REMEDIAL LAW DIGESTS

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 # & 1( 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 1# 1& 2( 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 2# 2& 3( 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 3#

Member Tommy

Case Natcher Ignacio Lim Pagcor Dilweg Tuvera !ane" $o%as 'andoval Luna ')ouses *+alos ,endo"a 'antos 'agmit 'an ,iguel -or) Tolosa *rran"a 'olid .omes ')ouses $aet Pilar Devt -or) 'indico 'umawang ,on *r"aga -alle/a 0u/uico 1ochan Panlilio 2ortich *leria $u+io -ano Del ,ar -ru" ,icroso3t -or) Lu"on Devt !an4 5scovilla 'antos

Topic Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction

Mike

Nere

3& 4( 41 42 43 44 45 46 4 4# 4& 5( 51 52 53 54 55 56 5 5# 5& 6( 61 62 63 64 65 66 6 6# 6& ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 # & #( #1

Nina

Pearl

Rhe

Tom

,illenium Industrial !PI ,onde/ar ,achete 6nion !an4 -T Torres 5nter)rises .ilado *muete 7da de 7ictoria ,onsanto 7esagas 8rendain $ichard !rian Thornton In $e Joa9uin ,analo Peo)le 6: -haves 'andoval 0ared 't ,artin 7iva Productions PN! Pio !arreto 6: '5*2D5,ar9ue" 2a+ia Paat ,iriam -ollege 'mart -omm *ssociated -omm 'unville !angus 2r: Pu:at !ardillon 8rtigas 7illena 1;' Trans)ort 2actoran ,endo"a -astro 5strada

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction

#2 #3 #4 #5 #6 # ## #& &( &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 & &# && 1(( 1(1 1(2 1(3 1(4 1(5 1(6 1( 1(# 1(& 11( 111 112 113 114 115 116 11 !en"ie

Philsec -ommunication ,aterials -o)ioso $ussel Iniego 7in"ons =amora Diu 5s)ino ')ouses 'antos 6: 5m)a:nado !anares 2eli"ardo Laureano *lda: National 'teel ,anchester Devt Peralta 5mnace ,os4ows4: -a+utihan 8riginal Devt *l3onso !PI La)id -hina+an4 $e)u+lic *ron $elucio Progressive Devt Laca) !PI 2amil: !an4 2lores ,i/ares ')ouses Tan4i4o

Inah

#arl

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law <atarungang Law $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>&

Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga: Pam+aranga:

11# 11& 12( 121 122 123 124 125 126 12 12# 12& 13( 131 132 133 134 135 136 13 13# 13& 14( 141 142 143 144 145 146 14 14# 14& 15( 151 152 153 154 155 156 15 15# 15& 16(

Li$

Ma"e

March

!oard o3 8)tometr: *gan ,etro+an4 -aruncho 'ulo ng !a:an ,7$' 7da de 'ala"ar *guas Paderanga 'iasoco 7da de 7ictoria -hua !antolino 'ea Power -asil !arroso 5s)anol 7da de Da33on Intramuros !an4 o3 *merica $e)u+lic Iniego .anover !alagtas $elucio 2rancisco $e)u+lic -a+utihan -adalin 1on"ales $ui" ')ouses *lgura 5mnace Punsalan 1o *uction in ,alinta Phil !an4ing -or) ': 'alita !autista 1o Po 'anto Tomas

$ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>&

161 162 163 164 165 166 16 16# 16& 1 ( 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 1 # 1 & 1#( 1#1 1#2 1#3 1#4 1#5 1#6 1# 1## 1#& 1&( 1&1 1&2 1&3 1&4 1&5 1&6 1& 1&# 1&& 2(( 2(1 2(2 2(3

Marc%s

Marlon

!arney

Lascano Tan !a:er Phils Intramuros ': ,?'' !PI .un .:ung Par4 ')ouses -han !antolino 0oung 2uente+ella -ancio London 6nimasters Pili)ino Tele)hone Da:ag 1uma+on !acolod>,urcia *lda: ')ouses Jali9ue .uerta *l+a The 7isa:an Pac4ing 2letcher La3arge ')ouses 'a)uga: *lmendras 6!' *muete 'an Pa+lo 6nited Pul) !arroso 'hi)side ,amaril 6nited ')ecial International -ontainer 0u)angco -otton *gilent $ovels ')ouses ,elo -ometa ')ouses $igor 7elas9ue"

$ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>&

2(4 2(5 2(6 2( 2(# 2(& 21( 211 212 213 214 215 216 21 21#

!ea

&arrah

'ardane Lo:ola ')ouses ,adrigal Tan Tuason .eirs o3 $o%as !ang4o 'ilangan T2 7entures Drilon Permanent 'avings $e)u+lic !aetamo $e)u+lic Lina ')ouses *m)ilo9uio Those in $5D

$ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>& $ules 1>&

'(RISDICTI)N *+, Na cher o +-. Inie/o0 +, Na cher 1. Co%r o2 Appeals &ACTS3 ')s@ 1raciano del $osario and 1arciana 5sguerra were owners o3 a land measuring &A332 s9m@ located in ,anila@ 6)on the death o3 1arciana in 1&51A 1arciano together with the s)ouses si% children !a:aniA $icardoA $a3aelA LeticiaA 5miliana and Nieves entered into a e%tra/udicial settlement ad/udicating #B14 to 1raciano and 1B14 to each o3 the children@ .e donated some o3 his share o3 the land to his children and retained a )ortion 3or himsel3 which he

3urther su+divided@ .e sold one )art to a 3 rd )art: and retained the remaining )ortion o3 3&6@ ( s9m@ 3or himsel3@ 8n 2( ,arch 1&#( 1raciano once more got married to Patricia Natcher@ 8n 8cto+er 1&#5 1raciano died@ The si% children 3iled with the $T- a case 3or reconve:ance and ad/udication o3 the 3&6@ ( s9@m@ )ortion which was titled to Patricia Natcher allegedl: thru 3raudA misre)resentation and 3orger: in ma4ing it a))ear that it was sold to her@ The $T- held that the sale was )rohi+ited +: law there +eing no se)aration o3 )ro)ert: agreed u)on the s)ouses are )rohi+ited 3rom entering into a contract o3 sale@ Li4ewiseA there can +e no valid donation +etween s)ouse +eing )rohi+ited under the law@ The $T- however held that it ma: +e considered as an e%tension o3 advance inheritance o3 Patricia Natcher +eing a com)ulsor: heir o3 the deceased@ The -* held that it is onl: the )ro+ate court that has e%clusive /urisdiction to ma4e a /ust and legal distri+ution o3 the estate@ The $T- acting in a general /urisdiction cannot rule on the advance inheritanceA it could onl: rule as to the issue o3 whether the sale was valid or not@ Iss%e3 ?hether a court acting as a court o3 general /urisdiction in an action 3or reconve:ance annulment o3 title with damagesA ad/udicate matters relating to the settlement o3 the estate o3 a deceased )erson )articularl: as to 9uestions as to advancement o3 )ro)ert: made +: the decedent to an: o3 the heirs@ 4el53 The Re/ional Trial Co%r in he ins an case6 ac in/ in i s /eneral "%ris5ic ion6 is 5e1oi5 o2 a% hori y o ren5er an a5"%5ica ion an5 resol1e he iss%e o2 a51ancemen o2 he real proper y. CDDD ETFhere lies a mar4ed distinction +etween an action and a s)ecial )roceeding@ *n action is a 3ormal demand o3 oneGs right in a court o3 /ustice in the manner )rescri+ed +: the court or +: the law@ It is the method o3 a))l:ing legal remedies according to de3inite esta+lished rules@ The term Hspecial proceedingH ma: +e de3ined as an a))lication or )roceeding to esta+lish the status or right o3 a )art:A or a )articular 3act@ 6suall:A in s)ecial )roceedingsA no 3ormal )leadings are re9uired unless the statute e%)ressl: so )rovides@ In s)ecial )roceedingsA the remed: is granted generall: u)on an a))lication or motion@H -iting *merican Juris)rudenceA a noted authorit: in $emedial Law e%)ounds 3urtherI HIt ma: accordingl: +e stated generall: that actions include those )roceedings which are instituted and )rosecuted according to the ordinar: rules and )rovisions relating to actions at law or suits in e9uit:A and that s)ecial )roceedings include those )roceedings which are not ordinar: in this senseA +ut is instituted and )rosecuted according to some s)ecial mode as in the case o3 )roceedings commenced without summons and )rosecuted without regular )leadingsA which are characteristics o3 ordinar: actions@ DDD * s)ecial )roceeding must there3ore +e in the nature o3 a distinct and inde)endent )roceeding 3or )articular relie3A such as ma: +e instituted inde)endentl: o3 a )ending actionA +: )etition or motion u)on notice@H *))l:ing these )rinci)lesA an action 3or reconve:ance and annulment o3 title with damages is a civil actionA whereas matters relating to settlement o3 the estate o3 a deceased )erson such as advancement o3 )ro)ert: made +: the decedentA )arta4e o3 the nature o3 a s)ecial )roceedingA

which concomitantl: re9uires the a))lication o3 s)eci3ic rules as )rovided 3or in the $ules o3 -ourt@ -learl:A matters which involve settlement and distri+ution o3 the estate o3 the decedent 3all within the e%clusive )rovince o3 the )ro+ate court in the e%ercise o3 its limited /urisdiction@J The '- also held citing two cases -oca v@ !orromeo and ,endo"a v@ Teh that 7he her a par ic%lar ma er sho%l5 be resol1e5 by he RTC in he e8ercise o2 i s /eneral "%ris5ic ion or i s limi e5 proba e "%ris5ic ion is N)T a "%ris5ic ional iss%e b% merely one ha is proce5%ral. I is only 7hen here is a 7ai1er on par o2 he heirs ha a co%r o2 /eneral "%ris5ic ion can r%le on a n iss%e o2 a51ancemen o2 le/i ime ma5e by he 5ece5en . CAnalo/o%sly6 in a rain o2 5ecisions6 his Co%r has consis en ly en%ncia e5 he lon/ s an5in/ principle ha al ho%/h /enerally6 a proba e co%r may no 5eci5e a 9%es ion o2 i le or o7nership6 ye i2 he in eres e5 par ies are all heirs6 or he 9%es ion is one o2 colla ion or a51ancemen 6 or he par ies consen o he ass%mp ion o2 "%ris5ic ion by he proba e co%r an5 he ri/h s o2 hir5 par ies are no impaire56 hen he proba e co%r is compe en o 5eci5e he 9%es ion o2 o7nership.:

+; I/nacio 1. CA $enato 1@ 0alung with marital consent o3 ,ariana 0alung sold thru a )acto de retro sale a house and lot located at No@ 13 Narra st@A 7alle 7erde IIIA Pasig 3or the amount o3 P1, with right to re)urchase within &( da:s 3or the same amount )lus interest o3 5K to Jesus Ignacio@ .oweverA a3ter the &( da: )eriod )lus another 5 da:s e%tensionA the s)ouses 3ailed to redeem the )ro)ert:@ Ignacio 3iled with the $T- a )etition to consolidate the sale under a )acto de retro sale o3 the said )ro)ert:@ The $T- ruled in 3avor o3 Ignacio and ordered the $egister o3 Deeds to issue another T-T in his 3acor@ The s)ouses 3iled an a))eal with the -* 9uestioning the /urisdiction o3 the land registration court over the case@ The -* reversed the decision holding that the land registration case has no /urisdiction over the )etition to consolidate title without )re/udice to 3iling another case@ Iss%e3 ?hether an issue which is )ro+a+l: litiga+le in an ordinar: civil action under the general /urisdiction o3 the $egional Trial -ourt +e tried +: the same court 3unctioning as a land registration@ 4el53 <ES= CThere is no dis)ute that an action 3or consolidation o3 ownershi) 3or 3ailure o3 the vendor to redeem the mortgaged )ro)ert: must +e 3iled as an ordinar: civil actionA not as a land registration case@J >?A@ Re/ional Trial Co%r is a co%r o2 /eneral "%ris5ic ion6 an5 7he her a par ic%lar iss%e sho%l5 be resol1e5 by i in i s limi e5 "%ris5ic ion as a lan5 re/is ra ion co%r is no a "%ris5ic ional 9%es ion. I is a procedural 9%es ion in1ol1in/ a mo5e o2 prac ice 7hich may be 7ai1e5@J The s)ouses 1a:ang in this case onl: raised the issue o3 /urisdiction when it was alread: on a))eal +e3ore the -*@ Moreo1er6 he 5is inc ion be 7een he /eneral "%ris5ic ion 1es e5 in he Re/ional Trial Co%r an5 i s limi e5 "%ris5ic ion 7hen ac in/ as a lan5 re/is ra ion co%r 6 has been elimina e5 by P.D. No. ,A;B6 o her7ise kno7n as he Proper y Re/is ra ion Decree o2 ,BCB LMuiro" v@ ,analoA 21( '-$* 6( E1&&2FN Phili))ine National !an4 v@ International -or)orate !an4A 1&& '-$* 5(# E1&&1FN *veriaA Jr@ v@ -aguioaA 146 '-$* 45& E1&#6FO@ This amendment was aime5 a a1oi5in/ m%l iplici y o2 s%i s an5 a e8pe5i in/ he 5isposi ion o2 cases. Re/ional Trial Co%r s no7 ha1e he a% hori y o ac no only on applica ions 2or ori/inal re/is ra ion b% also o1er all pe i ions 2ile5 a2 er he ori/inal re/is ra ion o2 i le6 7i h po7er o hear an5 5e ermine all 9%es ions arisin/ 2rom s%ch applica ions or pe i ions. In5ee56 he lan5 re/is ra ion co%r can no7 hear an5 5eci5e con ro1ersial an5 con en io%s cases an5 hose in1ol1in/ s%bs an ial iss%es.

+D Lim 1. CA Pastor Lim died intestate@ .e was survived +: his wi3eA herein )etitioner $u3ina Lim@ $u3ina 3iled a )etition as surviving s)ouse to +e the adminstrati% o3 the 5state o3 Pastor@ Private res)ondents *uto Truc4 T!* -or)orationA ')eed Distur+ingA inc@A *ctive Distri+utorsA *lliance ,ar4eting -or)oration and *ctionA Inc@ 3iled a )etition to li3t the lis )endens and a motion 3or the e%clusion o3 certain )ro)erties registered in their res)ective names under the Torrens ':stem included in the inventor: o3 the estate o3 Pastor Lim@ The $T- o3 M- sitting as a )ro+ate court granted the twin motion o3 the res)ondent cor)orations on the ground that the: were covered +: Torrens -erti3icate o3 Titles@ $u3ina amended her )etition stating that although the )ro)erties were registered under the name o3 the cor)orationA the: were mere dummies o3 Pastor Lim and that Pastor also had +an4 accounts with ,etro+an4A 2irst Intestate !an4 and $-!- and in other +an4s to which are to +e named later on and that two )ro)erties owned +: *uto Truc4 and *lliance ,ar4eting res)ectivel: were ac9uired during their marriage and 3inall: that all the )ro)erties in 9uestion are con/ugal in nature@ The $T- issued an order to reinstate the annotation o3 lis )endens that were cancelled andBor deleted in the lands in 9uestion@ The )ro+ate court then a))ointed $u3ina Lim as s)ecial administrator and ,iguel Lim and *tt:@ Donald Dee as co>s)ecial administrators o3 the estate and issuing the letters o3 administration in their 3avor@ The )ro+ate court in den:ing anew the e%clusion o3 the )ro)erties held that the issue o3 )iercing the veil o3 cor)orate 3iction lies within the /urisdiction o3 the $T- citing -ease v@ -* wherein it was held that the )ro)erties was a mere e%tension o3 the decedent hence the assets o3 the cor)oration are also assets o3 the estate@ PD &(2 which vest the /urisdiction o3 the '5- re3ers to intracor)orate controveries@ The )ro+ate court acting on an e% )arte motion issued an order to )roduce and su+mit to the administrators to su+mit the +an4 accounts owned +: Pastor Lim andBor the res)ondent cor)orations@ .ence the res)ondent cor)orations 3iled a s)ecial civil action o3 certiorari with restraining order with the -*@ The -* granted certiorari and nulli3ied the order issued +: the )ro+ate court with regard to the +an4 accounts@ Iss%e3 ?hether the -* was correct in holding that the )ro+ate court merel: has the /urisdiction to )ass u)on title to certain )ro)ertiesA al+eit )rovisionall: 3or the )ur)ose o3 determining whether a )ro)ert: should or should not +e included in the inventor: and whether the -* was correct in granting a restrainng order with regard to the with regard to the +an4 accounts@ 4el53 <ES= The '- 3irst discussed how /urisdiction over )ro+ate )roceedings is o+tainedA to witI CThe )rovisions o3 $e)u+lic *ct 6&1A which introduced amendments to !atas Pam+ansa !lg@ 12&A are )ertinentI

'ec@ 1@ 'ection 1& o3 !atas Pam+ansa !lg@ 12&A otherwise 4nown as the HJudiciar: $eorgani"ation *ct o3 1&#(HA is here+: amended to read as 3ollowsI 'ec@ 1&@ Jurisdiction in civil cases@ $egional Trial -ourts shall e%ercise e%clusive /urisdictionI %%% %%% %%%

L4O In all matters o3 )ro+ateA +oth testate and intestateA where the gross value o3 the estate e%ceeds 8ne .undred Thousand Pesos LP1((A(((O orA in )ro+ate matters in ,etro ,anilaA where such gross value e%ceeds Two .undred Thousand Pesos LP2((A(((ON %%% %%% %%%

'ec@ 3@ 'ection 33 o3 the same law is here+: amended to read as 3ollowsI 'ec@ 33@ Jurisdiction o3 ,etro)olitan Trial -ourtsA ,unici)al Trial -ourts and ,unici)al -ircuit Trial -ourts in -ivil -ases@ ,etro)olitan Trial -ourtsA ,unici)al Trial -ourts and ,unici)al -ircuit Trial -ourts shall e%erciseI 1@ 5%clusive original /urisdiction over civil actions and )ro+ate )roceedingsA testate and intestateA including the grant o3 )rovisional remedies in )ro)er casesA where the value o3 the )ersonal )ro)ert:A estate or amount o3 the demand does not e%ceed 8ne .undred Thousand Pesos LP1((A(((O orA in ,etro ,anila where such )ersonal )ro)ert:A estate or amount o3 the demand does not e%ceed Two .undred Thousand Pesos LP2((A(((OA e%clusive o3 interestA damages o3 whatever 4indA attorne:Gs 3eesA litigation e%)enses and costsA the amount o3 which must +e s)eci3icall: allegedA ProvidedA that interestA damages o3 whatever 4indA attorne:GsA litigation e%)enses and costs shall +e included in the determination o3 the 3iling 3eesA Provided furtherA that where there are several claims or causes o3 actions +etween the same or di33erent )artiesA em+odied in the same com)laintA the amount o3 the demand shall +e the totalit: o3 the claims in all the causes o3 actionA irres)ective o3 whether the causes o3 action arose out o3 the same or di33erent transactionsN %%% %%% %%%

Simply p% 6 he 5e ermina ion o2 7hich co%r e8ercises "%ris5ic ion o1er ma ers o2 proba e 5epen5s %pon he /ross 1al%e o2 he es a e o2 he 5ece5en .: While i is r%e ha he parcels o2 lan5 may be incl%5e5 pro1isionally in he es a e o2 he 5ecease5 by he 5ece5en 6 s%b"ec o he 2inal 5e ermina ion on a separa e ac ion6 in he case a bar6 he s%b"ec proper ies are co1ere5 by cer i2ica e o2 i les %n5er he Torrens sys em. The records o3 the case revealed that no strong com)elling evidence was ever )resented +: $u3ina to +olster her +are assertions as to the title o3 her hus+and Pastor@ 2urthermoreA %n5er Sec. E- o2 he >Proper y Re/is ra ion Decree:6 a cer i2ica e o2 i le canno be s%b"ec o colla eral a ack. In as m%ch as he proper y in 9%es ion are %n5er he possession o2 he respon5en corpora ions an5 re/is ere5 %n5er heir name6 he pres%mp ion o2 concl%si1eness o2 he sai5 i les sho%l5 s an5 %n5is %rbe5. 4ence6 he

proba e co%r erre5 in 5enyin/ he e8cl%sion o2 he proper ies. The )ro+ate court acted in utter disregard o3 the )resum)tion o3 conclusiveness o3 title in 3avor o3 res)ondent cor)orations@ -ertainl: through such +ra"en act transgressed the clear )rovisions o3 law and in3ringed /uris)rudence on this matter@ 2inall:A the '- discussed that a cor)oration is se)arate and distinct 3rom its stoc4 holders and stated the test to determine the a))lica+ilit: o3 )iercing the veil o3 cor)orate 3iction would a))l: onl: a3ter satis3:ing this testI 1O -ontrolA not mere ma/orit: or com)lete stoc4 controlA +ut com)lete dominationA not onl: o3 3inances +ut o3 )olic: and +usiness )ractice in res)ect to the transaction attac4ed so that the cor)orate entit: as to this transaction had at the time no se)arate mindA will or e%istence o3 its ownN L2O 'uch control must have +een used +: the de3endant to commit 3raud or wrongA to )er)etuate the violation o3 a statutor: or other )ositive legal dut:A or dishonest and un/ust act in contravention o3 )lainti33s legal rightN and L3O The a3oresaid control and +reach o3 dut: must )ro%imatel: cause the in/ur: or un/ust loss com)lained o3@ The a+sence o3 an: o3 these elements )revent H)iercing the cor)orate veil@ 4ence6 mere o7nership by a sin/le s ockhol5er or by ano her corpora ion o2 all or nearly all o2 he capi al s ock o2 a corpora ion is no o2 i sel2 a s%22icien reason 2or 5isre/ar5in/ he 2ic ion o2 separa e corpora e personali ies. ThusA he proba e co%r ha5 no a% hori y o 5eman5 he pro5%c ion o2 bank acco%n s %n5er he name o2 respon5en corpora ions.

+E PAGC)R 1. CA Joel ,onto:a was a Ta+le 'u)ervisor at -asino 2ili)ino who was terminated 3or loss o3 con3idence@ ,onto:a 3iled with the $T- a com)laint 3or damages and attorne:Ps 3ees against P*1-8$ 3or den:ing him due )rocess@ P*1-8$ claims that la+or claims 3all under the /urisdiction o3 the La+or *r+iter and the NL$- and not o3 the $T-@ ,onto:a Insisted that P*1-8$ is a 18-- created +: PD 1#6& thus not covered +: the La+or -ode@ The T- denied the motion and held that P*1-8$ +eing a 18-- +elonged to the -ivil 'ervice -ommission +ut nevertheless held that the C+road and encom)assingJ /urisdiction o3 the $T- under !P 12& gives it the authorit: to rule on the matter@ 8n a))ealA the decision was a33irmed on the ground that the cause o3 action was not grounded on the dismissal )er se +ut on the manner +: which ,onto:a was dismissed@ The 'ol1en 3iled with the '- this )etition 3or review claiming that P*1-8$ is )art o3 the -ivil 'ervice -ommission thus the ,erit ':stem Protection !oard and not the $T- has /urisdictionA hence ,onto:a did not e%haust admin remediesA and that the termination was not unlaw3ul@ Iss%e3 ?hether the -ivil 'ervice -ommission or the NL$- or the $T- has /urisdiction to tr: cases concerning the relations o3 the em)lo:ees with the management o3 P*1-8$ 4el53 The Ci1il Ser1ice Commission= P*1-8$ is a 18-- created under an original charter PD 1#6& hence it 3alls under the /urisdiction o3 the ,erit ':stem Protection !oard and the -ivil 'ervice -ommision )ursuant to the *dministrative -ode o3 1&# A to witI C'ection 16L2O o3 the said -ode vest in the ,erit ':stem Protection !oard the )ower inter alia toI LaO .ear and decide on a))eal administrative cases involving o33icials and em)lo:ees o3 the -ivil 'ervice@ Its decision shall +e 3inal e%ce)t those involving dismissal or se)aration 3rom the service which ma: +e a))ealed to the -ommission@J Li4e the La+or -odeA the 'ection 12L2O is not without e%ce)tions@ The '- has held in a num+er o3 cases that the la+or ar+iter e%ercise original and e%clusive /urisdiction over con3licts +etween em)lo:ees and their em)lo:ers +ut not when the La+or -ode is not involved@ It has +een held that the $T- has /urisdiction over such claims@ * similar e%ce)tion is a))lica+le to the -ivil 'ervice authorities@ There are also instances when the ,erit ':stem Protection !oard and the -ivil 'ervice -ommission have to :ield /urisdiction to the civil courts even i3 the con3lict involves civil servants@ &ollo7in/ he 5oc rine lai5 5o7n in he abo1eFmen ione5 cases6 7hich 7e here apply by analo/y6 he Ci1il Ser1ice a% hori ies 7ill ha1e "%ris5ic ion o1er a case in1ol1in/ ci1il ser1an s only i2 i can be re/ar5e5 as e9%i1alen o a labor 5isp% e resol%ble %n5er he Labor Co5e. -onversel:A the regular courts will have /urisdiction i3 the case can +e decided under the general lawsA as where the com)laint isA sa:A 3or the recover: o3 )rivate de+tsA as in MolaveN or 3or damages due to the slanderous remar4s o3 the em)lo:erA as in MedinaN or 3or

malicious )rosecution o3 the em)lo:eesA as in Pepsi Cola@ The mere 3act that the )arties are mem+ers o3 the -ivil 'ervice does not remove such controversies 3rom the general /urisdiction o3 the courts o3 /ustice and )lace them under the s)ecial /urisdiction o3 the !oard and the -ommission@ In the case at +ar howeverA ,onto:a was dismissed )ursuant to PD 1#6& which states that em)lo:ees o3 P*1-8$ hold con3idential )ositions@ ,onto:a is not assailing the validit: o3 that law@ The act he is 9uestioning is what he calles the ar+itrar: manner o3 his dismissal thereunder that he avers entitles him to damages under the -ivil -ode@ The )rivate res)ondentGs services as a con3idential a))ointee were terminated not +: virtue o3 a dismissal or removalA which im)orts the se)aration o3 the incum+ent +e3ore the e%)iration o3 his term@ ,onto:a did not have a 3i%ed term o3 o33ice@ .is tenure was de)endent on his retention o3 the con3idence o3 his su)eriors@ That con3idence was lost +ecause o3 the disclosure o3 his involvement in the *ngeles -it: casino scandal o3 1&#4@ .e was se)arated +ecause his term had e%)ired as a result o3 the loss o3 con3idence in him@ ?hether such loss o3 con3idence had reall: +een esta+lished is a matter le3t to the -ivil 'ervice *uthorities@ The court cannot ma4e an inde)endent 3inding that the )rivate res)ondent is entitled to damages unless it is 3irst ascertained that he was ar+itraril: se)arated@ .enceA the T- erred in den:ing the motion to dismiss and the -* also erred in sustaining it 3or the /urisdiction must +e with the ,erit ':stem Protection !oardA su+/ect to a))eal to the -ivil 'ervice -ommissionA and to the review o3 the '-@

+A Dil7e/ 1. Philips Lavern Dilweg a non>resident *merican citi"en 3iled through counsel a com)laint against $o+ert 8@ Phili)sA Inocentes 1@ DinerosA and Isaac '@ 5sceta claiming civil damages arising out o3 alleged li+ellous and de3amator: statements uttered and )u+lished in the Phili))ines +: the latter@ Phili)s and Dineros 3iled a motion to dismiss which was denied@ *3ter 3iling their /oint answer with counter claim against Dilweg@ Dilweg answeredA the /oint counter>claim@ ,eanwhile 5sceta ado)ted in toto the /oint answer o3 Phili)s and Dineros to which 5sceta answered@ *n ,$ was 3iled on the order den:ing the motion to dismiss 3iled +: Phili)s and Dineros@ The T- ruled in 3avour o3 the de3endants holding that Dilweg had never +een in the Phili))ines and that the action was +ased on a tort or actA which under the laws o3 the Phili))ines are criminal in nature@ *nd at th the time the li+ellous statements were utteredA Dilweg was in ?ashingtonA D@-@ where he was and has alwa:s +een a resident@ *ccording to the T- in a criminal case the court ac9uires /urisdiction u)on 3iling the com)laintA and since Dilweg had never +een in the Phili))inesA the court has not ac9uired /urisdiction@ The T- cited several *merican Juris)rudence which re3ers to the lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the su+/ect matterA +ut not over the )erson@ Iss%e3 ?hether the T- has /urisdiction to hear the com)laint 3iled +: a non>resident 3oreigner 3or damages arising out o3 li+ellous material@ 4el53 <ES= -iting an *merican Juris)rudence which was similar to the case at +arA wherein an 5nglish su+/ect who was a non>resident who was allowed to sue@ $easoning that a )ersonal actionA sounding in tortA it was transitor: in its natureA 3ollowing the )erson o3 the de3endant@ It was held that the 6' courts were o)en to the )lainti33 3or redress o3 an: )ersonal in/ur: su33ered +: reason o3 an: )ersonal in/ur:@ It is thus evident thatA contrar: to the conclusion reached +: the court +elowA i is no in5ispensable 2or a 2orei/ner o es ablish a resi5ence6 nor nee5 he be physically presen in a s a e o2 7hich he is no a resi5en or ci i$en in or5er ha he may ini ia e or main ain a personal ac ion a/ains a resi5en or ci i$en o2 ha o her s a e 2or ri/h s o2 ac ion arisin/ in6 or 2or 1iola ions o2 la7s commi e5 7i hin6 he erri orial "%ris5ic ion o2 ha o her s a e. In his "%ris5ic ion6 no /eneral la7 has come o o%r kno7le5/e or no ice 7hich res ric s he ri/h o2 nonresi5en aliens o s%e in o%r co%r s @ It is not dis)uted that )lainti33Gs causes o3 action arose inA and that the de3endants are withinA our territorial /urisdiction@ It is conceded +: +oth )arties that the law under which the instant case 3alls is silent on the matter o3 the right o3 an alien to sue in our courts@ 8n the other hand the )articular law evidentl: availed o3 +: the )lainti33 in 3iling his com)laint is *rticle 33 o3 the -ivil -ode o3 the Phili))inesA which )rovidesI HIn cases o3 de3amationA 3raudA and )h:sical in/uriesA a civil action 3or damages entirel: se)arate and distinct 3rom the criminal action ma: +e +rought +: the in/ured )art:@ 'uch civil action shall )roceed inde)endentl: o3 the criminal )rosecution and shall re9uire onl: )re)onderance o3 evidence@H

The a+ove>9uoted )rovision o3 law does not ma4e an: distinction as to whether the Hin/ured )art:AH who ma: maintain an action 3or damages +ased on de3amationA is a 2ili)ino citi"en or resident or an alien@ The *merican decisions cited in the order o3 11 ,a: 1&61 are not a))lica+le to the case at +ar +ecause there the de3endants invo4ed the issue o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction over their own )ersons and not against the )erson o3 the )lainti33@ The 2ac ha here are co%n erclaims a/ains he nonresi5en plain i22 5oes no al er he case. The R%les o2 Co%r pro1i5e 2or reme5ies a/ains nonresi5en 5e2en5an s.

+. Polo anFT%1era 1. Dayri 1o Tiong was hired +: 8riental ,ediaAInc@ as a translator in its 5ditorial De)artment@ .is wor4 was to translate local new 3rom 5nglish to -hinese@ 8n 26 8cto+er 1& he was given a termination letter signed+: <erima Polotan>TuveraA the )u+lisher and editor o3 8riental ,ediaA Inc@ 1o Tiong 3iled a com)laint 3or illegal dismissalA violation o3 PD 1123A )remium )a: 3or holida:s and rest da:sA hoida: )a:A violation o3 PD #51A and other mone: claims with the ,inistr: o3 La+or and was re3erred to mandator: ar+itration with the La+or *r+iter@ ?hile the la+or case was )endingA 1o Tiong 3iled with the -2I a com)laint 3or damages as4ing 3or moral damagesA e%em)lar: damagesA attorne:Ps 3ees and cost o3 suit@ $es)ondents 8riental and Tuvera 3iled as an a33irmative de3ense the lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 the -2I +eing a suit arising out o3 em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi)@ 8riental and Tuvera thus 3iled a motion to dismiss the civil case +ased on the )endenc: o3 the la+or case@ The -2I denied the motion holding that the action is )urel: 3or indemnication o3 damages@ .enceA 8rienal and Tuvera 3iled a )etition 3or review with the '-@ The '- issued a restraining order while the case is )ending@ Iss%e3 aO ?hether or not the regular courts have /urisdiction to entertain claims 3or moral and other damages +: a dismissed em)lo:ee against his 3ormer em)lo:er@ +O ?hether PD 1&61 should +e given retroactive e33ect@ 4el53 a0 N)=6 I is he Labor Arbi er ha has "%ris5ic ion. ?hile the case was 3iled the a))lica+le law was PD 136 @ During the )endenc: o3 the caseA PD 16&1 was )romulgated on ,a: 1A 1&#( which amended PD 136 and granted the la+or ar+iter e%clusive /urisdiction to hear and decide the cases 3alling under *rt@ 21 o3 the said *rticle which )rovidesI H*$T@ 21 @ Jurisdiction o3 La+or *r+iter and the -ommission@ Q LaO The La+or *r+iters shall have the original and e%clusive /urisdiction to hear and decide the 3ollowing cases involving an wor4ers whether agricultural or non> agriculturalI H1@ 6n3air la+or )ractice casesN

H2@ 6nresolved issues in collective +argainingA including those that involve wagesA hours o3 wor4 and other terms and conditions o3 em)lo:mentN H3@ *ll mone: claims o3 wor4ersA including those +ased on non>)a:ment or under)a:ment o3 wagesA overtime com)ensationA se)aration )a: and other +ene3its )rovided +: law or a))ro)riate agreementA e%ce)t claims 3or em)lo:ees com)ensationA social securit:A medicare and maternit: +ene3itsN H4@ -ases involving household servicesN and

H5@ *ll other claims arising 3rom em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationsA unless e%)ressl: e%cluded +: this -ode@ HL+O The -ommission shall have e%clusive a))ellate>/urisdiction over all cases decided +: La+or *r+itersA com)ulsor: ar+itratorsA and voluntar: ar+itrators in a))ro)riate cases )rovided in *rticle 263 o3 this -ode@H b0 <ES= 2ollowing a long line o3 decisions cited +: the '-A PD 1&61 was given retroactive e33ect +eing a curative statute which settles once and 3or all the con3lict o3 /urisdiction +etween the regular courts and la+or agencies@ The /uris)rudence cited +: the '- also states that the issuance o3 PD 16&1 and the enactment o3 !P 13( merel: made it clear that the e%clusive /urisdiction 3or damages would once more +e lodged with the la+or ar+iters@ The )resent La+or -ode 3or the interest o3 a s)eed: dis)osition o3 la+or matters and in order to s)are the court the onerous tas4 o3 determining what essentiall: is a 3actual matterA namel: the damages that ma: +e incurred +: either la+or or management as a result o3 dis)utes or controversies arising out o3 em)lo:er> em)lo:ee relationshi)s@ .enceA the action 3iled with the -2I which clearl: 3alls under the /urisdiction o3 the La+or *r+iter should +e dismissed@

+C Ro8as 1. Co%r o2 Appeals *m)aro $o%as and ,anoto4 $ealt:A Inc@ entered into a -ontract to 'ell covering a )ro)ert: located at ,anoto4>$amos 'u+division IDA ,ari4ina -it:@ ,anoto4 $ealt: notariall: rescinded the contract on the ground that $o%as 3ailed to )a: the monthl: )a:ments@ Des)ite recei)t o3 the notice o3 cancellationA $o%as continued to sta: in the a3oresaid )ro)ert:@ ,anoto4 later on served a notice o3 recission and the demand to vacate the )ro)ert:@ $o%as continued in )ossession without )a:ment o3 rent@ 2inal demand was made to vacate the )remises within 3 months@ *3ter the la)se o3 the 3 months )eriodA $o%as re3used to vacate the )remises@ * case o3 unlaw3ul detainer was there3ore 3iled +: ,anoto4 $ealt: +e3ore the ,eT- o3 ,ar4i4ina@ *s a33irmative de3enseA $o%as claims to have com)loied with her o+ligation and to have not received an: demand and that ,anoto4 was dealing in +ad 3aith hence there is no cause o3 action@ The ,eT- dismissed the com)laint on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction citing that the action is a case o3 e/ectment through accion )u+liciana which is under the /urisdiction o3 the $T- since the cause o3 action was mere tolerance@ The $T- on a))eal held that the ,eThas /urisdiction to hear and decide the case +ecause the com)laint was 3or unlaw3ul detainer as clearl: alleged in the case and not o3 accion )u+liciana +ecause the )ossession was mere tolerance o3 the owner@ 8n a))eal to the -*A it was held that the +asis o3 the $T-Ps /udgment was mis)laced +ecause the case cited Lre3erring to toleranceO re3ers to a 3actual situation wherein there was no contractA e%)ress or im)liedA at the start@ IssueI aO ?hether $o%as could still raise the issue o3 /urisdiction on a))eal@ Lshe now claims that the /urisdiction lies with the .L6$!O +O ?hether this case 3alls within the /urisdiction o3 the .L6$!@ 4el53 aO C?T@he /eneral r%le is ha a 9%es ion o2 "%ris5ic ion may be raise5 a any ime6 e1en on appeal6 pro1i5e5 ha 5oin/ so 5oes no res%l in a mockery o2 he ene s o2 2air play. When6 ho7e1er6 a par y a5op s a par ic%lar heory6 an5 he case is rie5 an5 5eci5e5 %pon ha heory in he co%r belo76 he 7ill no be permi e5 o chan/e his heory on appeal. ?here the case was tried +: the lower court and the )arties on a certain theor:A it will +e reviewed and decided on that theor:A inso3ar as the )leadingsA li+erall: construedA )ermitA and not +e a))roached 3rom a di33erent )oint o3 view@J $o%as is there3ore +ound +: the theor: she raised +e3ore the $T- and the -* that the action was +ased on accion )u+liciana 3ollowing the ruling o3 the ,eT-@ .enceA the court cannot allow $o%as to 3li)>3lo) on her )ostures o3 attac4ing /urisdiction@

+O ?ith regard to the Jurisdiction o3 the .L6$!A 'ec@ 1 o3 PD 1344 statesA to witI

'ec@ 1@ In the e%ercise o3 its 3unction to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness and in addition to its )owers )rovided 3or in Presidential Decree No@ &5 A the National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e%clusive /urisdiction to hear and decide the cases o3 the 3ollowing natureI a@ 6nsound real estate +usiness )racticesN +@ -laims involving re3und and an: other claims 3iled +: su+division lot or condominium unit +u:er against the )ro/ect ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesmanN and c@ -ases involving s)eci3ic )er3ormance o3 contractual and statutor: o+ligations 3iled +: +u:ers o3 su+division lot or condominium unit against the ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesman@ It is the view o3 the '- that the mere relationshi) +etween the )arties i@e@ +eing su+division ownerBdevelo)er and su+division lot +u:erA does not automaticall: vest /urisdiction with the .L6$!@ 2or an action to 3all under the /urisdiction o3 the .L6$! the decisive element is the nature o3 the action as enumerated a+ove@ .enceA the attem)t o3 $o%as to +ring the case within the .L6$!Ps /urisdictionA +: +elatedl: asserting the matter involved is the determination as to whether or not the terms and conditions o3 the contract to sell +etween the )arties have +een violatedA would contravene settled /ural )rinci)les@ &irs 6 he "%ris5ic ion o2 a co%r o1er he s%b"ec ma er is 5e ermine5 by he alle/a ions o2 he complain an5 canno be ma5e o 5epen5 %pon he 5e2enses se %p in he ans7er or plea5in/s 2ile5 by he 5e2en5an . 'ince there is no dis)ute that the allegations o3 the com)laint 3iled +elow +: ,anoto4 $ealt:A Inc@A su33icientl: descri+e unlaw3ul detainerA the ,eT- o3 ,ari4ina )ro)erl: ac9uired /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter thereo3@ Secon56 he ca%se o2 ac ion 2or %nla72%l 5e ainer be 7een he presen par ies sprin/s 2rom he 2ail%re o2 pe i ioner o 1aca e he premises %pon la72%l 5eman5 o2 he o7ner6 he pri1a e respon5en . 2or )etitionerPs )ossession o3 the land in 9uestion is allegedl: +: mere tolerance or )ermission@ 8ur ruling in Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of Appeals is demonstra+l: a))lica+leI A person 7ho occ%pies he lan5 o2 ano her a he la erGs olerance or permission6 7i ho% any con rac be 7een hem6 is necessarily bo%n5 by an implie5 promise ha he 7ill 1aca e %pon 5eman56 2ailin/ 7hich6 a s%mmary ac ion 2or e"ec men is he proper reme5y a/ains him.

+- San5o1al 1. CaHeba Nestor 'andoval was declared in de3ault +: the trial court 3or a com)laint 3iled +: 5state Develo)ers ; Investors -or)oration or un)aid rentals )ertaining to a su+division lot@ The Tdirected the issuance o3 a writ o3 e%ecution to en3orce its decision that had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor@ 'andoval however 3iled a motion to vacate /udgment and dismiss the com)laint on the ground that the lower court has no /urisdiction to rule on the matter since it 3alls within the /urisdiction o3 the .L6$!@ The T- denied the motion to vacate and issued another writ o3 e%ecution@ .ence 'andoval went to the '-@ Iss%e3 ?hether the trial court has /urisdiction to issues )ertaining to the claims o3 un)aid rentals +: a develo)er o3 a su+division@ 4el53 N)= 6nder 'ection 1 o3 Presidential Decree No@ &5 the National .ousing *uthorit: LN.*O was given the e%clusive /urisdiction to hear and decide certain cases as 3ollowsI H'5-TI8N 1@In the e%ercise o3 its 3unction to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness and in addition to its )owers )rovided 3or in Presidential Decree No@ &5 A the National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e%clusive /urisdiction to hear and decide cases o3 the 3ollowing natureI *@ 6nsound real estate +usiness )racticesI

!@ -laims involving re3und and an: other claims 3iled +: su+division lot or condominium unit +u:er against the )ro/ect ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesmanN and -@ -ases involving s)eci3ic )er3ormance o3 contractual and statutor: o+ligations 3iled +: +u:ers o3 su+division lot or condominium unit against the ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesman@ L5m)hasis su))lied@OH The lan/%a/e o2 his sec ion6 par ic%larly6 he secon5 por ion hereo26 lea1es no room 2or 5o%b ha e8cl%si1e "%ris5ic ion o1er he case be 7een he pe i ioner an5 pri1a e respon5en is 1es e5 no on he RTC b% on he N4A. The N4A 7as reFname5 4%man Se lemen s Re/%la ory Commission an5 herea2 er i 7as reFname5 as he 4o%sin/ an5 Lan5 (se Re/%la ory !oar5 *4L(R!0. -onsidering that he rial co%r has no "%ris5ic ion %n5er he circ%ms ances ob ainin/ in his case6 he 5ecision i ren5ere5 is n%ll an5 1oi5 ab ini io. I is as i2 no 5ecision 7as ren5ere5 by he rial co%r a all. ?hen as in this case the attention o3 the trial court is drawn to its lac4 o3 com)etence and authorit: to act on the caseA certainl: the trial court has a dut: to vacate the /udgment +: declaring the same to +e null and void a+ initio@

This is as it should +e@ Inasmuch as the 9uestioned /udgment is null and voidA it isA as a+ove o+servedA as i3 no decision had +een rendered +: the trial court@ It cannot +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A much less can it +e en3orced +: a writ o3 e%ecution@

+B L%na6 e . Al 1. Mons. Pe5ro San os 2r@ ,artin *lca"ar was the original owner o3 2 )arcels o3 land one in !ariisA Pilar 'orsogon and the other at !ura+onA LoretoA -astilla o3 the same Province@ In a deed o3 sale 2r@ *lca"ar sold the )arcels o3 land with a house o3 strong materials erected on the Land o3 2ran4 .oel"l at PutiaoA PilarA 'orsogon to the $oman -atholic !isho) o3 Nueva -aceres in consideration o3 the sum o3 P12A(((@ It was s)eci3icall: stated in the deed o3 sale that the lands were still )ending registration under the Torrens ':stem@ *n 8-T was issued in the name o3 2r@ ,artin '@ *lca"arA no record o3 the sale was indicated@ 6)on the death o3 2r@ *lca"arA the deed o3 sale was )resented to the $egistr: o3 Deeds o3 'orsogon together with an instrument e%ecuted +: ,sgr@ Pedro P@ 'antos ceding all the )ro)ert: rights and interest that he had as the $oman -atholic *rch+isho) o3 Nueva -aceres over )ro)erties su+/ect o3 the sale in 3avor o3 the $oman -atholic !isho) o3 Legas)iA with ,ons@ 2laviano !@ *riola as incum+ent@ * T-T was there3ore issued n the name o3 ,ons@ 2laviano !@ *riola@ The -once)cion LunaA et@ *l who were alleged ne)hews and nieces o3 2r@ ,artin *lca"ar 3iled a )etition with the -2I o3 'orsogon Doc4eted as Special Ac ion No. -CB contending that the cancellation o3 the 8-T was illegal +ecause the alleged right o3 ,sgr@ 'antos wa a+andoned u)on the issuance o3 the new title without the deed o3 sale +eing annotated@ ,sgr@ 'antos in his re)l: stated that the: did not intervene with the on3oing registration to e%)edite the registration and that the )etition 3iled +: the alleged nieces and ne)hews were maliciousl: 3iledA claiming moral damages@ ,sgr@ *viola in a se)arate answer claims moral damages since the ne)hews and nieces had no ca)acit: to sue not +eing the /udiciall: a))ointed administrator hence the )etition should +e dismissed@ The court rendered /udgment in 3avour o3 the ,sgr@ 'antos and u)held the validit: o3 the sale and the cancellation o3 the 8-T and issuance o3 a new T-T in 3avour o3 ,sgr@ *viola was valid@ .ence the a))eal o3 the ne)hews and nieces@ Iss%e3 ?hether the lower court had /urisdiction to )ass u)on the validit: o3 the deed o3 sale@ 4el53 <ES= 6nder 'ection 112 o3 the Land $egistration *ctA all )etitions and motions 3iled under the )rovisions o3 the *ct a3ter the original registration shall +e 3iled and entitled in the original case in which the decree o3 registration was entered@ In the )resent caseA contrar: to a))ellantGs assertion that the )etition 3or the cancellation o3 the certi3icates o3 title in 9uestion was 3iled with the -ourt o3 2irst Instance as a land registration courtA he sai5 pe i ion men ions he na %re o2 he procee5in/ an5 carries he 5ocke F n%mber as Special Ac ion No. -CB an5 no o2 he ori/inal lan5 re/is ra ion procee5in/s. In he absence o2 e1i5ence o he con rary6 sai5 5ocke n%mber /i1en in he case by he Clerk Co%r m%s be consi5ere5 as a concl%si1e proo2 ha sai5 n%mber correspon5s o he ac ion ins i % e5 by appellan s an5 no o her6 he in en ion o2 he par ies o he con rary no 7i hs an5in/. !% e1en i2 sai5 9%es ion ha5 o be resol1e5 b he lo7er co%r as a Lan5 Re/is ra ion Co%r 6 %n5er he principle lai5 5o7n in he case o2 Go1ernmen o2 he P.I. 1s. Sera2ica6 an5 rei era e5 in he case o2 Caoibes 1s. Sison6 sai5 co%r co%l56 a leas 2or he sake o2 e8pe5iency6 en er ain an5 5ispose o2 he 1ali5i y or in1ali5i y o2 he 5ee5 o2 sale a22ec in/ he cer i2ica es o2 i le in 9%es ion. C,oreoverA s%bse9%en ac s o2 appellan s an5 heir heory 5%rin/ he rial like7ise belie heir con en ion an5 s ren/ hen o%r belie2 ha he case 7as ac %ally ins i % e5 as an in5epen5en ci1il ac ion. In the )roceedings had in the lower -ourtA a))ellants vigorousl: asserted that the sale was void 3or +eing without considerationA stressing and hammering the )oint that it was merel: a simulated sale designed to camou3lage the true intent o3 the decedentA i@e@A to donate said )ro)erties to the $edem)torist 2athers in order to ena+le and 3inance the

esta+lishment o3 a mission in the diocese o3 Nueva -aceres under the management o3 said religious organi"ation@ ?ith the records o3 the caseA it is indeed clear to 6s that a))ellants sought the intervention o3 the -ourt in the e%ercise o3 its general /urisdictionA )ro+a+l: having in mind the 3act that as the: were im)ugning the intrinsic validit: o3 the deed o3 sale such matter had to +e threshed out in an ordinar: civil actionA which )rocedure is also )ro)erA 3ollowing our ruling in the case o3 1arcia vs@ !el"unceA 4a1in/ arri1e5 a s%ch concl%sion6 here can be no 9%es ion ha he Co%r o2 &irs Ins ance o2 Sorso/on6 as a co%r o2 /eneral "%ris5ic ion6 ha5 a% hori y o pass %pon he 1ali5i y o2 he ins r%men in con ro1ersy an5 We 2in5 no reason o re1erse he lo7er co%r Is r%lin/ ha he ac o2 he Re/is er o2 Dee5s in cancellin/ ).C.T. No. )JD; an5 iss%in/ T.C.T. Nos. .A. an5 .AC is proper@J

+,K Sps. Abalos 1. CA ')ouses *+alos 3iled +e3ore the $T- o3 Linga:enA Pangasinan an a))lication 3or registration o3 title over a lot and R o3 another lot situated in !aa:A Linga:en@ The remaining S o3 the other lot +elongs to $oman $osario@ The $T- sitting as a land registration court issued an order o3 general de3ault against the whole world@ 'oriano on the other hand claims that the two lots in 9uestion have not :et +een )artitioned and that 1B o3 the com+ined lots +elong to him@ In the course o3 the hearing it was esta+lished that the two lots were originall: owned +: *driano 'oriano who was in continousA o)en and adverse )ossession o3 the lots until the da: he died@ Therea3ter an e%tra/udicial )artition was made wherein the )ro)erties in 9uestion where inherited +: the o3 & children o3 *driano@ It also turned out that the )ro)erties were divided amongst the children and a3ter which the s)ouses *+alos was a+le to )urchase the entire one lot and R )ro indiviso o3 the other lot to which the remainin S +elongs to $omano 'oriano@ !ased on this 3indings the court con3irmed the title o3 the a))licants 3or the 3irst lot and over the R )ro>indiviso )ortion o3 the other lot@ There3oreA ad/udicating it to the ')s@ *+alos@ Li4ewise title to the S )ro>indiviso )ortion was titled to $oman 'oriano married to !eatri" -astro@ The a))leate court a33irmed the decision o3 the T-@ .olding that as a 1eneral $ule is that a land registration court has no )ower to decide matters which are )ro)erl: litiga+le in ordinar: civil actions@ .oweverA +eing the general ruleA there are e%ce)tions such as when the )arties have ac9uiesced in su+mitting said matters 3or determination in the land registration )roceedings and the )arties are a33orded 3ull o))ortunit: to )resent their res)ective sides and evidence@ * land registration court ma: not +e denied the necessar: )owers to e%ercise such /urisdiction which shall ma4e it e33ective and this includes the )ower to determine the validit: or deeds o3 conve:ances@ .enceA where the issue o3 the genuineness o3 a document )resented to the land registration court is in 9uestionA the land registration court should not hesistate to determine the con3licting claims o3 the )artiesN otherwiseA that would )racticall: reduce said court to im)otence to determine 9uestions o3 3actsA since claims on such a dis)uted land more o3ten than not are +ased on documents o3 titleA and it is onl: natural that the issue o3 genuineness would +e raised against the said document@ * da: a3ter the decisionA $olando 'oriano together with 5lcocadio and Li+rada one o3 the co> owners who sold their share to s)s@ *+alos 3iled a com)laint against the s)ouses 3or annulment or redem)tionA ownershi) and damages +e3ore the $T- o3 Pangasinan@ ')s@ *+alos 3iled a motion to dimiss on the grounds o3 res /udicataA )endenc: o3 another actionA lac4 o3 cause o3 actionA lachesA mis/oinder o3 )arties and lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ T- deniedT 6)on death o3 $olando his heirs su+stituted@ T- issued a resolution granting a motion to dismiss the amended com)laint altering the cause o3 action@ The case went to a 3ull +lown trial allowing the )arties to su+mit evidence@ It turned out that $olando 'oriano even tried to sell his shares in the )ro)ert: +ut the ')s@ *+alos 3ound it to onerous@ The T- 3ound that the decision in the land registration court +eing a court o3 limited /urisdiction did not constitute res /udicata@ *33irmed +: -*@ Iss%e3 ?hether a land registration has the /urisdiction to rule on the issue o3 ownershi)@ 4el53 <ES= The land registration case would constitute res /udicata@ The decision +inds the whole world +eing a )roceeding in rem@ It is conclusive u)on the title o3 the land and is +inding u)on the whole world@

The -* was wrong in holding that the land registration courtA is without authorit: to determine con3licting claims o3 ownershi) over the land sought to +e registered@ True a land registration court e%ercises s)ecial and limited /urisdiction +ut this is without e%ce)tion@ 2rom an otherwise rigid rule outlining the /urisdiction o3 a land registration court +eing limited in characterA deviations have +een sanctioned under the 3ollowing circumstances where@ L1O the )arties agreed or have ac9uiesced in su+mitting the a3oresaid issues 3or determination +: the court in the registration L2O the )arties were accorded 3ull o))ortunit: in contested lots he registered in his name@ In the case at +arA the )arties su+mitted to the /urisdiction o3 the court when the: as4ed the land registration court to declare the deed o3 sale void@ 8n the issue o3 res /udicataA all the elements are )resentI L1O there must +e a 3inal /udgment or orderA L2O the court rendering the same must have /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter and over the )artiesA L3O it must +e a /udgment on the merits and L4O there must +e +etween the two casesA identit: o3 the )artiesA su+/ect matter and causes o3 action@ .enceA issues relating to the second action which are similar are alread: conclusive@ The 3act that 5lcocaido and Li+rada did not )artici)ate in the land registration was due to their 3ailure to o))ose the a))lication o3 the land registration case which is a )roceeding in rem@ A par y may be a liber y o 1ary his 2orm o2 ac ions by brin/in/ in ne7 iss%es or ar/%men sL b% "%s he same6 he canno escape he applica ion o2 he principle o2 res "%5ica a nor can a par y a1oi5 an es oppel o2 2ormer "%5/men by brin/in/ 2or7ar5 in secon5 ac ion ne7 or a55i ional /ro%n5s in s%ppor o2 his case in ar/%men s o s%s ain i 6 he 2ac s remainin/ he same6 a leas 7here s%ch a55i ional ma er co%l5 ha1e been plea5e5 in he prior ac ion.

+,, Men5o$a 1. Teh *delia ,endo"a 3or hersel3 and as administratri% o3 the intestate estate o3 her hus+and Nor+erto ,endo"a 3iled +e3ore the $T- o3 !atangas a com)laint 3or reconve:ance o3 title involving )arcels o3 land located in !atangas and damages with a )etition 3or )reliminar: in/unction and that she +e a))ointed as /udicial administratri% o3 her co>)lainti33 3or )ur)oses o3 the case@ ')s@ Ta:agA et@ *l 3iled a motion to dismiss alleging that the com)laint states no cause o3 actionA esto))elsA laches and )rescri)tion@ The: contend that a s)ecial )roceedings case 3or the a))ointment o3 adminstratri% cannot +e incor)orated in an ordinar: action 3or reconve:ance@ In her o))osition ,endo"a claims that the declaration o3 administratiri% is merel: incidental@ ')s@ Ta:ag et@ *l on the other hand o))osed and stated that the hus+and o3 *delia ,endo"a is a resident o3 Mue"on -it: and as such the a))ointment as administrati% should +e 3iled +e3ore the $T- o3 M-@ Judge Teh there3ore dismissed without )re/udice the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction on the ground that the rules governing an ordinar: civil action and a s)ecial )roceeding are di33erent@ Thus the a )etition 3or review was 3iled with the '- under rule 45@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not in an action 3or reconve:anceA an allegation see4ing a))ointment as administratri% o3 an estate would oust the $T- o3 its /urisdiction over the whole case@ 4el53 N)= 2irstA 'ection 1& o3 !@P@ 12& as amended +: $* 6&1 )rovidesI Jurisdiction in Civil Cases@ e%clusive original /urisdictionI > $egional Trial -ourts shall e%ercise

L1O In all civil actions in which the su+/ect o3 the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimationN L2O In all civil actions which involve the title toA or )ossession o3A real )ro)ert:A or an: interest thereinA where the assessed value o3 )ro)ert: involved e%ceeds Twent: thousand )esos LP2(A(((@((O@ @ @ %%% %%% %%% L4O In all matters o3 )ro+ateA +oth testate and intestat @ @ @ @ Li4ewiseA 'ection 33 o3 the same law )rovides thatI ,etro)olitan Trial -ourt shall e%erciseI L1O 5%clusive original /urisdiction over civil actions and )ro+ate )roceedingsA testate and intestate @ @ @ Lem)hasis oursO@ The abo1e la7 is clear. An ac ion 2or recon1eyance6 7hich in1ol1es i le o proper y 7or h millions o2 pesos6 s%ch as he lo s s%b"ec o2 his case6 is co/ni$able by he RTC. Like7ise 2allin/ 7i hin i s "%ris5ic ion are ac ions Mincapable o2 pec%niary es ima ion6M s%ch as he appoin men o2 an a5minis ra ri8 2or an es a e. 5ven the $ules on venue o3 estate )roceedings L'ection 1 o3 $ule 3O im)liedl: recogni"es the /urisdiction o3 the $T- over

)etitions 3or granting o3 letters o3 administration@ 8n the other handA proba e procee5in/s 2or he se lemen o2 es a e are 7i hin he ambi o2 ei her he RTC or MTC 5epen5in/ on he ne 7or h o2 he es a e. !y ar/%in/ ha he alle/a ion seekin/ s%ch appoin men as a5minis ra ri8 o%s e5 he RTC o2 i s "%ris5ic ion6 bo h p%blic an5 pri1a e respon5en s con2%se "%ris5ic ion 7i h 1en%e. 'ection 2 o3 $ule 4 as revised +: -ircular 13>&5 )rovides that actions involving title to )ro)ert: shall +e tried in the )rovince where the )ro)ert: is locatedA in this caseA !atangas@ The mere 3act that )etitionerGs deceased hus+and resides in Mue"on -it: at the time o3 his death a33ects onl: the venue +ut not the /urisdiction o3 the -ourt@ Secon56 he cases ci e5 by pri1a e respon5en s are no a poin as hey in1ol1e settlement of estate 7here he proba e co%r 7as aske5 o resol1e 9%es ions o2 o7nership o2 cer ain proper ies.In he presen s%i 6 no se lemen o2 es a e is in1ol1e56 b% merely an alle/a ion seekin/ appoin men as es a e a5minis ra ri8 7hich 5oes no necessarily in1ol1e se lemen o2 es a e ha 7o%l5 ha1e in1i e5 he e8ercise o2 he limi e5 "%ris5ic ion o2 a proba e co%r . The a+ove allegation is not even a /urisdictional 3act which must +e stated in an action 3or reconve:ance@ The -ourt there3oreA should have at leastA )roceeded with the reconve:ance suit rather than dismiss the entire case@ Thir56 "%rispr%5en ial r%lin/s ha a proba e co%r canno /enerally 5eci5e 9%es ions o2 o7nership or i le o proper y is no applicable in his case6 beca%se3 here is no se lemen o2 es a e in1ol1e5 an5 he RTC o2 !a an/as 7as no ac in/ as a proba e co%r . It should +e clari3ied that whether a )articular matter should +e resolved +: the $T- in the e%ercise o3 its general /urisdiction or its limited )ro+ate /urisdictionA is not a /urisdictional issue +ut a mere 9uestion o3 )rocedure@ ,oreoverA the instant action 3or reconve:ance does not even invo4e the limited /urisdiction o3 a )ro+ate court@ -onsidering that the $T- has /urisdictionA whether it +e on the reconve:ance suit or as to the a))ointment o3 an administratri%A it was im)ro)er 3or res)ondent /udge to dismiss the whole com)laint 3or alleged lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ 2inall:6 "%5/es sho%l5 no 5ismiss 7i h precipi a e has e6 complain s or pe i ions 2ile5 be2ore hem6 "%s so hey can comply 7i h heir a5minis ra i1e 5% y o 5ispose cases 7i hin BK 5ays a he e8pense o2 heir "%5icial responsibili y.

+,D SANT)S NS. CR(O &ACTS3 ')ouses Juliana *ndres and $oman 'antos o+tained ad/udication o3 ownershi) in their 3avor o3 two )arcels o3 land LLot 1 and Lot 6 o3 )lan Psu>&&546>*md@O located in NavotasA $i"al@ The $egister o3 Deeds o3 $i"al su+se9uentl: issued original -erti3icate o3 Title #(51 in the name o3 HJuliana *ndres married to $oman 'antos@H *3ter the death o3 the s)ousesA their heirsA herein )etitioners through a deed o3 e%tra>/udicial )artitionA divided the two )arcels into seven e9ual +ut )h:sicall: undivided )arts@ *ccordingl:A a Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title 165554 was issued in the names o3 the )etitioners@ 8n ,arch 4A 1&6 A The $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))inesA herein re3erred to as the res)ondent through the 'olicitor 1eneralA 3iled with the -ourt o3 2irst Instance o3 $i"al with .onora+le 2ernando *@ -ru"A res)ondent /udge )residing in the original action LLand $egistration -ase 11&(A 1@L@$@8@ $ecord 5(15#O a HPetition 3or the *mendment andBor -ancellation o3 Title and to Declare a Portion Thereo3 Null and 7oid and Petition 3or $eversion@H In this )etition the res)ondent )ursuant to the )rovisions o3 section 112 o3 *ct 4&6 alleged that Lot 6 ad/udicated in 3avor o3 the )etitionersG )redecessors is identical to Lot 1>D as )er the )lans on 3ile in the 833ice o3 the !ureau o3 Lands@ That the said Lot 6 has alwa:s +een )art o3 the seaA as in 3act the same is almost com)letel: su+merged and covered +: the waters o3 the ,anila !a: and is actuall: a 3oreshore which was 3ormed +: the gradual and natural de)osit o3 silt and sediment u)on the sea +ed o3 earth and there3ore a )ortion o3 the )u+lic domain which is not legall: susce)ti+le to )rivate a))ro)riation or ownershi) The )etitioners moved to dismiss the res)ondentGs )etitionA claiming that the latter should have 3iled its )etition and action 3or reversion as an ordinar: civil action with the ordinar: courts rather than as an incident in the original and registration case@ The res)ondent /udge issued an order den:ing the )etitionersG motion to dismiss as well at the )etitionersG su+se9uent motion 3or reconsideration@ .enceA the )resent )etition 3or certiorari Con en ion o2 he pe i ioner3 That the res)ondentPs )etition so as to e%clude there3rom Lot 6A involves a controversial issue +e:ond the com)etence o3 the court a uo sitting as a land registration court@ 'ection 112 invo4ed +: the res)ondent authori"es erasuresA alterations or amendments in a certi3icate o3 title onl: in the Ha+sence o3 serious controvers: +etween the )arties>in>interest as to the title o3 the )art: see4ing relie3 under said sectionH or in the a+sence o3 an adverse claim or serious o+/ection on the )art o3 an: )art:>in>interest@ The non>attendance o3 either o3 these conditions in the case at +ar removes the res)ondentGs )etition 3rom the sco)e o3 section 112A thus )recluding the res)ondent /udge 3rom ta4ing cogni"ance thereo3@ Con en ion o2 he respon5en I The )roceedings under section 112 su33ice to e33ect the cancellationA or at least the amendmentA o3 T-T 165554A which cancellation or amendment consists o3 the e%clusion o3 Lot 6 3rom the said certi3icateA on the ground that the said lot 3orms )art o3 the 3oreshore and there3ore is not susce)ti+le o3 registration as )rivate )ro)ert:@ ,oreoverA section 112 directs the 3iling and entitling o3 )etitions and motions under the said section and under the )rovisions o3 *ct 4&6 a3ter the original registration in the original case that e33ected the entr: o3 the decree o3 registration@

ISS(E3 ?hether or not the court a 9uo sitting as a land registration court has /urisdiction to hear and determine the res)ondentGs )etition to amend andBor to cancel the title issued in the name o3 the s)ouses Juliana *ndres and $oman 'antos andBor the title issued su+se9uent to them inso3ar as Lot No@ 6 is concerned 4ELD3 N8@ The issue raised re9uires a determination o3 whether Lot 6 constitutes land o3 )rivate ownershi) or 3orms )art o3 the lands o3 1overnment ownershi) not availa+le 3or alienation and dis)osition@ This constitutes an issue a33ecting and concerning the ownershi) o3 Lot 6A which is a )atentl: su+stantial and genuine issue that must +e ventilated in an ordinar: action +e3ore a court o3 general /urisdiction@ The )roceedings s)elled out +: *ct 4&6 are summar: in character and are there3ore inade9uate 3or the litigation o3 issues )ro)erl: a))ertaining to the ordinar: courts acting under their ordinar: civil /urisdiction@ ,oreoverA the )etitionersG vigorous o+/ection to the cancellation or amendment o3 T-T 165554 ma4es mani3est the lac4 o3 unanimit: among the )arties>in>interest@ IndeedA section 112 a33ords relie3 onl: when there is unanimit: among the )arties or when there is no adverse claim or serious o+/ection on the )art o3 an: )art:>in>interest@ The e%)licit serious o))osition o3 the )etitioners to the cancellation or amendment o3 T-T 165554 renders the case trul: controversial and the remed: )rovided 3or +: section 112 ine33icacious *--8$DIN1L0A the orders o3 the court a in/unction issued +: this -ourt uo are set asideA and the writ o3 )reliminar:

Sa/mi 1s. Sib%lo &ac sI Isa+elo *sa:tuno was the owner o3 't@ 1regor: $e)air 'ho)@ Three o3 his em)lo:ees 3iled a com)laint 3or un)aid wages against him with the ,inistr: o3 La+or@ .oweverA the )arties arrived at an amica+le settlement and it was agreed u)on that *sa:tuno shall )a: his o+ligation +: installment@ .oweverA a3ter )a:ing one installmentA *sa:tuno re3used to ma4e an: 3urther )a:ment@ *s a conse9uenceA the three em)lo:ees 3iled a com)laint with the same $egional 833ice o3 the ,inistr: 3or the )a:ment o3 the +alance due them@ !ecause o3 thisA Director 5ugenio 'agmit Lo3 the ,8L5O issued an order directing *sa:tuno to )a: the amount due to his three em)lo:ees@ Instead o3 )a:ing the +alanceA *sa:tuno 3iled a )etition with the Legas)i $T- under Judge 'i+ulo see4ing )rohi+ition o3 the en3orcement o3 the order claiming that 'agmit did not have /urisdiction to issue his order +ecause !atas Pam+ansa !ilang 13( and PD 16&1 divested him o3 his 9uasi>/udicial 3unctions@ 'agmit moved 3or the dismissal o3 )etition 3or )rohi+ition +ut 'i+ulo denied this on the ground L1O that the issues raised in the )etition can 3or a legal inter)retation and declaration o3 the rights o3 the )arties under e%isting laws and which )ower is )resentl: lodged on the courts o3 /usticeN and L2O that the reason raised in said motion is not indu+ita+le and cogent@ 'oon a3terA 'i+ulo issued a writ o3 Preliminar: In/unction against 'agmit@ Iss%e3 ?BN /udge 'I+ulo has /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance o3 a case involving an action to )rohi+it Director 'agmit 3rom en3orcing his order re9uiring Isa+elo *sa:tuno to settle the un)aid wages o3 three o3 his em)lo:ees@ 4el53 'i+ulo has no /urisdiction over the )etition 3iled +: 'agmit to en/oin the later 3rom en3orcing his order *ll mone: claims o3 wor4ers and all other claims arising 3rom em)lo:er> em)lo:ee relations including moral and e%em)lar: damages are within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the La+or *r+iter and the National La+or $elations -ommission@ Presidential Decree No@ 16&1 which was enacted on ,a: 1A 1&#( restored to the La+or *r+iter and the National La+or $elations -ommission LNL$-O e%clusive /urisdiction over all mone: claims and an other claims arising 3rom em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationsA including moral and e%em)lar: damages@ It is clear that an 'i+uloA an $T- /udgeA has no /urisdiction over the )etition 3iled +: *sa:tuno to en/oin 'i+ulo 3rom en3orcing his order@

San Mi/%el 1s. E c%ban &ac s3 'an ,iguel -or)oration L',-O in3ormed its ,andaue -it: !rewer: em)lo:ees that it was su33ering 3rom heav: losses and 3inancial distress which could eventuall: lead to its total closure@ !ecause o3 thisA ',- o33ered its C$etrenchment to Prevent Loss ProgramJ to its em)lo:ees@ 5tcu+an and other em)lo:ees o3 ',- since the 1&6(sA availed o3 the retrenchment )rogram@ The: were given their termination letters and se)aration )a:@ In returnA res)ondents e%ecuted Crecei)t and releaseJ documents in 3avor o3 ',-@ 'ometime in ,a: o3 1&#6A 5tcu+an got hold o3 an ',- )u+lication allegedl: revealing that ',- was never in 3inancial distress during the time when the: were +eing retrenched +ut wasA in 3actA en/o:ing a growth in sales@ $es)ondents also learned thatA during their retrenchmentA ',- was engaged in hiring new em)lo:ees@ ThusA res)ondents concluded that ',-Ps 3inancial distress stor: and retrenchment )rogram were merel: schemes to rid itsel3 o3 regular em)lo:ees andA thusA avoid the )a:ment o3 their actual +ene3its@ The em)lo:ees 3iled a com)laint +e3ore the $egional *r+itration !ranch No@ 7II o3 the National La+or $elations -ommission 3or the declaration o3 nullit: o3 the retrenchment )rogram@ The La+or *r+iter dismissed the com)laint on the ground o3 )rescri)tion since the com)laint was 3iled more that 3 :ears 3rom the time the cause o3 action accrued@ 'ome time laterA the em)lo:ees 3iled another com)laint with the $T- o3 -e+u and sought the nulli3ication o3 their contract o3 termination@ The: asserted that since the cause o3 their Ccontract o3 terminationJ was non>e%istentA i.e@A the claim o3 ',- that it was under 3inancial distressA the said contract is null and void@ Instead o3 3iling an answerA ',- 3iled a motion to dismiss on the +ases o3 lac4 o3 /urisdictionA res !udicata" )a:mentA )rescri)tion and 3ailure to state a cause o3 action@ The $T- granted ',-Ps motion to dismiss on the grounds o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction and )rescri)tion@ The -* reversed this and remanded the case to the $T- stating that the allegations o3 the com)laint reveals that )lainti33sP cause o3 action is not actuall: +ased on an em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi) +etween the )lainti33s and the de3endants@ It )rimaril: involves a civil dis)ute arising 3rom the claim o3 )lainti33s that the cause 3or the contract o3 termination o3 their services is ine%istent rendering said contract as null an void 3rom the +eginning@ .enceA the 9uestion is whether or not the contract o3 termination o3 services entered into +: )lainti33s with de3endants is void 3rom the +eginning due to ine%istent cause o3 action under *rticle 14(& o3 the -ivil -odeA ma4ing the case within the /urisdiction o3 the civil courts@ Iss%e3 ?hether it is the NL$- and not the $T- which has /urisdiction over the case 4el53 It is the NL$- and not the $T- that has /urisdiction here@ The '- stated the C reasonable ca%sal connec ion r%le@J 6nder this ruleA i3 there is a reasona+le causal connection +etween the claim asserted and the em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationsA then the case is within the /urisdiction o3 our la+or courts@ In the a+sence o3 such ne%usA it is the regular courts that have /urisdiction@ In the )resent caseA while the em)lo:ees insist that their action is 3or the declaration o3 nullit: o3 their Ccontract o3 terminationAJ what is inesca)a+le is the 3act that it isA in realit:A an action 3or damages emanating 3orm em)lo:erUem)lo:ee relations@ 2irstA their claim 3or damages is grounded on their having +een deceived into serving their em)lo:ment due to ',-Ps concocted 3inancial distress and 3raudulent retrenchment )rogram U a clear case o3 illegal dismissal@ 'econdA a com)arison o3 res)ondentsP com)laint 3or the declaration o3 nullit: o3 the retrenchment )rogram +e3ore the la+or ar+iter and the com)laint 3or the declaration o3 nullit: o3

their Ccontract o3 terminationJ +e3ore the $T- reveals that the allegations and )ra:er o3 the 3ormer are almost identical with those o3 the latter e%ce)t that the )ra:er 3or reinstatement was no longer included and the claim 3or +ac4wages and other +ene3its was re)laced with a claim 3or actual damages@ These are telltale signs that res)ondentsP claim 3or damages is intertwined with their having +een se)arated 3rom their em)lo:ment without /ust cause andA conse9uentl:A has a reasona+le causal connection with their em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relations with ',-@ *ccordingl:A it cannot +e denied that the em)lo:eesP claim 3alls under the /urisdiction o3 the la+or ar+iter as )rovided in )aragra)h 4 o3 *rticle 21 o3 the La+or -ode@

T)L)SA 1s NLRC &ac s3 5vel:n Tolosa was the widow o3 -a)tain 7irgilio Tolosa who was hired +: Mwana><aiun to +e the master o3 the 7essel named ,B7 Lad: Dona@ -a)tain Tolosa assumed command o3 the vessel in 0o4ohamaA Ja)an@ *t the time o3 em+ar4ationA -a)tain Tolosa was allegedl: shown to +e in good health@ .oweverA -a)tain Tolosa got drenched with rain waterA got a 3everA and died within 12 da:s@ !ecause o3 thisA 5vel:n 3iled a -om)laintBPosition Pa)er +e3ore the P85* against Mwana> <aiunA thru its resident>agentA ,r@ 2umio Na4agawa as well as 1arate and *sis shi)mates o3 -a)tain TolosaPs@ The case was then trans3erred to the NL$- and was ra33led to La+or *r+iterA 7ladimir 'am)ang who 3ound in 3avour o3 5vel:n@ 8n a))ealA Mwana><aiun argued that since the action is a com)laint +ased on torts due to negligence t is the regular courts o3 law which have /urisdiction over the action@ The NL$- ruled against 5vel:n and vacated the ar+iterPs decision@ The -* a33irmed this +: stating that the la+or commission had no /urisdiction over the su+/ect mater since 5vel:nPs cause did not rise 3rom an em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi) +ut 3rom a 9uasi delict or tort@ Iss%e3 ?BN the la+or ar+iter and the NL$- has /urisdiction over 5vel:nPs action 4el53 The NL$- and the la+or ar+iter had no /urisdiction over 5vel:nGs claim 3or damagesA +ecause that ruling was +ased on a 9uasi delict or tort )er *rticle 21 6 o3 the -ivil -ode@ The allegations in the com)laint determine the nature o3 the action andA conse9uentl:A the /urisdiction o3 the courts@ In this caseA the allegations are in the nature o3 an action +ased on a 9uasi delict or tort@ It is evident that she sued +ased on gross negligence@ In her )a)erA 5vel:n re3ers to and e%tensivel: discusses the negligent acts o3 shi)mates 1arate and *sisA who had no em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relation with -a)tain Tolosa@ 'he stated that 1arate never initiated actions to hel) -a)tain Tolosa and *sisA the medical o33icer on dec4 3ailed to regularl: monitor -a)tain Tolosa@ ?hile it is true that la+or ar+iters and the NL$- have /urisdiction to award not onl: relie3s )rovided +: la+or lawsA +ut also damages governed +: the -ivil -odeA these relie3s must still he +ased on an action that has a reasona+le causal connection with the La+or -odeA other la+or statutesA or collective +argaining agreements@ This is not the case here@

Arran$a 1s. !& 4omes &ac s3 !2 .omesA Inc@ L!2.IO develo)ed !2 .omes ParaVa9ue 'u+divisionA ?hen the -entral !an4 ordered the closure o3 !anco 2ili)inoA which had su+stantial investments in res)ondent !2.IA !2.I 3iled with the '5- a )etition 3or reha+ilitation@ !ecause o3 thisA the '5- )laced it under a management committee@ *lsoA the '5- a))ointed *tt:@ 8rendain as a $eceiverA and a))roved a $evised $eha+ilitation Plan@ *s a $eceiverA 8rendain instituted a central securit: s:stem and uni3ied the si%t:>3ive homeownersG associations into an um+rella homeownersG association called 6nited !2 .omeownersG *ssociationsA Inc@ L6!2.*IOA which was therea3ter incor)orated with the .ome Insurance and 1uarant: -or)oration L.I1-O@ .ereA 8rendainA turned over to 6!2.*I control and administration o3 securit: in the su+divisionA the -lu+house and the o)en s)aces along -oncha -ru" Drive@ *lsoA there was a )urchase o3 eight new )um)s to re)lace the over> ca)acitated )um)s in the old wells@ .oweverA a new management committee re)laced 8rendain and certain )ro/ects within the su+division were li4ewise changed or altogether sto))ed@ -onse9uentl:A some homeowners 3iled with the .L6$! a class suit raising HissuesH on the 3ollowing +asic needs o3 the homeownersI rights>o3>wa:N waterN o)en s)acesN road and )erimeter wall re)airsN securit:@ .L6$! *r+iter issued an order granting the hoemownersP )ra:er 3or )reliminar: in/unction@ !2 .omes then contended that the .L6$! acted Hcom)letel: without /urisdictionH in issuing the 8rder granting the writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction considering that inasmuch as res)ondent is under receivershi)A the Hsu+/ect matter o3 the case is one e%clusivel: within the /urisdiction o3 the '5-@ The -* annulled the writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction issued +: the .L6$!@ It ruled that the homeownersP action ma: )ro)erl: +e regarded as a HclaimH within the contem)lation o3 PD No@ &(2>* which should +e )laced on e9ual 3ooting with those o3 )etitionersG other creditor or creditors and which should +e 3iled with the -ommittee o3 $eceivers@ !ecause o3 thisA the homeowners 3iled a )etition 3or review with the $T- which then granted a T$8 in their 3avor@ Iss%e3 ?hether it is the '5- or the .L6$! that has /urisdiction over a com)laint 3iled +: su+division homeowners against a su+division develo)er that is under receivershi) 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance 4el53 The .L6$! is the entit: with /urisdiction@ Jurisdiction is the authorit: to hear and determine a cause the right to act in a case@ It is con3erred +: law and not +: mere administrative )olic: o3 an: court or tri+unal@ It is determined +: the averments o3 the com)laint and not +: the de3ense contained in the answer@ .ereA the com)laint is 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance to en3orce their rights as )urchasers o3 su+division lots as regards to right o3 wa:A waterA o)en s)acesA road and )erimeter wall re)airsA and securit:@ In line with thisA PD &5 grants the National .ousing *uthorit: /urisdiction over cases involving s)eci3ic )er3ormance o3 contractual and statutor: o+ligations 3iled +: +u:ers o3 su+division lot or condominium unit against the ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesman@ The 3act that !2 .omes is under receivershi) does not divest the .L6$! o3 that /urisdiction@ * receiver is a )erson a))ointed +: the courtA or in this instanceA +: a 9uasi>/udicial administrative agenc:A in +ehal3 o3 all the )arties 3or the )ur)ose o3 )reserving and conserving the )ro)ert:

and )reventing its )ossi+le destruction or dissi)ationA i3 it were le3t in the )ossession o3 an: o3 the )arties@ The a))ointment o3 a receiver does not dissolve a cor)orationA nor does it inter3ere with the e%ercise o3 its cor)orate rights@ In this case where there a))ears to +e no restraints im)osed u)on res)ondent as it undergoes reha+ilitation receivershi)A !2 .omes continues to e%ist as a cor)oration and henceA continues or should continue to )er3orm its contractual and statutor: res)onsi+ilities to the homeowners@ In this caseA under the com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance +e3ore the .L6$!A the homeowners do not aim to en3orce a )ecuniar: demand@ Their claim 3or reim+ursement should +e viewed in the light o3 res)ondentGs alleged 3ailure to o+serve its statutor: and contractual o+ligations to )rovide )etitioners a Hdecent human settlementH and Ham)le o))ortunities 3or im)roving their 9ualit: o3 li3e@H The .L6$!A not the '5-A is e9ui))ed with the e%)ertise to deal with that matter@

Soli5 4omes 1s. Paya7al &ac s3 'olid .omes contracted to sell to Teresita Pa:awal a su+division lot in ,ari4inaA 3or P 2#A(#(@((@ 'ome time laterA she had alread: )aid 'oid .omes the total amount o3 P 3#A&4&@# in monthl: installments and interests@ 'olid .omes su+se9uentl: e%ecuted a deed o3 sale over the land +ut 3ailed to deliver the corres)onding certi3icate o3 title des)ite Pa:awalPs re)eated demands +ecauseA as it a))eared laterA the 'olid .omes had mortgaged the )ro)ert: in +ad 3aith to a 3inancing com)an:@ The Pa:awal then 3iled a case with the M- $T- and as4ed 3or deliver: o3 the title to the lot orA alternativel:A the return o3 all the amounts )aid +: her )lus interest@ 'olid .omes moved to dismiss the com)laint on the ground that the court had no /urisdictionA this +eing vested in the National .ousing *uthorit: under PD No@ &5 @ The motion was denied@ 'olid .omes re)leaded the o+/ectionA citing 'ection 3 o3 the said decree )roviding that Hthe National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e%clusive /urisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness in accordance with the )rovisions o3 this Decree@H The $T- ruled in 3avour o3 Pa:awal@ This was a33irmed +: the -* +: )ointing out that 'ection 41 o3 PD No@ &5 itsel3 )rovided thatI '5-@ 41@ Other remedies@>The rights and remedies )rovided in this Decree shall +e in addition to an: and all other rights and remedies that ma: +e availa+le under e%isting laws@ Iss%e3 ?BN the $T- has /urisdiction over the case 4el53 The $T- does not have /urisdiction here@ PD 1344A the amendator: law o3 PD &5 )rovidesI '5-TI8N 1@ In the e%ercise o3 its 3unction to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness and in addition to its )owers )rovided 3or in Presidential Decree No@ &5 A the National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e#clusive !urisdiction to hear and decide cases o3 the 3ollowing natureI *@ $nsound real estate business practicesN !@ -laims involving refund and any other claims 3iled +: su+division lot or condominium unit +u:er against the )ro/ect ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesmanN and -@ -ases involving specific performance of contractuala statutory obligations 3iled +: +u:ers o3 su+division lot or condominium unit against the ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesman@ L5m)hasis su))lied@O The law is clear that the .L6$! has e%clusive /urisdiction over this case@ *lsoA !P 12& cannot a))l: here +ecause the laws giving the .L6$! authorit: over this case is a s)eci3ic law while !P 12& is a general law@

Spo%ses Rae 1s. CA &ac s3 The s)ouses -esar and 5lvira $aet and the s)ouses $e% and 5dna ,itra negotiated with *m)aro 1atus concerning the )ossi+ilit: o3 +u:ing the rights o3 the latter to certain units at the Las 7illas de 'to@ NiVo 'u+division in ,e:caua:anA !ulacana su+division develo)ed +: Phil>7ille Develo)ment and .ousing -or)oration LP7D.-O 8ne :ear a3terA the s)ouses $aet and the s)ouses ,itra a))lied directl: with P7D.- 3or the )urchase o3 units in the said su+division@ The s)ouses $aet )aid P32A653@((A while the s)ouses ,itra )aid P2 A(((@((A to P7D.-A on the understanding that these amounts would +e credited to the )urchase )rices o3 the units@ !oth 3amilies were allowed to occu): two units in the meantime@ .oweverA even i3 the s)ouses 3ailed to get the )ro)er 1'I' 3inancing 3or the )ro)ertiesA the: were allowed to remain in the )remises while the: searched 3or new 3inancing@ 'oon a3terA P7D.- demanded that the s)ouses vacate the units the: were occu):ing@ It also 3iled e/ectment cases against them +e3ore the ,unici)al Trial -ourt o3 ,e:caua:anA !ulacanA which eventuall: ordered them to surrender the )ossession o3 the su+/ect units@ The s)ouses $aet and the s)ouses ,itra then 3iled com)laints against P7D.- with the !ulacan $T- 3or the recover: o3 the su))lemental costs the: had )aid to )rivate res)ondent P7D.-@ .oweverA the com)laint o3 the s)ouses $aet was dismissed on the ground that the $egional Trial -ourt did not have /urisdiction over cases involving dis)utes +etween su+division +u:ers and develo)ers which 3all within the e%clusive com)etence o3 the .L6$!@ The s)ouses $aet and the s)ouses ,itra then 3iled a com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and damages against *m)aro 1atus and P7D.- with the .L6$! which gave /udgment in their 3avor@ 8n a))ealA the .L6$! reversed on the ground that the issues involved in the case had alread: +een determined +: the ,unici)al Trial -ourt o3 ,e:caua:anA !ulacan in the e/ectment suit +etween the )arties@ 6)on +ringing the case to the 833ice o3 the PresidentA it was held that the .L6$! has /urisdiction over cases involving dis)utes +etween su+division +u:ers and develo)ers to the e%clusion o3 the regular courts@ There3oreA the decision in the e/ectment case cannot +e conclusive on the 9uestion whether there were )er3ected contracts o3 sale +etween the s)ouses and P7D.-@ The -* reversed the 833ice o3 the President@ Iss%e3 ?BN the concluded e/ectment case in the ,T- is a +ar to an action 3or a s)eci3ic )er3ormance case lodged with the .L6$! 4el53 No it is not@ The decision in the e/ectment suit is conclusive onl: on the 9uestion o3 )ossession o3 the su+/ect )remises@ It does not settle the )rinci)al 9uestion involved in the )resent caseA namel:A whether there were )er3ected contracts o3 sale +etween the s)ouses P7D.- involving the units in 9uestion@ 6nder sec@ #L11O o3 5@8@ No@ 64# this 9uestion is 3or the .L6$! to decide@ The said )rovision o3 law gives that agenc: the )ower to hear and decide cases o3 unsound real estate +usiness )racticesN claims involving re3und 3iled against )ro/ect ownersA develo)ersA dealersA +ro4ersA or salesmenN and cases o3 s)eci3ic )er3ormance@ This /urisdiction o3 the .L6$! is e%clusive@ .oweverA the -ourt also ruled that there were no )er3ected contracts here@ 2irstA the records do not show the total costs o3 the units in 9uestion and the )a:ment schemes there3or@ 'econdA the s)ouses dealt with 1atus@ !ut 1atus was not the agent o3 )rivate res)ondent P7D.-@ The souses 4new 3rom the +eginning that 1atus was negotiating with them in her own +ehal3A and

not as an agent o3 )rivate res)ondent P7D.-@ There isA there3oreA no +asis in 3act 3or the 3inding o3 the .ousing and Land 6se *r+iter that 1atus was the agent o3 P7D.- with res)ect to the transactions in 9uestion@ ThirdA since )rivate res)ondent P7D.- had no 4nowledge o3 the 3igures *m)aro 1atus gave to )etitioners as estimates o3 the costs o3 the units in 9uestionA it could not have rati3ied the same at the time the latter a))lied 3or the )urchase o3 the units@

Pilar De1elopmen Corp. 1s. Spo%ses Nillar &ac s3 Pilar Develo)ment -or) entered into a contract to sell a house and lot to the s)ouses 7illar@ The s)ouses )aid the re9uired down)a:ment and some monthl: amorti"ations u) to 8cto+er 1&& a3ter which the: de3aulted in the )a:ment o3 the succeeding monthl: amorti"ations@ 2or this reasonA the Pilar cancelled the contract@ PilarA howeverA did not re3und the cash surrender value to the 7illars@ Des)ite demands to vacateA the 7illars still re3used to surrender )ossession o3 su+/ect )remises@ ThusA an e/ectment suit was 3iled with the Las PInas ,eT-@ The ,T- decided in 3avor o3 PIlar@ .oweverA on a))ealA the $T- reversed the decision o3 the ,eT- stating that the lower court did not have /urisdiction over the case since it was the .L6$! which had /urisdiction over the suit@ It 3urther stated that the )resent controvers: is not a sim)le unlaw3ul detainer case al+eit denominated as such@ The $T- too4 cogni"ance o3 the 3act that there are )ending issues on the validit: o3 the cancellation o3 the su+/ect contract +ased on the non>)a:ment o3 the cash surrender value and the right o3 the 7illars to re3und thereo3A the determination o3 which are e%clusivel: lodged with the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard L.L6$!O under Presidential Decree Nos@ &5 and 1344@ Iss%e3 ?BN the $T- has /urisdiction over the case 4el5I The $T- has /urisdiction@ .ereA it must +e noted that the case was 3iled +: the su+division owner and not the +u:er o3 a su+division lotA and the cause o3 action is one 3or recover: o3 )ossession o3 the )ro)ert: on account o3 the cancellation o3 the )artiesG contract to sell 3or non)a:ment +: the 7illars o3 the monthl: amorti"ations )ursuant to the terms and conditions stated in their written contract@ The 7illarsA as +u:ers o3 the su+division lot in 9uestionA had no cause o3 action against Pilar as su+division ownerA which ma: )ossi+l: give rise to or constitute an: actiona+le act under P@D@ No@ 1344@ No /urisdiction couldA there3oreA +e )ossi+l: vested u)on the .L6$!@ It would have +een di33erent i3 the )etitioners were the 7illars and the: were suing the su+division owner 3or +reaches made +: such owner in the contract to sell@ !ut hereA the non)a:ment +: the s)ouses 7illar as su+division lot +u:ers o3 the monthl: amorti"ation was not caused or )receded +: an: +reach on the )art o3 the su+division owner@ -onse9uentl:A /urisdiction on the legal issue involving the right o3 )ossession over the su+/ect lot right3ull: +elongs to the regular courtsA in this case the ,eT- o3 Las PiVas -it:@

Sin5ico 1s. Dia$ &ac s3 7irgilio 'indico 3iled a civil case +e3ore the $T- o3 Iloilo -it: against his 3irst cousin 2eli)e 'om+reaA along with the latterPs wi3e 5rlinda 'om+reaA 3or *ccion $einvindicatoria with Preliminar: ,andator: In/unction@ In the com)laintA the )lainti33 7irgilio 'indicoA who is the registered owner o3 the )arcel o3 land alleged that a3ter his ac9uisition o3 the lot in 1&62A 2eli)e 'om+reaPs )arentsA the s)ouses 5ulalio and -oncordia 'om+reaA re9uested him to allow them to cultivate the lot without him sharing in the )roduce thereo3 as that would re)resent his Hassistance in the education o3 his cousinsH including 2eli)e 'om+rea@ 0ears laterA when 'indico re9uested the 'om+reas to leaveA the latter denied@ The 'om+reas allege that the $T- has no /urisdiction over their )erson and that as the su+/ect matter o3 the case is an agricultural land which is covered +: the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Program L-*$PO o3 the governmentA the case is within the e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 the D*$*! in accordance with 'ection 5( o3 $e)u+lic *ct 665 LT.5 -8,P$5.5N'I75 *1$*$I*N $528$, L*? 82 1&##O@ The $T- o3 Iloilo granted the ,otion to DismissA and held that as the issue involved the right to )ossession o3 an agricultural lot which is under the coverage o3 the -*$P o3 the governmentA it 3alls within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the D*$*!@ Iss%e3 whether the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard LD*$*!O has original and e%clusive /urisdiction over cases involving agricultural lands irres)ective o3 the )resence o3 tenanc: relationshi)@ 4el53 The $T- is the entit: with /urisdiction here@ The allegations in 'indicoPs com)laint show that the action is one 3or recover: o3 )ossessionA not one which involves an agrarian dis)ute@ The 'om+reasP onl: +asis in assailing the /urisdiction o3 the trial court is that the su+/ect matter o3 the case is an agricultural land and the: do not den: at all the allegation o3 the com)laint o3 'Indico that there is no tenanc: or leasehold agreement +etween them unmista4a+l: show that there is no agrarian dis)ute to s)ea4 o3 over which the D*$*! has e%clusive original /urisdiction@

S%ma7an/ 1s. De G%$man &ac s3 5ngineer 5ric de 1u"man 3iled a com)laint in the ,T- o3 1uim+aA Nueva 5ci/aA against *mando 'umawangA 3or unlaw3ul detainer with damages@ De 1u"man alleged that the President o3 the Phili))ines issued 5manci)ation Patent No@ 2###43 in his 3avorA over a )arcel o3 agricultural land@ 'oonA the $egister o3 Deeds issuedT-T 5P No@ 316#3 over the landholding@ *3terwardsA he leased a )ortion o3 the )ro)ert: to 'umawang where the latter constructed a small hutA and remitted the rentals there3ore@ .oweverA 'umawang soon 3ailed to )a: the agreed rentals@ Des)ite re)eated demandsA 'umawang 3ailed to vacate the )ro)ert:@ In his de3enseA 'umawang alleged that 1loria =ulueta $omin9uit was the owner the land which was then )laced under the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Law@ *llegedl:A he cultivated a )ortion o3 the )ro)ert: and was one o3 the 3armers>+ene3iciaries o3 the landholdingA as listed in the 833ice o3 the ,unici)al *grarian $e3orm@ 'ometime a3terA he swa))ed the )ortion o3 the )ro)ert: he was cultivating with the land in 9uestion@ .e also +uilt a house o3 strong materials in the )ro)ert: where he and his 3amil: resided and he sought the assistance o3 his 3irst cousinA Judge 2eli% de 1u"manA the 3ather o3 5ricA to secure a )atent and title over the )ro)ert: in his name +ut the 5ric secured through 3raud an emanci)ation )atent and title over the )ro)ert: in his name@ The trial court rendered /udgment in 3avor o3 de 1u"man and ordered 'umawang to leave the )remises@ 6)on a))eal with the $T-A It was held that the controvers: +etween the two was an agrarian dis)ute within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udicator: !oard LD*$*!O@ The -* reinstated the ,T- decision@ Iss%e3 ?BN the ,T- has /urisdiction over the case@ 4el53 The ,T- has /urisdiction@ It does not lose its /urisdiction over an e/ectment case +: the sim)le e%)edient o3 a )art: raising as a de3ense therein the alleged e%istence o3 a tenanc: relationshi) +etween the )arties@ !ut it is the dut: o3 the court to receive evidence to determine the allegations o3 tenanc:@ I3A a3ter hearingA tenanc: hadA in 3actA +een shown to +e the real issueA the court should dismiss the case 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ In this caseA 'umawang 3ailed to )rove his claim that he had +een installed +: de 1u"man as agricultural tenant on the landholding@ .e relied solel: on his +are claim that he and the de 16"manA through the latterPs 3atherA Judge 2eli% de 1u"manA had agreed 3or the )etitione'umawangr to +e the agricultural tenant o3 the de 1u"manA sharing the )roduce there3rom on a 5(>5( +asisA net o3 costs o3 )roduction@ There is no evidence on record thatA indeedA the de 1u"man had authori"ed his 3ather to enter into such an agreement with the 'umawang@

Mon 1s CA &ac s3 .enr: ,on 3iled an e/ectment case against the s)ouses 7elasco with the D*$*! La 6nion $egional 833ice@ .e alleged that he is the owner>administrator o3 a )arcel o3 rice and to+acco land in La 6nion@ .e claimed that the s)ouses 7elascoA who cultivated the land in 9uestionAstole one sac4 o3 )ala: and even su+leased the land to a certain !o: or *nsong ,aala@ The $egional 833ice issued an 8rder ordering the s)ouses 7elasco to vacate the )remises@In arriving at its decisionA the $egional 833ice 3ound that Larr: 7elasco su+leased the land to a certain 2rancisco ,aala@ The $egional 833ice ruled that 'ection 2 L2O o3 $* 3#44 )rohi+its su+leasing and violation o3 this )rovision constitutes a ground 3or e/ectment@ 8n a))eal with the D*$*!A the order was reversed@ The -* a33irmed the D*$*!Ps decision@ .oweverA ,on insists that since the $egional 833ice 3ound that the ')ouses 7elasco su+let the land in violation o3 'ection 2 L2O o3 $* 3#44A he has the right under the same $* 3#44 to evict the ')ouses 7elasco 3rom his land@ .e insists that the case involves an e/ectment suit +etween a civil law lessor and lessee@ Iss%e3 ?BN the case involves a civil suit 3or e/ectment or i3 it is a tenanc: case 4el53 This is an agricultural tenanc: case correctl: +rought +e3ore the D*$*!@ ,onPs stance with the -* is that the lease )rovisions in the -ivil -ode a))l: to the )resent case@ 8n the contrar:A this is not an e/ectment case +etween a civil law lessor and lessee +ut a dis)ute +etween an agricultural landlord and tenant@ I3 this were an e/ectment case +etween a civil law lessor and lesseeA ,on should have +rought his action to the a))ro)riate trial court instead o3 the D*$*! $egional *d/udication 833ice@ ,on should also not have invo4ed su+letting as a )rohi+ited act under $* 3#44@ 8+viousl:A he is clutching at straws in changing his theor: o3 the case on a))eal@ The settled rule is that a )art: cannot change his theor: o3 the case or his cause o3 action on a))eal@ -ourts o3 /ustice have no /urisdiction or )ower to decide a 9uestion not in issue@ * /udgment that goes outside the issues and )ur)orts to ad/udicate something on which the court did not hear the )artiesA is not onl: irregular +ut also e%tra>/udicial and invalid@ The rule rests on the 3undamental tenets o3 3air )la:@ In the )resent caseA the -ourt must stic4 to the issue litigated in the D*$*! and in the -ourt o3 *))ealsA which is whether ,on has the right to e/ect the ')ouses 7elasco 3rom the land under $* 3#44@ .oweverA in a lease contract under the -ivil -odeAthe rule is that the lessee can su+lease the leased )ro)ert:A unless there is an e%)ress )rohi+ition against su+letting in the contract itsel3@ To +ar the lessee 3rom su+lettingA the contract o3 lease must e%)ressl: sti)ulate the )rohi+ition on su+letting@ ,on did not allege nor )resent an: contract that )rohi+ited su+letting@

Ar$a/a 1s. Copias &ac s3 $odol3o and 2rancis *r"aga 3iled a com)laint with the *nti9ue $T- 3or recover: o3 )ossession and damages against 'alvacion -o)ias and Prudencio -alandria@ .e contended that the: are the co>owners o3 Lot No@ 51&#@ 'ometime )rior to 1&&4A -o)ias allegedl: entered and occu)ied the dis)uted )ro)ert: without the *r"agasP consent@ Des)ite several demandsA -o)ias re3used to vacate the )remises@ In her de3enseA -o)ias alleged that sheA along with -alandriaA is the amorti"ing owner o3 the lotA +eing the tenant>+ene3iciaries o3 one -aridad 2uente+ellaA the )revious owner said lot@ *s tenant>cultivators o3 the 9uestioned lot 3or 2( :earsA -alandria was issued 5manci)ation Patent No@ 5((5 and Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title LT-TO No@ 5@P@ No@ &(4 over certain )arts o3 the lot@ 8n the other handA -o)iasA through her hus+andA was issued 5manci)ation Patent No@ 5((5 6 and T-T No@ 5@P@ No@ &(3 over the remaining )arts@ The: )ra:ed that the com)laint +e dismissed on the ground that the su+/ect matter thereo3 was cogni"a+le +: the D*$*! and not +: the regular courtsA +ecause the controvers: involves an agricultural tenanc: relationshi)@ The $T- dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ The -* a33irmed this@ Iss%e3 ?BN the $T- has /urisdiction over the case 4el53 The $T- has /urisdiction@ 2or D*$*! to have /urisdiction over a caseA there must e%ist a tenanc: relationshi) +etween the )arties@ In the case at +arA the element that the )arties must +e Hthe landowner and the tenant or agricultural lesseeHA on which all other re9uisites o3 the tenanc: agreement de)endsA is a+sent@ Tenanc: relationshi) is inconsistent with the assertion o3 ownershi) o3 +oth )arties@ The *r"agas claim to +e the owners o3 the entire +: virtue o3 a -erti3icate o3 'ale o3 Delin9uent $eal Pro)ert:A while -o)ias and -alandria assert ownershi) over said lot on the +asis o3 an 5manci)ation Patent and Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title@ ?ith thisA it is clear that the *r"agasG action does not involve an agrarian dis)uteA +ut one 3or recover: o3 )ossessionA which is )er3ectl: within the /urisdiction o3 the regional trial courts@

;A Calle"a 1s Pan5ay &ac s3 Jose Panda: 3iled a )etition with the $T- +ranch 5# o3 -amarines 'ur 3or uo %arranto with Damages and Pra:er 3or ,andator: and Prohi+itor: In/unctionA Damages and Issuance o3 Tem)orar: $estraining 8rder against Lutgarda and Jua9uin -alle/a@ Panda: alleged that 3rom 1&#5 u) to the 3iling o3 the )etition with the trial courtA he was a mem+er o3 the +oard o3 directors and o33icers o3 't@ John .os)italA Incor)oratedA +ut sometime in ,a: 2((5A the -alle/asA who are also among the incor)orators and stoc4holders o3 said cor)orationA 3orci+l: and with the aid o3 armed men usur)ed the )owers which su))osedl: +elonged to him@ The -alle/as 3iled a motion to dismiss@ 8n ,a: 24A 2((5A $T->!r@ 5# issued an 8rder trans3erring the case to the $egional Trial -ourt in Naga -it:@ *ccording to $T->!r@ 5#A since the veri3ied )etition showed Panda: was a resident o3 Naga -it:A then )ursuant to 'ection A $ule 66 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA the action 3or uo %arranto should +e +rought in the $T- e%ercising /urisdiction over the territorial area where the res)ondents or an: o3 the res)ondents resides@ .oweverA the 5%ecutive Judge o3 $T-A Naga -it: re3used to receive the case 3older o3 the su+/ect case 3or uo %arrantoA stating that im)ro)er venue is not a ground 3or trans3erring a uo %arranto case to another administrative /urisdiction@ ThenA $T- +r 5# issued an order dismissing the motion )ursuant to the Interim $ules o3 Procedure 3or Intra>-or)orate -ontroversies L*@,@ No@ (1>2>(4>'-O which mandates that motion to dismiss is a )rohi+ited )leading L'ection #O and in consonance with *dministrative 8rder #>(1 o3 the 'u)reme -ourtA the case was ordered remanded to the $T- +ranch 23A Naga -it: which under *@,@ No@ ((>11>(3>'- has +een designated as s)ecial court to tr: and decide intra>cor)orate controversies under $@*@ # &&@ Iss%e3 ?BN an $T- +ranch which has no /urisdiction to tr: and decide a case has the authorit: to remand the same to another co>e9ual court in order to cure the de3ects on venue and /urisdiction 4el53 $T- +ranch 5# has no /urisdiction over the case and should not even have trans3erred the case at all@ It should +e noted that allegations in a com)laint 3or uo %arranto that certain )ersons usur)ed the o33icesA )owers and 3unctions o3 dul: elected mem+ers o3 the +oardA trustees andBor o33icers ma4e out a case 3or an intra>cor)orate controvers:@ 'uch cases used to 3al under the /urisdiction o3 the '5-@ howeverA )ursuant to 'ection 5@2 o3 $@*@ No@ # &&A the ')romulgated *@,@ No@ ((>11>(3>'- designating certain +ranches o3 the $egional Trial -ourts to tr: and decide cases 3ormerl: cogni"a+le +: the '5-@ 2or the 2i3th Judicial $egionA the 'designated the 3ollowing +ranches o3 the $egional Trial -ourtA to witI -amarines 'ur LNaga -it:O *l+a: LLegas)i -it:O 'orsogon L'orsogonO !ranch 23A Judge Pa+lo ,@ Pa9ueoA Jr@ !ranch 4A Judge 1regorio *@ -onsulta !ranch 52A Judge .onesto *@ 7illamor

'ection 5 o3 the Interim $ules )rovides that the )etition should +e commenced and tried in the $egional Trial -ourt that has /urisdiction over the )rinci)al o33ice o3 the cor)oration@ It is

undis)uted that the )rinci)al o33ice o3 the cor)oration is situated at 1oaA -amarines 'ur@ ThusA it is the $T- designated as ')ecial -ommercial -ourts in -amarines 'ur which shall have /urisdiction over the )etition 3or uo %arranto 3iled +: Panda:@ 5videntl:A the $T->!r@ 5# in 'an JoseA -amarines 'ur is +ere3t o3 /urisdiction over the )etition 3or uo %arranto@ !ased on the allegations in the )etitionA the case was clearl: one involving an intra>cor)orate dis)ute@ The trial court should have +een aware that under $@*@ No@ # && and the a3orementioned administrative issuances o3 this -ourtA $T->!r@ 5# was never designated as a ')ecial -ommercial -ourtN henceA it was never vested with /urisdiction over cases )reviousl: cogni"a+le +: the '5-@ 'uch +eing the caseA $T->!r@ 5# did not have the re9uisite authorit: or )ower to order the trans3er o3 the case to another +ranch o3 the $egional Trial -ourt@ The onl: action that $T->!r@ 5# could ta4e on the matter was to dismiss the )etition 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@

+;. <%"%ico 1s. P%iambao *ction 3or )etition 3or review on certiorari 3rom the decision o3 the -* which u)held the /urisdiction o3 the $T- to order the re>election o3 the mem+ers o3 the +oards and u)held the validit: o3 the Judge 5muslan order as )airing /udge o3 !ranch 4# o3 $T-A 6rdaneta -it:@ &ac s3 'trategic *lliance Develo)ment -or)oration L'T$*D5-O is a domestic cor)oration engaged in the +usiness o3 )roviding 3inancial and investment advisor: services and investing in )ro/ects through consortium or /oint venture in3ormation wB )rinci)al )lace o3 +usiness located in 'an ,iguel *venueA 8rtigas -enterA Pasig -it:@ 8n Jul: 2 A 1&&#A '5- a))roved the amendment o3 its *rticles o3 Incor)oration authori"ing the change o3 its )rinci)al o33ice 3rom Pasig -it: to !a:am+angA Pangasinan@ 8n ,arch 1A 2((4A 'T$*D5- held its annual stoc4holder meeting in its Pasig -it: o33ice as indicated in the notices sent to the stoc4holders@ *t the said meetingA the 3ollowing were elected mem+ers o3 the !oard o3 DirectorsI 0u/uicoA 'um+illaA L)etitionersOA Muiam+aoA ,agno III and 2erreros Lres)ondentsO@ Petitioners *lderito 0u/uico was elected -hairman and PresidentA while 'um+illa was elected Treasurer@ *ll o3 them then discharged the duties o3 their o33ice@ *3ter 3ive L5O monthsA or on *ugust 16A 2((4A Muiam+ao 3iled with the $T-A 'an -arlos -it:A Pangasinan a -om)laint against 'T$*D5- ra33led o33 to !ranch 56@ The com)laint )ra:s thatI L1O the ,arch 1A 2((4 election +e nulli3ied on the ground o3 im)ro)er venueA )ursuant to 'ection 51 o3 the -or)oration -odeN L2O all ensuing transactions conducted +: the elected directors +e li4ewise nulli3iedN and L3O a s)ecial stoc4holder meeting +e held anew@ The: later on 3iled an amended com)laint )ra:ing 3or a T$8 andBor writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction to en/oin the discharge o3 their 3unctions as directors and o33icers o3 'T$*D5-@ *s the controvers: involves an intra>cor)orate dis)uteA the trial courtA on 8cto+er 4A 2((4A issued an 8rder trans3erring the civil case to $T-A !ranch 4#A 6rdaneta -it:A +eing a designated ')ecial -ommercial -ourt@ *t such timeA there was no )residing /udge and it was Judge 5muslan who acted as )airing /udge o3 that +ranch to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the cases therein until the a))ointment and assum)tion to dut: o3 a regular /udge@ Muiam+ao answered +: )ra:ing 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laint on the groundsA among othersI LaO com)laint does not state a cause o3 actionN L+O the action is +arred +: )rescri)tion 3or it was 3iled +e:ond the 15>da: )rescri)tive )eriod )rovided +: 'ection 2A $ule 6 o3 the Interim $ules and Procedure 1overning Intra>-or)orate -ontroversies under $e)u+lic *ct L$@*@O No@ # &&N LcO that the )ra:er that a s)ecial stoc4holders meeting +e held in !a:am+angA Pangasinan His )remature )ending the esta+lishment o3 a )rinci)al o33ice o3 'T$*D5- in said munici)alit:NH and LdO res)ondents waived their right to o+/ect to the venue as the: attended and )artici)ated in the said ,arch 1A 2((4 meeting and election without an: )rotest@H The: li4ewise o))osed the a))lication 3or a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction 3or no right that was violatedA henceA are not entitled to +e )rotected +: law@ ,eanwhileA Judge $alarA Jr@ was a))ointed )residing /udge o3 $T-A !ranch 4#A 6rdaneta -it:@ .e too4 his oath o3 o33ice on Novem+er &A 2((4A and 3 da:s later he assumed his duties@ 'u+se9uentl:A or on Novem+er 25A 2((4A )airing Judge 5muslan still issued an 8rder granting the a))lication 3or )reliminar: in/unction and ordered the holding o3 a s)ecial stoc4holders meeting on Decem+er 1(@ Hin the )rinci)al o33ice o3 the cor)oration in !a:am+angA PangasinanN 3or the +est interest o3 the cor)oration@J In 3urtherance wB thisA a new set o3 directors were

elected@ The -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the )etition 3or certiorari and u)held the /urisdiction o3 the $T- over the controvers: and sustained the validit: o3 Judge 5muslanPs order@ Iss%es3 1@ ?hether it is '5- or $T- which has the /urisdiction to order the holding o3 a s)ecial stoc4holders meeting involving intra>cor)orate controvers:@ 2@ ?hether Judge 5muslan had the authorit: to issue the assailed order@ 3@ *ssuming Judge 5muslan had authorit:A did he nonetheless act wB grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction@ 4el53 '5- vs@ $T*n intra>cor)orate controvers: is one which H)ertains to an: o3 the 3ollowing relationshi)sI L1O +etween the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association and the )u+licN L2O +etween the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association and the 'tate in so 3ar as its 3ranchiseA )ermit or license to o)erate is concernedN L3O +etween the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association and its stoc4holdersA )artnersA mem+ers or o33icersN and L4O among the stoc4holdersA )artners or associates themselves@H There is thus no dis)ute that the com)laint is one which involves an intra> cor)orate controvers:A the contending )arties +eing stoc4holders and o33icers o3 a cor)oration@ 6)on the enactment o3 $@*@ No@ # &&A or the HThe 'ecurities $egulation -odeH on *ugust #A 2(((A the /urisdiction o3 the '5- over intra>cor)orate controversies and other cases enumerated in 'ection 5 o3 P@D@ No@ &(2>* has +een trans3erred to the courts o3 general /urisdictionA or the a))ro)riate $T-@ Pursuant to $@*@ No@ # &&A the -ourt issued a $esolution dated Novem+er 21A 2((( in *@,@ No@ ((>11>(3>'- designating certain +ranches o3 the $T- to tr: and decide cases enumerated in 'ection 5 o3 P@D@ No@ &(2>*@ !ranch 4# o3 $T-A 6rdaneta -it:A the court a 9uoA is among those designated as a ')ecial -ommercial -ourt which has /urisdiction to hear election contests in stoc4 and non>stoc4 cor)orations@ *n election contest re3ers to an: controvers: or dis)ute involving title or claim to an: elective o33ice in a stoc4 or non>stoc4 cor)orationA the validation o3 )ro%iesA the manner and validit: o3 electionsA and the 9uali3ications o3 candidatesA including the )roclamation o3 winnersA to the o33ice o3 directorA trustee or other o33icer directl: elected +: the stoc4holders in a close cor)oration or +: mem+ers o3 a non>stoc4 cor)oration where the articles o3 incor)oration or +:> laws so )rovide@ *mong the )owers and 3unctions o3 the '5- which were trans3erred to the $T- include the 3ollowingI LaO /urisdiction and su)ervision over all cor)orationsA )artnershi)s or associations which are the grantees o3 )rimar: 3ranchises andBor a license or )ermit issued +: the 1overnmentN L+O the a))rovalA re/ectionA sus)ensionA revocation or re9uirement 3or registration statementsA and registration and licensing a))licationsN LcO the regulationA investigationA or su)ervision o3 the activities o3 )ersons to ensure com)lianceN LdO the su)ervisionA monitoringA sus)ension or ta4e over the activities o3 e%changesA clearing agenciesA and other '$8sN LeO the im)osition o3 sanctions 3or the violation o3 laws and the rulesA regulations and orders issued )ursuant theretoN L3O the issuance o3 cease>and>desist orders to )revent 3raud or in/ur: to the investing )u+licN LgO the com)ulsion o3 the o33icers o3 an: registered cor)oration or association to

call meetings o3 stoc4holders or mem+ers thereo3 under its su)ervisionN and LhO the e%ercise o3 such other )owers as ma: +e )rovided +: law as well as those which ma: +e im)lied 3romA or which are necessar: or incidental to the carr:ing out o3A the e%)ress )owers granted the -ommission to achieve the o+/ectives and )ur)oses o3 these laws@H -learl:A the $T- has the )ower to hear and decide the intra>cor)orate controvers: o3 the )arties herein@ -oncomitant to said )ower is the authorit: to issue orders necessar: or incidental to the carr:ing out o3 the )owers e%)ressl: granted to it@ ThusA the $T- ma:A in a))ro)riate casesA order the holding o3 a s)ecial meeting o3 stoc4holders or mem+ers o3 a cor)oration involving an intra>cor)orate dis)ute under its su)ervision@ Judge 5muslan Judge 5muslan did not have the authorit: to issue the order +ecause at that timeA there was alread: an a))ointed )ermanent /udge 3or !ranch 4# which assumed his o33ice short a3ter his oath ta4ing@ *lthough the $T-A !ranch 4#A 6rdaneta -it: is clothed with )ower to ta4e cogni"ance o3 caseA the e%ercise o3 such )ower is entirel: a di33erent matter@ Jurisdiction is not the same as the e%ercise o3 /urisdiction@ *s distinguished 3rom the e%ercise o3 /urisdictionA /urisdiction is the authorit: to decide a causeA not the decision rendered therein@ ?here there is /urisdiction over the )erson and the su+/ect matterA the decision on all other 9uestions arising in the case is +ut an e%ercise o3 the /urisdiction@ There are instances where a /udge ma: commit errors@ .e ma: issue an order without authorit:@ *nd i3 clothed with )owerA he ma: e%ercise it in e%cess o3 his authorit: or with grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction@ *n: o3 these acts ma: +e struc4 down as a nullit: through a )etition 3or certiorari@ *n: act or order rendered +: a /udge without authorit:A is no order at all@ It is void@ *s suchA it cannot +e the source o3 an: right nor the creator o3 an: o+ligation@ *ll acts )er3ormed )ursuant to it and all claims emanating 3rom it have no legal 3orce and e33ect@ 1rave *+use o3 *uthorit: The dut: o3 the court ta4ing cogni"ance o3 an a))lication 3or a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction is to determine whether the re9uisites necessar: 3or the grant o3 such writ are )resent@ The re9uisites 3or the issuance o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction areI L1O the a))licant 3or such writ must show that he has a clear and unmista4a+le right that must +e )rotectedN and L2O there e%ists an urgent and )aramount necessit: 3or the writ to )revent serious damage@26 In this caseA Judge 5muslanPs is ha": and too unsu+stantial to /usti3: the issuance o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction@ The 8rder does not contain s)eci3ic 3indings o3 3act and conclusion o3 law showing that the re9uirements 3or the grant o3 the in/unctive writ are )resent@ It merel: mentions the names o3 witnesses )resented +: res)ondents during the hearing on the a))lication 3or the issuance o3 the writA +ut there is no s)eci3ic and su+stantial narration o3 the witnesses testimonies to esta+lish the e%istence o3 a clear and unmista4a+le right on their )art that must +e )rotectedA as well as the serious damage or irre)ara+le loss that the: would su33er i3 the writ is not granted@ .e committed grave a+use o3 discretion +: rendering an order which no certain +ases@ 2urthermoreA the 8rder goes against the conce)t and o+/ective o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction@ * writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction is a )rovisional remed:A an ad/unct to a main suit@ It is also a )reservative remed:A issued to )reserve the status 9uo o3 the things su+/ect o3 the action or the relations +etween the )arties during the )endenc: o3 the suit@ ?hile generall: the grant o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction rests on the sound discretion o3 the court ta4ing cogni"ance o3 the caseA e%treme caution must +e o+served in the e%ercise o3 such discretionA it must +e

e%ercised +ased on the grounds and in the manner )rovided +: law@ It is the strong arm o3 e9uit: that should never +e e%tended unless to cases o3 great in/ur:A where courts o3 law cannot a33ord an ade9uate or commensurate remed: in damages@ *n in/unction is a limitation u)on the 3reedom o3 action o3 the de3endant and should not +e granted lightl: or )reci)itatel:@ It should +e granted onl: when the court is 3ull: satis3ied that the law )ermits it and the emergenc: demands it@

+;C Gochan 1s. <o%n/ This is an action 3or )etition 3or review on certiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $ules o3 court assailing the decision o3 the -* which dismissed the )etition on the ground that it is '5- which has /urisdiction over the derivate suit 3iled@ &ac s3 2eli% 1ochan and 'ons $ealt: -or)oration L1ochan $ealt:O was registered with the '5- on JuneA 1&51@ 2eli% 1ochan 'r@Gs daughterA *liceA inherited 5( shares o3 stoc4 in 1ochan $ealt: 3rom the 3ormer@ 'he died in 1&55 leaving 5( shares to her hus+andA John 0oungA 'r@ The $T- o3 -e+u ad/udicated 6B14 o3 these shares to their children@ It later on increased to 1 & as a result o3 stoc4 dividends earned@ * 3ew da:s laterA John re9uested 1ochan $ealt: to )artition the shares o3 his late wi3e and trans3er them in his and his childrenPs nameA the latter all having reached the age o3 ma/orit: which was re3used on the reason that the right o3 3irst re3usal granted to the remaining stoc4holders +: the *rticles o3 Incor)oration@ In 1&&1A John 'r@ )assed awa:A his heirsA 3iled a derivative suit wB the '5- 3or issuance o3 shares o3 stoc4 to the right3ul ownersA nulli3ication o3 shares o3 stoc4A reconve:ance o3 )ro)ert: im)ressed with trustA accountingA removal o3 o33icers and directors and damages@ The: 3urther claim that the wrong3ul acts o3 the cor)oration and its directors constitute 3raudulent devices or schemes which ma: +e detrimental to the stoc4holders@ 1ochan moved to dismiss the com)laint alleging that the '5- had no /urisdiction over the nature o3 the actionA that the heirs are not real )arties>in>interest and had no ca)acit: to sue +ecause until the estate is settled and the )a:ment o3 de+ts o3 the deceased accom)lishedA the heirs cannot as a matter o3 right com)el the deliver: o3 the shares o3 stoc4 to them and register such trans3er in the +oo4s o3 the cor)oration to recogni"e them as stoc4holdersA the rule well settled that a stoc4holder +ringing a derivate suit must have +een so at the time o3 the transaction or act com)lained o3 too4 )lace@ The -* ruled that the '5- had no /urisdiction over the case as 3ar as the heirs o3 *lice 1ochan were concernedA +ecause the: were not :et stoc4holders o3 the cor)oration and held that the Intestate 5state o3 John 0oung 'r@ was an indis)ensa+le )art:@ Iss%e3 ?hether the heirs have the )ersonalit: to 3ile an action +e3ore the '5- against 1ochan $ealt: and )ro)erl: +ring a derivate suit in the name o3 the com)an: to redress the wrong alleged committed i3 3or which the directors re3used to sue@ 4el53 *s a general ruleA the /urisdiction o3 a court or tri+unal over the su+/ect matter is determined +: the allegations in the com)laint@ 2or )ur)oses o3 resolving a motion to dismissA -ecilia 6:Gs averment in the -om)laint >that the )urchase o3 her stoc4s +: the cor)oration was null and void a+ initio > is deemed admitted@ It is elementar: that a void contract )roduces no e33ect either against or in 3avor o3 an:oneN it cannot createA modi3: or e%tinguish the /uridical relation to which it re3ers@ ThusA -ecilia remains a stoc4holder o3 the cor)oration in view o3 the nullit: o3 the -ontract o3 'ale@ *lthough she was no longer registered as a stoc4holder in the corporate records as o3 the 3iling o3 the case +e3ore the '5-A the admitted allegations in the -om)laint made her still a +ona 3ide stoc4holder o3 1ochan $ealt:A as +etween said )arties@ In an: eventA the )resent controvers:A whether intra>cor)orate or notA is no longer cogni"a+le +: the '5-A in view o3 $* # &&A which trans3erred to regional trial courts the 3ormerGs /urisdiction over cases involving intra>cor)orate dis)utes@

H5@2@ The -ommissionGs /urisdiction over all cases enumerated under 'ection 5 o3 Presidential Decree No@ &(2>* is here+: trans3erred to the -ourts o3 general /urisdiction or the a))ro)riate $egional Trial -ourtI ProvidedA That the 'u)reme -ourt in the e%ercise o3 its authorit: ma: designate the $egional Trial -ourt +ranches that shall e%ercise /urisdiction over these cases@ The -ommission shall retain /urisdiction over )ending cases involving intra>cor)orate dis)utes su+mitted 3or 3inal resolution which should +e resolved within one L1O :ear 3rom the enactment o3 this -ode@ The -ommission shall retain /urisdiction over )ending sus)ension o3 )a:mentsBreha+ilitation cases 3iled as o3 3( June 2((( until 3inall: dis)osed@H In the light o3 the $esolution issued +: this -ourt in *, No@ ((>#>1(>'-A the -ourt *dministrator and the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission should +e directed to cause the trans3er o3 the records o3 '5- -ase No@ (2>&4>46 4 to the a))ro)riate court o3 general /urisdiction@

+DK Aleria 1s. People &ac s3 7ictorio *leriaA Jr@ stands accused in a -riminal -ase 3or Illegal Possession o3 2irearmsA and ,urder which arose out o3 the same incident and are +eing tried /ointl: +: res)ondent Judge@ *leria 3iled a )etition to admit +ail +ut no +ail was recommended 3or +oth@ .e then 3iled 3or a ,otion 3or $econsideration on the grounds that the 8rder den:ing +ail is not su))orted +: the evidence on recordA and that it 3ailed to state the grounds 3or den:ing +ail and the evidence relied u)on to show that the evidence o3 guilt o3 the accused is strong@ *cting on the ,otion 3or $econsiderationA res)ondent Judge issued an 8rder den:ing the ,otion 3or $econsideration stating that the evidence against the accused is strong to sustain a conviction in the a+sence o3 evidence to the contrar:@ .enceA the )resent )etition 3or certiorari with )ra:er 3or inhi+ition and tem)orar: restraining order assailing the issuance o3 the a3orementioned 8rders with a )ra:er that *leria +e allowed to )ost +ail in such amount as shall +e reasona+l: a33orda+leA and that res)ondent Judge +e ordered to inhi+it himsel3 3rom 3urther tr:ing the instant case and that the same +e ra33led to another sala@ The 833ice o3 the 'olicitor>1eneral 3iled a ,ani3estation and ,otion wherein it was su+mitted that the two 8rders cannot +e given a sem+lance o3 validit: since the: do not contain a summar: o3 the evidence 3or the )rosecution 3ollowed +: res)ondent JudgeGs conclusion that the evidence o3 guilt is strongA and are there3ore de3ective in 3orm and su+stance and cannot +e allowed to stand and that the $es)ondent Judge should +e directed to issue another order on )etitionerGs a))lication 3or +ail containing a summar: o3 the evidence 3or the )rosecution 3ollowed +: its conclusion whether or not the evidence o3 guilt is strong@ Iss%es3 1@ ?hether Judge acted in grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction in den:ing the )etition 3or +ail o3 the accused@ 2@ ?hether *leria can 3ile a )etition 3or certiorari to the '- when such remed: is availa+le in the -*@ 4el53 The constitutional mandate is that Hall )ersonsA e%ce)t those charged with o33enses )unisha+le +: reclusion perpetua when evidence o3 guilt is strongA shallA +e3ore convictionA +e +aila+le +: su33icient suretiesA or +e released on recogni"ance as ma: +e )rovided +: lawWH *leria is un9uestiona+l: charged with a ca)ital o33enseA ,urderA which at the time o3 its commission and at the time o3 the a))lication 3or +ail is )unisha+le +: reclusion perpetua to death@ The grant or denial o3 +ail in ca)ital o33enses hinges on the issue o3 whether or not the evidence o3 guilt: o3 the accused is strong@ .ence the need 3or the trial court to conduct +ail hearings wherein +oth the )rosecution and de3ense are a33orded su33icient o))ortunit: to )resent their res)ective evidence@ The determinationA howeverA o3 whether or not the evidence o3 guilt is strongA +eing a matter o3 /udicial discretionA remains with the /udge@ To +e sureA the discretion o3 the trial court His not a+solute nor +e:ond control@ It must +e soundA and e%ercised within reasona+le +ounds@ Judicial discretionA +: its ver: nature involves the e%ercise o3 the /udgeGs individual o)inion and the law has wisel: )rovided that its e%ercise +e guided +: well> 4nown rules whichA while allowing the /udge rational latitude 3or the o)eration o3 his own individual viewsA )revent them 3rom getting out o3 control@ In other wordsA /udicial discretion is not un+ridled +ut must +e su))orted +: a 3inding o3 the 3acts relied u)on to 3orm an o)inion on the issue +e3ore the court@ In numerous casesA we have re)eatedl: ruled that the courtGs order granting or re3using +ail must contain a summary of the evidence 3or the )rosecution 3ollowed +: its conclusion whether or not the evidence o3 guilt: is strong@ IndeedA the summar: o3 evidence 3or the )rosecution which contains the /udgeGs evaluation o3 the evidence ma: +e considered as

an as)ect o3 /udicial due )rocess 3or +oth the )rosecution and the de3ense@ * review o3 the 9uestioned orders would readil: show that the: are indeed lac4ing in s)eci3icit:A and there3oreA 3atall: 3lawed@ $ule 114A 'ection 1 o3 the $ules o3 -riminal ProcedureA as amended +: *dministrative -ircular No@ 12>&4A )rovides that +ail is generall: 3iled in the Hcourt where the case is )ending@H I3 the )etition to +e admitted to +ail is denied +: the trial courtA then the review /urisdiction o3 this -ourt can +e invo4edA +ut not without 3irst a))l:ing to the -ourt o3 *))eals i3 a))ro)riate relie3 is also availa+le therein@ IndeedA while this -ourt has concurrent /urisdiction with the -ourt o3 *))eals to issue the writ o3 certiorariA such concurrence does not give )etitioner unrestricted 3reedom o3 choice o3 a 3orum on the matter o3 denial o3 +ail@ *leria here is not without recourse in the -ourt o3 *))eals@ HThere is a3ter all hierarch: o3 courts@ That hierarch: is determinative o3 venue o3 a))ealsA and should also serve as a general determinant o3 the a))ro)riate 3orum 3or )etitions 3or the issuance o3 e%traordinar: writs@ * +ecoming regard 3or that /udicial hierarch: most certainl: indicates that )etitions 3or the issuance o3 e%traordinar: writs against 3irst level LGin3eriorGO courts should +e 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourtA and those against the latterA with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ It is a )olic: necessar: to )revent inordinate demands u)on the -ourtGs time and attention which are +etter devoted to those matters within its e%clusive /urisdictionA and to )revent 3urther over>crowding o3 the -ourtGs doc4et@H

+D, R%bio 1s. MTC6 Ca/ayan 5e )ro Ci y &ac s3 *n action 3or e/ectment and damages was 3iled +: s)ouses Lim Liong <ang and Lim Pue <ing against $u+io at ,T--A !ranch 4A -aga:an de 8ro -it:A which rendered a decision ordering $u+io to vacate the )remises in 9uestionA )a: rentals and legal interest and attorne:Ps 3ees@ It 3urther ordered e%ecution to issue immediatel: e%ce)t on the order to vacate the )remises which shall issue a3ter si% L6O months 3rom and a3ter recei)t +: $u+io o3 this decisionA unless an a))eal has +een )er3ected and heA to sta: e%ecution 3ile a su)ersedes +ond a))roved +: this -ourt and e%ecuted to enter the action in the $T-@ !e3ore $u+io could )er3ect his a))ealA s)ouses moved 3or the e%ecution o3 the decision 3or which a writ o3 e%ecution was issued +: the ,T-- u)on $u+ioPs <*?*I organ@ No sale was however carried out in view o3 the )er3ection o3 $u+ioPs a))eal in the $T- which court a33irmed all res)ects the decision o3 the ,T-- which was later on a33irmed +: the -* wB a modi3ication as to amount o3 rental arrears@ $u+io contends that the decision o3 $T- ,isamis 8rientalA !ranch 25 in -ivil -ase No@ #&#3 whichA declared herein ')ouses Lim Liong <ang and Lim Pue <ing as +u:ers in +ad 3aith o3 the same land involved in the case at +ench and ordered the cancellation o3 the title issued to them and the issuance o3 a new one in 3avor o3 one ,aura 'oA which was a33irmed +: the -ourt o3 *))eals and 3inall: +: the '- should /usti3: the sus)ension o3 the 3inal and e%ecutor: /udgment o3 the -* as ,aura 'o had underta4en to allow him to continue occu):ing the lot under consideration@ 7eril:A the rule that once a /udgment has +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A it is the ministerial dut: o3 the courts to order its e%ecutionA is not a+solute +ut admits o3 certain e%ce)tionsA as in cases o3 s)ecial and e%ce)tional nature where it +ecomes im)erative in the higher interest o3 /ustice to sus)end its e%ecutionN or whenever it is necessar: to accom)lish the aims o3 /ustice or when certain 3acts and circumstances trans)ired a3ter the /udgment +ecame 3inal which render the e%ecution o3 the /udgment im)ossi+le or un/ust ,.@ This -ourt has held in numerous cases ,C that a change in the situation o3 the )arties was considered a circumstance that would render e%ecution ine9uita+le and un/ust@ Iss%e3 ?hether a 3inal /udgment in a )arallel case where ownershi) is the main issue change the situation o3 the )arties su33icientl: to /usti3: a sus)ension o3 a 3inal and e%ecutor: /udgment in an action 3or e/ectment@ 4el53 *t the time ,T-A -aga:an de 8ro -it: issued the order to vacate in the e/ectment caseA the $T- decision regarding ownershi) o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert: had not :et +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A it +eing on a))eal +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals@ In 3actA the ?rit o3 Demolition had +een 3ull: en3orced months +e3ore the a))ellate court )romulgated its decision in the a))ealed caseA which decision was 3urther a))ealed to the '-@ The $T- decision in -ivil -ase No@ #&#3 could not serve to sta: the e%ecution o3 the 3inal and e%ecutor: /udgment in the e/ectment caseA the right o3 ,aura 'o to the land in 9uestion +eing still undetermined +: 3inal /udgment@ The $T- decision has not changed the situation o3 the )arties in the e/ectment case +ecause $u+io was not a )art: to such case@ 5ven assumingA 3or the sa4e o3 argumentA that such case is +etween the same )arties as in the e/ectment caseA stillA the situation o3 the )arties is not changed@ *n unlaw3ul detainer action has an entirel: di33erent su+/ect 3rom that o3 an action 3or reconve:ance o3 title@ ?hat is involved in unlaw3ul detainer case is merel: the issue o3 material )ossession or )ossession de factoN whereas in an action 3or reconve:anceA ownershi) is the

issue@ 'o much so that the )endenc: o3 an action 3or reconve:ance o3 title over the same )ro)ert: does not divest the cit: or munici)al court o3 its /urisdiction to tr: the 3orci+le entr: or unlaw3ul detainer caseA nor will it )reclude or +ar e%ecution o3 /udgment in the e/ectment case where the onl: issue involved is material )ossession or )ossession de facto@

+D; Cano 1s. Chie26 PNP &ac s3 2or the alleged +ungled investigation o3 the 5ileen 'armenta and *llan 1ome" ra)e> sla:A a com)laint 3or grave misconduct was 3iled with the National Police -ommission under the DIL1 against -anoA then Police -hie3 Ins)ector o3 the -alauan Police 'tation@ The -hie3 o3 the PNP 3ound -ano guilt: and ordered his summar: dismissal 3rom the service@ -ano a))ealed the decision 3or which N*P8L-8, was held administrativel: cul)a+le 3or 'im)le ,isconduct and was sus)ended 3or a )eriod o3 three L3O months with a strong warning to +e more )rudent and res)onsi+le in the e%ercise o3 his duties as a mem+er o3 the PNP@ The N*P8L-8, decision having +een allowed +: +oth )arties to +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A -ano was restored to 3ull dut: status wherein he also received all +ene3its and emoluments )ertaining to his )ost )ursuant to PNP ')ecial 8rder@ ?ith the modi3ication o3 his )enalt: to 3 months sus)ensionA -ano 3iled a claim 3or )a:ment o3 +ac4 salaries and other allowances corres)onding to the )eriod he was allegedl: un/ustl: discharged 3rom service until he was restored to 3ull dut: status +ut was denied on the strength o3 a ,emorandumB8)inion 3rom the PNP Legal 'ervice@ .is motion 3or reconsideration having +een re/ectedA -ano 3iled a com)laint +e3ore the $T- which a33irmed the )revious denial on the ground that the suit was actuall: a suit against the state +ecause the ultimate lia+ilit: 3or )a:ment will 3all on the government@ .is motion 3or reconsideration having +een again deniedA -ano 3iled a )etition 3or review on certiorari to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?hether -ano 3ailed to e%haust the administrative remedies availa+le to him so as to render the 3iling o3 the com)laint with the trial court )remature@ 4el53 The )rinci)al issue raised +e3ore the '- is a mi%ed 9uestion o3 3act and law@ There is a 9uestion o3 3act when dou+t or di33erence arises as to the truth or 3alsehood o3 the alleged 3actsA and there is a 9uestion o3 law where the dou+t or di33erence arises as to what the law is on a certain state o3 3acts@ The determination o3 -anoGs entitlement to said +ac4 salaries and allowances is a mi%ed 9uestion as it involves the determination o3 his dut: status 3or the )eriod o3 his claim and the resolution o3 whether the )etitioner was ac9uitted +: the N*P8L-8, *))ellate !oard in its decision 3inding him lia+le onl: 3or sim)le misconductA not gross misconduct@ 6nder 'ection 1 o3 $ule 45 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA an a))eal +: certiorari to the '- should raise onl: 9uestions o3 law which must +e distinctl: set 3orth in the )etition@ It is elementar: that a review is not a matter o3 rightA +ut o3 sound /udicial discretionA and will +e granted onl: when there are s)ecial and im)ortant reasons there3ore@ *s the error raised in the case includes one o3 3act and lawA and not a )ro)er su+/ect 3or a )etition 3or review on certiorariA the '- was constrained to decline e%ercise o3 its e9uit: /urisdiction in such case@ *lsoA )ursuant to 'ection 2A $ule 41 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA -ano should have ta4en his a))eal to the -ourt o3 *))eals and o+served due regard 3or the hierarch: o3 courts@ It is the )olic: o3 the -ourts to res)ect the hierarch: o3 courts andA conse9uentl:A )rohi+iting the 3iling o3 a )etition in the '- in view o3 the concurrent /urisdiction with the lower courts a+sence o3 an: com)elling reason 3or de)arting 3rom such )olic:@

+DD Del Mar 1s. PAGC)R &ac s3 The Phili))ine *musement and 1aming -or)oration is a government>owned and controlled cor)oration organi"ed and e%isting under Presidential Decree No@ 1#6& which was enacted on Jul: 11A 1&#3@ Pursuant to 'ections 1 and 1( o3 P@D@ No@ 1#6&A P*1-8$ re9uested 3or legal advice 3rom the 'ecretar: o3 Justice as to whether or not it is authori"ed +: its -harter to o)erate and manage /ai>alai 3rontons in the countr:@ The 'ecretar: o3 JusticeA 'olicitor 1eneral and 833ice o3 the 1overnment -or)orate -ounsel o)ined that Cthe authorit: o3 P*1-8$ to o)erate and maintain games o3 chance or gam+ling e%tends to /ai>alai which is a 3orm o3 s)ort or game )la:ed 3or +ets and that the -harter o3 P*1-8$ amounts to a legislative 3ranchise 3or the )ur)ose@J ThusA P*1-8$ started the o)eration o3 /ai>alai 3rontons@ $aoul !@ del ,ar initiall: 3iled a Petition 3or Prohi+ition to )revent res)ondent P*1-8$ 3rom managing andBor o)erating the /ai>alai or !as9ue )elota gamesA +: itsel3 or in agreement with !elle -or)orationA on the ground that the controverted act is )atentl: illegal and devoid o3 an: +asis either 3rom the -onstitution or P*1-8$Ps own -harter@ .oweverA P*1-8$ entered into an *greement with !elle Jai *lai -or)oration L!5LL5O and 2ili)inas 1aming 5ntertainment Totali"ator -or)oration L2IL1*,5O wherein it was agreed that !5LL5 will ma4e availa+le to P*1-8$ the re9uired in3rastructure 3acilities including the main 3rontonA as well as )rovide the needed 3unding 3or /ai>alai o)erations with no 3inancial outla: 3rom P*1-8$A while P*1-8$ handles the actual management and o)eration o3 /ai>alai@ Del ,ar 3iled a 'u))lemental Petition 3or -ertiorari 9uestioning the validit: o3 said *greement on the ground that P*1-8$ is without /urisdictionA legislative 3ranchiseA authorit: or )ower to enter into such *greement 3or the o)eningA esta+lishmentA o)erationA control and management o3 /ai> alai games@ 2ederico '@ 'andoval II and ,ichael T@ De3ensor also 3iled a Petition 3or In/unctionA which see4s to en/oin res)ondent P*1-8$ 3rom o)erating or otherwise managing the /ai>alai or !as9ue )elota games +: itsel3 or in /oint venture with !elle -or)orationA 3or +eing )atentl: illegalA having no +asis in the law or the -onstitutionA and in usur)ation o3 the authorit: that )ro)erl: )ertains to the legislative +ranch o3 the government@ Iss%es3 1@ ?hether the '- has /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance o3 a )etition 3or in/unctionA it not among the cases or )roceedings originall: cogni"a+le +: the .onora+le '-A )ursuant to 'ection 1A $ule 56 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ 2@ *ssumingA the .onora+le 'u)reme -ourt has /urisdiction over the )etitionA whether the )etition should +e dismissed 3or 3ailure o3 )etitioners to o+serve the doctrine on hierarch: o3 courts@ 4el53 It is a%iomatic that what determines the nature o3 an action and henceA the /urisdiction o3 the courtA are the allegations o3 the )leading and the character o3 the relie3 sought@ * cursor: )erusal o3 the )etition 3iled the case will show that it is actuall: one 3or Prohi+ition under 'ection 2 o3 $ule 65 3or it see4s to )revent P*1-8$ 3rom managingA maintaining and o)erating /ai>alai games@ 5ven assumingA arguendoA that it is an action 3or in/unctionA this -ourt has the discretionar: )ower to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the )etition at +ar i3 com)elling reasonsA or the nature and im)ortance o3 the issues raisedA warrant the immediate e%ercise o3 its /urisdiction@ It cannot +e gainsaid that the issues raised in the )resent )etitions have generated an oasis o3 concernA

even da:s o3 dis9uiet in view o3 the )u+lic interest at sta4e@ This is in consonance with our case law now accorded near religious reverence that rules o3 )rocedure are +ut tools designed to 3acilitate the attainment o3 /ustice such that when its rigid a))lication tends to 3rustrate rather than )romote su+stantial /usticeA this -ourt has the dut: to sus)end their o)eration@

+DE Cr%$ 1s. Secre ary o2 En1ironmen an5 Na %ral Reso%rces &ac s3 Isagani -ru" and -esar 5uro)a +rought a suit 3or )rohi+ition and mandamus as citi"ens and ta%)a:ersA assailing the constitutionalit: o3 certain )rovisions o3 $@*@ #3 1A otherwise 4nown as the IP$* o3 1&& A and its I$$ on the ground that the: amount to an unlaw3ul de)rivation o3 the 'tatePs ownershi) over lands o3 the )u+lic domain as well as minerals and other natural resources thereinA in violation o3 the regalian doctrine em+odied in 'ection 2A *rticle DII o3 the -onstitution@ Di33erent grou)s L2lavierA -.$A .ari+onA etc@O 3iled their res)ective motion 3or leave to intervene@ 'ome de3ending the constitutionalit: o3 the IP$* and some assailing its constitutionalit:@ The: 9uestion the )rovisions o3 the IP$* de3ining the )owers and /urisdiction o3 the N-IP and ma4ing customar: law a))lica+le to the settlement o3 dis)utes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these )rovisions violate the due )rocess clause o3 the -onstitution@ 'ome o3 the s)eci3ic )rovisions that are +eing assailed are the 3ollowingI CL1O sections 51 to 53 and 5& which detail the )rocess o3 delineation and recognition o3 ancestral domains and which vest on the N-IP the sole authorit: to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral landsN CL2O 'ection 52EiF which )rovides that u)on certi3ication +: the N-IP that a )articular area is an ancestral domain and u)on noti3ication to the 3ollowing o33icialsA namel:A the 'ecretar: o3 5nvironment and Natural $esourcesA 'ecretar: o3 Interior and Local 1overnmentsA 'ecretar: o3 Justice and -ommissioner o3 the National Develo)ment -or)orationA the /urisdiction o3 said o33icials over said area terminatesN CL3O 'ection 63 which )rovides the customar: lawA traditions and )ractices o3 indigenous )eo)les shall +e a))lied 3irst with res)ect to )ro)ert: rightsA claims o3 ownershi)A hereditar: succession and settlement o3 land dis)utesA and that an: dou+t or am+iguit: in the inter)retation thereo3 shall +e resolved in 3avor o3 the indigenous )eo)lesN CL4O 'ection 65 which states that customar: laws and )ractices shall +e used to resolve dis)utes involving indigenous )eo)lesN and CL5O 'ection 66 which vests on the N-IP the /urisdiction over all claims and dis)utes involving rights o3 the indigenous )eo)les@J

