Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Devesa v. Arbes, G.R. No. 4891, 23 March 1909 ITC, the plantiff should have filed accion reinvindicatoria.
- Crispin Arbes was the administrator of the estate of Nevertheless, the CFI had subject matter jurisdiction because
Gregoria Arbes. it is not the caption of the pleadings that matters but the body
- Sofia Devesa prayed before the CFI for an injunction (in relation to Rule 10, Sec.5).
restraining Crispin Arbes from continuing in possession
and enjoying the fruits of the land in question until and a. Totality Rule
unless he obtained a final judgment in a proper action
declaring these lands to be the property of the estate of section 2, SC Admin Circular 09-94 (March 14, 1994)
Gregoria Arbes The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in
- Sofia Devesa alleged that Crispin Arbes had unlawfully determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8)
taken possession of some of her rice lands and coconut and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
groves 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely
- property in question was assigned to Sofia‘s husband, incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action.
Vicente Sola pursuant to an extra judicial partition However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main
contract executed in the year 1887 by the heirs of cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
Gregoria Arbes (first wife of Sofia‘s husband). Ever such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
since, Sofia and her husband continued in the quiet, of the court.
peaceable, and exclusive possession thereof.
- TC granted the WPI prayed for In determining filing fees: the value of subject matter
- After trial, TC ruled in favor of Sofia Devesa, granting a involved or the amount of demand, inclusive of interest,
final injunction perpetually restraining Crispin Arbes penalties, surcharges, damages of whatever kind, attorney‘s
from continuing in possession of the land in question fees, litigation expenses and costs (Rule 141, Sec.8)
HELD:
- the remedy by injunction sought by the plaintiff and In determining jurisdictional amount: if the interest on the
allowed the trial court was not the proper remedy for the loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of
cause of action set out in the pleadings and established action, not merely incidental thereto, and already
by the evidence determinable at the time of the filing of the Complaint, it must
o TC should have required an amendment of the be included in the determination of which court has the
complaint by striking out the prayer for an jurisdiction over the case. (Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No.
injunction and substituting therefor a prayer for 174414, March 14, 2008)
a judgment for possession of the land
described in the complaint
Soliven v. Fastforms Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 139031, 18 for hospitalization, 28k for the food during the
October 2004 wake, 50k exemplary damages, 60k indemnity,
- May 1994: Antoinette Soliven filed with RTC Makati a (TOTAL 929k in damages) and 25k AF.
complaint for sum of money with damages against - Mendoza countered that she exercised the diligence of
Fastforms a good father of the family over her employee,
o Fastforms thru its president, Dr. Escobar, Macasasa
obtained a 170k loan from Soliven which the - The complaint for damages against Macasasa was
former failed to pay dismissed. Eventually, the complaint against Mendoza
- Fastforms countered that it did not authorize Escobar to was also dismissed
obtain a loan from Soliven o Neither Macasasa nor Mendoza was negligent
- RTC ruled in favor of Soliven, ordering Fastforms to pay: o Soriano crossed thru a small gap in the islands
o P195,155.00 as actual damages; instead of using the overpass
o P200,000.00 as moral damages; - 2004: CA reversed the TC and ordered Mendoza to pay
o P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and damages to the heirs of Soriano
o P100,000.00 as attorneys fees, plus the costs o While Soriano was negligent, Macasasa was
of suit. also negligent for speeding
- In its MR, Fastforms questioned for the first time the - Before the SC, Mendoza questioned the jurisdiction of
RTC‘s jurisdiction alleging that the principal amount the RTC
sought by petitioner was only 195,155 which is below o According to Mendoza, in determining the
200k; hence, the complaint should have been filed with jurisdictional amount, the moral damages, lost
the MTC pursuant to RA 7691 income, exemplary damages and attorney‘s
o Soliven countered that Fastforms can no longer fees should not be considered. If these were
question the RTC‘s jurisdiction because it excluded, the total amount would only be 179k
already sought affirmative relief from the RTC which is below the jurisdictional amount of the
and actively participated during trial RTC
- 1995: RTC denied MR and asserted its jurisdiction HELD: CA affirmed. RTC had jurisdiction over the case
because the totality of the claim exceeded 200k - Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are
o RTC also ruled that Fastforms was already primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of
estopped from questioning its jurisdiction a sum of money for the damages for tortuous acts
- CA reversed RTC: jurisdiction is with MTC because the o ITC, total damages = 929k + 25k AF
claim was below 200k and it may question jurisdiction - [Mendoza also failed to prove that she exercised the
anytime even for the first time on appeal diligence of a good father of the family as employer]
HELD: CA reversed. Jurisdiction should be with the MTC
BUT Fastforms is estopped from questioning jurisdiction
- RA 7691 (April 1994): where the amount of the demand
in civil cases instituted in Metro Manila exceeds b. Incapable of pecuniary estimation principal
P200,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of relief sought may not be estimated in terms of money; the
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and basic issue of the action is something other than the right to
costs, the exclusive original jurisdiction is lodged with recover a sum of money, or the money claim is merely
the RTC incidental to the principal relief
- BUT under section 2, SC Admin Circular 09-94
(March 14, 1994), the exclusion of the term "damages
of whatever kind" applies to cases where the damages Russel v. Vestil, 304 S 738 (1999)
are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main - petitioners and private respondents were co-heirs of an
cause of action undivided 57k sqm lot in Liloan, Cebu
- ITC, the main cause of action is for the recovery of sum - 1990: petitioners discovered a document denominated
of money amounting to only P195,155.00. The damages "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
being claimed by petitioner are merely the CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL
consequences of this main cause of action. Hence, they AGREEMENT OF PARTITION‖ 1990 private
are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. respondents divided the property among themselves to
Hence, jurisdiction is with the MTC the exclusion of petitioners
- BUT respondent actively participated in all stages of the o Petitioners claimed that the document was
proceedings before the trial court and invoked its perjurious
authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, - 1994: petitioners filed a complaint against private
respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court‘s respondents, denominated "DECLARATION OF
jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has NULLITY AND PARTITION‖ in the RTC Mandaue
been rendered. - Private respondents filed MTD otg of lack of jurisd over
the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the
subject land is P5,000.00 which falls under the
Mendoza v. Soriano, G.R. No. 164012, 8 June 2007 jurisdiction of MTC Liloan
- 1997: Sonny Soriano died after being hit by an FX - Petitioners opposed the MTD saying that the RTC has
driven by Lomer Macasasa and owned by Flordeliza jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is
Mendoza. A case for RIRI homicide was filed against incapable of pecuniary estimation
Macasasa and Mendoza by the heirs of Soriano. - Judge Vestil of RTC Mandaue granted the MTD
o They also asked for 200k moral damages, HELD: RTC has jurisdiction
500k lost income, 22,250 for funeral services, In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
45k for the burial lot, 15,150 for interment, 8k which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the o rescission or reformation of contracts
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the o interpretation of a contractual stipulation
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable - ITC, the cause of action is for specific performance. The
of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the re-acquisition of the lots by Bautista is but incidental to
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would and an offshoot of the exercise of the right by the latter
depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the to redeem said lots pursuant to CA 141
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum - ALSO, respondents are estopped from questioning the
of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a jurisdiction of the RTC because they have actively
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has participated in the proceeding. The MTD was belatedly
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the filed (9 years after)
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by the RTC Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-II Builders, Inc., G.R. No.
192649, 22 June 2011
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: - R-II Builders filed MR questioning the ruling that the
- specific performance RTC of Manila had no jurisdiction over the case
- support o R-II Builders sought the nullification of the
- foreclosure of mortgage Deed of Assignment and Conveyance
- annulment of judgment transferring the Asset Pool in favor of petitioner
- actions questioning the validity of mortgage Home Guaranty Corporation
- annulment of a deed of sale or conveyance and to o After R-II Builders filed the case with RTC
recover the price paid Manila, it was raffled to Branch 24 which was a
- rescission (counterpart of specific performance) special commercial court. Branch 24 found that
the case did not involve an intra-corporate
ITC, the subject matter = annulment of a document dispute. Hence, the case was re-raffled to
denominated as ―DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF Branch 22
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION." While o Branch 22 held that the case was a real action
the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this and that R-II Builders evaded the payment of
is just incidental to the main action the proper docket fees computed on the basis
of the assessed value of the realties in the
Note however that a person who is not a party to the Asset Pool
contract cannot seek its annulment. Hence, this case is - In this MR, R-II Builders argued that the subject matter
ultimately one for partition or recovery of possession of the case was incapable of pecuniary estimation
and should have been filed with the MTC. HELD: MR denied
- The case is a real action because the complaint did not
Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, 10 March just seek the nullification of the Deed but also prayed for
2014 the transfer of possession of and/or control of the
- 1983: Alfredo Bautista inherited a free-patent land properties in the Asset Pool.
- 1991: Bautista eventually subdivided the lot and sold to - R-II Builders in its opposition to HGC‘s motion to dismiss
respondents. admitted that the case is a real action as it affects title to
- 1994: Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase against or possession of real property or an interest therein
respondents before the RTC, anchoring his cause of - if the petition is solely for annulment or rescission of the
action on CA 141 (Public Land Act) which says that one contract, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. If the
who acquired a free-patent land may repurchase the complaint also asks for the transfer of title or possession
same within 5years of the subject property to the adverse party, then it is
- 2013: Respondents filed MTD alleging that the already a real action
complaint failed to state the value of the property sought
to be recovered The SC here harmonized De Leon (prayed only for
o The total selling price is only 16,500 which is annulment even though it may eventually lead to
below the jurisdictional requirement of the RTC recovery of possession) and Serrano (prayed for both
- RTC granted the MTD annulment and recovery of possession). Most SC cases
- Before the SC, petitioners argue that an action for follow the doctrine in Home Guaranty, except the
repurchase is not a real action, but one incapable of Olivarez case.
pecuniary estimation, it being founded on privity of
contract between the parties. According to petitioners,
what they seek is the enforcement of their right to c. Real actions
repurchase the subject property under CA 141
- Respondents argue that Bautista‘s action is one Sebe v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 174497, 12 October 2009
involving title to or possession of real property or any - 1999: Spouses Sebe filed with the RTC of Dipolog a
interests therein and is therefore covered by sec.33 of complaint against defendants Veronico Sevilla and
BP 129 Technology and Livelihood Resources Center for
HELD: Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and Recovery
- The complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent of Possession of two lots, which had a total assessed
is a civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation value of 9,910 plus damages.
- Civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: o Sebes claimed that they owned the subject lots
o specific perf but, in 1991, Sevilla caused the Sebes to sign
o support (requiring det of civil status) documents entitled affidavits of quitclaim which
o annulment of decisions of lower courts the latter signed (they were illiterate).
o Using the affidavits of quitclaim, defendant o The sale/MOA be declared null and void,
Sevilla applied for and obtained free patent rescinded and with no force and effect
titles covering the two lots on September 23, o Defendants be ordered to vacate the property
1991. He then mortgaged the lots to defendant o Defendants be ordered to pay: 10k monthly
Technology and Livelihood Resource Center from the time the property was transferred to
for P869,555.00 defendants until it is reconveyed to petitioners,
o 1992: Sevilla declared the lots for tax purposes as reasonable compensation for its continued
under his name. Then, using force and unlawful use and occupation by the defendants
intimidation, he seized possession of the lots o 200k moral damages
from their tenants and harvested coconut and o 200k exemplary damages
palay worth P20,000.00 o 250k AF
- Sebes asked the RTC: - Piqueros filed MTD otg that:
o to declare void the affidavits of quitclaim and o the principal action of the petitioners for the
the deeds of confirmation of sale rescission of the MOA, and the recovery of the
o to declare the Sebes as lawful owners of the possession of the property is a real action and
two lots not a personal one; hence, it should have been
o restore possession to them brought in the RTC Paranaque, where the
o to order defendant Sevilla to pay them 140k in property subject matter of the action was
lost produce from 1991 to the date of the filing located, and not in the RTC of Malolos
of the complaint, 30k moral damages, 100k AF, - Decenas insisted that their action for damages and
30k litigation expenses, and such amount of attorneys fees is a personal action and not a real action;
exemplary damages as the RTC might fix hence, it may be filed in the RTC of Bulacan where they
- 2006: RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction reside. They averred that while their second cause of
over the subject matter considering that the ultimate action for the recovery of the possession of the property
relief that the Sebes sought was the reconveyance of is a real action, the same may, nevertheless, be joined
title and possession over two lots that had a total with the rest of their causes of action for damages,
assessed value of less than 20k conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
- The Sebes filed an MR saying that the RTC mistakenly Court
classified their action as one involving title to or - Piqueros replied that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
possession of real property when, in fact, it was a case Court applies only when one or more of multiple causes
for the annulment of documents and titles. Hence, of action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first
incapable of pecuniary estimation level courts, and the other or others are within the
- RTC denied the MR exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue lies
HELD: DISMISS. RTC has no jurisdiction therein
- An action involving title to real property means that the - RTC granted the MTD
plaintiff‘s cause of action is based on claim that he owns HELD: Petition DENIED
such property or that he has the legal rights to have - The action of the petitioners for the rescission of the
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition MOA on account of the respondent‘s breach thereof and
of the same. the latter‘s failure to return the premises subject of the
- Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or complaint to the petitioners, and the respondent‘s
not defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their eviction therefrom is a real action. As such, the action
property by making them sign documents of conveyance should have been filed in the proper court where the
rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their property is located, namely, in Paranaque
debt to him. The action is, therefore, about ascertaining
which of these parties is the lawful owner of the subject Olivarez Realty Corp. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 196251, 9 July
lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the 2014
assessed value of such lots. - Benjamin Castillo owned a parcel of land that was also
o the total assessed value of the two lots is being claimed by the Philippine Tourism Authority.
9,910. Hence, it is below the jurisdictional - 2000: Castillo and Olivarez entered into a contract of
requirement of the RTC conditional sale over the property where the latter will
purchase the property for P19M. Downpayment of P5M
Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, was to be paid within 9 months while the balance was to
31 March 2005 be paid in 30 equal monthly installments beginning in
- 1997: Spouses Decena and spouses Piquero executed the month that the parties would receive a decision
a MOA in which the former sold property (house and lot voiding the Philippine Tourism Authority‘s title to the
in Paranaque) to the latter for 940k payable in 6 monthly property.
installments via PDCs. The property was transferred to o Olivarez Realty Corporation shall file the action
the Piqueros. There was a condition in the MOA that if 2 against the Philippine Tourism Authority ―with
of the PDCs would be dishonored by the drawee bank, the full assistance of Castillo.‖
the Piqueros would be obliged to reconvey the property o Should the action against the Philippine
to the Decenas Tourism Authority be denied, Castillo agreed to
- The Decenas filed a complaint for annulment of the reimburse all the amounts paid by Olivarez
sale/MOA, recovery of possession and damages with Realty Corporation.
RTC Malolos (where they were residing). They declared o As to the ―legitimate tenants‖ occupying the
in the complaint that the property was worth P6.9M. property, Olivarez Realty Corporation
They asked that: undertook to pay them ―disturbance
compensation,‖ while Castillo undertook to
clear the land of the tenants within six months the Olivarez case, the type of action depends on the right
from the signing of the deed of conditional sale. asserted. More SC cases follow the doctrine of the Home
Should Castillo fail to clear the land within six Guaranty case.
months, Olivarez Realty Corporation may
suspend its monthly down payment until the
tenants vacate the property. d. Declaratory relief incapable of pecuniary
o Olivarez Realty Corporation may immediately estimation! Therefore, RTC only
occupy the property upon signing of the deed section 1, Rule 63
of conditional sale. Should the contract be Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other
cancelled, Olivarez Realty Corporation agreed written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
to return the property‘s possession to Castillo executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
and forfeit all the improvements governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
- 2004: Castillo filed a complaint for rescission of the thereof bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court
contract and damages against Olivarez Realty with the to determine any question of construction or validity arising,
RTC Tanauan and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
o Substantial breach of contract: Olivarez paid An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to
only 2.5M and did not fulfill its other obligations real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate
under the contract ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be
o The contract was prepared solely by Olivarez brought under this Rule
and was not adequately explained to Castillo in
Tagalog
- Olivarez argued that Castillo availed himself of the Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303, 17 September 2009
irreconcilable reliefs of reformation of instrument and - Petitioners filed before the RTC their Complaint for
rescission of contract. Thus, the case should be Reinvindicacion, Quieting of Title, and Damages
dismissed outright o Alleged that they own a parcel of land situated
- RTC issued a summary judgment and ruled that in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan which they
Olivarez breached the contract of conditional sale. The inherited from Anastacio Danao who died
contract was rescinded and Olivarez was ordered to pay intestate
damages o During the lifetime of Anastacio, he had
- CA affirmed in toto the RTC‘s decision allowed Consuelo Pauig and Joaquin Boncad
- Before the SC, Olivarez argued: that the trial court had to build on and occupy the southern portion of
no jurisdiction to decide the case as Castillo failed to the subject property with the agreement that
pay the correct docket fees. Castillo should have paid the spouses would vacate the said land at any
docket fees based on the property‘s fair market value time that Anastacio and his heirs might need it
since Castillo‘s complaint is a real action o Respondents, who were also claiming
- Castillo‘s response: he prayed for rescission of contract ownership of the property, refused to vacate
in his complaint. This action is incapable of pecuniary despite petitioners‘ demand.
estimation, and the Clerk of Court properly computed o During conciliation proceedings, respondents
the docket fees based on this prayer asserted that they owned the subject property
HELD: and presented documents supporting their
- The contract in this case is a contract to sell. Hence, claim of ownership
upon its cancellation, the parties shall stand as if the o Petitioners claimed that respondents‘
obligation to sell never existed. documents were falsified
- TC acquired jurisdiction over the case because - RTC issued an Order dismissing petitioners‘ Complaint
Castillo paid the correct docket fees on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
o Although the action involves real property, ―it is o subject property had a value of less than
the nature of the action as one for rescission of P20,000.00; hence, petitioners‘ action to
contract which is controlling.‖ Consequently, recover the same was outside the jurisdiction
the docket fees to be paid shall be for actions of the RTC
incapable of pecuniary estimation, regardless if o assessed value of subject property per Tax
the claimant may eventually recover the real Declaration was P410.00
property. - Petitioners filed MR, arguing that their main cause of
o Although we discussed that there is no action was quieting of title
rescission of contract to speak of in contracts o Sec. 1, Rule 63 states that an action to quiet
of conditional sale, we hold that an action to title falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC
cancel a contract to sell, similar to an action for - RTC denied MR: an action to quiet title is a real action
rescission of contract of sale, is an action o differentiated between the first and the second
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Like any paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63:
action incapable of pecuniary estimation, an 1. first paragraph refers to an action for
action to cancel a contract to sell ―demands an declaratory relief, which should be brought
inquiry into other factors‖ aside from the before the RTC
amount of money to be awarded to the 2. second paragraph, however, refers to a
claimant. different set of remedies, which includes an
action to quiet title to real property must be
This case is in conflict with the Home Guaranty case. read in relation to BP 129 (as amended by RA
While in the Home Guaranty case, the type of action 7691) which vests the MTC with jurisdiction
(personal or real) depends on the reliefs prayed for, in over real actions, where the assessed value of
the real property involved does not exceed collateral for another loan obligation he
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila and P20,000.00 in secured from the Bank of Commerce
all other places - Spouses filed a Complaint seeking for the Quieting of
HELD: RTC did not commit GAD; correctly dismissed Title and Nullification of the SPA and the deed of real
complaint estate mortgage with the prayer for damages against
nd
- The three remedies in 2 paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 63 Santos and the Bank of Commerce before the MTC of
are considered similar to declaratory relief because they Mandaue City
also result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the - MTC dismissed complaint for lack of merit; declared that
litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the while it was proven that the signatures of the spouses
judgment into effect San Pablo on the loan documents were forged, the
nd
- emphasis on ―may‖ in the 2 paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule Bank of Commerce was nevertheless in good faith.
63 (hence merely permissive and indicates a mere - spouses San Pablo appealed the adverse decision to
possibility, an opportunity or an option); must be read the RTC which, in turn, affirmed the unfavorable ruling
together with BP 129 as amended by RA 7691 which of the MTC
uses the word ―shall‖ (hence mandatory for MTC to - CA reversed the decisions of the MTC and RTC
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil - Before the SC, the Bank of Commerce, for the first time
actions which involve title to or possession of real in more than 10 years of pendency of the instant case,
property where the assessed value does not exceed raises the issue of jurisdiction
P20,000.00) o since the subject matter of the case is
- Furthermore, an action for declaratory relief incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
presupposes that there has been no actual breach of complaint for quieting of title and annulment of
the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder the SPA, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage,
o purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to and foreclosure proceedings should have been
secure an authoritative statement of the rights originally filed with the RTC and not with the
and obligations of the parties under a statute, MTC
deed, or contract for their guidance in the o The decision rendered by the MTC is therefore
enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, void from the very beginning
and not to settle issues arising from an alleged HELD: Petition dismissed; CA affirmed
breach thereof - case filed by the spouses San Pablo before the MTC is
o Where the law or contract has already been actually an action for quieting of title, a real action, the
contravened prior to the filing of an action for jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed
declaratory relief, the courts can no longer value of the property
assume jurisdiction over the action. - The assessed value of the subject property located in
o ITC: Complaint for quieting of title was filed Mandaue City, as alleged in the complaint, is P4,900.00,
after petitioners already demanded and which aptly falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC
respondents refused to vacate the subject - Even granting for the sake of argument that the MTC did
property. not have jurisdiction over the case, the Bank of
- Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had Commerce is nevertheless estopped from repudiating
already been deprived of the possession of their the authority of the court to try and decide the case after
property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an having actively participated in the proceedings before it
accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case and invoking its jurisdiction by seeking an affirmative
for declaratory relief relief therefrom.
- Petitioner‘s Complaint contained sufficient allegations
for an accion reivindicatoria. Jurisdiction should have
been with the MTC Sabitsana v. Muertegui, G.R. No. 181359, 5 August 2013
- 1981: Alberto Garcia executed an unnotarized Deed of
Treating the pleading in this case as one for recovery of Sale in favor of Juanito Muertegui over a 7,500 sqm
possession instead of quieting of title as stated in its title parcel of unregistered land in Biliran, Leyte del Norte.
is in line with Rule 63, Sec.6 Juanito‘s brother and father (Domingo Jr. and Sr.) took
actual possession of the lot
Bank of Commerce v. Spouses San Pablo, G.R. No. - 1991: Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegui family lawyer
167848, 27 April 2007 petitioner Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr., through a
- Melencio Santos obtained a P1M loan from Direct notarized DOAS
Funders. As security, Santos mortgaged a property o sale was registered with the RoD
owned by Spouses San Pablo (who knowingly signed as - When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied for
co-mortgagors of Santos to help/accommodate him registration and coverage of the lot under the Public
since they were close friends/business associates) Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141
o Spouses San Pablo executed a SPA in favor of - Atty. Sabitsana, in a letter to the CENRO/PENRO office
Santos authorizing him to mortgage in Naval, Biliran, opposed the application, claiming that
- Direct Funders informed the spouses that Santos failed he was the true owner of the lot. He asked that the
to pay. Upon confrontation, Santos promised to pay application for registration be held in abeyance until the
- Upon learning that Santos‘ debt with Direct Funders had issue of conflicting ownership has been resolved
been fully settled, the spouses demanded from Santos - Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact Domingo Jr., filed a
to turn over to them the TCT of the subject property but case for quieting of title and preliminary injunction. They
the latter failed to do so despite repeated demands prayed, among others, that the Sabitsana DOAS be
o Upon inquiry with the RoD, they discovered declared null and void and of no effect; that petitioners
that the property was again used by Santos as be ordered to respect and recognize Juanito‘s title over
the lot; and that moral and exemplary damages, - Before the SC, Sabitsana argued that the RTC did not
attorney‘s fees, and litigation expenses be awarded to have jurisdiction over the case because the assessed
him value of the lot was only P1,230.00
- The evidence and testimonies of the respondent‘s - Muertegui countered that a suit for quieting of title is one
witnesses during trial reveal that petitioner Atty. whose subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
Sabitsana was the Muertegui family‘s lawyer at the time estimation, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the
Garcia sold the lot to Juanito, and that as such, he was RTC.
consulted by the family before the sale was executed; HELD: Petition denied. The RTC had jurisdiction over the
that after the sale to Juanito, Domingo Sr. entered into case
actual, public, adverse and continuous possession of - an action for quieting of title may be instituted in the
the lot RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real
- RTC ruled in favor of Muertegui; declaring null property in dispute (Rule 63)
Sabitsana‘s DOAS and ruling that he was a buyer in bad
faith
- CA affirmed the trial court‘s Decision in toto
ACTION PRESCRIPTION NATURE PRAYER BASIS OF RIGHT JURISDICTION
Accion Titled owner: In personam Possession Ownership RTC or MTC
reinvindicatoria imprescriptible depending on value
(recovery of EX: estoppel
possession based (misled you to
on ownership) believe that I don‘t
own it; or if I slept
on my rights)
Untitled: based
on Art. 1137
GF: 10y
BF: 30y
Accion publiciana 10y (regardless of In personam Possession Real right of RTC or MTC
(recovery of GF/BF) based possession depending on value
possession based on Art.555(4), NCC
on real right of
possession)
Reconveyance 10y Quasi in rem Title Ownership RTC or MTC
(Recovery of title There is title but depending on value
based on real right not with the owner
of ownership) Art.1456: Trustee
only! obli from
law
FE/UD 1 year In personam Possession Prior actual MTC
physical
possession for
forcible entry (even
without real right of
possession); notice
to vacate for
unlawful detainer
Partition Real Imprescriptible Quasi in rem RTC or MTC
Action? (under Rules on depending on value
Co-Ownership)
REM Foreclosure 10y (prescription of Quasi in rem Possession Lien RTC or MTC
Real Action? contracts) depending on value
Land titling Imprescriptible In rem RTC or MTC
depending on value
Quieting of Title Imprescriptible if in Quasi-in rem Quieting of Title Ownership RTC or MTC
Real action? possession depending on value
- Bank of (Chacon v. CA!!!)
Commerce:
Real Action Otherwise, 10
- Sabitsana: years (based on
Rule 63 constructive trust)
Action in rem v. Action in personam v. Action quasi in rem (as to the binding effect and enforceability of the case)
Action in personam: binding on a specific person, enforceable against the person (judgment binds parties to the case only because
court has jurisdiction over the parties)
Action in rem: binding on a specific property, enforceable against the property (court has jurisdiction over the property)
Action quasi in rem: binding on a person, enforceable with respect to a specific property (judgment binds parties even if one is
abroad)
Syntax
Case Relief Nature Remarks
Right Prayer
Russel v Vestil 1. Annulment Owner (real right) Possession SC: Personal / Should have been
(1999) 2. Repartition incapable of filed with the MTC!
Where first filed: pecuniary
RTC (dismissed) estimation (a person who is
SC: RTC has (Annulment) not a party to the
jurisdiction Sir: Real action contract cannot
(Partition) seek its annulment)
section 1, Rule 42
Petition for Review From the Regional Trial Courts to the Rule 4
Court of Appeals Venue of Actions
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to
desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved,
Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said or a portion thereof, is situated.
court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and
depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city
the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)
fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions
reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of
expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals the plaintiff. (2[b]a)
may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any
which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the
be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (n) plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the
court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
3. Regional Trial Court property or any portion thereof is situated or found. (2[c]a)
section 1, Rule 40 (Appeal From Municipal Trial Courts to Section 4. When Rule not applicable. — This Rule shall not
the Regional Trial Courts) apply.
Where to appeal. — An appeal from a judgment or final order (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial provides otherwise; or
Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
pertains. The title of the case shall remain as it was in the before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
court of origin, but the party appealing the case shall be thereof. (3a, 5a)
further referred to as the appellant and the adverse party as
the appellee. (a) article 360, RPC
Article 360. Persons responsible. - Any person who shall
section 22, BP 129 publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any
Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan responsible for the same.
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or
Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the publication, shall be responsible for the defamations
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author
and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required thereof.
by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
review to the Court of Appeals which may give it due course simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of
only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court the province or city where the libelous article is printed and
has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a first published or where any of the offended parties actually
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
be reviewed. Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is
a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time property of the adverse party attached as security for the
of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city following cases:
or province where the libelous article is printed and first (f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not
published, and in case such public officer does not hold office found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of served by publication. (1a)
First Instance of the province or city where he held office at
the time of the commission of the offense or where the Section 4, A.M. No 03-03-03-SC
libelous article is printed and first published and in case one The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over
of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall cases arising within their respective territorial jurisdiction with
be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the
where he actually resides at the time of the commission of respective provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth
the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in the Office of
published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated
in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice Special Commercial Court
versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the
criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall Sec. 4, Rule 65;
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed
provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment,
cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or
which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or
this law. not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written the denial of said motion.
defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates
by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
such action may be instituted in accordance with the jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
provisions of this article. Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition
1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
19, 1965). No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted
except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding
section 1(c), Rule 16 fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998;
Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)
the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to
dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: Note: There can be multiple residences for purposes of
(c) That venue is improperly laid; remedial law
Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the section 5(b), Rule 6
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or
special proceedings. affirmative.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the (a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential
redress of a wrong, (1a, R2) to his cause or causes of action.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations
specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n) in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud,
person for an act or omission punishable by law. (n) statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy,
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2) and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall (5a)
not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases
not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory A. General
character and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a) Heirs of Nala v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, 13 June 2008
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is - Cabansag bought a 50sqm property from spouses
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If Gomez. Said property is part of a 400-square meter lot
an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the registered in the name of the Gomez spouses.
action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the
- Cabansag eventually received a demand letter from - Nala‘s acts in protecting her rights over the property find
Nala asking for the payment of rentals until he leaves further solid ground in the fact that the property has
the premises as said property is owned by Nala already been ordered reconveyed to her and her heirs
- Nala alleged that said property is part of an 800-square
meter property owned by her late husband, Eulogio Far East Marble v. CA 225 S 249 (1993)
Duyan, which was subsequently divided into two parts. - BPI filed a complaint v. Far East Marble alleging that on
The 400- sqm property was conveyed to spouses it extended to Far East several loans and that despite
Gomez in a fictitious deed of sale, with the agreement repeated requests and demands for payment thereof,
that it will be merely held by them in trust for Duyan‘s Far East had failed and refused to pay. Thus, BPI
children. sought foreclosure of the chattel mortgage securing
- Nala filed a case against spouses Gomez for such indebtedness.
reconveyance of real property and cancellation of TCT - Far East admitted the genuineness and due execution
with damages. This was dismissed of the promissory notes involved in the case, but denied
- Cabansag filed a case for damages against Nala BPI‘s allegation that repeated demands for payment
- QC RTC ruled in favor of Cabansag were made by BPI on it. Far East then raised the
- CA affirmed the RTC affirmative defenses of prescription and lack of cause of
- Before the SC, petitioners argue that their predecessor- action, arguing that since the promissory notes matured
in-interest had no knowledge that the property was sold in 1976 while BPI filed its action to foreclose the chattel
by spouses Gomez to respondent when the demand mortgage only in 1987 (or more than 10 years from the
letters were sent. What she was aware of was the fact time its cause of action accrued), and there being no
that spouses Gomez were managing the rentals on the demand for payment which would interrupt the period of
property by virtue of the implied trust created between prescription for instituting said action, BPI‘s claims have
them and Eulogio Duyan. When spouses Gomez failed prescribed
to remit the rentals and claimed ownership of the - TC ruled in favor of Far East and dismissed the
property, it was then that Nala decided to procure the complaint for lack of cause of action and otg of
services of legal counsel to protect their right over the prescription
property. Also, the RTC decision on the reconveyance - CA set aside TC ruling and remanded the case for
case filed by Nala against spouses Gomez was already further proceeding
reversed by the CA HELD:
HELD: Petition GRANTED. CA Decision REVERSED. - Seemingly, the TC believed that the interruption of the
Case for damages DISMISSED. prescriptive period to institute an action is an ULTIMATE
- claim for damages is anchored on Art.19, NCC (abuse FACT which had to be expressly and indispensably
of rights). In order to be liable for damages under the pleaded by BPI in its complaint, and that failure to so
abuse of rights principle, the following requisites must allege such circumstance is fatal to BPI‘s cause of
concur: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) action
which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent - a ―complaint is a concise statement of the ultimate facts
of prejudicing or injuring another constituting the plaintiff‘s cause or causes of action.‖
- In the present case, there is nothing on record which will o No need for evidentiary facts
prove that Nala and her counsel, Atty. Del Prado, acted - Basically, a cause of action consists of three elements:
in bad faith or malice in sending the demand letters to 1. the legal right of the plaintiff
respondent. In the first place, there was ground for 2. correlative obligation of the defendant
Nala‘s actions since she believed that the property was 3. act or omission of the defendant in violation of said
owned by her husband Eulogio Duyan and that legal right
respondent was illegally occupying the same. She had - ITC:
no knowledge that spouses Gomez violated the trust 1. For valuable consideration, BPI granted several
imposed on them by Eulogio and surreptitiously sold a loans, evidenced by promissory notes, and
portion of the property to respondent. It was only after extended credit facilities in the form of trust
respondent filed the case for damages against Nala that receipts to Far East
she learned of such sale. 2. Said promissory notes and trust receipts had
- Absent any evidence presented by respondent, bad matured
faith or malice could not be attributed to petitioner since 3. despite repeated requests and demands for
Nala was only trying to protect their interests over the payment thereof, Far East had failed and refused
property. to pay.
- There can be damage without injury in those instances - Clearly then, the general allegation of BPI that ―despite
in which the loss or harm was not the result of a repeated requests and demands for payment, Far East
violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the has failed to pay‖ is sufficient to establish BPI‘s cause of
consequences must be borne by the injured person action.
alone; the law affords no remedy for damages resulting - Besides, prescription is not a cause of action; it is a
from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or defense which, having been raised, should, as correctly
wrong. These situations are often called damnum ruled by the CA be supported by competent evidence.
absque injuria. But even as Far East raised the defense of prescription,
- Nala was acting well within her rights when she BPI countered to the effect that the prescriptive period
instructed Atty. Del Prado to send the demand letters. was interrupted and renewed by written extrajudicial
She had to take all the necessary legal steps to enforce demands for payment and acknowledgment by Far East
her legal/equitable rights over the property occupied by of the debt
respondent. One who makes use of his own legal right - A complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient notice of
does no injury. the cause of action even though the allegation may be
vague or indefinite, for in such case, the recourse of the
defendant would be to file a motion for a bill of sections 2, 6, RSC1 based on contract
particulars. It is indeed the better rule that, pleadings, as SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern the procedure in
well as remedial laws, should be liberally construed so actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
their respective claims so as to avoid possible denial of Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the
substantial justice due to legal technicalities claim does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs
Advantage of Affirmative Defense vis-à-vis MTD: A party
may amend a pleading as a matter of right before the other SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.—Plaintiff may join in a single
party files a responsive pleading or answer citing affirmative statement of claim one or more separate small claims against
defenses (thus, if the defendant filed an answer with a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive
affirmative defense instead of MTD, the plaintiff can no longer of interest and costs, does not exceed P200,000.00.
amend his pleading).
IA, B (last par.), RSP2 based on tort
Laches/Estoppel Prescription Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary
Based on reliance (one party Mere lapse of time procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
is misled by the other to Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
believe otherwise) Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction
According to Sir Lumba, in Far East Marble v. CA, by
saying that a complaint is only a concise statement of the A. Civil Cases
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff‘s cause of action, the (1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
court, in effect is saying that it is not necessary to state the irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
legal basis. The legal basis can be the subject of a bill of sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
particulars. awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00).
Question of Fact Question of Law Questions of (2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where
Fact and Law the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed
Can be answered Can be answered Need knowledge one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or two
only by knowing only by knowing of both facts and hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) in Metro Manila,
the facts (no need the law (no need law to answer the exclusive of interest and costs
to know the law) to know the facts) question
B. Criminal Cases
B. Joinder (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
section 5, Rule 2 (3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one (4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
subject to the following conditions: (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
the rules on joinder of parties arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or involving damage to property through criminal
actions governed by special rules; negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may
be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs‘
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with another
the venue lies therein; and cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary
be the test of jurisdiction. (5a) procedure.
Note:
The transferor of interest is either a nominal or representative party based on Rule 3, Sec. 19. But according to jurisprudence, the
transferor may be a real party in interest.
section 2-4, 11, 13-15, 18-19, 21-22, Rule 3 Section 21.Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to
Section 2.Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court,
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the
in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless party is one who has no money or property sufficient and
otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party and his family.
in interest.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
Section 3.Representatives as parties. — Where the action is docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent,
trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or unless the court otherwise provides.
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An
agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging court should determine after hearing that the party declared
to the principal. as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
Section 4.Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not
or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue
or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other
Section 11.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither sanctions as the court may impose.
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of
an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the Section 22.Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action
court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor
with separately. General who may be heard in person or a representative duly
designated by him.
Section 12.Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many section 5(b), Rule 6
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as Kinds of Pleadings
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be Section 5.Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect affirmative.
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the (a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant
intervene to protect his individual interest. essential to his cause or causes of action.
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which,
Section 13.Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the
uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud,
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy,
and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Section 15.Entity without juridical personality as defendant.
— When two or more persons not organized as an entity with section 5, Rule 65
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be Section 5.Respondents and costs in certain cases. — When
sued under the name by which they are generally or the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge,
commonly known. court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of respondent or respondents with such public respondent or
the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining
the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such
Section 18.Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their
becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or
motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs
against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall
his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. be against the private respondents only, and not against the
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
Section 19.Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or
interest, the action may be continued by or against the respondents.
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the
the action or joined with the original party. petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in
or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading
therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either surety. — When a judgment is rendered against a party who
party, the public respondents shall be included therein as stands as surety for another, the latter is also bound from the
nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically time that he has notice of the action or proceeding, and an
directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in opportunity at the surety's request to join in the defense.
the proceedings therein
section 17, Rule 57
section 20-21, Corporation Code Preliminary Attachment
Section 20. De facto corporations. - The due incorporation Section 17.Recovery upon the counter-bond. — When the
of any corporation claiming in good faith to be a corporation judgment has become executory, the surety or sureties on
under this Code, and its right to exercise corporate powers, any counter-bond given pursuant to the provisions of this
shall not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to Rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become
which such corporation may be a party. Such inquiry may be charged on such counter-bond and bound to pay the
made by the Solicitor General in a quo warranto proceeding judgment obligee upon demand the amount due under the
judgment, which amount may be recovered from such surety
Section 21. Corporation by estoppel. - All persons who or sureties after notice and summary hearing in the same
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without action.
authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all
debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result Tuzon v. Cloribel-Purugganan, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662, 26
thereof: Provided, however, That when any such ostensible November 2001
corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a - Administrative complaint against Judge Loreto Cloribel-
corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not Purugganan of Tuguegarao RTC for illegal practice of
be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate law, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct,
personality. evident bias and partiality, knowingly rendering unjust
judgment, and willful violations of the Code of Judicial
On who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation Conduct.
as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground - Tuzon filed with the CA petition for certiorari assailing
that there was in fact no corporation. the order of respondent judge denying Tuzon‘s motion
to allow cross-examination of his witness and directed
section 111, Family Code that the case be submitted for resolution.
Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate o CA directed private respondent Raymundo E.
or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without Catral to file comment thereon
the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to o respondent judge filed the comment for
litigate with regard to the same. Raymundo Catral and herself, and affixed her
name and signature on the comment
articles 102-103, RPC o petition dismissed by CA for lack of merit
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, - Tuzon filed the administrative complaint before the SC
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - In default deploring the act of filing a comment in the civil case as
of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, illegal private practice of law
and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable o Tuzon also averred that respondent judge
for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases antedated her decision in the Civil Case
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or HELD: Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan guilty of illegal practice of
special police regulation shall have been committed by them law SUSPENDED 3 MONTHS
or their employees. - a judge must maintain a detached attitude from the case
and shall not waste his time by taking an active part in a
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of proceeding that relates to official actuations in a case
goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from o He is merely a nominal party and has no
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value personal interest or personality therein
thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Pedro Fragrante, G.R. No.
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall L-770, 27 April 1948
furthermore have followed the directions which such - Pedro Flagrante‘s application for a certificate of public
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with convenience to install, maintain and operate an ice plant
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability was approved by the Public Service Commission
shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or through Deputy Commissioner Fidel Ibañez
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's o certificate of public convenience was issued to
employees. the Intestate Estate of the deceased Pedro
Fragante, authorizing said Intestate Estate
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The through its Special or Judicial Administrator,
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article appointed by the proper court of competent
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and jurisdiction, to maintain and operate an ice
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies plant and to sell the ice produced from said
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or plant
employees in the discharge of their duties. - Limjoco contends that it was error on the part of the
commission to allow the substitution of the legal
section 46, Rule 39 representative of the estate of Pedro O. Fragante for the
Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments latter as party applicant in the case then pending before
Section 46.When principal bound by judgment against the commission, and in subsequently granting to said
estate the certificate applied for, which is said to be in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 S 29 (1968), supra
contravention of law. RE: Party in interest
HELD: PSC decision affirmed. Petition dismissed - although the action, originally, was exclusively against
- The commission declared in its decision, in view of the the Sibonghanoy spouses, the Surety became a quasi-
evidence before it, that Flagrante‘s estate was party therein since July 31, 1948 when it filed a counter-
financially able to maintain and operate the ice plant bond for the dissolution of the writ of attachment issued
o The right of Fragante to prosecute said by the court of origin. Since then, it acquired certain
application to its final conclusion was one rights and assumed specific obligations in connection
which by its nature did not lapse through his with the pending case
death. Hence, it constitutes a part of the assets
of his estate, for such a right was property
despite the possibility that in the end the Premium Marble v. CA, 264 S 11 (1996)
commission might have denied the application - Premium Marble filed an action for damages against
- Rule 88, section 2, provides that the executor or International Corporate Bank (represented by Atty.
administrator may bring or defend actions, among other Dumadag)
cases, for the protection of the property or rights of the o Ayala Investment and Development
deceased which survive, and it says that such actions Corporation issued three checks payable to
may be brought or defended "in the right of the Premium Marble
deceased" o Former officers of Premium Marble without
- Rule 82, section 1, paragraph (a), mentions among the authority deposited the checks to the current
duties of the executor or administrator, the making of an account of Intervest Merchant Finance (conduit
inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, credits, and of one of the former officers) with International
estate of the deceased which shall come to his Corporate Bank
possession or knowledge, or to the possession of any o Although the checks were clearly payable to
other person for him Premium Marble only, defendant bank
- unless otherwise expressly provided by law, any action accepted the checks to be deposited to the
affecting the property or rights of a deceased person current account of Intervest and thereafter
which may be brought by or against him if he were alive, presented the same for collection from the
may likewise be instituted and prosecuted by or against drawee bank which subsequently cleared the
the administrator, unless the action is for recovery of same thus allowing Intervest to make use of
money, debt or interest thereon, or unless, by its very the funds to the prejudice of Premium Marble
nature, it cannot survive, because death extinguishes - International Corporate Bank alleged, inter alia, that
the right Premium has no capacity/personality/authority to sue in
- Manresa considered as immovable and movable things this instance and the complaint should, therefore, be
rights which are not material dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
- the estate of a decedent is in law regarded as a person - Printline Corporation, a sister company of Premium also
o the estate of a deceased person is also filed an action for damages against International
considered as having legal personality Corporate Bank
independent of the heirs. - Premium Marble (this time represented by Siguion
- Under the regime of the Old Civil Code the heirs of a Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office) filed MTD
deceased person were considered in contemplation of otg that the filing of the case was without authority from
law as the continuation of his personality its duly constituted board of directors as shown by the
o the heirs succeed to all the rights and excerpt of the minutes of the Premium‘s board of
obligations of the decedent by the mere fact of directors‘ meeting
his death - Premium thru Atty. Dumadag contended that the
- BUT in the New Civil Code and the Code of Civil persons who signed the board resolution are not
Procedure, it is the estate or the mass of property, rights directors of the corporation (already dismissed for
and assets left by the decedent, instead of the heirs various irregularities and fraudulent acts)
directly, that becomes vested and charged with his o Siguion Reyna Law Office is the lawyer of the
rights and obligations which survive after his demise. persons who signed the board resolution
o among the artificial persons recognized by law (Belen and Nograles) and not of Premium
figures "a collection of property to which the Marble
law attributes the capacity of having rights and o Articles of Incorporation of Premium shows that
duties" Belen, Nograles and Reyes are not majority
o the estate of a decedent should be regarded as stockholders.
an artificial person. It is the creation of law for - Siguion Reyna Law Firm as counsel of Premium in a
the purpose of enabling a disposition of the rejoinder, asserted that it is the general information
assets to be properly made sheet filed with the SEC that is the best evidence that
- under the Bill of Rights, the term ―person‖ includes would show who are the stockholders of a corporation
artificial and juridical persons they also have the and not the Articles of Incorporation since the latter does
constitutional guarantee against being deprived of not keep track of the many changes that take place after
property without due process of law, or the immunity new stockholders subscribe to corporate shares of
from unreasonable searches and seizures stocks.
