Justice Velasco Rulings - Remedial Law

REMEDIAL LAW 1
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 130974
Section 8 of Rule 14 of the old Revised Rules of Court which
applies to this case provides:
SEC. 8. Substituted service. If the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the
preceding section [personal service on defendant], service
may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendants residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies
at defendants office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
Due to non-compliance with the prerequisites for valid
substituted service, the proceedings held before the trial
court perforce must be annulled.
Granting that such a general description be considered
adequate, there is still a serious nonconformity from the
requirement that the summons must be left with a "person
of suitable age and discretion" residing in defendants house
or residence. Thus, there are two (2) requirements under
the Rules: (1) recipient must be a person of suitable age and
discretion; and (2) recipient must reside in the house or
residence of defendant. Both requirements were not met.
Refusal to sign the Receipt for the summons is a strong
indication that he did not have the necessary "relation of
confidence" with petitioner. To protect petitioners right to
due process by being accorded proper notice of a case
against the petitioner, the substituted service of summons
must be shown to clearly comply with the rules.
G.R. No. 144062
Indeed, this is a novel issue on the matter of proscribing trial
courts from rendering judgments granting permanent
injunctions against certain activities relating to government
contracts and projects.
The ambit of the prohibition covers only temporary or
preliminary restraining orders or writs but NOT decisions on
the merits granting permanent injunctions. Considering that
these laws trench on judicial power, they should be strictly
construed. Therefore, while courts below this Court are
prohibited by these laws from issuing temporary or
preliminary restraining orders pending the adjudication of
the case, said statutes however do not explicitly proscribe
the issuance of a permanent injunction granted by a court of
law arising from an adjudication of a case on the merits.
Firmly established is the doctrine that "jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred by law." Section 19 of BP 129
shows that a Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over all
civil cases in which the subject of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Jurisprudence has recognized
complaints for injunction with a prayer for temporary
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal

fees. INDIGENT LITIGANTS (A) WHOSE GROSS INCOME AND
THAT OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY DO NOT EXCEED AN
AMOUNT DOUBLE THE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE OF AN
EMPLOYEE AND (B) WHO DO NOT OWN REAL PROPERTY
WITH A FAIR MARKET VALUE AS STATED IN THE CURRENT
TAX DECLARATION OF MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in
the case favorable to the indigent litigant unless the court
otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant
shall execute an affidavit that he and his immediate family
do not earn a gross income abovementioned, and they do
not own any real property with the fair value
aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested
person attesting to the truth of the litigants affidavit. The
current tax declaration, if any, shall be attached to the
litigants affidavit.
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person
shall be sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint or action
or to strike out the pleading of that party, without prejudice
to whatever criminal liability may have been incurred.
(Emphasis supplied.)
G.R. Nos. 141810 & 141812
RULE 41
APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
Sec. 3. Period of ordinary appeal.
The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where
a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30)
days from notice of the judgment or final order. The period
of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new
trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to
file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
allowed.
The abovementioned fifteen (15)-day period begins to run
upon receipt of notice of the decision or final order
appealed from. Such period has been considered to begin
upon receipt of notice by the counsel of record, which is
considered notice to the parties. Service of judgment on the
party is prohibited and is not considered the official receipt
of the judgment.
To reiterate, service upon the parties counsels of record is
tantamount to service upon the parties themselves, but
service upon the parties themselves is not considered
service upon their lawyers.
G.R. No. 147923
It is an established principle that the death of the accused
pending final adjudication of the criminal case extinguishes
the accuseds criminal liability. If the civil liability directly
G.R. No. 150135
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR
REMEDIAL LAW 2

arose from and is based solely on the offense committed,
then the civil liability is also extinguished.
In the case at bar, the civil liability for the recovery of the
CBC stock certificates or their value does not directly result
from or based solely on the crime of estafa but on an
agreement or arrangement between the parties that
petitioner Go would endorse in blank said stock certificates
and give said certificates to respondent Looyuko in trust for
petitioner for said respondent to sell the stocks covered by
the certificates. In such a case, the civil liability survives and
an action for recovery therefor in a separate civil action can
be instituted either against the executor or administrator or
the estate of the accused.
The case law on the matter reads:
1. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other
sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
as a result of the same act or omission:
a.) Law
b.) Contracts
c.) Quasi-contracts
d.) x x x
e.) Quasi-delicts
2. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recover
therefore may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This
separate civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
depending on the source of obligation upon which the same
is based as explained above. (Emphasis supplied.)
On the other hand, Sec. 4, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides:
SEC. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the
accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from
the delict.
G.R. No. 150731

Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Court:
Section 8. How to contest such documents.When an
action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted
unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies
them, and sets forth, what he claims to be the facts; but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused.
Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses
founded upon a written instrument and provides the
manner of denying it. It is more controlling than Rule 6,
Section 10 which merely provides the effect of failure to file
a Reply. Thus, where the defense in the Answer is based on
an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying it
under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and
due execution of the document will be deemed admitted.
Since respondent failed to deny the genuineness and due
execution of the Dacion and Confirmation Statement under
oath, then these are deemed admitted and must be
considered by the court in resolving the demurrer to
evidence.
G.R. No. 152430
Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, specifically:
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action. x x x
SEC. 2. Parties in interest.A real party in interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest.
However, the independent civil action instituted under

section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to
enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may
be continued against the estate or legal representative of
the accused after proper substitution or against said estate,
as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be
substituted for the deceased without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
(Emphasis supplied.)
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties.Where the action is

allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed
to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a
trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. x
xx
In the light of the foregoing provision, Crim. Case No. 981643 has to be dismissed by reason of the death of
respondent Looyuko without prejudice to the filing of a
separate civil action.
Real interest means a present substantial interest, as

distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
Undoubtedly, movants interest over the land in question is
REMEDIAL LAW 3

a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in
interest.
G.R. No. 156093
R.A. 6657 allows farmer leaders to represent the Macabud

farmers or their Samahan in the proceedings before the
DAR. The action may then be brought by 1) the organization
represented by its authorized representative OR 2) the
representative with the beneficiaries identified in the title of
the case. In the first option, the organization should be duly
registered in order to be clothed with juridical personality.
Admittedly, petitioner Samahan is not registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Thus, it is not a
juridical person which can be a party in a case.
In the instant expropriation case, where the principal issue

is the determination of just compensation, a hearing before
the commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to
present evidence on the issue of just compensation. While it
is true that the findings of commissioners may be
disregarded and the trial court may substitute its own
estimate of the value, the latter may only do so for valid
reasons. Thus, "trial with the aid of the commissioners is a
substantial right that may not be done away with
capriciously or for no reason at all."
The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent the Macabud

farmers from filing an appeal since an action may be
instituted in the name of their representative with each
farmer-beneficiary identified in the title of the case in
accordance with Sec. 3 of Rule 3. Unfortunately, petitioner
also failed to comply with this simple requirement. The
petition was brought by the unregistered Samahan
represented by Elvira Baladad without mentioning the
members of it. On this score, the petition can already be
dismissed.
In this case, the fact that no trial or hearing was conducted

to afford the parties the opportunity to present their own
evidence should have impelled the trial court to disregard
the commissioners findings. The absence of such trial or
hearing constitutes reversible error on the part of the trial
court because the parties (in particular, petitioners) right
to due process was violated.
G.R. No. 155483

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter.
Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period
of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it.
Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not
been offered shall be excluded and rejected.
Petitioners had waived their right to make a formal offer of
documentary or object evidence. Despite several extensions
of time to make their formal offer, petitioners failed to
comply with their commitment and allowed almost five
months to lapse before finally submitting it.
Having established that the documentary evidence of
petitioners is inadmissible, this Court is now tasked to
determine the propriety of the dismissal of the Complaint
on a demurrer to evidence.
The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs
evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency
of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely
required to ascertain whether there is competent or
sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a
verdict of guilt.
In the present case, we are convinced that petitioners have
failed to sufficiently prove their allegations. Petitioners did
not substantiate their allegations and merely argued that
the Complaint should be "threshed out in a full blown trial."
It must be stressed that fraud is not presumed; and it must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and not by
mere conjectures or speculations. No such evidence was
presented in this case to sustain petitioners allegations.
G.R. No. 156093

To determine just compensation, the trial court should first
ascertain the market value of the property, to which should
be added the consequential damages after deducting
therefrom the consequential benefits which may arise from
the expropriation. If the consequential benefits exceed the
consequential damages, these items should be disregarded
altogether as the basic value of the property should be paid
in every case.
The market value of the property is the price that may be
agreed upon by parties willing but not compelled to enter
into the contract of sale. Not unlikely, a buyer desperate to
acquire a piece of property would agree to pay more, and a
seller in urgent need of funds would agree to accept less,
than what it is actually worth. x x x
Among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair
market value of the property are the cost of acquisition, the
current value of like properties, its actual or potential uses,
and in the particular case of lands, their size, shape,
location, and the tax declarations thereon.
It is settled that just compensation is to be ascertained as of
the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where
the institution of the action precedes entry into the
property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of
the time of the filing of the complaint.
It is clear that in this case, the sole basis for the
determination of just compensation was the commissioners
ocular inspection of the properties in question, as gleaned
from the commissioners October 5, 1999 report. The trial
courts reliance on the said report is a serious error
considering that the recommended compensation was
highly speculative and had no strong factual moorings.
REMEDIAL LAW 4
G.R. No. 158992