Iss%e3 ?hether the IP$* and its I$$ are unconstitutional 3or +eing violative o3 the regalian doctrine@ 4el53 *3ter due deli+eration on the )etitionA the mem+ers o3 the -ourt voted as 3ollowsI 'even L O voted to dismiss the )etition while seven L O other mem+ers o3 the -ourt voted to grant the )etition@ *s the votes were e9uall: divided L to O and the necessar: ma/orit: was not o+tainedA the case was redeli+erated u)on@ .oweverA a3ter redeli+erationA the voting remained the same@ *ccordingl:A )ursuant to $ule 56A 'ection o3 the $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA the )etition is DI',I''5D@

+DA Microso2 Corpora ion 1s. !es Deal Comp% er Cen er Corpora ion &ac s3 ,I-$8'82T -8$P8$*TI8N is a 6'>+ased cor)oration not doing +usiness in the Phili))ines +ut has sued in our courts solel: to )rotect its intellectual )ro)ert: rights via a com)laint 3or &n!unction and 'amages %ith (# Parte Application for )emporary *estraining Order and the Provisional Measure of Preservation of (vidence against !est Deal -om)uter -enter -or)orationA Per3ect Deal -or)oration and ,arcos -@ 0uen doing +usiness as Per3ect !:te -om)uter -enter@ It alleged the latterA without authorit: or license co)iedA re)roducedA distri+utedA installed andBor loaded so3tware )rograms owned +: ,icroso3t into com)uter units sold +: them to their customers in violation o3 its intellectual )ro)ert: rights@ The Las PiVas trial court set ,icroso3tPs )ra:er 3or a T$8 3or hearing +ut at the same time denied its a))lication 3or an e# parte order ratiocinating that the Intellectual Pro)ert: -ode does not e%)ressl: allow its issuance and thatA in an: caseA the T$IP' *1$55,5NT cannot )revail over it@ The court a uo also o)ined that such a))lication )artoo4 o3 a search and sei"ure order availa+le onl: in criminal cases@ It moved 3or reconsideration +ut the same was denied@ In line wB thisA ,icroso3t 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt and su+mits that the court a uo gravel: a+used its discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction when it ruled that the law does not allow an e# parte )rovisional remed: o3 sei"ure and im)ounding o3 in3ringing evidence@ It allegedl: resorted to the instant recourse +ecause it had no a))eal or an: )lainA s)eed: and ade9uate remed: in the ordinar: course o3 law@ It automaticall: invo4ed the /urisdiction o3 the '- su))osedl: +ecause o3 the im)ortance o3 the issue involved@ It +:)assed the -ourt o3 *))eals on the )remise that it would +e useless to 3irst see4 recourse thereat as the )art: aggrieved +: the a))ellate courtGs ruling would nonetheless elevate the matter to this -ourt@ !: thenA it surmisedA the level o3 intellectual )irac: would have worsened@ Li4ewiseA it )resumes that direct resort to this -ourt is /usti3ied as the )etition involves a )ure 9uestion o3 law@ Iss%es3 1@ ?hether the e%traordinar: writ o3 certiorari will lie@ 2@ ?hether ,icroso3t can 3ile an e%traordinar: writ o3 certiorari directl: to the '- +ased on its argument o3 its 9uest 3or s)eed: /ustice@ 4el53 2or certiorari to lieA it must +e shown that the tri+unalA +oard or o33icer e%ercising /udicial 3unctions acted without or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdictionA and that there is no a))eal nor an: )lainA s)eed: and ade9uate remed: in the ordinar: course o3 law 3or the )ur)ose o3 amending or nulli3:ing the )roceeding@ The sole o33ice o3 the writ o3 certiorari is the correction o3 errors o3 /urisdiction including the commission o3 grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 /urisdictionA and does not include correction o3 )u+lic res)ondentGs evaluation o3 the evidence and 3actual 3indings thereon@ The )etition 3or certiorari must +e +ased on /urisdictional grounds +ecause as long as the res)ondent acted with /urisdictionA an: error committed +: him or it in the e%ercise thereo3 will amount to nothing more than an error o3 /udgment which ma: +e reviewed or corrected onl: +: a))eal@ 5ven an a+use o3 discretion is not su33icient +: itsel3 to /usti3: the issuance o3 a writ o3 certiorari@

The $T- acted within its /urisdiction when it too4 cogni"ance o3 the com)laint 3or in/unction and damages 3iled +: ,icroso3t@ 'ection 1&A )ar@ L#OA !P !lg@ 12&A as amendedA )rovides that $T-Ps in ,etro ,anila shall have e%clusive original /urisdiction in all cases in which the demandA e%clusive o3 interestA damages o3 whatever 4indA attorne:s 3eesA costs or the value o3 the )ro)ert: in controvers: e%ceeds P2((A(((@((@ In the com)laint 3iled +e3ore the court a uoA it averred that it incurred no less than P 5(A(((@(( in attorne:Gs 3eesA investigation and litigation e%)enses and another P2A(((A(((@(( +: wa: o3 moral damages@ -learl:A the a+ove amounts 3all within the /urisdiction o3 the $egional Trial -ourt@ *lsoA the com)laint was )ro)erl: lodged in the $T- Las PiVas considering that one o3 the )rinci)al de3endants was residing thereat@ * s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari will )ros)er onl: i3 grave a+use o3 discretion is mani3ested@ 2or an a+use to +e grave the )ower must +e e%ercised in an ar+itrar: or des)otic manner +: reason o3 )assion or )ersonal hostilit:@ The a+use o3 discretion must +e so )atent and gross as to amount to an evasion o3 a )ositive dut:A or a virtual re3usal to )er3orm the dut: en/oined or act in contem)lation o3 law@ There is grave a+use o3 discretion when res)ondent acts in a ca)ricious or whimsical manner in the e%ercise o3 its /udgment as to +e e9uivalent to lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ It was never shown how res)ondent tri+unal su))osedl: e%ercised its )ower in a des)oticA ca)ricious or whimsical manner@ There +eing no hint o3 grave a+use o3 discretion that can +e attri+uted to the lower courtA henceA it could +e sa3el: held that the assailed orders were rendered in the )ro)er e%ercise o3 its /urisdiction@ 'igni3icantl:A even assuming that the orders were erroneousA such error would merel: +e deemed as an error o3 /udgment that cannot +e remedied +: certiorari@ *s long as the res)ondent acted with /urisdictionA an: error committed +: him or it in the e%ercise thereo3 will amount to nothing more than an error o3 /udgment which ma: +e reviewed or corrected onl: +: a))eal@ The distinction is clearI * )etition 3or certiorari see4s to correct errors o3 /urisdiction while a )etition 3or review see4s to correct errors o3 /udgment committed +: the court@ 5rrors o3 /udgment include errors o3 )rocedure or mista4es in the courtGs 3indings@ ?here a court has /urisdiction over the )erson and su+/ect matterA the decision on all other 9uestions arising in the case is an e%ercise o3 that /urisdiction@ -onse9uentl:A all errors committed in the e%ercise o3 such /urisdiction are merel: errors o3 /udgment@ -ertiorari under $ule 65 is a remed: designed 3or the correction o3 errors o3 /urisdiction and not errors o3 /udgment@ PetitionerGs rights can +e more a))ro)riatel: addressed in the a))eal@ The 9uest 3or s)eed: /ustice should not +e used as a devise to tram)le u)on other e9uall: lauda+le )olicies o3 the '-@ ,icroso3tPs direct resort to the '- in the guise o3 s)eed: /ustice was in utter disregard o3 the hierarch: o3 courtsA there +eing no e%ce)tional or com)elling reason not to o+serve the hierarch: o3 courts@ The '-Ps original /urisdiction to issue writs o3 certiorari is not e%clusive@ It is shared +: this -ourt with $egional Trial -ourts and with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ This concurrence o3 /urisdiction is notA howeverA to +e ta4en as according to )arties see4ing an: o3 the writs an a+soluteA unrestrained 3reedom o3 choice o3 the court to which a))lication there3ore will +e directed@ There is a3ter all a hierarch: o3 courts@ * direct invocation o3 the 'u)reme -ourtPs original /urisdiction to issue these writs should +e allowed onl: when there are s)ecial and im)ortant reasons there3orA clearl: and s)eci3icall: set out in the )etition@ This is esta+lished )olic:@ It is a )olic: that is necessar: to )revent inordinate demands u)on the -ourtGs time and attention which are +etter devoted to those matters within its e%clusive /urisdictionA and to )revent 3urther over>crowding o3 the -ourtGs doc4et@

+D. L%$on De1elopmen !ank 1s. Associa ion o2 L%$on De1elopmen !ank Employees &ac s3 2rom a su+mission agreement o3 the Lu"on Develo)ment !an4 LLD!O and the *ssociation o3 Lu"on Develo)ment !an4 5m)lo:ees L*LD!5O arose an ar+itration case to resolve the issue o3 whether or not the com)an: has violated the -ollective !argaining *greement )rovision and the ,emorandum o3 *greement dated *)ril 1&&4A on )romotion@ *tt:@ 5ster '@ 1arciaA in her ca)acit: as 7oluntar: *r+itratorA received *LD!5Gs Position Pa)er@ LD!A on the other handA 3ailed to su+mit its Position Pa)er des)ite a letter reminding them to do so@ ?ithout LD!Gs Position Pa)erA the 7oluntar: *r+itrator rendered a decision against the +an4@ Iss%e3 ?hether LD! can 3ile a )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition see4ing to set aside the decision o3 the 7oluntar: *r+itrator and to )rohi+it her 3rom en3orcing the same@ 4el53 In la+or lawA ar+itration is the re3erence o3 a la+or dis)ute to an im)artial third )erson 3or determination on the +asis o3 evidence and arguments )resented +: such )arties who have +ound themselves to acce)t the decision o3 the ar+itrator as 3inal and +inding@ -om)ulsor: ar+itration is a s:stem where+: the )arties to a dis)ute are com)elled +: the government to 3orego their right to stri4e and are com)elled to acce)t the resolution o3 their dis)ute through ar+itration +: a third )art:@ The essence o3 ar+itration remains since a resolution o3 a dis)ute is arrived at +: resort to a disinterested third )art: whose decision is 3inal and +inding on the )artiesA +ut in com)ulsor: ar+itrationA such a third )art: is normall: a))ointed +: the government@ 6nder voluntar: ar+itrationA on the other handA re3erral o3 a dis)ute +: the )arties is madeA )ursuant to a voluntar: ar+itration clause in their collective agreementA to an im)artial third )erson 3or a 3inal and +inding resolution@ Ideall:A ar+itration awards are su))osed to +e com)lied with +: +oth )arties without dela:A such that once an award has +een rendered +: an ar+itratorA nothing is le3t to +e done +: +oth )arties +ut to com)l: with the same@ The )arties to a -!* are re9uired to include therein )rovisions 3or a machiner: 3or the resolution o3 grievances arising 3rom the inter)retation or im)lementation o3 the -!* or com)an: )ersonnel )olicies@ 2or this )ur)oseA )arties to a -!* shall name and designate therein a voluntar: ar+itrator or a )anel o3 ar+itratorsA or include a )rocedure 3or their selectionA )re3era+l: 3rom those accredited +: the National -onciliation and ,ediation !oard LN-,!O@ *rticle 261 o3 the La+or -ode accordingl: )rovides 3or e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 such voluntar: ar+itrator or )anel o3 ar+itrators over L1O the inter)retation or im)lementation o3 the -!* and L2O the inter)retation or en3orcement o3 com)an: )ersonnel )olicies@ *rticle 262 authori"es themA +ut onl: u)on agreement o3 the )artiesA to e%ercise /urisdiction over other la+or dis)utes@ 8n the other handA a la+or ar+iter under *rticle 21 o3 the La+or -ode has /urisdiction over the 3ollowing enumerated casesI +. $nfair labor practice cases, -. )ermination disputes, .. &f accompanied %ith a claim for reinstatement" those cases that %orkers may file involving %ages" rates of pay" hours of %ork and other terms and conditions of employment,

/. Claims for actual" moral" e#emplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer0employee relations, 1. Cases arising from any violation of Article -2/ of this Code" including uestions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts, 2. (#cept claims for (mployees Compensation" Social Security" Medicare and maternity benefits" all other claims" arising from employer0employee relations" including those of persons in domestic or household service" involving an amount e#ceeding five thousand pesos 3P1"444.445 regardless of %hether accompanied %ith a claim for reinstatement. The /urisdiction con3erred +: law on a voluntar: ar+itrator or a )anel o3 such ar+itrators is 9uite limited com)ared to the original /urisdiction o3 the la+or ar+iter and the a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the National La+or $elations -ommission LNL$-O 3or that matter@ The state o3 our )resent law relating to voluntar: ar+itration )rovides that HLtOhe award or decision o3 the 7oluntar: *r+itrator @ @ @ shall +e 3inal and e%ecutor: a3ter ten L1(O calendar da:s 3rom recei)t o3 the co): o3 the award or decision +: the )artiesAH A while the HLdOdecisionA awardsA or orders o3 the La+or *r+iter are 3inal and e%ecutor: unless a))ealed to the -ommission +: an: or +oth )arties within ten L1(O calendar da:s 3rom recei)t o3 such decisionsA awardsA or orders@H . .enceA while there is an e%)ress mode o3 a))eal 3rom the decision o3 a la+or ar+iterA $e)u+lic *ct No@ 6 15 is silent with res)ect to an a))eal 3rom the decision o3 a voluntar: ar+itrator@ 'ection & o3 !@P@ !lg@ 12&A as amended +: $e)u+lic *ct No@ &(2A )rovides that the -ourt o3 *))eals shall e%erciseI 3B5 (#clusive appellate !urisdiction over all final !udgments" decisions" resolutions" orders or a%ards of *egional )rial Courts and uasi0!udicial agencies" instrumentalities" boards or commissions" including the Securities and (#change Commission" the (mployees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission" e#cept those falling %ithin the appellate !urisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance %ith the Constitution" the 6abor Code of the Philippines under Presidential 'ecree 7o. //-" as amended" the provisions of this Act" and of subparagraph 3+5 of the third paragraph and subparagraph 3/5 of the fourth paragraph of Section +8 of the Judiciary Act of +9/:. *ssuming arguendo that the voluntar: ar+itrator or the )anel o3 voluntar: ar+itrators ma: not strictl: +e considered as a 9uasi>/udicial agenc:A +oard or commissionA still +oth he and the )anel are com)rehended within the conce)t o3 a H9uasi>/udicial instrumentalit:@H It ma: even +e stated that it was to meet the ver: situation )resented +: the 9uasi>/udicial 3unctions o3 the voluntar: ar+itrators hereA as well as the su+se9uent ar+itratorBar+itral tri+unal o)erating under the -onstruction Industr: *r+itration -ommissionA that the +roader term HinstrumentalitiesH was )ur)osel: included in the a+ove>9uoted )rovision@ *n Hinstrumentalit:H is an:thing used as a means or agenc:@ ThusA the terms governmental Hagenc:H or Hinstrumentalit:H are s:non:mous in the sense that either o3 them is a means +: which a government actsA or +: which a certain government act or 3unction is )er3ormed@ The word Hinstrumentalit:AH with res)ect to a stateA contem)lates an authorit: to which the state delegates governmental )ower 3or the )er3ormance o3 a state 3unction@ *n individual )ersonA li4e an administrator or e%ecutorA is a /udicial instrumentalit: in the settling o3 an estateA in the same

manner that a su+>agent a))ointed +: a +an4ru)tc: court is an instrumentalit: o3 the courtA and a trustee in +an4ru)tc: o3 a de3unct cor)oration is an instrumentalit: o3 the state@ The voluntar: ar+itrator no less )er3orms a state 3unction )ursuant to a governmental )ower delegated to him under the )rovisions there3or in the La+or -ode and he 3allsA there3oreA within the contem)lation o3 the term Hinstrumentalit:H in the a3ore9uoted 'ec@ & o3 !@P@ 12&@ The 3act that his 3unctions and )owers are )rovided 3or in the La+or -ode does not )lace him within the e%ce)tions to said 'ec@ & since he is a 9uasi>/udicial instrumentalit: as contem)lated therein@ A fortioriA the decision or award o3 the voluntar: ar+itrator or )anel o3 ar+itrators should li4ewise +e a))eala+le to the -ourt o3 *))ealsA in line with the )rocedure outlined in $evised *dministrative -ircular No@ 1>&5A /ust li4e those o3 the 9uasi>/udicial agenciesA +oards and commissions enumerated therein@ This would +e in 3urtherance o3A and consistent withA the original )ur)ose o3 -ircular No@ 1>&1 to )rovide a uni3orm )rocedure 3or the a))ellate review o3 ad/udications o3 all 9uasi>/udicial entities not e%)ressl: e%ce)ted 3rom the coverage o3 'ec@ & o3 !@P@ 12& +: either the -onstitution or another statute@ Nor will it run counter to the legislative intendment that decisions o3 the NL$- +e reviewa+le directl: +: the 'u)reme -ourt sinceA )recisel:A the cases within the ad/udicative com)etence o3 the voluntar: ar+itrator are e%cluded 3rom the /urisdiction o3 the NL$- or the la+or ar+iter@ In the same veinA it is worth mentioning that under 'ection 22 o3 $e)u+lic *ct No@ # 6A also 4nown as the *r+itration LawA ar+itration is deemed a s)ecial )roceeding o3 which the court s)eci3ied in the contract or su+missionA or i3 none +e s)eci3iedA the $egional Trial -ourt 3or the )rovince or cit: in which one o3 the )arties resides or is doing +usinessA or in which the ar+itration is heldA shall have /urisdiction@ * )art: to the controvers: ma:A at an: time within one L1O month a3ter an award is madeA a))l: to the court having /urisdiction 3or an order con3irming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacatedA modi3ied or corrected@ ,B In e33ectA this e9uates the award or decision o3 the voluntar: ar+itrator with that o3 the regional trial court@ -onse9uentl:A in a )etition 3or certiorari 3rom that award or decisionA the -ourt o3 *))eals must +e deemed to have concurrent /urisdiction with the 'u)reme -ourt@ *s a matter o3 )olic:A this -ourt shall hence3orth remand to the -ourt o3 *))eals )etitions o3 this nature 3or )ro)er dis)osition@

+DC Esco1illa 'r. 1s. CA &ac s3 In a -ivil -ase entitled -uison 5ngineering and ,achiner: -o@A Inc@ v@ del $osario and 'ons Logging 5nter)risesA Inc@HA a decision was rendered +: $T-A !ranch IDA Davao -it: awarding to -uison a certain sum o3 mone: and damages@ The -* a33irmed the decision which +ecame 3inal and e%ecutor:@ Therea3terA -uison sought the e%ecution o3 the su+/ect decision and a corres)onding writ o3 e%ecution was issued +: said court@ De)ut: 'heri33 *l3onso 5scovillaA Jr@ levied and sei"ed one L1O unit electric welding machine +ut a third )art: claim over said item was 3iled +: ,ariano $ana o33ice manager o3 'i+agat Tim+er -or)oration@ !ecause o3 such lev:A a ')ecial -ivil *ction 3or )rohi+ition with )reliminar: in/unction and damages was 3iled on +e3ore the $T-A !ranch I7 o3 !utuan -it: entitledA H'i+agat Tim+er -or)@ v@ *l3onso 5scovillaA Jr@ and -uison 5ngineering and ,achiner: -or)@A Inc@H De)ut: 'heri33 -ecilio ,@ ,eris therea3ter sei"ed and levied one L1O unit motor launch named HPi%ie !o: No@ 5H +: virtue o3 the writ o3 e%ecution issued in the 3irst civil case while -onchita del $osarioA claiming ownershi) over the motor launchA 3iled a third )art: claim over the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ * sheri33Gs indemnit: +ond 3iled 3or the third )art: claim o3 -onchita del $osario was a))roved +: the Davao -ourt@ 8n the same da:A -ecilio ,@ ,eris )re)ared the notice o3 sale setting the auction sale o3 the motor launch@ The s)ecial civil case was later on amended to include -onchita and ,eris as additional )arties and )ra:ed in the )etitionA a tem)orar: restraining order directing the 'heri33 to re3rain 3rom )roceeding wB the )u+lic auction sale@ *3ter the tem)orar: restraining order had la)sed and u)on motion o3 -uisonA the $T- o3 Davao -it: issued an order in the -ivil -ase directing De)ut: 'heri33 5scovilla to )roceed with the auction sale o3 the su+/ect motor launch HPi%ie !o: No@ 5H with authorit: to law3ull: retrieve the same wherever it ma: +e stored or +erthed@ Pursuant to such orderA 5scovilla too4 custod: o3 the motor launch and set the auction sale@ Des)ite the orders o3 the court in the su+se9uent ')ecial -ivil -ase directing the 'heri33 to return the motor launch and to desist 3rom )roceeding with the auction saleA the auction sale was conducted u)on motion o3 -uison 5ngineering and ,achiner: -o@A Inc@ and u)on order o3 Judge 'aludares in the civil case@ It was sold at a )u+lic auction at a )u+lic auction +: De)ut: 'heri33 $o+i"a in lieu o3 5scovilla@ ,eanwhileA trial on the merits was held in the ')ecial -ivil -ase 3or which court rendered a decisionA ordering the return o3 the motor launchA declaring the sale o3 )u+lic auction illegal and void 3rom the +eginning and ordering 'heri33 5scovilla to return to 'i+aga: at his own e%)enseA the electric machine he im)rovidentl: and illegall: sei"ed@ 8n a))eal to the -*A the decision o3 the $T-A !utuan -it: was a33irmed wB some modi3ications@ Iss%e3 ?hether $T- !ranch ID o3 Davao -it: can validl: order the e%ecution o3 the auction sale o3 )ro)erties which are su+/ect o3 a ')ecial -ivil *ction in another -ourt o3 co>e9ual authorit:@ 4el53 * court should not +: means o3 a )reliminar: in/unction trans3er the )ro)ert: in litigation 3rom the )ossession o3 one )art: to another where the legal title is in dis)ute and the )art: having )ossession asserts ownershi) thereto@ 'imilarl:A the )rimar: )ur)ose o3 an in/unction is to )reserve the status 9uo that is the last actual )eacea+le uncontested status which )receded the controvers:@

I3 a third )art: claim is 3iledA the sheri33 is not +ound to )roceed with the lev: o3 the )ro)ert: unless he is given +: the /udgment creditor an indemnit: +ond against the claim@ The /udgment creditorA +: giving an indemnit: +ondA assumes the direction and control o3 the sheri33Ps actionN so 3ar as it might constitute a tres)ass and thus he +ecomesA to that e%tentA the )rinci)al and the sheri33A his agent@ This ma4es him res)onsi+le 3or the continuance o3 the wrong3ul )ossession and 3or the sale and conversion o3 the goods and 3or all real damages which the owner might sustain@ ThusA in this caseA even i3 the auction sale has +een conducted and the sheri33Ps certi3icate o3 sale was issued in 3avor o3 the winning +idderA the lia+ilit: o3 the /udgment creditor and conse9uentl:A the )urchaser to the real owners o3 the )ro)erties levied and e%ecuted is not e%tinguished@ The $egional Trial -ourt o3 !utuan -it: cannot restrain or inter3ere with the orders issued +: the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Davao -it: which is its coordinate and co>e9ual authorit: on matters )ro)erl: +rought +e3ore it@ 1enerall:A the rule that no court has the )ower to inter3ere +: in/unction with the /udgments or decrees o3 a concurrent or coordinate /urisdiction having e9ual )ower to grant the in/unctive relie3 sought +: in/unctionA is a))lied in cases where no third>)art: claimant is involvedA in order to )revent one court 3rom nulli3:ing the /udgment or )rocess o3 another court o3 the same ran4 or categor:A a )ower which devolves u)on the )ro)er a))ellate court The )ur)ose o3 the rule is to avoid con3lict o3 )ower +etween di33erent courts o3 coordinate /urisdiction and to +ring a+out a harmonious and smooth 3unctioning o3 their )roceedings@

+D- NICAN)R T. SANT)S 1s. R)SA GANA<) &ACTS3 Petitioner is the registered owner o3 Lot 14 Lsu+se9uentl: Lot 14 >*>1>*O a residential lot o3 1(A((( s9uare meters situated at PacdalA !aguio -it:A covered +: T-T No@ T>45#3 issued on Jul: 15A 1&6(@ Prior to )etitionerGs ownershi)A the lot in 9uestion 3ormerl: +elonged to the 3ollowing co>ownersI LaO 8ne>hal3 L1B2O to the .eirs o3 ,olintasA namel:I 7ecina *l+inaA ,agsiaA PulmanoA Pedro Piscong and 'ergioA are surnamed ,olintasN L+O 8ne>hal3 L1B2O to Justo LeaVo +ut a3ter his deathA +: virtue o3 a )artition e%ecuted among his heirs in 1&5# to 1&5&A the same was ad/udicated to ,agdalena Leano Lthe surviving s)ouseOA and registered in her name under T@-@T@ No@ T>3 #&@ ; In Januar:A 1&6(A the a+ove>mentioned co>owners sold the lot to Pacita Jocson who in turnA sold the same to )etitioner@ Therea3terA T-T No@ T>45#3 was issued in )etitionerGs name@ *))ro%imatel: nineteen :ears +e3ore thenA it a))ears that Pulmano ,olintas e%ecuted a HPromise to Trans3er and -onve:H to $osa 1ana:o +: wa: o3 a+solute sale a )ortion o3 5( s9uare meters o3 Lot 14 with the sti)ulation that i3 the )romise would not materiali"eA Pulmano would reim+urse the sum o3 P35(@((A which he ac4nowledged to have received 3rom $osa 1ana:o It also a))ears that ,agdalena LeaVo e%ecuted an *33idavit wherein she states that she owned Lot 14 consisting o3 1(A((( s9uare metersN that long +e3ore ?orld ?ar II she sold 5( s9uare meters o3 the same to $osa 1ana:o@ .oweverA ,agdalena LeaVo re)udiated this *33idavit and e%ecuted another one den:ing that she had sold to $osa 1ana:o the )ortion o3 5( s9uare meters claimed +: her@ In the meantime res)ondent $osa 1ana:o was a+le to secure the annotation o3 an adverse claim on Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title No@ 3 #& then in the name o3 ,agdalena LeaVo@ ?hen )etitioner ac9uired Lot 14 on June 11A 1&6( and T-T No@ 45#3 was issued in his nameA said title carried over the adverse claim o3 res)ondent 1ana:o@ .enceA )etitioner 3iled with the -2I o3 !aguio -it: a Petition 3or -ancellation o3 *dverse -laim o3 res)ondent $osa 1ana:o )ursuant to 'ections 11( and 112 o3 the Land $egistration *ct L*ct No@ 4&6O@ Con en ion o2 Pe i ioner3 That Pulmano ,olintas was never the a+solute owner o3 said land as one>hal3 o3 said )ro)ert: +elonged to the 5state o3 ,olintas o3 which Pulmano was /ust one o3 the heirs while the other hal3 was in the name o3 Justo LeaVo hus+and o3 ,agdalena LeaVo and in 1&5# or 1&5&A +: virtue o3 the )artition among the LeaVo heirsA the one>hal3 )ortion was ad/udicated to ,agdalena LeaVo that the latter was never the owner o3 said land +e3ore ?orld ?ar II having secured title thereto onl: in 1&5#N that ,agdalena Leano re)udiated the e%ecution o3 the *33idavit@ 2urtherA that the agreement +etween Pulmano ,olintas and $osa 1ana:o could not +e the +asis o3 a valid adverse claim +ecause when the adverse claim was registered whatever right or cause o3 action $osa 1ana:o had arising 3rom said *greement was

unen3orcea+le as it had alread: )rescri+ed andBor was +arred +: lachesN that since the inscri)tion o3 said adverse claimA $osa 1ana:o had not 3iled an: case 3or its en3orcement@ Con en ion o2 Respon5en 3 That Pulmano ,olintas and ,agdalena LeaVo were a+solute co> owners o3 the landN that at the time o3 registration o3 the adverse claimA ,agdalena LeaVo and her co>owners never 9uestioned the validit: o3 her claimN that ,agdalena LeaVo was aware o3 res)ondentGs actual )ossession o3 5( s9uare meters o3 said lotN that the *greement +etween her and Pulmano was su)erseded +: a su+se9uent contract o3 saleN and that she had 3ull: )aid the )urchase )rice as shown +: her recei)ts o3 )a:ment@ *s a33irmative de3ensesA res)ondent contended that )etitioner 'antos is not the real )art: in interest to 9uestion the validit: o3 the annotationN that )etitioner having had su33icient notice o3 said claim cannot ac9uire a +etter right than his )redecessorsN that )etitioner is now esto))ed 3rom as4ing 3or cancellation o3 the adverse claim having +ought the land su+/ect to said claimN and that the issues are controversial andA there3oreA the trial -ourtA as a Land $egistration -ourtA has no /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the same@ $es)ondent thus )ra:ed that the Petition 3or -ancellation +e dismissedN that )etitioner +e ordered to reconve: that )ortion o3 the land now in )ossession o3 res)ondentA or in the alternativeA that )etitioner +e ordered to )a: the reasona+le value o3 the im)rovements in the event that the Petition is granted@ TC R%lin/I *uthori"ed cancellation@ The $egister o3 Deeds o3 !aguio -it: is here+: ordered to cancel the *dverse -laim annotated at the +ac4 o3 Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title No@ T>45#3A 3or +eing null and voidN that )etitioner NI-*N8$ T@ '*NT8' is here+: ordered to )a: the reasona+le value o3 the two L2O houses and other im)rovements o3 $8'* 1*N*08 +e3ore she is made to vacate the )ro)ert:N here+: declaring the )etitioner as the true and law3ul owner o3 the whole area o3 Ten Thousand L1(A(((O '9uare ,eters as covered +: said certi3icate o3 titleN and without )ronouncement as to costs@ !oth )arties a))ealed to the -ourt o3 *))eals@ CA R%lin/3 'et aside the T- ruling 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction on the )art o3 the lower court to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the instance )etition 3or cancellation o3 adverse claim@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals erred in 3inding that the -ourt o3 2irst Instance o3 !aguio acting as a Land $egistration -ourt could not ta4e cogni"ance o3 the instant Petition 3or -ancellation o3 *dverse -laim in view o3 the 9uestion o3 ownershi) raised +: res)ondent which made the case controversial andA there3oreA )ro)erl: within the /urisdiction o3 an ordinar: -ourt@ 4ELD3 0es@ The a))lica+le law is 'ection 11( o3 the Land $egistration *ct 4&6 which is divided into two )arts@ The 3irst )art re3ers to the )rocedure to +e 3ollowed in registering an adverse claim in the 833ice o3 the $egister o3 Deeds@ The second )art )rovides 3or the determination +: a -ourt o3 the validit: o3 an adverse claim u)on )etition and s)eed: hearing 'ection 11( does not distinguish +etween a -ourt sitting as a land registration -ourt and a -ourt o3 general /urisdiction@ ?e are o3 the considered o)inionA there3oreA that either -ourt ma: determine the validit: o3 an adverse claim and i3 3ound to +e invalidA order its cancellation@ !esidesA whether a )articular matter should +e resolved +: the -ourt o3 2irst Instance in the e%ercise o3 its general /urisdiction or o3 its limited /urisdiction as a s)ecial court L)ro+ateA land

registrationA etc@O is in realit: not a /urisdictional 9uestion@ It is in essence a )rocedural 9uestion involving a mode o3 )ractice Gwhich ma: +e waived@H ,K * contrar: ruling would onl: undul: )rolong this case which has +een )ending decision 3or eleven :ears and has had a li3es)an since its ince)tion o3 twent: :ears@ 2urthermoreA our review o3 the )roceedings in the -ourt a uo indicates that its /udgment is su))orted +: the evidence on recordA testimonial and documentar:A and which were su33icient and ade9uate 3or the rendition o3 a decision@ ) her iss%e asi5e 2rom "%ris5ic ion3 The issue in this case is whether or not the o))ositor $osa 1ana:o had an: right at all on the 5( s9@ meters she claimsA as shown +: the Promise to Trans3er and -onve:A and the *greement su))orted +: her recei)ts o3 )a:ments and i3 in the negativeA then the adverse claim should +e cancelled as )ra:ed 3or in the )etition@ Let it +e noted that the *greement in 9uestion is not a deed o3 a+solute saleA conse9uentl:A the recei)ts o3 )a:ment were +: virtue o3 the agreement o3 )romise to conve: and trans3er@ It is evident that there was no 3inal conve:ance and trans3er o3 the area consisting o3 5( s9uare meters as claimed +: the o))ositorA out o3 the 1(A((( s9uare@ It is stri4ing to note that when $osa 1ana:o allegedl: )aid 3or the 5( s9uare meters 3rom Pulmano ,olintasA the one>hal3 L1B2O )ortion o3 the 1(A((( s9uare meters was still in the co>ownershi) o3 the ,olintas +rothers and sisters and that at the time there was no 3i%ed )ortion allocated to Pulmano ,olintas@ 'ince the agreement was onl: e%ecuted +: Pulmano ,olintasA there is no 9uestion that Justo LeaVo did not agree to said agreement +ecause he did not a33i% his signature therein@ I3 at allA the o))ositor $osa 1ana:o was +u:ing onl: an undivided interest o3 Pulmano ,olintas@ 8n the other handA ,agdalena LeaVo con3irmed that her late hus+and Justo LeaVo never sold a )ortion o3 the 1(A((( s9uare meters to $osa 1ana:o +e3oreA duringA and a3ter the last warN that she never a))eared +e3ore Notar: Pu+lic@ The attem)t o3 the o))ositor to )rove a ver+al deed o3 sale o3 the )ortion o3 5( s9uare meters in her 3avor is not tena+le )ursuant to 'ec@ 121 o3 $ule 123 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ 'aid )rovision states that Gan agreement 3or the leasing 3or a longer )eriod than one :ear or 3or the sale o3 real )ro)ert: or o3 interest therein must +e evidenced +: writing@G This )rovision o3 is also re>stated under *rt@ 14(3 o3 the New -ivil -ode@ *ssuming that $osa 1ana:oA the o))ositor hereinA had the right +ased on the *greement to -onve: and Trans3erA her 3ailure or the a+andonment o3 her right to 3ile an action against Pulmano ,olintas when he was still a co>owner o3 the one>hal3 L1B2O )ortion o3 the 1(A((( s9uare meters is now +arred +: laches andBor )rescri+ed +: law +ecause she 3ailed to +ring such action within ten L1(O :ears 3rom the date o3 the written agreement in 1&41A )ursuant to *rt@ 1144 o3 the New -ivil -odeA so that when she 3iled the adverse claim thru her counsel in 1&5& she had a+solutel: no more right whatsoever on the sameA having +een +arred +: laches@H ,, ?.5$528$5A the Decision o3 res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals is here+: set aside and the /udgment o3 the -ourt o3 2irst Instance o3 !aguioA here+: a33irmed@

DB. MILLENI(M IND(STRIAL C)MMERCIAL C)RP)RATI)N vs@'AC#S)N TAN &ACTS3 ,illenium Industrial -ommercial -or)orationA )etitioner hereinA e%ecuted a Deed o3 $eal 5state ,ortgage1 over its real )ro)ert: in 3avor o3 res)ondent Jac4son Tan@ To secure )a:ment o3 )etitionerGs inde+tedness to res)ondent in the amount o3 P2 millionA without monthl: interestA +ut whichA at maturit: date on June 1(A 1&&5A was )a:a+le in the amount o3 P4 million@ 8n Novem+er &A 1&&5A res)ondent 3iled against )etitioner a com)laint 3or 3oreclosure o3 mortgage in the $egional Trial -ourtA !ranch 6A -e+u -it:@ 8n Novem+er 21A 1&&5A summons and a co): o3 the com)laint were served u)on )etitioner through a certain L:nverd -inchesA descri+ed in the sheri33Gs returnA dated Novem+er 23A 1&&5A as Ha Dra3tsmanA a )erson o3 su33icient age and LdiscretionO wor4ing thereinA he is the highest ran4ing o33icer or 833icer>in> -harge o3 de3endantGs -or)orationA to receive )rocesses o3 the -ourt@H Petitioner moved 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laint on the ground that there was no valid service o3 summons u)on itA as a result o3 which the trial court did not ac9uire /urisdiction over it@ $ule 14A 13 o3 the 1&64 $ules o3 -ourt and contended that service on L:nverd -inchesA as alleged in the sheri33Gs returnA was invalid as he is not one o3 the authori"ed )ersons on whom summons ma: +e served and thatA in 3actA he was not even its em)lo:ee@ Petitioner also sought the dismissal o3 the com)laint against it on the ground that it had satis3ied its o+ligation to res)ondent when the latter o)ted to +e )aid in shares o3 stoc4@ The rial co%r denied )etitionerGs ,otion to DismissA statingI By interposing the second ground" the defendant has availed of an affirmative defense on the basis of %hich the Court has to hear and receive evidence @ ;or the Court to validly decide the said plea of the defendant it necessarily had to ac uire !urisdiction over the person of the defendant@ )hus" defendant is considered to have then abandoned its first ground and is deemed to have voluntarily submitted itself to the !urisdiction of the Court@ It is a legal truism that voluntar: a))earance cures the de3ect o3 the summons@ Petitioner moved 3or reconsiderationA +ut its motion was denied +: the trial court in its orderA dated Januar: 16A 1&&6A 3or 3ailure o3 )etitioner to raise an: new ground@ Petitioner then 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari in the -ourt o3 *))eals@ The -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the )etition@ The a))ellate court ruled that although )etitioner denied L:nverd -inchesG authorit: to receive summons 3or itA its actual recei)t o3 the summons could +e in3erred 3rom its 3iling o3 a motion to dismissA henceA the )ur)ose 3or issuing summons had +een su+stantiall: achieved@ ,oreoverA it was heldA +: including the a33irmative de3ense that it had alread: )aid its o+ligation and )ra:ing 3or other relie3s in its ,otion to DismissA )etitioner voluntaril: su+mitted to the /urisdiction o3 the court@# ISS(ESI

I@ ?.5T.5$ 8$ N8T '5$7I-5 82 '6,,8N' 6P8N * ,5$5 D$*2T',*N ?.8 I' N8T 8N5 82 T.8'5 6P8N ?.8, '6,,8N' ,*0 !5 '5$75D IN -*'5 82 * D525ND*NT -8$P8$*TI8N *' ,5NTI8N5D IN T.5 $6L5' I' 7*LID@ II@ ?.5T.5$ 8$ N8T T.5 IN-L6'I8N 82 *N8T.5$ *22I$,*TI75 $5LI52 IN * ,8TI8N T8 DI',I'' *!*ND8N' *ND ?*I75' T.5 1$86ND 82 L*-< 82 J6$I'DI-TI8N 875$ T.5 P5$'8N 82 T.5 D525ND*NT T.5$5IN *L'8 PL5*D5D 6ND5$ P$57*ILIN1 L*? *ND J6$I'P$6D5N-5@ III@ ?.5T.5$ 8$ N8T T.5$5 I' * L51*L 1$86ND T8 1$*NT P5TITI8N5$G' ,8TI8N T8 DI',I'' T.5 -8,PL*INT !5L8?@ ;irst@ Petitioner o+/ects to the a))lication o3 the doctrine o3 su+stantial com)liance in the service o3 summons 3or two reasonsI L1O the enumeration o3 )ersons on whom service o3 summons on a cor)oration ma: +e e33ected in $ule 14A 13A is e%clusive and mandator:N and L2O even assuming that su+stantial com)liance is allowedA its alleged actual recei)t o3 the summons is +ased on an un3ounded s)eculation +ecause there is nothing in the records to show that L:nverd -inches actuall: turned over the summons to an: o3 the o33icers o3 the cor)oration@ Petitioner contends that it was a+le to 3ile a motion to dismiss onl: +ecause o3 its timel: discover: o3 the 3oreclosure suit against it when it chec4ed the records o3 the case in the trial court@ 4ELD3 I3 the de3endant is a cor)orationA $ule 14A 13 re9uires that service o3 summons +e made u)on the cor)orationGs )residentA managerA secretar:A cashierA agentA or an: o3 its directors@11 The rationale o3 the rule is that service must +e made on a re)resentative so integrated with the cor)oration sued as to ma4e it a priori )resuma+le that he will reali"e his res)onsi+ilities and 4now what he should do with an: legal )a)ers received +: him@ Petitioner contends that the enumeration in $ule 14A 13 is e%clusive and that service o3 summons u)on one who is not enumerated therein is invalid@ This is the general rule@ 'u+stantial com)liance +: serving summons on )ersons other than those mentioned in the a+ove rule ma: +e /usti3ied@ *lthough the service o3 summons was made on a )erson not enumerated in $ule 14A 13A i3 it a))ears that the summons and com)laint were in 3act received +: the cor)orationA there is su+stantial@ The re9uisites 3or the a))lication o3 the doctrine o3 su+stantial com)lianceA to witI LaO there must +e actual recei)t o3 the summons +: the )erson servedA i@e@A trans3erring )ossession o3 the co): o3 the summons 3rom the 'heri33 to the )erson servedN L+O the )erson served must sign a recei)t or the sheri33Gs returnN and LcO there must +e actual recei)t o3 the summons +: the cor)oration through the )erson on whom the summons was actuall: served@ The third re9uisite is the most im)ortant 3or it is through such recei)t that the )ur)ose o3 the rule on the service o3 summons is attained@ There is no dis)ute that the 3irst and second re9uisites were 3ul3illed@ ?ith res)ect to the thirdA the a))ellate court held that )etitionerGs 3iling o3 a motion to dismiss the 3oreclosure suit is )roo3 that it received the co): o3 the summons and the com)laint@ There isA howeverA no direct )roo3 o3 this or that L:nverd -inches actuall: turned over the summons to an: o3 the o33icers o3 the cor)oration@ In contrastA in our cases a))l:ing the su+stantial com)liance ruleA 1 there was direct evidenceA such as the admission o3 the cor)orationGs o33icersA o3 recei)t o3 summons +: the cor)oration through the )erson u)on whom it was actuall: served@ The 9uestion is whether it is allowa+le to merel: in3er actual recei)t o3 summons +: the cor)oration through the )erson on

whom summons was served@ ?e hold that it cannot +e allowed@ 2or there to +e su+stantial com)lianceA actual recei)t o3 summons +: the cor)oration through the )erson served must +e shown@ ?here a cor)oration onl: learns o3 the service o3 summons and the 3iling o3 the com)laint against it through some )erson or means other than the )erson actuall: servedA the service o3 summons +ecomes meaningless@ This is )articularl: true in the )resent case where there is serious dou+t i3 L:nverd -inchesA the )erson on whom service o3 summons was e33ectedA is in 3act an em)lo:ee o3 the cor)oration@ 5%ce)t 3or the sheri33Gs returnA there is nothing to show that L:nverd -inches was reall: a dra3tsman em)lo:ed +: the cor)oration@ Second@ ?e now turn to the issue o3 /urisdiction +: esto))el@ !oth the trial court and the -ourt o3 *))eals held that +: raising the a33irmative de3ense o3 )a:ment and +: )ra:ing 3or other relie3s in its ,otion to DismissA )etitioner in e33ect waived its o+/ection to the trial courtGs /urisdiction over it@ ?e thin4 this is error@ Noting that the doctrine o3 esto))el +: /urisdiction must +e une9uivocal and intentionalA we ruled in 6a 7avalI Jurisdiction over the )erson must +e seasona+l: raisedA i@e@A that it is )leaded in a motion to dismiss or +: wa: o3 an a33irmative de3ense@ 7oluntar: a))earance shall +e deemed a waiver o3 this de3ense@ The assertionA howeverA o3 a33irmative de3enses shall not +e construed as an esto))el or as a waiver o3 such de3ense@ In a motion to dismissA the allegation o3 grounds other than lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the )erson o3 the de3endantA including a )ra:er H3or such other relie3s asH ma: +e deemed Ha))ro)riate and )ro)erH amounted to voluntar: a))earance@ ThisA howeverA must +e deemed su)erseded +: the ruling in 6a 7aval that esto))el +: /urisdiction must +e une9uivocal and intentional@ It would +e a+surd to hold that )etitioner une9uivocall: and intentionall: su+mitted itsel3 to the /urisdiction o3 the court +: see4ing other relie3s to which it might +e entitled when the onl: relie3 that it can )ro)erl: as4 3rom the trial court is the dismissal o3 the com)laint against it@

EK. !AN# )& T4E P4ILIPPINE ISLANDS6 as S%ccessorFinFIn eres o2 !PI In1es men Corpora ion6 vs@ ALS MANAGEMENT Q DENEL)PMENT C)RP. &ACTS3 !PI Investment -or)oration 3iled a com)laint 3or a 'um o3 ,one: against *L' ,anagement alleging that )etitioner and res)ondent entered into a Deed o3 'ale 3or one L1O un3urnished condominium unit o3 the Twin Towers -ondominium@ The -ondominium -erti3icate o3 Title No@ 4#(( o3 the $egistr: o3 Deeds 3or ,a4atiA ,etro ,anila was issued a3ter the e%ecution o3 the said Deed o3 'ale@ Petitioner advanced the amount o3 P26A3((@45 3or the e%)enses in causing the issuance and registration o3 the -ondominium -erti3icate o3 Title@ It is sti)ulated that the 75ND55 Eres)ondentF shall )a: all the e%)enses 3or the )re)aration and registration o3 this Deed o3 'ale and such other documents@ *3ter )etitioner com)lied with his o+ligationA res)ondentA notwithstanding demands made +: )etitionerA 3ailed and re3used to )a: E)etitionerF its legitimate advances 3or the e%)enses@ $es)ondent averred among others that it has /ust and valid reasons 3or re3using to )a: )etitionerJs legal claims@ In clear and direct contravention o3 'ection 25 o3 Presidential Decree No@ &5 which )rovides that no 3ee e%ce)t those re9uired 3or the registration o3 the deed o3 sale in the $egistr: o3 Deeds shall +e collected 3or the issuance o3 such titleA the )etitioner has /ac4ed>u) or increased the amount o3 its alleged advances 3or the issuance and registration o3 the -ondominium -erti3icate o3 Title in the name o3 the res)ondentA +: including therein charges which should not +e collected 3rom +u:ers o3 condominium units@ Petitioner made and disseminated +rochures and other sales )ro)aganda in and +e3ore ,a: 1&#(A which made warranties as to the 3acilitiesA im)rovementsA and in3rastructures@ $es)ondent 3urther averred that )etitioner re)resented to the res)ondentthat the condominium unit will +e delivered com)leted and read: 3or occu)anc: not later than Decem+er 31A 1&#1@ $es)ondent relied solel: u)on the descri)tions and warranties +rochures esta+lishing the su))osed develo)ments within the units@ $es)ondent willingl: relin9uished P2A(4#A&((@(( des)ite the 3act that the Twin Towers was then :et to +e +uilt@ *3ter the )urchaseA it was 3ound out that the condominium units were su33ering 3rom numerous de3ects@ $es)ondentPs *nswer )ra:ed that H/udgment +e rendered ordering )etitioner to correct such de3ectsBde3iciencies in the condominium unit and 3or other relie3s@ The trial court issued a /udgment ordering the res)ondent to )a: )etitioner the sum o3 P26A3((@45A re)resenting the amount s)ent 3or the registration o3 the title to the condominium unit in res)ondentJs name and 3or )etitioner to deliverA re)lace or correct the de3iciencies at )etitionerPs e%)ense@ The court o3 a))eals u)held the trial court ruling@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the .onora+le -ourt o3 *))eals erred in not holding that the trial court had no /urisdiction over the res)ondents counterclaims@ 4ELD3 -ontending that it was the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard L.L6$!O >> not the $T- >> that had /urisdiction over res)ondentPs counterclaimA )etitioner see4s to nulli3: the award o3 the trial court@

Promulgated on Jul: 12A 1& 6A PD No@ &5 >> otherwise 4nown as HThe 'u+division and -ondominium !u:ers Protective DecreeH >> )rovides that the National .ousing *uthorit: LN.*O shall have He%clusive authorit: to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness@ Promulgated later on *)ril 2A 1& #A was PD No@ 1344 entitled H5m)owering the National .ousing *uthorit: to Issue ?rits o3 5%ecution in the 5n3orcement o3 Its Decisions 6nder Presidential Decree No@ &5 @H It e%)anded the /urisdiction o3 the N.* as having e%clusive /urisdiction over claims involving refund and any other claims 3iled +: su+division lot or condominium unit +u:er against the )ro/ect ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4er or salesman and cases involving specific performance o3 contractual and statutor: o+ligations 3iled +: +u:ers o3 su+division lot or condominium unit against the ownerA develo)erA +ro4er or salesman@ 8n 2e+ruar: A 1&#1A +: virtue o3 5%ecutive 8rder No@ 64#A the regulator: 3unctions o3 the N.* were trans3erred to the .uman 'ettlements $egulator: -ommission L.'$-O@ Pursuant to 5%ecutive 8rder No@ &( dated Decem+er 1 A 1&#6A the 3unctions o3 the .'$- were trans3erred to the .L6$!@ *s mandated +: PD No@ &5 A the /urisdiction o3 the .L6$! is encom)assingA that the e%clusive /urisdiction vested in the N.* is +road and general and it see4s to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness in accordance with the )rovisions o3 said law 2urthermoreA the /urisdiction o3 the .L6$! over cases enumerated in 'ection 1 o3 PD No@ 1344 is e#clusive@ ThusA we have ruled that the +oard has sole /urisdiction in a com)laint o3 s)eci3ic )er3ormance 3or the deliver: o3 a certi3icate o3 title to a +u:er o3 a su+division lotN 16 3or claims o3 re3und regardless o3 whether the sale is )er3ected or notN1 and 3or determining whether there is a )er3ected contract o3 sale@ The Applicability of Estoppel The general rule is that an: decision rendered without /urisdiction is a total nullit: and ma: +e struc4 down at an: timeA even on a))eal +e3ore this -ourt@ 21 IndeedA the 9uestion o3 /urisdiction ma: +e raised at an: timeA )rovided that such action would not result in the moc4er: o3 the tenets o3 3air )la:@22 *s an e%ce)tion to the ruleA the issue ma: not +e raised i3 the )art: is +arred +: esto))el@23 In the )resent caseA )etitioner )roceeded with the trialA and onl: a3ter a /udgment un3avora+le to it did it raise the issue o3 /urisdiction@ ThusA it ma: no longer den: the trial court s /urisdictionA 3or esto))el +ars it 3rom doing so@ This -ourt cannot countenance the inconsistent )ostures )etitioner has ado)ted +: attac4ing the /urisdiction o3 the regular court to which it has voluntaril: su+mitted@24 The -ourt 3rowns u)on the undesira+le )ractice o3 su+mitting ones case 3or decisionA and then acce)ting the /udgment onl: i3 3avora+leA +ut attac4ing it 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction i3 it is not@25 ?e also 3ind )etitioner guilt: o3 esto))el +: laches 3or 3ailing to raise the 9uestion o3 /urisdiction earlier@ 2rom the time that res)ondent 3iled its counterclaim on Novem+er #A 1&#5A the 3ormer could have raised such issueA +ut 3ailed or neglected to do so@ It was onl: u)on 3iling its a))ellants +rie326 with the -* on ,a: 2 A 1&&1A that )etitioner raised the issue o3 /urisdiction 3or the 3irst time@

ThusI H* )art: ma: +e esto))ed or +arred 3rom raising a 9uestion in di33erent wa:s and 3or di33erent reasons@ ThusA we s)ea4 o3 esto))el in )aisA o3 esto))eElF +: deed or +: recordA and o3 esto))el +: laches@ HLachesA in general senseA is 3ailure or neglectA 3or an unreasona+le and une%)lained length o3 timeA to do that whichA +: e%ercising due diligenceA could or should have +een done earlierN it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona+le timeA warranting a )resum)tion that the )art: entitled to assert it either has a+andoned it or declined to assert it@ HThe doctrine o3 laches or o3 stale demands is +ased u)on grounds o3 )u+lic )olic: which re9uiresA 3or the )eace o3 societ:A the discouragement o3 stale claims andA unli4e the statute o3 limitationsA is not a mere 9uestion o3 time +ut is )rinci)all: a 9uestion o3 the ine9uit: or un3airness o3 )ermitting a right or claim to +e en3orced or asserted@ HPu+lic )olic: dictates that this -ourt must strongl: condemn an: dou+le>dealing +: )arties who are dis)osed to tri3le with the courts +: deli+eratel: ta4ing inconsistent )ositionsA in utter disregard o3 the elementar: )rinci)les o3 /ustice and good 3aith@ There is no den:ing thatA in this caseA )etitioners never raised the issue o3 /urisdiction throughout the entire )roceedings in the trial court@ InsteadA the: voluntaril: and willingl: su+mitted themselves to the /urisdiction o3 said court@ It is now too late in the da: 3or them to re)udiate the /urisdiction the: were invo4ing all along@H

E,. !IS4)P NIC)LAS M. M)NDE'AR vs@ 4)N. R)!ERT) S. 'ANELLANA6 Presi5in/ '%5/e6 Re/ional Trial Co%r 6 !ranch AB6 San Carlos Ci y6 Ne/ros )cci5en al6 an5 DR. )SCAR !R)CE &ACTS3 In the )u+lic auction sale conducted on Decem+er A 1&#& at 'an -arlos -it: +: the $egional 'heri33 o3 the $egional *r+itration !ranch No@ I7 o3 the National La+or $elations -ommission LNL$-OA )rivate res)ondent 8scar !roceGs real )ro)erties were sold@ The said sale was held to satis3: the /udgment rendered +: the $egional *r+itration !ranch o3 the NL$against Dr@ !roce in a $*! case@ The $oman -atholic !isho) o3 'an -arlos -it:A Inc@ L$-!'--IO was the highest +idder@ ThusA the )ro)erties were awarded to )etitioner +: virtue o3 a -erti3icate o3 'ale e%ecuted +: the sheri33 on Decem+er #A 1&#&@ 8n Decem+er #A 1&&(A the one L1O :ear )eriod o3 redem)tion e%)ired@ 8n Decem+er 21A 1&&(A 3or 3ailure o3 )rivate res)ondent to redeem the )ro)ert:A the sheri33 e%ecuted the 2inal Deed o3 'ale in 3avor o3 $-!'--I@ 8n 2e+ruar: 2 A 1&&1A $-!'--IA through !isho) Nicolas ,@ ,onde/arA 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourtA !ranch 5&A 'an -arlos -it:A Negros 8ccidentalA a HPetition 2or The 'urrender 83 -erti3icates 83 TitleH against Dr@ 8scar T@ !roce and the Phili))ine National !an4A alleging that $-!'--I is entitled to have the titles thereo3 trans3erred in its nameA and that the certi3icates o3 title o3 the su+/ect )ro)erties are in the )ossession o3 the )rivate res)ondent and the Phili))ine National !an4A 'an -arlos -it: !ranchA +oth o3 which re3used to surrender the titles unless it is ordered to do so +: a court@ The )etition thus )ra:ed 3or the issuance o3 an order directing the res)ondents to surrender the titles to the $egister o3 Deeds o3 'an -arlos -it:@ 8n 'e)tem+er 16A 1&&1A )etitioner 3iled a motion see4ing the cancellation o3 -erti3icates o3 Title Nos@ T> 13&A T>1((&3 and T>1((&4 and )ra:ing 3or the issuance o3 new trans3er certi3icates o3 title in the name o3 !isho) Nicolas ,onde/ar@ Private res)ondent was 3urnished a co): o3 the motion +: registered mail +utA againA he did not 3ile an: commentBo))osition thereto@ Judge !asa issued an order 3or the surrender o3 )rivate res)ondentGs certi3icates o3 title@ The )rivate res)ondent 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration alleging that he has no interest in the lots covered +: the certi3icates o3 title mentioned in the orderN henceA he could not com)l: with the same@ .e then )ra:ed that the said order +e reconsidered to e%clude the lots covered +: the certi3icates o3 title mentioned therein@ The res)ondent court denied the same@ The $egister o3 Deeds o3 'an -arlos -it:A canceled T-T Nos@ T>1((&3A T>1((&4 and T> 13& andA in lieu thereo3A issued T-T Nos@ T>11(56A T>11(5 and T>11(55A res)ectivel:@ Petitioner 3ollowed this u) with a H,otion 2or * ?rit 83 PossessionH dated Januar: 24A 1&&2A )ra:ing 3or the issuance o3 a writ o3 )ossession over the three L3O a3orementioned )ro)erties@ Private res)ondent o))osed the motion on the ground that his wi3e has 3iled an action 3or *nnulment o3 the 'aleA $ecover: o3 8wnershi) and Damages@ The trial court issued an order granting the )etition and directing the sheri33 to )lace the the )etitioner or his re)resentative in )ossession o3 the )ro)erties and the )rivate res)ondent or his re)resentative to deliver )ossession o3 the

)ro)erties to the )etitioner@ Private res)ondent a))ealed to the -ourt o3 *))ealsA +ut his a))eal was dismissed on the ground that the a))ealed order was in the nature o3 a writ o3 e%ecution issued )ursuant to the order dated 8cto+er 3(A 1&&1 which granted the main )etitionA and which order had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor: as no a))eal there3rom was inter)osed +: him@ *3ter all these )roceedings were hadA )rivate res)ondent 3iled a H,otion to DismissH contending that the case is an incident o3 the e%ecution o3 the decision in the la+or case rendered +: the $egional *r+itration !ranch o3 the NL$- andA there3oreA the latter has e%clusive /urisdiction over the case@ Petitioner o))osed the motion invo4ing the )rinci)le o3 esto))el and laches@ Judge $o+erto '@ Javellana dismissed the case 3or lac4 o3 /urisdictionA sustaining the theor: o3 the )rivate res)ondent@ The said order li4ewise declared the orders dated 8cto+er 22 and 3(A 1&&1 o3 Judge !asaA and the *)ril #A 1&&2 order o3 Judge La:umasA in the a3oresaid caseA null and void@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the $T- lac4s /urisdiction and )rivate res)ondent is +arred +: esto))elBlaches in raising the issue o3 /urisdiction at a ver: late date@ 4ELD3 <ES. It is trueA as contended +: )rivate res)ondent 8scar !roceA that the )etition 3iled +: )etitioner !isho) Nicolas ,onde/ar with the res)ondent $egional Trial -ourtA entitled HPetition 2or The 'urrender 83 -erti3icates 83 TitleAH is merel: an o33shoot or incident in the e%ecution )roceedings in the la+or case which originated in the $egional *r+itration !ranch o3 the NL$-@ This is so +ecause the )ur)ose o3 said )etition is to 3inish u) the )roceedings arising 3rom the e%ecution saleA o3 which )etitioner !isho) ,onde/ar was the highest +idderA and to )lace him in )ossession o3 the )ro)erties he +ought in said sale@ 6nder the NL$- ,anual on 5%ecution o3 JudgmentA 'ection 15 o3 $ule 7II L'ale o3 Pro)ert: on 5%ecutionO )rovidesI 'ec@ 15@ Deed and Possession to +e 1iven at 5%)iration o3 $edem)tion Period@ !: ?hom 5%ecuted or 1iven@ I3 no redem)tion +e made within twelve L12O months a3ter the saleA the )urchaser or his assigneeA is entitled to a conveyance and possession o3 the )ro)ert:N orA i3 so redeemed whenever si%t: L6(O da:s have ela)sed and no other redem)tion has +een madeA and notice thereo3 givenA and the time o3 redem)tion has e%)iredA the last redem)tionerA or his assigneeA is entitled to the conve:ance and )ossessionA +ut in all cases the losing )art: shall have the entire )eriod o3 twelve L12O months 3rom date o3 the registration o3 the sale to redeem the )ro)ert:@ This deed shall +e e%ecuted +: the sheri33 ma4ing the sale or +: his successor in o33iceA andA in the latter caseA shall have the same validit: as though the sheri33 ma4ing the sale had continued in o33ice and e%ecuted it@ 6)on the e%ecution and deliver: o3 said deed the )urchaserA or redem)tionerA or his assigneeA shall +e su+stituted to and ac9uire all the rightA titleA interest and claim o3 the losing )art: to the )ro)ert: as o3 the time o3 lev:A e%ce)t as against the losing )art: in )ossessionA in which case the su+stitution shall +e e33ective as o3 the date o3 the deed@ The possession o3 the )ro)ert: shall be given to the

purchaser or last redem)tioner by the same sheriff unless a third )art: is actually holding the )ro)ert: adversel: to the losing )art:@ L5m)hasis su))liedO It can +e deduced 3rom the a+ove>9uoted rule that the $egional *r+itration !ranch o3 the NL$-A not the res)ondent courtA has the /urisdiction to resolved the said )etition@ The /urisdiction o3 the NL$- does not end a3ter the /udgment has +een satis3ied +: the 3ull )a:ment to the /udgment creditor@ 'uch /urisdiction e%tends until the highest +idder in the e%ecution sale has +een )laced in )h:sical )ossession o3 the su+/ect )ro)erties +: the same e%ecuting sheri33A as in this case@ This can +e gleaned 3rom the wording o3 the a3orecited law which em)hasi"es that Hunless a third )art: is actuall: holding the )ro)ert: adversel: to the losing )art:@H ThusA an: controvers: in the e%ecution o3 the /udgment should +e re3erred to the tri+unal which issued the writ o3 e%ecution since it has the inherent )ower to control its own )rocesses in order to en3orce its /udgment and orders@ To hold otherwise would +e to divide the /urisdiction o3 the a))ro)riate 3orum in the resolution o3 incidents arising in e%ecution )roceedings@ ')litting o3 /urisdictionA as we have em)hasi"ed in Balais" et al@ vs. <elasco" et al@A ;; His o+no%ious to the orderl: administration o3 /ustice@H !ut +e that as it ma:A we +elieveA howeverA that the continuation o3 the e%ecution )roceedings conducted +: the res)ondent court can no longer +e nulli3ied on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction at this ver: late stage@ 6nder the )rinci)le o3 esto))el +: lachesA )rivate res)ondent is now +arred 3rom im)ugning the res)ondent courtGs /urisdiction@ * )art: ma: +e esto))ed or +arred 3rom raising a 9uestion in di33erent wa:s and 3or di33erent reasons@ Thus we s)ea4 o3 esto))el in paisA or esto))el +: deed or +: recordA and or esto))el +: laches@ LachesA in a general senseA is 3ailure or neglectA 3or an unreasona+le and une%)lained length o3 timeA to do that whichA +: e%ercising due diligenceA could or should have +een done earlierN it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona+le timeA warranting a )resum)tion that the )art: entitled to assert it either has a+andoned it or declined to assert it@ The doctrine o3 laches or o3 Hstale demandsH is +ased u)on grounds o3 )u+lic )olic: which re9uiresA 3or the )eace o3 societ:A the discouragement o3 stale claims andA unli4e the statute o3 limitationsA is not a mere 9uestion o3 time +ut is )rinci)all: a 9uestion o3 the ine9uit: or un3airness o3 )ermitting a right or claim to +e en3orced or asserted@ It should +e stressed that )rivate res)ondentA des)ite noticeA did not o))ose the HPetition 2or The 'urrender 83 -erti3icates 83 TitleH 3iled +: )etitioner with the res)ondent court on 2e+ruar: 2 A 1&&1@ InsteadA he activel: )artici)ated in su+se9uent )roceedings o3 the case@ * )art: cannot invo4e the /urisdiction o3 a court +: voluntaril: su+mitting a cause to secure a33irmative relie3 against his o))onent andA a3ter o+taining or 3ailing to o+tain such relie3A re)udiate or 9uestion that same /urisdiction@ The res)ondent court committed grave a+use o3 discretion when it nulli3ied the )roceedings +elowA des)ite the 3act that )rivate res)ondent is clearl: guilt: o3 esto))el +: laches@

E;. L)PE MAC4ETE6 NICASI) '(MAWID6 SANTIAG) '(MAWID6 ')4N '(MAWID6 PEDR) GAMA<A6 RENAT) DELGAD)6 &ERNAND) )M!A4IN6 MATIAS R)LEDA6 PASIAN) !AR)6 IGNACI) !AR)6 MAMERT) PLARAS an5 '(STINIAN) NILLAL)N vs@C)(RT )& APPEALS an5 CELESTIN) NILLAL)N. &ACTS3 Private res)ondent -elestino 7illalon 3iled a com)laint 3or collection o3 +ac4 rentals and damages +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Tag+ilaran -it: against )etitioners alleging that the )arties entered into a leasehold agreement with res)ect to )rivate res)ondentGs landholdings at Po+lacion NorteA -armenA !oholA under which )etitioners were to )a: )rivate res)ondent a certain amount or )ercentage o3 their harvests@ Des)ite re)eated demandsA )etitioners 3ailed to )a: their res)ective rentals@ Private res)ondent thus )ra:ed that )etitioners +e ordered to )a: him +ac4 rentals and damages@ Petitioners moved to dismiss the com)laint on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 the trial court over the su+/ect matter@ The: contended that the case arose out o3 or was connected with agrarian relationsA henceA the su+/ect matter o3 the com)laint 3ell s9uarel: within the /urisdiction o3 the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm LD*$O in the e%ercise o3 its 9uasi>/udicial )owers@ The trial court granted the motion to dismissA Private res)ondent sought annulment o3 +oth orders +e3ore res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals which on 21 ,a: 1&&2 rendered /udgment reversing the trial court and directing it to assume /urisdiction over the case on the +asis o3 its 3inding that the -*$L L$* 665 O and other )ertinent laws on agrarian re3orm cannot +e seen to encom)ass a case o3 sim)le collection o3 +ac4 rentals +: virtue o3 an agreementA as the one at +arA where there is no agrarian dis)ute to s)ea4 o3 Lsince the allegation o3 3ailure to )a: the agreed rentals was never controverted in the motion to dismissO nor the issue raised on a))licationA im)lementationA en3orcement or inter)retation o3 these laws@ ISS(E3 *re $egional Trial -ourtsG vested with /urisdiction over cases 3or collection o3 +ac4 rentals 3rom leasehold tenantsX 4ELD3 Petitioners maintain that the alleged cause o3 action o3 )rivate res)ondent arose 3rom an agrarian relation and that res)ondent a))ellate court 3ailed to consider that the agreement involved is an agricultural leasehold contractA henceA the dis)ute is agrarian in nature@ The laws governing its e%ecution and the rights and o+ligations o3 the )arties thereto are necessaril: $@*@ 3#44A . $@*@ 665 C and other )ertinent agrarian laws@ -onsidering that the a))licationA im)lementationA en3orcement or inter)retation o3 said laws are matters which have +een vested in the D*$A this case is outside the /urisdiction o3 the trial court@ The )etition is im)ressed with merit@ 'ection 1 o3 5@8@ 22& vested the D*$ with 9uasi>/udicial )owers to determine and ad/udicate agrarian re3orm matters as well as e%clusive original /urisdiction over all matters involving im)lementation o3 agrarian re3orm e%ce)t those 3alling under the e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 the De)artment o3 *griculture and the De)artment o3

5nvironment and Natural $esources in accordance with law@ 5%ecutive 8rder 12&>*A while in the )rocess o3 reorgani"ing and strengthening the D*$A created the D*$*! to assume the )owers and 3unctions with res)ect to the ad/udication o3 agrarian re3orm cases@ .oweverA with the enactment o3 5%ecutive 8rder No@ 22&A which too4 e33ect on *ugust 2&A 1&# A 3i3teen L15O da:s a3ter its release 3or )u+lication in the 833icial 1a"etteA ,E the regional trial courts were divested o3 their general /urisdiction to tr: agrarian re3orm matters@ The said /urisdiction is now vested in the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm@ 8n 15 June 1&## $@*@ 665 was )assed containing )rovisions which evince and su))ort the intention o3 the legislature to vest in the D*$ e%clusive /urisdiction over all agrarian re3orm matters which reiterates the 9uasi>/udicial )owers o3 D*$ over agrarian re3orm matters and its im)lementation@ 'ection 3A )ar@ LdOA thereo3 de3ines the term Hagrarian dis)uteH as re3erring to an: controvers: relating to tenurial arrangementsA whether leaseholdA tenanc:A stewardshi) or otherwiseA over lands devoted to agricultureA including dis)utes concerning 3arm wor4ersG associations or re)resentation o3 )ersons in negotiatingA 3i%ingA maintainingA changing or see4ing to arrange terms or conditions o3 such tenurial arrangements@ .owever it ma: +e mentioned in )assing that the $egional Trial -ourts have not +een com)letel: divested o3 /urisdiction over agrarian re3orm matters@ 'ection 56 o3 $@*@ 665 con3ers Hs)ecial /urisdictionH on H')ecial *grarian -ourtsAH which are $egional Trial -ourts designated +: this -ourt at least one L1O +ranch within each )rovince to act as such@ -onse9uentl:A there e%ists an agrarian dis)ute in the case at +ench which is e%clusivel: cogni"a+le +: the D*$*!@ The 3ailure o3 )etitioners to )a: +ac4 rentals )ursuant to the leasehold contract with )rivate res)ondent is an issue which is clearl: +e:ond the legal com)etence o3 the trial court to resolve@ The doctrine of primary !urisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itsel3 the authorit: to resolve a controvers: the /urisdiction over which is initiall: lodged with an administrative +od: o3 s)ecial com)etence@ ThusA res)ondent a))ellate court erred in directing the trial court to assume /urisdiction over this case@ *t an: rateA the )resent legal +attle is Hnot altogether lostH on the )art o3 )rivate res)ondent +ecause as this -ourt was 9uite em)hatic in =uismundo v@ Court of AppealsA the resolution +: the D*$ is to the +est advantage o3 the )arties since it is in a +etter )osition to resolve agrarian dis)utesA +eing the administrative agenc: )resuma+l: )ossessing the necessar: e%)ertise on the matter@ 2urtherA the )roceedings therein are summar: in nature and the de)artment is not +ound +: the technical rules o3 )rocedure and evidenceA to the end that agrarian re3orm dis)utes and other issues will +e ad/udicated in a /ustA e%)editious and ine%)ensive )roceeding@ ,B

ED. (NI)N !AN# )& T4E P4ILIPPINES vs@ 4)(SING AND LAND (SE REG(LAT)R< !)ARD6 MART4A S. DANID an5 TERESITA T. P(AO)N6 assis e5 by her h%sban56 AL&)NS) MARIA P(AO)N In 1& 3A ,artha David )urchased 3rom 2ereit $ealt: Develo)ment -or)oration L2$D-O a condominium unitA Lorraine 2lat 552A which was in the )rocess o3 com)letion in !aguio -it:@ The agreed )urchase )rice was P21 A(((@ ,artha David made a 2(K down)a:ment o3 P43A4(( on the )rice leaving a +alance o3 P1 3A6(( which was )a:a+le in 6( e9ual monthl: installments o3 P3A#61@64 )er installment@ In 1& 5A ,artha David too4 )ossessionA as ownerA o3 the condominium unitA with notice to the management@ *s o3 8cto+erA 1& 6A she had )aid at least twent:>two L22O monthl: installments o3 the )rice o3 the condominium unit@ ?ithout the 4nowledge o3 the condominium +u:er DavidA and without the )rior a))roval o3 the National .ousing *uthorit:A mortgaged the condominium )ro/ect !ancom )redecessor>in>interest o3 the )etitioner 6nion !an4 o3 the Phili))ines L6!POA as securit: 3or a loan o3 P4(A(((A(((@ *s 2$D3ailed to )a: its o+ligationA !ancom 3oreclosed the mortgage on 45 condominium units including the unit o3 ,artha David@ The 'heri33 e%ecuted a -erti3icate o3 'ale to !ancom and the 2ar 5ast !an4 and Trust -om)an: L25!T-O as the highest +idder@ *3ter the e%)iration o3 the redem)tion )eriodA 6!P held out the units 3or sale@ ,artha David and Teresita Mua"onA the latter assisted +: her hus+andA *l3onso ,aria Mua"onA who had in the meantimeA )urchased ,artha DavidGs unitA 3iled a com)laint in the .L6$!A against 2$D-A 6!P and 25!T- to annul the title o3 6!P and 25!T- over DavidGs condominium unit and to order the issuance o3 a new certi3icate o3 title in the name o3 Teresita Mua"on@ The com)laint also )ra:ed 3or other relie3s as ma: +e /ust and )ro)er@6!P and 25!T- 3iled their answer 9uestioning the .L6$!Gs /urisdiction over the case@ 6!P 3iled a motion to dismiss on the same ground@ .L6$! *r+iterA -esar ,anuel denied the motion o3 6!PA on the ground that the Hmotion will render nugator: the summar: nature o3 )roceedings +e3ore this 833iceH 6!PGs main argument is that the .L6$! has no /urisdiction over the com)laint 3or consignation which should have +een 3iled in the regular trial courts@ 2urthermoreA as the .L6$! was created in 1&#1 L5@8@ No@ 641OA it has no /urisdiction over contracts that too4 e33ect )rior to 1&#1@ IN ISS(E3 ?hether or not the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard L.L6$!O 3or +revit:O has /urisdiction to hear and decide a condominium +u:erGs com)laint 3orI LaO annulment or a real estate mortgage constituted +: the )ro/ect owner without his consent and without the )rior written consent o3 the National .ousing *uthorit:I L+O 3or annulment o3 the 3oreclosure saleN and

LcO 3or annulment o3 the condominium certi3icate o3 title that was issued to the highest +idder at the 3oreclosure sale@ 4ELD3 Those arguments deserve scant consideration@ The issue in .L6$! -ase No@ $5,>(626#&> 4( is the validit: o3 the real estate mortgage o3 DavidGs condominium unit that 2$De%ecuted in 2avor o3 the 6nion !an4 and 2ar 5ast !an4 without )rior a))roval o3 the National .ousing *uthorit: and legalit: o3 the title which the mortgagee +an4s ac9uired as highest +idderA there3ore in the e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure sale@ The a))lica+le )rovisions o3 P@D@ No@ &5 otherwise 4nown as HThe 'u+division and -ondominium !u:erGs Protective DecreeH are 9uoted hereunder as 3ollowsI 'ec@ 3@ N*TI8N*L .86'IN1 *6T.8$IT0@ The National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e#clusive !urisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness in accordance with the )rovisions o3 this decree@ L5m)hasis su))liedO 'ec@ 1#@ MO*)>A>(S@ No mortgage on an: unit or lot shall +e made +: the owner or develo)er %ithout prior %ritten approval of the Authority@ 'uch a))roval shall not +e granted unless it is shown that the )roceeds o3 the mortgage loan shall +e used 3or the develo)ment o3 the condominium or su+division )ro/ect and effective measures have +een )rovided to ensure such utili"ation@ The loan value o3 each lot or unit covered +: the mortgage shall +e determined and the buyer thereo3A i3 an:A shall +e notified before the release of the loan @ The +u:er ma:A at his o)tion )a: his installment 3or the lot or unit directl: to the mortgagee who shall a))l: the )a:ments to the corres)onding mortgage inde+tedness secured +: the )articular lot or unit +eing )aid 3or with a view to ena+ling said +u:er to o+tain title over the lot or unit )rom)tl: a3ter 3ull )a:ment thereo3@ P@D@ No@ 1344 o3 *)ril 2A 1& # e%)anded the /urisdiction o3 the National .ousing *uthorit: LN.*O to include the 3ollowingI 'ec@ 1@ In the e%ercise o3 its 3unctions to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness and in addition to its )owers )rovided 3or in Presidential Decree No@ &5 A the National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e#clusive !urisdiction to hear and decide cases o3 the 3ollowing natureI *@ $nsound real estate business practices? !@ -laims involving re3und and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the )ro/ect ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4erA or salesmanN and -@ -ases involving specific performance o3 contractual and statutor: o+ligations 3iled +: +u:ers o3 su+division lot or

condominium unit against the ownerA develo)erA dealerA +ro4erA or salesman@ L7LD 7ol@ 52A ))@ 51>52@O 8n 2e+ruar: A 1&#1A 5%ecutive 8rder No@ 64# trans3erred the regulator: and 9uasi>/udicial 3unctions o3 the N.* to .uman 'ettlements $egulator: -ommission@ 5%ecutive 8rder No@ &( dated Decem+er 1 A 1&#6 changed the name o3 the .uman 'ettlements $egulator: -ommission to H.ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard L.L6$!O@ -learl:A 2$D-Gs act o3 mortgaging the condominium )ro/ect to !ancom and 25!T-A without the 4nowledge and consent o3 David as +u:er o3 a unit thereinA and without the a))roval o3 the N.* Lnow .L6$!O as re9uired +: P@D@ No@ &5 A was not onl: an unsound real estate +usiness )ractice +ut also highl: )re/udicial to the +u:er@ DavidA who has a cause o3 action 3or annulment o3 the mortgageA the mortgage 3oreclosure sale and the condominium certi3icate o3 title that was issued to the 6!P and 25!T- as highest +idders at the sale@ The case 3alls within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the N.* Lnow .L6$!O as )rovided in P@D@ No@ &5 o3 1& 6 and P@D@ No@ 1344 o3 1& #@ In the more recent case o3 C) )orres (nterprises vs. @ibionadaA 1&1 '-$* 26#A we a33irmed the .L6$!Gs /urisdiction to hear and decide a com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance o3 the sellerGs o+ligation to deliver the title o3 a su+division lot to the +u:erA with damages@

EE. C.T. T)RRES ENTERPRISES6 INC. vs@ 4)N. R)ME) '. 4I!I)NADA6 E&REN DI)NG)N6 an5 PLEASANTNILLE DENEL)PMENT C)RP)RATI)N &ACTS3 The )etitioner as agent o3 )rivate res)ondent Pleasantville Develo)ment -or)oration sold a su+division lot on installment to )rivate res)ondent 53ren Diongon@ The installment )a:ments having +een com)letedA Diongon demanded the deliver: o3 the certi3icate o3 title to the su+/ect land@ ?hen neither the )etitioner nor Pleasantville com)liedA he 3iled a com)laint against them 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and damages in the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Negros 8ccidental@ The two de3endants each 3iled an answer with cross>claim and counterclaim@ The )lainti33 3iled a re)l: and answered the counterclaims@ Pre>trial was scheduled and heard and trial +rie3s were su+mitted +: Pleasantville and Diongon@ The case was set 3or initial hearing@ It was then that -@T@ Torres 5nter)rises 3iled a motion to dismiss 3or lac4 o3 /urisdictionA contending that the com)etent +od: to hear and decide the case was the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard@ The trial court ; denied the motion to dismiss stating that a )erusal o3 +oth )leadings and the com)laint 3iled +: )lainti33A the issue to +e determined are +asicall: governed +: the )rovisions o3 the New -ivil -odeA )articularl: on contracts@ The com)laint is one 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance with damages which is a /usticia+le issue under the -ivil -ode and /urisdiction to hear the said issue is con3erred on the regular -ourts )ursuant to !atas Pam+ansa !lg@ 12&@ ThusA /urisdiction as con3erred +: law is vested in the regular courts and not in the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the regular courts have /urisdiction@ 4ELD3 In holding that the com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance with damages was /usticia+le under the -ivil -ode and so came under the /urisdiction o3 the regular courts under !@P@ 12&A the trial court 3ailed to consider the e%)ress )rovisions o3 P@D@ No@ 1344 and related decrees@ It also erred in su))osing that onl: the regular courts can inter)ret and a))l: the )rovisions o3 the -ivil -odeA to the e%clusion o3 the 9uasi>/udicial +odies@ P@D@ No@ &5 A the 'u+division and -ondominium !u:ersG Protective DecreeAH )rovides that the National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e%clusive authorit: to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness@ The sco)e o3 the regulator: authorit: lodged in the National .ousing *uthorit: includes re)orts o3 alarming magnitude which show cases o3 swindling and 3raudulent mani)ulations )er)etrated +: unscru)ulous su+division and condominium sellers and o)eratorsA such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles 3ree 3rom hens and encum+rancesA and to )a: real estate ta%es and 3raudulent sales o3 the same su+division lots to di33erent innocent )urchasers 3or value@ P@D@ No@ 1344A which was )romulgated *)ril 2A 1& #A and em)owered the National .ousing *uthorit: to issue writs o3 e%ecution in the en3orcement o3 its decisions under P@D@ No@ &5 A s)eci3ied the 9uasi>/udicial /urisdiction o3 the agenc: as 3ollowsI

'5-TI8N 1@ In the e%ercise o3 its 3unctions to regulate the real estate trade and +usiness and in addition to its )owers )rovided 3or in Presidential Decree No@ &5 A the National .ousing *uthorit: shall have e#clusive !urisdiction to hear and decide cases o3 the 3ollowing natureI -@ Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the o%ner" developer" dealer" broker or salesman. 6nder 5@8@ No@ 64# dated 2e+ruar: A 1&#1A the regulator: 3unctions con3erred on the National .ousing *uthorit: under P@D@ Nos@ &5 A1344 and other related laws were trans3erred to the .uman 'ettlements $egulator: -ommissionA which was renamed .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard +: 5@8@ No@ &( dated Decem+er 1 A 1&#6@ It is clear 3rom 'ection 1LcO o3 the a+ove 9uoted PD No@ 1344 that the com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance with damages 3iled +: Diongon with the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Negros 8ccidental comes under the /urisdiction o3 the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard@ Diongon is a +u:er o3 a su+division lot see4ing s)eci3ic )er3ormance o3 the sellerGs o+ligation to deliver to him the corres)onding certi3icate o3 title@ The argument that onl: courts o3 /ustice can ad/udicate claims resolu+le under the )rovisions o3 the -ivil -ode is out o3 ste) with the 3ast>changing times@ There are hundreds o3 administrative +odies now )er3orming this 3unction +: virtue o3 a valid authori"ation 3rom the legislature@ This 9uasi>/udicial 3unctionA as it is calledA is e%ercised +: them as an incident o3 the )rinci)al )ower entrusted to them o3 regulating certain activities 3alling under their )articular e%)ertise@ In the 'olid .omes caseA 3or e%am)leA the -ourt a33irmed the com)etence o3 the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard to award damages although this is an essentiall: /udicial )ower e%ercisa+le ordinaril: onl: +: the courts o3 /ustice@ This de)arture 3rom the traditional allocation o3 governmental )owers is /usti3ied +: e%)edienc:A or the need o3 the government to res)ond swi3tl: and com)etentl: to the )ressing )ro+lems o3 the modem world@ ThusA the com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and damages was im)ro)erl: 3iled with the res)ondent courtA /urisdiction over the case +eing e%clusivel: vested in the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard@ ?e also hold that the order den:ing the motion to dismiss was su+/ect to immediate challenge +e3ore this -ourt as the 3iling Land denialO o3 a motion 3or reconsideration was not an indis)ensa+le re9uirement@ Petition is 1$*NT5D@

EA. MELC4)R 4ILAD)6 CESAR ARAL6 ADELA ARAL6 ART(R) NILLARENA6 TARCEL) MIRAN)6 R)!ERT) PED(4AN6 ANT)NI) S)LIT)6 MAN(EL CANIEND)6 &ELIR )RTEGA6 ANT)NI) !ALLENT)S6 SALNAD)R MIRAN)6 NICENTE )NLA<A)6 &EDERIC) )RLAN)6 R)GELI) SEMILLAN)6 SALNAD)R DE G(OMAN6 PACI&IC) TALI!(TA!6 NEST)R !ELLIRAN6 SAL(STIAN) !ELLIRAN6EDGARD) CA!RA6 an5 <)LANDA LESTIN) vs@ 4)N. R)LAND) C4ANEO6 PERPET(AL 4ELP DENEL)PMENT AND REALT< C)RP.6 represen e5 by he Chairman o2 he !oar5 '(LIETA C. SALGAD) &ACTS3 -elso HNeneH =a:co was the owner o3 a large )arcel o3 agricultural land in Negros 8ccidental@ Portions thereo3 were occu)ied and cultivated +: tenants@ =a:co mortgaged the )ro)ert: to the Paci3ic !an4ing -or)oration as securit: 3or a loanN howeverA the +an4 3oreclosed the mortgage u)on =a:coPs 3ailure to )a: his account@ ?hen the )ro)ert: was sold at )u+lic auction +: the sheri33A the +an4 was ad/udged as the highest +idder@ =a:co 3ailed to redeem the )ro)ert:A and the +an4 consolidated its title thereonN T-T No@ 115264 was issued in its 3avor on ,arch 2(A 1&#(@ The +an4 sold the )ro)ert: to Julieta -@ 'algadoA the -hairman o3 the !oard o3 the res)ondentA Per)etual .el) Develo)ment and $ealt: -or)oration LP.D$-O@ T-T No@ 1332&# wasA therea3terA issued in 3avor o3 P.D$-@ No liens or encum+rances whatsoever or an: notice that the )ro)ert: had +een )laced under the agrarian re3orm laws were annotated@ 'u+se9uentl:A the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm LD*$O granted 5manci)ation Patents to the twent: L2(O tenants on the )ro)ert: 3rom *)ril 2#A 1&## to Jul: 1A 1&## on the +asis o3 which titles were issued in their 3avor during the )eriod o3 'e)tem+er 16A 1&## to *ugust 24A 1&&(@ The 3oregoing notwithstandingA the 'angguniang !a:an ng <a+an4alan a))rovedA on 2e+ruar: 14A 1&&6A $esolution No@ &6>3&A reclassi3:ing the )ro)ert: )artl: as )ro)ert: 3or light industr:A and the rest as residential@ 8n *ugust 26A 1&& A the res)ondent 3iled a com)laint 3or unlaw3ul detainer against the twent: L2(O )etitionersA who were all occu)ants>3armers on the )ro)ert:A with the ,unici)al Trial -ourt in -ities L,T--O alleging that it o+tained a certi3ied %ero% co): o3 T-T No@ 1332&# 3rom the $egister o3 Deeds and discovered that o3 the twent: L2(O )etitionersA seven L O had +een issued 5manci)ation Patents on Jul: 1A 1&## which were inscri+ed at the dorsal )ortion o3 said title@ NeverthelessA according to the res)ondentA the )etitioners were not agricultural tenants under the agrarian re3orm laws +ecause LaO the: entered the )ro)ert: without its consent and did not )a: an: consideration 3or the use o3 the land the: occu)iedN and L+O the )ro)ert: wasA as resolved +: the 'angguniang !a:an under $esolution No@ &6>3& in 1&&6A )artl: 3or light industr: and )artl: residential@ $es)ondent )ra:ed that the de3endant vacate the areas the: occu): and )ra:s 3or such other relie3s and remedies /ust and e9uita+le in the )remises@ The )etitioners )ra:ed that the com)laint +e dismissed 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action@ The court a 9uo rendered /udgment in 3avor o3 the res)ondent@ It ruled that the )etitioners 3ailed to )rove that the: were 3armers>+ene3iciaries on the landholding and that +ased on $esolution No@ &6>3& o3 the ,unici)al -ouncilA the said )ro)ert: had alread: +een reclassi3ied as )art residential and )art industrialBcommercial areas@ The court a 9uo also ruled that thirteen L13O o3 the )etitioners occu)ied )ortions o3 the landholding onl: +: tolerance o3 the res)ondent and its )redecessorsA and 3ailed to )a: an: amount as consideration 3or their occu)anc: o3 the )etitionersP )ro)ert:@ It re/ected the )etitionersP contention that the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard LD*$*!O had e%clusive original /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the actionA ruling that the action was one 3or unlaw3ul detainer over which it had e%clusive original /urisdiction@ The )etitioners asserted that the ,T- had no /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action o3 the res)ondent in -ivil -ase No@ (34>& A it +eing an agrarian dis)ute +etween the )etitionersA as )atenteesA and the res)ondentN henceA the court a 9uoPs decision was null and void@ The: contended that the Provincial *grarian $e3orm *d/udicator: !oard LP*$*DO had e%clusive /urisdiction over the action in -ivil -ase No@ (34>& @ The res)ondent countered that the

)etitioners )artici)ated in the )roceedings in the ,T-- and wereA thusA esto))ed 3rom assailing the /urisdiction o3 the court a 9uo@ It )osited that the )etitioners were not entitled to in/unctive relie3 +ecause the decision o3 the ,T- had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:@ The $T- rendered /udgment dismissing the )etition on the ground that the ,T-- had e%clusive /urisdiction over the action o3 the )lainti33 in -ivil -ase No@ (34>& and over the )ersons o3 the de3endants therein@1& The $T- also held that the )etitioners 3ailed to 3ile a motion to dismiss the com)laint in the ,T-- and even )artici)ated in the )roceedings thereinN henceA the: were esto))ed 3rom assailing the /urisdiction o3 the ,T--@ ISS(E3 ?hether the ,T-- has /urisdiction@ 4ELD3 'ection 33A )aragra)h 2 o3 !atas Pam+ansa !lg@ 12&A as amended +: 'ection 3 o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 6&1 )rovides that ,unici)al Trial -ourtA ,unici)al -ircuit Trial -ourt and ,etro)olitan Trial -ourtA have e%clusive original /urisdiction over cases 3or unlaw3ul detainer@ The )roceedings in e/ectment cases are covered +: $ule ( o3 the $ules o3 -ourt and the $ules on 'ummar: Procedure@ .oweverA such courts have no original /urisdiction to determine and ad/udicate agrarian dis)utes under $e)@ *ct No@ 665 A as amendedA and the $ules o3 Procedure issued +: the D*$*! im)lementing said lawsA which are within the e%clusive original and a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the D*$*!A thusI '5-TI8N 1@ Primar: *nd 5%clusive 8riginal and *))ellate Jurisdiction@ The !oard shall have )rimar: and e%clusive /urisdictionA +oth original and a))ellateA to determine and ad/udicate all agrarian dis)utes involving the im)lementation o3 the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Program L-*$PO under $e)u+lic *ct No@ 665 A 5%ecutive 8rder Nos@ 22#A and 12&>*A $e)u+lic *ct No@ 3#44 as amended +: $e)u+lic *ct No@ 63#&A Presidential Decree No@ 2 and other agrarian laws and their im)lementing rules and regulations@ ')eci3icall:A such /urisdiction shall include +ut not +e limited to cases involving the 3ollowingI aO The rights and o+ligations o3 )ersonsA whether natural or /uridicalA engaged in the managementA cultivation and use o3 all agricultural lands covered +: the -*$P and other agrarian lawsN 3O Those involving the issuanceA correction and cancellation o3 -erti3icates o3 Land 8wnershi) *ward L-L8*sO and 5manci)ation Patents L5PsO which are registered with the Land $egistration *uthorit:N gO Those cases )reviousl: 3alling under the original and e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the de3unct -ourt o3 *grarian $elations under 'ection 12 o3 Presidential Decree No@ &46A e%ce)t su+>)aragra)h LMO thereo3 and Presidential Decree No@ l #15@ It is understood that the a3orementioned casesA com)laints or )etitions were 3iled with the D*$*! a3ter *ugust 2&A 1&# @ ,atters involving strictl: the administrative im)lementation o3 $e)u+lic *ct No@ 665 A otherwise 4nown as the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Law LsicO L-*$PO o3 1&## and other agrarian laws as enunciated +: )ertinent rules shall +e the e%clusive )rerogative o3 and cogni"a+le +: the 'ecretar: o3 the D*$@

hO *nd such other agrarian casesA dis)utesA matters or concerns re3erred to it +: the 'ecretar: o3 the D*$@ The D*$ is vested with )rimar: /urisdiction to determine and ad/udicate agrarian re3orm matters and shall have e%clusive /urisdiction over all matters involving the im)lementation o3 agrarian re3orm )rograms@ The rule is that the D*$*! has /urisdiction to tr: and decide an: agrarian dis)ute or an: incident involving the im)lementation o3 the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Program@24 In Tirona v@ *le/oA 25 we held that the ,T-- has no /urisdiction over an e/ectment case where the issue o3 )ossession is ine%trica+l: interwoven with an agrarian dis)ute@ The well>entrenched )rinci)le is that the /urisdiction o3 the court over the su+/ect matter o3 the action is determined +: the material allegations o3 the com)laint and the lawA irres)ective o3 whether or not the )lainti33 is entitled to recover all or some o3 the claims or relie3s sought therein@26 In ,overs>!aseco Integrated Port 'ervicesA Inc@ v@ -:+org Leasing -or)orationA 2 we ruled that the /urisdiction o3 the court over the nature o3 the action and the su+/ect matter thereo3 cannot +e made to de)end u)on the de3enses set u) in the court or u)on a motion to dismiss 3orA otherwiseA the 9uestion o3 /urisdiction would de)end almost entirel: on the de3endant@ 2# 8nce /urisdiction is vestedA the same is retained u) to the end o3 the litigation@ ?e also held in *rcelona v@ -ourt o3 *))eals2& that in *merican /uris)rudenceA the nullit: o3 a decision arising 3rom lac4 o3 /urisdiction ma: +e determined 3rom the record o3 the caseA not necessaril: 3rom the 3ace o3 the /udgment onl:@ The ,T-- does not lose its /urisdiction over an e/ectment case +: the sim)le e%)edient o3 a )art: raising as a de3ense therein the alleged e%istence o3 a tenanc: relationshi) +etween the )arties@3( !ut it is the dut: o3 the court to receive evidence to determine the allegations o3 tenanc:@31 I3 a3ter hearingA tenanc: had in 3act +een shown to +e the real issueA the court should dismiss the case 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@32 5arlier in !a:og v@ NatinoA33 we held that i3 a de3endant in an action 3or e/ectment inter)osed the de3ense o3 +eing the agricultural tenant in the )ro)ert: su+/ect o3 the com)laintA the ,T-should hear and receive the evidence 3or the )ur)ose o3 determining whether or not it )ossessed /urisdiction over the caseA and i3A u)on such hearingA tenanc: is shown to +e the issueA the ,T-- should dismiss the case 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ 8ur ruling in said case is a reiteration o3 our rulings in Ignacio v@ -2IA34 and in -once)cion v@ Presiding Judge o3 -2IA !ulacanA !r@ 7@35 In this caseA even on the +asis o3 the material allegations o3 the com)laintA more so i3 the answer with motion to dismiss the )etition and )osition )a)ers o3 the )arties are consideredA the D*$*!A and not the ,T--A had )rimar: and original /urisdiction over the action o3 the res)ondent@ The latter allegedA in its com)laintA that seven L O o3 the )etitioners were issued 5manci)ation Patents which were annotated at the dorsal )ortion o3 T-T No@ 1332&#A a co): o3 which is a))ended to the com)laint@ It +ears stressing that +e3ore 5manci)ation Patents are issued to 3armers>+ene3iciariesA the D*$ is mandated to com)l: with the re9uirements o3 P@D@ No@ 266 and the )rocedural re9uirements set 3orth +: $e)@ *ct No@ 665 A otherwise 4nown as the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Law L-*$LO o3 1&##@ -on3orma+l: to our ruling in !a:og v@ NatinoA the ,T-- should not have a))lied the $ules on 'ummar: ProcedureN it should have dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdictionN orA at the ver: leastA should have )roceeded to hear the )arties on the )etitionersP motion to dismiss and receive their res)ective evidence on the issue o3 whether or

not it had /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action@ .ad the ,T-- 3ollowed our ruling in !a:ogA it would have con3irmed thatA +e3ore the res)ondent 3iled its com)laintA the )ro)ert: had long +een +rought under 8)eration Land Trans3er and that the $egister o3 Deeds had issued to all the )etitioners their res)ective trans3er certi3icates o3 title +ased on the 5manci)ation Patents issued +: the President o3 the Phili))inesA through the D*$@ *t this )ointA it +ears stressing that in its -om)rehensive Land 6se Plan L-L6POA )er $esolution No@ &6>3& dated 2e+ruar: 14A 1&&6A the then 'angguniang !a:an o3 <a+an4alanA Negros 8ccidentalA now a com)onent cit: under $@*@ No@ #2& A had reclassi3ied Lot No@ 343 into light industrialA commercial and residential areas@ To the mind o3 the -ourtA this reclassi3ication 3alls s9uarel: within the am+it o3 Title 7IA !@2@+ o3 *dministrative 8rder No@ ( A 'eries o3 1&& dated 8cto+er 2&A 1&& on the su+/ectI H8mni+us $ules and Procedures 1overning -onversion o3 *gricultural Lands to Non>*gricultural 6ses@H The ruling o3 the ,T-- is erroneous@ 6nder 'ection 65 o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 665 which too4 e33ect on June 15A 1&##A agricultural lands ma: +e reclassi3ied onl: +: the D*$ a3ter the la)se o3 3ive L5O :ears 3rom its award to the 3armers>+ene3iciaries@ In this caseA there is no showing that the D*$ ever a))roved the reclassi3ication o3 the )ro)ert:@ It a))ears that the reclassi3ication o3 the landholding was unilaterall: made +: the 'angguniang !a:an des)ite the issuance to the )etitioners o3 5manci)ation Patents and trans3er certi3icates o3 title in their names over the )ortions o3 the landholdings res)ectivel: occu)ied +: them@ It is evident 3rom the 3ace o3 the com)laint and the )leadings o3 the )arties and the a))endages thereo3 that the issue o3 )ossession o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert: was ine%trica+l: interwoven with the issue o3 whether the 5manci)ation Patents issued +: the D*$ to the )etitioners were valid@ 6nder the D*$ $ules o3 ProcedureA the D*$*! has )rimar: and e%clusive original /urisdiction over cases involving the issuance and cancellation o3 5manci)ation Patents@ ,oreoverA the res)ondent claimed )ossession over the )ro)ert: +ased on T-T No@ 1332&#A which had alread: +een )artiall: cancelled +: the 5manci)ation Patents and Torrens titles issued to the )etitioners@ Neither do we agree with the res)ondentPs contention that +: )artici)ating in the )roceedings +e3ore the ,T--A the )etitioners were esto))ed 3rom assailing the /urisdiction o3 the ,T--@ The want o3 /urisdiction +: a court over the su+/ect>matter renders its /udgment void and a mere nullit:A and considering that a void /udgment is in legal e33ect no /udgmentA +: which no rights are divestedA 3rom which no rights can +e o+tainedA which neither +inds nor +ars an: oneA and under which all acts )er3ormed and all claims 3lowing out o3 are voidA and considering 3urtherA that the decisionA 3or want o3 /urisdiction o3 the courtA is not a decision in contem)lation o3 lawA andA henceA can never +ecome e%ecutor:A it 3ollows that such a void /udgment cannot constitute a +ar to another case +: reason o3 res /udicata@ It is settled that /urisdiction over the /udgment cannot +e changed +: agreement o3 the )arties or +: the act or omission o3 each o3 them that will contravene the legislative will@ * )art: should not +e allowed to divest a com)etent court o3 its /urisdictionA whether erroneousl: or even deli+eratel: in derogation o3 the law@ In this caseA the counsel o3 the )etitioners o)ted to assail in a direct action the decision o3 the ,T--A instead o3 )er3ecting their a))eal or assailing the decision o3 the ,T-- disallowing their a))eal@ The )etitioners +elieved that the decision o3 the ,T-- was null and void 3or want o3 /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action 3iled thereinN henceA the: are not )roscri+ed 3rom assailing such decision in a direct action@ The remed: resorted to +: their counsel should not )re/udice and +ar them 3rom assailing the ,T-- decision +e3ore the $T- on a )etition to annul the same 3or lac4

o3 /urisdiction@ Neither are the: esto))ed 3rom assailing the decisionA sim)l: +ecause the: 3iled their answer and motion to dismiss the com)laint on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action@ *3ter allA the onl: relie3 )ra:ed 3or +: them in their answer was the dismissal o3 the com)laint@

E.. R)DRIG) ALM(ETE an5 ANA AM(ETE vs@ MARCEL) ANDRES an5 T4E C)(RT )& APPEALS &ACTS3 The su+/ect o3 this controvers: is a )arcel o3 agricultural land in *ngadananA Isa+ela@ 8n ,arch 25A 1&5 A this )arcel was awarded +: the then National $esettlement and $eha+ilitation *dministration LN*$$*O to )etitioner $odrigo *lmuete@ 'ince thenA $odrigo *lmuete e%ercised e%clusive )ossession o3 the )ro)ert:A cultivating it and )lanting thereon narraA 3ruit treesA rice corn and legumes@ 2or some twent:>two L22O :earsA $odrigo *lmuete and his 3amil: 3armed the su+/ect )ro)ert: )eace3ull: and e%clusivel:@ .oweverA un4nown to $odrigo *lmueteA on *ugust 1 A 1& &A an *grarian $e3orm Technologist +: the name Leticia 1ragasin 3iled a 3ield investigation and ins)ection re)ort statingA among othersA that the wherea+outs o3 the original awardee o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:A $odrigo *lmueteA was un4nown and that he had Hwaived all his rights as a N*$$* settler due to his )oor health +e:ond his control and 3inancial hardshi)@H 'he recommended to the Director o3 the ,inistr: o3 *grarian $e3orm L,*$O in TuguegaraoA -aga:an that the award in 3avor o3 $odrigo *lmuete +e cancelled and that the land +e awarded to res)ondent ,arcelo *ndres@ -onse9uentl:A ,arcelo *ndres was allowed to 3ile his homestead a))lication@ To 3urther su))ort his a))licationA ,arcelo *ndres re)resented to the ,*$ Lnow D*$O o33icials that sometime in 1&65A $odrigo *lmuete sold the su+/ect )ro)ert: to one 7ictor ,asiglatA who gave the 3ormer a radio)hono set as consideration there3or@ 'ince 7ictor ,asiglat was dis9uali3ied 3rom ac9uiring the su+/ect )ro)ert: owing to his also +eing a N*$$* awardeeA he trans3erred the said )ro)ert: to ,arcelo *ndres@ 8n the strength o3 the ,*$ $egional DirectorGs recommendation and ,arcelo *ndresG re)resentationsA the latter was granted and issued a homestead )atent@ In the meantimeA unaware that the N*$$* award in his 3avor had +een cancelled and that a homestead )atent had +een issued to ,arcelo *ndresA $odrigo *lmuete and his 3amil:A )articularl: his daughter *na *lmueteA continued to cultivate and 3arm the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ In 1&#2A $odrigo *lmuete +uilt a house in !aranga: 2ortuneA *liciaA Isa+elaA where he resided while wor4ing as a driver 3or a rice mill@ 2rom time to timeA he would visit the 3arm to deliver su))lies and )a: wages to the la+orers who wor4ed therein@ The D*$ $egional Director recommended the trans3er o3 ownershi) over the su+/ect )ro)ert: to ,arcelo *ndres@ The D*$ issued 8riginal -erti3icate o3 Title L8-TO No@ P>52521 in the name o3 ,arcelo *ndres@ 'hortl: therea3terA ,arcelo *ndresA accom)anied +: ten L1(O other )ersons armed with +olos and other +laded im)lementsA entered the su+/ect )ro)ert:A claiming e%clusive right o3 ownershi) and )ossession@ The: 3elled the narra treesA converting the same to lum+erA and destro:ed the mongos )lanted +: the *lmuetes@ ,arcelo *ndres gained controlA and too4 )ossessionA o3 a))ro%imatel: hal3 o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ *lmuete then 3iled a com)laint with the D*$ authorities o3 ,arcelo *ndresG encroachment into and occu)ation o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ It was onl: then that he learned that the su+/ect )ro)ert: had +een titled in the name o3 ,arcelo *ndres and that the award in his 3avor had +een cancelled +ecause he had allegedl: a+andoned the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ 6)on $odrigo *lmueteGs in9uir:A the records o3 the local o33ice o3 the De)artment o3 5nvironment and Natural $esources LD5N$O showed that he was still the listed owner o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ $odrigo *lmuete and his daughterA *na *lmueteA 3iled an action 3or reconve:ance and recover: o3 )ossession against ,arcelo *ndres with the $egional Trial -ourt@ It rendered a /udgment in 3avour o3 the *lmuete declaring him the owner o3 the land@ The trial court 3ound that ,arcelo *ndres did not ac9uire an: right over the su+/ect )ro)ert: when he su))osedl: +ought it 3rom 7ictor ,asiglat +ecause the latter never ac9uired ownershi) 3rom the original ownerA $odrigo *lmuete@ !esidesA de3endant ,arcelo *ndres could not )resent an: valid document to )rove his ac9uisition o3 the said )ro)ert:@ It also 3ound that $odrigo *lmuete did not a+andon the su+/ect )ro)ert:@ ,arcelo *ndres 3ailed to a))ealN thusA the trial courtGs decision +ecame 3inal and e%ecutor:@ 8n 2e+ruar: 15A 1&&4A a writ o3 e%ecution was issued@ ,arcelo *ndres 3iled a motion to 9uash the writ o3 e%ecutionA +ut the trial court did not act on it on the ground that it had no more /urisdiction over the case@ ,arcelo *ndres 3iled a

)etition 3or certiorari +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))ealsA assailing the trial courtGs /urisdiction over the nature as well as the su+/ect matter o3 the case@ .e argued that since the su+/ect )ro)ert: was agricultural land covered +: a homestead )atentA e%clusive /urisdiction was with the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard Lor D*$*!OA not with the regular courts@ $es)ondent *ndres also stressed that the original action was 3or e/ectmentA which was cogni"a+le +: the munici)al trial courtsA not +: the $egional Trial -ourts@ -onse9uentl:A 3or want o3 /urisdictionA the trial courtGs decision was null and voidN and cannot +e en3orced +: writ o3 e%ecution or an: other legal means@ The -* ruled in his 3avourA declaring the decision o3 the T- as null and void 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction in this case@ 4ELD3 <ES. The )etition is im)ressed with merit@ The action 3iled +: )etitioners +e3ore the trial court was 3or recover: o3 )ossession and reconve:ance o3 title@ The issue to +e resolved was who +etween )etitioner $odrigo *lmuete and res)ondent ,arcelo *ndres has a +etter right to the su+/ect )ro)ert: considering that +oth o3 them are awardees o3 the same )ro)ert:@ It was thus a controvers: relating to ownershi) o3 the 3armlandA which is +e:ond the am+it o3 the )hrase Hagrarian dis)ute@H No /uridical tie o3 landowner and tenant was alleged +etween )etitioners and res)ondentA let alone that which would so characteri"e the relationshi) as an agrarian dis)ute@ In 3actA )etitioner and res)ondent were contending )arties 3or the ownershi) o3 the same )arcel o3 land@ $ule IIA 'ection 1 o3 the $evised $ules o3 Procedure o3 the D*$*!A )rovidesI 'ection 1@ Primary" Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. >>>The *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard shall have )rimar: /urisdictionA +oth original and a))ellateA to determine and ad/udicate all agrarian dis)utesA casesA controversiesA and matters or incidents involving the im)lementation o3 the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Program under $e)u+lic *ct No@ 665 A 5%ecutive 8rder Nos@ 22&A 22# and 12&>*A $e)u+lic *ct No@ 3#44 as amended +: $e)u+lic *ct No@ 63#&A P@D@ No@ 2 and other agrarian laws and their im)lementing rules and regulations@ H *grarian dis)uteH is de3ined under 'ection 3LdO o3 $e)u+lic *ct No@ 665 A asI LdO Agrarian 'ispute re3ers to an: controvers: relating to tenurial arrangementsA whether leaseholdA tenanc:A stewardshi) or otherwiseA over lands devoted to agricultureA including dis)utes concerning 3armwor4ers associations or re)resentation o3 )ersons in negotiatingA 3i%ingA maintainingA changing or see4ing to arrange terms or conditions o3 such tenurial arrangements@ It includes an: controvers: relating to com)ensation o3 lands ac9uired under this *ct and other terms and conditions o3 trans3er o3 ownershi) 3rom landowners to 3armwor4ersA tenants and other agrarian re3orm +ene3iciariesA whether the dis)utants stand in the )ro%imate relation o3 3arm o)erator and +ene3iciar:A landowner and tenantA or lessor and lessee@ 2rom the 3oregoingA it is clear that the /urisdiction o3 the D*$*! is limited to cases involving a tenanc: relationshi) +etween the )arties@ The 3ollowing elements are indis)ensa+le to esta+lish a tenanc: relationshi)I L1O The )arties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lesseeN

L2O The su+/ect matter o3 the relationshi) is an agricultural landN L3O There is consent +etween the )arties to the relationshi)N L4O The )ur)ose o3 the relationshi) is to +ring a+out agricultural )roductionN L5O There is )ersonal cultivation on the )art o3 the tenant or agricultural lesseeN and L6O The harvest is shared +etween the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee@ The -ourt o3 *))ealsA there3oreA gravel: erred when it granted the )etition 3or certiorari and held that the trial court had no /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action +etween )etitioners and res)ondent@ The action 3iled +: )etitioners was cogni"a+le +: the regular courts@ -onse9uentl:A the $egional Trial -ourt o3 -aua:anA Isa+ela was com)etent to tr: and decide -ivil -ase No@ 2(>53(@ Its decision wasA thusA valid and can no longer +e distur+edA a3ter having attained 3inalit:@ Nothing more can +e done with the decision e%ce)t to en3orce it@ $es)ondentGs contention that the action +elow was an e/ectment suit is untena+le@ !asic is the rule that in actions 3or e/ectmentA the onl: issue is )ossession@ This is not true as regards the case +elowA which )rinci)all: involved the 9uestion o3 ownershi)A or more accuratel:A the validit: o3 the homestead )atent awarded to )etitioner vis>a>vis that awarded to res)ondent@ he instant )etition 3or review is GRANTED@
T

EC. ISIDRA NDA. DE NICT)RIA S%bs i % e5 by MARI) NICT)RIA6 vs. 4)N. C)(RT )& APPEALS6 4)N. '(ANITA T. G(ERRER)6 Presi5in/ '%5/e o2 Re/ional Trial Co%r 6 !ranch DC6 Calamba6 La/%naL 4)N. &L)RENCI) P. !(ESER6 Presi5in/ '%5/e6 M%nicipal Trial Co%r 6 Cala%an6 La/%naL ERF)&&ICI) S4ERI&& S Re/ional Trial Co%r 6 Calamba6 La/%na an5Tor his Dep% iesL SP)(SES L(IS GI!E an5 OENAIDA GI!E an5 All Persons Ac in/ on heir !ehal2 &ACTS3 $es)ondent s)ouses Luis and =enaida 1i+e 3iled a -om)laint 3or C5/ectment and Damages with a ?rit o3 Preliminar: ,andator: In/unctionJ E3F against Isidra 7da@ de 7ictoria Lthe mother o3 herein )etitioner ,ario 7ictoriaOA 5use+io *ridaA Juan !ecina and 1uillermo !ecina with the ,unici)al Trial -ourt L,T-O Lthe 5/ectment -aseO@ The 1i+e s)ouses allegedA that the: ac9uired a )arcel o3 land Lthe )ro)ert:O 3rom the heirs o3 the late Judge 1regorio Lantin which was originall: )art o3 Lot 1>!>153 with an area o3 a))ro%imatel: 34A#2& s9@ m@A which was su+divided into seven )arcels in 1&#& among Judge Lantin and 3our o3 his tenants@ 2eli% 7ictoriaA now deceasedA was the hus+and o3 Isidra 7ictoria@ *ll the de3endants in the 5/ectment -aseA as 3ormer tenantsA were given home lotsA while Lot 1>!>153>* which was allotted to 1regorio Lantin was sold to the s)ouses 1i+e@ It was discovered that the 7ictoria house was standing on the northwestern )ortion o3 the )ro)ert:N that ,rs@ 7ictoria was harvesting and )ic4ing 3ruits 3rom the citrus trees )lanted in that area without the 4nowledge and )ermission o3 the 1i+e s)ousesN and that 5use+io *ridaA Juan !ecina and 1uillermo !ecina were also surre)titiousl: )lanting )ala: on the northwestern )ortion@ ,rs@ 7ictoria denied having entered Judge LantinPs lot alleged to have +een )urchased +: the s)ouses 1i+eA claiming that her 3armhouse was constructed on the ver: lot awarded to her 3amil: +: the D*$@ ,oving thus 3or the dismissal o3 the 5/ectment -ase 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 actionA she inter)osed a counterclaim )ra:ing thatA as a tenant o3 Judge LantinA she +e maintained in the )eace3ul )ossession and cultivation o3 her lot orA in the alternativeA awarded distur+ance com)ensationN andA in either eventA reim+ursed 3or the e%)enses she incurred as a result o3 the 5/ectment -ase@ The ,T-A 3inding in 3avor o3 the )lainti33s>s)ouses 1i+eA stated that since it clearl: a))eared that the )lainti33s are the real owners o3 the real )ro)ert: with an area o3 2 A(64 s9uare metersA including the real )ro)ert: with an area o3 5A#25 s9uare meters which is in )ossession o3 all the de3endantsA the: have the a+solute right to o+tain the )ro)er )ossession thereo3 and to e/ect all o3 them thru legal means@ It also stated that considering the )ossession o3 the de3endant Isidra 7da@ de 7ictoria o3 the real )ro)erties with a total area o3 1A5(# s9uare meters which she did not ownA she is ordered to )a: and remit to the a+ove )lainti33s the sum o3 P45A(((@(( as reasona+le com)ensation 3or the use o3 the said )ortion@ The s)ouses 1i+eA without notice to the de3endants in the 5/ectment -aseA 3iled a ,otion 3or Immediate 5%ecution and Demolition )ra:ing that Ca writ o3 e%ecution +e issued to en3orce and satis3: the /udgmentA 3or the e/ectment and demolition o3 the house o3 the De3endants@ The de3endants in the 5/ectment -ase 3iled a Notice o3 *))eal withoutA howeverA 3iling a su)ersedeas +ond to sta: the immediate e%ecution o3 the decision and de)ositing monthl: rentals@The ,T- granted the ,otion 3or Immediate 5%ecution and Demolition and accordingl: issued a ?rit o3 5%ecution@ * Petition 3or Certiorari and Prohi+ition L?ith Pra:er 3or Issuance o3 a Tem)orar: $estraining 8rder ET$8F and a ?rit o3 Preliminar: In/unction was 3iled wiith the $T-@ The Petition assailed the ,T- DecisionA its 8rder o3 June 1A 1&&#A and the ?rit o3 5%ecutionA contending that the ,T- had no /urisdiction over the 5/ectment -ase and committed grave a+use o3 discretion in deciding the case in 3avor o3 the

s)ouses 1i+e and in issuing the said 8rder and ?rit o3 5%ecution )ending a))eal@Tthe $Tdismissed the Petition 3or Certiorari stating that /urisdiction o3 a court is determined +: the allegations in the com)laint@ The com)laint 3iled +: the )rivate res)ondents was 3or 5/ectment and Damages ?ith a ?rit o3 Preliminar: ,andator: In/unction@ 5/ectment )roceedings are within the e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 the ,unici)al Trial -ourt@ It also stated that )etitioner 7ictoria did not 9uestion the /urisdiction o3 the -ourt +ut )ra:ed 3or the dismissal o3 the case +elow 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action@ The Decision o3 the ,T- is there3ore not an error o3 /urisdiction +ut an error o3 /udgment which is not reviewa+le +: certiorari )roceedings@ .aving 3ound Ethe ,T-F to have /urisdiction to issue the decision dated ,a: 2#A 1&&#A the res)ondent /udge li4ewise has /urisdiction to direct the e%ecution o3 the same )ending a))eal@ Petitioner instituted another s)ecial civil action 3or certiorariA this time with the -ourt o3 *))eals L-*OA 9uestioning +oth the *ugust 13A 1&&& Decision o3 the $T- and the ,a: 21A 1&&# Decision o3 the ,T-@ -* dismissed the -* Certiorari Petition stating that the correct remed: 3rom a decision o3 a $egional Trial -ourt in a )etition 3or certiorari is an ordinar: a))eal and that the instant )etition is 3iled out o3 time@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the $T- committed grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction +: ruling that this case 3alls within the /urisdiction o3 the ,T-@ 4ELD3 The a))eal must +e denied@ PetitionerPs )rinci)al su+stantive argument that the 5/ectment -ase )ro)erl: 3alls within the /urisdiction o3 the D*$*! and not o3 the ,T- is without merit@ The ,T- does not automaticall: lose its e%clusive original /urisdiction over e/ectment cases +: the mere allegation o3 a tenanc: relationshi)@ *s thoroughl: discussed in *ivera v. SantiagoA the )art: alleging tenanc: must )rove the e%istence o3 all the essential re9uisites o3 tenanc: in order to oust the ,T- o3 its /urisdiction over the caseI Jurisdiction is determined +: the allegations in the com)laint@ That is +asic@ 6n9uestiona+l:A )etitioner lodged an action 3or e/ectment +e3ore the ,T-@ 6nder !P 12&A the allegations in the com)laint con3erred initiator: /urisdiction on that 3irst level court@ .oweverA when tenanc: is averred as a de3ense and is shown prima facie to +e the real issueA the ,T- must dismiss the case 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ 6nder $* 665 A it is the D*$ that has authorit: to hear and decide when tenanc: is legitimatel: involved@ In the instant caseA res)ondents averred tenanc: as an a33irmative andBor s)ecial de3ense in their *nswer with -ounterclaim@ 6nder the $'P E$evised $ule on 'ummar: ProcedureFA the ,T- was su))osed to conduct a )reliminar: con3erence to determine i3 such relationshi) was indeed the real issue@ We emphasi$e ha he MTC 5i5 no a% oma ically lose i s "%ris5ic ion simply beca%se respon5en s raise5 enancy as a 5e2ense. I con in%e5 o ha1e he a% hori y o hear he case precisely o 5e ermine 7he her i ha5 "%ris5ic ion o 5ispose o2 he e"ec men s%i on i s meri s@ *n agrarian dis)ute re3ers to an: controvers: relating toA inter aliaA tenanc: over lands devoted to agriculture@ To determine whether the -* was correct in its reversal o3 the trial courtA it is necessar: to 4ee) in mind he essen ial re9%isi es o2 enancy 7hich are as 2ollo7sI *,0 The par ies are he lan5o7ner an5 he enan or a/ric%l %ral lesseeL

*;0 *D0 *E0 *A0 *.0

The s%b"ec o2 he rela ionship is a/ric%l %ral lan5L There is m% %al consen o he enancy be 7een he par iesL The p%rpose o2 he rela ionship is a/ric%l %ral pro5%c ionL There is personal c%l i1a ion by he enan or a/ric%l %ral lesseeL an5 There is a sharin/ o2 har1es s be 7een he par ies.

All hese elemen s m%s conc%r. I is no eno%/h ha hey are alle/e5L o 5i1es he MTC o2 "%ris5ic ion6 hey m%s all be sho7n o be presen @ In the )resent caseA neither )etitioner nor his )redecessor>in>interest su+mitted evidence to su+stantiate the e%istence o3 the essential re9uisites o3 tenanc:@ ThusA there is no +asis at all to su))ort )etitionerPs claim that the ,T- was without /urisdiction to render the 9uestioned Decision@ Li4ewiseA )etitiionerPs )redecessor>in>interest never 9uestioned the /urisdiction o3 the ,T-@ InsteadA she +ased her )ra:er 3or the dismissal o3 the 5/ectment -ase on res)ondentsP alleged lac4 o3 cause o3 actionN with a counterclaim )ra:ing that she +e maintained in the )eace3ul )ossession and cultivation o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert: orA in the alternativeA awarded distur+ance com)ensationN andA in either eventA reim+ursed 3or the e%)enses she incurred@ -onsidering that )etitionerPs )redecessor>in>interest activel: )artici)ated in the )roceedings +e3ore the ,T- and invo4ed its /urisdiction to secure an a33irmative relie3A )etitioner cannot now turn around and 9uestion that courtPs /urisdiction@

E-. LE)NARDA L. M)NSANT) vs@ 'ES(S AND TERESITA OERNA AND C)(RT )& APPEAL The 3iling o3 a criminal action carries with it the civil lia+ilit: arising 3rom the o33ense@ .oweverA the trial court cannot ad/udge civil matters that are +e:ond its com)etence and )owers@ ThusA while a court ma: have authorit: to )ass u)on the criminal lia+ilit: o3 the accusedA it cannot ma4e an: civil awards that relate to the agrarian relationshi) o3 the )arties +ecause this matter is +e:ond its /urisdiction@ &ACTS3 ')ouses Jesus and Teresita =erna Lherein )rivate res)ondentsO were charged with 9uali3ied the3t +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt L$T-O@ The in3ormation alleged that the )rivate res)ondents will3ull:A unlaw3ull: and 3eloniousl: ta4eA stealA harvest and carr: awa: coconuts 3rom the )remises o3 the said )lantationA which the said accused then )rocessed into co)ra with a total value o3 P6A162@5(A +elonging to said Leonarda ,onsantoA without her consent and against her will@ The $T- ac9uitted them o3 the charge stating that the harvest in the land +: the accused was doneA not 3or the )ur)ose o3 stealing the coconuts or the co)raA +ut more to con3irm their claim that the: are tenants o3 the land@ In 3act the lac4 o3 intent to gain is shown +: the 3act that the: immediatel: de)osited the )roceeds with the +aranga: ca)tain and did not even claim a share in the )roceeds o3 the co)ra@ In light o3 thisA the -ourt 3ounds that the EaccusedF are not tenants o3 the land and the cash de)osit E3romF the )roceeds o3 the co)ra with the +aranga: ca)tain +elongs to the )rivate com)lainantA Leonarda ,onsanto@ .oweverA considering the lac4 o3 intent o3 the EaccusedF to gainA no criminal lia+ilit: 3or the3t has +een committed +: them@ It then dis)osed o3 the case in the 3ollowing mannerI H?.5$528$5A the criminal case 3or 9uali3ied the3t against the EaccusedF Jesus =erna and Teresita =erna is here+: ordered dismissed and their +ail +ond cancelled@ The +aranga: ca)tain o3 !uru>unA Iligan -it: is here+: ordered to deliver the amount o3 P5A162@5(A re)resenting the )roceeds E3rom theF co)ra sold +: the EaccusedF to the )rivate com)lainantA Leonarda ,onsanto@H The total )roceeds o3 the co)ra sale alleged in the In3ormation was P6A262@5(@ .oweverA the awarded amount was onl: P5A162@5( which was de)osited +: )rivate res)ondents with the +aranga: secretar: o3 !uru>un# on ,arch 2A 1&&5A a3ter deducting P34( Lharvesting costO and P 6( Lla+or costO@ ThusA )etitioner 3iled a timel: ,otion 3or $econsideration )ra:ing that the remaining sum o3 P1A1(( +e returned to her@ The trial court granted the ,otion and ordered )rivate res)ondents to return the amount o3 P1A1((@ The -*A on a))ealA ruled that the trial court had no /urisdiction to order )rivate res)ondents to )a: )etitioner the amount o3 P1A1((@ !ecause the dis)ute involved an agricultural tenanc: relationshi)A the matter 3ell within the )rimar: and e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard LD*$*!O@ It added that inasmuch as the $T- had no /urisdiction to rule on the civil as)ect o3 the case ergoA it had no a))ellate authorit: over the matter under a writ o3 error@ The a))ellate court thus HrecalledA set aside and declared null and voidH the 'e)tem+er 6A 1&&6 $T- 8rder re9uiring the return o3 the P1A1(( to )etitioner@ ISS(E3 Is the $egional Trial -ourt automaticall: divested o3 /urisdiction over a criminal case where an agrarian issue is argued as a de3enseA no matter how 3lims:X 4ELD3 The Petition is devoid o3 merit@

* care3ul review o3 the -* Decision shows that it merel: set aside the 'e)tem+er 4A 1&&6 $T8rder directing )rivate res)ondents to )a: P1A1(( to )etitioner@ It did not annul the Jul: 24A 1&&6 $T- Decision ac9uitting )rivate res)ondents o3 9uali3ied the3t@ !eing an ac9uittalA the /udgment +ecame H3inal immediatel: a3ter )romulgation and cannot +e recalled 3or correction or amendment@ The trial court considered the return o3 the P1A1(( as )art o3 the civil as)ect o3 the criminal case@ *s )etitioner did not consent to the harvesting o3 the coconuts and the )rocessing o3 the same into co)raA then there was no +asis to award the amount to )rivate res)ondents@ In the words o3 the trial courtA HEwFithout e9uit: or an: law in their 3avorA the accused are there3ore not entitled to com)ensation 3or their ve%atious acts@H !ut what is the $T-Gs +asis 3or ordering the return o3 P1A1(( a3ter it had alread: ac9uitted )rivate res)ondents o3 9uali3ied the3tX Does the amount constitute civil lia+ilit:X Let us clari3:@ -ivil lia+ilit: is the lia+ilit: that ma: arise 3rom L1O crimeA L2O +reach o3 contract or L3O tortious act@ The 3irst is governed +: the $evised Penal -odeN the second and the thirdA +: the -ivil -ode@ In the case at +arA there is no 9uestion that the $T- had criminal /urisdiction to tr: )rivate res)ondents 3or the crime o3 9uali3ied the3t@ In the normal courseA it had authorit: to determine whether the: had committed the crime charged and to ad/udge the corres)onding )enalt: and civil lia+ilit: arising there3rom@ 8n 'e)tem+er 4A 1&&6A the $T- issued an 8rder re9uiring )rivate res)ondents to return the P1A1(( to )etitioner on the ground that )etitioner had not consented to the harvesting o3 the coconuts or to their conversion into co)ra@ 'uch order a))ears inconsistent with the trial courtGs 3inding that )rivate res)ondents had not committed the crime o3 9uali3ied the3t@ In People v. PantigAthe -ourt held that where there is no crime committedA there can +e no civil lia+ilit: that can arise 3rom the criminal action or as a conse9uence thereo3A as 3ollowsI H?here the civil lia+ilit: which is included in the criminal action is that arising 3rom and as EaF conse9uence o3 the criminal actA and the de3endant was ac9uitted in the criminal caseA no civil lia+ilit: arising 3rom the criminal charge could +e im)osed u)on him@ The lia+ilit: o3 the de3endant 3or the return o3 the amount so received +: him ma: not +e en3orced in the criminal case +ut in a civil action 3or the recover: o3 the said amount@H The 3oregoing ruling has +een modi3ied +: the current $ules@ ThusA )aragra)h 2 o3 'ection 2A $ule 12( o3 the )resent $ules o3 -ourt )rovides that HEiFn case the /udgment is o3 ac9uittalA it shall state whether the evidence o3 the )rosecution a+solutel: 3ailed to )rove the guilt o3 the accused or merel: 3ailed to )rove his guilt +e:ond reasona+le dou+t@ In either caseA the /udgment shall determine i3 the act or omission 3rom which the civil lia+ilit: might arise did not e%ist@H In the )resent set o3 3actsA howeverA the $T- did not have /urisdiction to ma4e a 3inding on the civil lia+ilit: o3 the accused who were ac9uitted@ ')eci3icall:A we +elieve that the resolution o3 the issue o3 who is entitled to the P1A1(( 3alls s9uarel: within the /urisdiction o3 the D*$*!@ 58 22& vested the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm LD*$O with 9uasi>/udicial )owers to determine and ad/udicate agrarian re3orm mattersA as well as to e%ercise e%clusive original /urisdiction over all matters involving the im)lementation o3 agrarian re3ormA e%ce)t those 3alling under the e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 the De)artment o3 5nvironment and Natural $esources LD5N$O and the De)artment o3 *griculture LD*O@ 'ection 13 o3 58 12&>*A on the other handA created the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard LD*$*!OA which was s)eci3icall: tas4ed with the )ower and the 3unction to decide agrarian re3orm cases@ The D*$*!A under 'ection 1A )aragra)h LaOA $ule II o3 the $evised $ules o3 ProcedureA e%ercises )rimar: /urisdiction >> +oth original and a))ellate >> to determine and ad/udicate all agrarian dis)utesA casesA controversiesA and matters or incidents involving the im)lementation o3 agrarian laws and their im)lementing rules and regulations@ The )rovision reads as 3ollowsI H'5-TI8N 1@ Primary" Original and Appellate Jurisdiction@ The *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard shall have )rimar: /urisdictionA +oth original and a))ellateA to determine and ad/udicate all agrarian dis)utesA casesA controversiesA and matters or

incidents involving the im)lementation o3 the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Program under $e)u+lic *ct No@ 665 A 5%ecutive 8rder Nos@ 22&A 22# and 12&>*A $e)u+lic *ct No 3#44 as amended +: $e)u+lic *ct No@ 63#&A Presidential Decree No@ 2 and other agrarian laws and their im)lementing rules and regulations@ ')eci3icall:A such /urisdiction shall e%tend over +ut not E+eF limited to the 3ollowingI GaO -ases involving the rights and o+ligations o3 )ersons engaged in the cultivation and use o3 agricultural land covered +: the -om)rehensive *grarian $e3orm Program L-*$PO and other agrarian laws@GH *n agrarian dispute re3ers to an: controvers: relating to tenurial arrangements >> whether leaseholdA tenanc:A stewardshi) or otherwise >> over lands devoted to agricultureA including L1O dis)utes concerning 3arm wor4ersG associationsN or L2O re)resentation o3 )ersons in negotiatingA 3i%ingA maintainingA changing or see4ing to arrange terms or conditions o3 such tenurial arrangement@ The essential elements o3 a tenanc: relationshi) were listed in this wiseI H2or D*$*! to have /urisdiction over a caseA there must e%ist a tenanc: relationshi) +etween the )arties@ In order 3or a tenanc: agreement to ta4e hold over a dis)uteA it would +e essential to esta+lish all its indis)ensa+le elements to witI 1O the )arties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee 2O su+/ect matter o3 the relationshi) is an agricultural land 3O there is consent +etween the )arties to the relationshi) 4O that the )ur)ose o3 the relationshi) is to +ring a+out agricultural )roduction 5O there is )ersonal cultivation on the )art o3 the tenant or agricultural lessee and 6O the harvest is shared +etween the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee@H ?e hold that an agrarian dis)ute e%isted +etween the )arties@ 2irstA the su+/ect o3 the dis)ute +etween them was the ta4ing o3 coconuts 3rom the )ro)ert: owned +: )etitioner as shown +: the 4asunduan@ 'econdA )rivate res)ondents were the overseers o3 the )ro)ert: at the time o3 the ta4ing o3 the coconuts@ )hirdA )etitioner allowed )rivate res)ondents to )lant coconutA co33eeA /ac43ruit and cacao as shown +: the said *greement@;inallyA a tenurial arrangement e%ists among herein )arties as regards the harvesting o3 the agricultural )roductsA as shown +: the several remittances made +: )rivate res)ondents to )etitioner@ These are su+stantiated +: recei)ts@ Second&ssue? 6ack of Jurisdiction 7ot Aaived *s a general ruleA an a))eal is limited to a review o3 the s)eci3ic legal issues raised in the )etition +: the )arties@ .oweverA even i3 not raisedA an error in /urisdiction ma: +e ta4en u)@ Lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter ma: +e raised at an: stage o3 the )roceedings >> even on a))eal@ In the )resent caseA the $T- had /urisdiction to decide the criminal case against )rivate res)ondentsN howeverA it acted +e:ond its /urisdiction when it e33ectivel: ruled on the agricultural tenanc: relationshi) +etween the )arties@ Private res)ondents had raised +e3ore it the issue o3 tenanc: +: wa: o3 de3enseA and a))arentl: interwoven with the agrarian dis)uteA were the acts com)lained o3 +: )etitionerI the harvesting o3 the coconutsA their conversion into co)ra andA laterA the sale thereo3@ ThusA the $T- should have con3ined itsel3 to the determination o3 whether )rivate res)ondents were guilt: o3 9uali3ied the3tA instead o3 automaticall: awarding the )roceeds o3 the co)ra sale to )etitioner@ 'uch matterA +eing an o33shoot o3 the agrarian dis)ute +etween the )artiesA is cogni"a+le e%clusivel: +: the D*$*!@ ?.5$528$5A the Petition is here+: D5NI5D@

EB. TE)D)R) !. NESAGAS6 an5 WIL&RED D. ASIS vs. The 4onorable C)(RT )& APPEALS an5 DEL&IN) RANIEL an5 4ELENDA RANIEL. &ACTS3 $es)ondent s)ouses Del3ino and .elenda $aniel are mem+ers in good standing o3 the Lu" 7illage Tennis -lu+A Inc@ Lclu+O@ The: alleged that )etitioner Teodoro !@ 7esagasA who claims to +e the clu+Ps dul: elected )residentA in cons)irac: with )etitioner ?il3red D@ *sisA whoA in turnA claims to +e its dul: elected vice>)resident and legal counselA summaril: stri))ed them o3 their law3ul mem+ershi)A without due )rocess o3 law@ $es)ondent s)ouses 3iled a -om)laint with the '5- against the )etitioners@ $es)ondents as4ed the -ommission to declare as illegal their e%)ulsion 3rom the clu+ as it was allegedl: done in utter disregard o3 the )rovisions o3 its +:>laws as well as the re9uirements o3 due )rocess@ The: li4ewise sought the annulment o3 the amendments to the +:>lawsA changing the annual meeting o3 the clu+ 3rom the last 'unda: o3 Januar: to Novem+er and increasing the num+er o3 trustees 3rom nine to 3i3teen@ !e3ore the hearing o33icer could start )roceeding with the caseA howeverA )etitioners 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the '5- lac4s /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the case@ The motion was denied@ The: 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the '5- 5n !anc see4ing a review o3 the hearing o33icerPs orders@ The )etition was again denied 3or lac4 o3 meritA Petitioners )rom)tl: sought relie3 with the -ourt o3 *))eals contesting the ruling o3 the -ommission en banc@ The a))ellate courtA howeverA dismissed the )etition 3or lac4 o3 merit@ Petitioners contend that since its ince)tion in the 1& (PsA the clu+ in )ractice has not +een a cor)oration@ The: add that it was onl: the res)ondent s)ousesA motivated +: their own )ersonal agenda to ma4e mone: 3rom the clu+A who surre)titiousl: caused its registration with the '5-@ The: then assert thatA at an: rateA the clu+ has alread: ceased to +e a cor)orate +od:@ There3oreA no intra>cor)orate relations can arise as +etween the res)ondent s)ouses and the clu+ or an: o3 its mem+ers@ 'tretching their argument 3urtherA )etitioners insist that since the clu+A +: their rec4oning is not a cor)orationA the '5- does not have the )ower or authorit: to in9uire into the validit: o3 the e%)ulsion o3 the res)ondent s)ouses@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals committed a reversi+le error when it determined that the '5- has /urisdiction in (3>& >55&#@ 4ELD3 PetitionersP attem)t to im)ress u)on this court that the clu+ has never +een a cor)oration is devoid o3 merit@ It must 3ail in the 3ace o3 the -ommissionPs e%)licit 3inding that the clu+ was dul: registered and a certi3icate o3 incor)oration was issued in its 3avor@ ?e agree with the hearing o33icer that the grounds raised +: )etitioner in their motion to dismiss are 3actual issuesA the veracit: o3 which can onl: +e ascertained in a 3ull +lown hearing@ Recor5s sho7 ha he associa ion is 5%ly re/is ere5 7i h he associa ion an5 a cer i2ica e o2 incorpora ion 7as iss%e5. Clearly6 he Commission has "%ris5ic ion o1er he sai5 associa ion. *s to )etitionerPs allegation that the registration o3 the clu+ was done without the 4nowledge o3 the mem+ersA this is a circumstance which was not dul: )roven +: the )etitioner LsicO in his LsicO motion to dismiss@ It ought to +e remem+ered that the 9uestion o3 whether the clu+ was indeed registered and issued a certi3ication or not is one which necessitates a 3actual in9uir:@ 8n this scoreA the 3inding o3 the -ommissionA as the administrative agenc: tas4ed with among others the 3unction o3 registering and administering cor)orationsA is given great weight and accorded high res)ect@ ?e there3ore have no reason to distur+ this 3actual 3inding relating to the clu+Ps registration and incor)oration@ ,oreoverA +: their own admission contained in the

various )leadings which the: have 3iled in the di33erent stages o3 this caseA )etitioners themselves have considered the clu+ as a cor)oration@ This admissionA under the rules o3 evidenceA +inds them and ma: +e ta4en or used against them@ 'ince the admission was made in the course o3 the )roceedings in the same caseA it does not re9uire )roo3A and actuall: ma: +e contradicted onl: +: showing that it was made through )al)a+le mista4e or that no such admission was made@i Noteworth: is the C,inute o3 the 2irst !oard ,eeting held on Januar: 5A 1&& A which contained the 3ollowing )ertinent )ortionsI C11@ (nanimo%sly appro1e5 by he !oar5 a Resol% ion o Dissol1e he corpora e s r%c %re o2 LNTC 7hich is 2ile5 7i h he SEC. 'imilarl:A )etitionersP ,otion to Dismiss allegedI C1@ This -ommission has no /urisdiction over the Lu" 7illage Tennis -lu+ not onl: +ecause it was not im)leaded +ut beca%se since A 'an%ary ,BBC6 i ha5 alrea5y ri5 i sel26 as i ha5 o in or5er o main ain respec an5 5ecency amon/ i s members6 o2 he %n2or %na e e8perience o2 bein/ a corpora e bo5y. Th%s a he ime o2 he 2ilin/ o2 he complain 6 he cl%b ha5 alrea5y 5issol1e5 i s corpora e e8is ence and has 3unctioned as a mere association o3 res)ecta+le and res)ecting individual mem+ers who have associated themselves since the 1& (Ps % % % The necessar: im)lication o3 all these is that )etitioners recogni"ed and ac4nowledged the cor)orate )ersonalit: o3 the clu+@ 8therwiseA there is no cogenc: in s)earheading the move 3or its dissolution@ Petitioners were there3ore well aware o3 the incor)oration o3 the clu+ and even agreed to get elected and serve as its res)onsi+le o33icers +e3ore the: reconsidered dissolving its cor)orate 3orm@ This +rings us to )etitionersP ne%t )oint@ The: claim in gratia argumenti that while the clu+ ma: have +een considered a cor)oration during a +rie3 s)ellA stillA at the time o3 the institution o3 this case with the '5-A the clu+ was alread: dissolved +: virtue o3 a !oard resolution@ *gainA the argument will not carr: the da: 3or the )etitioner@ The -or)oration -ode esta+lishes the )rocedure and other 3ormal re9uirements a cor)oration needs to 3ollow in case it elects to dissolve and terminate its structure voluntaril: and where no rights o3 creditors ma: )ossi+l: +e )re/udiced@ The re9uirements mandated +: the -or)oration -ode should have +een strictl: com)lied with +: the mem+ers o3 the clu+@ The records reveal that no )roo3 was o33ered +: the )etitioners with regard to the notice and )u+lication re9uirements@ 'imilarl: wanting is the )roo3 o3 the +oard mem+ersP certi3ication@ Lastl:A and most im)ortant o3 allA the '5- 8rder o3 Dissolution was never su+mitted as evidence@ ?e now resolve whether the dis)ute +etween the res)ondents and )etitioners is a cor)orate matter within the e%clusive com)etence o3 the '5- to decide@ In order that the commission can ta4e cogni"ance o3 a caseA the controvers: must )ertain to an: o3 the 3ollowing relationshi)sI aO +etween the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association and the )u+licN +O +etween the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association and its stoc4holdersA )artnersA mem+ersA or o33icersN cO +etween the cor)orationA )artnershi)A or association and the state as 3ar as its 3ranchiseA )ermit or license to o)erate is concernedN and dO among the stoc4holdersA )artners or associates themselves@ iiE13F The 3act that the )arties involved in the controvers: are all stoc4holders or that the )arties

involved are the stoc4holders and the cor)orationA does not necessaril: )lace the dis)ute within the loo) o3 /urisdiction o3 the '5-@iiiE14F Jurisdiction should +e determined +: considering not onl: the status or relationshi) o3 the )arties +ut also the nature o3 the 9uestion that is the su+/ect o3 their controvers:@ ?e rule that the )resent dis)ute is intra>cor)orate in character@ In the 3irst )laceA the )arties here involved are o33icers and mem+ers o3 the clu+@ $es)ondents claim to +e mem+ers o3 good standing o3 the clu+ until the: were )ur)ortedl: stri))ed o3 their mem+ershi) in illegal 3ashion@ PetitionersA on the other handA are its President and 7ice>PresidentA res)ectivel:@ ,ore signi3icantl:A the )resent con3lict relates toA and in 3act arose 3romA this relation +etween the )arties@ The su+/ect o3 the com)laintA namel:A the legalit: o3 the e%)ulsion 3rom mem+ershi) o3 the res)ondents and the validit: o3 the amendments in the clu+Ps +:>laws areA 3urthermoreA within the -ommissionPs /urisdiction@ ?ell to underscore is the date when the original com)laint was 3iled at the '5-A which was ,arch 26A 1&& @ 8n that dateA the '5- still e%ercised 9uasi>/udicial 3unctions over this t:)e o3 suits@ It is a%iomatic that /urisdiction is con3erred +: the -onstitution and +: the laws in 3orce at the time o3 the commencement o3 the action@ In )articularA the -ommission was thereu)on em)oweredA under 'ec@ 5 o3 P@D@ &(2>*A to hear and decide cases involving intra>cor)orate dis)utesA

