

Avena
Socorro Medina, was coached and tutored during the (1) that the action for certiorari was improper, and that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective
summer vacation of 1964 by Mrs. Alpas who became (2) that even assuming the propriety of the action, rights of the contending parties.
the teacher of both pupils in English in Grade VI, the question brought before the court had already - There is nothing on record about any rule of law
resulting in the far lead Medina obtained over the become academic. This was opposed by petitioner. that provides that when teachers sit down to assess
other pupil; (5) That the committee referred to in this The motion to dismiss was granted. the individual merits of their pupils for purposes of
case had been illegally constituted as the same was Upon receipt of a copy of the above-quoted order, rating them for honors, such function involves the
composed of all the Grade VI teachers only, in the petitioner moved for the reconsideration thereof, determination of what the law is and that they are
violation of the Service Manual for Teachers of the but the same was dismissed. therefore automatically vested with judicial or quasi
Bureau of Public Schools which provides that the Petitioners appealed judicial functions.
committee to select the honor students should be
composed of all teachers in Grades V and VI; (6) That ISSUE/S Dispositive. The judgment appealed from is
there are direct and circumstantial matters, which WON the said committee of teachers does falls within affirmed, with costs against appellant.
shall be proven during the trial, wherein respondents the category of the tribunal, board, or officer
have exercised grave abuse of discretion and exercising judicial functions contemplated by Rule 65 SAGRADA V NATIONAL COCONUT
irregularities, such as the changing of the final
CORP.
ratings on the grading sheets of Socorro Medina and HELD:
Patricia Liñgat; (7) That there was a unanimous 1. NO (therefore, no cause of action exists) G.R. L-3756
agreement and understanding among the Reasoning. In this jurisdiction certiorari is a special LABRADOR; June 30, 1952
respondent teachers to insult and prejudice the civil action instituted against 'any tribunal, board, or
second and third honors by rating Socorro Medina officer exercising judicial functions.' A judicial NATURE
with a perfect score, which is very unnatural; (8) That function is an act performed by virtue of judicial Action to recover piece of property
the words "first place" in petitioner's certificate in powers; the exercise of a judicial function is the
Grade I was erased and replaced with the words doing of something in the nature of the action of the FACTS
"second place", which is an instance of the unjust court. In order that a special civil action of certiorari - The land belongs to the plaintiff, in whose name the
and discriminating abuses committed by the may be invoked in this jurisdiction the following title was registered before the war. During the
respondent teachers in the disputed selection of circumstances must exist: (1) that there must be a Japanese occupation, the land was acquired by a
honor pupils they made; (9) That petitioner specific controversy involving rights of persons or Japanese corporation, Taiwan Tekkosho, for the sum
personally appealed the matter to the School property and said controversy is brought before a of P140,000, and thereupon title thereto issued in its
Principal, to the District Supervisor, and to the tribunal, board or officer for hearing and name. After liberation, the Alien Property Custodian
Academic Supervisor, but said officials "passed the determination of their respective rights and of the United States of America took possession,
buck to each other" to delay his grievances, and as obligations; (2) the tribunal, board or officer before control, and custody thereof under section 12 of the
to appeal to higher authorities will be too late, there whom the controversy is brought must have the Trading with the Enemy Act, for the reason that it
is no other speedy and adequate remedy under the power and authority to pronounce judgment and belonged to an enemy national. During the year
circumstances; and, that petitioner and his parents render a decision on the controversy construing and 1946 the property was occupied by the Copra Export
suffered mental and moral damages in the amount of applying the laws to that end; (3) the tribunal, board Management Company under a custodianship
P10,000.00; and (10) The petitioners prayed to the or officer must pertain to that branch of the agreement with United States Alien Property
Court to set aside the final list of honor students in sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at Custodian, and when it vacated the property it was
Grade VI of the Sero Elementary School for that least, which does not belong to the legislative or occupied by the defendant herein. The defendant
school year 1964-1965, and, during the pendency of executive department. was authorized to repair the warehouse on the land,
the suit, to enjoin the respondent teachers from - It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that and actually spent thereon the repairs the sum of
officially and formally publishing and proclaiming the the so called committee on the rating of students for P26,898.27.
said honor pupils in Grade VI in the graduation honor whose actions are questioned in this case - Plaintiff brought an action in court to annul the sale
exercises the school was scheduled to hold on the exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial functions of property of Taiwan Tekkosho, and recover its
21st of May of that year 1965. in the performance of its assigned task. Before a possession. The case did not come for trial because
LC: denied injunction tribunal board, or officer may exercise judicial or the parties presented a joint petition in which it is
-As scheduled, the graduation exercises of the Sero quasi judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law claimed by plaintiff that the sale in favor of the
Elementary School for the school year 1964-1965 that give rise to some specific rights of persons or Taiwan Tekkosho was null and void because it was
was held on May 21, with the same protested list of property under which adverse claims to such rights executed under threats, duress, and intimidation,
honor students. are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is and it was agreed that the title issued in the name of
The Court then required the respondents to answer brought, in turn, before the tribunal, board or officer the Taiwan Tekkosho be cancelled and the original
the petition within 10 days but respondents moved clothed with power and authority to determine what title of plaintiff re-issued.
for the dismissal of the case instead on the grounds - The present action is to recover the reasonable
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 28

Avena
rentals from August, 1946, the date when the 1949, is hereby reversed. In all other respects the ***BUT (not related to topic Cause of Action):
defendant began to occupy the premises, to the date judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal shall be even if the complaint of the plaintiffs respondents
it vacated it. against the plaintiff-appellee. states no cause of action, the SC holds that the facts
stated in the petition for certiorari and prohibition
ISSUE/S MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO V filed in the present case do NOT entitle the petitioner
1. WON defendant is liable for rent of the said period to said reliefs. Because judge HAD jurisdiction and
BARRIOS
did not exceed it or act with grave abuse of
HELD 79 PHIL 666 discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to
1. No FERIA; December 3, 1947 dismiss. This Court, in actions of certiorari, can only
Ratio If defendant-appellant is liable at all, its determine WON the court acted without or in excess
obligations, must arise from any of the four NATURE of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
sources of obligations, namley, law, contract or Petition for certiorari to set aside the order of the So… disposition:
quasi-contract, crime, or negligence. (Article respondent judge denying the motion to dismiss the Disposition Petition is denied.
1089, Spanish Civil Code.) complaint of respondents
Reasoning Defendant-appellant is not guilty of any DANFOSS V. CONTINENTAL CEMENT
offense at all, because it entered the premises FACTS
CORPORATION
and occupied it with the permission of the - respondents filed a complaint seeking to recover
entity which had the legal control and amounts of money due to them from the petitioner G.R. NO. 143788
administration thereof, the Alien Property before the outbreak of the war. CORONA; SEPT. 9 2005
Administration. Neither was there any - the ground of the motion to dismiss filed by the
negligence on its part. There was also no privity petitioners is that the complaint of the respondents NATURE
(of contract or obligation) between the Alien does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
Property Custodian and the Taiwan Tekkosho, action, because the plaintiffs have no right to 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure of the
such that the Alien Property Custodian or its demand the payment of the defendants’ debts until decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution
permittee (defendant-appellant) may be held after the termination or legal cessation of the denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
responsible for the supposed illegality of the moratorium provided in EO No. 32: Enforcement of
occupation of the property by the said Taiwan payment of payments of all debts and other FACTS
Tekkosho. The Alien Property Administration monetary obligations payable within the Philippines, - On November 5, 1998, respondent Continental
had the control and administration of the except debts and other monetary obligations, Cement Corporation (CCC) filed a complaint for
property not as successor to the interests of the entered into in any area after declaration by damages against petitioner DANFOSS and
enemy holder of the title, the Taiwan Tekkosho, Presidential Proclamation, that such area has been Mechatronics Instruments and Controls, Inc. (MINCI)
but by express provision of law. Neither is it a freed from enemy occupation and control, is before the RTC of QC, Branch 80, alleging that:
trustee of the former owner, the plaintiff- temporarily suspended pending action by the (1) CCC purchased from MINCI two Danfoss Brand
appellee herein, but a trustee of then Commonwealth Government. Frequency Converter/Inverter for use in the Finish
Government of the United States, in its own Mill of its Cement Plant. The said purchase is covered
right, to the exclusion of, and against the claim ISSUE/S by a Purchase Order which indicated the delivery
or title of, the enemy owner. From August, 1. WON complain of the respondents states facts date to be within eight (8) to ten (10) weeks from the
1946, when defendant-appellant took sufficient to constitute a cause of action opening of the letter of credit. CCC executed and
possession, to the late of judgment on February opened a letter of credit under in favor of DANFOSS
28, 1948, Alien Property Administration had the HELD INDUSTRIES PTE. LTD; (2) CCC through a letter dated
absolute control of the property as trustee of 1. NO 7 November 1997, reiterated its demand that every
the Government of the United States, with Ratio. A cause of action is an act or omission of one delay in the shipment of the two (2) unit Frequency
power to dispose of it by sale or otherwise, as party in violation of the legal rights of another, and Converter/Inverter will cause substantial losses in its
though it were the absolute owner. Therefore, its essential elements are: 1. legal right of plaintiff, 2. operations and requested for the early work out and
even if defendant-appellant were liable to the correlative obligation of the defendant, and 3. act or the immediate shipment of the frequency converter
Alien Property Administration for rentals, these omission of defendant in violation of said legal right. to avoid further loss to the company; However, on 9
would not accrue to the benefit of the plaintiff- Reasoning. In this case, there was no omission on November 1997, DANFOSS, informed the other MINCI
appellee, the owner, but to the United States the part of the defendant in vilation of the legal through fax transmission, copy furnished plaintiff
Government. rights of the plaintiffs to be paid, because EO No. 32 CCC, that the reason why DANFOSS has delivery
Disposition Wherefore, the part of the judgment said debts are not yet payable or their payment problems was that some of the supplied components
appealed from, which sentences defendant-appellant cannot be enforced until the legal cessation of the for the new VLT 5000 series did not meet the agreed
to pay rentals from August, 1946, to February 28, moratorium, which is still in force. quality standard. That means that their factory was
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 29

Avena
canvassing for another supplier. And at that petitioner, we rule that the same failed to state a
moment, there was no clear message when normal cause of action. When respondent sued petitioner FACTS
production will resume. for damages, petitioner had not violated any right of - Carolina Hofileña is a stockholder of Pioneer Glass
-Due to this information received, CCC surmised that respondent from which a cause of action had arisen. Manufacturing Corporation, a domestic corporation
defendants MINCI and DANFOSS could not be able to Respondent only surmised that petitioner would not engaged in the operation of silica mines and the
deliver the two (2) unit Frequency Converter within be able to deliver the two units frequency manufacture of glass and glassware. Since 1967,
the maximum period of ten (10) weeks period from converter/inverter on the date agreed upon by them. Pioneer Glass had obtained various loan
the opening of the Letter of Credit, as one of the Based on this apprehension, it cancelled its order six accommodations from the Development Bank of the
conditions in the Purchase Order. Thereafter, no days prior to the agreed date of delivery. How could Philippines [DBP], and also from other local and
definite commitment was received by plaintiff CCC respondent hold petitioner liable for damages (1) foreign sources which DBP guaranteed. The proceeds
from defendants MINCI and DANFOSS for the delivery when petitioner had not yet breached its obligation were used in the construction of a glass plant in
of the two unit Frequency Converter. to deliver the goods and (2) after respondent made it Rosario, Cavite, and the operation of seven silica
-By reason of the delay to deliver, CCC informed impossible for petitioner to deliver them by mining claims owned by the corporation.
MINCI in a letter dated 13 November 1997, of the cancelling its order even before the agreed delivery - As security, Pioneer Glass mortgaged and/or
plaintiff’s intention to cancel the said order. As a date? assigned its assets to the DBP in addition to the
consequence thereof, CCC has suffered an actual -Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised mortgages executed by some of its corporate officers
substantial production losses in the amount Rules on Civil Procedure provides that: over their personal assets. Through the conversion
P8,064,000.00 due to the time lost and delay in the Section 1. Grounds – Within the time for but before into equity of the accumulated unpaid interests on
delivery of the said two (2) unit Frequency filing the answer to the complaint or pleading the various loans DBP was able to gain control of the
Converter/Inverter. Likewise, plaintiff CCC was asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made outstanding shares of common stocks of Pioneer
compelled to look for another supplier. on any of the following grounds: Glass, and to get three regular seats in the
- On February 17, 1999, DANFOSS filed a motion to xxx xxx xxx corporation's board of directors.
dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no - When Pioneer Glass suffered serious liquidity
state a cause of action. cause of action; problems such that it could no longer meet its
- The court a quo denied the motion to dismiss in its -ON CAUSE OF ACTION: A cause of action is defined financial obligations with DBP, it entered into a
order[4] dated May 28, 1999. under Section 2, Rule 2 of the same Rules dacion en pago agreement with the latter, whereby
- Danfoss filed a motion for reconsideration of the Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action all its assets mortgaged to DBP were ceded to the
order but it was denied. On appeal to the CA, the is the act or omission by which a party violates a latter in full satisfaction of the corporation's
latter also denied Danfoss’ petition for lack of merit. right of another.*** obligations in the total amount of P59 million. Part of
The CA likewise denied petitioner’s motion for -It is the delict or wrongful act or omission the assets transferred to the DBP was the glass plant
reconsideration, hence, this appeal. committed by the defendant in violation of the in Rosario, Cavite, which DBP leased and
primary right of the plaintiff. subsequently sold to Union Glass and Container
ISSUE Corporation.
WON the CA erred in affirming the denial by the -Disposition. WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the - Hofileña filed a complaint before the SEC against
court a quo of petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition. The assailed decision of the CA dated the DBP, Union Glass and Pioneer Glass. Hofileña
complaint for damages on the ground that it failed to February 11, 2000 and its resolution dated June 7, prayed that the dacion en pago be declared null and
state a cause of action. 2000 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case void and the assets of the Pioneer Glass taken over
pending before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, is by DBP particularly the glass plant be returned.
HELD hereby DISMISSED. - Of the five causes of action pleaded, only the first
YES. cause of action concerned Union Glass as transferee
Ratio. In order to sustain a dismissal on the ground MISJOINDER and possessor of the glass plant. Union Glass moved
of lack of cause of action, the insufficiency must for dismissal of the case on the ground that the SEC
appear on the face of the complaint. And the test of had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint UNION GLASS V SEC (Hofileña) of the suit. Respondent Hofileña filed her opposition
to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, 126 SCRA 32 to said motion, to which Union Glass filed a rejoinder.
admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a ESCOLIN; November 28, 1983 - SEC Hearing Officer Eugenio Reyes granted the
valid judgment thereon in accordance with the MTD for lack of jurisdiction. However, upon a MFR, he
prayer of the complaint. For this purpose, the motion NATURE reversed his original order. Unable to secure a
to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul reconsideration of the Order as well as to have the
facts alleged in the complaint. and set aside the order of the Securities and same reviewed by the Commission En Banc, Union
Reasoning. After a careful perusal of the allegations Exchange Commission (SEC) Glass filed this petition in the SC.
in respondent’s complaint for damages against
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 30

Avena
ISSUE interest of the public and/or the stockholders - Judge Mendoza dismissed the case and denied
1. WON the SEC has jurisdiction over the case and partners, members of associations or organizations admission of the Amended Complaint. MFR was
not the regular courts registered with the Commission; likewise denied
b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or
HELD partnership relations, between and among ISSUES
1. NO. stockholders, members or associates; between any WON the lower court committed grave abuse of
Ratio In order that the SEC can take cognizance of a or all of them and the corporation, partnership or discretion when it dismissed the case and refused to
case, the controversy must pertain to any of the association of which they are stockholders, members admit the Amended Complaint
following relationships: [a] between the corporation, or associates, respectively; and between such
partnership or association and the public; [b] corporation, partnership or association and the state HELD
between the corporation, partnership or association insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or YES
and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers; right to exist as such entity; Ratio A defect in the designation of the parties may
[c] between the corporation, partnership or c) Controversies in the election or appointments of be summarily corrected at any stage of the action
association and the state in so far as its franchise, directors, trustees, officers or managers of such provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
permit or license to operate is concerned; and [d] corporations, partnerships or associations. adverse party. (Sec. 4, Rule 10, Revised Rules of
among the stockholders, partners or associates Disposition Petition GRANTED. Questioned orders of Court)
themselves. SEC, set aside. Reasoning
Reasoning While the Rules of Court, which applies - The complaint in the court below should have been
suppletorily to proceedings before the SEC, allows filed in the name of the owner of Juasing Hardware.
PARTIES
the joinder of causes of action in one complaint, such The allegations in the body of the com. plaint would
procedure however is subject to the rules regarding Who may be parties show that the suit is brought by such person AS
jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. Since Union proprietor or owner of the business conducted under
Glass has no intra-corporate relationship with JUASING HARDWARE V MENDOZA the name and style Juasing Hardware". The
Hofileña, it cannot be joined as party-defendant in descriptive words "doing business as Juasing
115 SCRA 783
said case as to do so would violate the rule on Hardware' " may be added in the title of the case, as
jurisdiction. Hofileña's complaint against Union Glass GUERRERO; July 30, 1982 is customarily done.
for cancellation of the sale of the glass plant should - Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court , Sec. 1. Who
therefore be brought separately before the regular NATURE may be parties.-Only natural or juridical persons or
court. Special Civil Action for certiorari entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
- Such action, if instituted, shall be suspended to action
await the final outcome of the SEC case, for the issue FACTS - Petitioner is definitely not a natural person; nor is it
of the validity of the dacion en pago posed in the SEC - Juasing Hardware, alleging to be a single a juridical person as defined in the New Civil Code of
case is a prejudicial question, the resolution of which proprietorship duly organized and existing under and the Philippines. 4 The law does not vest juridical or
is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the by virtue of the laws of the Philippines and legal personality upon the sole proprietorship nor
action against Union Glass. Thus, Hofileña's represented by its manager Ong Bon Yong, filed a empower it to file or defend an action in court.
complaint against the latter can only prosper if final complaint for the collection of a sum of money - However, the defect of the complaint is merely
judgment is rendered in SEC Case No. 2035, against Pilar Dolla. formal, not substantial. Substitution of the party
annulling the dacion en Pago executed in favor of the - In her Answer, defendant stated that she "has no plaintiff would not constitute a change in the Identity
DBP. knowledge about plaintiff's legal personality and of the parties.
NOTE: The jurisdiction of the SEC is delineated, by capacity to sue as alleged in the complaint." - The courts should be liberal in allowing
Sec 5 of PD 902-A: - After plaintiff had completed the presentation of its amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of
SEC. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative evidence and rested its case, defendant filed a suits and in order that t he real controversies
function of the Securities and Exchange Commission Motion for Dismissal of Action (Demurrer to
over corporations, partnerships and other forms of Evidence) based on plaintiff's lack of legal capacity to 4 Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:
associations registered with it as expressly granted sue. Defendant contended that Juasing Hardware is a
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
under existing laws and devices, it shall have original single proprietorship, not a corporation or a
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law;
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases partnership duly registered in accordance with law,
their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law;
involving: and therefore is not a juridical person with legal
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the
a) Devices and schemes employed by or any acts, of capacity to bring an action in court. Plaintiff filed an
law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder,
the board of directors, business associates, its Opposition and moved for the admission of an
partner or member.
officers or partners, amounting to fraud and Amended Complaint.
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 31

Avena
between the parties are presented and the case
decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. ISSUE/S DEAN JOSE JOYA, CARMEN GUERRERO
This rule applies with more reason and with greater 1. WON there was basis to annul the decision of the
NAKPIL, ARMIDA SIGUION REYNA, et
force when the amendment sought to be made refers TC.
to a mere matter of form and no substantial rights 2. WON the Dabons can seek annulment of the TC al. v. PCGG, EXEC. SEC. CATALINO
are prejudiced. judgment MACARAIG, JR. & PCGG CHAIRMAN
Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. MATEO A.T. CAPARAS
HELD 225 SCRA 568
1. YES.
SEPARATE OPINION BELLOSILLO/ August 24, 1993
Ratio
An action should be brought against the real party in
NATURE: Special Civil Action for Prohibition and
AQUINO [concurring] interest. The real party in interest is the one who
Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction
- It should appear in the amended complaint (a copy would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is
and/or Restraining Order seek to enjoin the
which was not attached to the petition) that the the one entitled to the avails of the suit.
Presidential Commission on Good Government
plaintiff is Ong Hua or Huat, doing business under the Reasoning
(PCGG) from proceeding with the scheduled auction
tradename, Juasing Hardware, and in the body of the - Named petitioners herein are Carillo (Presiding
sale by Christie’s (of NY) of the Old Masters Paintings
complaint the personal circumstances of Ong Hua Judge), Guyot (Clerk of Court), Senoy (Deputy
and 18th and 19th century silverware seized from
should be stated. Sheriff), Risonar (Registrar of Deeds), and Gonzales.
Malacañang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila
Carillo, Guyot, Senoy and Risonar are not interested
and placed in the custody of the Central Bank.
parties because they would not benefit from the
Parties in interest affirmative reliefs sought. Only Gonzales remains as
FACTS:
genuine party-petitioner in this case.
- Pres. Aquino, through Exec. Sec. Macaraig, Jr.,
CARILLO, GUYOT, SENOY, RISONAR, - Gonzales insists that the Dabons have no right to
authorized Chairman Caparas to sign the
GONZALES V. CA (DABON AND seek annulment of the TC’s judgment bec they’re not
Consignment Agreement allowing the auction sale of
parties to the specific performance case. But the
DABON) Dabons insist that they are parties in interest bec
82 Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware
GR No. 121165 seized from Malacañang and the Metropolitan
they are buyers, owners and possessors of the
Museum of Manila alleged to be part of the ill-gotten
QUISUMBING; September 26, 2006 contested land.
wealth of the late President Marcos, his relatives and
- The specific performance case brought by
cronies.
NATURE Gonzales to the TC named Priscilla Manio and
- According to the agreement, PCGG shall consign to
Review on certiorari of decision of Court of Appeals husband as defendants. However, the lot is owned
CHRISTIE'S for sale at public auction the 82 Old
by Aristotle, their son. Priscilla had no interest on the
Masters Paintings then found at the Metropolitan
FACTS lot and can have no interest in the judgment of the
Museum of Manila as well as the silverware
- Gonzales filed complaint (action for specific TC. Failure to implead Aristotle Manio renders the
contained in 71 cartons in the custody of the Central
performance) against Manio sps, seeking execution proceedings in the specific performance case null
Bank of the Philippines, and such other property as
of deed of sale of property she bought fr Priscilla and void.
may subsequently be identified by PCGG and
Manio. Gonzales said she pd downpayment to 2. YES.
accepted by CHRISTIE'S to be subject to the
Priscilla because she had an SPA from her son Ratio
provisions of the agreement.
Aristotle, the owner of the land. A person need not be a party to the judgment sought
- PCGG through its new Chairman David M. Castro,
- TC ruled in favor of Gonzales. Gonzales deposited to be annulled. What is essential is that he can
wrote Pres. Aquino defending the Consignment
balance w/ the court and filed motion for execution, prove that the judgment was obtained by fraud and
Agreement and refuting the allegations of COAudit
w/c was w/drawn bec decision wasn’t served on he would be adversely affected thereby.
Chairman Domingo (that the authority of former
defendants. Sheriff finally served a copy at an Reasoning
PCGG Chairman Caparas to enter into the
ungodly hour of 12 mn. Although the Dabons are not parties to the specific
Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality;
- TC’s decision became final and executory. performance case, any finding of extrinsic fraud
the contract was highly disadvantageous to the
- The Dabons, claiming to have bought the land fr would adversely affect their ownership and could be
government; PCGG had a poor track record in asset
Aristotle, filed before the CA a petition for annulment basis of annulment of judgment. In this case,
disposal by auction in the U.S.; and, the assets
of judgment and orders of the TC. They alleged that Gonzales knew of the sale of lot by Aristotle Manio to
subject of auction were historical relics and had
the decision was void for lack of jurisdiction over the Dabons yet Gonzales did not include the Dabons
cultural significance, hence, their disposal was
their persons as the real parties in interest. CA in her petition. This is extrinsic fraud.
prohibited by law.
issued resolution restraining TC from implementing
- Director of National Museum Gabriel S. Casal issued
its decision. Hence, this petition by Gonzales. Disposition Petition is denied.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 32

Avena
a certification that the items subject of the - Dumlao v. Comelec: The rule is settled that no -AS regards Mandamus: it does not fulfill the criteria
Consignment Agreement did not fall within the question involving the constitutionality or validity of for a mandamus suit. Legaspi v. Civil Service
classification of protected cultural properties and did a law or governmental act may be heard and decided Commission: a writ of mandamus may be issued to a
not specifically qualify as part of the Filipino cultural by the court unless there is compliance with the legal citizen only when the public right to be enforced and
heritage. Hence, this petition. requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that the the concomitant duty of the state are unequivocably
- After the oral arguments of the parties, the question must be raised by the proper party; that set forth in the Constitution.
application for preliminary injunction to restrain the there must be an actual case or controversy; that the -In the case at bar, petitioners are not after the
scheduled sale of the artworks was DENIED on the question must be raised at the earliest possible fulfillment of a positive duty required of respondent
ground that petitioners had not presented a clear opportunity; and, that the decision on the officials under the 1987 Constitution. What they seek
legal right to a restraining order and that proper constitutional or legal question must be necessary to is the enjoining of an official act because it is
parties had not been impleaded. the determination of the case itself. But the most constitutionally infirmed. Moreover, petitioners' claim
- The sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled important are the first two (2) requisites. for the continued enjoyment and appreciation by the
and the proceeds of $13,302,604.86 were turned - SC: we have held that one having no right or public of the artworks is at most a privilege and is
over to the Bureau of Treasury. interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of unenforceable as a constitutional right in this action
- On motion of petitioners, 12 more were joined as the court as party-plaintiff in an for mandamus.
additional petitioners and Catalino Macaraig, Jr., in action. (Sustiguer v. Tamayo, G.R. No. L-29341) -As regards Taxpayer’s Suit: Neither can this petition
his capacity as former Executive Secretary, the - This is premised on Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of be allowed as a taxpayer's suit. Not every action filed
incumbent Executive Secretary, and Chairman Mateo Court, which provides that every action must be by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of
A.T. Caparas were impleaded as additional prosecuted and defended in the name of the real official acts done by the government.
respondents. party-in-interest, and that all persons having - A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the
interest in the subject of the action and in governmental acts being questioned involve
ISSUE: obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as disbursement of public funds upon the theory
WON the instant petition complies with the legal plaintiffs. that the expenditure of public funds by an officer
requisites for this Court to exercise its power of - The Court will exercise its power of judicial review of the state for the purpose of administering an
judicial review over this case. unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication
only if the case is brought before it by a party who
of such funds, which may be enjoined at the
has the legal standing to raise the constitutional
HELD: NO. The paintings and silverware, which were request of a taxpayer.
or legal question. "Legal standing" means a
taken from Malacañang and the Metropolitan - -Obviously, petitioners are not challenging any
personal and substantial interest in the case such
Museum of Manila and transferred to the Central expenditure involving public funds but the
that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
Bank Museum (the ownership of these paintings disposition of what they allege to be public
injury as a result of the governmental act that is
legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or properties. It is worthy to note that petitioners
being challenged. The term "interest" is material
the members thereof.) admit that the paintings and antique silverware
interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by
- The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino were acquired from private sources and not with
the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in
administration however should not be understood to public money.
the question involved, or a mere incidental
mean that the ownership of these paintings has
interest (House International Building Tenants
automatically passed on the government without
Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, DISPOSITIVE: The petition for prohibition
complying with constitutional and statutory
G.R. No. L-75287) and mandamus is DISMISSED.
requirements of due process and just compensation.
- Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must
If these properties were already acquired by the
be personal and not one based on a desire to
government, any constitutional or statutory defect in OPOSA V FACTORAN
vindicate the constitutional right of some third
their acquisition and their subsequent disposition
must be raised only by the proper parties - the true
and related party. 224 SCRA 792
- Tañada v. Tuvera : There are certain instances DAVIDE JR; JULY 30, 1993
owners thereof -whose authority to recover
however when this Court has allowed exceptions to
emanates from their proprietary rights which are
the rule on legal standing, as when a citizen brings a NATURE
protected by statutes and the Constitution. Having
case for mandamus to procure the enforcement of a Special civil action for certiorari of the dismissal
failed to show that they are the legal owners of the
public duty for the fulfillment of a public right order
artworks or that the valued pieces have become
recognized by the Constitution, and (Pascual v.
publicly owned, petitioners do not possess any clear
Secretary of Public Works) when a taxpayer FACTS
legal right whatsoever to question their alleged
questions the validity of a governmental act The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-
unauthorized disposition.
authorizing the disbursement of public funds. 777 which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro
REASONING: Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 33

Avena
Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs that the complaint states no cause of action against generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors him and that it raises a political question — responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm
duly represented and joined by their respective sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced
parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the the granting of the reliefs prayed for would result in and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by minors' assertion of their right to a sound
non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the fundamental law of the land. environment constitutes, at the same time, the
the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted -Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for performance of their obligation to ensure the
action geared for the protection of our environment certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court protection of that right for the generations to come.
and natural resources. The original defendant was and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the
the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Dispositive Petition granted. Challenged order set
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the aside.
Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not
petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel only represent their children, but have also joined
C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper the latter in this case. KINDS OF PARTIES
motion by the petitioners. The complaint was
Compulsory joinder of indispensable
instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that ISSUE
the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the WON Civil Case No. 90-777 is a class suit parties
Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit,
use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure HELD ARCELONA V. CA (FARNACIO)
that is the country's virgin tropical rainforests." The YES. The subject matter of the complaint is of
G.R. No. 102900
same was filed for themselves and others who are common and general interest not just to several, but
equally concerned about the preservation of said to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since PANGANIBAN; Oct. 2, 1997
resource but are "so numerous that it is the parties are so numerous, it becomes
impracticable to bring them all before the Court." impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of NATURE
The minors further asseverate that they "represent them before the court. We likewise declare that the Petition for review
their generation as well as generations yet unborn." plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative
Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned FACTS
rendered: interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a -Olanday, et al. (petitioners) are co-owners pro-
". . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the indiviso of a fishpond which they inherited from their
and other persons acting in his behalf to — Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said deceased parents.
(1) Cancel all existing timber license civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being -A contract of lease over the fishpond was executed
agreements in the country; but an incident to the former. between Cipriano Tandoc and Olanday, et al.
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, -This case, however, has a special and novel -Private Respondent Moises Farnacio was appointed
processing, renewing or approving new timber element. Petitioners minors assert that they in turn by Tandoc as caretaker-tenant of the same
license agreements." represent their generation as well as generations yet fishpond.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, -After the termination of the lease contract, the
and equitable under the premises." for themselves, for others of their generation and for lessee (Tandoc) surrendered possession of the leased
-The original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their premises to the lessors, Olanday, et al.
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding -Three days thereafter, Farnacio instituted Civil Case
grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of generations can only be based on the concept of for "peaceful possession, maintenance of security of
action against him and (2) the issue raised by the intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to tenure plus damages, with motion for the issuance of
plaintiffs is a political question which properly a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such an interlocutory order" against Olanday, et al., before
pertains to the legislative or executive branches of a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the Respondent Regional Trial Court. The case was
Government. In their Opposition to the Motion, the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the intended to maintain private respondent as tenant of
petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and the fishpond.
clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the -RTC ruled in favor of Farnacio
motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a judicious disposition, utilization, management, -IAC affirmed with slight modification
justiciable question as it involves the defendant's renewal and conservation of the country's forest, -SC sustained IAC
abuse of discretion. mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore -Petitioners filed with CA a petition for annulment of
-Subsequently, respondent Judge issued an order areas and other natural resources to the end that the aforesaid judgment. CA said to implead RTC
granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. In their exploration, development and utilization be -Dissatisfied, petitioners lodged this petition for
the said order, not only was the defendant's claim — equitably accessible to the present as well as future review
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 34

Avena
position, so that the whole matter in dispute may be even necessary as Tuazon may collect damages from
ISSUES determined once and for all in one litigation. Mrs. Cerezo alone.
1. WON a final judgment may be annulled on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction (over the subject matter Disposition PETITION GRANTED. Disposition PETITION DENIED.
and/or over the person of indispensable parties) and
denial of due process, aside from extrinsic fraud? CEREZO V. TUAZON
2. WON all the co-owners pro-indiviso of a real
G.R. No. 141538
property indispensable parties?
CARPIO; March 23, 2004 Permissive Joinder
HELD
NATURE FLORES V MALLARE-PHILLIPS
1. YES.
Ratio. Under the present procedure, aside from the Petition for review on certiorari 144 SCRA 377
reliefs provided in these two sections (Secs. 1 & 2, FERIA; September 24,1986
Rule 38), there is no other means whereby the FACTS
defeated party may procure final and executory -Country Bus Lines passenger bus with plate number NATURE
judgment to be set aside with a view to the renewal NYA 241 collided with a tricycle. Appeal by certiorari from the order of the RTC of
of the litigation, unless (a) the judgment is void for -tricycle driver Tuazon filed a complaint for damages Baguio
want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law, against Mrs. Cerezo, as owner of the bus line, her
or (b) it has been obtained by fraud.' (I Moran's Rules husband Attorney Juan Cerezo ("Atty. Cerezo"), and FACTS
of Court 1950 Ed., p. 697, citing Anuran v. Aquino, 38 bus driver Danilo A. Foronda ("Foronda"). -Petitioner Remedio Flores filed a complaint with the
Phil. 29; Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. -Mrs. Cerezo asserts that the trial court could not RTC of Baguio: his first cause of action was against
921). Reason of public policy which favors the validly render judgment since it failed to acquire respondent Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay the
stability of judicial decisions are (sic) mute in the jurisdiction over Foronda, an indispensable party. amount of P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires
presence of fraud which the law abhors Mrs. Cerezo points out that there was no service of which he purchased on credit from petitioner on
(Garchitorena vs. Sotelo, 74 Phil. 25). summons on Foronda. various occasions from August to October, 1981; and
Reasoning Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Its the second cause of action was against respondent
exercise must strictly comply with the legal ISSUE Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the
requisites; otherwise, a challenge on the ground of 1. WON Fronda is an indispensable party amount of P10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires
lack of jurisdiction may be brought up anytime. Such which he purchased on credit from petitioner on
jurisdiction normally refers to jurisdiction over the HELD several occasions from March, 1981 to January,
subject. 1.NO. 1982.
Ratio COMPULSORY JOINDER OF -On December 15, 1983, counsel for respondent
2. YES. INDISPENSABLE PARTIES. An indispensable party Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
Ratio Co-owners in an action for the security of is one whose interest is affected by the court’s action lack of jurisdiction since the amount of the demand
tenure of a tenant are encompassed within the in the litigation, and without whom no final resolution against said respondent was only P11,643.00, and
definition of indispensable parties; thus, all of them of the case is possible under Section 19(8) of BP129 the regional trial court
must be impleaded. Reasoning Mrs. Cerezo’s liability as an employer in shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the
Reasoning As held by the Supreme Court, were the an action for a quasi-delict is not only solidary, it is amount of the demand is more than twenty thousand
courts to permit an action in ejectment to be also primary and direct. Foronda is not an pesos (P20,000.00).
maintained by a person having merely an undivided indispensable party to the final resolution of Tuazon’s -It was further averred in said motion that although
interest in any given tract of land, a judgment in action for damages against Mrs. Cerezo. The another person, Fernando Calion, was allegedly
favor of the defendants would not be conclusive as responsibility of two or more persons who are liable indebted to petitioner in the amount of P10,212.00,
against the other co-owners not parties to the suit, for a quasi-delict is solidary. Where there is a solidary his obligation was separate and distinct from that of
and thus the defendant in possession of the property obligation on the part of debtors, as in this case, the other respondent.
might be harassed by as many succeeding actions of each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. Hence, -At the hearing of said Motion to Dismiss, counsel for
ejectment, as there might be co-owners of the title each debtor is liable to pay for the entire obligation respondent Calion joined in moving for the dismissal
asserted against him. The purpose of this provision in full. There is no merger or renunciation of rights, of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
was to prevent multiplicity of suits by requiring the but only mutual representation. Where the obligation -RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
person asserting a right against the defendant to of the parties is solidary, either of the parties is -Petitioner appealed by certiorari to the SC
include with him, either as co-plaintiffs or as co- indispensable, and the other is not even a necessary
defendants, all persons standing in the same party because complete relief is available from ISSUE
either. Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 35

Avena
WON the application of the totality rule in Sec 33(1) 5 cases where a plaintiff sues a defendant on two or
of BP 129 and Section 116 of the interim rules is more separate causes of action. In such cases, the Class suit
subject to permissive joinder of parties under Sec 67 amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
of Rule 3 claims in all the causes of action irrespective of
NEWSWEEK V IAC (NFSPI et. al.)
whether the causes of action arose out of the same
HELD or different transactions. 142 SCRA 171
Petitioner maintains that the RTC has jurisdiction -There is a difference between the former and FERIA; May 30, 1986
over the case following the "novel" totality rule present rules in cases where two or more plaintiffs
introduced in Section 33(l) of BP129 and Section 11 having separate causes of action against a defendant NATURE
of the Interim Rules. joined in a single complaint. Special action for certiorari, prohibition with
-Petitioner compares the above-quoted provisions -Under the former rule, "where the claims or causes preliminary injunction
with the former rule under Section 88 of the Judiciary of action joined in a single complaint are separately
Act of 1948 as amended which reads as follows: owned by or due to different parties, each separate FACTS
Where there are several claims or causes of action claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test.” As worded, - Petitioner, NEWSWEEK, Inc. seeks to annul the
between the same parties embodied in the same the former rule applied only to cases of permissive decision of the IAC sustaining the Order of the CFI
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the joinder of parties plaintiff. However, it was also Bacolod City. CFI denied Newsweek’s Motion to
totality of the demand in all the causes of action, applicable to cases of permissive joinder of parties Dismiss complaint for libel. (Question as to whether
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose defendant. the printed article sued upon its actionable or not is a
out of the same or different transactions; but where -Under the present law, the totality rule is applied matter of evidence.)
the claims or causes of action joined in a single also to cases where two or more plaintiffs - Initial complaint: Private respondents, incorporated
complaint are separately owned by or due to having separate causes of action against a associations of sugarcane planters in Negros
different parties, each separate claim shall furnish defendant join in a single complaint, as well as Occidental claiming to have 8,500 members and
the jurisdictional test, and argues that with the to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes several individual sugar planters, filed in their own
deletion of the proviso in the former rule, the totality of action against two or more defendants behalf and/or as a class suit in behalf of all
rule was reduced to clarity and brevity and the joined in a single complaint. However, the sugarcane planters in the province of Negros
jurisdictional test is the totality of the claims in all, causes of action in favor of the two or more Occidental, against petitioner and two of
not in each, of the causes of action, irrespective of plaintiffs or against the two or more petitioners' non-resident correspondents/reporters
whether the causes of action arose out of the same defendants should arise out of the same Fred Bruning and Barry Came.
or different transactions. transaction or series of transactions and there - It was alleged that they committed libel by the
-This argument is partly correct. There is no should be a common question of law or fact, as publication of the article "An Island of Fear" in the
difference between the former and present rules in provided in Section 6 of Rule 3. Feb 23, 1981 issue of petitioner's weekly news
-In other words, in cases of permissive joinder magazine Newsweek. It supposedly portrayed their
5 of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as island as a place dominated by big landowners who
Provided,That where there are several claims or causes of action
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, the not only exploited the impoverished and underpaid
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims total of all the claims shall now furnish the sugarcane workers, but also brutalized and killed
in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions. ...
jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead them.
of joining or being joined in one complaint separate - Complainants therein alleged that said article,
6 actions are filed by or against the parties, the taken as a whole, showed a deliberate and
Application of the totality rule.-In actions where the jurisdiction of the
court is dependent on the amount involved, the test of jurisdiction shall
amount demanded in each complaint shall furnish malicious use of falsehood, slanted
be the aggregate sum of all the money demands, exclusive only of the jurisdictional test. presentation and/or misrepresentation of facts.
interest and costs, irrespective of whether or not the separate claims -In the case at bar, the lower court correctly - They prayed that defendants be ordered to pay
are owned by or due to different parties. If any demand is for damages
in a civil action, the amount thereof must be specifically alleged.
held that the jurisdictional test is subject to them PlM as actual and compensatory damages, and
the rules on joinder of parties pursuant to such amounts for moral, exemplary and corrective
7 Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of damages as the court may determine.
Permissive joinder of parties.-All persons in whom or against whom
any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or
the Rules of Court and that, after a careful - NEWSWEEK filed a motion to dismiss on the
series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there grounds that ---
in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these rules, is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that (1) the printed article sued upon is not actionable in
join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where
any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
the claims against respondents Binongcal and fact and in law; and (2) the complaint is bereft of
defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such Calion are separate and distinct and neither of allegations that state, much less support a cause of
orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being which falls within its jurisdiction. action. It pointed out the non-libelous nature of the
embarrassed or put to expense in aconnection with any proceedings in
which he may have no interest.
Disposition article and, consequently, the failure of the complaint
The order appealed from is affirmed. to state a cause of action.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 36

