Civil Procedure – Case Doctrines

CASE DOCTRINE
1. La Naval Drug Corp v Limited Jurisdiction: when a court, which ordinarily would have the authority and competence to
CA 236 S 78 take a case is rendered without it either because a special law (Ex. RA 876) has limited the
exercise of its normal jurisdiction on a particular matter or because the type of action has been
repealed by law in certain other courts or quasi-judicial agencies for determination
2. Atwel v Concepcion Jurisdiction is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties.
Progressive Asso Inc
GR 169370 April 14, Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of action or
2008 subject matter of the case. Unfortunately for CPAI, no exceptional circumstance appears in this
case to warrant divergence from the rule. Jurisdiction by estoppel is not available here.
3. Figueroa v People GR Jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of
147406 July 14, 2008 the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.

The Court accorded supremacy to the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not
lost by waiver or by estoppel.

A court’s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The
reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court
to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. Moreover, jurisdiction is determined
by the averments of the complain, not by the defenses contained in the answer.
4. Samar II Electric Doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and
Cooperative Inc v comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which,
Seludo Jr 671 S 78 under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative
agency.
5. Belle Corporation v Essential elements of a cause of action are:
De Leon-Banks 681 S 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
351 created
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff
or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the
latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
6. City of Bacolod v San A party cannot split a single cause of action into parts and sue on each part separately.
Miguel, 29 S 819
For a single cause of action or violation of a right, the plaintiff may be entitled to several reliefs. It
is the filing of separate complaints for these several reliefs that constitutes splitting up of the
cause of action.
7. Jalandoni v Martir- Between the same parties, with the same subject matter and cause of action, a final judgment on
Guanzon, 102 P 859 the merits is conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but upon
all matters that might have been litigated and decided in the former suit.
8. Joseph v Bautista, 170 The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict or wrong violating the rights
S 540 of one person.
9. PNB v Heirs of Indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation,
Estanislao Militar etal and without whom no final determination of the case can be had.
467 S 377
Two essential tests of an indispensable party:
1. Can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the other party?
2. Can the case be decided on the merits without prejudicing the rights of the other
party?
10. Republic vs Marcos- Indispensable parties are those parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final
Manotoc 665 S 367 determination of an action. They are those parties who possess such an interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot
proceed without their presence.
11. Sarsaba vs Vda dela When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Court
Torre 594 SCRA 410 require a substitution of the deceased.
1. Actions to recover real or personal property or an interest thereon,
2. Actions to enforce liens thereon,
3. Actions to recover damages for an injury to a person or a property.
In such cases, a counsel is obliged to inform the court of the death of his client and give the name
 and address of the latter’s legal representative.

Rule on substitution is not a matter of jurisdiction but a requirement of due process.

12. Gonzales vs Pagcor Section 16, Rule 3: Death of party, duty of counsel
429 SCRA 533, 540
A reading of the allegations in the petition readily shows that Gonzales’ alleged interest does not
involve any claim to money or property which he could have assigned to another or transmitted
to his heirs. Rather, he claimed to be vindication his rights as a citizen, taxpayer and member of
the bar. Being personal and non-transferable in nature, any interest that he might have had in
the outcome of this case cannot be deemed to have survived his death.
13. United Overseas Bank The venue of real actions affecting properties found in different provinces is determined by the
Phils. V Rosemoore singularity or plurality of the transactions involving said parcels of land.
Mining &
Development Corp. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or interest therein shall be commenced
518 S 123 (2007) and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved or a portion thereof is situated.

Where said parcels are the object of one and the same transaction, the venue is in the court of
any of the provinces wherein a parcel of land is situated.
14. Magaspi v Ramolete, A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its
115 S 193 filing in court.

Although said amount is insufficient, the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the case and
the proceedings thereafter had were proper and regular.

*there is an honest difference of opinion as to the correct amount to be paid as docket fee.
15. Manchester Dev Corp The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
v CA, 149 S 562 fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the
Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended
pleading.
The ruling in the Magaspi case, in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is
overturned and reversed.

