Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PARTS OF A PLEADING
Section 1. Caption.
The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title
of the action, and the docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the
parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it
shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on
each side be stated with an appropriate indication
when there are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be
indicated.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Lorbes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139884, February 15,
2000
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This petition for review on certiorari arose from an action for
reformation of instrument and damages originally filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, the
decision on which was reviewed and reversed by the Third
Division of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, Supreme
Court reversed the CA and upheld lower RTCs decision.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
Petitioners were the registered owners of a 225-square
meter parcel of land located in Antipolo, Rizal and the same
property was mortgaged to Florencio and Nestor Carlos in
the amount of P150,000.00.
About a year later, the mortgage obligation had increased to
P500,000.00 and fearing foreclosure of the property,
petitioners asked their son-in-law, herein private respondent
Ricardo delos Reyes, for help in redeeming their property.
Private respondent delos Reyes agreed to redeem the
property but because he allegedly had no money then for
the purpose he solicited the assistance of private
respondent Josefina Cruz, a family friend of the delos
Reyeses and an employee of the Land Bank of the
Philippines.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
Whether the transaction between petitioners and Cruz was
one of absolute sale or of equitable mortgage.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RULINGS:
The true arrangement between petitioners and private
respondent Cruz was an equitable mortgage.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sec. 2. The body.
The body of the pleading sets forth its designation,
the allegations of the party's claims or defenses, the
relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
(a) Paragraphs. - The allegations in the body of a
pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
numbered as to be readily identified, each of which
shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstances so far as that can be done with
convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its
number in all succeeding pleadings.
(b) Headings. - When two or more causes of action
are joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced
by the words "first cause of action," of the second by
"second cause of action," and so on for the others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words
"answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to the
second cause of action" and so on; and when one or
more paragraphs of the answer are addressed to
several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by
words to that effect.
(c) Relief. - The pleading shall specify the relief
sought, but it may add a general prayer for such
further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable.
(d) Date. - Every pleading shall be dated.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC)
conducted a public bidding for the supply of labor, materials,
tools, supervision, equipment, and other incidentals
necessary for the fabrication and delivery of 27 tollbooths to
be used for the automation of toll collection along the
expressways. Orlando Kalingo (Kalingo) won in the bidding
and was awarded the contract. conducted a public bidding
for the supply of labor, materials, tools, supervision,
equipment, and other incidentals necessary for the
fabrication and delivery of 27 tollbooths to be used for the
automation of toll collection along the expressways. Orlando
Kalingo (Kalingo) won in the bidding and was awarded the
contract.
On November 13, 1997, PNCC issued in favor of Kalingo
Purchase Order (P.O.) No. 71024L for 25 units of tollbooths
for a total of P2,100,000.00, and P.O. No. 71025L for two
units of tollbooths amounting to P168,000.00. These
issuances were subject to the condition, among others, that
each P.O. shall be covered by a surety bond equivalent to
100% of the total down payment (50% of the total cost
reflected on the P.O.), and that the surety bond shall
continue in full force until the supplier shall have complied
with all the undertakings and covenants to the full
satisfaction of PNCC.
Kalingo, hence, posted surety bonds Surety Bond Nos.
27546 and 27547.
Both surety bonds contain the following conditions: (1) the
liability of PCIC under the bonds expires on March 16, 1998;
and (2) a written extrajudicial demand must first be
tendered to the surety, PCIC, within 15 days from the
expiration date; otherwise PCIC shall not be liable
thereunder and the obligee waives the right to claim or file
any court action to collect on the bond.
On March 3, 4, and 5, 1998, Kalingo made partial/initial
delivery of four units of tollbooths under P.O. No. 71024L.
However, the tollbooths delivered were incomplete or were
not fabricated according to PNCC specifications. Kalingo
failed to deliver the other 23 tollbooths up to the time of
filing of the complaint; despite demands, he failed and
refused to comply with his obligation under the POs.