Avena
- NO CAUSE OF ACTION because no allegation that property in favor of the members of the homeowners
anything contained in the article regarding association.
MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
sugarcane planters referred specifically to any one of - After the preliminary, the RTC denied the prayer for
the private respondents; that libel can be committed AUTHORITY v RIVERA VILLAGE the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
only against individual reputation; and that in cases LESSEE HOMEOWNERS writ of preliminary injunction and dismissed the
where libel is claimed to have been directed at a ASSOCIATION,INC. petition for lack of merit. The trial court held, among
group, there is actionable defamation only if the libel others, that the petition failed to state a cause of
00 SCRA 00
can be said to reach beyond the mere collectivity to action inasmuch as respondent homeowners
do damage to a specific, individual group member's Tinga, September 30, 2005 association is not the real party-in-interest, the
reputation. individual members of the association being the ones
NATURE who have possessory rights over their respective
ISSUE Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the MIAA premises. Moreover, the lease contracts have
1. WON respondents failed to state a cause of action assailing the Decision of the CA which directed the already expired.
2. WON this case is a class suit issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction - Upon appeal, the CA annulled and set aside the
restraining petitioner from evicting the homeowners order of the trial court and remanded the case for
HELD of Rivera Village from their dwellings. further proceedings. A writ of preliminary injunction
1. YES was issued restraining and preventing respondent
Ratio Defamatory matter which does not reveal the FACTS MIAA from evicting the members of Rivera Village
Identity of the person upon whom the imputation is -The then Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) was Association from their respective lots in the Rivera
cast, affords no ground of action unless it be shown entrusted with the administration, operation, Village. The CA ruled that the case can be construed
that the readers of the libel could have identified the management, control, maintenance and as a class suit instituted by the Rivera Village
personality of the individual defamed. It is evident development of the Manila International Airport lessees. The homeowners association, considered as
that the larger the collectivity, the more difficult it is (MIA), now the NAIA. The CAA entered into individual the representative of the lessees, merely instituted
for the individual member to prove that the lease contracts with its employees for the lease of the suit for the benefit of its members. It does not
defamatory remarks apply to him. portions of a 4-hectare lot situated in Rivera Village, claim to have any right or interest in the lots
Barangay 199 and 200 in Pasay City. The leases were occupied by the lessees, nor seek the registration of
2. NO for a 25-year period to commence on May 25, 1965 the titles to the land in its name.
Ratio It is not a case where one or more may sue for up to May 24, 1990 at P20 per annum as rental. - MIAA argues that the petition filed by the
the benefit of all (Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank and - Thereafter, EO 778 was issued (later amended by homeowners association with the trial court fails to
Trust Co.) or where the representation of class EO 903), creating MIAA, transferring existing assets state a cause of action because the homeowners
interest affected by the judgment or decree is of the MIA to MIAA, and vesting the latter with the association is not the real party-in-interest in the suit.
indispensable to make each member of the class an power to administer and operate the MIA. Allegedly, the Board Resolution presented by
actual party (Borlaza vs. Polistico). We have here a - MIAA stopped issuing accrued rental bills and respondent shows that it was only the board of
case where each of the plaintiffs has a separate and refused to accept rental payments from the lessees. directors of the association, as distinguished from
distinct reputation in the community. They do not As a result, respondent homeowners association, the members thereof, which authorized respondent
have a common or general interest in the subject purportedly representing the lessees, requested to act as its representative in the suit.
matter of the controversy. MIAA to sell the subject property to its members,
CLASS SUIT invoking the provisions of PD 1517 or the Urban Land ISSUE
- Where the defamation is alleged to have been Reform Act and PD 2016. The MIAA denied the WON the petition filed by respondent with the trial
directed at a group or class, it is essential that the request, claiming that the subject property is court states a cause of action against petitioner/
statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing included in its Conceptual Development Plan WON respondent has personality to sue
as to apply to every individual in that group or intended for airport-related activities.
class, or sufficiently specific so that each - Respondent filed a petition for mandamus and HELD
individual in the class or group can prove that the prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a YES
defamatory statement specifically pointed to him, so preliminary injunction against MIAA and the National The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every
that he can bring the action separately, if need be. Housing Authority (NHA) with the RTC of Pasay. The action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
petition sought to restrain the MIAA from of the real party-in-interest, i.e., the party who
Disposition The decision of the Intermediate implementing its Conceptual Development Plan stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
Appellate Court is reversed and the complaint in Civil insofar as Rivera Village is concerned and to compel the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Case No. 15812 of the CFI Negros Occidental is MIAA to segregate Rivera Village from the scope of A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue
dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. the Conceptual Development Plan and the NHA to upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-
take the necessary steps for the disposition of the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 37

Avena
interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause included in the title of the case and shall be deemed The instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the
of action. to be the real party-in-interest. The name of such CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The civil case in the
The petition before the trial court was filed by the beneficiaries shall, likewise, be included in the RTC of Pasay City is ordered DISMISSED.
homeowners association, represented by its complaint.
President, Panfilo R. Chiutena, Sr., upon authority of Moreover, Sec. 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
DEL CASTILLO VS. JAYMALIN, ET AL.
a Board Resolution empowering the latter to file "All provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to
necessary action to the Court of Justice and other sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or 112 SCRA 629
related acts necessary to have our Housing Project be sued in a representative capacity must be MELENCIO-HERRERA, March 17, 1982
number 4 land be titled to the members of the averred in the complaint. In order to maintain an
Association." action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an NATURE
Obviously, the petition cannot be considered a class actual legal existence, that is, he or she or it must be Direct appeal from the decision of the CFI which
suit under Sec. 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as dismiss the case for Damages due to the death of
requisites therefor not being present in the case, either a natural or an artificial person. The party plaintiff
notably because the petition does not allege the bringing suit has the burden of proving the
existence and prove the requisites of a class suit, sufficiency of the representative character that he FACTS
i.e., that the subject matter of the controversy is one claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to 1960: Deaf-mute Mario del Castillo fell upon alighting
of common or general interest to many persons and represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not the bus of the respondents and died.
the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed 1962: Action for recovery of damages was filed by
to bring them all before the court, and because it filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over Severo del Castillo, the father of the victim, against
was brought only by one party. the complaint. It must be stressed that an the driver, conductor, and the owner companies.
In Board of Optometry v. Colet, it was held that unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal 1966: Severo died. Counsel for Motion for Annulment
courts must exercise utmost caution before allowing effect. Proceedings after having learned that plaintiff Severo
a class suit, which is the exception to the In this case, the petition filed with the trial court already died without resting his case. Court ordered
requirement of joinder of all indispensable parties. sufficiently avers that the homeowners association, plaintiff’s counsel to verify existence of heirs willing
For while no difficulty may arise if the decision through its President, is suing in a representative to be substituted as parties-plaintiffs. Allegedly, a
secured is favorable to the plaintiffs, a quandary capacity as authorized under the Board Resolution “Deed of Assignment” was executed by Severo in
would result if the decision were otherwise as those attached to the petition. Although the names of the favor of his son-in-law Wenceslao Haloc of all his
who were deemed impleaded by their self-appointed individual members of the homeowners association rights in the proceedings in 1960 so plaintiff filed a
representatives would certainly claim denial of due who are the beneficiaries and real parties-in-interest Motion to Admit Amended Complaint, substituting
process. in the suit were not indicated in the title of the Wenceslao as party-plaintiff. Amended Complaint
There is, however, merit in the appellate courts petition, this defect can be cured by the simple was admitted by the court.
pronouncement that the petition should be construed expedient of requiring the association to disclose the CFI: dismissed original and amended complaints due
as a suit brought by the homeowners association as names of the principals and to amend the title and to the death of Severo. Wenceslao had no personality
the representative of the members thereof under averments of the petition accordingly. to continue the case, not being a heir of Severo.
Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Essentially, the purpose of the rule that actions
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action should be brought or defended in the name of the ISSUE
is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a real party-in-interest is to protect against undue and 1. WON the complaint should be dismissed due to
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary unnecessary litigation and to ensure that the court the death of the plaintiff, even if he had already
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title will have the benefit of having before it the real assigned his rights before he died
of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party adverse parties in the consideration of a case. This 2. WON damages should have been awarded
in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an rule, however, is not to be narrowly and restrictively
express trust, a guardian, an executor or construed, and its application should be neither HELD
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these dogmatic nor rigid at all times but viewed in 1. NO
Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the consonance with extant realities and practicalities. Ratio. Where an assignable right has been
benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be As correctly noted by the CA, the dismissal of this transferred before action brought, the proceeding
sued without joining the principal except when the case based on the lack of personality to sue of ought to be instituted in the name of the assignee;
contract involves things belonging to the principal. petitioner-association will only result in the filing of and where an assignment is effected pendente lite, it
It is a settled rule that every action must be multiple suits by the individual members of the is proper to have the assignee substituted for the
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real association. original plaintiff. If such substitution should not be
party-in-interest. Where the action is allowed to be Disposition effected and the transfer of the right of action should
prosecuted or defended by a representative acting in not be brought to the attention of the court, the
a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary must be original plaintiff, if successful in the litigation, would
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 38

Avena
hold the fruits of the action as a sort of trustee for purchase price. 10 years after the execution of said -Appellant appealed to the CA, which upon finding
the use and benefit of his assignee. document, Gojo filed a case with the CFI against that the said appeal involves purely questions of law,
Reasoning. This is not a case where the provisions Goyala by way of a petition for consolidation of certified the same to the SC.
of Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on "death ownership of said land. Gojo alleged that the period
of a party" are applicable. Rather, it is a situation for repurchasing had expired and ownership had ISSUES
where plaintiff, while alive, had assigned his rights to become consolidated in him and that for purposes of Parties: Re contractual money claims /
another, in which case, the proper procedure would recording the consolidation in the Registry of Dismissal by claimant / Compulsory
have been for the transferee to have been Property, it was necessary that a judicial order be counterclaim/ Answer: Defenses
substituted for the transferor as plaintiff. The rights issued to that effect. WON TC erred in declaring plaintiff in default with
of Severo to claim damages for his son were -Goyala filed an answer to the petition, alleging that respect to defendant’s counterclaim
transferable. Severo had transferred his rights as they had obtained a cash loan of P810 from Gojo
plaintiff to Wenceslao Haloc but after the assignment payable w/in one year w/o interest and that to HELD
the case continued in Severo's name and there was guarantee payment, Goyala executed a mortgage in YES. The appellant contends that there is no occasion
no immediate and formal substitution of party favor of the petitioner on the parcel of land in for the TC to declare him in default in respect of
plaintiff. This is but a formality, however, and the fact question. Hence, although the deed was executed in appellee’s counterclaim as said counterclaim falls
remains that, after the assignment, the substantial the form of a pacto de retro sale, the true intention within the category of compulsory counterclaim
plaintiff and real party in interest became Haloc, with of the parties was for it to be a mere mortgage to which does not call for an independent answer as the
Severo as a sort of trustee of whatever fruits the secure payment. Goyala further claimed that he and complaint already denies its material allegations. It is
litigation would bring. his wife attempted to pay the debt but petitioner now settled that a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to
refused to receive the sum and cancel the mortgage. answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be
2. YES By way of counterclaim, Goyala prayed that declared in default, principally because the issues
Reasoning. Articles 1764 and 2206 of the Civil petitioner receive the P810 and that the document of raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically
Code. Failure to exercise extraordinary care for the mortgage be declared so, and not a pacto de retro joined by the allegations of the complaint.
safety of its passengers even after being apprised of sale. He further prayed for P1800 per annum until -While it is true that under Sec. 3 of Rule 17, a
the fact that the victim was a deaf-mute. Should the final termination of the case for the fruits of said complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute
have been remanded to CA for determination of property and in the case that the instrument be if the plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the
amount of damages but due to pendency of case for deemed a true pacto de retro sale, that petitioner be court, said provision cannot apply when the order
13 years + put an end to controversy, Court imposed ordered to execute a deed of resale in favor of ignored is a void one, as in this case. (As in Sec 20 of
P12,000 for death of victim, plus P2,000 atty’s fees respondents in accordance with A1606CC. Rule 3, the death of the defendant in a contractual
-Counsel for Goyala filed a manifestation informing money claim does dismiss such action for recovery,
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed the TC that the named defendant, Antonina, had but will be allowed to continue until final judgment is
from is hereby reversed, and defendants hereby died, prompting the TC to issue an order requiring entered. Favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
ordered jointly and severally, to pay Wenceslao counsel for the plaintiff to submit an amended shall be enforced in the manner provided in these
Haloc, the amount of P12,000.00 as damages for Complaint substituting Antonina with one of her Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
death, without interest, and P2,000.00 as attorney's successors in interest as party defendants. Goyala deceased person. In Barrameda vs Barbara, the SC
fees. No costs. SO ORDERED. filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground held that an order to amend the complaint, before
that notwithstanding the lapse of 43 days after the proper substitution of parties as directed by Sec.
GOJO V GOYALA appellant’s receipt of a copy of the said TC order, 17, Rule 3 (Sec. 16, new law), is void and imposes
said appellant failed and neglected to submit the upon the plaintiff no duty to comply therewith to the
35 SCRA 557
amended complaint required of him. Appellant end that an order dismissing the said complaint, for
Barredo, J.: Oct. 30, 1970 opposed the motion but the TC dismissed the such non-compliance, would similarly be void. It was
complaint. further held in Ferriera vs Gonzales that the
NATURE -Appellee filed a motion to declare appellant in continuance of a proceeding during the pendency of
Appeal from a decision of the CFI of Sorsogon default in respect of said appellee’s counterclaim, which a party thereto dies, without such party having
which was granted by the TC, which further required been validly substituted in accordance with the rules,
FACTS Goyala to submit his evidence before the Clerk of amounts to lack of jurisdiction.
-Appellee Segundo Goyala, with his now deceased Court. TC rendered favorable judgment on appellee’s WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is set
wife Antonina sold to Gojo a 2.5 hectare parcel of counterclaim, declaring the Deed of Pacto de Retro aside
agricultural land for P750 by a “Deed of Pacto de Sale an equitable mortgage and ordering Gojo to
Retro Sale”, the repurchase to be made within one receive the P810 and to restore possession to the VENUE
year, as stated in the deed. The deed also indicates defendants and allowing them to redeem the same.
that the vendee paid another P100 in addition to the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 39

Avena
PEOPLE v. MAYOR PABLO SOLA - Antonio J. Villegas and Juan Ponce Enrile (Mayor of disruption of public service do not appear indubitable
Manila and Undersecretary of Finance and . . ."
(page 8)
concurrently Acting Commissioner of Customs, - Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari and
respectively, with offices in the City of Manila) filed a prohibition. (Subject of the petition: The orders for
FACTS civil action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal the taking of the said depositions, for deferring
-Bodies found in Mayor Sola’s hacienda. Information seeking to recover from the herein petitioner determination of the motion to dismiss, and for re
filed against Mayor, Chief of Police and other damages upon an alleged libel arising from a affirming the deferment, and the writ of attachment
accused. Accused were granted bail. Witnesses fear publication of Time (Asia Edition) magazine, in its are sought to be annulled in the petition.)
for their lives because the trial was to be held near issue of 18 August 1967, of an essay, entitled
the town where the accused were powerful. Also, the "Corruption in Asia", wherein the defendants ISSUES
witnesses had been receiving threats on their lives. allegedly impute to plaintiffs the commission of the 1. Whether or not, under the provisions of Republic
Relevance: Change in venue crimes of graft and corruption and nepotism. Act No. 4363 the respondent Court of First Instance
- Petitioner Time, Inc., is an American corporation of Rizal has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the civil
ON CHANGE OF VENUE: The constitution is quite with principal offices at Rockefeller Center, New York suit for damages arising from an allegedly libelous
explicit. The Supreme Court could order "a change of City, N. Y., and is the publisher of "Time", a weekly publication, considering that the action was
venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of news magazine. instituted by public officers whose offices were in the
justice." City of Manila at the time of the publication;
-People v. Gutierrez, J.B.L. Reyes: "…TO COMPEL THE PROCEDURE 2. If it has no jurisdiction, whether or not its
PROSECUTION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL IN A LOCALITY - Villegas and Enrile filed a Motion for leave to take erroneous assumption of jurisdiction may be
WHERE ITS WITNESSES WILL NOT BE AT LIBERTY TO the depositions "of Mr. Anthony Gonzales, Time-life challenged by a foreign corporation by writ of
REVEAL WHAT THEY KNOW IS TO MAKE A MOCKERY International", and "Mr. Cesar B. Enriquez, Muller & certiorari or prohibition; and
OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND TO BETRAY THE Phipps (Manila) Ltd.", in connection with the activities
VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH COURTS HAVE BEEN and operations in the Philippines of the petitioner. It HELD
ESTABLISHED." was granted by Judge Reyes and he also issued a 1. No. The proper venue is the CFI of Manila.
-The exercise by this Honorable Court of its above writ of attachment on the real and personal estate of Ratio: Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code,
constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. Time, Inc. as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, actions for
The witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. - Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint damages by public officials for libelous publications
They are afraid they would be killed on their way to for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, relying against them can only be filed in the courts of first
or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. upon the provisions of Republic Act 4363 (According to instance of the city or province where the offended
Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify this law, 'The criminal and civil action for damages in cases functionary held office at the time of the commission
or testify falsely to save their lives. of written defamations. . .where one of the offended parties of the offense, in case the libelous article was first
-there may be cases where the fear, objectively is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the printed or published outside the Philippines.
time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be
viewed, may, to some individuals, be less than filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of
Reasoning:
terrifying, but the question must always be the effect the city or province where the libelous article is printed and a. (Intent of the law) The assertion that a foreign
it has on the witnesses who will testify. first published, and in case such public officer does not hold corporation or a non-resident defendant is not
-The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the inconvenienced by an out-of-town suit is irrelevant
must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held and untenable, for venue and jurisdiction are not
be resolved in favor of a change of venue office at the time of the commission of the offense or where dependent upon convenience or inconvenience to a
the libelous article is printed and first published). party; and moreover, venue was fixed under
- Respondent court deferred the determination of Republic Act No. 4363, pursuant to the basic policy of
TIME, INC. vs. REYES the motion to dismiss until after trial of the case on the law that is, as previously stated, to protect the
39 SCRA 303 the merits, the court having considered that the interest of the public service when the offended
REYES, J.B.L.; May 31, 1971 grounds relied upon in the motion do not appear to party is a public officer, by minimizing as much as
be indubitable. possible any interference with the discharge of his
NATURE - Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the duties.
Petition for certiorari and prohibition, with deferment; The respondent judge issued an order re b. (Textual and strict interpretation of the law) The
preliminary injunction, to annul certain orders of the affirming the previous order of deferment for the rule is that where a statute creates a right and
respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal, issued reason that "the rule laid down under Republic Act provides a remedy for its enforcement, the remedy is
and to prohibit the said court from further proceeding No. 4363, amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal exclusive; and where it confers jurisdiction upon a
with the said civil case. Code, is not applicable to actions against non- particular court, that jurisdiction is likewise exclusive,
resident defendants, and because questions unless otherwise provided. Hence, the venue
FACTS involving harrasments and inconvenience, as well as provisions of Republic Act No 4363 should be
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 40

Avena
deemed mandatory for the party bringing the action, Subscriber hereby expressly waives any other A contract duly executed is the law between the
unless the question of venue should be waived by venues." parties, and they are obliged to comply fully and not
the defendant, which was not the case here. - In an order, the RTC denied petitioner's MTD and selectively with its terms. A contract of adhesion is
2. Yes. required it to file an answer within 15 days from no exception.
Ratio: The action of a court in refusing to rule, or receipt thereof.
deferring its ruling, on a motion to dismiss for lack of - PILTEL filed a MFR, through registered mail, of the Disposition WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or for improper order of the trial court. In its subsequent order, TC GRANTED.
venue, is in excess of jurisdiction and correctible by denied the MFR.
writ of prohibition or certiorari sued out in the - Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
PLEADINGS
appellate Court, even before trial on the merits is 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure before the
had. CA. In General: Manner of making
Reasoning - CA saw no merit in the petition and affirmed the allegations in pleadings
It would be useless and futile to go ahead with the assailed orders of the TC. Petitioner moved for a Actionable document
proceedings if the court had no jurisdiction. reconsideration, but the appellate court denied the
motion.
SANTIAGO VS DE LOS SANTOS
DISPOSITION
The writs applied for are granted: the respondent ISSUE/S 61 SCRA 146
Court of First Instance of Rizal is declared without WON parties may stipulate on the venue of any FERNANDO; November 22, 1974
jurisdiction to take cognizance of its Civil Case No. litigation between them
10403; and its orders issued in connection therewith FACTS
are hereby annulled and set aside. Respondent court HELD Santiago applied for registration of a parcel of land
is further commanded to desist from further YES located in San Mateo, Rizal. The application is
proceedings in Civil Case No. 10403 aforesaid. Ratio Section 4, Rule 4, of the Revised Rules of Civil opposed by the Director of Lands, Director of
The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued Procedure allows the parties to agree and stipulate in Forestry and by Mrs. Pacita V. de los Santos on the
by this Supreme Court is made permanent. writing, before the filing of an action, on the ground that the property applied for is part of the
exclusive venue of any litigation between them. Such public domain. Subsequently, motions to dismiss
PILIPINO TELEPHONE V TECSON an agreement would be valid and binding provided the application were filed by the oppositor Pacita V.
that the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive de los Santos and the Director of Forestry which
00 SCRA 00
in nature or in intent, that it is expressed in writing motions are principally based on the allegation that
VITUGJ; May 7, 2004 by the parties thereto, and that it is entered into the property applied for is a portion of the public
before the filing of the suit. domain which was leased to Mrs. Pacita de los Santos
NATURE Reasoning. The provision contained in paragraph 22 under Pasture Lease Agreement No. 1305.
Special civil action of certiorari of the "Mobile Service Agreement," a standard The motion to dismiss was granted based on the
contract made out by petitioner PILTEL to its documents attached to their motion by Judge Cecilia
FACTS subscribers, apparently accepted and signed by Muñoz Palma, now an Associate Justice of this Court,
- On various dates in 1996, Delfino C. Tecson applied respondent. The added stipulation that the dismissed the suit. In this appeal, Santiago seeks for
for six (6) cellular phone subscriptions with petitioner subscriber "expressly waives any other venue" the decision to be reversed. His new counsel, the
Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL), which should indicate, clearly enough, the intent of the firm of Luna and Manalo, is thorough and
applications were each approved and covered, by six parties to consider the venue stipulation as being comprehensive.
mobiline service agreements. preclusive in character.
- On 05 April 2001, respondent filed with the RTC of The appellate court, however, would appear to ISSUE
Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte, a complaint against anchor its decision on the thesis that the subscription WON the order of the lower court should be reversed.
petitioner for a "Sum of Money and Damages." agreement, being a mere contract of adhesion, does
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint not bind respondent on the venue stipulation. But HELD
on the ground of improper venue, citing a common such an agreement is not per se inefficacious. The NO.
provision in the mobiline service agreements to the rule instead is that, should there be ambiguities in a Even the most cursory reading of the order of
effect that - contract of adhesion, such ambiguities are to be dismissal can lead to no other conclusion except that
"Venue of all suits arising from this Agreement or any construed against the party that prepared it. If, it should be affirmed. Notwithstanding the vigor with
other suit directly or indirectly arising from the however, the stipulations are not obscure, but are which the appeal is being prosecuted by new
relationship between PILTEL and subscriber shall be clear and leave no doubt on the intention of the counsel, it cannot suffice for a reversal. The infirmity
in the proper courts of Makati, Metro Manila. parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations must be of the case is incurable.
held controlling.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 41

Avena
The pleading left no choice to the then Judge Muñoz There was no denial of such allegation. It is quite the duly indorsed negotiable shipping document
Palma except to dismiss the case, which wrote: “... obvious then that the facts, no less than the law, call covering the same and
the portion of the said parcel of land subject of this for precisely the conclusion reached by the then - To insure payment, the NAMARCO accepted three
registration which was claimed as part of the public Judge Muñoz Palma. domestic letters of credit for the account of the
forest has already been released by the Honorable "Rules of pleading are intended to secure a method FEDERATION.
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for by which the issues may be properly laid before the - The FEDERATION and some of its members filed a
agricultural purposes as evidenced by its order dated court. When those issues are already clear before the complaint against the NAMARCO for specific
August 10, 1961.” Attached to such pleading were court, the deficiency in the observance of the rules performance and damages, alleging that after the
the documents, which, in the language of the then should not be given undue importance. What is NAMARCO had delivered a great portion of the goods
Judge Palma, "show that the land object of this important is that the case be decided upon the listed in the Contract of Sale, it refused to deliver the
registration proceeding is part of the public domain. merits and that it should not be allowed to go off on other goods mentioned in the said contract.
Former counsel ought to have realized the fatal procedural points. Technicalities, in the appropriate - CFI ordered the NAMARCO to specifically perform its
effect on his client's case of such an admission. If it language of Justice Makalintal, "should give way to obligation in the Contract of Sale, by delivering to the
were his intention to demolish entirely the pretension the realities of the situation." 13 Well could Justice FEDERATION the undelivered goods.
of plaintiff to the claim that he had been in open, Cardozo observe: "A system of procedure is - SC: The Contract of Sale was valid."
public, uninterrupted, peaceful and adverse perverted from its proper function when it multiplies - NAMARCO: FEDERATION'S act or omission in
possession in the concept of owner from July 26, impediments to justice without the warrant of clear refusing to satisfy the former's valid, just and
1894 up to the present, he could not have succeeded necessity." demandable claim has compelled it to file the instant
any better. action; and praying that the FEDERATION be ordered
What was so categorically therein set forth Dispositive. WHEREFORE, the appealed order of to pay the NAMARCO the costs of merchandise plus
as to such parcel of land being a part of a public November 17, 1961 of the then Judge Muñoz Palma damages.
forest, although thereafter released by the Secretary is affirmed. Costs against appellant Luis R. Santiago - FEDERATION moved to dismiss the complaint on the
of Agriculture and Natural Resources for agricultural ground that the cause of action alleged therein is
purposes, is conclusive and binding. It would clearly barred forever, pursuant to section 6 of Rule 10 of
appear that Santiago could not in truth show that the Rules of Court. In support thereof, the
there was such an open, uninterrupted, peaceful and FEDERATION alleged it filed a case for specific
adverse possession in the concept of owner The Claim performance to enforce compliance with the contract
It is a familiar doctrine," according to Justice J.B.L. Counterclaim/cross-claim after of sale; that said contract is also the basis
Reyes in Joe's Radio & Electrical Supply v. Alto answer NAMARCO's present complaint; that when NAMARCO
Electronics Corp., 5 "that an admission made in the filed its answer to the complaint, it did not set up any
pleadings cannot be controverted by the party counterclaim therein; that the CFI promulgated the
making such admission and are conclusive as to him, NAMARCO v. FEDERACION decision in said case ordering, among others, the
and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto 49 SCRA 238 NAMARCO to specifically perform its obligation under
or inconsistent therewith, should be ignored, whether ANTONIO; January 31, 1972 the contract of sale by delivering to the FEDERATION
objection is interposed by the party or not ... ." 6 the goods subject-matter of the contract as are
Even if there had been a full hearing on the case, NATURE involved in the complaint.
therefore, the result would not have been any Appeal by defendantfrom a decision of the Court of - NAMARCO opposed the motion to dismiss
different. There was no choice then for the lower First Instance ordering said defendant to pay the contending that its claim for the recovery of the cost
court except to dismiss the complaint. plaintiff of merchandise delivered to the FEDERATION is not
The present counsel of Santiago tries to necessarily connected for specific performance and,
extricate himself from a predicament of his own FACTS therefore, does not fall under the category of
making by arguing that the motion to dismiss of - NAMARCO is a GOCC organized and existing under compulsory counterclaim; that NAMARCO's failure to
Pacita de los Santos is not entitled to recognition as and by virtue of RA 1345. FEDERATION is a non-stock set it up as a counterclaim in its answer does not
there was a general order of default except as to the corporation duly organized and existing under and by constitute res judicata; that the deliveries of the
Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of Forestry, not virtue of the laws of the Philippines. merchandise were effected through the fault or
lifted as to her and that she has no interest to - They entered into a Contract of Sale which says negligence of one of its personnel, Juan T. Arive, who
oppose the application although admittedly there that the Management of NAMARCO was authorized to was administratively charged therefor, found guilty
was a claim on her part under a pasture lease import items worth $2,001,031. FEDERATION and accordingly dismissed.; that the present claim is
agreement in her favor. But in the motion to dismiss deposited P200,000 as partial payment and the not necessarily connected with the transaction or
of de los Santos, it was alleged that the son of balance shall be paid on cash basis upon delivery of occurrence that is the subject matter of Civil Case
Santiago, Juanito was one time the lessee of the No. 42684, as the same evidence would not support
timber area sought to be registered by Santiago. or refute both.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 42

Avena
- The FEDERATION filed a rejoinder reiterating that - The party need not assert a counterclaim that has included in the same case by way of supplemental
the requirements on the rule of compulsory not matured at the time he serves his pleading. This pleading before judgment under Section 4 of former
counterclaim are present; that the first requirement is derived from the language in the rule limiting its Rule 10 of the Rules (now Sec. 9 Rule 6). And the
that the counterclaim arises out of or is necessarily application to claims the pleader has 'at the time of same may be allowed unless the case has
connected with the contract of sale subject-matter of serving the pleading.' A counterclaim acquired by progressed so far that it may be inconvenient or
NAMARCO's cause of action is evident from the face defendant after he has answered will not be confusing to allow the additional claim to be pleaded.
of the complaint itself. considered compulsory, even if it arises out of the - We therefore rule that NAMARCO's present action,
- LC issued an order holding "in abeyance" action on same transaction as does plaintiff's claim. Similarly, a is not barred by its failure to assert it as a
the motion to dismiss till after the trial on the merits. counterclaim acquired by plaintiff after he has counterclaim the previous case.
- FEDERATION filed its answer to the NAMARCO's replied to a counterclaim by defendant is not
complaint admitting some material averments of the compulsory under Rule 13(a). However, if a party BARREDO, dissenting:
complaint, specifically denying other allegations and should acquire a matured counterclaim after he has - Namarco's present claim arise out of or was
consistently with its position averred as affirmative pleaded, Rule 13(e) provides that he may obtain the necessarily connected with the transaction or
defense that NAMARCO's failure to assert its claim court's permission to include it in a supplemental occurrence that was the subject matter of the
against the FEDERATION before judgment in Civil pleading under Rule 15(d)." Federation's action in Civil Case No 42684 within the
Case No. 42684 on October 15, 1960 constituted a - A counterclaim may be asserted under Rule 13(e) contemplation of the rule on compulsory
bar to the institution of the present action. By way of only by leave of court, which usually will be granted counterclaims.
counterclaim, the FEDERATION sought P50,000.00 as in order to enable the parties to litigate all the claims - It was the element of time herein involved that
attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation, as that they have against each other at one time somehow induced me at the beginning to be inclined,
well as P17,000.00 as damages for improper thereby avoiding multiple actions. However, Rule 13, albeit reluctantly, to sustain Namarco's position in
issuance of a writ of attachment which writ, evidently (e) is permissive in character. An after-acquired this appeal. At the precise time that Namarco filed its
had been issued earlier by the court. counterclaim, even if it arises out of the transaction answer in Civil Case No. 42684, it was not yet certain
- NAMARCO filed an answer to the FEDERATION'S or occurrence that is the subject matter of the that the Federation would not pay or that payment of
counterclaim specifically denying the material opposing party's claim, need not be pleaded its sight drafts would not be effected by the bank. In
averments thereof and maintaining that the present supplementally; the after-acquired claim is not other words, from that point of view, Namarco's
action is not barred by Civil Case No. 42684. considered a compulsory counterclaim under Rule cause of action had not yet matured then. It is also
13(a) and a failure to interpose it will not bar its clear, however, that said cause of action accrued
ISSUE assertion a later suit. before judgment was rendered by the trial court.
WON this action of NAMARCO for the collection of the - The counterclaim must be existing at the time of - Under Section 4 of Rule 10 of the old rules, now
payment of the merchandise delivered to, but not yet filling the answer, though not at the commencement Section 9 of Rule 6, a counterclaim which either
paid by, the FEDERATION, is already barred as a of the action for under Section 3 of the former Rule matured or was acquired by a defendant after
consequence of the failure of NAMARCO to set it up 10, the counterclaim or cross-claim which a party serving his answer may be set up in a supplemental
as a counterclaim in the previous case, (Civil Case may aver in his answer must be one which he may pleading later before judgment. Since this may be
No. 42684). have "at the time" against the posing party. That done or not in the case of counterclaims not arising
phrase can only have reference to the time of the out of the same transaction or occurrence, the
HELD answer. Certainly a premature counterclaim cannot question that arises is, must it have to be done in the
- A counterclaim has been held to be compulsory if be set up in the answer. This construction is not only case of counterclaims that do arise from the same
there is a logical relationship between it and the explicit from the language of the aforecited transaction or occurrence, such that if not
main claim. provisions but also serves to harmonize the interposed, they must be deemed barred?
- But even assuming for the nonce that NAMARCO's aforecited sections of Rule 10, with section 4 of the - I agree that the Court rule for the present that for a
present claim is logically related to the claim of the same rule which provides that "a counterclaim . . . counterclaim to be considered as barred, under the
FEDERATION in the previous case, NAMARCO's claim which either matured or was acquired by a party above provisions, the cause of action thereof must
having accrued or matured after the service of its after serving his pleading may, with the permission have already accrued at the time the answer is filed
answer in the earlier case is in the nature of an after- of the court, be presented as a counterclaim . . . by by the defendant, although I, for one, would prefer
acquired counterclaim which under the rules is not supplemental pleading before judgment." supplemental counterclaims, the defendant should
barred even if it is not set up in the previous case as - Thus a party who fails to interpose a counterclaim just the same be compelled to allege it in such a
a counterclaim. An after-acquired counterclaim, is although arising out of or is necessarily connected supplemental pleading in those cases where his
one of the recognized exceptions to the general rule with transaction or occurrence of the plaintiff's suit claim accrues before trial has began or at the latest,
that a counterclaim is compulsory and must be but which did not exist or mature at the time said before the defendant has started presenting his
asserted if it arises out of the same transaction as party files his answer is not thereby barred from evidence. Otherwise stated, my position is that the
the opposing party's claim. interposing such claim in a future litigation. However claim of Namarco in this case did arise out of the
such claim may with the court's permission be same transaction or occurrence that was the subject
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 43

Avena
matter of the Federation's anterior action, but as security (mortgage). Due to non-payment the that the issues jpined with the original pleading
inasmuch as, on the hypothesis that the contract property was foreclosed and sold to respondents as remained an issue to be tried in the action. It is but a
were binding, the formers' cause of action could not highest bidders. The deed of sale has been filed with continuation of the complaint. Its usual office is to set
have been considered as already matured when it the Register of Deed and the respondents obtained n up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the
filed its answer, there would have been no need for it their name a tax declaration over the property. kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter
to file this counterclaim. - Petitioner subsequently filed with the same RTC a as the controversy referred to in the original
- The whole trouble with Namarco's pose in this a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint to invoke complaint. In this case, the consolidation of the title
appeal lies, however, in the fact that in its answer to her right to exercise legal redemption over the over the property in the name of the respondent,
the Federation's complaint, it pleaded the defense of property. This supplemental motion was denied by Manuel Sy, and the issue as to whether it precluded
illegality or nullity of the contract. From that point of the RTC on December 28, 2000. Petitioner filed a petitioner as alleged co-owner from exercising the
view, it was immaterial to Namarco's recovery of the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 right of legal redemption, are new matters that
purchase price of goods it had already delivered of the Rules of Court with the CA. The CA dismissed occurred after the filing of the original complaint. The
under the contract that there was in said contract the petition on the ground that the cause of action in relief prayd for in the Supplemental complaint, which
any term for the payment thereof. As far as Namarco the Supplemental complaint is entirely different from is the exercise of the right of legal redemption
was concerned, those goods had been delivered the original complaint, that the said complaint did accorded to co-owners of property, is germane to
illegally and should have been immediately returned not merely supply its deficiencies, and that, at any and intertwined with the cause of action in the
unless their value had been paid for, (Article 1412 rate, in the event the trial court issues an adverse Complaint for the nullification. The right of legal
(2), Civil Code) or Namarco was in pari delicto (Article ruling, the petitioner can still the same. Petitioner redemption as co-owner is conferred by law and is
1411, id). Such being the case, it is quite evident that filed this Petition for review on certiorari under Rule merely a natural consequence of co-ownership.
when Namarco filed its answer to the Federation's 45 with the SC. Hence petitioner’s cause of action for legal
action, its cause of action for the recovery of the - With regard the original action, the RTC dismissed redemption as embodied in the supplemental
price of the delivered goods was already existing and the case upon motion of the respondents on the complaint stems directly from and is an extension of
could have been the subject of a counterclaim. This ground of failure to prosecute. Apparently, the her rights as co-owner of the property subject of the
means that as of the time Namarco filed its answer petitioner had asked for postponements opening the complaint. Also as petitioner correctly pointed out,
contesting the legality or validity of the contract, it door for a claim by the respondents of non-suit. (This even if the trial court decides in her favor, the
was incumbent upon it to then and there seek is where it becomes more interesting) Petitioner filed redemption period would have lapsed already and
recovery of whatever it had delivered thereunder. two appeals with the CA. Both appeals raised would not form part of the decision since it is not
essentially the same issues. One of the appeals an prayed for, much less alleged in the original
ordinary appeal and the other is a Petition for complaint. In such a case, the respondents could
Amended and Supplemental
Certiorari under Rule 65 filed four months after the oppose the exercise since it would not have been
pleadings first. The CA ruled in favor of the petitioner under the included in the decision over the original complaint.
ordinary appeal but a motion for reconsideration was 2. Yes. The petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.
YOUNG VS SPOUSES SY filed by the respondents and the CA has yet to rule Forum shopping consists of filling multiple suits
GR No. 157745 on this reconsideration motion. The other appeal was involving the same parties for the same cause of
dismissed on the ground that judgment of the RTC action, either simultaneously or successively, the the
AUSTRIA- MARTINEZ, September 26, can only be appealed via an ordinary appeal and not purpose of obtaining a favorably judgment. There is
2006 by certiorari. Hence this petition for review under forum shopping where there exist: (a) identity of
Rule 45 with the SC. parties, or at least such parties as represent the
NATURE same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights
Consolidated petitions for review on Certiorari ISSUE/S asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
1. WON the denial of the Motion to admit founded on the same facts; (c) the identity of the two
FACTS supplemental Complaint is valid preceding particulars is such that any judgment
- Petitioner filed a complaint for nullification of 2. WON the dismissal of the petition for certiorari rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
Second Supplemental Extra-judicial settlement, with regard the original action is proper party is successful would amount to res judicata. The
mortgage, foreclosure sale, and tax declaration decision of the RTC is dismissing the case is a final
against respondents on May 20, 2000. The HELD order and the proper remedy against such final order
complained alleged that the questioned partition 1. No. As its very name denotes, a supplemental is appeal and not certiorari. As a general rule, a writ
which was executed by her mother was pleading only serves to bolster or add something to of certiorari sill not issue where the remedy of appeal
unenforceable since at the time of the execution the the primary pleading. A supplement exists side by is available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of
petitioner was only 15 years old and that no court side with the original. It does not replace that which appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of
approval was secured. Her mother obtained a loan it supplement. Moreover, a supplemental pleading certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and
from the spouses respondents and used the property assumes that the original pleading is to stand and not alternative or cumulative. hence the special civil
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 44

Avena
action of certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be a third-party complaint for lack of jurisdiction that the entrenched in our law that jurisdiction once acquired
substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is third-party complaint was filed after the passage of continues until the case is finally terminated
available. This is a firm judicial policy. RA 3828 conferring original jurisdiction on the 2. YES
Municipal Court in civil cases involving not more than - It is true that the third-party complaint was filed
Disposition P10,000.00, and that the third-party complaint refers after the effectivity date of RA3828. It is likewise true
Petition for the non-suit is denied. Petition for the to a claim of only P6,000.00 that the demand therein made does not exceed
admission of the supplemental order is granted. The - December 3, 1963 > TC ordered surety to pay the P10,000, and, therefore, is not within the jurisdiction
trial court is directed to admit said complaint. Republic P5,000, with interest of the Court of First Instance if it were an
- CA: Surety interposed its appeal from the order independent action. But the third-party complaint is
Third Party Complaint, etc. dismissing its third-party complaint and from the an ancillary suit which depends on the jurisdiction of
decision ordering it to pay the Republic the amount the court over the main action. Since the trial court
of P5,000, contending that the trial court erred in (1) had acquired jurisdiction over the complaint, it
REPUBLIC V CENTRAL SURETY &
not declaring itself without jurisdiction over the necessarily follows that it likewise had jurisdiction
INSURANCE COMPANY subject-matter of the action, and (2) dismissing the over the third-party complaint which is but an
26 SCRA 741 third-party complaint. But it certified the case to SC incident thereof. This must be so because jurisdiction
CASTRO; October 26, 1968 pursuant to Sec 2 Article VIII of the Constitution and over the main case embraces all incidental matters
Sec 17(3) of RA 296 where jurisdiction of TC is in arising therefrom and connected therewith. A
NATURE issue contrary rule would result in "split jurisdiction" which
is not favored, and in multiplicity of suits, a situation
FACTS ISSUES obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.
- October 23, 1959 > Republic of the Philippines filed 1. WON the trial court had jurisdiction over the -
Talisay-Silay Milling Co., et al. vs. CIR, et al:
suit against the Central Surety & Insurance Company subject-matter of the main action The third-party complaint is but a continuation of the
and Mangoba, manager of the bond department 2. WON the trial court had jurisdiction over the third- main action, its purpose being merely to seek
stating that Po Kee Kam who was the subject of party complaint "contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other
deportation proceedings in whom the bond was relief, in respect of his opponent's claim." (Rule 6,
made in favor of, did not appear in such proceedings HELD See. 12.) The aim is to avoid the actions which
despite notice to the Surety. This constituted a 1. YES should be tried together to save the time and cost of
violation of the conditions of the bond causing the - Even though the total amount involved is only a reduplication of evidence, to obtain consistent
forfeiture of the bond made by the Surety in favor of P6,000 (P5,000 under the bond and P1,000 as results from identical or similar evidence, and to do
the government. Republic claims P5,000 (amount of attorney's fees) and a court of first instance is vested away with the serious handicap to a defendant of a
bond) and P1,000 (atty’s fees) with jurisdiction only over cases in which the time difference between a judgment against him and
- July 5, 1963 > Surety filed its answer: (1) that its demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the a judgment in his favor against the third party
bond cannot be made liable beyond the amount of property in controversy, exceeds P10,000, pursuant defendant. Petitioners urge that a rule similar to the
P5,000; (2) that it is not liable for attorney's fees in to section 44 of Republic Act 296, as amended by rule on counterclaim be adopted. But a third-party
the absence of any stipulation to that effect; (3) that Republic Act 3828 which took effect on June 22, complaint cannot be likened to a counterclaim which
the court has no jurisdiction over the case as the 1963, the present action having been filed on June must be within the jurisdiction of the court trying the
amount involved is only P5,000; and (4) that the 20, 1963 (two days before the effectivity of Republic main case, because unlike a third-party complaint, a
Republic has no cause of action. Act 3828 which broadened the jurisdiction of counterclaim "need not diminish or defeat the
- July 30, 1963 > Surety filed a third-party complaint, municipal and city courts to include cases in which recovery sought by the opposing party, but may
with leave of court, against Po Kee Kam and Tony Go the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the claim itself exceeding in amount or different in kind
alleging that for consideration of the bond, the third- property in controversy, does not exceed P10,000) it from that sought in the opposing party's claim" (Rule
party defendants, executed an indemnity agreement is cannot be argued that the court's jurisdiction over 6, Sec. 6). A third-party complaint may likewise be
in favor of the Surety to indemnify it for damage, the case was lost on June 22, 1963, when Republic likened to a cross claim under Rule 9, section 5. ...
loss, expenses etc and that in the event judgment is Act 3828 took effect, and therefore the case should The principle is at once apparent, namely, that where
rendered against it, the third party defendants be have been remanded to the municipal court. an action is ancillary to a main action over which a
ordered to reimburse - It is not disputed that the trial court acquired court has jurisdiction, no independent jurisdiction is
- September 7, 1963 > the third-party defendants jurisdiction over the subject-matter on June 20, 1963 needed to enable the court to take cognizance of the
answer: defense that the case is premature as the when the complaint was filed with it. It is of no ancillary action.
main case has not yet been terminated. moment that summons was served and that the case Disposition the order dated December 2, 1963
- December 2, 1963 > upon verbal motion of the was heard and decided after the effectivity of dismissing the third-party complaint is set aside; the
third party defendants, the trial court dismissed the Republic Act 3828, because the rule is firmly decision dated December 3, 1963 is modified in the
sense that the third-party defendants are hereby
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 45

