`

REMEDIAL LAW
JURISDICTION
1.

A courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is conferred only by the constitution or by the
statute. An appeal from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed. An appeal
erroneously taken to the CA shall be dismissed outright. (Sevilleno vs. Cavillo, G.R. No. 146454,
September 14, 2007).

2.

The requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite. (De los
Santos vs. Vda. De Mangubat, G.R. No. 149508, October 10, 2007).

3.

The petition is not an appeal from the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) final decision
but an original action for the determination of the just compensation for respondents expropriated
property, over which the Regional Trial Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction. (Land Bank of
the Philippines vs. Suntay, G.R. No.157903, October 11, 2007).

4.

The doctrine that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies within the Regional Trial
Court regardless of the value of the property, no longer holds true- as things now stand, a distinction
must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below P 20,000.00, if outside
Metro Manila, and P50,000.00 if within. A complaint must allege the assessed value of the real
property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over
the action. (Quinagoran vs. CA, G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007).

5.

Since the effectivity of R.A. No. 6128, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has been the primary tribunal
responsible in the amicable settlement of boundary disputes between or among 2 or more
municipalities located in the same province. The sangguninang panlalawigan is now specifically vested
with original jurisdiction to actually hear and decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure laid
down in the law and its implementing rules and regulations. The standing rule is that dismissal of a
case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is
conferred by law and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to
render judgment or the action, otherwise, the inevitable consequence would make the courts decision a
lawless thing. (Municipality of Sta. Fe vs. Municipality of Aritao, G.R. No. 140474, September 21,
2007).

6.

Jurisdiction of the court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited only to questions
of law; application of this rule is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions. (B & I Realty Co., Inc.
vs Caspe, G.R. No. 146972, January 29, 2008).

VENUE

The general rule on venue of personal action as in petitioners complaint for collection of sum of money, is
embodied in Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court; Said provision is qualified by Section 4 of the same
Rule which allows parties before the filing of the action to validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue;
Forging of a written agreement on an exclusive venue of an action does not however preclude parties from
bringing a case to other venues. The restriction should not be strictly construed as relating solely to the
agreement fro which the exclusive venue stipulation is embodied.(Uniwide Holdings, Inc. vs. Cruz, G.R.
No. 171456, August 9, 2007).

ACTIONS
1.

A petition for annulment of judgment is an extraordinary action; Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for
annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over

the subject matter of the claim. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere- it is essential to an effective
and efficient administration of justice. (Morales vs. Subic Bay Shipyard and Engeneering, Inc., G.R. No.
148206, August 24, 2007).
2.

Where the deed of extrajudicial partition is invalid, the action to have it annulled does not prescribe.
(Bautista vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 160556, August 3, 2007).

3.

Fundamentally, intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the
existing litigation- its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the
machinery of trial, but merely to afford one, not an original party, yet having a certain right or interest in
the pending case, the opportunity to appear an be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest.
A party cannot use intervention as a substitute for her lost remedy of certiorari. The legal interest required
for an intervention must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or
expectant.(Nieto vs. CA., G.R. No. 166984, August 7, 2007).

4.

It is a sound policy for the court to favor and encourage litigants to settle their controversies extrajudicially
where the same is possible and lawful, not only because it minimizes the expenses and troubles a litigation
usually entails, but also due to the fact that in most cases, such agreement redounds to the benefit of both
parties and results in their mutual satisfaction; where the parties to an existing litigation already seek an end
thereto, the former counsel of one of them cannot be permitted to use her Petition-In-Intervention to replace
the original petition sought to be withdrawn and, in effect, keep the litigation going. The fact that the case
has been submitted for resolution will not preclude the parties from amicably settling their differences, and
the Supreme Court form dismissing the case based thereon upon proper motion by the parties.(Nieto vs.
CA., G.R. No. 166984, August 7, 2007).

5.