On March 9, 1998, six days before the expiration of the
surety bonds and after the expiration of the delivery period
provided for under the award, PNCC filed a written
extrajudicial claim against PCIC notifying it of Kalingos
default and demanding the repayment of the down payment
on P.O. No. 71024L as secured by PCIC Bond No. 27547, in
the amount ofP1,050,000.00. The claim went unheeded
despite repeated demands. For this reason, on April 24,
2001, PNCC filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Mandaluyong City a complaint for collection of a sum of
money against Kalingo and PCIC.
PCIC, in its answer, argued that the partial delivery of four
out of the 25 units of tollbooth by Kalingo under P.O. No.
71024L should reduce Kalingo's obligation.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
Whether or not PCIC is liable for payment of the security
bond not alleged in the complaint for collection of money.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HELD:
No.
The issue before us calls for a discussion of a courts basic
appreciation of allegations in a complaint. The fundamental
rule is that reliefs granted a litigant are limited to those
specifically prayed for in the complaint; other reliefs prayed
for may be granted only when related to the specific
prayer(s) in the pleadings and supported by the evidence on
record. Necessarily, any such relief may be granted only
where a cause of action therefor exists, based on the
complaint, the pleadings, and the evidence on record.
Each of the surety bonds issued by PCIC created a right in
favor of PNCC to collect the repayment of the bonded down
payments made on the two POs if contractor Kalingo
defaults on his obligation under the award to fabricate and
deliver to PNCC the tollbooths contracted for.
Concomitantly, PCIC, as surety, had the obligation to comply
with its undertaking under the bonds to repay PNCC the
down payments the latter made on the POs if Kalingo
defaults.
It must be borne in mind that each of the two bonds is a
distinct contract by itself, subject to its own terms and
conditions. They each contain a provision that the surety,
PCIC, will not be liable for any claim not presented to it in
writing within 15 days from the expiration of the bond, and
that the obligee (PNCC) thereby waives its right to claim or
file any court action against the surety (PCIC) after the
termination of 15 days from the time its cause of action
accrues. This written claim provision creates a condition
precedent for the accrual of: (1) PCICs obligation to comply
with its promise under the particular bond, and of (2) PNCC's
right to collect or sue on these bonds. PCICs liability to
repay the bonded down payments arises only upon PNCC's
filing of a written claim notifying PCIC of principal Kalingos
default and demanding collection under the bond within
15 days from the bonds expiry date. PNCCs failure to
comply with the written claim provision has the effect of
extinguishing PCICs liability and constitutes a waiver by
PNCC of the right to claim or sue under the bond.
The records reveal that PNCC complied with the written
claim provision, but only with respect to PCIC Bond No.
27547.
Under the circumstances, PNCCs cause of action with
respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546 did not and cannot exist,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
On March 2, 1991, respondents obtained a loan of
P45,000.00 from petitioner payable in six months and
secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over their 202-square
meter property located in
Marulas, Valenzuela and covered by Transfer Certificate
ofTitle (TCT) No. V-12296. When the debt became due,
respondents failed to pay notwithstanding demand.
BODY OF THE COMPLAINT
The RTC filed a Complaint praying that respondents be
ordered:
(a)To pay [petitioner] the principal obligation of P45,000.00,
with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum, from 02
March 1991 until the full obligation is paid.
(b) To pay [petitioner] actual damages as may be proven
during the trial but shall in no case be less than P10,000.00;
P25,000.00 by way of attorneys fee, plus P2,000.00 per
hearing as appearance fee.
It provides:
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. A judgment rendered
against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be
different in kind from that prayed for nor award
unliquidated damages.
dated December 17, 2001, claiming that the parties did not
agree in writing on any rate of interest and that petitioner
merely sought for a 12% per annum interest in her
Complaint. Surprisingly, the RTC awarded 5% monthly
interest (or 60% per annum) from March 2, 1991 until full
payment. Resultantly, their indebtedness inclusive of the
exorbitant interest from March 2, 1991 to May 22, 2001
ballooned from P124,400.00 to P652,000.00.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court can grant relief not
prayed for in the complaint?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HELD:
NO.
