Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Get
Verily, what determines the nature of the action and which court
has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought.
ent Done estimation; thus, one within the RTC's jurisdiction. The
allegations therein show that it is actually for breach of
Homeworkping
contract. A case for breach of contract is a cause of action either for
specific performance or rescission of contracts. An action for
rescission of contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific
.com
performance, is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore falls
under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The averments in the complaint
show that Payoyo sought the cancellation of the contracts and refund
of the downpayments since Villena failed to comply with the obligation
Homework Help to deliver the appliances and install the kitchen cabinets subject of the
contracts. While the respondent prayed for the refund, this is just
https://www.homeworkping.com/ incidental to the main action, which is the rescission or cancellation of
the contracts.
Research Paper help Petition DENIED. (Jazzie Sarona )
https://www.homeworkping.com/
LARANO vs. SPS. CALENDACION (June 19, 2007)
Jurisdiction account for and deliver the harvest from said riceland.
Petitioner sent respondents a demand letter to vacate but such
demand went unheeded. Petitioner filed a complaint against the
VILLENA vs. PAYOYO (April 27, 2007)
respondents for unlawful detainer before the MTC, praying that
respondents be directed to vacate the riceland and to pay P400,000.00
FACTS: Payoyo and Novaline, Inc., through its president, Villena,
per year from September 1998 until they vacate, as reasonable
entered into a contract for the delivery and installation of kitchen
compensation for the use of the property, P120,000.00 as attorney’s
cabinets in Payoyo's residence. The cabinets were to be delivered
fees, and P50,000.00 as litigation expenses. Respondents alleged
within 90 days from downpayment of 50% of the purchase price. A
that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the complaint
downpayment was paid. Another contract was entered into for the
failed to allege that a demand to pay and to vacate the riceland was
delivery of home appliances and Villena also paid the downpayment.
made upon them.
Villena faled to install the kitchen cabinets and deliver the appliances.
Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint is one for unlawful detainer.
damages against Villena. Petitioner posits that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the complaint since it is mainly for recovery of a sum
RULING: NO, it is not for unlawful detainer. Jurisdiction in ejectment
of money in the amount of P184,821.50 which is below the
cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint. The
jurisdictional amount set for RTCs.
test for determining the sufficiency of those allegations is whether,
admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the case
accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff.
In unlawful detainer, the possession was originally lawful but
RULING: YES, RTC has jurisdiction. In determining the jurisdiction
became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to
of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
possess; hence, the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in such
nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be
action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiff’s cause of
ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the
action is the termination of the defendant’s right to continue in
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the
possession.
jurisdiction of the court depends on the amount of the claim. But,
Petitioner, as vendor, must comply with two requisites for the
where the primary issue is something other than the right to recover a
purpose of bringing an ejectment suit: (a) there must be failure to pay
sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
the installment due or comply with the conditions of the Contract to
consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are actions whose
Sell; and (b) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and
subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by
vacate within the periods specified in Section 2 of Rule 70, namely: 15
the RTCs.
days in case of land and 5 days in case of buildings.
1
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
Thus, mere failure to pay the installment due or right to retain or remove it is therefore an agrarian dispute
violation of the terms of the Contract to Sell does not that should be resolved by the DARAB. Having situated the
automatically render a person's possession unlawful. home lot on the subject lot since 1957, respondent can be ejected
Furthermore, the giving of such demand must be alleged in therefrom only for cause or upon proof that the tenancy relationship
the complaint; otherwise, the MTC cannot acquire has already been severed. Petitioners should prove before the
jurisdiction over the case . DARAB their grounds for ejectment.
What is clear is that in the Complaint, petitioner alleged that Petition DENIED. (Jazzie Sarona )
respondents had violated the terms of the Contract to Sell. However,
the Complaint failed to state that petitioner made demands upon
respondents to comply with the conditions of the contract – the OMICTIN, vs.COURT OF APPEALS (January 22, 2007)
payment of the installments and the accounting and delivery of the
harvests from the subject riceland. The 10-day period granted FACTS:Private respondent George I. Lagos was charged with the
respondents to vacate even fell short of the 15-day period mandated crime of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code
by law. When the complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He filed a motion to suspend
requirements of a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the MTC does not proceedings on the basis of a prejudicial question because of a
have jurisdiction to hear the case. pending petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Petition DENIED. (Jazzie Sarona involving the same parties. The trial court denied respondent's motion
) to suspend proceedings. The CA granted the motion to suspend
proceedings. The SEC case was transferred to the Regional Trial
BAUTISTA vs. MAG-ISA VDA. DE VILLENA (Sept. 13, 2004) Court (RTC) pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC implementing the
Securities and Regulation Code (Republic Act No. 8799) enacted on
FACTS: A parcel of land was originally owned by Caluag. The July 19, 2000, vesting in the RTCs jurisdiction over intra-corporate
original tenant-tiller of this land was Aquilino Villena, husband of disputes.
respondent. The tenancy relationship dated back to 1946 and
continued even after the demise of Aquilino through his surviving ISSUE:Whether or not a prejudicial question exists to warrant the
spouse, Susana. Upon the instruction of Caluag, the house of suspension of the criminal proceedings pending the resolution of the
Susana was transferred to the subject lot, because Caluag had given intra-corporate controversy that was originally filed with the SEC.
Susana a portion thereof with an area of 1000 square meters as
home lot and seedbed. Since then, Susana had been in peaceful RULING:Yes. A prejudicial question is defined as that which
possession thereof until 1987 when a case for ejectment was filed arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
against her by petitioners. antecedent of the issue involved therein and the cognizance
Petitioners argue that no tenancy relationship exists with respect of which pertains to another tribunal. Here, the case which was
to the subject lot, since the property is a residential and not an lodged originally before the SEC and which is now pending before the
agricultural land. They further contend that even on the assumption RTC by virtue of Republic Act No. 8799 involves facts that are
that a tenancy relationship existed, the CA erred in considering the intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution is
area as respondent’s home lot. According to them, a home lot should based. Ultimately, the resolution of the issues raised in the intra-
be constituted on the farm that the lessee is tilling, not on the corporate dispute will determine the guilt or innocence of private
residential lot of the landowner. For these reasons, they claim that respondent in the crime of estafa filed against him by petitioner before
jurisdiction lies with the regular courts, not with the DARAB. the RTC of Makati.
ISSUE: Whether or not this case falls under the exclusive ISSUE:Whether or not the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) RULING: Yes.Likewise, by analogy, the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction may be applied in this case. The issues raised by
HELD: YES, it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. petitioner particularly the status of Saag Phils., Inc. vis-à-vis Saag (S)
For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Pte. Ltd., as well as the question regarding the supposed authority of
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically, in the the latter to make a demand on behalf of the company, are proper
DARAB. subjects for the determination of the tribunal hearing the intra-
The instant case involves the tenancy rights of respondent corporate case which in this case is the RTC of Mandaluyong,. These
against petitioners. Consequently, there exists an agrarian dispute issues would have been referred to the expertise of the SEC in
cognizable by the DARAB. Respondent was a tenant of petitioners’ accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction had the case not
predecessors. been transferred to the RTC of Mandaluyong. Strictly speaking, the
Respondent’s rights as an agricultural lessee are therefore objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in
enforceable against Maria Lopez and Lorenzo Caluag’s transferees, determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction
herein petitioners. until after an administrative agency has determined some question or
There is no legal basis for petitioners’ restrictive interpretation of some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the
the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Its jurisdiction encompasses “all court. The court cannot or will not determine a controversy
agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
incidents involving the implementation of all agrarian administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where
laws.” A home lot is incident to a tenant’s rights. The the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
2
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
HELD: Respondents paid docket fees as assessed by clerk of court to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to
but was later found incorrect. They should only pay the deficiency and use the established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."
jurisdiction is not automatically lost. Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and
(Kahlil Elbanbuena ) does not end the Court's 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
UNITED OVERSEAS BANK VS. HON. JUDGE REYNALDO
"interlocutory" e.g., an order denying motion to dismiss under Rule
ROS August 07, 2007
16 of the Rules, or granting of motion on extension of time to file a
pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or granting or denying
FACTS:Private respondent Rosemoor Mining and Development
applications for postponement, or production or inspection of
Corporation filed an action for damages, accounting, release of the
documents or things, etc. Unlike a "final" judgment or order, which
balance of the loan and machinery and annulment of foreclosure sale
is appealable, as above pointed out, an "interlocutory" order may
against petitioner before the RTC of Manila.
not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may
eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.
Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss the private respondent's
complaint on the ground of improper venue. Consequently, the private
Since an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss does not finally
respondent amended its Complaint, this time praying for Accounting,
dispose of the case, and in effect, allows the case to
Release of the Balance of the Loan and Damages.
proceed until the final adjudication thereof by the court,
The RTC of Manila issued an Omnibus Resolution denying the same
then such order is merely interlocutory in nature.
for lack of merit.
We find occasion here to state the rule, once more, that an order
Private respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint, dropping
denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and
Lourdes Pascual as plaintiff and impleaded the officers of the
therefore not appealable, nor can it be subject of a petition
petitioners as defendants. Private respondent filed another action for
for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the
Injunction with Damages before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The
ordinary procedure to be followed in that event is to file an answer, go
The filing of the above mentioned case prompted the petitioner to file
to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal
a second Motion to Dismiss before the RTC of Manila on the ground
from the final judgment.
of forum shopping. The Manila RTC denied the second Motion to
Dismiss for lack or merit.
As a general rule, an interlocutory order is not appealable until after
the rendition of the judgment on the merits for a contrary rule would
A third Motion to Dismiss Civil Case was filed by the petitioner with
delay the administration of justice and unduly burden the courts.
the Manila RTC this time raising the issue of jurisdiction. The Manila
However, we have ruled that certiorari is an appropriate remedy to
RTC denied petitioner's third Motion to Dismiss Civil Case on the
assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order
ground that petitioner was already estopped to raise the issue. Court
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse jurisdiction and
of Appeals affirmed the Manila RTC Orders.
(2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.
