Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FEB LEASING AND immediately to avoid the trial courts quashal of their counterbond and, thus,
FINANCE CORPORATION the immediate seizure of their equipment -- their only means of livelihood.
G.R. No. 157195. April 22, 2005 Their counsel allegedly believed in good faith that the secretarys
Certificate was attached to the Petition. When they received a copy of the
Once more, the Court stresses that procedural rules must be used to October 23, 2002 CA Resolution on November 11, 2002, they lost no time in
promote, not obstruct, substantial justice. The failure to attach the Resolution filing the following day their Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for
authorizing herein individual petitioner to represent herein corporate Admission of the Attached Secretarys Certificate.
petitioner is, under the circumstances, excusable. The immediate correction
of the defect should have been deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. ISSUES:
GIST: Petitioner submitted a certification of non forum shopping but WoN the summarily dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari is proper - NO
merely failed to show that the signatory was authorized to do so.
WoN petitioners subsequent submission of the secretarys certificate is a
FACTS: sufficient compliance with the requirement of the law - YES
Facts:
OTHER CASES CITED BY THE COURT:
On May 27, 1977, Dolores Ventosa requested the transfer of $1,000 from the
In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, the petitioner had not First National Bank of Moundsville, West Virginia, U.S.A. to Victoria Javier in
attached any proof that its resident manager was authorized to sign the Manila through the Prudential Bank. Accordingly, the First National Bank
Verification and the non-forum shopping Certification, as a consequence of requested the petitioner, Mellon Bank, to effect the transfer. Unfortunately the
which the Petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Subsequent to the wire sent by Mellon Bank to Manufacturers Hanover Bank, a correspondent
dismissal, however, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, to which of Prudential Bank, indicated the amount transferred as US$1,000,000.00
was already attached a Certificate issued by its board secretary who stated instead of US$1,000.00. Hence Manufacturers Hanover Bank transferred
that, prior to the filing of the Petition, the resident manager had been one million dollars less bank charges of $6.30 to the Prudential Bank for the
authorized by the board of directors to file the Petition. account of Victoria Javier.
Citing several case excusing noncompliance with the requirement of a Javier withdrew $475,000 from account No. 343 and converted it into eight
certificate of non-forum shopping, the Court held that with more reason cashiers checks made out to the following: (a) F.C. Hagedorn & Co., Inc.,
should x x x the instant petition [be allowed,] since petitioner herein did two cheeks for the total amount of P1,000,000; (b) Elnor Investment Co.,
submit a certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that Inc., two checks for P1,000,000; (c) Paramount Finance Corporation, two
the signatory was authorized to do so. The Court further said that the checks for P1,000,000; and (d) M. Javier, Jr., two checks for P496,000.
subsequent submission of the Secretarys Certificate, attesting that the Javier also brought several properties in the United States including the one
signatory to the certification was authorized to file the action on behalf of of his lawyer, Poblador.
petitioner, mitigated the oversight.
LEDDA v BPI
RE:DOCTRINE of ELECTION of REMEDIES G.R. No. 200868 : November 21, 2012
FACTS:
As a technical rule of procedure, the purpose of the doctrine of election of As one of BPIs valued clients, Anita Ledda (Ledda) was issued a pre-
remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent double approved BPI credit card. Thereafter, Ledda used the credit card for various
purchases of goods and services and cash advances. Ledda defaulted in the
redress for a single wrong. x x
It is regarded as an application
payment of her credit card obligation. Consequently, BPI sent her demand
of the law of estoppel, upon the theory that a party cannot, in the assertion of letters but to no avail. Thus, BPI filed an action for collection of sum of
his right occupy inconsistent positions which form the basis of his respective money against Ledda. The RTC gave due course to BPIs complaint and
remedies. However, when a certain state of facts under the law entitles a ordered Ledda to pay her obligation.
party to alternative remedies, both founded upon the Identical state of facts,
these remedies are not considered inconsistent remedies. In such case, the On appeal to the CA, Ledda argued that the document containing the Terms
and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is an actionable
invocation of one remedy is not an election which will bar the other, unless
document contemplated in Sec.7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the
the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage of final document should have been set forth in and attached in BPIs complaint.
