Anda di halaman 1dari 209

Kinds of jurisdiction party from defendant or

1. Subject matter jurisdiction – conferred by law raising issue may be


o General power of a court to decide of subject agreed upon
o Enumeration of all issues a court has power to matter - in criminal
decide upon jurisdiction cases: venue
2. Exercise of jurisdiction - as determined by SC - net effect: is
o The SC can say in which courts can certain court jurisdictional
cases be filed acquired
3. Jurisdiction over the case - acquired by the physical jurisdiction
filing of the complaint and payment of correct docket (even though
fees it doesn‘t
4. Jurisdiction over Person – upon correct service of have subject
summon matter
5. Jurisdiction over Property – upon correct service of jurisdiction)
writ of attachment
6. Jursidiction over the Issues – based on what the When is the latest time to raise subject matter
parties raised in the pleadings jurisdiction? Upon appeal (Atwel v. Concepcion Progressive
o Court can only decide on issues raised/brought Associaion) but not when the appellate court has already
before it even though not expressly stated by decided (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy)
the parties
o There is only an issue when the defendant
controverts. If the defendant admits everything Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 S 29 (1968)
then there is no issue Barely one month after the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of
7. Residual jurisdiction – residue of jurisdiction over the 1948, spouses Tijam filed an action to recover P1,908
case against the spouses Sibonghanoy at CFI Cebu. The CFI
o at some point, the lower court can no longer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and issued a writ of execution
decide all of the issues except a few against the defendants. The writ having been returned
o Court loses residual jurisdiction upon unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of
transmittal of the records of the case to the execution against the bond issued by Manila Surety and
appellate court Fidelity Co. The latter opposed the motion, but its oppositions
were denied by the CFI. Said denials were affirmed by the
When can a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of CA in December 1962. In January 1963, Manila Surety filed a
jurisdiction be made? motion to dismiss alleging that when the action was filed
GR: within the time for but before filing the answer to the before CFI Cebu, Sec.88 of Judiciary Act of 1948 already
complaint or pleading (Rule 16, Sec.1) placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior
 Ratio: Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a courts all civil actions where the value of the subject-matter or
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. the amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000 hence
(Rule 9, Sec.1) CFI had no jurisdiction. The CA transmitted the case to the
EX: However, when it appears from the pleadings or the SC observing that the SC ―frowned upon the ‗undesirable
evidence on record: practice‘ of appellants submitting their case for decision and
o that the court has no jurisdiction over the then accepting the judgment, if favorable, but attacking it for
subject matter, lack of jurisdiction when adverse.‖
o that there is another action pending between HELD:
the same parties for the same cause, (litis - Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is conferred upon
pendentia) the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it
o or that the action is barred by a prior judgment affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance
(res judicata) of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of
o or by statute of limitations, (prescription) the proceedings. However, considering the facts and
the court shall dismiss the claim (Rule 9, Sec.1) circumstances of the present case —the Surety is now
 this is also known as the OMNIBUS MOTION RULE barred by laches from invoking this plea at this late hour
 the RTC may only dismiss motu proprio on the grounds for the purpose of annulling everything done heretofore
enumerated in Rule 9, Sec.1 in the case with its active participation.
 the MTC may dismiss motu proprio on any ground  - Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an
summary procedure unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert
a. Subject matter jurisdiction and estoppel a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
Subject Matter Estoppel Venue abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Jurisdiction - The doctrine of laches or of ―stale demands‖ is based
- Totality of - subject - where the upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the
issues a matter case should peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims
court has jurisdiction be filed and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere
power to may no - waivable question of time but is principally a question of the
decide upon longer be - may be in inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be
- Not waivable assailed the locality of enforced or asserted.
- prevents plaintiff or
- It has been held that a party cannot invoke the question on jurisdiction was raised only after 15 years of
jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against tedious litigation.
his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain
such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction Why was the Atwel case dismissed and not just
- Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily transferred or continued in the RTC which has
submitting a cause and encountering an adverse jurisdiction over cases that are not intra-corporate
decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to disputes? Because they first filed it in the SEC which has no
question the jurisdiction or power of the court jurisdiction in the first place. Transferring it to the special
comm‘l court does not mean the latter acquired jurisdiction
Atwel v. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc., G.R.
No. 169370, April 14, 2008
- Petitioners Manuel Melgazo, Eustacio Atwel and Lucia b. Exercise of jurisdiction
Pilapil were the President, VP and Treas. of Concepcion
Progressive Association (CPA), respectively. The Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., G.R. No. 202664, 10
association has a wet market (allegedly acquired as November 2015
early as 1968) - petition for injunction to prevent respondent SJ Land
- while CPA was in the process of registering as a stock from selling shares which were already bought by
corporation (in 1997), its other elected officers and petitioners to other stockholders
members formed their own group and registered - case was raffled to a regular court (Branch 276) which
themselves in the SEC as officers and members of issued the TRO and granted the application for WPI
respondent Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc. - respondents filed MTD otg of lack of jurisdiction over
(CPAI). Petitioners were not listed either as officers or subject matter because it is an intra-corporate dispute
members of CPAI. Later, CPAI objected to petitioners' and should be heard by a special commercial court
collection of rentals from the wet market vendors. (Branch 256)
- CPAI filed a case in the SEC for mandatory injunction. - RTC granted the MTD
Because of RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code), the - Petitioners filed MR, saying that it was the Office of the
case was transferred to the RTC (special commercial Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa that raffled to Branch 276
courts) HELD:
- The special commercial court ruled that: - Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
o the deed of sale covering the property was in conferred by law, whereas a court's exercise of
the name of CPA, not Emiliano Melgazo (father jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is
of petitioner) governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued
o but CPA and CPAI are the same. Rentals from time to time by the Court
should be paid to CPAI not to petitioners - the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the
- Hence, petitioners appealed to CA and contested the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction of the special commercial court over the jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of
case procedure and has nothing to do with the question of
o Not an intra-corporate dispute jurisdiction.
- CA ruled that even though there was no intra-corporate - RA 8799 only provided for the transfer of the cases
dispute, petitioners are barred from questioning the under Sec. 5 of PD 902-A from the SEC to RTCs, being
court‘s jurisdiction based on the doctrine of estoppel courts of general jurisdiction (the transfer of jurisdiction
- On appeal to the SC, petitioners argued that estoppel was made not to particular RTC branches but to RTCs
cannot apply because a court's jurisdiction is conferred in general)
exclusively by the Constitution or by law, not by the o when the transfer of SEC cases to the RTCs
parties' agreement or by estoppels was first implemented, they were transmitted to
HELD: MTD granted the Executive Judges of the RTCs for raffle
- The special commercial court considered the case an between or among its different branches,
intra-corporate dispute when it acquired jurisdiction over unless a specific branch has been designated
the case as a Special Commercial Court
- But in this case, the petitioners were not officers or o eventually an AM was issued designating a
members of CPAI Special Commercial Court per locality to
- Moreover, the issue in this case does not concern the streamline
regulation of CPAI (or even CPA). The determination as - ITC, the intra-corporate dispute was filed with the Office
to who is the true owner of the disputed property entitled of the COC of RTC Muntinlupa which is the official
to the income generated therefrom is civil in nature and station of the designated Special Commercial Court 
should be threshed out in a regular court. from the time of such filing, the RTC acquired
- Lozon v. NLRC: The operation of estoppel on the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether - The proper course of action was not for the commercial
the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had case to be dismissed; instead, Branch 276 should have
no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-
the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not docketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the
barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for Executive Judge should then assign said case to the
the same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be only designated Special Commercial Court in the
conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel station, i.e., Branch 256.
- Tijam provided an exceptional circumstance. To void the
trial court's decision in Tijam for lack of jurisdiction was
not only unfair but patently revolting considering that the
c. Jurisdiction over the case the ground of nonpayment of the correct and proper
docket fee
Manchester Development v. CA, 149 S 562 (1987) o the docket fee that should be paid by private
- underpayment of docket fees (Magaspi case= action for respondent is P257,810.49 more or less
recovery of ownership and possession of parcel of land; o Not having paid the same, complaint should be
Present case = action for damages and specific dismissed and all orders annulled
performance) o Manchester should apply
- during reassessment of filing fee complaint was - Priv resp: Manchester should not apply retroactively for
amended (damages deleted but original prayer at the time said civil case was filed in court there was no
maintained) such Manchester ruling yet. Magaspi should apply
HELD: HELD:
- a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket - The contention that Manchester cannot apply
fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court retroactively to this case is untenable. Statutes
- in the present case the trial court did not acquire regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed
jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can the amendment of the time of their passage. Procedural laws are
the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court retrospective in that sense and to that extent.
- there is no such original complaint that was duly filed - Magaspi: the case is deemed filed only upon payment of
which could be amended. Consequently, the order the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in
admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent court (it just so happened that in Magaspi there was
proceedings and actions taken by the trial court are null confusion as to the nature of the case)
and void. - The principle in Manchester could very well be applied
- (1) all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar in the present case. The pattern and the intent to
pleadings should specify the amount of damages being defraud the government of the docket fee due it is
prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but
in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in also in the filing of the second amended complaint.
the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any o However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall any additional docket fee until the case was
not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, in
expunged from the record. Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the
- (2) The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only government, this Court held that the court a
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
- (3) An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading and that the amended complaint could not
will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less have been admitted inasmuch as the original
the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts complaint was null and void.
sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the o In the present case, a more liberal
Magaspi Case in so far as it is inconsistent with this interpretation of the rules is called for
pronouncement is overturned and reversed. considering that, unlike Manchester, private
respondent demonstrated his willingness to
Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 S 274 (1989) abide by the rules by paying the additional
- Sun Insurance filed complaint with RTC Makati for docket fees as required.
consignation of premium refund on a fire insurance - (new rules amending Manchester)
policy against Manuel Uy Pu Tiong. Latter failed to
respond within reglementary period Baritua v. Mercader, G.R. 136048, 23 January 2001
- Private respondent filed complaint with RTC QC for - Heirs of Mercader filed for damages against JB Lines,
refund of premiums plus damages. The amount of the operator of the bus where Dominador Mercader was
damages was not specified but it may be inferred that riding and which fell into the river due to the driver‘s
damages sought amounted to P50M. He only paid P210 negligence
as docket fee - The complaint simply asked for damages of an amount
- Upon re-raffling and reassessment of the case, the to be proven in court
Clerk of Court told Judge Asuncion that it was difficult to - JB Lines filed a bill of particulars and claimed that it was
assess the docket fees because amount of damages wrongfully impleaded. Among the defenses is the
was not indicated payment of incorrect amount of docket fees.
- Private resp filed re-amended complaint stating a claim - RTC awarded 50k compensatory damages for the death
of P10M in actual compensatory damages but the body of Dominador Mercader plus more than P1M for loss of
alleged damages in the amount of P44,601,623.70 earning capacity and other damages
nd
- Judge Asuncion ordered admission of the 2 amended - CA affirmed RTC decision with modification (reduced
complaint and reassessment of docket fees based on loss of earning capacity to 798k)
the P10M amount of damages. So priv resp paid only HELD:
P39,786 as docket fee - Generally, the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the
- Sun Insurance filed pet for cert with CA questioning said statute in force at the commencement of the action,
order (which was dismissed by CA) unless such statute provides for its retroactive
- Priv resp filed supplemental complaint alleging application. Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it
additional claim of P20M and paid add‘l 64k docket fee continues until the case is finally terminated. The trial
while Sun Insurance was appealing to SC court cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent
- Sun Insurance argued before SC that CA erred in not happenings or events, although of a character that
finding that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction on
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the d. Residual jurisdiction
first instance.
- The Manchester ruling, which became final in 1987, has
no retroactive application and cannot be invoked in the section 9, Rule 41
subject Complaint filed in 1984. The Court explicitly Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's appeal by
declared: To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing
complaints, petitions, answers and other similar of the notice of appeal in due time.
pleadings should specify the amount of damages being A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as
prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the
in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due
not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other
expunged from the record parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction
Standard set in Baritua v. Mercader: damages that are only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the
quantifiable at the time of the filing of the complaint must be records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the
alleged therein and shall serve as basis for the docket fees appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or
Metrobank v. Perez, G.R. 181842, 5 February 2010 the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the
- 1998: Petitioner Solidbank had a lease contract (15y) protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which
with respondent Bernardita Perez when it was acquired do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve
by Metrobank. compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
- 2002: Metrobank terminated the contract execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39,
- Perez filed a complaint for breach of contract and and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (9a)
damages and asked that she be paid the would be
unrealized income Two Kinds of Appeal
- Malolos RTC ruled in favor of Perez and ordered 1. By notice
Metrobank to pay her the would be unrealized income 2. By record
for the ensuing idle months in the amount of more than
P7M plus other damages When is jurisdiction over the case lost, during which
- On appeal Metrobank challenged the RTC‘s jurisdiction only residual jurisdiction is exercised? (Rule 41, Sec.9)
otg of Perez‘s failure to pay docket fees - In appeals by notice of appeal, upon:
- Perez‘s response: at the time of filing and payment, the o the perfection of the appeal filed (filing of the
period that the building would be idle could not yet be notice of appeal) in due time and
determined o the expiration of the time to appeal of the other
- CA affirmed TC: Perez could not have been certain at parties
time of filing that Metrobank would no longer return. It - in appeals by record on appeal, upon:
would have been speculative… o the approval of the records on appeal filed in
HELD: due time and
- Sun Insurance relaxed the rule in Manchester. As o the expiration of the appeal of the other parties
echoed in Heirs of Hinog v. Melico: non-payment of
docket fee at the time of filing does not automatically Until when can residual jurisdiction be exercised? Prior to
cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal
paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a What are the components of residual jurisdiction? (Rule
willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such 41, Sec.9) The court may:
payment. - issue orders for the protection and preservation of the
o When insufficient filing fees were initially paid rights of the parties which do not involve any matter
by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to litigated by the appeal
defraud the government, the Manchester rule - approve compromises
does not apply - permit appeals of indigent litigants
- Metrobank raised the issue of jurisdiction only before - order execution pending appeal
the appellate court after it and its co-petitioner - allow withdrawal of appeal
participated in the proceedings before the trial court.
While lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, a e. Jurisdiction over the person or property
party may be held in estoppel if, as in the present case,
it has actively taken part in the proceedings being section 20, Rule 14
questioned Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary
- Nonetheless, Perez should still pay the balance in appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
docket fees summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
When is the latest time to raise lack of jurisdiction based defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
on non-payment of docket fees? Before perfection of (23a)
appeal (Metrobank v. Perez)
section 2, Rule 47
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be
based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of summons. (example: when the defendant is outside the
jurisdiction. Philippines)
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of,
or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
petition for relief. (n) No. 173946, 19 June 2013
- Boston Equity filed a complaint for sum of money
section 48, Rule 39 against spouses Toledo. Lolita Toledo responded that
Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo is
effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign already dead. She was then required to submit a list of
country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final heirs. Boston Equity then filed a Motion for Substitution
order is as follows: - During trial (after Boston‘s evidence were admitted),
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, Lolita filed a MTD otg that:
the judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the o the complaint failed to implead an
thing, and indispensable party or a real party in interest
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the o trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as person of Manuel pursuant to Section 5, Rule
between the parties and their successors in interest by a 86
subsequent title. o court erred in ordering the substitution of the
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by deceased Manuel by his heirs
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, o court must also dismiss case against Lolita
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (50a) Toledo in accordance with Section 6, Rule 86
- TC denied MTD otg that it was filed out of time citing
Section 1, Rule 16 which states that: "Within the time for
Philam Life v. Breva, G.R. 147937, 11 November 2004 but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
- respondent Milagros Morales filed a complaint for asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made‖
damages and reimbursement of insurance premiums. o Lolita‘s attack on the jurisdiction of the court
Complaint stated that petitioner could be served with was already barred by laches as respondent
summons and other court processes thru its Manager at failed to raise the said ground in her amended
its branch office in Davao City answer and during the pre-trial, despite her
- Summons served upon Philam‘s Davao office and active participation in the proceedings.
received by Insurance Service Officer - On appeal, CA granted Lolita‘s MTD
- Philam filed MTD otg of lack of jurisdiction over its o courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of
person due to improper service of summons. The the defendant only when the latter voluntarily
employee who received was not among those appeared or submitted to the court or by
enumerated in Rule 14, RoC coercive process issued by the court to him.
- Morales filed amended complaint alleging that summons When Boston filed the complaint, defendant
may also be served at Philam‘s principal office in Manila Manuel Toledo was already dead. CFI could
- RTC denied MTD and directed service of alias not have acquired jurisdiction over his person
summons in Manila (improper service of summons not o issue on jurisdiction may be raised at any
ground for dismissal because case is still in its initial stage of the proceeding, even for the first time
stage) on appeal
- CA held that the service of alias summons vested the o when issue on jurisdiction was raised by
RTC with jurisdiction over the person of petitioner respondent, the court a quo had not yet
HELD: decided the case, hence, there is no basis for
- An alias summons may be served in case of wrongful the court a quo to invoke estoppel
service of summons HELD: CA reversed. MTD denied.
- ITC, complaint was amended after the petitioner filed - MTD filed out of time
the motion to dismiss. - No GAD by RTC. Correct in denying MTD because it
- Where the defendant has already been served was filed 6y and 5m after Lolita filed her amended
summons on the original complaint, the amended answer
complaint may be served upon him without need of o clear contravention of the express mandate of
another summons. But if no summons yet been validly Section 1, Rule 16: motion to dismiss shall be
served on the defendant, new summons for the filed within the time for but before the filing of
amended complaint must be served on him an answer to the complaint or pleading
- ITC, since at the time the complaint was amended no o MTD filed after submission of evidence! Only
summons had been properly served on the petitioner delaying tactic
and it had not yet appeared in court, new summons o Not the first MTD filed  earlier MTD =
should have been issued on the amended complaint. unenforceability of petitioner‘s claim under the
SO, the TC should have ordered the service of an Statute of Frauds, which motion was denied
original summons, not an alias summons (which is just a o Tijam not applicable because only for subject
continuation of an original summons) matter jurisd (Only SM jurisd cannot be
- Nonetheless, alias vs. original = mere nomenclature waived)
- Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person
A motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of a party to a case is not one of those defenses which
over the person of the defendant (Rule 16, par.1a) are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such
presupposes that the court really has no jurisdiction defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion
over the person regardless of the proper service of
to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the g. Hierarchy of courts  implicit condition:
defense. CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
- Court‘s failure to acquire jurisdiction over one‘s person
is a defense which is personal to the person claiming it. Sy v. Coslap, 365 S 49 (2001)
In case of death, this is impossible to invoke. Failure to - respondent Fenina Mina wrote a letter-complaint to
serve summons on one‘s person will not be a cause for COSLAP about SM Fairview occupying her property
the dismissal of the complaint against the other - Henry Sy was subpoenaed by COSLAP.
defendants - Sy sought dismissal of the case (by special appearance)
- "person is not an indispensable party if his interest in otg that COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the subject
the controversy or subject matter is separable from the matter and over Sy‘s person
interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily - COSLAP denied Sy‘s MTD, citing COSLAP‘s purpose in
be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which providing a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of
does complete justice between them. Also, a person is land problems in general
not an indispensable party if his presence would merely - Without filing MR, Sy filed petition for certiorari under
permit complete relief between him or her and those Rule 65 before SC
already parties to the action, or if he or she has no HELD:
interest in the subject matter of the action." Two ways by which the SC exercises its power of judicial
o ITC, the estate of Manuel is not an review:
indispensable party to the collection case, for 1. Original jurisdiction - The SC‘s original jurisdiction to
the simple reason that the obligation of Manuel issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition,
and his wife is solidary mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
- Section 11 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states that injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared with RTCs
"neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground and the CA. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not,
for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or however, to be taken as according to parties
added by order of the court on motion of any party or on seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained
its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such freedom of choice of the court to which application
terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy
may be severed and proceeded with separately." of courts. This hierarchy is determinative of the
o A misjoined party must have the capacity to venue of appeals, and should also serve as a
sue or be sued in the event that the claim by or general determinant of the appropriate forum for
against the misjoined party is pursued in a petitions for the extraordinary writs.
separate case. In this case, therefore, the 2. Appellate jurisdiction under Rule 45
inclusion of Manuel in the complaint cannot be  Does not include COSLAP! (ONLY COURTS)
considered a misjoinder, as in fact, the action  EO 561 which created COSLAP provided that
would have proceeded against him had he its orders and decisions are appealable to the
been alive at the time the collection case was SC by certiorari within 30d
filed by petitioner. This being the case, the  BUT the Consti (Sec.30, Art.VI) provides that no
remedy provided by Section 11 of Rule 3 does law shall be passed increasing the appellate
not obtain here. jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Fabian v.
o The name of Manuel as party-defendant Desierto)
cannot simply be dropped from the case.  Appeals from COSLAP must first be brought to
Instead, the procedure taken by the Court in the CA! (QUASI-JUDICIAL)  UNDER RULE
Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te should be followed: the 43 (APPEAL FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL
failure to effect service of summons unto one AGENCIES)
of the defendants, does not render the action
DISMISSIBLE, considering that the other Sir Lumba thinks that the SC is wrong in this case
defendant was validly served with summons because the COSLAP was not exercising its quasi-
and the case with respect to the answering judicial powers
defendants may still proceed independently
o Only the case against Manuel must be St. Martin Funeral Homes v. CA, G.R. No. 130866, 16
dismissed: Section 1 of Rule 3 = only natural or September 1998
juridical persons, or entities authorized by law - Respondent Bienvenido Aricayos filed an illegal
may be parties in a civil action dismissal case against St. Martin Funeral before the
 The TC erred when it ordered the NLRC.
substitution of Manuel by his heirs. - The LA ruled that there was no ER-EE rel‘n and
Substitution is proper only where the dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
party to be substituted died during the - NLRC reversed and remanded case to LA; denied MR
pendency of the case - St. Martin Funeral filed petition before SC for GAD by
NLRC
HELD:
Generally, in both solidary and joint obligations, neither - NLRC decisions used to be appealable first to the
party is an indispensable party Secretary of Labor until this provision was repealed. No
appellate review has since then been provided for.
- BUT there is an underlying power of the courts to
f. Jurisdiction over the issues scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law
and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given
by statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to keep
the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that it is and habeas corpus. (NOTE: NO INJUNCTION)
that part of the checks and balances which restricts the
separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust paragraph A, section 7, article IX, Constitution (CSC,
adjudications COMELEC, COA)
- remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file an MR as Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it within
and then seasonably avail of the special civil action of sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
certiorari under Rule 65 resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision
- in Sec. 9 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7902, the CA or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
has Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
instrumentalities, boards or commission… Except those Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt
Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor of a copy thereof.
Code of the Philippines (the NLRC was not included in
the list of quasi-judicial agencies) section 2, Rule 64
o this is illogical and Congress could not have Mode of review. — A judgment or final order or resolution of
intended that procedural gaffe, since there are the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit
no cases in the Labor Code the decisions, may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court
resolutions, orders or awards wherein are on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court or of any other court for that matter. section 1-4, Rule 65
- all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board
to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
appropriate forum for the relief desired. court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting
TWO KINDS OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
RULE 45: A MODE OF APPEAL The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of
RULE 65: AN ORIGINAL ACTION (RTC, CA, SC) the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and
KNDS OF APPEAL FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
GR: appeal to CA under Rule 43 third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a)
EX: Labor cases (no mode of appeal from the NLRC. Can Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings
only be by petition for certiorari under Rule 65) of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,
Ordinary appeal v. Extraordinary appeal are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
Ordinary Appeal – appellate court cannot dismiss it (Appeal) abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Extraordinary Appeal – appellate court can dismiss it (Petition jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy,
for Review) and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
Modes of appeal from different courts of origin court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
MTC  RTC under Rule 40 (Ordinary)  CA under Rule 42 judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to
(Extraordinary)  SC under Rule 45 (Extraordinary) desist from further proceedings in the action or matter
specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs
RTC  CA under Rule 41 (Ordinary) UNLESS involves only as law and justice may require.
questions of law then CA under Rule 42 (Extraordinary)  The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true
SC under Rule 45 (Extraordinary) copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
QJ  CA under Rule 43 (Extraordinary)  SC under Rule 45 thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
(Extraordinary) provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (2a)
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
Jurisdiction of the different courts performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
A. Original (exclusive/concurrent) as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
1. Supreme Court unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment
section 5(1), article VIII, Const. of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered Section 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall have
commanding the respondent, immediately or at some jurisdiction over:
other time to be specified by the court, to do the act (a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, otherwise, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by and Republic Act No. 1379;
reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. (b) Crimes committed by public officers and employees
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non- including those employed in government-owned or controlled
forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section corporations, embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal
3, Rule 46. (3a) Code, whether simple or complexed with other crimes; and
Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition (c) Other crimes or offenses committed by public officers or
shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the employees, including those employed in government-owned
judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for or controlled corporations, in relation to their office.
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such The jurisdiction herein conferred shall be original and
motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be exclusive if the offense charged is punishable by a penalty
counted from notice of the denial of said motion. higher than prision correccional, or its equivalent, except as
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates herein provided; in other offenses, it shall be concurrent with
to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, the regular courts.
board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising In case private individuals are charged as co-principals,
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or employees including those employed in government-owned
not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it public officers and employees.
involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, Where an accused is tried for any of the above offenses and
unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition the evidence is insufficient to establish the offense charged,
shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. he may nevertheless be convicted and sentenced for the
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted offense proved, included in that which is charged.
except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary
fifteen (15) days 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
section 1, Rule 43 with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by, the
Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or Sandiganbayan, the filing of the criminal action being deemed
final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any right to reserve the filing of such action shall be recognized;
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial Provided, however, that, in cases within the exclusive
functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where the civil action had
Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, therefore been filed separately with a regular court but
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the judgment therein has not yet been rendered and the criminal
President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan, said civil
Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan for
Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action,
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National otherwise, the criminal action may no longer be filed with the
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Sandiganbayan, its exclusive jurisdiction over the same
Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service notwithstanding, but may be filed and prosecuted only in the
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, regular courts of competent jurisdiction; Provided, further,
Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, that, in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Sandiganbayan and the regular courts, where either the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary criminal or civil action is first filed with the regular courts, the
arbitrators authorized by law. corresponding civil or criminal action, as the case may be,
shall only be filed with the regular courts of competent
sec. 18, art. VII, Const. jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate Excepted from the foregoing provisions, during martial law,
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual are criminal cases against officers and members of the
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of armed forces in the active service.
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty 2. Court of Appeals
days from its filing. section 9(1)(2), BP 129
Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
section 1, Rule 56 1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
Original cases cognizable. — Only petitions for certiorari, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and appellate jurisdiction; (NOTE: NO INJUNCTION)
attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors, other public 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
Court. 3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and
paragraph 4, section 4, Sandiganbayan law quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, including the Securities and Exchange exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00). (as
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees amended by R.A. No. 7691*)
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, Except those falling within the appellate Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under (1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph od Section 17 of the and
Judiciary Act of 1948. (2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and ministers and consuls.
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases section 10, Rule 47
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including Section 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of
the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be Municipal Trial Courts. — An action to annul a judgment or
continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the
unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It
No. 7902.) shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3,
4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.
Rule 47(1)
Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the sections 1(1)(2), RSP
Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary
in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their
of the petitioner. jurisdiction:
A. Civil Cases
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
3. Regional Trial Court irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
section 19, 21, BP 129 sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded,
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (P20,000.00).
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is (2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where
incapable of pecuniary estimation; the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed ten
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession thousand pesos (P10,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand sections 2, 4, RSC
pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern the procedure in
such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the
is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal claim does not exceed Three hundred thousand pesos
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where SEC. 4. Applicability.—The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
the demand or claim exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
(P300,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all
claim exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00); actions which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
the gross value of the estate exceeds Three hundred reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in probate matters in criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Four hundred criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal
thousand pesos (400,000.00); action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Of
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital Criminal Procedure. These claims or demands may be: (a)
relations; For money owed under any of the following: 1. Contract of
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any Lease; 2. Contract of Loan; 3. Contract of Services; 4.
court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any Contract of Sale; or 5. Contract of Mortgage; (b) For
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi- damages arising from any of the following: 1. Fault or
judicial functions; negligence; 2. Quasi-contract; or 3. Contract; (c) The
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this
Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise
now provided by law; and known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos
(300,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items
SC CA RTC MTC
Martial Law Yes (Constitution)
Ambassadors Yes (Constitution) Yes (BP 129;
concurrent)
Certoirari, Prohibition, Yes (Rule 65) Yes (Rule 65) Yes (Rule 65)
Mandamus
Quo warranto Yes Yes Yes
Habeas Corpus Yes Yes Yes
Injunction Yes
Specific Performance Yes (incapable of
pecuniary estimation 
sec. 19, 21, BP 129)
Rescission (flipside of Yes
specific performance)
Damages Yes (above 300k if Yes
outside MM or above
400k if within MM)
Replevin Yes (above 300k if Yes
outside MM or above
400k if within MM)
REAL ACTIONS
Accion Yes (above 20k if Yes
reinvindicatoria outside MM or above
(recovery of 50k if within MM)
possession based on
ownership)
Accion publiciana Yes (above 20k if Yes
(recovery of outside MM or above
possession based on 50k if within MM)
real right of
possession)
Reconveyance Yes (above 20k if Yes
(Recovery of title outside MM or above
based on real right of 50k if within MM)
ownership)
FE/UD Yes
Partition  Real Yes (above 20k if Yes
Action? outside MM or above
50k if within MM)
REM Foreclosure  Yes (above 20k if Yes
Real Action? outside MM or above
50k if within MM)
Land titling Yes Yes
Quieting of Title  Yes
Real action?
- Bank of
Commerce: Real
Action
- Sabitsana: Rule
63
Declaratory relief Yes
o These are of the hybrid variety because these
a. Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls  are principally incident to whole states or
FOREIGN nations (hence they are more definite and
actionable, acdg to Blackstone)
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004); main o Basically, some torts in violation of the law of
opinion; discussion on the Alien Tort Statute only nations were understood to be within the
- Alvarez-Machain was a Mexican physician suspected of common law.
participating in the torture and murder of a DEA agent  NOTE: positive law was frequently
assigned in Mexico relied upon to reinforce and give
- The DEA hired Mexican men including petitioner Sosa standard expression to the brooding
to abduct Alvarez-Machain and bring him to the US for omnipresence of the common law
trial then thought discoverable by reason
- The case against Alvarez-Machain was eventually - In sum, although the ATS is a jurisdictional statute
dismissed creating no new causes of action, the reasonable
- Alvarez-Machain then brought a civil action against the inference from the historical materials is that the statute
US government, DEA agents and the Mexican men who was intended to have practical effect the moment it
were responsible for his abduction. He sought damages became law. The jurisdictional grant is best read as
from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims having been enacted on the understanding that the
Act (FTCA) alleging false arrest, and from Sosa under common law would provide a cause of action for the
the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for a violation of the law of modest number of international law violations with a
nations. potential for personal liability at the time.
o FTCA: authorizes suit for personal injury - BUT ITC, federal courts should not recognize private
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or claims under federal common law for violations of any
omission of any employee of the Government international law norm with less definite content and
while acting within the scope of his office acceptance among civilized nations than the historical
o ATS: district courts shall have original paradigms familiar when ATS was enacted.
jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a o This is because the treatment of common law
tort only, committed in violation of the law of in the US legal system has changed
nations or a treaty of the United States o Thus, Alvarez‘s detention claim must be
- On the ATS: the District Court awarded summary gauged against the current state of
judgment and $25,000 in damages to Alvarez. Affirmed international law
by the Ninth Circuit  Alvarez grounded his argument on the
o The ATS not only provides federal courts with UDHR and ICCPR but these two do
subject matter jurisdiction, but also creates a not impose obligations as a matter of
cause of action for an alleged violation of the international law
law of nations  There is no norm of requisite force
- Before the SC, Sosa argues that there is no relief under prohibiting a forcible abduction across
the ATS because the statute does no more than vest a border
federal courts with jurisdiction, neither creating nor
authorizing the courts to recognize any particular right of
action without further congressional action b. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
HELD: warranto, habeas corpus, injunction
- federal courts could entertain claims once the
jurisdictional grant was on the books, because torts in Clark Investors and Locators Association, Inc. v.
violation of the law of nations would have been Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 200670, 6 July 2015
recognized within the common law of the time. - Subic and Clark were converted into special economic
- In history: There was a sphere in which rules binding zones.
individuals for the benefit of other individuals overlapped - Under RA 7227, in lieu of national and local taxes, all
with the norms of state relationships. Blackstone businesses and enterprises operating within the Subic
referred to it when he mentioned three specific offenses Special Economic Zone shall pay a preferential gross
against the law of nations addressed by the criminal law income tax rate of five percent (5%). Also, they shall be
of England: (1) violation of safe conducts, (2) exempt from the payment of all taxes and duties on the
infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and (3) importation of raw materials, capital, and equipment into
piracy. the Subic Special Economic Zone
o Basically: common law afforded criminal law - The same tax and fiscal incentives were extended to
remedies for violations of the law of nations Clark under RA 9400
o An assault against an ambassador, for - The DOF issued RR 2-2012 which imposed VAT and
example, impinged upon the sovereignty of the excise tax on the importation of petroleum and
foreign nation and if not adequately redressed petroleum products from abroad and into the Freeport
could rise to an issue of war Zones
- Congress intended the ATS to furnish jurisdiction for a - petitioner, which represents the businesses and
relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the enterprises within the Clark Freeport Zone, filed the
law of nations. Uppermost in the legislative mind instant petition alleging that respondents acted with
appears to have been offenses against ambassadors, grave abuse of discretion in issuing RR 2-2012
violations of safe conduct, and individual actions arising - OSG: petition must be denied outright because the
out of prize captures and piracy special civil action for certiorari cannot be used to assail
RR 2-2012 which was issued by the respondents in the
exercise of their quasi-legislative or rule-making equipped to resolve the issues because this
powers Court is not a trier of facts
o certiorari can only be used against a public
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial Board of Trustees of GSIS v Velasco, G.R. No. 170463, 2
powers February 2011
o violated doctrine of hierarchy of courts - petitioners charged respondents administratively with
o RR 2-2012 not inconsistent with RA 7227 and grave misconduct and placed them under preventive
RA 9400: Section 3 allows the businesses and suspension for 90 days
enterprises operating within the Subic Special o alleged participation in the demonstration held
Economic Zone and Clark Freeport Zone to by some GSIS employees denouncing the
claim for a tax refund upon submission of alleged corruption in the GSIS and calling for
competent proof that they used imported fuel the ouster of its president and general
exclusively within the Subic Special Economic manager, petitioner Winston F. Garcia
Zone and Clark Freeport Zone - respondent Mario I. Molina requested GSIS Senior Vice
HELD: Petition denied for being improper remedy President Concepcion L. Madarang for the
- DOF did not act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity implementation of his step increment. Respondents also
(Rule 65) asked that they be allowed to avail of the Christmas
o For a special civil action for certiorari to raffle benefits for all GSIS officials and employees.
prosper, the following requisites must concur: These were denied because of their pending
1. it must be directed against a tribunal, administrative case
board, or officer exercising judicial or - petitioner GSIS Board issued a Board Resolution (in the
quasi-judicial functions; exercise of its quasi-legislative power)
2. the tribunal, board, or officer must have recommending that an employee with a pending
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or administrative case be disqualified from promotion, step
with grave abuse of discretion amounting increment, performance-based bonus, and other
to lack or excess of jurisdiction benefits and privileges
3. there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, - respondents filed before the trial court a petition for
and adequate remedy in the ordinary prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction:
course of law. o sought to restrain and prohibit petitioners from
o Judicial function = power to determine what the implementing the Resolution
law is and what the legal rights of the parties o denial of the employee benefits due them on
are and then undertakes to determine these the ground of their pending administrative
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the cases violates their right to be presumed
parties innocent and that they are being punished
o Quasi-judicial function = action, discretion, etc., without hearing
of public administrative bodies required to - petitioners filed MTD
investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of - TC denied MTD and granted WPI
facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions o TC said it can take cognizance of the petition
from them, as a basis for their official action because the territorial area referred to in
and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does
- DOF acted within the exercise of their quasi-legislative not necessarily delimit to a particular locality
or rule-making powers but rather to the judicial region
o Under Sec.244 NIRC o respondents were entitled to all employee
- Moreover, the case seeks the declaration by the SC of benefits as provided under the law by reason
the unconstitutionality and illegality of the questioned of their employment.
rule, thus partaking the nature, in reality, of one for - On appeal to SC, petitioners argue that the Civil Service
declaratory relief over which the SC has only appellate, Commission (CSC), not the trial court, has jurisdiction
not original, jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 03-108389 because it involves
o special civil action of declaratory relief falls claims of employee benefits. Petitioners point out that
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional the trial court should have dismissed the case for lack of
Trial Courts (even if only questions of law), jurisdiction.
Rule 63 o Petitioners also claim that the petition for
- although the SC, CA, and RTC have concurrent prohibition was filed in the wrong territorial
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, jurisdiction because the acts sought to be
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and prohibited are the acts of petitioners who hold
injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner their principal office in Pasay City, while the
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum  petition for prohibition was filed in Manila.
HIERARCHY HELD:
o The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (1) it - TC not CSC has jurisdiction: petition for prohibition!
would be an imposition upon the precious time - petition for prohibition filed by respondents is a special
of this Court; and (2) it would cause an civil action which may be filed in SC, CA, SB or RTC.
inevitable and resultant delay, intended or o Personal action  may be tried where the
otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides,
in some instances had to be remanded or or where the defendant or any of the principal
referred to the lower court as the proper forum defendants resides, at the election of the
under the rules of procedure, or as better plaintiff
o respondent Velasco, plaintiff before the trial HELD:
court, is a resident of Manila - On forum shopping:
- ALSO: writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo o Under the Procedure on Extra-Judicial
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction may be Foreclosure of Mortgage, the applicant in an
enforced in any part of the respective regions of the extra-judicial foreclosure covering properties
RTCs located in different provinces is required to pay
only one filing fee. The venue, however, of the
NOTE: This case should have been filed with RTC Pasay extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings is the
where the principal office of GSIS is, even though the place where each of the mortgaged property is
plaintiff resides in Manila because: located
- Rule 4 Section 4a provides that Rule 4 on venues does o BMC is not guilty of forum shopping precisely
not apply when a specific rule provides otherwise because the remedy available to them under
- Rule 65 Section 4 provides that a petition should be filed the law was the filing of separate injunction
with the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial suits. It is mandated to file only one case for a
area single cause of action, e.g., breach of
(the SC might have made a mistake in this case) mortgage contract, yet, it cannot enforce any
injunctive writ issued by the court to protect its
properties situated outside the jurisdiction of
said court.
Benguet Management Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
153571, 18 September 2003 Note: only the RTC has jurisdiction to issue injunction
- Benguet Mgt Corp and Keppel Bank Phil entered into a
Loan Agreement and Mortgage Trust Indenture
(mortgaged lands in Zambales and Laguna) Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, 27 August 2013
o BMC failed to pay the loan; KBPI filed an - Petition for continuing mandamus, damages and
application for extra-judicial foreclosure before attorney‘s fees filed with RTC Sorsogon
the CoC of RTC Iba and RTC San Pablo. In o iron ore mining operations being conducted by
the application with RTC San Pablo, it was Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines
indicated that the fees were already paid in Development Corporation and TR Ore without
RTC Iba the required permit to operate
- In RTC San Pablo: o Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his
o BMC claimed that the application should be predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators
denied for being insufficient in form and a small-scale mining permit, which they did not
substance and because there is no need to have authority to issue
proceed with the foreclosure of its properties - Reliefs prayed for:
situated in Laguna because it was willing to o issuance of a writ commanding the
execute a dacion en pago in place of the respondents to immediately stop the mining
mortgaged properties operations
o KBPI opposed otg of wrong remedy and forum o TEPO
shopping (because BMC also filed suit in RTC o inter-agency group to undertake the
Iba) rehabilitation of the mining site
o Application was found to be sufficient in form o damages
and substance, and was granted o return of iron ore
- In RTC Iba: - case was referred to Branch 53, the designated
o BMC filed a complaint for damages and environmental court
nullification of foreclosure of its properties in - BUT the case was summarily dismissed for lack of
Zambales, with prayer for the issuance of a jurisdiction
TRO. Allegedly, KBPI imposed unauthorized HELD:
penalties, interest and charges. Also, KBPI did - the RTC‘s motu proprio dismissal otg of lack of
not comply with the 60-day grace period. BMC jurisdiction is patently incorrect
added that dacion en pago should be preferred - In dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the RTC
over the foreclosure of the collaterals relied on SC AO No. 7 defining the territorial areas of
o RTC Iba issued TRO the RTCs and Admin Circ No. 23-2008 designating the
- BMC filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing environmental courts ―to try and decide violations of
the validity of the foreclosure of its properties in Laguna. environmental laws committed within their respective
It prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction territorial jurisdictions‖
and/or TRO to enjoin the scheduled sale of its - Such reasoning is plainly erroneous
properties in Laguna. Since no injunction or restraining - BP 129 Sec. 21(1) provides that the RTCs shall
order was issued, the auction sale proceeded with KBPI exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
as the highest bidder certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
o BMC filed a Supplemental Petition to restrain habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced
the registration of the certificate of sale  in any part of their respective regions
GRANTED. CA issued TRO on registration - A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 merely
o BMC filed with the appellate court an Amended provide for the venue where an action may be filed
Supplemental Petition praying for the issuance - the error committed by the petitioners in filing the case
of a WPI/TRO to enjoin the consolidation of with RTC of Sorsogon was that of improper venue
titles  DENIED
o Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases - An injunction is a "special remedy" adopted in that code
states that special civil action for continuing from American practice, and originally borrowed from
mandamus shall be filed with the RTC English legal procedure, which was there issued by the
exercising jurisdiction over the territory where authority and under the seal of a court of equity, and
the actionable neglect or omission limited, as in other cases where equitable relief is
occurred sought, to cases where there is no "plain, adequate, and
o ITC, alleged actionable neglect or omission complete remedy at law" which "will not be granted
occurred in Matnog which is within the territory while the rights between the parties are undetermined,
of RTC Irosin except in extraordinary cases where material and
o But even then, it does not warrant the outright irreparable injury will done," which cannot be
dismissal of the petition by the RTC as venue compensated in damages, and where there will be no
may be waived adequate remedy, and which will not, as a rule, be
- what the RTC should have done under the granted, to take property out of the possession of one
circumstances was to transfer the case (similar to an party and put it into that of another whose title has not
election protest) to the proper branch been established by law.
- injunction, mandamus and prohibition = SPECIAL
REMEDIES!!  limited use where there is no other
Where do you file the petitions pertaining to violations of adequate remedy (hold otherwise would be to render
environmental rules such as petition for continuing practically of no effect the other ordinary actions)
mandamus? According to the Rules on Environmental - source of confusion: Spanish for injunction = interdicto
Cases, such petitions should be filed in the RTC which has prohibitorio  Devesa mistook injunction for accion
territorial jurisdiction over the area where the act was interdictal
committed. Hence, this case could have been dismissed if o BUT accion interdictal is within the exclusive
the MTD cited the said rule. jurisdiction of the court of the (MTC) hence,
Note: Rule 4 Section 4a provides that Rule 4 on venues does CFI (RTC) has no jurisdiction
not apply when a specific rule provides otherwise. The Rules o Also, since there is nothing in the allegations or
of Procedure for Environmental Cases states that special civil proof to show that defendant obtained
action for continuing mandamus shall be filed with the RTC possession of the land in question by force,
exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable intimidation, fraud, or strategy the action is not
neglect or omission occurred in the nature of the summary remedy of forcible
Note: case cannot be dismissed motu proprio otg of improper entry and wrongful detainer
venue because venue may be waived - TC decision REVERSED and preliminary and
permanent injunctions DISSOLVED