- Flagrante‘s citizenship also extends to his estate (by - International Corporate Bank adopted in toto Premium
legal fiction) Marble‘s (represented by Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and
Ongsiako Law Office) MTD
- LC ruled that the officers represented by Atty. Dumadag present ordinary civil case but in a special
do not have the legal capacity to sue for and in behalf of proceeding for that purpose
Premium Marble because of a pending intra-corporate o ground of lack of cause of action may be raised
dispute before the SEC (RE: who are the current in a MTD any time
officers, those in the GI sheet or those newly elected?) - Before the SC, petitioners argued:
- CA affirmed LC‘s dismissal of the cases o Filed out of time
HELD: Petition DENIED o even if there is non-joinder and misjoinder of
- in the absence of any board resolution from its board of parties or that the suit is not brought in the
directors giving the authority to act for and in behalf of name of the real party in interest, the remedy is
the corporation, the present action must necessarily fail. not outright dismissal of the complaint, but its
The power of the corporation to sue and be sued in any amendment to include the real parties in
court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises interest
its corporate powers. Thus, the issue of authority and o petitioners sued in their own right because they
the invalidity of plaintiff-appellant‘s subscription which is have actual and substantial interest in the
still pending, is a matter that is also addressed, subject matter of the action as heirs or co-
considering the premises, to the sound judgment of the owners, declaration as heirs in a special
SEC proceeding is not necessary
HELD: Petition GRANTED
Premium Marble v. CA implies that lack of standing = - As the rule now stands, the failure to invoke lack of
failure to state cause of action. Sir Lumba thinks that this is cause of action in MTD or in the answer would result in
wrong because standing is different from cause of action. The its waiver because failure to state a cause of action may
correct doctrine should be: Lack of standing = lack of legal be cured under Section 5, Rule 10 (Amendment to
capacity to sue (which is still a ground for dismissal). conform to or authorize presentation of evidence)
- ITC: MTD was filed out of time and the failure to state
Pacaña-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., G.R. No. cause of action was thus waived
168979, 2 December 2013 o They should have at least raised this in their
- Rebecca Pacaña-Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña filed answer. Petitioners claimed that the CA found
this case against Rovila Inc., Earl, Lilia, Dalla and that this was indeed raised in their answer BUT
Marisa for accounting and damages the SC‘s examination of the records shows that
- Petitioners Rebecca Pacaña-Contreras and Rosalie the CA had no basis in its finding that the
Pacaña (authorized by Lourdes, their mother, through a respondents alleged the grounds as affirmative
sworn declaration and special power of attorney) defenses in their answer.
claimed that their family operated the ―Rovila Water o it was only during the pre-trial stage that they
Supply‖ from their family residence and were engaged in verbally manifested and invited the attention of
the distribution of water to customers in Cebu City. the lower court on their grounds for dismissal
- Lilia was a former trusted employee until she claimed - To justify the belated filing of the motion to dismiss, the
ownership over the family business through a CA reasoned out that the ground for dismissal of ―lack of
corporation named ―Rovila Water Supply, Inc.‖ (Rovila cause of action‖ may be raised at any time during the
Inc.) which was registered with the SEC with the proceedings, pursuant to Dabuco v. CA. This is an
respondents as the majority stockholders. erroneous interpretation and application of Dabuco
- respondents filed MTD otg that the RTC had no o in Dabuco, the grounds for dismissal were
jurisdiction over an intra-corporate dispute raised as affirmative defenses in the answer
- RTC denied the motion which is in stark contrast to the present case.
- Lourdes died during pendency of the case o in Dabuco, the Court distinguished between the
- During pre-trial, respondents manifested to the RTC that dismissal of the complaint for ―failure to state a
a substitution of the parties was necessary in light of the cause of action‖ and ―lack of cause of action.‖
deaths of Lourdes and Luciano. Failure to state a cause of Lack of cause of action
o in the pre-trial order, one of the submitted action
issues was whether the case must be refers to the insufficiency of refers to a situation where the
dismissed the pleading evidence does not prove the
- Respondents filed another MTD otg that petitioners are cause of action alleged in the
not the real parties in interest to prosecute the case. pleading (questions of fact are
- RTC denied MTD anew REMEDY: MTD under Rule involved, therefore, courts
o Filed out of time as it was filed only after the 16 hesitate to declare a plaintiff
conclusion of the pre-trial conference as lacking in cause of action.
o rule on substitution of parties only applies when Such declaration is postponed
the parties to the case die, which is not what until the insufficiency of cause
happened in the present case is apparent from a
- CA ruled that RTC committed GAD preponderance of evidence)
o petitioners filed the complaint and the amended
complaint as attorneys-in-fact of their parents. REMEDY:
As such, they are not the real parties in interest 1. require the pleading to
and cannot bring an action in their own names; state a cause of action,
thus, the complaint should be dismissed by timely objection to its
o petitioners should first be declared as heirs deficiency; or
before they can be considered as the real 2. at the trial, to file a
parties in interest. This cannot be done in the demurrer to evidence, if
such motion is warranted - ITC: proper remedy = implead the indispensable parties.
To do so would serve proper administration of justice
- ITC, the Court cannot uphold the dismissal of the and prevent further delay and multiplicity of suits
present case based on the grounds invoked by the - the deceased Pacañas can no longer be included in the
respondents which they have waived for failure to complaint. Upon their death, however, their ownership
invoke them within the period prescribed by the Rules. and rights over their properties were transmitted to their
The Court cannot also dismiss the case based on ―lack heirs, including petitioners.
of cause of action‖ as this would require at least a - HENCE court ordered all heirs of the spouses to be
preponderance of evidence which is yet to be impleaded
appreciated by the trial court. Therefore, the RTC did
not commit GAD in issuing the assailed orders denying Summary of the arguments of Rebecca Pacaña-
the respondents‘ MTD and MR. Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña acdg. to Sir Lumba
- RE: Real party in interest Standing Behalf Name Ground
Real party in Indispensable party Necessary party for MTD?
interest RPI RPI representative NO
party who stands party in interest one who is not RPI representative representative YES
to be benefited or without whom no indispensable but
injured by the final determination who ought to be
judgment of the can be had of an joined as a party Magallanes v. Palmer Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 205179, 18 July
suit, or the party action if complete relief 2014
entitled to the is to be accorded - Magallanes was a sales agent of Andrews International
avails of the suit. also considered as to those (selling fire extinguishers). He negotiated with 3
real party in interest already parties, prospective buyers who all issued checks payable to
If a suit is not because party or for a complete Andrews. These checks, however, bounced
brought in the stands to be determination or - the President of Andrews returned the bum checks to
name of or benefited or injured settlement of the Magallanes. Desirous of obtaining his accrued
against the real by the judgment of claim subject of commissions, Magallanes signed Sales Invoices
party in interest, a the suit the action covering the fire extinguishers that were intended to be
MTD may be filed sold to the prospective buyers, and he also issued 5
otg that the ISSUE to be also considered checks covering the purchase price of the items
complaints states RESOLVED: WoN real party in o Magallanes‘ checks were dishonored upon
no cause of persons interested interest because presentment to the bank.
action. in such outcome party stands to - Andrews and another corporation, Palmer Asia entered
are actually be benefited or into an agreement whereby all the business of Andrews
ISSUE to be pleaded injured by the was going to be handled by Palmer
RESOLVED: judgment of the - Magallanes was charged with BP 22 by Andrews in a
WoN the parties suit complaint filed before MeTC Branch 62.
presently pleaded - Another criminal case was filed in Branch 67, by
are interested in ISSUE to be EMSAVILL as the counsel of Palmer (also the counsel
the outcome of RESOLVED: of Andrews). This case was entitled Palmer Asia, Inc. v.
the litigation (NOT WoN persons Gerve Magallanes. (The 2 cases have different docket
WoN persons interested in such numbers)
interested in such outcome are - Magallanes filed an Omnibus Motion to Disqualify
outcome are actually pleaded Private Prosecutor and to Strike Out Testimony of Angel
actually pleaded) Palmiery (president of Andrews)
o According to Magallanes since the assets and
- ITC: spouses Pacaña were not impleaded as parties- credits of Andrews were transferred to Palmer,
plaintiffs. They are indispensable parties to the case as the real party in interest in this case is Palmer
the alleged owners of Rovila Water Supply. Without their and not Andrews. Therefore, the criminal case
inclusion as parties, there can be no final determination should have been instituted by Palmer
of the present case. They possess such an interest in - Palmer filed its Opposition to Magallanes‘ motion
the controversy that a final decree would necessarily - MeTC denied the motion filed by Magallanes for lack of
affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed merit. It also acquitted Magallanes, but held him civilly
without their presence. Their interest in the subject liable
matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably - Magallanes filed a Partial Appeal before the RTC
intertwined with that of the other parties. - When the parties were required by the RTC to submit
- Jurisprudence on the procedural consequence of the their respective memoranda, the memorandum for the
inclusion or noninclusion of an indispensable party is complainant was filed by Palmer, and not Andrews.
divided in our jurisdiction. BUT the Court clarified in - RTC held that Magallanes was not civilly liable for the
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al. that value of the checks because the complaining juridical
the failure to implead indispensable parties is a curable entity has not fully established the existence of a debt by
error Mr. Magallanes in its favor
- non-joinder is not a ground to dismiss the suit or annul - Palmer (not Andrews) filed Petition for Review before
the judgment. The rules allow the amendment of the the CA
complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through o Magallanes then filed his Comments to Petition
motion or on order of the court on its own initiative for Review with MTD Due to Finality of
Judgment wherein he alleged that Palmer Asia
has never been a party plaintiff litigant in the - A Partial Project of Partition of the Estate was approved
civil aspect of the Criminal Case by RTC
- CA ruled against Magallanes - Remedios filed an "Urgent Omnibus Motion and Notice
HELD: Petition GRANTED of Termination of the Services of Petitioner's Counsel of
- RTC Decision absolving Magallanes from civil liability Record."
has attained finality, since no appeal was interposed by - Remedios questioned the RTC's Order approving the
the private complainant, Andrews. While Palmer filed a partition and denied the execution of the Deed of Sale in
petition for review before the CA, it is not the real party favor of Gerardo. Also demanded that Siguion Reyna
in interest; it was never a party to the proceedings at the return the amount it received from the partition motion
trial court. eventually withdrawn
- The CA erred in stating that Palmer and Andrews are - Nevertheless, RTC directed Siguion Reyna to reimburse
the same entity. These are two separate and distinct the Estate
entities claiming civil liability against Magallanes. o the sale of inheritance was never made known
Andrews was the payee of the bum checks, and the to the RTC
former employer of Magallanes. It filed the complaint for o the sale cannot comprehend a widow's
B.P. 22 before MeTC Branch 62. Thus when the MeTC allowance because such allowance is
Branch 62 ordered Magallanes to pay the private "personal in nature‖
complainant the corresponding face value of the checks, - Siguion Reyna appealed to the CA
it was referring to Andrews, not Palmer. o argued that it merely acted as representative of
- Palmer, on the other hand, was first mentioned in an Gerardo, Remedios' successor-in-interest,
Entry of Appearance filed by its counsel EMSAVILL when it received the allowance
before MeTC Branch 67 in connection with Palmer Asia, - CA denied Siguion Reyna‘s petition otg that the latter
Inc. v. Gerve Magallanes. Palmer also filed the was not a party in the case before the lower court and
Memorandum required by the RTC. therefore had no standing to question the assailed order
- Although Andrews relinquished control of its business to - Before the SC, Siguion Reyna argued:
Palmer, it was never dissolved and thus remained o while it was not a party in the intestate
existing proceedings, it is nevertheless an "aggrieved
- the real party in interest here is Andrews party" which can file a petition for certiorari.
o the RTC's order of reimbursement violated due
Magallanes doctrine acdg. to Sir Lumba: process
If you have no standing, if you appeal, it is as if there is no o Siguion Reyna received said allowance only in
appeal. favorlof Gerardo as buyer of Remedios'
If you have no standing, if you file a case, it is as if there is no interests pursuant to the Deed of Sale
case filed. HELD:
- GENERAL RULE: the "aggrieved party" referred to in
Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v. Rule 65 is one who was a party to the original
Chionlo-Sia, G.R. No. 181186, February 3, 2016 proceedings that gave rise to the original action for
- Siguion Reyna acted as counsel for Remedios N. certiorari
Rodriguez when she commenced an action for the o a stranger to the litigation would not have the
intestate settlement of the estate of her deceased legal standing to interfere in the orders or
husband before the Lucena RTC decisions of the said court
- During the pendency of the intestate proceedings, - The peculiar facts of this case, however, call for a less
Remedios asked for the payment of widow's allowance stringent application of the rule.
(denied by RTC, but granted by CA) - Siguion Reyna became involved in its own capacity only
- while the case was pending before the CA, Remedios when the RTC ordered it to return the money that it
executed a Deed of Sale of Inheritance wherein she received on behalf of its client
agreed to sell all her rights, interests and participation in o The order of reimbursement was directed to
the estate of Susano J. Rodriguez to a certain Remigio Siguion Reyna in its personal capacity - not in
M. Gerardo its capacity as counsel for either Remedios or
- As a condition subsequent to the sale, executed a Gerardo
special power of attorney authorizing Gerardo to receive o order for reimbursement would typically have
from any person or from any court, any property and to been addressed to the parties of the case; the
receive said property in his own name and for his own counsel's role and duty would be to ensure that
account and to deposit the same at his sole discretion his client complies with the court's order.
for his own account and dispose of the same without o Siguion Reyna never claimed the amount for its
any limitation own account. It only facilitated the transfer of
- Gerardo later on executed a document titled as the amount to Gerardo
"Substitution of Attorney-in-Fact" where he designated - Under the law of agency, an agent is not personally
Siguion Reyna as substitute attorney pursuant to the liable for the obligations of the principal unless he
power of substitution granted to him in the earlier SPA. performs acts outside the scope of his authority or he
Gerardo subsequently executed his own SP A expressly binds himself to be personally liable.
authorizing Siguion Reyna Otherwise, the principal is solely liable.
- Siguion Reyna filed a motion with the RTC for the o ITC Siguion Reyna acted within bounds of its
payment of the allowance the Estate of Deceased authority
Rodriguez remitted to Siguion Reyna 3 checks for this
purpose
B. Necessary and indispensible parties
sections 7-10, Rule 3 Arcelona v. CA, 280 S 20 (1997)
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — - 6 siblings = co-owners of a fishpond. 3 of them are in
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be the US. Those in the PH entered into a lease contract
had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or with a certain Tandoc who then entrusted the lease to
defendants. (7) Farnacio. At the end of the lease contract, Farnacio filed
Section 8. Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who a case for peaceful possession before the RTC asking
is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if that his tenancy in the fishpond be maintained. RTC and
complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, IAC ruled in favor of Farnacio. Before the CA,
or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim petitioners, the siblings who were in the US, filed an
subject of the action. (8a) action for declaration of nullity of judgment because they
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. — were not impleaded as indispensable parties and they
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a were not served summons extraterritorially. The SC held
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his that the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction over the
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the petitioners who are indispensable parties.
court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if Baloloy v. Hular, G.R. No. 157767, 9 September 2004
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. - Hular filed accion reinvindicatoria and accion publiciana
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without alleging that Baloloy erroneously had his land registered
justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim under the latter‘s name. The lower courts granted his
against such party. petitions and declared him the sole owner of said land.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the The SC declared that the lower court made an error in
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment declaring Hular the sole owner because he inherited
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of said land along with his siblings from their parents;
such necessary party. (8a, 9a) hence they are co-owners and his siblings are
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any indispensable parties in the action. Likewise, the
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, Republic of the Philippines was also an indispensable
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall party because Hular sought the nullification of the Free
be stated in the complaint. (10) Patent and OCT. Hular‘s failure to include indispensable
parties is fatal. (Art. 487: co-owner may only file on
art. 487, 1208-1209, NCC behalf of other co-owners if it is for the benefit of all. If
Article 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in the co-owner filed the action claiming that he is the sole
ejectment. (n) owner to the prejudice of other co-owners, the action
must fail.)
Article 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of Note: 487 is for ejectment. But the SC in this case
the obligations to which the preceding article refers the applied 487 to other real actions.
contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be
presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are
creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered Sir Lumba‘s analysis of the 2 above cases involving co-
distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court owners:
governing the multiplicity of suits. (1138a) Arcelona v. CA Baloloy v. Hular
Facts The 3 co-owners who The plaintiff (Hular)
Article 1209. If the division is impossible, the right of the were in the US and failed to include 2
creditors may be prejudiced only by their collective acts, and were supposed to be co—onwers who
the debt can be enforced only by proceeding against all the indispensable parties were necessary
debtors. If one of the latter should be insolvent, the others were not included as parties
shall not be liable for his share. (1139) defendants
Nature of The co-owners are The co-owners are
Summary of parties relationship joint debtors solidary creditors
Indispensable Necessary Permissive Judgment in May be annulled for Judgment in favor
Party Party Party favor of failure to implead of one co-owner is
Absence Not a ground Not a ground Not a ground plaintiff indispensable valid
for dismissal for dismissal for dismissal parties. Otherwise, it
Remedy - Include party Include party would be a violation
(Rule 3, (Rule 3, Sec. of due process
Sec. 7) OR 9) because the other
- If the co-
judgment owner/indispensable
has become parties did not have
final and their day in court
executory, Judgment in The plaintiff may no The co-owners who
have favor of longer file another were not impleaded
judgment defendant action against the may still be allowed
annulled other indispensable to file another
under Rule parties who were not action. Otherwise, it
47 (Arcelona impleaded. The would be a violation
v. CA) principle of res of due process
judicata should apply because the other Cacayuran. The Municipality filed a Motion for Leave to
co-owner/ Intervene with Pleading-in-Intervention praying that it be
necessary parties included as a party-litigant to the instant case. It
did not have their contends that as a contracting party to the Subject
day in court Loans, it is an indispensable party to the action filed by
Note: The SC did not apply this analysis in the Baloloy Cacayuran. Hence, there cannot be any real disposition
case. In said case, Hular‘s co-owners were treated by the SC of the instant suit by reason of its exclusion from the
as indispensable parties. For Sir Lumba, they should only be same. Cacayuran insists that the Municipality is not a
treated as necessary parties. real party-in-interest to the instant case as his complaint
According to Sir Lumba, in the Baloloy case, Hular‘s co- is against the municipal officers in their personal
owners are examples of the first type of necessary parties capacity for their ultra vires acts which are not binding
because they ought to be joined as parties for complete on the Municipality. The SC held that the municipality is
relief to be accorded as to the Baloloy‘s. Otherwise, Hular‘s indeed a RPI but this is not a ground for the dismissal of
co-owners might still file another action against the the case; rather, the remedy is to implead the
Baloloy‘s, which will also be unfair. indispensable parties. Hence, the SC remanded the
case to the RTC
Two types of necessary parties:
1. One who is ought to be joined as a party if complete Note: The Land Bank case involves a personal action
rd
relief is to be accorded as to those already parties (action for annulment of contract of loan). If a 3 party sues
2. One who is ought to be joined as a party for a complete a party to the contract, the other party is an indispensable
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the party because the judgment will necessarily affect him and
action his right to due process will be violated.
C. Class suits
Adlawan v. Adlawan, 479 S 275 (2006) section 12, Rule 3
- Petitioner = illegitimate son of Dominador, owner of
subject parcel of land. He filed an ejectment suit against Section 12.Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
the siblings of Dominador occupying the subject controversy is one of common or general interest to many
property. The MTC dismissed the action but the RTC persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
reversed. The CA reinstated the MTC ruling and held parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
that the heirs of Dominador‘s wife Graciana sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect
(intervenors), are petitioner‘s co-owners. Hence, the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
petitioner cannot eject occupants of the property via an benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
unlawful detainer suit filed in his own name and as sole intervene to protect his individual interest.
owner of the property. SC affirmed CA (Art. 487: co-
owner may only file on behalf of other co-owners if it is Elements:
for the benefit of all. If the co-owner filed the action 1. common or general interest to many persons
claiming that he is the sole owner to the prejudice of all members of the class are indispensable parties
other co-owners, the action must fail.) 2. so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties (relate with indispensable party-defendants
Carandang v. Heirs of de Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, 29 who are joint indivisible debtors)
November 2006 3. sufficiently numerous and representative as to
- Spouses Carandang and spouses De Guzman are the fully protect the interests of all concerned may
stockholders of Mabuhay Broadcasting System. When sue or defend for the benefit of all
they increased the capital stock of the corporation, De
Guzman claimed that he was the only one who paid for OPT-IN JURISDICTION OPT-OUT JURISDICTION
such increase. Hence Quirino De Guzman filed an Member of the class has the Member of the class can be
action to recover from Spouses Carandang. One of the right to intervene but does excluded from said class so
arguments raised by spouses Carandang before the SC not have the right to be as not to be affected by the
is Quirino De Guzman‘s failure to include in the excluded from the class judgment
complaint his wife Milagros de Guzman, who is an The Philippines is an opt-in jurisdiction
indispensable party since some of the checks issued
were bearing her name. The SC ruled that the failure to Three kinds of class suits
include Milagros does not warrant the dismissal of the 1. True –members of the class are indispensable
case because Milagros and Quirino, being spouses parties
whose property were under the CPG regime, should be o only type available in the Philippines; provided
considered co-owners. Art.487 would apply for in the Rules on Environmental Cases
2. Hybrid – members of the class are necessary
Pacaña-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., supra parties
3. Spurious – members of the class are permissive
Land Bank of the Phils. v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, parties
22 April 2015 o Type available in the US
- Municipality of Agoo allegedly entered into irregular
loans with LBP through its officials for the Effect of filing a class suit which is not actually a class
redevelopment of the Plaza. Cacayuran filed a taxpayer suit: DISMISSIBLE
suit assailing the loan agreements, impleading LBP and - According to the SC, the party had no capacity to sue;
the officials. The RTC, CA and SC ruled in favor of hence, he has no cause of action
- Sir Lumba thinks this is wrong because the proper common interest in the subject matter of the
remedy should be a joinder since the individual still controversy; that ITC there is such common interest
stated a cause of action as to himself HELD:
- The necessary elements for the maintenance of a class
Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L- suit are accordingly:
23136, 26 August 1974 (1) that the subject matter of the controversy be one of
- plaintiffs-appellants alleged that they were stockholders common or general interest to many persons, and
in the Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) (2) that such persons be so numerous as to make it
- at a regular meeting, the stockholders passed a impracticable to bring them all to the court.
Resolution providing that the Consolidated Bank & Trust - An action does not become a class suit merely because
Co. be organized with an authorized capital of it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the
P20,000,000.00 and all stockholders of the CMI, who suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending
were legally qualified to become stockholders, would be facts, and the complaint, or other pleading initiating the
entitled to subscribe to the capital stock of the proposed class action should allege the existence of the
Bank ―at par value to the same extent and in the same necessary facts, to wit, the existence of a subject matter
amount as said stockholders‘ respective shareholdings of common interest, and the existence of a class and the
in the CMI," number of persons in the alleged class, in order that the
o the Board of Directors of the CMI, who are the court might be enabled to determine whether the
defendants-appellees in this case, constituted members of the class are so numerous as to make it
themselves as the Interim Board of Organizers impracticable to bring them all before the court, to
who then sent out to the CMI stockholders contrast the number appearing on the record with the
circular letters ―Pre-Incorporation Agreement to number in the class and to determine whether claimants
Subscribe‖ forms regarding the payment of on record adequately represent the class and the
subscription subject matter of general interest
o the CMI stockholders paid the subscriptions - ITC: the complaint explicitly did not state the number of
and accomplished the ―Pre-Incorporation said CMI subscribing stockholders so that the trial court
Agreement to Subscribe‖ could not infer, much less make sure as explicitly
o However, when the Board of Organizers required by the statutory provision, that the parties
caused the execution of the Articles of actually before it were sufficiently numerous and
Incorporation of the proposed Bank, it only representative in order that all interests concerned might
indicated an original subscription of 50,000 be fully protected, and that it was impracticable to bring
shares woth P5,000,000 subscribed and paid such a large number of parties before the court.
only by six of the individuals-defendants-
appellees and excluding the plaintiffs- - There was also no common or general interest ITC:
appellants and the other CMI subscribing The interest that appellants, plaintiffs and intervenors,
stockholders who had already subscribed and the CMI stockholders had in the subject matter of
o plaintiffs-appellants and other CMI subscribing this suit—the portion of stocks offering of the Bank left
stockholders had been denied the right to unsubscribed by CMI stockholders who failed to
subscribe at par value, in proportion to their exercise their right to subscribe on or before January 15,
equities established under their respective 1963—was several, not common or general in the sense
―Pre-Incorporation Agreements to Subscribe‖ to required by the statute. Each one of the appellants and
the capital stock the CMI stockholders had determinable interest; each
one had a right, if any, only to his respective portion of
- Plaintiffs filed this case saying that the AoI was in the stocks. No one of them had any right to, or any
violation of law and in breach of trust and the contractual interest in, the stock to which another was entitled.
agreement as a means to gain control of the Bank
o Prayed that the subscriptions and - Even if it be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the
shareholdings acquired by the individuals- appellants and the CMI stockholders suffered wrongs
defendants-appellees and the persons chosen that had been committed by similar means and even
by them, to the extent that plaintiffs-appellants pursuant to a single plan of the Interim Board of
and the other CMI stockholders had been Organizers of the Bank, the wrong suffered by each of
deprived of their right to subscribe, be annulled them would constitute a wrong separate from those
and transferred to plaintiffs-appellants and suffered by the other stockholders, and those wrongs
other CMI subscribing stockholders. alone would not create that common or general interest
in the subject matter of the controversy as would entitle
- Defendants filed MTD otg that plaintiffs-appellants had any one of them to bring a class suit on behalf of the
no legal standing or capacity to institute the alleged others.
class suit and complaint did not state a sufficient and
valid cause of action - It may be granted that the claims of all the appellants
involved the same question of law. But this alone, as
- TC granted the MTD holding that the class suit could not said above, did not constitute the common interest over
be maintained because of the absence of a showing in the subject matter indispensable in a class suit. The
the complaint that the plaintiffs-appellants were right to purchase or subscribe to the shares of the
sufficiently numerous and representative, and that the proposed Bank, claimed by appellants herein, is
complaint failed to state a cause of action analogous to the right of preemption that stockholders
- Before the SC, plaintiffs-appellants argued that the have when their corporation increases its capital. The
propriety of a class suit should be determined by the right of preemption, it has been said, is personal to each
stockholder
- Re: Cause of action overtime pay and were deprived of holiday pay and
o facts did not even show that appellants allowances
were entitled to subscribe to the capital - Petitioner‘s consultant met with the employees
stock of the proposed Bank, for said right individually and told them to quit their membership with
depended on a condition precedent, which the union under pain of being suspended, dismissed or
was, that they were qualified under the law criminally prosecuted. When they refused, many were
to become stockholders of the Bank, and dismissed without any charges and others were given
there was no direct averment in the memorandum on concocted offenses and violations.
complaint of the facts that qualified them to - The Union on behalf of its members filed a complaint
become stockholders of the Bank before the Labor Arbiter for underpayment of wages,
nonpayment of overtime pay, monthly emergency
allowance, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay
Newsweek v. IAC, 142 S 171 (1986) and 13th month pay
- private respondents, incorporated associations of o The complaint was amended since
sugarcane planters in Negros Occidental claiming to respondent Union manifested through its
have 8,500 members and several individual sugar authorized representative that it was
planters, filed a case in their own behalf and/or as a intended as a class suit.
class suit in behalf of all sugarcane planters in the o 3 other cases were filed by other
province of Negros Occidental, against petitioner and employees as individual complainants
two of petitioners‘ non-resident One case = 2 complainants
correspondents/reporters Fred Bruning and Barry Came Another = 5 complainants
o they allegedly committed libel by publishing Another = Elorde Padilla, Jr., et
―An Island of Fear‖ portraying Negros al., as complainants
Occidental as a place dominated by big - The 4 cases were then consolidated.
landowners or sugarcane planters who not o The Union submitted 2 lists of 136 workers
only exploited the impoverished and with 85 original complainants
underpaid sugarcane workers/laborers, but o 16 complainants later filed motions to
also brutalized and killed them with withdraw with prejudice and 5 were found
impunity. to be non-employees
o prayed that defendants be ordered to pay o 3 other complainants settled with petitioner
them P1M as actual and compensatory and moved to dismiss
damages, and such amounts for moral, o 27 more employees submitted their sworn
exemplary and corrective damages as the statements
court may determine, plus expenses of o TOTAL: 88 complainants (85 – (16+5+3) +
litigation, attorney‘s fees and costs of suit. 27)
- Petitioner filed MTD for failure to state a cause of action - petitioner filed what was purportedly a compromise
which was dismissed by TC agreement between itself and the local chapter of
- Before the SC, petitioner argued that in cases where respondent Union. It appeared to have been signed by
libel is claimed to have been directed at a group, there is representatives of petitioner and the President, Vice
actionable defamation only if the libel can be said to President and another officer of the local chapter of
reach beyond the mere collectivity to do damage to a respondent Union
specific, individual group member‘s reputation. - LA ruled that complainants were illegally dismissed;
HELD: ordered reinstatement and payment of backwages.
- where the defamation is alleged to have been directed NLRC affirmed
at a group or class, it is essential that the statement - petitioner now asks how many individual complainants
must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to are there in these cases: 7 or 85?
every individual in that group or class, or sufficiently o Only 7 names appear in the captions of the
specific so that each individual in the class or group can decision of the Labor Arbiter.
prove that the defamatory statement specifically pointed Sec. 3, Rule 6 clearly provides
to him, so that he can bring the action separately, if that the names and residences of
need be. the parties plaintiff and defendant
- ITC: each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct must be stated in the complaint;
reputation in the community. They do not have a Sec. 1, Rule III, of the New Rules
common or general interest in the subject matter of the of Procedure of respondent NLRC
controversy states that the full names of all the
real parties in interest shall be
stated in the caption of the
Liana’s Supermarket v. National Labor Relations complaint or petition as well as in
Commission, G.R. No. 111014, 257 SCRA 186 (1996) the decision, award or judgment
- Private respondents are members of the National Labor o not class suit because the parties are not
Union and are sales ladies, cooks, packers, cashiers, so numerous that it would be impracticable
electricians, warehousemen, etc., of Liana‘s to bring them all before the court.
Supermarket. They were allegedly underpaid and HELD: NLRC affirmed
required to work more than 8 hours a day without - This is a ―representative suit‖ as distinguished from
―class suit‖
o Class suit: only one right or cause of action duly constituted BoD and officers be elected and
pertaining or belonging in common to many qualified.
persons, not separately or severally to o Also asked for damages
distinct individuals - Respondents claimed by way of defense that petitioners
- ITC: there are multiple rights or causes of action failed (a) to show that it was authorized by SBGSI to file
pertaining separately to several, distinct employees the Complaint on the said corporation‘s behalf; (b) to
- Art. 242 of the Labor Code authorizes a union to file a comply with the requisites for filing a derivative suit and
―representative suit‖ for the benefit of its members in the an action for receivership; and (c) to justify their prayer
interest of avoiding an otherwise cumbersome for injunctive relief since the Complaint may be
procedure of joining all union members in the complaint, considered a nuisance or harassment suit under Section
even if they number by the hundreds 1(b), Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-
Corporate Controversies. Thus, they prayed for the
- the detail that the number and names of the striking dismissal of the Complaint.
members of petitioner union were not specified in the
decision nor in the complaint is of no consequence. - RTC dismissed the complaint otg that it is a derivative
o it was the function precisely of a labor suit
union to carry the representation of its o this case is intended not only for the benefit
members and to file an action for their of the two petitioners. This is apparent from
benefit and behalf without joining them and the caption of the case which reads Nestor
avoid the cumbersome procedure joining Ching, Andrew Wellington and the Subic
each and every member as a separate Bay Golfers and Shareholders, Inc., for and
party. in behalf of all its members as petitioners.
This is also shown in the allegations of the
- A ―representative suit‖ is akin to a ―class suit‖ in the petition.
limited sense that the phrases found in Sec. 12 of Rule o Being a derivative suit, the stockholders
3, ―one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all,‖ and members may bring an action in the
and ―the parties actually before it are sufficiently name of the corporation or association
numerous and representative,‖ are similar to the phrase provided that he (the minority stockholder)
―may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose exerted all reasonable efforts and allege[d]
benefit the action is presented or defended‖ found in the same with particularity in the complaint
Sec. 3 of the same Rule. In other words, both suits are to exhaust of (sic) all remedies available
always filed in behalf of another or others. under the articles of incorporation, bylaws
- Before money claims can be the object of settlement or rules governing the corporation or
through a union, the individual consent of the employees partnership to obtain the reliefs he desires.
concerned should first be procured. This is because o ITC: petitioners did not apply for redress to
waiver of money claims is considered a personal right the BoD of the corp. there being no
which must be protected by the courts on consideration demand, oral or written on the respondents
of public policy. to address their complaints. Neither did the
o There is no evidence on record that the petitioners apply for redress to the
compromise agreement was approved by stockholders of the corp. and make an
the complainants individually. effort to obtain action by the stockholders
as a whole. should have asked for a
meeting first!
Ching v. Subic Bay Golf and Country Club, Inc., G.R. No. o The shareholdings of petitioners out of 409
174353, 10 September 2014 outstanding shares or 0.24% is an
- petitioners Nestor Ching and Andrew Wellington filed a indication that the action is a nuisance or
Complaint with RTC Olongapo on behalf of the harassment suit which may be dismissed
members of Subic Bay Golf and Country Club, Inc. either motu proprio or upon motion
(SBGCCI) against the said country club and its Board of - CA affirmed RTC
Directors and officers - Before the CA, petitioners argued that the Complaint
- The complaint alleged that the defendant corporation they filed with the RTC was not a derivative suit. They
sold shares to plaintiffs at US$22,000.00 per share but claim that they filed the suit in their own right as
the Articles of Incorporation made known to them was stockholders against the officers and BoD under Section
amended to make the shares nonproprietary, as it takes 5(a) of PD902A (which transferred jurisdiction over
away the right of the shareholders to participate in the such cases from SEC to the RTC) which allows any
pro rata distribution of the assets of the corporation after stockholder to file a complaint against the BoD for
its dissolution employing devices or schemes amounting to fraud and
o The By-Laws was also amended misrepresentation which is detrimental to the interest of
suspending the voting rights of the the public and/or the stockholders.
shareholders o They also argued that even if this were
o Aside from these amendments the BoD treated as a derivative suit, the RTC erred
and officers committed several instances of in dismissing it otg of failure to exhaust
fraudulent mismanagement of the remedies within the corporation because in
corporation Republic Bank v. Cuaderno, the Court
- The complaint prayed that upon the filing of the case a allowed the derivative suit as it was futile to
TRO be issued enjoining the defendants from acting as exhaust internal remedies since the BoD
Officers and BoD and a Receiver be appointed until a were all members of the same family.
HELD: Petition DENIED damages in the amount of the decrease in the value of
- the Complaint in question appears to have been filed the shares of stock) = to curb the alleged
only by the two petitioners, namely Nestor Ching and mismanagement of SBGCCI. The causes of action
Andrew Wellington, who each own one stock in the pleaded by petitioners do not accrue to a single
respondent corporation SBGCCI. While the caption of shareholder or a class of shareholders but to the
the Complaint also names the ―Subic Bay Golfers and corporation itself.
Shareholders, Inc. for and in behalf of all its members,‖ - as minority stockholders, petitioners do not have any
petitioners did not attach any authorization from said statutory right to override the business judgments of
alleged corporation or its members. Thus, the Complaint SBGCCI‘s officers and BoD
is deemed filed only by petitioners and not by SBGSI. o PD902A does not grant minority
- On WoN it is a derivative suit, the nature of an action, as stockholders a cause of action against
well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is waste and diversion by the BoD but merely
determined based on the allegations contained in the identifies the jurisdiction of the SEC over
complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not actions already authorized by law or
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the jurisprudence. It is settled
claims asserted therein. Also, the body rather than the o a stockholder‘s right to institute a derivative
title of the complaint determines the nature of an action suit is not based on any express provision
Direct Action Derivative of the Corporation Code, or even the
Individual Suit Class suit Suit/Derivative Securities Regulation Code, but is impliedly
Action recognized when the said laws make
(Representative corporate directors or officers liable for
Suit) damages suffered by the corporation and
wrong is done to Where the wrong where the acts its stockholders for violation of their
him personally is done to a group complained of fiduciary duties
and not to the of stockholders, constitute a wrong - Section 1, Rule 8 of the Interim Rules of Procedure
other as where to the corporation Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies imposes the
stockholders or preferred itself, cause of following requirements for derivative suits:
the corporation. stockholders‘ action belongs to o stockholder or member at the time the acts
rights are the corporation and subject of the action occurred and at the
violated; not to the individual time of filing of action
stockholder or o exerted all reasonable efforts, and alleges
member theory the same available under the articles of
of separate entity, incorporation, bylaws, laws or rules
avoidance of o No appraisal rights are available for the act
multiplicity of suits, or acts complained of
and priority rights of o suit is not a nuisance or harassment suit
creditors - RTC dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with
DERIVATIVE SUIT in cases of mismanagement where the nd th
the 2 and 4 requisites
wrongful acts are committed by the directors or trustees
themselves; an individual stockholder is permitted to institute
- SC thinks that 4
th
requisite was present here. But 2
nd
Re Query of Roger Prioreschi, A.M. 09-6-9-SC (2009) section 3, Rule 35 (Summary Judgments/MSJ)
- Courts cannot grant to foundations like the Good exemption from 3-day and 10-day rule (because it‘s hard
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from to produce affidavits, depositions, or admissions in less
than 10 days) MSJ = essentially a MTD because the assigned.
trial has to be quick The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in
shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the
specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve first party on each side be stated with an appropriate
opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three indication when there are other parties.
(3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting (1a, 2a)
affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, Section 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets forth
except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine its designation, the allegations of the party's claims or
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (3a, R34) (n)
(a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a
GR: All hearings shall be set for hearing by the applicant pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
EX: Motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing numbered to be readily identified, each of which
the rights of the adverse party (e.g. Motion for Extension) shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstances so far as that can be done with
What is the 3-day/10-day rule? convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its
3-day rule: the notice of hearing and a copy of the motion number in all succeeding pleadings. (3a)
shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt (b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action
by the other party at least 3 days before the date of are joined the statement of the first shall be prefaced
hearing by the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by
10-day rule: the hearing shall not be later than 10 days "second cause of action", and so on for the others.
after the filing of the motion When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
Exception to the 3-day/10-day rule: Motion for Summary complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words
Judgment (MSJ) because it‘s hard to produce affidavits, "answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to
depositions or admissions in less than 10 days the second cause of action" and so on; and when
An MSJ is essentially a MTD because the trial has to be one or more paragraphs of the answer are
quick addressed to several causes of action, they shall be
prefaced by words to that effect. (4)
VI. Pleadings (c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief
sought, but it may add a general prayer for such
A. Complaint further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable. (3a, R6)
1. General: (d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (n)
Sections 1, 3, Rule 6 Section 3. Signature and address. — Every pleading must
Section 1. Pleadings defined. — Pleadings are the written be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
statements of the respective claims and defenses of the either case his address which should not be a post office box.
parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (1a) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that
Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge,
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and
and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated that it is not interposed for delay.
in the complaint. (3a) An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the
court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be
remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
Section 5, Rule 1 inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the matter therein, or fails promptly report to the court a change
action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the action. (5a)
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically
(6a) required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit .(5a)
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
2. Format, certification, verification the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his knowledge and belief.
GR: Not all pleadings need to be verified A pleading required to be verified which contains a
EX: Pleadings should only be verified if specifically required verification based on "information and belief", or upon
by law or rule "knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper
Normally, only pleadings that carry opposing sides are verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (6a)
verified (e.g. petition) Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
Rule 7 (Parts of a Pleading) complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name of the relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
court, the title of the action, and the docket number if simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same Strict compliance herewith is hereby enjoined
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to effective immediately.
the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or a. Forum shopping
claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar Ayala Land v. Valisno, 324 S 522 (2000)
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report - Ayala Land discovered that several persons had
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his adverse claims of ownership over its property
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. o Among these claimants is respondent Marietta
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be Valisno
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other - On the premise that portions of respondent‘s claimed
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the land overlap petitioner‘s properties covered in fourteen
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon of petitioner‘s torrens titles, petitioner instituted actions
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false to quiet its titles
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings o Since petitioner‘s entire property in Las Piñas
therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without is allegedly covered by twenty-one separate
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal torrens titles, petitioner contends that it could
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly have brought twenty-one distinct actions to
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same quiet title
shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and o Upon advice of counsel, however, petitioner
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for filed only eight cases on a ―per lot/per TCT (or
administrative sanctions. (n) sets thereof)‖ basis. Among those eight cases,
respondent was named respondent in five of
SC AM 00-2-10 SC them (some in Makati, some in Las Pinas)
RULE 7 - Respondent, on the other hand, filed with the Las Pinas
SEC. 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically RTC an action against petitioner and several others
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, wherein she claimed ownership of the 1,082,959 square
verified or accompanied by affidavit. meter tract of land and prayed that petitioner‘s TCTs be
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read declared null and void.
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and - Both parties accused each other of forum-shopping.
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic o Petitioner: respondent‘s action = counterclaim!
records. Should have pleaded in the cases s initiated by
A pleading required to be verified which contains a petitioner against her
verification based on ―information and belief,‖ or upon o Respondent: why file five distinct cases all on
―knowledge, information and belief,‖ or lacks a proper the ground that her lands overlapped those of
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.(4a) petitioner?
RULE 41 - Las Pinas RTC Judge in Branch 253 found petitioner
SEC. 13. Dismissal of appeal. - Prior to the transmittal of the guilty of forum-shopping, ordered the dismissal of its
original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, complaint and maintained the civil case filed by
the trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the respondent against petitioner
appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-payment - Las Pinas RTC Judge in Branch 275 denied
of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary respondent‘s motion to cite petitioner guilty of forum-
period. (13a) shopping and found respondent guilty of forum-shopping
The foregoing amendments shall take effect on May 1, 2000, - Makati RTC Judge found neither party guilty of forum-
following the publication of this Resolution in two (2) shopping
newspapers of general circulation not later than March 15, - CA found petitioner guilty of forum-shopping and
2000. ordered the dismissal of the five cases filed by petitioner
HELD: CA Decision REVERSED. all five cases filed by
Bar Matter No. 1132 petitioner against respondent Marietta Valisno, which were
RE:REQUEST TO REQUIRE LAWYERS TO INDICATE IN ordered dismissed by the CA, are revived, and ordered
THE PLEADING THEIR NUMBER IN THE ROLL OF ATTYS. consolidated to be jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court
EN BANC of Las Piñas City, where the real property is situated
Gentlemen: - Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
Court dated 12 NOV 2002. case will amount to res judicata in another
Bar Matter No. 1132(Re:Request to Require Lawyers - Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following
to Indicate in the Pleading their Number in the Roll of requisites:
Attorneys.) 1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
The Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the representing the same interests in both actions;
Office of the Bar Confidant, to GRANT the request of the 2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to require 3. Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars
all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all in the two cases, such that any judgment that may
papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi- be rendered in the pending case, regardless of
judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the which party is successful, would amount to res
current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official adjudicata in the other case
Receipt or Life Member Number.
- ITC: while there may be identity of parties and of some 4. There must be between the first and
reliefs prayed for, any judgment rendered in one of the second actions identity of parties, subject
actions filed by petitioner will not amount to res judicata matter, and cause of action
in the other actions - the five actions filed by petitioner were for quieting of
o The following are the elements of res judicata: title based on separate certificates of title. Hence, the
1. The former judgment must be final; subject matters and causes of action involved are
2. The court which rendered judgment must different in each case. Corollarily, a judgment in any one
have jurisdiction over the parties and the case will not affect the issue in the other cases
subject matter; inasmuch as those pertain to different lands covered by
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and different certificates of title. Consequently, petitioner
could not have been guilty of forum-shopping
SPLITTING v. LITIS PENDENTIA/RES JUDICATA v. FORUM SHOPPING
(Based on Cause of Action)
SPLITTING LITIS PENDENTIA/RES FORUM SHOPPING
JUDICATA
(Preclusion of claims v.
Preclusion of issues)
Public Policy To avoid multiplicity of suits To avoid multiplicity of suits To avoid different tribunals having
To have finality of decisions contradictory ruling
Basis Rule 2 Sec. 4 Rule 39 Sec. 47 Rule 7 Sec. 5
Definition If two or more suits are instituted In other cases, the judgment or commenced any action or filed
on the basis of the same cause of final order is, with respect to the any claim involving the same
action, the filing of one or a matter directly adjudged or as to issues in any court, tribunal or
judgment upon the merits in any any other matter that could quasi-judicial agency
one is available as a ground for have been raised in relation
the dismissal of the others. thereto, conclusive between the
parties and their successors in
interest, by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for
the same thing and under the
same title and in the same
capacity;
EXAMPLES
Theft, victim Yes Yes Yes
asserting violation
of us posidendi and
jus vindicandi 1
cause of action
with (several
matters that could
have been raised
in relation thereto)
10 punches 10 Yes Yes Yes
causes of action, 1
transaction
(several matters
that could have
been raised in
relation thereto)
10 punches No No No
breach of contract
in one, tort in
another, criminal
action in another
2 independent No No (no preclusion of claims) No
contracts between
a minor and
another person. In
1 case, minority
was not raised as a
defense. In another
it was raised 2
transactions
2 independent No Yes (preclusion of issues) No
contracts between
a minor and
another person. In
1 case, minority
was raised as a
defense. In another
it was not raised
2 transactions
There can only be forum shopping if there is res judicata that is preclusion of claims, not just preclusion of issues.
There could be litis pendentia without forum shopping but there can be no forum shopping without litis pendentia.
Summary of rule on Forum Shopping (Rule 7, Sec. 5) repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
1. No certification severely
a. No forum shopping – dismissal upon - with respect to the argument of respondent Judge that
motion without prejudice herein complainant is guilty of forum-shopping for
b. With forum shopping having filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the
i. Not deliberate – dismissal upon Ombudsman involving the same facts and the same
motion without prejudice issues, suffice it to state that the Court, in the case of
ii. Deliberate – summary dismissal PNB Republic Bank vs. Court of Appeals, has already
(motu proprio) with prejudice ; ruled that a case pending before the Ombudsman
direct contempt; admin. sanction cannot be considered for purposes of determining if
2. With Certification there was forum-shopping, as the power of the
a. No forum shopping Ombudsman is only investigative in character and its
b. With forum shopping resolution cannot constitute a valid and final judgment
i. No falsification because its duty is to file the appropriate case before
1. Not deliberate – the Sandiganbayan
dismissal upon motion
without prejuice
2. Deliberate – summary Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, 10 December 2008
dismissal (motu proprio) - Mayor Quijano sent notices of numerous vacant career
with prejudice; direct positions in the city government to the CSC. The city
contempt; admin. government and the CSC thereupon proceeded to
sanction publicly announce the existence of the vacant positions.
ii. With falsification - Petitioners and other applicants submitted their
1. Not deliberate – applications for the different positions where they felt
dismissal upon motion qualified.
without prejudice; indirect - Toward the end of his term Mayor Quijano issued
contempt; admin. and appointments to petitioners.
crim. sanction - the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued Resolution
2. Deliberate – summary addressed to the CSC Iligan City Field Office requesting
dismissal (motu proprio) a suspension of action on the processing of
with prejudice; direct appointments to all vacant positions in the plantilla of the
contempt; admin. city government until the enactment of a new budget.
