Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GENERAL PROVISONS
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and
promulgates the following rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged:
Section 1. Title of the Rules.
These Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court.
the enactment was pursuant to the rule making power of the court.
SC does not only exercise judicial but also legislative but only with regards to procedures but not to substantive law.
SB before it can only issue mandamus, habeas corpus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Mateo v People- person charged w/ murder, appeal must made directly to the SC. they transferred it to CA.
St Martin Funeral Homes
Problem: sila naman tanggap ng tanggap ng kaso. In US there are only 9 members in their SC, They only dispose of 90 cs per
yr bec the harder part of their judicial fn was to decide what not to decide. Only cases na magkaroon ng doctrinal ruling.
The purpose of the SC is only to lay down doctrines.
In US, there are several Federal Circuit CA. In the circuit of Washington DC alone,
These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient.
- take note : election cs- special proceedings to establish a FACT, Public office as a right
Land Reg:
Insolvency : establish the fact that you are insolvent. Once you are insolvent you will no longer pay your debts.
- 4 categories actions or proceedings Sec 3 a, b and c
- election case: special proceeding to establish a fact that you are a winner.
- if the protestee dies eg Mayor, the Vice Mayor will become the Mayor- thats why he shld be a FORCED party.
- if you are not a party to a protest but later on declared as the winner- Special Proceedings. You do not apply the
rules heres except when you are in court.
Sec. 5. Commencement of action.
- A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later
pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
for purposes of tolling of prescriptive pd: 1. make an extrajudicial demand and 2. judicial demand
However, it is not merely the filing of complaint but also the filing of APPROPRIATE DOCKET FEE.- to complete the
commencement of action
Manchester : if the proper appellate docket fee is not paid no filing- no jurisdiction
- however in Sun Insurance v J. Asuncion
Ouano v PGTT-
1. you only apply No 8 after considering the 1st 7
2. disregard damages
As to Object-
1. In Personam against a specific person and seeks judgment only against that particular person
2. In Rem the obj is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to an objection against one whom it is sought to be
established.
- against the thing itself and judgment against the whole world
eg : Official Gazette
3. Quasi In Rem
Ching v CA-
An action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an action in rem or an action against the
whole world, like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will; it is an action in personam, so much so that a
judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be
heard. Actions in personam and actions in rem differ in that the former are directed against specific persons and seek
personal judgments, while the latter are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments
with respect thereto as against the whole world. An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in
personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing
What is splitting a single cause of action? dividing a single cause of action into separate parts
What is the effect?
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon
the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
the filing of the 1st will be an abatement on another action and judgment on merits in 1 will be
litis pendentia - filing of the 1st will be an abatement on another action
res judicata if the 1st action a judgment has already rendered the 2nd will be dismissed on the ground of res
judicata
Reason fr the prohibition on splitting cause of action?
- the rules against pleading a cause action is prevent repeated litigation bet the same parties in regard the same
subject of controversy. To protect defendant fr unnecessary vexation, cost on numerous suits.
- multiplicity of suits which is not condusive to the proper admin of justice
What is the test if the cause of action is single?
- there shld be only 1 action for a single cause of action (delict or wrong committed by act or omission of defendant
in violation of that right)
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL
In 1968, spouses Joaquin Padilla and Socorro Padilla bought on credit three units of Isuzu trucks from the Industrial
Transport and Equipment, Inc. They executed a promissory note for P159,600, the balance of the purchase price, securing
payment thereof by a chattel mortgage of said trucks and, as additional collateral, a real estate mortgage on their
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133625 in favor of the seller. 1 Subsequently, Industrial Transport
and Equipment, Inc. indorsed the note and assigned the real estate mortgage to petitioner Industrial Finance Corporation
(IFC), which assignment was duly registered in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and annotated on the title of the
mortgaged realty.
On May 15, 1970, in view of the failure of the Padillas to pay several installments on the note, the assignee IFC sued
Joaquin Padilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) for the recovery of the unpaid balance on the note
including attorney's fees.
they were able to secure judgment based on the promissory note.
the new owner sought for the cancellation of mortgage lien
Industrial Finance objected.
there are 2 remedies available : ordinary colln suit(w/c they filed) and foreclosure of mortgage
- there shld be only 1 action for a single cause of action (delict or wrong committed by act or omission of defendant
in violation of that right)
- payment of principal and interest- there is only 1 delict which is NON-pyt (act or omission)
- non pyt of interest still arose fr one wrong w/c is failure to pay the principal.
judgment was rendered based on the PN, can the mortgage be cancelled? Yes bec to allow this recognizing the right of
mortgagee to foreclose will rise another suit for the same delict or wrong.
In a principal contract there is a subsidiary contract: eg Mortgage, which can not exist w/o the principal. They are
intertwined w/ each other. Failure of pyt: you have 2 remedies, invoking 1 will be abandoning the other remedy.
I promise to pay P1m, on or before dates specified:
a. on or before jan 31 p100k
b. on or before feb 28 100k
and so on
- each installment constitutes separate delicts, you can file action per month.