In case of denial of an interlocutory order, the immediate remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file
an appropriate Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rules 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. The word
interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which
decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy- an order that does not
finally dispose of the case, and does not end the courts task of adjudicating the parties contention and
determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other. (United Overseas Bank vs.Ros, G.R. No.
171532, August 7, 2007).

COMPLAINT
1.

While the general rule requires the inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a complaint, the
non-inclusion of one or some of them is not fatal to the cause of action of a plaintiff, provided there is a
statement in the body of the petition indicating that a defendant was made a party to such action.(Linton
Commercial Co., Inc. vs. Hellera, G.R. No. 163147, October 10, 2007).

2.

The Rules of Court provides that the plaintiff or the principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint
or other initiatory pleading the requirements as mandated under Sec. 5, Rule 7. ( Gabriel vs. C.A., G. R.
No.149909, October 11, 2007).

3.

Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance; Downright disregard of the
rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.( Gabriel vs. C.A., G. R.
No.149909, October 11, 2007).

4.

The procedural rule operative at the time of the filing of the complaint for damages was Sec. 13, Rule 14 of
the (1964) Rules of Court. (Weena Express, Inc. vs. Rapacon, G.R. No. 149625, September 28, 2007).

5.

In all instances where a common cause of action is alleged against several defendants, some of whom
answers and the others do not, the latter or those in default acquire a vested right not only to own the
defense interposed in the answer of their co-defendant or co-defendants not in default but also to expect a
result of the litigation totally common with them in kind and in amount whether favorable or unfavorable.

Limitations on the effects of a failure to file a separate answer when other co-defendants (against whom a
common cause of action was alleged) had already filed theirs. (Grageda vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 169536,
September 21, 2007).
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
1.

Where some but not all of the defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their complaint once as a
matter of right in respect to claims asserted solely against the non answering defendant. Sandiganbayan
gravely abused its discretion when it denied the Republics Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.
(Republic vs Africa, G.R. No. 172315, August 28, 2007).

2.

As rule ruled in PAL vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 92740, March 23, 1992, a writing or document made
contemporaneously with a transaction which evidenced facts pertinent to the issue, when adduced as proof
of those facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative force than the oral
testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon memory and recollection. Statement, acts or conducts
accompanying or so nearly connected with the main transaction as to form part of it, and which illustrate,
elucidate, qualify or characterize the act, are admissible as part of the res gestae. (Golden (Iloilo) Delta
Sales Corp. vs. Pre-Stress International Corp., G.R. No.176768, January 12, 2009).

3.

In Dela Cruz vs. Andres, the court reiterated its pronouncement in Mesina vs. Meer, G.R. No. 146845, July
2, 2002, that a petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court. The court explained that under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for
relief must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other
proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting petitioners good and substantial cause of
action or defense, as the case may be. Most importantly, it should be filed with the same court which
rendered the decision.(Julio B. Purcon vs. MRM Phils. Inc., G.R., No. 182718, September 26, 2008).

4.

The Supreme Court has emphasized the import of Sec. 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in
Valenzuela vs. C.A, 363 SCRA 779 (2001), thus: Interestingly, Sec. 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure amended the former rule in such a manner that the phrase or that the cause of action or defense
is substantially altered was stricken off and not retained in the new rules. The clear import of such
amendment in Sec. 3, Rule 10, is that under the new rules, the amendment may substantially alter the
cause of action or defense. This should only be true, however, when despite a substantial change or
alteration in the cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher
interests of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules
which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. ( Philippine
Ports Authority vs. WGA, Inc. G.R. No. 158401, January 28, 2008).

5.

When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they
shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings- such amendment of the pleading
as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon
motion of any party at anytime, even after judgment, but failure to amend does not affect the result of the
trial of these issues. (BPI Family Bank vs. Franco, G.R. No. 123498, November 23, 2007)

MOTION TO DISMISS

The general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for
certiorari which is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling; Neither can a denial of a
motion to dismiss be the subject of an appeal unless and until a final judgment or order is rendered. It is a
well- settled rule after the trial court denies a motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendant should file an
answer, proceed to trial and await judgment before interposing an appeal.(Heirs of Florencio Adolfo vs.
Cabral, G.R. No,164934, August 14, 2007).

RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to
subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. Requisites for the Preclusive
effect of res judicata to be enforced. Absolute identity of parties is not a condition sine qua non for res
judicata to apply, a shared identity of interest being sufficient to invoke the coverage of the principle. A
subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong
has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing or the contract in dispute. The test often used in
determining whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same facts or evidence would
support and establish the former and present causes of actions. (PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
124772, August 14, 2007).

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1.

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution dated April 16, 2007 treated as a 2 nd Motion for
Reconsideration, is denied, it being a prohibited pleadingd. (Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power
Corporation, G.R. No. 168122, October 4, 2007).

2.

Second Motion for Reconsideration a prohibited pleading; Denial of a Motion for reconsideration is final;
Thus, as a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Procedural rules are not to be
belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudicing a partys
substantial rights. (Systra Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No., 176290,
September 21, 2007).

NON-FORUM SHOPPING
1.

Failure to comply with the non-forum shopping requirement in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of
Court, does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice, where the dismissal is
without prejudice, it does not bar petitioner from refilling of the petition for as long as it is made within the
60-day reglementary period fro filing the petition for certiorari. (Composite Enterprises, Inc., vs. Caparoso,
G.R.No. 159919, August 8, 2007)

JUDICIAL ADMISSION

The general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof,
admits of 2 exceptions, to wit- 1) when it is shown that such admission was made through palpable
mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made; If a party invokes an
admission out of context, then the one making the admission may show that he made no such
admission , or that his admission was taken out of context.(Sicam vs. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617, August 8,
2007).

INJUNCTION

There are 2 conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction: 1) a clear right to be protected exists
prima facie and 2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. One of the exceptions to the
principle of immutability of final judgments is the existence of supervening events; supervening events
refer to facts which transpire or new circumstances which develop after the judgment acquires finality,
rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.(Lagcao vs. Gako, A.M.RTJ-04-1840, August 2,2 2007).

PRESCRIPTION

Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of violation of the law and if the same be
not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. (Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto,
G.R. No. 138142, September 19, 2007.

JUDGMENTS
1.

When there is conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a decision and the opinion of the court
contained in the text or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. Where the inevitable
conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the
body of the decision will prevail.(Grageda vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 169536, September 21, 2007).

2.

The rule on conclusiveness of judgment precludes the re-litigation of a particular fact or issue in another
action between the same parties even if based on a different claim or causes of action.(Philippine
Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007).

3.

There are instances where the court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of 5 years upon
meritorious grounds; In computing the time limit for enforcing a final judgment, the general rule is that
there should not be included the time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a
definite time by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by
the death of the party or otherwise; Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will extend the time
within which the writ may be issued without SCIRE FACIAS ( a writ which had its origin in the Statute of
Westminster II used to revive or continue a judgment by regular proceedings. (Yau vs. Silverio, G.R. No.
158848, February 4, 2008).

WRIT OF POSSESSION

1. A writ of possession is an order enforcing a judgment to allow a persons recovery of possession of real or
personal property. (Saguan vs. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 159882, November 23, 2007).
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
1.

JULIO B. PURCON, JR. vs. MRM Philippines, Inc. & MIGUEL L. RIVERA/MARITIME
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, G.R. No. 182718, September 26, 2008

A petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court. Although Sec. 1 of
Rule 38 states that when a judgment or final order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence, a party in any court may file a petition for relief from judgment, this rule must be interpreted in
harmony with Rule 56, which enumerates the original cases cognizable by the Supreme Court. (Sec.1.
Original cases cognizable---only petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme Court. A petition
for relief from judgment is not included in the list of Rule 56, cases originally cognizable by the Supreme
Court. It is a settled rule that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved form the effects
of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his won negligence, or a mistaken mode of
procedure, otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has
already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to the mistaken mode of procedural by
counsel.

2.