Devesa v. Arbes, G.R. No. 4891, 23 March 1909 ITC, the plantiff should have filed accion reinvindicatoria.
- Crispin Arbes was the administrator of the estate of Nevertheless, the CFI had subject matter jurisdiction because
Gregoria Arbes. it is not the caption of the pleadings that matters but the body
- Sofia Devesa prayed before the CFI for an injunction (in relation to Rule 10, Sec.5).
restraining Crispin Arbes from continuing in possession
and enjoying the fruits of the land in question until and a. Totality Rule
unless he obtained a final judgment in a proper action
declaring these lands to be the property of the estate of section 2, SC Admin Circular 09-94 (March 14, 1994)
Gregoria Arbes The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in
- Sofia Devesa alleged that Crispin Arbes had unlawfully determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8)
taken possession of some of her rice lands and coconut and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
groves 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely
- property in question was assigned to Sofia‘s husband, incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action.
Vicente Sola pursuant to an extra judicial partition However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main
contract executed in the year 1887 by the heirs of cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
Gregoria Arbes (first wife of Sofia‘s husband). Ever such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
since, Sofia and her husband continued in the quiet, of the court.
peaceable, and exclusive possession thereof.
- TC granted the WPI prayed for In determining filing fees: the value of subject matter
- After trial, TC ruled in favor of Sofia Devesa, granting a involved or the amount of demand, inclusive of interest,
final injunction perpetually restraining Crispin Arbes penalties, surcharges, damages of whatever kind, attorney‘s
from continuing in possession of the land in question fees, litigation expenses and costs (Rule 141, Sec.8)
HELD:
- the remedy by injunction sought by the plaintiff and In determining jurisdictional amount: if the interest on the
allowed the trial court was not the proper remedy for the loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of
cause of action set out in the pleadings and established action, not merely incidental thereto, and already
by the evidence determinable at the time of the filing of the Complaint, it must
o TC should have required an amendment of the be included in the determination of which court has the
complaint by striking out the prayer for an jurisdiction over the case. (Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No.
injunction and substituting therefor a prayer for 174414, March 14, 2008)
a judgment for possession of the land
described in the complaint
Soliven v. Fastforms Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 139031, 18 for hospitalization, 28k for the food during the
October 2004 wake, 50k exemplary damages, 60k indemnity,
- May 1994: Antoinette Soliven filed with RTC Makati a (TOTAL 929k in damages) and 25k AF.
complaint for sum of money with damages against - Mendoza countered that she exercised the diligence of
Fastforms a good father of the family over her employee,
o Fastforms thru its president, Dr. Escobar, Macasasa
obtained a 170k loan from Soliven which the - The complaint for damages against Macasasa was
former failed to pay dismissed. Eventually, the complaint against Mendoza
- Fastforms countered that it did not authorize Escobar to was also dismissed
obtain a loan from Soliven o Neither Macasasa nor Mendoza was negligent
- RTC ruled in favor of Soliven, ordering Fastforms to pay: o Soriano crossed thru a small gap in the islands
o P195,155.00 as actual damages; instead of using the overpass
o P200,000.00 as moral damages; - 2004: CA reversed the TC and ordered Mendoza to pay
o P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and damages to the heirs of Soriano
o P100,000.00 as attorneys fees, plus the costs o While Soriano was negligent, Macasasa was
of suit. also negligent for speeding
- In its MR, Fastforms questioned for the first time the - Before the SC, Mendoza questioned the jurisdiction of
RTC‘s jurisdiction alleging that the principal amount the RTC
sought by petitioner was only 195,155 which is below o According to Mendoza, in determining the
200k; hence, the complaint should have been filed with jurisdictional amount, the moral damages, lost
the MTC pursuant to RA 7691 income, exemplary damages and attorney‘s
o Soliven countered that Fastforms can no longer fees should not be considered. If these were
question the RTC‘s jurisdiction because it excluded, the total amount would only be 179k
already sought affirmative relief from the RTC which is below the jurisdictional amount of the
and actively participated during trial RTC
- 1995: RTC denied MR and asserted its jurisdiction HELD: CA affirmed. RTC had jurisdiction over the case
because the totality of the claim exceeded 200k - Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are
o RTC also ruled that Fastforms was already primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of
estopped from questioning its jurisdiction a sum of money for the damages for tortuous acts
- CA reversed RTC: jurisdiction is with MTC because the o ITC, total damages = 929k + 25k AF
claim was below 200k and it may question jurisdiction - [Mendoza also failed to prove that she exercised the
anytime even for the first time on appeal diligence of a good father of the family as employer]
HELD: CA reversed. Jurisdiction should be with the MTC
BUT Fastforms is estopped from questioning jurisdiction
- RA 7691 (April 1994): where the amount of the demand
in civil cases instituted in Metro Manila exceeds b. Incapable of pecuniary estimation  principal
P200,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of relief sought may not be estimated in terms of money; the
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and basic issue of the action is something other than the right to
costs, the exclusive original jurisdiction is lodged with recover a sum of money, or the money claim is merely
the RTC incidental to the principal relief
- BUT under section 2, SC Admin Circular 09-94
(March 14, 1994), the exclusion of the term "damages
of whatever kind" applies to cases where the damages Russel v. Vestil, 304 S 738 (1999)
are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main - petitioners and private respondents were co-heirs of an
cause of action undivided 57k sqm lot in Liloan, Cebu
- ITC, the main cause of action is for the recovery of sum - 1990: petitioners discovered a document denominated
of money amounting to only P195,155.00. The damages "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
being claimed by petitioner are merely the CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL
consequences of this main cause of action. Hence, they AGREEMENT OF PARTITION‖ 1990  private
are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. respondents divided the property among themselves to
Hence, jurisdiction is with the MTC the exclusion of petitioners
- BUT respondent actively participated in all stages of the o Petitioners claimed that the document was
proceedings before the trial court and invoked its perjurious
authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, - 1994: petitioners filed a complaint against private
respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court‘s respondents, denominated "DECLARATION OF
jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has NULLITY AND PARTITION‖ in the RTC Mandaue
been rendered. - Private respondents filed MTD otg of lack of jurisd over
the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the
subject land is P5,000.00 which falls under the
Mendoza v. Soriano, G.R. No. 164012, 8 June 2007 jurisdiction of MTC Liloan
- 1997: Sonny Soriano died after being hit by an FX - Petitioners opposed the MTD saying that the RTC has
driven by Lomer Macasasa and owned by Flordeliza jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is
Mendoza. A case for RIRI homicide was filed against incapable of pecuniary estimation
Macasasa and Mendoza by the heirs of Soriano. - Judge Vestil of RTC Mandaue granted the MTD
o They also asked for 200k moral damages, HELD: RTC has jurisdiction
500k lost income, 22,250 for funeral services, In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
45k for the burial lot, 15,150 for interment, 8k which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the o rescission or reformation of contracts
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the o interpretation of a contractual stipulation
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable - ITC, the cause of action is for specific performance. The
of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the re-acquisition of the lots by Bautista is but incidental to
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would and an offshoot of the exercise of the right by the latter
depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the to redeem said lots pursuant to CA 141
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum - ALSO, respondents are estopped from questioning the
of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a jurisdiction of the RTC because they have actively
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has participated in the proceeding. The MTD was belatedly
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the filed (9 years after)
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by the RTC Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-II Builders, Inc., G.R. No.
192649, 22 June 2011
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: - R-II Builders filed MR questioning the ruling that the
- specific performance RTC of Manila had no jurisdiction over the case
- support o R-II Builders sought the nullification of the
- foreclosure of mortgage Deed of Assignment and Conveyance
- annulment of judgment transferring the Asset Pool in favor of petitioner
- actions questioning the validity of mortgage Home Guaranty Corporation
- annulment of a deed of sale or conveyance and to o After R-II Builders filed the case with RTC
recover the price paid Manila, it was raffled to Branch 24 which was a
- rescission (counterpart of specific performance) special commercial court. Branch 24 found that
the case did not involve an intra-corporate
ITC, the subject matter = annulment of a document dispute. Hence, the case was re-raffled to
denominated as ―DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF Branch 22
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION." While o Branch 22 held that the case was a real action
the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this and that R-II Builders evaded the payment of
is just incidental to the main action the proper docket fees computed on the basis
of the assessed value of the realties in the
Note however that a person who is not a party to the Asset Pool
contract cannot seek its annulment. Hence, this case is - In this MR, R-II Builders argued that the subject matter
ultimately one for partition or recovery of possession of the case was incapable of pecuniary estimation
and should have been filed with the MTC. HELD: MR denied
- The case is a real action because the complaint did not
Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, 10 March just seek the nullification of the Deed but also prayed for
2014 the transfer of possession of and/or control of the
- 1983: Alfredo Bautista inherited a free-patent land properties in the Asset Pool.
- 1991: Bautista eventually subdivided the lot and sold to - R-II Builders in its opposition to HGC‘s motion to dismiss
respondents. admitted that the case is a real action as it affects title to
- 1994: Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase against or possession of real property or an interest therein
respondents before the RTC, anchoring his cause of - if the petition is solely for annulment or rescission of the
action on CA 141 (Public Land Act) which says that one contract, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. If the
who acquired a free-patent land may repurchase the complaint also asks for the transfer of title or possession
same within 5years of the subject property to the adverse party, then it is
- 2013: Respondents filed MTD alleging that the already a real action
complaint failed to state the value of the property sought
to be recovered The SC here harmonized De Leon (prayed only for
o The total selling price is only 16,500 which is annulment even though it may eventually lead to
below the jurisdictional requirement of the RTC recovery of possession) and Serrano (prayed for both
- RTC granted the MTD annulment and recovery of possession). Most SC cases
- Before the SC, petitioners argue that an action for follow the doctrine in Home Guaranty, except the
repurchase is not a real action, but one incapable of Olivarez case.
pecuniary estimation, it being founded on privity of
contract between the parties. According to petitioners,
what they seek is the enforcement of their right to c. Real actions
repurchase the subject property under CA 141
- Respondents argue that Bautista‘s action is one Sebe v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 174497, 12 October 2009
involving title to or possession of real property or any - 1999: Spouses Sebe filed with the RTC of Dipolog a
interests therein and is therefore covered by sec.33 of complaint against defendants Veronico Sevilla and
BP 129 Technology and Livelihood Resources Center for
HELD: Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and Recovery
- The complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent of Possession of two lots, which had a total assessed
is a civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation value of 9,910 plus damages.
- Civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: o Sebes claimed that they owned the subject lots
o specific perf but, in 1991, Sevilla caused the Sebes to sign
o support (requiring det of civil status) documents entitled affidavits of quitclaim which
o annulment of decisions of lower courts the latter signed (they were illiterate).
o Using the affidavits of quitclaim, defendant o The sale/MOA be declared null and void,
Sevilla applied for and obtained free patent rescinded and with no force and effect
titles covering the two lots on September 23, o Defendants be ordered to vacate the property
1991. He then mortgaged the lots to defendant o Defendants be ordered to pay: 10k monthly
Technology and Livelihood Resource Center from the time the property was transferred to
for P869,555.00 defendants until it is reconveyed to petitioners,
o 1992: Sevilla declared the lots for tax purposes as reasonable compensation for its continued
under his name. Then, using force and unlawful use and occupation by the defendants
intimidation, he seized possession of the lots o 200k moral damages
from their tenants and harvested coconut and o 200k exemplary damages
palay worth P20,000.00 o 250k AF
- Sebes asked the RTC: - Piqueros filed MTD otg that:
o to declare void the affidavits of quitclaim and o the principal action of the petitioners for the
the deeds of confirmation of sale rescission of the MOA, and the recovery of the
o to declare the Sebes as lawful owners of the possession of the property is a real action and
two lots not a personal one; hence, it should have been
o restore possession to them brought in the RTC Paranaque, where the
o to order defendant Sevilla to pay them 140k in property subject matter of the action was
lost produce from 1991 to the date of the filing located, and not in the RTC of Malolos
of the complaint, 30k moral damages, 100k AF, - Decenas insisted that their action for damages and
30k litigation expenses, and such amount of attorneys fees is a personal action and not a real action;
exemplary damages as the RTC might fix hence, it may be filed in the RTC of Bulacan where they
- 2006: RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction reside. They averred that while their second cause of
over the subject matter considering that the ultimate action for the recovery of the possession of the property
relief that the Sebes sought was the reconveyance of is a real action, the same may, nevertheless, be joined
title and possession over two lots that had a total with the rest of their causes of action for damages,
assessed value of less than 20k conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
- The Sebes filed an MR saying that the RTC mistakenly Court
classified their action as one involving title to or - Piqueros replied that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
possession of real property when, in fact, it was a case Court applies only when one or more of multiple causes
for the annulment of documents and titles. Hence, of action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first
incapable of pecuniary estimation level courts, and the other or others are within the
- RTC denied the MR exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue lies
HELD: DISMISS. RTC has no jurisdiction therein
- An action involving title to real property means that the - RTC granted the MTD
plaintiff‘s cause of action is based on claim that he owns HELD: Petition DENIED
such property or that he has the legal rights to have - The action of the petitioners for the rescission of the
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition MOA on account of the respondent‘s breach thereof and
of the same. the latter‘s failure to return the premises subject of the
- Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or complaint to the petitioners, and the respondent‘s
not defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their eviction therefrom is a real action. As such, the action
property by making them sign documents of conveyance should have been filed in the proper court where the
rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their property is located, namely, in Paranaque
debt to him. The action is, therefore, about ascertaining
which of these parties is the lawful owner of the subject Olivarez Realty Corp. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 196251, 9 July
lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the 2014
assessed value of such lots. - Benjamin Castillo owned a parcel of land that was also
o the total assessed value of the two lots is being claimed by the Philippine Tourism Authority.
9,910. Hence, it is below the jurisdictional - 2000: Castillo and Olivarez entered into a contract of
requirement of the RTC conditional sale over the property where the latter will
purchase the property for P19M. Downpayment of P5M
Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, was to be paid within 9 months while the balance was to
31 March 2005 be paid in 30 equal monthly installments beginning in
- 1997: Spouses Decena and spouses Piquero executed the month that the parties would receive a decision
a MOA in which the former sold property (house and lot voiding the Philippine Tourism Authority‘s title to the
in Paranaque) to the latter for 940k payable in 6 monthly property.
installments via PDCs. The property was transferred to o Olivarez Realty Corporation shall file the action
the Piqueros. There was a condition in the MOA that if 2 against the Philippine Tourism Authority ―with
of the PDCs would be dishonored by the drawee bank, the full assistance of Castillo.‖
the Piqueros would be obliged to reconvey the property o Should the action against the Philippine
to the Decenas Tourism Authority be denied, Castillo agreed to
- The Decenas filed a complaint for annulment of the reimburse all the amounts paid by Olivarez
sale/MOA, recovery of possession and damages with Realty Corporation.
RTC Malolos (where they were residing). They declared o As to the ―legitimate tenants‖ occupying the
in the complaint that the property was worth P6.9M. property, Olivarez Realty Corporation
They asked that: undertook to pay them ―disturbance
compensation,‖ while Castillo undertook to
clear the land of the tenants within six months the Olivarez case, the type of action depends on the right
from the signing of the deed of conditional sale. asserted. More SC cases follow the doctrine of the Home
Should Castillo fail to clear the land within six Guaranty case.
months, Olivarez Realty Corporation may
suspend its monthly down payment until the
tenants vacate the property. d. Declaratory relief  incapable of pecuniary
o Olivarez Realty Corporation may immediately estimation! Therefore, RTC only
occupy the property upon signing of the deed section 1, Rule 63
of conditional sale. Should the contract be Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other
cancelled, Olivarez Realty Corporation agreed written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
to return the property‘s possession to Castillo executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
and forfeit all the improvements governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
- 2004: Castillo filed a complaint for rescission of the thereof bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court
contract and damages against Olivarez Realty with the to determine any question of construction or validity arising,
RTC Tanauan and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
o Substantial breach of contract: Olivarez paid An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to
only 2.5M and did not fulfill its other obligations real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate
under the contract ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be
o The contract was prepared solely by Olivarez brought under this Rule
and was not adequately explained to Castillo in
Tagalog
- Olivarez argued that Castillo availed himself of the Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303, 17 September 2009
irreconcilable reliefs of reformation of instrument and - Petitioners filed before the RTC their Complaint for
rescission of contract. Thus, the case should be Reinvindicacion, Quieting of Title, and Damages
dismissed outright o Alleged that they own a parcel of land situated
- RTC issued a summary judgment and ruled that in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan which they
Olivarez breached the contract of conditional sale. The inherited from Anastacio Danao who died
contract was rescinded and Olivarez was ordered to pay intestate
damages o During the lifetime of Anastacio, he had
- CA affirmed in toto the RTC‘s decision allowed Consuelo Pauig and Joaquin Boncad
- Before the SC, Olivarez argued: that the trial court had to build on and occupy the southern portion of
no jurisdiction to decide the case as Castillo failed to the subject property with the agreement that
pay the correct docket fees. Castillo should have paid the spouses would vacate the said land at any
docket fees based on the property‘s fair market value time that Anastacio and his heirs might need it
since Castillo‘s complaint is a real action o Respondents, who were also claiming
- Castillo‘s response: he prayed for rescission of contract ownership of the property, refused to vacate
in his complaint. This action is incapable of pecuniary despite petitioners‘ demand.
estimation, and the Clerk of Court properly computed o During conciliation proceedings, respondents
the docket fees based on this prayer asserted that they owned the subject property
HELD: and presented documents supporting their
- The contract in this case is a contract to sell. Hence, claim of ownership
upon its cancellation, the parties shall stand as if the o Petitioners claimed that respondents‘
obligation to sell never existed. documents were falsified
- TC acquired jurisdiction over the case because - RTC issued an Order dismissing petitioners‘ Complaint
Castillo paid the correct docket fees on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
o Although the action involves real property, ―it is o subject property had a value of less than
the nature of the action as one for rescission of P20,000.00; hence, petitioners‘ action to
contract which is controlling.‖ Consequently, recover the same was outside the jurisdiction
the docket fees to be paid shall be for actions of the RTC
incapable of pecuniary estimation, regardless if o assessed value of subject property per Tax
the claimant may eventually recover the real Declaration was P410.00
property. - Petitioners filed MR, arguing that their main cause of
o Although we discussed that there is no action was quieting of title
rescission of contract to speak of in contracts o Sec. 1, Rule 63 states that an action to quiet
of conditional sale, we hold that an action to title falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC
cancel a contract to sell, similar to an action for - RTC denied MR: an action to quiet title is a real action
rescission of contract of sale, is an action o differentiated between the first and the second
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Like any paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63:
action incapable of pecuniary estimation, an 1. first paragraph refers to an action for
action to cancel a contract to sell ―demands an declaratory relief, which should be brought
inquiry into other factors‖ aside from the before the RTC
amount of money to be awarded to the 2. second paragraph, however, refers to a
claimant. different set of remedies, which includes an
action to quiet title to real property  must be
This case is in conflict with the Home Guaranty case. read in relation to BP 129 (as amended by RA
While in the Home Guaranty case, the type of action 7691) which vests the MTC with jurisdiction
(personal or real) depends on the reliefs prayed for, in over real actions, where the assessed value of
the real property involved does not exceed collateral for another loan obligation he
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila and P20,000.00 in secured from the Bank of Commerce
all other places - Spouses filed a Complaint seeking for the Quieting of
HELD: RTC did not commit GAD; correctly dismissed Title and Nullification of the SPA and the deed of real
complaint estate mortgage with the prayer for damages against
nd
- The three remedies in 2 paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 63 Santos and the Bank of Commerce before the MTC of
are considered similar to declaratory relief because they Mandaue City
also result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the - MTC dismissed complaint for lack of merit; declared that
litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the while it was proven that the signatures of the spouses
judgment into effect San Pablo on the loan documents were forged, the
nd
- emphasis on ―may‖ in the 2 paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule Bank of Commerce was nevertheless in good faith.
63 (hence merely permissive and indicates a mere - spouses San Pablo appealed the adverse decision to
possibility, an opportunity or an option); must be read the RTC which, in turn, affirmed the unfavorable ruling
together with BP 129 as amended by RA 7691 which of the MTC
uses the word ―shall‖ (hence mandatory for MTC to - CA reversed the decisions of the MTC and RTC
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil - Before the SC, the Bank of Commerce, for the first time
actions which involve title to or possession of real in more than 10 years of pendency of the instant case,
property where the assessed value does not exceed raises the issue of jurisdiction
P20,000.00) o since the subject matter of the case is
- Furthermore, an action for declaratory relief incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
presupposes that there has been no actual breach of complaint for quieting of title and annulment of
the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder the SPA, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage,
o purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to and foreclosure proceedings should have been
secure an authoritative statement of the rights originally filed with the RTC and not with the
and obligations of the parties under a statute, MTC
deed, or contract for their guidance in the o The decision rendered by the MTC is therefore
enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, void from the very beginning
and not to settle issues arising from an alleged HELD: Petition dismissed; CA affirmed
breach thereof - case filed by the spouses San Pablo before the MTC is
o Where the law or contract has already been actually an action for quieting of title, a real action, the
contravened prior to the filing of an action for jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed
declaratory relief, the courts can no longer value of the property
assume jurisdiction over the action. - The assessed value of the subject property located in
o ITC: Complaint for quieting of title was filed Mandaue City, as alleged in the complaint, is P4,900.00,
after petitioners already demanded and which aptly falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC
respondents refused to vacate the subject - Even granting for the sake of argument that the MTC did
property. not have jurisdiction over the case, the Bank of
- Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had Commerce is nevertheless estopped from repudiating
already been deprived of the possession of their the authority of the court to try and decide the case after
property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an having actively participated in the proceedings before it
accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case and invoking its jurisdiction by seeking an affirmative
for declaratory relief relief therefrom.
- Petitioner‘s Complaint contained sufficient allegations
for an accion reivindicatoria. Jurisdiction should have
been with the MTC Sabitsana v. Muertegui, G.R. No. 181359, 5 August 2013
- 1981: Alberto Garcia executed an unnotarized Deed of
Treating the pleading in this case as one for recovery of Sale in favor of Juanito Muertegui over a 7,500 sqm
possession instead of quieting of title as stated in its title parcel of unregistered land in Biliran, Leyte del Norte.
is in line with Rule 63, Sec.6 Juanito‘s brother and father (Domingo Jr. and Sr.) took
actual possession of the lot
Bank of Commerce v. Spouses San Pablo, G.R. No. - 1991: Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegui family lawyer
167848, 27 April 2007 petitioner Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr., through a
- Melencio Santos obtained a P1M loan from Direct notarized DOAS
Funders. As security, Santos mortgaged a property o sale was registered with the RoD
owned by Spouses San Pablo (who knowingly signed as - When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied for
co-mortgagors of Santos to help/accommodate him registration and coverage of the lot under the Public
since they were close friends/business associates) Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141
o Spouses San Pablo executed a SPA in favor of - Atty. Sabitsana, in a letter to the CENRO/PENRO office
Santos authorizing him to mortgage in Naval, Biliran, opposed the application, claiming that
- Direct Funders informed the spouses that Santos failed he was the true owner of the lot. He asked that the
to pay. Upon confrontation, Santos promised to pay application for registration be held in abeyance until the
- Upon learning that Santos‘ debt with Direct Funders had issue of conflicting ownership has been resolved
been fully settled, the spouses demanded from Santos - Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact Domingo Jr., filed a
to turn over to them the TCT of the subject property but case for quieting of title and preliminary injunction. They
the latter failed to do so despite repeated demands prayed, among others, that the Sabitsana DOAS be
o Upon inquiry with the RoD, they discovered declared null and void and of no effect; that petitioners
that the property was again used by Santos as be ordered to respect and recognize Juanito‘s title over
the lot; and that moral and exemplary damages, - Before the SC, Sabitsana argued that the RTC did not
attorney‘s fees, and litigation expenses be awarded to have jurisdiction over the case because the assessed
him value of the lot was only P1,230.00
- The evidence and testimonies of the respondent‘s - Muertegui countered that a suit for quieting of title is one
witnesses during trial reveal that petitioner Atty. whose subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
Sabitsana was the Muertegui family‘s lawyer at the time estimation, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the
Garcia sold the lot to Juanito, and that as such, he was RTC.
consulted by the family before the sale was executed; HELD: Petition denied. The RTC had jurisdiction over the
that after the sale to Juanito, Domingo Sr. entered into case
actual, public, adverse and continuous possession of - an action for quieting of title may be instituted in the
the lot RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real
- RTC ruled in favor of Muertegui; declaring null property in dispute (Rule 63)
Sabitsana‘s DOAS and ruling that he was a buyer in bad
faith
- CA affirmed the trial court‘s Decision in toto
ACTION PRESCRIPTION NATURE PRAYER BASIS OF RIGHT JURISDICTION
Accion Titled owner: In personam Possession Ownership RTC or MTC
reinvindicatoria imprescriptible depending on value
(recovery of EX: estoppel
possession based (misled you to
on ownership) believe that I don‘t
own it; or if I slept
on my rights)

Untitled:  based
on Art. 1137
GF: 10y
BF: 30y
Accion publiciana 10y (regardless of In personam Possession Real right of RTC or MTC
(recovery of GF/BF)  based possession depending on value
possession based on Art.555(4), NCC
on real right of
possession)
Reconveyance 10y Quasi in rem Title Ownership RTC or MTC
(Recovery of title There is title but depending on value
based on real right not with the owner
of ownership) Art.1456: Trustee
only!  obli from
law
FE/UD 1 year In personam Possession Prior actual MTC
physical
possession for
forcible entry (even
without real right of
possession); notice
to vacate for
unlawful detainer
Partition  Real Imprescriptible Quasi in rem RTC or MTC
Action? (under Rules on depending on value
Co-Ownership)
REM Foreclosure 10y (prescription of Quasi in rem Possession Lien RTC or MTC
 Real Action? contracts) depending on value
Land titling Imprescriptible In rem RTC or MTC
depending on value
Quieting of Title  Imprescriptible if in Quasi-in rem Quieting of Title Ownership RTC or MTC
Real action? possession depending on value
- Bank of (Chacon v. CA!!!)
Commerce:
Real Action Otherwise, 10
- Sabitsana: years (based on
Rule 63 constructive trust)

Action in rem v. Action in personam v. Action quasi in rem (as to the binding effect and enforceability of the case)
Action in personam: binding on a specific person, enforceable against the person (judgment binds parties to the case only because
court has jurisdiction over the parties)
Action in rem: binding on a specific property, enforceable against the property (court has jurisdiction over the property)
Action quasi in rem: binding on a person, enforceable with respect to a specific property (judgment binds parties even if one is
abroad)
Syntax
Case Relief Nature Remarks
Right Prayer
Russel v Vestil 1. Annulment Owner (real right) Possession SC: Personal / Should have been
(1999) 2. Repartition incapable of filed with the MTC!
Where first filed: pecuniary
RTC (dismissed) estimation (a person who is
SC: RTC has (Annulment) not a party to the
jurisdiction Sir: Real action contract cannot
(Partition) seek its annulment)

Heirs of Bautista v Repurchase Right to repurchase repurchase Personal (Specific


Lindo (2014) (personal right) Performance)
Where first filed:
RTC
SC: RTC has
jurisdiction
Home Guaranty 1. Annulment Right to annul Annul and deliver SC: Real action Wrong! The SC
Corp. v R-II 2. Possession (personal) possession (thus should pay here harmonized
Builders (2011) docket fees based De Leon (prayed
Issue: payment of on value of only for annulment
docket fees property)  even even though it may
Held: paid incorrect though it involves a eventually lead to
docket fees contract, once you recovery of
ask for possession, possession) and
it becomes a real Serrano (prayed for
action both annulment
and recovery of
possession)
Olivarez Realty 1. Rescission Right to annul Annul and deliver SC: Personal / CONFLICT WITH
Corp. v. Castillo 2. Possession (personal) possession incapable of HGC!!!! BUT THIS
(2014) pecuniary SHOULD BE THE
Issue: payment of estimation (citing CORRECT
docket fees De Leon) DOCTRINE
Held: paid correct (possession will be
docket fees transferred anyway
upon annulment)
 should be based
on the right
asserted
Spouses Decena v. 1. Rescission SC: Real action Wrong (similar to
Spouses Piquero 2. Possession HGC)
(2005)
- Plaintiff filed in
Malolos where
he resides on
the theory that
it‘s a personal
action
Issue: Venue
Held: Improper
venue
Sebe v Sevilla 1. Annulment SC: Real action Wrong  personal
(2009) 2. Conveyance / (Possession) action!!!!
Where first filed: Possession
RTC
SC: RTC has no
jurisdiction
4. Shari'a courts Roldan‘s action because not all of the parties involved in
Villagracia v. Fifth Shari'a District Court, G.R. No. 188832, the action are Muslims.
23 April 2014 - Under Article 143 of the Muslim Code, the jurisdiction of
- 1996: Roldan E. Mala purchased a 300-square-meter Shari‘a District Courts over real actions not arising from
parcel of land located in Poblacion, Parang, customary contracts is concurrent with that of existing
Maguindanao, now Shariff Kabunsuan, from one Ceres civil courts. However, this concurrent jurisdiction over
Cañete. A TCT covering the parcel of land was issued in real actions ―is applicable solely when both parties are
Roldan‘s name. At the time of the purchase, Vivencio B. Muslims‖
Villagracia occupied the parcel of land
- 2002: Vivencio secured an OCT from the LRA covering 5. Municipal Trial Court
the same parcel of land section 32-35, 38(2), BP 129
- 2006: Roldan had the parcel of land surveyed. He found Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
that Vivencio occupied the parcel of land Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Roldan filed an action to recover the possession of the parcel criminal cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive
of land with respondent Fifth Shari‘a District Court original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
- Respondent court took cognizance of the case and Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
caused service of summons on Vivencio. However, Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
despite service of summons, Vivencio failed to file his (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
answer. Thus, Roldan moved that he be allowed to municipal ordinances committed within their respective
present evidence ex parte, which motion respondent territorial jurisdiction; and
Fifth Shari‘a District Court granted. (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
- Respondent Court ruled that Roldan, as registered with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of
owner, had the better right to possess and ordered the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
Vivencio to vacate the property and pay damages accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising
- 2008: respondent Fifth Shari‘a Distict Court issued the from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
notice of writ of execution to Vivencio kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided,
- 2009: Vivencio filed a petition for relief from judgment however, That in offenses involving damage to property
with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original
o argued that Shari‘a District Courts may only jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)
hear civil actions and proceedings if both Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
parties are Muslims (Article 155, paragraph (2) Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Philippines) Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
o Considering that he is a Christian, Vivencio (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
argued that respondent Fifth Shari‘a District probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the
Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
Roldan‘s action for recovery of possession of a value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the
parcel of land. demand does not exceed Three hundred thousand pesos
- Respondent Fifth Shari‘a District Court ruled that (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal
Vivencio ―intentionally [waived] his right to defend property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
himself‖ and denied Vivencio‘s petition for relief from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive of
judgment for lack of merit. interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
o duly served with summons and had notice expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
o Vivencio cited the wrong provision of law. specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are several
Article 155, paragraph (2) of the Code of claims or causes of action between the same or different
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines refers parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
to the jurisdiction of Shari‘a Circuit Courts, not demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
of Shari‘a District Courts action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out
o Regardless of Vivencio being a non-Muslim, of the same or different transactions;
his rights were not prejudiced since respondent (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry
Fifth Shari‘a District Court decided the case and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases,
applying the provisions of the Civil Code of the the defendant raises the question of ownership in his
Philippines pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
- Vivencio filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
issuance of temporary restraining order with the SC ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
o Under Article 143, paragraph (2)(b) of the Code possession.
of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
Shari‘a District Courts may only take involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
cognizance of real actions where the parties therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
involved are Muslims therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
HELD: Petition GRANTED. Shari' a District Courts have no (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
jurisdiction over real actions where one of the parties is not a assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
Muslim. (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
- When it became apparent that Vivencio is not a Muslim, kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
respondent Fifth Shari‘a District Court should have motu costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be
proprio dismissed the case. Respondent Fifth Shari‘a determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as
District Court had no authority under the law to decide amended by R.A. No. 7691)
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land o They even consigned a check with the court
registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal but were refused by the court for no valid
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be reason
assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine - CA ruled that the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of
cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there Pasay City had jurisdiction over civil cases in which the
is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of amount of the demand did not exceed P200,000
which does not exceed Three hundred thousand pesos exclusive of interest, damages and attorneys fees. The
(P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit basic claim in the present case was P190,635.90;
of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if hence, the MTC had jurisdiction.
there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax o further held that the objection to the impropriety
declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these of the venue should have been raised in a
cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions motion to dismiss before the filing of a
of the Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) responsive pleading. The said issue, however,
Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the was raised for the first time only in petitioners
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, Answer.
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, o Writ of Replevin could be validly executed
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions anywhere in Metro Manila because Section 27,
for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal Chapter III of B.P. 129, authorized the
cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial establishment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Judges sit. Metro Manila with eighty-two (82) branches.
Therefore, any branch in this case, Branch 44
section 2, SC Admin Circular 09-94 which was stationed in Pasay -- could issue
The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in writs and processes that could validly be
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) served and executed anywhere within Metro
and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. Manila
7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely HELD: Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision
incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. AFFIRMED
However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main - Writ of Replevin may be validly enforced anywhere in
cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of the Philippines.
such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction o Petitioners confused the jurisdiction of a court
of the court. to hear and decide a case on the one hand
with, on the other, its power to issue writs and
Why do we need lands to be titled? If lands were titled, processes pursuant to and in the exercise of
there would be more transactions involving land. The more said jurisdiction.
transactions there are, the better for the economy. o Also, Objection to Venue Too Late
CADASTRAL PROCEEDING = government surveys land - The fundamental claim in the main action against
and files a case to have the land titled petitioners, as shown in respondent banks Complaint, is
the collection of the sum of P190,635.90, an amount
Fernandez v. International, 316 S 326 (1999) that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
- Fernandez purchased a Nissan Sentra Sedan through a Although the value of the vehicle seized pursuant to the
financing scheme of International Writ of Replevin may have exceeded P200,000, that fact
o the cash purchase price was P492,000.00, does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction over the
minus the downpayment of P147,500.00, case. After all, the vehicle was merely the subject of a
leaving the amount of P344,[5]00.00 to be chattel mortgage that had been used to secure
financed. The total amount to be paid for 48 petitioners loan. In any case, private respondents are
monthly installments would amount to entitled only to the amount owed them.
P553,944.00
- International filed an unfounded complaint for a sum of
money with replevin before the MTC, Pasay Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, 20 October 2014
- Considering that the principal amount involved was - In the course of the marriage of respondent Leonardo V.
P553,944.00, petitioners filed an Answer mentioning in Nonato and petitioner Marietta N. Barrido, they were
the special and affirmative defenses a Motion to able to acquire a property in Bacolod
Dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, but this was denied - their marriage was declared void on the ground of
o Aside from that, petitioners contested the psychological incapacity
venue considering that the principal office of - Nonato asked Barrido for partition, but the latter refused
the respondent bank was in Makati while their - Nonato filed a Complaint for partition before the MTCC
residence is in QC Bacolod
o When the respondent bank filed its complaint - Barrido claimed, by way of affirmative defense, that the
with prayer for the issuance of a Writ of subject property had already been sold to their children
Replevin the monthly installments were almost o likewise moved for the dismissal of the
fully paid complaint because the MTCC lacked
o They could not have been considered in default jurisdiction, the partition case being an action
at the time the complaint was filed, considering incapable of pecuniary estimation.
that they attempted many times to pay the - Bacolod MTCC ordered the conjugal dwelling
bank their installments and up to the time of the adjudicated to the defendant Marietta Nonato, the
filing of the case, they ha[d] not received any spouse with whom majority of the common children
statement of delinquency choose to remain (applying Art. 129, FC)
- RTC reversed the ruling of the MTCC and ordered: (1) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
the partition of the house; (2) reimbursement of the Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
children; and (3) delivery of the presumptive legitimes of
the children section 3, Rule 56
- CA affirmed the RTC Decision Section 3. Mode of appeal. — An appeal to the Supreme
o since the property‘s assessed value was only Court may be taken only by a petition for review
P8,080.00, it clearly fell within the MTCC‘s on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty
jurisdiction imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
o RTC correctly ordered partition of the property
although the applicable law should have been section 3(c), Rule 122
Art.147, FC, not Art.129 Section 3. How appeal taken. — (c) The appeal to the
HELD: Petition dismissed for lack of merit Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the
- Contrary to Barrido‘s contention, the MTCC has Regional Trial Court is death, reclusion perpetua, or life
jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for
affecting title to real property, or for the recovery of offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out
possession, or for the partition or condemnation of, or of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious
foreclosure of a mortgage on real property offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or
- Here, the subject property‘s assessed value was merely life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice of
P8,080.00 appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.

Note: At present, under the rules on declaration of Appellate Court


nullity, the family court must automatically declare the RTC CA SC
partition of the properties upon the declaration of nullity. MTC 40 41 45
(Delegated (Delegated
jurisdiction jurisdiction
B. Appellate (exclusive/concurrent) in cadastral in cadastral
1. Supreme Court: and land and land
section 5(2), article VIII, Const. registration registration
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or Court of Origin cases, BP case, Rule
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final 129 Sec.34) 41, Sec.2)
judgments and orders of lower courts in: RTC 42 45
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any CA 45; 41 (122
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential Sec.3c)
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or QJ 43
regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, Fabian v. Desierto, 295 S 470 (1998)
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation - Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and
thereto. president of PROMAT Construction Development
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in Corporation while private respondent Nestor Agustin
issue. was the incumbent Assistant Regional Director, Region
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is IV-A, DPWH when he allegedly committed the offenses
reclusion perpetua or higher. for which he was administratively charged in the Office
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is in the office of the Ombudsman
involved. - Promat participated in the bidding for government
construction project and Agustin, reportedly taking
section 1, 9, Rule 45 advantage of his official position, inveigled petitioner into
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party an amorous relationship. Hence, Agustin gifted
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order PROMAT with public works contracts and interceded for
or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the it in problems concerning the same in his office.
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by - misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed
law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for between the parties and when petitioner tried to
review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of terminate their relationship, private respondent refused
law which must be distinctly set forth. and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of
Section 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases. — employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats.
The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be She eventually filed the administrative case against him
applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal for oppression, misconduct, and disgraceful or immoral
cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion conduct (sought the dismissal of private respondent for
perpetua or life imprisonment. violation of Section 19, RA 6770 and of Section 36 of
PD 807)
section 2(c), Rule 41 - The graft investigator issued a resolution finding Agustin
Section 2. Modes of appeal - (c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all guilty of grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal
cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under the
appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review law. This was approved by the Director and the Asst.
on certiorari in accordance with the Rule 45. Ombudsman
- Ombudsman Desierto found Agustin guilty of
section 30, Article VI misconduct and meted out the penalty of suspension
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate without pay for one year.
o Upon MR, Ombudsman Desierto inhibited uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial
himself (counsel was his close friend) and agencies
referred the case to Dep. Omb. Guerrero
- Dep. Omb. Guerrero set aside the earlier order and 2. Court of Appeals
exonerated Agustin from the administrative charges section (2)(a)(b), Rule 41
- Fabian appealed to the SC by certiorari under Rule 45, Section 2. Modes of appeal. —
arguing that Section 27 of RA 6770 provides: ―In all (a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
administrative diciplinary cases, orders, directives or cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of
appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final
certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except
motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or
the Rules of Court.‖ separate appeals where law on these Rules so require. In
o However, she points out that under Section 7, such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in
Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules like manner.
of Procedure of the office of the Ombudsman), (b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals
when a respondent is absolved of the charges in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
in an administrative proceeding decision of the of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
ombudsman is final and unappealable  the accordance with Rule 42.
office of the ombudsman has no authority
under the law to restrict the right of appeal section 9(3), 22, BP 129
allowed RA 6770 nor to limit the power of Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall
review of the SC Exercise:
o Fabian also asked that should the remedy 3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
under Rule 45 be unavailable, her petition be judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial
treated in the alternative as an original action Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards
for certiorari under Rule 65 or commission, including the Securities and Exchange
- The SC treated the case as a challenge to the Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees
constitutionality of Section 27 of RA 6770 given that that Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides Commission, Except those falling within the appellate
that "no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
indiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
Constitution without its advice and consent‖ Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
- In support of the constitutionality of said provision, this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
Fabian argued that the SC‘s appellate jurisdiction subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the
includes "all cases in which only an error or question of Judiciary Act of 1948.
law is involved." Since Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of the The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
Constitution authorizes this Court to review, revise, conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari the final acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
judgement or orders "as the law or the Rules of Court falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including
may provide," section 27 does not increase this Court's the power to grant and conduct new trials. Appeals must be
appellate jurisdiction since, by providing that the mode continuous and must be completed within three (3) months,
of appeal shall be by petition for certiorari under Rule unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A.
45, then what may be raised therein are only questions No. 7902.)
of law of which this Court already has of which this
Court already has jurisdiction Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts
HELD: Sec. 27, RA 6770 unconstitutional. Appeals from shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
SC under Rule 43 jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the
- Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of the Constitution specifies entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and
that the appellate jurisdiction of the SC is to be such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
exercised over "final judgements and orders of lower parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision
courts‖. does not include the quasi-judicial bodies or of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be
agencies appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals
- The RoC preclude appeals from quasi-judicial agencies which may give it due course only when the petition
to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an
certiorari error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification
- Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
through a petition for review on certiorari but only from
judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in section 1, Rule 43
Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial
orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be Agencies to the Court of Appeals
brought to the CA on a verified petition for review, under Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from
the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and
precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil II. Venue
Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Sec. 18, B.P. 129
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch. –
President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a
Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority.
Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National area of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or
Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over
Agricultural the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The
Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic power herein granted shall be exercised with a view to
Energy Commission, Board of Investments, making the courts readily accessible to the people of the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary different parts of the region and making the attendance of
arbitrators authorized by law. (n) litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as possible.

section 1, Rule 42
Petition for Review From the Regional Trial Courts to the Rule 4
Court of Appeals Venue of Actions
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to
desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved,
Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said or a portion thereof, is situated.
court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and
depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city
the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)
fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions
reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of
expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals the plaintiff. (2[b]a)
may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any
which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the
be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (n) plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the
court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
3. Regional Trial Court property or any portion thereof is situated or found. (2[c]a)
section 1, Rule 40 (Appeal From Municipal Trial Courts to Section 4. When Rule not applicable. — This Rule shall not
the Regional Trial Courts) apply.
Where to appeal. — An appeal from a judgment or final order (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial provides otherwise; or
Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
pertains. The title of the case shall remain as it was in the before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
court of origin, but the party appealing the case shall be thereof. (3a, 5a)
further referred to as the appellant and the adverse party as
the appellee. (a) article 360, RPC
Article 360. Persons responsible. - Any person who shall
section 22, BP 129 publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any
Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan responsible for the same.
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or
Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the publication, shall be responsible for the defamations
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author
and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required thereof.
by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
review to the Court of Appeals which may give it due course simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of
only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court the province or city where the libelous article is printed and
has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a first published or where any of the offended parties actually
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
be reviewed. Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is
a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time property of the adverse party attached as security for the
of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city following cases:
or province where the libelous article is printed and first (f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not
published, and in case such public officer does not hold office found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of served by publication. (1a)
First Instance of the province or city where he held office at
the time of the commission of the offense or where the Section 4, A.M. No 03-03-03-SC
libelous article is printed and first published and in case one The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over
of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall cases arising within their respective territorial jurisdiction with
be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the
where he actually resides at the time of the commission of respective provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth
the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in the Office of
published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated
in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice Special Commercial Court
versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the
criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall Sec. 4, Rule 65;
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed
provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment,
cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or
which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or
this law. not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written the denial of said motion.
defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates
by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
such action may be instituted in accordance with the jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
provisions of this article. Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition
1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
19, 1965). No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted
except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding
section 1(c), Rule 16 fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998;
Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)
the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to
dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: Note: There can be multiple residences for purposes of
(c) That venue is improperly laid; remedial law

section 15, Rule 14 Can the venue be filed in…


Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not Plaintiff‘s Defendant‘s
reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action residence residence
affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the Defendant Yes Yes
subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which resides in Ph,
the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or found in Ph
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly Defendant Yes Yes
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest resides in Ph,
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached not found in Ph
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be Defendant does Yes Yes (where he may
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under not reside in Ph, be found, not in his
section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general is found in Ph residence because
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may he is a non-
order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the resident)
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known Defendant does Yes (if affecting No
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court not reside, is not personal status or
may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall found in Ph property situated
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty in Philippines)
(60) days after notice, within which the defendant must Note: The key is the situation of the defendant
answer.

section 1(f), Rule 57 A. Real v. personal


Preliminary Attachment
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At Board of Trustees of GSIS v Velasco, supra
the commencement of the action or at any time before entry
of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the
Boleyley v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734, 14 September his residence should not be considered in determining
1999 the proper venue of the said complaint.
- Angel L. Boleyley filed with RTC Baguio a complaint - CA reversed RTC; directed the dismissal of the
against Albert Surla for recovery of sum of money complaint; complaint below should have been filed in
- Surla filed MTD otg that Boleyley did not comply with Bacolod City
the Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law requiring as HELD: Petition denied; CA affirmed. Complaint should
a condition for the filing of a complaint in court referral of have been filed in Bacolod City
the matter to the barangay lupon chairman or the - the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for
pangkat, for conciliation or settlement the convenience of the personal actions are fixed for the
- Boleyley opposed: Surla was not a resident of Baguio convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses.
so that the dispute involving the parties was not within However, choosing the venue of an action is not left to a
the authority of the lupon to bring together for plaintiff‘s caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of
conciliation or settlement Court
- RTC dismissed the case - The petitioners‘ complaint for collection of sum of money
HELD: Petition GRANTED. RTC committed GAD against the respondents is a personal action as it
- jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract. The
action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, Rules give the plaintiff the option of choosing where to
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to file his complaint. However, if the plaintiff does not
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case
The jurisdiction of the court can not be made to depend may only be filed in the court of the place where the
upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the defendant resides.
motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of - Atty. Aceron, despite being the attorney-in-fact of the
jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the petitioners, is not a real party in interest in the case
defendant below
- from the allegations of the complaint, the parties do not o Section 2, Rule 3: real party in interest is the
reside in the same city or municipality, and hence, the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
dispute is excepted from the requirement of referral to the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to
the barangay lupon or pangkat for conciliation or the avails of the suit.
settlement prior to filing with the court o Atty. Aceron does not stand to be benefited or
- ITC, the address of defendant in the complaint was his injured by any judgment therein. He was
mailing address and not his residence merely appointed by the petitioners as their
- the residence of a person is his personal, actual or attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of filing
physical habitation or his actual residence or place of and prosecuting the complaint against the
abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence respondents. Such appointment, however,
or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity does not mean that he is subrogated into the
and consistency rights of petitioners and ought to be considered
- Nevertheless, the complaint clearly implies that the as a real party in interest.
parties do not reside in the same city or municipality.
- The venue of the action is not affected by the filing of
defendant‘s (respondent‘s) motion to dismiss stating Dacoycoy v IAC, 195 S 641 (1991)
that he also resided in Baguio City. That is not decisive - Jesus Dacoycoy, a resident of Balanti, Cainta, Rizal,
to determine the proper venue. filed before RTC Antipolo a complaint against private
- there is no need of prior referral of the dispute to the respondent Rufino de Guzman praying for the
barangay lupon or pangkat in the absence of showing in annulment of two (2) deeds of sale involving a parcel of
the complaint itself that the parties reside in the same riceland situated in Barrio Estanza, Lingayen,
city or municipality Pangasinan
- before summons could be served on defendant, the
Ang v. Sps. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, 22 August 2012 RTC Executive Judge issued an order requiring counsel
- spouses Alan and Em Ang (respondents) obtained a for petitioner to confer with respondent trial judge on the
loan (US$300,000.00) from Theodore and Nancy Ang matter of venue. After said conference, the trial court
(petitioners)  promissory note to pay the latter the said dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper
amount, with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) venue.
per annum, upon demand. However, despite repeated o petitioner‘s action is a real action as it sought
demands, the respondents failed to pay the petitioners. not only the annulment of the aforestated
- petitioners, who were then residing in LA, executed SPA deeds of sale but also the recovery of
in favor of Atty. Aceron for the purpose of filing an action ownership of the subject parcel of riceland
in court - IAC affirmed dismissal of the complaint
- Atty. Aceron, in behalf of the petitioners, filed a - Before the SC, Dacoycoy argues that the IAC erred in
complaint for collection of sum of money with RTC QC finding that the venue was improperly laid when the
- Respondents filed MTD, alleging that they reside in defendant, now private respondent, has not even
Bacolod City while petitioners reside in LA hence RTC answered the complaint nor waived the venue
QC was improper venue for the complaint HELD: Petition GRANTED
- RTC denied MTD  Atty. Aceron had SPA and his - The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner‘s complaint by
address is in QC. RTC is plain error, obviously attributable to its inability to
- Before the CA, respondents argued that Atty. Aceron, distinguish between jurisdiction and venue.
being merely a representative of the petitioners, is not o the laying of venue is procedural rather than
the real party in interest in the case below; accordingly, substantive. It relates to the jurisdiction of the
court over the person rather than the subject of petitioner YASCO in their contract of sale,
matter. Provisions relating to venue establish a letters and several commercial documents sent
relation between the plaintiff and the defendant by YASCO to Roxas was in Pasay City. If it
and not between the court and the subject was Roxas who sued YASCO in Pasay City
matter. and the latter questioned the venue on the
o Jurisdiction treats of the power of the court to ground that its principal place of business was
decide a case on the merits; while venue deals in Cebu City, Roxas could argue that YASCO
on the locality, the place where the suit may be was in estoppel because it misled Roxas to
had. believe that Pasay City was its principal place
- the instant case, even granting for a moment that the of business. But this is not the case before us.
action of petitioner is a real action, respondent trial court o Also, in the present case, Tesorero was not a
would still have jurisdiction over the case, it being a party to the contracts or cases he cited.
regional trial court vested with the exclusive original - A corporation has no residence in the same sense in
jurisdiction over ―all civil actions which involve the title which this term is applied to a natural person. But for
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical
therein xxx‖ in accordance with Section 19 (2) of BP 129 sense a resident of the place where its principal
- Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper office is located as stated in the articles of
venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at incorporation.
this stage of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in o The Corporation Code precisely requires each
inferior courts as well as in the courts of first instance corporation to specify in its articles of
(now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. incorporation the ―place where the principal
o Where defendant fails to challenge timely the office of the corporation is to be located which
venue in a motion to dismiss and allows the must be within the Philippines‖ (Sec. 14[3]).
trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, The purpose of this requirement is to fix the
he cannot on appeal or in a special action be residence of a corporation in a definite place,
permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong instead of allowing it to be ambulatory.
venue, which is deemed waived - petitioner‘s principal office is in Cebu City, per its
o Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to amended articles of incorporation
the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue
cannot be truly said to have been improperly
laid Hernandez v. DBP, 71 S 290 (1976)
o Venue = for convenience of parties; wherever - Jose M. Hernandez was an employee of DBP for
is acceptable for them. Hence RTC cannot pre- twenty-one (21) years until his retirement
empt the defendant‘s prerogative to object to - in recognition of his unqualified service, DBP awarded
the improper laying of the venue by motu to the petitioner a lot
proprio dismissing the case. - after Hernandez received from DBP‘s Housing Project
Committee a statement of account of the purchase price
Note: The Dacoycoy case is an annulment case asking for of the said house and lot, he sent to the said Committee
recovery of possession hence treated as a real action a Cashier‘s Check to cover the cash and full payment of
the purchase price of the lot and house awarded to him.
- more than a week thereafter, the Chief Accountant and
Davao Light v CA, G.R. No. 111685, 20 August 2001 Comptroller of DBP returned to Hernandez the check,
- Davao Light filed a complaint for damages (P11M) informing him that DBP had cancelled the award
against private respondent Francisco Tesorero before - Hernandez filed a complaint in CFI Batangas seeking
RTC Cebu the annulment of the cancellation of the award of the lot
- private respondent filed MTD claiming that: (a) the and house in his favor and the restoration of all his
complaint did not state a cause of action; (b) the rights thereto
plaintiff‘s claim has been extinguished or otherwise o cancellation of said award was unwarranted
rendered moot and academic; (c) there was non-joinder and illegal for he has already become the
of indispensable parties; and (d) venue was improperly owner of said house and lot by virtue of said
laid award and has acquired a vested right thereto,
- RTC dismissed complaint otg of improper venue which cannot be unilaterally cancelled without
o In complaint, Davao Light claimed that its his consent
principal place of business = Banilad, Cebu - DBP filed MTD otg of improper venue, contending that
City since the petitioner‘s action affects the title to a house
o In defendant‘s motion, it is submitted that the and lot situated in QC, the same should have been
principal office of plaintiff = Davao City commenced in CFI QC where the real property is
HELD: Petition GRANTED. RTC Decision REVERSED located and not in CFI Batangas where Hernandez
- Tesorero argued that Davao Light is estopped from resides
claiming that its residence is in Cebu City. Tesorero - CFI granted MTD
cited several contracts of Davao Light with NAPOCOR HELD: CFI reversed. Case remanded
as well as several civil cases where Davao Light - Hernandez seeks the annulment of the cancellation of
claimed that its address is in Davao City the award (Hernandez was basically seeking specific
o This was the same issue in Young Auto Supply performance of the award  he had a personal right
Co. v. Court of Appeals. In said case filed in that he wanted to be enforced) PERSONAL ACTION!!!
RTC Cebu, defendant Roxas sought dismissal - his action is one to declare null and void the cancellation
on ground of improper venue since the address of the lot and house in his favor which does not involve
title and ownership over said properties but seeks to o an action to redeem by the mortgage debtor
compel respondent to recognize that the award is a affects his title to the foreclosed property. If the
valid and subsisting one action is seasonably made, it seeks to erase
from the title of the judgment or mortgage
Note: it was not stated WoN Hernandez was in possession of debtor the lien created by registration of the
the property  by not mentioning possession, Hernandez mortgage and sale. If not made seasonably, it
was able to show that his cause of action was a personal may seek to recover ownership to the land
right, although the subject matter is land (Dilemma: what will since the purchaser‘s inchoate title to the
happen after rescission? Will he file a separate case for property becomes consolidated after [the]
recovery of possession so that the action will be a real one expiration of the redemption period. Either way,
and not a personal one?) redemption involves the title to the foreclosed
Another perspective: the next course could be the property.
continuation of payments o in extrajudicial foreclosure of real property, the
*Vis-à-vis other cases where specific performance involving result is a conveyance of the title of the
land is actually a real action property sold to the highest bidder at the sale.
BASICALLY: Hence, an action to annul the foreclosure sale
- for Sir Lumba, determination of WoN personal or real is necessarily an action affecting the title of the
action should be based on the right asserted property sold.
- for the SC, determination of WoN personal or real action o ITC: action for cancellation of real estate
should be based on the prayer or relief prayed for end- mortgage filed by herein petitioner was
result being sought primarily an action to compel private
respondent bank to return to him the properties
over which the bank had already initiated
Go v UCPB, G.R. No. 156187, 11 November 2004 foreclosure proceedings because of the
- Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and Alberto T. Looyuko are co- cancellation by UCPB of the credit line
owners of Noah‘s Ark International (and other Noah‘s
Ark companies). They applied for an Omnibus Line Note: Although it involves a contract (mortgage), there is
accommodation from UCPB amounting P900M and was a lien on property, making it a real action.
favorably acted upon by UCPB
- The transaction was secured by Real Estate Mortgages
over parcels of land in Mandalyong City Infante v Aran, GR No. 156596, 24 August 2007
- accommodation granted to petitioner was subsequently - Before the Muntinlupa RTC was an action for revival of
cancelled by UCPB judgment filed by Aran Builders, Inc against Adelaida
- Go demanded from UCPB the return of the TCTs of the Infante
2 parcels BUT UCPB refused to return the same and - The judgment sought to be revived was rendered by the
proceeded to have the two Real Estate Mortgages Makati RTC in an action for specific performance and
notarized and caused the registration thereof before the damages. It ordered Infante to execute the deed of sale
Registry of Deeds of Mandaluyong City of a lot in Ayala Alabang Subdivision (Muntinlupa)
- UCPB filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex- - Infante filed MTD otg that the Muntinlupa RTC has no
Officio Sheriff of Mandaluyong City an extrajudicial jurisdiction over the persons of the parties and that
foreclosure of real estate mortgage for nonpayment of venue was improperly laid
the obligation secured by said mortgage - Muntinlupa RTC denied MTD: although the Decision
- Go filed a complaint with RTC Pasig (where Go was rendered by the Makati RTC, it must be
resided) for Cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage and emphasized that at that time there was still no
damages, with prayer for temporary restraining order Muntinlupa RTC which was then under the territorial
and/or writ of preliminary injunction jurisdiction of the Makati Courts, so that cases from
- UCPB filed MTD based on the following grounds Muntinlupa were tried and heard at Makati City.
o court has no jurisdiction over the case due to o With the creation of Muntinlupa RTC, matters
nonpayment of the proper filing and docket involving properties located in this City, and
fees cases involving Muntinlupa City residents were
o complaint was filed in the wrong venue all ordered to be litigated before these Courts
o an indispensable party/real party in interest o ITC: property = in Muntinlupa
was not impleaded and, therefore, the - Infante asserts that the complaint for specific
complaint states no cause of action performance and damages before the Makati RTC is a
o complaint was improperly verified personal action and, therefore, the suit to revive the
o petitioner is guilty of forum shopping judgment therein is also personal in nature; and that,
- MTD denied consequently, the venue of the action for revival of
- UCPB questioned order denying MTD before the CA via judgment is either Makati City or Parañaque City where
a petition for certiorari alleging GAD private respondent and petitioner respectively reside, at
- CA granted petition, set aside RTC Order and ordered the election of private respondent
dismissal otg of improper venue - Aran maintains that the action for revival judgment is
HELD: improper venue ―quasi in rem because it involves and affects vested or
- Partition, condemnation, expropriation, foreclosure = adjudged right on a real property‖ hence venue lies in
real action Muntinlupa City where the property is
- the controlling factor in determining venue is the primary - CA ruled in favor of Aran: since the judgment sought to
objective for which said cases are filed be revived was rendered in an action involving title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, the
action for revival of judgment is then an action in rem waive their right to pursue remedy in the courts
which should be filed with the RTC of the place where specifically mentioned in the RoC
the real property is
HELD: petition is unmeritorious
- Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Philippine Banking v. Tensuan, 228 S 385 (1993)
provides that after the lapse of five (5) years from entry - Philippine Banking has its principal office at Makati,
of judgment and before it is barred by the statute of Metro Manila.
limitations, a final and executory judgment or order may - Circle Financial Co. obtained several loans aggregating
be enforced by action. The Rule does not specify in P1,000,000.00 from Phil. Banking.
which court the action for revival of judgment should be - Circle delivered to Phil. Banking 4 promissory notes with
filed. the stipulation: ―We hereby expressly submit to the
- Aldeguer v. Gemelo: an action upon a judgment must jurisdiction of the courts of Valenzuela any legal action
be brought either in the same court where said which may arise out of this promissory note.‖
judgment was rendered or in the place where the Circle failed to pay its obligations
plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place - Philippine Banking instituted a complaint for collection of
designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of a sum of money, with a prayer for preliminary
actions in general attachment, at the Makati RTC. The trial judge issued a
- if the action for revival of judgment affects title to or writ of preliminary attachment
possession of real property, or interest therein, then it is - Circle filed MTD otg of improper venue since an
a real action that must be filed with the court of the agreement had fixed the venue of actions arising from
place where the real property is located the promissory notes in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, only
- The sole reason for the present action to revive is the - respondent Judge Tensuan granted the MTD
enforcement of private respondent‘s adjudged rights HELD:
over a piece of realty. Verily, the action falls under the - the stipulation does not require the laying of venue in
category of a real action, for it affects private Valenzuela exclusively or mandatorily. The plain or
respondent‘s interest over real property. ordinary import of the stipulation is the authorizing of, or
permission to bring, suit in Valenzuela; there is not the
Note: ITC, there was no prayer for possession but the slightest indication of an intent to bar suit in other
consequence is transfer of title (which is the natural competent courts
consequence of a specific performance which covering a - the stipulation on venue must show that the parties
parcel of land) intended contractually to designate a specific venue to
the exclusion of any other court also competent and
B. Venue stipulations accessible to the parties under the ordinary rules on the
venue of actions.
Polytrade v. Blanco, G.R. No. L-27033, 31 October 1969 - no one of the private respondents has claimed to have
- Polytrade has its principal office and place of business been put to undue hardship or inconvenience as a result
in Makati while Blanco is a resident of Meycauayan, of the institution of the action in Makati. Venue relates to
Bulacan the trial and touches more upon the convenience of the
- Polytrade filed suit before CFI Bulacan on 4 causes of parties rather than upon the substance or merits of the
action to recover the purchase price of rawhide case
delivered by Polytrade to Blanco
- Blanco filed MTD otg of improper venue: by contract suit
may only be lodged in the courts of Manila Unimaster v. CA, 267 S 759 (1997)
- CFI denied MTD and ruled in favor of Polytrade - Kubota (holding office in QC) and Unimasters (holding
HELD: Venue here was properly laid office in Leyte) entered into a ―Dealership Agreement for
- The alleged stipulation stated: "The parties agree to sue Sales and Services‖ of the former‘s products in Samar
and be sued in the Courts of Manila." This agreement is and Leyte Provinces. The contract contained a
valid stipulation reading: "** All suits arising out of this
- BUT no such stipulation appears in the contracts Agreement shall be filed with/in the proper Courts of
covering the first two causes of action. Hence, the GR Quezon City,‖
for personal actions governs and the venue was - Unimasters filed an action in RTC Tacloban against
properly laid Kubota for damages for breach of contract, and
- The stipulation adverted to is only found in the injunction with prayer for TRO
agreements covering the third and fourth causes of - Kubota filed MTD otg of improper venue
action. An accurate reading, however, of the stipulation, - RTC denied the MTD
does not preclude the filing of suits in the residence of o UNIMASTERS is holding its principal place of
plaintiff or defendant business in the City of Tacloban while Kubota
o The plain meaning is that the parties merely is holding its principal place of business in
consented to be sued in Manila. Qualifying or Quezon City. The proper venue therefore
restrictive words which would indicate that pursuant to Rules of Court would either be
Manila and Manila alone is the venue are Quezon City or Tacloban City at the election of
totally absent therefrom. the plaintiff. Quezon City and Manila are
o that agreement did not change or transfer additional places other than the place stated in
venue. It simply is permissive. The parties the Rules of Court. The filing, therefore, of this
solely agreed to add the courts of Manila as complaint in Tacloban RTC is proper
tribunals to which they may resort. They did not - CA granted Kubota‘s petition for certiorari
o assuming that KUBOTA‘s standard printed motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
invoices provided that the venue of actions (6a)
thereunder should be laid at the Court of the Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally
City of Manila, this was inconsequential since construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
such provision would govern ―suits or actions just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
between petitioner and its buyers‖ but not proceeding. (2a)
actions under the Dealership Agreement sections 1-4, 6, Rule 2
between KUBOTA and UNIMASTERS Cause of Action
HELD: CA reversed, RTC affirmed Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary
- Stipulations designating venues other than those civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)
assigned by Rule 4 should be interpreted as designed to Section 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is
make it more convenient for the parties to institute the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
actions arising from or in relation to their agreements; another. (n)
that is to say, as simply adding to or expanding the Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party
venues indicated in said Rule 4. On the other hand, may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
because restrictive stipulations are in derogation of this action. (3a)
general policy, the language of the parties must be so Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If
clear and categorical as to leave no doubt of their two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
intention to limit the place or places, or to fix places cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
other than those indicated in Rule 4, for their actions. merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
- Absent additional words and expressions definitely and the others. (4a)
unmistakably denoting the parties‘ desire and intention Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one
that actions between them should be ventilated only at pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
the place selected by them, Quezon City—or other causes of action as he may have against an opposing party,
contractual provisions clearly evincing the same desire subject to the following conditions:
and intention—the stipulation should be construed, not (a) The party joining the causes of action shall
as confining suits between the parties only to that one comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
place, Quezon City, but as allowing suits either in (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
Quezon City or Tacloban City, at the option of the or actions governed by special rules;
plaintiff (UNIMASTERS in this case). (c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues or
To be restrictive, add the phrase: “to the exclusion of jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
other courts” Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
III. Cause of Action the venue lies therein; and
Rule 1 (d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
General Provisions principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
Section 1. Title of the Rules. — These Rule shall be known amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
and cited as the Rules of Court. (1) Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of
causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A
Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the
apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
Supreme Court. (n) separately. (n)

Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the section 5(b), Rule 6
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or
special proceedings. affirmative.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the (a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential
redress of a wrong, (1a, R2) to his cause or causes of action.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations
specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n) in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud,
person for an act or omission punishable by law. (n) statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy,
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2) and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall (5a)
not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases
not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory A. General
character and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a) Heirs of Nala v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, 13 June 2008
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is - Cabansag bought a 50sqm property from spouses
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If Gomez. Said property is part of a 400-square meter lot
an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the registered in the name of the Gomez spouses.
action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the
- Cabansag eventually received a demand letter from - Nala‘s acts in protecting her rights over the property find
Nala asking for the payment of rentals until he leaves further solid ground in the fact that the property has
the premises as said property is owned by Nala already been ordered reconveyed to her and her heirs
- Nala alleged that said property is part of an 800-square
meter property owned by her late husband, Eulogio Far East Marble v. CA 225 S 249 (1993)
Duyan, which was subsequently divided into two parts. - BPI filed a complaint v. Far East Marble alleging that on
The 400- sqm property was conveyed to spouses it extended to Far East several loans and that despite
Gomez in a fictitious deed of sale, with the agreement repeated requests and demands for payment thereof,
that it will be merely held by them in trust for Duyan‘s Far East had failed and refused to pay. Thus, BPI
children. sought foreclosure of the chattel mortgage securing
- Nala filed a case against spouses Gomez for such indebtedness.
reconveyance of real property and cancellation of TCT - Far East admitted the genuineness and due execution
with damages. This was dismissed of the promissory notes involved in the case, but denied
- Cabansag filed a case for damages against Nala BPI‘s allegation that repeated demands for payment
- QC RTC ruled in favor of Cabansag were made by BPI on it. Far East then raised the
- CA affirmed the RTC affirmative defenses of prescription and lack of cause of
- Before the SC, petitioners argue that their predecessor- action, arguing that since the promissory notes matured
in-interest had no knowledge that the property was sold in 1976 while BPI filed its action to foreclose the chattel
by spouses Gomez to respondent when the demand mortgage only in 1987 (or more than 10 years from the
letters were sent. What she was aware of was the fact time its cause of action accrued), and there being no
that spouses Gomez were managing the rentals on the demand for payment which would interrupt the period of
property by virtue of the implied trust created between prescription for instituting said action, BPI‘s claims have
them and Eulogio Duyan. When spouses Gomez failed prescribed
to remit the rentals and claimed ownership of the - TC ruled in favor of Far East and dismissed the
property, it was then that Nala decided to procure the complaint for lack of cause of action and otg of
services of legal counsel to protect their right over the prescription
property. Also, the RTC decision on the reconveyance - CA set aside TC ruling and remanded the case for
case filed by Nala against spouses Gomez was already further proceeding
reversed by the CA HELD:
HELD: Petition GRANTED. CA Decision REVERSED. - Seemingly, the TC believed that the interruption of the
Case for damages DISMISSED. prescriptive period to institute an action is an ULTIMATE
- claim for damages is anchored on Art.19, NCC (abuse FACT which had to be expressly and indispensably
of rights). In order to be liable for damages under the pleaded by BPI in its complaint, and that failure to so
abuse of rights principle, the following requisites must allege such circumstance is fatal to BPI‘s cause of
concur: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) action
which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent - a ―complaint is a concise statement of the ultimate facts
of prejudicing or injuring another constituting the plaintiff‘s cause or causes of action.‖
- In the present case, there is nothing on record which will o No need for evidentiary facts
prove that Nala and her counsel, Atty. Del Prado, acted - Basically, a cause of action consists of three elements:
in bad faith or malice in sending the demand letters to 1. the legal right of the plaintiff
respondent. In the first place, there was ground for 2. correlative obligation of the defendant
Nala‘s actions since she believed that the property was 3. act or omission of the defendant in violation of said
owned by her husband Eulogio Duyan and that legal right
respondent was illegally occupying the same. She had - ITC:
no knowledge that spouses Gomez violated the trust 1. For valuable consideration, BPI granted several
imposed on them by Eulogio and surreptitiously sold a loans, evidenced by promissory notes, and
portion of the property to respondent. It was only after extended credit facilities in the form of trust
respondent filed the case for damages against Nala that receipts to Far East
she learned of such sale. 2. Said promissory notes and trust receipts had
- Absent any evidence presented by respondent, bad matured
faith or malice could not be attributed to petitioner since 3. despite repeated requests and demands for
Nala was only trying to protect their interests over the payment thereof, Far East had failed and refused
property. to pay.
- There can be damage without injury in those instances - Clearly then, the general allegation of BPI that ―despite
in which the loss or harm was not the result of a repeated requests and demands for payment, Far East
violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the has failed to pay‖ is sufficient to establish BPI‘s cause of
consequences must be borne by the injured person action.
alone; the law affords no remedy for damages resulting - Besides, prescription is not a cause of action; it is a
from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or defense which, having been raised, should, as correctly
wrong. These situations are often called damnum ruled by the CA be supported by competent evidence.
absque injuria. But even as Far East raised the defense of prescription,
- Nala was acting well within her rights when she BPI countered to the effect that the prescriptive period
instructed Atty. Del Prado to send the demand letters. was interrupted and renewed by written extrajudicial
She had to take all the necessary legal steps to enforce demands for payment and acknowledgment by Far East
her legal/equitable rights over the property occupied by of the debt
respondent. One who makes use of his own legal right - A complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient notice of
does no injury. the cause of action even though the allegation may be
vague or indefinite, for in such case, the recourse of the
defendant would be to file a motion for a bill of sections 2, 6, RSC1  based on contract
particulars. It is indeed the better rule that, pleadings, as SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern the procedure in
well as remedial laws, should be liberally construed so actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
their respective claims so as to avoid possible denial of Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the
substantial justice due to legal technicalities claim does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs
Advantage of Affirmative Defense vis-à-vis MTD: A party
may amend a pleading as a matter of right before the other SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.—Plaintiff may join in a single
party files a responsive pleading or answer citing affirmative statement of claim one or more separate small claims against
defenses (thus, if the defendant filed an answer with a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive
affirmative defense instead of MTD, the plaintiff can no longer of interest and costs, does not exceed P200,000.00.
amend his pleading).
IA, B (last par.), RSP2  based on tort
Laches/Estoppel Prescription Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary
Based on reliance (one party Mere lapse of time procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
is misled by the other to Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
believe otherwise) Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction
According to Sir Lumba, in Far East Marble v. CA, by
saying that a complaint is only a concise statement of the A. Civil Cases
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff‘s cause of action, the (1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
court, in effect is saying that it is not necessary to state the irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
legal basis. The legal basis can be the subject of a bill of sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
particulars. awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00).
Question of Fact Question of Law Questions of (2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where
Fact and Law the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed
Can be answered Can be answered Need knowledge one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or two
only by knowing only by knowing of both facts and hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) in Metro Manila,
the facts (no need the law (no need law to answer the exclusive of interest and costs
to know the law) to know the facts) question
B. Criminal Cases
B. Joinder (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
section 5, Rule 2 (3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one (4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
subject to the following conditions: (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
the rules on joinder of parties arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or involving damage to property through criminal
actions governed by special rules; negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may
be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs‘
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with another
the venue lies therein; and cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary
be the test of jurisdiction. (5a) procedure.

section 6, Rule 3 Sec. 2. Determination of applicability. — Upon the filing of


Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in a civil or criminal action, the court shall issue an order
whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by this
arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is Rule A patently erroneous determination to avoid the
alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the application of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these for disciplinary action.
Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all Rules on joinder of parties arranged in hierarchical order
such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the (Section 5 Rule 2)
action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or with the rules on joinder of parties
put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which o One may or may not join parties, depending on
he may have no interest. (6n) the choice of the plaintiff
o PREMISE: o although another person, Fernando Calion,
 different parties (section 6, Rule 3 was allegedly indebted to petitioner, his
 Permissive joinder of parties) obligation was separate and distinct from that
 related causes of action (same of the other respondent.
transaction or series of transactions; - Judge Heilia S. Mallare-Phillipps of the Baguio RTC
question of law or fact common to all) dismissed complaint for lack of jurisdiction
HELD: order appealed from is affirmed
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or - Under the present law, the totality rule is applied to
actions governed by special rules cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate
o e.g. rules on small claims, rules on summary causes of action against a defendant join in a single
procedure complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has
o PREMISE: separate causes of action against two or more
 different parties (section 6, Rule 3 defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the
 Permissive joinder of parties) causes of action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or
 related causes of action against the two or more defendants should arise out of
o EXCEPTION: IA, B (last par.), RSP2 the same transaction or series of transactions and there
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same should be a common question of law or fact
parties but pertain to different venues or - in cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the plaintiffs or as defendants, the total of all the claims
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of shall furnish the jurisdictional test.
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and - ITC: there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that
the venue lies therein the claims against respondents Binongcal and Calion
o PREMISE: are separate and distinct. DISMISS because neither of
 Same parties the claims falls within its jurisdiction.
 Whether related or unrelated
causes of action (because the
purpose is to avoid multiplicity of suits Pantranco v. Standard, 453 S 482 (2005)
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are  Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger jeepney owned
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate by his mother Martina Gicale. Alexander Buncan, on the
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction other hand, was driving a bus owned by Pantranco North
o TOTALITY RULE Express Inc. Both drivers were travelling along the
National Highway of Talavera, Nueva Ecija in a rainy
Can we join…? afternoon. Buncan was driving the bus northbound while
Related Causes of Unrelated Cripin was trailing behind. When the two vehicles were
Action causes of action negotiating a curve along the highway, the passenger
(same transaction or bus overtook the jeepney. In so doing, thhe passenger
series of bus hit the left rear side of the jeepney and sped away.
transactions;  Crispin reported the incident to the police and to the
question of law or insurer of their jeepney, Standard Insurance Co. The
fact common to all) total cost of the repair amounted to P21, 415. Standard
Same parties YES YES only paid P8,000 while Martina Gicale shouldered the
Different YES NO remaining P13,415. Thereafter, Standard and Martina
parties - Pantranco - Flores demanded reimbursements from Pantranco and Buncan,
- PB Comm but the bus company and the driver refused. Thus,
- Spouses Perez Standard and Martina were prompted to file a complaint
- Ada for sum of money with the RTC of Manila.
 Pantranco and Buncan denied the allegations of the
1. Joinder and jurisdiction complaint and asserted that it is the MeTC which has
jurisdiction over the case.
Flores v. Mallare-Philipps, 144 S 277 (1986)  different  RTC: ruled in favor of Standard and Martina, and
parties; unrelated causes of action ordered Pantranco and Buncan to pay the former
- the application of the totality rule is subject to the reimbursements with interests due thereon plus
requirements for the permissive joinder of parties attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
- the order appealed from states that:  CA: The appellate court affirmed the decision of the
o the first cause of action alleged in the RTC.
complaint was against respondent Ignacio HELD: no misjoinder of parties in the case.
Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of  Sec. 6, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides
P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires the following requirements for a permissive joinder of
which he purchased on credit from petitioner parties: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same
o the second cause of action was against transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is a
respondent Fernando Calion for allegedly question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or
refusing to pay the amount of P10,212.00 defendants; and (c) such joinder is not otherwise
representing cost of truck tires proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction
- respondent Binongcal filed MTD otg of lack of jurisd and venue.
since the amount of the demand was below P  ITC, there is a single transaction common to all, that is,
20,000.00. Pantranco‘s bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney.
There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether
petitioners are negligent. There being a single Consequently, it was allegedly correct to join
transaction common to both respondents, consequently, the causes of action and to file the case in
they have the same cause of action against petitioners. Manila, per Section 5 of Rule 2 of the Rules of
 To determine identity of cause of action, it must be Court
ascertained whether the same evidence which is HELD: Petition DENIED. CA AFFIRMED.
necessary to sustain the second cause of action would - In enforcing a surety contract, the ―complementary-
have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. contracts-construed-together‖ doctrine finds application
Here, had respondents filed separate suits against o accessory contract must be read in its entirety
petitioners, the same evidence would have been and together with the principal agreement
presented to sustain the same cause of action. Thus, o Incapable of standing by itself, the SA can be
the filing by both respondents of the complaint with the enforced only in conjunction with the PN. The
court below is in order. Such joinder of parties avoids latter documents the debt that is sought to be
multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient, speedy collected in the action against the sureties.
and orderly administration of justice. o ITC: the SA was entered into to facilitate
 There is NO MISJOINDER OF PARTIES if the money existing and future loan agreements. It makes
sought to be claimed is in favor of the same plaintiff/s no sense to argue that the parties to the SA
and against the same defendant/s. were not bound by the stipulations in the PN.
 By inserting the provision that Makati
2. Joinder and venue City would be the venue for any legal
action that may arise out of the PN,
Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero, supra PBComm also restricted the venue of
actions against the sureties. The legal
Philippine Bank of Communications v. Lim, G.R. No. action against the sureties arose not
158138, 12 April 2005 only from the SA, but also from the
- PB Comm filed a collection case against Respondents PN.
Elena Lim, Ramon Calderon and Tri-Oro with the Manila  the PN was a contract of adhesion.
RTC Ambiguities therein are to be
o Respondents obtained a loan from PBComm construed against the party that
and executed a continuing surety agreement prepared the contract
(SA) for all loans, credits, etc. - PB Comm correctly argues that there are two causes of
o Said loans were evidenced by promissory action
notes (PN) which expressly stipulated that the 1. As against Tri-Oro International Trading &
venue for any legal action that may arise out of Manufacturing Corporation, petitioner‘s cause
said promissory note shall be Makati City, ‗to of action is the alleged failure to pay the debt in
the exclusion of all other courts‘ violation of the PN
o Respondents failed to pay said obligation upon 2. as against Elena Lim and Ramon Calderon,
maturity in violation of the SA.
o PBComm foreclosed the real estate mortgage - Because of the variance between the causes of action,
executed by respondents leaving a deficiency petitioner could have filed separate actions on condition
balance of P4,014,297.23 that it could not recover twice from the same cause.
- Respondents filed MTD otg of improper venue, invoking o It could have proceeded against only one or all
the stipulation contained in the last paragraph of the of them, as full payment by any one of them
promissory note would have extinguished the obligation.
- RTC denied said motion asseverating that petitioner had o Nevertheless, respondents could have been
separate causes of action arising from the promissory joined as defendants in one suit, because
note and the continuing surety agreement petitioner‘s alleged right of relief arose from the
- CA reversed, ruling that respondents‘ alleged debt was same transaction
based on the Promissory Note, which had provided an o To avoid a multiplicity of suits, joinder of parties
exclusionary stipulation on venue ―to the exclusion of all is encouraged by the law.
other courts.‖ - The cause of action, however, does not affect the venue
o The parties‘ Surety Agreement, though silent of the action.
as to venue, was an accessory contract that
should have been interpreted in consonance
with the Promissory Note Uniwide Holdings, Inc. (UHI) v. Cruz, G.R. No. 171456, 9
- Before the SC: August 2007
o petitioner claims that there was no restriction - UHI (with principal office in Paranaque), granted Cruz a
on the venue, because none was stipulated in franchise in Marikina
the SA on which petitioner had allegedly based o Cruz was to pay UHI a franchise fee of P50k or
its suit. Accordingly, the action on the SA may 3% of gross monthly purchase whichever is
be filed in Manila, petitioner‘s place of higher, payable within five days after the end of
residence. each month without need of formal billing or
o Petitioner adds that its Complaint filed in the demand
trial court had two causes of action: o In case of any delay, Cruz would be liable to
1. the first was founded on a breach of the pay an interest charge of 3%/mo.
o There was also a stipulation: The Franchisee
PN
consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
2. the second, on a violation of the SA
courts of Quezon City, the Franchisee waiving to sell with Zescon Land, Inc., petitioners were
any other venue made to sign Mortgage deeds over the same
- Cruz purchased goods from UHI‘s affiliated companies properties in favor of Hermano whom they had
First Paragon Corporation (FPC) and Uniwide Sales never met
Warehouse Club, Inc. (USWCI). 3. damages against all defendants
o FPC and USWCI executed Deeds of - Hermano filed a civil case entitled ―Judicial Foreclosure
Assignment assigning to UHI all their rights and of Real Estate Mortgages against petitioners. This case
interests over Cruz‘s accounts payable to was raffled to another branch of the QC RTC
them. - Hermano filed ―Motion with Leave to Dismiss the
- Cruz had outstanding obligations with UHI, FPC, and Complaint or Ordered Severed for Separate Trial‖
USWCI in the total amount of P1,358,531.89 o TC granted this and denied petitioners‘ MR otg
o UHI sent him a letter but Cruz‘s accounts that Hermano has nothing to do with the
remained unsettled. transaction which the plaintiffs entered into with
- UHI filed a complaint for collection of sum of money defendant Zescon Land, Inc.
before Paranaque RTC stating 4 causes of action o TC also said that whatever claims plaintiffs
1. Failure to pay monthly service fee under may have against defendant Hermano, they
the franchise agreement can set it up by way of an answer to the judicial
2. Receivables from FPC, being its assignee foreclosure case
3. Receivables from USWCI being its - petitioners filed an original action for certiorari before the
assignee CA imputing GAD on the part of TC in granting
4. Atty‘s fees (forced to litigate because of Hermano‘s MTD
obstinate refusal to settle obligations) - CA dismissed petition for certiorari for having been filed
- Cruz filed MTD otg of improper venue, invoking the beyond the reglementary period
stipulation in the franchise agreement that all suits will o From the time petitioners received the assailed
be filed in QC Order on March 21, 2000 and filed their MR, 4
- Parañaque RTC granted MTD days had elapsed
- Before the SC, UHI argued that the franchise agreement o Petitioners received denial of their MR before
did not include FPC and USWCI, hence they cannot be RTC on June 18, 2000
bound to the stipulation on ―exclusive venue.‖ o They filed petition for certiorari before the CA
HELD: Petition GRANTED on August 17, 2000  total of 63 d (based on
- Where there is a joinder of causes of action between the the old RoC where period is interrupted by MR
same parties one of which does not arise out of the but continues the same count)
contract where the exclusive venue was stipulated upon, - Before the SC:
the complaint, as in the one at bar, may be brought o Petitioners claim that they filed petition on the
th
before other venues provided that such other cause of 60 day (based on the amended RoC which
action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and the provides for a fresh period rule)
venue lies therein o Respondents claim that the petition was filed
nd rd st
- UHI‘s 2 and 3 causes of action are based on the on the 61 day
deeds of assignment executed in its favor by FPC and - Re: Hermano‘s MTD  Petitioners assert that Hermano
USWCI. The deeds bear no exclusive venue stipulation should not have been dismissed from the complaint
with respect to the causes of action thereunder. Hence, because:
the general rule on venue applies 1. He did not file a MTD under Rule 16 and his motion
- where the exclusivity clause does not make it was filed almost 2years after he filed his Answer to
necessarily encompassing, such that even those not the complaint
related to the enforcement of the contract should be 2. There was no misjoinder of causes of action in this
subject to the exclusive venue, the stipulation case
designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined
to the specific undertaking or agreement
3. There was no misjoinder of parties
HELD: Petition GRANTED. CA reversed. RTC orders
annulled and set aside. RTC directed to reinstate
Hermano as defendant
3. Severance - Re: timeliness of filing petition for certiorari  during the
pendency of the case before the CA, Rule 65 Sec. 4
Spouses Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, 8 July 2005 was amended providing for a fresh period from receipt
of the order denying the motion for reconsideration to
- Cristina Agraviador Aviso and spouses Victor and
file a petition for certiorari
Milagros Perez filed before QC RTC a civil case for
o Curative statutes, which are enacted to cure
Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for
defects in a prior law or to validate legal
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
proceedings which would otherwise be void for
and/or Preliminary Injunction against Zescon Land, Inc.,
and Antonio Hermano  Petitioners presented 3 want of conformity with certain legal
causes of action in their complaint: requirements, by their very essence, are
1. enforcement of contract to sell entered into retroactive
between petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc o procedural laws are construed to be applicable
2. annulment or rescission of two contracts of to actions pending and undetermined at the
mortgage entered into between petitioners time of their passage
and respondent Hermano  allegedly, - Re: Hermano‘s MTD
o a joinder of causes of action means the uniting
simultaneous with the execution of the contract
of two or more demands or rights of action in
one action. It is the union of two or more civil o they averred that the 43 parcels of land
causes of action, each of which could be made originally owned by spouses Baylon were
the basis of a separate suit, in the same possessed by Rita who appropriated for herself
complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff all the income from said properties and bought
may under certain circumstances join several two other properties using said income
distinct demands, controversies or rights of o Rita, Florante and Panfila denied this (only 22
action in one declaration, complaint or petition. parcels were co-owned and the others were
o Joinders are allowed to avoid multiplicity of individually owned)
suits and to promote the efficient administration - During the pendency of the case, Rita, through a Deed
of justice wherever this may be done without of Donation conveyed 2 properties to Florante and
prejudice to the rights of the litigants. Rules on subsequently died
joinders are liberally construed - petitioners filed a Supplemental Pleading praying that
o While joinder of causes of action is largely left the said donation in favor of the respondent be
to the option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule rescinded because it was executed without their
2 allows joinders in the presence of the competent judicial authority (since it refers to the parcels
following requisites: of land in litigation without the knowledge and approval
a. it will not violate the rules on jurisdiction, of the plaintiffs or of the Court)
venue and joinder of parties o They further alleged that Rita was already sick
and very weak when the said Deed of Donation
b. the causes of action arise out of the same was supposedly executed and, thus, could not
contract, transaction or relation between have validly given her consent thereto.
the parties, or are for demands for money - Florante and Panfila opposed the rescission of the said
or are of the same nature and character donation,
- Our rule on permissive joinder of causes of action - RTC declared co-ownership and partition of the subject
effectively disallows unlimited joinder. BUT: properties and rescinded the donation inter vivos
o Section 6, Rule 2: Misjoinder of causes of o Clearly, the donation inter vivos in favor of
action is not a ground for dismissal of an Florante Baylon was executed to prejudice the
action. A misjoined cause of action may, on plaintiffs‘ right to succeed to the estate of Rita
motion of a party or on the initiative of the Baylon in case of death considering that as
court, be severed and proceeded with testified by Florante Baylon, Rita Baylon was
separately. very weak
o There is misjoinder of causes of action when - CA reversed the RTC‘s rescission of the Deed of
the conditions for joinder under Section 5, Rule Donation and remanded the same to the RTC
2 are not met o before the petitioners may file an action for
o ITC: it is the first condition—on joinder of rescission, they must first obtain a favorable
parties—that the trial court deemed to be judicial ruling that said properties actually
lacking. belonged to the estate of Spouses Baylon and
o The joinder of causes of action may involve the not to Rita. Until then, the CA asserted, an
same parties or different parties. If the joinder action for rescission is premature
involves different parties, as in this case, there o Further, the CA ruled that the petitioners‘ action
must be a question of fact or of law common to for rescission cannot be joined with their action
both parties joined, arising out of the same for partition, accounting and damages through
transaction or series of transaction a mere supplemental pleading
- ITC: there are questions of fact and law common to both HELD: RTC decision rescinding Deed of Donation is
Zescon Land, Inc., and respondent Hermano arising reinstated.
from a series of transaction over the same properties - complaint filed by the petitioners with the RTC involves
- bearing in mind that the joinder of causes of action two separate, distinct and independent actions—
should be liberally construed as to effect in one action a partition and rescission.
complete determination of all matters in controversy - while parties to an action may assert in one pleading, in
involving one, the TC committed GAD in severing from the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action
the complaint petitioners‘ cause of action against as they may have against an opposing party, such
Hermano joinder of causes of action is subject to the condition,
inter alia, that the joinder shall not include special civil
actions governed by special rules there was a
Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, 13 August 2012 misjoinder of causes of action.
- This case involves the estate of spouses Baylon who - The action for partition filed by the petitioners could not
were survived by their children Victoria, Dolores, Rita, be joined with the action for the rescission of the said
Panfila, Ramon, and petitioner Lilia Ada donation inter vivos in favor of Florante. Lest it be
o respondent Florante Baylon is the son of overlooked, an action for partition is a special civil action
Ramon from his first marriage governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court while an
nd
o petitioner Flora Baylon is the 2 wife of Ramon action for rescission is an ordinary civil action governed
o petitioners Remo, Jose, Eric, Florentino and by the ordinary rules of civil procedure. The variance in
Ma. Ruby are the children of Ramon and Flora the procedure in the special civil action of partition and
o petitioner Luz B. Adanza is the daughter of in the ordinary civil action of rescission precludes their
Victoria joinder in one complaint or their being tried in a single
- petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for partition, proceeding to avoid confusion in determining what rules
accounting and damages against Florante, Rita and shall govern the conduct of the proceedings as well as
Panfila
the determination of the presence of requisite elements matter that may be considered by the court in the
of each particular cause of action exercise of its discretion. In such cases, we stressed
- Nevertheless, misjoinder of causes of action is not a that a broad definition of ―cause of action‖ should be
ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the power, applied.
acting upon the motion of a party to the case or sua - ITC: the donation inter vivos made by Rita in favor of
sponte, to order the severance of the misjoined cause of Florante is a new cause of action that occurred after the
action to be proceeded with separately filing of the original complaint. However, the petitioners‘
- However, if there is no objection to the improper joinder prayer for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos
or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, in their supplemental pleading is germane to, and is in
then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication fact, intertwined with the cause of action in the partition
of all the erroneously joined causes of action case.
- It should be emphasized that the foregoing rule only o The petitioners‘ supplemental pleading merely
applies if the court trying the case has jurisdiction over amplified the original cause of action
all of the causes of action therein notwithstanding the o the principal issue raised by the petitioners in
misjoinder of the same. If the court trying the case has their original complaint remained the same.
no jurisdiction over a misjoined cause of action, then - The resolution of the instant dispute (partition) is
such misjoined cause of action has to be severed from fundamentally contingent upon a determination of
the other causes of action, and if not so severed, any whether the donation inter vivos may be rescinded
adjudication rendered by the court with respect to the o The petitioners can ask for the rescission of the
same would be a nullity Deed of Donation because of Article 1381(4):
- ITC: Florante posed no objection, and neither did the any disposition of the thing subject of litigation
RTC direct the severance of the petitioners‘ action for or any act which tends to render inutile the
rescission from their action for partition. While this may court‘s impending disposition in such case,
be a patent omission on the part of the RTC, this does sans the knowledge and approval of the
not constitute a ground to assail the validity and litigants or of the court, is unmistakably and
correctness of its decision. The RTC validly adjudicated irrefutably indicative of bad faith
the issues raised in the actions for partition and - contrary to the CA‘s disposition, the RTC aptly ordered
rescission filed by the petitioners. the rescission of the donation inter vivos of the lots to
- A supplemental pleading may raise a new cause of Florante
action as long as it has some relation to the original - petitioners‘ right to institute the action for rescission
cause of action set forth in the original complaint. pursuant to Article 1381(4) of the Civil Code is not
- While a matter stated in a supplemental complaint preconditioned upon the RTC‘s determination as to the
should have some relation to the cause of action set ownership of the said parcels of land.
forth in the original pleading, the fact that the
supplemental pleading technically states a new cause of
action should not be a bar to its allowance but only a
IV. Parties
A. Real party in interest