- can you file 3 actions? one for Jan, Feb and March? No. All installment due must all be included otherwise it will
constitute splitting.
Contract has many parts:
a. use cement
b. use steel
c. plywood
etc.
Shld you sue several actions based on several pars? No. All violation son the contract must already be in a single action
otherwise it will be splitting cause of action.
When there is only 1 delict or wrong, there shld only be 1 cause of action regardless of number of rights violated such.
single delict or wrong must be a violation of only 1 contract or tran otherwise it may give rise to separate cause of action
Bahrach
Deprivation of your right as a co-owner : You are asking for an action for partition and accounting: this must be a single
cause of action.
Bayang v CA
Sometime in November 1969, Juan Bayang filed a complaint for quieting of title with damages against Benigno Biong in
the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, Branch I, docketed as Civil Case No. 1892. 1 In 1970, while the case was
pending, Biong succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiff of the land in question and remained there until January 25, 1978.
2 On February 21, 1972, the case was decided in favor of Biong, but the Court of Appeals on December 8, 1977, reversed
the trial court, declaring in the dispositive portion of its decision:
"WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and appellants are hereby declared owner of the property in
litigation, and defendant-appellee are (sic) hereby ordered to pay appellant the sum of P56.40 as the latter's share in the
proceeds from the sale of the copra derived from the third harvest of coconuts from the same land, and P1,000.00 as
attorney's fees, and costs of litigation." 3
This decision became final on February 2, 1978. cdasia
On February 6, 1978, Bayang filed a second case, docketed as Civil Case No. 2589, with the CFI of Surigao del Norte, Branch
II, seeking to recover from Biong the incomes earned from the same land from 1970 up to the quarterly incomes from
1978 until the said land was delivered to the plaintiff.
The petitioner would draw a distinction between the land in dispute in Civil Case No. 1892 and the income from that land
being claimed in Civil Case No. 2589. But that is in our view splitting hairs to split a cause of action. The subject-matter is
essentially the same in both cases as the income is only a consequence or accessory of the disputed property. We cannot
agree that there are involved here two causes of action calling for two separate cases. The claim for the income from the
land was incidental to, and should have been raised by Bayang in his earlier claim for, ownership of the land.
- when you filed the action- you must have included everything
How many actions for Breach of Contract containing sec
1. gen rule: contract has only 1 cause of action- may be violated only ones
2. a contract
- everytime installment is not paid, can be filed but all due obligations must be included or else they will be barred.
- when the failure to compoly on 1 of sev stipulation in a continuing constituting a single breach file only one
action
- eg of stipulation on cont contract w/ separate breach
- in the event that borrower does not pay installment the entire will become due- acceleration clause- wag mong
paghiwalayin.
consolidation of the amount until it became P500k- comment of sir : MTC can render judgment in excess.
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
- unlawful detainer and forcible entry- within the jurisdiction of MTC- ejectment
c. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction
of said court and the venue lies therein; and
- these rules apply only with the RTC and not with MTC
- same parties dapat.
if the RTC has jurisdiction on ATLEAST 1 cause of action and it has venue in atleast 1 action it can be heared by the
court
1. collection of money: p1m and
2. recovery of ownership of RP located in Sulu
- you can file it in Angeles
if the property of the RP is only P10k you can also file it in RTC bec the P1m collection suit is w/in the
jurisdiction of RTC
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. TOTALITY RULE
the totality rule applies only for RECOVERY OF MONEY.
1ST : p100K- mtc, 2ND P150K-MTC, 3RD 100K-JOINDER- RTC
alternative-
Rule 2 Sec 5
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action.
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a
party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.
The 1st rule is that it shld comply with the rule on the joinder of parties.
Rule 3 Sec. 6. 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 series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
Rules, 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 defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent
any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may
have no interest.
REMEDIO V. FLORES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS, IGNACIO BINONGCAL & FERNANDO
CALION
in this case 1 plaintiff- 2 defendants who were not able to pay purchase pr ice of tires in a separate trans---held: misjoinder
defendant 1 11k
defendant 2 10k
filed it is RTC of Baguio
Held: RTC has no jurisdiction.
RTC- 20k
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the
grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount
of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are several claims or
causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions; - BASIS OF TOTALITY RULE
BASIS OF Rule 2 Sec 5 (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. TOTALITY RULE
but he case was dismissed bec it is a misjoinder of parties then there is also a misjoinder of causes of action.
You drop the misjoined then wala na p20k then wala ng jurisdiction ang RTC.
1st rule : totality Rule
2nd Rule : misjoinder bec it does not arise from same or several tran and there is no common qn of fact.
Case:
I have a House and Lot and you will be my exclusive selling agent and I give you a pd of 60 days then you will receive 5%
of the purchase price. What the agent sought the help of B with a separate agreement. B was able to find a buyer. But
the owner does not want to pay. I have no agreement with you but only to my agent. Is there a misjoinder?
the law does not require that there is privity bet the parties joined with the opposing party. What is reqd is that there is
the right of relief for and against the party jointIn this case it is a series of tran involving the same thing which is right to
commission bec of the agency and there is a common qn of fact and law.