AK. &L)RENCI) )RENDAIN6 vs@ !& 4)MES6 INC. &ACTS3 !2 .omesA Inc@ is a domestic cor)oration o)erating under Phili))ine laws and organi"ed )rimaril: to develo) and sell residential lots and houses and other related realt: +usiness@ !2 .omes had to avail itsel3 o3 3inancial assistance 3rom various sources to ena+le it to +u: )ro)erties and convert them into residential su+divisions@ This resulted in its incurring lia+ilities amounting to PhP 1A542A#(5A(6#@23@ 8n the other handA during its +usiness o)erationsA it was a+le to ac9uire )ro)erties and assets worth PhP 2A4#2A#43A35#@#1 as o3 Jul: 31A 1&#4A whichA i3 li9uidatedA were more than enough to )a: all its creditors@ Des)ite its solvent statusA res)ondent 3iled a Petition 3or $eha+ilitation and 3or Declaration in a 'tate o3 'us)ension o3 Pa:ments under 'ection 4 o3 PD No@ 1 5# +e3ore the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission L'5-O +ecause o3 the 3ollowingI LaO the )redator: acts o3 the -entral !an4 o3 tr:ing to ta4e over !anco 2ili)ino and hand it chea) to its unidenti3ied )rinci)al and its +u:er 3inancing 3acilit: with !anco 2ili)ino has +een sus)ended such that it cannot now consummate its sales transactions necessar: 3or it to generate cash to service andBor li9uidate its various maturing o+ligationsN L+O the li+elous EcircularsF made +: the -entral !an4 to +an4s under its su)ervision that its de)osit accounts and other transactions with them were +eing e%amined such that the creditors o3 E!2 .omesF have E+egunF insisting on 3ull li9uidation under )ain o3 3oreclosure o3 their notes % % %N and LcO the Eli9uidationF o3 E!2 .omesF assets cannot +e made in such a short time as demanded +: its creditors@ res)ondent )ra:ed thatin the meantime it was continuing its +usiness o)erationsit +e a33orded time to )a: its a3oresaid o+ligationsA 3reed 3rom various )roceedings either /udiciall: or e%tra>/udiciall: against its assets and )ro)erties@ *lsoA res)ondent highlighted the im)ortance o3 and )ra:ed 3or a $eha+ilitation $eceiver in the )etition@ '5- su+se9uentl: issued an order stating that in order to )revent E)aral:"ationF o3 +usiness o)erationEsF o3 the !@2@ .omesA Inc@A a ,anagement -ommittee will +e created@ *ccordingl:A with the creation o3 the ,anagement -ommitteeA all actions 3or claims against !@2@ .omesA Inc@ )ending +e3ore the courtA tri+unalA +oard or +od: are here+: deemed sus)ended@ The '5- ordered the a))ointment o3 a reha+ilitation receiverA 2!8 ,anagement Networ4sA Inc@A with )etitioner 8rendain as -hairman to )revent )aral:"ation o3 !2 .omes +usiness o)erations@ * Deed o3 *+solute 'ale was e%ecuted +: and +etween !2 .omes re)resented +: )etitioner 8rendain as a+solute and registered ownerA and the Local 'u)erior o3 the 2ranciscan 'isters o3 the Immaculate Phils@A Inc@ LL'2'IPIO over a )arcel o3 land ,eanwhileA the '5- hearing )anel released an 8mni+us 8rder which admitted and con3irmed the -losing $e)ort su+mitted +: the receiverA )etitioner 8rendain@ It 3urther a))ointed a new -ommittee o3 $eceivers com)osed o3 the eleven L11O mem+ers o3 the !oard o3 Directors o3 !2 .omes with *l+ert -@ *guirre as the -hairman o3 the -ommittee@ -onse9uentl:A receiver 8rendain was relieved o3 his duties and res)onsi+ilities@ !2 .omes 3iled a -om)laint +e3ore the Las PiVas $T- against L'2'IPI and )etitioner 8rendainA allegingA inter aliaA that the L'2'IPI transacted with 8rendain in his individual ca)acit: and there3oreA neither 2!8 ,anagementA Inc@ nor 8rendain had title to the )ro)ert: trans3erred@ ,oreoverA !2 .omes averred that the selling )rice was grossl: inade9uate or insu33icient amounting to 3raud and cons)irac: with the L'2'IPI@ !2 .omes also stated that the total assessed value o3 the )ro)ert: was a))ro%imatel:

PhP #(2A33(@((@ .enceA it )ra:ed in the -om)laint that L'2'IPI reconve: the dis)uted )ro)ert: orA i3 reconve:ance was no longer 3easi+leA )a: the )resent value o3 the )ro)ert:@ 2lorencio !@ 8rendain 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss stating that L1O the $T- had no /urisdiction over the reconve:ance suit among other resons@ !2 .omes 3iled its 8))osition 15 to )etitioners ,otion to DismissA alleging that the case was within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the $T-A not the '5-A considering that the case was an ordinar: reconve:ance suit@ $T- Las PiVasA issued an 8rder den:ing the June 14A 1&&6 ,otion to Dismiss 3or lac4 o3 merit@ Petitioner 3iled +e3ore the -* a Petition 3or -ertiorari and Prohi+ition with Pra:er 3or the Issuance o3 a Tem)orar: $estraining 8rder andBor !onded ?rit o3 Preliminar: In/unction which sought to annul the $T- ordersA den:ing )etitionerPs ,otion to Dismiss and ,otion 3or $econsideration@ Petitioner alleged that these motions were issued without /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction@ The -* held that the action 3or reconve:ance 3iled +: !2 .omes was within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the $T-@ In the reha+ilitation caseA the L'2'IPI was not a )art: to the said case and did not have an: intra>cor)orate relation with )etitioner at the time o3 the sale@ The '5- could not ac9uire /urisdiction over the 2ranciscan 'istersN while )etitioner 8rendain was sued in his individual ca)acit: and not in his o33icial ca)acit: as receiver@ ISS(E3 ?hich has /urisdiction over the action 3or reconve:anceI the $T- or '5-@ 4ELD3 Jurisdiction over the su+/ect matter is con3erred +: law@ The nature o3 an actionA as well as which court or +od: has /urisdiction over itA is determined +ased on the allegations contained in the com)laint o3 the )lainti33A irres)ective o3 whether or not )lainti33 is entitled to recover u)on all or some o3 the claims asserted therein@ It cannot de)end on the de3enses set 3orth in the answerA in a motion to dismissA or in a motion 3or reconsideration +: the de3endant Lcitations omittedO@ In the case at +enchA the !2 .omes -om)laint 3or reconve:ance was 3iled on Januar: 23A 1&&6 against L'2'IPI and 2lorencio !@ 8rendainA in -ivil -ase No@ LP>&6>((2@ In 1&&6A 'ection 5 o3 PD No@ &(2>*A2# which was a))roved on ,arch 11A 1& 6A was still the law in 3orcewhere+: the '5- still had original and e%clusive /urisdiction to hear and decide cases involvingI +O controversies arising out o3 intra>cor)orate or )artnershi) relationsA +etween and among stoc4holdersA mem+ersA or associatesN +etween an: andBor all o3 them and the cor)orationA )artnershi)A or association o3 which the: are stoc4holdersA mem+ers or associatesA res)ectivel:N and +etween such cor)orationA )artnershi) or association and the state inso3ar as it concerns their individual 3ranchise or right to e%ist as such entit:@ -learl:A the controvers: involves matters )urel: civil in character and is +e:ond the am+it o3 the limited /urisdiction o3 the '5-@ *s held in <iray v. Court of AppealsA HEtFhe +etter )olic: in determining which +od: has /urisdiction over a case would +e to consider not onl: E1F the status or relationshi) o3 the )arties +ut also E2F the nature o3 the 9uestion that is the su+/ect o3 their controvers:@H ,ore soA in Speed 'istributing Corp@A we held thatI The 3irst element re9uires that the controvers: must arise out o3 intra>cor)orate or )artnershi) relations +etween an: or all o3 the )arties and the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association o3 which the: are stoc4holdersA mem+ers or associatesN +etween an: or all o3 them and the cor)orationA )artnershi) or association o3 which the: are stoc4holdersA mem+ers or associatesA res)ectivel:N and +etween such cor)orationA )artnershi) or

association and the 'tate inso3ar as it concerns their individual 3ranchises@ The second element re9uires that the dis)ute among the )arties +e intrinsicall: connected with the regulation o3 the cor)oration@ I3 the nature o3 the controvers: involves matters that are )urel: civil in characterA necessaril:A the case does not involve an intra>cor)orate controvers:@ The determination o3 whether a contract is simulated or not is an issue that could +e resolved +: a))l:ing )ertinent )rovisions o3 the -ivil -ode Lcitations omittedO@3( .oweverA 'ection 5 o3 PD No@ &(2>* does not a))l: in the instant case@ The L'2'IPI is neither an o33icer nor a stoc4holder o3 !2 .omesA and this case does not involve intra>cor)orate )roceedings@ In additionA the sellerA )etitioner 8rendainA is +eing sued in his individual ca)acit: 3or the unauthori"ed sale o3 the )ro)ert: in controvers:@ .enceA we 3ind no cogent reason to sustain )etitioners mani3estation that the resolution o3 the instant controvers: de)ends on the rati3ication +: the '5- o3 the acts o3 its agent or the receiver +ecause the act o3 8rendain was allegedl: not within the sco)e o3 his authorit: as receiver@ 2urthermoreA the determination o3 the validit: o3 the sale to L'2'IPI will necessitate the a))lication o3 the )rovisions o3 the -ivil -ode on o+ligations and contractsA agenc:A and other )ertinent )rovisions@ In additionA /urisdiction over the case 3or reconve:ance is clearl: vested in the $T- as )rovided in )aragra)h L2OA 'ection 1&A !@P@ !lg@ 12&A to witI Jurisdiction in civil cases@ $egional Trial -ourts shall e%ercise e%clusive EandF original /urisdiction L1O In all civil actions in which the su+/ect o3 the litigation is inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationN and L2O In all civil actions which involve the title toA or )ossession o3A real )ro)ert: or an: interest thereinA where the assessed value o3 the )ro)ert: involved e%ceeds Twent: Thousand )esos LP2(A(((@((O or 3or civil actions in ,etro ,anilaA where such value e%ceeds 2i3t: Thousand )esos LP5(A(((@((O % % % Li4ewiseA in 'M*C (nterprises v. (ste del Sol Mountain *eserve" &nc.A the -ourt saidI Nowhere in said decree EPD &(2>*F do we 3ind even so much as an intimidation EsicF that a+solute /urisdiction and control is vested in the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission in all matters a33ecting cor)orations@ To u)hold the res)ondents arguments would remove without the legal im)rimatur 3rom the regular courts all con3licts over matters involving or a33ecting cor)orationsA regardless o3 the nature o3 the transactions which give rise to such dis)ute@ The courts would then +e divested o3 /urisdiction not +: reason o3 the nature o3 the dis)ute su+mitted to them 3or ad/udicationA +ut solel: 3or the reason that the dis)ute involves a cor)oration@ This cannot +e done@ To do so would not onl: +e to encroach on the legislative )rerogative to grant and revo4e /urisdiction o3 the courts +ut such a swee)ing inter)retation ma: su33er constitutional in3irmit:@ Neither can we reduce /urisdiction o3 the court +: /udicial 3iat LEcitingF *rticle DA 'ection 1A The E1& 3F -onstitutionO@

A,. IN T4E MATTER )& APPLICATI)N &)R T4E ISS(ANCE )& A WRIT )& 4A!EAS C)RP(S RIC4ARD !RIAN T4)RNT)N 2or an5 in behal2 o2 he minor chil5 SEP(EIRA 'ENNI&ER DELLE &RANCISC) T4)RNT)N 1s. ADEL&A &RANCISC) T4)RNT)N &ACTS3 PetitionerA an *mericanA and res)ondentA a 2ili)inoA were married on *ugust 2#A 1&&# in the -atholic 5vangelical -hurch at 6nited Nations *venueA ,anila@ * :ear laterA res)ondent gave +irth to a +a+: girl whom the: named 'e9ueira Jenni3er Delle 2rancisco Thornton@ .oweverA a3ter three :earsA res)ondent grew restless and +ored as a )lain housewi3e@ 'he wanted to return to her old /o+ as a Cguest relations o33icerJ in a nightclu+A with the 3reedom to go out with her 3riends@ In 3actA whenever )etitioner was out o3 the countr:A res)ondent was also o3ten out with her 3riendsA leaving her daughter in the care o3 the househel)@ Petitioner admonished res)ondent a+out her irres)onsi+ilit: +ut she continued her care3ree wa:s@ $es)ondent le3t the 3amil: home with her daughter 'e9uiera without noti3:ing her hus+and sa:ing that she was going to !asilan@ Petitioner 3iled a )etition 3or ha+eas cor)us in the designated 2amil: -ourt in ,a4ati -it: +ut this was dismissedA )resuma+l: +ecause o3 the allegation that the child was in !asilan@ Petitioner then went to !asilan to ascertain the wherea+outs o3 res)ondent and their daughter@ .e did not 3ind them there@ Petitioner gave u) his search when he got hold o3 res)ondentPs cellular )hone +ills showing calls 3rom di33erent )laces such as -aviteA Nueva 5ci/aA ,etro ,anila and other )rovinces@ Petitioner then 3iled another )etition 3or ha+eas cor)usA this time in the -ourt o3 *))eals which could issue a writ o3 ha+eas cor)us en3orcea+le in the entire countr:@ .oweverA the )etition was denied +: the -ourt o3 *))eals on the ground that it did not have /urisdiction over the case@ It ruled that since $* #36& LThe 2amil: -ourts *ct o3 1&& O gave 3amil: courts e%clusive original /urisdiction over )etitions 3or ha+eas cor)usA it im)liedl: re)ealed $* &(2 L*n *ct 5%)anding the Jurisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))ealsO and !atas Pam+ansa 12& LThe Judiciar: $eorgani"ation *ct o3 1&#(O@ The -* decision saidI The vital 9uestion isA did $* #36& im)liedl: re)eal !P 12& and $* &(2 inso3ar as the /urisdiction o3 this -ourt to issue writ o3 ha+eas cor)us in custod: o3 minor cases is concernedX The sim)le answer isA :esA it didA +ecause there is no other meaning o3 the word Ce%clusiveJ than to constitute the 2amil: -ourt as the sole court which can issue said writ@ I3 a court other than the 2amil: -ourt also )ossesses the same com)etenceA then the /urisdiction o3 the 3ormer is not e%clusive +ut concurrent U and such an inter)retation is contrar: to the sim)le and clear wording o3 $* #36&@ ISS(E3 ?hether the -ourt o3 *))eals has /urisdiction to issue writs o3 ha+eas cor)us in cases involving custod: o3 minors in the light o3 the )rovision in $* #36& giving 3amil: courts e%clusive original /urisdiction over such )etitions@ 4ELD3 The )etition is granted@ The -ourt o3 *))eals should ta4e cogni"ance o3 the case since there is nothing in $* #36& that revo4ed its /urisdiction to issue writs o3 ha+eas cor)us involving the custod: o3 minors@ The -ourt o3 *))eals o)ines that $* #36& im)liedl: re)ealed $* &(2 and !P 12& sinceA +: giving 3amil: courts e%clusive /urisdiction over ha+eas cor)us casesA the lawma4ers intended it to +e the sole court which can issue writs o3 ha+eas cor)us@ To the court a uoA the word Ce%clusiveJ a))arentl: cannot +e construed an: other wa:@

?e disagree with the -*Ps reasoning +ecause it will result in an ini9uitous situationA leaving individuals li4e )etitioner without legal recourse in o+taining custod: o3 their children@ Individuals who do not 4now the wherea+outs o3 minors the: are loo4ing 3or would +e hel)less since the: cannot see4 redress 3rom 3amil: courts whose writs are en3orcea+le onl: in their res)ective territorial /urisdictions@ ThusA i3 a minor is +eing trans3erred 3rom one )lace to anotherA which seems to +e the case hereA the )etitioner in a ha+eas cor)us case will +e le3t without legal remed:@ This lac4 o3 recourse could not have +een the intention o3 the lawma4ers when the: )assed the 2amil: -ourts *ct o3 1&& @ 6nder the 2amil: -ourts *ct o3 1&& A the avowed )olic: o3 the 'tate is to C)rotect the rights and )romote the wel3are o3 children@J The creation o3 the 2amil: -ourt is geared towards addressing three ma/or issues regarding childrenPs wel3are casesA as e%)ressed +: the legislators during the deli+erations 3or the law@ The legislative intent +ehind giving 2amil: -ourts e%clusive and original /urisdiction over such cases was to avoid 3urther clogging o3 regular court doc4etsA ensure greater sensitivit: and s)eciali"ation in view o3 the nature o3 the case and the )artiesA as well as to guarantee that the )rivac: o3 the children )art: to the case remains )rotected@ The )rimordial consideration is the wel3are and +est interests o3 the child@ ?e rule there3ore that $* #36& did not divest the -ourt o3 *))eals and the 'u)reme -ourt o3 their /urisdiction over ha+eas cor)us cases involving the custod: o3 minors@ To allow the -ourt o3 *))eals to e%ercise /urisdiction over the )etition 3or ha+eas cor)us involving a minor child whose wherea+outs are uncertain and transient will not result in one o3 the situations that the legislature see4s to avoid@ 2irstA the wel3are o3 the child is )aramount@ 'econdA the e% )arte nature o3 ha+eas cor)us )roceedings will not result in disru)tion o3 the childPs )rivac: and emotional well>+eingN whereas to de)rive the a))ellate court o3 /urisdiction will result in the evil sought to +e avoided +: the legislatureI the childPs wel3are and well +eing will +e )re/udiced@ This is not the 3irst time that this -ourt construed the word Ce%clusiveJ as not 3oreclosing resort to another /urisdiction@ The ?rit o3 .a+eas -or)us ma: +e granted +: the 'u)reme -ourtA or an: mem+er thereo3A on an: da: and at an: timeA or +: the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in the instances authoriBed by la%" and if so granted it shall be enforceable any%here in the Philippines A and ma: +e made returna+le +e3ore the court or an: mem+er thereo3A or +e3ore a -ourt o3 2irst InstanceA or an: /udge thereo3 3or hearing and decision on the merits@ &t may also be granted by a Court of ;irst &nstance" or a !udge thereof" on any day and at any time" and returnable before himself" enforceable only %ithin his !udicial district. Language is rarel: so 3ree 3rom am+iguit: as to +e inca)a+le o3 +eing used in more than one sense@ 'ometimesA what the legislature actuall: had in mind is not accuratel: re3lected in the language o3 a statuteA and its literal inter)retation ma: render it meaninglessA lead to a+surdit:A in/ustice or contradiction@1 In the case at +arA a literal inter)retation o3 the word Ce%clusiveJ will result in grave in/ustice and negate the )olic: Cto )rotect the rights and )romote the wel3are o3 children under the -onstitution and the 6nited Nations -onvention on the $ights o3 the -hild@ This mandate must )revail over legal technicalities and serve as the guiding )rinci)le in construing the )rovisions o3 $* #36&@ 1

The )rovisions o3 $* #36& reveal no mani3est intent to revo4e the /urisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals and 'u)reme -ourt to issue writs o3 ha+eas cor)us relating to the custod: o3 minors@ 2urtherA it cannot +e said that the )rovisions o3 $* #36&A $* (&2 and !P 12& are a+solutel: incom)ati+le since $* #36& does not )rohi+it the -ourt o3 *))eals and the 'u)reme -ourt 3rom issuing writs o3 ha+eas cor)us in cases involving the custod: o3 minors@ ThusA the )rovisions o3 $* #36& must +e read in harmon: with $* (2& and !P 12& Y that 3amil: courts have concurrent /urisdiction with the -ourt o3 *))eals and the 'u)reme -ourt in )etitions 3or ha+eas cor)us where the custod: o3 minors is at issue@ In an: caseA whatever uncertaint: there was has +een settled with the ado)tion o3 *@,@ No@ (3>(3>(4>'- $eI $ule on -ustod: o3 ,inors and ?rit o3 .a+eas -or)us in $elation to -ustod: o3 ,inors@ 'ection 2( o3 the rule )rovides thatI 'ection 2(@ Petition for %rit of habeas corpus.> * veri3ied )etition 3or a writ o3 habeas corpus involving custod: o3 minors shall +e 3iled with the 2amil: -ourt@ The writ shall +e en3orcea+le within its /udicial region to which the 2amil: -ourt +elongs@ %%% %%% %%%

The )etition may like%ise be filed %ith the Supreme Court" Court of Appeals" or %ith any of its members and" if so granted" the %rit shall be enforceable any%here in the Philippines @ The writ ma: +e made returna+le to a 2amil: -ourt or to an: regular court within the region where the )etitioner resides or where the minor ma: +e 3ound 3or hearing and decision on the merits@ L5m)hasis 8ursO 2rom the 3oregoingA there is no dou+t that the -ourt o3 *))eals and 'u)reme -ourt have concurrent /urisdiction with 3amil: courts in ha+eas cor)us cases where the custod: o3 minors is involved@

+A, Richar5 !rain Thorn on 1s. Thorn on &ACTS3 PetitionerA an *mericanA and res)ondentA a 2ili)inoA were married on *ugust 2#A in ,anila@ * :ear laterA res)ondent gave +irth to a +a+: girl whom the: named 'e9ueira Jenni3er Delle 2rancisco Thornton@

.oweverA a3ter three :earsA res)ondent grew restless and +ored as a )lain housewi3e@ 'he wanted to return to her old /o+ as a Cguest relations o33icerJ in a nightclu+A with the 3reedom to go out with her 3riends@ 8n Decem+er A 2((1A res)ondent le3t the 3amil: home with her daughter 'e9uiera without noti3:ing her hus+and@ 'he went to Puro4 ,ari4itA 'ta@ -laraA LamitanA !asilan Province@ .enceA )etitioner 3iled a )etition 3or ha+eas cor)us in ,a4ati -it: +ut this was dismissed +ecause o3 the allegation that the child was in !asilan@ Petitioner then went to !asilan to ascertain the wherea+outs o3 res)ondent and their daughter@ .oweverA he did not 3ind them there and the +aranga: o33ice o3 'ta@ -laraA LamitanA !asilanA issued a certi3ication that res)ondent was no longer residing there@ Petitioner then 3iled another )etition 3or ha+eas cor)usA this time in the -ourt o3 *))eals which could issue a writ o3 ha+eas cor)us en3orcea+le in the entire countr:@ .oweverA the )etition was denied +: the -ourt o3 *))eals on the ground that it did not have /urisdiction over the case@ It ruled that since $* #36& LThe 2amil: -ourts *ct o3 1&& O gave 3amil: courts e%clusive original /urisdiction over )etitions 3or ha+eas cor)usA it im)liedl: re)ealed $* &(2 L*n *ct 5%)anding the Jurisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))ealsO and !atas Pam+ansa 12& LThe Judiciar: $eorgani"ation *ct o3 1&#(OI ISS(E3 ?hether or not -ourt o3 *))eals has /urisdiction to issue writ o3 ha+eas cor)us in custod: o3 minor cases is concernedX 4ELDI 0es@ The )rovisions o3 $* #36& reveal no mani3est intent to revo4e the /urisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals and 'u)reme -ourt to issue writs o3 ha+eas cor)us relating to the custod: o3 minors@ 2urtherA it cannot +e said that the )rovisions o3 $* #36&A $* (&2 and !P 12& are a+solutel: incom)ati+le since $* #36& does not )rohi+it the -ourt o3 *))eals and the 'u)reme -ourt 3rom issuing writs o3 ha+eas cor)us in cases involving the custod: o3 minors@ ThusA the )rovisions o3 $* #36& must +e read in harmon: with $* (2& and !P 12&@ ?e disagree with the -ourt o3 *))ealsP reasoning that $* #36& im)liedl: re)ealed $* &(2 and !P 12&@ -* o)ined that +: giving 3amil: courts e%clusive /urisdiction over ha+eas cor)us casesA the lawma4ers intended it to +e the sole court which can issue writs o3 ha+eas cor)us@ To the court a uoA the word Ce%clusiveJ a))arentl: cannot +e construed an: other wa:@ To admit -*Ps reasoning will result in an ini9uitous situationA leaving individuals li4e )etitioner without legal recourse in o+taining custod: o3 their children@ Individuals who do not 4now the wherea+outs o3 minors the: are loo4ing 3or would +e hel)less since the: cannot see4 redress 3rom 3amil: courts whose writs are en3orcea+le onl: in their res)ective territorial /urisdictions@ ThusA i3 a minor is +eing trans3erred 3rom one )lace to anotherA which seems to +e the case hereA the )etitioner in a ha+eas cor)us case will +e le3t without legal remed:@ This lac4 o3 recourse could not have +een the intention o3 the lawma4ers when the: )assed the 2amil: -ourts *ct o3 1&& The )rimordial consideration is the wel3are and +est interests o3 the child@ ?e rule there3ore that $* #36& did not divest the -ourt o3 *))eals and the 'u)reme -ourt o3 their /urisdiction over ha+eas cor)us cases involving the custod: o3 minors@ 2rom the 3oregoingA there is no dou+t

that the -ourt o3 *))eals and 'u)reme -ourt have concurrent /urisdiction with 3amil: courts in ha+eas cor)us cases where the custod: o3 minors is involved@

+ A; IN RE ')AP(IN T. !)RR)ME) &ACTS3 !orromeoA is not a law:er +ut has a))arentl: read some law +oo4sA and ostensi+l: come to )ossess some su)er3icial awareness o3 a 3ew su+stantive legal )rinci)les and )rocedural rules@ !orromeo entered into loan agreements with di33erent +an4s namel: Traders $o:al !an4A 6-P! and 'ecurit: !an4@ ?hen !orromeo had 3ailed in his o+ligations to )a: the

loans he tried to im)ose di33erent terms and conditions +ut the +an4s re3used@ The re3usal o3 the +an4s to give in to his conditions !orromeo started 3iling di33erent suits and 3or more than 16:rs !orromeo has 3iled more than 5( cases acting as his own counsel@ *ll the cases were decided against him and so he critici"ed and 3iled cases against the courts /udgesA /ustices o3 the -* and the '-@ Iss%e3 whether !orromeo can +e held in contem)t +: the '4el53 0es@ 6)on the indu+ita+le 3acts on recordA there can scarcel: +e an: dou+t o3 !orromeoGs guilt o3 contem)tA 3or a+use o3 and inter3erence with /udicial rules and )rocessesA gross disres)ect to courts and /udges and im)ro)er conduct directl: im)edingA o+structing and degrading the administration o3 /ustice@ .e has stu++ornl: litigated issues alread: declared to +e without meritA o+stinatel: closing his e:es to the man: rulings rendered adversel: to him in man: suits and )roceedingsA rulings which had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A o+duratel: and unreasona+l: insisting on the a))lication o3 his own individual version o3 the rulesA 3ounded on nothing more than his )ersonal Land 9uite erroneousO reading o3 the -onstitution and the lawN he has insulted the /udges and court o33icersA including the attorne:s a))earing 3or his adversariesA needlessl: overloaded the court doc4ets and sorel: tried the )atience o3 the /udges and court em)lo:ees who have had to act on his re)etitious and largel: un3ounded com)laintsA )leadings and motions@ .e has wasted the time o3 the courtsA o3 his adversariesA o3 the /udges and court em)lo:ees who have had the +ad luc4 o3 having to act in one wa: or another on his unmeritorious cases@ ,ore )articularl:A des)ite his attention having +een called man: times to the egregious error o3 his theor: that the so>called Hminute resolutionsH o3 this -ourt should contain 3indings o3 3act and conclusions o3 lawA and should +e signed or certi3ied +: the Justices )romulgating the sameA he has mulishl: )ersisted in ventilating that sel3>same theor: in various )roceedingsA causing much loss o3 timeA anno:ance and ve%ation to the courtsA the court em)lo:ees and )arties involved@

+AD MANAL) NS. GL)RIA &ACTS3 The President reorgani"ed D8'T and ,analo was one o3 the em)lo:eePs who were a33ected +: the reorgani"ation@ .er )osition was a+olished and so she re9uested to +e trans3erred to another )osition@ .er re9uest was granted@ 'ome o3 her other co>em)lo:ees 3iled a case 3or se)aration )a: and )a:ment o3 +ac4wages which was awarded to the em)lo:ees@

,analo therea3terA as4ed the D8'T 3or )a:ment o3 +ac4wages during the time she was waiting 3or the a))roval o3 her re9uest@ The D8'T denied the claim and the -'- also denied the claim@ ,analo went straight to the '- in a )etition 3or mandamus@ Iss%e3 whether ,analoPs move to go straight to the '- can )ros)er 4el53 No@ 5ven granting that the )etitioner can avail hersel3 o3 the writ o3 mandamusA we 3ind no s)ecial or cogent reason to /usti3: acce)tance o3 this )etition as an e%ce)tion to this -ourtGs )olic: concerning the hierarch: o3 courts in relation to cases where it has concurrent /urisdiction with the $egional Trial -ourt and the -ourt o3 *))eals@ In People vs@ CuaresmaA this -ourt statedI * last word@ This courtGs original /urisdiction to issue writs o3 certiorari Las well as )rohi+itionA mandamus" uo %arranto" habeas corpus and in/unctionO is not e%clusive@ It is shared +: this -ourt with $egional Trial -ourts L3ormerl: -ourts o3 2irst InstanceOA which ma: issue the writA en3orcea+le in an: )art o3 their res)ective regions@ It is also shared +: this courtA and +: the $egional Trial -ourtA with the -ourt o3 *))eals L3ormerl:A Intermediate *))ellate -ourtOA although )rior to the e33ectivit: o3 Batas Pambansa Bilang +-9 on *ugust 14A 1&#1A the latterGs com)etence to issue the e%traordinar: writs was restricted +: those Hin aid o3 its a))ellate /urisdiction@H This concurrence o3 /urisdiction is notA howeverA to +e ta4en as according to )arties see4ing an: o3 the writs an a+soluteA unrestrained 3reedom o3 choice o3 the court to which a))lication there3or will +e directed@ There is a3ter all a hierarch: o3 courts@ ?eA there3oreA reiterate the /udicial )olic: that this -ourt will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot +e o+tained in the a))ro)riate courts or where e%ce)tional and com)elling circumstances /usti3: availment o3 a remed: within and calling 3or the e%ercise o3 our )rimar: /urisdiction@

+AE PE)PLE 1s. C(ARESMA The annulment o3 the 8rder o3 -it: -ourt Judge o3 Dumaguete -it: in the criminal case dismissing the in3ormation 3or oral de3amation on the ground o3 )rescri)tion o3 the o33ense is what is )rinci)all: sought in the instant s)ecial civil action o3 certiorari instituted +: the 'econd *ssistant -it: 2iscal o3 Dumaguete in this -ourt@

-riminal -ase was commenced in JudgeGs -ourt +: an in3ormation 3iled +: an *ssistant 2iscal o3 Dumaguete -it:@ $osie -uaresma was charged with oral de3amation consisting in the im)utation o3 a crime which cannot +e )rosecuted de oficio@ The in3ormation was 3iled a3ter a )reliminar: investigation had +een conducted on the +asis o3 the a33idavit o3 the Lu" Lumacao and that o3 her witnessA and alleged that -uaresma )u+licl: s)ea4 and utter against Lumacao the 3ollowing insulting and de3amator: words and e%)ressionsA to witI G*h )aisog>isog 4a 4a: +a:e dia: 4a sa a4ong +anaAG which meansA G*hA :ou are tr:ing to +e tough +ecause :ou are the )aramour o3 m: hus+and@G $osie -uaresma moved to 9uash the case@ 'he contended that the case had +een commenced +: an in3ormation 3iled +: the 3iscalA instead o3 +: com)laint o3 the o33ended )art:A in violation o3 *rticle 36( o3 the $evised Penal -ode 5@ $T- denied the motion to 9uash@ In the 8rder den:ing 9uashal it was re9uired the 3iscal Hto 3ile with the -ourt the veri3ied com)laint o3 the o33ended )art: within ten L1(O da:sAH this +eing necessar: +ecause the latterGs a33idavit had not +een sworn to +e3ore and veri3ied +: the investigating 3iscal and the a33idavit did not contain all the recitals re9uired +: the $ules 3or a valid com)laint@ Three L3O months laterA and )rior to her arraignment on the veri3ied com)laintA $osie -uaresma 3iled another motion to 9uash this time alleging that the o33ense had )rescri+ed@ 'he claimed that the 3iling o3 the original in3ormation had not interru)ted the running o3 the )eriod o3 )rescri)tion o3 the crime two L2O months 3rom discover: and the )rescri)tive )eriod had la)sed long )rior to the su+mission o3 the corrective com)laint signed +: the o33ended )art:@ $es)ondent Judge agreed and ordered dismissal o3 the case@ No ste)s were therea3ter ta4en +: the 833ice o3 the -it: 2iscal to o+tain relie3 3rom these adverse orders o3 res)ondent Judge until almost three 3.5 years laterA or on ,a: 31A 1&#4A when the 'econd *ssistant -it: 2iscal commenced the s)ecial civil action o3 certiorari at +ar@ Iss%e3 ?hether commencing o3 the s)ecial civil action )ro)erX 4el53 N8@ The 8rder dismissal was without dou+t a 3inal order@ It 3inall: dis)osed o3 the case and le3t nothing more to +e done +: the -ourtA on its merits@ It was a))eala+le at the instance o3 the Peo)leA since the de3endant would not there+: +e )laced in dou+le /eo)ard:A no )lea having as :et +een entered +: or 3or her@ The a))eal could have +een ta4en +: 3iling with the in3erior court a notice o3 a))eal Hto the -ourt o3 2irst Instance within 3i3teen L15O da:s 3rom the )romulgation o3 the /udgment Lor orderO@H The a))ealA had it +een timel: ta4enA should have +een success3ul@ The 8rder was in truth tainted +: an error o3 law@ -ontrar: to its holdingA the 3iling +: the com)lainant with the 833ice o3 the -it: 2iscal o3 her com)laint in the 3orm o3 an a33idavitA on the +asis o3 which a )reliminar: investigation had +een conducted and the in3ormation su+se9uentl: 3iledA had indeed tolled the )eriod o3 )rescri)tion@ *nd the su+se9uent 3iling o3 an in3ormation +ased on the com)laint sworn to +e3ore the 3iscal which com)laint contains all the elements o3 a valid com)laint is Hsu33icient

com)liance with *rticle 344 o3 the $evised Penal -ode and 'ection 4A $ule 11( o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ No such a))eal was ever ta4enA however@ The order thus +ecame 3inal and e%ecutor:@ The institution o3 the s)ecial action o3 certiorari at +ar does not save the da: 3or the Peo)le@ The action su33ers 3rom serious de3ects@ In the 3irst )laceA the action was 3iled +: a 'econd *ssistant -it: 2iscal and not +: the 'olicitor 1eneralA and was hence dismissi+le on this account@ In the second )laceA the certiorari suit is +eing made to su+stitute 3orA and )er3orm the 3unction o3A an a))ealA which is not )ermissi+le@ *gainA the action was 3iled much too lateN it was commenced onl: a3ter a+out three L3O :ears had ela)sed 3rom the )romulgation o3 the order sought to +e annulledA no e%)lanation 3or the dela: +eing at all essa:edN it was there3ore +arred +: laches@ 2urthermoreA the remed: o3 certiorari is limited to acts o3 an: agenc: or o33icer e%ercising /udicial 3unctions or o3 an: /udge which are claimed to +e Hwithout or in e%cess o3 its or his /urisdictionA or with grave a+use o3 discretion@H It does not lie 3or the correction o3 errors o3 /udgment which ma: +e +rought a+out onl: +: a))eal@ Not ever: error in )rocedureA or ever: erroneous conclusion o3 law or o3 3act o3 serious natureA is correcta+le +: certiorariA a))eal +eing the a))ro)riate remed:A e%ce)t where the error constitutes grave a+use o3 discretionA i@e@A Hsuch ca)ricious and whimsical e%ercise o3 /udgment as is e9uivalent to lac4 o3 /urisdiction@H The error here committed +: .is .onor o+viousl: does not constitute grave a+use o3 discretion@ It was an error o3 lawA involving what was then deemed unsettled )rinci)le whether or not the 3iling o3 a com)laint in the o33ice o3 the 3iscal interru)ted the )eriod o3 )rescri)tion o3 the o33ense charged@ It is not correcta+le +: certiorari@ This -ourtGs original /urisdiction to issue writs o3 certiorari Las well as )rohi+itionA mandamusA uo %arrantoA habeas corpus and in/unctionO is not e%clusive@ It is shared +: this -ourt with $egional Trial -ourts which ma: issue the writA en3orcea+le in an: )art o3 their res)ective regions@ It is also shared +: this -ourtA and +: the $egional Trial -ourtA with the -ourt o3 *))eals although )rior to the e33ectivit: o3 Batas Pambansa Bilang 12& on *ugust 14A1&#1A the latterGs com)etence to issue the e%traordinar: writs was restricted to those Hin aid o3 its a))ellate /urisdiction@H This concurrence o3 /urisdiction is notA howeverA to +e ta4en as according to )arties see4ing an: o3 the writs an a+soluteA unrestrained 3reedom o3 choice o3 the court to which a))lication there3or will +e directed@ There is a3ter all a hierarch: o3 courts@ That hierarch: is determinative o3 the venue o3 a))ealsA and should also serve as a general determinant o3 the a))ro)riate 3orum 3or )etitions 3or the e%traordinar: writs@ * +ecoming regard 3or that /udicial hierarch: most certainl: indicates that )etitions 3or the issuance o3 e%traordinar: writs against 3irst level LHin3eriorHO courts should +e 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourtA and those against the latterA with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ * direct invocation o3 the 'u)reme -ourtGs original /urisdiction to issue these writs should +e allowed onl: when there are s)ecial and im)ortant reasons there3orA clearl: and s)eci3icall: set out in the )etition@ This is esta+lished )olic:@ It is a )olic: that is necessar: to )revent inordinate demands u)on the -ourtGs time and attention which are +etter devoted to those matters within its e%clusive /urisdictionA and to )revent 3urther over> crowding o3 the -ourtGs doc4et@ IndeedA the removal o3 the restriction on the /urisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals in this regard resulting 3rom the deletion o3 the 9uali3:ing )hraseA Hin aid o3 its a))ellate /urisdictionH was evidentl: intended )recisel: to relieve this -ourt pro tanto o3 the +urden o3 dealing with a))lications 3or the e%traordinar: writs whichA +ut 3or the e%)ansion o3 the *))ellate -ourtGs corres)onding /urisdictionA would have had to +e 3iled with it@

+AA (< NS. C)NTRERAS *no cas ro0 6: was a su+>lessee o3 *ta:deA when the lease e%)ired 6: was not a+le to )ull out all his mova+le )ro)erties@ ?hen 6: came +ac4 to get his remaining )ro)erties an argument with *ta:de occurred and a scu33le +etween 6: and *ta:dePs grou) ensued@ *ta:de 3iled a com)laint in the !aranga:@ During the 1st hearing onl: 6: a))eared +e3ore the Lu)on@ The case was resetA howeverA +e3ore the reset date a criminal case was 3iled against 6:@ 6: 3iled a motion to dismiss

+ecause o3 the )ending conciliation e33orts in the +aranga: level@ The $T- denied the motion +ecause the )arties are 3rom di33erent +aranga:s@ Iss%eI whether the +aranga: lu)on has no /urisdiction over the case 4el5I No@ ?e have held that P@D@ No@ 15(# ma4es the conciliation )rocess at the !aranga: level a condition )recedent 3or the 3iling o3 a com)laint in -ourt@ Non>com)liance with that condition )recedent could a33ect the su33icienc: o3 the )lainti33Gs cause o3 action and ma4e his com)laint vulnera+le to dismissal on the ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action or )rematurit:@ The condition is analogous to e%haustion o3 administrative remediesA or the lac4 o3 earnest e33orts to com)romise suits +etween 3amil: mem+ersA lac4ing which the case can +e dismissed@ The )arties herein 3all s9uarel: within the am+it o3 P@D@ No@ 15(#@ The: are actual residents in the same +aranga: and their dis)utes do not 3all under an: o3 the e%ce)ted cases@H 'uch non> com)liance is notA howeverA /urisdictional@ This -ourt said so in >arces vs. Court of AppealsI In 3ineA we have held in the )ast that )rior recourse to the conciliation )rocedure re9uired under P@D@ 15(# is not a /urisdictional re9uirementA non>com)liance with which would de)rive a court o3 its /urisdiction either over the su+/ect matter or over the )erson o3 the de3endant@ ?hereA howeverA the 3act o3 non>com)liance with and non>o+servance o3 such )rocedure has +een seasona+l: raised as an issue +e3ore the court 3irst ta4ing cogni"ance o3 the com)laintA dismissal o3 the action is )ro)er@ The )recise technical e33ect o3 3ailure to com)l: with the re9uirement o3 P@D@ 15(# where a))lica+le is much the same e33ect )roduced +: non>e%haustion o3 administrative remediesN the com)laint +ecomes a33licted with the vice o3 )re>maturit:N the controvers: there alleged is not ri)e 3or /udicial determination@ The com)laint +ecomes vulnera+le to a motion to dismiss@ Lem)hasis omittedO The )rescri)tive )eriods 3or o33enses and causes o3 action under e%isting laws shall +e interru)ted u)on 3iling o3 the com)laint with the Punong !aranga:@ The running o3 the )rescri)tive )eriods shall resume u)on recei)ts +: the com)lainant o3 the certi3icate o3 re)udiation or o3 the certi3ication to 3ile action issued +: the 6upon or Pang4at 'ecretar:I ProvidedA howeverA that such interru)tion shall not e%ceed si%t: L6(O da:s 3rom the 3iling o3 the com)laint with the Punong !aranga:@

+A. C4ANEO NS. P(!LIC ESTATES A(T4)RIT< &ACTS3 This is an original Petition 3or ,andamus with )ra:er 3or a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction and a tem)orar: restraining order@ The )etition see4s to com)el the Pu+lic 5states *uthorit: to disclose all 3acts on P5*Gs then on>going renegotiations with *mari -oastal !a: and Develo)ment -or)oration to reclaim )ortions o3 ,anila !a:@ The )etition 3urther see4s to en/oin P5* 3rom signing a new agreement with *,*$I involving such reclamation@

Iss%es I@ ?.5T.5$ T.5 P5TITI8N ,5$IT' DI',I''*L 28$ 2*ILIN1 T8 8!'5$75 T.5 P$IN-IPL5 1875$NIN1 T.5 .I5$*$-.0 82 -86$T'N II@ ?.5T.5$ T.5 P5TITI8N *D,INI'T$*TI75 $5,5DI5'N ,5$IT' DI',I''*L 28$ N8N>5D.*6'TI8N 82

III@ ?.5T.5$ P5TITI8N5$ .*' 6OC$S S)A7'& T8 !$IN1 T.I' '6ITN I7@ ?.5T.5$ T.5 -86$T I' T.5 P$8P5$ 28$6, 28$ $*I'IN1 T.5 I''65 82 ?.5T.5$ T.5 *,5ND5D J8INT 75NT6$5 *1$55,5NT I' 1$8''L0 DI'*D7*NT*1586' T8 T.5 1875$N,5NT@ R%lin/ First issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle governing the hierarchy of courts. P5* and *,*$I claim )etitioner ignored the /udicial hierarch: +: see4ing relie3 directl: 3rom the -ourt@ The )rinci)le o3 hierarch: o3 courts a))lies generall: to cases involving 3actual 9uestions@ *s it is not a trier o3 3actsA the -ourt cannot entertain cases involving 3actual issues@ The instant caseA howeverA raises constitutional issues o3 transcendental im)ortance to the )u+lic@ The -ourt can resolve this case without determining an: 3actual issue related to the case@ *lsoA the instant case is a )etition 3or mandamus which 3alls under the original /urisdiction o3 the -ourt under 'ection 5A *rticle 7III o3 the -onstitution@ ?e resolve to e%ercise )rimar: /urisdiction over the instant case@ Second issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies P5* 3aults )etitioner 3or see4ing /udicial intervention in com)elling P5* to disclose )u+licl: certain in3ormation without 3irst as4ing P5* the needed in3ormation@ P5* claims )etitionerGs direct resort to the -ourt violates the )rinci)le o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies@ It also violates the rule that mandamus ma: issue onl: i3 there is no other )lainA s)eed: and ade9uate remed: in the ordinar: course o3 law@ P5* distinguishes the instant case 3rom TaVada v@ Tuvera where the -ourt granted the )etition 3or mandamus even i3 the )etitioners there did not initiall: demand 3rom the 833ice o3 the President the )u+lication o3 the )residential decrees@ P5* )oints out that in TaVadaA the 5%ecutive De)artment had an affirmative statutory dut: under *rticle 2 o3 the -ivil -ode and 'ection 1 o3 -ommonwealth *ct No@ 63# to )u+lish the )residential decrees@ There wasA there3oreA no need 3or the )etitioners in TaVada to ma4e an initial demand 3rom the 833ice o3 the President@ In the instant caseA P5* claims it has no a33irmative statutor: dut: to disclose )u+licl: in3ormation a+out its renegotiation o3 the J7*@ ThusA P5* asserts that the -ourt must a))l: the )rinci)le o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies to the instant case in view o3 the 3ailure o3 )etitioner here to demand initiall: 3rom P5* the needed in3ormation@

The original J7* sought to dis)ose to *,*$I )u+lic lands held +: P5*A a government cor)oration@ 6nder 'ection & o3 the 1overnment *uditing -odeA the dis)osition o3 government lands to )rivate )arties re9uires )u+lic +idding@ P(A %as under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands @ The law o+ligated P5* to ma4e this )u+lic disclosure even without demand 3rom )etitioner or 3rom an:one@ P5* 3ailed to ma4e this )u+lic disclosure +ecause the original J7*A li4e the *mended J7*A was the result o3 a negotiated contractA not o3 a )u+lic +idding@ -onsidering that P5* had an a33irmative statutor: dut: to ma4e the )u+lic disclosureA and was even in +reach o3 this legal dut:A )etitioner had the right to see4 direct /udicial intervention@ ,oreoverA and this alone is determinative o3 this issueA the )rinci)le o3 e%haustion administrative remedies does not a))l: when the issue involved is a )urel: legal constitutional 9uestion@2 The )rinci)al issue in the instant case is the ca)acit: o3 *,*$I ac9uire lands held +: P5* in view o3 the constitutional +an )rohi+iting the alienation o3 lands the )u+lic domain to )rivate cor)orations@ ?e rule that the )rinci)le o3 e%haustion administrative remedies does not a))l: in the instant case@ Third issue: whether petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit P5* argues that )etitioner has no standing to institute mandamus )roceedings to en3orce his constitutional right to in3ormation without a showing that P5* re3used to )er3orm an a33irmative dut: im)osed on P5* +: the -onstitution@ P5* also claims that )etitioner has not shown that he will su33er an: concrete in/ur: +ecause o3 the signing or im)lementation o3 the *mended J7*@ ThusA there is no actual controvers: re9uiring the e%ercise o3 the )ower o3 /udicial review@ The )etitioner has standing to +ring this ta%)a:erGs suit +ecause the )etition see4s to com)el P5* to com)l: with its constitutional duties@ There are two constitutional issues involved here@ 2irst is the right o3 citi"ens to in3ormation on matters o3 )u+lic concern@ 'econd is the a))lication o3 a constitutional )rovision intended to insure the e9uita+le distri+ution o3 aliena+le lands o3 the )u+lic domain among 2ili)ino citi"ens@ The thrust o3 the 3irst issue is to com)el P5* to disclose )u+licl: in3ormation on the sale o3 government lands worth +illions o3 )esosA in3ormation which the -onstitution and statutor: law mandate P5* to disclose@ The thrust o3 the second issue is to )revent P5* 3rom alienating hundreds o3 hectares o3 aliena+le lands o3 the )u+lic domain in violation o3 the -onstitutionA com)elling P5* to com)l: with a constitutional dut: to the nation@ ,oreoverA the )etition raises matters o3 transcendental im)ortance to the )u+lic@ In ChaveB v. PC>>A the -ourt u)held the right o3 a citi"en to +ring a ta%)a:erGs suit on matters o3 transcendental im)ortance to the )u+licA thus > H!esidesA )etitioner em)hasi"esA the matter o3 recovering the ill>gotten wealth o3 the ,arcoses is an issue o3 Gtranscendental im)ortance to the )u+lic@G .e asserts that ordinar: ta%)a:ers have a right to initiate and )rosecute actions 9uestioning the validit: o3 acts or orders o3 government agencies or instrumentalitiesA i3 the issues raised are o3 G)aramount )u+lic interestAG and i3 the: Gimmediatel: a33ect the socialA economic and moral well +eing o3 the )eo)le@G o3 or to o3 o3

,oreoverA the mere 3act that he is a citi"en satis3ies the re9uirement o3 )ersonal interestA when the )roceeding involves the assertion o3 a )u+lic rightA such as in this case@ .e invo4es several decisions o3 this -ourt which have set aside the )rocedural matter o3 locus standiA when the su+/ect o3 the case involved )u+lic interest@ %%% In )aCada v. )uveraA the -ourt asserted that when the issue concerns a )u+lic right and the o+/ect o3 mandamus is to o+tain the en3orcement o3 a )u+lic dut:A the )eo)le are regarded as the real )arties in interestN and +ecause it is su33icient that )etitioner is a citi"en and as such is interested in the e%ecution o3 the lawsA he need not show that he has an: legal or s)ecial interest in the result o3 the action@ In the a3oresaid caseA the )etitioners sought to en3orce their right to +e in3ormed on matters o3 )u+lic concernA a right then recogni"ed in 'ection 6A *rticle I7 o3 the 1& 3 -onstitutionA in connection with the rule that laws in order to +e valid and en3orcea+le must +e )u+lished in the 833icial 1a"ette or otherwise e33ectivel: )romulgated@ In ruling 3or the )etitionersG legal standingA the -ourt declared that the right the: sought to +e en3orced Gis a )u+lic right recogni"ed +: no less than the 3undamental law o3 the land@G 6egaspi v. Civil Service Commission A while reiterating TaVadaA 3urther declared that Gwhen a mandamus )roceeding involves the assertion o3 a )u+lic rightA the re9uirement o3 )ersonal interest is satis3ied +: the mere 3act that )etitioner is a citi"en andA there3oreA )art o3 the general G)u+licG which )ossesses the right@G 2urtherA in Albano v. *eyesA we said that while e%)enditure o3 )u+lic 3unds ma: not have +een involved under the 9uestioned contract 3or the develo)mentA management and o)eration o3 the ,anila International -ontainer TerminalA G)u+lic interest EwasF de3initel: involved considering the im)ortant role Eo3 the su+/ect contractF @ @ @ in the economic develo)ment o3 the countr: and the magnitude o3 the 3inancial consideration involved@G ?e concluded thatA as a conse9uenceA the disclosure )rovision in the -onstitution would constitute su33icient authorit: 3or u)holding the )etitionerGs standing@ 'imilarl:A the instant )etition is anchored on the right o3 the )eo)le to in3ormation and access to o33icial recordsA documents and )a)ers a right guaranteed under 'ection A *rticle III o3 the 1&# -onstitution@ PetitionerA a 3ormer solicitor generalA is a 2ili)ino citi"en@ !ecause o3 the satis3action o3 the two +asic re9uisites laid down +: decisional law to sustain )etitionerGs legal standingA i@e@ L1O the en3orcement o3 a )u+lic right L2O es)oused +: a 2ili)ino citi"enA we rule that the )etition at +ar should +e allowed@H ?e rule that since the instant )etitionA +rought +: a citi"enA involves the en3orcement o3 constitutional rights > to in3ormation and to the e9uita+le di33usion o3 natural resources > matters o3 transcendental )u+lic im)ortanceA the )etitioner has the re9uisite locus standi@ Fourth issue: %hether the Court is the proper forum to raise the issue of %hether the Amended J<A is grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Considering that the Amended J<A is null and void ab initio" there is no necessity to rule on this last issue. Besides" the Court is not a trier of facts" and this last issue involves a determination of factual matters. A@(*(;O*(" the petition is >*A7)('. )he Public (states Authority and Amari Coastal Bay 'evelopment Corporation are P(*MA7(7)6D (7JO&7(' from implementing the Amended Joint <enture Agreement %hich is hereby declared 7$66 and <O&' ab initio.

+AC SAND)NAL NS. O(!IRI Lsame caseI no@ 33 D5L ,*$ 7'@ P*1-8$O

+A- <ARED NS. ILARDE Tiongco>0ared 3iled an amended com)laint +e3ore the $T- against Jose !@ Tiongco and *ntonio DoronilaA Jr@A the action was one 3or the annulment o3 a33idavit o3 ad/udicationA salesA trans3er certi3icates o3 titleA reconve:ance and damages@ The )arties are heirs o3 ,aria de Tiongco@ During the )endenc: o3 the case 0ared caused the annotation o3 her interest in the title o3 the )ro)ert:@ In JosePs answer he as4ed the court to cancel the annotation and a3ter several

denials +: the court it su+se9uentl: gave in to the motions o3 Jose@ During the )endenc: o3 the a))eal o3 0ared with the -* the /udge cancelled the annotations in the title@ 0ared went straight to the '- to contest the decision o3 the $T- in canceling the annotations@ Iss%e3 whether going straight to the '- was the )ro)er remed: o3 0ared@ 4el53 No@ The )etition should +e dismissedA there +eing a clear violation o3 the doctrine o3 /udicial hierarch: that we have ta4en )ains to em)hasi"e in )ast /uris)rudence@ ThusA we ruled in 7ergara v@ 'uelto thatI EtFhe 'u)reme -ourt is a court o3 last resortA and must so remain i3 its is to satis3actoril: )er3orm the 3unctions assigned to it +: 3undamental charter and immemorial tradition@ It cannot and should not +e +urdened with the tas4 o3 dealing with causes in the 3irst instance@ Its original /urisdiction to issue the so>called e%traordinar: writs should +e e%ercised onl: where a+solutel: necessar: or where serious and im)ortant reasons e%ist there3or@ .enceA that /urisdiction should generall: +e e%ercised relative to actions or )roceedings +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))ealsA or +e3ore constitutional or other tri+unalsA +odies or agencies whose acts 3or some reason or anotherA are not controlla+le +: the -ourt o3 *))eals@ ?here the issuance o3 an e%traordinar: writ is also within the com)etence o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals or a $egional Trial -ourtA it is in either o3 these courts that the s)eci3ic action 3or the writGs )rocurement must +e )resented@ This is and should continue to +e the )olic: in this regardA a )olic: that courts and law:ers must strictl: o+serve@ In the case at +arA the case had )ro)erl: come within the a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals in virtue o3 the )er3ection o3 the )lainti33Gs a))eal@ It there3ore had )ower to deal with and resolve an: incident in connection with the action su+/ect o3 the a))ealA even +e3ore 3inal /udgment@ The rule that no 9uestions ma: +e raised 3or the 3irst time on a))eal have re3erence onl: to those a33ecting the merits o3 the actionA and not to mere incidents thereo3A e@g@A cancellation o3 notices o3 lis )endensA orA to re)eatA the grant or dissolution o3 )rovisional remedies@ .ad )etitioner +rought the instant )etition +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))ealsA the same couldA and wouldA have +een consolidated with the a))ealA there+: +ringing under the com)etence o3 the said court all matters relative to the actionA including the incidents thereo3@

+AB ST. MARTIN &(NERAL 4)ME 1s. NLRC The )resent )etition 3or certiorari stemmed 3rom a com)laint 3or illegal dismissal 3iled +: !ienvenido *rica:os@ !ased on the )osition )a)ers o3 the )artiesA the la+or ar+iter rendered a decision in 3avor o3 )etitioner declaring that no em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi) e%isted +etween the )arties andA there3oreA his o33ice had no /urisdiction over the case@

Not satis3ied with the said decisionA *rica:os a))ealed to the NL$- which rendered a resolution setting aside the 9uestioned decision and remanding the case to the la+or ar+iter 3or immediate a))ro)riate )roceedings@ Petitioner then 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration which was denied +: the NL$- 3or lac4 o3 meritA hence the )resent )etition alleging that the NL$- committed grave a+use o3 discretion@ Iss%e3 ?hether '- has /urisdiction over this )etition 4el53 0es@ ?e )re3atoril: delve into the legal histor: o3 the NL$-@ It was 3irst esta+lished in the De)artment o3 La+or +: P@D@ No@ 21 on 8cto+er 14A 1& 2A and its decisions were e%)ressl: declared to +e a))eala+le to the 'ecretar: o3 La+or andA ultimatel:A to the President o3 the Phili))ines@ 8n ,a: 1A 1& 4A P@D@ No@ 442 enacted the La+or -ode o3 the Phili))inesA the same to ta4e e33ect si% months a3ter its )romulgation@ -reated and regulated therein is the )resent NL$which was attached to the De)artment o3 La+or and 5m)lo:ment 3or )rogram and )olic: coordination onl:@ Initiall:A *rticle 3(2 LnowA *rticle 223O thereo3 also granted an aggrieved )art: the remed: o3 a))eal 3rom the decision o3 the NL$- to the 'ecretar: o3 La+orA +ut P@D@ No@ 13&1 su+se9uentl: amended said )rovision and a+olished such a))eals@ No a))ellate review has since then +een )rovided 3or@ ThusA to re)eatA under the )resent state o3 the lawA there is no )rovision 3or a))eals 3rom the decision o3 the NL$-@ The )resent 'ection 223A as last amended +: 'ection 12 o3 $@*@ No@ 6 15A instead merel: )rovides that the -ommission shall decide all cases within twent: da:s 3rom recei)t o3 the answer o3 the a))elleeA and that such decision shall +e 3inal and e%ecutor: a3ter ten calendar da:s 3rom recei)t thereo3 +: the )arties@ ?hen the issue was raised in an earl: case on the argument that this -ourt has no /urisdiction to review the decisions o3 the NL$-A and 3ormerl: o3 the 'ecretar: o3 La+orA since there is no legal )rovision 3or a))ellate review thereo3A the -ourt nevertheless re/ected that thesis@ It held that there is an underl:ing )ower o3 the courts to scrutini"e the acts o3 such agencies on 9uestions o3 law and /urisdiction even though no right o3 review is given +: statuteN that the )ur)ose o3 /udicial review is to 4ee) the administrative agenc: within its /urisdiction and )rotect the su+stantial rights o3 the )artiesN and that it is that )art o3 the chec4s and +alances which restricts the se)aration o3 )owers and 3orestalls ar+itrar: and un/ust ad/udications@ Pursuant to such rulingA and as sanctioned +: su+se9uent decisions o3 this -ourtA the remed: o3 the aggrieved )art: is to timel: 3ile a motion 3or reconsideration as a )recondition 3or an: 3urther or su+se9uent remed:A and then seasona+l: avail o3 the s)ecial civil action o3 certiorari under $ule 65A 3or which said $ule has now 3i%ed the reglementar: )eriod o3 si%t: da:s 3rom notice o3 the decision@ -uriousl:A although the 1(>da: )eriod 3or 3inalit: o3 the decision o3 the NL$- ma: alread: have la)sed as contem)lated in 'ection 223 o3 the La+or -odeA it has +een held that this -ourt ma: still ta4e cogni"ance o3 the )etition 3or certiorari on /urisdictional and due )rocess considerations i3 3iled within the reglementar: )eriod under $ule 65@

Turning now to the matter o3 /udicial review o3 NL$- decisionsA !@P@ No@ 12& originall: )rovided that the -* shall have the )ower to tr: cases and conduct hearingsA receive evidence and )er3orm an: and all acts necessar: to resolve 3actual issues raised in cases 3alling within its original and a))ellate /urisdictionA including the )ower to grant and conduct new trials or 3urther )roceedings@ These )rovisions shall not a))l: to decisions and interlocutor: orders issued under the La+or -ode o3 the Phili))ines and +: the -entral !oard o3 *ssessment *))eals@ 'u+se9uentl:A and as it )resentl: readsA this )rovision was amended +: $@*@ No@ &(2 e33ective ,arch 1#A 1&&5A to witI -* hasI L3O 5%clusive a))ellate /urisdiction over all 3inal /udgmentsA decisionsA resolutionsA orders or awards o3 $egional Trial -ourts and 9uasi>/udicial agenciesA instrumentalitiesA +oards or commissionsA including the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommissionA the 'ocial 'ecurit: -ommissionA the 5m)lo:ees -om)ensation -ommission and the -ivil 'ervice -ommissionA e%ce)t those 3alling within the a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the 'u)reme -ourt in accordance with the -onstitutionA the La+or -ode o3 the Phili))ines under Presidential Decree No@ 442A as amendedA the )rovisions o3 this *ctA and o3 su+)aragra)h L1O o3 the third )aragra)h and su+)aragra)h L4O o3 the 3ourth )aragra)h o3 'ection 1 o3 the Judiciar: *ct o3 1&4#@ ThisA thenA +rings us to a somewhat )er)le%ing im)assZA +oth in )oint o3 )ur)ose and terminolog:@ *s earlier e%)lainedA our mode o3 /udicial review over decisions o3 the NL$- has 3or some time now +een understood to +e +: a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ This isA o3 courseA a s)ecial original action limited to the resolution o3 /urisdictional issuesA that isA lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction andA in almost all cases that have +een +rought to usA grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ It willA howeverA +e noted that )aragra)h L3OA 'ection & o3 !@P@ No@ 12& now grants e%clusive appellate /urisdiction to the -ourt o3 *))eals over all 3inal ad/udications o3 the $egional Trial -ourts and the 9uasi>/udicial agencies generall: or s)eci3icall: re3erred to therein e%ce)tA among othersA Hthose 3alling within the appellate /urisdiction o3 the 'u)reme -ourt in accordance with @ @ @ the La+or -ode o3 the Phili))ines under Presidential Decree No@ 442A as amendedA @ @ @ @H This would necessaril: contradict what has +een ruled and said all along that a))eal does not lie 3rom decisions o3 the NL$-@ 0etA under such e%ce)ting clause literall: construedA the a))eal 3rom the NL$- cannot +e +rought to the -ourt o3 *))ealsA +ut to this -ourt +: necessar: im)lication@ The same e%ce)tive clause 3urther con3uses the situation +: declaring that the -ourt o3 *))eals has no a))ellate /urisdiction over decisions 3alling within the a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the 'u)reme -ourt in accordance with the -onstitutionA the )rovisions o3 !@P@ No@ 12&A and those s)eci3ied cases in 'ection 1 o3 the Judiciar: *ct o3 1&4#@ These cases canA o3 courseA +e )ro)erl: e%cluded 3rom the e%clusive a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals@ .oweverA +ecause o3 the a3orementioned amendment +: trans)ositionA also su))osedl: e%cluded are cases 3alling within the a))ellate /urisdiction o3 the 'u)reme -ourt in accordance %ith the 6abor Code@ This is illogical and im)ractica+leA and -ongress could not have intended that )rocedural ga33eA since there are no cases in the La+or -ode the decisionsA resolutionsA orders or awards wherein are within the appellate /urisdiction o3 the 'u)reme -ourt or o3 an: other court 3or that matter@

* review o3 the legislative records on the antecedents o3 $@*@ No@ &(2 )ersuades us that there ma: have +een an oversight in the course o3 the deli+erations on the said *ct or an im)recision in the terminolog: used therein@ In 3ineA -ongress did intend to )rovide 3or /udicial review o3 the ad/udications o3 the NL$- in la+or cases +: the 'u)reme -ourtA +ut there was an inaccurac: in the term used 3or the intended mode o3 review@ ?hile we do not wish to intrude into the -ongressional s)here on the matter o3 the wisdom o3 a lawA on this score we add the 3urther o+servations that there is a growing num+er o3 la+or cases +eing elevated to this -ourt whichA not +eing a trier o3 3actA has at times +een constrained to remand the case to the NL$- 3or resolution o3 unclear or am+iguous 3actual 3indingsN that the -ourt o3 *))eals is )rocedurall: e9ui))ed 3or that )ur)oseA aside 3rom the increased num+er o3 its com)onent divisionsN and that there is undenia+l: an im)erative need 3or e%)editious action on la+or cases as a ma/or as)ect o3 constitutional )rotection to la+or@ There3oreA all re3erences in the amended 'ection & o3 !@P@ No@ 12& to su))osed a))eals 3rom the NL$- to the 'u)reme -ourt are inter)reted and here+: declared to mean and re3er to )etitions 3or certiorari under $ule 65@ -onse9uentl:A all such )etitions should hence 3orth +e initiall: 3iled in the -ourt o3 *))eals in strict o+servance o3 the doctrine on the hierarch: o3 courts as the a))ro)riate 3orum 3or the relie3 desired@ ?e discern in the )roceedings in this case a )ro)ensit: on the )art o3 )etitionerA andA 3or that matterA the same ma: +e said o3 a num+er o3 litigants who initiate recourses +e3ore usA to disregard the hierarch: o3 courts in our /udicial s:stem +: see4ing relie3 directl: 3rom this -ourt des)ite the 3act that the same is availa+le in the lower courts in the e%ercise o3 their original or concurrent /urisdictionA or is even mandated +: law to +e sought therein@ This )ractice must +e sto))edA not onl: +ecause o3 the im)osition u)on the )recious time o3 this -ourt +ut also +ecause o3 the inevita+le and resultant dela:A intended or otherwiseA in the ad/udication o3 the case which o3ten has to +e remanded or re3erred to the lower court as the )ro)er 3orum under the rules o3 )rocedureA or as +etter e9ui))ed to resolve the issues since this -ourt is not a trier o3 3acts@ ?eA there3oreA reiterate the /udicial )olic: that this -ourt will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot +e o+tained in the a))ro)riate courts or where e%ce)tional and com)elling circumstances /usti3: availment o3 a remed: within and calling 3or the e%ercise o3 our )rimar: /urisdiction@

+.K NINA PR)D(CTI)NS6 INC. 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS &ACTS3 *3ter the conclusion o3 )reliminar: investigation +e3ore the De)artment o3 JusticeA an In3ormation 3or $a)e ?ith .omicide was 3iled against .u+ert@ J@P@ ?e++ and eight L#O others +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Parana9ueA !ranch 2 4@ .u+ert ?e++ sent se)arate letters to 7iva ProductionsA Inc@ and *l3aroA warning them that the )ro/ected showing o3 su+/ect movie on the li3e stor: o3 *l3aro would violate the sub !udice ruleA and his L.u+ert J@P@ ?e++GsO constitutional rights as an accused in said criminal case@ !ut such

letters 3rom ?e++ notwithstandingA 7iva )ersisted in )romotingA advertising and mar4eting HThe Jessica *l3aro 'tor:H in the )rint and +roadcast media andA even on +ill+oards@ Premier 'howing o3 the movie in 9uestion was then scheduled 3or 'e)tem+er 11A 1&&5A at the New 2rontier TheaterA with regular )u+lic e%hi+ition thereo3 set 3or 'e)tem+er 13A 1&&5A in some si%t: L6(O theaters@ *nd so ?e++ 3iled a Petition 3or -ontem)t in the same criminal case 3iled in $T- o3 Parana9ue com)laining that the acts o3 7iva and *l3aro concerning HThe Jessica *l3aro 'tor:H movie were contumaciousA within the contem)lation o3 'ection 3A $ule 1 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ 2ollowing the 3ull da: o3 hearing and viewing o3 the controversial movie itsel3A $T- Parana9ue came out with its -ease and Desist 8rder@ ?e++ instituted a case 3or In/unction ?ith DamagesA a civil case +e3ore the $T- o3 ,a4ati -it:A !ranch 5#A which court issuedA e# parteA +e3ore the matter could +e heard on noticeA the Tem)orar: $estraining 8rder under attac4@ ?ithout 3iling an: motion 3or reconsideration with the two regional trial courtsA 7iva elevated the matter to res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals via )etition 3or certiorariA with an urgent )ra:er 3or the issuance o3 a tem)orar: restraining order and a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unctionA *ssailed in the )etition +e3ore us are the decision and resolution o3 res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals sustaining +oth the order o3 the $T- o3 Parana9ue and $T- o3 ,a4ati Iss%es3 L1O ?.5T.5$ 8$ N8T T.5 ,*<*TI -86$T .*' J6$I'DI-TI8N T8 T*<5 -81NI=*N-5 82 T.5 INJ6N-TI8N -*'5 2IL5D !528$5 IT ?.I-. I' ID5NTI-*L T8 T.5 -*'5 P5NDIN1 !528$5 T.5 P*$*[*M65 -86$T ?.I-. .*' *L$5*D0 *-M6I$5D J6$I'DI-TI8N 875$ T.5 *-T -8,PL*IN5D 82@ L2O ?.5T.5$ 8$ N8T P$I7*T5 $5'P8ND5NT -8,,ITT5D 28$6, '.8PPIN1 !0 2ILIN1 T?8 -*'5' ?IT. 5D*-TL0 T.5 '*,5 2*-T6*L '5T>6PA I''65' IN78L75D *ND $5LI52' '861.T !528$5 T?8 DI225$5NT -86$T' 82 -88$DIN*T5 J6$I'DI-TI8N@

4el53 L1O$T- o3 ,a4ati has no /urisdiction@ It will not esca)e an:+od:Gs notice that the act o3 3iling the su))osed action 3or in/unction with damages with the Makati court" al+eit a se)arate and distinct action 3rom the contem)t )roceedings then )ending +e3ore the ParaCa ue courtA is o+viousl: and solel: intended to o+tain the )reliminar: relie3 o3 in/unction so as to )revent 7I7* 3rom e%hi+iting the movie on its )remiere showing and on its regular showing@ The alleged relie3 3or damages +ecomes a mere

su+ter3uge to camou3lage ?e++Ps real intent and to 3eign the sem+lance o3 a se)arate and distinct action 3rom the contem)t )roceedings alread: 3iled and on> going with the ParaCa ue court@ 'igni3icantl:A the )rimordial issue involved in the Makati court and the ParaCa ue court is one and the sameI whether or not the showing o3 the movie HThe Jessica *l3aro 'tor:H violates the sub0!udice rule@ 'hould the ParaCa ue court 3ind soA it would have no alternative +ut to en/oin 7I7* 3rom )roceeding with the intended contumacious act lest it ma: +e cited 3or contem)t@ In the case o3 the Makati court" i3 it 3inds such violationA it will have to en/oin )etitioner 3rom )roceeding with the )re/udicial act lest it ma: +e held lia+le 3or damages@ -ircular No@ 2#>&1 which )ertinentl: readsI The attention o3 the -ourt has +een called to the 3iling o3 multi)le )etitions and com)laints involving the same issues in the su)reme -ourtA the -ourt o3 *))eals or di33erent Divisions thereo3 or an: other tri+unal or agenc:A %ith the result that said tribunals or agency have to resolve the same issues@ This was magni3ied through *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4A e33ective on *)ril 1A 1&&4A to include all courts and agencies other than the 'u)reme -ourt and the -ourt o3 *))ealsA to )revent 3orum sho))ing or the multi)le 3iling o3 such )leadings even at that level@ 'anctions 3or violation thereo3 are e%)ressl: stated as 3ollowsI *n: violation o3 this -ircular shall +e a cause 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laintA )etitionA a))lication or other initiator: )leadingA u)on motion and a3ter hearing@ .oweverA an: clearl: will3ul and deli+erate 3orum sho))ing +: an: )art: and his counsel through the 3iling o3 multi)le com)laints or other initiator: )leadings to o+tain 3avora+le action shall +e a ground 3or summar: dismissal thereo3 and shall constitute direct contem)t o3 courtA 2urthermoreA the su+mission o3 a 3alse certi3ication or non>com)liance with the underta4ing thereinA as )rovided in Paragra)h 1 hereo3A shall constitute indirect contem)t o3 courtA without )re/udice to disci)linar: )roceedings against counsel and the 3iling o3 a criminal action against the guilt: )art:@@ L2O 0es there is 3orum sho))ing@ ?e++Ps intention to engage in 3orum sho))ing +ecomes mani3est with undou+ted clarit: u)on the 3ollowing considerations@ Nota+l:A i3 not onl: to ensure the issuance o3 an in/unctive relie3 the signi3icance o3 the action 3or damages +e3ore the Makati court would +e nil@ ?hat damages against )rivate res)ondent would there +e to s)ea4 a+out i3 the ParaCa ue court alread: en/oins the )er3ormance o3 the ver: same act com)lained o3 in the Makati courtE 5videntl:A the action 3or damages is )remature i3 not 3or the )reliminar: in/unctive relie3 sought@ ThusA we 3ind grave a+use o3 discretion on the )art o3 the Makati court" +eing a mere co>e9ual o3 the ParaCa ue courtA in not giving due de3erence to the latter +e3ore which the issue o3 the alleged violation o3 the sub0!udice rule had alread: +een raised and su+mitted@ In such instanceA the Makati court" i3 it was war: o3 dismissing the action outrightl: under *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4A should haveA at leastA ordered the consolidation o3 its case with that o3 the ParaCa ue court" which had 3irst ac9uired /urisdiction over the related case in accordance with $ule 31 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourtA or it should have sus)ended the )roceedings until the ParaCa ue court ma: have ruled on the issue

8rdinaril:A where a litigant sues the same )art: against whom another action or actions 3or the alleged violation o3 the same right and the en3orcement o3 the same relie3 or relie3s is or are still )ending an: one action ma: +e dismissed on the ground o3 litis pendentia and a 3inal /udgment in an: one case would constitute res !udicata on the other@ In either instanceA there is a clear and undenia+le case o3 3orum sho))ingA another ground 3or the summar: dismissal o3 +oth actionsA and at the same time an act o3 direct contem)t o3 courtA which includes a )ossi+le criminal )rosecution and disci)linar: action against the erring law:er ThusA while we might admit that the causes o3 action +e3ore the Makati court and the ParaCa ue court are distinctA and that ?e++ cannot see4 civil indemnit: in the contem)t )roceedingsA the same +eing in the nature o3 criminal contem)tA we nonetheless cannot ignore ?e++Ps intention o3 see4ing e%actl: identical relie3s when it sought the )reliminar: relie3 o3 in/unction in the Makati court@ *s earlier indicated had ?e++ +een com)letel: in good 3aithA there would have +een no hindrance in 3iling the action 3or damages with the Makati court and having it consolidated with the contem)t )roceedings +e3ore ParaCa ue courtA so that the same issue on the alleged violation o3 the sub !udice rule will not have to +e )assed u)on twiceA and there would +e no )ossi+ilit: o3 having two courts o3 concurrent /urisdiction ma4ing two con3licting resolutions@ 0et 3rom another angleA it ma: +e said that when the ParaCa ue court ac9uired /urisdiction over the said issueA it e%cluded all other courts o3 concurrent /urisdiction 3rom ac9uiring /urisdiction over the same@ To hold otherwise would +e to ris4 instances where courts o3 concurrent /urisdiction might have con3licting orders@ This will create havoc and result in an e%tremel: disordered administration o3 /ustice@ There3oreA even on the assum)tion that the Makati court ma: ac9uire /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action 3or damagesA without )re/udice to the a))lication o3 *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4A it cannot nonetheless ac9uire /urisdiction over the issue o3 whether or not 7iva has violated the sub !udice rule@ *t +estA the Makati court ma: hear the case onl: with res)ect to the alleged in/ur: su33ered +: ?e++ after the ParaCa ue court shall have ruled 3avora+l: on the said issue@ In 3ineA a))l:ing the sanction against 3orum sho))ing under *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4A the action 3iled +: ?e++ with the Makati court" ma: +e ordered summaril: dismissed@ -onsidering the nature and )ur)ose o3 contem)t )roceedings +e3ore the ParaCa ue court and the )u+lic )olic: o3 )rotecting the integrit: o3 the courtA we reserve the im)osition o3 a similar sanction to dismiss the same and leave that matter to the discretion o3 the )residing /udge concernedA although it is worth: to stress that inso3ar as in/unctive relie3 against the showing o3 the movie +e3ore the ParaCa ue court is concernedA we resolved to also dismiss the same +: reason o3 3orum sho))ing@ ThisA howeverA is without )re/udice to the other as)ects o3 the contem)t )roceedings which ma: still +e )ending +e3ore the ParaVa9ue court@

+., PN! 1s. INTERNATI)NAL C)RP)RATE !AN# -hallenged in this )etition 3or review on certiorari is the decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))ealsA dated Januar: 31A 1&#&A in a33irming the decision o3 the $egional Trial -ourt o3 *laminosA PangasinanA acting as a land registration courtA which dismissed )etitionerGs a))lication 3or the cancellation o3 annotations o3 an encum+rance on its trans3er certi3icates o3 title@

PN! 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourt o3 *laminosA Pangasinan a )etition 3or the cancellation o3 a memorandum o3 encum+rance annotated u)on its si%teen L16O trans3er certi3icates o3 title@ The )revious owners o3 these real )ro)erties were s)ouses *rchimedes J@ !alingit and 5l: 'unta: who e%ecuted real estate mortagages in the 3avor o3 PN!@ 2or 3ailure o3 the !alingit s)ouses to settle their loan o+ligation with )etitionerA the latter e%tra/udiciall: 3oreclosed under *ct 3135A as amendedA the si%teen L16O )arcels o3 land covered +: the real estate mortgages e%ecuted +: the said s)ouses in 3avor o3 )etitioner@ The sheri33Ps certi3icate o3 sale was registered on *)ril 3A 1& 2 with the $egister o3 DeedsA with a memorandum thereo3 dul: annotated at the +ac4 o3 the a3oresaid certi3icates o3 title o3 the 3oreclosed )ro)erties@ 6)on the e%)iration o3 the one>:ear legal redem)tion )eriodA )etitioner consolidated in its name the ownershi) o3 all the 3oregoing mortgaged )ro)erties 3or which new trans3er certi3icates o3 title were issued in its name@ .oweverA the annotation o3 the notice o3 lev: in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondent was carried over to and now a))ears as the sole annotated encum+rance in the new titles o3 )etitioner@ International -or)orate !an4A as successor in interest o3 the de3unct -ontinental !an4A 3iled an o))osition to the )etition contending thatA since it was not in3ormed o3 the e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure )roceedingsA the new and consolidated titles over the 3oreclosed )ro)erties issued in 3avor o3 PN! are null and void@ The lower court rendered a decisionA den:ing the )etition 3or lac4 o3 /urisdictionA the )ertinent )art whereo3 readsI 'ection 1(# o3 Presidential Decree No@ 152& L'ection 112 o3 *ct 4&6O under which the )etitioner see4s remed: has +een inter)reted +: the 'u)reme -ourt that the relie3 therein can onl: +e granted i3 there is no adverse claim or serious o+/ection on the )art o3 an: )art: in interest otherwise the case +ecomes controversial and should +e threshed out in an ordinar: case or in the case where the incident )ro)erl: +elongs@ *ccordingl:A an annotation o3 an adverse claim ma: +e ordered cancelled onl: where the issue involved is not controversial or so dis)uted as to warrant that it +e litigated in an ordinar: action@ -onsidering that the issue o3 whether the notice o3 lev: should +e cancelled as sought +: the )etitioner +ecomes controversial in view o3 the o))osition and adverse claim o3 the o))ositor Inter+an4A this -ourtA as land registration court and in accordance with the /uris)rudence a+ove citedA has no /urisdiction to entertain and act on the contested )etition@ The cancellation )ra:ed 3or should +e threshed out in an ordinar: case@ ?.5$528$5A the )etition is here+: D5NI5DA without )re/udice to the 3iling o3 an ordinar: case +: the )etitioner@ '8 8$D5$5D@ Not satis3ied therewithA )etitioner a))ealed to -* asserting that the lower court erred in ruling that L1O there is an adverse claim or serious o+/ection on the )art o3 o))ositor rendering the case controversial and there3ore should +e threshed out in an ordinar: caseN and L2O it has no /urisdiction to entertain and act on the contested )etition@ $es)ondent court rendered /udgment a33irming the a))ealed decision@ .ence this )etition@

Iss%e3 whether the $T- sitting as a land registration court has /urisdiction to resolve controversial issues@ 4el53 <es6 RTC has "%ris5ic ion. The rule that was ado)ted +: res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals in its decision to the e33ect that a regional trial court sitting as a land registration court has limited /urisdiction and has no authorit: to resolve controversial issuesA which should accordingl: +e litigated in a court o3 general /urisdictionA no longer holds@ ?e have held that under 'ection 2 o3 Presidential Decree No@ 152& LThe Pro)ert: $egistration DecreeO which too4 e33ect on June 11A 1& &A regional trial courts acting as land registration courts now have e%clusive /urisdiction not onl: over a))lications 3or original registration o3 title to landsA including im)rovements and interests thereinA +ut also over )etitions 3iled a3ter original registration o3 titleA with )ower to hear and determine all 9uestions arising u)on such a))lications or )etitions@ That de3initive ruling was )recisel: to correct the )osition ta4en therein +: the -ourt o3 *))eals that the court a uo has limited /urisdiction and has no authorit: to resolve controversial issues which should +e litigated +e3ore a court o3 general /urisdiction@ In the same caseA the -ourt 3urther noted that even under *ct 4&6 LLand $egistration *ctOA s)eci3icall: 'ection 11( thereo3A the court o3 3irst instanceA sitting as a land registration courtA has the authorit: to conduct a hearingA receive evidenceA and decide controversial matters with a view to determining whether or not the 3iled notice o3 adverse claim is valid@ In 'ection 2 o3 the Id P@D@ No@ 152&A it is clearl: )rovided thatI 'ec@ 2@ 7ature of registration proceedings, !urisdiction of courts@ Judicial )roceedings 3or the registration o3 lands throughout the Phili))ines shall +e in rem and shall +e +ased on the generall: acce)ted )rinci)les underl:ing the Torrens s:stem@ -ourts o3 2irst Instance shall have e%clusive /urisdiction over all a))lications 3or original registration o3 titles to landsA including im)rovements and interest thereinA and over an )etitions 3iled a3ter original registration o3 titleA with )ower to hear and determine all 9uestions arising u)on such a))lications or )etitions @ @ @ The a+ove )rovision has eliminated the distinction +etween the general /urisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited /urisdiction con3erred u)on it +: the 3ormer law when acting merel: as a cadastral court@ *imed at avoiding multi)licit: o3 suitsA the change has sim)li3ied registration )roceedings +: con3erring u)on the regional trial courts the authorit: to act not onl: on a))lications 3or Horiginal registrationH +ut also Hover all )etitions 3iled a3ter original registration o3 titleA with )ower to hear and determine all 9uestions arising u)on such a))lications or )etitions@H -onse9uentl:A and s)eci3icall: with re3erence to 'ection 112 o3 the Land $egistration *ct Lnow 'ection 1(# o3 P@D@ No@ 152&OA the court is no longer 3ettered +: its 3ormer limited /urisdiction which ena+led it to grant relie3 onl: in cases where there was Hunanimit: among the )artiesH or none o3 them raised an: Hadverse claim or serious o+/ection@H 6nder the amended lawA the court

is now authori"ed to hear and decide not onl: such non>controversial case +ut even the contentious and su+stantial issuesA such as the 9uestion at +arA which were +e:ond its com)etence +e3ore@ It is now +e:ond cavilA there3oreA that the court +elow has am)le /urisdiction to decide the controvers: raised +: the )etition in L$- No@ *>22&A $ecord No@ N>333&& initiated therein +: )etitioner@ .oweverA considering that the issue o3 whether the adverse claim o3 )rivate res)ondent should +e cancelled or allowed to remain as annotations on the certi3icates o3 title involved can +e resolved +: us in the )resent recourseA we agree that the remand o3 the case to the court o3 origin is no longer necessar:@ ?e have time and again laid down the rule that the remand o3 the case to the lower court 3or 3urther rece)tion o3 evidence is no longer necessar: where this -ourt is in a )osition to resolve the dis)ute +ased on the records +e3ore it@ In a num+er o3 casesA the -ourtA in the )u+lic interest and 3or the e%)editious administration o3 /usticeA has resolved actions on the merits instead o3 remanding them to the trial court 3or 3urther )roceedingsA such as where the ends o3 /ustice would not +e su+served +: the remand o3 the case@ In the case at +arA the right o3 )etitioner to the relie3 )ra:ed 3or is clear@ The 3acto +e3ore us su33icientl: show that the cancellation o3 the dis)uted annotation 3rom the certi3icates o3 title o3 )etitioner is /usti3ied in law@ It is undis)uted that )rivate res)ondent is a su+se9uent lien holder whose rights over the mortgaged )ro)ert: are in3erior to that o3 )etitioner as a mortgagee@ !eing a su+se9uent lien holderA )rivate res)ondent ac9uires onl: the right o3 redem)tion vested in the mortgagorA and his rights are strictl: su+ordinate to the su)erior lien o3 the anterior mortgagee@ *3ter the 3oreclosure saleA the remed: o3 the second mortgagee is limited to the right to redeem +: )a:ing o33 the de+t secured +: the 3irst mortgage@ The rule is that u)on a )ro)er 3oreclosure o3 a )rior mortgageA all liens su+ordinate to the mortgage are li4ewise 3oreclosedA and the )urchaser at )u+lic auction held )ursuant thereto ac9uires title 3ree 3rom the su+ordinate liens@ 8rdinaril:A therea3ter the $egister o3 Deeds is authori"ed to issue the new titles without carr:ing over the annotation o3 su+ordinate liens@ In a case with similar 3eaturesA we had earlier held that the 3ailure o3 the su+se9uent attaching creditor to redeemA within the time allowed +: 'ection 6 o3 *ct 3136A the land which was sold e%tra/udiciall: to satis3: the 3irst mortgageA gives the )urchaser a )er3ect right to secure the cancellation o3 the annotation o3 said creditorGs attachment lien on the certi3icates o3 title o3 said land@

+.; PI) !ARRETT) REALT< DENEL)PMENT6 INC. 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS The estate o3 De)rin was +eing settled@ During the )ro+ate ,oslares intervined claiming that he was the owner o3 one o3 the )ro)erties included in the estate +ecause o3 the /oint venture agreement +etween him and De)rin@ !utA he still had a +alance to )a: in order to claim 3ull ownershi) o3 the land@ The )ro+ate court gave ,oslares a )eriod within which to ma4e the necessar: )a:ments@ .oweverA ,oslares 3ailed to )a: this o+ligation and so the court acce)ted

another o33er 3rom Pio !arretto@ ,oslares wanted the court to rule on the ownershi) o3 the land +ut the court did not act on the motion o3 ,oslares@ 8n a))eal to the -* it issued a T$8@ Iss%esI L1Owhether the $T- acted without or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion in re3using to e%clude the )arcels o3 land involved 3rom the testate )roceedings o3 the Dre)in estateN and L2Owhether the $T- acted without or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion in selling the )ro)ert: to !arretto 4el53 1st issue a33irmedN 2nd No@ ?e hold that even with such )resum)tion and re3usalA the res)ondent court still acted within its /urisdiction and not with grave a+use o3 discretion@ *3ter allA the /uris)rudence and rule are +oth to the e33ect that the )ro+ate court Hma:H )rovisionall: )ass u)on the 9uestion o3 e%clusionA not HshouldH@ The o+vious reason is the )ro+ate courtGs limited /urisdiction and the )rinci)le that 9uestions o3 title or ownershi)A which result to inclusion in or e%clusion 3rom the inventor: o3 the )ro)ert:A can onl: +e settled in a se)arate action@ .enceA even i3 res)ondent court )resumed an the wa: that the )ro)erties sold +: Dre)in to )etitioner were )art o3 Dre)inGs estateA that would not )revent nor de3eat )etitionerGs remed: in a se)arate suit@ 5sto))el wor4s to )reclude res)ondent 3rom 9uestioning the /urisdiction o3 the court@ !: o33ering to +u: the )ro)erties in 9uestionA res)ondent has clearl: recogni"ed the /urisdiction o3 the )ro+ate court to which he had e33ectivel: su+mitted himsel3@ ThusA res)ondent +ound himsel3 under an agreement with the court se)arate and distinct 3rom that which he had with the decedent@ In rescinding such contractA the court merel: see4s to en3orce its right to )ut an end to an agreement which had ceased to +e a wor4ing )ro)osition@ 'urel:A this is well within the )ower o3 the )ro+ate court@ Though o3 limited and s)ecial /urisdictionA it cannot +e deniedA howeverA that when the law con3ers /urisdiction u)on a courtA the latter is deemed to have all the necessar: )owers to e%ercise such /urisdicton to ma4e it e33ective@ ?e cannot allow an a+surd situation to arise where the Dre)in estate will never +e settled and li9uidated +ecause even i3 ,oslares cannot )a: the agreed )urchase )rice o3 the Dre)in landsA still the )ro+ate court can no longer sell the lands to other )ros)ective +u:ers@ 6nder the theor: o3 res)ondentA it is insisted that the )ro+ate court has no authorit: to cancel his un3ul3illed o33er to +u:A notwithstanding the 3act that he 3ailed misera+l: to com)l: with the terms o3 his own o33er to +u:@ It is to +e remem+ered that ,oslares had alread: +een granted undue lenienc: +: the )ro+ate court to meet his o+ligations to )a:@

+.D (< 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS This is an a))eal +: certiorari 3rom the decision o3 res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals which a33irmed in toto the decision o3 the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anilaA !r@ 32A 3inding the accused $8'* 60 guilt: o3 violating !@P@ !lg@ 22 and ac9uitting her o3 esta3a@

*3ter a /oint trialA the ,anila $egional Trial -ourt ac9uitted )etitioner o3 esta3a +ut convicted her o3 the charges under !@P@ !ldg@ 22@ 8n a))ealA res)ondent a))ellate court a33irmed the decision o3 the trial court@ Petitioner contends that the trial court never ac9uired /urisdiction over the o33enses under !@P@ !lg@ 22@ Iss%e3 whether the $T- o3 ,anila ac9uired /urisdiction over the violations o3 the !ouncing -hec4s Law 4el53 No "%ris5ic ion. It is a 3undamental rule that 3or /urisdiction to +e ac9uired +: courts in criminal cases the o33ense should have +een committed or an: one o3 its essential ingredients too4 )lace within the territorial /urisdiction o3 the court@ Territorial /urisdiction in criminal cases is the territor: where the court has /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance or to tr: the o33ense allegedl: committed therein +: the accused@ ThusA it cannot ta4e /urisdiction over a )erson charged with an o33ense allegedl: committed outside o3 that limited territor:@ 2urthermoreA the /urisdiction o3 a court over the criminal case is determined +: the allegations in the com)laint or in3ormation@ *nd once it is so shownA the court ma: validl: ta4e cogni"ance o3 the case@ .oweverA i3 the evidence adduced during the trial show that the o33ense was committed somewhere elseA the court should dismiss the action 3or want o3 /urisdiction@ In the case at +arA the com)laint 3or esta3a and the various charges under !@P@ !lg@ 22 were /ointl: tried +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anila@ Petitioner challenges the /urisdiction o3 the lower court stating that none o3 the essential elements constitutive o3 violation o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22 was shown to have +een committed in the -it: o3 ,anila@ 'he maintains that the evidence )resented esta+lished that LaO com)lainant was a resident o3 ,a4atiN L+O )etitioner was a resident o3 -aloocan -it:N LcO the )lace o3 +usiness o3 the alleged )artnershi) was located in ,ala+onN LdO the drawee +an4 was located in ,ala+onN andA LeO the chec4s were all de)osited 3or collection in ,a4ati@ Ta4en altogetherA )etitioner concludes that the said evidence would onl: show that none o3 the essential elements o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22 occurred in ,anila@ $es)ondent Peo)le o3 the Phili))ines through the 'olicitor 1eneral on the one hand argues that even i3 there is no showing o3 an: evidence that the essential ingredients too4 )lace or the o33ense was committed in ,anilaA what is critical is the 3act that the court ac9uired /urisdiction over the esta3a case +ecause the same is the )rinci)al or main case and that the cases 3or violations o3 the !ouncing -hec4s Law are merel: incidental to the esta3a case@ ?e disagree with res)ondent@ The crimes o3 esta3a and violation o3 the !ouncing -hec4s Law are two L2O di33erent o33enses having di33erent elements andA necessaril:A 3or a court to ac9uire /urisdiction each o3 the essential ingredients o3 each crime has to +e satis3ied@ In the crime o3 esta3aA deceit and damage are essential elements o3 the o33ense and have to +e esta+lished with satis3actor: )roo3 to warrant conviction@ 2or violation o3 the !ouncing -hec4s LawA on the other handA the elements o3 deceit and damage are neither essential nor re9uired@ $atherA the elements o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22 are LaO the ma4ingA drawing and issuance o3 an: chec4 to a))l: to account or 3or valueN L+O the ma4erA drawer or issuer 4nows at the time o3 issuance that he does not have su33icient 3unds in or credit with the drawee +an4 3or the )a:ment o3 such chec4 in 3ull u)on its )resentmentN andA LcO the chec4 is su+se9uentl: dishonored +: the drawee +an4 3or insu33icienc: o3 3unds or credit or would have +een dishonored 3or the same reason had

not the drawerA without valid reasonA ordered the +an4 to sto) )a:ment@ .enceA it is incorrect 3or res)ondent Peo)le to conclude that inasmuch as the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anila ac9uired /urisdiction over the esta3a case then it also ac9uired /urisdiction over the violations o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22@ The crime o3 esta3a and the violation o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22 have to +e treated as se)arate o33enses and there3ore the essential ingredients o3 each o33ense have to +e satis3ied@ In this regardA the records clearl: indicate that +usiness dealings were conducted in a restaurant in ,anila where sums o3 mone: were given to )etitionerN henceA the ac9uisition o3 /urisdiction +: the lower court over the esta3a case@ The various charges 3or violation o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22 however are on a di33erent )lain@ There is no scintilla o3 evidence to show that /urisdiction over the violation o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22 had +een ac9uired@ 8n the contrar:A all that the evidence shows is that com)lainant is a resident o3 ,a4atiN that )etitioner is a resident o3 -aloocan -it:N that the )rinci)al )lace o3 +usiness o3 the alleged )artnershi) is located in ,ala+onN that the drawee +an4 is li4ewise located in ,ala+on and that all the su+/ect chec4s were de)osited 3or collection in ,a4ati@ 7eril:A no )roo3 has +een o33ered that the chec4s were issuedA deliveredA dishonored or 4nowledge o3 insu33icienc: o3 3unds occurred in ,anilaA which are essential elements necessar: 3or the ,anila -ourt to ac9uire /urisdiction over the o33ense@ 6)on the contention o3 res)ondent that 4nowledge on the )art o3 the ma4er or drawer o3 the chec4 o3 the insu33icienc: o3 his 3unds is +: itsel3 a continuing eventualit: whether the accused +e within one territor: or anotherA the same is still without merit@ It ma: +e true that !@P@ !lg@ 22 is a transitor: or continuing o33ense and such +eing the case the theor: is that a )erson indicted with a transitor: o33ense ma: +e validl: tried in an: /urisdiction where the o33ense was in )art committed@ ?e note however that 4nowledge +: the ma4er or drawer o3 the 3act that he has no su33icient 3unds to cover the chec4 or o3 having su33icient 3unds is simultaneous to the issuance o3 the instrument@ ?e again 3ind no iota o3 )roo3 on the records that at the time o3 issueA )etitioner or com)lainant was in ,anila@ *s suchA there would +e no +asis in u)holding the /urisdiction o3 the trial court over the o33ense@ In an attem)t to salvage the issue that the $T- o3 ,anila had /urisdiction over the violations o3 !@P@ !lg@ 22A res)ondent relies on the doctrine o3 /urisdiction +: esto))el@ $es)ondent )osits that it too4 some 3ive L5O :ears o3 trial +e3ore )etitioner raised the issue o3 /urisdiction@ The $evised $ules on -riminal ProcedureA under $ule 11 A 'ec@ 3A )rovides that the accused ma: move to 9uash the com)laint or in3ormation on an: o3 the 3ollowing groundsI @ @ @ L+O that the court tr:ing the case has no /urisdiction over the o33ense charged or over the person of the accused@ ,oreoverA under 'ec@ # o3 the same $ule it is )rovided that the 3ailure o3 the accused to assert an: ground o3 a motion to 9uash +e3ore he )leads to the com)laint or in3ormationA either +ecause he did not 3ile a motion to 9uash or 3ailed to allege the same in said motionA shall +e deemed a waiver o3 the grounds o3 a motion to 9uashA e%ce)t the grounds o3 @ @ @ lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the o33ense charged @ @ @ as )rovided 3or in )aragra)h @ @ @ L+O @ @ @ o3 'ection 3 o3 this $ule@ *3ter a care3ul )erusal o3 the recordsA it is cr:stal clear that )etitioner timel: 9uestioned the /urisdiction o3 the court in a memorandum 13 +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt and therea3ter in succeeding )leadings@ 8n this 3inding aloneA we cannot countenance the inadvertence

committed +: the court@ -learl:A 3rom the a+ove>9uoted lawA we can see that even i3 a )art: 3ails to 3ile a motion to 9uashA he ma: still 9uestion the /urisdiction o3 the court later on@ ,oreoverA these o+/ections ma: +e raised or considered motu propio +: the court at an: stage o3 the )roceedings or on a))eal@ *ssuming arguendo that there was a +elated attem)t to 9uestion the /urisdiction o3 the court and henceA on the +asis o3 the )i!am v@ Sibonghanoy case in which res)ondent see4s re3ugeA the )etitioner should +e esto))ed@ ?e nonetheless 3ind the /uris)rudence o3 the 'i+onghano: case not in )oint@ In Calimlim v@ *amireBA the -ourt held that the ruling in the Sibonghanoy case is an e%ce)tion to the general rule that the lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 a court ma: +e raised at an: stage o3 the )roceedingsA even on a))eal@ The -ourt stated 3urther that )i!am v@ Sibonghanoy is an e%ce)tional case +ecause o3 the )resence o3 laches@ The -ourt saidI * rule that had +een settled +: un9uestioned acce)tance and u)held in decisions so numerous to cite is that the /urisdiction o3 a court over the su+/ect matter o3 the action is a matter o3 law and ma: not +e con3erred +: consent or agreement o3 the )arties@ The lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 a court ma: +e raised at an: stage o3 the )roceedingsA even on a))eal@ This doctrine has +een 9uali3ied +: recent )ronouncements which stemmed )rinci)all: 3rom the ruling in the cited case o3 Sibonghanoy@ It is to +e regrettedA howeverA that the holding in said case had +een a))lied to situations which were o+viousl: not contem)lated therein@ The e%ce)tional circumstance involved Sibonghanoy which /usti3ied the de)arture 3rom the acce)ted conce)t o3 non>waiva+ilit: o3 o+/ection to /urisdiction has +een ignored andA instead a +lan4et doctrine had +een re)eatedl: u)held that rendered the su))osed ruling in 'i+onghano: not as the e%ce)tionA +ut rather the general ruleA virtuall: overthrowing altogether the time>honored )rinci)le that the issue o3 /urisdiction is not lost +: waiver or +: esto))el@ In SibonghanoyA the de3ense o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 the court that rendered the 9uestioned ruling was held to +e +arred +: laches@ It was ruled that the lac4 o3 /urisdiction having +een raised 3or the 3irst time in a motion to dismiss 3iled almost 3i3teen L15O :ears a3ter the 9uestioned ruling had +een renderedA such a )lea ma: no longer +e raised 3or +eing +arred +: laches@ *s de3ined in said caseA laches is 3ailure or neglect 3or an unreasona+le and une%)lained length o3 timeA to do that whichA +: e%ercising due diligenceA could or should have +een done earlierN it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona+le timeA warranting a )resum)tion that the )art: entitled to assert has a+andoned it or declined to assert it@ The circumstances o3 the )resent case are ver: di33erent 3rom )i!am v@ Sibonghanoy@ No /udgment has :et +een rendered +: the trial court in this case@ *s a matter o3 3actA as soon as the accused discovered the /urisdictional de3ectA she did not 3ail or neglect to 3ile the a))ro)riate motion to dismiss@ The: 9uestioned the /urisdiction o3 the trial court in a memorandum +e3ore the lower court@ .enceA 3inding the )ivotal element o3 laches to +e a+sentA we hold that the ruling in )i!am v@ Sibonghanoy does not control the )resent controvers:@ InsteadA the general rule that the 9uestion o3 /urisdiction o3 a court ma:+e raised at an: stage o3 the )roceedings must a))l:@ Petitioner is there3ore not esto))ed 3rom 9uestioning the /urisdiction o3 the trial court@

+.E SEA&DEC 1. NLRC &ac s3 Juvenal La"aga was em)lo:ed as a $esearch *ssociate on a )ro+ationar: +asis +: the 'outheast *sian 2isheries Develo)ment -enter>*9uaculture De)artment L'5*2D5->*MDO and was a))ointed 'enior 5%ternal *33airs 833icer on 1&#3@ Therea3terA he was a))ointed to the )osition o3 Pro3essional III and designated as .ead o3 5%ternal *33airs 833ice with the same )a: and +ene3its@

8n 1&#6A )etitioner Lacanilao in his ca)acit: as -hie3 o3 '5*2D5->*MD sent a notice o3 termination to res)ondent in3orming him that due to the 3inancial constraints +eing e%)erienced +: the de)artmentA his services shall +e terminated at the close o3 o33ice hours on ,a: 15A1&#6 and that he is entitled to se)aration +ene3its e9uivalent to one L1O month o3 his +asic salar: 3or ever: :ear o3 service )lus other +ene3its@ 6)on '5*2D5-Gs 3ailure to )a: )rivate res)ondent his se)aration )a:A it 3iled a com)laint against )etitioners 3or non>)a:ment o3 se)aration +ene3its )lus moral damages and attorne:Gs 3ees with the *r+itration !ranch o3 the NL$-@ Petitioners allege that the NL$- has no /urisdiction over the case inasmuch as the '5*2D5- is an international organi"ation and that res)ondent must 3irst secure clearances 3rom the )ro)er de)artments 3or )ro)ert: or mone: accounta+ilit: +e3ore an: claim 3or se)aration )a: will +e )aidA and which clearances had not :et +een o+tained +: the )rivate res)ondent@ * 3ormal hearing was conducted where+: )rivate res)ondent alleged that the non>issuance o3 the clearances +: the )etitioners was )oliticall: motivated and in +ad 3aith@ 8n the other handA )etitioners alleged that )rivate res)ondent has )ro)ert: accounta+ilit: and an outstanding o+ligation to '5*2D5- in the amount o3 P2 A532@11@ 2urthermoreA res)ondent is not entitled to accrued sic4 leave +ene3its amounting to P44A(((@(( due to his 3ailure to avail o3 the same during his em)lo:ment with the '5*2D5-@ La+or *r+iterI .eld '5*2D5-A Dr@ 2lor LacanilaoA $u3il -uevas and !en de los $e:es lia+le to )a: )rivate res)ondent Juvenal La"aga the amount o3 P126A45#@#& )lus interest thereon com)uted 3rom ,a: 16A1&#6 until 3ull )a:ment thereo3 is madeA as se)aration )a: and other )ost>em)lo:ment +ene3its@ ,$ is denied@ NL$-I 'ustained the La+or *r+iter@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the NL$- has /urisdiction@ L?hether or not '5*2D5- is immune 3rom suit@O 4el53 NoA the NL$- has no Jurisdiction@ '5*2D5- is immune +ecause it is an international agenc: +e:ond the /urisdiction o3 the courts or local agenc: o3 the Phili))ine government@ It was esta+lished +: the 1overnments o3 !urmaA <ingdom o3 -am+odiaA $e)u+lic o3 IndonesiaA Ja)anA <ingdom o3 LaosA ,ala:siaA $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))inesA $e)u+lic o3 'inga)oreA <ingdom o3 Thailand and $e)u+lic o3 7ietnam@ Pursuant to its +eing a signator: to the *greementA the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines agreed to +e re)resented +: one Director in the governing '5*2D5- -ouncil and that its national laws and regulations shall a))l: onl: inso3ar as its contri+utions to '5*2D5- o3 an agreed amount o3 mone:A mova+le and immova+le )ro)ert: and services necessar: 3or the esta+lishment and o)eration o3 CThe -enterH are concerned@ It e%)ressl: waived the a))lication o3 the Phili))ine laws on the dis+ursement o3 3unds o3 )etitioner '5*2D5-*MD@ The then ,inister o3 Justice li4ewise o)ined that Phili))ine -ourts have no /urisdiction over '5*2D5-@ 8ne o3 the +asic immunities o3 an international organi"ation is immunit: 3rom local /urisdictionA i@e@A that it is immune 3rom the legal writs and )rocessH issued +: the tri+unals o3 the countr:

where it is 3ound@ The o+vious reason 3or this is that the su+/ection o3 such air organi"ation to the authorit: o3 the local courts would a33ord a convenient medium thru which the host government ma: inter3ere in their o)erations or even in3luence or control its )olicies and decisions o3 the organi"ationN +esidesA such su+/ection to local /urisdiction would im)air the ca)acit: o3 such +od: to discharge its res)onsi+ilities im)artiall: on +ehal3 o3 its mem+er>states@ In the case at +arA 3or instanceA the entertainment +: the National La+or $elations -ommission o3 ,r@ ,adam+aGs reinstatement cases would amount to inter3erence +: the Phili))ine 1overnment in the management decisions o3 the '5*$-* governing +oardN even warmA it could com)romise the desired im)artialit: o3 the organi"ation since it will have to suit its actuations to the re9uirements o3 Phili))ine lawA which ma: not necessaril: coincide with the interests o3 the other mem+er states@ It is )recisel: to 3orestall these )ossi+ilities that in cases where the e%tent o3 the immunit: is s)eci3ied in the ena+ling instruments o3 international organi"ationsA /urisdictional immunit: is s)eci3ied in the ena+ling instruments o3 international organi"ationsA /urisdictional immunit: 3rom the host countr: is invaria+l: among the 3irst accorded@

+.A Mar9%e$ 1. Sec. o2 Labor &ac s3 <aisahan ng ,anggagawang Pili)ino L<*,PIL><*TIP6N*NO in +ehal3 o3 sevent: nine L &O o3 its mem+ers who are em)lo:ed at the Little 2ol4s 'nac4 ,o+ile owned +: )etitionerA 3iled on Jul: 16A 1&#6 with the 833ice o3 the Director o3 the National -a)ital $egionA De)artment o3 La+or and 5m)lo:ment LD8L5O a com)laint 3or under)a:ment o3 minimum wageA non>)a:ment o3 5-8L*A non>)a:ment o3 incentive leave +ene3its and non>)a:ment o3 overtime )a: and other

+ene3its@ The $egional Director decided against ,ar9ue" and Little 2ol4s@ This was a33irmed and li4ewise done +: the 'ecretar: o3 La+or@ *s a last recourseA ,ar9ue" asserts lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ Petitioners contend that all mone: claims o3 wor4ers arising 3rom an em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi) are within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the La+or *r+iter as )rovided +: *rt@ 21 o3 the La+or -ode@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the 'ecretar: o3 La+or and the $egional Director have /urisdiction to award the mone: claims o3 the em)lo:ees@ 4el53 0es@ Petition is dismissed@ ItPs too late to invo4e lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ * )art: can not invo4e the /urisdiction o3 a court to secure a33irmative relie3 against his o))onent andA a3ter o+taining or 3ailing to o+tain such relie3A re)udiate or 9uestion that same /urisdiction@ The 9uestion whether the court had /urisdiction either o3 the su+/ect>matter o3 the action or o3 the )arties is +arred 3rom such conduct not +ecause the /udgment or order o3 the court is valid and conclusive as an ad/udicationA +ut 3or the reason that such a )ractice can not +e tolerated o+viousl: 3or reasons o3 )u+lic )olic:@ 2urthermoreA it has also +een held that a3ter voluntaril: su+mitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the meritsA it is to late 3or the loser to 9uestion the /urisdiction or )ower o3 the court@

+.. &abia 1. CA &ac s3 Petitioner .ernani N@ 2a+iaA until his resignation on 1( *ugust 1&&4A was the President o3 )rivate res)ondent ,T-PA a domestic cor)oration engaged in )roviding maritime courses and seminars to )ros)ective overseas contract wor4ers and seamen@ .e was li4ewise a Director and stoc4holder thereo3@

8n 3 Januar: 1&&6 ,T-P through its new President 5%e9uiel !@ Tama:o 3iled an a33idavit> com)laint 3or esta3a against .ernani N@ 2a+ia with the 833ice o3 the -it: Prosecutor o3 ,anila alleging that on various occasions 3rom Januar: to Jul: 1&&4 2a+ia drew cash advances 3rom ,T-PA covered +: cash vouchersA amounting to P1A2&1A3 6@61 which he 3ailed to li9uidate des)ite re)eated demands@ Petitioner 2a+ia in his 2( ,arch 1&&6 $e)l:>*33idavit and ,otion to Dismiss admitted having received the various amounts covered +: the cash vouchers +ut reasoned that the: were in the nature o3 sim)le loans that had alread: +een li9uidated and )aid as shown +: the recei)ts and vouchers which he had attached to his )leadings@ -it: ProsecutorI Dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction 3or the reason that the controvers: )ertained to the relationshi) +etween a cor)oration and a 3ormer o33icer thereo3A henceA it was the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission L'5-O which had original and e%clusive /urisdiction over the case@ D8JI *33irmed the dismissal o3 the -it: Prosecutor@ ,$ denied@ -*I 'et aside the D8J@ Directed the 3iling o3 an in3ormation with the $T-@ Petitioner now 9uestions the /urisdiction o3 the trial court arguing that the instant case involves an intra>cor)orate controvers: )rimaril: cogni"a+le +: the '5- andA as suchA the )u+lic )rosecutor had no authorit: to initiall: rule in the )reliminar: investigation o3 the com)laint 3or esta3a 3iled against him as it was +arred under the doctrine o3 )rimar: /urisdiction 3rom e%ercising /urisdiction over the criminal case without the )rior resolution o3 the '5- on the matter@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 0esA in the end@ *s -rim@ -ase No@ &#>1625 ( involves an intra>cor)orate dis)uteA /urisdiction )ro)erl: lies with the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission L'5-O@ .oweverA in con3ormit: with $* # &&A )he Securities *egulation CodeA amending PD &(2>*A which has e33ectivel: trans3erred the /urisdiction o3 the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission over all cases enumerated under 'ec@ 5 o3 PD &(2>* to the courts o3 general /urisdiction or the a))ro)riate $egional Trial -ourtsA -rim@ -ase No@ &#>1625 ( is ordered T$*N'25$$5D to the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anila to +e ra33led among the designated +ranches em)owered to tr: and decide cases 3ormerl: cogni"a+le +: the '5- )ursuant to *@,@ No@ ((>1143>'-@ No costs@ +.C Paa 1. CA &ac s3 8n 1& ,a: 1&#&A 7ictoria de 1u"manPs truc4 was sei"ed +: De)artment o3 5nvironment and Natural $esources )ersonnel in *ritaoA Nueva 7i"ca:a while on its wa:s to !ulacan 3rom 'an JoseA !aggaoA -aga:an +ecause the driver could not )roduce the re9uired documents 3or the 3orest )roducts 3ound concealed in the truc4@ 8n 23 ,a: 1&#&A *ritao -5N$8Ps Jovito La:ugan issued an order o3 con3iscation o3 the truc4@ Its ownerA De 1u"manA 3ailed to su+mit

the re9uired e%)lanation within the reglementar: )eriod set +: La:ugan@ 8n 22 June 1&#&A D5N$ $egional 5%ecutive Director $ogelio !agga:an sustained the *litao -5N$8Ps action o3 con3iscation and ordered the 3or3eiture o3 the truc4 invo4ing 'ection 6#>* o3 Presidential Decree (5A as amended +: 5%ecutive 8rder 2 @ De 1u"man 3iled 3or reconsideration +ut was denied@ The case was a))ealed to the 'ecretar: o3 D5N$@ Pending resolutionA howeverA a suit 3or re)levin L-ivil -ase 4(31OA was 3iled +: De 1u"man and com)an: against La:ugan and !agga:an with the $T- -aga:an L!ranch 2OA contending that the onl: the court is authori"ed to con3iscate and 3or3eit conve:ances used in the trans)orting illegal 3orest )roductsA )ursuant to the second )aragra)h o3 'ection 6#@ De 1u"man 3urther contended that the sei"ure is illegalA as she did not use the truc4 in the commission o3 the crime Lo3 9uali3ied the3t under *rticle 3(& and 31( o3 the $evised Penal -odeA )unisha+le under 'ection 6#OA as allegedl: admitted +: the $egional 5%ecutive DirectorA releasing her 3rom criminal lia+ilit:@ The trial court therea3ter issued a writ ordering the return o3 the truc4 to De 1u"man@ The )etitioners 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ The a))ellate court sustained the trial courtPs order ruling that the 9uestion involved is )urel: a legal one@ .enceA the )etition@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has the authorit: to con3iscate or to 3or3eit conve:ances@ 4el53 No@ The 'u)reme -ourt granted the )etitionA reversed and set aside the 16 8cto+er decision and 14 Jul: 1&&2 resolution o3 the -*A made )ermanent the restraining order )romulgated on 2 'e)tem+er 1&&3A and directed the D5N$ secretar: to resolve the controvers: with utmost dis)atch@ The construction that conve:ances are su+/ect o3 con3iscation +: the courts e%clusivel: L)ursuant to 'ection 2#A )aragra)h 2O undul: restricts the clear intention o3 the law and inevita+l: reduces the other )rovision o3 'ection 6#>*A aside to the 3act that conve:ances are not mentioned nor included in the 3ormer )rovision@ In the construction o3 statutesA it must +e read in such a wa: as to give e33ect to the )ur)ose )ro/ected in the statute@ 'tatutes should +e construed in the light o3 the o+/ect to +e achieved and the evil or mischie3 to +e su))ressedA and the: should +e given such construction as will advance the o+/ectA su))ress the mischie3A and secure the +ene3its intended@ In the case at +arA the )hrase Cto dis)ose o3 the sameJ is +road enough to cover the act o3 3or3eiting conve:ances in 3avor o3 the government@ The onl: limitation is that it should +e made Cin accordance with )ertinent lawsA regulations or )olicies on the matter@J 2urtherA when the statute is clear and e%)licitA there is hardl: room 3or an: e%tended court ratiocination or rationali"ation o3 the law@ The language o3 the amendator: e%ecutive orderA when it eliminated the )hrase Cshall +e guilt: o3 9uali3ied the3t as de3ined and )unished under *rticles 3(& and 31( o3 the $evised Penal -ode C and inserted the words C shall +e )unished with the )enalties im)osed under *rticle 3(& and 31( o3 the $evised Penal -odeAJ meant that the act o3 cuttingA gatheringA collectingA removingA or )ossessing 3orest )roducts without authorit: constitutes a distinct o33ense inde)endent now 3rom the crime o3 the3t under *rticles 3(& and 31( o3 the $evised Penal -odeA +ut the )enalt: to +e im)osed is that )rovided 3or under *rticle 3(& and 31( o3 the $evised Penal -ode@

+.- Miriam Colle/e 1. CA &ac s3 'tudents o3 ,iriam -ollege )u+lished an article in the 'e)tem+er>8cto+er 1&&4 issue L7ol@ 41A No@ 14O o3 ,iriam -ollegePs school )a)er L Chi0*hoOA and maga"ine LAng Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi0*hoO that was descri+ed as C8+sceneAJ CvulgarAJ CindecentAJ CgrossAJ Cse%uall: e%)licitAJ Cin/urious to :oung readersAJ and Cdevoid o3 all moral values@J The: were sent

a letter sa:ing that the: violated regulations in the student hand+oo4A citing +oth ma/or and minor o33enses@ The: were re9uired to su+mit their res)ected answers 3or a hearing in their school@ The: didnPt su+mit an: answers@ The: instead re9uested Dr@ 'evilla to trans3er the case to the $egional 833ice o3 the De)artment o3 5ducationA -ulture and ')orts LD5-'OA which under $ule DII o3 D5-' 8rder No@ &4A 'eries o3 1&&2A su))osedl: had /urisdiction over the case@ The: were again told to /ust 3ile their answers@ In res)onseA *tt:@ $icardo 7almonteA law:er 3or the studentsA su+mitted a letter to the Disci)line -ommittee reiterating his clientsP )osition that said -ommittee had no /urisdiction over them@ *ccording to *tt:@ 7almonteA the -ommittee was Ctr:ing to im)ose disci)line on Ehis clientsF on account o3 their having written articles and )oems in their ca)acit: as cam)us /ournalists@J .enceA he argued that Cwhat a))lies is $e)u+lic *ct No@ ( & EThe -am)us Journalism *ctF and its im)lementing rules and regulations@J .e also 9uestioned the )artialit: o3 the mem+ers o3 said -ommittee who allegedl: Chad alread: articulated their )ositionJ against his clients@ The schoolPs commission then )roceeded with their hearing e% )arte and disci)lined them@ The students thus 3iled a )etition 3or )rohi+ition and certiorari with )reliminar: in/unctionBrestraining order +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Mue"on -it: 9uestioning the /urisdiction o3 the Disci)line !oard o3 ,iriam -ollege over them@ $T-I Denied the )etition 3or T$8@ 8n ,$A reversed and granted the )reliminar: in/unction@ 5levated to the '- +ut re3erred the case to the -*@ -*I The -* declared the $T- 8rder dated 22 2e+ruar: 1&&5A as well as the studentsP sus)ension and dismissalA void@ *s a conse9uenceA the: should +e readmitted@ !ut as :ou will read laterA this was not done@ It was argued that the case was now moot@ !: the time o3 the issuance o3 the T$8A res)ondents 5li"a+eth 7alde"co and Joel Tan had alread: served their res)ective sus)ensions@ The T$8 was a))lica+le onl: to res)ondents Jas)er !rionesA Jerome 1ome"A $ell: -ar)ioA Jose ,ari $amos and 1erald 1ar: $enacido all o3 whom were dismissedA and res)ondent -amille Portugal whose graduation )rivileges were withheld@ The T$8A howeverA lost its e33ectivit: u)on the la)se o3 the twent: da:s@ It can hardl: +e said that in that short s)an o3 timeA these students had alread: graduated as to render the case moot@ $es)ondents in their -omment herein den: that the case has +ecome moot since ,iriam re3used them readmission in violation o3 the T$8@ This 3act is unwittingl: conceded +: ,iriam itsel3 whenA to counter this allegation +: the studentsA it sa:s that )rivate res)ondents never sought readmission a3ter the restraining order was issued@ In truthA ,iriam relied on legal technicalities to su+vert the clear intent o3 said order@ There was con3usion as to whom the T$8 a))lied toA whether it was the school or the students@ It was 3or the school@ The school too4 advantage o3 the su))osed vagueness o3 the T$8 and used the same to /usti3: its re3usal to readmit the students@

Iss%e3 ?hether or not ,iriam -ollege has the authorit: to hear and decide cases 3iled against students@ 4el53 0es@ ,iriam -ollege has the authorit: to hear and decide the cases 3iled against res)ondent students@ -* reversed@ 8rdered to readmit the sus)ended res)ondent Joel Tan@ -ase is not moot@ *s ,iriam never readmitted the studentsA the -*Ps ruling that the case is moot has no +asis@ 2rom the 3oregoingA the answer to the 9uestion o3 who has /urisdiction over the cases 3iled against res)ondent students +ecomes sel3>evident@ The )ower o3 the school to investigate is an ad/unct o3 its )ower to sus)end or e%)el@ It is a necessar: corollar: to the en3orcement o3 rules and regulations and the maintenance o3 a sa3e and orderl: educational environment conducive to learning@ That )owerA li4e the )ower to sus)end or e%)elA is an inherent )art o3 the academic 3reedom o3 institutions o3 higher learning guaranteed +: the -onstitution@ ?e there3ore rule that ,iriam -ollege has the authorit: to hear and decide the cases 3iled against res)ondent students@

+.B Smar Comm%nica ions 1. NTC &ac s3 This is a consolidated case +: the Telecom 3ranchises against the NT-@ Pursuant to its rule>ma4ing and regulator: )owersA the National Telecommunications -ommission LNT-O

issued on June 16A 2((( ,emorandum -ircular No@ 13>6>2(((A )romulgating rules and regulations on the +illing o3 telecommunications services@ 'martA 1lo+eA Piltel and Islacom all o))osed di33erent directives o3 the ,emorandum -ircular 3or their own reasons@ The: all )etitioned the $T- 3or an in/unction )reventing the im)lementation o3 the memorandum circular@ $T-I 'mart granted a )reliminar: in/unction against NT-@ ,$ denied@ -*I 'et aside the decision o3 the $T-@ ,$ denied@ Decided that the NT- as an *dministrative agenc: has )rimar: /urisdiction@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 0es@ The doctrine o3 )rimar: /urisdiction a))lies onl: where the administrative agenc: e%ercises its 9uasi>/udicial or ad/udicator: 3unction@ ThusA in cases involving s)eciali"ed dis)utesA the )ractice has +een to re3er the same to an administrative agenc: o3 s)ecial com)etence )ursuant to the doctrine o3 )rimar: /urisdiction@ The courts will not determine a controvers: involving a 9uestion which is within the /urisdiction o3 the administrative tri+unal )rior to the resolution o3 that 9uestion +: the administrative tri+unalA where the 9uestion demands the e%ercise o3 sound administrative discretion re9uiring the s)ecial 4nowledgeA e%)erience and services o3 the administrative tri+unal to determine technical and intricate matters o3 3actA and a uni3ormit: o3 ruling is essential to com)l: with the )remises o3 the regulator: statute administered@ The o+/ective o3 the doctrine o3 )rimar: /urisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should re3rain 3rom e%ercising its /urisdiction until a3ter an administrative agenc: has determined some 9uestion or some as)ect o3 some 9uestion arising in the )roceeding +e3ore the court@ It a))lies where the claim is originall: cogni"a+le in the courts and comes into )la: whenever en3orcement o3 the claim re9uires the resolution o3 issues whichA under a regulator: schemeA has +een )laced within the s)ecial com)etence o3 an administrative +od:N in such caseA the /udicial )rocess is sus)ended )ending re3erral o3 such issues to the administrative +od: 3or its view@ .oweverA where what is assailed is the validit: or constitutionalit: o3 a rule or regulation issued +: the administrative agenc: in the )er3ormance o3 its 9uasi>legislative 3unctionA the regular courts have /urisdiction to )ass u)on the same@ The determination o3 whether a s)eci3ic rule or set o3 rules issued +: an administrative agenc: contravenes the law or the constitution is within the /urisdiction o3 the regular courts@ IndeedA the -onstitution vests the )ower o3 /udicial review or the )ower to declare a lawA treat:A international or e%ecutive agreementA )residential decreeA orderA instructionA ordinanceA or regulation in the courtsA including the regional trial courts@ This is within the sco)e o3 /udicial )owerA which includes the authorit: o3 the courts to determine in an a))ro)riate action the validit: o3 the acts o3 the )olitical de)artments@ Judicial )ower includes the dut: o3 the courts o3 /ustice to settle actual controversies involving rightsA which are legall: demanda+le and en3orcea+leA and to determine whether or not there has +een a grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction on the )art o3 an: +ranch or instrumentalit: o3 the 1overnment@ In the case at +arA the issuance +: the NT- o3 ,emorandum -ircular No@ 13>6>2((( and its ,emorandum dated 8cto+er 6A 2((( was )ursuant to its 9uasi>legislative or rule>ma4ing )ower@

*s suchA )etitioners were /usti3ied in invo4ing the /udicial )ower o3 the $egional Trial -ourt to assail the constitutionalit: and validit: o3 the said issuances@

+CK Associa e5 Comm%nica ions 1. D%mlao &ac s3 *ssociated -ommunications and ?ireless 'ervicesA Ltd@ LH*-?'H 3or +revit:O is a registered )artnershi) organi"ed and e%isting under the laws o3 the Phili))inesA doing +usiness

under the trade name 6nited !roadcasting Networ4A Inc@ Initiall:A *-?' o)erated several radio and television stations nationwide +: virtue o3 a legislative 3ranchise ac9uired in 1&6& under $@*@ No@ 4551 through -oncurrent $esolution No@ 5# o3 the 'i%th -ongress o3 the Phili))ines@ PD 5 6>*6 terminated all 3ranchisesA grantsA licensesA )ermitsA certi3icates or other 3orms o3 authorit: to o)erate radio or television +roadcasting s:stems@ PD 5 6>* con3erred on the !oard o3 -ommunications and the 'ecretar: o3 Pu+lic ?or4s and -ommunications the )ower to grant )ermits to o)erate radio or T7 +roadcast stations@ ?ith the termination o3 its legislative 3ranchiseA *-?' continued to o)erate its radio and television stations through )ermits issued +: the !oard o3 -ommunications and the 'ecretar: o3 Pu+lic ?or4s and -ommunications )ursuant to PD 5 6>*@ 5%ecutive 8rder No@ 546 created the ,inistr: o3 Pu+lic ?or4s and the ,inistr: o3 Trans)ortation and -ommunications@ 58 546 merged the !oard o3 -ommunications and the Telecommunications -ontrol !ureau into a single entit: called the National Telecommunications -ommission under the ,inistr: o3 Trans)ortation and -ommunications@ !e3ore the e%)iration o3 Tem)orar: PermitA *-?' a))lied 3or its renewal@ In a letterA NT'enior 5%ecutive *ssistant III Delilah 2@ Deles in3ormed *-?' o3 the a))roval o3 its tem)orar: )ermit 3or -hannel 25A to +e released u)on )a:ment o3 the necessar: 3ees in the total amount o3 P3A6((@((@11 *-?' )aid the amount as evidenced +: an 833icial $ecei)t@ The NT-A howeverA re3used to release to *-?' the a))roved and )aid 3or tem)orar: )ermit@ InsteadA the NT- issued an 8rder directing *-?' to show cause wh: its tem)orar: )ermit to o)erate should not +e recalled 3or 3ailure to secure a legislative 3ranchise@ The NT- also ordered *-?' to cease and desist 3rom o)erating -hannel 25@ The -ommissionA thru the -hie3A !roadcast DivisionA received 3rom the -ommittee on Legislative 2ranchisesA a certi3icationA a co): o3 which is hereto attached as *nne% H!H that res)ondents were ordered to su+mit re9uirements to su))ort their 3ranchise a))lication +ut res)ondents 3ailed to doA thus the a))lication was never deli+erated u)on in the &th -ongress@ In the 1(th -ongressA no re3iled a))lication +: the res)ondents was )ending in the -ommittee on Legislative 2ranchise@ *-?' 3iled a )etition with the -* during the )endenc: o3 the hearing with the NT-@ -*I 2irst restricted the NT- 3rom )roceeding 3urther@ Then denied the )etition 3or mandamus and )rohi+ition 3iled +: *ssociated -ommunications and ?ireless 'ervicesA Ltd@ against 2idelo M@ Dumlao as *cting -ommissionerA and -onsuelo '@ Pere" and Teodoro 0@ 0a+es as De)ut: -ommissioners o3 the National Telecommunications -ommission@ ,$ denied@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the '- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 No@ The doctrine o3 )rimar: /urisdiction a))lies and there must +e e%haustion o3 administrative remedies and there was litis )endencia@ The underl:ing )rinci)le o3 the rule on e%haustion o3 administrative remedies rests on the )resum)tion that the administrative agenc:A i3 a33orded a com)lete chance to )ass u)on the matterA will decide the same correctl:@ There are +oth legal and )ractical reasons 3or the )rinci)le@ The administrative )rocess is intended to )rovide less e%)ensive and s)eedier solution to dis)utes@ ?here the ena+ling statute indicates

a )rocedure 3or administrative review and )rovides a s:stem o3 administrative a))eal or reconsiderationA the courts > 3or reasons o3 lawA comit: and convenience > will not entertain a case unless the availa+le administrative remedies have +een resorted to and the a))ro)riate authorities have +een given an o))ortunit: to act and correct errors committed in the administrative 3orum@ The underl:ing )rinci)le o3 the rule on e%haustion o3 administrative remedies rests on the )resum)tion that the administrative agenc:A i3 a33orded a com)lete chance to )ass u)on the matterA will decide the same correctl:@ There are +oth legal and )ractical reasons 3or the )rinci)le@ The administrative )rocess is intended to )rovide less e%)ensive and s)eedier solution to dis)utes@ ?here the ena+ling statute indicates a )rocedure 3or administrative review and )rovides a s:stem o3 administrative a))eal or reconsiderationA the courts > 3or reasons o3 lawA comit: and convenience > will not entertain a case unless the availa+le administrative remedies have +een resorted to and the a))ro)riate authorities have +een given an o))ortunit: to act and correct errors committed in the administrative 3orum@

+C, S%n1ille 1. Aba5 &ac s3 The )etitioner was granted a Tim+er License *greement LTL*OA authori"ing it to cutA remove and utili"e tim+er within the concession area covering 2&A5(( hectares o3 3orest land in

=am+oanga del 'urA 3or a )eriod o3 ten :ears e%)iring on 'e)tem+er 31A 1&&2@8n Jul: 31A 1&# A the herein )rivate res)ondents 3iled a )etition with the De)artment o3 5nvironment and Natural $esources 3or the cancellation o3 the TL* on the ground o3 serious violations o3 its conditions and the )rovisions o3 3orestr: laws and regulations@ The same charges were su+se9uentl: madeA also +: the herein )rivate res)ondentsA in a com)laint 3or in/unction with damages against the )etitionerA which was doc4eted as -ivil -ase No@ 2 32 in the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Pagadian -it:@ The )etitioner moved to dismiss this case on three groundsA to witI 1O the court had no /urisdiction over the com)laintN 2O the )lainti33s had not :et e%hausted administrative remediesN and 3O the in/unction sought was e%)ressl: )rohi+ited +: section 1 o3 PD 6(5@ $T-I 5%ercised /urisdiction and tried the case@ Petitioners went to the -* to have the case in the $T- dismissed@ -*I Did not have the $T- case dismissed@ It said that there was an urgent need 3or /udicial interventionA an e%ce)tion to the doctrine o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies@ .enceA the $T- has /urisdiction@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 No@ There in no 9uestion that -ivil -ase No@ 2 32 comes within the /urisdiction o3 the res)ondent court@ NeverthelessA as the wrong alleged in the com)laint was su))osedl: committed as a result o3 the unlaw3ul logging activities o3 the )etitionerA it will +e necessar: 3irst to determine whether or not the TL* and the 3orestr: laws and regulations had indeed +een violated@ To re)eat 3or em)hasisA determination o3 this 9uestion is the )rimar: res)onsi+ilit: o3 the 2orest ,anagement !ureau o3 the D5N$@ The a))lication o3 the e%)ertise o3 the administrative agenc: in the resolution o3 the issue raised is a condition )recedent 3or the eventual e%aminationA i3 still necessar:A o3 the same 9uestion +: a court o3 /ustice@ In view o3 the a+ove o+servationsA we 3ind that there was no need 3or the $T- to declare the unconstitutionalit: o3 'ection 1 o3 PD 6(5@ The rule is that a 9uestion o3 constitutionalit: must +e avoided where the case can +e decided on some other availa+le groundA as we have done in the case +e3ore us@ The resolution o3 this same 9uestion must await another caseA where all the indis)ensa+le re9uisites o3 a /udicial in9uir: into a constitutional 9uestion are satis3actoril: esta+lished@ In such an eventA it will +e time 3or the -ourt Hto ma4e the hammer 3allA and heavil:AH in the words o3 Justice LaurelA i3 such action is warranted@

+C; !an/%s &ry 1. Lan$anas &ac s3 $egional 5%ecutive Director *ntonio 1@ Princi)e LH$5D Princi)eHO o3 De)artment o3 5nvironment and Natural $esources LHD5N$HOA issued an 5nvironmental -learance -erti3icate

LH5--HO in 3avor o3 res)ondent National Power -or)oration LHN*P8-8$HO@ The 5-- authori"ed N*P8-8$ to construct a tem)orar: mooring 3acilit: in ,inolo -oveA Puerto 1aleraA 8riental ,indoro@ The 'angguniang !a:an o3 Puerto 1alera has declared ,inolo -oveA a mangrove area and +reeding ground 3or +angus 3r:A an eco>tourist "one@ The 14@4 megawatts )ower +arge would )rovide the main source o3 )ower 3or the entire )rovince o3 8riental ,indoro )ending the construction o3 a land>+ased )ower )lant in -ala)anA 8riental ,indoro@ The 5-- 3or the mooring 3acilit: was valid 3or two :ears counted 3rom its date o3 issuance or until 3( June 1&&&@ PetitionersA claiming to +e 3isher3ol4s 3rom ,inoloA 'an IsidroA Puerto 1aleraA sought reconsideration o3 the 5-- issuance@ $5D Princi)eA howeverA denied )etitionersG )lea on 15 Jul: 1&& @ 8n 21 Jul: 1&& A )etitioners 3iled a com)laint with the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anilaA !ranch A 3or the cancellation o3 the 5-- and 3or the issuance o3 a writ o3 in/unction to sto) the construction o3 the mooring 3acilit:@ $T-I Dismissed case 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ There was no e%haustion o3 administrative remedies@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 No@ $T- was correct@ There should have +een a))eal to the 'ecretar: o3 the D5N$@ Instead o3 3ollowing the )ro)er )rocedureA )etitioners +:)assed the D5N$ 'ecretar: and immediatel: 3iled their com)laint with the ,anila $T-A de)riving the D5N$ 'ecretar: the o))ortunit: to review the decision o3 his su+ordinateA $5D Princi)e@ 6nder the Procedural ,anual 3or D*8 &6>3 and a))lica+le /uris)rudenceA )etitionersG omission renders their com)laint dismissi+le 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action@ -onse9uentl:A the ,anila $T- did not err in dismissing )etitionersG com)laint 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action@

+CD P%ya 1. Oabar e &ac s3 $on =a+arte commenced an action to en3orce the mone: /udgment rendered +: the 'u)erior -ourt 3or the 'tate o3 -ali3ornia in the $T-@ Pu:at did a+out ever:thing he could to

avoid )a:ment@ NowA Pu:at alleges that /urisdiction over -ase No@ -21>((265A which involved )artnershi) interestA was vested in the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommissionA not in the 'u)erior -ourt o3 -ali3orniaA -ount: o3 -ontra -osta@ $T-I .eld that )etitioner was esto))ed 3rom assailing the /udgment that had +ecome 3inal and hadA in 3actA +een )artiall: e%ecuted@ -*I *33irmed the $T-@ The -* also ruled that summar: /udgment was )ro)erA +ecause )etitioner had 3ailed to tender an: genuine issue o3 3act and was merel: maneuvering to dela: the 3ull e33ects o3 the /udgment@ The -* also re/ected )etitionerPs argument that the $T- should have dismissed the action 3or the en3orcement o3 a 3oreign /udgmentA on the ground o3 3orum non conveniens@ It reasoned out that the recognition o3 the 3oreign /udgment was +ased on comit:A reci)rocit: and res /udicata@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 0es@ In the a+sence o3 )roo3 o3 -ali3ornia law on the /urisdiction o3 courtsA we )resume that such lawA i3 an:A is similar to Phili))ine law@ ?e +ase this conclusion on the )resum)tion o3 identit: or similarit:A also 4nown as )rocessual )resum)tion@ The -om)laintA which res)ondent 3iled with the trial courtA was 3or the en3orcement o3 a 3oreign /udgment@ .e alleged therein that the action o3 the 3oreign court was 3or the collection o3 a sum o3 mone:A +reach o3 )romissor: notesA and damages@ In our /urisdictionA such a case 3alls under the /urisdiction o3 civil courtsA not o3 the 'ecurities and 5%change -ommission L'5-O@ The /urisdiction o3 the latter is e%clusivel: over matters enumerated in 'ection 5A PD &(2>*A )rior to its latest amendment@ I3 the 3oreign court did not reall: have /urisdiction over the caseA as )etitioner claimsA it would have +een ver: eas: 3or him to show this@ 'ince /urisdiction is determined +: the allegations in a com)laintA he onl: had to su+mit a co): o3 the com)laint 3iled with the 3oreign court@ -learl:A this issue did not warrant trial@

+CE !ar5illion 1. !aran/ay Masili o2 Calamba &ac s3 *t the root o3 this )resent )etition is the controvers: surrounding the two L2O com)laints 3or eminent domain which were 3iled +: herein res)ondent 3or the )ur)ose o3 e%)ro)riating a

8N5 .6ND$5D 28$T0 286$ L144O s9uare meter>)arcel o3 landA otherwise 4nown as Lot 43#1>D situated in !aranga: ,asiliA -alam+aA Laguna and owned +: herein )etitioner under Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title No@ 3#36(5 o3 the $egistr: o3 Deeds o3 -alam+aA Laguna@ Petitioner ac9uired 3rom ,a4iling -onsolidated -redit -or)oration the said lot )ursuant to a Deed o3 *+solute 'ale which was e%ecuted +: and +etween the 3ormer and the latter on 8cto+er A 1&&6@ The owner and the government 3ailed to reach an a))ro)riate )urchase )rice L2((4 o33eredO and a case was 3iled with the ,T-@ Petitioner claims thatA since the value o3 the land is onl: P11A44#A the ,T- had /urisdiction over the case@ ,T-I Dismissed the case due to Clac4 o3 interestJ +ecause the res)ondent and counsel did not a))ear@ $T-I .eld that the ,T- had no /urisdiction and it denied the ,TDA which was +ased on grounds o3 res /udicata +ecause o3 the case in the ,T-@ -*I *33irmed the $T-A it said that there was no res /udicata and that the ,T- had no /urisdiction@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the $T- has /urisdiction@ 4el53 0es@ *n e%)ro)riation suit does not involve the recover: o3 a sum o3 mone:@ $atherA it deals with the e%ercise +: the government o3 its authorit: and right to ta4e )ro)ert: 3or )u+lic use@ *s suchA it is inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation and should +e 3iled with the regional trial courts@ TrueA the value o3 the )ro)ert: to +e e%)ro)riated is estimated in monetar: termsA 3or the court is dut:>+ound to determine the /ust com)ensation 3or it@ ThisA howeverA is merel: incidental to the e%)ro)riation suit@ IndeedA that amount is determined onl: a3ter the court is satis3ied with the )ro)riet: o3 the e%)ro)riation@ There is correctl: no res /udicata +ecause the ,T- had no /urisdiction to tr: the case in the 3irst )lace@

+CA )r i/as an5 Co. 1. 4errera &ac s3 This is onl: a one )age resolution@ 8n *ugust 14A 1&6&A )etitioner and res)ondent entered into an agreement there+: 3or and in consideration o3 P55A43(@((A the 3ormer agreed to

sell to the latter a )arcel o3 land with a s)ecial condition that should )rivate res)ondent as )urchaser com)lete the construction including the )ainting o3 his residential house on said lot within two L2O :ears 3rom *ugust 14A 1&6&A )etitionerA as ownerA has agreed to re3und to )rivate res)ondent the amount o3 P1(@(( )er s9uare meter@ ?hen the a3oresaid s)ecial condition was 3ul3illedA )rivate res)ondentA on ,a: 1 A 1& 1 accordingl: noti3ied in writing the )etitioner o3 the same and re9uested 3or his re3und amounting to P4A#2(@((@ 6)on 3ailure o3 )etitioner to )a: his o+ligationA )rivate res)ondent on ,a: 6A 1& 2 3iled a com)laint 3or sum o3 mone: and damages with the -it: -ourt@ * motion to dismiss was 3iled +: )etitioner on grounds o3 lac4 o3 /urisdictionA 3ailure o3 the com)laint to state a cause o3 action and im)ro)er avenue@ -it: -ourtI .eld in a+e:ance the resolution on the motion until a3ter the trial o3 the case on the merits@ ,$ denied@ Then 3iled a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition with the -2I@ -2II The )etition was dismissed on the ground that the claim o3 )rivate res)ondent in his com)laintA +eing less than P1(A(((@((A is within the e%clusive /urisdiction o3 the cit: court@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the -it: -ourt has /urisdiction@ 4el53 No@ The -ourt $5'8L75D to reverse the order a))ealed 3rom and the com)laint 3iled with the -it: -ourt o3 ,anilaA was ordered dismissed 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ The action involved in this case is one 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and not 3or a sum o3 mone: and where3ore inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation +ecause what )rivate res)ondent see4s is the )er3ormance o3 )etitionerGs o+ligation under a written contract to ma4e a re3und +ut under certain s)eci3ic conditions still to +e )roven or esta+lished@ In a case 3or the recover: o3 a sum o3 mone:A as the collection o3 a de+tA the claim is considered ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation +ecause the o+ligation to )a: the de+t is not conditioned u)on an: s)eci3ic 3act or matter@ !ut when a )art: to a contract has agreed to re3und to the other )art: a sum o3 mone: u)on com)liance +: the latter o3 certain conditions and onl: u)on com)liance therewith ma: what is legall: due him under the written contract +e demandedA the action is one not ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ The )a:ment o3 a sum o3 mone: is onl: incidental which can onl: +e ordered a3ter a determination o3 certain acts the )er3ormance o3 which +eing the more +asic issue to +e in9uired into@ *lthough )rivate res)ondentGs com)laint in the court a 9uo is designated as one 3or a sum o3 mone: and damagesA an anal:sis o3 all the 3actual allegations o3 the com)laint )atentl: shows that what )rivate res)ondent see4s is the )er3ormance o3 )etitionerGs o+ligation under the written contract to ma4e the re3und o3 the rate o3 P1(@(( )er s9uare meter or in the total amount o3 P4A#2(@((A +ut onl: a3ter )roo3 o3 having himsel3 3ul3illed the conditions that will give rise to )etitionerGs o+ligationA a matter clearl: inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ +C. PATRICI) A. NILLENA6 1s. PATRICI) S. PA<)<) &ACTS3 8n 8cto+er 2#A 1&& A res)ondent Patricio Pa:o:o and NovalineA Inc@A through its )residentA )etitioner Patricio 7illenaA entered into a contract 3or the deliver: and installation o3