Standing Behalf Name Example Basis Suit


RPI RPI RPI Includes agents Rule 3, Sec. 2 Individual suit
pursuant to an SPA
(because they are
merely acting for
the principal)
Representative RPI RPI administrator, Rule 3, Sec. 3 Representative
trustee, executor, suit
guardian, criminal
case, derivative suit Premium Marble
(stockholder suing v. CA
in behalf of the
corporation)
Representative RPI (people/public) Representative Public action Representative
(direct injury which (person filing the Suit
is not merely de case is merely the
minimis) representative 
e.g. taxpayer suit)
RPI (surety) RPI (surety) (debtor) Quasi-party Tijam v. Individual Suit
Sibonghanoy 
Manila Surety
filed MTD for its
own behalf;
Siguion-Reyna
case
x x Nominal parties Rule 65, Sec.5;
(judge whose ruling Tuzon v.
is assailed in Claribel-
certiorari) Purungganan)
RPI+Rep RPI+Rep RPI+Rep Class suit (person Rule 3, Sec. 12 Class suit
filing the case is
included in the class
 acting on one‘s
own behalf and on
behalf of the class)
RPI RPI x Transfer of Interest
 Standing (locus standi) = capacity to make an affirmative claim/ask for relief
o conferred by law, particularly the Rules of Court
o Even if not raised prior to an answer, should be a ground for MTD due to public policy consideration

THREE KINDS OF SUITS


INDIVIDUAL SUIT – one files on behalf of oneself
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT – one files on behalf of another (e.g. derivative suit  suing on behalf of corporation)
CLASS SUIT – combination of individual suit and representative suit  sues not only on his behalf but also on behalf of others

Note:
The transferor of interest is either a nominal or representative party based on Rule 3, Sec. 19. But according to jurisprudence, the
transferor may be a real party in interest.
section 2-4, 11, 13-15, 18-19, 21-22, Rule 3 Section 21.Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to
Section 2.Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court,
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the
in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless party is one who has no money or property sufficient and
otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party and his family.
in interest.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
Section 3.Representatives as parties. — Where the action is docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent,
trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or unless the court otherwise provides.
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An
agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging court should determine after hearing that the party declared
to the principal. as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
Section 4.Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not
or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue
or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other
Section 11.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither sanctions as the court may impose.
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of
an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the Section 22.Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action
court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor
with separately. General who may be heard in person or a representative duly
designated by him.
Section 12.Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many section 5(b), Rule 6
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as Kinds of Pleadings
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be Section 5.Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect affirmative.
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the (a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant
intervene to protect his individual interest. essential to his cause or causes of action.
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which,
Section 13.Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the
uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud,
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy,
and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Section 15.Entity without juridical personality as defendant.
— When two or more persons not organized as an entity with section 5, Rule 65
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be Section 5.Respondents and costs in certain cases. — When
sued under the name by which they are generally or the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge,
commonly known. court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of respondent or respondents with such public respondent or
the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining
the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such
Section 18.Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their
becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or
motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs
against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall
his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. be against the private respondents only, and not against the
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
Section 19.Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or
interest, the action may be continued by or against the respondents.
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the
the action or joined with the original party. petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in
or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading
therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either surety. — When a judgment is rendered against a party who
party, the public respondents shall be included therein as stands as surety for another, the latter is also bound from the
nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically time that he has notice of the action or proceeding, and an
directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in opportunity at the surety's request to join in the defense.
the proceedings therein
section 17, Rule 57
section 20-21, Corporation Code Preliminary Attachment
Section 20. De facto corporations. - The due incorporation Section 17.Recovery upon the counter-bond. — When the
of any corporation claiming in good faith to be a corporation judgment has become executory, the surety or sureties on
under this Code, and its right to exercise corporate powers, any counter-bond given pursuant to the provisions of this
shall not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to Rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become
which such corporation may be a party. Such inquiry may be charged on such counter-bond and bound to pay the
made by the Solicitor General in a quo warranto proceeding judgment obligee upon demand the amount due under the
judgment, which amount may be recovered from such surety
Section 21. Corporation by estoppel. - All persons who or sureties after notice and summary hearing in the same
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without action.
authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all
debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result Tuzon v. Cloribel-Purugganan, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662, 26
thereof: Provided, however, That when any such ostensible November 2001
corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a - Administrative complaint against Judge Loreto Cloribel-
corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not Purugganan of Tuguegarao RTC for illegal practice of
be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate law, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct,
personality. evident bias and partiality, knowingly rendering unjust
judgment, and willful violations of the Code of Judicial
On who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation Conduct.
as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground - Tuzon filed with the CA petition for certiorari assailing
that there was in fact no corporation. the order of respondent judge denying Tuzon‘s motion
to allow cross-examination of his witness and directed
section 111, Family Code that the case be submitted for resolution.
Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate o CA directed private respondent Raymundo E.
or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without Catral to file comment thereon
the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to o respondent judge filed the comment for
litigate with regard to the same. Raymundo Catral and herself, and affixed her
name and signature on the comment
articles 102-103, RPC o petition dismissed by CA for lack of merit
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, - Tuzon filed the administrative complaint before the SC
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - In default deploring the act of filing a comment in the civil case as
of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, illegal private practice of law
and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable o Tuzon also averred that respondent judge
for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases antedated her decision in the Civil Case
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or HELD: Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan guilty of illegal practice of
special police regulation shall have been committed by them law  SUSPENDED 3 MONTHS
or their employees. - a judge must maintain a detached attitude from the case
and shall not waste his time by taking an active part in a
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of proceeding that relates to official actuations in a case
goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from o He is merely a nominal party and has no
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value personal interest or personality therein
thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Pedro Fragrante, G.R. No.
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall L-770, 27 April 1948
furthermore have followed the directions which such - Pedro Flagrante‘s application for a certificate of public
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with convenience to install, maintain and operate an ice plant
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability was approved by the Public Service Commission
shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or through Deputy Commissioner Fidel Ibañez
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's o certificate of public convenience was issued to
employees. the Intestate Estate of the deceased Pedro
Fragante, authorizing said Intestate Estate
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The through its Special or Judicial Administrator,
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article appointed by the proper court of competent
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and jurisdiction, to maintain and operate an ice
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies plant and to sell the ice produced from said
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or plant
employees in the discharge of their duties. - Limjoco contends that it was error on the part of the
commission to allow the substitution of the legal
section 46, Rule 39 representative of the estate of Pedro O. Fragante for the
Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments latter as party applicant in the case then pending before
Section 46.When principal bound by judgment against the commission, and in subsequently granting to said
estate the certificate applied for, which is said to be in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 S 29 (1968), supra
contravention of law. RE: Party in interest
HELD: PSC decision affirmed. Petition dismissed - although the action, originally, was exclusively against
- The commission declared in its decision, in view of the the Sibonghanoy spouses, the Surety became a quasi-
evidence before it, that Flagrante‘s estate was party therein since July 31, 1948 when it filed a counter-
financially able to maintain and operate the ice plant bond for the dissolution of the writ of attachment issued
o The right of Fragante to prosecute said by the court of origin. Since then, it acquired certain
application to its final conclusion was one rights and assumed specific obligations in connection
which by its nature did not lapse through his with the pending case
death. Hence, it constitutes a part of the assets
of his estate, for such a right was property
despite the possibility that in the end the Premium Marble v. CA, 264 S 11 (1996)
commission might have denied the application - Premium Marble filed an action for damages against
- Rule 88, section 2, provides that the executor or International Corporate Bank (represented by Atty.
administrator may bring or defend actions, among other Dumadag)
cases, for the protection of the property or rights of the o Ayala Investment and Development
deceased which survive, and it says that such actions Corporation issued three checks payable to
may be brought or defended "in the right of the Premium Marble
deceased" o Former officers of Premium Marble without
- Rule 82, section 1, paragraph (a), mentions among the authority deposited the checks to the current
duties of the executor or administrator, the making of an account of Intervest Merchant Finance (conduit
inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, credits, and of one of the former officers) with International
estate of the deceased which shall come to his Corporate Bank
possession or knowledge, or to the possession of any o Although the checks were clearly payable to
other person for him Premium Marble only, defendant bank
- unless otherwise expressly provided by law, any action accepted the checks to be deposited to the
affecting the property or rights of a deceased person current account of Intervest and thereafter
which may be brought by or against him if he were alive, presented the same for collection from the
may likewise be instituted and prosecuted by or against drawee bank which subsequently cleared the
the administrator, unless the action is for recovery of same thus allowing Intervest to make use of
money, debt or interest thereon, or unless, by its very the funds to the prejudice of Premium Marble
nature, it cannot survive, because death extinguishes - International Corporate Bank alleged, inter alia, that
the right Premium has no capacity/personality/authority to sue in
- Manresa considered as immovable and movable things this instance and the complaint should, therefore, be
rights which are not material dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
- the estate of a decedent is in law regarded as a person - Printline Corporation, a sister company of Premium also
o the estate of a deceased person is also filed an action for damages against International
considered as having legal personality Corporate Bank
independent of the heirs. - Premium Marble (this time represented by Siguion
- Under the regime of the Old Civil Code the heirs of a Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office) filed MTD
deceased person were considered in contemplation of otg that the filing of the case was without authority from
law as the continuation of his personality its duly constituted board of directors as shown by the
o the heirs succeed to all the rights and excerpt of the minutes of the Premium‘s board of
obligations of the decedent by the mere fact of directors‘ meeting
his death - Premium thru Atty. Dumadag contended that the
- BUT in the New Civil Code and the Code of Civil persons who signed the board resolution are not
Procedure, it is the estate or the mass of property, rights directors of the corporation (already dismissed for
and assets left by the decedent, instead of the heirs various irregularities and fraudulent acts)
directly, that becomes vested and charged with his o Siguion Reyna Law Office is the lawyer of the
rights and obligations which survive after his demise. persons who signed the board resolution
o among the artificial persons recognized by law (Belen and Nograles) and not of Premium
figures "a collection of property to which the Marble
law attributes the capacity of having rights and o Articles of Incorporation of Premium shows that
duties" Belen, Nograles and Reyes are not majority
o the estate of a decedent should be regarded as stockholders.
an artificial person. It is the creation of law for - Siguion Reyna Law Firm as counsel of Premium in a
the purpose of enabling a disposition of the rejoinder, asserted that it is the general information
assets to be properly made sheet filed with the SEC that is the best evidence that
- under the Bill of Rights, the term ―person‖ includes would show who are the stockholders of a corporation
artificial and juridical persons  they also have the and not the Articles of Incorporation since the latter does
constitutional guarantee against being deprived of not keep track of the many changes that take place after
property without due process of law, or the immunity new stockholders subscribe to corporate shares of
from unreasonable searches and seizures stocks.
- Flagrante‘s citizenship also extends to his estate (by - International Corporate Bank adopted in toto Premium
legal fiction) Marble‘s (represented by Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and
Ongsiako Law Office) MTD
- LC ruled that the officers represented by Atty. Dumadag present ordinary civil case but in a special
do not have the legal capacity to sue for and in behalf of proceeding for that purpose
Premium Marble because of a pending intra-corporate o ground of lack of cause of action may be raised
dispute before the SEC (RE: who are the current in a MTD any time
officers, those in the GI sheet or those newly elected?) - Before the SC, petitioners argued:
- CA affirmed LC‘s dismissal of the cases o Filed out of time
HELD: Petition DENIED o even if there is non-joinder and misjoinder of
- in the absence of any board resolution from its board of parties or that the suit is not brought in the
directors giving the authority to act for and in behalf of name of the real party in interest, the remedy is
the corporation, the present action must necessarily fail. not outright dismissal of the complaint, but its
The power of the corporation to sue and be sued in any amendment to include the real parties in
court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises interest
its corporate powers. Thus, the issue of authority and o petitioners sued in their own right because they
the invalidity of plaintiff-appellant‘s subscription which is have actual and substantial interest in the
still pending, is a matter that is also addressed, subject matter of the action as heirs or co-
considering the premises, to the sound judgment of the owners,  declaration as heirs in a special
SEC proceeding is not necessary
HELD: Petition GRANTED
Premium Marble v. CA implies that lack of standing = - As the rule now stands, the failure to invoke lack of
failure to state cause of action. Sir Lumba thinks that this is cause of action in MTD or in the answer would result in
wrong because standing is different from cause of action. The its waiver because failure to state a cause of action may
correct doctrine should be: Lack of standing = lack of legal be cured under Section 5, Rule 10 (Amendment to
capacity to sue (which is still a ground for dismissal). conform to or authorize presentation of evidence)
- ITC: MTD was filed out of time and the failure to state
Pacaña-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., G.R. No. cause of action was thus waived
168979, 2 December 2013 o They should have at least raised this in their
- Rebecca Pacaña-Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña filed answer. Petitioners claimed that the CA found
this case against Rovila Inc., Earl, Lilia, Dalla and that this was indeed raised in their answer BUT
Marisa for accounting and damages the SC‘s examination of the records shows that
- Petitioners Rebecca Pacaña-Contreras and Rosalie the CA had no basis in its finding that the
Pacaña (authorized by Lourdes, their mother, through a respondents alleged the grounds as affirmative
sworn declaration and special power of attorney) defenses in their answer.
claimed that their family operated the ―Rovila Water o it was only during the pre-trial stage that they
Supply‖ from their family residence and were engaged in verbally manifested and invited the attention of
the distribution of water to customers in Cebu City. the lower court on their grounds for dismissal
- Lilia was a former trusted employee until she claimed - To justify the belated filing of the motion to dismiss, the
ownership over the family business through a CA reasoned out that the ground for dismissal of ―lack of
corporation named ―Rovila Water Supply, Inc.‖ (Rovila cause of action‖ may be raised at any time during the
Inc.) which was registered with the SEC with the proceedings, pursuant to Dabuco v. CA. This is an
respondents as the majority stockholders. erroneous interpretation and application of Dabuco
- respondents filed MTD otg that the RTC had no o in Dabuco, the grounds for dismissal were
jurisdiction over an intra-corporate dispute raised as affirmative defenses in the answer
- RTC denied the motion which is in stark contrast to the present case.
- Lourdes died during pendency of the case o in Dabuco, the Court distinguished between the
- During pre-trial, respondents manifested to the RTC that dismissal of the complaint for ―failure to state a
a substitution of the parties was necessary in light of the cause of action‖ and ―lack of cause of action.‖
deaths of Lourdes and Luciano. Failure to state a cause of Lack of cause of action
o in the pre-trial order, one of the submitted action
issues was whether the case must be refers to the insufficiency of refers to a situation where the
dismissed the pleading evidence does not prove the
- Respondents filed another MTD otg that petitioners are cause of action alleged in the
not the real parties in interest to prosecute the case. pleading (questions of fact are
- RTC denied MTD anew REMEDY: MTD under Rule involved, therefore, courts
o Filed out of time as it was filed only after the 16 hesitate to declare a plaintiff
conclusion of the pre-trial conference as lacking in cause of action.
o rule on substitution of parties only applies when Such declaration is postponed
the parties to the case die, which is not what until the insufficiency of cause
happened in the present case is apparent from a
- CA ruled that RTC committed GAD preponderance of evidence)
o petitioners filed the complaint and the amended
complaint as attorneys-in-fact of their parents. REMEDY:
As such, they are not the real parties in interest 1. require the pleading to
and cannot bring an action in their own names; state a cause of action,
thus, the complaint should be dismissed by timely objection to its
o petitioners should first be declared as heirs deficiency; or
before they can be considered as the real 2. at the trial, to file a
parties in interest. This cannot be done in the demurrer to evidence, if
such motion is warranted - ITC: proper remedy = implead the indispensable parties.
To do so would serve proper administration of justice
- ITC, the Court cannot uphold the dismissal of the and prevent further delay and multiplicity of suits
present case based on the grounds invoked by the - the deceased Pacañas can no longer be included in the
respondents which they have waived for failure to complaint. Upon their death, however, their ownership
invoke them within the period prescribed by the Rules. and rights over their properties were transmitted to their
The Court cannot also dismiss the case based on ―lack heirs, including petitioners.
of cause of action‖ as this would require at least a - HENCE court ordered all heirs of the spouses to be
preponderance of evidence which is yet to be impleaded
appreciated by the trial court. Therefore, the RTC did
not commit GAD in issuing the assailed orders denying Summary of the arguments of Rebecca Pacaña-
the respondents‘ MTD and MR. Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña acdg. to Sir Lumba
- RE: Real party in interest Standing Behalf Name Ground
Real party in Indispensable party Necessary party for MTD?
interest RPI RPI representative NO
party who stands party in interest one who is not RPI representative representative YES
to be benefited or without whom no indispensable but
injured by the final determination who ought to be
judgment of the can be had of an joined as a party Magallanes v. Palmer Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 205179, 18 July
suit, or the party action if complete relief 2014
entitled to the is to be accorded - Magallanes was a sales agent of Andrews International
avails of the suit. also considered as to those (selling fire extinguishers). He negotiated with 3
real party in interest already parties, prospective buyers who all issued checks payable to
If a suit is not because party or for a complete Andrews. These checks, however, bounced
brought in the stands to be determination or - the President of Andrews returned the bum checks to
name of or benefited or injured settlement of the Magallanes. Desirous of obtaining his accrued
against the real by the judgment of claim subject of commissions, Magallanes signed Sales Invoices
party in interest, a the suit the action covering the fire extinguishers that were intended to be
MTD may be filed sold to the prospective buyers, and he also issued 5
otg that the ISSUE to be also considered checks covering the purchase price of the items
complaints states RESOLVED: WoN real party in o Magallanes‘ checks were dishonored upon
no cause of persons interested interest because presentment to the bank.
action. in such outcome party stands to - Andrews and another corporation, Palmer Asia entered
are actually be benefited or into an agreement whereby all the business of Andrews
ISSUE to be pleaded injured by the was going to be handled by Palmer
RESOLVED: judgment of the - Magallanes was charged with BP 22 by Andrews in a
WoN the parties suit complaint filed before MeTC Branch 62.
presently pleaded - Another criminal case was filed in Branch 67, by
are interested in ISSUE to be EMSAVILL as the counsel of Palmer (also the counsel
the outcome of RESOLVED: of Andrews). This case was entitled Palmer Asia, Inc. v.
the litigation (NOT WoN persons Gerve Magallanes. (The 2 cases have different docket
WoN persons interested in such numbers)
interested in such outcome are - Magallanes filed an Omnibus Motion to Disqualify
outcome are actually pleaded Private Prosecutor and to Strike Out Testimony of Angel
actually pleaded) Palmiery (president of Andrews)
o According to Magallanes since the assets and
- ITC: spouses Pacaña were not impleaded as parties- credits of Andrews were transferred to Palmer,
plaintiffs. They are indispensable parties to the case as the real party in interest in this case is Palmer
the alleged owners of Rovila Water Supply. Without their and not Andrews. Therefore, the criminal case
inclusion as parties, there can be no final determination should have been instituted by Palmer
of the present case. They possess such an interest in - Palmer filed its Opposition to Magallanes‘ motion
the controversy that a final decree would necessarily - MeTC denied the motion filed by Magallanes for lack of
affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed merit. It also acquitted Magallanes, but held him civilly
without their presence. Their interest in the subject liable
matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably - Magallanes filed a Partial Appeal before the RTC
intertwined with that of the other parties. - When the parties were required by the RTC to submit
- Jurisprudence on the procedural consequence of the their respective memoranda, the memorandum for the
inclusion or noninclusion of an indispensable party is complainant was filed by Palmer, and not Andrews.
divided in our jurisdiction. BUT the Court clarified in - RTC held that Magallanes was not civilly liable for the
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al. that value of the checks because the complaining juridical
the failure to implead indispensable parties is a curable entity has not fully established the existence of a debt by
error Mr. Magallanes in its favor
- non-joinder is not a ground to dismiss the suit or annul - Palmer (not Andrews) filed Petition for Review before
the judgment. The rules allow the amendment of the the CA
complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through o Magallanes then filed his Comments to Petition
motion or on order of the court on its own initiative for Review with MTD Due to Finality of
Judgment wherein he alleged that Palmer Asia
has never been a party plaintiff litigant in the - A Partial Project of Partition of the Estate was approved
civil aspect of the Criminal Case by RTC
- CA ruled against Magallanes - Remedios filed an "Urgent Omnibus Motion and Notice
HELD: Petition GRANTED of Termination of the Services of Petitioner's Counsel of
- RTC Decision absolving Magallanes from civil liability Record."
has attained finality, since no appeal was interposed by - Remedios questioned the RTC's Order approving the
the private complainant, Andrews. While Palmer filed a partition and denied the execution of the Deed of Sale in
petition for review before the CA, it is not the real party favor of Gerardo. Also demanded that Siguion Reyna
in interest; it was never a party to the proceedings at the return the amount it received from the partition motion
trial court. eventually withdrawn
- The CA erred in stating that Palmer and Andrews are - Nevertheless, RTC directed Siguion Reyna to reimburse
the same entity. These are two separate and distinct the Estate
entities claiming civil liability against Magallanes. o the sale of inheritance was never made known
Andrews was the payee of the bum checks, and the to the RTC
former employer of Magallanes. It filed the complaint for o the sale cannot comprehend a widow's
B.P. 22 before MeTC Branch 62. Thus when the MeTC allowance because such allowance is
Branch 62 ordered Magallanes to pay the private "personal in nature‖
complainant the corresponding face value of the checks, - Siguion Reyna appealed to the CA
it was referring to Andrews, not Palmer. o argued that it merely acted as representative of
- Palmer, on the other hand, was first mentioned in an Gerardo, Remedios' successor-in-interest,
Entry of Appearance filed by its counsel EMSAVILL when it received the allowance
before MeTC Branch 67 in connection with Palmer Asia, - CA denied Siguion Reyna‘s petition otg that the latter
Inc. v. Gerve Magallanes. Palmer also filed the was not a party in the case before the lower court and
Memorandum required by the RTC. therefore had no standing to question the assailed order
- Although Andrews relinquished control of its business to - Before the SC, Siguion Reyna argued:
Palmer, it was never dissolved and thus remained o while it was not a party in the intestate
existing proceedings, it is nevertheless an "aggrieved
- the real party in interest here is Andrews party" which can file a petition for certiorari.
o the RTC's order of reimbursement violated due
Magallanes doctrine acdg. to Sir Lumba: process
If you have no standing, if you appeal, it is as if there is no o Siguion Reyna received said allowance only in
appeal. favorlof Gerardo as buyer of Remedios'
If you have no standing, if you file a case, it is as if there is no interests pursuant to the Deed of Sale
case filed. HELD:
- GENERAL RULE: the "aggrieved party" referred to in
Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v. Rule 65 is one who was a party to the original
Chionlo-Sia, G.R. No. 181186, February 3, 2016 proceedings that gave rise to the original action for
- Siguion Reyna acted as counsel for Remedios N. certiorari
Rodriguez when she commenced an action for the o a stranger to the litigation would not have the
intestate settlement of the estate of her deceased legal standing to interfere in the orders or
husband before the Lucena RTC decisions of the said court
- During the pendency of the intestate proceedings, - The peculiar facts of this case, however, call for a less
Remedios asked for the payment of widow's allowance stringent application of the rule.
(denied by RTC, but granted by CA) - Siguion Reyna became involved in its own capacity only
- while the case was pending before the CA, Remedios when the RTC ordered it to return the money that it
executed a Deed of Sale of Inheritance wherein she received on behalf of its client
agreed to sell all her rights, interests and participation in o The order of reimbursement was directed to
the estate of Susano J. Rodriguez to a certain Remigio Siguion Reyna in its personal capacity - not in
M. Gerardo its capacity as counsel for either Remedios or
- As a condition subsequent to the sale, executed a Gerardo
special power of attorney authorizing Gerardo to receive o order for reimbursement would typically have
from any person or from any court, any property and to been addressed to the parties of the case; the
receive said property in his own name and for his own counsel's role and duty would be to ensure that
account and to deposit the same at his sole discretion his client complies with the court's order.
for his own account and dispose of the same without o Siguion Reyna never claimed the amount for its
any limitation own account. It only facilitated the transfer of
- Gerardo later on executed a document titled as the amount to Gerardo
"Substitution of Attorney-in-Fact" where he designated - Under the law of agency, an agent is not personally
Siguion Reyna as substitute attorney pursuant to the liable for the obligations of the principal unless he
power of substitution granted to him in the earlier SPA. performs acts outside the scope of his authority or he
Gerardo subsequently executed his own SP A expressly binds himself to be personally liable.
authorizing Siguion Reyna Otherwise, the principal is solely liable.
- Siguion Reyna filed a motion with the RTC for the o ITC Siguion Reyna acted within bounds of its
payment of the allowance  the Estate of Deceased authority
Rodriguez remitted to Siguion Reyna 3 checks for this
purpose
B. Necessary and indispensible parties
sections 7-10, Rule 3 Arcelona v. CA, 280 S 20 (1997)
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — - 6 siblings = co-owners of a fishpond. 3 of them are in
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be the US. Those in the PH entered into a lease contract
had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or with a certain Tandoc who then entrusted the lease to
defendants. (7) Farnacio. At the end of the lease contract, Farnacio filed
Section 8. Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who a case for peaceful possession before the RTC asking
is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if that his tenancy in the fishpond be maintained. RTC and
complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, IAC ruled in favor of Farnacio. Before the CA,
or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim petitioners, the siblings who were in the US, filed an
subject of the action. (8a) action for declaration of nullity of judgment because they
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. — were not impleaded as indispensable parties and they
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a were not served summons extraterritorially. The SC held
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his that the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction over the
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the petitioners who are indispensable parties.
court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if Baloloy v. Hular, G.R. No. 157767, 9 September 2004
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. - Hular filed accion reinvindicatoria and accion publiciana
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without alleging that Baloloy erroneously had his land registered
justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim under the latter‘s name. The lower courts granted his
against such party. petitions and declared him the sole owner of said land.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the The SC declared that the lower court made an error in
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment declaring Hular the sole owner because he inherited
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of said land along with his siblings from their parents;
such necessary party. (8a, 9a) hence they are co-owners and his siblings are
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any indispensable parties in the action. Likewise, the
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, Republic of the Philippines was also an indispensable
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall party because Hular sought the nullification of the Free
be stated in the complaint. (10) Patent and OCT. Hular‘s failure to include indispensable
parties is fatal. (Art. 487: co-owner may only file on
art. 487, 1208-1209, NCC behalf of other co-owners if it is for the benefit of all. If
Article 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in the co-owner filed the action claiming that he is the sole
ejectment. (n) owner to the prejudice of other co-owners, the action
must fail.)
Article 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of Note: 487 is for ejectment. But the SC in this case
the obligations to which the preceding article refers the applied 487 to other real actions.
contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be
presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are
creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered Sir Lumba‘s analysis of the 2 above cases involving co-
distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court owners:
governing the multiplicity of suits. (1138a) Arcelona v. CA Baloloy v. Hular
Facts The 3 co-owners who The plaintiff (Hular)
Article 1209. If the division is impossible, the right of the were in the US and failed to include 2
creditors may be prejudiced only by their collective acts, and were supposed to be co—onwers who
the debt can be enforced only by proceeding against all the indispensable parties were necessary
debtors. If one of the latter should be insolvent, the others were not included as parties
shall not be liable for his share. (1139) defendants
Nature of The co-owners are The co-owners are
Summary of parties relationship joint debtors solidary creditors
Indispensable Necessary Permissive Judgment in May be annulled for Judgment in favor
Party Party Party favor of failure to implead of one co-owner is
Absence Not a ground Not a ground Not a ground plaintiff indispensable valid
for dismissal for dismissal for dismissal parties. Otherwise, it
Remedy - Include party Include party would be a violation
(Rule 3, (Rule 3, Sec. of due process
Sec. 7) OR 9) because the other
- If the co-
judgment owner/indispensable
has become parties did not have
final and their day in court
executory, Judgment in The plaintiff may no The co-owners who
have favor of longer file another were not impleaded
judgment defendant action against the may still be allowed
annulled other indispensable to file another
under Rule parties who were not action. Otherwise, it
47 (Arcelona impleaded. The would be a violation
v. CA) principle of res of due process
judicata should apply because the other Cacayuran. The Municipality filed a Motion for Leave to
co-owner/ Intervene with Pleading-in-Intervention praying that it be
necessary parties included as a party-litigant to the instant case. It
did not have their contends that as a contracting party to the Subject
day in court Loans, it is an indispensable party to the action filed by
Note: The SC did not apply this analysis in the Baloloy Cacayuran. Hence, there cannot be any real disposition
case. In said case, Hular‘s co-owners were treated by the SC of the instant suit by reason of its exclusion from the
as indispensable parties. For Sir Lumba, they should only be same. Cacayuran insists that the Municipality is not a
treated as necessary parties. real party-in-interest to the instant case as his complaint
According to Sir Lumba, in the Baloloy case, Hular‘s co- is against the municipal officers in their personal
owners are examples of the first type of necessary parties capacity for their ultra vires acts which are not binding
because they ought to be joined as parties for complete on the Municipality. The SC held that the municipality is
relief to be accorded as to the Baloloy‘s. Otherwise, Hular‘s indeed a RPI but this is not a ground for the dismissal of
co-owners might still file another action against the the case; rather, the remedy is to implead the
Baloloy‘s, which will also be unfair. indispensable parties. Hence, the SC remanded the
case to the RTC
Two types of necessary parties:
1. One who is ought to be joined as a party if complete Note: The Land Bank case involves a personal action
rd
relief is to be accorded as to those already parties (action for annulment of contract of loan). If a 3 party sues
2. One who is ought to be joined as a party for a complete a party to the contract, the other party is an indispensable
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the party because the judgment will necessarily affect him and
action his right to due process will be violated.