Strict compliance with the reglamentary periods for filing a petition for relief from judgment is required
because it is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any
further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order or proceeding must, at some definite time attain
finality in order to put at last an end to litigation. It is long established by jurisprudence that the
reglamentary period is reckoned from the time the partys counsel receives notice of the decision, for notice
to counsel of the decision is notice to the party for purposes of Sec. 3, Rule 38; while failure of a partys
counsel to notify him of an adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom constitutes inexcusable
negligence, it is not a ground for relief from judgment. (Lynx Industries Contractor vs. Tala, G.R. No.
164333, August 24, 2007).

REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT

The proper venue in an action for revival of judgment depends on the determination of whether the present
action for revival of judgment is a real action or personal action. The allegations in the complaint for the
revival of judgment determine whether it is a real action or personal action; where the sole reason for the
action is the enforcement of adjudged rights over a piece of property, the action falls under the category of
a real action for which the complaint should be filed with the RTC of the place where the realty is located.
(Infante vs. Aran Builders, G.R. No. 156596, August 24, 2007).

EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS

The principle enunciated in Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is that final and executory
judgments must be executed as a matter of right and it becomes a ministerial duty of the court to issue a
writ of execution to enforce the judgment, meaning the court has the duty to see to it that the claim of the
prevailing party is fully satisfied from the properties of the losing party. Where the judgment direct the
losing party to execute a conveyance, deliver a deed or other documents or to perform any specific act in
connection therewith, these acts can be performed by the other persons upon his refusal to comply.(Abaga
vs. Panes, G.R. No. 147044, August 24, 2007).

ATTACHMENT
Preliminary Attachments

The purposes of preliminary attachment are: 1.) to seize the property of the debtor in advance of final
judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying said judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a)
to (e) of Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court; or 2.) to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or
constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service of summons on
the defendant cannot be effected, as in paragraph (f0 of the same provision.(Philippine Commercial
International Bank vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007).

REPLEVIN
If a defendant in a replevin action wishes to have the property taken by the sheriff restored to him, he
should within 5 days from such taking, 1) post a counter-bond in double the value of said property, 2) serve
plaintiff with a copy thereof, both requirements- as well as compliance therewith within the 5-day period
mentioned- being mandatory. Under the Rules of Court, the sheriff should not immediately deliver the
property seized under a writ of replevin to the plaintiff- the purpose of the 5-day period is to give
defendants in a replevin case a chance to require the return of the property by filing a counterbond.
(Bautista vs. Sula, AM No. P-04-1920, August 17, 2007).

EJECTMENT

In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the
MTC, nonetheless, has the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the
sole purpose of determining the issue of possession. As it now stands, the MTC has jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases on forcible entry and unlawful detainer regardless of whether said case involves questions of
ownership or even if the issue of possession cannot be determined without resolving the question of
ownership.(Go Ke Chong, Jr. vs. Chong, G.R. No. 153791, August 24, 2007).

APPEAL
1.

The rule on appeal is summarized in Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. vs. C.A., 297
SCRA 602. The court summarize the rule on appeals as follows: 1.) in all cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction; appeal may be made to the CA by mere notice of appeal where the
appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law; 2.) in all cases decided by the RTC in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction where the appellant raises only questions of law, the appeal must be
taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; 3.) all appeals from
judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless of whether the
appellant raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, shall be brought to
the CA by filing a petition for review under Rule 42. (Sevilleno vs. Cavillo, G.R. No. 146454, September
14, 2007).

2.

As a rule, an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to review of errors of law;
The factual findings of the trial court are generally binding on us unless there was a misapprehension of
facts or when the interference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken. Under Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court, every action, including a counterclaim or a cross-claim, must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party-in-interest.(Hi-Cement corporation vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No.
132403, 132419, September 28, 2007)

3.

There are instances when questions of fact may be reviewed by the Supreme Court as when the findings of
the court of appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or the agency concerned. (Civil Service
Commission vs. Bumogas, G.R. No. 174693, August 31, 2007).

4.