STRICT APPLICATION where the party deliberately intends to defraud the court in payment of
docket fees.
16. Sun Insurance v Not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the
Asuncion, 170 S 274 prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but it no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

LIBERAL APPLICATION for those that show willingness to pay the right amount of docket fees.
17. Heirs of the late Petitioner liable for the difference between the actual fees paid and the correct payable docket
Ruben Reinoso Jr fees.
versus CA, GR No.
116121, July 18, 2011 Fees in lien – where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different
from, or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees
which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall
assess and collect the corresponding fees.
18. Kilusan-Olalia v CA Verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite, as it is mainly intended to secure an
528 S 45 (2007) assurance that the allegations therein made are done in good faith.
19. In-N-Out Burger, Inc. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
v Schwani Inc. 575 S therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
535 (2008) A party’s representative, lawyer or any other person who personally knows the truth of the facts
alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.

This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance
therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.

2
20. Tokio Marine Failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping shall not be curable by mere
Malayan Insurance amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
Compnay Inc. et.al v the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
Valdez GR No. 150107
28Jan2008 Foregoing certification is a substantial compliance.

Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by some other court, or to increase
his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.

The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue
simultaneous remedies in two different courts as it constitutes abuse of court processes, which
tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and
adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.

21. Negros Slashers v Elements of Forum Shopping:

Teng 666 S 629 (1) There be identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in
both actions;
(2) There be identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts; and
(3) The identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in one
action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other
action
22. Digital Microwave The reason the certification against forum shopping is required to be accomplished by petitioner
Corp. v CA GR 128550 himself is because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has
16Mar2000 initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies. Even his counsel may be
unaware of such fact.

The certification against forum shopping could be made by a duly authorized director or officer of
the corporation
23. Guy v Court of The certification of non-forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party.
Appeals GR 163707,
September 15, 2006 Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause for dismissal of the case. However, a liberal
application of the rules is proper where the higher interest of justice would be served; where the
merits of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules with impunity should be
considered as compelling reasons to temper the strict application of the rules.
24. Sy Chin v Court of While a petition for certiorari is flawed where the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed
Appeals GR 136233, only by counsel and not by the party, this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of
November 23, 2000 substantial justice.
25. Cavila v Heirs of The execution by one of the petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes
Clarita Cavile 400 S substantial compliance with the Rules where all the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of
255 (2003) the properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon, aside from sharing a common
defense in the complaint for partition filed by the respondents.
The merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as “special circumstance” for
the Court to take cognizance of a petition for review although the certification against forum
shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners
26. Sari-sari Group of The lack of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, unlike that of Verification is generally not
Companies, Inc. v curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition.
Piglas Kamao 561 S Submission of a certificate deemed obligatory, albeit not jurisdictional.
569 (2008) Rule may also be relaxed on grounds of “substantial compliance” or “special circumstances or
compelling reasons
27. Median Container A court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading

3
 Corp. v Metropolitan although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the
Bank & Trust Co. 561 rules may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice.
S 622 (2008)
A certification against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which is
unaccompanied by proof that the signatory is authorized to file the petition is generally likewise
cause for dismissal
28. Remitere v Yulo 16 S The lack of a cause of action as a ground for dismissal must appear on the face of the complaint,
251 and to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action only the facts alleged therein,
and no other, should be considered.

A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as
distinguished from mere conclusion of fact, or conclusion of law.
29. Philippine Stock Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon which rest the
Exchange v Manila existence of the cause of action—the term does not refer to details of probative matter or
Banking Corp. 559 S particulars of evidence which establish the material elements
352 (2008)
30. Philippine Bank of For the complaint to be dismissed for failure to state the cause of action, the insufficiency of the
Communications v cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint.
Trazo 500 S 242
(2006) To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the Complaint must show that the claim
for relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated or is ambiguous,
indefinite or uncertain.
31. Gaza et al vs Lim GR 3 Modes of Specific Denial:
126863 Jan 16, 2003 (1) By specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint, the truth of which the
defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the
matters which he will rely upon to support his denial;
(2) By specifying so much of an averment in the complaint as is true and material and
denying only the remainder;
(3) By stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, which has the effect of a
denial.
32. Namarco v Federation This rule is “mandatory” because the failure of the corresponding party to set it up will bar his
of United Namarco right to interpose it in a subsequent litigation.
Distributors Inc., 49 S
238 A counterclaim not set up shall be barred if the following circumstances are present:
1. That it arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim;
2. That it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and
3. That the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

The logical relationship between the claim and counter-claim—has been called “the one
compelling test of compulsoriness.”