4itchen ca+inets@ The ca+inets were to +e delivered within ninet: da:s 3rom down)a:ment o3 5(K o3 the )urchase )rice@ 8n 8cto+er 2&A 1&& A Pa:o:o )aid 7illena P155A1#3 as down)a:ment@ Then on Decem+er &A 1&& A Pa:o:o entered into another contract with 7illena 3or the deliver: o3 home a))liances@ 8n the same da:A Pa:o:o )aid 5(K o3 the )urchase )rice e9ual to P2&A63#@5( as down)a:ment@ .oweverA 7illena 3ailed to install the 4itchen ca+inets and deliver the a))liances@ Pa:o:o made several demands u)on 7illena +ut the latter 3ailed to com)l:@ .enceA Pa:o:o demanded the cancellation o3 the contracts and the re3und in 3ull o3 the down)a:ments amounting to P1#4A#21@5(@ 7illena )romised to install the 4itchen ca+inets and to deliver the a))liances which he 3ailed to do so a3ter several demands 8n 8cto+er 26A 1&&#A Pa:o:o 3iled a com)laint 3or recover: o3 a sum o3 mone: and damages against 7illena which the latter moved to dismiss 3or 3ailure to state a cause o3 action@ 7illena argued that there was no ground to cancel the contractN thusA there was no +asis 3or re3und@ TC3 decided in 3avor o3 Pa:o:oA reasoning that the )ower to rescind is im)lied in reci)rocal o+ligations@ -onsidering that 7illena re)eatedl: 3ailed to com)l: with his o+ligationA Pa:o:o had the right to rescind the contract and demand a re3und@ CA3 a33irmed the $T- decision with the some modi3ications@ The a))ellate court reasoned that while there was dela: in the deliver: and installation o3 the 4itchen ca+inetsA there was none in the deliver: o3 the a))liances@ The contract 3or said a))liances did not s)eci3: the date o3 deliver: +ut that deliver: should +e made u)on )a:ment o3 the 5(K +alance o3 the )urchase )rice@ -onsidering that Pa:o:o 3ailed to )a: the +alanceA 7illena did not incur dela:@ Con en ion o2 Pe i ioner3 $T- should have dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction since it is mainl: 3or recover: o3 a sum o3 mone: in the amount o3 P1#4A#21@5( which is +elow the /urisdictional amount set 3or $T-@ That the issue o3 /urisdiction ma: +e raised at an: timeA even on a))ealA since /urisdiction is con3erred onl: +: law and cannot +e ac9uired through or waived +: an: act or omission o3 the )arties@ Con en ion o2 Respon5en 3 that the $T- has /urisdiction over the com)laint as the allegations therein show that it is actuall: a case 3or rescission o3 the contracts@ The recover: o3 a sum o3 mone: is merel: a necessar: conse9uence o3 the cancellation o3 the contracts ISS(E3 ?hether or not the trial court had /urisdiction over the com)laint@ 4ELD3 0es@ The com)laintA al+eit entitled as one 3or collection o3 a sum o3 mone: with damagesA is one inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ ThusA one within the $T-Ps /urisdiction@ The allegations therein show that it is actuall: 3or +reach o3 contract@ * case 3or +reach o3 contract is a cause o3 action either 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance or rescission o3 contracts@ *n action 3or rescission o3 contractA as a counter)art o3 an action 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormanceA is inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA and there3ore 3alls under the /urisdiction o3 the $T-@ In the )resent caseA the averments in the com)laint show that Pa:o:o sought the cancellation o3 the contracts and re3und o3 the down)a:ments since 7illena 3ailed to com)l: with

the o+ligation to deliver the a))liances and install the 4itchen ca+inets su+/ect o3 the contracts@ The court then must e%amine the 3acts and the a))lica+le law to determine whether there is in 3act su+stantial +reach that would warrant rescission or cancellation o3 the contracts and entitle the res)ondent 3or a re3und@ ?hile the res)ondent )ra:ed 3or the re3undA this is /ust incidental to the main actionA which is the rescission or cancellation o3 the contracts@ ?.5$528$5A the )etition is D5NI5D 3or lac4 o3 merit@

+CC GQS Transpor 1s. CA6 e c. &ac s3 PetitionerA o)erating under the name *vis $ent>*>-arA was granted a license to e%clusivel: o)erate cou)on ta%i services at the N*I* +: the ,anila International *ir)ort *uthorit: L,I**O@ 'uch license was to last 3or 5 :earsA which e%)ired on Januar: 31 1&&4 +ut

was 4e)t on +eing renewed +: ,I** on a monthl: +asis )ending the selection o3 a new concessionaire@ In *)ril 1&&4A ,I** held a )u+lic +idding 3or the granting o3 the cou)on ta%i concession at N*I* to 2 grou)sA wherein 5 grou)s su+mitted )ro)osals and their corres)onding rates )er 4ilometer@ PIT'- was the lowest +idder +ut wasnPt selected 3or it was dis9uali3ied due to its 3ailure to su+mit a cash +ond@ ThusA 2((( Trans)ort and Nissan were selected as the winners +: ,I** in Decem+er 1&&4 and issued the re9uisite notices o3 award@ 1;' then 3iled with the ,anila $T- a com)laint 3or mandamusA )reliminar: in/unction and T$8 L-ivil -ase No@ &5> 25#6OA alleging that 2((( Trans)ort was merel: a dumm: cor)oration and a 3ront 3or 2 <orean nationalsA and that the signature o3 one o3 the incor)orators in the *rticles o3 Incor)oration was 3alsi3ied@ It also alleged that it was 3ar +etter suited than the selected )arties to )rovide 3or the ta%i services at N*I*A and that the +idding was void 3or 3ailure to dis9uali3: 2((( Trans)ort@ The case was ra33led to !ranch 26 o3 the ,anila $T-@ The trial court granted the in/unctionA which 2((( Trans)ort and Nissan assailed with the -* +: means o3 certiorari on $ule 65A with 2((( Trans)ort den:ing claims that it 3alsi3ied its *rticles o3 Incor)oration and Nissan alleging that no cause o3 action was made against it as the cause o3 action 3ocused onl: on 2((( Trans)ortPs dis9uali3ication@ In 2e+ruar: 1&&5 the -* issued a T$8 on the )reliminar: in/unction issued +: the trial courtA and during such T$8 ,I** granted the concessions to 2((( Trans)ort and Nissan@ 6)on the e%)iration o3 such T$8 the -* then started hearings on the in/unction )etitions o3 Nissan and 2((( Trans)ort@ In ,arch 1&&5A u)on se)arate motions 3iled +: Nissan and 2((( Trans)ortA the trial court +ranch which initiall: heard the case 3iled +: 1;' L!ranch 26O inhi+ited itsel3 3rom the caseA which was re>ra33led to !ranch A which then heard the motions to dismiss 3iled +: Nissan and 2((( Trans)ort@ In *)ril 1&&5 the trial court dismissed the com)laint 3iled +: 1;'A stating that it 3ailed to state a cause o3 action against Nissan and 2((( Trans)ort and that mandamus was unavaila+le as a remed: 3or 1;'A as ,I** has the discretion to award the contract to the com)anies o3 its choice@ 1;' a))ealed the decision which was denied +: the trial court in June 1&&5@ In ,a: 1&&5 the -* granted the )etitions 3or certiorari o3 2((( Trans)ort and NissanA set aside the )reliminar: in/unction and )rohi+ited the trial court 3rom Hhearing and ta4ing 3urther cogni"ance o3 -ivil -ase No@ &5> 25#6 e%ce)t to dismiss the same@H It 3ound that the trial court gravel: a+used its discretion in issuing the in/unction since under PD 1#1# no court would have /urisdiction to restrain the o)eration o3 a )u+lic utilit: and since the selection o3 winning +idders was solel: the discretion o3 the s)onsoring government agenc:@ ThusA 1;' then 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the '-A stating that the trial court a+used its discretion in dismissing the case it 3iled against 2((( Trans)ort and Nissan on the grounds o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action and unavaila+ilit: o3 mandamus as a remed:@ Iss%e3 1@O ?BN the trial court has /urisdiction to hear the case in s)ite o3 PD 1#1#N 2@O ?BN the trial court was correct in dismissing the com)laint 3iled +: 1;'N

4el53 1@O NoA 3or 'ection 1 o3 PD 1#1# )rovides that HEnFo court in the Phili))ines shall have /urisdiction to issue an: restraining orderA )reliminar: in/unction % % % in an: caseA dis)uteA or controvers: involving % % % an: )u+lic utilit: o)erated +: the governmentA including among others )u+lic utilities 3or the trans)ort o3 the goods or commodities % % % to )rohi+it an: )erson or )ersons % % % 3rom )roceeding withA or continuing the e%ecution or im)lementation o3 an: such )ro/ectA or the o)eration o3 such )u+lic utilit:A or )ursuing an: law3ul activit: necessar: 3or such e%ecutionA im)lementation or o)eration@H *s the case involves a )u+lic utilit: under this de3initionA then the trial court does lac4 /urisdiction over the said case@ 2@O 0esA not onl: +ecause o3 PD 1#1# +ut also +ecause o3 certain de3ects in the com)laint 3iled +: 1;'@ no cause o3 action was stated against NissanA and the com)laint contains allegations against 2((( Trans)ort onl:@ 2urthermoreA mandamus does not lie in this case as ,I** cannot +e com)elled to declare 1;' as the winning +idder 3or the concessionsA as therePs lac4 o3 )roo3 to show that ,I** decided incorrectl: or deli+eratel: so as to amount a de)rivation o3 due )rocess 3or 1;'@ *lsoA even with PD1#1#A the courts can still gain /urisdiction over the case i3 therePs grave a+use o3 discretion on the )art o3 the ,I** in deciding the winners o3 the +id and concessions@ 1rave a+use o3 discretion im)lies a ca)riciousA ar+itrar: and whimsical e%ercise o3 )ower@ The a+use o3 discretion must +e )atent and gross as to amount to an evasion o3 )ositive dut: or to a virtual re3usal to )er3orm a dut: en/oined +: lawA as not to act at all in contem)lation o3 lawA or where the )ower is e%ercised in an ar+itrar: and des)otic manner +: reason o3 )assion or hostilit:@ The evidence )resented indicates no 3inding o3 grave a+use o3 discretion on the )art o3 ,I**@ The allegations against 2((( Trans)ort are not su))orted +: evidenceA and the com)laint itsel3 is +ere3t o3 an: evidence to su))ort the claims o3 irregularities in the +idding )rocess@ *s suchA the trial court did not gain /urisdiction over the case +: virtue o3 PD1#1# and 3or the a+sence o3 grave a+use o3 discretion on the )art o3 ,I**@

+C- &ac oran 1s. CA6 Sy an5 (y &ac s3 In *ugust & 1&##A a 6>wheeler truc4 cruising along ,arcos .ighwa: was interce)ted +: 2 ,ari4ina -it: )olice o33icersA which was carr:ing 4A((( +oard 3eet o3 narra@ The truc4 and its occu)ants were detained +: the )olice o33icers and +rought to a near+: )olice stationA wherein

3urther investigation revealed discre)ancies in the )a)erwor4 3or the said truc4 and +oardA such as di33erences in cargo descri)tionA truc4 designated to carr: such cargoA lac4 o3 certi3icate o3 lum+er originA and discre)anc: as to the actual +u:er o3 such +oard@ 'uch acts were violations o3 !ureau o3 2orestr: Develo)ment -ircular No@ 1( and )unisha+le under 'ec@ 6# o3 PD (5 L$evised 2orestr: -odeO@ .enceA in 1&#&A )etitioner 'ecretar: o3 5nvironment and Natural $esources ordered the collection o3 such lum+er and the truc4@ Private res)ondents didnPt challenge nor a))eal the said decision to the 833ice o3 the PresidentA thus the said )ro)erties were 3or3eited in 3avor o3 the government and advertised to +e sold at auction on ,arch 2( 1&#&@ Later onA )rivate res)ondents 3iled a com)laint )ra:ing 3or re)levin and )reliminar: in/unctionBT$8 and en/oinment o3 the auction sale with the $T- o3 M-A with the trial court issuing such en/oinment@ 8n the date scheduled 3or the auctionA )rivate res)ondents then 3iled an e%>)arte motion 3or release o3 goods and documents Lre)levinO with su))orting a33ivavit and re)levin +ond o3 P1#(A((( as suchA the trial court granted the re)levin and ordered the )etitioners to deliver the lum+erA truc4 and documents to )rivate res)ondentsP custod:@ 8n ,arch 22A the trial court issued a writ o3 sei"ureA which )etitioners didnPt com)l: withA as the sheri33 was )revented 3rom removing the )ro)erties 3rom the D5N$ -om)ound and was there3ore 3orced to ta4e onl: constructive )ossession o3 such )ro)erties@ In same da:A )etitioners moved to 3ile a mani3estation to 3ile a counter+ond to )ost a cash +ond o3 P1#(A((( and sta: the e%ecution o3 the writ o3 sei"ureA which 3ailed 3or the: 3ailed to serve )rivate res)ondents co)ies o3 such mani3estationA the said mani3estation alread: set 3or hearing on ,arch 3(@ * ,arch 2 attem)t to 3ile such counter+ond was also re/ected@ ThusA in ,arch 2 A )rivate res)ondents moved to hold in contem)t )etitioner 3or diso+e:ing the writ o3 sei"ureA to which )etitioner was given 24 hours to answer such motion@ .enceA on ,arch 2&A )etitioners 3iled with the -* a )etition 3or certiorariA )rohi+ition and mandamus to annul the trial courtPs ordersA to which the -* granted a T$8 which was later turned into a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction@ !ut the -* later on li3ted such writ and dismissed the )etitionA declaring that the writ o3 re)levin was in com)liance with the re9uirements o3 an a33idavit and 3iling o3 +ondA thus ma4ing the issuance o3 re)levin mandator:@ @ Iss%e3 ?BN the trial court has /urisdiction over the caseN 4el53 0es@ Private res)ondents never a))ealed the con3iscation order o3 )etitioner 'ecretar: to the 833ice o3 the President as )rovided 3or in 'ec@ # o3 P@D@ No@ (5 which )rovides that C*ll actions and decisions o3 the Director are su+/ect to reviewA motu propio or u)on a))eal o3 an: )erson aggrieved there+:A +: the De)artment .ead whose decision shall +e 3inal and e%ecutor: a3ter the la)se o3 thirt: L3(O da:s 3rom recei)t +: the aggrieved )art: o3 said decision unless a))ealed to the PresidentW The decision o3 the De)artment .ead ma: not +e reviewed +: the courts e%ce)t through a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition@J The e%haustion o3 administrative remedies is +asic@ -ourts should not entertain suits unless the availa+le administrative remedies have 3irst +een resorted to and the )ro)er authorities have +een given an a))ro)riate o))ortunit: to act and correct their alleged errorsA i3 an:A committed in the administrative 3orum@

.oweverA as )etitioner 3ailed to raise such a de3ense in its motion to dismissA then such a ground is deemed waived@ !ut the re)levin should not have +een issued@ 'ection 6#>* o3 PD (5 em)owers the de)artment head to ma4e con3iscations o3 illegall: cut 3orest )roducts and their e33ectsA and the issuance o3 such con3iscation order was a valid e%ercise o3 )ower under the said )rovision@ 'ec@ #( o3 P@D@ No@ (5 which re9uires deliver: o3 the sei"ed 3orest )roducts within si% L6O hours 3rom the time o3 the sei"ure to the a))ro)riate o33icial designated +: law to conduct )reliminar: investigationsA a))lies onl: to criminal )rosecutions )rovided 3or in 'ec@ 6#A and not to administrative con3iscation )rovided 3or in 'ection 6#>*@ *lsoA there was no evidence to )rove that due )rocess was not given to )rivate res)ondents@ *nd a trial>t:)e hearing is not necessar: 3or administrative cases as logn a res)ondents were given a chance to +e herad and )resent evidence on their +ehal3@ The writ o3 sei"ure and the writ o3 re)levin were issued +: the trial court in grave a+use o3 its discretion@ ThusA diso+edience thereto cannot constitute indirect contem)t o3 court which )resu))oses that the court order there+: violated was valid and legal@ ?ithout a law3ul order having +een issuedA no contem)t o3 court could +e committed@

+CB 'ose an5 Teresi a Men5o$a6 Espino6 !anal an5 Mayor Ma hay 1s. !r/y. Cap ain La$ina &ac s3 In 1&& A res)ondent too4 his oath and assumed o33ice as +aranga: ca)tain o3 !aranga: !atasan .ills M-A having won the 1&& !aranga: 5lections@ .oweverA his rival 2ermio 3iled an

election )rotest with the ,T- o3 M-A wherein in 1&&& he was instead declared as the winner o3 the election@ $es)ondent 3iled a notice o3 a))eal with the -8,5L5- while 2ermo 3iled 3or motion 3or e%ecution )ending a))eal@ ThusA in Januar: 2( 1&&&A the trial court granted the motion 3or e%ecution and res)ondent vacated his )ositionA relin9uishing it to 2ermo@ Later onA the -8,5L5- issued an order annulling the granting o3 the motion 3or e%ecutionA stating that there e%isted no good reason to do so@ ThusA on 8cto+er 2 1&&&A -8,5L5- issued a writ o3 e%ecution ordering 2ermo to vacate the o33iceA which 2ermo re3used to ac4nowledge and vacate@ .oweverA he allowed res)ondent and his sta33 to )er3orm their 3unctions and holding o33ice@ Later onA res)ondent he a))ointed certain )eo)le as !aranga: 'ecretar: and Treasurer@ In Novem+er 12 1&&&A -8,5L5- cited 2ermo in contem)t which was unac4nowledged +: 2ermo@ 2inall:A in Novem+er 16 1&&&A res)ondent too4 his oath o3 o33ice and assumed the o33ice o3 +aranga: chairmanA with 2ermo turning over the o33ice and all assets the ne%t da:@ In Novem+er 2( 1&&&A the !aranga: -ouncil o3 !atasan .ills issued a resolution rati3:ing the a))ointments made +: res)ondent regarding the )ositions o3 +aranga: treasurer and secretar:A which were o+/ected to +: the a))ointees o3 2ermio to the same )ositions@ Later onA the +aranga: council a))roved the a))ro)riation o3 P#64A326 as salaries 3or the +aranga: o33icials and em)lo:eesA including the said a))ointees o3 res)ondent@ .oweverA said +aranga: councilor )etitioners re3used to sign the said resolution and )a:roll@ In 2(((A the said +aranga: o33icials 3iled a com)laint with the M- -ouncil a com)laint 3or violation o3 the anti>gra3t and corru)t )ractices act and 3alsi3ication o3 legislative documents against res)ondent and other +aranga: o33icials who signed the 9uestioned resolution and )a:roll@ The: contend that the e33ectivit: date o3 the )a:roll were 3alsi3ied in order to increase the )a:roll 3or the +aranga: o33icials concerned@ De3endants claimed that the: started service since 8cto+er 26 1&&& and that the oath>ta4ing was merel: a 3ormalit: to their service and a))ointment@ LaterA the ')ecial Investigative -ommittee on *dministrative -ases o3 the -it: 3ound that res)ondent has no )ower to ma4e a))ointments )rior to his oath>ta4ingA +ut 3ound that res)ondent was in good 3aith in erroneousl: a))roving the resolution and )a:roll@ .oweverA res)ondent was 3ound guilt: o3 grave misconduct and was recommended to +e sus)ended 3or 2 months@ ThusA the M- -ouncil ado)ted such recommendation and later a))ointed ,angune as acting +aranga: chairman@ $es)ondent then 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the $T- o3 M-A see4ing to annul the a3orementioned acts o3 the -ouncil@ The )etitioners moved 3or dismissalA contending that the courts have no /urisdiction over the case 3or 3ailure to e%haust administrative remedies@ ThusA the trial court 3ound 3or res)ondentA li3ting the )unishment meted to res)ondent@ IssueI ?BN the trial court has /urisdiction over the case +: virtue o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remediesN .eldI 0es@ 'ection 6 o3 the L1- )rovides that a))eal o3 administrative cases ma: +e had within 3( da:s 3rom recei)t to the 833ice o3 the President in case o3 decisions made +: sangguniang )anlalawigan and sangguniang )anlungsod o3 highl: ur+ani"ed cities and inde)endent com)onent cities@ *lsoA 'ection 6# )rovides that an a))eal shall not )revent a decision 3rom +ecoming 3inal and e%ecutorA there3ore )lacing the res)ondent under )reventive

sus)ension 3or the duration o3 such a))ealA and his e%oneration shall entitle him to salaries and emoluments during the a))ealPs )endenc:@ ThusA a))eal to the 833ice o3 the President can +e hadA and the )rovisions regarding the 3inalit: and e%ecutor nature o3 the decisions )ertain to their en3orcement onl:@ It is clear that res)ondent 3ailed to e%haust all the administrative remedies availa+le to him@ The rule is thatA +e3ore a )art: is allowed to see4 the intervention o3 the courtA it is a )re>condition that he should have availed o3 all the means o3 administrative )rocesses a33orded him@ The e%haustion o3 administrative remedies admits o3 e%ce)tionsA one o3 which is when the issue involved is )urel: legal@ The issues o3 whether or not the decision o3 the Sangguniang Panlungsod in disci)linar: cases is a))eala+le to the 833ice o3 the PresidentA as well as the )ro)riet: o3 ta4ing an oath o3 o33ice anew +: res)ondentA are certainl: 9uestions o3 law which call 3or /udicial intervention@ 2urthermoreA an a))eal to the 833ice o3 the President would not necessaril: render the case moot and academic@ 6nder 'ection 6#A in the event the a))eal results in his e%onerationA the res)ondent shall +e )aid his salar: and such other emoluments during the )endenc: o3 the a))eal@ .enceA the e%ecution o3 the )enalt: or e%)iration o3 term o3 the )u+lic o33icial will not )revent recover: o3 all salaries and emoluments due him in case he is e%onerated o3 the charges@ -learl:A there3oreA the trial court correctl: too4 cogni"ance o3 the case at +ar@

+-K Cas ro 1s. Gloria &ac s3 * certain Por3irio 1utang Jr@ 3iled with the D5-' a com)laint 3or disgrace3ul and immoral conduct against 1ual+erto -astroA alleging that the latter was having an illicit a33air with Por3irioPs wi3e@ *3ter hearing in 1&#4A D5-' $egional 833ice 7II 3ound )etitioner guilt: on such

grounds alleged in the com)laint and ordered )etitionerPs dismissal 3rom service as teacher o3 1ui+uangan .igh 'choolA which was a33irmed in 1&#6@ Petitioner 3iled an ,$ with the D5-' -entral 833iceA which then directed the 'chool 'u)erintendent o3 -e+u to comment on such ,$@ *s suchA the -e+u 'u)erintendent commented to grant to ,$A +ut D5-' $egion 7II o))osed such comment@ Petitioner tried again to have his ,$ resolved +: D5-' in the letters he sent to D5-' in 1&## and 1&&(A +ut such letters were unheeded@ *s suchA )etitioner 3iled with D5-' -entral 833ice a motion to review and 3or setting aside the decision o3 D5-' $egion 7II@ 8nce againA D5-' 'ecretar: 1loria re3erred the motion to the $egion 7II Director 3or commentA which called 3or the granting o3 such motion@ !ut againA the D5-' 'ecretar: o))osed such indorsement and a33irmed )etitionerPs dismissal 3rom service@ ThusA )etitioner 3iled a )etition 3or mandamus with the $T- o3 -e+uA demanding that /udgment +e rendered ordering the D5-' 'ecretar: to reduce his )unishment to 1 :ear sus)ensionA and that he should +e reinstated to service as hePs alread: +een out o3 service 3or 1( :ears alread:@ The trial court dismissed the )etitionA stating that the court has :et to have /urisdiction over the case as there has +een no e%haustion o3 administrative remediesA stating that a))eal shouldPve +een made 3irst to the -ivil 'ervice -ommission@ Iss%e3 ?BN the trial court alread: has /urisdiction over the com)laint in s)ite o3 non\e%haustion o3 administrative remediesN 4el53 0es@ Though the doctrine o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies calls 3or resort to the )ro)er administrative agencies 3irst +e3ore the 3iling o3 relie3 with the courtA such doctrine is su+/ect to certain e%ce)tionsA such as +5 Ahen the uestion raised is purely legalN -5 when the administrative +od: is in estoppelN .5 when the act com)lained o3 is )atentl: illegalN 4O when there is urgent need 3or /udicial interventionN 15 when the claim involved is smallN 25 when irre)ara+le damage will +e su33eredN 85 when there is no other )lainA s)eed: and ade9uate remed:N :5 when strong )u+lic interest is involvedN and &5 in uo %arranto )roceedings@ PetitionerPs com)laint 3or mandamus is )ro)er in the case at hand@ PetitionerPs not dis)uting the 3indings o3 the D5-' with res)ect to his guiltA what hePs contesting is the )unishment meted out to himA 3or he claims that such )unishment must onl: +e a 1>:ear sus)ension 3rom serviceA not dismissal 3rom service@ 'uch contentionPs correctA 3or 'ection 23A $ule DI7 o3 the im)lementing rules o3 58 No@ 2&2 L*dmin@ -ode o3 1&# O )rovides that grave o33enses o3 disgrace3ul and immoral conduct are )unisha+le with a 6 monthA 1 da: U 1 :ear sus)ension 3or the 1 st o33enseA and dismissal 3or the 2nd o33ense@ *s suchA )etitionerPs )unishment was erroneousl: meted out to him and he should +e reinstated +ac4 to service immediatel:@

+-, Es ra5a6 Canilan/ an5 Lim 1s. CA6 !acno an Cemen &ac s3 Petitioners 3iled with the $T- o3 8longa)o -it: a com)laint 3or in/unction and damages with )ra:er o3 )reliminar: in/unction and T$8 against !acnotan -ementA ?awandue 2ishingA ,a:or ,olina o3 'u+icA and $egional Director 'errano o3 the D5N$@ Petitioners allege that

?awandue 2ishing and the ,unici)alit: o3 'u+ic entered into an illegal lease contractA that the 3ish lease was violated as !acnotan -ementPs o)eration o3 a cement )lant is not related to ?awanduePs 3ish )ort +usinessA and that such cement )lant is a nuisance which could cause danger to the li3e and livelihood o3 the residents o3 the area@ Petitioners )ra:ed that the cement )lant +e )revented 3rom o)erating and as4ed 3or damages@ De3endants called 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laintA alleging that the com)laint states no cause o3 actionA that therePs a 3ailure to e%haust administrative remediesA that the trial court has no /urisdiction over the case and that the action was )remature@ The trial court 3ound 3or )etitioners and granting the )reliminar: in/unctionA dismissing res)ondentsP motion to dismissA stating that the courts have /urisdiction over cases o3 nuisancesA es)eciall: in light o3 the urgenc: o3 the case@ $es)ondentsP ,$ was li4ewise denied +: the trial court@ *))eal to the -* +: res)ondentsP saw the reversal o3 the trial courtPs decisionA the -* stating that the doctrine o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies must +e com)lied with 3irst +: )etitionersA that it id the D5N$ which has /urisdiction over cases involving )ollutionA that the contract in 9uestion is legitimateA and that the grant o3 )reliminar: in/unction +: the trial court e33ectivel: de)rived the D5N$ 3rom ruling on the case@ PetitionersP ,$ +eing denied +: the -*A the:Pre thus see4ing a))eal o3 the case to the '-@ Iss%e3 1@O ?BN the doctrine o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies a))lies in the caseN 4el53 0es@ The doctrine o3 e%haustion o3 administrative remedies re9uires that resort +e 3irst made with the administrative authorities in the resolution o3 a controvers: 3alling under their /urisdiction +e3ore the same ma: +e elevated to a court o3 /ustice 3or review@ I3 a remed: within the administrative machiner: is still availa+leA with a )rocedure )ursuant to law 3or an administrative o33icer to decide the controvers:A a )art: should 3irst e%haust such remed: +e3ore going to court@ * )remature invocation o3 a courtPs intervention renders the com)laint without cause o3 action and dismissi+le on such ground@ Prior resort to administrative remed: entails lesser e%)enses and )rovides 3or a s)eedier dis)osition o3 controversies@ -omit: and convenience also im)el courts o3 /ustice to sh: awa: 3rom a dis)ute until the s:stem o3 administrative redress has +een com)leted and com)lied with@ PetitionersP claim that their action +e3ore the trial court is /usti3ied as there would +e grave and irre)ara+le damage to them and that the D5N$ doesnPt have the )ower to grant them the relie3 the:Pre )ra:ing 3or@ 'uch conclusion is wrong and mis)laced@ The )assage o3 $* 3&31 in 1&64 )aved the wa: 3or the creation o3 the National Pollution -ontrol -ommissionA which has the )ower to issueA renew or den: )ermitsA 3or the )revention and a+atement o3 )ollution@ The su+se9uent )assage o3 PD &#4 3urther em)owered the NP-- with the )ower to e% )arte orders 3or the discontinuance and tem)orar: sus)ension or cessation o o)erations o3 an esta+lishment generating sewerages without an: )u+lic hearing whenever evidence e%ists that such sewerage is dangerous to li3e@ 2inall:A 58 1&2 reorgani"ed the D5N$ and )assed the )owers o3 the NP-- to the Pollution *d/udication !oard@ *s suchA the P*! has the )ower to issue cease and desist orders u)on )rima 3acie 3inding o3 evidence that the wastes discharged are a+ove the allowa+le standards@ *s suchA the 3ailure to e%haust administrative remedies is 3atal to )etitionersP case and the -*Ps dismissal o3 the same is correct@

+-; Philsec In1es men 6 !PI6 A hona 4ol5in/s 1s. CA &ac s3 In Januar: 1&#3A res)ondent Ducat o+tained several loans 3rom *:ala 3inance and Philsec Investment to the sum o3 ]2A5((A(((A secured +: DucatPs shares o3 stoc4 owrth P14A(##A&&5@ To 3acilitate )a:ment o3 such amountA 14## Inc@A thorugh its )resident DaicA

assumed DucatPs o+ligation under an agreement wherein 14## e%ecuted a ?arrant: Deed with 7enderPs Lien wherein it sold to *thona .oldings a )arcel o3 land in Te%asA 6'* 3or ]2A#( A2(&@(2A while in turn *:ala and Philsec e%tended the loan to *thona as )a:ment o3 the )urchase )rice@ The ]3( A2(&@(2 +alance was to +e )aid +: )romissor: note e%ecuted +: *thona in 3avor o3 14##@ ThusA u)on recei)t o3 the ]2A5((A((( amountA Ducat was released 3rom his o+ligation +: *:ala and Philsec and delivered all the shares o3 stoc4 o3 Ducat to 14##@ ?hen *thona 3ailed to )a: interest on the remaining amountA the )romissor: note +ecame due and demanda+leA thus 14## then sued *thonaA *:ala and Philsec in the 6' courts 3or )a:ment o3 such +alance and 3or damages 3or +reach o3 contract and 3raud@ LaterA the case L-ivil -ase #5>5 46O was trans3erred to the trial court o3 'outh Te%as@ Petitioners 3iled a motion to dismiss 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction which was denied +: the courts@ Later onA while the 6' case was )endingA )etitioners 3iled a com)laint 3or sum o3 mone: with damages and )reliminar: attachment against )rivate res)ondents with the $T- o3 ,a4atiA with the same allegations as in the 6' case and *thona sought to recover alleged over)a:ment o3 amounts it made to res)ondents to the amount o3 ]1A ((A((( and damages@ Trial court issued a writ o3 )reliminar: attachment against the )ro)erties o3 res)ondents@ Later onA res)ondent Ducat dismissed the case 3or lis )enentiaA 3orum non conveniens and 3ailure to state a cause o3 actionA which the trial court later on granted@ Trial court also granted 14##Ps motion to dismissA stating that the court has not gained /urisdiction over 14## and Daic and +: reason o3 litis )endentia@ *))eal to the -* lead to the denial o3 such a))eal and the u)holding o3 the trial courtsP decision@ Iss%e3 ?BN the trial court has gained /urisdiction over the case in order to )rotect )etitionersP rights 3or tortuous or wrong3ul acts resulting 3rom res)ondent non>resident aliensP acts in s)ite o3 the )ending case in the 6'N 4el53 0es@ The e33ect o3 res /udicata to 3oreign /udgments ma: +e given in several casesA +ut such is the case a3ter the )arties o))osed to the /udgment had +een given am)le o))ortunit: to re)el them on grounds allowed under the law@ ItPs not necessar: to initiate a se)arate action or )roceeding 3or en3orcement o3 the 3oreign /udgmentA 3or what^s essential is that there +e o))ortunit: to challenge the 3oreign /udgment in order 3or the court to )ro)erl: determine its e33icac:@ This is +ecause in our /urisdictionA a 3oreign /udgment in actions in )ersonam merel: constitutes prima facie evidence o3 the /ustness o3 the claim o3 a )art: andA as suchA is su+/ect to )roo3 to the contrar: L$ule 3&A 'ec@ 5(O@ In the case at +arA it cannot +e said that )etitioners were given the o))ortunit: to challenge the /udgment o3 the 6@'@ court as +asis 3or declaring it res /udicata or conclusive o3 the rights o3 )rivate res)ondents@ The )roceedings in the trial court were summar:A and neither the trial court nor the a))ellate court was even 3urnished co)ies o3 the )leadings in the 6@'@ court or a))rised o3 the evidence )resented thereatA to assure a )ro)er determination o3 whether the issues then +eing litigated in the 6@'@ court were e%actl: the issues raised in this case such that the /udgment that might +e rendered would constitute res /udicata@ *lsoA Daic 3iled a )etition 3or en3orcement o3 /udgment in the ,a4ati $T-A although such )roceedings were sus)ended due to the )endenc: o3 this case@ To sustain the a))ellate courtGs ruling that the 3oreign /udgment constitutes res /udicata and is a +ar to the claim o3 )etitioners would e33ectivel: )reclude )etitioners 3rom re)elling the /udgment in the case 3or en3orcement@ *n a+surdit: could then ariseI a 3oreign /udgment is not su+/ect to challenge +: the )lainti33 against whom it is invo4edA i3 it is )leaded to resist a claim as in this caseA +ut it ma: +e

o))osed +: the de3endant i3 the 3oreign /udgment is sought to +e en3orced against him in a se)arate )roceeding@ The two cases should there3ore +e consolidated and tried 3or the: )ertain to similar causes o3 actionA where )etitioners should have the +urden o3 im)eaching the 3oreign /udgment and onl: in the event the: succeed in doing so ma: the: )roceed with their action against )rivate res)ondents@ Jurisdiction can +e o+tained over 14## and DaicA even i3 the:Pre non>resident aliens@ $ule 14A 'ection 1 on e%traterritorial service )rovides that service o3 summons on a non>resident de3endant ma: +e a33ected out o3 the Phili))ines +: leave o3 -ourt whereA among othersA Hthe )ro)ert: o3 the de3endant has +een attached within the Phili))ines@H ,- It is not dis)uted that the )ro)ertiesA real and )ersonalA o3 the )rivate res)ondents had +een attached )rior to service o3 summons under the 8rder o3 the trial court dated *)ril 2(A 1&# @

+-D Comm%nica ions Ma erials Desi/n an5 ASPAC 1s. CA6 ITEC &ac s3 In 1&# A )etitioner -ommunication ,aterials and *'P*- L+oth domestic cor)orationsO entered into a $e)resentative *greement with IT5- International L3oreign cor)@ not licensed to do +usiness in the Phils@OA wherein *'P*- shall sell IT5- )roducts in the Phili))ines as the latterPs re)resentativeA wherein *'P*- would receive a sti)ulated commission@

In 1&##A *'P*- and IT5- entered into a License *greementA wherein *'P*- was a+le to incor)orate and use the name IT5-@ *s suchA *'P*- +ecame to +e 4nown as *'P*->IT5-@ !: virtue o3 said agreementsA *'P*- sold electronic )roducts im)orted +: IT5- to their sole customerA PLDT@ Later onA *'P*- and PLDT entered into a PLDT>*'P*-BIT5- Protocol which de3ined the )ro/ect details 3or the su))l: o3 IT5-Gs Inter3ace 59ui)ment in connection with the 2i3th 5%)ansion Program o3 PLDT@ *3ter a :ear into the re)resentative agreementA IT5- decided to terminate the said agreement due to some violations o3 *'P*- regarding its contractual o+ligationsA stating that )etitioners and Digital !ase -ommunications were using in3ormation o+tained 3rom IT5-Ps )roducts in develo)ing and ma4ing )roducts that the latter were selling to PLDT@ *s suchA IT5- 3iled with the $T- o3 ,a4ati a com)laint to en/oin )etitioner com)anies and Digital 3rom selling to PLDT and an: other )artiesP )roducts co)ied 3rom IT5-A to en/oin *'P*3rom using IT5-Ps name and trademar4A and claim damages to the amount o3 P5((A((( )lus attorne:Ps 3ees and costs o3 litigation@ De3endants 3iled a motion to dismissA alleging that IT5- doesnPt have an: ca)acit: to sue in the Phili))ines as it is a 3oreign cor)oration not licensed to do +usiness in the Phili))inesA and that IT5-Ps engaged in 3orum>sho))ing@ ThusA the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and issued a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction@ Petitioners then a))ealed the case to the -*A which u)held the trial courtPs ruling@ *3ter denial o3 their ,$A )etitioners a))ealed the case to the '-A alleging that IT5- has no ca)acit: to sue ion Phili))ine courts and that the trial court has not ac9uired /urisdiction over the case as IT5- has no ca)acit: to sue in the Phili))ines@ IssueI 1@O ?BN IT5- is a 3oreign cor)oration not licensed to do +usiness in the Phili))inesN 2@O ?BN IT5- has the ca)acit: to sue in the Phili))inesN .eldI 1@O 0es it is@ !e3ore a 3oreign cor)oration can transact +usiness in this countr:A it must 3irst o+tain a license to transact +usiness in the Phili))inesA and a certi3icate 3rom the a))ro)riate government agenc:@ I3 it transacts +usiness in the Phili))ines without such a licenseA it shall not +e )ermitted to maintain or intervene in an: actionA suitA or )roceeding in an: court or administrative agenc: o3 the Phili))inesA +ut it ma: +e sued on an: valid cause o3 action recogni"ed under Phili))ine laws@ The agreements IT5- entered into with domestic cor)orations in the Phili))ines would show that IT5- was indeed doing +usiness in the Phili))ines without a license to do soA as shown +: IT5-Ps agreement with *'P*- and Tele)hone 59ui)ment 'ales and 'ervicesA Inc@ LT5''IO@ T5''IPs a local electronics 3irm engaged +: IT5- to +e its local technical re)resentativeA and to create a service center 3or IT5- )roducts sold locall:@ 'uch arrangements with these entities indicate convincingl: IT5-Gs )ur)ose to +ring a+out the situation among its customers and the general )u+lic that the: are dealing directl: with IT5-A and that IT5- is activel: engaging in +usiness in the countr:@ T5''IPs use o3 the IT5- letterheadA +usiness cards and logo in the IDs o3 T5''I em)lo:eesA the CIT5- Technical *ssistance -enterJ greeting used to answer technical

su))ort callsA and the CNo -om)eting ProductJ )rovision with *'P*- clearl: shows that IT5-Ps engaged in +usiness in the Phili))inesA +ut has not ac9uired the necessar: )ermit to do so 3rom the '5-@ 2@O .oweverA IT5- can sue in the Phili))ines@ * 3oreign cor)oration doing +usiness in the Phili))ines ma: sue in Phili))ine -ourts although not authori"ed to do +usiness here against a Phili))ine citi"en or entit: who had contracted with and +ene3ited +: said cor)oration@ 8ne who has dealt with a cor)oration o3 3oreign origin as a cor)orate entit: is esto))ed to den: its cor)orate e%istence and ca)acit:@ The )rinci)le will +e a))lied to )revent a )erson contracting with a 3oreign cor)oration 3rom later ta4ing advantage o3 its noncom)liance with the statutes chie3l: in cases where such )erson has received the +ene3its o3 the contract !: entering into the H$e)resentative *greementH with IT5-A )etitionerPs charged with 4nowledge that IT5- was not licensed to engage in +usiness activities in the countr:A and is thus esto))ed 3rom raising in de3ense such inca)acit: o3 IT5-@ PetitionerGs reliance on the 3orum non conveniens argument is mis)laced +ecause the court has alread: ac9uired /urisdiction over the )lainti33 in the suitA +: virtue o3 his 3iling the original com)laint@ *nd as we have alread: o+servedA )etitioner is not at li+ert: to 9uestion )lainti33Gs standing to sueA having alread: acceded to the same +: virtue o3 its entr: into the $e)resentative *greement re3erred to earlier@ 2or the Phili))ine courts to ac9uire /urisdiction over the caseA the 3ollowing must occurI 1O That the Phili))ine -ourt is one to which the )arties ma: convenientl: resort toN 2O That the Phili))ine -ourt is in a )osition to ma4e an intelligent decision as to the law and the 3actsN andA 3O That the Phili))ine -ourt has or is li4el: to have )ower to en3orce its decision@ *ll such re9uirements +eing )resent in the case at handA then the trial courts have /urisdiction over IT5- and over the case@ ThusA )etitionersP motion to dismiss is denied and the issuance o3 the writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction is a33irmed@

+-E Loli a Copioso 1s. La%ro6 Dolores6 Ra2ael6 Es eban an5 Cora$on Copioso6 CA &ac s3 $es)ondents -o)ioso 3iled a com)laint 3or reconve:ance against )etitionerA concerning 2 )arcels o3 coconut land located in Laguna@ 'uch case was 3ile with the $T- o3 Laguna@ $es)ondents alleged that )etitioner o+tained the title over the )ro)erties through 3raud and

machinationA that the: were the real owners o3 the )ro)ertiesA and that the su+se9uent sale o3 the )ro)erties were null and voidA thus the: )ra: 3or the reconve:ance o3 the )ro)erties to them@ Petitioner then 3iled a motion to dismiss with the trial courtA alleging that the $T- doesnPt have /urisdiction over the case as the value o3 the )ro)erties are around P3A ( onl: L+elow the P2(A((( 3or the $T- to have /urisdictionOA thus the case shouldPve +een 3iled with the ,T-@ Trial court dismissed )etitionerPs motionA stating that the estimated value o3 the com)laint is inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ ,$ was deniedA thus )etitioner 3iled a )etition 3or certiorati with the -*A which was also li4e wise denied +: the -*@ Iss%e3 ?BN the $T- was correct in ruling that the case involves matters inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA thus granting it /urisdiction over the caseN 4el53 0es@ *lthough 'ection 33 o3 !P 12& )rovides that the ,T- shall have /urisdiction over all cases involving title and an: interest in )ro)ert: with an assessed value not e%ceeding P2(A((( or P5(A((( in cases 3iled within ,etro ,anilaA 'ection 1& in turn )rovides that the $T- shall have /urisdiction over all cases wherein the su+/ect o3 the litigationPs inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ The )resent dis)ute )ertains to the titleA )ossession and interest o3 each o3 the contending )arties over the contested )ro)ert: the assessed value o3 which 3alls within the /urisdictional range o3 the ,T-@ NonethelessA the nature o3 the action 3iledA the allegations set 3orthA and the relie3s )ra:ed 3orA 3orestall its cogni"ance +: the ,T-@ $es)ondentsP com)laint 3or reconve:anceBrecover: o3 common )ro)erties illegall: dis)osedA annulment o3 sales and instruments o3 3alse conve:anceA and claims o3 damages clearl: indicate that this is a case o3 /oinder o3 causes o3 action that com)rehends more than the issue o3 titleA )ossession and interest in the )ro)erties su+/ect to the case@ ThusA the $T- has /urisdiction over the case@

+-A R%ssell e al 1s. 4on. Nes il e al &ac s3 In 1&&4A )etitioners 3iled a com)laint 3or Declaration o3 Nullit: and Partition with the $To3 ,andaue -it:A alleging that )etitioners and )rivate res)ondents were the co>owners o3 a )arcel o3 land located in LioanA -e+uA which the: inherited 3rom the late s)ouses TauthoA and

that the )rivate res)ondents alread: divide the said )ro)ert: amongst themselves +: virtue o3 a Declaration o3 .eirs and Deed o3 -on3irmation o3 Previous 8ral *greement o3 Pertition allegedl: e%ecuted in 1&&(@ Petitioners allege that such declaration is null and void and )re/udices them o3 their rights over the )ro)ert: in 9uestion@ ThusA the: )ra: that the said declaration +e declared null and void and that the said )ro)ert: +e )artitioned to the said co>owners@ $es)ondents 3iled a motion to dismissA claiming that the case shouldPve +een 3iled with the ,unici)al -ircuit Trial -ourt o3 LiloanA the said )ro)ert: having onl: a value o3 P5A(((@ Petitioners 3iled an o))osition to the motion to dismissA stating that the case involves an action inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA thus the $Tc has /urisdiction over the case@ The trial court granted the motion to dismissA which it also a33irmed u)on ,$ 3iled +: )etitioners@ Iss%e3 ?BN the case involves an action inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA thus ma4ing it 3all within the $T-Ps /urisdictionN 4el53 0es@ The action is one which involves more than a re>)artition o3 )ro)ert: as res)ondents claim@ The main )ur)ose o3 )etitioners in 3iling the com)laint is to declare null and void the document in which )rivate res)ondents declared themselves as the onl: heirs o3 the late s)ouses Tautho and divided his )ro)ert: among themselves to the e%clusion o3 )etitioners who also claim to +e legal heirs and entitled to the )ro)ert:@ ?hile the com)laint also )ra:s 3or the )artition o3 the )ro)ert:A this is /ust incidental to the main actionA which is the declaration o3 nullit: o3 the document a+ove>descri+ed@ It is a%iomatic that /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 a case is con3erred +: law and is determined +: the allegations in the com)laint and the character o3 the relie3 soughtA irres)ective o3 whether the )lainti33 is entitled to all or some o3 the claims asserted therein@ ThusA the case 3alls under the /urisdiction o3 the $T-A not the ,-T- as claimed +: res)ondents@

+-. Inie/o 1s. '%5/e P%r/anan6 &okker San os &ac s3 In ,arch 2((2A )rivate res)ondent 'antos 3iled a com)laint with the $T- 3or 9uasi>delict and damages against )etitioner and his driver PinionA the said cause o3 action arising 3rom a tra33ic incident which occurred in Decem+er 1&&& wherein a 3reight truc4 allegedl: driven +:

Pinion hit a )rivate /ee)ne: +eing driven +: res)ondent 'antos at the time o3 the accident@ 8n *ugust 24A )rivate res)ondent 3iled a motion to declare de3endant in de3ault 3or 3ailure o3 )etitioner to 3ile his answer within the re9uired )eriod@ Later onA in *ugust 2#A )etitioner 3iled a motion to dismissA alleging that the $T- doesnPt have /urisdiction over the case@ Trial courtA under Judge PurgananA later on denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to hold )etitioner in de3ault@ The court held that the main cause o3 action was the 9uasi>delictA thus inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation and 3alling under the courtPs /urisdiction@ *))eal +: )etitioner to the -* was dismissed@ Iss%e3 ?BN the case at hand is ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA thus 3alling under the /urisdiction o3 the munici)al courts or o3 the $T-N 4el53The $T- has /urisdiction over the case@ *ctions 3or damages +ased on 9uasi>delicts are )rimaril: and e33ectivel: actions 3or the recover: o3 a sum o3 mone: 3or the damages su33ered +ecause o3 the de3endantPs alleged tortious acts@ The damages claimed in such actions re)resent the monetar: e9uivalent o3 the in/ur: caused to the )lainti33 +: the de3endantA which are thus sought to +e recovered +: the )lainti33@ This mone: claim is the )rinci)al relie3 soughtA and is not merel: incidental thereto or a conse9uence thereo3@ It +ears to )oint out that the com)laint 3iled +: )rivate res)ondent +e3ore the $T- actuall: +ears the ca)tion H3or D*,*15'@H 2ault or negligenceA which the -* claims is not ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA is not actiona+le +: itsel3@ There must +e a resulting damage to a third )erson@ The relie3 availa+le to the o33ended )art: in such cases is 3or the re)arationA restitutionA or )a:ment o3 such damageA without which an: alleged o33ended )art: has no cause o3 action or relie3@ The 3ault or negligence o3 the de3endantA there3oreA is ine%trica+l: intertwined with the claim 3or damages@ ?e there3ore rule that the su+/ect matter o3 actions 3or damages +ased on 9uasi>delict is ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ The amount o3 damages claimed is within the /urisdiction o3 the $T-A since it is the claim 3or all 4inds o3 damages that is the +asis o3 determining the /urisdiction o3 courtsA whether the claims 3or damages arise 3rom the same or 3rom di33erent causes o3 action@

#a ar%n/an/ Pambaran/ay La7 *+-C Nin$ons F +BA &eli$ar5o0 +-C 4eirs o2 &ernan5 Nin$ons 1s. CA6 E5oria D)CTRINE3

Lu)ong !aranga: is with /urisdiction under PD 15(# to )ass u)on an e/ectment controvers: where the )arties are residents in the same +aranga: or in +aranga:s within the same cit: or in +aranga:s ad/oining each other@ 'ection 6 o3 PD 15(# states that no com)laint or an: matter within the authorit: o3 the Lu)on shall +e +rought +e3ore the courts unless there has +een a con3rontation o3 the )arties +e3ore the Lu)on -hairman or Pang4at@

&ac s3 Petitioners were co>owners o3 a )arcel o3 land located in DaetA which was +eing leased to 5doriaA where the latter erected a house on such land@ In 1&#6A )etitioners 3iled -ivil -ase 1&23 3or e/ection against res)ondent 3or non>)a:ment o3 rentals@ 'uch case was dismissed as the court 3ound that the res)ondent was not in arrears and was in 3act even advance in )a:ment o3 rentals@ 'uch case was a))ealed to the $T-@ Pending a))eal o3 -ase 1&23A )etitioners then 3iled -ivil -ase 2(61A against res)ondent and 3& others alleging their 3ailure to enter into an agreement with them as lessees>tenants and re3usal to )a: the increased rent o3 P1 )er s9uare meter )er month@ $es)ondent resisted such claimA alleging lac4 o3 cause o3 action and )endenc: o3 the e/ectment case@ The court again dismissed the caseA stating as reason the )endenc: o3 -ase 1&23 on a))eal@ ThusA )etitioners a))ealed the case to the $T-@ ?hile -ase 2(61Ps )ending a))ealA )etitioners :et again 3iled another case 3or e/ectment L-ase 213 O onclaims o3 e%)iration o3 lease contractA re3usal to sign renewal o3 lease contract and non> )a:ment o3 rent@ $es)ondent moved 3or dismissal o3 such caseA alleging that the com)laint did not go through +aranga: conciliationA no )rior demand w9as madeA no cause o3 actionA case was +arred +: )rior /udgmentA and )endenc: o3 another caseA -ase 2(61@ ,T- o3 Daet decided to grant )etitionerPs caseA and ordered res)ondent to vacate the )remises and )a: accrued rentals@ $T- u)held the ,T-Ps rulingA which was revered +: the -*@ Iss%e3 ?BN the 3ailure to avail o3 +aranga: conciliation under PD15(# is 3atal to the caseA thus de)riving the ,T- o3 /urisdiction over the caseN 4el53 0es@ The '- has held in other cases that the Lu)ong !aranga: is with /urisdiction under PD 15(# to )ass u)on an e/ectment controvers: where the )arties are residents in the same +aranga: or in +aranga:s within the same cit: or in +aranga:s ad/oining each other@ It +eing clearl: averred in the com)laint that herein )etitionersA then re)resented +: the widow o3 the late 2ernando 7in"onsA resided in the same +aranga:A the:Pre covered +: the said law@ *lsoA the -ourt has held that non>com)liance with the condition )recedent )rescri+ed +: PD 15(# could a33ect the su33icienc: o3 the )lainti33Gs cause o3 action and ma4e his com)laint vulnera+le to dismissal on the ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action or )rematurit:@ It must +e noted that )rivate res)ondents o+/ected to the 3ailure o3 the )arties to undergo a con3rontation at the +aranga: level in their answer and even during the entire )roceedings a uo to no avail as the trial courts merel: +rushed aside this issue@ .enceA the -ourt o3 *))eals had to recti3: this error +: the trial courts@ 'ection 6 o3 PD 15(# states that no com)laint or an: matter within the authorit: o3 the Lu)on shall +e +rought +e3ore the courts unless there has +een a con3rontation o3 the )arties +e3ore the Lu)on -hairman or Pang4at@ $e3erral to the Lu)on -hairman or the Pang4at should +e made )rior to the 3iling o3 the e/ectment case under PD 15(#@ Legal action 3or e/ectment is +arred when there is non>recourse to +aranga: court@ The -om)laint 3or unlaw3ul detainerA doc4eted as -ivil -ase No@ 213 A should have +een coursed 3irst to the +aranga: court@

Petitioners cannot rel: on the +aranga: conciliation )roceedings held in the other cases and consider the same as com)liance with the law@ ThusA the ,T- doesnPt have /urisdiction over the case 3or 3ailure to resort to +aranga: conciliation as mandated under PD 15(#@ +-- Oamora e al 1s. 4eirs o2 I$9%ier5o D)CTRINE3 *lsoA regarding the 3ailure to constitute a Pang4at as re9uired under 'ection 41(+ o3 PD15(#A such must also +e construed with 'ection 412aA which )rovides that a re3erral o3 the com)laint to the +aragna: )rior to the 3iling o3 the com)laint to the courts and con3rontation +etween the )arties either +e3ore the lu)on chairman or the )ang4at@ &ac s3 In 1& 3A -armen I"9uierdo and Pa+lo =amora entered into a ver+al agreement wherein the 3ormer agreed to lease an a)artment unit to the latter located in 1eneral Luna -allocan -it:@ 'udch agreement sti)ulated a rent o3 P3A((( )er month and a condition that the lease is 3or residential )ur)oses onl: and 3or the use onl: o3 one 3amil:@ 6)on -armenPs death in 1&&6A her attorne: in 3act Pun"alan )re)ared a new lease contractA increasing the rent to P3A6(( )er month@ The )etitioners re3used to sign such contract@ In 1&& A Pa+lo the lessee diedA and his wi3e and their children still continued to occu): the a)artment in 9uestionA still re3using to )a: the increased rental and also running a )hotoco):ing +usiness in the said a)artment@ *s suchA *velina =amora Lwi3e o3 Pa+loO a))lied with the ,?'' 3or a waterline connectionA which re9uired the )ermit o3 the )ro)ert: owner )rior to installation@ 'uch )ermit was denied +: res)ondentsA thus )rom)ting )etitioner *velina to 3ile with the 833ice o3 the P8unong !aranga: a com)laint against *nita Pun"alan doc4eted as 6sa)ing !g:@ !lg@ 1>2 > & A 64ol saI .indi Pag+i+iga: ng Pahintulot sa Pag)a)a4a+it ng Tu+ig@ 8n *ugust 24 1&& A *velina declared that she re3used to sign the new lease agreement as she didnPt agree with its termsA thus )rom)ting Pun"alan to send her a letter to in3orm her that the res)ondentsP are terminating the lease contract@ Des)ite several +aranga: conciliation meetingsA there was a 3ailure to settleA )rom)ting the +aranga: chairman to issue a certi3ication to 3ile action on 'e)tem+er 14 1&& @ Later onA res)ondents 3iled with the ,T- o3 -aloocan -it: a com)laint 3or unlaw3ul detainer and damages against )etitionersA which the )etitioners o))osed with a motion to dismiss alleging that the com)laint was not re3erred to +aranga: conciliation as the )revious conciliation meetings were 3or a di33erent dis)ute onl:A that o3 the water connection )ermit@ Petitioners also allege that the +aranga: chairman also 3ailed to constitute a Pnag4at ng Taga)ag4asundo +e3ore whom the conciliation and ar+itration )roceedings shouldPve +een held@ ,T- dismissed the motion o3 )etitioners and considered the case su+mitted 3or decision 3or 3ailure to su+mit an answer to the com)laint@ ,$ was also denied and the ,T- su+se9uentl: 3ound 3or res)ondentsA ordering )etitioners to vacate the )remises and )a: the increased rental amount u) to time o3 vacating )remises@ *))eal to the $T- and -* resulted in denial and the a33irmation o3 the ,T-Ps ruling@ Iss%e3 ?BN the +aranga: conciliation )roceedings in the case constitute su33icient com)liance with PD15(#N

4el53 0es@ Though the com)laint 3iled +e3ore the +aranga: was C6sa)ing !g:@ !lg@ 1>2 >& A 64ol saI .indi Pag+i+iga: ng Pahintulot sa Pag)a)a4a+it ng Tu+igJA the com)laint does not onl: allege the re3usal o3 res)ondentsG attorne:>in>3act to give her consent to the installation o3 water 3acilities in the )remisesA +ut also )etitionersG violation o3 the terms o3 the leaseA s)eci3icall: their use o3 a )ortion therein 3or their )hotoco):ing +usiness and their 3ailure to )a: the increased rental@ The trial court correctl: held that the com)laint +e3ore the +aranga: was not onl: the issue o3 water installation was discussed +ut also the terms o3 the lease and the )ro)osed e%ecution o3 a written contract relative thereto@ *lsoA regarding the 3ailure to constitute a Pang4at as re9uired under 'ection 41(+ o3 PD15(#A such must also +e construed with 'ection 412aA which )rovides that a re3erral o3 the com)laint to the +aragna: )rior to the 3iling o3 the com)laint to the courts and con3rontation +etween the )arties either +e3ore the lu)on chairman or the )ang4at@ ThusA the )arties met nine L&O times at the 833ice o3 the !aranga: -hairman 3or conciliation wherein not onl: the issue o3 water installation was discussed +ut also )etitionersG violation o3 the lease contractA ma4ing it mani3est that there was su+stantial com)liance with the law which does not re9uire strict adherence thereto@ *lsoA )etitionersP motion to dismiss 3or unlaw3ul is +ere3t o3 meritA as the case was re3erred to the Lu)on -hairman 3or conciliation and such motion is a))ro)riate onl: in cases o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the case or 3ailure to re3er the com)laint to the Lu)on 3or conciliation@ + -B WILS)N DI( an5 D)RCITA DI(6 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS D)CTRINE3 S(&&ICIENT C)MPLIANCE F ?hile no pangkat was constitutedA it is not denied that the )arties met at the o33ice o3 the barangay chairman 3or )ossi+le settlement@ &ACTS3 Private res)ondent Patricia Pag+a )urchased on credit various articles o3 merchandise 3rom )etitionersG store at NavalA !iliranA all valued at P A#62@55A as evidenced +: recei)ts o3 goods which she 3ailed to )a: des)ite re)eated demands@ Petitioners +rought the matter +e3ore the Barangay -hairman o3 Naval and the latter set the case 3or hearingA +ut )rivate res)ondents 3ailed to a))ear@ ?hen the case was again set 3or hearingA the )arties a))eared +ut the: 3ailed to reach an amica+le settlement@ *ccordingl:A the barangay chairman issued a -erti3ication to 2ile *ction@ Petitioners then 3iled their com)laint 3or a sum o3 mone: +e3ore the ,unici)al Trial -ourt o3 Naval@ Private res)ondentsA in their *nswer while admitting the inde+tedness to )etitionerA inter)osed two counterclaimsA namel:A alleged e%)enses 3or maintenance and re)air o3 the +oat +elonging to )etitionersA and another re)resenting the cost o3 the two tires which )etitioners allegedl: misa))ro)riated@ MTC R%lin/3 8n the issue o3 )etitioners claimA it dismissed the com)laint +: ruling against the admissi+ilit: the recei)ts o3 good 3or not having +een )ro)erl: identi3ied in court@ 8n the issue o3 )rivate res)ondentsG counterclaimsA it ruled that the same had +een settled when the contending )arties entered into a com)romise agreement which was a))roved +: the $egional Trial -ourt o3 NavallA in another action +etween them@ 8n the issue o3 whether or not there was com)liance

with the )rovisions o3 Presidential Decree No@ 15(# on conciliationA it held that while )etitioners could have )revented the trial court 3rom e%ercising /urisdiction over the case +: seasona+l: ta4ing e%em)tion theretoA the: instead invo4ed the ver: same /urisdiction +: 3iling an answer and see4ing a33irmative relie3 3rom it@ ?hat is moreA the: )artici)ated in the trial o3 the case +: cross>e%amining the res)ondent@ 6)on this )remiseA )etitioner cannot now +e allowed +elatedl: to ado)t an inconsistent )osture +: attac4ing the /urisdiction o3 the court to which the: had su+mitted themselves voluntaril:@ Due to the dismissal o3 the com)laintA )etitioners a))ealed to the $egional Trial -ourt )ursuant to 'ection 22 o3 !atas Pam+ansa !lg@ 12&@ RTC R%lin/3 It did not 3ind it necessar: to )ass u)on the issue o3 the alleged non>com)liance with Presidential Decree No@ 15(# +utA insteadA decided the a))eal on the merits@ ,odi3:ing the decision o3 the lower court and rendered /udgment in 3avor o3 herein )etitioners and ordered )rivate res)ondent Patricia Pag+a to )a: the 3ormer the amount o3 P A#62@55 )lus legal interest 3rom Jul:A 1&&1A P1A(((@(( as attorne: 3eesA and the costs o3 suit@ Private res)ondents then went to the -ourt o3 *))ealsA raising /ust two issuesA L1O whether or not the $egional Trial -ourt erred in not ma4ing a 3actual 3inding that herein )etitioners did not com)l: with Presidential Decree No@ 15(#N and L2O whether or not said $egional Trial -ourt erred in not dismissing the a))eal or case 3or non>com)liance with the mandator: )rovisions o3 Presidential Decree No@ 15(#@ CA R%lin/3 'et aside the /udgment o3 the $egional Trial -ourtA on the ground that there had +een no com)liance with Presidential Decree No@ 15(#A with this ratiocinationI ISS(E3 ?hether or not the con3rontations +e3ore the Barangay -hairman o3 Naval satis3ied the re9uirement in Presidential Decree No@ 15(#@ 4ELD3 0es@ This -ourt 3inds 3or )etitioners@ It must +e noted that Presidential Decree No@ 15(# has +een re)ealed +: codi3ication in the Local 1overnment -ode o3 1&&1 which too4 e33ect on Januar: 1A 1&&2@ The +asic com)laint was 3iled +: )etitioners +e3ore the trial court on Jul: 1(A 1&&1 +e3ore the e33ectivit: o3 the Local 1overnment -ode@ NeverthelessA 'ections 4 and 6 o3 the 3ormer law have +een su+stantiall: re)roduced in 'ections 41( L+O and 412A res)ectivel:A o3 the latter law@ The )ertinent )rovisions read as 3ollowsI Sec. /+4. P*OC('$*( ;O* AM&CAB6( S())6(M(7). &f he 3lupon chairman5 fails in his mediation effort %ithin fifteen 3+15 days from the first meeting of the parties before him" he shall forth%ith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance %ith the provisions of this chapter. Sec. /+-. CO7C&6&A)&O7. Precondition to filing of Complaint in Court. 7o complaint shall be filed or instituted in courtunless there has been a confrontation of the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat" and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman . . . . In the case at +arA it is admitted that the )arties did have con3rontations +e3ore the Barangay -hairman o3 Naval although the: were not sent to the pangkat as the same was not constituted@

Their meetings with said barangay chairman were not 3ruit3ul as no amica+le settlement was reached@ This )rom)ted the issuance o3 the 3ollowing -erti3ication to 2ile *ction@ ,D ?hile no pangkat was constitutedA it is not denied that the )arties met at the o33ice o3 the barangay chairman 3or )ossi+le settlement@ The e33orts o3 the barangay chairmanA howeverA )roved 3utile as no agreement was reached@ *lthough no pangkat was 3ormedA we +elieve that there was su+stantial com)liance with the law@ It is noteworth: that under 'ection 412 o3 the Local 1overnment -ode a3ore9uotedA the con3rontation +e3ore the lupon chairman )R the pangkat is su33icient com)liance with the )re>condition 3or 3iling the case in court@ 2rom the 3oregoing 3actsA it is undenia+le that there was su+stantial com)liance with Presidential Decree No@ 15(# which does not re9uire strict technical com)liance with its )rocedural re9uirements@ +BK Espino 1. Le/ar5a *;KK.0 D)CTRINE3 the act o3 the +aranga: chairman in issuing the certi3ication en/o:s the )resum)tion that his o33icial dut: has +een regularl: )er3ormedA a+sent an: evidence to the contrar:@ In Junson v@ ,artine"A ?e ruled that non>com)liance with the condition )recedent under Presidential Decree No@ 15(# does not )revent a court o3 com)etent /urisdiction 3rom e%ercising its )ower o3 ad/udication over a case where the de3endants 3ail to o+/ect to such e%ercise o3 /urisdiction@ !ut such o+/ection should +e seasona+l: made +e3ore the court 3irst ta4ing cogni"ance o3 the com)laintA and must +e raised in the *nswerA or in such other )leading allowed under the $ules o3 -ourt@ &ac s3 $es)ondent -armita Legarda 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourtA ,anilaA three se)arate com)laints 3or accion )u+liciana against !en/amin 5s)inoA $osenda 5s)inoA )etitionersA and Jaime *+e/a@ $es)ondent alleged that she is the owner o3 three lots situated on *ltura 't@A 'ta@ ,esaA ,anilaN that )etitioners clandestinel: entered the )remises and constructed their houses thereon without the 4nowledge and consent o3 her late 3atherA !enito 2@ Legarda@ Des)ite demandA )etitioners re3used to vacate the )remises and remove their im)rovements@ $es)ondent re)orted the matter to !aranga: -hairman 5)i3ania *tien"aA +ut )etitioners ignored the summonses issued to them@ Petitioners alleged that the: cannot +e evicted +ecause the lots are covered +: the 6r+an Land $e3orm *ct andA there3oreA the: have )riorit: to +u: the lotsN that the com)laints 3ailed to allege the dates o3 res)ondentPs demands to vacateN and that res)ondent did not resort to conciliation )roceedings +e3ore the +aranga: )rior to the 3iling o3 the com)laints@ Petitioners contend that while it is true that the com)laints alleged that the +aranga: chairman issued a -erti3ication to 2ile *ction Lattached to the com)laintsOA howeverA it was not identi3ied or mar4edA and worstA not o33ered as evidence during the trial@ 6)on the other handA res)ondent maintains that the -erti3ication need not +e 3ormall: o33ered in evidence since it was deemed admitted +: )etitioners when the: 3ailed to den: the same under oath in their *nswer@ The $T- rendered a Decision against )etitioners@ The -* a33irmed said Decision in toto@ Iss%e3 ?hether res)ondent com)lied with the <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law )roviding 3or a conciliation +e3ore an: com)laintA )etitionA action or )roceeding involving an: matter within the authorit: o3 the Lu)on o3 the +aranga: shall +e 3iled or instituted in court@

4el53 *s correctl: o+served +: the -ourt o3 *))ealsA )etitioners did not o+/ect to the )resentation o3 the -erti3ication to 2ile *ction during the hearingA thusI CDe3endants>a))ellants vigorousl: assert that the case did not undergo conciliation )roceedings in violation o3 the )rovisions o3 P@D@ No@ 15(# or the <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law@ .oweverA )lainti33>a))ellee )resented as evidence a certi3ication 3rom !aranga: -hairman 5)i3inia *tien"a to )rove otherwise@ .enceA the act o3 the +aranga: chairman in issuing the certi3ication en/o:s the )resum)tion that his o33icial dut: has +een regularl: )er3ormedA a+sent an: evidence to the contrar:@ 2urtherA the de3endants>a))ellants did not o+/ect to the )resentation o3 the certi3ication@ Neither did the: 9uestion said certi3ication@ In the se)arate *nswer o3 de3endants> a))ellantsA the: alleged that the owner o3 the )ro)ert: was not Don !enito Legarda +ut !enito Legarda Incor)orated@ *ssuming this to +e trueA then +aranga: conciliation )roceedings +ecomes trul: unnecessar: since one o3 the )arties to the case is a /udicial )erson@J 5ven assuming that res)ondent did not re3er the dis)ute to the +aranga: 3or conciliationA stillA the trial court could ta4e cogni"ance o3 the case considering that )etitioners here did not o+/ect to such lac4 o3 conciliation during the hearing@ In Junson v@ ,artine"A ?e ruled that non>com)liance with the condition )recedent under Presidential Decree No@ 15(# does not )revent a court o3 com)etent /urisdiction 3rom e%ercising its )ower o3 ad/udication over a case where the de3endants 3ail to o+/ect to such e%ercise o3 /urisdiction@ !ut such o+/ection should +e seasona+l: made +e3ore the court 3irst ta4ing cogni"ance o3 the com)laintA and must +e raised in the *nswerA or in such other )leading allowed under the $ules o3 -ourt@ +B, Sps. San os 1. Sps. L%mbao *;KKC0

DOCTRINE: It is also well>settled that the non>re3erral o3 a case 3or +aranga: conciliation
when so re9uired under the law is not /urisdictional in nature and ma: there3ore +e deemed waived i3 not raised seasona+l: in a motion to dismiss@ &ac s3 Petitioners 7irgilioA 7ictorinoA 5rnesto and TadeoA all surnamed 'antosA are the legitimate and surviving heirs o3 the late $ita -atoc 'antos L$itaO@ The other )etitioners 5s)eran"a Lati and Lagrimas 'antos are the daughters>in>law o3 $ita@ $es)ondents ')ouses Jose Lum+ao and Proser3ina Lum+ao are the alleged owners o3 the 1( >s9uare meter lot Lsu+/ect )ro)ert:OA which the: )ur)ortedl: +ought 3rom $ita during her li3etime@ 8n two se)arate occasions during her li3etimeA $ita sold to res)ondents the su+/ect )ro)ert: which is a )art o3 her share in the estate o3 her deceased motherA ,aria -atoc@ *3ter ac9uiring the su+/ect )ro)ert:A res)ondents too4 actual )ossession thereo3 and erected thereon a house which the: have +een occu):ing as e%clusive owners u) to the )resent@ *s the e%clusive owners o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:A res)ondents made several ver+al demands u)on $itaA during her li3etimeA and therea3ter u)on herein )etitionersA 3or them to e%ecute the necessar: documents to e33ect the issuance o3 a se)arate title in 3avor o3 res)ondents inso3ar as the su+/ect )ro)ert: is concerned@ $es)ondents alleged that )rior to her deathA $ita in3ormed res)ondent Proser3ina Lum+ao she could not deliver the title to the su+/ect )ro)ert: +ecause the entire )ro)ert: inherited +: her and her co>heirs 3rom ,aria had not :et +een )artitioned@ ')ouses Lum+ao claimed that )etitionersA acting 3raudulentl: and in cons)irac: with one anotherA e%ecuted a Deed o3 5%tra/udicial 'ettlementA ad/udicating and )artitioning among themselves and the other heirsA the estate le3t +: ,ariaA which included the su+/ect )ro)ert: alread: sold to res)ondents ')ouses Lum+ao@ ')ouses Lum+aoA through counselA sent a 3ormal demand letter to )etitioners +ut des)ite recei)t o3 such demand letterA )etitioners still 3ailed and re3used to reconve: the su+/ect )ro)ert: to the res)ondents@ -onse9uentl:A the latter 3iled a -om)laint 3or $econve:ance with Damages +e3ore the $T- o3 Pasig -it:@ Petitioners 3iled their *nswer den:ing the allegations that the su+/ect )ro)ert: had +een sold to the res)ondents ')ouses Lum+ao@ The: li4ewise denied that

the Deed o3 5%tra/udicial 'ettlement had +een 3raudulentl: e%ecuted +ecause the same was dul: )u+lished as re9uired +: law@ 8n the contrar:A the: )ra:ed 3or the dismissal o3 the -om)laint 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action +ecause res)ondents ')ouses Lum+ao 3ailed to com)l: with the $evised <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law under $e)u+lic *ct No@ 16(A otherwise 4nown as the Local 1overnment -ode o3 1&&1A which re)ealed Presidential Decree No@ 15(# re9uiring 3irst resort to +aranga: conciliation@ In answer to the allegation o3 the )etitioners that the: 3ailed to com)l: with the mandate o3 the $evised <atarungang Pam+aranga: LawA res)ondents said that the -om)laint was 3iled directl: in court in order that )rescri)tion or the 'tatute o3 Limitations ma: not set in@ The trial court dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 merit@ The -* reversed the $T-Ps decision@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the -om)laint 3or $econve:ance with Damages 3iled +: res)ondents s)ouses Lum+ao is dismissi+le 3or their 3ailure to com)l: with the mandate o3 the $evised <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law under $@*@ No@ 16(@ 4el53 No@ 'ection 4(# o3 the a3oresaid law and *dministrative -ircular No@ 14>&3 )rovide that all dis)utes +etween )arties actuall: residing in the same cit: or munici)alit: are su+/ect to +aranga: conciliation@ * )rior recourse thereto is a )re>condition +e3ore 3iling a com)laint in court or an: government o33ices@ Non>com)liance with the said condition )recedent could a33ect the su33icienc: o3 the )lainti33Ps cause o3 action and ma4e his com)laint vulnera+le to dismissal on ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action or )rematurit:N +ut the same would not )revent a court o3 com)etent /urisdiction 3rom e%ercising its )ower o3 ad/udication over the case +e3ore itA where the de3endants 3ailed to o+/ect to such e%ercise o3 /urisdiction@ ?hile it is true that the )resent case should 3irst +e re3erred to the !aranga: Lu)on 3or conciliation +ecause the )arties involved herein actuall: reside in the same cit: LPasig -it:O and the dis)ute +etween them involves a real )ro)ert:A henceA the said dis)ute should have +een +rought in the cit: in which the real )ro)ert:A su+/ect matter o3 the controvers:A is locatedA which ha))ens to +e the same cit: where the contending )arties reside@ In the event that res)ondents 3ailed to com)l: with the said condition )recedentA their -om)laint 3or $econve:ance with Damages can +e dismissed@ In this caseA howeverA res)ondentsP non>com)liance with the a3oresaid condition )recedent cannot +e considered 3atal@ *lthough )etitioners alleged in their answer that the -om)laint 3or $econve:ance with Damages 3iled +: res)ondents should +e dismissed 3or their 3ailure to com)l: with the condition )recedentA which in e33ectA made the com)laint )rematurel: instituted and the trial court ac9uired no /urisdiction to hear the caseA :etA the: did not 3ile a ,otion to Dismiss the said com)laint@ DDD@ 5m)hasis must +e given to the 3act that the )etitioners could have )revented the trial court 3rom e%ercising /urisdiction over the case had the: 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss@ .oweverA instead o3 doing soA the: invo4ed the ver: same /urisdiction +: 3iling an answer see4ing an a33irmative relie3 3rom it@ ?orseA )etitioners activel: )artici)ated in the trial o3 the case +: )resenting their own witness and +: cross>e%amining the witnesses )resented +: the res)ondents@ It is elementar: that the active )artici)ation o3 a )art: in a case )ending against him +e3ore a court is tantamount to recognition o3 that courtPs /urisdiction and a willingness to a+ide +: the resolution o3 the case which will +ar said )art: 3rom later on im)ugning the courtPs /urisdiction@ It is also well>settled that the non>re3erral o3 a case 3or +aranga: conciliation when so re9uired under the law is not /urisdictional in nature and ma: there3ore +e deemed waived i3 not raised seasona+l: in a motion to dismiss@ +B; (y 1. 4on. Con reras *,BBE0 D)CTRINE3 In view o3 the )rivate res)ondentsG 3ailure to a))ear at the 3irst scheduled mediation on 2# *)ril 1&&3 3or which the mediation was reset to 26 ,a: 1&&3A no com)laint 3or

slight )h:sical in/uries could +e validl: 3iled with the ,T- o3 ,a4ati at an: time +e3ore such date@ &ac s3 Petitioner su+leased 3rom res)ondent 'usanna *ta:de the other hal3 o3 the second 3loor o3 a +uilding located at corner $e)oso and 8liman 'treetsA ,a4atiA ,etro ,anila@ 'he o)erated and maintained therein a +eaut: )arlor@ The su+lease contract e%)ired on 15 *)ril 1&&3@ .oweverA the )etitioner was not a+le to remove all her mova+le )ro)erties@ 8n 1 *)ril 1&&3A an argument arose +etween the )etitioner and *ta:de when the 3ormer sought to withdraw 3rom the su+leased )remises her remaining mova+le )ro)erties such as ca+inetsA shelvesA 3ramesA a mirrorA a sham)oo +owlA and an airconditioning casing@ The argument degenerated into a scu33le +etween the )etitionerA on the one handA and *ta:de and several o3 *ta:deGs em)lo:ees@ The )rivate res)ondents 3iled a com)laint with the +aranga: ca)tain o3 7alen"uelaA ,a4ati@ ,eanwhileA the 833ice o3 the Provincial Prosecutor o3 $i"al 3iled two in3ormations 3or slight )h:sical in/uries against the )etitioner with the ,T- o3 ,a4ati@ Petitioner s)eci3icall: alleged the )rematurit: o3 the 3iling o3 the criminal cases 3or 3ailure to undergo conciliation )roceedings as she and the )rivate res)ondents are residents o3 ,anila@ 'he also attached to it a certi3ication +: the +aranga: ca)tain o3 7alen"uelaA ,a4ati that there was an ongoing conciliation +etween *ta:de and the )etitioner@ Petitioner 3iled a motion to dismiss the criminal cases 3iled against her@ Pu+lic res)ondent Judge -ontreras handed down an order den:ing the motion to dismiss@ .enceA )etitioner 3iled a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari@ The )etitioner contends that the res)ondent /udge committed grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 /urisdiction when he denied the motion to dismiss considering that the )rivate res)ondents 3ailed to com)l: with the mandator: re9uirement o3 P@D@ No@ 15(#A now em+odied in 'ection 412 o3 the Local 1overnment -ode o3 1&&1 and 3urther re9uired under the 1&&1 $evised $ule on 'ummar: Procedure@ In their -ommentA the )rivate res)ondents contend that the denial o3 the motion to dismiss is )ro)er +ecause )rior re3erral o3 the dis)ute to the lupon is not a))lica+le in the case o3 )rivate res)ondent Javier since she and the )etitioner are not residents o3 +aranga:s in the same cit: or munici)alit: or o3 ad/oining +aranga:s in di33erent cities or munici)alities and that re3erral to the lupon is not li4ewise re9uired i3 the case ma: otherwise +e +arred +: the statute o3 limitations@ ,oreoverA even assuming arguendo that )rior re3erral to the lupon a))lies to the case o3 )rivate res)ondent *ta:deA the latter hadA neverthelessA su+stantiall: com)lied with the re9uirement@ The 'olicitor 1eneral agreed with the )etitionerPs contentions@ Iss%e3 ?hether the denial o3 the motion to dismiss 3iled +: )etitioner was )ro)er@ 4el53 No@ In view o3 the )rivate res)ondentsG 3ailure to a))ear at the 3irst scheduled mediation on 2# *)ril 1&&3 3or which the mediation was reset to 26 ,a: 1&&3A no com)laint 3or slight )h:sical in/uries could +e validl: 3iled with the ,T- o3 ,a4ati at an: time +e3ore such date@ The 3iling then o3 the criminal cases with the said court on 11 ,a: 1&&3 was )remature andA )ursuant to )aragra)h LaOA 'ection 412 o3 the Local 1overnment -odeA res)ondent Judge -ontreras should have granted the motion to dismiss the criminal cases@ .e cannot /usti3: its denial +: ta4ing re3uge under 'ection 6 o3 P@D@ No@ 15(# Lmore )ro)erl:A 'ection 412L+OL4O o3 the Local 1overnment -ode o3 1&&1O which states that the )arties ma: go directl: to court where the action is a+out to )rescri+e@ This is +ecause )ursuant to )aragra)h LcOA 'ection 41( o3 the -odeA the )rescri)tive )eriod was automaticall: sus)ended 3or a ma%imum )eriod o3 si%t: da:s 3rom 23 *)ril 1&&3 when the )rivate res)ondents 3iled their com)laints with the lupon o3 7alen"uela ,a4ati@ ,oreoverA having +rought the dis)ute +e3ore the lupon o3 +aranga: 7alen"uelaA ,a4atiA the )rivate res)ondents are esto))ed 3rom disavowing the authorit: o3 the +od: which the: themselves had sought@ Their act o3 tri3ling with the authorit: o3 the lupon +: un/usti3ia+l: 3ailing to attend the scheduled mediation hearings and instead 3iling the com)laint right awa: with the trial court cannot +e countenanced 3or to do so would wrea4 havoc on the

+aranga: conciliation s:stem@ DDD@ Neither are we )ersuaded +: the reasoning o3 the res)ondent Judge that the )etitioner Hhad alread: waived the right to a reconciliation )roceedings +e3ore the +aranga: o3 7alen"uelaA ,a4atiA considering that the accused and the com)lainant are residents o3 di33erent +aranga:s@H The )etitioner did not waive the reconciliation )roceedings +e3ore the lupon o3 7alen"uelaA ,a4atiN she su+mitted to it and attended the scheduled conciliation on 2# *)ril 1&&3 and invo4ed the )re>condition o3 re3erral to the lupon in her counter>a33idavit@ +BD Empayna5o 1. Co%r o2 Appeals *,BB,0 D)CTRINE3 &ac s3 Plainti33s 5strella and 5rodita 5m)a:nado are the true and law3ul owners o3 a lot and residential house@ The: leased it to de3endant 3or a )eriod o3 one :ear LJanuar: 1A 1&# > Januar: 1A 1&##O@ It was alleged that des)ite the e%)iration o3 the said contract o3 leaseA de3endant continued occu):ing the )remises in 9uestion so that )lainti33 5strella 5m)a:nado on *ugust 22A 1&## sent the de3endant a letter as4ing her to vacate the )remises in 9uestion within si%t: L6(O da:s 3rom recei)t o3 said letter@ That notwithstanding said demandA de3endant continued to occu): the su+/ect )remises@ 8n 8cto+er 2&A 1&##A )lainti33sA thru counselA sent the de3endant another letter o3 demand giving the de3endant until Novem+er 1(A 1&## within which to vacate the leased )remises@ De3endant ignored this demandA )rom)ting the )lainti33s to 3ile a com)laint +e3ore the 833ice o3 !aranga: -a)tain o3 the )lace@ 6n3ortunatel:A no settlement war reached thereat +: the )arties@ The ,T- ruled in 3avor o3 the )lainti33s@ The $T- a33irmed the decision in toto@ The -* reversed the $T- decision o the ground that no conciliation )roceedings +etween the )arties occurred at the +aranga: level@ Iss%e3 ?hether the -ourt o3 *))eals committed a reversi+le error in holding that no conciliation )roceedings +etween the )arties occurred at the +aranga: level )ursuant to PD 15(#@ 4el53 0es@ It is true that the )rivate res)ondents alleged in their answer the a+sence o3 con3rontation at the !aranga:@ 0etA ?e 3ind that the: never seriousl: and e%tensivel: )ursued this line o3 de3ense@ Their )osition )a)er did not reiterate this )rocedural issue@ InsteadA two issues were )osed thereinA as 3ollowsI L1O are the grounds o3 e/ectment alleged in the com)laint valid and /usti3iedX and L2O is the ownershi) +: the lessee o3 a house a ground 3or e/ectment in the instant caseX Nowhere in the said )leading did the: discuss the )rocedural issue the: now vigorousl: raise@ In e33ectA the: a+andoned such issue 3or the more su+stantial issues a3orestated@ It was onl: when the ,T- decided the case against the )rivate res)ondents that the: too4 u) the matter o3 non>con3rontation seriousl:@ !utA it was too late@ ,oreoverA the )resum)tion that the !aranga: -a)tain has regularl: )er3ormed his o33icial dut: has not +een re+utted +: an: convincing and su+stantial evidence@

+BE !anares II 1. !alisin/ *;KKK0

&ac s3 Petitioners 2idel ,@ !aVares IIA Lilia -@ 7alerianoA 5dgar ,@ !aVaresA 5milia 1atchialian and 2idel !esarino were the accused in si%teen criminal cases 3or esta3a 3iled +: the )rivate res)ondents@ The cases were assigned to the ,unici)al Trial -ourt o3 *nti)oloA $i"alA !ranch II@ *3ter the )etitioners were arraigned and entered their )lea o3 not guilt:A the: 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss the a3orementioned cases on the ground that the 3iling o3 the same was )rematureA in view o3 the 3ailure o3 the )arties to undergo conciliation )roceedings +e3ore the Lu)ong Taga)ama:a)a o3 !aranga: DaligA *nti)oloA $i"al@ Petitioners averred that since the: lived in the same +aranga: as )rivate res)ondentsA and the amount involved in each o3 the cases did not e%ceed Two .undred Pesos LP2((@((OA the said cases were re9uired under 'ection 412 in relation to 'ection 4(# o3 the Local 1overnment -ode o3 1&&1 and 'ection 1# o3 the 1&&1 $evised $ule on 'ummar: Procedure to +e re3erred to the Lu)ong Taga)ama:a)a or Pang4at ng Taga)ag4asundo o3 the +aranga: concerned 3or conciliation )roceedings +e3ore +eing 3iled in court@ The munici)al trial court issued an 8rder den:ing )etitionersG motion to dismiss on the ground that the: 3ailed to seasona+l: invo4e the non>re3erral o3 the cases to the Lu)ong Taga)ama:a)a or Pang4at ng Taga)ag4asundo@ It added that such 3ailure to invo4e non> re3erral o3 the case to the Lu)on amounted to a waiver +: )etitioners o3 the right to use the said ground as +asis 3or dismissing the cases@ Petitioners 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration o3 the a3orementioned 8rderA claiming that nowhere in the $evised $ules o3 -ourt is it stated that the ground o3 )rematurit: shall +e deemed waived i3 not raised seasona+l: in a motion to dismiss@ Therea3terA the ,T- issued an 8rder dismissing the si%teen criminal cases against )etitioners without )re/udiceA )ursuant to 'ection 1# o3 the 1&&1 $evised $ule on 'ummar: Procedure@ ,ore than two months laterA )rivate res)ondents through counselA 3iled a motion to revive the a+ovementioned criminal cases against )etitionersA stating that the re9uirement o3 re3erral to the Lu)on 3or conciliation had alread: +een com)lied with@ Petitioners 3iled a comment and o))osition to motion to revive claiming that the 8rder o3 the ,T- had long +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:N henceA )rivate res)ondents should have re>3iled the cases instead o3 3iling a motion to revive@ The ,T- issued an 8rder granting )rivate res)ondentsG motion to revive@ Petitioners 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration o3 the 8rder which was denied +: the munici)al trial court@ Petitioners therea3ter 3iled with the $T- a )etition 3or certiorariA in/unction and )rohi+ition assailing the 8rder o3 the ,T-@ The $T- denied it on the ground that since the dismissal o3 said cases was without )re/udiceA the 9uestioned order has not attained 3inalit: at all@ Petitioners contend that an order dismissing a case or action without )re/udice ma: attain 3inalit: i3 not a))ealed within the reglementar: )eriod@ .enceA i3 no motion to revive the case is 3iled within the reglementar: 3i3teen>da: )eriod within which to a))eal or to 3ile a motion 3or reconsideration o3 the courtGs orderA the order o3 dismissal +ecomes 3inal and the case ma: onl: +e revived +: the 3iling o3 a new com)laint or in3ormation@ 8n the other handA )rivate res)ondents su+mit that cases covered +: the 1&&1 $evised $ule on 'ummar: Procedure such as the criminal cases against )etitioners are not covered +: the rule regarding 3inalit: o3 decisions and orders under the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ The: insist that cases dismissed without )re/udice 3or non> com)liance with the re9uirement o3 conciliation +e3ore the Lu)ong Taga)ama:a)a or Pang4at ng Taga)ag4asundo o3 the +aranga: concerned ma: +e revived summaril: +: the 3iling o3 a motion to revive regardless o3 the num+er o3 da:s which has la)sed a3ter the dismissal o3 the case@ 4el53 PetitionersG contentions are meritorious@ * H3inal orderH issued +: a court has +een de3ined as one which dis)oses o3 the su+/ect matter in its entiret: or terminates a )articular )roceeding or actionA leaving nothing else to +e done +ut to en3orce +: e%ecution what has +een determined +: the court@ *s distinguished there3romA an Hinterlocutor: orderH is one which does not dis)ose o3 a case com)letel:A +ut leaves something more to +e ad/udicated u)on@ This -ourt has )reviousl: held that an order dismissing a case without )re/udice is a 3inal order i3 no motion 3or reconsideration or a))eal there3rom is timel: 3iled@ *3ter the order o3 dismissal o3 a

case without )re/udice has +ecome 3inalA and there3ore +ecomes outside the courtGs )ower to amend and modi3:A a )art: who wishes to reinstate the case has no other remed: +ut to 3ile a new com)laint@ DDD@ Private res)ondents claim that 'ection 1# o3 the 1&&1 $evised $ule on 'ummar: Procedure allows the revival o3 cases which were dismissed 3or 3ailure to su+mit the same to conciliation at the +aranga: levelA as re9uired under 'ection 412 in relation to 'ection 4(# o3 the Local 1overnment -ode@ 'ection 1# merel: states that when a case covered +: the 1&&1 $evised $ule on 'ummar: Procedure is dismissed without )re/udice 3or non>re3erral o3 the issues to the Lu)onA the same ma: +e revived onl: a3ter the dis)ute su+/ect o3 the dismissed case is su+mitted to +aranga: conciliation as re9uired under the Local 1overnment -ode@ There is no declaration to the e33ect that said case ma: +e revived +: mere motion even a3ter the 3i3teen>da: )eriod within which to a))eal or to 3ile a motion 3or reconsideration has la)sed@ DDD@ The -ourt also 3inds it necessar: to correct the mista4en im)ression o3 )etitioners and the munici)al trial court that the non>re3erral o3 a case 3or +aranga: conciliation as re9uired under the Local 1overnment -ode o3 1&&1 ma: +e raised in a motion to dismiss even a3ter the accused has +een arraigned@ It is well>settled that the non>re3erral o3 a case 3or +aranga: conciliation when so re9uired under the law is not /urisdictional in nature and ma: there3ore +e deemed waived i3 not raised seasona+l: in a motion to dismiss@ The -ourt notes that although )etitioners could have invo4ed the ground o3 )rematurit: o3 the causes o3 action against them due to the 3ailure to su+mit the dis)ute to Lu)on )rior to the 3iling o3 the cases as soon as the: received the com)laints against themA )etitioners raised the said ground onl: a3ter their arraignment@ .oweverA while the trial court committed an error in dismissing the criminal cases against )etitioners on the ground that the same were not re3erred to the Lu)on )rior to the 3iling thereo3 in court although said ground was raised +: them +elatedl:A the said order ma: no longer +e revo4ed at )resent considering that the same had alread: +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A and as earlier statedA ma: no longer +e annulled +: the ,unici)al Trial -ourtA nor +: the $egional Trial -ourt or this -ourt@

+BA &eli$ar5o 1. Co%r o2 Appeals *,BBE0

&ac s3 Private res)ondent Nemesio !@ Jose 3iled an action 3or e/ectment with an a))lication 3or the issuance o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: mandator: in/unction against )etitioner Muintin 2eli"ardo who averred that JosePs allegations to su))ort his )ra:er 3or a )reliminar: in/unction were utterl: 3alse and intended onl: to evade the re9uirements o3 P@D@ 15(# 3or )rior +aranga: conciliation@ Petitioner 9uestioned the /urisdiction o3 the court and the su33icienc: o3 the )rivate res)ondentGs cause o3 action 3or non>com)liance with the said decree@ The ,T- ruled in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondent@ Therea3terA )etitioner 3iled with the $T- a )etition 3or certiorari. The $T- dismissed the )etition on the ground that certiorari with in/unction was not the )ro)er remed: o3 the )etitionerA a))eal +eing then still availa+le to him@ The dismissal was sustained +: the res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals@ Iss%e3 ?hether the s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari instituted +: the )etitioner 3or the )ur)ose o3 9uestioning the /udgment was )ro)er@ 4el53 No@ In the case at +arA the com)laint 3or e/ectment 3iled +: the )rivate res)ondent contained an a))lication 3or the issuance o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: mandator: in/unctionA as allowed under 'ection 33 o3 !P 12&@ The suit wouldA there3oreA ostensi+l: 3all under the e%ce)tion mentioned in 'ection 412 L+O o3 the <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law@ *s correctl: )ointed out +: the )etitionerA the issue o3 the su+dividing and su+leasing o3 the )ro)ert: ma: no longer +e raised again in this case +ecause it had alread: +een ad/udicated in the antecedent case +etween the )etitioner and the )rivate res)ondent@ That withdrawal de)rived the )rivate res)ondentGs )ra:er 3or a )reliminar: mandator: in/unction o3 all legal +asis and removed his com)laint 3rom the o)eration o3 'ec@ 412 L+O o3 the <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law@ ?hether or not the court acted correctl: in )roceeding with the case even without the )rior +aranga: )roceeding is a )rocedural 9uestion that could not +e reviewed in a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari +ut onl: in an ordinar: a))eal@ * similar o+servation is made on its declaration that it was incum+ent u)on the )etitioner to )rove that the )rivate res)ondentGs allegations in su))ort o3 the )ra:er 3or )reliminar: in/unction was 3alse and that com)ensation or set>o33 was not a )ro)er de3ense@ These conclusions would at most constitute errors o3 /udgment reviewa+le onl: on a))eal and not errors o3 /urisdiction reviewa+le +: certiorari@ DDD@ ?hen the ,unici)al Trial -ourt ruled that it could act on the com)laint 3or e/ectment 3iled +: the )rivate res)ondent even without )rior +aranga: conciliation )roceedingsA it committed a mere error o3 /udgment and not o3 /urisdiction@ ?e have held in man: cases that while the re3erral o3 a case to the Lu)on Taga)a:a)a is a condition )recedent 3or the 3iling o3 a com)laint in courtA non>com)liance therewith cannot a33ect the /urisdiction which the court has alread: re9uired over the su+/ect matter and over the )erson o3 the de3endant@ .enceA the remed: availa+le to the )etitioner was to 9uestion the ruling o3 the court a uo in an ordinar: a))eal and notA as he mista4enl: didA in a s)ecial action 3or certiorari@ *t an: rateA even assuming that the )etition 3or certiorari 3iled +: the )etitioner was the )ro)er remed:A the same cannot +e granted as it cannot +e said that the court a uo committed grave a+use o3 discretion in 3inding the allegations 3or the issuance o3 )reliminar: in/unction to +e su33icient com)liance with the <atarungang Pam+aranga: Law@

R%les ,FB *+B. &eli$ar5o F +;,- Sps Ampelo9%io0

+B. La%reano 1. Co%r o2 Appeals *;KKK0 &ac s3 Petitioner ,enandro !@ Laureano a))lied 3or em)lo:ment with )rivate res)ondent 'inga)ore *irlines through its *rea ,anager in ,anila@ The 3ormer was eventuall: acce)ted as an e%)atriate ca)tain@ 'ometime in 1&#2A the com)an: was hit +: a recession@ -ost>cutting measures were iniated@ *3ter some timeA de3endant in3ormed )lainti33 o3 his termination@ !ecause he could not u)root his 3amil: on such short noticeA )lainti33 re9uested a three>month notice to a33ord him time to e%haust all )ossi+le avenues 3or reconsideration and retention@ De3endant gave onl: two L2O months notice and one L1O month salar:@ *ggrievedA )lainti33 instituted a case 3or illegal dismissal +e3ore the La+or *r+iter@ De3endant moved to dismiss on /urisdictional grounds@ !e3ore said motion was resolvedA the com)laint was withdrawn@ Therea3terA )lainti33 3iled the instant case 3or damages due to illegal termination o3 contract o3 services@ De3endant contends that the com)laint is 3or illegal dismissal together with a mone: claim arising out o3 and in the course o3 )lainti33s em)lo:ment HthusA it is the La+or *r+iter and the NL$- who have the /urisdiction )ursuant to *rticle 21 o3 the La+or -odeH and thatA since )lainti33 was em)lo:ed in 'inga)oreA all other as)ects o3 his em)lo:ment contract andBor documents e%ecuted in 'inga)ore@ The trial court handed down its decision in 3avor o3 )lainti33@ 'inga)ore *irlines timel: a))ealed +e3ore the res)ondent court and raised the issues o3 /urisdictionA validit: o3 terminationA esto))elA and damages@ The -* set aside the decision o3 the trial court@ Iss%e3 Is the )resent action one +ased on contract which )rescri+es in ten :ears under article 1144 o3 the New -ivil -ode or one 3or damages arising 3rom an in/ur: to the rights o3 the )lainti33 which )rescri+es in 3our :ears under article 1146 o3 the New -ivil -odeX 4el53 Neither *rticle 1144 nor *rticle 1146 o3 the -ivil -ode is )ertinent@ ?hat is a))lica+le is *rticle 2&1 o3 the La+or -ode@ ?hat rules on )rescri)tion should a))l: in cases li4e this one has long +een decided +: this -ourt@ In illegal dismissalA it is settledA that the ten>:ear )rescri)tive )eriod 3i%ed in *rticle 1144 o3 the -ivil -ode may not +e invo4ed +: )etitionersA 3or the -ivil -ode is a law o3 general a))licationA while the )rescri)tive )eriod 3i%ed in *rticle 2&2 o3 the La+or -ode Enow *rticle 2&1F is a 'P5-I*L L*? a))lica+le to claims arising 3rom em)lo:ee> em)lo:er relations@ In the light o3 *rticle 2&1A ?e agree with the a))ellate courtGs conclusion that )etitionerGs action 3or damages due to illegal termination 3iled again on Januar: #A 1&# or more than 3our L4O :ears a3ter the e33ective date o3 his dismissal on Novem+er 1A 1&#2 has alread: )rescri+ed@

+BC Al5ay 1. &G( Ins%rance Corpora ion *;KK,0

&ac s3 $es)ondent 216 Insurance -or)oration 3iled a com)laint with the $T- alleging that )etitioner 5vangeline <@ *lda: owed it P114A65(@ 6A re)resenting unli9uidated cash advancesA unremitted costs o3 )remiums and other charges incurred +: )etitioner in the course o3 her wor4 as an insurance agent 3or res)ondent@ Petitioner 3iled her answer and +: wa: o3 counterclaimA asserted her right 3or the )a:ment o3 P1(4A#&3@45A re)resenting direct commissionsA )ro3it commissions and contingent +onuses earned 3rom 1 Jul: 1&#6 to Decem+er 1&#6A and 3or accumulated )remium reserves amounting to P5((A(((@((@ $es)ondent 3iled a motion to dismiss )etitionerGs counterclaimA contending that the trial court never ac9uired /urisdiction over the same +ecause o3 the non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees +: )etitoner@ In res)onseA )etitioner as4ed the trial court to declare her counterclaim as e%em)t 3rom )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees since it is com)ulsor: and that res)ondent +e declared in de3ault 3or having 3ailed to answer such counterclaim@ The $T- granted res)ondentGs motion@ The court 3ound )etitionerGs counterclaim to +e merel: )ermissive in nature and held that )etitionerGs 3ailure to )a: doc4et 3ees )revented the court 3rom ac9uiring /urisdiction over the same@ The -* sustained the trial court@ Petitioner claims that res)ondent is esto))ed 3rom 9uestioning her non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees +ecause it did not raise this )articular issue when it 3iled its motion > the H,otion to 'tri4e 8ut *nswer with -om)ulsor: -ounterclaim and to Declare De3endant in De3aultH > with the $T-N ratherA it was onl: nine months a3ter receiving )etitionerGs answer that res)ondent assailed the trial courtGs lac4 o3 /urisdiction over )etitionerGs counterclaims +ased on the latterGs 3ailure to )a: doc4et 3ees@ Iss%e3 ?hether the counterclaim o3 )etitioner is com)ulsor: or )ermissive in nature@ 4el53 Permissive@ * com)ulsor: counterclaim is one whichA +eing cogni"a+le +: the regular courts o3 /usticeA arises out o3 or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the su+/ect matter o3 the o))osing )art:Gs claim and does not re9uire 3or its ad/udication the )resence o3 third )arties o3 whom the court cannot ac9uire /urisdiction@ In <alencia v. Court of Appeals" this -ourt ca)suli"ed the criteria or tests that ma: +e used in determining whether a counterclaim is com)ulsor: or )ermissiveA summari"ed as 3ollowsI ,. Are he issues of fact and law raise5 by he claim an5 co%n erclaim lar/ely he sameU ;. Wo%l5 res !udicata bar a s%bse9%en s%i on 5e2en5an Is claim absen he comp%lsory co%n erclaim r%leU D. Will substantially the same evidence s%ppor or re2% e plain i22Is claim as 7ell s 5e2en5an Is co%n erclaimU E. Is here any logical relation be 7een he claim an5 he co%n erclaimU Ano her es 6 applie5 in he more recen case o2 "uintanilla v Court of Appeals6 is he Mcompellin/ es o2 comp%lsorinessM 7hich re9%ires Ma lo/ical rela ionship be 7een he claim an5 co%n erclaim6 ha is6 7here con5%c in/ separa e rials o2 he respec i1e claims o2 he par ies 7o%l5 en ail a s%bs an ial 5%plica ion o2 e22or an5 ime by he par ies an5 he co%r .M Tested against the a+ovementioned standardsA )etitionerGs counterclaim 3or commissionsA +onusesA and accumulated )remium reserves is merel: )ermissive@ The evidence re9uired to )rove )etitionerGs claims di33ers 3rom that needed to esta+lish res)ondentGs demands 3or the recover: o3 cash accounta+ilities 3rom )etitionerA such as cash advances and costs o3 )remiums@ The recover: o3 res)ondentGs claims is not contingent or de)endent u)on esta+lishing )etitionerGs counterclaimA such that conducting se)arate trials will not result in the su+stantial du)lication o3 the time and e33ort o3 the court and the )arties@ 8ne would search the records in vain 3or a logical connection +etween the )artiesG claims@ This conclusion is 3urther rein3orced +: )etitionerGs own admissions since she declared in her answer that res)ondentGs

cause o3 actionA unli4e her ownA was not +ased u)on the ')ecial *gentGs -ontract@ .oweverA )etitionerGs claims 3or damagesA allegedl: su33ered as a result o3 the 3iling +: res)ondent o3 its com)laintA are com)ulsor:@

+B- Na ional S eel Corpora ion 1. Co%r o2 Appeals *,BBB0

&ac s3 Private res)ondent Jacinto was the 3ormer owner o3 record o3 1(( shares o3 stoc4 o3 the ,anila 1ol3 and -ountr: -lu+ L,1--O now owned +: and registered in the name o3 )etitioner N'-@ 8n 2e+ruar: &A 1&&(A he 3iled a com)laint against the N'- )ra:ing that the latter +e ordered to e%ecute a deed o3 assignment re>trans3erring unto )lainti33 the ,1--I certi3icate@ Petitioner N'- sought the dismissal o3 the com)laint on the ground o3 )rescri)tionA +ut its motion was denied +: the trial court in an orderA dated Novem+er &A 1&&(@ Petitioner N'+rought a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari in the -ourt o3 *))ealsA +ut again its )etition was dismissed +: the a))ellate court@ Its attem)t to secure review in this -ourt 3ailed as its )etition was dismissed in a resolutionA dated ,arch 1#A 1&&2@ Petitioner N'- then 3iled its answerA a3ter which trial was held@ It therea3ter 3iled a motion to dismiss the com)laint against it on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction 3or 3ailure o3 res)ondent Jacinto to )a: the correct amount o3 doc4et 3ees@ The trial court denied )etitionerGs motion@ .enceA the latter +rought a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari in the -ourt o3 *))ealsA +ut its )etition was dismissed@ Iss%e3 -an N'- still validl: raise the issue o3 non>)a:ment o3 the correct amount o3 doc4et 3eesX 4el53 No more@ Petitioner N'- correctl: argues that the action in this case is 3or the recover: o3 )ro)ert: rather than 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance andA henceA the doc4et 3ee should +e +ased on the value o3 the )ro)ert: sought to +e recovered@ It is similar to an action in which )etitioner see4s the e%ecution o3 a deed o3 sale o3 a )arcel o3 land in his 3avor@ 'imilarl:A i3 as in this caseA )lainti33 herein )rivate res)ondent JacintoA see4s the e%ecution in his 3avor o3 a deed o3 assignment o3 shares o3 stoc4A it 3ollows that the action is 3or recover: o3 )ersonal )ro)ert:A the main )ur)ose o3 which is to regain the ownershi) and )ossession o3 the said shares o3 stoc4@ It does not 3ollowA howeverA that the trial court should have dismissed the com)laint 3or 3ailure o3 )rivate res)ondent to )a: the correct amount o3 doc4et 3ees@ *lthough the )a:ment o3 the )ro)er doc4et 3ees is a /urisdictional re9uirementA the trial court ma: allow the )lainti3 in an action to )a: the same within a reasona+le time +e3ore the e%)iration o3 the a))lica+le )rescri)tive or reglementar: )eriod@ I3 the )lainti33 3ails to com)l: with this re9uirementA the de3endant should timel: raise the issue o3 /urisdiction or else he would +e considered in esto))el@ In the latter caseA the +alance +etween the a))ro)riate doc4et 3ees and the amount actuall: )aid +: the )lainti33 will +e considered a lien on an: award he ma: o+tain in his 3avor@ In the case at +arA )etitioner N'- 3iled in 1&&( a motion to dismiss +ut did not raise this )oint@ Instead it +ased his motion on )rescri)tion@ 6)on the denial +: the trial court o3 its motion to dismissA it 3iled an answerA su+mitted its )re>trial +rie3A and )artici)ated in the )roceedings +e3ore the trial court@ It was onl: in 1&&3 > more than three :ears a3ter 3iling its motion to dismiss > that )etitioner N'- again 3iled a motion to dismiss the action on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ -learl:A )etitioner is esto))ed 3rom raising this issue@ IndeedA while the lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 a court ma: +e raised at an: stage o3 an actionA neverthelessA the )art: raising such 9uestion ma: +e esto))ed i3 he has activel: ta4en )art in the ver: )roceedings which he 9uestions and he onl: o+/ects to the courtGs /urisdiction +ecause the /udgment or the order su+se9uentl: rendered is adversed to him@

+,KK Peral a 1. Alipio *,BAA0

&ac s3 Plainti33 *tanacia Peralta is the widow o3 Juan PagaduanA who was the registered owner o3 a cadastral lot@ Juan Pagaduan sold the land 3or P4A2((@ 8n 'e)tem+er 1 A 1&51A the widow and her children +: Juan PagaduanA who had alread: diedA +rought an action to com)el the de3endant to reconve: the landA +ut this action was dismissed without )re/udice The de3endant claims that the 3ive>:ear )eriod 3or the re)urchase o3 the land had alread: e%)iredA +ecause more than 3ive :ears ela)sed 3rom the date o3 the sale on *ugust 1A 1&4 to the 3iling o3 the )resent action on Novem+er 1A 1&52@ The )lainti33s contend that the running o3 the )eriod 3or 3iling the )resent action was interru)ted +: the )resentation o3 the )revious case 3iled in court in accordance with *rticle 1155 o3 the New -ivil -ode@ The trial court overruled the o+/ection o3 the de3endant +ut held that the dismissal o3 the action without )re/udice amounts to a /udicial )ermission to the )lainti33s to renew the action within a reasona+le )eriod o3 time@ The de3endant also claims thatA +e3ore the 3iling o3 the actionA the )lainti33s made a demand 3or reconve:ance and that the: o33ered )a:ment o3 the re)urchase )riceA and that neither did the: consign the said )rice@ The trial court also overruled this de3enseA holding that the )rovisions regarding pacto de retro contained in the New -ivil -ode are not a))lica+le@ The courtA there3oreA ordered the de3endant to reconve: the land to the )lainti33s u)on )a:ment +: the latter to the 3ormer o3 the amount o3 the )urchase )rice@ It is contended on this a))eal that under *rticle 1&46 o3 the 8ld -ivil -ode /udicial summons shall not give rise to interru)tionA i3 the )lainti33s should desist 3rom the com)laint as in this case@ In answer to this contentionA the a))ellees invo4e *rticle 1155 o3 the New -ivil -odeA )roviding that the )rescri)tion o3 actions is interru)ted when the: are 3iled +e3ore the court@ 4el53 The statute o3 limitations contained in the old -ode o3 -ivil Procedure L*ct No@ 1&(O contains no s)eci3ic or e%)ress )rovision on the sus)ension or interru)tion o3 the running o3 the )eriod o3 )rescri)tion +: the institution o3 an action@ There is a 3irml: esta+lished rule in man: *merican 'tates that the commencement o3 the suit )rior to the e%)iration o3 the a))lica+le limitation )eriod interru)ts the running o3 the statute as to all )arties to the action@ This rule is similar to that contained in *rticle 1155 o3 the New -ivil -ode@ There would +e no need o3 an e%)ress )rovision authori"ing the 3iling o3 the action a3ter the termination o3 the original )eriodA i3 the )rinci)le o3 interru)tion had +een ado)tedA +ecause under the )rinci)le o3 interru)tion or sus)ensionA the )eriod used u) in the determination o3 an actionA which is dismissedA will have to +e deducted 3rom the entire )eriod o3 limitations@ This -ourt has held in two leading cases that the 3iling o3 an action within the )rescri)tion )eriodA i3 the )lainti33 desists in its )rosecutionA does not sus)end the running o3 the statute@ The 3iling o3 the 3irst suit did not o)erate to sus)end the )eriod o3 limitations or interru)t the running thereo3A and the )eriod used u) in the determination o3 the )revious action L+rought on 'e)tem+er 1 A 1&51O is not to +e discounted 3rom the total )eriod o3 the statute@ It a))earsA there3oreA that when the second action was +rought on Novem+er 1A 1&52 the )eriod o3 limitations had alread: 3ull: e%)ired@ The ruling o3 the court that the dismissal o3 the )revious suit without )re/udice amounted to a /udicial )ermission to 3ile the second suit has no 3oundation or su))ort in law@ The )eriod 3or the re)urchase o3 the homestead is 3i%ed +: lawA and the same ma: not +e e%tended +: /udicial action@ The ruling o3 the court that the action could still +e +rought isA there3oreA incorrect@

+,K, Emnace 1. Co%r o2 Appeals *;KK,0

&ac s3 Petitioner 5milio 5mnaceA 7icente Ta+anao and Jacinto Divinagracia were )artners in a +usiness concern 4nown as ,a@ Nelma 2ishing Industr:@ 'ometime in Januar: o3 1&#6A the: decided to dissolve their )artnershi) and e%ecuted an agreement o3 )artition and distri+ution o3 the )artnershi) )ro)erties among themA conse9uent to Jacinto DivinagraciaGs withdrawal 3rom the )artnershi)@ Throughout the e%istence o3 the )artnershi)A and even a3ter 7icente Ta+anaoGs untimel: demise in 1&&4A )etitioner 3ailed to su+mit to Ta+anaoGs heirs an: statement o3 assets and lia+ilities o3 the )artnershi)A and to render an accounting o3 the )artnershi)Gs 3inances@ Petitioner also reneged on his )romise to turn over to Ta+anaoGs heirs the deceasedGs 1B3 share in the total assets o3 the )artnershi)A -onse9uentl:A Ta+anaoG s heirsA res)ondents hereinA 3iled against )etitioner an action 3or accountingA )a:ment o3 sharesA division o3 assets and damages@ Petitioner 3iled a motion to dismiss the com)laint on the grounds o3 im)ro)er venueA lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the nature o3 the action or suitA and lac4 o3 ca)acit: o3 the estate o3 Ta+anao to sue@ The $T- denied the motion to dismiss@ The -* dismissed the )etition 3or certiorari@ $es)ondents want the trial court to com)el )etitioner to )a: and turn over their shareA or the e9uivalent value thereo3A 3rom the )roceeds o3 the sale o3 the )artnershi) assets@ The: also assert that until and unless a )ro)er accounting is doneA the e%act value o3 the )artnershi)Gs assetsA as well as their corres)onding share thereinA cannot +e ascertained@ -onse9uentl:A the: 3eel /usti3ied in not having )aid the commensurate doc4et 3ee as re9uired +: the $ules o3 -ourt@ PetitionerA howeverA argues that the trial court and the -ourt o3 *))eals erred in condoning the non>)a:ment o3 the )ro)er legal 3ees and in allowing the same to +ecome a lien on the monetar: or )ro)ert: /udgment that ma: +e rendered in 3avor o3 res)ondents@ Iss%e3 *re the res)ondents /usti3ied in not )a:ing the correct amount o3 doc4et 3ees on the ground that their demand is not ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationX 4el53 No@ The trial court does not have to em)lo: guesswor4 in ascertaining the estimated value o3 the )artnershi)Gs assetsA 3or res)ondents themselves voluntaril: )egged the worth thereo3 at Thirt: ,illion Pesos LP3(A(((A(((@((O@ .enceA this case is one which is reall: not +e:ond )ecuniar: estimationA +ut rather )arta4es o3 the nature o3 a sim)le collection case where the value o3 the su+/ect assets or amount demanded is )ecuniaril: determina+le@ ?hile it is true that the e%act value o3 the )artnershi)Gs total assets cannot +e shown with certaint: at the time o3 3ilingA res)ondents can and must ascertainA through in3ormed and )ractical estimationA the amount the: e%)ect to collect 3rom the )artnershi)A )articularl: 3rom )etitionerA in order to determine the )ro)er amount o3 doc4et and other 3ees@ It is thus im)erative 3or res)ondents to )a: the corres)onding doc4et 3ees in order that the trial court ma: ac9uire /urisdiction over the action@ NeverthelessA unli4e in the case o3 Manchester 'evelopment Corp. v@ Court of Appeals" where there was clearl: an e33ort to de3raud the government in avoiding to )a: the correct doc4et 3eesA we see no attem)t to cheat the courts on the )art o3 res)ondents@ In 3actA the lower courts have noted their e%)ressed desire to remit to the court Han: )a:a+le +alance or lien on whatever award which the .onora+le -ourt ma: grant them in this case should there +e an: de3icienc: in the )a:ment o3 the doc4et 3ees to +e com)uted +: the -ler4 o3 -ourt@H There is evident willingness to )a:A and the 3act that the doc4et 3ee )aid so 3ar is inade9uate is not an indication that the: are tr:ing to avoid )a:ing the re9uired amountA +ut ma: sim)l: +e due to an ina+ilit: to )a: at the time o3 3iling@ This consideration ma: have moved the trial court and the -ourt o3 *))eals to declare that the un)aid doc4et 3ees shall +e considered a lien on the /udgment award@ DDD@ $es)ondents have a s)eci3ic claim > 1B3 o3 the value o3 all the )artnershi) assets > +ut the: did not allege a s)eci3ic amount@ The: didA howeverA estimate the )artnershi)Gs total assets to +e worth Thirt: ,illion Pesos LP3(A(((A(((@((OA in a letter addressed to )etitioner@ $es)ondents cannot now sa: that the: are una+le to ma4e an estimateA 3or the said letter and the admissions therein 3orm )art o3 the records o3 this case@ The: cannot avoid )a:ing the initial doc4et 3ees +: convenientl: omitting the said amount in their amended

com)laint@ This estimate can +e made the +asis 3or the initial doc4et 3ees that res)ondents should )a:@ In the o3t>9uoted case o3 Sun &nsurance Office" 6td. v. @on. Ma#imiano Asuncion" this -ourt held that when the s)eci3ic claim Hhas +een le3t 3or the determination +: the courtA the additional 3iling 3ee there3or shall constitute a lien on the /udgment and it shall +e the res)onsi+ilit: o3 the -ler4 o3 -ourt or his dul: authori"ed de)ut: to en3orce said lien and assess and collect the additional 3ee@H !ased on the 3oregoingA the trial court erred in not dismissing the com)laint outright des)ite their 3ailure to )a: the )ro)er doc4et 3ees@ NeverthelessA as in other )rocedural rulesA it ma: +e li+erall: construed in certain cases i3 onl: to secure a /ust and s)eed: dis)osition o3 an action@ ?hile the rule is that the )a:ment o3 the doc4et 3ee in the )ro)er amount should +e adhered toA there are certain e%ce)tions which must +e strictl: construed@ In recent rulingsA this -ourt has rela%ed the strict adherence to the Manchester doctrineA allowing the )lainti33 to )a: the )ro)er doc4et 3ees within a reasona+le time +e3ore the e%)iration o3 the a))lica+le )rescri)tive or reglementar: )eriod@ The trial court in the case at +ar should determine the )ro)er doc4et 3ee +ased on the estimated amount that res)ondents see4 to collect 3rom )etitionerA and direct them to )a: the same within a reasona+le timeA )rovided the a))lica+le )rescri)tive or reglementar: )eriod has not :et e%)ired@

+,K; ASTA M)S#)WS#<6 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS G.R. No. ,;;-.K April DK6 ,BBB

&ACTS3 Petitioner herein *sta ,os4ows4:A a 1erman nationalA is see4ing to recover her investments in an alleged /oint venture with )rivate res)ondents *ntonio -@ DoriaA 5dgardo L@ *lcara"A and 5vangeline 5@ Doria 8n *ugust 1(A 1&#4A )etitioner 3iled a com)laint 3or collection o3 sum o3 mone: and damages against )rivate res)ondentsA doc4eted as -ivil -ase No@ 5136&A and ra33led to the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Pasig -it:A !ranch 161@ 8n Novem+er 16A 1&#&A a3ter a )rotracted trial on the meritsA the trial rendered a decision in 3avor o3 the )etitioner@ 2rom that decisionA )rivate res)ondents a))ealed to the -ourt o3 *))ealsA raising +oth 3actual and legal issues@ The -ourt o3 *))ealsA howeverA rendered a decision dismissing the a))eal solel: on the ground o3 )lainti33>a))elleeGs L)etitionerGsO alleged non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees in violation o3 the ruling in Manchester 'evelopment Corporation v@ Court of Appeals C as modi3ied in the cases o3 Sun &nsurance Office 6td@ v@ Asuncion and )acay v@ *egional )rial Court with the additional 3inding that )etitioner can no longer )a: the doc4et 3ees )rescri)tion o3 the action has alread: set in@ 8n ,a: 25A 1&&5A )etitioner dul: 3iled a ,otion 3or -lari3ication andBor $econsideration in order to clari3: whether the dis)ositive )ortion o3 the decision was re3erring to the a))eal 3ee or the doc4et 3ees )a:a+le to trial courtA and in case o3 the latterA )etitioner su+mitted that the dismissal 3or non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees is erroneous +ecause )lainti33 alread: )aid the doc4et 3ees in the trial courtA as evidenced +: a %ero% co): o3 the o33icial recei)t issued +: the cler4 o3 court ,$ denied@ .enceA this )etition 3or certiorari assailing the 3inding o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals that )etitioner did not )a: doc4et 3ees in the trial court and the erroneous a))lication o3 the rules on non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees as enunciated +: this -ourt in the cases o3 ,anchesterA 'un Insurance and Taca:@ ISS(E 3 ?hether or not -* erred in dismissing the a))eal on the alleged ground o3 non> )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees@ 4ELD3 0es@ Litigation shouldA as much as )ossi+leA +e decided on the merits and not on technicalit:@ Dismissal o3 a))eals )urel: on technical grounds is 3rowned u)onA and the rules o3 )rocedure ought not to +e a))lied in a ver: rigidA technical senseA 3or the: are ado)ted to hel) secureA not overrideA su+stantial /ustice and there+: de3eat their ver: aims@ *s has +een the constant ruling o3 this -ourtA ever: )art: litigant should +e a33orded the am)lest o))ortunit: 3or the )ro)er and /ust determination o3 his causeA 3ree 3rom the constraints o3 technicalities In this caseA the )ra:er o3 the com)laint onl: s)eci3ied the actual damages su33ered +: )etitioner and led the determination o3 moral and e%em)lar: damages to the sound discretion o3 the court@ *ttorne:Gs 3eesA costs o3 suit and e%)enses o3 litigation were )ra:ed 3or in such amounts as ma: +e )roven during trial@ Ideall:A considering that the )resent case involves collection o3 sum o3 mone: and damagesA )etitioner should have s)eci3ied the amount o3 all her claimsA whether 3or actualA moralA or e%em)lar: damages or an: other claimsA in the +od: and )ra:er o3 the com)laint@ .oweverA in view o3 the attendant circumstancesA a more li+eral inter)retation o3 the rules is called 3or@ ?hile the doc4et 3ees were +ased onl: on the amounts s)eci3iedA the trial court ac9uired /urisdiction over the actionA and /udgment awards which were le3t 3or

determination +: the court or as ma: +e )roven during trial would still +e su+/ect to additional 3iling 3ees which shall constitute a lien on the /udgment@ It would +e the res)onsi+ilit: o3 the -ler4 o3 -ourt Lo3 the trial courtO or his dul: authori"ed de)ut: to en3orce said lien and assess and collect the additional 3ees@ ?.5$528$5A the )etition is here+: 1$*NT5D@ The decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals is set aside@

+,KD Cab% ihan 1s. Lan5cen er Cons r%c ion Q De1elopmen Corpora ion

&ac s3 Petitioner -a+utihan entered into an agreement with res)ondent cor)oration@ Through a !oard $esolution No@ (1A 'eries o3 1&& A res)ondent -or)oration through Lu" !a:lon Ponce entered into a Deed o3 6nderta4ing with )etitionerA 2orroA $adan and *nave where+: the: would 3acilitate the recover: o3 the )ro)ert: located in Parana9ue 3rom the s9uatters )resentl: occu):ing it@ The res)ondent cor)orationA on the other handA agreed to )a: or com)ensate them +ased on the gross area o3 the land or gross )roceeds o3 the sale in the 3ollowing mannerI -a+utihan L2(KOA 2orro L1(KOA $adan L4KO and *nave L2@5KO 3or a total o3 36@5K@ Petitioners were a+le to com)l: with their underta4ings and title to the land was )ro)erl: trans3erred to the cor)oration@ .oweverA u)on demandA res)ondent cor)oration re3used to com)l: with its o+ligation to com)ensate )etitioners@ .enceA )etitioner -a+utihan 3iled a suit 3or +reach o3 contract in $T- Pasig@ $es)ondent -or)oration 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss on the grounds o3I im)ro)er venueA lac4 o3 /urisdiction over su+/ect matter o3 the claimA and non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3eesA which was granted@ .enceA this )etition 3or certiorari with '-@ Iss%es3 1O ?hether the )ro)er venue was $T- PasigA not $T- Parana9ue Lwhere the )ro)ert: was locatedO 2O ?hether there was lac4 o3 /urisdiction over su+/ect matter o3 the claim on the ground that 2orroA $adan and *nave were not named as )lainti33s 3O ?hether there was non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees +ased on the value o3 the land claim L36K which is P1#(,O 4el53 Petition granted@ 1O The suit 3or +reach o3 contract is a )ersonal and not real action@ *ctions a33ecting title to or )ossession o3 real )ro)ert: or an interest therein shall +e commenced and tried in the )ro)er court that has territorial /urisdiction over the area where the )ro)ert: is situated@ 8n the other handA all other actions L)ersonal actionsO shall +e commenced and tried in the )ro)er courts where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )rinci)al )lainti33s resides or where the de3endant or an: o3 the )rinci)al de3endants resides@ In the )resent caseA )etitioner see4s )a:ment o3 her services in accordance with the underta4ing the )arties signed@ !reach o3 contract gives rise to a cause o3 action 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance or rescission@ I3 )etitioner had 3iled an action in rem 3or the conve:ance o3 real )ro)ert:A the dismissal o3 the case would have +een )ro)er on the ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action@ 2O * mis/oinder nor a non>/oinder o3 )arties is not a ground 3or the dismissal o3 an action@ Parties ma: +e dro))ed or added +: order o3 the courtA on motion o3 an: )art: or on the courtPs own initiative at an: stage o3 the action@ The $T- should have ordered the /oinder o3 such )art:A and non>com)liance with the said order would have +een ground 3or dismissal o3 the action@ The $T- could have se)aratel: )roceeded with the case as 3ar as her 2(K share in the claim was concernedA inde)endent o3 the other 16@5K@ This 3act means that her com)anions are not indis)ensa+le )arties without whom no 3inal

determination can +e had@ *t +estA the: are mere necessar: )arties who ought to +e im)leaded 3or a com)lete determination or settlement o3 the claim su+/ect o3 the action@ The non>inclusion o3 a necessar: )art: does not )revent the court 3rom )roceeding with the actionA and the /udgment rendered therein shall +e without )re/udice to the rights o3 such )art:@ 3O 'ection 5A $ule 141 3 the $ules o3 -ourt re9uires that the assessed value o3 the real estateA su+/ect o3 an actionA should +e considered in com)uting the 3iling 3ees@ !ut the -ourt has alread: clari3ied that the $ule does not a))l: to an action 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormanceA which is classi3ied as an action not ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ !esidesA i3 during the course o3 the trialA )etitionerPs 2(K claim on the 2ourth 5state 'u+division can no longer +e satis3ied and )a:ment o3 its monetar: e9uivalent is the onl: solution le3tA 'unli3e Insurance 833iceA Ltd vs@ *suncion holds as 3ollowsI C?here the 3iling o3 the initiator: )leading is not accom)anied +: )a:ment o3 the doc4et 3eeA the court ma: allow the )a:ment o3 the 3ee within a reasona+le timeA +ut in no case +e:ond the a))lica+le )rescri)tive or reglementar: )eriod@J

+,KE )ri/inal De1elopmen an5 Cons r%c ion Corpora ion 1s. CA

&ac s3 Petitioner 8riginal Develo)ment and -onstruction -or)oration L8D5-8$O 3iled a com)laint 3or +reach o3 contract and damages against )rivate res)ondent .ome Insurance and 1uarant: -or)oration L.I1-OA National .ome ,ortgage 2inance -or)oration LN.,2-O and -aloocan -it: Pu+lic 'chool Teachers *ssociation L--P'T*O@ Petitioner 8D5-8$ claims that .I1- un/ustl: de)rived it o3 not less than 1(A((( committed +u:ersA and as a conse9uenceA su33ered a +ig 3inancial loss@ It alleged the 3ollowingI total loss o3 mar4et +rought a+out +: .I1-Ps malicious and unreasona+le dela: in action on 8D5-8$Ps re9uest 3or issuance o3 certi3icate o3 com)letionA a))raisal valuesA construction o3 smaller and chea)er house and lot )ac4agesA etc@N actual and conse9uential damages resulting 3rom 8D5-8$ PresidentPs securing )ersonal loans 3rom s:m)athetic 3riends at high interest rates +: reason o3 .I1-Ps malicious and unreasona+le dela:sN 3ailure to e33ect )a:ment o3 loan )roceeds in the amount o3 P2A2 2A1&3@1(N actualA conse9uential and e%em)lar: damagesN andA 25K o3 its total mone: claim as attorne:Ps 3ees@ Petitioner )aid P4A344 as doc4et 3ee +ased on the onl: numerical 3igure a))earing in the com)laint 3or alleged loan ta4e out )roceeds which N.2,- allegedl: 3ailed to remit to 8D5-8$@ .I1- 3iled a motion to dismiss +ased on the ground that the court did not ac9uire /urisdiction due to non)a:ment o3 the )ro)er doc4et 3ees@ The -ourt denied the ,TD and directed the -ler4 o3 -ourt to issue a -erti3icate o3 $eassessment o3 the )ro)er doc4et 3ee to include in the -erti3icate the de3icienc:A i3 an:@ In case the )a:ment is insu33icientA )lainti33 must )a: the de3icienc: within 5 da:s 3rom recei)t o3 the certi3icate o3 reassessment to the -ler4 o3 -ourt@ The -ler4 o3 -ourt issued the re9uired certi3icate o3 reassessment +ut the de3icienc: could not +e included therein +ecause the claim 3or attorne:Ps 3ee mani3ested in the +od: o3 the com)laint was not reiterated in the )ra:er@ .I1- moved to reconsider the order o3 the courtA )ra:ing that the com)laint +e dismissed or in the alternativeA to amend 8D5-8$Ps com)laint to re3lect the s)eci3ic amount o3 damages +oth in the +od: as well as in the )ra:er@ It was deniedA +ut on )etition with -*A it was held that the res)ondent court did not ac9uire /urisdictionA and said civil case was ordered e%)unged 3rom the record@ .enceA this )etition with '- 3iled +: 8D5-8$@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the court ac9uired /urisdiction even i3 the com)laint does not s)eci3: the amount o3 damages 4el53 Petition devoid o3 merit@ 8D5-8$Ps 3irst com)laint as well as its amended com)laint vaguel: asserted its claim 3or actualA conse9uentialA e%em)lar: and moral damagesA the amount o3 which will +e )roved at the trial and the demand 3or attorne:Ps 3ees as e9uivalent to 25K o3 the total monetar: lia+ilit: and other e%)enses o3 litigation and costs o3 this suit@ 'uch terms are certainl: not de3inite enough to su))ort the com)utation o3 the )ro)er doc4et 3ees@ ?hile it is not re9uired that e%act amounts +e statedA the )lainti33 must ascertainA to his estimationA the sums he wants and the sums re9uired to determine the amount o3 such doc4et and other 3ees@ ThusA it is evident that the com)laint did not state enough 3acts and sums to ena+le the -ler4 o3 -ourt o3 the lower court to com)ute the doc4et 3ees )a:a+le and le3t to the /udge mere guesswor4 as to these amountsA which is 3atal@ The intent to de3raud the government a))ears o+viousA not onl: in the 3iling o3 the original com)laintA +ut also the 3iling o3 the amended com)laint@ In an: eventA the re9uirement in -ircular No@ that com)laintsA )etitionsA answers and similar )leadings should s)eci3: the amount o3 damages +eing )ra:ed 3or not onl: in the +od: o3 the )leadings +ut also in the )ra:er has not +een altered@ ?hat has +een revised is the

rule that su+se9uent amendment o3 the com)laint or similar )leading will not there+: vest /urisdiction on the -ourtA much less the )a:ment o3 the doc4et 3ee +ased on the amount sought in the amended )leading@ The trial court now is authori"ed to allow )a:ment o3 the 3ee within a reasona+le time +ut in no case +e:ond the a))lica+le )rescri)tive )eriod or reglementar: )eriod@ ThusA where a com)laint )urel: 3or mone: or damages did not s)eci3: the amounts +eing claimedA the -ourt ma: allow amendment o3 the )leading and )a:ment o3 )ro)er 3ees or where the )leading s)eci3ied the amount o3 ever: claim +ut the 3ees )aid are insu33icientA the de3ect ma: +e cured and the -ourt ma: ta4e cogni"ance o3 the action +: )a:ment o3 the )ro)er 3ees )rovided that in +oth casesA )rescri)tion has not set in the meantime@ In the case at +arA the trial court allowed the amendment o3 the com)laint 3or the determination o3 the 3eesA +ut such amendment did notA howeverA in an:wa:A hel) in s)eci3:ing the amount o3 damages claimed@ *t mostA the demand 3or attorne:Ps 3ees was stated as 25K o3 the total monetar: lia+ilit:A another uns)eci3ied amount which cannot +e the +asis o3 com)utation@ *s to awards o3 claims not s)eci3ied in the )leadingsA this -ourt had alread: clari3ied that the: re3er onl: to damages arising a3ter the 3iling o3 the com)laint or similar )leadingA to which additional 3iling 3ee shall constitute a lien on the /udgment@ The amount o3 an: claim 3or damages there3ore arising on or +e3ore the 3iling o3 the com)laint or an: )leading should +e s)eci3ied@

+,KA Al2onso 1s. Sps. An5res

&ac s3 ')ouses *ndres 3iled a suit 3or accion )u+liciana with a claim 3or damages against )etitioner *l3onso@ It was decided in 3avor o3 s)ouses *ndresA so )etitioner *l3onso 3iled a notice o3 a))ealA without )a:ment o3 doc4et and other law3ul 3ees@ The notice o3 a))eal was granted +: the $T- on Jul: 21A 1&& @ ')ouses *ndres 3iled a motion to dismiss )etitionerPs a))eal on the ground o3 non>)a:ment o3 )ro)er 3ees@ The trial court dismissed the motion and directed )etitioners to )a: the )ro)er 3ees to cure the technical de3ect@ 8n the same da: directed toA )etitioner *l3onso )aid the su+/ect 3ees@ 8n )etition with -*A -* dismissed *l3onsoPs a))eal on the ground that the: )aid to 3ail the re9uired doc4et 3ees@ .enceA this )etition@ Iss%es3 1O ?hether or not the )a:ment o3 doc4et and other law3ul 3ees within the )eriod 3or )er3ecting an a))eal is mandator: 2O ?hether or not )etitioners have shown su33icient reason 3or the rela%ation o3 what otherwise should +e a stringent a))lication o3 the rule on the )a:ment o3 a))ellate doc4et and other law3ul 3ees 4el53 Appeal reins a e5 an5 case reman5e5 o CA 2or 2%r her procee5in/s. Notwithstanding the mandator: nature o3 the re9uirement o3 )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees within the )rescri+ed )eriodA this -ourt has also held that the strict a))lication o3 the /urisdictional nature o3 the a+ove rule on )a:ment o3 a))ellate doc4et 3ees ma: +e mitigated under e%ce)tional circumstances to +etter serve the interest o3 /ustice@ ?e 3ind dela: e%cusa+le@ ?e also note that )etitioner were not in3ormed +: the trial courts that the doc4et 3ees were alread: due at that time@ This 3ailure o3 the trial court might have stemmed 3rom the recenc: o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ .enceA 3airness +ids us not to ta4e this circumstance against )etitioner@ Petitioners demonstrated their willingness to )a: the doc4et 3eesA as shown +: their immediate com)liance with the order o3 the trial courtA on the ver: da: the motion was resolved@ Late )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees ma: +e admitted when the )art: showed willingness to a+ide +: the rulesA +: immediatel: )a:ing the re9uired 3ees@

+,K. !PI 1s. CA

&ac s3 4& wor4ers o3 Diar 3iled a com)laint against !PI and DiarPs *ssistanceA Inc@ in NL$-A claiming regulari"ation o3 wor4 status@ The claim the: were wor4ing in the res)ondent !PI )er3orming clericalA messengerial and general utilit: wor4 as the: had +een assigned in the +an4 +: their agenc:A DiarPs *ssistance@ The com)laint was dismissedA which was a33irmed +: NL$- and '-@ The: 3iled a new com)laint claiming 3or a declaration that the: were regular em)lo:ees o3 !PI@ The com)laint was dismissed +: the la+or ar+iterA +ut such dismissal was set aside +: the NL$- 2irst Division@ Diar and !PI moved 3or reconsideration which was deniedA !PI 3or +eing 3iled +e:ond the reglementar: )eriod and DiarPs 3or lac4 o3 merit@ !PI 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with -* assailing the NL$- decision +ut such )etition was dismissed on the ground that the veri3ication has +een signed onl: +: )etitionerPs vice )residentA without e%)ress authorit: 3rom an: +oard resolution or )ower o3 attorne:@ .enceA this a))eal with '-@ Iss%es3 ?hether !PIPs )etition +e3ore -* should have +een given due course 4el53 Pe i ion /ran e5. Petitioner )leads 3or li+eral construction o3 rules on veri3ication and 3orum sho))ing@ 8n the other handA res)ondents insist on strict a))lication o3 these rules@ It cannot +e denied that !PI Petition +e3ore the -* was dismissed +ecause the veri3ication and certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing had +een signed +: 7P o3 the +an4 without an: +oard resolution or )ower o3 attorne: em)owering him to do so@ 8n the other handA )etitioner contends that it did authori"e 7ice President to act as re)resentativeA as shown in its ,$@ $es)ondent union argues that the +elated authorit: was given 11 da:s a3ter the 6(>da: reglementar: )eriod 3or 3iling a Petition 3or -ertiorari@ ?e hold that li+eral construction o3 the rules on veri3ication and 3orum sho))ing are in order@ $ules o3 )rocedure are used to hel) secure and not override su+stantial /ustice@ 5ven the $ules o3 -ourt mandates a li+eral construction in order to )romote their o+/ective o3 securing a /ustA s)eed: and ine%)ensive dis)osition o3 ever: action and )roceeding@ 'ince rules o3 )rocedure are mere tools designed to 3acilitate the attainment o3 /usticeA their strict and rigid a))lication which would result in technicalities that tend to 3rustrate rather than )romote su+stantial /ustice should +e avoided@ ThusA the dismissal o3 an a))eal on )urel:A technical ground is 3rowned u)on es)eciall: i3 it will result to un3airness@ ?e shall not rule on the meritsA +ut in the interest o3 3air )la: and orderl: administration o3 /sutiveA we 3ind that the reinstatement o3 the )etition and its consolidation with DiarPs -* a))eal is warranted@ !PI is an indis)ensa+le )art: to the controvers:A considering that its inclusion is necessar: 3or the e33ective and com)lete resolution o3 the case@ These 3acts reveal close 3actual and legal relationshi)s among res)ondent unionA !PI and DiarA relationshi)s that are so ine%trica+l: intertwined that the issues raised in the com)laint cannot +e 3inall: determined without considering the rights o3 all three )arties@

+,KC Lapi5 1s. La%rea

&ac s3 Petitioner La)id s)ouses 3iled a com)laint 3or damages against the school 3or summaril: dismissing their son without notice and hearing@ Private res)ondent answered that as earl: as June 1&& A ,s@ -ru" had +een sending them letters regarding their sonPs mischie3 in school@ *ccording to said res)ondentsA -hristo)her had committed serious in3ractions when he hurt not onl: his classmates +ut also his classroom teacherA ,s@ -ru"A and one em)lo:ee@ Petitioner 3iled a motion to declare res)ondent school in de3ault in Novem+er 1#A 1&&#A which was denied +: the trial court in 2e+ruar: &A 1&&&@ Petitioner moved 3or reconsideration +ut was denied in ,arch 11A 1&&&@ Petitioner 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the -ourt o3 *))ealsA which was dismissed on June 1A 1&&& 3or 3ailure to indicate the material date o3 3iling ,$ with $T-A as re9uired +: '- -ircular No@ 3&>&#@ Petitioner 3iled ,$ o3 -* resolutionA +ut still without indicating the date as to when their ,$ o3 $T- order was 3iled@ *))ellate court denied said ,$@ .enceA this )etition@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not -* erred in dismissing )etition 3or certiorari on the ground o3 3ormal and )rocedural de3icienc: 4el53 Pe i ion 5enie5. There are three material dates that must +e stated in a )etition 3or certiorari +rought under $ule 65@ 2irstA the date when notice o3 /udgment or 3inal order or resolution was received@ 'econdA the date when a motion 3or new trial or 3or reconsideration was 3iledN andA thirdA the date when notice o3 denial thereo3 was received@ In the case +e3ore usA )etition 3iled with -* 3ailed to indicate the second dateA )articularl: the date o3 3iling o3 their motion 3or reconsideration@ The re9uirement 3or setting 3orth the 3 material dates in a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 is 3or the )ur)ose o3 determining its timeliness@ 'uch a )etition is re9uired to +e 3iled not later than ( da:s 3rom notice o3 /udgmentA order or resolution sought to +e assailed@ The -ourt o3 *))eals was not in an: )osition to determine when this )eriod commenced to run and whether the motion 3or reconsideration itsel3 was 3iled on time since the material dates were not stated@

+,KB Rep%blic o2 he Philippines 1s. 4ernan5e$

&ac s3 ')ouses ,unson ado)ted minor <evin 5arl !artolome ,oran@ ')ouses 3iled a /oinder o3 the )etition 3or ado)tion and the )etitions 3or change o3 name in a single )roceedingA which was o))osed +: )etitioner on the ground that these )etitions should +e conducted and )ursued as two se)arate )roceedings@ * )erusal o3 the records shows that onl: the laws and rules on ado)tion have +een o+served +ut not those 3or a )etition 3or change o3 name@ Iss%e3 ?hether a /oinder o3 ado)tion and change o3 name +eing )leaded as two se)arate +ut related causes o3 action ma: +e )laced in a single )etition 4el53 The legall: ado)ted child o3 )rivate res)ondents shall hence3orth +e o33iciall: 4nown as <evin 5arl ,unson : *ndrade unless a change thereo3 is herea3ter e33ected in accordance with law@ ?hile it is true that there is no e%)ress )rohi+ition against the /oinder o3 a )etition 3or ado)tion and 3or change o3 nameA we do not +elieve that there is an: relation +etween these two )etitionsA nor are the: o3 the same nature or characterA much less do the: )resent an: common 9uestion o3 3act or lawA which con/ointl: would warrant their /oinder@ In shortA these )etitions do not rightl: meet the underl:ing test o3 conce)tual unit: demanded to sanction their /oinder under our $ules@ * )etition 3or ado)tion and a )etition 3or change o3 name are two s)ecial )roceedings whichA in su+stance and )ru)oseA are di33erent 3rom each other@ 5ach action is individuall: governed +: )articular sets o3 laws and rules@ These two )roceedings involve dis)arate issues@

+,,K Aron 1s. CA

&ac s3 Petitioner entered into a contract with res)ondent to )urchase a )arcel o3 land@ The date o3 last installment was on *)ril 3A 1&#3A a3ter which res)ondent must e%ecute a deed o3 sale in his 3avor@ Petitioner 3iled an action to com)el res)ondent to e%ecute a deed o3 sale in his 3avor on Jul: 23A 1&&3@ $es)ondents 3iled a motion to dismiss on 'e)tem+er 1 A 1&&3 on the ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action and )rescri)tion@ 8n Jul: 14A 1&&4A the lower court issued its order now on a))eal granting the ,TD@ 8n *ugust 26A 1&&6A -* )romulgated its decision a33irming the a))ealed order@ 8n 'e)tem+er 3(A 1&&6A )etitioner 3iled ,$@ 8n 8cto+er 2&A 1&&6A -* ordered the motion e%)unged 3rom the record 3or having +een 3iled late@ .enceA this )etition with '-@ Iss%e3 ?hether the decision o3 the -* has +ecome 3inal +ecause )etitionerPs ,$ was 3iled out o3 time 4el53 Pe i ion 5enie5. -* decision is 3inal +ecause the )etitionerPs ,$ was 3iled out o3 time@ Petitioner received notice o3 decision on *ugust 2&A 1&&6@ 8n 'e)tem+er 16A 1&&6A he 3iled ,$ L1# da:s a3ter recei)tO@ 8n 8cto+er 2&A 1&&6A the -* e%)unged the motion 3or reconsideration 3or having +een 3iled late@ .enceA the decision o3 -* has +ecome 3inal@

+,,, Rel%cio 1s. Lope$

&ac s3 $es)ondent 3iled a )etition 3or a))ointment as sole administrati% o3 con/ugal )artnershi) o3 )ro)ertiesA 3or3eitureA etc@ against her hus+andA *l+erto Lo)e" and )etitioner )aramourA Imelda $elucio@ It was alleged that de3endant Lo)e" and )etitioner $elucioA during their )eriod o3 coha+itation since 1& 6A have amassed a 3ortune consisting mainl: o3 stoc4holdings in Lo)e">owned or controlled cor)orationsA residentialA agriculturalA commercial lotsA housesA a)artmentsA +uildingsA cars and other motor vehiclesA +an4 accounts and /ewelr:@ Petitioner $elucio 3iled a ,otion to Dimiss on the gorund that )rivate res)ondent had not cause o3 action against her@ Judge denied ,TD on the ground that she is im)leaded as a necessar: or indis)ensa+le )art: +ecause some o3 the su+/ect )ro)erties are registered in her name and de3endant Lo)e"A or solel: in her name@ $elucio 3iled ,$A which was denied@ 8n )etition with -*A it was li4ewise denied@ .enceA this a))eal with '-@ Iss%e3 ?hether res)ondent has a cause o3 action against )etitioner 4el53 Petition granted@ * cause o3 action is an act or omission o3 one )art:A the de3endantA in violation o3 the legal right o3 the other@ The elements o3 a cause o3 action areI L1O a right in 3avor o3 the )lainti33 +: whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is createdN L2O an o+ligation on the )art o3 the named de3endant to res)ect or not to violate such rightN andA L3O an act or omission on the )art o3 such de3endant in violation o3 the right o3 the )lainti33 or constituting a +reach o3 the o+ligation o3 the de3endant to the )lainti33 3or which the latter ma: maintain an action 3or recover: o3 damages@ * cause o3 action is su33icient i3 a valid /udgment ma: +e rendered thereon i3 the alleged 3acts were admitted or )roved@ The com)laint is +: an aggrieved wi3e against her hus+and@ Nowhere in the allegations does it a))ear that relie3 is sought against )etitioner@ $es)odnentPs cause o3 action were all against her hus+and@ The 3irst cause o3 action is 3or /udicial a))ointment o3 res)ondent as adminsitrati% o3 the con/ugal )artnershi)@ Petitioner is a com)lete stranger to this cause o3 action@ The second cause o3 action is 3or an accounting +: res)ondent hus+and@ The accounting o3 con/ugal )artnershi) arises 3rom or is an incident o3 marriage@ Petitioner has nothing to do with the marriage +etween res)ondent *l+erto J@ Lo)e"@ $es)ondentPs alternative cause o3 action is 3or 3or3eiture o3 *l+erto Lo)e"Ps share in the co>owned )ro)ert: ac9uired during his illicit relationshi) and coha+itation with )etitioner and 3or the dissolution o3 the con/ugal )artnershi) o3 gains +etween him and res)ondent@ The third cause o3 action is essentiall: 3or 3or3eiture o3 *l+erto Lo)e"Ps share in )ro)ert: co>owned +: him and )etitioner@ It does not involve the issue o3 validit: o3 the co>ownershi) +etween *l+erto J@ Lo)e" and )etitioner@ The issue is whether there is +asis in law to 3or3eit *l+erto Lo)e"Ps shareA i3 an: there +eA in )ro)ert: co>owned +: him with )etitioner@ 'uch cause o3 action )ertains to *l+erto Lo)e"A not to )etitioner@ I3 )etitioner is not a real )art: in interestA she cannot +e an indis)ensa+le )art:@ *n indis)ensa+le )art: is one without whom there can +e no 3inal determination o3 an action@ PetitionerPs )artici)ation in ')ecial Proceedings ,>363( is not indis)ensa+le@ -ertainl:A the trial court can issue a /udgment ordering *l+erto Lo)e" to ma4e an accounting o3 his con/ugal )artnershi) with res)ondentA give su))ort to res)ondent and their childrenA and dissolve con/ugal )artnershi) with res)ondent@ 'uch /udgment would +e valid and en3orcea+le@ Nor can )etitioner +e a necessar: )art:@ * necessar: )art: is one who is not indis)ensa+le +ut who ought to +e /oined as )art: i3 com)lete relie3 is to +e accorded those alread: )artiesA or 3or a com)lete determination or settlement o3 the claim su+/ect o3 the action@ In the conte%t o3 her )etitionA res)ondent would +e accorded

com)lete relie3 in *l+erto Lo)e" were ordered to account 3or his alleged con/ugal )artnershi)A give su))ortA turn over his share and dissolve the )artnershi) )ro)ert:@ There3oreA )etition is granted +ecause res)ondent has no cause o3 action against )etitioner@

+,,; Pro/ressi1e De1elopmen Corpora ion 1s. CA

&ac s3 $es)ondent ?estin 'ea3ood ,ar4etA Inc@ leased 3rom )etitioner Progressive Develo)ment -or)oration a )arcel o3 land with a commercial +uilding located at *raneta -enterA -u+aoA Mue"on -it: 3or a )eriod o3 & :ears and 3 months with a monthl: rental o3 a))ro%imatel: P6((A(((@ Private res)ondent 3ailed to )a: rentals des)ite several demandsA with arrearages amounting to P#A6(#A2#4@66@ PetitionerA therea3terA re)ossessed the leased )remisesA inventoried the mova+le )ro)erties 3ound within and owned +: )rivate res)ondent and scheduled )u+lic auction 3or the sale o3 mova+les on *ugust 1&A 1&&3 with notice to )rivate res)ondent@ Private res)ondent 3iled with the ,T- a com)laint 3or 3orci+le entr: with damages and )ra:er 3or T$8 and B or writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction@ Private res)ondent did not com)l: with its underta4ing to de)osit with the designated +an4 the amount re)resenting its +ac4 rentals@ InsteadA it instituted another action 3or damages against )etitioner with $T- 3or damages +ased on the 3orci+le entr: case@ Petitioner 3iled ,TD on the ground o3 litis )endencia and 3orum sho))ing@ Instead o3 ruling on the motionA the /udge archived the case )ending the outcome o3 the 3orci+le entr: case +eing heard at the ,eT- 3or the reason that Cthe damages is LsicO )rinci)all: anchored on whether or not the de3endants L)etitioner hereinO have committed 3orci+le entr:@J !e3ore )etitionerPs ,TD could +e resolvedA )rivate res)ondent 3iled with $T- an amended com)laint 3or damages@ 8n the same da:A Judge denied ,TD and admitted )rivate res)ondentPs amended com)laint and granted a))lication 3or T$8@ *ggrievedA )etitioner 3ield with -* a s)ecial civil action 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition on the ground o3 the /udgePs grave a+use o3 discretion@ -* dismissed the action +ecause no ,$ was 3iled on the JudgePs order@ .enceA this )etition@ Iss%e3 ?hether )etitioner 3ailed to avail o3 its )lainA s)eed: and ade9uate remed: o3 a )rior ,$ with $T-N whether )rivate res)ondent did not commit 3orum sho))ing since the causes o3 action +e3ore $T- and ,eT- were identical with each other 4el53 Pe i ion /ran e5. The 3iling o3 ,$ +e3ore availing o3 remed: o3 certiorari is not a sine 9ua non when the issue raised is one )urel: o3 lawA or where the error is )atent or the dis)uted order is voidA or the 9uestions raised on certiorari are the same as those alread: s9uarel: )resented to and )assed u)on +: the lower court@ In its motion 3or dismissal o3 the action 3or damages with the $T-_ )etitioner raised the ground that another action 3or 3orci+le entr: was )ending at the ,eT- +etween the same )arties involving the same matter and cause o3 action@ 8utrightl: re/ected +: $T-A the same issue was elevated +: )etitioner on certiorari with -*@ -learl:A under the )revailing circumstanceA an: motion 3or reconsideration o3 the trial court would have +een a )ointless e%ercise@ It is li4ewise +asic under 'ection 3 o3 $ule 2 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourtA as amendedA that a )art: ma: not institute more than 1 suit 3or a single cause o3 action@ 6nder 'ection 4 o3 the same ruleA i3 2 or more suits are instituted on the +asis o3 the same cause o3 actionA the 3iling o3 one or a/udgment u)on the merits in an: one is availa+le as a ground 3or the dismissal o3 the other or others@ -ause o3 action is de3ined as the act or omission +: which a )art: violates the right o3 another@ These )remises o+tainingA there is no 9uestion at all that )rivate res)ondentPs cause o3 action in the 3orci+le entr: case and in the suit 3or damages is the alleged illegal reta4ing o3 )ossession o3 the leased )remises +: the lessor 3rom which all legal relie3s arise@ 'im)l: statedA the restoration o3 )ossession and demand 3or actual damages in the ,eT- and demand 3or damages with $T- +oth arise 3rom the same cause o3 actionA i@e@ the 3orci+le entr: +: )etitioner into the leased )remises@ 'ince

this runs counter to the rule against multi)licit: o3 suitsA the dismissal 3o the second action +ecomes im)erative@

+,,D Lacap 1s. Lee

&ac s3 7ictor 2acundo mortgaged 2 )arcels o3 land to ,onte de Piedad 'avings !an4@ ')ouses Laca)A )etitioners hereinA therea3ter o+ligated itsel3 to assume the mortgage@ ?hen the: 3ailed to do soA the +an4 3oreclosed the )ro)ert: and title was consolidated on it@ ')ouses Laca) were allowed to sta:A su+/ect to the )a:ment o3 monthl: rent@ ')ouses Laca) introduced im)rovements on the re)resentation o3 the +an4 that the: would allow them right o3 3irst re3usal in )urchasing it@ ?hen the: went to the +an4 to )a: the rent on ,a: 1A 1&&6A the +an4 re3used to acce)t )a:ment on the ground that it had +een sold to another@ The: went to the *ssets Divison where the 7P told them to su+mit a written o33er worth P1@1,@ ?hen the: didA the +an4 re/ected it and sent them notice that it was alread: owned +: res)ondent Lee@ Petitioner s)ouses 3iled an action 3or cancellation o3 sale and damages with an a))lication 3or )reliminar: in/unction with the $T-@ $es)ondentA on the other handA 3iled a com)laint in ,T- 3or unlaw3ul detainer against )etitioners@ ,T- ordered )etitioners to vacate the )remises@ 8n a))eal to $T-A said decision was a33irmed@ The: a))ealed to -* on the ground that the court committed serious errors o3 3act and law in entertaining the com)laint 3or unlaw3ul detainer des)ite the lac4 o3 /urisdiction considering the issue is the recover o3 the right to )ossess which is an accion )u+liciana@ -* a33irmed the ,T- and $T- decision@ .enceA this )etition with '-@ Iss%e3 ?hether ,T- had /urisdiction since the case 3or unlaw3ul detainer was no longer limited to the 9uestion o3 )ossession +ut also involved the 9uestion o3 ownershi) 4el53 Petition denied@ ')ouses do not claim ownershi) over the su+/ect )remises to su))ort their right to )ossess the )ro)ert:@ The: do not claim having a +etter right to said )ro)ert: +: wa: o3 trans3er o3 title through one o3 the modes o3 trans3erring ownershi)@ The alleged violation o3 their right o3 )riorit: or 3irst o)tion to +u: the )remises is not the de3ense o3 ownershi) contem)lated in 'ection 16 +ecause said violationA even i3 trueA would onl: give a cause o3 action 3or damages on the ground o3 +reach o3 contract +ut not an action 3or recover: o3 title@

+,,E !PI 1s. De Coscoll%ela

&ac s3 $es)ondent s)ouses o+tained an agricultural sugar cro) loan 3rom 25!T-A which was later merged with )etitioner !PI@ The loan account o3 the s)ouses was treated as a single accountA which amounted to P13A5&2A4&2@(( as evidenced +: 6 Promissor: Notes LPNO e%ecuted on various dates@ The s)ouses e%ecuted a real estate mortgage over their )arcel o3 land a securit: o3 the loans on credit accommodation@ ?hen the: 3ailed to )a:A 25!T- 3iled a )etition 3or e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 the mortgaged )ro)ert:A signi3icantl: onl: 3or the amount o3 P4A6# A((6@6#A covered +: PN 1 to 33@ The: also 3iled a com)laint 3or collection o3 the )rinci)al amount o3 P#A &4A4&2 3or PN 34 to 6 @ $es)ondent claims that the com)laint was +arred +: litis )endentiaA s)eci3icall: the )ending )etition 3or e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 the $5,@ *3ter )etitioner rested his caseA res)ondent 3iled a demurrer to evidenceA claiming )lainti33 was +arred 3rom instituting a )ersonal action a3ter the )endenc: o3 the )etition 3or e%tra/udicial 3oreclosureA +ecause the: were s)litting their cause o3 action against her@ Trial court denied demurrer@ 8n a))ealA -* reversed trial court@ .enceA this )etition@ Iss%e3 ?hether the a))ellate court committed grave a+use o3 discretion in granting res)ondentPs demurrer to evidence 4el53 Pe i ion 5ismisse5. The rule against s)litting causes o3 action is not altogether one o3 original legal right +ut is one o3 inter)osition +ased u)on )rinci)les o3 )u+lic )olic: and o3 e9uit: to )revent the inconvenience and hardshi) incident to re)eated and unnecessar: litigation@ ?hen there are entirel: distinct and se)arate contractsA the: give rise to se)arate causes o3 action 3or which se)arate actions ma: +e instituted and )resented@ ?hen /mone: is )a:a+le +: installmentsA a distinct cause o3 action assails u)on the 3ollowing due +: each installment and the: ma: +e recovered in successive action@ 8n the other handA where several claims )a:a+le at di33erent times arise out o3 the same transactionsA se)arate actions ma: +e +rought as each lia+ilit: accounts@ !ut where no action is +rought until more than one is dueA all that are due must +e included in one actionN and that i3 an action is +rought to recover u)on one or more that are due +ut not u)on all that are dueA a recover: in such action will +e a +ar to several or other actions +rought to recover one or more claims o3 the other claims that were due at the time the 3irst action was +rought@ * mortgage creditor ma: institute two alternative remedies against the mortgage de+torA either a )ersonal action 3or the collection o3 de+tA or a real action to 3oreclose the mortgageA +ut not +oth@ 5ach remed: is com)lete +: itsel3@ In the )resent caseA )etitioner o)ted to 3ile a )etition 3or e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 the $5, +ut onl: 3or the )rinci)al amount o3 P4A6# A((6@(# or in the total amount o3 P A 55A 33@64 covering onl: 31 out o3 the 6 PNs@ !: resorting to the e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 the $5,A )etitioner there+: waived its )ersonal action to recover the amount covered not onl: +: said PNs +ut also o3 the rest o3 the PNs@ This is so +ecause when )etitioner 3iled the )etitionA the entiret: o3 the loan account o3 res)ondent under the 6 PNs was alread: due@ Petitioner cannot s)lit the loan account o3 res)ondent +: 3iling a )etition 3or e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 $5, coverd +: 3irst set o3 PNs and a )ersonal action 3or collection o3 )rinci)al amount covered +: second set o3 PN2 without violating the )roscri)tion against s)litting a single cause o3 action against res)ondent@

+,,A REMEDI) N. &L)RES 1s. 4)N. '(DGE 4EILIA S. MALLAREFP4ILLIPPS G.R. No. LF...;K Sep ember ;E6 ,B-.