The appeal from a final disposition of the court of appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, and not a
special civil action under Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Court. (Fangonil-Herrera vs. Fangonil, G.R.
No. 169356, August 28, 2007).

5.

The Supreme Court may only take cognizance of appeals from decisions, final orders or resolutions of trial
courts which involve pure questions of law. Under the Rules of Court, final orders or resolutions of a MTC
should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the former.(Go Ke Chong, Jr. vs.
Chan, G.R.No. 153791, August 24, 2007).

6.

Petitioners failure to attach the material and relevant documents to his petition filed with the CA is a
sufficient ground to dismiss it.(Ferrer vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 155025, August 24, 2007).

7.

For all litigation must come to an end, at some point the court en banc should be shielded from the
importunings of litigants who resort to the convenience of an appeal to the court en banc merely to hamper
or delay the final resolution of the case- the court en banc is not an appellate court to which division
decisions may be appealed. (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. New India Assurance Company, Ltd., G.R.
No. 156978, August 24, 2007).

8.

An appellate court has an inherent authority to review unassigned errors 1.) which are closely related to an
error properly raised, 2.) upon which the determination of the error properly assigned is dependent, or, 3.)

where the court finds that consideration of them is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.(Vidad
vs. Tayamen, G.R. No. 160554, August 24, 2007).
9.

Only a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
declared by the rules to be appellable, may be subject of an appeal- no appeal may be taken from an
interlocutory order. The court distinguished a final order or resolution from an interlocutory one; A final
judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case leaving nothing more to be done by the court in
respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits, which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a
judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once
rendered , the task of the court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and
liabilities of the litigants is concerned- Nothing more remains to be done by the court except to await the
parties next move (which, among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately of course, to cause the execution of the
judgment once it becomes final or, to use the established and more distinctive term, final and
executory. Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the courts task
of adjudicating the parties contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but
obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the court is interlocutory, e.g., an order
denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for extension of time to file a
pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or granting or denying applications for postponement, or
productions or inspection of documents or things, etc. Unlike a final judgment or order, which is
appealable, as above pointed out, an interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as
part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered .(Philippine Ports
Authority vs. Rosales-Bondoc, G.R. No. 173392, August 24, 2007).

10. Appeal was not mooted by accused-appellants release on parole; parole refers to the conditional release of
an offender from a correctional institution after he serves the minimum term of his prison sentence; Parole
is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability under Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
(People vs.Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007).
11. The remedy of appeal by certiorari under the Rules of Court should involve only questions of law, not
questions of fact; As a general rule, court reviews cases decided by the CA only if they involve questions of
law raised and distinctly set forth in the petition. (Belgica vs. Belgica, G.R. No.149738, August 28, 2007).
12. Factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their
respective jurisdictions are generally accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence.(Carlos vs. CA, G.R. No. 168096, August 28, 2007).
CERTIORARI
1.

In appeals by certiorari before the Supreme Court, questions of fact may not be raised unless the case falls
under any of the exceptions. 1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures; 2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; 3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; 4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) when the
findings of fact are conflicting; 6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issue of the case, or
its findings are contrary to the admission of both the appellant and the appellee ; 7) when the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; 8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; 9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and 10) when the findings of fact are premised
on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (Fangonil-Herrera vs.
Fangonil, G.R. No. 169356, August 8, 2007).

2.

The determination of zonal valuations involves questions of fact or evaluation of evidence which is not
proper in a petition for certiorari.(Philippine Ports Authority vs. Rosales-Bondoc, G.R. No. 173392, August
24, 2007).

3.

With respect to labor cases, the appellate courts jurisdiction to review a decision of the NLRC in a petition
for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. There are two jurisprudential
rules of long-standing in this jurisdiction- first is the hoary rule, that factual issues are beyond the scope of
certiorari as they do not involve any jurisdictional issue, and second, is the cardinal principle that factual
findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, when devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness,
are accorded respect if not finality by the C.A. (Pfizer, Inc. vs. Galan. G.R. No. 158460, August 24, 2007).

4.

Certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, may be availed of only when there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Four elements must be present for
res judicata to apply; 1.) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; 2.) the decision must
have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; 3.) the disposition
of the case must be a judgment on the merits; 4.) there must be, as between the first and the second actions,
identity of the parties, subject matter, and the causes of action. (Puno vs. C.A. G.R. No. 132502, 132503,
September 19, 2007).

5.

Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings
or conclusions of the lower court. (Development bank of the Philippines vs. Go, G.R. No. 168779,
September 14, 2007).

6.

The filing of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of court was the proper remedy
questioning an order of execution. (A & C Minimart Corporation vs. Villareal, G.R. No. 172268, October
10, 2007).

7.

Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the authority of the CA to review resolutions and
decisions of quasi-judicial bodies on questions of fact.(Taguinod vs. CA, G.R. No.154654, September 14,
2007).

8.

Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review shall raise only questions of
law which must be distinctively set forth; For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of
the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. In determining the nature of
an action, it is not the caption but the averments of the petition and the character of the relief sought that are
controlling. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in
grave abuse of discretion, when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment
which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. (Development bank of the Philippines vs. Go, G.R. No. 168779,
September 14, 2007)

9.

The Court ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting, Corp. vs. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.,
G.R. No. 169332, February 11, 2008).

10. A petition for review on certiorari is not the proper mode by which resolutions of the Ombudsman in
preliminary investigations of criminal cases are reviewed by this courtthe remedy from the adverse
resolution of the Ombudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not petition for review on certiorari,
under Rule 45. (Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 139296, November
23, 2007).
LAW OF THE CASE
Law of the case is a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes a question and
remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case
upon subsequent appeal. As a rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is the law of the case whether that
decision is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing.( City of
Makati vs. Ygana, G.R. No. 168781, September 14, 2007).

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Legal Standing

The court holds that the petitioner has no legal standing to file the present petition. The court reiterates that
it is only the Solicitor General who may bring or defend actions on behalf of the State in all criminal
proceedings before the appellate courts. Hence, the Solicitor Generals non-filing of a petition within the
reglementary period before this court rendered the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals final and
executory with respect to the criminal aspect of the case. The Solicitor General cannot trifle with court
proceedings by refusing to file a petition for review only to subsequently, after the lapse of the
reglementary period and finality of the Amended Decision, file a comment. (Heirs of Delgado vs.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 184337, August 7, 2009).

Article 22, Revised Penal Code- Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws- Penal laws shave a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same. Sec. 6 (RA 9344) Minimum Age Of Criminal
Responsibility a child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. Discernment
is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Art. 68 (RPC)
the penalty to be imposed upon a person under18 but above 15 shall the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law.(Raymond Madali vs. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009)

Once a case if filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court, though
courts should not blindly follow the resolutions issued by the Department of Justice they could determine
on their own whether there is probable cause to the accused for trial. The failure of a judge to independently
evaluate and assess the merits of the case against the accused violates the complainants right to due
process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Where the trial court
order granting the withdrawal of the Information was committed with grave abuse of discretion, then the
accused was not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case -- double
jeopardy did not set in. (Summerville General Merchandising and Co., Inc. vs. Eugenio, Jr. G.R. No.
163741, August 7, 2007)

Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to
bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. A grant of bail does not prevent the
trier of facts, the same Anti-Graft Court, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on
the merits. (People vs. Sandiganbayan (Special Division), G.R. No. 158754, August 10, 2007).