It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in
the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the
party. They cannot also grant a relief without first
ascertaining the evidence presented in support thereof. Due
process considerations require thatjudgments must conform
to and be supported by the pleadings and evidence
presented in court. In Development Bank of the Philippines
v. Teston, this Court expounded that:
Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is
improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief
sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the
opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to
the proposed relief. The fundamental
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sec. 3. Signature and address.
Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him, stating in either case his address
which should not be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by
him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief there is good
ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for
delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.
However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended
for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule,
or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or
fails to promptly report to the court a change of his
address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Navarro v. Jarson Development, G.R. No. 142627, January
28, 2008
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE: WON the decision dated February 17, 2005 has
become final and executory.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HELD: the Court of Appeals found that copies of the Notice
of Judgment and its Decision were sent through registered
rd
mail to petitioners counsel at M.B. MahinayBldg. (3 Floor),
F. Sotto St., Cebu City. Said counsel received the same. The
latter admitted that through inadvertence, he did not file
with the Court of Appeals a formal notice of his change of
address.
FACTS:
Spouses Mariano
and Estrella Najarro (spouses Najarro), petitioners, are the
registered owners of a residential building constructed on
Lot 1394-C of the Banilad Friar Lands located on V. Sotto
Street, Cebu City. Respondent Jarson Development
Corporation (JDC), on the other hand, is a corporation
registered and existing under Philippine laws. It is engaged
in the business, among others, of acquiring and managing
real estate, buildings and other
structures. Among JDCs various projects is the develop
ment of RichmondPlaza, a 12-story commercial building
June 2, 2014
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"When a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond
1
review", and "there are no more proceedings to speak of
inasmuch as these were terminated by the satisfaction of
2
the judgment."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
On December 6, 2004, a Decision was rendered in favor of
respondent Eduardo Gumaru, Jr. and against petitioner
Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto and F. Jacinto Group, Inc. Petitioner
xxx
July 27, 2009 Resolutions of the NLRC. the CA issued the first
assailed Resolution, which denied and dismiss the petition.
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sec. 4. Verification.
Except when otherwise specifically required by law or
rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit.
on his behalf relative to the labor case and the filing of the
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ruling: The Court finds that the Petition has become moot
and academic.
It is true, as petitioner asserts, that if for reasonable or
justifiable reasons he is unable to sign the verification and
certification against forum shopping in his CA Petition, he
may execute a special power of attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign the Petition on his behalf.
Court that the judgment award has been satisfied in full. The
petitioner does not dispute this claim, in which case, the
labor case is now deemed ended. "It is axiomatic that after a
judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed
terminated once and for all."And "when a judgment has
been satisfied, it passes beyond review, satisfaction being
the last act and the end of the proceedings, and payment or
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
Constantina H. Sanchez, Josefina H. Lopez and Susan
Honoridez are the registered owners (the owners) of a
parcel of land known as Lot 5. Mahinay filed a
[11]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Issue:
THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI FOR FAILING TO STATE IN ITS VERIFICATION PORTION
THE PHRASE OR BASED ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS AS REQUIRED
IN SECTION 4, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE AS
AMENDED BY AM NO. 00-2-10-SC [E]SPECIALLY SO WHEN
PETITIONER HAD ALREADY FILED AN AMENDED PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WITH THE CORRECTED VERIFICATION PORTION THIS
TIME CONTAINING THE PHRASE BASED ON AUTHENTIC
RECORDS;
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Vallacar v. Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, May 30, 2012
Ruling:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners complaint for damages is
dismissible on the ground of the latters failure to verify the
same.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Rulings:
No. Respondent filed her complaint for damages against
petitioner on July 19, 1995, when the 1964 Rules of Court
was still in effect. Rule 7, Section 6 of the 1964 Rules of
Court provided:
SEC. 6. Verification.A pleading is verified only by an
affidavit stating that the person verifying has read the
pleading and that the allegations thereof are true of his own
knowledge.
