Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court, on motion, directs
the transferee to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party; however, if
transfer is made before commencement of the action, the transferee must necessarily be the
party, since only he is the real party in interest.
Negative pregnant a denial which at the same time involves an admission of the substantial
facts in the pleading responded to.
5. Allegations not specifically denied, other than those as to amount of unliquidated damages deemed
admitted.
1. Answer to complaint 15 days from service, unless different period fixed by the courts;
2. Answer of defendant foreign private juridical entity when service of summons is made on the
government official designated by law, answer to be filed within 30 days from receipt of summons
by such entity.
3. Answer to amended complaint if amended as a matter of right, 15 days from being served with
copy thereof
If amended not as a matter of right, 10 days from notice of order admitting the same
Answer earlier filed may be answer to amended complaint, if no new answer is filed
Applicable to amended counterclaim, cross, third, etc,
4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim within 10 days from service.
5. Answer to 3rd party complaint 15 days from service
6. Reply may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to
RULE 14 SUMMONS
1. Contents of summons
a. Signed by the clerk under the seal of the court
b. Name of the court and that parties to the action
c. Direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these rules
d. Notice that unless defendant so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by default
2. Kinds of service of summons:
a. PERSONAL:
8
d. Not published for nor devoted to the interest of a particular group of persons
e. Must have been regularly published for at least 2 years before the date of the publication in
question.
Mere filing of an answer per se should not be automatically treated as a voluntary appearance
by the defendant for the purpose of sumons. It should be noted that when the appearance of
the defendant is precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, it cannot be
considered as an appearance in court.
RULE 15 MOTIONS
1. All motions must be in writing except:
a. Those made in open court; OR
b. Those made in the course of a hearing or trial.
2. Exceptions to the three-day notice rule:
a. Ex parte motion
b. Urgent motion
c. When court sets hearing on shorter notice for good cause
d. Motion for summary judgment (must be served at least 10 days before the hearing)
A prudent judge would, in the absence of the opposing party in the hearing of a motion,
inquire from the other party or inquire from the records the proof of the service of notice
rather than proceed with the hearing. He should not rely on a partys undertaking to notify the
adverse party of a scheduled hearing. The judge must demand what the rule requires, i.e.,
proof of such notice on the adverse party. Otherwise, a contentious motion should be
considered a mere scrap of paper which should not have even been received for filing.
Subsequent service of the motion on the adverse party may be considered substantial
compliance with the Rule 15, 6. Failure to attach to the motion proof of service thereof to
the adverse party is not fatal when the adverse party had actually received a copy of the
motion and was in fact present in court when the motion was heard.
RULE 18 PRE-TRIAL
1. What to consider in pre-trial (with notice to counsel or party without counsel)
a. Possibility of amicable settlement or arbitration
b. Simplification of the issues
c. Amendments to the pleadings
d. Stipulations or admissions of facts and documents
e. Limitation of number of witnesses
f. Preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner
g. Propriety of judgment on the pleadings, summary judgments, or dismissal of action
h. Other matters for the prompt disposition of the action
2. It is the duty of the plaintiff to move ex parte for the setting of the case for pre-trial. However, if
plaintiff answers the defendants counterclaim, it will be the latters duty to set the pre-trial.
3. Failure of plaintiff to appear shall be cause for dismissal of the action. Non-appearance of
defendant is cause to allow plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment
on basis thereof.
4. Non-appearance of party excused only if:
a. A valid cause is shown therefor OR
b. If representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations
or admissions of facts and of documents,
5. Must file pre-trial brief so as to ensure that other party receives it at least 3 days before pre-trial.
Failure to file brief has same effects as failure to appear at pre-trial.
6. Proceedings recorded, and court shall issue an order reciting in detail matters taken up.
RULE 19 INTERVENTION
1. Grounds for intervention
a. Legal interest in the matter in litigation
b. Interest in the success of either or both parties or interest against both
c. Party is so situated as to be adversely affected by the distribution of the court
d. Disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
2. Motion may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment.
3. Answer to complaint-in-intervention must be filed within 15 days from notice of court admitting
the complaint.
4. Motion for intervention will be granted if it will not unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of
rights or original parties and if the intervenors rights may be fully protected in separate
proceedings.
5. Complaint in intervention is merely collateral to the principal action. Hence, it will be dismissed if
main action is dismissed.
6. A complaint in intervention that seeks affirmative relief prevents a plaintiff from taking a
voluntary dismissal of the main action. Such a case is not subject to dismissal upon intervenors
petition showing him to be entitled to affirmative relief. The petition will be preserved and heard
regardless of the disposition of the main action.
1. Calendar of cases to be kept by clerk of court for cases set for pre-trial, trial, those whose trials
adjourned or postponed and those with motions set for hearings.
2. Preference given to habeas corpus, election cases, special civil actions and those so required by
law.
RULE 21 SUBPOENA
1. Subpoena issued by:
a. The court before whom witness is required to attend;
b. The court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
c. The officer or body authorized by law to do so in connection with its investigations;
d. Any Justice of the SC or CA in any case or investigation pending within the Phils
2. No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment and who is confined in any
penal institution shall be brought outside said institution for appearance or attendance in any court
unless authorized by the SC.
3. Grounds for quashing subpoena duces tecum
a. It is unreasonable or oppressive
b. The articles sought to be produced do not appear to be relevant
c. Person asking for subpoena does not advance cost of production
4. Ground for quashing subpoena ad testificandum
a. The witness is not bound thereby if witness resides more than 100 km from the place where
he is to travel by the ordinary course of travel, or if he is a detention prisoner and no
permission is obtained from the court in which his case is pending
This is known as the viatory right of the witness; NOTE, however, that the right is
available only in CIVIL cases
b. Witness fees and kilometrage allowed by rules not tendered when subpoena served.
5. Service of subpoena made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons.
6. Person present in court before a judicial officer may be required to testify as if he were in
attendance upon a subpoena.
7. Failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a subpoena served upon him shall be
deemed a contempt of the court from which subpoena issued.
DEPOSITIONS AFFIDAVITS
Written testimony of witness in course of judicial Mere sworn written statements
proceedings, in advance of trial and hearing
Opportunity for cross-examination No cross-examination
Can be competent testimonial evidence Little probative value (hearsay)
5. Use of depositions
Any part or all of a deposition which is admissible in evidence may be used against any party
who was present or represented during the taking of the deposition or who had notice thereof
as follows:
DEPOSITION OF MAY BE USED BY PURPOSE
A witness Any party To contradict or impeach the deponents
testimony as a witness
Any party, or anyone who at the An adverse party For any purpose
time of taking the deposition was
an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private
corporation
Of any witness, whether a party Any party For any purpose, IF court finds that:
or not a. Witness is dead;
b. Witness resides at a distance more than
100 km from place of trial, UNLESS
absence procured by party offering the
deposition
c. Witness is unable to testify because of
age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment;
d. Party offering the deposition has been
unable to procure the attendance of the
witness by subpoena; OR
e. Other exceptional circumstances make
it desirable to allow deposition to be
used.
c.The facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring
to perpetuate it;
d. The names or description of the persons he expects will be the adverse parties and their
addresses so far as known;
e. The name and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony
which he expects to elicit from each.
2. Use of deposition
If deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule or if not so taken is still
admissible in evidence may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequent
brought in accordance with the provisions of Rule 23.
RULE 30 TRIAL
1. Order of trial
Trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as
follows:
a. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his complaint;
b. The defendant shall adduce evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, and
third-party complaint;
c. The 3rd-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-
claim, and 4th party complaint;
d. The 4th party and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the material facts pleaded by them;
17
e. The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been pleaded, shall adduce
evidence in support of their defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
f. The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good
reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original
case; and
g. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless the
court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further
pleadings.
2. Judge should personally receive evidence EXCEPT that in default or ex parte hearings and in any
case where the parties so agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its
clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The clerk shall have no power to rule on objections to
any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court upon
submission of his report and the transcripts within 10 days from the termination of the hearing.
2. Based not only on pleadings but also on affidavits, deposition, and admissions of the parties
showing that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue.
3. Motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time specified for the hearing.
4. May be asked for by a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief.
5. Although Rule does not specifically provide, also unavailable in actions for annulment of and
declaration of nullity of marriage, and for legal separation since Sec. 1 refers to actions to recover
upon a claim, or to recover a debt or a liquidated demand for money, or to obtain declaratory
relief.
6. Judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment distinguished:
Judgment on the pleadings Summary judgment
Proper when there is no genuine issue between the Proper even if there is an issue as to the damages
parties recoverable
Based exclusively on the pleadings without Based not only on pleadings but also on affidavits,
introduction of evidence depositions and admissions of the parties
Available in any action, except the 3 exceptions Proper only in actions to recover a debt, or for a
liquidated sum of money, or for declaratory relief
Motions for summary judgment may be filed by the claimant or by the defending party. The
defending party may file such motion, pursuant to Rule 35, 2at any time, as distinguished from 1
where the claimant may file the motion at any time after the answer is filed.
4. Motion for new trial shall be in writing, and supported by affidavits of merit if the ground is
FAME; for newly-discovered evidence, it must be supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom
such evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents to be introduced.
Motion for reconsideration shall specifically point out the findings or conclusions of the
judgment which are unsupported by evidence or contrary to law, with express reference to the
testimonial or documentary evidence or the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such
findings.
5. Pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the period for appeal.
6. No second motion for reconsideration allowed. Second motion for new trial must be based on a
ground not existing or available when the first motion was made, which may be filed during the
remainder of the 15-day period.
Execution with respect to consequential and exemplary damages should be postponed until
such time as the merits of the case have been finally determined in the regular appeal, as the
amounts remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution.
3. a. Motion for execution of final and executory judgment should be served on adverse party and set
for hearing;
b. In case of appeal, motion is filed with court of origin supported by certified true copies of
final judgment of appellate court.
c. Appellate court may on motion order court of origin to issue writ of execution (SC Circular
No. 24-94, 4/18/94)
4. Judgments NOT stayed by appeal (immediately executory, unless court provides otherwise)
a. Actions for injunction
b. Receivership
c. Accounting
d. Support
e. Judgments declared immediately executory
5. A final and executory judgment may be executed on motion within 5 years from entry. May be
revived and enforced by action after lapse of 5 years but before 10 years from entry. Revived
judgment may be enforced by motion within 5 years from entry and thereafter by action before
barred by statute of limitations file motion within 10 years from the finality of the revived
judgment.
6. Execution in case of partys death:
a. Death of judgment obligee - application of his executor or administrator or successor-in-
interest
b. Death of judgment obligor -
i. Against his executor, etc. if the judgment be for recovery of real or personal property or
the enforcement of a lien thereon.
ii. If death after execution is actually levied upon his property, it may be sold for satisfaction
of the obligation.
If the judgment obligor dies after the entry but before levy, execution will issue if it be for the
recovery of real or personal property. However, if judgment is for a sum of money, and the
judgment obligor dies before levy, such judgment cannot be enforced by writ of execution but
must be filed as a claim against his estate.
7. Writ of execution:
a. Shall issue in the name of the Republic of the Phils from court which granted the motion
b. State the name of the court, case number and title, dispositive portion of the judgment order
c. Require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ according
to its terms
8. Manner of executing writ:
a. If judgment against property of the judgment obligor out of real or personal property with
interest
b. If against his real or personal property in the hands of the personal representatives, heirs,
devisees, legatees, tenants, or trustees of the judgment obligor out of that property, with
interest
c. If for sale of real or personal property to sell property, describing it and apply the proceeds
in conformity with judgment.
d. If for delivery of possession of property deliver possession of the same to the party entitled
to it, describing it, and to satisfy any costs, damages, rents, or profits covered by the judgment
out of the personal property of the person against whom it was rendered, and out of real
property if sufficient personal property cannot be found.
e. In all cases, writ of execution shall specifically state the amount of the interest, costs,
damages, rents, or profits due as of date of issuance of writ, aside from principal obligation.
21
Judgment obligor is given option to choose which property may be levied on sufficient to
satisfy the judgment.
9. Property exempt from execution
a. Family home as provided by law, homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in
connection therewith;
b. Tools and implements used in trade, employment, or livelihood;
c. 3 horses, cows, or carabaos or other beasts of burden used in his ordinary occupation;
d. Necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry;
e. Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping not exceeding P3,000;
f. Professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians, etc. not exceeding
P300,000;
g. One fishing boat and accessories not more than P100,000 owned by a fisherman and by which
he earns his living;
h. Salaries, wages, or earnings for personal services within the 4 months preceding the levy
which are necessary for the support of the family;
i. Lettered gravestones;
j. Money, benefits, annuities accruing or in any manner growing out of any life insurance;
k. Right to receive legal support or any pension or gratuity from the government;
l. Properties especially exempted by law.
Exemption does not apply if execution upon a judgment for its purchase price or for
foreclosure of mortgage.
Right of Exemption is a personal right granted to the judgment creditor. The sheriff may thus
not claim it.
10. Third party claims:
a. Purpose of bond filed by judgment obligee or plaintiff is to indemnify third-party claimant,
not the sheriff or officer;
b. Amount of bond not less than value of property levied on;
c. Sheriff not liable for damages if bond is filed;
d. Judgment obligee or plaintiff may claim damages against third-party claimant in the same or a
separate action.
e. 3rd Party claimant may vindicate his claim to property levied in a separate action because
intervention is no longer allowed since judgment already executory; in preliminary attachment
and replevin, 3rd party claimant may vindicate his claim to the property by intervention since
the action is still pending.
11. Who may redeem real property sold:
a. Judgment obligor or his successor in interest in the whole or any part of the property;
b. Creditor having lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment, or mortgage on the property sold
subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold. (Redeeming creditor is termed a
redemptioner).
12. Judgment obligor has one year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale to redeem
property sold by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with 1% per month interest plus
any assessments or taxes which he may have paid thereon after purchase with interest on said
amount at 1% per month.
Redemptioners have one year to redeem from the date of registration of the certificate of
sale. They may also redeem beyond one- year period within 60 days after the last redemption, with
2 % interest on the sum to be paid on the last redemption. The judgment obligors right to redeem
within 60 days from last redemption is limited to the one-year period, beyond which he can no
longer redeem.
Purchaser or redemptioner not entitled to receive rents and income of property sold inasmuch
as these belong to the judgment obligor until the expiration of the period of redemption.
13. Effect of judgment or final orders
22
f. Movants were in extreme need of the premises subject of the suit and the bond to answer for
damages in case of reversal on appeal (supersedeas bond) was posted by them;
g. Judgment debtor is in imminent danger of insolvency;
h. Prevailing party is of advanced age and in a precarious state of health and the right in the
judgment is non-transmissible being for support;
i. Prevailing party posts sufficient bond to answer for damages in case of reversal of judgment
But in most cases, the mere filing of a bond is not sufficient justification for discretionary
execution.
21. Order granting writ of execution ONLY appealable when:
a. Order varies terms of the judgment
b. When vague and court renders what is believed to be wrong interpretation.
22. Garnishment act of appropriation by the sheriff if the property involved is money, stocks, or
other incorporeal property in the hands of third persons; merely sets apart such funds but does not
constitute the creditor the owner of the garnished property.
23. Persons disqualified from participating in the execution sale:
a. Officer conducting the execution sale or his deputy;
b. Guardian with respect to the property under his guardianship;
c. Agents, the property entrusted to them, unless with principals consent;
d. Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
e. Public officers and employees, the property of the State or any subdivision thereof, or any
GOCC, the administration of which has been entrusted to them;
f. Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of courts, and other officers and employees
connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions;
g. Lawyers, the property and rights which may be the subject of litigation in which they take part
by virtue of their profession;
h. Others specifically disqualified by law. (e.g. seller of goods who exercise right of resale of
goods).
10. Failure to pay appellate docket fees within the reglamentary period is ground for dismissal of
appeal.
11. General Rule: An ordinary appeal stays the execution of a judgment
Exceptions: a. Decisions of quasi-judicial body appealed to the CA
b. Executions pending appeal
c. Cases covered by Summary Procedure
Fabian vs. Desierto Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under Rule 43.
According to A.M. no. 99-2-02-SC (promulgated February 9, 1999), any appeal by way
of petition for review from a decision, final resolution or order of the Ombudsman, or
special civil action relative to such decision, filed with the SC after March 15, 1999 shall
no longer be referred to the CA, but shall be dismissed.
Prescriptive period for refiling the original action is suspended unless the extrinsic fraud is
attributable to the plaintiff in the original action.
RULE 51 JUDGMENT
1. Memorandum decisions are permitted in the CA.
2. After judgment or final resolution of the CA and dissenting or separate opinions if any, are signed
by the Justices taking part, they shall be delivered for filing to the clerk who shall indicate thereon
the date of promulgation and cause true copies to be served upon parties or counsel.
3. Date when judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as date of entry.
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Provisional remedies (ancillary/auxiliary)
Writs and processes available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a
litigant to preserve and protect rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for the purpose
of ultimately affecting a final judgment in the case.
PROVISIONAL - constituting temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action.
ANCILLIARY - incidents in and dependent on the result of the main action.
5. Application for discharge may only be filed with the court where the action is pending and may be
filed even before enforcement of the writ so long as there has been an order of attachment.
6. When to apply for damages against the attachment bond
a. Before trial;
b. Before appeal perfected;
c. Before judgment becomes executory;
d. In the appellate court for damages pending appeal, before judgment becomes executory.
7. When judgment becomes executory, sureties on counterbond to lift attachment are charged and can be
held liable for the amount of judgment and costs upon notice and summary hearing. There is no need to
first execute judgment against the judgment obligor before proceeding against sureties.
8. Claims for damages cannot be subject of independent action except:
a. When principal case is dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction without giving the
claiming party opportunity to prove claim for damages;
b. When damages sustained by a third person not a party to the action.
Difference with principle in preliminary attachment In attachment, the principle applies only
in the implementation of the writ, while in applications for injunction or TRO, this principle
applies before the raffle and issuance of the writs or TRO.
6. TRO good for only 20 days from service; 60 days for CA; until further orders from SC.
7. TRO can be issued ex parte only if matter of grave urgency and plaintiff will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury. Good for 72 hours from issuance, within which judge must comply with
service of summons, complaint, affidavit and bond, and hold summary hearing to determine
whether TRO should be extended for 20 days. In no case can TRO be longer than 20 days
including 72 hours.
8. No TRO, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction may issue against the
government in cases involving implementation of government infrastructure projects. (Garcia vs.
Burgos, reiterated in Administrative Circular no. 7-99, promulgated June 25,1999)
RULE 59 RECEIVERSHIP
1. When receiver may be appointed:
a.
Party has an interest in the property or fund subject of the action and such is in danger of
being lost, removed, or materially injured;
b. Action by mortgagee for foreclosure of mortgage when the property is in danger of being
wasted or materially injured and that its value is probably insufficient to discharge the
mortgage debt, OR that the parties have stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
c. After judgment, to preserve the property during the pendency of the appeal, or to dispose of it,
or to aid in execution when execution has been returned unsatisfied or the judgment debtor
refuses to apply his property to satisfy judgment, or to carry out the judgment.
d. When appointing one is the most convenient and feasible means to preserve, administer, or
dispose of the property in litigation.
2. When receivership may be denied/lifted
a. Appointment sought is without sufficient cause;
b. Adverse party files sufficient bond for damages;
c. Applicant or receivers bond is insufficient.
3. Both the applicant for the receivership and the receiver appointed must file separate bonds.
4. In claims against the bond, it shall be filed, ascertained and granted under the same procedure as
Section 20, Rule 57, whether is be damages against the applicants bond for the unlawful
appointment of the receiver or for enforcing the liability of the sureties of the receivers bond by
reason of the receivers management (in the latter case, no longer need to file a separate action).
RULE 60 REPLEVIN
1. Replevin
a. Available only where the principal relief sought in the action is the recovery of possession of
personal property;
b. Can be sought only where the defendant is in the actual or constructive possession of the
personal property involved.
c. Extends only to personal property capable of manual delivery;
d. Available to recover personal property even if the same is NOT being concealed, removed, or
disposed of;
e. Cannot be availed of if property is in custodia legis, as where is it under attachment, or was
seized under a search warrant or distrained for tax assessment.
2. Defendant entitled to return of property taken under writ if:
a. He seasonably posts redelivery bond
b. Plaintiffs bond is insufficient or defective
c. Property is not delivered to plaintiff for any reason.
Replevin bond is only intended to indemnify defendant against any loss that he may suffer by
being compelled to surrender the possession of the disputed property pending trial of the
action. Thus, surety not liable for payment of judgment for damages rendered against plaintiff
31
on a counterclaim for punitive damages for fraudulent or wrongful acts committed by the
plaintiffs which are unconnected with the defendants deprivation of possession by the
plaintiff.
RULE 62 INTERPLEADER
1. Interpleader
a. Original action
b. Presupposes that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the action or has an
interest therein which, in whole or part, is not disputed by the other parties to the action;
c. Complaint in interpleader must be answered 15 days from service of summons
RULE 64 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
For petition for review of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC and COA period to file
is 30 days to be counted from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed and not from the receipt of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration; the period to
file petition is merely interrupted by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration and continues to
run again for the remaining period which shall not be less than 5 days from notice of denial.
32
c. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the government;
d. Under the circumstances, a motion for recon would be useless;
e. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
f. Where in a criminal case, relief from order or arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief
by the trial court is improbable;
g. Proceedings in the lower court are null for lack of due process;
h. Proceeding was ex parte or in which petitioner had no opportunity to object;
i. Issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
6. The period for filing any of the 3 actions is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order,
or resolution sought to be reviewed.
In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
(SC Circular 56-2000, effective September 1, 2000)
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in
no case exceeding 15 days. (SC Circular 56-2000)
RULE 67 EXPROPRIATION
1. In expropriation, the complaint must be verified.
2. The defendant can only file an answer instead of a motion to dismiss
3. The final order of expropriation is appealable, but the lower court may determine the just
compensation to be paid.
The power of eminent domain is exercised by the filing of a complaint which shall join as
defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any party of the expropriated
land or interest therein. If a known owner is not joined as defendant, he is entitled to intervene
in the proceedings; or if he is joined but not served with process and the proceeding is already
closed before he came to know of the condemnation, he may maintain an independent suit for
damages.
34
RULE 71 CONTEMPT
1. Criminal contempt
a. Purpose is to vindicate public authority;
b. Conduct directed against the dignity or authority of the court.
2. Civil Contempt
a. Purpose is to protect and enforce civil rights and remedies for the litigants;
b. Failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of a party.
3. Direct Contempt (contempt in facie curiae)
a. Commit in the presence of or so near a court or judge;
b. Punished summarily without hearing;
c. No appeal may be taken but the party adjudged in contempt may avail himself of actions of
certiorari or prohibition which shall stay the execution of the judgment, provided a bond fixed
by the court is filed.
4. Indirect Contempt
a. Not committed in the presence of the court;
b. Punished only after hearing complaint in writing or motion or party or order of court
requiring person to appear and explain, opportunity to appear and show cause.
35
Which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical,
sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse
such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity
and freedom of movement; AND
b. Children
Which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal
proceedings and the corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case
pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.
Decisions and orders of the court shall be appealed in the same manner and subject to the
same conditions as appeals from the ordinary Regional Trial Courts.
JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS AND THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS
A. CIVIL CASES
1. Civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees and costs, does
not exceed P100,000/200,000.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; issue of
ownership resolved only to determine issue of possession.
After lapse of 1 year, MTC loses jurisdiction, and case becomes one for recovery of
possession de jure (accion publicicana), although MTC may still have jurisdiction if
value of property does not exceed P20,000/50,000.
3. Actions involving personal property valued at not more than P100,000/200,000.
4. Actions involving title or possession of real property where the assessed value doe not exceed
P20,000/50,000.
5. Inclusion/exclusion of voters.
B. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
2. All offenses punishable with not more than 6 years imprisonment, irrespective of fine, or a
fine of not more than P6,000, regardless of civil liabilities and accessory penalties.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
I. CASES APPLICABLE
A. CIVIL CASES
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of amount of damages or
unpaid rentals; without question of ownership; attorneys fees not exceeding P20,000 if
quieting of ownership; resolved to determine question of possession.
2. Other civil cases EXCEPT probate proceedings, where the total amount of the claim does
not exceed P10,000, exclusive of interest and cost.
B. CRIMINAL CASES
1. Violation of traffic laws, rules, regulations
2. Violation of rental laws
3. Violations of city or municipality ordinances
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or a fine of P1000 or
both
5. Damage to property through criminal negligence where the fine does not exceed P10,000.
II. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
38
1. Motion to dismiss or quash EXCEPT for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter or failure to
comply with Katarungang Pambarangay (LGC) requirements
2. Motion for bill of particulars
3. Motions for new trial, reconsideration, re-opening
4. Petition for relief from judgment
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits
6. Memoranda
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by
the court
8. Motion to declare defendant in default
9. Dilatory motion for postponement
10. Reply
11. Third-party complaints
12. Motion for intervention
JURISDICTION OF THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY (UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991)
1. No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon
shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless:
a. There has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or pangkat,
AND
b. That no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon/pangkat secretary
as attested to by lupon chairman or pangkat chairman, or unless such settlement has been
repudiated by the parties thereto
2. Disputes subject to Conciliation Requirement: All disputes between parties actually residing in the
same city or municipality
HOWEVER, the court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
Lupon may, at any time before trial, refer the case to the lupon for amicable settlement.
3. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCILIATION REQUIREMENT (SC Circular 14-93)
a. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
b. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of
his official functions;
c. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate
Lupon;
d. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only
individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
e. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, EXCEPT:
i. Where such barangay units adjoin each other, AND
ii. The parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
39
f. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1)
year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
g. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
h. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or
further continued, specifically the following:
i. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention;
ii. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over
another or a person illegally deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf;
iii. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; AND
iv. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
i. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
j. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sections.
46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
k. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs.
Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and
exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to
certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
l. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be filed directly in court.
4. VENUE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Situation Venue
Parties reside in same barangay That barangay
Parties reside in different barangays Barangay where respondent, or any of the
respondents, actually resides, at the option of the
complainant
Disputes involving real property or interest therein Barangay where property is situated
Disputes arising at the workplace where the Barangay where such workplace or institution is
contending parties are employed, or at the located
institution where such parties are enrolled for study
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay;
otherwise, they are deemed waived. Legal questions confronting the punong barangay which
might arise in resolving such objections are to be submitted to the Secretary of the DOJ, whose
ruling shall be binding.
5. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE:
a. Dismissal upon motion of defendants for failure to state cause of action or prematurity; OR
b. Suspension of proceedings upon petition and referral of case motu proprio to appropriate
barangay authority.
6. PROCEDURE FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT:
a. Complainant pays appropriate filing fees, and shall complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon
chairman of the barangay;
b. Lupon chairman shall make attempts at mediation; if he fails within 15 days from date of first
meeting, he shall set a date for the constitution of a pangkat ng tagapagsundo (3 members;
chosen by the parties from the list of the members of the lupon)
c. Pangkat shall have power to issue summons, and shall hear both parties and their witnesses,
and attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement. It shall arrive at said settlement or resolution
of the dispute within 15 days from the day it convenes.
During the period while the dispute is under mediation, the prescriptive periods for offenses,
and for causes of action shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong
barangay. Said interruption shall not exceed 60 days from said filing.
40
In all proceedings, parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or
representatives, EXCEPT for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-
kin who are not lawyers.
7. Amicable settlement shall have the force and effect of a final judgment upon the expiration of 10
days from its date, unless:
a. It is repudiated, or
Repudiation must be done within 10 days, by filing a sworn statement with the lupon
chairman;
The grounds for repudiation are vitiation of consent by fraud, violence or intimidation;
Such repudiation is a sufficient basis for the issuance of a certification for filing a
complaint with the court.
b. A petition to nullify the settlement is filed in the proper city or municipal court
The above does not apply to cases not within jurisdiction of the lupon but submitted to it.
In this case, the compromise agreed upon by the parties before the lupon/pangkat chair
shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, shall have the force and effect
of a judgment of said court.
8. EXECUTION OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT:
a. Within 6 months from date of settlement: by the lupon.
b. Thereafter, by action in the appropriate city of municipal court
9. CERTIFICATION OF BARANGAY AUTHORITIES (for filing a complaint in court) shall be issued only upon
complying with the following requirements:
a. Issued by lupon secretary and attested by lupon chairman/ punong barangay, that
confrontation took place and conciliation settlement was reached, but subsequently
repudiated.
b. Issued by pangkat secretary and attested by pangkat chairman, that:
i. There was a confrontation but no settlement; OR
ii. There was no personal confrontation without any fault on the part of the complainant.
c. Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party, on the ground of failure of
settlement, where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community,
which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural
community, or where one or more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority
and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable
settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder, to
the Punong Barangay of the place of settlement
If mediation or conciliation proved unsuccessful before punong barangay there having been
no agreement to conciliate, OR respondent failed to appear before punong barangay, Punong
Barangay shall not issue the certification (because now mandatory for him to constitute the
Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.)
iii. Members of the Judiciary, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution (on
impeachment)
iv. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution
v. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher; or
2. Other offenses or felonies, committed by public officials and employees mentioned in #1, in
relation to their office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A.
B. APPELLATE
If none of the principal accused are occupying positions of grade 27 or higher, original jurisdiction
will be with either the MTC or RTC; SB will exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on said
cases.
The procedure prescribed in BP Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme
Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review
to the Court of Appeals shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
C. NOTES:
1. Private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the
proper courts
2. Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action
and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the
same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal
action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to
reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized.
3. Decisions of the Sandiganbayan:
a. Appealable to the SC by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;
b. If SB imposes penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher, the decision shall be appealable to
the SC by Notice of Appeal;
c. If penalty imposed is death, review by the Supreme Court shall be automatic, whether or
not the accused filed an appeal.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF JURISDICTION
1. General vs. Specific/Limited:
General - power to adjudicate all controversies EXCEPT those expressly withheld from the plenary
powers of the court
42
Specific/Limited - restricted to particular cases and subject to such limitations as may be provided
by the governing law
2. Original vs. Appellate
Original power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the
first time
Appellate authority of a court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower
court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review
3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent
Exclusive power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage
Concurrent also known as confluent or coordinate jurisdiction; power conferred upon different
courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same state of
the same case
NOTE:
General Rule: Jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated.
Exceptions:
1. When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for the continued exercise of jurisdiction;
2. Where the law penalizing an act is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to
provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently
waive his constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or
declared void;
6. Once appeal has been perfected.
CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIONS
1. Real, personal and mixed
Real brought for the protection of real rights, land, tenements, or one founded on privity of estate
only
Personal not founded upon the privity of real rights or real property
Mixed brought for protection or recovery of real property and also for an award for damages
sustained
2. In rem, in personam, and quasi in rem
In rem not directed against particular persons but against the thing itself; object is to bar indifferently
all who might be minded to make objection against the right sought to be enforced; hence,
judgment is binding upon the whole world (e.g., land registration; special proceedings)
In personam directed against particular persons on the basis of their personal liability to establish a
claim against them; judgment is binding only upon the parties impleaded and their
successors in interest (e.g., action for breach of contract)
Quasi in rem directed against particular persons, but the purpose of which is to bar and bind not only
said persons but any other person who claims any interest in the property or right
subject of the suit (e.g. action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage)
3. Transitory vs. local
Transitory one the venue of which depends generally upon the residence of the parties, regardless of
where the cause of action arose (e.g., personal actions)
Local one required by the Rules to be instituted in a particular place in the absence of an agreement
to the contrary (e.g., real actions)
KINDS OF PARTIES
1. Real party in interest person having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the
relief demanded.
43
2. Indispensable party a person without whom no final determination can be had of an action.
3. Proper party a person who is not indispensable but should be included if complete relief is to
be accorded as between those already parties.
4. Pro forma party a husband or wife who is required to be joined in suits by or against his spouse
5. Quasi-parties those in whose behalf a class or representative suit is brought; parties not
initially/ formally impleaded as original parties but later bind themselves to
comply with the terms of a judgment or compromise rendered therein.
PLEADINGS
Pleading written allegation of the parties of their respective claims and defenses submitted to the
court for trial and judgment.
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
1. COMPLAINT concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause or causes of
action.
2. ANSWER pleading where an adverse party sets forth negative and affirmative defenses upon which
he relies.
a. Negative Defense specific denial of a fact alleged.
b. Affirmative Defense an allegation of new matter which, though admits the material
allegations of the complaint, nevertheless prevents recovery.
3. COUNTERCLAIM any claim for money or other relief which a party may have against an
opposing party.
a. Compulsory Counterclaim one arising out of or is necessarily connected with the subject
matter of the claim (e.g., recoupment).
b. Permissive Counterclaim does not arise or is not connected with the subject matter of the
claim (e.g., set-off).
4. CROSS CLAIM claim by one party against a co-party arising out of a transaction or occurrence
which is the subject matter of the action or counterclaim.
5. REPLY a pleading that denies or alleges facts in denial of new matters alleged by way of defense
in the answer with the purpose of joining the issues as to such new matters.
6. THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT a claim which a defending party may file against a person not a
party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or
any other relief.
OTHER DEFINITIONS
Specific Denial specific allegation of the fact the truth of which he does not admit and setting forth
the substance of the matter relied upon to support the denial OR allegation of
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of the
averment.
Negative Pregnant a form of denial where only the qualification or modification of the fact alleged is
denied while the fact itself is admitted.
Summons an order directed to a defendant in the name of the court and under its seal directing that
the defendant answer the complaint upon failure of which judgment will be taken.
Motion application for an order not included in the judgment.
Subpoena process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at a hearing or the trial or
to bring with him any book or thing under his control.
Demurrer to Evidence a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution.
Preliminary Attachment an order of the court granted at the commencement of the action or at any
time before entry of judgment to seize the property of the debtor in
advance of final judgment to hold it for the purpose of satisfying the
judgment.
44
Preliminary Injunction an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order
requiring a person to refrain from a particular act.
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction an order requiring the performance of a particular act.
Criminal Complaint sworn written statement charging a person with an offense subscribed by an
offended party, peace officer, or other public officer.
Information an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and
filed with court.
Preliminary Investigation an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.
Arrest taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an
offense.
Bail the security for the release of a person in custody of the law furnished by him or a bondsman
conditioned upon his appearing before any court as required under the condition hereinafter
specified.
Property Bond an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the
amount of bail.
45
DISCLAIMER: This is not authoritative since this There is no inconsistency between the federal
is based solely on the lecture notes, hence the law's goal of removing artificial barriers to equal
frequent WITs (what is this?) NOTE: all WORD employment opportunity between the sexes, and
GAMES are not formal definitions but word for the California statute's effect of equalizing male
word transcriptions of L's mind maps. Hence, and female employees' ability to exercise
these are practical definitions just to juggle your procreative choice w/o jeopardizing their jobs.
memory according to SIr's mental outline
MENKEL. PORTIA IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.
ACLU BRIEF.
Elimination of pregnancy-based RULE 1
distinctions valid re: employment purposes since Purpose of Rules
protectionist laws tend to promote stereotype of
female childbearers and caregivers, and deter
employers from hiring them or putting them in more Alonzo v. Villamor, 16 Phil 315, 321-322
responsible positions; they make women appear as Facts: Defendant members of the Municipal Board
more expensive, less reliable employees. took over certain church & personal properties on the
By making pregnancy comparable to other ground that the buildings were erected on the land
temporary physical conditions, Congress directs owned by the municipality & therefore the
municipality can administer & collect the revenues.
attention away from debilitating stereotypes and
The CFI granted recovery of the properties. One of
focus attention on workers' need for disability the arguments posed by the defendants was that Fr.
leave itself. Benefits should be provided on a Alonso, the parish priest, was not the real party-in-
gender-neutral basis. interest but rather the Bishop of the diocese.
Held: The property in question at the time it was
taken was Church property. It is undoubted that the
46
Bishop is the real party. But by Code of Civil Exhaustion of administrative remedies is to give
Procedure 10, cts. are authorized & directed to a chance for administrative functions to work.
allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding
at any stage of the action, in furtherance of justice. Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)
503 prohibits the reversal of any judgment on
merely formal or technical grounds or for such
Facts: Santos was bumped off his flight back to the
error as has not prejudiced the rights of the
USA despite confirmation. He sued in the Makati
excepting party, The error in CAB is purely
RTC for damages. NWOA filed a MTD for on the
technical. The plaintiff has asserted all throughout
ground of lack of jurisdiction citing the Warsaw
that he is prosecuting the case not for himself but
Convention Art. 28(1) w/c states that the complaint
for the Bishop. Substantially, no one is deceived.
could be instituted only in the territory of one of the
Substitution is not substantial but formal & mere
High Contracting Parties, before: (1) the ct. of the
defect in form cannot possibly prejudice so long as
domicile of the carrier; (2) the ct. of the principal
the substantial is clearly evident.
place of business; (3) the ct. where it has a place of
business thru w/c the contract had been made; & (4)
ALONZO V VILLAMOR. misjoinder/non- the ct. of the place of destination. The suit was not
joinder of parties not ground for dismissal. Must filed in any of these places.
allege lack of cause of action Held: The Warsaw Convention applies to all
Amendment allowed for matters of international transportation cases. A number of
form; therefore, if parties acquiesce during trial, reasons tends to support the characterization of Art.
there may be no need for formal lesson. 28 (1) as a jurisdiction & not a venue provision. First,
Lesson in ALONZO: If rules are clear, apply; if the wording of Art. 32, w/c indicate the places where
the actin for damages must be brought underscores
there is ambiguity, constr5uct so that there is the mandatory nature of Art. 28 (1). Second, this
justice for all characterization is consistent wit one of the objectives
of the Convention w/c is to regulate in a uniform
Jurisdiction manner the condition of international transportation
by air. Third, the Convention does not contain any
BP Blg. 128 provision prescribing rules on jurisdiction other than
RA No. 7691 Art. 28
RA No. 8369 (1) w/c means that the phrase rules of
jurisdiction used in Art. 32 must refer only to Art.
28 (1). In fact, the last sentence of Art. 32
specifically deals w/ the exclusive enumeration in
Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992) Art. 28 (1) as jurisdictions w/c as such cannot be
left to the will of the parties regardless of the time
Facts: Javier filed a case vs. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. when the damage occurred. The Constitutional
in RTC Makati to avail of death benefits when her right on free access to cts. refers to cts. w/
husband drowned off the coast of Spain. JMIs new jurisdiction over the suit. The place of destination
counsel instead of continuing the trial filed a as determined by the contract is the ultimate
Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on the ground that it is destination w/c is San Francisco, not Manila.
the POEA that has jurisdiction. RTC denied. JMI Domicile is where NWOA is incorporated.
failed to appear at the hearing & RTC declared Important is the distinction between the country
them as having waived right to cross-examine. where the principal place of business is located &
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. JMI the country in w/c it has a place of business thru
successfully appealed to CA. Javiers MFR was w/c the particular contract in question was made.
denied.
Held : EO 247 3 (d) provides that the POEA SANTOS V NORTHWEST.
shall have exclusive & original jurisdiction to hear
& decide all claims arising out of an EE-ER Jurisdiction. 2 meanings: a) place of filing and b)
relation or by virtue of any law or contract level of court. Can't be changed, set by law. Venue.
involving Filipino workers for overseas Place of filing. Can be changed by consent of
employment. Javiers contention that JMI is parties subject to pertinent rules.
estopped fr. assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC In the case at bar, the source of law is treaty,
considering that the latter had actively participated not contract. Therefore, jurisdiction set by law.
in the proceedings before said ct. is unavailing Venue prescribed by process or Rules of Court
since JMI had raised the question of jurisdiction in (what does this mean?)
the RTC. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be The difference between jurisdiction and venue.
properly invoked by Javier despite the
participation of JMI at the initial stages of the trial Look at a) consequence and b) source of law
proceedings as the issue of jurisdiction may be
raised at any time & at any stage of the action. Lopez v. NW, 223 SCRA 469
JAVIER V CA. Doctrine of Primary Facts: Lopez was bumped off her flight to New
York by Northwest. She filed a complaint for
Administrative Jurisdiction: file original and breach of contract of carriage w/ damages, alleging
exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal, bad faith on the part of the airline. NW filed MTD
even if possible to lead jurisdiction in both. on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction
47
under the Warsaw Convention. RTC & CA denied: violation of PD 1067 and took control of the
Art. 28 (1) prescribes venue for actions under Arts. water, in effect appropriated water illegally.
17-19 & does not cover carriers bad faith in
absolutely refusing to comply w/ contract of Name game: Jurisdiction is prescribed by law and
carriage; off-loading, & bumping off is not
covered under the Warsaw Convention. Appeal in acquired by court.
the SC failed. After trial on the merits, RTC
directed parties to submit their respective Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA
memoranda for decision 30 days & it expired Feb.
14, 1992. On July, NW filed MTD after SC ruling Facts: The Tijams filed a civil case against the
on Santos vs. NW. RTC granted. Sibonghanoys for recovery of P1,900 + interest. The
Sibonghanoys filed an answer w/ counterclaim, to
w/c the Tijams filed a reply. The CFI Cebu ruled in
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. It is not clear whether
the complaint contains the allegation w/c may fall the Tijams favor. A writ of execution was returned
w/in Art. 28 (1). What is clear is that NW did not unsatisfied so the Tijams filed a motion for execution
object to RTCs order to submit evidence & against the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., w/c was
declare case submitted for decision pursuant to denied due to lack of demand. A demand later made
1987 Consti, Art. 8, Sec. 15, Nos. 1 & 2. TC had was unsatisfied, so the ct., upon motion, issued a writ
90 days fr. Feb. 15 to decide w/c was the only of execution. Appeal w/ the CA failed. MFR filed,
thing left for it to do. BY virtue of the SCs alleging that the CFI had no jurisdiction bec. 1 month
resolution, RTC had prima facie jurisdiction. It before the case was filed, RA 926, or the Judicial
was also not established that the facts in Santos Reorganization Act of 1948, took effect, Sec. 88 of
were substantially the same. Besides, posterior w/c places original & exclusive jurisdiction in
changes in SC doctrines cannot be retroactively inferior cts. over all civil actions where the value of
applied to nullify a prior SC ruling. Jurisdiction the subject matter is P2T. CA set aside decision by
continues until termination. While jurisdiction over certifying the case to the SC, w/c has exclusive
subject matter may be raised at any time, party appellate jurisdiction over all cases in w/c the
may be barred on ground of laches/estoppel. jurisdiction of inferior cts. is at issue.
Bulao v. CA, 218 SCRA 321 (1992)
Held: Although objections to jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, in the CAB, it
Facts: Santiago Belleza sued Honorio Bulao for took almost 15 years before the Surety filed its MTD
damages in MuTC for having built a dam on an (1963), raising lack of jurisdiction for the first time. It
irrigation canal, causing the waterflow to divert to is now barred by laches. From the time it became a
Bellezas land, resulting into crop damage. Bulao quasi-party upon filing of a counter bond in 1948, it
filed a MTD on the ground that RTC had could have raised the objection. Instead, at several
jurisdiction - denied. He then argued that it was the stages of the action, it invoked the jurisdiction of said
National Water Resources Council that had cts. to obtain an affirmative relief. It was only when
jurisdiction - denied. MuTC declared Bulao in the CA ruled adversely that it finally raised the
default & ruled for Belleza. Bulao appealed to the question of jurisdiction. SC frowns upon the
RTC -denied. undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for
decision & then accepting the judgment only if it is
Held: MuTC had jurisdiction. But to resolve this, favorable & attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when
determine first the nature of the action. This can be adverse.
ascertained fr. the ultimate facts averred in the
complaint constituting the COA. Allegations in the TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY. The trial court, after
complaint determine the nature of the action & 15 years, can act motu proprio and dismiss the
consequently the jurisdiction of the cts.. It is clear
fr. a reading of the complaint that it is an action for case for lack of jurisdiction. Estoppel by laches
damages predicated on quasi-delict Although the does not apply to judge.
title of the complaint (Damages) is not
necessarily determinative of the nature of the Abalos v. CA, 30 April 1991
action, it would nevertheless indicate that what
was contemplated was an action for damages. Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession
Allegations of the facts set forth in the complaint of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name.
& not the prayer for relief determine the nature of The squatters, against whom the action was filed,
the action. lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to
the CA on the ground that the RTC erred in not
BULAO V CA. The wonderful thing about the dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the
servient's estate's complaint was the allegation that Katarungang Barangay conciliation procedure. CA
granted.
the dominant estate "maliciously put a dam" and this
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos
phrase placed it within the court's jurisdiction. To
spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as
place the case within the National Water Resources their address. But they were able to change it to
Council (NWRC)'s jurisdiction, allege that dominant Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents
estate set up dam without a permit in objecting. The requirement of conciliation cannot be
enforced since the property is in QC, where the
48
respondents reside, while the Abalos spouses live objecting. The requirement of conciliation cannot
in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents be enforced since the property is in QC, where the
effectively waived their right when they failed to respondents reside, while the Abalos spouses live
object to the correction of the Abalos residence fr. in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents
QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the effectively waived their right when they failed to
merits. The fact that they argued their case & object to the correction of the Abalos residence fr.
adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the
defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of merits. The fact that they argued their case &
the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this
cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable judgment, defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of
take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he
1508 was not made. cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable judgment,
take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD
1508 was not made.
ABALOS V CA. Ruling (acc. to L): Amendment
already happens implicitly when parties acquiesce
Q: Is failure to undergo Katarunggang FLORES V MALLARE-PHILIPPS: Example
Pambaranggay a ground for dismissal for failure where it is possible to allege facts in pleading
to comply with condition precedent? that gives rise to 2 causes of action: misjoinder of
L: Abalos fails to clarify this. Formerly, grounds parties
for MTD in ROC Rule 16 provided "failure to L: lack cause of action a separate case (WIT?)
Strategy: file answer for 1st cause of action; file
state a cause of action". Now clarified by
MTD for 2nd cause of action
Revised ROC Rule 16 (j) which now states
"failure to comply with condition precedent"
CALIMLIM V RAMIREZ. Res judicata: bar by
NOTE: In this class, L is synonymous with A in prior judgment (diff. From estoppel)
Q & A; but more often, he prefers to be Q. All Qs
L: General Rule: Jurisdiction is conferred by law
are Ls unless otherwise indicated
and thus it can be raised at any point in the
Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627 proceedings even on appeal
TIJAM rule: Estoppel by laches occurs when 2
LECTURE ON JURISDICTION requisites concur
a. passage of an unreasonable length of time a.
RA 8369: Changes jurisdiction for cases party sleep on its rights to make other party
Jurisdiction, remedy, relief, cause of action, believe that the former has abandoned his rights
subject matter (what is this?) Therefore, party can't raise question of
Place: Rules prescribing place to file may not jurisdiction if he is guilty of estoppel by laches
CALIMLIM rule: W/N party asked for affirmative
necessarily refer to venue but to jurisdiction as well
relief irrelevant; what matters is whether party was
P20T/P50T -- subject matter led to believe that the other party slept on his
P100T/P200T -- relief rights. A rule on equity.
General Rule: Court can dismiss case for lack of
If allegations not coMplete, vulnerable to MTD jurisdiction motu proprio
Judicial power: sum total of all courts comprising Ortigas & Co. v. CA 106 SCRA
the judiciary power of judicary of make decisions
Facts: Ortigas & Co. sold to Maximo Belmonte a
on actual controversies.
piece of land. Terms: Belmonte would be
Jurisdiction: a particular court exercising power considered a lessee until full payment & in case of
over a specific controversy default he would be ejected as trespasser or
unlawful detainer. Belmonte failed to pay so an
Flores v. Mallare Philipps, 144 SCRA action for unlawful detainer was field in the San
Juan MuTC, where Ortigas prayed that the
Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession residential building constructed by Belmonte be
of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name. forfeited in its favor. Belmonte lost so he appealed
The squatters, against whom the action was filed, to the CFI Rizal by filing an MTD under ROC 40
lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to Sec. 11 w/c, if granted, would in effect dismiss the
the CA on the ground that the RTC erred in not case & render judgment by MuTC invalid for lack
dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the of jurisdiction. It was denied but an appeal to the
Katarungang Barangay conciliation procedure. CA CA set aside the MuTC & CFI rulings. On appeal,
granted. the SC ruled that the issues were purely legal &
should have been brought directly to the SC, but it
proceeded to adjudicate the case anyway as if
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos
brought for the first time.
spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as
their address. But they were able to change it to
Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents
49
Held: MuTC had jurisdiction according to the of docket fees. Reduced damages were still not
ruling in Fuentes & Goter vs. Muoz-Palma. An specified in the prayer. CA ruled that docket
action for unlawful detainer, w/c is a summary fees should be based on the orig. comp.
proceeding to wrest possession fr. one who has no
right thereto, is applicable only when the issue is
that of possession. According to the Judiciary Act Held: A case is deemed filed only upon payment
Sec. 44 (b), the CFI has original jurisdiction in all of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing
civil actions w/c involve title to or possession of in ct.. Thus, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction w/
real property, except actions of forcible entry & the payment of the P410 docket fee. An
detainer over lands or buildings where original amendment of the complaint or similar pleading
jurisdiction is conferred upon city or municipal cts.. will not vest jurisdiction, much less payment of the
This case involves not merely right of possession docket fee, based on the amount averred in the
but also rights of ownership over the improvements amended pleading. The design to avoid payment is
as indicated in the prayer. CFI should have obvious since it misled the docket clerk. All
dismissed the case when its was brought on appeal complaints, petitions, answers, & similar pleadings
bec. it could only have entertained the same if the should specify the amount of damages being
parties did not object to nor raised the question of prayed for not only in the pleading but also in the
jurisdiction. prayer & said damages should be considered in the
assessment of the filing of fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply w/ this requirement
Dy v. CA, 195 SCRA shall not be accepted nor admitted, & shall be
expunged fr. the record.