Filing Fee
Rules:
1. Manchester devt corp. If the filing fee is not properly made, the court has no jurisdiction
2. Sun Insurance. A party may be given a reasonable time to pay the appropriate docket fee provided that it is not
beyond the prescriptive period.
when is a civil case filed? filing of original cs in court and payment of docket fee
Cabrera vs Tejano : the 10 yr is not the service of summon but the filing of case in court.
3. when the amt is not specified the party may be given a reasonable time to specify damages that he is asking to
have a basis for comp of proper docket fee.
Rule 141.
1. Pyt of fees- in full
Ayala v Madayag
Sabio filed a case against Ayala, for specific performance with damages before the sala of J. Madayag
Ayala moved to dismiss bec the prescribed docket fee was not paid and it also failed to specify the amt of damages both
in the body and prayer the amt of exemplary damages they are seeking. The plaintiffs paid only P1k. The Spouses Sabio
argued that anyway they can pay it later on the basis of - where the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading,
or if specified, the same has been left for the determination of the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a
lien on the judgment" only damages that may arise after the filing of complaint DAMAGES PENDENTE LITE
BP 129
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in
such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00)
bank filed a complaint must include all ACCRUED interest for purposes of Jurisdiction. What does exclude interest? interest
that accrues pendent lite.
eg MTC 300k- umutang ka ng P200k, at the time of filing of complaint my interest p60k including interest accruing while
case is pending, while case is pending nag-accrue na, umabot ng p500k. MTC can award bec din a kasali ung for purposes of
jurisdiction.
Sabio alleged that they need not state it now. those are the only damages that will arise PENDENTE LITE which the court
may award. You will pay filing fee there constituting a LIEN on the judgment.
Cabrera v Tejano
- Institution ; FILING OF CASE AND PYT OF DOCKET FEE IN FULL.
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS AND D.J. WARBY, petitioners, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION,
3 Basic Rules in Sun Insurance
Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of
the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
- compulsory are excluded
Under Rules 141 SEC 7
a. permissive or compulsory-
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of
the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the
same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee.
-= Ayala
The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although specified are left for determination of the
court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not
be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.
MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
"On May 21, 1985, a complaint for damages was filed by plaintiff Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corporation
(Monet's) and/or Vicente Tagle against defendants Maersk Tabacalera Shipping (Maersk) and the New Asia Enterprises
(New Asia) and/or Manuel Ranola, alleging, among other things, that plaintiff, like defendant New Asia, is engaged in the
export of locally-made handicrafts and products, while defendant Maersk Line is engaged in furnishing containerized
services through which Monet's and New Asia normally ship their goods; that on March 11, 1984, plaintiff, after
complying with all the export and custom requirements, loaded its goods in Maersk's container to be delivered on or
before March 15, 1984 to Manila for immediate transshipment to its port of destination; that through fraud and malice,
and without prior notice to Monet's, Maersk unloaded the goods at New Asia's factory site at Tagas, Daraga, Albay to give
way to the latter's own export shipment; that Monet's shipment was later returned to its warehouse at Banag, Daraga,
Albay; and that because of this occurrence, Monet's had to secure another shipper, thereby incurring unnecessary
expenses as well as suffering mental anguish, worry and sleepless nights thinking of the possibility of losing its trading
partners which would seriously doubt Monet's capacity as a respectable exporter. Monet's likewise alleged having suffered
actual, moral and exemplary damages (
Monet did not pay the correct filing fee on its claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages, the amounts of which
were not specified in the body and prayer of its complaint,
Maersk should have raised its objection to the trial court's jurisdiction when the case was still in that court. It should not
have waited for an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals before waking up to raise the question of jurisdiction.
Since this is a case where some of the claims (for moral and exemplary damages) were not specified in the plaintiff's
pleading and were left for determination by the court, the applicable rule is the third rule set out in the decision of this
Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd., et al. vs. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, e al., 170 SCRA 274, to wit:
"3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specific, in the pleading, or if specified the same
has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It
shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee."
- but bayad pa rin, it will constitute a lien on the judgment but can not be a ground for dismissal of the case. It
was raised too late.