Verifications based on "information and belief," or upon
"knowledge, information and belief," shall be deemed
insufficient.
On July 1, 1997, the new rules on civil procedure took effect.
The foregoing provision was carried on, with a few
amendments, as Rule 7, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of
Court, viz:
SEC. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his knowledge and belief.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219, September 3,
2012
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
Respondent-appellee ANGELES is one of the registered
owners of a parcel of land. The subject parcel of land was
occupied by one Jelly Galiga (GALIGA) from 1979 up to 1993,
as a lessee. Subsequently, Fe Salvador (SALVADOR) alleged
that she bought on September 7, 1993 the subject parcel of
land from GALIGA.ANGELES, sent a letter to SALVADOR
demanding that the latter vacate the subject property,
which was not heeded by SALVADOR. ANGELES, thru one
Rosauro Diaz, Jr. (DIAZ), filed a complaint for ejectment in
MeTC.
The complaint before the MeTC was filed in the name of
respondent, but it was one Rosauro Diaz who executed the
verification and certification dated October 12, 1994,
alleging therein that he was respondent's attorney-in-fact.
There was, however, no copy of any document attached to
the complaint to prove Diaz's allegation regarding the
authority supposedly granted to him.
In the appeal filed by petitioner-appellant SALVADOR, she
alleged, among others, that DIAZ, who filed the complaint
for ejectment, had no authority whatsoever from
respondent-appellee ANGELES at the time of filing of the
suit.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Issue:
Effect of Rosauro Diaz's (respondent's representative) failure
to present proof of his authority to represent respondent
(plaintiff before the MeTC) in filing the complaint.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ruling:
InTamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically
stated that "[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the
plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so, the
complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint
does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should
dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff." This ruling
was reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper
Insurance Company, where the Court went on to say that
"[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the
case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction
over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Estel v. Diego, G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
The present petition originated from a Complaint for
Forcible Entry, Damages and Injunction with Application for
Temporary Restraining Order filed by herein respondents
Recaredo P. Diego, Sr., and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr. with the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Gingoog City,
Misamis Oriental.
Respondents alleged that on April 16, 1991, they entered
into a contract of sale of a 306 square-meter parcel of land
with petitioner; after receiving the amount of P17,000.00 as
downpayment, petitioner voluntarily delivered the physical
and material possession of the subject property to
respondents and had been in actual, adverse and
uninterrupted possession of the subject lot.
At around 8:30 in the morning of July 20, 1995, petitioner,
together with her two grown-up sons and five other
persons, uprooted the fence surrounding the disputed lot,
after which they entered its premises and then cut and
destroyed the trees and plants found therein.
Respondents prayed for the restoration of their possession,
for the issuance of a permanent injunction against petitioner
as well as payment of damages, attorney's fees and costs of
suit.
On July 26, 1995, the MTCC issued a Temporary Restraining
Order against petitioner and any person acting in her
behalf.
In her Answer with Special/Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims, petitioner denied the material allegations in
the Complaint contending that respondents were never in
physical, actual, public, adverse and uninterrupted
possession of the subject lot; full possession and absolute
ownership of the disputed parcel of land, with all
improvements thereon, had always been that of petitioner
and her daughter; the agreement she entered into with the
wife of respondent Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. for the sale of the
subject lot had been abrogated; she even offered to return
the amount she received from respondents, but the latter
refused to accept the same and instead offered an
additional amount of P12,000.00 as part of the purchase
price but she also refused to accept their offer; the subject
of the deed of sale between petitioner and respondents and
what has been delivered to respondents was actually Lot 16
which is adjacent to the disputed Lot 19; that they did not
destroy the improvements found on the subject lot and, in
fact, any improvements therein were planted by petitioner's
5
parents.
On February 16, 2002, the MTCC rendered a Decision in
favor of the plaintiffs [herein respondents], dismissing
defendant's [herein petitioner's] counterclaim.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the RTC of Gingoog City
and rendered its Decision affirming the assailed Decision of
the MTCC.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
Issue:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ruling :
The Court does not agree.