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Non-attachment of the affidavit of service is not fatal where the registry receipts attached to the petition
clearly show that the other parties were served copies of the petition and its annexes. Technicality and
procedural imperfection should never be used to defeat the substantive right of the other party. (Composite
Enterprises, Inc., vs. Caparoso, G.R.No. 159919, August 8, 2007)

SUMMONS/JURISDICTION

In order to acquire jurisdiction in actions in personam where the defendant resides out of and is not found
in the Philippines, it becomes a matter of course for the court to convert the action into a proceeding in rem
or quasi in rem by attaching the defendants property ; The service of summons in this case(which may be

by publication coupled with the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons and the court order
to the last known address of the defendant) is no longer for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to hear the
case. Substituted service of summons is the normal mode of service of summons that will confer
jurisdiction on the court over the person of residents temporarily out of the Philippines; The court may
acquire jurisdiction over an action in personam by mere substituted service without the need of attaching
the property of the defendant. It is a well settled rule that one who has been injured by a wrongful
attachment can recover damages for the actual loss resulting therefrom. While as a general rule, the liability
on the attachment bond is limited to actual (or in some cases, temperate or nominal) damages, exemplary
damages may be recovered where the attachment was established to be maliciously sued out.(Philippine
Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007).
SUMMONS

A party who makes a special appearance in court for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court
based on the invalidity of the service of summons cannot be considered to have voluntarily submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court; Neither can the compulsory counterclaim contained in the
petitioners answer ad cautelam be considered as voluntary appearance of petitioner before the RTC. The
dismissal of complaint due to fault of the plaintiff is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute any pending counterclaims of whatever nature in the same or separate action.(Perkin Elmer
Singapore, Pte., Ltd. vs. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007).

SPECIAL PROCEEDING
A foreign arbitral award when confirmed by a court of a foreign country, shall be recognized and enforced as a
foreign arbitral award and not as a judgment of a foreign court. Hence, a foreign arbitral award, when
confirmed by the RTC, shall be enforced in the same manner as final and executory decisions of courts of law
of the Philippines. Venue and Jurisdiction: Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration
agreement or for vacations, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any application
with a court for a arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as special proceedings and shall be
filed with the RTC; 1)where the arbitration proceedings are conducted; 2)where the asset to be attached or
levied upon, or the act to be enjoined is located; 3) where any of the parties to the dispute resides or has his
place of business; 4) in the National Judicial Capital Region, at the option of the applicant. In a special
proceeding for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, the court shall send notice at such address, at
such partys last known address. The notice shall e sent at least 15 days before the date set for the initial hearing
of the application. It is now clear that foreign arbitral awards when confirmed by the RTC are deemed not as a
judgment of a foreign court but as a foreign arbitral award, and when confirmed, are enforced as final and
executory decisions of our courts of law.(Korean Technologies Co., Ltd. Vs. Hon. Alberto A. Lerma, G.R. No.
143581, January 1, 2009).
EVIDENCE
1.

Clearly preponderant evidence- that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible
than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other-which is the quantum of
evidence needed in administrative case against a lawyer.(Guevarra vs. Eala, AC. No. 7136, August 1,
2007).

2.

If complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that
the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. (Necesario vs. Dinglasa, A.M. P-07-2294,
August 7, 2007).

3.

While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different
where the proceedings involve judges charged with grave offense; Administrative proceedings against
judges are, by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal

cases, and the quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground/s
from the removal of a judicial officer should thus be more than substantial- they must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.(Alcuizar vs.Carpio, A.M.-RTJ-07-2068, August 7, 2007).
4.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be and has
been committed in even the unlikeliest of places. The fact that the private complainant did not resist or
attempt to file or shout for help does not negate force or intimidation. In rape cases, physical resistance
need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself out of
fear.(People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 172691, August 10, 2007).

5.

There must be evidence to support and prove the allegation that a tenancy relationship exists between the
parties; all the elements must concur for a tenancy relationship to exist.(Escariz vs. Revilleza, G.R. No.
155544, August 24, 2007).

6.

Just because a piece of evidence is not objected to does not ipso facto mean that it conclusively prove the
fact in dispute- the admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. (Foundation
Specialist, Inc. vs.LIMCOMCEN, Incorporated, G.R. No. 169678, August 31, 2007).

7.

He who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving:
a.) unlawful aggression on the part of his victim; b.) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it; and c.)lack of sufficient provocation on his part.(People vs. Abesamis, G.R.. No. 140985,
August 28, 2007).

8.