-
ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HOME
INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION,
petitioner Original Development and Construction Corporation (ODECOR for brevity) filed a complaint for breach of
contract and damages against private respondent Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC for short), National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC for short) and Caloocan City Public School Teachers Association (CCPSTA
for brevity simultaneously they paid 2 checks and P86 based on one numerical figure which is p2m representing taking
out 22 proceeds fr lot buyers
ODECOR's first complaint as well as its amended complaint vaguely asserted its claim for actual, consequential,
exemplary and moral damages, "the amount of which will be proved at the trial" and the demand for attorney's fees as
"equivalent to 25% of the total monetary liability and other expenses of litigation and costs of this suit". Such terms are
certainly not definite enough to support the computation of the proper docket fees. While it is not required that the
exact amounts be stated, the plaintiff must ascertain, in this estimation, the sums he wants and the sums required to
determine the amount of such docket and other fees. Thus, it is evident that the complaint did not state enough facts
and sums to enable the Clerk of Court of the lower court to compute the docket fees payable and left to the judge "mere
guesswork" as to these amounts, which is fatal.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
SALVADOR TENSUAN and FILIPINAS CARBON AND MINING CORPORATION
The fact that the main action or principal relief sought in the complaint is for specific performance and/or rescission is
only determinative of jurisdiction in the sense that, regardless of the amount of incidental or additional claims for
damages, the case is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. This does not mean, however,
that the separate claims for damages therein are exempt from the payment of docket fees. The prayer in private
respondent's second amended complaint 8 reveals that, in addition to the principal relief of specific performance and/or
rescission, it categorically and unconditionally seeks the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, with
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
LEONARDO A. AURELIO and YAO BUN SHIONG, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth Division, HON. JUDGE
ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY
Sabio's "Counter-Complaint" is a compulsory counterclaim, not a third-party complaint, hence, no separate filing fee may
be required for asserting it.
PARTIES
RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff"
may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff.
The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-
defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant.
Ching v CA
bought a property 5 yrs after died
13 yrs after his death plaintiff filed petition
summon by publication, he was declared in default for failing to answer
heirs of Ching learned abt the judgment: annulment- no jurisdiction in the person of Ching
Defense- action quasi in rem, fr in personam
SC: no, it is still in personam which requires personal service of summons.
if person cant be located can use publication. but the court did not apply it? the person is already dead.
basic in service of summon can only be served if person is still alive even for substituted service where person shld also be
alive bec it requires natural and juridical person. A person who is dead is not a natural person thus you can no longer serve
summons.
May a civil association of persons not legally organized may sue and be sued?
- eg Friday Grp. hehehe
- no, it is not registered. Only natural and juridical person. You go to proper authority to seek primay franchise bec
you want to ask govt to recognize you as a person. There is only one natural person, tayo no need to seek for
recognition. Upon birth we have inalienable rights.
Municipal Corporation:
A corporation is an artificial being having rights, pro and fn recognized by law.
- an artificial being created by law.
- it is artificial bec it does not exist in reality.
there are exceptions to the rule:
1. Class Suit: when the parties are so numerous that it is impractible to bring them into court
Sec. 12. Class suit.
When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous
that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous
and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any
party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
petitioner Hang Lung Bank, Ltd., which was not doing business in the Philippines, entered into two (2) continuing
guarantee agreements with Cordova Chin San in Hongkong whereby the latter agreed to pay on demand all sums of
money which may be due the bank from Worlder Enterprises to the extent of the total amount of two hundred fifty
thousand Hongkong dollars (HK $250,000).
Worlder Enterprises having defaulted in its payment, petitioner filed in the Supreme Court of Hongkong a collection suit
against Worlder Enterprises and Chin San. Summonses were allegedly served upon Worlder Enterprises and Chin San at
their addresses in Hongkong but they failed to respond thereto
We are cognizant of the fact that under the "isolated transaction rule," only foreign corporations and not just any
business organization or entity can avail themselves of the privilege of suing before Philippine courts even without a
license. Counsel Armando S. Padilla stated before the respondent Court of Tax Appeals that his clients are "suing upon a
singular and isolated transaction." But there is no proof to show that K.M.K. and INDRAPAL are indeed what they are
represented to be. It has been simply stated by Attorney Padilla that K.M.K. Gani is "a single proprietorship," while
INDRAPAL is "a firm," and both are "doing business in accordance with the laws of Singapore . . .," with specified
addresses in Singapore. In cases of this nature, these allegations are not sufficient to clothe a claimant of suspected
smuggled goods of juridical personality and existence. The "isolated transaction rule" refers only to foreign corporations.
Here the petitioners are not foreign corporations. They do not even pretend to be so.
MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and the SPOUSES PEDRO M. LARA and ELISA G.
LARA
principle of estoppel against Lara spouses because they willingly transacted with Merrill Futures knowing that it is a
foreign corp doing bus in the Phil w/o a license.