Avena
ordered to pay to the Surety whatever sums the action, called the 3rd (fourth, etc.) – party defendant, possibility of recovery. In determining the sufficiency
latter will pay to the Republic by virtue of the for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other of the 3rd-party complaint, the allegations in the
judgment appealed from. relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim.” original complaint and the 3rd-party complaint must
Reasoning Purpose of the rule: permit a defendant be examined. A 3rd-party complaint must allege facts
to assert an independent claim against a 3rd-party which prima facie show that the defendant is entitled
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION V CA (MONARK
which he, otherwise, would assert in another action, to contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief
EQUIPMENT) thus preventing multiplicity of suits. This is a rule of from the 3rd-party defendant.
00 SCRA 00 procedure and does not create a substantial right. - In this case, the claims of Monark against Asian
CALLEJO; May 17, 2005 Neither does it abridge, enlarge, or nullify the arose out of the contracts of lease and sale; such
substantial rights of any litigant. This right to file a transactions are different and separate from those
NATURE 3rd-party complaint against a 3rd-party rests in the between Becthel and Asian where the equipment
Petition for review on certiorari decision of CA discretion of the trial court. The 3rd-party complaint leased from Monark was used by the
is actually independent of, separate and distinct from petitioner. There is no showing in the proposed 3rd-
FACTS the plaintiff’s complaint, such that were it not for the party complaint that Becthel knew or approved the
- Asian contruction leased from Monark Equipment rule, it would have to be filed separately from the use of the leased equipment by Asian for the said
several pieces of equipment which it failed to pay for, original complaint. project
despite demands. Monark then filed in the RTC an - Prerequisite to the exercise of right: some - fact that Asian used the equipment it leased from
action to recover a sum of money amounting to P5 substantive basis for a 3rd-party claim is found to Monark in connection with its project with Becthel
million plus 12% interest. Asian filed a motion to file exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity, does not provide a substantive basis for the filing of
and admit answer with 3rd party complaint against subrogation, contribution or other substantive right. a 3rd-party complaint against the latter. There is no
Becthel Overseas Corp. Asian, although admitting the Bringing of a 3rd-party defendant is proper if he would causal connection between the claim of Monark, and
its indebtedness to Monark, claimed that it used the be liable to plaintiff, defendant or both for all or part the failure of Becthel to pay the balance of its
leased equipment to perform services in favor of of the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant, account to Asian after the completion of the project.
Becthel, which in turn failed to pay Asian for the although the 3rd-party defendant’s liability arises out
same. Asian claims that it needs to implead Becthel of another transaction. 2. YES
for “contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or other - The defendant may implead another as 3rd-party Ratio Section 1, Rule 34: “Judgment on the
reliefs to off-set or to pay the amount of money” defendant (a) on an allegation of liability of the latter pleadings. – Where an answer fails to tender an
claimed by Monark. Monark in turn filed a motion for to the defendant for contribution, indemnity, issue, or, otherwise, admits the material allegations
summary judgment, contending that there were no subrogation or any other relief; (b) on the ground of of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on
genuine issues raised. direct liability of the 3rd-party defendant to the motion of that party, direct judgment on such
- RTC: Motion of Asian for leave to file a 3 rd part plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the 3rd-party defendant pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
complaint was denied, but motion of Monark for to both the plaintiff and the defendant. nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal
summary judgment granted (RTC considered this as - There must be a causal connection between the separation, the material facts alleged in the
motion for judgment on the pleadings). Judgment claim of the plaintiff in his complaint and a claim for complaint shall always be proved.”
ordered Asian to pay Monark P5 million plus interest contribution, indemnity or other relief of the Reasoning The denial of the petitioner’s motion with
- Asian appealed to CA. CA affirmed, sustaining the defendant against the 3rd-party defendant. leave to file a third-party complaint against Becthel is
disallowance of the 3rd party complaint on the ground - Capayas v. CFI: Court made out the ff tests: (1) without prejudice to its right to file a separate
that the transaction between the said parties did not whether it arises out of the same transaction on complaint against the latter.
arise out of the same transaction on which Monark’s which the plaintiff’s claim is based; or whether the - Considering that the petitioner admitted its liability
claim was based. MFR was also denied. 3rd-party claim, although arising out of another or for the principal claim of the respondent in its Answer
different contract or transaction, is connected with with Third-Party Complaint, the trial court did not err
ISSUE/S the plaintiff’s claim; (2) whether the 3rd-party in rendering judgment on the pleadings against it.
1. WON a 3rd-party complaint is proper defendant would be liable to the plaintiff or to the Disposition Petition is denied.
2. WON judgment on the pleadings is proper defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim
against the original defendant, although the 3rd-party
COMPULSORY
HELD defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction;
and (3) whether the 3rd-party defendant may assert COUNTERCLAIM/CROSS-CLAIM
1. NO
Ratio Section 11, Rule 6 provides: “3rd (fourth, etc.)- any defenses which the 3rd-party plaintiff has or may
party complaint. – A 3rd (fourth, etc.) – party have to the plaintiff’s claim. CALO appellant, vs.AJAX
complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with - 3rd-party complaint does not have to show with INTERNATIONAL, INC, defendant-
leave of court, file against a person not a party to the certainty that there will be recovery against the 3rd-
appellee
party defendant; sufficient that pleadings show
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 46

Avena
22 SCRA 996 the same transaction which is the basis of the
complaint in Civil Case No. IV-93062 and does not FACTS
BENGZON, March 13, 1968
require the presence of third parties over whom the -allegedly a pacto de retro sale (the other party
municipal court of Manila could not acquire alleged it was a mortgage), Gojo the buyer alleged
NATURE
jurisdiction. that the period for redemption has already lapsed so
Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on
he filed a petition for consolidation of ownership.
decision of CFI of Agusan dismissing the complaint of
ISSUE -Goyala’s, the buyers who were alleging that they
Calo
WON plaintiff's claim is a compulsory counter-claim had obtained a cash loan from Gojo and the land
that should be filed in the earlier case allegedly sold to Gojo was only a security to the loan,
FACTS
and that they tried to pay their debt to Gojo but Gojo
-Sometime on May 7, 1959, plaintiff-appellant Calo
HELD refused. Goyala’s filed a counterclaim for Gojo to
ordered from defendant-appellee Ajax International,
No. Plaintiff's claim is not a compulsory counterclaim receive the amount due, for the document to be
Inc., 1,200 ft. of John Shaw wire rope at P2.85 per
in Civil Case No. IV-93062 for the simple reason that declared a mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale,
foot. The transaction was evidenced by Charge Order
the amount thereof exceeds the jurisdiction of the for P1800 per annum for the fruits of said property
No. 37071, for P3,420.00. According to plaintiff Calo,
municipal court. and that, if ever the document be deemed a pacto de
when the wire rope was delivered to Butuan City, the
Reasoning The rule that a compulsory counterclaim retro sale, for Gojo to be ordered to execute a deed
same was found short of 300 ft. Plaintiff then wrote
not set up is barred, when applied to the municipal of resale in favor of the Goyalas.
two letters to defendant asking for either completion
court, presupposes that the amount involved is -Goyala’s spouse died, TC ordered Gojo to amend the
of delivery or account adjustment of the alleged
within the said court's jurisdiction. Otherwise, as this Complaint to substitute the spouse with one of her
undelivered 300 ft. of wire rope.
Court had already noted in Yu Lay v. Galmes we successors in interest as party. Notwithstanding the
-On November 20, 1961, a complaint docketed as
would come to the absurd situation where a claim lapse of 43 days after receipt of copy of TC order,
Civil Case No. IV-93062 was filed in the Municipal
must be filed with the municipal court which it is Gojo allegedly failed to submit the amended
Court of Manila by one Adolfo Benavides who claimed
prohibited from taking cognizance of, being beyond complaint so Goyala filed a motion to dismiss the
to have acquired the outstanding credit account of
its jurisdiction. Besides, the reason underlying the petition. TC dismissed complaint, Gojo was also
Calo from defendant Ajax International, Inc. Charge
rule, which is to settle all related controversies in one declared in default in re Goyala’s counterclaim. TC
Order No. 37071 was among those included in the
sitting only, does not obtain. For, even if the ruled in favor of Goyala.
assigned account. Subsequently, a judgment by
counterclaim in excess of the amount cognizable by -Appellant appealed to the CA, which upon finding
default was entered, and a writ of execution issued,
the inferior court is set up, the defendant cannot that the said appeal involves purely questions of law,
against plaintiff Calo.
obtain positive relief. The Rules allow this only for the certified the same to the SC.
-On January 23, 1962, plaintiff Calo, assisted by her
defendant to prevent plaintiff from recovering from
husband, Marcos Calo, filed in the Court of First
him. This means that should the court find both ON COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
Instance of Agusan a complaint against defendant
plaintiff's complaint and defendant's counterclaim The appellant contends that there is no occasion for
asking (1) that the latter either effect complete
(for an amount exceeding said court's jurisdiction) the TC to declare him in default in respect of
delivery of Charge Order No. 37071 or that she be
meritorious, it will simply dismiss the complaint on appellee’s counterclaim as said counterclaim falls
relieved from paying P855.00 and (2) that the latter
the ground that defendant has a bigger credit. Since within the category of compulsory counterclaim
indemnify her for P12,000 as attorney's fees,
defendant still has to institute a separate action for which does not call for an independent answer as the
damages and expenses of litigation.2 The case was
the remaining balance of his counterclaim, the complaint already denies its material allegations. It is
docketed as Civil Case No. 860.
previous litigation did not really settle all related now settled that a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to
-Instead of filing an answer, defendant moved for the
controversies. answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be
dismissal of Civil Case 860 on the ground, inter alia,
declared in default, principally because the issues
that the subject thereof was involved and intimately
Disposition Plaintiff Calo's claim of P12,000.00 not raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically
related to that in Civil Case No. IV-93062 of the
being a compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. VI- joined by the allegations of the complaint.
Municipal Court of Manila. The court a quo sustained
93062, it need not be filed there. The pendency then -While it is true that under Sec. 3 of Rule 17, a
the motion and dismissed the case. Plaintiff-appellant
of said civil case could not be pleaded in abatement complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute
moved for reconsideration and new trial. When this
of Civil Case No. 860. Consequently, the lower court if the plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the
failed, she instituted the present appeal.
erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint. court, said provision cannot apply when the order
-The dismissal of Civil Case No. 860 by the court a
ignored is a void one, as in this case. (As in Sec 20 of
quo because of the pendency of Civil Case No. IV-
Rule 3, the death of the defendant in a contractual
93062 in the municipal court of Manila is predicated GOJO V GOYALA money claim does dismiss such action for recovery,
on the supposition that plaintiff's claim is a Page 26 but will be allowed to continue until final judgment is
compulsory counter-claim that should be filed in the NATURE entered. Favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
latter case. There is no question that it arises out of Appeal from a decision of the CFI of Sorsogon shall be enforced in the manner provided in these
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 47

Avena
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a reconsider the June 8, 1989 resolution. Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize
deceased person. In Barrameda vs Barbara, the SC Thereafter, all the PCGG officials filed their answer to irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a
held that an order to amend the complaint, before the counterclaims invoking their immunity from suits privileged status not claimed by any other official of
the proper substitution of parties as directed by Sec. as provided in Section 4 of Executive Order No. 1. the Republic. (id., at page 586)
17, Rule 3 (Sec. 16, new law), is void and imposes Instead of filing an answer, the petitioner comes to Where the petitioner exceeds his authority as
upon the plaintiff no duty to comply therewith to the this Court assailing the resolutions as rendered with Solicitor General acts in bad faith, or, as contended
end that an order dismissing the said complaint, for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of by the private respondent, "maliciously conspir(es)
such non-compliance, would similarly be void. It was jurisdiction. with the PCGG commissioners in persecuting
further held in Ferriera vs Gonzales that the Petitioner’s claim respondent Enrile by filing against him an evidently
continuance of a proceeding during the pendency of -no counter-claim can be filed against him in his baseless suit in derogation of the latter's
which a party thereto dies, without such party having capacity as Solicitor General since he is only acting constitutional rights and liberties" (Rollo, p. 417),
been validly substituted in accordance with the rules, as counsel for the Republic. He cites the case of there can be no question that a complaint for
amounts to lack of jurisdiction. Borja v. Borja,8 damages may be filed against him. High position in
Disposition WHEREFORE, the decision appealed - since he is simply the lawyer in the case, exercising government does not confer a license to persecute or
from is set aside his duty under the law to assist the Government in recklessly injure another. The actions governed by
the filing and prosecution of all cases pursuant to Articles 19, 20, 21, and 32 of the Civil Code on
Barred if not set up Section 1, Executive Order No. 14, he cannot be sued Human Relations may be taken against public
in a counterclaim in the same case. officers or private citizens alike.
CHAVEZ V SANDIGANBAYAN 2. No. Senator Enrile has to file a separate and
ISSUES
G.R. No. 91391 1.WON Chavez (SolGEn)is immune from suit
distinct civil action for damages against the Solicitor
GUTIERREZ, JR; January 24, 1991 General.
2.WON it is proper to implead Chavez (as SolGen)
-The charges pressed by respondent Enrile for
petitioner as additional party defendant in the
damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code arising
FACTS counterclaim filed by respondent Enrile
from the filing of an alleged harassment suit with
- July 31, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, malice and evident bad faith do not constitute a
through the Presidential Commission on Good HELD compulsory counterclaim.
Government (PCGG) with the assistance of Solicitor 1.No. In the case of Tiu Po v. Bautista, (103 SCRA 388
General Francisco Chavez filed with the respondent The general rule is that public officials can be held [1981]), we ruled that damages claimed to have
Sandiganbayan a complaint docketed as Civil Case personally accountable for acts claimed to have been been suffered as a consequence of an action filed
No. 0033 against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Juan performed in connection with official duties where against the petitioner must be pleaded in the same
Ponce Enrile, among others, for reconveyance, they have acted ultra vires or where there is a action as a compulsory counterclaim. We were
reversion and accounting, restitution and damages. showing of bad faith. referring, however, to a case filed by the private
-After the denial of his motion to dismiss, respondent Moreover, the petitioner's argument that the respondent against the petitioners or parties in the
Enrile filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim immunity proviso under Section 4(a) of Executive litigation. In the present case, the counterclaim was
and cross-claim with damages. Order No. 1 also extends to him is not well-taken. A filed against the lawyer, not against the party
On January 30, 1989, respondent Sandiganbayan mere invocation of the immunity clause does not plaintiff itself.
issued a resolution which deferred The resolution of ipso facto result in the charges being automatically -To allow a counterclaim against a lawyer who files a
the Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim against the dropped. complaint for his clients, who is merely their
Plaintiff government until after trialRespondent Enrile representative in court and not a plaintiff or
then requested leave from the Sandiganbayan to complainant in the case would lead to mischievous
implead the petitioner and the PCGG officials as 8 consequences.
party defendants for lodging this alleged The appearance of a lawyer as counsel for a party and his participation in a case as
-The problem is particularly perplexing for the
such counsel does not make him a party to the action. The fact that he represents
"harassment suit" against him. the interests of his client or that he acts in their behalf will not hold him liable for or Solicitor General. As counsel of the Republic, the
The motion praying for leave to implead additional make him entitled to any award that the Court may adjudicate to the parties, other
Solicitor General has to appear in controversial and
than his professional fees. The principle that a counterclaim cannot be filed against
parties(Chavez et al) to his counterclaim was granted persons who are acting in representation of another ? such as trustees ? in their politically charged cases. It is not unusual for high
individual capacities (Chambers v. Cameron, 2 Fed. Rules Service, p. 155; 29 F. Supp.
in a resolution dated June 8, 1989, without prejudice 742) could be applied with more force and effect in the case of a counsel whose officials of the Government to unwittingly use
to the defenses which said defendants may put forth participation in the action is merely confined to the preparation of the defense of his
shortcuts in the zealous desire to expedite executive
client. Appellant, however, asserted that he filed the counterclaim against said
individually or in common, in their personal lawyer not in his individual capacity but as counsel for the heirs of Quintin de Borja. programs or reforms. The Solicitor General cannot
capacities or otherwise. But as we have already stated that the existence of a lawyer-client relationship does
look at these cases with indifferent neutrality. His
not make the former a party to the action, even this allegation of appellant will not
In a later resolution dated November 2, 1989, alter the result We have arrived at (at pp. 924-925) perception of national interest and obedience to
respondent Sandiganbayan denied a motion to instructions from above may compel him to take a
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 48

Avena
stance which to a respondent may appear too Court (MTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch I on August the Bulacan Trial Court, specifically Branch XVII
personal and biased. It is likewise unreasonable to 23, 1978. which issued on the same day, September 16, 1986,
require Government Prosecutors to defend a temporary restraining order enjoining Cojuangco
themselves against counterclaims in the very same On February 5, 1979, Don Juan Cojuangco died and particularly the sheriff "from enforcing or
cases they are prosecuting. intestate. In the trial court's order of October 22, implementing the Order of Demolition issued in Civil
1979, his wife Lualhati, herein petitioner, together Case No. 7042-M . . ." This was followed by another
with nephews and nieces, were substituted as order dated October 6, 1986 granting a writ of
LUALHATI A. COJUANGCO vs. parties-plaintiffs. preliminary injunction. The twin orders are now the
PURIFICACION VILLEGAS subject of the instant petition for certiorari on the
184 SCRA 374 In its decision dated June 30, 1983, the inferior court ground that they have been issued with grave abuse
dismissed the action for ejectment for lack of of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
FERNAN, jurisdiction. It cited the unassailable fact that Villegas
and her predecessors-in-interest had been in actual ISSUES
NATURE possession of the subject land for no less than sixty 1. Whether or not the respondent court validly issued
The instant petition for certiorari and prohibition years and that in addition, Villegas asserted an an injunction
raises the ultimate issue of whether or not the adverse claim of ownership, thus transforming the 2. Whether or not Villegas can successfully raise an
execution of a final judgment in an ejectment case suit into an "accion publiciana" which is properly independent action to assert that she and her
may be stayed by a co-equal court in order that the cognizable by courts of first instance (now regional predecessors are builders in good faith and that they
right of indemnification and retention of an alleged trial courts). are entitled to recover the value of improvements on
builder in good faith may not be rendered the lot.
meaningless or illusory in an independent civil action On appeal to the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of
for specific performance. Malolos, Branch XV, the inferior court was reversed HELD
insofar as it had erroneously denied jurisdiction over 1. NO.
FACTS the ejectment case. The trial court then ordered Ratio. As early as 1922 in the case of Cabigao v. Del
Petitioner Lualhati Aldaba Cojuangco is the widow of Villegas to vacate the premises and to surrender Rosario, this Court laid down the doctrine that "no
Don Juan Cojuangco, the registered owner of the possession thereof to herein petitioner Cojuangco. court has power to interfere by injunction with the
disputed parcel of residential land containing an area judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or
of 585 square meters and situated at San Agustin, The case was elevated to the appellate court and to coordinate jurisdiction having power to grant the
Malolos, Bulacan. Many years back (about sixty the Supreme Court and in both instances, herein relief sought by injunction."
years, according to the municipal trial court) the petitioner Cojuangco's right of possession over the Reasoning. The various branches of the court of
parents of private respondent Purificacion Villegas, land was upheld. After entry of judgment was made first instance of a province or city, having as they
with the acquiescence of Don Juan Cojuangco, on November 20, 1985, herein petitioner went to the have the same or equal authority and exercising as
constructed a residential house and later a structure Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Branch XV, where she they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction,
housing a bakery on the aforesaid lot. It was filed a motion for execution of the judgment, which should not, cannot and are not permitted to interfere
understood that they could remain on the land with the court granted on June 30, 1986. On July 29, 1986, with their respective cases, much less with their
his blessings and without paying rentals on condition a writ of demolition was issued against Villegas, who orders or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously
that they would vacate the premises when needed did not oppose the ordered demolition but instead lead to confusion and seriously hamper the
by the owner. asked the lower court to give her more time (forty administration of justice.
days from August 7, 1986) to effect the transfer of
After her parent's death, Villegas remained in the her personal properties and to remove the 2. NO
property, renovating the same and spending improvements on the subject lot to which motion the Ratio. Rule 9, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of
P300,000.00 in the process. She also leased out a court acceded. Court on compulsory counterclaim provides the
portion of the land to Siapno Appliances at P600.00 a answer. It states:
month without the knowledge and consent of Don On September 16, 1986, before the lapse of the "A counterclaim or cross-claim not set up shall be
Juan Cojuangco. This latter act apparently destroyed grace period, Villegas filed a separate civil action barred if it arises out of or is necessarily connected
her congenial relations with the landowner because docketed as Civil Case No. 9094-M against petitioner with, the transaction or occurrence that is the
soon thereafter, Don Juan Cojuangco, through his Cojuangco and the provincial sheriff "for specific subject-matter of the opposing party's or co-party's
attorney in fact, demanded that she leave the performance with urgent prayer for issuance of a claim and does not require for its adjudication the
property. Despite his repeated written demands for temporary restraining order and preliminary presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
her to surrender possession of the property, Villegas injunction." This case, instead of being referred to acquire jurisdiction.
refused, prompting Cojuangco to institute ejectment Branch XV which had earlier issued the writ of Reasoning. Villegas' claim to recover compensation
proceedings against her before the Municipal Trial demolition, was raffled to another Malolos branch of for improvements made on the land is essentially in
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 49

Avena
the nature of a counterclaim since it is interwoven from her parents, the rejection thereof was a FACTS
with the fact of possession. Said claim for complete resolution of the controversy between the Lot 74 of the Calamba Cadastre was co-owned
compensation should have been presented as a parties which bars a later case based upon the Beatriz Manalo and her common-law husband,
counterclaim in the ejectment suit. It is deemed unpleaded defense. The adjudication of the issue Luciano Manalo. On November 5, 1947 Beatriz sold
barred if not raised on time and the party in error is joined by the parties in the earlier case constitutes her one-half interest therein to the spouses Demetrio
precluded from setting it up in a subsequent res judicata, the theory being that what is barred by Carpena and Salud Catindig for the sum of
litigation. prior judgment are not only the matters actually P5,000.00. To keep the transaction from Luciano, the
-The rule on compulsory counter-claim is designed to raised and litigated upon, but also such other sale was made in the neighboring town of Sta. Rosa,
enable the disposition of the entire conflict at one matters as could have been raised but were not. 13 Laguna, and the parties agreed that Beatriz would
time and in one action. The philosophy of the rule is -It bears emphasizing that in ejectment cases, the remain in possession of the property but with the
to DISCOURAGE MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS. rule is explicit that the judgment must be executed obligation of paying the land taxes due thereon. On
-According to Villegas, the reason why the immediately when it is in favor of the plaintiff to May 22, 1948 Beatriz and Luciano were married, but
counterclaim for indemnification was not made in the prevent further damages to him arising from the loss she died three months thereafter.
original action was because it became a "ripe issue" of possession. The sense of urgency is more On August 30, 1948 the deed of the sale was
only after the ejectment proceedings. Villegas pronounced in the case at bar where the ejectment registered and, as a result, TCT No. 16833 was
contended that the estoppel of judgment could only case in favor of Cojuangco was decided in 1978 and cancelled and TCT No. 2004 was issued in the name
extend to those facts and conditions existing at the subsequently appealed all the way to the Supreme of the Carpena spouses for the portion purchased by
time the judgment was rendered and not to those Court. But the final victory continues to elude them, which was identified as Lot No. 74-B of
which supervened before the second suit. Cojuangco to this day due to a large extent to the subdivision plan Psd-23230. Upon the death of their
-The argument is untenable. In her pleadings, legal maneuvers utilized by Villegas to forestall the vendor, the Carpenas notified Luciano of the sale and
Villegas repeatedly stressed that the residential inevitable. besides demanded of him the possession of lot 74-B,
house which her parents had constructed was -For its part, respondent trial court has attempted to but the latter, instead of acquiescing thereto, filed an
already there on the questioned lot for as long as she justify its writ of injunction by stating that the action against them to annul the sale made in their
could remember, that she herself has lived there all impending demolition of Villegas' house and other favor by Beatriz and to have himself declared owner
her life and that in the honest belief that the land buildings on the disputed property would render of the property subject matter thereof (Civil Case No.
had been "donated" to her parents by her "Aunt inutile her right as a builder in good faith. We cannot 9194). Defendant's answer in said case alleged, as
Tecla", she made various improvements and agree. The loss to Villegas is not sufficient to warrant defense, that the sale in their favor was valid and
renovation thereon. Obviously, such declarations on a blatant disregard of established precedents that by virtue of the same they became owners of
the part of Villegas completely negate her absurd especially when it is borne in mind that for more than the property subject matter thereof. Consequently,
claim that the factual basis for her subsequent action half a century, Villegas and her family have enjoyed they prayed for the dismissal of the case and for
arose after the ejectment suit became final. the fruits of the land without paying a single centavo damages. The case was dismissed by the lower court
-Thus, Villegas should have set forth, simultaneously in return. Surely, the equities are more in favor of after a trial on the merits and on appeal, the Court of
with the assertion that she was entitled to the parcel Cojuangco, the landowner. Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
of land by right of inheritance, the alternative claim It appears that in 1945 a barong-barong was erected
that assuming she was not legally entitled to the Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. on Lot 74-B by a tenant occupying the same. Two
disputed lot, at least as a builder in good faith, she The respondent court is hereby ordered to DISMISS years thereafter the building was sold to Beatriz
has the right to the value of the buildings and Civil Case No. 9094-M and all proceedings held Manalo for P200.00, and thereafter said
improvements which she and her parents had therein are declared null and void. The Regional Trial improvement, with an assessed value of P150.00,
introduced on the land. Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch XV is ordered to was declared in her name for taxation purposes.
-And while it may be argued that the defense of immediately execute the decision in the ejectment After her death, Luciano Manalo and their children
being a builder in good faith would have been case. Civil Case No. 7042-M. Costs against private continued to occupy said house, making considerable
inconsistent with her claim of ownership, in the case respondent Villegas. This decision is immediately improvements thereon in the years 1952 and 1953,
of Castle Bros., Wolf and Sons v. Go-Juno, the Court executory. but in December 1954 Luciano Manalo sold it to
held that a party may set forth as many defenses Pelagia Cailles Vda. de Unson and Beronica Capareda
and counterclaims as he may have, whatever be CARPENA VS MANALO who began occupying the same on April 2, 1955.
their nature. These may even be inconsistent with The present action was commenced on April 11,
GR No. 74262
each other because what is sufficient is that each is 1955 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna by the
consistent with itself. PARAS; October 29, 1987 Carpena spouses against Luciano Manalo, Pelagia
-Since Villegas failed to set up such alternative Cailles Vda. de Unson and Beronica Capareda to
defense (i.e. a builder in good faith is entitled to NATURE recover the possession of Lot 74-B and the house
recover the value of improvements) and instead Action to recover possession erected thereon as well as reasonable rental for its
relied on the sole defense that she inherited the land use and occupancy from August 1, 1948. Appellees
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 50

Avena
herein alleged in their answer that the sale executed property, otherwise his claim would be barred. That Lastly, appellants contend that there was absolutely
by Beatriz Manalo in favor of appellants covered only this ruling applies to the present case can not be no mutuality of claims because the plaintiffs in Civil
Lot 74-B and not the house erected thereon. disputed because the only difference between both Case No. 9194 were Luciano Manalo and the heirs of
While the case was pending in the lower court, or cases is that in the one before us the counterclaim is his deceased wife, whereas the claim for rents in the
more specifically on April 17, 1955, appellees, for rents for the occupancy of the land sought to be present case is directed, jointly and severally,
without the consent of appellants, moved the house recovered and of the house constructed thereon, against Luciano Manalo, Pelagia Cailles Vda. de
in question to the adjoining lot, which compelled the instead of being ? as in the Berses case ? for the Unson and Beronica Capareda. This is likewise
latter to file a supplemental complaint to recover recovery of the value of improvements made on the untenable because a party may not evade the effect
from the former the sum of P2,500.00 representing property of the doctrine of res judicata by simply including
the value of the house, plus attorney's fees. Appellants, however, argue that even assuming that additional parties, in the subsequent litigation or by
As appellees had already vacated Lot 74-B, the lower their claim constituted a mandatory counterclaim in not including as parties in the latter persons who
court, after trial on the merits, rendered judgment relation to Civil Case No. 9194, still they could not were parties in the previous suit
declaring appellant the owners of the house in have pleaded it as such in said case because it was Disposition. Decision affirmed
question and sentencing appellees to pay appellants not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First
the sum of P1,000.00 representing the fair market Instance of Laguna where the case was pending. In CABAERO VS CANTOS
value thereof. Appellants' claim for damages for the this connection they contend that their counterclaim
G.R. No. 102942
use and occupancy of the premises was, however, against Luciano Manalo and his co-plaintiffs would
dismissed for not having been set up in Civil Case have been for unlawful detainer and the collection of PANGANIBAN; April 18, 1997
No. 9194, the same being compulsory counterclaim. one month rent only, because when the action was
The present is their appeal from this portion of the commenced Manalo had been in possession of the lot NATURE
decision of the lower court and house involved therein only for one month. This Petition filed under Rule 65 assailing the Orders of
is not entirely correct. The record on appeal filed by respondent Judge for being contrary to law and for
ISSUE Manalo in the aforesaid ease shows that the having been issued in excess of his jurisdiction and
WON the action filed by Luciano Manalo is a defendants (appellants herein) filed an answer in with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of
compulsory counterclaim which they alleged that they were "the true and jurisdiction.
lawful owners of the parcel of land" subject matter of The Order of July 1, 1991, reads:
HELD the action by virtue of the deed of sale executed in "THE Answer with Counterclaim filed by the accused
Yes. As stated above, the purpose of the action filed their favor by Beatriz Manalo, upon the registration through counsel, dated February 12, 1991, as well as
by Luciano Manalo (Civil Case No. 9194 of the Court of which a transfer certificate of title was issued in the Opposition thereto; the Memorandum filed by the
of First Instance of Laguna) was to annul the sale their name. Their answer also interposed a Private Prosecutor, in Support of Motion to Expunge
made by his wife, Beatriz Manalo, in favor of the counterclaim which they incorporated all the from the Records And/Or to Dismiss Answer with
Carpena spouses and to recover ownership of the allegations made in their answer and further alleged Counterclaim; the Supplement; and Comment on
property subject matter thereof. The rents which that the plaintiffs had filed the action against them Supplement, are all ordered expunged from the
appellants now seek to collect from appellees were maliciously, thus causing them damages in the sum Records, considering that this is a criminal case
for the occupancy of said property and of the house of P2,000.00. Said answer prayed not only for the wherein the civil liability of the acused (sic) is
constructed thereon. Had the sale been annulled, it dismissal of the complaint but also for judgment impliedly instituted therein."
would have meant that the Carpenas, appellants declaring said defendants as true and lawful owners Petitioners pleaded for reconsideration of said Order
herein, had no right to collect rents from the of the property in question" (Exhibit C, pp. 18-23). It but respondent judge, in the Order of August 21,
occupants of the lot and of the house aforesaid, while is obvious therefore that, for all legal purposes, 1991, denied their motion, thus:
if the court sustained the validity of the sale, they appellants had, by way of counterclaim, filed an "ACTING on the Motion for Reconsideration dated July
would have had such right. It is thus obvious that the accion reivindicatoria which, of course, necessarily 17, 1991, of the accused through counsel, this Court
claim which they seek to enforce now as, to say the included the question of possession. This finds no merit therein, such that said motion is
least, a matter necessarily connected with the notwithstanding, they failed to claim rents or hereby denied."
transaction or occurrence subject matter of the compensation for the use and occupancy of the lot
complaint filed against them in Civil Case No. 9194. It and house subject matter of the complaint filed FACTS
follows that the same constituted a compulsory against them. The right to collect these rents or - This petition emanated from a criminal case in the
counterclaim which they should have pleaded in their reasonable compensation being merely incidental to RTC of Manila. Said case commenced on October 18,
answer filed in the aforesaid case. the counterclaim, it seems clear that the fact that the 1990, with the filing of an Information against
In Berses vs. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473, it was held that amount thereof was less than the jurisdictional petitioners charging them with estafa for allegedly
in an action for the recovery of a parcel of land, the amount for the Court of First Instance of Laguna did defrauding private respondent Epifanio Ceralde of
defendant must set up a counterclaim for the value not deprive said court of authority to take cognizance the sum of P1,550,000.00. The accusatory portion of
of improvements made or introduced by him on the of the same. the Information reads as follows:
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 51

Avena
"... the said accused induced and succeeded in 1. Dismissing, or quashing the information, and receiving all the entries in a single case, and shall
inducing the said EPIFANIO CERALDE to advance the the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal enter therein all cases x x x." Thus, respondent Judge
total amount of P1,550,000.00 to be paid to M.C. action; Cantos allegedly erred in expunging all records with
Castro Construction, Co. representing the purchase 2. Ordering the complaining witness Ceralde to respect to the Answer with Counterclaim for, on
price of 6 parcels of land located in Pangasinan which pay to the accused the following amounts: appeal, "if the records elevated x x x are incomplete
the Aqualand Ventures & Management Corporation, a (a) P1,500,000.00 as moral damages; and inaccurate, there arises a grave danger that the
joint business venture organized by accused AMADO (b) P500,000.00 as exemplary damages; ends of justice and due process shall not be served
F. CABAERO and the said EPIFANIO CERALDE, (c) P100,000.00 as attorney's fees; and and instead frustrated."
purchased from the said company, with the (d) P20,000.00, as litigation expenses. - Petitioners further allege that the Order failed to
understanding that the said amount would be Accused pray for such other reliefs, legal and resolve the legal issues raised by the parties as it
returned to the said EPIFANIO CERALDE as soon as equitable in the premises." neglected to state the legal basis therefor
the loan for P1,500,000.00 applied for by the said - During the initial hearing on April 15, 1991, the
Aqualand Ventures & Management Corporation with prosecution verbally moved that the answer with ISSUE
Solid Bank, of which said accused AMADO F. counterclaim be expunged from the records and/or WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse
CABAERO is the Senior Vice-President, is released, be dismissed. The respondent judge gave the of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
but both accused, once the said loan had been contending parties time to submit a Memorandum jurisdiction in ordering that the answer with
approved by the bank, in furtherance of their and Comment or Opposition, respectively. counterclaim of the petitioners in the criminal case,
conspiracy and falsely pretending that accused - The Memorandum of the private prosecutor justified together with all pleadings filed in relation thereto,
CARMEN C. PEREZ had been authorized by the said his Motion to Expunge the answer with counterclaim be expunged from the records. (WON the accused-
Aqualand Ventures & Management Corporation to for two reasons: (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction petitioners who were charged with estafa may file an
receive the check for P1,500,000.00 for and in its over the answer with counterclaim for non-payment answer with counterclaim for moral and exemplary
own behalf, succeeded in inducing the cashier of said of the prescribed docket fees and (2) the damages plus attorney's fees and litigation expenses
Solid Bank to release the same to accused CARMEN "compulsory counterclaim against complainant against the private complainant in the same criminal
C. PEREZ, thereby enabling her to encash the is barred for failure to file it before action.)
aforesaid check, and instead of turning over the said arraignment."
amount to the said EPIFANIO CERALDE; accused - In their Opposition, petitioners argued that this Preliminary Matters
failed and refused, and still fail and refuse, to do so Court in Javier vs. IAC laid down, for "procedural Litis Pendentia as a Defense
despite repeated demands made to that effect, and soundness," the rule that a counterclaim should be - Private respondent belatedly interposes litis
with intent to defraud, misappropriated, misapplied permitted in a criminal action where the civil aspect pendentia to defeat the petition alleges that the
and converted the said amount to their own personal is not reserved. Further, inasmuch as petitioners' present petition is barred by the cross-claim of the
use and benefit...” counterclaim was compulsory in nature, they were petitioners against Aqualand Ventures and
- petitioners entered a plea of not guilty. not required to pay docket fees therefor. Management Corporation, of which petitioners are
- Atty. Ambrosio Blanco entered his appearance as Additionally, the Rules do not specifically provide for stockholders and officers, in Civil Case No. 90-53035
private prosecutor. the period for filing of counterclaims in criminal (filed against both petitioners and the private
- The Presiding Judge of the RTC of Manila, Hon. Elisa cases, whereas Section 3 of Rule 9 and Section 9 of respondent by Solidbank).
R. Israel, inhibited herself "out of delicadeza" from Rule 6 allow the filing, with leave of court, of a - SC said: Considerations of due process
further hearing the case "considering that the counterclaim at any time before judgment. Thus, prevent us from taking up the merits of this
complainant is a relative by affinity of a nephew of petitioners contended that their filing was within the argument in favor of private respondent. This
her husband." Thereafter, the case was re-raffled to proper period. cross-claim was never raised in the trial court
Branch VII presided over by respondent Judge Alfredo - respondent Judge Cantos granted the prosecution's -- certainly not in the Memorandum dated April
Cantos. motion to expunge and denied the petitioners' 19, 1991, submitted to the court a quo in
- On April 2, 1991, petitioners filed an Answer with motion for reconsideration. support of respondent Ceralde's motion to
Counterclaim alleging that the money loaned from - - Petitioners invoke Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules expunge the answer with counterclaim. The
Solidbank mentioned in the Information was duly on Criminal Procedure. They contend that it is not Rules require that "(a) motion attacking a
applied to the purchase of the 6 parcels of land in only a right but an "outright duty" of the accused to pleading or a proceeding shall include all
Pangasinan, and that the filing of said Information file an answer with counterclaim since failure to do objections then available, and all objections
was unjustified and malicious. Petitioners included so shall result in the counterclaim being forever not so included shall be deemed waived."
the following prayer: barred. Consequently and ineluctably, the ground of
"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after trial - Petitioners argue that under Rule 136 of the Rules litis pendentia which was not argued in the
judgment be rendered: of Court, particularly Section 8 thereof, clerks of court a quo is deemed waived.
court are instructed to "keep a general docket, each
page of which shall be numbered and prepared for The Payment of Filing Fees
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 52