Appeal is an essential part of our judicial process. As such,
courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a
party of the right to appeal,5 particularly if the appeal is
meritorious. However, the right to appeal is merely a
statutory right. For this reason, it should be exercised only in
the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law.6
In an appeal from a judgment or final order of a municipal
trial court to the regional trial court, Rule 40 of the Rules of
Court provides:
Sec. 2. When to appeal.An appeal may be taken within
fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the
judgment or final order appealed from. x x x
xxxx
Sec. 3. How to appeal.The appeal is taken by filing a notice
of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from. x x x
xxxx
Sec. 5. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall
pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from the full amount of the
appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of
payment thereof shall be transmitted to the appellate court
together with the original record or the record on appeal, as
the case may be.
Accordingly, in order to perfect an appeal, the following
must be complied with: first, a notice of appeal must be
filed within 15 days from the notice of final judgment or
final order appealed from; second, such notice of appeal
must be filed with the court which rendered the judgment
or final order, and served upon the adverse party; third,
within the same period, payment of the full amount of
appellate court docket and other legal fees to the clerk of
the court which rendered the judgment or final order.
Notably, full payment of the appellate docket fees within
the prescribed period is mandatory, even jurisdictional.
Otherwise, the appeal is deemed not perfected and the
decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and
executory.
G.R. No. 158992
The applicable rule in cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer is Rule 70, which states, thus:
Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay
same.If judgment is rendered against the defendant,
execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless
appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by
the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the

plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down
to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless
during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the
appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time
under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment
of the Municipal Trial Court. x x x
The foregoing rule provides that a judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs shall be immediately executory. It can be stayed by
the defendant only by perfecting an appeal, filing a
supersedeas bond, and making a periodic deposit of the
rental or the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the property during the pendency of the
appeal. These requisites are mandatory and concurrent.
Thus, if not complied with, execution will issue as a matter
of right.
In this case, the appellate court held that petitioners failure
to perfect the appeal and to file a supersedeas bond
warranted the immediate execution of the MeTC judgment.
However, a review of the records reveals that even before
petitioners had the opportunity to perfect their appeal and
file a supersedeas bond, the writ of execution had already
been issued.
Petitioners received the MeTC Decision on October 13,
1997; thus, they had until October 28, 1997 to perfect their
appeal. Petitioners Notice of Appeal filed on October 13,
1997 should have cautioned the trial court to await the
expiration of the reglementary period for filing an appeal
before issuing the questioned writ. However, the writ of
execution was issued as early as October 20, 1997.
Public policy dictates that ejectment cases must be resolved
with the least possible delay, and judgments rendered in
favor of plaintiff be immediately executed.20 However, the
rules of procedure prescribe trial courts to strike a balance
between the plaintiffs and defendants right to relief.
G.R. No. 168661
For res judicata to serve as an absolute bar to a subsequent
action, the following requisites must concur:
(1) there must be a final judgment or order;
(2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and
(4) there must be between the two cases, identity of parties,
subject matter and causes of action.
G.R. Nos. 159104-05
President Corazon C. Aquino issued the following Executive
Orders which amended PD 1606 in so far as the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan over civil and criminal cases instituted
and prosecuted by the PCGG is concerned, viz:
a) EO 1, entitled "Creating the Presidential Commission on
Good Government," dated February 28, 1986;
b) EO 2, entitled "Regarding the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and
REMEDIAL LAW 5

Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez
Marcos, Their Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business
Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees," dated March
12, 1986;
c) EO 14, entitled "Defining the Jurisdiction over Cases
Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Members of
their Immediate Family, Close Relatives, Subordinates, Close
and/or Business Associates, Dummies, Agents and
Nominees," dated May 7, 1986; and
d) EO 14-A, entitled "Amending Executive Order No. 14,"
dated August 18, 1986.
Bearing on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over cases
of ill-gotten wealth, EO 14, Secs. 1 and 2 provide:
SECTION 1. Any provision of the law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Presidential Commission on Good
Government with the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor
General and other government agencies, is hereby
empowered to file and prosecute all cases investigated by it
under Executive Order No. 1, dated February 28, 1986 and
Executive Order No. 2, dated March 12, 1986, as may be
warranted by its findings.
SECTION 2. The Presidential Commission on Good
Government shall file all such cases, whether civil or
criminal, with the Sandiganbayan, which shall have exclusive
and original jurisdiction thereof.
In the light of the foregoing provisions, it is clear that it is
the Sandiganbayan and not the Makati City RTC that has
jurisdiction over the disputed UHC and PNCC shares, being
the alleged "ill-gotten wealth" of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and petitioner Cuenca.
However, the Court has time and again stressed that the
rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote
the orderly administration of justice, do not interdict
substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances. As has been ruled by the Court, the signature
of any of the principal petitioners27 or principal parties, as
Francisca is in this case, would constitute a substantial
compliance with the rule on verification and certification of
non-forum shopping. It cannot be overemphasized that
Francisca herself was a principal party in the Civil Case
before the RTC and in the certiorari proceedings before the
CA. Besides being an heir of Benedicto, Francisca, with her
mother, Julita, was substituted for Benedicto in the instant
case after his demise.
And should there exist a commonality of interest among the
parties, or where the parties filed the case as a "collective,"
raising only one common cause of action or presenting a
common defense, then the signature of one of the
petitioners or complainants, acting as representative, is
sufficient compliance. We said so in Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita
Cavile. Like Thomas Cavile, Sr. and the other petitioners in
Cavile, Francisca and Julita, as petitioners before the CA, had
filed their petition as a collective, sharing a common interest
and having a common single defense to protect their rights
over the shares of stocks in question.
G.R. No. 154096
The CA, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under
Rule 65, is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of
jurisdiction only. It cannot validly delve into the issue of
trust which, under the premises, cannot be judiciously
resolved without first establishing certain facts based on
evidence.
Whether a determinative question is one of law or of fact
depends on the nature of the dispute.
G.R. No. 154096
xxx
Verification not Jurisdictional; May be Corrected
Clearly then, the CA overstepped its boundaries when, in

disposing of private respondents' petition for certiorari, it
did not confine itself to determining whether or not lack of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion tainted the issuance
of the assailed RTC orders, but proceeded to pass on the
factual issue of the existence and enforceability of the
asserted trust.
Verification is, under the Rules, not a jurisdictional but

merely a formal requirement which the court may motu
proprio direct a party to comply with or correct, as the case
may be.
The CA acted within its sound discretion in ordering the
submission of proof of Francisca's authority to sign on
Julita's behalf and represent her in the proceedings before
the appellate court.
G.R. No. 154096
Signature by Any of the Principal Petitioners is Substantial
Compliance
Regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the
general rule is that all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case
should sign it.
G.R. No. 154096

SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. -- A party may
amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time
before a responsive pleading is served or in the case of a
reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.
As the aforequoted provision makes it abundantly clear that
the plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of
right, i.e., without leave of court, before any responsive
pleading is filed or served. Responsive pleadings are those
which seek affirmative relief and/or set up defenses,32 like
an answer. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading
REMEDIAL LAW 6

for purposes of Sec. 2 of Rule 10.
RTC did not err in admitting petitioners' amended
complaint, Julita and Francisca not having yet answered the
original complaints when the amended complaint was filed.
G.R. No. 154096
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of
personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages.38 Real actions, on the other hand, are
those affecting title to or possession of real property, or
interest therein. In accordance with the wordings of Sec. 1
of Rule 4, the venue of real actions shall be the proper court
which has territorial jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. The
venue of personal actions is the court where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in
the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
In the instant case, petitioners are basically asking
Benedicto and his Group, as defendants a quo, to
acknowledge holding in trust Irene's purported 65%
stockownership of UEC and FEMII, inclusive of the fruits of
the trust, and to execute in Irene's favor the necessary
conveying deed over the said 65% shareholdings. In other
words, Irene seeks to compel recognition of the trust
arrangement she has with the Benedicto Group. The fact
that FEMII's assets include real properties does not
materially change the nature of the action, for the
ownership interest of a stockholder over corporate assets is
only inchoate as the corporation, as a juridical person, solely
owns such assets. It is only upon the liquidation of the
corporation that the stockholders, depending on the type
and nature of their stockownership, may have a real
inchoate right over the corporate assets, but then only to
the extent of their stockownership.
The amended complaint is an action in personam, it being a
suit against Francisca and the late Benedicto (now
represented by Julita and Francisca), on the basis of their
alleged personal liability to Irene upon an alleged trust
constituted in 1968 and/or 1972. They are not actions in
rem where the actions are against the real properties
instead of against persons.
G.R. No. 154096
Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
SEC. 2. Venue of personal actions. -- All other actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election
of the plaintiff.
Sec. 2 of Rule 4 indicates quite clearly that when there is
more than one plaintiff in a personal action case, the
residences of the principal parties should be the basis for

determining proper venue. "The word 'principal' has been
added [in the uniform procedure rule] in order to prevent
the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff
or defendant as the venue."
There can be no serious dispute that the real party-ininterest plaintiff is Irene. As self-styled beneficiary of the
disputed trust, she stands to be benefited or entitled to the
avails of the present suit. Following Sec. 2 of Rule 4, the
subject civil cases ought to be commenced and prosecuted
at the place where Irene resides.
G.R. No. 161455
Falsification of public document under the RPC is within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This conclusion finds
support from Sec. 4 of RA 8249, which enumerates the cases
in which the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction, as
follows:
Section 4. x x x
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of
the accused are officials occupying the following positions in
the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions
of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as
Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial department
heads;
xxxx
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade
27 and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed
with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in
relation to their office.
G.R. No. 166245
As a general rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and will not
re-examine factual issues raised before the CA and first level
courts, considering their findings of facts are conclusive and
binding on this Court. However, such rule is subject to
exceptions:
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
REMEDIAL LAW 7

(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible;
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
(5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;
(6) when in making its findings the [CA] went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(7) when the findings [of the CA] are contrary to the trial
court;
(8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent;
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and
(11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.(Emphasis supplied.)
G.R. No. 169245
Rule 122
Sec. 3. How appeal taken.(a) The appeal to the Regional
Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, shall be by notice of appeal filed with the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed
from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party.
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
(c) The appeal in cases where the penalty imposed by the
Regional Trial Court is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed for
offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more,
serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by
notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this Rule.
(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the
Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty. The Court
of Appeals shall automatically review the judgment as
provided in Section 10 of this Rule.
xxxx
Sec. 10. Transmission of records in case of death penalty.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial
court, the records shall be forwarded to the Court of
Appeals for automatic review and judgment within twenty
days but not earlier than fifteen days from the promulgation
of the judgment or notice of denial of a motion for new trial

or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded
within ten days after the filing thereof by the stenographic
reporter. (Emphasis supplied.)
xxxx
Rule 124
Sec. 12. Power to receive evidence.The Court of Appeals
shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings
in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be
completed within three months, unless extended by the
Chief Justice. 12(a)
Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme
Court.(a) Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the
penalty of death should be imposed, the court shall render
judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and
forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the
Supreme Court for review.
(b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for
offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed,
and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the
case certified for review to, the Supreme Court.
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall
render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The
judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice
of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Also affecting the rules on appeal is the enactment of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, which
took effect on June 29, 2006. Under Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the
imposition of the death penalty is prohibited, and in lieu
thereof, it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when
the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); or life
imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. Consequently,
in the provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals, death
penalty cases are no longer operational.
G.R. No. 181633
Corroboration of a childs testimony is not even required
under Sec. 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness,
thus:
Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a
child. [The childs] testimony, if credible by itself, shall be
sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or
REMEDIAL LAW 8

judgment subject to the standard of proof required in
criminal and non-criminal cases.
G.R. No. 182248
Rule 45 is not the remedy available to petitioners as the
proper mode of appeal assailing the decision of the RTC
confirming as arbitral award is an appeal before the CA
pursuant to Sec. 46 of A 9285, otherwise known as the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.
It is, however, equally true that:

[T]he right is a personal one which may be waived expressly
or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the
right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the
opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail
himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to crossexamine and the testimony given on direct examination of
the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the
record. (Emphasis supplied.)
Sec. 46 of RA 9285 provides for an appeal before the CA as

the remedy of an aggrieved party in cases where the RTC
sets aside, rejects, vacates, modifies, or corrects an arbitral
award, thus:
G.R. No. 182348
SEC. 46. Appeal from Court Decision or Arbitral Awards.A

decision of the Regional Trial Court confirming, vacating,
setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may
be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the
rules and procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme
Court.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.--A peace officer

or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the

court confirming an arbitral award shall be required by the
appellate court to post a counterbond executed in favor of
the prevailing party equal to the amount of the award in
accordance with the rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has

probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
Thereafter, the CA decision may further be appealed or

reviewed before this Court through a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 182248
In resolving administrative cases, conduct of full-blown trial
is not indispensable to dispense justice to the parties. The
requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full
adversarial proceedings. Submission of position papers may
be sufficient for as long as the parties thereto are given the
opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, the
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be
heard, or an opportunity to explain ones side or
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. This constitutional mandate is
deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to
seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling. It does not
require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts
of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through
oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no
denial of procedural due process.67 (Emphasis supplied.)
G.R. No. 182248
"The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or
civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right
which is part of due process."
Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless

arrest provides:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has

escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected
under Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. For
this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites
must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer.
G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893 & 183951
The Rules of Court requires all actions to be brought by or
against the real party interest. The requirement becomes all
the more necessary with respect to indispensable parties.
For:
Indispensable parties are those with such interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their
rights so that courts cannot proceed without their presence.
All of them must be included in a suit for an action to
prosper or for a final determination to be had.
G.R. Nos. 146184-85
A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and will be
granted only on a showing that
(a) the invasion of the right is material and substantial;
REMEDIAL LAW 9

(b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable;
and
(c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ
to prevent serious damage.
G.R. Nos. 146184-85
Rule 41 clearly states that while an interlocutory order
cannot be subject of an appeal and the aggrieved party has
to await the decision of the court, still it allows the filing of a
special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 when there is
grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the order.
Moreover, under the circumstances of the case, MIAA had
no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy other than a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
G.R. Nos. 146184-85
Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia
are present, or when a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another.
There is forum shopping when the following elements
concur:
(1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who
represent the same interest in both actions;
(2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as
the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and
(3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute
litis pendentia.
G.R. Nos. 171947-48
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the
execution of a ministerial duty. A ministerial duty is one that
"requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor
judgment." It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the
discretion of the person executing it. It is a "simple, definite
duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist
and imposed by law." Mandamus is available to compel
action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but
not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way
or the other.
Under what other judicial discipline describes as "continuing
mandamus," the Court may, under extraordinary
circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of
ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by
administrative inaction or indifference.
thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the

basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares
categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties
are and which party is in the right; x x x. Once rendered, the
task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy
or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is
concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court
except to await the parties next move (which, among
others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately,
of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it
becomes "final" or, to use the established and more
distinctive term, "final and executory."
xxxx
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the
case, and does not end the courts task of adjudicating the
parties contentions and determining their rights and
liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that
other things remain to be done by the Court, is
"interlocutory," e.g., x x x. Unlike a "final" judgment or
order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an
interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except
only as part of an appeal that may be eventually taken from
the final judgment rendered in this case.
According to Sec. 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
governing appeals from the regional trial courts to the CA,
an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order
that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein
when declared by the Rules to be appealable. Said provision,
thus, explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an
interlocutory order.
G.R. No. 175490
Sec. 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which
states:
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant
fail to answer the complaint within the period above
provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed
for therein: Provided, however, that the court may in its
discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorneys
fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise
unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the applicability
of Section 3(c), Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, if there are
two or more defendants.
G.R. Nos. 154211-12
G.R. No. 177710
This Court explained the nature of a final order and how it

differs from one that is interlocutory, in the following wise:
SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.When the terms

of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents
of the written agreement.
The concept of "final judgment", as distinguished from one

which has "become final" is definite and settled. A "final"
judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,
leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect
REMEDIAL LAW 10

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain
or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in
issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in written
agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
G.R. No. 178933
RULE 41
APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal.An appeal may be taken
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of
the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by
these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration;
xxxx
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order
is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
G.R. No. 178933
A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its
entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action,
leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution
what has been determined by the court, while an
interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the
case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.
G.R. No. 178933
It is only after a judgment has been rendered in the case
that the ground for the appeal of the interlocutory order
may be included in the appeal of the judgment itself. The
interlocutory order generally cannot be appealed separately
from the judgment. It is only when such interlocutory order
was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion that certiorari under Rule 65 may
be resorted to.
In the instant case, Nelia appealed the May 31, 2005 Order
of the RTC on the ground that it ordered her to vacate the
premises of the property. On that aspect, the order is not a

final determination of the case or of the issue of distribution
of the shares of the heirs in the estate or their rights
therein. It must be borne in mind that until the estate is
partitioned, each heir only has an inchoate right to the
properties of the estate, such that no heir may lay claim on
a particular property.
G.R. No. 183142
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all
the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence,
if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first
before courts judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of
action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel
the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of
action.
G.R. No. 184778
The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are:
(a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material
and substantial;
(b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable;
and
(c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ
G.R. No. 166910
An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal
rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of
judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or
abstract difference or dispute. There must be a contrariety
of legal rights x x x. The Court can decide the
constitutionality of an act x x x only when a proper case
between opposing parties is submitted for judicial
determination.
G.R. No. 166910
A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being
challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual
challenging it. x x x [I]t is a prerequisite that something had
then been accomplished or performed by either branch
before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner
must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened
injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. He must
show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act
complained of.
G.R. No. 166910
The Court may refuse judicial review unless the
constitutional question or the assailed illegal government
act is brought before it by a party who possesses what in
REMEDIAL LAW 11

Latin is technically called locus standi or the standing to
challenge it. To have standing, one must establish that he
has a "personal and substantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement."
Particularly, he must show that (1) he has suffered some
actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal
conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action.
G.R. No. 178062
A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any
objection to it is waived when the person arrested submits
to arraignment without any objection. Accused-appellants
are questioning their arrest for the first time on appeal and
are, therefore, deemed to have waived their right to the
constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches.
G.R. No. 182729
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing
of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the
defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the
service of summons upon them or through their voluntary
appearance in court and their submission to its authority.
G.R. No. 183871
The writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious
and effective procedural relief against violations or threats
of violation of the basic rights to life, liberty, and security of
persons; the corresponding amparo suit, however, "is not an
action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt x x x or administrative liability requiring
substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive
proceedings.
It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability
for the disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial
killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least
accountability, for the enforced disappearance [threats
thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing
the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or
extra-judicial killings].
The nature of res judicata, as now embodied in Sec. 47, Rule

39 of the Rules of Court, in its two concepts of "bar by
former judgment" and "conclusiveness of judgment." These
concepts of the doctrine of res judicata are applicable to
second actions involving substantially the same parties, the
same subject matter, and cause or causes of action. In the
instant case, there is no second action to speak of, involving
as it is the very same action albeit the NLRC remanded it to
the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings.
G.R. No. 191096
Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly
provides for the instances when a person may be arrested
without a warrant, to wit:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another. (Emphasis supplied.)
Undoubtedly, the case at bar falls under Sec. 5(a) of Rule
113, that is, when the person to be arrested is actually
committing an offense, the peace officer may arrest him
even without a warrant. However, a warrantless arrest must
still be preceded by the existence of probable cause.
G.R. No. 191096
Probable cause is defined as "a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense charged."
G.R. No. 183871
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262
There is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal

liability under the doctrine of command responsibility.
RULE 114 - BAIL
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied, it

should, at most, be only to determine the author who is
accountable for, and has the duty to address, the
disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to
enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be
appropriate to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo.
Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. All kinds of

bail are subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and
unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the
case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally
filed in or appealed to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever required by the court of these Rules;
G.R. No. 186289
REMEDIAL LAW 12

(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without
justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a
waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the
trial may proceed in absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court
for execution of the final judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of
the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the
conditions required by this section. Photographs (passport
size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face,
left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to
the bail.
the Rules states:
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262
Sec. 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay.

The judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect
contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in
criminal cases. But execution of the judgment or final order
shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person
adjudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from
which the appeal is taken, conditioned that if the appeal be
decided against him he will abide by and perform the
judgment or final order.
RULE 114 - BAIL

Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. The accused or any person
acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest
collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal
treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or
recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed
the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit
and a written undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be
discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be
considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and
costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the
accused or to whoever made the deposit.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262
RULE 114 - BAIL
Sec. 17. Bail, where filed. (a) Bail in the amount fixed may
be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the
absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any
regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial
judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city or
municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or
municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may
also be filed with any regional trial court of said place, of if
no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial
judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge
therein.
(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the
accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the
application may only be filed in the court where the case is
pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or
appeal.
Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may
apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or
municipality where he is held.
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179
Rule 71, Secs. 2 and 11 of the Rules of Court lay down the
proper remedies from a judgment in direct and indirect
contempt proceedings, respectively. For direct contempt,
Sec. 2. Remedy therefrom.The person adjudged in direct

contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may
avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The
execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending
resolution of such petition, provided such person files a
bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and
conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment
should the petition be decided against him.
In indirect contempt proceedings, the Rules states:
G.R. No. 177190

Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially
acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final
judgment, on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and
their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent
actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of
action.
The elements of res judicata are (a) identity of parties or at
least such as representing the same interest in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the
two (2) particulars is such that any judgment which may be
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.
G.R. No. 177190
The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower
courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final
decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of
law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further argument. Basically, it is a bar
to any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for
two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our
jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the
Civil Code.
G.R. No. 180452
When a police officer sees the offense, although at a
distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and
proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an arrest
without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the
REMEDIAL LAW 13

Rules of Court, as the offense is deemed committed in his
presence or within his view.
subsequent proceedings null and void. Hence, the CA was

correct in not dismissing the petition for certiorari.
In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused

were committing the offense of possessing shabu and were
in the act of loading them in a white van when the police
officers arrested them. As aptly noted by the appellate
court, the crime was committed in the presence of the
police officers with the contraband, inside transparent
plastic containers, in plain view and duly observed by the
arresting officers.
G.R. No. 187640 and G.R. No. 187687
G.R. No. 180452

SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
A settled exception to the right guaranteed in the
aforequoted provision is that of an arrest made during the
commission of a crime, which does not require a warrant.
G.R. No. 180452
Warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under
Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, which states:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
person:
commit an offense;
The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.
G.R. No. 187640 and G.R. No. 187687
Here, the trial court failed to issue a proper notice of pretrial to PNB. Thus, it committed grave abuse of discretion
when it issued the Order allowing Spouses to present their
evidence ex-parte.
Considering that the trial courts action in issuing such order
constituted grave abuse of its discretion, PNB availed of the
proper remedy when it filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA
G.R. No. 187640 and G.R. No. 187687
Nevertheless, even with the existence of the remedy of
appeal, this Court has, in certain cases, allowed a writ of
certiorari where the order complained of is a patent nullity.
In the instant case, the lack of notice of pre-trial rendered all
Moreover, it is a basic tenet that a petition for certiorari

under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. It is not
a part or a continuation of the trial which resulted in the
rendition of the judgment complained of.Neither does it
"interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running
of the reglementary periods involved in the proceedings,
unless an application for a restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction to the appellate court is granted."
G.R. No. 187640 and G.R. No. 187687
Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
unequivocally requires that "[t]he notice of pre-trial shall be
served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel." It is
elementary in statutory construction that the word "shall"
denotes the mandatory character of the rule. Thus, it is
without question that the language of the rule undoubtedly
requires the trial court to send a notice of pre-trial to the
parties.
G.R. No. 188705
It is clear that the questioning of accused-appellant was
made in violation of Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987
Constitution, which reads:
Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
Accused-appellant was not informed of his rights, nor was
there a waiver of said rights. Thus, the information elicited is
inadmissible, and the evidence garnered as the result of that
interrogation is also inadmissible.
G.R. No. 188705
Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix
wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding
of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on
circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact
or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference.
Under Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial
evidence shall be sufficient for conviction when the
following requisites are complied with: (1) there is more
than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proved; and (3) the combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
REMEDIAL LAW 14

beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 188705
is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the

act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void."
DNA test is not essential, while there exists other evidence

pinning down accused-appellant as the perpetrator.
From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil

action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act
down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if
the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was
patent and gross.
G.R. No. 189834

Dying declaration
While witnesses in general can only testify to facts derived
from their own perception, a report in open court of a dying
persons declaration is recognized as an exception to the
rule against hearsay.
The Rules of Court states that a dying declaration is
admissible as evidence if the following circumstances are
present: "(a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of the declarants death; (b) it is made when
death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would
have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and
(d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the
subject of inquiry involves the declarants death."
G.R. No. 189207
To be clear, certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate to strike
down an interlocutory order only when the following
requisites concur:
(1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and
G.R. No. 192217

Instances where a writ of execution may be appealed:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;
2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties
making execution inequitable or unjust;
3) execution is sought to be enforced against property
exempt from execution;
4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to
the judgment of the court;
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there
remains room for interpretation thereof; or
6) it appears that the writ of execution has been
improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or
is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt
has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued
without authority;
G.R. No. 193161
(2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently

erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford
adequate and expeditious relief.
Section 1(c) of Rule 41 states:
G.R. No. 189207
An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that

completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter
therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
An interlocutory order is one which "does not finally dispose

of the case, and does not end the Courts task of
adjudicating the parties contentions and determining their
rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously
indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court."
Section 1. Subject of appeal.
No appeal may be taken from:

(c) An interlocutory order;
G.R. No. 189207
xxxx
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning.

An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with
grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
"capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order

is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to

amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and
hostility."16 Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari
While discretionary authority to determine probable cause

in a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground
for the filing of an information rests with the executive
branch, such authority is far from absolute.
G.R. No. 193250
It may be subject to review when it has been clearly used
REMEDIAL LAW 15

with grave abuse of discretion. And indeed, grave abuse of
discretion attended the decision to drop the charges against
Tria as there was more than probable cause to proceed
against him for qualified theft.
G.R. No. 193250
What is necessary for the filing of a criminal information is
not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person accused
is guilty of the acts imputed on him, but only that there is
probable cause to believe that he is guilty of the crime
charged.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information,
are such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof.
G.R. No. 194270
Rule 44 of the Rules of Court limits the questions that may
be raised on appeal:
Section 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal.
Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new
trial in the court below, he may include in his assignment of
errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the
court below and which is within the issues framed by the
parties.
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

A petition for certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for
an appeal, especially if ones own negligence or error in
ones choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. When
an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the
basis is grave abuse of discretion. The RTC Order subject of
the petition was a final judgment which disposed of the case
on the merits; hence, an ordinary appeal was the proper
remedy.
G.R. No. 190814
A circumstance of forum shopping occurs when, as a result
or in anticipation of an adverse decision in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through
means other than appeal or certiorari by raising identical
causes of action, subject matter and issues. Stated a bit
differently, forum shopping is the institution of two or more
actions involving the same parties for the same cause of
action, either simultaneously or successively, on the
supposition that one or the other court would come out
with a favorable disposition. An indicium of the presence of,
or the test for determining whether a litigant violated the
rule against, forum shopping is where the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in the other case.
G.R. No. 190814
"It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither

averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the
court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as
it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice
and due process."
Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil suit,

refers to that situation wherein another action is pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action,
such that the second action becomes vexatious and
unnecessary.
This principle forbids the parties from changing their theory

of the case.
For the bar of litis pendentia to be invoked, the concurring

requisites must be present:
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent
the same interests in both actions;
(2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and
(3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that
any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of
which party is successful would amount to res judicata in
the other.
Nevertheless, such rule admits of an exception as

enunciated in Canlas v. Tubil, to wit:
As a rule, a change of theory cannot be allowed. However,
when the factual bases thereof would not require
presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in
order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the
new theory, as in this case, the Court may give due course
to the petition and resolve the principal issues raised
therein.
G.R. No. 179334
The fair market value of a property subjected to
expropriation must be the value of the property at the time
of the actual taking by the government, at the moment that
the owner is unable to have beneficial use.
G.R. No. 183608
The Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action of
certiorari if appeal by way of a Petition for Review is
available, as the remedies of appeal and certiorari are
G.R. No. 190814

Under Sec. 22(k) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or The Rule on
Violence Against Women and Their Children, a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.
G.R. No. 197003
The principle of "bar by prior judgment," one of the two
concepts embraced in the doctrine of res judicata, the other
being labeled as "conclusiveness of judgment," demands
such action. Section 47(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on
the effect of a former judgment is clear:
REMEDIAL LAW 16

SEC. 47. Effect of final judgments or final orders. The effect
of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the
Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment
or final order, may be as follows:
xxxx
(b) x x x [T]he judgment or final order is, with respect to
the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that
could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive
between the parties and their successors in interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same
title and in the same capacity x x x.(Emphasis supplied.)
By the doctrine of res judicata, "a final judgment or decree
on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all
later suits on all points and matters determined in the
former suit." To apply this doctrine in the form of a "bar by
prior judgment," there must be identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action as between the first case
where the first judgment was rendered and the second case
that is sought to be barred.
G.R. No. 201620
Rule 130, Section 27 states:
In criminal cases. except those involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised. an offer of compromise by the accused may
he received in evidence as implied admission of guilt.
G.R. No. 201620
Thus, in case of an error in the designation of the offended
party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the
Rules of Court mandates the correction of the information,
not its dismissal:
SEC. 12. Name of the offended party.The complaint or
information must state the name and surname of the
person against whom or against whose property the offense
was committed, or any appellation or nickname by which
such person has been or is known. If there is no better way
of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious
name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended
party is unknown, the property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against
whose property the offense was committed is thereafter
disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true
name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the
record. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
G.R. No. 201816
of the pleading. A complaint states a cause of action if it

avers the existence of the three essential elements of a
cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said
right.9
By a simple reading of the elements of a failure to state a
cause of action, it can be readily seen that the inclusion of
Theresas co-heirs does not fall under any of the above
elements. The infirmity is, in fact, not a failure to state a
cause of action but a non-joinder of an indispensable party.
G.R. No. 201816
Non-joinder means the "failure to bring a person who is a
necessary party or in this case an indispensable party into a
lawsuit."
An indispensable party, on the other hand, is a party-ininterest without whom no final determination can be had of
the action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or
defendant.
G.R. No. 201816
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for
the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial
proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be
added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the
tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party despite the order of the court, that
court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to
comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the nonparty claimed to be indispensable.
G.R. No. 201816
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides as follows:
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.
That the verification of the complaint does not include the
phrase "or based on authentic records" does not make the
verification defective. Notably, the provision used the
disjunctive word "or." The word "or" is a disjunctive article
indicating an alternative. As such, "personal knowledge" and
"authentic records" need not concur in a verification as they
are to be taken separately.
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency
REMEDIAL LAW 17
G.R. No. 202243
G.R. No. 201001
Sec. 1 of Rule 31 provides:
Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 130 provide the relevant rules on

the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the
contents of a lost document:
Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a

common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
matters in issue in the actions; it may order all actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs
or delay.
The counterpart, but narrowed, rule for criminal cases is
found in Sec. 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court stating:
Sec. 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. - Charges
for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a
series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at
the discretion of the court.
G.R. No. 197307
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial
evidence rule," meaning a finding of guilt in an
administrative case may and would issue if supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the
acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might
conceivably opine otherwise.
G.R. No. 201001
The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the
production of the original document whenever its contents
are the subject of inquiry, is contained in Section 3 of Rule
130 ofthe Rules of Court which provides:
"Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
"Section 5. When original document is unavailable. When

the original document has been lost ordestroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated. (4a)
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's
custody or control. If the document is inthe custody or
under the control of adverse party, he must have
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce
the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in
the case of its loss."
G.R. No. 201001
Requirements before a party may present secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original document
whenever the original copy has been lost:
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to
prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove
the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the
original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the
reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of
the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct
order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and
contents.
G.R. No. 202692
Section 50 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of evidence:
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may
be received in evidence regarding x x x x
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person
Under Section 15 of the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, "at the trial, the affidavits submitted by the
parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses who executed the same."
Although the doctor who examined the accused was unable
to testify to affirm the contents of the Medical Certificate he
issued (re: that he was found to have an alcoholic breath),
this court finds that the observation of herein private
complainants as to the accuseds behavior and condition
after the incident was sufficient.
REMEDIAL LAW 18
G.R. No. 204029

Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is patently clear that
self-adjudication is only warranted when there is only one
heir:
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between
heirs. x x x If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to
himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the
office of the register of deeds. x x x
G.R. No. 204029
The rule on parole evidence is not, as it were, ironclad. Sec.
9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides the exceptions:
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. x x x
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain
or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue
in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
G.R. No. 210252
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable
requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or
complainant has a legal or equitable title to or interest in
the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed,
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting
cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
efficacy.
G.R. No. 210252
However, dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17, Sec. 3
(Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.) of the Rules of
Court cannot defeat the right of a co-owner to ask for
partition at any time, provided that there is no actual
adjudication of ownership of shares yet. Pertinent hereto is
Article 494 of the Civil Code:
Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the
co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the
partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share
is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for

a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be
valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period
which shall not exceed twenty years. Neither shall there be
any partition when it is prohibited by law. No prescription
shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his coowners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership.
G.R. No. 210252
Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that whichby the
exercise of due diligencecould or should have been done
earlier. It is the negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable period, warranting the presumption
that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or
declined to assert it.
G.R. No. 210252
There is res judicata when the following requisites are
present: (1) the formal judgment or order must be final; (2)
it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was
rendered after a consideration of the evidence or
stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
(3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must
be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties,
of subject matter and of cause of action.
G.R. No. 210636
Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rules on Custody of
Minors and Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors)
and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. As provided:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus.- A verified
petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of
minors shall be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall
beenforceable within its judicial region to which the Family
Court belongs.
However, the petition may be filed with the regular court in
the absence of the presiding judge of the Family Court,
provided, however, that the regular court shall refer the
case tothe Family Court as soon as its presiding judge
returns to duty.
The petition may also be filed with the appropriate regular
courts in places where there are no Family Courts.
The writ issued by the Family Court or the regular court shall
be enforceable in the judicial region where they belong.
The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so
granted,the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family
Court or to any regular court within the region where the
REMEDIAL LAW 19

petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for
hearing and decision on the merits.
Upon return of the writ, the court shall decide the issue on
custody of minors. The appellate court, or the member
thereof, issuing the writ shall be furnished a copy of the
decision. (emphasis added)
Considering that the writ is made enforceable within a
judicial region, petitions for the issuance of the writ of
habeas corpus, whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the
Rules of Court orpursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-0404-SC, may therefore be filed withany of the proper RTCs
within the judicial region where enforcement thereof is
sought.
G.R. No. 210636
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rules on Custody of Minors and
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors)
Section 3. Where to file petition.- The petition for custody of
minors shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or
city where the petitioner resides or where the minormay be
found.
G.R. No. 194239
A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit. In the case at bar,
there can be no quibble that the oil leak affected all the
condominium unit owners and residents of West Tower as,
in fact, all had to evacuate their units at the wee hours in
the morning.
There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp.
represents the common interest of its unit owners and
residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue the
instant petition. While a condominium corporation has
limited powers under The Condominium Act, it is
empowered to pursue actions in behalf of its members.
G.R. No. 194239
Section 4. Definition of Terms.
(f) Precautionary principle states that when human activities
may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to
the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.
RULE 20
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between
human activity and environmental effect, the court shall
apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case
before it.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.

Section 2. Standards for application. - In applying the
precautionary principle, the following factors, among
others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or
health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or (3)
prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of
the environmental rights of those affected.
G.R. No. 194239
The precautionary principle is not applicable to the instant
case. The precautionary principle only applies when the link
between the cause, that is the human activity sought to be
inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the
environment, cannot be established with full scientific
certainty. Here, however, such absence of a link is not an
issue. Detecting the existence of a leak or the presence of
defects in the White Oil Pipeline System, which is the issue
in the case at bar, is different from determining whether the
spillage of hazardous materials into the surroundings will
cause environmental damage or will harm human health or
that of other organisms. As a matter of fact, the petroleum
leak and the harm that it caused to the environment and to
the residents of the affected areas is not even questioned by
FPIC.
G.R. No. 194239
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
RULE 5 JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION
Section 3. Permanent EPO; writ of continuing mandamus. In the judgment, the court may convert the TEPO to a
permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing mandamus
directing the performance of acts which shall be effective
until the judgment is fully satisfied.
The court may, by itself or through the appropriate
government agency, monitor the execution of the judgment
and require the party concerned to submit written reports
on a quarterly basis or sooner as may be necessary, detailing
the progress of the execution and satisfaction of the
judgment. The other party may, at its option, submit its
comments or observations on the execution of the
judgment.
Hence, We required FPIC to obtain the adverted DOE
Certification in Our Resolution. We deemed it proper to
require said certification from the DOE considering that the
core issue of this case requires the specialized knowledge
and special expertise of the DOE and various other
administrative agencies.
G.R. No. 200567
It is elementary that a defending partys compulsory
counterclaim should be interposed at the time he files his
Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar such
claim.
REMEDIAL LAW 20

Rule 6 of the Rules of Court denies a compulsory
counterclaim as follows:
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular
courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of
the opposing partys claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must
be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount
and the nature thereof. Except that in an original action
before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
G.R. No. 200567
In determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or
permissive, We have, in several cases, utilized the following
tests:
(1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the
counterclaim largely the same?
(2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants
claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
(3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute
plaintiffs claim as well as the defendants counterclaim?
(4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the
counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the
respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial
duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court?
This test is the "compelling test of compulsoriness."
G.R. No. 200567
We have already ruled in several cases that in extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage, where the proceeds of the sale are
insufficient to pay the debt, the mortgagee has the right to
recover the deficiency from the debtor. In ascertaining the
deficit amount, Sec. 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court is
elucidating, to wit:
Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale. The amount
realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged
property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be paid
to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there
shall be any balance or residue, after paying off the
mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior
encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be
ascertained by the court, or if there be no such
encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after
payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly
authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it.
Verily, there can only be a deficit when the proceeds of the
sale is not sufficient to cover (1) the costs of foreclosure
proceedings; and (2) the amount due to the creditor,
inclusive of interests and penalties, if any, at the time of
foreclosure.
G.R. No. 210760
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(1) There is more than one circumstance;
(2) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven;
(3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 210760
The foregoing narrationbased on the testimonies of the
two witnesses of the prosecution, even if given full faith and
credit and considered as established factsfailsto establish
that petitioner committed the crime of theft. If at all, it may
possibly constitute evidence that petitioner committed an
offense, but not necessarily theft.
In the case before the Court,the evidence presented by the
prosecution fails to establish the corpus delicti of theft. In
Tan v. People, this Court said:
Corpus delicti means the "body or substance of the crime,
and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime
has been actually committed. In theft, corpus delicti has two
elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
G.R. No. 182926
In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be
instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides:
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory
where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure pertinently states:
Place of commission of the offense. The complaint or
information is sufficient if it can be understood from its
allegations that the offense was committed or some of its
essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it
was committed constitutes an essential element of the
offense charged or is necessary for its identification.
G.R. No. 182926
"A special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy
to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The
established rule is that, when such an adverse interlocutory
order is rendered, the remedy is not to resort forthwith to
certiorari, but to continue with the case in due course and,
when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an
appeal in the manner authorized by law."
G.R. No. 214865
REMEDIAL LAW 21

Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court pertinently
provides:
SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to
prosecute. - The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the
appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in
either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his
brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where
the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.
G.R. No. 218787
Rule 64 does not cover rulings of the COMELEC in the
exercise of its administrative powers
The rule cited by petitioners is an application of the
constitutional mandate requiring that, unless otherwise
provided by law, the rulings of the constitutional
commissions shall be subject to review only by the Supreme
Court on certiorari. A reproduction of Article IX-A, Section 7
of the 1987 Constitution is in order:
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it
within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision
or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order,
or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. (emphasis added)
G.R. No. L-40771
RULE 53
NEW TRIAL
Section 1. Period for filing; ground.
At any time after the appeal from the lower court has been
perfected and before the Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction
over the case, a party may file a motion for a new trial on
the ground of newly discovered evidence which could not
have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below
by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such a
character as would probably change the result. The motion
shall be accompanied by affidavits showing the facts
constituting the grounds therefor and the newly discovered
evidence.
In the instant case, there is no showing that the witnesses
could not have been discovered and produced during the
trial. Hence their testimonies would not constitute newly
discovered evidence.
resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever

the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative Juris et de Jure of the guilt or innocence of
the accused in the criminal case.
Its existence rests on the concurrence of two essential
elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;
and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed
G.R. No. 208321
The appellate court acted within its sound discretion when it
re-evaluated the NLRCs factual findings and substituted the
latters own judgment.
BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 129
Section 9.
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings. x x x
G.R. No. 182687
In attacking AAAs credibility, Warlito asserts that her
mental retardation affects her ability to convey her
experience, thus, making her testimony unreliable. He then
points to the inability of AAA to state with certainty the
dates when the alleged acts of rape happened. He claims
that it was against human experience to forget such a
harrowing experience. Moreover, he maintains that AAAs
teachers coached her in fabricating the charge against him.
It is a basic doctrine that anyone who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known such perception to others, may
be a witness. Thus, by itself, mental retardation does not
disqualify a person from testifying. What is essential is the
quality of perception, and the manner in which this
perception is made known to the court.
In this case, AAA testified in a straightforward and
categorical manner that her father had raped her. She even
demonstrated before the court their relative positions
during the molestations. And even during grueling crossexamination, she remained consistent with her statement
that her father had raped her. Thus, her conduct before the
court does not indicate that she had been coached, as
Warlito would have us believe.
G.R. No. 208587
G.R. No. 189278
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a

civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there
exists in the former an issue that must be pre-emptively
In a case involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs

during a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a
circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified under
REMEDIAL LAW 22

Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court.
The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried
out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards,
it is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those
involved in illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of
entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from
the police officers but from the accused himself. The
accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on
the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the
absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.
G.R. No. 169501
Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the
court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot
accept or refuses to accept payment, and it generally
requires a prior tender of payment. It should be
distinguished from tender of payment. Tender is the
antecedent of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to
the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are
derived the immediate consequences which the debtor
desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may be
extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and
the priority of the first is the attempt to make a private
settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of
consignation. Tender and consignation, where validly made,
produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the
obligation.
G.R. No. 184861
Rule 111, Sec. 5, which states:
SEC. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. The two (2)
essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of
such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.
G.R. Nos. 117622-23
Section 6, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court states:
SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action A
final and executory judgment or order may be executed on
motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After
the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute
of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The
revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within
five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by
action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
G.R. No. 105608
"A case should be decided in its totality, resolving all
interlocking issues in order to render justice to all concerned
and to end the litigation once and for all." Verily, courts
should always strive to settle the entire controversy in a
single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seed

of future litigation.
G.R. No. 105608
Our judicial system requires courts to apply the law and
grant remedies when appropriately called for by law and
justice. In the exercise of this mandate, courts have the
discretion to apply equity in the absence or insufficiency of
the law.
Equity has been defined as justice outside law, being ethical
rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than
of law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not
on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for
application where there is law.
G.R. No. 129165
A decision that acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect
even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by
the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the
land.
DAR Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB should have
been more circumspect in the disposition of the instant case
since, instead of facilitating the administration of justice,
their obstinate refusal to obey a valid final judgment of the
Court of Appeals, further delayed the resolution of the case
and added valuable irretrievable years to a case that has
already dragged on for decades.
G.R. No. 130841
Sec. 1 of Rule 70 prescribes the rules when an action for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer is proper, thus:
Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a
person deprived of the possession of any land or building
by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a
lessor, vendor or vendee or other person, against whom the
possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld
after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or
the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within
one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding
of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial
Court against the person or person unlawfully withholding
or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession,
together with damages and costs. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is quite clear from the foregoing provision that for a
forcible entry suit to prosper, the person lawfully entitled to
the possession of the property must allege and prove that
he was deprived of such possession by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. And when the law
speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical
REMEDIAL LAW 23

possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished
from possession de jure.
certiorari interposed when an appeal is proper and available

may be dismissed.
G.R. No. 130841
G.R. No. 134458
To make out a suit for illegal detainer or forcible entry, the

complaint must contain two mandatory allegations:
(1) prior physical possession of the property by the plaintiff;
and
(2) deprivation of said possession by another by means of
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.
Sec. 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court is clear:
This latter requirement implies that the possession of the

disputed property by the intruder has been unlawful from
the very start. Then, the action must be brought within one
year from the date of actual entry to the property or, in
cases where stealth was employed, from the date the
plaintiff learned about it.
G.R. No. 130841
The only issue in forcible entry cases is the physical or
material possession of real propertypossession de facto,
not possession de jure. Only prior physical possession, not
title, is the issue. If ownership is raised in the pleadings, the
court may pass upon such question, but only to determine
the question of possession.
G.R. No. 130841
In the instant case, the CA had already finally disposed of
the case with the issuance of the Resolution denying due
course to petitioners petition for review of the RTCs
decision, and the Resolution denying petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration. Thus, the remedy of an appeal under Rule
45 was then already available to petitioners.
Sec. 1 of Rule 45 states:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final
order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth.
G.R. No. 130841
Petitioners, therefore, then had 15 days from their receipt
of the Resolution within which to file a petition for review
under Rule 45. Instead, they filed on the instant Petition for
Certiorari.
Clearly, the proper remedy in the instant case should have
been the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45. This
Court has repeatedly ruled that reviews under Rules 45 and
65 of the Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and the
remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be made a
substitute for a petitioners failure to timely appeal under
Rule 45. Thus, under Sec. 5(f) of Rule 56, a petition for
Section 1. In general.Every pleading shall contain in a

methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading
relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting
the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
Ultimate facts mean the important and substantial facts
which either directly form the basis of the plaintiffs primary
right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or
omissions of the defendant.
"Evidentiary facts" are those which are necessary to prove
the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence of the existence
of some other facts. They are not proper as allegations in
the pleadings as they may only result in confusing the
statement of the cause of action or the defense. They are
not necessary therefor, and their exposition is actually
premature as such facts must be found and drawn from
testimonial and other evidence.
G.R. No. 134458
Petitioners are not entirely without an adequate remedy if
their only objective in amending the complaint is to provide
details or amplification to their allegations in the original
complaint.
In Rule 18, the parties are required to submit pre-trial briefs
which should contain a summary of admitted facts and
proposed stipulation of facts and a list of documents or
exhibits to be presented. Petitioners can present the details
sought to be introduced in the original complaint by listing
them as admitted facts. If there are no admissions on these
factual matters, then these details can be proposed as
stipulation of facts which will be scrutinized and discussed
during the pre-trial conference.
G.R. No. 134458
In pre-trial, the parties are required to use the different
modes of discovery and deposition under Rules 23, 25, 26,
27, and 28 within five (5) days from the filing of the answer.
Petitioners can avail of written interrogatories under Rule
25 to obtain information from respondents on the proposed
amendments or make use of the request for admission by
adverse party under Rule 26 to procure categorical answers
under oath from the adverse party relating to the alleged
details.
G.R. No. 136433
The nature of an action is determined by the material
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought, not by the defenses asserted in the answer or
motion to dismiss.
REMEDIAL LAW 24

G.R. No. 139442
G.R. No. 136433

The function of determining the existence of probable cause
is proper for the Ombudsman in this case and we will not
tread on the realm of this executive function to examine
and assess evidence supplied by the parties, which is
supposed to be exercised at the start of criminal
proceedings. We cannot pass upon the sufficiency or
insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of
probable cause.
G.R. No. 136433
Verily, courts are given wide latitude to accord the accused
ample opportunity to present controverting evidence even
before trial as demanded by due process. A component part
of due process in criminal justice, preliminary investigation
is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused
before trial. To deny their claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive them of the full measure
of their right to due process.
G.R. No. 139442
It has been held that a person who occupies the land of
another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any
contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a
summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against
them. The status of the defendant is analogous to that of a
lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose
occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner. In such a
case, the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession
is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate.
G.R. No. 139442
The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict
and rigid application, which would result in technicalities
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court
reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even
disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to
alter even that which this Court itself has already declared
to be final x x x.
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford
every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his cause, free from the
constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court has
consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as
not to override substantial justice.
This Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, can
suspend its rules with respect to this particular case (pro hac
vice), even if initially, the MeTC did not have jurisdiction
over the ejectment suit, and decide to assume jurisdiction
over it in order to promptly resolve the dispute.
Section 8, Rule 40 authorizes the RTCin case of affirmance

of an order of the municipal trial court dismissing a case
without trial on the merits and the ground of dismissal is
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matterto try the case
on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it if the
RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
G.R. No. 141849
Requisites for issuance of injunctive writ
The writ of preliminary injunction is issued to prevent
threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the
parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and
adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until
the merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, it will be
issued only upon a showing of a clear and unmistakable
right that is violated. Moreover, an urgent necessity for its
issuance must be shown by the applicant.
G.R. No. 141849
Under Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
may be granted if the following grounds are established,
thus:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of,
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a
limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance
of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation
of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the
action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.
G.R. No. 141849
Prescinding from the provisions mentioned above, we have
consistently held that the requisites of preliminary
injunction whether mandatory or prohibitory are the
following:
(1) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right,
that is a right in esse;
(2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right;
(3) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent
irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(4) no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists
REMEDIAL LAW 25

to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.
G.R. No. 143562
Forum shopping is the "institution of two (2) or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition" or "the act of a party against whom
an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of
seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another
forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of
certiorari."
There is forum shopping when a party "repetitively availed
of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on
the same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues
either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some
other court." Forum shopping exists where the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other.
G.R. No. 143581
The proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from
an adverse judgment on the merits, incorporating in said
appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders.
Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in
the sorry spectacle of a case being subject of a
counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate
court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an
error in any of its interlocutory rulings.
However, where the assailed interlocutory order was issued
with grave abuse of discretion or patently erroneous and
the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
expeditious relief, the Court allows certiorari as a mode of
redress.
G.R. No. 143581
Republic Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 incorporated
these provisos to Secs. 42, 43, and 44 relative to Secs. 47
and 48, thus:
SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention.The New
York Convention shall govern the recognition and
enforcement of arbitral awards covered by said Convention.
The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards
shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court in accordance
with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court. Said procedural rules shall provide that the
party relying on the award or applying for its enforcement
shall file with the court the original or authenticated copy of
the award and the arbitration agreement. If the award or
agreement is not made in any of the official languages, the
party shall supply a duly certified translation thereof into
any of such languages.
The applicant shall establish that the country in which

foreign arbitration award was made in party to the New
York Convention.
xxxx
SEC. 43. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards Not Covered by the New York Convention.The
recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards not
covered by the New York Convention shall be done in
accordance with procedural rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court. The Court may, on grounds of comity and
reciprocity, recognize and enforce a non-convention award
as a convention award.
SEC. 44. Foreign Arbitral Award Not Foreign Judgment.A
foreign arbitral award when confirmed by a court of a
foreign country, shall be recognized and enforced as a
foreign arbitral award and not as a judgment of a foreign
court.
A foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the Regional
Trial Court, shall be enforced in the same manner as final
and executory decisions of courts of law of the Philippines
xxxx
SEC. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction.Proceedings for
recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or
for vacations, setting aside, correction or modification of an
arbitral award, and any application with a court for
arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as
special proceedings and shall be filed with the Regional Trial
Court (i) where arbitration proceedings are conducted; (ii)
where the asset to be attached or levied upon, or the act to
be enjoined is located; (iii) where any of the parties to the
dispute resides or has his place of business; or (iv) in the
National Judicial Capital Region, at the option of the
applicant.
It is now clear that foreign arbitral awards when confirmed
by the RTC are deemed not as a judgment of a foreign court
but as a foreign arbitral award, and when confirmed, are
enforced as final and executory decisions of our courts of
law.
G.R. No. 143581
SEC. 45. Rejection of a Foreign Arbitral Award.A party to a
foreign arbitration proceeding may oppose an application
for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in
accordance with the procedures and rules to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court only on those grounds
enumerated under Article V of the New York Convention.
Any other ground raised shall be disregarded by the
Regional Trial Court.
G.R. No. 143581
RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award appealable
Sec. 46 of RA 9285 provides for an appeal before the CA as
the remedy of an aggrieved party in cases where the RTC
REMEDIAL LAW 26