ISSUE:Whether or not an appeal may be taken from an interlocutory
order
3
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
ISSUE:Whether or not petitioner is in estoppel to question the Bank, PNB, DBP, GSIS, AFP-RSBS and the Republic of the
jurisdiction of the Court. Philippines, praying that they be released from the obligation to buy the
PAL shares of petitioner and other defendants therein at P5.00 per
RULING:Yes."Unlike Manchester, however, were the jurisdictional share, as earlier agreed upon under the Stockholders' Agreement, on
issue arising from insufficiency of the docket fee paid was seasonably ground of alleged radical change in the conditions prevailing at the
raised in the answer of the defendant in the trial court, in this case, time the said agreement was entered and the present. .
the issue is being raised for the first time. Petitioner submitted to the
jurisdiction of the trial court without question. It filed a counterclaim Trial court ruled in favor of the respondents. Trial court denied Land
seeking affirmative reliefs, and actively took part in the trial. A party Bank's motion for reconsideration. Therefrom, Land Bank decided to
who voluntarily participates in the trial cannot later on go to the CA on a petition for review. For the purpose, it filed with the
raise the issue of the Court's lack of jurisdiction. CA, a motion for extension of time to file the intended petition for
review. The motion was denied by the CA.
In the case at bar, the said [petitioner] filed their counter-claim
seeking affirmative relief and then filed a motion to dismiss without ISSUE:Whether or not the filing of a motion for reconsideration before
raising the issue of non-payment of docket fees. And when plaintiff's the trial court toll the reglementary period to appeal the judgment
witness Dra. Lourdes S. Pascual was presented on direct examination
the said [petitioner] did not object and participated in the proceedings. RULING:No. It is beyond quibbling that the assailed “Judgment” in
It is only when the said witness was to be cross examined that the Civil Case was issued by the RTC in the exercise of its special
issue of non-payment of docket fees was raised. Clearly, the said jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies under R.A. No. 8799.
[petitioner] [is] in estoppel to question the jurisdiction of the Court. Civil Case was, therefore, governed by the Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to file a Motion to Dismiss at the Corporate Controversies under R.A. No. 8799, as well as A.M. No. 04-
earliest opportune time to raise the issue of the court's lack of 9-07-SC of this Court prescribing the mode of appeal from decisions of
jurisdiction, more so, that this issue is susceptible to laches. the RTC in intra-corporate controversies.
Petitioner's failure to seasonably raise the question of
jurisdiction leads us to the inevitable conclusion that it is Under Section 8(3), Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure
now barred by laches to assail the Manila RTC's Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies Under R.A. No. 8799, motion
jurisdiction over the case. for new trial, or for reconsideration of judgment or order, or for re-
(Norliza Mamukid ) opening of trial are prohibited pleadings in said cases. Hence, the
filing by petitioner of a motion for reconsideration before
RIVERA vs. RIVERA the trial court did not toll the reglementary period to appeal
the judgment via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
HELD: Unlawful detainer case is still under the jurisdiction of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. As a
MeTC even if there was an assertion of ownership. Lower court’s consequence, the CA has no more jurisdiction to entertain the petition
adjudication of ownership is only provisional. for review which Land Bank intended to file before it, much less to
(Kahlil Elbanbuena ) grant the motion for extension of time for the filing thereof.
4
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
FACTS: Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, a complaint ISSUE: WON Judge Fabros erred in granting the MFR
against respondent for a sum of money. The trial court issued an
Order dismissing the complaint motu proprio on grounds of lack of RULING: No. As a rule an MFR is a prohibited pleading under
jurisdiction and improper venue. Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. This rule,
however, applies only where the judgment sought to be reconsidered
ISSUE: Whether the trial court may dismiss motu proprio petitioner's is one rendered on the merits.
complaint on the ground of improper venue.
As held by the Court in an earlier case: "The motion prohibited by this
RULING: No. In personal actions, the plaintiff may commence an Section is that which seeks reconsideration of the judgment rendered
action either in the place of his or her residence or the place where by the court after trial on the merits of the case." Here, the order of
the defendant resides. However, the parties may agree to a specific dismissal issued by respondent judge due to failure of a party to
venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides. appear during the preliminary conference is obviously not a judgment
Corollarily, Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on the merits after trial of the case.
provides for the instances when the trial court may motu proprio
dismiss a claim, thus: Section 1. Defenses and objections not Hence, a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the
pleaded. Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to prohibited pleading contemplated under the present Rule on Summary
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it Procedure. Thus, respondent judge committed no grave abuse of
appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court discretion, nor is she guilty of ignorance of the law, in giving due
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action course to the motion for reconsideration subject of the present
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the complaint. (Lendl Floyd Montes )
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim. Implicit from the above provision is that Rule 7 – Parts of a Pleading
improper venue not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the
answer is deemed waived. Thus, a court may not dismiss an PONCIANO vs. PARENTELA May 9, 2000
action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it
is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an FACTS: Respondents Ildefonso and Leonora Clamosa filed a
action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings. complaint for a sum of money against petitioners Claro and Gloria
(Norliza Mamukid ) Ponciano for unpaid cost of labor and materials incurred by them in
repairing petitioner's house. Petitioners filed their answer with
Rule 5 – Summary Procedure compulsory counterclaim, claiming that they have paid the total
contract price agreed upon; that despite this, the work of respondents
LUCAS vs. FABROS January 31, 2000 was defective; and that respondents abandoned the renovation before
it was completed.
FACTS: Gloria Lucas charged respondent Judge Amelia A. Fabros
with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion. The trial court ordered that petitioners’ counterclaim be stricken off for
Complainant alleged that Judge Fabros issued an Order in an failure to comply with Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which requires
ejectment case granting the plaintiff's MFR of the Order which an affidavit of non-forum shopping for all initiatory pleadings in all
dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff and her counsel to appear at courts. Petitioners filed an MFR which the trial court denied.
the Preliminary Conference.
ISSUE: WON an answer which asserts a compulsory counterclaim
Complainant averred that it is elementary, under the Rules of must include a certificate of non-forum shopping, and if so, whether or
Summary Procedure that an motion MFR is prohibited, but not the dismissal of such compulsory counterclaim by the trial court
respondent judge, in violation of the rule, granted the motion. She due to the absence of such certification has the effect of a dismissal
added that, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent herself had with prejudice so as to bar the party from re-filing such compulsory
pointed out in open court that the case is governed by the Rules on counterclaim.
Summary Procedure; the judge ordered the revival of the case.
RULING: No. This very same issue was confronted in the case of
Further, complainant alleged that the actuations of the respondent is Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla, 8 wherein we held that the
in blatant disregard of the established rules on procedure, and it is an above-quoted provisions of administrative Circular No. 04-94 do not
instance where the doctrine of IPSA LOQUITOR may once again may apply to compulsory counterclaims. Speaking for the Court, Justice
be applied by the Court to discipline judges. Vitug explained that:
Respondent Judge Fabros maintained that she could not be guilty of It bears stressing, once again, that the real office of Administrative
gross ignorance of the law as she knows that a motion for Circular No. 04-94, made effective on 01 April 1994, is to curb the
reconsideration of judgment is a prohibited motion in an ejectment malpractice commonly referred to also as forum-shopping. The
case. She explained that although there is already a judgment language of the circular distinctly suggests that it is primarily intended
dismissing the case, she granted the plaintiff's motion for to cover an initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a party
reconsideration in the interest of justice since the reasons stated in asserting a claim for relief.
the motion for reconsideration are meritorious.
5
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
In the case at bar, there is no doubt that the counterclaims pleaded by petitioner’s Treasury Department Manager. It is settled that even if the
petitioners in their answers are compulsory in nature. The filing of a complaint be defective, but the parties go to trial thereon, and the
separate action by petitioners would only result in the presentation of plaintiff, without objection, introduces sufficient evidence to constitute
the same evidence as in Civil Case No. TM-601. Proceeding from our the particular cause of action which it intended to allege in the original
ruling in Santo Tomas University Hospital, petitioners need not file a complaint, and the defendant voluntarily produces witnesses to meet
certification of non-forum shopping since their claims are not initiatory the cause of action thus established, an issue is joined as fully and as
in character, and therefore, are not covered by the provisions of effectively as if it had been previously joined by the most perfect
Administrative Circular No. 04-94. pleadings. Likewise, when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried
(Lendl Floyd Montes ) by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all
respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
Rule 9 – Effect of Failure to Plead
Evidently, herein respondents’ failure to object to the evidence at the
Philippine Banking Corporation v. CA time it is presented in court is fatal to their cause inasmuch as
whatever perceived defect the complaint had was cured by the
HELD: As a rule, proceedings already taken should not be introduction of petitioner’s evidence proving actual loss sustained by
subsequently lifted, it is within the trial court’s decision to reopen the introduce a subsequently acquired cause of action as there was none
evidence submitted by the plaintiff and allow the defendant to at the time the original complaint was filed, is untenable.
challenge the same, by cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses or ( Sahara Alia Silongan )
FACTS: The Petitioner filed a complaint for collection of sum of Notice of Appeal, without the assistance of counsel and without
money against herein respondents on the basis of Letters of payment of the docket and other lawful fees. On July 21, 1997, the
Guarantee it issued in favor of the PNB as security for various credit RTC granted the notice of appeal.
During the hearing, petitioner presented as its witness its treasury motion to dismiss petitioners’ appeal, citing Section 1(c), Rule 50 of the
department manager who testified that the amount of P19M was paid 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 9, 1997, the trial court
by it to the PNB to cover the principal loan and interests, as dismissed the motion and directed petitioners to pay the proper fees to
guaranteed by petitioner. Consequently, petitioner filed a Motion to cure the technical defect. On the same date, petitioners paid the
Acting on the motion to amend, the trial court dismissed the case of the records, which included the proofs of payment of the docket and
without prejudice on the ground of failure of the complaint to state a appeal fees, the appellate court nevertheless resolved to dismiss the
dismissed the petition on the ground that the real purpose of petitioner
in asking the trial court for leave to amend its complaint was not ISSUE: WON the payment of docket and other lawful fees within the
ostensibly to make the complaint conform to the evidence presented, period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory and WON petitioners
as petitioner alleges, but to introduce a cause of action then non- have shown sufficient reason for the relaxation of what otherwise
existing when the complaint was filed. should be a stringent application of the rule
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court and the CA erred in RULING: At the outset, it should be stressed that failure to pay the
dismissing the case instead of granting Petitioner’s Motion to Amend. appellate docket and lawful fees is a serious matter affecting the
court’s jurisdiction. Time and again, we have consistently held that "the
HELD: Yes. payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for
the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court
It should be stressed that amendment was sought after petitioner had does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and
already presented evidence, more specifically, the testimony of the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory."