ONE WHO HAS DEALT WITH A CORPORATION OF FOREIGN ORIGIN AS A CORPORATE ENTITY IS ESTOPPED TO DENY ITS
CORPORATE EXISTENCE AND CAPACITY TO SUE CASE AT BAR. In other words, if it be true that during all the time that
they were transacting with ML FUTURES, the Laras were fully aware of its lack of license to do business in the Philippines,
and in relation to those transactions had made payments to, and received money from it for several years, the question is
whether or not the Lara Spouses are now estopped to impugn ML FUTURES capacity to sue them in the courts of the
forum. The rule is that a party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the
same by entering into a contract with it. [SEE Ohta Development Co. v. Steamship 'Pompey,' et al., 49 Phil. 117 120 (1926);
Asia banking Corporation v. Standard Products Co., 46 Phil. 144 (1924)] And the "doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate
existence applies to foreign as well as to domestic corporations;" [14 C.J. 227] "one who has dealt with a corporation of
foreign origin as a corporate entity is estopped to deny its corporate existence and capacity." [36 Am Jur 2d, pp. 296-297,
although there is authority that said doctrine "does not, by analogy, require that such person be held estopped to deny that
the corporation has complied with the local statutes imposing conditions, restrictions, and regulations on foreign
corporations and that it has acquired thereby the right to do business in the state"] The principle "will be applied to prevent
a person contracting with a foreign corporations from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes,
chiefly in cases where such person has received the benefits of the contract (Sherwood v. Alvis, 83 Ala 115, 3 So 307,
limited and distinguished in Dudley v. Collier, 87 Ala 431, 6 So 304; Spinney v. Miller 114 Iowa 210, 86 NW 317), where such
person has acted as agent for the corporation and has violated his fiduciary obligations as such, and where the statute does
not provide that the contract shall be void, but merely fixes a special penalty for violation of the statute." The doctrine was
adopted by this Court as early as 1924 in Asia Banking Corporation v. Standard Products Co., in which the following
pronouncement was made: "The general rule that in the absence of fraud a person who has contracted or otherwise dealt
with an association in such a way as to recognize and in effect admit its legal existence as corporate body is thereby
estopped to deny its corporate existence in any action leading out of or involving such contract or dealing, unless its
existence is attacked for causes which have arisen since making the contract or other dealing relied on as an estoppel
and this applies to foreign as well as domestic corporations. (14 C.J. 227; Chinese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua Te Ching,
14 Phil. 222)." There would seem to be no question that the Laras received benefits generated by their business relations
with ML FUTURES. Those business relations, according to the Laras themselves, spanned a period of seven (7) years; and
they evidently found those relations to be of such profitability as warranted their maintaining them for that not insignificant
period of time; otherwise, it is reasonably certain that they would have terminated their dealings with ML FUTURES much,
much earlier. In fact, even as regards their last transaction, in which the Laras allegedly suffered a loss in the sum of
US$160,749.69, the Laras nonetheless still received some monetary advantage, for ML FUTURES credited them with the
amount of US $75,913.42 then due to them, thus reducing their debt to US $84,836.27. Given these facts, and assuming
that the Lara Spouses were aware from the outset that ML FUTURES had no license to do business in this country and MLPI,
no authority to act as broker for it, it would appear quite inequitable for the Laras to evade payment of an otherwise
legitimate indebtedness due and owing to ML FUTURES upon the plea that it should not have done business in this
country in the first place, or that its agent in this country, MLPI, had no license either to operate as a "commodity and/or
financial futures broker."
JUASING HARDWARE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RAFAEL T. MENDOZA
Finally, there is no law authorizing sole proprietorships like petitioner to bring suit in court. The law merely recognizes the
existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual, and
requires the proprietor or owner thereof to secure licenses and permits, register the business name, and pay taxes to the
national government. It does not vest juridical or legal personality upon the sole proprietorship nor empower it to file or
defend an action in court. Cdpr
Thus, the complaint in the court below should have been filed in the name of the owner of Juasing Hardware.
CHIANG KAl SHEK SCHOOL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FAUSTINA FRANCO OH
An unpleasant surprise awaited Fausta F. Oh when she reported for work at the Chiang Kai Shek School in Sorsogon on
the first week of July, 1968. She was told she had no assignment for the next semester. Oh was shocked. She had been
teaching in the school since 1932 for a continuous period of almost 33 years. And now, out of the blue, and for no apparent
or given reason, this abrupt dismissal.
The original defendant was the Chiang Kai Shek School but when it filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it could
not be sued, the complaint was amended. 2 Certain officials of the school were also impleaded to make them solidarily
liable with the school.
SCHOOL HAVING REPRESENTED ITSELF AS POSSESSED OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THE SAME.
There is no question that having contracted with the private respondent every year for thirty two years and thus
represented itself as possessed of juridical personality to do so, the petitioner Chiang Kai Shek School is now estopped
from denying such personality to defeat her claim against it. According to Article 1431 of the Civil Code, "through estoppel
an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying on it
recite___
JESUS M. IBONILLA v. PROVINCE OF CEBU, CEBU STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
province of Cebu donated parcels of land to Cebu Agri School w/ a condition that if it ceases to operate donation will be
revoked
Cebu Agri merged or became an extension of Cebu State College thus Province req for revocation
- parents, teachers, officers not real party in interest bec not owners.
VSC COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR ESTOPACE and JOSE SILAPAN,
leases in the Market filed a complaint questioning the title of VSC- lessor to the subjected land
leases- estopped fr qn title of lessor
leases- not real party in interest but the govt theirs is only an expectancy
J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by its Managing PARTNER, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC
to recover possession of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City.
plaintiff named in the title but not necessarily by the real party in interest
defendant OCEAN of the land--- title of plaintiff obtained thru fraud- 1 yr after decree- can no longer qn the title
an assignee for a valuable consideration- is a real party in interest even the assignment is only for colln
Carlos v 100 P 28
Only parties to a contract may sue
are the heirs of the deceased real party in interest?
yes. If the action arises out of a right pertaining to the deceased and it is one of those actions w/c survive heirs are real
party in interest. provided no pending settlement proceeding of the decedent in court
Derivative Suit- you are a minority stockholder. yung majority ninanakawan na ang corp. You can sue as minority
stockholder. It is the corp who is the real party in interest and you derive it. The minority who brings the action and
actively prosecuted it is a mere nominal plaintiff but it is allowed by law.
but not to the fruits of paraphernal pro- forming part of the community prop.- eg fruits of rental
effect of failure to join the husband in the suit- wife as real party in interest has a capacity to sue, defect is merely
procedural and can be amended.