Sanction and crim. o Also issued a resolution in view of its stated
sanction policy against ―midnight appointments,‖
directed the officers of the City Human
Sevilleja v. Laggui, 362 S 715 (2001) Resource Management Office to hold in
- In the May 11, 1998 elections, herein complainant abeyance the transmission of all appointments
Marco Francisco Sevilleja was proclaimed the winner in signed or to be signed by the incumbent mayor
the local election for Mayor in the Municipality of Sta. in order to ascertain whether these had been
Teresita, Cagayan hurriedly prepared or carefully considered and
o took his oath of office and assumed the whether the matters of promotion and/or
position qualifications had been properly addressed.
- his rival Romeo Garcia filed with the Aparri RTC an - Respondent city accountant Empleo did not thus issue a
election protest certification as to availability of funds for the payment of
o Sevilleja filed a motion to inhibit respondent salaries and wages of petitioners
Judge on the ground that the wife of the o the other respondents did not sign petitioners‘
protestant, Mrs. Lolita Garcia, is the legal position description forms
researcher of respondent Judge Laggui. - CSC Field Office disapproved the appointments issued
o Motion granted to petitioners invariably due to lack of certification of
- Judge Agcaoili rendered a decision declaring Romeo availability of funds.
Garcia as the duly elected mayor. - On appeal by Mayor Quijano, CSC Regional Office
o Sevilleja filed a notice of appeal dismissed the appeal, it explaining that its function in
o Garcia filed a motion for execution pending approving appointments is only ministerial
appeal - Petitioners thus filed with the Iligan RTC a petition for
- Judge Agcaoili ordered that the entire records be mandamus against respondent Empleo or his successor
elevated to the Commission on Elections. in office for him to issue a certification of availability of
- Due to the absence of Judge Agcaoili, Judge Laggui, in funds for the payment of the salaries and wages of
his capacity as Executive Judge, issued an order petitioners, and for his corespondents or their
holding in abeyance the transmittal of the records to successors in office to sign the position description
Comelec pending resolution of the motion for execution forms
pending appeal - Iligan RTC denied petitioners‘ petition for mandamus:
o He eventually granted the motion for execution the city accountant cannot be compelled to issue a
pending appeal certification as to availability of funds for the payment of
- Sevilleja filed the present administrative complaint on salaries and wages of petitioners as this ministerial
the ground of gross misconduct function pertains to the city treasurer
HELD: Judge Laggui be fined in the amount of Five - Petitioners brought the case before the SC
Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos with a stern warning that a
- Respondents assail as defective the verification and ground of ―substantial compliance‖ or presence of
certification against forum shopping attached to the ―special circumstances or compelling reasons.‖
petition as it bears the signature of only 11 out of the 59 5. The certification against forum shopping must be
petitioners, and no competent evidence of identity was signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
presented by the signing petitioners. They thus move for otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped
the dismissal of the petition as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
o Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the
have a justifiable cause for their inability to plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and
obtain the signatures of the other petitioners as invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
they could no longer be contacted or are no signature of only one of them in the certification
longer interested in pursuing the case against forum shopping substantially complies with
HELD: Moot and academic the Rule
- re: forum shopping 6. Finally, the certification against forum shopping
o it is a far better and more prudent course of must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
action to excuse a technical lapse and afford counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
the parties a review of the case to attain the reasons, the party pleader is unable to sign, he
ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case must execute a Special Power of Attorney
on technicality and cause grave injustice to the designating his counsel of record to sign on his
parties, giving a false impression of speedy behalf.
disposal of cases while actually resulting in
more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice Verification Certification
o ITC: signing of the verification by only 11 out of (stricter)
the 59 petitioners already sufficiently assures Non-compliance Not fatally Not curable/
the Court that the allegations in the pleading defective/ Curable Dismissible
are true and correct and not the product of the Submission of
imagination or a matter of speculation; that the Defective
pleading is filed in good faith; and that the - Incomplete No effect Non-signing
signatories are unquestionably real parties-in- parties (because Court parties will be
interest who undoubtedly have sufficient already assured dropped
knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of by one party of
the allegations in the petition. personal
o the failure of the other petitioners to sign as knowledge)
they could no longer be contacted or are no substantial
longer interested in pursuing the case need not compliance
merit the outright dismissal of the petition - It is the No effect Dismissible
without defeating the administration of justice. counsel that (because Court
The non-signing petitioners are, however, verified already assured
dropped as parties to the case by counsel that it
- Summary of jurisprudential pronouncements already is true)
reflected above respecting noncompliance with the
requirements on, or submission of defective, verification
and certification against forum shopping: Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, G.R. No. 154704, 1 June 2011
1. A distinction must be made between non- - Nellie Panelo Vda. de Formoso and her children
compliance with the requirement on or submission executed a SPA in favor of Primitivo Malcaba
of defective verification, and non-compliance with authorizing him, among others, to secure all papers and
the requirement on or submission of defective documents including the owner‘s copies of the titles of
certification against forum shopping real properties pertaining to the loan with REM originally
2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a secured by Nellie and her late husband from PNB
defect therein does not necessarily render the - The Formosos sold the subject mortgaged real
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its properties to Malcaba through a Deed of Absolute Sale
submission or correction or act on the pleading if - Malcaba and his lawyer went to PNB to fully pay the
the attending circumstances are such that strict loan obligation including interests
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in - PNB, however, allegedly refused to accept Malcaba‘s
order that the ends of justice may be served tender of payment and to release the mortgage or
thereby surrender the titles of the subject mortgaged real
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with properties
when one who has ample knowledge to swear to - the petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific
the truth of the allegations in the complaint or Performance against PNB before the Vigan RTC
petition signs the verification, and when matters praying that PNB be ordered to accept the amount of
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith P2,461,024.74 as full settlement of the loan obligation of
or are true and correct the Formosos
4. As to certification against forum shopping, - RTC ruled in favor of petitioners
noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike - When petitioners received their copy of the decision,
in verification, is generally not curable by its they filed their Petition for Relief from Judgment
subsequent submission or correction thereof, questioning the RTC decision that there was no
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the testimonial evidence presented to warrant the award for
moral and exemplary damages
o They reasoned out that they could not then file - the Circular does not require corporate officers to sign
a motion for reconsideration because they the certificate. More important, there is no prohibition
could not get hold of a copy of the transcripts of against authorizing agents to do so
stenographic notes - In fact, not only was BA Savings Bank authorized to
o denied by RTC for lack of merit name an agent to sign the certificate; it also exercised
- CA dismissed the petition stating that the verification its appointing authority reasonably well. For who else
and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by knows of the circumstances required in the Certificate
only one (Macalba) of the many petitioners but its own retained counsel. Its regular officers, like its
- Before the SC, petitioners argued substantial board chairman and president, may not even know the
compliance details required therein.
HELD: Petition DENIED
- Admittedly, among the seven (7) petitioners mentioned,
only Malcaba signed the verification and certification of Cagayan Valley Drug v. CIR, G.R. No. 151413, 13 Feb
non-forum shopping in the subject petition. There was 2008
no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co- - Petitioner is a duly licensed retailer of medicine and
petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power other pharmaceutical products
of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing Malcaba - it granted 20% sales discounts to qualified senior
as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on citizens on purchases of medicine
certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at least a o In compliance with Revenue Regulation No.
reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the (RR) 2-94, petitioner treated the 20% sales
verification and certification of non-forum shopping. discounts granted to qualified senior citizens as
- The petitioners were given a chance by the CA to deductions from the gross sales in order to
comply with the Rules when they filed their motion for arrive at the net sales, instead of treating them
reconsideration, but they refused to do so. Despite the as tax credit as provided by Section 4 of RA
opportunity given to them to make all of them sign the 7432
verification and certification of non-forum shopping, they o however, petitioner filed with the BIR a claim
still failed to comply. Thus, the CA was constrained to for tax refund/tax credit of the full amount of the
deny their motion and affirm the earlier resolution 20% sales discount it granted to senior citizens
- At any rate, the Court cannot accommodate the o The BIR‘s inaction on petitioner‘s claim for
petitioners‘ request to re-examine the testimony of refund/tax credit compelled petitioner to file a
Malcaba in the transcript of stenographic notes of the petition for review before the CTA
April 25, 1999 hearing concerning his alleged - CTA rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for
testimonial proof of damages review for lack of merit
o CTA rejected the refund as it is clear that RA
7432 only grants the 20% sales discounts
b. Corporations extended to qualified senior citizens as tax
credit and not as tax refund
BA Savings v. Sia, 336 S 484 (2000) o while petitioner may be qualified for a tax
- CA issued a Resolution denying due course to a Petition credit, it cannot be so extended to petitioner on
for Certiorari filed by BA Savings Bank, on the ground account of its net loss
that ―the Certification on anti-forum shopping if no tax has been paid or if no amount
incorporated in the petition was signed not by the duly is due and collectible from the
authorized representative of the petitioner, as required taxpayer, then a tax credit is
under Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 but by its unavailing
counsel, in contravention of said circular‖ - CA issued the assailed Resolution dismissing the
- BA Savings filed MR showing that petitioner‘s Board of petition on procedural grounds
Directors approved a Resolution authorizing the o the person who signed the verification and
petitioner‘s lawyers to represent it in any action or certification of absence of forum shopping, a
proceeding before any court, tribunal or agency; and to certain Jacinto J. Concepcion, President of
sign, execute and deliver the Certificate of Nonforum petitioner, failed to adduce proof that he was
Shopping, among others. duly authorized by the board of directors to do
- MR denied so
HELD: Petition GRANTED HELD: CA reversed
- A corporation, such as the petitioner, has no powers - an individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise
except those expressly conferred on it by the any corporate power pertaining to the corporation
Corporation Code and those that are implied by or are without authority from the board of directors.
incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation o In a slew of cases, however, we have
exercises said powers through its board of directors recognized the authority of some corporate
and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical officers to sign the verification and certification
acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed against forum shopping: (1) the Chairperson of
only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a
by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting
directors. General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and
- ITC, the Resolution by the BoD was sufficient to vest (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.
such persons with the authority to bind the corporation - the determination of the sufficiency of the authority was
and was specific enough as to the acts they were done on a case to case basis.
empowered to do
- ITC: petitioner substantially complied with Secs. 4 and compliance with the provisions regarding the
5, Rule 7 certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores
o requisite board resolution has been submitted its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
albeit belatedly by petitioner altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
o we apply our ruling in Lepanto with the disregarded
rationale that the President of petitioner is in a - ITC: CA should have taken into consideration the fact
position to verify the truthfulness and that petitioner Hanil is being sued by private respondent
correctness of the allegations in the petition in its capacity as the foreign principal of petitioner MCEI.
o President of petitioner has signed the It was petitioner MCEI, as the local private employment
complaint before the CTA at the inception of agency, who entered into contracts with potential
this judicial claim for refund or tax credit overseas workers on behalf of petitioner Hanil.
- Re: tax credit o the local private employment agency may sue
o the CTA erred in denying the tax credit to on behalf of its foreign principal on the basis of
petitioner on the ground that petitioner had its contractual undertakings submitted to the
suffered net loss POEA there is no reason why the said
o petitioner is entitled to a tax credit for the full agency cannot likewise sign or execute a
20% sales discounts it extended to qualified certification of non-forum shopping for its own
senior citizens purposes and/or on behalf of its foreign
principal.
- the rationale behind the requirement that the petitioners
MC Engineering v. NLRC, 360 S 183 (2001) or parties to the action themselves must execute the
- Petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd. is the overseas certification of non-forum shopping is that the said
employer of all contract workers deployed by petitioner petitioners or parties are in the best position to know of
MC Engineering, Inc. the matters required by the Rules of Court in the said
- private respondent Aristotle Baldameca entered into an certification
Employment Agreement with MCEI for deployment as a o ITC: It is the local private employment agency,
plumber in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. in this case petitioner MCEI, who is in the best
o commenced working for petitioner Hanil in position to know of the matters required in a
Saudi Arabia on September 21, 1992 certification of non-forum shopping.
o contract was for a term of twelve (12) months. - Re: filing of pleading
- private respondent was not able to finish the full term of o service and filing of pleadings and other papers
his contract and he was repatriated back to Manila must, whenever practicable, be done
- private respondent filed a complaint with the POEA personally. Section 11 of Rule 13 gives the
against petitioners for illegal dismissal court the discretion to consider a pleading or
o prayed for the payment of his salaries for the paper as not filed if the other modes of service
unexpired portion of his employment or filing were resorted to and no written
agreement and the reimbursement of his explanation was made as to why personal
airfare service was not done in the first place
- LA ruled in favor of private respondent o ITC: there was no substantial compliance
- NLRC dismissed appeal made by petitioners of the requirement in
- CA dismissed Petition for Certiorari for being fatally Section 11, Rule 13. The fact that an affidavit
defective for two (2) reasons: (1) there is no certification of service accompanied their petition does not
against forum shopping by co-petitioner Hamil amount to a substantial compliance with the
Development Co., Ltd.; and (2) there is no written requirement of an explanation why other
explanation why the service of the pleading was not modes of service other than personal service
done personally were resorted to,
o The certification against forum shopping was An affidavit of service is required
signed only by the corporate secretary of merely as proof that service has been
petitioner MCEI. No representative of petitioner made to the other parties in a case.
Hanil signed the said certification Thus, it is a requirement totally
HELD: dismissal affirmed because of improper filing of different from the requirement that an
pleading explanation be made if personal
- in all cases filed in the Court of Appeals, as with all service of pleadings was not resorted
initiatory pleadings before any tribunal, a certification of to
non-forum shopping signed by the petitioner must be
filed together with the petition. The failure of a petitioner
to comply with this requirement constitutes sufficient LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, G.R. No. 159653, 25
ground for the dismissal of his petition. January 2006
o Thus, the Court has previously held that a - Erlinda Dyolde Monter, a cashier at the Red Tag
certification not attached to the complaint or Convenience Store, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
petition or one belatedly filed or one signed by and related causes of action against petitioner LDP
counsel and not the party himself constitutes a Marketing, Inc. owner-operator of the store, and LDP‘s
violation of the requirement which can result in Vice-President-co-petitioner Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña
the dismissal of the complaint or petition - LA ruled in favor of respondent; affirmed by NLRC
- However, with respect to the contents of the - Petition for certiorari was filed before the CA wherein the
certification, the rule of substantial compliance may be Verification/Certification of non-forum shopping was
availed of. This is because the requirement of strict
accomplished by petitioner Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña- non-forum shopping even without the submission of the
VicePresident of its co-petitioner corporation board‘s authorization.
- CA dismisses petition for ―failing to attach to the petition o In sum, we have held that the following officials
a copy of the company board resolution authorizing said or employees of the company can sign the
Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña to sign the said Verification/ verification and certification without need of a
Certification board resolution:
o Petitioner filed MR attaching Secretary‘s (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors,
Certificate quoting a Resolution adopted by the (2) the President of a corporation, (Cagayan
Board of Directors of petitioner corporation case)
during a special meeting authorizing Dela Pena (3) the General Manager or Acting General
o MR denied Manager,
HELD: Petition GRANTED (4) Personnel Officer, and
- In Digital Microwave Corporation case relied upon by (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case
the CA in dismissing petitioners‘ Petition for Certiorari, - It must be stressed, however, that the Cagayan ruling
the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by qualified that the better procedure is still to append a
the therein petitioner corporation‘s counsel board resolution to the complaint or petition to obviate
- In the more recent case of Shipside Incorporated v. questions regarding the authority of the signatory of the
Court of Appeals the SC held that in certain exceptional verification and certification
circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the - the requirement of the certification of non-forum
belated filing of the certification in the same way that it shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant
allowed non-filing of the certification when there are shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in
special circumstances or compelling reasons that different fora, as this practice is detrimental to an orderly
justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification judicial procedure. However, the Court has relaxed,
and certification on non-forum shopping under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the
submission of such certification considering that,
although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. Not being
South Cotabato Communications Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of
G.R. No. 173326, 15 December 2010 substantial compliance
- an inspection was conducted at the premises of - ITC: there has been substantial compliance the
appellant DXCP Radio Station where it was found to President of petitioner-corporation is in a position to
violate labor standards law by underpayment of min. verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations
th
wage, underpayment of 13 month pay, non-payment of in the petition
SIL pay, Non-remittance of SSS premiums, Non- o Petitioner Benzonan clearly satisfies the
payment of rest day premium pay of some employee, aforementioned jurisprudential requirement
Non-payment of holiday premium pay, and Some because he is the President of petitioner South
employees are paid on commission basis aside from Cotabato Communications Corporation.
their allowances Moreover, he is also named as co-respondent
- he Regional Director issued the assailed Order, of petitioner-corporation in the labor case
directing appellants to pay appellees the aggregate
amount of Php759,752.00
- DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas dismissed appeal Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. Treasurer of the City
- CA dismissed petition for certiorari because it was not of Manila, G.R. No. 181277, 3 July 2013
properly verified and the Certification of Non-Forum - Petitioner paid taxes to respondent based on the Manila
Shopping was not executed by the plaintiff or principal Revenue Code. Part of the amount was pursuant to
party Section 21 of said code. Assenting that it was not liable
- CA denied MR because while 2 petitioners and to pay taxes under Section 21, petitioner filed a Petition
petitioner Gauvain Benzonan signed the verification and for Refund of Taxes with Manila RTC.
the certificate of non-forum shopping of the petition, the - RTC dismisses petition for the failure of petitioner to
records show that petitioner Gauvain Benzonan did not plead the latter‘s capacity to sue and to state the
initiate the petition in his own capacity to protect his authority of Tiarra T. Batilaran-Beleno who had
personal interest in the case but was, in fact, only acting executed the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
for and in the corporation‘s behalf as its president Shopping
o Having acted in the corporation‘s behalf, - CTA denied petition for review for the same reason
petitioner Benzonan should have been clothed - Before the SC, petitioner argues that there can be no
with the corporation‘s board resolution dispute that Ms. Beleno was acting within her authority
authorizing him to institute the petition when she instituted the Petition for Refund before the
o attachment of a ―Secretary‘s Certificate‖ was RTC, notwithstanding that the Petition was not
insufficient since their submission merely accompanied by a Secretary‘s Certificate. Her authority
authorized petitioner Benzonan ―to represent was ratified by the Board in its Resolution
the corporation and cause the preparation and o even if she was not authorized to execute the
filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before the Verification and Certification at the time of the
Court of Appeals.‖ filing of the Petition, the ratification by the
HELD: Petition GRANTED board of directors retroactively applied to the
- in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC date of her signing.
Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), we ruled HELD: Petition GRANTED
that the Chairperson of the Board and President of the - a verification signed without an authority from the board
Company can sign the verification and certificate against of directors is defective. However, the requirement of
verification is simply a condition affecting the form of the facts alleged by him are true to his knowledge and
pleading and noncompliance does not necessarily belief. However, the same does not apply as regards the
render the pleading fatally defective. requirement of a certification against forum shopping.
o The court may in fact order the correction of - certification must be made by petitioner himself and not
the pleading if verification is lacking or, it may by counsel since it is petitioner who is in the best
act on the pleading although it may not have position to know whether he has previously commenced
been verified, where it is made evident that any similar action involving the same issues in any other
strict compliance with the rules may be tribunal or agency
dispensed with so that the ends of justice may - BA Savings Bank must be distinguished from the case
be served at bar because in the former, the complainant was a
- ITC: Petition filed with the RTC was accompanied by a corporation, and hence, a juridical person. Therefore,
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that case made an exception to the general rule that the
signed by Ms. Beleno, although without proof of certification must be made by the petitioner himself
authority from the board. However, this Court finds that since a corporation can only act through natural persons
the belated submission of the Secretary‘s Certificate - ITC: petitioners are all natural persons and there is no
constitutes substantial compliance showing of any reasonable cause to justify their failure
o the Secretary‘s Certificate signed by to personally sign the certification
petitioner‘s Corporate Secretary Rafael Khan o it was petitioners themselves who executed the
and submitted to the RTC shows that not only verification and certification requirements in all
did the corporation authorize Ms. Beleno to their previous pleadings
execute the required Verifications and/or o Counsel for petitioners argues that as a matter
Certifications of Non-Forum Shopping, but it of policy, a Special Power of Attorney is
likewise ratified her act of filing the Petition with executed to promptly and effectively meet any
the RTC contingency relative to the handling of a case
o It should be noted that the nature of the in the case of natural persons, this
position of Ms. Beleno as the corporation‘s policy serves no legal purpose.
finance director/manager is relevant to the Convenience cannot be made the
determination of her capability and sufficiency basis for a circumvention of the Rules
to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the Petition for this particular
case, Ms. Beleno, as finance director, may be Fiel v. Kris Security Systems Inc., G.R. No. 155875, 3
said to have been in a position to verify the April 2003
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations - Petitioners were employed by private respondent Kris
in the claim for a refund of the corporation‘s Security Systems, Inc., as security guards. On different
business taxes dates, private respondent terminated the services of
petitioners
- Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
c. Individuals - LA held that they were constructively dismissed
- NLRC reversed LA
Santos v. CA, 360 S 521 (2001) - Petitioners filed petition for certiorari with CA which
- petitioners Ismael V. Santos and Alfredo G. Arce were dismissed the petition because only three of the four
employed by PEPSI as Complimentary Distribution petitioners signed the mandatory verification and
Specialists while Hilario M. Pastrana was employed as certification of non-forum shopping
Route Manage HELD: Petition GRANTED
- PEPSI informed its employees that due to poor - The greater interest of justice would be served if the
performance of its Metro Manila Sales Operations it petition for certiorari filed by petitioners before the Court
would restructure and streamline certain physical and of Appeals is adjudicated on its merits with respect to
sales distribution systems employees with affected the three petitioners who have signed the verification
positions were terminated and certification on non-forum shopping The greater
- petitioners left their respective positions, accepted their interest of justice would be served if the petition for
separation pays and executed the corresponding certiorari filed by petitioners before the Court of Appeals
releases and quitclaims. However, before the end of the is adjudicated on its merits with respect to the three
year, petitioners learned that PEPSI created new petitioners who have signed the verification and
positions called Account Development Managers with certification on non-forum shopping
substantially the same duties and responsibilities - The three petitioners who have faithfully observed the
- petitioners filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for rules by signing the requisite verification and certification
illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement on non-forum shopping, should not be unduly prejudiced
- LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; affirmed by by the fault of their co-petitioner who apparently has lost
NLRC interest in pursuing his case.
- CA dismissed the petition outright because the - technical rules of procedure should be used to promote,
verification and certification against forum shopping not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swift
were executed merely by petitioners‘ counsel and not by unclogging of court dockets is a laudable aim, the just
petitioners resolution of cases on their merits, however, cannot be
HELD: CA affirmed sacrificed merely in order to achieve that objective
- It is true that insofar as verification is concerned, we - Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but
have held that there is substantial compliance if the to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and
same is executed by an attorney, it being presumed that rigid application may, for good and deserving reasons,
have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the need service. It is a method extraordinary in
to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal course character and hence may be used only as
prescribed and in the circumstances authorized
Hamilton v. Levy, 344 S 821 (2000) by statute. Here, no such explanation was
- Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money and made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully
damages, with prayer for preliminary attachment against comply with the requirements of substituted
respondents and one Pablo de Borja with the Angeles service renders said service ineffective)
RTC
- RTC issued an Order for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment. Cavile v. Cavile, 400 S 255 (2003)
o the court sheriff levied on a Cherokee 180 - Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. The first
Piper aircraft, allegedly owned by respondent marriage was with Ines Dumat-ol with whom he had one
David Levy child, Simplicia. The second was with Orfia Colalho with
o the Return manifested that the sheriff whom he had two children: Fortunato and Vevencia.
personally served summons and a copy of the And the third was with Tranquilina Galon with whom he
writ of preliminary attachment to respondents, had three children: Castor, Susana and Benedicta.
through Mercita S. Reyes and Ramon Araneta, Throughout his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili acquired six
secretaries of W.E.L. Phils., Inc., at Subic Bay parcels of land which became the subject of the instant
Freeport Zone, Olongapo City, the address of case
respondents stated in the complaint - Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by his third
- Ramon Araneta filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim marriage, Castor Cavili, took possession of the
asserting ownership of the levied aircraft by virtue of a properties as administrator for and in behalf of his
sale from W.E.L. Phils., Inc., represented by respondent coowners. However, when Castor died, his children took
Levy possession of the parcels of land but no longer as
- petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in administrators. They claimed the properties as well as
Default for failure to file any responsive pleading within their fruits as their own and repeatedly refused
the reglementary period. This was granted by the trial respondents‘ demand for partition
court - the descendants of Bernardo‘s first and second
- petitioner proceeded with the presentation of evidence marriage (herein respondents) filed a complaint for
ex parte partition against the descendants of his third marriage
- Prior to the presentation of evidence, however, (herein petitioners)
respondents‘ counsel filed a Special Appearance to - As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the
Question the Jurisdiction of the trial court. When no reglementary period, they were declared in default and
action was made on the Special Appearance, respondents were allowed to present evidence, ex parte
respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA - TC ordered the partition of the six parcels of land.
o While the petition for certiorari was pending o However, upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and
before the Court of Appeals, proceedings Quirino Cavili who were not properly served
before the trial court continued with summons, TC held a new trial and allowed
- CA issued the assailed Decision granting the Petition said parties to present evidence. Among the
and ordering the dismissal of the case without prejudice, evidence they proferred was a Deed of
on its finding that summons was not validly served upon Partition which appeared to have been
respondents, hence, the trial court never assumed executed by the heirs of Bernardo Cavili
jurisdiction over their persons o Giving weight to the documentary evidence
- Before the SC, petitioner alleges (inter alia) that the presented by Primitivo Cavili and Quirino
certification on nonforum shopping attached to Cavili, TC rendered another decision and
respondents‘ Petition was prepared not by respondents DISMISSED the complaint for partition
but by one Teresita Torres, who was not a party to the - CA reversed, TC erred in admitting the Deed of Partition
suit either before the trial court or the certiorari as evidence without proof of its authenticity and due
proceedings in the Court of Appeals execution. CA ordered partition
- respondents explained that they were both abroad when - Before the SC:
the petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of o Petitioners essentially argue that the Deed of
Appeals Partition is a public document duly
HELD: CA affirmed acknowledged before a Notary Public. Hence,
- that the respondents were abroad is reasonable cause its genuineness and due execution need not be
to exempt them from compliance with the requirement proved.
that they personally execute the certification. Moreover, o Respondents, on the other hand, pray for the
to dismiss their petition for certiorari on this sole ground denial of the petition because it violates the
would deny them the opportunity to question the lack of rule on the certification against forum shopping
jurisdiction of the trial court over their persons required to be attached to petitions for review
- (Re: improper service of summons: filed with this Court
o The pertinent facts and circumstances only one of the twenty-two (22)
attendant to the service of summons must be petitioners, Thomas George Cavili,
stated in the proof of service or Officer‘s Sr., executed and signed the
Return; otherwise, any substituted service certification against forum shopping
made in lieu of personal service cannot be when the Rules require that said
upheld. This is necessary because substituted certification must be signed by all the
service is in derogation of the usual method of petitioners
HELD: Petition GRANTED. TC decision reinstated
- the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of section 16(g), Rule 16
all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing
shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a
Rules. motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
o All the petitioners, being relatives and co- grounds:
owners of the properties in dispute, share a (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no
common interest thereon. They also share a cause of action;
common defense in the complaint for partition
filed by the respondents. Tantuico v. Republic, 204 S 428 (1991)
o when they filed the instant petition, they filed it - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG
as a collective, raising only one argument to filed with the Sandiganbayan a case against Benjamin
defend their rights over the properties in (Kokoy) Romualdez, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda
question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, R. Marcos. for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and restitution and damages
in behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not o Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. was included as
filed any action or claim involving the same defendant on the theory that he conspired with
issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there them as COA chair
other pending action or claim in another court - after his motion for production and inspection of
or tribunal involving the same issues documents was denied by respondent court, petitioner
o Moreover, it has been held that the merits of filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars alleging inter alia
the substantive aspects of the case may be that he is sued for acts allegedly committed by him as
deemed as ―special circumstance‖ for the Court (a) a public officer-Chairman of the Commission on
to take cognizance of a petition for review Audit, (b) as a private individual, and (c) in both
although the certification against forum capacities, in a complaint couched in too general terms
shopping was executed and signed by only one and shorn of particulars that would inform him of the
of the petitioners factual and legal basis thereof, and that to enable him to
- TC was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition, understand and know with certainty the particular acts
it appearing that the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavili have allegedly committed by him and which he is now
already divided the properties among themselves, as charged with culpability, it is necessary that plaintiff
evidenced by the Deed of Partition furnish him the particulars sought therein so that he can
intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and
prepare for trial.
3. Alleging causes of action o dates of the resolutions or acts issued or
sections 1-2, 5, 6, 9, Rule 8 performed by Tantuico which allowed the
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings facilitation of, and made possible the,
Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a withdrawals, disbursements and questionable
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct use of government funds
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading o ministries or Departments, offices or agencies
relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting of the government involved in these
the statement of mere evidentiary facts. (1) questionable use of government funds
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent o names of the auditors who had the original
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be audit jurisdiction over the said withdrawals,
clearly and concisely stated. (n) disbursements and questionable use of
Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A government funds
party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or o amount of government funds involved in these
defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of questionable-disbursements, individually and in
action or defense or in separate causes of action or total
defenses. When two or more statements are made in the o ETC.
alternative and one of them if made independently would be - SB denied BoP on the ground that the particulars sought
sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the by petitioner are evidentiary in nature
insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. (2) HELD: Petition GRANTED. SB committed GAD.
Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all Respondents ordered to file BoP
averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances constituting - Complaint: Its office, purpose or function is to inform the
fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, defendant clearly and definitely of the claims made
intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a person against him so that he may be prepared to meet the
may be averred generally.(5a) issues at the trial. The complaint should inform the
Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision defendant of all the material facts on which the plaintiff
of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial relies to support his demand; it should state the theory
tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the of a cause of action which forms the bases of the
judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing plaintiffs claim of liability
jurisdiction to render it. (6) o Ultimate facts essential facts constituting the
Section 9. Official document or act. — In pleading an official plaintiff ‗s cause of action. A fact is essential if
document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the it cannot be stricken out without leaving the
document was issued or the act done in compliance with law. statement of the cause of action insufficient.
(9) Ultimate facts are important and substantial
facts which either directly form the basis of the
primary right and duty, or which directly make policies prejudicial to plaintiff are, why they are
up the wrongful acts or omissions of the prejudicial, and what petitioner had to do with
defendant. The term does not refer to the the granting, issuance, and or formulation of
details of probative matter or particulars of such concessions, orders, and/or policies
evidence by which these material elements are - The allegations in the complaint, above-referred to,
to be established. It refers to principal, pertaining to petitioner are, therefore, deficient in that
determinate, constitutive facts, upon the they merely articulate conclusions of law and
existence of which, the entire cause of action presumptions unsupported by factual premises. Hence,
rests without the particulars prayed for in petitioner‘s motion
o Evidentiary facts facts which are necessary for a bill of particulars, it can be said the petitioner
for determination of the ultimate facts; they are cannot intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and
the premises upon which conclusions of for trial
ultimate facts are based - the particulars prayed for, such as, names of persons,
- Where the complaint states ultimate facts that constitute names of corporations, dates, amounts involved, a
the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, specification of property for identification purposes, the
namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the particular transactions involving withdrawals and
correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or disbursements, and a statement of other material facts
omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right, as would support the conclusions and inferences in the
the complaint states a cause of action, otherwise, the complaint, are not evidentiary in nature
complaint must succumb to a motion to dismiss on that o those particulars are material facts that should
ground of failure to state a cause of action. be clearly and definitely averred in the
o However, where the allegations of the complaint in order that the defendant may, in
complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form fairness, be informed of the claims made
of conclusions, the proper recourse would be, against him to the end that he may be prepared
not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a bill to meet the issues at the trial.
of particulars - the purpose or object of a bill of particulars is to amplify
- ITC: or limit a pleading, specify more minutely and
o the allegations that defendant Ferdinand E. particularly a claim or defense set up and pleaded in
Marcos, together with the other defendants general terms, give information, not contained in the
―embarked upon a systematic plan to pleading, to the opposite party and the court as to the
accumulate ill-gotten wealth‖ and that said precise nature, character, scope, and extent of the
defendants acted ―in flagrant breach of public cause of action or defense relied on by the pleader, and
trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public apprise the opposite party of the case which he has to
officers, with gross and scandalous abuse of meet, to the end that the proof at the trial may be limited
right and in brazen violation of the Constitution to the matters specified, and in order that surprise at,
and laws of the Philippines‖, are conclusions of and needless preparation for, the trial may be avoided,
law unsupported by factual premises. and that the opposite party may be aided in framing his
o the allegation that petitioner ―took undue answering pleading and preparing for trial
advantage of his position as Chairman of the
Commission on Audit,‖ that he ―failed to
perform his constitutional duties as such Convets, Inc. v. National Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. L-10232,
Chairman,‖ and acting in concert with 28 February 1958
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, - Confederation of Filipino Veterans (CONVETS) filed a
―facilitated and made possible the withdrawals, complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against
disbursements, and questionable use of the National Development Company (NDC), Land
government funds as stated in the foregoing Settlement and Development Corporation
paragraphs, to the grave and irreparable (LASEDECO), and the Board of Liquidators before CFI
damage and injury of plaintiff and the entire Manila for the recovery of the sum of P36,000 as agent's
Filipino people‖, are mere conclusions of law commission on the sale of certain commodities
o On top of that, the complaint does not even - a committee of the NDC in a memorandum submitted to
contain any factual allegation which would the latter's general manager recommended that plaintiff
show that whatever withdrawals, be allowed a 10% straight commission on sales of items
disbursements, or conversions were made, from the Caledonia Pile (a mass of surplus goods which
were indeed subject to audit by the COA. the NDC had in the compound in Manila) where plaintiff
o the allegation that petitioner acted as dummy, had a direct hand in the sale
nominee, or agent by allowing himself ―to be - plaintiff informed the NDC Board that it had found a
used as instrument in accumulating illgotten buyer, the firm of Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc.
wealth through government concessions, - through the direct intervention of plaintiff in its capacity
orders and/or policies prejudicial to Plaintiff‖ or as sole agent of the defendant NDC, a contract of sale
―to be (an) incorporator, director, or member of was approved by the NDC'S Board of Directors
corporations beneficially held and/or controlled‖ - in confirmation of previous commitments, promises and
by the Marcoses and Romualdezes, is a past business dealing between plaintiff and the NDC, a
conclusion of law without factual basis. written agency agreement was entered into between
o there is no averment in the complaint how them with retroactive effect
petitioner allowed himself to be used as - upon the promulgation of Executive Order No. 355 the
instrument in the accumulation of ill-gotten management and disposition of the Caledonia Pile were
wealth, what the concessions, orders and/or transferred from the NDC to the LASEDECO and that
upon the latter being dissolved by Republic Act No. - French Oil itself filed a special appearance with MTD
1160 its assets were turned over to the Board of contending that the court had no jurisdiction over its
Liquidators person due to improper service of summons. It argued
- plaintiff being, for that reason, uncertain from which one that:
of the defendants it is entitled to get relief; and that o it is not doing business in the Philippines
notwithstanding repeated demands, the defendants o Trans-World is not its agent
have failed and refused to pay plaintiff its commission - RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
on the sale mentioned. petitioner
- Defendants filed MTD otg that the complaint did not - Upon MR, RTC reversed the order of dismissal and
state a cause of action and that plaintiff's action, if it had ruled that summons was properly served on petitioner
any, had already prescribed whom it found doing business in the Philippines thru
- LC granted MTD Trans-World as its agent
HELD: Petition GRANTED - CA affirmed RTC: summons properly served
- The LC inferred from the documents submitted that the - Before the SC, French Oil contends that it is not doing
sale in question was neither initiated nor consummated business in the Philippines and that Trans-World is not
by plaintiff but was a direct transaction between the its agent, and thus, the summons served on the latter
management of the NDC and Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc has no effect on the former
- it is elementary that lack of cause of action as ground for HELD: CA affirmed
dismissal must appear on the face of the complaint and - It is not enough to merely allege in the complaint that a
that to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, defendant foreign corporation is doing business. For
only the facts alleged in the complaint, and no other, purposes of the rule on summons, the fact of doing
should be considered business must first be ―established by appropriate
- ITC: the allegations in the complaint, the truth of which allegations in the complaint‖ and the court in
is hypothetically admitted by defendants' motion to determining such fact need not go beyond the
dismiss, do constitute a cause of action for the recovery allegations therein
of the stipulated commission; and while the annexes to - ITC: the ff. allegations are sufficient that petitioner is
the complaint do also mention certain terms under which doing business for purposes of Section 14, Rule 14
the sales of merchandise from the Caledonia Pile should o allegations that petitioner entered into a
be made, there is really nothing in said annexes that contract with private respondent to supply and
contradicts or nullifies the ultimate facts alleged in the install various machineries and equipments for
complaint or proves by itself alone that the terms the use of the latter‘s oil mill factory
prescribed were not complied with to the satisfaction of o that the first shipment of machineries from
the principal petitioner was received by private respondent
o Any such non-compliance is a matter of - The determination that a foreign corporation is doing
defense, which should be alleged in the answer business is merely tentative and only to enable the local
and proved at the trial. court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
foreign corporation through service of summons. It does
4. Alleging capacity to sue or be sued not foreclose a subsequent finding to the contrary
section 4, Rule 8 depending on the evidence
Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party - Under the Rules of Court, if the defendant is a foreign
to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued corporation doing business in the Philippines, summons
in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an may be served on
organized association of person that is made a party, must be (a) its resident agent designated in accordance with law;
averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal (b) if there is no resident agent, the government official
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or designated by law to that effect; or
be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific (c) any of its officer or agent within the Philippines.
denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are - For purposes of the rules on summons, the
peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. (4) determination of principal-agent relationship from the
allegations in the complaint is only preliminary and is not
even conclusive as to liability. Nothing bars the court
section 16(d), Rule 16 from later making a different finding after the parties had
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing substantiated their respective allegations with respect to
the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a agency should the same be disputed.
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following - As found by both courts below, petitioner treated Trans-
grounds: World as its Philippine agent in the assailed transaction.
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; Such factual assessment is binding on this Court and
will not be disturbed as no exceptional circumstances
nor cogent reasons were shown to justify its reversal
French Oil v. CA, 295 S 462 (1998)
- Ludo and Luym Oleochemical, Co. filed a complaint for
breach of contract with damages against French Oil Mill Scenario 1: What will happen if a juridical person fails to
Machinery (a corporation with principal office at Piqua, state in the complaint the facts regarding its legal capacity?
Ohio, USA) and its alleged Philippine agent Trans-World Effect: The complaint may be dismissed on the ground of
Trading Company failure to state of cause of action because the juridical person
- Summons was served on Trans-World which moved to does not have any right which may be violated (which is an
dismiss the complaint arguing that it is not petitioner‘s element of a cause of action) since it does not exist. In this
agent.
case, the juridical person may have legal capacity to sue but
its personality may be questioned. (a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof;
Scenario 2: What will happen if a natural person fails to state
in the complaint the facts regarding his/her legal capacity? (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the
Effect: The complaint may be dismissed on the ground of dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
lack of legal capacity to sue. Contrary to Scenario 1, the
plaintiff in this case exists and has legal personality, although (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1)
his/her legal capacity may be questioned. year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
Scenario 3: What will happen if the plaintiff did not allege (d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
that defendant corporation was doing business in the
Philippines (although it was indeed doing business in the (e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in
Philippines)? different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto
Effect: There is no ground for dismissal. A complaint may not agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
be dismissed for lack of legal capacity to be sued (Rule 16, appropriate lupon;
Sec.16d only contemplates a plaintiff who has no legal
capacity to sue). Note that the French Oil case is not (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
applicable because the issue in French Oil is barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where
factual/evidentiary. such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
Scenario 4: What will happen if the plaintiff alleged that the appropriate lupon;
defendant corporation was doing business in the Philippines
when in fact, it was not doing business in the Philippines? (g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may
Effect: The complaint may be dismissed for the lack of determine in the interest of Justice or upon the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Note that our recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
summons and other judicial processes do not operate
extraterritorially (vis-à-vis in the US which recognizes long- The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the
arm jurisdiction). Also, in the corporation code, ―doing authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any
business‖ does not refer to an isolated transaction but applies time before trial motu propio refer the case to the lupon
only to continuous business in the Philippines. concerned for amicable settlement.
Art. 1283, NCC Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. L-26768 30 October 1970
Article 1283. If one of the parties to a suit over an obligation - Spouses Segundo and Antonina Goyala sold to Gojo
has a claim for damages against the other, the former may through a pacto de retro sale an agricultural land with a
set it off by proving his right to said damages and the amount redemption period of 1 year
thereof. (n) - 10 years after, Goyala still failed to repurchase. Gojo
filed petition for consolidation of ownership of the land
section 13, RSC - Goyala opposed and by way of counterclaim, raised that
SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule.—If the transaction was actually an equitable mortgage
at the time the action is commenced, the defendant - Counsel of Segundo Goyala filed Manifestation
possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the informing the TC that Antonina was already dead
coverage of this Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b)
- CFI: Ordered Segundo Goyala to submit an amended - CA: nullified writ and dismissed the complaint
complaint substituting the successors-in-interest of - SC: affirmed dismissal
Antonina - After the Financial Building case (1988) was terminated
- Gojo filed MTD for Goyala‘s failure to submit amended with finality, Forbes Park filed with RTC Makati a
complaint Complaint for Damages against Financial Building
- CFI: Dismissed the case, wihtout prejudice arising from the violation of its rules and regulations
- Gojo then filed a Motion to Declare Petitioner in default - RTC: rendered decision in favor of Forbes Park (ordered
in respect of the Respondent‘s counterclaim contained demolition of building within 3 months when judgment
in his answer to the dismissed complaint becomes final and executory, ordered payment of
- CFI: Granted, declared Goyala in default damages)
- CFI then issued a favorable judgment in Gojo‘s - CA: affirmed RTC decision
counterclaim HELD: CA reversed
- Before the SC, Goyala argued that the counterclaim in - instant case is barred due to Forbes Park‘s failure to
this case falls within the category of ―compulsory set it up as a counterclaim in the previous civil case
counterclaim‖ wc doesn‘t call for an independent answer (the prior injunction suit initiated by Financial Bldg.
as the complaint already denies its material allegations. against Forbes Park)
Also, the dismissal of the complaint in this case without - a compulsory counterclaim cannot be the subject of a
prejudice carried with it the dismissal of the counterclaim separate action but it should instead be asserted in the
HELD: Goyala should not have been declared in default with same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence,
respect to Gojo‘s counterclaim; CFI shouldn‘t have dismissed which gave rise to it. To determine whether a
the complaint counterclaim is compulsory or not, we have devised the
- Rule: Plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a following tests:
compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in default, (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim
principally because the issues raised in the and the counterclaim largely the same?
counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on
the allegations of the complaint. defendant‘s claim absent the compulsory
- ITC: counterclaim was a compulsory one inasmuch as it counterclaim rule?
arises out of or is necessarily connected with transaction (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or
or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint refute plaintiff‘s claim as well as the defendant‘s
o the counterclaim was clearly inconsistent with counterclaim? and
and directly controverted the whole theory and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim
basic allegations of the complaint and the counterclaim?
- Hence, the original complaint stood as the answer to the Affirmative answers to the above queries indicate the
counterclaim existence of a compulsory counter-claim
- Not proper to dismiss a complaint when a compulsory - A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding
counterclaim has been pleaded by defendant in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support
o the right of the plaintiff to move for the therefrom. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of
dismissal of an action after the defendant has a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. Hence,
filed his answer is qualified by the clause where there is no claim against the counterclaimant, the
providing that: ―If a counterclaim has been counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed, more so
pleaded by a defendant prior to the service where the complaint is dismissed at the instance of the
upon him of the plaintiffs motion to dismiss, the counterclaimant
action shall not be dismissed against the - if the dismissal of the main action results in the
defendant‘s objection unless the dismissal of the counterclaim already filed, it stands to
counterclaim can remain pending for reason that the filing of a motion to dismiss the
independent adjudication by the court.‖ complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory
o Purpose: avoid multiplicity of suits over the counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately
same suits and possibility of conflict and results in the dismissal of the counterclaim
inconsistency and resolution - the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a
compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. In
Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park Association, G.R. the event that a defending party has a ground for
No. 133119, 17August 2000 dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same
- USSR owns a lot in Forbes Park; engaged the services time, he must choose only one remedy. If he decides to
of Financial Building for the construction of a multi-level file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his compulsory
office and staff apartment building counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his compulsory
- Forbes Park reminded the USSR of existing regulations counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for dismissal
authorizing only the construction of a single-family as an affirmative defense in his answer. The latter
residential building in each lot within the village. It option is obviously more favorable to the defendant
enjoined further construction work although such fact was lost on Forbes Park
- Financial Building filed in RTC Makati a Complaint for - ITC: the ground for dismissal invoked by Forbes Park in
Injunction and Damages with a prayer for Preliminary the prior civil case was lack of cause of action. There
Injunction against Forbes Park. was no need to plead such ground in a motion to
- Forbes Park filed MTD on the ground that Financial dismiss or in the answer since the same was not
Building had no cause of action because it was not a deemed waived if it was not pleaded. Nonetheless,
real party-in-interest Forbes Park still filed a motion to dismiss and thus
- RTC: issued a writ of preliminary injunction against exercised bad judgment in its choice of
Forbes Park remedies. Thus, it has no one to blame but itself for the
consequent loss of its counterclaim as a result of such P10,000.00 in concept of exemplary
choice damages.
In addition, defendant has been
Notes: compelled to retain the services of
- Filing MTD bars setting up the same grounds as a undersigned counsel to resist
counterclaim (Rule 9, Sec. 2) plaintiffs‘ reckless, malicious and
- Better to be declared in default than answering because frivolous claim and to protect and
a judgment rendered against a party in default shall not enforce his rights for which he
exceed the amount or be different in kind from that obligated himself to pay the further
prayed for nor award unliquidated damages (Rule 9, sum of P3,500.00 as attorney‘s fees
Sec. 3d) - City court dismissed the counterclaim; ordered
o E.g. of unliquidated damages: ―medical respondent to vacate the premises and pay petitioner
expenses as may be proved‖ - CFI set aside judgment, reversed and ordered petitioner
to pay:
o P10,000 - moral damages
Calo v. Ajax, G.R. No. L-22485, 13 March 1968 o P5,000 - exemplary damages
- Consuelo Calo ordered 1,200 ft wire rope from Ajax o P1,000 - atty‘s fees
International but when it was delivered it was short by - Decision became final and executory → Writ of
300 ft. Calo then wrote letters asking either for execution issued
completion of delivery or account adjustment - Petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of nullity of
- A certain Adolofo Benavides filed a complaint with the decision alleging that CFI‘s exercise of appellate
MTC Manila, claiming that he acquired the outstanding jurisdiction was null and void from the beginning
credit account of Calo from Ajax. The transaction because Total relief granted was P16,000 which is
involving the wire rope was among the assigned credits clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the City Court of Cebu
o A judgment by default was entered, and a writ (city court limited to P10,000 damages)
of execution issued against Calo HELD: CFI decision is NULL AND VOID insofar as it awards
o Calo filed petition for certiorari with SC which damages on the RESP‘s counterclaim in excess of P6,000.00
set aside the judgment and remanded the case beyond its appellate jurisdiction
for further proceedings - Rule: court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a
- Calo filed before CFI a complaint against Ajax asking: set-off or counterclaim in excess of its jurisdiction
o Ajax to effect complete delivery OR that she - A counterclaim beyond the court‘s jurisdiction may
relieved from paying the balance of P855 AND only be pleaded by way of defense, the purpose of
o Ajax to indemnify her for P12,000 as attorney‘s which, however, is only to defeat or weaken plaintiff‘s
fees, damages and expenses of litigation claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief
- Ajax filed MTD otg that the subject matter was intimately - Legal effect: Party is considered as having voluntarily
related with the case in the MTC waived so much of his claim as would exceed the
o CFI sustained the motion and dismissed the jurisdiction Therefore, by presenting his claim voluntarily
case before the City Court of Cebu, Bacalan submitted the
HELD: Dismissal by CFI was not proper same to the jurisdiction of the court → became bound to
- Calo‘s claim is not a compulsory counterclaim because P10,000 as the jurisdictional amount
the amount thereof exceeds the jurisdiction of the MTC o deemed to have waived the excess of his claim
beyond P10,000.00
Note: According to Sir Lumba, the case should have been - Rule: counterclaim not presented in the inferior court
dismissed by the SC because of litis pendentia. cannot be entertained in the CFIon appeal
● A new copy of the entire pleading, incorporating the ● The formal amendment must not cause prejudice to the
amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate adverse party.
marks, shall be filed. [Sec. 7, Rule 10]
● Purpose: That the actual merits of the controversy may How formal amendments are effected
speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, (1) May be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of
and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. the action
[Sec. 1, Rule 10] (2) A party may, by motion, call for the formal amendment
● As a general policy, liberality in allowing amendments is
greatest in the early stages of a law suit, decreases as it AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO OR AUTHORIZE
progresses and changes at times to a strictness PRSENTATION OF EVIDENCE [Sec. 5, Rule 10]
amounting to a prohibition. This is further restricted by This is an instance wherein the court acquires jurisdiction
the condition that the amendment should not prejudice over the issues even if the same are not alleged in the
the adverse party or place him at a disadvantage. original pleadings, where the trial of said issues is with the
[Barfel Development v. CA, G.R. No. 98177 (1993)] express or implied consent of the parties.
Service is done either: 10 days after mailing, unless Affidavit of person mailing of
(1) Personally otherwise provided by the facts showing compliance
(2) By registered mail court with Sec. 7 of Rule 13.
(3) By publication, if: Service by registered mail
(a)A party is summoned by publication; and
(b)Such party failed to appear in the action Whichever is earlier of: (1) Affidavit of person mailing
(1) Actual receipt by the showing compliance as
NOTE: There is NO substituted service of judgments and addressee; or above; and
final orders. (2) 5 days after addressee (2) Registry receipt issued by
received postmaster's notice the post office
PRIORITIES IN MODES OF SERVICE AND FILING Substituted Service
GENERAL RULE: Personal filing and service is preferred.
[Sec. 11, Rule 13] At the time of delivery of the copy to the clerk of court
together with proof of failure of both personal service and
Resort to other modes of filing and service must be service by mail
accompanied by an explanation why the service/filing was not
done personally. If there is no written explanation, the paper Duties of sender when service is effected by registered
is considered not filed. mail:
(1)The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its
Exception: Papers emanating from the court. receipt by the sender; or
(2) The unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
COMPLETENESS AND PROOF OF FILING copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee
GENERAL RULE: The filing of a pleading or paper is proved shall likewise be filed immediately. [Sec. 13, Rule 13]
by its existence in the record of the case [Sec. 12, Rule 13]
EXCEPTION: When the pleading or paper is not in the Service to the lawyer binds the party. But service to the
record, its filing may be proved as shown below party does not bind the lawyer, unless ordered by the
court in the following circumstances:
Completeness of Filing Proof of filing [Sec. 12, (1) When it is doubtful who the attorney for such party is; or
[Sec. 3, Rule 13] Rule 13] (2) When the lawyer cannot be located; or
(3) When the party is directed to do something personally, as
Personal filing when he is ordered to show cause. [Retoni, Jr. v. CA,
Upon receipt by the clerk of Written or stamped G.R. No. 96776 (1993)]
court acknowledgment by the clerk
of court
Notice to the lawyer who appears to have been was no valid reason for not serving personally (distance
unconscionably irresponsible cannot be considered as notice of counsels‘ offices only 20m away, post office was
to his client, as it would then be easy for the lawyer to even farther)
prejudice the interests of his client by just alleging that he just ● public respondent Judge Bautista-Ricafort issued an
forgot every process of the court affecting his clients, order stating that under Section 11 of Rule 13 ―it is
because he was so busy. [Bayog v. Natino, G.R. No. 118691 within the discretion of the [trial court] whether to
(1996)] consider the pleading as filed or not,‖ and denying, for
lack of merit, petitioner‘s motion to expunge the ―Answer
1. Personal (with Counterclaims)‖ and to declare private
respondents in default
(1) Delivering personally a copy to the party, who is not HELD: Judge Ricafort did not commit GAD
represented by a counsel, or to his counsel; or ● Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion
(2) Leaving a copy in counsel‘s office with his clerk or with a to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other
person having charge thereof; or modes of service or filing were resorted to and no
(3) Leaving the copy between 8am and 6pm at the party‘s or written explanation was made as to why personal
counsel‘s residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age service was not done in the first place. The exercise of
and discretion then residing thereon – if not person is found discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability
in his office, or if his office is unknown, or if he has no office of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the
clause ―whenever practicable.‖
2. Mail ● personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort
to other modes of service and filing, the exception.
(1)Ordinary Mail - it does not constitute filing until the papers Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
are actually delivered into the custody of clerk or judge practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place
(a) Service may be done by ordinary mail if no and person, personal service or filing is mandatory.
registry service is available in the locality of either Only when personal service or filing is not practicable
sender or addressee may resort to other modes be had, which must then be
accompanied by a written explanation as to why
(2) Registered Mail - The date of mailing is the date of filing personal service or filing was not practicable to begin
(a)Date of filing is determinable from 2 sources: with
(i) From the post office stamp on the ● In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court
envelope shall likewise consider the importance of the subject
(ii) From the registry receipt matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and
(b)It is done by depositing in the post office: the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be
(c) In a sealed envelope expunged for violation of Section 11.
(d) Plainly addressed to the party or his counsel ● proximity would seem to make personal service most
(i) At his office if known practicable, but exceptions may nonetheless apply. For
(ii) Otherwise, at his residence if known instance, where the adverse party or opposing counsel
(e) Postage fully pre-paid to be served with a pleading seldom reports to office
(f) With instructions to the postmaster to return the and no employee is regularly present to receive
mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered pleadings, or where service is done on the last day of
the reglementary period and the office of the adverse
3. Substituted party or opposing counsel to be served is closed, for
whatever reason.
Done by delivery of the copy to the clerk of court with proof of ● ITC: the proximity between the offices of opposing
failure of both personal and service by mail counsel was established; moreover, the office of private
respondents‘ counsel was ―ten times farther‖ from the
Proper only when: post office than the distance separating the offices of
(1) Service cannot be made personally or by mail opposing counsel. Private respondents‘ counsel violated
(2) Office and place of residence of the party or his counsel Section 11 of Rule 13 and the motion to expunge was
being unknown prima facie meritorious
● BUT: the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect only
Service is complete at the time of such delivery. on 1 July 1997, while the questioned ―Answer (with
Counterclaims)‖ was filed only on 8 August 1997, or on
4. Publication the 39th day following the effectivity of the 1997 Rules.
Hence, private respondents‘ counsel may not have
Solar v Ricafort, G.R. No. 132007, 5 August 1998 been fully aware of the requirements and ramifications
● Solar Entertainment [PET] filed before Paranaque RTC of Section 11, Rule 13.
a complaint for recovery of possession and damages ● instant petition is DISMISSED considering that while the
with prayer for a writ of replevin vs. Felix Co, Jeffrey Cal justification for the denial of the motion to expunge the
and King Cuisia [RESP] ―Answer (with Counterclaims)‖ may not necessarily be
● RESP filed their ―Answer (with Counterclaims)‖. A copy correct, yet, for the reasons above stated, the violation
thereof was furnished counsel for PET by registered of Section 11 of Rule 13 may be condoned
mail; however, the pleading did not contain any written
explanation as to why service was not made personally,
as required by Section 11 of Rule 13
● PET filed a motion to expunge the ―Answer (with
Counterclaims)‖ and to declare RESP in default. There
IX. Service of Summons ● Before the expiry of the redemption period, the spouses
Trocino sold the property to PET Sps Fortunato and
section 1(c), Rule 16
Aurora Gomez on December 12, 1989, who in turn,
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the redeemed the same from Dr. Yujuico.
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a ● The spouses Trocino, however, refused to convey
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following ownership of the properties to PET, hence, the
grounds: complaint for specific performance and/or rescission
(c) That venue is improperly laid; ● RTC‘s Process Server served summons on RESP
through RESP Caridad Trocino (mother of RESPs)
section 4, Rule 46
● RESP filed their Answer verified by RESP Caridad
Section 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how ● RTC ruled in favor of PET, ordered RESPs to execute a
acquired. — The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the Deed of Sale in favor of the PET and to deliver the
person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or owner‘s duplicate copies of TCTs
resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his ● RESP Adolfo and Mariano Trocino filed petition for the
voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. (n) annulment of the judgment rendered by RTC, alleging
that it did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons as
section 7, Rule 24
they were not validly served with a copy of the
Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. — If an appeal has summons and the complaint. At the time summons was
been taken from a judgment of a court, including the Court of served on them, Adolfo Trocino was already in Ohio,
Appeals in proper cases, or before the taking of an appeal if U.S.A., and has been residing there for 25 years, while
the time therefor has not expired, the court in which the Mariano Trocino was in Talibon, Bohol, and has been
judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions residing there since 1986. They refuted the receipt of
of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for in the event of the summons by Caridad A. Trocino, and the
further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party representation made by Atty. Bugarin in their behalf.
who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion ● CA granted petition for annulment of judgment, annulled
in the said court for leave to take the depositions, upon the decision of RTC Cebu
same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending HELD: When the process server personally served the
therein. The motion shall state (a) the names and addresses summons on Caridad Trocino, the trial court validly acquired
of the persons to be examined and the substance of the jurisdiction over her person alone. Hence, the trial court‘s
testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and (b) the decision is valid and binding with regard to her, but only in
reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that proportion to Caridad Trocino‘s share
the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure
or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the
ACTIONS IN PERSONAM ACTIONS IN REM/QUASI IN
deposition to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may
REM
be taken and used in the same manner and under the same
summons on the defendant jurisdiction over the person
conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for depositions
must be served by handing a of the defendant is NOT a
taken in pending actions. (7a, R134)
copy thereof to the defendant prerequisite to confer
in person, or, if he refuses to jurisdiction on the court
A. Modes of service receive it, by tendering it to provided that the court
1. Personal him. (R14.7) acquires jurisdiction over the
If efforts to find the defendant res, although summons must
section 6, Rule 14 personally makes prompt be served upon the
Section 6. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever service impossible, defendant in order to satisfy
practicable, the summons shall be served by handling a copy substituted service may be the due process
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive effected requirements
and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (7a)
ITC: since the case is an action in personam because it is an
2. Substituted action against persons on the basis of their personal liability,
personal service of summons upon the RESPs is
section 7, Rule 14 essential in order for the court to acquire of jurisdiction
Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the over their persons
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as Consequently, the judgment sought to be executed
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) against respondents were rendered without jurisdiction
by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's as there was neither a proper service of summons nor
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion was there any waiver or voluntary submission to the trial
then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at court‘s jurisdiction. Hence, the same is void, with regard to
defendant's office or regular place of business with some private respondents except Caridad Trocino
competent person in charge thereof. (8a)
Notes:
Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, 10 March Technique when some co-owners are abroad: have their
2004 properties attached to convert the in personam action into
● RESP Sps Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged two quasi in rem
parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 10616 and 31856
to Dr. Clarence Yujuico. Philam Life v. Breva, G.R. 147937, 11 November 2004
● Mortgage was subsequently foreclosed and the - respondent Milagros Morales filed a complaint for
properties sold at public auction on July 11, 1988 damages and reimbursement of insurance premiums.
Complaint stated that petitioner could be served with
summons and other court processes thru its Manager at trial court over her person due to an invalid substituted
its branch office in Davao City service of summons
- Summons served upon Philam‘s Davao office and HELD: There was no valid substituted service of
received by Insurance Service Officer summons for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction
- Philam filed MTD otg of lack of jurisdiction over its - There is no clear valid reason cited in the Return why
person due to improper service of summons. The efforts to serve summons on Manotoc proved
employee who received was not among those inadequate, to reach the conclusion that personal
enumerated in Rule 14, RoC service has become impossible or unattainable
- Morales filed amended complaint alleging that summons - Before resorting to substituted service, a plaintiff
may also be served at Philam‘s principal office in Manila must demonstrate an effort in good faith to locate
- RTC denied MTD and directed service of alias the defendant through more direct means
summons in Manila (improper service of summons not - The narration of the efforts made to find the
ground for dismissal because case is still in its initial defendant and the fact of failure written in broad
stage) and imprecise words will not suffice
- CA held that the service of alias summons vested the - The facts and circumstances should be stated with
RTC with jurisdiction over the person of petitioner more particularity and detail on the number of
HELD: attempts made at personal service, dates and times of
- An alias summons may be served in case of wrongful the attempts, inquiries to locate defendant, names of
service of summons occupants of the alleged residence, and the reasons for
- ITC, complaint was amended after the petitioner filed failure should be included in the Return to satisfactorily
the motion to dismiss. show the efforts undertaken
- Where the defendant has already been served - ADDED TO THIS, the Court ruled that the requirements
summons on the original complaint, the amended of (1) being a person of suitable age and discretion; and
complaint may be served upon him without need of (2) that the recipient must reside in the house or
another summons. But if no summons yet been validly residence of the defendant; were NOT MET in serving
served on the defendant, new summons for the the summons to the caretaker
amended complaint must be served on him
- ITC, since at the time the complaint was amended no
summons had been properly served on the petitioner 3. Publication
and it had not yet appeared in court, new summons
section 14, Rule 14
should have been issued on the amended complaint.
SO, the TC should have ordered the service of an Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or
original summons, not an alias summons (which is just a whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the
continuation of an original summons) defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
- Nonetheless, alias vs. original = mere nomenclature whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court,
Note: be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of
- The ruling in Philamlife is the exact opposite of the general circulation and in such places and for such time as
ruling in Manotoc. But Sir Lumba thinks that the the court may order. (16a)
Philamlife ruling should be followed.
section 1(f), Rule 57
- MTD for lack of jurisdiction over the person is only
applicable among others if foreign corporation not doing Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At
business in the Philippines the commencement of the action or at any time before entry
of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the
Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. 130974, 16 August 2006 property of the adverse party attached as security for the
- PET Ma. Imelda M. Manotoc is the defendant in a civil satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
case entitled Agapita Trajano, pro se, and on behalf of following cases:
the Estate of Archimedes Trajano v. Imelda ‗Imee‘ R. (f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not
Marcos-Manotoc for Filing, Recognition and/or found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment served by publication. (1a)
- RESP Trajano seeks the enforcement of a foreign
court‘s judgment in US District Court of Honolulu, 4. Extraterritorial
Hawaii, in a case entitled Agapita Trajano, et al. v. Imee
Marcos-Manotoc a.k.a. Imee Marcos for wrongful death sections 12, 15-16, Rule 14
of deceased Archimedes Trajano committed by military Section 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. —
intelligence officials of the Philippines allegedly under When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
the command of Manotoc has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be
- trial court issued a Summons addressed to PET at made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law
Alexandra Homes, E2 Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
Avenue, Pasig City. The Summons and a copy of the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any
Complaint were allegedly served upon Macky de la of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (14a)
Cruz, an alleged caretaker of PET at the condominium Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant
unit. When petitioner failed to file her Answer, the trial does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the
court declared her in default. action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to,
- PET, by special appearance of counsel, filed a Motion or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in
to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest transaction which occurred in the Philippines, service of any
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached summons or other legal process may be made upon the
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be Securities and Exchange Commission and that such service
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under shall have the same force and effect as if made upon the duly
section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general authorized officers of the corporation at its home office."
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may Whenever such service of summons or other process shall
order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the be made upon the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known Commission shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, transmit by
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court mail a copy of such summons or other legal process to the
may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty such copy by the Commission shall be necessary part of and
(60) days after notice, within which the defendant must shall complete such service. All expenses incurred by the
answer. (17a) Commission for such service shall be paid in advance by the
Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — party at whose instance the service is made. In case of a
When any action is commenced against a defendant who change of address of the resident agent, it shall be his or its
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is duty to immediately notify in writing the Securities and
temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also Exchange Commission of the new address. (72a; and n)
effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding Section 133. Doing business without a license. - No foreign
section. (18a) corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a
license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
section 1(f), Rule 57 maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At court or administrative agency of the Philippines; but such
the commencement of the action or at any time before entry corporation may be sued or proceeded against before
of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid
property of the adverse party attached as security for the cause of action recognized under Philippine laws. (69a)
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
following cases: A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is hereby amended
found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be to read as follows:
served by publication. (1a) "SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. —
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
sections 123, 128, 133, Corporation Code has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be
Section 123. Definition and rights of foreign corporations. - made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law
For the purposes of this Code, a foreign corporation is one for that purpose, or, i f there be no such agent, on the
formed, organized or existing under any laws other than government official designated by law to that effect, or on any
those of the Philippines and whose laws allow Filipino of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
citizens and corporations to do business in its own country or If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
state. It shall have the right to transact business in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave
Philippines after it shall have obtained a license to transact of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the
business in this country in accordance with this Code and a following means:
certificate of authority from the appropriate government a) B y personal service coursed through the appropriate court
agency. (n) in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department
Section 128. Resident agent; service of process. - The of Foreign Affairs;
Securities and Exchange Commission shall require as a b) B y publication once in a newspaper of general circulation
condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact in the country where the defendant may be found and by
business in the Philippines by any foreign corporation that serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-
such corporation file with the Securities and Exchange registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
Commission a written power of attorney designating some c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could
person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom generate proof of service; or
any summons and other legal processes may be served in all d) B y such other means as the court may in its discretion
actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, direct."
and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall This rule shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in
be admitted and held as valid as if served upon the duly a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home March 15, 2011
office. Any such foreign corporation shall likewise execute
and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission an
agreement or stipulation, executed by the proper authorities WoN the court can acquire jurisdiction:
of said corporation, in form and substance as follows: "The
(name of foreign corporation) does hereby stipulate and PENNOYER (TERRITORIAL): substituted service of process
agree, in consideration of its being granted by the Securities for in personam actions and acquisition of jurisdiction may not
and Exchange Commission a license to transact business in be permitted if the defendant does not reside (for
the Philippines, that if at any time said corporation shall corporations, was not incorporated) and is not found (for
cease to transact business in the Philippines, or shall be corporations, is not doing business) in the territory applies
without any resident agent in the Philippines on whom any to the Philippines
summons or other legal processes may be served, then in Found Not found
any action or proceeding arising out of any business or Related (to a Yes In personam – No
transaction in the In rem/quasi in
territory) rem - Yes permitted only for in rem actions. There could be no judgment
Unelated Yes In personam – No regarding the personal rights of the parties without personal
In rem/quasi in jurisdiction, so the sale was void. However, the sale would
rem - Yes have been valid if the plaintiff had attached the real property
in the state when the action was brought, which would have
SHAFFER/INTERNATIONAL SHOE/DAIMLER (LONG conferred in rem jurisdiction
ARM): substituted service of process for in personam actions
and acquisition of jurisdiction may be permitted even if the Note:
defendant does not reside (for corporations, was not - Attaching the property converts the action to a quasi in
incorporated) and is not found (for corporations, is not doing rem action
business) in the territory so long as there are MINIMUM - But according to Sir Lumba, MORTGAGE ALWAYS IN
POINTS OF CONTACT IN THE TERRITORY QUASI IN REM
section 8, Rule 15
Section 8. Omnibus motion. — Subject to the provisions of
section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, Ayala Corp. v. Rosa-Diana Realty, G.R. No. 134284, 1
judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then December 2000
- Ayala sold its lot (SPS SY) Manuel Sy & Vilma Po and
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed
(SPS KIENG) with special conditions:
waived. (8a)
a) the vendees shall build on the lot and submit the building
Section 47, Rule 39 plans to the vendor before September 30, 1976 for the latters
approval
Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect
of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the b) the construction of the building shall start on or before
Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or March 30, 1977 and completed before 1979. Before such
final order, may be as follows: (a) In case of a judgment or completion, neither the deed of sale shall be registered nor
the title released even if the purchase price shall have been
final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the
probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a fully paid
deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or c) there shall be no resale of the property
- Both Sps Sy and Sps Kieng failed to construct the
legal condition or status of a particular person or his
building in violation of the Special Conditions of
relationship to another, the judgment or final order is
Sale.
conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration
or the condition, status or relationship of the person, - Notwithstanding the violation, Sy and Ka Kieng, in April
however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of 1989, were able to sell the lot to respondent Rosa-Diana
administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death Realty and Development Corporation with Ayala‘s
of the testator or intestate; (b) In other cases, the judgment or approval
- Rosa-Diana executed an Undertaking promising to
final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or
as to any other matter that could have been missed in abide by said special conditions of sale executed
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their between Ayala and the original vendees. Upon the
successors in interest, by title subsequent to the submission of the Undertaking, together with the
commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating building plans for a condominium project, known as The
for the same thing and under the same title and in the same Peak, Ayala released title to the lot, thereby enabling
capacity; and (c) In any other litigation between the same Rosa-Diana to register the deed of sale in its favor and
parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to obtain Certificate of Title. The title carried as
have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which encumbrances the special conditions of sale and the
appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which deed restrictions. Rosa-Dianas building plans as
was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary approved by Ayala were subject to strict compliance of
thereto. (49a) cautionary notices appearing on the building plans and
to the restrictions encumbering the Lot regarding the
article 15-16, 2037, 2041, NCC use and occupancy of the same. Rosa-Diana submitted
to the building official of Makati another set of building
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
plans for The Peak which were substantially
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
different from those that it earlier submitted to Ayala for
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
(9a) approval.
Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is - Ayala filed an action with RTC Makati for specific
subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated. performance, with application for a writ of preliminary
Article 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect injunction/temporary restraining order against Rosa-
and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution Diana Realty seeking to compel the latter to comply with
except in compliance with a judicial compromise. (1816) the contractual obligations under the building plans it
Article 2041. If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by submitted. In the alternative, Ayala prayed for rescission
the compromise, the other party may either enforce the of the sale of the subject lot to Rosa- Diana Realty
- RTC: DENIED
compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his
original demand. (n) - Rosa-Diana able to complete the construction of the
building.
section 50, Rule 39, 1964 Rules of Court - Ayala tried to cause the annotation of a notice of lis
SECTION 50. Effect of Foreign Judgments. — The effect of a pendens on Rosa-Diana‘s title.
- Register of Deeds of Makati: refused registration of
judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction
the notice of lis pendens
to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the o on the ground that the case pending before the
judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing; trial court, being an action for specific
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the performance and/or rescission, is an action in
personam which does not involve the title, use also mentioned at the same time that this particular
or possession of the property. issue has yet to be resolved by the trial court. When
o Land Registration Authority (LRA): reversed appealed to the SC, the latter affirmed the ruling of the
the ruling of the Register of Deeds CA only as regards the particular issue of the propriety
o action for specific performance or rescission of the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens.
may be classified as a proceeding of any kind - Hence, there is no reason why the law of the case or
in court directly affecting title to the land or the stare decisis can be held to be applicable in the case at
use or occupation thereof for which a notice of bench.
lis pendens may be held proper. - the pronouncement made by the CA that petitioner
st
- CA: Overturned the LRA decision (1 CA case) Ayala is barred from enforcing the deed of
- SC affirmed CA: the notice of lis pendens is not proper restrictions can only be considered as obiter dicta.
in this instance. The case before the trial court is a - A dictum is an opinion of a judge which does not
personal action since the cause of action thereof arises embody the resolution or determination of the court, and
primarily from the alleged violation of the Deed of made without argument, or full consideration of the
Restrictions. point, not the proffered deliberate opinion of the judge
- In the meantime, Ayala completed its presentation of himself
evidence before the trial court. o Mere dicta are not binding under the doctrine
- Rosa-Diana → filed a Demurrer to Evidence averring of stare decisis
that Ayala failed to establish its right to the relief sought
- RTC: sustained Rosa-Diana‘s Demurrer to Evidence Notes:
- CA: Affirmed the ruling of the trial court saying that the Stare Decisis - When the SC has laid down a principle
appeal is sealed by the doctrine of the law of the case in of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere
st
the 1 CA case where it was held that Ayala is barred to that principle and apply to it all future cases where
from enforcing the Deed of Restrictions in question the facts are substantially the same
pursuant to the doctrine of waiver and estoppel Law of the Case - Whatever is once irrevocably
- Upon MR, the CA clarified that the citation of the established as the controlling legal rule or decision
st
decision in 1 CA case was made not because said between the same parties in the case continues to be
decision is res judicata to the case at bar but rather the law of the case whether correct on general
because it is precedential under the doctrine of principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
stare decisis decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the
- Ayala filed the present appeal, contending that the case before the court.
st
pronouncement in the 1 CA case that it is estopped
from enforcing the deed restrictions is merely obiter Obiter Dicta is not part of the law of the case
dicta inasmuch as the only issue raised in the aforesaid
case was the propriety of a lis pendens annotation on Zarate v. Director, G.R. No. 13334, 18 March 1919
Rosa-Dianas certificate of title. Ayala avers that Rosa- Court of Land Registration declared that Zarate has a
Diana presented no evidence whatsoever on Ayala‘s right to register title to all of the lands described in the
supposed waiver or estoppel in said case. application, with exception of the portion claimed as
HELD: Petition GRANTED, CA REVERSED homestead by Gamido.
law of the case stare decisis Res judicata On the return of the record to the CFI Nueva Ecija, an
- operates only - proceeds from the ruling adhered order was issued by the judge, finding that a homestead
in the particular the first principle of to in the particular patent had been issued to Gamido and consequently
case and only as justice that, absent case needs to be directing the exclusion of the portion of the land
a rule of policy powerful followed as a described in the main decision
and not as one of countervailing precedent in Zarate appeals from this order, although his intention is
law considerations, like subsequent not well grounded, resulting principally through an
- adhered to in cases ought to be litigation between erroneous conception of the original decision of this
the single case decided alike the same parties court as written in English.
where it arises, - once a point of HELD: The Court explained that ―we must respect the title so
but is not carried law has been secured, provided it be a fact that the patent has been
into other cases established by the secured in any of said homestead proceedings.‖
as a precedent court, that point of A well-known legal principle is that when an appellate
law will, generally, court has once declared the law in a case, such
be followed by the declaration continues to be the law of that case even on
same court and by subsequent appeal.
all courts of lower
The ―law of the case‖ as applied to a former decision of
rank in subsequent
an appellate court merely expresses the practice of
cases where the
courts in refusing to reopen what has been decided.
same legal issue is
o Such rule is necessary to enable an
raised
appellate court to perform its duties
- only issue that was raised before the CA was whether or satisfactorily and efficiently, which would be
not the annotation of lis pendens is proper. It is clear impossible if a question, once considered
that the CA was aware that the issue as to W/N and decided by it were to be litigated anwe
petitioner is estopped from enforcing the deed of in the same case upon any and every
restrictions has yet to be resolved by the trial court. subsequent appeal.‖
Though it did make a pronouncement that the petitioner o The goal is to end litigation.
is estopped from enforcing the deed of restrictions, it
The Supreme Court of Missouri described the phrase had one fair trial on an issue from again
―Law of the Case‖ in Mangold v. Bacon: ―The general drawing it into controversy
rule, nakedly and badly put, is that legal conclusions ○ Protects persons from being twice vexed for the
announced on a first appeal, whether on the general law same cause
or the law as applied to the concrete facts, not only ○ Must conform to the mandate of due process of
prescribed the duty and limit the power of the trial court law that no person be deprived of personal or
to strict obedience and conformity thereto, but they property rights by a judgment without notice and
become and remain the law of the case in all after steps an opportunity to be heard
below or above on subsequent appeal. WHO MAY ASSERT RES JUDICATA
o The rule is grounded on convenience, ● Facile formula: the plea of res judicata is available only
experience, and reason. Without the rule when there is privity and mutuality of estoppel
there would be no end to criticism, ● Under the requirement of privity, only parties to the
reagitation, reexamination, and former judgment or their privies may take advantage of
reformulation. In short, there would be or be bound by it.
endless litigation. ○ A party in this connection is one who is directly
o It would be intolerable if parties litigant interested in the subject matter, and had a right
were allowed to speculate on changes in to make defense or to control the proceeding,
the personnel of a court, or on chance of and to appeal from the judgment
our rewriting propositions once gravely ○ A privy is one who, after rendition of the
ruled on solemn argument and handed judgment, has acquired an interest in the
down as the law of a given case. subject matter affected by the judgment through
or under one of the parties, as by inheritance,
Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807, 122 P.2d 892 succession or purchase
(1942) ● The estoppel is mutual if the one taking advantage of the
- MRS. SATHER MR. COOK and DR. ZEILER to make earlier adjudication would have been bound by it, had it
drafts against her commercial account in Los Angeles. gone against him
MR. COOK opened a commercial account at Bank of AGAINST WHOM A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA MAY BE
San Dimas in the name of CLARA SATHER BY ASSERTED
CHARLES COOK. Amounts were drawn from Los ● The requirements of due process of law forbid the
Angeles account to San Dimas account to meet various assertion of a plea of res judicata against a party unless
expenses of MRS. SATHER he was bound by the earlier litigation in which the matter
- MRS. SATHER signed by mark an authorization was decided
directing the Los Angeles bank to transfer the balance ● He is bound by that litigation only if he has been a
of her savings account to San Dimas Bank. Cook party thereto or in privity with a party thereto. There
withdrew the entire balance from that account and is no compelling reason for requiring that the party
opened a new account in the same bank in the name of asserting the plea of res judicata must have been a
himself and his wife party, or in privity with a party, to the earlier litigation
- MRS. SATHER died. COOK qualified as executor of ● Courts have abandoned the requirement of mutuality and
estate and proceeded with its administration. After the confined the requirement of privity to the party against
lapse of several years, he filed an account and made no whom the plea of res judicata is asserted
mention of the money transferred by MRS. SATHER to ● Exception to the requirement of mutuality and
the San Dimas Bank. The beneficiaries under MRS. privity: that they are not necessary where the liability of
SATHER‘s will filed objections to the account for this the defendant asserting the plea of res judicata is
reason. After a hearing on the objections the court dependent upon or derived from the liability of one who
settled the account and ruled that the MRS. SATHER was exonerated in an earlier suit brought by the same
during her lifetime made a gift to COOK of the amount plaintiff (example of derivative liability: master and
deposited servant, principal and agent, and indemnitor and
- BERNHARD was appointed adminstratrix. She indemnitee)
instituted the action against Bank of America ● In determining validity of res judicata, 3 questions are
(successor of San Dimas Bank) seeking to recover pertinent: Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication
the deposit on the ground that the bank was identical with the one presented in the action in
indebted to the estate for this amount because MRS. question? Was there a final judgment on the merits?
SATHER never authorized its withdrawal Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party
- TC ruled in favor of the bank: COOK‘s ownership of the or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?
money was conclusively established by the finding of ● ITC: Bank is not precluded by lack of privity or of
the probate court mutuality of estoppel from asserting the plea of res
HELD: the doctrine of res judicata applies because of the judicata against the plaintiff. Since the issue as to the
ruling of the probate court on settlement of COOK‘s account ownership of the money is identical with the issue raised
● Doctrine of res judicata: precludes parties or their in the probate proceeding, and since the order of the
privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been probate court settling the executor's account was a final
finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. adjudication of this issue on the merits, it remains only to
Any issue necessarily decided in such litigation is determine WON the plaintiff was a party or in privity with
conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies a party to the earlier proceeding. The plaintiff has
if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit on a different brought the present action in the capacity of
cause of action. administratrix of the estate. In this capacity she
○ Rule is based upon sound public of policy of represents the very same persons and interests that
limiting litigation by preventing a party who has
were represented in the earlier hearing on the executor's
account. Perkins v Benguet Consolidated, G.R. No. L-1981, 30
● The plea of res judicata is therefore available against October 1953
plaintiff as a party to the former proceeding, despite her - Mrs. Perkins filed a suit for partition of community
formal change of capacity property against her husband, Mr. Perkins before CFI
Manila [FIRST CASE]
o Mr. Perkins filed counterclaim, arguingthat
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois some of the assets in the community property
Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971) were joint property and that Mrs. Perkins
- University of Illinois Foundation (Foundation) is the illegally deprived him of the possession and
owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 3,210,767, admin of said assets; requested that she
issued to Dwight E. Isbell. render account of said assets
- The patent is for "Frequency Independent Unidirectional o Mrs. Perkins later on withdrew the lawsuit and
Antennas, designed for transmission and reception of reuested that judgment be rendered pursuant
electromagnetic radio frequency signals used in many to Mr. Perkins‘ counterclaim
types of communications, including the broadcasting of o CFI rendered decision granting Mr. Perkins‘
radio and television signals counterclaim
- the patent has been much litigated since it was first - Mr. Perkins filed a lawsuit before the SC of NY against
granted in Oct 1965. In University of Illinois Foundation Mrs. Perkins asking for delivery of the shares of stock in
v. Winegard Co: The Foundation filed in the Southern Benguet Consolidated Mining issued to Mrs. Perkins as
District of Iowa an infringement suit against the their marital property and under the custody of the
Winegard Co., an antenna manufacturer - the Court Guaranty Trust Co. of NY [SECOND CASE]
held for the alleged infringer and against the patentee. It o Mrs. Perkins opposed, claiming that the
held that the patent was invalid decision of the CFI Manila was obtained by
- in the present case, The Foundation filed suit in the fraud and therefore void. She asked that she
Northern District of Illinois charging its customer, be declared the owner of said shares
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. (hereafter B-T), with o The SC of NY ruled in favor of Mr. Perkins.
infringing two patents it owned by assignment, including o On appeal, the State CA of NY ruled in favor of
the Isbell Patent and Mayes patent. Mrs. Perkins
- The trial judge held that the Foundation‘s patents were - Mr. Perkins filed a case before the CFI against Mrs.
valid and infringed Perkins and Benguet Consolidated Mining, asking for
HELD: THE DETERMINATION OF PATENT INVALIDITY IS recognition as the person in control of the shares of
RES JUDICATA AS AGAINST THE PATENTEE IN A stocks and for delivery of the dividends [THIRD CASE]
SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION HELD: the deision of the State CA of NY constitutes res
- Triplett v. Lowell exemplified the judge-made doctrine of judicata
mutuality of estoppel: unless both parties (or their - When Mr. Perkins went to the NY court to litigate again
privies) in a second action are bound by a judgment in a over the ownership of the shares of stock, he
previous case, neither party (nor his privy) in the second abandoned the decision of the CFI Manla, waiving the
action may use the prior judgment as determinative. rights awarded to him. He should not be allowed today
- However, even when the ruling was Triplett v Lowell to challenge the judgment against him in a case that he
was promulgated, the doctrine of mutuality of estoppel promoted.
has been in scrutiny. Courts had discarded the - In the case before the NY court and in the present case
requirement of mutuality and held that only the party there is identity of things: shares and dividends; there is
against whom the plea of estoppel was asserted had to identity of causes, the claim of ownership and
have been in privity with a party in the prior action. possession; and identity of persons
- Judicial economy and an interest in the best use of - The contention that Benguet was not a party to the case
plaintiff‘s and defendant‘s resources mandate the bar to in NY is of no moment, because Benguet does not claim
bring the same claim against a different party any adverse rights over the shares
● Assuming that a perfectly sound judgment of
invalidity has been rendered in an earlier suit Feliciano v. CA, 287 S 61 (1998)
involving the patentee, a second infringement action - Eleuterio Cosme obtained a loan from the Insular Bank
raising the same issue and involving much of the of Asia and America → secured by a mortgage over a
same proof has a high cost to the individual parties. parcel of land registered in his name ―married to
● Following the Triplett ruling, there would be a Asuncion Obando.‖
tendency to multiply the opportunities for holders of - Loan not paid upon maturity; mortgage was foreclosed
invalid patents to exact licensing agreements or extrajudicially and sold at public auction with the bank
other settlements from alleged infringers. (In its as the highest bidder. After the lapse of the redemption
discussion, the Court heavily discussed the fact that period, ownership over the land was consolidated in the
patents are imbued with public interest) bank
- Thus, we conclude that Triplett should be overruled to - Eleuterio Cosme and his wife Asuncion Obando died.
the extent it forecloses a plea of estoppel by one facing Their daughters, Elisa C. Feliciano and Arsenia C.
a charge of infringement of a patent that has once been Buendia, took possession of the property and exercised
declared invalid their rights of ownership thereof as compulsory heirs of
their deceased parents
- Elisa instituted before the RTC an action against the
bank for the Annulment of Mortgage, Certificate of Sale,
Deed of Absolute Sale
- Ernesto Baron bought the subject property from the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a
bank and the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale was recovery in the first
executed in his favor - The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or
- Baron demanded from Elisa and Arsenia to pay rents detainer shall be effective with respect to the
and vacate the premises possession only and in no case bind the title or affect
- Elisa refused insisting that she was owner of the the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment
property and that it was currently the subject of a shall not bar an action between the same parties
pending litigation in the RTC respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be held
- Baron filed a complaint for ejectment before the MeTC conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between
- MeTC dismissed the case on the ground of litis the same parties upon the different cause of action
pendentia involving possession
- RTC affirmed the decision of the MeTC holding that litis o If the rule were otherwise, ejectment cases
pendentia existed could easily be frustrated by the defendant
- CA reversed: litis pendentia was not present in this case through the simple expedient of filing an action
as there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs in the RTC contesting the plaintiff‘s ownership
prayed for over the property from which the defendant is
- Before the SC: Petitioner Elisa C. Feliciano now insists sought to be evicted. This would render
that there is identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed nugatory the underlying philosophy of the
for in both the pending RTC case for annulment and summary remedy of ejectment which is to
reconveyance with damages, and the MeTC case for prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the
ejectment, i.e., ownership and possession of the subject peace and to discourage those who, believing
property and that, additionally, a judgment in the themselves entitled to the possession of the
pending RTC case, regardless of which party is property, resort to force rather than to some
successful, will amount to res judicata in the ejectment appropriate action in court to assert their
case claims
HELD: No litis pendentia - the test is whether admitting the facts alleged, the court
- Litis pendentia is a Latin term which literally means ―a can render a valid judgment upon the same in
pending suit.‖ accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff
- It is variously referred to in some decisions as lis
pendens and auter action pendant Camara v. CA, 310 S 608 (1999)
- Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil - Jose Zulueta (Zulueta) executed in favor of Spouses
action refers to that situation wherein another action is Camara a Contract of Absolute Sale over a parcel of lot
pending between the same parties for the same cause in Makati City.
of action and that the second action becomes - After the execution of the Deed of Sale, Spouses
unnecessary and vexatious. Camara noticed two separate mortgages annotated on
- Therefore, for litis pendentia to be invoked the the TCT of the lot – a first mortgage in favor of China
concurrence of the following requisites is necessary: Banking Corp. and a second mortgage in favor of
(a) identity of parties or at least such as represent the same Ramon Lacson (Lacson).
interest in both actions; - Upon knowing such encumbrances, Spouses Camara
(b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs brought an action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
being founded on the same facts; and, against Zulueta, to remove from the title the annotated
(c) the identity in the two (2) cases should be such that the mortgages.
judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of o During its pendency, the loan covered by the
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other first mortgage was settled, leaving only the
Lacson mortgage.
- litis pendentia does not obtain in this case because of o Lacson executed a Deed of Assignment of his
the absence of the second and third requisites. mortgage in favor of Celina Hernaez
- the issues involved and the reliefs prayed for are not the (Hernaez).
same. In the annulment and reconveyance suit, the - A decision was rendered in the action for specific
issue is the validity of the mortgage and the subsequent performance, ordering Zulueta to cancel or release the
foreclosure sale, whereas the issue in the ejectment said mortgages
case is whether, assuming the mortgage and - Zulueta executed in favor of Hernaez a ―Supplemental
foreclosure sale to be valid, private respondent has the and Amendment to the Mortgage‖ over his (Zulueta‘s)
right to take possession of other properties, which instrument reproduced,
o In the former case, the relief prayed for is confirmed and supplemented the assigned Lacson
recovery of ownership of the subject land, mortgage.
while the latter, it is the restoration of - Hernaez brought an action for JUDICIAL
possession thereof to private respondent FORECLOSURE of the ―Supplemental and Amendment
- MeTC can validly try the ejectment case even while the to Contract of Mortgage‖ against the heirs of Zulueta
annulment suit is being litigated in the RTC (who died at this time).
- different causes of action in the RTC and MeTC cases, - A decision in the action for judicial foreclosure was
a decision in one case will not constitute res judicata as rendered in favor of Hernaez
to the other. Concededly, a decision in one case may, to - Spouses Camara instituted a case for QUIETING OF
a certain extent, affect the other case since they involve TITLE against Hernaez before RTC Makati, but it was
the same parcel of land. But the test to determine dismissed on the ground of res judicata and lack of
identity of causes of action is to ascertain whether the cause of action.
same evidence which is necessary to sustain the
HELD: Spouses Camara‘s case for quieting of title was o Tan assailed the validity of the Undertaking
properly dismissed on the grounds of res judicata before RTC Dagupan claiming that he was
- Res judicata has two concepts. The first is bar by coerced into signing it.
prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47 (b), and RTC: declared the undertaking null and void due to
the second is conclusiveness of judgment under vitiation of Tan‘s consent.
Rule 39, Section 47 (c). CA: reversed RTC, dismissed Tan‘s complaint (1st
- ITC: , res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness decision); ordered Tan to pay P45,000, doctrine of
of judgment applies. The judgment in the ACTION conclusiveness of judgment applicable (2nd decision)
FOR JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE brought by Hernaez o Based on the undertaking, Wu Sen Woei was
is conclusive on Spouses Camara‘s ACTION FOR further able to collect $25,000. He filed another
QUIETING OF TITLE. complaint to collect the remaining P45,000 plus
o There is ―conclusiveness of judgment,‖ interest and attorney‘s fees, on the ground that
when, between the first case where Tan had defrauded him by not actually investing
judgment was rendered and the second the money into the said business.
case where such judgment is invoked, there HELD: the CA decision concerning the validity of Tan‘s
is identity of parties, NOT of causes of Affidavit of Undertaking has become conclusive on the
action. The judgment is conclusive in the parties pursuant to the doctrine of conclusiveness of
second case, only as to those matters actually judgment
and directly controverted and determined, and
CA‘s earlier decision concerning the validity of the
not as to matters merely involved therein.
undertaking has become conclusive to the parties,
- As to the cause of action, the action for judicial
pursuant to Sec. 47(c) Rule 39. The parties are bound by
foreclosure is different from the action of quieting of
the matters adjudged and those that are actually and
title, the former being anchored on the Supplemental
necessarily included therein.
and Amendment to Contract of Mortgage, and the latter
on the old cause of action arising from Zulueta‘s Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment or ―preclusion of
violation of his express warranty that the subject Makati issues‖ or ―collateral estoppel‖: issues actually and
lot was free from any lien or encumbrance when it was directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised
sold to the Spouses. in any future case between the same parties involving a
- As to identity of parties, although the parties different cause of action.
involved are not exactly the same, there is In the case at bar, Tan again seeks refuge in the alleged
substantially an identity of parties, for purposes of nullity of the same undertaking which was already ruled
res judicata. Even if the first action for judicial upon with finality. The question on the validity of the
foreclosure was brought against the heirs of Zulueta and undertaking has been settled. The same question cannot
the present action is against Hernaez, the former and be raised again even in a different proceeding involving
the latter can be considered as substantially the same the same parties.
parties since Hernaez is a successor in interest of the Although the action instituted in this case (collection of a
late Zulueta. sum of money) is a technically different action from the
- There is identity of parties not only where the case in RTC Dagupan (for annulment of document), the
parties are the same but also those in privity with concept of conclusiveness of judgment still applies
them, as between their successors in interest by title because under this principle, the identity of causes of
subsequent to the commencement of the action, action is not required, but merely identity of issues.