6
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
Appeal is not a right but a statutory privilege; thus, appeal must be ISSUES:
made strictly in accordance with provisions set by law. The payment 1. What was the nature of the complaint, upon which the manner of the
of appellate docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure service of summons should be based?
but an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal. 2. Was there a valid service of summons?
3. If personal service were impossible to comply, what should have
However, notwithstanding the mandatory nature of such requirement, been done?
this Court has also held that "the strict application of the jurisdictional
nature of the above rule on payment of appellate docket fees may be RULINGS:
mitigated under exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest 1. The action was an action in personam. While it is a real action
of justice." Hence, we resolve the second issue. Has petitioners because it affects title to or possession of land, it does not
presented any sufficient or satisfactory reason for the relaxation of the automatically follow that the action is one in rem.
rules?
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal
We note that at the time petitioners filed said notice of appeal on July property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. A
17, 1997, the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure had then very recently real action is one affecting title to real property or for the recovery of
taken effect on July 1, 1997. Indeed, as averred by petitioners in the possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a
present case, at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal, the mortgage on real property.
changes introduced by the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure were yet
novel, and even judges and lawyers needed time to familiarize An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his
themselves with the rules intricacies. The trial court acknowledged personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing
this fact when it resolved to grant the appeal, and favorably itself, instead of against the person.
considered a liberal application of the rules in the meantime.
The present case is an action in personam, because it is an action
Also material is the fact that petitioners were not assisted by counsel against persons, on the basis of their personal liability of non-delivery
when they filed their notice of appeal. Indeed, it appears that on of titles. Thus, personal service of summons upon the private
August 20, 1997, petitioners’ former counsel made formal the respondents is essential in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction
withdrawal of appearance from this case. We also note that over their persons.
petitioners were not informed by the trial court that the docket fees
were already due at that time. This failure of the trial court might have 2. There was none.
stemmed from the recency of the rules. Hence, fairness bids us not to
take this circumstance against petitioners. (Lendl Floyd In actions in personam, summons on the defendant must be served by
Montes ) handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to
receive it, by tendering it to him. In substituted service, it is mandated
Rule 14 - Sumons that the fact of impossibility of personal service should be explained in
the proof of service.
GOMEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ADOLFO TROCINO AND
MARIANO TROCINO GR NO. 127692, 18 March 2004 Where the defendant in an action in personam is a non-resident who
does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court,
FACTS: Sometime in 1975, spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino personal service of summons within the State is essential to acquire
mortgaged 2 parcels of land to Dr. Yujuico in Cebu City. jurisdiction over his person. An exception was accorded in Gemperle
The mortgage was subsequently foreclosed. v. Schenker wherein service of summons through the non-resident’s
Respondent-spouses Trocino sold the lands to petitioner- wife, who was a resident of the Philippines, was held valid, as the latter
spouses, who in turn redeemed the lands from the mortgagee. was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by
However, the spouses Trocino refused to deliver the titles to the non-resident, and the second case was merely an offshoot of the
petitioner-spouses. Thus, spouses Gomez sued spouses Trocino for first case.
children, including Adolfo Trocino and Mariano Trocino, were the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
impleaded in the suit. provided the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, although
Summons was served, and it was only received by Caridad summons must be served upon the defendant for purposes of due
Adolfo and Mariano Trocino petitioned for the annulment of the Philippines, and:
judgment of the RTC with the CA, alleging that no jurisdiction was 1. the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
acquired over them. 2. the action relates to, or the subject matter of which is property in the
At that time, Adolfo Trocino was a resident of Ohio, USA while Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest;
Mariano Trocino was a resident of Talibon, Bohol, and both were not 3. the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any interest in
found in Cebu City at the time summons was served. the property located in the Philippines; or
4. the property of the defendant has been attached in the Philippines,
7
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
summons may be served extrajudicially by: inclusion of another affirmative relief in a motion to dismiss abandons
a. personal service out of the country, with leave of court; and waives the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
b. publication, also with leave of court; or defendant therein also pleaded under prevailing law and jurisprudence.
c. any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
HELD : Summons is the means by which the defendant in a case is
The manner of service of summons must be distinguished between notified of the existence of an action against him and, thereby, the
Adolfo Trocino and Mariano Trocino. Since Adolfo Trocino is a court is conferred jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. If the
resident of a foreign country, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over defendant is corporation, Rule 14, §13 requires that service of
his person and validly try and decide the case against him; the action summons be made upon the corporation’s president, manager,
being in personam. secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors.
Mariano Trocino is a resident of Bohol and not of Cebu City. Thus, Petitioner contends that the enumeration in Rule 14, §13 is exclusive
summons must be served on him personally, or through substituted and that service of summons upon one who is not enumerated therein
service, upon showing of impossibility of personal service. Such is invalid. This is the general rule. However, it is settled that substantial
impossibility, and why efforts exerted towards personal service failed, compliance by serving summons on persons other than those
should be explained in the proof of service. The pertinent facts and mentioned in the above rule may be justified.
circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in
the proof of service or Officer’s Return. Failure to do so would In Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , this Court enumerated the
invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. requisites for the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance,
to wit: (a) there must be actual receipt of the summons by the person
3. Inasmuch as the sheriff’s return failed to state the facts and served, i.e., transferring possession of the copy of the summons from
circumstances showing the impossibility of personal service of the Sheriff to the person served; (b) the person served must sign a
summons upon spouses Trocino within a reasonable time, spouses receipt or the sheriff's return; and (c) there must be actual receipt of the
Gomez should have sought the issuance of an alias summons. summons by the corporation through the person on whom the
Under Section 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, alias summons may summons was actually served. The third requisite is the most important
be issued when the original summons is returned without being for it is through such receipt that the purpose of the rule on service of
served on any or all of the defendants. Petitioners, however, did not summons is attained.
do so, and they should now bear the consequences of their lack of
diligence. In this case, there is no dispute that the first and second requisites
(Kahlil Elbanbuena ) were fulfilled. With respect to the third, the appellate court held that
petitioner's filing of a motion to dismiss the foreclosure suit is proof that
MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, it received the copy of the summons and the complaint. There is,
vs. JACKSON TAN G.R. No. 131724. February 28, 2000 however, no direct proof of this or that Lynverd Cinches actually turned
over the summons to any of the officers of the corporation. In contrast,
FACTS : Millenium Corporation executed a Deed of Real Estate in our cases applying the substantial compliance rule, there was direct
Mortgage in favor of respondent Jackson Tan to secure payment of evidence, such as the admission of the corporation's officers, of receipt
petitioner's indebtedness to respondent. Subsequently, respondent of summons by the corporation through the person upon whom it was
filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage. Summons and a copy of actually served. The question is whether it is allowable to merely infer
the complaint were served upon petitioner through a certain Lynverd actual receipt of summons by the corporation through the person on
Cinches, described in the sheriff's return as "a Draftsman, a person of whom summons was served. We hold that it cannot be allowed. For
sufficient age and (discretion) working therein, he is the highest there to be substantial compliance, actual receipt of summons by the
ranking officer or Officer-in-Charge of defendant's Corporation, to corporation through the person served must be shown. Where a
receive processes of the Court." corporation only learns of the service of summons and the filing of the
complaint against it through some person or means other than the
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that person actually served, the service of summons becomes
there was no valid service of summons upon it, as a result of which meaningless. This is particularly true in the present case where there is
the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it. Petitioner invoked serious doubt if Lynverd Cinches, the person on whom service of
Rule 14, §13 of the 1964 Rules of Court and contended that service summons was effected, is in fact an employee of the corporation.
on Lynverd Cinches, as alleged in the sheriff's return, was invalid as Except for the sheriff's return, there is nothing to show that Lynverd
he is not one of the authorized persons on whom summons may be Cinches was really a draftsman employed by the corporation. M
Petitioner also sought the dismissal of the complaint against it on the trial court and the CA held that by raising the affirmative defense of
ground that it had satisfied its obligation to respondent when the latter payment and by praying for other reliefs in its Motion to Dismiss,
opted to be paid in shares of stock under the following stipulation in petitioner in effect waived its objection to the trial court's jurisdiction
the mortgage contract (affirmative defense of payment). over it. We think this is error.
ISSUES : I..WON service of summons upon a mere draftsman who is Our decision in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals settled
not one of those upon whom summons may be served in case of a this question. The rule prior to La Naval was that if a defendant, in a
defendant corporation as mentioned in the rules is valid. II. WON the motion to dismiss, alleges grounds for dismissing the action other than
8
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
lack of jurisdiction, he would be deemed to have submitted himself to as notice to all. A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing to
the jurisdiction of the court. This rule no longer holds true. Noting that the adverse party is nothing but a mere scrap of paper and the clerk of
the doctrine of estoppel by jurisdiction must be unequivocal and court does not have the duty to accept it, much less to bring it to the
intentional, we ruled in La Naval: Jurisdiction over the person must be attention of the presiding judge.
seasonably raised, i.e., that it is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by
way of an affirmative defense. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed 3. No. The certified true copy of the orders subject of the appeal must
a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of affirmative be attached to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The failure to
defenses shall not be construed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such show the material dates when Norris received the copy of the said
defense. (Karla Deles ) orders prevented the Court of Appeals from determining whether the
petition was filed on time or not.
4. The failure to comply with these requirements was fatal the case of
Norris. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the
application of the rules, it never intended to forge a weapon for erring
litigants to violate the rules with impunity. While it is true that litigation
Rule 15 - Motions is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must
be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure
NORRIS v. Judge PARENTELA, JR. an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
GR NO. 143216, 27 February 2003 (Kahlil Elbanbuena )
FACTS: On April 4, 1977, private respondents purchased a lot from ALVAREZ v. Judge DIAZ
the government. However, through fraud, spouses Kalugdan had the AM No. MTJ-00-1283, 3 March 2004
title over the lot cancelled, and a new title was issued in their name.