sets aside, rejects, vacates, modifies, or corrects an arbitral
award, thus:
SEC. 46. Appeal from Court Decision or Arbitral Awards.A
decision of the Regional Trial Court confirming, vacating,
setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may
be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the
rules and procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme
Court.
The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the
court confirming an arbitral award shall be required by the
appellate court to post a counterbond executed in favor of
the prevailing party equal to the amount of the award in
accordance with the rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
Thereafter, the CA decision may further be appealed or
reviewed before this Court through a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 143581
RTC under Sec. 28 of RA 9285 has jurisdiction to hear and
grant interim measures to protect vested rights of the
parties. Sec. 28 pertinently provides:
SEC. 28. Grant of interim Measure of Protection.(a) It is
not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party
to request, before constitution of the tribunal, from a
Court to grant such measure. After constitution of the
arbitral tribunal and during arbitral proceedings, a request
for an interim measure of protection, or modification
thereof, may be made with the arbitral or to the extent that
the arbitral tribunal has no power to act or is unable to act
effectivity, the request may be made with the Court. The
arbitral tribunal is deemed constituted when the sole
arbitrator or the third arbitrator, who has been nominated,
has accepted the nomination and written communication of
said nomination and acceptance has been received by the
party making the request.
(b) The following rules on interim or provisional relief shall
be observed:
Any party may request that provisional relief be granted
against the adverse party.
Such relief may be granted:
(i) to prevent irreparable loss or injury;
(ii) to provide security for the performance of any
obligation;
(iii) to produce or preserve any evidence; or
(iv) to compel any other appropriate act or omission.
(c) The order granting provisional relief may be conditioned
upon the provision of security or any act or omission
specified in the order.
(d) Interim or provisional relief is requested by written

application transmitted by reasonable means to the Court or
arbitral tribunal as the case may be and the party against
whom the relief is sought, describing in appropriate detail
the precise relief, the party against whom the relief is
requested, the grounds for the relief, and the evidence
supporting the request.
(e) The order shall be binding upon the parties.
(f) Either party may apply with the Court for assistance in
implementing or enforcing an interim measure ordered by
an arbitral tribunal.
(g) A party who does not comply with the order shall be
liable for all damages resulting from noncompliance,
including all expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees, paid
in obtaining the orders judicial enforcement.
G.R. No. 148777
This Court is not a trier of facts, and is not tasked to
calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence
adduced by the parties during trial all over again. However,
in rare occasions, exceptions are allowed. One exception is
when there are competing factual findings by the different
triers of fact, such as those made by the quasi-agencies on
the one hand and the CA on the other, this Court is
compelled to go over the records of the case, as well as the
submissions of the parties, and resolve the factual issues.
G.R. No. 150251
Under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, "[A]n admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted
only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made."
Clearly, petitioner cannot take a contrary or different
position considering that he has made an express admission
of the Certification, which does not require proof and
cannot be contradicted because there is no previous
evidence that the admission was made through palpable
mistake. After admitting it, he cannot now assail that said
certification has not been properly identified.
G.R. No. 152119
For a newly discovered evidence to be appreciated as a
ground for granting a motion for new trial, it must fairly be
shown that
(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
(2) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;
(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably
change the judgment if admitted.
REMEDIAL LAW 27
G.R. No. 154557

It has been consistently held as a general rule that the
jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be
determined by the law in force at the time of the institution
of the action. Where a court has already obtained and is
exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to
proceed to the final determination of the cause is not
affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such
proceedings in another tribunal.
an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that such

party will pay the applicant all damages he may suffer by
reason of the acts, omissions, or other matter specified in
the application as ground for such appointment. The
receiver may also be discharged if it is shown that his
appointment was obtained without sufficient cause.
Anchored on this rule, the trial court should have dispensed
with the services of the receiver, more so considering that
the alleged fraud put forward to justify the receivership was
not at all established.
The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly

provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where
a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no
retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was
pending prior to the enactment of a statute.
In Descallar v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the

appointment of a receiver is not proper where the rights of
the parties, one of whom is in possession of the property,
are still to be determined by the trial court.
G.R. No. 155174
Section 3 of Rule 58 provides for the grounds for the

issuance of a preliminary injunction:
Sections 1 and 3, Rule 35 of the Rules on summary judgment

provide:
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. A party
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or crossclaim x x x may, at any time after the pleading in answer
thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
favor upon all or any part thereof.
Rule 34, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides two (2)
requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there
must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for
the amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the
motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
G.R. No. 155174
A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which requires the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as
pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no
real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and
summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for
summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly
the absence of any genuine issue of fact x x x. Trial courts
have limited authority to render summary judgments and
may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to
any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties
are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary
judgment cannot take the place of trial.
G.R. No. 155408
Sec. 3, Rule 59 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
reads:
Sec. 3. Denial of application or discharge of receiver.The
application may be denied, or the receiver discharged, when
the adverse party files a bond executed to the applicant, in
G.R. No. 161051
Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. - A

preliminary injunction may be granted when it is
established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of,
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a
limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance
of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation
of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the
action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.
G.R. No. 161051
In order that an injunctive relief may be issued, the
applicant must show that:
(1) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable;
(2) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is
material and substantial; and
(3) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ
In establishing the above elements, it bears pointing out
that the Court used the term "and" in enumerating the said
elements.
It should only be extended in cases of great injury where
courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate
remedy in damages; "in cases of extreme urgency; where
the right is very clear; where considerations of relative
inconvenience bear strongly in complainants favor; where
REMEDIAL LAW 28

there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs right
against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a
continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory
injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting
continuing relation between the parties, recently and
arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a
new relation."
G.R. No. 163101
In RA 9285 or the "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004," the Congress reiterated the efficacy of arbitration as
an alternative mode of dispute resolution by stating in Sec.
32 thereof that domestic arbitration shall still be governed
by RA 876, the arbitration law. Clearly, a contractual
stipulation that requires prior resort to voluntary arbitration
before the parties can go directly to court is not illegal and is
in fact promoted by the State. Thus, petitioner correctly
cites several cases whereby arbitration clauses have been
upheld by this Court.
G.R. No. 163101
As stated in Secs. 6 and 7 of RA 876:
Section 6. Hearing by court.A party aggrieved by the
failure, neglect or refusal of another to perform under an
agreement in writing providing for arbitration may petition
the court for an order directing that such arbitration
proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. Five
days notice in writing of the hearing of such application shall
be served either personally or by registered mail upon the
party in default. The court shall hear the parties, and upon
being satisfied that the making of the agreement or such
failure to comply therewith is not in issue, shall make an
order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. If the making
of the agreement or default be in issue the court shall
proceed to summarily hear such issue. If the finding be that
no agreement in writing providing for arbitration was made,
or that there is no default in the proceeding thereunder, the
proceeding shall be dismissed. If the finding be that a
written provision for arbitration was made and there is a
default in proceeding thereunder, an order shall be made
summarily directing the parties to proceed with the
arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.
xxxx
Section 7. Stay of civil action.If any suit or proceeding be
brought upon an issue arising out of an agreement providing
for the arbitration thereof, the court in which such suit or
proceeding is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue
involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to
arbitration, shall stay the action or proceeding until an
arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of
the agreement: Provided, That the applicant, for the stay is
not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.
G.R. No. 164479
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or

redress of a wrong. Strictly speaking, it is only in civil actions
that one speaks of a cause of action. A cause of action is
defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another. Thus, in the annulment of foreclosure case,
the cause of action of Rombe is the act of Asiatrust in
foreclosing the mortgage on Rombes properties by which
the latters right to the properties was allegedly violated.
On the other hand, the rehabilitation case is treated as a
special proceeding. A petition for rehabilitation need not
state a cause of action.
Indeed, the two cases are different with respect to their
nature, purpose, and the reliefs sought such that the
injunctive writ issued in the annulment of foreclosure case
did not interfere with the Order in the rehabilitation case.
G.R. No. 164800
Attachment is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its
own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon
relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or
principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the
main action. As such, it is available during the pendency of
the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve
and protect certain rights and interests therein pending
rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final
judgment in the case. As a corollary proposition, an order
granting an application for a writ of preliminary attachment
cannot, owing to the incidental or auxiliary nature of such
order, be the subject of an appeal independently of the
main action.
G.R. No. 164800
Sec. 1, Rule 57 of the Rules, specifically the sections
paragraph "d," wherein a writ of preliminary attachment
may be issued. It provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue.A
plaintiff or any proper party may, at the commencement of
the action or at any time thereafter, have the property of
the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of
any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:
xxxx
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of fraud
in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon
which the action is brought, or in concealing or disposing of
the property for the taking, detention or conversion of
which the action is brought;
For a writ of attachment to issue under the above-quoted
rule, the applicant must sufficiently show the factual
circumstances of the alleged fraud.
G.R. No. 164800
A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection by one of
the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence
REMEDIAL LAW 29

which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law,
whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the
issue."
The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict.34 In passing upon the
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is
merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or
sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a
verdict of guilt. And when the court denies the demurrer,
the defendant has to present countervailing evidence
against the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
In the case at bar, when the Sandiganbayan denied
respondents demurrer to evidence, it in effect ruled that
the evidence presented by the prosecution is, absent a
countervailing evidence, prima facie sufficient to support an
adverse verdict against them for amassing illegal wealth.
G.R. No. 166301
Three elements must be present for a complaint to state a
cause of action:
(1) the legal right of the plaintiff,
(2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and
(3) the act or omission of the defendant violating said legal
right.
It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that
a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff a right to file an
action in court for recovery of damages or other relief.
G.R. No. 166301
What is determinative in a dismissal for failure to state a
cause of action is the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the
material allegations. These allegations, hypothetically
speaking, must aver ultimate facts that constitute plaintiffs
cause of action which may entitle plaintiff to an
advantageous decision as a matter of law.
G.R. No. 166462
Absolute identity of parties is not required for res judicata
to apply; substantial identity is sufficient.
The principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere
expedient of including an additional party to the first and
second action. Only substantial identity is necessary to
warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or
elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.
There is substantial identity of parties when there is a
community of interest between a party in the first case and
a party in the second case albeit the latter was not
impleaded in the first case.
xxxx
x x x Such identity of interest is sufficient to make them
privy-in-law, thereby satisfying the requisite of substantial
identity of parties.
G.R. No. 172910