Anent respondents' alleged defective verification, the Court
again notes that this issue was not raised before the MTCC.
Even granting that this matter was properly raised before
the court a quo, the Court finds that there is no procedural
defect that would have warranted the outright dismissal of
respondents' complaint as there is compliance with the
requirement regarding verification.
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M.
No. 00-2-10-SC provides:
Sec. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a
verification based on "information and belief" or upon
"knowledge, information and belief" or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
A reading of respondents verification reveals that they
complied with the abovequoted procedural rule.
Respondents confirmed that they had read the allegations in
the Complaint which were true and correct based on their
personal knowledge. The addition of the words "to the best"
before the phrase "of our own personal knowledge" did not
violate the requirement under Section 4, Rule 7, it being
sufficient that the respondents declared that the allegations
in the complaint are true and correct based on their
personal knowledge.
Verification is deemed substantially complied with when, as
in the instant case, one who has ample knowledge to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the
petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUES:
a.
b.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RULING:
We note that, at the time the complaint against the
petitioners was filed, Ramos also held the position of
Assistant Vice-President for BPI Northern Mindanao and was
then the highest official representing the bank in the
23
Northern Mindanao area. This position and his standing in
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Swedish Match v. Treasurer, v. G.R. No. 181277, July
3, 2013
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
On 20 October 2001, petitioner paid business taxes in the
total amount of P470,932.21. The assessed amount was
based on Sections 14 and 21 of Ordinance No. 7794,
otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code, as amended
by Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011. Out of that
amount, P164,552.04 corresponded to the payment under
Section 21.
Assenting that it was not liable to pay taxes under Section
21, petitioner wrote a letter dated 17 September 2003 to
herein respondent claiming a refund of business taxes the
former had paid pursuant to the said provision. Petitioner
argued that payment under Section 21 constituted double
taxation in view of its payment under Section 14.
On 17 October 2003, for the alleged failure of respondent to
act on its claim for a refund, petitioner filed a Petition for
Refund of Taxes with the RTC of Manila in accordance with
Section 196 of the Local Government Code of 1991. The
Petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 03-108163.
On 14 June 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21
of Manila rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 03-108163
dismissing the Petition for the failure of petitioner to plead
the latters capacity to sue and to state the authority of
Tiarra T. Batilaran-Beleno (Ms. Beleno), who had executed
the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
In denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC
went on to say that Sections 14 and 21 pertained to taxes of
a different nature and, thus, the elements of double taxation
were wanting in this case.
On appeal, the CTA Second Division affirmed the RTCs
dismissal of the Petition for Refund of Taxes on the ground
that petitioner had failed to state the authority of Ms.
Beleno to institute the suit.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE: (Related to the topic RULE 7, SEC. 4 VERIFICATION)
Whether Ms. Beleno was authorized to file the Petition for
Refund of Taxes with the RTC
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HELD:
YES. Ms. Belino was authorized to file the Petition for Refund
of Taxes with the RTC.
Anent the procedural issue, petitioner argues that there can
be no dispute that Ms. Beleno was acting within her
authority when she instituted the Petition for Refund before
the RTC, notwithstanding that the Petition was not
accompanied by a Secretarys Certificate. Her authority was
ratified by the Board in its Resolution adopted on 19 May
2004. Thus, even if she was not authorized to execute the
Verification and Certification at the time of the filing of the
Petition, the ratification by the board of directors
retroactively applied to the date of her signing.
On the other hand, respondent contends that petitioner
failed to establish the authority of Ms. Beleno to institute
the present action on behalf of the corporation. Citing
Philippine Airlines v. Flight Attendants and Stewards
Association of the Philippines (PAL v. FASAP), respondent
avers that the required certification of non-forum shopping
should have been valid at the time of the filing of the
Petition. The Petition, therefore, was defective due to the
flawed Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping, which were insufficient in form and therefore a
clear violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Consequently, a verification signed without an authority
from the board of directors is defective. However, the
requirement of verification is simply a condition affecting
the form of the pleading and non-compliance does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court
may in fact order the correction of the pleading if
verification is lacking or, it may act on the pleading although
it may not have been verified, where it is made evident that
strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with so
that the ends of justice may be served.