May a H alone maintain an action w/ respect to paraphernal prop of the wife? no except for fruits
While a married woman sep paraphernal prop but when damages for the paraphernal H must be included. fruits
Lim v Dee
Appeal by plaintiff from the order of the Manila court of first instance dismissing, upon motion and without trial, his
complaint to recover his wife's share (and its fruits) in the estate left by her deceased father. He included his wife as
codefendant because she was unwilling to sue with him. Dee Chian Hong died intestate in Manila on February 1, 1945
leaving valuable stock in financial and commercial institutions, Crispina Dee was one of his legitimate children and the
other fourteen defendants were other heirs. In March 1946 these other heirs executed an extrajudical settlement of the
estate, dividing it among themselves, and in fraud of Crispina, awarded nothing to her. In April 1948 plaintiff Bienvenide,
Lim married Crispina; and in March 1954 he filed his action demanding a new partition, delivery of Crispina's inheritance.
together with its income, and attorney's fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personality
and prescription. Crispina submitted a motion to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff's complaint usurped a cause of action
completely hers, and that she had never authorized him to institute any action concerning the estate of her deecased
father. After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the action. The contract of partition was not void, but merely
voidable in so far as it concerns strangers who had mistakenly been included in the partition, as alleged by plaintiff.
Consequently, so long as it was not avoided, the contract had its effects; and when plaintiff married Crispina in 1948 such
partition agreement was existing. Wherefore, to all intents and purposes there was no inheritance brought by her to the
marriage; hence, her husband acquired no rights thereto. Not only that but the wife objects to the action, and under
Article 1382 of the Civil Code the husband may not maintain actions of any kind whatsoever with respect to the
paraphernal property, without the intervention or consent of the wife. Anyway, her conduct practically amounts to a
renunciation or disposition of her share or paraphernal property.
Labor : one ee has his own contract with the er---late, absence etc
if we are ees we try to form a union. er dismissed us- union busting- same tran- engaging in union busting w/ common qn of
fact and law.
owner of 10 door apt. 5 of tenants failed to pay no commonality, no same tran or series of tran.
but where there is agency, owner appts agent then appt sub-agent- can agent and sub-agent join to sue? yes, series of tran
agency. their right to relief is collection.
who is an indispensable party? w/o him being a party no final determination can be had in the action.
e.g. A asked for reconveyance of title, plaintiff filed an action for reconveyance. respondent was able to mortgage
it, which is registered. Is the ME indispensable? yes, bec if you annul the title you will also annul the mortgage, you
will prejudice the ME
If you buy a prop, then here comes Lino filing a suit saying that he has a better title. Can you claim that Vendor shld
be included? you can sue the vendee alone, no need to sue the vendor. You have a complete relief against the
vendee alone having the title.
co-owners- you can not have a complete relief , it will prejudice the rights of other co-owners who were not
joined.
I sold the property to you, then you sold it to another. lino claiming better title. lino sued both what will be the
effect?
if only to vendee- vendee has the natural right to go against the vendor filing a 3 rd party complaint. relief is only as
w/ lino and you but as to your claim as to the warrantee of the vendoe the peaceable possession and title ---
complete relief---pati vendee may relief na rin
can the creditor sue alone the principal debtor w/o surety? yes, he can sue either. solidarily liable.
joinder of partied can be compulsory is persons are INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
WHO is an indispensable? Sec 7
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action (indispensable parties) shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
eg. co-ownsership, if you want to seek partition of the prop- you must include all of the co-owners bec failure to
include one may prejudice his rights.
mortgagee- no valid judgment for annulment of title, bec the ME is an indispensable party might be prejudiced if
not include.
what is an indispensable is not included?
gen rule: judgment is Void. bec an indispensable party- w/o whom no final determination can be had
an indispensable partys presence is sine qua non in the exercise of judicial power.
necessary party: if he can not be joined for not reason or another, may be excluded and judgment will not
eg. against the surety-principal debtor is only a proper party, not indispensable bec surety is solidarily liable thus
complte relief may be granted.
- indispensable party is not only is the pt of view of if he is a defendant but relief to plaintiff.
- in an action to annul a partition- indispensable party
- action for recognition- all the heirs are indispensable party bec if an illegitimate will be recognized the hereditary
rights of legitimates will will diminished.
- where the widow not included indispensable- entitled to one legitimate heir.
- if A sells his prop to B and X files an action against B the buyer, A is not indispensable party bec complete relief
may given to X w/o including A.