&ACTS3 This case involves an a))eal +: certiorari 3rom the order o3 Judge .eilia '@ ,allare>Philli))s o3 the $egional Trial -ourt o3 !aguio -it: and !enguet Province which dismissed )etitionerPs com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ The order a))ealed 3rom states that the 3irst cause o3 action alleged in the com)laint was against res)ondent Ignacio !inongcal 3or re3using to )a: the amount o3 P11A643@(( re)resenting cost o3 truc4 tires which he )urchased on credit 3rom )etitioner on various occasions 3rom *ugust to 8cto+erA 1&#1N and the second cause o3 action was against res)ondent 2ernando -alion 3or allegedl: re3using to )a: the amount o3 P1(A212@(( re)resenting cost o3 truc4 tires which he )urchased on credit 3rom )etitioner on several occasions 3rom ,archA 1&#1 to Januar:A 1&#2@ 8n Decem+er 15A 1&#3A counsel 3or res)ondent !inongcal 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction since the amount o3 the demand against said res)ondent was onl: P11A643@((A and under 'ection 1&L#O o3 !P12& the regional trial court shall e%ercise e%clusive original /urisdiction i3 the amount o3 the demand is more than twent: thousand )esos LP2(A(((@((O@ It was 3urther averred in said motion that although another )ersonA 2ernando -alionA was allegedl: inde+ted to )etitioner in the amount o3 P1(A212@((A his o+ligation was se)arate and distinct 3rom that o3 the other res)ondent@ *t the hearing o3 said ,otion to DismissA counsel 3or res)ondent -alion /oined in moving 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laint on the ground o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ Petitioner maintains that the lower court has /urisdiction over the case 3ollowing the HnovelH totalit: rule introduced in 'ection 33LlO o3 !P12& and 'ection 11 o3 the Interim $ules@ Petitioner also com)ares the said )rovisions with the )ertinent )ortion o3 the 3ormer rule under 'ection ## o3 the Judiciar: *ct o3 1&4# as amended and argues that with the deletion o3 the )roviso in the 3ormer ruleA the totalit: rule was reduced to clarit: and +revit: and the /urisdictional test is the totalit: o3 the claims in allA not in eachA o3 the causes o3 actionA irres)ective o3 whether the causes o3 action arose out o3 the same or di33erent transactions@ TC r%lin/I Dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the lower court has /urisdiction over the case 4ELDI No@ The argument o3 )etitioner is )artl: correct@ 6nder the )resent lawA the totalit: rule is a))lied also to cases where two or more )lainti33s having se)arate causes o3 action against a de3endant /oin in a single com)laintA as well as to cases where a )lainti33 has se)arate causes o3 action against two or more de3endants /oined in a single com)laint@ .oweverA the causes o3 action in 3avor o3 the two or more )lainti33s or against the two or more de3endants should arise out o3 the same transaction or series o3 transactions and there should +e a common 9uestion o3 law or 3actA as )rovided in 'ection 6 o3 $ule 3@ In other wordsA in cases o3 )ermissive /oinder o3 )artiesA whether as )lainti33s or as de3endantsA under 'ection 6 o3 $ule 3A the total o3 all the claims shall now 3urnish the /urisdictional test@ Needless to state alsoA i3 instead o3 /oining or +eing /oined in one com)laint se)arate actions are 3iled +: or against the )artiesA the amount demanded in each com)laint shall 3urnish the /urisdictional test@

In the case at +arA the lower court correctl: held that the /urisdictional test is su+/ect to the rules on /oinder o3 )arties )ursuant to 'ection 5 o3 $ule 2 and 'ection 6 o3 $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt and thatA a3ter a care3ul scrutin: o3 the com)laintA it a))ears that there is a mis/oinder o3 )arties 3or the reason that the claims against res)ondents !inongcal and -alion are se)arate and distinct and neither o3 which 3alls within its /urisdiction@ ?.5$528$5A the order a))ealed 3rom is a33irmed@

+,,. NICENTE MI'ARES an5 S(LPICIA G(ANO)N vs@ 4)N)RA!LE EDM(ND) S. PICCI)6 '%5/e o2 he Co%r o2 &irs Ins ance o2 Ceb% an5 PAST)RA ALNAREO G(ANO)N

&ac s3 Pastora *lvare" 1uan"on LPastoraO 3iled a com)laint in the -2I>-e+u against her hus+and Jose ,@ 1uan"on raisingA as cause o3 actionsA the annulment o3 the deed o3 sale in 3avor o3 'ul)icia 1uan"on o3 certain real )ro)erties situated in the )rovince o3 Negros 8ccidentalA and the annulment o3 a deed o3 donation inter0vivos in 3avor o3 Joven 'alvador 1uan"on o3 another set o3 real )ro)erties situated in the )rovince o3 -e+u@ 'he 3iled another com)laint 3or the se)aration o3 their con/ugal )ro)erties which include +oth real and )ersonal ac9uired during marriage@ Pastora 3iled a motion to +ring into the case 'ul)icia 1uan"on L'ul)iciaO and her hus+and 7icente ,i/ares L7icenteO as )arties>de3endants alleging that their )resence therein is indis)ensa+le@ This motion was granted and the two were dul: summoned@ Instead o3 3iling their answerA 'ul)icia and 7icente 3iled a motion to dismiss stating thatI L1O that venue is im)ro)erl: laidA L2O that there is a mis/oinder o3 cause o3 action and L3O that the court has no /urisdiction overt them@ The -2I denied the motion stating that the action is in personam as it does a33ect title to real )ro)ert:A that there is no mis/oinder o3 causes o3 actionA and that it has /urisdiction@ *s the ,$ was deniedA the: went to the '- )ra:ing that the order which included them as )artiesA as well as the order which denied their motion to dismissA +e set aside@ Iss%e3 ?8N there was a mis/oinder o3 causes o3 action@ R%lin/3 0esA there was@ The rules LthenO )rovide that Csu+/ect to rules regarding venue and /oinder o3 )artiesA a )art: ma: in one com)laintA counterclaimA cross>claim and third>)art: claim stateA in the alternative or otherwiseA as man: di33erent causes o3 action as he ma: have against an o))osing )art:@J The ruleA there3oreA is that the /oining o3 causes o3 action must +e su+/ect to the rules regarding venue and /oinder o3 )arties@ I3 these rules are violatedA then a mis/oinder o3 causes o3 action ma: arise@ *n e%am)le 3or venue would +e i3 *A a resident o3 ,anilaA has against 5A a resident o3 !aguioA two causes o3 actionA one 3or mone:A and another 3or title to real )ro)ert: located in =am+oangaA he cannot /oin them in a single com)laintA 3or the venue o3 the 3irst actionA which is either ,anila or !aguioA is di33erent 3rom the venue o3 the secondA which is =am+oanga@ 2or /oinder o3 )artiesA i3 * has a cause o3 action against !A another cause o3 action against -A and another cause o3 action against DA the 3 causes o3 action cannot +e /oinedA +ecause there would +e a mis/oinder o3 )arties de3endantA each o3 them +eing interested in the cause o3 action alleged against him not in the other causes o3 action )leaded against the others@ .ereA there is a mis/oinder o3 causes o3 action not onl: as regards venue +ut also as regards the de3endants@ *s to venueA the 3irst cause o3 action stated in the com)laint re3ers to the annulment o3 a deed o3 sale real )ro)erties situated in the )rovince o3 Negros 8ccidentalA and the second as to a deed o3 donation inter vivos o3 another set o3 real )ro)erties situated in the )rovince o3 -e+u@ The: are 2 di33erent transactions which involve )ro)erties situated in 2 di33erent )rovinces@ The venue has there3ore +een im)ro)erl: laid as regards the )ro)erties in Negros 8ccidental@ *s to the /oinder o3 de3endantsA it a))ears that the deed sale sought to +e annulled was made in 3avor o3 'ul)icia whereas the deed o3 donation was made in 3avor o3 Joven 'alvador 1uan"onA and there is nothing 3rom which it ma:+e in3erred that the 2 de3endants have a common interest that ma:+e /oined in one cause o3 action@ 8n the contrar:A

their interest is distinct and se)arate and cannot there3ore +e /oined in one cause o3 action@ The motion to dismiss was thus well ta4en@ Petition is granted@ The orders o3 res)ondent Judge dated 2e+ruar: A 1&56A and ,arch 5A 1&56 are here+: set aside@ The com)laint in so 3ar as the cause o3 action a33ecting )etitioners is here+: dismissedA leaving the com)laint valid as regards the other de3endantsA with costs against res)ondent Pastora *lvare" 1uan"on@ BengBon" Padilla" Montemayor" Concepcion" *eyes" J. B. 6." (ndencia and ;eli#" JJ." concur@

+,,C Spo%ses &RANCISC) an5 ANGELA C. TAN#I#) an5 Spo%ses ISAIAS an5 ANITA E. NALDE4(EOA vs@ '(STINIAN) CEOAR6 e al.

&ac s3 $es)ondents are the actual occu)ants and residents o3 1@ hectares o3 a 12@6 hectare landA Lot 3 14A situated in !arrio La)asanA -aga:an de 8ro@ The: are miscellaneous sales )atent a))licants o3 their res)ective )ortions and have +een religiousl: )a:ing ta%es on the )ro)ert:@ *n action 3or reconve:ance with damages was 3iled +e3ore the $T->,isamis 8riental as the land had +een titled in the name o3 Patricio 'alcedo LPatricioOA who was married to Pilar Nagac@ The lot was later su+divided and then 2 )arcels o3 land 3rom the su+division )lan was +ought +:A and su+se9uentl: titled under the name o3A ')ouses 2rancisco and *ngela Tan4i4o L')ouses Tan4i4oO@ 8ne o3 the two lots was su+se9uentl: sold +: ')ouses Tan4i4o to ')ouses Isaias and *nita 7aldehue"a L')ouses 7aldehue"aO@ $es)ondents contest the decision o3 the land registration commission which allowed the registration o3 the land in the name o3 Patricio +: virtue o3 another decision which states that there is no record showing that a decision has +een rendered ad/udicating the lot his 3avor@ I3 there was such a decision there would have +een a record o3 it@ 8n the contrar:A there is a decision which declared Lot 3 14 lands as )u+lic land@ To thisA the )etitioners di33er +: sa:ing that the contested decision ad/udicated Lot 3 14 to PatricioA +ut the 8-T was actuall: issued onl: at a later time@ The $T->,isamis 8riental dismissed the action 3or reconve:ance ')ouses Tan4i4o and ')ouses 7aldehue"a as the owners o3 their res)ective )ortions o3 the land@ The -*A howeverA reversed@ The: went to the '-@ The -* 3ound that Patricio did not ac9uire an: right or title over the dis)uted land andA conse9uentl:A did not transmit an: registra+le title to the )etitioners@ The decision which ad/udicated Lot 3 14 to Patricio was never )resented as evidenceN and the lot was also declared as )u+lic land@ *s )u+lic landA it cannot +e ac9uired without a grant 3rom the governmentA and no such grant was )resented in the case to validate the grant o3 the government to Patricio@ .oweverA as the )ro)ert: in dis)ute is still )art o3 the )u+lic domainA res)ondents are neither the )ro)er )arties to 3ile an action 3or reconve:anceA as the: are not owners o3 the landA +ut onl: a))licants 3or sales )atent thereon@ .oweverA due to e9uita+le considerationsA the -* allowed the res)ondents to remain on the land in 9uestionA so that 3uture litigation ma: +e avoided@ Iss%es3 ?8N res)ondents ma: +e deemed the )ro)er )arties to initiate the )resent suit@ R%lin/3 NoA the: are not real )arties in interest@ The circumstances o3 this case do not /usti3: the e%ercise o3 e9uit: /urisdiction that would allow a suit to +e 3iled +: one who is not a real )art: in interest@ 59uit: ma: +e invo4ed onl: in the a+sence o3 lawN it ma: su))lement the lawA +ut it can neither contravene nor su))lant it@ 59uit: is invo4ed onl: when there is a clear right to +e en3orcedA or a right that would o+viousl: +e violated i3 the action 3iled were to +e dismissed 3or lac4 o3 standing@ In this caseA res)ondents have no clear en3orcea+le rightA since their claim over the land in 9uestion is merel: inchoate and uncertain@ *dmitting that the: are onl: a))licants 3or sales )atents on the landA the: are not and the: do not even claim to +e owners thereo3@ In 3actA there is no certaint: that their a))lications would even +e ruled u)on 3avora+l:A considering that some o3 the a))lications have +een alread: )ending 3or more than ten :ears@ *dmitting that the: are not the owners o3 the land +ut mere a))licants 3or sales )atents thereonA it is da:light clear that the land is )u+lic in characterA and the: are notA there3oreA real )arties in interest@ The land should thus revert to the 'tate@ ?ith thisA onl: the 'olicitor 1eneral or the o33icer acting in his stead ma: +ring the action 3or reversion@ ,oreoverA the: do not claim the land to +e their )rivate )ro)ert:@ -onse9uentl:A even i3 the land reverts to the )u+lic domainA the: do not automaticall: +ecome owners thereo3@

6nder 'ection 2A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA ever: action must +e )rosecuted or de3ended in the name o3 the real )art: in interest@ * Hreal )art: in interestH is one who stands to +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgment in the suit@ Legal standing Cmeans a )ersonal and su+stantial interest in the case such that the )art: has sustained or will sustain direct in/ur: as a result o3 the act +eing challenged@J Interest is Cmaterial interestJA as o))osed to incidental interest@ Lastl:A it is )ersonal interest in the caseA and not that o3 anotherA which validates legal standing@ ThusA a suit 3iled +: a )erson who is not a )art: in interest must +e dismissed@ ThusA i3 the suit is not +rought in the name o3 or against the real )art: in interestA a motion to dismiss ma: +e 3iled on the ground that the com)laint states no cause o3 action@ In the )resent dis)uteA onl: the 'tate can 3ile a suit 3or reconve:ance o3 a )u+lic land@ There3oreA not +eing the owners o3 the land +ut mere a))licants 3or sales )arents thereonA res)ondents have no )ersonalit: to 3ile the suit@ Neither will the: +e directl: a33ected +: the /udgment in such suit@ To grant res)ondents standing in the )resent case is to go against the e%)ress language o3 the law@ ?.5$528$5A the )etition is here+: 1$*NT5D and the assailed Decision is $575$'5D and '5T *'ID5@ The -om)laint 3iled in -ivil -ase No@ &1>241 +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,isamis 8rientalA !ranch 1 A is DI',I''5D@ No costs@ '8 8$D5$5D@ *omero" <itug" Purisima and >onBaga0*eyes" JJ." concur.

+,,- !)ARD )& )PT)METR<6 e al. vs@ 4)N. ANGEL !. C)LET6 Presi5in/ '%5/e6 Re/ional Trial Co%r o2 Manila6 !ranch ;B6 ACE!ED) )PTICAL C)MPAN<6 INC.6 e al.

&ac s3 The $evised 8)tometr: Law o3 1&&5 L$* #(5(O was a consolidation o3 +oth the .ouse and the 'enate !ills which were res)ectivel: a))roved +: the committees o3 +oth .ouses@ The $econciled !ill was rati3ied +: +oth .ouses was therea3ter signed +: the President into law@ Private res)ondents 3iled with the $T->,anila a )etition 3or declarator: relie3 and 3or )rohi+ition and in/unction alleging that certain )rovisions o3 the $econciled !ill were added without the 4nowledge o3 the 'enate )anelN that it does not )rovide 3or reasona+le sa3eguards against de)rivation o3 li3eA li+ert: and )ro)ert: without due )rocess o3 lawN that it is an undue delegation o3 legislative )owerN that it su))resses truth3ul advertising concerning o)tical goodsN and that it em)lo:s am+iguous terms in de3ining the )rohi+itions and restrictionsA hence within the am+it o3 the void>3or>vagueness doctrine@ The )etitioners o))osed alleging that no )ro)er ground e%ists to warrant the issuance o3 an in/unctive write as res)ondents do not )ossess the re9uisite right as would entitle them to the relie3 demandedN that res)ondents have not shown their legal e%istence or ca)acit: to 3ile the caseN that the law carries no in/urious e33ectN and res)ondents 3ailed to overcome the )resum)tion o3 constitutionalit:@ The res)ondent /udge issued a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction restraining the )etitioners 3rom im)lementing and en3orcing the law in 9uestion until 3urther orders are given@ The )etitioners went to the '- alleging that the issuance o3 the /udgePs order was in grave a+use o3 discretion@

The /udge was o3 the o)inion that the constitutional in3irmities alleged +: the res)ondentsA and the su))orting e%hi+itsA /usti3: a 3indingA prima facieA e33ect on the legal rights o3 the res)ondents o3 the $evised 8)tometr: LawA and that its o)erationA is )otentiall: in/urious to such legal rights@ There is clear )u+lic right that laws enacted 3or the governance o3 citi"ens should +e the )roduct o3 the untrammeled will o3 -ongressA as the )eo)lePs re)resentatives@ The evidence adduced showed at least one ma/or )aragra)h im)osing )enalties on cor)orate o33icersA was surre)titiousl: HsmuggledH +ecause the clear tenor and the content o3 the )rovision as agreed u)on in the !icameral -on3erence -ommitteeA dul: re3lected in its ,inutes did not include such )aragra)h@ ,oreoverA there was irre)ara+le )u+lic in/ur: as the )rovisions o3 the law )ut the )u+lic at ris4 o3 im)airment o3 visionA )ossi+le loss o3 sight and even )ossi+le loss o3 li3e@ 'im)l:A the law )rovides 3or in/urious e33ects on +oth the o)tometrists and cor)orations engaged in the +usiness o3 o)tometr: Lres)ondents hereinO as the )u+lic who would avail their services in case the law is en3orced@ Lastl:A /uris)rudence su))orts the grant o3 )reliminar: writs o3 in/unctionA to maintain the status uoA in suits 9uestioning the constitutionalit: o3 laws with demonstra+le )re/udice o3 legal rights@ Iss%es3?8N the res)ondents have locus standi@ R%lin/3 NoA the: do not@ 8nl: natural and /uridical )ersons or entities authori"ed +: law ma: +e )arties in a civil actionA and ever: action must +e )rosecuted or de3ended in the name o3 the real )art: in interest@ *n association is considered a /uridical )erson i3 the law grants it a )ersonalit: se)arate and distinct 3rom that o3 its mem+ers@ .ereA there is serious dou+t as to the e%istence o3 some o3 the )rivate res)ondents@ 2or oneA the )etition does not mention them nor state their addresses and nowhere is it claimed therein that the: are /uridical entities@ These

run counter to 'ection 4A $ule # o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA which )rovides that 3acts showing the ca)acit: o3 a )art: to sue or the legal e%istence o3 an organi"ed association o3 )ersons that is made a )art: must +e averred@ The: were not even mentioned nor named in the sworn statements o3 the alleged )residents who were su))osed to +e re)resenting them@ 2or having 3ailed to show that the: are /uridical entitiesA these )rivate res)ondents are deemed to +e devoid o3 legal )ersonalit: to +ring an action@ * real )art: in interest under 'ection 2A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt is a )art: who stands to +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgment in the suitA or the )art: entitled to the avails o3 the suit@ In this caseA since some o3 the res)ondents were not shown to +e /uridical entitiesA the: cannotA 3or o+vious reasonsA +e deemed real )arties in interest@ ,oreoverA since the names o3 other )rivate res)ondents Miguel Acebedo" Miriam ;. 6laveA and *epublica A. Panol do not a))ear in the registration +oo4s o3 the !oard o3 8)tometr: as authori"ed o)tometr: )ractitioners in the Phili))inesA the: do not have re9uisite )ersonal and su+stantial interest in the case@ 5ven 3urtherA although res)ondents $o+erto $odisA Jr@A -:ril -oralesA and 5lmer 7illarosa claim to +e )racticing o)tometristsA their )etition is +ere3t o3 an: allegation to ma4e them real )arties in interest to challenge the constitutionalit: o3 $* #(5(@ Neither can the: /usti3: their case as a ta%)a:erPs suit@ ?hile standing has li+erall: +een granted on this groundA no circumstance /usti3ies such li+eralit: in this case@ It cannot also +e a class suit as the res)ondents 3ailed to allege this in their )etition@ The: li4ewise 3ailed to allege the e%istence and )rove thatI L1O the controvers: is one o3 common or general interest to man: )ersons and L2O that the )arties are so numerous that it is im)ractica+le to +ring them all +e3ore the court@ -ourts must e%ercise utmost caution +e3ore allowing a class suitA which is the e%ce)tion to the re9uirements o3 /oinder o3 all indis)ensa+le )arties@ It must also 3ail +ecause as a s)ecial civil action 3or declarator: relie3A its re9uisites areI L1O the e%istence o3 a /usticia+le controvers:N L2O the controvers: is +etween )ersons whose interests are adverseN L3O that the )art: see4ing the relie3 has a legal interest in the controvers:N and L4O that the issue invo4ed is ri)e 3or /udicial determination@ The 1st and 4th re9uisites are wanting@ 2urthermoreA in constitutional lawA courts will not assume /urisdiction over a constitutional 9uestion unlessI L1O there is an actual case or controvers:N L2O raised +: a )ro)er )art:N L3O the constitutional 9uestion must +e raised at the earliest o))ortunit:N and L4O the resolution o3 the constitutional 9uestion must +e necessar: to the resolution o3 the case@ It cannot +e dis)uted that there is :et no actual case or controvers: involving all or an: o3 the )rivate res)ondents on one handA and all or an: o3 the )etitioners on the otherA with res)ect to rights or o+ligations under $* #(5(@ ThusA the /udge gravel: a+used his discretion@ -ourts are charged with the dut: o3 a )ur)ose3ul hesitation +e3ore declaring a law unconstitutional as the same was dul: reviewed +: +oth the e%ecutive and legislative +ranches and was 3ound to +e constitutional@ To dou+t is to sustain the )resum)tion o3 constitutionalit:@

?.5$528$5A the instant )etition is 1$*NT5D@ The challenged order o3 25 *ugust 1&&5 o3 res)ondent Judge *ngel 7@ -olet in -ivil -ase No@ &5> 4 ( granting the a))lication 3or the

issuance o3 a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unctionA and the writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction issued on 1 'e)tem+er 1&&5 are here+: *NN6LL5D and '5T *'ID5@ The res)ondent Judge is 3urther DI$5-T5D to DI',I'' -ivil -ase No@ &5> 4 (@ -ost against )rivate res)ondents *ce+edo 8)tical -o@A Inc@A $e)u+lica *@ PanolA and the alleged H)residentsH o3 8)tometr: Practitioner *ssociation o3 the Phili))inesA -enevis 8)tometrist *ssociationA *ssociation o3 -hristian>,uslim 8)tometristA 'outhern ,indanao 8)tometrist *ssociation o3 the Phili))ines@ '8 8$D5$5D@ 7arvasa" C.J." Melo" ;rancisco and Panganiban" JJ." concur.

+,,B DEM)ST4ENES P. AGAN6 'R.6 e TERMINALS C).6 INC.6 e al.

al. vs@ P4ILIPPINE INTERNATI)NAL AIR

&ac s3 *siaPs 5merging Dragon -or)@ L*5D-O su+mitted an unsolicited )ro)osal to the government through the D8T- and ,I** LD8T-B,I**O 3or the construction and develo)ment o3 the N*I* III under a +uild>o)erate>and>trans3er arrangement )ursuant to the !8T Law@ In accordance with the !8T Law and its I$$A the D8T-B,I** invited the )u+lic 3or su+mission o3 com)etitive )ro)osals@ * consortium com)osed o3 the Peo)lePs *ir -argo and ?arehousing -o@A Inc@A Phil@ *ir and 1rounds 'ervicesA Inc@A and 'ecurit: !an4 -or)@ L-onsortiumO su+mitted their com)etitive )ro)osal to the Pre9uali3ication !ids and *wards -ommittee LP!*-O@ 2inding that the -onsortium su+mitted a su)erior +idA and *5D- +eing una+le to match the sameA the )ro/ect was awarded to the -onsortiumA which later organi"ed into PI*T-8@ * concession agreement over N*I* III was thus signedA along with an amended concession agreement and 3 su))lemental agreements@ *3ter thisA various )etitions were 3iled to annul these contracts and to )rohi+it the D8T- and the ,I** 3rom im)lementing them@ 8n ,a: 5A 2((3A the '- declared them null and void@ This is an ,$ 3iled +: Phili))ine International *ir Terminals -o@A Inc@ LPI*T-8OA et al@A along with other mem+ers o3 the .ouse o3 $e)resentatives 3or the reconsideration o3 the '- decision which declared the contracts covering the N*I* Terminal III LN*I* IIIO )ro/ect null and void@ Iss%es3 ?8N the ,a: 5A 2((3 decision o3 the '- should +e reversed +ased onI a@ The alleged a+sence o3 /urisdiction o3 the '-N +@ The lac4 o3 legal standing o3 the )etitionersN and c@ The 3ailure o3 the )etitioners to im)lead the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines as an indis)ensa+le )art:@ R%lin/3 NoA it should not@ 8n the alleged a+sence o3 /urisdiction due to the 3actual 9uestions raised which the '- is ill>e9ui))ed to resolveA even a cursor: reading will show that the 'decided the case +: inter)reting and a))l:ing the -onstitutionA the !8T LawA its I$$A and other relevant legal )rinci)les on the +asis o3 clearl: undis)uted 3acts@ *ll the o)erative 3acts were settledA henceA there is no need 3or a trial t:)e determination o3 their truth or 3alsit: +: a trial court@ ,oreoverA it goes without sa:ing that when cases do not involve 3actual +ut legal 9uestionsA a strict a))lication o3 the rule o3 hierarch: o3 courts is not necessar:@ 8n the issue o3 lac4 o3 legal standing o3 the )etitioners as the: are not real )arties in interest who are +ound )rinci)all: or su+sidiaril: to the PI*T-8 -ontractsA the determination o3 whether a )erson ma: institute an action or +ecome a )art: to a suit +rings to 3ore the conce)ts o3 real )art: in interestA ca)acit: to sue and standing to sue@ To the legall: discerningA these 3 conce)ts are di33erent although commonl: directed towards ensuring that onl: certain )arties can maintain an action@ The rules state that a real )art: in interest is the )art: who stands to +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgment in the suit or the )art: entitled to the avails o3 the suit@ -a)acit: to sue deals with a situation where a )erson who ma: have a cause o3 action is dis9uali3ied 3rom +ringing a suit under a))lica+le law or is incom)etent to +ring a suit or is under some legal disa+ilit: that would )revent him 3rom maintaining an action unless re)resented +: a guardian ad litem@ Legal standing is relevant in the realm o3 )u+lic law@ In certain instancesA courts have allowed )rivate )arties to institute actions challenging the validit: o3 governmental action 3or violation o3 )rivate rights or constitutional )rinci)les@ In these casesA courts a))l: the

doctrine o3 legal standing +: determining whether the )art: has a direct and )ersonal interest in the controvers: and whether such )art: has sustained or is in imminent danger o3 sustaining an in/ur: as a result o3 the act com)lained o3A a standard which is distinct 3rom the conce)t o3 real )art: in interest@ ThusA the a))lication o3 the doctrine on legal standing necessaril: involves a )reliminar: consideration o3 the merits o3 the case and is not )urel: a )rocedural issue@

The '- a33irms that the )etitioners have legal standing@ The )etitioners are com)osed o3 em)lo:ees o3 service )roviders at the e%isting international air)ortsA em)lo:ees o3 the ,I**A and service )roviders with e%isting contracts with ,I**@ The: will all sustain direct in/ur: u)on the im)lementation o3 the PI*T-8 -ontracts@ -onsidering that the PI*T-8 -ontracts )rovide thatA u)on the commencement o3 o)erationsA N*I* I and II will no longer +e used as international )assenger terminalsA im)lementing the contracts will de)rive the )etitioners o3 their sources o3 livelihood@ It has +een held that oneGs em)lo:mentA )ro3essionA tradeA or calling is a )ro)ert: right and is )rotected 3rom wrong3ul inter3erence@ 8ver and a+ove all theseA constitutional and other legal issues with 3ar>reaching economic and social im)lications are em+edded hereinA henceA the '- li+erall: granted legal standing@ The huge amount o3 investment to com)lete the )ro/ect is not measl:A and the inter)retation o3 the -onstitutionA the !8T Law and its I$$A which have not +een )assed u)on +: the '- in )revious casesA can chart the 3uture in3low o3 investment under the !8T Law@

8n the issue o3 the 3ailure o3 )etitioners to im)lead the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines as an indis)ensa+le )art:A the )etitions clearl: +ear out that D8T- and ,I** were im)leaded as )arties to the PI*T-8 -ontracts and not merel: as their im)lementors@ The two were im)leaded +ecause the: either e%ecuted the PI*T-8 -ontracts or are underta4ing acts which are related to the PI*T-8 -ontracts@ The: are thus interested and indis)ensa+le )arties to this Petition@ ,ore im)ortantl:A it is also too late in the da: 3or PI*T-8 to raise this issue@ I3 PI*T-8 seriousl: views the non>inclusion o3 the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines as an indis)ensa+le )art: as 3atal to the )etitions at +arA it should have raised the issue at the onset o3 the )roceedings as a ground to dismiss@ PI*T-8 cannot litigate issues on a )iecemeal +asisA otherwiseA litigations shall +e li4e a shore that 4nows no end@ In an: eventA the 'olicitor 1eneralA the legal counsel o3 the $e)u+licA a))eared in the cases at +ar in re)resentation o3 the interest o3 the government@ W4ERE&)RE6 the motions 3or reconsideration 3iled +: the res)ondent PI*T-8A res)ondent -ongressmen and the res)ondents>in>intervention are D5NI5D with 3inalit:@

+,;K METR)P)LITAN !AN#6 Q TR(ST C)MPAN< vs@ 4on. &L)R) T. ALE')6 in 4is Capaci y as Presi5in/ '%5/e o2 !ranch ,C; o2 he RTCFNalen$%elaL an5 S< TAN SE

&ac s3 ')ouses $aul and -ristina *cam)ado L*cam)adosO o+tained loans 3rom )etitioner in the amounts o3 54 and 24A res)ectivel:@ *s securit:A the *cam)ados e%ecuted an $5, and an amended $5, over a )arcel o3 land registered in their names under a T-T@ Therea3terA a com)laint 3or the declaration o3 nullit: o3 the T-T was 3iled +: ': Tan 'e against the *cam)ados in the $T->7alen"uela@ In s)ite o3 +eing the registered mortgagee o3 the real )ro)ert: covered +: the T-TA )etitioner was not made a )art: to civil caseN and neither was it noti3ied o3 its e%istence@ The *cam)ados having de3aultedA e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure )roceedings over the mortgaged )ro)ert: were initiated@ The sheri33 o3 7alen"uela conducted an auction sale o3 the )ro)ert:A during which )etitioner su+mitted the highest and winning +id@ This sale was entered in the $egistr: o3 Deeds o3 7alen"uela@ ?hen the redem)tion )eriod la)sedA )etitioner e%ecuted an *33idavit o3 -onsolidation o3 8wnershi) to ena+le the $egistr: o3 Deeds o3 7alen"uela to issue a new T-T in its name@ 6)on )resentation to the $egister o3 Deeds o3 the *33idavit o3 -onsolidation o3 8wnershi)A )etitioner was in3ormed o3 the e%istence o3 the $T- Decision which annulled the T-T in the name o3 the *cam)ados@ The )etitioner went to the -* to annul this decision o3 the $T-@ The -* dismissed the )etition 3or annulment 3or +eing insu33icient in 3orm and su+stance@ The -* ruled that the )etitioner ought to have 3iledA insteadA a )etition 3or relie3 3rom /udgment or an action 3or 9uieting o3 title@ The )etitioner went to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?8N a )etition 3or annulment o3 /udgment under $ule 4 is the )ro)er remed: availa+le to )etitioner and ?8N the /udgment o3 the trial court should +e annulled@ R%lin/3 0esA the /udgment o3 the trial court should +e annulled@ In a suit to nulli3: an e%isting T-T in which a real estate mortgage is annotatedA the mortgagee is an indis)ensa+le )art:@ In such suitA a decision canceling the T-T and the mortgage annotation is su+/ect to a )etition 3or annulment o3 /udgmentA +ecause the non>/oinder o3 the mortgagee de)rived the court o3 /urisdiction to )ass u)on the controvers:@ 8n the 1st issueA there were allegedl: 3 di33erent remedies availa+leA +ut the: were not resorted to +: )etitioner@ 2irstA a )etition 3or relie3 was not availa+le to )etitioner +ecause it was never a )art: to the civil case@ 'ince )etitioner was never a )art: to the case or even summoned to a))ear thereinA then the remed: o3 relie3 3rom /udgment under $ule 3# was not )ro)er@ 'econdA an action 3or 9uieting o3 titleA was also not availa+le to )etitioner +ecause this case was instituted to as4 3or relie3 3rom the )erem)tor: declaration o3 nullit: o3 the T-TA which had +een issued without 3irst giving )etitioner an o))ortunit: to +e heard@ !eing a violation o3 due )rocessA 3iling an action 3or 9uieting o3 title will not remed: the situation and is there3ore an ina))ro)riate remed:@ ,oreoverA an action 3or 9uieting o3 title is 3iled onl: when there is a cloud on title to real )ro)ert: or an: interest therein@ In this caseA the su+/ect /udgment cannot +e considered as a cloud on )etitionerPs title or interest over the real )ro)ert: covered +: the T-T as it does not even have a sem+lance o3 +eing a title@ ThirdA intervention +: )etitioner in the civil case is not availa+le as it does not have 4nowledge o3 the case and was not in3ormed thereo3 even i3 it was an indis)ensa+le )art:@ .enceA the case it 3iled was its onl: 3easi+le remed:@ ?hile a mortgage a33ects the land itsel3 and not /ust the title covering itA the nulli3ication and cancellation o3 the T-T carried with it the nulli3ication and cancellation o3 the mortgage

annotationN an instance which )re/udiced the rights o3 )etitioner 3or it would no longer +e 4nown and res)ected +: third )arties@ ThusA it should have +een im)leaded@ 5videntl:A )etitioner is encom)assed within the de3inition o3 an indis)ensa+le )art:@ *n indis)ensa+le )art: is a )art: who has such an interest in the controvers: or su+/ect matter that a 3inal ad/udication cannot +e madeA in his a+senceA without in/uring or a33ecting that interest@ It has also +een considered that an indis)ensa+le )art: is a )erson in whose a+sence there cannot +e a determination +etween the )arties alread: +e3ore the court which is e33ectiveA com)leteA or e9uita+le@ 2urtherA an indis)ensa+le )art: is one who must +e included in an action +e3ore it ma: )ro)erl: go 3orward@ * )erson is not an indis)ensa+le )art:A howeverA i3 his interest in the controvers: or su+/ect matter is se)ara+le 3rom the interest o3 the other )artiesA so that it will not necessaril: +e directl: or in/uriousl: a33ected +: a decree which does com)lete /ustice +etween them@ The /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties to an action is mandated +: 'ection o3 $ule 3@ Indis)ensa+le )arties must alwa:s +e /oined either as )lainti33s or de3endantsA 3or the court cannot )roceed without them@ ?ithout the )resence o3 indis)ensa+le )arties to a suit or )roceedingA a /udgment o3 a -ourt cannot attain real 3inalit:N and whenever it a))ears to the court that an indis)ensa+le )art: has not +een /oinedA it is the dut: o3 the court to sto) the trial and to order the inclusion o3 such )art:@ *s a general ruleA the ma4ing o3 )arties in a civil action re9uires the /oinder o3 all necessar: )arties wherever )ossi+leA and the /oinder o3 all indis)ensa+le )arties under an: and all conditionsA the )resence o3 those latter )arties +eing a sine 9ua non o3 the e%ercise o3 /udicial )ower@ It is )recisel: when an indis)ensa+le )art: is not +e3ore the court that the action should +e dismissed@ The a+sence o3 an indis)ensa+le )art: renders all su+se9uent actuations o3 the court null and voidA 3or want o3 authorit: to actA not onl: as to the a+sent )arties +ut even as to those )resent@ The evident aim and intent o3 the $ules regarding the /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le and necessar: )arties is a com)lete determination o3 all )ossi+le issuesA not onl: +etween the )arties themselves +ut also as regards to other )ersons who ma: +e a33ected +: the /udgment@ ThusA it is clear that the )resence o3 indis)ensa+le )arties is necessar: to vest the court with /urisdiction@ The argument that )etitioner cannot +e an indis)ensa+le )art:A since the mortgage is not valid +ecause the mortgagor is not the a+solute owner o3 the thing mortgagedA is untena+le +ecause at the time the mortgage was constitutedA there was an e%isting T-T under the name o3 the *cam)ados@ The rule is that a )erson dealing with registered land has a right to rel: on the T-TN and where innocent third )ersons do rel: on itA and ac9uire rights there+:A the court cannot disregard such rights 3or that would im)air )u+lic con3idence in the T-T@ ThusA the disregard o3 the annotations in the T-T constituted a de)rivation o3 )rivate )ro)ert: without due )rocess o3 law and was there3ore un/ust@ The $T- should have ordered 3or the inclusion o3 the )etitioner@ 2ailing thusA its /udgment was null and void due to lac4 o3 /urisdiction over an indis)ensa+le )art:@ It can never +ecome 3inal and an: writ o3 e%ecution +ased on it is void@

+,;, EMILIAN) R. M!)<M CAR(NC4) III vs@ C)MELEC

&ac s3 5miliano $@ -aruncho III L-arunchoO was the candidate o3 the Li+eral Part: 3or the congressional seat in the lone district o3 Pasig -it:@ $etired 1eneral *rnul3o 1@ *cederaA Jr@ L*cederaO o3 the La4as>N6-D>6,DP was another candidate@ ?hen the Pasig -it: !oard o3 -anvassers L!oardO started to canvass the election returnsA things went on smoothl: until the !oard received intelligence re)orts that *cedera and his su))orters might disru)t and sto) the canvassing@ *cedera and his su))orters stormed the -aruncho 'tadium in 'an NicolasA Pasig -it:A where the canvassing o3 election returns was +eing conducted@ The: allegedl: 3orced themselves into the canvassing areaA +rea4ing a glass door in the )rocess@ *s )andemonium +ro4e looseA the )olice 3ired warning shots causing those )resent in the canvassing venueA including the mem+ers o3 the !oard and canvassing unitsA to scam)er 3or sa3et:@ The canvassing )ersonnel too4 the 5lection $eturns L5$O with them as well as the 'tatement o3 7otes L'87O@ The: entrusted these documents to the -it: TreasurerGs 833ice and the Pasig 5m)lo:ment 'ervice 833ice LP5'8O@ The ne%t da:A the su+>canvassing units recovered 22 5$s and '87s 3rom the TreasurerGs 833ice and the P5'8@ .oweverA )age 2 o3 each o3 the 22 election returnsA which contained the names o3 candidates 3or congressmenA had +een detached and could not +e 3ound@ *3ter reconstituting themA and a3ter the !oard had canvassed the 5$sA .enr: P@ Lanot LLanotO emerged as the winner@ -aruncho 3iled a C,otion to Nulli3: Proclamation on the !asis o3 Incom)lete $eturnsH with the -8,5L5- alleging that the )roclamation was made even though 14 5$s containing 3(A((( votes have not +een canvassed@ -ommenting on the motionA the !oard stated that onl: 22 5$s were missing Land were eventuall: recoveredO and not 14 @ ,oreoverA .enr: Lanot was leading -aruncho +: thousands@ 7er: 3ew 5$s have -aruncho leadingN and even i3 leadingA the lead was onl: a 3ew votes@ The 2 nd Division o3 the -8,5L5declared the )roclamation null and void and ordered the !oard to include the results in the 14 5$A co)ies o3 which are with the -8,5L5-@ Lanot moved to intervene and 3ile 3or a reconsideration o3 the decision o3 the division@ I3 grantedA he )ra:s 3or the re3erral o3 his reconsideration to the -8,5L5- 5n !anc@ LanotPs motion was granted@ The -8,5L5- 5n !anc then reconsidered and dismissed -aruchoPs )etition to nulli3: the )roclamation on the +asis o3 incom)lete returns 3or lac4 o3 merit@ The -8,L5- 5n !anc relied on the 3acts narrated +: the !oard and 3ound no truth to the assertion that there were 14 5$s not canvassed@ -aruncho went to the '- on certiorari@ Iss%es3 ?8N the 3ailure o3 -aruncho to im)lead Lanot is a cause 3or the dismissal o3 the case@ R%lin/3 NoA it is notN it is the 3ailure to com)l: with the order o3 inclusion which is 3atal@ -aruncho initiated this case through a motion to nulli3: the )roclamation o3 Lanot as the winner in the congressional race in Pasig -it:@ Named res)ondents in the motion were the individual mem+ers o3 the !oard o3 -anvassers in that cit:@ The )roclaimed winner was not included among the res)ondents@ 2or that reason aloneA the -8,5L5- should have +een 3orewarned o3 a )rocedural la)se in the motion that would a33ect the su+stantive rights o3 the winning candidateA i3 not the electorate@ The )roclamation o3 a winning candidate cannot +e annulled i3 he has not +een noti3ied o3 the motion to set aside his )roclamation@ ?hile the intervention o3 Lanot in the -8,5L5- )roceedings tem)oraril: cured the )rocedural la)seA -aruncho again 3ailed to im)lead Lanot in the instant )etition 3or certiorari@ In this regardA 'ection 2 o3 $ule 3 )rovides that ever: action must +e )rosecuted or de3ended in the name o3 the real )art: in interest@ !: real interest is meant a )resent su+stantial interestA as distinguished 3rom a mere e%)ectanc: or a 3utureA contingentA su+ordinateA or conse9uential interest@ *s the winning candidate whose )roclamation is sought to +e nulli3iedA Lanot is a real )art: in interest in these )roceedings@ The -8,5L5- and the !oard o3 -anvassers o3 Pasig -it: are mere nominal

)arties whose decision should +e de3ended +: the real )art: in interest as stated under 'ection 5 o3 $ule 65@ .enceA 9uasi>/udicial agencies should +e /oined as )u+lic res)ondents +ut it is the dut: o3 the )rivate res)ondent to a))ear and de3end such agenc:@ That dut: cannot +e 3ul3illed +: the real )art: in interest such as the )roclaimed winning candidate in a )roceeding to annul his )roclamation i3 he is not even named as )rivate res)ondent in the )etition@ 8rdinaril:A the non/oinder o3 an indis)ensa+le )art: or the real )art: in interest is not +: itsel3 a ground 3or the dismissal o3 the )etition@ The court +e3ore which the )etition is 3iled must 3irst re9uire the /oinder o3 such )art:@ It is the noncom)liance with said order that would +e a ground 3or the dismissal o3 the )etition@ .oweverA this +eing an election case which should +e resolved with dis)atch considering the )u+lic interest involvedA the '- has not deemed it necessar: to re9uire that Lanot +e im)leaded as a res)ondent in this case@ S%bs an i1e Iss%e an5 Disposi ion3 ?8N the -8,5L5- or the .ouse o3 $e)resentatives has /urisdiction over a )roclamation controvers: involving a mem+er o3 the .ouse o3 $e)resentatives@ -onsidering that -aruncho 9uestions the )roclamation o3 Lanot as the winner in the congressional race 3or the sole district o3 Pasig -it:A his remed: should have +een to 3ile an electoral )rotest with the .$5T@ 8n the wholeA the '- 3inds that the -8,5L5- did not commit grave a+use o3 discretion when it issued its resolution dismissing -arunchoPs motion to nulli3: the )roclamation o3 Lanot as ,em+er o3 the .ouse o3 $e)resentatives 3or the lone district o3 Pasig -it:@

+,;; S(L) NG !A<AN INC. vs@ GREG)RI) ARANETA6 INC.6 e al.

&ac s3 'ulo ng !a:anA Inc@ L'uloOA a cor)oration with )rinci)al o33ice located atA and mem+ers residing inA 'an Jose Del ,onteA !ulacanA 3iled an accion de revindicacion with the -2I>!ulacan against de3endants to recover the ownershi) and )ossession o3 a large tract o3 land in 'an Jose del ,onteA !ulacanA containing an area o3 2A &#@225( hectares registered under the names o3 the )redecessors>in>interest o3 the de3endants@ The com)laint stated that the mem+ers o3 'uloA through themselves and their )redecessors>in>interestA had )ioneered in the clearing o3 the landA )ossessed and cultivated the same since the ')anish regime@ 2urtherA de3endant 1regorio *ranetaA Inc@A through 3orce and intimidationA e/ected the mem+ers o3 the )lainti33 cor)oration 3rom their )ossession o3 the a3orementioned vast tract o3 land@ *3ter thisA the: 3ound that the tract o3 land was 3raudulentl: or erroneousl: included in an 8riginal -erti3icate o3 Title which was issued in 1&16@ The 8-T was alleged to +e devoid o3 legal e33icac: due to the 3act that no notice o3 the registration )roceeding was given to the mem+ers o3 'ulo who were then in actual )ossession@ *s suchA 'ulo alleges that all T-Ts which are the su+se9uent results o3 the original title are also void and o3 no e33ect@ It thus )ra:ed 3or the cancellation o3 the 8-T and that the mem+ers o3 'ulo +e declared the owners o3 the said )ro)ert:@ 1regorio *ranetaA Inc@A et al@ 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the com)laint states no cause o3 action and that the cause o3 actionA i3 an:A is +arred +: )rescri)tion and laches@ The lac4 o3 cause o3 action is the lac4 o3 )ersonalit: o3 'ulo to 3ile the action in +ehal3 o3 its mem+ersN the right violated +eing that o3 the mem+ers o3 the cor)oration and not those o3 the cor)oration@ The -2I dismissed the com)laint@ The ,$ was also denied@ The case was a))ealed to the -*N +ut the latterA u)on 3inding that no 9uestion o3 3act was involvedA certi3ied the case to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?8N 'ulo ma: institute an action in +ehal3 o3 its individual mem+ers 3or the recover: o3 certain )arcels o3 land allegedl: owned +: said mem+ers@ R%lin/3 NoA it ma: not@ It is a settled doctrine that a cor)oration is a distinct legal entit: to +e considered as se)arate and a)art 3rom the individual stoc4holders or mem+ers who com)ose it@ It is not a33ected +: the )ersonal rightsA o+ligations and transactions o3 its stoc4holders or mem+ers@ The )ro)ert: o3 the cor)oration is its )ro)ert: and not that o3 the stoc4holdersA as ownersA although the: have e9uities in it@ Pro)erties registered in the name o3 the cor)oration are owned +: it as an entit: se)arate and distinct 3rom its mem+ers@ -onversel:A a cor)oration ordinaril: has no interest in the individual )ro)ert: o3 its stoc4holders unless trans3erred to the cor)oration@ The mere 3act that one is )resident o3 a cor)oration does not render the )ro)ert: which he owns or )ossesses the )ro)ert: o3 the cor)orationA since the )resident and the cor)oration are se)arate similarities@ .oweverA the /uridical )ersonalit: o3 the cor)orationA as se)arate and distinct 3rom the )ersons com)osing itA is +ut a legal 3iction introduced 3or the )ur)ose o3 convenience and to su+serve the ends o3 /ustice@ This se)arate )ersonalit: o3 the cor)oration ma: +e disregardedA or the veil o3 cor)orate 3iction )iercedA in cases where it is used as a cloa4 or cover 3or 3raud or illegalit:A or to wor4 >an in/usticeA or where necessar: to achieve e9uit:@ The a3orecited )rinci)le is resorted to +: the courts as a measure )rotection 3or third )arties to )revent 3raudA illegalit: or in/ustice@ In this caseA it has not +een claimed that the mem+ers have assigned or trans3erred whatever rights the: ma: have on the land in 9uestion to the )lainti33 cor)oration@ *+sent an: showing o3 interestA there3oreA a cor)orationA li4e 'uloA has no )ersonalit: to +ring an action 3or and in +ehal3 o3 its stoc4holders or mem+ers 3or the )ur)ose o3 recovering )ro)ert: which +elongs to

said stoc4holders or mem+ers in their )ersonal ca)acities@ It is 3undamental that there cannot +e a cause o3 action Gwithout an antecedent )rimar: legal right con3erredG +: law u)on a )erson@ 5videntl:A there can +e no wrong without a corres)onding rightA and no +reach o3 dut: +: one )erson without a corres)onding right +elonging to some other )erson@ ThusA the essential elements o3 a cause o3 action are legal right o3 the )lainti33A correlative o+ligation o3 the de3endantA an act or omission o3 the de3endant in violation o3 the a3oresaid legal right@ -learl:A no right o3 action e%ists in 3avor o3 'ulo as it does not have an: interest in the su+/ect matter o3 the case which is material and direct so as to entitle it to 3ile the suit as a real )art: in interest@ 'ulo maintainsA howeverA that the amended com)laint ma: +e treated as a class suit@ In order that a class suit ma: )ros)erA the 3ollowing re9uisites must +e )resentI L1O that the su+/ect matter o3 the controvers: is one o3 common or general interest to man: )ersonsN and L2O that the )arties are so numerous that it is im)ractica+le to +ring them all +e3ore the court@ 6nder the 3irst re9uisiteA the )erson who sues must have an interest in the controvers:A common with those 3or whom he suesA and there must +e that unit: o3 interest +etween him and all such other )ersons which would entitle them to maintain the action i3 suit was +rought +: them /ointl:@ *s to common interestA it is not onl: an interest in the 9uestionA +ut one in common in the su+/ect matter o3 the suitA or a communit: o3 interest growing out o3 the nature and condition o3 the right in dis)ute@ .ereA there is onl: 1 )lainti33 L'uloO and it does not even have an interest in the su+/ect matter o3 the controvers:A and cannotA there3oreA re)resent its mem+ers or stoc4holders who claim to own in their individual ca)acities ownershi) o3 the said )ro)ert:@ ,oreoverA as correctl: stated +: the de3endantsA a class suit does not lie in actions 3or the recover: o3 )ro)ert: where several )ersons claim res)ective )ortions o3 the )ro)ert:N as each one could alleged and )rove his res)ective right in a di33erent wa:@ *--8$DIN1L0A the instant a))eal is here+: DI',I''5D with costs against the )lainti33> a))ellant@ ;ernando" C.J." Barredo" A uino and Concepcion" Jr." JJ." concur.

+,;D MNRS P(!LICATI)NS6 INC. vs@ ISLAMIC DAIWA4 C)(NCIL )& T4E P4ILS.6 INC. &ac s3 I'L*,I- D*G?*. -86N-IL 82 T.5 P.ILIPPIN5'A IN-@ LID-POA a local 3ederation o3 more than ( ,uslim religious organi"ationsA et al@ 3iled a com)laint 3or damagesA in their own +ehal3 and as a class suit in +ehal3 o3 the ,uslim mem+ers nationwideA against ,7$' Pu+licationsA Inc@ L,7$'OA et al@ in the $T->,anila@ The cause was an article )u+lished in an issue o3 !ulgar@ The article readsI CA6AM BA 7&7DOX 7a ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng mga Muslim X Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay. @indi nila ito kailangang kainin kahit na sila pa ay magutom at ma%alan ng ulam sa tu%ing sila ay kakain. >inaga%a nila itong 'iyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tu%ing ara% ng kanilang pangingilin lalung0lalo na sa ara% na tinata%ag nilang F*amadan J The com)laint alleged that the li+elous statement was insulting and damaging to the ,uslims and that these words alluding to the )ig as the 1od o3 the ,uslims was not onl: )u+lished out o3 sheer ignorance +ut with intent to hurt the 3eelingsA cast insult and dis)arage the ,uslims and IslamA as a religion in this countr: and the entire world@ ,7$'A et al@ de3end themselves +: contending that the article did not mention ID-PA et al@ as the o+/ect o3 the article and the: are there3ore not entitled to damages@ ,oreoverA the article was merel: an e%)ression o3 +elie3 or o)inion and was )u+lished without malice nor intention to cause damageA )re/udice or in/ur: to ,uslims@

The $T- dismissed the com)laint holding that the )lainti33s 3ailed to esta+lish their cause o3 action since the )ersons allegedl: de3amed +: the article were not s)eci3icall: identi3ied@ The -* reversed holding that it was clear 3rom the dis)uted article that the de3amation was directed to all adherents o3 the Islamic 3aith and that the li+elous im)utation undenia+l: a))lied to ID-PA et al@ who are ,uslims sharing the same religious +elie3s@ It added that the suit 3or damages was a Hclass suitH and that ID-PPs religious status as a ,uslim um+rella organi"ation gave it the re9uisite )ersonalit: to sue and )rotect the interests o3 all ,uslims@ ,7$' went to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?8N ID-PA et al@ have the right to institute a class suit@ R%lin/3 NoA the: do not@ De3amationA which includes li+el and slanderA means the o33ense o3 in/uring a )ersonGs characterA 3ame or re)utation through 3alse and malicious statements@ .oweverA words which are merel: insulting are not actiona+le as li+el or slander )er se@ The 3act that the language is o33ensive to the )lainti33 does not ma4e it actiona+le +: itsel3@ Declarations made a+out a large class o3 )eo)le cannot +e inter)reted to advert to an identi3ied or identi3ia+le individual@ *+sent circumstances s)eci3icall: )ointing or alluding to a )articular mem+er o3 a classA no mem+er o3 such class has a right o3 action without at all im)airing the e9uall: demanding right o3 3ree s)eech and e%)ressionA as well as o3 the )ressA under the !ill o3 $ights@ In this caseA there was no 3airl: identi3ia+le )erson who was allegedl: in/ured +: the article@ 'ince the )ersons allegedl: de3amed could not +e identi3ia+leA )rivate res)ondents have no individual causes o3 actionN henceA the: cannot sue 3or a class allegedl: dis)araged@ Private res)ondents must have a cause o3 action in common with the class which the: +elong to in order 3or the case to )ros)er@

*n individual ,uslim has a re)utation that is )ersonalA se)arate and distinct in the communit:@ 5ach ,uslimA as )art o3 the larger ,uslim communit: in the Phili))ines o3 over 5 million )eo)leA +elongs to a di33erent trade and )ro3essionN each has a var:ing interest and a divergent )olitical and religious viewN some ma: +e conservativeA others li+eral@ * ,uslim ma: 3ind the article dishonora+leA even +las)hemousN others ma: 3ind it as an o))ortunit: to strengthen their 3aith and educate the non>+elievers and the Hin3idels@H TogetherA the ,uslims do not have a single common re)utation that will give them a common or general interest in the su+/ect matter o3 the controvers:@ 'im)l:A de3amation o3 a large grou) does not give rise to a cause o3 action on the )art o3 an individual unless it can +e shown that he is the target o3 the de3amator: matter@

In the instant caseA the ,uslim communit: is too vast as to readil: ascertain who among the ,uslims were )articularl: de3amed@ The si"e o3 the grou) renders the re3erence as indeterminate and generic as a similar attac4 on -atholicsA ProtestantsA !uddhists or ,ormons would do@ The ,uslim )o)ulation ma: +e divided into smaller grou)s with var:ing agendaA 3rom the )ra:er3ul conservative to the )assionatel: radical@ These divisions in the ,uslim )o)ulation ma: still +e too large and am+iguous to )rovide a reasona+le in3erence to an: )ersonalit: who can +ring a case in an action 3or li+el@ There3oreA the statements )u+lished +: )etitioners in the instant case did not s)eci3icall: identi3: nor re3er to an: )articular individuals who were )ur)ortedl: the su+/ect o3 the alleged li+elous )u+lication@ $es)ondents can scarcel: claim to having +een singled out 3or social censure )ointedl: resulting in damages@ 7eril:A the conduct o3 ,7$' was not e%treme or outrageous@ Neither was the emotional distress allegedl: su33ered +: res)ondents so severe that no reasona+le )erson could +e e%)ected to endure it@ There is no evidence on record that )oints to that result@ In an: caseA ID-PPs lac4 o3 cause o3 action cannot +e cured +: the 3iling o3 a class suit@ *n element o3 a class suit is the ade9uac: o3 re)resentation@ In determining the 9uestion o3 3air and ade9uate re)resentation o3 mem+ers o3 a classA the court must consider LaO whether the interest o3 the named )art: is coe%tensive with the interest o3 the other mem+ers o3 the classN L+O the )ro)ortion o3 those made )arties as it so +ears to the total mem+ershi) o3 the classN andA LcO an: other 3actor +earing on the a+ilit: o3 the named )art: to s)ea4 3or the rest o3 the class@ The rules re9uire that courts must ma4e sure that the )ersons intervening should +e su33icientl: numerous to 3ull: )rotect the interests o3 all concerned@ .ereA ID-PA et al@ see4s in e33ect to assert the interests not onl: o3 the ,uslims in the Phili))ines +ut o3 the whole ,uslim world as well@ Private res)ondents o+viousl: lac4 the su33icienc: o3 num+ers to re)resent such a glo+al grou)N and neither have the: +een a+le to demonstrate the identit: o3 their interests with those the: see4 to re)resent@ 6nless it can +e shown that there can +e a sa3e guarant: that those a+sent will +e ade9uatel: re)resented +: those )resentA a class suitA given its magnitude in this instanceA would +e unavailing@ In a )luralistic Phili))ines societ:A misin3ormation a+out another individualGs religion is as common)lace as sel3>a))ointed critics o3 governmentN and it would +e more a))ro)riate to res)ect the 3air criticism o3 religious )rinci)les@ -ourts must +e view)oint>neutral when it comes

to religious matters i3 onl: to a33irm the neutralit: )rinci)le o3 3ree s)eech rights under modern /uris)rudence@ Den:ing certiorari would surel: create a chilling e33ect on the constitutional guarantees o3 3reedom o3 s)eechA o3 e%)ressionA and o3 the )ress@

+,;E &A!IANA C. NDA. DE SALAOAR vs@ CA &ac s3 Primitivo Ne)omuceno and 5merenciana Ne)omuceno 3iled se)arate com)laints with the -ourt o3 *grarian $elations o3 ,alolosA !ulacanA 3or e/ectment on the ground o3 )ersonal cultivation and conversion o3 land 3or use3ul non>agricultural )ur)oses against )etitionerGs deceased hus+andA !en/amin 'ala"ar L!en/aminO@ *3ter 23 :ears L+: thenA the case had alread: +een trans3erred to the $T-Ps /urisdictionOA the trial court rendered its /oint decision in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondents@ !en/amin a))ealed to the -*A asserting that )rivate res)ondents 3ailed to satis3: the re9uirements )ertaining to )ersonal cultivation and conversion o3 the landholdings into non>agricultural uses@ The -* re/ected this contentionA 3inding that the record was re)lete with evidence /usti3:ing )rivate res)ondentsG assertion o3 their right o3 cultivation and conversion@ *3ter a+out a :ear a3ter the termination o3 the a))ealA the same trial court decision was once again assailed +e3ore the -* through a )etition 3or annulment o3 /udgment@ .erein )etitioner assailed the same trial court decision as having +een rendered +: a court that did not have /urisdiction over her and the other heirs o3 !en/amin +ecause notwithstanding the 3act that her hus+and had alread: died in 1&&1A the trial court still )roceeded to render its decision in 1&&3 without e33ecting the su+stitution o3 heirs in accordance with 'ection 1 o3 $ule 3A there+: de)riving her o3 her da: in court@ The -* ruled in 3avor o3 the validit: o3 the $T- decision@ ,$ having +een deniedA she went to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?8N the death o3 the de3endant in an e/ectment +e3ore the rendition o3 the decisionA and the 3ailure o3 the trial court to e33ectuate a su+stitution o3 heirs +e3ore /udgment is madeA renders such /udgment /urisdictionall: in3irm@ R%lin/3 NoA it does not@ *s a general ruleA su+stitution is needed@ The rationale underl:ing the re9uirement o3 su+stitution in case a )art: dies is that the e%ercise o3 /udicial )ower to hear and determine a cause im)licitl: )resu))oses that the trial court has /urisdiction over the )ersons o3 the )arties@ .oweverA the same does not a))l: where 3ormal su+stitution o3 heirs is not necessar: as when the heirs themselves voluntaril: a))earedA )artici)ated in the case and )resented evidence in de3ense o3 deceased de3endant@ The rule on su+stitution is e33ectuated 3or them to +e +ound +: a su+se9uent /udgmentN and to den: su+stitution would den: the +asic right o3 due )rocess@ 2or the case to continueA the real )art: in interest must +e su+stituted 3or the deceased@ The real )art: in interest is the one who would +e a33ected +: the /udgment@ It could +e the administrator or e%ecutor or the heirs@ 'u+stitution gives them the o))ortunit: to continue the de3ense 3or the deceased and such also includes the )rocess o3 letting the su+stitutes 4now that the: shall +e +ound +: an: /udgment in the case and that the: should there3ore activel: )artici)ate in the de3ense o3 the deceased@ This )art ma: +e called the su+stantive as)ectA the most im)ortant )art o3 the rule@ ?hile it is true that a decision in an action 3or e/ectment is en3orcea+le not onl: against the de3endant himsel3 +ut also against mem+ers o3 his 3amil:A his relativesA and his )rivies who derived their right o3 )ossession 3rom the de3endant and his successors>in>interestA it had +een esta+lished that )etitioner hadA +: her own actsA su+mitted to the /urisdiction o3 the trial court@ ThusA she is now esto))ed 3rom den:ing that she had +een heard in de3ense o3 her deceased hus+and in the )roceedings therein@ ,oreoverA the -* also correctl: ruled that e/ectmentA +eing an action involving recover: o3 real )ro)ert:A is a real action which as suchA is not e%tinguished +: the de3endantGs death@ *s suchA this )etition evidentl: has no leg to stand on@

+,;A MARIA G. AG(AS6 &ELIR G(ARDIN) an5 &RANCISC) SALINAS vs@ 4ERM)GENES LLEM)S6 deceased de3endant su+stituted +: his re)resentativesA PERPET(A <ERR)F LLEM)S6 4ERMENEGILD) LLEM)S6 &ELIN) LLEM)S an5 AMAD) LLEM)S &ac s3 2rancisco 'alinas and ')ouses 2eli% 1uardino and ,aria *guas /ointl: 3iled an action in the -2I>-at+aloganA 'amar to recover damages 3rom .ermogenes LlemosA averring that the latter had served them +: registered mail with a co): o3 a )etition 3or a writ o3 )ossessionA with notice that the same would +e su+mitted to court@ In view o3 the co): and notice servedA )lainti33s )roceeded to the court 3rom their residence in ,anila accom)anied +: their law:ersA onl: to discover that no such )etition had +een 3iled@ Llemos also maliciousl: 3ailed to a))ear in courtA so that )lainti33sG e%)enditure and trou+le turned out to +e in vainA causing them mental anguish and undue em+arrassment@ !e3ore he could answerA Llemos died@ 6)on leave o3 courtA )lainti33s amended their com)laint to include the heirs o3 the deceased@ The heirs 3iled a motion to dismissA which gave to dismissal +: the -2IA on the ground that the legal re)resentativeA and not the heirsA should have +een made the )art: de3endantN and that an:wa: the action +eing 3or recover: o3 mone:A testate or intestate )roceedings should +e initiated and the claim 3iled therein@ *s ,$ was deniedA )lainti33s went to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?8N the lower court erred in dismissing the case@ R%lin/3 0esA it did@ .oweverA the case should +e dismissed nonetheless +ecause su+se9uent events have made it moot and academic@ -ontrasting )rovisions o3 the rules which cover those claims which are +arred i3 not 3iled in the estate settlement )roceedings and those de3ining actions that survive and ma: +e )rosecuted against the e%ecutor or administratorA it is a))arent that actions 3or damages caused +: tortious conduct o3 a de3endant Las in the case at +arO survive the death o3 the latter@ The actions that are a+ated +: death areI L1O claims 3or 3uneral e%)enses and those 3or the last sic4ness o3 the decedentN L2O /udgments 3or mone:N and L3O all claims 3or mone: against the decedentA arising 3rom contract e%)ress or im)lied@ None o3 these includes the claims o3 the )lainti33sN 3or it is not enough that the claim against the deceased )art: +e 3or mone:A +ut it must arise 3rom Hcontract e%)ress or im)liedH@ These words were construed to include all )urel: )ersonal o+ligations other than those which have their source in delict or tort@ 8n the other handA the action that survive against a decedentGs e%ecutors or administrators areI L1O actions to recover real and )ersonal )ro)ert: 3rom the estateN L2O actions to en3orce a lien thereonN and L3O actions to recover damages 3or an in/ur: to )erson or )ro)ert:@ The claim herein is one 3or damages under the last classN it having +een held that Hin/ur: to )ro)ert:H is not limited to in/uries to s)eci3ic )ro)ert:A +ut e%tends to other wrongs +: which )ersonal estate is in/ured or diminished@ To maliciousl: cause a )art: to incur unnecessar: e%)ensesA as charged in this caseA is certainl: in/urious to that )art:Gs )ro)ert:@

.oweverA it a))ears that the )arties have arrived at an amica+le settlement o3 their di33erencesA and that the: have agreed to dismiss this a))eal@ The settlement has +een a))roved and em+odied in an order o3 the -ourt o3 2irst Instance@ ThusA the case is now moot@

+,;. ')RGE C. PADERANGA vs@ 4on. DIMALANES !. !(ISSAN6 Presi5in/ '%5/e6 C&IF Oamboan/a 5el Nor e an5 EL(M!A IND(STRIES C)MPAN< &ac s3 J8$15 -@ P*D5$*N1* LP*D5$*N1*O and 5L6,!* IND6'T$I5' -8,P*N0 L5I-OA a )artnershi) re)resented +: its 1eneral ,anager J8'5 J@ 5L6,!*A entered into an oral contract o3 lease 3or the use o3 a commercial s)ace within a +uilding owned +: )etitioner in 8"ami" -it:@ The lease was 3or an inde3inite )eriod although the rent o3 P15(@(( )er month was )aid on a month>to>month +asis@ 5I- utili"ed the area under lease as the 'ales 833ice o3 *llied *ir 2reight in 8"ami" -it:@ P*D5$*N1* su+divided the leased )remises into 2 +: constructing a )artition wall in +etween@ .e then too4 )ossession o3 the other hal3A which re)ossession was said to have +een underta4en with the ac9uiescence o3 the local manager o3 5L6,!*A although 5I- maintains that this is not the case@ Therea3terA 5I- instituted an action 3or damages whichA at the same timeA )ra:ed 3or the 3i%ing o3 the )eriod o3 lease at 5 :earsA +e3ore the then -2I>=am+oanga del Norte in Di)olog -it:@ P*D5$*N1*A a resident o3 8"ami" -it:A moved to dismiss contending that the action was a real action which should have +een 3iled with the -2I>,isamis 8ccidental stationed in 8"ami" -it: where the )ro)ert: in 9uestion was situated@ The -2I>=am+oanga Del Norte denied the ,otion to Dismiss and held that the case merel: involved the en3orcement o3 the contract o3 leaseA and while a33ecting a )ortion o3 real )ro)ert:A there was no 9uestion o3 ownershi) raised@ .enceA venue was )ro)erl: laid@ P*D5$*N1* moved to reconsider contending that while the action did not involve a 9uestion o3 ownershi)A it was nevertheless see4ing recover: o3 )ossessionN thusA it was a real action whichA conse9uentl:A must +e 3iled in 8"ami" -it:@ The /udge denied the ,$@ ?hile admitting that the case did )ra: 3or recover: o3 )ossessionA he nonetheless ruled that this matter was not the main issue at hand@ P*D5$*N1* went to the '-@ Iss%es3 ?8N the )ro)er venue o3 an action to 3i% the )eriod o3 a contract o3 lease whichA in the mainA also )ra:s 3or damages is the )lace where the )ro)ert: is situated or where the )lainti33 or de3endant resides@ R%lin/3 The case +eing a real actionA the venue is where the )ro)ert: involved lies@ 5Ia))ears to +e con3used over the di33erence +etween )ersonal and real actions vis0a0vis actions in personam and in rem@ The 3ormer determines venueN the latterA the +inding e33ect o3 a decision the court ma: render over the )art:A whether im)leaded or not@ .ereA it is indu+ita+le that the action instituted +: 5I- against )etitioner a33ects the )arties aloneA not the whole world@ .enceA it is an action in personam@ .oweverA this does not automaticall: mean that the action 3or damages and to 3i% the )eriod o3 the lease contract is also a )ersonal action@ 2orA a )ersonal action ma: not at the same time +e an action in personamN and a real action ma: not at the same time +e an action in rem@ * )ersonal action see4s the recover: o3 )ersonal )ro)ert: or the en3orcement o3 a contract or the recover: o3 damagesN while a real action see4s the recover: o3 real )ro)ert:A orA as indicated in section 2LaO o3 $ule 4A a real action is an action a33ecting title to real )ro)ert: or 3or the recover: o3 )ossessionA or 3or )artition or condemnation o3A or 3oreclosure o3 a mortgage onA real )ro)ert:@ *n action in personam is an action against a )erson on the +asis o3 his )ersonal lia+ilit:N while an action in rem is an action against the thing itsel3A instead o3 against the )erson@ .enceA a real action ma: at the same time +e an action in personam and not necessaril: an action in rem@ -onse9uentl:A the distinction +etween an action in personam and an action in rem 3or )ur)oses o3 determining venue is irrelevant@ InsteadA it is im)erative to 3ind out i3 the action 3iled is a )ersonal action or real action@ *3ter allA )ersonal actions ma: +e instituted in the $T- Lthen -2IO

where the de3endant or an: o3 the de3endants resides or ma: +e 3oundA or where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )lainti33s residesA at the election o3 the )lainti33@ 8n the other handA real actions should +e +rought +e3ore the $T- having /urisdiction over the territor: in which the su+/ect )ro)ert: or )art thereo3 lies@ ?hile the instant action is 3or damages arising 3rom alleged +reach o3 the lease contractA it li4ewise )ra:s 3or the 3i%ing o3 the )eriod o3 lease at 5 :ears@ I3 3ound meritoriousA 5I- will +e entitled to remain not onl: as lessee 3or another 5 :ears +ut also to the recover: o3 the )ortion earlier ta4en 3rom him as well@ This is +ecause the leased )remises under the original contract covered the whole commercial s)ace itsel3 and not /ust the su+divided )ortion thereo3@ ?hile it ma: +e that the instant com)laint does not e%)licitl: )ra: 3or recover: o3 )ossessionA such is the necessar: conse9uence thereo3@ The instant action there3ore does not o)erate to e33ace the 3undamental and )rime o+/ective o3 the nature o3 the case which is to recover the one>hal3 )ortion re)ossessed +: the lessorA herein )etitioner@ IndeedA where the ultimate )ur)ose o3 an action involves title to or see4s recover: o3 )ossessionA )artition or condemnation o3A or 3oreclosure o3 mortgage onA real )ro)ert:A such an action must +e deemed a real action and must )er3orce +e 3iled in the )rovince where the )ro)ert: or an: )art thereo3 lies@ ThusA res)ondent /udgeA in den:ing )etitionerGs ,otion to Dismiss gravel: a+used his discretion@

+,;C MARI) SIAS)C)6 e al. vs@ CA6 4)N. MARCELIN) !A(TISTA 'R.6 Presi5in/ '%5/e6 !ranch ;,A6 RTCFP%e$on Ci yL an5 he IGLESIA NI CRIST) &ac s3 Notwithstanding the 3iling o3 a res)onsi+le )leading +: one de3endantA the com)laint ma: still +e amended onceA as a matter o3 rightA +: the )lainti33 in res)ect to claims against the non> answering de3endantLsO@ The -ourt also reiterates that certiorari is not the )ro)er remed: to contest a lower courtGs 3inal ad/udicationA since a))eal is availa+le as a recourse@ Petitioners were the registered owners o3 & )arcels o3 land located in ,ontal+anA $i"al@ In 1&&4A the: +egan to o33er the su+/ect )ro)erties 3or sale@ 'u+se9uentl:A Iglesia ni -risto LIN-O negotiated with the )etitionersA +ut the )arties 3ailed to agree on the terms@ ,ore than a :ear laterA +oth )arties revived their discussionA with )etitioners sending a 3inal o33er to IN- and the latter acce)tingA through its counselA e%ce)t that it was not amena+le to the )ro)osal o3 undervaluing the total consideration@ Petitioners claimed that IN- had not reall: acce)ted the o33erN adding thatA )rior to their recei)t o3 IN-Ps re)l:A the: had alread: HcontractedH with -arissa .omes Develo)ment L-arissaO 3or the sale o3 the said )ro)erties due to the a+sence o3 an: res)onse to their o33er 3rom IN-@ ,aintaining that a sale had +een consummatedA INdemanded that the corres)onding deed +e e%ecuted in its 3avor@ Petitioners re3used@ This led to the 3iling +: IN- o3 a com)laint 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and damages against )etitioners and -arissa@ Petitioners 3iled therein a motion to dismiss on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue and lac4 o3 ca)acit: to sue@ -arissa initiall: 3iled an answer +ut therea3ter negotiated with IN-N which discussion eventuall: led to the dro))ing o3 its name 3rom the com)laint L+: wa: o3 an amended com)laintO and the )urchase o3 the land +: IN- 3rom -arissa@ The $T- issued two orders containing the 3ollowing dis)ositionsI L1O admitting the *mended -om)laintN L2O dro))ed -arissa 3rom the -om)laintN and L3O denied the ,otion to Declare 'iasocoA et al@ in De3ault@ The -* a33irmed the two orders ruling that although IN- could no longer amend its original -om)laint as a matter o3 rightA it was not )recluded 3rom doing so with leave o3 court@ ThusA the $T- was not in grave a+use o3 discretion@ The -* also held that the amended -om)laint did not su+stantiall: alter IN-Gs cause o3 actionA since )etitioners were not +eing as4ed a legal o+ligation di33erent 3rom that stated in the original -om)laint@ Petitioner argue thatA as -arissa had alread: 3iled its *nswer +: the time the *mended -om)laint was 3iledA IN- should have 3irst o+tained leave o3 courtA which it did not doA +e3ore 3iling its *mended -om)laint@ ,oreoverA the amendment su+stantiall: altered the cause o3 action o3 IN-@ Iss%es3 ?8N -* erred in a33irming the 2 $T- 8rders which allowed the *mended -om)laint@ R%lin/3 NoA it did not@ .oweverA it should +e sustained 3or di33erent reasons@ 6nder the rulesA a )art: ma: amend his )leading once as a matter o3 right at an: time +e3ore a res)onsive )leading is served@ It is thus clear that IN- can amend its com)laint onceA as a matter o3 rightA +e3ore a res)onsive>)leading is 3iled@ IndeedA where some +ut not all the de3endants have answeredA )lainti33s ma: amend their -om)laint onceA as a matter o3 rightA in res)ect to claims asserted solel: against the non>answering de3endantsA +ut not as to claims asserted against the other de3endants@ The rationale 3or the a3orementioned rule is in 'ection 3A $ule 1( o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA which )rovides that a3ter a res)onsive )leading has +een 3iledA an amendment ma: +e re/ected when

the de3ense is su+stantiall: altered@ 'uch amendment does not onl: )re/udice the rights o3 the de3endant +ut also dela:s the action@ In the 3irst )laceA where a )art: has not :et 3iled a res)onsive )leadingA there are no de3enses that can +e altered@ 2urthermoreA amendments to )leadings are generall: 3avored and should +e li+erall: allowed in 3urtherance o3 /ustice in order that ever: case ma: so 3ar as )ossi+le +e determined on its real 3acts and in order to s)eed the trial o3 cases or )revent the circuit: o3 actionN unless there are circumstances such as ine%cusa+le dela: or the ta4ing o3 the adverse )art: +: sur)rise or the li4eA which might /usti3: a re3usal o3 )ermission to amend@ .ereA )etitioners 3ailed to )rove that the: were )re/udiced +: )rivate res)ondentGs *mended -om)laint@ TrueA -arissa had alread: 3iled its own *nswer@ PetitionersA howeverA have not :et 3iled an:@ ,oreoverA the: do not allege that their de3ense is similar to that o3 -arissa@ 8n the contrar:A IN-Gs claims against -arissa and against )etitioners are di33erent@ *gainst )etitionersA whose o33er to sell the su+/ect )arcels o3 land had allegedl: +een acce)ted +: IN-A the latter is suing 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and damages 3or +reach o3 contract@ *lthough IN- could no longer amendA as a matter o3 rightA its -om)laint against -arissaA it could do so against )etitioners whoA at the timeA had not :et 3iled an answer@ The amendment did not )re/udice the )etitioners or dela: the action@ Au contraireA it sim)li3ied the case and tended to e%)edite its dis)osition@ The *mended -om)laint +ecame sim)l: an action 3or damagesA since the claims 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance and declaration o3 nullit: o3 the sale have +een deleted@ Petitioners insist that the $T->M- did not have /urisdiction over the original -om)laintN henceA it did not have an: authorit: to allow the amendment@ The: maintain that the original action 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance involving )arcels o3 land in ,ontal+anA $i"al should have +een 3iled in the $T- o3 that area@ This is incorrect@ TrueA an amendment cannot +e allowed when the court has no /urisdiction over the original -om)laint and the )ur)ose o3 the amendment is to con3er /urisdiction on the court@ In this caseA howeverA the $T- had /urisdiction +ecause the original -om)laint involved s)eci3ic )er3ormance with damagesN and a com)laint 3or Hs)eci3ic )er3ormance with damagesH +eing a )ersonal actionA it ma: +e 3iled in the )ro)er court where an: o3 the )arties reside@ ?.5$528$5A the Petition is here+: '(7&('@ -osts against )etitioners@ '8 8$D5$5D@ *omero" <itug" Purisima and >onBaga0*eyes" JJ." concur@

+,;- NDA. DE NICT)RIA 1s. Co%r o2 Appeals &ACTS3 8n 8cto+er 2 A 1&&3A res)ondent s)ouses Luis and =enaida 1i+e 3iled a -om)laint 3or C5/ectment and Damages with a ?rit o3 Preliminar: ,andator: In/unction against Isidra 7da@ de 7ictoria Lthe mother o3 herein )etitioner ,ario 7ictoriaOA 5use+io *ridaA Juan !ecina and 1uillermo !ecina with the ,unici)al Trial -ourt L,T-O o3 -alauanA LagunaA doc4eted as -ivil -ase No@ 261 Lthe 5/ectment -aseO@ 1i+e s)ouses alleged in their com)laint that the: ac9uired the )arcel o3 land 3rom the heirs o3 the late Judge 1regorio Lantin@ That the )ro)ert: was originall: )art o3 Lot 1>!>153 which was su+divided into seven )arcels in 1&#& among Judge Lantin and 3our o3 his tenants@ In her *nswer with ,otion to dismissA ,rs@ 7ictoria denied having entered Judge LantinPs lot alleged to have +een )urchased +: the s)ouses 1i+eA claiming that her 3armhouse was constructed on the ver: lot awarded to her 3amil: +: the D*$@ 'he also inter)osed a counterclaim )ra:ing thatA as a tenant o3 Judge LantinA she +e maintained in the )eace3ul )ossession and cultivation o3 her lot orA in the alternativeA awarded distur+ance com)ensationN andA in either eventA reim+ursed 3or the e%)enses she incurred as a result o3 the 5/ectment -ase@ ,T- $uling ruled in 3avor o3 the )lainti33s>s)ouses 1i+eA Therea3terA s)ouses 1i+eA without notice to the de3endants in the 5/ectment -aseA 3iled a ,otion 3or Immediate 5%ecution and Demolition )ra:ing that Ca writ o3 e%ecution +e issued to en3orce and satis3: the /udgmentA 3or the e/ectment and demolition o3 the house o3 the De3endants@J * Petition 3or Certiorari and Prohi+ition with Pra:er 3or Issuance o3 a Tem)orar: $estraining 8rder and a ?rit o3 Preliminar: In/unction was also 3iled on Jul: 13A 1&&# with the $egional Trial -ourt L$T-O o3 -alam+aA Laguna@ It assailed the ,T- Decision and the ?rit o3 5%ecutionA contending that the ,T- had no /urisdiction over the 5/ectment -ase and committed grave a+use o3 discretion in deciding the case in 3avor o3 the s)ouses 1i+e and in issuing the said 8rder and ?rit o3 5%ecution )ending a))eal@ 'hortl: +e3ore the ,T- )romulgated its ,a: 21A 1&&# DecisionA ,rs@ 7ictoria )assed awa: and her sonA )etitioner ,ario 7ictoriaA thus su+stituted 3or her@ In the meantimeA !ranch 3 o3 the $T- -alauanA to which the Petition 3or Certiorari was ra33ledA issued a ?rit o3 Preliminar: In/unction@ The a))eal 3iled +: the de3endants in the 5/ectment -ase +e3ore the $T- o3 -alauanA Laguna was dismissed +: !ranch &2 3or 3ailure to 3ile their a))eal memorandum@ !: its Decision dated *ugust 13A 1&&&A the $T- dismissed the Petition 3or Certiorari on the ground that the correct remed: 3rom a decision o3 a $egional Trial -ourt in a )etition 3or certiorari is an ordinar: a))eal )ursuant to 'ection 1A $ule 41 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure and section 5A $ule 6 o3 the $evised Internal $ules o3 the -ourt o3 *))ealsN that the instant )etition is 3iled out o3 time@ The assailed $T- decision was received on 'e)tem+er 1#A 1&&& while the ,otion 3or $econsideration was 3iled on 'e)tem+er 2#A 1&&&@ Thus a )eriod o3 nine L&O da:s had ela)sed@ The 8rder dated Decem+er A 1&&& was received +: )etitioner on Januar: 2&A 2((( while the instant )etition was 3iled onl: on ,arch 2#A 2(((@ Thus a )eriod o3

3i3t: eight L5#O da:s had )assed@ .enceA )etitioner had consumed a )eriod o3 6 da:sA well +e:ond the 6(>da: )eriod allowed +: the rules@ Plainl:A the )etition was 3iled out o3 time@ *nd that the statement o3 material dates as to timeliness o3 the 3iling o3 the )etition is incom)lete as it 3ailed to state when the motion 3or reconsideration was 3iled in violation o3 'ection 3A $ule 46@ PetitionerPs ,otion 3or $econsideration having +een denied +: the -* 3or +eing 3iled 2 da:s +e:ond the reglementar: )eriodA he 3iled the )etition at +ar a3ter he was grantedA on his motionA an e%tension o3 thirt: da:s to 3ile the )etitionA conditioned u)on the timeliness o3 the motion 3or e%tension@ ISS(E3 1O ?hether or not res)ondent court o3 a))eals committed grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction +: not giving due course to the )etitionerPs )etition 3or certiorari on ground o3 technicalit: instead o3 resolving the case on the merits@ ?hether or not res)ondent regional trial court o3 calam+aA lagunaA committed grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction +: ruling that this case 3alls within the /urisdiction o3 the munici)al trial courtA and that the decision o3 the court a uo was not an error /urisdiction +ut an error o3 /udgment which is not reviewa+le in certiorari E)Froceedings

2O

4ELD3 &irs iss%e3 No@ This -ourt granted )etitioner an e%tended )eriod to 3ile the )etitionA conditionedA howeverA on the timeliness o3 the 3iling o3 the ,otion 3or 5%tension o3 Time to 2ile Petition 3or $eview on Certiorari@ It is a +asic rule o3 remedial law that a motion 3or e%tension o3 time must +e 3iled +e3ore the e%)iration o3 the )eriod sought to +e e%tended@ ?here a motion 3or e%tension o3 time is 3iled +e:ond the )eriod 3or a))ealA the same is o3 no e33ect since there would no longer +e an: )eriod to e%tendA and the /udgment or order to +e a))ealed 3rom will have +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:@ In the case at +arA the reglementar: )eriod to a))eal had in 3act e%)ired almost 1( months )rior to the 3iling o3 )etitionerPs motion 3or e%tension o3 time on *)ril 1(A 2((1@ The $egistr: $eturn $ecei)t o3 the $esolution o3 the -* dismissing the -* Certiorari Petition shows that the same was received +: counsel 3or )etitionerPs agent on June 5A 2(((@ .enceA )etitioner had onl: until June 2(A 2((( within which to 3ile an a))eal or a motion 3or new trial or reconsideration@ -learl:A the -ourt o3 *))eals committed no error when it denied )etitionerPs ,otion 3or $econsideration 3or having +een 3iled two da:s a3ter the e%)iration o3 the reglementar: )eriod on June 22A 2(((@ 'imilarl:A the instant )etition 3or review must li4ewise +e denied 3or having +een 3iled on ,a: 12A 2((1A almost 11 months a3ter the e%)iration o3 the )eriod to a))eal on June 2(A 2(((@ !: his own accountA )etitioner received a co): o3 the Decision o3 the $T- dismissing the Petition 3or -ertiorari on 'e)tem+er 1#A 1&&& and 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 the same on 'e)tem+er 2#A 1&&&@ ThusA u)on recei)t o3 the notice o3 the denial o3 the motion 3or reconsiderationA which was admitted to +e on Decem+er 2&A 1&&& )etitioner onl: had 6 da:s or until Januar: 4A 2((( within which to 3ile a notice o3 a))eal@

.oweverA )etitioner 3ailed to do soA and he insteadA on ,arch 2#A 2(((A 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ *s the -ourt o3 *))eals again correctl: )ointed outA Cthe correct remed: 3rom a decision o3 a $egional Trial -ourt in a )etition 3or certiorari is an ordinar: a))eal )ursuant to 'ection 1A $ule 41 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureJ It is well settled that the )er3ection o3 an a))eal in the manner and within the )eriod )ermitted +: law is not onl: mandator:A +ut also /urisdictional@ Certiorari is not and cannot +e made a su+stitute 3or an a))eal where the latter remed: is availa+le +ut was lost through 3ault or negligence

Secon5 Iss%e3 No@ The ,T- does not automaticall: lose its e%clusive original /urisdiction over e/ectment cases +: the mere allegation o3 a tenanc: relationshi)@ The )art: alleging tenanc: must )rove the e%istence o3 all the essential re9uisites o3 tenanc: in order to oust the ,T- o3 its /urisdiction over the case@ ?e em)hasi"e that the ,T- did not automaticall: lose its /urisdiction sim)l: +ecause res)ondents raised tenanc: as a de3ense@ It continued to have the authorit: to hear the case )recisel: to determine whether it had /urisdiction to dis)ose o3 the e/ectment suit on its merits@ In the )resent caseA neither )etitioner nor his )redecessor>in>interest su+mitted evidence to su+stantiate the e%istence o3 the essential re9uisites o3 tenanc:@ In 3actA the )etitionerA +ased her )ra:er 3or the dismissal o3 the 5/ectment -ase on res)ondentsP alleged lac4 o3 cause o3 action with a counterclaim )ra:ing that she +e maintained in the )eace3ul )ossession and cultivation o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert: orA in the alternativeA awarded distur+ance com)ensationN andA in either eventA reim+ursed 3or the e%)enses she incurred@ -onsidering that )etitionerPs )redecessor>in>interest activel: )artici)ated in the )roceedings +e3ore the ,T- and invo4ed its /urisdiction to secure an a33irmative relie3A )etitioner cannot now turn around and 9uestion that courtPs /urisdiction@ .enceA )etitionerPs )rinci)al su+stantive argument that the 5/ectment -ase )ro)erl: 3alls within the /urisdiction o3 the D*$*! and not o3 the ,T- is without merit@ ?.5$528$5A the )etition is here+: D5NI5D@

+,;B C4(A N. SANT)S

&ac s3 Isa+el !allesA married to ,arianoA was the owner o3 a residential land located inA DilimanA Mue"on -it:A covered +: a T-T@ *3ter the death o3 the s)ousesA this T-T was cancelled +: T-T No@ 5T>#(465 issued under the names o3 their heirsA !enignoA TomasA NormaA ,anuel and Lawrence !alles@ In the meantimeA on Novem+er 2#A 1&&6A the registered ownersA through counselA 3iled a letter> com)laint against the )etitioners -hua et@ al 3or the demolition o3 houses andBor huts which stood on the )ro)ert:A alleged to have +een constructed without the re9uisite +uilding and occu)anc: )ermits 3rom the -it: !uilding 833iceA and without the 4nowledge o3 the registered owners@ 8n ,arch 1&& A $omualdo -@ 'antosA the 8I- o3 the 833ice o3 the -it: !uilding 833iceA issued a $esolution ordering the )etitioners to sel3>demolish their res)ective housesBhuts within 15 da:s 3rom notice with a warning that i3 the: 3ailed to com)l: with the resolutionA the com)lainant will with 3orceA e33ect the demolition at the e%)ense o3 the res)ondents@ * month a3terA )etitioners 3iled a com)laint 3or in/unction and damages against !uilding 833icer 'antosA and the registered owners o3 the )ro)ert: and their counsel in $T- M- with a )ra:er 3or a tem)orar: restraining order or a writ 3or )reliminar: in/unction to en/oin the demolition o3 their houses@ Petitioners alleged in the com)laint that the: had +een occu):ing the )ro)ert: as lessees o3 Isa+el !alles 3or more than 1( :earsN a3ter the demise o3 the ')ouses !allesA the: continued occu):ing the )ro)ert: as lesseesA )a:ing their rentals to Lawrence !allesA the onl: heir o3 the s)ouses who had constructed his house on the )ro)ert:N during the )eriod that the: had +een in )ossession o3 the )ro)ert:A the registered owners never distur+ed them o3 said )ossessionN the res)ondent 'antos usur)ed the )ower o3 the /udiciar: +: ordering the demolition o3 their housesBhuts there+: im)liedl: ordering their eviction 3rom the )ro)ert:N and +: his actionA res)ondent 'antos de)rived the )etitioners o3 their constitutional rights to due )rocess@ $T- denied this )etition and therea3ter a Demolition notice was issued@ The )etitioners 3iled a Petition 3or -ertiorari in the -ourt o3 *))eals 3or the nulli3ication o3 this 8rder o3 the $T- and )ra:ed 3or the issuance o3 a T$8Bwrit o3 )reliminar: in/unction which -* dismissed@ The )etitioners 3iled a motion 3or the reconsideration thereo3 with a )lea that the $ules o3 -ourt could +e a))lied li+erall: in their 3avor@ -* denied )etitioners again@ Iss%eTsI L1O ?hether or not an Halternative )etition 3or review on certiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA or a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtH would )ros)er L2O 8n certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ing> ?hether or not -ourt o3 *))eals erred in dismissing )etition 3or certiorari and in/unctionA among other groundsA that the certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ing was signed +: onl: one o3 the )etitioners@ 4el53 L1O The instant HalternativeH )etition is destined to 3ail@ The )etitioners cannot delegate u)on the -ourt the tas4 o3 determining under which rule the )etition should 3all@ The remedies o3 a))eal and certiorari are mutuall: e%clusive and not alternative or successive@ 1# 6nder $ule 56A 'ec@ 5L3O o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourtA a wrong or ina))ro)riate mode o3 a))ealA as in this caseA merits an outright dismissal@

$emedies under these two rules are di33erent@ $ule 45 is a continuation o3 the /udgment com)lained o3A while that under $ule 65 is an original or inde)endent@ 1enerall:A the s)ecial civil action o3 certiorari under $ule 65 will not +e allowed as a su+stitute 3or 3ailure to timel: 3ile a )etition 3or review under $ule 45 or 3or the lost remed: o3 a))eal@ $ule 45 is clear that decisionsA 3inal orders or resolutions o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals in an: caseA i@e@A regardless o3 the nature o3 the action or )roceedings involvedA ma: +e a))ealed to this -ourt +: 3iling a )etition 3or reviewA which would +e +ut a continuation o3 the a))ellate )rocess over the original case@ 6nder $ule 45A the reglementar: )eriod to a))eal is 15 da:s 3rom notice o3 /udgment or denial o3 the motion 3or reconsideration@ In this caseA the $esolution o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals dated Januar: 15A 1&&# den:ing the motion 3or reconsideration o3 its $esolution dated Novem+er 2#A 1&& was received +: )etitioners on 2e+ruar: 4A 1&&#@ ThusA the: had until 2e+ruar: 1&A 1&& within which to )er3ect their a))eal@ The )etitioners 3ailed to do so@ 2or the writ o3 certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt to issueA the )etitioners must show that the: have no )lainA s)eed: and ade9uate remed: in the ordinar: course o3 law against their )erceived grievance@ * remed: is considered H)lainA s)eed: and ade9uateH i3 it will )rom)tl: relieve the )etitioners 3rom the in/urious e33ects o3 the /udgment and the acts o3 the lower court or agenc:@ In this caseA a))eal was not onl: availa+le +ut also a s)eed: and ade9uate remed:@ The )etitioners inter)osed the )resent s)ecial civil action o3 certiorari as an alternative to their )etition 3or review on certiorari not +ecause it is the s)eed: and ade9uate remed: +ut to ma4e u) 3or the loss o3 the right o3 ordinar: a))eal L2O 'ection 5A $ule A o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure e%)ressl: )rovides that it is the )lainti33 or )rinci)al )art: who shall certi3: under oath the certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing@ In the )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition in the -ourt o3 *))ealsA the veri3icationBcerti3ication was signed onl: +: )etitioner 'ocorro -hua@ There was no showing that )etitioner -hua was authori"ed +: her co>)etitioners to re)resent the latter and sign the certi3ication@ It cannot li4ewise +e )resumed that )etitioner -hua 4newA to the +est o3 her 4nowledgeA whether her co> )etitioners had the same or similar actions or claims 3iled or )ending@ ?e 3ind that su+stantial com)liance will not su33ice in a matter involving strict o+servance +: the rules@ The attestation contained in the certi3ication on non>3orum sho))ing re9uires )ersonal 4nowledge +: the )art: who e%ecuted the same@ The )etitioners must show reasona+le cause 3or 3ailure to )ersonall: sign the certi3ication@ 6tter disregard o3 the rules cannot /ustl: +e rationali"ed +: har4ing on the )olic: o3 li+eral construction

+,DK !ART)LIN) N. C)CAFC)LA !)TTLERS &ac s3 8n 2e+ruar: 1&&5A 62 em)lo:ees o3 -oca>-ola and its o33icersA Li)ercon 'ervicesA Inc@A Peo)lePs ')ecialist 'ervicesA Inc@A and Interim 'ervicesA Inc@A 3iled a com)laint against res)ondents 3or un3air la+or )ractice through illegal dismissalA violation o3 their securit: o3 tenure

and the )er)etuation o3 the C-a+o ':stem@J The: )ra:ed 3or reinstatement with 3ull +ac4 wagesA and the declaration o3 their regular em)lo:ment status@ 2or 3ailure to )rosecute as the: 3ailed to either attend the scheduled mandator: con3erences or su+mit their res)ective a33idavitsA the claims o3 the 62 com)lainant>em)lo:ees were dismissed@ Therea3terA La+or *r+iter De 7era conducted clari3icator: hearings to elicit in3ormation 3rom the 1( remaining com)lainants L)etitioners hereinO relative to their alleged em)lo:ment -oca>-ola@ In su+stanceA the com)lainants averred that in the )er3ormance o3 their duties as route hel)ersA +ottle segregatorsA and othersA the: were em)lo:ees o3 res)ondent -oca>-ola !ottlersA Inc@ The: also maintained that when res)ondent com)an: re)laced them and )revented them 3rom entering the com)an: )remisesA the: were deemed to have +een illegall: dismissed@ In lieu o3 a )osition )a)erA res)ondent com)an: 3iled a motion to dismiss com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction and cause o3 actionA there +eing no em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi) +etween com)lainants and -oca>-ola !ottlersA Inc@A and that res)ondents Li)ercon 'ervicesA Peo)lePs ')ecialist 'ervices and Interim 'ervices +eing bona fide inde)endent contractorsA were the real em)lo:ers o3 the com)lainants@ *s regards the cor)orate o33icersA res)ondent insisted that the: could not +e 3aulted and +e held lia+le 3or damages as the: onl: acted in their o33icial ca)acities while )er3orming their res)ective duties@ 8n ,a: 1&&# La+or *r+iter De 7era rendered a decision ordering res)ondent com)an: to reinstate com)lainants to their 3ormer )ositions with all the rightsA )rivileges and +ene3its due regular em)lo:eesA and to )a: their 3ull +ac4 wages whichA with the e%ce)tion o3 Prudencio !antolino whose +ac4 wages must +e com)uted u)on )roo3 o3 his dismissal as o3 31 ,a: 1&&#A alread: amounted to an aggregate o3 P1A#1(A244@(( In 3inding 3or the com)lainantsA the La+or *r+iter ruled that in contrast with the negative declarations o3 res)ondent com)an:Ps witnesses whoA as district sales su)ervisors o3 res)ondent com)an: denied 4nowing the com)lainants )ersonall:A the testimonies o3 the com)lainants were more credi+le as the: su33icientl: su))lied ever: detail o3 their em)lo:mentA s)eci3icall: identi3:ing who their salesmenBdrivers wereA their )laces o3 assignmentA aside 3rom their dates o3 engagement and dismissal@ 8n a))ealA the NL$- sustained the 3inding o3 the La+or *r+iter@ In a resolutionA the NL$su+se9uentl: denied 3or lac4 o3 merit res)ondentPs motion 3or consideration@ -oca -ola a))ealed to -* whichA although a33irming the 3inding o3 the NL$- that an em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi) e%isted +etween the contending )artiesA nonetheless agreed with res)ondent that the a33idavits o3 some o3 the com)lainants should not have +een given )ro+ative value 3or their 3ailure to a33irm the contents thereo3 and to undergo cross>e%amination@ *s a conse9uenceA the -* dismissed their com)laints 3or lac4 o3 su33icient evidence@ Petitioners now )ra: 3or relie3 3rom the adverse Decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))ealsN thatA insteadA the 3avora+le /udgment o3 the NL$- +e reinstated@ In essenceA )etitioners argue that the -ourt o3 *))eals should not have given weight to res)ondentPs claim o3 3ailure to cross>e%amine them@ The: insist thatA unli4e regular courtsA la+or cases are decided +ased merel: on the )artiesP )osition )a)ers and a33idavits in su))ort o3 their allegations and su+se9uent )leadings that ma: +e 3iled thereto@ *s suchA according to )etitionersA the $ules o3 -ourt should not +e strictl: a))lied in this case s)eci3icall: +: )utting

them on the witness stand to +e cross>e%amined +ecause the NL$- has its own rules o3 )rocedure which were a))lied +: the La+or *r+iter in coming u) with a decision in their 3avor@ The cru% o3 the controvers: revolves around the )ro)riet: o3 giving evidentiar: value to the a33idavits des)ite the 3ailure o3 the a33iants to a33irm their contents and undergo the test o3 cross> e%amination@ Iss%eTs3 ?hether or not the )etitioners are correct 4el53 Pe i ioners are correc . '- ruled that he argument that the a33idavit is hearsa: +ecause the a33iants were not )resented 3or cross>e%amination is not )ersuasive +ecause the rules o3 evidence are not strictl: o+served in )roceedings +e3ore administrative +odies li4e the NL$where decisions ma: +e reached on the +asis o3 )osition )a)ers onl:@ To re9uire otherwise would +e to negate the rationale and )ur)ose o3 the summar: nature o3 the )roceedings mandated +: the $ules and to ma4e mandator: the a))lication o3 the technical rules o3 evidence@ 6nder *rt@ 221 o3 the La+or -odeA the rules o3 evidence )revailing in courts o3 law do not control )roceedings +e3ore the La+or *r+iter and the NL$-@ 2urtherA it notes that the La+or *r+iter and the NL$- are authori"ed to ado)t reasona+le means to ascertain the 3acts in each case s)eedil: and o+/ectivel: and without regard to technicalities o3 law and )rocedureA all in the interest o3 due )rocess@ ?e 3ind no com)elling reason to deviate there3rom@ *dministrative +odies li4e the NL$- are not +ound +: the technical niceties o3 law and )rocedure and the rules o+taining in courts o3 law@ IndeedA the $evised $ules o3 -ourt and )revailing /uris)rudence ma: +e given onl: stringent a))licationA i@e@A +: analog: or in a su))letor: character and e33ect@ The su+mission +: res)ondentA citing People v. Sorrel" that an a33idavit not testi3ied to in a trialA is mere hearsa: evidence and has no real evidentiar: valueA cannot 3ind relevance in the )resent case considering that a criminal )rosecution re9uires a 9uantum o3 evidence di33erent 3rom that o3 an administrative )roceeding@ 6nder the $ules o3 the -ommissionA the La+or *r+iter is given the discretion to determine the necessit: o3 a 3ormal trial or hearing@ .enceA trial>t:)e hearings are not even re9uired as the cases ma: +e decided +ased on veri3ied )osition )a)ersA with su))orting documents and their a33idavits@

+,D, SEA P)WER S4IPPING N. CA

&ac s3 *donis 'aguilonA hus+and o3 )rivate res)ondentA was recruited and hired +: 2il>Pride 'hi))ing -o@ Inc@ L2il>PrideO to wor4 as a 3itter on +oard the vessel ,B7 *nne 1ro Lrenamed ,B7 5toileO owned +: 8cean+ul4 ,aritime '@*@A a 3oreign cor)oration dul: organi"ed and e%isting under the laws o3 1reece@ 8n 1&&2A a3ter undergoing the usual )re>em)lo:ment medical e%amination and )rocessing o3 documents and )a)ersA *donis 'aguilon /oined ,B7 *nne 1ro@ !arel: two months a3terA 'aguilon was signed o33 and hos)itali"ed due to medical reasons@ .e was re)atriated to ,anila and re3erred to the '@,@ La"o ,edical -enter where he was con3ined 3rom Jul: 13> 22A 1&&2@ .e died o3 cardio )ulmonar: arrestA rBo liver cirrhosis a3ter 1 month@ Private res)ondent demanded death and +urial +ene3itsA and medical and sic4ness allowance 3rom )etitioner 'ea Power 'hi))ing 5nter)risesA ?estern 'hi))ing *genciesA 2il> PrideA Phili))ine Transmarine -arriersA Inc@A and ,ore ,aritime *gencies Inc@ Their 3ailure and re3usal to )a: said claims im)elled )rivate res)ondent to 3ile a com)laint 3or death and +urial +ene3its and medical and sic4ness allowance +e3ore the Phili))ine 8verseas 5m)lo:ment *dministration LP85*OA which case was later re3erred to the National La+or $elations -ommission LNL$-O )ursuant to $@*@ No@ #(42A otherwise 4nown as the ,igrant ?or4ers *ct@ *ll the res)ondents denied an: lia+ilit:@ 2il@ Pride and ?estern 'hi))ingA claimed that the: ceased to +e the manning agent o3 ,B7 *nne 1ro and that Phili))ine Transmarine -arriers has assumed res)onsi+ilit: 3or an: seaman recruited and hired@ Phil@ Transmarine -arriersA on the other handA argued that the deceased is not entitled to an: death +ene3its and medical allowances in the a+sence o3 an: evidence to )rove that the death is com)ensa+le@ It asserted that the cause o3 death did not occur during the term o3 his em)lo:mentA it +eing a))arent that the deceased as alread: a33licted with liver cirrhosis even )rior to his em)lo:ment with ,B7 *nne 1ro@ Petitioner contended that it ceased to +e the manning agent o3 ,B7 *nne 1roA the agenc: agreement with their 3oreign )rinci)al having +een trans3erred to ,ore ,aritime *genciesA Inc@ which assumed res)onsi+ilit: 3or all lia+ilities that ma: arise with res)ect to seamen recruited and de)lo:ed +: ,B7 *nne 1ro@ ,ore ,aritime *gencies also claimed that the: will onl: +e held lia+le to seamen recruited and de)lo:ed +: )etitioner and that since the deceased was recruited and em)lo:ed +: 2il>PrideA it has no lia+ilit: 3or an: claims arising 3rom said em)lo:ment@ In 1&& A La+or *r+iter Pa+lo 5s)irituA Jr@ rendered a decision in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondent@ )etitioner assailed the a3oresaid decision +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals through a )etition 3or certiorari +ut was outrightl: dismissed +: the a))ellate court@ The denial +: -* o3 )etitionerPs motion 3or reconsideration )rom)ted the latter to 3ile the )resent )etition )leading this -ourtPs com)assion to set aside the dismissal o3 its case solel: on grounds o3 technicalit:@ Petitioner maintains that the rules o3 court should +e li+erall: construed and that rules o3 )rocedure must give wa: to considerations o3 e9uit: and su+stantial /ustice@ Petitioner 3urther contends that it should +e a+solved 3rom an: lia+ilit: considering that its a))eal to the NL$- raised arguments identical to the a))eal o3 2il>Pride which was a+solved 3rom an: lia+ilit: +: the NL$-@ Iss%eTs3 ?hether or not Petitioner is correct

4el53 Incorrect@ It is true that a litigation is not a game o3 technicalities and that the rules o3 )rocedure should not +e strictl: en3orced at the cost o3 su+stantial /ustice@ .oweverA it does not mean that the $ules o3 -ourt ma: +e ignored at will and at random to the )re/udice o3 the orderl: )resentation and assessment o3 the issues and their /ust resolution@ Thus in Tan vs Court of Appeal# SC held thatI CLi+eral construction o3 this rule has +een allowed +: this -ourt in the 3ollowing casesI L1O where a rigid a))lication will result in mani3est 3ailure or miscarriage o3 /usticeA es)eciall: i3 a )art: success3ull: shows that the alleged de3ect in the 9uestioned 3inal and e%ecutor: /udgment is not a))arent on its 3ace or 3rom the recitals contained thereinN L2O where the interest o3 su+stantial /ustice will +e servedN L3O where the resolution o3 the motion is addressed solel: to the sound and /udicious discretion o3 the courtN and L4O where the in/ustice to the adverse )art: is not commensurate with the degree o3 his thoughtlessness in not com)l:ing with the )rocedure )rescri+ed@J The reason cited +: )etitionersP counselA that she 3ailed to attach the re9uired documents to the )etition considering that it was her 3irst time to 3ile such )etition +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals is not am)le /usti3ication to 3orego esta+lished rules o3 )rocedure@

+,D; CASIL N. CA

&ac s3 -asil 3iled a com)laint against Loren"ana 3or !reach o3 -ontract L1st caseO in connection with the contract the: made authori"ing the 3ormer to develo) the latterPs )ro)ert:@ .oweverA +e3ore the latter 3iled her answer in the 1st caseA she 3iled her own se)arate com)laint against -asil 3or $escission o3 -ontract L2nd -aseO@ -asil countered a ,otion to Dismiss the 2nd case on the ground o3 litis )endentiaA which was denied +: the $T- Judge@ -asil 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari in he -*A which was also dismissed on the ground that the interlocutor: order o3 den:ing the motion to dismiss could not +e the ground o3 the said )etition@ 'u+se9uentl:A -asil 3iled a )etition 3or review on certiorari in the '-@ Iss%e ?,@3 ,a: an interlocutor: order +e reviewed on certiorariX 4el5 ?,@3 05'@ IndeedA +asic is the doctrine that Cthe denial o3 a motion to dismiss or to 9uashA +eing interlocutor:A cannot +e 9uestioned +: certiorariN it cannot +e the su+/ect o3 a))ealA until 3inal /udgment or order is rendered@J !ut this rule is not a+solute@ ?hile a -ourt 8rder de3erring action on a motion to dismiss until the trial is interlocutor: and cannot +e challenged until 3inal /udgmentA stillA where it clearl: a))ears that the trial Judge or -ourt is )roceeding in e%cess or outside o3 its /urisdictionA the remed: o3 )rohi+ition would lie since it would +e useless and a waste o3 time to go ahead with the )roceedings@ *dditionall:A certiorari is an a))ro)riate remed: to assail an interlocutor: order L1O when the tri+unal issued such order without or in e%cess o3 /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion and L2O when the assailed interlocutor: order is )atentl: erroneous and the remed: o3 a))eal would not a33ord ade9uate and e%)editious relie3@ .ereA the -ourt ma: allow certiorari as a mode o3 redress@ Iss%e ?;@3 Is there litis )endentia in this caseX 4el5 ?;@3 05'@ In order that an action ma: +e dismissed on the ground o3 litis )endentiaA 3ollowing re9uisites must concurI LaO the identit: o3 )artiesA or at least such as re)resenting the same interests in +oth actionsN +O the identit: o3 rights asserted and relie3 )ra:ed 3orA the relie3 +eing 3ounded on the same 3actsN and LcO the identit: o3 the two cases such that /udgment in oneA regardless o3 which )art: is success3ulA would amount to res ad/udicata in the other@ It is undis)uted that the )arties in the two civil actions are the same@ In +oth actionsA the two )arties invo4e their res)ective rightsI )etitioner wants to +e res)ected as administrator and develo)er o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:A while )rivate res)ondent asserts her right as a lessee o3 the su+/ect government )ro)ert:A and her entitlement to an e9ual share 3rom rentals collected +: )etitioner@ ,oreoverA the relie3s )ra:ed 3or are in su+stance the same@ 2irstA it should +e noted that the relie3s )ra:ed 3or +: all )arties are 3ounded on the same 3acts and will thus re9uire identical evidence@ Private res)ondent as lessee o3 the government )ro)ert: and )etitioner as develo)er o3 the same have agreed to share e9uall: +etween them the rentals 3rom the develo)ed )ro)ert:@ 'econd )rivate res)ondentPs com)laint in the 'econd -ase and her answer in the 2irst -ase contained +asicall: the same allegationsA e%ce)t the )ra:er 3or rescission in her com)laint@ +,DD !ARR)S) N. AMPIG

&ac s3 Petitioner 3iles this )etition under $ule 65 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure 9uestioning the orders o3 the $egional Trial -ourtA 5leventh Judicial $egionA $es)ondent trial court denied )etitionerPs motion to dismiss the )etition in an election contest 3iled +: )rivate res)ondent@ Petitioner -laudius 1@ !arroso and )rivate res)ondent 5merico 7@ 5sco+illo were candidates 3or ma:or o3 the munici)alit: o3 Tam)a4anA -ota+ato in an election Petitioner won the election and was )roclaimed@ Private res)ondent 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourt a )etition contesting )etitionerPs election was doc4eted as 5@ -@ -ase No@ 15>24@ Private res)ondent certi3ied in his )etition that 'P* &#>35& and 5lection 833ense -ases Nos@ 161 and 1 were then )ending@ Petitioner raised several a33irmative de3enses in his answerA )articularl:A )rivate res)ondentPs 3ailure to disclose to the court the )endenc: o3 the two L2O )re>)roclamation controversiesQ 'P- &#>((& and 'P- &#>124@ Petitioner therea3ter 3iled a ,otion 3or Preliminar: .earing on his a33irmative de3enses and sought the dismissal o3 the )etition 3or non>com)liance with 'u)reme -ourt *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4 and 'ection 5A $ule o3 the 1&& $ules on -ivil Procedure@ The motion was granted and the )arties were re9uired to su+mit their res)ective memoranda@ In 1&&#A the trial court issued an order den:ing )etitionerPs motion to dismiss@ ThusIJ*--8$DIN1L0A 3or lac4 o3 merit the )rotesteePs a33irmative and s)ecial de3ense o3 lac4 o3 )ro)er certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing is denied@ Private res)ondent moved 3or reconsideration which was denied@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the election contest caseA 5@ -@ -ase No@ 15>24A should +e dismissed in view o3 )rivate res)ondentPs 3ailure to declare in his certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing the e%istence o3 two )re>)roclamation cases then )ending with the -omelec@ 4el53 The certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing is re9uired under 'ection 5A $ule $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ o3 the 1&&

The 3oregoing )rovision was ta4en with modi3ication 3rom *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4 issued +: the 'u)reme -ourt on 2e+ruar: #A 1&&4@ This -ircular com)lements $evised -ircular No@ 2#>&1 designed Cto )revent the multi)le 3iling o3 )etition or com)laints involving the same issues in other tri+unals or agencies as a 3orm o3 3orum sho))ing@J In the case at +arA the certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing o3 )rivate res)ondent declared the )endenc: o3 'P* &#>35& and 5lection 833ense -ases Nos@ 161 and 1 @ No re3erence was made to 'P- &#>((& and 'P- &#>124A the two )re>)roclamation controversies also )ending +e3ore the -omelec@ Petitioner alleges that )rivate res)ondent engaged in 3orum sho))ing +: deli+eratel: concealing 3rom the trial court the e%istence o3 these two cases@ Private res)ondentA on the other handA claims that there was no need to mention the two cases +ecause the: were deemed a+andoned and rendered moot and academic u)on the 3iling o3 the election contest@ It was during the )endenc: o3 this motion that )rivate res)ondent 3iled 5@ -@ -ase No@ 15>24@ *nd :et he 3ailed to mention the 3iling o3 +oth 'P- &#>124 and 'P- &#>((& and the )endenc: o3 'P- &#>((& in the certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing@ This 3ailureA howeverA does not mandate the outright dismissal o3 5@ -@ -ase No@ 15>24@XXXX 5@ -@ -ase No@ 15>24 is not governed +:

the $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ The $ules o3 -ivil Procedure generall: do not a))l: to election cases@ The: a))l: onl: +: analog: or in a su))letor: character and whenever )ractica+le and convenient@ *))l:ing the $ules o3 -ivil Procedure su))letor:@ the 3ailure to com)l: with the non>3orum sho))ing re9uirements o3 'ection 5 o3 $ule does not automaticall: warrant the dismissal o3 the case with )re/udice as )etitioner insists@ The $ule states that the dismissal is without )re/udice@ The dismissal ma: +e with )re/udice +ut onl: u)on motion and a3ter hearing@ .ereA a motion was made +: )etitioner and a hearing conducted +: the trial court@ The court 3ound that there was a certi3icate against 3orum sho))ing attached to the )etition +ut the certi3icate did not com)letel: state all the cases 3iled and )ending at the time o3 3iling o3 the )etition@ There was no allegation that )rivate res)ondent su+mitted a 3alse certi3ication as to constitute contem)t o3 court@ Neither was there evidence that )rivate res)ondent and his counsels committed acts amounting to a will3ul and deli+erate 3orum sho))ing as to warrant the summar: dismissal o3 the case and the im)osition o3 direct contem)t on them@ *ccordingl:A the trial court 3ound it /ust and )ro)er not to dismiss the case@ The strict a))lication o3 the non>3orum sho))ing rule in the case at +ar would not wor4 to the +est interest o3 the )arties and the electorate@ 'imilarl:A the $ules o3 -ivil Procedure on 3orum sho))ing should +e a))lied with li+eralit:@ In the instant caseA the revision o3 +allots has alread: started in ten L1(O )recincts@ The right o3 the )eo)le o3 Tam)a4an to 3reel: e%)ress their choice o3 re)resentative through a 3ree and honest election should not +e smothered +: a strict adherence to technical rules o3 )rocedure@

+,DE ESPAN)L 1. The Chairman an5 he Members o2 !)A6 Philippine Ne erans

2actsI ,aria 6@ 5s)aVol was the widow o3 the deceased veteran 1erman 5s)aVolA who died in the service during ?orld ?ar IIA 'he a))lied 3or monthl: )ension with the Phili))ine 7eterans *dministration@ .er a))lication was a))roved and she received her monthl: )ension and her minor children their monthl: de)endentGs )ension@ !ut on Novem+er 1A 1&51A P7* A in )ursuance o3 its administrative )olic:A )roviding that those +ene3iciaries o3 veterans receiving )ensions 3rom the 6@'@ 7eterans *dministration are no longer entitled to receive )ension 3rom the P7*A cancelled ,aria 6@ 5s)aVolGs monthl: )ension and that o3 her then minor children@ ,ore than 22 :ears 3rom the date when her monthl: )ension was cancelledA ,aria 6@ 5s)aVol 3iled with the -2I o3 ,anila a )etition 3or mandamus against P7* 3or the restoration and continued )a:ment o3 her monthl: )ension including that o3 her de)endents e33ective 3rom the date o3 cancellation@ -2I granted )etition and restored )ension@ -* elevated to 'c as onl: 9uestions o3 law were involved@ IssueI ?hether or not the Petition 3or mandamus can )ros)er .eldI Petition 3or mandamus can )ros)er@ The contention o3 P7* that the action o3 5s)aVol to com)el the restoration o3 her monthl: )ension and that o3 her childrenA e33ective 3rom the date o3 cancellation on Novem+er 1A 1&51A has alread: )rescri+edA inasmuch as the same was 3iled more than 1( :ears 3rom the date o3 cancellationA is without merit@ *rticle 1144 o3 the New -ivil -ode )rovides that actions +ased on an o+ligation created +: law shall +e +rought within 1( :ears 3rom the time the right o3 action accrues@ It is im)ortant to rec4on the dateA when the right o3 action accruesA as the same is the +eginning 3or counting the 1(>:ear )rescri)tive )eriod@ The right o3 action accrues when there e%ists a cause o3 actionA which consists o3 3 elementsA namel:I aO a right in 3avor o3 the )lainti33 +: whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is createdN +O an o+ligation on the )art o3 de3endant to res)ect such rightN and cO an act or omission on the )art o3 such de3endant violative o3 the right o3 the )lainti33 L-ole vs@ 7da@ de 1regorioA 116 '-$* 6 ( E1&#2FN ,atha: vs@ -onsolidated !an4 ; Trust -o@A 5# '-$* 55& E1& 4FN 7da@ de 5nri9ue" vs@ De la -ru"A 54 '-$* 1 E1& 3FO@ It is onl: when the last element occurs or ta4es )lace that it can +e said in law that a cause o3 action has arisen L-ole vs@ 7da@ de 1regorioA supraO@ The a))ellee cannot +e said to have a cause o3 actionA in com)elling a))ellant to continue )a:ing her monthl: )ension on Novem+er 1A 1&51A +ecause a))ellantGs act o3 cancellationA +eing )ursuant to an administrative )olic:A cannot +e considered a violation o3 a))elleeGs right to receive her monthl: )ension@ It is onl: when this -ourt declared invalid the 9uestioned administrative )olic: in the case o3 'el Mar vs. )he Philippine <eterans Administration A supraA )romulgated on June 2 A 1& 3A can the a))ellee +e said to have a cause o3 action to com)el a))ellant to resume her monthl: )ensionN +ecause it is at that )oint in timeA when the )resum)tion o3 legalit: o3 the 9uestioned administrative )olic: had +een re+utted and thus it can +e said with certaint: that a))ellantGs act was in violation o3 a))elleeGs right to receive her monthl: )ension@

The 1(>:ear )rescri)tive )eriodA should +e counted 3rom June 2 A 1& 3 when the case o3 Del ,ar vs@ The Phili))ine 7eterans *dministrationA supraA was )romulgatedA and not 3rom Novem+er 1A 1&51A the date o3 cancellation +: a))ellant o3 a))elleeGs )ension@ The action o3 a))elleeA which was +rought on 2e+ruar: 25A 1& 4A is there3ore well within the 1(>:ear )rescri)tive )eriod@

+,DA NDA. DE DA&&)N 1. C)(RT o2 APPEALS &ac s3 Petitioner was married to the late *mado Da33onA with whom she +egot one sonA Joselito

Da33on@ Joselito married Lourdes 8smeVaA and the: +ore si% childrenA namel:A *ileenA Joselito Jr@A *na 7anesaA LeilaA Julius and 'u"ette@ *mado )assed awa: on Januar: 1&#2@ .is sonA JoselitoA died on 8cto+er 1&&(@ 8n Januar: 21A 1&&4A res)ondents Lourdes 8smeVa 7da@ De Da33onA together with her si% minor childrenA instituted an action 3or )artition against )etitioner -once)cion 7illamor 7da@ de Da33onA with $T- Danao@ $es)ondents alleged that *mado le3t several real and )ersonal )ro)erties which 3ormed )art o3 his con/ugal )artnershi) with )etitioner@ Joselito +eing a 3orced heir o3 *mado was entitled to at least one hal3 o3 *madoPs estateA consisting o3 his share in the said con/ugal )ro)erties@ .oweverA the said )ro)erties were never )artitioned +etween )etitioner and Joselito@ *3ter JoselitoPs deathA )etitionerPs +ehavior towards res)ondentsA her daughter>in>law and grandchildrenA changed@ 'he claimed a+solute ownershi) over all the )ro)erties and de)rived them o3 the 3ruits thereo3@ ThusA res)ondents )ra:ed that the con/ugal )ro)erties o3 *mado Da33on and )etitioner +e )artitioned and that the one>hal3 share o3 *mado +e 3urther )artitioned +etween )etitionerA on one handA and the res)ondents as heirs o3 Joselito Da33onA on the other hand@ Petitioner 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss on the grounds o3 L1O lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the caseN L2O 3ailure o3 the com)laint to state a cause o3 actionN and L3O waiverA a+andonment and e%tinguishment o3 the o+ligation@ 'he argued that $T- cannot ta4e cogni"ance o3 the action 3or )artition considering her claim o3 a+solute ownershi) over the )ro)ertiesN and that res)ondents themselves admitted that )etitioner has re)udiated the co> ownershi)@ *nent the third groundA )etitioner alleged that Joselito Da33on 3iled a com)laint against ,ilagros ,arinA who was li4ewise married to *mado Da33onA 3or recover: o3 a )arcel o3 land in ,andalu:ong@ $T- denied ,otion@ Petitioner 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the -ourt o3 *))eals and was denied@ Iss%es3 ?hether or not the )etition must )ros)er 4el53 Petition is without merit@ In the determination o3 whether a com)laint 3ails to state a cause o3 actionA onl: the statements in the com)laint ma: +e )ro)erl: considered@ * de3endant who moves to dismiss the com)laint on the ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action h:)otheticall: admits all the averments thereo3@ The test o3 su33icienc: o3 the 3acts 3ound in a com)laint as constituting a cause o3 action is whether or not admitting the 3acts alleged the court can render a valid /udgment u)on the same in accordance with the )ra:er thereo3@ The h:)othetical admission e%tends to the relevant and material 3acts well )leaded in the com)laint and in3erences 3airl: deduci+le there3rom@ .enceA i3 the allegations in the com)laint 3urnish su33icient +asis +: which the com)laint can +e maintainedA the same should not +e dismissed regardless o3 the de3ense that ma: +e assessed +: the de3endants@ In the case at +arA the com)laint su33icientl: alleged that Cde3endant L i.e." )etitioner hereinO was married to *mado Muiros Da33onJ and that Cthe: +egot an onl: son in Joselito Da33on@J The com)laint 3urther alleged that CJoselito Da33on later got married to herein )lainti33 Lourdes 8smeVa and +e3ore the 3ormer died on 8cto+er 25A 1&&( he sired the si% L6O children who are

now )lainti33s with their mother@JThis was su33icient allegation that Joselito Da33on was a legitimate son o3 the s)ouses *mado and -once)cion Da33onN and that )lainti33s Li.e." res)ondents hereinO were li4ewise legitimate heirs o3 Joselito Da33on@ *dmitting the truth o3 these avermentsA there wasA there3oreA no need to in9uire whether res)ondent minor children were dul: ac4nowledged +: the deceased *mado Da33on@ To +e sureA the illegitimac: o3 the said children and the lac4 o3 ac4nowledgment are matters which )etitioner ma: raise as a de3ense in her answer and threshed out +: the court during a 3ull>+lown trial@ In the same veinA there is no need 3or the com)laint to s)eci3icall: allege res)ondentsP claim o3 co>ownershi) o3 the )ro)erties@ The com)laint needs onl: to allege the ultimate 3acts on which the )lainti33s rel: 3or their claim The rules o3 )rocedure re9uire that the com)laint must ma4e a concise statement o3 the ultimate 3acts or the essential 3acts constituting the )lainti33Ps cause o3 action@ * 3act is essential i3 it cannot +e stric4en out without leaving the statement o3 the cause o3 action inade9uate@ * com)laint states a cause o3 action onl: when it has its three indis)ensa+le elementsA namel:I L1O a right in 3avor o3 the )lainti33 +: whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is createdN L2O an o+ligation on the )art o3 the named de3endant to res)ect or not to violate such rightN and L3O an act or omission on the )art o3 such de3endant violative o3 the right o3 )lainti33 or constituting a +reach o3 the o+ligation o3 de3endant to the )lainti33 3or which the latter ma: maintain an action 3or recover: o3 damages@ The allegations contained therein are su33icient to esta+lish res)ondentsP right to the estate o3 *mado Da33on@ !: stating their relationshi) to the deceasedA the: esta+lished their line o3 succession as the +asis 3or their claim@ Their rights to succeed as heirs were transmitted 3rom the moment o3 death o3 the decedent@ -ontrar: to )etitionerPs contentionA the 3act that she re)udiated the co>ownershi) +etween her and res)ondents did not de)rive the trial court o3 /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the action 3or )artition@ In a com)laint 3or )artitionA the )lainti33 see4sA 3irstA a declaration that he is a co> owner o3 the su+/ect )ro)ertiesN and secondA the conve:ance o3 his law3ul shares@iv In an action 3or )artition is at once an action 3or declaration o3 co>ownershi) and 3or segregation and conve:ance o3 a determinate )ortion o3 the )ro)erties involved@ I3 the de3endant asserts e%clusive title over the )ro)ert:A the action 3or )artition should not +e dismissed@ $atherA the court should resolve the case and i3 the )lainti33 is una+le to sustain his claimed status as a co>ownerA the court should dismiss the actionA not +ecause the wrong remed: was availed o3A +ut +ecause no +asis e%ists 3or re9uiring the de3endant to su+mit to )artition@ I3A on the other handA the court a3ter trial should 3ind the e%istence o3 co>ownershi) among the )artiesA the court ma: and should order the )artition o3 the )ro)erties in the same action The statement sa:ing that the deceased onl: le3t the said ,andalu:ong )ro)ert: to his son JoselitoA does not e%clude the )ossi+ilit: that *mado owned other land and )ersonal +elongings during his li3etimeA which he ma: not have le3t to his son@ This does not de)rive Joselito or his successors>in>interest o3 the right to share in those other )ro)erties@ *s a matter o3 3actA res)ondentsP com)laint contains a long list o3 )ro)erties allegedl: owned +: *mado Da33on@