A distinction between noncompliance and substantial
compliance with the requirements of a certificate of nonforum shopping and verification as provided in the Rules of
22
Court must be made. In this case, it is undisputed that the
Petition filed with the RTC was accompanied by a
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping signed
by Ms. Beleno, although without proof of authority from the
board. However, the Supreme Court finds that the belated
submission of the Secretarys Certificate constitutes
substantial compliance with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the
1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath
in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting
a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that
he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed
any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or
non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and
criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Spouses Plaza v. Lustiva, G.R. No. 172909, March 5,
2014 (Supra.)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THE FACTS
4
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
ARE THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Mediserv v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161368, April
5, 2010
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
(b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
27
judicata in the other."
Noticeable among these three types of forum shopping is
the identity of the cause of action in the different cases filed.
Cause of action is "the act or omission by which a party
28
violates the right of another."
The cause of action in the present case (and the main case)
is the petitioners claim of ownership of the land when they
bought it, either from the City Government of Butuan or
from Tuazon.
This ownership is the petitioners basis in enjoining the
respondents from dispossessing them of the property.
On the other hand, the specific performance case prayed
that the City Government of Butuan be ordered to issue the
petitioners the certificate of sale grounded on the
petitioners ownership of the land when they had bought it,
either from the City Government of Butuan or from Tuazon.
While it may appear that the main relief prayed for in the
present injunction case is different from what was prayed
for in the specific performance case, the cause of action
which serves as the basis for the reliefs remains the same
the petitioners alleged ownership of the property after its
purchase in a public auction.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in allowing private respondent
to rectify its deficiency in the certification of forumshopping.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HELD:
No.
Unquestionably, there is sufficient jurisprudential
basis to hold that Landheights has substantially complied
with the verification and certification requirements. We
have held in a catena of cases with similar factual
circumstances that there is substantial compliance with
the Rules of Court when there is a belated submission or
filing of the secretarys certificate through a motion for
reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision dismissing
the petition for certiorari.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, this
Court acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable
circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of these
certifications and has applied the rule of substantial
compliance under justifiable circumstances with respect to
the contents of the certification. It also conceded that if this
Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification
against forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous
rulings, with more reason should it sanction the timely
submission of such certification though the proof of the
signatorys authority was submitted thereafter.
The Court is aware of the necessity for a
certification of non-forum shopping in filing petitions
for certiorari as this is required under Section 1, Rule 65,
in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended. When the petitioner is a
corporation, the certification should obviously be executed
by a natural person to whom the power to execute such
certification has been validly conferred by the corporate
board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and
agents. Generally, the petition is subject to dismissal if a
certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the
signatorys authority.
However, we must make a distinction between
non-compliance with the requirements for certificate of
non-forum shopping and verification and substantial
compliance with the requirements as provided in the Rules
of Court. The Court has allowed the belated filing of the
certification on the justification that such act constitutes
substantial compliance. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA, the
Court allowed the filing of the certification fourteen (14)
days before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. Land Bank
of the Philippines, the Court reinstated a petition on the
ground of substantial compliance even though the
verification and certification were submitted only after the
petition had already been originally dismissed. In Havtor
Management Phils. Inc. v. NLRC, we acknowledged
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Jose v. Javellana, G.R. No. 158239, January 25, 2012 (Supra.)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
Motion
for
[17]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
WON Javellana is guilty of forum shopping?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RULING:
No forum shopping was committed
Priscilla claims that Javellana engaged in forum
shopping by filing a notice of appeal and a petition
for certiorari against the same orders. As earlier noted, he
denies that his doing so violated the policy against forum
shopping.