Avena
- The Court agrees with petitioners that inasmuch as of the accused, should not the accused have the 5) In an impliedly instituted civil action, an accused is
the counterclaim is compulsory, there is no necessity right to file a counterclaim in the criminal case? not sufficiently apprised of the specific basis of the
to pay such fees, as the Rules do not require them Obviously, the answer is in the affirmative, as was claims against him. An accused learns of the implied
(as clarified in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. held in Javier. institution of a civil action from the contents of an
Asuncion). Some Reservations in the Application of Javier information. An information, however, is filed in
- The logic and cogency of Javier notwithstanding, behalf of the People of the Philippines. Hence, it does
some reservations and concerns were voiced out by not contain the ultimate facts relating to the civil
Main Issue
members of the Court during the deliberations on the liability of the accused.
HELD NO. (NO)
present case. These were engendered by the obvious 6) Because an accused is not sufficiently apprised of
As held in Javier, counterclaim is compulsory and is
lacuna in the Rules of Court, which contains no the specific basis of the civil action against him, he
considered barred if not set up where the following
express provision for the adjudication of a may file a motion for bill of particulars or take
circumstances are present: (1) that it arises out of, or
counterclaim in a civil action impliedly instituted in a advantage of discovery procedures. The end result,
is necessarily connected with the transaction or
criminal case. The following problems were noted: in any case, will be delay and complication in the
occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing
1) While the rules on civil procedure expressly criminal action and even confusion among the
party's claim; (2) that it does not require for its
recognize a defendant's entitlement to plead his parties.
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
counterclaim and offer evidence in support thereof, 7) The Rules of Court does not specify the reckoning
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and (3) that the
the rules on criminal procedure which authorize the date for the filing of an answer in an impliedly
court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
implied institution of a civil action in a criminal case instituted civil action.
As categorically recognized in the case of Javier, a
are, in contrast, silent on this point and do not 8) An accused can file his answer with counterclaim
claim for malicious prosecution or "grossly
provide specific guidelines on how such counterclaim only after the initial hearing, because the private
unfounded suit" as a compulsory counterclaim has
shall be pursued. complainant may still reserve his civil action at any
no appropriate venue other than the same criminal
2) A judgment in a criminal action is not required to time before the prosecution commences to present
case which is alleged to be a malicious suit. The
provide for the award of a counterclaim. evidence. On the other hand, an answer in an
counterclaim stands on the same footing and is to be
3) Allowing and hearing counterclaims (and possibly ordinary civil action should be filed before the start of
tested by the same rules as if it were an independent
cross-claims and third-party complaints) in a criminal hearing, because hearing commences only after the
action. A counterclaim is defined as any claim for
action will surely delay the said action. The primary issues have been joined, i.e., after the responsive
money or other relief which a defending party may
issue in a criminal prosecution that is under the pleadings have been filed.
have against an opposing party. Compulsory
control of state prosecutors is the guilt of the 9) Confusion in the application of the rules on civil
counterclaim is one which at the time of suit arises
accused and his civil liability arising from the same procedure will certainly encourage litigants to
out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same
act or omission. Extending the civil action arising challenge before appellate courts interlocutory
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
from the same act or omission to counterclaims, incidents of the impliedly instituted civil action.
of plaintiff's complaint. It is compulsory in the sense
cross-claims and third-party complaints, and allowing 10) Some members of the Court believe that a cause
that if it is within the jurisdiction of the court, and
the accused and other parties to submit evidence of of action for malicious prosecution may be premature
does not require for its adjudication the presence of
their respective claims will complicate the disposition because there is as yet no finding of such wrongful
third parties over whom the court cannot acquire
of the criminal case. prosecution. This fact is precisely what the trial court
jurisdiction, it must be set up therein, and will be
4) Adjudication of compulsory counterclaims and/or still has to determine.
barred in the future if not set up.
related claims or pleadings logically includes the --By the foregoing discussion, we do not imply
- In justifying his Order, Judge Cantos ruled that "this
application of other rules which, by their very nature, any fault in Javier. The real problem lies in the
is a criminal case wherein the civil liability of the
apply only to civil actions. The following matters may absence of clear-cut rules governing the
accused is impliedly instituted therein." This
be invoked in connection with the filing of an answer prosecution of impliedly instituted civil actions
justification begs the question. Basically, that is the
with a counterclaim: the genuineness and due and the necessary consequences and
reason why petitioners herein filed their answer with
execution of an actionable document which are implications thereof. For this reason, the
counterclaim for, apparently, in hiring a private
deemed admitted unless specifically denied under counter-claim of the accused cannot be tried
prosecutor, Ceralde intended to prosecute his civil
oath; affirmative defenses like res judicata, together with the criminal case because, as
claim together with the criminal action. Hence, as a
prescription and statute of frauds which are deemed already discussed, it will unnecessarily
protective measure, petitioners filed their
waived by failure to interpose them as affirmative complicate and confuse the criminal
counterclaim in the same case. Since under Section 1
defenses in an answer; and the failure of a defendant proceedings. Thus, the trial court should
Rule 111, the civil action which is deemed impliedly
to file an answer seasonably may result in his default confine itself to the criminal aspect and the
instituted with the criminal action, if not waived or
in the civil aspect but not in the criminal. As a possible civil liability of the accused arising out
reserved, includes recovery of indemnity under the
consequence of these matters, the entry of plea of the crime. The counter-claim (and cross-
RPC, and damages under Art.32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
during arraignment will no longer signal joinder of claim or third party complaint, if any) should
the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission
issues in a criminal action. be set aside or refused cognizance without
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 53

Avena
prejudice to their filing in separate down a check tendered by Cu) and gave Cu only until jurisdiction. A counterclaim may be compulsory or
proceedings at the proper time. At balance, Jan.1990 to vacate the premises. permissive.
until there are definitive rules of procedure to - Cu’s lawyer tendered the payment in cash with - Chan's counterclaim for ejectment is a compulsory
govern the institution, prosecution and notice to Chan that in case of non-acceptance, the counterclaim because it is necessarily connected
resolution of the civil aspect (and the same will be deposited in court by way of with the transaction or occurrence which is the
consequences and implications thereof) consignation. At this point, Chan gave Cu up to subject matter of Cu's complaint, viz., the lease
impliedly instituted in a criminal case, trial March, 1990 contract between them. Consequently, the CA erred
courts should limit their jurisdiction to the civil - Jan.15, 1990: Cu filed a civil case for consignation when it held that Chan's cause of action for
liability of the accused arising from the with the MTC. Chan answered with a counterclaim for ejectment could not be set up in a counterclaim.
criminal case. ejectment. The MTC’s decision: - The case of Ching Pue vs. Gonzales is inapplicable
Disposition WHEREFORE, premises considered, the >>declared that the rooftop is included in the because in Ching Pue the consignation cases were
questioned Orders are hereby MODIFIED. The lease filed with the CFI which did not have jurisdiction over
counterclaim of the accused is hereby set aside >>fixed the term of the lease until June 30, 1992 ejectment cases; necessarily, no counterclaim for
without prejudice. The Respondent RTC of Manila is >>held valid and legal the consignation by Cu ejectment could have been interposed therein. The
DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of the criminal - Both parties appealed to the RTC. Cu maintained ratio of the said case is that consignation is not
action and the civil action arising from the criminal that the MTC should have fixed a longer period while proper where the refusal of the creditor to accept
offense that is impliedly instituted therein, with all Chan contended that the MTC erred in extending the tender of payment is with just cause. In the instant
judicious dispatch. term of the lease and in upholding the validity of the case, the ejectment was set up as a counterclaim in
consignation. RTC later affirmed the MTC. Cu then the MTC which has jurisdiction over it and Cu joined
CHAN V CA (CU) went to the CA on petition for review, with the same that issue and the incidents thereto by her answer to
allegation that that the RTC erred in not fixing a the counterclaim, and the counterclaim to the
G.R. 109020
longer period of extension of the lease. The CA counterclaim.
DAVIDE; MARCH 3, 1994 reversed and set aside the decisions of the MTC and - The CA therefore should have confined itself to the
RTC and dismissed, for lack of merit, the complaint principal error raised in Cu's petition in (the duration
NATURE for consignation. The CA held that Chan had of the extended term of the lease fixed in the
Review on certiorari justifiable cause (Cu’s overstay) to refuse to accept decision of the MTC and affirmed by the RTC). As
the payment. It ruled that the MTC and RTC erred in fixed, the term of the lease was extended to June 30,
FACTS passing upon the issue of ejectment raised in Chan’s 1992. That period had expired six months before the
- On Feb.1, 1983, petitioner Felisa Chan and private counterclaim since an action for ejectment can only CA promulgated its challenged decision. Considering
respondent Grace Cu, entered into a contract of be initiated through a verified complaint, not a that Chan did not file any petition for the review of
lease, the terms of which were: counterclaim. Chan’s MFR was denied by the CA and the RTC decision and was, therefore, deemed to have
>>Cu will occupy Room 401 and rooftop of Room so she filed this instant petition. agreed to the extension; and considering further that
442 of a bldg in Urbiztondo owned by Chan. Cu did not come to us on a petition for review to seek
>>Term of lease is 1 year at a monthly rental of ISSUE reversal of the decision therein and should thus be
P2,400. WON Chan’s action for ejectment set up in a considered to have agreed to the dismissal of her
>>The premises shall be used as a learning counterclaim was proper consignation case, the parties must be deemed
center. bound by the extended term, which has,
- The contract was renewed for the succeeding 2 HELD nevertheless, already lapsed.
years or up to Feb.1, 1986, after which date, no YES. **On Counterclaims
written contract of lease was executed although Cu Reasoning Sec.7, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court - A counterclaim is any claim for money or other
continued to occupy the premises. Increasing every provides that the answer may contain any relief which a defending party may have against an
year, the monthly eventually came to P3, 484.80 in counterclaim which a party may have against the opposing party. It need not diminish or defeat the
Jan. 1989. opposing party provided that the court has recovery sought by the opposing party, but may
- Nov. 1989: Chan locked the way to the rooftop. In jurisdiction to entertain the claim and can, if the claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind
the ensuing exchange of communication, Cu insisted presence of third parties is essential for its from that sought by the opposing party's claim.
that she be allowed to use the rooftop of Rm.442, adjudication, acquire jurisdiction of such parties. Counterclaims are designed to enable the disposition
while Chan maintained that only Rm.401 was leased Under Sec. 2 of Rule 9, a counterclaim not set up of a whole controversy of interested parties
and that the use of the rooftop was merely tolerated, shall be barred if it arises out of or is necessarily conflicling claims, at one time and in one action,
adding that the use of the rooftop posed danger to connected with the transaction or occurrence that is provided all the parties can be brought before the
the students. Chan eventually terminated the lease, the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and court and the matter decided without prejudicing the
refused to collect the rental for Dec.1989 (turned does not require for its adjudication the presence of rights of any party. A counterclaim "is in itself a
third parties of whom the court cannot acquire distinct and independent cause of action, so that
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 54

Avena
when properly stated as such, the defendant the balance of the unpaid purchase price of the
becomes, in respect to the matter stated by him, an tobacco
Rule 8, allegations deemed admitted
actor, and there are two simultaneous actions - on the 5th day of May, 1913, Tec Bi & Co. asked for
pending between the same parties, wherein each is and obtained from the Court of First Instance an
at the same time both a plaintiff and a defendant . . . TEC BI & CO v CHARTERED BANK OF attachment against the said bales of tobacco, but
. A counterclaim stands on the same footing and is to INDIA, AUSTRALIA AND CHINA inasmuch as the bodega was locked and the sheriff
be tested by the same rules, as if it were an 41 Phil 596 was informed that the keys were in the possession of
independent action. In short, the defendant is a the bank, he demanded the delivery thereof from the
CARSON; Feb 5, 1916
plaintiff with respect to his counterclaim. latter, which demand was refused by the bank,
Disposition petition GRANTED. CA decision SET alleging that it held possession of the tobacco under
FACTS:
ASIDE. a pledge.
- on the 7th of November 1912, the plaintiff sold to
- the sheriff notified it that the bales of tobacco were
the "La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.)," a quantity of leaf
attached subject to the results of the complaint filed
tobacco.
by Tec Bi & Co. against "La Urania Cigar Factory
The Answer - on 16th January, 1913, the "La Urania Cigar Factory
(Ltd.),”
Defenses (Ltd.)," pledged to the defendant corporation as
- on 8th day of May, 1913, the bank answered the
security for the payment of an indebtedness of
notification of the sheriff, confirming the fact that it
P25,000 the bales of tobacco. The bales of tobacco
GOJO V GOYALA had in its possession the bales of tobacco specified in
thus pledged were stored in the bodega of a third
Page 26 the notification, as security for the payment of a loan
person, Messrs. Sprungli & Co., situated at No. 42
and that it intended to sell the same; that the sheriff
(now No. 214) of Calle David, Manila.
communicated the answer of the bank to the
FACTS - on or about the 1st day of February, 1913, the
attorneys to Tec Bi & Co., who replied insisting upon
-allegedly a pacto de retro sale (the other party defendant corporation demanded and obtained from
the levy of the attachment.
alleged it was a mortgage), Gojo the buyer alleged Messrs. Sprungli & Co. the keys to the said bodega,
- on the 19th day of May, 1913, the Court of First
that the period for redemption has already lapsed so and discovered that of the 436 bales of tobacco
Instance rendered judgment in said case against "La
he filed a petition for consolidation of ownership. there remained only those set forth in paragraph 4 of
Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.)," in favor of Tec Bi & Co.,
-Goyala’s, the buyers who were alleging that they the answer. (I have no idea how many. Sorry.)
for the sum of P11,572.96, with legal interest from
had obtained a cash loan from Gojo and the land - the defendant bank did not know and had been
April 22, 1913, and costs.
allegedly sold to Gojo was only a security to the loan, unable to ascertain whether "La Urania Cigar Factory
- on the 22d day of May, 1913, the sheriff attempted
and that they tried to pay their debt to Gojo but Gojo (Ltd.)," misrepresented the quantity of the tobacco in
to execute the judgment upon the bales of tobacco
refused. Goyala’s filed a counterclaim for Gojo to the said warehouse at the time of the execution of
attached and in the possession of the defendant
receive the amount due, for the document to be said document of pledge, or whether the difference
corporation, but was unable to do so due to the
declared a mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale, between the amount described in the document of
statement of the agent of said corporation, that the
for P1800 per annum for the fruits of said property pledge and that found on hand on the 1st of
tobacco had been sold and that the proceeds of the
and that, if ever the document be deemed a pacto de February, 1913, and in the meantime been disposed
sale had been applied upon the payment of the
retro sale, for Gojo to be ordered to execute a deed of by "La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.)," in collusion
amount due to from "La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.),"
of resale in favor of the Goyalas. with Messrs. Sprungli & Co., but that if such
- Court of First Instance found that the plaintiff's
-Goyala’s spouse died, TC ordered Gojo to amend the disposition was made it was without the knowledge
claim was a preferred credit under the provisions of
Complaint to substitute the spouse with one of her or consent of the defendant bank.
paragraph 1 of article 1922 of the Civil Code; that the
successors in interest as party. Notwithstanding the - from said 1st day of February, 1913, the defendant
pledge executed by "La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.),"
lapse of 43 days after receipt of copy of TC order, corporation had been in the absolute and exclusive
in favor of the defendant corporation was not
Gojo allegedly failed to submit the amended possession of the tobacco, until the 15th of May,
binding upon the plaintiff for the reason that it was
complaint so Goyala filed a motion to dismiss the 1913, when same was sold under and by virtue of
not set forth in a public instrument as required by
petition. TC dismissed complaint, Gojo was also the document of pledge by the defendant bank for
article 1865 of the Civil Code in order to be effective
declared in default in re Goyala’s counterclaim. TC the sum of P12,722.36 which was applied on account
against, third person, and rendered judgment in
ruled in favor of Goyala. of said loan, the entire amount of which was then
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for
-Appellant appealed to the CA, which upon finding past due and unpaid, leaving a large balance thereof
the amount of the former's judgment against "La
that the said appeal involves purely questions of law, still due and unpaid.
Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.)," with interest and costs.
certified the same to the SC. - on the 22nd day of April, 1913, the plaintiff Tec Bi &
Co., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
ISSUE:
Manila against "La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.),"
ON DEFENSES WON the court erred in holding that the plaintiff did
claiming the payment of the sum of P11,572.96 as
not waive any defect in the private instrument of
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 55

Avena
pledge by expressly admitting its genuineness and - TC declared that said answer really failed to
the correctness of its date by stipulation, and by FACTS tender any issue and that the claims alleged in the
failure to object to its introduction in evidence. -Southern Industrial Projects (SIP) hired Philippine complaint are, therefore, deemed admitted. TC
NOTE: the case dealt with a pledgor-pledgee [credit] Advertising Counselors (PAC) to promote SIP’s ordered SIP to pay PAC the sum of P89,100.03 with
relationship. The discussion here is limited to that products. SIP accumulated unpaid accounts. legal interest, attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.
pertaining to civil provision. Please see case re
issues on credit. -PAC filed complaint. Attached w/ the complaint were - SIP filed motion for reconsideration. PAC filed an
two letters (Annexed A&B) from SIP’s lawyer, saying opposition to the MFR on the grounds that the
HELD: that it would not be possible for SIP to settle in full its decision was in accordance with law and the
A general admission of the truth of the allegations account of P97,952 08 in one payment and evidence. Judge Revilla granted MFR "in the
set forth in a pleading is not an admission of the suggested that it (SIP) be allowed to settle its interest of justice” and set the case for hearing on
truth of an impossible conclusion of fact drawn from account by "periodic amortization"; and that SIP had the merits.
other facts set out in the pleading, nor of a wrong included PAC in its list of creditors "to whom
conclusion of law based on the allegations of fact payments are regularly scheduled." - PAC filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration
well pleaded, nor of the truth of a general averment and for execution, contending that the MFR being
of facts contradicted by more specific averments. - SIP filed answer stating: pro forma, did not interrupt the running of the
Thus, if a pleader alleges that two pesos were 1. That it admits the allegations in period for appeal, and since SIP received notice of
borrowed on one day and two more borrowed on paragraph 1 insofar as its personality is the decision, the judgment became final and
another making five Pin all, a stipulation of the truth concerned but is w/o sufficient information to executory, and consequently it could no longer be
of the allegations in the pleading does not amount to form a belief as to the truth of the rest of the modified, or set aside. Judge Revilla denied the
an admission by the opposing party that twice two allegations. omnibus motion.
make five. Again if a pleader alleges that one 2. That defendant is w/o sufficient
hundred pesos were loaned without interest for one knowledge or information to form a belief as to -PAC filed petition for certiorari, prohibition and
year and had not been paid, and that the borrower is the truth, correctness or accuracy of the mandamus, w/ prayer for preliminary injunction w/
indebted to the lender in the sum of one hundred allegations set forth in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the CA, which gave due course to the petition and
and ten pesos, that being the amount of the capital plaintiffs complaint." issued a writ of preliminary injunction. CA later
together with interest for the year for which the dismissed the petition and dissolved the writ of
money was loaned, a stipulation as to the truth of the - PAC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings preliminary injunction. CA said that private
allegation set forth in the pleadings is not an as the answer failed to tender an issue or respondent could do no more than claim in its
admission of the truth of the conclusion of law as to "otherwise admits the material allegations of the motion for reconsideration that the judgment of
the interest due by the borrower. These elementary complaint”. SIP did not oppose to this motion. the trial court was contrary to Rule 8, Section 10,
principles have been quite fully developed in a great Judge Revilla denied the motion and set the case of the Rules of Court
variety of cases arising on demurrers, and for pre-trial. Then the case was set for trial on the
sufficiently dispose of the attempt of counsel to fix merits. ISSUE (for this topic)
the attention of the court upon this single averment 1. WON respondent’s answer constitute denial
of the answer, apart from the context and to the - PAC presented its case and filed memoranda (allegation not deemed admitted)
exclusion of the specific allegations of fact, the truth saying that SIP’s answer failed to tender an issue
of which, as stipulated by the parties, cannot be as said party "could not have denied knowledge of HELD
questioned. the account in the face of its written admissions," 1 NO
hence, judgment on the pleadings was proper. -The rule authorizing an answer to the effect that the
DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient
- SIP presented its case and filed memoranda to form a belief as to the truth of an averment and
PHIL ADVERTISING COUNSELORS V. saying that under Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules giving such answer the effect of a denial, does not
of Court, its answer had sufficiently denied the apply where the fact as to which want of
CA, HON. PEDRO REVILLA, SOUTHERN
allegations of the complaint and placed them in knowledge is asserted is so plainly and
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS issue, so that it became incumbent upon petitioner necessarily within the defendant's knowledge
GRN L 31869 to prove its allegations… ; and that a denial for that his averment of ignorance must be
ANTONIO; AUG 8 1973 "lack of sufficient knowledge or information to form palpably untrue (as held in Capitol Motors
a belief as to the truth" of the averments of the Corporation v. Yabut)
NATURE complaint is a specific denial and as such places in - "an unexplained denial of information and belief of
Appeal from the decision of the CA issue the allegations of the complaint so denied. a matter of records, the means of information
concerning which are within the control of the
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 56

Avena
pleader, or are readily accessible to him, is evasive interest. The loan became due on January 31, 1960 PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION V
and is insufficient to constitute an effective denial." but was not paid on that date. The debtors asked for
CA (AMALIO L. SARMIENTO)
an extension of 3 months (April 30, 1960).
Reasoning: The rule that a mere allegation of - March 17, 1960 – Another loan document was SCRA
ignorance of the facts alleged in the complaint is drawn up wherein the obligation was increased by CORONA; January 13, 2004
insufficient to raise an issue, for the defendant must P6,000 (to answer or attorney’s fees, legal interest
aver positively or state how it is that he is ignorant of and other costs). Defendants failed to pay their dues NATURE
the facts so alleged, must be applied in this case, for by April and when a action was instituted against Petition for review
petitioner's complaint explicitly averred that the them by Law in September, they claimed that the
letters (AnnexA&B) were written by private additional interest as usurious. FACTS
respondent, albeit thru its lawyer. Whether or not the - A writ of attachment was then executed on real and - Amalio L. Sarmiento, registered owner of A.L.
said averments in the complaint were true, could not personal properties of the defendant. Sarmiento Construction, applied for a loan from
conceivably be unknown to private respondent. As a - TC: ordered Olympic Sawmill to pay Liam Law Philippine Banking Corporation in the sum of
matter of fact it has never been denied by private P10,000 plus the P6,000 interest. P4,126,000, evidenced by promissory note no. 626-
respondent that it was indebted to petitione. It has 84.
not been asserted that the letters attached as ISSUE - Pursuant thereto, Sarmiento obligated himself to
Annexes "A" and "B" to the complaint which were WON the decision of the trial court was correct pay the amount with interest at the rate of 29% per
sent to petitioner by the counsel of private annum. Additionally, it was stipulated that if
respondent were not authorized by the latter. There HELD payment was not made upon maturity of the loan,
was thus a failure on private respondent's part to YES penalty charges of 1% per month and 25% of the
deny the material averments of the complaint. Ratio Sec. 9 of the Usury Law envisages a total amount due would be charged against him.
Consequently, the same, including the contents of complaint filed against an entity which has - Sarmiento signed the aforesaid promissory note
Annexes "A" and "B", which formed part of the committed usury, for the recovery of the together with the disclosure statement on loan/credit
complaint, and in which the existence and validity of usurious interest paid. In that case, if the entity transaction provided by the bank.
petitioner's claim were unequivocally conceded, sued shall not file its answer under oath - Sarmiento failed to pay the obligation on maturity,
must be deemed to have been admitted. Although denying the allegation of usury, the defendant prompting PBC to send him a letter of demand.
sanctioned by the rules, the form of denial adopted shall be deemed to have admitted the usury. Despite the demand, however, Sarmiento still failed
by private respondent must be availed of in good The provision does not apply to a case, as in to settle his indebtedness.
faith and with sincerity and not resorted to merely for the present, where it is the defendant, not the - PBC filed a complaint for a sum of money against
the purpose of delay or to confuse the adverse party plaintiff, who is alleging usury. him. In his answer, Sarmiento denied that he
as to what averments in the complaint are actually Reasoning received the proceeds of the loan transaction and
put in issue. - Sec. 9 of the Usury Law states: “The person or prayed that the case against him be dismissed.
corporation sued shall file its answer in writing under - The trial court rendered its decision finding that
oath to any complaint brought or filed against said plaintiff miserably failed to prove its case by
Disposition Appealed judgment reversed and set person or corporation before a competent court to preponderance of evidence. The case was
aside, and Southern Industrial Projects, Inc. to pay recover the money or other personal or real property, dismissed.
Philippine Advertising Counselors, Inc. the amount of seeds or agricultural products, charged or received in - PBC filed a motion for new trial which the trial court
P89,100.03, with legal interest until fully paid, plus violation of the provisions of this Act. The lack of subsequently granted despite the opposition of
10% of the principal amount due by way of taking an oath to an answer to a complaint will mean Sarmiento.
attorney's fees, and costs. the admission of the facts contained in the latter.” - The trial court rendered a decision finding the
- For sometime, usury has been legally nonexistent. evidence adduced by the bank to be insufficient to
LIAM LAW V OLYMPIC SAWMILL Interest can now be charged as tender and borrower substantiate its claim. The trial court reinstated its
may agree upon.4 The Rules of Court in regards to earlier dismissal of the case against Sarmiento and
129 SCRA 439
allegations of usury, procedural in nature, should be denied Philippine Banking Corporation’s subsequent
MELENCIO-HERRERA; May 28, 1984 considered repealed with retroactive effect. motion for reconsideration.
Disposition Judgment affirmed - PBC appealed to the CA
NATURE - CA affirmed with modification the trial court’s by
Appeal from a Decision rendered by the Court of First deleting the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.
Instance of Bulacan - Hence, the instant petition
How to contest document
FACTS ISSUE
- Law loaned P10,000 to Olympic Sawmill without
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 57

Avena
WON no proof was required of petitioner to establish applied. Moreover, petitioner failed to explain just -Gabriel Mandocdoc (now retired Land Classification
the contents of the said documents because such exactly what said obligations were or to what extent Investigator) undertook the investigation, inspection
judicial admissions of respondent created a prima the purported proceeds were applied in satisfaction and survey of the area in the presence of George, his
facie case in petitioner’s favor thereof. What appeared clearly was that the brother Rodolfo (deceased) and his cousin, Manuel
proceeds of the loan were deposited then withdrawn Palanca, Jr., (respondent). During said survey, there
HELD the same day by petitioner itself, thus negating its were no actual occupants on the island but there
NO. claim that respondent actually received it. Petitioner were some coconut trees claimed to have been
- It is undisputed that respondent Sarmiento signed therefore failed to establish its case against planted by George and Palanca (alleged overseer of
the promissory note and the accompanying respondent Sarmiento. George) who went to the island from time to time to
disclosure statement on loan/credit transaction. But - Be that as it may, the general rule is that only undertake development work, like planting of
said pieces of evidence proved only the existence of questions of law may be raised in a petition for additional coconut trees.
such documents. There was even no question as to review on certiorari. Barring a showing that the -The application for conversion of the whole
that because respondent Sarmiento himself admitted findings of fact complained of are totally devoid of Sombrero Island was favorably endorsed by BFDO
the due execution thereof. support in the records, such determination must Puerto Princesa to its main office in Manila for
- The important issue was whether or not respondent stand for the Court is neither expected nor required appropriate action. The names of Felicisimo Corpuz,
Sarmiento actually received the proceeds of the to examine or refute the oral and documentary Clemente Magdayao and Jesus Gapilango and Juan
subject loan so as to make him liable therefor, a evidence submitted by the parties. Fresnillo were included in the endorsement as co-
matter which should have been ventilated before the Disposition Petition DENIED. applicants of George. Authorities noted that since the
trial court. subject land was no longer needed for forest
- The trial court did in fact make a finding that the purposes, the same is therefore certified and
documentary evidence of petitioner failed to prove released as agricultural land for disposition under the
Defense/objection waived
anything showing that respondent indeed received Public Land Act.
the proceeds of the loan. The Court of Appeals -George Katon says: the whole Sombrero Island had
9
affirmed the conclusions of the trial court and KATON V PALANCA been classified from forest land to agricultural land
declared: G.R. No. 151149 and certified available for disposition upon his
A pre-existing obligation, it may be conceded, constitutes value request and at his instance.
and may, of and by itself, serve as valuable and sufficient PANGANIBAN; September 7, 2004
consideration for a contract such as the loan sued upon. As an -However land investigators of the Puerto Princesa
essential element of a contract, however, the same should have District Land Office, later favorably endorsed the
NATURE
been satisfactorily proved by the appellant – particularly when, request of respondents Manuel Palanca Jr. and
as in the instant case, the absence of consideration was precisely Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
put in issue by the pleadings and was buttressed by both oral Lorenzo Agustin, for authority to survey vacant
Court, assailing CA decision, and resolution denying
and documentary evidence. Having failed in this material portions of Sombrero Island consisting of 5hectares
MFR.
respect, the appellant’s withdrawal of the amount supposedly each.
credited to the appellee’s account was understandably
-Subsequently, respondents filed their own
interpreted by the court a quo as a termination/cancellation of FACTS
the loan the latter applied for. Considering further that contracts homestead patent applications: Lorenzo Agustin
-August 2, 1963: George Katon filed a request with
without consideration do not exist in contemplation of law and (4.3has), Juan Fresnillo (8.5has), and Jesus
produce no effect whatsoever (Article 1352, Civil Code of the the District Office of the Bureau of Forestry in Puerto
Gapilango (??has). Manuel Palanca, Jr. was issued a
Philippines), the trial, likewise, correctly dismissed the Princesa, Palawan, for the re-classification
appellant’s case. Homestead Patent No. and OCT for 6.84 hectares of
(forestagricultural land) of a piece of real property Sombrero Island.
- A statement in a written instrument regarding the
known as Sombrero Island (~18has). -Katon filed Complaint for “Nullification of
payment of consideration is merely in the nature of a
-BFDO Puerto Princesa ordered the inspection, Applications for Homestead and Original Certificate
receipt and may be contradicted. Respondent
investigation and survey of the land, and thereafter of Title No. G-7089 and for Reconveyance of Title”
Sarmiento denied having received the proceeds of
for George Katon to apply for a homestead patent. and prayed for reconveyance of the whole island in
the loan and in fact presented evidence showing that
on the day petitioner claimed to have credited the his favor, arguing that the homestead patents and
subject amount, it was again debited or withdrawn 9 For other footnotes in this case:
original certificates of title covering certain portions
by petitioner, admittedly upon the instruction of the [14] The said section provides that “[t]hese rules shall apply in all courts, except as
of Sombrero Island issued in favor of respondents
officials from petitioner’s head office. otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.”
were invalid for having been obtained through fraud.
- Petitioner attempted to controvert this fact by [35] §1(g) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent’s arguments:
claiming that the proceeds of the loan were applied [37] §2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court reads:
-Manuel Palanca asserts that he himself requested
to respondent’s previous obligations to the bank. But “SEC. 2. Parties in interest.- A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited
for the reclassification of the island in dispute; that
there is nothing in the records showing that or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
about the time of such request, Fresnillo, Gapilango
respondent had other obligations to which the otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in
and himself already occupied their respective areas
proceeds of the loan could or should have been the name of the real party in interest.”
and introduced numerous improvements; that Katon
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 58

Avena
never filed any homestead application for the island; land to the public domain. It also ruled that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
that Gabriel Mandocdoc never undertook the prescription had already barred the action for motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
inspection and survey of the island; that he is not a reconveyance. waived, except when
mere overseer of Katon because he was acting for (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
himself in developing his own area and not as ISSUES (2) litis pendentia,
anybody’s caretaker. 1. WON CA was correct in resolving the petition for (3) res judicata and
-Respondents aver that they are all bona fide and certiorari based on an issue not raised in the petition (4) prescription
lawful possessors of their respective portions, have (WON CA was correct in ruling on the merits) are evident from the pleadings or the evidence on
declared such for taxation purposes and have been 2. WON CA was correct in invoking its alleged record. In the four excepted instances, the court
faithfully paying taxes thereon for twenty years. They ‘residual prerogative’ under Section 1, Rule 9 of the shall motu proprio dismiss the claim or action.
contend that Katon has no legal capacity to sue 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in resolving the Petition -RESIDUAL JURISDICTION: Sec 9 of Rule 41 of the
insofar as the island is concerned (an action for on an issue not raised in the Petition (and eventually Rules of Court10:
reconveyance can only be brought by the owner and dismissing the case for prescription and lack of The “residual jurisdiction” of trial courts is available
not a mere homestead applicant) and that petitioner jurisdiction) at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to
is guilty of estoppel by laches for his failure to assert have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject
his right over the land for an unreasonable and HELD matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached
unexplained period of time. Where prescription, lack of jurisdiction or failure to upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or
-After filing their Answer with Special and/or state a cause of action clearly appear from the upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, respondents complaint filed with the TC, the action may be to the transmittal of the original records or the
also filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of the dismissed motu proprio by the CA, even if the case records on appeal. In either instance, the TC still
alleged defiance by Katon of the RTC’s order to has been elevated for review on different grounds. retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue
amend his Complaint (substitution by the legal heirs Verily, the dismissal of such cases appropriately ends protective orders, approve compromises, permit
of the deceased Gapilango). MTD was granted. useless litigations. appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending
Katon’s MFR was denied. appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
-Katon filed petition for certiorari before CA. Instead 1. This is not the first time that petitioner has taken -CA’s motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s
of limiting itself to the allegation of grave abuse of issue with the propriety of the CA’s ruling on the Complaint could not have been based on residual
discretion, CA ruled on the merits & held that while merits. He raised it with the CA when he moved for jurisdiction under Rule 41. Such order of dismissal
Katon had caused the reclassification of Sombrero reconsideration of CA’s Dec8, 2000 Decision. The CA was not one for the protection and preservation of
Island from forest to agricultural land, he never even corrected itself in its Nov20, 2001 Resolution. the rights of the parties, pending the disposition of
applied for a homestead patent under the Public -That should have been enough to settle the issue. the case on appeal. What the CA referred to as
Land Act. Hence, he never acquired title to that land. The CA’s Resolution on this point has rendered residual prerogatives were the general residual
Also, granting arguendo that Katon had the exclusive petitioner’s issue moot. There is no need to discuss it powers of the courts to dismiss an action motu
right to apply for a patent to the land in question, he further. Suffice it to say that the appellate court proprio upon the grounds mentioned in Section 1 of
was already barred by laches for having slept on his indeed acted ultra jurisdictio in ruling on the merits Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and under authority of
right for almost 23 years from the time Palanca’s title of the case when the only issue that could have Section 2 of Rule 1 of the same rules.
had been issued been, and was in fact, raised was the alleged grave -Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
-On MR, CA acknowledged that it had erred when it abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in law and is determined by the allegations in the
ruled on the merits of the case. It agreed with Katon denying Katon’s MFR.
that the TC had acted without jurisdiction in -Settled is the doctrine that the sole office of a writ of 10Rule41.“SEC. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. – A party’s appeal by notice of appeal

perfunctorily dismissing his Sept10, 1999 MFR, on certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction. is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.

the erroneous ground that it was a third and Such writ does not include a review of the evidence, “A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the

prohibited motion when it was actually only his first [10] more so when no determination of the merits subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.

motion. Nonetheless, the complaint was dismissed has yet been made by the trial court, as in this case. “In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection

motu proprio by the CA – with two justices dissenting of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

– pursuant to its “residual prerogative” under Sec. 1 2. NO “In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter

of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. CA said that from the -CA’s “residual prerogatives” under Sec1 of Rule9 of thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the

allegations of the complaint, Katon clearly had no the Rules of Court is different from the “residual time to appeal of the other parties.

standing to seek reconveyance of the disputed land, jurisdiction” of TC over cases appealed to CA. “In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the

because he neither held title to it nor even applied -RESIDUAL PREROGATIVES: Sec 1 of Rule 9 of the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which

for a homestead patent. It reiterated that only the Rules of Court: do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of

State could sue for cancellation of the title issued indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39,

upon a homestead patent, and for reversion of the and allow withdrawal of the appeal.”
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 59

Avena
complaint and the character of the relief sought. reversion or any other action that would have the FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT,
Katon prayed, among others, for a judgment (1) effect of canceling a free patent and its derivative
INC. V CA (CABUCO-ANDRES)
nullifying the homestead patent applications of title, with the result that the land thereby covered
Respondents Agustin, Fresnillo and Gapilango as well would again form part of the public domain. 265 SCRA 614
as Homestead Patent No. 145927 and OCT No. G- -The dismissal of the Complaint is proper not KAPUNAN; December 16, 1996
7089 in the name of Respondent Palanca; and (2) only because of lack of jurisdiction, but also
ordering the director of the Land Management because of the utter absence of a cause of NATURE
Bureau to reconvey the Sombrero Island to action, a defense raised by respondents in Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the
petitioner. their Answer. CA.
-Q: did the Complaint sufficiently allege an action for -Assuming that petitioner is the proper party to bring
declaration of nullity of the free patent and the action for annulment of title or its reconveyance, FACTS
certificate of title or, alternatively, for reconveyance? the case should still be dismissed for being time- - Petitioner Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc.
Or did it plead merely for reversion? barred. (FEGDI) is the developer of the Manila Southwoods
-Ans: The complaint did not sufficiently make a case A. 1977, Feb21: a homestead patent and an OCT was golf course and residential subdivision project which
for any of such actions, over which the TC could have issued to Palanca partly covers lands located in Biñan, Laguna.
exercised jurisdiction. 1988, Oct6: filing of the complaint, way past ten - December 29, 1992: Felipe Layos filed a Complaint
-In an action for nullification of title or declaration of years from the date of the issuance of the Certificate, for Injunction and Damages with Application for
its nullity, the complaint must contain the following the prescriptive period for reconveyance of Preliminary Injunction against Fil-Estate Realty
allegations: fraudulently registered real property. Corporation (FERC) with the RTC of Biñan. It alleged
1) that the contested land was privately owned by B. Palanca’s title attained the status of indefeasibility that Felipe Layos is the legal owner and possessor of
the plaintiff prior to the issuance of the assailed one year from the issuance of the patent and the thwo parcels of land having a total area of 837,695
certificate of title to the defendant; and Certificate of Title in February 1977. It is no longer sq. m. located in Biñan, Laguna known as Lots 1 & 2
2) that the defendant perpetuated a fraud or open to review on the ground of actual fraud. of Plan Psu-201. Layos claimed that the Southwoods
committed a mistake in obtaining a document of title Trial courts have authority and discretion to project encroached upon the aforecited lands and
over the parcel of land claimed by the plaintiff. dismiss an action on the ground of prescription when thus his rights of ownership and possession were
-In these cases, the nullity arises not from fraud or the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it violated when FERC brought in men and equipment
deceit, but from the fact that the director of the Land to be indeed time-barred; and it may do so to begin development of the said properties.
Management Bureau had no jurisdiction to bestow -on the basis of a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1,f, Rule - February 2, 1993: FERC filed an Opposition to
title; hence, the issued patent or certificate of title 16, Rules of Court), or Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
was void ab initio. -an answer which sets up such ground as an explicitly stated therein that the developer is its
-In an alternative action for reconveyance, the affirmative defense (Sec. 5, Rule 16), or sister company, FEGDI.
certificate of title is also respected as -even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the - March 29, 1993: Judge Sultan of RTC Biñan issued
incontrovertible, but the transfer of the property or merits, as in a motion for reconsideration; or an order denying the prayer for preliminary
title thereto is sought to be nullified on the ground -even if the defense has not been asserted at all, as injunction in view of Layos’ inability to substantiate
that it was wrongfully or erroneously registered in where no statement thereof is found in the his right.
the defendant’s name. The complaint must allege pleadings; or - June 25, 1993: Layos along with his wife and other
two facts that, if admitted, would entitle the plaintiff -where a defendant has been declared in default. individuals filed another case for Injunction and
to recover title to the disputed land: What is essential only is that the facts demonstrating Damage with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction with
(1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, and the lapse of the prescriptive period be otherwise the RTC of San Pedro, this time against FEGDI. The
(2) that the defendant illegally dispossessed the sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record; complaint is basically identical to that filed in the
plaintiff of the property. either in the averments of the plaintiff's complaint, or Biñan case, except for changes in the number of
-In the present case, nowhere in the Complaint did otherwise established by the evidence. party-plaintiffs and party-defendants and in the area
petitioner allege that he had previously held title to Disposition Petition denied. CA resolution affirmed. size of the claimed landholdings.
the land in question. On the contrary, he Complaint dismissed on the grounds of lack of - FEGDI moved to dismiss the San Pedro case on
acknowledged that the disputed island was public jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action and grounds of litis pendentia, forum-shopping, lack of
land, that it had never been privately titled in his prescription. Costs against petitioner. cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. FEGDI argues
name, and that he had not applied for a homestead that a similar complaint was previously filed with the
under the provisions of the Public Land Act. COMMON PROVISIONS RTC Biñan court. FEGDI also averred that the
-Reversion? No. Section 101 of the Public Land Act Re parts of pleading documents relied upon by the private respondents
categorically declares that only the solicitor general are of doubtful veracity and that they failed to pay
or the officer in his stead may institute such an the correct filing fees.
action. A private person may not bring an action for
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 60