Facts: Ramon Roxas filed an ejectment suit in the
MeTC Makati vs. Andres & Gloria Dy where he Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA
won. Dys appealed to the RTC, but failed. MeTC
granted immediate execution, so the next day, the
Facts: Sun Insurance filed a complaint in the RTC
Sheriff & some policemen ejected the Dys by
for consignation of a premium fund on a private
throwing their belongings to the street. They filed a
fire insurance policy against Manuel Uy Po Tiong.
motion to quash/recall of the writ of execution on
Manuel filed for a refund of the premium but the
the ground that they had not received a copy of the
amount of damages was not specified in the
RTC decision. MeTC denied. CA appeal failed.
prayer, although it could be inferred in the body.
Thus, only P210 docket fee was paid. SC ordered
Held: There must first be copy of the RTC reassessment of the docket fees. The amended
decision served on the losing party before complaint stated a claim of not less than P10M in
judgment is executed. Refer to ROC 39 Sec. 1, the prayer but a second amendment raised the
Rules on Summary Procedure Sec. 12 & BP 129 amount to P44M+ w/c was admitted in ct.. Sun
Sec. 22. Proof of service of copy of judgment questions this order.
determines whether or not the appeal period has
lapsed. If no appeal was filed after the copy is Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. The
served, then the decision is immediately executory contention that Manchester ruling cannot apply
as a matter of right. A petition for review by CA of retroactively to this case is untenable. Statutes
RTC judgment may be filed only after notice of regulating the procedure of the cts. will be
RTC judgment has been served on the losing party. construed to apply to actions pending &
undetermined at the time of their passage.
If no notice was served, the losing party has no Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense & to
legal remedy against an illegal judgment nor does that extent. It is not simply the filing of the
the CA have the power to prevent the execution of complaint or pleading but the payment of the
an illegal order. However, the Dys cannot have the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial ct. w/
relief prayed for since they failed to appeal after jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
they were served notice. Nothing is more settled action. Where the TC acquires jurisdiction over a
than the rule that in every litigation, the parties claim w/ the filing of the appropriate pleading &
thereto are entitled to due process, & if there is a payment of the prescribed filing fee, but
denial thereof, then the validity of the proceedings subsequently the an award of an amount not
specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same
is open to question. has been left for determination by the ct., the
additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the
Manchester Dev. Co. v. CA, 149 SCRA judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk
of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce
Facts: MDC filed a complaint for damages & said lien & assess the additional fee.
specific performance against City Land to compel
the latter to push through w/ the sale of the land.
Katarungang Pambarangay
The amount of damages was not specified in the
prayer but was alleged in the body of the
complaint. Thus, a docket fee of only P410 was See RA 7160 provisions
paid on the presumption that the amount involved
was not capable of pecuniary estimation, when in Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444
fact it was. MDCs second counsel deleted all
mention of damages. SC ordered the reassessment
50
Facts: This was a case for the recovery of a sum of JURISDICTION (power to hear, try and
money plus damages = P49,400.00. AA MTD was decide cases)
filed bec. of failure to undergo conciliation Conferred by law. Law can only be changed by
proceeding in the brgy. The MTD was opposed on passing through Congress. Party can't amend rules
the ground that the law on KP covers only to those on jurisdiction by agreement or voluntary act
cases falling w/in the exclusive juris. of the MTCs.
Jurisdiction can be raised at any time even on
Held: There is no distinction whatsoever w/ respect
appeal, after termination of case of decision
to the classes of civil dispute that should be
compromised at the brgy level as becomes final and executory, subject to rules on
contradistinguished w/ that of the criminal cases. prescription. Raise issues of jurisdiction via a
MTD (Rule 16) but court can act motu proprio.
Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470 Rule on place not necessarily a rule on venue.
General Rule. All civil actions, regardless of Jurisdiction, once acquired, is never lost.
amount of relief, between parties of the same Exception: DY V CA. Court violates constitution;
baranggay, should undergo Katarunggang ousted from jurisdiction.
Pambaranggay NOTE: judgment still valid, no jurisdiction only
Remedy: a) Don't arrive at a settlement for purposes of issuing writ of execution due to
b) File case v. Lupon to compel them lack of notice to party
to dismiss objectinable Lupon member
(This case need not undergo KP re sec. 408 (b) WORD GAME:
and sec. 406 (a)) (WIT?) Conferment of Jurisdiction: law prescribes
jurisdiction
MANCHESTER rule: full payment of docket fees Acquisition of Jurisdiction: Rule 1 Section 5:
necessary for court to acquire jurisdiction Filing of complaint vests court with jurisdiction
All prayers must be in the complaint, not over res. Summons vests court with jurisdiction
just in the body over the corpus.
Overruled LEGASPI re: NOTE: filing of complaint happens upon full
installment payments no longer allowed payment of docket fees
jurisdiction over the ejectment case. An ejectment L: on those affidavits hinge your entire case so
case (possession de facto) is independent of any pray (Angel of God, hindi motion) that the court
claim of ownership (possession de jure). Under the ask for clarificatory affidavits (motu proprio)
revised Summary Procedure (Nov. 15, 1991) all Extension of time not allowed
types of ejectment cases are now covered by it You figure it out.
regardless of whether or not the issue of ownership
Contents of
of subject property is pleaded by a party. No
hearings are required in this procedure. The Affidavits State facts
adjudication of cases here are done on the basis of Show competence to testify
affidavits & position papers. Show admissibility of witness
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of HELD: SMBs failure to pay the taxes violated the
jurisdiction. Citys right to be paid. Thus, there was a single
cause of action. However, under the ordinance, the
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. - City became entitled to 2 reliefs: payment of taxes
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for & the corresponding surcharges. The act of the
dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action City of filing separate complaints for each of the
may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the two reliefs related to the same single cause of
court, be severed and proceeded with separately. action resulted in the splitting of the cause of
action. Under the rule that a party may not institute
more than 1 suit for a single cause of action, the
Joseph v. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540 ('89) Citys 2nd complaint is barred by res judicata.
FACTS: Joseph was a paying passenger in a cargo Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 ('87)
truck. The cargo truck tried to overtake a tricycle
proceeding in the same direction. At the same time, FACTS: Bayang sued Biong for Quieting of Title
a pick-up truck tried to overtake the cargo truck, w/ damages in 1969, w/c resulted in a ruling in his
thus the cargo truck was forced to veer towards the favor in 1978. In 1978, Bayang sued Biong again
shoulder of the road & rammed a mango tree in the but this time for the income earned fr. the land
process. Joseph sustained a bone fracture in one of while it was still in the latters possession fr. 1970
his legs. Joseph sued the owner of the cargo truck to 1978.
for breach of the contract of carriage & the owner
of the pick-up for quasi-delict for injuries he
sustained. The owner of the pick-up paid Joseph HELD: The subject matter in the 2 cases are
the amount he was claiming thru a settlement essentially the same as the income is only a
agreement. Joseph still wants to maintain the action consequence or accessory of the disputed property.
vs. the truck owner claiming that he still has The claim for income fr. the land is incidental to,
another cause of action vs. the latter, for breach of & should have been raised by Bayang in his earlier
contract of carriage. claim for ownership of the land. As the filing of
the 2 cases constitute splitting of the cause of
action, the 2nd case is barred by the 1st. Also, for
HELD: When there is only one delict or wrong about 7 years, the petitioner made no move at all to
(i.e. one injury), there is only one cause of action amend his complaint to include a claim for the
regardless of the number of rights that may have income supposedly received by private resp.
been violated belonging to one person (violation of during that period. He did not make the proper
contract of carriage & quasi-delict). claim at the proper time & in the proper
The singleness of a cause of action lies in proceeding. Whatever right he might have had is
the singleness of the delict or wrong violating the now deemed waived bec. of his negligence.
rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one
injury resulted fr. several acts, only 1 cause of Enriquez v. Ramos, 7 SCRA 265 ('63)
action arises. In this case, the petitioner sustained a
single injury on his person. That vested in him a FACTS: Enriquez sold to Ramos 11 parcels of
single cause of action, albeit w/ the correlative land for P101,000. Ramos paid 5,000 as down
rights of action vs. the different respondents thru payment.( 2,500-cash, 2,500-check). To secure the
appropriate remedies allowed by law. 96,000 balance, Ramos mortgaged the land to the
The resps. having been found to be vendors. Enriquez filed a complaint vs. Ramos for
solidarily liable to the pet., the full payment made stopping the ;payment of the check. Enriquez filed
by some of the solidary debtors & their subsequent another case for foreclosure of the mortgage due to
release fr. any & all liability to pet. inevitably Ramos failure to comply w/ its conditions.
resulted in the extinguishment & release fr. Ramos now moves to dismiss the 2nd case on
liability of other solidary debtors. grounds that Enriquez split the cause of action.
FACTS. Priv. Resps. filed a complaint in the CFI RELIEF: Specific things asked from court or right
for quieting of title alleging that they are the heirs granted by a specific court due to violation of
of Igaya &, as such, are the rightful owners of the another right
parcels of land. They came to know that petitioners
have caused the preparation of a table-survey plan
of the lots in the name of Cancio (prepared by
Roxas for Cuevas). Petitioners then filed an
Application for Free Patent for the lots, w/c was
granted. Priv. resps. filed an administrative protest
w/ the Bureau of Lands & Register of Deeds,
seeking the recall & cancellation of the free
patents. They then prayed for the issuance of writ
of preliminary injunction to declare null & void the Rule 3
free patents & be declared as the absolute owners. Parties
This was granted upon the posting of a bond.
Meanwhile, a hearing on the protest did not
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and
materialize as the ct. had already issued the writ of
preliminary injunction. Did the ct. actually acquire defendant. - Only natural or juridical persons, or
jurisdiction over the complaint? entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action. The term plaintiff may refer to the
HELD: Resps. have assumed inconsistent claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
positions. After filing an administrative protest w/ claimant, or the third (fourth etc.)-party plaintiff.
the BoL, claiming the lands belong to them, they The term defendant may refer to the original
questioned the jurisdiction w/c they invoked of that defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim,
same agency, claiming that it is the cts. & not the the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-
administrative tribunal that should settle the issue. party defendant.
At this time, both parties had already invoked the
jurisdxn. of BoL, alleging that since the BoL, w/c Section 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in
had jurisdiction over the case, had already issued interest is the party who stands to be benefited or
the free patents, the land had become private. injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
Orderly procedure requires that BoL, on a matter
w/in its competence & expertise, should first entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise
resolve the issues before it. authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
CUEVAS V PINEDA: Petition for Certiorari was party in interest.
dismissed on the ground of non-exhaustion of
Section 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the
administrative remedies, not for lack of cause of
action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
action: was dismissed due to primary
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
administrative jurisdiction = failure to undergo
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the
condition precedent
title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real
L: We are concerned with law, not with justice, party in interest. A representative may be a trustee
which is why we're not called the College of Justice of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these
but the College of Law. Technique lang lahat iyan.
Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the
LECTURE ON ACTIONS benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be
sued without joining the principal except when the
Action : Remedy / contract involves things belonging to the principal.
Process
Cause of Action : Basis to file an Section 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife
shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by
action Rule 2 sec. 2
law.
Prohibition against splitting a single cause of
action: Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A
1. Prevent multiplicity of suits minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may
1. Prevent indirect violation / avoidance of res sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father,
judicata rule mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad
Remedy: Instead, file cause of action and ask for litem.
different reliefs
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All
BAYANG: File supplemental pleading for new
persons in whom or against whom any right to
relief or file amendment to pleading to introduce
relief in respect to or arising out of the same
new facts which arose after filing
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
WORD GAME: exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
REMEDY: Procedure alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
54
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as Section 13. Alternative defendants. - Where the
defendants, in one complaint, where any question plaintiff is uncertain against who of several
of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or
such defendants, may arise in the action; but the all of them as defendants in the alternative,
court may make such orders as may be just to although a right to relief against one may be
prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being inconsistent with a right of relief against the other.
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest. Section 14. Unknown identity or name of
defendant. - Whenever the identity or name of a
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the
parties. - Parties in interest without whom no final unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other
determination can be had of an action shall be designation as the case may require; when his
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. identity or true name is discovered, the pleading
must be amended accordingly.
Section 8. Necessary party. - A necessary party is
one who is not indispensable but who ought to be Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as
joined as a party if complete relief is to be defendant. - When two or more persons not
accorded as to those already parties, or for a organized as an entity with juridical personality
complete determination or settlement of the claim enter into a transaction, they may be sued under
subject of the action. the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be In the answer of such defendant the
pleaded. - Whenever in any pleading in which a names and addresses or persons composing said
claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the entity must all be revealed.
pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall
state why he is omitted. Should the court find the Section 16. Death of party, duty of counsel. -
reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty
The failure to comply with the order for (3) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to
his inclusion, without justifiable cause shall be give the name and address of his legal
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party. representative or representatives. Failure of
The non-inclusion of a necessary party counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground
does not prevent the court from proceeding in the for disciplinary action.
action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be The heirs of the deceased may be allowed
without prejudice to the rights of such necessary to be substituted for the deceased, without
party. requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian
section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of ad litem for the minor heirs.
nay party who should be joined as plaintiff can not The court shall forthwith order said legal
be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the representative or representatives to appear and be
reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. substituted within a period of thirty (30) days
from notice.
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. - If no legal representative is named by the
Neither misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is counsel for the deceased party, or if the one s named
ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be shall fail to appear within the specified period, the
dropped or added by order of the court on motion court may order the opposing party within a specified
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of time, to procure the appointment of an executor or
the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim administrator for the estate of the deceased and the
against a misjoined party may be severed and latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
proceeded with separately. the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may
Section 12. Class suit. - When the subject matter of be recovered as costs.
the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons so numerous that it is Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of public officer. - When a public officer is a party in
them which the court finds to be sufficiently an action in his official capacity and during its
numerous and representative as to fully protect the pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceased to hold
interest of all concerned may sue or defend for the office, the action may be continued and maintained
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the by or against his successor if, within thirty (30)
right to intervene to protect his individual interest. days after the successor takes office or such time
as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily
55
Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of is thus not an indispensable party. PISO is a 2nd
a lot w/c priv. resp. claims to be owned by one mortgagee, whatever the outcome of the litigation
Meimban & his successors-in-interest. The ct. between Reginas & Barfel. A real interest means
ordered the complaint be amended to include all a present substantial interest, as distinguished fr. a
the heirs of the late Meimban in order that there mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
will be a final adjudication of the rights of the subordinate or consequential interest. Complete
parties in the case. Counsel for petners. refused. relief by Reginas vs. Barfel can be had even if
PISO was not impleaded as a party deft in the
Held: The heirs of Meimban are indispensable original case.
parties who should be included in the complaint Also, amendment sought is a substantial
in order that there will be a final adjudication of one. Priv. resp. will have to present additional
the rights of the parties in their case. evidence on PISO. Effect would be to start trial
anew w/ parties recasting theories of the case.
ARANICO: Dismissal not due to failure to
implead a party but due to contumacious refusal to BARFEL: disclosure, not existence of 2nd
mortgage is the issue. The 2nd mortgagee is liable
comply with the order of the court; misjoiner or
to plaintiff in Contract to Purchase. Not a proper
non-joinder is not basis for the dismissal of case
party. Mortgages follow property wherever it goes,
Laperal Dev. Co. v. CA, 223 SCRA 261 ('93) thus, PISO can't become a party since there is no
cause of action against it.
Facts: Counsel sought recovery of atty.s fees fr.
Sunbeams Foods referred to in the complaint as b. Indispensable (Sec. 7) If not impleaded, case
Mr. Laperals Corporation but w/c was not cannot proceed since there can be no final
joined by name as a party-defendant. determination
Held: Sunbeams should have been joined as a Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 ('93)
party-deft. in order that the judgment of the lower
ct. could legally affect it. But even if it was not Facts: Plaintiffs-minors duly represented & joined
impleaded, the ct. could still validly proceed w/ the by their parents instituted this taxpayers class suit
case bec. Sunbeams was not an indispensable party vs. the Secretary of DENR to order the latter to
but only a proper party. A proper party is one w/c cancel of timber license agreements (TLA) & to
ought to be a party if complete relief is to be cease & desist fr. renewing & granting new TLAs.
accorded as between those already parties. A party The suit was filed for themselves & others who are
is indispensable if no final determination can be equally concerned about the preservation of
had of an action unless it is joined either as plff. or natural resources but are so numerous that it is
deft. impracticable to bring them all before the ct.. The
minors also asseverate that they represent their
generation as well as the generations yet unborn.
FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL - Indispensable
LAPERAL DEVT V CA - Proper party. Sunbeam
only a necessary party and therefore not a party to Held: The case is a class suit: the subject matter of
the complaint is of common & general interest not
the compromise agreement. But atty can't collect
just several but to all citizens of the Phils. Parties are
atty's fees since there was a udicial admission as to so numerous that it is impracticable, if not totally
waiver of all claims impossible, to bring them all before the ct.. Plaintiffs
are so numerous & representative enough to insure
Barfel Dev. Co. v. CA, 223 SCRA 268 ('93) full protection of all concerned interests.
Petitioner-minors can, for themselves, for
Facts: Barfel (seller) & Reginas (seller) concluded others of their generation, & for the succeeding
an agreement to buy/sell 2 parcels of land w/c the
former warranted to be free fr. liens & generation, file a class suit. Their personality to
encumbrances except for the BPI mortgage. sue in behalf of succeeding generations can only
Reginas found out later that there was a second be based on the concept of intergenerational
mortgage in favor of PISO Bank. Things went sour responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced &
& Reginas found out that Barfel was selling the healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation
land to other parties. Reginas brought suit. Reginas has a responsibility to preserve the rhythm &
filed an amended complaint impleading PISO as harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced &
additional party. healthful ecology. The minors assertion of their
right to a sound environment constitutes, at the
Held: The reason for the amendment impleading same time, the performance of their obligation to
PISO is to compel the latter to accept payment & ensure the protection of that right for the
release the 2nd mortgage thereby enabling Barfel to generations to come.
deliver to Reginas the titles free fr. all liens &
encumbrances. But, PISO is NOT a party to the OPOSA V FACTORAN. Are unborn children w/
contracts w/c are the subject of the action for capacity to be party to a suit? No, but purposes of
specific performance & damages between Barfel &
Reginas. PISO is not a party to the transactions & this class suit, SC used intergenerational
57
area wherein the real property involved, or a responsive pleading is filed (Sec. 1 Rule 16).
portion thereof, is situated. Otherwise, it may be deemed waived.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall
be commenced and tried in the municipal trial
court of the municipality or city wherein the real LECTURE ON
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. VENUE: Exceptions:
1. non-resident
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other a) where P resides or
actions may be commenced and tried where the a) b) where property or port6ion thereof is situated
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or or found
where the defendant or any of the principal 1. when a specific Rule or Law provides otherwise
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident 1. when parties validly agreed in writing before
defendant where he may be found, at the election filing of action in the exclusive venue thereof
of the plaintiff. L: state in agreement "shall exclusively be" or
"shall only be"; if not phrased this way, can still
Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. - sue elsewhere
If any of the defendants does not reside and ins not
found in the Philippines, and the action affects the Person dies (governed by Rule 87) action
personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of dismissed in cases where decedent is required to
said defendant located in the Philippines, the personally perform his obligation, where his estate
action may be commenced and tried in the court of or his heirs' defense is that the relief cannot be
the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the complied with. If action is for a sum of money, file
property of any portion thereof is situated or found. it as a creditor in the settlement of estate
proceedings
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. - This Rule Pauper litigant: one who has no money or property
shall not apply - sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities is exempted from payment of fees.
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or Counsel for D: contest indigent status of party by
law provides otherwise; or filing a motion to reverse order declaring party as
(b) Where the parties have validly pauper litigant
agreed in writing before the filing of the action on
the exclusive venue thereof. THE CLAIM-ANSWER-COUNTERCLAIM-
REPLY-CROSSCLAIM-LABYRINTH
P files Complaint So D files answer
Diaz v. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 ('93)
D files
Facts: Certain public officers instituted separate counterclaim
criminal & civil complaints arising fr. libel vs. the So P files Answer to counterclaim
publisher & editor of the Mindanao Kris, a P then files Amended Complaint due to
newspaper of general circulation in Cotabato City new matters raised
in the RTC of Marawi City. Diaz claims it should So D
not be in Marawi since the resps. didnt hold
files an amended answer called a reply
office there; nor was the article published there.
A third guy files a CROSSCLAIM against
Held: An offended party who is at the same time a
D
public official can only institute an action arising fr.
libel in 2 venues: the place where he holds office &
So D
the place where the alleged libelous articles were files an answer to the crossclaim
printed & first published. In this case, although it is And
indubitable that venue was improperly laid, unless & he files his own crossclaim against Third
until the deft. objects to the venue in a MTD prior to a While P files his Answer to the 3rd
responsive pleading, the venue cannot truly be said to Party Complaint
have been improperly laid since, for all practical
intents & purposes, the venue through technically
wrong may yet be considered acceptable to the parties THE OGDEN CASE
for whose convenience the rules on venue had been
devised.
The laying of venue is procedural rather
OGDEN-BECTEL
than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction
of the ct. over the person rather than the subject FILIPINO LANDOWNERS
matter. Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction. Cause of action
The rule, therefore, is that objections to improper X breach of contract
venue must be made in a MTD before any
RULE 5
59
right to subscribe shares in the Bank. All in all, the deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so
complaint filed by Mathay contained 6 COAs . much of it as is true and material and shall deny
only the remainder. Where a defendant is without
Held: Bare allegations that one is entitled to knowledge or information sufficient to form a
something is an allegation of a conclusion. Such belief as to the truth of a material averment made
kind of allegation adds nothing to the complaint it in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall
being necessary to plead specifically the facts have the effect of a denial.
upon w/c such conclusion is founded. In CAB, the
pet. did not show their qualifications to being Capacity of parties
stockholders nor their right to subscribe the shares. Rule 8, Sec. 4
Did not show how they acquired the right, the Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be
extent of its exercise & amount of shareholdings sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued
that they are entitled to. in a representative capacity or the legal existence
of an organized association of persons that is
Capacity of parties made a party, must be averred. A prty desiring to
Rule 8, Sec. 4 raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party
Facts showing the capacity of a party to or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a
sue or be sued or the authority of a prty to sue or be representative capacity, shall do so by specific
sued in a representative capacity or the legal denial, which shall include such supporting
existence of an organized association of persons particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's
that is made a party, must be averred. A prty knowledge.
desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by Genuineness of document
specific denial, which shall include such supporting Rule 8, Sec. 8
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's When an action or defense is founded
knowledge. upon a written instrument, copied in or attached t o
the corresponding pleading as provided in the
Actions based upon a document preceding section, the genuineness and due
Rule 8, Sec. 7 execution of the instrument shall be deemed unless
Whenever an action or defense is based the adverse party, under oath specifically denies
upon a written instrument or document, the them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts;
substance of such instrument or document shall be but the requirement of an oath does not apply when
set forth in the pleading and the original or a copy the adverse party does not appear to be party to the
thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an instrument or when compliance with an order for
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set
forth in the pleading. Donato v. CA
Controversy over several shipments of the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the
chemicals aboard the vessel owned by Sweet Lines answer to the amended complaint if no new
which were delivered damaged and lacking in answer is filed.
number to plaintiff PHILAMGEN. Sweet Lines
argued that the action has prescribed since the This Rule shall apply to the answer to
claim for damages were not presented within the an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim,
period stipulated in the bills of lading. amended third (fourth, etc) party complaint, and
PHILAMGEN contended that the bills of lading amended complaint-in-intervention.
were not presented in evidence, therefore, since
the tenor and existence of the stipulations were not Waiver of defenses
established, it was inconceivable how they can Rule 9, Sec. 2
comply therewith. Trial court held in favor of A compulsory counterclaim, or a
PHILAMGEN but CA reversed. cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
Supreme Court held that the action has
already prescribed. Besides, plaintiff's failure to Director of Lands v. CA, 106 SCRA 426 ('81)
specifically deny the existence, genuineness and
due execution of the instruments amounted too an Facts: Resp. filed an application for confirmation
admission. of imperfect title. The Dir. of Lands opposed. The
PHILAMGEN's denial has procedural trial ct. ruled in favor of resp. On appeal, the Dir.
earmarks of a "negative pregnant" which is a denial raised the argument that the award to resp. is
pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts erroneous on ground of res judicata. The lots were
already declared public lots in a cadastral
in the pleading responded to which are not squarely
proceeding, it cannot be awarded to the private
denied. Such defense is in effect an admission of resp.
the averment. Thus, while they objected to the
stipulation in the bills of lading as being contrary to
Held: The failure of the Dir. to raise in the
policy, existence of the bills were nevertheless proceedings before the trial ct. to interpose his
impliedly admitted. objection nor set up the defense of res judicata
constitutes procedural infirmity w/c cannot be
Affirmative cured on appeal. All defenses not interposed in a
Rule 6, Sec. 5(b) motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation waived. It cannot be pleaded for the first time or
of a new matter which, while hypothetically on appeal.