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and o Conclusiveness of judgment bars the
in the same capacity, or where there is substantial relitigation of particular acts or issues in
identity of parties another litigation between the same parties
- As to subject matter, the prior action for judicial on a different claim/cause of action.
foreclosure and the present action for quieting of
title involve the same Makati lot. Although it does not Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010
have the same effect as res judicata which bars - CORPUZ was a former Filipino citizen who acquired
subsequent actions, still, conclusiveness of judgment Canadian citizenship through naturalization. He married
operates as estoppel with respect to matters in issue or STO. TOMAS, a Filipina
points controverted, on the determination of which the - STO TOMAS was having an affair with another man
finding or judgment was anchored - CORPUZ returned to Canada and filed a petition for
divorce. The Superior Court of Justice granted the
Tan v. CA, G.R. No. 142401, 20 August 2001 petition for divorce and the divorce decree took effect a
Andrew Tan and Wu Sen Woei met in Taiwan where the month later
former proposed to the latter to invest money in the - 2 years after the divorce,CORPUZ has moved on and
former‘s hatchery business. has found another Filipina to love. Desirous of marrying
Wu Sen Woei parted with $80,000.00 (P1.6M) as a his new Filipina fiancee in PH, he went to Pasig City
result, but only repaid $10,000. Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian
divorce decree on his and STO TOMAS‘ marriage
Wu Sen Woei filed a complaint before the NBI to recover certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce
the unpaid balance.
decree, an official of the NSO informed him that the
Before the NBI, Tan and his sister assigned a Joint marriage between him and STO TOMAS still subsists
Affidavit of Undertaking in which Tan acknowledged his under Philippine law; to be enforceable, the foreign
indebtedness to Wu Sen Woei and that they bind divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a
themselves to pay him the remaining balance. competent Philippine court
- CORPUZ filed a petition for judicial recognition of served and STO TOMAS‘ obvious conformity with the
foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as petition]
dissolved with RTC. Although summoned, STO TOMAS - Remand will allow other interested parties to oppose the
did not file any responsive pleading but submitted a foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner‘s
notarized letter/manifestation to RTC offering no presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of
opposition to CORPUZ‘ petition and alleging her desire jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or
to file a similar case herself but was prevented by clear mistake of law or fact
financial and personal circulstances - Every precaution must be taken to ensure
- RTC: Denied the petition. CORPUZ was not the proper conformity with our laws before a recognition is
party to institute the action for judicial recognition of made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized,
foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian shall have the effect of res judicata between the
citizen. Only the Filipino spouse can avail of this remedy parties, as provided in Sec 48, Rule 39
- CORPUZ filed present petition asserting that his petition o More than the principle of comity that is served
before RTC is essentially a declaratory relief similar to by the practice of reciprocal recognition of
that filed in ORBECIDO and asked for a determination foreign judgments between nations, the res
of his rights under Art 26 par 2 Family Code since the judicata effect of the foreign judgments of
provision applies as well to the benefit of the alien divorce serves as the deeper basis for
spouse extending judicial recognition and for
HELD: 2nd paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code does considering the alien spouse bound by its
not extend to aliens the right to petition a court of this terms
jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce BUT - This same effect will not obtain for the Filipino spouse
REMAND OF CASE IS PROPER. The foreign divorce were it not for the substantive rule that Art 26 par 2
decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes Family Code provides
the party with legal interest to petition for its recognition
in this jurisdiction Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No.
- The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity 167246, 20 July 2011
and conformity with the alien‘s national law have been - Umale agreed to lease a lot owned by Canoga (who
duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves acquired said lot from Ortigas Co. Ltd through a Deed of
as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of CORPUZ, Absolute Sale, subject to certain conditions)
pursuant to Sec 48 Rule 39 which provides for the effect - Before the lease contract expired, Canoga filed an
of foreign judgments unlawful detainer case against Umale
- Direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign o Umale violated some of the stipulations in the
judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite lease contract regarding the use of the property.
interest to institute an action before our courts for the The lease contract states that Umale shall use
recognition of the foreign judgment the leased lot as a parking space for light
- RULE: No sovereign is bound to give effect within its vehicles and as a site for a small drivers
dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of canteen and may not utilize the subject
another country. The foreign judgment and its premises for other purposes without the
authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on respondents prior written consent. Umale,
evidence, together with the alien‘s applicable national however, constructed restaurant buildings and
law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien other commercial establishments on the lot and
himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an subleased the property, without first securing
action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another the required written consent.
action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an - MTC ruled in favor of Canoga → RTC reversed and
integral aspect of his claim or defense dismissed the complaint → Canoga filed a petition for
- ITC: Since both the foreign divorce decree and the review with the CA
national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity - During the pendency of the case with the CA, Canoga
to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a filed another unlawful detainer case concerning the same
sovereign authority, Sec 24 Rule 132 applies. This property against Umale before the MTC because the
requires proof either by (1) official publications or (2) lease contract of the parties had expired
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the - MTC ruled in favor of Canoga → RTC reversed on the
documents. If the copies of official records are not kept ground of litis pendentia; however, Umale was still
in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a ordered to pay rent → CA nullified and set aside RTC
certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular decision ruling that there was no litis pendentia as the
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the two unlawful detainer cases have different causes of
foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) action
authenticated by the seal of his office HELD: No litis pendentia
- CORPUZ attached to his petition a copy of the divorce - The two cases involve different causes of action
decree, as well as the required certificates proving its o The filing of the first ejectment case was
authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian grounded on the violation of stipulations in the
law on divorce. This can already justify dismissal of lease contract, while the filing of the second
petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence unless case was based on the expiration of the lease
court deems it more appropriate to remand case to RTC contract.
to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent o At the time the first eject complaint was filed,
with Canadian divorce law. [SC: REMAND CASE - the lease contract was still in effect. It was only
more appropriate given the Art 26 interests that will be at the expiration of the lease contract that the
cause of action in the second ejectment
complaint accrued and made available to independently, as provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the
Canoga. Civil Code
- The restatement in the second case of the cause of - Because of the distinct and independent nature of
action in the first case does not result in substantial the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds
identity between the two cases that the offended party may pursue the two types of
o Even if the respondent alleged violations of the civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively,
lease contract as a ground for ejectment in the without offending the rules on forum shopping, litis
second complaint, the main basis for ejecting pendentia, or res judicata.
the petitioner in the second case was the - The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having
expiration of the lease contract. Had it not been been instituted together with the criminal action.
for this development, Canoga could no longer - On the other hand, the second action, judging by the
file the second complaint. allegations contained in the complaint, is a civil action
- There can also be no conflict between the decisions of arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious
the two cases. conduct (abuse of rights).
- Issue in second case: W/N contract had expired. The - the civil case involves only the obligations arising
MTC did not rule on the alleged violations of the lease from contract and from tort, whereas the appeal in
contract. the estafa case involves only the civil obligations of
Co arising from the offense charged. They present
Lim v. Kou Co Ping, G.R. No. 175256, 179160, 23 August different causes of action, which under the law, are
2012 considered "separate, distinct, and independent"
- An Information for Estafa through Misappropriation or from each other. Both cases can proceed to their
Conversion was filed against Co final adjudication, subject to the prohibition on
- RTC acquitted Co of the estafa charge for insufficiency double recovery under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.
of evidence
- RTC also relieved Co of civil liability to Lim
- Lim filed her notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the
criminal case XVII. Post-judgment Remedies
- Lim filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages before RTC against Co, et.al. The complaint A. Motion for New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration
asserted two causes of action: breach of contract and
abuse of rights CONTENTS OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
- Co filed motions to dismiss the said civil case and Lim‘s [Sec. 2, Rule 37]
appeal in the civil aspect of the estafa case. He 1) If based on FAME, it shall be supported by an affidavit of
maintained that the two actions raise the same issue, merits, which:
which is Co‘s liability to Lim for her inability to withdraw a) recites the nature and character of FAME on which
the bags of cement and should be dismissed on the the motion is based
ground of lis pendens and forum shopping b) states the movant‘s good and substantial cause of
- CA: dismissed Lim‘s appeal from the civil aspect of the action or defense; and
estafa case c) states the evidence he intends to present if granted.
- RTC denied Co‘s Motion to Dismiss. The Manila RTC 2) If based on newly found evidence, it shall be supported
held that there was no forum shopping because the by:
causes of action invoked in the two cases are different. It a) Affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is
observed that the civil complaint before it is based on an expected or given; or
obligation arising from contract and quasi-delict, whereas b) Duly authenticated documents which are proposed
the civil liability involved in the appeal of the criminal to be introduced in evidence
case arose from a felony.
- CA: agreed with the Manila RTC that the elements of litis
pendentia and forum shopping are not met in the two Rule 37
proceedings because they do not share the same cause New Trial or Reconsiderations
of action Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial
HELD: the two cases herein involve different kinds of civil or reconsideration. — Within the period for taking an appeal,
obligations such that they can proceed independently of each the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the
other judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more
- The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is of the following causes materially affecting the substantial
based on the acts or omissions that constitute the rights of said party:
criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which
with the criminal action. For this reason, the civil liability ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by
ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
- If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted impaired in his rights; or
prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, (b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with
its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the
the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
extinguished when the court hearing the criminal action Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move
declares that "the act or omission from which the civil for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages
liability may arise did not exist." awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to
- On the other hand, the independent civil liabilities are justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final
separate from the criminal action and may be pursued order is contrary to law. (1a)
Section 9. Remedy against order denying a motion for new
Section 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration trial or reconsideration. — An order denying a motion for new
and notice thereof. — The motion shall be made in writing trial or reconsideration is not appealed, the remedy being an
stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of appeal from the judgment or final order. (n)
which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided section 3, Rule 41
for proof of motion. A motion for the cause mentioned in Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. — The appeal shall be
paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall be supported by taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or
affidavits of merits which may be rebutted by affidavits. A final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is
motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a
supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the
evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated judgment or final order.
documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence. The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion
A motion for reconsideration shall point out a specifically the for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of
findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to allowed. (n)
law making express reference to the testimonial or
documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to section 4, Rule 51
be contrary to such findings or conclusions. Section 4. Disposition of a case. — The Court of Appeals, in
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may affirm, reverse,
toll the reglementary period of appeal. (2a) or modify the judgment or final order appealed from, and may
direct a new trial or further proceedings to be had. (3a)
Section 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration.
— The trial court may set aside the judgment or final order
and grant a new trial, upon such terms as may be just, or FRESH PERIOD RULE:
Neypes v. CA, 469 S 633 (2005)
may deny the motion. If the court finds that excessive
damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final ● Petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and
order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such titles of land and/or reconveyance and/or reversion with
judgment or final order accordingly. (3a) preliminary injunction before RTC against the Bureau of
Forest Development, Bureau of Lands, Land Bank of the
Section 4. Resolution of motion. — A motion for new trial or Philippines and the heirs of Bernardo del Mundo,
reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30) days from namely, Fe, Corazon, Josefa, Salvador and Carmen.
the time it is submitted for resolution. (n) ● On February 12, 1998, the trial court dismissed the
complaint due to prescription
Section 5. Second motion for new trial. — A motion for new ○ The petitioners allegedly received a copy of the
trial shall include all grounds then available and those not so order of dismissal on March 3, 1998. They filed
included shall be deemed waived. A second motion for new a MR on March 18, 1998.
trial, based on a ground not existing nor available when the ○ July 01, 1998 - MR dismissed; order dismissing
first motion was made, may be filed within the time herein received on July 22, 1998
provided excluding the time during which the first motion had ○ July 27, 1998 - filed notice of appeal; paid the
been pending. appeal fees on Aug 03, 1998
No party shall be allowed a second motion for ● CA dismissed the petition claiming that the notice of
reconsideration of a judgment or final order (4a, 4, IRG) appeal was filed eight days late. The 15 day appeal
period should have been reckoned on March 03, 1998,
Section 6. Effect of granting of motion for new trial. — If a the day they received the Feb 12, 1998 order.
new trial is granted in accordance with the provisions of this ● Hence this petition.
Rules the original judgment or final order shall be vacated, ○ Petitioners claim that the period should be
and the action shall stand for trial de novo; but the recorded reckoned from the receipt of the denial of their
evidence taken upon the former trial, insofar as the same is MR.
HELD: petitioners seasonably filed their notice of appeal
material and competent to establish the issues, shall be used
at the new trial without retaking the same. (5a) ● Based on Rule 41, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, an appeal should be taken within 15 days
from the notice or final order appeal from. A final
Section 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration. — If the
grounds for a motion under this Rule appear to the court to judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,
affect the issues as to only a part, or less than an of the leaving nothing more for the court to do with respect to it.
matter in controversy, or only one, or less than all, of the It is an adjudication on the merits which, considering the
parties to it, the court may order a new trial or grant evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically
reconsideration as to such issues if severable without what the rights and obligations of the parties are; or it
interfering with the judgment or final order upon the rest. (6a) may be an order or judgment that dismisses an action.
○ Quelnan v VHF PH - the Court ruled that the
Section 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. — When less appeal should have been filed within 15 days
than all of the issues are ordered retried, the court may either after the denial of the MR of an order of
enter a judgment or final order as to the rest, or stay the dismissal, as this constitutes the final order,
enforcement of such judgment or final order until after the which ended the issues raised.
new trial. (7a) ○ Apuyan v Hadelman -order denying the MR was
held to be the final order which finally disposed
of the issues involved.
● Thus, it is the July 01, 1998 order, denying the MR which Supreme Court in a number of cases decided beginning
is considered the final order as contemplated in the the year 2005.
rules. ● Petitioner argues that this Court has consistently held
● In Quelnan and Apuyan the Court ruled that with both that the order or resolution denying the motion for
petitioners filing a MR, they only had the remaining time reconsideration or new trial is considered as the final
of the 15-day appeal period to file the notice of appeal. order finally disposing of the case, and the date of its
This means that the filing of the MR only interrupted the receipt by a party is the correct reckoning point for
running of the 15-day appeal period. counting the period for appellate review.
● The Court noted however that an appeal is an essential ● The fresh period refers to the original period provided
part of the judicial system and the rules of procedure under the Rules of Court counted from notice of the
should not be applied rigidly. It also noted that the ruling on the motion for reconsideration by the tribunal
Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all below, without deducting the period for the preparation
courts. and filing of the motion for reconsideration.
● Thus, it ruled that to standardize the appeal periods ● He claims that, historically, the fresh period rule was the
provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair prevailing rule in filing petitions for certiorari.
opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it HELD: DENIED
practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within ● unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law,
which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may
Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing be brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
a motion for a new trial or motion for party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof
reconsideration. This fresh period shall also apply to ● the Constitution expressly requires that the COMELECs
Rule 40 (appeals from MTC to RTC), RUle 42 (petition rules of procedure should expedite the disposition of
for review from RTC to CA), Rule 43 (appeals from election cases.
quasi-judicial agencies to CA), and Rule 45. ● we do not find convenience and uniformity to be reasons
● The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal sufficiently compelling to modify the required period for
period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order the filing of petitions for certiorari under Rule 64
denying the motion for new trial, motion for ● The reason is constitutionally-based and is no less than
reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order the importance our Constitution accords to the prompt
or resolution. determination of election results
○ Thus, this rule does not run counter to the spirit
of Sec 39 of BP 129, which shortened the Velasco v. Ortiz, 184 S 303 (1990)
appeal period from 30 days from 15 days to ● petitioner in her personal capacity and in her capacity as
hasten the disposition of cases. The fresh administratix of the intestate of Lorenzo filed with the CFI
period of 15 days becomes significant only of Rizal a complaint for recovery of property and
when a party opts to file a motion for new trial or annulment of certain documents alleging that Tan Sim
MR. Te had misappropriated and converted to her own use
the bank deposits of the deceased Lorenzo.
Note: Fresh period does not apply to Rules 65 and 64 ● In her answer, Tan Sim Te countered that the
withdrawals had been made by her upon instructions of
Lorenzo to whom the monies were allegedly given and
Pates v. COMELEC, G.R. 184915, 30 Jun 2009 who allegedly used the same to pay his creditors and to
● February 1, 2008 → The COMELEC First Division issued defray his medical expenses.
its Resolution (assailed in the petition); ● CFI: Tan Sim Te to deliver to Velasco the amounts the
● February 4, 2008 → The counsel for petitioner Nilo T. former wirthdrew representing double the share of the
Pates (petitioner) received a copy of the February 1, estate of Lorenzo in the said deposits, and deliver the
2008 Resolution; plaintiff‘s corresponding conjugal share in the bank
● February 8, 2008 → The petitioner filed his MR of the deposits as well as interest, and attorney‘s fees.
February 1, 2008 Resolution (4 days from receipt of ● A copy of the CFI decision was received by PR‘s former
the February 1, 2008 Resolution) counsel, Atty. Acejas on April 6, 1979.
● September 18, 2008 → The COMELEC en banc issued ● May 10, 1979 or four days after the 30-day reglementary
a Resolution denying the MR (also assailed in the period to appeal had lapsed, PR through her new
petition). counsel Atty. Ordonez filed a Motion for New Trial
● September 22, 2008 → The petitioner received the otg of newly discovered evidence (medical certificate
COMELEC en banc Resolution of September 18, 2008 relating to the physical and medical examination
● Under this chronology, the last day for the filing of a undergone by Lorenzo during his confinement at the
petition for certiorari, i.e., 30 days from notice of the final hospital and thereafter as of Jan. 24, 1975)
COMELEC Resolution, fell on a Saturday (October 18, ○ PR‘s new counsel sought to excuse the
2008), as the petitioner only had the remaining period tardiness of the filing of New Trial by pleading
of 26 days to file his petition, after using up 4 days in ―excusable negligence.‖
preparing and filing his Motion for Reconsideration. ○ He was engaged only on April 18, 1979 and
● Effectively, the last day for filing was October 20, 2008 believed in good faith that he had 30d from April
the following Monday or the first working day after 18 within which to file the appropriate
October 18, 2008. The petitioner filed his petition to pleadings… it was only on May 9, 1979 that the
the SC on October 22, 2008 or two days late. counsel was informed by the former counsel of
● Petitioner now argues that the petition was seasonably PR, Atty. Acejas, that he has not filed any
filed under the fresh period rule enunciated by the petition/motion insofar as the decision is
concerned
● TC: granted Motion for New Trial ● RATIONALE: Unless the movant sets the time and
HELD: grant of the respondent judge of the Motion for New place of hearing, the court will be unable to determine
Trial was NOT proper whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the
at the time the Motion for New Trial was filed, the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection
reglementary period to appeal had already lapsed and ● OBJECTIVE: To avoid a capricious change of mind in
the CFI decision had already become final and executor order to provide due process to both parties ensure
the certification may not be regarded as ―newly impartiality in the trial
discovered evidence‖ under Rule 37. It is clearly in the
nature of impeaching evidence, for it seeks merely to B. Petition for Relief from Judgment
weaken or controvert findings of the earlier witness.
Being merely impeaching evidence, the certification by When is a judgment “entered”? Judgment is entered when
itself would not have resulted in a different decision it is deemed final and executor
PRO FORMA MOTION: What is the effect of granting a petition for relief? It has
Fajardo v. CA, 354 S 736 (2001) the effect of reopening the proceedings or an appeal. A
BUGARING field a complaint before RTC against FAJARDO petition for relief is not used to reverse a decision.
for collection of attorney‘s fees. BUGARING was allowed to
present evidence ex parte after RTC declared FAJARDO in
Rule 38
default for failure to appear during the pre-trial. The RTC
Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
ruled in favor of Bugaring, ordering Fajardo to pay P3.5M for
Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other
attorney‘s fees covering Civil Cases No. B3472 and B3896.
proceedings. — When a judgment or final order is entered, or
● BUGARING filed a motion for correction of judgment
any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in
before RTC
any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
● FEB 3 1998 - FAJARDO, alleging that she received a
negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the
copy of the RTC‘s decision on JAN 19 1998, filed a
same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be
notice of appeal
set aside. (2a)
● RTC: Denied notice of appeal for being premature
considering that there was a pending motion for
Section 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal. — When a
correction of the decision; granted BUGARING‘s motion
judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case,
for correction [FEB 13]
and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
○ REVISED DISPOSITIVE: P3.5M for attorney‘s
negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he
fees for unpaid attorney‘s fees covering the
may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying
legal cases which he handled in favor of
that the appeal be given due course. (1a)
FAJARDO, as actual and compensatory
damages plus costs
Section 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. —
● BUGARING: Filed motion for issuance of writ of
A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of
execution [GRANTED - SEP 28]
this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the
● FAJARDO: Filed before CA a petition for certiorari. She
petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other
argued that motion for correction was a mere scrap of
proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months
paper because she was not furnished a copy and it
after such judgment or final order was entered, or such
contained no notice of hearing. The filing of the notice of
proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with
appeal perfected the appeal and RTC no longer had
affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
jurisdiction over the case when it issued the FEB 13
negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
order and SEP 28 resolution.
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense,
● CA: petition dismissed, RTC affirmed
as the case may be. (3)
HELD: CA erred in ruling that the decision of RTC became
final and executory when FAJARDO failed to appeal within
Section 4. Order to file an answer. — If the petition is
the reglementary period
sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the court in
● FAJARDO filed a notice of appeal of OCT 15 decision
which it is filed, shall issue an order requiring the adverse
on FEB 3 (pendency of her appeal tolled the finality of
parties to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the
the decision) The resolution of RTC ordering the
receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner as
execution of the judgment was without basis
the court may direct, together with copies of the petition and
● RTC orders were issued in consideration of the motion
the accompanying affidavits. (4a)
for correction of judgment filed by BUGARING with
RTC. HOWEVER, said motion was defective as it did
Section 5. Preliminary injunction pending proceedings. —
not have a proper notice of hearing. It did not specify the
The court in which the petition is filed may grant such
date and time of the hearing on the motion
preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the
ROC requires that every written motion be set for hearing by
preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing by the
the movant, except those motions which the court may act
petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned
upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. The
that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the
notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must
trial of the case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party
specify the time and date of the hearing [Sec 4 & 5 Rule 15]
all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by reason
● A motion without hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of
of the issuance of such injunction or the other proceedings
paper. It presents no question which the court could
following the petition, but such injunction shall not operate to
decide. The
discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party may
court has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no
have acquired upon, the property, of the petitioner. (5a)
right to receive it.
a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief
after his motion has been denied. These two remedies
Section 6. Proceedings after answer is filed. — After the filing are exclusive of each other. It is only in appropriate
of the answer or the expiration of the period therefor, the cases where a party aggrieved by a judgment has not
court shall hear the petition and if after such hearing, it finds been able to file a motion for new trial that a petition for
that the allegations thereof are not true, the petition shall be relief can be filed.
dismissed; but if it finds said allegations to be true, it shall set ● the petition for relief of private respondent was filed out
aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding of time
complained of upon such terms as may be just. Thereafter ○ We cannot sanction respondent court's view
the case shall stand as if such judgment, final order or other that the period should be computed only from
proceeding had never been rendered, issued or taken. The March 17, 1980 when she claims self-servingly
court shall then proceed to hear and determine the case as if that she first knew of the judgment because, as
a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration had been stated above, she signed and even swore to the
granted by it. (6a) truth of the allegations in her motion for new
trial filed by Atty. Mapaye on February 16, 1980
Section 7. Procedure where the denial of an appeal is set or a month earlier.
aside. — Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the ● notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the party for
lower court shall be required to give due course to the appeal purposes of Section 3 of Rule 38. The principle that
and to elevate the record of the appealed case as if a timely notice to the party, when he is represented by a counsel
and proper appeal had been made. (7a) of record, is not valid is applicable here in the reverse for
the very same reason that it is the lawyer who is
Francisco v. Puno, G.R. No. L-55694, 23 October 1981 supposed to know the next procedural steps or what
● Josefina Lagar [PRIV RESP] filed with Judge Puno a ought to be done in law henceforth for the protection of
complaint for reconveyance of a parcel of land and the rights of the client, and not the latter.
damages ● respondent judge acted beyond his jurisdiction in taking
● PET filed Answer, alleging that PRIV RESP lacks cognizance of private respondent's petition for relief and,
personality to sue. Also alleged prescription and that therefore, all his actuations in connection therewith are
they are buyers in good faith null and void, with the result that his decision of January
● case was set for pre-trial, but PET failed to appear 8, 1980 should be allowed to stand, the same having
thereat become final and executory.
● January 8, 1980: PRIV RESP moved that they be
declared in default → granted. PRIV RESP presented Purcon, Jr. v. MRM Philippines, Inc., 26 September 2008
evidence. Judge Puno rendered judgment finding the ● Petitioner filed a complaint for reimbursement of medical
evidence insufficient to sustain the cause of action expenses, sickness allowance and permanent disability
alleged and therefore dismissing the complaint benefits with prayer for compensatory, moral and
● January 15, 1980: PRIV RESP served with copy of the exemplary damages and attorneys fees before the
decision NLRC.
● February 16, 1980 (after 32 days): PRIV RESP filed, thru ● LA → March 31,2005: dismissed the complaint; NLRC:
a new counsel, a motion for new trial (MNT) and/or (MR) September 30,2005 → dismissed appeal and affirmed
reconsideration alleging that the insufficiency of her the LA → Dec 20, 2005 dismissed MR → this decision
evidence was due to the fault of her counsel who became final and executory and was recorded in the
presented the same without her being fully prepared Book of Entries of Judgment on January 27, 2006.
judge denied MNT/MR for having been filed out of time ● March 02, 206: Petitioner filed petition for certiorari under
● May 7, 1980: PRIV RESP filed, thru another new Rule 65 with CA → denied; MR denied → became final
counsel, a petition for relief, purportedly under Rule 38 and executory September 29, 2006
● PET answered: petition for relief was filed out of time in ● May 09, 2007 - Pet for Review under Rule 45 with SC
the light of Section 3 of Rule 38, which provides that ● In a resolution dated July 16, 2007, the SC dismissed the
such a petition should be " filed within sixty (60) days petition for being filed beyond the reglementary period of
after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order or 15 days
proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) ● May 06, 2008 - Petitioner filed petition for relief from
months after such judgment or order was entered or judgment
such proceeding was taken." HELD: PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT IS NOT
● respondent judge ruled that: it is the date when plaintiff AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR PETITIONER
actually learned (ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE) of the ● A petition for relief from judgment is not an available
decision from which she seeks relief that should be remedy in SC.
considered in computing the period of 60 days ● Although Section 1 of Rule 38 states that when a
prescribed under Sec. 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court judgment or final order is entered through fraud,
for purposes of determining the timeliness of the said accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, a party in
petition for relief any court may file a petition for relief from judgment, this
HELD: Certiorari granted. Decision granting petition for rule must be interpreted in harmony with Rule 56, which
relief set aside. January 8 decision reinstated enumerates the original cases cognizable by the
● where, as in this case, another remedy is available, as, Supreme Court. A petition for relief from judgment is
in fact, private respondent had filed a motion for new trial not included in the list of Rule 56 cases originally
and/or reconsideration alleging practically the same main cognizable by this Court.
ground of the petition for relief under discussion, which ● While Rule 38 uses the phrase any court, it refers only to
was denied, what respondent should have done was to Municipal/Metropolitan and RTCs.
take to a higher court such denial. A party who has filed
● Procedure in CA and SC governed by separate when petitioner failed to appeal during the reglementary
provisions of the ROC period.
● There is no provision in the ROC making the petition for ● the records show that the former counsel of petitioner did
relief applicable in the CA/SC. The procedure in the CA not inform the trial court of this confinement. When the
from Rules 44 to 55, with the exception of Rule 45 which court rendered its decision, the same counsel was out of
pertains to the Supreme Court, identifies the remedies the country for which reason the decision became final
available before said Court Nowhere is a petition for and executory as no appeal was taken therefrom
relief under Rule 38 mentioned. ● The failure of petitioner‘s counsel to notify him on time of
● If a petition for relief from judgment is not among the the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom
remedies available in the CA, with more reason that is negligence which is not excusable.
this remedy cannot be availed of in the Supreme Court. ○ Notice sent to counsel of record is binding
This Court entertains only questions of law. upon the client and the neglect or failure of
● A petition for relief raises questions of facts on fraud, counsel to inform him of an adverse
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, which are judgment resulting in the loss of his right to
beyond the concerns of this Court. appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
● Even assuming that petition for relief is applicable, the judgment valid and regular on its face.
present petition must still be dismissed. ● Similarly inexcusable was the failure of his former
● The Court noted the late filing of petition for review → not counsel to inform the trial court of petitioner‘s
excusable negligence. confinement and medical treatment as the reason for his
● The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a non-appearance at the scheduled hearings.
party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the ○ Petitioner has not given any reason why his
judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to former counsel, intentionally or unintentionally,
his own negligence, or mistaken mode of procedure for did not inform the court of this fact.
that matter; otherwise the petition for relief will be ● Clearly, petitioner cannot now claim that he was deprived
tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has of due process. He may have lost his right to present
already been lost, either because of inexcusable evidence but he was not denied his day in court.
negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel. ● A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable
● It is only in exceptional cases when the mistake of remedy; it is allowed only in exceptional cases
counsel is so palpable that in amounts to gross where there is no other available or adequate
negligence that the Court affords a party a second remedy.
opportunity to vindicate his right. This opportunity is ○ When a party has another remedy available to
unavailing in this case → squandered various him, which may be either a motion for new trial
opportunities available to him or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial
court, and he was not prevented by fraud,
Tuason v. CA, 256 S 158 (1996) accident, mistake or excusable negligence from
● 1989: RESP Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the filing such motion or taking such appeal, he
RTC Makati a petition for annulment or declaration of cannot avail himself of this petition.
nullity of her marriage to PET Emilio R. Tuason
● June 29, 1990: RTC declared the nullity of private Goldline v. Ramos, 363 S 262 (2001)
respondents marriage to petitioner and awarding custody Luisa Ramos‘ daughter, Leoniza, was riding a passenger
of the children to private respondent. jeepney which collided head-on with a bus of GOLDLINE.
● September 24, 1990: private respondent filed a Motion Ramos filed a Complaint for Damages against Goldline and
for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Eduardo Lumontad (driver of the bus) to seek indemnification
Adjudication to Plaintiff of the Conjugal Properties for the death of her daughter. TC ruled in favor of Ramos.
● Petitioner opposed the motion and filed with the trial ● Defendant's counsel was furnished with copy of the
court a petition for relief from judgment of the June decision on 20 November 1998.
29, 1990 decision ● Decision of TC became final and executory for failure of
○ decision of the trial court was null and void for defendant to appeal therefrom. The trial court directed
violation of his right to due process. the issuance of writ of execution.
○ contends he was denied due process when, ● Atty. Leovigildo Mijares III (Goldline‘s counsel) filed a
after failing to appear on two scheduled Petition for Relief with Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,
hearings, the trial court deemed him to have alleging that they were furnished with a copy of the
waived his right to present evidence and decision only in March 1999.
rendered judgment on the basis of the evidence ○ He failed to obtain a copy of the decision on
for private respondent time because he moved to a new office and
○ Petitioner justifies his absence at the hearings omitted to inform the court of his change of
on the ground that he was then confined for address. The notices, order of default and trial
medical and/or rehabilitation reasons court decision were not received by him; and
○ admitted for treatment of drug dependency at that he was withdrawing as counsel with the
the Drug Rehabilitation Center at Camp Bagong conformity of his client, Goldline
Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig ● TC denied the petition for relief for having been filed
● RTC: Denied petition beyond the reglementary period
● CA: Affirmed RTC ○ Computing the 60-day period provided for
HELD: petition for relief from judgment is NOT warranted under Sec. 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court,
● decision annulling petitioners‘ marriage to private from the time the defendant Goldline Transit,
respondent had already become final and executory Inc. learned of the Decision of the Court, that is,
on November 20, 1998 when a copy thereof
was received by its counsel, the 60-day period notice to MARAMBA with threat of taking over the
would expire on January 20, 1999. property.
HELD: petition for relief from judgment should NOT be ● MARAMBA filed a complaint for injunction and damages
granted with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
● The Court: Section 3, Rule 38, of the 1997 Rules of Civil TRO. The complaint alleged that the demolition was
Procedure lays down the requirements of a petition for unlawful and the complete demolition and destruction of
relief from judgment: the previous existing commercial fish center is valued at
○ The party filing a petition for relief from P5M (P10,000,000) pesos. [The word ―ten‖ was
judgment must strictly comply with the two (2) handwritten on top of the word ―five‖]. In the prayer,
reglementary periods,i.e., the petition must be she asked for a judgment ordering defendant to pay
filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of P10,000 for the actual and present value of the
the judgment, order or other proceeding to be commercial fish center completely demolished by public
set aside; and, within a fixed period of six (6) defendant. [The word ―million‖ was handwritten on
months from entry of such judgment, order or top of the word ―thousand‖ and an additional zero
other proceeding. was handwritten at the end of the numerical figure]
○ Strict compliance with these periods is required ● RTC (through Judge LARON): IN FAVOR OF
because a petition for relief from judgment is a MARAMBA - awarded P10M as actual damages; denied
final act of liberality on the part of the State, CITY‘s MR for lack of notice of time and place of hearing
which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any (MR not entitled to judicial cognizance)
further the fundamental principle that a ● RTC (in separate order): granted MARAMBA‘s motion for
judgment, order or proceeding must, at some execution and ordered that a writ of execution be issued
definite time, attain finality in order to put at last in the case upon submission of the certificate of finality
an end to litigation. ● CITY filed a petition for relief with prayer for
○ Because the period fixed is itself devised to preliminary injunction together with an affidavit of
meet a condition or contingency (fraud, merit - alleged that the decision, were it not for the City
accident, mistake or excusable neglect), the Legal Officer‘s mistake, negligence and gross
equitable remedy is an act of grace, as it were, incompetence, would not have been obtained by
designed to give the aggrieved party another MARAMBA, or should have been reconsidered or
and final chance, and failure to avail of such otherwise overturned, the damage award in total amount
chance within the grace period set by statute or of P11M being not only unconscionable and
the Rules of Court is fatal. unreasonable but completely baseless [RTC DENIED
● ITC: the records disclose that Atty. Mijares III was PETITION - ORDERED WRIT OF EXECUTION BE
furnished with a copy of the decision of the trial court by IMPLEMENTED (negligence of counsel binds the client)]
registered mail on 20 November 1998 at his address of CITY FILED MR
record, as shown by the return card for its mailing. ● RTC (through another Judge - CASTILLO): granted
○ The Petition for Relief with Motion to Withdraw petition for relief and modified its decision - reduced the
as Counsel, on the other hand, was filed on 8 award from P10M to P750K and moral damages from
April 1999. Although the petition was filed within P500K to P20K and attorney‘s fees from P500K to P20K
six (6) months, it was not within sixty (60) days, (basis - Art 2199 ―One is entitled to an adequate
but only after 139 days, from the time petitioner compensation for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
learned of the judgment. The absence of one of duly proved‖) - not able to prove P5M amount of
the two (2) mentioned periods, which are improvements made and travelling expenses and car
concurring elements, precludes petitioner from rental
availing of the remedy of relief from judgment. ● MARAMBA filed a petition for certiorari before CA -
○ Evidence show that the return card bears the argued RTC acted without jurisdiction as he had no
signature of Atty. Mijares III, unequivocally authority or legal power to substantially amend or correct
showing receipt of the assailed decision on 20 a final and executory judgment and in granting the
November 1998. petition for relief filed by CITY on the 83rd day from
● Even assuming that counsel did not really receive a copy receipt of the judgment or 26 days late.
of the trial court's decision, this circumstance would not ● CA: GRANTED PETITION - CITY‘s MR lacked a notice
in any way improve petitioner's situation. The remedy of of hearing and was a mere scrap of paper that did not toll
relief from judgment can only be resorted to on any of the period to appeal. RTC decision penned by Judge
the grounds mentioned in the rules, namely, fraud, LARON became final and executor.
accident, mistake or excusable negligence. Negligence, ● CITY filed Rule 45 to SC
to be "excusable," must be one which ordinary HELD: Petition GRANTED
diligence and prudence could not have guarded ● Courts may set aside final and executory judgments
against. provided that any of the grounds for their grant are
present - fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
City of Dagupan v. Maramba, G.R. No. 174411, 2 July negligence
2014 ○ Excusable negligence as a ground for a
● MARAMBA was a grantee of a DENR miscellaneous petition for relief requires that the negligence be
lease contract for a property in Poblacion, Dagupan City so gross that ordinary diligence and prudence
for 25 years. She caused construction of a commercial could not have guarded against it - must be
fish center on the property. imputable to the party-litigant and not to his or
● CITY OF DAGUPAN (CITY) caused the demolition of the her counsel whose negligence binds his or her
commercial fish center, allegedly without giving direct client [binding effect of counsel‘s negligence
ensures against the resulting uncertainty
and tentativeness of proceedings if clients costs - she testified on amounts that did not even add
were allowed to merely disown their up to P10M
counsel‘s conduct] ● body of the RTC‘s decision mentioned MARAMBA was
○ Court relaxed this rule on several occasions entitled to P1M as moral damages and P500K as
such as: (1) where [the] reckless or gross attorney‘s fees which is inconsistent with dispositive that
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due awarded P500K as moral damages. The affidavit of
process of law; (2) when [the rule‘s] application merit that discussed that MARAMBA testified on her
will result in outright deprivation of the client‘s shock, sleepless nights, and mental anguish but she
liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of never expressly asked for moral damages or specified
justice so require amount of P500K
● Fraud as a ground for a petition for relief from judgment The gross disparity between the award of actual
pertains to extrinsic or collateral fraud. The extrinsic or damages and the amount actually proved during the trial,
collateral fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be the magnitude of the award, the nature of the ―mistake‖
such that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully made, and that such negligence did not personally affect
and fairly presenting his case or defense and the losing the legal officer of the city all contributed to a conclusion
party from having an adversarial trial of the issue. There that the mistake or negligence committed by counsel
is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully bordered on extrinsic fraud.
presenting his case to the court as when the lawyer
connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client‘s Madarang v. Spouses Morales, G.R. No. 199283, 9 June
interest. Extrinsic fraud can be committed by a counsel 2014
against his client when the latter is prevented from Spouses Nicanor and Luciana Bartolome loaned
presenting his case to the court ₱500,000.00 from Spouses Jesus D. Morales and Carolina
● Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact not N. Morales. To secure their loan, the Spouses Bartolome
mistake of law. A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode mortgaged a house and lot. They failed to pay. Spouses
of procedure will not be considered a mistake for Morales [RESP] filed with the RTC a complaint for judicial
purposes of granting a petition for relief from judgment. foreclosure of a house and lot. Spouses Morales [RESP] filed
Mistake as a ground also ―does not apply and was never with the RTC a complaint for judicial foreclosure of a house
intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might and lot.
have committed in the trial [since] such error may be ● December 22, 2009: TC ordered PETS to pay RESP or
corrected by means of an appeal.‖ Mistake can be of else property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the
such nature as to cause substantial injustice to one of judgment.
the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on ● January 29, 2010: PETS received a copy of the decision
extrinsic fraud. ● February 8, 2010: filed MR - filed a request for a
● ITC: CITY recounted the mistakes, negligence and Philippine National Police handwriting expert to examine
incompetence and suspicious acts/omissions of the the authenticity of the Spouses Bartolome‘s alleged
Legal Officer in the affidavit of merit signed by Mayor signatures on the deed of real estate mortgage
Lim: ● May 25, 2010: TC ruled that MR and amendment were
○ he did not present testimonial evidence for pro forma as PETS failed to specify the findings and
the defense conclusions in the decision that were not supported by
○ he filed MR of a decision most prejudicial to the evidence or contrary to law. Therefore, MR denied
the City on the last day and did not even ● June 24, 2010: PETS receive copy of resolution on MR
base his arguments on the transcripts that (evidenced by the registry return receipt on file with the
clearly show that MARAMBA had court)
presented absolutely no evidence/proof of ● August 11, 2010: PETS filed notice of appeal → denied
her claim for damages and attorney‘s fees due course the notice of appeal for having been filed out
and did not directly attack the decision itself of time
where awards did not state the facts on ● September 24, 2010: PETS filed a petition for relief from
which they are based judgment
○ He filed MR without the requisite notice ○ blaming their 80-year-old lawyer who failed to
of hearing - his most grievous and fatal file the notice of appeal within the reglementary
error which resulted in the finality of the period → mistake and an excusable negligence
decision and issuance of order of due to their former lawyer‘s old age
execution April 27, 2011: TC denied petition for relief → filed beyond 60
○ He kept the adverse decision, denial of MR days from the finality of the trial court‘s decision
and order of execution from his affiant, his HELD: Petition lacks merit
immediate superior and relief on his own Petition for relief from judgment was filed out of time.
devices However, the trial court erred in counting the 60-day period to
ATTY‘s mistake was fatal considering that RTC awarded a file a petition for relief from the date of finality of the trial
total of P11M in favor of MARAMBA based merely on her court‘s decision. Rule 38, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
testimony that the actual cost of building through Procedure is clear that the 60-day period must be counted
improvements is P5M more or less; that her husband spent after petitioner learns of the judgment or final order. The
$1,760 for a round trip business travel to PH to attend the period counted from the finality of judgment or final order is
case and that for his accommodation and car rental, her the six-month period.
husband spent more or less P10K including round trip ticket
● nowhere in J LARON‘s decision did it state or refer to
any document presented to substantiate her claimed
C. Petition for Annulment of Judgment
court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a
Rule 47 timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. (n)
Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders and Resolutions
Section 8. Suspension prescriptive period. — The
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment.
for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended
for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer where the extrinsic-fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the
available through no fault of the petitioner. (n) original action. (n)
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be Section 9. Relief available. — The judgment of annulment
based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of may include the award of damages, attorney's fees and other
jurisdiction. relief. If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, had already been executed the court may issue such orders
or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant
petition for relief. (n) under the circumstances. (n)
Section 3. Period for filing action. — If based on extrinsic Section 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of
fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its Municipal Trial Courts. — An action to annul a judgment or
discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the
barred by laches or estoppel. (n) Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It
shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3,
Section 4. Filing and contents of petition. — The action shall 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto. (n)
be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein
with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for Section 9(2), BP 129
annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
be. The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible judgements of Regional Trial Courts
copies, together with sufficient copies corresponding to the
number of respondents. A certified true copy of the judgment
or final order or resolution shall be attached to the original Alaban v. CA, G.R. No. 156021, 23 September 23, 2005
copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as ● November 2000 - Respondent Francisco Provido filed a
such by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also submit petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of
together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents Soledad Provido Elevencionado (decedent)
supporting the cause of action or defense and a sworn ● May 30, 2001 -RTC allowed the probate of the will of the
certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other decedent and directed the issuance of letters
action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the testamentary to respondent
Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other ● 4 months later (October 04, 2001) petitioners filed a
tribunal or agency if there is such other action or proceeding, motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings and
he must state the status of the same, and if he should an opposition to the allowance of the will of the
thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been decedent, as well as the issuance of letters testamentary
filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of to respondent
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or ● RTC denied motion. It held that the decision was already
agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid final and executory even before the filing of motion to
courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) reopen.
days therefrom. (n) ● Petitioners sought the annulment of the RTC decision.
They claimed that they learned of the probate
Section 5. Action by the court. — Should the court find no proceedings only in July 2001, hence the filing of the
substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed motion to reopen on October 04, 2001. They argued that
outright with specific reasons for such dismissal. Should the RTC decision should be annulled for extrinsic fraud
prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be and lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the respondent
given due course and summons shall be served on the offered a false compromise before filing of the petition to
respondent. (n) prevent them from appearing and opposing the petition
for probate. They contend that they were not made party
Section 6. Procedure. — The procedure in ordinary civil to the case so they could not have availed of the ordinary
cases shall be observed. Should trial be necessary, the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from from
reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the judgment and other appropriate remedies
HELD: THE RTC DECISION SHOULD NOT BE ANNULLED
court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court. (n)
● A motion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition
Section 7. Effect of judgment. — A judgment of annulment for relief from judgment are remedies available only to
shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or parties in the proceedings where the assailed judgment
resolution and render the same null and void, without is rendered
prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper ○ ITC: Petitioners are mistaken in asserting that
court. However, where the judgment or final order or they are not / have not become parties to the
resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the probate proceedings
○ Under the ROC, proceedings for the probate of ● Lazaro then filed a petition for declaration of nullity
a will is one in rem, such that with the of judgments before CA on the ground of fraud and
corresponding publication of the petition the misrepresentation. He alleged that RFBI did not
court's jurisdiction extends to all persons indicate in its complaints his true address thereby
interested in said will or in the settlement of the depriving him the opportunity to participate in the hearing
estate of the decedent. Thus, even though of said cases.
petitioners were not mentioned in the petition HELD: JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ANNULLED
for probate, they eventually became parties ● Before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by
thereto as a consequence of the publication of Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and
the notice of hearing. resolutions, it is a condition sine qua non that one must
● As parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file
have validly availed of the remedies of motion for a petition for relief against said issuances or take other
new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault
from judgment attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited
○ In fact, the Court noted that they filed a motion remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort
to reopen → essentially a motion for new trial to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47, for
● Conceding that petitioners became aware of the otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or
Decision after it had become final, they could have still negligence
filed a petition for relief from judgment after the denial of ● ITC: Lazaro failed to avail of the ordinary and appropriate
their motion to reopen. remedies in assailing the questioned judgments of the
● For failure to make use without sufficient justification of trial courts. He also failed to show to the satisfaction of
the said remedies available to them, petitioners could this Court that he could not have availed of the ordinary
no longer resort to a petition for annulment of and appropriate remedies under the Rules.
judgment; otherwise, they would benefit from their ○ If he indeed only found out about the judgments
own inaction or negligence when writs of execution were issued, he could
● Even casting aside the procedural requisite, petition for have moved to quash the writs of execution or
annulment of judgment must fail for failure to comply with filed a petition for relief of judgment under Rule
substantive requisites 38. Instead, Lazaro merely alleged that he
● An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law approached the banks counsel for clarification
independent of the case where the judgment sought to and assistance.
be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such action is ● His failure to show explanation for why he failed to avail
to have the final and executory judgment set aside so of said remedies, which were still available to him at that
that there will be a renewal of litigation. It is based only time is fatal to his cause.
on two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or ● A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is not
denial of due process a substitute for one‘s own neglect in not availing of the
○ An action to annul a final judgment on the ordinary and appropriate remedies, but a peculiar
ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic remedy granted under certain conditions to those who
or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as failed to avail of the ordinary remedies without their fault.
extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a ● On alleged lack of jurisdiction: The Court held that,
trial or from presenting his entire case to the despite Lazaro‘s contentions, respective summons were
court, or where it operates upon matters properly served on him.
pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the ○ Service to be done personally does not mean
manner in which it is procured. It is when the that service is possible only at the defendant‘s
litigant is prevented from having his day in actual residence. It is enough that defendant is
court. handed a copy of the summons in person by
● ITC: no extrinsic fraud. anyone authorized by law
○ According to the Rules, notice is required to be Lazaro was personally served summons in both cases →
personally given to known heirs, legatees, and attested to by the certified true copies of the process servers
devisees of the testator. In the will, only returns, which are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
respondent was instituted as sole heir. set out.
Petitioners as nephews and nieces of the
decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate D. Ordinary Appeal
heirs entitled to be notified. Respondent did not 1. From MTC to RTC
have legal obligation to metion them/ notify
Rule 40
them.
Even assuming such obligation exist, the infirmity would have Appeal From Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial
been cured by the publication of notice. Courts
Section 1. Where to appeal. — An appeal from a judgment or
Lazaro v Rural Bank, G.R. No. 139895, 15 August 2003 final order of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the
● Lazaro obtained a loan from Rural Bank of Francisco Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to
(RFBI). He failed to pay such loan. RFBI thus sued him which the former pertains. The title of the case shall remain
for collection of deficiency in the payment. Summons as it was in the court of origin, but the party appealing the
was served upon Lazaro at the address given by RFBI. case shall be further referred to as the appellant and the
He did not answer and was declared in default. adverse party as the appellee. (a)
● RFBI then sought to enforce the judgment against
Lazaro‘s property. A writ of execution was served and Section 2. When to appeal. — An appeal may be taken within
issued at Lazaro‘s actual residence. fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment
or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further
required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a proceedings. If the case was tried on the merits by the lower
record on appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of the court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional
judgment or final order. The period of appeal shall be Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has
interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in
No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to
reconsideration shall be allowed. (n) the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence
in the interest of justice. (n)
Section 3. How to appeal. — The appeal is taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or Section 9. Applicability of Rule 41. — The other provisions of
final order appealed from. The notice of appeal shall indicate Rule 41 shall apply to appeals provided for herein insofar as
the parties to the appeal, the judgment or final order or part they are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the
thereof appealed from, and state the material dates showing provisions of this Rule. (n)
the timeliness of the appeal. A record on appeal shall be
required only in special proceedings and in other cases of
multiple or separate appeals. The form and contents of the Section 24, RSC
record on appeal shall be as provided in section 6, Rule 41. SEC. 24. Decision.– After the hearing, the court shall render
Copies of the notice of appeal, and the record on appeal its decision based on the facts established by the evidence
where required, shall be served on the adverse party. (n) (Form 11- SCC), within twenty-four (24) hours from
termination of the hearing. The decision shall immediately be
Section 4. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — The entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil
perfection of the appeal and the effect thereof shall be cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. The
governed by the provisions of section 9, Rule 41. (n) decision shall be final, executory and unappealable
Section 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — (a) Upon Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in
the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the
corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is court being indicated as such by the petitioner and shall (a)
deemed perfected as to the petitioner. state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner
The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case upon and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the
the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or
expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when
However, before the Court of Appeals gives due course to notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject
the petition, the Regional Trial Court may issue orders for the thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or
protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the
do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or
execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be
Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (9a, R41) accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a
(b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution
Procedure, the appeal shall stay the judgment or final order certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the
unless the Court of Appeals, the law, or these Rules shall requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material
provide otherwise. (a) portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e)
contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as
Section 9. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. (2a)
due course, the Court of Appeals may set the case for oral
argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the
a period of fifteen (15) days from notice. The case shall be petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees,
pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or by the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the
Paa v. CA, 282 S 448 (1997)
contents of and the documents which should accompany the Petitioner was the Administrative Officer of DOLE Regional
petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. Office XI. He was ordered dismissed from service. After
The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition having his MR denied, he appealed to the CSC, which found
on the ground that the appeal is without merit, or is him guilty of being Notoriously Undesirable and imposed
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its
therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. (3a) accessories. Petitioner filed with the CA a a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari Under
Section 6. Review discretionary. — A review is not a matter Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asking for an extension of 30
of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted days from April 13, 1996 within which to file his petition (he
only when there are special and important reasons thereof. alleged that he received a copy of the Feb 13 CSC resolution
The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the on March 29, 1996 and had then until 13 April 1996 within
court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which which to file a petition for review under Rule 45). CA denied
will be considered: motion for being the wrong mode of appeal. Hence this
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of petition to the SC, designating in both the copy and body as
substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, one for certiorari under Rule 65 or Rule 45.
or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or HELD: PETITIONER AVAILED OF THE WRONG REMEDY.
with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI ORIGINAL ACTION FOR
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the
CERTIORARI
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far
Based on questions of law raises the issue as to
sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an
which the appellant desires whether the lower court
exercise of the power of supervision. (4a)
the appellate court to acted without or in excess of
resolve. jurisdiction or with grave
Section 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required;
abuse of discretion.
sanctions. — For purposes of determining whether the
petition should be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5
involves the review of the May be directed against an
of this Rule, or where the petition is given due course under
judgment, award or final interlocutory order of the
section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may require or allow the
filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as order on the merits court prior to appeal from the
it may deem necessary within such periods and under such judgment or where there is
no appeal or any other plain,
conditions as it may consider appropriate, and impose the
speedy or adequate remedy.
corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing or unauthorized
filing of such pleadings and documents or non-compliance
with the conditions therefor. (n) Must be made within the May be filed not later than
reglementary period for sixty (60) days from notice of
Section 8. Due course; elevation of records. — If the petition appeal. An original action for the judgment, order or
is given due course, the Supreme Court may require the certiorari resolution sought to be
elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts assailed.
thereof within fifteen (15) days from notice. (2a)
Stays the judgment, award or Unless a writ of preliminary
Section 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases. — order appealed from. injunction or a temporary
The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be restraining order shall have
applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal been issued, does not stay
cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion the challenged proceeding.
perpetua or life imprisonment. (n)
Petitioner and respondent The parties are the
section 2(c), Rule 41 are the original parties to the aggrieved, party against the
Section 2. Modes of appeal. — action, and the lower court or lower court or quasi-judicial
(c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions quasi-judicial agency is not agency and the prevailing
of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the to be impleaded. parties, who thereby
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in respectively become the
accordance with the Rule 45. (n) petitioner and respondents.
section 6, Rule 56 The prior filing of a motion for A motion for reconsideration
Section 6. Disposition of improper appeal. — Except as reconsideration is not is a condition precedent
provided in section 3, Rule 122 regarding appeals in criminal required (Sec. 1, Rule 45); (Villa-Rey Transit vs. Bello,
cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion L-18957, April 23, 1963),
perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal taken to the subject to certain exceptions.
Supreme Court by notice of appeal shall be dismissed.
An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the The appellate court is in the The higher court exercises
Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be referred exercise of its appellate original jurisdiction under its
to the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. jurisdiction and power of power of control and
The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not review supervision over the
issues of fact are involved shall be final. (n) proceedings of lower courts
section 5(2)(e), 1987 Const. ● Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 7902, a party aggrieved
by any decision, final order or resolution of the Civil
Service Commission had only one remedy, namely, a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 (pursuant
to Sec 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution) and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the
● Congress then passed R.A. No. 7902 vesting upon the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as
Court of Appeals appellate jurisdiction over cases the circumstances warrant. However, it shall refrain from
decided or resolved by the CSC. Pursuant to Revised entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and
Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the mode of appeal elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for
from a decision of the Civil Service Commission, to bring review. (13a)
it within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals,
is a petition for review to be filed within the period therein 4. From quasi-judicial agencies to CA
fixed. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
took effect on 1 July 1997, a petition for review as a Rule 43
mode of appeal to the CA from decision of quasi-judicial Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial
bodies, including the CSC is governed by Rule 43. Agencies to the Court of Appeals
● ITC: Considering that petitioner announced in his motion Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from
for extension of time that he would be filing a petition for judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court of from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
Appeals cannot be faulted for peremptorily denying the authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
motion. quasi- judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil
● he had lost his right to appeal by way of the intended Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
petition for review. A special civil action for certiorari will Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security
Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents,
3. From CA to SC Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Rule 45 Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian
Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service
section 2(c), Rule 41 Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission,
Section 2. Modes of appeal. — Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission,
(c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments,
of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in arbitrators authorized by law. (n)
accordance with the Rule 45. (n)
Section 2. Cases not covered. — This Rule shall not apply to
section 3(c), Rule 122 judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the
Section 3. How appeal taken. — Philippines. (n)
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the
penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court is death, Section 3. Where to appeal. — An appeal under this Rule
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in
penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves
occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of (n)
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed,
shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with Section 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken
paragraph (a) of this section. within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution, or from the date of its last
section 13(c), Rule 124 publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity,
Section 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal of or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or
cases to Supreme Court. — Three (3) Justices of the Court of reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing
Appeals shall constitute a quorum for the sessions of a law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for
division. The unanimous vote of the three (3) Justices of a reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the
division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the
judgment or final resolution, which shall be reached in expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals
consultation before the writing of the opinion by a member of may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within
the division. In the event that the three (3) Justices can not which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall
reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice shall direct the be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no
raffle committee of the Court to designate two (2) additional case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (n)
Justices to sit temporarily with them, forming a special
division of five (5) members and the concurrence of a Section 5. How appeal taken. — Appeal shall be taken by
majority of such division shall be necessary for the filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies
pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution. The with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy
designation of such additional Justices shall be made strictly thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a
by raffle and rotation among all other Justices of the Court of quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of
Appeals. Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the
Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of clerk of court of the Court of Appeals the docketing and other
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment should be lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs.
imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of the evidence Exemption from payment of docketing and other lawful fees
and the deposit for costs may be granted by the Court of entire record of the proceeding under review. The record to
Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth valid grounds be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to
therefor. If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, the the proceeding. The Court of Appeals may require or permit
petitioner shall pay the docketing and other lawful fees and subsequent correction of or addition to the record. (8a)
deposit for costs within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
denial. (n) Section 12. Effect of appeal. — The appeal shall not stay the
award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be
Section 6. Contents of the petition. — The petition for review reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise
shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, upon such terms as it may deem just. (10a)
without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners
or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts Section 13. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given
and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the due course, the Court of Appeals may set the case for oral
review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within
original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final a period of fifteen (15) days from notice. The case shall be
order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last
copies of such material portions of the record referred to pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or by the
therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn court of Appeals. (n)
certification against forum shopping as provided in the last
paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the
XVIII. Provisional remedies
specific material dates showing that it was filed within the
period fixed herein. (2a)
A. Preliminary attachment
Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. —
1. Grounds
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket - under Sec. 1, Rule 57:
and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of o FRAUD (money, property)
the petition, and the contents of and the documents which Causal fraud
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for Incidental fraud
the dismissal thereof. (n) Leave Ph
Take property
Section 8. Action on the petition. — The Court of Appeals Estafa
may require the respondent to file a comment on the petition Hide property
not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice, or o personal jurisdiction
dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without - under Sec. 3, Rule 57:
merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions o no other sufficient security for the claim sought
raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. to be enforced by the action
(6a) o order = claim – counterclaim (PERMISSIVE)
Note: if ex parte application, no
Section 9. Contents of comment. — The comment shall be counterclam yet
filed within ten (10) days from notice in seven (7) legible
copies and accompanied by clearly legible certified true section 1, Rule 57
copies of such material portions of the record referred to Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At
therein together with other supporting papers. The comment the commencement of the action or at any time before entry
shall (a) point out insufficiencies or inaccuracies in of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the
petitioner's statement of facts and issues; and (b) state the property of the adverse party attached as security for the
reasons why the petition should be denied or dismissed. A satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner, and proof of following cases:
such service shall be filed with the Court of Appeals. (9a) (a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of
money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a
Section 10. Due course. — If upon the filing of the comment cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract,
or such other pleadings or documents as may be required or delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart
allowed by the Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
period for the filing thereof, and on the records the Court of (b) In an action for money or property embezzled or
Appeals finds prima facie that the court or agency concerned fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a
has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney,
reversal or modification of the award, judgment, final order or factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his
resolution sought to be reviewed, it may give due course to employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary
the petition; otherwise, it shall dismiss the same. The findings capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
of fact of the court or agency concerned, when supported by (c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly
substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the
Appeals. (n) property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed,
or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the
Section 11. Transmittal of record. — Within fifteen (15) days applicant or an authorized person;
from notice that the petition has been given due course, the (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud
Court of Appeals may require the court or agency concerned in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which
to transmit the original or a legible certified true copy of the the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
Agreement, which caused the plaintiff to release the
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed security bond, when as it turned out, the Transfer
of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his Certificate of Title of a parcel of land supposedly issued
creditors; or by the Register of Deeds of Rizal turned out to be fake
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not HELD: WPA was properly or regularly issued
found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be ● To sustain attachment:
served by publication. (1a) ○ must be shown that the debtor in contracting
the debt or incurring the obligation intended to
sections 14-16, Rule 14
defraud the creditor
Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or ○ fraud must relate to the execution of the
whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the agreement and must have been the reason
defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or which induced the other party into giving
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be consent which he would not have otherwise
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, given
be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of ○ fraud should be committed upon contracting the
general circulation and in such places and for such time as obligation sued upon
the court may order. (16a) ○ A debt is fraudulently contracted if at the time of
contracting it the debtor has a preconceived
Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant plan or intention not to pay
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the ● ITC: all the collaterals given by the respondent Arkin as
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, security for the bond were either fraudulent or heavily
or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in encumbered
which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or ○ One of the TCTs used as a collateral - turned
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly out to be a fake and spurious
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest ○ supposed lien-free motor vehicle offered as
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached collateral turned out to be heavily mortgaged
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be and was even disposed of without informing
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under petitioner
section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general ○ supposed lien-free motor vehicle offered as
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may collateral turned out to be heavily mortgaged
order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the and was even disposed of without informing
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known petitioner
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court ● It is therefore clear that fraud was present when private
may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall respondent, among others, entered into an indemnity
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty agreement with petitioner
(60) days after notice, within which the defendant must ● Also, when the preliminary attachment is issued upon a
answer. (17a) ground which is at the same time the applicant's cause
of action: defendant is not allowed to file a motion to
Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — dissolve the attachment under Section 13 of Rule 57 by
When any action is commenced against a defendant who offering to show the falsity of the factual averments in the
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is plaintiff's application and affidavits on which the writ was
temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also based and consequently that the writ based therein had
effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding been improperly, or irregularly, issued
section. (18a) ○ REASON: hearing on such motion for
dissolution of the writ would be tantamount to a
Liberty v. CA, 222 S 37 (1993) trial on the merits
● Imperial Organization entered into an agreement with
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines to promote two concerts Wee v. Tankiansee, G.R. No. 171124, February 13, 2008
featuring "Earth, Wind and Fire". To ensure compliance ● WEE, a client of WESTMONT BANK, made several
with the terms of the agreement, Coca-Cola required money placements with the bank's affiliate, Westmont
Imperial Organizations to put up a performance bond. Investment Corporation (WINCORP).
● PET Liberty Insurance, upon application of Imperial ● WEE discovered that the company extended a loan
Organization, put up the performance bond in the equal to his total money placement to a corporation
amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00), the (POWER MERGE)
principal condition of which was to "fully and faithfully ● Allegedly, through the false representations of
guarantee the terms and conditions" of the agreement WINCORP and its officers and directors, WEE was
● The concerts took place but Imperial Organizations and enticed to roll over his placements so that WINCORP
private respondents failed to comply with their could loan the same to VIRATA/POWER MERGE
obligations to Coca Cola. PET then became liable upon ● WEE instituted a civil for damages with the RTC
its performance bond paying Coca-Cola Three Million ● RTC: ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary
Pesos attachment
● PET filed Complaint for damages with application for HELD: There was no sufficient basis for WEE‘s application
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment
against Imperial, Arkin and Madlangbayan WEE‘s Affidavit is bereft of any factual statement that
● RTC: Issued an order allowing the issuance of the writ. respondent committed a fraud. The provisional remedy of
Private respondents committed fraud: they promised to preliminary attachment is harsh and rigorous for it exposes
give as security or collateral to their Indemnity the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. The rules governing
its issuance are, therefore, strictly construed against the ○ Immediately thereafter, Deputy Sheriff Ernesto
applicant, such that if the requisites for its grant are not L. Sula levied, attached and pulled out the
shown to be all present, the court shall refrain from issuing it, properties in compliance with the court‘s
for, otherwise, the court which issues it acts in excess of its directive to attach all the properties of private
jurisdiction. respondents not exempt from execution, or so
much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the
2. Procedure for grant petitioner‘s principal claim
● RESP filed a motion to set aside the order and
Application Order Bond Writ Summons discharge the writ of preliminary attachment for having
Levy Discharge Damages been irregularly and improperly issued
● RTC denied the motion for lack of merit.
Note: ● RESP filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA
- Order first before bond because the amount of the bond ● CA granted the petition for certiorari
will be indicated in the order ○ neither service of summons with a copy of the
- The writ is the order to the sheriff to attach/levy complaint nor voluntary appearance of
petitioners was had in this case before the trial
court issued the assailed order as well as the
sections 2-4, Rule 57
writ of preliminary attachment
Section 2. Issuance and contents of order. — An order of HELD:
attachment may be issued either ex parte or upon motion ● the only requisites for the issuance of the writ are the
with notice and hearing by the court in which the action is affidavit and bond of the applicant
pending, or by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, ● no notice to the adverse party or hearing of the
and must require the sheriff of the court to attach so much of application is required inasmuch as the time which the
the property in the Philippines of the party against whom it is hearing will take could be enough to enable the
issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to defendant to abscond or dispose of his property before a
satisfy the applicant's demand, unless such party makes writ of attachment issues. In such a case, a hearing
deposit or gives a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount would render nugatory the purpose of this provisional
equal to that fixed in the order, which may be the amount remedy.
sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand or the value of the ● The writ of preliminary attachment can be applied for and
property to be attached as stated by the applicant, exclusive granted at the commencement of the action or at any
of costs. Several writs may be issued at the same time to the time thereafter. In Davao Light and Power, Co., Inc. v.
sheriffs of the courts of different judicial regions. (2a) CA, the phrase ―at the commencement of the action‖ is
interpreted as referring to the date of the filing of the
Section 3. Affidavit and bond required. — An order of complaint which is a time before summons is served on
attachment shall be granted only when it appears by the the defendant or even before summons issues. HENCE,
affidavit of the applicant, or of some other person who a writ of preliminary attachment may issue even
personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action before summons is served upon the defendant
exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 ● BUT, the writ cannot bind and affect the defendant
hereof, that there is no other sufficient security for the claim until jurisdiction over his person is eventually
sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due obtained
to the applicant, or the value of the property the possession ● the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for practically involves three stages:
which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The 1. court issues the order granting the application
affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding 2. writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting
section, must be duly filed with the court before the order the writ
issues. (3a) 3. the writ is implemented
● For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
Section 4. Condition of applicant's bond. — The party jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should first
applying for the order must thereafter give a bond executed be obtained. However, once the implementation
to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court in its commences, it is required that the court must have
order granting the issuance of the writ, conditioned that the acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such
latter will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in
adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing
reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that from the Court will not bind the defendant
the applicant was not entitled thereto. (4a) ● an attachment may not be dissolved by a showing of its
irregular or improper issuance if it is upon a ground
Cuartero v. CA, 212 S 260 (1992) which is at the same time the applicant‘s cause of action
● Cuartero filed a complaint before the RTC aganst RESP in the main case since an anomalous situation would
Evangelista spouses, for a sum of money plus damages result if the issues of the main case would be ventilated
with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary and resolved in a mere hearing of a motion
attachment
● RTC issued an order granting ex-parte the petitioner‘s Davao Light v. CA, 204 S 303 (1991)
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary Davao Light filed a verified complaint for a recovery of a sum
attachment of money and damages against Queensland Hotel, etc. and
● a copy of the writ of preliminary attachment, the order, Teodorico Adarna. The complaint contained an ex parte
the summons and the complaint were all simultaneously application for a writ of preliminary attachment. A day after,
served upon the private respondents at their residence Judge Nartatez issued an Order granting the ex parte
application and fixing the attachment bond. The attachment
bond having been submitted by Davao Light, the writ of from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond
attachment issued. The summons and a copy of the executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond
complaint, as well as the writ of attachment and a copy of the fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of
attachment bond were served on the defendants; and the property to be attached, exclusive of costs. No levy on
pursuant to the writ, the sheriff seized properties belonging to attachment pursuant to the writ issued under section 2 hereof
the latter. Defendants filed a motion to discharge the shall be enforced unless it is preceded, or
attachment for lack of jurisdiction to issue the same because contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons,
at the time the order was promulgated, and the attachment together with a copy of the complaint, the application for
writ issued, the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over attachment the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order
the cause and over the persons of the defendants. and writ of attachment, on the defendant within the
HELD: a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte Philippines.
against a defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the
latter‘s person by service of summons or his voluntary The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of
submission to the Court‘s authority summons shall not apply where the summons could not be
There is ordinarily some appreciable interval time between served personally or by substituted service despite diligent
the day of filing of the complaint and the day of service of efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Philippines
summons of the defendant. During the period, different acts temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a
may be done by the plaintiff or by the Court which are of non-resident of the Philippines, or the action is one in rem or
unquestionable validity and propriety such as provisional quasi in rem. (5a)
remedies of preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction,
receivership or replevin. 4. Duration, discharge:
A preliminary attachment as the provisional remedy in virtue
of which a plaintiff or other proper party may, at the sections 5, 12, 13, Rule 57
commencement of the action or at any time thereafter, have Section 5. Manner of attaching property. — The sheriff
the property of the adverse party taken into the custody of the enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all reasonable
court as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the
be recovered. Rule 57 in fact speaks of the grant of the action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the
remedy ―at the commencement of the action or at any party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from
time thereafter.‖ The reference is to a time before summons execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's
is served on the defendant or even before summons is demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court
issued. from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond
Hence, after an action is properly commenced - by the filing executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond
of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of
other fees - the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs. No levy on
preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the pertinent attachment pursuant to the writ issued under section 2 hereof
requisites, and that he may do so at any time either before or shall be enforced unless it is preceded, or
after service of summons contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons,
When the sheriff commences implementation of the writ of together with a copy of the complaint, the application for
attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not attachment the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order
only a copy of the applicant‘s affidavit and attachment bond, and writ of attachment, on the defendant within the
and of the order of attachment (Sec. 5, Rule 57) but also the Philippines.
summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of
the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of
if any. summons shall not apply where the summons could not be
Service of all such documents is indispensable not only for served personally or by substituted service despite diligent
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant‘s person, but efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Philippines
also upon considerations of fairness, to apprise the defendant temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a
of the complaint against him, of the issuance of a writ of non-resident of the Philippines, or the action is one in rem or
preliminary attachment and grounds therefor, and thus quasi in rem. (5a)
accord him the opportunity to prevent attachment of his
property by posting a counterbond in an equal amount of Section 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving
plaintiff's claim or dissolving it by causing dismissal of the counter-bond. — After a writ of attachment has been
complaint itself or demonstrating the insufficiency of the enforced, the party whose property has been attached, or the
applicant‘s affidavit/bond in accordance with Sec. 13, Rule person appearing on his behalf, may move for the discharge
57. of the attachment wholly or in part on the security given. The
court shall, after due notice and hearing, order the discharge
3. Prior or contemporaneous service of summons of the attachment if the movant makes a cash deposit, or files
a counter-bond executed to the attaching party with the clerk
section 5, Rule 57 of the court where the application is made, in an amount
Section 5. Manner of attaching property. — The sheriff equal to that fixed by the court in the order of attachment,
enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all reasonable exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought to be
diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the discharged with respect to a particular property, the
action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the counter-bond shall be equal to the value of that property as
party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from determined by the court. In either case, the cash deposit or
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's the counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment
demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court that the attaching party may recover in the action. A notice of
acquired certain rights and assumed specific obligations in
the deposit shall forthwith be served on the attaching party. connection with the pending case.
Upon the discharge of an attachment in accordance with the
provisions of this section, the property attached, or the
proceeds of any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party 5. Damages
making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or to the
person appearing on his behalf, the deposit or counter-bond sections 17, 20, Rule 57
aforesaid standing in place of the property so released. Section 17. Recovery upon the counter-bond. — When the
Should such counter-bond for any reason be found to be or judgment has become executory, the surety or sureties on
become insufficient, and the party furnishing the same fail to any counter-bond given pursuant to the provisions of this
file an additional counter-bond, the attaching party may apply Rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become
for a new order of attachment. (12a) charged on such counter-bond and bound to pay the
judgment obligee upon demand the amount due under the
Section 13. Discharge of attachment on other grounds. — judgment, which amount may be recovered from such surety
The party whose property has been ordered attached may file or sureties after notice and summary hearing in the same
a motion with the court in which he action is pending, before action. (17a)
or after levy or even after the release of the attached
property, for an order to set aside or discharge the Section 20. Claim for damages on account of improper,
attachment on the ground that the same was improperly or irregular or excessive attachment. — An application for
irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient. damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive
If the attachment is excessive, the discharge shall be limited attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is
to the excess. If the motion be made on affidavits on the part perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with
of the movant but not otherwise, the attaching party may due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties
oppose the motion by counter-affidavits or other evidence in setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the
addition to that on which the attachment was made. After due amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after
notice and hearing, the court shall order the setting aside or proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the
the corresponding discharge of the attachment if it appears main case.
that it was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that
the bond is insufficient, or that the attachment is excessive, If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party
and the defect is not cured forthwith. (13a) against whom the attachment was issued he must claim
damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by
filing an application in the appellate court, with notice to the
Adlawan v. Tomol (RTC Presiding Judge), 184 S 31 (1990) party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety
Adlawan was a private contractor awarded by the or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court
government contracts for the construction of various becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the
infrastructure projects. To perform his obligations, he sought application to be heard and decided by the trial court.
financial assistance and support from private respondent Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against
Aboitiz. For failure to pay his installments and amortizations, whom the attachment was issued from recovering in the
respondent filed before CFI Cebu a complaint for the same action the damages awarded to him from any property
collection of a sum of money and damages including an ex-
of the attaching party not exempt from execution should the
parte application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
bond or deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail to
attachment against the property of petitioner. Writs of
fully satisfy the award. (20a)
preliminary attachment were issued. On the strength of the
writ of preliminary attachment, the bulk of petitioner's property
in Davao City was attached. Respondent eventually filed a Del Rosario v. Nava, G.R. No. L-5513, 18 August 1954
Notice of Dismissal or Withdrawal of Complaint, which ● Domingo del Rosario instituted an ejectment suit against
was granted. Gonzalo P. Nava. Attachment was levied (upon due
HELD: the properties should have been released to petitioner application and the filing of an attachment bond for
● Attachment is an ancillary remedy. It is not sought for its P5,000) and after the case was tried, the MTC rendered
own sake but rather to enable the attaching party to judgment against the defendant Nava.
realize upon relief sought and expected to be granted in ● In the CFI, Nava filed a new answer with a counterclaim,
the main action. It is adjunct to the main suit; it can have alleging that the writ of attachment was obtained
no independent existence apart from a suit on a claim of maliciously, wrongfully, and without sufficient cause, and
the plaintiff against the defendant. that its levy had caused him damages amounting to
● the writ of preliminary attachment issued is already P5,000. No notice of this counterclaim was served upon
dissolved and rendered non-existent in view of the the surety of the attachment bond, Alto Surety and
withdrawal of the complaint by respondent. When Insurance Co., Inc
respondent withdrew its complaint, the attachment ● CFI found that the attachment was improperly obtained,
ceased to have a leg to stand on. The attached and awarded P5,000 damages and costs to the
properties should be returned to petitioner. defendant Nava
● judgment having become final, a writ of execution was
Tijam v Sibonghanoy, supra issued, but it had to be returned unsatisfied because no
[relevant part]: The Court first noted that although the action, leviable property of the plaintiff Del Rosario could be
originally, was exclusively filed against the Sibonghanoy found
spouses, the Surety became a quasi-party since July 31, ● Nava filed, through counsel, a motion in Court setting
1948 when it filed a counter-bond for the dissolution of the forth the facts and praying that the Alto Surety and
writ of attachment issued by the court of origin. Since then, it Insurance Co., Inc. be required to show cause why it
should not respond for the damages adjudged in favor of ● RULE: A writ of preliminary attachment may issue once
the defendant and against the plaintiff. the Court is satisfied on consideration ex parte of the
● ALTO SURETY opposed on the ground that the application and its supporting affidavits and documents
application was filed out of time, it being claimed that or after hearing, as the court may in its discretion
under sec. 20, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, the consider proper, that any of the grounds specified by law
application and notice to the surety should be made exists, and an acceptable bond is given by the applicant
before trial, or at the latest, before entry of the final ● The filing of the attachment bond by a surety connotes
judgment. and operates as a voluntary submission by it to the
HELD: a notice to the sureties made after the award of Court‘s jurisdiction and binds it to faithfully comply with
damages against the principal in the attachment bond its specific obligations under its bond
has become final is considered filed OUT OF TIME ○ Surety does not become liable on its bond
● the application for damages and the notice to the simply because judgment is subsequently
sureties should be filed in the trial court by the party rendered against the party who obtained the
damnified by the wrongful or improper attachment either preliminary attachment - it becomes liable only
"before the trial" or, at the latest, "before entry of the final when and if the court shall finally adjudge
judgment", which means not later than the date when the that the applicant was not entitled to the
judgment becomes final and executory attachment
● The rule plainly calls for only one judgment for damages ○ This is regardless of the nature and character of
against the attaching party and his sureties; which is the judgment on the merits of the principal
explained by the fact that the attachment bond is a claims, counterclaims or cross-claims, etc.
solidary obligation. Since a judicial bondsman has no asserted by the parties against each other.
right to demand the exhaustion of the property of the Since an applicant‘s cause of action may be
principal debtor, there is no justification for the entering entirely different from the ground relied upon by
of separate judgments against them. With a single him for a preliminary attachment, although the
judgment against principal and sureties, the prevailing evidence warrants judgment in favor of
party may choose, at his discretion, to enforce the award applicant, the proofs may nevertheless also
of damages against whomsoever he considers in a establish that said applicant's proferred ground
better situation to pay it. for attachment was inexistent or specious and
● Requirements under the Rules appear designed to avoid hence, the writ should not have issued at all;
a multiplicity of suits. But to enable the defendant to i.e., he was not entitled thereto in the first place.
secure a hearing and judgment against the sureties in ● Surety, by submitting its attachment bond, binds
the attachment bond, even after the judgment for itself solidarily to make the same payments which its
damages against the principal has become final, would — principal the party at whose instance the
result in as great a multiplicity of actions as would flow attachment issues — may be condemned to make, to
from enabling him to sue the principal and the sureties in compensate for the damages resulting from the
separate proceedings. wrongful attachment, although unlike its principal,
● while the prevailing party may apply for an award of its liability is limited to the amount stated in its bond.
damages against the surety even after an award has ● Summary hearing is not rendered unnecessary or
been already obtained against the principal, still the superfluous by the fact that the matter of damages was
application and notice against the surety must be among the issues tried during the hearings on the merits,
made before the judgment against the principal unless of course, the surety had previously been duly
becomes final and executory, so that all awards for impleaded as a party, or otherwise earlier notified and
damages may be included in the final judgment. given opportunity to be present and ventilate its side on
the matter during the trial. The procedure for the
Philippine Charter Insurance v. CA, G.R. No. 88379, 15 rendition of a binding directive on the surety upon its
November 1989 solidarily liability for damages for wrongful attachment is
LEARJET commenced suit in RTC against GATES CORP. indicated in Section 20, Rule 57
The court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against ● RULE: A party against whom a writ of preliminary
DEFENDANTS‘ properties. The RTC ruled IN FAVOR OF attachment issues may impugn the writ by alleging and
PLAINTIFFs. CA reversed. DEFENDANTS filed with CA an proving inter alia that the applicant was not entitled
Urgent Petition to have Damages Awarded on Account of thereto, i.e., that the asserted ground for attachment was
Illegal Attachment Executed Against the Attachment Bond inexistent, or the amount for which the writ was sought
Issued. CA noted DEFENDANTS‘ application or claim for was excessive, etc., this, by appropriate motion. He may
damages against the surety and RESOLVED to refer claim or also claim damages on account of the wrongful
application to RTC and allow it to hear and decide the same attachment through an appropriate pleading, such as a
pursuant to Sec 20 Rule 57. The RTC then ordered execution counterclaim, or other form of application.
of the judgment against PLAINTIFF. The Sheriff sought to ● IMPORTANT: Application must be filed before trial or
enforce the writ also against the surety. The surety sought to before appeal is perfected or before the judgment
nullify the Notice of Enforcement of Writ of Execution, becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching
contending that there was no judgment against it due to the creditor and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts
wrongful attachment of the aircraft since neither Sec 20 Rule showing his right to damages and the amount thereof
57 of ROC nor CA resolution had been complied with, there ● ITC: Since RTC‘s decision had gone against
existed no award of damages against it under its attachment DEFENDANTS and no irregularity had been adjudged as
bond, and enforcement of execution against said bond would regards the preliminary attachment, it had no occasion to
be contrary to due process. apply for damages from wrongful attachment - although
HELD: the application for damages can be executed against they could have applied because it is entirely possible
the attachment bond made by the surety under the law that an applicant for preliminary
attachment be adjudged entitled to relief on his basic hearing. DBP filed its Answer with counterclaims against
claim and pronounced as not entitled to the attachment Marquez. Judge issued the Order denying Marquez‘s prayed
● The surety's liability may be enforced whether the for injunctive writ.
application for damages for wrongful attachment be HELD: trial court correctly refused to grant an injunction
submitted in the original proceedings before the Trial against the threatened extrajudicial foreclosure sale by
Court, or on appeal, so long as the judgment has not DBP
become executory. The surety's liability is not and ● The writ of preliminary injunction is issued to prevent
cannot be limited to the damages caused by the threatened or continuous irremediable injury to
improper attachment only during the pendency of the some of the parties before their claims can be
appeal. thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to
● SURETY shall answer for all damages that the party preserve the status quo until the merits of the case
may suffer as a result of the illicit attachment, for all can be heard fully. Thus, it will be issued only upon
the time that the attachment was in force; from levy a showing of a clear and unmistakable right that is
to dissolution violated. Moreover, an urgent necessity for its
○ The fact that the attachment was initially (and issuance must be shown by the applicant
erroneously) deemed correct by the Trial Court, ● the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
and it was only on appeal that it was may be granted if the following grounds are
pronounced improper, cannot restrict recovery established
on the bond only to such damages as might ○ That the applicant is entitled to the relief
have been sustained during the appeal. demanded, and the whole or part of such
relief consists in restraining the commission
B. Preliminary injunction or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or in requiring the
1. Grounds performance of an act or acts, either for a
limited period or perpetually;
sections 3, Rule 58 ○ That the commission, continuance or
Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — nonperformance of the act or acts
A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is complained of during the litigation would
established: probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and ○ That a party, court, agency or a person is
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the doing, threatening, or is attempting to do,
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or is procuring or suffering to be done,
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a some act or acts probably in violation of the
limited period or perpetually; rights of the applicant respecting the
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of subject of the action or proceeding, and
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would tending to render the judgment ineffectual
probably work injustice to the applicant; or ● the requisites of preliminary injunction whether
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, mandatory or prohibitory are the following:
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering 1. the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable
to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights right, that is a right in esse;
of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or 2. there is a material and substantial invasion of such
proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. right;
(3a) 3. there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent
irreparable injury to the applicant (incapable of
pecuniary estimation);
4. and no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate
remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable
injury
Marquez v. Sanchez, 515 SCRA 577 (2007)
● ITC: Requisites for injunctive writ not present.
Marquez was an incorporator and officer of Lucena
Petitioners failed to show a right in esse to be
Entrepreneur and Agri-Industrial Development Corporation
protected.
(LEAD). He applied for a loan with respondent DBP; which
was granted. LEAD was not able to pay. DBP filed w/ the Note: The effect of WPI is to preserve the STATUS QUO
RTC an application for foreclosure sale of the REMs ANTE LITEM MOTAM- last actual peaceable uncontested
constituted to secure its loan. Marquez instituted the instant
situation which precedes a controversy BEFORE FILING
action for Damages, Cancellation of Mortgage and Certiorari
OF THE CASE
with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and/or Restraining Order to forestall the extrajudicial PEZA v. Vianzon, 336 S 309 (2000)
foreclosure sale of the property, alleging that LEAD‘s
PEZA and private respondent, Saffirou Seacrafts, Inc. (PR)
involvement in purse seine fishing was premised substantially
entered into a 15Y registration Agreement where petitioner
on a ―partnership‖ with DBP and not that of a simple debtor–
leased to PR 1,500sqm of land in the Bataan Export
creditor relationship and that the loan contracts and REM
Processing Zone for PR‘s business of manufacture and repair
constituted for them were legally impaired, bereft of
of seacrafts. PR failed to comply with the provisions of the
consideration, and did not reflect the true and proper
agreement. Hence the Board of Trustees promulgated a
relationship between LEAD and DBP. Judge Sanchez issued
resolution cancelling the agreements and demanded from PR
an Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to
to vacate the leased premises. PR filed in the RTC a petition
maintain the status quo pending resolution of the prayer for
for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and set the
TRO and preliminary injunction against pet and its officer. some peculiar quality or use, so that its pecuniary value
RTC issued a TRO and eventually issued a writ of preliminary will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof"
injunction enjoining and retraining PEZA from enforcing and ● Respondent corporations made a lengthy discourse on
implementing its Board Resolution and the ―Notice of the matter of irreparable injury they may suffer if the
Cancellation, Termination, and Demand to Vacate‖ pending injunction were not issued, but the array of figures they
the hearing of the case and until further notice from the court. have laid out merely succeeded in proving that the
PEZA appealed the issuance of the injunction, arguing that damage, if any they may suffer, is susceptible of
PR had no factual or legal basis for the issuance of the mathematical computation. It is not then irreparable
preliminary injunction for said writ may only be issued if it is ● If full compensation can be obtained by way of damages,
shown that the applicant has a clear and unmistakable right equity will not apply the remedy of injunction
to protect. It cannot be granted when the alleged right is ● The most that can happen would be a diminution of
doubtful or disputed. PEZA added that PR lost its right to benefits in proportion to the reduction of the contributions
occupy the leased premises when it violated the terms of its to their private systems. But while they may suffer such
agreement with PEZA. reduction in benefits they also stand to benefit under the
HELD: TC properly issued an injunction government system.
SSI has a clear and unmistakable right to protect its ○ the integration does not mean the
contractual right to lease the property lest it suffer business discontinuance of the private system for under
losses from its investments within the processing zone. There the law three alternatives are open to
was sufficient ground for the issuance since: respondents in effecting the integration
- PR is is simply protecting its right under the Registration
Agreement and Supplemental Agreement which states 2. Procedure for grant
that PR has the right to lease the premises from 1992 to
2007. When Petitioner demanded PR to vacate the Notes:
leased premises in 1997, the latter still had 10 years to - a 72-hour TRO is effective upon issuance
go under the agreement. - a 20-day TRO is effective upon service
- PR‘s right as a lessee is clear and unmistakable as
evidenced by the Retainer (sic) Agreement and Scenaro 1: ex parte application for 72-hour TRO, 20-day
Supplemental Agreement. TRO in a multiple-sala court
- PR is also questioning pet‘s basis in revoking the Procedure: application 72 hour TRO ex-parte (issued by
agreement, aggravated by lack of proper hearing even the executive judge) summons raffle summary
on the administrative level. This is where the regular hearing 20-day TRO (sala) full hearing order bond
court comes in as to the validity of the ground of the WPI discharge damages
petitioner in revoking the agreements.
The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested Scenario 2: ex parte application for 20-day TRO in a
situation which precedes a controversy, in the case at bar, multiple-sala court
SSI was still a lessee of PEZA, as determined by the CA. Procedure: application summons raffle 20-day TRO
full hearing order bond WPI discharge
Social Security Commission v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13555, damages
30 May 1962
● Faculty Club of UST and San Beda filed a petition for Scenario 3: normal (not ex parte) application for 20-day TRO
declaratory relief with preliminary injunction before the in a multiple-sala court
CFI alleging in substance that they have existing Procedure: application summons raffle summary
agreements with their respective employers for the hearing 20 day TRO full hearing order bond
establishment of gratuity and retirement funds which WPI discharge damages
have been in operation prior to September 1, 1957
○ Social Security Commission tried to compel
sections 1-2, 4-5, Rule 58
them to integrate their private system into the
Social Security System Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. — A
○ inasmuch as their private systems grant more preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
benefits to the members than the Social action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order,
Security System the integration of their private requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain
systems would deprive their members of from a particular act or acts. It may also require the
property without due process of law performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall
● Judge Froilan Bayona issued ex parte a writ of be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. (1a)
preliminary injunction
● Social Security Commission moved to dissolve the Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. — A
preliminary injunction preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the
HELD: There is no irreparable injury to be the main basis action or proceeding is pending. If the action or proceeding is
of the issuance of the writ pending in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it
● Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule may be issued by said court or any member thereof. (2a)
relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no
standard by which their amount can be measured with Section 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary
reasonable accuracy injunction or temporary restraining order. — A preliminary
● An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only
of "a serious charge of, or is destructive to, the property when:
it affects, either physically or in the character in which it (a) The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and
has been held and enjoined, or when the property has shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded;
and denied or not resolved within the said period, the temporary
(b) Unless exempted by the court the applicant files with the restraining order is deemed, automatically vacated. The
court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible
executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no
fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the
such party or person all damages which he may sustain by same ground for which it was issued.
reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member
court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be effective for
thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of sixty (60) days from service on the party or person sought to
preliminary injunction shall be issued. (4a) be enjoined. A restraining, order issued by the Supreme
(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or Court or a member thereof shall be effective until further
a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or orders. (5a)
any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala
court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence section 2, Rule 20
of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any Section 2. Assignment of cases. — The assignment of cases
event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously to the different branches of a court shall be done exclusively
accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy by raffle. The assignment shall be done in open session of
of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant's which adequate notice shall be given so as to afford
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines. interested parties the opportunity to be present. (7a, R22)
However, where the summons could not be served
personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or
Gonzales v. State Properties Corp., G.R. No. 140765, 25
the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily
absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement January 2001
of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not Respondent filed a verified complaint for Recovery of
apply. Property based on ownership with RTC Las Pinas against
(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall petitioner and his siblings, all heirs of Benito Gonzales. The
thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a complaint was accompanied by an application for TRO and/or
summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four preliminary injunction. The case was first raffled to Branch
(24) hours after the sheriff's return of service and/or the 253; summons was served on petitioner. Petitioner then filed
records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to an Omnibus Motion, praying among others, that another raffle
which the records shall be transmitted immediately. be held because the other defendants therein did not receive
any notice of raffle. Respondent filed a Motion for Service of
Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; Summons by Publication on all the defendants therein,
exception. — No preliminary injunction shall be granted except Petitioner. This was granted. He then received a
without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought Notice of Raffle. On the day of raffle, petitioner and counsel
to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits of private respondent appeared but petitioner‘s counsel
or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury opposed the holding of the raffle on the ground that the other
would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard defendants were not duly notified of the raffle
HELD: A CASE MAY BE RAFFLED EVEN WHEN SOME
on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary
OF THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE SERVED NOTICE
injunction was made, may issue a temporary restraining order
SINCE THEIR WHEREABOUTS ARE UNKNOWN
to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from
service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except ● the prerequisites for conducting a raffle when there is a
as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary
court must order said party or person to show cause, at a restraining order are (a) notice to and (b) presence of the
specified time and place, why the injunction should not be adverse party or person to be enjoined.
● the required prior or contemporaneous service of
granted, determine within the same period whether or not the
summons may be dispensed with in the following
preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue
the corresponding order. (Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February instances: (a) when the summons cannot be served
1998) personally or by substituted service despite diligent
However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding efforts, (b) when the adverse party is a resident of the
sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant Philippines temporarily absent therefrom, or (c) when
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive such party is a nonresident.In such event, the notice of
judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a raffle and the presence of the adverse party must also be
single sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining dispensed with.
order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance ITC: the other heirs‘ whereabouts were unknown and that
but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the summons could not be served personally or by substituted
next preceding section as to service of summons and the service. Hence, it cannot be required to serve such summons
documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the prior to or contemporaneous with the notice of raffle. The
aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the raffle, therefore, may proceed even without notice to and the
case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to presence of the said adverse parties.
determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be
3. Duration, dissolution
extended until the application for preliminary injunction can
be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the sections 5, 6, Rule 58
temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice;
including the original seventy-two hours provided herein. exception. — No preliminary injunction shall be granted
In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought
Federation v. CA, 246 S 175 (1995)
to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits Respondent Jaime Torres was ordered by the Secretary of
or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury DENR to vacate a parcel of land. Torres refused and instead
would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard filed a complaint for injunction before RTC. The RTC issued
on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary an order setting the hearing of the application for a writ of
injunction was made, may issue a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction. To prevent the application from
to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from becoming moot and academic (taking into consideration the
service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except length of time to resolve the same), TC issued an order for
as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the the maintenance of the status quo and restrained the
court must order said party or person to show cause, at a defendants from ejecting Torres. Upon agreement of the
specified time and place, why the injunction should not be parties, TC ordered that status quo be maintained and
granted, determine within the same period whether or not the created a committee to pinpoint areas allegedly titled in
preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue Torres‘ name. FLRP filed a motion for intervention on ground
the corresponding order. (Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February that it had entered into a MOA with DENR for the lease of a
1998) portion of the Marikina Watershed Reservation. FLRP filed
However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding motion to declare without force and effect the restraining
sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant order issued by TC, citing Sec 5 Rule 58 ROC which says
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive that a TRO has a lifespan of only 20 days, and that its failure
judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a to decide whether to grant the writ within said period barred it
single sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining from granting the same. TC denied the motion, and held that
order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance while it‘s true that a restraining order is good for 20 days, the
but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the parties agreed to maintain the status quo before the incident
next preceding section as to service of summons and the on preliminary injunction could be resolved by the court
documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the HELD: TC could extend the TRO beyond the 20-day
aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the period
case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to Generally, the efficacy of a TRO is non-extendible and the
determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be courts have no discretion to extend the same considering the
extended until the application for preliminary injunction can mandatory tenor of the Rule. No reason however to prevent a
be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the court from extending the 20-day period when the parties
temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, themselves ask for such extension or for the maintenance of
including the original seventy-two hours provided herein. the status quo.
In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is
denied or not resolved within the said period, the temporary Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 S 633 (1993)
restraining order is deemed, automatically vacated. The A criminal case under RA 3019 was initiated against Miriam
effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible Defensor Santiago. MDS filed with this Court a petition for
without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to
court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal
same ground for which it was issued. Cases as her arraignment was inexplicably advanced. SC
However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member granted TRO, but eventually dismissed the petition. Thus,
thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be effective for MDS filed a MR. Meanwhile, Sandiganbayan issued a Hold
sixty (60) days from service on the party or person sought to Departure Order against MDS. Hence, this petition.
be enjoined. A restraining, order issued by the Supreme HELD: Sandiganbayan correctly issued the hold departure
Court or a member thereof shall be effective until further order despite the pendency of petitioner's motion for
orders. (5a) reconsideration with this Court. There was no TRO by the SC
to speak of at the time the HDO was issued by SB. SB validly
Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of exercised its jurisdiction.
dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. — The A temporary injunction terminates automatically on the
application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, dismissal of the action. This is the case even if it was
upon a showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or appealed. An order of dissolution of an injunction may be
restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted, may be immediately effective, even though it is not final. A dismissal,
dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or discontinuance, or non-suit of an action in which a restraining
person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also order or temporary injunction has been granted operates as a
by affidavits. It may further be denied, or if granted, may be dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction
dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the and no formal order of dissolution is necessary to effect such
applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the dissolution. Consequently, a special order of the court is
issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would necessary for the reinstatement of an injunction. There must
cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined be a new exercise of judicial power.
while the applicant can be fully compensated for such
damages as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an Buyco v. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, 21 December 2009
amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all ● Baraquia (RESP) filed before the RTC a complaint
damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the against Buycos, for the establishment of a permanent
dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it appears right of way, injunction and damages with preliminary
that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining injunction and temporary restraining order, to enjoin the
order granted is too great, it may be modified. (6a) Buycos from closing off a private road within their
property which he has been using to go to and from the
public highway to access his poultry farm
● RTC dismissed respondent‘s complaint for failure to 4. Damages
establish the concurrence of the essential requisites for
sections 8, Rule 58
the establishment of an easement of right of way; lifted
the writ of preliminary injunction Section 8. Judgment to include damages against party and
● RESP later filed w/ the TC a motion to cite petitioner and sureties. — At the trial, the amount of damages to be
his brother Gonzalo in contempt, alleging that they had awarded to either party, upon the bond of the adverse party,
closed off the subject road, thus violating the writ of shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same
preliminary injunction procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. (9a)
HELD: the lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction due to
the dismissal of the complaint is immediately executory, Paramount v. CA, 310 S 377 (1999)
even if the dismissal of the complaint is pending appeal McAdore entered into an agreement with DECORP for
The present case having been heard and found dismissible the latter to supply electricity to their hotel. DECORP
as it was in fact dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction is noticed that the actual monthly billing and estimated
deemed lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy having monthly billings of McAdore had discrepancies. Upon
been served, the appeal therefrom notwithstanding. A investigation, it was found that the meters of McAdore
dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a were tampered with. DECORP issued a corrected bill but
restraining order or temporary injunction has McADORE refused to pay, so they eventually
been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining disconnected the power to the hotel.
order or temporary injunction, regardless of whether the
McAdore commenced a suit against DECORP for
period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order
damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired. The
For the WPI, McAdore posted injunction bonds from
rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal is
several sureties, one of which was petitioner Paramount.
taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the merits,
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued, which
the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the
restrained DECORP from disconnecting the power.
general rule applies that a temporary injunction terminates
automatically on the dismissal of the action. RTC dismissed the complaint and ordered McAdore (and
its sureties, jointly and severally) to pay
UCPB v. United Alloy, G.R. No. 152238, 28 January 2005 McAdore didn't appeal. Paramount appealed to the CA
United Alloy filed a Complaint for ―annulment and/or saying that it was not given its day in court because no
reformation of contract and damages, with prayer for a writ of evidence re. damages suffered by private respondent as
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order‖ against a result of the injunction was ever presented
UCPB. Trial Court, on the same day, issued a TRO. Upon HELD: Paramount is liable to all damages
UCPB‘s motion, the RTC dismissed Unialloy‘s complaint. By A separate hearing for the purpose of presenting
virtue of a Motion for Immediate Execution filed by UCPB, the evidence on the alleged damages claimed by DECORP
same court issued an Order of Execution for the turnover to on petitioners injunction bond is NOT needed. The the
the bank of the property, subject of the Contract sought to be surety‘s counsel was already present in the previous hearing
annulled or reformed. Unialloy filed a Petition for Certiorari and was notified of the date of the next hearing. It is not
and Mandamus before the CA, which issued a Writ of required that there should be a separate hearing in order that
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in favor of Unialloy. UCPB damages upon the bond can be claimed, as per Rule 57,
filed this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 Section 20 (in relation with Sec. 8, Rule 58). It is deemed
alleging GAD on the part of the CA. complied with as long as the other party had been apprised of
HELD: the notice (even if not specifically for the determination of
● Section 1(f) of Rule 41 of the Rules unequivocally states damages) and evidence was presented in hearing.
that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution. [GENERAL RULE] While the general rule is that a
Rule 41 adds that in instances in which an order is not summary hearing to determine the extent of a surety‘s
appealable, the aggrieved party‘s recourse is a special liability is not a superfluity, [EXCEPTION] it may
civil action under Rule 65. become so when the surety had been impleaded as a
● Hence, an order of execution, when issued with grave party, or otherwise earlier notified and given opportunity
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of to be present its side during the trial. (The exception
jurisdiction, may be the subject of a petition for certiorari applies in this case.)
under Rule 65 ITC, DECORP filed its Answer raising compulsory
● the CA Resolution granting the preliminary counterclaims for rescission of contract, moral
mandatory injunction was sufficient in form. A damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and
resolution granting/denying application of TRO need litigation expenses. Atty. Cordero representing
not contain the factual and legal basis Paramount, was present during the March 22, 1985
● The grant or denial of a prayer for preliminary injunction hearing and was notified that the next hearing would be
lies in the sound discretion of the issuing court. April 26. (It was in the April 26 hearing that the evidence
● It is not intended to correct a wrong done in the past, in of DECORP for its counterclaim for damages was
the sense of redress for injury already sustained, but to presented -- note: not stated but can be inferred from
prevent further injury. case). Given such facts, it cannot be said that
○ The sole object of a preliminary injunction, Paramount was not notified as per the Rules. What is
whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve necessary is for the attaching party and his surety or
the status quo until the merits of the case can sureties to be duly notified and given the opportunity to
be heard be heard.
The bond liable to ALL damages, not just ACTUAL, as
per Sec. 4(b), Rule 58.
Mendoza v. Cruz: It is designed to cover all damages responsibility and authority to provide, operate and manage
which the party enjoined can possibly suffer. Its floating bulk terminal facilities for bulk cargoes bound for
principal purpose is to protect the enjoined party against South Harbor, Port of Manila.
loss or damage by reason of an injunction. MPSI FILED A PETITION against PPA and MAFSICOR for
declaratory relief, final injunction with prayer for
5. No injunctions temporary restraining order and preliminary prohibitory
OCA Circular No. 79-03: injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. They
- Labor related cases (Art. 254, LC: Injunction prohibited) alleged that the PPA-MAFSICOR contract is in complete
o Enforcement of decisions or awards rendered derogation of MPSIs rights and only serves to promote
by the NLRC chaos, instability and labor unrest in the South Harbor, and
o Issues involved are interwoven with ULP that it would lose 50% of its projected gross revenues.
- Matters involving concessions, licenses, and other TRIAL COURT issued a TRO but eventually denied the
permits issued by public administrative bodies or officials issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because:
(PD 605) 1. Injunctive relief may not be granted in the action for
- Dispute or controversy arising from or in connection with declaratory relief which merely seeks the construction or
application, implementation or interpretation of the laws interpretation of the contract between PPA and MPSI; and
on agrarian reform (RA 6657, Sec. 55 and 68) 2. Contract between PPA and MAFSICOR was an
- Foreclosure proceeding initiated by government financial accomplished act which cannot be the subject of a restraining
institutions (PD 385) order because there is yet no irreparable injury caused to the
- Sale or disposition of assets acquired by GSIS (PD plaintiffs right as the floating grains terminal has not yet been
8921) deposited in the South Harbor and the injury insisted by the
- Execution and implementation of the infrastructure and petitioner are merely speculative
natural resources development projects or the operation Katipunan ng mga Manggagawa sa Daungan (KAMADA), the
of public utlity by the Government (PD 1818) bargaining agent for the 4,000 stevedores employed by
- Implementation of the projects of the conversion of MPSI, filed a complaint against MPSI, PPA and MAFSICOR
military reservations (RA 7227) for the annulment of the PPA-MAFSICOR contract saying
- Orders or decisions of the PCGG that:
- Orders or decisions of the patent office 1. The floating grains terminal would duplicate their
- Orders or decisions of SSS function of stevedoring in the South Harbor; and
- Orders or decisions of the Bureau of Forestry 2. MAFSICORs requirement of trained and qualified
- Orders or decisions of the Bureau of Customs stevedores would certainly deprive some of plaintiffs
- Investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, unless member employees of their employment.
there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter of CA issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of
the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo.
Ombudsman (RA 6770) HELD: issuance of the injunction violated PD 1818.
- In criminal prosecution and in cases under preliminary To authorize the issuance of an injunction, the terms of the
investigation or reinvestigation agreement involved must be so precise that neither party
- Any private electric utility or rural electric cooperative could misunderstand them. When MPSI filed the petition for
exercising the right and authority to disconnect electric declaratory relief below with the specific prayer that it
service (RA 7832) contractual and vested rights under the PPA-MPSI contract
- Government infrastructure projects (RA 8975) be declared and respected, MPSI in effect manifested its
- Acts of the Privatization Council in pursuance of its uncertainty as to the exclusivity of said contract with respect
mandate (Proclamation 50-A) to stevedoring operations.
Philippine Ports v. CA, 253 S 212 (1996) F. Forcible Entry / Unlawful Detainer
PD1818 was issued. It banned courts from issuing
preliminary injunctions in cases involving concessions, 1. Grounds
licenses and other permits issued by public administrative sections 1-2, Rule 70
officials or bodies for the exploitation of natural resources so Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. —
as not hamper essential government projects. Invoking such, Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a
petitioners herein question the issuance by the Court of
person deprived of the possession of any land or building by
Appeals of a writ of preliminary injunction which, in
force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor,
effect, enjoins the implementation of a contract between
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the
petitioners Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and Manila
possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after
Floating Silo Corporation (MAFSICOR) for the setting up of
the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession,
floating bulk terminal facilities at the South Harbor of the Port by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
of Manila. representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor,
PPA and Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI) entered into a vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year
management contract whereby the former granted the latter after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,
the exclusive right to manage and operate stevedoring bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the
services at the South Harbor. person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
PPA also granted the Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPSI) the possession, or any person or persons claiming under them,
exclusive management and operation of arrastre and for the restitution of such possession, together with damages
container terminal handling services in all piers, slips and and costs. (1a)
wharves at the South Harbor Terminal, Port of Manila.
PPA entered into a contract with petitioner MAFSICOR Section 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after
whereby it granted MAFSICOR the right, privilege,
demand. — Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the Optimum Development Bank v. Spouses Jovellanos, G.R.
lesser shall be commenced only after demand to pay or No. 189145, 4 December 2013
comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made Sps. Jovellanos entered into a Contract to Sell with Palmera
upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand Homes, Inc. for the purchase of a residential house and lot.
upon the person found on the premises if no person be found Sps. Jovellanos took possession of the subject property upon
thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen a down payment. Palmera Homes assigned all its rights, title
(15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of and interest in the Contract to Sell in favor of petitioner
buildings. (2a) Optimum Development Bank through a Deed of Assignment.
Optimum issued a Notice of Delinquency and Cancellation of
Sy Oh v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-29328, 30 June 1969 Contract to Sell for Sps. Jovellanos‘s failure to pay their
● July 21, 1967: Resp → ejectment suit against the monthly installments despite several written and verbal
petitioners notices. In a final Demand Letter Optimum required Sps.
● Petitioners → MTD Jovellanos to vacate and deliver possession of the subject
○ Ground: Lack of jurisdiction property within 7 days which, however, remained unheeded.
○ First notice or demand sent to them as far back Hence, Optimum filed a complaint for unlawful
as April 27, 1964 detainer before the MeTC. MeTC ordered Sps. Jovellanos to
● City Court of Manila: Denied MTD vacate the subject property and pay Optimum reasonable
○ final letter of demand or notice to vacate was in compensation of P5,000.00 for its use and occupation until
the case of petitioner Sy Oh sent on Sept. 30, possession has been surrendered. It held that Sps.
1966 and Lim Chi on September 29, 1966 Jovellanos‘s possession of the said property was by virtue of
○ Both cases are therefore within the one-year a Contract to Sell which had already been cancelled for non-
period payment of the stipulated monthly installment payments. As
HELD: City Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the case such, their "rights of possession over the subject property
In the event that there are various letters of demand, the one- necessarily terminated or expired and hence, their continued
year period in ejectment suits should be counted from the last possession thereof constitute[d] unlawful detainer.‖ RTC
one sent to the lessee. affirmed; CA reversed, ruling to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. It found that the controversy does not only
Maddammu v. Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, G.R. involve the issue of possession but also the validity of the
No. 48940, 22 June 1943 cancellation of the Contract to Sell and the determination of
● Plaintiff Nicasio Sanchez bought a house. Before he the rights of the parties thereunder as well as the governing
could take possession of and occupy said house, law, among others, RA 6552. Accordingly, it concluded that
MADDAMMU surreptitiously and maliciously occupied the subject matter is one which is incapable of pecuniary
same without the knowledge and consent of SANCHEZ. estimation and thus, within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
● after demanding payment of rents and attorney's fees, HELD: the case is for unlawful detainer and is within the
he prayed for either of the following reliefs: MeTC jurisdiction
(a) Defendant to deliver to plaintiff the Metropolitan Trial Courts are conditionally vested with
possession of the house, with plaintiff promising to pay authority to resolve the question of ownership raised as
the reasonable rent for the use of the lot; or, an incident in an ejectment case where the determination
(b) Defendant permits, plaintiff to remove the is essential to a complete adjudication of the issue of
house from defendant's lot, with plaintiff paying for any possession. Concomitant to the ejectment court‘s
undue damage which may be caused to said lot; or. authority to look into the claim of ownership for purposes
(c) Defendant pays plaintiff the reasonable of resolving the issue of possession is its authority to
value of the house in the amount of P150. interpret the contract or agreement upon which the claim
● MUNICIPAL COURT OF MANILA: declared that by is premised. The authority granted to the MeTC to
virtue of the sales contract, Nicasio Sanchez became the preliminarily resolve the issue of ownership to determine
owner of the house and that by virtue of his ownership; the issue of possession ultimately allows it to interpret
Nicasio Sanchez has the right to the possession of said and enforce the contract or agreement between the
house at the time the sale was consummated plaintiff and the defendant. To deny the MeTC
HELD: jurisdiction over a complaint merely because the issue of
● The complaint in the Municipal Court purports to be one possession requires the interpretation of a contract will
for forcible entry, but the facts alleged therein fail to show effectively rule out unlawful detainer as a remedy. As
that such is the nature of the action. In forcible entry stated, in an action for unlawful detainer, the defendant‘s
cases, the only issue is physical possession or right to possess the property may be by virtue of a
possession de facto of a real property. contract, express or implied; corollarily, the termination of
● To confer jurisdiction upon the RESP Court the the defendant‘s right to possess would be governed by
complaint should have alleged prior physical the terms of the same contract.
possession of the house by plaintiff or by his vendors Interpretation of the contract between the plaintiff and the
and deprivation of such possession by defendant defendant is inevitable because it is the contract that
through any of the means specified by the Rule. (Rule initially granted the defendant the right to possess the
72, sec. 1). property; it is this same contract that the plaintiff
● ITC: Had Maddammu alleged that Sanchez unlawfully subsequently claims was violated or extinguished,
turned him out of possession of the property in litigation, terminating the defendant‘s right to possess. The
the allegation would have been sufficient, because MeTC‘s ruling on the rights of the parties based on its
Maddammu's prior physical possession may then be interpretation of their contract is, of course, not
implied therefrom. But no such allegation has been conclusive, but is merely provisional and is binding only
made. with respect to the issue of possession.
Known as the Maceda Law, R.A. No. 6552 recognizes in 2. Preliminary mandatory injunction
conditional sales of all kinds of real estate (industrial,
section 15, 20, Rule 70
commercial, residential) the right of the seller to cancel
Section 15. Preliminary injunction. — The court may
the contract upon non-payment of an installment by the
grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions
buyer, which is simply an event that prevents the
of Rule 58 hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing
obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring
further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff.
binding force. It also provides the right of the buyer on
installments in case he defaults in the payment of
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible from
succeeding installments.
the filing of the complaint, present a motion in the action for
In the present case, the 60-day grace period
forcible entry or unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of
automatically operated in favor of the buyers, Sps.
preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his
Jovellanos, and took effect from the time that the
possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty
maturity dates of the installment payments lapsed. With
(30) days from the filing thereof
the said grace period having expired bereft of any
installment payment on the part of Sps.
Section 20. Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of
Jovellanos, Optimum then issued a Notice of
appeal. — Upon motion of the plaintiff, within ten (10) days
Delinquency and Cancellation of Contract on April 10,
from the perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial Court,
2006. Finally, in proceeding with the actual cancellation
the latter may issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
of the contract to sell, Optimum gave Sps. Jovellanos an
to restore the plaintiff in possession if the court is satisfied
additional thirty days within which to settle their arrears
that the defendant's appeal is frivolous or dilatory or that the
and reinstate the contract, or sell or assign their rights to
appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious.
another.
It was only after the expiration of the thirty day period did
Optimum treat the contract to sell as effectively cancelled 3. Judgment
– making a final demand upon Sps. Jovellanos to vacate
section 18, Rule 70
the subject property. Thus, there was a valid and
effective cancellation of the Contract to Sell in
accordance with Section 4 of RA 6552 and since Sps. Section 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession;
not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. — The
Jovellanos had already lost their right to retain
judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer
possession of the subject property as a consequence of
shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and
such cancellation, their refusal to vacate makes out a
valid case for unlawful detainer as properly adjudged by shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the
land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action
the MeTC.
between the same parties respecting title to the land or
Note: an action for FE/UD = action for provisional rescission building.
Notes:
Rules 23 (Depositions Pending Action) and 25 (Interrogatories) may only be availed of with leave before answer because if it
has the effect of shortening the period to answer, the will deny it. Otherwise, the court will grant it
Rule 25 (Interrogatories) is preferred over Rule 26 (Request for admission) because the former is more extensive than the latter
Rules 23 (Depositions Pending Action) is preferred over 25 (Interrogatories) because in the former, you can directly ask the
person being examined and you can also depose even those who are not parties to the case.
A. Interrogatories to parties
adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use
Rule 25 of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof. — 27 and 28 within five days from the filing of the answer. A
Under the same conditions specified in section 1 of Rule 23, copy of the order shall be served upon the defendant
any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from together with the summons and upon the plaintiff.
any adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written
interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the
party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership Notes:
or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in Any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts
its behalf. (1a) from any adverse party shall file and serve upon the
Section 2. Answer to interrogatories. — The adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be the party served.
signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party Written interrogatories and the answers thereto must
upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall file both be filed and served. [Sec. 2, Rule 25] Hence, the
and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the answers may constitute as judicial admissions [Sec. 4,
interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service thereof Rule 129]
unless the court on motion and for good cause shown, Objections may be presented to the court within 10 days
extends or shortens the time. (2a) after service of the interrogatories, with notice as in case
Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. — Objections to of a motion. [Sec. 3, Rule 25]
any interrogatories may be presented to the court within ten o Effect: Answers shall be deferred until
(10) days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a objections are resolved
motion; and answers shall be deferred until the objections are
resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is practicable. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, 21
(3a) November 1991
Section 4. Number of interrogatories. — No party may, PCGG initiated a complaint for reconveyance, reversion,
without leave of court, serve more than one set of accounting, restitution and damages against Bienvenido R.
interrogatories to be answered by the same party. (4) Tantoco, Jr. and Dominador R. Santiago (respondents),
Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. — together with Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos,
Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and Maria
into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the answers may be Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda before the Sandiganbayan. Instead
used for the same purposes provided in section 4 of the of filing their answers, respondents jointly filed a ―Motion to
same Rule. (5a) Strike Out Some Portions of the Complaint and for Bill of
Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written Particulars of Other Portions‖. The SB gave the PCGG forty-
interrogatories. — Unless thereafter allowed by the court for five (45) days to expand its complaint to make more specific
good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party certain allegations. Respondents then presented a ―Motion to
not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled Leave to File Interrogatories under Rule 25‖ and
by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to ―Interrogatories under Rule 25‖. The SB denied the motion to
give a deposition pending appeal. (n) strike out, for bill of particulars, and for leave to file
interrogatories, holding them to be without legal and factual
sections 1, 5 , Rule 29 basis. The case was set for pre-trial. All parties were required
Section 1. Refusal to answer. — If a party or other to submit their pre-trial briefs. The respondents then filed with
deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral SB a pleading, ―Interrogatories to Plaintiff‖ and an ―Amended
examination, the examination may be completed on other Interrogatories to Plaintiff‖ as well as as a Motion for
matters or adjourned as the proponent of the question may Production and Inspection of Documents. The SB admitted
prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper the Amended Interrogatories and granted the Motion for
court of the place where the deposition is being taken, for an Production and Inspection of Documents. The PCGG filed an
order to compel an answer. The same procedure may be opposition to the Amended Interrogatories alleging that they
availed of when a party or a witness refuses to answer any are not specific and do not name the person to whom they
interrogatory submitted under Rules 23 or 25. are propounded; they delved into factual matters which had
already been decreed as part of the proof of the Complaint
Section 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. — upon trial; they are frivolous, inquiring about matters of fact
If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully which they already sought to extract through their prior
fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, Motion for Bill of Particulars; they are are really in the nature
after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve of a deposition.
answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after HELD: THE PETITIONER CANNOT OBJECT TO THE
proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion INTERROGATORIES SERVED TO IT
and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of ● The truth is that "evidentiary matters" may be inquired
that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part into and learned by the parties before the trial. Indeed, it
thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, and is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties —
in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses before the trial if not indeed even before the pre-trial —
incurred by the other, including attorney's fees. (5) should discover or inform themselves of all the facts
relevant to the action, not only those known to them
section 1.2, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC individually, but also those known to adversaries; hence,
Within one day from receipt of the complaint: The court shall there are deposition-discovery mechanisms set forth in
issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories Rules 24 to 29.
to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by ● With this, "the deposition-discovery rules are to be
accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can
the time-honored cry of "fishing expedition" serve to to make discovery. Rule 29, §5 for example allows the
preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying court to strike out all or any part of any pleading of that
his opponent's case. party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part
● On the other hand, to ensure that availment of the thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party,
modes of discovery is otherwise untrammeled and and in its discretion, order him to pay the reasonable
efficacious, the law imposes serious sanctions on the expenses incurred by the other, including attorney‘s fees.
party who refuses to make discovery, such as dismissing ● In several cases, the court has also upheld the dismissal
the action or proceeding or part thereof, or rendering of an action due to the refusal of the plaintiff to make
judgment by default against the disobedient party; discovery
contempt of court, or arrest of the party or agent of the ○ The matter of how, and when, the above
party; payment of the amount of reasonable expenses sanctions should be applied is one that
incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery; primarily rests on the sound discretion of
taking the matters inquired into as established in the court where the case pends, having
accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery; always in mind the paramount and
refusal to allow the disobedient party support or oppose overriding interest of justice. For while the
designated claims or defenses; striking out pleadings or modes of discovery are intended to attain
parts thereof; staying further proceedings. the resolution of litigations with great
● It s the precise purpose of discovery to ensure mutual expediency, they are not contemplated,
knowledge of all the relevant facts on the part of all however, ultimately to be causes of
parties even before trial, this being deemed essential to injustice. It behooves trial courts to examine
proper litigation. well the circumstances of each case and to
● Thus, either party may compel the other to disgorge make their considered determination thereafter.
whatever facts he has in his possession; and the stage ( Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of
at which disclosure of evidence is made is advanced Appeals)
from the time of trial to the period preceding it ● ITC: The written interrogatories served by RESP on PET
dealt with ancillary matters which, although may be
Dela Torre v. Pepsi, 298 S 366 (1998) inquired into through the proper modes of discovery
● PET are holders of bottle caps that won in a contest provided in the Rules of Court, are not directly
sponsored by RESP. Due to the refusal of RESP to related to the main issues in the suit
deliver the prizes, PET filed separate complaints for ○ the written interrogatories sent by RESP to PET
specific performance and damages in the Makati RTC were for the purpose of finding out if the latter
● PET filed separate motions for authority to litigate in were entitled to litigate as paupers, that is,
forma pauperis whether they should be exempted from paying
● RESP sent written interrogatories to PET consisting of docket fees
59 questions aimed at determining their eligibility to ● Since the payment of docket fees is jurisdictional, RESP
litigate as paupers. was certainly entitled to know whether petitioners were
● RTC issued order suspending proceedings until PET eligible to litigate as paupers. But PET was eventually
could complete the documents required for establishing able to submit affidavits, documents, and other
their right to litigate as paupers supporting papers on this matter.
● PET did not answer the written interrogatories because Furthermore, it appears that PET‘s failure to answer the
they thought that the order of the court suspended all written interrogatories was due, not to intransigence, but to a
matters connected with the case except those relating to misapprehension of the scope of the order issued by the
the submission of the papers showing their qualifications RTC. PET thought that the order had the effect of suspending
to litigate as paupers all other matters connected with the case, including the
● RESP filed MTD otg of refusal of PET to make discovery service of answers to the written interrogatories of private
● RTC granted MTD respondent PI and for this reason did not respond to the
HELD: The case should not have been dismissed same
● Under Rule 24, §1 and Rule 25, §1 of the 1964 Rules of
Court, a litigant may serve, with leave of court and after Producer’s Bank v. CA, 285 S 385 (1998)
jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or, Respondent SIHI filed a complaint for sum of money against
even without such leave, after an answer has been petitioner PBP involving two causes of action: for unpaid
served, written interrogatories on the adverse party. Like interest of five certificates of time deposit (CTD); and the
the other modes of discovery authorized by the Rules of principal amount thereof. Trial on the merits started wherein
Court, the purpose of written interrogatories is to SIHI presented evidence to prove that PBP failed to pay the
assist the parties in clarifying the issues and in interest and the principal amount. As its defense, PBP
ascertaining the facts involved in a case presented evidence to prove that it had already paid the
○ What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery interest to SIHI. With regard to 2 CTDs, it claimed that the
of every bit of information which may be same were issued, not in the name of SIHI but of a certain
useful in the preparation for trial, such as the Johnny Lu. Moreover, it claimed that payment had already
identity and location of persons having been made, hence, it had no more liability. SIHI presented its
knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant rebuttal evidence when it recalled its first witness, Anthony
facts themselves; and the existence, Oco, an employee of SIHI. Thereafter, it served written
description, nature, custody, condition, and interrogatories to PBP about any criminal or civil action
location of any books, documents, and other involving Mr. Johnny Y. Lu, outstanding obligations of Mr. Lu
tangible things. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan) with PBP, etc. Upon receipt of the interrogatories, PBP filed a
● To ensure the efficacy of the various modes of discovery, motion to quash the same on the ground that they were
the Rules provide sanctions against a party who refuses improper since the trial was about to be terminated. The trial
court, however, denied the motion and admitted the written
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of
interrogatories on the ground that they will help facilitate the
early disposition of the case and will assist the court in which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
determining the truth, thus, the ends of justice will be unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall
subserved. not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or
HELD: the court a quo was correct in allowing the admission within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the
of the written interrogatories filed by SIHI at the rebuttal stage party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon
of the proceedings the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either
● Sec. 1, Rule 23 does not provide for any time frame denying specifically the matters of which an admission is
within which modes of discovery (in this case, written requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
interrogatories) can be utilized, other than by stating that truthfully either admit or deny those matters. Objections to
the same should be availed of with leave of court after any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by
jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant, or the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing
without such leave after an answer has been served. of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding
● Since the rules are silent as to the period within which paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be deferred
written interrogatories may still be requested, it is until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be
necessary for the resolution of this case to determine made as early as practicable. (2a)
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by
the purpose of written interrogatories. It is likewise
essential to determine whether, based on the stage of a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the
the proceedings and evidence presented thus far, pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by
allowing written interrogatories to be served is proper him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against
and would facilitate the disposition of the case. him in any other proceeding. (3)
Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party
Additionally, it should be determined whether the trial
courts action unduly prejudiced the substantial rights of making an admission under the Rule, whether express or
PBP. implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be
● The use of discovery is encouraged, for it operates just. (4)
Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for
with desirable flexibility under the discretionary control of
admission. — Unless otherwise allowed by the court for
the trial court. Under statutes and procedural rules, the
trial court enjoys considerable leeway in matters good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a party
pertaining to discovery, and the exercise of such who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
discretion will not be set aside in the absence of abuse, adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which
or unless the trial courts disposition of matters of are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the
discovery was improvident and affected the substantial latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such
rights of the parties. facts. (n)
ITC: PBP alleged 2 CTDs which is the subject of one of
section 4, Rule 29
the causes of action of SIHI against PBP, were issued in
Section 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. — If a party after
the name of a certain Mr. Johnny Lu and that they had
being served with a request under Rule 26 to admit the
already paid the principal amount covered by said CTDs
genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter of
to Johnny Lu. Thus, it had no more liability with regard to
fact serves a sworn denial thereof and if the party requesting
the subject CTDs. The questions propounded in the
the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such
written interrogatories served by SIHI to PBP were
document or the truth of any such matter of fact, he may
meant to elicit information pertinent to the nature of the
apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay
latter‘s defense, that is, that it had already paid the
him the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof,
principal amount of P2,000,000.00 covered by the two
including attorney's fees. Unless the court finds that there
CTDs. Thus, having allowed the written interrogatories to
were good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought
be served upon PBP, the trial court was in a better
were of no substantial importance, such order shall be
position to examine the evidence already presented and
issued. (4a)
to determine whether the information sought by SIHI
would expedite the resolution of the case.
section 1.2, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
Within one day from receipt of the complaint: The court shall
Note: Doctrine in the Producers Bank case has been
issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories
modified by A.M. 03-1-09 Sec. 1.2.
to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by
adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use
of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules
B. Requests for admission
27 and 28 within five days from the filing of the answer. A
Rule 26 copy of the order shall be served upon the defendant
Admission by Adverse Party together with the summons and upon the plaintiff.
Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after
issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any
Notes:
other party may file and serve upon any other party a written
request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of The request for admission must be served on the party,
any material and relevant document described in and not the counsel. This is an exception to the general rule
exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and that notices shall be served upon counsel and not upon
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the the party.
documents shall be delivered with the request unless copy
have already been furnished. (1a)
Lanada v. CA, 375 S 543 (2002) the matters of which admission is requested shall
UFE declared a strike and put up a picket line in front of be deemed admitted.
NESTLE‘s factory. Nestle arranged with Capt. Lanada and EXCEPTION: when the party to whom the request for
some PC soldiers to have its truck deliver some goods. The admission was served had already controverted the
truck was attacked by the strikers who were throwing stones. matters subject of such request in an earlier
To avoid the stones, the driver of the truck was driving in a pleading. Otherwise stated, if the matters in a request
crouching position but considering the length of the truck that for admission have already been admitted or denied in
was also overloaded, he lost control. The truck bumped the previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter
car of DR HEMEDEZ and dragged it until the car turned cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In
upside down. When the cargo was finally unloaded and DR turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a
HEMEDEZ was finally pulled out from under the truck he was response to the request
brought to the Hospital where he died after arrival. Parents of RATIO: admissions by the adverse party as a mode of
DR HEMEDEZ field a case in RTC against NESTLE et al. discovery contemplates interrogatories that will clarify
HEMEDEZ SPS SERVED DEFENDANTS A REQUEST FOR and shed light on the truth or falsity of allegations in the
ADMISSION OF THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS SET FORTH pleadings – thus, a mere reiteration of what has already
IN THE COMPLAINT AND GENUINENESS OF EACH OF been alleged in the pleadings, otherwise useless. One
nd
THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED THERETO. NESTLE and should not have to make a 2 denial of matters
SANTOS, CAPT LANADA, and owner and driver of truck filed already denied in its answers.
their verified answer to the request for admission. HEMEDEZ ITC: while the case was filed within 2 years from payment,
SPS sought striking out of the answers filed, arguing that they failed to prove they filed a written claim for refund with
under Sec 2 Rule 26, the parties themselves and not their the local treasurer. Even if P filed their Request for Admission
counsel should personally answer the request for admission that they filed a written claim for refund with the City treasurer
and hence the answer filed by the counsel in their behalf was in the RTC and served it to R, R did not need to reply since
by nature based on hearsay. they have already stated in their Motion to Dismiss and
HELD: an answer to a request for admission signed and Answer that petitioners failed to file any written claim for
sworn to by the counsel of the party so requested is sufficient tax refund or credit.
compliance with the provisions of Rule 26
● when Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the C. Production or inspection of documents or things
request for admission, it should not be restrictively
construed to mean that a party may not engage the Rule 27 SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection;
services of counsel to make the response in his behalf order.
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the
Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. v. Toledo, G.R. No. court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to
190818, 5 June 2013 produce and permit the inspection and copying or
Liberty Toledo (R), the treasurer of the City of Manila, photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any
assessed Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp and other designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
petitioner companies (P) for their fourth quarter local photographs, objects or tangible things not privileged, which
business taxes pursuant to the Revenue Code of the constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved
City of Manila. in the action and which are in his possession, custody or
P paid P5,104, 281.26 in taxes under protest and filed control; or (b) order any party to permit entry upon designated
with the RTC their complaint for a refund since they land or other property in his possession or control for the
claimed that Sec. 21 of the Code was void. purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any designated relevant object
R: Filed a Motion to Dismiss and Answer claiming that
or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place
P failed to file any written claim for tax refund or credit
and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and
with the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila.
photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions
P: Sent the RTC and R a Request for Admission &
as are just."
Interrogatories which requested the admission of the
fact that P filed a written protest to R. R did not respond.
1.2, A.M. No. 03- 1-09-SC
RTC: Section 21 was null and void, P is entitled to a tax The court shall issue an order requiring the parties to avail of
refund since the Court said in Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil. interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for
Inc v. City of Manila that certain related city ordinances admission by adverse party under Rule 26 or at their
(which were the amendatory ordinances which made discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other
petitioners liable for local business taxes) under the measures under Rules 27 and 28 within five days from the
present Manila Revenue Code were void. filing of the answer. A copy of the order shall be served upon
CTA reversed the RTC‘s ruling and denied the request the defendant together with the summons and upon the
for refund, saying that P failed to file any written claim plaintiff.
for tax refund or credit because the letter it submitted Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff
was a mere protest letter and as such, could not be must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial
treated as a written claim for refund. conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the
HELD: Petitioners are not entitled to a refund given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial.
GENERAL RULE: Based on R26, ROC, S1 if a request
for admission was filed regarding the truth of any
material and relevant matter of fact, the party to Security Bank v. CA, 323 S 330 (2000)
whom such request is served is given a period of ● Plaintiffs Spouses Agustin P. Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc
fifteen (15) days within which to file a sworn Ten sought to enjoin Security Bank Corporation (SBC)
statement answering the same. S2 says that should from proceeding with the extra-judicial foreclosure of a
the latter fail to file and serve such answer, each of mortgage over a piece of property
● Before filing his answer to defendant SBCs cross-claim, (Sec. 17, R132). RTC and CA denied the motion, hence this
defendant Domingo P. Uy filed an Omnibus Motion petition for certiorari.
(Production of Documents and Suspension and/or HELD: DENY the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
Extension of Time to File Answer to Cross-Claim) on the covering Johnny‘s hospital records on the ground that these
ground that all documents, papers and instruments made are covered by the privileged character of the physician-
and executed by SBC on the evaluation, processing and patient communication
approval of the loans of Jackivi Trading Center, Inc., the the right to compel the production of documents
real estate mortgages (REM) and the Special Power of under R27 has a limitation: that the documents to be
Attorney (SPA) themselves must first be produced before disclosed are "not privileged‖. ITC, the records
he could prepare and file the answer to SBCs cross- Josielene sought to obtain may be considered as
claim. privileged information under Sec. 24(c), Rule 130.
● RTC denied motion the disclosure during discovery procedure of the
● CA reversed and held that respondent Domingo Uy has hospital records, which are not testimonial (test
shown good cause for the production of such results, etc.), would still be to allow access to
documents: that of being able to intelligently prepare his evidence that is inadmissible without the patient‘s
defenses against the cross-claim of petitioner SBC. consent.
HELD: SC affirmed CA, grant the two Motions for production
and inspection of documents D. Physical and mental examination of persons
● the Motion of Spouses Agustin Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc
Ten was for a good cause, because the said documents Rule 28
were "necessary for a full determination of the issues Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
raised. Section 1. When examination may be ordered. — In an
● R27 aims to enable the parties to inform themselves, action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is
even before the trial, of all the facts relevant to the in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in
action, including those known only to the other litigants. its discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental
Through this procedure, "civil trials should not be carried examination by a physician. (1)
on in the dark." (Republic v. Sandiganbayan) Section 2. Order for examination. — The order for
● Petitioner points out that a party may be compelled to examination may be made only on motion for good cause
produce or allow the inspection of documents if six shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all
procedural requisites are complied with: other parties, and shall specify the time, place, manner,
(a) The party must file a motion for the production or conditions and scope of the examination and the person or
inspection of documents or things, showing good cause persons by whom it is to be made. (2)
therefor; Section 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party
(b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties of examined, the party causing the examination to be made
the case; shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the
(c) The motion must designate the documents, papers, examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions.
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible After such request and delivery, the party causing the
things which the party wishes to be produced and inspected; examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to
(d) Such documents, etc. are not privileged; receive from the party examined a like report of any
(e) Such documents, etc. constitute or contain evidence examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same
material to any matter involved in the action; and mental or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to
(f) Such documents, etc. are in the possession, custody or deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make
control of the other party." an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a
● Petitioner contends that requisite "e" has not been physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may
satisfied, arguing that respondents have not shown the exclude his testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
relevancy or materiality of the documents subject of the Section 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and
Motions. obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking
● These arguments are not persuasive. Section 1 of Rule the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives
27 clearly provides that the documents sought must be any privilege he may have in that action or any other
"material to any matter involved in the action." involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of
Respondents have shown that the subject documents every other person who has examined or may thereafter
are indeed material to the present action. examine him in respect of the same mental or physical
examination. (4)
Chan v. Chan, G.R. 179786, 24 July 2013
Petitioner Josielene filed a petition for declaration of nullity of section 1.2, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
her marriage with Respondent Johnny with the RTC, alleging Within one day from receipt of the complaint: The court shall
that respondent failed in his duty to care for his family and issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories
was diagnosed to be mentally deficient due to drinking and to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by
drug abuse. Respondent opposed the petition, saying in his adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use
answer that he was confined against his will in the hospital of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules
and attached a philhealth claim form with a note from his 27 and 28 within five days from the filing of the answer. A
physician that he suffered from "methamphetamine and copy of the order shall be served upon the defendant
alcohol abuse" . Petitioner sought the rest of her husband‘s together with the summons and upon the plaintiff.
hospital records via request for issuance of subpoena duces
tecum, saying that since he disclosed a portion of his records, Notes:
such can be considered a waiver for the rest of the records - Party causing the examination has the right to the
st
physician‘s report as his evidence (1 report)
- Party examined may only get a copy of said report upon
request (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
o By requesting this, party examined waives the director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation
patient-physician privilege in that action or any or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact
other action involving the same condition. This
means that the party who caused the not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he
examination may also get a copy of any has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)
nd Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness.
medical report (2 report) obtained by the party
— A witness may be impeached by the party against whom
examined.
- RATIO: party examined discovered the evidence of the he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that
his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or
party causing examination; for mutuality, both reports
by evidence that he has made at other times statements
may already be used by either party
inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence
of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by
E. Depositions pending action the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment,
that he has been convicted of an offense. (15)
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. —
Rule23 Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d)
and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not
sections2(b),5,Rule21 allowed to impeach his credibility.
Section 2. By whom issued. — The subpoena may be A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so
issued by — declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse
(a) the court before whom the witness is required to attend; interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled
(b) the court of the place where the deposition is to be taken; the party into calling him to the witness stand.
(c) the officer or body authorized by law to do so in The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness
connection with investigations conducted by said officer or who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party
body; or presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the
(d) any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He
Appeals in any case or investigation pending within the may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse
Philippines. When application for a subpoena to a prisoner is party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
made, the judge or officer shall examine and study carefully subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
such application to determine whether the same is made for a Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
valid purpose. No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be
perpetua or life imprisonment and who is confined in any impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
penal institution shall be brought outside the said penal statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
institution for appearance or attendance in any court unless statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of
authorized by the Supreme Court (2a, R23) the times and places and the persons present, and he must
be asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
Section 5. Subpoena for depositions. — Proof of service of allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they
a notice to take a deposition, as provided in sections 15 and must be shown to the witness before any question is put to
25 of Rule 23, shall constitute sufficient authorization for the him concerning them. (16)
issuance of subpoenas for the persons named in said notice Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. —
by the clerk of the court of the place in which the deposition is Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
to be taken. The clerk shall not, however, issue a subpoena until such character has been impeached. (17)
duces tecum to any such person without an order of the
court. (5a, R23) section 1.2, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
Within one day from receipt of the complaint: The court shall
section3(f), Rule 71 issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by
and hearing. — After a charge in writing has been filed, and adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use
an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules
within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be 27 and 28 within five days from the filing of the answer. A
heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the copy of the order shall be served upon the defendant
following acts may be punished for indirect contempt; together with the summons and upon the plaintiff.
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
sections 12, 13, 15, Rule 119
sections 10-14, Rule 132 Section 12. Application for examination of witness for
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A accused before trial. — When the accused has been held to
question which suggests to the witness the answer which the answer for an offense, he may, upon motion with notice to the
examining party desires is a leading question. It is not other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in his
allowed, except: behalf. The motion shall state: (a) the name and residence of
(a) On cross examination; the witness; (b) the substance of his testimony; and (c) that
(b) On preliminary matters; the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and believing that he will not be able to attend the trial, or resides
intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of
of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; trial and has no means to attend the same, or that other
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or similar circumstances exist that would make him unavailable
2. TAKING OF DEPOSITION (Sec. 17)
or prevent him from attending the trial. The motion shall be a. oath
supported by an affidavit of the accused and such other b. recording of deposition stenographically or otherwise
evidence as the court may require. (4a) agreed
Section 13. Examination of defense witness; how made.
c. objections shall be noted (unless there was a motion to
— If the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for terminate or limit examination – Sec. 18)
the accused is necessary, an order will be made directing d. transcription
that the witness be examined at a specified date, time and
place and that a copy of the order be served on the 3. POST-TAKING (Sec. 19)
prosecutor at least three (3) days before the scheduled a. examination of transcription by deponent
examination. The examination shall be taken before a judge, b. changes
or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing c. certify
so designated by the judge in the order, or if the order be d. seal
made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior e. file
court to be designated therein. The examination shall f. copy
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor
provided he was duly notified of the hearing. A written record 4. TRIAL (Sec. 4)
of the testimony shall be taken. (5a) a. to contradict/impeach the testimony of the deponent as a
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution.
witness
— When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the i. impeach credibility – of witness of adverse party (if
prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as you want to impeach credibility of your own witness,
directed by the order of the court, or has to leave the have him/her declared as an adverse witness first) –
Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith Rule 132 Sec. 12
be conditionally examined before the court where the case is ii. impeach testimony – of your own witness or
pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, witness of adverse party (Rule 132 Sec. 11)
or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the b. for any purpose (to be used as testimony or admission of
examination has been served on him, shall be conducted in the adverse party) – but must still be called to the witness
the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or stand
refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice c. for any purpose as a substitute for the testimony of any
shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be witness
admitted in behalf of or against the accused. (7a)
Section 14. Return of writ of execution. — The writ of Section 18. No sale if judgment and costs paid. — At any
execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it time before the sale of property on execution, the judgment
immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in obligor may prevent the sale by paying the amount required
full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) by the execution and the costs that have been incurred
days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the therein. (20a)
court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue
in effect during the period within which the judgment may be Section 19. How property sold on execution; who may direct
enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the manner and order of sale. — All sales of property under
court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon execution must be made at public auction, to the highest
until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. bidder, to start at the exact time fixed in the notice. After
The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution, no
proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and more shall be sold and any excess property or proceeds of
copies thereof promptly furnished the parties. (11a) the sale shall be promptly delivered to the judgment obligor or
his authorized representative, unless otherwise directed by
Section 15. Notice of sale of property on execution. — Before the judgment or order of the court. When the sale is of real
the sale of property on execution, notice thereof must be property, consisting of several known lots, they must be sold
given as follows: separately; or, when a portion of such real property is claimed
by a third person, he may require it to be sold separately. —
When the sale is of personal property capable of manual
delivery, it must be sold within view of those attending the (a) Immediate payment on demand. — The officer shall
same and in such parcels as are likely to bring the highest enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding
price. The judgment obligor, if present at the sale, may direct from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full
the order in which property, real or personal shall be sold, amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The
when such property consists of several known lots or parcels judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check
which can be sold to advantage separately. Neither the payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of
officer conducting the execution sale, nor his deputies, can payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the judgment
become a purchaser, nor be interested directly or indirectly in debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or
any purchase at such sale. (21a) his authorized representative if present at the time of
payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper
Section 20. Refusal of purchaser to pay. — If a purchaser receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said
refuses to pay the amount bid by him for property struck off to amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court
him at a sale under execution, the officer may again sell the that issued the writ.
property to the highest bidder and shall not be responsible for If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not
any loss occasioned thereby; but the court may order the present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver
refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount of such the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The latter
loss, with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession
disobeys the order. The amount of such payment shall be for within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that
the benefit of the person entitled to the proceeds of the issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said
execution, unless the execution has been fully satisfied, in amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest government
which event such proceeds shall be for the benefit of the depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of the locality.
judgment obligor. The officer may thereafter reject any The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the
subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to pay. (22a) remittance of the deposit to the account of the court that
issued the writ whose clerk of court shall then deliver said
Section 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. — When the payment to the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the
purchaser is the judgment obligee, and no thirdparty claim judgment. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the
has been filed, he need not pay the amount of the bid if it judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be retained by the
does not exceed the amount of his judgment. If it does, he clerk of court for disposition as provided by law. In no case
shall pay only the excess. (23a) shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by
check be made payable to him.