Avena
- Judge Cabuco-Andres of San Pedro RTC denied initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies
FEGDI’s motion to dismiss, as well as the Motion for other than the SC xxx.
DBP v CA
Reconsideration. FEGDI filed a Petition for Certiorari The complaint and other initiatory pleadings
and Prohibition with Application for Preliminary referred to and subject of this Circular are the G.R. No. 147217
Injunction with the CA. CA ordered an RTO enjoining original civil complaint, counter-claim, cross- October 7, 2004
Cabuco-Andres. claim, third (fourth, etc) party complaint, or
- January 25, 1994: RTC Biñan case was dismissed complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application NATURE
without prejudice on grounds of forum-shopping. wherein a party asserts his claim for relief. petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Resolution of the CA dismissing the petition for
ISSUES 2. NO certiorari filed by the DBP and Atty. Nilo Galorport
1. WON Layos is guilty of forum-shopping. Ratio In the determination of WON the complaint
2. WON the San Pedro case has cause of action. states a cause of action, the annexes attached to the FACTS
complaint may be considered, they being parts of the - Bibiana Guerra de Azarcon, herein private
HELD complaint. respondent, and her late husband Inocentes Azarcon,
1. YES Reasoning The San Pedro case also did not state a obtained a loan from PNB. As collateral, they
Ratio cause of action. In determining WON a complaint mortgaged 2 lots with the bank. But they could not
Reasoning Private respondents have indeed states a cause of action, only the allegations in the pay their loan. Asuncion Calceta told Bibiana that she
resorted to forum-shopping in order to obtain a complaint must be considered. The test if sufficiency is willing to pay their loan if Bibiana would mortgage
favorable decision. The pattern is undisputably of the facts is WON admitting the facts alleged the the lots to her. Private respondents agreed. Asuncion
revealed by the fact that after Felipe Layos instituted court can render a valid judgment upon the same in Calceta then made an initial payment of P273,000.00
in 1992 a case for injunction and damages with accordance with the prayer thereof. to the PNB. The bank extended the redemption
application for preliminary injunction in the RTC of - There is no cause of action because Layos’ claim on period to allow Asuncion to apply with the DBP a loan
Biñan, and after his prayer was denied in March the land in question is based on a fabricated of P3.5M to be paid to the PNB. Private respondents
1993, he (and other individuals) filed an identical document. The affidavit of self-adjudication is a vital executed a simulated deed of sale of their lots in her
complaint for injunction and damages with part of the complaint that should be considered in favor to enable her to mortgage the same with the
preliminary injunction in June 1993, this time with the determination of whether or not a cause of action DBP.
RTC San Pedro. An examination would show that the exists. - When the proceeds of the loan were released,
San Pedro complains is simply an improved version - The land Psu-201 is an original survey for J. Reed Asuncion paid the PNB P900,000.00 representing the
of the Biñan complaint. located in Malate, Manila, and Si-14769 is a survey unpaid balance of respondents’ loan. However, she
- Respondents content that there is no identity of number for the plan of a land parcel situated in Bo. failed to pay her loan with the DBP, prompting the
part-defendants since it was FERC in the Biñan case Bessang, Cagayan in the name of Gregorio Blanco bank to foreclose the mortgage covering the 2 lots.
and FEGDI in the San Pedro case. This is - However the CA and RTC limited itself to the After hearing private respondents’ application for
unmeritorious, because FEGDI voluntarily submitted allegations in the complaint proper of the San Pedro preliminary injunction, the RTC issued an Order
to the court’s jurisdiction by filing its answer and case in concluding that said complaint stated a cause enjoining the DBP and Atty. Nilo Galorport, the
expressly stating that it is the developer of of action. This is erroneous. bank’s deputized special sheriff, from proceeding
Southwoods, and not FERC. The Biñan court - In the case of Marcopper Mining v Garcia, the RTC with the auction sale of the lots pending the final
expressly recognized FEGDI as the defendant in the had the opportunity to examine the merits of the determination of the civil case wherein private
said case. complaint, the answer with counterclaim, the respondents prayed for annulment of the contract
- The willful attempt by private respondent to obtain petitioner’s answer to the counterclaim and its and the TCTs transferring title over the lots to
a preliminary injunction in another court after it answer to the request for admission. It was but Asuncion Calceta.
failed to acquire the same from the original court logical for said court to consider all of these - DBP and Atty. Galorport filed an MFR but were
constitutes grave abuse of the judicial process. pleadings in determining WON there was a sufficient denied by the RTC. Hence, they filed with the CA a
SC-Administrative Circular 04-94: cause of action in the petitioner’s complaint. petition for certiorari alleging that in granting the
Revised Circular 29-91 applies to and governs - Regalado: The exception is provided in Sec. 2 Rule injunctive relief in favor of private respondents, the
the filing of petitions in the Supreme Court and 9. It as also been held that under this ground the trial RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA
the Court of Appeals and is intended to prevent court can consider all the pleadings filed, including dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure of one
the multiple filing of the petitions or complaints annexes, motions and the evidence on record. of the petitioners, Atty. Nilo Galorport to sign the
involving the same issues in other tribunals. certification against forum shopping. The CA denied
The following requirements xxx shall be DISPOSITION petitioners’ MFR, holding that Atty. Demosthenes
strictly complied with in the filing of the The petition for review on certiorari is granted. Demecillo, Branch Manager of the DBP at Tagbilaran
complaints, petitions, applications or other Respondents’ complaint is dismissed. City, failed to show that he is the bank’s authorized
representative to file the petition for certiorari.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 61

Avena
Petition is DENIED complaint. An MFR was filed but was likewise denied.
ISSUE
WON the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in ISSUE/S
WEE V GALVEZ
dismissing the petition for certiorari 1. WON the certification of non-forum shopping
436 SCRA 96 executed by the plaintiff’s atty-in-fact is
HELD QUISUMBING; August 11, 2004 defective
NO 2. WON the amended complaint before the RTC
Ratio NATURE states a cause of action
The certification against forum shopping is fatally Petition for review on certiorari
defective, not having been duly signed by both FACTS HELD
petitioners. This procedural flaw warrants the - Petitioner Rosemarie Wee and respondent Rosario 1. No
dismissal of the petition for certiorari. The D. Galvez are sisters. Rosemarie lives with husband Reasoning The Special Power of Attorney executed
certification against forum shopping must be signed Manuel in Bataan. Rosario lives in New York, USA by her in favor of Grace Galvez, if subjected to
by the principal parties. - They entered into an agreement whereby Rosario careful scrutiny would clearly show that the authority
Reasoning would send Rosemarie US$20,000, half of said given to the latter is not only broad but also all
The petitioners before the CA were the DBP, amount to be deposited in a savings account while encompassing that it includes the power and
represented by Atty. Demosthenes Demecillo, the the balance could be invested in the money market. authority to institute both civil and criminal actions.
bank’s Branch Manager at Tagbilaran City, and Atty. The interest to be earned therefrom would be given Corollary with this power is the authority to sign all
Nilo Galorport, DBP’s deputized special sheriff. The to Rosario's son, Manolito Galvez, as his allowance papers, documents, and pleadings necessary for the
certification against forum shopping was signed by - In accordance with her agreement with Rosario, accomplishment of the said purpose.
Atty. Demecillo only. Petitioners explained in their Rosemarie gave Manolito his monthly allowance
MFR that in the verification of the petition for ranging from P2,000 to P4,000 a month from 1993 to The SPA includes:
certiorari, Atty. Demecillo stated under oath that he January 1999. However, sometime in 1995, Rosario 1. To ask, demand and claim any sum of money that
is the DBP’s incumbent Branch Head and its duly asked for the return of the US$20,000 and for an is duly [due] from any person natural, juridical and/or
authorized officer. They submitted a copy of a accounting. Rosemarie promised to comply with the corporation in the Philippines;
resolution passed by the DBP Board of Governors, demand but failed to do so. A written demand was 2. To file criminal and/or civil complaints before the
authorizing Branch Heads of the DBP to sign the sent to her. When Rosemarie did not comply, Rosario courts of justice in the Philippines to enforce my
verification and certification against forum shopping filed a suit against her. rights and interest[s];
of all initiatory pleadings of the bank. What - The Wees moved to dismiss the case based on the 3. To attend hearings and/or Preliminary
petitioners failed to explain, however, is their failure following grounds: (1) the lack of allegation in the Conference[s], to make stipulations, adjust claims, to
to attach a certified true copy of the resolution to complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise settle and/or enter into Compromise Agreement[s],
their petition. Their omission is fatal to their case. had been made in accordance with Article 1515 of to litigate and to terminate such proceedings; [and]
Courts are not expected to take judicial notice of the Family Code; (2) failure to state a valid cause of 4. To sign all papers, documents and pleadings
corporate board resolutions or a corporate officer’s action, the action being premature in the absence of necessary for the accomplishment of the above
authority to represent a corporation. Petitioners’ previous earnest efforts toward a compromise; and purposes.
failure to submit proof that Atty. Demecillo has been (3) the certification against forum shopping was
authorized by the DBP to file the petition is a defective, having been executed by an attorney-in- 2. YES
"sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." Atty. fact and not the plaintiff. Ratio It is true that the lead sentence of paragraph
Galorport contends that the signature of Atty. - Rosario amended her complaint to add that 9-A, may be incomplete or even grammatically
Demecillo, representing the DBP, is sufficient since “Earnest efforts towards have been made but the incorrect as there might be a missing word or phrase,
he and DBP are being sued jointly, they having a same have failed” (mali talaga yung sinulat nila). but to our mind, a lacking word like "compromise"
common interest in the lots under litigation. His The trial court accepted the amended complaint and could be supplied by the rest of the paragraph.
contention lacks merit. DBP is being sued as a dismissed the Wee’s motion to dismiss. Wee moved Reasoning Petitioners submit that the amended
mortgagee, while he is impleaded as the bank’s for an MFR. It was also denied. complaint violates Rule 8, Section 133 of the 1997
deputized special sheriff who conducted the extra- - The Wee couple brought the matter to the Court of Rules of Civil Procedure, as there is no plain and
judicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Their interests Appeals via a special civil action for certiorari, direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
are not the same. The certification against forum prohibition, and mandamus. It was also denied. The plaintiff relies for her claim. Specifically, petitioners
shopping should be signed by all the petitioners in a Court of Appeals held that the complaint, as contend that the allegation in paragraph 9-A of the
case, and the signing by only one of them is amended, sufficiently stated a cause of action. It amended complaint that "Earnest efforts towards
insufficient. likewise held that the questioned certification against have been made but the same have failed" is clearly
forum shopping appended thereto was not so insufficient. The sentence is incomplete, thus
Disposition defective as to warrant the dismissal of the requires the reader of the pleading to engage in
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 62

Avena
deductions or inferences in order to get a complete told Baguiaro that she would think the matter; she plaintiff's action, and that the relief to which the
sense of the cause of action, according to petitioners. found out that defendant had already begun the plaintiff is entitled based on the facts alleged by him
-Respondent rebuts by stating that the amended construction of a nipa and bamboo house with no in his complaint, although it is not the relief
complaint as well as the annexes attached to the approval from her; demanded, is what determines the nature of the
pleadings should be taken in their entirety. Thus -Instead of constructing a house of three brazas by action. And that is the reason why it is generally
taken together, in their entirety, the amended three brazas as above Baguiaro has built additions added to prayers for relief, though not necessary, the
complaint and the attachments to the original after additions to the house such that the present words "and for such other relief as the law warrants,"
complaint, clearly show that a sufficient cause of house constructed is twenty-eight and one-half feet or others to the same effect. So if a plaintiff alleges,
action as it is shown and stated that earnest efforts on the front and forty-two and one-half feet on the for instance, that the defendant owes the former a
towards a compromise have been made, according side, and has rented a part thereof to other persons, certain amount of money and did not pay it at the
to respondent. and that when plaintiff discovered this anomaly and time stipulated, and prays that the defendant be
-A paragraph is "a distinct section or subdivision of a violations of their verbal and initial agreement, sentenced to return a certain personal property to
written or printed composition that consists of from defendant was told sometime on October, 1945, to the plaintiff, such prayer will not make or convert the
one to many sentences, forms a rhetorical unit. As a pay a monthly rental of fifty pesos (P50) a month, or action of recovery, of debt into one of recovery of
"short composition consisting of a group of sentences vacate the lot in question. For the month of October, personal property, and the court shall grant the
dealing with a single topic," a paragraph must Baguiaro paid only the sum of P25, leaving a balance proper relief, or sentence the defendant to pay his
necessarily be construed in its entirety in order to of P25, and for subsequent months Baguiaro has debt to the plaintiff.
properly derive the message sought to be conveyed. refused and still refuses to pay the said rentals of The attorney of the plaintiff, in his opposition to the
In the instant case, paragraph 9-A of the Amended fifty pesos (P50), or vacate the premises, in spite of defendant's motion to dismiss filed in the court
Complaint deals with the topic of efforts made by the repeated demands. below, and in his answer to the petition for certiorari
respondent to reach a compromise between the -Prayer: defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of fifty in this Court, contends that the plaintiff's principal
parties. Hence, it is in this light that the defective pesos (P50) as monthly rentals for the lot occupied action is for breach of contract, and therefore within
lead sentence must be understood or construed. by him of the property of herein plaintiff, beginning the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, because
-Having examined the Amended Complaint in its with the month of October, 1945, or to vacate the lot it is not capable of pecuniary estimation. There is no
entirety as well as the documents attached thereto, in question, with costs against the defendant, and for such kind of action. Breach of contract may be the
following the rule that documents attached to a such other and for such other and further relief as cause of action, but not the action or relief itself.
pleading are considered both as evidence and as this Honorable Court shall deem just and equitable. According to our Civil Code, a breach of contract is
part of the pleading, we find that the respondent has -Baguiaro filed motion to dismiss on the ground that accuse of action, either for specific performance, or
properly set out her cause of action. the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter performance, or rescission of the contract. As the
of the complaint or suit, the action being either for plaintiff is entitled is entitled only to one of the two
Disposition Petition is denied. the collection of rentals of a real estate which do not reliefs, if he prays that the defendants be sentenced
reach to two hundred pesos (P200) or for ejectment to perform the obligations imposed upon him by the
BAGUIARO V. BARRIOS from the premises in jurisdiction over the subject of contract the action is specific performance, and if he
the litigation. prays that the contract be rescind the plaintiff's
00SCRA 00
-CFI motion to dismiss denied and sentencing action is rescission. In contracts of lease of a real
FERIA, 30 Aug. 1946 Baguiaro either to pay two hundred fifty pesos (P250) estate, if the lessee violates the terms of the contract
or to vacate the lot in question. by his failure to pay the rent due or to comply with
FACTS -Petition for Certiorari on the ground the respondent the conditions of the lease, and refuses to vacate or
-Complaint filed on January 7, 1945, in the Court of judge acted without jurisdiction over the subject return the possession of the property leased to the
First Instance of Iloilo by Emiliana Tupas Vda. de Atas matter in trying and deciding the case, and at the lessor notwithstanding demand to do so, the action is
against Baguiaro. same time asked this Court to enjoin the respondent illegal detainer if filed within one year, and recovery
-De Atas is the exclusive and absolute and registered judge from taking further action in the case during or restoration of possession if filed after one year,
owner of the following described property, situated in the pendency of this petition. from the demand.
the City of Iloilo. The above lot, without the That the prayer of relief in the complaint seems to
improvements which were burned during the war, is ISSUE convey the idea that the plaintiff would agree to let
assessed at P4,680. WON the court acted without jurisdiction the defendant continue in possession if he pays the
-That sometime in the month of July, 1946, Baguiaro rents or damages demanded by the plaintiff, does
verbally solicited the permission of herein de Atas to HELD not change the nature of the action, since the court
construct a house of light materials on the lot of Yes, court acted without jurisdiction. It is an axiom, in may only grant the proper relief according to law,
some three brazas wide and three brazas long just civil procedure that if the relief demanded is not the that is, the ejectment of the defendant and the
enough for them to sleep, at a monthly rental of proper one which may be granted under the law, it payment by the latter of the damages due for the
twenty pesos (P20), payable in advance, and de Atas does not characterize or determine the nature of the occupation of the land, though the plaintiff is free to
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 63

Avena
condone said payment. It is evident that the court one aimed at invoking the general jurisdiction of the
can not authorize the defendant petitioner to Disposition Court of First Instance in actions for possession of
continue in possession the land as lessee if he pays The respondent judge's decision in this case is set real property, as regards the plaintiff's land under
the rents or damages demanded by the plaintiff aside; with costs against the respondent Emiliana section 56, paragraph 2, of Act No. 136. In choosing
since such continuation depends not only upon the Tupas Vda. de Atas. So ordered. between these two constructions in justice to the
plaintiff's will but also upon that of the defendant. A learning and intelligence of counsel for the plaintiff, it
judgment authorizing the defendant to continue as PARAS, J., dissenting: seems to me that the court should have had no
lessee for a certain and definite period of time after - The willingness of the plaintiff to let the defendant, difficulty in concluding that he meant and intended
the judgment, will not bind the plaintiff to grant such herein petitioner Manuel Baguioro, retain possession to resort to the latter procedure, as he should be
lease nor the defendant to continue as lessee paying of the land upon payment of the rent (which, plaintiff presumed to know such an elemental rule as that
the monthly rental fixed by the court. A court cannot alleges, should be P50) is plainly repugnant to the which confers upon the municipal or justice of the
make and impose a contract upon the parties. theory that the principal purpose of the action is peace court exclusive original jurisdiction of forcible
Even assuming, arguendo, that the complaint may ejectment of the defendant or, in the language of entry and unlawful detainer cases within the first
contain two alternatives or independent actions, one section 1 of Rule 72, "the restitution of possession." year following the accrual of the cause of action.
of forcible entry and another for recovery of rents or Upon the other hand, giving such reasonable -Even where the defendant employs, e. g., violence
damages, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo has no intendments to the allegations of the complaint as in taking possession of the plaintiff's land, the law
jurisdiction to entertain either one or both. It has no are consistent with and implied by the relief sought, does not compel the latter to resort to the summary
jurisdiction over the action of forcible entry, for it is the action may be one for the enforcement of a lease remedy y furnished by Rule 72, section 1, just as it
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the justice of the contract — implied or otherwise — in which the court does not compel the plaintiff to file a criminal
peace; nor over that of recovery of rents or damages, is asked to fix the amount of the rent for want of complaint for any criminal offense which the
because the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his corresponding stipulation. The claim that the rent defendant may have committed with the use of such
complaint, which determines the court jurisdiction, is ought to be P50, when considered with the prayer violence. The law grants the plaintiff of remedies, as
less than two hundred pesos (P200). According to the "for such other and further relief as this Honorable well as a choice of courts, so long as he lays before
complaint, the petitioner had occupied the lot in Court shall deem just and equitable," merely invokes the court of his choice the facts calling for a proper
question during the months of October, November, the discretion and judgment of the court regarding exercise of its jurisdiction. So that an undisputed
December and January when the complaint was filed, the righteousness of said claim. owner of land who, as such, is by law entitled to its
and the total amount of rents or damages claimed as -While the complaint may be treated ;as one for possession, and who is deprived thereof, e.. g., by
due for that occupation at the rate of fifty pesos simple ejectment, in the light of some of its force, while entitled to the summary remedy afforded
(P50) a month, minus the sum of twenty-five pesos averments, the circumstance nevertheless does not by Rule 72, section 1, which according to said section
(P25) which was paid on account of the rent for prevent it from being an action — its denomination he may resort to, is neither compelled to bring his
October, aggregate only one hundred and seventy- immaterial — that may be filed originally in the Court case thereunder, alleging the characteristic
five pesos (P175). of First Instance, in view of the other allegations and circumstance of violence, lodging his action in the
The fact that, in its judgment, the lower court has the prayer. In the latter situation, matters contained proper inferior court, nor forbidden to seek redress
awarded the plaintiff the sum of P250, including the in the pleading which are not necessary to, or are from the proper Court of First Instance by bringing
rent for February, and not the P25 paid on account incompatible with, the jurisdiction of the Court of his case under its general jurisdiction "in all civil
by the petitioner for the month of October as alleged First Instance may be considered surplusage. The actions which involve . . . the possession of real
in the same complaint, did not confer upon the court complaint might have been awkwardly drafted, but property . . .", waiving the effects of the violence
jurisdiction over the case. If the court has no unless the defendant was actually misled to his committed by the defendant as well as the summary
jurisdiction over the subject matter according to the surprise or injury, it should be held sufficient. remedy to which such characteristic circumstance
allegations in the complaint, it can not acquire it just (Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24 Phil., 504.) It is may entitled, had simply alleging, as his cause of
because the rents claimed and those that may needless to state that the nature of an action is action, his ownership of the land, his right to its
accrue during the pendency of the suit may amount determined by its allegations and prayer. As long as possession and the fact that he has been deprived of
to a sum within its jurisdiction. To hold otherwise the complaint makes out a case cognizable by the such possession by the defendant, regardless of the
would lead to the absurdity that the jurisdiction of Court of First Instance, the latter's jurisdiction will not manner employed in such deprivation. The same law
the court depends not upon the allegations in the be altered or taken away simply because the action which does not compel the owner to bring a criminal
complaint, but upon a contingency which may or cannot prosper. The judgment in this case was action by reason of such violence does not compel
may not arise or occur. As the damages claimed in rendered after the defendant had been declared in him to bring a forcible entry suit by reason thereof.
the complaint amounted to one hundred and default. And it would be to my mind scandalous to affirm in a
seventy-five pesos (P175), could the lower court HILADO, J., dissenting: government of laws that in such circumstances the
have sentenced the defendant to pay the amount -Liberally construed, as it should be (Rule 15, section owner will be prevented from bringing his case under
claimed had the latter made a confession of 17), the plaintiff's complaint is susceptible of two the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
judgment? constructions: as a complaint in ejectment, and as of the province without invoking the characteristic
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 64

Avena
circumstance of violence. Of course, in an ordinary - In 2001, MIPI and Gonzales filed MTD on the ff. Though the wording of the board resolution leaves
action commenced in the Court of First Instance, he grounds: [1] the complaint failed to comply with the much to be desired, it remains equally susceptible of
will not be entitled to the summary proceedings, requirements set forth under SC Administrative interpretation in favor of Ms. German’s preexisting
such as the immediate execution of the judgment, Circular No. 04-94 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 status as an authorized signatory.
etc., provided for in Rule 72. So long as the plaintiff Rules of Civil Procedure as regards certifications Disposition Petition is GRANTED.
does not rely on any of the specific circumstances against forum shopping; and [2] there was
characterizing the action as one of forcible entry or noncompliance with a condition precedent for the CRUZ-AGANA V LAGMAN
unlawful detainer, it cannot be said to be within the filing of the case and/or the same failed to state a
G.R. No. 139018
exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal or cause of action or was premature
justice of the peace court, even within the first year - RTC denied MTD and MFR of MIPI and Gonzales. CA CARPIO; April 11, 2005
following the accrual of the cause of action. granted the petition for certiorari and reversed RTC.
CA ruled that CBC failed to comply with the NATURE
Petition for certiorari
CHINA BANKING CORP V MONDRAGON requirements of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure as there was nothing in the records
INTERNATIONAL FACTS
showing that the signatory of the certification against
G.R. No. 164798 forum shopping was authorized by CBC. It referred to - On 18 March 1996, petitioner filed a Complaint for
PUNO; November 17, 2005 the Corporation Code and jurisprudence which state annulment of title with prayer for preliminary
that corporations exercise their corporate powers mandatory injunction against respondent. Petitioner
NATURE through their board of directors and no person can claims that as the sole heir of one Teodorico Cruz,
Petition for certiorari bind the corporation without authority from the she is the sole owner of a lot covered by Transfer
latter. CA denied CBC’s MFR. Hence, the present Certificate of Title No. T-3907. Petitioner further
FACTS petition. claims that the lot was fraudulently sold to Eugenio
- In 1994, respondent Mondragon International Lopez, Jr. who later on transferred the lot to
Philippines, Incorporated (MIPI), entered into a Lease respondent.
ISSUE - Respondent seasonably filed its Answer with
Agreement with Clark Development Corporation
WON CBC’s failure to attach the requisite board compulsory counterclaim. Petitioner moved to
(Clark)to develop the 232-hectare Mimosa Leisure
resolution making Ms. German an authorized dismiss respondent’s counterclaim for lack of a
Estate. They also entered into supplemental lease
signatory of certifications against forum shopping certificate of non-forum shopping.
agreements to develop other additional areas. Part of
was a fatal error and cannot be rectified by - In an Order dated 11 March 1999, the trial court
the funds used for these projects was generated from
subsequent submission thereof. denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss respondent’s
loans obtained from petitioner China Banking
Corporation (CBC). To secure these loans, MIPI counterclaim. The trial court reasoned that
HELD respondent’s counterclaim is compulsory and
executed promissory notes in favor of CBC. In
NO therefore excluded from the coverage of Section 5,
addition, respondent Antonio U. Gonzales executed a
Ratio The Court has relaxed, under justifiable Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner moved that
Surety Agreement in favor of CBC in the amount of
circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of the trial court reconsider its Order invoking the
P100M. In 1997, the Asian financial crisis transpired.
these certifications and has applied the rule of mandatory nature of a certificate of non-forum
The ensuing shock to the Philippine economy
substantial compliance under justifiable shopping under Supreme Court Administrative
affected MIPI’s ability to pay its obligations to CBC.
circumstances with respect to the contents of the Circular No. 04-94. On 25 May 1999, the trial court
- In 2000, CBC filed a complaint for a sum of money
certification. If the belated filing of the certification reversed its 11 March 1999 Order and dismissed
with RTC Makati City against MIPI and Mr. Gonzales.
against forum shopping for compelling reasons in respondent’s counterclaim for lack of a certificate of
The certification of forum shopping was attached to
previous rulings is allowed, with more reason should non-forum shopping.
the complaint. It was to the effect that: MERCEDES E.
the Court sanction the timely submission of such - Respondent seasonably filed a motion for
GERMAN, the Manager of Loans & Discounts Dept of
certification though the proof of the signatory’s reconsideration arguing that Administrative Circular
the China Banking Corp certified that the defendant
authority was submitted thereafter. No. 04-94 does not apply to compulsory
China Bank has not commenced any other action or
Reasoning The court has used the doctrine of stare counterclaims following the ruling in Santo Tomas
proceeding involving the same issues in the SC, CA
decisis to enunciate this principle. The ff. cases were University Hospital v. Surla. On 4 June 1999, the
or before any other tribunal or agency, and that to
cited as authority: Shipside Incorporated v. CA, trial court again reversed itself and recalled its Order
the best of her knowledge, no such action or
Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo, and, Pascual & dismissing respondent’s counterclaim. The trial court
proceeding is pending, and that if a similar action or
Santos Inc v. Tramo Wakas Neighborhood ruled that the filing of a compulsory counterclaim
proceeding has been filed or is pending before SC,
Association. At the meeting of CBC’s Board of does not require a certificate of non-forum shopping.
CA or any other tribunal or agency, she undertakes
Directors, the Board, in a resolution, approved,
to report that fact within five (5) days.
confirmed and ratified Ms. German’s authority. ISSUE
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 65

Avena
WON a compulsory counterclaim pleaded in an - Petitioner’s counsel fails or simply refuses to accept FELICIANO; June28,1993
Answer can be dismissed on the ground of a failure the distinction between a permissive counterclaim
to accompany it with a certificate of non-forum and a compulsory counterclaim. This distinction was FACTS:
shopping the basis for the ruling in Santo Tomas and Ponciano. -J.J. Mining and Exploration Corporation ("J.J. Mining")
The sole issue for resolution in the present case is executed and delivered to petitioner Perpetual
HELD whether respondent’s counterclaim is compulsory or Savings ("Bank") a promisory note in the amount of
NO permissive. If it is a permissive counterclaim, the P750.000.00 payable in one lump sum upon maturity
- Santo Tomas clarified the scope of Administrative lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping is fatal. If with interest at 23% per annum. The note also
Circular No. 04-94 with respect to counterclaims. it is a compulsory counterclaim, the lack of a contained, inter alia, a clause providing for penalty
The Court pointed out that this circular is intended certificate of non-forum shopping is immaterial. interest at the rate of 3% , nor month on the amount
primarily to cover “an initiatory pleading or an - A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money due, compounded monthly. The promisory note was
incipient application of a party asserting a claim for or other relief, which a defending party may have executed for J.J. Mining by respondents Jose Oro B.
relief.” The distinction between a compulsory and a against an opposing party, which at the time of suit Fajardo and Emmanuel F. Del Mande. Messrs. Fajardo
permissive counterclaim is vital in the application of arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the and Del Mundo are said to be officers of J.J. Mining.
the circular. The Court explained: same transaction or occurrence that is the subject Upon maturity of the promissory note, neither J.J.
It should not be too difficult, the foregoing matter of plaintiff’s complaint.[9] It is compulsory in Mining nor anyone else paid the amount of the
rationale of the circular aptly taken, to sustain the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of the court, indebtedness, notwithstanding petitioner's repeated
the view that the circular in question has not, in does not require for its adjudication the presence of written demands for payment.
fact, been contemplated to include a kind of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire -petitioner Bank filed a complaint with the Regional
claim which, by its very nature as being auxiliary jurisdiction, and will be barred in the future if not set Trial Court, Makati, against J.J; Mining, Jose
to the proceedings in the suit and as deriving its up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. Emmanuel Jalandoni and herein respondents Fajardo
substantive and jurisdictional support therefrom, Any other counterclaim is permissive. and Del Mundo, for collection of the amounts due
can only be appropriately pleaded in the answer - Respondent’s counterclaim as set up in its answer under the promissory note
and not remain outstanding for independent states: -Defendant's Fajardo and Del Mundo were impleaded
resolution except by the court where the main 3. That because of the unwarranted, baseless, as agents/or representatives of Defendant
case pends. Prescinding from the foregoing, the and unjustified acts of the plaintiff, herein Corporation who were signatories in the Promissory
proviso in the second paragraph of Section 5, defendant has suffered and continue to suffer Note or alternatively, in their personal capacities “if it
Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., actual damages in the sum of at least be shown that they contracted the loan fully knowing
that the violation of the anti-forum shopping rule P400,000,000.00 which the law, equity, and that the Defendant Corporation would be unable to
“shall not be curable by mere amendment xxx justice require that to be paid by the plaintiff and pay the same upon maturity, and/or that they used
but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case further to reimburse the attorney’s fees of the proceeds of the loan foe their own personal
without prejudice,” being predicated on the P2,000,000.00; benefit”
applicability of the need for a certification - It is clear that the counterclaim set up by -Respondent Fajardo and Del Mundo filed a Motion to
against forum-shopping, obviously does not respondent arises from the filing of plaintiff’s Dismiss on the ground that the complaint had failed
include a claim which cannot be independently complaint. The counterclaim is so intertwined with to stated cause of action against them. RTC denied
set up. the main case that it is incapable of proceeding motion to dismiss. Fajardo and Del Mundo raised the
- The Court reiterated this ruling in Ponciano v. Judge independently. The counterclaim will require a re- case to the SC but SC referred case to CA.
Parentela, Jr. litigation of the same evidence if the counterclaim is Respondents Fajardo and Del Mundo, basically
- Administrative Circular No. 04-94 does not apply to allowed to proceed in a separate action. Even alleged that petitioner Bank's complaint did not set
compulsory counterclaims. The circular applies to petitioner recognizes that respondent’s counterclaim forth any cause of action as against them personally,
initiatory and similar pleadings. A compulsory is compulsory. A compulsory counterclaim does not and that Section 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on
counterclaim set up in the answer is not an require a certificate of non-forum shopping because alternative defendants was not applicable to the case
“initiatory” or similar pleading. The initiatory a compulsory counterclaim is not an initiatory at bar. CA granted motion of Fajardo and Del Mundo
pleading is the plaintiff’s complaint. A respondent pleading.
has no choice but to raise a compulsory counterclaim ISSUE
the moment the plaintiff files the complaint. Disposition The decision petition is denied. WON complaint of Perpetual Savings stated a cause
Otherwise, respondent waives the compulsory of action against respondents Fajardo and Del
counterclaim. In short, the compulsory counterclaim Re manner of making allegations Mundo, as distinguished from J.J. Mining, on whose
is a reaction or response, mandatory upon pain of behalf they had purported to act.
waiver, to an initiatory pleading which is the
PERPETUAL SAVINGS V FAJARDO
complaint. HELD
223 SCRA 720
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 66

Avena
YES. complaint and the attachments to the original petition for certiorari. It was error for her to avail of a
Reasoning. In Rava Development Corporation v. complaint, clearly show that a sufficient cause of petition for relief from judgment.After the SC’s
Court of Appeals, the Court elaborated on this action as it is shown and stated that earnest efforts resolution denying Mrs. Cerezo’s petition for relief
established standard in the following manner: towards a compromise have been made, according became final and executory, Mrs. Cerezo, in her last
'The rule is that a defendant moving to dismiss a to respondent. ditch attempt to evade liability, filed before the Court
complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is -A paragraph is "a distinct section or subdivision of a of Appeals a petition for annulment of the judgment
regarded as having hypothetically admitted all the written or printed composition that consists of from of the trial court. Annulment is available only on the
averments thereof. The test of the sufficiency of the one to many sentences, forms a rhetorical unit. As a grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. If
facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of "short composition consisting of a group of sentences based on extrinsic fraud, a party must file the
action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, dealing with a single topic," a paragraph must petition within four years from its discovery, and if
the court can render a valid Judgment upon the same necessarily be construed in its entirety in order to based on lack of jurisdiction, before laches or
in accordance with the prayer thereof. properly derive the message sought to be conveyed. estoppel bars the petition. Extrinsic fraud is not a
- In its Decision, CA said, among other the that In the instant case, paragraph 9-A of the Amended valid ground if such fraud was used as a ground, or
petitioner Bank's complaint did not state a cause of Complaint deals with the topic of efforts made by the could have been used as a ground, in a motion for
action against respondents Fajardo and Del Mundo in respondent to reach a compromise between the new trial or petition for relief from judgment. Mrs.
their personal and individual capacities for the parties. Hence, it is in this light that the defective Cerezo insists that lack of jurisdiction, not extrinsic
reason that. no evidence had been presented to lead sentence must be understood or construed. fraud, was her ground for filing the petition for
support such alleged liability on the "so called -Having examined the Amended Complaint in its annulment of judgment. However, a party may avail
alternative cause of action." entirety as well as the documents attached thereto, of the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule
-The SC held that the CA was in reversible error. It following the rule that documents attached to a only if the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
was quite premature for the Court of Appeals to pleading are considered both as evidence and as petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate
consider evidence (or lack of evidence) outside the part of the pleading, we find that the respondent has remedies are no longer available through no fault of
complaint since the trial had not yet started. The properly set out her cause of action. the party. Mrs. Cerezo could have availed of a new
allegations made by the bank could be proven on trial or appeal but through her own fault she
trial. erroneously availed of the remedy of a petition for
Re Effect of Failure to Plead
relief, which was denied with finality. Thus, Mrs.
WEE V GALVEZ CEREZO V. TUAZON
Cerezo may no longer avail of the remedy of
annulment.
(supra) (supra) Disposition PETITION DENIED.

FACTS NATURE SPOUSES DELOS SANTOS VS RTC


-this is regards the sisters, one in US and one in RP Petition for review on certiorari
(HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO)
who is taking care of the son of the sister in US.
Allowance issues… FACTS G.R. NO. 153696
-Bus collided with tricycle AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ: September 11,
ON MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS 2006
etitioners submit that the amended complaint EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
violates Rule 8, Section 133 of the 1997 Rules of Civil When a party has another remedy available to him,
Procedure, as there is no plain and direct statement which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal NATURE:
of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
her claim. Specifically, petitioners contend that the was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or Rules of Court
allegation in paragraph 9-A of the amended excusable negligence from filing such motion or
complaint that "Earnest efforts towards have been taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this FACTS:
made but the same have failed" is clearly petition. Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party - On January 3, 2001, Metropolitan Bank and
insufficient. The sentence is incomplete, thus who seeks avoidance from the effects of the Trust Company (or "Metrobank") filed a
requires the reader of the pleading to engage in judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was complaint for sum of money against
deductions or inferences in order to get a complete due to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for spouses Humberto and Carmencita delos
sense of the cause of action, according to petitioners. relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which Santos (or "petitioners") before the Regional
-Respondent rebuts by stating that the amended has been lost thru inexcusable negligence. Trial Court of Davao City.
complaint as well as the annexes attached to the Reasoning there was no fraud, accident, mistake, or - On January 22, 2001, petitioners were
pleadings should be taken in their entirety. Thus excusable negligence that prevented Mrs. Cerezo served with the summons, together with a
taken together, in their entirety, the amended from filing an appeal, a motion for new trial or a
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 67

Avena
copy of the complaint. As petitioners failed 7, 2001, as previously scheduled. On that 1. YES
to file an answer within the reglementary date (March 7, 2001), Metrobank presented ReasoningSection 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
period, Metrobank, on February 8, 2001, its evidence and the case was submitted for provides:
filed a motion to declare them in default. decision. Petitioners moved for Sec. 3. Default; declaration of If the defending party
The motion was set for hearing on February reconsideration of the March 5, 2001 order fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the
16, 2001. but their motion was denied. court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
- Acting on the motion, the lower court, - Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with notice to the defending party, and proof of such
presided over by Hon. Emmanuel C. Carpio the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion failure, declare the defending party in default.
(or "respondent judge"), issued an order committed by the trial court amounting to Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
dated February 12, 2001 declaring lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders, judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
petitioners in default and setting the ex- declaring them in default and denying their pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
parte presentation of Metrobank?s evidence Opposition to Metropolitan Bank and Trust discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
on March 7, 2001. Company’s (Metrobank) Motion to Declare Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
- On February 15, 2001, petitioners filed an them in Default; and the Orders denying clerk of court.
opposition to Metrobank’s motion to declare their Motion to Lift the Order of Default and - Clearly, there are three requirements which
them in default, claiming that upon receipt their Motion for Reconsideration. must be complied with by the claiming party
of the summons, they immediately sought - CA denied the petition for lack of merit and before the court may declare the defending
the services of Atty. Philip Pantojan but it accordingly dismissed the same. The CA did party in default, to wit: (1) the claiming
was only on February 12, 2001 that they not find the excuse proffered by petitioners. party must file a motion asking the court to
were able to meet with Atty. Pantojan. It also ruled that for an order of default to declare the defending party in default; (2)
Petitioners alleged that not being "learned be set aside, petitioners must have a the defending party must be notified of the
in law", they were unaware "of the meritorious defense or that something could motion to declare him in default; (3) the
consequences of delay in the filing of their be gained by having the order of default set claiming party must prove that the
answer." aside defending party has failed to answer within
- On the same date, February 15, 2001, - The CA further found unmeritorious the the period provided by the Rule.
petitioners filed a motion to admit answer, contention of petitioners that they were - In filing motions, Section 4, Rule 15 of the
as well as the answer. In an order dated declared in default without giving them Rules of Court, specifically provides:
February 16, 2001, respondent judge ample time to file an opposition to Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which
disregarded petitioners’ opposition to Metrobank’s Motion to Declare them in the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights
Metrobank’s motion for default Default; that under Section 3, Rule 9 of the of the adverse party, every written motion shall be
- On February 19, 2001, Metrobank filed an Rules of Court, it is provided that the court set for hearing by the applicant.
opposition to petitioners’ motion to admit shall, upon motion of the claiming party with - Prior to the present rule on default
answer, arguing that said motion was notice to the defending party in default, and introduced by the 1997 Rules of Civil
rendered moot and academic by the proof of such failure, declare the defending Procedure, as amended, Section 1 of the
February 12, 2001 order. Metrobank also party in default; and that since it is clear former Rule 18 on default is silent on
chided petitioners for violating the three- from the records that the reglementary whether or not there is need for a notice of
day notice rule under Sec. 4, Rule 15 of the period for filing an answer had expired with a motion to declare defendant in default.
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In an order no responsive pleading filed by petitioners, The Court then ruled that there is no need.
dated February 20, 2001, the motion to the trial court had properly declared them in However, the present rule expressly
admit answer was denied. default. The CA further declared that even requires that the motion of the claiming
- On February 27, 2001, petitioners filed a assuming that the trial court committed a party should be with notice to the defending
motion to lift the order of default; procedural lapse in declaring petitioners in party. The purpose of a notice of a motion is
Metrobank opposed the motion. default before the scheduled hearing of to avoid surprises on the opposite party and
- On March 2, 2001, respondent judge issued Metrobank’s motion, such error is not so to give him time to study and meet the
an order holding in abeyance the ex-parte serious as to constitute grave abuse of arguments. The notice of a motion is
reception of evidence pending resolution of discretion. required when the party has the right to
petitioners’ motion to lift the order of resist the relief sought by the motion and
default. ISSUE: principles of natural justice demand that his
- On March 5, 2001, respondent judge issued 1. WON LITIS PENDENTIA raised by petitioners as an right be not affected without an opportunity
an order denying petitioners’ motion to lift affirmative defense is a meritorious defense. to be heard.
the order of default and setting the - Therefore, as the present rule on default
reception of Metrobank’s evidence on March HELD: requires the filing of a motion and notice of
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 68

Avena
such motion to the defending party, it is not were able to meet with Atty. Pantojan. It also ruled that for an order of default to
enough that the defendant failed to answer Petitioners alleged that not being "learned be set aside, petitioners must have a
the complaint within the reglementary in law", they were unaware "of the meritorious defense or that something could
period to be a sufficient ground for consequences of delay in the filing of their be gained by having the order of default set
declaration in default. answer." aside
- On the same date, February 15, 2001, - The CA further found unmeritorious the
Disposition. Petition for review is GRANTED. The petitioners filed a motion to admit answer, contention of petitioners that they were
Decision of the Court of Appealsis REVERSED and as well as the answer. In an order dated declared in default without giving them
SET ASIDE. The Order of Default of the Regional February 16, 2001, respondent judge ample time to file an opposition to
Trial Court is SET ASIDE and the Answer filed by disregarded petitioners’ opposition to Metrobank’s Motion to Declare them in
petitioners is deemed ADMITTED. The trial court is Metrobank’s motion for default Default; that under Section 3, Rule 9 of the
DIRECTED to continue with deliberate speed with - On February 19, 2001, Metrobank filed an Rules of Court, it is provided that the court
the proceedings in the case below. opposition to petitioners’ motion to admit shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
answer, arguing that said motion was notice to the defending party in default, and
SPOUSES DELOS SANTOS VS RTC (HON. rendered moot and academic by the proof of such failure, declare the defending
EMMANUEL C. CARPIO) February 12, 2001 order. Metrobank also party in default; and that since it is clear
G.R. NO. 153696 chided petitioners for violating the three- from the records that the reglementary
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ: September 11, 2006 day notice rule under Sec. 4, Rule 15 of the period for filing an answer had expired with
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In an order no responsive pleading filed by petitioners,
dated February 20, 2001, the motion to the trial court had properly declared them in
NATURE: admit answer was denied. default. The CA further declared that even
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the - On February 27, 2001, petitioners filed a assuming that the trial court committed a
Rules of Court motion to lift the order of default; procedural lapse in declaring petitioners in
Metrobank opposed the motion. default before the scheduled hearing of
FACTS: - On March 2, 2001, respondent judge issued Metrobank’s motion, such error is not so
- On January 3, 2001, Metropolitan Bank and an order holding in abeyance the ex-parte serious as to constitute grave abuse of
Trust Company (or "Metrobank") filed a reception of evidence pending resolution of discretion.
complaint for sum of money against petitioners’ motion to lift the order of
spouses Humberto and Carmencita delos default. ISSUE:
Santos (or "petitioners") before the Regional - On March 5, 2001, respondent judge issued 1. WON LITIS PENDENTIA raised by petitioners as an
Trial Court of Davao City. an order denying petitioners’ motion to lift affirmative defense is a meritorious defense.
- On January 22, 2001, petitioners were the order of default and setting the
served with the summons, together with a reception of Metrobank’s evidence on March HELD:
copy of the complaint. As petitioners failed 7, 2001, as previously scheduled. On that 1. YES
to file an answer within the reglementary date (March 7, 2001), Metrobank presented ReasoningSection 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
period, Metrobank, on February 8, 2001, its evidence and the case was submitted for provides:
filed a motion to declare them in default. decision. Petitioners moved for Sec. 3. Default; declaration of If the defending party
The motion was set for hearing on February reconsideration of the March 5, 2001 order fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the
16, 2001. but their motion was denied. court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
- Acting on the motion, the lower court, - Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with notice to the defending party, and proof of such
presided over by Hon. Emmanuel C. Carpio the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion failure, declare the defending party in default.
(or "respondent judge"), issued an order committed by the trial court amounting to Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
dated February 12, 2001 declaring lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders, judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
petitioners in default and setting the ex- declaring them in default and denying their pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
parte presentation of Metrobank?s evidence Opposition to Metropolitan Bank and Trust discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
on March 7, 2001. Company’s (Metrobank) Motion to Declare Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
- On February 15, 2001, petitioners filed an them in Default; and the Orders denying clerk of court.
opposition to Metrobank’s motion to declare their Motion to Lift the Order of Default and - Clearly, there are three requirements which
them in default, claiming that upon receipt their Motion for Reconsideration. must be complied with by the claiming party
of the summons, they immediately sought - CA denied the petition for lack of merit and before the court may declare the defending
the services of Atty. Philip Pantojan but it accordingly dismissed the same. The CA did party in default, to wit: (1) the claiming
was only on February 12, 2001 that they not find the excuse proffered by petitioners. party must file a motion asking the court to
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 69