33. Bungcayao Sr v Fort
Ilocandia 618 S 381
An after-acquired counterclaim under the rules is not barred even if it is not set up in the
previous case as a counterclaim. An after-acquired counterclaim is one of the recognized
exceptions to the general rule that a counterclaim is compulsory and must be asserted if it arises
out of the same transactions as the opposing party’s claim.
A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or any relief, which a defending party may
have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected
with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s complaint.

The rule in permissive counterclaim is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the
counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.
34. Calibre Traders Inc v The Court has already laid down the following tests to determine whether a counterclaim is
Bayer Philippines 633 compulsory or not, to wit:
S 34 (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
(2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory

4
 counterclaim rule?
(3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the
defendant’s counterclaim?
(4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the
conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial
duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court?
35. Planters Development A supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined
Bank v LZK Holdings & with the original pleading remained an issue to be tried in the action. It is but a continuation of
Development Co. 456 the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind of
S 366 relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original
complaint.

Any supplemental facts which further develop the original right of action, or extend to vary the
relief, are available by way of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a
right of action.
36. Young v Sy 503 S 151 The petitioner’s cause of action for legal redemption as embodied in her Supplemental Complaint
(2006) stems directly from and is an extension of her rights a s co-owner of the property subject of the
Complaint.
Exactly the same evidence required to prove the nullification of the partition in the Complaint.
37. Leobrera v CA 170 S The clear import of such amendment in Sec. 3, Rule 10 is that under the new rules, “the
711 (1989) amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense.”

Substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may be refused if
it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay.
38. Quirao v Quirao GR Rules of Court allow amendments of pleadings as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is
148120, October 24, served.
2003
Amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of
justice so that every case may so far as possible be determined on its real facts and in order to
prevent the circuity of action.

Can amend/supplement if it will not prejudice other party.

39. Director of Lands v When pleadings are amended, the original pleadings disappear from the record, lose their status
CA, 196 S 94 as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions.
40. Dionisio v Linsangan Test if an amendment introduces a different cause of action: if such amendment now requires
GR 178159 March 2, the defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which is completely different from that stated
2011 in the original complaint.

Action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such amended pleading NOT on the date of the
filing of its original version.
41. Santos v Lumbao 519 Facts alleged in a party’s pleading are deemed admissions of that party and are binding upon him,
S 408 (2007) but not an absolute and inflexible rule.
An answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it expects to prove, but it is not
evidence. And in spite of judicial admissions in a party’s pleading, the trial court is still given
leeway to consider other evidence presented.
42. Gardner v CA 131 S
585
43. San Pedro Cineplex v Defendant’s answer should be admitted before declaration of default and no prejudice is caused
Heirs of Enano GR to the plaintiff.
190754 November 17,
2010 Where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is declared
in default and there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be
admitted.
44. Otero v Tan 678 S 583 Remedies of a party declared in default:
(1.) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before
judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground
that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect,
and that he has meritorious defenses.

5
 (2.) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the
default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a
motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37
(3.) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and
executory, he may file a petition for relief under section 2 of Rule 38
(4.) Appeal from judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the
law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by
him.
A defending party declared in default retains the right to appeal from the judgment by default.
However, the grounds that may be raised in such appeal are restricted to any of the following:
(1.) The failure of the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of the complaint
(2.) Decision is contrary to law
(3.) Amount of judgment is excessive or different in kind from that prayed for.
A defendant who has been declared in default is precluded from raising any other ground in his
appeal from the judgment by default since, otherwise, he would then be allowed to adduce
evidence in his defense, which right he had lost after he was declared in default.
45. Cabili v Badelles, 6 S Service of decisions should be made to lawyers on record not parties. Service upon a party who
190 has an attorney of record is not a compliance with Rule 27, Sec. 2 which makes service upon
counsel mandatory.

