Fajardo v Flores Facts: Leopoldo delos Reyes owned a parcel of land, denominated as Lot No.

2351 in Barangay Sumandig in Hacienda Buenavista, San Idelfonso Bulacan. In 1963, he allowed petitioner to cultivate said land. The net harvests were divided equally until 1975 when the relationship was converted to leasehold tenancy. Delos Reyes died leaving his daughter and sole heir, herein respondent Anita Flores with the property. Anita Flores and Jesus Fajardo executed agreements but there was conflict of claims in the interpretation of the Kasunduan. On December 22, 2000, a complaint for ejectment was filed by Anita Flores against petitioners with the MTC of San Idelfonso Bulacan. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss that the lot was agricultural land that they had been continuously, uninterruptedly, and personally cultivating the same since 1960 up to present, that MTC had no jurisdiction. MTC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTC jurisdiction in toto. On motion for reconsideration, the RTC issued an order reversing its decision that the issue fell within the CARL and thus ordered the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. CA rendered the assailed decision, which reinstated the MTC decision. IT disagreed with the finding s of the RTC and ruled that the part of Lot No. 2351 was stony and residential in nature. Issue: W/N it is MTC or the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the case Ruling: The issue of who has a better right of possession over the subject land cannot be determined without resolving first the matter as to whom the subject property was allotted. Thus, it is not simply a case of unlawful detainer, but one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation, definitely beyond the competence of the MTC. The controversy involves an agricultural land, which petitioners have continuously and personally cultivated since the 1960s. logically, the case involves an agrarian dispute which falls within the contemplation of CARL. Undeniably, the instant case involves a controversy regarding tenurial arrangements. There still exists an agrarian dispute because the controversy involves the home lot of petitioners, an incident arising from the land lord tenant relationship. Being agrarian lessees, petitioners have a right to a home lot and a right to exclusive possession. In the case at bar, as long as the subject matter is the legality of the termination of the relationship, the case is cognizable by the DAR, through the DARAB. The severance of the tenurial agreement will not render the action beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute.

Chavez v Court of Appeals Facts: Fidela Y. Vargas owned a five hectare mixed coconut land and rice fields in Sorsogon. Petitioner, Evelina G. Chavez had been staying in a remote portion of the land with her family, planting coconut seedlings and supervising the harvest of coconut and palay. Since Fidela was busy, Evelina undertook to hold in trust for Fidela her half of the profits. But Fidela claimed that Evelina had failed to remit her share of the profits, and despite the demand to turn over the administration of the property, had refused to do so. Consequently, Fidela filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with prayer for the immediate appointment of a receiver before the RTC. In the answer, Evelina and Aida claimed that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter since it actually involved an agrarian dispute. RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Dissatisfied Fidela appealed to the CA. She also filed with that court a motion for appointment of a receiver. CA granted the motion and ordained receivership of the land. Parenthetically, Fidela filed three estafa cases with the RTC of Olongapo City and a complaint for dispossession with the DARAB. In all these cases, Fidela asked for the immediate appointment of a receiver for the property. Issues: (1) W/N Fidela is guilty of forum shopping (2) W/N the CA erred in granting respondent Fidela s application for receivership Ruling: (1) The various suits Fidela instituted against Evelina and Aida involved different causes of action and sought different reliefs. The above cases are similar only in that they involved the same parties and Fidela sought the placing of the properties under receivership in all of them. By forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions in separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause trusting that one or the other tribunal would favorably dispose of the matter. The elements of forum shopping are the same as in litis pendentia where the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The elements are: a) identity of parties or at least same interest in both actions b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts c) identity of the 2 preceding particulars. Receivership is not an action. It is but an auxiliary remedy, a mere incident of the suit to help achieve its purpose. (2) In any event, the CA erred in granting receivership over the property. A petition for receivership requires that the property or fund subject of the action is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, necessitating its protection or preservation. Its object is the preservation of imminent danger to the property if the action does not require such protection or preservation, the remedy is not receivership. Because it is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in extreme situation, Fidela must prove a clear right to its issuance. But she has not.

Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union (CABEU-NFL) vs. Central Azucarera de Bais (CAB) Facts: Respondent CAB is corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It is represented by its president, Antonio Steven L. Chan (Chan). CABEU-NFL is a duly registered labor union and a certified bargaining agent of the CAB rank-and-file employees represented by President Pablito Saguran (Saguran). On January 19, 2004, CABEU-NFL sent CAB a proposed collective bargaining agreement (CBA) seeking increases in the daily wage and vacation and sick leave benefits of the monthly employees and the grant of leave benefits and 13th month pay to seasonal workers. Issues: W/N CA erred (1) in giving due course to the petition for certiorari despite the service of the copy of petition to CABEU-NFL s counsel and not to itself (2) on forum shopping (3) in absolving CAB of unfair labor practice Ruling: (1) On the technical issues, CABEU-NFL s insistence that service of the copy of the CA petition should have been made to it, rather than to its counsel is unavailing. Petitioner is required to serve a copy of the petition on the adverse party before its filing. If the adverse party appears by counsel, service shall be made on such counsel. (2) The court likewise cannot sustain CABEU-NFL s contention on forum shopping. By forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions in separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause trusting that one or the other tribunal would favorably dispose of the matter. The elements of forum shopping are the same as in litis pendentia where the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The elements are: a) identity of parties or at least same interest in both actions b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts c) identity of the 2 preceding particulars. In the case at bench, CABEU-NFL merely raised the fact of the pendency of CA GR SP No. 033132 and CA GR SP No. 03017 in its comment on the petition for certiorari filed before the CA without demonstrating any similarity in the causes of action between the said cases and the present case. In the absence of evidence to show that the issues involved are the same, this Court cannot give credence to private respondent s claim for forum shopping. (3) No unfair labor practice. To prosper it must be shown that CAB was motivated by Ill-will, bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted. Notably, CAB believed that CABEU-NFL was no longer the representative of the workers.

PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) vs. PNCC Skyway Corporation Facts: Petitioner PSTMSDWO is a labor union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Respondent PNCC Skyway Corp is a corporation duly organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. Petitioner and respondent entered into a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement which included vacation leave and expenses for security license provisions. Petitioner insisted that the individual members have the right to schedule their vacation leave, Also, the petitioner demanded that the expenses for the requirement for the renewal of their license, be shouldered by the respondent. Due to the disagreement, petitioner elevated the matter to the DOLE-NCMB for preventive mediation. For failure to settle the issue amicably, the parties agreed to submit the issue before the voluntary arbitrators. The voluntary arbitrator ruled that scheduling of all vacation leaves shall be under the discretion of the union members entitled thereto, and the management to convert them into cash and to pay the expenses for the security guards. CA ruled that since the provisions of the CBA were clear, the voluntary arbitration has no authority to interpret the same beyond what was expressly written/ Issue: W/N the petition was fatally defective due to the lack of authority of its union president, Rene Soriano to sign the certification and verification against forum shopping on petitioner s behalf. Ruling: The purpose of verification is to secure an assurance that the allegation in the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is merely a condition affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Truly, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement. With respect to the certification of non-forum shopping, it has been held that the certification requirement is rooted in the principle that a party litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental. However, this Court has relaxed under justifiable circumstances, the rule, although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.

Sante v. Claravall Facts: On April 5, 2004, respondent filed before the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for damages against petitioners. In her complaint, respondent alleged that in the presence of other persons and police officers, petitioner Irene Sante uttered when translated in English, How many rounds of sex did you have last night with your boss, Bert? You fuckin bitch Bert refers to Albert Garcia, respondent s friend and one of her hired personal security guards detained at the said station and who is a suspect of killing of petitioner s relative. Petitioners also allegedly went around Natividad, Pangasinan telling people that she is protecting and cuddling suspects in the aforesaid killing. Thus, respondent prayed that petitioners be held liable to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was the MTC and not the RTC of Baguio that had jurisdiction over the case. They argued that the amount of the claim for moral damages was not more than the jurisdictional amount of P300, 000 because the claim for exemplary damages should be excluded in computing the total claim. The trial court dismissed the motion that the total claim of respondent amounted to P420, 000 which was above the jurisdictional amount for MTCCs outside Metro Manila. Meanwhile, on July 14, 2004 respondent and her husband filed an amended complaint increasing the claim for moral damages from P300, 000 to 1,000,000. CA promulgated a decision that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the MTCC as the allegations clearly show that plaintiff was seeking to recover moral damages in the amount of P300, 000 well within the jurisdiction of the MTCC and the totality of claim rule cannot be applied because the claim for exemplary damages was not a separate and distinct claim but merely incidental to it. Issues: (1) Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the case (2) Did the RTC commit GAD in allowing the amendment of the complaint? Ruling: (1) There is no question that at the time of the filing of the complaint, the MTCC s jurisdictional amount has been adjusted to P300, 000. But where damages is the main cause of action or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. It is clear based on the allegation that respondent s main action is for damages. Hence, other forms of damages being claimed by respondent, e.g. exemplary damages, attorney s fees and litigation expenses are not merely incidental to or consequence but constitute the primary relief for in the complaint. Considering the total amount of damages claimed was P420, 000, the CA was correct in ruling that RTC had jurisdiction over the case. (2) While it is a basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be allowed when the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose is to confer jurisdiction on the court, here, the RTC clearly had jurisdiction over the original complaint and amendment of the complaint was then still a matter of right.

Domdom vs. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan Facts: By affidavit of February 15, 2002 Hilconeda P. Abril, State Auditor V of the Commission on Audit (COA) assigned at the Philippine Crop Insurance Corp (PCIC), requested the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation on the transactions-bases of the claims of Jaime S. Domdom (petitioner) for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses as a Director of PCIC, the receipts covering which were alleged to be tampered. Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner with nine counts of estafa through falsification of documents. The information were separately filed, raffled, and lodged among five divisions of the Sandiganbayan (SB). The third division disallowed the consolidation. Petitioner argues that all the cases arose from substantially identical series of transactions. Respondent People of the Philippines counters that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration which is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari; that the petition was filed out of time since a motion for extension to file such kind of a petition is no longer allowed; that consolidation is a matter of judicial discretion that the proceedings in different divisions of the SB may proceed independently. In the meantime, the Court issued a TRO enjoining all divisions of the SB from further proceeding with the trial. Issues: (1) W/N motion for reconsideration (MR) is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari (2) W/N petition was filed out of time (3) W/N consolidation is matter of judicial discretion Ruling: (1) The settled rule is that a MR is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari to grant opportunity for the court a quo to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances if the case. However, it circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon in the lower court; where there is urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or the petitioner, where the issue raised is one purely of law pr where public interest is involved, et al The Court finds that the issue raised had been duly raised and passed upon by the SB Third Division, it having denied consolidation in two resolutions; that the issue calls for resolution and any further delay would prejudice the interests of petitioner and that the issue raised is one purely of law, the facts not being contested. (2) That no mention is made of a motion for extension does not make the filing of such absolutely prohibited. Absent such prohibition, it is subject to the Court s sound discretion. The present petition may this be allowed having been filed within the extension sought and at all events, given its merits.

(3) In Test on v DBP, the court laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases: a court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where arise from the same act, event, or transaction involve the same or like issues and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties. It is designed for the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants. It need not be underscored that consolidation of cases, when proper, results in simplification of proceedings which saves time, the resources of the parties, and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial. Above all, consolidation avoids the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions in two or more actions which would otherwise require a single judgment.