The Court expounded on the nature and purpose
of forum shopping in In Re: Reconstitution of Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 303168 and 303169 and Issuance of
Owners Duplicate Certificates of Title In Lieu of Those Lost,
[30]
Rolando Edward G. Lim, Petitioner:
Forum shopping is the act of a party
litigant against whom an adverse judgment has
been rendered in one forum seeking and possibly
getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other
than by appeal or the special civil action
of certiorari, or the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same
cause or supposition that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition. Forum
xxxx
The
remedies
of appeal
and certiorari under Rule 65 are
mutually exclusive and not alternative
or cumulative. This is a firm judicial
policy. The petitioner cannot hedge
her case by wagering two or more
appeals, and, in the event that the
ordinary appeal
lags
significantly
behind the others, she cannot post
facto validate this circumstance as a
demonstration
that
the
ordinary appeal had not been speedy
or adequate enough, in order to justify
the recourse to Rule 65. This practice,
if adopted, would sanction the filing of
multiple suits in multiplefora, where
each one, as the petitioner couches it,
becomes a precautionary measure
for the rest, thereby increasing the
chances of a favorable decision. This is
the very evil that the proscription
on forum shopping seeks to put right.
In Guaranteed Hotels, Inc. v. Baltao,
the Court stated that the grave evil
sought to be avoided by the rule
against forum shopping
is
the
rendition by two competent tribunals
of two separate and contradictory
decisions. Unscrupulous
party
litigants, taking advantage of a variety
of
competent
tribunals,
may
repeatedly try their luck in several
different fora until a favorable result is
reached. To avoid the resultant
confusion, the Court adheres strictly
to the rules against forum shopping,
and any violation of these rules results
[32]
in the dismissal of the case.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan, G.R. No. 193857,
November 28, 2012
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
[33]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of forum
shopping.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sc ruling:
Yes, the respondent was not guilty of forum shopping.
The respondents failed to inform the appellate court of the
pendency of Civil Case No. 2009- 320, a complaint for breach
of contract filed by respondent against petitioner, we rule in
the negative. Forum shopping exists when the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia
requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity
of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being
founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to
the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any
judgment that may be rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other case.
While there is identity of parties in the two cases, the causes
of action and the reliefs sought are different. The issue
raised in the present case is whether there was constructive
dismissal committed by respondent. On the other hand, the
issue in the civil case pending before the RTC is whether
petitioner was guilty of breach of contract. Hence,
respondent is not guilty of forum shopping
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128550, March 16, 2000
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Facts:
On December 14, 1994, private respondent Asian High
Technology Corp. filed a complaint against petitioner Digital
Microwave Corp. for a sum of money and damages before
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig city. Petitioner moved for
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE: w/n the certification of non- forum shopping may be
signed by the counsel?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Held;
No. The reason the certification against forum
shopping is required to be accomplished by petitioner
himself is because only the petitioner himself has actual
knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions
or proceedings in different courts or agencies.
We disagree with petitioner that a corporation
cannot possibly hope to comply with the requirement laid
down by Revised Circular No. 28-91 because it is a juridical
entity and not a natural person. If this were so, then it would
have been impossible for a corporation to do anything at all.
Needless to say, this is the reason why corporations have
directors and officers, to represent it in its transactions with
others. The same is true for the certification against forum
shopping. It could easily have been made by a duly
authorized director or officer of the corporation. That
petitioner did not in the first instance comply with the
requirement of revised Circular No. 28-91 by having the
certification against forum shopping signed by one of its
officers, as it did after its petition before the Court of
Appeals had been dismissed, is beyond our comprehension.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ruling:
The answer is in the Negative.
Respondent in the instant case is already a resident of the
United States, and not of the Philippines. Hence, it was
proper for her to appoint her daughter, Grace Galvez, to act
as her attorney-in-fact in the Philippines. The Special Power
of Attorney granted by the respondent to her attorney-infact, Grace Galvez, categorically and clearly authorizes the
latter to do the following:
1.
To ask, demand and claim any sum of money that is
duly [due] from any person natural, juridical and/or
corporation in the Philippines;
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ISSUE:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FACTS:
RULING:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX