BPI Family Savings Bank v Yujuico
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
*City of Manila filed a complaint against Yujuico for
expropriation of 5 parcels of land located in Tondo,
Manila
*Two of the properties were mortgaged
*RTC rendered its judgment declaring the 5 parcels
of land for public use
* BPI filed a Motion to Intervene in Execution with
Partial Opposition to Defendant’s Request to
Release but was denied by RTC for being field out of
time
* BPI decided to extrajudicially foreclose the
mortgage on the 2 parcels of land
*Because there is still deficiency in the amount
foreclosed, BPI sued Yujuico for the deficiency in
RTC Makati.
*Yujuico moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of res judicata, complaint states no cause of
action and plaintiff’s claim had been waived,
abandoned or extinguished.
*RTC Makati denied motion to dismiss.
* Yujuico moved for reconsideration and filed their
reply raising the ground of improper venue for the
first time
*RTC denied MR and ruled that since improper
venue was not raised in motion to dismiss, it cannot
be dismissed because of it.
-CA:The suit for judgment on the deficiency filed by
BPI against Yujuico, being an action emanating from
the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage contract
between them, must necessarily be filed also at the
RTC of Manila
-SC: An action to recover the deficiency after the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property is a
personal action, for it does not affect title to or
possession of real property, or any interest therein.
-SC: It would also be improper to dismiss the case on
the ground of improper venue because this was not
raised in their motion to dismiss. In civil proceedings,
venue is procedural and not jurisdictional and may
be waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised
Civil Service Commission v. Magoyag
*Magoyag filed with RTC Lanao del Sur a petiiton for
correction of his date of birth from July 22, 1947 to
July 22, 1954 -- Petition was granted.
*Magoyag requested CSC Region X to correct date of
birth appearing in employment records. Said request
was forwarded to CSC-NCR. Magoyag, among others
attached the RTC Petition Decision.
*CSC denied request because RTC decision is not
final and executory. Magoyag attached Certificate of
Finality of Judgment -- still denied.
*Magoyag filed Petition for Review under Rule 43 --
CA granted
-SC: Petition for Review under Rule 43 is applicable
because when CSC gave its resolution, it was not
merely as a response to a request but is a
quasi-judicial action because the result of those
resolution is the denial of a right of the respondent
as conferred by the court.
-SC: It must also be remembered that the petition
for correction is an action in rem, an action against a
thing and not against a person. The decision on the
petition binds not only the parties thereto but the
whole world. As such, CSC is legally bound to
acknowledge and give effect to the judgment of the
RTC.
Inutan v Napar Contracting & Allied Services
*Petitioners are employees of respondent
*Petitioners complained against respondent before
NLRC for wage differential, 13th month pay ,
overtime pay and etc.
*On Jan. 13, 2003, parties enter into joint
compromise agreement -- approved by the Labor
Arbiter
*Because of Napar’s insincerity in discharging its
obligation, complainants filed anew before the
Arbitration Branch of NLRC
*Respondent asserts in its Position Paper that the Rivera Golf Club v CCA Holdings
complainants deemed to have waived their right to
*
be reassigned when they refused to comply to
submit documentary requirements.

-LA: Complainants were correct in filing a new

complaint; Motion for execution of compromise
agreement was not the proper remedy

-NLRC: Granted Napar’s appeal, holding that the

Joint Compromise Agreement operates as res
judicata. MR was filed by both parties but were
denied.

-CA: Affirmed NLRC decision

-SC: Petitioner’s (Inutan, et. Al) right to rescind the

Joint Compromise Agreement and right to re-file
their complaints must prevail.

-SC: Respondents’ non-compliance with the strict

terms of the Joint Compromise Agreement of
reassigning petitioners and ensuring that they will
be given work within the required time constitutes
repudiation of the agreement. Hence, petitioners
properly chose to rescind the compromise
agreement.

-SC:The complaint originally filed by complainants

were dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal
without prejudice does not operate as judgment on
the merits; it does not bar another action involving
the same parties, on the same subject matter and
theory.

-SC: To hold that a separate action for illegal

dismissal is proper shall go against the rule on
multiplicity of suits. It is settled that a plaintiff may
join several distinct demands, controversies or rights
of action in one declaration, complaint or petition.

This is to avert duplicity and multiplicity of suits that

would farther delay the disposition of the case.