DIVINAGRACIA vs.

PARILLA
G.R. No. 196750 March 11, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

a) An indispensable party is one whose interest will be

affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without
whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party’s
interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought
are so intextricably intertwined with the other’s parties’ that his
legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute
necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the
dispute of the parties before the court which is effective,
complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of an indispensable
party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void,
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
even as to those present.
b) In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties,
the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the
case, to wit: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial
proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added
on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal
concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable
party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the
complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.
The remedy is to implead the nonparty claim to be
indispensable.
 ENRIQUEZ Vda. DE SANTIAGO vs. VILLAR
G.R. No. 225309 March 06, 2018
TIJAM, J.:

By definition, an indispensable party is a party-in-interest

without whom no final determination can be had of an action,
and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. It is a
party whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the
litigation. In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the
Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. v. Robles, 638 SCRA 712
(2010), the Court held that: The joinder of indispensable parties
is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary
to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear
and determine a cause, the right to act in a case. Thus, without
the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding,
judgment of a court cannot attain real finality
Verily, Rosario is an indispensable party in the petition
before the CA as she is the widow of the original party-plaintiff
Eduardo. The determination of the propriety of the action of the
trial court in merely noting and not granting his motion would
necessarily affect her interest in the subject matter of litigation
as the party-plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court differs with the CA
in ruling that the petition for certiorari filed before it merely
delves into the issue of grave abuse of discretion committed by
the lower court. Guilty of repetition, the final determination of
the case would pry into the right of Rosario as party-plaintiff
before the lower court who is entitled to the proceeds of the
judgment award. As it is, the CA did not actually rule on the
issue of grave abuse of discretion alone as its corollary ruling
inquired into the right of Rosario. In ruling for Vilar’s
substitution, the right of Rosario as to the proceeds of the
judgment award was thwarted as the CA effectively ordered that
the proceeds pertaining to Rosario be awarded instead to Vilar.
Likewise, the Court finds merit in Rosario’s contention that her
failure to participate in the proceedings before the CA
constitutes a denial of her constitutional right to due process.
Hence, failure to implead Rosario as an indispensable party
rendered all the proceedings before the CA null and void for
want of authority to act. Moreover, even the basis for the
substitution of Vilar as pronounced by the CA was unfounded.
In ruling so, the CA merely relied on the purported Deeds of
Assignment of Rights executed between Eduardo and Vilar in
considering that the latter is a transferee pendente lite, who can
rightfully and legally substitute Rosario as party-plaintiff in the
implementation of a writ of execution. Yet, it is significant to
note that the Court already brushed aside said Deeds of
Assignment for being belatedly filed in its Decision dated
October 21, 2015 in G.R. Nos. 194814 and 194825. The Court
did not discuss any further the validity and due execution of said
Deeds as the same were brought to the attention of the trial court
more than 20 years after the same were allegedly executed.

PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA

vs. SCHONFELD
G.R. No. 166920 February 19, 2007
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Venue; Venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule,

supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised
Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words.
 The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by
this Court in the vintage case of Philippine Banking Corporation
v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413 (1994), is that while they are
considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a
contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in
Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered
merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting
venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather
permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue,
there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically
expressing their purpose and design that actions between them
be litigated only at the place named by them.

BIACO vs. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK

G.R. No. 161417 February 8, 2007
TINGA, J.:

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the
case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired
either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a
result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power
of the court is recognized and made effective.
 BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. vs.
SPOUSES YUJUICO
G.R. No. 175796 July 22, 2015
BERSAMIN, J.:

Based on the distinctions between real and personal

actions, an action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real property mortgage is a personal action,
for it does not affect title to or possession of real property, or
any interest therein. Accordingly, the proper venue in this case is
in Makati RTC because Makati was the place where the main
office of BPI was located.

PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. RAMOS

G.R. No. 228617 September 20, 2017
REYES, JR., J:

In cases where the complaint assails only the terms,

conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its
validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall
still be binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be
properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue.
Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing the validity
of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the
exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed
in accordance with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it
would be inherently consistent for a complaint of this nature to
recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact,
precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such
stipulation is contained.

A.L ANG NETWORK INC. vs MONDEJAR

G.R. No. 200804 January 22, 2014
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

A.L Ang Network Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money

under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases before the
MTCC, seeking to collect from Emma Mondejar the amount of
₱23,111.71 which represented her unpaid water bills for the
period June 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005.
MTC ruled in favor of Emma Mondejar. Petitioner now
then filed before the RTC a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision
under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed,
and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its
execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small
claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an
available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Petitioner is correct when it filed the said petition before
the proper forum (i.e., the RTC). To be sure, the Court, the
Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. Such concurrence of
jurisdiction, however, does not give a party unbridled freedom
to choose the venue of his action lest he ran afoul of the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts. Instead, a becoming regard for judicial
hierarchy dictates that petitions for the issuance of writs of
certiorari against first level courts should be filed with the
Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court
of Appeals, before resort may be had before the Court. This
procedure is also in consonance with Section 4, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
Small claims cases are exclusively within the jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
certiorari petitions assailing its dispositions should be filed
before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts. This petitioner
complied with when it instituted its petition for certiorari before
the RTC which, as previously mentioned, has jurisdiction over
the same.

ALBA vs. MAPALAJO

G.R. No. 198752 January 13, 2016
PERALTA, J.:

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may

have against an opposing party.
A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable
by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with
the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of
the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within
the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature
thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional
Trial Court, necessarily connected with the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim or even where there is such a connection,
the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or it requires
for adjudication the presence of third persons over whom the
court acquire jurisdiction.
A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the
same action.
A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is
not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim
that may be filed separately in another case.
“Since respondents' counterclaim is compulsory, it must be
set up in the same action; otherwise, it would be barred forever.
If it is filed concurrently with the main action but in a different
proceeding, it would be abated on the ground of litis pendentia;
if filed subsequently, it would meet the same fate on the ground
of res judicata. There is, therefore, no need for respondents to
pay docket fees and to file a certification against forum shopping
for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the said counterclaim.

LIM TECK CHUAN vs. UY

G.R. No. 155701 March 11, 2015
REYES, J.:

A dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal

of the complaint. For this reason, since only the complaint and
not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of said
dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same
action. The dismissal of the complaint does not necessarily
result to the dismissal of the counterclaim.
 METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
vs. CPR PROMOTIONS AND MARKETING INC.
G.R. No. 200567 June 22, 2015
VELASCO JR., J.:

It is elementary that a defending party’s compulsory

counterclaim should be interposed at the time he files his
Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar such
claim.

VALDEZ vs. DABON, Jr.

A.C. No. 7353 November 16, 2015
PER CURIAM:

A negative pregnant is a denial coupled with the admission

of substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not
squarely denied. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form
of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at
least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party.
Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language
and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are
literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstance
alone is denied while the fact itself is admitted.

REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 152154 July 15, 2003
CORONA, J.:
 A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which
carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some
kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with
an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading.
Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language
and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are
literally denied, has been held that the qualifying circumstances
alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.

CANELAND SUGAR CORPORATION vs. ALON

G.R. NO. 142896 September 12, 2007
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Pleadings and Practice; Negative Pregnant; Words and

Phrases; A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression
which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of
some kind favorable to the adverse party—it is a denial pregnant
with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the
pleading.—Petitioner does not dispute its loan obligation with
respondent. Petitioner’s bone of contention before the RTC is
that the promissory notes are silent as to whether they were
covered by the Mortgage Trust Inden-ture and Mortgage
Participation on its property covered by TCT No. T-11292. It
does not categorically deny that these promissory notes are
covered by the security documents. These vague assertions are,
in fact, negative pregnants, i.e., denials pregnant with the
admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to
which are not squarely denied. As defined in Republic of the
Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190 (2003), a negative
pregnant is a “form of negative expression which carries with it
an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable
to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of
the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is
alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of
the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, has
been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied
while the fact itself is admitted.”

ALMA JOSE vs. JAVELLANA

G.R. No. 158239 January 25, 2012
BERSAMIN, J.:

Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom

an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum seeking
and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other
than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the
institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
the same cause or supposition that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping happens when, in
the two or more pending cases, there is identity of parties,
identity of rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs
sought. Where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
the other, there is forum shopping. For litis pendentia to be a
ground for the dismissal of an action, there must be: (a) identity
of the parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in
both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same acts; and (c) the identity in
the two cases should be such that the judgment which may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the other. For forum shopping to exist,
both actions must involve the same transaction, same essential
facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of
action, subject matter and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where
different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of action
and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought. Dangers
of forum shopping. The first danger, i.e., the multiplicity of suits
upon one and the same cause of action, would not materialize
considering that the appeal was a continuity of Civil Case No.
79-M-97, whereas C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60455 dealt with an
independent ground of alleged grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
RTC. The second danger, i.e., the unethical malpractice of
shopping for a friendly court or judge to ensure a favorable
ruling or judgment after not getting it in the appeal, would not
arise because the CA had not yet decided C.A.-G.R. CV No.
68259 as of the filing of the petition for certiorari.

MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO

CONSING
G.R. No. 186720 February 8, 2012
REYES, J.:

The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum

shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the
signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court
has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed
to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice
and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness
as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule
of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the
contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of
strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification
of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature
in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. Thus, under justifiable
circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the
submission of such certification considering that although it is
obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS vs. PALER

G.R. No. 172623 March 3, 2010
CORONA, J.:

The authority to file the petition and sign the verification

and certification of non-forum shopping.
The petitioner in this case is the Commission on
Appointments, a government entity created by the Constitution,
and headed by its Chairman. There was no need for the
Chairman himself to sign the verification. Its representative,
lawyer or any person who personally knew the truth of the facts
alleged in the petition could sign the verification. With regard,
however, to the certification of non-forum shopping, the
established rule is that it must be executed by the plaintiff or any
of the principal parties and not by counsel. In this case, Atty. Tiu
failed to show that he was specifically authorized by the
Chairman to sign the certification of non-forum shopping, much
less file the petition in his behalf. There is nothing on record to
prove such authority. Atty. Tiu did not even bother to controvert
Paler’s allegation of his lack of authority. This renders the
petition dismissible.

BASAN vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES

G.R. Nos. 174365-66 February 04, 2015
 PERALTA, J.:

Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that the rule on

verification is deemed substantially complied with when one
who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification,
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct. Similarly, the Supreme Court has
consistently held that when under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, as when all the petitioners share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, as in
this case, the signature of only one of them in the certification
against forum shopping substantially complies with the
certification requirement. Also, the application of technical rules
of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand
of justice.

UY vs. CA
G.R. No. 173186 September 16, 2015
JARDELEZA, J.:

There was substantial compliance with the requirements on

certification against forum shopping. (Rule 7)
A certification against forum shopping is a peculiar and
personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the
court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases
involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action.
It must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If,
however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader
is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
 Here, the original complaint contained a proper verification
and certification against forum shopping duly signed by Naval-
Sai as plaintiff. The verification and certification in the amended
complaint, on the other hand, was only signed by her counsel,
Atty. Norberta L. Ela. Atty. Ela was not authorized to sign on
behalf of Naval-Sai, as in fact, she assigned one Rodolfo
Florentino as agent. The Court of Appeals pointed out that in the
certification in the amended complaint, Atty. Ela specified that it
should be taken and read together with the original complaint.
The Court of Appeals took this as a cautionary move on the part
of Naval-Sai, justifying the relaxation of the rules on the ground
of substantial compliance. We find, however, that this
cautionary move is ineffectual because under the Rules of Civil
Procedure, an amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the original
complaint and its verification and certification ceased to exist.
This, notwithstanding, we find there was still substantial
compliance with the Rules.
In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of
Appeals, while we said that, strictly, a certification against
forum shopping by counsel is a defective ce1iification, the
verification, signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is
substantial compliance because it served the purpose of the
Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action
or proceeding involving the same issues. We then explained that
procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice which should be used to achieve such
end and not to derail it.
We also find that the prima facie merits of the case serve as
a special circumstance or a compelling reason to relax the rules
on certification against forum shopping.
 In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, we recognized the flaw in
the certification against forum shopping which was signed only
by the counsel, and not by the party. In LDP Marketing, Inc. v.
Monter, there was initially no proof that the one who signed the
certification was authorized to do so in behalf of the corporation.
In these two cases, we nonetheless chose to overlook the
procedural lapses in the interest of substantial justice and the
existence of prima facie merit in the petitions.
We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance
or a defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction. However, there are cases where we
exercised leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground of
substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or
compelling reasons. The rules on forum-shopping are designed
to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice
and "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as
to subve1i its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal
of all rules of procedure¬ which is to achieve substantial justice
as expeditiously as possible."

PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO

G.R. No. 207041 November 09, 2015
PERALTA, J.:

All pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial

bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate
of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period.
Failure to disclose the required information would cause the
dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from
the records.
An information is, for all intents and purposes, considered
an initiatory pleading because it is a written statement that
contains the cause of action of a party, which in criminal cases is
the State as represented by the prosecutor, against the accused.
Like a pleading, the Information is also filed in court for
appropriate judgment. Undoubtedly then, an Information must
contain the number and date of issue of the prosecutor’s MCLE
Certificate of Compliance.

POWERHOUSE STAFFBUILDERS
INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. REY
G.R. No. 190203 November 07, 2016
JARDELEZA, J.:

Rule 7 Parts and Contents of a Pleading

a. In previous cases, we held that the following officials
or employees of the company can sign the verification
and certification against Forum Shopping without
need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the
Board of Directors; (2) the President of a corporation;
(3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager;
(4) Personnel Officer; and (5) an Employment
Specialist in a labor case. The rationale applied in
these cases is to justify the authority of corporate
officers or representatives of the corporation to sign
the verification or certificate against forum shopping,
being “in a position to verify the truthfulness and
correctness of the allegations in the petition.”
 HEIRS OF JOSEFINA GABRIEL vs. SEGUNDINA
CEBRERO
G.R. No. 222737 November 12, 2018
PERALTA, J.:

Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be

executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however,
for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable
to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the
certification against forum shopping must be executed by the
plaintiff or principal party. The reason for this is that the
plaintiff or the principal knows better than anyone, whether a
petition has previously been filed involving the same case or
substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the principal
party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must
have been duly authorized

FERNANDO MEDICAL ENTERPRISES INC. vs.

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
G.R. No. 207970 January 20, 2016
BERSAMIN, J.:

Rule 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

The trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings
upon motion of the claiming party when the defending party's
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party's pleading. For that purpose,
only the pleadings of the parties in the action are considered. It
is error for the trial court to deny the motion for judgment on the
pleadings because the defending party's pleading in another case
supposedly tendered an issue of fact.
Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court recognizes only
three modes by which the denial in the answer raises an issue of
fact. The first is by the defending party specifying each material
allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. The second applies to
the defending party who desires to deny only a part of an
averment, and the denial is done by the defending party
specifying so much of the material allegation of ultimate facts as
is true and material and denying only the remainder. The third is
done by the defending party who is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made in the complaint by stating so in the
answer. Any material averment in the complaint not so
specifically denied are deemed admitted except an averment of
the amount of unliquidated damages.

GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY vs. BPI FAMILY

SAVINGS BANK
G.R. No. 187487 June 29, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The mere statement in paragraph 4 of their Answer, i.e.,

that they “specifically deny” the pertinent allegations of the
Complaint “for being self-serving and pure conclusions intended
to suit plaintiff’s purposes,” does not constitute an effective
specific denial as contemplated by law. Verily, a denial is not
specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant.
Stated otherwise, a general denial does not become specific by
the use of the word “specifically.” Neither does it become so by
the simple expedient of coupling the same with a broad
conclusion of law that the allegations contested are “self-
serving” or are intended “to suit plaintiff’s purposes.

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION vs. CA
G.R. NO. 160242 May 17, 2005
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

The purpose of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court is

to permit a defendant to assert an independent claim against a
third-party which he, otherwise, would assert in another action,
thus preventing multiplicity of suits. All the rights of the parties
concerned would then be adjudicated in one proceeding. This is
a rule of procedure and does not create a substantial right.
Neither does it abridge, enlarge, or nullify the substantial rights
of any litigant.