adjudication or unless by the invocation of the remedy first sought to be Ledda also averred that since there was no written agreement to pay a
enforced, the plaintiff shall have gained an advantage thereby or caused higher interest, the interest rate to be imposed is only 6% pursuant to Article
detriment or change of situation to the other. 9 It must be pointed out that 2209 of the Civil Code. The CA rejected Leddas arguments.
ordinarily, election of remedies is not made until the judicial proceedings has
gone to judgment on the merits. ISSUE:
WoN the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use
of credit card is an actionable document - NO
Consonant with these rulings, this Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes,
opined that while some American authorities hold that the mere initiation of HELD:
proceedings constitutes a binding choice of remedies that precludes pursuit NO.
of alternative courses, the better rule is that no binding election occurs REMEDIAL LAW: actionable document
before a decision on the merits is had or a detriment to the other party BPIs cause of action is primarily based on Leddas (1) acceptance of the BPI
supervenes. 31 This is because the principle of election of remedies is credit card, (2) usage of the BPI credit card to purchase goods, avail
services and secure cash advances, and (3) non-payment of the amount due
discordant with the modern procedural concepts embodied in the Code of
for such credit card transactions, despite demands. In other words, BPIs
Civil Procedure which Permits a party to seek inconsistent remedies in his cause of action is not based only on the document containing the Terms and
claim for relief without being required to elect between them at the pleading Conditions accompanying the issuance of the BPI credit card in favor of
stage of the litigation. 32 Ledda. Therefore, the document containing the Terms and Conditions
governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable document
contemplated in Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.As
It should be noted that the remedies pursued in the California case and in
such, it is not required by the Rules to be set forth in and attached to the
Civil Case No. 26899 are not exactly repugnant or inconsistent with each complaint.
other. If ever, they are merely alternative in view of the inclusion of parties in
the latter case who are not named defendants in the former. The causes of CIVIL LAW: interest; forbearance of money
action, although they all stem from the erroneous transmittal of dollars, are
distinct as shown by the complaints lengthily set out above. The bar of an Since there is no dispute that Ledda received, accepted and used the BPI
election of remedies does not apply to the assertion of distinct causes of credit card issued to her and that she defaulted in the payment of the total
amount arising from the use of such credit card,Ledda is liable to pay BPI
action against different persons arising out of independent transactions.
P322,138.58 representing the principal amount of her unpaid credit card
obligation. Ledda must also pay interest on the total unpaid credit card
As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, the doctrine of election of remedies amount at the rate of 12% per annum since her credit card obligation
is not favored in the United States for being harsh. Its application with regard consists of a loan or forbearance of money. We reject Leddas contention
that, since there was no written agreement to pay a higher interest rate, the new complaint. It would best serve the interests of justice if the so-called
interest rate should only be 6%. Ledda erroneously invokes Article 2209 of Supplemental Complaint is simply considered as embodying amendments to
the Civil Code. Article 2209 refers to indemnity for damages and not interest the original complaint.
on loan or forbearance of money, which is the case here.
CAs decision is reversed, Remanded to RTC to admit Supplemental
In accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the 12% legal interest shall Complaint and to treat it as an amendment to the original complaint or to
be reckoned from the date BPI extrajudicially demands from Ledda the require petitioner to file an amended complaint, merging the relevant
payment of her overdue credit card obligation. allegations of its original complaint and "Supplemental Complaint," and
thereafter to allow private respondent to file an answer.
RULE 10
VERSOZA V CA (299 SCRA 100)
SUPERCLEAN SERVICES CORPORATION v CA and HDMF
Facts:
Fe Uson is the owner of a parcel of land in Sual, Pangasinan. She
G.R. No. 107824 July 5, 1996 mortgaged the land to Wilfredo Versoza. For failing to pay her obligation,
Versoza foreclosed the property. The Provincial Sheriff set the foreclosure
sale.
To prevent from proceeding with the foreclosure sale, Uson filed for
FACTS: Superclean Services Corporation (SUPERCLEAN) alleged that at annulment of mortgage with a prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
the public bidding for janitorial services for the year 1990 it was the "lowest injunction. The complaint of Uson was dismissed on the ground that it was ot
or best bidder," but Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), refused personally verified by Uson. The court granted Usons Motion for
without just cause to award the contract to it and instead caused the Reconsideration and filed an amended complaint with the required
publication on October 23, 1989 of a Notice of Rebidding. Superclean filed verification.
with the RTC of Manila a complaint for Mandamus / Certiorari with
Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order against the HDMF. In the meantime, Versoza asked the Sheriff to proceed with the foreclosure.