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of
the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include Counterclaims
fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former LECTURE ON CLAIMS AND
recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other COUNTERCLAIMS:
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
L: are all counterclaims that are not compulsory
Periods to plead permissive?
Rule 11, Sec. 1 A: No; permissive counterclaims need not arise
The defendant shall file his answer to the from same transaction or occurrence constituting
complaint within 15 days after service of summons, the subject matter of the opposing party's claim
unless a different period is fixed by the court.
Compulsory counterclaim: need not pay docket
Rule 11, Sec. 2 fees since ancillary to main case
Where the defendant is a foreign private Permissive counterclaim: need to pay docket fees
juridical entity and service of summons is made on since has lfe independent of transaction in main
the government official designated by law to case
receive the same, the answer shall be filed within
30 days after receipt of summons by such entity. Apply Logical Relationship Test: arising out of
same transaction
Rule 11, Sec. 3 If there is duplication of effort and time,
Where the plaintiff files an amended then compulsory counterclaim
complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall
answer the same within 15 days after being served ROC: if counterclaim only for sum of money less
with a copy thereof. juridical limit, within RTC jurisdiction via
compulsory/permissive counterclaim
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the
defendant shall answer the amended complaint Crossclaims always compulsory since arise from
within 10 days from notice of the order admitting same transaction or occurrence that is the subject
63
matter of the complaint. Mandatory to raise it or Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim is also
else barred forever dismissed. There are several requirements of a
GO V CA compulsory counterclaim:
L: Go did not sue Lim since business partners or It arises out or is necessarily. connected w/ the
didn't want to spend more, etc. transaction or occurrence that is the subj. matter of
SC wanted Go to sue Lim, wondered why? the opposing parties claim.
L: see that SC not acquainted with business It does not require the presence of third parties
practices
of whom the ct. cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Test: if P chose to sue only one P, then the The trial ct. has jurisdiction to entertain the
other P can be joined as party same. The test of compulsoriness is : WON the
Lim could have been necessary same evidence to sustain it would refute the
party thus Clover v Go plaintiffs cause of action.
Go can file 3rd party complaint v. In CAB, the compulsory counterclaim
Lim cannot remain pending for independent
adjudication. The CC is auxiliary to the proceeding
L: Do all 3rd party complaints arise from the same in the original suit & merely derives its
transaction or question of law? jurisdictional support fr. the orig. case. If the ct. has
A: No eg. Insurance and torts no or loses jurisdiction over the main case, it has
Test: if 3rd party D can be subrogated for D and D no jurisdxn over the comp. counterclaim. In CAB,
the ct. has lost jurisdxn. over the main case by
can raise same defense (Rule 14) virtue of its dismissal upon motion by the
defendant.
PASCUAL V BAUTISTA
L: SC did not rule on W/N 3rd party complaint
Reyes v. CA, 38 SCRA 138 ('71)
propert since not put in issue. Here, 3rd-party
complaint, since ancillary, then left behind, not Facts: Reyes were lessees of a bldg. owned by
carried with main cause of action on appeal Kalaw. Kalaw sought the ejectment of Reyes.
(Differentiate from REPUBLIC V CENTRAL Reyes filed an action w/ City Court for prel.
SURETY where CA acquired jurisdiction since injunction & Kalaw filed a counterclaim for
Central Surety appealed) Since Flores did not damages. The CA ultimately awarded temperate
appeal, CA did not acquire appellate damages in favor of Kalaw.
jurisdiction over him
Held: The award of temp. damages is in error. the
Defined and in general damages contemplated in a forcible entry &
Rule 6, Sec. 6 detainer cases like the one at bar means rents &
A counterclaim is any claim which a reasonable compensation or for use of the property
defending party may have against an excluding profits w/c might be received. The issue
opposing party. in this kind of suit is merely possession. In CAB,
while the damages arose out of the same
Rule 6, Sec. 7 transaction, these are not CCs bec. they exceed
the jurisdiction of the inferior ct.. The rule on bars
A compulsory counterclaim is one which,
to cc, meaning the counterclaim cannot be set up
being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, in a difference. case if not set up in the main case,
arises out of or is connected with the transaction or applies only when the inferior ct. involved has
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the jurisdiction over the claim.
opposing party's claim and does not require for its The reason for barring cc not set up in
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom an orig. case is to avoid multiplicity of suits & to
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a dispose of the whole matter in controversy in one
counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the action & adjustments of defendants demand by
court both as the amount and the nature thereof, counterclaim.
except that in an original action before the RTC,
the counterclaim may be considered compulsory Maceda v. CA, 176 SCRA 440 ('89)
regardless of the amount.
Facts: Three ejectment cases were filed in the
BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 ('93) MTC vs. Maceda. Maceda set up a counterclaim
amounting to 240,000. The RTC granted Macedas
Facts: Does the dismissal of the complaint for non- counterclaim. The CA denied the grant on appeal.
appearance of plaintiff at pre-trial upon motion of Held: The CA correctly ruled that the MTC did not
the defendant carry w/ it the dismissal of have original jurisdiction over the counterclaim as
compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the plaintiff it exceeds 20,000, correspondingly, the RTC could
did not appear at pre-trial, the defendant moved for
the dismissal of the complaint. The same was not have appellate jurisdiction over the claim.
granted. Now, the defendant moves for an Thus, the award to Maceda is invalid for lack of
adjudication of his compulsory counterclaim. jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the MTC in a civil
action is limited to a demand that does not
64
exceed 20,000 exclusive of interests & costs but a result of a liability established vs. him in an
inclusive of damages of whatever kind. A original suit. TPCs are allowed to minimize the
counterclaim in a municipal or city ct. beyond that number of lawsuits established vs. him to avoid
jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by way the necessity. of two or more lawsuits involving
defense to weaken the plaintiffs claim but not to the same subj. matter.
obtain affirmative relief.
Javier v. IAC, 171 SCRA 605 ('89)
How raised
Included in answer Facts: A case for violation of BP 22 was filed vs.
Rule 6, Sec. 9 resp. Resp. on his part filed a separate civil action
in another ct. for damages alleging that the check
A counterclaim may be asserted against
was issued through fraud & deception practiced
an original counterclaimant. upon him by the pet. the pet. filed a motion to
A cross-claim may also be filed against dismiss the second case on grounds of lack of
an original cross-claimant. jurisdiction & litis pendentia. The same was
denied.
Rule 11, Sec. 8
A compulsory counterclaim or a cross- Held: The lower ct. should dismiss the second
claim that a defending party has at the time he filed case for damages. As the civil action was not
his answer shall be contained therein. reserved by the pet. in the orig. case, it is deemed
impliedly instituted w/ the crim. case in the RTC
After answer in accordance. w/ Rule 111 Sec. 1. It was before
Rule 6, Sec. 9 supra. the RTC where resp. could have explained why he
Rule 11, sec. 9 had issued the check. The civil action filed by
A counterclaim or a cross-claim which resp. based on the same act should be deemed filed
either matured or was acquired by a party after
in the same RTC too. He could have done this by
way of a counterclaim for damages for the alleged
serving his pleading may, with the permission of the deception of the pet. In fact, the counterclaim is
court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim compulsory & could have been also set up as an
by supplemental pleading before judgment. affirmative defense.
The lower ct. in the prior case erred in rule on compulsory counterclaim. Rules of
dismissing the counterclaim for non-payment of Procedure are after all laid down to attain justice &
docket fees. The lesson of Manchester provides that technicalities cannot prevail over substance.
payment of docket fees for purposes of assuming
jurisdiction over the claim is necessary only for
permissive counterclaims & does not apply for
compulsory counterclaims like the one at bar. Oversight, inadvertence, excusable
neglect, et al
Rule 11, Sec. 10, supra.
TEST OF COMPULSORINESS:
Existence of a logical relationship BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 ('93)
between the claim in the complaint & the
counterclaim. Where conducting separate trials of
Facts: Does the dismissal of the complaint for
the respective claims would entail substantial non-appearance of plaintiff at pre-trial upon
duplication of effort & time & involves many of motion of the defendant carry w/ it the dismissal of
the same factual & legal issues. compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the plaintiff
did not appear at pre-trial, the defendant moved for
Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 ('75) the dismissal of the complaint. The same was
granted. Now, the defendant moves for an
Facts: This is the 30++ page case w/c was so adjudication of his compulsory counterclaim.
diligently digested by Miss Secretary Lourie but was
not discussed in class (Ang bitter!). Upon motion of
Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim is also
the plaintiff, 4 of the 6 defendants were declared in
dismissed. There are several requirements of a
default while the case vs. the remaining two were
dismissed upon motion by the plaintiff. compulsory counterclaim:
Held : The respondent judge erred in dismissing It arises out or is necessarily. connected w/ the
the 2 defendants fr. the case. The respondent judge transaction or occurrence that is the subj. matter of
disregarded the existence of a counterclaim w/c the the opposing parties claim.
judge earlier declared to be compulsory in nature. It does not require the presence of third parties
A counterclaim is compulsory nature if it arose out of whom the ct. cannot acquire jurisdiction.
of or is necessarily connected w/ the occurrence The trial ct. has jurisdiction to entertain the
that is the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim. It same. The test of compulsoriness is : WON the
is compulsory not only bec. the same evidence to same evidence to sustain it would refute the
sustain it will also refute the cause of action alleged plaintiffs cause of action.
in plaintiffs complaint but also bec. fr. its very In CAB, the compulsory counterclaim
nature it is obvious that the counterclaim cannot cannot remain pending for independent
remain pending for independent adjudication of the adjudication. The CC is auxiliary to the proceeding
ct.. ( see Rule 17 Sec. 2 ) in the original suit & merely derives its
jurisdictional support fr. the orig. case. If the ct. has
Permissive no or loses jurisdiction over the main case, it has
no jurisdxn over the comp. counterclaim. In CAB,
Remedies the ct. has lost jurisdxn. over the main case by
For failure to raise virtue of its dismissal upon motion by the
Rule 9, Sec. 2, supra. defendant.
Facts: REPACOM sought to collect vs. Visayan. For failure to raise permissive
Visayan instituted an action for declaratory relief counterclaims
alleging that the contract bet. them is ambiguous w/
respect to its failure to define clearly the terms of Answer to counterclaim
payment. REPACOM then filed an ordinary civil
action for collection. Visayan moved to dismiss the
collection suit on the ground of LCOA. In general
Rule 6, Sec. 4, supra.
Held : The separate. collection suit should have
Period to plead
been dismissed & set up as a CC in the declaratory
Rule 11, Sec. 4
relief suit filed by Visayan packing by way of an
An counterclaim or cross-claim must
amended answer. In CAB, the actions proceeded
independently & were decided on the merits. be answered within 10 days from service.
However, under the circ. where the length of time
Reply
the case has been pending, it would be violative to
subs. justice to pronounce the proceedings in the
Defined and in general
collection suit totally defective for breach of the
Rule 6, Sec. 10
66
A reply is a pleading, the office of which claims, the third party is already impleaded in the
is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of main action while in TPC, the def. seeks to
new matters alleged by way of defense in the implead a third party not yet include in the main
answer and thereby join or make issue as to such action. A counterclaim does not depend upon the
new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all main claim but rests on WON the claim is based or
related to the same transaction. A TPC, the relation
the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
must be to the claim, to the COA & not to the
controverted. transaction fr. w/c the claim arises.
If a plaintiff wishes to interpose any
claims arising out of the new matters so Balbastro v. CA, 48 SCRA 232 ('72)
alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an
amended or supplemental complaint. Facts: There are two persons contesting the right
to receive rental payments of Balbastro. the Latter
When required filed an action for interpleader & consignation vs.
Rule 6, sec. 10, supra. the two claimants. One claimant, Fernandez then
Challenge due authenticity of documents filed a third [party complaint vs. Balbastro for
Rule 8, Sec. 8, supra. refusing to pay the rents to him. Balbastro moved
Usury to dismiss the TPC but the RTC & CA denied the
Rule 9, sec. 1 motion.
If with reply, all new matters raised Defined, Rule 13, Sec. 12
in answer deemed controverted Modes of Service
Reply necessary when need to challenge new Generally, Rule 13, Sec. 5, Sec. 11
matters raised by affirmative defense. Can't rely on Personal, Rule 13, Sec. 6
implied setting up of specific denial Registered Mail, Rule 13, Sec. 7
Substituted Service, Rule 13, Sec. 8
Document: res ipsa loquitur: thing speaks for
itself Echaus v. CA
Deny under oath: a) genuineness and due
execution of the document Facts: Spouses Gonzales file action for collection
b) usury charges of debt vs. Echaus. Ct. orders E to pay. E files w/
SC certiorari to set aside decision, denied; then
L: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings mandamus to allow appeal, granted. E files w/ TC
Urgent Motion to Transmit Record on Appeal to
CA. At the hearing, Judge verbally approves the
Joinder of Parties: arises from the same transaction record on appeal in abeyance, until resolution of
or common question of fact or law Gps Motion for Execution of the TC judgment. E
Joinder of Causes of Action: so long as the court asks CA to order Judge to comply w/ SC decision,
has jurisdiction, party can raise all causes of action denied. CA says no willful refusal on part of Judge
between the original P and D to comply w/ order. E goes to SC, says her appeal
P can raise all causes of action against D arising had been perfected when the Judge verbally
from different sources but if court has no J over approved the record on appeal.
the cause of action, can't join cause of action Held: The oral order approving the record on
But if complaint filed with the RTCF for a sum of appeal had no juridical existence; to give it that
money, if the sum is within RTC's jurisdiction, existence it had to be reduced to writing &
then can raise promulgated (filed w/ clerk of ct.). But even if it
had been written & promulgated, even if it had
If you want to bring in a new D, need to find
already been properly served on the parties, it still
commonality in cause of action originally raised, was w/in the power of the Judge to recall it & set
not commonality of parties it aside. For every ct. has the inherent power to
amend its process & orders so as to make them
Counsel for D: Remedies when a complaint is conform to law & justice.
filed: No judgment, or order whether final or
(note: D must wait until court acquires jurisdiction interlocutory, has juridical existence until & unless it
and serves him with summons (service, not is set down in writing, signed & promulgated, i.e.,
summons, if court sends him other pleadings) or delivered by Judge to clerk of ct. for filing, release to
he can voluntarily appear and let the court acquire the parties & implementation & even after this, it
jurisdiction over him does not bind the parties unless & until notice thereof
file bill of particulars; file motion for extension of is duly served on them by any of the modes
time for filing a pleading and file an amended prescribed by law.
pleading / supplemental pleading
Service of Judgments, Final Orders
Final Order/Dismissal or Resolutions, Rule 13, Sec. 9
1. MTD (filed by D) Completeness of Service, Rule 13, Sec.
1. Dismissal of action by notice or motion (filed by 10 Proof of Service, Rule 13, Sec. 12, 13
P) See also SC Circular No. 19-91
1. Default (D not act)
1. Non-sut (P acts maliciously and not do what
is required of him Rule 17 sec. 3 Rule 14
Or P acts passively) Summons
L: the trial is not about justice, it's about what Definition and purpose
you can prove Duty to issue, Rule 14, Sec 1, 5
Form
Content, Rule 14, Sec 2
Rule 13 If with leave of court, Rule 14, Sec.
Service of Pleadings 17 Who serves, Rule 14, Sec 3
On Whom,
Coverage, Rule 13, Secs. 1, 4 In general, Rule 14, Sec 1, 6
Filing Entity without juridical personality,
Defined, Rule 13, Sec. 2 Rule 14, Sec 8
How, Rule 13, Sec. 12 Associations, Rule 14, Sec 9
Proof of Filing, Rule 13, Sec. 12 Domestic, Rule 14, Sec 11
Service
70
Rebolido v. CA, 170 SCRA 800 (1989) Prisoners, Rule 14, Sec 9
Unknown defendant, Rule 14, Sec 14
Facts: Pepsi Cola was served summons, in Residents temporarily out, Rule 14, Sec
connection w/ a case for damages arising fr. 18, 16
vehicle-collision, through Sison who represented
herself as a person authorized to received ct. Venturanza v. CA, 156 SCRA 305 (1987)
process as she was a secretary of the legal dept. of
Pepsi Cola. Later, Pepsi Cola was dissolved, & all
Facts: Venturanza was sued for collection of a
its debts & liabilities were assumed by PEPSICO.
sum of money. Summons for V was served upon
Meanwhile, Pepsi Cola was declared in default in
her father at his residence in Tondo. V was later
the aforementioned case, & writ of execution was
served on PEPSICO. The latter now moves to held in default. V filed Motion to Set Aside
vacate judgment, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Default Judgment on the ground that there was no
ct. as the summons was served on the legal proper service of summons when it was served not
secretary of Pepsi Cola, not PEPSICO. in her residence w/c was in Pasay City.
Held: There was valid service of summons. 1. Held: There was no proper service of summons.
Although Pepsi Cola was already dissolved 1. It is only when defendant cannot be served w/in
when summons was served, the same may be reasonable time that a substituted service may be
served upon the same person upon whom the availed of under Sec. 8 (Pls. see Part VI). The law
process could be served before the dissolution. requires an effort or attempt to personally serve the
defendant, & only after this has failed that a
Therefore, service to any of the persons in R 14 substituted service may be availed of. Why? Bec.
Sec. 13 is allowed. Substituted Service is in derogation of the usual
2. Purpose of Summons: To render it reasonably method of service. It is a method extraordinary in
certain that corporation will receive prompt & character & hence may be used only as prescribed in
proper notice in an action vs. it. the circumstances authorized by statute.
3. Liberal Interpretation of Sec. 13: That there is 2. Substituted service is valid only if served at
Substantial Compliance w/ the requirement of defendants residence, NOT former residence.
Sec. 13 if the purpose for the service of summons Residence means where he is living at the time
is attained, & the person served knew what to do service was made, even though temporarily out
w/ the legal papers served upon him. of the country.
upon other officers of the corporation. However, to Dial through DHL. Dial, w/o submitting itself to
said summons was served upon an employee of courts jurisdiction, filed MTD on the ground that
said corp. Defendants were declared in default. Extraterritorial Service was improper, hence RTC
Defs. filed MTD & Set Aside Default Judgment acquired no jurisdiction.
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the ct. over Held: There was an Improper service of summons.
their person as the service of summons was
improper, i.e., served upon an EE who may not be 1. There are 4 instances when Extraterritorial
considered as an agent of the corporation; service of summons can be properly done:
moreover, Sheriff did not indicate in his Return a) Action affects status of the plaintiff
his efforts at serving summons personally before b) Action relates to, or the subject of w/c is,
resorting to substituted service. property w/in the Phils., in w/c defendant has or
Held: Court lacked jurisdiction. claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent
c) When relief demanded consists in whole or
1. General Rule: Sheriffs Return must show that in part, in excluding the def. fr. any interest in
prior attempts at personal service were made by the the property located in the Phils.
Sheriff & that such attempts had failed, prompting d) Defendant non-residents property has
him to resort to Substituted service. HOWEVER, been attached w/in the Phils.
it must be emphasized that Absence in the Sheriffs 2. The CAB is purely an action for Injunction, not
Return of a statement about the impossibility of any of the 4. This is only an action in personam.
personal service DOES NOT conclusively prove In any of the 4 instances, Court has
that the service is invalid. Proof of such prior jurisdiction over the RES, i.e. personal status or
attempts may be submitted by the plaintiff during property, so jurisdiction over the person is NOT
the hearing of any incident assailing the validity of essential.
the substituted service. While Sheriff Return
carries w/ it the presumption of regularity, that In Personam - an action vs. a person
entries therein are deemed correct, it does not on the basis of his personal liability;
necessarily follow that an act done in relation to the In Rem - action vs. the thing itself
official duty for w/c the return is made was not instead of vs. the person.
simply done bec. it is not disclosed therein. 3. In CAB, Court cannot subject Dial & Co. to
Besides, the sheriffs neglect in making such a processes of RTC w/c are powerless to reach
disclosure should not unduly prejudice the plaintiff them outside the region over w/c they exercise
if what was undisclosed was in fact done. their authority.
2. The EE may be considered as an agent for the Sievert v. CA, 168 SCRA 692 (1988)
purpose of Sec. 13, & there was a substantial Facts: Sievert, a citizen & resident of the Phils.
compliance under the said sec. bec. in the CAB, received by mail a Petition for Issuance of
petitioner failed to deny the statement in Sheriffs Preliminary Attachment w/o previously receiving
Return that the EE is authorized to receive process any summons & copy of the complaint filed vs.
of this nature, said Return enjoying the him. His counsel entered a special appearance for
presumption of regularity, & the logical conclusion a limited purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of
is that she delivered the summons to the the ct..
corporation. Held: RTC has no jurisdiction over Sievert.
1. Rule 57 Sec. 1. -- Writ of Preliminary
3. In an action in personam as in the CAB, Attachment may be applied for by a plaintiff at
personal service of summons w/in the forum is the commencement of the action or at anytime
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the thereafter... However, what should be identified is
person of the defendant who does not voluntarily not the time when the action may be regarded as
submit himself to the authority of the ct.. having commenced, as this is not necessarily fixed
nor identical. The Critical Time to be identified is
Extraterritorial, Rule 14, Sec 15 when the trial ct. acquires authority under the law
to act coercively vs. the defendant or his property
in a proceeding in attachment. Answer: the time
Dial Co. v. Soriano, 161 SCRA 737 (1988)
of the vesting of jurisdiction in the ct. over the
DIAL CO. V. SORIANO person of the defendant in the main case.
Facts: Dial is a foreign corporation organized & 2. NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT: Attachment of
existing under the laws of UK, US & Malaysia. It property may be sought in order to bring RES w/in
has NO agents, officers or office in the Philippines. the jurisdiction of the ct., in substitution, as it were,
Imperial Vegetable Oil, a Phil. corp., entered, of the body of the defendant. Jurisdiction over the
through its President, into several contracts w/ res & the person of the defendant is, in such case,
Dial for the delivery of coco oil by the former to acquired by service of summons by publication,
the latter. Later, IVO repudiated said contracts on though that jurisdiction may be made effective only
the ground that they are mere paper trading in in respect of the res attached.
futures as no actual delivery of coco oil was really RESIDENT DEFENDANT: A ct. w/c has not
intended. IVO also filed complaint for Damages acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
vs. Dial. RTC, upon motion of IVO, authorized the defendant cannot bind that def. whether in the
latter to effect Extraterritorial Service of Summons main case or in an ancillary proceeding such as
72
attachment proceedings. The service of a Petition Held: While it may appear that there is no proof
for Prelim Attachment w/o the prior or that it was impossible to personally serve the
simultaneous service of summons & a copy of the summons, & the statutory norms on service of
complaint in the main case does not confer summons were not strictly complied w/, by the acts
jurisdiction upon the issuing ct. over the person of of the petitioners counsel, such defects are
the defendant. deemed erased. (Counsel filed MFR ) Appearance
of counsel is equivalent to summons unless such is
Citizen's Surety v. Herrera, 38 SCRA 369 (1972) made to protest the jurisdiction of the ct. over the
Facts: Citizens Surety filed complaint for person of the defendant. The MFR filed cannot be
reimbursement of money vs. Dacanay. Since treated as a special appearance as it raised other
Dacanays address was unknown, CS petitioned grounds than the invalid service of summons, i.e.
the Court that summons be made by publication. failure to state COA, no Katarungang
Petition was granted, but still no Dacanay Pambarangay).
appeared. (Kung kayo ba sya lalabas kayo?) CS
asked the ct. that Dacanay be held in Default. Trial Return of service, Rule 14, Sec 4
ct. denied since this is an action in personam, & Proof of service, Rule 14, Sec 18
dismissed the case. Publication, Rule 14, Sec 19
Held: The judge was correct that the Court could Registered mail, Rule 14, Sec 19
not validly acquire jurisdiction on a non-appearing
defendant, absent a personal service of summons NOTES ON SUMMONS:
w/in the forum. Otherwise, there would be a
violation of Due Process. Venturanza - residence means "actual residence"
The proper recourse for the creditor is to
locate properties, real or personal, of the resident What make time reasonable is the efforts exerted
defendant debtor w/ unknown address & cause
by the sheriff in serving the summons personally
them to be attached under R57 Sec. 1(f), in w/c
case, the attachment converts the action into a to the defendants.
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, & the summons
by publication may then accordingly be deemed Remedies in default judgment:
valid & effective. 1. Motion for New Trial
2. Appeal
Consolidated Plywood v. 3. Motion for Relief from Judgment
Breve, 166 SCRA 589 (1988) 4. Motion to Set Aside Judgment
Facts: Consolidated Plywood & Mindanao Hemp
Export are co-owners of real property: land & A judgment rendered without jurisdiction never
building. Consolidated undertook to repair & prescribes, passage of time can never correct the
improve the property, subject to reimbursement fr. judgment of a court which has never acquired
Mindanao of 1/2 of costs. After Mindanao refused jurisdiction.
to pay, a suit for collection was filed by
Consolidated. When summons was issued, it was Personal and real actions are important
found out that Mindanao was no longer doing in determining venue of actions.
business at its former address. Can summons be
Actions in personam and in rem are important
served by publication?
for service of summons.