Avena
declare the defending party in default; (2) HOLLYWOOD FAR EAST - court denied the reconsideration and the leave to
the defending party must be notified of the amend.
PRODUCTIONS, INC., and
motion to declare him in default; (3) the - a second reconsideration was filed
claiming party must prove that the VALENZUELA - court denied it as its allegations were more or less
defending party has failed to answer within 27 SCRA 1276 the same as the first motion, and not accompanied
the period provided by the Rule. REYES, J.B.L.; April 30, 1969 by an affidavit of merits. The court further declared
- In filing motions, Section 4, Rule 15 of the the dismissal final and unappealable.
Rules of Court, specifically provides: NATURE - hence this petition
Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which Petition for a writ of certiorari to set aside certain - the respondent court’s defense: The proposed
the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights orders of the CFI dismissing a complaint for breach of amendment suffers from the same vital defect of the
of the adverse party, every written motion shall be contract and damages, denying reconsideration, original complaint, which is violation of A 1356
set for hearing by the applicant. refusing to admit an amended complaint, and because the contract sued upon was not alleged to
- Prior to the present rule on default declaring the dismissal final and unappealable. be in writing, and A 1358 in because the writing was
introduced by the 1997 Rules of Civil absolute and indispensable because the amount
Procedure, as amended, Section 1 of the FACTS exceeds P500; and that the second motion for
former Rule 18 on default is silent on - Petitioner, actress Dauden-Hernaez, files a reconsideration did not interrupt the period for
whether or not there is need for a notice of complaint to recover P14,700 (the balance allegedly appeal because it was not served on 3 days’ notice.
a motion to declare defendant in default. due to her for her services as leading actress), plus
The Court then ruled that there is no need. damages, against private respondents Hollywood Far
However, the present rule expressly East Productions (HFEP) and its President Valenzuela ISSUES
requires that the motion of the claiming - Upon motion of defendants, respondent court 1. WON the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled as of right
party should be with notice to the defending dismissed the complaint because “claim of plaintiff to amend the original dismissed complaint
party. The purpose of a notice of a motion is was not evidenced by any written document, either 2. WON xxx
to avoid surprises on the opposite party and public or private”, and the complaint was “Defective
to give him time to study and meet the on its face” for violating CC A 1356 and 135811, as HELD
arguments. The notice of a motion is well as for containing defective allege, petitions. 1.YES
required when the party has the right to - Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the dismissal, Reasoning Twhen a court sustains a demurrer or
resist the relief sought by the motion and and for admission of an amended complaint, motion to dismiss, the court must give the party
principles of natural justice demand that his attached to the motion plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint if he
right be not affected without an opportunity so chooses. The first order of dismissal did not
to be heard. 11 Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered provide that the same was without prejudice to
- Therefore, as the present rule on default into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the amendment of the complaint, or reserve to the
requires the filing of a motion and notice of law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or plaintiff the right to amend his complaint, so the
such motion to the defending party, it is not that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. order was erroneous.
enough that the defendant failed to answer In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised. Hence, petitioner was within her rights in filing her
the complaint within the reglementary so-called second motion for reconsideration, which
period to be a sufficient ground for was actually a first motion against the refusal to
Article 1358. The following must appear in a public document: (1) Acts and contracts which
declaration in default. admit the amended complaint.
have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights
Also, since a motion to dismiss is not a responsive
over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by
Disposition. Petition for review is GRANTED. The pleading, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled as of
articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405; (2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary
Decision of the Court of Appealsis REVERSED and right to amend the original dismissed complaint.
rights or of those of the conjugal partnership of gains; (3) The power to administer property,
SET ASIDE. The Order of Default of the Regional Paeste v Jaurigue:
or any other power which has for its object an act appearing or which should appear in a
Trial Court is SET ASIDE and the Answer filed by “Amendments to pleadings are favored and
public document, or should prejudice a third person; (4) The cession of actions or rights
petitioners is deemed ADMITTED. The trial court is
proceeding from an act appearing in a public document. should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of
DIRECTED to continue with deliberate speed with
justice. (Torres vs. Tomacruz, 49 Phil. 913).
the proceedings in the case below.
Moreover, under section 1 of Rule 17, Rules of Court,
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in
a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of
writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by
course, that is, without leave of court, at any time
STRIKING OUT PLEADINGS articles, 1403, No. 2 and 1405. (1280a)
before a responsive pleading is served. A motion to
dismiss is not a "responsive pleading". (Moran on the
DAUDEN-HERNAEZ V ANGELES, Rules of Court, vol. 1, 1952, ed., p. 376). As plaintiffs
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 70

Avena
amended their complaint before it was answered, the as against respondent BF Homes and denying committed any grave abuse of discretion in
motion to admit the amendment should not have respondent PII's motion to dismiss. Thereafter, dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 31483. Nevertheless, in
been denied.” hearing on the merits ensued. the higher interest of substantial justice and
Disposition The order dismissing the complaint is During trial, petitioner presented Rosauro pursuant to the hornbook doctrine that
set aside, and the case is ordered remanded to the Termulo, its treasury department manager, who procedural laws may be applied retroactively,
court of origin for further proceedings not at variance testified that the amount of P19,035,256.57 was paid 16 the Court gives due course to the present
with this decision. by petitioner to the PNB through the account of the petition.
National Treasury to cover the principal loan and
PHILIPPINE EXPORT vs. PHILIPPINE interests incurred by PII. Consequently, petitioner (2) YES. It should be stressed that the amendment of
filed a Motion to Amend Complaint to Conform to the complaint was sought after petitioner had
INFRASTRUCTURES, INC.
Evidence pursuant to Section 5, Rule 10 of the already presented evidence, more specifically, the
G.R. No. 120384 Revised Rules of Court, seeking to amend the testimony of petitioner's Treasury Department
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; January 13, 2004 pertinent portions of the complaint insofar as it refers Manager and a debit memo from the PNB proving
to the fact of payment and the amount paid by that petitioner had paid the PNB in the amount of
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) petitioner to PNB. P19,035,256.57 pursuant to the guarantees it
Acting on the motion to amend, the trial accorded to respondent PII.
FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint for collection of court, at that time presided by Judge Joselito J. Dela
sum of money against respondents Philippine Rosa, issued the assailed Order, dismissing the case The record shows that respondents did not raise any
Infrastructures, Inc. (PII), Philippine British Assurance without prejudice on the ground of failure of the objection when it presented evidence to prove
Co., Inc. (PBAC), The Solid Guaranty, Inc. (Solid), B.F. complaint to state a cause of action, thus in effect, payment to PNB. Hence, as provided for in Section 5,
Homes, Inc. (BF Homes), Pilar Development reversing the Order issued by Judge Lagman five Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, when issues
Corporation (PDC) and Tomas B. Aguirre (Aguirre). years earlier. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or
The complaint alleged, among others, that: (i) of the order of dismissal was denied by Judge de la implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated
petitioner issued 5 Letters of Guarantee in favor of Rosa. Subsequently, petitioner filed with the in all respects, as if they had been raised in the
the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as security for Supreme Court a petition for certiorari against the pleadings. A scrutiny of the pleadings filed by
credit accommodations extended by PNB to PII; (ii) trial court. The SC issued referred the case to the respondents reveal that none of them denied
PII, BF Homes, PDC and Aguirre executed a Deed of Court of Appeals for disposition. The Court of Appeals petitioner's claim that said evidence was presented
Undertaking binding themselves, jointly and dismissed the petition and denied petitioner’s motion before the trial court without objections having been
severally, to pay or reimburse petitioner upon for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. raised by respondents. None of them claimed that
demand such amount of money or to repair the they raised any objections at the time when
damages, losses or penalties which petitioner may ISSUES: (1) WON an order dismissing a petition petitioner presented its evidence to prove its
pay or suffer on account of its guarantees; (iii) on without prejudice should be appealed by way of payment to PNB. Respondents Pilar and Aguirre
April 24, 1985, PNB called on the guarantees of ordinary appeal; (2) WON the Court of Appeals erred admitted the presentation of the said evidence.
petitioner; (iv) thereafter, petitioner demanded from in affirming the dismissal of the complaint on the
PII the immediate settlement of P20,959,529.36, ground that petitioner failed to state a cause of Respondents contend that since they had already
representing the aggregate amount of the action for not alleging loss or actual payment made alleged the failure of the complaint to state a cause
guarantees of petitioner called by PNB and the by it to PNB under its guarantees; (3) WON the of action as an affirmative defense in their answer,
further sum of P351,517.57 representing various fees complaint stated a cause of action. there was no further need for them to raise an
and charges; (v) PII refused to settle said obligations; objection at the time the evidence was introduced.
(vi) respondents Solid and PBAC also refused to pay HELD: This is not plausible. It is settled that even if the
petitioner despite demand. complaint be defective, but the parties go to
Respondent BF Homes filed a Motion to (1) NO (under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). trial thereon, and the plaintiff, without
Dismiss on the ground that it is undergoing Prior to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an order objection, introduces sufficient evidence to
rehabilitation receivership in the SEC and pursuant to dismissing an action may be appealed by ordinary constitute the particular cause of action which
P.D. 902-A, the trial court has no jurisdiction to try appeal. However, under Section 1(h), Rule 41 of the it intended to allege in the original complaint,
the case. Respondent PII also filed a Motion to 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, no appeal may be and the defendant voluntarily produces
Dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no taken from an order dismissing an action without witnesses to meet the cause of action thus
cause of action. The other respondents filed their prejudice. It may be subject of a special civil action established, an issue is joined as fully and as
respective responsive pleadings. for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil effectively as if it had been previously joined
The trial court, through Judge Roberto M. Procedure. Considering that the assailed decision of by the most perfect pleadings. Likewise, when issues
Lagman, issued an Order suspending the case only the Court of Appeals was promulgated in 1994, not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or
respondent appellate court could not have implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 71

Avena
in all respects as if they had been raised in the had been validly and duly staked and located by the is prematurely brought and should be dismissed,
pleadings. plaintiff or its grantors and predecessors in interest. provided, an objection on this ground is properly and
- On November 23, 1935, the defendants demurred seasonably interposed. The fact that the cause of
Respondents' failure to object to the evidence at the to the complaint on the ground that the complaint action accrues after the action is commenced and
time it is presented in court is fatal to their cause was ambiguous and unintelligible. On January 9, while it is pending is of no moment.
inasmuch as whatever perceived defect the 1936 the CFI entered an order requiring Surigao - In this case, timely objection was made by counsel
complaint had was cured by the introduction of Mining to amend its complaint so as to contain a for the appellees upon discovery of the immaturity of
petitioner's evidence proving actual loss sustained by detailed description of its placer claims. the action. The date when a civil action is deemed
petitioner due to payment made by it to PNB. - On January 13, 1936 an amended complaint was commenced is determined by section 389 of the
filed to which another demurrer was interposed but Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 389, which
(3) YES. Petitioner's cause of action against was overruled. On June 11, 1936, a third amended was taken from section 405 of the Code of Civil
respondents stemmed from the obligation of complaint in which thirty-two other individuals were Procedure of California, the action is deemed
respondents under their Deed of Undertaking, a copy included as parties-defendant. In this third amended commenced upon the "filing of a complaint in the
of which was attached to the complaint. In the complaint the placer claims were reduced, to eleven, office of the clerk of the court in which the action is
present petition, petitioner had become liable to pay and the relief prayed for was about the same as that to be instituted." The original complaint was filed on
the amounts covered by said guarantees when, as asked in the original complaint, although the amount October 24, 1935.
the original complaint alleges, the PNB called upon sought as damages was increased to P49,000. - The right to amend a pleading is not an absolute
said guarantees. Respondents' obligation under the - Exhibits O and O-1 to 0-9 were presented. With the and unconditional right. It is to be allowed in
Deed of Undertaking to keep petitioner free and exception of Exhibit O-7, all are deeds of sale in favor furtherance of justice under a sound judicial
harmless from any damage or liability then became of Surigao Mining covering the placer claims and discretion. This judicial discretion, upon the other
operative as soon as the liability of petitioner arose bear dates posterior to (AFTER) October 24, 1935, hand, is of course not without any restriction. The
and there was no need for petitioner to first sustain the date of the filing of the original complaint. Exhibit cause of action must exist at the time the action was
actual loss before it could have a cause of action O-7 is a deed of sale executed by Pablo Atillo in favor begun, and the plaintiff will not be allowed by an
against respondents. The mere inclusion in of Maximo Borromeo on January 23, 1935. The amendment to introduce a cause of action which had
petitioner's original complaint of the allegation that mining claims conveyed by Maximo Borromeo, to no existence when the action was commenced. As
the PNB had already called on the guarantees of Surigao Mining under Exhibit O-9 were the same soon as an action is brought and the complaint is
petitioner is sufficient to constitute a cause of action claims acquired by Maximo Borromeo, under Exhibit filed, the proceedings thus initiated are not subject to
against respondents. Clearly therefore, the original O-7. the arbitrary control of the parties or of the court, but
complaint, by itself, stated a valid cause of action. - Before Surigao Mining could close its evidence, the must be dealt with in accordance with recognized
defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint rules of pleading and practice. Amendments must be
DISPOSITIVE: The petition is GRANTED. Let the on the ground that, when the action was such, and only such, as are necessary to promote the
original records of Civil Case No. 86-38169 be commenced, plaintiff's right of action had not yet completion of the action begun.
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court (Branch 29), accrued, since the plaintiff did not become the owner - It is true, that an amended complaint and the
Manila, for continuation of the trial on the merits. of the claims until after the original complaint was answer thereto take the place of the originals which
filed on October 24, 1935. The CFI granted the MTD. are thereby regarded as abandoned. That, however,
which is no cause of action whatsoever cannot by
SURIGAO MINING V HARRIS
ISSUE amendment or supplemental pleading be converted
68 PHIL 113 1. WON the lower court erred in dismissing the into a cause of action: Nihil do re accrescit ei qui nihil
LAUREL; May 17, 1939 complaint in re quando jua accresceret habet.
Disposition Order appealed from is AFFIRMED.
NATURE HELD
Appeal from the order of the CFI of Surigao 1. NO. Filing/ Service of pleadings,
dismissing the complaint filed by Surigao Mining Ratio Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting
judgments and other papers
against Harris, et al. cause of action at the time his action is commenced,
the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the
FACTS acquisition or accrual of one while the action is BAUTISTA V MAYA-MAYA COTTAGES
- On October 24, 1935, Surigao Mining filed a pending, and a supplemental complaint or an INC
complaint claiming that it is the owner by purchase amendment setting up such later accrued cause of
G.R. No. 148361
of 14 placer claims and that lode claims were staked action is not permissible.
by the defendants Harris, Surigao-Mainit Mining Reasoning Subject to certain qualifications and SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; Nov. 29, 2005
Syndicate. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., and except as otherwise provided by law, an action
Otto Weber on plaintiff's placer claims after the latter commenced before the cause of action has accrued NATURE
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 72

Avena
Petition for review on certiorari assailing decision and responsive pleading, a party has the absolute of execution was issued, which petitioner received.
resolution of the CA right to amend his pleading, regardless of whether a - Atty. Jose de Luna entered his appearance as new
new cause of action or change in theory is counsel for the petitioner with motion for
FACTS introduced. reconsideration of the order granting the motion for
- Spouses Bautista are the registered owners of a lot - Petitioners had not yet filed a responsive pleading execution or the quashal of the writ of execution on
in Batangas. to the original complaint. What they filed was a the ground that petitioner had not been duly notified.
- MMCI. filed with the RTC a complaint for motion to dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading - Petitioner received a Notice of Demand for
cancellation of petitioners’ title and damages, with as contemplated by the Rule. Thus respondent, as a Payment from the deputies of the Ex-officio Sheriff of
application for a preliminary injunction, alleging that plaintiff, may file an amended complaint even after the RTC attaching thereto copies of the writ of
“without any color of right and through dubious the original complaint was ordered dismissed, execution and the decision. petitioner filed a Notice
means,” petitioners were able to obtain original title provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final, of Appeal. 2 mos later, respondent court issued
in their names. as in this case. assailed resolution denying petitioners’ motion for
- Spouses filed a motion to dismiss on the ground - As to petitioners’ contention that MMCI is barred reconsideration or to quash writ of execution.
that it does not state a cause of action. They averred from acquiring the subject lot, suffice it to say that - Petitioner went to CA on petition for certiorari. CA
that respondent is a private corporation, hence, this is a matter of defense which can only be found no abuse of discretion and dismissed the
disqualified under the Constitution from acquiring properly determined during the full-blown trial of the petition. Reconsideration was also denied. Hence,
public alienable lands except by lease, and cannot instant case. the present petition for review on certiorari.
be considered a real party in interest. Dispositive Petition DENIED. CA decision affirmed in - Petitioner argues that: when a copy of the decision
- RTC granted motion to dismiss. toto. which the court sent to Atty. Aquino was returned to
- MMCI filed a motion for reconsideration with motion sender, respondent Judge resorted in causing the
for leave to file an amended complaint for quieting of service of the decision to said counsel in open court,
GCP-MANNY TRANSPORT SERVICES
title. Respondent alleged that the technical as petitioner’s counsel on record, when said lawyer
description in petitioners’ title does not cover the INC. V. PRINCIPE appeared in the sala of respondent Judge for another
disputed lot. GR No. 141484 case; petitioner should be deemed as having no
- Spouses filed their opposition, contending that the AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; Nov 11, 2005 notice of the trial court decision since its counsel,
amended complaint does not also state a cause of who had not withdrawn as such, refused to receive a
action and if admitted, respondent’s theory of the NATURE copy of the same. What the civil docket clerk of the
case is substantially modified. Petition for review on certiorari trial court should have done was to resort to
- RTC issued an Order denying petitioners’ motion to substituted service.
dismiss. FACTS - Respondent in his Comment contends that since
- Petitioners filed with the CA a special civil action for - This petition is filed by GCP, seeking reversal of CA Atty. Aquino is counsel of petitioner and there is
certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the amended decision. nothing to show that he withdrew as counsel of
complaint does not cure the defect in the original - The case started when Recolizado filed complaint petitioner, the copy of the decision mailed to him by
complaint which does not state a cause of action. for damages for physical injuries sustained by him as registered mail although returned unserved is
- CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and passenger of GCP’s bus. RTC rendered decision in sufficient to serve as notice to him and to his client
prohibition. Petitioners filed a motion for favor of Recolizado. following Sec. 5 of Rule 13 of RoC; it was the duty of
reconsideration but it was denied. - Copy of decision sent to petitioner was returned petitioner to notify the court that Atty. Aquino was no
because it had “moved” (residence), while copy sent longer its lawyer; if a lawyer is going to withdraw as
ISSUE to Atty. Aquino, then petitioner’s counsel, was counsel for his client, he should file a motion to
WON the CA erred in holding that the trial court did returned “unserved” being unclaimed. Petitioner withdraw as such with the conformity of the client.
not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to states that copy of decision was personally delivered
lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting by Civil Docket Clerk of TC on Atty. Aquino who ISSUE/S
respondent’s amended complaint refused to receive the same saying he was no longer WON CA decision should be reversed
counsel for petitioner, although no notice of
HELD withdrawal as counsel was filed by him. HELD
NO - Private respondent filed a motion for execution of NO
- Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil the judgment, copy furnished to Atty. Arnold M. - Clients are bound by the actions of their counsel in
Procedure12 shows that before the filing of any Aquino and petitioner which the court granted. Writ the conduct of their case. If it were otherwise, and a
lawyer’s mistake or negligence was admitted as a
reason for the opening of a case, there would be no
12 “SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. – A party may amend his pleading once as a at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.”
end to litigation so long as counsel had not been
matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply,
sufficiently diligent or experienced. The only
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 73

Avena
exception to the general rule is when the counsel’s Disposition Petition is dismissed. and the defendants over the subject real properties
actuations are gross or palpable, resulting in serious as offered in the alleged agreement.
injustice to client. In this case, while Atty. Aquino, COMPUTATION OF TIME - RTC: denied Orden’s MR.
counsel of petitioner, was far from being vigilant in - Nov. 16, 1998, Orden filed a petition for certiorari
protecting the interest of his client, his infractions before the CA seeking the nullification of the
cannot be said to have deprived petitioner of due SPS. CONRADO and MA. CORONA resolutions of the RTC and asked for the re-
process. ROMERO vs. CA, SATURNINO S. annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the TCT.
- Petitioner was able to actively participate in the ORDEN - The CA granted the petition on 4 grounds: First,
proceedings a quo. While it may have lost its right to they said that the general rule is “a notice of lis
G.R. No. 142406
appeal, it was not denied its day in court. Right to pendens cannot be cancelled while the action is
appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; May 16, 2005 pending and undetermined except in cases expressly
but only a statutory privilege and may be exercised provided by statute.” Second, CA cited Sec.77 of PD
only in the manner and in accordance with the NATURE 1529-Property Registration Decree which provided
provisions of law. Petition for certiorari filed [R65] for two grounds for the court to order the
- When petitioner is at fault or not entirely cancellation of a notice of lis pendens during the
blameless, there is no reason to overturn well-settled FACTS pendency of an action which are: (1) if the
jurisprudence. - Ma. Corona Romero and her siblings executed a annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title
- Petitioner was wanting in all these areas. Not only letter-contract to sell with private respondent of the adverse party, or (2) when the annotation is
did it fail to regularly check on the status of the case, Saturnino Orden. not necessary to protect the title of the party who
it also failed to ensure that it could be notified of the - In said contract, Orden proposed to purchase from caused it to be recorded (NOW SEC 14, R13 ROC).
decision as soon as it was promulgated. Petitioner Romero and her siblings a property located at Third, the Doctrine of Lis Pendens would be rendered
did not inform the court that it has severed its Denver cor. New York Sts., Cubao, QC for the total meaningless if the private respondents are allowed
relationship with Atty. Aquino. Neither did it hire a amount of P17M. to file a bond regardless of the amount, in
new lawyer soon after Atty. Aquino allegedly ceased - The contract stipulated that private respondent substitution of said notice and that the law does not
to be its counsel. shall pay petitioner the amount of P7M upon the authorize a judge to cancel a notice of lis pendens
- That Atty. Aquino refused to receive a copy of the execution of the deed of absolute sale, the balance pending litigation, upon the mere filing of a sufficient
decision and no substituted service was effected of P10M not later than December 19, 1996 and that bond by the party on whose title said notice is
does not erase the fact that a copy of the trial court Orden shall shoulder the expenses to evict the annotated. Fourth, if there was indeed an agreement
decision had earlier been sent by registered mail to squatters on the property. to sell between the petitioner and the private
Atty. Aquino This is sufficient service of the decision - When Orden failed to pay the down payment, respondents-owners (which question of fact is not for
on petitioner since service upon counsel of record at petitioner Corona told him that she was rescinding this court to determine in this petition), then the said
his given address is service to petitioner. the contract to sell. parties are bound by the provisions of A1475 of the
- In cases where service was made on the counsel of - Orden then filed a complaint for specific Civil Code (The contract of sale is perfected at the
record at his given address, notice sent to petitioner performance and damages against petitioners before moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing
itself is not even necessary. Even then, in the the QC RTC alleging that he has complied with his which is the object of the contract and upon the
present case, the trial court had sent a copy of the obligation to evict the squatters on the property and price.From that moment, the parties may reciprocally
decision to petitioner’s known address. is entitled to demand from petitioners the demand performance, subject to the provisions of
performance of their obligation under the contract. the law governing the form of contract.)
Obiter - Simultaneous with the filing of the complaint, Orden -CA denied Romeros MR on January 26, 2000.
Court reiterates the distinction between petition for caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on Petitioners’ contention. by ordering the re-
review on certiorari under Rule 45 and petition for the TCT. annotation of the notice of lis pendens, when private
certiorari under Rule 65. It should be recalled that a - August 11, 1997, Manuel Y. Limsico, Jr. and Aloysius respondent did not even assert a claim of possession
petition under Rule 45 brings up for review errors of R. Santos, subsequent buyers of the subject property or title over the subject property, the CA went
judgment while a petition under Rule 65 concerns sold by Corona and her siblings, filed a motion for against the doctrine in Villanueva vs. Court of
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion leave to intervene with the RTC and were admitted Appeals where this Court held that the applicant
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave as defendants-intervenors. - They filed a motion for must, in the complaint or answer filed in the subject
abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under the cancellation of lis pendens which the RTC litigation, assert a claim of possession or title over
Rule 45. However, a petition for review on certiorari granted in its Resolution saying that the evidence the subject property in order to give due course to
under Rule 45 may be considered as a petition for presented by Orden does not bear out the main his application; the CA, in concluding that there was
certiorari under Rule 65 where it is alleged that the allegations in the complaint and that he does not no hearing before the annotation was cancelled,
respondents abused their discretion. have any actionable right over the subject property overlooked the fact that the motion for cancellation
there being no deed of sale executed between him was set for hearing on November 12, 1997, that
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 74

Avena
private respondent was duly notified but failed to within the power of the court until the entry of the his intent. This is sufficient for purposes of
appear, and that he was able to file his opposition to final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final annotating lis pendens.
the motion to cancel lis pendens which the RTC judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a - There is no requirement that the party applying for
considered before promulgating its Resolution dated purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the the annotation must prove his right or interest over
November 26, 1997. litigation to the judgment or decree that the court the property sought to be annotated. Thus, even on
Orden’s contention. the court a quo cancelled the will promulgate subsequently. the basis of an unregistered deed of sale, a notice of
notice of lis pendens even before it has been - Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. CA: a lis pendens may be annotated on the title.
apprised of all the relevant facts of the case; the CA notice of lis pendens is appropriate in the following: -Said annotation cannot be considered as a collateral
was correct in ruling that while the parties are locked (a) an action to recover possession of real estate; attack against the certificate of title based on the
in legal battle and until it becomes manifest that the (b) an action to quiet title thereto; principle that the registration of a notice of lis
grounds set forth in Sec. 77, P.D. No. 1529 exist, the (c) an action to remove clouds thereon; pendens does not produce a legal effect similar to a
trial court should not allow the cancellation of the lis (d) an action for partition; and lien.
pendens; (e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court - The rules merely require that an affirmative relief
In their Reply, petitioners reiterate their arguments directly affecting the title to the land or the use or be claimed since a notation of lis pendens neither
and cited AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. occupation thereof or the buildings thereon. affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a
Court of Appeals where it was held that a notice of lis -Atlantic Erectors, Inc. vs. Herbal Cove Realty Corp.: lien. It only protects the applicant’s rights which will
pendens may be annotated only where there is an Resorting to lis pendens is not necessarily confined be determined during trial.
action or proceeding in court which affects title to or to cases that involve title to or possession of real
possession of real property. They further maintain property but also applies to suits seeking to establish Dispositive the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED
that the requirement of prior hearing was sufficiently a right to, or an equitable estate or interest in, a for lack of merit.
complied with in this case and petitioners did not act specific real property; or to enforce a lien, a charge
in bad faith when she sold the subject property or an encumbrance against it.
pending the outcome of this case since there was no - The doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a LUZ V NATIONAL AMNESTY
outstanding injunction or restraining order which proceeding in which the only object sought is the
COMMISSION
would have prevented her from doing so. recovery of a money judgment, though the title or
right of possession to property be incidentally 00 SCRA 00
ISSUE affected. It is essential that the property be directly CALLEJO, SR; SEP 24, 2004
WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affected such as when the relief sought in the action
ordering the re-annotation of the lis pendens. or suit includes the recovery of possession, or the NATURE
HELD enforcement of a lien, or an adjudication between Petition for review of the Resolution of the CA
NO. Petitioners have failed to show that the CA conflicting claims of title, possession, or the right of
committed GAD. possession to specific property, or requiring its FACTS
Reasoning. Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. vs. Enriquez: transfer or sale. Even if a party initially avails of a -On July 18, 1988, the petitioner was charged with
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, notice of lis pendens upon the filing of a case in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal
refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the case possession of firearms) in the Regional Trial Court of
court acquires over property involved in a suit, turns out to be a purely personal action. In such Makati City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 427. On
pending the continuance of the action, and until final event, the notice of lis pendens becomes functus March 22, 2000, the petitioner filed an application for
judgment. officio. amnesty with the Local Amnesty Board for Metro
-Lim v. Vera Cruz: Founded upon public policy and -To put the property under the coverage of the rule Manila. In due course, the board denied the said
necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the on lis pendens, all a party has to do is to assert a application. On August 26, 2002, the National
properties in litigation within the power of the court claim of possession or title over the subject property. Amnesty Commission (NAC) issued a Resolution
until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the It is not necessary that ownership or interest over the affirming that of the Local Amnesty Board. The
defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent property is proved. motion for reconsideration thereof was denied by the
alienation. -By praying for the Romeros to be bound by the NAC, per its Resolution dated November 13, 2002, a
- Yared vs. Ilarde: Its notice is an announcement to terms of their contract (ie. Specific performance and copy of which was received by the petitioner on
the whole world that a particular property is in damages), Orden in effect asks the court to order November 22, 2002.
litigation and serves as a warning that one who petitioners to fulfill their promise to sell the property -Under Rule III, Section 4 of NAC Administrative Order
acquires an interest over said property does so at his for the amount of P17M. No. 2, Series of 1999, the petitioner had until
own risk or that he gambles on the result of the -While Orden did not explicitly state that he was December 7, 2002, a Saturday, within which to file a
litigation over said property. running after the ownership of the property, a simple petition for review of the said resolution with the
- The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold reading of the complaint would show that such was Court of Appeals. On December 9, 2002, the
effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation petitioner filed a motion in the appellate court for an
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 75

Avena
extension of fifteen (15) days from December 9, the day of the act or event from which the December 7, 2002, the appellate court would have
2002, or until December 24, 2002 within which to file designated period of time begins to run is to be acted with grave abuse of its discretion.
his petition. The petitioner alleged therein that he excluded and the date of performance included. If
had just engaged the services of counsel who needed the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on Dispositive Petition granted
additional time to study the case and draft the a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place
petition. However, the petitioner failed to file his where the court sits, the time shall not run until the SUMMONS
petition for review. next working day.3
modes of service
-December 24, 2002 was declared a national holiday; -The Court clarified the provision when it issued A.M.
December 25, 2002 was also a holiday. On No. 00-2-14-SC, which reads: 1. voluntary appearance
December 26, 2002, the petitioner filed a second Whereas, the aforecited provision applies in the 2. Voluntary submission
motion for extension of fifteen (15) days from matter of filing of pleadings in courts when the due
December 26, 2002 or until January 10, 2002, within date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in
RODRIGUEZ VS ALIKPALA
which to file his petition. The petitioner filed his which case, the filing of the said pleading on the next
petition for review with the Court of Appeals on working day is deemed on time; (supra)
January 10, 2003. Whereas, the question has been raised if the period
-On January 13, 2003, the CA issued a Resolution is extended ipso jure to the next working day FACTS
granting the petitioner’s first motion for a fifteen-day immediately following where the last day of the -Spouses Tolentino were co-movants in the motion
extension counted from December 7, 2002 or until period is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday so that for a judgment on a compromise with Spouses
December 22, 2002, within which to file said petition. when a motion for extension of time is filed, the Rebollado
On February 20, 2003, the CA issued a Resolution period of extension is to be reckoned from the next
denying petitioner’s second motion for having been working day and not from the original expiration of VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION
filed out of time. The petitioner filed a motion for the period; the Tolentinos freely and voluntarily entered into the
reconsideration of the February 20, 2003 Resolution NOW THEREFORE, the Court Resolves, for the compromise agreement which became the basis of
claiming that, since the last day to file his petition guidance of the Bench and the Bar, to declare that judgment of the City Court. Under the circumstances,
was a Saturday, December 7, 2002, and the next Section 1, Rule 22 speaks only of "the last day of the the Tolentinos are estopped the very authority they
day, December 8, 2002 was a Sunday, the last day period" so that when a party seeks an extension and invoked. And even assuming that estoppel lies, we
for filing the petition was December 9, 2002. He the same is granted, the due date ceases to be the cannot set aside the principle of equity that
reasoned that since he filed his motion for extension last day and hence, the provision no longer applies. jurisdiction over a person not originally a party
of time to file his petition for review on the said date, Any extension of time to file the required pleading to a case may be acquired, upon proper
the said motion was timely filed. should therefore be counted from the expiration of conditions, thru the voluntary appearance of
-On August 19, 2003, the CA issued a Resolution the period regardless of the fact that said due date is the person before the court. By coming forward
denying the petitioner’s motion, relying on A.M. No. a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. with the original litigants in moving for a judgment
00-2-14-SC issued on February 29, 2000, which -The extension granted by the Court of Appeals on compromise and by assuming such interest in the
provides that any extension of time to file the should be tacked to the original period and final adjudication of the case together with the
required pleading should be counted from the commences immediately after the expiration of such Robellados, the Tolentinos effectively submitted
expiration of the period regardless of the fact that period. Under the Resolution of this Court in A.M. No. themselves to the jurisdiction of the City Court.
the said due date is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal 00-2-14-SC, the CA has no discretion to reckon the -Jurisdiction over the plaintiff can be acquired by
holiday. commencement of the extension it granted from a the court upon filing of the complaint. On the other
date later than the expiration of such period, hand, jurisdiction over the defendants can be
ISSUE regardless of the fact that said due date is a acquired by the court upon service of valid summons
WON the petitioner timely filed his second motion for Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. and upon voluntary appearance/submission of a
extension of time to file his petition for review. -The Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for granting person in court.
the petitioner’s first motion for extension of fifteen
HELD (15) days within which to file his petition for review, 3. service in person
NO. Petitioner’s motion for a second extension of reckoned from December 7, 2002, and not from
time to file his petition for review was filed out of December 9, 2002 as prayed for by the petitioner. In
time. so doing, it merely applied, with fealty, Section 1, TOYOTA CUBAO V. CA (GUEVARRA)
Reasoning. Section 1, Rule 22, of the 1997 Rules of Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, G.R. No. 126321
Civil Procedure provides: as clarified by the Court via its Resolution in A.M. No. VITUG; October 23, 1997
Section 1. How to compute time. In computing any 00-2-14-SC. Had the CA granted the petitioner�s
period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, first motion for extension and reckoned the fifteen- NATURE
or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, day period from December 9, 2002, instead of from
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 76

Avena
Petition for review GARCIA; September 16, 2005
ISSUE
FACTS 2. WON service of summons is defective NATURE
-Petitioner Toyota Cubao, Inc., undertook repairs on Petition for review on certiorari
the car owned by private respondent Guevarra. The HELD
repair costwas paid by means of BPI Check drawn by 2.YES. FACTS
Guevarra in favor of Toyota. Reasoning -VHF Phils filed an ejectment suit in the MeTC against
-The check was dishonored. It is not here disputed that substituted service of Quelnan involving a condominium unit
-Guevarra failed to make good the check summons has been resorted to by the process server -MeTC in favor of VHF Phils.
-Toyota a civil case for collection of the unpaid but that, unfortunately, the server's return did not -on its finding that "summons together with a copy of
account. state the facts or the needed particulars that could the complaint was served [on petitioner] thru his wife
-trial court issued the summons to Guevarra at his justify the substituted service. The constitutional on August 25, 1992 by substituted service" and that
address in 29 Burgos Street, Calamba, Laguna. requirement of due process, this Court has held in petitioner "failed to file his answer within the
-Process Server Antonio Rimas of the Regional Trial Boticano vs. Chu, Jr., exacts that the service (of reglementary period", came out with a decision
Court of Calamba, Laguna, submitted to the trial summons) be such as may reasonably be expected dated November 23, 1992
court a return on the service; it read in full: to give the notice desired. Once the service provided -Copy of the aforementioned decision was served on
"Respectfully returned to the Branch Clerk of Court, by the rules accomplishes that end, "the requirement petitioner by registered mail but the same was
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, of justice is answered; the traditional notions of fair returned unclaimed on account of petitioner's failure
Branch 92, Quezon City, the herein attached original play are satisfied; due process is served." Although to claim the same despite the postmaster's three
summon in the above entitled case with the Moran, on the Rules of Court, has said that (3) successive notices on November 25, 1992,
information that it was duly served to the defendant "Irregularities of this kind (substituted service) December 7, 1992 and December 11, 1992.
DANILO A. GUEVARRA, thru her sister-in-law, (might) be cured by proof that the copies (have) -No appeal having been taken by the petitioner, the
GLORIA CABALLES, by leaving a copy of the actually been delivered to the defendant," in the MeTC decision became final and executory.
summons and complaint but refused to sign.” case at bar, however, private respondent appears to -a writ of execution, a notice of levy and a notice to
-Toyota claims that Guevarra had failed to file an have been notified of the case for the first time only vacate were served on petitioner's wife who
ANSWER within the reglementary period, moved to at the time the levy on execution of judgment was acknowledged receipt thereof.
declare Guevarra in default. A copy of the motion effected by the sheriff. -petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Relief from
was furnished Guevarra, through registered mail with The fact of the matter was that Guevarra evidently Judgment With Prayer for Preliminary Injunction
return card, at 29 Burgos Street, Calamba, Laguna. had been unaware of the proceedings before the and/or temporary restraining order, thereunder
-petitioner filed the registry return card indicating RTC. Upon learning of the adverse decision, but alleging, that he was never served with summons
receipt of the motion already too late in the day for him to get relief from and was completely unaware of the proceedings in
-trial court granted petitioner's Motion To Declare that court, he filed, instead, a certiorari petition the ejectment suit, adding that he learned of the
Defendant In Default and allowed an ex-parte before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court judgment rendered thereon only on May 18, 1993
presentation of petitioner's evidence. neither abused its discretion nor was in error when it when a notice of levy on execution came to his
-TC in favor of Toyota refused to consider the affidavit of the process server knowledge. He thus prayed the RTC to annul and
- a writ of execution was issued to implement the (declaring the concomitant facts required to be set aside the MeTC decision and the writs issued in
decision. The Deputy Sheriff, implementing the writ, incorporated in the return) which was presented to it connection therewith.
levied on Guevarra's Toyota Corolla. The notice of for the first time only as an annex to its Reply filed -In a decision dated June 3, 1996, the RTC granted
levy was served on Guevarra personally but he with the tribunal. For the appellate court to have petitioner's petition for relief and set aside the MeTC
refused to sign the receipt thereof, expressed accepted the affidavit favorably on its face value, decision. The RTC explained that petitioner had been
surprise over it, and stated that he was not aware of without hearing, would have again been a denial to unduly deprived of a hearing and had been
any case instituted against him. Guevarra turned the defendant (herein private respondent) of his right prevented from taking an appeal for the reason that
over the vehicle but filed a certiorari petition before to due process. petitioner's wife, in a fit of anger, tore the summons
the CA claiming that the trial court did not acquire and complaint in the ejectment suit in the heat of a
jurisdiction over his person because of a defective Disposition PETITION DENIED. marital squabble.
service of summons on him. -VHF went to SC but SC remanded to CA
-CA in favor of Guevarra-annulled and set aside the -CA-in a decision dated September 17, 1997, upon a
default judgment, the writ of execution, the levy finding that petitioner's petition for relief was filed
4. Substituted service
upon execution and the sale at public auction of the with the RTC beyond the 60-day mandatory period
vehicle-saying that substituted service of summons QUELNAN V. VHF PHIL.
therefor under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of
was not valid G.R. No. 138500
-Toyota went to SC
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 77