Uson requested that the sale be deferred since there was a pending action
The HDMF defended its action on the ground that not a single bid submitted (annulment of mortgage) in court. However, the sale continued and the
complied with the terms and conditions agreed upon in the pre-bidding property was sold to Versoza.
conference. The RTC ordered the HDMF to desist from rebidding and hire
janitorial services for month-to-month basis. Superclean moved for the After the redemption period, Sheriff issued the Sheriffs Final Deed of Sale.
admission of Supplemental Complaint because contract of services was for The lot is now under Versozas name. Sometime after, Versoza sold the lot to
the furnishing of janitorial service for the previous year 1990, the delay in the Pilar Martinez.
decision of the case had rendered the case moot and academic "without
petitioner obtaining complete relief to redress the wrong committed against it Uson filed an application for preliminary injunction in her 2nd amended
by respondent, which relief consists in unrealized profits, exemplary complaint impleading Martinez and the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan as
damages and attorney's fees." Thus, instead of pursuing its prayer for a writ defendants to the case.
of mandamus, petitioner sought the payment of damages to it. The trial court
finds no merit and no basis on the motion. On appeal, CA affirms the Trial Court granted the injunction and ordered Martinez to cease and desist
decision on the RTC. from performing acts of ownership over the lot.
ISSUES: Versoza and Martinez now claims that the status quo to be preserved refers
1. WoN Supplemental Complaint is admissible; to the point before the filing of the 2 nd complaint and before Martinez
2. Whether or not petition for Mandamus is rendered moot and academic. acquired the property. They also contend that consummated acts can no
longer be restrained by injunction. The judge of the case clarified that the
HELD: status quo being maintained in this case is the possession of Uson of the
The transaction, occurrence or event happening since the filing of the land and does not refer to Martinez being the registered owner of the lot.
pleading, which is sought to be supplemented, must be pleaded in aid of a
party's right or defense as the case may be. The supervening event is not Issue:
invoked for that purpose but to justify the new relief sought. What was 1. WoN CA erred in not taking into account or dealing squarely with the
alleged in the motion as a supervening event causing damage to petitioner nature, effects and proper interpretation and/or application of the doctrine on
was the fact that the year for which the contract should have been made had amendment of pleadings/complaints to the instant case
passed without the resolution of the case. Only incidentally was it claimed 2. WoN Uson is entitled to an injunctive writ
that because of the award of a contract for janitorial services, on a month-to- 3. What is the status quo ante that the writ seeks to preserve?
month basis to a third party, petitioner failed to realize profits. The 4. WoN consummated acts can be restrained by injunction in this case
supervening event cited was not to reinforce or aid the original demand,
which was for the execution of a contract in petitioner's favor, because Held:
petitioner's demand could no longer be enforced, thus justifying petitioner in
changing the relief sought to one for recovery of damages. Petitioner's 1. NO.
remedy was not to supplement, but rather to amend its complaint.
Petitioners contend that the controversy started only when the
Amended Complaint was filed, because the previous Complaints were
It is true that a supplemental or an amended pleading presupposes the
expunged from the records. Petitioners invoke Ruymann v. Director of
existence of a pleading. What was rendered moot and academic, however,
Lands, in which the Court ruled that the filing of an amended pleading does
was not petitioner's cause of action but only its prayer for the writ
not retroact to the date of the filing of the original. Citing other jurisprudence,
of mandamus. There was still an alternative remedy left to petitioner of
such as Waje v. Court of Appeals and Paradise v. Ng, petitioners contend
seeking damages in lieu of an award of the contract. The basic allegations of
that the original pleading is deemed abandoned when it is amended.
fact in the original and in the amended complaints are the same, that
respondent, without justification, refused to award the contract of services to The cited cases offer scant support to the thesis of petitioners.
petitioner. Through no fault of petitioner, the year for which janitorial services In Ruymann, the Court held that an amendment to a complaint which
were to be rendered expired without the resolution of petitioner's case. It introduces a new or different cause of action, making a new or different
would be to exalt technicality over substance to require that petitioner file a demand, is equivalent to a fresh suit upon a new cause of action, and the
statute of limitations continues to run until the amendment is filed. In the said implead Martinez, who had purchased the contested property from
case, a complaint for injunction was amended to include a larger tract of land Verzosa.