Held: No. Suit is for the collection of an amount of
Actions affecting personal actions are actions
money--a personal action, ct. cannot acquire
in rem and therefore extraterritorial service by
jurisdiction over the person by serving summons by
publication. The proper recourse for a creditor is to publication may be made.
locate properties, real or personal, of the resident
Options for service of summons:
defendant debtor w/ unknown address & cause
1. Personal service
them to be attached under R57 Sec. 1(f), in w/c
2. Substituted service
case, the attachment converts the action into a
3. Extraterritorial service: not a mode of
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, & the summons
service, principally
by publication may then accordingly be deemed
(a) personal
valid & effective.
(b) service by publication (always accompanied by
Waiver of service, Rule 14, Sec 20
registered mail)
Delos Santos v. Montesa, 221 SCRA 15
Service of other Pleadings: Rule 13 Service of
(1993)
Summons: Rule 14
Facts: In connection w/ a complaint for Ejectment
filed vs. De los Santos, summons was served upon 1. Personal Delivery
the latter through her mother as the process server 1. Personal Service
failed to locate the defendant. DLS filed an MFR To party/counsel To the
of MC decision, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant only
summons was improperly served. Residence, to person of suitable no
such thing as service by registered
73
Age and Discretion Facts: The 7-year delay in the prosecution of the
mail banks case was due to the several MTDs w/c
required oppositions & replies, pre-trial was reset
Purpose: acquisition of jurisdiction several times, & the judges handling the case
2. Substituted Service were constantly being replaced.
2. Substituted Service Held:
3. Extraterritorial Service 1. Though it is w/in the discretion of the TC to
Either personally or by publication declare a party non-suited for non-appearance in
File a motion for leave of court inorder to be able pre-trial conference, such discretion must not be
to serve extraterritorially abused.
2. To constitute sufficient ground for dismissal,
Extraterritorial Service by publication - may be delay must not only be lengthy but also
made only in four (4) instances as enumerated in unnecessary & dilatory resulting in the trifling
of judicial process.
15 of Rule 14 and Dial Co. v. Soriano.
Steel filed a complaint vs. DBP, NDC & NSC FACTS: P filed w/ the RTC Makati Br. 63 a
before the RTC Iligan praying that the extrajudicial complaint for a sum of money & damages vs. PR
foreclosure conducted in accordance w/ the (*1st case - Civil Case # 91-2069) The following
decision in the first case be annulled. day, the PR filed a complaint for the nullification
HELD: of the contract on the ground of fraud. This was
1. As a general rule, certiorari is not docketed as Civil Case # 91-2192 * 2nd case.
available since a motion to dismiss is merely PR filed a MTD & or to suspend
interlocutory. However, when the ct., in denying proceedings 1st case. RTC Makati Br. 63
the MTD, acts w/o or in excess of jurisdiction or w/ dismissed the 1st case on the ground of litis
grave abuse of discretion, certiorari becomes pendentia
available to relieve the defendant of the trouble of HELD: The 2nd case should be the one dismissed
undergoing the ordeal & expense of a useless trial. & not the 1st case.
2. 2nd Case should be dismissed bec. of REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA
res judicata. 1. Identity of parties or at least such as
RES JUDICATA - ELEMENTS representing the same interests in both actions;
a. Former judgment must be 2. Identity of rights asserted & relief
final. CFI order has attained finality prayed for; the relief being founded on the same
since there was no motion for recon or facts;
appeal. 3. Identity in the 2 cases should be such
b. The ct. w/c rendered it had that the judgment that may be rendered in the
pending case would, regardless of w/c party is
jurisdiction over the subject matter
successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
& the parties.
In our jurisdiction, the ROC simply
c. Must be a judgment on the requires that there is a PENDING action, NOT a
MERITS. The first case was an adjudication PRIOR PENDING ACTION. Therefore, the
on the merits since the CFI considered the priority in time rule is not applicable.
evidence presented during the hearing; ***CRITERIA IN DETERMINING
dismissed w/ prejudice due to failure to WHICH OF THE CASES SHOULD BE ABATED
appear during pre-trial despite due notice. 1. The more appropriate action shall
d. There must be, between the be maintained (Teodoro vs. Mirasol)
1st & 2nd actions, identity of parties, subject 2. Interest of justice test, taking
matter & cause of action. into account a) the nature of controversy; b)
Absolute identity of parties is not comparative accessibility of the ct. to the parties;
required. Substantial identity is sufficient. c) other similar factors (Roa-Magsaysay vs.
Inclusion of addl parties will not affect the Magsaysay)
application of RJ. **In both tests, the bona fides or the good
Test Of Identity of COA does faith of the parties shall be taken into consideration
not lie in the form of the action but on whether
the same evidence would support & Res judicata
establish the former & present COA
3. RTC has committed grave abuse of Abalos v. CA, 223 SCRA
discretion in taking jurisdiction . Although it is not FACTS: The RTC, acting as a Land Registration
prayed that the CFI orders be annulled, the effect Court, granted the application for registration of
is to annul the findings of mismanagement & to title filed by A. After this, PR filed a complaint vs.
relitigate the same claims. Action for A for the annulment of the document of sale & or
reconveyance is misleading since it is but the redemption of ownership plus damages. A filed a
inevitable consequence if the CFI orders are MTD on the ground of res judicata.
annulled. HELD: MTD granted on the ground of res
4. A finding that the complaint states a judicata. The general rule is that the land
COA does not imply that the complainant is registration ct. has limited jurisdiction.
assured of a ruling in his favor. While a MTD EXCEPTIONS: 1. The parties have agreed or
based on failure of the complainant to state a COA have acquiesced in submitting the issues for
necessarily carries w/ it the admission, for purposes determination by the ct. in the proceedings; 2. the
of the motion, of the truth of all material facts parties were accorded opportunity in presenting
pleaded in the complaint, what is submitted for their respective arguments of the issues litigated &
determination therein is the sufficiency of the of the evidence in support thereof; 3. the ct. has
allegations in the complaint. already considered the evidence on record & is
5. A MTD may be granted even if only 1 convinced that the same is sufficient & adequate
ground is present. for rendering a decision upon the issues
controverted. In the CAB, the issue of ownership
was fully ventilated.
Litis pendencia While the jurisdiction of the LRC is
limited, the power to determine the validity of the
Vitrionics Computers v. RTC, 217 SCRA 1
75
Possible defenses when served with a LAUS: no default since D did not receive
complaint. Line by line: summons. Period for filing answer has not yet
RTC - lack of jurisdiction started to run. Remedy: MTD. Remedy if MTD
NCR, QC - wrong venue denied: certiorari for arbitrary ruling
P - lack of capacity to sue
Summons - lack of J over D NOTES ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Pleading - no cause of action Body
- litis pendentia, res judicata, Bar by prior judgment
paid/waived/unenforceable conclusiveness of judgment
Allegations of conditions precedent JUDGMENT Former judgment
- failure to undergo conditions precedent F
Failure to include certification Valid court with jurisdiction
against forum shopping under oath V
Merits
Court after proper hearing on MTD can: M
a) sustain MTD and dismiss the complaint
b) deny the MTD and compel D to file an answer
c) order that the complaint be amended IDENTITY Cause of action
Subject matter
Court will rule on face of document: no need to Parties
receive evidence but should give other party the
opportunity to be heard. Other party to file his
opposition to the MTD Certiorari Special civil action
May be related to main cause of
Hearing not necessary if there is no need to present action
evident WON court a quo
eg. improper venue, no jurisdiction over subject committed grave abuse of discretion
matter or person - just study complaint or return
of summons U. P. case - certiorari by Bailen and Salazar in
When hearing necessary, movant has the burden of SC first civil action
proving his opposition. D to present evidence first.
Evidence presented during hearing on MTD Certiorari - as a mode of appeal
automatically reproduced during trial Certiorari - special civil action, grave abuse
of discretion
Hearing on motion: receive evidence in support Distinguish between petition for review by
of motion certiorari and original special civil action for
Trial : receive evidence on ultimate certiorari
causes
UP -orders of MTD contained two (2)
MTD not a responsive pleading but a motion After different things
filing MTD can no longer file Bill of Particulars Special civil action is a different thing
since MTD means that D is presumed to have Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy
understood the complaint. Must file B of P before
MTD then motion for extension of time to plead Answer-in-intervention: grounds for dismissal may
then pleading with counterclaim be raised in an affirmative defense inspite of prior
dismissal of a MTD by the original defendant.
NOTE Rule 16 sec 6 makes it discretionary on the
trial court to rule on affirmative defense raising any Procedure to intervene:
of the grounds of MTD as long as MTD not filed 1. Motion for leave of court to intervene
2. After granting by the court, intervenor may
L: res judicata already raised as MTD, MTD denied file MTD.
during hearing, then can't raise affirmative defense Denial of MTD is only a denial of the hypothetical
admission mode by the defendant but may still be
77
controverted in the trial. Once a MTD has been Meliton v. CA, supra
filed and denied, grounds raised can no longer be Facts: When the complaint vs. Meliton was
set up as affirmative defenses. dismissed, her counterclaims were also dismissed,
w/ the trial ct. ruling that it acquired no jurisdiction
Lack of Jurisdiction over the person cannot over such counterclaims due to non-payment of
docket fees. Later, Meliton sued on these
be raised in an affirmative defense.
counterclaims. The defendants therein raised the
defense of res judicata.
Default - remedy of the complainant
Held: Where a counterclaim is made the subject of
Rule 17 37 - plaintiff declared non-suited.
a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea of
If answer filed after reglementary period
auter action pendentia or litis pendentia, &/or
and default (motion) filed thereafter, court should
dismissal on the ground of res judicata. Res
not render an order of default since default are
judicata, however, is not applicable since
generally frowned upon. counterclaim was dismissed w/o prejudice since
the ct. held that it did not acquire jurisdiction due
Remedies for a default judgment:
to non-payment of docket fees. Neither is there litis
1. Motion under oath to set aside order of default
pendentia. Dismissal on the ground of lack of
2. Motion for new trial - judgment not final &
jurisdiction does not constitute res judicata, there
executory
having been no consideration & adjudication of the
3. Petition for relief from judgment -
case on the merits.
judgment final & executory
DBP v. Pondugar, supra
4. Appeal - no way that defendant can
Facts: IISMI instituted an injunction suit to stop
present evidence. foreclosure on its property. PI was issued. While
case was pending in 1972, Martial Law was
Rule 19 5 - failure of defendant to declared. 1972 LC dissolved the writ & held
appear, presentation of evidence shall be there was mismanagement b IISMI. LC said
proved. No more "as in default" applicant for preliminary injunction should
No opportunity to jump to judgment, only that establish a clear case & must come to ct. w/ clean
plaintiff may present evidence ex-parte. hands. PI being an equitable remedy. LC
dismissed the case. 14 years later, complaint was
Lesaca - What judgment can be rendered filed to set aside the foreclosure.
Held: Complaint should be dismissed. There is res
Rule 34. Judgment on the Pleadings judicata as the former judgment was final, ct. had
jurisdiction over subject matter & parties, there
was judgment on the merits, & there was identity
If no material issue is contested (e.g. only of parties, subject matter & COAs. Martial Law
amount of damages), judgment on the pleadings doesnt qualify as a force majeure w/c would
may be issued. suspend the running of the period. That the Jacintos
were abroad & couldnt come home as Marcos
MTD - confession/avoidance canceled their passports is not a bar to the filing of
Motion for Summary Judgment - remedy so as the injunction case. When they lost, they should
not to go through the entire trial. have filed an appeal or separate action to annul the
Motion for Summary Judgment may be substituted same through their consuls based here.
by an Answer.
hearings. As P did not appear at the hearings, the Held: Motion to set aside default order could not
judge declared P in default & ordered his arrest. be issued since there was inexcusable non-
Held: Where the failure to appear at the pre-trial appearance (remember FAME?). The appropriate
hearing was uncontrovertedly due to illness, the remedy was an ordinary appeal under Sec. 2, Rule
default order may be set aside on the ground of 41 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari is proper only
accident over w/c petitioner had no control. Also, if party was illegally declared in default. In CAB,
the order of arrest was illegal as there is nothing in no irregularities in the pre-trial have been alleged.
the Rules of Court w/c authorizes such as a It is w/in the sound discretion of the ct. to set
consequence of a default order. aside an order of default but it is not error, or
abuse of discretion to refuse to set aside order of
default & to refuse to accept the answer where it
Lesaca v. CA, 215 SCRA finds no justiciable reason for the delay of the
filing of an answer.
Facts: Defendant failed to appear at the scheduled
preliminary conference for a complaint for Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 68
ejectment & as such was declared in default. The
ct. then considered the case submitted for decision.
Facts: supra.
Held: The Rules on Summary Procedure was
applied in this case. Sec. 6 thereof states that in Held: Pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should
case of failure of parties to appear at the pre-trial be liberally construed in order that litigants may
conf., the ct. should have issued a "preliminary have ample opportunity to prove their respective
conference order" defining the issues of the case. claims, & possible denial of substantial justice, due
Thereafter the parties should have submitted their to technicalities may be avoided. Default judgment
affidavits & other evidence. Sec. 5 states that it is is frowned upon, & unless it clearly appears that
only when defendants fail to file a responsive reopening of the case is intended for delay, it is
pleading w/in the reglementary period may the ct. best to give parties a chance to fight their case.
proceed to render judgment. In the CAB, resp. did
not file an answer. TC may not declare him in Rule 34
default bec. a motion to declare defendant in Judgment on the Pleadings
default is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 15 (h) of
the Rules on SumPro.
Rule 35
Datu v. CA, 215 SCRA Summary Judgments
Facts: Defendant Habaluyas was declared in
default. Decision was rendered in favor of
Mangelen awarding him exemplary damages w/c Rule 18
was not included in his prayer for specific
Pre-Trial
performance.
Held: In a judgment based on evidence presented
ex-parte, judgment should not exceed the amount Sec. 1. When conducted . After the last
or be different in kind fr. that prayed for Thus, pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the
Mangelen is not entitled to exemplary damages. duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that
On the other hand, in a judgment where an answer the case be set for pre-trial.
was filed but def. did not appear at the hearing,
the award may exceed the amount or be different Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. The pre-trial
in kind fr. that prayed for. is mandatory. The court shall consider:
(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt any of the matters considered. Should the action
disposition of the action. proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define
and limit the issues to be tried. The contents of the
Sec. 3. Notice of pre-trial. The notice of pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the
shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has action, unless modified before trial to prevent
no counsel. The counsel served with such notice is manifest injustice.
charged with the duty of notifying the party
represented by him.
Citibank v, Chua, 220 SCRA
Sec. 4. Appearance of parties. It shall be the Facts: Pre-Trial was set. Counsel of Citibank
duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at appeared w/ an SPOA executed by Citibank officer
the pre-trail. The non-appearance of a party may be Tarriela in favor of the counsel to represent & bind
excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if Pet at the PT conference. Velezes, the private resps,
moved to have Citibank declared as in default since
a representative shall appear in his behalf fully
SPOA was not executed by the Board of Directors.
authorized in writing to enter into an amicable TC declared the bank as in default.
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of Held: TC should have accepted the first SPOA as
dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or sufficient for PT. SC admonished Courts vs.
admissions of facts and of documents. precipitate orders of default as they have the effect
of denying the litigant the chance to be heard.
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. The failure There are instances when parties may properly be
of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant defaulted, but such is the EXC rather than the rule
to the next preceding section shall be cause for & should be allowed only in clear cases of
dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect to comply
prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A w/ ct. orders.
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be
cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, 180 SCRA
ex parte and the court to render judgement on the
basis thereof. Facts: A special civil action for eminent domain/
expropriation. Defendant, instead of filing answer
Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief. The parties shall file with filed MTD on grounds not specified under Rule
16 (refer to Rule 16). Her MTD was filed pursuant
the court and serve on the adverse party, in such to R67, S3 of the ROC : Within the time specified
manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least in the summons, each defendant , in lieu of an
three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their answer, shall present in a single motion to dismiss
respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, of for other appropriate relief, all his objections &
among others: defenses to the right of the plaintiff to take his
property for the use specified in the complaint.
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into The TC :
amicable settlement or alternative modes of creversed the order of trial allowing defendant to
dispute resolution, indicating the desired present her evidence before the plaintiff &
terms thereof. csubsequently rendered order sustaining
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed defendants defense & dismissing the action as
stipulation of facts; to her, solely on her evidence
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved; Rule: A MTD under Eminent Domain (R67) is
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, really an answer. Thus if such MTD is filed (under
stating the purpose thereof; R67), the order of trial remains under R30.
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their CAB: There was no valid cause to reverse the
intention to avail themselves of discovery order of trial. MTD here partakes the nature of a
procedures or referral to commissioners; and pleading. Plaintiff should thus go first. What the
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and trial ct. have in mind was the provision of Sec. 5,
R16 allowing any of the grounds for dismissal in
the substance of their respective testimonies.
R16 to be pleaded as an affirmative defense &
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same authorizing the holding of a preliminary hearing x
x thereon as if a MTD has been filed. Defendants
effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
defense however was not a ground for dismissal
Sec. 7. Record of pre-trial. The proceedings in under R16. She meant to prove plaintiffs lack of
the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon the cause of action w/c is not the same as failure to
termination thereof, the court shall issue an order state a cause of action. There is also nothing in the
which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in record to prove the Municipalitys waiver of right
the conference, the action taken thereon, the to present contrary proof.
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the Rule 20
Calendar of Cases
agreements or admissions made by the parties as to
80
person on whom it is served, tendering to him the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may
fees for one days attendance and the kilometrage be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition
allowed by these rules, except that, when a upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The
subpoena is issued by or on behalf of the Republic attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use
of the Philippines or an officer or agency thereof, of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions
the tender need not be made. The service must be shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules.
made so as to allow the witness a reasonable time The deposition of a person confined in prison may be
for preparation and travel of the place of taken only by leave of court on such terms as the
attendance. If the subpoena is duces tecum, the court prescribes.
reasonable cost of producing the books, documents
or things demanded shall also be tendered. Section 2. Scope of examination. - Unless
otherwise ordered by the court as provided by
Section 7. Personal appearance in court. - A person section 16 or 18 or this Rule, the deponent may be
present in court before a judicial officer may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged,
required to testify as if he were in attendance upon which is relevant to the subject of the pending
a subpoena issued by such court or officer. action, whether relating to the claim or defense of
any other party, including the existence,
Section 8. Compelling attendance. - In case of description, nature, custody, condition, and
failure of a witness to attend, the court or judge location of any books, documents, or other tangible
issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the service things and the identity and location of persons
thereof and of the failure of the witness, may having knowledge of relevant facts.
issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or
his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him Section 3. Examination and cross-examination. -
before the court or officer where his attendance is Examination and cross-examination of deponents
required, and the cost of such warrant and seizure may proceed as permitted at the trial under
of such witness shall be paid by the witness if the sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132.
court issuing it shall determine that his failure to
answer the subpoena was willful; and without just Section 4. Use of depositions. - At the trial or upon
excuse. the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory
proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as
Section 9. Contempt. - Failure by any person admissible under the rules of evidence, may be
without adequate cause to obey a subpoena served used against any party who was present or
upon him shall be deemed a contempt of the court represented at the taking of the deposition or who
from which the subpoena is issued. If the subpoena had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one
was not issued by a court, the disobedience thereto of the following provisions:
shall be punished in accordance with the applicable (a) Any deposition may be used by any
law or Rule. party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching
the testimony of deponent as a witness;
Section 10. Exceptions. - The provisions of (b) The deposition of a party or of any
sections 8 and 9 of this Rule shall not apply to a one who at the time of taking the deposition was
witness who resides more than one hundred (100) an officer, director, or managing agent of a public
kilometers from his residence to the place where or private corporation, partnership, or association
he is to testify by the ordinary course of travel, or which is a party may be used by an adverse party
to a detention prisoner if no permission of the court for any purpose;
in which his case is pending was obtained. (c) The deposition of a witness, whether of
not a party may be used by any party for any purpose
if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2)
that the witness resides at a distance more than one
Discovery hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial or
hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears
that his absence was procured by the party offering
the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to
Modes of Discovery attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the
RULE 23 deposition has been unable to procure the attendance
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application
and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist
Section 1. Depositions pending actin, when may as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and
be taken. - By leave of court after jurisdiction has with due regard to the importance of presenting the
been obtained over any defendant or over property testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow
which is the subject of the action, or without such the deposition to be used; and
leave after an answer has been served, the
82
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered as are just appropriate. Officers may be designated
in evidence by a party; the adverse party may in notices or commissions either by name or
require him to introduce all of it which is relevant descriptive title and letters rogatory may be
to the part introduced, and any party may addressed to the appropriate judicial authority in
introduce any other parts. the foreign country.
oath and shall personally, or by some one acting hold that the reasons given for the refusla to
under his direction and in his presence, record the sign require rejection of the deposition in whole
testimony of the witness. The testimony shall be or in part.
taken stenographically unless the parties agree
otherwise. All objectins made at the time of the Section 20. Certification and filing by officer. -
examination to the qualifications of the officer The officer shall certify on the deposition that the
taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, witness was duly sworn to by him and that the
or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of deposition is a true record of the testimony given
any party and any other objection to the by the witness. He shall then securely seal the
proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title
deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken of the action and marked Deposition of (here
subject to the objections. In lieu of participating in insert the name of witness) and shall promptly
the oral examination, parties served with notice of file it with the court in which the action is pending
taking a deposition may transmit wrtieen or send it by registered mail to the clerk thereof
interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound for filing.
them to the witness and record the answers
verbatim. Section 21. Notice of filing. - The officer taking
the deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing
Section 18. Motion to terminate or limit to all the parties.
examination. - At any time during the taking of the
depositin, on motion or petition of any party or of Section 22. Furnishing copies. - Upon payment of
the deponent and upon a shwing that the reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall
examination is being conducted in bad faith or in furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or to
such manner, as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, the deponent.
or oppress the deponent or party, the court in
which the action is pending or the Regional Trial Section 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice.
Court of the place where the deposition is being - If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
taken may order the officer conducting the deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and
examinatin to cease forthwith from taking the another attends in person or by counsel pusuant to
deposition , or may limit the scope and manner of the notice, the court may order the party giving the
the taking of the deposition, as provided in section notice to pay such other party the amount of the
16 of this Rule. If the order made terminates the reasonably expenses incurred by him and his
examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only counsel in so attensing, including reasonable
upon the order of the court in which the action is attorneys fees.
pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or
deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be Section 23. Failure of party giving notice to serve
suspended for the time necessary to make a notice subpoena. - If the party giving the notice of the
for an order. In granting or refusing such order, the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a
court may impose upon either party or upon the subpoena upon him and the witness because of
witness the requirement to pay such costs or such failure does not attend, and if another party
expenses as the court may deem reasonable. attends in person or by counsel because he expects
the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court
Section 19. Submission to witness; changes; may order the party giving the notice to pay to
signing. - When the testimony is fully transcribed, such other party the amount of the reasonable
the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for expenses incurred by him andhis counsel in so
examination and sahll be read to or by him, unless attending, including reasonable attorneys fees.
such examination and reading are waived by the
witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or Section 25. Deposition ypon written
substance which the wirness desires to make shall interrogatories; service of notice and of
be entered upon the deposition by the officer with interrogatories. - A party desiring to take the
a statement of the reasons given by the witness for deposition of any person ypon written
making them. The deposition shall then be signed interrogatories shall serve them upon every other
by the witness, unless the parties by stiplation party with a notice stating the name and address of
waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be the person who is to answer them and the name or
found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not descriptive title and address of the officer before
signed by the witness, the officer shall sign it and whom the deposition is to be taken. Within ten
state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the (10) days thereafter, a party so served may serve
illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to
refusal to sign together with the reason given take the deposition. Within five (5) days thereafter,
therfor, if any, and the deposition may then be used the latter may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a
as fully as though signed, unless on a motion to party who has served cross-interrogatories. Within
suppress under section 29(f) of this Rule, the court three (3) days after being served with a re-direct
84
interrogatories, a party may serve recross- might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly
interrogatories upon the party proposing to take prosectued, are waived unless reasonable objection
the deposition. thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. -
Section 26. Officers to take responses and prepare Objections to the form of written interrogatories
record. - A copy of the notice and copies of all submitted under sections 25 and 26 of this Rule
interrogatories served shall be delivered by the are waived unless served in writing upon the party
party taking the deposition to the officer propounding them within the time allowed for
designated in the notice, who shall proceed serving succeeding cross or other interrogatories
promptly in the manner provided by sections 17, and within three (3) days after service of the last
19 and 20 of this Rule, to take the testimony of the interrogatories authorized.
witness in response to the interrogatories and to (f) As to manner of preparation. - Errors
prepare, certify, and file or mail the deposition; and irregularities in the manner in which the
attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the testimony is transcribed or the deposition is
interrogatories received by him. parepared, signed, certified, selaed, indorsed,
transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the
Section 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies. officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this
- When a deposition uon interrogatories is filed, Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the
the officer taking it shall promptly give notice deposition or some part thereof is made with
thereof to all the parties, and may furnish copies to reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with
them or to the deponent upon payment of due diligence might have been, ascertained.
reasonable charges therefor.
Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in Section 2. Contents of petition. - The petition shall
depositions. - be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall
(a) As to notice. - All errors and show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to
irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition an action in a court of the Philippines but is
are waived unless writeen objection is promptly presently unable to bring it or cause it to be
served upon the party giving the notice. brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected
(b) As to disqualification of officer. - action and his interest therein; (c) the facts which
Objection to taking a deposition because of he desires to establish by the proposed testimony
disqualification of the officer before whom it is to and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the
be taken is waived unless made before the taking of names or a description of the persons he expects
the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the will be adverse parties and them addresses so far as
disqualificatin becomes known or could be known; and (e) the names and addresses of the
discovered with reasonable diligence. persons to be examined and the substance of the
(c) As to competency or relevancy of testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and
evidence. - Objections to the competency of a shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to
witness or the competency, relevancy, or take the depositions of the persons to be examined
materiality of testimony are not waived by failure named in the petition for the purpose of
to make them bofore or during the taking of the perpetuating their testimony.
deposition, unless the ground of the objection is
one which might have been obviated or removed if Section 3. Notice and service. - The petitioner shall
presented at that time. serve a notice upon each person named in the petition
(d) As to oral examinatin and other as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of
particulars. - Errors and irregularities occurring at the the petition; stating that the petitioner will apply to
oral examination in the manner of taking the the court, at a time and place named therein, for the
deposition , in the form of the questions or answers; order described in the petition. At least twenty (20)
in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of the days before the date of the hearing, the court shall
parties and errors of any kind which casue notice thereof to be
85
served on the parties and prospective deponenets interrogatories to be answered by the party served
int he manner provided for service of summons. or, fi the party served is a public or private
corporation or a partnership or association, by any
Section 4. Order and examination. - If the court is officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may
prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make Section 2. Answer to interogatories. - The
an order designating or describing the persons interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing
whose depostion may be takne and specifying the and shall be signed and sworn t by the person
subject matter of the examination and wherher the making them. The party upon whom the
depositions shall be taken upon oral examination interrogatories have been sserved shall file and
or written interrogatories. The depositions may serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting
then be taken in accordance with Rule 23 before the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after
the hearing. service thereof, unless the court on motino and for
good cause shown, extends or shortens the time.
Section 5. Reference to court. - For the purpose of
applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. -
testimony, each reference therein to the court in Objections to any interrogatories may be presented
which the action is pending shall be deemed to to the court within ten (10) days after service
refer to the court in which the petition for such thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and
deposition was filed. answers shall be deferred until the objections are
resolved., which shall be at as early a time as is
Section 6. Use of deposition. - If a deposition to practicable.
perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule,or if,
although not so taken, it would be admissible in Section 4. Number of interrogatoties. - No party
evidence, it may be used in any action involving may, without leave of court, serve more than
the smae subject matter subsequently brought in one set of interrogatories to be answered by the
accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 same party.
of Rule 23.
Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. -
Section 27. Depositions pending appeal. - If an Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can
appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court, be inquired into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the
including the Court of Appeals in proper cases, or answers may be used for the same purposes
before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor provided in section 4 of the same Rule.
has not expired, the court in which the judgment
was rendered may allow the taking of depositions Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written
of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in interrogatories. - Unless thereafter allowed by the
the event of further proceedings in the said court. court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure
In such case the party who desires to perpetuate the of justice; a party not served with written
testimony may make a motion in the said court for interrogatories may now be compelled by the
leave to take the depositions, upon the smae notice adverse party to give testimony in open court; or to
and service thereof as if the action was pending give a deposition pending appeal.
therein.. The motion shall state a) the names and
addresses of the persons to be examined and the RULE 26
substance of the testimony which he expects to ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
elicit from each; and (b) the reason for perpetuating
their testimony. If the court finds that the Section1. Request for admission. - At any time
perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a after issues have been joined, a party may file and
failure or delay of justice, it may make an order serve upon any party a written request for the
allowing the depositions so be taken, and admission by the latter of the genuineness of any
thereupon the depositions may be takne and used in material and releant document described in and
the same manner and under the smae conditions as exhibited with the request or of the truth of any
are prescribed in these Rules for depositions taken meterial and relevant matter of fact set forth in
in pending actions. the request. Copies of the documents shall be
delivered with the request unless copies have
RULE 25 already been furnished.
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
Section 2. Implied admission. -0 Each of the
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service matters of which an admission is requested shall be
thereof. - Under the same conditions specified in deemed admitted unless, within a period designated
section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen
material and relevant facts from any adverse parties (15) days after service thereof, or within such
shall file and serve upon the latter written further time as the court may allow on motion, the
86
answer the question or interrogatory and if it also admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of
finds that the refusal to answer was without any matter of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof and
substantial justification, it may require the if the party requesting the admissions thereafter
refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising proves the genuineness of such document or the truth
the refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent of any such matter of fact, he may apply to the court
the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in for an order requiring the other party to pay him the
obtaining the order, including attorneys fees. reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof,
If the application is denied and the court including attorneys fees. Unless the court finds that
finds that it was filed without substantial there were good reasons for the denial or that
justification, the court may require the proponent admissions sought were of no substantial importance,
or the counsel advising the filing of the application, such order shall be issued.
or both of them, to pay to the refusing party or
deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. -
incurred in opposing the application, including If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party
attorneys fees. willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to
take his deposition, after being served with a
Sec. 2. Contempt of court. - If the party or other proper notice, or fails to serve answers to
witness refuses to be sworn to answer any question interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after
after being directed to do so by the court of the place proper service of such interrogatories, the court on
in which the deposition is being taken, the refusal motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of
may be considered a contempt of that court. any pleading of the party, or dismiss the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment
Sec. 3. Other consequences - If any party or an by default against the party, and in its discretion,
officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by
an order made under section 1 of this Rule the other, including attorneys fees.
requiring him to answer designated questions, or an
order under Rule 27 to produce any document or Sec. 6. Expenses against the Republic of the
other thing for inspection copying or photographing Philippines. - Expenses and attorneys fees are not
or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon to be imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines
land or other property, or an order made under Rule under this Rule.
28 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental
examination, the court may make such orders in
regard to the refusal as are just, and among others
the following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding
which the questions were asked, or the character or Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212
description of the thing or land, or the contents of
the paper , or physical or mental condition of the The various modes or instruments of
party, or any other designated facts shall be taken discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along
to be established for the purposes of the action in with the pre -trial hearing, to narrow and clarify
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a
the order; device for ascertaining the facts relative to those
(b) An order refusing to allow the issues. The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable
disobedient party to support or oppose designated the parties, consistent with recognized privileges,
claims or defenses or prohibiting him from to obtain fullest possible knowledge of the issues
introducing in evidence designated document or and facts before civil trails and thus prevent that
things or items of testimony, or from introducing said trials are carried on in the dark. To this end,
evidence of physical or mental condition; the field of inquiry that may be covered by
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when
thereof, or staying further proceedings until the the interrogated party is called as a witness to
order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or testify orally at trial. The inquiry extends to all
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a facts which are relevant, whether they be ultimate
judgment by default against the disobedient party; or evidentiary, excepting only those matters which
and are privileged. The objective is as much to give
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders every party the fullest possible information of all
or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest relevant facts before the trial as to obtain evidence
of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any for use upon said trial.
such orders except an order to submit to a physical
or mental examination. In line with the principle of according
liberal treatment to the deposition-discovery
Sec. 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. - If a party mechanism, such modes of discovery as a)
after being served with a request under Rule 26 to depositions (whether by oral examination or
88
satisfaction of any judgment that may be broker or agent or clerk of the plaintiff, it is not
recovered in the following cases: necessary to establish his fiduciary capacity before
(a) In an action for the recovery of a the writ is granted as such fiduciary capacity is
specified amount of money or damages, other than assumed from the nature of his position. it is only
moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising when the misappropriation was committed by any
from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi- other person that his fiduciary relationship with the
delict against a party who is about to depart from the plaintiff will have to be established. Such relationship
Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors; does not have to be shown because it suffices that the
(b) In an action for money or property questioned acts of employing illegal machinations in
embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted obtaining enormous credit facilities for the
to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of corporation were committed by the officers of
a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, UPLFC in the course of their duties and not by any
agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as other person in a fiduciary capacity.
such, or by any other person in a fiduciary
capacity, or for a willful violation of duty; Sec. 3. Affidavit and bond required. - An order of
(c) In an action to recover the possession attachment shall be granted only when it appears
of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, by the affidavit of the applicant, or some other
detained or converted, when the property, or any person who personally knows the facts, that a
part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is
disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that
the applicant or an authorized person; there is no other sufficient security for the claim
(d) In an action against a party who sought to be enforced by the action, and that the
has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt amount due to the applicant, or the value of the
or incurring the obligation upon which the property the possession of which he is entitled to
action is brought, or in the performance thereof; recover, is as much as the sum for which the order
(e) In an action against a party who has is granted above all legal counterclaims. The
removed or disposed of his property, or is about affidavit, and the bond required by the next
to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or succeeding section, must be duly filed with the
(f) In an action against a party who does court before the order issues.
not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or
on whom summons may be served by publication. K.O. Glass Const. Co., Inc. v.
Valenzuela 116 SCRA
If prayer for writ of attachment is included in a
Complaint, verification in the Complaint is Facts:
sufficient, separate affidavit is not necessary. Held: In pleading for attachment against a
foreigner, allegation must not be merely that
Sec. 2. Issuance and contents of order. - An order defendant is a foreigner; there must also be a
of attachment may be issued either ex-parte or showing that defendant is about to leave the
upon motion with notice and hearing by the court Philippines with intent to defraud their creditor,
in which the action is pending, or by the Court of or that he is a non-resident alien.
Appeals or the Supreme Court, and must require
the sheriff of the court to attach so much of the Requisites for issuance of writ of attachment:
property in the Philippines of the party against 1. a sufficient cause of action exists;
whom it is issued, not exempt from execution, as 2. case is one of those mentioned in Sec 1(a)
may be sufficient to satisfy the applicants of Rule 57;
demand, unless such party makes deposit or gives 3. there is no other sufficient security for the
a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount equal claim sought to be enforced by the action;
to that fixed in the order, which may be the 4. the amount due to the applicant for attachment
amount sufficient to satisfy the applicants demand or the value of the property of which he is entitled
or the value of the property to be attached as to recover is as much as the sum for which the
stated by the applicant, exclusive of costs. Several order is granted above all legal counterclaims.
writs may be issued at the same time to the sheriffs
of the courts of different judicial regions. Once defendant files a counter-bond, the writ
of attachment should be dissolved.
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company v. Court
of Appeals
197 SCRA Sec. 4. - Condition of applicants bond. - The party
applying for the order must thereafter give a bond
Where the basis for the application of a writ of executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by
attachment is embezzlement of money or property the court in its order granting the issuance of the
committed by a defendant who is an officer of a writ, conditioned that the latter will pay all the costs
corporation, a public officer, or an atorney, factor, which may be adjudged to the adverse
90
party and all damages which he may sustain by which the same can be discharged. To discharge
reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally writ of preliminary attachment, defendant simply
adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto. has to make a cash deposit or post a counter-bond
equivalent to the value of the property attached.
Bond - undertaking done by the surety that it will
pay the damages in case the party guaranteed does Sec. 6. Sheriffs return. - After enforcing the writ,
not comply with the orders of the court. the sheriff must likewise without delay make a return
thereon to the court from which the writ issued, with
Sec. 5. Manner of attaching property . - The a full statement of his proceedings under the writ,
sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay and and a complete inventory of the property attached,
with all reasonable diligence attach, to await together with any counter-bond given by the party
judgment and execution in the action, only so much against whom attachment is issued, and serve copies
of the property in the Philippines of the party thereof on the applicant.
against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the Sec. 7. Attachment of real and personal
applicants demand, unless the former makes a property; recording thereof. - Real and personal
deposit with the court from which the writ is property shall be attached by the sheriff executing
issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the the writ in the following manner:
applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by (a) Real property, or growing crops
the court in the order of attachment or to the value thereon, or any interest therein, standing upon the
of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs. records of the registry of deeds of the province in
No levy on attachment pursuant to the writ issued the name of the party against whom attachment is
under section 2 hereof shall be enforced unless it is issued, or not appearing at all upon such records,
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by or belonging to the party against whom attachment
service of summons, together with a copy of the is issued and held by any other person, or standing
complaint, the application for attachment, the on the records of the registry of deeds in the name
applicants affidavit and bond, and the order and of any other person, by filing with the registry of
writ of attachment, on the defendant within the deeds a copy of the order, together with a
Philippines. description of the property attached, and a notice
The requirement of prior that it is attached, or that such real property and
contemporaneous service of summons shall not any interest therein held by or standing in the
apply where the summons could not be served name of such other person are attached, and by
personally or by substituted service despite leaving a copy of such order, description, and
diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the notice with the occupant of the property, if any, or
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom, or the with such other person or his agent if found within
defendant is a non- resident of the Philippines, or the province. Where the Land Registration Act or
the action is one in rem or quasi in rem. the Property Registration Decree, the notice shall
contain a reference to the number of the certificate
Oate v. Abrogar of title, the volume and page in the registration
230 SCRA 181 book where the certificate is registered, and the
registered owner or owners thereof.
Facts: The registrar of deeds must index
attachments filed under this section in the names
Held: Writ of preliminary attachment may be of the applicant, the adverse party, or the person
validly applied for and granted even before the by whom the property is held or in whose name it
defendant is summoned or is heard from. stands in the records. If the attachment is not
claimed on the entire area of the land covered by
Enforcement of the preliminary attachment is valid the certificate of title, a description sufficiently
even if it preceded the actual service of summons accurate for the identification of the land or
where a previous attempt to serve the summons interest to be affected shall be included in the
and the writ of attachment failed due to factors registration of such attachment;
beyond the control of either the plaintiff or the (b) Personal property capable of
process server. manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping it
in his custody, after issuing the corresponding
Reasons: receipt therefor;
1. Defendant may put his property beyond the (c) Stocks or shares, or an interest in
reach of the plaintiff while the latter is trying stocks or shares, of any corporation or company,
to serve the summons and the writ anew. by leaving with the president or managing agent
2. Court eventually acquired jurisdiction over the thereof, a copy of the writ, and a notice stating
plaintiffs (6 days later). that the stock or interest of the party against whom
3. Ease by which a writ of attachment can be the attachment is issued is attached in pursuance
obtained is counter-balanced by the ease with of such writ;
91
Garnishment of third party liability insurance Sec. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving
contract may be effected from the moment the counter-bond. - After a writ of attachment has
insured became liable to the third person for it is been enforced, the party whose property has been
also at that moment that the insured acquired an attached or the person appearing on his behalf,
interest in the insurance contract. Such interest may may move for the discharge of the attachment
be garnished like any other credit. It is not wholly or in part on the security given. The court
necessary that the insured has effected payment to shall, after due notice and hearing, order the
the injured third person in order that the obligation discharge of the attachment if the movant makes a
of the insurer may arise. cash deposit, or files a counter-bond executed to
the attaching party with the clerk of the court
Sec. 9. Effect of attachment of interest in where the application is made an amount equal to
property belonging to the estate of a decedent. - that fixed by the court in the order of attachment,
The attachment of the interest of an heir, legatee, exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought
or devisee in the property belonging to the estate to be discharged with respect to a particular
of a decedent shall not impair the powers of the property, the counter-bond shall be equal to the
executor, administrator, or other personal value of that property as determined by the court.
representative of the decedent over such property In either case, the cash deposit or the counter-
for the purpose of administration. Such personal bond shall secure the payment of any judgment
representative, however, shall report the that the attaching party may recover in the action.
attachment to the court when any petition for A notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on
distribution is filed, and in the order made upon the attaching party. Upon the discharge of the
such petition, distribution may be awarded to such attachment in accordance with the provisions of
heir, legatee, or devisee, but the property attached this section, the property attached, or the proceeds
shall be ordered delivered to the sheriff making the of any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party
levy, subject to the claim of such heir, legatee, or making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or
devisee, or any person claiming under him. to the person appearing on his behalf, the deposit
or counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the
Sec. 10. Examination of party whose property is property so released. Should such counter-bond
attached and persons indebted to him or for any reason be found to be or become
controlling his property; delivery of property to insufficient, and the party furnishing the same fail
sheriff. - Any person owing debts to the party to file an additional counter-bond, the attaching
whose property is attached or having in his party may apply for a new order of attachment.
possession or under his control any credit or
other personal property belonging to such party, Motion to Discharge cannot be acted upon ex-
may be required to attend before the court in parte - must be accompanied by hearing.
which the action is pending, or before a
commissioner appointed by the court, and be Sec. 13. Discharge of attachment on other
examined on oath respecting the same. The party grounds. - The party whose property has been
whose property is attached may also be required ordered attached may file a motion with the court
to attend for the purpose of giving information in which the action is pending, before or after levy
respecting his property, and may be examined on or even after the release of the attached property,
oath. The court may, after such examination, for an order to set aside or discharge the
order personal property capable of manual attachment on the ground that the same was
delivery belonging to him, in the possession of the improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or
person so required to attend before the court, to that the bond is insufficient. If the attachment is
be delivered to the clerk of court of sheriff on such excessive, the discharge shall be limited to the
terms as may be just, having reference to any lien excess. If the motion be made on affidavits on the
thereon or claim against the same, to await the part of the movant but not otherwise, the attaching
judgment in the action. party may oppose the motion by counter-affidavits
or other evidence in addition to that on which the
Sec. 11. When attached property may be sold after attachment was made. After due notice and
levy on attachment and before entry of judgment. - hearing, the court shall order the setting aside or
Whenever it shall be made to appear to the court in the corresponding discharge of the attachment if it
which the action is pending, upon hearing with notice appears that it was improperly or irregularly
to both parties, that the property attached is issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient,
perishable, or that the interests of all the parties to or that the attachment is excessive and the defect
the action will be subserved by the sale thereof, the is not cured forthwith.
court may order such property to be sold at public
auction in such manner as it may direct and the Peroxide Philippines Corp. v. Court of
proceeds of such sale to be deposited in court to Appeals 199 SCRA
abide the judgment in the action.
93
Where the order lifting of the writ of attachment or so much as shall be necessary to satisfy
was improperly issued as the attaching creditor was the judgment;
not allowed to oppose the application for the (b) If any balance remains due, by
discharge of the attachment by counter-affidavit or selling so much of the property, real or personal,
other evidence, such order is void and does not as may be necessary to satisfy the balance, if
have any effect at all to the writ of attachment. The enough for that purpose remain in the sheriffs
writ continued to be valid from its issuance since hands, or in those of the clerk of the court;
the judgment had not been satisfied , nor has there (c) By collecting from all persons having
been a valid discharge thereof either by the filing in their possession credits belonging to the
of a counter-bond or for improper or irregular judgment obligor, or owing debts to the latter at
issuance. the time of the attachment of such credits or debts,
the amount of such credits and debts as
Sec. 14. Proceedings where property claimed by determined by the court in the action, and stated in
third person. - If the property attached is claimed the judgment, and paying the proceeds of such
by any person other than the party against whom collection over to the judgment obligee.
attachment had been issued or his agent, and such The sheriff shall forthwith make a return in
person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or writing to the court of his proceedings under this
right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds section and furnish the parties with copies thereof.
of such right or title, and serves such affidavit upon
the sheriff while the latter has possession of the Sec. 16. Balance due collected upon execution;
attached property, and a copy thereof upon the excess delivered to judgment obligor. - If after
attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound to realizing upon all the property attached,
keep the property under attachment, unless the including the proceeds of any debts or credits
attaching party or his agent, on demand of the collected, and applying the proceeds of any debts
sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to or credits collected, and applying the proceeds to
indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not the satisfaction of the judgment, less the expenses
less than the value of the property levied upon. In of proceedings upon the judgment, less the
case of disagreement as to such value, the same expenses of proceedings upon the judgment, any
shall be decided by the court issuing the writ of balance shall remain due, the sheriff must
attachment. No claim for damages for the taking or proceed to collect such balance as upon ordinary
keeping of the property may be enforced against execution. Whenever the judgment shall have
the bond unless the action therefor is filed within been paid, the sheriff, upon reasonable demand,
one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the must return to the judgment obligor the attached
filing of the bond. property remaining in his hands, and any
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages proceeds of the sale of the property attached not
for the taking or keeping of such property, to any applied to the judgment.
such third-party claimant, if such bond shall be
filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such Sec. 17. Recovery upon the counter-bond. - When
claimant or any third person from vindicating his the judgment has become executory, the surety or
claim to the property, or prevent the attaching sureties on any counter-bond given pursuant to the
party from claiming damages against a third-party provisions of this Rule to secure the payment of the
claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious judgment shall become charged on such counter-
claim, in the same or separate action. bond and bound to pay the judgment obligee upon
When the writ of attachment is issued in demand the amount due under the judgment, which
favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer amount may be recovered from such surety or
duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not sureties after notice and summary hearing in the
be required, and in case the sheriff is sued for same action.
damages as a result of the attachment, he shall be
represented by the Solicitor General, and if held Towers Assurance Co. v. Ororama
liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the Supermart 80 SCRA
court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of
the funds to be appropriated for the purpose. In order that the judgment creditor might recover
from the surety on the counterbond, it is necessary
Sec. 15. Satisfaction of judgment out of property (1) that execution be first issued against the
attached; return of sheriff. - If judgment be principal debtor and that such execution was
recovered by the attaching party and execution issue returned unsatisfied in whole or in part; (2) that the
thereon, the sheriff may cause the judgment to be creditor made a demand upon the surety for the
satisfied out of the property attached, if it be satisfaction of the judgment; and (3) that the surety
sufficient for that purpose in the following manner: be given notice and a summary hearing in the
(a) By paying to the judgment obligee the same action as to his liability for the judgment
proceeds of all sales of perishable or other property under his counterbond.
sold in pursuance of the order of the court
94
Sec. 18. Disposition of money deposited. - Where not because the writ of attachment was illegally
the party against whom attachment had been or wrongfully issued by the court, but because
issued has deposited money instead of giving said writ was caused to levied upon the property
counter-bond, it shall be applied under the of the plaintiff which was not a party in the case
direction of the court to the satisfaction of any where the attachment was issued.
judgment rendered in favor of the attaching party,
and after satisfying the judgment the balance shall
be refunded to the depositor or his assignee. If the Rule on Third party Claim & 20, Rule
judgment is in favor of the party against whom 57, important.
attachment was issued, the whole sum deposited
must be refunded to him or his assignee. Status quo ante - refers to a legal situtation
Preliminary writ of injunction - status quo
Sec. 19, Disposition of attached property where Final injunction - change in legal
judgment is for party against whom attachment relationship, Bacolod Milling
was issued. - If judgment be rendered against the Grave & irreparable injury - no fair or reasonable
attaching party, all the proceeds of sales and orders can be granted by the court
money collected or received by the sheriff, under Right in esse and clear for a writ of
the order of attachment, and all property preliminary mandatory injunction
attached remaining in any such officers hands,
shall be delivered to the party against whom Preliminary Injunction
attachment was issued, and the order of Rule 58
attachment discharged.
Sec. 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. -
Sec. 20. Claim for damages on account of A preliminary injunction is an order granted at
improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - An any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
application for damages on account of improper, judgment or final order, requiring a party or a
irregular, or excessive attachment must be filed court , agency or a person to refrain from a
before the trial or before appeal is perfected or particular act or acts. It may also require the
before the judgment becomes executory, with due performance of a particular act or acts, in which
notice to the attaching party and his surety or case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory
sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to injunction.
damages and the amount thereof. Such damages
may be awarded only after proper hearing and The primary purpose of injunction is to preserve
shall be included in the judgment on the main case. the status quo by restraining action or interference
If the judgment of the appellate court be or by furnishing preventive relief. The status quo
favorable to the party against whom attachment is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status
was issued, he must claim damages sustained which precedes the pending controversy.
during the pendency of the appeal by filing an
application in the appellate court, with notice to A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and
the party in whose favor the attachment was will be granted only on a showing that (a) the
issued or his surety or sureties, before judgment of invasion of the right is material and substantial,
the appellate court becomes executory. The (b) the right of the complainant is clear and
appellate court may allow the application to be unmistakable, and (c) there is an urgent and
heard and decided by the trial court. paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
Nothing herein contained shall prevent damage.
the party against whom the attachment was issued
from recovering in the same action the damages Distinctions between injunction and prohibition:
awarded to him from any property of the attaching
party not exempt from execution should the bond a. Injunction is generally directed against a party
or deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail in the action while prohibition is directed
to fully satisfy the award. against a court, tribunal or person exercising
judicial powers;
Santos v. Court of b. Injunction does not involve the jurisdiction of
Appeals 95 Phil 360 the court, whereas prohibition may be on the
ground that the court against whom the writ
Where a writ of attachment was issued and levied is sought acted without or in excess of
upon a property belonging to a third person not party jurisdiction;
to the main action, said third person may file a c. Injunction may be the main action itself, or just
separate action for damages. The rule that recovery of a provisional remedy in the main action,
damages on account of the issuance of a writ of whereas prohibition is always a main action.
attachment cannot be subject of a separate action, is Hence, for temporary restraint in a proceeding
not applicable where damages are sought
95
for prohibition, preliminary injunction must case at bar, the right of the Central in using the
be sought therein. railway has already expired: there being no right
to be protected anymore, the writ of preliminary
injunction cannot be had.
Bataclan v. Court of
Appeals 175 SCRA Merville Park Homeowners Association Inc.
v. Velez
A writ of preliminary injunction is primarily 196 SCRA
intended to maintain the status quo between the
parties existing prior to the filing of the case. As Where the village association seeks to take
an ancillary or preventive remedy, it may only be possession and control of the waterworks system
resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his from the Salandanan who failed to undertake
rights or interests and for no other purpose during certain contractual obligations necessary to assure
the pendency of the principal action. the homeowners of a steady water supply, a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction will not be
Courts should not just summarily issue an order of granted absent a showing that the severe water
denial without an adequate hearing and judicious shortage had not been remedied and that a clear
evaluation of the merits of the application as the and present danger of the same or similar default
same would be a denial of procedural due process on Salandanans part, threatening the same severe
and could result in irreparable prejudice to a party. consequences for the subdivision residents.
Sec. 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. - A preliminary mandatory injunction is not a proper
A preliminary injunction may be granted by the remedy to take property out of the possession and
court where the action or proceeding is pending. If control of one party and to deliver the same to the
the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of other party where possession of such property is
Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued being disputed. It may issue pendente lite only in
by said court or any member thereof. cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the
possession, during the pendency of the main case,
Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary of the property involved is very clear; where the
injunction. - A preliminary injunction may considerations of relative inconvenience bear
be granted when it is established: strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the possession of pendente lite; where there was willful
relief demanded, and the whole or part of such and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs rights, over his
relief consists in restraining the commission or protest and remonstrance the injury being a
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or continuing one; where the effect of the preliminary
in requiring the performance of an act or acts, mandatory injunction is to re-establish and
either for a limited period or perpetually; maintain a pre-existing and continuing relationship
(b) That the commission, continuance or between the parties, recently and arbitrarily
non-performance of the act or acts complained of interrupted by the defendant, rather than to
during the litigation would probably work injustice establish a new relationship during the pendency of
to the applicant; or the principal case. It is for the party requesting the
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person writ to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or
is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is more of the above grounds.
procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts
probable in violation of the rights of the applicant Sec. 4. Verified application and bond for
respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. order. - A preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order may be granted only when:
Bacolod Murcia Milling v. (a) The application in the action or
Capitol 17 SCRA proceeding is verified and shows facts entitling
the applicant to the relief demanded; and
For the writ of preliminary injunction to issue, (b) Unless exempted by the court, the
there must be a showing based on facts that the applicant files with the court where the action or
party availing of the remedy is entitled to the relief proceeding is pending a bond executed to the
demanded. party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed
by the court, to the effect that the applicant will
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in pay to such party or person all damages which he
esse and which may never arise or to restrain an may sustain by reason of the injunction or
act, which does not give rise to a cause of action temporary restraining order if the court should
finally decide that the applicant was not entitled
The function of an injunction is the maintenance of thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a
the status quo as of the time of its issuance. In the writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.
96
(c) When an application for a writ of conduct a summary hearing to determine whether
preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining the temporary restraining order shall be extended
order is included in a complaint or any initiatory until the application for preliminary injunction
pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, can be heard. In no case shall the total period of
shall be raffled only after notice to and in the effectivity of the temporary restraining order
presence of the adverse party or the person to be exceed twenty (20 days, including the original
enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be seventy-two hours provided herein.
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied by
service of summons, together with a copy of the In the event that the application for
complaint or initiatory pleading and the preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved
applicants affidavit and bond, upon the adverse within the said period, the temporary restraining
party in the Philippines. order is deemed automatically vacated. The
However, where the summons could not effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not
be served personally or by substituted service extendible without need of any judicial declaration
despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a to that effect and no court shall have authority to
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent extend or renew the same on the same ground for
therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the which it was issued.
requirement of prior or contemporaneous service However, if issued by the Court of
of summons shall not apply. Appeals or a member thereof, the temporary
(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60)
restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon days from service on the party or person sought to
only after all parties are heard in a summary be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the
hearing which shall be conducted within twenty- Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be
four (24) hours after the sheriffs return of service effective until further orders.
and/or the records are received by the branch
selected by raffle and to which the records shall Temporary restraining order, when issued
be transmitted immediately.
1. When great or irreparable injury would result
Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted to the applicant even before the application is
without notice; exception. - No preliminary heard on notice; 20-day temporary restraining
injunction shall be granted without hearing and order is issued.
prior notice to the party or person sought to be
enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by 2. If the matter is of extreme urgency and the
affidavits or by verified application that great or applicant will suffer grave injustice and
irreparable injury would result to the applicant irreparable injury, the court may issue ex parte
before the matter can be heard on notice, the court a 72-hour temporary restraining order; can
to which the application for preliminary injunction only be issued by the executive judge of a
was made, nay issue ex parte a temporary multiple-sala court or by the presiding judge
restraining order to be effective only for a period of a single-sala court.
of twenty (20) days from service on the party or
person sought to be enjoined, except as herein The judge issuing a 72-hour TRO is obliged to
provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the conduct a summary hearing within the effectivity
court must order said party or person to show of the 72-hour TRO to determine whether the TRO
cause, at a specified time and place, why the shall be extended in which case, the same is
injunction should not be granted, determine within converted into a 20-day TRO. Within the 20-day
the same period whether or not the preliminary period of effectivity of the TRO the court shall
injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue determine in a hearing whether or not the
the corresponding order. preliminary injunction is to be granted. This 20-
day period is inextendible.
However, and subject to the provisions of
the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme Thus, a TRO may be converted to a preliminary
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injunction, which in turn may be converted into
injustice and irreparable injury, the executive a final injunction. TRO and preliminary
judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding injunction are issued to maintain the status quo
judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a ante, that is, prior to the institution of the main
temporary restraining order effective for only action. A final injunction confirms a preliminary
seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he shall injunction and perpetually enjoins a party or
immediately comply with the provisions of the next person from doing the act/s complained of.
preceding section as to service of summons and
the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, Effectivity of TROs:
within the aforesaid seventy -two (72) hours, the
judge before whom the case is pending shall
97
TRO issued by trail court may either be for 72 party, who may except to the sufficiency of the
hours or 20 days; if issued by the CA or a member bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the
thereof, it shall be effective for sixty (60) days; applicants bond is found to be insufficient in
TROs0 issued by the SC shall be effective until amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to
further notice. justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with
sufficient sureties approved after justification is
not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be
Social Security Commission v. dissolved. If the bond of the adverse party is found
Bayona 5 SCRA to be insufficient in amount, or the surety or
sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in
Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the amount with sufficient sureties approved after
rule relative to the issuance of injunction when justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction
there is no standard by which their amount can be shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.
measured with reasonable accuracy. An irreparable
injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes Sec. 8. Judgment to include damages against
that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing party and sureties. - AT the trial, the amount of
kind which produce hurt, inconvenience, or damages to be awarded to either party, upon
damage that can be estimated only by conjecture the bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed,
and not by any accurate standard of measurement. ascertained, and awarded under the same
An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.
consists of a serious charge of, or is destructive to,
the property it affects, either physically or in the Sec. 9. When final injunction granted. - If after
character in which it has been held and enjoined, or the trial of the action it appears that the applicant
when the property has some peculiar quality or use, is entitled to have the act or acts complained of
so that its pecuniary value will not fairly permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a
recompense the owner of the loss thereof. final injunction perpetually restraining the party
or person enjoined from the commission or
For an injury to be irreparable, it does not have to continuance of the act or acts or confirming the
refer to the amount of damages that may be caused preliminary mandatory injunction.
but rather to the difficulty of measuring the
damages inflicted. If full compensation can be
obtained by way of damages, equity will not apply
the remedy of injunction.
Gilchrist v. Cuddy
Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of 29 Phil 542
dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. -
The application for injunction or restraining order
may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. Receivership
The injunction or restraining order may also be Rule 59
denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other
grounds upon affidavits of the party or person Sec. 1. Appointment of receiver. - Upon a verified
enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant application , one or more receivers of the property
also by affidavits. It may further be denied or subject of the actin or proceeding may be appointed
granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after by the court where the action is pending, or by the
hearing that although the applicant is entitled to Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, or a
the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or member thereof, in the following cases:
continuance thereof, as the case may be, would (a) When it appears from the verified
cause irreparable damage to the party or person application, and such other proof as the court may
enjoined while the applicant can be fully require, that the party applying for the
compensated for such damages as he may suffer, appointment of a receiver has an interest in the
and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by property or fund which is the subject of the action
the court conditioned that he will pay all damages or proceeding, and that such property or fund is in
which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the danger of being lost, removed, or materially
dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If injured unless a receiver be appointed to
it appears that the extent of the preliminary administer and preserve it;
injunction or restraining order granted is too (b) When it appears in an action by the
great, it may be modified. mortgagee for the foreclosure of a mortgage that
the property is in danger of being wasted or
Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of dissipated or materially injured, and that its
disapproval of same . - The party filing a bond in value is probable insufficient to discharge the
accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall mortgage debt, or that the parties have so
forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
98
(c) After judgment, to preserve the reason of the acts, omissions, or other matters
property during the pendency of an appeal, or to specified in the application as ground for such
dispose of it according to the judgment, or to aid appointment. The receiver may also be
execution when the execution has been returned discharged if it is shown that his appointment was
unsatisfied or the judgment obligor refuses to apply obtained without sufficient cause.
his property in satisfaction of the judgment, or
otherwise to carry the judgment into effect; Sec. 4. Oath and bond of receiver. - Before
(d) Whenever in other cases it entering upon his duties, the receiver shall be
appears that the appointment of a receiver is sworn to perform them faithfully, and shall file a
the most convenient and feasible means of bond, executed to such person and in such sum
preserving, administering, or disposing of the as the court may direct, to the effect that he will
property in litigation. faithfully discharge his duties in the action or
During the pendency of an appeal, the proceeding and obey the orders of the court.
appellate court may allow an application for the
appointment of a receiver to be filed in and decided Sec. 5. Service of copies of bonds; effect of
by the court of origin and the receiver appointed to disapproval of same . - The person filing a bond in
be subject to the control of said court. accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall
forthwith serve a copy thereof on each interested
Commodities Storage v. Court of party, who may except to its sufficiency or of the
Appeals G.R. No. 125008 surety or sureties thereon. If either the applicants of
the receivers bond is found to be insufficient in
A petition for receivership requires that the amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to
property or fund which is the subject of the action justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient
must be in danger of loss, removal or material sureties approved after justification is not filed
injury which necessitates protection or forthwith, the application shall be denied or the
preservation. In the instant case, there is no receiver discharged, as the case may be. If the bond
sufficient showing that the ice plant is in danger of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in
of disappearing or being wated and reduced to a amount or the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify,
scrap heap. At the time the trial court issued the and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient
order for receivership of the property, the problem sureties approved after justification is not filed
had been remedied and there was no imminent forthwith, the receiver shall be appointed and re-
danger of any leakage. appointed, as the case may be.
Neither party to a litigation should be appointed as Sec. 6. General powers of receiver. - Subject to
receiver without the consent of the other because a the control of the court in which the action or
receiver should be a person indifferent to the proceeding is pending, a receiver shall have the
parties and should be impartial and disinterested. power to bring and defend, in such capacity,
The receiver is not the representative of any of the actions in his own name; to take and keep
parties but of all of them to the end that their possession of the property in controversy; to
interests may be equally protected with the least receive rents; o collect debts due to himself as
possible inconvenience and expense. receiver or to the fund, property, estate, person, or
corporation of which he is the receiver; to
Sec. 2. Bond on appointment of receiver. - Before compound and compromise the same; to make
issuing the order appointing a receiver the court transfers; to pay outstanding debts; to divide the
shall require the applicant to file a bond executed money and other property that shall remain among
to the party against whom the application is the persons legally entitled to receive the same;
presented, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to and generally to do such acts respecting the
the effect that the applicant will pay such party all property as the court may authorize. However,
damages he may sustain by reason of the funds in the hands of a receiver may be invested
appointment of such receiver in case the applicant only by order of the court upon the written consent
shall have procured such appointment without of all the parties to the action.
sufficient cause; and the court may, I its No action may be filed by or against
discretion, at any time after the appointment, a receiver without leave of the court which
require an additional bond as further security for appointed him.
such damages.
Sec. 7. Liability for refusal or neglect to deliver
Sec. 3. Denial of application or discharge of property to receiver. - A person who refuses or
receiver. - The application may be denied, or the neglects, upon reasonable demand, to deliver to
receiver discharged, when the adverse party files a the receiver all the property, money, books, deeds,
bond executed to the applicant, in an amount to be notes, bills, documents and papers within his
fixed b the court, to the effect that such party will pay power of control subject of or involved in the
the applicant all damages he may suffer by action or proceeding, or in case of disagreement,
99
as determined and ordered by the court, may be (d) The actual market value of the
punished for contempt and shall be liable to the property.
receiver for the money or the value of the property The applicant must also give a bond,
and other things so refused or neglected to be executed to the adverse party in double the value of
surrendered, together with all damages that may have the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned,
been sustained by the party or parties entitled thereto for the return of the property to the adverse party if
as a consequence of such refusal or neglect. such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the
adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the
Sec. 8. Termination of receivership; application in the action.
compensation of receiver. - Whenever the court,
motu propio or on motion of either party, shall Sec. 3. Order. - Upon the filing of such affidavit
determine that the necessity for a receiver n longer and approval of the bond, the court shall issue
exists, it shall, after due notice to all interested an order and the corresponding writ of replevin
parties and hearing, settle the accounts of the describing the personal property alleged to be
receiver, direct the delivery of the funds and other wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff
property in his possession to the person adjudged forthwith to take such property into his custody.
to be entitled to receive them, and order the
discharge of thereceiver from further duty as such. Sec. 4. Duty of the sheriff. - Upon receiving such
The court shall allow the receiver such reasonable order, the sheriff must serve a copy thereof on the
compensation as the circumstances of the case adverse party, together with a copy of the
warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated application, affidavit and bond, and must
party, or apportioned, as justice requires. forthwith take the property, if it be in the
possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and
Sec. 9. Judgment to include recovery against retain it in his custody. If the property or any part
sureties. - The amount, if any, to be awarded to any thereof be concealed in a building or enclosure,
party upon any bond filed in accordance with the the sheriff must demand its delivery, and if it be
provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, not delivered, he must cause the building or
ascertained, and granted under the same enclosure to be broken open and take the property
procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. as herein provided, he must keep it in a secure
place and shall be responsible for its delivery to
the party entitled thereto upon receiving his fees
and necessary expenses for taking and keeping the
same.
comment accompanied by affidavits, depositions or into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that
other authentic documents in support of the facts the court ascertain the kind and amount of
set forth in the comment. evidence which it may deem sufficient to enable it
to justly resolve the application, one way or the
Sec. 3. Hearing. - After the comment is filed, or other, in view of the merely provisional character
after the expiration of the period for its filing, the of the resolution to be entered. Mere affidavits may
application shall be set for hearing not more than satisfy the court to pass upon the application for
three (3) days thereafter. The facts in issue shall support pendente lite. It is enough that the facts be
be proved in the same manner as is provided for established by affidavits or other documentary
evidence on motions. evidence appearing in the record.
Hearing on the application is mandatory. It shall be Sec. 5. Enforcement of order. If the adverse party
held not later than three (3) days from the receipt fails to comply with an order granting support
of the comment or from the expiration of the period pendente lite, the court shall, motu propio or upon
to file the same. motion, issue an order of execution against him,
without prejudice to his liability for contempt.
Sec. 4. Order. - The court shall determine When the person ordered to give support
provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render pendente lite refuses or fails to do so, any third
such orders as justice and equity may require, person who furnished that support to the applicant
having due regard to the probable outcome of the may, after due notice and hearing in the same
case and such other circumstances as may aid in case, obtain a writ of execution to enforce his right
the proper resolution of the question involved. If of reimbursement against the person ordered to
the application is granted, the court shall fix the provide support.
amount of money to be provisionally paid or such
other forms of support as should be provided, Sec. 6. Support in criminal cases. In criminal
taking into account the necessities of the applicant actions where the civil liability includes support
and the resources or means of the adverse party, for the offspring as a consequence of the crime and
and the terms of payment or mode for providing the the civil aspect thereof has not been waived,
support, If the application is denied, the principal reserved or instituted prior to its filing, the
case shall be tried and decided as early as accused may be ordered to provide support
possible. pendente lite to the child born to the offended party
allegedly because of the crime. The application
Ramos v. Court of therefor may be filed successively by the offended
Appeals 45 SCRA party, her parents, grandparents or guardian and
the State in accordance with the procedure
Held: Where the trial court ruled that the claim of established under this Rule.
filiation and support has been adequately proven,
alimony pendente lite can be validly granted Sec. 7. Restitution. When the judgment or final
pending appeal of such decision. order of the court finds that the person who has
Trial courts refusal to grant support pendente lite been providing support pendente lite is not liable
does not deprive the appellate court the authority therefor, it shall order the recipient thereof to
to grant the same especially so where, in view of return to the former the amounts already paid with
the poverty of the child, it would be a travesty of legal interest from the dates of actual payment,
justice to refuse him support until the decision of without prejudice to the right of the recipient to
the judge is sustained on appeal. obtain reimbursement in a separate action from
the person legally obliged to give support. Should
Reyes v. Ines- the recipient fail to reimburse said amounts, the
Luciano 81 SCRA person who provided the same may likewise seek
reimbursement thereof in a separate action from
Facts: the person legally obliged to give such support.
Held: Where petitioner failed to present evidence on
the alleged adultery of his wife when the action for JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
legal separation is heard on the merits, the grant of
support pendente lite is valid. Adultery is a good FORM
defense and if properly proved and sustained will
defeat the action. However, the alleged adultery of Rule 36, Sec. 1. Rendition of final judgements and
the wife must be established by competent evidence. final orders. -- A judgement or final order
Mere allegation would not suffice to bar her from determining the merits of the case shall be in
receiving support pendente lite. writing personally and directly prepared by the
judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
In determining the amount to be awarded as the law on which it is based, signed by him, and
support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully filed with the clerk of court.
102
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or Rule 41, Sec. 3. Period of ordinary appeal The
reconsideration; appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any notice of the judgement or final order appealed
similar motion seeking relief from judgement; from. Where a record on appeal is required, the
(c) An interlocutory order; appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a the judgement or final order.
judgement by consent, confession or
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or
timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No
duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
motion for extension of time to file a motion for
(f) An order of execution;
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
(g) A judgement or final order for or against one
or more of several parties or in separate Rule 42, Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing
claims, counter-claims, cross-claims and A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the
third-party complaints, while the main case is Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its
pending, unless the court allows an appeal appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition
therefrom; and for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the
(h) An order dismissing an action without same time to the clerk of said court the
prejudice. corresponding docket and other lawful fees,
depositing the amount of P 500.00 for costs, and
In all the above instances furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse
where the judgement or final order is not party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of
the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or
Ceniza v. CA, 218 SCRA 390 reconsideration filed in due time after judgement.
Facts: CA, in a resolution, dismissed petitioner Upon proper motion and the payment of the full
Cenizas appeal on the ground of delayed filing of amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the
appellants brief. Issue here is WON this
deposit for costs before the expiration of the
resolution was a final order?
reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may
Held: Yes. A final order or judgment is one w/c
grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only
either TERMINATES the action itself or operates
within which to file the petition for review. No
to vest some right in such a manner as to put out of
further extension shall be granted except for the
the power of the ct. making the order to place in
most compelling reason and in no case to exceed
the parties in their original conditions. A final order
fifteen (15) days.
disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates
proceedings/action, LEAVING NOTHING TO BE Entry of judgement
DONE BUT TO ENFORCE BY EXECUTION.
However, a final order is appealable.
Rule 36, Sec. 2. Entry of judgements and final
KINDS orders. If no appeal or motion for new trial or
reconsideration is filed within the time provided in
As to finality these Rules, the judgement or final order shall
forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of
Rendition of Judgement
entries of judgements. The date of finality of the
judgement or final order shall be deemed to be the
Rule 36, Sec. 1, supra.
date of its entry. The record shall contain the
dispositive part of the judgement or final order and
shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that
103
such judgement or final order has become final and adverse partys pleading, the court may, on motion
executory. of that party, direct judgement on such pleading.
However, in actions for declaration of nullity or
Rule 38, Sec. 3. Time for filing petition; contents annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the
and verification. A petition provided for in material facts alleged in the complaint shall
either of the preceding sections of this Rule must always be proved.
be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the
petitioner learns of the judgement, final order, or Judgement on Demurrer to Evidence
other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than
six (6) months after such judgement or final order Rule 33, Sec. 1. Demurrer to evidence. After the
was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and plaintiff has completed the presentation of his
must be accompanied with affidavits showing the evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence on the ground that upon the facts and the law the
relied upon, and the facts constituting the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion
petitioners good and substantial cause of action or is denied, he shall have the right to present
defense, as the case may be. evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal
the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be
Rule 39, Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by deemed to have waived the right to present
independent action. A final and executory evidence.
judgement or order may be executed on motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry. Summary Judgements
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred
by the statute of limitations, a judgement may be Rule 35
enforced by action. The revived judgement may
also be enforced by motion within five (5) years Sec. 1. Summary judgement for claimant. A party
from the date of its entry and thereafter by action seeking to recover upon a claim, counter-claim, or
before it is barred by the statute of limitations. cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at
any time after the pleading in answer thereto has
Entry of Satisfaction of Judgement been served, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary
Rule 39, Sec. 44. Entry of satisfaction of judgement in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
judgement by clerk of court. Satisfaction of a
judgement shall be entered by the clerk of court in Sec. 2. Summary judgement for defending party.
the court docket, and in the execution book, upon A party against whom a claim, counter-claim, or
he return of a writ of execution showing the full cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is
satisfaction of the judgement executed and sought may, at any time, move with supporting
acknowledged in the same manner as a conveyance affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
of real property by the judgement obligee or by his judgement in his favor as to all or any part thereof.
counsel unless a revocation of his authority is filed,
or upon the endorsement of such admission by the Sec. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. The
judgement obligee or his counsel on the face of the motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before
record of the judgement. the time specified for the hearing. The adverse
party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions,
Sec. 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without or admissions at least three (3) days before the
admission. Whenever a judgement is satisfied in hearing. After the hearing, the judgement sought
fact, or otherwise than upon an execution, on shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
demand of the judgement obligor, the judgement supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions
obligee or his counsel must execute and on file, show that, except as to the amount of
acknowledge, or indorse, an admission of the damages, there is no genuine issue as to any
satisfaction as provided in the last preceding material fact and that the moving party is entitled
section, and after notice and upon motion the court to a judgement as a matter of law.
may order either the judgement obligee or his
counsel to do so, or may order the entry of Sec. 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. If on
satisfaction to be made without such admission. motion under this Rule, judgement is not rendered
upon the whole case or for all the reliefs sought and a
As to process of procuring trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the
motion, by examining the pleadings, and the
Judgement of the Pleadings evidence before it and by interrogating counsel shall
ascertain what material facts exist without substantial
Rule 34, Sec. 1. Judgement on the pleadings. controversy and what are actually and in good faith
Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or controverted. It shall thereupon make an order
otherwise admits the material allegations of the specifying the facts that
104
the name of the judgement obligee, shall be profits awarded by the judgement shall be
delivered directly to the judgement obligee within satisfied in the same manner as a
ten (10) working days from service of notice on the judgement for money.
said garnishee requiring such delivery, except the
lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the (d) Removal of improvements on property subject
court. of execution. When the property subject of
the execution contains improvements
In the event there are two or more garnishees constructed or planted by the judgement
holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the obligor or his agent, the officer shall not
judgement, the judgement obligor, if available, destroy, demolish or remove said
shall have the right to indicate the garnishee or improvements except upon special order of the
garnishees who shall be required to deliver the court, issued upon motion of the judgement
amount due; otherwise, the choice shall be made by oblige after due hearing and after the former
the judgement obligee. has failed to remove the same within a
reasonable time fixed by the court.
