EN BANC that it has no authority or power to order the transfer of the case to the proper Special
G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015 Commercial Court, citing Calleja v. Panday22 (Calleja); hence, the present petition.
MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D. GONZALES, Petitioners, v. GJH LAND, INC.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG HWAN JANG A.K.A. STEVE JANG, SANG RAK
KIM, MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI II, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court, via a petition for review on certiorari,1 from the Orders
dated April 17, 20122 and July 9, 20123 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City,
Branch 276 (Branch 276) dismissing Civil Case No. 11-077 for lack of jurisdiction.
The Facts
On August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales4 and Francis Martin D. Gonzales
(petitioners) filed a Complaint5 for "Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Status Quo Order,
Three (3) and Twenty (20)-Day Temporary Restraining Orders, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction
with Damages" against respondents GJH Land, Inc. (formerly known as S.J. Land, Inc.), Chang
Hwan Jang, Sang Rak Kim, Mariechu N. Yap, and Atty. Roberto P. Mallari II6 (respondents)
before the RTC of Muntinlupa City seeking to enjoin the sale of S.J. Land, Inc.'s shares which
they purportedly bought from S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010. Essentially, petitioners
alleged that the subscriptions for the said shares were already paid by them in full in the books
of S.J. Land, Inc.,7 but were nonetheless offered for sale on July 29, 2011 to the corporation's
stockholders,8 hence, their plea for injunction.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch 276, which is not a
Special Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011, said branch issued a temporary restraining
order,9 and later, in an Order10 dated August 24, 2011, granted the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
After filing their respective answers11 to the complaint, respondents filed a motion to
dismiss12 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, pointing out that the
case involves an intra-corporate dispute and should, thus, be heard by the designated Special
Commercial Court of Muntinlupa City.13
The RTC Ruling
In an Order14 dated April 17, 2012, Branch 276 granted the motion to dismiss filed by
respondents. It found that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute that is within the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs designated as Special Commercial Courts. It
pointed out that the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 (Branch 256) was specifically
designated by the Court as the Special Commercial Court, hence, Branch 276 had no
jurisdiction over the case and cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction on the matter, including the
issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.15 Accordingly, it dismissed the case.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,16 arguing that they filed the case with
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa City which assigned the same to
Branch 276 by raffle.17 As the raffle was beyond their control, they should not be made to suffer
the consequences of the wrong assignment of the case, especially after paying the filing fees
in the amount of P235,825.00 that would be for naught if the dismissal is upheld.18 They further
maintained that the RTC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes under Republic Act No.
(RA) 8799,19 but since the Court selected specific branches to hear and decide such suits, the
case must, at most, be transferred or raffled off to the proper branch.20
In an Order21 dated July 9, 2012, Branch 276 denied the motion for reconsideration, holding
1
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Branch 276 of the RTC of
Muntinlupa City erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, the Court finds Branch 276 to have correctly categorized Civil Case No. 11-077
as a commercial case, more particularly, an intra-corporate dispute,23 considering that it
relates to petitioners' averred rights over the shares of stock offered for sale to other
stockholders, having paid the same in full. Applying the relationship test and the nature of the
controversy test, the suit between the parties is clearly rooted in the existence of an intra-
corporate relationship and pertains to the enforcement of their correlative rights and
obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules
of the corporation,24 hence, intra-corporate, which should be heard by the designated
Special Commercial Court as provided under A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC25 dated June 17, 2003 in
relation to Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure to be followed when a commercial
case - such as the instant intra-corporate dispute -has been properly filed in the official station
of the designated Special Commercial Court but is, however, later wrongly assigned by raffle
to a regular branch of that station.
As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a
particular case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a
court's exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of
Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court.26 In Lozada v. Bracewell,27 it was
recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has
nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000. By virtue of said law,
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 528 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A29 was
transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of
general jurisdiction. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 5. Powers and Functionsof the Commission. - x x x
xxxx
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential
Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may
designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes
submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment
of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed. (Emphasis
supplied)cralawlawlibrary
The legal attribution of Regional Trial Courts as courts of general jurisdiction stems from Section
19 (6), Chapter II of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,30 known as "The Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980":chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions; x x x x
cralawlawlibrary
As enunciated in Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. CA:31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All
cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the
jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial
court.32ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
To clarify, the word "or" in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally used by the
legislature to particularize the fact that the phrase "the Courts of general jurisdiction" is
equivalent to the phrase "the appropriate Regional Trial Court." In other words, the jurisdiction
of the SEC over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the
courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise known as), the proper Regional Trial
Courts. This interpretation is supported by San Miguel Corp. v. Municipal Council,33 wherein the
Court held that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[T]he word "or" may be used as the equivalent of "that is to say" and gives that which precedes
it the same significance as that which follows it. It is not always disjunctive and is sometimes
interpretative or expository of the preceding word.34cralawlawlibrary
Further, as may be gleaned from the following excerpt of the Congressional
deliberations:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Senator [Raul S.] Roco: x x x.
xxxx
x x x. The first major departure is as regards the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Securities and Exchange Commission has been authorized under this proposal to reorganize
itself. As an administrative agency, we strengthened it and at the same time we take away
the quasi-judicial functions. The quasi-judicial functions are now given back to the courts of
general jurisdiction - the Regional Trial Court, except for two categories of cases.
In the case of corporate disputes, only those that are now submitted for final determination of
the SEC will remain with the SEC. So, all those cases, both memos of the plaintiff and the
defendant, that have been submitted for resolution will continue. At the same time, cases
involving rehabilitation, bankruptcy, suspension of payments and receiverships that were filed
before June 30, 2000 will continue with the SEC. in other words, we are avoiding the possibility,
upon approval of this bill, of people filing cases with the SEC, in manner of speaking, to select
2
their court.35
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Therefore, one must be disabused of the notion that the transfer of jurisdiction was made only
in favor of particular RTC branches, and not the RTCs in general.
Consistent with the foregoing, history depicts that when the transfer of SEC cases to the RTCs
was first implemented, they were transmitted to the Executive Judges of the RTCs for raffle
between or among its different branches, unless a specific branch has been designated as a
Special Commercial Court, in which instance, the cases were transmitted to said branch.36 It
was only on November 21, 2000 that the Court designated certain RTC branches to try and
decide said SEC cases37 without, however, providing for the transfer of the cases already
distributed to or filed with the regular branches thereof. Thus, on January 23, 2001, the Court
issued SC Administrative Circular No. 08-200138 directing the transfer of said cases to the
designated courts (commercial SEC courts). Later, or on June 17, 2003, the Court issued A.M.
No. 03-03-03-SC consolidating the commercial SEC courts and the intellectual property
courts39 in one RTC branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Special Commercial Court, to
streamline the court structure and to promote expediency.40 Accordingly, the RTC branch so
designated was mandated to try and decide SEC cases, as well as those involving violations of
intellectual property rights, which were, thereupon, required to be filed in the Office of the
Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Courts, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The Regional Courts previously designated as SEC Courts through the: (a) Resolutions of this
Court dated 21 November 2000, 4 July 2001, 12 November 2002, and 9 July 2002 all issued in
A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC; (b) Resolution dated 27 August 2001 in A.M. No. 01-5-298-RTC; and (c)
Resolution dated 8 July 2002 in A.M. No. 01-12-656-RTC are hereby DESIGNATED and shall be
CALLED as Special Commercial Courts to try and decide cases involving violations of
Intellectual Property Rights which fall within their jurisdiction and those cases formerly
cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
4. The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases arising within their
respective territorial jurisdiction with respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within
the respective provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall
be filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special
Commercial Court;41
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)cralawlawlibrary
It is important to mention that the Court's designation of Special Commercial Courts was made
in line with its constitutional authority to supervise the administration of all courts as provided
under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.cralawlawlibrary
The objective behind the designation of such specialized courts is to promote expediency and
efficiency in the exercise of the RTCs' jurisdiction over the cases enumerated under Section 5
of PD 902-A. Such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of jurisdiction to
all RTCs under RA 8799 since in the first place, the Court cannot enlarge, diminish, or dictate
when jurisdiction shall be removed, given that the power to define, prescribe, and apportion
jurisdiction is, as a general rule, a matter of legislative prerogative.42 Section 2, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
xxxx
cralawlawlibrary
Here, petitioners filed a commercial case, i.e., an intra-corporate dispute, with the Office of
the Clerk of Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is the official station of the designated
Special Commercial Court, in accordance with A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC. It is, therefore, from the
time of such filing that the RTC of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter
or the nature of the action.43 Unfortunately, the commercial case was wrongly raffled to a
regular branch, e.g., Branch 276, instead of being assigned44to the sole Special Commercial
Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is Branch 256. This error may have been caused by a
reliance on the complaint's caption, i.e., "Civil Case for Injunction with prayer for Status Quo
Order, TRO and Damages,"45 which, however, contradicts and more importantly, cannot
prevail over its actual allegations that clearly make out an intra-corporate
dispute:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
16. To the surprise of MLCG and FMDG, however, in two identical letters both dated 13 May
2011, under the letterhead of GJH Land, Inc., Yap, now acting as its President, Jang and Kim
demanded payment of supposed unpaid subscriptions of MLCG and FMDG amounting to
P10,899,854.30 and P2,625,249.41, respectively.
16.1 Copies of the letters dated 13 May 2011 are attached hereto and made integral parts
hereof as Annexes "J" and "K", repectively.
17. On 29 July 2011, MLCG and FMDG received an Offer Letter addressed to stockholders of
GJH Land, Inc. from Yap informing all stockholders that GJH Land, Inc. is now offering for sale
the unpaid shares of stock of MLCG and FMDG. The same letter states that the offers to
purchase these shares will be opened on 10 August 2011 with payments to be arranged by
deposit to the depository bank of GJH Land, Inc.
17.1 A copy of the undated Offer Letter is attached hereto and made and made an integral
part hereof as Annex "L".
18. The letter of GJH Land, Inc. through Yap, is totally without legal and factual basis because
as evidenced by the Deeds of Assignment signed and certified by Yap herself, all the S.J.
Land, Inc. shares acquired by MLCG and FMDG have been fully paid in the books of S.J. Land,
Inc.
19. With the impending sale of the alleged unpaid subscriptions on 10 August 2011, there is
now a clear danger that MLCG and FMDG would be deprived of these shares without legal
and factual basis.
20. Furthermore, if they are deprived of these shares through the scheduled sale, both MLCG
and FMDG would suffer grave and irreparable damage incapable of pecuniary estimation.
21. For this reason, plaintiffs now come to the Honorable Court for injunctive relief so that after
trial on the merits, a permanent injunction should be issued against the defendants preventing
them from selling the shares of the plaintiffs, there being no basis for such
sale.46cralawlawlibrary
According to jurisprudence, "it is not the caption but the allegations in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading which give meaning to the pleading and on the basis of which such
3
pleading may be legally characterized."47 However, so as to avert any future confusion, the
Court requires henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its
caption and the body, which parameters are defined in the dispositive portion of this Decision.
Going back to the case at bar, the Court nonetheless deems that the erroneous raffling to a
regular branch instead of to a Special Commercial Court is only a matter of procedure - that
is, an incident related to the exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, should not negate the
jurisdiction which the RTC of Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such a scenario, the
proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed; instead, Branch 276
should have first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial
case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then assign said case to the only designated
Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch 256.
Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC acquiring jurisdiction over the case
has multiple special commercial court branches; in such a scenario, the Executive Judge,
after re-docketing the same as a commercial case, should proceed to order its re-raffling
among the said special branches.
Meanwhile, if the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a Special
Commercial Court, then it should refer the case to the nearest RTC with a designated Special
Commercial Court branch within the judicial region.48 Upon referral, the RTC to which the case
was referred to should re-docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC
has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole
special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial
Courts, raffle off the case among those special branches.
In all the above-mentioned scenarios, any difference regarding the applicable docket fees
should be duly accounted for. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly
credited, and any excess, refunded.
At this juncture, the Court finds it fitting to clarify that the RTC mistakenly relied on
the Calleja case to support its ruling. In Calleja, an intra-corporate dispute49 among officers of
a private corporation with principal address at Goa, Camarines Sur, was filed with the RTC of
San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 58 instead of the RTC of Naga City, which is the official station
of the designated Special Commercial Court for Camarines Sur. Consequently, the Court set
aside the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur's order to transfer the case to the RTC of Naga City
and dismissed the complaint considering that it was filed before a court which, having no
internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, had no jurisdiction over those
kinds of actions, i.e., intra-corporate disputes. Calleja involved two different RTCs, i.e., the RTC
of San Jose, Camarines Sur and the RTC of Naga City, whereas the instant case only involves
one RTC, i.e., the RTC of Muntinlupa City, albeit involving two different branches of the same
court, i.e., Branches 256 and 276. Hence, owing to the variance in the facts attending, it was
then improper for the RTC to rely on the Calleja ruling.
Besides, the Court observes that the fine line that distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction and
exercise of jurisdiction had been clearly blurred in Calleja. Harkening back to the statute that
had conferred subject matter jurisdiction, two things are apparently clear: (a) that the
SEC's subject matter jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases under Section 5 of Presidential
Decree No. 902-A was transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction, i.e., the appropriate
Regional Trial Courts; and (b) the designated branches of the Regional Trial Court, as per the
rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, shall exercise jurisdiction over such cases. Item 5.2,
Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. - x x x
xxxx
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential
Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may
designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases, x x
x.cralawlawlibrary
In contrast, the appropriate jurisprudential reference to this case would be Tan v. Bausch &
Lomb, Inc.,50 which involves a criminal complaint for violation of intellectual property rights filed
before the RTC of Cebu City but was raffled to a regular branch thereof (Branch 21), and not
to a Special Commercial Court. As it turned out, the regular branch subsequently denied the
private complainant's motion to transfer the case to the designated special court of the same
RTC, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The CA reversed the regular branch and,
consequently, ordered the transfer of the case to the designated special court at that time
(Branch 9). The Court, affirming the CA, declared that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over
the subject matter. In view, however, of the designation of another court as the Special
Commercial Court in the interim (Branch 11 of the same Cebu City RTC), the Court
accordingly ordered the transfer of the case and the transmittal of the records to said Special
Commercial Court instead.51Similarly, the transfer of the present intra-corporate dispute from
Branch 276 to Branch 256 of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, subject to the parameters
above-discussed is proper and will further the purposes stated in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC of
attaining a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
For further guidance, the Court finds it apt to point out that the same principles apply to the
inverse situation of ordinary civil cases filed before the proper RTCs but wrongly raffled to its
branches designated as Special Commercial Courts. In such a scenario, the ordinary civil case
should then be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case;
thereafter, the Executive Judge should then order the raffling of the case to all branches of the
same RTC, subject to limitations under existing internal rules, and the payment of the correct
docket fees in case of any difference. Unlike the limited assignment/raffling of a commercial
case only to branches designated as Special Commercial Courts in the scenarios stated
above, the re-raffling of an ordinary civil case in this instance to all courts is permissible due to
the fact that a particular branch which has been designated as a Special Commercial Court
does not shed the RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of
statutory law, i.e., Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129.52 To restate, the designation of Special
Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of
commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. This designation was not
made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate
rules governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the
administration of all courts and the personnel thereof.53 Certainly, an internal rule promulgated
by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason,
the designation of Special Commercial Courts is, to stress, merely an incident related to the
court's exercise of jurisdiction, which, as first discussed, is distinct from the concept of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is
therefore not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
In fine, Branch 276's dismissal of Civil Case No. 11-077 is set aside and the transfer of said case
to Branch 256, the designated Special Commercial Court of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City,
under the parameters above-explained, is hereby ordered.
4
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated April 17, 2012 and July 9, 2012 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 in Civil Case No. 11-077 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 11-077 is REFERRED to the Executive Judge of
the RTC of Muntinlupa City for re-docketing as a commercial case. Thereafter, the Executive
Judge shall ASSIGN said case to Branch 256, the sole designated Special Commercial Court in
the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is ORDERED to resolve the case with reasonable dispatch. In
this regard, the Clerk of Court of said RTC shall DETERMINE the appropriate amount of docket
fees and, in so doing, ORDER the payment of any difference or, on the other hand, refund any
excess.
Furthermore, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following guidelines shall be
observed:
1. If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its regular branch, the
proper courses of action are as follows:
1.1 If the RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case
shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and
thereafter, assigned to the sole special branch;
1.2 If the RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, then the case
shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and
thereafter, raffled off among those special branches; and
1.3 If the RTC has no internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the
case shall be referred to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch
within the judicial region. Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should re-
docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch
designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special branch; or (b) if
the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the
case among those special branches.
2. If an ordinary civil case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its branch
designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be referred to the Executive
Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case. Thereafter, it shall be raffled off to all courts of
the same RTC (including its designated special branches which, by statute, are equally
capable of exercising general jurisdiction same as regular branches), as provided for under
existing rules.
3. All transfer/raffle of cases is subject to the payment of the appropriate docket fees in case
of any difference. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and
any excess, refunded.
4. Finally, to avert any future confusion, the Court requires that all initiatory pleadings state the
action's nature both in its caption and body. Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, upon
motion or by order of the court motu proprio, be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing after
due rectification. This last procedural rule is prospective in application.
5. All existing rules inconsistent with the foregoing are deemed superseded.cralawlawlibrary
SO ORDERED.