Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
BASIC PRINCIPLES
(2) Practice, and
(3) Procedure.
Difference between substantive and
remedial law Three (3) limitations on the SC’s rule-making
power:
SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL LAW (1) The rules shall provide a simplified and
It creates, defines It prescribes the inexpensive procedure for the speedy
and regulates rights methods of disposition of cases;
and duties enforcing those (2) shall be uniform for courts of the same
concerning life, rights and grade; and
liberty or property, obligations created (3) shall not diminish, increase, or modify
which when violated by substantive law substantive rights.
gives rise to a cause by providing a
of action. procedural system Article 6, Sec. 30, Constitution—
for obtaining No law shall be passed increasing the
redress for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
invasion of rights provided in this Constitution without its advice
and violations of and concurrence.
duties and by
prescribing rules as Procedural and substantive rules
to how suits are Substantive law creates, defines, regulates,
filed, tried and and extinguishes rights and obligations, while
decided upon by the remedial or procedural law provides the
courts. procedure for the enforcement of rights and
obligations.
Civil actions, criminal actions, and special
proceedings Force and effect of Rules of Court
The Rules of Court have the force and effect of
(1) Civil actions— law, unless they happen to be inconsistent
with positive law.
It is one by which a party sues another
for the protection of a right or the
Power of Supreme Court to suspend the
prevention or redress of a wrong. Its
primary purpose is compensatory. Civil Rules of Court
Whenever demanded by justice, the Supreme
actions may be:
Court has the inherent power to
(a) Ordinary, or
(b) Special.
(a) suspend its own rules or
(b) exempt a particular case from the
Both are governed by rules for
ordinary civil actions, subject to operation of said rules.
specific rules prescribed for special
civil actions. May parties change the rules of
procedure?
(2) Criminal actions—
General rule: They may not. This is because
It is one by which the State prosecutes
these are matters of public interest.
a person for an act or omission
punishable by law. Its primary purpose
Exceptions:
is punishment.
Matters of procedure which may be
(3) Special proceedings—
Agreed upon by the parties— Venue
may be changed by written agreement
of the parties (Rule 4, Sec. 4[b])
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s from lack of jurisdiction over the
jurisdiction over the thing or the property person of the defendant shall not
which is the subject of the action. be deemed a voluntary
appearance. (Rule 14, Sec. 20)
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by
(1) Custodia legis—placing the property or Examples:
thing under the court’s custody (e.g., When defendant files
attachment) The necessary pleading;
(2) Statutory authority—statute conferring A motion for reconsideration;
the court with power to deal with the Petition to set aside judgment
property or thing within its territorial o f default;
jurisdiction An answer;
(3) Summons by publication or other Petition for certiorari without
modes of extraterritorial service (Rule questioning the court’s
14, Sec. 15) jurisdiction over his person; or
When the parties jointly submit
(c) As to the issues a compromise agreement for
Issue— a disputed point or question to which approval
parties to an action have narrowed down their
several allegations and upon which they are BUT the filing of an answer should
desirous of obtaining a decision. Thus, where not be treated automatically as a
there is no disputed point, there is no issue. voluntary appearance when such
answer is precisely to object to the
Jurisdiction over the issue may be conferred or court’s jurisdiction over the
determined by defendant’s person.
remove the house constructed thereon. restaurant. Nevertheless, the two went out and
Respondents filed a complaint against him. were chased by the armed men. Vicente
Bertuldo filed his Answer, alleging ownership of successfully ran and hid behind a coconut tree
the disputed property by virtue of a Deed of while Ronie unfortunately went to the ricefield
Absolute Sale. Bertuldo died without and was shot to death there.
completing his evidence during the direct An Information alleging murder was
examination. Bertuldo’s original counsel was filed in the RTC against the 6 accused. RTC
replaced by Atty. Petalcorin who entered his convicted them of murder. On appeal, the
appearance as new counsel for the heirs of appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the
Bertuldo. RTC over the case, insisting that the
Atty. Petalcorin filed a motion to Sandiganbayan was the tribunal with
expunge the complaint from the record and jurisdiction since the accused were public
nullify all court proceedings on the ground officers at the time of the killing.
that private respondents failed to specify in
the complaint the amount of damages ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan had
claimed so as to pay the correct docket fees; jurisdiction
and that under Manchester doctrine, non- NO. The jurisdiction of a court to try a
payment of the correct docket fee is criminal case is determined by the law in force
jurisdictional. at the time of the institution of the action.
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are barred by be ousted from the case by any subsequent
estoppel from questioning the jurisdiction of events, such as a new legislation placing such
RTC proceedings under the jurisdiction of another
YES. The petitioners are barred from tribunal. Exceptions to this rule arise when: (1)
questioning jurisdiction of the trial court. there is an express provision in the statute, or
Although the issue of jurisdiction at any stage (2) the statute is clearly intended to apply to
of the proceedings as the same is conferred by actions pending before its enactment.
law, it is nonetheless settled that a party may Section 4-a-2 of PD 1606, as amended
be barred from raising it on the ground of by PD 1861 lists two requisites that must
estoppel. After the deceased Bertuldo concur before the Sandiganbayan may
participated in all stages of the case before the exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction over
trial court, the petitioners merely stepped into a case: (a) the offense was committed by the
the shoes of their predecessor and are accused public officer in relation to his office;
effectively barred by estoppel from challenging and (b) the penalty prescribed by law is higher
RTC’s jurisdiction. than prision correccional or imprisonment for
six (6) years, or higher than a fine of P6,000.
3. Jurisdiction at the time of filing of Sanchez vs. Demetriou clarified that
action murder or homicide may be committed both by
public officers and by private citizens, and that
PEOPLE v. CAWALING public office is not a constitutive element of
(293 SCRA 267, 1998) said crime. The relation between the crime and
the office contemplated should be direct and
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal not accidental.
case is determined by the law in force at The Information filed against the
the time of the institution of the action. appellants contains no allegation that
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may appellants were public officers who committed
not be ousted from the case by any the crime in relation to their office. The charge
subsequent events, such as a new was only for murder.
legislation placing such proceedings under In the absence of any allegation that
the jurisdiction of another tribunal. the offense was committed in relation to the
Exceptions to this rule arise when: (1) there office of appellants or was necessarily
is an express provision in the statute, or (2) connected with the discharge of their
the statute is clearly intended to apply to functions, the regional trial court, not the
Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction to hear and
FACTS: Brothers Vicente and Ronie Elisan were decide the case.
drinking tuba at the kitchenette of one of the
accused, Fontamilla. When they were about to REGULAR COURTS (MTC, RTC, CA, SC)
leave, they were warned by Luz Venus that the (See San Beda Reviewer)
six (6) accused consisting of Mayor Cawaling,
four (4) policemen and a civilian, had been SPECIAL COURTS (Sandiganbayan)
watching and waiting for them outside the (See San Beda Reviewer)
FACTS: Estate Developers and Investors The distinction between a real action and a
Corporation (Estate) filed a complaint against personal action is important for the purpose of
Nestor Sandoval (Sandoval) in the RTC for the determining the venue of the action.
collection of unpaid installments of a
subdivision lot, pursuant to a promissory note, (a) Personal
plus interest. Sandoval alleges that he Personal actions are those other than real
suspended payments thereof because of the actions. (Sec. 2, Rule 4)
failure of the developer to develop the
subdivision pursuant to their agreement. The Examples
RTC ruled in favor of Estate, and ordered Action for specific performance
Sandoval to pay. A writ of execution was Action for damages to real property
issued which thereafter became final and Action for declaration of the nullity of
executory. marriage
Sandoval filed a motion to vacate Action to compel mortgagee to accept
judgment and to dismiss the complaint on the payment of the mortgage debt and
ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over release the mortgage
the subject matter. A motion for
reconsideration of the writ of execution was (b) Real
also filed by petitioner. Estate opposed both An action is real when it affects title to or
motions. RTC denied the motion to vacate for possession of real property, or an interest
the reason that it is now beyond the therein. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)
jurisdiction of the court to do so. A new writ of To be a real action, it is not enough
execution was issued. that it deals with real property. It is important
Sandoval filed a petition alleging that that the matter in litigation must also involve
the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion any of the following issues:
since the exclusive and original jurisdiction (a) Title;
over the subject-matter thereof is vested with (b) Ownership;
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (c) Possession;
(HLURB) pursuant to PD 957. (d) Partition;
(e) Foreclosure of mortgage; or
ISSUE: Whether the ordinary courts have
(f) Any interest in real property
jurisdiction over the collection of unpaid
installments regarding a subdivision lot
Examples
NO. Under Section 1 of Presidential
Action to recover possession of real
Decree No. 957 the National Housing Authority
property plus damages (damages is
(NHA) was given the exclusive jurisdiction to
merely incidental)
hear and decide certain cases of the following
nature: Action to annul or rescind a sale of real
(a) Unsound real estate business property
practices:
(b) Claims involving refund and any other
claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the 2. As to object
project owner, developer, dealer, The distinctions are important
broker or salesman; and (a) to determine whether the jurisdiction
(c) Cases involving specific performance of the defendant is required, and
of contractual and statutory obligations (b) to determine the type of summons to
filed by buyers of subdivision lot or be employed
condominium unit against the owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (a) In rem
The exclusive jurisdiction over the case An action is in rem when it is directed against
between the petitioner and private respondent the whole world. It is for the determination of
is vested not on the RTC but on the NHA. The the state or condition of a thing.
NHA was re-named Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission and thereafter it was Examples
re-named as the Housing and Land Use Probate proceeding
Regulatory Board (HLURB). Cadastral proceeding
brought against the person and is based on the for a motion to dismiss. (Sec. 1 [j], Rule
jurisdiction of the person. 16)
Its purpose is to impose some
responsibility or liability directly upon the Examples:
person of the defendant. In an action in Tender of payment before consignation
personam, no one other than the defendant is Exhaustion of administrative remedies
sought to be held liable. Prior resort to barangay conciliation
proceedings
Examples Earnest efforts towards a compromise
Action for sum of money Arbitration proceedings, when contract
Action for damages so provides
(4) Attested to by the lupon chairman or when the mandatory mediation and
the pangkat chairman, as the case conciliation in the barangay level had not been
may be. complied with, the court should dismiss the
case and not just remand the records to the
Effect court of origin so that the parties may go
The amiable settlement and arbitration award through the prerequisite proceedings.
shall have the effect of a final judgment of a
court upon expiration of 10 days from date ISSUE: Whether the CA properly dismissed
thereof, unless: complaint for failure of the parties to comply
(1) Repudiation of the settlement has with the mandatory mediation and conciliation
been made, or proceedings in the barangay level
(2) Petition to nullify the award has been NO. It should be noted that although
filed before the proper city or no pangkat was formed since no amicable
municipal ourt settlement was reached by the parties before
Execution shall issue upon expiration of 10 the Katarungang Pambarangay, there was
days from settlement. substantial compliance with Section 412(a) of
R.A. 7160.
LUMBUAN v. RONQUILLO While admittedly no pangkat was
(489 SCRA 650, 2006) constituted, the parties met at the office of the
Barangay Chairman for possible settlement.
Thereby, the act of petitioner Lumbuan in
While admittedly no pangkat was
raising the matter to the Katarungang
constituted, the parties met at the office of
Pambarangay and the subsequent
the Barangay Chairman for possible
confrontation of the lessee and lessor before
settlement. The act of Lumbuan in raising
the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is
the matter to the Katarungang
sufficient compliance with the precondition for
Pambarangay and the subsequent
filing the case in court. This is true
confrontation of the lessee and lessor
notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410(b)
before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat
of the same law that the Barangay Chairman
is sufficient compliance with the
shall constitute a pangkat if he fails in his
precondition for filing the case in court.
mediation efforts. Section 410(b) should be
construed together with Section 412, as well as
FACTS: Lumbuan (lessor) leased a lot to the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to
respondent Ronquillo (lessee) for 3 years at a the case. On this score, it is significant that the
rental of P5000/month. They agreed that: (a) Barangay Chairman or Punong Barangay is
there will be an annual 10% increase in rent herself the Chairman of the Lupon under the
for the next 2 years; and (b) the leased Local Government Code.
premises shall be used only for lessee’s
fastfood business. Ronquillo failed to abide by 2. Payment of filing fee
the conditions, and refused to pay or vacate Payment of the prescribed docket fee vests a
the leased premises despite Lumbuan’s trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
repeated verbal demands. matter or nature of the action. The court
Lumbuan referred the matter to the acquires jurisdiction upon payment of the
Barangay Chairman’s Office but no amicable correct docket fees.
settlement was reached. The barangay All complaints, petitions, answers, and
chairman issued a Certificate to File Action. similar pleadings must specify the
Lumbuan filed an action for Unlawful Detainer amount of damages being prayed for,
with MeTC of Manila which ordered respondent both in the body of the pleadings and
Ronquillo to vacate the leased premises and to in the assessment of the filing fees.
pay P46,000 as unpaid rentals.
RTC set aside the MeTC decision and
Manchester v. CA: Any defect in the
original pleading resulting in
directed the parties to go back to the Lupon
underpayment of the docket fee
Chairman or Punong Barangay for further
cannot be cured by amendment, and
proceedings and to comply strictly with the
for all legal purposes, the court
condition that should the parties fail to reach
acquired no jurisdiction in such case.
an amicable settlement, the entire case will be
remanded to the MeTC for it to decide the case BUT nonpayment of filing fees does
anew. not automatically cause the dismissal
The CA reversed the RTC and ordered of the case. The fee may be paid within
the dismissal of the ejectment case, ruling that the applicable prescriptive or
when a complaint is prematurely instituted, as reglementary period.
acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing into several parts or claims and bringing
of the appropriate pleading and payment of several actions thereon.
the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the A party may not institute more than
judgment awards a claim not specified in the one suit for a single cause of action.
pleading, or if specified the same has been left (Sec. 3, Rule 2)
for determination by the court, the additional
If two or more suits are instituted on
filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on
the basis of the same cause of action,
the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of
the filing of one or a judgment upon
the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
the merits in any one is available as a
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and
ground for the dismissal of the others.
collect the additional fee.
(Sec. 4, Rule 2)
The same rule applies to permissive
Applies also to counterclaims and
counterclaims, third party claims and similar
cross-claims.
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed
until and unless the filing fee prescribed
Examples
therefore is paid.
Where there is only one delict or wrong, action was involved although the bases of
there is but a single cause of action recovery invoked by petitioner against the
regardless of the number of rights that may defendants therein were not necessarily
have been violated belonging to one person. identical since the respondents were not
Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted identically circumstanced.
from several wrongful acts, only one cause
of action arises.
MOA between petitioners and FEBTC was not SC held that to allow the re-litigation of
subject to SC decision, FEBTC not being a party an issue that was finally settled as between
thereto. petitioners and FEBTC in the prior case is to
Petitioners and PDCP appealed to the allow the splitting of a cause of action, a
CA, which held that petitioners' outstanding ground for dismissal under Section 4 of Rule 2
obligation (determined to be only P1.4 million) of the Rules of Court.
could not be increased or decreased by any act This rule proscribes a party from
of the creditor PDCP, and held that when PDCP dividing a single or indivisible cause of action
assigned its receivables, the amount payable into several parts or claims and instituting two
to it by DATICOR was the same amount or more actions based on it. Because the
payable to assignee FEBTC, irrespective of any plaintiff cannot divide the grounds for
stipulation that PDCP and FEBTC might have recovery, he is mandated to set forth in his
provided in the Deed of Assignment, DATICOR first action every ground for relief which he
not having been a party thereto, hence, not claims to exist and upon which he relies; he
bound by its terms. cannot be permitted to rely upon them by
By the principle of solutio indebiti, the piecemeal in successive actions to recover for
CA held that FEBTC was bound to refund the same wrong or injury.
DATICOR the excess payment of P5 million it Both the rules on res judicata and
received; and that FEBTC could recover from splitting of causes of action are based on the
PDCP the P4.035 million for the overpayment salutary public policy against unnecessary
for the assigned receivables. But since multiplicity of suits—interest reipublicae ut sit
DATICOR claimed in its complaint only finis litium. Re-litigation of matters already
of P965,000 from FEBTC, the latter was settled by a court's final judgment merely
ordered to pay them only that amount. burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates
Petitioners filed before the RTC uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable
another Complaint against FEBTC to recover time and energy that could be devoted to
the balance of the excess payment of P4.335 worthier cases.
million.
The trial court dismissed petitioners'
complaint on the ground of res judicata and
splitting of cause of action. It recalled that PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. CA
petitioners had filed an action to recover the (301 SCRA 367, 1991)
alleged overpayment both from PDCP and
FEBTC and that the CA Decision, ordering PDCP When a single delict or wrong is committed
to release and cancel the mortgages and — like the unlawful taking or detention of
FEBTC to pay P965,000 with interest became the property of another — there is but one
final and executory. single cause of action regardless of the
number of rights that may have been
ISSUE: Whether FEBTC can be held liable for violated, and all such rights should be
the balance of the overpayment of P4.335 alleged in a single complaint as constituting
million plus interest which petitioners one single cause of action. In a forcible
previously claimed against PDCP in a entry case, the real issue is the physical
previously decided case possession of the real property. The
NO. A cause of action is the delict or question of damages is merely secondary or
the wrongful act or omission committed by the incidental, so much so that the amount
defendant in violation of the primary rights of thereof does not affect the jurisdiction of
the plaintiff. In the two cases, petitioners the court. In other words, the unlawful act of
imputed to FEBTC the same alleged wrongful a deforciant in taking possession of a piece
act of mistakenly receiving and refusing to of land by means of force and intimidation
return an amount in excess of what was due it against the rights of the party actually in
in violation of their right to a refund. The same possession thereof is a delict or wrong, or a
facts and evidence presented in the first case cause of action that gives rise to two (2)
were the very same facts and evidence that remedies, namely, the recovery of
petitioners presented in the second case. possession and recovery of damages arising
A party cannot, by varying the form of from the loss of possession, but only to
action or adopting a different method of one action. For obvious reasons, both
presenting his case, or by pleading justifiable remedies cannot be the subject of two
circumstances as herein petitioners are doing, (2) separate and independent actions,
escape the operation of the principle that one one for recovery of possession only, and the
and the same cause of action shall not be
twice litigated.
FACTS: PDC leased to Westin a parcel of land found therein, the RTC and not the MeTC had
with a commercial building for 9 years and 3 jurisdiction over the action of damages.
months, with a monthly rental of
approximately P600,000. Westin failed to pay ISSUE: Whether Westin may institute a
rentals despite several demands. The separate suit for damages with the RTC after
arrearages amounted to P8,6M. PDC having instituted an action for forcible entry
repossessed the leased premises, inventoried with damages with the MeTC
the movable properties found within and NO. Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of
owned by Westin, and scheduled a public Court provides that all cases for forcible entry
auction for the sale of the movables, with or unlawful detainer shall be filed before the
notice to Westin. MTC which shall include not only the plea for
Westin filed a forcible entry case with restoration of possession but also all claims for
the MeTC against PDC for with damages and a damages and costs arising therefrom.
prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or Otherwise expressed, no claim for damages
writ of preliminary injunction. A TRO enjoined arising out of forcible entry or unlawful
PDC from selling Westin's properties. detainer may be filed separately and
At the continuation of the hearing, the independently of the claim for restoration of
parties agreed, among others, that Westin possession.
would deposit with the PCIB (Bank) P8M to Under Sec. 3 of Rule 2 of the Revised
guarantee payment of its back rentals. Westin Rules of Court, as amended, a party may not
did not comply with its undertaking, and institute more than one suit for a single cause
instead, with the forcible entry case still of action. Under Sec. 4 of the same Rule, if
pending, Westin instituted another action for two or more suits are instituted on the basis of
damages against PDC with the RTC. the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
The forcible entry case had as its judgment upon the merits in any one is
cause of action the alleged unlawful entry by available as a ground for the dismissal of the
PDC into the leased premises out of which other or others.
three (3) reliefs arose: (a) the restoration by Westin's cause of action in the forcible
PDC of possession of the leased premises to entry case and in the suit for damages is the
the lessee; (b) the claim for actual damages alleged illegal retaking of possession of the
due to losses suffered by Westin; and, (c) the leased premises by PDC from which all legal
claim for attorney’s fees and cost of suit. reliefs arise. Simply stated, the restoration of
On the other hand, the complaint for possession and demand for actual damages in
damages prays for a monetary award the case before the MeTC and the demand for
consisting of moral and exemplary damages; damages with the RTC both arise from the
actual damages and compensatory damages same cause of action, i.e., the forcible entry by
representing unrealized profits; and, attorney's PDC into the least premises. The other claims
fees and costs, all based on the alleged for moral and exemplary damages cannot
forcible takeover of the leased premises by succeed considering that these sprung from
PDC. the main incident being heard before the
PDC filed a motion to dismiss the MeTC. Jurisprudence says that when a single
damage suit on the ground of litis pendencia delict or wrong is committed — like the
and forum shopping. The RTC, instead of ruling unlawful taking or detention of the property of
on the motion, archived the case pending the the another — there is but one single cause of
outcome of the forcible entry case. action regardless of the number of rights that
Westin filed with the RTC an amended may have been violated, and all such rights
complaint for damages, which was granted. It should be alleged in a single complaint as
also filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the constituting one single cause of action. In a
Issuance of a TRO and Motion for the Grant of forcible entry case, the real issue is the
a Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary physical possession of the real property. The
Mandatory Injunction, which were all granted. question of damages is merely secondary or
PDC’s motion to dismiss was denied. incidental, so much so that the amount thereof
Thus, PDC filed with the CA a special does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. In
civil action for certiorari and prohibition. But other words, the unlawful act of a deforciant in
the CA dismissed the petition. It clarified that taking possession of a piece of land by means
since the damages prayed for in the amended of force and intimidation against the rights of
complaint with the RTC were those caused by the party actually in possession thereof is a
the alleged high-handed manner with which delict or wrong, or a cause of action that gives
PDC reacquired possession of the leased rise to two (2) remedies, namely, the recovery
premises and the sale of Westin's movables of possession and recovery of damages arising
from the loss of possession, but only to one
action. For obvious reasons, both remedies Chapel built by petitioner CGR Corporation and
cannot be the subject of two (2) separate and decapitated the heads of the religious figures.
independent actions, one for recovery of
possession only, and the other, for the ISSUE: Whether during the pendency of a
recovery of damages. That would inevitably separate complaint for Forcible Entry, the
lead to what is termed in law as splitting up a petitioner can independently institute and
cause of action. maintain an action for damages which they
What then is the effect of the dismissal claim arose from incidents occurring after the
of the other action? Since the rule is that all forcible entry of Treyes and his men
such rights should be alleged in a single YES. The only recoverable damages in
complaint, it goes without saying that those the forcible entry and detainer cases instituted
not therein included cannot be the subject of first by the petitioners with the MTC are the
subsequent complaints for they are barred “rents” or fair rental value of the property from
forever. If a suit is brought for a part of a the time of dispossession by the respondent.
claim, a judgment obtained in that action Hence, other damages being claimed by the
precludes the plaintiff from bringing a second petitioners must be claimed in another
action for the residue of the claim, ordinary civil action.
notwithstanding that the second form of action It is noteworthy that the second action
is not identical with the first or different instituted by the petitioners (complaint for
grounds for relief are set for the second suit. damages) have NO direct relation to their loss
This principle not only embraces what was of possession of the leased premises – which is
actually determined, but also extends to every the main issue in the first action they
matter which the parties might have litigated instituted. The second action for claim of
in the case. This is why the legal basis upon damages had to do with the harvesting and
which Westin anchored its second claim for carting away of milkfish and other marine
damages, i.e., Art. 1659 in relation to Art. 1654 products, as well as the ransacking of the
of the Civil Code, not otherwise raised and chapel built by CGR Corp. Clearly, the
cited by Westin in the forcible entry case, institution of the two cases is not a splitting of
cannot be used as justification for the second a cause of action, since both are concerned
suit for damages. with entirely different issues.
shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, arise out of the same transaction or series of
Rule 2) transactions and there should be a common
question of law or fact, as provided in Sec. 6 of
Misjoinder of causes of action Rule 3.
Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground In cases of permissive joinder of
for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of parties, the total of all the claims shall be the
action may be severed and proceeded with first jurisdictional test. If instead of joining or
separately: being joined in one complaint, separate actions
(a) on motion of a party, or are filed by or against the parties, the amount
(b) on the initiative of the court. (Sec. 6, demanded in each complaint shall be the
Rule 2) second jurisdictional test.
In the case at bar, the lower court
correctly held that the jurisdictional test is
FLORES v. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS subject to the Rules on Joinder of Parties
(144 SCRA 277, 1986) pursuant to Sec. 5 of Rule 2 and Sec. 6 of Rule
3 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, after a
careful scrutiny of the complaint, It appears
Application of the Totality Rule under Sect.
that there is a misjoinder of parties for the
33(l) BP129 and Sect. 11 of the Interim
reason that the claims against Binongcal and
Rules is subject to the requirements for the
Calion are separate and distinct and neither of
Permissive Joinder of Parties under Sec. 6
which falls within its jurisdiction.
of Rule 3.
UNIWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. v. CRUZ
In cases of permissive joinder of
(529 SCRA 664, 2007)
parties, the total of all the claims shall be
the first jurisdictional test. If instead of a
joinder, separate actions are filed by or Exclusive venue stipulation embodied in a
against the parties, the amount demanded contract restricts or confines parties
thereto when the suit relates to breach of
FACTS: Binongcal and Calion, in separate said contract. But where the exclusivity
transactions, purchased truck tires on credit clause does not make it necessarily
from Flores. The two allegedly refused to pay encompassing, such that even those not
their debts, so Flores filed a complaint where related to the enforcement of the contract
the first cause of action was against Binongcal should be subject to the exclusive venue,
for P11, 643, and the second was against the stipulation designating exclusive
Calion for P10, 212. Binongcal filed a Motion to venues should be strictly confined to the
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
since under Sec. 19(8) of BP129 RTC shall FACTS: Uniwide Holdings, Inc. (UHI) granted
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the Cruz, a 5yr. franchise to adopt and use the
amount of the demand is more than P20, 000, "Uniwide Family Store System" for the
and that the claim against him is less than that establishment and operation of a "Uniwide
amount. He averred further that although Family Store" in Marikina. The agreement
Calion was also indebted to Flores, his obliged Cruz to pay UHI a P50,000 monthly
obligation was separate and distinct from the service fee or 3% of gross monthly purchases,
other, so the aggregate of the claims cannot whichever is higher, payable within 5 days
be the basis of jurisdiction. Calion joined in after the end of each month without need of
moving for the dismissal of the complaint formal billing or demand from UHI. In case of
during the hearing of the motion. Petitioner any delay in the payment of the monthly
opposed the Motion to Dismiss. RTC dismissed service fee, Cruz would be liable to pay an
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. interest charge of 3% per month.
It appears that Cruz had purchased
ISSUE: Whether RTC has jurisdiction over the goods from UHI’s affiliated companies FPC and
case following the Totality Rule USWCI. FPC and USWCI assigned all their rights
YES. The Totality Rule (under Sec. 33 and interests over Cruz’s accounts to UHI. Cruz
of BP129 and Sec. 11 of the Interim Rules) had outstanding obligations with UHI, FPC, and
applies not only to cases where two or more USWCI in the total amount of P1,358,531.89,
plaintiffs having separate causes of action which remained unsettled despite the
against a defendant join in a single complaint, demands made.
but also to cases where a plaintiff has separate Thus UHI filed a complaint for
causes of action against two or more collection of sum of money before RTC of
defendants joined in a single complaint. Parañaque Cruz on the following causes of
However, the said causes of action should action: (1) P1,327,669.832 in actual damages
for failure to pay the monthly service fee; (2) the exclusive venue stipulation embodied in
P64,165.96 of actual damages for failure to the agreement.
pay receivables assigned by FPC to UHI; (3) Exclusive venue stipulation embodied
P1,579,061.36 of actual damages for failure to in a contract restricts or confines parties
pay the receivables assigned by USWCI to UHI; thereto when the suit relates to breach of said
(4) P250,000.00 of attorney’s fees. contract. But where the exclusivity clause does
Cruz filed a motion to dismiss on the not make it necessarily encompassing, such
ground of improper venue, invoking Article that even those not related to the enforcement
27.5 of the agreement which reads: of the contract should be subject to the
27.5 Venue Stipulation – The exclusive venue, the stipulation designating
Franchisee consents to the exclusive exclusive venues should be strictly confined to
jurisdiction of the courts of Quezon City, the the specific undertaking or agreement.
Franchisee waiving any other venue. Otherwise, the basic principles of freedom to
Parañaque RTC granted Cruz’s motion contract might work to the great disadvantage
to dismiss. Hence, the present petition. of a weak party-suitor who ought to be allowed
free access to courts of justice.
ISSUE: Whether a case based on several
causes of action is dismissible on the ground What is the totality rule?
of improper venue where only one of the Where the claims in all the causes of action are
causes of action arises from a contract with principally for recovery of money, the
exclusive venue stipulation aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
NO. The general rule on venue of jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, Rule 2)
personal actions provides actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3)
the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a Parties (Sec. 1, Rule 3)
nonresident defendant, where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff. The (1) Plaintiff—
parties may also validly agree in writing on an The plaintiff is the claiming party or the
exclusive venue. The forging of a written original claiming party and is the one who
agreement on an exclusive venue of an action files the complaint.
does not, however, preclude parties from It may also apply to a
bringing a case to other venues. defendant who files a
Where there is a joinder of causes of counterclaim, a cross-claim or a
action between the same parties and one third party complaint.
action does not arise out of the contract where
the exclusive venue was stipulated upon, the (2) Defendant—
complaint, as in the one at bar, may be The defendant refers to the original
brought before other venues provided that defending party, and also the defendant in
such other cause of action falls within the a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the
jurisdiction of the court and the venue lies third party defendant.
therein. If a counterclaim is filed
Based on the allegations in petitioner’s against the original plaintiff, the
complaint, the second and third causes of latter becomes the defendant.
action are based on the deeds of assignment
executed in its favor by FPC and USWCI. The Who may be parties? (Sec. 1, Rule 3)
deeds bear no exclusive venue stipulation with
respect to the causes of action thereunder. (1) Natural persons
Hence, the general rule on venue applies – that
the complaint may be filed in the place where (2) Juridical persons
the plaintiff or defendant resides. (a) The State and its political subdivisions;
It bears emphasis that the causes of
(b) Other corporations, institutions and
action on the assigned accounts are not based
entities for public interest or purpose,
on a breach of the agreement between UHI
created by law; and
and Cruz. They are based on separate, distinct
(c) Corporations, partnerships and
and independent contracts—deeds of
associations for private interest r
assignment in which UHI is the assignee of
purpose to which the law grants a
Cruz’s obligations to the assignors FPC and
juridical personality, separate and
USWCI. Thus, any action arising from the
distinct from each shareholder, partner
deeds of assignment cannot be subjected to
or member. (Art. 44, Civil Code)
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, ’13)
CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER18
ISSUE: Whether the respondent’s action is Judicial power is the power to hear and
properly based on petitioners’ lack of legal decide cases pending between parties who
capacity to sue have the right to sue in courts of law and
NO. The term "lack of capacity to sue" equity. Corollary to this dictum is the
should not be confused with the term "lack of principle of locus standi of a litigant. He
personality to sue." The former refers to a who is directly affected and whose interest
plaintiff's general disability to sue, such as on is immediate and substantial has the
account of minority, insanity, incompetence, standing to sue. Thus, a party must show a
lack of juridical personality or any other personal stake in the outcome of the case
general disqualifications of a party, while the or an injury to himself that can be
latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not redressed by a favorable decision in order
the real party- in-interest. The first can be a to warrant an invocation of the court’s
ground for a motion to dismiss based on the jurisdiction and justify the exercise of
ground of lack of legal capacity to sue; judicial power on his behalf.
whereas the second can be used as a ground
for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that FACTS: Petitioners Domingo, Gangan and
the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently Banaria are retired Chairmen, while Ursal and
states no cause of action. In the present case, Cruz are retired Commissioners of COA
this Court may assume that the respondent is (Commission on Audit) and the other
raising the affirmative defense that the petitioners are incumbent officers or
Complaint filed by the petitioners before the employees of COA. All claim “to maintain a
trial court stated no cause of action because deep-seated abiding interest in the affairs of
the petitioners lacked the personality to sue, COA,” especially in its Organizational
not being the real party-in-interest. Restructuring Plan, as concerned taxpayers.
These petitioners claim that they
ISSUE: Whether the complaint stated no cause were divested of their designations/ranks upon
of action since petitioners had no personality implementation of the COA Organizational
to sue Restructuring Plan without just cause and
YES. Petitioners had no personality to without due process, in violation of Civil
file the said action, not being the parties-in- Service Law. Moreover, they were deprived of
interest, and their Complaint should be their respective Representation and
dismissed for not stating a cause of action. Transportation Allowances (RATA), thus
The action is really one for the removal causing them undue financial prejudice.
of a cloud on or quieting of title and according Petitioners now invoke this Court’s
to Article 477 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff in judicial power to strike down the COA
such an action must have legal or equitable Organizational Restructuring Plan for being
title to, or interest in, the real property which is unconstitutional or illegal.
the subject matter of the action. Petitioners Petitioners invoke Chavez v. Public
failed to establish any legal or equitable title Estates Authority, Agan, Jr. v. Philippine
to, or legitimate interest in, the Subject International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and
Property so as to justify their right to file an Information Technology Foundation of the
action to remove a cloud on or to quiet title. Philippines v. Commission on Elections where
Also, the title to and possession of the the court ruled that where the subject matter
Subject Property by petitioners’ predecessors- of a case is a matter of public concern and
in-interest could be traced only as far back as imbued with public interest, then this fact
the Spanish title of Rodriguez. Petitioners, alone gives them legal standing to institute the
having acquired portions of the Subject instant petition. Petitioners contend that the
Property by assignment, could acquire no COA Organizational Restructuring Plan is not
better title to the said portions than their just a mere reorganization but a revamp or
predecessors-in-interest. overhaul of the COA, which will have an impact
upon the rest of the government bodies
Standing to sue subject to its audit supervision, thus, should be
treated as a matter of transcendental
DOMINGO v. CARAGUE importance. Consequently, petitioners’ legal
(456 SCRA 744, 2005) standing should be recognized and upheld.
The respondents, through the OSG
assail the standing of the petitioners to file the
present case. Among others, they allege that
the petitioners: (1) have not shown "a personal
stake in the outcome of the case or an actual
or potential injury that can be redressed by a
favorable decision of the Court, (2) failed to recognized— (1) the award for the automation
show any "present substantial interest" in teh of the electoral process was a matter of public
outcome of the case, nor (3) may the concern, imbued with public interest, and (2)
petitioenrs claim that as taxpayers they have the individual petitioners, as taxpayers,
legal standing because nowhere in the petition asserted a material interest in seeing to it that
do they claim that public funds are spent in public funds are properly used.
violation of law.
Representative parties
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners have standing Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted
to sue or defended by a representative or someone
NO. The Petitioners have not shown acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
any direct and personal interest in the COA shall be included in the title of the case and
Organizational Restructuring Plan. There is no shall be deemed to be the real party in
indication that they have sustained or are in interest.
imminent danger of sustaining some direct
injury as a result of its implementation. In fact, A representative may be
they admitted that “they do not seek any (1) a trustee of an express trust,
affirmative relief nor impute any improper or (2) a guardian,
improvident act against the respondents” and (3) an executor or administrator, or
“are not motivated by any desire to seek (4) a party authorized by law or these
affirmative relief from COA or from Rules.
respondents that would redound to their
personal benefit or gain.” Clearly, they do not An agent acting in his own name and for the
have any legal standing to file the instant suit. benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or
Judicial power is the power to hear be sued without joining the principal except
and decide cases pending between parties who when the contract involves things belonging to
have the right to sue in courts of law and the principal. (Sec. 3, Rule 3)
equity. Corollary to this dictum is the principle
of locus standi of a litigant. He who is directly OPOSA v. FACTORAN
affected and whose interest is immediate and (224 SCRA 792, 1993)
substantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a
party must show a personal stake in the
Petitioners’ personality to sue in behalf of
outcome of the case or an injury to himself
the succeeding generations can only be
that can be redressed by a favorable decision
based on the concept of intergenerational
in order to warrant an invocation of the court’s
responsibility insofar as the right to a
jurisdiction and justify the exercise of judicial
balanced and healthful ecology is
power on his behalf.
concerned, since the subject matter of the
In Chavez V. PEA, the Court ruled
complaint is of common and general
that the petitioner has legal standing since he
interest to all citizens of the Philippines.
is a taxpayer and his purpose in filing the
petition is to compel the Public Estate
Authority (PEA) to perform its constitutional FACTS: The petitioners, all minors, sought the
duties with respect to: (a) the right of the help of the Supreme Court to order the
citizens to information on matters of public respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel
concern; and (b) the application of a all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in
constitutional provision intended to insure the the country and to cease and desist from
equitable distribution of alienable lands of the receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
public domain among Filipino citizens - such approving new TLAs. They alleged that the
were matters of transcendental importance. massive commercial logging in the country is
In Agan,Jr. V. PIATCO, the Court held causing vast abuses on rainforest.
that petitioners have legal standing as they They furthered the rights of their
have a direct and substantial interest to generation and the rights of the generations
protect. By the implementation of the PIATCO yet unborn to a balanced and healthful
contracts, they stand to lose their source of ecology.
livelihood, a property right zealously protected
by the Constitution and such financial ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have a
prejudice on their part is sufficient to confer locus standi
upon them the requisite locus standi. YES. Locus standi means the right of
In Information Technology the litigant to act or to be heard. Under
Foundation V. COMELEC, there were two Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution:
reasons why petitioners’ standing was “The state shall protect and advance the right
of the people to a balanced and healthful It is when the order of the court to
ecology in accord with the rhythm and implead the indispensable party goes
harmony of nature.” unheeded may the case be dismissed.
Petitioners, minors assert that they
(4)Remedy: Parties may be dropped or
represent their generation as well as
added by the court on motion of any
generation yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
party, or on its own initiative at any
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others
stage of the action and on such terms
of their generation and for the succeeding
as are just. (Sec. 11, Rule 3)
generations, file a class suit. Their personality
to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
DOMINGO v. SCHEER
can only be based on the concept of
(421 SCRA 792, 1993)
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter The joinder of indispensable parties under
expounded considers the “rhythm and Sec 7, Rule 3 is mandatory. Without
harmony of nature”. Nature means the created presence of indispensable parties to the
world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious real finality. Strangers to a case are not
disposition, utilization, management, renewal bound by the judgment rendered by the
and conservation of the country’s forest, court. The absence of an indispensable
mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- party renders all subsequent actions of the
shore areas and other natural resources to the court null and void. There is a lack of
end that their exploration, development and authority to act not only as to the absent
utilization be equitably accessible to the party but also as to those present. The
present as well as future generations. responsibility of impleading all the
Needless to say, every generation has a indispensable parties rest on the
responsibility to the next to preserve that petitioner/plaintiff. However, the non-joinder
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of
FACTS: Vice Consul Jutta Hippelein informed
a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
the Philippine Ambassador to Bonn, Germany
differently, the minor’s assertion of their right
that respondent Emil Scheer had police records
to a sound environment constitutes, at the
and financial liabilities in Germany. The Board
same time, the performance of their obligation
of Commissioners (BOC) therefore cancelled
to ensure the protection of that right for the
respondent’s permanent residence visa, and
generations to come.
ordered his summary deportation and
This landmark case has been ruled as a class
permanent exclusion from the Philippines and
suit because the subject matter of the
inclusion of his name on the Bureaus Blacklist.
complaint is of common and general interest,
Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
not just for several but for all citizens of the
Reconsideration of the order, but the BOC did
Philippines.
not resolve the respondent’s motion. The
respondent was neither arrested nor deported.
Indispensable parties
An indispensable party is a party in interest Meanwhile, the District Court of
Straubing dismissed the criminal case against
without whom no final determination can be
had of an action. the respondent for physical injuries. The
German Embassy in Manila, thereafter, issued
(1)They shall be joined either as plaintiffs
a temporary passport to the respondent.
or defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3)
Respondent informed Commissioner
(2)The presence of all indispensable Verceles that his passport had been renewed
parties is a condition sine qua non for following the dismissal of the said criminal
the exercise of judicial power. case. He reiterated his request for the
(3)When an indispensable party is not cancellation of the Summary Deportation
before the court, the action should be Order and the restoration of his permanent
dismissed. resident status. The BOC still failed to resolve
the respondents Urgent Motion for
NOTE: The failure to join an indispensable Reconsideration.
party does not result in the outright dismissal In the meantime, petitioner
of the action. Non-joinder or misjoinder of Immigration Commissioner Andrea T. Domingo
parties is not a ground for dismissal of an assumed office, and inquired with German
action. Embassy if the respondent was wanted by the
German police. The German Embassy replied
in the negative.
At about midnight on June 6, 2002, on its own initiative at any stage of the action
Marine operatives and Bureau of Immigration and/or such times as are just. If the
and Deportation (BID) agents apprehended the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an
respondent in his residence on orders of the indispensable party despite the order of the
petitioner and was held in custody in the BID court, the latter may dismiss the
Manila Office while awaiting his deportation. complaint/petition for the petitioner/plaintiffs
Respondent’s counsel filed with the failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to
BID a motion for bail to secure the respondents implead the non-party claimed to be
temporary liberty and filed with the Court of indispensable.
Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition The Court may be curing the defect in
and mandamus with a prayer for temporary this case by adding the BOC as party
restraining order and writ of preliminary petitioner. Indeed, it may no longer be
injunction, to enjoin the petitioner from necessary to do so taking into account the
proceeding with the respondent’s deportation. unique backdrop in this case, involving as it
The CA issued a TRO. Petitioner argues that does an issue of public interest. After all, the
the respondent’s petition with the CA should Office of the solicitor General has represented
have been dismissed for failure to implead the the petitioner in the instant proceedings, as
real party-in-interest, which is the BOC. well as the appellate court, and maintained the
validity of the deportation order and of the
ISSUE: Whether the BOC was an indispensable BOC’s Omnibus Resolution. It cannot, thus, be
party to the petition claimed by the State that the BOC was not
YES. The BOC was an indispensable afforded its day in court, simply because only
party to the petition, BUT the non-joinder of the petitioner, the chairperson of the BOC, was
indispensable parties is not a ground for the respondent in the CA, and the petitioner in
dismissal of the action. the instant recourse.
The respondent was arrested and
detained on the basis of the Summary UY v. CA
Deportation Order of the BOC. The petitioner (494 SCRA 535, 2006)
caused the arrest of the respondent in
obedience to the said Deportation Order. The An indispensable party is one whose
respondent, in his Memorandum, prayed that interest will be affected by the court's
the CA annul not only the Summary action in the litigation, and without whom
Deportation Order of the BOC but also the no final determination of the case can be
latter’s Omnibus Resolution, and order the had. The party's interest in the subject
respondent’s immediate release. matter of the suit and in the relief sought
The respondent also prayed that the are so inextricably intertwined with the
CA issue a writ of mandamus for the other parties' that his legal presence as a
immediate resolution of his Urgent Motion for party to the proceeding is an absolute
Reconsideration. The said motion had to be
resolved by the BOC as the order sought to be FACTS: The Heritage Memorial Park is a
resolved and reconsidered was issued by it and flagship project of the Bases Conversion
not by the petitioner alone. The powers and Development Authority (BCDA) in Fort
duties of the BOC may not be exercised by the Bonifacio. To implement the project, the BCDA
individual members of the Commission. entered into Pool Formation Trust Agreement
The joinder of indispensable parties is (PFTA) with the PNB and the PEA. BCDA was
mandatory. Without the presence of designated as Project Owner; PEA, the Project
indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment Manager; and PNB as the Trustee.
of the court cannot attain real finality. PEA, as project manager, is tasked to
Strangers to a case are not bound by the implement and complete the various
judgment rendered by the court. The absence engineering works and improvements of
of an indispensable party renders all Heritage Park.
subsequent actions of the court null and void. PEA and petitioner Uy, a single
Lack of authority to act not only of the absent proprietorship doing business under the name
party but also as to those present. The of Edison Development and Construction,
responsibility of impleading all the executed a Landscaping and Construction
indispensable parties rests on the Agreement whereby the petitioner undertook
petitioner/plaintiff. to do all the landscaping, including the
However, the non-joinder of construction of a terrasoleum of the Heritage
indispensable parties is not a ground for the Park.
dismissal of an action. Parties may be added Subsequently, the certificate holders of
by order of the court on motion of the party or the project organized themselves into a non-
stock, non-profit corporation, the Heritage Park can be had even when a necessary party is not
Management Corporation (HPMC), now the joined.
private respondent herein. BUT a necessary party ought to be
The Heritage Park Executive joined if complete relief is to be accorded to
Committee, however, terminated the those already parties. (Sec. 8, Rule 3)
construction contracts due to delays and
discrepancies. PEA then assumed the duties of Non-joinder of necessary party
the terminated party. Petitioner filed a Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is
complaint against the PEA before the asserted a necessary party is not joined, the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission pleader shall set forth
(CIAC) where it sought to recover payment for (1) his name, if known, and
its progress billings on the said projects. CIAC (2) shall state why he is omitted.
ruled in favor of petitioner. Respondent
appealed to the CA on the ground that CIAC Should the court find the reason for the
had no jurisdiction over the subject matter omission unmeritorious, it may order the
since HPMC was not impleaded as a party, inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
thereby depriving it of its right to be heard. CA jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
ruled in favor of respondent. Hence this (Sec. 9, Rule 3)
petition
LAPERAL DEV’T. CORP. v. CA
ISSUE: Whether HPMC is a real party in interest (223 SCRA 261, 1993)
or an indispensable party
YES. An indispensable party is one
A proper party is one which ought to be a
whose interest will be affected by the court's
party if complete relief is to be accorded as
action in the litigation, and without whom no
between those already parties. A party is
final determination of the case can be had. The
indispensable if no final determination can
party's interest in the subject matter of the suit
be had of an action unless it is joined either
and in the relief sought are so inextricably
as plaintiff or defendant.
intertwined with the other parties' that his
legal presence as a party to the proceeding is
FACTS: Atty. Banzon sought to recover
an absolute necessity.
attorney’s fees for professional services
Based on the Construction Agreement,
rendered in several pending and past cases
PEA entered into it in its capacity as Project
from Laperal, Laperal Dev’t Corp., and Imperial
Manager, pursuant to the PFTA. According to
Dev’t Corp., referring to Sunbeams Inc. only as
the provisions of the PFTA, upon the formation
“Mr. Laperal’s Corporation.” This particular
of the HPMC, the PEA would turn over to the
civil case was decided on the basis of a
HPMC all the contracts relating to the Heritage
Compromise Agreement where Banzon waived
Park. At the time of the filing of the CIAC Case,
all other money claims against the defendants.
PEA ceased to be the Project Manager.
Subsequently, Banzon filed a complaint against
Through a Deed of Assignment, PEA assigned
Laperal, Laperal Dev’t, Imperial Dev’t,
its interests in all the existing contracts it
Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc., and Acsay
entered into as the Project Manager for
for (1) annulment of a portion of the
Heritage Park to HPMC.
Compromise Agreement; (2) collection of
PEA officially turned over to HPMC all
attorney’s fees for services in the cases
the documents and equipment in its
rendered for Imperial, Sunbeams, and Laperal
possession related to the Heritage Park
Dev’t.; (3) recovery of P10k adjudged to be
Project, and petitioner was duly informed of
payable to him as attorney’s fees by Ascario
these incidents. Apparently, as of the date of
Tuason; and (4) payment to him of nominal
the filing of the CIAC Case, PEA is no longer a
damages and attorney’s fees.
party-in-interest. Instead, it is now private
RTC dismissed the case on the ground that it
respondent HPMC, as the assignee, who stands
had no jurisdiction to annul the Compromise
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
Agreement, as approved by an equal and
the suit. In its absence, there cannot be a
coordinate court. It held that the issue was
resolution of the dispute of the parties before
cognizable by the CA. Moreover, it was held
the court which is effective, complete or
that the Compromise Agreement already
equitable.
covered the plaintiff’s professional services in
the questioned cases.
Necessary party or proper party
The CA affirmed the RTC on the issue
A necessary party is not indispensable to the
of jurisdiction, but held Atty. Banzon entitled to
action since a final determination of the case
attorney’s fees from Sunbeams Inc. since it
was not subject to the compromise agreement
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, ’13)
CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER24
which waived all money claims against connection with any proceedings in which he
defendants named therein, having been may have no interest. (Sec. 6, Rule 3)
referred to only as “Mr. Laperal’s corporation.”
Effects of misjoinder and non-joinder of
ISSUE: Whether Sunbeams Inc., is liable to pay parties
attorneys fees A party is misjoined when he is made a party
NO. Sunbeams Inc., which was to the action although he should not be
referred to in the complaint as “Mr. Laperal’s impleaded.
Corp.” was not named as a party defendant. A party is not joined when is supposed
The private respondent believed that Laperal, to be joined but is not impleaded in the
being the President of the said company, was actions.
directly obligated to him for attorney’s fees
due him for his handling of the case for Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is
Sunbeams. However, there is no evidence that a ground for dismissal. Parties may be dropped
Sunbeams and Laperal are one and the same or added
person. Sunbeams should have been joined as by order of the court
party defendant in order that the judgment of (1)on motion of any party or on its own
the lower court could legally affect it. But initiative
even if it was not impleaded, the court could (2)at any stage of the action and
still validly proceed with the case because
(3) on such terms as are just.
Sunbeams was not an indispensable party but
only a proper party. A proper party is one
Any claim against a misjoined party may be
which ought to be a party if complete relief is
severed and proceeded with separately. (Sec.
to be accorded as between those already
11, Rule 3)
parties. A party is indispensable if no final
determination can be had of an action unless it
NOTE: Failure to obey the order of the court to
is joined either as plaintiff or defendant.
drop or add a party is a ground for the
The Compromise Agreement upon
dismissal of the complaint. (Sec. 3, Rule 17)
which the decision of the court was based was
between plaintiff Atty. Banzon and the
Class suits
defendants represented by Laperal. Thus,
A class suit is an action where one or more
since Sunbeams was not a party to this
may sue for the benefit of all.
agreement, it could not be affected by it.
However, Banzon’s claim for attorney’s fees An action does not become a class suit
pertaining to Sunbeams was waived by him merely because it is designated as
not by virtue of the Compromise Agreement, such in the pleadings. It depends upon
whereby Sunbeams was not a defendant. the attendant facts.
What militates against his claim is his own
judicial admission that he had waived his Requisites
attorney’s fees for the cases he had handled (1) The subject matter of the controversy
from 1974-1981 for Laperal and his is one of the common or general
corporations, including those not impleaded in interest to many persons
his complaint. (2) The persons are so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties,
Permissive joinder of parties (3) The parties bringing the class suit are
Parties may be joined in as plaintiffs or sufficiently numerous and
defendants in a single complaint when representative as to fully protect the
(1) Any right to relief arises out of the interests of all concerned.
same transaction or series of (4) The representative sues or defends for
transactions; the benefit of all.
(2) There is a question of law or fact
common to all such plaintiffs or to all NOTE: Any party in interest shall have the right
such defendants; to intervene to protect his individual interest.
(3) Such joinder is not otherwise (Sec. 12, Rule 3)
proscribed by the Rules on jurisdiction
and venue. MATHAY v. CONSOLIDATED BANK
(58 SCRA 559, 1974)
BUT the court may make such orders as may
be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant
from being embarrassed or put to expense in
analogy, the right of each of the appellants to (2) whenever his whereabouts are
subscribe to the waived stocks was personal, unknown and cannot be ascertained by
and no one of them could maintain on behalf diligent inquiry. (Sec. 14, Rule 14)
of others similarly situated a representative
suit. (4) Entity without juridical personality as
defendant
When two or more persons not organized as an
entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name
by which they are generally or commonly
known.
Defendants In the answer of such defendant the
names and addresses of the persons
(1) Unwilling co-plaintiff composing said entity must all be revealed.
An unwilling co-plaintiff is a party who is (Sec. 15, Rule 3)
supposed to be a plaintiff but whose consent to
be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, as
when he refuses to be a party to the action. In
that case,
(1) he may be made a defendant and
(2) the reason therefor shall be stated in Service upon entity without juridical
the complaint. (Sec. 10, Rule 3) personality.— Service may be effected upon all
the defendants by serving upon
(2) Alternative defendant (1) any one of them, or
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of (2) upon the person in charge of the office
several persons he is entitled to relief, he may or place of business maintained in such
join any or all of them as defendants in the name.
alternative, although a right to relief against
one may be inconsistent with a right of relief BUT such service shall not bind individually
against the other. (Sec. 13, Rule 3) any person whose connection with the entity
has, upon due notice, been severed before the
Example: action was brought. (Sec. 8, Rule 14)
A pedestrian injured in the collision of two
vehicles may sue the vehicle owners or drivers Death of party; duty of counsel
in the alternative if he is uncertain whose
vehicle caused the injury. (1) If plaintiff dies during pendency of the
case
(3) Unknown defendant Whenever a party to a pending action dies,
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it
is unknown, he may be sued shall be the duty of his counsel
(1) as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, (1) to inform the court within thirty (30)
or days after such death of the fact
(2) by such other designation as the case thereof, and
may require; (2) to give the name and address of his
legal representative or
When his identity or true name is discovered, representatives.
the pleading must be amended accordingly.
(Sec. 14, Rule 3) NOTE: This duty is mandatory. Failure of
counsel to comply with this duty shall be a
Service upon defendant whose identity or ground for disciplinary action.
whereabouts are unknown.
Service may, by leave of court, be effected by Upon notice of death, action of court
publication in a newspaper of general Upon receipt of notice of death, the court shall
circulation and in such places and for such determine whether the claim is extinguished
time as the court may order in any action by the death. If the claim does not survive, the
where court shall dismiss the case.
(1) the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or If the claim survives, substitution
The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative or representatives to appear
(2) If defendant dies, effect of his death ISSUE: Whether the proceedings in the trial
depends upon the nature of the pending court are infirm
action YES. No formal substitution of the
parties was effected within thirty (30) days
When action will not be dismissed from date of death of Bertuldo, as required by
The action will be allowed to continue until Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Needless
entry of final judgment when: to stress, the purpose behind the rule on
i. the action is for recovery of money substitution is the protection of the right of
every party to due process. It is to ensure that
arising from contract, express or
the deceased would continue to be properly
implied, and
represented in the suit through the duly
ii. the defendant dies before entry of final
appointed legal representative of his estate.
judgment in the court in which the
Non-compliance with the rule on substitution
action was pending at the time of such
would render the proceedings and judgment of
death
the trial court infirm because the court
acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the party must prove that there was an undeniable
legal representatives or of the heirs on whom violation of due process.
the trial and the judgment would be binding. The records of the present case
contain a Motion for Substitution of Party
DE LA CRUZ v. JOAQUIN Plaintiff filed before the CA. It was deemed
(464 SCRA 576, 2005) granted and the heirs, to have substituted for
the deceased, Pedro Joaquin. There being no
violation of due process, the issue of
When due process is not violated, as when
substitution cannot be held as a ground of
the right of the representative or heir is
nullify the court’s decision.
recognized and protected, noncompliance
or belated formal compliance with the Rules
LIMBAUAN v. ACOSTA
cannot affect the validity of a promulgated
(2006)
decision. Mere failure to substitute for a
deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient ground
to nullify a trial court's decision. The The instant action for unlawful detainer,
alleging party must prove that there was an like any action for recovery of real
undeniable violation of due process. property, is a real action and as such
FACTS: Pedro Joaquin alleged that he had
survives the death of Faustino Acosta.
obtained a P9,000 loan, payable after five (5)
years, from petitioners, the spouses De la FACTS: Faustino Acosta took possession of a
Cruz. To secure the payment of the obligation, parcel of government land which was originally
he executed a Deed of Sale for a parcel of land intended to be used as a site for a leprosarium.
in favor of petitioners. The parties also He subsequently registered the land and built
executed another document entitled a fence around it.
Kasunduan which allegedly showed the Deed Paulino Calanday intruded upon
of Sale to be actually an equitable mortgage. Acosta’s land without the former’s permission
Spouses De la Cruz contended that this and built a beerhouse on it. Acosta
document was merely an accommodation to remonstrated so Calanday filed a criminal case
allow the repurchase of the property, a right for Unjust Vexation and Malicious Mischief; it
that he failed to exercise. was however, dismissed.
The RTC issued a Decision in Joaquin’s Calanday then conveyed the
favor, declaring that the parties had entered beerhouse to Juanita Roces who agreed to pay
into a sale with a right of repurchase. It held a P60 monthly rental to Acosta. She then
that respondent had made a valid tender of conveyed the premises to Charles Limbauan,
payment on two separate occasions to petitioner in the present case. A few months
exercise his right of repurchase. Accordingly, later, petitioner stopped paying rentals so
petitioners were required to reconvey the respondent filed a case for unlawful detainer
property upon his payment. CA sustained the against respondent. Petitioner reasoned that
ruling of the trial court, and denied since the land belonged to the government,
reconsideration. It further ordered the respondent had no right to collect rentals
substitution by legal representatives, in view of therefrom. Hence the suit was never
Joaquin’s death. Petitioner’s assert the RTC continued.
lacked jurisdiction since the respondent died Eight years later, the government
during the pendency of the case and no converted the parcel of land in which the
substitution was made. premises in dispute are included into
residential land. Respondent then revived his
previous suit of unlawful detainer against
petitioner. Unfortunately, Acosta died while the
ISSUES: Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction case was still on appeal to the CA. Petitioner
over the case upon the death of Pedro Joaquin avers that the case has become moot and
NO. Strictly speaking, the rule on the academic since he was not informed of the
substitution by heirs is not a matter of death of respondent and no proper substitution
jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. of parties was instituted.
Thus, when due process is not violated, as
when the right of the representative or heir is
recognized and protected, noncompliance or
belated formal compliance with the Rules ISSUE: Whether the case has become moot
cannot affect the validity of a promulgated and academic due to the death of respondent
decision. Mere failure to substitute for a and the failure to substitute his heirs as parties
deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient ground to to the case
nullify a trial court's decision. The alleging
DENR. Subsequently, the public officers than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial
alluded to instituted separate criminal and civil and not jurisdiction.
complaints in the City Prosecutor’s Office and Furthermore, Rule 16, Sec. 1, provides
RTC in Marawi City. Diaz, publisher-editor, and that objections to improper venue must be
Pagandaman, who executed a sworn made in a motion to dismiss before any
statement attesting the alleged corruption responsive pleading is filed. Responsive
were named respondents. The City pleadings are those which seek affirmative
Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the criminal relief and set up defenses. Having already
case. submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the
Thereafter, a civil complaint for court, petitioner may no longer object to the
damages was filed. Diaz filed an answer, then venue which, although mandatory in the
later moved for the dismissal of the action for instant case, is nevertheless waivable. As
damages on the ground that the trial court did such, improper venue must be seasonably
not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. raised. Otherwise, it may be deemed waived.
He vehemently argued that the complaint
should have been filed in Cotabato City and (b) Where parties have validly agreed in
not in Marawi City. The respondent judge writing on the exclusive venue thereof
denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for lack before the filing of the action
of merit. The parties may agree on a specific venue
which could be in a place where neither of
ISSUE: Whether the venue was improperly laid them resides, as long as the agreement is:
NO, petitioner is not correct. Petition (1) In writing;
is dismissed for lack of merit. The case is (2) Made before the filing of the action;
remanded to the court of origin for further and
proceedings. (3) Exclusive as to the venue.
Not one of the respondents held office
in Cotabato City nor they held their principal
LEGASPI v. REPUBLIC
office in that province. It is clear that an
(559 SCRA 410, 2008)
offended party who is at the same time a
public official can only institute an action
arising from libel in 2 venues: (1) the place It must be shown that such stipulation as to
where he holds office; or (2) the place where venue is exclusive. In the absence of
the alleged libelous articles were printed and qualifying or restrictive words, such as
first published. (Art. 360, RPC) "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any
Venue was indeed improperly laid. other venue," "shall only" preceding the
However, unless and until the defendant designation of venue, "to the exclusion of
objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss the other courts," or words of similar
prior to a responsive pleading, the venue in a import, the stipulation should be deemed as
motion to dismiss cannot truly be said to have merely an agreement on an additional
been improperly laid since, for all practical forum, not as limiting venue to the specified
intents and purposes, the venue though
technically wrong may yet be considered FACTS: Jesusito D. Legaspi, as owner and
acceptable to the parties for whose manager of petitioner J.D. Legaspi
convenience the rules on venue had been Construction, entered into a Construction
devised. Diaz, then, as defendant should have Agreement with respondent Social Security
timely challenged the venue laid in Marawi City System (SSS) for the construction of a four-
in a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 4, Sec. storey building in Baguio City which will serve
4, of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, he had as respondent's branch office.
already submitted himself to the jurisdiction of The Philippine peso collapsed as
trial court when he filed his Answer. Well- against the U.S. Dollar in 1997, thus the cost of
settled is the rule that improper venue may be imported materials which petitioner contracted
waived and such waiver may occur by laches. to use and install on the project shot up, and
Moreover, venue in an action arising from libel petitioner incurred expenses more than the
is only mandatory if it is not waived by original contract price. Petitioner had several
defendant. Thus, objections to venue in civil meetings with respondent's representatives
actions arising from libel may be waived; it during which he informed them of his difficulty
does not, after all, involve a question of in meeting his obligations under the contract
jurisdiction. The laying of venue is procedural due to the peso devaluation. After several
rather than substantive, relating as it does to failed meetings, petitioner sent a letter to
jurisdiction of the court over the person rather respondent requesting an adjustment in the
contract price, which was denied by
venue deals on the locality, the place where accordance with its substance, not its
the suit may be had. form.
Dismissing the complaint on the Parties are strictly by the allegations,
ground of improper venue is certainly not the statements or admissions made in his
appropriate course of action at this stage of pleadings and cannot be permitted to
the proceeding, particularly as venue, in take a contradictory position.
inferior courts as well as in the courts of first
instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly Distinguished from motion
or impliedly. Where defendant fails to A motion is an application for relief other than
challenge timely the venue in a motion to by a pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 15)
dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of
the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be What allowed
held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot The claims of a party are asserted in a
on appeal or in a special action be permitted to (1) complaint,
challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is (2) counterclaim,
deemed waived. (3) cross-claim,
Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for
(4) third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint, or
the trial court to have taken a procedural
(5) complaint-in-intervention.
short-cut by dismissing motu proprio the
complaint on the ground of improper venue
The defenses of a party are alleged in the
without first allowing the procedure outlined in
answer to the pleading asserting a claim
the Rules of Court to take its proper course.
against him.
substance of the matters upon which NOTE: If the above rule is not complied with,
he relies to support his denial. the complaint may be dismissed, or
(2) Partial denial—where only a
the answer may be stricken off the
part of an averment is denied, he records and he will be declared in
specify so much of it as is true and default.
material and deny only the remainder.
(3) Denial by disavowal of The following may be averred generally:
knowledge—where defendant is (1) malice,
without knowledge or information
(2) intent,
sufficient to form a belief as to the
(3) knowledge or
truth of a material averment in the
complaint, he shall so state, and this (4) other condition of the mind of a
shall have the effect of a denial. (Sec. person.
10, Rule 8) (Sec. 5, Rule 8)
as the case may be, omitting the statement of The RTC was later conferred with
mere evidentiary facts. jurisdiction over the matter due to a
presidential declaration confirming the former
If a defense relief on is based on law, as a special commercial court. Oscar filed a
the pertinent provisions thereof and Motion to Declare Complaint as Nuisance or
their applicability to him shall be clearly and Harassment Suit. The RTC denied the motion
concisely stated. and the CA affirmed. Hence this petition
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the unrelated to the genuineness and due
legal existence of any party or the capacity of execution of the document:
any party to sue or be sued in a representative (1) Payment;
capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which (2) Want of consideration;
shall include such supporting particulars as are (3) Illegality of consideration;
peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge. (4) Usury;
(Sec. 4, Rule 8) (5) Fraud;
(6) Prescription,
Actions based upon a document (7) Release;
Whenever an action or defense is based upon (8) Waiver;
a written instrument or document, the party (9) Statute of frauds;
shall: (10) Estoppel;
(1) set forth in the pleading the substance (11) Former recovery or
of such instrument or document , and discharge in bankruptcy, etc.
(2) attach the original or a copy thereof an
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a When an oath is not required
part of the pleading, or A specific denial under oath will not apply in
(3) set forth said copy be in the pleading the following cases:
with like effect. (Sec. 7, Rule 8) (1) When the adverse party does not
appear to be a party to the document,
Actionable document is one which is the basis or
of the claim or defense. Examples: (2) When compliance with an order for an
promissory note inspection of the original instrument is
deed of sale refused. (Sec. 8, Rule 8)
contract
ANSWER
NOTE: Letters by parties regarding the
actionable document are not actionable Defined and in general
documents, but mere evidence of the An answer is a pleading in which a defending
existence of the actionable document. party sets forth his defenses. (Sec. 4, Rule 6)
This pleading may be an answer to the
complaint, to a counterclaim, or an
To contest an actionable document answer to a cross-claim.
The party must There is NO answer to a reply.
(1) specifically deny the genuineness and There may be an answer to a third-
due execution of the document under party complaint or complaint-in-
oath; and intervention.
(2) set forth what he claims to be the
facts.
the complaint must fail. Therefore the to him by the company. Another ejectment suit
counterclaim is compulsory. However, with the was filed against him in the MTC.
dismissal of the complaint on defendant's own In his answer to the complaint, Maceda
motion, it likewise dismissed the counterclaim set up a P240,000 counterclaim, the alleged
questioning the complaint. value of his improvements. The MTC ordered
What the defendants could have done him to vacate the premises and pay Cement
instead of moving for dismissal was to ask the Center rent. The latter was ordered to
trial court to declare petitioners to be "non- reimburse him for the improvements.
suited" on their complaint so that the latter The RTC set aside the decision and
can no longer present his evidence thereon, ordered Cement Center to pay Maceda
and simultaneously move that he be declared P182,000 as necessary and useful
as in default on the compulsory counterclaim, improvements.
and reserve the right to present evidence ex The CA reversed the decision because
parte on his counterclaim. This will enable of MTC’s lack of jurisdiction, and, in
defendant who was unjustly haled to court to consequence the RTC decision’s lack of legal
prove his compulsory counterclaim, which is basis.
intertwined with the complaint, because the
trial court retains jurisdiction over the ISSUE: Whether the MTC had jurisdiction over
complaint and of the whole case. The non- an ejectment case where the lessee's
dismissal of the complaint, the non-suit counterclaim exceeds the court's jurisdictional
notwithstanding, provides the basis for the limit
compulsory counterclaim to remain active and NO. The MTC did not have original
subsisting. jurisdiction over his counterclaim as it exceeds
P20,000. Correspondingly, the RTC did not
-Jurisdiction (both as to amount and have appellate jurisdiction over the claim. The
nature; exception) decision of the MTC awarding Maceda
P158,000 on his counterclaim, and that of the
MACEDA v. CA RTC raising the award to P182,200, were
(1989) invalid for lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction
of the MTC in a civil action for sum of money is
The MTC does not have original jurisdiction limited to a demand that "does not exceed
over the counterclaim as it exceeds P20,000 exclusive of interest and costs but
P20,000, hence the RTC did not have inclusive of damages of whatever kind." (Sec.
appellate jurisdiction over the claim. 33, subpar. 1, B.P. Blg. 129.) A counterclaim in
the municipal or city court beyond that
jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by way
FACTS: Spouses Arturo and Maxima emigrated of defense to weaken the plaintiffs claim, but
to the U.S. and leased their house and lot to not to obtain affirmative relief.
their nephew, Maceda, for P200 per month.
With the spouses’ permission, petitioner -Filing fees and non-forum certification
repaired and renovated the house subject to not required
reimbursement for expenses. The remodeling
job cost P40,000. The spouses made plans to Permissive
reimburse him. Maceda introduced more A permissive counterclaim is one which does
improvements. not arise out of the opposing party’s claim or
When Arturo passed away in the US, necessarily connected with the transaction or
his attorney-in-fact promised to sell to Maceda occurrence constituting the subject matter of
the property for P125,000 after the transfer of the opposing party’s claim.
title to his widowed aunt. However, it was later It is not connected with the plaintiff’s
sold by the aunt to Mr. Gomez, and the latter cause of action.
to Pablo Zubiri. Ejectment cases were filed
against Maceda, but all were dismissed.
It is NOT barred even if not pleaded in
the answer.
Maxima died in the US.
Zubiri sold the property to Cement It may be filed as an independent
Center, Inc., who asked petitioner to vacate action by the defendant as plaintiff.
because of a housing project it had for its
employees. Maceda insisted on being Examples
reimbursed for his improvements as the Counterclaim for damages based on
original owners had promised to do. Formal culpa aquiliana in a complaint for
demands to vacate and for payment of P4,000 collection of a loan
monthly rental from April 15, 1982 were sent
Counterclaim for damages based on FACTS: PHDI and Magno et al, filed a complaint
quasi-delict in the RTC against Aum, a Korean National and
Counterclaim for the payment of the president of PHDI, and the Korea Exchange
price of a car in an action to recover a Bank (KEB). They alleged that through the
piece of land machination of Aum, KEB granted a
$500,000.00 loan to the PHDI with the
Distinctions between compulsory and condition that the said loan be deposited with
permissive counterclaim the KEB in the name of PHDI. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs executed a real estate mortgage over
PERMISSIVE COMPULSORY their properties as security for the said loan.
May be set up as an Under PHDI’s board resolution, only
Must be contained
independent action Aum and Mendoza were authorized signatories
in the answer; if it is
and will not be to all applications for withdrawals from the said
not set up, it shall
barred if not in the accounts. Aum withdrew $160,000.00 from the
be barred
answer account by forging Mendoza’s signature. He
Not an initiatory was made another withdrawal, leaving a
An initiatory pleading
pleading balance of $163,000.00. Aum allegedly could
Should be not have withdrawn said deposits without the
accompanied by a KEB’s connivance. Aum's failure to heed
certification against demands for an accounting of the said
forum shopping and withdrawals and for the restitution of the said
Does not require
when legally amounts constituted large scale estafa for
certifications
required, a which they are liable for exemplary and moral
certificate to file damages. The KEB filed a Motion to Dismiss
action by the Lupong the complaint, which the trial court denied. The
Tagapamayapa KEB filed a petition for certiorari and
Failure to answer prohibition with the CA for the nullification of
this is NOT a cause the orders of the RTC.
for a default Meanwhile, in another case, KEB filed a
Must be answered by
declaration. Complaint against Magno et al and PHDI before
the party against
Compulsory the RTC for sum of money and reformation of
whom it is
counterclaims the real estate mortgage executed by PHDI.
interposed,
merely reiterating PHDI and Magno, et al. filed a motion to
otherwise, he may be
special defenses are dismiss on the ground of forum shopping,
declared in default
deemed asserting that the KEB should have filed its
controverted even counterclaim for collection and the reformation
without a reply of the mortgage in the first civil case. They
No need to pay averred that the essential elements of litis
docket fees pendentia were present. However, the RTC
denied the motion to dismiss.
Docket and other BUT NOTE: AM 4-2- PHDI and Magno, et al. therefore filed
lawful fees should be 04 now requires their answer with counterclaims in the second
paid payment of fees for case where they denied indebtedness to the
compulsory KEB, alleging the same facts in their complaint
counterclaims in the first civil case. KEB filed a motion to
(Riano) dismiss these counterclaims, alleging that the
causes of action for PHDI’s complaint for
KOREA EXCHANGE BANK v. GONZALES collection of $160,000.00 and damages, and
(456 SCRA 224, 2005) for the counterclaims in this second case for
the set-off of the said amount against its claim
Forum shopping is a ground for summary of $500,000.00 were identical; hence, their
dismissal of both initiatory pleadings counterclaims should be dismissed for forum
without prejudice to the taking of shopping.
appropriate action against the counsel or PHDI, et al. opposed the motion to
party concerned. dismiss the complaint, alleging that KEB failed
The counterclaims of the PHDI, et to include forum shopping as a ground in its
al., for moral and exemplary damages were motion to dismiss their complaint in the first
merely permissive; hence, they were case; hence, it is bound by the omnibus motion
mandated to append thereto a certification rule. PHDI, et al. also opposed the motion to
of non-forum shopping. dismiss their counterclaims on the ground that
the causes of action in the two cases were
the corresponding pleading, the genuineness provided in the preceding section, the
and due execution of the instrument shall be genuineness and due execution of the
deemed admitted unless the adverse party instrument shall be deemed admitted unless
(1) specifically denies them, and the adverse party, under oath, specifically
(2) sets forth what he claims to be the denies them, and sets forth, what he claims to
facts; be the facts; but the requirement of an oath
(3) under oath. does not apply when the adverse party does
not appear to be a party to the instrument or
BUT the requirement of an oath does not apply when compliance with an order for an
when inspection of the original instrument is refused.
Since respondent failed to file a Reply,
(1) the adverse party does not appear to
in effect, respondent admitted the
be a party to the instrument or
genuineness and due execution of said
(2) when compliance with an order for an documents. This judicial admission should
inspection of the original instrument is
have been considered by the appellate court in
refused. (Sec. 8, Rule 8)
resolving the demurrer to evidence.
Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies to
CASENT REALTY DEV’T CORP v.
actions or defenses founded upon a written
PHILBANKING CORPORATION
instrument, and provide the manner of
(2007)
denying it. It is more controlling than Rule 6,
Section 10 which merely provides the effect of
When the defense in the answer is based failure to file a Reply. Thus, where the defense
on an actionable document, a Reply in the Answer is based on an actionable
specifically denying it under oath must be document, a Reply specifically denying it under
made; otherwise the genuineness and due oath must be made; otherwise, the
execution of the document will be deemed genuineness and due execution of the
admitted. document will be deemed admitted. Since
FACTS: Philbanking Corporation (PhilBanking) respondent failed to deny the genuineness and
filed a complaint against Casent Realty due execution of the Dacion and Confirmation
Corporation (Casent) before the RTC for Statement under oath, then these are deemed
collection on two promissory notes assigned by admitted and must be considered by the court
Rare Realty Corporation. In its Answer, Casent in resolving the demurrer to evidence.
raised, among others, as defenses the Dacion It must be noted, however, that admission
en Pago (Dacion) executed between petitioner of the genuineness and due execution of the
and respondent, and the Confirmation Dacion and Confirmation Statement does not
Statement issued by respondent stating that prevent the introduction of evidence showing
petitioner had no loans with the bank as of that the Dacion excludes the promissory notes.
December 31, 1988. Petitioner then filed a Petitioner, by way of defense, should have
Motion for Judgment on Demurrer to the presented evidence to show that the Dacion
Evidence, pointing out that the PhilBanking’s includes the promissory notes.
failure to file a Reply to the Answer constituted
an admission of the genuineness and THIRD/FOURTH-PARTY COMPLAINT
execution of said documents; and that since
the Dacion obliterated petitioner’s obligation Defined
covered by the promissory notes, the bank had A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim
no right to collect anymore. that a defending party may, with leave of
The RTC ruled in favor of Casent and court, file against a person not a party to the
dismissed the complaint. action, called the third (fourth, etc.)—party
On appeal, the CA found that under the defendant, for
Deed of Assignment, respondent PhilBanking (1) contribution,
clearly had the right to proceed against the (2) indemnity,
promissory notes assigned by Rare Realty. (3) subrogation or
(4) any other relief, in respect of his
ISSUE: Whether respondent’s failure to file a opponent’s claim. (Sec. 11, Rule 6)
Reply and deny the Dacion and Confirmation
Statement under oath constituted a judicial NOTE: It is NOT proper to file a third-party
admission of the genuineness and due complaint against one who is already a party
execution of these documents to the action, such as against a plaintiff or a
YES. When an action or defense is co-defendant. But a cross-claim may be filed
founded upon a written instrument, copied in against them.
or attached to the corresponding pleading as
The TEST is whether in the two or more board resolutions passed by the LCP board
cases pending, there is: void ab initio.
(d) identity of parties; The CA, however, ruled that the Ao-As
(e) identity of rights or causes of action, group were guilty of forum shopping.
and
(f) identity of reliefs sought. ISSUE: Whether the Ao-As group is guilty of
forum shopping
AO-AS v. CA NO. The six grounds originally relied
(491 SCRA 353, 2006) upon by the Ao-As group in SEC Case 3587 are
entirely different from the causes of action in
the NRLC, Civil, and the two other SEC cases. It
If the forum shopping is not considered
is true that the causes of action in the latter
willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases
cases were included as additional grounds in
shall be dismissed without prejudice on one
Case 3587 for the appointment of properties
of the two grounds mentioned above.
and assets of LCP which may have come into
However, if the forum shopping is willful
their possession during their incumbency as
and deliberate, both (or all, if there are
officers and/or directors of LCP. However, the
more than two) actions shall be dismissed
creation of a management committee and the
with prejudice.
prayer for accounting could not have been
asked for in the labor and forcible entry cases.
FACTS: The Lutheran Church in the Philippines As regards the other SEC Cases,
(LCP) has local Lutheran congregations in three though, the Ao-As group could have indeed
districts, managed by seven directors—two for prayed for the creation of the management
each district, and one as the national committee and the accounting of the funds of
president. Three districts were added, thus a the LCP. In fact, the petitioner in SEC-SICD
total of eleven (11) directors managed the LCP. Case No. 3556 had prayed for the appointment
Controversies arose when the board of of a management committee in a motion which
directors terminated the services of Eclesio was subsequent to the filing of SEC-SICD Case
Hipe, business mana45ger and corporate No. 3857. SEC dismissed Case No. 3556
secretary. considering that it was one of the incidents of
The Ao-As group, former LCP directors Case No. 3857. In effect, it was denied on the
and officers, filed SEC-SICD Case No. 3587 ground of litis pendentia.
against the Batong group, the LCP directors at However, this is not a case of willful
that time. The case sought accounting and and deliberate forum shopping and, hence, the
damages, and appointment of a management Case No. 3857 should not be dismissed. The
committee. Its causes of action are: (a) non- reason for this is the strict evidentiary
liquidation and/or non-accounting of the requirement needed to grant a prayer to
P64,000 proceeds of the La Trinidad land create a management committee. The SEC has
transaction; (b) on-liquidation and/or the power to create a management committee
unaccounting of P323,750 worth of cash when there is “imminent danger of dissipation,
advances; (c) dissipation of the P4.8M general loss, wastage or destruction of assets or other
fund; (d) non-registration of LCP’s land in properties or paralization of business
Leyte; (e) severance of church-partnership operations” It should be difficult to deduce the
with Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; and (f) "imminent danger of dissipation, loss, wastage
transfer of corporate books. or destruction of assets or other properties"
Several other cases were also from an allegation of a single act of previous
instituted against the Batong group. An NLRC misappropriation or dissipation on the part of
case questioned the board resolutions which the Batong group. It is often only when the
terminated employees, a Civil Case questioned previous misappropriations and dissipations
another board resolution authorizing the have become extensive and out of control that
transfer of corporate records, and another SEC- it can be candidly said that there is an
SICD Case (No. 3524) questioned the legality imminent danger of further dissipation. The
of the 11 members of the LCP Board. Also, in Ao-As group cannot be faulted therefore for
another SEC Case (No. 3556), a motion was not praying for the creation of a management
made to appoint a management committee. committee in the first couple of cases it filed
This motion was denied since the same is an with the SEC, and neither can they be faulted
incident of SEC Case 3587. for using the causes of action in previously
After hearing in SEC Case 3587, the filed cases to prove their allegation of
SEC-SICD ordered the creation of a imminent dissipation. We cannot rule out the
management committee and declared all possibility that the danger of imminent
dissipation of the corporate assets became
apparent only in the acts of the respondents and Asst. VP Cabin Services of PAL,
subsequent to the filing of the first two SEC respectively, who are not parties to the case.
cases. The certification was without proof that the two
As the present jurisprudence now affiants had authority to sign in behalf of
stands, forum shopping can be committed in petitioners. The CA dismissed the case for
three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on failure to show the affiants’ authority to sign
the same cause of action and with the same for PAL and for failure of the other petitioners
prayer, the previous case not having been to join in the execution of the certification. A
resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple motion for reconsideration was filed with a
cases based on the same cause of action and Secretary’s Certificate attached evidencing
the same prayer, the previous case having that affiants Lamberte and Del Carmen have
been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) been authorized by board resolution to initiate
filing multiple cases based on the same cause and/or cause to be filed on behalf of PAL
of action but with different prayers (splitting of petitions and pleadings in all labor-related
causes of action, where the ground for cases.
dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res A perusal of the Secretary’s Certificate
judicata). If the forum shopping is not submitted reveals that the authority to cause
considered willful and deliberate, the the filing of the petition was granted on
subsequent cases shall be dismissed without February 15, 2000. The petition, on the other
prejudice on one of the two grounds hand, was filed on January 24, 2000 and was
mentioned above. However, if the forum dismissed by the CA on January 31, 2000.
shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, As to the other petitioners, it was
if there are more than two) actions shall be argued that they are mere nominal parties so
dismissed with prejudice. that their failure to execute the certification
does not justify dismissal of the petition. CA
Forum shopping certificate for a denied the motion.
corporation
When plaintiff is a juridical person—this may ISSUE: Whether the certification of non-forum
be signed by the properly authorized persons. shopping was properly executed
NO. The certification of non-forum
PAL v. FASAP shopping attached was without proof of
(479 SCRA 605, 2006) authority to sign. When a motion for
reconsideration was filed, a Secretary’s
Only individuals vested with authority by a Certificate was submitted as proof that the
valid board resolution may sign the board of directors of PAL had authorized the
certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf two to execute the certificate. Nonetheless,
of a corporation. In addition, proof of said the Court finds that this belated submission is
authority must be attached. Failure to an insufficient compliance with the certification
provide a certificate of non-forum shopping requirement.
is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. The required certification must be valid
Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal at the time of filing of the petition. An invalid
if a certification was submitted certificate cannot be remedied by the
unaccompanied by proof of the signatory’s subsequent submission of a Secretary’s
authority. Certificate that vests authority only after the
petition had been filed. At the time the
certification was signed, Lamberte and Del
FACTS: Flight Attendants and Stewards Carmen were not duly authorized and,
Association of the Philippines (FASAP) and consequently, their signing and attestations
Bhagwani filed a complaint for unfair labor were not in representation of PAL. This
practice, illegal suspension and illegal effectively translates to a petition that was
dismissal against PAL and some of its officers filed without a certification at all as none was
before the NLRC Labor Arbiter The Labor issued by PAL, the principal party to the case.
Arbiter upheld FASAP and Bhagwani and, Rule 65, Section 1, in relation to Rule
ordered PAL to pay them damages. The NLRC 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires the
modified the decision, setting aside the finding certification of non-forum shopping to be
that PAL was guilty of unfair labor practice, but executed by the corresponding petitioner or
affirming the rest of the decision. petitioners. As no distinction is made as to
PAL filed a petition for certiorari with which party must execute the certificate, this
the CA, accompanied by a Certification of Non- requirement is made to apply to both natural
Forum Shopping executed by Cesar Lamberte and juridical entities. When the petitioner is a
and Susan Del Carmen, VP Human Resources corporation, the certification should be
(2) by leaving it in his office with his clerk A violation of this Rule may be cause
or with a person having charge to consider the paper as not filed. (Sec.
thereof, or 11, Rule 13)
(3) by leaving the copy, between 8am and
6pm, at the party’s or counsel’s Upon party in default (Sec. 3, Rule 9)
residence, if known, with a person of A defending party shall be declared in default
sufficient age and discretion then when
residing therein, in cases where (1) Ground: He fails to answer within the
a. no person is found in his office, time allowed therefor, the court shall,
b. his office is not known, or (2) The claiming party files a motion to
c. he has no office, then. (Sec. 6, declare the defending party in default,
Rule 13) furnishing proof of failure to answer
(3) Said party gives notice of such motion
Mail to the defending party,
Service by registered mail shall be made
(1) by depositing the copy in the office, The court shall proceed to render judgment
(2) in a sealed envelope, granting the claimant such relief as his
(3) plainly addressed to the party or his pleading may warrant,
counsel at his office, if known, unless the court in its discretion
otherwise at his residence, if known, requires the claimant to submit
(4) with postage fully prepaid, and evidence.
(5) with instructions to the postmaster to Such reception of evidence may be
return the mail to the sender after ten delegated to the clerk of court. (1a,
(10) days if undelivered. R18)
Service by ordinary mail may be done if no (a) Effect of order of default.—A party in
registry service is available in the locality of default shall be entitled to notice of
either the sender or the addressee (Sec. 7, subsequent proceedings but NOT to take part
Rule 13) in the trial.
whether or not a collusion between the parties (3) the affidavit of the party serving,
exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene containing a full statement of the date,
for the State in order to see to it that the place and manner of service.
evidence submitted is not fabricated. (Sec. 3,
Rule 9) Ordinary mail
(1) affidavit of the person mailing of facts
Completion of service showing compliance with section 7 of
Personal service— this Rule.
upon actual delivery • Service by ordinary mail may
be done if no registry service is
Service by ordinary mail— available in the locality of
upon the expiration of ten (10) days either the sender or the
after mailing, unless the court addressee (Sec. 7, Rule 13)
otherwise provides.
Registered Mail—
Service by registered mail— (1) such affidavit and
upon actual receipt by the addressee, (2) the registry receipt issued by the
or mailing office.
parties recasting their theories of the case. The Except as provided in the next preceding
correct amount of the second mortgage owed section, Substantial amendments may be
by petitioners to PISO bank (apparently a made only upon leave of court.
controverted point), would have to be litigated But such leave may be refused if it
and this could be time consuming. appears to the court that the motion
As a general policy, liberality in was made with intent to delay.
allowing amendments is greatest in the early Substantial amendments may be made
stages of a law suit, decreases as it progresses only
and changes at times to a strictness (1) upon motion filed in court, and
amounting to a prohibition. This is further
(2) after notice to the adverse
restricted by the condition that the
party, and an opportunity to be
amendment should not prejudice the adverse
heard. (Sec. 3, Rule 10)
party or place him at a disadvantage.
To conform to evidence
Form
Amendment to conform to evidence
When any pleading is amended, the following
Issues not raised by pleadings may be deemed
shall be filed:
as if they were raised:
(1) a new copy of the entire pleading,
(1) When issues are not raised by the
(2) incorporating the amendments, which
pleadings, and
shall be indicated by appropriate
marks,. (Sec. 7, Rule 13) (2) They are tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties
Effect
An amended pleading supersedes the pleading Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
it amends. necessary
Matter of discretion
The curing effect under Section 5 of Rule 10 complaint is defective for failure to allege the
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is essential facts.
applicable only if a cause of action exists at It thus follows that a complaint whose
the time the complaint is filed, but the cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be
complaint is defective for failure to allege cured or remedied by an amended or
the essential facts. A complaint whose supplemental pleading alleging the existence
cause of action has not yet accrued cannot or accrual of a cause of action while the case is
be cured or remedied by an amended or pending. Such an action is prematurely
supplemental pleading alleging the brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit,
existence or accrual of a cause of action which should be dismissed by the court upon
while the case is pending. proper motion seasonably filed by the
defendant. The underlying reason for this rule
is that a person should not be summoned
FACTS: Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc., before the public tribunals to answer for
obtained from respondent Neal B. Christian complaints which are immature.
loans evidenced by three promissory notes
dated 1997, each in the amount of $50,000 Remedies
payable after three years (200) from its date
with a 15% interest per annum payable every Periods to answer
three months. Later on, Christian informed the
Swagman that he was terminating the loans Amendments
and demanded from the latter payment in the Amendment as a matter of right—
total amount of $150,000 plus the unpaid The defendant shall answer the same within
interests of $13,500. fifteen (15) days after being served with a
In 1999, Christian filed a complaint for copy thereof.
the unpaid loans, alleging that petitioner,
instead of paying the 15% monthly interest, Amendment not a matter of right—
started paying only 6%. Swagman filed an The defendant shall answer within ten (10)
Answer, raising as defense the lack of cause of days from notice of the Order admitting the
action of the principal obligations because the same.
three promissory notes were not yet due and An answer earlier filed may serve as
demandable. the answer to the amended complaint,
The trial court ruled that the first two if no new answer is filed.
promissory notes were already due and
demandable and ordered Swagman to pay the Applicability
amount of the checks plus 6% interest. It ruled This Rule shall apply to the answer to
that although at the time of the complaint, the
(1) an amended counterclaim,
notes were not yet due and demandable, it
(2) amended cross-claim,
was cured when they became due during the
trial. (3) amended third (fourth, etc.)— party
complaint, and
ISSUE: Whether or not lack of cause of action (4) amended complaint-in-intervention.
may be cured by evidence presented during (Sec. 3, Rule 11)
the trial and amendments to conform to the
evidence Supplemental complaint
NO. Amendments of pleadings are This may be answered within ten (10) days
allowed under Rule 10 in order that the actual from notice of the order admitting the same,
merits of a case may be determined in the unless a different period is fixed by the court.
most expeditious and inexpensive manner If no new or supplemental answer is
without regard to technicalities, and that all filed—
other matters included in the case may be The answer to the complaint shall
determined in a single proceeding, thereby serve as the answer to the
avoiding multiplicity of suits. Section 5 thereof supplemental complaint. (Sec. 7, Rule
applies to situations wherein evidence not 11)
within the issues raised in the pleadings is
presented by the parties during the trial, and Supplemental pleadings
to conform to such evidence the pleadings are A supplemental pleading setting forth
subsequently amended on motion of a party. transactions, occurrences or events which
The curing effect under Section 5 is have happened since the date of the pleading
applicable only if a cause of action in fact sought to be supplemented may be permitted
exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the (1) upon motion of a party
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, ’13)
CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER59
evidence at all on what it considers is the fair Object and purpose of a Bill of particular:
rental value other than what were submitted (1) Amplify or limit a pleading
by petitioner. As a matter of fact, all the other (2) Specify more minutely and
tenants did not question the reasonableness of particularly a claim or defense set
the rental increases up and pleaded in general terms
(3) Give information, not contained in
BILL OF PARTICULARS/INTERVENTION the pleading, to the opposite party
and the court as to the precise
Bill of particulars nature, character, scope, and
Also called bill of definite statement extent of the cause of action or
It is a motion that applies to any defense relied on by the pleader
pleading which in the perception of the (4) Apprise the opposite party of the
movant contains ambiguous allegations case which he has to meet
(Riano) (5) Define, clarify, particularize, and
If a complaint makes out a cause of limit or circumscribe the issues in
action, the ambiguity in some allegations the case
or failure to allege facts with sufficient (6) Expedite the trial, and assist the
particularity does not justify the filing of a court
motion to dismiss. The proper remedy is to (7) Prevent injustice or do justice in
file a motion for bill of particulars. the case when that cannot be
accomplished without the aid of
Office and Purpose such a bill.
To seek an order from court directing (8) Proper preparation of a responsive
the pleader to submit a bill of pleading
particulars which avers matters with (9) Proper preparation of an intelligent
“sufficient definiteness or particularity” answer.
to enable the movant to file his
responsive pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 12) FACTS: Cesar Virata was among the forty-four
“The proper preparation of an co-defendants of Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez
intelligent answer requires information in a complaint filed by the Sandiganbayan. The
as to the precise nature, character, complaint was amended thrice, the last
scope and extent of the cause of action amendment thereto is denominated as Second
in order that the pleader may be able Amended Complaint. The plaintiff alleged four
to squarely meet the issues raised, actionable wrongs against petitioner: (1) his
thereby circumscribing them within participation in the reduction of the electric
determined confines and preventing franchise tax and the tariff duty of fuel oil
surprises during trial, and in order that imports by all public utilities (2) his
he may set forth his defenses which participation in the the approval of the '3-Year
may not be so readily availed of if the Program for the Extension of MERALCO's
allegation controverted are vague, Services to Areas’ (3) his participation in the
indefinite, uncertain or are mere formation of Erectors Holdings, Inc. and (4) his
general conclusions” (Virata v. acting as a dummy of corporations controlled
Sandiganbayan) by Romualdez and Marcos.
“The proper office of a bill of Petitioner moved to dismiss the case
particulars is to inform the opposite on various grounds including the failure of the
party and the court of the precise expanded Second Amended Complaint to state
nature and character of the ccause of a cause of action. The motion was denied by
action.” (Tan v. Sandiganbayan) Sandiganbayan. SC affirmed the
Sandiganbayan, and advised petitioner that if
he perceive some ambiguity or vagueness
VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN therein, the remedy is not a motion to dismiss,
(221 SCRA 52, 1993) but rather for a bill of particulars.
Petitioner filed a motion for bill of
particulars, claiming that the general and
sweeping allegations of the Second Amended
Complaint and the purported illegal acts
imputed to them as well as the alleged causes
of actions are vague and ambiguous. They are
not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity as would enable defendant Virata
to properly prepare his answer or responsive party may be aided in framing his answering
pleading. Sandiganbayan partially granted the pleading and preparing for trial. It has also
motion; of the four actionable wrongs, it been stated that it is the function or purpose of
granted the motion with respect only to the a bill of particulars to (5) define, clarify,
fourth, since the other three actionable wrongs particularize, and limit or circumscribe the
are not squarely under the Tantuico case. issues in the case, to (6) expedite the trial, and
Not satisfied with the partial grant of assist the court. A general function or purpose
the motion, petitioner filed the instant petition of a bill of particulars is to (7) prevent injustice
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. or do justice in the case when that cannot be
accomplished without the aid of such a bill.
ISSUE: Whether the Motion for Bill of Moreover, the phrase "to enable him
Particulars should be granted totally properly to prepare his responsive
YES. It was grave error for the pleading . . ." in Section 1 of Rule 12 implies
Sandiganbayan to state that "[a]lleging the not just the opportunity to (8) properly prepare
specific nature, character, time and extent of a responsive pleading but also to (9) prepare
the phrase 'active collaboration' would be a an intelligent answer. The proper preparation
mere surplus age and would not serve any of an intelligent answer requires information as
useful purpose" for precisely, without any to the precise nature, character, scope and
amplification or particularization thereof, the extent of the cause of action in order that the
petitioner would be hard put in meeting the pleader may be able to squarely meet the
charges squarely and in pleading appropriate issues raised, thereby circumscribing them
defenses. Nor can We accept the public within determined confines and, preventing
respondent's postulation that "any question as surprises during the trial, and in order that he
to the validity or legality of the transactions may set forth his defenses which may not be
involved in the charges against defendant- so readily availed of if the allegations
movant is irrelevant and immaterial in the controverted are vague, indefinite, uncertain
resolution of the instant incident, inasmuch as or are mere general conclusions.
the same is a matter of defense which shall
have its proper place during the trial on the What is beyond its scope
merits, and on the determination of the liability “The complaint for which a bill for a
of defendant-movant after the trial proper." more definite statement is sought
This is absurd, for how may the petitioner set need only inform the defendant of the
up a defense at the time of trial if in his own essential (or ultimate) facts to enable
answer he was not able to plead such a him, the defendant, to prepare his
defense precisely because of the vagueness or answer… Any more ‘particulars’ in that
indefiniteness of the allegations in the event would be evidentiary in
complaint? Unless he pleads the defense in his character, which must be adduced at
answer, he may be deprived of the right to the trial proper.” (Tan v.
present the same during the trial because of Sandiganbayan)
his waiver thereof.
Since the issues have not as yet been Notes:
joined and no evidence has so far been • If the purpose is for
adduced by the parties the Sandiganbayan preparation for trial, the
was in no position to conclude that the matters appropriate remedy is to avail
which the. petitioner seeks are "within his discovery procedures or pre-
intimate or personal knowledge." trial.
It is the office or function, as well as
• It is erroneous to require
object or purpose, of a bill of particulars to (1)
disclosure of evidence relied
amplify or limit a pleading, (2) specify more
upon by the adverse party in a
minutely and particularly a claim or defense
motion for bill of particulars.
set up and pleaded in general terms, (3) give
• A motion for bill of particulars
information, not contained in the pleading, to
to require a pleader to set forth
the opposite party and the court as to the
matters showing jurisdiction of
precise nature, character, scope, and extent of
a court to render its judgment
the cause of action or defense relied on by the
is not proper.
pleader, and (4) apprise the opposite party of
the case which he has to meet, (a) to the end
To clarify allegations in the pleading
that the proof at the trial may be limited to the
matters specified, and (b) in order that
TAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN
surprise at, and needless preparation for, the
(180 SCRA 34, 1989)
trial may be avoided, and (c) that the opposite
Compliance with order (Sec. 3, Rule 12) rights of the original parties and that
If the motion is granted, in whole or in part, the intervenor’s rights may not be fully
within 10 days from notice of the protected in a separate proceeding.
order, (Sec. 1, Rule 19)
unless court fixes a different period
He may, with leave of court, be allowed to
If order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient intervene in the action.
compliance, the court may
(a) order the striking out of The court shall consider
(2) if the summons has been lost, or (2) by tendering it to him, if he refuses to
(3) if the summons has been returned receive and sign for it. (Sec. 6, Rule
without being served (Sec. 5, Rule 14) 14)
Trial Court of Makati for lack of developments (3) on his father or mother, In the case of
within the aforesaid properties. The Service of a minor, service may also be made.
Summons as well as the complaint was served (Sec. 10, Rule 14)
upon the branch manager in Cagayan de Oro.
Plaintiff filed a Special Motion to Dismiss Insane, incompetents
alleging that the summons was improperly When the defendant is insane or otherwise an
served and for lack of jurisdiction over the incompetent, service shall be made
person of the defendant. Respondent says that (1) upon him personally and
the Service was improperly served since it was
given to an employee in its branch office and
(2) on his legal guardian if he has one, or
if none, upon his guardian ad litem
not to one of the persons enunciated in Rule
whose appointment shall be applied for
14 section 11 of the ROC.
by the plaintiff. (Sec. 10, Rule 14)
The trial court ruled in favor of
respondent hence this petition.
Prisoners
When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a
ISSUE: Whether the service of summons on the
jail or institution, service shall be effected
branch manager was proper
upon him
NO. Section 11, Rule 14 allows service
to the general manager, not the branch by the officer having the management
manager. The maxim expression unios est of such jail or institution who is
exclusion alterius applies in this case. The deemed deputized as a special sheriff
enumeration of persons whom summons may for said purpose. (Sec. 9, Rule 14)
be served is restricted, limited and exclusive.
The new rule specifically changed the proper Unknown defendant or whereabouts
recipient of a service from a mere manager to unknown
a general manager in order to prevent Where the defendant is
ambiguous and illogical interpretations in the (1) designated as an unknown owner, or
future. The court therefore acquires no the like, or
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. (2) whenever his whereabouts are
In the case at bar, since the service unknown and cannot be ascertained by
was given to a mere branch manager in one of diligent inquiry,
petitioner’s branches instead of the general
manager in its main office in Davao, such Service may, by leave of court, be effected
service is deemed insufficient. The courts upon him by
therefore did not acquire jurisdiction over the
(1) publication in a newspaper of general
person of the petitioner.
circulation and
Public corporation
(2) in such places and for such time as the
court may order. (Sec. 14, Rule 14)
When the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service may be effected on the
Whether in rem, quasi in rem or personal
Solicitor General.
The normal method of service of summons seafarer when the sheriff served the summons
on one temporarily absent is by substituted in Taguig. The appellate court, however,
service because personal service abroad denied the motion.
and service by publication are not ordinary
means of summoning defendants. ISSUE: Whether there was a valid substituted
Summons in a suit in personam against a service of summons
temporarily absent resident may be by YES. To acquire jurisdiction over the
substituted service as domiciliaries of a person of a defendant, service of summons
State are always amenable to suits in must be personal, or if this is not feasible
personam therein. within a reasonable time, then by substituted
service. It is of judicial notice that overseas
Filipino seafarers are contractual employees.
FACTS: Dolores P. Montefalcon filed a As an overseas seafarer, Vasquez was a
Complaint for acknowledgment and support Filipino resident temporarily out of the country.
against Ronnie S. Vasquez before the RTC, Hence, service of summons on him is governed
alleging that her son Laurence Montefalcon is by Rule 14, Section 16, which referred to
the illegitimate child of Vasquez. She prayed extraterritorial service. Because Section 16 of
that Vasquez be obliged to give support to Rule 14 uses the words "may" and "also," it is
Laurence, whose certificate of live birth he not mandatory. Other methods of service of
signed as father. summons allowed under the Rules may also be
A sheriff tried to serve the summons availed of by the serving officer on a
and complaint on Vasquez in Aro-aldao, Nabua, defendant-seaman.
Camarines Sur. Vasquez's grandfather Obviously, personal service of
received them as Vasquez was in Manila. summons was not practicable since the
Vasquez's mother returned the documents to defendant was temporarily out of the country.
the clerk of court, who informed the court of To proceed with personal service of summons
the non-service of summons. Petitioners then on a defendant-seaman who went on overseas
filed a motion to declare Vasquez in default, contract work would not only be impractical
which was denied for lack of proper service of and futile, it would also be absurd.
summons. The substituted service in Taguig was
The court issued an alias summons on valid and justified because previous attempts
Vasquez at Taguigupon petitioners' motion. A were made by the sheriffs to serve the
Taguig deputy sheriff served it by substituted summons, but to no avail. Also, the caretaker
service on Vasquez's caretaker. Another alias who received the alias summons was of
summons was issued, also received by the suitable age and discretion, then residing at
caretaker. Vasquez's dwelling. There is no quarrel that it
On petitioners' motion, the trial court was really Vasquez's residence, as evidenced
declared Vasquez in default for failure to file by his employment contract, executed under
an answer despite the substituted service of the supervision and authority of the POEA. It
summons. Vasquez was furnished with court can be presumed that the caretaker must have
orders and notices of the proceedings at his informed him one way or another of the suit
last known address, but these were returned upon his return after finishing his nine-month
as he had allegedly moved to another place contract with Fathom Ship Management.
and left no new address. In Montalban v. Maximo, we held that
In 2001, the court granted petitioners' the normal method of service of summons on
prayers. The court added that Vasquez one temporarily absent is by substituted
admitted the truth of the allegations by his service because personal service abroad and
silence. service by publication are not ordinary means
In the same year, Vasquez surfaced of summoning defendants. Summons in a suit
and filed a notice of appeal which petitioners in personam against a temporarily absent
opposed. Appeal was granted. Before the resident may be by substituted service as
appellate court, he argued that the trial court domiciliaries of a State are always amenable to
never acquired jurisdiction over his person. suits in personam therein.
The appellate court noted that the service of More importantly, the absence in the
summons on Vasquez was "defective" as there final sheriff's return of a statement about the
was no explanation of impossibility of personal impossibility of personal service does not
service and an attempt to effect personal conclusively prove that the service is invalid.
service. Such failure should not unduly prejudice
Petitioners argued that any attempt at petitioners if what was undisclosed was in fact
personal service of summons was needless as done. The sheriff's certificate of service of
Vasquez already left for abroad as an overseas summons is prima facie evidence of the facts
set out in it. Only clear and convincing FACTS: PNOC Exploration Corp. (respondent)
evidence may overcome its presumption of filed a complaint for a sum of money against
regularity. Given the circumstances in the Pedro T. Santos, Jr. (petitioner), seeking to
present case, we agree that the presumption collect the P698,502.10 unpaid balance of the
of regularity in the performance of duty on the car loan advanced to Santos when he was still
part of the sheriff stands. member of the board of directors.
Personal service of summons to Santos
Non-resident failed because he could not be located in his
When the defendant last known address despite earnest efforts to
(1) does not reside and is not found in the do so. On PNOC’s motion, the trial court
Philippines, and allowed service of summons by publication.
(2) the action affects PNOC then caused the publication of the
a. the personal status of the summons in Remate, a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines. Thereafter, PNOC
plaintiff or
submitted the affidavit of publication of the
b. relates to, or the subject of
advertising manager of Remate and an
which is, property within the
affidavit of service of the PNOC’s employee to
Philippines, in which the
the effect that he sent a copy of the summons
defendant has or claims a lien
by registered mail to Santos’ last known
or interest, actual or
address.
contingent; or
When Santos failed to file his answer,
c. in which the relief demanded PNOC moved the case be set for the reception
consists, wholly or in part, in of its evidence ex parte. The trial court granted
excluding the defendant from the motion. An omnibus motion for
any interest therein, or reconsideration was then sought by Santos,
d. the property of the defendant alleging that the affidavit of service submitted
has been attached within the by PNOC failed to comply with Sec. 19, Rule
Philippines, 14, as it was not executed by the Clerk of
Court. He also claimed denial of due process
Service may, by leave of court, be effected out for he was not notified of the trial court’s
of the Philippines order. PNOC opposed the motion and insisted
(1) by personal service as under section 6; that it complied with the rules on service by
or publication. The trial court denied Santos’
(2) by publication in a newspaper of motion.
general circulation in such places and
for such time as the court may order, ISSUE: Whether there is improper service of
• in which case a copy of the summons because summons by publication
summons and order of the only applies to actions in rem, and not in
court shall be sent by personam
registered mail to the last NO. Since petitioner could not be
known address of the personally served with summons despite
defendant, diligent efforts to locate his whereabouts,
(3) or in any other manner the court may respondent sought and was granted leave of
deem sufficient. court to effect service of summons upon him
by publication in a newspaper of general
Any order granting such leave shall specify a circulation. Thus, petitioner was properly
reasonable time, which shall not be less than served with summons by publication.
sixty (60) days after notice, within which the The in rem/in personam distinction was
defendant must answer. (Sec. 15, Rule 14) significant under the old rule because it was
silent as to the kind of action to which the rule
in rem, quasi in rem was applicable. Because of this silence, the
Court limited the application of the old rule to
SANTOS v. PNOC in rem actions only. This has been changed.
(556 SCRA 272, 2008) The present rule expressly states that it
applies "[i]n any action where the defendant is
Where the defendant could not be designated as an unknown owner, or the like,
personally served with summons despite or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and
diligent efforts to locate his whereabouts, cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry."
he may properly be served with summons Thus, it now applies to any action, whether in
of publication. personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
he is not related to her or staying at her (2) in such places and for such time as the
residence, as required by the rule. court may order. (Sec. 14, Rule 14)
PES filed with the RTC a Special Neither does the allegation that PES
Appearance and Motion to Dismiss the had personal property within the Philippines in
Amended Complaint, which were denied. It the form of shares of stock in PEIP convert the
held that even though the Amended Complaint case from an action in personam to one quasi
is primarily for damages, it does relate to a in rem, so as to qualify said case under the 4th
property of PES, to which the latter has a claim instance of extra-territorial service. What is
interest, or an actual or contingent lien, which required is not a mere allegation of the
will make it fall under one of the requisites for existence of personal property belonging to
extraterritorial service. PES filed a Petition for the non-resident defendant within the
Certiorari under Rule 65 with application for Philippines but that the non-resident
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary defendant’s personal property located within
injunction before the CA. The CA affirmed the the Philippines must have been actually
RTC Orders. attached. Evidently, PES’s personal property
within the Philippines, in the form of shares of
ISSUE: Whether summons were properly stock in PEIP, had not been attached; hence,
served under the 2nd or 4th instance of extra- the case for collection of sum of money and
territorial service damages remains an action in personam.
NO. Extraterritorial service of In the case at bar, there can never be
summons applies only where the action is in a valid extraterritorial service of summons
rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in upon it, because the case involving collection
personam. In the case at bar, there can never of a sum of money and damages is an action in
be a valid extraterritorial service of summons personam, as it deals with the personal liability
upon it, because the case involving collection of PES by reason of the alleged unilateral
of a sum of money and damages is an action in termination of the Distribution Agreement. The
personam, as it deals with the personal liability objective sought in Dakila’s Complaint was to
of PES by reason of the alleged unilateral establish a claim against PES. Moreover, The
termination of the Distribution Agreement. The action instituted by Dakila affects the parties
objective sought in Dakila’s Complaint was to alone, not the whole world.
establish a claim against PES. Moreover, The Thus, being an action in personam,
action instituted by Dakila affects the parties personal service of summons within the
alone, not the whole world. Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC to
Thus, being an action in personam, validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of
personal service of summons within the PES, and this is not possible in the present
Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC to case because the PES is a non-resident and is
validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of not found within the Philippines. Dakila’s
PES, and this is not possible in the present allegation in its Amended Complaint that PES
case because the PES is a non-resident and is had personal property within the Philippines in
not found within the Philippines. Dakila’s the form of shares of stock in PEIP did not
allegation in its Amended Complaint that PES make the case fall under any of the four
had personal property within the Philippines in instances mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of
the form of shares of stock in PEIP did not the Rules of Court, as to convert the action in
make the case fall under any of the four personam to an action in rem or quasi in rem
instances mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of and, subsequently, make the extraterritorial
the Rules of Court, as to convert the action in service of summons upon the petitioner valid.
personam to an action in rem or quasi in rem
and, subsequently, make the extraterritorial Registered mail invalid service of
service of summons upon the petitioner valid. summons
The 2nd instance for extra-territorial
service has no application in the case. The Voluntary appearance
action for collection of a sum of money and The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the
damages was purely based on the personal action shall be equivalent to service of
liability of the PES. For the action to be one summons.
falling under the 2nd instance, the main subject The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of
matter of the action must be the property itself other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
of the PES in the Philippines and in such over the person of the defendant shall not be
instance, judgment will be limited to the res. deemed a voluntary appearance. (Sec. 20,
However, the allegations made by the Rule 14)
respondent that the petitioner has property
within the Philippines in support of its CEZAR v. RICAFORT-BAUTISTA
application for the issuance of a writ of (506 SCRA 322, 2006)
attachment was actually denied by the RTC.
The SC still holds that jurisdiction was NO. The person who allegedly received
validly acquired by the trial court. the summons was identified in the sheriff’s
Although the substituted service upon him return as Arsenio Robles, was not petitioner’s
of summons was defective, said defect was employee, was a native of Batangas and was
cured by his voluntary appearance. merely peddling mango seedlings within the
vicinity of his office when the summons was
FACTS: Private respondent Specified Materials served.
Corporation filed a Complaint for collection of In the event that summons cannot be
sum of money against petitioner Cezar due to served within a reasonable time, the Rules
the latter’s failure to pay the construction permit that substituted service may be
materials it purportedly purchased under a resorted to. In this case, the sheriff employed
credit line extended by private respondent. the substituted service of summons. The
At the time of the institution of the action, defect, however, in the manner in which he
petitioner’s obligation stood at P1,860,000.00, implemented this mode of service of summons
and under the terms of the credit is readily apparent on the face of the return. It
arrangement, materials sold to petitioner were must be emphasized that laws providing for
supposed to be paid within 30 days from date modes other than the personal service of
of delivery, subject to a 3% interest per month summons must be strictly followed in order for
for delayed payments. the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
After the filing of the complaint, person of respondent or defendant. As the
summons was issued, and this was received by sheriff’s return in the present case does not
a certain Robles. As petitioner failed to file his contain any statement with regard to the
answer to the complaint, private respondent impossibility of personal service the same is
moved that he be declared in default. This patently defective and so the presumption of
motion was granted. regularity in the performance of official
Private respondent filed a Motion to functions will not lie.
Admit Amended Complaint alleging that it
erroneously computed petitioner’s obligation ISSUE: Whether petitioner’s voluntary
to be P1,860,000.00, when it should have appearance cured the defect in service of
amounted to P2,005,000.00. A copy of the summons.
motion and the Amended Complaint were YES. In Flores v. Zurbito, we held that
personally received by petitioner as evidenced an appearance in whatever form without
by his signatures thereon. The Amended expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the
Complaint was ordered admitted. The court court over the person, is a submission to the
ruled in favor of plaintiff. jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
Petitioner, by way of special appearance, defendant or respondent, thus:
argued that the trial court did not acquire He may appear without such formal
jurisdiction over his person. This motion was appearance and thus submit himself to the
denied. Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition jurisdiction of the court. He may appear by
for Annulment of Judgment, Preliminary presenting a motion, for example, and unless
Injunction with Prayer for Temporary by such appearance he specifically objects to
Restraining Order. This petition was dismissed the jurisdiction of the court, he thereby gives
for “failure to attach an affidavit of merit his assent to the jurisdiction of the court over
alleging the facts supporting the good and his person.
substantial defense, as well as the affidavits of Hence, in this case, petitioner’s filing of
witnesses or document supporting the a Motion for Re-setting of the Hearing
defense.” effectively cured the defect of the substituted
Petitioner filed a motion for service of summons. Petitioner’s insistence of
reconsideration but this was denied. Following lack of jurisdiction over his person is utterly
this set-back, petitioner filed before this Court lacking in any legal basis.
a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the
resolutions of the CA, which was also denied LHUILLER v. BRITISH AIRWAYS
for failure to comply with procedural (615 SCRA 380, 2010)
requirements. Our resolution became final and
executory. Private respondent filed a Motion
for Execution before the trial court. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss,
assailing the jurisdiction of the court over
ISSUE: Whether the court acquired jurisdiction his person, together with other grounds
over the person of the petitioner by virtue of raised therein, is not deemed to have
the substituted service of summons effected appeared voluntarily before the court
by the sheriff
FACTS: Lhuillier took respondent British Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Formal
Airway’s flight 548 from London, United Amendment to the Complaint and Issuance of
Kingdom to Rome, Italy. Once on board, she Alias Summons. Petitioner alleged that upon
allegedly requested Halliday, one of the verification with the SEC, she found out that
respondent’s flight attendants, to assist her in the resident agent of respondent in the
placing her hand-carried luggage in the Philippines is Alonzo Q. Ancheta. Subsequently,
overhead bin. However, Halliday allegedly petitioner filed a Motion to Resolve Pending
refused to help and assist her, and even Incident and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
sarcastically remarked that "If I were to help all
300 passengers in this flight, I would have a ISSUE: Whether British Airways, in filing its
broken back!" motion to dismiss may be deemed as having in
Petitioner further alleged that when fact and in law submitted itself to the
the plane was about to land in Rome, Italy, jurisdiction of the lower court, NO. The
another flight attendant, Kerrigan, singled her Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of
out from among all the passengers in the law in this country. The Warsaw Convention
business class section to lecture on plane applies because the air travel, where the
safety. Allegedly, Kerrigan made her appear to alleged tortious conduct occurred, was
the other passengers to be ignorant, between the United Kingdom and Italy, which
uneducated, stupid, and in need of lecturing on are both signatories to the Warsaw
the safety rules and regulations of the plane. Convention. Since the Warsaw Convention
Affronted, petitioner assured Kerrigan that she applies in the instant case, then the jurisdiction
knew the plane’s safety regulations being a over the subject matter of the action is
frequent traveler. Thereupon, Kerrigan governed by the provisions of the Warsaw
allegedly thrust his face a mere few Convention.
centimeters away from that of the petitioner Respondent, in seeking remedies from
and menacingly told her that "We don’t like the trial court through special appearance of
your attitude." counsel, is not deemed to have voluntarily
Upon arrival in Rome, petitioner submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial
complained to respondent’s ground manager court. Thus, a defendant who files a motion to
and demanded an apology. However, the latter dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court
declared that the flight stewards were "only over his person, together with other grounds
doing their job." raised therein, is not deemed to have
Thus, petitioner filed the complaint for appeared voluntarily before the court. What
damages. Summons, together with a copy of the rule on voluntary appearance means is
the complaint, was served on the respondent that the voluntary appearance of the
through Echevarria, General Manager of Euro- defendant in court is without qualification, in
Philippine Airline Services, Inc. which case he is deemed to have waived his
Respondent, by way of special defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person
appearance through counsel, filed a Motion to due to improper service of summons.
Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over A special appearance before the
the case and over the person of the court––challenging its jurisdiction over the
respondent. Respondent alleged that only the person through a motion to dismiss even if the
courts of London, United Kingdom or Rome, movant invokes other grounds––is not
Italy, have jurisdiction over the complaint for tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the
damages pursuant to the Warsaw Convention. movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his
Thus, since respondent is domiciled in London; person; and such is not constitutive of a
respondent’s principal place of business is in voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
London; petitioner bought her ticket in Italy court.
(through Jeepney Travel S.A.S, in Rome); and In this case, the special appearance of
Rome, Italy is petitioner’s place of destination, the counsel of respondent in filing the Motion
then it follows that the complaint should only to Dismiss and other pleadings before the trial
be filed in the proper courts of London, United court cannot be deemed to be voluntary
Kingdom or Rome, Italy. Likewise, it was submission to the jurisdiction of the said trial
alleged that the case must be dismissed for court.
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent because the summons was Return of service
erroneously served on Euro-Philippine Airline When the service has been completed, the
Services, Inc. which is not its resident agent in server shall,
the Philippines. (1) within five (5) days therefrom,
Instead of filing a
Comment/Opposition, petitioner filed an
Proof of service
The proof of service of a summons shall be
Motion for leave
(1) made in writing by the server and
A motion for leave to file a pleading or motion
(2) shall set forth the manner, place, and
shall be accompanied by the pleading or
date of service;
motion sought to be admitted. (Sec. 9, Rule
(3) shall specify any papers which have
15)
been served with the process and
(4) the name of the person who received
Prohibited motion
the same; and
The following pleadings and motions are
(5) shall be sworn to when made by a
prohibited in a summary procedure:
person other than a sheriff or his
(1) Motion to dismiss except on the
deputy. (Sec. 18, Rule 14)
ground of lack of jurisdiction over
subject matter and failure to comply
Publication
with barangay conciliation
If the service has been made by publication,
proceedings;
service may be proved by
(2) Motion for new trial, or for
(1) the affidavit of the printer, his foreman reconsideration of a judgment, or for
or principal clerk, or of the editor, reopening of trial;
business or advertising manager, (3) Petition for relief from judgment;
(2) an attached copy of the publication, (4) Motion for extension of time to file
and pleadings, affidavits and other papers;
(3) an affidavit showing the deposit of a (5) Memoranda;
copy of the summons and order for (6) Petition for certiorari, and mandamus
publication in the post office, postage or prohibition against an interlocutory
prepaid, directed to the defendant by order of the court;
registered mail to his last known (7) Motion to declare the defendant in
address. (Sec. 19, Rule 14) default;
(8) Dilatory motions for postponement
(9) Reply;
MOTIONS (RULE 15) (10) Third-party complaints;
(11) Interventions.
In general
A motion is an application for relief other than The following are prohibited in Small Claims
by a pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 15) Cases:
(1) Motion to dismiss the complaint,
Form except on ground of lack of
General rule: All motions shall be in writing. jurisdiction’
(2) Motion for bill of particulars;
Exceptions: (3) Motion for new trial, or for
(1) Motions made in open court or reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;
(2) Motions made in the course of a
(4) Petition for relief from judgment;
hearing or trial. (Sec. 2, Rule 15)
(5) Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, affidavits and other papers;
Generally
(6) Memoranda;
The Rules applicable to pleadings shall apply
to written motions so far as concerns (7) Petition for certiorari, and mandamus
(1) caption, or prohibition against an interlocutory
(2) designation, order of the court;
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in
(3) signature, and
default;
(4) other matters of form. (Sec. 10, Rule (9) Dilatory motions for postponement
15) (10) Reply;
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, ’13)
CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER77
(11) Third-party complaints; (2) shall specify the time and date of the
(12) Interventions. hearing which must not be later than
ten (10) days after the filing of the
Contents motion. (Sec. 5, Rule 15)
A motion shall
(1) state the relief sought to be obtained General rule: without compliance — scrap
(2) the grounds upon which it is based, of paper
and A motion which does not meet the
(3) shall be accompanied by supporting requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 is
affidavits and other papers, if required a mere scrap of paper which the clerk of court
by these Rules or necessary to prove has not right to receive and the trial court has
facts alleged therein. (Sec. 3, Rule 15) no authority to act upon.
Petitioner VLI thereafter filed a Notice order is rendered by any court in a case, and a
of Appeal and a motion for the inhibition by the party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or
MTC, which was granted. The case was excusable negligence, has been prevented
assigned to a new MTC judge, who was tasked from taking an appeal, he may file a petition
to rule on the Notice of Appeal. The MTC ruled [for relief from denial of appeal] in such court
that it had been filed beyond the reglementary and in the same case praying that the appeal
period. Again, the MTC reiterated its initial be given due course."36 Such petition should be
judgment in favor of Malinias since the fatally filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner
defective MR did not toll the reglementary learns of the judgment or final order, and not
period for appeal. more than six (6) months after such judgment
The RTC affirmed the judgment of the or final order was entered. The facts of this
MTC and held the decision final and executory. case indicate that petitioner could have timely
resorted to this remedy.
ISSUE: Whether the Notice of Hearing filed was
defective Exceptions
YES. The most crucial failure on the Motions which may be granted ex parte
part of petitioner was to file a Motion for An ex parte motion does not require that
Reconsideration of the MTC Judgment which parties be hard. An example is a motion to set
contained a defective Notice of Hearing, failing the case for pre-trial.
as it did to set a date for hearing. Under
Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 15, the notice of NOTE: A motion to dismiss, a motion for
hearing shall be addressed to the parties judgment on the pleadings, and a summary
concerned and shall specify the time and date judgment are litigated motions.
of the hearing of the motion; no motion shall
be acted upon by the court without proof of Where adverse party had opportunity to
service of the notice thereof, except when the oppose
court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse
party are not affected. Unless the movant sets LANTO v. DIMAPORO
the time and place of hearing, the court will be (16 SCRA 599, 1966)
unable to determine whether the adverse
party agrees or objects to the motion, and if he Existence of a cause of action or lack of it
objects, to hear him on his objection, since the is determined by a reference to the facts
rules themselves do not fix any period within averred in the challenged pleading. The
which he may file his reply or opposition. question raised in the motion is purely one
Not only did the defect render the of law. In this posture, oral arguments on
motion for reconsideration itself unworthy of the motion are reduced to an unnecessary
consideration, it more crucially failed to toll the ceremony and should be overlooked.
period to appeal. A motion without a notice of
hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of paper FACTS: Resolution No. 7, adopted by the
that does not toll the period to appeal, and Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte, reverted a
upon the expiration of the 15-day period, the previous salary appropriation for the position
questioned order or decision becomes final of Assistant Provincial Assessor to the general
and executory. fund. In effect, that position then held by
That did not mean that petitioner was petitioner was then abolished. He sought relief
left bereft of further remedies under our Rules. to various government officials, including the
For one, petitioner could have assailed the President but was disappointed. He then went
MTC’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration to the court seeking mandamus praying for
through a special civil action for certiorari annulment of the resolution, payment of
under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of backwages, restatement of salary
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on appropriations as well as reinstatement.
the part of the MTC in denying the motion. If Respondents moved to dismiss stating
that remedy were successful, the effect would lack of cause of action. Petitioner’s counsel
have been to void the MTC’s denial of the moved to postpone the hearing, but failed to
Motion for Reconsideration, thus allowing appear. The court below granted such motion
petitioner to again pursue such motion as a and dismissed said petition. Hence this appeal.
means towards the filing of a timely appeal.
Another remedy for the petitioner is ISSUE: Whether the dismissal order issued
found under Rule 38, which governs petitions without any hearing on the motion to dismiss
for relief from judgment. Indeed, Section 2, is void
Rule 38 finds specific application in this case, NO. Petitioner was given the chance to
as it provides that "[w]hen a judgment or final adduce his case, yet it is because of his
constant absences that he was unable to following were declared by RTC in default: the
present his arguments. One good reason for Singkong Trading Co., Commissioner Mison,
the statutory requirement of hearing on a M/V Star Ace and Omega. Duraproof filed an
motion is to enable the suitors to adduce ex parte Motion to present evidence against
evidence to support their claims. But here the the defaulting respondents, which was
Motion to Dismiss is grounded on the lack of granted.
cause of action. Existence of a cause of action Duraproof alleged that Vlason
or lack of it is determined by a reference to the Enterprises, through constant intimidation and
facts averred in the challenged pleading. The harassment in utilizing the PPA Management of
question raised in the motion is purely one of La Union, caused Duraproof to incur heavy
law. In this posture, oral arguments on the overhead expenses, causing irreparable
motion are reduced to an unnecessary damages of about P3 Million worth of ship
ceremony and should be overlooked. The tackles, rigs, and appurtenances including
hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was set, yet radar antennas and apparatuses, which were
the petitioner failed to appear (only his counsel taken surreptitiously by persons working for
showed up). Moreover, without any clear Vlason Enterprises or its agents.
showing to the contrary, there is a The RTC ruled that in favor of
presumption of regularity within the actions of Duraproof and ordered Vlason to pay P3 Million
the court with regard to entertaining motions. worth of damages. Duraproof and the other
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to show companies entered into a compromise
irregularity within the courts. agreement, except Vlason. Duraproof moved
for the execution of judgment. The Motion was
VLASON ENTERPRISES CORP v. CA granted and a Writ of Execution was issued.
(330 SCRA 26, 1999) Vlason Enterprises filed a Motion for
Reconsideration addressed to Duraproof’s
(1) Where the counsel failed object on the counsel, Atty. Concepcion, on the ground that
ground of lack of notice to a Motion it was allegedly not impleaded as a defendant,
addressed to a former counsel, and was served summons or declared in default, and
granted by the trial court 30 days to file his hence Duraproof may not present evidence
opposition to it, the circumstances clearly against it in default. Duraproof opposed the
justify a departure from the literal Motion, arguing that it was a mere scrap of
application of the notice of hearing rule. paper due to its defective notice of hearing.
RTC reversed its Decision, finding that
(2) The issuance of an order of default is a there never was issued an order of default
condition sine qua non in order that a against Vlason Enterprises, so there could not
judgment by default be clothed with have been any valid default-judgment
validity. rendered against it.
Furthermore, it is a legal The CA ruled that there was no need to
impossibility to declare a party-defendant serve summons anew on Vlason Enterprises,
to be in default before it was validly served since it had been served summons when the
summons. second amended petition was filed; and that
Vlason Enterprisess Motion for Reconsideration
was defective and void, because it contained
FACTS: Duraproof sought to enforce its no notice of hearing addressed to the counsel
preferred salvors lien by filing with the RTC a of Duraproof in violation of Rule 16, Section 4
petition for certiorari, prohibition and of the Rules of Court.
mandamus assailing the actions of the
Customs Officers in forfeiting the vessel and ISSUE: Whether the motion for reconsideration
cargo owned by Omega, which Duraproof filed by Vlason was void for not containing a
contracted to repair. It impleaded PPA and Med notice of hearing to Duraproof’s counsel
Line Philippines, Inc. as respondents. NO. The Motion contained a notice of
Duraproof amended its petition to hearing sent to Atty. Concepcion who had
include the former District Collector, and other already died and had since been substituted
companies involved, including Vlason by Duraproof’s new counsel, Atty. Desierto.
Enterprises. In both Petitions, Duraproof failed Although Rule 15 of the Rules of Court requires
to allege anything pertaining to Vlason Vlason Enterprises to address and to serve on
Enterprises, or any prayer for relief against it. the counsel of Duraproof the notice of hearing
Summonses for the amended Petition of the Motion for Reconsideration, the case at
were served. Duraproof moved several times bar, however, is far from ideal. First, Vlason
to declare the respondents it impleaded in Enterprises was not validly summoned and it
default. Out of those respondents, only the did not participate in the trial of the case in the
lower court; thus, it was understandable that No written motion set for hearing shall be
Vlason Enterprises would not be familiar with acted upon by the court without proof of
the parties and their counsels. Second, Atty. service thereof. (Sec. 6, Rule 15)
Desierto entered his appearance only as
collaborating counsel, who is normally not Hearing of motion
entitled to notices even from this Court. Third, General rule: All motions shall be scheduled for
Duraproof made no manifestation on record hearing on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a
that Atty. Concepcion was already dead. non-working day, in the afternoon of the next
Besides, it was Atty. Concepcion who signed working day
the Amended Petition, wherein Vlason
Enterprises was first impleaded as respondent Exception: Motions requiring immediate action.
and served a copy thereof. Naturally, Vlason (Sec. 7, Rule 15)
Enterprisess attention was focused on this
pleading, and it was within its rights to assume
that the signatory to such pleading was the
counsel for Duraproof. MOTION TO DISMISS (RULE 16)
The Court has consistently held that a
motion which does not meet the requirements Four general types of motion to dismiss
of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of under the Rules
Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, (1) Motion to dismiss before answer
which the clerk of court has no right to receive (Rule 16)
and the trial court has no authority to act (2) Motion to dismiss by plaintiff (Rule
upon. However, there are exceptions to the 17)
strict application of this rule. These exceptions (3) Motion to dismiss on demurrer to
include: “(1) where a rigid application will evidence after plaintiff has rested
result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of his case (Rule 33)
justice; especially if a party successfully shows (4) Motion to dismiss appeal either in
that the alleged defect in the questioned final RTC (Sec. 31, Rule 41), CA (Sec. 1,
and executory judgment is not apparent on its Rule 50) or SC (Sec. 5, Rule 56)
face or from the recitals contained therein.”
The present case falls under such exception Grounds
since Vlason Enterprises was not informed of A motion to dismiss may be made on any of
any cause of action or claim against it. All of a the following grounds:
sudden, the vessels which Vlason Enterprises (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over
used in its salvaging business were levied the person of the defending party;
upon and sold in execution to satisfy a (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over
supposed judgment against it. To allow this to the subject matter of the claim;
happen simply because of a lapse in fulfilling (c) That venue is improperly laid;
the notice requirement which, as already said, (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity
was satisfactorily explained would be a to sue;
manifest failure or miscarriage of justice. (e) That there is another action pending
Circumstances in the case at bar show between the same parties for the same
that Duraproof was not denied procedural due cause;
process, and that the very purpose of a notice (f) That the cause of action is barred by a
of hearing had been served. On the day of the prior judgment or by the statute of
hearing, Atty. Desierto did not object to the limitations;
said Motion for lack of notice to him; in fact, he (g) That the pleading asserting the claim
was furnished in open court with a copy of the states no cause of action;
motion and was granted by the trial court (h) That the claim or demand set forth in
thirty days to file his opposition to it. These the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid,
circumstances clearly justify a departure from waived, abandoned, or otherwise
the literal application of the notice of hearing extinguished;
rule. In other cases, after the trial court learns (i) That the claim on which the action is
that a motion lacks such notice, the prompt founded is unenforceable under the
resetting of the hearing with due notice to all provisions of the statute of frauds; and
the parties is held to have cured the defect.
(j) That a condition precedent for filing
the claim has not been complied with.
Proof of service
Lack of jurisdiction
of P5.4 M. FEBTC and DATICOR, in a MOA, denial of FEBTC’s motion for reconsideration
agreed to P6.4 million as full settlement of the and appeal. In fact, authorities tend to widen
receivables. rather than restrict the doctrine of res judicata
SC affirmed in toto the decision of the on the ground that public as well as private
IAC, nullifying the stipulation of interests. interest demands the ending of suits by
DATICOR thus filed a Complaint for requiring the parties to sue once and for all in
sum of money against PDCP and FEBTC to the same case all the special proceedings and
recover the excess payment which they remedies to which they are entitled.
computed to be P5.3 million. RTC ordered Section 47 of Rule 39 lays down two
PDCP to pay petitioners P4.035 million, to bear main rules. Section 49(b) enunciates the first
interest at 12% per annum until fully paid; to rule of res judicata known as “bar by prior
release or cancel the mortgages and to return judgment” or “estoppel by judgment,” which
the corresponding titles to petitioners; and to states that the judgment or decree of a court
pay the costs of the suit. of competent jurisdiction on the merits
RTC dismissed the complaint against concludes the parties and their privies to the
FEBTC for lack of cause of action since the litigation and constitutes a bar to a new action
MOA between petitioners and FEBTC was not or suit involving the same cause of action
subject to SC decision, FEBTC not being a party either before the same or any other tribunal.
thereto. Stated otherwise, “bar by former
Petitioners and PDCP appealed to the judgment” makes the judgment rendered in
CA, which held that petitioners' outstanding the first case an absolute bar to the
obligation (determined to be only P1.4 million) subsequent action since that judgment is
could not be increased or decreased by any act conclusive not only as to the matters offered
of the creditor PDCP, and held that when PDCP and received to sustain it but also as to any
assigned its receivables, the amount payable other matter which might have been offered
to it by DATICOR was the same amount for that purpose and which could have been
payable to assignee FEBTC, irrespective of any adjudged therein. It is in this concept that the
stipulation that PDCP and FEBTC might have term res judicata is more commonly and
provided in the Deed of Assignment, DATICOR generally used as a ground for a motion to
not having been a party thereto, hence, not dismiss in civil cases.
bound by its terms. The second rule of res judicata
By the principle of solutio indebiti, the embodied in Section 47(c), Rule 39 is
CA held that FEBTC was bound to refund “conclusiveness of judgment.” This rule
DATICOR the excess payment of P5 million it provides that any right, fact, or matter in issue
received; and that FEBTC could recover from directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in
PDCP the P4.035 million for the overpayment the determination of an action before a
for the assigned receivables. But since competent court in which a judgment or
DATICOR claimed in its complaint only decree is rendered on the merits is
of P965,000 from FEBTC, the latter was conclusively settled by the judgment therein
ordered to pay them only that amount. and cannot again be litigated between the
Petitioners filed before the RTC parties and their privies whether or not the
another Complaint against FEBTC to recover claim or demand, purpose, or subject matter of
the balance of the excess payment of P4.335 the two suits is the same. It refers to a
million. situation where the judgment in the prior
The trial court dismissed petitioners' action operates as an estoppel only as to the
complaint on the ground of res judicata and matters actually determined or which were
splitting of cause of action. It recalled that necessarily included therein.
petitioners had filed an action to recover the The case at bar satisfies the four
alleged overpayment both from PDCP and essential requisites of “bar by prior judgment,”
FEBTC and that the CA Decision, ordering PDCP viz:
to release and cancel the mortgages and a) finality of the former judgment;
FEBTC to pay P965,000 with interest became b) the court which rendered it had
final and executory. jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties;
ISSUE: Whether the action should be dismissed c) it must be a judgment on the merits;
on the ground of res judicata and
YES. There is no doubt that the d) there must be, between the first and
judgment on appeal relative to the first civil second actions, identity of parties,
case was a final judgment. Not only did it subject matter and causes of action.
dispose of the case on the merits, it also
became executory as a consequence of the
Failure to state a cause of action state a cause of action. This rule does not
apply to other grounds for dismissal. In such
HALIMAO v. VILLANUEVA cases, the hypothetical admission is limited to
(253 SCRA 1, 1996) the facts alleged in the complaint which relate
to and are necessary for the resolution of
The rule that a motion to dismiss is to be these grounds as preliminary matters involving
considered as a hypothetical admission of substantive or procedural laws, but not to the
the facts alleged in the complaint applies other facts of the case.
more particularly to cases in which the Two motions for reconsideration of this
ground for dismissal is the failure of the resolution were filed by the complainant
complaint to state a cause of action. therein, both of which were denied. While the
complainant (Danilo Hernandez) in
Administrative Case No. 3835 is different from
FACTS: Reynaldo Halimao wrote a letter to the the complainant in the present case, the fact is
Chief Justice, alleging that respondents, that they have an identity of interest, as the
without lawful authority and armed with Investigating Commissioner ruled. Both
armalites and handguns, forcibly entered the complainants were employed at the Oo Kian
Oo Kian Tiok Compound in Cainta, Rizal, of Tiok Compound at the time of the alleged
which complainant was caretaker. Complainant incident. Both complain of the same act
prayed that an investigation be conducted and allegedly committed by respondents. The
that respondents be disbarred. resolution of this Court in Administrative Case
Respondents Villanueva et. al. filed a No. 3835 is thus conclusive in this case, it
comment, claiming that the complaint is a appearing that the complaint in this case is
mere duplication of the complaint filed by nothing but a duplication of the complaint of
Danilo Hernandez in Administrative Case No. Danilo Hernandez in the prior case.
3835, which this Court had already dismissed
for lack of merit. They pointed out that both TAN v. CA
complaints arose from the same incident and (295 SCRA 247, 1998)
the same acts complained of and that Danilo
Hernandez, who filed the prior case, is the
same person whose affidavit is attached to the General rule: Averments in the complaint
complaint in this case. are deemed hypothetically admitted upon
Co-respondent Ferrer claimed that the filing of a Motion to Dismiss grounded on
two complaints were filed for the purpose of failure to state a cause of action
harassing him because he was the principal
lawyer of Atty. Daniel Villanueva in two cases Exceptions: Motion to Dismiss does not
before the SEC. admit the following:
This case was referred to the IBP, 1) Epithets of fraud
whose Board of Governors dismissed the case. 2) Allegations of legal conclusions
The Investigating Commissioner found that the 3) Erroneous statements of law
complaint is barred by the decision in 4) Inferences or conclusions from facts
Administrative Case No. 3835 which involved not stated
the same incident. The complaints in the two 5) Conclusions of law
cases were similarly worded. 6) Allegations of fact, falsity of which
Complainant filed a motion for is subject to judicial notice
reconsideration of the resolution of the IBP 7) Matters of evidence
Board of Governors, alleging that the 8) Surplusage and irrelevant matter
commissioner erroneously dismissed the 9) Scandalous or insulting matter
complaint since the respondents are deemed 10) Legally impossible facts
to have admitted the allegations of the 11) Unfounded facts by record
complaint against them by filing a motion to incorporated in pleading or
dismiss document
executing a lease contract of 40 years in favor Under Article 1403, the contracts concerned
of Tan Kiat. are simply "unenforceable" and the
Four years later, Tan Keh sold the requirement that they—or some note or
properties to his brother, Tan. Tan knowingly memorandum thereof — be in writing refers
held the property in trust for Tan Kiat until the only to the manner they are to be proved. It
latter acquires Filipino citizenship. The new goes without saying then, that the statute
TCTs were issued in the name of Tan as will apply only to executory rather than
trustee of Tan Kiat. Tank Keh and Tan executed contracts. Partial execution is
executed another lease contract to secure the even enough to bar the application of the
conveyance of the property to Tan Kiat. Tan statute.
Kiat never paid rental and no demand for
rentals was made on him.
Tan Died. Tan Kiat thereafter FACTS: Respondents Hua and Dy, owners of a
demanded for the conveyance of the property building constructed on a lot leased from Lucio
as he was finally a naturalized Filipino. San Andres and located in Bulacan, sold the
Petitioners failed to convey them. building to the petitioners for P170,000.00,
Tan Kiat filed a complaint for recovery with the assurance that respondents will also
of property. Petitioners moved for its dismissal assign to them the contract of lease over the
based, among others, on failure to state a land. The above agreement and promise were
cause of action. RTC dismissed complaint not reduced to writing.
acceding to all grounds set forth by the Private respondents undertook to
petitioners. CA reversed and ordered that case deliver the deed of conveyance over the
be remanded for further proceedings. building and the deed of assignment of the
contract of lease within sixty (60) days upon
ISSUE: Whether the complaint stated no cause the P20,000 downpayment. The balance was
of action to be paid in monthly installments. Petitioners
YES. Averments in the complaint are paid the downpayment and issued eight (8)
deemed hypothetically admitted upon filing of postdated checks for the payment of the eight
a Motion to Dismiss grounded on failure to (8) monthly installments.
state a cause of action. But there are also Petitioners constructed a weaving
limitations to such rule. factory on the leased lot. Unfortunately,
In the case at bar, the “trust theory” private respondents, despite extensions
claimed by Tan Kiat does not hold water. The granted, failed to comply with their
lease contract as evidenced by document undertaking to execute the deed of sale and to
attached with the Motion to Dismiss and assign the contract despite the fact that they
admitted by Tan Kiat already belies the latter’s were able to encash the checks in the total
claim of ownership. There is an apparent amount of P30,000. Worse, the lot owner made
lessor-lessee relationship. Ownership of Tan is it plain to petitioners that he was unwilling to
further supported by the annotated mortgage give consent to the assignment of the lease
on the back of the TCT which Tan executed in unless petitioners agreed to certain onerous
favor of a bank so as to secure a loan. In truth, terms, such as an increase in rental, or the
By the very nature of a mortgage contract, Tan purchase of the land at a very unconscionable
could not have mortgage the property if he price.
was not the real owner. Petitioners removed all their property,
Having failed to prove the trust machinery and equipment from the building,
relationship, it may be gleaned from the vacated the same and returned its possession
allegations that the transaction was a double to private respondents. They demanded from
sale instead. Since Tan had the TCT in his the latter the return of their partial payment
name, he is presumed to have the better right. for the purchase price of the building in the
total sum of P50,000, which respondents
Statute of Frauds refused to return. Petitioner filed a complaint
for recovery and of actual, moral and
ASIA PRODUCTION CO., INC. v. PANO exemplary damages and attorney's fees with
(205 SCRA 458, 1992) the CFI.
Hua was declared in default. Dy filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the claim on which the action is based —
an alleged purchase of a building which is not
evidenced by any writing — cannot be proved
by parol evidence since Article 1356 in relation
to Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that it
should be in writing. The RTC granted the FACTS: Sunville Timber Products (Sunville) was
motion to dismiss on the ground that the granted a Timber License Agreement (TLA),
complaint is barred by the Statute of Frauds. authorizing it to cut, remove and utilize timber
Their motion for reconsideration was denied within the concession area covering 29,500
for the reason that the oral contract in this hectares of forest land in Zamboanga del Sur,
case was not removed from the operation of for a period of 10 years.
the Statute of Frauds because there was no full The respondents filed a petition with
or complete performance by the petitioners of the DENR for the cancellation of the TLA and
the contract as required by Jurisprudence. with the RTC for injunction in a civil case, both
on the ground of serious violations of its
ISSUE: Whether petitioner’s action is barred by conditions and the provisions of forestry laws.
the Statute of Frauds Sunville moved to dismiss this case on
NO. Article 1403 of the Civil Code the ground that the plaintiffs had not yet
declares the following contracts, among exhausted administrative remedies, among
others, as unenforceable, unless they are others.
ratified: The purpose of the statute is to The motion to dismiss and the motion
prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement for reconsideration were denied. The CA
of obligations depending for their evidence on sustained the RTC’s decision. CA held that the
the unassisted memory of witnesses by doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
requiring certain enumerated contracts and remedies was not without exception and
transactions to be evidenced by a writing pointed to the several instances approved by
signed by the party to be charged. It was not this Court where it could be dispensed with.
designed to further or perpetuate fraud. The applicable exception was the urgent need
Under Article 1403, the contracts for judicial intervention because City Council of
concerned are simply "unenforceable" and the Pagadian requested the Bureau of Forest
requirement that they—or some note or Development to reserve 1,000 hectares in
memorandum thereof — be in writing refers Lison Valley. This request remained unacted
only to the manner they are to be proved. It upon. Instead a TLA covering 29,500 hectares,
goes without saying then, that the statute will including the area requested, was given to
apply only to executory rather than executed petitioner Sunville. Due to the erosion caused
contracts. Partial execution is even enough to by Sunville’s logging operations heavy floods
bar the application of the statute. have occurred in areas adjoining the logging
The instant case is not for specific concessions. Thus, it is urgent that
performance of the agreement to sell the indiscriminate logging be stopped.
building and to assign the leasehold right, but Sunville contends that the doctrine of
to recover the partial payment for the agreed exhaustion of administrative remedies was not
purchase price of the building. By their motion correctly applied
to dismiss, private respondents theoretically or
hypothetically admitted the truth of the ISSUE: Whether the application of the doctrine
allegations of fact in the complaint. The action of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
is definitely not one for specific performance; correct
hence the Statute of Frauds does not apply. NO. The doctrine of exhaustion of
And even if it were for specific performance, administrative remedies calls for resort first to
partial execution thereof by petitioners the appropriate administrative authorities in
effectively bars the private respondents from the resolution of a controversy falling under
invoking it. their jurisdiction before the same may be
elevated to the courts of justice for review.
Condition precedent There is the explicit language of
pertinent laws vesting in the DENR the power
SUNVILLE TIMBER PRODUCTS, INC. v. and function "to regulate the development,
ABAD disposition, extraction, exploration and use of
(206 SCRA 482, 1992) the country's forests" and "to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction" in the "management and
The doctrine of exhaustion of disposition of all lands of the public domain,"
administrative remedies calls for resort first and in the Forest Management Bureau the
to the appropriate administrative responsibility for the enforcement of the
authorities in the resolution of a forestry laws aid regulations here claimed to
controversy falling under their jurisdiction have been violated. This comprehensive
before the same may be elevated to the conferment clearly implies at the very least
courts of justice for review. that the DENR should be allowed to rule in the
first instance on any controversy coming under
Filed," before rendering judgment on the (3) That the claim on which the action is
merits of the case. The motion of private founded is unenforceable under the
respondent is anchored on the ground that the provisions of the statute of frauds; and
complaint states no cause of action since the
original term of 25 years stipulated in the NOTE: They are still subject to the right of
contract of lease had not yet expired and appeal
assuming that it had expired, private . (Sec. 5, Rule 16)
respondent had made known to petitioner his
exclusive option to renew it for another 25 -appealable; refiling barred if motion
years. based on Sec. 1 (f), (h), and (i)
Section 5, Rule 16 allows the grounds
for a motion to dismiss to be set up as On periods for pleading
affirmative defenses in the answer if no motion
to dismiss has been filed. However, contrary to If the motion is denied—
the claim of private respondent, the the movant shall file his answer within the
preliminary hearing permitted under the said balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to
provision is not mandatory even when the which he was entitled at the time of serving his
same is prayed for. It rests largely on the motion, BUT not less than five (5) days in any
discretion of the trial court. The use of the event, from his receipt of the notice of the
word "may" in said provision shows that such a denial.
hearing is not a matter of right demandable
from the trial court. Where the provision reads If the pleading is ordered to be amended—
"may," this word shows that it is not He shall file his answer within the period
mandatory but discretional. It is an auxiliary prescribed by Rule 11 counted from service of
verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission the amended pleading, unless the court
and possibility. provides a longer period. (Sec. 4, Rule 16)
Moreover, a preliminary hearing on an
affirmative defense for failure to state a cause On other grounds and omnibus motion
of action is not necessary. It is a well-settled rule
rule that in a motion to dismiss based on the A motion attacking a pleading, order,
ground that the complaint fails to state a cause judgment, or proceeding shall include all
of action, the question submitted to the court objections then available, and all objections
for determination is the sufficiency of the not so included shall be deemed waived. (Sec.
allegations in the complaint itself. Whether 8, Rule 15)
those allegations are true or not is beside the
point, for their truth is hypothetically admitted Exceptions
by the motion. In other words, to determine The court shall dismiss the claim when it
sufficiency of the cause of action, only the appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
facts alleged in the complaint, and no other record that
should be considered. (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter,
- preliminary hearing not mandatory (2) there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same
- preliminary hearing on an affirmative cause, or that
defense or failure to state a cause of (3) the action is barred by a prior
action not necessary judgment or
(4) barred by the statute of limitations.
Effects (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
Of dismissal Remedies
An order granting a motion to dismiss based If motion granted – appeal or refile
on the following shall bar the refiling of the complaint
same action or claim:
(1) That the cause of action is barred by a If motion denied – file answer, unless
prior judgment or by the statute of without jurisdiction, in which case, Rule
limitations; 65 petition
(2) That the claim or demand set forth in
the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, NPC v. CA
waived, abandoned, or otherwise (185 SCRA 169, 1990)
extinguished;
As a general rule, whenever a motion is leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of
denied, the petitioner should file an answer, future litigation.
go to trial and if the decision is adverse,
reiterate the issue on appeal. However, if
the court who denies the motion acts DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS (RULE 17)
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion the proper move Upon notice by plaintiff—before answer
is to proceed to a higher court for relief. A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff
(1) by filing a notice of dismissal
seeking the annulment of the construction NO. Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964
project entered into by private respondents Rules of Civil Procedure stated:
with Jovenir, as well as for damages. Jovenir n
allegedly misrepresented itself as a legitimate Dismissal by the plaintiff — An action
contractor. may be dismissed by the plaintiff
Madeja and Mangrobang, Jr., the without order of court by filing a
impleaded defendants, filed their respective notice of dismissal at any time
motions to dismiss. Madeja alleged that while before service of the answer or of
the spouses Miranda had initiated the a motion for summary judgment.
complaint on behalf of Macamir Realty, the Unless otherwise stated in the
real party-in-interest, they failed to attach any notice, the dismissal is without
Board Resolution authorizing them to file suit prejudice, except that a notice
on behalf of the corporation. Madeja, a operates as an adjudication upon the
member of the Board of Directors of Macamir merits when filed by a plaintiff who has
Realty, averred as a fact that said Board had once dismissed in a competent court
not authorized the spouses Miranda to initiate an action based on or including the
the complaint against Jovenir Realty. same claim. A class suit shall not be
Ten (10) days after the filing of the dismissed or compromised without the
complaint, private respondents filed a Motion approval of the court.
to Withdraw Complaint, alleging that during
the initial hearing on the prayer for preliminary Indubitably, the provision ordained the
injunction their counsel discovered a supposed dismissal of the complaint by the plaintiff as a
technical defect in the complaint that may be a matter of right at any time before service of
ground for the dismissal of this case. Thus, the answer. The plaintiff was accorded the
they prayed to be allowed to withdraw the right to dismiss the complaint without the
complaint without prejudice. Jovenir necessity of alleging in the notice of dismissal
Construction filed an opposition. any ground nor of making any reservation.
However, just one day earlier, private Evidently, respondents had the right to
respondents filed another complaint against dismiss their complaint by mere notice when
the same defendants save for Madeja, and Jovenir had not yet served their answer on
seeking the same reliefs as the first complaint. respondents. The Motion to Withdraw
This time, a Board Resolution authorizing the Complaint makes clear respondents’ "desire to
spouses to file the Complaint on behalf of withdraw the complaint without prejudice."
Macamir Realty was attached to the complaint. That respondents resorted to a motion to
This second complaint was also filed with the effect what they could have instead by mere
Makati RTC. The Verification and Certification notice may be indicative of a certain degree of
of Non-Forum Shopping in the second ignorance of procedural rules on the part of
complaint was accomplished by Rosauro respondents’ counsel. Yet such "error," if it
Miranda. could be called as such, should hardly be of
Eleven (11) days after the filing of the fatal consequence. Petitioners posit that the
Motion to Withdraw Complaint and seven (7) "remedy" of filing a notice of dismissal is not
days after the filing of the second Complaint, exclusive, respondents having the "option" of
the Makati RTC granted the Motion to securing the court’s approval to the dismissal.
Withdraw Complaint. The RTC noted an action On the contrary, the trial court has no
may be dismissed by the plaintiffs even discretion or option to deny the motion, since
without Order of the Court by filing a notice of dismissal by the plaintiff under Section 1, Rule
dismissal at anytime before the service of the 17 is guaranteed as a matter of right to the
answer under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules plaintiffs. Even if the motion cites the most
of Court, and accordingly considered the ridiculous of grounds for dismissal, the trial
complaint withdrawn without prejudice. court has no choice but to consider the
Jovenir filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint as dismissed, since the plaintiff may
second complaint on the ground of forum- opt for such dismissal as a matter of right,
shopping. They pointed out that at the time of regardless of ground.
the filing of the second complaint, the first While the Motion to Withdraw
complaint was still pending. The Makati RTC Complaint is styled as a "motion" and contains
denied the Motion to Dismiss. This Order was a "prayer", these are innocuous errors and
affirmed by the CA superfluities that do not detract from its being
a notice of dismissal made under said Section
ISSUE: Whether the dismissal was improper 1 of Rule 17 and which ipso facto dismissed
since Macamir filed a Motion for Withdrawal the case. It is a hornbook rule that it is not the
instead of the required Notice of Dismissal
caption of a pleading but the allegations action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
thereat that determines its nature. an adjudication upon the merits, unless
Thus, the complaint could be properly otherwise declared by the court. (3a)
considered as having been dismissed or
withdrawn as of the filing of the Motion to CRUZ v. CA
Withdraw Complaint. Accordingly, when (2006)
respondents filed their new complaint relating
to the same cause of action on, the old Rule 17, Sec. 3 enumerates the instances
complaint was no longer pending. where the complaint may be dismissed
As noted at the onset, the 1997 Rules due to plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to
of Civil Procedure now requires that upon the appear on the date for the presentation of
filing of such notice, the court issue an order his evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to
confirming the dismissal. The new requirement prosecute his action for an unreasonable
is intended to qualify the right of a party to length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply
dismiss the action before the adverse party with the rules or any order of the court.
files an answer or asks for summary judgment. Once a case is dismissed for failure to
Still, there is no cause to apply the 1997 Rules prosecute, this has the effect of an
retroactively to this case. A plaintiff’s right to adjudication on the merits and is
cause the dismissal of his complaint under the understood to be with prejudice to the
1964 rules was unqualified. Procedural rules filing of another action unless otherwise
may not be given retroactive effect if vested provided in the order of dismissal. In
rights would be disturbed, or if their other words, unless there be a
application would not be feasible or would qualification in the order of dismissal that
work injustice. it is without prejudice, the dismissal
Upon motion of plaintiff—after answer FACTS: There are 4 cases involved in this
SEC. 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff.— controversy.
Except as provided in the preceding section, a 1st case: Unlawful Detainer before the
complaint shall not be dismissed at the MTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, decided in 1998 in
plaintiff’s instance save upon approval of the favor of petitioner Cruz and Concepcion.
court and upon such terms and conditions as 2nd case: Quieting of Title before the
the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija which was
been pleaded by a defendant prior to the dismissed for failure to prosecute as
service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion for evidenced by the RTC in 2000. (Civil Case
dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the 1600)
complaint. The dismissal shall be without 3rd case: Suit for Injunction filed before
prejudice to the right of the defendant to the RTC of Gapan City, which was dismissed
prosecute his counterclaim in a separate on ground of res judicata – because there
action unless within fifteen (15) days from was substantial identity of parties with the 2nd
notice of the motion he manifests his case.
preference to have his counterclaim resolved 4th case: Annulment of Title With
in the same action. Unless otherwise specified Damages filed with RTC of Gapan City, where
in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph petitioners interposed a Motion for Outright
shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not Dismissal of Civil Case, where the court
be dismissed or compromised without the granted the Motion for Outright dismissal on g
approval of the court. (2a) reasoned that:ounds of res judicata and accion
pendente lite, after finding that – (1) the 3rd
Effect of counterclaim case involve the same parties, subject matter
and issue as that in the 1st case and 2nd case;
Due to fault of plaintiff (2) in all 3 cases, Mariano Bunag was included
SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.—If, as party-plaintiff and Ernestina Concepcion as
for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to party-defendant; (3) the subject matter is a
appear on the date of the presentation of his 1,160 sq.m parcel of land in San Nicolas,
evidence in chief on the complaint, or to Gapan City;l (4) and the issue is who between
prosecute his action for an unreasonable the 2 parties has the lawful title over the
length of time, or to comply with these Rules same.
or any order of the court, the complaint may The court hereby sentenced guilty of indirect
be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or Contempt of Court by reason of non-disclosure
upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice of Cases 1 and 2 in the Certificate/Verification
to the right of the defendant to prosecute his of their complaint – as required by Section 5,
counterclaim in the same or in a separate Rule 7 of the ROC.
The respondents filed a MFR which the trial. In fact, there was no pre-trial conference
Court granted by setting aside the order which and that after four years of court
granted the defendant’s Motion for the inactivity, the case was dismissed for
Outright Dismissal and the order citing the failure to prosecute.
plaintiffs and counsel guilty for contempt of The SC ruled that the argument raised
court. The court thereby ordered the by the respondents is UNTENABLE. Section 3
defendants to file their answer/responsive of Rule 17 of the ROC provides:
pleading within 15 days from receipt of the Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of
Court order. plaintiff. – If, for no justifiable cause,
Petitioners then appealed in the CA the plaintiff fails to appear on the date
and the CA dismissed the petition for lack of of the presentation of his evidence in
merit, reasoning that there is no identity of chief on the complaint, or to prosecute
parties between Case 1 and the instant case his action for an unreasonable length
for the simple reason that plaintiffs in the case of time, or to comply with these Rules
at bar were not parties in Case 1. Also, the or any order of the court, the
plaintiffs and their counsel can not be said to complaint may be dismissed upon
have violated the rule against forum shopping. motion of the defendant or upon the
Plaintiffs and their counsel did not file Case 1 court's own motion, without prejudice
and therefore they are not obligated to inform to the right of the defendant to
this Court that they have filed a similar action prosecute his counterclaim in the
involving the same issue with other court. same or in a separate action. This
In their comment, respondents Bunag dismissal shall have the effect of an
and Vda. de Bunag maintain that the CA did adjudication upon the merits, unless
not err when it held that there was no res otherwise declared by the court.
judicata in the case at bar. The rule enumerates the instances
Petitioners claim that res judicata where the complaint may be dismissed
applies in this case because all the elements due to plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to
thereof are present, which are - (1) there must appear on the date for the presentation of his
be a final judgment or order; (2) said judgment evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his
or order must be on the merits; (3) the Court action for an unreasonable length of time; or
rendering the same must have jurisdiction on (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any
the subject matter and the parties; and (4) order of the court. Once a case is dismissed
there must be between the two cases identity for failure to prosecute, this has the effect of
of parties, identity of subject matter, and an adjudication on the merits and is
identity of causes of action. understood to be with prejudice to the filing of
On the other hand, private respondents argue another action unless otherwise provided in
the contrary alleging that the 2nd and 4th the order of dismissal. In other words, unless
elements are lacking. there be a qualification in the order of
dismissal that it is without prejudice, the
ISSUE: Whether there was a proper dismissal dismissal should be regarded as an
of the Civil Case 1600 (a case prior to the case adjudication on the merits and is with
at bar) - which is a necessary element for res prejudice.
judicata to attach. In the case at bar, the order dismissing
YES. Under the rule of res judicata, Case 2 / Civil Case No. 1600 is based on the
also known as “bar by prior judgment,” a final failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to
judgment rendered by a Court having appear on several settings despite due notices,
jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the precisely for the reception of plaintiffs’
parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case evidence, upon motion of the defendant
between the same parties and their successor- through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is
in-interest, litigating for the same thing and dismissed for failure to prosecute.
under the same title and in the same capacity. It is clear from the afore-
On the 2nd element of res judicata – mentioned order that said case was
that (2) said judgment or order must be dismissed, upon petitioners’ motion, for
on the merits, the private respondents argue failure of private respondents and their
that the dismissal of CASE 2 (Quieting of Title) counsel to attend several scheduled
was not a dismissal on the merits. The hearings for the presentation of their
dismissal of this case, they claim, will not bar evidence. Since the order did not contain a
the filing of the instant case, Case 4 (for qualification whether same is with or without
Annulment of Title) because there was neither prejudice, following Section 3, it is deemed to
litigious consideration of the evidence nor any be with prejudice and shall have the effect of
stipulations submitted by the parties at the an adjudication on the merits. A ruling based
on a motion to dismiss, without any trial on the was obvious that respondents had failed to
merits or formal presentation of evidence, can prosecute the case for an unreasonable length
still be a judgment on the merits. of time, in fact not having presented their
evidence yet. On that ground, the complaint
Effect on counterclaim was dismissed. At the same time, the RTC
allowed defendants "to present their evidence
PINGA v. SANTIAGO ex-parte."
(2006) Respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. RTC granted respondents’
Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules Motion for Reconsideration and dismissing the
of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the counterclaim. Petitioner Pinga filed a Motion
complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does for Reconsideration, but the same was denied
not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of by the RTC. Respondents filed an Opposition to
the counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. Defendants’ Urgent Motion for
In fact, the dismissal of the complaint is Reconsideration, wherein they argued that that
without prejudice to the right of defendants "compulsory counterclaims cannot be
to prosecute the counterclaim. adjudicated independently of plaintiff’s cause
of action," and "a conversu, the dismissal of
the complaint carries with it the dismissal of
FACTS: Petitioner Eduardo Pinga was named as the compulsory counterclaims."1
one of two defendants in a complaint for The matter was elevated to this Court directly
injunction filed in RTC Zamboanga del Sur, by by way of a Petition for Review under Rule 45
respondent Heirs of German Santiago, on a pure question of law
represented by Fernando Santiago. The
Complaint alleged in essence that petitioner ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the complaint
Pinga and co-defendant Saavedra had been necessarily carries the dismissal of the
unlawfully entering the coco lands of the compulsory counterclaim
respondent, cutting wood and bamboos and NO. Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the
harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of
therein. the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does
Respondents prayed that petitioner not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of
Pinga and Saavedra be enjoined from the counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In
committing "acts of depredation" on their fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without
properties, and ordered to pay damages. prejudice to the right of defendants to
In their Amended Answer with prosecute the counterclaim.
Counterclaim, petitioner and his co-defendant On a prefatory note, the RTC, in
disputed respondents’ ownership of the dismissing the counterclaim, did not expressly
properties in question, asserting that adopt respondents’ argument that the
petitioner’s father, Edmundo, from whom dismissal of their complaint extended as well
defendants derived their interest in the to the counterclaim. Instead, the RTC justified
properties, had been in possession thereof the dismissal of the counterclaim on the
since the 1930s. ground that "there is no opposition to
By July of 2005, the trial of the case [plaintiff’s] Motion for Reconsideration [seeking
had not yet been completed. Moreover, the dismissal of the counterclaim]." This
respondents, as plaintiffs, had failed to present explanation is hollow, considering that there is
their evidence. It appears that the RTC already no mandatory rule requiring that an opposition
ordered the dismissal of the complaint after be filed to a motion for reconsideration without
respondents’ counsel had sought the need for a court order to that effect; and, as
postponement of the hearing scheduled posited by petitioner, the "failure to file an
then. However, the order of dismissal was opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for
subsequently reconsidered by the RTC in an Reconsideration is definitely not one among
Order dated 9 June 2005, which took into the established grounds for dismissal [of the
account the assurance of respondents’ counsel counterclaim]." Still, the dismissal of the
that he would give priority to that case. counterclaim by the RTC betrays at very least
At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel on a tacit recognition of respondents’ argument
record failed to appear, sending in his stead a that the counterclaim did not survive the
representative who sought the postponement dismissal of the complaint. At most, the
of the hearing. Counsel for defendants (who dismissal of the counterclaim over the
include herein petitioner) opposed the move objection of the defendant (herein petitioner)
for postponement and moved instead for the on grounds other than the merits of the
dismissal of the case. The RTC noted that it counterclaim, despite the provisions under
Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Dakila filed Ex-Parte Motions for
constitutes a debatable question of law, Issuance of Summons and for Leave of Court to
presently meriting justiciability through the Deputize Dakila’s General Manager (DGM) to
instant action. Serve Summons Outside of the Philippines.
The doctrine that the complaint RTC granted this motion. Thus, an Alias
may not be dismissed if the counterclaim Summons was issued by the RTC to PES. But
cannot be independently adjudicated is the said Alias Summons was served and
not available to, and was not intended for received by Perkin-Elmer Asia (PEA), a
the benefit of, a plaintiff who prevents or corporation allegedly unrelated to PES. PEIP
delays the prosecution of his own moved to dismiss the Complaint filed by
complaint. Otherwise, the trial of Dakila. PEA, on the other hand, sent letters to
counterclaims would be made to depend upon Dakila and RTC to inform them of the wrongful
the maneuvers of the plaintiff, and the rule service of summons.
would offer a premium to vexing or delaying Accordingly, Dakila filed an Ex-Parte
tactics to the prejudice of the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint, together
counterclaimants. It is in the same spirit that with the Amended Complaint claiming that (1)
we have ruled that a complaint may not be PEA had become a sole proprietorship owned
withdrawn over the opposition of the by the PES, (2) PES changed its name to PEA,
defendant where the counterclaim is one that (3) such changes did not avoid its due and
arises from, or is necessarily connected with, outstanding obligations to Dakila, and (4) the
the plaintiff’s action and cannot remain name of PES in the complaint should be
pending for independent adjudication. changed to PEA. RTC admitted the Amended
Accordingly, the RTC clearly erred Complaint.
when it ordered the dismissal of the Dakila filed another Motion for the
counterclaim, since Section 3, Rule 17 Issuance of Summons and for Leave of Court to
mandates that the dismissal of the complaint Deputize DGM to serve summons outside the
is without prejudice to the right of the Philippines. RTC granted the motion. RTC thus
defendant to prosecute the counterclaim in the issued summons and the DGM went to
same or separate action. If the RTC were to Singapore and served summons on PES.
dismiss the counterclaim, it should be on the Meanwhile, RTC denied the Motion to
merits of such counterclaim. Reversal of the Dismiss filed by PEIP, compelling the latter to
RTC is in order, and a remand is necessary for file its Answer to the Amended Complaint.
trial on the merits of the counterclaim. PES filed with the RTC a Special
Appearance and Motion to Dismiss the
PERKIN ELMER v. DAKILA TRADING Amended Complaint, which were denied. It
(2007) held that even though the Amended Complaint
is primarily for damages, it does relate to a
Extraterritorial service of summons applies property of PES, to which the latter has a claim
only where the action is in rem or quasi in interest, or an actual or contingent lien, which
rem, but not if an action is in personam. will make it fall under one of the requisites for
extraterritorial service. PES filed a Petition for
FACTS: Dakila Trading Corp (Dakila) entered Certiorari under Rule 65 with application for
into a Distribution Agreement with Perkin- temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
Elmer Singapore Pte. Ltd. (PES) which injunction before the CA. The CA affirmed the
appointed Dakila as sole distributor of its RTC Orders.
products in the Philippines. PES was obligated
to give Dakila a commission for the sale of its ISSUE: Whether summons were properly
products in the Philippines. Dakila was granted served under the 2nd or 4th instance of extra-
the right to purchase and sell the products of territorial service
PES. The agreement further stipulated that NO. Extraterritorial service of
Dakila shall order the products of PES, which it summons applies only where the action is in
shall sell in the Philippines, either from PES rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in
itself or from PEIP. personam. In the case at bar, there can never
However, PES unilaterally terminated be a valid extraterritorial service of summons
the Distribution Agreement, prompting Dakila upon it, because the case involving collection
to file before the RTC a Complaint for of a sum of money and damages is an action in
Collection of Sum of Money and Damages with personam, as it deals with the personal liability
Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment of PES by reason of the alleged unilateral
against PES and its affiliate, Perkin-Elmer termination of the Distribution Agreement. The
Instruments Philippines Corporation (PEIP). RTC objective sought in Dakila’s Complaint was to
denied respondent’s prayer. establish a claim against PES. Moreover, The
action instituted by Dakila affects the parties Thus, being an action in personam,
alone, not the whole world. personal service of summons within the
Thus, being an action in personam, Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC to
personal service of summons within the validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of
Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC to PES, and this is not possible in the present
validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of case because the PES is a non-resident and is
PES, and this is not possible in the present not found within the Philippines. Dakila’s
case because the PES is a non-resident and is allegation in its Amended Complaint that PES
not found within the Philippines. Dakila’s had personal property within the Philippines in
allegation in its Amended Complaint that PES the form of shares of stock in PEIP did not
had personal property within the Philippines in make the case fall under any of the four
the form of shares of stock in PEIP did not instances mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of
make the case fall under any of the four the Rules of Court, as to convert the action in
instances mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of personam to an action in rem or quasi in rem
the Rules of Court, as to convert the action in and, subsequently, make the extraterritorial
personam to an action in rem or quasi in rem service of summons upon the petitioner valid.
and, subsequently, make the extraterritorial
service of summons upon the petitioner valid. Remedy of plaintiff
The 2nd instance for extra-territorial
service has no application in the case. The KO v. PNB
action for collection of a sum of money and (419 SCRA 298, 2006)
damages was purely based on the personal
liability of the PES. For the action to be one Considering that an order of dismissal for
falling under the 2nd instance, the main subject failure to prosecute has the effect of an
matter of the action must be the property itself adjudication on the merits, petitioners’
of the PES in the Philippines and in such counsel should have filed a notice of appeal
instance, judgment will be limited to the res. with the appellate court within the
However, the allegations made by the reglementary period. Instead of filing a
respondent that the petitioner has property petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
within the Philippines in support of its the proper recourse was an ordinary appeal
application for the issuance of a writ of with the Court of Appeals under Rule 41.
attachment was actually denied by the RTC.
Neither does the allegation that PES
had personal property within the Philippines in FACTS: This is a petition for review on
the form of shares of stock in PEIP convert the certiorari assailing the Order of the Regional
case from an action in personam to one quasi Trial Court of Laoag City.The case stemmed
in rem, so as to qualify said case under the 4th from an action filed by petitioners in the trial
instance of extra-territorial service. What is court for Annulment of Mortgage, Extra-judicial
required is not a mere allegation of the Foreclosure Sale, Annulment of Transfer
existence of personal property belonging to Certificate and Deed of Sale with a Prayer for
the non-resident defendant within the Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.
Philippines but that the non-resident The complaint alleged that the assailed
defendant’s personal property located within mortgage and the foreclosure proceedings
the Philippines must have been actually were null and void since the written consent of
attached. Evidently, PES’s personal property petitioners, as beneficiaries of the mortgaged
within the Philippines, in the form of shares of property, were not secured. Respondent bank
stock in PEIP, had not been attached; hence, denied the claim and alleged that in the
the case for collection of sum of money and execution of the mortgage, petitioners in fact
damages remains an action in personam. gave their consent.
In the case at bar, there can never be During the course of the
a valid extraterritorial service of summons proceedings, petitioners and their
upon it, because the case involving collection counsel failed to attend a scheduled trial.
of a sum of money and damages is an action in Upon motion of respondent bank, the
personam, as it deals with the personal liability complaint was dismissed. When the case was
of PES by reason of the alleged unilateral called, Atty. Lorenzo Castillo, counsel for the
termination of the Distribution Agreement. The plaintiffs did not appear despite proper notice.
objective sought in Dakila’s Complaint was to No plaintiff appeared. Atty. Eduardo Alcantara,
establish a claim against PES. Moreover, The counsel for defendant bank appeared.
action instituted by Dakila affects the parties Atty. Alcantara manifested that there were
alone, not the whole world. numerous occasions in the past when plaintiffs
and counsel did not attend. He pointed out
unconscionable, nor shockingly low; that Ps proceed to render judgment granting the
slept on their rights when they failed to claimant such relief as his pleading may
redeem the property within the one year warrant," subject to the court’s discretion on
statutory period. whether to require the presentation of
"Pre-trial having been concluded, the evidence ex parte. The same provision also
parties entered upon trial, a big conflagration sets down guidelines on the nature and extent
hit the City Hall of QC (amazing!) which of the relief that may be granted. In particular,
destroyedthe records of the case. After the the court’s judgment "shall not exceed the
records were reconstituted, the foreclosed amount or be different in kind from that
property was sold by R to the Ceroferr Realty prayed for nor award unliquidated damages."
Corporation, and that the notice of lis pendens parties must rely on the strength of
annotated on the certificate of title had already their own evidence, not upon the weakness of
been cancelled. P with leave of court, amended the defense offered by their opponent. This
their complaint, but the Trial Court dismissed principle holds true, especially when the latter
the case ‘without prejudice’ due to P’s failure has had no opportunity to present evidence
to pay additional filing fees. because of a default order.
P re-filed the complaint with the same A defaulted defendant is not actually
Court, impleading as additional defendants the thrown out of court. While in a sense it may be
Ceroferr Realty Corporation and additional said that by defaulting he leaves himself at the
cause of action, that new defendants conspired mercy of the court, the rules see to it that any
with R in canceling the notice of lis pendens. judgment against him must be in accordance
Summons was served on R,P filed a with law. The evidence to support the
motion to set case for pre-trial, which motion plaintiff’s cause is, of course, presented in his
was denied by the TC in its Order of on the absence, but the court is not supposed to
ground that R bank has not yet filed its admit that which is basically incompetent.
answer. P filed a motion to declare R in default, Although the defendant would not be in a
alleging that no answer has been filed despite position to object, elementary justice requires
the service of summons. TC declared the that only legal evidence should be considered
motion submitted for resolution upon against him. If the evidence presented should
submission by Ps of proof of service of the not be sufficient to justify a judgment for the
motion on R. Upon giving proof, R was plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And
declared in default. P were allowed by the if an unfavorable judgment should be
Court allowed to present evidence ex parte. A justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be
partial decision was made. different in kind from what is prayed for in the
R filed a motion to set aside partial complaint.
decision by default and admit that their In sum, while petitioners were allowed
Answer with counterclaim: averred that the to present evidence ex parte under Section 3
erroneous filing of said answer was due to an of Rule 9, they were not excused from
honest mistake of the typist and inadvertence establishing their claims for damages by the
of its counsel.Motion was denied. required quantum of proof under Section 1 of
Respondent bank appealed the Partial Rule 133. Stated differently, any advantage
Decision to the CA which ruled in favor of R. they may have gained from the ex parte
presentation of evidence does not lower the
ISSUE: Whether CA erred in failing to apply the degree of proof required. Clearly then, there is
provisions of Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 no incompatibility between the two rules.
Rules of Civil Procedure and in applying
instead the rule on preponderance of evidence VLASON ENTERPRISES v. CA
under Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of (310 SCRA 26, 1999)
Court.
NO. The Petition has no merit.
Ps argue that the quantum of evidence
for judgments flowing from a default order
under Section 3 of Rule 9 is not the same as
that provided for in Section 1 of Rule 133.
Between the two rules, there is no
incompatibility that would preclude the
application of either one of them. To begin
with, Section 3 of Rule 9 governs the
procedure which the trial court is directed to
take when a defendant fails to file an answer.
According to this provision, the court "shall
(1) Where the counsel failed object on the The RTC ruled that in favor of
ground of lack of notice to a Motion Duraproof and ordered Vlason to pay P3 Million
addressed to a former counsel, and was worth of damages. Duraproof and the other
granted by the trial court 30 days to file his companies entered into a compromise
opposition to it, the circumstances clearly agreement, except Vlason.
justify a departure from the literal application Duraproof moved for the execution of
of the notice of hearing rule. judgment. The Motion was granted and a Writ
of Execution was issued.
(2) The issuance of an order of default is a Vlason Enterprises filed a Motion for
condition sine qua non in order that a Reconsideration addressed to Duraproof’s
judgment by default be clothed with validity. counsel, Atty. Concepcion, on the ground that
Furthermore, it is a legal impossibility it was allegedly not impleaded as a defendant,
to declare a party-defendant to be in default served summons or declared in default, and
before it was validly served summons. hence Duraproof may not present evidence
against it in default. Duraproof opposed the
Motion, arguing that it was a mere scrap of
FACTS: Seizure proceedings were held over the paper due to its defective notice of hearing.
cargo of Omega’s vessel, M/V Star Ace, while it Despite this Motion, the auction sale
was docked in the PPA compound at La Union. was conducted. The trial court ordered the
La Union was hit by 3 typhoons, which deputy sheriffs to cease and desist from
damaged the vessel. Because of this, Omega implementing the Writ of Execution and from
entered into a salvage agreement with levying on the personal property of the
Duraproof Services to secure and repair the defendants. The order was unheeded.
vessel for $1 million and fifty percent (50%) of Duraproof filed with the CA a Petition
the cargo after all expenses, cost and taxes. for Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify the
The District Collector of Customs lifted cease and desist orders of the trial court. CA
the warrant of seizure, but the Customs issued a TRO against the RTC order. Vlason
Commissioner declined to issue a clearance; received from a notice to pay Duraproof P3
instead, he forfeited the vessel and its cargo. million. Not having any knowledge of the CA
This prompted Duraproof to enforce its case to which it was not impleaded, Vlason
preferred salvors lien by filing with the RTC a filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss.
petition for certiorari, prohibition and The sheriff levied Vlason Enterprises’
mandamus assailing the actions of the properties, so the latter filed a special
Customs Officers, and impleading PPA and Med appearance before the CA, praying for the
Line Philippines, Inc. as respondents. lifting of the levy on its properties or,
Duraproof amended its petition to alternatively, for a temporary restraining order
include the former District Collector, and other against their auction until its Motion for
companies involved, including Vlason Reconsideration was resolved by the trial
Enterprises. In both Petitions, Duraproof failed court.
to allege anything pertaining to Vlason RTC reversed its Decision, finding that
Enterprises, or any prayer for relief against it. there never was issued an order of default
Summonses for the amended Petition against Vlason Enterprises, so there could not
were served. Duraproof moved several times have been any valid default-judgment
to declare the respondents it impleaded in rendered against it.
default. Out of those respondents, only the The CA allowed Duraproof to implead
following were declared by RTC in default: the Vlason in the CA case. Thereafter, the CA
Singkong Trading Co., Commissioner Mison, rendered the assailed Decision, stating that
M/V Star Ace and Omega. Duraproof filed an the decision of the RTC had become final and
ex parte Motion to present evidence against executory, never having been disputed or
the defaulting respondents, which was appealed to a higher court, and that the lower
granted. court may now take appropriate action on the
Duraproof alleged that Vlason urgent ex-parte motion for issuance of a writ of
Enterprises, through constant intimidation and execution. The CA clarified that there was no
harassment in utilizing the PPA Management of need to serve summons anew on Vlason
La Union, caused Duraproof to incur heavy Enterprises, since it had been served summons
overhead expenses, causing irreparable when the second amended petition was filed;
damages of about P3 Million worth of ship and that Vlason Enterprisess Motion for
tackles, rigs, and appurtenances including Reconsideration was defective and void,
radar antennas and apparatuses, which were because it contained no notice of hearing
taken surreptitiously by persons working for addressed to the counsel of Duraproof in
Vlason Enterprises or its agents.
violation of Rule 16, Section 4 of the Rules of FACTS: The Dizons filed a case for a sum of
Court. money against the Ramnanis’ failure to remit
Vlason Enterprises filed (1) a Motion for the value of jewelry that the latter received
Clarification, praying for a declaration that the from the former on a consignment basis.
trial court Decision against it was not valid; Josephine Ramnani submitted an
and (2) a partial Motion for Reconsideration, answer with counterclaim stating the fact that
seeking to set aside the assailed Decision it was the Dizons who owed them money.
insofar as the latter affected it. Pre-Trial was set but the Ramnanis did
The RTC issued a Writ of Possession by not show up hence they were declared in
virtue of which Duraproof took possession of default. The court later received the evidence
Vlason’s barge Lawin. of the Dizons ex parte due to the Ramnanis
Hence, this Petition. status of default. Lower court ruled in favor of
the Dizons.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC default judgment was Ramnanis stated a meritorious defense
binding on Vlason as an excuse to set aside their order of default.
NO. Vlason was never declared in They stated that the obligation was entered
default. The trial court denied Motion of into by Mrs Dizon without Mr. Dizon’s consent
Duraproof to declare all the defendants in ergo void. It was, however, denied.
default, but it never acted on the latters A Petition for Certiorari was filed with
subsequent Motion to declare Vlason the CA imputing error despite their meritorious
Enterprises likewise.The RTC declared in defense. Denied since the CA ruled that
default only Atty. Eddie Tamondong, as well as certiorari is a remedy only for errors of
the other defendants Hon. Salvador Mison, M/V jurisdiction, not errors in judgement.
Star Ace, Omega Sea Transport Co., Inc. of
Panama and Sinkong Trading Co., but despite ISSUE: Whether the order of default against
due notice to them, they failed to appear. Even the petitioners should be set aside
Duraproof cannot pinpoint which trial court NO. Remedies for a party held in
order held petitioner in default. default:
More important, the trial court 1.) Anytime after discovery thereof & before
admitted that it never declared petitioner in judgement: FAME +meritorious defense
default. There could not have been any valid 2.) If judgment already rendered upon
default-judgment rendered against it. The discovery but before it becomes final and
issuance of an order of default is a condition executory: motion for new trial.
sine qua non in order that a judgment by 3.) After it becomes final and executory:
default be clothed with validity. petition for relief under Section 2 of rule 8
Furthermore, it is a legal impossibility 4.) Appeal from judgment as contrary to the
to declare a party-defendant to be in default evidence or to the law.
before it was validly served summons. In the case at bar, the petitioner failed
to prove that they were unable to attend the
Order of default pre-trial hearing due to FAME.
When some answer and others default
Extent of relief to be awarded
Where not allowed Remedies from judgment by default
Before finally
Procedure after order of default Motion for reconsideration or new trial
-render judgment Appeal
-hearing ex parte
MARTINEZ v. REPUBLIC
Remedy from order of default (2006)
Motion to set aside
A defendant party declared in default
RAMNANI v. CA retains the right to appeal from the
(221 SCRA 582, 1993) judgment by default on the ground that
the plaintiff failed to prove the material
A satisfactory showing by the movant of allegations of the complaint, or that the
the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or decision is contrary to law, even without
excusable neglect is an indispensable need of the prior filing of a motion to set
requirement for the setting aside of a aside the order of default.
judgment of default or order of default.
FACTS: Jose R. Martinez filed a petition for the decision is contrary to law, even without need
registration in his name of three (3) parcels of of the prior filing of a motion to set aside the
land he allegedly purchased from his uncle. He order of default.
claimed continuous possession of the lots; that By 1997, the doctrinal rule concerning
the lots had remained unencumbered; and that the remedies of a party declared in default had
they became private property through evolved into a fairly comprehensive
prescription pursuant to Section 48(b) of CA restatement as offered in Lina v. Court of
No. 141. Appeals:
The OSG was furnished a copy of the a) The defendant in default may, at
petition. The trial court set the case for hearing any time after discovery thereof and
and directed the publication of the before judgment, file a motion, under
corresponding Notice of Hearing in the Official oath, to set aside the order of default
Gazette. The OSG, in behalf of the Republic of on the ground that his failure to
the Philippines, opposed the petition. answer was due to fraud, accident,
Despite the opposition filed by the mistake or excusable neglect, and that
OSG, the RTC issued an order of general he has meritorious defenses; (Sec 3,
default, even against the Republic of the Rule 18)
Philippines. This ensued when during the b) If the judgment has already been
hearing of even date, no party appeared rendered when the defendant
before the Court to oppose Martinez’s petition. discovered the default, but before the
RTC received Martinez’s oral and same has become final and executory,
documentary evidence and concluded that he may file a motion for new trial
Martinez and his predecessors-in-interest had under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;
been for over 100 years in possession c) If the defendant discovered the
characterized as continuous, open, public, and default after the judgment has become
in the concept of an owner. The RTC thus final and executory, he may file a
decreed the registration of the three (3) lots in petition for relief under Section 2 of
the name of Martinez. Rule 38; and
From this Decision, the OSG filed a d) He may also appeal from the
Notice of Appeal, which was approved by the judgment rendered against him as
RTC. However, after the records had been contrary to the evidence or to the law,
transmitted to the CA, the RTC received a even if no petition to set aside the
letter from the LRA stating that only two of the order of default has been presented by
lots sought to be registered were referred to in him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)
the Notice of Hearing published in the Official The fourth remedy, that of appeal, is anchored
Gazette, and that the third lot was omitted due on Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1964 Rules. Yet
to the lack of an approved survey plan for that even after that provision’s deletion under the
property. LRA manifested that this lot should 1997 Rules, the Court did not hesitate to
not have been adjudicated to Martinez for lack expressly rely again on the Lina doctrine,
of jurisdiction. This letter was referred by the including the pronouncement that a defaulted
RTC to the Court of Appeals for appropriate defendant may appeal from the judgment
action. rendered against him.
The CA reversed the RTC and ordered Yet even if it were to assume the
the dismissal of the petition for registration. It doubtful proposition that this contested right of
found the evidence presented by Martinez as appeal finds no anchor in the 1997 Rules, the
insufficient to support the registration of the doctrine still exists, applying the principle of
subject lots. stare decisis. Jurisprudence applying the 1997
Martinez directly assailed the CA Rules has continued to acknowledge the Lina
decision before the SC, claiming that the OSG doctrine which embodies this right to appeal as
no longer had personality to oppose the among the remedies of a defendant, and no
petition, or appeal its allowance by the RTC, argument in this petition persuades the Court
following the order of general default. to rule otherwise.
ISSUE: Whether an order of general default NOTE: The RTC appears to have issued the
bars the Republic from interposing an appeal order of general default simply on the premise
from the trial court’s subsequent decision that no oppositor appeared before it on the
NO. We hold that a defendant party hearing. But it cannot be denied that the OSG
declared in default retains the right to appeal had already duly filed its Opposition to
from the judgment by default on the ground Martinez’s petition long before the said
that the plaintiff failed to prove the material hearing. It was improper to declare the
allegations of the complaint, or that the oppositor in default simply because he failed to
appear on the day set for the initial healing. counter that such non-service was due to
Strangely, the OSG did not challenge the petitioner's fault in not furnishing the trial
propriety of the default order. It would thus be court with its "forwarding address" after its
improper for the Court to make a counsel withdrew his appearance. This Court is
pronouncement on the validity of the default not in a position to settle this issue of fact — as
order since the same has not been put into indeed the Supreme Court does not decide
issue. such questions.
But it is not disputed that after receipt
of the decision, petitioner filed a motion for
After finality reconsideration. Thus, whatever defects — if
Petition for relief from judgment indeed there was any — may have been
Annulment of judgment committed by the trial court in failing to give
constructive notice of its erroneous default
Is certiorari a proper remedy? order was cured by petitioner's voluntary filing
of the said motion for reconsideration. Upon
JAO v. CA denial thereof, petitioner should have
(251 SCRA 391, 1995) appealed. But instead of doing that, it opted
for the wrong remedy of certior
The proper remedy of a party wrongly
declared in default is either to appeal from
the judgment by default or to file a petition INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY v. CHED
for relief from judgment, and not certiorari. (356 SCRA 367, 2001)
using the word “university.” IAU through its to set aside the order of default under Section
chairman and founder appealed to the Order of 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, if the default
CHED averring that the school will encounter was discovered before judgment could be
difficulties and suffer damages if it will not be rendered; (2) a motion for new trial under
allowed to use the word “university” in its Section 1(a) of Rule 37, if the default was
school name. discovered after judgment but while appeal is
Prior to the court decision granting the still available; (3) a petition for relief under
Cease and Desist Order filed by CHED, Rule 38, if judgment has become final and
petitioner IAU filed Complaint for Damages executory; and (4) an appeal from the
before the Court. Respondent CHED then filed judgment under Section 1, Rule 41, even if no
a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss petition to set aside the order of default has
the Complaint for damages. Petitioner IAU filed been resorted to.
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The TC These remedies, however, are
Judge denied respondent CHED’s motion to available only to a defendant who has been
dismiss and issued a writ of preliminary validly declared in default. Such defendant
injunction in favor of IAU. irreparably loses the right to participate in the
The TC Judge also directed CHED to file its trial. On the other hand, a defendant
Answer to the decision within 15 days from the improvidently declared in default may retain
receipt of the Court Order – which was August and exercise such right after the order of
15, 1998. On September 22, 1998, petitioner default and the subsequent judgment by
IAU filed Motion to Declare Respondent in default are annulled, and the case remanded
Default pursuant to Section 9, Section 3 of to the court of origin. The former is limited to
RROC. On the same day, respondent CHED the remedy set forth in section 2, paragraph 3
filed for Motion for Extension of Time to File its of Rule 41 of the pre 1997 Rules of Court, and
Answer until November 18, 1998, but CHED can therefore contest only the judgment by
submitted its Answer however on November default on the designated ground that it is
17, 1998. On November 11, petitioner IAU filed contrary to evidence or law. The latter,
its Opposition to the Motion for Extension of however, has the following options: to resort
Time to File respondent’s Answer. Trial Judge to this same remedy; to interpose a petition for
rendered its Decision and granted petitioner’s certiorari seeking the nullification of the order
motion to declare respondent CHED in Default. of default, even before the promulgation of a
Respondent CHED consequently filed judgment by default; or in the event that
with the CA a petition for certiorari arguing judgment has been rendered, to have such
that the RTC had committed grave abuse of order and judgment declared void.
discretion in declaring respondent CHED in In prohibiting appeals from
default despite its Filing of an Answer. interlocutory orders, the law does not
The CA ruled that respondent CHED intend to accord executory force to such
should NOT have been declared in default, writs, particularly when the effect would
because its answer had been filed long before be to cause irreparable damage. If in the
the RTC ruled upon petitioner’s Motion to course of trial, a judge proceeds without
declare respondent in default. Thus, or in excess of jurisdiction, this rule
respondent had not obstinately refused to file prohibiting an appeal does not leave the
an Answer; on the contrary, its failure to do so aggrieved party without any remedy. In a
on time was due to excusable negligence. (an case like this, a special civil action of
express exception to being declared in default certiorari is the plain, speedy and
under Rule 9, SecTion 3). adequate remedy. (as such as what CHED
Thus, IAU instituted case at bar to appeal the had done).
CA decision. Herein respondent CHED
controverts the judgment by default, not
ISSUE: Whether respondent CHED should be on the ground that it is unsubstantiated
declared in default despite its filing of an by evidence or that it is contrary to law,
answer, and whether its failure to file answer but on the ground that it is intrinsically
on time be excused on ground that it was due void for having been rendered pursuant
to excusable negligence to a patently invalid order of default.
NO. The SC agreed with respondent
CHED that certiorari was the only plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, because the default Order had
improvidently been issued.
The remedies available to a defendant
declared in default are as follows: (1) a motion