which had not been included in the original suit. The Court held that the suit
will be deemed to have been commenced upon the date of amendment, in In the same vein, Waje and Paradise do not apply because the
determining whether the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession Amended Complaints therein alleged new causes of action.
to the portion of the tract of land not included in the original complaint Similarly unavailing is petitioners contention that the injunctive writ
(Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Oregon 244). It is clear therein that the was applied retroactively and, hence, violative of Ruymann and other
Complaint was amended to include a new or different cause of action or subsequent cases. To repeat, Ruymann was wrongly applied by
demand; hence, it was as if a new complaint was filed. petitioners. There being no new issues introduced in the Amended Complaint
It follows that when the amended complaint does not introduce new herein, the present suit is deemed to have commenced on the date of the
issues, causes of action, or demands, the suit is deemed to have filing of the original Complaint. Hence, the CA was correct in upholding the
commenced on the date the original complaint was filed, not on the date of trial court that the status quo was the situation of the parties at the time of the
the filing of the amended complaint. In other words, for demands already filing of the original Complaint.
included in the original complaint, the suit is deemed to have commenced
upon the filing of such original complaint. In short, for purposes of 2. YES. The requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ are:
determining the commencement of a suit, the original complaint is The invasion of the right is material and substantial;
deemed abandoned and superseded by the amended complaint only if The right of complainant is clear and unmistakable;
the amended complaint introduces a new or different cause of action or There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious
demand. damage.
Hence, it has been held that an amendment which merely
supplements and amplifies the facts originally alleged relates back to the The requisites are all present in the case. Uson had title to and possession
date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of of the property. She also claimed to have paid her obligation except for a
limitations, the period of which expires after service of the original complaint nominal unpaid balance which she agrees to consign judicially. Hence, she
but before service of amendment. It is the actual filing in court that controls has a clear and unmistakable right to protect her title and possession of the
and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading. The mortgaged property by enjoining the foreclosure sale.
Court in Republic v. Marsman elucidated:
3. Status quo maintained is from Usons possession of the land. As
defined, status quo is the last peaceful uncontested situation which precedes
While in the procedural sense, especially in relation to the possible necessity a controversy. Its preservation is the function of the injunctive suit. When the
of and time for the filing of responsive and other corresponding pleadings, an amended complaint does not introduce new issues or causes of action, the
amended complaint is deemed filed only as of the date of its admission, xxx , suit is deemed to commence on the date when the original complaint was
the self-evident proposition [is] that for practical reasons and to avoid the filed.
complications that may arise from undue delays in the admission thereof,
such an amended complaint must be considered as filed, for the purpose of 4. YES. While the general rule is that injunction will not issue to restrain
such a substantive matter as prescription, on the date it is actually filed with the performance of an act already done, there is an exception where the
the court, regardless of when it is ultimately formally admitted by the acts performed after an injunction suit is brought, a defendant may not as a
court. After all, the only purpose of requiring leave of and formal admission matter of right proceed to perform the acts sought to restrained and then be
by the court of an amended pleading after issues have already been joined heard to assert in a suit that the injunction will not lie because he has already
as to the original ones is to prevent the injection of other issues which ought performed the acts before the final hearing.
either to be considered as barred already or made the subject of another
proceeding, if they are not anyway indispensable for the resolution of the The court said that, a court should not (by means of preliminary injunction)
original ones and no unnecessary multiplicity of suits would result; so, when transfer the property from the possession of a party to another where legal
the court ultimately admits the amendment, the legal effect, for substantive title is in dispute and the party having possession of the property asserts its
purposes, of such admission retroacts as a rule to the date of its actual filing. ownership. One who does the act sought to be restrained, does so at his
own peril.
In the instant case, the Amended Complaint did not introduce a
new or different cause of action or demand. The original Complaint was In the case, when Uson filed the complaint, she had title to and was
amended only to rectify the lack of verification and thereafter to asserting ownership of the lot. An action was brought to enjoin Versoza from
proceeding with the sale but he continued it. In doing so, Versoza was acting
at his own peril.