*gainA the resolution o3 whether or not these +elonged to *mado Da33on and 3ormed )art o3 his estate is a matter +est ta4en u) during trial and a3ter an evaluation o3 the evidence to +e )resented +: the contending )arties@

+,D. INTRAM(R)S ADMINISTRATI)N 1s. <NETTE C)NTRACT)

&ACTS3 Petitioner and res)ondent entered into a lease contract 3or the lease o3 a )remise within the Intramuros 4nown as C-antinas de *duanaJ@ $es)ondent esta+lished 3ast3ood and restaurant within the )remises@ The lease was 3or a )eriod o3 3ive :ears@ *3ter the lease contract went into e33ectA res)ondent were com)laining o3 the )resence o3 sidewal4 vendors@ 'he reminded the Intramuros *dministration o3 its )romised to evict these vendors outside the leased )remises@ 'eries o3 com)laint later on 3ollowed such as inade9uate 3acilities etc@ 8n the other handA )etitioner sent letters to res)ondent reminding her o3 outstanding un)aid rentals@ Due to 3ailure o3 the res)ondent to )a:A the Intramuros *dministration sent a demand letter re9uiring her to )a: and to vacate the )remises within 3ive da:s a3ter recei)t o3 notice under threat o3 closure@ $es)ondent then 3iled a com)laint +e3ore the $T- o3 ,anila )ra:ing that a desist order +e issuedA o33set o3 her e%)enses in maintaining the )remisesA and reduction o3 the rental 3ee@ ,eanwhileA while this case is )endingA Intramuros *dministration 3iled with the $T- o3 ,anila a com)laint 3or the collection o3 the un)aid rentals 3rom res)ondent@ In the latter caseA res)ondent 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o3 litis )endentiaA the )endenc: o3 the case she 3iled earlier@ The -ourtA howeverA denied her motion to dismiss@ *t the -ourt o3 *))ealsA the order was declared null and void@ 6nsatis3iedA )etitioner 3iled this )etition 9uestioning the resolution o3 the -*@ ISS(E3 ?hether or not the case 3iled against res)ondent +e dimisss on the ground o3 litis )endentiaX 4ELD3 No@ In order to grant a motion to dismiss on the ground o3 litis )endentiaA the 3ollowing re9uisites are necessar:I 1O there must +e an identit: o3 the )arties or at lease such )arties as re)resenting the same interest in +oth actionsN 2O there must +e an identit: o3 rights asserted and relie3s )ra:ed 3orA the relie3 +eing 3ounded on the same 3actsN 3O the identi3: o3 two )receding )articulars is such that an: /udgment rendered in the other action willA regardless o3 which )art: is success3ulA amount to res /udicata in the other@ To constitute litis )endentia as a ground 3or the dismissal o3 the su+se9uent actionA all o3 the a+ove re9uisites must +e )resent@ In the instant caseA there is no identit: o3 rights asserted +: the )arties and relie3 )ra:ed 3or@ In the 3irst case 3iled +: res)ondentA it was anchored on the im)ending closure o3 the )remises and the 3ailure o3 the res)ondent to evict the illegal vendors@ The second caseA 3iled +: Intramuros *dministration is +ased on the 3ailure o3 res)ondent 3or )a: the agreed rental@

+,DC !AN# )& AMERICA 1. AMERICAN REALT<

&ac s3 Petitioner !an4 o3 *merica NT ; '* L!*NT'*O is an international +an4ing and 3inancing institution dul: licensed to do +usiness in the Phili))inesA organi"ed and e%isting under and +: virtue o3 the laws o3 the 'tate o3 -ali3orniaA while )rivate res)ondent *merican $ealt: -or)oration L*$-O is a domestic cor)oration@ !an4 o3 *merica International Limited L!*ILOA on the other handA is a limited lia+ilit: com)an: organi"ed and e%isting under the laws o3 5ngland@ !*NT'* and !*IL on several occasions granted 3 multi>million 6' Dollar loans to the 3ollowing cor)orate +orrowersI L1O Li+erian Trans)ort NavigationA '@*@N L2O 5l -hallenger '@*@ and L3O 5shle: -om)ania Naviera '@*@ Lhereina3ter collectivel: re3erred to as H+orrowersHOA all o3 which are e%isting under and +: virtue o3 the laws o3 the $e)u+lic o3 Panama and are 3oreign a33iliates o3 )rivate res)ondent@ Due to the de3ault in the )a:ment o3 the loan amorti"ationsA !*NT'* and the cor)orate +orrowers signed and entered into restructuring agreements@ *s additional securit: 3or the restructured loansA )rivate res)ondent *$- as third )art: mortgagor e%ecuted two real estate mortgagesA 4 dated 1 2e+ruar: 1&#3 and 2( Jul: 1&#4A over its )arcels o3 land including im)rovements thereonA located at !arrio 'to@ -ristoA 'an Jose Del ,onteA !ulacan@ 5ventuall:A the cor)orate +orrowers de3aulted in the )a:ment o3 the restructured loans )rom)ting )etitioner !*NT'* to 3ile civil actions +e3ore 3oreign courts 3or the collection o3 the )rinci)al loanA 2 in 5ngland and 2 in .<@ In the civil suits instituted +e3ore the 3oreign courtsA )rivate res)ondent *$-A +eing a third )art: mortgagorA was )rivate not im)leaded as )art:>de3endant@ 8n 16 Decem+er 1&&2A )etitioner !*NT'* 3iled +e3ore the 833ice o3 the Provincial 'heri33 o3 !ulacanA Phili))ines an a))lication 3or e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 real estate mortgage@ 8n Januar: 1&&3A a3ter due )u+lication and noticeA the mortgaged real )ro)erties were sold at )u+lic auction in an e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure saleA with Integrated -redit and -or)oration 'ervices -o LI--'O as the highest +idder 3or the sum o3 24 million )esos@ Private res)ondent 3iled +e3ore the Pasig $egional Trial -ourtA !ranch 15&A an action 3or damages against the )etitionerA 3or the latterGs act o3 3oreclosing e%tra/udiciall: the real estate mortgages des)ite the )endenc: o3 civil suits +e3ore 3oreign courts 3or the collection o3 the )rinci)al loan@ Private res)ondent 3iled a motion 3or sus)ension o3 the redem)tion )eriod on the ground that Hit cannot e%ercise said right o3 redem)tion without at the same time waiving or contradicting its contentions in the case that the 3oreclosure o3 the mortgage on its )ro)erties is legall: im)ro)er and there3ore invalidAH which $T- granted@ *3ter the consolidation o3 ownershi) in its 3avorA I--' sold the real )ro)erties to 'tateland Investment -or)oration 3or the amount o3 3& million )esos@ $T- therea3ter ruled in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondents@ 8n a))ealA the -ourt o3 *))eals a33irmed the assailed decision o3 the lower court )rom)ting )etitioner to 3ile a motion 3or reconsideration which the a))ellate court denied@

Iss%es3 ?hether or not the )etitionerGs act o3 3iling a collection suit against the )rinci)al de+tors 3or the recover: o3 the loan +e3ore 3oreign courts constituted a waiver o3 the remed: o3 3oreclosure@ 4el53 0esA it is a waiver@ In 'anao vs. Court of AppealsA '- reiterating /uris)rudence enunciated in Manila )rading and Supply Co vs. Co Gim ,C and Movido vs.*;CA ,- invaria+l: heldI @ @ @ The rule is now settled that a mortgage creditor ma: elect to waive his securit: and +ringA insteadA an ordinar: action to recover the inde+tedness with the right to e%ecute a /udgment thereon on all the )ro)erties o3 the de+torA including the su+/ect matter o3 the mortgage @ @ @ A sub!ect to the ualification that if he fails in the remedy by him elected" he cannot pursue further the remedy he has %aived@ *nent real )ro)erties in )articularA the -ourt has laid down the rule that a mortgage creditor ma: institute against the mortgage de+tor either a )ersonal action 3or de+t or a real action to 3oreclose the mortgage@ In our /urisdictionA the remedies availa+le to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative@ *n election o3 one remed: o)erates as a waiver o3 the other@ 2or this )ur)oseA a remed: is deemed chosen u)on the 3iling o3 the suit 3or collection or u)on the 3iling o3 the com)laint in an action 3or 3oreclosure o3 mortgageA )ursuant to the )rovision o3 $ule 6# o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ *s to e%tra/udicial 3oreclosureA such remed: is deemed elected +: the mortgage creditor u)on 3iling o3 the )etition not with an: court o3 /ustice +ut with the 833ice o3 the 'heri33 o3 the )rovince where the sale is to +e madeA in accordance with the )rovisions o3 *ct No@ 3135A as amended +: *ct No@ 411#@ In the case at +enchA )rivate res)ondent *$- constituted real estate mortgages over its )ro)erties as securit: 3or the de+t o3 the )rinci)al de+tors@ !: doing soA )rivate res)ondent su+/ected itsel3 to the lia+ilities o3 a third )art: mortgagor@ 6nder the lawA third )ersons who are not )arties to a loan ma: secure the latter +: )ledging or mortgaging their own )ro)ert:@ ;K NotwithstandingA there is no legal )rovision nor /uris)rudence in our /urisdiction which ma4es a third )erson who secures the 3ul3illment o3 anotherGs o+ligation +: mortgaging his own )ro)ert:A to +e solidaril: +ound with the )rinci)al o+ligor@ The signator: to the )rinci)al contractX loanX remains to +e )rimaril: +ound@ It is onl: u)on de3ault o3 the latter that the creditor ma: have recourse on the mortgagors +: 3oreclosing the mortgaged )ro)erties in lieu o3 an action 3or the recover: o3 the amount o3 the loan@ In the instant caseA )etitionerGs contention that the re9uisites o3 3iling the action 3or collection and rendition o3 3inal /udgment therein should concurA is untena+le@ -ontrar: to )etitionerGs argumentsA 3or clarit: and em)hasisA the mere act o3 3iling o3 an ordinar: action 3or collection o)erates as a waiver o3 the mortgage>creditorGs remed: to 3oreclose the mortgage@ !: the mere 3iling o3 the ordinar: action 3or collection against the )rinci)al de+torsA the )etitioner in the )resent case is deemed to have elected a remed:A as a result o3 which a waiver o3 the other

necessaril: must arise@ -orollaril:A no 3inal /udgment in the collection suit is re9uired 3or the rule on waiver to a))l:@

+,D- REP(!LIC 1. 4ERNANDEO &ac s3 8n ,arch 1(A 1&&4A res)ondent s)ousesA 7an ,unson : Navarro and $egina ,unson : *ndradeA 3iled a ) )etition to ado)t the minor <evin 5arl !artolome ,oranA alleging the /urisdictional 3acts re9uired +: $ule && o3 the $ules o3 -ourt 3or ado)tionA their 9uali3ications as and 3itness to +e ado)tive )arentsA as well as the circumstances under and +: reason o3 which the ado)tion o3 the a3orenamed minor was sought@ In the same )etitionA res)ondents )ra:ed 3or the change o3 the 3irst name or said minor ado)tee to *aron Jose)hA the same +eing the name with which he was +a)ti"ed in 4ee)ing with religious tradition and +: which he has +een called +: his ado)tive 3amil:A relatives and 3riends when he arrived at )rivate res)ondentsG residence@ *t the hearingA )etitioner o))osed the inclusion o3 the relie3 3or change o3 name in the same )etition 3or ado)tion@ In its 3ormal o))osition dated ,a: 3A 1&&5A )etitioner reiterated its o+/ection to the /oinder o3 the )etition 3or ado)tion and the )etitions 3or change o3 name in a single )roceedingA arguing that these )etition should +e conducted and )ursued as two se)arate )roceedings@ *3ter considering the evidence and arguments o3 the contending )artiesA the trial court ruled in 3avor o3 herein )rivate res)ondents@ *t this /unctureA no challenge has +een raised +: )etitioner regarding the 3itness o3 herein )rivate res)ondents to +e ado)ting )arents nor the validit: o3 the decree o3 ado)tion rendered in their 3avor@ The records show that the latter have commenda+l: esta+lished their 9uali3ications under the law to +e ado)tersA and have am)l: com)lied with the )rocedural re9uirements 3or the )etition 3or ado)tionA with the 3indings o3 the trial courtA that o3 )u+lication@ Iss%es3 *1O whether or not the court a uo erred in granting the )ra:er 3or the change o3 the registered )ro)er or given name o3 the minor ado)tee em+odied in the )etition 3or ado)tionN and L2O whether or not there was law3ul ground 3or the change o3 name@ 4el53 L1O -hange o3 3irst name cannot +e granted@ *rt@ 1#& o3 the 2amil: -ode enumerates in no uncertain terms the legal e33ects o3 ado)tionI L1O 2or civil )ur)osesA the ado)ted shall +e deemed to +e a legitimate child o3 the ado)ters and +oth shall ac9uire the reci)rocal rights and o+ligations arising 3rom the relationshi) o3 )arent and childA including the right o3 the ado)ted to use the surname o3 the ado)tersN L2O The )arental authorit: o3 the )arents +: nature over the ado)ted shall terminate and +e vested in the ado)tersA e%ce)t that i3 the ado)ter is the s)ouse o3 the )arent +: nature o3 the ado)tedA )arental authorit: over the ado)ted shall +e e%ercised /ointl: +: +oth s)ousesN and L3O The ado)ted shall remain an intestate heir o3 his )arents and other +lood relatives@ -learl:A the law allows the ado)teeA as a matter o3 right and o+ligationA to +ear the surname o3 the ado)terA u)on issuance o3 the decree o3 ado)tion@ It is the change o3 the ado)teeGs surname to 3ollow that o3 the ado)ter which is the natural and necessar: conse9uence o3 a grant o3 ado)tion and must s)eci3icall: +e contained in the order o3 the courtA in 3actA even i3 not )ra:ed 3or +: )etitioner@

.oweverA the given or proper nameA also 4nown as the first or Christian nameA o3 the ado)tee must remain as it was originall: registered in the civil register@ The creation o3 an ado)tive relationshi) does not con3er u)on the ado)ter a license to change the ado)teeGs registered -hristian or 3irst name@ The automatic change thereo3A )remised solel: u)on the ado)tion thus grantedA is +e:ond the )urview o3 a decree o3 ado)tion@ Neither is it a mere incident in nor an ad/unct o3 an ado)tion )roceedingA such that a )ra:er there3or 3urtivel: inserted in a )etition 3or ado)tionA as in this caseA cannot )ro)erl: +e granted@ The name o3 the ado)tee as recorded in the civil register should +e used in the ado)tion )roceedings in order to vest the court with /urisdiction to hear and determine the sameA and shall continue to +e so used until the court orders otherwise@ -hanging the given or )ro)er name o3 a )erson as recorded in the civil register is a su+stantial change in oneGs o33icial or legal name and cannot +e authori"ed without a /udicial order@ The )ur)ose o3 the statutor: )rocedure authori"ing a change o3 name is sim)l: to haveA wherever )ossi+leA a record o3 the changeA and in 4ee)ing with the o+/ect o3 the statuteA a court to which the a))lication is made should normall: ma4e its decree recording such change@ The o33icial name o3 a )erson whose +irth is registered in the civil register is the name a))earing therein@ I3 a change in oneGs name is desiredA this can onl: +e done +: 3iling and strictl: com)l:ing with the su+stantive and )rocedural re9uirements 3or a s)ecial )roceeding 3or change o3 name under $ule 1(3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA wherein the su33icienc: o3 the reasons or grounds there3or can +e threshed out and accordingl: determined@

+,DB INIEG) 1. P(RGANAN &ac s3 8n 1 ,arch 2((2A res)ondent 2o44er 'antos 3iled a com)laint 3or 9uasi>delict and damages against Jimm: T@ PinionA the driver o3 a truc4 involved in a tra33ic accidentA and against )etitioner *rtemio IniegoA as owner o3 the said truc4 and em)lo:er o3 Pinion@ The com)laint stemmed 3rom a vehicular accident that ha))ened on Decem+er 1&&&A when a 3reight truc4 allegedl: +eing driven +: Pinion hit )rivate res)ondentPs /itne: which )rivate res)ondent was driving at the time o3 the accident@ 8n *ugust 2((2A 'anots 3iled a ,otion to Declare de3endant in De3ault 3or 3ailure o3 the latter to 3ile his answer within the 3inal e%tended )eriod@ Petitioner 3iled a ,otion to *dmit and a ,otion to Dismiss the com)laint on the groundA among other thingsA that the $T- has no /urisdiction over the cause o3 action o3 the case@ 8n 8cto+er 2((2A )u+lic res)ondent Judge PurgananA as )residing /udge o3 the $T- manilaA issued the assailed 8mni+us 8rder den:ing the ,otion to Dismiss o3 the )etitioner and the ,otion to Declare De3endant in De3ault o3 the )rivate res)ondent@ The omni+us order stated that the main cause o3 action is not the claim 3or damages +ut 9uasi>delict@ Damages are +eing claimed onl: as a result o3 the alleged 3ault or negligence o3 +oth de3endants under *rticle 21 6 o3 the -ivil -ode in the case o3 de3endant Pinion and under *rticle 21#( also o3 the -ivil -ode in the case o3 de3endant Iniego@ !ut since 3ault or negligence L9uasi>delictsO could not +e the su+/ect o3 )ecuniar: estimationA this court has e%clusive /urisdiction@ Petitioner 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 the 8mni+us 8rder +ut was denied +: the said /udge clari3:ing that ?hat this court re3erred to in its 8rder sought to +e reconsidered as not ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation is the -*6'5 82 *-TI8NA which is 9uasi>delict and N8T the amount o3 damage )ra:ed 3or@ ?hen elevated to -* on certiorariA same was li4ewise denied@ Petitioner claims that actions 3or damages +ased on 9uasi>delict are actions that are capable o3 )ecuniar: estimationN henceA the /urisdiction in such cases 3alls u)on either the munici)al courts Lthe ,unici)al Trial -ourtsA ,etro)olitan Trial -ourtsA ,unici)al Trial -ourts In -itiesA *nd ,unici)al -ircuit Trial -ourtsOA or the $egional Trial -ourtsA de)ending on the value o3 the damages claimed@ Iss%es3 ?hether or not PetitionerPs contention is correct 4el5I PetitionerPs contention is meritorious@ *ctions 3or damages +ased on 9uasi>delicts are )rimaril: and e33ectivel: actions 3or the recover: o3 a sum o3 mone: 3or the damages su33ered +ecause o3 the de3endantPs alleged tortious actsA and are there3ore capable o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ $es)ondent JudgePs o+servation is erroneous@ It is clear 3rom !@P@ !lg@ 12&A as amended +: $e)u+lic *ct No@ 6&1A that what must +e determined to +e ca)a+le or inca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation is not the cause o3 actionA +ut the sub!ect matter o3 the action@ * cause o3 action is Cthe delict or wrong3ul act or omission committed +: the de3endant in violation o3 the )rimar: rights o3 the )lainti33@J 8n the other handA the Csu+/ect matter o3 the actionJ is Cthe )h:sical 3actsA

the thing real or )ersonalA the mone:A landsA chattelsA and the li4eA in relation to which the suit is )rosecutedA and not the delict or wrong committed +: the de3endant@J *ctions 3or damages +ased on 9uasi>delicts are )rimaril: and e33ectivel: actions 3or the recover: o3 a sum o3 mone: 3or the damages su33ered +ecause o3 the de3endantPs alleged tortious acts@ The damages claimed in such actions re)resent the monetar: e9uivalent o3 the in/ur: caused to the )lainti33 +: the de3endantA which are thus sought to +e recovered +: the )lainti33@ This mone: claim is the )rinci)al relie3 soughtA and is not merel: incidental thereto or a conse9uence thereo3@ It +ears to )oint out that the com)laint 3iled +: )rivate res)ondent +e3ore the $Tactuall: +ears the ca)tion C3or D*,*15'@J 2ault or negligenceA which the -ourt o3 *))eals claims is not ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimationA is not actiona+le +: itsel3@ 2or such 3ault or negligence to +e actiona+leA there must +e a resulting damage to a third )erson@ The relie3 availa+le to the o33ended )art: in such cases is 3or the re)arationA restitutionA or )a:ment o3 such damageA without which an: alleged o33ended )art: has no cause o3 action or relie3@ The 3ault or negligence o3 the de3endantA there3oreA is ine%trica+l: intertwined with the claim 3or damagesA and there can +e no action +ased on 9uasi> delict without a claim 3or damages@ There3oreA the su+/ect matter o3 actions 3or damages +ased on 9uasi>delict is ca)a+le o3 )ecuniar: estimation@ 2urthermoreA the amount o3 damages claimed is within the /urisdiction o3 the $T-A since it is the claim 3or all 4inds o3 damages that is the +asis o3 determining the /urisdiction o3 courtsA whether the claims 3or damages arise 3rom the same or 3rom di33erent causes o3 action@

+,EK 4AN)NER INS(RANCE N. MANILA P)RT &ac s3 8n 'e)tem+er 3(A 1&61A the vessel '' H.am+urg ,aru owned and o)erated +: de3endant 8sa4a 'hosen <aisha LineA too4 on +oard at .am+urgA 1erman:A 3or shi)ment to ,anilaA consignment cargoes including one L1O drum heliogen +lue ! )owderA 4 +ags t:lose and one L1O drum anti>s4inning agent@ The consigneeA 1eneral Paint -or)oration LPhili))inesO Inc@A insured the shi)ment with )lainti33 .anover Insurance -om)an: 3or the sum o3 P3A&66@35@ 8n 8cto+er 1&61A the '' H.am+urg ,aruH arrived at the Port o3 ,anila and +egan discharging its cargoesA including the a3oresaid shi)mentA into the custod: o3 de3endant ,anila Port 'erviceA the arrastre o)erator acting as a su+sidiar: o3 the ,anila $ailroad -om)an:@ The shi))ing documents were endorsed and transmitted to 1eneral Paint -or)oration LPhili))inesO Inc@A through its customs +ro4erA Lu"on !ro4erage -om)an:A Inc@A which )aid the charges and )roceeded to ta4e deliver: o3 the shi)ment@ The ,anila Port 'erviceA howeverA 3ailed to deliver the drum o3 anti>s4inning agent@ !: reason o3 the lossA )lainti33A as insurerA )aid to the consignee the amount o3 P1A(#&@4 A re)resenting its lia+ilit: under the insurance contract@ Then as su+rogee o3 the rights o3 the consignee )lainti33 3iled a claim with the arrastre o)erator 3or the amount thus )aidA and u)on 3ailure to collect sued in the alternative the owner o3 the carr:ing vessels and its agent in the Phili))inesA *merican 'teamshi) *genciesA Inc@A on the one handA and said arrastre o)erator and its )rinci)al on the otherA alleging that it was uncertain as to who was the )art: res)onsi+le 3or the loss o3 the shi)ment in 9uestion@ De3endants 8sa4a 'hosen <aisha Line and *merican 'teamshi) *genciesA Inc@ 3iled an answer to the com)laintA with a cross>claim against de3endants ,anila $ailroad -om)an: and ,anila Port 'ervice@ These two de3endants 3iled se)arate motions to dismiss +oth )lainti33Gs com)laint and their co> de3endantsG cross>claim@ The trial court granted the motions in its order dated Novem+er 1&A 1&62A holding that +: reason o3 the amount involved in the com)laint and cross>claim against said de3endantsA the: )ertained to the e%clusive original /urisdiction o3 the munici)al court and not o3 the -ourt o3 2irst Instance and that there3ore there was a mis/oinder o3 causes o3 action@ 2rom that order )lainti33 .anover Insurance -om)an: a))ealed directl: to this -ourt Iss%es3 whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the com)laint as against de3endants> a))elleesA the ,anila $ailroad -om)an: and the ,anila Port 'ervice 4el53 This 9uestion has +een settled +: this -ourt in *iBal Surety H &nsurance Company vs. Manila *ailroad Company" et al." 1@$@ No@ L>2(# 5A *)ril 3(A 1&66A where '- saidI *t the time the com)laint was 3iledA )lainti33 did not 4now at what )recise stage o3 the series o3 transactions the loss com)lained o3 occurred@ I3 the loss too4 )lace in transitA -@2@ 'har) ; -o@A Inc@ would +e lia+le there3orN +ut i3 the loss occurred a3ter the goods were landed and discharged 3rom the carr:ing vesselA the ,anila Port 'ervice would +ear such loss@ .enceA the /oinder o3 causes o3 action and )arties de3endants in the alternative which is )ermitted +: 'ection 5 o3 $ule 2 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA 9uoted hereunderI '5-@ 5@ Joinder of causes of action@ 'u+/ect to rules regarding /urisdictionA venue and /oinder o3 )artiesA a )art: ma: in one )leading stateA in the alternative or

otherwiseA as man: causes o3 action as he ma: have against an o))osing )art: LaO i3 the said causes o3 action arise out o3 the same contractA transaction or relation +etween the )artiesA or L+O i3 the causes o3 action are 3or demands 3or mone:A or are o3 the same nature and character@G GIn the cases 3alling under clause LaO o3 the )receding )aragra)hA the action shall +e 3iled in the in3erior court unless an: o3 the causes /oined 3alls within the /urisdiction diction o3the -ourt o3 2irst InstanceA in which case it shall +e 3iled in the latter court@G GIn the cases 3alling under clause L+O the /urisdiction shall +e determined +: the aggregate amount o3 the demandsA i3 3or mone:A or +: their nature and characterA i3 otherwise@G *ndA since one o3 the causes o3 action is cogni"a+le +: the -ourt o3 2irst Instance the suit should +e 3iledA as was correctl: done +: the )lainti33A in said courtA notwithstanding that the other cause o3 action i3 standing alone would 3all within the /urisdiction o3 the munici)al courtA +: reason o3 the amount o3 the demand@ In International .arvester -o@ o3 the Phili))ines vs@ Judge *ragonA where a similar action was 3iled with the munici)al courtA we held that the munici)al court lac4ed /urisdiction over the case inasmuch as one o3 the alternative causes o3 actionA against the shi))ing 3irmA was an action in admiralt: cogni"a+le +: the -ourt o3 2irst Instance@ The /oinder o3 the two causes o3 action against the alternative de3endants avoids unnecessar: multi)licit: o3 suits andA without sacri3icing an: su+stantial rights o3 the )artiesA removes the undue disadvantage in which )lainti33 would +e )laced +: having to )rove its case in di33erent courts +: means o3 evidence that is within the e%clusive 4nowledge o3 said de3endants@ The order a))ealed 3rom is there3ore reversed and the case remanded 3or trial and /udgment on the merits@

+,E, !ALAGTAS N. C)(RT )& APPEALS &ac s3 The o33icers o3 Danao Police 'tation and Pardo 'u+>'tation too4 $utchel *)ostol 3rom the house o3 5duardo !alagtas without an: warrant o3 arrest@ Petitioner !alagtasA acting on +ehal3 o3 $utchelA initiated a s)ecial )roceeding 3or ha+eas cor)us +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 -e+u -it:@ The $egional Trial -ourt o3 origin rendered a decision dismissing the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action since it has +een shown that $utchel was under the care and custod: o3 her )arents and not +eing illegall: detained +: the res)ondents@ 5duardo !alagtas a))ealed to the -ourt o3 *))eals@ The -ourt o3 *))eals came out with a decision a33irming the decision +elow@ 6ndauntedA the )etitioner 3ound his wa: to this -ourt via the )resent )etition 3or certiorari@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the Petition is correct@ 4el53 No. *ccording to the -ourtA the )etitioner 3ailed to su+stantiate his )etition 3or ha+eas cor)us@ The 3acts clearl: indicated that $utchel was not 3orci+l: detained or a+ducted +: her mother@ 'he voluntaril: went with her mother a3ter the latter )ersuaded her to return to their home@ There was no amount o3 3orce em)lo:ed on herA which would amount to de)rivation o3 her li+ert:@ The )etition was dismissed 3or lac4 o3 merit@ The trial -ourt did not ac9uire /urisdiction over the )erson o3 $utchelPs mother L,rs@ *ngeles *)ostolO since she was not im)leaded as de3endant and neither did she intervene in the case as re9uired +: the $ules@ No /udgment could +e )ronounced against herN otherwiseA she would +e de)rived o3 the rudiments o3 due )rocess@ Petitioner has no cause o3 action against her and there3oreA the res)ondent -ourt correctl: dismissed the Petition@ I3 the suit is not +rought in the name o3 or against the real )art: in interestA a motion to dismiss ma: +e 3iled on the ground that the -om)laint states no cause o3 action L'ec@ 1LgOA $ule 16O@ The res)ondents su33icientl: e%)lained that the: conducted )olice surveillance and merel: acted u)on the directive o3 the PNP o33icials whoA in turnA )er3ormed their duties as re9uested +: $utchelPs mother@ * real )art: in interest is the )art: who could +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgment or the )art: entitled to the avails o3 the suit@ Then tooA in Bautista v. Barredo" et al." 1@$@ No@ 2(653A *)ril 3(A 1&65A 13 '-$* 44A 46A the -ourt heldI CIn dismissing the case against de3endant Jose ,@ !arredo the court a uo too4 the view that he could not +e im)leaded on the +asis o3 the /udgment rendered in -ivil -ase No@ 1636 3or the reason that he was not a )art: therein u)on the theor: Cthat an action on the /udgment cannot +e maintained against one not a )art: or not +ound +: it@ % % %J In ;ilipinas &nd. Corp." et al. v. San 'iego" 1@$@ No@ 2234 A ,a: 2 A 1&6#A it was held that the 3oregoing rule is mandator:@ *gainA in another caseA the -ourt ruled thusI C% % % and as *:ala y -iaA *l3onso =o+el and the Di"ons were the onl: ones im)leaded as )arties>de3endantsA the /udgment was made e33ective e%clusivel: against them@ % % %J L*epublic v. Ayala y Cia" et al." 1@ $@ L>2(&5(A ,a: 31A 1&65O@

+,E, ED(ARD) !ALAGTAS 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS &ACTS3 8n Novem+er 1#A 1&&1A the o33icers o3 Danao Police 'tation and Pardo 'u+>'tation too4 $utchel *)ostol 3rom the house o3 5duardo !alagtasA herein )etitioner without an: warrant o3 arrest@ PetitionerA acting on +ehal3 o3 $utchel *)ostolA initiated s)ecial )roceedings 3or ha+eas cor)usA +e3ore the $T- o3 -e+u -it:@ .e theori"ed that sometime in ,a: 1&&1A $utchel started to reside with him in -e+u -it: +ecause o3 her desire to underta4e s)iritual studies at the -haitan:a ,ission@ 8n the same da:A the trial -ourt issued an order directing the )u+lic res)ondents to +ring the +od: o3 $utchel +e3ore it on Decem+er &A 1&&1A at 1(I4( P@,@A and to show cause wh: $utchel *)ostol had +een de)rived o3 her li+ert: andBor )etitioner was denied right3ul custod: o3 $utchel@ .oweverA the )u+lic res)ondents did not )roduce the +od: o3 $utchel *)ostol@ $es)ondents e%)lainedA in their -omment that ,rs@ *ngeles *)ostolA $utchelGs motherA sought )olice assistance 3rom the ,etro)olitan -ommand .ead9uarters o3 the Phili))ine National Police to locate $utchel and therea3terA )ersuaded her to return to their home in Iloilo -it:@ RTC R%lin/I Dismissed the com)laint 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action since it has +een shown that $utchel *)ostol was under the care and custod: o3 her )arents and not +eing illegall: detained +: the res)ondentsD 5duardo !alagtas too4 an a))eal to the -ourt o3 *))eals asseverating that although the original res)ondents were the )olicemen who 3orci+l: too4 awa: $utchel *)ostol 3rom the -haitan:a ,issionA the )etition was deemed amended when the )olicemen in their comment to the )etition alleged that it is the )arents o3 $utchel *)ostol who are now in actual custod: o3 $utchel *)ostol@ That the )arents o3 $utchel *)ostol admitted that the: are in custod: o3 $utchel *)ostol and su+mitted themselves to the /urisdiction o3 this .onora+le -ourt +: allowing the -ommissioner a))ointed +: this .onora+le -ourt to e%amine $utchel *)ostol in their house in Iloilo -it:@ Con en ion o2 Pe i ioner3 'ince $utchel *)ostol is now 1& :ears o3 age and has reached the age o3 ma/orit: and is now emanci)ated 3rom )arental controlA the )arents o3 $utchel *)ostol cannot 4ee) her in their custod: against her will@ CA R%lin/3 *33irmed the ruling o3 the $T-@ -* rationali"ed that the )etitioner has 3ailed to esta+lish a cause o3 action against the res)ondent mem+ers o3 the Phili))ine National Police o3 the Danao Police 'tation and the P*$D8 'u+>'tationA -e+u -it: Police 'tation@ There is no showing that res)ondents ever detained or are restraining $utchel *)ostolA in whose +ehal3 the )etition 3or ha+eas cor)us is )ur)ortedl: 3iled@ It is the +urden o3 the )etitioner to su+stantiate +: clear and convincing evidence that $utchel is under the custod: or is unlaw3ull: detained and restrained o3 her li+ert: +: the res)ondents@ dismissed@ . 6ndauntedA the )etitioner 3ound his wa: to this -ourt via the )resent Petition 3or -ertiorariA assigning as lone errorA thatI

ISS(E3 ?hether or not the res)ondent court erred in dismissing the )etition on the ground o3 technicalit: that the mother o3 rutchel a)ostol who is illegall: detaining her was not 3ormall: im)leaded as a res)ondent in this case 4ELD 3 No@ The trial -ourt did not ac9uire /urisdiction over the )erson o3 $utchelGs mother L,rs@ *ngeles *)ostolO since she was not im)leaded as de3endant and neither did she intervene in the case as re9uired +: the $ules@ No /udgment could +e )ronounced against herN otherwiseA she would +e de)rived o3 the rudiments o3 due )rocess@ Petitioner has no cause o3 action against her and there3oreA the res)ondent -ourt correctl: dismissed the Petition@ I3 the suit is not +rought in the name o3 or against the real )art: in interestA a motion to dismiss ma: +e 3iled on the ground that the -om)laint states no cause o3 action L'ec@ 1LgOA $ule 16O@ The res)ondents su33icientl: e%)lained that the: conducted )olice surveillance and merel: acted u)on the directive o3 the PNP o33icials whoA in turnA )er3ormed their duties as re9uested +: $utchelGs mother@ 6nder 'ec@ 2A $ule 3@ * real )art: in interest is the )art: who stands to +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgment in the suitA or the )art: entitled to the avails o3 the suit@ 6nless otherwise authori"ed +: law or these $ulesA ever: action must +e )rosecuted or de3ended in the name o3 the real )art: in interest *ssuming arguendo that the mother o3 $utchel was im)leadedA still the )etitioner 3ailed to su+stantiate the )etition 3or ha+eas cor)us@ The 3acts clearl: indicate that $utchel is on her right mindA not to mention her +eing one o3 the to)notchers in the ,idwi3er: Licensure 5%amination given +: the Pro3essional $egulations -ommission@ 'he was not 3orci+l: detained or a+ducted +: her motherA the 3act +eing that she voluntaril: went with her mother a3ter the latter )ersuaded her to return to their home in Iloilo -it:@ There was no amount o3 3orce em)lo:ed on herA which would amount to de)rivation o3 li+ert:@ ?.5$528$5A the Petition is DI',I''5D 3or lac4 o3 meritA and the Decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals a33irming the Decision o3 !ranch 11 o3 the $egional Trial -ourt o3 -e+u *22I$,5D@

+,E; REL(CI) vs@ L)PEO )he Case? The case is a )etition 3or review on certiorari see4ing to set aside the decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals that denied a )etition 3or certiorari assailing the trial courtGs order den:ing )etitionerGs motion to dismiss the case against her inclusion as )art: de3endant therein@ ;acts? 8n 'e)tem+er 15A 1&&3A )rivate res)ondent *ngelina ,e/ia Lo)e" 3iled a )etition 3or H*PP8INT,5NT *' '8L5 *D,INI'T$*TID 82 -8NJ61*L P*$TN5$'.IP 82 P$8P5$TI5'A 28$25IT6$5A 5T-@AH against de3endant *l+erto Lo)e" and )etition Imelda $elucio in $T- ,a4ati@ -ontained in said )etition are the 3ollowing allegationsI LiO LiiO De3endant *l+erto Lo)e"A who is legall: married to the )rivate res)ondentA a+andoned the latter and their 3our legitimate children sometime in 1&6#N .e arrogated unto himsel3 3ull and e%clusive control and administration o3 the con/ugal )ro)ertiesA s)ending and using the same 3or his sole gain and +ene3it to the total e%clusion o3 the )rivate res)ondent and their 3our childrenN De3endant Lo)e"A a3ter a+andoning his 3amil:A maintained an illicit relationshi) and coha+ited with herein )etitioner since 1& 6N During the coha+itation o3 the twoA Lo)e" and $elucio have amassed a 3ortune consisting mainl: o3 stoc4holdings in Lo)e">owned or controlled cor)orationsA residentialA agriculturalA commercial lotsA housesA a)artments and +uildingsA cars and other motor vehiclesA +an4 accounts and /ewelr:@ These )ro)erties are in the names o3 de3endant Lo)e" andBor )etitioner $elucio or their dummies@ 'aid )ro)erties have +een ac9uired through the actual contri+ution o3 mone:A )ro)ert: and industr: o3 de3endant Lo)e" with minimal actual contri+ution 3rom )etitioner $elucio@ In order to avoid de3endant Lo)e" o+ligations as a 3ather and hus+andA he e%cluded the )rivate res)ondent and their 3our children 3rom sharing or +ene3iting 3rom the con/ugal )ro)erties and the income or 3ruits there 3rom +: not )lacing them in his name or removedA trans3erredA stashed awa: or concealed them 3rom the )rivate> res)ondent@ InsteadA su+stantial )ortions o3 con/ugal )ro)erties )etitionerPs name@ In the )ast 25 :ears since de3endant Lo)e" a+andoned the )rivate>res)ondentA )ro)ertiesA assets and income +elonging to the con/ugal )artnershi) with the )rivate> res)ondent s)ent the )roceeds 3or his sole +ene3it and that o3 )etitioner and their two illegitimate children@

LiiiO LivO

LvO

LviO

8n Decem+er #A 1&&3A a ,otion to Dismiss the Petition was 3iled +: )etitioner on the ground that )rivate res)ondent has no cause o3 action against her@ 8n 2e+ruar: 1(A 1&&4A an 8rderA den:ing )etitioner $elucioGs ,otion to Dismiss on the ground that she is im)leaded as a necessar: or indis)ensa+le )art: +ecause some o3 the su+/ect )ro)erties are registered in her name and de3endant Lo)e"A or solel: in her nameA was issued@ Therea3terA )etitioner $elucio 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration to said 8rder +ut was denied in ,a: 31A 1&&4@ 8n June 21A 1&&4A )etitioner 3iled with the -ourt o3 *))eals a )etition 3or certiorari assailing the trial courtGs denial o3 her motion to dismiss@ 8n ,a: 31A 1&&6A the -ourt o3 *))eals )romulgated a decision den:ing the )etition@ 8n June 26A 1&&6A )etitioner 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration@ .oweverA

on *)ril 6A 1&&6A the -ourt o3 *))eals denied )etitionerGs motion 3or reconsideration@ .enceA this a))eal@

&ssues? 1@ ?hether res)ondentGs )etition 3or a))ointment as sole administratri% o3 the con/ugal )ro)ert:A accountingA etc@ against her hus+and *l+erto J@ Lo)e" esta+lished a cause o3 action against )etitioner@ 2@ ?hether )etitionerGs inclusion as )art: de3endant is essential in the )roceedings 3or a com)lete ad/udication o3 the controvers:@ @eld? 1@ 05'@ * ca%se o2 ac ion is an act or omission o3 one )art: the de3endant in violation o3 the legal right o3 the other@ The elements o3 a cause o3 action areI L1O a right in 3avor o3 the )lainti33 +: whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is createdN L2O an o+ligation on the )art o3 the named de3endant to res)ect or not to violate such rightN and L3O an act or omission on the )art o3 such de3endant in violation o3 the right o3 the )lainti33 or constituting a +reach o3 the o+ligation o3 the de3endant to the )lainti33 3or which the latter ma: maintain an action 3or recover: o3 damages@ * cause o3 action is su33icient i3 a valid /udgment ma: +e rendered thereon i3 the alleged 3acts were admitted or )roved@ .enceA to determine the su33icienc: o3 the cause o3 actionA allegations are assa:ed@ In Part Two on the HNature o3 EtheF -om)laintAH res)ondent *ngelina ,e/ia Lo)e" summari"ed the causes o3 action allegedI )he complaint is by an aggrieved %ife against her husband. Nowhere in the allegations does it a))ear that relie3 is sought against )etitioner@ $es)ondentGs causes o3 action were all against her hus+and@ 1st causeI 3or "%5icial appoin men o3 res)ondent as administratri% o3 the con/ugal )artnershi) or a+solute communit: )ro)ert: arising 3rom her marriage to *l+erto J@ Lo)e"@ The administration o3 the )ro)ert: o3 the marriage is entirel: +etween themA to the e%clusion o3 all other )ersons@ $es)ondent alleges that *l+erto J@ Lo)e" is her hus+and@ There3oreA her 3irst cause o3 action is against *l+erto J@ Lo)e"@ There is no right>dut: relation +etween )etitioner and res)ondent that can )ossi+l: su))ort a cause o3 action@ In 3actA none o3 the three elements o3 a cause o3 action e%ists@

2nd causeI 3or an acco%n in/ Mby respon5en h%sban5.M The accounting o3 con/ugal )artnershi) arises 3rom or is an incident o3 marriage@ Petitioner has nothing to do with the marriage +etween res)ondent *l+erto J@ Lo)e"@ .enceA no cause o3 action can e%ist against )etitioner on this ground@ $es)ondentGs alternative cause o3 action is 3or 3or3eiture o3 *l+erto J@ Lo)e"G share in the co> owned )ro)ert: Hac9uired during his illicit relationshi) and coha+itation with E)etitionerFH and 3or the Hdissolution o3 the con/ugal )artnershi) o3 gains +etween him E*l+erto J@ Lo)e"F and the Eres)ondentF@H 3rd causeI 3or 2or2ei %re o2 Alber o '. Lope$I share in proper y coFo7ne5 +: him and )etitioner@ It does not involve the issue o3 validit: o3 the co>ownershi) +etween *l+erto J@ Lo)e" and )etitioner@ The issue is whether there is +asis in law to 3or3eit *l+erto J@ Lo)e"G shareA i3 an: there +eA in )ro)ert: co>owned +: him with )etitioner@ $es)ondentGs asserted right to 3or3eit e%tends to *l+erto J@ Lo)e"G share alone@ 2ailure o3 *l+erto J@ Lo)e" to surrender such shareA assuming the trial court 3inds in res)ondentGs 3avorA results in a +reach o3 an o+ligation to res)ondent and gives rise to a cause o3 action@ 'uch cause o3 actionA howeverA )ertains to *l+erto J@ Lo)e"A not )etitioner@ The res)ondent also sought su))ort@ 'u))ort cannot +e com)elled 3rom a stranger@ !eing an action +: Han aggrieved wi3e against her hus+andAH re3erences to )etitioner in the common and s)eci3ic allegations o3 3act in the com)laint are merel: incidentalA to set 3orth 3acts and circumstances that )rove the causes o3 action alleged against *l+erto J@ Lo)e"@ *s to the moral damagesA res)ondentGs claim 3or moral damages is against *l+erto J@ Lo)e"A not )etitioner@ To sustain a cause o3 action 3or moral damagesA the com)laint must have the character o3 an action 3or inter3erence with marital or 3amil: relations under the -ivil -ode@ 2@ 05'@ * real )art: in interest is one who stands Hto +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgment o3 the suit@H In this caseA )etitioner would not +e a33ected +: an: /udgment in ')ecial Proceedings@ I3 )etitioner is not a real )art: in interestA she cannot +e an indis)ensa+le )art:@ *n indis)ensa+le )art: is one without whom there can +e no 3inal determination o3 an action@ PetitionerGs )artici)ation in ')ecial Proceedings is not indis)ensa+le@ -ertainl:A $T- can issue a /udgment ordering *l+erto J@ Lo)e" to ma4e an accounting o3 his con/ugal )artnershi) with res)ondentA and give su))ort to res)ondent and their childrenA and dissolve *l+erto J@ Lo)e"G con/ugal )artnershi) with res)ondentA and 3or3eit *l+erto J@ Lo)e"G share in )ro)ert: co>owned +: him and )etitioner@ 'uch /udgment would +e )er3ectl: valid and en3orcea+le against *l+erto J@ Lo)e"@ Petitioner cannot also +e a necessar: )art:@ * necessar: )art: as one who is not indis)ensa+le +ut who ought to +e /oined as )art: i3 com)lete relie3 is to +e accorded those alread: )artiesA or 3or a com)lete determination or settlement o3 the claim su+/ect o3 the action@ In the conte%t o3 her )etition in the lower courtA res)ondent would +e accorded com)lete relie3 i3 *l+erto J@ Lo)e" were ordered to account 3or his alleged con/ugal )artnershi) )ro)ert: with res)ondentA give su))ort to res)ondent and her childrenA turn over his share in the co>ownershi) with )etitioner and dissolve his con/ugal )artnershi) or a+solute communit: )ro)ert: with res)ondent@ Judgment?

1$*NT' the )etition and $575$'5' the decision o3 -*@ The -ourt DI',I''5' ')ecial Proceedings ,>363( o3 $T- ,a4ati as against )etitioner@
1

+,ED &RANCISC)6 'R. 1s. 4)(SE )& REPRESENTATINES )he Case? -onsolidated )etitions@ ;acts 8n Jul: 22A 2((2A the .$ ado)ted a $esolutionA s)onsored +: $e)@ 2uente+ellaA which directed the -ommittee on Justice Hto conduct an investigationA in aid o3 legislationA on the manner o3 dis+ursements and e%)enditures +: the -hie3 Justice o3 the 'u)reme -ourt o3 the Judiciar: Develo)ment 2und LJD2O@H 8n June 2A 2((3A 3ormer President 5strada 3iled an im)eachment com)laint L3irst im)eachment com)laintO against -hie3 Justice .ilario 1@ Davide Jr@ and *ssociate Justices o3 this -ourt 3or Hcul)a+le violation o3 the -onstitutionA +etra:al o3 the )u+lic trust and other high crimes@H The com)laint was endorsed +: $e)s@ 'u)licoA =amora and DilangalenA and was re3erred to the .ouse -ommittee on Justice on *ugust 5A 2((3 in accordance with 'ection 3L2O o3 *rt@ 11 o3 the -onstitution@ The .ouse -ommittee on Justice ruled on 8cto+er 13A 2((3 that the 3irst im)eachment com)laint was Hsu33icient in 3ormAH +ut voted to dismiss the same on 8cto+er 22A 2((3 3or +eing insu33icient in su+stance@ To dateA the -ommittee $e)ort to this e33ect has not :et +een sent to the .ouse in )lenar: in accordance with the said 'ection 3L2O o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@ 2our months and three wee4s since the 3iling on June 2A 2((3 o3 the 3irst com)laint or on 8cto+er 23A 2((3A a da: a3ter the .ouse -ommittee on Justice voted to dismiss itA the second im)eachment com)laint was 3iled with the 'ecretar: 1eneral o3 the .ouse +: $e)s@ Teodoro L1st DistrictA TarlacO and 2uente+ella L3rd DistrictA -amarines 'urO against the -hie3 JusticeA 3ounded on the alleged results o3 the legislative in9uir: initiated +: a+ove>mentioned .ouse $esolution@ This second im)eachment com)laint was accom)anied +: a H$esolution o3 5ndorsementBIm)eachmentH signed +: at least 1B3 o3 all the ,em+ers o3 the .$@ .enceA the instant )etitions against .$" most o3 which )etitions contend that the 3iling o3 the 2 nd im)eachment com)laint is unconstitutional as it violates the )rovision o3 'ection 5 o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution that HEnFo im)eachment )roceedings shall +e initiated against the same o33icial more than once within a )eriod o3 one :earH and that the )etitions are o3 transcendental im)ortance@ 8n 8cto+er 2#A 2((3A during the )lenar: session o3 the .$A a motion was )ut 3orth that the 2 nd im)eachment com)laint +e 3ormall: transmitted to the 'enateA +ut it was not carried +ecause the .$ ad/ourned 3or lac4 o3 9uorumA and as re3lected a+oveA to dateA the *rticles o3 Im)eachment have :et to +e 3orwarded to the 'enate@ !e3ore acting on the )etitions with )ra:ers 3or tem)orar: restraining order andBor writ o3 )reliminar: in/unctionA Justices Puno and 7itug o33ered to recuse themselvesA +ut the -ourt re/ected their o33er@ Justice Pangani+an inhi+ited himsel3A +ut the -ourt directed him to )artici)ate@ ?ithout necessaril: giving the )etitions due courseA the -ourt in its $esolution o3 8cto+er 2#A 2((3A resolved to consolidate the )etitions and called on )etitioners and res)ondents to

maintain the status 9uoA en/oining all the )arties and others acting 3or and in their +ehal3 to re3rain 3rom committing acts that would render the )etitions moot@ .$ ')ea4er De 7eneciaA +: wa: o3 s)ecial a))earanceA su+mitted a ,ani3estation asserting that this -ourt has no /urisdiction to hearA much less )rohi+it or en/oin the .$A which is an inde)endent and co>e9ual +ranch o3 government under the -onstitutionA 3rom the )er3ormance o3 its constitutionall: mandated dut: to initiate im)eachment cases@ 'enator PimentelA Jr@A in his own +ehal3A 3iled a ,otion to Intervene and -ommentA )ra:ing that Hthe consolidated )etitions +e dismissed 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction o3 the -ourt over the issues a33ecting the im)eachment )roceedings and that the sole )owerA authorit: and /urisdiction o3 the 'enate as the im)eachment court to tr: and decide im)eachment casesA including the one where the -hie3 Justice is the res)ondentA +e recogni"ed and u)held )ursuant to the )rovisions o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@H 8n 8cto+er 2&A 2((3A the 'enate o3 the Phili))inesA through 'enate President DrilonA 3iled a ,ani3estation stating that inso3ar as it is concernedA the )etitions are )lainl: )remature and have no +asis in law or in 3actA adding that as o3 the time o3 the 3iling o3 the )etitionsA no /usticia+le issue was )resented +e3ore it since L1O its constitutional dut: to constitute itsel3 as an im)eachment court commences onl: u)on its recei)t o3 the *rticles o3 Im)eachmentA which it had notA and L2O the )rinci)al issues raised +: the )etitions )ertain e%clusivel: to the )roceedings in the .$@ &ssues? 1O ?8N the )ower o3 /udicial review e%tends to those arising 3rom im)eachment )roceedings 2O ?8N the essential )re>re9uisites 3or the e%ercise o3 the )ower o3 /udicial review have +een 3ul3illed .eldI 1O 05'@ This -ourtGs )ower o3 /udicial review is con3erred on the /udicial +ranch o3 the government in 'ection 1A *rticle 7III o3 our )resent 1&# -onstitutionI '5-TI8N 1@ The /udicial )ower shall +e vested in one 'u)reme -ourt and in such lower courts as ma: +e esta+lished +: law@ '%5icial po7er incl%5es he 5% y o3 the courts o3 /ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall: demanda+le and en3orcea+leA and o 5e ermine 7he her or no here has been a /ra1e ab%se o2 5iscre ion amo%n in/ o lack or e8cess o2 "%ris5ic ion on he par o2 any branch or ins r%men ali y o2 he /o1ernmen @ L5m)hasis su))liedO 'uch )ower o3 /udicial review was earl: on e%haustivel: e%)ounded u)on +: Justice Jose P@ Laurel in the de3initive 1&36 case o3 Angara v. (lectoral Commission.

In cases o2 con2lic 6 he "%5icial 5epar men is he only cons i % ional or/an 7hich can be calle5 %pon o 5e ermine he proper alloca ion o2 po7ers be 7een he se1eral 5epar men s an5 amon/ he in e/ral or cons i %en %ni s hereo2. The Cons i % ion se s 2or h in no %ncer ain lan/%a/e he res ric ions an5 limi a ions %pon /o1ernmen al po7ers an5 a/encies. I2 hese res ric ions an5 limi a ions are ranscen5e5 i 7o%l5 be inconcei1able i2 he Cons i % ion ha5 no pro1i5e5 2or a mechanism by 7hich o 5irec he co%rse o2 /o1ernmen alon/ cons i % ional channels6 3or then the distri+ution o3 )owers would +e mere ver+iageA the +ill o3 rights mere e%)ressions o3 sentimentA and the )rinci)les o3 good government mere )olitical a)othegms@ -ertainl:A the limitations and restrictions em+odied in our -onstitution are real as the: should +e in an: living constitution@ In the 6nited 'tates where no e%)ress constitutional grant is 3ound in their constitutionA he possession o2 his mo5era in/ po7er o2 he co%r s6 not to s)ea4 o3 its historical origin and develo)ment thereA has +een set at rest +: )o)ular ac9uiescence 3or a )eriod o3 more than one and a hal3 centuries@ In our caseA this moderating )ower is /ran e56 i2 no e8pressly6 by clear implica ion 2rom sec ion ; o2 ar icle NIII o2 o%r Cons i % ion @ The -onstitution is a de3inition o3 the )owers o3 government@ Who is o 5e ermine he na %re6 scope an5 e8 en o2 s%ch po7ersU The Cons i % ion i sel2 has pro1i5e5 2or he ins r%men ali y o2 he "%5iciary as he ra ional 7ay. An5 7hen he "%5iciary me5ia es o alloca e cons i % ional bo%n5aries6 i does not assert an: su)eriorit: over the other de)artmentsN it does not in realit: nulli3: or invalidate an act o3 the legislatureA +ut only asser s he solemn an5 sacre5 obli/a ion assi/ne5 o i by he Cons i % ion o 5e ermine con2lic in/ claims o2 a% hori y %n5er he Cons i % ion an5 o es ablish 2or he par ies in an ac %al con ro1ersy he ri/h s 7hich ha ins r%men sec%res an5 /%aran ees o hem. This is in r% h all ha is in1ol1e5 in what is termed H/udicial su)remac:H which )ro)erl: is he po7er o2 "%5icial re1ie7 %n5er he Cons i % ion@ 2@ 05' Essential $e%uisites for &udicial $eview LiO LiiO an actual case or controvers: calling 3or the e%ercise o3 /udicial )owerN the )erson challenging the act must have HstandingH to challengeN he must have a )ersonal and su+stantial interest in the case such that he has sustainedA or will sustainA direct in/ur: as a result o3 its en3orcementN the 9uestion o3 constitutionalit: must +e raised at the earliest )ossi+le o))ortunit:N the issue o3 constitutionalit: must +e the ver: lis mota o3 the case@

LiiiO LivO Standing

6ocus standi or legal standing or has +een de3ined as a )ersonal and su+stantial interest in the case such that the )art: has sustained or will sustain direct in/ur: as a result o3 the governmental act that is +eing challenged@ The gist o3 the 9uestion o3 standing is whether a )art: alleges such )ersonal sta4e in the outcome o3 the controvers: as to assure that concrete

adverseness which shar)ens the )resentation o3 issues u)on which the court de)ends 3or illumination o3 di33icult constitutional 9uestions@ &ntervenor 'orianoA in )ra:ing 3or the dismissal o3 the )etitionsA contends that )etitioners do not have standing since onl: the -hie3 Justice has sustained and will sustain direct )ersonal in/ur:@ Amicus curiae 3ormer Justice ,inister and 'olicitor 1eneral 5stelito ,endo"a similarl: contends@ 6)on the other handA the 'olicitor 1eneral asserts that )etitioners have standing since this -ourt hadA in the )astA accorded standing to ta%)a:ersA votersA concerned citi"ensA legislators in cases involving )aramount )u+lic interest and transcendental im)ortanceA and that )rocedural matters are su+ordinate to the need to determine whether or not the other +ranches o3 the government have 4e)t themselves within the limits o3 the -onstitution and the laws and that the: have not a+used the discretion given to them@ Amicus curiae Dean $aul Pangalangan o3 the 6@P@ -ollege o3 Law is o3 the same o)inionA citing transcendental im)ortance and the well> entrenched rule e%ce)tion thatA when the real )art: in interest is una+le to vindicate his rights +: see4ing the same remediesA as in the case o3 the -hie3 Justice whoA 3or ethical reasonsA cannot himsel3 invo4e the /urisdiction o3 this -ourtA the courts will grant )etitioners standing@ There isA howeverA a di33erence +etween the rule on real>)art:>in>interest and the rule on standingA 3or the 3ormer is a conce)t o3 civil )rocedure while the latter has constitutional under)innings@ In Gilosbayan" &nc. v. Morato" the '- clari3ied what is meant +: locus standi and distinguished it 3rom real )art:>in>interest@ HIt is im)ortant to note @ @ @ that standing +ecause o3 its constitutional and )u+lic )olic: under)inningsA is ver: di33erent 3rom 9uestions relating to whether a )articular )lainti33 is the real )art: in interest or has ca)acit: to sue@ *lthough all three re9uirements are directed towards ensuring that onl: certain )arties can maintain an actionA standing restrictions re9uire a )artial consideration o3 the meritsA as well as +roader )olic: concerns relating to the )ro)er role o3 the /udiciar: in certain areas@ 'tanding is a s)ecial concern in constitutional law +ecause in some cases suits are +rought not +: )arties who have +een )ersonall: in/ured +: the o)eration o3 a law or +: o33icial action ta4enA +ut +: concerned citi"ensA ta%)a:ers or voters who actuall: sue in the )u+lic interest@ .ence the 9uestion in standing is whether such )arties have Halleged such a )ersonal sta4e in the outcome o3 the controvers: as to assure that concrete adverseness which shar)ens the )resentation o3 issues u)on which the court so largel: de)ends 3or illumination o3 di33icult constitutional 9uestions@H 8n the other handA the 9uestion as to Hreal )art: in interestH is whether he is Hthe )art: who would +e +ene3ited or in/ured +: the /udgmentA or the G)art: entitled to the avails o3 the suit@GH ?hile rights )ersonal to the -hie3 Justice ma: have +een in/ured +: the alleged unconstitutional acts o3 the .$A none o3 the )etitioners asserts a violation o3 the )ersonal rights o3 the -hie3 Justice@ 8n the contrar:A the: invaria+l: invo4e the vindication o3 their own rights as ta%)a:ersN mem+ers o3 -ongressN citi"ensA individuall: or in a class suitN and mem+ers o3 the +ar and o3 the legal )ro3essionA which were su))osedl: violated +: the alleged unconstitutional acts o3 the .$@

In a long line o3 casesA howeverA concerned citi"ensA ta%)a:ers and legislators when s)eci3ic re9uirements have +een met have +een given standing +: this -ourt@ ?hen suing as a citiBenA the interest o3 the )etitioner assailing the constitutionalit: o3 a statute must +e direct and )ersonal@ .e must +e a+le to showA not onl: that the law or an: government act is invalidA +ut also that he sustained or is in imminent danger o3 sustaining some direct in/ur: as a result o3 its en3orcementA and not merel: that he su33ers there+: in some inde3inite wa:@ It must a))ear that the )erson com)laining has +een or is a+out to +e denied some right or )rivilege to which he is law3ull: entitled or that he is a+out to +e su+/ected to some +urdens or )enalties +: reason o3 the statute or act com)lained o3@ In 3ineA when the )roceeding involves the assertion o3 a )u+lic rightA the mere 3act that he is a citi"en satis3ies the re9uirement o3 )ersonal interest@ In the case o3 a ta#payerA he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that )u+lic 3unds are illegall: dis+ursedA or that )u+lic mone: is +eing de3lected to an: im)ro)er )ur)oseA or that there is a wastage o3 )u+lic 3unds through the en3orcement o3 an invalid or unconstitutional law@ !e3ore he can invo4e the )ower o3 /udicial reviewA howeverA he must s)eci3icall: )rove that he has su33icient interest in )reventing the illegal e%)enditure o3 mone: raised +: ta%ation and that he would sustain a direct in/ur: as a result o3 the en3orcement o3 the 9uestioned statute or contract@ It is not su33icient that he has merel: a general interest common to all mem+ers o3 the )u+lic@ *t all eventsA courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a ta%)a:erGs suit should +e entertained@ PetitionersA given their allegation that an: im)ending transmittal to the 'enate o3 the *rticles o3 Im)eachment and the ensuing trial o3 the -hie3 Justice will necessaril: involve the e%)enditure o3 )u+lic 3undsA have standing@ *s 3or a legislatorA he is allowed to sue to 9uestion the validit: o3 an: o33icial action which he claims in3ringes his )rerogatives as a legislator@ IndeedA a mem+er o3 the .$ has standing to maintain inviolate the )rerogativesA )owers and )rivileges vested +: the -onstitution in his o33ice@ ?hile an association has legal )ersonalit: to re)resent its mem+ersA es)eciall: when it is com)osed o3 su+stantial ta%)a:ers and the outcome will a33ect their vital interestsA the mere invocation +: the &ntegrated Bar of the Philippines or any member of the legal profession o3 the dut: to )reserve the rule o3 law and nothing moreA although undou+tedl: trueA does not su33ice to clothe it with standing@ Its interest is too general@ It is shared +: other grou)s and the whole citi"enr:@ .oweverA a reading o3 the )etitions shows that it has advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention o3 the -ourt in view o3 their seriousnessA novelt: and weight as )recedents@ .enceA the -ourt rela%ed the rules on standing and resolved the issues )resented +: it@ In the same veinA when dealing with class suits 3iled in +ehal3 o3 all citi"ensA )ersons intervening must +e su33icientl: numerous to 3ull: )rotect the interests o3 all concerned to ena+le the court to deal )ro)erl: with all interests involved in the suitA 3or a /udgment in a class suitA whether 3avora+le or un3avora+le to the classA isA under the res !udicata )rinci)leA +inding on all mem+ers o3 the class whether or not the: were +e3ore the court@ ?here it clearl: a))ears that not all interests can +e su33icientl: re)resented as shown +: the divergent issues raisedA the numerous )etitions as a class suit ought to 3ail@ 'ince )etitioners additionall: allege standing as citi"ens and ta%)a:ersA howeverA their )etition will stand@

The Philippine Bar Association invo4es the sole ground o3 transcendental im)ortance@ There +eing no doctrinal de3inition o3 transcendental im)ortanceA the 3ollowing instructive determinants 3ormulated +: 3ormer 'u)reme -ourt Justice 2lorentino P@ 2eliciano are instructiveI L1O the character o3 the 3unds or other assets involved in the caseN L2O the )resence o3 a clear case o3 disregard o3 a constitutional or statutor: )rohi+ition +: the )u+lic res)ondent agenc: or instrumentalit: o3 the governmentN and L3O the lac4 o3 an: other )art: with a more direct and s)eci3ic interest in raising the 9uestions +eing raised@ *))l:ing these determinantsA the issues raised herein are indeed o3 transcendental im)ortance@ Li+eral attitude on the locus standi o3 a )etitioner has +een accorded to the )etitioner where he is a+le to cra3t an issue o3 transcendental signi3icance to the )eo)leA as when the issues raised are o3 )aramount im)ortance to the )u+lic@ .oweverA it does not mean that the re9uirement that a )art: should have an interest in the matter is totall: eliminated@ * )art: mustA at the ver: leastA still )lead the e%istence o3 such interestA it not +eing one o3 which courts can ta4e /udicial notice@ $ipeness and 'rematurity 2or a case to +e considered ri)e 3or ad/udicationA Hit is a )rere9uisite that something had +: then +een accom)lished or )er3ormed +: either +ranch +e3ore a court ma: come into the )icture@H The instant )etitions raise in the main the issue o3 the validit: o3 the 3iling o3 the 2 nd im)eachment com)laint against the -hie3 Justice in accordance with the .ouse Im)eachment $ules ado)ted +: the 12th -ongressA the constitutionalit: o3 which is 9uestioned@ The 9uestioned acts having +een carried outA i@e@A the second im)eachment com)laint had +een 3iled with the .$ and the 2((1 $ules have alread: +een alread: )romulgated and en3orcedA the )rere9uisite that the alleged unconstitutional act should +e accom)lished and )er3ormed +e3ore suit has +een com)lied with@ $elated to the issue o3 ri)eness is the 9uestion o3 whether the instant )etitions are )remature@ Amicus curiae 3ormer 'enate President Jovito $@ 'alonga o)ines that there ma: +e no urgent need 3or this -ourt to render a decision at this timeA it +eing the 3inal ar+iter on 9uestions o3 constitutionalit: an:wa:@ .e thus recommends that all remedies in the .ouse and 'enate should 3irst +e e%hausted@ Dean $aul Pangalangan o3 the 6@P@ -ollege o3 Law suggested to ta4e /udicial notice o3 on>going attem)ts to encourage signatories to the 2 nd im)eachment com)laint to withdraw their signatures and o)ined that the .ouse Im)eachment $ules )rovide 3or an o))ortunit: 3or mem+ers to raise constitutional 9uestions themselves when the *rticles o3 Im)eachment are )resented on a motion to transmit to the same to the 'enate@ The dean maintains that even assuming that the *rticles are transmitted to the 'enateA the -hie3 Justice can raise the issue o3 their constitutional in3irmit: +: wa: o3 a motion to dismiss@ This )osition is untena+le@ 2irstA the withdrawal +: the $e)resentatives o3 their signatures would notA +: itsel3A cure the .ouse Im)eachment $ules o3 their constitutional in3irmit:@ Neither would such a withdrawalA +: itsel3A o+literate the 9uestioned second im)eachment com)laint since it would onl: )lace it under the am+it o3 'ections 3L2O and L3O o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution andA there3oreA )etitioners would continue to su33er their in/uries@ 'econdA the 3utilit: o3 see4ing remedies 3rom either or +oth .ouses o3 -ongress +e3ore coming to the '- is shown +: the 3act that neither the .$ nor the 'enate is clothed with the )ower to rule with de3initiveness on the issue o3 constitutionalit:A whether concerning im)eachment )roceedings or otherwiseA as said )ower is e%clusivel: vested in the /udiciar: +: the earlier 9uoted 'ection IA *rticle 7III o3 the -onstitution@ $emed: cannot +e sought 3rom a +od: which is +ere3t o3 )ower to grant it@

&usticiability The term H)olitical 9uestionH connotes a 9uestion o3 )olic:@ It re3ers to Hthose 9uestions whichA under the -onstitutionA are to +e decided by the people in their sovereign ca)acit:A or in regard to which full discretionary authority has +een delegated to the Legislature or e%ecutive +ranch o3 the 1overnment@H It is concerned with issues de)endent u)on the %isdomA not legalit:A o3 a )articular measure@ Trul: )olitical 9uestions are thus +e:ond /udicial reviewA the reason 3or res)ect o3 the doctrine o3 se)aration o3 )owers to +e maintained@ 8n the other handA +: virtue o3 'ection 1A *rticle 7III o3 the -onstitutionA courts can review 9uestions which are not trul: )olitical in nature@ The '- had ta4en /urisdiction over 9uestions which are not trul: )olitical 3ollowing the e33ectivit: o3 the )resent -onstitution@ The determination o3 a trul: )olitical 9uestion 3rom a non> /usticia+le )olitical 9uestion lies in the answer to the 9uestion o3 whether there are constitutionall: im)osed limits on )owers or 3unctions con3erred u)on )olitical +odies@ I3 there areA then courts are dut:>+ound to e%amine whether the +ranch or instrumentalit: o3 the government )ro)erl: acted within such limits@ These )etitions raise 3ive su+stantial issuesI I@ ?hether the o33enses alleged in the 'econd im)eachment com)laint constitute valid im)eacha+le o33enses under the -onstitution@ II@ ?hether the second im)eachment com)laint was 3iled in accordance with 'ection 3L4OA *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@ III@ ?hether the legislative in9uir: +: the .ouse -ommittee on Justice into the Judicial Develo)ment 2und is an unconstitutional in3ringement o3 the constitutionall: mandated 3iscal autonom: o3 the /udiciar:@ I7@ ?hether 'ections 15 and 16 o3 $ule 7 o3 the $ules on Im)eachment ado)ted +: the 12th -ongress are unconstitutional 3or violating the )rovisions o3 'ection 3A *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@ 7@ ?hether the second im)eachment com)laint is +arred under 'ection 3L5O o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@ The 3irst issue goes into the merits o3 the second im)eachment com)laint over which this -ourt has no /urisdiction@ ,ore im)ortantl:A an: discussion o3 this issue would re9uire this -ourt to ma4e a determination o3 what constitutes an im)eacha+le o33ense@ 'uch a determination is a )urel: )olitical 9uestion which the -onstitution has le3t to the sound discretion o3 the legislation@ 'uch an intent is clear 3rom the deli+erations o3 the -onstitutional -ommission@ *lthough 'ection 2 o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution enumerates si% grounds 3or im)eachmentA two o3 theseA namel:A other high crimes and +etra:al o3 )u+lic trustA elude a )recise de3inition@ In 3actA an e%amination o3 the records o3 the 1&#6 -onstitutional -ommission shows that the 3ramers could 3ind no +etter wa: to a))ro%imate the +oundaries o3 +etra:al o3 )u+lic trust and other high crimes than +: alluding to +oth )ositive and negative e%am)les o3 +othA without arriving at their clear cut de3inition or even a standard there3or@ -learl:A the issue calls u)on this court to decide a non>/usticia+le )olitical 9uestion which is +e:ond the sco)e o3 its /udicial )ower under 'ection 1A *rticle 7III@

(is )ota It is a well>settled ma%im o3 ad/udication that an issue assailing the constitutionalit: o3 a governmental act should +e avoided whenever )ossi+le@ It is a well>esta+lished rule that a court should not )ass u)on a constitutional 9uestion and decide a law to +e unconstitutional or invalidA unless such 9uestion is raised +: the )arties and that when it is raisedA i2 he recor5 also presen s some o her /ro%n5 %pon 7hich he co%r may res i s "%5/men 6 ha co%rse 7ill be a5op e5 an5 he cons i % ional 9%es ion 7ill be le2 2or consi5era ion %n il a case arises in 7hich a 5ecision %pon s%ch 9%es ion 7ill be %na1oi5able@ .enceA courts will not touch the issue o3 constitutionalit: unless it is trul: unavoida+le and is the ver: lis mota or cru# o3 the controvers:@ The instant consolidated )etitionsA while all see4ing the invalidit: o3 the second im)eachment com)laintA collectivel: raise several constitutional issues u)on which the outcome o3 this controvers: could )ossi+l: +e made to rest@ In determining whether oneA some or all o3 the remaining su+stantial issues should +e )assed u)onA this -ourt is guided +: the related cannon o3 ad/udication that Hthe court should not 3orm a rule o3 constitutional law +roader than is re9uired +: the )recise 3acts to which it is a))lied @H The two remaining issues o3 the caseA ine%trica+l: lin4ed as the: areA constitute the ver: lis mota o3 the instant controvers:I L1O whether 'ections 15 and 16 o3 $ule 7 o3 the .ouse Im)eachment $ules ado)ted +: the 12th -ongress are unconstitutional 3or violating the )rovisions o3 'ection 3A *rticle DI o3 the -onstitutionN and L2O whetherA as a result thereo3A the second im)eachment com)laint is +arred under 'ection 3L5O o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@ Judgment? 'ections 16 and 1 o3 $ule 7 o3 the $ules o3 Procedure in Im)eachment Proceedings which were a))roved +: the .$ on Novem+er 2#A 2((1 are unconstitutional@ -onse9uentl:A the 2nd im)eachment com)laint against -hie3 Justice .ilario 1@ DavideA Jr@ which was 3iled on 8cto+er 23A 2((3 is +arred under )aragra)h 5A section 3 o3 *rticle DI o3 the -onstitution@

+,EE REP(!LIC 1s. SANDIGAN!A<AN )he Case? This is a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt see4ing to L1O set aside the $esolution dated Januar: 31A 2((2 issued +: the ')ecial 2irst Division o3 the 'andigan+a:an in -ivil -ase No@ (141 entitled *epublic of the Philippines vs. ;erdinand (. Marcos" et. al.A and L2O reinstate its earlier decision dated 'e)tem+er 1&A 2((( which 3or3eited in 3avor o3 )etitioner $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines L$e)u+licO the amount held in escrow in the Phili))ine National !an4 LPN!O in the aggregate amount o3 6']65#A1 5A3 3@6( as o3 Januar: 31A 2((2@ ;acts? 8n Decem+er 1 A 1&&1A )etitioner $e)u+licA through the P-11A re)resented +: the 8'1A 3iled a )etition 3or 3or3eiture +e3ore the 'andigan+a:an )ursuant to $* 13 &@ In said caseA )etitioner sought the declaration o3 the aggregate amount o3 6']356 million Lnow estimated to +e more than 6']65# million inclusive o3 interestO de)osited in escrow in the PN!A as ill>gotten wealth@ It also sought the 3or3eiture o3 6']25 million and 6']5 million in treasur: notes which e%ceeded the ,arcos cou)leGs salariesA other law3ul income as well as income 3rom legitimatel: ac9uired )ro)ert:@ The treasur: notes are 3ro"en at !'P +: virtue o3 the 3ree"e order issued +: the P-11@ 8n 8cto+er 1#A 1&&3A res)ondents 3iled their answer@ !e3ore the case was set 3or )re>trialA a 1eneral *greement and the 'u))lemental *greements were e%ecuted +: the ,arcos children and then P-11 -hairman 3or a glo+al settlement o3 the assets o3 the ,arcos 3amil:@ 'u+se9uentl:A res)ondent ,arcos children 3iled a motion 3or the a))roval o3 said agreements and 3or the en3orcement thereo3@ The 1eneral *greementB'u))lemental *greements sought to identi3:A collateA cause the inventor: o3 and distri+ute all assets )resumed to +e owned +: the ,arcos 3amil: under the conditions contained therein@ The 1eneral *greement s)eci3ied in one o3 its )remises or Hwhereas clausesH the 3act that )etitioner Ho+tained a /udgment 3rom the 'wiss 2ederal Tri+unal that the 6']356 million +elongs in )rinci)le to the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines@ This decision a33irmed the decision o3 =urich District *ttorne: -onsande:A granting )etitionerGs re9uest 3or legal assistance@ .earings were conducted +: the 'andigan+a:an on the motion to a))rove the 1eneralB'u))lemental *greements@ In 1&&6A )etitioner 3iled a motion 3or summar: /udgment andBor /udgment on the )leadings@ In its resolution dated Novem+er 2(A 1&& A the 'andigan+a:an denied )etitionerGs motion 3or summar: /udgment andBor /udgment on the )leadings on the ground that the motion to a))rove the com)romise agreement HLtoo4O )recedence over the motion 3or summar: /udgment@H $es)ondent ,rs@ ,arcos 3iled a mani3estation on ,a: 26A 1&&# claiming she was not a )art: to the motion 3or a))roval o3 the -om)romise *greement and that she owned &(K o3 the 3unds with the remaining 1(K +elonging to the ,arcos estate@

,eanwhileA on *ugust 1(A 1&&5A )etitioner 3iled with the District *ttorne: in =urichA 'wit"erlandA an additional re9uest 3or the immediate trans3er o3 the de)osits to an escrow account in the PN!@ The re9uest was granted@ 8n a))ealA the re9uest 3or the trans3er o3 the 3unds was granted@ In 1&&#A the 3unds were remitted to the Phili))ines in escrow and later ,arcos children moved that the 3unds +e )laced in custodia legis +ecause the de)osit in escrow in the PN! was allegedl: in danger o3 dissi)ation +: )etitioner@ ,otion was granted@ *3ter the case was set 3or trialA the )etitionerA on ,arch 1(A 2(((A 3iled another motion 3or summar: /udgment )ertaining to the 3or3eiture o3 the 6']356 millionA contending that a3ter the )re>trial con3erenceA certain 3acts were esta+lishedA warranting a summar: /udgment on the 3unds sought to +e 3or3eited@ 8n 'e)tem+er 1&A 2(((A the 'andigan+a:an granted )etitionerGs motion 3or summar: /udgment@ $es)ondents 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration and )etitioner 3iled its o))osition thereto@ 8n Januar: 31A 2((2A the 'andigan+a:an reversed its 'e)tem+er 1&A 2((( decisionA thus den:ing )etitionerGs motion 3or summar: /udgment@ .enceA the instant )etition@ &ssues? L1O ?8N res)ondents raised an: genuine issue o3 3act which would either /usti3: or negate summar: /udgment@ L2O ?8N )etitioner $e)u+lic was a+le to )rove its case 3or 3or3eiture in accordance with 'ections 2 and 3 o3 $* 13 &@ @eld? 1O N8@ $es)ondents 3ailed to raise an: genuine issue o3 3act in their )leadings@ ThusA on motion o3 )etitioner $e)u+licA summar: /udgment should ta4e )lace as a matter o3 right@ 'ummar: /udgment is a /udgment which a court ma: render +e3ore trial +ut a3ter +oth )arties have )leaded@ It is ordered +: the court u)on a))lication +: one )art:A su))orted +: a33idavitsA de)ositions or other documentsA with notice u)on the adverse )art: who ma: in turn 3ile an o))osition su))orted also +: a33idavitsA de)ositions or other documents@ This is a3ter the court summaril: hears +oth )arties with their res)ective )roo3s and 3inds that there is no genuine issue +etween them@ 'ummar: /udgment is sanctioned in this /urisdiction +: 'ection 1A $ule 35 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureI '5-TI8N 1@ 'ummar: /udgment 3or claimant@> * )art: see4ing to recover u)on a claimA counterclaimA or cross>claim or to o+tain a declarator: relie3 ma:A at an: time a3ter the )leading in answer thereto has +een servedA move with su))orting a33idavitsA de)ositions or admissions 3or a summar: /udgment in his 3avor u)on all or an: )art thereo3@ 'ummar: /udgment is )ro)er when there is clearl: no genuine issue as to an: material 3act in the action@ The theor: o3 summar: /udgment is thatA although an answer ma: on its 3ace a))ear to tender issues re9uiring trialA i3 it is demonstrated +: a33idavitsA de)ositions or admissions that those issues are not genuine +ut sham or 3ictitiousA the -ourt is /usti3ied in dis)ensing with the trial and rendering summar: /udgment 3or )etitioner $e)u+lic@ 6)on care3ul )erusal o3 the 3acts o3 the caseA the -ourt 3inds that res)ondent ,rs@ ,arcos and the ,arcos children indu+ita+l: 3ailed to tender genuine issues in their answer to the )etition 3or

3or3eiture@ * genuine issue is an issue o3 3act which calls 3or the )resentation o3 evidence as distinguished 3rom an issue which is 3ictitious and contrivedA set u) in +ad 3aith or )atentl: lac4ing in su+stance so as not to constitute a genuine issue 3or trial@ $es)ondentsG de3enses o3 Hlac4 o3 4nowledge 3or lac4 o3 )rivit:H or HLina+ilit: toO recall +ecause it ha))ened a long time agoH orA on the )art o3 ,rs@ ,arcosA that Hthe 3unds were law3ull: ac9uiredH are 3ull: insu33icient to tender genuine issues@ $es)ondent ,arcosesG de3enses were a sham and evidentl: cali+rated to com)ound and con3use the issues@ $es)ondentsP answer 3ailed to s)eci3icall: den: each and ever: allegation contained in the )etition 3or 3or3eiture in the manner re9uired +: the rules@ *ll the: gave were stoc4 answers li4e Hthe: have no su33icient 4nowledgeH or Hthe: could not recall +ecause it ha))ened a long time agoAH andA as to ,rs@ ,arcosA Hthe 3unds were law3ull: ac9uiredAH without stating the +asis o3 such assertions@ Section +4" *ule : of the +998 *ules of Civil Procedure" provides? A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of %hich he does not admit and" %henever practicable" shall set forth the substance of the matters upon %hich he relies to support his denial. Ahere a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment" he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny the remainder. Ahere a defendant is %ithout kno%ledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint" he shall so state" and this shall have the effect of a denial. The )ur)ose o3 re9uiring res)ondents to ma4e a s)eci3ic denial is to ma4e them disclose 3acts which will dis)rove the allegations o3 )etitioner at the trialA together with the matters the: rel: u)on in su))ort o3 such denial@ 8ur /urisdiction adheres to this rule to avoid and )revent unnecessar: e%)enses and waste o3 time +: com)elling +oth )arties to la: their cards on the ta+leA thus reducing the controvers: to its true terms@ 8n the )art o3 ,rs@ ,arcosA she claimed that the 3unds were law3ull: ac9uired@ .oweverA she 3ailed to )articularl: state the ultimate 3acts surrounding the law3ul manner or mode o3 ac9uisition o3 the su+/ect 3unds@ 'im)l: )utA she merel: stated in her answer with the other res)ondents that the 3unds were Hlaw3ull: ac9uiredH without detailing how e%actl: these 3unds were su))osedl: ac9uired legall: +: them@ $es)ondentsG denials in their answer at the 'andigan+a:an were +ased on their alleged lac4 o3 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 the allegations o3 the )etition@ It is true that one o3 the modes o3 s)eci3ic denial under the rules is a denial through a statement that the de3endant is without 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 the material averment in the com)laint@ The 9uestionA howeverA is whether the 4ind o3 denial in res)ondentsG answer 9uali3ies as the s)eci3ic denial called 3or +: the rules@ This is not so@ I3 an allegation directl: and s)eci3icall: charges a )art: with having doneA )er3ormed or committed a )articular act which the latter did not in 3act doA )er3orm or commitA a categorical and e%)ress denial must +e made@ .ereA des)ite the serious and s)eci3ic allegations against themA the ,arcoses res)onded +: sim)l: sa:ing that the: had no 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 such allegations@ 'uch a generalA sel3>serving claim o3 ignorance o3 the 3acts alleged in the

)etition 3or 3or3eiture was insu33icient to raise an issue@ $es)ondent ,arcoses should have )ositivel: stated how it was that the: were su))osedl: ignorant o3 the 3acts alleged@ To elucidateA the allegation o3 )etitioner $e)u+lic in )aragra)h 23 o3 the )etition 3or 3or3eiture statedI 23@ The 3ollowing )resentation ver: clearl: and overwhelmingl: show in detail how +oth res)ondents clandestinel: stashed awa: the countr:Gs wealth to 'wit"erland and hid the same under la:ers u)on la:ers o3 3oundations and other cor)orate entities to )revent its detection@ Through their dummiesBnomineesA 3ronts or agents who 3ormed those 3oundations or cor)orate entitiesA the: o)ened and maintained numerous +an4 accounts@ !ut due to the di33icult: i3 not the im)ossi+ilit: o3 detecting and documenting all those secret accounts as well as the enormit: o3 the de)osits therein hiddenA the 3ollowing )resentation is con3ined to 3ive identi3ied accounts grou)sA with +alances amounting to a+out ]356>, with a reservation 3or the 3iling o3 a su))lemental or se)arate 3or3eiture com)laint should the need arise@ $es)ondentsG lame denial o3 the a3oresaid allegation wasI 22@ $es)ondents s)eci3icall: D5N0 )aragra)h 23 inso3ar as it alleges that $es)ondents clandestinel: stashed the countr:Gs wealth in 'wit"erland and hid the same under la:ers and la:ers o3 3oundations and cor)orate entities 3or +eing 3alseA the truth +eing that $es)ondentsG a3oresaid )ro)erties were law3ull: ac9uired@ 5videntl:A this )articular denial had the earmar4 o3 what is called in the law on )leadings as a negative pregnantA that isA a denial )regnant with the admission o3 the su+stantial 3acts in the )leading res)onded to which are not s9uarel: denied@ It was in e33ect an admission o3 the averments it was directed at@ 'tated otherwiseA a negative )regnant is a 3orm o3 negative e%)ression which carries with it an a33irmation or at least an im)lication o3 some 4ind 3avora+le to the adverse )art:@ It is a denial )regnant with an admission o3 the su+stantial 3acts alleged in the )leading@ ?here a 3act is alleged with 9uali3:ing or modi3:ing language and the words o3 the allegation as so 9uali3ied or modi3ied are literall: deniedA has +een held that the 9uali3:ing circumstances alone are denied while the 3act itsel3 is admitted@ ,oreoverA res)ondentsG denial o3 the allegations in the )etition 3or 3or3eiture H3or lac4 o3 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 the allegations since res)ondents were not )riv: to the transactionsH was /ust a )retense@ ,rs@ ,arcosG )rivit: to the transactions was in 3act evident 3rom her signatures on some o3 the vital documents attached to the )etition 3or 3or3eiture which ,rs@ ,arcos 3ailed to s)eci3icall: den: as re9uired +: the rules@ ?hen matters regarding which res)ondents claim to have no 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 are )lainl: and necessaril: within their 4nowledgeA their alleged ignorance or lac4 o3 in3ormation will not +e considered a s)eci3ic denial@ *n une%)lained denial o3 in3ormation within the control o3 the )leaderA or is readil: accessi+le to himA is evasive and is insu33icient to constitute an e33ective denial@ The 3orm o3 denial ado)ted +: res)ondents must +e availed o3 %ith sincerity and in good faith" and certainly not for the purpose of confusing the adverse party as to %hat allegations of the petition are really being challenged, nor should it be made for the purpose of delay @ In the

instant caseA the ,arcoses did not onl: )resent unsu+stantiated assertions +ut in truth attem)ted to mislead and deceive this -ourt +: )resenting an o+viousl: contrived de3ense@ 'im)l: )utA a )ro3ession o3 ignorance a+out a 3act which is )atentl: and necessaril: within the )leaderGs 4nowledge or means o3 4nowing is as ineffective as no denial at all@ $es)ondentsG ine33ective denial thus 3ailed to )ro)erl: tender an issue and the averments contained in the )etition 3or 3or3eiture were deemed /udiciall: admitted +: them@ ThusA the general denial o3 the ,arcos children o3 the allegations in the )etition 3or 3or3eiture H3or lac4 o3 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 the allegations since the: were not )riv: to the transactionsH cannot right3ull: +e acce)ted as a de3ense +ecause the: are the legal heirs and successors>in>interest o3 2erdinand 5@ ,arcos and are there3ore +ound +: the acts o3 their 3ather vis>a>vis the 'wiss 3unds@ In the )re>trial +rie3A ,rs@ ,arcos did not enumerate and descri+e the documents constituting her evidence@ Neither the names o3 witnesses nor the nature o3 their testimon: was stated@ ?hat alone a))eared certain was the testimon: o3 ,rs@ ,arcos onl: who in 3act had )reviousl: claimed ignorance and lac4 o3 4nowledge@ *nd even thenA the su+stance o3 her testimon:A as re9uired +: the rulesA was not made 4nown either@ 'uch cunning tactics o3 res)ondents are totall: unacce)ta+le@ .enceA since no genuine issue was raisedA the case +ecame ri)e 3or summar: /udgment@ ,oreoverA the a+sence o3 o))osing a33idavitsA de)ositions and admissions to contradict the sworn declarations in the $e)u+licGs motion onl: demonstrated that the averments o3 such o))osition were not genuine and there3ore unworth: o3 +elie3@ $es)ondent ,arcoses denied 4nowledge as well as ownershi) o3 the 'wiss 3unds@ $es)ondent ,arcoses have )ut 3orth no real de3ense@ The H3actsH )leaded +: res)ondentsA while ostensi+l: raising im)ortant 9uestions or issues o3 3actA in realit: com)rised mere ver+iage that was evidentl: wanting in su+stance and constituted no genuine issues 3or trial@ There3oreA summar: /udgment is )ro)er@ In 3actA it is the law itsel3 which determines when summar: /udgment is called 3or@ 6nder the rulesA summar: /udgment is a))ro)riate when there are no genuine issues o3 3act re9uiring the )resentation o3 evidence in a 3ull>+lown trial@ 5ven i3 on their 3ace the )leadings a))ear to raise issueA i3 the a33idavitsA de)ositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuineA then summar: /udgment as )rescri+ed +: the rules must ensue as a matter o3 law@ In sumA mere denialsA i3 unaccom)anied +: an: 3act which will +e admissi+le in evidence at a hearingA are not su33icient to raise genuine issues o3 3act and will not de3eat a motion 3or summar: /udgment@ * summar: /udgment is one granted u)on motion o3 a )art: 3or an e%)editious settlement o3 the caseA it a))earing 3rom the )leadingsA de)ositionsA admissions and a33idavits that there are no im)ortant 9uestions or issues o3 3act )osed andA there3oreA the movant is entitled to a /udgment as a matter o3 law@ * motion 3or summar: /udgment is )remised on the assum)tion that the issues )resented need not +e tried either +ecause these are )atentl: devoid o3 su+stance or that there is no genuine issue as to an: )ertinent 3act@ It is a method sanctioned +: the $ules o3 -ourt 3or the )rom)t dis)osition o3 a civil action where there e%ists no serious controvers:@ 'ummar: /udgment is a )rocedural device 3or the )rom)t dis)osition o3 actions in which the )leadings raise onl: a legal issueA not a genuine issue as to an: material 3act@ The theor: o3 summar: /udgment is thatA although an answer ma: on its 3ace a))ear to

tender issues re9uiring trialA i3 it is esta+lished +: a33idavitsA de)ositions or admissions that those issues are not genuine +ut 3ictitiousA the -ourt is /usti3ied in dis)ensing with the trial and rendering summar: /udgment 3or )etitioner@ 2O 05'@ The sudden turn>around o3 the 'andigan+a:an was reall: strangeA to sa: the leastA as its 3indings and conclusions were not +orne out +: the voluminous records o3 this case@ 'ection 2 o3 $* 13 & e%)licitl: states that Hwhenever an: )u+lic o33icer or em)lo:ee has ac9uired during his incum+enc: an amount o3 )ro)ert: which is mani3estl: out o3 )ro)ortion to his salar: as such )u+lic o33icer or em)lo:ee and to his other law3ul income and the income 3rom legitimatel: ac9uired )ro)ert:A said )ro)ert: shall +e )resumed prima facie to have +een unlaw3ull: ac9uired@ % % %H The elements which must concur 3or this prima facie )resum)tion to a))l: areI L1O the o33ender is a )u+lic o33icer or em)lo:eeN L2O he must have ac9uired a considera+le amount o3 mone: or )ro)ert: during his incum+enc:N and L3O said amount is mani3estl: out o3 )ro)ortion to his salar: as such )u+lic o33icer or em)lo:ee and to his other law3ul income and the income 3rom legitimatel: ac9uired )ro)ert:@ It is undis)uted that s)ouses 2erdinand and Imelda ,arcos were 3ormer )u+lic o33icers@ .enceA the 3irst element is clearl: e%tant@ The second element deals with the amount o3 mone: or )ro)ert: ac9uired +: the )u+lic o33icer during his incum+enc:@ The ,arcos cou)le indu+ita+l: ac9uired and owned )ro)erties during their term o3 o33ice@ In 3actA the 3ive grou)s o3 'wiss accounts were admittedl: owned +: them@ There is )roo3 o3 the e%istence and ownershi) o3 these assets and )ro)erties and it su33ices to com)l: with the second element@ The third re9uirement is met i3 it can +e shown that such assetsA mone: or )ro)ert: is mani3estl: out o3 )ro)ortion to the )u+lic o33icerGs salar: and his other law3ul income@ It is the )roo3 o3 this third element that is crucial in determining whether a prima facie )resum)tion has +een esta+lished in this case@ Petitioner $e)u+lic )resented not onl: a schedule indicating the law3ul income o3 the ,arcos s)ouses during their incum+enc: +ut also evidence that the: had huge de)osits +e:ond such law3ul income in 'wiss +an4s under the names o3 3ive di33erent 3oundations@ ?e +elieve )etitioner was a+le to esta+lish the prima facie )resum)tion that the assets and )ro)erties ac9uired +: the ,arcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as )u+lic o33icials@ 8therwise statedA )etitioner )resented enough evidence to convince us that the ,arcoses had dollar de)osits amounting to 6' ]356 million re)resenting the +alance o3 the 'wiss accounts o3 the 3ive 3oundationsA an amount wa:A wa: +e:ond their aggregate legitimate income o3 onl: 6']3(4A3 2@43 during their incum+enc: as government o33icials@

-onsideringA there3oreA that the total amount o3 the 'wiss de)osits was considera+l: out o3 )ro)ortion to the 4nown law3ul income o3 the ,arcosesA the )resum)tion that said dollar de)osits were unlaw3ull: ac9uired was dul: esta+lished@ It was su33icient 3or the )etition 3or 3or3eiture to state the a))ro%imate amount o3 mone: and )ro)ert: ac9uired +: the res)ondentsA and their total government salaries@ 'ection & o3 the P-11 $ules and $egulations statesI Prima ;acie (vidence@ *n: accumulation o3 assetsA )ro)ertiesA and other material )ossessions o3 those )ersons covered +: 5%ecutive 8rders No@ 1 and No@ 2A whose value is out o3 )ro)ortion to their 4nown law3ul income is )rima 3acie deemed ill>gotten wealth@ IndeedA the +urden o3 )roo3 was on the res)ondents to dis)ute this )resum)tion and show +: clear and convincing evidence that the 'wiss de)osits were law3ull: ac9uired and that the: had other legitimate sources o3 income@ * )resum)tion is prima facie )roo3 o3 the 3act )resumed andA unless the 3act thus prima facie esta+lished +: legal )resum)tion is dis)rovedA it must stand as )roved@ $es)ondent ,rs@ ,arcos argues that the 3oreign 3oundations should have +een im)leaded as the: were indis)ensa+le )arties without whom no com)lete determination o3 the issues could +e made@ 'he asserts that the 3ailure o3 )etitioner $e)u+lic to im)lead the 3oundations rendered the /udgment void as the /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties was a sine ua non e%ercise o3 /udicial )ower@ 2urthermoreA the non>inclusion o3 the 3oreign 3oundations violated the conditions )rescri+ed +: the 'wiss government regarding the de)osit o3 the 3unds in escrowA de)rived them o3 their da: in court and denied them their rights under the 'wiss constitution and international law@ The -ourt 3inds that )etitioner $e)u+lic did not err in not im)leading the 3oreign 3oundations@ 'ection A $ule 3 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA ta4en 3rom $ule 1&+ o3 the *merican 2ederal $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA )rovides 3or the com)ulsor: /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties@ 1enerall:A an indis)ensa+le )art: must +e im)leaded 3or the com)lete determination o3 the suit@ .oweverA 3ailure to /oin an indis)ensa+le )art: does not divest the court o3 /urisdiction since the rule regarding indis)ensa+le )arties is 3ounded on e9uita+le considerations and is not /urisdictional@ ThusA the court is not divested o3 its )ower to render a decision even in the a+sence o3 indis)ensa+le )artiesA though such /udgment is not +inding on the non>/oined )art:@114 *n indis)ensa+le )art: has +een de3ined as oneI EwhoF must have a direct interest in the litigationN and i3 this interest is such that it cannot +e se)arated 3rom that o3 the )arties to the suitA i3 the court cannot render /ustice +etween the )arties in his a+senceA i3 the decree will have an in/urious e33ect u)on his interestA or i3 the 3inal determination o3 the controvers: in his a+sence will +e inconsistent with e9uit: and good conscience@ There are two essential tests o3 an indis)ensa+le )art:I L1O can relie3 +e a33orded the )lainti33 without the )resence o3 the other )art: and L2O can the case +e decided on its merits without )re/udicing the rights o3 the other )art:@ There isA howeverA no 3i%ed 3ormula 3or determining who is an indis)ensa+le )art:N this can onl: +e determined in the conte%t and +: the 3acts o3 the )articular suit or litigation@

In the )resent caseA there was an admission +: res)ondent Imelda ,arcos in her ,a: 26A 1&&# ,ani3estation +e3ore the 'andigan+a:an that she was the sole +ene3iciar: o3 &(K o3 the su+/ect matter in controvers: with the remaining 1(K +elonging to the estate o3 2erdinand ,arcos@ 7iewed against this admissionA the 3oreign 3oundations were not indis)ensa+le )arties@ Their non>)artici)ation in the )roceedings did not )revent the court 3rom deciding the case on its merits and according 3ull relie3 to )etitioner $e)u+lic@ The /udgment ordering the return o3 the ]356 million was neither inimical to the 3oundationsG interests nor inconsistent with e9uit: and good conscience@ The admission o3 res)ondent Imelda ,arcos onl: con3irmed what was alread: generall: 4nownI that the 3oundations were esta+lished )recisel: to hide the mone: stolen +: the ,arcos s)ouses 3rom )etitioner $e)u+lic@ It negated whatever illusion there wasA i3 an:A that the 3oreign 3oundations owned even a nominal )art o3 the assets in 9uestion@ *lthough there are decided cases wherein the non>/oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties in 3act led to the dismissal o3 the suit or the annulment o3 /udgmentA such cases do not /i+e with the matter at hand@ The +etter view is that non>/oinder is not a ground to dismiss the suit or annul the /udgment@ The rule on /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties is 3ounded on e9uit:@ *nd the s)irit o3 the law is re3lected in 'ection 11A $ule 3 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ It )rohi+its the dismissal o3 a suit on the ground o3 non>/oinder or mis/oinder o3 )arties and allows the amendment o3 the com)laint at an: stage o3 the )roceedingsA through motion or on order o3 the court on its own initiative@ Li4ewiseA /uris)rudence on the 2ederal $ules o3 ProcedureA 3rom which our 'ection A $ule 3 on indis)ensa+le )arties was co)iedA allows the /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties even a3ter /udgment has +een entered i3 such is needed to a33ord the moving )art: 3ull relie3@ ,ere dela: in 3iling the /oinder motion does not necessaril: result in the waiver o3 the right as long as the dela: is e%cusa+le@ ThusA res)ondent ,rs@ ,arcos cannot correctl: argue that the /udgment rendered +: the 'andigan+a:an was void due to the non>/oinder o3 the 3oreign 3oundations@ The court had /urisdiction to render /udgment whichA even in the a+sence o3 indis)ensa+le )artiesA was +inding on all the )arties +e3ore it though not on the a+sent )art:@ I3 she reall: 3elt that she could not +e granted 3ull relie3 due to the a+sence o3 the 3oreign 3oundationsA she should have moved 3or their inclusionA which was allowa+le at an: stage o3 the )roceedings@ 'he never did@ Instead she assailed the /udgment rendered@ In the 3ace o3 undenia+le circumstances and the avalanche o3 documentar: evidence against themA res)ondent ,arcoses 3ailed to /usti3: the law3ul nature o3 their ac9uisition o3 the said assets@ .enceA the 'wiss de)osits should +e considered ill>gotten wealth and 3or3eited in 3avor o3 the 'tate in accordance with 'ection 6 o3 $* 13 &I '5-@ 6@ Judgment@` I3 the res)ondent is una+le to show to the satis3action o3 the court that he has law3ull: ac9uired the )ro)ert: in 9uestionA then the court shall declare such )ro)ert: 3or3eited in 3avor o3 the 'tateA and +: virtue o3 such /udgment the )ro)ert: a3oresaid shall +ecome )ro)ert: o3 the 'tate@ Judgment? Petition is here+: 1$*NT5D@ The assailed $esolution o3 the 'andigan+a:an dated Januar: 31A 2((2 is '5T *'ID5@ The 'wiss de)osits which were trans3erred to and are now de)osited in escrow at the Phili))ine National !an4 in the estimated aggregate amount o3 6']65#A1 5A3 3@6( as o3 Januar: 31A 2((2A )lus interestA are here+: 3or3eited in 3avor o3 )etitioner $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines@

+,EA CA!(TI4AN C)RP)RATI)N )he Case?

1s.

LANDCENTER

C)NSTR(CTI)N

DENEL)PMENT

Petition 3or $eview on Certiorari under $ule 45A assailing the 8rders dated 'e)tem+er #A 2((( and Novem+er 21A 2(((A )romulgated +: $T- Pasig -it:@ ;acts? 8n Decem+er 3A 1&&6A res)ondent entered into an *greement with Petitioner@ The *greement sti)ulates that res)ondent is the a+solute owner o3 a )arcel o3 land in Parana9ue@ 2urhter sti)ulations are the 3ollowingI 1@ The 2*-ILIT*T8$ underta4es to e33ect the recover: o3 the )ro)ert: su+/ect hereo3A including the 3inancing o3 the underta4ingA u) to the registration o3 the same in the name o3 Eres)ondent cor)orationFA e%ce)t an: and all ta%es dueN 2@ The 2*-ILIT*T8$ shall +e res)onsi+le 3or whatever arrangements necessar: in relation to the s9uatters )resentl: occu):ing EaF )ortion o3 the )ro)ert:A as well as the legitimate +u:ers o3 lots thereo3N 3@ *s com)ensation 3or the underta4ing o3 the 2*-ILIT*T8$A EsheF shall +e entitled to Twent: EPercentF L2(KO o3 the total area o3 the )ro)ert: thus recovered 3or and in +ehal3 o3 Eres)ondent cor)orationF@ 8n 2e+ruar: 11A 1&& A res)ondent entered into a Deed o3 6nderta4ing with a grou) com)osed o3 )etitioner and others@ 'aid 6nderta4ing contains that the com)ensation and the share in the )roceeds o3 the sale o3 )etitioner and com)an:@ *n action 3or s)eci3ic )er3ormance with damages was 3iled +: )etitioner on 8cto+er 14A 1&&& +e3ore the $T- o3 Pasig -it: alleging that she accom)lished her underta4ings under the su+/ect *greement and the 6nderta4ing +ut res)ondent 3ailed to e%ecute the corres)onding Deed o3 *ssignment o3 the lots in the su+/ect )ro)ert:A as com)ensation 3or the services rendered in its 3avor@ 6)on demandA the res)ondent still 3ailed and re3used to act on said demand@ Petitioner )ra:ed that res)ondent cor)oration +e ordered to e%ecute the a))ro)riate document assigningA conve:ingA trans3erring and delivering the )articular lots in her 3avor@ The lots re)resented com)ensation 3or the underta4ings she )er3ormed and accom)lishedA as em+odied in the *greement@ $es)ondent then 3iled a ,otion to DismissA alleging that )etitioner and her com)anions while taking advantage of the management mess at respondent corporation" tried to grab o%nership

of the latter" and %ith use of fraud" cheat" misrepresentation and theft of vital documents from the office of respondent" succeeded in filing %ith the S(C false papers and documents purporting to sho% that the Articles of &ncorporation of respondent had been amended" installing Maghuyop as president of respondent corporation. &n this Motion" respondent sought the dismissal of the Complaint on the grounds of 3+5 improper venue" 3-5 lack of !urisdiction over the sub!ect matter" and 3.5 nonpayment of the proper docket fees. )he *)C ruled that the allegations in the Complaint sho% that its primary ob!ective %as to recover real property. ( ually important" the prayer %as to compel respondent to e#ecute the necessary deeds of transfer and conveyance of a portion of the property corresponding to .2.1 percent of its total area or" in the alternative" to hold respondent liable for the value of the said portion" based on the prevailing market price. )he *)C further ruled that" since the suit %ould affect the title to the property" it should have been instituted in the trial court %here the property %as situated. Since the action %as filed only by petitioner" there %as no allegation that she had been authoriBed by her companions to represent their respective shares in the compensation. ;inally" since this case %as an action in rem" it %as imperative for petitioner to pay the appropriate docket or filing fees e uivalent to the pecuniary value of her claim" a duty she failed to discharge. )herefore" the *)C never ac uired !urisdiction over the case. @ence" this Petition &ssue? +5 AO7 *)C erred in dismissing her Complaint on the ground of improper venue. -5 AO7 *)C erred in dismissing her Complaint on the ground non0!oinder of necessary parties .5 AO7 *)C erred in dismissing her Complaint on the ground non0payment of proper docket fees. @eld? +5 D(S. Sections + and -" *ule / of the *ules of Court provide an ans%er to the issue of venue. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein 3real actions5" shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial !urisdiction over the area %here the real property is situated. On the other hand" all other actions" 3personal actions5 shall be commenced and tried in the proper courts %here the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or %here the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. Ahere the action affects title to the property" it should be instituted in the trial court %here the property is situated. An action in %hich petitioner seeks the e#ecution of a deed of sale of a parcel of land in his favor has been held to be for the recovery of the real property and not for specific performance since his primary ob!ective is to regain the o%nership and possession of the parcel of land. On the other hand" a case for specific performance %ith damages is a personal action %hich may be filed in a court %here any of the parties reside. &n the present case" petitioner seeks payment of her services in accordance %ith the undertaking the parties signed. Breach of contract gives rise to a cause of action for specific performance or for rescission. -. &f petitioner had filed an action in rem for the conveyance of real property" the dismissal of the case %ould have been proper on the ground of lack of cause of action.
+Ihi+.n JC&)(K

-5 D(S. 7either a mis!oinder nor a non0!oinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court" on motion of any party or on the courtFs o%n initiative at any stage of the action. )he *)C should have ordered the !oinder of such party" and noncompliance %ith the said order %ould have been ground for dismissal of the action. Although the Complaint prayed for the conveyance of the %hole .2.1 percent claim %ithout impleading the companions of petitioner as party0litigants" the *)C could have separately proceeded %ith the case as far as her -4 percent share in the claim %as concerned" independent of the other +2.1 percent. )his fact means that her companions are not indispensable parties %ithout %hom no final determination can be had. At best" they are mere necessary parties %ho ought to be impleaded for a complete determination or settlement of the claim sub!ect of the action. )he non0inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding %ith the action" and the !udgment rendered therein shall be %ithout pre!udice to the rights of such party. .5 D(S. Petitioner insists that the value of the real property" %hich %as the sub!ect of the contract" has nothing to do %ith the determination of the correct docket or filing fees. )he *)C ruled that although the amount of damages sought had not been specified in the body of the Complaint" one can infer from the assessed value of the disputed land that it %ould amount to P14 million. @ence" %hen compared to this figure" the P-+4 paid as docket fees %ould appear paltry. )he trial court and respondent used technicalities to avoid the resolution of the case and to trifle %ith the la%. )rue" Section 1" *ule +/+ of the *ules of Court re uires that the assessed value of the real estate" sub!ect of an action" should be considered in computing the filing fees. But the Court has already clarified that the *ule does not apply to an action for specific performance" %hich is classified as an action not capable of pecuniary estimation. Judgment? Petition is hereby *$A+TE," and the assailed Orders $E-E$SE, and SET AS.,E )he case is $E)A+,E, to the court of origin %hich is ordered to '$/CEE, %ith deliberate speed in disposing of the case. 7o costs.

+,E. CADALIN 1s. P)EAIS ADMINISTRAT)R )he Case? The consolidated cases were )etitions 3iled under $ule 65 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt on the grounds that NL$- had committed grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 /urisdiction in issuing the 9uestioned orders@ 2actsI The com)lainants>a))ellants allege that the: were recruited +: res)ondent>a))ellant *I!- 3or its accredited 3oreign )rinci)alA !rown ; $ootA on various dates 3rom 1& 5 to 1&#3@ The: were all de)lo:ed at various )ro/ects underta4en +: !rown ; $oot in several countries in the ,iddle 5astA such as 'audi *ra+iaA Li+:aA 6nited *ra+ 5mirates and !ahrainA as well as in 'outheast *siaA in Indonesia and ,ala:sia@ .aving +een o33iciall: )rocessed as overseas contract wor4ers +: the Phili))ine 1overnmentA all the individual com)lainants signed standard overseas em)lo:ment contracts with *I!- +e3ore their de)arture 3rom the Phili))ines@ IssuesI 1O ?8N the instant cases 9uali3: as a class suit@ 2O ?8N the P85* *dministrator erred in not dismissing P85* -ase No@ LLO #6>65>46( on the ground o3 multi)licit: o3 suits@ 3O ?8N it is the !ahrain law on )rescri)tion o3 action +ased on the *miri Decree No@ 23 o3 1& 6 or a Phili))ine law on )rescri)tion that shall +e the governing law@ 4O .eldI 1O N8@ The la+or cases cannot +e treated as a class suit 3or the sim)le reason that not all the com)lainants wor4ed in !ahrain and there3oreA the su+/ect matter o3 the actionA the claims arising 3rom the !ahrain lawA is not o3 common or general interest to all the com)lainants@ -laimants insist that all their claims could )ro)erl: +e consolidated in a Hclass suitH +ecause Hall the named com)lainants have similar mone: claims and similar rights sought irres)ective o3 whether the: wor4ed in !ahrainA 6nited *ra+ 5mirates or in *+u Dha+iA Li+:a or in an: )art o3 the ,iddle 5astH@

* class suit is )ro)er where the su+/ect matter o3 the controvers: is one o3 common or general interest to man: and the )arties are so numerous that it is im)ractica+le to +ring them all +e3ore the court L$evised $ules o3 -ourtA $ule 3A 'ec@ 12O@ ?hile all the claims are 3or +ene3its granted under the !ahrain LawA man: o3 the claimants wor4ed outside !ahrain@ 'ome o3 the claimants were de)lo:ed in Indonesia and ,ala:sia under di33erent terms and conditions o3 em)lo:ment@ NL$- and the P85* *dministrator are correct in their stance that inasmuch as the 3irst re9uirement o3 a class suit is not )resent Lcommon or general interest +ased on the *miri Decree o3 the 'tate o3 !ahrainOA it is onl: logical that onl: those who wor4ed in !ahrain shall +e entitled to 3ile their claims in a class suit@ ?hile there are common de3endants L*I!- and !$IIO and the nature o3 the claims is the same L3or em)lo:eeGs +ene3itsOA there is no common 9uestion o3 law or 3act@ ?hile some claims are +ased on the *miri Law o3 !ahrainA man: o3 the claimants never wor4ed in that countr:A +ut were de)lo:ed elsewhere@ ThusA each claimant is interested onl: in his own demand and not in the claims o3 the other em)lo:ees o3 de3endants@ The named claimants have a s)ecial or )articular interest in s)eci3ic +ene3its com)letel: di33erent 3rom the +ene3its in which the other named claimants and those included as mem+ers o3 a HclassH are claiming@ It a))ears that each claimant is onl: interested in collecting his own claims@ * claimant has no concern in )rotecting the interests o3 the other claimants as shown +: the 3actA that hundreds o3 them have a+andoned their co>claimants and have entered into se)arate com)romise settlements o3 their res)ective claims@ * )rinci)le +asic to the conce)t o3 Hclass suitH is that )lainti33s +rought on the record must 3airl: re)resent and )rotect the interests o3 the others@ 2or this matterA the claimants who wor4ed in !ahrain can not +e allowed to sue in a class suit in a /udicial )roceeding@ The most that can +e accorded to them under the $ules o3 -ourt is to +e allowed to /oin as )lainti33s in one com)laint L$evised $ules o3 -ourtA $ule 3A 'ec@ 6O@ The -ourt is e%tra>cautious in allowing class suits +ecause the: are the e%ce)tions to the condition sine ua nonA re9uiring the /oinder o3 all indis)ensa+le )arties@ In an im)ro)erl: instituted class suitA there would +e no )ro+lem i3 the decision secured is 3avora+le to the )lainti33s@ The )ro+lem arises when the decision is adverse to themA in which case the others who were im)leaded +: their sel3>a))ointed re)resentativesA would surel: claim denial o3 due )rocess@ 2O N8@ NL$- )assed sub silencio the last issueA the claim that P85* -ase No@ LLO #6>65>46( should have +een dismissed on the ground that the claimants in said case were also claimants in P85* -ase No@ LLO #4>(6>555@ Instead o3 dismissing P85* -ase No@ LLO #6>65>46(A the P85* /ust resolved the corres)onding claims in P85* -ase No@ LLO #4>(6>555@ In other wordsA the P85* did not )ass u)on the same claims twice@

The claimants in 1@$@ No@ 1(4 6 also urged that the P85* *dministrator and NL$- should have declared *tt:@ 2lorante De -astro guilt: o3 H3orum sho))ingA am+ulance chasing activitiesA 3alsi3icationA du)licit: and other un)ro3essional activitiesH and his a))earances as counsel 3or some o3 the claimants as illegal@ The *nti>2orum 'ho))ing $ule L$evised -ircular No@ 2#>&1O is intended to )ut a sto) to the )ractice o3 some )arties o3 3iling multi)le )etitions and com)laints involving the same issuesA with the result that the courts or agencies have to resolve the same issues@ 'aid $uleA howeverA a))lies onl: to )etitions 3iled with the 'u)reme -ourt and the -ourt o3 *))eals@ It is entitled H*dditional $e9uirements 2or Petitions 2iled with the 'u)reme -ourt and the -ourt o3 *))eals To Prevent 2orum 'ho))ing or ,ulti)le 2iling o3 Petitioners and -om)lainants@H The 3irst sentence o3 the circular e%)ressl: states that said circular a))lies to an governs the 3iling o3 )etitions in the 'u)reme -ourt and the -ourt o3 *))eals@ ?hile *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4 e%tended the a))lication o3 the anti>3orum sho))ing rule to the lower courts and administrative agenciesA said circular too4 e33ect onl: on *)ril 1A 1&&4@ P85* and NL$- could not have entertained the com)laint 3or unethical conduct against *tt:@ De -astro +ecause NL$- and P85* have no /urisdiction to investigate charges o3 unethical conduct o3 law:ers@ 3O Phili))ine Law@ *I!- and !$IIA insisting that the actions on the claims have )rescri+ed under the *miri Decree No@ 23 o3 1& 6A argue that there is in 3orce in the Phili))ines a H+orrowing lawAH which is 'ection 4# o3 the -ode o3 -ivil Procedure and that where such 4ind o3 law e%istsA it ta4es )recedence over the common>law con3licts rule@ *rticle 156 o3 the *miri Decree No@ 23 o3 1& 6 )rovidesI * claim arising out o3 a contract o3 em)lo:ment shall not +e actiona+le a3ter the la)se o3 one :ear 3rom the date o3 the e%)ir: o3 the contract@ *s a general ruleA a 3oreign )rocedural law will not +e a))lied in the 3orum@ Procedural mattersA such as service o3 )rocessA /oinder o3 actionsA )eriod and re9uisites 3or a))ealA and so 3orthA are governed +: the laws o3 the 3orum@ This is true even i3 the action is +ased u)on a 3oreign su+stantive law@ * law on )rescri)tion o3 actions is sui generis in -on3lict o3 Laws in the sense that it ma: +e viewed either as )rocedural or su+stantiveA de)ending on the characteri"ation given such a law@ Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company" supra" the *merican court a))lied the statute o3 limitations o3 New 0or4A instead o3 the Panamanian lawA a3ter 3inding that there was no showing that the Panamanian law on )rescri)tion was intended to +e su+stantive@ !eing considered

merel: a )rocedural law even in PanamaA it has to give wa: to the law o3 the 3orum on )rescri)tion o3 actions@ .oweverA the characteri"ation o3 a statute into a )rocedural or su+stantive law +ecomes irrelevant when the countr: o3 the 3orum has a H+orrowing statute@H 'aid statute has the )ractical e33ect o3 treating the 3oreign statute o3 limitation as one o3 su+stance@ * H+orrowing statuteH directs the state o3 the 3orum to a))l: the 3oreign statute o3 limitations to the )ending claims +ased on a 3oreign law@ ?hile there are several 4inds o3 H+orrowing statutesAH one 3orm )rovides that an action +arred +: the laws o3 the )lace where it accruedA will not +e en3orced in the 3orum even though the local statute has not run against it@ 'ection 4# o3 our -ode o3 -ivil Procedure is o3 this 4ind@ 'aid 'ection )rovidesI I3 +: the laws o3 the state or countr: where the cause o3 action aroseA the action is +arredA it is also +arred in the Phili))ines Islands@ 'ection 4# has not +een re)ealed or amended +: the -ivil -ode o3 the Phili))ines@ *rticle 22 ( o3 said -ode re)ealed onl: those )rovisions o3 the -ode o3 -ivil Procedures as to which were inconsistent with it@ There is no )rovision in the -ivil -ode o3 the Phili))inesA which is inconsistent with or contradictor: to 'ection 4# o3 the -ode o3 -ivil Procedure@ In the light o3 the 1&# -onstitutionA howeverA 'ection 4# cannot +e en3orced e# proprio vigore inso3ar as it ordains the a))lication in this /urisdiction o3 'ection 156 o3 the *miri Decree No@ 23 o3 1& 6@ The courts o3 the 3orum will not en3orce an: 3oreign claim o+no%ious to the 3orumGs )u+lic )olic:@ To en3orce the one>:ear )rescri)tive )eriod o3 the *miri Decree No@ 23 o3 1& 6 as regards the claims in 9uestion would contravene the )u+lic )olic: on the )rotection to la+or@ In the Declaration o3 Princi)les and 'tate PoliciesA the 1&# -onstitution em)hasi"ed thatI The state shall )romote social /ustice in all )hases o3 national develo)ment@ L'ec@ 1(O@ The state a33irms la+or as a )rimar: social economic 3orce@ It shall )rotect the rights o3 wor4ers and )romote their wel3are L'ec@ 1#O@ In article DIII on 'ocial Justice and .uman $ightsA the 1&# -onstitution )rovidesI 'ec@ 3@ The 'tate shall a33ord 3ull )rotection to la+orA local and overseasA organi"ed and unorgani"edA and )romote 3ull em)lo:ment and e9ualit: o3 em)lo:ment o))ortunities 3or all@ JudgmentI *ll the three )etitions are DI',I''5D@ No a+use o3 discretion@

+,EC G)NOALES 1s. PAGC)R )he Case? *t +ar is a s)ecial civil action 3or )rohi+ition assailing the constitutionalit: o3 the creation o3 P*1-8$ as well as the Hgrant o3 3ranchisesH +: P*1-8$ to 1O ')orts and 1ames 5ntertainment -or)oration L'*15O to engage in internet gam+lingA 2O !est ?orld 1aming and 5ntertainment -or)oration L!5'T ?8$LDO to engage in com)uteri"ed +ingo gamingA and 3O !elle Jai>alai -or)oration L!5LL5O and 2ili)inas 1aming 5ntertainment Totali"ator -or)oration L2IL1*,5O to engage in /ai>alai o)erations@ ;acts? 1on"alesA as a citi"enA ta%)a:er and mem+er o3 the Phili))ine !arA 3iled on 'e)tem+er 2#A 2((( the instant Petition as a class suit under 'ection 12A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt see4ing to restrain P*1-8$ 3rom continuing its o)erations and )rohi+it it and its co>res)ondents 3rom en3orcingI L1O the H1rant o3 an *uthorit: and *greement 3or the 8)eration o3 ')orts !etting and Internet 1am+lingH e%ecuted +etween P*1-8$ and '*15N L2O the H1rant o3 *uthorit: to 8)erate -om)uteri"ed !ingo 1amesH +etween P*1-8$ and !5'T ?8$LDN and L3O the H*greementH among P*1-8$A !5LL5 and 2IL1*,5 to conduct /ai>alai o)erations@ In com)liance with this -ourtPs $esolution o3 8cto+er 1#A 2(((A res)ondents 3iled their res)ective comments on the )etitionA to which )etitioner 3iled corres)onding re)lies@ In Del ,ar v@ Phil@ *musement and 1aming -or)@A et al@A P*1-8$A !5LL5A and 2IL1*,5 were en/oined 3rom managingA maintaining and o)erating /ai>alai gamesA and 3rom en3orcing the agreement entered into +: them 3or that )ur)ose@ ,otions 3or reconsideration regarding this decisions have +een denied@ 8n Decem+er 6A 2((1A $es)ondents !5LL5 and 2IL1*,5 3iled ,ani3estation stating that their )artici)ation +e no longer warranted@ !5'T ?8$LDA on the other handA stated in its -omment 3iled on ,arch 2&A 2((1 that it had +een una+le to o)erate its +ingo terminals and +ingo games since its closure and shut down +: P*1-8$ and DIL1@ The )etition having +een given due course +: $esolution o3 'e)tem+er 1&A 2((1A the )arties were re9uired to su+mit their res)ective ,emoranda@ 8nl: res)ondents P*1-8$ and '*15 su+mitted their ,emorandaA on Decem+er 6A 2((1 and Januar: 24A 2((2A res)ectivel:@ 1on"ales 3ailed to 3ile his ,emorandum within the )rescri+ed )eriod@ The -ourtA howeverA was in3ormed o3 the alleged demise o3 1on"ales@ 8n 'e)tem+er 1(A 2((2A *tt:s@ ,anuel !@ Im+ong and Jo *urea ,@ Im+ong 3iled a ,otion 3or 'u+stitution stating@ &ssues? ?8N movants *tt:s@ Im+ong and Im+ong ma: +e su+stituted 3or 1on"ales in accordance with 'ection 16A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ @eld? N8@ 'ec@ 16@ Death o3 )art:A dut: o3 counsel@ ?henever a )art: to a )ending action diesA and the claim is not there+: e%tinguishedA it shall +e the dut: o3 his counsel to in3orm the court

within thirt: L3(O da:s a3ter such death o3 the 3act thereo3A and to give the name and address o3 his legal re)resentative or re)resentatives@ 2ailure o3 counsel to com)l: with this dut: shall +e a ground 3or disci)linar: action@ The heirs o3 the deceased ma: +e allowed to +e su+stituted 3or the deceasedA without re9uiring the a))ointment o3 an e%ecutor or administrator and the court ma: a))oint a guardian ad litem 3or the minor heirs@ The court shall 3orthwith order said legal re)resentative or re)resentatives to a))ear and +e su+stituted within a )eriod o3 thirt: L3(O da:s 3rom notice@ I3 no legal re)resentative is named +: the counsel 3or the deceased )art:A or i3 the one so named shall 3ail to a))ear within the s)eci3ied )eriodA the court ma: order the o))osing )art:A within a s)eci3ied timeA to )rocure the a))ointment o3 an e%ecutor or administrator 3or the estate o3 the deceased and the latter shall immediatel: a))ear 3or and on +ehal3 o3 the deceased@ The court charges in )rocuring such a))ointmentA i3 de3ra:ed +: the o))osing )art:A ma: +e recovered as costs@ $es)ondents P*1-8$ and '*15 3urther argue that neither 1on"ales nor movants have su+stantiated the allegation that the instant case is a class suit as de3ined under 'ection 12A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ .enceA so said res)ondents argueA the )etition should +e considered a )ersonal action which was e%tinguished with the death o3 1on"ales@ The criteria 3or determining whether an action survives the death o3 a )lainti33 or )etitioner was elucidated u)on in !onilla v@ !arcena as 3ollowsI The 9uestion as to whether an action survives or not de)ends on the nature o3 the action and the damage sued 3or@ I3 the causes o3 action which survive the wrong com)lained Eo3F a33ects )rimaril: and )rinci)all: )ro)ert: and )ro)ert: rightsA the in/uries to the )erson +eing merel: incidentalA while in the causes o3 action which do not survive the in/ur: com)lained o3 is to the )erson the )ro)ert: and rights o3 )ro)ert: a33ected +eing incidental@ In claiming standing to +ring the instant suitA 1on"ales necessaril: asserted Ha )ersonal and su+stantial interest in the caseH such that he Hhas sustained or will sustain direct in/ur: as a result o3 the governmental act that is +eing challenged@H * reading o3 the allegations in the )etition readil: shows that 1on"alesPs alleged interest does not involve an: claim to mone: or )ro)ert: which he could have assigned to another or transmitted to his heirs@ $atherA he claimed to +e vindicating his rights as a citi"enA ta%)a:er and mem+er o3 the +ar@ !eing )ersonal and non>trans3era+le in natureA an: interest that he might have had in the outcome o3 this case cannot +e deemed to have survived his death@ ,ovants argueA howeverA that Hunless the herein su+stitution is allowedA the citi"ens and ta%)a:ers re)resented +: 1on"ales in this class suit will +e denied due )rocess@H 2rom this argument as well as their averment that the: are Hamong the 2ili)ino citi"ens and ta%)a:ers and mem+erEsF o3 the Phili))ine !ar 3or whom the herein class suit was instituted and are interested to )ursue this caseAH it is evident that movants are not asserting an: right or interest transmitted to them +: the death o3 1on"alesA +ut are see4ing to )rotect their own individual interests as mem+ers o3 the classes alleged to have +een re)resented +: 1on"ales@

*s suchA the more )ro)er )rocedure would have +een 3or them to 3ile a ,otion 3or Intervention as e%)ressl: )rovided 3or in 'ection 12A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA and not a ,otion 3or 'u+stitution under 'ection 1 o3 the same rule@ Ideall:A such a ,otion 3or Intervention should +e 3iled +e3ore the )ossi+ilit: o3 a+atement is raised +: the death o3 the namedBre)resentative )art: Lor )artiesO to the class suitN or where such is not )ossi+leA within a reasona+le time 3rom the death o3 the named or re)resentative )art:@ Judgment? Petition is DI',I''5D@

+,E- R(IO 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS )he Case? !e3ore this -ourt is a Petition 3or $eview on Certiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ 2actsI The late Pedro 7@ 1arcia was a +usinessman with su+stantial shareholdings in 7@-@ Ponce -o@A Inc@ consisting o3 shares o3 stoc4 and real )ro)erties@ 'ometime in 1& A an internal con3lict +esieged the com)an: resulting in suits +etween res)ondent 1arcia and 7@-@ Ponce -o@A Inc@ over the 3ormerGs 3unds and assets@ 1arcia hired *tt:s@ 7ivencio ,@ $ui" and 5milio D@ -astellanes 3or the latterPs legal services and e%ecuted an agreement denominated as a -ontract o3 $etainershi)@ 8n Jul: 22A 1&#2A 1arcia unilaterall: terminated the said -ontract o3 $etainershi) on the alleged ground that the )etitionersA his law:ersA 3ailed to settle amica+l: his L>arciaO di33erences with 7@ -@ Ponce -o@A Inc@ Petitioners were )aid attorne:Gs 3ees u) to the month o3 Jul:A 1&#2@ Therea3terA the )etitioners $ui" and -astellanes mani3ested their withdrawal as counsel 3or Pedro 7@ 1arcia and moved their attorne:Gs lien +e )ut on recordA in the cases involved@ 'uch motion was granted +: the trial court@ Two :ears therea3terA )etitioners $ui" and -astellanes +rought their action H2or -ollection o3 'um o3 ,one: and 3or ')eci3ic Per3ormanceH +e3ore $T- ,a4ati@ 8n 'e)tem+er 2 A 1&&(A while the said case was )ending +e3ore the said lower court o3 originA 1arcia died@ *3ter noti3:ing the trial court o3 the demise o3 their clientA counsel moved 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laint invo4ing 'ection 21A $ule 3 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ The $T- ruled that said rule a))lies@ 6)on a))ealA -* a33irmed the dismissal@ .enceA this )etition@ IssueI ?8N the case at +ar has survived the death o3 the )rivate res)ondentA Pedro 7@ 1arcia@ .eldI The core o3 )etitionersG argument is that action should not +e dismissed since their com)laint involves not /ust monetar: claim +ut also real )ro)erties as well@ PetitionersG contention is untena+le@ ?hile the: maintain that what the: are claiming include real )ro)ertiesA their -om)laint is ca)tioned as H2or -ollection o3 ,one: and 3or ')eci3ic Per3ormance@H 8+viousl:A the )etitioners themselvesA who are law:ersA +elieved that the cause o3 action against the )rivate res)ondent was in the nature o3 actio in personam.

HActio in personam is a )ersonal action see4ing redress against a )articular )erson@ Personal actions are such where+: a man claims a de+tA or )ersonal dut:A or damages in lieu thereo3@H In the )resent case )etitioners see4 to recover attorne:Gs 3ees 3rom )rivate res)ondent 3or the )ro3essional services the: rendered to the latter@ *ttorne:Gs 3ee is +asicall: a com)ensation@ In its ordinar: senseA Hthe term Lcom)ensationO a))lies not onl: to salariesA +ut to com)ensation +: 3ees 3or s)eci3ic services@H 7iewed in )ro)er )ers)ectiveA an action to recover attorne:Gs 3ees is +asicall: a monetar: claimA which under 'ection 21A $ule 3 o3 !@P@ 12& is an action that does not survive@ 'uch is the 3ate o3 herein -ivil -ase@ Petitioners theori"e that the inclusion o3 real )ro)erties as )art o3 the attorne:Gs 3ees )rivate res)ondent owe themA converted the action into one that survives or at the ver: leastA s)lit the action into one that did not surviveA with res)ect to the monetar: o+ligationA and which survivedA with res)ect to the real )ro)erties o3 the deceased@ In @arden vs. @ardenA 2( '-$* (6A the -ourt ruled that an action 3or the satis3action o3 attorne:Gs 3ees is 3ounded on a )ersonal o+ligation which does not survive the death o3 the de3endant +e3ore ad/udication@ The litmus test in determining what action survives and what does not de)ends on the nature o3 the action and not on the o+/ect or 4ind o3 )ro)ert: sought to +e recovered@ JudgmentI Petition is D5NI5D and the decision o3 the -* is *22I$,5D in toto. No )ronouncement as to costs@

+,EB SP)(SES ALG(RA 1s. T4E CIT< )& NAGA )he Case?

This Petition 3or $eview on -ertiorari see4s the annulment o3 the 8rder o3 the $T- o3 Naga -it:A dismissing the case 3or 3ailure o3 )etitioners to )a: the re9uired 3iling 3ees@ 'ince the instant )etition involves onl: a 9uestion o3 law +ased on 3acts esta+lished 3rom the )leadings and documents su+mitted +: the )artiesA the -ourt gives due course to the instant )etition sanctioned under 'ection 2LcO o3 $ule 41 on *))eal 3rom the $T-sA and governed +: $ule 45 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ ;acts? 8n 'e)tem+er 1A 1&&&A s)ouses 3iled a -om)laint 3or damages against the Naga -it: and its o33icersA arising 3rom the alleged illegal demolition o3 their residence and +oarding house and 3or )a:ment o3 lost income derived 3rom 3ees )aid +: their +oarders amounting to PhP A(((@(( monthl:@ 'imultaneousl:A )etitioners 3iled an (#0Parte ,otion to Litigate as Indigent LitigantsA to which )etitioner *ntonio *lguraPs Pa: 'li) showing a gross monthl: income o3 PhP 1(A4 4@(( and a net )a: o3 PhP 3A616@&& 3or the month o3 Jul: 1&&&@ *lso attached is the -erti3ication issued +: the 833ice o3 the -it: *ssessor o3 Naga -it:A which stated that )etitioners had no )ro)ert: declared in their name 3or ta%ation )ur)oses@ 2inding that )etitionersP motion to litigate as indigent litigants was meritoriousA )etitioners were e%em)ted 3rom 3iling 3ees@ ,eanwhileA as a result o3 said demolition was the lost o3 < monthl: rental which caused the insu33icienc: o3 the meager income o3 *lguraPs sari0sari store and *ntonioPs small ta4e home )a: 3or the e%)enses o3 the s)ouses and their 6 children 3or their +asic needs including 3oodA +illsA clothesA and schooling@ $es)ondents 3iled an *nswer with -ounterclaim arguing that the de3enses o3 the )etitioners in the com)laint had no cause o3 actionA the s)ousesP +oarding house +loc4ed the road right o3 wa:A and said structure was a nuisance per se@ Pra:ing that the counterclaim o3 de3endants Lres)ondentsO +e dismissedA )etitioners then 3iled their $e)l: with (#0Parte. ,otion to Dis9uali3: Petitioners as Indigent Litigants was 3iled@ &ssue? ?8N )etitioners should +e considered as indigent litigants who 9uali3: 3or e%em)tion 3rom )a:ing 3iling 3ees@

@eld? 05'@ $ule 3A 'ection 21 o3 said 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA as 3ollowsI Sec ion ;,. &ndigent party@Q* )art: ma: +e authori"ed to litigate his actionA claim or de3ense as an indigent i3 the courtA u)on an e# parte a))lication and hearingA is satis3ied that the )art: is one who has no mone: or )ro)ert: su33icient and availa+le 3or 3oodA shelter and +asic necessities 3or himsel3 and his 3amil:@ 'uch authorit: shall include an e%em)tion 3rom )a:ment o3 doc4et and other law3ul 3eesA and o3 transcri)ts o3 stenogra)hic notes which the court ma: order to +e 3urnished him@ The amount o3 the doc4et and other law3ul 3ees which the indigent was e%em)ted 3rom )a:ing shall +e a lien on an: /udgment rendered in the case 3avora+le to the indigentA unless the court otherwise )rovides@ 8n ,arch 1A 2(((A $ule 141 on Legal 2ees was amended +: the -ourt in *@,@ No@ ((>2>(1>'-A where+: certain 3ees were increased or ad/usted@ In this $esolutionA the -ourt amended 'ection 16 o3 $ule 141A ma4ing it 'ection 1#A which now readsI Sec ion ,-. Pauper0litigants e#empt from payment of legal fees. QPau)er litigants LaO whose gross income and that o3 their immediate 3amil: do not e%ceed 3our thousand LP4A(((@((O )esos a month i3 residing in ,etro ,anilaA and three thousand LP3A(((@((O )esos a month i3 residing outside ,etro ,anilaA and L+O who do not own real )ro)ert: with an assessed value o3 more than 3i3t: thousand LP5(A(((@((O )esos shall +e e%em)t 3rom the )a:ment o3 legal 3ees@ The legal 3ees shall +e a lien on an: /udgment rendered in the case 3avora+l: to the )au)er litigantA unless the court otherwise )rovides@ To +e entitled to the e%em)tion herein )rovidedA the litigant shall e%ecute an a33idavit that he and his immediate 3amil: do not earn the gross income a+ovementionedA nor do the: own an: real )ro)ert: with the assessed value a3orementionedA su))orted +: an a33idavit o3 a disinterested )erson attesting to the truth o3 the litigantPs a33idavit@ *n: 3alsit: in the a33idavit o3 a litigant or disinterested )erson shall +e su33icient cause to stri4e out the )leading o3 that )art:A without )re/udice to whatever criminal lia+ilit: ma: have +een incurred@

The rule on )au)er litigants was inserted in $ule 141 7i ho% re1okin/ or amen5in/ 'ection 21 o3 $ule 3A which )rovides 3or the e%em)tion o3 )au)er litigants 3rom )a:ment o3 3iling 3ees@ ThusA on ,arch 1A 2(((A here 7ere 7o e8is in/ r%les on pa%per li i/an s N namel:A R%le D6

Sec ion ;, and R%le ,E,6 Sec ion ,-@ 8n *ugust 16A 2((4A 'ection 1# o3 $ule 141 was 3urther amended in *dministrative ,atter No@ (4>2>(4>'-A which +ecame e33ective on the same date@ It then +ecame 'ection 1& o3 $ule 141A to witI Sec. ,B. .ndigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees UINDI15NT LITI1*NT' L*O W4)SE GR)SS INC)ME AND T4AT )& T4EIR IMMEDIATE &AMIL< D) N)T ERCEED AN AM)(NT D)(!LE T4E M)NT4L< MINIM(M WAGE )& AN EMPL)<EE *ND L!O ?.8 D8 N8T 8?N $5*L P$8P5$T0 ?IT. * 2*I$ ,*$<5T 7*L65 *' 'T*T5D IN T.5 -6$$5NT T*D D5-L*$*TI8N 82 ,8$5 T.*N T.$55 .6ND$5D T.86'*ND LP3((A(((@((O P5'8' S4ALL !E EREMPT &R)M PA<MENT )& LEGAL &EES@ The legal 3ees shall +e a lien on an: /udgment rendered in the case 3avora+le to the indigent litigant unless the court otherwise )rovides@ To be en i le5 o he e8emp ion herein pro1i5e56 he li i/an shall e8ec% e an a22i5a1i ha he an5 his imme5ia e 2amily 5o no earn a /ross income abo1emen ione56 an5 hey 5o no o7n any real proper y 7i h he 2air 1al%e a2oremen ione56 s%ppor e5 by an a22i5a1i o2 a 5isin eres e5 person a es in/ o he r% h o2 he li i/an Gs a22i5a1i . The current ta% declarationA i3 an:A shall +e attached to the litigantPs a33idavit@ In the case at +arA the -om)laint was 3iled on 'e)tem+er 1A 1&&&@ .oweverA the Naga -it: $T-A in its *)ril 14A 2((( and Jul: 1 A 2((( 8rdersA incorrec ly applie5 R%le ,E,6 Sec ion ,on Le/al &ees %hen the applicable rules at that time %ere R%le D6 Sec ion ;, on In5i/en Par y which too4 e33ect on Jul: 1A 1&& and R%le ,E,6 Sec ion ,. on Pa%per Li i/an s which +ecame e33ective on Jul: 1&A 1&#4 u) to 2e+ruar: 2#A 2(((@ Petitioners su+mitted the *33idavits o3 )etitioner Lorencita *lgura and neigh+or 5rlinda !angateA the )a: sli) o3 )etitioner *ntonio showing a gross monthl: income o3 PhP 1(A4 4@((A E21F and a -erti3ication o3 the Naga -it: assessor stating that )etitioners do not have )ro)ert: declared in their names 3or ta%ation@ 6ndou+tedl:A )etitioners do not own real )ro)ert: as shown +: the -erti3ication o3 the Naga -it: assessor and so the )ro)ert: re9uirement is met@ .owever with res)ect to the income re9uirementA it is clear that the gross monthl: income o3 PhP 1(A4 4@(( o3 )etitioner *ntonio 2@ *lgura and the PhP 3A(((@(( income o3 Lorencita *lgura when com+inedA were a+ove the PhP 1A5((@(( monthl: income threshold )rescri+ed +: then $ule 141A 'ection 16 and there3oreA the income re9uirement was not satis3ied@ The trial court was there3ore correct in dis9uali3:ing )etitioners *lguras as indigent litigants although the court should have a))lied $ule 141A 'ection 16 which was in e33ect at the time o3 the 3iling o3 the a))lication on 'e)tem+er 1A 1&&&@ 5ven i3 $ule 141A 'ection 1# Lwhich su)erseded $ule 141A 'ection 16 on ,arch 1A 2(((O were a))liedA still the a))lication could not have +een granted as the com+ined PhP 13A4 4@(( income o3 )etitioners was +e:ond the PhP 3A(((@(( monthl: income threshold@ 6nrelentingA )etitioners however argue in their ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 the *)ril 14A 2(((

8rder dis9uali3:ing them as indigent litigants E23F that the rules have +een rela%ed +: rel:ing on $ule 3A 'ection 21 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil )rocedure which authori"es )arties to litigate their action as indigents i3 the court is satis3ied that the )art: is Cone who has no mone: or )ro)ert: su33icient and availa+le 3or 3oodA shelter and +asic necessities 3or himsel3 and his 3amil:@J The trial court did not give credence to this view o3 )etitioners and sim)l: a))lied $ule 141 +ut ignored $ule 3A 'ection 21 on Indigent Part:@ The -ourt concedes that $ule 141A 'ection 1& )rovides s)eci3ic standards while $ule 3A 'ection 21 does not clearl: draw the limits o3 the entitlement to the e%em)tion@ <nowing that the litigants ma: a+use the grant o3 authorit:A the trial court must use sound discretion and scrutini"e evidence strictl: in granting e%em)tionsA aware that the a))licant has not hurdled the )recise standards under $ule 141@ The trial court must also guard against a+use and misuse o3 the )rivilege to litigate as an indigent litigant to )revent the 3iling o3 e%or+itant claims which would otherwise +e regulated +: a legal 3ee re9uirement@ ThusA the trial court should have a))lied $ule 3A 'ection 21 to the a))lication o3 the *lguras a3ter their a33idavits and su))orting documents showed that )etitioners did not satis3: the twin re9uirements on gross monthl: income and ownershi) o3 real )ro)ert: under $ule 141@ Instead o3 dis9uali3:ing the *lguras as indigent litigantsA the trial court should have called a hearing as re9uired +: $ule 3A 'ection 21 to ena+le the )etitioners to adduce evidence to show that the: didnPt have )ro)ert: and mone: su33icient and availa+le 3or 3oodA shelterA and +asic necessities 3or them and their 3amil:@ In that hearingA the res)ondents would have had the right to also )resent evidence to re3ute the allegations and evidence in su))ort o3 the a))lication o3 the )etitioners to litigate as indigent litigants@ 'ince this -ourt is not a trier o3 3actsA it will have to remand the case to the trial court to determine whether )etitioners can +e considered as indigent litigants using the standards set in $ule 3A 'ection 21@ $eca)itulating the rules on indigent litigantsA there3oreA i3 the a))licant 3or e%em)tion meets the salar: and )ro)ert: re9uirements under 'ection 1& o3 $ule 141A then the grant o3 the a))lication is mandator:@ 8n the other handA when the a))lication does not satis3: one or +oth re9uirementsA then the a))lication should not +e denied outrightN insteadA the court should a))l: the Cindigenc: testJ under 'ection 21 o3 $ule 3 and use its sound discretion in determining the merits o3 the )ra:er 3or e%em)tion@ JudgmentI Petition is GRANTED and the 8rder granting the dis9uali3ication o3 )etitioners and 8rder den:ing )etitionersP ,otion 3or $econsiderationA and 8rder dismissing the case in -ivil -ase are ANN(LLED and SET ASIDE@ 2urthermoreA the Naga -it: $T- is ordered to set the C (#0Parte ,otion to Litigate as Indigent LitigantsJ 3or hearing and a))l: $ule 3A 'ection 21 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure to determine whether )etitioners can 9uali3: as indigent litigants@

+,AK EMNACE 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS )he Case? Petition 3or $eview on -ertiorari@ ;acts? Petitioner 5milio 5mnaceA 7icente Ta+anao and Jacinto Divinagracia were )artners in a +usiness concern 4nown as ,a@ Nelma 2ishing Industr:@ 'ometime in Januar: o3 1&#6A a3ter DivinagraciaPs withdrawal 3rom the )artnershi)A the: decided to dissolve their )artnershi) and e%ecuted an agreement o3 )artition and distri+ution o3 the )artnershi) )ro)erties among them@ *mong the assets to +e distri+uted were 5 3ishing +oatsA 6 vehiclesA 2 )arcels o3 land located at 'to@ NiVo and Talisa:A Negros 8ccidentalA and cash de)osits in the local +ranches o3 the !PI and Prudential !an4@ Throughout the e%istence o3 the )artnershi)A and even a3ter Ta+anaoGs deathA )etitioner 3ailed to su+mit to Ta+anaoGs heirs an: statement o3 assets and lia+ilities o3 the )artnershi)A and to render an accounting o3 the )artnershi)Gs 3inances@ Petitioner also reneged on his )romise to turn over to Ta+anaoGs heirs the deceasedGs 1B3 share in the total assets o3 the )artnershi)A amounting to P3(, or the sum o3 P1(,A des)ite 3ormal demand@ .enceA Ta+anaoG s heirsA res)ondents hereinA 3iled against )etitioner an action 3or accountingA )a:ment o3 sharesA division o3 assets and damages@ Petitioner 3iled a motion to dismiss the com)laint on the grounds o3 im)ro)er venueA lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the nature o3 the action or suitA and lac4 o3 ca)acit: o3 the estate o3 Ta+anao to sue@ T- denied the motion to dismiss@ It held that venue was )ro)erl: laid +ecauseA while realties were involvedA the action was directed against a )articular )erson on the +asis o3 his )ersonal lia+ilit:N henceA the action is not onl: a )ersonal action +ut also an action in personam. *s regards )etitionerGs argument o3 lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the action +ecause the )rescri+ed doc4et 3ee was not )aid considering the huge amount involved in the claimA the T- noted that a re9uest 3or accounting was made in order that the e%act value o3 the )artnershi) ma: +e ascertained andA thusA the correct doc4et 3ee ma: +e )aid@ 2inall:A the trial court held that the heirs o3 Ta+anao had a right to sue in their own namesA in view o3 the )rovision o3 *rticle o3 the -ivil -odeA which states that the rights to the succession are transmitted 3rom the moment o3 the death o3 the decedent@ Therea3terA res)ondents 3iled an amended com)laintA incor)orating the additional )ra:er that )etitioner +e ordered to Hsell all Lthe )artnershi)GsO assets and therea3ter )a:BremitBdeliverBsurrenderB:ield to the )lainti33sH their corres)onding share in the )roceeds thereo3@ Petitioner then 3iled a mani3estation and motion to dismissA arguing that the trial court did not ac9uire /urisdiction over the case due to the )lainti33sG 3ailure to )a: the )ro)er doc4et 3ees@ T- denied the motion to dismiss inasmuch as the grounds raised therein were +asicall: the same as the earlier motion to dismiss which has +een denied@ &ssues? 1O ?8N res)ondent Judge acted without /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion in ta4ing cogni"ance o3 a case des)ite the 3ailure to )a: the re9uired doc4et 3ee@ 2O ?8N res)ondent Judge acted without /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion in insisting to tr: the case which involve a )arcel o3 land situated outside o3 its territorial /urisdiction@

3O ?8N res)ondent Judge acted without /urisdiction or with grave a+use o3 discretion in allowing the estate o3 the deceased to a))ear as )art: )lainti33A when there is no intestate case and 3iled +: one who was never a))ointed +: the court as administratri% o3 the estates@ @eld? 1O 05'@ The T- does not have to em)lo: guesswor4 in ascertaining the estimated value o3 the )artnershi)Gs assetsA 3or res)ondents themselves voluntaril: )egged the worth thereo3 at P3(,@ .enceA this case is one which is reall: not +e:ond )ecuniar: estimationA +ut rather )arta4es o3 the nature o3 a sim)le collection case where the value o3 the su+/ect assets or amount demanded is )ecuniaril: determina+le@ ?hile it is true that the e%act value o3 the )artnershi)Gs total assets cannot +e shown with certaint: at the time o3 3ilingA res)ondents can and must ascertainA through in3ormed and )ractical estimationA the amount the: e%)ect to collect 3rom the )artnershi)A )articularl: 3rom )etitionerA in order to determine the )ro)er amount o3 doc4et and other 3ees@ It is thus im)erative 3or res)ondents to )a: the corres)onding doc4et 3ees in order that the trial court ma: ac9uire /urisdiction over the action@ The rule a))lica+le to the case at +ar is 'ection 5LaO o3 $ule 141 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA which de3ines the two 4inds o3 claims asI L1O those which are immediatel: ascertaina+leN and L2O those which cannot +e immediatel: ascertained as to the e%act amount@ This second class o3 claimsA where the e%act amount still has to +e 3inall: determined +: the courts +ased on evidence )resentedA 3alls s9uarel: under the third )aragra)h o3 said 'ection 5LaOA which )rovidesI In case the value o3 the )ro)ert: or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in accordance with the a))raisal o3 the courtA the di33erence o3 3ee shall +e re3unded or )aid as the case ma: +e@ The matter o3 )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees is not a mere trivialit:@ These 3ees are necessar: to de3ra: court e%)enses in the handling o3 cases@ -onse9uentl:A in order to avoid tremendous losses to the /udiciar:A and to the government as wellA the )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees cannot +e made de)endent on the outcome o3 the caseA e%ce)t when the claimant is a )au)er>litigant@ $es)ondents have a s)eci3ic claim > 1B3 o3 the value o3 all the )artnershi) assets > +ut the: did not allege a s)eci3ic amount@ The: didA howeverA estimate the )artnershi)Gs total assets to +e worth P3(,A in a letter addressed to )etitioner@ $es)ondents cannot now sa: that the: are una+le to ma4e an estimateA 3or the said letter and the admissions therein 3orm )art o3 the records o3 this case@ The: cannot avoid )a:ing the initial doc4et 3ees +: convenientl: omitting the said amount in their amended com)laint@ This estimate can +e made the +asis 3or the initial doc4et 3ees that res)ondents should )a:@ 5ven i3 it were later esta+lished that the amount )roved was less or more than the amount alleged or estimatedA $ule 141A 'ection 5LaO o3 the $ules o3 -ourt s)eci3icall: )rovides that the court ma: re3und the Ge%cess or e%act additional 3ees should the initial )a:ment +e insu33icient@ It is clear that it is onl: the di33erence +etween the amount 3inall: awarded and the 3ees )aid u)on 3iling o3 this com)laint that is su+/ect to ad/ustment and which ma: +e su+/ected to alien@

2O N8@ 8n the matter o3 im)ro)er venueA the case is a )ersonal action whichA under the $ulesA ma: +e commenced and tried where the de3endant resides or ma: +e 3oundA or where the )lainti33s resideA at the election o3 the latter@ PetitionerA howeverA insists that venue was im)ro)erl: laid since the action is a real action involving a )arcel o3 land that is located outside the territorial /urisdiction o3 the court a 9uo@ This contention is not well>ta4en@ The records indu+ita+l: show that res)ondents are as4ing that the assets o3 the )artnershi) +e accounted 3orA sold and distri+uted according to the agreement o3 the )artners@ The 3act that two o3 the assets o3 the )artnershi) are )arcels o3 land does not materiall: change the nature o3 the action@ It is an action in )ersonam +ecause it is an action against a )ersonA namel:A )etitionerA on the +asis o3 his )ersonal lia+ilit:@ It is not an action in rem where the action is against the thing itsel3 instead o3 against the )erson@ 2urthermoreA there is no showing that the )arcels o3 land involved in this case are +eing dis)uted@ In 3actA it is onl: incidental that )art o3 the assets o3 the )artnershi) under li9uidation ha))en to +e )arcels o3 land@ The action 3iled +: res)ondents not onl: see4s redress against )etitioner@ It also see4s the en3orcement o3A and )etitionerGs com)liance withA the contract that the )artners e%ecuted to 3ormali"e the )artnershi)Gs dissolutionA as well as to im)lement the li9uidation and )artition o3 the )artnershi)Gs assets@ -learl:A it is a )ersonal action thatA in e33ectA claims a de+t 3rom )etitioner and see4s the )er3ormance o3 a )ersonal dut: on his )art@ In 3ineA res)ondentsG com)laint see4ing the li9uidation and )artition o3 the assets o3 the )artnershi) with damages is a )ersonal action which ma: +e 3iled in the )ro)er court where an: o3 the )arties reside@ !esidesA venue has nothing to do with /urisdiction 3or venue touches more u)on the su+stance or merits o3 the case@ *s it isA venue in this case was )ro)erl: laid and the trial court correctl: ruled so@ 3O N8@ The surviving s)ouse does not need to +e a))ointed as e%ecutri% or administratri% o3 the estate +e3ore she can 3ile the action@ 'he and her children are com)lainants in their own right as successors o3 Ta+anao@ 2rom the ver: moment o3 Ta+anaoG s deathA his rights inso3ar as the )artnershi) was concerned were transmitted to his heirsA 3or rights to the succession are transmitted 3rom the moment o3 death o3 the decedent@ ?hatever claims and rights Ta+anao had against the )artnershi) and )etitioner were transmitted to res)ondents +: o)eration o3 lawA more )articularl: +: successionA which is a mode o3 ac9uisition +: virtue o3 which the )ro)ert:A rights and o+ligations to the e%tent o3 the value o3 the inheritance o3 a )erson are transmitted@ ,oreoverA res)ondents +ecame owners o3 their res)ective hereditar: shares 3rom the moment Ta+anao died@ * )rior settlement o3 the estateA or even the a))ointment o3 'alvacion Ta+anao as e%ecutri% or administratri%A is not necessar: 3or an: o3 the heirs to ac9uire legal ca)acit: to sue@ *s successors who ste))ed into the shoes o3 their decedent u)on his deathA the: can commence an: action originall: )ertaining to the decedent@ 2rom the moment o3 his deathA his rights as a )artner and to demand 3ul3illment o3 )etitionerGs o+ligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement were transmitted to res)ondents@ The:A there3oreA had the ca)acit: to sue and see4 the courtGs intervention to com)el )etitioner to 3ul3ill his o+ligations@ JudgmentI

Petition is DENIED 3or lac4 o3 meritA and the case is REMANDED to the $T- o3 -adi" -it:A which is )RDERED to determine the )ro)er doc4et 3ee +ased on the estimated amount that )lainti33s therein see4 to collectA and direct said )lainti33s to )a: the same within a reasona+le timeA )rovided the a))lica+le )rescri)tive or reglementar: )eriod has not :et e%)ired@

+,A,

P(NSALAN6 'R. 1s. NDA. DE LACSAMANA )he Case? Petition 3or $eview on -ertiorari ;acts? Petitioner was the 3ormer registered owner o3 a )arcel o3 land consisting o3 34( s9@ m@ in !am+anA Tarlac@ In 1&63A )etitioner mortgaged said land to res)ondent PN! LTarlac !ranchO in the amount o3 P1(A(((@((A +ut 3or 3ailure to )a: said amountA the )ro)ert: was 3oreclosed@ PN! LTarlac !ranchO was the highest +idder@ .oweverA while the )ro)erl: was still in the alleged )ossession o3 )etitioner and with the alleged ac9uiescence o3 PN!A and u)on securing a )ermit 3rom the ,unici)al ,a:orA )etitioner constructed a warehouse on said )ro)ert:@ Petitioner declared said warehouse 3or ta% )ur)oses and leased it to 'i+al 3or 1( :ears@ Therea3terA a Deed o3 'ale was e%ecuted +etween res)ondent PN! and Lacsamana over the )ro)ert: including the +uilding and im)rovement thereon@ !: virtue o3 said instrumentsA Lacsamana secured title and se)arate ta% declarations 3or the land and +uilding@ Petitioner then commenced suit 3or H*nnulment o3 Deed o3 'ale with DamagesH against PN! and Lacsamana +e3ore -2I o3 $i"al@ $es)ondent Lacsamana averred the a33irmative de3ense o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action in that she was a )urchaser 3or value and invo4ed the )rinci)le in -ivil Law that the Haccessor: 3ollows the )rinci)alH@ $es)ondent PN! then 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss on the ground that venue was im)ro)erl: laid considering that the +uilding was real )ro)ert: under article 415 L1O o3 the New -ivil -ode and there3ore section 2LaO o3 $ule 4 should a))l:@ 8))osing said ,otion to DismissA )etitioner contended that the action 3or annulment o3 deed o3 sale with damages is in the nature o3 a )ersonal actionA which see4s to recover not the title nor )ossession o3 the )ro)ert: +ut to com)el )a:ment o3 damagesA which is not an action a33ecting title to real )ro)ert:@ -2I granted PN!Gs ,otion to Dismiss@ The ,otion 3or $econsideration 3iled therea3ter was also denied 3or lac4 o3 merit@ Petitioner then 3iled a ,otion to 'et -ase 3or Pre>trialA in so 3ar as res)ondent Lacsamana was concernedA as the issues had alread: +een /oined with the 3iling o3 res)ondent LacsamanaGs *nswer@ $es)ondent -ourt denied said ,otion@ .enceA this )etition 3or certiorari@

&ssue? ?8N res)ondent -ourt erred in den:ing the ,otion to 'et -ase 3or Pre>trial with res)ect to res)ondent $emedios 7da@ de Lacsamana as the case had +een dismissed on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue u)on motion o3 co>res)ondent PN!@

@eld?

N8@ The warehouse claimed to +e owned +: )etitioner is an immova+le or real )ro)ert: as )rovided in article 415LlO o3 the -ivil -ode@ !uildings are alwa:s immova+le under the -ode@ * +uilding treated se)aratel: 3rom the land on which it stood is immova+le )ro)ert: and the mere 3act that the )arties to a contract seem to have dealt with it se)arate and a)art 3rom the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immova+le )ro)ert:@ ?hile it is true that )etitioner does not directl: see4 the recover: o3 title or )ossession o3 the )ro)ert: in 9uestionA his action 3or annulment o3 sale and his claim 3or damages are closel: intertwined with the issue o3 ownershi) o3 the +uilding whichA under the lawA is considered immova+le )ro)ert:A the recover: o3 which is )etitionerGs )rimar: o+/ective@ The )revalent doctrine is that an action 3or the annulment or rescission o3 a sale o3 real )ro)ert: does not o)erate to e33ace the 3undamental and )rime o+/ective and nature o3 the caseA which is to recover said real )ro)ert:@ It is a real action@ PetitionerGs other contention that the case should )roceed in so 3ar as res)ondent Lacsamana is concerned as she had alread: 3iled an *nswerA which did not allege im)ro)er venue andA there3oreA issues had alread: +een /oinedA is li4ewise untena+le@ $es)ondent PN! is an indis)ensa+le )art: as the validit: o3 the *mended -ontract o3 'ale +etween the 3ormer and res)ondent Lacsamana is in issue@ It wouldA indeedA +e 3utile to )roceed with the case against res)ondent Lacsamana alone@ Judgment? Petition is denied without )re/udice to the re3iling o3 the case +: )etitioner *ntonio PunsalanA Jr@ in the )ro)er 3orum@

+,A;

G) 1s. (CP! )he Case? Petition 3or $eview on -ertiorari@ ;acts? Petitioner and Loo:u4o are co>owners o3 NoahPs *r4 InternationalA NoahPs *r4 'ugar -arriersA NoahPs *r4 'ugar Truc4ersA NoahPs *r4 'ugar $e)ac4erA NoahPs *r4 'ugar InsurersA NoahPs *r4 'ugar TerminalA NoahPs *r4 'ugar !uildingA and NoahPs *r4 'ugar $e3iner:@ In 1&&6A said co>owners a))lied 3or an 8mni+us Line accommodation with res)ondent in the amount o3 P&((, and was 3avora+l: acted u)on +: the latter@ The transaction was secured +: $5, over )arcels o3 land located at ,andalu:ong -it: and registered in the name o3 ,r@ Loo:u4o amn another land located at ,andalu:ong -it: registered in the name o3 NoahPs *r4 'ugar $e3iner:@ * :ear a3terA the a))roved 8mni+us Line accommodation was cancelled@ .enceA )etitioner demanded 3rom 6-P! the return o3 the 2 T-Ts covered +: $5,s@ 6-P! re3used to return the same and )roceeded to have the 2 )re>signed $5,s and registered them +e3ore the $D o3 ,andalu:ong -it:@ Therea3terA 6-P! 3iled with the 833ice o3 the -ler4 o3 -ourt and 5%>833icio 'heri33 o3 ,andalu:ong -it: an e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure o3 $5,A 3or non)a:ment o3 the o+ligation secured +: said mortgage@ To )rotect his interestA )etitioner 3iled a com)laint 3or -ancellation o3 $5, and damagesA with )ra:er 3or T$8 andBor writ o3 )reliminar: in/unctionA against 6-P! with the $T- o3 Pasig -it:@ 8n the other handA 6-P!A instead o3 3iling an answerA 3iled a motion to dismiss +ased on the 3ollowing groundsI 1O that the court has no /urisdiction over the case due to non)a:ment o3 the )ro)er 3iling and doc4et 3eesN 2O that the com)laint was 3iled in the wrong venueN 3O an indis)ensa+le )art:Breal )art: in interest was not im)leaded andA there3oreA the com)laint states no cause o3 actionN 4O that the com)laint was im)ro)erl: veri3iedN and 5O that )etitioner is guilt: o3 3orum sho))ing and su+mitted an insu33icient and 3alse certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ing@ The T- granted the writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction +ut denied 6-P!Ps motion to dismiss and the su+se9uent motion 3or reconsideration@ 6-P! 9uestioned said orders +e3ore the -* via a )etition 3or certiorariA which was denied@ The -* set aside the orders issued +: T- and directed it to dismiss the case on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue@ * motion 3or reconsideration was 3iled +: )etitionerA which was denied@ .enceA this )etition 3or review on certiorari@ &ssue? ?8N )etitionerPs com)laint 3or cancellation o3 $5, is a )ersonal or real action 3or the )ur)ose o3 determining venue@ @eld? $5*L *-TI8N@ In a real actionA the )lainti33 see4s the recover: o3 real )ro)ert:A or as )rovided 3or in 'ection 1A $ule 4A a real action is an action a33ecting title to or )ossession o3 real )ro)ert:A or interest therein@ These include )artition or condemnation o3A or 3oreclosure o3 mortgage onA real )ro)ert:@ The venue 3or real actions is the same 3or regional trial courts and munici)al trial courts >> the court which has territorial /urisdiction over the area where the real )ro)ert: or an: )art thereo3 lies@

Personal action is one +rought 3or the recover: o3 )ersonal )ro)ert:A 3or the en3orcement o3 some contract or recover: o3 damages 3or its +reachA or 3or the recover: o3 damages 3or the commission o3 an in/ur: to the )erson or )ro)ert:@ The venue 3or )ersonal actions is li4ewise the same 3or the regional and munici)al trial courts >> the court o3 the )lace where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )rinci)al )lainti33s residesA or where the de3endant or an: o3 the )rinci)al de3endants residesA at the election o3 the )lainti33A as indicated in 'ection 2 o3 $ule 4@ It is 9uite clear then that the controlling 3actor in determining venue 3or cases o3 the a+ove nature is the )rimar: o+/ective 3or which said cases are 3iled@ Petitioner in this case contends that a case 3or cancellation o3 mortgage is a )ersonal action and since he resides at Pasig -it:A venue was )ro)erl: laid therein@ .e tries to ma4e a )oint +: alluding to the case o3 2rancisco '@ .ernande" v@ $ural !an4 o3 Lucena@ .oweverA )etitionerPs reliance in the said case is mis)laced@ 2irstl:A it was )rimaril: an action to com)el the mortgagee +an4 to acce)t )a:ment o3 the mortgage de+t and to release the mortgage@ That actionA which is not e%)ressl: included in the enumeration 3ound in 'ection 2LaO o3 $ule 4 o3 the 8ld -ivil Procedure and now under 'ection 1A $ule 4 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA does not involve titles to the mortgaged lots@ It is a )ersonal action and not a real action@ The mortgagee has not 3oreclosed the mortgage@ The )lainti33sP title is not in 9uestion@ The: are in )ossession o3 the mortgaged lots@ .enceA the venue o3 the )lainti33sP )ersonal action is the )lace where the de3endant or an: o3 the de3endants resides or ma: +e 3oundA or where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )lainti33s residesA at the election o3 the )lainti33@ In the case at +arA the action 3or cancellation o3 real estate mortgage 3iled +: herein )etitioner was )rimaril: an action to com)el )rivate res)ondent +an4 to return to him the )ro)erties covered over which the +an4 had alread: initiated 3oreclosure )roceedings +ecause o3 the cancellation +: the said res)ondent +an4 o3 the omni+us credit line@ The )rime o+/ective is to recover said real )ro)erties@ 'econdl:A -arandang distinctl: articulated that the ruling in .ernande" does not a))l: where the mortgaged )ro)ert: had alread: +een 3oreclosed@ .ereA and as correctl: )ointed out +: the a))ellate courtA res)ondent +an4 had alread: initiated e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure )roceedingsA and were it not 3or the timel: issuance o3 a restraining order secured +: )etitioner 1o in the lower courtA the same would have alread: +een sold at a )u+lic auction@ In sumA the cancellation o3 the real estate mortgageA su+/ect o3 the instant )etitionA is a real actionA considering that a real estate mortgage is a real right and a real )ro)ert: +: itsel3@ *n action 3or cancellation o3 real estate mortgage is necessaril: an action a33ecting the title to the )ro)ert:@ It isA there3oreA a real action which should +e commenced and tried in ,andalu:ong -it:A the )lace where the su+/ect )ro)ert: lies@ Judgment? Petition is D5NI5D 3or lac4 o3 merit@ The assailed decision den:ing the motion 3or reconsideration are here+: *22I$,5D@

+,AD A(CTI)N IN MALINTA6 INC. 1s. WARREN EM!ES L(<A!EN

)he Case? *ssailed in this )etition 3or review under $ule 45 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt is the Decision o3 the -*A which held that venue was )ro)erl: laid +e3ore the $T- <alingaA and reversed the T-Ps $esolution dismissing the com)laint o3 res)ondent ?arren 5m+es Lu+a:en on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue@ ;acts? $es)ondentA a resident o3 Ta+u4A <alingaA 3iled with the <alinga $T- a com)laint 3or damages against )etitioner *uction in ,alintaA Inc@A a cor)oration with +usiness address at ,alintaA 7alen"uela -it:A and engaged in )u+lic auction o3 heav: e9ui)mentsA truc4sA and assorted machineries@ $es)ondent alleged that in an auction conducted +: )etitionerA he was declared the highest +idder 3or a wheel loader@ * month a3terA res)ondent tendered the )a:ment 3or the said item +ut )etitioner could no longer )roduce the loader@ It o33ered a re)lacement +ut 3ailed to deliver the same u) to the 3iling o3 the com)laint@ .enceA res)ondent instituted this case to recover actualA moralA and e%em)lar: damages )lus attorne:Ps 3ees@ Petitioner 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue@ It argued that the correct venue is the $T- o3 7alen"uela -it: )ursuant to the sti)ulation in the !idders *))lication and $egistration !idding *greement which states thatI *LL -86$T LITI1*TI8N P$8-5D6$5' '.*LL !5 -8ND6-T5D IN T.5 *PP$8P$I*T5 -86$T' 82 7*L5N=65L* -IT0A ,5T$8 ,*NIL*@ <alinga $T- held that the clear intention o3 the )arties was to limit the venue to the )ro)er court o3 7alen"uela -it: and thus dismissed res)ondentPs com)laint on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue@ $es)ondent a))ealed to the -* which reversed the said $esolution and reinstated the com)laint@ PetitionerPs motion 3or reconsideration was deniedN henceA the instant )etition@ &ssue? ?8N the sti)ulation in the )artiesP !idders *))lication and $egistration !idding *greement e33ectivel: limited the venue o3 the instant case e%clusivel: to the )ro)er court o3 7alen"uela -it:@ @eld? N8@ The general rule on the venue o3 )ersonal actionsA as in the instant case 3or damages 3iled +: res)ondentA is em+odied in 'ection 2A $ule 4 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ It )rovidesI 'ec@ 2@ 7enue o3 )ersonal actions@ U *ll other actions ma: +e commenced and tried where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )rinci)al )lainti33s residesA or where the de3endant or an: o3 the )rinci)al de3endants residesA or in the case o3 a nonresident de3endantA where he ma: +e 3oundA at the election o3 the )lainti33@ The a3ore9uoted ruleA howeverA 3inds no a))lication where the )artiesA +e3ore the 3iling o3 the actionA have validl: agreed in writing on an e%clusive venue@ !ut the mere sti)ulation on the venue o3 an action is not enough to )reclude )arties 3rom +ringing a case in other venues@ It

must +e shown that such sti)ulation is e%clusive@ In the a+sence o3 9uali3:ing or restrictive wordsA such as Le#clusivelyM and L%aiving for this purpose any other venue"M Cshall onl:J )receding the designation o3 venueA Lto the e#clusion of the other courts"M or words o3 similar im)ortA the sti)ulation should +e deemed as merel: an agreement on an additional 3orumA not as limiting venue to the s)eci3ied )lace@ Judgment? Petition is D5NI5D@ The Decision o3 the -* is reinstatedN remanded the case to the said courtA is *22I$,5D@

+,AE

P4ILIPPINE !AN#ING C)RP)RATI)N6 1s. SALNAD)R S. TENS(AN6 '%5/e o2 Re/ional Trial Co%r 6 Na ional Capi al Re/ion6 !ranch ,E. G.R. No. ,KE.EB &ebr%ary ;-6 ,BBE &ACTS3

he

PetitionerA Phili))ine !an4ing -or)orationA 3iled a com)laint with )ra:er 3or )reliminar: attachment on Decem+er 5A 1&&1 against )rivate res)ondents hereinA !rinell ,etal ?or4s -or)oration and ')ouses Jose and Nall: *ngA 3or collection o3 a loan evidenced +: two L2O )romissor: notes@ $es)ondent court issued an order granting the )etitionerGs )ra:er 3or the issuance o3 writ o3 )reliminar: attachment@ Therea3terA )rivate res)ondents 3iled with the res)ondent court a motion to dismiss on the grounds o3 LaO lac4 o3 /urisdiction over the )ersons o3 the de3endantsN and L+O im)ro)er venue@ The: claim that summons was served on de3endant cor)orationGs customer who was not authori"ed to receive the same 3or and in +ehal3 o3 the cor)oration@ The: li4ewise o+/ect to the venue claiming that the )lainti33s com)laint is +ased on two )romissor: notes which commonl: declareA among othersI &JA( @(*(BD (NP*(SS6D S$BM&) )O )@( J$*&S'&C)&O7 O; )@( CO$*)S O; MA7&6A" A7D 6(>A6 AC)&O7 A@&C@ MAD A*&S( O$) O; )@&S P*OM&SSO*D 7O)(. 0 $es)ondent -ourt granted the said motion to dismiss on the grounds o3 im)ro)riet: o3 venue@ Petitioner moved 3or reconsideration o3 the a3oresaid order granting the motion to dismiss anchored on the ground that in view o3 the a+sence o3 9uali3:ing or restrictive words in the agreement which would indicate that ,anila alone is the venue agreed u)on +: the )artiesA the )lainti33s still has the choice to 3ile the action in the )lace o3 his PetitionerGs motion 3or reconsideration was denied and held that that the )ro)er court o3 ,anila on a rationale that neither )art: reserved the right to choose venue as )rovided 3or in 'ection 2L+OA $ule 4 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA as would have +een done had the )arties intended to retain such right o3 election@ ISSS(E3 ?hether or not the res)ondent court erred in holding that the venue o3 the action was im)ro)erl: laid@ 4ELD3 0es@ *s a general ruleA all )ersonal actions ma: +e commenced and tried where the de3endant or an: o3 the de3endants resides or ma: +e 3oundA or where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )lainti33s residesA at the election o3 the )lainti33@ .oweverA +: written agreement o3 the )artiesA the venue o3 an action ma: +e changed or trans3erred 3rom one )rovince to another@ !esides when im)ro)er venue is not o+/ected to in a motion to dismiss it is deemed waived@ In other wordsA venue is waiva+le@ It is )roceduralA not a /urisdictional matter@ It is intended to )rovide convenience to the )artiesA rather than restrict their access to the courts@ The rules on venue sim)l: arrange 3or the convenient and e33ective transaction o3 +usiness in the courts and do not relate to their )owerA authorit: or /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the action@

In the case o3 Polytrade Corporation v@ BlancoA this -ourt held that as long as the sti)ulation does not set 3orth 9uali3:ing or restrictive words to indicate that the agreed )lace alone and none other is the venue o3 the actionA the )arties do not lose the o)tion o3 choosing the venue@ In the instant caseA that the )arties agree to sue and +e sued in the -ourts o3 ,anila does not )reclude the 3iling o3 suits in the residence o3 )lainti33 o3 de3endant@ The )lain meaning is that the )arties merel: consented to +e sued in ,anila@ Muali3:ing or restrictive words which would indicate that ,anila and ,anila alone is the venue are totall: a+sent there3rom@ ?e cannot read into that clause that )lainti33 and de3endant +ound themselves to 3ile suits with res)ect to the last two transactions in 9uestion onl: or e%clusivel: in ,anila@ 7enue sti)ulations in a contractA while considered valid and en3orcea+leA do not as rule su)ersede the general rule set 3orth in $ule 4 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ In the a+sence o3 9uali3:ing or restrictive wordsA the: should +e considered merel: as an agreement on additional 3orumA not as limiting venue to the s)eci3ied )lace@ The: are not e%clusive +utA rather )ermissive@ 2orA to restrict venue onl: to that )lace sti)ulated in the agreement is a construction )urel: +ased on technicalit: whichA on the contrar:A should +e li+erall: construed@ ThusA we hold that the )etitioner in this case is not +arred nor )roscri+ed 3rom 3iling its case against )rivate res)ondents in ,a4ati where )etitioner holds its residenceA )ursuant to 'ection 2L+O o3 $ule 4 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ ?.5$528$5A the )etition in this case is 1$*NT5D and the orders o3 res)ondent Presiding Judge o3 the $egional Trial -ourt !ranch 146A at ,a4atiA dismissing the com)laint and den:ing the motion 3or reconsideration are here+: $575$'5D and the com)laint in the ca)tioned civil case is $5IN'T*T5D@

+,.C !AN# )& T4E P4ILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. C)(RT )& APPEALS Ahen a strict and literal application of the rules on non0forum shopping and verification %ill result in a patent denial of substantial !ustice" they may be liberally construed. )his guideline is especially true %hen the petitioner has satisfactorily e#plained the lapse and fulfilled the re uirements in its motion for reconsideration.

&ACTS? 8n Januar: 3(A 1&&(A 4& wor4ers 3iled a -om)laint against !an4 o3 the Phili))ine Islands L!PIO and DiarPs *ssistanceA Inc@ LDiarO doc4eted as NL$- -ase No@ ((>(1>((5#(>&(@ The -om)laint was 3or the C$egulari"ation o3 ?or4 'tatus and Preliminar: In/unction with Pra:er 3or $estraining 8rder ?hile the case was )endingA 4& wor4ers )ra:ed 3or the inclusion o3 121 more as com)lainants a3ter the latter had signi3ied their intention to /oin the union@ Therea3terA the -om)laint was amended and the name o3 the com)lainant changed to that o3 the organi"ationA DiarPs 5m)lo:ees La+or 6nion L!PI 6ni+an4 -ha)terO@ The union )ra:ed that the em)lo:ment status o3 their mem+ers +e regulari"ed and that !PI +e ordered to a+sor+ them as regular em)lo:ees@ In an 8rder dated Jul: 1#A 1&&1A La+or *r+iter Pa+lo -@ 5s)iritu Jr@ dismissed the com)laint which was a33irmed +: the NL$- and +: this -ourt@ 8n Januar: 31A 1&&4A DiarPs 5m)lo:ees La+or 6nionA through Normando !eguelme Lits )residentO and Jose Laron La mem+erOA 3iled a new -om)laint 3or the declaration o3 its mem+ers as regular em)lo:ees o3 !PI@ The -om)laint was doc4eted as NL$- -ase No@ ((>(1>((#2&> &4@ La+or *r+iter Potenciano '@ -ani"ares Jr@ dismissed the case 3or lac4 o3 meritA the union a))ealed to the NL$-@ !PI and Diar o))osed the a))eal and inter)osed 3orum sho))ing as one o3 their de3enses@ The NL$- L2irst DivisionO set aside the la+or ar+iterPs Decision and declared com)lainants as regular em)lo:ees o3 !PI@ 8n the issue o3 3orum sho))ingA the NL$- ruled that although the causes o3 action in the 3irst case and this third case are the same U 3or the regulari"ation o3 the mem+ers o3 com)lainant union U there is no identit: o3 the )arties involved@ The second case is 3or in/unction and the same isA there3oreA not similar to this case@ Diar and !PI moved 3or a reconsideration which were +oth denied +: NL$-@ !PIPs motion 3or +eing 3iled +e:ond the reglementar: )eriod and DiarPs motion 3or lac4 o3 merit@ Therea3terA !PI 3iled with the a))ellate court a Petition 3or -ertiorari assailing the NL$Decision@ The -* dismissed the recourse on the ground that the veri3ication has +een signed onl: +: )etitionerPs vice )residentA without e%)ress authorit: 3rom an: +oard resolution or )ower o3 attorne:@ Presentl: +e3ore the -* is a similar Petition L-*>1$ 'P No@ 5&(&3O 3iled +: DiarA !PIPs co> res)ondent@ .ence this a))eal@

ISS(E3 ?hether or not !PIPs Petition +e3ore the -* should have +een given due course ?hether or not the second regulari"ation case is +arred +: res !udicata@

4ELD3 &irs Iss%e3 ,ismissal of the Appeal on Technicality 0es@ ?e hold that a li+eral construction o3 the rules on veri3ication and 3orum sho))ing are in order@ 7eri3ication is sim)l: intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the )leading are true and correct and not the )roduct o3 the imagination or a matter o3 s)eculationA and that the )leading is 3iled in good 3aith@ ,eanwhileA the )ur)ose o3 the a3oresaid certi3ication is to )rohi+it and )enali"e the evils o3 3orum sho))ing@ ?e see no circumvention o3 these o+/ectives +: the vice )residentPs signing the veri3ication and certi3ication@ It cannot +e denied that the !PI Petition +e3ore the -* was dismissedA +ecause the veri3ication and the certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing had +een signed +: the vice )resident o3 the +an4 without an: +oard resolution or )ower o3 attorne: em)owering him to do so@ $ules o3 )rocedure are used to hel) secure and not override su+stantial /ustice@ 5ven the $ules o3 -ourt mandates a li+eral construction in order to )romote their o+/ective o3 securing a !ustA s)eed: and ine%)ensive dis)osition o3 ever: action and )roceeding@ 'ince rules o3 )rocedure are mere tools designed to 3acilitate the attainment o3 /usticeA their strict and rigid a))lication which would result in technicalities that tend to 3rustrate rather than )romote su+stantial /ustice must alwa:s +e avoided@ ThusA the dismissal o3 an a))eal on )urel:A technical ground is 3rowned u)on es)eciall: i3 it will result to un3airness@ In the interest o3 3air )la: and the orderl: administration o3 /usticeA we 3ind that the reinstatement o3 the Petition and its consolidation with DiarPs -* a))eal is warranted@ !PI is an indis)ensa+le )art: to the controvers:A considering that its inclusion is necessar: 3or the e33ective and com)lete resolution o3 the case@ The 3act that res)ondent union commenced the case against !PI and Diar in a single -om)laint is an indication o3 the indis)ensa+ilit: o3 +oth )arties to the action@ The $ules state that )arties in interest without whom no 3inal determination can +e had o3 an action shall +e /oined either as )lainti33s or de3endants@ In all stages o3 an action including those involved in motions 3or reconsiderationA )etitions 3or certiorari and a))eals the rule on /oinder o3 indis)ensa+le )arties must +e e%tendedA as long as such e%tension is )ractica+le and the reason 3or itA as e%)lained a+oveA su+sists@ The ultimate issue +rought u) 3or review in the instant case isI who is the em)lo:er o3 the mem+ers o3 res)ondent la+or union >> !PIA Diar or +othX ,oreoverA a review o3 the 3acts o3 the case reveals that L1O there is a service contract +etween !PI and DiarN L2O Diar )a:s the salaries o3 the mem+ers o3 res)ondent unionN and L3O the mem+ers o3 res)ondent union )er3orm their tas4s in the )remises o3 !PI@ These 3acts reveal close 3actual and legal relationshi)s among res)ondent unionA !PI and Diar >

relationshi)s that are so ine%trica+l: intertwined that the issues raised in the -om)laint cannot +e 3inall: determined without considering the rights o3 all three )arties@ ThusA it is essential that when the case is +rought u) 3or review to determine the real em)lo:er o3 the mem+ers o3 res)ondent la+or unionA all these )arties must +e heard@

Secon5 Iss%e3 $es &udicata 6n9uestiona+l:A an: ruling on the issue o3 res !udicata would a33ect the 3inal determination on the merits o3 the -om)laint@ This determination willA in turnA a33ect DiarA which is not im)leaded as a )art: in the )resent a))eal@ .enceA it would not +e )ro)er 3or this -ourt to resolve the issue o3 res !udicata without Diar as a )art: +e3ore itA in view o3 the )endenc: o3 -*>1$ 'P No@ 5&(&3F >> a similar )etition 3or the review o3 the same NL$- DecisionA the su+/ect o3 the case at +ar@ * consolidation is thus warrantedA +ased on the 3oregoing circumstancesI !PI and Diar are indis)ensa+le )artiesA who have 3iled se)arate +ut similar )etitions to review the same NL$Decision@ ?.5$528$5A the Petition is here+: 1$*NT5DA and the assailed $esolutions $575$'5D and '5T *'ID5@ The case is $5,*ND5D to the -ourt o3 *))ealsA which is DI$5-T5D to consolidate !PIPs case L-*>1$ 'P No@ 5&#5#O with DiarPs L-*>1$ 'P No@ 5&(&3O@

+,.PAR# N. C4)I &ACTS3 Par4 did not attach the /udgment o3 the ,eT- in his )etition@ ISS(E3 W)N an a))eal re9uires the attachment o3 the lower courtPs decision@ 4ELD3 <ES. $ule 42 e%)licitl: mandates that a clearl: legi+le du)licate original or certi3ied true co): o3 +oth lower courtsP /udgments or 3inal orders must +e attached to the )etitionA e%ce)t where it is rendered in 3avor o3 the )etitioner in which case onl: a true or )lain co): thereo3 is re9uired to +e attached@ In this caseA the ,eT- 8rder was not su+mitted to the a))ellate court whenA in 3actA such 8rder dismissing the entire case was undou+tedl: adverse to )etitioner@ I3 )etitioner deemed the ,eT- 8rder 3avora+le as he now claimsA he should not have a))ealed to the $T- in the 3irst )lace@ -learl:A )etitionerPs 3ailure to attach the ,eT- 8rder runs counter to the rules@ In insisting on the a))lication o3 $ule 33 to +uttress his claim that res)ondent waived his right to )resent evidenceA )etitioner underscores the silence o3 'ection 23 o3 $ule 11& in cases where the demurrer to evidence was granted +: the ,eT- +ut reversed on a))eal +: the $T-@ 'u33ice it to state that the granting o3 a demurrer in criminal cases is tantamount to an ac9uittal and ma: not +e reversed on a))eal without violating the )roscri)tion against dou+le /eo)ard:@ 'uccinctl: statedA there is no waiver to s)ea4 o3 in such case since an accusedPs ac9uittal on demurrer ma: not +e reversed on a))eal@ It must +e noted that the $T- decided the a))eal onl: inso3ar as the ,eT- dismissed su+ silentio the civil as)ect o3 the case without 3inding that the act or omission 3rom which the civil lia+ilit: ma: arise did not e%ist@ 'ince the )arties do not even dis)ute the e%istence o3 the act or omission 3rom which the civil lia+ilit: ma: ariseA there was a+solutel: no reason 3or the dismissal o3 the civil as)ect o3 the case@ * 3inding o3 su33icienc: o3 evidence as to the civil as)ectA where a demurrer to evidence is 3iled with leave o3 courtA does not authori"e the trial court to terminate the )roceedings and immediatel: render a decision@ *s this -ourt ruledA i3 the evidence so 3ar )resented is insu33icient as )roo3 +e:ond reasona+le dou+tA it does not 3ollow that the same evidence is insu33icient to esta+lish a )re)onderance o3 evidence@ It was thus incorrect 3or the ,eT- to dismiss the civil as)ect o3 the case without an: +asis@ *nd it was thus )remature 3or the $T-A in its initial decisionA to ad/udicate the merits o3 the civil as)ect o3 the case@ aN@!@ this is reall: whatPs in the case@ No mention o3 an: rule +etween $ule 1 to $ule &@ $ead the original i3 :ou wantA 1 )age lang@

+,.B SP)(SES C4AN N. RTC OAM!)ANGA &ACTS3 'hielda .amo: and her +rotherA -:reano .amo:A 3iled a -om)laint 3or Damages in the $egional Trial -ourt o3 =am+oanga against herein Petitioner>s)ouses -han and their em)lo:eeA 5ga: alleging thatA on his wa: to his sisterPs houseA -:reano .amo: was severel: in/ured +ecause -han Transit !usA owned +: herein Petitioner>s)ouses +um)ed the /ee) the 3ormer was driving@ .amo: im)uted negligenceA rec4less and im)rudent driving to the +us driverA 5ga: and alleged that -han s)ouses 3ailed to e%ercise due care in the selection and su)ervision o3 their em)lo:eesA on account o3 which the: should +e held e9uall: lia+le@ -:reano .amo: veri3ied the com)laint 3or damages withoutA howeverA including a certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing as re9uired +: 'u)reme -ourt *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4@ Petitioner>s)ousesA eventuall:A 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss the com)laint 3or 3ailure o3 the )lainti33s to com)l: with the said circular@ During the hearing o3 the motionA the .amo:s a))ended to their o))osition to the ,otion an a33idavit o3 non>3orum sho))ing e%ecuted +: their counsel@ The trial court denied the ,otion to Dismiss sa:ing that it is satis3ied LwithO the e%)lanation made +: the )lainti33s L.amo:O that the non>su+mission or com)liance with the -ircular was not will3ulA and that with the Ha33idavit o3 non>3orum sho))ingH now on record to 3orm )art o3 the com)laintthe ground u)on which the motion to dismiss is relied ma: no longer hold@ 2ive :ears a3ter such denialA Petitioner>s)ouses 3iled a second ,otion to Dismiss on the same ground@ Petitioner>s)ouses argue that com)liance with the circular is mandator:A and thus non> com)liance there3ore is 3atal to the Petition@ -ourt deniedA sa:ing Petitioner>s)ouses were +arred +: laches@ -* a33irmed $T- sa:ingA there was su+stantial com)liance with the circular citing the ruling in Lo:ola v@ -ourt o3 *))eals@ ISS(E3 W)N the N2' certi3ication e%ecuted merel: +: counsel +e considered as su+stantial com)liance@ 4ELD3 <ES. ?hile the certi3ication was signed merel: +: their counselA the -ourt considers the same as su+stantial com)liance with the circular@ *s correctl: noted +: the -*A at the time )etitioners 3iled their motion dismissA 'u)reme -ourt -ircular No@ (4>&4 was still in its in3anc:@ No clear>cut rule was :et esta+lished vis>b>vis the signatories o3 the certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ingA thusA courts admitted certi3ications o3 non>3orum sho))ing signed merel: +: the )artiesG counsel@ *s suchA the -ourt cannot 3ind 3ault with res)ondent -ourtGs admission o3 the certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing and no grave a+use o3 discretion can +e im)uted thereon@ ,oreoverA in some casesA the '- deemed the +elated 3iling o3 the certi3ication as su+stantial com)liance with the re9uirement@ In Lo:ola vs@ -ourt o3 *))ealsA '- held that the 3iling o3 the certi3icationA a da: a3ter the 3iling o3 an election )rotest and while within the reglementar: )eriodA constituted su+stantial com)liance@

+,CK !ANT)LIN) N. C)CAFC)LA !)TTLERS &ACTS3 62 em)lo:ees o3 -oca>-ola !ottlersA Inc@A and its o33icersA Li)ercon 'ervicesA Inc@A Peo)lePs ')ecialist 'ervicesA Inc@A and Interim 'ervicesA Inc@A 3iled a com)laint against -o4e 3or un3air la+or )ractice through illegal dismissalA violation o3 their securit: o3 tenure and the )er)etuation o3 the C-a+o ':stem@J The: )ra:ed 3or reinstatement with 3ull +ac4 wagesA and the declaration o3 their regular em)lo:ment status@ -o4e 3iled a motion to dismiss com)laint 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction and cause o3 actionA there +eing no em)lo:er>em)lo:ee relationshi)A and that res)ondents Li)ercon 'ervicesA Peo)lePs ')ecialist 'ervices and Interim 'ervices +eing +ona 3ide inde)endent contractorsA were the real em)lo:ers o3 the com)lainants@ The L* 3ound in 3avor o3 the em)lo:ees@ The NL$- sustained@ 8n a))eal to the -*A -o4e argues that the a33idavits o3 some o3 the com)lainantsA should not have +een given )ro+ative value 3or their 3ailure to a33irm the contents thereo3 and to undergo cross>e%amination@ *s a conse9uenceA the -* dismissed their com)laints 3or lac4 o3 su33icient evidence@ The com)lainants there3ore +rought the case to the '-@ .ereA -o4e argues that since the com)lainants 3ailed to sign the )etition as well as the 7eri3ication and -erti3ication o3 Non>2orum 'ho))ing in contravention o3 'ec@ 5A $ule A o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA the a))eal should +e dismissed@ ISS(E3 W)N the $8- a))lies in cases +e3ore the L*N W)N non>com)liance with 'ec@ 5A $ule is a cause 3or dismissal@ 4ELD3 N). *ccording to the case o3 $a+ago 7@ NL$-A Cthe argument that the a33idavit is hearsa: +ecause the a33iants were not )resented 3or cross>e%amination is not )ersuasive +ecause the rules o3 evidence are not strictl: o+served in )roceedings +e3ore administrative +odies li4e the NL$- where decisions ma: +e reached on the +asis o3 )osition )a)ers onl:@J DDD@ 'outhern -ota+ato Dev@ and -onstruction -o@ v@ NL$- states that under *rt@ 221 o3 the La+or -odeA the rules o3 evidence )revailing in courts o3 law do not control )roceedings +e3ore the L* and the NL$-@ The L* and the NL$- are authori"ed to ado)t reasona+le means to ascertain the 3acts in each case s)eedil: and o+/ectivel: and without regard to technicalities o3 law and )rocedureA all in the interest o3 due )rocess@ The $evised $ules o3 -ourt and )revailing /uris)rudence ma: +e given onl: stringent a))licationA i@e@A +: analog: or in a su))letor: character and e33ect@ 6nder the $ules o3 the -ommissionA the L* is given the discretion to determine the necessit: o3 a 3ormal trial or hearing@ .enceA trial>t:)e hearings are not even re9uired as the cases ma: +e decided +ased on veri3ied )osition )a)ersA with su))orting documents and their a33idavits@ DDD@ ?ith regard to 'ec@5A $ule A the same re9uires the strict o+servance o3 the $ulesA it however )rovides an esca)e hatch 3or the transgressor to avoid the harsh conse9uences o3 non>o+servance@ *t the time the instant )etition was 3iled on ,a: 2((2A )etitioners Lcom)lainantsO were not :et re)resented +: counsel@ 'urel:A )etitioners who are non>law:ers could not +e 3aulted 3or the )rocedural la)se since the: could not +e e%)ected to +e conversant with the nuances o3 the lawA

much less 4nowledgea+le with the esoteric technicalities o3 )rocedure@ 2or this reason aloneA the )rocedural in3irmit: in the 3iling o3 the )resent )etition ma: +e overloo4ed and should not +e ta4en against )etitioners@

+,C, <)(NG N. SENG &ACTS3 'eng 3iled a com)laint 3or ^accounting o3 general agenc:A in/unctionA turning over o3 )ro)ertiesA and damagesAP with the !acolod $T- against 0oung and his wi3e@ The $Tdismissed 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action u)on motion o3 0oung@ 'eng 3iled another com)laint 3or accounting and damages@ *gainA 0oung 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss@ This time on the ground that the ^com)laint 3ails to state a goodA valid andBor worthwhile cause o3 action against the de3endant@P The $T- denied@ 0oung 3iled an ,$ stating that 'eng did not com)l: with the rule against 3orum sho))ing@ The $T- again denied@ The -* a33irmed stating that 'eng did not violate the ruleA since the C2irst -aseJ had +een dismissed +: the $T- on ,arch 6A 1&& N while the C'econd -aseJ had +een 3iled onl: on June 23A 1&& @ ISS(ES3 W)N 0oung can still raise the alleged violation o3 the rule on non>3orum sho))ingA even i3 he 3ailed to cite it as a ground in his ,otion to Dismiss the 'econd -aseN W)N there was 3orum sho))ing@ 4ELD3 N). 'ection 1 o3 $ule & o3 the $ules o3 -ourt )rovides that de3enses and o+/ections not )leaded in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived@ *lthoughA a )erusal o3 'engPs certi3ication shows that there was a violation o3 the rule on non> 3orum sho))ing Q 'engPs certi3ication +eing o+viousl: inaccurateA i3 not downright 3alseA +ecause it does not disclose the 3iling o3 the 2irst -ase Q had this violation +een a))ro)riatel: +rought u) in the ,otion to DismissA it could have resulted in the a+atement o3 the 'econd -ase@

+,C;

&(ENTE!ELLA N. CASTR) &ACTS3 -astro engaged the 3uneral services o3 $olling .ills ,emorial 3or the interment o3 her hus+and@ .oweverA +ecause o3 insulting events during the 3uneralA -astro was )rom)ted to write $olling .ills to e%)lain their negligence@ !ecause there was no re)l: or a)olog:A -astro 3iled with the ,T-- a com)laint 3or damages against $olling .ills and 2uente+ella L-or)@ 'ec@O@ $olling .ills 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the ,T-- has no /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the case +ecause the amount o3 damages claimed is more than P2((A(((@ -astro su+se9uentl: 3iled a motion to withdraw the com)laintA which was granted +: the ,T--@ 'he then 3iled a similar com)laint with the $T-@ *ttached in the com)laint was the 7eri3ication and -erti3ication against 2orum 'ho))ing@ $olling .ills 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the certi3ication is 3alse +ecause res)ondent had )reviousl: 3iled an identical com)laint with the ,T--@ The T- denied the motionA stating that while the re9uirement as to the certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing is mandator:A nonethelessA the re9uirement is not to +e inter)reted too literall: and thus de3eat the o+/ective o3 )reventing the undesira+le )ractice o3 3orum sho))ing@ $olling .ills then 3iled with the -* a )etition 3or certiorari with )reliminar: in/unction andBor restraining order@ The -* dismissedA stating that a )erusal o3 the records discloses that $olling .illsP veri3ication and the certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing was signed +: a certain Lourdes Pom)erada without an: showing or indication that she is dul: authori"ed +: the )etitioners to sign 3or and in their +ehal3@ *n ,$ was 3iled +: $olling .ills attaching thereto a 'ecretar:Ps -erti3icate signed +: ,onico *@ 2uentevellaA Jr@A -or)orate 'ecretar: o3 )etitioner cor)orationA a33irming the authorit: o3 Lourdes *@ Pom)erada to 3ile the )etition@ NonethelessA the -* deniedA stating that there is still no showing that the said ,rs@ Lourdes Pom)erada is dul: authori"ed to act 3or and in +ehal3 o3 2uente+ella@ ISS(E3 W)N Pom)erada was authori"ed to signN W)N -astro committed 3orum sho))ing@ ,. 4ELD3 N). It is o+ligator: that the one signing the veri3ication and certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing on +ehal3 o3 the )rinci)al )art: or the other )etitioners has the authorit: to do the same@ 2ailure to com)l: with the 3oregoing re9uirements shall not +e cura+le +: mere amendment o3 the com)laint or other initiator: )leading +ut shall +e cause 3or the dismissal o3 the case without )re/udiceA unless otherwise )rovidedA u)on motion and a3ter hearing@ Lourdes Pom)eradaA the *dministrative ,anager o3 )etitioner cor)orationA who signed the veri3ication and certi3icate on non>3orum sho))ingA initiall: 3ailed to su+mit a secretar:Ps certi3icate or a +oard resolution con3irming her authorit: to sign 3or the cor)orationA and a s)ecial )ower o3 attorne: to sign on +ehal3 o3 co>)etitioner *rt 2uente+ellaA who was sued /ointl: and solidaril: with the cor)oration in his ca)acit: as o33icer o3 the latter@ ;. 4ELD3 N). *n omission in the certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing a+out an: event that would not constitute res /udicata and litis )endentiaA as in the )resent caseA is not 3atal as to merit the dismissal and nulli3ication o3 the entire )roceedings considering that the evils sought to +e )revented +: the said certi3icate are not )resentA i@e@ there was no actual 3orum sho))ing@

+,CD

CANCI) N. ISIP &ACTS3 -ancio 3iled cases o3 violation o3 !P22 and cases o3 esta3a against $es)ondent@ The !P22 cases were dismissed on the ground o3 C3ailure to )rosecute@J *s to the esta3a casesA the )rosecution moved to dismiss a3ter 3ailing to )resent its second witness@ The )rosecution li4ewise reserved its right to 3ile a se)arate civil action arising 3rom the said criminal cases@ The T- granted@ -ancio then 3iled the instant case 3or collection o3 sum o3 mone:A see4ing to recover the amount o3 the chec4s su+/ect o3 the esta3a cases@ $es)ondent 3iled a motion to dismiss the com)laint contending that )etitionerPs action is +arred +: the doctrine o3 res /udicata@ $es)ondent 3urther )ra:ed that )etitioner should +e held in contem)t o3 court 3or 3orum>sho))ing@ The T- 3ound in 3avor o3 the res)ondent@ ISS(E3 W)N the dismissal o3 the esta3a cases against res)ondent +ars the institution o3 a civil action 3or collection o3 the value o3 the chec4s su+/ect o3 the esta3a casesN W)N the 3iling o3 said civil action violated the anti>3orum>sho))ing rule@ 4ELD3 N). *n act or omission causing damage to another ma: give rise to two se)arate civil lia+ilities on the )art o3 the o33enderA i@e@A L1O civil lia+ilit: e% delictoA under *rt1(( o3 the $P-N and L2O inde)endent civil lia+ilitiesA such as those LaO not arising 3rom an act or omission com)lained o3 as 3elon:N or L+O where the in/ured )art: is granted a right to 3ile an action inde)endent and distinct 3rom the criminal action@ 5ither o3 these two )ossi+le lia+ilities ma: +e en3orced against the o33ender su+/ectA howeverA to the caveat under *rticle 21 o3 the -ivil -ode that the o33ended )art: Ccannot recover damages twice 3or the same act or omissionJ or under +oth causes@ 6nder the )resent $ulesA the civil lia+ilit: e%>delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal actionA +ut the o33ended )art: is given the o)tion to 3ile a se)arate civil action +e3ore the )rosecution starts to )resent evidence@ *nent the inde)endent civil actionsA under the )resent $ulesA the inde)endent civil actions ma: +e 3iled se)aratel: and )rosecuted inde)endentl: even without an: reservation in the criminal action@ The 3ailure to ma4e a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver o3 the right to 3ile a se)arate and inde)endent civil action@ In the case at +arA a reading o3 the com)laint 3iled +: )etitioner show that his cause o3 action is +ased on cul)a contractualA an inde)endent civil action@ -ancioPs cause o3 action is the res)ondentPs +reach o3 the contractual o+ligation@ The nature o3 a cause o3 action is determined +: the 3acts alleged in the com)laint as constituting the cause o3 action@ The )ur)ose o3 an action or suit and the law to govern it is to +e determined not +: the claim o3 the )art: 3iling the actionA made in his argument or +rie3A +ut rather +: the com)laint itsel3A its allegations and )ra:er 3or relie3@ There is also no 3orum>sho))ing@ The essence o3 3orum>sho))ing is the 3iling o3 multi)le suits involving the same )arties 3or the same cause o3 actionA either simultaneousl: or successivel:A to secure a 3avora+le /udgment@ *lthough the cases 3iled +: )etitioner arose 3rom the same act or omission o3 res)ondentA the: areA howeverA +ased on di33erent causes o3 action@ The criminal

cases 3or esta3a are +ased on cul)a criminal while the civil action 3or collection is anchored on cul)a contractual@ ,oreoverA there can +e no 3orum>sho))ing in the instant case +ecause the law e%)ressl: allows the 3iling o3 a se)arate civil action which can )roceed inde)endentl: o3 the criminal action@

+,CE

L)ND)N N. !AG(I) C)(NTR< CL(! &ACTS3 LondonA 11 :ears oldA assisted +: his 3atherA 3iled +e3ore +e3ore the !aguio 833ice o3 the -it: Prosecutor a com)laint>a33idavit 3or C'e%ual .arassment andBor -hild *+use andBor *cts o3 Lasciviousness and 6n/ust 7e%ationJ against 'imalongA a +owling mechanic at the !aguio -ountr: -lu+@ 2inding )ro+a+le causeA the investigating )rosecutor 3iled an In3ormation 3or un/ust ve%ation +e3ore the ,T-@ The ,T- issued an order to the e33ect thatA Nicholas +eing a minorA the case should instead +e handled +: the $T- in accordance with -ircular No@ 11>&& o3 the '- and the 2amil: -ourts *ct o3 1&& @ The criminal case was trans3erred to the $T- and doc4eted -riminal -ase No@ 1 1( >$@ The )rivate com)lainant reserved his right to institute an inde)endent civil action@ London then 3iled a com)laint 3or damages +e3ore the $T-A against the !aguio -ountr: -lu+A the clu+Ps 1eneral ,anager *nthon: de LeonA and 2rancis 'imalong@ The civil actionA doc4eted -ivil -ase No@ 45# >$A was )redicated on the civil lia+ilit: o3 de3endants 3or cul)a ac9uiliana under the )rovisions o3 the -ivil -ode@ The !aguio -ountr: -lu+ and *nthon: de Leon 3iled a motion to dismiss the com)laint on the ground that the C7eri3icationB-erti3icationJ against 3orum sho))ing attached to the com)laint did not disclose the e%istence and status o3 -riminal -ase No@ 1 1( >$@ The ,otion to Dismiss was granted@ ISS(E3 W)N there was 3orum sho))ing@ 4ELD3 N). 2orum sho))ing is the institution o3 2 or more actions or )roceedings grounded on the same cause u)on the su))osition that one or the other court would ma4e a 3avora+le dis)osition@ 2or 3orum sho))ing to e%istA there should +e LaO identit: o3 )arties or at least such )arties who re)resent the same interests in +oth actionsA L+O identit: o3 rights asserted and relie3 )ra:ed 3orA such relie3 +eing 3ounded on the same circumstancesA and LcO the identit: o3 the two )receding )articulars is such that an: /udgment rendered in the other action willA regardless o3 which )art: is success3ulA amount to res /udicata in the action under considerationA said re9uisites +eing li4ewise constitutive o3 the elements o3 auter action )endent or litis )endencia@ In this instanceA there are material di33erences +etween the two actions@ In the criminal caseA the real )art: )lainti33 is the CPeo)le o3 the Phili))inesJ and the de3endant is accused 'imalong alone@ In the civil caseA the )arties are )lainti33 ,ichael LondonA 3or and in +ehal3 o3 his minor son Nicholas 2rederic4 LondonA and the de3endants include not onl: 'imalong +ut also the !aguio -ountr: -lu+ and its general manager *nthon: de Leon@

+,CA

(NIMASTERS C)NGL)MERATI)N N. CA &ACTS3 <u+ota and 6nimasters entered into a CDealershi) *greement 3or 'ales and 'ervices o3 the 3ormerPs )roducts in 'amar and Le:te Provinces@ The contract containedA among others a sti)ulation readingI CW *ll suits arising out o3 this *greement shall +e 3iled withBin the )ro)er courts o3 Mue"on -it:@J 5 :ears laterA 6nimasters 3iled an action in Taclo+an $T- against <u+otaA a certain $e:naldo 1oA and ,etro+an4>Taclo+an !ranch 3or damages 3or +reach o3 contractA and in/unction with )ra:er 3or tem)orar: restraining order@ <u+ota 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue@ The T- denied the motion to dismiss stating that the )ro)er venue )ursuant to the $8- would either +e M-A where <u+ota is holding its )rinci)al )lace o3 +usinessA or Taclo+an -it:A where 6nimasters is holding its )rinci)al )lace o3 +usinessA at the election o3 the )lainti33 6nimasters@ M- and ,anilaA as agreed u)on +: the )arties in the Dealershi) *greementA are additional )laces other than the )lace stated in the $8-@ The -* a33irmed ISS(E3 W)N the agreement on venue +etween 6nimasters and <u+ota limited to M- the venue o3 an: com)laint 3iled arising 3rom the dealershi) agreement +etween them@ 4ELD3 N). *+sent additional words and e%)ressions de3initel: and unmista4a+l: denoting the )artiesP desire and intention that actions +etween them should +e ventilated onl: at the )lace selected +: themA M- U or other contractual )rovisions clearl: evincing the same desire and intention U the sti)ulation should +e construedA not as con3ining suits +etween the )arties onl: to that one )laceA M-A +ut as allowing suits either in M- or Taclo+an -it:A at the o)tion o3 the )lainti33A 6nimasters@ $ule 4 o3 the $8- sets 3orth the )rinci)les generall: governing the venue o3 actionsA whether real or )ersonalA or involving )ersons who neither reside nor are 3ound in the Phili))ines or otherwise@ *greements on venue are e%)licitl: allowed@ C!: written agreement o3 the )arties the venue o3 an action ma: +e changed or trans3erred 3rom one )rovince to anotherJ L'ec@ 3A $ule 4A $ules o3 -ourtO@ Parties ma: +: sti)ulation waive the legal venue and such waiver is valid and e33ective +eing merel: a )ersonal )rivilegeA which is not contrar: to )u+lic )olic: or )re/udicial to third )ersons@ ?ritten sti)ulations as to venue ma: +e restrictive in the sense that the suit ma: +e 3iled onl: in the )lace agreed u)onA or merel: )ermissive in that the )arties ma: 3ile their suit not onl: in the )lace agreed u)on +ut also in the )laces 3i%ed +: law L$ule 4A s)eci3icall:O@ *s in an: other agreementA what is essential is the ascertainment o3 the intention o3 the )arties res)ecting the matter@ ThusA unless the )arties ma4e ver: clearA +: em)lo:ing categorical and suita+l: limiting languageA that the: wish the venue o3 actions +etween them to +e laid onl: and e%clusivel: at a de3inite )laceA and to disregard the )rescri)tions o3 $ule 4A agreements on venue are not to +e regarded as mandator: or restrictiveA +ut merel: )ermissiveA or com)lementar: o3 said rule@ *n: dou+t or uncertaint: as to the )artiesP intentions must +e resolved against giving their agreement a restrictive or mandator: as)ect@

+,C. PILIPIN) TELEP4)NE C)RP)RATI)N N. DEL&IN) TECS)N

&ACTS3 $es)ondent Del3ino -@ Tecson a))lied 3or si% L6O cellular )hone su+scri)tions with Petitioner Pili)ino Tele)hone -or)oration LPILT5LO@ These a))lications were su+se9uentl: a))roved@ $es)ondent 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Iligan -it:A Lanao Del NorteA a com)laint against Petitioner 3or a C'um o3 ,one: and Damages@J Petitioner moved 3or the dismissal o3 the com)laint on the ground o3 im)ro)er venueA citing a common )rovision in the mo+iline service agreements to the e33ect that > C7enue o3 all suits arising 3rom this *greement or an: other suit directl: or indirectl: arising 3rom the relationshi) +etween PILT5L and su+scri+er shall +e in the )ro)er courts o3 ,a4atiA ,etro ,anila@ 'u+scri+er here+: e%)ressl: waives an: other venues@J !oth the $T- and the -* denied the ,otion to Dismiss@ ISS(E3 W)N the ,otion to dismiss +ased on im)ro)er venue should +e granted@ 4ELD3 <ES. 'ection 4A $ule 4A o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ivil Procedure allows the )arties to agree and sti)ulate in writingA +e3ore the 3iling o3 an actionA on the e%clusive venue o3 an: litigation +etween them@ 'uch an agreement would +e valid and +inding )rovided that the sti)ulation on the chosen venue is e%clusive in nature or in intentA that it is e%)ressed in writing +: the )arties theretoA and that it is entered into +e3ore the 3iling o3 the suit@ In the case at +arA the )rovision contained in )aragra)h 22 o3 the C,o+ile 'ervice *greementAJ a standard contract made out +: )etitioner PILT5L to its su+scri+ersA a))arentl: acce)ted and signed +: res)ondentA states that the venue o3 all suits arising 3rom the agreementA or an: other suit directl: or indirectl: arising 3rom the relationshi) +etween PILT5L and su+scri+erA Cshall +e in the )ro)er courts o3 ,a4atiA ,etro ,anila@J The added sti)ulation that the su+scri+er Ce%)ressl: waives an: other venueJ should indicateA clearl: enoughA the intent o3 the )arties to consider the venue sti)ulation as +eing )reclusive in character@

+,CC DA<AG N. CANIOARES &ACTS3 Da:ag et@ al@ 3iled a com)laint 3or illegal dismissalA non>)a:ment o3 wagesA overtime )a:A )remium )a:A holida: )a:A service incentive leaveA 13th month )a:A and actualA moral and e%em)lar: damages against *l3redo 0oungA a +uilding contractor doing +usiness under the 3irm name 0oungGs -onstruction@ The: 3iled the com)laint with the N-$ *r+itration !ranch o3 the NL$-@ Instead o3 attending the initial hearings set +: the L*A 0oung 3iled a motion to trans3er the case to the $egional *r+itration !ranchA $egion 7II o3 the NL$-@ .e claimed that the wor4)lace where )etitioners were regularl: assigned was in -e+u -it: and thatA in consonance with 'ection 1LaO o3 $ule I7 o3 the New $ules o3 Procedure o3 the NL$-A the case should have +een 3iled in -e+u -it:@ Petitioners o))osedA arguing that all o3 them e%ce)t 3or one wereA +: that timeA residents o3 ,etro ,anila and that the: could not a33ord tri)s to -e+u -it:@ !esidesA the: claimed that res)ondent had its main o33ice at -orinthian 1ardens in Mue"on -it:@ 0oungA in re)l:A declared that the -orinthian 1ardens address was not his )rinci)al )lace o3 +usinessA +ut actuall: his residenceA which he also used as a corres)ondent o33ice 3or his construction 3irm@ The L* granted 0oungGs motion@ Petitioners )rom)tl: a))ealed said order to the NL$-A whichA howeverA dismissed the same 3or lac4 o3 merit@ 6)on ,$ howeverA the NL$- remanded the case to the original ar+itration +ranch o3 the N-$ 3or 3urther )roceedings@ This )rom)ted 0oungA in turnA to 3ile his own ,$ see4ing the reversal@ The NL$- reinstated its )revious resolutionA thus directing the trans3er o3 the case to -e+u -it:@ In additionA it ruled that no 3urther motion o3 a similar nature would +e entertained@ .enceA the recourse to the '-@ ISS(E3 W)N venue should +e in -e+u@ 4ELD3 N). In the recent case o3 'ul)icio LinesA Inc@ vs@ NL$-A the 9uestion o3 venue essentiall: )ertains to the trial and relates more to the convenience o3 the )arties rather than u)on the su+stance and merits o3 the case@ It underscored the 3act that the )ermissive rules underl:ing )rovisions on venue are intended to assure convenience 3or the )lainti33 and his witnesses and to )romote the ends o3 /ustice@ ?ith more reason does the )rinci)le 3ind a))lica+ilit: in cases involving la+or and management +ecause o3 the doctrine well>entrenched in our /urisdiction that the 'tate shall a33ord 3ull )rotection to la+or@ In 3actA even in cases where venue has +een sti)ulated +: the )artiesA the '- has not hesitated to set aside the same i3 it would lead to a situation so grossl: inconvenient to one )art: as to virtuall: negate his claim@

+,CG(MA!)N N. LARIN &ACTS3 1uma+on and his relatives e%ecuted in 3avor o3 Larin a Deed o3 'ale ?ith $ight o3 $e)urchase over a )arcel o3 land located in -anda+aA Pam)anga@ The terms o3 re)urchaseA s)elled out in the deedA were that the vendorsA or an: one o3 themA could o3 themA could re)urchase the )ro)ert:A or their res)ective undivided sharesA Cat an: timeA 3rom the date o3 the contractA a3ter each harvest o3 each cro) :earJ +: re)a:ing Larin the )urchase )rice and such other sums o3 mone: as might have +een or +e advanced to them@ 'ome 3& :ears laterA the 1uma+ons 3iled a -om)laint against Larin +e3ore the $T- o3 Mue"on -it:A see4ing the return o3 the -erti3icate o3 Title 3rom Larin whoA it was allegedA re3used to hand over the certi3icate des)ite the 3ull )a:mentA nearl: seven times the original amount o3 their loan@ The T- dismissed the -om)laint@ It ruled thatA +eing a real actionA the case should have +een 3iled +e3ore the $T- o3 Pam)angaA not the $T- o3 Mue"on -it:A which could validl: ta4e cogni"ance o3 the controvers:@ The 1uma+onsA 3iled a Petition 3or $eview on -ertiorariA em)hasi"ing that Larin never assailedA at an: stage theretoA the venue o3 the case nor raised in issue the com)etence o3 the $T- o3 Mue"on -it: to tr: the case@ InsteadA the: )ointed out that Larin had im)liedl: a33irmed his assent to venue +: )ersistentl: see4ing a33irmative relie3s 3rom the court@ ISS(E3 W)N a trial court can motu )ro)io dismiss an action 3or its im)ro)er venue@ 4ELD3 N). 6nder the new rulesA a court ma: motu )ro)io dismiss a claim when it a))ears 3rom the )leading or evidence on record that it has no /urisdiction over the su+/ect matterA when there is another cause o3 action )ending +etween the same )arties 3or the same causeA or where the action is +arred +: a )rior /udgment or +: statutes o3 limitations@ Im)ro)er venue is not included in the enumerationA it should 3ollow that motu )ro)io dismissal on said ground is still not allowed under the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ The wrong venueA +eing merel: a )rocedural in3irmit:A not a /urisdictional im)edimentA does notA without timel: e%ce)tionA disallow the $T- o3 Mue"on -it: to ta4e cogni"ance o3A and to )roceed withA the case@ In 3ailing to raise his o+/ection to it either in a motion to dismiss or in his answerA cou)led +: his having his sought relie3 3rom the courtA Larin has himsel3 evinced an acce)tance on the venue o3 the action@ The court a 9uo has thus erred in dismissing motu )ro)io the com)laint on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue@

+,CB !AC)L)DFM(RCIA MILLING C).6 INC. N. &IRST &ARMERS MILLING C).6 INC.

&ACTS3 'ugar )lanters trans3erred their 9uota allotments to 2irst 2armers ,illing over the o+/ections o3 !acolod>,urcia ,illing@ !acolod thus 3iled an action 3or in/unction and )rohi+ition with damages against 2irst 2armers alleging that the 9uota trans3ers were illegal@ In its amended and su))lemental com)laintA !acolod included the PN! and the National Investment and Develo)ment -or)@ LNID-O as de3endants@ !acolod alleged that +: e%tending loans to 2irst 2armersA PN! and NID- )artici)ated as tort3easors in the tres)ass o3 !acolodPs rights@ 2or their answerA PN! and NID- alleged that !acolod has no cause o3 action against them since have no )artici)ationA directl: or indirectl:A on the alleged illegal 9uota trans3ersA and that the granting o3 loans to 3inance the sugar central did not violate an: rights o3 !acolod +ecause the loans were e%tended in the ordinar: and usual course o3 +usiness@ ISS(E3 W)N !acolod has a cause o3 action against PN! and NID-@ 4ELD3 N). * com)laint must contain a concise statement o3 the ultimate 3acts constituting the )lainti33Gs cause o3 action@ H6ltimate 3actsH are the im)ortant and su+stantial 3acts which either directl: 3orm the +asis o3 the )lainti33Gs )rimar: right and dut:A or directl: ma4e u) the wrong3ul acts or omissions +: the de3endant@ ?hen the ground 3or dismissal is that the -om)laint states no cause o3 actionA the rule is that its su33icienc: can onl: +e determined +: considering the 3acts alleged in the -om)laint and no other@ The court ma: not consider other matters outside o3 the -om)laint@ De3enses averred +: the de3endant are not to +e ta4en into consideration in ruling on the motion@ The allegations in the -om)laint must +e acce)ted as true and it is not )ermissi+le to go +e:ond and outside o3 them 3or date or 3acts@ *nd the test o3 su33icienc: o3 the 3acts alleged is whether or not the -ourt could render a valid /udgment as )ra:ed 3or acce)ting as true the e%clusive 3acts set 3orth in the -om)laint@ The su+/ect *mended and 'u))lemental -om)laint 3ails to meet the test@ Nowhere is it alleged that PN! and NID- had noticeA in3ormation or 4nowledge o3 an: 3lawA much less an: illegalit:A in 2irst 2armersG actuationsA assuming that there was such a 3law or illegalit:@ *lthough it is averred that PN! and NID-Gs acts were done in +ad 3aithA the -om)laint does not contain an: averment o3 3acts showing that the acts were done in the manner alleged@ 'uch a +are statement neither esta+lishes an: right or cause o3 action on the )art o3 !acolod@ It is a mere conclusion o3 law not sustained +: declarations o3 3actsA much less admitted +: PN! and NID-@ It does notA there3oreA aid in an: wise the com)laint in setting 3orth a cause o3 action@

+,-K ALDA< N. &G( INS(RANCE

&ACTS3 *lda: is an agent o3 216 Insurance@ 216 alleged that *lda: owed it an amount which re)resents unli9uidated cash advances@ *lda: 3iled her answer and +: wa: o3 counterclaimA asserted her right to the )a:ment o3 her commissions and +onuses@ 216 then 3iled a C,otion to 'tri4e 8ut *nswer ?ith -om)ulsor: -ounterclaim *nd To Declare De3endant In De3aultJ +ecause *lda:Ps answer was allegedl: 3iled out o3 time@ The T- denied the motion as well as 216Ps su+se9uent ,$@ *3ter a 3ew wee4sA 216 3iled a motion to dismiss the counterclaim contending that the T- never ac9uired /urisdiction over the same +ecause o3 the non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees +: *lda:@ In res)onseA *lda: as4ed the T- to declare her counterclaim as e%em)t 3rom )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees since it is com)ulsor: and that 216 +e declared in de3ault 3or having 3ailed to answer such counterclaim@ The trial court granted the 216Ps motion to dismiss and conse9uentl:A denied *lda:Ps motion@ The court similarl: denied the *lda:Ps ,$ 3inding that her counterclaim was merel: )ermissive@ The -* a33irmed@

ISS(E3 W)N the counterclaim o3 *lda: is com)ulsor: or )ermissive in nature@

4ELD3 Permissive@ *lda:Ps claim 3or commissionsA +onuses and accumulated )remium reserves is merel: )ermissive@ The evidence re9uired to )rove *lda:Ps claims di33ers 3rom that needed to esta+lish 216Ps demands 3or the recover: o3 cash accounta+ilities 3rom *lda:A such as cash advances and costs o3 )remiums@ The recover: o3 216Ps claims is not contingent or de)endent u)on esta+lishing *lda:Ps counterclaimA such that conducting se)arate trials will not result in the su+stantial du)lication o3 the time and e33ort o3 the court and the )arties@ 8ne would search the records in vain 3or a logical connection +etween the )artiesP claims@ This conclusion is 3urther rein3orced +: *lda:Ps own admissions since she declared in her answer that 216Ps cause o3 actionA unli4e her ownA was not +ased u)on the ')ecial *gentPs -ontract@ .oweverA *lda:Ps claims 3or damagesA allegedl: su33ered as a result o3 the 3iling +: 216 o3 its com)laintA are com)ulsor:@ In order 3or the T- to ac9uire /urisdiction over her )ermissive counterclaimA *lda: is +ound to )a: the )rescri+ed doc4et 3ees@

In this caseA the di33erence +etween two 4inds o3 counterclaim was shown@ * com)ulsor: counterclaim ma: not com)l: with the re9uirements 3or a valid com)laint including the )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ee@ 8n the other handA a )ermissive counterclaim ma: onl: +e granted cogni"ance +: the court u)on com)liance o3 the re9uirements needed 3or a valid com)laint@ .oweverA a com)ulsive counterclaim ma: +e allowed to +e 3iled even i3 the re9uirements 3or a valid com)laint have not +een com)lied onl: in cases where the counterclaim arises out o3 the same

transaction or is necessaril: connected with the said transaction@ 2urthermoreA a counterclaim shall +e allowed i3 it is within the /urisdiction o3 a regular court@

+,-, SP)(SES 'ALIP(E 1s. SP)(SES DANDAN Jali9ue 3iled a case in the ,T- 3or unlaw3ul detainer against s)s@ DandanA +ecause Dandan re3used to sign a 3ormal contract and )a: the monthl: rentals@ Dandan did not 3ile an answer to the com)laint +ut instead 3iled a /oint a33idavit raising de3enses and issues@ The ,T- ruled against Dandan 3or their 3ailure to 3ile an answer@ The $T- a33irmed the decision@ The -* reversed@

Iss%e3 whether the /oint a33idavit 3iled +: the ')s@ Dandan can +e considered as an answer to the com)laint@

4el53 0esT ?e 3ind that the situation o+taining in this case calls 3or a li+eralA not a technical and rigidA inter)retation o3 the rules on 'ummar: Procedure in the light o3 the )resence rather than a total a+sence o3 a res)onsive )leading@ 8ur )erusal o3 the res)ondents Joint -ounter *33idavit shows that it dis)uted the material allegations o3 the -om)laint and )resented valid issues 3or the lower courtPs resolutionA such as the ownershi) o3 the su+/ect lotA the )eriod o3 leaseA right o3 reim+ursement 3or im)rovements and the right to e/ect res)ondents@ Not all law:ers are gi3ted with the s4ill to cra3t )leadings that 3ull: meet the re9uirements as to su+stance and 3orm@ !ut what matters is the su+stance and not the 3orm@ ThusA while a )leading ma: +e de3icient in cra3tsmanshi) and can +e critici"ed with res)ect to incidental )articularsA it must +e deemed su33icient i3 it 3airl: a))rises the adverse )art: o3 the claims or contentions therein stated and does not mislead him to his sur)rise or in/ur: or when 3rom the allegations thereinA ta4en togetherA the matters re9uired to +e averred ma: +e gathered@ In the words o3 -hie3 Justice ,oranA H$ules o3 )leadings are intended to secure a method +: which the issues ma: +e )ro)erl: laid +e3ore the court@ ?hen those issues are alread: clear +e3ore the courtA the de3icienc: in the o+servance o3 the rules should not +e given undue im)ortance@ ?hat is im)ortant is that the case +e decided u)on the merits and that it should not +e allowed to go o33 on )rocedural )oints@H

+,-; 4(ERTA AL!A RES)RT INC. 1s. CA an5 S<NDICATED MANAGEMENT GR)(P INC. In a com)laint 3or /udicial 3oreclosure o3 mortgage with )reliminar: in/unction 3iled +e3ore the $T-A ':ndicated ,anagement 1rou) sought the 3oreclosure o3 3our L4O )arcels o3 land mortgaged +: .uerta *l+a to Intercon 2und $esourceA Inc@ LHInterconHO@ ':ndicated instituted the case as mortgagee>assignee o3 a loan amounting to P#@5 million o+tained +: .uerta 3rom InterconA in whose 3avor .uerta mortgaged the a3oresaid )arcels o3 land as securit: 3or the said loan@ In its answer .uerta 9uestioned the assignment +: Intercon o3 its mortgage right thereover to ':ndicated on the ground that the same was ultra vires@ .uerta also 9uestioned during the trial the correctness o3 the charges and interest on the mortgage de+t in 9uestion@ The $Truled against .uerta and ordered it to )a: ':ndicated within 15( da:s 3rom recei)t o3 the /udgment@ .uerta a))ealed to the -*A +ut the -* dismissed the case on the ground o3 late )a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees@ The '- a33irmed the dismissal@ ?hen the order +ecame 3inal and e%ecutor: ':ndicated 3iled a motion 3or e%ecution@ .uerta a))ealed contending that their 15( da: )eriod has not :et la)sed@ During his a))eal the )ro)erties were sold in a /udicial sale@ .uerta now claims that the: have a right o3 redem)tion and not e9uit: o3 redem)tion over the )ro)ert: +ecause Intercon )redecessor in interest o3 ':ndicated was a credit institution and the: there3ore have a right o3 redem)tion@ Iss%e3 whether .uerta has a right o3 redem)tion and not e9uit: o3 redem)tion over the )ro)ert:@ 4el53 59uit: o3 redem)tion@ IndeedA at the earliest o))ortunit:A when it su+mitted its answer to the com)laint 3or /udicial 3oreclosureA .uerta should have alleged that it was entitled to the +ene3icial )rovisions o3 'ection # o3 $@*@ No@ 33 +ut againA it did not ma4e an: allegation in its answer regarding an: right thereunder@ It +ears stressing that the a))lica+ilit: o3 'ection # o3 $@*@ No@ 33 hinges on the 3actual 9uestion o3 whether or not )rivate res)ondentGs )redecessor in interest was a credit institution@ *s was held in 6impinA a /udicial 3oreclosure saleA Hwhen con3irmed +: an order o3 the court shall o)erate to divest the rights o3 all the )arties to the action and to vest their rights in the )urchaserA sub!ect to such rights of redemption as may be allo%ed by la%F"O which con3er on the mortgagorA his successors in interest or an: /udgment creditor o3 the mortgagorA the right to redeem the )ro)ert: sold on 3oreclosure a3ter con3irmation +: the court o3 the /udicial 3oreclosure sale@ ThusA the claim that .uerta is entitled to the +ene3icial )rovisions o3 'ection # o3 $@*@ No@ 33 A since )rivate res)ondentGs )redecessor>in>interest is a credit institution is in the nature o3 a com)ulsor: counterclaim which should have +een averred in )etitionerGs answer to the com)liant 3or /udicial 3oreclosure@ The ver: )ur)ose o3 a counterclaim would have +een served had .uerta alleged in its answer its )ur)orted right under 'ection # o3 $@*@ No@ 33 I H@ @ @ The rules o3 counterclaim are designed to ena+le the dis)osition o3 a %hole controvers: o3 interested )artiesG con3licting claimsA at one time and in one actionA )rovided all )artiesG +e +rought +e3ore the court and the matter decided without )re/udicing the rights o3 an: )art:@H

The 3ailure o3 huerta to seasona+l: assert its alleged right under 'ection # o3 $@*@ No@ 33 )recludes it 3rom so doing at this late stage case@ 5sto))el ma: +e success3ull: invo4ed i3 the )art: 3ails to raise the 9uestion in the earl: stages o3 the )roceedings@ ThusA Ha )art: to a case who 3ailed to invo4ed his claim in the main caseA while having the o))ortunit: to do soA will +e )recludedA su+se9uentl:A 3rom invo4ing his claimA even i3 it were trueA a3ter the decision has +ecome 3inalA otherwise the /udgment ma: +e reduced to a moc4er: and the administration o3 /ustice ma: +e )laced in disre)ute@H

+,-D T4E NISA<AN PAC#ING C)RP)RATI)N 1s. T4E REPARATI)NS C)MMISSI)N an5 CA

$e)acom and 7is)ac entered into a contract o3 sale 3or a manu3acturing )lant were 7is)ac was to )a: $e)acom 1( e9ual :earl: installments@ ?hen $e)acom sent 7is)ac a written reminder 3or the )a:ment o3 the installments 7is)ac 3iled two s)ecial civil actions 3or declarator: relie3 alleging am+iguit: in the manner o3 )a:ment in the contract@ In the said case $e)acom did not set u) a counterclaim against 7is)ac@ ?hen 7is)ac 3ailed to )a: des)ite several demandsA $e)acom 3iled a collection case@ 7is)ac 3iled a motion to dismiss contending that there is a )ending case 3or declarator: relie3@ The trial court denied the motion@ 5ventuall: the s)ecial civil action was dismissed@ 7is)ac also did not get an: 3avora+le decisions 3rom the -*@

Iss%e3 whether the 3ailure o3 $e)acom to 3ile a counterclaim in the s)ecial civil action +ars them 3rom collecting against 7is)ac@

4el53 No@ The $ules )rovide that when a )leader 3ails to set u) a counterclaim through oversightA inadvertenceA or e%cusa+le negligenceA or when /ustice re9uiresA he ma:A +: leave o3 courtA set u) the counterclaim or crossclaim +: amendment +e3ore /udgment@ ?here the counterclaim is made the su+/ect o3 a se)arate suitA it ma: +e a+ated u)on a )lea o3 auter action )endant or litis )endentiaA # andBor dismissed on the ground o3 res ad/udicate@ NowA there is nothing in the nature o3 a s)ecial civil action 3or declarator: relie3 that )roscri+es the 3iling o3 a counterclaim +ased on the same transactionA deed or contract su+/ect o3 the com)laint@ * s)ecial civil action is a3ter an not essentiall: di33erent 3rom all ordinar: civil actionA which is generall: governed +: $ules 1 to 56 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA e%ce)t that the 3ormer deals with a s)ecial su+/ect matter which ma4es necessar: some s)ecial regulation@ !ut the Identit: +etween their 3undamental nature is such that the same rules governing ordinar: civil suits ma: and do a))l: to s)ecial civil actions i3 not inconsistent with or i3 the: ma: serve to su))lement the )rovisions o3 the )eculiar rules governing s)ecial civil actions@ Ideall:A in the case at +arA the se)arate action 3or collection should have +een dismissed and set u) as a com)ulsor: counterclaim in the declarator: relie3 suitsA +: wa: o3 an amended answer@ This was not done@ The actions )roceeded se)aratel: and were decided on the merits@ The 3inal verdict was that the declarator: relie3 suits instituted +: 7I'P*- were unmeritoriousA 9uite without 3oundation andA in the light o3 all the relevant 3actsA a))ear to have +een initiated +: 7I'P*- merel: to o+struct and dela: the )a:ment o3 the installments clearl: due 3rom itA )a:ment o3 which was decreed in the collection suit@

+,-E &LETC4ER C4ALLENGE PETR)LE(M P4ILIPPINES6 LIMITED6 1s. CA

Philodrill grou)Lres)ondentsO 3iled a case against 2letcher grou) L)etitionersO to restore them as )art o3 a consortium 3or oil e%)loration in the Palawan area@ 2letcher 3iled an answer with counterclaimA contending that PhilodrillPs e%)ulsion 3rom the consortium was in accordance with the )artiesG /oint o)erating agreement@ *s counterclaimA 2letcher sought the collection o3 admitted cash call de3aultsA interestsA e%em)lar: damagesA attorne:Gs 3eesA and costs@ Philodrill 3iled their answer to the counterclaimA in which the: moved 3or the dismissal o3 the counterclaim against them 3or lac4 o3 /urisdiction due to non>)a:ment o3 doc4et 3ees and lac4 o3 cause o3 action@ *3ter hearing $T- dismissed the counterclaim o3 2letcher as em+odied in their re)l:@

Iss%e3 whether the trial /udge could disregard the re9uirements o3 this $ule 1 sec@2 and grant PhilodrillPs motion to dismiss 2letcherPs counterclaim as em+odied in their re)l: to the memorandum@

4el53 0esT ?hat the trial /udge a))ears to have meant when he said he Hoverloo4edH the re9uirements was that he no longer considered it necessar: to 3ollow the re9uirements o3 $ule 1 A 'ec@2 +ecause the )ositions o3 the )arties were alread: clear andA in 3actA the dismissal o3 the com)laint and the counterclaim had +een discussed at the hearing on the a33irmative de3enses@ 5ven assuming that the trial court admitted having Hoverloo4edH the re9uisites o3 $ule 1 A 'ec@2A there would nevertheless +e a 3actual 3inding /usti3:ing a))eal to the -ourt o3 *))eals@ Im)licit in this -ourtGs re3erral was a 3inding that the )etition 3or review involved 3actual issues which made resort to this -ourt ina))ro)riate@ The re)l: with su))lemental memorandum in su))ort o3 the motion to dismissA howeverA was a mere su))lement to the main motion to dismiss which was then )ending +e3ore the court@ The trial /udge must have 3elt that there was no need 3or another hearing +ecause the )ositions o3 the )arties had +een made clear@ ?hile it is true that the re)l: with su))lemental memorandum did not contain a notice o3 hearingA )etitionersA at this )ointA could have 3iled a re)l: to the su))lemental memorandum or moved 3or a hearing on the new ground alleged thereinA or at least 3iled o))osition to the dismissal o3 the counterclaim@ Petitioners are not without a remed: +ecause under $ule 1 A 'ec@2A the dismissal o3 the counterclaim is without )re/udice to its 3iling as a se)arate action 3or the collection o3 the amounts owed +: )rivate res)ondents under their /oint o)erating agreement and other agreements@

+,-A LA&ARGE CEMENT P4ILIPPINES6 INC.6 1s. C)NTINENTAL CEMENT C)RP)RATI)N La3arge -ement +ought the cement +usiness o3 -ontinental -ement -or) L---O@ In their contract La3arge retained a )ortion o3 the )a:ment +ecause o3 the )ending case o3 --- with *PT@ ?hen the case was 3inall: decided La3arge re3used to )a: the other com)an: who won the case against ---@ --- 3iled a case 3or )reliminar: attachment against La3arge and )ra:ed that La3arge +e directed to )a: *PT@ La3arge 3iled a motion to dismiss@ To avoid +eing in de3ault La3arge 3iled an answer and com)ulsor: counterclaims ad -autelam against --- and its )resident and ma/orit: stoc4holder Lim and cor)@ sec@ ,ariano@ La3arge alleged that ---A through Lim and ,arianoA had 3iled the H+aselessH -om)laint and )rocured the ?rit o3 *ttachment in +ad 3aith@ $T- dismissed the counterclaim against Lim and ,ariano@

Iss%e3 ,a: de3endants in civil cases im)lead in their counterclaims )ersons who were not )arties to the original com)laintsX

4el53 0esT ?hile a com)ulsor: counterclaim ma: im)lead )ersons not )arties to the original com)laintA the general rule >> a de3endant in a com)ulsor: counterclaim need not 3ile an: res)onsive )leadingA as it is deemed to have ado)ted the allegations in the com)laint as its answer >> does not a))l:@ The 3iling o3 a res)onsive )leading is deemed a voluntar: su+mission to the /urisdiction o3 the courtN a new )art: im)leaded +: the )lainti33 in a com)ulsor: counterclaim cannot +e considered to have automaticall: and un4nowingl: su+mitted to the /urisdiction o3 the court@ * contrar: ruling would result in mischievous conse9uences where+: a )art: ma: +e indiscriminatel: im)leaded as a de3endant in a com)ulsor: counterclaimN and /udgment rendered against it without its 4nowledgeA much less )artici)ation in the )roceedingsA in +latant disregard o3 rudimentar: due )rocess re9uirements@ -ounterclaims are de3ined in 'ection 6 o3 $ule 6 o3 the $ules o3 -ivil Procedure as Han: claim which a de3ending )art: ma: have against an o))osing )art:@H The: are generall: allowed in order to avoid a multi)licit: o3 suits and to 3acilitate the dis)osition o3 the whole controvers: in a single actionA such that the de3endantGs demand ma: +e ad/udged +: a counterclaim rather than +: an inde)endent suit@ The onl: limitations to this )rinci)le are L1O that the court should have /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter o3 the counterclaimA and L2O that it could ac9uire /urisdiction over third )arties whose )resence is essential 3or its ad/udication@ It is )ermissive Hi3 it does not arise out o3 or is not necessaril: connected with the su+/ect matter o3 the o))osing )art:Gs claim@H * )ermissive counterclaim is essentiall: an inde)endent claim that ma: +e 3iled se)aratel: in another case@

It is com)ulsor: when its o+/ect Harises out o3 or is necessaril: connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the su+/ect matter o3 the o))osing )art:Gs claim and does not re9uire 3or its ad/udication the )resence o3 third )arties o3 whom the court cannot ac9uire /urisdiction@H 6nli4e )ermissive counterclaimsA com)ulsor: counterclaims should +e set u) in the same actionN otherwiseA the: would +e +arred 3orever@ N*,*$-8 v@ 2ederation o3 6nited Namarco Distri+utors laid down the 3ollowing criteria to determine whether a counterclaim is com)ulsor: or )ermissiveI 1O *re issues o3 3act and law raised +: the claim and +: the counterclaim largel: the sameX 2O ?ould res /udicata +ar a su+se9uent suit on de3endantGs claimA a+sent the com)ulsor: counterclaim ruleX 3O ?ill su+stantiall: the same evidence su))ort or re3ute )lainti33Gs claim as well as de3endantGs counterclaimX 4O Is there an: logical relation +etween the claim and the counterclaimX * )ositive answer to all 3our 9uestions would indicate that the counterclaim is com)ulsor:@

+,-.

SP)(SES SAP(GA< 1s. CA

,o+il Phili))ines 3iled +e3ore the trial court o3 Pasig an action 3or re)levin against ')ouses ,arino and Lina Joel 'a)uga:@ The -om)laint arose 3rom the su))osed 3ailure o3 the cou)le to 4ee) their end o3 their Dealershi) *greement@ In their *nswer with -ounterclaimA 'a)uga: alleged that a3ter incurring e%)enses in antici)ation o3 the Dealershi) *greementA the: re9uested ,o+il to allow them to get gasA +ut that it had re3used@ It claimed that the: still had to )ost a suret: +ond whichA initiall: 3i%ed at P2((A(((A was later raised to P ((A(((@ 'a)uga: e%erted all e33orts to secure a +ondA +ut the +onding com)anies re9uired a co): o3 the Dealershi) *greementA which ,o+il continued to withhold 3rom them@ LaterA 'a)uga: discovered that ,o+il and its managerA $icardo P@ -ardenasA had intended all along to award the dealershi) to Island *ir Product -or)oration@ In their *nswerA 'a)uga: im)leaded in the counterclaim ,o+il Phili))ines and its manager >> $icardo P@ -ardenas >> as de3endants@ The: )ra:ed that /udgment +e renderedA holding +oth /ointl: and severall: lia+le 3or )re>o)eration e%)ensesA rentalA storageA guarding 3eesA and unreali"ed )ro3it including damages@ *3ter +oth ,o+il and -ardenas 3ailed to res)ond to their *nswer to the -ounterclaimA )etitioners 3iled a H,otion to Declare Plainti33 and its ,anager $icardo P@ -ardenas in De3ault on De3endantGs -ounterclaim@H

Iss%e3 whether -ardenasA who was not a )art: to the original actionA might nevertheless +e im)leaded in the counterclaim

4el53 0esT * counterclaim is de3ined as an: claim 3or mone: or other relie3 which a de3ending )art: ma: have against an o))osing )art:@ .oweverA the general rule that a de3endant cannot +: a counterclaim +ring into the action an: claim against )ersons other than the )lainti33 admits o3 an e%ce)tion under 'ection 14A $ule 6 which )rovides that Gwhen the )resence o3 )arties other than those to the original action is re9uired 3or the granting o3 com)lete relie3 in the determination o3 a counterclaim or cross>claimA the court shall order them to +e +rought in as de3endantsA i3 /urisdiction over them can +e o+tained@G The inclusionA there3oreA o3 -ardenas in )etitionersG counterclaim is sanctioned +: the rules@H2( The )rerogative o3 +ringing in new )arties to the action at an: stage +e3ore /udgment is intended to accord com)lete relie3 to all o3 them in a single action and to avert a du)licit: and even a multi)licit: o3 suits there+:@

+,-C

ALMENDRAS 1s. CA

Linda 3iled a case 3or an easement o3 right o3 wa: against the )ro)erties o3 5ng and 0a)@ 5ng and 0a) contend that there are other estates which are more +ene3icial to Linda@ 8n a))eal the case was remanded to the trial court so that 5ng and 0a) can im)lead the owners o3 other neigh+oring estates@ 5ng and 0a) argue that to re9uire them to 3ile a third>)art: com)laint against the owners o3 the other neigh+oring estates would +e to 3orce them to litigate and this would )lace on them the +urden o3 )roving that the esta+lishment o3 the right o3 wa: through the said )ro)erties would +e the least )re/udicial route@

Iss%e3 whether 5ng and 0a) should +e re9uired to 3ile a third )art: com)laint against the owners o3 the other neigh+oring estates

4el53 0esT 'ince )rivate res)ondents claim that the )oint least )re/udicial to the owners o3 servient estates is through the )ro)erties o3 the 8)ones on the western side o3 )etitionerGs lotA the: should reall: )rove their allegation@ 2or this )ur)oseA all )ro)ert: owners must +e +rought +e3ore the court@ Private res)ondents contend that a third>)art: com)laint is not the )ro)er mode o3 /oining other )ro)ert: owners in the suit +ecause those owners have no legal tie with the owners o3 the estate sought to +e +urdened with the easement Lherein )rivate res)ondentsO so as to ma4e them lia+le to the latter 3or Hcontri+utionA indemnit:A and su+rogationAH as )rovided in $ule 6A 'ec@ 12 Lnow 'ec@11O o3 the $ules o3 -ourt which statesI 'ec@ 12@ Third )art: com)laint@ * third>)art: com)laint is a claim that a de3ending )art: ma:A with leave o3 courtA 3ile against a )erson not a )art: to the actionA called the third>)art: de3endantA 3or contri+utionA indemnit:A su+rogation or an: other relie3A in res)ect o3 his o))onentGs claim@ There is no merit in this contention@ * )erson who is not a )art: to an action ma: +e im)leaded +: the de3endant either on the +asis o3 lia+ilit: to himsel3 or on the ground o3 direct lia+ilit: to the )lainti33@ It is lia+ilit: to the de3endant which ma: +e in the 3orm o3 contri+utionA indemnit:A or su+rogation@ 8n the other handA direct lia+ilit: to the )lainti33 ma: +e in the 3orm o3 Han: other relie3 in res)ect o3 )lainti33Gs claim@H

+,--

(!S MAR#ETING C)RP)RATI)N 1s. CA

6!' -or)@ and 'oon <ee -or)@ was owned +: the 6: 3amil: o3 !acolod@ !ecause o3 the dis)utes +etween the 3amil: it was agreed that 6!' will +e given to Johnn: 6:@ 5ventuall:A 6!' and Johnn: 3iled with the '5- against his si+lings and <ing 3or the recover: o3 the cor)orate +oo4s and +oo4s o3 account o3 6!' +ecause his si+lings and <ing were holding the said +oo4s as stoc4holders and accountant res)ectivel:@ The si+lings and <ing did not 3ile an answer +ut instead 3iled a motion to dismiss sa:ing that '5- had no /urisdiction +ecause it was not an intra> cor)orate dis)ute@ The '5- denied the )etition and received evidence e% )arteA +ut the -* reversed the '5- decision stating that it was not an intra>cor)orate dis)ute and what is +eing )ra:ed 3or is in the nature o3 s)eci3ic )er3ormance@ .oweverA the '- reversed the -* and the '5- decision was a33irmed@ The '5- decision included a directive against the si+lings and <ing to render an accounting o3 all the assets and lia+ilities o3 6!'A the directive was not )art o3 the )ra:er o3 Johnn:@

Iss%e3 whether the '5- can receive evidence e% )arte and whether '5- can give a di33erent relie3 other than what was )ra:ed 3or@

4el53 0esT It must +e noted that the $evised $ules o3 Procedure in the '5-A as amendedA has no )rovision similar to 'ection 5A $ule 1# o3 the old $ules o3 -ourt@ It a))ears that the -* a))lied said )rovision in a su))letor: manner@ The )ertinent )rovision on de3ault in the '5- rules on )rocedure readsI 'ec@ 6@ De3ault X I3 the res)ondent 3ails to answer within the time 3i%ed +: these $ulesA the .earing 833icerA motu )ro)io or u)on motion o3 the )etitioner or com)lainant with )roo3 o3 such 3ailureA shall declare the res)ondent in de3ault and 3orthwith receive evidence e% )arte and render /udgment granting such relie3 as the )etition or com)laint and the 3acts )roven ma: warrant@ This )rovision a))lies where no answer is made to a )ermissive counterclaimA cross> claimA or third>)art: com)laint within the )eriod )rovided in this $ule@ No service o3 )leadings other than su+stantiall: amended or su))lemental )leadings and 3inal orders or /udgments shall +e necessar: on a )art: in de3ault unless he 3iles a motion to set aside the order o3 de3aultA in which event he shall +e entitled to notice o3 all 3urther )roceedings regardless o3 whether the order o3 de3ault is set aside or not@ 12 ThusA a))l:ing the a+ove )rovisionA the '5- en +anc clearl: committed no reversi+le error in granting the relie3 which was warranted +: the )etition a 9uo and the 3acts )roven al+eit said relie3 was not e%)ressl: )ra:ed 3or@ 5ven i3 the $ules o3 -ourt were to +e a))lied in this caseA still it cannot +e said that the relie3 granted +: the '5- en +anc was Hdi33erent in 4ind 3rom that

)ra:ed 3orH +: the )etitioners@ $atherA said relie3 was )lainl: warranted +: the allegations contained in the )etition a 9uo as well as +: the 3acts as 3ound +: +oth the '5- hearing o33icer and the '5- en +anc@ IndeedA Hit is a rule o3 )leading that the )ra:er 3or relie3A though )art o3 the com)laintA is no )art o3 the cause o3 actionA and )lainti33 is entitled to as much relie3 as the 3acts ma: warrant@H 1& In the )resent caseA the relie3 granted +: the '5- en +anc was clearl: +ased on its 3indings that res)ondentsA as o33icers o3 'oon <ee -ommercialA Inc@ and 6!' ,ar4eting -or)@A had an o+ligationA not onl: to )etitioners +ut to the other stoc4holders as wellA to render an accounting o3 said com)aniesG 3inances@ 2urtherA contrar: to the ruling o3 the -*A this relie3 does not constitute Hs)eci3ic )er3ormanceH and is well within the /urisdiction o3 the '5-@

+,-B

AM(ETE NS. ANDRES *SEE CASE N). E.0

+,BK

SAN PA!L) MAN(&ACT(RING C)RP)RATI)N 1s. CIR 'P,- was assessed +: the !I$ 3or de3icienc: in millerPs and manu3acturerPs ta%@ 8n a))eal to the -T* it cancelled 'P,-Ps lia+ilit: 3or de3icienc: manu3acturerPs ta% +ut u)held the -ommissionerPs assessment 3or the de3icienc: millerPs ta%@ 'P,- moved 3or the )artial reconsideration o3 the -T* a33irmation o3 the millerPs ta% assessment +ut it was denied@ 8n a))eal to the -* the court dismissed the )etition on the )rinci)al ground that the veri3ication attached to it was signed merel: +: 'P,-Ps chie3 3inancial o33icer Y without the cor)orate secretar:Ps certi3icateA +oard resolution or )ower o3 attorne: authori"ing him to sign the veri3ication and certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing@ 'P,- sought a reconsideration o3 the resolution +ut the same was denied@ Iss%e3 whether the cor)orate secretar:Ps certi3icateA +oard resolution or )ower o3 attorne: authori"ing him to sign the veri3ication and certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing are mandator: re9uirements in 3iling a case with the -*@ 4el53 0esT 6nder $ule 43A 'ection 5 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA a))eals 3rom the -T* and 9uasi>/udicial agencies to the -ourt o3 *))eals should +e veri3ied@ * )leading re9uired to +e veri3ied which lac4s )ro)er veri3ication shall +e treated as an unsigned )leading@ ,oreoverA a )etition 3or review under $ule 43 re9uires a sworn certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing@ 2ailure o3 the )etitioner to com)l: with an: o3 the re9uirements o3 a )etition 3or review is su33icient ground 3or the dismissal o3 the )etition@ * cor)oration ma: e%ercise the )owers e%)ressl: con3erred u)on it +: the -or)oration -ode and those that are im)lied +: or are incidental to its e%istence through its +oard o3 directors andBor dul: authori"ed o33icers and agents@ .enceA )h:sical actsA li4e the signing o3 documentsA can +e )er3ormed onl: +: natural )ersons dul: authori"ed 3or the )ur)ose +: cor)orate +:>laws or +: s)eci3ic act o3 the +oard o3 directors@ In the a+sence o3 authorit: 3rom the +oard o3 directorsA no )ersonA not even the o33icers o3 the cor)orationA can +ind the cor)oration@ 'P,-Ps )etition in the -ourt o3 *))eals did not indicate that the )erson who signed the veri3icationBcerti3ication on non>3orum sho))ing was authori"ed to do so@ 'P,- merel: relied on the alleged inherent )ower o3 its chie3 3inancial o33icer to re)resent 'P,- in all matters regarding the 3inances o3 the cor)oration includingA among othersA the 3iling o3 suits to de3end or )rotect it 3rom assessments and to recover erroneousl: )aid ta%es@ 'P,- even admitted that no )ower o3 attorne:A secretar:Ps certi3icate or +oard resolution to )rove the a33iantPs authorit: was attached to the )etition@ ThusA the )etition was not )ro)erl: veri3ied@ 'ince the )etition lac4ed )ro)er veri3icationA it was to +e treated as an unsigned )leading su+/ect to dismissal@

+,B,

(NITED P(LP AND PAPER C).6 INC. 1s. (NITED P(LP AND PAPER C4APTERF &EDERATI)N )& &REE W)R#ERS

6nited Pul) had a salar: dis)ute with one o3 the mem+erPs o3 the em)lo:eePs union@ This was su+mitted to the National -onciliation and ,ediation !oard LN-,!O@ The !oard ruled in 3avor o3 the union@ ?hen 6nited Pul) 3iled an a))eal with the -* it dismissed the case outright 3or +eing insu33icient in 3ormA thusI H1@ The veri3ication and certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ing was signed onl: +: counsel 3or the )etitioner cor)orationA rather than +: a dul:>authori"ed o33icer thereo3N H2@ The a33idavit o3 service is inade9uateA as the registr: recei)ts evidencing mailing o3 co)ies o3 the )etition to the res)ondent were not attachedN H3@ *+sence o3 the mandator: written e%)lanation re9uired under 'ec@ 11A $ule 13A 1&& $ules o3 -ivil Procedure to e%)lain wh: )ersonal service u)on the res)ondents o3 co)ies o3 the )etition was not resorted to@

Iss%e3 whether the -ourt o3 *))eals seriousl: erred in dismissing its )etition 3or review on mere technicalities@

4el53 NoT ?e agree with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ 'ection 5A $ule o3 the same $ules )rovides that it is the )lainti33 or )rinci)al )art: who shall certi3: under oath in the com)laint or other initiator: )leading that he has not commenced an: action involving the same issues in an: courtA tri+unal or 9uasi> /udicial agenc:@ .ereA onl: )etitionerPs counsel signed the certi3ication against 3orum>sho))ing@ There is no showing that he was authori"ed +: the )etitioner com)an: to re)resent the latter and to sign the certi3ication@ ,oreoverA )etitionerPs 3ailure to attach with the )etition a written e%)lanation wh: the service or 3iling was not done )ersonall: violates 'ection 11A $ule 13 o3 the same $ules@ ?e have ruled that where no e%)lanation is o33ered to /usti3: the service o3 )leadings +: other modesA the discretionar: )ower o3 the court to e%)unge the )leading +ecomes mandator:@

+,B;

!ARR)S) 1s. AMPIG

!arroso and 5sco+ilio were candidates 3or ma:or in ,a: 11A 1&&# elections@ 5sco+illo 3iled with -omelec several cases against !arroso@ .e 3iled a )re>)roclamation )rotest alleging massive vote>+u:ingA +ri+er:A terrorism +: )etitioner and o)ening o3 +allot +o%es outside the )recincts@5sco+illo also 3iled another )re>)roclamation case under 'ection 241 o3 the 8mni+us 5lection -ode@ In additionA he 3iled 3or )etitionerGs dis9uali3ication alleging election o33enses committed +: the latter@ 5ventuall: !arroso was )roclaimed +: the -8,5L5- as the winning candidate@ 5sco+illo 3iled with the $T- a )etition contesting !arrosoPs election@ 5sco+illo certi3ied in his )etition that 'P* &#>35& and 5lection 833ense -ases Nos@ 161 and 1 were then )ending@ !arroso 3iled a motion to dismiss contending that 5sco+illo 3ailed to state the other two )ending cases in his certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing@ The $T- denied the motion to dismiss@

Iss%e3 whether the election contest caseA 5@-@ -ase No@ 15>24A should +e dismissed in view o3 )rivate res)ondentGs 3ailure to declare in his certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing the e%istence o3 two )re>)roclamation cases then )ending with the -omelec@

4el53 NoT The certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing o3 5sco+illo declared the )endenc: o3 'P* &#>35& and 5lection 833ense -ases Nos@ 161 and 1 @ No re3erence was made to 'P- &#>((& and 'P&#>124A the two )re>)roclamation controversies also )ending +e3ore the -omelec@ !arroso alleges that 5sco+illo engaged in 3orum sho))ing +: deli+eratel: concealing 3rom the trial court the e%istence o3 these two cases@ 5sco+illo on the other handA claims that there was no need to mention the two cases +ecause the: were deemed a+andoned and rendered moot and academic u)on the 3iling o3 the election contest@ 5sco+illo has e%)lained that des)ite the )endenc: o3 his motion 3or reconsideration in 'P- &#> ((&A the )re>)roclamation caseA he was com)elled to 3ile the election contest as a result o3 !arrosoPs )roclamation +: the ,unici)al !oard o3 -anvassers@ 6nder the -omelec $ules o3 ProcedureA a )etition contesting the election o3 an: munici)al o33icial must +e 3iled within ten L1(O da:s 3ollowing the date o3 )roclamation o3 the results o3 the election@ This )eriod is mandator: and /urisdictional@ ?hen no action was ta4en +: the -omelec in 'P- &#>((&A 5sco+illo 3iled the election contest on Jul: 2 A 1&&#A the tenth da: a3ter !arrosoPs )roclamation on Jul: 1 A 1&&#@ It was onl: on Januar: 1&A 1&&&A si% L6O months laterA that the -omelec en +anc rendered a $esolution den:ing 5sco+illoPs motion 3or reconsideration and a33irming the Jul: 4A 1&&# $esolution o3 the -omelecA 2irst Division@ 12

!e that as it ma:A in dismissing 'P- &#>((&A the -omelec 2irst DivisionA itsel3 noted that the issues raised therein were not )ro)er 3or a )re>)roclamation caseA +ut should +e made in an election )rotestsA 5@-@ -ase No@ 15>24 is )recisel: the election )rotest@ 'imilarl:A the $ules o3 -ivil Procedure on 3orum sho))ing should +e a))lied with li+eralit:@ In the instant caseA the revision o3 +allots has alread: started in ten L1(O )recincts@ The right o3 the )eo)le o3 to 3reel: e%)ress their choice o3 re)resentative through a 3ree and honest election should not +e smothered +: a strict adherence to technical rules o3 )rocedure@

+,BD S4IPSIDE INC)RP)RATED 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS

* case o3 land dis)ute which was alread: decided +: the trail court more than 24 :rs has not :et +een e%ecuted@ The case involved 'hi)side and a government agenc:@ 6)on 4nowledge o3 the non>e%ecution o3 the /udgment the 8'1 3iled a com)laint 3or revival o3 /udgment and cancellation o3 titles +e3ore the $T- o3 'an 2ernandoA La 6nion@ The case im)leaded the successors>in> interest o3 $a3ael 1alve" over the )ro)ert: 'hi)side Inc@ which is )resentl: the registered owner in 3ee sim)le@ 'hi)sideA Inc@ 3iled its ,otion to DismissA contending that there is no cause o3 actionN the $e)u+lic is not a real )art: in interest and )rescri)tion@ The trial court denied the motion@ 8n a))eal to the -* dismissed the )etition on the ground that the veri3ication and certi3ication in the )etitionA tinder the signature o3 !al+in was made without authorit:A there +eing no )roo3 therein that !al+in was authori"ed to institute the )etition 3or and in +ehal3 and o3 )etitioner@ 8n ,$ 'hi)side attached to said motion a certi3icate issued +: its H+oard secretar: stating that on 8cto+er 11A 1&&&A or ten da:s )rior to the 3iling o3 the )etitionA !al+in had +een authori"ed +: )etitionerGs +oard o3 directors to 3ile said )etition@ The ,$ was still denied@

Iss%e3 whether an authori"ation 3rom )etitionerGs !oard o3 Directors is still re9uired in order 3or its resident manager to institute or commence a legal action 3or and in +ehal3 o3 the cor)oration

4el53 0esT It is undis)uted that on 8cto+er 21A 1&&&A the time 'hi)sidePs $esident ,anager !al+in 3iled the )etitionA there was no )roo3 attached thereto that !al+in was authori"ed to sign the veri3ication and non>3orum sho))ing certi3ication thereinA as a conse9uence o3 which the )etition was dismissed +: the -ourt o3 *))eals@ .oweverA su+se9uent to such dismissalA )etitioner 3iled a motion 3or reconsiderationA attaching to said motion a certi3icate issued +: its H+oard secretar: stating that on 8cto+er 11A 1&&&A or ten da:s )rior to the 3iling o3 the )etitionA !al+in had +een authori"ed +: )etitionerGs +oard o3 directors to 3ile said )etition@ The -ourt has consistentl: held that the re9uirement regarding veri3ication o3 a )leading is 3ormalA not /urisdictional 6: v@ Land!an4@ 'uch re9uirement is sim)l: a condition a33ecting the 3orm o3 the )leadingA non>com)liance with which does not necessaril: render the )leading 3atall: de3ective@ 8n the other handA the lac4 o3 certi3icationA against 3orum sho))ing is generall: not cura+le +: the su+mission thereo3 a3ter the 3iling o3 the )etition@ 'ection 5A $ule 45 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 civil Procedure )rovides that the 3ailure o3 the )etitioner to su+mit the re9uired documents that should accom)an: the )etitionA including the certi3ication against 3orum sho))ingA shall +e

su33icient ground 3or the dismissal thereo3@ The same rule a))lies to certi3ications against 3orum sho))ing signed +: a )erson on +ehal3 o3 a cor)oration which are unaccom)anied +: )roo3 that said signator: is authori"ed to 3ile a )etition on +ehal3 o3 the cor)oration@ In certain e%ce)tional circumstancesA howeverA the -ourt has allowed the +elated 3iling o3 the certi3ication@ In Lo:ola v@ -* the -ourt considered the 3iling o3 the certi3ication one da: a3ter the 3iling o3 an election )rotest as su+stantial com)liance with the re9uirement@ In $oadwa: 5%)ressA Inc@ v@ -* the -ourt allowed the 3iling o3 the certi3ication 14 da:s +e3ore the dismissal o3 the )etition@ In H6: v@ Land!an4A the -ourt had dismissed 6:Gs )etition 3or lac4 o3 veri3ication and certi3ication against non>3orum sho))ing@ .oweverA it su+se9uentl: reinstated the )etition a3ter 6: su+mitted a motion to admit certi3ication and non>3orum sho))ing certi3ication@ In all these casesA there were s)ecial circumstances or com)elling Hreasons that /usti3ied the rela%ation o3 the rule re9uiring veri3ication and certi3ication on non>3orum sho))ing@

+,BE MAMARIL 1s CINIL SERNICE C)MMISSI)N

-ase 3or +ac4wages arising 3rom reclassi3ication o3 status o33 D8T- em)lo:ee 5rneli"a ,amaril as )ermanent to co>terminus@

,amaril and other em)lo:ee -ru" in order not to lose their /o+s 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration and the -'- reinstated them to their 3ormer )ositions@ D8T- then 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 -'- $esolution which was denied@ In the same $esolutionA the -'- declared that )etitioner and -ru" are not entitled to +ac4 salaries 3rom the time the: were se)arated 3rom the service u) to their date o3 reinstatement@ Petitioner thus 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 said $esolution No@ (3>1(1& onl: inso3ar as the -'- held that she was not entitled to +ac4wagesA +ut was denied@ Petitioner thereu)on 3iled +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals a Petition 3or $eview under $ule 43 assailing -'- $esolution which the a))ellate court dismissedA3or non>com)liance with the $ulesA it not having +een veri3ied and it containing no sworn certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing@ Petitioner 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 the a))ellate courtPs $esolution to which she attached a veri3ied )etition with certi3ication against 3orum sho))ingA +ut it was denied +: $esolutionA the a))ellate court holding that her su+se9uent com)liance with the $ules Hdid not cleanse her Petition o3 its in3irmit:@H

Iss%eI 'hould rule on Non 3orum sho))ing +e *PPLI5D IN * 75$0 $I1ID *ND T5-.NI-*L '5N'5X

4el53 Petitioner )leads that the dismissal o3 her )etition +: the a))ellate court should +e without )re/udice as its in3irmit: was cured +: her su+se9uent and su+stantial com)liance with the $ules which should not +e rigidl: a))lied to de3eat and override the ends o3 /ustice@ The )etition is +ere3t o3 merit@ 'ections 4 and 5 o3 $ule o3 the 1&& $evised $ules o3 -ivil Procedure la: down the rules on veri3ication and certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing as 3ollowsI '5-@ 4@ <erification. 5%ce)t when otherwise s)eci3icall: re9uired +: law or ruleA )leadings need not +e under oathA veri3ied or accom)anied +: a33idavit@

* )leading is veri3ied +: an a33idavit that the a33iant has read the )leading and that the allegations therein are true and correct o3 his )ersonal 4nowledge or +ased on authentic records@ * )leading re9uired to +e veri3ied which contains a veri3ication +ased on Hin3ormation and +elie3H or u)on H4nowledgeA in3ormationA and +elie3AH or lac4s a )ro)er veri3icationA shall +e treated as an unsigned )leading@ '5-@ 5@ Certification against forum shopping. The )lainti33 or )rinci)al )art: shall certi3: under oath in the com)laint or other initiator: )leading asserting a claim 3or relie3A or in a sworn certi3ication anne%ed thereto and simultaneousl: 3iled therewithI LaO that he has not thereto3ore commenced an: action or 3iled an: claim involving the same issues in an: courtA tri+unal or 9uasi>/udicial agenc: andA to the +est o3 his 4nowledgeA no such other action or claim is )ending thereinN L+O i3 there is such other )ending action or claimA a com)lete statement o3 the )resent status thereo3N and LcO i3 he should therea3ter learn that the same or similar action or claim has +een 3iled or is )endingA he shall re)ort that 3act within 3ive L5O da:s there3rom to the court wherein his a3oresaid com)laint or initiator: )leading has +een 3iled@ 2ailure to com)l: with the 3oregoing re9uirements shall not +e cura+le +: mere amendment o3 the com)laint or other initiator: )leading +ut shall +e cause 3or the dismissal o3 the case without )re/udiceA unless otherwise )rovidedA u)on motion and a3ter hearing@ The su+mission o3 a 3alse certi3ication or non>com)liance with an: o3 the underta4ings therein shall constitute indirect contem)t o3 courtA without )re/udice to the corres)onding administrative and criminal actions@ I3 the acts o3 the )art: or his counsel clearl: constitute will3ul and deli+erate 3orum sho))ingA the same shall +e ground 3or summar: dismissal with )re/udice and shall constitute direct contem)tA as well as a cause 3or administrative sanctions@H The )ur)ose o3 re9uiring a veri3ication is to secure an assurance that the allegations o3 the )etition have +een made in good 3aithA or are true and correctA not merel: s)eculative@ Non> com)liance with such re9uirement does not necessaril: render the )leading 3atall: de3ectiveA henceA the court ma: order its correction i3 veri3ication is lac4ingA or act on the )leading although it is not veri3ied i3 the attending circumstances are such that strict com)liance with the $ules ma: +e dis)ensed with in order that the ends o3 /ustice ma: there+: +e served@ 8n the other handA the rule against 3orum sho))ing is rooted in the )rinci)le that a )art:>litigant shall not +e allowed to )ursue simultaneous remedies in di33erent 3oraA as this )ractice is detrimental to orderl: /udicial )rocedure@ The lac4 o3 certi3ication against 3orum sho))ingA unli4e that o3 veri3icationA is generally not cura+le +: the su+mission thereo3 a3ter the 3iling o3 the )etition@ The su+mission o3 a certi3icate against 3orum sho))ing is thus deemed o+ligator:A al+eit not /urisdictional@ The rule on certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing ma:A howeverA +e also rela%ed on grounds o3 Hsu+stantial com)lianceH or Hs)ecial circumstance or com)elling reasons@H The -ourt thus e%amined the records o3 the case on hand to determine the e%istence o3 an: circumstances or com)elling reasons which call 3or the rela%ation o3 the $ules +ut a))reciated none in light o3 the 3ollowing discussion@

+,BA (NITED SPECIAL WATC4MAN AGENC< 1s. CA

*n illegal dismissal case@ The em)lo:ees>guards as4ed 3or their se)aration )a:@

La+or *r+iter ordered 6'?* to )a: the em)lo:ees se)aration )a:A and +oth 6'?* and !anco 2ili)ino to )a: the salar: di33erential and attorne:Gs 3ees@ * com)romise settlement was reached +etween !2 and the em)lo:ees@ The *r+iter a))roved the settlement and dismissed the com)laint 3or illegal dismissal 3or lac4 o3 merit@ *ggrievedA the em)lo:ees 3iled an a))eal with the NL$-@ The NL$- ordered 6'?* to )a: the em)lo:ees their se)aration )a: in light o3 its conclusion that there was no )roo3 that the em)lo:ees were noti3ied to re)ort 3or reassignment a3ter the termination o3 the contract@ The motion 3or reconsideration was denied thus 6'?* 3iled with the -ourt o3 *))eals a Petition 3or -ertiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ The )etition was dismissed outright in a resolution +: the a))ellate court +ecause 1en@ $odrigo 8rdo:oA the ,anaging Director who signed the certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ingA was not authori"ed +: a +oard resolution o3 6'?* and its co>)etitioner !2@ 6'?* 3iled a ,otion 3or $econsideration to which was attached its +oard resolution authori"ing 8rdo:o to sign the certi3ication@ The motion was li4ewise denied +ecause onl: 6'?* gave the authori"ation although there were other )etitioners@ The: 3iled a 'econd ,otion 3or $econsideration with Leave o3 -ourt@ It alleged that it was onl: 6'?* which intended to 3ile the Petition 3or -ertiorariA +ut the title included )etitioner !2 +ecause the: merel: co)ied the title o3 the case 3rom the NL$- decision@ ?hile the second motion 3or reconsideration was )ending +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))ealsA 6'?* 3iled the instant Petition 3or -ertiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt@ *3ter sometimeA the -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the second motion 3or reconsideration on the ground that it is a )rohi+ited )leading@

Iss%e3 ?hether 6'?* is guilt: o3 3orum sho))ing when it 3iled the )resent )etition with this -ourt while its second motion 3or reconsideration was )ending +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals@

4el53 2orum sho))ing e%ists when the elements o3 litis pendentia are )resent or where a 3inal /udgment in one case will amount to res !udicata in another@ There is 3orum sho))ing when there is anI L1O identit: o3 the )artiesA or at least such )arties as to re)resent the same interest in +oth actionsN L2O identit: o3 the rights asserted and relie3 )ra:ed 3orA the relie3 +eing 3ounded on the same set o3 3actsN and L3O identit: o3 the two )receding )articulars such that an: /udgment rendered in the other action will amount to res !udicata in the action under considerationA or will constitute litis pendentia@

6'?* contends that it did not resort to 3orum sho))ing +ecause the issues involved in the )leadings +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals and +e3ore this -ourt are di33erentA viBI The motion 3or reconsideration and the su+se9uent motion 3or reconsideration with HLeave o3 -ourtH 3iled +: the )etitioner with the .onora+le -ourt o3 *))eals sought the reconsideration of its earlier resolutions to give due course to the petition in the interest of !ustice and fair play since )etitioner +elieved that it has strictl: com)lied with its directives and that the dismissal was +ased on the ca)tion o3 the )leading and not on the allegations thereinAwhile the instant )etition sought the remand of the case to the @onorable Court of Appeals for appropriate action@ ?e disagree@ ?e cannot countenance the over stretched argument o3 6'?*@ Its two motions 3or reconsideration )ra: that the -ourt o3 *))eals give due course to the )etition 3or certiorari 3iled +e3ore it@ The )etition +e3ore this -ourt see4s the remand o3 the case to the -ourt o3 *))eals H3or a))ro)riate action@H It is o+vious howeverA that i3 we grant the )etition and remand the caseA we will +e ordering the -ourt o3 *))eals to give due course to 6'?*Gs )etition@ This is )recisel: the o+/ect o3 its motion 3or reconsiderationA as well as its second motion 3or reconsideration@ To +e sureA a second motion 3or reconsideration is a )rohi+ited )leading@ !ut this cannot save 6'?* 3rom a +latant violation o3 the rule on 3orum sho))ing@ The rule e%)licitl: )rohi+its a )art: against whom an adverse /udgment has +een rendered in one 3orum 3rom see4ing another 3orum in the ho)e o3 o+taining a 3avora+le dis)osition in the latter@ 2orum sho))ing is not onl: HcontumaciousH +ut also Hde)lora+le +ecause it adds to the congestion o3 the heavil: +urdened doc4ets o3 the courts@H

+,B. INTERNATI)NAL C)NTAINER TERMINAL SERNICES6 INC.6 1s C)(RT )& APPEALS

8n 2e+ruar: 3A 1&##A the Phili))ine Ports *uthorit: issued *dministrative 8rder which o)ened )ilotage services in the Phili))ines to all licensed and accredited har+or )ilots regardless o3 their non>mem+ershi) in e%isting har+or )ilots association@ The 6nited .ar+or Pilots *ssociation o3 the Phili))inesA Inc and )rivate res)ondent ,anila Pilots *ssociation made re)resentations to set aside its im)lementation claiming that it violated their e%clusive right to )rovide )ilotage services in the Phili))ines@ The $T- declared the *8 null and void@ PP* a))ealed to the -ourt o3 *))eals via a )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition which was dismissed 3or lac4 o3 /urisdictionA as it raised a )urel: legal 9uestion@ The dismissal was a))ealed '- +: wa: o3 a )etition 3or review on certiorari which was denied with 3inalit:@ Notwithstanding the 3inalit: o3 the decision recogni"ing the e%clusive right to )ilotage o3 H6nited .ar+orH and H,anila PilotsHA )etitioner HInternational -ontainerH too4 over the )ilotage services at the ,anila International Port area +: virtue o3 a contract it entered into with the Phili))ine Ports *uthorit:@ *s a conse9uenceA H6nited .ar+orH and H,anila PilotsH 3iled a series o3 )etitions to hold PP* and HInternational -ontainerH o33icials and other )ersons in contem)t o3 court@ The contem)t )etitionsA howeverA have not +een resolved +ecause the 833ice o3 the 'olicitor 1eneral elevated to the 'u)reme -ourt the 9uestion o3 whether or not the lower court still had /urisdiction to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the )etitions 3or contem)t in view o3 the 3inalit: o3 the decision@ Pending resolution o3 the contem)t )etitionsA )rivate res)ondent H,anila PilotsH 3iled another civil case against )etitioner HInternational -ontainerH +e3ore !ranch 32 o3 the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anila 3or damages su33ered +: )rivate res)ondent H,anila PilotsH as a result o3 )etitionerGs usur)ation o3 its sole and e%clusive e%ercise o3 har+or )ilotage in the 'outh and North .ar+ors o3 ,anila and Lima:A !ataan@ 'imilarl:A aggrieved +: the un/ust actuations o3 )etitioner HInternational -ontainerHA and its continuing re3usal to relin9uish )ilotage services in the ,anila International Port areaA H,anila PilotsH instituted a )etition 3or mandamusA )rohi+ition with )reliminar: mandator: in/unction and damages against )etitioner HInternational -ontainerH +e3ore !ranch 4 o3 the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,anila@ The $egional Trial -ourt issued a decision restoring and reinstating H,anila PilotsH to the e%clusive e%ercise o3 har+or )ilotage in the ,anila International Port L,IPO area and commanding )etitioner HInternational -ontainerH to cease and desist 3rom usur)ing or e%ercising the right to com)ulsor: )ilotage in the said ,anila International Port L,IPO area@H & Petitioner HInternational -ontainerH assailed this order o3 the lower court +: 3iling a )etition 3or certiorari with res)ondent court contendingA among othersA that the 3iling o3 -ivil -aseA )ending the other

cases mentioned a+oveQthe contem)t caseA the case 3iled +: the 8'1 with the '- and the civil case 3or damagesQcaliming a violation o3 non>3orum sho))ing@

Iss%e3 Is there 3orum sho))ingX

4el53 None@ 2or 3orum sho))ing to e%istA +oth actions must involve the same transactionsA same essential 3acts and circumstances@ 2urthermoreA the actions must also raise identical causes o3 actionA su+/ect matterA and issues@ ?e 3ind no such similarit: in the actions involved@ ThusA as correctl: o+served +: the res)ondent courtI The 3acts which gave rise to the contem)t )etition is directed against what was )erceived to +e violative o3 the )ermanent in/unction issued +: Judge not to im)lement the o)en )ilotage )olic: as )rovided 3or under PP* *dministrative 8rder No@ (2>##A @ @ @ @ 6)on the other hand the com)laint in -ivil -ase No@ &3>6#143 L sicO is anchored on the alleged usur)ation o3 the right o3 res)ondents on L sicO the sole and e%clusive e%ercise o3 .ar+or Pilotage only and the corres)onding claim 3or damages@ 2urthermoreA the case 3iled with the 'u)reme -ourt solel: to 9uestion the /urisdiction o3 the lower court to ta4e cogni"ance o3 the contem)t )etitionsA and the issue raised therein has no +earing on that raised in the other cases@ ,oreoverA Hthere is 3orum sho))ing wheneverA as a result o3 an adverse o)inion in one 3orumA a )art: see4s a 3avora+le o)inion Lother than +: a))eal or certiorariO in anotherH@ There3oreA a )art: to a case resorts to 3orum sho))ing +ecause HE+F: 3iling another )etition involving the same essential 3acts and circumstancesA @ @ @A res)ondents a))roached two di33erent 3ora in order to increase their chances o3 o+taining a 3avora+le decision or actionH@ It cannot +e said that )rivate res)ondent H,anila PilotsH sought to increase its chances o3 o+taining a 3avora+le decision or action as a result o3 an adverse o)inion in one 3orumA inasmuch as no un3avora+le decision had ever +een rendered against them@

+,BC <(PANGC) C)TT)N MILLS6 INC 1s C)(RT )& APPEALS

Petitioner 3iled a notice o3 third>)art: claim with the La+or *r+iter to )revent the writ o3 e%ecution which was denied@ Then it 3iled an accion reinvindicatoria to recover the )ro)ert: illegall: levied u)on and sold at auction@

Iss%e3 Is )etitioner guilt: o3 3orum sho))ingX

4el53 No 3orum sho))ing@ HThere is no 3orum>sho))ing where two di33erent orders were 9uestionedA two distinct causes o3 action and issues were raisedA and two o+/ectives were sought@H In the case at +arA there was no identit: o3 )artiesA rights and causes o3 action and relie3s sought@ The case +e3ore the NL$- where La+or *r+iter $e:es issued a la+or dis)ute +etween *rte% and 'amar>*nglo@ Petitioner was not a )art: to the case@ The onl: issue )etitioner raised +e3ore the NL$- was whether or not the writ o3 e%ecution issued +: the la+or ar+iter could +e satis3ied against the )ro)ert: o3 )etitionerA not a )art: to the la+or case@ 8n the other handA the accion reinvindicatoria 3iled +: )etitioner in the trial court was to recover the )ro)ert: illegall: levied u)on and sold at auction@ .enceA the causes o3 action in these cases were di33erent@ The rule is that H3or 3orum>sho))ing to e%ist +oth actions must involve the same transactionsA the same circumstances@ The actions must also raise identical causes o3 actionA su+/ect matter and issues@ H2orum>sho))ing or the act o3 a )art: against whom an adverse /udgment has +een rendered in one 3orumA o3 see4ing another Land )ossi+leO o)inion in another 3orum Lother than +: a))eal or the s)ecial civil action o3 certiorariOA or the institution o3 two L2O or more actions or )roceedings grounded on the same cause on the su))osition that one or the other would ma4e a 3avora+le dis)osition@H * third )art: whose )ro)ert: has +een levied u)on +: a sheri33 to en3orce a decision against a /udgment de+tor is a33orded with several alternative remedies to )rotect its interests@ The third )art: ma: avail himsel3 o3 alternative remedies cumulativel:A and one will not )reclude the third )art: 3rom availing himsel3 o3 the other alternative remedies in the event he 3ailed in the remed: 3irst availed o3@ ThusA a third )art: ma: avail himsel3 o3 the 3ollowing alternative remediesI

aO 2ile a third )art: claim with the sheri33 o3 the La+or *r+iterA and +O I3 the third )art: claim is deniedA the third )art: ma: a))eal the denial to the NL$-@ &n light of the above" the filing of a third party claim %ith the 6abor Arbiter and the 76*C did not preclude the petitioner from filing a subse uent action for recovery of property and damages %ith the *egional )rial Court. And" the institution of such complaint %ill not make petitioner guilty of forum shopping

+,BAGILENT TEC4N)L)GIES SINGAP)RE *PTE0 LTD.6 TEC4N)L)G< P4ILIPPINES C)RP)RATI)N 1s. INTEGRATED SILIC)N

8n ,a: 25A 2((1A Integrated 'ilicon 3iled a com)laint 3or H')eci3ic Per3ormance and DamagesH against *gilent and its o33icers@ It alleged that *gilent +reached their oral agreement to e%tend their 'ervice *greement@ 8n June 1A 2((1A summons and a co): o3 the com)laint were served on *tt:@ $amon Muisum+ingA who returned these )rocesses on the claim that he was not the registered agent o3 *gilent@ LaterA he entered a s)ecial a))earance to assail the courtPs /urisdiction over the )erson o3 *gilent@ 8n Jul: 2A 2((1A *gilent 3iled a se)arate com)laint against Integrated 'ilicon 3or H')eci3ic Per3ormanceA $ecover: o3 PossessionA and 'um o3 ,one: with $e)levinA Preliminar: ,andator: In/unctionA and DamagesHA +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourtA -alam+aA Laguna@ *gilent )ra:ed that a writ o3 re)levin orA in the alternativeA a writ o3 )reliminar: mandator: in/unctionA +e issued ordering de3endants to immediatel: return and deliver to )lainti33 its e9ui)mentA machineries and the materials to +e used 3or 3i+er>o)tic com)onents which were le3t in the )lant o3 Integrated 'ilicon@ $es)ondents 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss on the grounds o3 lac4 o3 *gilentXs legal ca)acit: to sueN litis pendentiaN 3orum sho))ingN and 3ailure to state a cause o3 action@ 8n 'e)tem+er 4A 2((1A the trial court denied the ,otion to Dismiss and granted )etitioner *gilentXs a))lication 3or a writ o3 re)levin@ ?ithout 3iling a motion 3or reconsiderationA res)ondents 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ 8n *ugust 12A 2((2A the -ourt o3 *))eals granted res)ondentPs )etition 3or certiorariA and ordered the dismissal o3 -ivil -ase No@ 3123>2((1>-@

Iss%e3 ?8N T.5 -86$T 82 *PP5*L' -8,,ITT5D $575$'I!L5 5$$8$ IN *NN6LLIN1 *ND '5TTIN1 *'ID5 T.5 T$I*L -86$TP' 8$D5$ *ND 8$D5$IN1 T.5 DI',I''*L 82 -I7IL -*'5 N8@ 3123>2((1>- 8N T.5 1$86ND 82 28$6, '.8PPIN1A 8N *--86NT 82 T.5 P5ND5N-0 82 -I7IL -*'5 N8@ 311(>2((1>-@

4el5? 6itis pendentia is a Latin term which literall: means Ha )ending suit@H It is variousl: re3erred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant@ ?hile it is normall: connected with the control which the court has on a )ro)ert: involved in a suit during the

continuance )roceedingsA it is more inter)osed as a ground 3or the dismissal o3 a civil action )ending in court@ 6itis pendentia as a ground 3or the dismissal o3 a civil action re3ers to that situation wherein another action is )ending +etween the same )arties 3or the same cause o3 actionA such that the second action +ecomes unnecessar: and ve%atious@ 2or litis pendentia to +e invo4edA the concurrence o3 the 3ollowing re9uisites is necessar:I ?e now )roceed to the issue o3 3orum sho))ing@ 2orum sho))ing e%ists where the elements o3 litis pendentia are )resentA or where a 3inal /udgment in one case will amount to res !udicata in the 3inal other@ There +eing no litis pendentia in this caseA a /udgment in the said case will not amount to res !udicata in -ivil -ase No@ 311(> 2((1>-A and res)ondentsX contention on 3orum sho))ing must li4ewise 3ail@ ?e are not unmind3ul o3 the a33lictive conse9uences that ma: +e su33ered +: +oth )etitioner and res)ondents i3 re)levin is granted +: the trial court in -ivil -ase No@ 3123>2((1>-@ I3 res)ondent Integrated 'ilicon eventuall: wins -ivil -ase No@ 311(>2((1>-A and the 7**'*Ps terms are e%tendedA )etitioner cor)oration will have to com)l: with its o+ligations thereunderA which would include the consignment o3 )ro)erties similar to those it ma: recover +: wa: o3 re)levin in -ivil -ase No@ 3123>2((1>-@ .oweverA )etitioner will also su33er an in/ustice i3 denied the remed: o3 re)levinA resort to which is not onl: allowed +ut encouraged +: law@

+,BB R)NELS ENTERPRISES6 INC 1s. )CAMP)

In )a:ment 3or the services rendered +: $ovelsA the !oard o3 Directors o3 TTTD- )assed a $esolution on Decem+er 2&A 1& 5 )roviding as 3ollowsI H$5'8L75DA as it is here+: resolved that )a:ment 3or )ro3essional 3ees and services rendered +: % % % $ovels 5nter)rises % % % +e made in cash i3 3unds are availa+leA or its e9uivalent num+er o3 shares o3 stoc4 o3 the cor)oration at )ar valueA and should said creditors elect the latter mode o3 )a:mentA it is 3urther resolved that the President andBor his 'ecretar: +e authori"ed as the: are here+: authori"edA to issue the corres)onding unissued shares o3 stoc4 o3 the cor)oration@H 8n ,arch 1A 1& 6A the TTTD- !oard o3 Directors )assed another $esolution re)ealing its $esolution o3 Decem+er 2&A 1& 5A thusI H$5'8L75DA as it is here+: resolvedA that the $esolution o3 Decem+er 2&A 1& 5 authori"ing the )a:ment o3 creditors with unissued shares o3 the cor)oration +e as it is here+: re)ealedI $esolved 3urther that the matter as well as the amount o3 the creditorsP claims +e given ade9uate stud: and consideration +: the !oard@H In view o3 the Decem+er 2&A 1& 5 TTTD- !oard $esolution trans3erring to $ovels the said shares o3 stoc4 as construction 3eeA TTTD- Directors Jose 'ilvaA Jr@ and 5mmanuel 8cam)o 3iled a com)laint with the '5- against $o+erto $o%asA TTTD- PresidentA and 5duardo 'antosA $ovels PresidentA doc4eted as '5- -ase No@ 1322@ In their com)laintA 'ilva and 8cam)o alleged that there was no meeting o3 the TTTD-s !oard o3 Directors on Decem+er 2&A 1& 5N that the: did not authori"e the trans3er o3 TTTD-s shares o3 stoc4 to $ovelsN that the: never signed the alleged minutes o3 the meetingN and that the signatures o3 the other two L2O DirectorsA 7ictoriano Leviste and !ienvenido -ru"A Jr@A as well as that o3 TTTD-s 'ecretar: 2rancisco -arreonA Jr@A were o+tained through 3raud and misre)resentation@ The: also alleged that the TTTD- !oard $esolution dated Decem+er 2&A 1& 5 was re)ealed +: the ,arch 1A 1& 6 $esolution@ The: thus )ra:ed that the trans3er o3 TTTD-s shares o3 stoc4 to $ovels )ursuant to $esolution dated Decem+er 2&A 1& 5 +e annulled@ 8n ,arch 1 A 1& &A '5- .earing 833icer 5ugenio 5@ $e:es issued a Decision in 3avor o3 'ilva and 8cam)oA the dis)ositive )ortion o3 which readsI H-onsidering that the LDecem+er 2&A 1& 5O +oard resolution which authori"es the cor)oration to )a: its creditors with its unissued shares o3 stoc4 % % % had +een e%)ressl: revo4ed or re)ealed on ,arch 1A 1& 6 as earlier )ointed outA -ommission $esolution No@ 26( Lgranting 'antosX a))lication 3or e%em)tion 3rom registration o3 the unissued sharesOA when issued on ,a: A 1& 6 % % % had lost its legal +asis@ -onse9uentl:A the corres)onding issuance o3 shares was without authorit: o3 the +oard o3 directors@H