- Robles v CA
- A sold his prop to B, later plaintiff brother of A claiming to be a co-owner- recover his share fr B. Is A an
indispensable? No, but the defendant B may file a 3rd oarty complaint against A based on warranty against
eviction.
- Nunal v CA
- - de leon for her self as guardian ad litem filed a partition suit against Luisa Nunal. Judgment was redenred by RTC
ordering partition. CA affirmed. Order of Exectution. During the execution, Marie filed a motion to quash the
execution on the ground that she is a co-owner.
- SC- decision of RTC is civil c is final, trial judge lost jurisdiction on the cs. Judge can no longer modify during the pd
of execution to include Marie bec it will amt to amending a final and executor judgment
- The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in Civil Case No. 872 and all
other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in interest can prove their
respective claims.
Metrobank Cs
- MBTC was not included as ME, suit was only against the owner, while REM is annotated. Judgment is null and void
bec MBTC was not included. It was apparent in the certificate that there is a ME (difference fr Nunal Cs)
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such party.
If initially there is non-inclusion of indispensable party, you shld not immediately file a motion to dismiss, you set a
hearing as a judge,l and you find him as indispensable party, require the plaintiff the inclusion
what if the party refuses to include the indispensable party? penalty?
Mina v Pacson
Plaintiffs Ligaya, Jaime, Silvina, Fausta, Pablo and Miguel, all surnamed Mina, are alleged to be the illegitimate
children of the deceased Joaquin Mina with plaintiff Pilar Lazo from 1933-1958, while married to Antonia
Pacson.
Joaquin Mina died in August, 1958, leaving no descendants nor ascendants except his widow, the defendant
herein Antonia Pacson. On April 9, 1958, Joaquin Mina, then still living, executed a deed of absolute sale (Annex
"B" to Complaint) of three parcels of land situated in the municipality of Muoz, Nueva Ecija, in favor of the
defendants Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina for the sum of P12,000. On April 15, 1958 again he executed
another deed of sale (Annex "C" to Complaint) of 13 parcels of land covered by 12 transfer certificates of title to
the same spouses Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina.
plaintiffs are hereby directed to amend their complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof by including
as party defendant the surviving widow of the deceased Joaquin Mina and other necessary parties.
Acar v Rosal
- sugar workers. Sugar Act 1964- in every picul of sugar sold, (haciendero, miller, warehouseman, govt and sacada-
workers in the field)
- 9k of them were not paid. Imagine preparation the cs for 9k petitioners. How many pp in the title of the case.
- Class Suit- association
Dael v Teves
plaintiffs filed an action for recovery of ownership and damages
2 of the defendants who are indispensable parties (who inherited the prop fr parents) died before the filing of the
complaint
court ordered to amend the complaint to include heirs of the deceased defendants.
dismissed: failure to amend
- failure of the defendants counsel to give name and add of the the deceased
Dismissal is correct. In the Casenas cs, the court ordered amendment, did not comply, dismiss-res judicata, but the
proper procedure is not to amend but order substitution. In this case the order of amendment is proper because the
death in this case occurred BEFORE the filing of the complaint. The procedure for substitution applies only if death
occurred AFTER the filing of the complaint- death occurred pendent lite.
JOSE BARRAMEDA, DOLORES B. MAGADIA, and JULIAN BARRAMEDA, JR., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PAULINO BARBARA and
MARCELA BARBARA
Although the attorney for the deceased defendant did not furnish the name of the legal representative of his deceased
client, the court directly ordered the plaintiffs to make the substitution without previously requiring the defendants to
do so.
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER. Although the attorney for the deceased defendant did not furnish the name
of the legal representative of his deceased client, the court directly ordered the plaintiffs to make the substitution
without previously requiring the defendants to do so. Consequently, the order of the court requiring the plaintiffs to
make substitution without previously ordering the attorney for the defendants to name the legal representative and
ordering the latter to appear, was a violation of Rule 3, sections 16 and 17, and was, therefore, void. The non-compliance
with the order could not be considered as failure to prosecute. The fault of the defendants should not be attributed to the
plaintiffs, making the latter suffer the serious consequences.
AMANDA L. VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
action for ejectment against tenants
after action was filed. Felix, defendant died. No substitution was effected after his demise.
same cannot enforce
the need of the substi is based on the right of party to due process.
nothing in the rules shall substi is mandatory reqd in action which survives bec the right to be heared is impt.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Haberer appeared before CA
Atty given 90 days to file appellants brief- up to Sept 25
Vda died on May 26, n1975
cousel gave notice of death to the court
asked to suspend running of filing of appellants brief
petition for probate was pending in another court
original granted was abt to expire
asked for extension of 60 days.
not certain that their services will be extended by the heirs;
SC- ROC sets rule of substi in cs of death. It is the court who is called upon, claim not extinguish TO ORDER for subst the
legal rep to appear. Since no admin yet apptd bec pending determination in another court.
action of extension is well taken.
New Rules : If no appearance fr rep - the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the
appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for
and on behalf of the deceased.
when there is death the lawyer cl rel is extinguished. Thus there is a need to suspend the running of the pd of extension bec
they no longer have right to represent.