It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their
testimonies; while the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence,
proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greater number. It is jurisprudentially settled that
as between bare denials and positive testimony on affirmative matters, the latter is accorded greater
evidenciary weight. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence
or by circumstantial evidence of misappropriation; presumption however, is rebuttable. (Ceniza-Manantan
vs. People, G.R. No. 156248, August 8, 2007). Clearly preponderant evidence- that evidence adduced by
one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater
weight than the other-which is the quantum of evidence needed in administrative case against a lawyer.
(Guevarra vs. Eala, AC. No. 7136, August 1, 2007).

9.

If complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that
the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. (Necesario vs. Dinglasa, A.M. P-07-2294,
August 7, 2007).

10. While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different
where the proceedings involve judges charged with grave offense; Administrative proceedings against
judges are, by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal
cases, and the quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground/s
from the removal of a judicial officer should thus be more than substantial- they must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.(Alcuizar vs.Carpio, A.M.-RTJ-07-2068, August 7, 2007).
11. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be and has
been committed in even the unlikeliest of places. The fact that the private complainant did not resist or
attempt to file or shout for help does not negate force or intimidation. In rape cases, physical resistance
need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself out of
fear.(People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 172691, August 10, 2007).

JUAN DELA RAMA and EUGENIA DELA RAMA vs. OSCAR PAPA and AMEUERFINA PAPA, G.R. No.
142309 January 30, 2009

1.

Whether or not the fact of forgery can be establish through a preponderance of evidence.

2.

Whether or not Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of court accommodate the testimony of the very
person whose signature is disputed as a means to establish the genuineness of handwriting.

1.

With respect to deeds of sale or conveyance, what spells the difference between a public document and a
private document is the acknowledgment in the former that the parties acknowledging the document appear
before the notary public and specifically manifest under oath that they are the persons who executed it, and
acknowledge that the same are their free act and deed. The Court, through Chief Justice Davide, had
previously explained: "is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was
sworn to before him. It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was
properly made (Young vs. Wooden, 265 SW 24, 204 Ky. 694). The presumptions that attach to notarized
documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. The
respondent, Papa failed to confirm before the RTC that he had actually appeared before the notary public, a
bare minimum requirement under Public Act No. 2103. Such defect will not ipso facto void the deed of
sale. However, it eliminates the presumptions that are carried by notarized public documents and subject
the deed of sale to a different level of scrutiny. This consequence is with precedent. In Tigno v. Sps.
Aquino, where the public document in question had been notarized by a judge who had no authority to do
so, the Court dispensed with the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to duly
notarized documents, and instead applied preponderance of evidence as the measure to test the validity of
that document.

2.

The Supreme Court believes it does, and Emas v. De Zuzuarregui and Aguilar remains a good law
notwithstanding the subsequent enactment of the Rules of Court. After all, the owner of such disputed
signature may fall within the category of "any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person." SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.The handwriting of a person may be proved
by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write,
or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

3.

There is another implication under our rules of evidence. Under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, "documents acknowledged before a notary public except for last wills and testaments" are deemed as
public documents, and as such, under Section 23 of the same Rule, they are evidence of the fact which gave
rise to its execution and as to its date. Excepting the other public documents enumerated in Section 19, all
other writings are private, and before such private document is offered as authentic, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Accordingly, in order that the
challenged deed of sale may be accepted by the Court as genuine, the court must be satisfied by the
evidence on record establishing that its genuineness was proved by anyone who saw the document executed
or written, or by evidence of the genuineness or handwriting of the maker. In doing so, the court continue to
recognize that it remains incumbent on Papa to prove their allegation that the deed of sale was forged even
though that document no longer enjoys any significantly weighted presumption as to its validity since it
cannot be considered as a public document. The properly applicable standard of preponderance of evidence
necessitates that the court counterweigh the respective evidence submitted by the litigants to test whether
the plaintiffs claims are actionable. Accordingly, in this case if the evidence presented by the petitioners
that the deed of sale is a forgery is greater or more convincing than that presented by the respondents, then
favorable relief may be granted to petitioners.