'u+se9uentl:A TTTD-A Jose 'ilvaA 5mmanuel 8cam)oA 7ictoriano LevisteA 2rancisco -arreonA Jr@A and 5%)edito LevisteA 'r@A another stoc4holder o3 TTTD-A Lthe 'IL7* 1$86PA now res)ondentsOA 3iled with the '5- a )etition against 5duardo 'antosA ':lvia '@ 7elosoA Jose3ina -ar+alloA *ugusto del $osarioA $e:naldo *lcantara and Lauro 'andoval Lthe '*NT8' 1$86POA doc4eted as '5- -ase No@ 3#(6@ LThe '*NT8' 1$86P were nominees o3 $ovels whoA +: virtue o3 the shares o3 stoc4 issued )ursuant to the Decem+er 2&A 1& 5 $esolutionA )roceeded to act as directors and o33icers o3 TTTD-O@ In their )etitionA the 'IL7* 1$86P )ra:ed that the: +e declared the true and law3ul stoc4holders and incum+ent directors and o33icers o3 TTTD-@ 8n Jul: 6A 1&&3A '5- .earing 833icer *l+erto P@ *tas rendered a Decision in 3avor o3 the 'IL7* 1$86PA thusI H?.5$528$5A /udgment is here+: rendered in 3avor o3 the )etitioners L'IL7* 1$86PO and against the res)ondents L'*NT8' 1$86POA as 3ollowsI a@ Declaring )etitioners as the law3ul stoc4holdersA directors and o33icers o3 Taga:ta: Taal Tourist Develo)ment -or)orationN +@ Declaring res)ondentsA to +e not stoc4holders o3 Taga:ta: Taal Tourist Develo)ment -or)orationN c@ Declaring res)ondents to +e not directors or o33icers o3 Taga:ta: Taal Tourist Develo)ment -or)orationN d@ The writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction issued on Novem+er 6A 1&&( is here+: made )ermanentN and e@ 8rdering the $ecords Division o3 this -ommission to )urge the records o3 Taga:ta: Taal Tourist Develo)ment -or)oration o3 all )a)ers and documents 3iled +: res)ondents )ur)ortedl: in +ehal3 o3 Taga:ta: Taal Tourist Develo)ment -or)oration@H Lem)hasis and words in )arentheses addedO The a+ove Decision +ecame 3inal and e%ecutor: on 'e)tem+er 1A 1&&4 as no a))eal was inter)osed +: either the 'IL7* 1$86P or the '*NT8' 1$86P@ In an 8rder dated *)ril 22A 1&&6 in '5- -ase No@ (&>&5>5135A '5- .earing 833icer ,anuel P@ Perea dismissed $ovels )etition on the grounds o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 actionA res /udicataA esto))elA laches and )rescri)tion@ This 8rder was a33irmed +: the '5- en +anc in its Decision dated Januar: 2(A 1&& in '5- *- No@ 56(@ 6)on a )etition 3or reviewA doc4eted as -*>1@$@ 'P@ No@ 4326(A the -ourt o3 *))ealsA in its Decision dated June 5A 1&&#A a33irmed the Januar: 2(A 1&& '5- en +anc Decision@ $ovels motion 3or reconsideration was li4ewise denied@

Iss%es3 Presence o3 -ause o3 *ction and res /udicata 4el53 No cause o3 action@ * cause o3 action is de3ined as the delict or wrong3ul act or omission committed +: a )erson in violation o3 the right o3 another@ * cause o3 action e%ists i3 the 3ollowing elements are )resentI L1O a right in 3avor o3 the )lainti33A L2O the correlative o+ligation o3 the de3endant to res)ect such rightA and L3O the act or omission o3 the de3endant in violation o3 )lainti33Ps right@ The test is whether the material allegations o3 the com)laintA assuming them to +e trueA state ultimate 3acts which constitute )lainti33Ps cause o3 actionA such that )lainti33 is entitled to a 3avora+le /udgment as a matter o3 law@ There is res /udicata@ The re9uisites o3 res /udicataA also 4nown as the rule on +ar +: )rior /udgmentA areI 1O the 3ormer /udgment must +e 3inalN 2O the court which rendered it had /urisdiction over the su+/ect matter and the )artiesN 3O the /udgment must +e on the meritsN and 4O there must +e +etween the 3irst and the second actionsA identit: o3 )artiesA su+/ect matter and causes o3 action@ The 3irst three L3O re9uisites o3 res /udicata are )resent in this case@ This is not dis)uted +: the )arties and isA in 3actA esta+lished +: the record@ The controvers: arises as to whether there is identit: o3 the )arties in the )resent '5- -ase No@ (&>&5>5135A on the one handA and in )rior '5- -ase Nos@ 1322 and 3#(6A on the other@ $ovels is +ound +: the )revious '5- Decisions@ It must +e noted that 5duardo 'antosA President o3 $ovelsA was one o3 the res)ondents in +oth '5- -ase Nos@ 1322 and 3#(6@ -learl:A $ovels and 5duardo 'antosA +eing its PresidentA share an identit: o3 interests su33icient to ma4e them )rivies>in>law@ It +ears stressing that a+solute identit: o3 )arties is not re9uired 3or the )rinci)le o3 res /udicataA or the rule on +ar +: )rior /udgmentA to a))l:@ ,ere su+stantial identit: o3 )artiesA or a communit: o3 interests +etween a )art: in the 3irst case and a )art: in the su+se9uent case even i3 the latter was not im)leaded in the 3irst caseA is su33icient@ $ovels cannot ta4e re3uge in the argument thatA as a cor)orationA it is im+ued with )ersonalit: se)arate and distinct 3rom that o3 the res)ondents in '5- -ase Nos@ 1322 and 3#(6@ The legal 3iction o3 se)arate cor)orate e%istence is not at all times invinci+le and the same ma: +e )ierced when em)lo:ed as a means to )er)etrate a 3raudA con3use legitimate issuesA or used as a vehicle to )romote un3air o+/ectives or to shield an otherwise +latant violation o3 the )rohi+ition against 3orum>sho))ing@ ?hile it is settled that the )iercing o3 the cor)orate veil has to +e done with cautionA this cor)orate 3iction ma: +e disregarded when necessar: in the interest o3 /ustice@

The doctrine o3 res /udicata states that a 3inal /udgment on the merits rendered +: a court o3 com)etent /urisdiction is conclusive as to the rights o3 the )arties and their )riviesA and constitutes an a+solute +ar to su+se9uent actions involving the same claimA demand or cause o3 action@ This is 3ounded on )u+lic )olic: and necessit:A which ma4es it to the interest o3 the 'tate that there should +e an end to litigationsA and on the )rinci)le that an individual should not +e ve%ed twice 3or the same cause@

+;KK SP)(SES MEL) NS. CA

Private res)ondent *rsenia -oronel mortgaged to the $ural !an4 o3 ,a+alacatA Inc@ a )arcel o3 land in *ngeles -it: to secure a loan o3 P6(A(((@((@ !ecause o3 her 3ailure to )a: the loanA the +an4 caused the e%tra>/udicial 3oreclosure o3 the mortgage as a result o3 which the land was sold to )etitioners as the highest +idders@ Petitioners then 3iled a Petition 3or the (#0Parte Issuance o3 a ?rit o3 Possession with the $egional Trial -ourtA !ranch 6(A *ngeles -it:@ To counter the )etitionA )rivate res)ondent 3iled a com)laint 3or in/unction against )etitioners in the $egional Trial -ourtA !ranch 5 A *ngeles -it:@ In turnA )etitioners moved to dismiss )rivate res)ondentGs action on the 3ollowing groundsI L1O litis pendentiaN L2O 3orum sho))ingN and L3O 3ailure o3 )rivate res)ondent to attach a certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ing to her com)laint@ 8n Jul: 3A 1&&5A )rivate res)ondent amended her com)laint +: including the certi3ication o3 non> 3orum sho))ing@

Iss%es3 L1O whether )rivate res)ondent is guilt: o3 3orum sho))ing +: 3iling her com)laint with )reliminar: in/unction +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourtA !ranch 5 A *ngeles -it: when there was a Petition 3or (#0Parte Issuance o3 ?rit o3 Possession )ending +e3ore !ranch 6( o3 the same courtN and L2O whether there was su+stantial com)liance +: )rivate res)ondent with the rule re9uiring the su+mission o3 a certi3ication o3 non>3orum sho))ing together with initiator: )leadings@

4el53 To +egin withA the essence o3 3orum>sho))ing is the 3iling o3 multi)le suits involving the same )arties 3or the same cause o3 actionA either simultaneousl: or successivel:A 3or the )ur)ose o3 o+taining a 3avora+le /udgment@ It e%ists where the elements o3 litis pendentia are )resent or where a 3inal /udgment in one case will amount to res !udicata in another@ 8n the other handA 3or litis pendentia to +e a ground 3or the dismissal o3 an actionA the 3ollowing re9uisites must concurI LaO identit: o3 )artiesA or at least such )arties who re)resent the same interests in +oth actionsN L+O identit: o3 rights asserted and relie3 )ra:ed 3orA the relie3 +eing 3ounded on the same 3actsN and LcO the identit: with res)ect to the two )receding )articulars in the two cases is such that an: /udgment that ma: +e rendered in the )ending caseA regardless o3 which )art: is success3ulA would amount to res !udicata in the other case@ !utA in the instant caseA the )etition 3or the (#0Parte Issuance o3 a ?rit o3 Possession which )etitioners 3iled involved a di33erent cause o3 action 3rom the com)laint 3or in/unction 3iled +: )rivate res)ondent@ Petitioners sought )ossession o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert:A whereas )rivate res)ondent sought to en/oin them 3rom consolidating title over the same@ PetitionersG action is 3ounded on *ct No@ 3135A X A which gives the )urchaser at a )u+lic auction the right to have

)ossession o3 the )ro)ert: sold to him during the redem)tion )eriod even i3 eventuall: the: do not succeed in consolidating their title to it@ 8n the other handA )rivate res)ondentsG action is +ased on $@*@ No@ 33 #A which gives a mortgagor the right to redeem the )ro)ert: sold at 3oreclosure sale within one :ear thereo3@ ThusA )rivate res)ondent could ver: well o))ose )etitionersG action to o+tain )ossession o3 the )ro)ert: while tr:ing to )revent them 3rom consolidating title in a se)arate case@ The decision in one is not conclusive o3 the other@ NonethelessA )etitioners contend that )rivate res)ondent 3ailed to com)l: with the re9uirements o3 *dministrative -ircular No@ (&>&4 on non>3orum sho))ing andA there3oreA her com)laint should have +een dismissed +: the trial court@ ?e 3ind this contention to +e well ta4en@ The re9uirement to 3ile a certi3icate o3 non>3orum sho))ing is mandator:@ 2ailure to com)l: with this re9uirement cannot +e e%cused +: the 3act that )lainti33 is not guilt: o3 3orum sho))ing@ The -ourt o3 *))ealsA there3oreA erred in concluding that *dministrative -ircular No@ (4>&4 did not a))l: to )rivate res)ondentGs case merel: +ecause her com)laint was not +ased on )etitionerGs cause o3 action@ The -ircular a))lies to an: com)laintA )etitionA a))licationA or other initiator: )leadingA regardless o3 whether the )art: 3iling it has actuall: committed 3orum sho))ing@ 5ver: )art: 3iling a com)laint or an: other initiator: )leading is re9uired to swear under oath that he has not committed nor will he commit 3orum sho))ing@ 8therwiseA we would have an a+surd situation where the )arties themselves would +e the /udge o3 whether their actions constitute a violation o3 said -ircularA and com)liance therewith would de)end on their +elie3 that the: might or might not have violated the re9uirement@ 'uch inter)retation o3 the re9uirement would de3eat the ver: )ur)ose o3 -ircular (4>&4@ IndeedA com)liance with the certi3ication against 3orum sho))ing is se)arate 3romA and inde)endent o3A the avoidance o3 3orum sho))ing itsel3@ ThusA there is a di33erence in the treatment in terms o3 im)osa+le sanctions +etween 3ailure to com)l: with the certi3ication re9uirement and violation o3 the )rohi+ition against 3orum sho))ing@ The 3ormer is merel: a cause 3or the dismissalA without )re/udiceA o3 the com)laint or initiator: )leadingA while the latter is a ground 3or summar: dismissal thereo3 and constitutes direct contem)t@ Nor can su+se9uent com)liance with the re9uirement e%cuse a )art:Gs 3ailure to com)l: in the 3irst instance@ ?e are not unmind3ul o3 the adverse conse9uence to )rivate res)ondent o3 a dismissal o3 her com)laintA nor o3 the timeA e33ortA and mone: s)ent litigating u) to this -ourt solel: on a so> called technical ground@ NonethelessA we hold that com)liance with the certi3ication re9uirement on non>3orum sho))ing should not +e made su+/ect to a )art:Gs a3terthoughtA lest the )olic: o3 the law +e undermined@

+;K, RE<NALD) T. C)META 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS

Petitioner 'tate Investment TrustA Inc@ L'ITIOA 3ormerl: 'tate Investment .ouseA Inc@ L'I.IOA is an investment house engaged in 9uasi>+an4ing activities@ Petitioner $e:naldo -ometa is its )resident@ Private corres)ondent .one:com+ !uildersA Inc@ L.!IOA on the other handA is a cor)oration engaged in the +usiness o3 develo)ingA constructingA and selling townhouses and condominium unitsA )rivate res)ondent $e:naldo 1uevara is )resident o3 .!I and chairman o3 the +oard o3 directors o3 1uevent Industrial Develo)ment -or)@A L1ID-O@ 'ometime in 1& &A )etitioner 'ITI e%tended loans in various amounts to 1ID- which the latter 3ailed to )a: on the dates the: +ecame due@ 2or this reasonA a reha+ilitation )lan was agreed u)on 3or 1ID- under which it mortgaged several )arcels o3 land to )etitioner 'ITI@ *mong those mortgaged was a ,andalu:ong lot covered +: T-T No@ 462#55 L2(51(O@ .oweverA 1ID- again de3aulted@ .enceA )etitioner 'ITI 3oreclosed the mortgages andA in the 3oreclosure saleA ac9uired the )ro)erties as highest +idder@ *lleging irregularities in the 3oreclosure o3 the mortgages and the sale o3 )ro)erties to )etitioner 'ITIA 1ID- 3iled a case n the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Pasig@ The case was eventuall: settled through a com)romise agreement which +ecame the +asis o3 the trial courtGs Judgment@ * dis)ute later arose concerning the inter)retation o3 the com)romise agreementA as res)ondent .!I o33ered to )urchase 3rom 1ID- the lot covered +: T-T No@ 462#55 L2(51(O and the latter agreed +ut )etitioner 'ITI Lthe mortgageeO re3used to give its consent to the sale and release its lien on the )ro)ert:@ 2or this reasonA 1ID- as4ed the trial court 3or a clari3ication o3 its decision@ 'u+se9uentl:A the trial court directed )etitioner 'ITI to acce)t the o33er o3 res)ondent .!I to )urchase the )ro)ert: covered +: T-T No@ 462#55 L2(51(O@ Petitioner 'ITI a))ealed the order to the -ourt o3 *))eals which a33irmed the same@ 8n a))eal to this -ourtA the decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals was a33irmed@ ,eanwhileA res)ondent .!I a))lied to the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard 3or a )ermit to develo) the )ro)ert: in 9uestion@ Its a))lication was grantedA on account o3 which res)ondent .!I +uilt a condominium on the )ro)ert: called H$'1 -ondominium 1ueventville II@H ?hen res)ondent .!I a))lied 3or a license to sell the condominium units it was re9uired +: the .L6$! to su+mit an *33idavit o3 6nderta4ing which in e33ect stated that the mortgagee L'ITIO o3 the said )ro)ert: to +e develo)ed agrees to release the mortgage on the said )ro)ert: as soon as the 3ull )urchase )rice o3 the same is )aid +: the +u:er@ $es)ondent .!I su+mitted the re9uired a33idavit )ur)ortedl: e%ecuted +: )etitioner -ometa as )resident o3 'ITI LmortgageeO@ Petitioner -ometa deniedA howeverA that he ever e%ecuted the a33idavit@ .e as4ed the National !ureau o3 Investigation 3or assistance to determine the authenticit: o3 the signature on the a33idavit@ The N!I 3ound -ometaGs signature on the *33idavit o3 6nderta4ing to +e 3orger: on the +asis o3 which a com)laint 3or 3alsi3ication o3 )u+lic document was 3iled against .!I )resident 1uevara@ .oweverA the $i"al Provincial ProsecutorGs 833ice 3ound no )ro+a+le cause against

)rivate res)ondent 1uevara and accordingl: dismissed the com)laint in its resolution o3 'e)tem+er 25A 1&#&@ *n in3ormation 3or 2alsi3ication o3 Pu+lic Document was thus 3iled against )rivate res)ondent 1uevara in the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,a4ati where it was doc4eted as -riminal -ase No@ &(> 3(1#@ 2ollowing the dismissal o3 the criminal case against himA )rivate res)ondents $e:naldo '@ 1uevara and .!I 3iled a com)laint 3or malicious )rosecution against )etitioners -ometa and 'ITI in the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Mue"on -it:@ Petitioners 'ITI and -ometa 3iled their res)ective answers@ *3ter the )re>trial o3 the caseA the: 3iled a /oint motion to dismiss with alternative motion to dro) res)ondent .!I as a )art: )lainti33A u)on the 3ollowing groundsI 1@ The com)laint states no cause o3 action@ 2@ 'ecretar: DrilonA 6ndersecretar: !ello and the )rosecutorA not im)leaded hereinA are the real )arties in>interest>de3endantsA which again ma4es the com)laint lac4 a cause o3 action@ *t the leastA the a+ove )u+lic o33icial are indis)ensa+le )artiesA and their non>inclusion renders this court with /urisdiction over the case@ 3@ The action see4s to im)ose a )enalt: on the right to litigate and 3or that reason is unconstitutional and against settled )u+lic )olic:@ PetitionersA in se)arate motionsA as4ed 3or a reconsideration +ut their motions were denied on *ugust 12A 1&&4@ The: then 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition@ The -ourt o3 *))eals immediatel: issued a tem)orar: restraining order on 'e)tem+er 22A 1&&4 andA on 8cto+er 2#A 1&&4A u)on )etitionersG )osting o3 a P1A(((@(( +ondA issued a writ o3 )reliminar: in/unction en/oining the trial court 3rom conducting 3urther )roceedings in the case@ 8n Jul: 2#A 1&&5A the -ourt o3 *))eals rendered its decision den:ing the )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+ition o3 )etitioners@

Iss%e3 whether the com)laint 3iled +: )rivate res)ondents against )etitioners in the $egional Trial -ourt states a cause o3 action@ Petitioners maintain it does not as the allegations in the com)laint are insu33icient and indis)ensa+le )arties were not im)leaded in the case@ The: contend that )rivate res)ondent .!I should have +een dro))ed as a )art: )lainti33 u)on )etitionersG motion there3or@

4el53 -ontentions are without merit@ * com)laint 3or malicious )rosecution sates a cause o3 action i3 it allegesI 1@ that the de3endant was himsel3 the )rosecutor or that at leas he instigated the )rosecutionN

2@ that the )rosecution 3inall: terminated in the )lainti33Gs ac9uittalN 3@ that in +ringing the action the )rosecutor acted without )ro+a+le causeN and 4@ that the )rosecutor was actuated +: maliceA i@e@A +: im)ro)er and sinister motives@ ThusA the 9uestion isN whether the 3acts )leaded and the su+stantive law entilte )lainti33 to a /udgment@ 8therwise statedA can a /udgment +e rendered u)on the 3acts alleged and deemed admittedA in accordance with the )ra:er in the com)laintX *s regards the re9uirement o3 lac4 o3 )ro+a+le causeA It is nonetheless )ointed out that the com)laint itsel3 alleges that a )reliminar: investigation was conductedA that the 'ecretar: o3 Justice ordered the 3iling o3 the in3ormationA and that the trial court issued a warrant o3 arrest against )rivate res)ondent 1uevara@ 'uch allegations in the com)laintA )etitioners claimA negate the e%istence o3 )ro+a+le cause@ The mere allegation in a com)laint 3or malicious )rosecution that an in3ormation was 3iled a3ter )reliminar: investigation and that a warrant o3 arrest was there a3ter issued does not +: itsel3 negate allegations in the same com)laint that the )rosecution was malicious@ *ll criminal )rosecutions are +: direction and control o3 the )u+lic )rosecutor@ To sustain )etitionnersG stand that an allegation in a com)laint 3or malicious )rosecution that the in3ormation in the criminal case was 3iled a3ter a))ro)riate )reliminar: investigation negates a contrar: allegation that the 3iling o3 the case was malicious would result in the dismissal o3 ever: action 3or malicious )rosecution@ In contrastA the decision o3 the criminal court in the )resent case indicates that there was not even prima facie evidence to )rove the alleged guilt o3 the accused@ -onse9uentl:A a trial was in 3act unnecessar: and the criminal court dismissed the case against )rivate res)ondent 1uevara on the +asis o3 a demurrer to evidence@ * courtA dealing with a motion to dismiss an action 3or malicious )rosecutionA has onl: to determine whether the allegation o3 the com)laintA assuming to +e trueA entitle the )lainti33 to a /udgment@ The trial court is not to in9uire into the truth o3 the allegations@ IndeedA it cannot do so without de)riving the )lainti33 an o))ortunit: to +e heard on his allegations@

+;K; SP)(SES E&REN N. RIG)R 1s. C)NS)LIDATED )RIR LEASING an5 &INANCE C)RP)RATI)N Petitioners o+tained a loan 3rom )rivate res)ondent -onsolidated 8ri% Leasing and 2inance -or)oration LHPrivate $es)ondentH 3or +revit:O in the amount o3 P1A63(A32(@((@ Petitioners e%ecuted a )romissor: note on Jul: 31A 1&&6 )romising to )a: the loan in 24 e9ual monthl: installments o3 P6 A&3(@(( ever: 3i3th da: o3 the month commencing on 'e)tem+er 5A 1&&6@ The )romissor: note also )rovides that de3ault in )a:ing an: installment renders the entire un)aid amount due and )a:a+le@ To secure )a:ment o3 the loanA )etitioners e%ecuted in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondent a deed o3 chattel mortgage over two dum) truc4s@ Petitioners 3ailed to )a: several installments des)ite demand 3rom )rivate res)ondent@ 8n Januar: 5A 1&&#A )rivate res)ondent sought to 3oreclose the chattel mortgage +: 3iling a com)laint 3or *eplevin %ith 'amages against )etitioners +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 Dagu)an -it: LHDagu)an trial courtH 3or +revit:O@ *3ter service o3 summonsA )etitioners moved to dismiss the com)laint on the ground o3 im)ro)er venue +ased on a )rovision in the )romissor: note which states thatA H% % % all legal actions arising out o3 this note or in connection with the chattels su+/ect hereo3 shall only be brought in or submitted to the proper court in Makati City" Philippines@H Private res)ondent o))osed the motion to dismiss and argued that venue was )ro)erl: laid in Dagu)an -it: where it has a +ranch o33ice +ased on a )rovision in the deed o3 chattel mortgage which states thatA H% % % in case o3 litigation arising out o3 the transaction that gave rise to this contractA complete !urisdiction is given the proper court of the city of Makati or any proper court %ithin the province of *iBal" or any court in the city" or province %here the holderJmortgagee has a branch office" %aiving for this purpose any proper venue@H

Iss%e3 ?.5T.5$ 75N65 ?*' P$8P5$L0 L*ID 6ND5$ T.5 P$87I'I8N' 82 T.5 -.*TT5L ,8$T1*15 -8NT$*-T IN T.5 LI1.T 82 *$TI-L5 13 4 82 T.5 -I7IL -8D5@H

4el53 The controvers: stems 3rom the con3licting )rovisions on venue in the )romissor: note and the deed o3 chattel mortgage@ -onse9uentl:A the decisive issue is the correct inter)retation o3 the venue )rovisions in the two contracts@ The venue )rovision in the )romissor: note reads as 3ollowsI HIt e%)ressl: LsicO agreed that all legal actions arising out o3 this note or in connection with the chattels su+/ect hereo3 shall onl: +e +rought in or su+mitted to the )ro)er court in ,a4ati -it:A Phili))ines@H 8n the other handA the venue )rovision in the deed o3 chattel mortgage readsI

H75N65@ The )a:ment herein mentioned whether covered +: notes or notA are )a:a+le at the o33ice address o3 the ,8$T1*155 or its assignee and in case o3 litigation arising out o3 the transaction that gave rise to this contractA com)lete /urisdiction is given the )ro)er court o3 the cit: o3 ,a4ati or an: )ro)er court within the )rovince o3 $i"alA or an: court in the cit:A or )rovince where the holderBmortgagee has a +ranch o33iceA waiving 3or this )ur)ose an: )ro)er venue@H Petitioners argue that the )romissor: note should )revail over the deed o3 chattel mortgage +ecause this is the )rinci)al contract +eing sued u)on while the deed o3 chattel mortgage Hmerel: accom)aniesH the )romissor: note@ *ccording to )etitionersA the words Hshall onl:H in the )romissor: note ma4es e%clusive and restricts venue to the )ro)er court in ,a4ati -it:@ Petitioners contend that the venue )rovision in the )romissor: note does not contain 9uali3:ing words that the )arties intended the venue )rovision in the deed o3 chattel mortgage to +e a modi3ication o3 the venue in the )romissor: note@ Petitioners maintain that the -ourt o3 *))eals erroneousl: a))lied *rticle 13 4 o3 the -ivil -ode in construing the )romissor: note and the deed o3 chattel mortgage@ *ccording to )etitionersA this article a))lies onl: to con3licting )rovisions in one and the same contract and not to those 3ound in two distinct and entirel: se)arate contracts such as in the instant case@ Petitioners 3urther assert that an: am+iguit: should +e decided against )rivate res)ondent under the contract o3 adhesion doctrine@ .eldI *s a general ruleA all )ersonal actions ma: +e commenced and tried where the )lainti33 or an: o3 the )rinci)al )lainti33s residesA or where the de3endant or an: o3 the )rinci)al de3endants residesA at the election o3 the )lainti33@ .oweverA +: written agreement o3 the )artiesA the venue o3 an action ma: +e changed or trans3erred 3rom one )lace to another@ 6nder the )romissor: noteA )etitioners are o+liged to )a: )rivate res)ondent the loan in accordance with the agreed schedule@ To secure the )romissor: noteA )etitioners constituted a chattel mortgage in 3avor o3 )rivate res)ondent over two dum) truc4s@ !oth contracts contain venue )rovisions@ There is no dis)ute that the words Hshall onl:H )receding the designation o3 venue in the )romissor: noteA standing aloneA is mandator: and restrictive@ .oweverA the deed o3 chattel mortgage e%ecuted to secure the loan o+ligation )rovides alternative venues@ 'hould we disregard the venue )rovision in the deed o3 chattel mortgage as mere sur)lusage as contended +: )etitionersX The answer is in the negative@ The chattel mortgage constituted over the two dum) truc4s is an accessor: contract to the loan o+ligation as em+odied in the )romissor: note@ The chattel mortgage cannot e%ist as an inde)endent contract since its consideration is the same as that o3 the )rinci)al contract@ * )rinci)al o+ligation is an indis)ensa+le condition 3or the e%istence o3 an accessor: contract@ IndeedA contracts ma: +e classi3ied according to the degree o3 de)endence@ LoansA sales or leases are classi3ied as )rinci)al contracts while )ledgesA mortgages and suret:shi)s are classi3ied as accessor: contracts +ecause their e%istence is de)endent u)on the )rinci)al o+ligations the: guarantee or secure@

The )romissor: note and the deed o3 chattel mortgage must +e construed together@ Private res)ondent e%)lained that its older standard )romissor: notes con3ined venue in ,a4ati -it: where it had its main o33ice@ *3ter it o)ened a +ranch o33ice in Dagu)an -it:A )rivate res)ondent made corrections in the deed o3 chattel mortgageA +ut due to oversightA 3ailed to ma4e the corres)onding corrections in the )romissor: notes@ Petitioners a33i%ed their signatures in +oth contracts@ The rules on venue are intended to assure convenience 3or the )lainti33 and his witnesses and to )romote the ends o3 /ustice@ *s correctl: )ointed out +: )rivate res)ondentA Dagu)an -it: is the more convenient venue 3or +oth )arties considering that )rivate res)ondent has a +ranch o33ice in the cit: while )etitioners reside in near+: Tarlac@ 2rom this stand)ointA )etitionersP 3utile insistence on an e%clusive venue in ,a4ati -it: smac4s o3 a dilator: tactic to evade or at the ver: leastA )rolong the )a:ment o3 a /ust o+ligation@ The case has +een )ending 3or 3our :ears on account o3 the 9uestion o3 venue to the detriment o3 )rivate res)ondent which is sim)l: collecting on an outstanding loan o+ligation@

+;KD '(STINA ADNINC(LAFNELASP(EO 1s. CA 2 consolidated )etitions 3or review on certiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtI 1@$@ No@ 1113# This is a )etition 3or review o3 the Decision o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals in -*>1@$@ 'P No@ 3( 2 dismissing )etitioner Justina *dvincula>7elas9ue"Ps )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+itionN and 3or the nulli3ication o3 the alias writ o3 e%ecution issued +: the ,etro)olitan Trial -ourt o3 ParaVa9ueA !ranch #A in -ivil -ase No@ 223 3or unlaw3ul detainer@ 1@$@ No@ 12 4& This is a )etition 3or the reversal and setting aside o3 the Decision 3 o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals in -*>1@$@ 'P No@ 4(423 granting the )rivate res)ondentXs )etition 3or certiorari and )rohi+itionN and 3or the reinstatement o3 the De)artment o3 *grarian $e3orm *d/udication !oard LD*$*!O decision in D*$*! -ase No@ 22#@ The *ntecedents The s)ouses Jose 7elas9ue" and Justina 7elas9ue" were the agricultural lessees o3 a riceland with an area o3 51A53# s9uare metersA located in 'itio ,ala4ing <aho:A !o@ I+a:oA ParaVa9ueA ,etro ,anila@ The su+/ect )ro)ert: was originall: )ossessed and claimed +: ,artin Ner:@ In an action 3or annulment and reconve:anceA the court 3inall: decided in 1& 2 that the s)ouses ,artin and Leoncia de Leon Ner:A 'alud $odrigue"A 1ertrudes de LeonA and $osarioA ,arianoA Paci3icoA 8no3reA Lolo:A TrinidadA DionisioA Per3ectoA ,aria $e+eccaA *suncionA ,auro and LourdesA all surnamed Loren"oA were co>owners o3 the )ro)ert:@ The: later 3iled with the -ourt o3 2irst Instance L-2IO o3 $i"al a )etition 3or con3irmation o3 title over the )ro)ert:A which the court in due course granted@ -onse9uentl:A Trans3er -erti3icate o3 Title LT-TO No@ 64132 was issued to and under their names@4 In 1& #A the Loren"o si+lings 3iled an action 3or )artition against their co>ownersA ,artin and Leoncia Ner:A +e3ore the -2I o3 $i"alA Pasa: -it: !ranchA which was doc4eted as -ivil -ase No@ 5313>P@ The )arties later su+mitted a com)romise agreement where the: agreed to sell the said land to the Delta ,otors -or)oration@ 8n *ugust 24A 1& &A Jose '@ 7elas9ue"A in his ca)acit: as agricultural leasehold tenantA 3iled an action +e3ore the then -ourt o3 *grarian $elationsA doc4eted as -*$ -ase No@ 42A 6th $egional DistrictA !ranch 1A Mue"on -it:A 3or the redem)tion o3 the su+/ect )ro)ert: under Presidential Decree No@ 2 @ .e claimed that he had in3ormation that the )ro)ert: had +een o33ered 3or sale@ 8n Januar: 25A 1&#(A Delta ,otors -or)oration )urchased the su+/ect )ro)ert: 3or P2A31&A21(@((A evidenced +: a Deed o3 'ale@ The $egister o3 Deeds o3 ,etro ,anila issued T-T No@ 2(4#6 on ,arch 4A 1&#( in 3avor o3 the cor)oration@ !: thenA the )ro)ert: was alread: surrounded +: residential su+divisions and industrial 3irmsA as well as diversion roads@

Jose '@ 7elas9ue" im)leaded the Delta ,otors -or)oration as )art: res)ondent in his com)laint with the -*$A )ra:ing that he +e allowed to redeem the )ro)ert: 3or the amount o3 onl: P#A#((@(( 3rom the said cor)oration@ .e anchored his right under Presidential Decree No@ 2 @ 8n June 16A 1&#(A the 7elas9ue" ')ouses caused the annotation o3 a notice o3 lis )endens at the dorsal )ortion o3 the said title@ The -*$A therea3terA rendered /udgment against Jose '@ 7elas9ue" on 8cto+er 2(A 1&#1 The -*$ ruled that the )ro)ert: was not covered +: the 8)eration Land Trans3er@ The ')ouses 7elas9ue" 3iled their )etition 3or review with the -ourtA doc4eted as 1@$@ No@ L> 642#4A which directed the issuance o3 a tem)orar: restraining order as )ra:ed 3orA en/oining the e%ecution o3 the -*$Ps decision )ending the outcome o3 the )etition@ *s it wasA the )ro)ert: had +een reclassi3ied as low densit: residential "one as earl: as 1&#1 under -om)rehensive =oning 8rdinance No@ #1>(1@ The ordinance was )re)ared +: the ,etro ,anila -ommission and the .ousing and Land 6se $egulator: !oard L.L6$!OA and a))roved in ,arch 1&#1 +: the then ,etro)olitan ,anila *uthorit:@ In the meantimeA the su+/ect )ro)ert: was mortgaged +: Delta ,otors -or)oration to the Phili))ine National !an4 LPN!O as securit: 3or its o+ligation with the latter@ The cor)oration 3ailed to )a: its accountA which im)elled the +an4 to e%tra/udiciall: 3oreclose the mortgage@ 8n Jul: 3(A 1&#6A the PN! e%ecuted a deed o3 sale with mortgage 3or P11A#6#A(((@(( in 3avor o3 res)ondent $emman 5nter)risesA Inc@ ThusA T-T No@ 111 5& was later issued in its 3avor@ The notice o3 lis pendens annotated on T-T No@ 2(4#6 was carried over and annotated on T-T No@ 111 5&@

ISS(ES3 LaO whether the su+/ect land was still agricultural in natureN L+O i3 soA whether )etitioner Justina 7elas9ue" was entitled to redeem the su+/ect )ro)ert: at the o33ered amount o3 P2A31&A21(@(( +: virtue o3 the decision o3 the -ourt in 1@$@ No@ L>642#4N andA LcO whether the D*$*! had a))ellate /urisdiction over the P*$*D 8rder o3 June 1A 1&&3A +ased on the P*$*DPs treatment o3 the motion 3or clari3ication andBor second motion 3or reconsideration as a notice o3 a))eal@

4el53 ?e agree that under !@P@ !lg@ 12&A the $T- and the -ourt o3 *))ealsA in the e%ercise o3 its original /urisdiction or in aid o3 its a))ellate /urisdictionA have concurrent /urisdiction to issue writs o3 certiorari and )rohi+ition@ .oweverA in Peo)le v@ -uaresmaA we em)hasi"ed that this concurrence o3 /urisdiction is not to +e ta4en as according to )arties see4ing an: o3 the writs an a+soluteA unrestrained 3reedom o3 choice o3 the court to which a))lication there3or will +e directed@ ?e added thatI

There is a3ter all a hierarch: o3 courts@ That hierarch: is determinative o3 the venue o3 a))ealsA and should also serve as a general determinant o3 the a))ro)riate 3orum 3or )etitions 3or the e%traordinar: writs@ * +ecoming regard 3or that /udicial hierarch: most certainl: indicates that )etitions 3or the issuance o3 e%traordinar: writs against 3irst level LHin3eriorHO court should +e 3iled with the $egional Trial -ourtA and those against the latterA with the -ourt o3 *))eals@ ?e agree that the com)liance with the hierarch: o3 courts ma: +e rela%ed 3or s)ecial and im)ortant reasonsA clearl: and s)eci3icall: set out in the )etition@ .oweverA no such reasons were set 3orth in the )etition in -*>1@$@ 'P No@ 3( 2 to /usti3: the )etitionerPs 3iling thereo3 in the -ourt o3 *))eals instead o3 the $T-@ That the latter court had decided her a))eal in -ivil -ase No@ 16553 and a33irmed the decision o3 the ,T- in -ivil -ase No@ 223 whichA in turnA ordered the eviction o3 the )etitioner 3rom the )ro)ert:A is not a /usti3ication to +:)ass the $Tand 3ile the )etition 3or certiorari in the -ourt o3 *))eals@ 8n the second issueA the )etitioner avers that this -ourt had alread: declared in its decision in 1@$@ No@ L>642#4 that the su+/ect )ro)ert: is agricultural@ The decision o3 this -ourtA the )etitioner assertsA is conclusive on the P*$*D and the -ourt o3 *))eals@ ThusA an: conversion o3 agricultural )ro)ert: to residential )ro)ert: without the a))roval o3 the D*$ is void@ 'he avers that even the res)ondent saw the need 3or a D*$ a))roval considering that it re9uested the D*$ on Decem+er 21A 1&## to a))rove the conversion o3 the )ro)ert:@ The )etitioner insists that the -* misa))lied the D8J o)inion and the ruling o3 this -ourt in Natalia $ealt:A Inc@A et al@ v@ D*$A et al@A in light o3 the ruling o3 this -ourt in 7elas9ue" v@ Ner: L1@$@ No@ L>642#4O@ The )etitioner argues that des)ite the conversion o3 the )ro)ert: to residential landA her right to redeem the )ro)ert: 3rom the res)ondent remainsA as )rovided 3or in 'ection 12 o3 $e)u+lic *ct No@ 63#&A and the ruling o3 this -ourt in 7elas9ue" v@ Ner: L1@$@ No@ L>642#4O@ ?e are not in 3ull accord with the )etitioner@ The records show that as earl: as 1&#1A the landholding was reclassi3ied as a low densit: "one under ,etro ,anila =oning 8rdinance No@ #1>(1A 'eries o3 1&#1 +e3ore $e)@ *ct No@ 665 too4 e33ect on June 15A 1&&#@ The .'$issued a )reliminar: a))roval and location clearanceA as well as a develo)ment )ermit on Decem+er 2A 1&#6 to the res)ondent@ 8n Januar: 15A 1&# A the .'$-A li4ewiseA issued a license in 3avor o3 the res)ondent to sell the 1A(#6 su+division lots@ In the said )ermit and licenseA the )ro)ert: was classi3ied as a second class housing )ro/ect@ The -ommission also declared therein that such housing )ro/ect con3ormed to !@P@ !lg@ No@ 22( and its im)lementing standardsA rules and regulations@ 'ince the )ro)ert: was alread: reclassi3ied as residential +: the ,etro ,anila -ommission and the .'$- +e3ore the e33ectivit: o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 665 A there was no need 3or the )rivate res)ondent to secure an: )ost 3acto a))roval thereo3 3rom the D*$@ !ased on the 3oregoingA it is clear that the undevelo)ed )ortions o3 the *nti)olo .ills 'u+division cannot in an: language +e considered as Hagricultural lands@H These lots were intended 3or residential use@ The: ceased to +e agricultural lands u)on a))roval o3 their inclusion in the Lungsod 'ilangan $eservation@ 5ven toda:A the areas in 9uestion continued to +e develo)ed as a low>cost housing su+divisionA al+eit at a snailPs )ace@ This can readil: +e gleaned 3rom the 3act that '*,!* mem+ers even instituted an action to restrain )etitioners 3rom continuing with such develo)ment@ The enormit: o3 the resources needed 3or develo)ing a su+division ma: have

dela:ed its com)letion +ut this does not detract 3rom the 3act that these lands are still residential lands and outside the am+it o3 the -*$L@ 8n the rest o3 the issuesA it +ears stressing that the com)laint o3 the 7elas9ue" ')ouses 3or the redem)tion o3 the )ro)ert: 3rom the Delta ,otor -or)oration was 3iled on *ugust 24A 1& & in the -ourt o3 *grarian $elationsA +e3ore the ,etro ,anila -ommission a))roved =oning 8rdinance No@ #1>(1 which reclassi3ied )ro)ertiesA including the su+/ect landholdingA as residential@ The )arties never raised this issue in the -*$ or in the Intermediate *))ellate -ourtA the onl: issue therein +eing whether the 7elas9ue" ')ouses had the right to redeem the )ro)ert: under P@D@ No@ 2 or 'ection 12 o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 63#& andA i3 soA the reasona+le )rice there3or@ !ecause o3 the e%tra>/udicial 3oreclosure o3 the mortgage over the su+/ect )ro)ert: +: the Phili))ine National !an4A the )resent case has +ecome moot and academic with regard to )etitionerPs claim against Delta ,otor -or)oration@ It is now the PN! or its su+se9uent trans3erees 3rom whom the )etitioners must redeemA i3 and when PN! decides to sell or alienate the su+/ect )ro)ert: in the 3utureA and o3 courseA su+/ect to the )rovisions o3 the 1& 5 $evised -harter o3 the Phili))ine National !an4@ ?ith our 3inding that the landholding had +een classi3ied as residential )ro)ert: since 1&#1A we agree with the ruling o3 the -ourt o3 *))eals that the P*$*D had no /urisdiction over the )etitionerPs )etition 3or redem)tion o3 the )ro)ert: 3rom the res)ondent@ *s correctl: 3ound +: the -*A u)on the )etitionerPs 3ailure to a))eal the decision o3 the P*$*DA the said decision had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:@ The 3iling o3 a notice o3 a))eal is no idle ceremon:@ Its o33ice is to elevate the case on a))eal to D*$*! without which a))ellate /urisdiction is not con3erred@ Neither P*$*D nor D*$*! is )ermitted to enlarge the constricted manner +: which an a))eal is )er3ected@ Li+eral construction o3 D*$*! rules is unavaila+le to )roduce the e33ect o3 a )er3ected a))eal@ Per3ection o3 an a))eal in the manner and within the )eriod )rescri+ed +: law is not onl: mandator: +ut also /urisdictionalA and 3ailure to )er3ect an a))eal as re9uired +: the $ules had the e33ect o3 rendering the /udgment 3inal and e%ecutor:@ This doctrine o3 3inalit: o3 /udgment is grounded on 3undamental considerations o3 )u+lic )olic: and sound )ractice@ 'ince the decision o3 the P*$*D had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A the same could no longer +e alteredA much lessA reversed +: the D*$*!@ .enceA the D*$*! had no a))ellate /urisdiction over the )etitionerPs a))eal@ * su+stantial modi3ication o3 a decision o3 a 9uasi>/udicial agenc: which had +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor: is utterl: void@ The P*$*D erred in treating the )etitionerPs H,otion 3or -lari3ication andBor 'econd ,otion 3or $econsiderationH as an a))eal o3 its decision to the D*$*!@ * motion 3or clari3ication andBor second motion 3or reconsideration is not e9uivalent to a notice o3 a))eal@ $ule DIIIA 'ection 1 o3 the 1&&4 D*$*! $ules )rovides as 3ollowsI '5-TI8N 1@ *))eal to the !oard@ aO *n a))eal ma: +e ta4en 3rom an orderA resolution or decision o3 the *d/udicator to the !oard +: either o3 the )arties or +othA orall: or in writingA within

a )eriod o3 3i3teen L15O da:s 3rom the recei)t o3 the orderA resolution or decision a))ealed 3romA and serving a co): thereo3 on the adverse )art:A i3 the a))eal is in writing@ +O *n oral a))eal shall +e reduced into writing +: the *d/udicator to +e signed +: the a))ellantA and a co): thereo3 shall +e served u)on the adverse )art: within ten L1(O da:s 3rom the ta4ing o3 the oral a))eal@ The re9uirements 3or the )er3ection o3 an a))eal are )rovided in 'ection 5 o3 the $ulesI '5-TI8N 5@ $e9uisites and Per3ection o3 the *))eal@ aO The Notice o3 *))eal shall +e 3iled within the reglementar: )eriod as )rovided 3or in 'ection 1 o3 this $ule@ It shall state the date when the a))ellant received the order or /udgment a))ealed 3rom and the )roo3 o3 service o3 the notice to the adverse )art:N and +O *n a))eal 3ee o3 2ive .undred Pesos LP5((@((O shall +e )aid +: the a))ellant within the reglementar: )eriod to the D*$ -ashier where the 833ice o3 the *d/udicator is situated@ * )au)er litigant shallA howeverA +e e%em)t 3rom the )a:ment o3 the a))eal 3ee@ Non>com)liance with the a+ove>mentioned re9uisites shall +e a ground 3or the dismissal o3 the a))eal@ In this caseA no a))ealA whether oral or writtenA was )er3ected +: the )etitionerA as )rovided 3or in the D*$*! $ules@ The )etitioner asserts that the )etition o3 the res)ondent in -*>1@$@ 'P No@ 4(423 was 3iled +e:ond the )eriod there3or@ 'he avers that the res)ondent was granted an e%tension o3 onl: until ,a: #A 1&&6A +ut instead o3 3iling its )etition 3or review on the said dateA it 3iledA on ,a: A 1&&6A another motion 3or e%tension o3 3i3teen da:s within which to 3ile its )etitionA or until ,a: 22A 1&&6@ ?ithout such motion 3or e%tension +eing grantedA the res)ondent 3iled its )etition on ,a: 22A 1&&6A doc4eted as -*>1@$@ 'P No@ 4(423@ The )etitioner argues that the )etition was 3iled out o3 time +ecause 'ection 6( o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 665 allows onl: one e%tension o3 3i3teen da:s@ ?e do not agree with the contention o3 the )etitioner that 'ection 6( o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 665 a))lies in this case@ Neither do we agree with the res)ondentPs contention that '- $evised *dministrative -ircular No@ 1>&5 is a))lica+le@ The )rovision re3ers to an a))eal 3rom the decisions o3 the ')ecial *grarian -ourts@ ?hat should a))l: is 'ection 54 o3 $e)@ *ct No@ 665 A which readsI '5-TI8N 54@ Certiorari@X *n: decisionA orderA award or ruling o3 the D*$ on an: agrarian dis)ute or on an: matter )ertaining to the a))licationA im)lementationA en3orcement or inter)retation o3 this *ct and other )ertinent laws on agrarian re3orm ma: +e +rought to the -ourt o3 *))eals +: certiorari e%ce)t as otherwise )rovided in this *ct within 3i3teen L15O da:s 3rom recei)t o3 a co): thereo3@ The 3indings o3 3act o3 the D*$ shall +e 3inal and conclusive i3 +ased on su+stantial evidence@

The )etition is one 3or certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA as amendedA +ecause the res)ondent alleged therein that the D*$*! had no a))ellate /urisdiction over the )etitionerPs a))eal@ 8n the other handA the original action under $ule 65 raises 9uestions o3 /urisdiction emanating 3rom the acts o3 )u+lic res)ondentA D*$ *d/udication !oard LD*$*!OA o3 ca)riciousl: and ar+itraril: assuming a))ellate /urisdiction over the 3inal and e%ecutor: resolution o3 the $i"al Provincial *d/udicator LP*$*DO and rendering a decision thereon which constituted grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ D*$*! com)ounded it +: totall: and literall: ignoring the decision o3 the 'u)reme -ourt in a )arallel case@ IN LI1.T 82 *LL T.5 28$518IN1A the )etitions are D5NI5D due course and are DI',I''5D@

+;KE N)!I) SARDANE 1s C)(RT )& APPEALS

Petitioner +rought an action in the -it: -ourt o3 Di)olog 3or collection o3 a sum o3 P5A21 @25 +ased on )romissor: notes e%ecuted +: the herein )rivate res)ondent No+io 'ardane in 3avor o3 the herein )etitioner@ It has +een esta+lished in the trial court that on man: occasionsA the )etitioner demanded the )a:ment o3 the total amount o3 P5A21 @25@ The 3ailure o3 the )rivate res)ondent to )a: the said amount )rom)ted the )etitioner to see4 the services o3 law:er who made a letter 3ormall: demanding the return o3 the sum loaned@ !ecause o3 the 3ailure o3 the )rivate res)ondent to heed the demands e%tra/udiciall: made +: the )etitionerA the latter was constrained to +ring an action 3or collection o3 sum o3 mone:@ During the scheduled da: 3or trialA )rivate res)ondent 3ailed to a))ear and to 3ile an answer@ 8n motion +: the )etitionerA the -it: -ourt o3 Di)olog issued an order dated ,a: 1#A 1& 6 declaring the )rivate res)ondent in de3ault and allowed the )etitioner to )resent his evidence e#0parte@ !ased on )etitionerGs evidenceA the -it: -ourt o3 Di)olog rendered /udgment +: de3ault in 3avor o3 the )etitioner@ Private res)ondent 3iled a motion to li3t the order o3 de3ault which was granted +: the -it: -ourt in an order dated ,a: 24A 1& 6A ta4ing into consideration that the answer was 3iled within two hours a3ter the hearing o3 the evidence )resented e#0parte +: the )etitioner@ *3ter the trial on the meritsA the -it: -ourt o3 Di)olog rendered its decision ordering the de3endant to )a: unto the )lainti33 the sum o3 P5A21 @25 )lus legal interest and attorne:Ps 3ees@ Therein de3endant 'ardane a))ealed to the -ourt o3 2irst Instance o3 =am+oanga del Norte which reversed the decision o3 the lower court +: dismissing the com)laint and ordered the )lainti33>a))ellee *co/edo to )a: said de3endant>a))ellant P5((@(( each 3or actual damagesA moral damagesA e%em)lar: damages and attorne:Gs 3eesA as well as the costs o3 suit@ Plainti33> a))ellee then sought the review o3 said decision +: )etition to the res)ondent -ourt@

Iss%es3 1@ whether the oral testimon: 3or the therein )rivate res)ondent 'ardane that a )artnershi) e%isted +etween him and therein )etitioner *co/edo are admissi+le to var: the meaning o3 the a+ovementioned )romissor: notes 2@ whether +ecause o3 the 3ailure o3 therein )etitioner to cross>e%amine therein )rivate res)ondent on his sur>re+uttal testimon:A there was a waiver o3 the )resum)tion accorded in 3avor o3 said )etitioner +: 'ection #A $ule # o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@

4el53 8n the 3irst issueA even i3 evidence aliunde other than the )romissor: notes ma: +e admitted to alter the meaning conve:ed there+:A still the evidence is insu33icient to )rove that a )artnershi) e%isted +etween the )rivate )arties hereto@ *s manager o3 the basnig 'arcado naturall: some degree o3 control over the o)erations and maintenance thereo3 had to +e e%ercised +: herein )etitioner@ The 3act that he had received 5(K o3 the net )ro3its does not conclusivel: esta+lish that he was a )artner o3 the )rivate res)ondent herein@ *rticle 1 6&L4O o3 the -ivil -ode is e%)licit that while the recei)t +: a )erson o3 a share o3 the )ro3its o3 a +usiness is prima facie evidence that he is a )artner in the +usinessA no such in3erence shall +e drawn i3 such )ro3its were received in )a:ment as wages o3 an em)lo:ee@ 2urthermoreA herein )etitioner had no voice in the management o3 the a33airs o3 the basnig@ The 3oregoing 3actual 3indingsA which +elie the 3urther claim that the a3oresaid )romissor: notes do not e%)ress the true intent and agreement o3 the )artiesA are +inding on 6s since there is no showing that the: 3all within the e%ce)tions to the rule limiting the sco)e o3 a))ellate review herein to 9uestions o3 law@ 8n the second issueA the )ertinent rule on actiona+le documents in $ule #A 3or read: re3erenceA readsI 'ec@ #@ @o% to contest genuineness of such documents @X?hen an action or de3ense is 3ounded u)on a written instrumentA co)ied in or attached to the corres)onding )leading as )rovided in the )receding sectionA the genuineness and due e%ecution o3 the instrument shall +e deemed admitted unless the adverse )art:A under oathA s)eci3icall: denies themA and sets 3orth what he claims to +e the 3actsN +ut this )rovision does not a))l: when the adverse )art: does not a))ear to +e a )art: to the instrument or when com)liance with an order 3or the ins)ection o3 the original instrument is re3used@ The record shows that herein )etitioner did not den: under oath in his answer the authenticit: and due e%ecution o3 the )romissor: notes which had +een dul: )leaded and attached to the com)laintA there+: admitting their genuineness and due e%ecution@ 5ven in the trial courtA he did not at all 9uestion the 3act that he signed said )romissor: notes and that the same were genuine@ InsteadA he )resented )arol evidence to var: the im)ort o3 the )romissor: notes +: alleging that the: were mere recei)ts o3 his contri+ution to the alleged )artnershi)@ .is arguments on this score re3lect a misa))rehension o3 the rule on )arol evidence as distinguished 3rom the rule on actiona+le documents@ *s the res)ondent -ourt correctl: e%)lained to herein )etitionerA what he )resented in the trial -ourt was testimonial evidence that the )romissor: notes were recei)ts o3 his su))osed contri+utions to the alleged )artnershi) which testimon:A in the light o3 'ection A $ule 13(A could not +e admitted to var: or alter the e%)licit meaning conve:ed +: said )romissor: notes@ 8n the other handA the )resumed genuineness and due e%ecution o3 said )romissor: notes were not a33ectedA )ursuant to the )rovisions o3 'ection #A $ule #A since such as)ects were not at all 9uestioned +utA on the contrar:A were admitted +: herein )etitioner@

Neither did the 3ailure o3 herein )rivate res)ondent to cross>e%amine herein )etitioner on the latterGs sur>re+uttal testimon: constitute a waiver o3 the a3oresaid im)lied admission@ *s 3ound +: the res)ondent -ourtA said sur>re+uttal testimon: consisted solel: o3 the denial o3 the testimon: o3 herein )rivate res)ondent and no new or additional matter was introduced in that sur>re+uttal testimon: to e%onerate herein )etitioner 3rom his o+ligations under the a3oresaid )romissor: notes@ 8n the 3oregoing )remises and considerationsA the res)ondent -ourt correctl: reversed and set aside the a))ealed decision o3 the -ourt o3 2irst Instance o3 =am+oanga del Norte and a33irmed in 3ull the decision o3 the -it: -ourt o3 Di)olog -it: in -ivil -ase No@ *>1#3#A dated 'e)tem+er 14A 1& 6@ ?.5$528$5A the /udgment o3 the res)ondent -ourt o3 *))eals is *22I$,5DA with costs against herein )etitioner@

+;KA &RANC) L. L)<)LA 1s 4RET

Petitioner is a candidate 3or re)resentative o3 the 'econd District o3 -avite during the ,a: 1&&2 elections@ .e 3iled an electoral )rotest +e3ore .$5T against )roclaimed elected -ongressman $enato DragonA )rivate res)ondent herein@ Private res)ondent 3iled a motion )ra:ing that he +e given an e%tension until 8cto+er 12A 1&&2 within which to 3ile his answer@ .is motion was denied +: )u+lic res)ondent .$5T 8n 8cto+er 14A 1&&2A )rivate res)ondent nonetheless 3iled his answerA which was notA howeverA admitted +: )u+lic res)ondent .$5TI .aving +een 3iled +e:ond the )eriod to answer )rovided in $ule 22 o3 the $evised $ules o3 this Tri+unalA ProtesteeGs *nswer is N8T *D,ITT5D@ Let a general denial +e deemed entered 3or the Protestee@ 8n 2e+ruar: 5A 1&&3A )etitioner 3iled an undated 8mni+us ,otion stating that since a general denial had +een entered 3or herein )rivate res)ondentA he is deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the )rotest and )ra:ing that )u+lic res)ondent issue a decision dis9uali3:ing )rivate res)ondent as re)resentative o3 the second district o3 -avite and declaring him LPetitionerO dul: elected re)resentative o3 the said district@

Iss%e3 ?hether or not an entr: o3 general denial in election cases is e9uivalent to an admission o3 all the allegations in the )rotest@

4el53 $ule 2 A $evised $ules o3 the .ouse o3 $e)resentatives 5lectoral Tri+unalA )rovidesI $ule 2 @ ;ailure to Ans%er" (ffect@ X I3 no answer is 3iled to the )rotestA counter>)rotest or )etition 3or uo %arranto within the time limit 3i%edA a general denial shall +e deemed to have +een entered@ The inter)retation o3 a general denial as entered against )rivate res)ondent +: )u+lic res)ondent .$5T 3or 3ailure o3 the 3ormer to 3ile an answer on time as re9uired +: the $evised $ules o3 the .$5T is well>settled@ * general denial is one which )uts in issue all the material averments o3 the com)laint or )etitionA and )ermits the de3endant to )rove an: and all 3acts which tend to negative those averments or some one or all o3 them@ *s earl: as the case o3 Garagdag v@ BaradoA this -ourt held that under a general denialA the de3endant is )ermitted to )resent an: evidence which dis)rovesA or tends to dis)roveA an: o3 the allegations in the com)laint@ .e cannotA howeverA )resent evidence to )rove an: a33irmative de3ense as no rule is +etter settled in )leading and )ractice than that neither )art: can )rove 3acts which he has not allegedA i3 o+/ection is )ro)erl: made@

*))l:ing the 3oregoing conce)t in election casesA this -ourt inter)reted Hgeneral denialH in 'ection 1 6 LeO o3 the $evised 5lection -odeA a )rovision similar to $ule 2 o3 the .$5T $evised $ulesA in this wiseI @ @ @ In other wordsA a general denial )uts in issue the material allegation o3 the com)laintA and conse9uentl:A under such denial the )rotestee ma: )resent evidence which ma: dis)rove said allegation@ !ut he cannot )resent evidence to )rove an: a33irmative de3ense L2ranciscoA .ow to Tr: 5lection -asesA )@ 136O@ It is in this sense that the terms Hgeneral denialH should +e understood in election casesA 3or to give it a di33erent meaning would render the )rovisions o3 'ection 1 6LeO nugator: and meaninglessN that )hrase would +e )ur)oseless i3 we were to hold that +: Hgeneral denialH )rotestee would +e deemed to have admitted all the material allegations o3 the )rotest@ Petitioner has erroneousl: )erceived that the .$5T $evised $ules have ado)ted a )olic: to render /udgment +ased merel: on the )leadings in election cases@ .e enumerates several .$5T $evised $ules as showing said )revailing intent@ No dou+tA the cited rules reveal a )revailing intent to ensure that election cases +e e%)editiousl: settled@ !ut nothing in the said rules show the legislative intent to decide cases without hearing and on the +asis merel: o3 )leadings@ 5lection casesA though summar: in natureA must 3ollow the )rescri+ed $ules o3 the Tri+unal@ The rules clearl: )rovide that general denial shall +e deemed to have +een entered@ ?ere it the intent o3 the 3ramers o3 the said $ules to do awa: with a hearing when )rotestee 3ails to 3ile an answer within the time )rescri+edA it should have stated so is clear and une9uivocal terms@ Petitioner 3orgets that the $ules o3 -ourt do not recogni"e the general denial@ 'ection 1(A $ule # re9uires s)eci3ic denialA i@e@A de3endant must s)eci3: each material allegation o3 3act the truth o3 which he does not admit andA whenever )ractica+leA shall set 3orth the su+stance o3 the matters which he will rel: u)on to su))ort his denial@ 'ince the s)eci3ic denial is re9uiredA there is no 9uestion that an: material averment not s)eci3icall: denied is admitted to +e true and need not +e )roved@ .oweverA the issue at hand is the inter)retation o3 the .$5T $evised $ules where general denial is undou+tedl: recogni"ed and allowed@ *s a ruleA e%ce)t where s)eci3ic denials are re9uiredA a general denial is su33icientA and denies all the material allegations o3 the )leading to which it is addressed@ 14 In other wordsA a general denial traverses all material averments o3 the )leading@ It gives to the de3endant the same right to re9uire the )lainti33 to esta+lish +: )roo3 all the material 3acts necessar: to his cause o3 action@ It does not amount to an admission o3 the material allegations in the )rotest@ -onse9uentl:A trial must 3ollow@ -ontrar: to )etitionerGs o)inionA the I+asco doctrineA although enunciated more than thirt: L3(O :ears agoA evinces a sound )rinci)le that is still a))lica+le under the )resent set o3 rules in the .ouse o3 $e)resentatives 5lectoral Tri+unal@ It re)resents a legal wisdom )ostulated on the +asis o3 the 3undamental )rinci)le that technicalities or )rocedural +arriers should not +e allowed to stand i3 the same would tend to de3eat rather than )romote the interest o3 /ustice@ In )atlonghari v@ COM(6(CA this -ourt has again reminded all and sundr: that the law governing

electoral contests must +e li+erall: construed to the end that the will o3 the )eo)le ma: not +e de3eated@ The )rimordial )olic: to ascertain the will o3 the )eo)le is evident in the constitutional mandate that H'overeignt: resides in the )eo)le and all government authorit: emanates 3rom them@H

+;K. SP)(SES MARIAN) MADRIGAL 1s. C)(RT )& APPEALS

'P86'5' *M6IN8 +rought a -om)laint 3or recover: o3 )ossession with damages against ,*$I*N8 and INT5$-IT0 +e3ore the $egional Trial -ourt o3 ,a4ati -it:@ 8n Jul: 1A 1&&3A the summons and com)laint were dul: served on INT5$-IT0 +ut not on ,*$I*N8A as re)orted in the $eturn o3 the Process 'erver@ ThusA on 'e)tem+er 6A 1&&3A alias summons issued u)on motion o3 the 'P86'5' *M6IN8@ 8n Decem+er 2(A 1&&3A since ,*$I*N8 was not in his residence des)ite several attem)ts to loo4 3or himA su+stituted service o3 summons was resorted to +: Hleaving a co): o3 the summons together with the com)laint and its anne%es to his wi3eA Julieta '@ ,adrigalA a )erson o3 suita+le age and discretion and who ac4nowledged recei)t thereo3 @ @ @@H The return o3 service +ore her signature@ ?hen the case was called 3or )re>trialA the co>de3endantA INT5$-IT0 and its counsel 3ailed to a))earA des)ite due notice@ 'oA u)on motion o3 the )rivate res)ondents L)lainti33s +elowOA INT5$-IT0 was declared in de3ault in the 8rder 5 issued on Jul: 6A 1&&5@ 2or 3ailure to 3ile an answer or an: res)onsive )leadingA ,*$I*N8 was declared in de3ault and the 'P86'5' *M6IN8 adduced their evidence e#0parteA on the +asis o3 which a Judgment +: De3ault 6 was rendered on 8cto+er &A 1&&5@ -o): o3 such decision was dul: received +: ,*$I*N8 on 8cto+er 1&A 1&&5@ 8n 8cto+er 2&A 1&&5A a ,otion to Li3t 8rder o3 De3ault was )resented +: ,*$I*N8A contending that the trial court never ac9uired /urisdiction over his )erson as he was not )ersonall: served with summons together with the com)laintA and that the com)laint was de3ective +ecause his wi3e whoA according to movantA is an indis)ensa+le )art:A was not im)leaded as a )art:@ 8n Decem+er 2&A 1&&5A the same motion was amended to )ra: 3or the setting aside o3 the said decision@ !ut in the 8rdersA dated ,a: 2( and June 14A 1&&6A res)ectivel:A +oth motions were denied@ ,arianoGs ,otion 3or $econsideration met the same 3ate@ It was also denied@ 8n June 25A 1&&6A ,*$I*N8A with his wi3eA J6LI5T* 2@ ,adrigalA LJ6LI5T*A 3or +revit:OA as co> )etitionerA +rought an original action 3or Certiorari +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))ealsA to annul the a3oresaid orders allegedl: issued with grave a+use o3 discretion@ !ut on Jul: 3(A 1&&6A the -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the )etition@ 6ndauntedA the: L)etitionersO 3ound their wa: to this -ourt via the instant Petition 3or $eview on Certiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA )osing as iss%es3 L1O whether or not there was invalid service o3 summons on )etitioner ,*$I*N8N L2O whether or not the 8rder den:ing the motion to li3t order o3 de3aultA a3ter rendition o3 the decision +: the trial courtA was )ro)erN and L3O whether or not J6LI5T* is an indis)ensa+le )art: in the action 3or recover: o3 )ossession o3 )ro)ert: with damages against ,*$I*N8@

4el53 'ec@ 6A $ule 14 o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA readsI 'ec@ 6@ Service in person or in defendant ?henever )ractica+leA the summons shall +e served +: handing a co): thereo3 to the de3endant in )ersonA orA i3 he re3uses to receive and sign 3or itA +: tendering it to him@ 'ec@ @ Substituted Service@ I3A 3or /usti3ia+le causesA the de3endant cannot +e served within a reasona+le time as )rovided in the )receding sectionA service ma: +e e33ected LaO +: leaving co)ies o3 the summons at the de3endantGs residence with some )erson o3 suita+le age and discretion residing thereinA or L+O +: leaving the co)ies at de3endantGs o33ice or regular )lace o3 +usiness with some com)etent )erson in charge thereo3@ To determine whether there was such an o+servance and su+stituted service was warranted under the )remisesA it is necessar: 3or the -ourt to care3ull: )eruse and evaluate the 'heri33Gs $eturn which re)ortedI L1O That on several occasionsA at reasona+le hours o3 the da:A the De)uti"ed Process 'erverA Jose T@ ,ana+atA tried to serve u)on ,*$I*N8 the summons together with the com)laintN L2O That diligent e33orts were e%erted +: the said De)uti"ed Process 'erverN L3O That service o3 summons was then made on ,*$I*N8Gs wi3eA J6LI5T*A a )erson o3 suita+le age and discretion who ac4nowledged recei)t thereo3@ *s +etween the 'heri33Gs $eturn on the su+stituted serviceA which carries with it a )resum)tion o3 regularit:A and ,*$I*N8Gs sel3>serving assertion that he onl: came to 4now o3 the case against himA when his sister>in>law delivered to him the decision o3 the lower courtA the 'heri33Gs $eturn is undou+tedl: more deserving o3 3aith and credit@ In the case under considerationA ,*$I*N8 avers that it was onl: on 8cto+er 1&A 1&&6 that he came to 4now o3 the case 3iled against himA when his sister>in>law gave him a +rown envelo)e containing the said decision adverse to him@ *ssuming such allegation to +e trueA he could have inter)osed a motion 3or reconsideration or 3or new trial and should such a motion +e denied or not ruled u)on with dis)atch +: the trial courtA )etitioners could have a))ealed the /udgment +: de3ault within the reglementar: )eriod@ The ne%t contention o3 ,*$I*N8 is that his wi3e J6LI5T* is an indis)ensa+le )art: such that the 3ailure to im)lead her is a /urisdictional in3irmit: rendering the decision a com)lete nullit:A as their )ro)ert: involved is con/ugal@ This issue is o3 no moment in the )resent case@ The -ourt is +ound +: the 3actual 3inding a uo that 'P86'5' *M6IN8A herein )rivate res)ondentsA not )etitionersA are the registered owners o3 su+/ect lot covered +: Trans3er -erti3icate Title No@ 152633 o3 the $egistr: o3 Deeds in ,a4ati -it:A which the: L'P86'5' *M6IN8O )urchased 3rom INT5$-IT0@ *s a general ruleA in an a))eal +: certiorari under $ule 45A 9uestions o3 3act are not to +e delved into and )assed u)on +: this -ourtA which is +ound +: the 3actual 3indings +: the trial court@ 7eril:A the -ourt is not a trier o3 3acts@ It should not an:more e%amine the evidence

introduced +: )rivate res)ondents +elow and to determine i3 the trial court correctl: assessed and dul: evaluated the evidence on record@

Reme5y o a Person Declare5 in De2a%l +;KC Tan 1s. D%marpa &ac s3 Prosecutor 8rtillano D@ Tan and other )rosecutors 3iled with the 833ice o3 the 8m+udsman in ,indanao a criminal com)laint 3or malversation o3 )u+lic 3unds and violation o3 the *nti 1ra3t and -orru)t Practices *ct against then $egional 'tate Prosecutor 'alic !@ Dumar)a@ The com)laint alleges that Prosecutor Tan engaged the services o3 Jo: 1@ TanA as caterer 3or the ?itness Protection 'ecurit: and !ene3it Program seminar@ *3ter the seminarA Prosecutor Tan )aid the catererA 3or her catering services@ In turnA the caterer issued to Tan the corres)onding recei)t@ LaterA Prosecutor Tan 3ound that $egional Prosecutor Dumar)aA to cover his cash advance o3 P3(A(((@(( 3rom the De)artment o3 JusticeA o+tained surre)titiousl: 3rom the catererA Jo: Tan another recei)t showing his )a:ment 3or the catering services 3or two seminars conducted )ur)ortedl: in -ota+ato -it: and ,arawi -it:@ ,eantimeA Jo: TanPs a33idavit denouncing Dumar)a 3or malversation o3 government 3unds was )u+lished in the ,anila 'tandardA ,anila TimesA !anderaA and other news)a)ers o3 general circulation@ Dumar)a claimed that such malicious )u+lication discredited his honor and re)utation@ ThusA he 3iled a criminal complaint for libel against Joy )an. Jo: Tan 3iled her answer with motion to dismiss the com)laint on the ground o3 3ailure to state a cause o3 action@ 'he alleged that her a33idavit against Dumar)a was e%ecuted in good 3aith and without malice@ !eing merel: a su))orting a33idavit to a criminal com)laint 3or malversation 3iled +: Prosecutor Tan against Dumar)aA the same is a+solutel: )rivileged andA there3oreA not actiona+le@ Trial -ourtI denied Jo: TanPs motion to dismiss the com)laint and set the pre0trial conference@ !ut during the )re>trialA Tan and counsel did not a))ear@ *ccording to the trial courtA the: were dul: noti3ied@ ThusA Joy )an %as declared in default and Dumar)a was allowed to )resent his evidence e#0parte@ *3ter he rested his caseA the trial court rendered the assailed Judgment +: De3ault@ It ruled in 3avor o3 Dumar)a@ Jo: Tan 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration o3 the Judgment +: De3ault on the ground that her co%nsel 5i5 no recei1e a copy o2 he )r5er 5enyin/ her mo ion o 5ismiss an5 se in/ he preF rial con2erence on '%ly DK6 ,BB- @ 8n ,arch 11A 1&&&A Dumar)a 3iled a motion 3or e%ecution and o))osition to the motion 3or reconsideration@ Trial -ourtI denied Jo: TanPs motion 3or reconsideration on the ground that it does not allege s)eci3icall: the 3indings o3 3act which are not su))orted +: evidence or conclusion contrar: to law@ It ruled that the motion is pro forma and does not toll the running o3 the )eriod to a))eal@ ThusA the Judgment +: De3ault has +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:@ Jo: Tan 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari@

Iss%e3 ?hether or not the trial /udge committed grave a+use o3 discretion in rendering the Judgment +: De3ault@ 4el53 <es. The issue +eing raised +: Jo: Tan in her motion is that she and her counsel were not dul: noti3ied o3 the )re>trial@ !ut the trial court did not resolve this issue and denied outright TanPs motion@ .ad the trial court set the motion 3or hearing and gave Tan a chance to )rove her allegationA it could have determined whether she was indeed noti3ied or not o3 the )re>trial set on Jul: 3(A 1&&#@ Then the trial court could have resolved whether or not to reconsider the Judgment +: De3ault@ 7eril:A +: den:ing TanPs motion 3or reconsideration on the wrong ground that it is pro forma and +: declaring her as in de3ault and allowing Dumar)a to )resent his evidence e# parteA the trial court de)rived Tan o3 her right to due )rocessA i.e.A the 3undamental rule that a )erson +e accorded an o))ortunit: to +e heard@ To allo7 a rial o procee5 a/ains pe i ioner 7ho co%l5 no presen her 5e2enses apparen ly 2or lack o2 no ice6 is a 5enial o2 her ri/h o be hear56 o%r mos basic %n5ers an5in/ o2 5%e process. ?e stress that the essence o3 due )rocess is sim)l: an oppor %ni y o seek a reconsi5era ion o2 he assaile5 ac ion or r%lin/ A such as the trial courtPs order den:ing TanPs motion 3or reconsideration and its Judgment +: De3ault@ The trial court denied )etitioner this o))ortunit:@ .ereA Tan came to 4now o3 the Judgment +: De3ault a3ter it was )romulgated +: the trial court while a))eal was still availa+le@ In 3actA she 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration which was denied@ Therea3terA 7ha she sho%l5 ha1e 5one p%rs%an o he R%les6 7as o 2ile 7i h he rial co%r a mo ion 2or ne7 rial or an or5inary appeal 7i h he Co%r o2 Appeals. InsteadA she came directl: to this -ourt via the instant pe i ion 2or re1ie7 on cer iorari@ .oweverA in the interest o3 /usticeA we consider the instant )etitionA pro hac viceA a )etition 3or certiorari under $ule 65 o3 the 1&& $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA as amended@ It a))ears prima facie 3rom TanPs allegations that he rial co%r commi e5 /ra1e ab%se o2 5iscre ion in rendering the Judgment +: De3ault@ I3 such allegations are true and the trial courtPs 3atal error remains uncorrectedA then Tan will su33er great in/ustice@ The reme5ies a1ailable o a 5eclare5 in 5e2a%l are as 2ollo7s3 L1O a motion to set aside the order o3 de3ault under 'ection 3 L+OA $ule & o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA i3 the de3ault was discovered +e3ore /udgment could +e renderedN L2O a mo ion 2or ne7 rial %n5er Sec ion ,*a0 o2 R%le DC6 i2 he 5e2a%l 7as 5isco1ere5 a2 er "%5/men b% 7hile appeal is s ill a1ailableL L3O a )etition 3or relie3 under $ule 3#A i3 /udgment has +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:N and L4O an appeal 2rom he "%5/men %n5er Sec ion ,6 R%le E,6 e1en i2 no pe i ion o se asi5e he or5er o2 5e2a%l has been resor e5 o@ 'uits should as much as )ossi+le +e decided on the merits and not on technicalities@ In this regardA we have o3ten admonished courts to +e li+eral as de3ault /udgments are 3rowned u)on and not loo4ed u)on with 3avor 3or the: ma: amount to a )ositive and considera+le in/ustice to )etitioner and the )ossi+ilit: o3 such serious conse9uences necessitates a care3ul e%amination o3 the grounds u)on which )etitioner as4s that it +e set aside@

Pe i ion 2or Relie26 7hen a1ailable +;K- T%ason 1s. Co%r o2 Appeals &ac s3 ,aria 7ictoria Lo)e" Tuason 3iled with the $T- o3 ,a4ati a )etition 3or annulment or declaration o3 nullit: o3 her marriage to 5milio $@ Tuason@ *3ter the issues were /oinedA the trial commenced@ *3ter ,aria rested her caseA the trial court scheduled the rece)tion o3 5milioGs evidence on ,a: 11A 1&&(@ 8n ,a: #A 1&&(A two da:s +e3ore the scheduled hearingA a counsel 3or 5milio moved 3or a )ost)onement on the ground that the )rinci)al counsel was out o3 the countr: and due to return on the 3irst wee4 o3 June@ The court granted the motion and reset the hearing to June #A 1&&(@ 8n June #A 1&&(A 5milio 3ailed to a))ear@ 8n oral motion o3 ,ariaA the court declared )etitioner to have waived his right to )resent evidence and deemed the case su+mitted 3or decision on the +asis o3 the evidence )resented@ 8n June 2&A 1&&(A the trial -ourt rendered /udgment declaring the nullit: o3 ,aria TuasonGs marriage to 5milio and awarding custod: o3 the children to ,aria@ -ounsel 3or 5milio received a co): o3 this decision on *ugust 24A 1&&(@ No a))eal was ta4en 3rom the decision@ 8n 'e)tem+er 24A 1&&(A ,aria 3iled a H,otion 3or Dissolution o3 -on/ugal Partnershi) o3 1ains and *d/udication to Plainti33 o3 the on Pro)erties@H 5milio o))osed the motion on 8cto+er 1 A 1&&(@ *lsoA on the same da:@ 8cto+er 1 A 1&&(A 5milioA through new counselA 3iled with the trial court a petition for relief from !udgment o3 the June 2&A 1&&( decision @ The trial -ourt denied the )etition on *ugust #A 1&&1@ 5milio a))ealed +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals the order o3 the trial court den:ing his )etition 3or relie3 3rom /udgment@ 8n Jul: 2&A 1&&4A the -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the a))eal and a33irmed the order o3 the trial court@ Iss%e3 ?hether a )etition 3or relie3 3rom /udgment is warranted under the circumstances o3 the case@ 4el53 No@ * )etition 3or relie3 3rom /udgment is governed +: $ule 3#A 'ection 2 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt which )rovidesI H'ection 2@ Pe i ion o Co%r o2 &irs Ins ance 2or relie2 2rom "%5/men or o her procee5in/s hereo2@ > ?hen a /udgment or order is enteredA or an: other )roceeding is ta4enA against a )art: in a court o3 3irst instance through fraud" accident" mistake" or e#cusable negligence 3;AM(5A he ma: 3ile a )etition in such court and in the same cause )ra:ing that the /udgmentA order or )roceeding +e set aside@H

(n5er he r%les6 a 2inal an5 e8ec% ory "%5/men or or5er o2 he Re/ional Trial Co%r may be se asi5e on he /ro%n5 o2 2ra%56 acci5en 6 mis ake or e8c%sable ne/li/ence @ In additionA the )etitioner must assert 3acts showing that he has a goodA su+stantial and meritorious de3ense or cause o3 action@ I3 the )etition is grantedA the court shall )roceed to hear and determine the case as i3 a timel: motion 3ir new trial had +een granted therein@ In the case at +arA the decision annulling 5milioGs marriage to ,aria had alread: +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor: when )etitioner 3ailed to a))eal during the reglementar: )eriod@ The 3ailure o3 5milioGs -ounsel to noti3: him on time o3 the adverse /udgment to ena+le him to a))eal there3rom is negligence which is not e%cusa+le@ No ice sen o co%nsel o2 recor5 is bin5in/ %pon he clien an5 he ne/lec or 2ail%re o2 co%nsel o in2orm him o2 an a51erse "%5/men res%l in/ in he loss o2 his ri/h o appeal is no a /ro%n5 2or se in/ asi5e a "%5/men 1ali5 an5 re/%lar on i s 2ace. 'imilarl: ine%cusa+le was the 3ailure o3 his 3ormer counsel to in3orm the trial court o3 )etitionerGs con3inement and medical treatment as the reason 3or his non>a))earance at the scheduled hearings@ Petitioner has not given an: reason wh: his 3ormer counselA intentionall: or unintentionall:A did not in3orm the court o3 this 3act@ * pe i ion 2or relie2 2rom "%5/men is an e9%i able reme5yL i is allo7e5 only in e8cep ional cases 7here here is no o her a1ailable or a5e9%a e reme5y. When a par y has ano her reme5y a1ailable o him6 7hich may be ei her a mo ion 2or ne7 rial or appeal 2rom an a51erse 5ecision o2 he rial co%r 6 an5 he 7as no pre1en e5 by 2ra%56 acci5en 6 mis ake or e8c%sable ne/li/ence 2rom 2ilin/ s%ch mo ion or akin/ s%ch appeal6 he canno a1ail himsel2 o2 his pe i ion@ IndeedA relie3 will not +e 1ranted to a )art: whoA see4s avoidance 3rom the e33ects o3 the /udgment when the loss o3 the remed: at law was due to his own negligenceN otherwise the )etition 3or relie3 can +e used to revive the right to a))eal which had +een lost thru ine%cusa+le negligence@

In5irec Con emp +;KB 4eirs o2 Ro8as 1s. Co%r o2 Appeals &ac s3 Trinidad de Leon 7da@ De $o%as 3iled a case to set aside the decree o3 registration over two unregistered )arcels o3 land in Taga:ta: -it: granted to ,aguesun ,anagement and Develo)ment -or)oration LH,aguesunHO +e3ore the $T- on the ground o3 actual 3raud@ The trial court dismissed the )etition to set aside the decree o3 registration@ 8n a))ealA the -ourt o3 *))eals denied the )etition 3or review and a33irmed the 3indings o3 the trial court@ 8n -+ March +998A '- reversed the -*Ps decision L1@$@ No@11#436O@ It 3ound that the decree in 3avor o3 ,aguesun was wrong3ull: issued +ecause it was Hnot entitled to the registration decreeH as it had no registra+le titleA since H=enaida ,elli"a L3rom whom ,aguesun su))osedl: +ought the lotsO conve:ed no title over the su+/ect )arcels o3 land to ,aguesun -or)oration as she was not the owner thereo3 8n 22 ,a: 1&& A ,e:caua:an 3iled a Petition 3or Intervention@ ,e:caua:an alleged that it )urchased three )arcels o3 land 3rom ,aguesun which 3orm )art o3 the )ro)ert: awarded to the heirs o3 Trinidad de Leon 7da@ De $o%as LH$o%as heirsHO@ ,e:caua:an contended that since it is a )urchaser in good 3aith and 3or valueA the -ourt should a33ord it the o))ortunit: to +e heard@ ,e:caua:an contends that the adverse decision o3 the '- cannot im)air its rights as a )urchaser in good 3aith and 3or value@ 8n 25 June 1&& A '- denied the Petition 3or Intervention@ It also denied the ,otion 3or $econsideration 3iled +: ,aguesun@ ThusA on 21 *ugust 1&& A the Decision dated 21 ,arch 1&& +ecame 3inal and e%ecutor:@ Its directive on the L$* is to issue with the corres)onding decree o3 registration and certi3icate o3 title also includesA as )art thereo3A the cancellationA without need o3 an order o3 the land registration court@ 8n 2( *)ril 1&&&A ,e:caua:an 3iled a -om)laint 3or reconve:anceA damages and 9uieting o3 title with the trial court@ 8n 2 'e)tem+er 1&&&A the land registration court issued an order that a ?rit o3 Possession +e issued against ,aguesun@ 8n ,arch 2(((A the trial court dismissed 3or lac4 o3 merit ,e:caua:anGs com)laint 3or reconve:anceA damages and 9uieting o3 title@ ,eanwhileA the $o%as heirs 3iled a )etition to cite 3or indirect contem)t the o33icers o3 ,e:caua:an@ The $o%as heirs allege that the 3ollowing acts o3 ,e:caua:an constitute indirect contem)t under 'ection 3A $ule 1 o3 the $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureI L1O,e:caua:anGs de3iance o3 the 3inal and e%ecutor: Decision and $esolution o3 this -ourt in 1@$@ No@ 11#436N L2O its act o3 3iling )leadings +e3ore the land registration court to )revent e%ecution o3 the Decision and $esolutionN L3O its act o3 3iling a -om)laint raising the same issues in its Petition 3or Intervention which this -ourt had alread: denied and urging the trial court to ignore and countermand the orders o3 this -ourt@ Iss%es3 1@ ?hether this -ourtGs Decision and $esolution in 1@$@ No@ 11#436 +ind ,e:caua:anN 2@ ?hether ,e:caua:anGs act o3 3iling with the trial court a com)laint 3or reconve:anceA damages and 9uieting o3 title involving )arcels o3 landA which were the su+/ect o3 this -ourtGs

Decision and $esolution in 1@$@ No@ 11#436A constitutes indirect contempt under 'ection 3A $ule 1 o3 the $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureN and 3@ ?hether ,e:caua:an is guilt: o3 3orum sho))ing@ 4el53 Co%r Gs Decision is bin5in/ on Meyca%ayan The issue o3 whether the Decision in 1@$@ No@ 11#436 +inds ,e:caua:an was alread: addressed +: this -ourt when it denied ,e:caua:anGs Petition 3or Intervention@ In5irec Con emp ,e:caua:anGs o+stinate re3usal to a+ide +: the -ourtGs Decision has no +asis in view o3 this -ourtGs clear )ronouncement to the contrar:@ The 3act that '- specifically ordered the cancelation of MeycauayanFs titles to the disputed parcels of land in the $esolution should have laid to rest the issue o3 whether the Decision and $esolution in 1@$@ No@ 11#436 is +inding on ,e:caua:an@ -learl:A ,e:caua:anGs de3iance o3 this -ourtGs Decision and $esolution +: 3iling an action 3or reconve:anceA 9uieting o3 title and damages involving the same )arcels o3 land which this -ourt alread: decided with 3inalit: constitutes indirect contem)t under 'ection 3LdOA $ule 1 o3 the $ules o3 -ivil Procedure@ 'ection 3LdO o3 $ule 1 readsI '5-@ 3@ Indirect contem)t to +e )unished a3ter charge and hearing@ > *3ter a charge in writing has +een 3iledA and an o))ortunit: given to the res)ondent to comment thereon within such )eriod as ma: +e 3i%ed +: the court and to +e heard +: himsel3 or counselA a )erson guilt: o3 an: o3 the 3ollowing acts ma: +e )unished 3or indirect contem)tI LdO *n: im)ro)er conduct tendingA directl: or indirectl:A to im)edeA o+structA or degrade the administration o3 /usticeN Con emp o2 co%r is de3ined as a diso+edience to the -ourt +: acting in o))osition to its authorit:A /ustice and dignit:@ It signi3ies not onl: a will3ul disregard or diso+edience o3 the courtGs ordersA +ut such conduct as tends to +ring the authorit: o3 the court and the administration o3 law into disre)ute or in some manner to im)ede the due administration o3 /ustice@ The )ower to )unish 3or contem)t is inherent in all courts and is essential to the )reservation o3 order in /udicial )roceedings and to the en3orcement o3 /udgmentsA ordersA and mandates o3 the courtA and conse9uentl:A to the due administration o3 /ustice@ WellFse le5 is he r%le ha 7hen a co%r o2 compe en "%ris5ic ion has rie5 an5 5eci5e5 a ri/h or 2ac 6 so lon/ as he 5ecision remains %nre1erse56 i is concl%si1e on he par ies an5 hose in pri1i y 7i h hem. More so 7here he S%preme Co%r has alrea5y 5eci5e5 he iss%e since he Co%r is he 2inal arbi er o2 all "%s iciable con ro1ersies properly bro%/h be2ore i . The general rule is that a cor)oration and its o33icers and agents ma: +e held lia+le 3or contem)t@ * cor)oration and those who are o33iciall: res)onsi+le 3or the conduct o3 its a33airs ma: +e )unished 3or contem)t in diso+e:ing /udgmentsA decreesA or orders o3 a court made in a case within its /urisdiction@

&or%m Shoppin/ ,e:caua:anGs act o3 3iling a -om)laint 3or $econve:anceA Muieting o3 Title and Damages raising the same issues in its Petition 3or InterventionA which this -ourt had alread: deniedA also constitutes 3orum sho))ing@ &or%m shoppin/ is he ac o2 a par y a/ains 7hom an a51erse "%5/men has been ren5ere5 in one 2or%m6 seekin/ ano her an5 possibly 2a1orable opinion in ano her 2or%m o her han by appeal or special ci1il ac ion o2 cer iorari. There is also 3orum sho))ing when a )art: institutes two or more actions +ased on the same cause on the e%)ectation that one or the other court might loo4 with 3avor on the )art:@

In erloc% ory )r5er Q Li is Pen5en ia +;,K !an/ko Silan/an De1elopmen !ank 1s. Co%r o2 Appeals &ac s3 Leonida 6mandal>!ausas had +een maintaining a 'avings *ccount as de)ositor o3 !'D!A since 1&#5@ *s o3 *)ril 1&&(A she had P15A(((@(( de)osited under her *ccount@ 'u+se9uentl:A Leonida attem)ted to withdraw P5A(((@(( 3rom that savings account +utA to her sur)riseA the +an4 teller told her that the withdrawal could not +e done +ecause her +rotherA had alread: withdrawn the amount o3 P15A((( allegedl: with her written authori"ation and that her remaining +alance was onl: P#((@((@ !ausas then in9uired a+out the withdrawal sli) and 3ound that the signatures a))earing thereon were not hers and neither that o3 her +rother@ !ausas sought the assistance o3 a 3amil: 3riendA 5dmundo 7illadolidA who was then the President>,anager o3 the $ural !an4 o3 Nasug+uA !atangas@ 7illadolid warned the )etitioner +an4 that he would +e constrained to elevate the matter to Hhigher authoritiesH should there +e no Hreasona+le and convincing results@ In a letter !'D!A through *l+erto !u9uidA in3ormed !ausas that the investigation it had conducted on the matter revealed her +rotherA withdraw such amount@ The +an4 asserted that it o+served the usual )rocedure in +an4 transactions > it made the )ro)er veri3icationA )osted the withdrawal on the )ass+oo4 and the +an4 ledgerA and a))roved the withdrawal@ *s a result o3 that in3ormationA !ausas sought the hel) o3 the National !ureau o3 Investigation@ *3ter an investigationA a case %as filed with the 833ice o3 the Provincial Prosecutor o3 !atangas@ It a))ears that !ausas sought another venue 3or airing her com)laint > the )ress@ ThusA in the 'e)tem+er 1 A 1&&( issue o3 the PeopleFs Journal )onight" the 3ollowing headline a))earedI H!an4 ,one: ?ithdrawn wBo De)ositorGs <nowledgeH@v *side 3rom that )u+licationA !ausas and 7illadolid re)roduced +: %ero% the said news item and )osted the %ero% co)ies in cons)icuous )laces within the munici)al hall o3 Nasug+u@ BS'B filed in the *)C o3 ,anila a complaint for damages against !ausasA 7illadolidA and the Phili))ine JournalistsA Inc@ The com)laint alleged that the Hseries o3 )u+licationsH were Hclearl: de3amator: and li+elousHA and that it damaged the HgoodwillA integrit: and good re)utationH o3 the 21>:ear old +an4@ !ausas and 7illadolid alleged that the withdrawal sli) was a 3orger: and that 7illadolidGs actions were moved +: a Hsense o3 moral dut:H to !ausas and her 3amil:@ The: raised lac4 o3 actual malice as a de3ense@ Instead o3 3iling a res)onsive )leading to the com)laintA !'D! 3iled a motion to dismissA alleging that LaO there was another action )ending +etween the same )arties 3or the same caseN L+O the action caused the s)litting o3 the cause o3 action raised in the answer and counterclaim in -ivil -ase No@ &1>561#5N LcO the action violated the )rinci)le o3 multi)licit: o3 suitsA andN LdO the 3iling o3 the com)laint constituted 3orum>sho))ing@ $T- o3 !atangas issued a $esolution den:ing the motion to dismiss@

!'D! elevated the matter to the -ourt o3 *))eals via a petition for certiorariA )rohi+ition and mandamusA see4ing the reversal o3 the said $esolution and 8rder o3 the $T- o3 !atangas@ -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed !'D!Gs )etition 3or certiorariA )rohi+ition and mandamus and u)held the denial o3 its motion to dismiss -ivil -ase No@ 221@ The a))ellate court held that an order den:ing a motion to dismissA +eing interlocutor:A cannot +e the su+/ect o3 a )etition 3or certiorari@ The )rinci)le o3 litis pendentia invo4ed +: !'D! is not a))lica+le to the case at +ar@ The a))ellate court correctl: 3ound and declared thatI H-ertain )ieces o3 evidence ma: +e identical to +oth -ivil -ase No@ &1>561#5 and -ivil -ase No@ 221A it cannot +e said howeverA that e%actl: the same evidence will su))ort the decisions in +oth@ In Civil Case 7o. 9+012+:1 )ending +e3ore the $T- o3 ,anilaA the issues raised are L1O whether the )u+lication in the Peo)leGs Journal Tonight is 3alse and li+elous and the action is directedA not onl: against Leonida +ut also against the )u+lisher and editorial sta33 o3 the )u+lication concernedN and L2O whether Leonida acted with malice in causing the )osting o3 %ero% co)ies o3 said )u+lication at cons)icuous )laces@ ?hile in Civil Case 7o. --+A it is an action 3or collection o3 a sum o3 mone:A and the issue is whether or not there was an unauthori"ed withdrawal o3 her savings de)osit that would warrant the )etitionerGs lia+ilit:@ Iss%eI ?hether the )etition 3or certiorariA )rohi+ition and mandamus inter)osed +: !'!D +e3ore the -* is the )ro)er remed: to 9uestion the denial o3 its motion to dismiss in -ivil -ase No@ 221@ 4el53 The )etition 3or certiorariA )rohi+ition and mandamus inter)osed +: !'!D +e3ore the -ourt o3 *))eals is not the )ro)er remed: to 9uestion the denial o3 its motion to dismiss in -ivil -ase No@ 221@ The $esolution and 8rder o3 the $T- o3 !atangas den:ing the motion to dismiss are merel: interlocutor:@ An in erloc% ory or5er 5oes no ermina e nor 2inally 5ispose o2 he case6 b% lea1es some hin/ o be 5one by he co%r be2ore he case is 2inally 5eci5e5 on he meri s@ It is alwa:s under the control o3 the court and ma: +e modi3ied or rescinded u)on su33icient grounds shown at an: time +e3ore 3inal /udgment@ This )roceeds 3rom the courtGs inherent )ower to control its )rocess and orders so as to ma4e them con3orma+le to law and /ustice@ The only limi a ion is ha he "%5/e canno ac 7i h /ra1e ab%se o2 5iscre ion6 or ha no in"%s ice res%l s hereby. An or5er 5enyin/ a mo ion o 5ismiss is merely in erloc% ory an5 here2ore not appealableA nor can it be the sub!ect of a petition for review on certiorari @ 'uch or5er may only be re1ie7e5 in he or5inary co%rse o2 la7 by an appeal 2rom he "%5/men a2 er rial. The or5inary proce5%re o be 2ollo7e5 in ha e1en is o 2ile an ans7er6 /o o rial6 an5 i2 he 5ecision is a51erse6 rei era e he iss%e on appeal 2rom he 2inal "%5/men . ,oreoverA litis pendentia as a /ro%n5 2or he 5ismissal o2 a ci1il ac ion re2ers o a si %a ion 7herein ano her ac ion is pen5in/ be 7een he same par ies 2or he same ca%se o2 ac ion an5 ha he secon5 ac ion becomes %nnecessary an5 1e8a io%s@ ,ore )articularl:A it must con3orm to the 3ollowing re9uisitesI LaO identit: o3 )artiesA or at least such )arties who re)resent the same interests in +oth actionsN

L+O identit: o3 rights asserted and relie3 )ra:ed 3orA the relie3 +eing 3ounded on the same 3actsN and LcO identit: with res)ect to the two L2O )receding )articulars in the two L2O cases is such that an: /udgment that ma: +e rendered in the )ending caseA regardless o3 which )art: is success3ulA would amount to res !udicata in the other case@ ?hat is essential in litis pendentia is the identit: and similarit: o3 the issues under consideration@ There +eing no similarit: o3 issues in -ivil -ases No@ &1>561#5 and 221A the 3iling o3 the latter case was not +arred +: litis pendentia@

&or%m Shoppin/ +;,, T& Nen %res 1s. Ma s%ra &ac s3 ,oratoA TanA !ec4erA !eldia and 0oshitsugu ,atsuura are stoc4holders o3 T2 7enturesA Inc@A a )rivate domestic cor)oration organi"ed and e%isting under Phili))ine law@ ,atsura 3iled a re9uest 3or investigation +: the Prosecution and 5n3orcement De)artment LP5DO o3 the '5-A to loo4 into the +asis 3or the increase in ca)ital stoc4 o3 T2 7enturesA Inc@ 3rom P1( million to P1(( million@ ,atsuuraA in his ca)acit: as stoc4holder and chairman o3 the +oard o3 T2 7enturesA Inc@A alleged that the cor)orationPs ca)ital increase was +ased on anomalous transactions and s)urious documents@ ,oratoA TanA !ec4erA and !eldia initiated a case with the 'ecurities Investigation and -learing De)artment L'I-DO o3 the '5-A 3or HDeclaration o3 Nullit: o3 'toc4holdersBDirectors ,eeting with DamagesH@ The: sought the nulli3ication o3 the acts o3 ,atsuura et@ al@ who misre)resented themselves as shareholders andBor directors o3 T2 7enturesA Inc@ ,orato et@al@ 3iled a H,otion to 'us)end Proceedings andBor -onsolidation o3 -asesH in the P5D -aseA alleging that the issue )ertaining to the increase o3 T2 7enturesP ca)ital stoc4 had alread: +een )leaded and raised in ,atsuraPs H*nswer with -ounterclaimH@ This motion was denied 3or lac4 o3 merit@ The: 3iled a )etition 3or certiorari with the '5- en +anc whichA dismissed the same and denied the consolidation o3 cases@ The: then sought relie3 3rom the -ourt o3 *))ealsA which denied their )etition 3or review@ '5- rendered a resolution in P5D -ase L1O 3inding that there was serious misre)resentation committed in the a))lication 3or increase in ca)itali"ation o3 T2 7enturesA Inc@N L2O setting aside the increase in authori"ed ca)ital stoc4 3rom P1(A(((A(((@(( to P1((A(((A(((@((N and L3O ordering the immediate revocation and cancellation o3 the certi3icate o3 increase in ca)itali"ation@ ,orato et@ al@ 3iled with the -ourt o3 *))eals a petition for revie%A wherein the: argued that the: were denied due )rocess in the )roceedings +e3ore the '5-N that the: were de)rived o3 their right to )artici)ate thereinN and that there was undue haste in the )romulgation o3 the resolutions@ -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the )etition outright 3or 3ailure to com)l: with the rule on 3orum sho))ing@ Iss%e3 ?hether or not the -ourt o3 *))eals correctl: dismissed the )etition 3or review@ 4el53 0es@ Petitioners ,orato have simultaneousl: sought a )ositive result in several di33erent 3ora@ There are not merel: oneA +ut twoA other )roceedings in which the: have sought a 3avora+le

decisionA namel:I a -ivil -ase )ending +e3ore the $T-o3 ,a4atiAN and 1@$@ No@ 14151(A )ending +e3ore this -ourt@ In 1@$@ No@ 14151(A ,orato have re)eatedl: accused ,atsura o3 violating the rule against 3orum sho))ingA and have in no uncertain terms )roclaimed that the )rimar: issue in the P5D -aseA i@e@A the +asis 3or the increase in the ca)ital stoc4 o3 T2 7enturesA Inc@A is more )ro)erl: litigated in the earlier )roceedings which the: initiated +e3ore the '5->'I-D@ Tes in De erminin/ he E8is ence o2 &or%m Shoppin/ 2orum sho))ing e%ists where he elemen s o2 li is pen5en ia are presen or 7here a 2inal "%5/men in one case 7ill amo%n o res "%5ica a in he o her. Li is pen5en ia as a ground 3or the dismissal o3 a civil action re2ers o ha si %a ion 7herein ano her ac ion is pen5in/ be 7een he same par ies 2or he same ca%se o2 ac ion6 s%ch ha he secon5 ac ion becomes %nnecessary an5 1e8a io%s. 2or litis )endentia to +e invo4edA the concurrence o3 the 3ollowing re9uisites is necessar:I LaO identit: o3 )arties or at least such as re)resent the same interest in +oth actionsN L+O identit: o3 rights asserted and relie3s )ra:ed 3orA the relie3s +eing 3ounded on the same 3actsN and LcO the identit: in the two cases should +e such that the /udgment that ma: +e rendered in one wouldA regardless o3 which )art: is success3ulA amount to res /udicata in the other@ 8n the other handA the 3ollowing are the elements o3 res /udicataI LaO The 3ormer /udgment must +e 3inalN L+O The court which rendered /udgment must have /urisdiction over the )arties and the su+/ect matterN LcO It must +e a /udgment on the meritsN and LdO There must +e +etween the 3irst and second actions identit: o3 )artiesA su+/ect matterA and cause o3 action@2( ?ell>settled is the rule that lis pen5ens re9%ires only s%bs an ial6 an5 no absol% e6 i5en i y o2 par ies@ There is s%bs an ial i5en i y o2 par ies 7hen here is a comm%ni y o2 in eres be 7een a par y in he 2irs case an5 a par y in he secon5 case6 e1en i2 he la er 7as no implea5e5 in he 2irs case@ ?e have also held that the 3act that the )osition o3 the )arties was reversedA the )lainti33s in the 3irst case +eing the de3endants in the second case or vice versaA does not negate the identit: o3 )arties 3or the )ur)ose o3 litis )endentia@ In this )articular intra>cor)orate dis)uteA notwithstanding a+sence o3 a+solute identit: o3 )artiesA the contending )arties re)resent the interests o3 the same +loc4 o3 stoc4holders on o))osing sides@ $egardless o3 which )art: would +e ultimatel: success3ul in this case or in the -ivil -aseA the issue o3 the validit: o3 T2 7enturesA increase in ca)ital stoc4 would +e threshed out in +oth casesA and the decision therein would amount to res /udicata in the other caseA on that )articular issue@

Ca%se o2 Ac ion +;,; Drilon 1s. Co%r o2 Appeals &ac s3 *3ter the unsuccess3ul Decem+er 1&#& coup dP etat" the De)artment o3 JusticeA then headed +: 2ran4lin DrilonA re3erred to the ')ecial -om)osite Team o3 Prosecutors a letter>com)laint 3rom the N!I re9uesting 3or the investigation o3 Juan Ponce 5nrile 3or his alleged )artici)ation in the said cou) attem)t@ 8n 2e+ruar: 2 A 1&&(A the Team o3 Prosecutors 3iled +e3ore the $T- an In3ormation charging 5nrile with the com)le% crime o3 re+ellion with murder and 3rustrated murder@ The: also charged 5nrile with an o33ense o3 o+struction o3 /ustice 3or har+oring an alleged 3elon under Presidential Decree No@ 1#2&@ *3terA a )etition 3or writ o3 habeas corpus was 3iled +e3ore this -ourt entitled (nrile v. SalaBarA it granted 5nrilePs )rovisional li+ert: u)on )osting o3 a cash +ond@ 8n June 5A 1&&(A in the same case o3 (nrile v. SalaBar A it ordered the modi3ication o3 the In3ormation +e3ore the $T- o3 to sim)le re+ellion onl: in consonance with the ruling in People v. @ernandeB@ 8n September +." +994A in (nrile v. Amin" this -ourt ruled that the 3iling o3 se)arate in3ormation 3or o+struction o3 /ustice also violated the .ernande" doctrine and accordingl: ordered the 9uashal o3 the said in3ormation@ *s a conse9uence o3 the 8rder dated 'e)tem+er 13A 1&&(A 5nrile 3iled a -om)laint 3or damagesA +e3ore the $T- while the re+ellion case was still )ending litigation@ .e accused the )etitioners>Drilon o3 +ad 3aith in 3iling the in3ormation 3or re+ellion com)le%ed with murder and 3rustrated murder@ Drilon 3iled a ,otion to Dismiss 3or 3ailure o3 the -om)laint to state a cause o3 action@ The: claimed that there was no allegation o3 an: actiona+le wrong constituting a violation o3 an: o3 the legal rights o3 5nrile@ In additionA the: )ut u) the de3ense o3 good 3aith and immunit: 3rom suit@ Trial court issued an 8rder den:ing the ,otion to Dismiss and re9uiring Drilon et@ al@ to 3ile their answer and to )resent evidence in su))ort o3 their de3enses in a 3ull>+lown trial inasmuch as the de3ense o3 good 3aith and immunit: 3rom suit does not a))ear to +e indu+ita+le@ DrilonsP motion 3or reconsideration was li4ewise denied@ !e3ore the -ourt o3 *))ealsA )etitioner Tram)eA in his own +ehal3 and in +ehal3 o3 his co> )etitionersA 3iled a petition for certiorari under *ule 21 o3 the $evised $ules o3 -ourt alleging that the res)ondent court committed grave a+use o3 discretion in den:ing their motion to dismiss@ -* dismissed the )etition 3or certiorari@ ,eanwhileA on 2e+ruar: 12A 1&&3A or almost three L3O :ears a3ter the 3iling o3 the com)laint 3or damages against )etitioners DrilonA the $T- o3 ,a4ati dismissed with 3inalit: the re+ellion charges against 5nrile@ Iss%e3 ?hether the allegations in the com)laint su33icientl: )lead a cause o3 action to hold the )etitioners>Drilon lia+le 3or damages@ 4el53 No@ The com)laint o3 5nrile 3ails to state a cause o3 action to hold the )etitioners>Drilon lia+le 3or

malicious )rosecution@ *ccording to the com)laintA Drilon violated 5nrilePs constitutional rights 3or 4nowingl: and maliciousl: 3iling a legall: non>e%istent o33ense and 3or de)riving him o3 his right to +e noti3ied o3 the 3iling o3 the case against him@ .is suit against Drilon is one 3or malicious )rosecution@ A complain 2or malicio%s prosec% ion s a es a ca%se o2 ac ion i2 i alle/es3 1O that the de3endant was himsel3 the )rosecutor or that at least he instigated the )rosecutionN 2O that the )rosecution 3inall: terminated in the )lainti33Ps ac9uittalN 3O that in +ringing the action the )rosecutor acted without )ro+a+le causeN andA 4O that the )rosecutor was actuated +: maliceA i@e@A +: im)ro)er and sinister motives@ &irs 6 the com)laint 3or damages was 3iled long +e3ore )rivate res)ondentPs ac9uittal in the re+ellion charge there+: rendering the su+/ect action )remature@ *t the time the com)laint was 3iledA the criminal action against )rivate res)ondent has not :et ended@ To allow )rivate res)ondent to 3ile a com)laintA 3or damages +ased on malicious )rosecutionA +e3ore his ac9uittal would sti3le the )rosecution o3 criminal cases +: the mere e%)edienc: o3 3iling damage suits against the )rosecutors@ Secon56 there are no 3actual allegations in the com)laint that can su))ort a 3inding that malice and +ad 3aith motivated the )etitioners in 3iling the in3ormation against )rivate res)ondent@ *llegations o3 +ad 3aithA malice and other related words without ultimate 3acts to su))ort the same are mere conclusions o3 law that are not deemed admitted in a motion to dismiss 3or lac4 o3 cause o3 action@

* cause o3 action is the act or omission +: which a )art: violates a right o3 another@ A ca%se o2 ac ion e8is s i2 he 2ollo7in/ elemen s are presen 3 L1O a right in 3avor o3 the )lainti33 +: whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is createdN L2O an o+ligation on the )art o3 the named de3endant to res)ect or not to violate such rightN and L3O an act or omission on the )art o3 such de3endant violative o3 the right o3 the )lainti33 or constituting a +reach o3 the o+ligation o3 de3endant to the )lainti33 3or which the latter ma: maintain an action 3or recover: o3 damages The reme5y o2 a par y whenever the complain 5oes no alle/e a ca%se o2 ac ion is o se %p his 5e2ense in a mo ion o 5ismiss or in he ans7er@ * mo ion o 5ismiss on he /ro%n5 o2 2ail%re o s a e a ca%se o2 ac ion in the com)laint hypo he ically a5mi s he r% h o2 he 2ac s alle/e5 herein. 4o7e1er6 he hypo he ical a5mission is limi e5 o he >rele1an an5 ma erial 2ac s 7ell plea5e5 in he complain an5 in2erences 2airly 5e5%c ible here2rom. The admission does not e%tend to conclusion or inter)retations o3 lawN nor does it cover allegations o3 3act the 3alsit: o3 which is su+/ect to /udicial notice 2or the )ur)oseA the motion to dismiss must h:)otheticall: admit the truth o3 the 3acts alleged in the com)laint@ The admissionA howeverA is limited onl: to all material and relevant 3acts which are well )leaded in the com)laint@ ThusA it had +een ruled that a demurrer admits onl: such matters o3 3act as are su33icientl: )leadedN that the demurrer does not admit the truth o3 mere e)ithets charging 3raudN nor allegations o3 legal conclusionsN nor an erroneous statement o3 law@ The admission o3 the truth o3 material and relevant 3acts well )leaded does not e%tend to render a demurrer an admission o3 in3erences or conclusions drawn there3romA even i3 alleged in the

)leading N nor mere in3luences or conclusions 3rom 3acts not statedN nor conclusions o3 lawN nor matters o3 evidenceN nor sur)lusage and irrelevant matter@

Speci2ic Denial +;,D Permanen Sa1in/s an5 Loan !ank 1s. Nelar5e &ac s3 Permanent 'avings and Loan !an4 sought to recover 3rom res)ondent ariano 7elardeA P1A(((A(((@(( )lus accrued interests and )enaltiesA +ased on a loan o+tained 3rom the +an4A evidenced +: the 3ollowingI L1O )romissor: note dated 'e)tem+er 2#A 1&#3NL2O loan release sheet dated 'e)tem+er 2#A 1&#3N and L3O loan disclosure statement dated 'e)tem+er 2#A 1&#3@ The +an4A re)resented +: its De)ut: Li9uidator a3ter it was )laced under li9uidationA sent a letter o3 demand to 7elarde on Jul: 2 A 1&##A demanding 3ull )a:ment o3 the loan@ Des)ite recei)t o3 said demand letterA Permanent 3ailed to settle his account@ 8n the other handA 7elarde disclaims an: lia+ilit: on the instrument@ *3ter the +an4 rested its caseA 7elardeA instead o3 )resenting evidenceA 3iled with leave o3 court his demurrer to evidence alleging that the +an4 3ailed to )rove its case +: )re)onderance o3 evidenceN the cause o3 action is alread: +arred +: )rescri)tion@ The trial court dismissed the com)laint including 7elardePs counterclaims@ The mere )resentation o3 su))osed documents regarding the loanA +ut a+sent the testimon: o3 a com)etent witness to the transaction and the documentar: evidenceA cou)led with the denial o3 lia+ilit: +: the de3endant does not su33ice to meet the re9uisite )re)onderance o3 evidence in civil cases@ -* agreed with the trial court and a33irmed the dismissal o3 the com)laint in its Decision@ It 3ound that the +an4 3ailed to )resent an: evidence to )rove the e%istence o3 7elardePs alleged loan o+ligationsA considering that 7elarde denied the +an4Ps allegations in its com)laint@ It also 3ound that the +an4Ps cause o3 action is alread: +arred +: )rescri)tion@ The +an4 should have )resented at least a single witness 9uali3ied to testi3: on the e%istence and e%ecution o3 the documents it relied u)on to )rove the dis)uted loan o+ligations o3 7elarde@ This 3alls short o3 the re9uirement that ! efore any private %riting may be received in evidence" its due e#ecution and authenticity must be proved either? 3a5 By anyone %ho sa% the %riting e#ecuted, 3b5 By evidence of the genuineness of the hand%riting of the maker, or 3c5 By a subscribing %itness. L$ule 132A 'ec@ 21A $ules o3 -ourtO 7elarde had in 3act denied these in his res)onsive )leading@ *nd consistent with his denialA he o+/ected to the )resentation o3 ,ar9ue" as a witness to identi3: the 5%hi+its o3 the !an4A and

o+/ected to their admission when these were o33ered as evidence@ Though these were grudgingl: admitted an:wa:A still admissibility of evidence should not be e uated %ith %eight of evidence. * reading o3 7elardePs answerA howeverA shows that 7elarde did not s)eci3icall: den: that he signed the loan documents@ ?hat he merel: stated in his *nswer was that the signature a))earing at the +ac4 o3 the )romissor: note seems to +e his@ The +an4 3iled a )etition 3or review on certiorari under $ule 45 o3 the $ules -ourt@ Iss%e3 ?hether 7elarde s)eci3icall: denied the allegations regarding the loan documents@ 4el53 No@ 7elardePs denials do not constitute an e33ective s)eci3ic denial as contem)lated +: law@ In 3actA his allegations amount to an implied admission o3 the due e%ecution and genuineness o3 the )romissor: note@ The admission o3 the genuineness and due e%ecution o3 a document means that the )art: whose signature it +ears admits that he voluntaril: signed the document or it was signed +: another 3or him and with his authorit:N that at the time it was signed it was in words and 3igures e%actl: as set out in the )leading o3 the )art: rel:ing u)on itN that the document was deliveredN and that an: 3ormalities re9uired +: lawA such as a sealA an ac4nowledgmentA or revenue stam)A which it lac4sA are waived +: him@ 7elarde claims that he did not receive the net )roceeds in the amount o3 P&##A333@(( as stated in the Loan $elease 'heet dated 'e)tem+er 23A 1&#3@ The documentA howeverA +ears his signature as +orrower@ *es ipsa lo uitur. The document s)ea4s 3or itsel3@ 7elarde has alread: im)liedl: admitted the genuineness and due e%ecution o3 the loan documents@ No 3urther )roo3 is necessar: to show that he undertoo4 the o+ligation with the +an4@ H* )erson cannot acce)t and re/ect the same instrument@ There3oreA 7elarde is deemed to have admitted the loan documents and ac4nowledged his o+ligation with the +an4N and with 7elardePs im)lied admissionA it was not necessar: 3or the +an4 to )resent 3urther evidence to esta+lish the due e%ecution and authenticit: o3 the loan documents sued u)on@ ?hile Sec ion ;;6 R%le ,D; o2 he R%les o2 Co%r re9%ires ha pri1a e 5oc%men s be pro1e5 o2 heir 5%e e8ec% ion an5 a% hen ici y be2ore hey can be recei1e5 in e1i5ence6 i e # presen a ion an5 e8amina ion o2 7i nesses o es i2y on his 2ac N in the )resent caseA there is no need 3or )roo3 o3 e%ecution and authenticit: with res)ect to the loan documents +ecause o3 7elardePs im)lied admission thereo3@ The )ertinent rule on actiona+le documents is 3ound in $ule #A 'ection o3 the $ules o3 -ourt which )rovides that when the cause o3 action is anchored on a documentA the genuineness or due e%ecution o3 the instrument shall +e deemed im)liedl: admitted unless the de3endantA under oathA s)eci3icall: denies themA and sets 3orth what he claims to +e the 3acts@ Prescrip ion

The +an4Ps action 3or collection o3 a sum o3 mone: was +ased on a written contract and )rescri+es a3ter ten :ears 3rom the time its right o3 action arose@ The )rescri)tive )eriod is interrupted when there is a written e%tra/udicial demand +: the creditors@ The interru)tion o3 the )rescri)tive )eriod +: written e%tra/udicial demand means that the said )eriod would commence anew 3rom the recei)t o3 the demand@ 7elardePs o+ligation under the )romissor: note +ecame due and demanda+le on 8cto+er 13A 1&#3@ 8n Jul: 2 A 1&##A the +an4Ps counsel made a written demand 3or 7elarde to settle his o+ligation@ 2rom the time his o+ligation +ecame due and demanda+le on 8cto+er 13A 1&#3A u) to the time the demand was madeA onl: 4 :earsA & months and 14 da:s had ela)sed@ The )rescri)tive )eriod then commenced anew when he received the demand letter on *ugust 5A 1&##@ ThusA when the +an4 sent another demand letter on 2e+ruar: 22A 1&&4A the action still had not :et )rescri+ed as onl: 5 :earsA 6 months and 1 da:s had la)sed@

+;,E Rep%blic 1s. CA &ac s3 $e)u+lic *ct No@ 1#&& LH$* 1#&&HOA which was a))roved on June 22A 1&5 A authori"ed the reclamation o3 3oreshore lands +: chartered cities and munici)alities@ 8n ,a: 6A 1&5#A invo4ing the )rovision o3 $* 1#&&A the Pasa: -it: -ouncil )assed 8rdinance No@ 121A 3or the reclamation o3 Three .undred L3((O hectares o3 3oreshore lands in Pasa: -it:A em)owering the -it: ,a:or to award and enter into reclamation contracts@ The said 8rdinance was amended on *)ril 21A 1&5& +: 8rdinance No@ 15#A which authori"ed the $e)u+lic $eal 5state -or)oration LH$$5-HO to reclaim 3oreshore lands o3 Pasa: -it: under certain terms and conditions@ 8n *)ril 24A 1&5&A the Pasa: -it: and $$5- entered into an *greement 2 3or the reclamation o3 the 3oreshore lands in Pasa: -it:@ 8n Decem+er 1&A 1&61A the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines 3iled a -om)laint 3or $ecover: o3 Possession and Damages with ?rit o3 Preliminar: Preventive In/unction and ,andator: In/unctionA +e3ore the 3ormer -2I o3 $i"al and alleged that such )ro)ert: is outside the commerce o3 man@ $$5- and Pasa: -it: contends that the su+/ect>matter o3 said *greement is within the commerce o3 man@ -2I ordered all )ersons claiming under themA to re3rain 3rom G3urther reclaiming or committing acts o3 dis)ossession or dis)oilation over an: area within the ,anila !a: or the ,anila !a: !each $esortGA until 3urther orders o3 the court@ * motion to intervene was 3iled +: +u:ers o3 lots in the ,anila !a: area +eing reclaimed +: $$5-A whose rights would +e a33ected +: whatever decision to +e rendered in the case@ The: then moved to dismiss the com)laint o3 the $e)u+lic@ Trial court> denies the motion to dismiss and 5n/oining $e)u+lic $eal 5state -or)oration and Pasa: -it: to have all the )lans and s)eci3ications in the reclamation a))roved +: the Director o3 Pu+lic ?or4s and to have all the contracts and su+>contracts 3or said reclamation awarded +: means o3A and onl: a3terA )u+lic +idding@

$e)u+lic a))ealed to -*@ !ut +e3ore -* could resolve the matter PD No@ 3 was amended@ It )rovided that the reclamation o3 areas under waterA whether 3oreshore or inlandA shall +e limited to the National 1overnment or an: )erson authori"ed +: it under a )ro)er contract@ *epublic and the Construction 'evelopment Corporation of the Philippines LH-D-PHO signed a -ontract 3or the ,anila>-avite -oastal $oad Pro/ect which contract included the reclamation and develo)ment o3 areas covered +: the *greement +etween Pasa: -it: and $$5-@ ThenA PD No@ 1(#5 was issuedA which trans3erred to the Pu+lic 5state *uthorit: LHP5*HO the rights and o+ligations o3 the $e)u+lic o3 the Phili))ines under the contract +etween the $e)u+lic and -D-P@ -ourt o3 *))eals came out with a Decision dismissing the a))eal o3 the $e)u+lic@ It ordered the $e)u+lic to turn over to Pasa: -it: the ownershi) and )ossession over all vacant s)aces in the twent:>one hectare area alread: reclaimed +: Pasa: -it: and $$5- at the time it too4 over the same@ Pasay City and **(C )resented a ,otion 3or $econsideration o3 the Decision o3 -*A contendingA that $$5- had actuall: reclaimed 2i3t:>2ive L55O hectaresA and not onl: Twent:>one L21O hectares@ -* then amended its ruling@ $* 1#&& was su+se9uentl: enacted@ It )rovided that with a greater autonom:A man: chartered cities and )rovinces are 3inanciall: a+le to have credit )osition which will allow them to underta4e these )ro/ects@ 'ome citiesA such as the -it: o3 !acolod under $@*@ 161A has +een authori"ed to reclaim 3oreshore lands +ordering it@ Iss%eI ?hether -* validl: issued a notice o3 lis )endens@ 4el53 No@ The court o3 a))eals undul: stretched and +roadened the meaning o3 H3oreshore landsHA +e:ond the intentment o3 the lawA and against the recogni"ed legal connotation o3 H3oreshore landsH@ The term H3oreshore landsH re3ers toI HThe stri) o3 land that lies +etween the high and low water mar4s and that is alternatel: wet and dr: according to the 3low o3 the tide@H The dut: o3 the court is to inter)ret the ena+ling *ctA $* 1#&&@ In so doingA it cannot +roaden its meaningA much less widen the coverage thereo3@ I3 the intention o3 -ongress were to include su+merged areasA it should have )rovided e%)ressl:@ That -ongress did not so )rovide could onl: signi3: the e%clusion o3 su+merged areas 3rom the term H3oreshore landsH@ It +ears stressing that the su+/ect matter o3 Pasa: -it: 8rdinance No@ 121A as amended +: 8rdinance No@ 15#A and the *greement under attac4A have +een 3ound to +e outside the intendment and sco)e o3 $* 1#&&A and there3ore ultra vires and null and void@ The annotation o3 a notice o3 lis )endens on the certi3icates o3 title covering the said lots is o3 no moment@ It did not vest in Pasa: -it: and $$5- an: real right su)erior to the a+solute

ownershi) thereover o3 --P and 1'I'@ !esidesA the nature o3 the action did not reall: warrant the issuance o3 a notice o3 lis )endens@ Sec ion ,E o2 R%le ,D6 Re1ise5 R%les o2 Ci1il Proce5%re6 rea5s3 MSec ion ,E. No ice o2 lis pen5ens. > In an action a33ecting the title or the right o3 )ossession o3 real )ro)ert:A the )lainti33 and the de3endantA when a33irmative relie3 is claimed in his answerA ma: record in the o33ice o3 the registr: o3 deeds o3 the )rovince in which the )ro)ert: is situated a notice o3 the )endenc: o3 the action@ 'aid notice shall contain the names o3 the )arties and the o+/ect o3 the action or de3enseA and a descri)tion o3 the )ro)ert: in that )rovince a33ected there+:@ 8nl: 3rom the time o3 3iling such notice 3or record shall a )urchaserA or encum+rancer o3 the )ro)ert: a33ected there+:A +e deemed to have constructive notice o3 the )endenc: o3 the actionA and onl: o3 its )endenc: against the )arties designated +: their real names@ The no ice o2 lis pen5ens herein abo1e men ione5 may be cancelle5 only %pon or5er o2 he co%r 6 a2 er proper sho7in/ ha he no ice is 2or he p%rpose o2 moles in/ he a51erse par y6 or ha i is no necessary o pro ec he ri/h s o2 he par y 7ho ca%se5 i o be recor5e5.M 6nder the a3orecited )rovision o3 law in )ointA a no ice o2 lis pen5ens is necessary 7hen he ac ion is 2or reco1ery o2 possession or o7nership o2 a parcel o2 lan5 @ In the )resent litigationA $$5- and Pasa: -it:A as de3endants in the main caseA did not counterclaim 3or the turnover to Pasa: -it: o3 the titled lots a3orementioned@

Speci2ic Denial +;,A !ae amo 1s. Ama5or &ac s3 *s s)ecial administratri% o3 the intestac: o3 the deceased 1eronima !aetamo : 1on"alesA maria !aetamo instituted in three civil actions against Leon ,@ 'amson and his individual corres)ondents@ The 3irst two actions Lcases Nos@ 22 4 and 22 5 were 3ile to annul the sales made +: the said Leon ,@ 'amsonA surviving hus+and o3 the deceasedA o3 certain )arcels o3 land alleged to +elong to the con/ugal )artnershi) +etween 'amson and !aetamoA in 3avor o3 his individual cores)ondents u)on the ground that said sales were 3ictitious and were made solel: to de3raud the heirs o3 the deceasedN and the third action Lcase No@ 22&1O has 3or it )ur)ose to )revent the 'amson 3rom dis)osing o3 the rest o3 the )ro)erties allegedl: +elonging to the con/ugal )artnershi) with intent to de3raud the heirs o3 the deceased@ 'amson 3iled in each o3 the three casesA the 3ollowing te%tI CThat the de3endant s)eci3icall: denies each and ever: allegation contained in each and ever: )aragra)h o3 )lainti33Gs com)laint@J *lsoA he reserves his right to 3ile later on an amended answer containing such s)ecial a33irmative de3enses and counterclaims as he ma: deem necessar: and )ro)er in the )remises@ *3ter the three cases had +een set 3or trialA ,aria !aetamo 3iled a motion as4ing the court to render /udgment on the )leadings in accordance with the )ra:ers o3 the com)laintsA u)on the ground that the answers 3iled +: 'amsonA +eing mere general denialsA did not tender as issue and constituted an im)lied admission o3 the material allegations o3 the com)laints@ Iss%es3 L1O ?hether the answers herein+e3ore 9uoted are general or s)eci3ic denials and L2O ?hether the reservation made +: 'amson in their said answers o3 the right to 3ile later an amended answer containing s)ecial a33irmative de3enses and counterclaims had an: legal e33ect@ 4el53 A /eneral 5enial 5oes no become speci2ic by simply callin/ i so@ 'ections 6A A and # o3 $ule & o3 the $ules o3 -ourtA which govern hereA read as 3ollowsI

'ec@ 6@ 'efenses@ The answer shall contain either a s)eci3ic denial o3 a statement o3 matters in avoidance o3 the cause o3 causes o3 action asserted in the com)laint@ 'ec@ @ Specific 'enial@ The 5e2en5an m%s 5eal speci2ically 7i h each ma erial alle/a ion o2 2ac he r%s o2 7hich he 5oes no a5mi an56 7hene1er prac icable6 shall se o s%ppor hi 5enial. ?here a )leader desires to den: onl: a )art or a 9uali3ication o3 an avermentA he shall s)eci3: so much o3 it as true and material and shall den: onl: the remainder@ ?here the de3endant is without 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 a material averment made in the com)laintA he shall so stateA and this shall have the e33ect o3 a denial@ 'ec@ #@ Allegations not specifically denied@ ,aterial averment in the com)laintA other than those as to the amount o3 damageA shall +e deemed admitted when not s)eci3icall: denied@ *llegations o3 usur: are deemed admitted i3 not denied s)eci3icall: and under oath@ There is no pro1ision in he R%les o2 Co%r ha permi s s%ch reser1a ion @ IndeedA to )ermit it would de3eat the time limit 3i%ed +: section 1 o3 rule & within which the de3endant must answer the com)laint@ * litigant cannot create an: right in his 3avor +: merel: claiming and reserving it@ I3 the right e%istsA it can +e e%ercised without o3 reservation can +ring it to li3e@ S%mmary '%5/men +;,. Rep%blic 1s. San5i/anbayan &ac s3 8n Decem+er 1 A 1&&1A $e)u+licA through the P-11A re)resented +: the 8'1A 3iled a )etition 3or 3or3eiture +e3ore the 'andigan+a:anA entitled *epublic of the Philippines vs. ;erdinand (. Marcos. $e)u+lic sought the declaration o3 the aggregate amount o3 6'] 6']65# million de)osited in escrow in the PN!A as ill>gotten wealth@ !e3ore the case was set 3or )re>trialA a 1eneral *greement and the 'u))lemental *greements were e%ecuted +: the ,arcos children and then P-11 -hairman 1unigundo 3or a glo+al settlement o3 the assets o3 the ,arcos 3amil:@ $e)u+lic 3iled a motion 3or summar: /udgment andBor /udgment on the )leadings@ ,rs@ ,arcos 3iled her o))osition@ The 'andigan+a:an denied the motion 3or summar: /udgment andBor /udgment on the )leadings on the ground that the motion to a))rove the com)romise agreement HLtoo4O )recedence over the motion 3or summar: /udgment@H LaterA the 'andigan+a:an granted $e)u+licGs motion 3or summar: /udgmentI The 'wiss de)osits which were transmitted to and now held in escrow at the PN! are deemed unlaw3ull: ac9uired as ill>gotten wealth@ Judgment is rendered in 3avor o3 the $e)u+lic and against the ,arcosA declaring the 'wiss de)osits which were trans3erred to and now de)osited in escrow at the Phili))ine National !an4 in the total aggregate value e9uivalent to 6']62 A6(#A544@&5@ ,rs@ ,arcos 3iled a motion 3or reconsideration@ The 'andigan+a:an reversed its earlier decisionA thus den:ing $e)u+licGs motion 3or summar: /udgmentI the evidence o33ered 3or summar: /udgment o3 the case did not )rove that the mone: in the 'wiss !an4s +elonged to the ,arcos s)ouses +ecause no legal )roo3 e%ists in the record as to the ownershi) +: the ,arcoses o3 the 3unds in escrow 3rom the 'wiss !an4s@

The $e)u+lic argues that the 'andigan+a:anA in reversing its 'e)tem+er 1&A 2((( decisionA committed grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 or e%cess o3 /urisdiction@ $e)u+licA in the mainA asserts that nowhere in the res)ondentsG motions 3or reconsideration and su))lemental motion 3or reconsideration were the authenticit:A accurac: and admissi+ilit: o3 the 'wiss decisions ever challenged@ 8therwise statedA it was incorrect 3or the 'andigan+a:an to use the issue o3 lac4 o3 authenticated translations o3 the decisions o3 the 'wiss 2ederal 'u)reme -ourt as the +asis 3or reversing itsel3 because respondents themselves never raised this issue in their motions 3or reconsideration and su))lemental motion 3or reconsideration@ Iss%es3 ?hether or not ,arcos raised an: genuine issue o3 3act which would either /usti3: or negate summar: /udgmentN and 4el53 This case as an e%ce)tion to the general rule governing )etitions 3or certiorari@ *enerally: 5ecisions o2 he San5i/anbayan are bro%/h be2ore his Co%r %n5er R%le EA6 no R%le .A. Except: ?here the case is %n5eniably in/raine5 7i h immense p%blic in eres 6 p%blic policy an5 5eep his orical reperc%ssions6 cer iorari is allo7e5 notwithstanding the e%istence and availa+ilit: o3 the remed: o3 a))eal@ T4E PR)PRIET< )& S(MMAR< '(DGMENT ?e hold that the ,arcoses 3ailed to raise an: genuine issue o3 3act in their )leadings@ ThusA on motion o3 $e)u+licA summar: /udgment should ta4e )lace as a matter o3 right@ S%mmary "%5/men was descri+ed as a /udgment which a court ma: render +e3ore trial +ut a3ter +oth )arties have )leaded@ It is ordered +: the court u)on a))lication +: one )art:A su))orted +: a33idavitsA de)ositions or other documentsA with notice u)on the adverse )art: who ma: in turn 3ile an o))osition su))orted also +: a33idavitsA de)ositions or other documents@ 6)on care3ul )erusal o3 the 3oregoingA the -ourt 3inds that ,rs@ ,arcos and the ,arcos children indu+ita+l: 3ailed to tender genuine issues in their answer to the )etition 3or 3or3eiture@ A /en%ine iss%e is an iss%e o2 2ac 7hich calls 2or he presen a ion o2 e1i5ence as 5is in/%ishe5 2rom an iss%e 7hich is 2ic i io%s an5 con ri1e56 se %p in ba5 2ai h or pa en ly lackin/ in s%bs ance so as no o cons i % e a /en%ine iss%e 2or rial@ ,arcosG de3enses o3 Hlac4 o3 4nowledge 3or lac4 o3 )rivit:H or HLina+ilit: toO recall +ecause it ha))ened a long time agoH orA on the )art o3 ,rs@ ,arcosA that Hthe 3unds were law3ull: ac9uiredH are 3ull: insu33icient to tender genuine issues@ ,arcosesG de3enses were a sham and evidentl: cali+rated to com)ound and con3use the issues@ In their answerA the: 3ailed to s)eci3icall: den: each and ever: allegation contained in the )etition 3or 3or3eiture in the manner re9uired +: the rules@ *ll the: gave were stoc4 answers li4e Hthe: have no su33icient 4nowledgeH or Hthe: could not recall +ecause it ha))ened a long time agoAH andA as to ,rs@ ,arcosA Hthe 3unds were law3ull: ac9uiredAH without stating the +asis o3 such assertions@ Sec ion ,K6 R%le - o2 he ,BBC R%les o2 Ci1il Proce5%re6 pro1i5es3

* de3endant must s)eci3: each material allegation o3 3act the truth o3 which he does not admit andA whenever )ractica+leA shall set 3orth the su+stance o3 the matters u)on which he relies to su))ort his denial@ ?here a de3endant desires to den: onl: a )art o3 an avermentA he shall s)eci3: so much o3 it as is true and material and shall den: the remainder@ ?here a de3endant is without 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 a material averment made in the com)laintA he shall so stateA and this shall have the e33ect o3 a denial@ 8n the )art o3 Mrs. Marcos6 she claime5 ha he 2%n5s 7ere la72%lly ac9%ire5. 4o7e1er6 she 2aile5 o par ic%larly s a e he %l ima e 2ac s s%rro%n5in/ he la72%l manner or mo5e o2 ac9%isi ion o2 he s%b"ec 2%n5s. 'im)l: )utA she merel: stated in her answer with the other res)ondents that the 3unds were Hlaw3ull: ac9uiredH without detailing how e%actl: these 3unds were su))osedl: ac9uired legall: +: them@ .ereA des)ite the serious and s)eci3ic allegations against themA the ,arcoses res)onded +: sim)l: sa:ing that the: had no 4nowledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a +elie3 as to the truth o3 such allegations@ 'uch a generalA sel3>serving claim o3 ignorance o3 the 3acts alleged in the )etition 3or 3or3eiture was insu33icient to raise an issue@ The ,arcoses should have )ositivel: stated how it was that the: were su))osedl: ignorant o3 the 3acts alleged The 3orm o3 denial ado)ted +: ,arcos must +e availed o3 %ith sincerity and in good faith" and certainly not for the purpose of confusing the adverse party as to %hat allegations of the petition are really being challenged, nor should it be made for the purpose of delay @ In the instant caseA the ,arcoses did not onl: )resent unsu+stantiated assertions +ut in truth attem)ted to mislead and deceive this -ourt +: )resenting an o+viousl: contrived de3ense@

+;,C Lina 1s. CA &ac s3 Northern ,otorsA Inc@ 3iled with -2I a case 3or sum o3 mone: with damages against *le% Lina@ .e was served with summons together with a co): o3 the com)laint@ ?hen no answer or motion to dismiss was 3iled +: LinaA Northern ,otorsA Inc@ 3iled a motion to declare him in de3ault@ Lina )etitioner 3iled his o))osition to the motion inviting attention to the 3act that he had 3iled a motion 3or e%tension o3 time to 3ile res)onsive )leading within the reglementar: )eriod@ -2I /udge issued an order declaring Lina in de3ault and allowing Northern to adduce its evidence e% )arte@ It then ruled in 3avor o3 Northern@ Lina 3iled a motion to set aside decision +ut was denied@ .e then 3iled with the then -ourt o3 *))eals a )etition 3or certiorari B)rohi+ition@ .is )rinci)al ground o3 the o))osition was the 3act that he had sentA +: registered mailA a motion 3or e%tension o3 time to 3ile res)onsive )leadingA and he even attached to his o))osition a co): o3 the motion 3or e%tension@ -* denied such in its decision on the ground that when Northern 3iled on ,a: #A 1&#2A its motion to declare Lina in de3ault +ecause the last da: 3or him to 3ile an answer under the summons was ,a: A 1&#2A the he has not 3iled an answer@ Iss%es3 1@ ?hether or not the order o3 de3ault was issued in grave a+use o3 discretion amounting to lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ 2@ ?hether or not certiorari is )ro)er in a case where /udgment +: de3ault was rendered without an order o3 de3ault +eing 3urnished )etitioner and where meritorious de3enses e%istA which are 3or the trial court to evaluate and which evaluation was not done in this case@ 4el53

No to +oth@ The granting o3 additional time within which to 3ile an answer to a com)laint is a matter largel: addressed to the sound discretion o3 the trial court@ In the case at +arA it was on ,a: 5A 1&#2 or two da:s +e3ore the e%)iration o3 the 3i3teen>da: reglementar: )eriod given to Lina to 3ile his res)onsive )leading when Lina moved 3or an e%tension o3 twent: L2(O da:s 3rom ,a: within which to 3ile his answer@ 6nder the $ules o3 -ourtA the reme5ies a1ailable o a 5e2en5an in he C&I no7 RTC areI aO The de3endant in de3ault ma:A at an: time a3ter discover: thereo3 and +e3ore /udgmentA 2ile a mo ion6 %n5er oa h6 o se asi5e he or5er o2 5e2a%l on he /ro%n5 ha his 2ail%re o ans7er 7as 5%e o 2ra%56 acci5en 6 mis ake or e8c%sable ne/lec 6 an5 ha he has a meri orio%s 5e2enseN L'ec@ 3A $ule 1#O +O I3 the /udgment has alread: +een rendered when the de3endant discovered the de3aultA +ut +e3ore the same has +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A he ma: 2ile a mo ion 2or ne7 rial under 'ection I LaO o3 $ule 3 N cO I3 the de3endant discovered the de3ault a3ter the /udgment has +ecome 3inal and e%ecutor:A he ma: 3ile a pe i ion 2or relie2 under 'ection 2 o3 $ule 3#N and dO .e ma: also appeal 2rom he "%5/men ren5ere5 a/ains him as contrar: to the evidence or to the lawA even i3 no )etition to set aside the order o3 de3ault has +een )resented +: him@ L'ec@ 2A $ule 41O Petitioner in this case did not avail himsel3 o3 an: o3 the a+ove remedies@ InsteadA he went to the a))ellate court on certiorariB )rohi+ition@ +;,- Spo%ses Ampelo9%io 1s. CA &ac s3 ')ouses *m)elo9uio 3ailed to )a: its loan des)ite demands to PN!@ PN! instituted an e%tra/udicial 3oreclosure )roceeding on two )arcels o3 land which )etitioners own and used as securit: 3or a loan@ *t the auction saleA PN! as the highest +idder ac9uired the mortgaged )ro)erties@ The Provincial 'heri33 e%ecuted a certi3icate o3 sale in 3avor o3 PN!@ The ')ouses 3iled a com)laint +e3ore the $T- 3or the annulment o3 a mortgage contract the: entered into with PN!@ The: 3urther as4ed 3or the declaration o3 nullit: o3 e%tra>/udicial 3oreclosure o3 their mortgaged )ro)erties and the cancellation o3 the titles alread: issued in PN!Gs name@ PN! 3iled a motion 3or e%tension o3 time to 3ile an answer@ Instead o3 3iling an answerA PN! 3iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o3 lac4 o3 cause o3 action@ The trial court denied PN!Gs motion to dismiss@ The order was sent through registered mail and addressed to *tt:@ ,an"ala@ PN! claimed it did not receive the trial courtGs order +ecause *tt:@ ,an"ala who tem)oraril: handled the caseA no longer held o33ice at 5scolta@ The case was eventuall: trans3erred to *tt:@ $olando Torres@ The s)ouses 3iled a motion to declare PN! in de3ault 3or its 3ailure to 3ile an answer within the reglementar: )eriod@

Trial court issued the orderA which denied )etitionersG motion to declare res)ondent PN! in de3ault@ The s)ouses raised the matter to the -ourt o3 *))eals under $ule 65 o3 the $ules o3 -ourt@ -ourt o3 *))eals dismissed the )etition 3or lac4 o3 merit@ Iss%e3 ?hether the court o3 a))eals erred in a33irming the decision o3 the trial court and not 3inding PN! in de3ault des)ite its 3ailure to 3ile an answer within the reglementar: )eriod )rovided 3or +: law@ 4el53 No@ -* em)hasi"ed that a li+eral construction o3 the $ules is allowed +: this -ourt to )romote s)eed:A /ustA and ine%)ensive determination o3 ever: action and )roceeding@ 6nder 'ection 11 o3 $ule 11 o3 the New $ules o3 -ivil ProcedureA i is 7i hin he 5iscre ion o2 he rial co%r o permi he 2ilin/ o2 5e2en5an Is ans7er e1en beyon5 he re/lemen ary perio56 pro1i5e5 here is "%s i2ica ion 2or he bela e5 ac ion A and there was no sho7in/ ha he 5e2en5an in en5e5 o 5elay he case @ ?here the 3ailure o3 de3endant to seasona+l: 3ile his answer is e%cusa+le and will not in an: wa: )re/udice the )lainti33Gs su+stantial rightsA courts a))l: the $ules li+erall: and set aside the de3ault orderA or den: the motion +: the )lainti33@ In this caseA the trial /udge 3ound that PN! had a meritorious de3ense and the case needed a 3ull>+lown trial@ PN!Gs 3ailure to )lead on time is e%cusa+le@ *tt:@ 1iovanni ,an"alaGs )artici)ation was onl: limited to the )re)aration o3 a ,otion 3or 5%tension o3 Time to 2ile an *nswer and he onl: co> signed PN!Gs answer with counterclaim@ It was *tt:@ $olando Torres who signed and )re)ared all the su+se9uent )leadings o3 PN!@ *lthough *tt:@ ,an"alaGs name was included in the )leadingsA he did not sign nor )artici)ate in the courtGs )roceedings@ Cer iorari %n5er R%le .A is a reme5y 5esi/ne5 2or he correc ion o2 errors o2 "%ris5ic ion an5 no errors o2 "%5/men . *s a ruleA onl: /urisdictional 9uestions ma: +e raised in a )etition 3or certiorariA including matters o3 grave a+use o3 discretion which are e9uivalent to lac4 o3 /urisdiction@ -ertiorari is not a su+stitute 3or a))eal@

ii

iii

iv