Avena
Court, reversed and set aside the RTC decision With the reality that petitioner was first notified by before the RTC of Bulacan for collection of sum of
and reinstated that of the MeTC, the postmaster on November 25, 1992, it follows that money and damages
service of a copy of the MeTC decision was deemed -Summons against respondents were served
ISSUE complete and effective five (5) days therefrom or on through their Secretary, a certain Benita S.
3. WON THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA November 30, 1992. Necessarily, the 60-day Pagtalunan, who received the same on April
NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE period for filing a petition for relief must be reckoned 22, 2003. The Return of Summons was filed on April
PETITIONER, HENCE ITS DECISION CANNOT from such date (November 30, 1992) as this was the 24, 2003 by Process Server Valeriano P. Badato
BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. day when actual receipt by petitioner is presumed. In -On November 18, 2003, petitioner filed a motion to
short, petitioner was deemed to have declare respondents in default
HELD knowledge of the MeTC decision on November -TC granted said petition, thereby allowing petitioner
3.NO. 30, 1992. The 60-day period for filing a petition to present its evidence ex-parte
Reasoning The records clearly reveal that a copy of for relief thus expired on January 29, 1993. -After presenting petitioner’s evidence ex-parte, the
the MeTC decision was sent to petitioner through Unfortunately, it was only on May 24, 1993, or trial court rendered judgment on September 15,
registered mail at his given address on November 25, 175 days after petitioner was deemed to have 2004, ordering respondents to pay petitioner the ff:
1992. It should be noted that petitioner was not learned of the judgment that he filed his 1. For Aida Torres, the amount of P163,516.80 from
represented by counsel during the proceedings petition for relief with the RTC. Indubitably, the April, 2004 plus legal interest until the said amount is
before the MeTC. The first notice to him by the petition was filed way beyond the 60-day period fully paid; 2. For Nonilo Torres the amount of
postmaster to check his mail was on November 25, provided by law. P278,151.58 from April, 2004 plus legal interest until
1992. Thereafter, subsequent notices were sent by the said amount is fully paid; 3. For Sheryl Ann Torres
the postmaster on December 7, 1992 and December Disposition PETITION DENIED. CA AFFIRMED the amount of P15,903.93 from April, 2004 plus legal
11, 1992. For sure, a certification that the registered interest until the said amount is fully paid; 4. To pay
mail was unclaimed by the petitioner and thus SUMMONS – RULE 14 P10,000.00, jointly and severally, as attorney’s fees
returned to the sender after three successive notices 5. Costs of suit.
Contents, when issued, by whom
was issued by the postmaster. Hence, service of said -Petitioner thereafter moved for the issuance of a
MeTC decision became effective five (5) days after issued writ of execution, which was granted and
November 25, 1992, or on November 30, 1992, Modes of Service accordingly, the writ of execution was issued on even
conformably with Rule 13, Section 10 of the 1997 1. Voluntary Appearance date.
Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads: -On May 4, 2005, Sheriff Felixberto L. Samonte levied
2. Voluntary Submission
SEC. 10. Completeness of Service. — Personal respondents’ house and lot and the same was
service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by 3. Service in Person scheduled to be sold at public auction on June 7,
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten 4. Substituted Service 2005 when the Court of Appeals issued a temporary
(10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise 5. Extra-territorial Service restraining order.
provides. Service by registered mail is complete -On August 24, 2005, the Court of Appeals annulled
upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) the judgment of the trial court on the ground that it
days from the date he received the first notice of the GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE, did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of
postmaster, whichever date is earlier. (Emphasis INC V TORRES respondents since they were not validly served with
supplied) G. R. No. 170926 summons and neither did they voluntarily appear in
There is no doubt that under the Rules, service by court.
registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by
YNARES-SANTIAGO; September 15, 2006 -According to the appellate court, the service of
the addressee. However, if the addressee fails to summons to Pagtalunan was in violation of Section 6,
NATURE
claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days Rule 14 of the Rules of Court because there was no
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
from the date of the first notice, service becomes explanation why resort to substituted service of
Rules of Court of the decision and resolution of the
effective upon the expiration of five (5) days summons was made. Thus, the appellate court held
Court of Appeals
therefrom. In such a case, there arises a presumption that respondents were deprived of their right to due
that the service was complete at the end of the said process.
FACTS
five-day period. This means that the period to appeal -The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for
-Respondents Aida Torres, Nonilo Torres, and Sheryl
or to file the necessary pleading begins to run after reconsideration, hence, this petition
Ann Torres-Holgado, are members of Guiguinto
five days from the first notice given by the
Credit Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI). They availed of
postmaster. This is because a party is deemed to ISSUE
loans from the cooperative but were unable to pay
have received and to have been notified of the WON summons was not validly served on the
on the due dates despite demands.
judgment at that point. respondents, and therefore the CA correctly annulled
-On March 24, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint
the judgment of the RTC
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 78

Avena
ruled that since substituted service was availed of in indecent, haste to serve the summons at the first
HELD lieu of personal service, there should be a report attempt without making sure that personal service
Yes. stating that Pagtalunan was one with whom was an impossibility because either the respondents
-Summons is a writ by which the defendant is respondents had a relationship of trust and had left for a foreign country or an unknown
notified of the action brought against him. Service of confidence that would ensure that the latter will destination with no definite date of returning within a
such writ is the means by which the court acquires receive or be notified of the summons issued in their reasonable period, or had gone into hiding to avoid
jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction over the names. service of any process from the courts. Since the
person of the defendant is acquired through coercive -This is because substituted service may only be substituted service was not validly effected, the trial
process, generally by the service of summons issued availed of when the respondents could not be served court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of
by the court, or through the defendant’s voluntary personally within a reasonable period of time, and the respondents. The order of default, the judgment
appearance or submission to the court. such impossibility of prompt service must be shown by default, the writ of execution issued by it, as well
-Where the defendant is a natural person, service by stating that earnest efforts have been made to as the auction sale of the respondents’ properties
may be personal, substituted, by publication and find the respondents personally and that such efforts levied on execution are, therefore, null and void.
such other mode of service as the court may deem have failed.
sufficient. -Such requirements under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule Disposition. Petition is denied.
-In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the 14 must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully in
person of the defendant is necessary for the court to order not to deprive any person of his property by
validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the violating his constitutional right to due process. The
person of a resident defendant who does not statutory requirements of substituted service must BONNEVIE V CA (Phil Bank of
voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by be strictly construed since it is an extraordinary
Commerce)
personal service of summons as provided under method of service in derogation of personal service
Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. of summons, availed of only under certain conditions G.R. NO. L-49101
-If he cannot be personally served with imposed by the Rules of Court. Any substituted GUERRERO; October 24, 1983
summons within a reasonable time, substituted service other than that authorized under Section 7 is
service may be made in accordance with deemed ineffective and contrary to law. NATURE
Section 8 of the said Rule. If he is temporarily -Granting that Pagtalunan is the personal secretary Petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal
out of the country, any of the following modes of Aida Torres, as appearing in the Affidavit of Merit of the CA decision
of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted of Sheryl Ann Torres and attached to the Petition of
service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal Annulment filed before the Court of Appeals, there is FACTS
service outside the country, with leave of no showing that the former had indeed a relationship - Honesto Bonnevie filed with the CFI Rizal a
court; (3) service by publication, also with of trust and confidence with the three respondents. complaint against Philippine Bank of Commerce
leave of court; or (4) any other manner the It appears that the process server hastily and seeking the annulment of the Deed of Mortgage
court may deem sufficient. capriciously resorted to substituted service of dated Dec 6, 1966 executed in favor of the PBC by
-In these types of civil actions (in personam), summons without ascertaining the spouses Lozano, as well as the extrajudicial
summons on the defendant must be served by whereabouts of the respondents. Such service foreclosure made on Sept 4, 1968.
handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or of summons is not binding upon respondents They assail validity and legality of the extrajudicial
in case of refusal, by tendering it to him. If efforts to Nonilo and Sheryl Ann Torres whose foreclosure on the following grounds: a) petitioners
find defendant personally makes prompt service relationship with Pagtalunan was neither were never notified of the foreclosure sale. b) The
impossible, service may be effected by leaving readily ascertained nor adequately explained notice of auction sale was not posted for the period
copies of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling in the Return of Summons. Also, no earnest required by law. c) publication of the notice of
house or residence with some person of suitable age efforts were made to locate respondent Aida auction sale in the Luzon Weekly Courier was not in
and discretion residing therein, or by leaving the Torres who was allegedly working abroad at accordance with law.
copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of the time summons was served on her person. - History: Lozano spouses were the owners of the
business with some competent person in charge No explanation was stated in the Return why property which they mortgaged to secure the
thereof. substituted service was resorted to through payment of the loan in the principal amount of P75T
-The proper service of summons is a critical step in Pagtalunan. they were about to obtain from PBC.
litigation because upon such service rests the court’s -Without specifying the details of the attendant - They then executed in favor of Bonnevie the Deed
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the of Sale with Mortgage for P100T, P25T of which
defendant. summons, a general statement that such efforts amount being payable to the Lozano spouses upon
-In the absence of a valid waiver, trial and judgment were made will not suffice for purposes of complying the execution of the document, and the P75T to PBC.
without such service are null and void. with the rules of substituted service of summons.
-In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly -In the instant case, there was an undue, if not
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 79

Avena
- When the mortgage was executed by the Lozano Bonnevie was not entitled to any notice because as
spouses in favor of PBC, the loan of P75T was not yet of May 14, 1968, he had transferred and assigned all FACTS
received them. his rights and interests in favor of intervenor Raoul - The petitioners ( Dial Corp., C & T Refinery Inc.,
- From April 28, 1967 to July 12, 1968, Bonnevie without informing the Bank. Nalin sdn. bhb. Berisford Commodities, Ltd., and
made payments to PBC on the mortgage in the total - Also, petitioners were placed on constructive notice. Pacific Molasses Co.) are foreign corporations (US, UK
amount of P18,944.22. Bonnevie then assigned all The notice of sale was published in the Luzon Courier and Malaysia). They are not domiciled in the
his rights under the Deed of Sale with Assumption of on June 30, July 7 and July 14, 1968 and notices of Philippines, nor do they have officers or agents, place
Mortgage to his brother, intervenor Raoul. the sale were posted for not less than twenty days in of business, or property in the Philippines; they are
- PBC then applied for the foreclosure of the at least three (3) public places in the Municipality not licensed to engage, and are not engaged, in
mortgage, and notice of sale was published in the where the property is located. Act No. 3135 merely business here. The respondent Imperial Vegetable Oil
Luzon Weekly Courier on June 30, July 7, and July 14, requires that such notice shall be published once a Co., Inc. (IVO) is a Philippine corporation which
1968; auction sale was conducted a month after, and week for at least three consecutive weeks. Such through its president, Dominador Monteverde, had
the property was sold to PBC for P84,387.00. phrase, as interpreted by this Court in Basa vs. entered into several contracts for the delivery of
- PBC specifically denied most of the allegations: (a) Mercado does not mean that notice should be coconut oil to the petitioners. Those contracts
that the defendant has not given its consent to the published for three full weeks. stipulate that any dispute between the parties will be
sale of the mortgaged property; (b) that the demand - To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is settled through arbitration under the rules of either
letters and notice of foreclosure were sent to Jose enough that "it is published for the dissemination of the Federation of Oils Seeds and Fats Association
Lozano at his address; (c) that it was notified for the local news and general information; that it has a (FOSFA) or the National Institute of Oil Seed Products
first time about the alleged sale after it had bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; that (NIOP). Because IVO defaulted under the contracts,
foreclosed the Lozano mortgage; that the property in it is published at regular intervals." The newspaper the petitioners and 15 others, initiated arbitration
question remained registered in the name of Lozano need not have the largest circulation so long as it is proceedings abroad, and some have already
in the land records of Rizal and there was no entry, of general circulation. obtained arbitration awards against IVO.
notation or indication of the alleged sale. - Whether or not the notice of auction sale was - On April 8, 1987, IVO filed a complaint for injunction
- After petitioner Honesto Bonnevie had rested his posted for the period required by law is a and damages (RTC Manila) against 19 foreign
case, petitioner Raoul SV Bonnevie filed a motion for question of fact. It can no longer be entertained by coconut oil buyers including the petitioners, with
intervention, which was granted. this Court. Nevertheless, the records show that whom Dominador had entered into contracts for the
- CFI dismissed the complaint. MFR was also denied. copies of said notice were posted in three delivery of coconut oil. IVO repudiated Dominador's
CA affirmed. conspicuous places in the municipality of Pasig, Rizal contracts on the grounds that they were mere "paper
namely: the Hall of Justice, the Pasig Municipal trading in futures" as no actual delivery of the
ISSUE/S Market and Pasig Municipal Hall. coconut oil was allegedly intended by the parties;
1. WON the mortgage executed by the Lozanos in - A single act of posting (which may even extend that the Board of Directors of IVO removed
favor of PBC is valid beyond the period required by law) satisfies the Monteverde from his position as president of the
2. WON extrajudicial foreclosure is valid requirement of law. The burden of proving that the corporation, named in his place, Rodrigo Monteverde,
posting requirement was not complied with is now and disowned Dominador's allegedly illegal and
HELD shifted to the one who alleges non-compliance. unauthorized acts; that the defendants have
1. YES Disposition The appeal being devoid of merit, the allegedly "harassed" IVO to comply with Dominador's
Reasoning A mortgage follows the property decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. contracts and to come to a settlement with them.
whoever the possessor may be and subjects the Costs against petitioners. IVO prayed for the issuance of a temporary
fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to
constituted. Petitioners voluntarily assumed it and stop the defendants from harassing IVO with their
are, therefore, estopped from impugning its validity. insistent demands to recognize the contracts entered
DIAL CORPORATION v SORIANO (RTC
They did not secure the consent of respondent Bank into by Dominador and from portraying the IVO as
to the sale with assumption of mortgage. Judge) one that defaults on its contracts and obligations and
2. YES 00 SCRA 00 has fallen into bad times and from interfering with
Reasoning Act No. 3135 does not require GRINO-AQUINO; May 31, 1988 IVO's normal conduct of business. IVO also prayed
personal notice on the mortgagor.13 Honesto that the defendants pay it damages worth more than
P21M.
NATURE
13 - Respondent Judge Soriano authorized IVO to effect
Section 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the Petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of
extraterritorial service of summons to all the
sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public a temporary restraining order
places of the municipality or city where the property is defendants through DHL Philippines Corp. Pursuant
situated, and if such property is worth more than four week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of to that order, the petitioners were served with
hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a general circulation in the municipality or city.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 80

Avena
summons and copy of the complaint by DHL courier action is purely an action for injunction to restrain over non-residents, so as to sustain a money
service. the defendants from enforcing against IVO ("abusing judgment, must be based upon personal service
- On April 25, 1987, without submitting to the court's and harassing") its contracts for the delivery of within the state which renders the judgment ."
jurisdiction and only for the purpose of objecting to coconut oil to the defendants, and to recover from Respondents' contention that "the action below is
said jurisdiction over their persons, the petitioners the defendants P21 million in damages for such related to property within the Philippines, specifically
filed motions to dismiss the complaint against them "harassment." It is clearly a personal action as contractual rights that petitioners are enforcing
on the ground that the extraterritorial service of well as an action in personam, not an action in against IVO" is specious for the "contractual rights"
summons to them was improper and that hence the rem or quasi in rem. "An action in personam is an of the petitioners are not property found in the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over them. The action against a person on the basis of his personal Philippines for the petitioners have not filed an action
court denied their motions to dismiss and upheld the liability, while an action in remedies is an action in the local courts to enforce said rights. They have
validity of the extraterritorial service of summons to against the thing itself, instead of against the not submitted to the jurisdiction of our courts.
them on the ground that "the present action relates person." A personal action is one brought for the The lower court invoked Section 33 of the
to property rights which lie in contracts within the recovery of personal property, for the enforcement Corporation Code which provides that a "foreign
Philippines, or which defendants claim liens or of some contract or recovery of damages for its corporation transacting business in the Philippines
interests, actual or inchoate, legal or equitable. And breach, or for the recovery of damages for the without a license may be sued or proceeded against
one of the reliefs demanded consists, wholly or in commission of an injury to the person or property. before Philippine courts or administrative tribunal on
part, in excluding the defendants from any interest in As the civil case filed is a personal action, any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine
such property for the reason that their transactions personal or substituted service of summons on laws." It assumed that the petitioners are doing
with plaintiff's former president are ultra vires." the defendants, not extraterritorial service, is business in the Philippines, which allegation the
Furthermore, "as foreign corporations doing business necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. latter denied. Even if they can be considered as such,
in the Philippines without a license, they opened Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court: the Corporation Code did not repeal the rules
themselves to suit before Philippine courts, pursuant As a general rule, when the defendant is not residing requiring proper service of summons to such
to Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code of the and is not found in the Philippines, the Philippine corporations as provided in Rule 14 of the ROC and
Philippines." The petitioners' motions for courts cannot try any case against him because of Section 128 of the Corporation Code.
reconsideration of that order were also denied by the the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his The respondent court's finding that, by filing motions
court. Hence this petition for certiorari with a prayer person unless he voluntarily appears in court. But, to dismiss, the petitioners hypothetically admitted
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. when the action affects the personal status of the the allegations of the complaint that they are doing
plaintiff residing in the Philippines, or is intended to business in the Philippines without any license, and
ISSUE seize or dispose of any property, real or personal, of that they may be served with summons and other
WON the extra territorial service of summons was the defendant located in the Philippines, it may be court processes through their agents or
proper validly tried by the Philippine courts, for then, they representatives enumerated in paragraph 2 of the
have jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the personal complaint, is contradicted by its order authorizing
HELD status of the plaintiff or the property of the IVO to summon them by extraterritorial service, a
NO. defendant and their jurisdiction over the person of mode of service which is resorted to when the
Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides the non-resident defendant is not essential. Venue in defendant is not found in the Philippines, does not
only 4 instances in which extraterritorial service of such cases may be laid in the province where the transact business here, and has no resident agent on
summons is proper, namely: "(1) when the action property of the defendant or a part thereof involved whom the summons may be served.
affects the personal status of the plaintiffs; (2) in the litigation is located. Disposition. The extraterritorial service of summons
when the action relates to, or the subject of In an action for injunction, extraterritorial service of on the petitioners is held to be improper, hence null
which is, property within the Philippines, in summons and complaint upon the non-resident and void. The petition for certiorari is granted. The
which the defendant has or claims a lien or defendants cannot subject them to the processes of orders of Judge Soriano are set aside. The complaint
interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach is dismissed as against the petitioners for failure of
relief demanded in such action consists, wholly them outside the region over which they exercise the court to acquire jurisdiction over them.
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any their authority (Sec. 3-a, Interim Rules of Court; Sec.
interest in property located in the Philippines; 21, subpar. 1, B.P. Blg. 129). Extraterritorial service
and (4) when the defendant non-resident's of summons will not confer on the court jurisdiction MONTALBAN V. MAXIMO
property has been attached within the or power to compel them to obey its orders.
22 SCRA 1070
Philippines" Neither may the court by extraterritorial service of
The complaint in this case does not involve the summons acquire jurisdiction to render and enforce SANCHEZ, March 15, 1968
personal status of the plaintiff, nor any property in a money judgment against a non-resident defendant NATURE
the Philippines in which the defendants have or claim who has no property in the Philippines for "the Appeal from the orders of CFI Manila
an interest, or which the plaintiff has attached. The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 81

Avena
FACTS outside the country and service by publication are toward a compromise have not been made as
-Fr. Gerardo Maximo was involved in a motor vehicle not ordinary means of summoning defendants. required in the Civil Code in suits between members
accident where the son of the petitioners suffered -in suits in personam, the more circuitous procedure of the same family, The motion was denied by Judge
injuries. Petitioners filed suit against Fr. Maximo for delineated in Sections 17 and 18 is resorted to by a Ferandos and he ruled that the respondents were
damages. Summons were served at the Malabon plaintiff if defendant’s dwelling house or residence or properly summoned.
Parish where Fr. Maximo was allegedly residing. place of business in this country is not known; or, if - The subsequent motion for reconsideration was
However, Fr. Maximo was in Europe when the known, service upon him cannot be had thereat upon denied by Ferandos indicating in the order that the
summons were served, Fr. Bautista was the one who the terms of Sec8. Since personal service is action of Quemada was for the recovery of real
received the summons. Fr. Bautista wrote to the impossible, resort to substituted service becomes a property and real rights. The respondents were
Clerk of Court of CFI Manila informing him that Fr. necessity. instructed to file their answer.
Maximo was in Europe. *ON fact that judgment has been long final: the - De Midgely filed this action with the Supreme Court.
-On Plaintiff’s motion, lower court declared Fr. judgment enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is,
Maximo in default, sentenced Fr. Maximo to pay for unless striken down, entitled to respect. Non quieta ISSUE/S
damages. The Montalbans even wrote to Fr. Maximo movere. Because “public policy and sound practice WON Judge Ferandos gravely abused his discretion in
at the Malabon Catholic Church informing him of the demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, denying De Midgely’s motion to dismissed based on
lower court’s decision and requesting hi to comply judgments of courts should become final at some the lack of jurisdiction over her person.
with the decision. Fr. Maximo replied that he was not definite date fixed by law.”
aware of the civil case against him and that he was HELD
acquitted in the criminal case. Disposition. Orders affirmed. No. The fact that she alleged as a ground for
-Deputy Sheriff of Rizal notified Fr. Maximo of the dismissal the lack of earnest effort to compromise is
issuance of writ of execution and demanded DE MIDGELY VS FERANDOS deemed as abandonment of her special appearance
payment. Return to writ expressed that Fr. Maximo is and as voluntary submission to the courts
64 SCRA 23
“financially hard up” and had no property. Alias writ jurisdiction. “When the appearance is by motion for
of execution issued. Copy received by Fr. Maximo. AQUINO, May 13, 1975 the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the
Deputy Sheriff attached and levied on a residential court over the person, it must be for the sole and
house in Caloocan allegedly belonging to Fr. Maximo. NATURE separate purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of
-After 2 years, 2 months, Fr. Maximo admittedly Original Actions. Certiorari and contempt. the court. If the motion is for any other purpose than
learned of lower court’s decision and filed for to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his
ANNULMENT OF ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS on verified FACTS person, he thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction
motion on the grounds that the summons were not - Quemada, allegedly the illegitimate son of Alvaro of the court,
duly served (based on then Sec.7, Rule 7 and Sec18, Pastor, Sr., was appointed as special administrator of - Even if the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction
Rule 14 of ROC) therefore, the court did not acquire the latter’s estate by the CFI of Cebu. As such, he over De Midgely, her motion to dismiss was properly
jurisdiction over his person so the trial and the filed a complaint against his half siblings, the denied because Quemada’s action against her
decision were null and void. His verified motion was spouses Alvaro Pastor, Jr. and Maria Elena Achaval, maybe regarded as a quasi in rem where jurisdiction
denied, MFR was rejected. and Sofia Midgely, who were all at that time citizens over the person of a non-resident defendant is not
of Spain and residing in that country. The suit also necessary and where the service of summons is
ISSUE named Atlas Mining as co-respondent. The suit was required only for the purpose of complying with the
WON the summons in a suit in personam against a to settle the question of ownership over certain requirement of due process. Quasi in rem is an action
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent may be properties and rights in some mining claims as between parties where the direct object is to reach
validly effected by substituted service under Sec. 8 Quemada believed that those properties belong to and dispose of property owed by the parties or of
Rule 14 (on residents temporarily out of the the estate of Alvaro Pastor, Sr. some interest therein.
Philippines) - Quemada, on his own, caused extraterritorial - The SC cited the Perkins case as a precedent. In
service of summons to be made through the that case, it ruled that in a quasi in rem action
HELD Department of Foreign Affairs and the Philippine jurisdiction over a non resident defendant is not
*ON argument that Sec18 (in relation to sec17) Embassy in Madrid, Spain, which effected the service essential. The service of summons by publication is
is the sole provision that governs summons of the summons through registered mail upon De required merely to satisfy the constitutional
upon a defendant temporarily absent in an Midgely and Pastor, Jr. at their respective addresses requirement of due process. The judgment of the
action in personam: substituted service – out of in Alicante and Barcelona. court would settle the title to the properties and to
the Philippines - is but one of the modes of effective - Both De Midgely and Pastor entered a special that extent it partakes of the nature of judgment in
service to bring a defendant in court. The normal appearance and filed a motion to dismiss on the rem. The judgment is confined to the res (properties)
method of service of summons on one temporarily ground of lack of jurisdiction as they are non- and no personal judgment could be rendered against
absent is by substituted service. Personal service residents. They further alleged that earnest efforts the non resident. It should be noted that the civil
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 82

Avena
case filed by Quemada is related to a testamentary TC. Petitioner was declared in default for failure MFR, hence this petiton.
proceeding as it was filed for the purpose of to appear, as was Abel for failing to answer the
recovering the properties which in the understanding complaint. The court rendered judgment ISSUE
of Quemada, belonged to the estate of the Late against Abel, ordering him to pay P97,066.59 1. WON respondent court acquired jurisdiction over
Pastor, Sr. and which were held by De Midgely and (equivalent to 25% of the principal obligation Abel by the publication of summons in the Manila
her brother. due as liquidated damages + 25% as attorney's Evening Post
fees).
Disposition -petitioner elevated the case to the IAC (Feb. HELD
Petition is dismissed 27, 1985) which granted her petition for 1. YES
certiorari with prohibition and set aside the TC's Ratio As a nonresident defendant, and since the suit
SAHAGUN V CA (MADAYAG/FILINVEST aforesaid decision, ruling that petitioner was involves real property wherein the defendant
deprived of opportunity to present evidence ostensibly has an interest and which the property has
CREDIT CORP.)
(including evidence she and Abel had been in fact been attached at the instance of private
G.R. NO. 78328 living separately since 1970). Filinvest filed a respondent, the court correctly ordered the service
REGALADO; June 3 1991 petition for review with the SC which was of summons by publication in a newspaper of general
denied. Filinvest filed a motion for leave to circulation in such places and for such time as the
NATURE serve summons by publicatio on Abel, which court may order. Although it would appear that
Petition for certiorari the court granted, stating that pursuant to Sec. publication should have been made in a newspaper
17, Rule 14, "the summons be effected out of in the US as it would most likely give notice to Abel,
FACTS the Phils. by publication in a newspaper of such a sweeping doctrine would virtually unsettle a
- It was alleged that petitioner's spouse, Abel general circulation in the Phils., to which this long standing interpretation of the aforesaid rule on
Sahagun (Alias Abelardo), manager of Rallye matter may be assigned after due raffle, for 3 extraterritorial service of summons by publication, as
Motor Co., Inc. (Rallye), made it appear that his successive days. Said defendant was ordered to well as its implementation sanctioned by the practice
company had sold a motor vehicle to Salazar file his answer in Court within a reasonable time followed in this jurisdiction.
who issued a promissory note for the price and (not less than 60 days after notice); that the Reasoning The instant case is based on the
executed as security a chattel mortgage on CoC send copies of the summons and tills Order attachment of defendant's property, and as such is
said vehicle in favor of Rallye. Rallye, through by registered mail to last known address of said an action quasi in rem, wherein summons by
Abel, assigned the note and chattel to Filinvest defendant in Las Pinas. Plaintiff is ordered to publication is allowed. Such is called constructive or
for valuable consideration. When the note implead Rallye as co-defendant within 1 month substituted service, which does not constitute a
matured, Salazar failed to pay, compelling from notice." service of process in any true sense but serves as a
Filinvest to sue. However, Filinvest found that -Filinvest filed an amended complaint, this time means whereby the owner may be admonished that
the mortgaged car had not been delivered to impleading petitioner and Rallye as additional his property is subject to judicial proceedings and
Salazar by Abel. A writ of attachment was defendants. Respondent court admitted the that he should take steps as he sees fit to protect it.
issued and levied on a house and lot in Las amended complaint and directed service of Such is required to physically acquire jurisdiction
Pinas, registered in Abel's name. Petitioner had summons and the complaint upon Abel at a over the person of the defendant and for purposes of
been continuously residing in said house and different last known address in Antipolo. fair play by informing him of the pendency of the
claims ownership, having allegedly paid for it Summons was supposedly served on Abel action against him. Even then, there is no guarantee
with her own earnings. through publication in the Manila Evening Post that the absent owner shall receive the actual notice;
-The TC denied the respondent's motion to according to the affidavit of publication of its as such, under law, actual notice is not considered to
declare Abel in default but directed it to "take president, with a confusing entry in the notice be absolutely necessary (as held in Banco Espanol).
steps to effect service of summons and of order which stated the Las Pinas address, Considering this, publication in the US would be all
complaint upon defendant, whose whereabouts contradicting the Antipolo address stated by the more difficult as Abel's exact location is
in the US was unknown. The TC later dismissed the TC. Petitioner filed her answer to the unknown; to have at hand the available newspapers,
the complaint of Filinvest for failure to serve amended complaint. Abel and Rallye filed no research the laws governing judicial processes in
summons extra-territorially upon Abel despite answer, so Filinvest filed a motion to declare each state would be too taxing for the TC. Still, it was
said order. Filinvest filed an MFR praying that them in default which respondent Judge held in De Midgely that in actions quasi in rem,
said order be reconsidered and set aside and Madayag of the RTC of Makati granted, but not jurisdiction over the person of the nonresident alien
that Abel be declared in default and to deny as to Rallye since summons had not been is not essential and service of summons is only
petitioner's motion for leave. TC granted served upon it. Petitoner went on certiorari to required to satisfy due process. Relief in an action
petitioner time to file intervention and denied the CA (Feb. 6, 1987), assailing as grave abuse against a nonresident defendant who chooses not to
the motion to declare Abel in default. Petitioner of discretion the declaration of default of Abel; submit himself to Phil. courts is limited to the res.
intervened, questioning the jurisdiction of the CA dismissed the petition and a subsequent -There is no specific proscription against resorting to
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 83

Avena
foreign publication in the place where the defendant the increase in immigrant Filipinos. was not their address they were no longer connected
resides, but publication in a local newspaper should therewith;
not altogether be interdicted since the rule 6. By Publication b. that Atty. Aragones had no authority to represent
specifically authorizes service of summons "in such them in the action and compromise agreement;
places and for such time as the court concerned may c. that they were not served copies of the decision
order". The matter should be left to the sound -MODE OF SERVICE UPON CERTAIN of the court;
discretion of the TC in each particular case since it DEFENDANTS d. that they learned about the same only when it
has the facts before it. Still, the publication in the 1. Upon domestic private juridical was being executed; and
Manila Evening Post was defective as there was no e. that they did not participate as directors or
entity
showing that copies of the summons and the officers of MFC in the subject transaction. (denied)
amended complaint were duly served at the - CA reversed
defendant's last know correct address. PALUWAGAN NG BAYAN SAVINGS - Motion for reconsideration (denied)
-The Court is not inclined to dismiss the case for non- BANK vs. KING
compliance of private respondent to serve the ISSUE
amended complaint to Abel at his Antipolo address
172 SCRA 131 WON private respondents were properly served with
as there is prima facie justification for extraterritorial GANCAYCO; April 12, 1989 summons
service of summons, and transmission of copies of
the summons to the wrong address is a matter which NATURE HELD
the TC can more readily remedy. Even if Abel is Petition for certiorari NO.
declared in default, his interest can be duly Ratio Although private respondents were sued in
represented by the non-defaulting defendant since a FACTS their capacity as directors and officers of MFC, they
common cause of action is involved. - Petitioner sued Mercantile Financing Corporation are, nevertheless, being held personally liable for the
Disposition Petition is granted (MFC) and private respondents, as directors and obligation subject of the litigation under the
officers of MFC, for the recovery of money market complaint filed by petitioner. Hence, the rule on
SEPARATE OPINIONS placements through certain promissory notes. They personal service of summons must be observed in
were charged jointly and solidarily in accordance that summons must be served personally on private
Sarmiento, J. [concurring and dissenting] with Section 31 of the Corporation Code 5. respondents or, if they refuse to receive the same,
-service of summons to the wrong last known - Summons and copies of the complaints were served by tendering it to them.
address is a defect which cannot justify an order of upon MFC and private respondents at the 4th Floor,
default. Assuming default were proper, it will not LTA Building, No. 118 Perea Street, Makati, Metro It is only when the defendant cannot be served
preclude petitioner from presenting her own Manila, which is the stated office address of MFC in personally within a reasonable time that substituted
evidence. the complaint, through its Assistant Manager Mr. service may be resorted to. The impossibility of
-However, as to extrajudicial service of summons to a Nasario S. Najomot, Jr. who acknowledged receipt prompt service should be shown by stating the
nonresident alien, it is only valid when effected in the thereof for and in behalf of MFC and the private efforts made to find the defendant personally and
territory in which the absent defendant may be respondents. This is so recited in the certification of the fact that such efforts failed. This statement
found. Sec. 17 was in part, taken from Sections 398 deputy sheriff Bernardo San Juan dated May 11, should be made in the proof of service. This is
and 399 of Act. 190, which in turn were an adoption 1983. necessary because substituted service is in
of the Code of Civil Procedure of California which - The parties, assisted by their counsel, submitted a derogation of the usual method of service. It has
states that personal service outside the state must Compromise Agreement for the approval of the court been held that this method of service is in derogation
be named and designated in the publication as most which was approved. of the common law; it is a method extraordinary in
likely to give notice to the person to be served. - Counsel for defendants filed a "Motion To Correct character, and hence may be used only as prescribed
Publication in the Phils. is not likely to provide notice Compromise Agreement" on the ground that he and in the circumstances authorized by statute."
to a US resident. erroneously filed the Compromise Agreement in Thus, under the controlling decisions, the statutory
-As to Banco Espanol and De Midgely: although the behalf of all the defendants when in fact he was the requirements of substituted service must be followed
court acquired jurisdiction over the res, the res counsel for MFC only. (denied) strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted
belongs to the defendant, and as such he reserves - Syquia Law Offices, in behalf of private respondents service other than that authorized by the statute is
the right to be heard when his possessions are in Angelo King, Keng Suy Wat, Quintin Calderon and considered ineffective.
peril. Although the court cannot award money by Jose J. Ferrer, Jr., filed a motion to set aside decision
way of relief, judgment condemning the res would on the following grounds: Reasoning The proof of service prepared by the
yield the same result, that is, liability against the a. there was no service of summons upon each of sheriff does not show that such personal service of
defendant. This would lead to the fundamental them as the corporate address of the corporation summons was effected. The office address of the
injustice of trial in absentia, especially considering corporation as indicated in the complaint does not
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 84

Avena
appear to be the office address of private Management Corporation and J. S. Dreyer are – WON the plaintiff appellant has been doing
respondents as they were no longer connected with domiciled in Wake Island which is beyond the business in the Philippines, considering the fact that
the corporation then. Personal service of summons territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Government; it has no license to transact business in the
should have been made on them at their residences that respondent J. V. Catuira, though an employee of Philippines as a foreign corporation. The object of
as shown in the records of the Securities and respondent corporation presently stationed in Manila, Sections 68 and 69 of the Corporation Law was not to
Exchange Commission and the Central Bank. Instead, is without power and authority of legal prevent the foreign corporation from performing
the sheriff effected substituted service by leaving representation; and that the employment contract single acts, but to prevent it from acquiring a
copies of the summons with the Assistant Manager of between petitioner and respondent corporation domicile for the purpose of business without taking
MFC at the place of business of said corporation with carries -the approval of the DOL. the steps necessary to render it amenable to suit in
which as above stated private respondents were no - On May 3, 1968. respondents filed MTD the subject the local courts. It was never the purpose of the
longer connected. Such substituted service is not petition on the ground that this Court has no Legislature to exclude a foreign corporation which
valid. There was no compliance with the Jurisdiction over the instant case, and on May 24, happens to obtain an isolated order for business from
requirements of the rule that there must be a 1968, petitioner interposed an opposition thereto. the Philippines, from securing redress in the
previous personal service and a failure to effect the Said motion was denied. Philippine courts (Marshall Co. vs. Elser & Co., 46 Phil
same before substituted service could be resorted to. 70,75).
As the private respondents have not been duly ISSUE/S if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in
served with summons, the trial court never acquired 1. WON Court can acquire jurisdiction over the the Philippines, is not banned from seeking redress
jurisdiction over their persons. persons of the accused provided that they are from courts in the Philippines, a fortiori, that same
domiciled beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued
Disposition. Petition is DENIED Philippine Government in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or
2. WON petitioner has been 'doing business in the persons in the Philippines.
Philippines' so that the service of summons upon its
2. Upon Foreign Private Juridical
agent in the Philippines vested the CFI of Manila with Disposition WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY
Entity jurisdiction. DENIED WITH COSTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT V DELA OSA HELD


3. Upon Resident Temporarily Abroad
1. Yes. While it is true the site of work is Identified as
89 SCRA 131 Wake Island, it is equally true the place of hire is
MAKASIAR; March 26, 1979 established in Manila. Moreover, what is important is MONTALBAN V. MAXIMO
the fact that the contract of employment between (SUPRA)
NATURE the parties litigant was shown to have been originally
Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the executed and subsequently renewed in Manila, as
CIR FACTS
asserted by petitioner and not denied by
-Fr. Maximo was sued by the parents of the child he
respondents. Hence, any dispute arising therefrom
FACTS injured during a motor vehicle accident. He was in
should necessarily be determined in the place or
-On July 1, 1967, Leonardo dela Osa sought his Europe when the summons were served upon Fr.
venue where it was contracted.
reinstatement. with full backwages, as well as the Bautista in the Malabon Church where Fr. Maximo
recovery of his overtime compensation, swing shift was known to reside. Since was away when trial was
2.
and graveyard shift differentials. Petitioner alleged being held, he was declared in default and a decision
the petitioner may be considered as doing busuness
that he was employed by respondents as (1) painter was made in favor of the Sps. After 2y, 2m Fr.
un the Philippines within the the scope of Section 14,
with an hourly rate of $1.25 from March, 1964 to Maximo questioned the validity of the judgment
Rule 14 of the ROC
November, 1964, inclusive; (2) houseboy with an against him, questioning the service of summons
in compliance with law, the petitioner had to appoint
hourly rate of $1.26 from December, 1964 to made
Jaime V. Catuira, as agent for FMC with authority to
November, 1965, inclusive; (3) houseboy with an execute Employment Contracts and receive, in behalf
hourly rate of $1.33 from December, 1965 to August, ISSUE
of that corporation, legal services from and be bound
1966, inclusive; and (4) cashier with an hourly rate of WON the summons in a suit in personam against a
by processes of the Philippine Courts of Justice, for as
$1.40 from August, 1966 to March 27, 1967, resident of the Philippines temporarily absent may be
long as he remains an employee of FMC. It is a fact
inclusive. validly effected by substituted service under Sec. 8
that when the summons for the petitioner was served
- Respondents filed on August 7, 1967 their letter- Rule 14 (on residents temporarily out of the
on Jaime V. Catuira he was still in the employ of the
answer without substantially denying the material Philippines)
FMC. Mr. Catuira was a on officer representing
allegations of the basic petition but interposed the petitioner in the Philippines.
following special defenses that respondents Facilities HELD
Aetna Casualty & Curety Company v Pacific Star Line
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 85

Avena
YES. In suits in personam, courts have actual notice. This will not affect the validity of the the summons and copy of the complaint upon the
jurisdiction over residents temporarily out of service. defendant Good Earth Enterprises, Inc. at the given
the country. -A man temporarily absent from this country leaves a address, the same has failed as according to
Reasoning. HISTORY. Common Law (Power definite place of residence, a dwelling where he lives, information defendant Corporation has never held
Concept of Jurisdiction): Jurisdiction of Courts to a local base to which any inquiry about him may be office thereat and its present office address is
render judgments in personam was granted on their directed and where he is bound to return. unknown.
de facto power over defendant’s person. Jurisdiction Disposition. Orders affirmed. - On the same date, Baltazar filed a motion for leave
was based on the power to seize and imprison to serve the summons and a copy of the complaint
defendant. upon therein defendant Good Earth by publication.
4. Upon Defendant whose
-Continental Law: Principles of Roman Origin: The trial court granted Baltazar's motion.
(1) Suits in personam and those relating to identity/whereabouts unknown Publication of the summons and the complaint in
MOVABLES – courts of the domicile of the defendant the "Times Journal," a newspaper of general
have general jurisdiction [Actor Rei Forum Sequitur]; BALTAZAR VS CA (GOOD EARTH circulation, for 3 consecutive weeks was effected
(2) actions concerning IMMOVABLES: Courts of the on 6, 13 and 20 August 1977.
ENTERPRISES)
situs have exclusive jurisdiction - Subsequently the trial court, on motion of Baltazar
-FORGED DOCTRINE: Domiciliaries of a state, G.R. No. 78728 and upon finding that Good Earth had failed to file
though temporarily out of its territorial jurisdiction, FELICIANO; December 8, 1988 its answer within the sixty (60) day period counted
are ALWAYS amenable to suits in personam so from the day following the last day of the
substituted service is binding on absent residents. Nature publication, declared Good Earth "as if in default"
-MILLIKEN V MEYER: “The attendant duties, like the Petition for review on certiorari to annul CA decision and allowed Baltazar to present his evidence ex
rights and privileges incident to domicile, are not parte 10 days later
dependent on continuous presence in the state. One FACTS - the trial court then issued the questioned
such incident of domicile is amenability to suit within - Two parcels of land located in Barrio San Isidro, judgment by default against Good Earth which: 1)
the state even during sojourns without the state, Paranaque were adjudicated to Lorenzo Molera declared Baltazar true and owner of the property
where the state was provided and employed a pursuant to the decree in a land registration case covered by TCT No. 191048, 2) ordered Good Earth
REASONABLE METHOD for apprising such an absent by the CFI of Rizal acting as a cadastral court. They to reconvey that property to Baltazar and, should
party of the proceeding against him. were titled in the name of Lorenzo Molera, under Good Earth fail so to reconvey, 3) decreed the
*ON SERVICE OF SUMMONS & DUE PROCESS: Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1866. On 15 cancellation of TCT No. 191048; and 4) required
the constitutional requirement of due process exacts August 1965, the parcels of land were acquired by the Register of Deeds of Rizal to issue a new TCT in
that the service be such as may be reasonably Good Earth from successors-in-interest of Lorenzo the name of Baltazar. These were done
expected to give reasonably calculated to give the Molera. A transfer of Certificate title was issued in accordingly all without the knowledge of Good
notice desired the name of Good Earth. Earth.
-MILLIKEN V MEYER, supra: its adequacy so far as - On 22 March 1977, Artemio Baltazar instituted Civil - Baltazar lost no time at all in selling the land so
due process is concerned is dependent on WON the Case No. 5552-P against Good Earth for titled in his name to Aurora Galvez, Rizaliana
form of substituted service provided for such cases declaration of ownership and reconveyance Garments, Inc. and to BGB Development
and employed is REASONABLY CALCULATED TO GIVE of the parcels of land before the CFI, Rizal. CorporationOn 9 August 1979, Good Earth
HIM ACTUAL NOTICE of the proceedings and an Baltazar traced his claimed rights from an alleged instituted a complaint for annulment of the
opportunity to be heard. vast Spanish land grant to one Don Hermogenes judgment in Civil Case No. 5552-P and for
*interpretation of then Sec8 on substituted Rodriguez, Governor General of Intramuros, down reconveyance, against Artemio Baltazar and his
service: Same meaning shaped out by the to a deed of sale over the subject lots allegedly vendees Aurora Galvez and BGB Development
jurisprudence of the jurisdiction where it was executed by one Pedro Asedillo (for whose mother, Corporation, which complaint was docketed as Civil
patterned (American Legal System); the “defendant” Baltazar had been a tenant sharing in the rice Case No. PQ-7410-P, in the Court of First Instance
means any resident of the country without distinction harvest from the lots) of Rizal, Branch 28, the same court which had
as to whether he is physically present or not. - The Deputy Sheriff of the trial court, Mr. Ernesto issued the judgment by default against Good
-on Sec18, Rule 14, according to CJ MORAN: Since Pre, received a copy of the summons and Earth. Good Earth later impleaded Baltazar's third
resident of RP, jurisdiction may be acquired over his complaint for service on Good Earth at its address vendee, Rizaliana Garments, Inc. as an additional
person under Sec8; Extraterritorial Service also set forth in the complaint 666 Muelle de Binondo, defendant.
allowed. Plaintiff is not duty bound to see to it that Manila. - Good Earth assailed the judgment as null and void,
the person upon when service was actually made - On 1 April 1977, the Deputy Sheriff pre-certified in upon the ground that the trial court had not
delivers the summons to defendant or informs him his Sheriffs Return that: notwithstanding three acquired jurisdiction over the person of Good
about it. The law presumes that for him. It is attempts made by the undersigned Deputy Sheriff, Earth. It was urged by Good Earth that the suit
immaterial that defendant does not in fact receive particularly on March 25, 27 and 30, 1977, to serve commenced by Baltazar was an action in
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 86