Section 22. Adjournment of sale. — By written consent of the
judgment obligor and obligee, or their duly authorized (b) Satisfaction by levy. — If the judgment obligor cannot pay
representatives, the officer may adjourn the sale to any date all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or
and time agreed upon by them. Without such agreement, he other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee,
may adjourn the sale from day to day if it becomes necessary the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment
to do so for lack of time to complete the sale on the day fixed obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be
in the notice or the day to which it was adjourned. (24a) disposed, of for value and not otherwise exempt from
execution giving the latter the option to immediately choose
Section 44. Entry of satisfaction of judgment by clerk of court. which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient
— Satisfaction of a judgment shall be entered by the clerk of to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not
court in the court docket, and in the execution book, upon the exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal
return of a writ of execution showing the full satisfaction of the properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the
judgment, or upon the filing of an admission to the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the
satisfaction of the judgment executed and acknowledged in judgment.
the same manner as a conveyance of real property by the The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal
judgment obligee or by his counsel unless a revocation of his or real property of the judgment obligor which has been
authority is filed, or upon the endorsement of such admission levied upon.
by the judgment obligee or his counsel, on the face of the When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is
record of the judgment. (46a) sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell
only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient
Section 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without admission. — to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
Whenever a judgment is satisfied in fact, or otherwise than Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other
upon an execution on demand of the judgment obligor, the personal property, or any interest in either real or personal
judgment obligee or his counsel must execute and property, may be levied upon in like manner and with like
acknowledge, or indorse an admission of the satisfaction as effect as under a writ of attachment.
provided in the last preceding section, and after notice and
upon motion the court may order either the judgment obligee (c) Garnishment of debts and credits. — The officer may levy
or his counsel to do so, or may order the entry of satisfaction on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits,
to be made without such admission. (47a) including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties,
commissions and other personal property not capable of
manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties.
H. Kinds of execution
Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing
sections 9-11, 39-43, Rule 39 such debts or having in his possession or control such credits
Section 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The garnishment
shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and
all lawful fees. (e) Delivery of personal property. — In judgment for the
The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within delivery of personal property, the officer shall take
five (5) days from service of the notice of garnishment stating possession of the same and forthwith deliver it to the party
whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or entitled thereto and satisfy any judgment for money as
credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the report therein provided. (8a)
shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee holds for
the judgment obligor. The garnished amount in cash, or
certified bank check issued in the name of the judgment Section 11. Execution of special judgments. — When a
obligee, shall be delivered directly to the judgment obligee judgment requires the performance of any act other than
within ten (10) working days from service of notice on said those mentioned in the two preceding sections, a certified
garnishee requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of
which shall be paid directly to the court. execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other
deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and
judgment obligor, if available, shall have the right to indicate such party or person may be punished for contempt if he
the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to deliver disobeys such judgment. (9a)
the amount due, otherwise, the choice shall be made by the
judgment obligee.
The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure Section 39. Obligor may pay execution against obligee. —
under paragraph (a) with respect to delivery of payment to After a writ of execution against property has been issued, a
the judgment obligee. (8a, 15a) person indebted to the judgment obligor may pay to the
sheriff holding the writ of execution the amount of his debt or
Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. — so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts; judgment, in the manner prescribed in section 9 of this Rule,
vesting title. — If a judgment directs a party to execute a and the sheriff's receipt shall be a sufficient discharge for the
conveyance of land or personal property, or to deliver deeds amount so paid or directed to be credited by the judgment
or other documents, or to perform, any other specific act in obligee on the execution. (41a)
connection therewith, and the party fails to comply within the
time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the
cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed Section 40. Order for application of property and income to
by the court and the act when so done shall have like effect satisfaction of judgment. — The court may order any property
as if done by the party. If real or personal property is situated of the judgment obligor, or money due him, not exempt from
within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a execution, in the hands of either himself or another person, or
conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any of a corporation or other juridical entity, to be applied to the
party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and satisfaction of the judgment, subject to any prior rights over
effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. (10a) such property.
If, upon investigation of his current income and expenses, it
(b) Sale of real or personal property. — If the judgment be for appears that the earnings of the judgment obligor for his
the sale of real or personal property, to sell such property, personal services are more than necessary for the support of
describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the his family, the court may order that he pay the judgment in
judgment. (8[c]a) fixed monthly installments, and upon his failure to pay any
such installment when due without good excuse, may punish
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. — The officer shall him for indirect contempt. (42a)
demand of the person against whom the judgment for the
delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all Section 41. Appointment of receiver. — The court may
persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the appoint a receiver of the property of the judgment obligor;
property within three (3) working days, and restore and it may also forbid a transfer or other disposition of, or any
possession thereof to the judgment obligee, otherwise, the interference with, the property of the judgment obligor not
officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the exempt from execution. (43a)
assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and
employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to Section 42. Sale of ascertainable interest of judgment obligor
retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in in real estate. — If it appears that the judgment obligor has
possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or an interest in real estate in the place in which proceedings
profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the are had, as mortgagor or mortgagee or other wise, and his
same manner as a judgment for money. (13a) interest therein can be ascertained without controversy the
receiver may be ordered to sell and convey such real estate
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of or the interest of the obligor therein; and such sale shall be
execution. — When the property subject of the execution conducted in all respects in the same manner as is provided
contains improvements constructed or planted by the for the sale of real state upon execution, and the proceedings
judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, thereon shall be approved by the court before the execution
demolish or remove said improvements except upon special of the deed. (34a)
order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment
obligee after the hearing and after the former has failed to Section 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or
remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. another person claims the property. — If it appears that a
(14a) person or corporation, alleged to have property of the
judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an interest ITC, trial Court acquired jurisdiction over Perla when it
in the property adverse to him or denied the debt, the court was served the writ of garnishment over the third-party
may authorize, by an order made to that effect, the judgment liability insurance contract.
obligee to institute an action against such person or o Note: third party liability insurance contract -
corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a issuer assume liability as soon as the liability of
transfer or other disposition of such interest or debt within the insured to the injured third person attaches
one hundred twenty (120) days from notice of the order, and
may punish disobedience of such order as for contempt. orta, Sr. v. Sa e , A. . No. RTJ-00-1593, 16 October
2000
Such order may be modified or vacated at any time by the
court which issued it, or by the court in which the action is PET Morta Sr. et al - built residential houses on lots 991
brought, upon such terms as may be just. (45a) and 997
They were defendants in Civil Case No. 962, an action
for Unlawful Detainer filed by Josefina Baraclan before
Perla v. Ramolete, 203 S 487 (1991) the MTC Albay
CFI adjudged Nelia Enriquez to pay damages to the In Civil Case No. 962, the MTC rendered judgment
Private Respondent Primitiva Palmes after Enriquez‘s ordering the defendants to vacate. Defendants (Morta)
passenger jeepney hit Palmes‘s private jeepney, which appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTC decision.
resulted in the death of Calixto Palmes (Primitiva‘s Defendants appealed to CA
husband).
in the mean time, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 962
Judgement became final and executory, and a writ of filed a Motion for execution pending appeal. RTC
execution was issued. It was returned unsatisfied. granted motion and ordered the issuance of the
Enriquez was summoned to court, and she declared corresponding writ of execution
under oath that the PUJ she owned was covered by a PET opposed the writ of execution, contending that they
third party liability insurance issued by Petitioner Perla. received a copy of the motion 3 days after the hearing
As such, PR Palmes filed a motion for garnishment, and granting of said motion
praying that an order for garnishment be issued against Deputy Sheriff served the writ of execution and gave the
the insurance policy. defendants a grace period of 20 days to vacate
Petitioner Perla appeared before court with an MR and PET REFUSED to vacate. Hence, the plaintiffs in Civil
Motion to Quash the writ of garnishment, saying that writ Case No. 962 filed a motion for issuance of writ of
was void because demolition
o Perla was not party to the case, not having Motion was granted by RESP Judge Sañez; writ of
been served summons - Court never acquired
demolition issued
jurisdiction over the person
HELD: Judge Jose S. Sañez is found GUILTY of abuse of
Court denied the motion and gave an order for the authority and gross ignorance of the law
issuance of alias writ of garnishment.
When a party refuses to yield possession of a property
Petitioner Perla filed present Petition for Certiorari as ordered by a writ of execution, contempt is not the
o Grave abuse of discretion by Judge Ramolete proper remedy. The sheriff must oust the deforciant
in ordering the garnishment of the insurance from subject property. If a demolition is necessary, there
contract must be a hearing, upon motion and with due notice, for
o Petitioner wasn‘t given opportunity to set up it's the issuance of a Special Order under Sec. 14 (now
defenses which it may have under the Sec. 10 [d]) of Rule 39.
insurance contract
Paragraph (d), Section 10 contemplates the only
o Under Sec. 45 Rule 39, the Court may only instance when a special ―breakopen‖ order is required.
authorize the judgment creditor to institute an
It is only when there is no occupant in the premises that
action against a third person who holds property
the sheriff may lawfully cause a demolition without the
belonging to the judgment debtor.
need of securing a ―breakopen‖ order.
HELD: The court sufficiently acquired jurisdiction over
Perla thru the writ, and there was no need for a separate
Notes:
case filed by the private respondent against Perla.
It is not necessary to serve summons on the BEFORE A DEMOLITION ORDER IS ISSUED
garnishee in order that the Court may acquire 1. Motion
jurisdiction to bind him. He need not be impleaded 2. Hearing
as a party to the case. All that is necessary is service 3. Reasonable Time
upon him of writ of garnishment.
The service of the writ makes the garnishee a ―virtual WRIT OF POSSESSION ISSUED UNDER THE FF.
party‖ or a ―forced intervenor‖ in the case, and the trial CIRCUMSTANCES:
Court thereby acquires jurisdiction to bind him to comply 1. Land registration proceedings under Sec. 17, Act No.
with the orders of the Court. 496, otherwise known as ―The Land Registration Act‖
o Sec. 15 Rule 39 2. Judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in
o Sec. 7(e) Rule 57 possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person,
Meanwhile, the assets garnished are subjected to a not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened;
specific lien. As per RCBC v De Castro, it operates as an 3. Extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under
attachment upon a property, and the property is subject Sec. 7, Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118
to the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the writ. 4. Execution sales
Bermudez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 132810, 11 December Before demolition could be effected, the parties concerned
2000 should at least be given a chance to be heard concerning the
November 28, 1968: Severo Sales and his daughter, interest they claim to possess on said properties. If demolition
Esperanza Sales Bermudez filed with the CFI Tarlac a is involved, there must be a hearing on the motion and due
complaint for Annulment of Deed against Leonilo notice.
Gonzales
They alleged that Severo was the owner of an Sia v. Arcenas, G.R. Nos. 209672-74, 14 January 2015
unregistered parcel of land and hat on December 24, Due to real property tax delinquencies of Panay
1968, Severo donated a portion of property to Railways, Inc (PRI) over two parcels of land in Capiz, the
Esperanza. City Treasurer of Roxas City auctioned the lots, with
o January 1959: Severo entered into an petitioner Edmund Sia as the highest bidder. A
agreement with the late Ernesto Gonzales for Certificate of Sale was then issued in his favor.
the lease of the remaining portion of the land for o Petitioner was unable to take possession
P2,700.00. Pursuant to this lease agreement, because the City Treasurer refused to issue a
Ernesto Gonzales made Severo and his wife, final bill of sale despite the lapse of the 1-yr
Margarita Ferrer sign a document. They were redemption period
not given a copy of this document. o The then-mayor of Roxas City issued EO 08-97
o October 1968: Severo received a copy of a which nullified the auction sale
Deed of Sale signed by him and his wife at San Petitioner filed for annulment of EO 08-97, mandamus,
Manuel, Tarlac and ratified before a Notary and damages against the City Treasurer, Mayor, City
Public. Severo claimed that he never signed the Council members, Roxas City gov‘t, and PRI before RTC
deed of sale and that if ever there was a Roxas City, ultimately seeking that a final bill of sale over
transaction over the subject land, it was one of the lots be issued to him
mortgage and not of sale, thus the complaint o RTC ruled in petitioner‘s favor; CA affirmed.
for Annulment of Deed. o SC denied PRI‘s appeal for having been filed
In Answer, Leonilo, the son and predecessor-in-interest beyond 15-day reglementary period and failure
of the late Ernesto Gonzales, claimed that the subject to pay docket fees
land was transferred to him by virtue of the assailed o SC‘s ruling became final and executory
Deed of Sale; that Severo and Esperanza have been Petitioner moved for execution before TC and was
staying on the said land not as its owners but as ordinary granted the corresponding writ
occupants, without rent and only because of his o City Treasurer still refused to issue final bill of
tolerance; and that he paid for the real estate taxes on sale, positing that petitioner had to settle the
the said land from 1960 to 1968. delinquent real property taxes over the lots
CFI: decided the case in favor of Leonilo which accrued during the pendency of the case
CA: affirmed decision. SC affirmed the CA decision. The o Instead of paying, petitioner filed a Motion for
decision became final and executory and entry of Order divesting PRI of title and vesting title to
judgment was made. him, which was granted by the TC
August 11, 1993: Leonilos heirs filed with the trial court a Petitioner moved for the delivery and possession of the
Notice of Substitution of Parties. lots, as they were already being occupied by third
parties, including respondents Arcenas, Lopez and
August 20, 1993: petitioner received copy of the notice of
Rafanan
substitution.
o A writ of possession and a writ of demolition
March 3, 1994: the trial court granted respondents were issued in in petitioner‘s favor
Motion for Execution and Appointment of Special Sheriff.
Respondents, who are lessees of PRI, moved for the
October 21, 1994: RTC issued a writ of execution quashal of the writs
June 20, 1995: the trial court issued an Alias Writ of o Contended that Decision sought to be
Execution in favor of respondents. executed arose from a mandamus petition
August 3, 1995: Sheriffs Leano and Toquero issued a where a writ of possession is proscribed, and
certification to the effect that respondents were placed in that the execution of a final judgment in a
possession of the subject land by virtue of the June 20, mandamus case is similar to the execution of
1995, alias writ of execution. special judgments provided in sec 11 rule 39
November 2, 1995: REPS filed with the RTC, a Petition HELD: the writ of possession and writ of demolition
for Demolition alleging that Severo and petitioner issued by the RTC are null and void
Esperanza were given thirty (30) days from August 3, Service and execution of a special judgment, such
1995, to remove and transfer their house erected on the as a favorable judgment in mandamus should be
subject property, but since then and up to now, there is deemed to be limited to directing compliance with
no visible effort on the part of the said parties to comply the judgment, and in case of disobedience, to have the
with the execution conducted. disobedient person required by law to obey such
Severo and petitioner filed their opposition to the petition judgment punished with contempt.
for demolition. ITC: City Treasurer obstinately refused to issue the final
June 21, 1996: the trial court issued an order of bill of sale in petitioner‘s favor, despite the finality of
demolition. judgment in the first case, as well as the issuance and
CA affirmed service of the writ of execution commanding him to do
HELD: CA gravely abused its discretion when it issued a writ so.
of demolition without allowing her to prove her rights as a o In view of such refusal, RTC should have cited
builder in good faith under Article 448[28] of the Civil Code the City Treasurer in contempt in order to
enforce obedience to said judgment. Instead of ordered the payment of a specific sum of money and
just doing so, it granted petitioner‘s numerous instead merely directed petitioner to extend to
motions respondents the benefits under R.A. No. 6758 and its
Writ of possession - writ of execution employed to implementing rules.
enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It Being a special judgment, the decision may not be
commands the sheriff to enter the land and give its executed in the same way as a judgment for money
possession to the person entitled under judgment handed down in an ordinary civil case governed by
o Issuance of this writ is only proper in order to Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules Court which sanctions
execute judgments ordering the delivery of garnishment of debts and credits to satisfy a monetary
specific properties to a litigant, in accordance award.
with sec 10, rule 39 RoC Garnishment is proper only when the judgment to be
o ITC: Judgment in the case sought only to enforced is one for payment of a sum of money. It cannot
declare valid the auction sale where petitioner be employed to implement a special judgment such as
bought the lots, and accordingly ordered the that rendered in a special civil action for mandamus.
City Treasurer to issue a final bill of sale to
petitioner. Since said judgment did not order Equitable v. Bellones, et al., A.M. No. P-05-1973, 18 March
that possession of the lots be vested unto 2005
petitioner, RTC varied the terms of aforesaid Equitable was a defendant in a case filed by Ken
judgment and exceeded its authority in issuing Appliance for Annulment or reformation of documents
the writs of demolition and possession in favor and contracts. Judgment was ordered against Equitable
of petitioner.‘ and a writ of execution was issued
o Had petitioner pursued an action for ejectment Respondent sheriffs served the letter of demand to pay
or reconveyance, the issuance of writs of
the money judgment on the strength of the writ of
possession and demolition would have been
execution
proper, but not in a special civil action for
mandamus, as in the case Equitable was unable to pay by way of managers check,
but offered for levy sufficient real estate properties to
Orders pertaining to the execution of judgments must
satisfy its judgment obligations (exercised the option
substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the
granted by Section 39 paragraph B of the RoC to
decision sought to be executed. As such, it may not vary,
immediately choose which property or part may be levied
or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to
upon)
enforce
o Where the execution is not in harmony with the BUT Sheriffs still proceeded to levy and garnish
judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it Equitable accounts maintained at Citibank and HSBC
has no validity. HELD: respondent sheriffs liable for grave abuse of authority
the officer executing the writ of execution shall demand
from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation v. Abayari, full amount stated in the writ of execution and all legal
G.R. No. 166508, 2 October 2009 fees. The payment shall be in cash, certified bank check
Respondents are rank-and-file employees of petitioner payable to the judgment obligee, or in any form
NHMFC. They filed a petition for mandamus to compel acceptable to the latter. If the judgment obligor cannot
petitioner to pay them meal, rice, medical, dental, optical pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank
and children‘s allowances, as well as longevity pay, check or other mode acceptable to the judgment obligee,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as he is given the option to immediately choose which of his
The Compensation and Position Classification Act of property or part thereof, not otherwise exempt from
1989 execution, may be levied upon sufficient to satisfy the
judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise the
TC ruled favorably and ordered petitioner to pay option immediately, it is only then that the sheriff/officer
respondents the allowances prayed for, retroactive to the
enforcing the judgment for money can garnish debts due
respective dates of appointment
the judgment obligor and other credits, or levy on the
motion for execution was withdrawn when petitioner and personal or real property of the latter.
respondents executed a Compromise Agreement in
ITC, Sheriff Regalado failed to comply with the
which petitioner bound itself to comply with the decision
procedure outlined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of
rendered int he case. However, DBM disallowed the
Court. It is evident from the comment of Sheriff Regalado
payment of certain allowances.
that when the demand to pay was served on EPCIB by
Resp filed for the second time a motion for a writ of Sheriff Bellones, he was not there because he was
execution of the trial court‘s decision serving the Notice of Garnishment on Citibank, N.A.
TC directed the execution. Bent on preventing execution, Thus, he served a Notice of Garnishment even before he
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari has knowledge as to how EPCIB will pay the judgment
HELD: Mandamus was proper debt.
A favorable judgment rendered in a special civil action By serving notices of garnishment on Citibank, N.A.,
for mandamus is in the nature of a special judgment. As HSBC and PNB, Sheriff Regalado violated EPCIBs right
such, it requires the performance of any other act than to choose which property may be levied upon to be sold
the payment of money or the sale or delivery of real or at auction for the satisfaction of the judgment debt.
personal property the execution of which is governed by
Section 11, Rule 39. Notes:
While Decision of the trial court ordered petitioner to pay Who will make the determination if the judgment
the benefits claimed by respondents, it by no means obligor cannot pay immediately? Judgment
obligor. The sheriff cannot and should not be the
one to determine if the judgment obligor cannot necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation;
immediately pay because it is the judgment obligor (d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal
who is in the best position to know if he can use, excluding jewelry;
immediately pay by way of cash, certified bank (e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for
check or any other mode of payment acceptable to housekeeping, and used for that purpose by the judgment
the judgment obligee obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may
select, of a value not exceeding one hundred thousand
China Banking v. Ortega, G.R. No. L-34964, 13 January pesos;
1973 (f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four
months;
Vicente Acaban filed a complaint against Bautista (g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges,
Logging Co., Inc., B & B Forest Development lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers,
Corporation and Marino Bautista for the collection of a surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not
sum of money. Defendants were declared in default for exceeding three hundred thousand pesos in value;
failure to answer within the reglementary period. (h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total
Judgment by default was rendered against the value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman
defendants. and by the lawful use of which he earns his livelihood;
Plaintiff sought the garnishment of the bank deposit of B (i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the
& B Forest Development Corporation with the China judgment obligor for his personal services within the four
Banking Corporation. A notice of garnishment was months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support
issued by the Deputy Sheriff of the trial court and served of his family;
on said bank (j) Lettered gravestones;
The bank invoked RA 1405 (The Law on Secrecy of (k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in
Bank Deposits) allegedly prohibiting the disclosure of any manner growing out of any life insurance;
any information relative to bank deposits. (l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property
RTC ordered China Bank to inform the Court whether or obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
not there is a deposit belonging to B & B Forest Government;
Development Corporation, and if there is any, to hold the (m) Properties specially exempted by law.
same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further But no article or species of property mentioned in this section
order from this Court. MR denied. This petition was filed. shall be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment
Petitioners argue that the disclosure of the information recovered for its price or upon a judgment of foreclosure of a
required by the court does not fall within any of the four mortgage thereon. (12a)
(4) exceptions enumerated in Section 2, and that
compliance to the order of the court is a crime under Josef v. Santos, G.R. No. 165060, 27 November 2008
Section 5 of RA 1405. In effect, bank deposits can never Petitioner Albino Josef was defendant in Civil Case No. 95-
be garnished. 110-MK, a case for collection of sum of money filed by
HELD: A bank may not refuse to comply with a court process respondent Otelio Santos. Respondent Santos claimed that
garnishing the bank deposit of a judgment debtor, by invoking Josef failed to pay the shoe materials he bought on credit
the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 from him. RTC found Josef liable for payment to Santos. CA
The prohibition against examination of or inquiry into a bank affirmed RTC. SC affirmed CA. The Judgment became final
deposit under Republic Act 1405 does not preclude its being and executory on May 21, 2002. Santos moved for issuance
garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment. There is no of a writ of execution on February 17, 2003. RTC granted the
real inquiry in such a case, and if the existence of the deposit Santos‘ motion for issuance of writ of execution on July 16,
is disclosed, it is purely incidental to the execution process. 2003. The sheriff was commanded to execute the decision.
The law was not crafted for the purpose of evading Josef filed an original petition for certiorari with the CA
satisfaction of debts. questioning the sheriff‘s levy and sale. He claimed that the
personal properties did not belong to him but to his children;
I. Exempt properties and that the real property was his family home thus exempt
section 12, Rule 39 from execution.
Section 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third HELD: the personal belongings of Josef‘s children and
person. — The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor his family home are exempt from execution
of the judgment obligee over the right, title and interest of the As early as during proceedings prior to the issuance of
judgment obligor in such property at the time of the levy, the writ of execution, petitioner brought to the fore the
subject to liens and encumbrances then existing. (16a) issue of exemption from execution of his home, which he
claimed to be a family home in contemplation of the civil
Section 13. Property exempt from execution. — Except law.
as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following The family home is a real right which is gratuitous,
property, and no other, shall be exempt from execution: inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or the dwelling place and the land on which it is situated,
the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy
used in connection therewith; such properties, which must remain with the person
(b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by
his trade, employment, or livelihood; creditors except in certain special cases.
(c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other Upon being apprised that the property subject of
beasts of burden, such as the judgment obligor may select execution allegedly constitutes petitioner‘s family home,
the trial court should have observed the following In 1995, Claudio leased the property to Sps De Mesa for
procedure: a monthly rent (5.5k) but the Sps defaulted again.
A Final Deed of Sale was also issued to Claudio and a
1) Determine if petitioner‘s obligation to respondent falls new TCT was issued in his favor. Claudio and his wife,
under either of the exceptions under Article 155 of the Rufina (Sps Acero) then filed an ejectment case against
Family Code; Sps De Mesa. Sps De Mesa claimed they were the
2) Make an inquiry into the veracity of petitioner‘s claim that lawful owners and could not be evicted.
the property was his family home; conduct an ocular o MTC favored Sps Acero. Sps De Mesa
inspection of the premises; an examination of the title; an appealed to the RTC but case was dismissed
interview of members of the community where the for failure to submit their memorandum. Sps De
alleged family home is located, in order to determine if Mesa then filed petition for review with CA. CA
petitioner actually resided within the premises of the denied it and decision became final in 2007.
claimed family home; order a submission of photographs
In 1999, Sps De Mesa filed a complaint to nullify the TCT
of the premises, depositions, and/or affidavits of proper
of Claudio, asserting that the subject property was
individuals/parties; or a solemn examination of the
their family home, which is exempt from execution
petitioner, his children and other witnesses. At the same
under the Family Code.
time, the respondent is given the opportunity to cross-
o RTC dismissed the complaint. Exemption
examine and present evidence to the contrary;
doesn‘t apply. Mortgage was constituted and it
3) If the property is accordingly found to constitute
was levied upon as payment. CA affirmed this.
petitioner‘s family home, the court should determine:
It added that exemption is not automatic and
a. if the obligation sued upon was contracted
should be proved to the Sherriff prior to
or incurred prior to, or after, the effectivity
execution. Sps De Mesa then filed this petition
of the Family Code;
for review, insisting the execution sale was a
b. if petitioner‘s spouse is still alive, as well as
nullity as the property was a family home.
if there are other beneficiaries of the family HELD: It was a family home BUT exemption is not
home; automatic
c. if the petitioner has more than one
residence for the purpose of determining
exemption must be set up and proved to the Sheriff
before the sale of the property at public auction.
which of them, if any, is his family home;
and Appellants did not assert their claim for exemption within
d. its actual location and value, for the a reasonable time. ―Reasonable time‖, the CA had ruled,
purpose of applying the provisions of would be the one-year period provided under Rule 39.30
Articles 157 and 160 of the Family Code. for judgment debtors to redeem the property sold on
On the personal properties— Despite petitioner‘s execution. SC agreed
allegations in his Opposition, the trial court did not make
J. Third party claim (terceria)
an effort to determine the nature of the same, whether
the items were exempt from execution or not, or whether RD
3 INSTANCES OF 3 PARTY CLAIM IN ROC:
they belonged to petitioner or to someone else.
Execution Replevin Attachment
The trial court is called to observe the procedure as
(section 16, Rule (Section 7, Rule (section 14, Rule
herein laid out. The respondent should observe the
39) 60) 57)
procedure prescribed in Article 160 of the Family Code,
third person may third person may third person may
that is, to obtain an order for the sale on execution of the
vindicate his claim vindicate his claim vindicate his claim
petitioner‘s family home, if so, and apply the proceeds –
to the property in to the property in to the property in
less the maximum amount allowed by law under Article
a separate action the same or the same or
157 of the Code which should remain with the petitioner
separate action separate action
for the rebuilding of his family home – to his judgment
For execution, third party may no longer vindicate his claim in
credit.
the same action because in execution, there is no more
pending action. The decision has become final and executory
Spouses Oliva-De Mesa v. Spouses Acero, Jr., G.R. No.
185064, 16 January 2012 Philippine Bank of Communications v. CA (1997)
Petitioner filed collection suits against surety Joseph Chua,
Parcel of land in Forbes St., Meycauayan, Bulacan was who had property in Makati. It was discovered the property
owned and registered under Araceli Oliva De Mesa‘s
was transferred to JALECO, but such transfer to Deed of
(PET). Sps De Mesa purchased the property in 1984,
Exchange was later held to be in fraud of petitioners
constructed a house and occupied it as their family
(creditors) in a separate case. RTC ruled in favor of
home in Jan 1987.
petitioners in the collection suits. The property was levied and
In 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio Acero of the auction was set.Private respondent then filed a third party
100k and constituted a mortgage over the subject claim against the property, claiming that the property belongs
property. Aracela issued a check that was dishonored. to the conjugal partnership. SC held that 1.) she gave her
Claudio filed a BP 22 case 2 years later. RTC acquitted marital consent to the fraudulent Deed of Exchange making
Sps De Mesa but ordered them to pay Claudio the 100k her a party to the instrument, 2.) she is estopped from
(with legal interest). asserting a third party claim when she conceded in the Deed
In 1993, writ of execution was issued and Sheriff of Exchange that the property was solely owned by her
Samonte levied upon the subject property. It was sold on husband.
public auction in 1994 wherein Claudio was the highest HELD: A stranger is a third-party who is any person other
bidder. than the judgment debtor or his agent
Notes:
K. Transfer of ownership Kind of property When ownership
transferred
sections 23-26, 33, Rule 39
Personal property capable As of the date of the levy
Section 23. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property
of manual delivery
capable of manual delivery. — When the purchaser of any
Personal property not Upon delivery of certificate of
personal property, capable of manual delivery, pays the
capable of manual delivery sale
purchase price, the officer making the sale must deliver the
property to the purchaser and, if desired, execute and deliver Real property Upon expiration of
to him a certificate of sale. The sale conveys to the purchaser redemption period
all the rights which the judgment obligor had in such property
as of the date of the levy on execution or preliminary L. Redemption
attachment. (25a) sections 27-33, Rule 39
Section 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. — Real
Section 24. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property property sold as provided in the last preceding section, or any
not capable of manual delivery. — When the purchaser of part thereof sold separately, may be redeemed in the manner
any personal property, not capable of manual delivery, pays hereinafter provided, by the following persons:
the purchase price, the officer making the sale must execute (a) The judgment obligor; or his successor in interest in the
and deliver to the purchaser a certificate of sale. Such whole or any part of the property;
certificate conveys to the purchaser all the rights which the (b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment,
judgment obligor had in such property as of the date of the judgment or mortgage on the property sold, or on some part
levy on execution or preliminary attachment. (26a) thereof, subsequent to the lien under which the property was
sold. Such redeeming creditor is termed a redemptioner.
Section 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof (29a)
given to purchaser and filed with registry of deeds. — Upon a
sale of real property, the officer must give to the purchaser a Section 28. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on,
certificate of sale containing: successive redemptions; notice to be given and filed. — The
(a) A particular description of the real property sold; judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the property
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or parcel; from the purchaser, at any time within one (1) year from the
(c) The whole price paid by him; date of the registration of the certificate of sale, by paying the
(d) A statement that the right of redemption expires one (1) purchaser the amount of his purchase, with the per centum
year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale. per month interest thereon in addition, up to the time of
Such certificate must be registered in the registry of deeds of redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or
the place where the property is situated. (27 a) taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after
purchase, and interest on such last named amount at the
Section 26. Certificate of sale where property claimed by third same rate; and if the purchaser be also a creditor having a
person. — When a property sold by virtue of a writ of prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the judgment
execution has been claimed by a third person, the certificate under which such purchase was made, the amount of such
of sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant to sections 23, 24 other lien, with interest.
and 25 of this Rule shall make express mention of the Property so redeemed may again be redeemed within sixty
existence of such thirdparty claim. (28a) (60) days after the last redemption upon payment of the sum
paid on the last redemption, with two per centum thereon in
Section 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of addition and the amount of any assessments or taxes which
redemption period; by whom executed or given. — If no the last redemptioner may have paid thereon after
redemption be made within one (1) year from the date of the redemption by him, with interest on such last named amount,
registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled and in addition, the amount of any liens held by said last
to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redemptioner prior to his own, with interest. The property may
redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and no be again, and as often as a redemptioner is so disposed,
other redemption has been made, and notice thereof given, redeemed from any previous redemptioner within sixty (60)
and the time for redemption has expired, the last days after the last redemption, on paying the sum paid on the
redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance and possession; last previous redemption, with two per centum thereon in
but in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire addition, and the amounts of any assessments or taxes which
period of one (1) year from the date of the registration of the the last previous redemptioner paid after the redemption
sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by thereon, with interest thereon, and the amount of any liens
the officer making the sale or by his successor in office, and held by the last redemptioner prior to his own, with interest.
in the latter case shall have the same validity as though the Written notice of any redemption must be given to the officer
officer making the sale had continued in office and executed who made the sale and a duplicate filed with the registry of
it. deeds of the place, and if any assessments or taxes are paid
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser by the redemptioner or if he has or acquires any lien other
or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the than that upon which the redemption was made, notice
rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the thereof must in like manner be given to the officer and filed
property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the with the registry of deeds; if such notice be not filed, the
property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner property may be redeemed without paying such
by the same officer unless a third party adversely to the assessments, taxes, or liens. (30a)
judgment obligor. (35a)
Section 29. Effect of redemption by judgment obligor, and a
certificate to be delivered and recorded thereupon; to whom
Scenario Redeemed by Price
payments on redemption made. — If the judgment obligor
C1 forecloses, D For 1k
redeems he must make the same payments as are required
purchases for 1k C2 For 1k (same
to effect a redemption by a redemptioner, whereupon, no
further redemption shall be allowed and he is restored to his judgment)
estate. The person to whom the redemption payment is made C1 forecloses, C2 C3 For 51k (different
must execute and deliver to him a certificate of redemption purchases for 1k judgment)
acknowledged before a notary public or other officer C1 forecloses, 3P D For 1k
authorized to take acknowledgments of conveyances of real purchases for 1k C2 For 1k
property. Such certificate must be filed and recorded in the
registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated Note that if C2 forecloses, C1 may still foreclose in another
and the registrar of deeds must note the record thereof on the action because he has a prior right in the mortgaged
margin of the record of the certificate of sale. The payments property. C1 is not a redemptioner as described in the rules
mentioned in this and the last preceding sections may be
made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the WHEN REDEMPTION CAN BE MADE
officer who made the sale. (31a) By the JUDGMENT Within 1 year from date of
DEBTOR registration of certificate of
Section 30. Proof required of redemptioner. — A sale
redemptioner must produce to the officer, or person from By FIRST REDEMPTIONER Within 1 year from date of
whom he seeks to redeem, and serve with his notice to the registration of certificate of
officer a copy of the judgment or final order under which he sale
claims the right to redeem, certified by the clerk of the court BY ALL SUBSEQUENT Within 60 days from last
wherein the judgment or final order is entered, or, if he REDEMPTIONERS redemption PROVIDED that
redeems upon a mortgage or other lien, a memorandum of judgment debtor has not
the record thereof, certified by the registrar of deeds, or an exercised his right of
original or certified copy of any assignment necessary to redemption
establish his claim; and an affidavit executed by him or his - In all cases, judgment debtor shall have the entire 1 year
agent, showing the amount then actually due on the lien. period from date of registration of sale to redeem the
(32a) property. If judgment debtor redeems, no further
redemption is allowed [Sec. 29].
Section 31. Manner of using premises pending redemption; - There is no extension or interruption of redemption
waste restrained. — Until the expiration of the time allowed period
for redemption, the court may, as in other proper cases,
restrain the commission of waste on the property by REDEMPTION PRICE
injunction, on the application of the purchaser or the 1) By the Judgment Debtor or First Redemptioner:
judgment obligee, with or without notice; but it is not waste for a) Purchase PRICE
a person in possession of the property at the time of the sale, b) 1% INTEREST thereon up to time of redemption
or entitled to possession afterwards, during the period c) Any amount of ASSESSMENTS OR TAXES which
allowed for redemption, to continue to use it in the same purchaser may have paid after purchase as well as
manner in which it was previously used, or to use it in the interest on such last named amount at the same rate
ordinary course of husbandry; or to make the necessary d) If purchaser is also a creditor having a PRIOR LIEN
repairs to buildings thereon while he occupies the property. to that of redemptioner, other than the judgment
(33a) under which such purchase was made, the
AMOUNT of such OTHER LIEN, also with interest
Section 32. Rents, earnings and income of property pending 2) By all Subsequent Redemptioners
redemption. — The purchaser or a redemptioner shall not be a) AMOUNT paid on last redemption
entitled to receive the rents, earnings and income of the b) 2% INTEREST thereon
property sold on execution, or the value of the use and c) Any amount of ASSESSMENTS OR TAXES which
occupation thereof when such property is in the possession purchaser may have paid after purchase as well as
of a tenant. All rents, earnings and income derived from the interest on such last named amount at the same
property pending redemption shall belong to the judgment rate
obligor until the expiration of his period of redemption. (34a) d) Amount of any LIENS held by said last redemptioner
prior to his own, also with interest
Payment of redemption price may be made to the: (1)
Notes: Purchaser or redemptioner, or (2) For him to the officer who
made the sale. The person to whom redemption payment is
WHEN REDEMPTION IS AVAILABLE made must execute and deliver to him a CERTIFICATE OF
(1) For personal property – there is NO right of redemption as REDEMPTION.
the sale is absolute
(2) For real property – right of redemption is available RIGHTS PENDING REDEMPTION [Secs. 31-32, Rule 39]
Right of Judgment Creditor Pending Redemption
APPLICATION OF SEC. 28, RULE 39 (1) Apply for injunction to restrain the commission of waste on
Take for instance a scenario where there are three the property
creditors/mortgagees (C1, C2, C3) with whom the Debtor (D)
has a secured debt amounting to 50k each. Note that during Rights of the Judgment Debtor Pending Redemption
the foreclosure, a third party (3P) may purchase the property (1)Remain in possession of the property
foreclosed. (2)Cannot be ejected
(3)Use the property in the same manner it was previously
used concerning his property and income before such court or
(4)Make necessary repairs to buildings thereon while he before a commissioner appointed by it at a specified time and
occupies the property place; and proceedings may thereupon be had for the
(5)Use it in the ordinary course of husbandry [Sec. 31]; and application of the property and income of the judgment
(6)Collect rents, earning and income derived from property obligor towards the satisfaction of the judgment. But no
until the expiration of period of redemption judgment obligor shall be so required to appear before a
court or commissioner outside the province or city in which
M. Revival of judgment such obligor resides or is found. (38a)
Section 3. Sale of mortgaged property; effect. — When the Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in
defendant, after being directed to do so as provided in the the name of the mortgagor shall not be cancelled, but the
next preceding section, fails to pay the amount of the certificate of sale and the order confirming the sale shall be
judgment within the period specified therein, the court, upon registered and a brief memorandum thereof made by the
motion, shall order the property to be sold in the manner and registrar of deeds upon the certificate of title. In the event the
under the provisions of Rule 39 and other regulations property is redeemed, the deed of redemption shall be
governing sales of real estate under execution. Such sale registered with the registry of deeds, and a brief
shall not affect the rights of persons holding prior memorandum thereof shall be made by the registrar of deeds
encumbrances upon the property or a part thereof, and when on said certificate of title. If the property is not redeemed, the
confirmed by an order of the court, also upon motion, it shall final deed of sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the
operate to divest the rights in the property of all the parties to purchaser at the foreclosure sale shall be registered with the
the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to registry of deeds; whereupon the certificate of title in the
such rights of redemption as may be allowed by law. name of the mortgagor shall be cancelled and a new one
issued in the name of the purchaser. (n)
Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the
expiration of the period of redemption when allowed by law, Section 8. Applicability of other provisions. — The provisions
the purchaser at the auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, of sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall be applicable to the
shall be entitled to the possession of the property unless a judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages under this Rule
third party is actually holding the same adversely to the insofar as the former are not inconsistent with or may serve
judgment obligor. The said purchaser or last redemptioner to supplement the provisions of the latter. (8a)
may secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the court
which ordered the foreclosure. (3a) Section 4. Disposition of General Banking Law Sec. 47
proceeds of sale. — The amount realized from the SECTION 47. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. — In the
foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after event of foreclosure, whether judicially or extrajudicially, of
deducting the costs of the sale, be paid to the person any mortgage on real estate which is security for any loan or
foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall be any other credit accommodation granted, the mortgagor or debtor
balance or residue, after paying off the mortgage debt due, whose real property has been sold for the full or partial
the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order payment of his obligation shall have the right within one year
of their priority, to be ascertained by the court, or if there be after the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by
no such encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue paying the amount due under the mortgage deed, with
after payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly interest thereon at the rate specified in the mortgage, and all
authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. (4a) the costs and expenses incurred by the bank or institution
from the sale and custody of said property less the income
Section 5. How sale to proceed in case the debt is not all derived therefrom. However, the purchaser at the auction
due. — If the debt for which the mortgage or encumbrance sale concerned whether in a judicial or extrajudicial
was held is not all due as provided in the judgment as soon foreclosure shall have the right to enter upon and take
as a sufficient portion of the property has been sold to pay possession of such property immediately after the date of the
the total amount and the costs due, the sale shall terminate; confirmation of the auction sale and administer the same in
and afterwards as often as more becomes due for principal or accordance with law. Any petition in court to enjoin or restrain
interest and other valid charges, the court may, on motion, the conduct of foreclosure proceedings instituted pursuant to
order more to be sold. But if the property cannot be sold in this provision shall be given due course only upon the filing
portions without prejudice to the parties, the whole shall be by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed by the court
ordered to be sold in the first instance, and the entire debt conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank
and costs shall be paid, if the proceeds of the sale be may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure
sufficient therefor, there being a rebate of interest where such proceeding. Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons
rebate is proper. (5a) whose property is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial
foreclosure, shall have the right to redeem the property in
Section 6. Deficiency judgment. — If upon the sale of any accordance with this provision until, but not after, the
real property as provided in the next preceding section there registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the
be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more
of the sale, the court, upon motion, shall render judgment than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier.
against the defendant for any such balance for which, by the Owners of property that has been sold in a foreclosure sale
record of the case, he may be personally liable to the plaintiff, prior to the effectivity of this Act shall retain their redemption
upon which execution may issue immediately if the balance is rights until their expiration. (78a)
Executive Judge. No certificate of sale shall be issued in
Act 3135 Sec. 7 favor of the highest bidder until all fees provided for in the
Sec. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the aforementioned sections and in Rule 141, Section 9(1), as
purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, shall have been paid;
province or place where the property or any part thereof is Provided, that in no case shall the amount payable under
situated, to give him possession thereof during the Rule 141, Section 9(1), as amended, exceed P100,000.00;
redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent
to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to e) after the certificate of sale has been issued to the highest
indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was bidder, keep the complete records, while awaiting any
made without violating the mortgage or without complying redemption within a period of one (1) year from date of
with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of
under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the Deeds concerned, after which, the records shall be archived.
registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, juridical persons
registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property whose property is sold pursuant to an extra-judicial
registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one foreclosure, shall have the right to redeem the property until,
hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any but not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure
other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly sale which in no case shall be more than three (3) months
registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance after foreclosure, whichever is earlier, as provided in Section
with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court 47 of Republic Act No. 8791 (as amended, Res. Of August 7,
shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified 2001).
in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of
Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Where the application concerns the extrajudicial foreclosure
Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the of mortgages of real estates and/or chattels in different
court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of locations covering one indebtedness, only one filing fee
possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in corresponding to such indebtedness shall be collected. The
which the property is situated, who shall execute said order collecting Clerk of Court shall, apart from the official receipt of
immediately. the fees, issue a certificate of payment indicating the amount
of indebtedness, the filing fees collected, the mortgages
A.M. 99-10-05-O sought to be foreclosed, the real estates and/or chattels
(AS FURTHER AMENDED, AUGUST 7, 2001) mortgaged and their respective locations, which certificate
PROCEDURE IN EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF shall serve the purpose of having the application docketed
MORTGAGE with the Clerks of Court of the places where the other
properties are located and of allowing the extrajudicial
In line with the responsibility of an Executive Judge under foreclosures to proceed thereat.
Administrative Order No. 6, dated June 30, 1975, for the
management of courts within his administrative area, 3. The notices of auction sale in extrajudicial foreclosure for
included in which is the task of supervising directly the work publication by the sheriff or by a notary public shall be
of the Clerk of Court, who is also the Ex-Office Sheriff, and published in a newspaper of general circulation pursuant to
his staff, and the issuance of commissions to notaries public Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1079, dated January 2,
and enforcement of their duties under the law, the following 1977, and noncompliance therewith shall constitute a
procedures are hereby prescribed in extrajudicial foreclosure violation of Section 6 thereof.
of mortgages:
4. The Executive Judge shall, with the assistance of the Clerk
1. All applications for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage of Court, raffle applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of
whether under the direction of the sheriff or a notary public, mortgage under the direction of the sheriff among all sheriffs,
pursuant to Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, and Act including those assigned to the Office of the Clerk of Court
1508, as amended, shall be filed with the Executive Judge, and Sheriffs IV assigned in the branches.
through the Clerk of court who is also the Ex-Officio Sheriff.
5. The name/s of the bidder/s shall be reported by the sheriff
2. Upon receipt of an application for extra-judicial foreclosure or the notary public who conducted the sale to the Clerk of
of mortgage, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of Court to: Court before the issuance of the certificate of sale