While a court can dismiss a case on the ground of non
prosequitur, the real test of such power is whether, under
the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due
diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
In the absence of a pattern or a scheme to delay the
disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the
mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the
plaintiff, as in the case at bar, courts should decide to
dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
G.R. No. 176014
Lack of cause of action is, however, not a ground for a
dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss
under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, for the determination
of a lack of cause of action can only be made during and/or
after trial.
What is dismissible via that mode is failure of the complaint
to state a cause of action. Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court provides that a motion may be made on the ground
"that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
action."
G.R. No. 178366
The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final
judgments are
(1) the correction of clerical errors,
(2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, and
(3) void judgments.
G.R. No. 178366
A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is an entry made now of
something which was actually previously done, to have
effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply
omitted action by the court, but to supply an omission in the
record of action really had, but omitted through
inadvertence or mistake.
G.R. No. 178907
An action for forcible entry is summary in nature. It is
designed to recover physical possession through prompt
proceedings that are restrictive in nature, scope, and time
limits. In such action, the plaintiff must prove that he was in
prior possession of the land or building and that he was
deprived thereof by means of force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth.
G.R. No. 180507
Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his
testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his
prior statements which are inconsistent with his present
testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the
foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an
injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The witness
REMEDIAL LAW 30

must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the
apparent inconsistency between his two statements and
state the circumstances under which they were made.
The statements of a witness prior to her present testimony
cannot serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless
her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or
discrepancies and she was given an opportunity to explain
said inconsistencies.
G.R. No. 180507
Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court which
states:
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements.Before a witness can be
impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the circumstances
of the times and places and the persons present, and he
must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing,
they must be shown to the witness before any question is
put to him concerning them.
G.R. No. 180507
Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the
testimony in court do not militate against the witness'
credibility since sworn statements are generally considered
inferior to the testimony in open court.
G.R. No. 181900
As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is
viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has
invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable,
because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant
witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability
that it would later on be repudiated, and criminal
prosecution would thus be interminable.
By itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground
for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in
court. In the present case, private complainant lost the right
or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge
should proceed, because the case had already reached and
must therefore continue to be heard by the court a quo.
G.R. No. 182434
PD 1083 created the Sharia courts, i.e., the SDC and the
Sharia Circuit Court, both of limited jurisdiction.
Administrative Code of 1987 classified Sharia courts as
"regular courts," meaning they are part of the judicial
department.
Art. 143 of PD 1083 vests SDCs, in certain cases, with
exclusive original jurisdiction and with concurrent original
jurisdiction over certain causes of action. As far as relevant,
Art. 143 reads as follows:

ARTICLE 143. Original jurisdiction. (1) The Sharia District
Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over:
xxxx
d) All actions arising from customary contracts in which the
parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law
shall govern their relations; and
xxxx
(2) Concurrently with existing civil courts, the Sharia District
Court shall have original jurisdiction over:
xxxx
(b) All other personal and real actions not mentioned in
paragraph 1 (d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims
except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Municipal Circuit Court.
G.R. No. 182434
Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise
known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxxx
"(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts."
G.R. No. 182434
In order to give effect to both laws at hand, we must
continue to recognize the concurrent jurisdiction enjoyed by
SDCs with that of RTCs under PD 1083.
G.R. No. 182434
Personal action is one that is founded on privity of contracts
between the parties; and in which the plaintiff usually seeks
the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a
contract, or recovery of damages.
Real action, on the other hand, is one anchored on the
privity of real estate, where the plaintiff seeks the recovery
of ownership or possession of real property or interest in it.
G.R. No. 184681
REMEDIAL LAW 31

The presumption of innocence, and all rights associated with
it, remains even at the stage of preliminary investigation. It
is, thus, necessary that in finding probable cause to indict a
person for the commission of a felony, only those matters
which are constitutionally acceptable, competent,
consistent and material are considered. No such evidence
was presented to sufficiently establish the probable cause to
indict Salapuddin for the non-bailable offenses he is accused
of. It, thus, behooves this Court to relieve petitioner from
the unnecessary rigors, anxiety, and expenses of trial.
G.R. No. 187256
Primarily, although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not
give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum.
There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is
determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a
general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions
for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that
judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for
the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level
("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only
when there are special and important reasons therefor,
clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
Similarly, there are no special and important reasons that
petitioners cite to justify their direct recourse to this Court
under Rule 65.
person:
commit an offense.
G.R. No. 190462
Consolidation of actions is expressly authorized under Sec.
1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court:
Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a
common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs
or delay.
The purpose of this rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits,
guard against oppression and abuse, prevent delays, clear
congested dockets, and simplify the work of the trial court.
In short, consolidation aims to attain justice with the least
expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.
G.R. No. 205590
Be reminded that the parties in Rule 41 appeal proceedings
may raise questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and
law.
Thus, in insisting that it is not a trier of facts and implying
that it had no choice but to adopt the RTC's factual findings,
the CA shirked from its function as an appellate court to
independently evaluate the merits of this case.
G.R. No. 205590
Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:
G.R. No. 187256

On the other hand, direct recourse to this Court has been
allowed for petitions filed under Rule 45 when only
questions of law are raised, as in this case.
Section 1 of Rule 45 clearly states that the following may be
appealed to the Supreme Court through a petition for
review by certiorari: 1) judgments; 2) final orders; or 3)
resolutions of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or similar courts, whenever authorized
by law. The appeal must involve only questions of law, not
of fact.
G.R. No. 189806
It is a well-established rule that an arrest made after an
entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch
as it is considered a valid "warrantless arrest," in line with
the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules
of Court, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In

civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance of evidence or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony,
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with
the greater number.
G.R. No. 205590
Rule 131, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court specifies that a
disputable presumption is satisfactory if uncontradicted and
not overcome by other evidence. Corollary thereto,
paragraphs (r) and (s) thereof read:
REMEDIAL LAW 32

SBC. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
xxxx
(r) That there was sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration;
G.R. No. 208232
Jurisdiction of RTCs, as may be relevant to the instant
petition, is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129, which reads:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein, where the
assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
G.R. No. 208232
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter
of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court
has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of
the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for
the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is
in the municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the
amount of the claim.
But where the basic issue is something other than the right
to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money, and, hence, are incapable of pecuniary
estimation. These cases are cognizable exclusively by RTCs.
G.R. No. 208232
Settled jurisprudence considers some civil actions as
incapable of pecuniary estimation, viz:
1. Actions for specific performance;
2. Actions for support which will require the determination
of the civil status;
3. The right to support of the plaintiff;
4. Those for the annulment of decisions of lower courts;
5. Those for the rescission or reformation of contracts;
6. Interpretation of a contractual stipulation.
G.R. Nos. 117622-23

We have consistently held that where the error sought to be
corrected neither relates to the courts jurisdiction nor
involves grave abuse of discretion, review [of the error]
through certiorari will not be allowed. This rule, however,
admits exceptions such as (1) when it is necessary to
prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party, (2) where
the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his
[/her] judgment, (3) where there may be danger of failure of
justice, (4) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and
insufficient, (5) where the issue raised is one purely of law,
(6) where public interest is involved, and (7) in case of
urgency.
G.R. Nos. 170122 & 171381
Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
clearly provides for the requirements of a valid substituted
service of summons, thus:
SEC. 7. Substituted service.If the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the
preceding section [personal service on defendant], service
may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendants residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies
at defendants office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a party
for the latter to be bound by its decision or orders. Valid
service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by and
proper under the Rules, is the means by which a court
acquires jurisdiction over a person.
G.R. Nos. 170122 & 171381
Requirements of valid substituted service of summons:
(1) Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party
relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that
defendant cannot be served promptly or there is
impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable time.
Reasonable time being "so much time as is necessary under
the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent
man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires
that should be done, having a regard for the rights and
possibility of loss, if any[,] to the other party." Moreover, we
indicated therein that the sheriff must show several
attempts for personal service of at least three (3) times on
at least two (2) different dates.
(2) Specific details in the return, i.e., the sheriff must
describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service.
(3) Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age
and discretion residing at defendants house or residence;
or on a competent person in charge of defendants office or
regular place of business.

Justice Velasco Rulings - Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Velasco Rulings - Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW 1

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal

G.R. No. 150135

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 150731

However, the independent civil action instituted under

SEC. 3. Representatives as parties.Where the action is

Real interest means a present substantial interest, as

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 156093

R.A. 6657 allows farmer leaders to represent the Macabud

In the instant expropriation case, where the principal issue

The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent the Macabud

In this case, the fact that no trial or hearing was conducted

G.R. No. 155483

G.R. No. 156093

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 158992

the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 154096

Verification not Jurisdictional; May be Corrected

Clearly then, the CA overstepped its boundaries when, in

Verification is, under the Rules, not a jurisdictional but

G.R. No. 154096

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

residences of the principal parties should be the basis for

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

of the judgment or notice of denial of a motion for new trial

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

It is, however, equally true that:

Sec. 46 of RA 9285 provides for an appeal before the CA as

G.R. No. 182348

SEC. 46. Appeal from Court Decision or Arbitral Awards.A

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.--A peace officer

The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the

b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has

Thereafter, the CA decision may further be appealed or

Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless

a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the

G.R. Nos. 154211-12

G.R. No. 177710

This Court explained the nature of a final order and how it

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.When the terms

The concept of "final judgment", as distinguished from one

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

premises of the property. On that aspect, the order is not a

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

The nature of res judicata, as now embodied in Sec. 47, Rule

G.R. No. 183871

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262

There is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal

RULE 114 - BAIL

If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied, it

Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. All kinds of

G.R. No. 186289

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

the Rules states:

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262

Sec. 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay.