UPDATES /SALIENT FEATURES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. Payment of docket and

other lawful fees :

A. Payment of docket fees is not jurisdictional. The rule on no docket fee, no jurisdiction may be relaxed by the Court if there are weighty and compelling reasons. (La Salette College vs. Pilotin, G.R. No. 149227, December 11, 2003)

B. The payment of docket fees is mandatory. This does not, however, mean that when the docket fee is not paid, the Court has no other recourse than to dismiss the case.

Dismissal is an option but this should not be resorted to when there are circumstances demanding the relaxation of the rule (Pulido vs. CA, 527 SCRA 249, July 2007)

C. It is not mandatory for a court to dismiss an appeal when appellate docket fee is not paid. Dismissal is discretionary depending upon the circumstances surrounding the appeal (Government of the Kingdom of Belgium vs. CA, 551 SCRA 223, April 15, 2008)

D. Summary of the Rule on Docket fees :

d.1. if docket fees are not paid, the action of the Court is either : a.) dismiss the complaint without prejudice; or b.) allow the plaintiff to pay the docket fee within a reasonable time before the lapse of the prescriptive period.

E. Remedies if the Court orders dismissal of action : 1. Motion for Reconsideration 2. If MR is denied, the plaintiffs remedy is neither appeal nor certiorari but to refile the complaint and pay the docket fees.

F. For compulsory counterclaim Per A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, September 21, 2004- suspending payment of filing fees for compulsory counterclaims. Clarified by OCA suspension remains. Circular No. 096-09-

2. Neypes Doctrine- fresh 15

day period rule.

A. Only upon denial of MR or MNT (Motion for New Trial) B. Purpose C. The Fresh 15 day period rule does not refer to the period within which to appeal from the Order denying the MR or MNT but to the period within which to appeal from the Judgment itself because an Order denying MR or MNT is not appealable.

D. Neypes doctrine applied in Special proceedings but the period to appeal is 30 days from notice of the denial of MR or MNT (Heirs of H. Zayco, et al. vs. Atty. Jesus V. Hinlo, Jr., G.R. No. 170243, April 16, 2008)

3. Dismissal under Sec. 3, Rule 17

Dismissal without qualification on the ground of failure to prosecute under Sec. 3, Rule 17, amounts to an adjudication on the merits. The Order of dismissal does not, however, become final and executory, when copy thereof not properly served on the adverse party. Therefore, res judicata cannot attach (Sps. Ernesto and Vicenta Topacio vs. BF Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157644, November 17, 2010)

4. Certification of Non-

Forum Shopping
a. If the plaintiff is a corporation : As a rule, only a corporate officer duly authorized by the Board of Directors can sign (A.M. No. 1569905, 2007) Exceptions given in the case of Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. vs BIR Commissioner, G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008) a.1. Chairman of Board of Directors a.2. President of the Corporation a.3. General (Industrial Acting) Manager a.4. Personnel Officer a.5. Employment Specialist in labor cases

 b. The Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping is mandatory/obligatory, but is not jurisdictional (Elsa Medado vs. Heirs of the late Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012).

5. Amendments to Rules 41,

45, 58 and 65
A. Former rule in Rule 41- no appeal may be taken from an Order denying a Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration- deleted from Rule 41 and taken in relation to Neypes Doctrine. B. Neypes Doctrine or fresh 15 day period rule applied in Rule 42 (from RTC to CA) and Rule 45 (Appeals by Certiorari to SC). Therefore also applies in criminal cases, Rule 42 and 45 being likewise availed of in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion temporal down.

C. Rule 45 Amendment : the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and the petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency. Observation : Re nature of a preliminary injunction

D. Rule 58, Preliminary Injunction d.1. The Trial Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan or Court of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court, board, officer or quasijudicial agency shall decide the main case or petition within 6 months from issuance of the writ.

E. Rule 65
e.1. The amendment removed the Supreme Court from the enumeration of courts where the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus may be filed. Observation : Gives the impression that no Petition for Certiorari can be filed with the Supreme Court.

e.2. Sec. 7- the public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within 10 days from the filing of a Petition for Certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a TRO or a writ of Preliminary Injunction or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge. Observation : The provision needs further amendment to avoid injustice to the lower court.