They then sold the lot to petitioner Norris. FACTS: Spouses Garcia sued petitioner Alvarez for forcible entry
On August 27, 1997, private respondents sued for the before the MTC of Quezon City.
annulment/cancellation of titles and damages with the RTC against MTC Judge Diaz decided against Alvarez and ordered him and
Norris. Summons was served upon Norris through substituted his co-defendants to vacate the premises and pay damages to
service. Norris failed to answer, and RTC declared her in default and spouses Garcia.
decided the case against her. Plaintiff spouses then moved to execute the decision of the MTC
On April 30, 1999, Norris, assisted by a neophyte lawyer, filed a because there was no perfected appeal nor payment of the
petition for relief from judgment. However, this petition was not supersedeas bond to stay the decision.
certified against forum shopping. RTC dismissed the petition. The motion was worded as follows:
Norris moved for reconsideration. However, this motion was The Clerk of Court
only addressed to the clerk of court and not to all parties. The motion MTC Branch 37
was denied by RTC. Quezon City
On November 8, 1999, Norris filed a petition for certiorari with Kindly include this motion in your calendar for February 3, 1998at
the CA under Rule 65. However, petitioner did not attach a certified 8:30 in the morning during which the matter and parties may be heard.
true copy of the orders appealed from, nor did it show the material
dates of the receipt of the said orders. Thus, CA dismissed the Sgd. C.A.L.
petition and the subsequent motion to reconsider. Atty. Leaño, counsel for plaintiff spouses, personally delivered the
motion for execution to the counsel of Alvarez. The court granted the
ISSUES: motion.
1. Was the petition for relief from judgment proper?
2. Was the motion to reconsider the RTC decision proper? ISSUE: Should the judge have acted upon the motion for execution?
3. Was the petition for certiorari proper?
4. What is the effect of these failures to comply with the procedural RULING: No. Even if there was no perfected appeal nor payment of
requirements? the supersedeas bond, respondent Judge should not have granted
plaintiff’s Motion for Execution because it was fatally defective.
RULINGS:
1. No. SC Circular 04-94 requires that complaints and other initiatory Sec. 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides that the notice of
pleadings in all courts and agencies other than the Supreme Court hearing, to be stated in the motion, shall be addressed to all parties
and the Court of Appeals must be accompanied by a certification concerned and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which
against forum shopping. Norris’ petition is one of the said pleadings must not be later than 10 days after the filing of the motion.
because it is a new petition where a party seeks relief based on
grounds different from those in the original case, namely, fraud, It is well-settled that any motion with a notice of hearing that is not
accident, mistake or excusable negligence. addressed to all parties is a mere scrap of paper which should not be
accepted for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance.
2. No. Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that
notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned. Notice If personal service of the motion was made upon Alvarez’ counsel,
addressed to the clerk of court and not to the parties does not suffice then proof of service thereof consisting of any of the following should
9
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
have been presented to the court, together with the Motion for On November 9, 2001, the trial court held in abeyance the
Execution: resolution on the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal pending the
motion for reconsideration by respondent.
Section 13. Proof of service. – xxx [1] a written admission of the party On November 15, 2001, Petitioner opposed respondent’s motion
served, [2] the official return of the server, or [3] the affidavit of the for reconsideration.
party serving containing a full statement of the date, place and On December 7, 2001, a hearing was conducted on the Motion
manner of service xxx. for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
On January 8, 2002, trial court denied the motions, on the ground
None of the above was presented. Thus, in accordance with Section that the motion for reconsideration did not contain a notice of hearing.
6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court which mandates that “no written Respondent elevated the denial before the CA.
motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof CA reversed the decision of the trial court, holding that the
of service thereof,” the motion for execution should not have been requirement on notice of hearing has been substantially met.
acted upon by Judge Diaz. (Kahlil
Elbanbuena ) ISSUES:
1. Was the motion for reconsideration proper?
BACELONIA, et al v. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES 2. Did the petitioner have the opportunity to be heard?
BOLOS, et al GR NO. 143440, 11 February 2003
RULINGS:
FACTS: Petitioners filed a motion to be dropped as defendants from 1. Yes. Even though respondent failed to include a notice of hearing in
the civil case involving quasi-delicts, as their other co-defendants its Motion for Reconsideration filed on the very last day of its appeal
have admitted responsibility to the accident. period, petitioner was able to oppose the issues raised in the Motion
On January 10, 2000, the trial court denied the motion and for Reconsideration.
reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying their motion and set thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the
the date of hearing thereof on February 15, 2000 at 8:30 am. other party at least 3 days before the date of hearing unless the court
The trial court denied the motion to reconsider. Petitioners for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
elevated the denial before the CA. The CA affirmed the trial court’s
decision. The three-day notice requirement is not intended for the benefit of the
movant but to avoid surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse
ISSUE: Was the denial by the trial court of the motion for party, who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the
RULING: Yes. Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides The test is the presence of the opportunity to be heard, as well as to
that the notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert
and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be the grounds upon which it is based.
later than 10 days after the filing of the motion. However, the date of
hearing was scheduled beyond the period, or later than February 10, 2. Yes. It appears that the trial court gave petitioner ten days within
Significantly, the above provision uses the mandatory term, “must” in for not containing a notice of hearing, but also to ventilate its
fixing the period within which the motion shall be scheduled for substantial arguments against the merits of the Motion and of the
A motion that fails to religiously comply with the mandatory provision served. (Kahlil Elbanbuena )
(Kahlil Elbanbuena)
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, FERDINAND
JEHAN SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL FOOD R. ABESAMIS and EULOGIO MANANQUIL, petitioners, vs.
AUTHORITY GR NO. 127692, 18 March 2004
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR.,
FACTS: The trial court decided in favor of Petitioner and against in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 66, Regional
Respondent in a civil case for the collection of a sum of money. Trial Court of Makati and JUAN PONCE ENRILE,
On October 2, 2001, Petitioner filed a motion for execution of respondents.
judgment. G.R. No. 106922 April 20, 2001
On October 16, 2001, Respondent moved to reconsider the
decision. It filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on FACTS: After the unsuccessful December 1989 coup d’ etat, the DOJ
November 12, 2001. headed by Franklin Drilon, requested for investigation of Juan Ponce
Enrile for his alleged participation in the said coup. The Prosecutors
10
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
issued a subpoena to Enrile with an order to submit his counter- an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
affidavit to the letter-complaint. Instead of filing his counter-affidavit, or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on
Enrile filed a Petition for Summary Dismissal of the charge against the part of such defendant violative of the right of the
him. plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain
On February 27, 1990, the Team of Prosecutors filed before the an action for recovery of damages. 29 In the case at bar,
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on Information charging private we fail to see any right of the Enrile supposedly violated by
respondent with the complex crime of rebellion with murder and the petitioners. Nowhere in the statute books is a
frustrated murder. Enrile then filed a complaint accusing the prospective accused given the right to be notified
petitioners of bad faith in filing the information for rebellion complexed beforehand of the filing of an information against him.
with murder and frustrated murder. Likewise, the withdrawal of the information and the
subsequent re-filing of the same do not constitute an
On October 9, 1990, Drilon’s group filed a Motion to Dismiss for actionable wrong inasmuch as the filing or re-filing of an
failure of the Complaint to state a cause of action. They claimed that information lies within the discretion of the prosecutor who
there was no allegation of any actionable wrong constituting a must act independently of the affected parties.
violation of any of the legal rights of private respondent.
The remedy of a party whenever the complaint does not allege a cause
On October 8, 1991, respondent trial court issued an Order denying of action is to set up this defense in a motion to dismiss or in the
the Motion to Dismiss and requiring petitioners to file their answer and answer. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
to present evidence in support of their defenses in a full-blown trial action in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts
inasmuch as the defense of good faith and immunity from suit does alleged therein. However, the hypothetical admission is limited to the
not appear to be indubitable. Drilon’s motion for reconsideration was "relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and
likewise denied. Hence this petition. inferences fairly deductible therefrom. The admission does not extend
to conclusion or interpretations of law; nor does it cover allegations of
Going now to the crux of the petition, Drilon’s group contend that the fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice."
complaint sets forth no cause of action against them. They allege
good faith, regularity in the performance of official duties and lack of Private respondent claims that an appeal or an original
ultimate facts constituting an actionable wrong. On the other hand, action for certiorari is not the proper remedy for a
Enrile argues that a cause of action has been sufficiently pleaded and defendant whose motion to dismiss has been denied by the
that the defenses of good faith and performance of official duties are trial court for the reason that the order does not terminate
best disposed in a judicial hearing. the proceedings, nor finally dispose of the contentions of
the parties. In its decision affirming the trial court's denial
ISSUE: The main question in the instant petition is whether the of the motion to dismiss, the appellate court sustained this
allegations in the complaint sufficiently plead a cause of action to hold contention. However, as correctly pointed out by the
Drilon’s group liable for damages. petitioners, the rule admits of an exception. Thus, where
the denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court was
HELD: The petition of Drilon’s group is granted. tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, as in the case at bar, the aggrieved
Lack of cause of action, as a ground for a motion to dismiss…must party may assail the order of denial on certiorari. A wide
appear on the face of the complaint itself, meaning that it must be breadth of discretion is granted in certiorari proceedings in the interest
determined from the allegations of the complaint and from none other. of substantial justice and to prevent a substantial wrong. In the Drilon
The infirmity of the complaint in this regard is only too obvious to have case, we also held that the denial by the trial court of the motion to
escaped respondent judge's attention. Paragraph 14 of the complaint dismiss of herein petitioners based on the same grounds as in the
which states: instant petition constituted grave abuse of discretion for the reason that
"this (private respondent's baseless action) would unjustly compel the
xxx xxx xxx 14. The malicious prosecution, nay persecution, of petitioners to needlessly go through a protracted trial and thereby
plaintiff for a non-existent crime had severely injured and besmirched unduly burden the court with one more futile and inconsequential
plaintiff's name and reputation and forever stigmatized his stature as case." 32 The appellate court therefore erred in not ruling that the trial
a public figure, thereby causing him extreme physical suffering, court committed a grave abuse of discretion when the latter refused to
serious anxiety, mental anguish, moral shock and social humiliation." dismiss the case as against herein petitioners, notwithstanding the
obvious insufficiency of the complaint against them.
is a mere conclusion of law and is not an averment or allegation of (Techie Silva )
ultimate facts. It does not, therefore, aid in any wise the complaint in
setting forth a valid cause of action against the petitioners.
11
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
COURT OF APPEALS AND GABI MULTI PURPOSE to a favorable judgment inasmuch as one or more elements of his
COOPERATIVE, REPRESENTED BY MARIA QUISUMBING cause of action do not exist in fact.
ALVAREZ AND COL. SOLOMON DALID, RET.,
respondents. Because questions of fact are involved, courts hesitate to declare a
G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 plaintiff as lacking in cause of action. Such declaration is postponed
until the insufficiency of cause is apparent from a preponderance of
FACTS: The Lazarrabal family were the registered owners of the evidence. Usually, this is done only after the parties have been given
properties, subject matter of this case. the opportunity to present all relevant evidence on such questions of
fact.