CA knew already knew abt the death, you shld hve ordered rep to appear
judgment rendered null and void bec no jurisdiction to legal rep.
Lawas v CA
- A sued B, for ownership and partition. B died, where his daughter was apptd admin. at the hearing on Nov 1975,
Attys C and D. atty for the deceased defendant manifested that law-cl rel was terminated and none of the rep
renewed it but called another lawyer. The judge still ordered substi of the deceased.
- ordered to present evidence absence of previous lawyers, and treated the cs for decision.
- widow and children moved for recon (not the apptde admin) it was approved.
- SC both the TC and CA erred in considering former counsels as counsels of heirs. Widow as admin, shld have been
substi for the deceased, bec the admin has the priority which was not done in this cs.
HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
W filed an action against H for partition, acctg and damages of their common prop.
H died on Jan 7 1995 after cs was submitted for decision
No notice of hius death was filed. Promlgation pushed thru
Nov Atty filed notice of appeal.
the appellee, W filed a motion to dismiss appeal- defendant ceased to have legal personality and that lawyer-cl expired
upon the Hs death
CA- dismissed the cs
SC- supervening death did not extinguish right of W to action on conjugal
trial of the cs was finished. since it was not informed of fact of death. TC can not be faulted, its judgment is binding in so far
as the subj matter is concerned. The decision is binding to heirs by title.
Atty notice of appeal in CA correctly dismissed bec it was unauthorized pleading hence invalid.
Melgar v Bienviaje
This cs is an action for damages, it is predicated fr the fact the substitute heirs has something to receive by way of
inheritance.
- the owner Balla being sued as er of his negligent driver who was the author of the negligent act. Art 2180-
vicarious liability those persons enumerated has supervision and control over the authors of the negligent act.
Paredes v Moya
Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer.
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or
otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within
thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily
shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the
successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a
substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given
reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
- the action is against public officer in his official capacity (if personal- no substitution).
- do you continue sustaining the position of your predecessor? yes, tuloy and asunto.
- The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce
the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
- (a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, or the
administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or
status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the
title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the
probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the
testator or intestate;
- - in rem actions
- conclusive
- (b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest (how) by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the
same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
- in personam
- the successors in interest acquires title to the thing subj of the litigation
- transfer of interest occurred after the commencement of the suit bec if it is prior- the successor in interest prior
is not binding as to him
- Sec. 19. Transfer of interest.
- In case of any transfer of interest, the action may (not mandatory) be continued by or against the original party,
unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the
action or joined with the original party.
- if there is no substitution, is the transferee bound by the judgment against the original party defendant? yes
- Jocson
- - bought a car, Filinvest later on repossessed it. Cr was assigned it to Filivest Cr, later on sue Filivest Finance when it
repossessed the car. Filinvest was acquired by BPI, amended. BPI acquired all assets of BPI Credit Corp. but there
was no formal substitution.
- Filinvest Finace and BPI Cr filed notice of appeal
- writ of execution was served to BPI
- BPI invoke due process
- SC- a transferee pendent lite stands exactly in the same position as his successor in interest- bound- it is proper not
indispensable party- will follow even not formally substituted. It is not mandatory the substitution shld. be made
-
- (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have
been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or
which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
- in personam
Plaintiff filed an action for recovery of ownership, defendant donated it to X. Plaintiff won, done is saying that can not
enforce judgment bec he is not bound. is he bound?
Opinion of Sir- effect of Torrens system. If you do not know of any defect in the title and you relied in the 4 corners of the
title. You are a transferee in good faith and for value. You are a transferee for value and in good faith. since there is no
notice of lis pendens, dapat patatakan mo ng notice of lis pendens para ma-notify yung transferee- this is an effect of a
higher law.
Torrijos v CA
Torijos v Ca
Accused has prop sold it to X then to Y, estafa- double sale
x- sued the accused
he was convicted
pending appeal, he died
CA- dismissed the cs. Art 100 both crim and civil ex-delicto- dismissed
But SC: pwd pa- the civil liab even preexisted the offense. When accused sold it to x, it already
created a juridical tie of an obligation. Estafa occurred only when it was sold for the 2 nd time-pwd
pa kahit patay na
Sandidiego:
Pending appeal he died: as treasurer, his civil liab pre-existed the offense
Bayotas in the light of the new rule while the civil obligation in the contract of sale pre-existed
the offense, the civil liab arising ex-contracto will not be deemd instituted
Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also extinguished together with the
criminal action if it were solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto.
People v Sandaydiego
- these 2 decisions were superseded in the cs of Sumaya v People and
Sec. 21. Indigent party.
A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte
application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for
food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable
to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
Acar v Rosal- suit filed by only 10 persons for their behalf and 9k other laborers working.
filing fee- to sue as pauperis- being mere laborers.
SC- free access to courts shld not be denied by reason of poverty. Changed the term fr pauper to indigent. A
person indigent who has no prop or source of income sufficient for their support. You need not be at public
expense.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial
court. If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with
sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk
of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof,
without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.