Avena
personam which required personal service of agent." A strict compliance with the mode of assuming such a condition were possible. Section
summons; hence, service of summons by service is necessary to confer jurisdiction of the 16 itself covers two (2) distinguishable situations:
publication was improper and unwarranted in this court over a corporation. The purpose is to render where the identity of the defendant is unknown;
case. It was also urged by Good Earth that Land it reasonably certain that the corporation will and where the address of the defendant is
Registration Decree No. N-70457, by virtue of receive prompt and proper notice in an action unknown. Under Section 16, therefore, petitioner
which OCT No. 1866 was issued to Lorenzo Molera, against it or to insure that the summons be served must show that the address of Good Earth was
predecessor-in-interest of Good Earth, became on a representative so integrated with the "unknown" and that such address "could not be
incontrovertible one year after its registration on 5 corporation that such person will know what to do ascertained by diligent inquiry."
February 1959. with the legal papers served on him. − In the case at bar, petitioner acted as if the
- The trial court rendered judgment against Good − It is not disputed that Deputy Sheriff Pre did not address of Good Earth was "unknown." Petitioner
Earth. It held that the trial court which issued the comply and did not attempt to comply with the claimed that Good Earth could not be found at the
judgment by default had acquired jurisdiction over requirement of Section 13 of Rule 14. Since address appearing in the TCT issued in the name
the person of defendant Good Earth through personal service of summons was clearly not of Good Earth. The sum total of what the Sheriff
service of summons by publication; that the suit effected upon Good Earth, we come to the actually did, was to ask a security guard he found
brought by Baltazar against Good Earth was an question of whether the substituted service by at 666 Muelle de Binondo and this security guard
action quasi in rem such that service of summons publication purported to have been effected by the apparently pointed to the building directory where
by publication was appropriate; that Lorenzo trial court in Civil Case No. 5552-P was proper and the name of Good Earth did not appear. It is
Molera, the original registered owner of the subject effective to vest jurisdiction upon such court over argued by Good Earth that had the Sheriff inquired
lands, was not an indispensable party to the suit the person of Good Earth. The first point that at any of the offices actually found in the building
brought against Good Earth; that the action must be made in this connection is that the at 666 Muelle de Binondo, he would have found
instituted by Good Earth was barred by res propriety of service of summons by Good Earth which is a corporation owned or
judicata; and that defendants Galvez, BGB publication is not dependent upon the controlled by the Ching family, considering that all
Development Corporation and Rizaliana Garments, technical characterization of the action being the corporations quartered at 666 Muelle de
Inc. were purchasers in good faith and for value. initiated as an action in rem or quasi in rem. Binondo are Ching family corporations. Good Earth,
- CA reversed TC’s decision and directed the The propriety of service by publication is in other words, did not dispute that 666 Muelle de
defendants to reconvey the parcels of land in dependent, rather, upon compliance with the Binondo, Manila was its correct corporate address.
question to Good Earth free from all liens and requirements of the applicable provisions of The court does not believe, therefore, that the
encumbrances. Hence this Petition for Review the Rules of Court. We note secondly, that address of Good Earth could be regarded as
instituted by Baltazar and Galvez. service of summons of publication may be allowed "unknown" within the meaning of Section 16 of
under Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court in Rule 14. More importantly, it does not believe that
ISSUE three 3 different situations. The first is the the acts of Deputy Sheriff Pre satisfied the
WON the service of summons by publication upon situation of an "unknown defendant" addressed by standard of diligent inquiry' established by Section
respondent Good Earth was proper. Section 16 of Rule 14. The second refers to 16 of Rule 14. Deputy Sheriff Pre should have
situations where "extra-territorial service" is known what every law school student knows, that
HELD proper, governed by Section 17 of Rule 14. The Good Earth being a domestic corporation must
− The regular mode of serving summons upon a third situation is that of a resident of the have been registered with the Securities and
private domestic corporation (i.e., a private Philippines who is temporarily out of the Exchange Commission and that the SEC records
corporation organized under Philippine law and Philippines and who may be served with summons would, therefore, reveal not just the correct
hence registered with the Securities and Exchange by publication under Section 18. address of the corporate headquarters of Good
Commission) is governed by Section 13 of Rule 14 − Even a cursory examination of Sections 16,17 and Earth but also the addresses of its directors and
of the Revised Rules of Court. The regular mode, in 18 of Rule 14 above will at once reveal that, if at other officers. We believe and so hold that a
other words, of serving summons upon a private all, service of summons by publication upon Good litigant or process server who has not gone
Philippine corporation is by personal service upon Earth could only be done under Section 16. Section through the records of the SEC cannot claim to
one of the officers of such corporation identified in 17 can find application only where the defendant is have carried out the "diligent inquiry" required
Section 13. both a non-resident and not actually found in the under Section 16 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of
− For the purpose of receiving service of summons Philippines. Since Good Earth is a corporation Court for valid service of summons by publication
and being bound by it, a corporation is Identified organized under the Philippine law, it cannot be upon a domestic corporation.
with its agent or officer who under the rule is regarded as a non-resident corporation. Section − It may be noted, finally, that the record does not
designated to accept service of process. "The 18, upon the other hand, appears to contemplate a show that Baltazar sent a copy of the summons
corporate power to receive and act on such defendant who is a natural person. In any case, and the order for publication to Good Earth by
service, so far as to make it known to the petitioner did not pretend that Good Earth was at registered mail to its last known address which
corporation, is thus vested in such officer or any time temporarily out of the Philippines,
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 87

Avena
was 666 Muelle de Binondo, Manila, as required by - Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary
Section 21 of Rule 14, Revised Rules of Court. We invitation and submitted bids. US requested it to consequence of the principles of independence and
hold that the purported service of summons by confirm its price proposals and for the name of its equality of States. But State immunity now extends
publication upon Good Earth in Civil Case No. bonding company. The company complied with the only to acts jure imperii.
5552-P was legally and constitutionally vitiated requests. - The respondent judge recognized the restrictive
and hence invalid and ineffective to vest - The company received a letter which was signed by doctrine of State immunity when he said in his Order
jurisdiction over the person of Good Earth upon the Dir. Collins, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities denying the defendants' (now petitioners) motion: "A
trial court, and that the judgment there rendered Engineering Command, Southwest Pacific, distinction should be made between a strictly
by that court was null and void. It vested no rights Department of the Navy of the United States, who is governmental function of the sovereign state from its
upon Baltazar and imposed no liabilities or burdens one of the petitioners herein. The letter said that the private, proprietary or non-governmental acts."
upon Good Earth. We agree with the respondent company did not qualify to receive an award for the However, the respondent judge also said: "It is the
Court of Appeals that the trial court in Civil Case projects because of its previous unsatisfactory Court's considered opinion that entering into a
No. PQ-7410-P fell into profound error in not performance rating on a repair contract for the sea contract for the repair of wharves or shoreline is
setting aside and annulling the judgment of the wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in certainly not a governmental function altho it may
trial court in Civil Case No. 5552-P. Subic Bay. The letter further said that the projects partake of a public nature or character.
had been awarded to third parties. - The restrictive application of State immunity is
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is - The company sued the US and Messrs. James E. proper only when the proceedings arise out of
DENIED and the Decision dated 14 January 1987 of Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 00104 is members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. Navy. The complaint is to order the defendants to differently, a State may be said to have descended to
allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to
and, in the event that specific performance was no have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it
5. Upon others
longer possible, to order the defendants to pay enters into business contracts. It does not apply
damages. The company also asked for the issuance where the contract relates to the exercise of its
of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an
MOTIONS IN GENERAL defendants from entering into contracts with third integral part of the naval base which is devoted to
parties for work on the projects. the defense of both the United States and the
MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 16 - The defendants entered their special appearance Philippines, indisputably a function of the
"for the purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction government of the highest order; they are not
US v. RUIZ of this court over the subject matter of the complaint utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business
136 SCRA 487 and the persons of defendants, the subject matter of purposes.
the complaint being acts and omissions of the - That the correct test for the application of State
ABAD SANTOS; May 22, 1985 individual defendants as agents of defendant United immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by a
States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not State but the legal nature of the act is shown in
NATURE
given her consent to this suit or any other suit for the Syquia vs. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 (1949). In that case
Petition to review to set aside certain orders and
causes of action asserted in the complaint." the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildings to the
restrain the respondent judge from trying Civil Case
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint United States of America for the use of its military
No. 779-M of the defunct CFI of Rizal.
which included an opposition to the issuance of the officials. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of
writ of preliminary injunction. The company opposed the premises on the ground that the term of the
FACTS
the motion. The trial court denied the motion and leases had expired, They also asked for increased
- US had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base
issued the writ. The defendants moved twice to rentals until the apartments shall have been vacated.
was one of those provided in the Military Bases
reconsider but to no avail. Hence the instant petition It held:
Agreement between the Philippines and the US.
which seeks to restrain perpetually the proceedings "On the basis of the foregoing considerations we are
- US invited the submission of bids for the following
in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction on the of the belief and we hold that the real party
projects:
part of the trial court. defendant in interest is the Government of the
1. Repair fender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S.
United States of America; that any judgment for back
Naval Station Subic Bay, Philippines.
ISSUE or increased rentals or damages will have to be paid
2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline;
WON trial court has jurisdiction not by defendants Moore and Tillman and their 64
repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment,
co-defendants but by the said U.S. Government. On
NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach,
HELD the basis of the ruling in the case of Land vs. Dollar
NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines.
NO. The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a already cited, and on what we have already stated,
State from being sued in the courts of another State the present action must be considered as one
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 88

Avena
against the U.S. Government. It is clear that the without redress in his own country for violation of his receive separation benefits but SEAFDEC-AQD failed
courts of the Philippines including the Municipal rights committed by the agents of the foreign to pay private respondent his separation pay so
Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present government professing to act in its name. Lazaga filed a complaint for non-payment of
case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of - Constant resort by a foreign state or its agents to separation benefits, plus moral damages and
jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very the doctrine of State immunity in this jurisdiction attorney’s fees with the NLRC.
beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has impinges unduly upon our sovereignty and dignity as -In their ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM (NOT
not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is a nation. Its application will particularly discourage MOTION TO DISMISS), SEAFDEC alleged that NLRC
essentially against her, though not in name. Filipino or domestic contractors from transacting has no jurisdiction over the case because: (1) It
Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a business and entering into contracts with United is an international organization; (2) Lazaga must first
suit against his own Government without the latter's States authorities or facilities in the Philippines - secure clearances from the proper departments for
consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a whether naval, air or ground forces - because the property or money accountability before any claim
foreign government without said government's difficulty, if not impossibility, of enforcing a validly for separation pay will be paid (and clearances has
consent, which renders more obvious the lack of executed contract and of seeking judicial remedy in not been paid)
jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles our own courts for breaches of contractual obligation COUNTERCLAIM: Lazaga had property accountability
of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such committed by agents of the United States and outstanding obligation to SEAFDEC-AQD
general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to government, always looms large, thereby hampering amounting to P27, 532.11 and that Lazaga was not
cite authorities in support thereof." (At p. 323.) the growth of Filipino enterprises and creating a entitled to the accrued sick leave benefits due to his
- In Syquia, the United States concluded contracts virtual monopoly in our own country by United States failure to avail of the same during his employment
with private individuals but the contracts contractors of contracts for services or supplies with -LA: for Lazaga
notwithstanding the United States was not deemed the various U.S. offices and agencies operating in the -NLRC: affirmed LA, deleted attorney’s fees and
to have given or waived its consent to be sued for Philippines. actual damages
the reason that the contracts were for jure imperii - In the case at bar, the efficacy of the contract -SEAFDEC-AQD filed MFR, denied
and not for jure gestionis. between the U.S. Naval authorities at Subic Bay on
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; one hand, and herein private respondent on the ISSUES
the questioned orders of the respondent judge are other, was honored more in the breach than in the WON SEAFDEC-AQD is estopped from claiming that
set aside and Civil Case No. 779-M is dismissed. compliance. The opinion of the majority will certainly the court had no jurisdiction
Costs against the private respondent. open the floodgates of more violations of contractual
obligations. American authorities or any foreign HELD
SEPARATE OPINION government in the Philippines for that matter, NO
MAKASIAR, dissents: dealing with the citizens of this country, can Ratio. Estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction
- The petition should be dismissed and the conveniently seek protective cover under the to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action.
proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M in the defunct majority opinion. The result is disastrous to the Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where there is none,
CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be allowed to continue therein. Philippines. no agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled
- When the U.S. Government, through its agency at is the rule that the decision of a tribunal not vested
Subic Bay, confirmed the acceptance of a bid of a with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.
private company for the repair of wharves or -The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at
SEAFDEC V NLRC (LAZAGA)
shoreline in the Subic Bay area, it is deemed to have any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.
entered into a contract and thus waived the mantle (supra) -The issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by
of sovereign immunity from suit and descended to estoppel
the level of the ordinary citizen. Its consent to be NATURE
sued, therefore, is implied from its act of entering Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
into a contract. NLRC
- Justice and fairness dictate that a foreign NATIONAL UNION VS STOLT-NIELSEN
government that commits a breach of its contractual FACTS 184 SCRA 682
obligation - in the case at bar by the unilateral -SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.; April 26,
cancellation of the award for the project by the organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries
1990
United States government, through its agency at Development Center. Private Respondent Lazaga was
Subic Bay - should not be allowed to take undue hired as a Research Associate and eventually
NATURE
advantage of a party who may have legitimate became the Head of External Affairs Office of
Petition to review. Certiorari
claims against it by seeking refuge behind the shield SEAFDEC-AQD. However, he was terminated
of non-suability. A contrary view would render a allegedly due to financial constraints being
FACTS
Filipino citizen, as in the instant case, helpless and experienced by SEAFEC-AQD. He was supposed to
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 89

Avena
- United Coconut Chemicals shipped on board MT reference the terms of the Charter Party. It is settled Nora Balo-Catano, Zaida Balo, Judith Balo-Mandreza,
Stolt Sceptre, a tanker owned by Stolt-Nielsen law that the charter may be made part of the Danilo Balo and Ronilo Balo, before RTC Abuyog,
Philippines 404 tons of distilled C6-C18 fatty acid contract under which the goods are carried by an Leyte alleging that Garrido and Balo’s are the co-
from Batangas to Rotterdam Netherlands.The cargo appropriate reference in the Bill of Lading (Wharton owners of undivided parcels of land located at
was insured with National Union Fire Insurance, an Poor, Charter Parties and Ocean Bills of Lading (5th Mayorga, Leyte. According to her, these lands were
American insurance company, thru its Philippine ed., p. 71). This should include the provision on originally owned by the spouses Eugenio Balo, Sr.
Agent, American International Underwriters. arbitration even without a specific stipulation to that and Ma. Pasagui-Balo, who, at the time of the filing of
- Upon arrival and after inspection, the shipment was effect. The entire contract must be read together and the complaint, were already deceased. The Balo
found to be totally contaminated and discolored. The its clauses interpreted in relation to one another and spouses were survived by their two (2) children,
Carrier denied the claim but the Insurer indemnified not by parts. Moreover, in cases where a Bill of Ulpiano, Sr. and Maximino, the latter likewise
said shipper. As subrogee, the insurer filed suit Lading has been issued by a carrier covering goods deceased. Garrido is the daughter of Maximino Balo
against Carrier before the RTC to recovery the sum shipped aboard a vessel under a charter party, and and Salvacion Sabulao. Ulpiano Balo is the son of
of P1,619,469.21, the amount paid to the Shipper. the charterer is also the holder of the bill of lading, Eugenio Balo, Sr. and the other petitioners, the
- Carrier filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that "the bill of lading operates as the receipt for the children of Ulpiano, are Eugenio’s grandchildren.
the RTC had no jurisdiction over the claim the same goods, and as document of title passing-the property - Garrido alleged in her complaint that immediately
being arbitrable as provided by the terms of the of the goods, but not as varying the contract upon the death of her grandfather, Eugenio Sr., the
Charter Party dated 21 December 1984 between between the charterer and the shipowner" (In re Balo’s took possession of the said real properties
Shipper and Parcel Tankers. Marine Sulphur Queen, 460 F 2d 89, 103 [2d Cir. without her knowledge and consent. Her uncle and
- Insurer opposed the motion on the ground 1972]; Ministry of Commerce vs. Marine Tankers cousins were earnestly requested by Garrido that
that it was not legally bound to submit the Corp. 194 F, Supp 161, 163 [S.D.N.Y. 1960]; they come up with a fair and equal partition of the
claim for arbitration as the arbitration clause in Greenstone Shipping Co., S.A. vs. Transworld Oil, properties left by her grandparents. The Balo’s
the Charter Party was not incorporated into the Ltd., 588 F Supp [D.El. 1984]). The Bill of Lading outrightly refused her proposal.
Bill of Lading. RTC denied the motion to dismiss becomes, therefore, only a receipt and not the - Garrido filed a complaint. In lieu of an Answer,
but issued a resolution on the Motion to Dismiss contract of carriage in a charter of the entire vessel, Balo’s filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following
until trial on the merits since the ground for the contract is the Charter Party (Shell Oil Co. vs. grounds:
alleged in said motion does not appear MIT Gilds, 790 F 2d 1209, 1212 [5th Cir. 1986]; Home (1) Failure to state a cause of action - plaintiff,
indubitable. Insurance Co. vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., though daughter of Maximino, failed to allege WON
- Carrier filed motion for Certiorari and G.R. No. L-25599, 4 April 1968, 23 SCRA 24), and is she is a legitimate child thus fatal considering A992
Prohibition with the CA seeking to nullify the the law between the parties who are bound by its CC and to allow Garrido to inherit from the estate of
RTC order which it set aside. terms and condition provided that these are not the spouses Eugenio and Maria Balo in
- Hence the appeal to the SC contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order representation of her father Maximino Balo would be
and public policy (Article 1306, Civil Code). to permit intestate succession by an illegitimate child
ISSUE/S from the legitimate parent of his father, assuming
1. WON the CA order setting aside the RTC order, Disposition that she is the child of Maximino Balo
which was interlocutory, is valid Petition for certiorari is denied and the judgment of (2) complaint does not show that estate have been
2. WON the terms of the Charter Party, particularly the CA is affirmed. settled and its obligations have been paid.
the provision on arbitration, binding on the Insurer. (3) properties enumerated in the complaint were
HELD proceeded against by way of execution to satisfy a
1. Yes. Generally, an interlocutory order cannot be BALO V CA (JUDGE ASIS, GARRIDO) judgment against Eugenio and Maria Balo.
the subject of a special civil action on certiorari and Subsequently, Ulpiano repurchased the properties
GR No. 129704
prohibition. . However, the case before us falls under and has been openly, exclusively and adversely in
the exception. While a Court Order deferring action CHICO-NAZARIO; September 30, 2005 possession of the properties
on a motion to dismiss until the trial is interlocutory - RTC denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit
and cannot be challenged until final judgment, still, NATURE and said that the complaint clearly states that the
where it clearly appears that the trial Judge or Court Petition for review of CA Resolution under Rule 45 of late Eugenio Balo, Sr., and Maria Pasagui Balo had
is proceeding in excess or outside of its jurisdiction, the Rules of Court two (2) children, namely: Ulpiano, Sr. and Maximino.
the remedy of prohibition would lie since it would be The plaintiff is the daughter of the late Maximino
useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the FACTS Balo and Salvacion Sabulao; while the defendants are
proceedings. - complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Properties children of the late Ulpiano Balo, Sr. and Felicidad
2. Yes. A reading of the charter Party and the Bill of and Accounting with Damages was filed by Josefina Superio. The complaint enumerates/annexes 13 tax
Lading shows that the Insurer is in fact bound to Garrido against Ulpiano Balo, Lydia Balo-Lumpas, declarations in the name of Eugenio Balo, Sr. The
arbitration. Clearly, the Bill of Lading incorporates by Eugenio Balo, Ulpiano Balo, Jr., Nida Balo-Moraleta, plaintiff as an heir prays that these parcels of land be
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 90

Avena
partitioned in accordance with Article 982 of the Civil abuse of discretion as alleged by the Balo’s. CA - Section 1, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Code which states: “The grandchildren and other having failed in this regard, it behooves upon this Procedure provides that the complaint needs only to
descendants shall inherit by right of representation, Court to discuss the merits of the petition to put to allege the ultimate facts upon which private
and if any one of them should have died, leaving rest the issues raised by the petitioners. respondent bases her claim. The rules of procedure
several heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be Reasoning require that the complaint must make a concise
divided among the latter in equal portions.” No - The general rule regarding denial of a motion to statement of the ultimate facts or the essential facts
evidence may be alleged or considered to test the dismiss as a basis of a resort to the extraordinary constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is
sufficiency of the complaint except the very facts writ of certiorari is that an order denying a motion to essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving
pleaded therein. It would be improper to inject into dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither the statement of the cause of action inadequate.
the allegation, facts not alleged and use them as terminates nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves - In her Complaint, the private respondent made the
basis for the decision on the motion. The Court is not something to be done by the court before the case is following assertions: That the afore-described parcels
permitted to go beyond and outside of the finally decided on the merits. As such, the general of lands were originally owned by Eugenio Balo, Sr.
allegations in the complaint for data or facts. rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot and Ma. Pasagui-Balo, who are now both deceased
Therefore, the allegation of illegitimacy and claim of be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari and after their death, were inherited into two (2)
absolute ownership are modifications and which is a remedy designed to correct errors of equal shares by their two (2) children, namely:
unreasonable inferences. If there is doubt to the jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. To justify the Ulpiano, Sr. and Maximino, both surnamed Balo, the
truth of the facts averred in the complaint, the Court grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, later (sic) being already dead; That plaintiff is the
does not dismiss the complaint but requires an therefore, the denial of the motion to dismiss must daughter of the late Maximino Balo and Salvacion
answer and proceeds to hear the case on the merit. have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion. By Sabulao, who after her father’s death, had inherited
- Balo’s filed an MFR which the RTC denied “grave abuse of discretion” is meant, such capricious her father’s share of the inheritance; That defendant
- Balo’s filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent Ulpiano Balo, Sr. aside from being the son of Eugenio
After the filing of Comment and other pleadings, the to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must Balo, Sr., is married to Felicidad Superio, and is the
case was deemed submitted for decision. In a be grave as where the power is exercised in an father of all the other defendants in this case; The
resolution, the CA denied due course to the petition arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or defendants took possession of the above-described
and accordingly dismissed the same and justified the personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as real properties immediately after the death of
dismissal in the following manner: It is an to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a plaintiff’s grandfather Eugenio Balo, Sr. without her
established rule that an order denying a motion to virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to knowledge and consent; That plaintiff is desirous that
dismiss is basically interlocutory in character and act all in contemplation of law. the above-described real properties be partitioned
cannot be the proper subject of a petition for - Specific instances whereby the rule admits certain between her and defendants; That plaintiff has
certiorari. When a motion to dismiss is denied, the exceptions are provided as follows: Under certain proposed to the defendants that the above-described
proper procedure is to proceed with the trial and if situations, recourse to certiorari or mandamus is real properties be amicably partitioned between
the decision be adverse to the movant, the remedy is considered appropriate, i.e., (a) when the trial court them by mutual agreement in a very fair and
to take an appeal from said decision, assigning as issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction; practical division of the same, but said defendants
one of the errors therefore the denial of the motion (b) where there is patent grave abuse of discretion refused and continue to do so without any justifiable
to dismiss. by the trial court; or (c) appeal would not prove to cause or reason to accede to the partition of the said
- Balo’s filed an MFR which the CA denied be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an properties. The foregoing allegations show
appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant from substantial compliance with the formal and
ISSUES the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order substantial requirements of a Complaint for Partition
1. WON CA’s dismissal of the petition for certiorari maintaining the plaintiff’s baseless action and as required under Section 1, Rule 69 of the 1997
filed by the Balo’s is valid compelling the defendant needlessly to go through a Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. WON the failure to allege the nature and extent of protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by 2. NO
plaintiff’s title in a petition for partition is fatal to its another futile case - Briz v. Briz: proof of legal acknowledgment is not a
cause of action - Contrary to petitioners’ contention, allegations prerequisite before an action for partition may be
3. WON the action for judicial partition and sufficient to support a cause of action for partition filed. There is no absolute necessity requiring that
accounting has prescribed, was waived, or was may be found in private respondent’s complaint. the action to compel acknowledgment should have
otherwise abandoned Nothing is more settled than the rule that in a motion been instituted and prosecuted to a successful
to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the conclusion prior to the action in which that same
HELD inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the plaintiff seeks additional relief in the character of
1. NO, CA should not have dismissed the petition material allegations. Moreover, the inquiry is heir.
outright as the same alleges grave abuse of confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no - In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first,
discretion. Instead, it should have proceeded to other. a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject
determine WON the trial court did commit grave properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 91

Avena
shares. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, an negotiable bill of lading or other contract of carriage AMML to hold Sea-Land liable under the provisions of
action for partition is at once an action for with respect to cargo) or a containership operator the bill of lading issued by the Principal Carrier to
declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and (owner, operator or charterer of containership on Florex, under which the latter is suing in its
conveyance of a determine portion of the properties which the cargo is carried). Complaint, not under the bill of lading petitioner, as
involved. If the defendant asserts exclusive title over - During the lifetime of the contract, Florex delivered containership operator, issued to AMML, as Principal
the property, the action for partition should not be to AMML cargo of various foodstuffs. A corresponding Carrier, contrary to what is contemplated in Clause
dismissed. Rather, the court should resolve the case Bill of Lading was issued by AMML to Florex. Pursuant 16.2.
and if the plaintiff is unable to sustain his claimed to the agreement, AMML loaded the cargo to a vessel - As the Principal Carrier with which Florex directly
status as a co-owner, the court should dismiss the of Sea-land. Thus, under this arrangement, AMML dealt with, AMML can and should be held
action, not because the wrong remedy was availed was the principal carrier while Sea-land was the accountable by Florex in the event that it has a valid
of, but because no basis exists for requiring the containership operator. claim against the former. Pursuant to Clause 16.3 of
defendant to submit to partition. If, on the other - However, the consignee (not named in the case) the Agreement, AMML, when faced with such a suit
hand, the court after trial should find the existence of refused pay for the cargo, alleging that delivery was “shall use all reasonable endeavours to defend” itself
co-ownership among the parties, the court may and delayed. Florex then filed a complaint against AMML or “settle such suits for as low a figure as reasonably
should order the partition of the properties in the for reimbursement of the value of the cargo possible”. In turn, AMML can seek damages and/or
same action. - AMML’s answer: even on the assumption that Florex indemnity from Sea-Land as Containership Operator
3. NO was entitled to reimbursement, it was Sea-land who for whatever final judgment may be adjudged
- On the matter of prescription cited by the should be liable. Thus, AMML filed a 3rd Party against it under the Complaint of Florex. The crucial
petitioners as a ground for the dismissal of the Complaint against Sea-Land, averring that whatever point is that collection of said damages and/or
complaint, it is noteworthy that the motion to dismiss damages sustained by Florex were caused by Sea- indemnity from Sea-Land should be by arbitration. In
filed by the Balo’s did not ipso facto establish Land, which actually received and transported the light of the Agreement, it is clear that arbitration
prescription. An allegation of prescription can Florex's cargo on its vessels and unloaded them. is the mode provided by which AMML as Principal
effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when - Sea-land filed a motion to dismiss the 3rd party Carrier can seek damages and/or indemnity from
the complaint on its face shows that indeed the complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of Sea-Land, as Containership Operator.
action has already prescribed; otherwise, the issue of action and lack of jurisdiction, the amount of - Arbitration being the mode of settlement between
prescription is one involving evidentiary matters damages not having been specified therein. Also, the parties expressly provided for by the Agreement,
requiring a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot Sea-Land prayed for either dismissal or suspension of the 3rd Party Complaint should have been dismissed.
be determined in a mere motion to dismiss. the 3rd party complaint on the ground that there “This Court has previously held that arbitration is one
Disposition instant Petition is DENIED and the exists an arbitration agreement between it and of the alternative methods of dispute resolution that
decision of CA affirming the Order of the RTC is AMML is now rightfully vaunted as ‘the wave of the future’
affirmed - RTC denied motion to dismiss. Sea-Land filed in international relations, and is recognized
petition for certiorari with CA: dismissed. Hence, this worldwide. To brush aside a contractual agreement
appeal. calling for arbitration in case of disagreement
SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V CA (A.P. between the parties would therefore be a step
WON the 3rd party complaint should have been backward.”
MOLLER/ MAERSK LINE)
dismissed (bottomline, the court considered the existence of
00 SCRA 00 the arbitration clause as binding between the
YNARES-SANTIAGO; March 2, 2000 HELD parties, thus a ground for dismissal of the 3rd party
YES complaint)
NATURE Ratio AMML is barred from taking judicial action Obiter: “CA did not err in reading the Complaint of
Petition for review on certiorari decision of CA against Sea-Land by the clear terms of their Florex and AMML's Answer together with the 3rd Party
Agreement. Complaint to determine whether a cause of action is
FACTS Reasoning To allow AMML's 3rd Party Claim against properly alleged. In Fil-Estate Golf and Development,
- Sea-land Service Inc and AP Moller/Maersk Line Sea-Land to proceed would be in violation of Clause Inc. vs. CA, this Court ruled that in the determination
(AMML) are both carriers of cargo and common 16.2 of the Agreement. As summarized, the clause of whether or not the complaint states a cause of
carriers. They entered into a contract entitled provides that whatever dispute there may be action, the annexes attached to the complaint may
“Cooperation in the Pacific,” which is essentially a between the Principal Carrier and the Containership be considered, they being parts of the complaint.”
vessel sharing agreement whereby they mutually Operator arising from contracts of carriage shall be Disposition Petition is granted.
agreed to purchase, share, and exchange needed governed by the provisions of the bills of lading
space for cargo in their respective containerships. deemed issued to the Principal Carrier by the
Under the Agreement, they could be, depending on Containership Operator. On the other hand, to
SWAGMAN HOTELS V. CA
the occasion, either a principal carrier (with a sustain the 3rd Party Complaint would be to allow
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 92

Avena
G.R. 161135 objection. Thus, even if the plaintiff had no cause of yet; although, two of the promissory notes with the
action at the time he filed the instant complaint, as due dates of 7 August 1999 and 14 March 2000
Davide, Jr., C.J.: April 8, 2005
defendants’ obligation are not yet due and matured during the pendency of the case with the
demandable then, he may nevertheless recover on trial court. Both courts also found that the petitioner
FACTS:
the first two promissory notes in view of the had been religiously paying the private respondent
introduction of evidence showing that the obligations US$750 per month from January 1998 and even
- Sometime in 1996 and 1997, petitioner Swagman covered by the two promissory notes are now due during the pendency of the case before the trial court
Hotels and Travel, Inc., through Atty. Leonor L. and demandable. and that the private respondent had accepted all
Infante and Rodney David Hegerty, its president and these monthly payments.
vice-president, respectively, obtained from private
- In its decision of 5 September 2003, the Court of
respondent Neal B. Christian loans evidenced by
Appeals denied petitioner’s appeal and affirmed in - With these findings of facts, it has become glaringly
three promissory notes dated 7 August 1996, 14
toto the decision of the trial court. obvious that when the complaint for a sum of money
March 1997, and 14 July 1997. Each of the
and damages was filed with the trial court on 2
promissory notes is in the amount of US$50,000
February 1999, no cause of action has as yet existed
payable after three years from its date with an - The petitioner came to this Court harping on the
because the petitioner had not committed any act in
interest of 15% per annum payable every three absence of a cause of action at the time the private
violation of the terms of the three promissory notes
months. In a letter dated 16 December 1998, respondent’s complaint was filed with the trial court.
as modified by the renegotiation in December 1997.
Christian informed the petitioner corporation that he
Without a cause of action, the private respondent
was terminating the loans and demanded from the
ISSUE: May a complaint that lacks a cause of action had no right to maintain an action in court, and the
latter payment in the total amount of US$150,000
at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual of a trial court should have therefore dismissed his
plus unpaid interests in the total amount of
cause of action during the pendency of the case? complaint.
US$13,500.

HELD: No, it cannot be cured. The curing effect - Despite its finding that the petitioner corporation
- On 2 February 1999, private respondent Christian
under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of did not violate the modified terms of the three
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
action in fact exists at the time the complaint promissory notes and that the payment of the
Branch 59, a complaint for a sum of money and
is filed, but the complaint is defective for principal loans were not yet due when the complaint
damages against the petitioner corporation, Hegerty,
failure to allege the essential facts. The was filed, the trial court did not dismiss the
and Atty. Infante.
interpretation of Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules complaint, citing Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure by the TC and CA is erroneous. of Civil Procedure, which reads:
- The petitioner corporation, together with its
president and vice-president, filed an Answer raising
RATIO: Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize
as defenses lack of cause of action and novation of
presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised
the principal obligations. According to them,
by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied
Christian had no cause of action because the three - It is undisputed that the three promissory notes
consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all
promissory notes were not yet due and demandable. were for the amount of P50,000 each and uniformly
respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
provided for (1) a term of three years; (2) an interest
Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
of 15 % per annum, payable quarterly; and (3) the
- In due course and after hearing, the trial court necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence
repayment of the principal loans after three years
rendered a decision on 5 May 2000 declaring the first and to raise these issues may be made upon motion
from their respective dates. However, both the Court
two promissory notes dated 7 August 1996 and 14 of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
of Appeals and the trial court found that a
March 1997 as already due and demandable and that failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial
renegotiation of the three promissory notes indeed
the interest on the loans had been reduced by the of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial
happened in December 1997 between the private
parties from 15% to 6% per annum. The TC on the ground that it is not within the issues made by
respondent and the petitioner resulting in the
reasoned: When the instant case was filed on the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to
reduction – not waiver – of the interest from 15% to
February 2, 1999, none of the promissory notes was be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
6% per annum, which from then on was payable
due and demandable. As of this date however, the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends
monthly, instead of quarterly. The term of the
first and the second promissory notes have already of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The
principal loans remained unchanged in that they
matured. Hence, payment is already due. Under court may grant a continuance to enable the
were still due three years from the respective dates
Section 5 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil amendment to be made.
of the promissory notes. Thus, at the time the
Procedure, a complaint which states no cause of
complaint was filed with the trial court on 2 February
action may be cured by evidence presented without
1999, none of the three promissory notes was due
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 93

Avena
According to the trial court, and sustained by the DISPOSITION: The petition is hereby GRANTED
Court of Appeals, this Section allows a complaint that GOODYEAR V. SY Issues
does not state a cause of action to be cured by WON the third-party complaint states a cause of
G.R. 154554
evidence presented without objection during the action against Goodyear
trial. Thus, it ruled that even if the private PANGANIBAN;Nov 9, 2005
respondent had no cause of action when he filed the Held
complaint for a sum of money and damages because Nature No. The Third-Party Complaint filed by Sy is
none of the three promissory notes was due yet, he Petition for Review under Rule 45 inadequate, because it did not allege any act or
could nevertheless recover on the first two omission that petitioner had committed in violation of
promissory notes dated 7 August 1996 and 14 March Facts his right to the subject vehicle.
1997, which became due during the pendency of the In 1983 Goodyear Philippines purchased from
case in view of the introduction of evidence of their Industrial and Transport Equipment, Inc. an Isuzo JCR Reasoning:
maturity during the trial. 6-Wheeler. the truck was hijacked on April 30, 1986. A cause of action is a formal statement of the
This hijacking was reported to the Philippine National operative facts that give rise to a remedial right. The
Police (PNP) which issued out an alert alarm on the question of whether the complaint states a cause of
- Such interpretation of Section 5, Rule 10 of the said vehicle as a stolen one.It was later on recovered action is determined by its averments regarding the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is erroneous. also in 1986. Goodyear sold it to Anthony Sy on acts committed by the defendant. Thus, it “must
September 12, 1996.Sy, in turn, sold it to Jose L. Lee contain a concise statement of the ultimate or
- Amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule on January 29, 1997. essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of
10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order that Lee filed an action for rescission of contract with action.” Failure to make a sufficient allegation of a
the actual merits of a case may be determined in the damages against Sy on December 4, 1997 because cause of action in the complaint “warrants its
most expeditious and inexpensive manner without he could not register the vehicle in his name due to dismissal.”
regard to technicalities, and that all other matters the certification from the PNP Regional Traffic
included in the case may be determined in a single Management Office in Legazpi City that it was a Elements of a Cause of Action
proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits. stolen vehicle and the alarm covering the same was A cause of action, which is an act or omission by
Section 5 thereof applies to situations wherein not lifted. Instead, the PNP in Legazpi City which a party violates the right of another, has these
evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings impounded the vehicle and charged Lee criminally.Sy elements:
is presented by the parties during the trial, and to informed Goodyear.Goodyear requested on July 10, 1) the legal right of the plaintiff;
conform to such evidence the pleadings are 1997 the PNP to lift the stolen vehicle alarm status. 2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to
subsequently amended on motion of a party. Thus, a This notwithstanding, Goodyear was impleaded as respect that legal right; and
complaint which fails to state a cause of action may third-party defendant in the third-party complaint 3) an act or omission of the defendant that violates
be cured by evidence presented during the trial. filed by Sy on January 9, 1998.Goodyear filed a such right.”
motion to dismiss on March 24, 1998 on the twin
grounds that the third-party complaint failed to state TEST In determining whether an initiatory pleading
- However, the curing effect under Section 5 is a cause of action and even if it did, such cause of states a cause of action admitting the truth of the
applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at action was already extinguished. The Regional Trial facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment
the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is Court [(RTC)] resolved to dismiss the third-party in accordance with the prayer?” To be taken into
defective for failure to allege the essential facts. complaint because it does not expressly show any account are only the material allegations in the
act or omission committed by the third party complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or
- A complaint whose cause of action has not yet defendant which violates a right of the third party other matters aliunde are not considered. The court
accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an complainant. CA granted the appeal, holding that may consider -- in addition to the complaint -- the
amended or supplemental pleading alleging the that the Third-Party Complaint had stated a cause of appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of
existence or accrual of a cause of action while the action. First, petitioner did not make good its the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.
case is pending. Such an action is prematurely warranty in the Deed of Sale: to convey the vehicle In the present case, the third element is missing. The
brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, which to Respondent Anthony Sy free from all liens, Third-Party Complaint filed by Sy is inadequate,
should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion encumbrances and legal impediments. The reported because it did not allege any act or omission that
seasonably filed by the defendant. The underlying hijacking of the vehicle was a legal impediment that petitioner had committed in violation of his right to the
reason for this rule is that a person should not be prevented its subsequent sale. Second, Respondent subject vehicle. The Complaint capitalized merely on
summoned before the public tribunals to answer for Sy had a right to protect and a warranty to enforce, the fact that the vehicle -- according to the records of
complaints which are immature. while petitioner had the corresponding obligation to the PNP, which was a stranger to the case -- was “a
honor that warranty. Goodyear moved for stolen vehicle.” The pleading did not contain
reconsideration, which CA denied.
Civil Procedure Digest A2010 Prof. Victoria A. 94

Avena
“sufficient notice of the cause of action” against respondents Antonio Laviña (now deceased) and the best position to correct any previous error
petitioner. Teresita Laviña protested the free patent application. committed in its forum.[9]
without even going into the veracity of its material -On August 10, 1993, Regional Office No. IV of the -There are exceptions, however, to the applicability
allegations, the Complaint is insufficient on its face. DENR decreed the reduction of the area covered by of the doctrine. Among the established exceptions
No connection was laid out between the owner’s sale the FPA. The Spouses Antonio and Teresita Laviña are:
of the vehicle and its impounding by the PNP. That were directed to file the appropriate public land 1) when the question raised is purely legal;
the police did not lift the alert status did not make application covering