The executing sheriff shall observe the same
procedure under paragraph (a) with respect to (e) Delivery of personal property. In
delivery of payment to the judgement obligee. judgements for the delivery of personal
property, the officer shall take possession of
Judgements for specific acts the same and forthwith deliver it to the party
entitled thereto and satisfy any judgement for
Rule 39, Sec. 10. Execution of judgements for money as therein provided.
specific acts.
Special Judgements
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other
specific acts; vesting title. If a judgement Rule 39, Sec. 11. Execution of special judgements.
directs a party to execute a conveyance of land When a judgement requires the performance of
or personal property, or to deliver deeds or any act other than those mentioned in the two
other documents, or to perform any other preceding sections, a certified copy of the
specific act in connection therewith, and the judgement shall be attached to the writ of
party fails to comply within the time specified, execution and shall be served by the officer upon
the court may direct the act to be done at the the party against whom the same is rendered, or
cost of the disobedient party by some other upon any other person required thereby, or by law,
person appointed by the court and the act when to obey the same, and such party or person may be
so done shall have like effect as if done by the punished for contempt if he disobeys such
party. If real or personal property is situated judgement.
within the Philippines, the court in lieu of
directing conveyance thereof may by an order Effect of Judgements and Final Orders
divest the title of any party and vest it in
others, which shall have the force and effect of Local
a conveyance executed in due form of law.
Rule 39, Sec. 47. Effect of judgements or final
(b) Sale of real or personal property. If the orders. The effect of a judgement or final
judgement be for the sale of real or personal order rendered by a court of the Philippines,
property, to sell such property, describing it, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgement
and apply the proceeds in conformity with or final order, may be as follows:
the judgement.
(a) In case of a judgement or final order against a
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. The specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a
officer shall demand of the person against will, or the administration of the estate of a
whom the judgement for the delivery or deceased person, or in respect to the personal,
restitution of real property is rendered and all political, or legal condition or status of a
persons claiming rights under him to peaceably particular person or his relationship to another,
vacate the property within three (3) working the judgement or final order is conclusive upon
days, and restore possession thereof to the the title to the thing, the will or administration, or
judgement obligee; otherwise, the officer shall the condition, status or relationship of the person;
oust all such persons therefrom with the however, the probate of a will or granting of
assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace letters of administration shall only be prima facie
officers, and employing such means as may be evidence of the death of the testator or intestate.
reasonably necessary to retake possession, and
place the judgement obligee in possession of
such property. Any costs, damages, rents or
108
(b) In other cases, the judgement or final order is, Order granting a MTD - a Final Order
with respect to the matter directly adjudged or Only final orders and judgment are subjects of
as to any other matter that could have been appeal. Interlocutory orders are not subject of
raised in relation thereto, conclusive between appeal.
the parties and their successors in interest by
title subsequent to the commencement of the Rendition of judgment - upon the clerk receiving
action or special proceeding, litigating for the the copy
same thing and under the same title and in the Book of entry of judgment - date of the lapse of the
same capacity; and fifteen (15) days; not on the date of entry.
Book of satisfaction of judgment
(c) In any other litigation between the same
parties or their successors in interest, that only Entry of judgment - important for counting
is deemed to have been adjudged in a former of petition for entry of judgment, among
judgement or final order which appears upon others. First Sense - terminates action
its face to have been so adjudged, or which Second Sense of finality - final and executory.
was actually and necessarily included therein
or necessary thereto. Final judgment under new rules - that which can
already be executed
Foreign Nunc pro tunc - "then as now"
Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgements or Final & executory - even if ground is substantial
final orders. The effect of a judgement or final can no longer be modified, except:
order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having 1. Clerical errors
jurisdiction to render the judgement or final order 2. Nunc pro tunc
is as follows: 3. Annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud
(Jep Management Co.)
(a) In case of a judgement or final order upon a 4. Void judgment (Paluwagan and Vda de Macoy)
specific thing, the judgement or final order is a void judgment never prescribes.
conclusive upon the title of the thing; and
Difference between Motion for Re-open and
MNT (taken within the period for taking appeal):
(b) In case of a judgement or final order against a
To re-open trial - make use of ordinary
person, the judgement or final order is
prudence, rules on motions
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
MNT - extrinsic fraud - basis of the cause of
parties and their successors in interest by a
action, performance of a contract
subsequent title.
Content of the action itself.
In either case, the judgement or final order may be
Extrinsic Fraud - one of the parties prevented
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear the other by fraudulent acts to be given his day
mistake of law or fact. in court.
Motion for new trial, Rule 37, Sec. 1, par for relief under R 38 or a petition for annulment of
1 judgment.
Distinguished from Motion to reopen trial An MNT upon the ground of newly
discovered evidence is properly granted where
Agulto v. CA, 181 SCRA 30 there is concurrence of the following requisites:
Facts: Agulto was convicted of bigamy. He filed a 1. the evidence had been discovered after
motion to reopen trial due to newly discovered trial;
evidence AFTER THE PARTIES HAD RESTED 2. the evidence could not have been
BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT. His new evidence discovered & produced during trial even w/
was a photocopy of a marriage certificate of his exercise of reasonable diligence
second wife to another man. (His theory was that if
his second wife had been previously married, he 3. the evidence is material & not merely
could not have validly married her, therefore, no corroborative, cumulative or impeaching.
bigamy). What is essential is not so much the time
Held: The MNT may be filed AFTER judgment when the evidence offered first sprang into
but w/in the period of perfecting an appeal for the existence not the time when it first came to the
knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is
grounds stated in S1,R37 & S2R121.
essential is, rather, that the offering party had
A Motion to Reopen Trial may be
exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to
presented only after either or both parties have
locate such evidence before or during trial but had
formally offered & closed their evidence but
not nonetheless failed to secure ( it must have
BEFORE judgment. The reopening of a trial for
been searched for but not found during trial. )
the reception of new evidence is not a grant of a
new trial. There is no specific provision in the In the CAB, the new evidence was already
rules w/c governs. It is only a recognized presented as evidence in a criminal case vs. the
procedural recourse deriving validity fr. long ward for falsification. Therefore, she had already
established rules. The governing rule is paramount come across that evidence before.
interests of justice resting entirely on the sound Moreover, it is in the nature of an
judicial discretion of the trial ct.. Therefore, the impeaching evidence for it seeks merely to weaken
grant/denial is not subject to certiorari under grave or controvert previous evidence; it is not material
abuse of discretion. or corroborative.
On the merits, the SC decided that the
new evidence had defects & it failed to show that Tumang v. CA 172 SCRA 332
the 2nd wife's marriage was still existing when she Facts: Tumang filed for an annulment of a deed of
married Agulto. sale bec. there was no consideration. The trial ct.
rule for her. The defendant filed an MFR & an
Grounds MNT based on the ground that the decision was
based on insufficiency of evidence & that it was
Velasco v. Ortiz, 184 SCRA 303 contrary to law. As evidence, D presented receipts
Facts: The ward of the spouses Velasco was able proving consideration. Tumang assails the decision
to w/draw money of the dead husband of P Velasco of the CA w/c granted the motion of D by saying
(the latter was diagnosed as disabled). The ward that it was FORGOTTEN EVIDENCE (it had
argued that she was instructed by the decedent to existed at trial & w/c could have been discovered
w/draw money. The TC ruled in favor of Velasco. by D if due diligence was exercised.
Copy of the decision was given to the 1st counsel Held: NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE: need
of the ward. The NEW counsel filed an MNT not be newly created evidence. May & does
based on newly discovered evidence (a commonly refer to evidence already in existence
certification fr. a doctor that the decedent can still prior or during the trial but w/c could not have
properly communicate) been secured & presented during the trial despite
Held: For Velasco. There is no dispute that at the reasonable diligence.
time the MNT was filed, the reglementary period FORGOTTEN EVIDENCE: evidence already in
to appeal had lapsed, & the decision had become existence or available before or during the trial, w/c
final & executory. A judgment w/c has become was known to & obtainable by the party offering it
final & executory can no longer be altered & w/c could have been presented seasonably were it
modified, mush less set aside by the ct. w/c not for the oversight or forgetfulness of such party
rendered it since such ct. has already lost or his counsel.
jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, the power & In the case at bar, the receipts were found
prerogative to order suspension of the rules of during a gen. cleaning, w/c goes to show that the
procedure is reposed, not in the ct. w/c had it could hardly have been located w/ the exercise
rendered such decision but rather in an appellate ct. of reasonable/average diligence.
& ultimately in the SC, & then only upon a The receipts are MATERIAL bec. they are
showing that otherwise the imperious demands of of such import that a reasonably prudent man would
substantial justice will be thwarted. have searched for them. There would be a great
Where the reglementary period to appeal benefit to D if he presents it in trial, therefore, there is
had expired, the remedy is an MNT. If it has no reason why did not try to locate it.
become final & executory, one can file a petition
111
Motion for reconsideration, Rule 37, Sec. Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296
1, par. 2 Facts: Abra Industrial applied for registration of a
piece of land w/c was granted. The Director
Periods. Rule 37, Sec. 1 opposed saying that the land was mineral &
unalienable. Within one year fr. the issuance of the
For filing registration decree, Director filed a petition for
Effect of Motion for Extension of review the decrees of registration.
Time to File Held: An MNT or MFR is not a pre-requisite to an
appeal for review or petition for review on
See also Rule 41, Sec. 3, certiorari. The reglementary period for filing a
par. 2; Rule 40, Sec. 2, par. 2 petition for review on certiorari in the instant case
was 30 days fr. notice of order or judgment subject
Habaluyas v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208 of review w/c period, parenthetically, is now 15
This a resolution on a Motion for Reconsideration days pursuant to S 39 of BP129. The Director
on the SC's 2nd division decision. having been granted a total of 60 days w/in w/c to
Held: In S 39 of BP 129, the period of appeal in file the petition, the same was timely filed.
the RTC was reduced fr. 30 to 15 days for
appeals fr. final orders, resolution, awards,
judgment or decision. But only 48 hours for Second Motion for New
habeas corpus cases. Trial, Rule 37, Sec. 5, par. 1
Only notice of appeal is required. Record Second Motion for
is not required except in (a) appeals in spl. proc.; Reconsideration, Rule 37, Sec. 5, par. 2
(2) where multiple appeals are allowed. In these For Resolution, Rule 37, Sec. 4
cases, the period is 30 days. According to the
Interim Rules, no appeal bond in necessary for
appeal. Its S 4 disallows a second MFR of a final Contents of Motion for New Trial, Rule 37, Sec. 2
order or judgment.
The purpose of such is to avoid procedural In general, Rule 37, Sec. 2; see also Rule
delays. But the Rules does not expressly prohibit a 15
motion for extension of time to file a MFR of a Motion for New Trial, Rule 37, Sec. 2,
final order or judgment. par. 2
The interest of justice would be better Motion for Reconsideration, Rule 37, Sec.
served if the ruling in the original decision 2, par. 3
(denying extension) were applied prospectively fr. Pro forma motion and its effects, Rule
the time herein stated. It would be unfair to deprive 37, Sec. 2, par. 4
parties of their right to appeal simply bec. they
availed themselves of a procedure w/c was not Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole, 192 SCRA 575
expressly prohibited or allowed by the law or Facts: The plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery
Rules. of possession. The TC ruled for the plaintiff &
On the other hand, an MNT or MFR is not ordered the defendant to vacate. The defendant filed
a prerequisite to an appeal, a petition for review or an MFR BUT IT FAILED TO MENTION
a petition for review on certiorari, & since the THE DAY THE MOTION IS TO BE
purpose is to expedite the final disposition of RESOLVED (no notice of hearing). Later, the
cases, a strict but prospective application of said defendant filed a notice of appeal.
ruling is in order Held : Notice of appeal denied. The MFR was a
From June 30, 1986, the rule shall be mere scrap of paper & therefore, pro forma. It did
strictly enforced that no motion for extension of not contain the day when the motion is to be heard,
time to file an MNT or MFR, may be filed w/ the violating S5 R15. As such it does not suspend the
MeTC, MTC, RTC, & IAC. Such a motion may be running of the period of appeal. The notice of
filed only in cases pending w/ the SC as the ct. of appeal filed out of time.
last resort, w/c may in its sound discretion either
grant or deny the extension requested. Action upon Motion for New Trial
In appeals in spl. proc. under R 109 & in
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, a
Options in general, Rule 37, Sec. 3
motion for extension of time to file the record on
appeal may be filed w/in the reglementary period Granting, Rule 37, Sec. 6
of 30 days. If the ct. denies the motion for Effect in general, Rule 37, Sec. 5
extension, the appeal must be taken w/in the
original period since such a motion does not Fernan v. CA, 142 SCRA 208
suspend the period for appeal. Facts: Fernan was suspected of having stolen a
The TC may grant said motion after the wallet. The TC ruled against the plaintiff store &
expiration of the period for appeal provided it awarded damages to Fernan. The CA affirmed the
was filed w/in the original period. TC but upon the MFR of the plaintiff, the TC was
reversed.
Not required for appeal Held. The appeal of the store raises no question of
law but of fact Review of facts is not a function of
112
the CA. An exception to this rule is when Final judgment - 16th day after notice
manifestly correct findings has been unwarrantedly No prescriptive period in actions to nullify
rejected or reversed. In the CAB, the CA reversed Estoppel - by act
the TC. These instances of conflict of findings Laches - by negligence
between the CA & TC is a basis of recourse to the Petition for relief from judgment- equitable
SC.
remedy; only very highly discretionary on the
There must be a showing on the face of
part of the court.
the record of gross or extraordinary
misperception or manifest bias.
Action to annul - separate action. Res judicata
In the CAB, there was no substantial may be raised.
reason given by Fernan refuting the assessment
Any kind of order for Petition for relief, if granted,
of the CA w/c ruled that her testimony had
not appealable.
contradictions & inconsistencies.
If not granted,
Partial New Trials, Rule 37, Sec. 6, 7 not appealable - only special civil actions
Denying
Remedies, Rule 37, Sec. 9; Rule
Relief from Judgments, Orders or
41, Sec. 1 (a)
other Proceedings
regarded as extrinsic or collateral where it has fr. judgment under Rule 38 presupposes a final
prevented a party fr. having a trial or fr. presenting judgment or loss of the right to appeal. The
all of his case to the ct.. In the case at bar, the fraud affirmance of the CA of the denial of the petition
was in the nature of documents allegedly is a confirmation of the existence of a final &
manufactured by G to make it appear he was the executory judgment. CA can neither amend nor
rightful heir of the disputed property. Hence the modify it. When a final judgment becomes
fraud is intrinsic in nature. executory it becomes immutable & unalterable,
even if modification is meant to correct an
Meralco v. CA, 187 SCRA 200 erroneous conclusion of fact or law. Only
Facts: Meralco, after failing to appear at a pre-trial corrections of clerical errors or the making of so-
conference, was declared in default. Thereafter, called NUNC PRO TUNC entries & other
Meralco made the following steps: 1) Filed a MFR judgment w/c cause no prejudice to any party are
to Lift Order of Default & to Vacate Judgment by the exceptions to this rule, otherwise any other
Default - bec. of counsels influenza. Denied. 2) modifications of a final & executory judgment is
VOID.
Petition for Relief fr. Judgment . Dismissed. 3)
Petition for Certiorari. Propriety of this last action
is the issue in this case.
Held: Certiorari is not proper. Such remedy had Time for Filing, Rule 38, Sec. 3
already been lost bec. of Meralcos neglect or error Strictly followed
in the choice of remedies. Certiorari shall not lie to
shield Meralco fr. the adverse consequences of First Integrated Bonding v. Hernando,
such neglect or error. Relief under Rule 38 is of 199 SCRA 796
equitable character & is allowed only in Facts: FIB was impleaded as the insurance agency
exceptional cases where there is no other available of defendant who figured in an accident killing one
or adequate remedy. Meralco could have proceeded person. FIB failed to answer so it was declared in
by appeal to vacate or modify the default judgment. default. FIB took no positive step to vacate the
Relief will not be granted when the loss of remedy order of default. Instead it chose to file a petition
at law was due to his own negligence or a mistaken for relief fr. judgment almost five months fr. its
mode of procedure, otherwise the petition for relief receipt of copy of the amended decision.
will be tantamount to the right of appeal already. Held: The petition for relief fr. judgment was filed
Further, when other lawyers could have appeared out of time. The rules require that such petition
& moved for postponement, sickness of counsel is should be filed w/in 60 days after receipt of
not excusable. judgment & not more than six months after entry of
judgment. Period required by R 38 is non-
Requires final judgment or loss of appeal extendible & never interrupted. It is not subject to
any cond. or contingency, bec. it is itself devised to
Villa Rey Transit v. Far East Motor Co., meet a condition or contingency. The remedy
81 SCRA 298 under the Rule 38 was an act of grace, designed to
Facts: Villa Rey failed to answer w/in the give the party one last chance. Being in the
reglementary period even after denial of its motion position of one who begs, such partys privilege is
to extend time to answer. Hence, & order of not to impose conditions, haggle, or dilly-dally, but
default was rendered. Thereafter it filed a MTQ to grab what is offered him.
Service of Summons, Motion to Lift Order of
Default & To Set Aside Judgment. This was Contents
denied. The 30-day appeal period expired w/o any Affidavit of Merit, Rule 38, Sec. 3
appeal. Villa Rey contends the motion it filed
should be considered as Petition for Relief. Garcia v. CA, 202 SCRA 228
Held: This is untenable. A petition for relief Facts: Eduardo Garcia was able to secure a judgment
presupposes a final & unappealable judgment. In this fr. the trial ct. issuing to him the Certificate of Title to
case, judgment has not yet become final & a land actually owned by the spouses Garcia. He did
unappealable at the time of the filing of the motion. this by misinforming the ct. of the spouses address
so that the notices wont reach them thereby depriving
David v CA, 214 SCRA 644 them of the opportunity to participate in the trial.
Facts: An RTC decision was affirmed by CA w/ Garcia further made further recovery of the land
slight modification to reflect the date for the difficult by conveying the land to another. The couple
computation of the interest to be awarded. This filed a petition for relief fr. said judgment but failed
was done after denying the petitioners relief fr. to categorically allege extrinsic fraud in their affidavit
judgment. of merit. The PFR was dismissed by CA saying that
Held: CA. In sustaining the RTC decision to deny extrinsic fraud should be expressly alleged in the
the petition for relief fr. judgment the respondent affidavit of merit for the petition to lie. The SC said
Court cannot at the same time modify the decision that since in case at bar, the spouses were able to
sought to be overturned by such a petition. The filing allege facts leading to extrinsic fraud, express
of the petition for relief fr. judgment w/ the trial ct. allegation of such is not necessary.
was an unequivocal admission on the private
respondents that his period to appeal fr. the decision Held: CA denied PFR for want of express
had already expired. A petition for relief allegation of extrinsic fraud. SC reversed saying
that since Rule 38 Sec 3 (FAME as ground in
114
affidavit of merit for PFR) & that in case at bar, jurisdiction to hear & determine the same. Service
petitioners were able to show extrinsic fraud, filed a notice of appeal to the IAC.
affidavit is not necessary. HELD: The affidavit of Held: Service filed its petition for relief also w/ the
merit serves as a jurisdictional basis for a ct. to RTC Manila but not in the same case but in another
entertain a petition for relief. But it admits of case. This is erroneous. A judgment or order
exceptions, i.e. Where the attachment of the denying relief under Rule 38 is final & not
affidavit of merit in the petition for relief is appealable, unlike an order granting such relief w/c
unnecessary. The affidavit of merit is essential bec. is interlocutory. However, in such an appeal, the
a new trial would be a waste of courts time if the appellate ct. is only to determine the existence of
complaint turned out to be groundless. Thus, where any of the grounds relied upon (fraud, accident,
there was no jurisdiction over the defendant on the mistake or excusable negligence) & the merit of
subject matter of the action, where a judgment was the petitioners cause of action or defense, as the
taken by default before defendants time to answer case may be. Moreover, Service merely filed a
had expired, where it was entertained by mistake, notice of appeal to the IAC fr. the order of the
lower ct. w/c dismissed his petition for relief. The
or was obtained by fraud & other similar cases, as
appeal should have been made to this Court
when the applicant had no notice of the trial, we through a petition for review on certiorari.
ruled that an affidavit is not necessary.
Prelimnary Injunction pending
When motion for reconsideration
proceedings, Rule 38, Sec. 5
considered as petition for relief Order to file an answer, Rule 38, Sec. 4
Dulos v. CA, supra Procedure
Facts: Nocom spouses filed forcible entry case v
Order to file an answer, Rule 38, Sec. 4
Dulos spouses in the MTC Las Pias. Pre-trial was
set but the Nocoms still filed another case for Availability of preliminary injunction,
annulment & a writ of preliminary injunction in Rule 38, Sec. 5
Makati. Dulos motion for suspension on forcible Proceedings after answer is filed, Rule 38,
entry case was dismissed there being no prejudicial Sec. 6
question. Pre-trial saw that the Dulos spouses were Where denial of appeal is set aside, Rule
in default despite the presence of a purported 38, Sec. 7
representative (Rectra) who held a special power of
attorney executed by said spouses. Judgment on Action of court after giving due course Granting
forcible entry case for the Nocoms. The Dulos of petition for relief, Rule 38,
filed a motion for reconsideration of said judgment
Sec. 7
w/c was denied & the aggrieved spouses went to
the Supreme Court via special civil action for Remedies
certiorari, w/c the Supreme Court dismissed.
Nocoms filed for a writ of demolition w/c was David v. CA, 214 SCRA 644
countered by petitioner spouses by filing for a Facts: An RTC decision was affirmed by CA w/
petition for certiorari, prohibition & preliminary slight modification to reflect the date of
injunction, w/c was granted by the CA. Hence, this computing interest. This was done after denying
appeal. the petitioners relief fr. judgment.
Held: A motion for reconsideration of a judgment Held: The remedy under R41 w/c provides that a
of default may be considered a petition for relief judgment denying relief under R38 is subject to
fr. judgment under R38 S2 only if it is a)verified, appeal, & in the course thereof, a party may also
b) filed w/in 60 days fr. time petitioner learns of assail the judgment on the merits, upon the ground
the decision but not more than 6 months fr. entry that it is not supported by the evidence or it is
of judgment & c) if in case of failure to file an contrary to law. This provision, however, cant be
answer the motion must be accompanied by an construed as allowing the review of the decision
affidavit of merit. It may be considered as a on the specific ground therein indicated, if the
motion for new trial under R27 S2 only if it is denial of the petition for relief by the TC is
accompanied by an affidavit of merit. sustained by the Appellate Court. It may only be
done if the appellate ct. overturns such denial. The
CA, after sustaining the trial courts denial of the
Action of Court before Answer petition for relief should have dismissed the appeal
Power to Deny, Rule 37, Sec. 4 Remedies & to declare the lower courts decision as firm,
final & executory.
after denial, see Rule
41, Sec. 1(b)
Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93
Facts: Thomas Cheesman attempted to annul the sale
Service Specialists v. Sheriff of Manila, by his Filipino wife of a residential lot & building to
145 SCRA 139 Padilla. The sale was declared void ab initio.
Facts: Service Specialists & counsel failed to However, judgment was set aside as regards Padilla
appear at a pre-trial & was declared in default. on a petition for relief filed by her ground on fraud,
Service filed a petition for relief fr. judgment. The accident, mistake or excusable negligence w/c had
lower ct. dismissed the petition for relief for lack of seriously impaired her right to present her
115
case adequately. The petition for relief fr. judgment seasonably file a motion for reconsideration. After
was given due course & a new judge presided over the judgment in (favor of Ramirezs opponent)
the case. Padilla filed a motion for summary had become final & executory. Ramirez filed a
judgment w/c was granted. The judgment declared petition for relief fr. judgment even if the period
sale as valid. Cheesman questions the propriety of for filing the same had expired.
such judgment. Held: There is no means whereby the defeated party
Held: An order of the CFI granting a petition for may procure a final & executory judgment to be set
relief under Rule 38 is interlocutory & is not aside w/ a view to the removal of the litigation
appealable. Once the petition for relief is granted beyond the period for seeking relief, fr. a final order
& the judgment subject thereof set aside, & further of judgment under Rule 38 unless A) judgment is
proceedings are thereafter had, the ct. in its void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due
judgment on the merits may properly grant the process of law or B) it has been fraud. (In other
relief sought in the petitioners basic pleadings, words, period for filing of PFR is mandatory but
although different fr. that stated in his petition for admits of exceptions lack of J & fraud.)
relief. Therefore, since both CFI & IAC found that
the facts adequately proved fraud, mistake or Reopening not allowed
excusable negligence by w/c Padillas rights have
been substantially impaired, the sale was declared
valid. Alvendia v. IAC, 181 SCRA 252