Montealto, Joel Masecampo, Delsa N. Manay, Ilderim Castañares, petitioners. What we are saying is that the trial court's ruling, to the
Maria Theresa Puno, [and] Jill Mendoza. On June 27, 1994, GABI effect that GABI had no title to the lands and thus had no cause of
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, a registered non-stock, non-profit action, was premature. Indeed, hearings were conducted. And the view
cooperative filed a civil complaint against DABUCO, et al. who were of the Court of Appeals was that such hearings were sufficient.
found residing and/or tilling the subject properties. The trial court
issued a TRO enjoining Dabuco, et al. to desist from further The Court disagrees with the appellate court's ruling. The hearing of
development of GABI’s properties. The trial court then lifted the TRO July 27, 1994 was on the propriety of lifting the restraining order. At
upon failure of GABI to prove its title over the properties. Dabuco et such preliminary hearing, the trial court required GABI to produce
al. filed their answer alleging that GABI had no personality to sue Certificates of Title to the lands in its name. GABI admitted that it did
since they do not appear to be buyer of the properties neither were not have such Certificates, only Deeds of Sale from the registered
the properties titled in its name. Dabuco filed a Motion to Dismiss on owners.
appealed to the CA and the decision was reversed. court was proper of failure to state a cause of action, we, likewise, find
no valid basis to sustain the same.
dismiss the action below on the ground that GABI had no cause of action is provided for by the Rules of Court.
action against petitioners. They also aver in the alternative that the
Complaint by GABI was properly dismissed on the ground that it failed In dismissal for failure to state a cause, the inquiry is into the
to state a cause of action. sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. The test is
whether the material allegations, assuming these to be true, state
As a preliminary matter, we wish to stress the distinction ultimate facts which constitute plaintiff's cause of action, such that
between the two grounds for dismissal of an action: failure plaintiff is entitled to a favorable judgment as a matter of law. The
to state a cause of action, on the one hand, and lack of general rule is that inquiry is confined to the four corners of the
cause of action, on the other hand. The former refers to complaint, and no other.
earliest stages of an action. Dismissal for lack of cause is of action, ONLY the facts alleged in the complaint and no others,
usually made after questions of fact have been resolved on should be considered. In determining the existence of a cause of
the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence action, only the statements in the complaint may properly be
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the trial court on the ground regardless of the defenses that may be assessed [ sic ] by defendants-
HELD: The dismissal by the trial court was not proper. There are well-recognized exceptions to the rule that the allegations
We note that the issue of sufficiency of GABI's cause of action does are hypothetically admitted as true and inquiry is confined to the face
not appear to have been passed upon by the appellate court in its of the complaint. There is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of
It appears that the trial court dismissed the case on the ground that inadmissible in evidence, or if by the record or document included in
GABI was not the owner of the lands or one entitled to the possession the pleading these allegations appear unfounded. Also, inquiry is not
thereof, and thus had no cause of action. In dismissal for lack of confined to the complaint if there is evidence which has been
cause of action, the court in effect declared that plaintiff is not entitled presented to the court by stipulation of the parties, or in the course of
hearings related to the case.
12
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
Moreover, GABI did not have sufficient chance to prove its allegation Certainly, the incorporation of the word "may" in the provision is clearly
of ownership. Thus, the conclusion that GABI's allegation of indicative of the optional character of the preliminary hearing. The word
ownership is false and that its complaint stated no cause of action, denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory
appears to be without basis. effect.23 Subsequently, the electivity of the proceeding was firmed up
beyond cavil by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the inclusion of
In sum, as appears from the available records, the Court of Appeals the phrase "in the discretion of the Court", apart from the retention of
was correct in ruling that the dismissal by the trial court of GABI's the word "may" in Section 6, in Rule 16 thereof.
complaint was incorrect. The case should, therefore, proceed to trial
where the parties may adduce evidence to support their claims and Thus, no blame of abuse of discretion can be laid on the lower court’s
defenses. (Techie Silva ) doorstep for not hearing petitioners’ affirmative defense.
(Sahara Alia Silongan )
TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, ET AL. vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, VERONICA O. EVANGELISTA
assisted by her husband ZALDY EVANGELISTA, ALBERTO
FACTS: After Alfonso Orfinada’s death, his legitimate family ORFINADA, and ROWENA O. UNGOS, assisted by her
discovered that the Petitioner (the paramour and her children) husband BEDA UNGOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person APPEALS, ESPERANZA P. ORFINADA, LOURDES P.
with Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the decedent ORFINADA, ALFONSO ORFINADA, NANCY P. ORFINADA,
located in Dagupan City and that accordingly, the Registry of Deeds ALFONSO JAMES P. ORFINADA, CHRISTOPHER P.
issued Certificates of Titles in their favor. The Respondents also ORFINADA and ANGELO P. ORFINADA, respondents.
found out that the Petitioners were able to obtain a loan from the [G.R. No. 129008. January 13, 2004]
Rural Bank by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties
subject of the extra-judicial settlement. Hence, the Respondents filed
a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement FACTS: On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will
of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage but left a widow, children and a paramour with children too. The first
and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles with Damages family discovered that the Paramour Teodora executed an
against petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. and the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim
Register of Deeds. involving the properties of the estate of the decedent located in
Dagupan City and executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the
The Petitioners filed their Answer, raising among others the properties subject of the extra-judicial settlement.
affirmative defense that respondents are not the real parties-in-
interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso in view of the pendency of the On December 1, 1995, respondent Alfonso “Clyde” P. Orfinada III filed
administration proceedings. They filed a Motion to Set Affirmative a Petition for Letters of Administration docketed as S.P. Case No. 5118
Defenses for Hearing on the aforesaid ground, which the lower court before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, praying that letters of
denied. administration encompassing the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. be
issued to him.[8]
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in denying the
Petitioners’ motion to set the case for preliminary hearing on their On February 5, 1996, petitioners filed their Answer to the aforesaid
affirmative defense. complaint interposing the defense that the property subject of the
contested deed of extra-judicial settlement pertained to the properties
HELD: No. It must be stressed that the holding of a preliminary originally belonging to the parents of Teodora Riofero[10] and that the
hearing on an affirmative defense lies in the discretion of the court. titles thereof were delivered to her as an advance inheritance but the
This is clear from the Rules of Court, thus: decedent had managed to register them in his name.[11] Petitioners
also raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real
SEC. 5. Pleadings grounds as affirmative defenses.- Any parties-in-interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in
of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, view of the pendency of the administration proceedings.[12] On April
except improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative 29, 1996, petitioners filed a Motion to Set Affirmative Defenses for
defense, and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as Hearing[13] on the aforesaid ground.
1
if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
The lower court denied the motion in its Order dated June 27, 1996, on
1 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. It is Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of the ground that respondents, as heirs, are the real parties-in-interest
Civil Procedure which reads:
especially in the absence of an administrator who is yet to be
Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. If no motion to dismiss appointed in S.P. Case No. 5118. Petitioners moved for its
has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may
reconsideration but the motion was likewise denied.
be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of
the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss
had been filed.
This prompted petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals their
The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court docketed as
to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in
CA G.R. S.P. No. 42053.[17] Petitioners averred that the RTC
the answer. (Emphasis supplied)
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order
13
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
which denied the dismissal of the case on the ground that the proper Rule 87[27] of the Rules of Court. In fact, in the case of Gochan v.
party to file the complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial Young,[28] this Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to
settlement of the estate of the deceased is the estate of the decedent represent the rights and properties of the decedent under
and not the respondents. administration pending the appointment of an administrator. Thus:
The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision dated January The above-quoted rules,[29] while permitting an executor or
31, 1997, stating that it discerned no grave abuse of discretion administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of the deceased,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the public respondent do not prohibit the heirs from representing the deceased. These rules
judge when he denied petitioners’ motion to set affirmative defenses are easily applicable to cases in which an administrator has already
for hearing in view of its discretionary nature. been appointed. But no rule categorically addresses the situation in
which special proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioners but it was been instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In such
denied. Hence, the petition before this Court. instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of
an administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator appointed
ISSUE: Whether the heirs have legal standing to prosecute the would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of
rights belonging to the deceased subsequent to the commencement the deceased; and in the meantime do nothing while the rights and the
of the administration proceedings. properties of the decedent are violated or dissipated.
HELD: Yes they have legal standing. Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence
Petitioners vehemently fault the lower court for denying their motion to recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or
set the case for preliminary hearing on their affirmative defense that administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;[30] and
the proper party to bring the action is the estate of the decedent and (2) when the administrator is alleged to have participated in
not the respondents. It must be stressed that the holding of a the act complained of[31] and he is made a party
preliminary hearing on an affirmative defense lies in the discretion of defendant.[32] Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to
the court. This is clear from the Rules of Court, thus: seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as
compelling when there is no appointed administrator, if not
SEC. 5. Pleadings grounds as affirmative defenses.- Any of the more, as where there is an appointed administrator but he
grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, except improper venue, is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty
may be pleaded as an affirmative defense, and a preliminary hearing parties himself.
may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.[22]
(Emphasis supplied.) All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue
for the recovery of property of the estate during the pendency of
Certainly, the incorporation of the word “may” in the provision is administration proceedings has three exceptions, the third being when
clearly indicative of the optional character of the preliminary hearing. there is no appointed administrator such as in this case.
The word denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a
mandatory effect.[23] Subsequently, the electivity of the proceeding As the appellate court did not commit an error of law in upholding the
was firmed up beyond cavil by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with order of the lower court, recourse to this Court is not warranted.
the inclusion of the phrase “in the discretion of the Court”, apart from (Techie Silva )
the retention of the word “may” in Section 6,[24] in Rule 16 thereof.
MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
Just as no blame of abuse of discretion can be laid on the lower and JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS
court’s doorstep for not hearing petitioners’ affirmative defense, it G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001
cannot likewise be faulted for recognizing the legal standing of the (issue: dismiss order not final)
respondents as heirs to bring the suit.
Even if administration proceedings have already been The same complaint, now docketed as Civil Case No. 97-0608, was re-
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an filed on November 25, 1997. It was raffled in due course to Branch 260
administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City presided by Judge Helen
modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules Bautista-Ricafort.
on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3[26] and Section 2,
14
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
Judge Bautista-Ricafort received evidence on the application for has brought before the courts. Forum shopping exists where the
support pendente lite . The private respondent and her counsel, Atty. elements of litis pendencia are present, and where a final judgment in
Alberto Diaz, participated in that proceedings by conducting an one case will amount to res judicata in the other. For the principle of
extensive cross-examination of the petitioner. The trial court then res judicata to apply, the following must be present: (1) a decision on
issued its Order dated May 13, 1998 declaring the proceedings on the the merits; (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the decision is
application for support pendente lite terminated and deemed final; and (4) the two actions involve identical parties, subject matter
submitted for resolution. and causes of action.
Jose Roxas refused to comply with the Judge’s order for support. He In the case at bar, there was no adverse decision against
hired a new lawyer and field a temporary stay execution of the orders. the petitioner in Civil Case No. 97-0523 which was the first
case filed and raffled to the sala (Branch 257) of Judge
The appellate court nullified the Orders and the How. The dismissal without prejudice of the complaint in
proceedings of the trial court for the reason that the Civil Case No. 97-0523 at the instance of the petitioner was
certificate of non-forum shopping of the petitioner did not pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
mention the prior filing of Civil Case No. 97-0523 before Procedure 15 considering that it was done before service of
the sala of Judge How and the dismissal thereof without answer or any responsive pleading. The dismissal does not
prejudice. The decision of the appellate court elaborated the amount to litis pendencia nor to res judicata . There is no
reasons for the granting of the petition, to wit: litis pendencia since the first case before Judge How was
dismissed or withdrawn by the plaintiff (herein petitioner),
xxx xxx xxx without prejudice, upon her filing of a notice of dismissal,
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
While a complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by Procedure. To use the wording of that rule, Judge How’s
filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the order is one merely "confirming the dismissal" of the
answer (Sec. 1, Rule 17), there is however a need to state complaint by the plaintiff (herein petitioner). Neither is
the fact of prior filing and dismissal thereof in the there res judicata for the reason that the order of dismissal
certification on non-forum shopping, in the event the was not a decision on the merits but a dismissal "without
complaint is refiled, as in this case. This must be so in prejudice".
order to prevent the plaintiff or principal party from
invoking Section 1 of Rule 17 in the hope that, if and when Private respondent is also estopped in questioning the
refiled, the complaint will be raffled to a more sympathetic proceedings and orders of Judge Bautista-Ricafort. He tacitly
judge. acknowledged the validity of the proceedings and the orders issued by
the said trial judge by participating actively in the hearing on the
The CA then ordered the annulment case should be application for support pendente lite.
returned to Branch 257 of the RTC of Parañaque City, to
which it was originally raffled. For a party to be adjudged guilty of forum shopping in the
trial courts, a motion to dismiss on the ground of either litis
ISSUE: In other words, if a case is dismissed without prejudice upon pendencia or res judicata must be filed before the proper
the filing by the plaintiff of a notice of dismissal pursuant to Section 1 trial court and a hearing conducted thereon in accordance
of Rule 17, before the service of the answer or responsive pleading, with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
would the subsequent re-filing of the case by the same party require The same ground cannot be raised in a petition for
that the certificate of non-forum shopping state that a case involving certiorari before the appellate court while the main action in
the same issues and parties was filed and dismissed without the trial court is still pending for the reason that such
prejudice beforehand? Would the omission of such a statement in the ground for a motion to dismiss can be raised before the trial
certificate of non-forum shopping render null and void the proceedings court any time during the proceedings and is not barred by
and orders issued by the trial court in the re-filed case? the filing of the answer to the complaint.
HELD: It is our considered view and we hold that the proceedings The petition for certiorari in the case at bar on the ground of alleged
and orders issued by Judge Bautista-Ricafort in the application for forum shopping in the trial court is premature for the reason that there
support pendente lite (and the main complaint for annulment of is an adequate and speedy remedy available in the ordinary course of
marriage) in the re-filed case, that is, in Civil Case No. 97-0608 were law to private respondent, i.e ., a motion to dismiss or a motion for
not rendered null and void by the omission of a statement in the reconsideration on the ground of either litis pendencia or res judicata
certificate of non-forum shopping regarding the prior filing and before the trial court. But private respondent did not file such a motion
dismissal without prejudice of Civil Case No. 97-0523 which involves based on either of said grounds. And where the ground is short of res
the same parties and issues. judicata or litis pendencia , as in the case at bar, the Court of Appeals
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
Since a party resorts to forum shopping in order to increase his jurisdiction when it granted the petition for certiorari filed by herein
chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action, it has been held private respondent. The trial court should have been given an
that a party cannot be said to have sought to improve his chances of opportunity to rule on the matter of alleged forum shopping in
obtaining a favorable decision or action where no unfavorable consonance with the hierarchy of courts. (Techie Silva )
decision has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he
15
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
Rule 18 – Pre-Trial
FACTS: Ernesto Rigor, respondent, filed with the Regional Trial
TIU vs. MIDDLETON July 19, 1999 Court a complaint for sum of money with damages against Dr.
Emmanuel Vera, petitioner. Respondent alleged in his complaint that
FACTS: The present petition arose from a Complaint for recovery of petitioner purchased from him a brand new Ultrasound Scanner, for
ownership and possession of real property. The court a quo sent a P410,000.00. Petitioner paid P120,000.00 as downpayment, leaving a
Notice of Pre-trial Conference, stating in part: "The parties are balance of P290,000.00. Despite respondent’s demand, petitioner
WARNED that witnesses whose names and addresses are not failed to pay the same.
submitted at the pre-trial may not be allowed to testify at the trial." In his answer, petitioner claimed that he received the machine on
a trial basis. However, when tested, its “performance” was
In his Pre-trial Brief, petitioner averred that he would be presenting 6 unsatisfactory. Moreover, the hospital where the machine was to be
witnesses, but he did not name them. After the pre-trial conference, installed has no funds. Respondent offered a new brand of
the court a quo issued a Pre-trial Order stating that the petitioner Ultrasound Scanner but it turned out to be an old model.
would present 6 witnesses and specifying the hearing dates for the The trial court then set the pre-trial. During the pre-trial
said purpose. conference, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, hence,
the trial court terminated the pre-trial and set the case for initial
Trial ensued, and herein respondents, as plaintiffs in the case, hearing. However, upon motion of respondent’s counsel, the trial was
presented their witnesses in due course. When his turn came, reset to July 17, 1997. During the hearing on this date, the trial court,
petitioner called Antonia Tiu as his first witness. Citing Section 6, Rule upon manifestation of petitioner’s counsel, realized that respondent
18 of the 1997 Rules of Court, respondents objected, arguing that the failed to file a pre-trial brief.
witness could not be allowed to testify because petitioner had failed to Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising as
name her in his Pre-trial Brief. ground respondent’s failure to file a pre-trial brief.
The trial court issued a Resolution granting the motion and
RULING: Yes. Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the by the trial court.
objectives of a pre-trial and the role of the trial court therein, it is respondent to file pre-trial brief?
The Notice of Pre-trial Conference warned the parties that "witnesses amended, Section 5 of the same Rule, and Section 7
whose names and addresses are not submitted at the pre-trial may mandatorily requires the parties to seasonably file their briefs and
not be allowed to testify at the trial." In his Pre-trial Brief, petitioner failure to do so shall be cause for the dismissal of the action.
merely stated that he intended to present 6 witnesses While the trial judge erroneously proceeded with the trial
conference, the fact remains that respondent did not file a pre-trial
In his Pre-trial Order, however, the trial judge did not exercise his brief. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 quoted above, such failure is a
discretion to exclude the unnamed witnesses. Rather, it simply cause for dismissal of the action. We have to emphasize that pre-trial
provided that "[t]he defendant will present 6 witnesses." It made no and its governing rules are not technicalities which the parties may
mention at all that they would be barred from testifying unless they ignore or trifle with.
were named. Obviously, since respondent did not file a pre-trial brief, it follows
that the trial judge failed to conduct the pre-trial conference in
Indeed, the court and the parties must pay attention not only to the accordance with Rule 18. In fact, he did not issue the required
pre-trial briefs, but also to the pre-trial order. Hence, the provision in pre-trial order stating the various matters which should have been
the Pre-trial Order allowing petitioner to present 6 witnesses "shall included therein. Indeed, the trial judge showed his ignorance of the
control the subsequent course of action." Rules, specifically Rule 18. And by failing to take appropriate steps to
enable the parties reach an amicable settlement, the trial judge
Pre-trial* is an essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes. showed his gross inefficiency. (Anthony Balagot )
16
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he inherited from his delimitation of the issues during the pre-trial because they
[10]
parents Esteban Retuya and Balbina Solon as well as the purchasers themselves agreed to the same.
of hereditary shares of approximately eight (8) parcels of land in Petitioners argue that in past instances we have reviewed
Mandaue City. matters raised for the first time during appeal. True, but we have done
In 1945, defendant Nicolas Retuya no longer lived with his so only by way of exception involving clearly meritorious situations.
[11]
legitimate family and cohabited with defendant, Pacita Villanueva, This case does not fall under any of those exceptions. The fact that
wherein defendant, Procopio Villanueva, is their illegitimate the case proceeded to trial, with the petitioners actively participating
son. Nicolas, then, was the only person who received the income of without raising the necessary objection, all the more requires that they
[12]
the above-mentioned properties. be bound by the stipulations they made at the pre-trial. Petitioners
Defendant, Pacita Villanueva, from the time she started living in were well aware that they raised the defense of prescription and laches
concubinage with Nicolas, has no occupation, she had no properties since they included it in their answer. However, for reasons of their
of her own from which she could derive income. own, they did not include this defense in the pre-trial.
In 1985, Nicolas suffered a stroke and cannot talk anymore, Able counsels represented both parties. We see no claim that
cannot walk anymore and they have to raise him up in order to either counsel erred or was negligent. This could only mean that
walk. Natividad Retuya knew of the physical condition of her father petitioners’ counsel chose to waive, or did not consider important, the
because they visited him at the hospital. From the time defendant defense of prescription and laches. Petitioners are bound by their
Nicolas Retuya suffered a stroke on January 27, 1985 and until the counsel’s choice. Other than arguing that it is allowable to raise the
present, it is defendant Procopio Villanueva, one of Nicolas’ issue for the first time on appeal, we have no explanation from
illegitimate children who has been receiving the income of these petitioners why they suddenly decided to change their mind. Parties
properties. Witness Natividad Retuya went to Procopio to negotiate are not allowed to flip-flop. Courts have neither the time nor the
because at this time their father Nicolas was already senile and has a resources to accommodate parties who choose to go to trial
childlike mind. She told defendant, Procopio that their father was haphazardly. Moreover, it would be grossly unfair to allow petitioners
already incapacitated and they had to talk things over and the latter the luxury of changing their mind to the detriment of private
replied that it was not yet the time to talk about the matter. respondents at this late stage. To put it simply, since petitioners did not
Plaintiff, then, complained to the Barangay Captain for raise the defense of prescription and laches during the trial, they
reconciliation/mediation but no settlement was reached, hence, the cannot now raise this defense for the first time on appeal.
said official issued a certification to file action. Written demands were (Anthony Balagot )
made by plaintiff, through her counsel, to the defendants, including
the illegitimate family asking for settlement but no settlement was Rule 22 – Computation of Time
reached by the parties.
The trial court rendered its Decision on 16 February 1994 in BPI VS CA and Jimmy Go (June 28, 2006)
favor of Eusebia.
The appellate court dismissed Pacita’s defense of prescription FACTS: Petitioner, Far East Bank and Trust Company, granted a
and laches since she failed to have the issue included in the pre-trial total of eight (8) loans to Noah’s Arc Merchandising (Noah’s Ark, for
order after raising it in her answer with her co-petitioners. brevity). Noah’s Ark is a single proprietorship owned by Mr. Albert T.
Looyuko. The said loans were evidenced by identical Promissory
ISSUE: Whether or not Pacita’s defense of prescription and laches Notes all signed by Albert T. Looyuko, private respondent Jimmy T. Go
are tenable? and one Wilson Go. Likewise, all loans were secured by real estate
mortgage constituted over a parcel of land. Petitioner, claiming that
RULING: The defense of prescription and laches are not tenable. Noah’s Ark defaulted in its obligations, extrajudicially foreclosed the
The determination of issues during the pre-trial conference bars mortgage. The auction sale was set on 14 April 1998 but on 8 April
the consideration of other questions, whether during trial or on appeal. 1998 private respondent filed a complaint for damages with prayer [for]
[6]
Section 1 of Rule 9 covers situations where a defense or objection issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking [to]
is not raised in a motion to dismiss or an answer. What we have enjoin the auction sale. [I]n the Order dated 14 April 1998 a temporary
before us is the exact opposite. Here, petitioners in fact raised in their restraining order was issued and in the same order the application for
answer the defense of prescription and laches. However, despite Preliminary Injunction was set for hearing [i]n the afternoon of the
raising the defense of prescription and laches in their answer, same day (Rollo, p. 142).
2
17
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
RULING: The TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction were not already been terminated. It ruled that between the denial of a lawyer
properly issued by the Judge. and the certification of a postmaster, the latter would prevail.
The issuance of the TRO was, on procedural grounds, irregular.
Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: ISSUE: Whether the taking of oral depositions was proper under the
Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; circumstances.
exception. � No preliminary injunction shall be granted
without hearing and prior notice to the party or person HELD: The CA erred in declaring that the taking of the depositions of
sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown petitioner’s witnesses was improper.
by affidavits or by the verified application that great or
irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the A deposition may be taken with leave of court after jurisdiction has
matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the been obtained over any defendant or over property that is the subject
application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue of the action; or, without such leave, after an answer has been served.
a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a
period of twenty (20) days from notice to the party or The Rules of Court and jurisprudence, however, do not restrict a
person sought to be enjoined. Within the said twenty-day deposition to the sole function of being a mode of discovery before
period, the court must order said party or person to show trial. Under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes, it may
cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction be taken even after trial has commenced and may be used without the
should not be granted, determine within the same period deponent being actually called to the witness stand. In Dasmariñas
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, Garments v. Reyes, we allowed the taking of the witnesses’
and accordingly issue the corresponding order. testimonies through deposition, in lieu of their actual presence at the
Judge Victorio, in an order dated April 14, 1998, issued a TRO trial.
for five days, then, in an order dated April 15, 1998, extended it for
fifteen more days, totaling twenty days. However, in the first order, Thus, depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any
Judge Victorio excluded Saturdays and Sundays; and in the latter action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule that limits
order he added legal holidays to the exclusions. As quoted above, a deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no
TRO is effective only for a period of twenty days from notice to the prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. There can
party sought to be enjoined. The rule does not specify that the be no valid objection to allowing them during the process of executing
counting of the twenty-day period is only limited to working days or final and executory judgments, when the material issues of fact have
that Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded from the become numerous or complicated.
twenty-day period. The law simply states twenty days from notice.
Section 1, Rule 22 Depositions are allowed, provided they are taken in accordance with
It is clear from the last sentence of this section that non-working the provisions of the Rules of Court (that is, with leave of court if the
days (Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) are excluded from the summons have been served, without leave of court if an answer has
counting of the period only when the last day of the period falls on been submitted); and provided, further, that a circumstance for their
such days. The Rule does not provide for any other circumstance in admissibility exists.
which non-working days would affect the counting of a prescribed
period. Hence, Judge Victorio exceeded the authority granted to lower Depositions may be used for the trial or for the hearing of a motion or
courts, in Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, when he excluded an interlocutory proceeding, under the circumstances specified
non-working days from the counting of the twenty-day period. hereunder:
(Anthony Balagot )
Section 4. Use of Depositions. -- At the trial or upon the hearing of a
motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition,
so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against
any party who was present or represented at the taking of the
deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one
of the following provisions:
xxx
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by
Rule 23 – Depositions before action or pending appeal any party for any purpose if the court finds: xxx (2) that the witness
resides at a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the
JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., INC vs. place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears
Spouses MANGUDADATU August 16, 2004 that his absence was procured by the party offering the deposition.xxx
FACTS: A deposition upon oral examination of the petitioner’s former The present case involved a circumstance that fell under the above-
counsels was taken by the petitioner, which was opposed by the cited Section 4(c)(2) of Rule 23 -- the witnesses of petitioner in Metro
respondents. The Deposition was intended to prove that JLI had not Manila resided beyond 100 kilometers from Sultan Kudarat, the place
received a copy of the Order denying the Omnibus Motion for New of hearing. Petitioner offered the depositions in support of its Motion to
Trial. On appeal, the CAruled that petitioner could no longer avail Quash (the Writ of Execution) and for the purpose of proving that the
itself of a deposition under Rule 23 of Rules of Court, since trial had trial court’s Decision was not yet final. As previously explained, despite
18
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
the fact that trial has already been terminated, a deposition can still be Thus, to deny a party the liberty to have his written interrogatories
properly taken. answered by his opponent, as what the trial court did, on the premise
that the interrogatories were a "fishing expedition," is to disregard the
We note, however, that the RTC did not totally disregard petitioner’s categorical pronouncement in aforementioned case of Republic vs.
depositions. In its Resolution, the trial court considered and weighed Sandiganbayan that the time-honored cry of “fishing expedition” can no
-- against all other evidence -- that its Order denying the Motion for longer provide a reason to prevent a party from inquiring into the facts
New Trial filed by petitioner had not been received by the latter’s underlying the opposing party’s case through the discovery
counsels. Despite their depositions, petitioner failed to prove procedures. (Sahara Alia Silongan )
convincingly its denial of receipt. (Sahara Alia Silongan )
Rule 30 - Trial
19
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in not consolidating Civil Case No.
CEB-23653 [with Civil Case No. CEB 16335] HELD: Sections 3 and 5 indicate quite clearly the necessity for a
formal hearing and the swearing of witnesses; otherwise, the
RULING: No. Under Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, only commissioner cannot determine factual questions which arise in the
pending actions involving a common question of law or fact may be course of his examination of the accounts. For this purpose, the
consolidated. Obviously, petitioners cannot make out a case for witnesses must necessarily be sworn in and offered for cross-
consolidation in this case since Civil Case No. CEB-16335, the case examination by the parties so that the truth of any question may be
which petitioners seek to consolidate with the case a quo, has long determined. This would not be possible were the commissioner merely
become final and executory; as such it cannot be re-litigated in the to interview the parties. Where controversial questions are involved,
instant proceedings without virtually impeaching the correctness of such as whether certain items must be allowed or disallowed, an
the decision in the other case. Public policy abhors such eventuality. adversary proceeding is particularly indicated. That is why the last
sentence of §3 says that "The trial or hearing before him shall proceed
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is in all respects as it would be held before the court." For the fact is that
essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment the commissioner substitutes for the judge, and whatever the judge
has become final the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to can or cannot do, the commissioner also can or cannot do.
rest. (Lendl Floyd Montes ) Consequently, if a judge cannot decide a question without hearing the
parties on oath or affirmation, neither can the commissioner.
Rule 32 – Trial by Commissioner Since the proceedings before the commissioner were null and
void because of the denial of due process to petitioner, the nullity of
ALJEM'S CORPORATION (LOGGING DIVISION) vs. the proceedings can be raised at any stage of case. It was error,
COURT OF APPEALS (March 28, 2001) therefore, for the trial court to approve the commissioner's report over
the objection of petitioner. (Bhing Doquilla )
In this case, the separate Answers filed by the respondents definitely clear that what the trial court actually rendered was a summary
tendered issues, as it made specific denials of the material allegations judgment.
in the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses, which would bar
The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the
recovery by petitioners. Moreover, it was erroneous for the RTC to
pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on
require the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for the
the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment
LBP and the DAR Secretary to file the same since in the first place,
from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for
the latter are neither plaintiffs in the case nor counter-claimants or
judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because
cross-claimants.
of the failure of the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. On the
other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently
What the RTC obviously meant to be filed was a motion for summary
exist – i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is
judgment, a procedural device designed for the prompt disposition of
as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or
actions, which may be rendered if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer – but the issues
depositions and admissions on file show that, after a summary
thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as
hearing, there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact, except
shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. In other words, a
as to the amount of damages, and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, while
judgment as a matter of law, and which may be applied for by either a
a summary judgment is a judgment on the facts as summarily proven
claimant or a defending party. This is obvious from the fact that
by affidavits, depositions, or admissions.
although the Answers raised issues, these were not factual ones
requiring trial, nor were they genuine issues, as the parties were able As such, even if the answer does tender issues and therefore a
to agree to limit the same to whether petitioners are entitled to just judgment on the pleadings is not proper - a summary judgment may
compensation under R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 27. still be rendered on the plaintiff's motion if he can show that the issues
(Lendl Floyd Montes) thus tendered are not genuine, sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad
faith, or patently unsubstantial. The trial court can determine whether
there is a genuine issue on the basis of the pleadings, admissions,
documents, affidavits and/or counter-affidavits submitted by the parties
to the court.
Integrated Corporation to pay a balance of the consideration agreed entered into the letter-contract with private respondent for the supply of
by them NC Industrial Trade, Inc. filed a complaint for a sum of money labor, trader, tools, equipment and supervision necessary for the
and damages. NIC filed a third-party complaint against Kyung-Il installation of an electrical power distribution system, waste water
Philippines, Inc. treatment plant, and catwalk railings and ladder. Neither did it
specifically deny the invoices issued by private respondent which show
The issues thus joined, the court a quo set the case for pre- the various amounts owed by it to private respondent. Finally,
trial. Alleging that the answer filed by the defendant/third party plaintiff petitioner did not dispute the unpaid balance which it still allegedly
did not tender an issue on account of the said party’s admission of the owes private respondent.
21
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
ROSITA DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS only natural to presume that such action constitutes an implicit waiver
and ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, of the right to appeal against said decision.
respondents (1996) WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
(Bhing Doquilla )
neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the Court
of Appeals allows the remedy of petition for relief in the CA. DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. JOLLIBEE
FOODS CORP. G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000
Moreover, under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the denial of a petition for relief from judgment is subject The execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the
only to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. In seeking to general rule that only final judgment may be executed. An exceptional
reverse the appellate court’s decision denying their petition for relief execution must be founded on "good reason," which rest on sound
from judgment by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, judicial discretion. The alleged financial distress of the prevailing
petitioners have availed of the wrong remedy twice. juridical entity is nor, by itself, a "good reason."
Nevertheless, even if this Court were to delve into the merits of this FACTS : DCCI instituted an action for the recovery of escalated
petition, the same must still be denied. What petitioners’ counsel did construction costs which it had allegedly incurred in the construction of
in this case was to attach an improper Certification of Non-Forum buildings owned by Respondent JFC. DCCI obtained a favorable
Shopping to their petition for review with the appellate court. While judgment from the RTC. However, contending that the RTC failed to
this omission can plausibly qualify as simple negligence, it does not order payment of extra work done, DCCI filed a Notice of Appeal; and
amount to gross negligence to justify the annulment of the a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. In said Motion, it cited as
proceedings below. "good reasons" its financial distress as a small business. The trial court
allowed execution pending appeal. And in view of both parties'
For a claim of counsel’s gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of appeals, the trial court forwarded the original records of the case to the
clear abandonment of the client’s cause must be shown. The appellate court for further proceedings.
negligence of counsel must be so gross that the client is deprived of CA directed the RTC to issue a writ of execution upon petitioner's
his day in court, the result of which is that he is deprived of his posting a bond, but afterwards it issued an order to stay execution
property without due process of law. Thus, where a party was given upon respondent's filing of a supersedeas bond.
the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be
said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to ISSUE : WON CA erred in directing the stay of execution pending
be heard is the very essence of due process. Here, the case appeal previously allowed by the lower court.
underwent a full-blown trial. Both parties were adequately heard, and
all issues were ventilated before the decision was promulgated. HELD : The CA may not be compelled to enforce a Special Order
issued by the trial court. The CA has its own separate and original
It should be pointed out that in petitions for relief from judgment, discretionary jurisdiction to grant or to stay execution pending appeal,
meritorious defenses must be accompanied by the ground relied except in civil cases decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure
upon, whether it is fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, and in other cases when the law or the Rules provide otherwise.
extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In the instant case, there being
neither excusable nor gross negligence amounting to a denial of due Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules states: Sec. 2. Discretionary execution. (a)
process, meritorious defenses cannot alone be considered. Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal . On motion of
(Karla Deles ) the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial
court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of
either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be,
at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion,
order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration
of the period to appeal.
Rule 39 – Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution
CITY OF ILIGAN V. CITY MANAGEMENT pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
the CA for the issuance of the writ at the time, it thereby invoked the appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing in main
original discretionary jurisdiction of the latter to grant execution that the right of action to revive judgment had already prescribed The
pending appeal. appeal was denied by the appellate court.
ISSUE : WON there was good reason for the execution pending ISSUE: Whether or not the right of action to revive judgment had
appeal to be allowed. already prescribed
The Court must stress that the execution of a judgment before its RULING: No. The rule is that "neither laches nor the statute of
finality must be founded upon good reasons. The yardstick remains limitations applies to a decision in a land registration case." We fail to
the presence or the absence of good reasons consisting of understand the arguments of the appellant in support of the
exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury assignment [of error], except insofar as it supports his theory that after
or damage that the losing party may suffer, should the appealed a decision in a land registration case has become final, it may not be
judgment be reversed later. Good reason imports a superior enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another
circumstance that will outweigh injury or damage to the adverse party. proceeding to enforce the judgment or decision. Authority for this
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to show "paramount and theory is the provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment
compelling reasons of urgency and justice." Petitioner cites as good may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but
reason merely the fact that "it is a small-time building contractor that within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39). This provision of
could ill-afford the protracted delay in the reimbursement of the the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to
advances it made for the aforesaid increased-costs of construction of special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This
the buildings." is so because a party in a civil action must immediately
enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse
Petitioner's allegedly precarious financial condition, however, is not by party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a
itself a jurisprudentially compelling circumstance warranting reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the
immediate execution. The financial distress of a juridical entity is not decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special
comparable to a case involving a natural person such as a very old proceedings[,] the purpose is to establish a status,
and sickly one without any means of livelihood, an heir seeking an condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the
order for support and monthly allowance for subsistence, or one who ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be
dies. established. After the ownership has been proved and
confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to
Indeed, the alleged financial distress of a corporation does not enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the
outweigh the long standing general policy of enforcing only final and adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land
executory judgments. Certainly, a juridical entity like petitioner and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
corporation has, other than extraordinary execution, alternative (Norliza Mamukid )
remedies like loans, advances, internal cash generation and the like
to address its precarious financial condition. (Karla Deles ISAAC VILLEGAS petitioner, vs. VICTOR LINGAN and
) ATTY. ERNESTO CARREON respondents. G.R. No. 153839
June 29, 2007
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LOURDES ABIERA
NILLAS January 23, 2007 FACTS: Petitioner was the registered owner of a parcel of land in
Cagayan. In order to secure the payment of a loan from DBP, the
FACTS: Respondent Lourdes Abiera Nillas (Nillas) filed a Petition for petitioner constituted a REM over the said parcel of land in favor of
Revival of Judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). It was DBP. The said loan and mortgage was subsequently transferred by
alleged that the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Oriental the DBP to the Home Mutual Development Fund (HMDF). When the
rendered a Decision Adicional in Expediente Cadastral No. 14, petitioner failed to settle his loan, the REM constituted over the
captioned as El Director De Terrenos contra Esteban Abingayan y property was foreclosed, the property was sold at public auction and,
Otros. In the decision, the CFI, acting as a cadastral court, as the HMDF was itself the highest bidder at such public auction, a
adjudicated several lots, together with the improvements thereon, in certificate of sheriff’s sale was issued. By virtue of a power of attorney
favor of named oppositors who had established their title to their (GPA) executed by petitioner’s wife, Marilou Villegas in favor of Gloria
respective lots and their continuous possession thereof since time Catral, the latter redeemed the property from the HMDF.
immemorial and ordered the Chief of the General Land Registration In 1996, Catral, by virtue of the same GPA, executed a Deed of
Office, upon the finality of the decision, to issue the corresponding Sale in favor of respondent Victor Lingan.
decree of registration. No responsive pleading was filed by the Office Petitioner filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Instrument
of the Solicitor General (OSG), although it entered its appearance and with Damages with the RTC against respondent. Petitioner argued that
simultaneously deputized the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City to the GPA executed in favor of Catral created a principal-agent
appear whenever the case was set for hearing and in all subsequent relationship only between his wife, Marilou as principal, and Catral, as
proceedings. The RTC rendered a Decision finding merit in the agent, and then only for the latter to administer the properties of the
petition for revival of judgment, and ordering the revival of the 1941 former and that he never authorized Catral to administer his properties,
Decision, as well as directing the Commissioner of the Land particularly, herein subject property. However, RTC dismissed the
Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the corresponding decree of complaint.
confirmation and registration based on the 1941 Decision. The OSG
24
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
On appeal to CA, CA affirmed the decision of RTC and ruled that Family Code provides that property acquired by right of redemption is
when the redemption of the property had been made by Catral by the exclusive property of the spouses redeeming the property.
virtue of a GPA executed in her favor by Marilou, it follows that the Clearly, therefore, Marilou, as owner, had the right to sell the
petitioner is no longer the owner of the subject property but his wife, property to another. (TeenTeen Pague )
Marilou; that the issue as to whether the power of attorney was a
special or general one is of no moment because the petitioner was no Rule 40 – Appeal from the MTC to the RC
longer the owner of the property when it was sold; in other words, any
disposition of the property needs no power of attorney from the NEYPES v. CA (Sept. 14, 2005)
petitioner himself.
HELD: The court now allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to
ISSUE: Whether Marilou, the wife of the petitioner, as successor-in- file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from
interest, may validly redeem the property in question. receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or
motion for reconsideration.
RULING: YES. Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to Rule 40
Section 27, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial
SEC. 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. – Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts
Real property sold as provided in the last preceding to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial
section, or any part thereof sold separately, may be agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by
redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the certiorari to the Supreme Court. (Kahlil Elbanbuena )
following persons:
25
CIVIL PROCEDURE Notes/Case Digests – Selected Cases (4-Manresa 2008-2009)
RULING: In the case of Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled
that, to consider the mere posting of a bond a "good reason" would
precisely make immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal
routinary, the rule rather than the exception. Judgments would be
executed immediately, as a matter of course, once rendered, if all that
the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bond to answer for
damages that might result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat,
neither contemplated nor intended by law.
In fine, the rule is now settled that the mere filing of a bond by
the successful party is not a good reason for ordering execution
pending appeal, as "a combination of circumstances is the dominant
consideration which impels the grant of immediate execution, the
requirement of a bond is imposed merely as an additional factor, no
doubt for the protection of the defendant's creditor. Since we have
already ruled that the reason that an appeal is dilatory does not justify
execution pending appeal, neither does the filing of a bond, without
anything more, justify the same. (TeenTeen
)
26