Receipt by petitioner Badelles should not be considered as service under the Rules. 5-day period
should begin when copy of the decision was received by Atty. Africa on Jan. 4 not from Dec. 28
46. Venturanza v CA 156 Before substituted service may be availed, there should be proof that effort/attempt was exerted
S 305 to personally serve summons.
47. Samartino v Raon 383 Action in personam. Sheriff failed to show reason why personal service could not be made. Not
S 664 shown in return that brother was person of suitable age & discretion residing at petitioner’s
residence.
48. Valmonte v CA 252 S For non-resident who is not found in the Philippines but nature of action is quasi in rem, service
92 of summons must be in accordance with Sec. 17, Rule 14:
Service to be effective (outside of the Philippines)
(1.) By personal service
(2.) Publication in newspaper of general circulation in such places & for such time as
court may order, copy of summons and order of the court should be sent by
registered mail to last known address of defendant
(3.) Any other manner which the court may deem sufficient
49. Asiavest v CA 296 S
539
50. Philam Gen vs Breva Case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served. An
442 S 217 alias summons can actually be served on defendant.

Where defendant has already been served summons on the original complaint, amended
complaint may be served upon him without need of another summons, but when no summons
has been validly served, new summons for amended complaint must be served on him.

Not pertinent whether summons is original or alias as long as it adequately served its purpose.
51. BPI v Santiago 519 S Service upon domestic private juridical entity (Sec. 11, Rule 14). BPI’s Branch Manager did not
389 bind corporation upon service of summons. However, upon the issuance and proper service of
new summons, whatever defect attended the service of the original summons, was promptly and
accordingly cured.
52. San Pedro v Willy Ong Service of summons over defendant did not affect the jurisdiction of RTC and did not invalidate
and Normita Caballes proceeding held therein.
GR 177598 October
17, 2008 Case is quasi in rem wherein an individual is named a defendant and purpose of proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property.
RTC was not required to acquire jurisdiction over persons of the defendants, sufficient for said
court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
53. Santos v PNOC Personal service of summons to petitioner failed because he could not be located in his last

6
 Exploration GR known address despite earnest efforts to do so.
170943 September Petitioner was properly served with summons by publication. It now applies to any action,
23, 2008 whether in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.
54. Kawasaki Port Case at bar, an action in personam, thus personal or substituted service of summons on the
Services vs Amores defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court.
GR 58340 July 16,
1991
55. Sansio Phils v Mogol Essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the
GR 177007, July 14, defendant himself, wherever he may be found; wherever he may be provided he is in the
2009 Philippines.
56. Guiguinto Credit v Substituted service must:
Torres GR 170926, (a.) Indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time
September 15, 2006 (b.) Specify efforts exerted to locate petitioner
(c.) State that it was served on a person of sufficient age and discretion residing
therein.
57. Potenciano v Barnes There was no attempt whatsoever on the part of the deputy sheriff to serve the summons on
GR 159421, August Barnes himself. The handing of a copy to Mr. Herrera cannot even qualify as substituted service
20, 2008 under Sec. 7, Rule 14.
58. Amigo v CA, 253 S 382 Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil action is acquired either by his voluntary
appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons.

A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in

whatever form, without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a
submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person.
59. La Naval v CA, 236 S Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either expressly or impliedly.
78 If he so wishes not to waive this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion for the purpose of
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court.

Voluntary appearance cures defects of summons, if any.

Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be
dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final
judgment. This kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the
parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.
60. Ilocos Sur Electric v There is nothing in said law which provides that the NEA administration has the power to hear
NLRC 241 S 36 and decide termination cases of employees in electric cooperatives. That authority is vested in
the Labor Arbiter.
61. Andaya v Abadia 228 The law defines which body has the authority to decide the case. The specific law PD 902-A
S 705 defines and vests jurisdiction over corporate matter in the Securities and Exchange Commission
in no uncertain terms.

Jurisdiction over subject matter is essential in the sense that erroneous assumption thereof may
put a naught whatever proceedings the court might have had.

It is elementary that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the
parties or even by the judge.
62. Republic v Bantigue The rule is settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
Point Development the proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the
Corp 668 S 158 law.
63. Andersons Group v Lis pendens as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein another
CA. 266 S 423 action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.

Not required that party be served with summons before lis pendens should apply.

The criterion used in determining which case should be abated is which is the more appropriate
action or which court would be “in a better position to serve the interests of justice.”
64. Ramos v Peralta, 203 Requisites for litis pendentia to be invoked as a ground for the dismissal of an action:

7
 S 412 (1.) Identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions
(2.) Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts
(3.) The identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other.
65. Yap v Chua 672 S 411 The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another
more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action.

Identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity.

Tests whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action:

(1.) Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second
causes of action
(2.) Whether the defenses in once case may be used to substantiate the complaint in
the other
Party cannot by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case,
escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice
litigated between the same parties or their privies.
66. Vda de Cruzo v Res judicata as a “bar by former judgment” – absolute bar to the subsequent action since said
Cariaga, 174 S 330 judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain that judgment
but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could
have been adjudged therein.
Requisites:
(1.) The former judgment or order must be final
(2.) It must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a
consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial
of the case
(3.) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties

Res judicata as a rule on conclusiveness of judgment – judgment in the prior action operates as
an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined therein or which were necessarily
included therein.
67. Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Where no identity of causes of action but only identity of issues exists, res judicata comes under
Chavez 618 S 559 the second concept that means under conclusiveness of judgment. Under this concept, the rule
bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues involving the same parties even if raised under
different claims or causes of action. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds
the parties to that action.
68. San Lorenzo v CA, 288 A complaint should not be dismissed upon a mere ambiguity, indefiniteness or uncertainty of the
S 115 cause of action stated therein for these are not grounds for a motion to dismiss but rather for a
bill of particulars
69. Calalang v IAC, 194 S Failure to state cause of action is a ground for dismissal not absence of cause of action.
514
70. Perpetual v Fajardo, The court is not allowed by law to dismiss the case motu proprio as long as there is a cause of
233 S 720 action.
71. City of Cebu v CA, 258 Familiar test for determining whether a complaint did or did not state a cause of action against
S 175 the defendants is where or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made
in the complaint, a judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint.
72. Bangko Silangan v CA, An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and so the proper remedy in such a case is
360 S 322 to appeal after a decision has been rendered.
73. Yutingco v CA, 386 S An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable nor
85 can it be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the
ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.
Exceptions to the aforecited rule:
(1.) When the trial court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction
(2.) When there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court
(3.) When appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an

8
 appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious effects of the
patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiff’s baseless action and compelling
the defendants to needlessly go through a protracted trial and clogging the court
dockets with another futile case.
74. Pinga v Heirs of The dismissal of a complaint due to fault of the plaintiff is without prejudice to the right of the
Santiago GR 170354 defendant to prosecute any pending counterclaims of whatever nature (whether compulsory or
June 30, 2006 permissive) in the same or separate action.

BA Finance and all previous rulings of the Court that are inconsistent with the present holding are
now abandoned.
75. Filinvest v CA GR A dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and operates as
142439 December 6, res judicata, particularly when the court did not direct that the dismissal was without prejudice.
2006
76. Cruz v CA GR 164797 Instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to plaintiff’s fault:
February 13, 2006 (1.) If he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief
(2.) If he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time
(3.) If he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court.
Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has the effect of an adjudication on the
merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless otherwise
provided in the order of dismissal. In other words, unless there be a qualification in the order of
dismissal that it is without prejudice, the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the
merits and is with prejudice.
77. Heirs of Gaudiane v Said order had the effect of judgment on the merits although no trial was conducted because it
CA GR 119879 March did not contain any statement that the case was dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of a
11, 2004 similar future action.
78. Dael v Sps Beltran GR Sec 1, Rule 17 does not encompass a Motion to Dismiss. The provision specifically provides that a
156470 April 30, 2008 plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal before service of the answer or a motion for summary
judgment.
79. Mendoza v Paule GR Where the defendant has interposed a counterclaim (whether compulsory or permissive) or is
175885 February 31, seeking affirmative relief by a cross-complaint, the plaintiff cannot dismiss the action so as to
2009 affect the right of the defendant in his counterclaim or prayer for affirmative relief.

When the answer sets up an independent action against the plaintiff, it then becomes an action
by the defendant against the plaintiff, and of course the plaintiff has no right to ask for a
dismissal of the defendant’s action.

Any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not on the survival of
the main complaint.
80. Benedicto v Lacson Notice of Dismissal (Sec 1) no need to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping about the
GR 142508 May 5, prior filing and dismissal of a case.
2010
An omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute
res judicata and litis pendentia as in the case at bar, is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and
nullification of the entire proceedings considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the
said certificate are not present.