C. Class suits
Adlawan v. Adlawan, 479 S 275 (2006) section 12, Rule 3
- Petitioner = illegitimate son of Dominador, owner of
subject parcel of land. He filed an ejectment suit against Section 12.Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
the siblings of Dominador occupying the subject controversy is one of common or general interest to many
property. The MTC dismissed the action but the RTC persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
reversed. The CA reinstated the MTC ruling and held parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
that the heirs of Dominador‘s wife Graciana sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect
(intervenors), are petitioner‘s co-owners. Hence, the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
petitioner cannot eject occupants of the property via an benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
unlawful detainer suit filed in his own name and as sole intervene to protect his individual interest.
owner of the property. SC affirmed CA (Art. 487: co-
owner may only file on behalf of other co-owners if it is Elements:
for the benefit of all. If the co-owner filed the action 1. common or general interest to many persons 
claiming that he is the sole owner to the prejudice of all members of the class are indispensable parties
other co-owners, the action must fail.) 2. so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties (relate with indispensable party-defendants
Carandang v. Heirs of de Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, 29 who are joint indivisible debtors)
November 2006 3. sufficiently numerous and representative as to
- Spouses Carandang and spouses De Guzman are the fully protect the interests of all concerned may
stockholders of Mabuhay Broadcasting System. When sue or defend for the benefit of all
they increased the capital stock of the corporation, De
Guzman claimed that he was the only one who paid for OPT-IN JURISDICTION OPT-OUT JURISDICTION
such increase. Hence Quirino De Guzman filed an Member of the class has the Member of the class can be
action to recover from Spouses Carandang. One of the right to intervene but does excluded from said class so
arguments raised by spouses Carandang before the SC not have the right to be as not to be affected by the
is Quirino De Guzman‘s failure to include in the excluded from the class judgment
complaint his wife Milagros de Guzman, who is an The Philippines is an opt-in jurisdiction
indispensable party since some of the checks issued
were bearing her name. The SC ruled that the failure to Three kinds of class suits
include Milagros does not warrant the dismissal of the 1. True –members of the class are indispensable
case because Milagros and Quirino, being spouses parties
whose property were under the CPG regime, should be o only type available in the Philippines; provided
considered co-owners. Art.487 would apply for in the Rules on Environmental Cases
2. Hybrid – members of the class are necessary
Pacaña-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., supra parties
3. Spurious – members of the class are permissive
Land Bank of the Phils. v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, parties
22 April 2015 o Type available in the US
- Municipality of Agoo allegedly entered into irregular
loans with LBP through its officials for the Effect of filing a class suit which is not actually a class
redevelopment of the Plaza. Cacayuran filed a taxpayer suit: DISMISSIBLE
suit assailing the loan agreements, impleading LBP and - According to the SC, the party had no capacity to sue;
the officials. The RTC, CA and SC ruled in favor of hence, he has no cause of action
- Sir Lumba thinks this is wrong because the proper common interest in the subject matter of the
remedy should be a joinder since the individual still controversy; that ITC there is such common interest
stated a cause of action as to himself HELD:
- The necessary elements for the maintenance of a class
Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L- suit are accordingly:
23136, 26 August 1974 (1) that the subject matter of the controversy be one of
- plaintiffs-appellants alleged that they were stockholders common or general interest to many persons, and
in the Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) (2) that such persons be so numerous as to make it
- at a regular meeting, the stockholders passed a impracticable to bring them all to the court.
Resolution providing that the Consolidated Bank & Trust - An action does not become a class suit merely because
Co. be organized with an authorized capital of it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the
P20,000,000.00 and all stockholders of the CMI, who suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending
were legally qualified to become stockholders, would be facts, and the complaint, or other pleading initiating the
entitled to subscribe to the capital stock of the proposed class action should allege the existence of the
Bank ―at par value to the same extent and in the same necessary facts, to wit, the existence of a subject matter
amount as said stockholders‘ respective shareholdings of common interest, and the existence of a class and the
in the CMI," number of persons in the alleged class, in order that the
o the Board of Directors of the CMI, who are the court might be enabled to determine whether the
defendants-appellees in this case, constituted members of the class are so numerous as to make it
themselves as the Interim Board of Organizers impracticable to bring them all before the court, to
who then sent out to the CMI stockholders contrast the number appearing on the record with the
circular letters ―Pre-Incorporation Agreement to number in the class and to determine whether claimants
Subscribe‖ forms regarding the payment of on record adequately represent the class and the
subscription subject matter of general interest
o the CMI stockholders paid the subscriptions - ITC: the complaint explicitly did not state the number of
and accomplished the ―Pre-Incorporation said CMI subscribing stockholders so that the trial court
Agreement to Subscribe‖ could not infer, much less make sure as explicitly
o However, when the Board of Organizers required by the statutory provision, that the parties
caused the execution of the Articles of actually before it were sufficiently numerous and
Incorporation of the proposed Bank, it only representative in order that all interests concerned might
indicated an original subscription of 50,000 be fully protected, and that it was impracticable to bring
shares woth P5,000,000 subscribed and paid such a large number of parties before the court.
only by six of the individuals-defendants-
appellees and excluding the plaintiffs- - There was also no common or general interest ITC:
appellants and the other CMI subscribing The interest that appellants, plaintiffs and intervenors,
stockholders who had already subscribed and the CMI stockholders had in the subject matter of
o plaintiffs-appellants and other CMI subscribing this suit—the portion of stocks offering of the Bank left
stockholders had been denied the right to unsubscribed by CMI stockholders who failed to
subscribe at par value, in proportion to their exercise their right to subscribe on or before January 15,
equities established under their respective 1963—was several, not common or general in the sense
―Pre-Incorporation Agreements to Subscribe‖ to required by the statute. Each one of the appellants and
the capital stock the CMI stockholders had determinable interest; each
one had a right, if any, only to his respective portion of
- Plaintiffs filed this case saying that the AoI was in the stocks. No one of them had any right to, or any
violation of law and in breach of trust and the contractual interest in, the stock to which another was entitled.
agreement as a means to gain control of the Bank
o Prayed that the subscriptions and - Even if it be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the
shareholdings acquired by the individuals- appellants and the CMI stockholders suffered wrongs
defendants-appellees and the persons chosen that had been committed by similar means and even
by them, to the extent that plaintiffs-appellants pursuant to a single plan of the Interim Board of
and the other CMI stockholders had been Organizers of the Bank, the wrong suffered by each of
deprived of their right to subscribe, be annulled them would constitute a wrong separate from those
and transferred to plaintiffs-appellants and suffered by the other stockholders, and those wrongs
other CMI subscribing stockholders. alone would not create that common or general interest
in the subject matter of the controversy as would entitle
- Defendants filed MTD otg that plaintiffs-appellants had any one of them to bring a class suit on behalf of the
no legal standing or capacity to institute the alleged others.
class suit and complaint did not state a sufficient and
valid cause of action - It may be granted that the claims of all the appellants
involved the same question of law. But this alone, as
- TC granted the MTD holding that the class suit could not said above, did not constitute the common interest over
be maintained because of the absence of a showing in the subject matter indispensable in a class suit. The
the complaint that the plaintiffs-appellants were right to purchase or subscribe to the shares of the
sufficiently numerous and representative, and that the proposed Bank, claimed by appellants herein, is
complaint failed to state a cause of action analogous to the right of preemption that stockholders
- Before the SC, plaintiffs-appellants argued that the have when their corporation increases its capital. The
propriety of a class suit should be determined by the right of preemption, it has been said, is personal to each
stockholder
- Re: Cause of action overtime pay and were deprived of holiday pay and
o facts did not even show that appellants allowances
were entitled to subscribe to the capital - Petitioner‘s consultant met with the employees
stock of the proposed Bank, for said right individually and told them to quit their membership with
depended on a condition precedent, which the union under pain of being suspended, dismissed or
was, that they were qualified under the law criminally prosecuted. When they refused, many were
to become stockholders of the Bank, and dismissed without any charges and others were given
there was no direct averment in the memorandum on concocted offenses and violations.
complaint of the facts that qualified them to - The Union on behalf of its members filed a complaint
become stockholders of the Bank before the Labor Arbiter for underpayment of wages,
nonpayment of overtime pay, monthly emergency
allowance, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay
Newsweek v. IAC, 142 S 171 (1986) and 13th month pay
- private respondents, incorporated associations of o The complaint was amended since
sugarcane planters in Negros Occidental claiming to respondent Union manifested through its
have 8,500 members and several individual sugar authorized representative that it was
planters, filed a case in their own behalf and/or as a intended as a class suit.
class suit in behalf of all sugarcane planters in the o 3 other cases were filed by other
province of Negros Occidental, against petitioner and employees as individual complainants
two of petitioners‘ non-resident  One case = 2 complainants
correspondents/reporters Fred Bruning and Barry Came  Another = 5 complainants
o they allegedly committed libel by publishing  Another = Elorde Padilla, Jr., et
―An Island of Fear‖ portraying Negros al., as complainants
Occidental as a place dominated by big - The 4 cases were then consolidated.
landowners or sugarcane planters who not o The Union submitted 2 lists of 136 workers
only exploited the impoverished and with 85 original complainants
underpaid sugarcane workers/laborers, but o 16 complainants later filed motions to
also brutalized and killed them with withdraw with prejudice and 5 were found
impunity. to be non-employees
o prayed that defendants be ordered to pay o 3 other complainants settled with petitioner
them P1M as actual and compensatory and moved to dismiss
damages, and such amounts for moral, o 27 more employees submitted their sworn
exemplary and corrective damages as the statements
court may determine, plus expenses of o TOTAL: 88 complainants (85 – (16+5+3) +
litigation, attorney‘s fees and costs of suit. 27)
- Petitioner filed MTD for failure to state a cause of action - petitioner filed what was purportedly a compromise
which was dismissed by TC agreement between itself and the local chapter of
- Before the SC, petitioner argued that in cases where respondent Union. It appeared to have been signed by
libel is claimed to have been directed at a group, there is representatives of petitioner and the President, Vice
actionable defamation only if the libel can be said to President and another officer of the local chapter of
reach beyond the mere collectivity to do damage to a respondent Union
specific, individual group member‘s reputation. - LA ruled that complainants were illegally dismissed;
HELD: ordered reinstatement and payment of backwages.
- where the defamation is alleged to have been directed NLRC affirmed
at a group or class, it is essential that the statement - petitioner now asks how many individual complainants
must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to are there in these cases: 7 or 85?
every individual in that group or class, or sufficiently o Only 7 names appear in the captions of the
specific so that each individual in the class or group can decision of the Labor Arbiter.
prove that the defamatory statement specifically pointed  Sec. 3, Rule 6 clearly provides
to him, so that he can bring the action separately, if that the names and residences of
need be. the parties plaintiff and defendant
- ITC: each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct must be stated in the complaint;
reputation in the community. They do not have a  Sec. 1, Rule III, of the New Rules
common or general interest in the subject matter of the of Procedure of respondent NLRC
controversy states that the full names of all the
real parties in interest shall be
stated in the caption of the
Liana’s Supermarket v. National Labor Relations complaint or petition as well as in
Commission, G.R. No. 111014, 257 SCRA 186 (1996) the decision, award or judgment
- Private respondents are members of the National Labor o not class suit because the parties are not
Union and are sales ladies, cooks, packers, cashiers, so numerous that it would be impracticable
electricians, warehousemen, etc., of Liana‘s to bring them all before the court.
Supermarket. They were allegedly underpaid and HELD: NLRC affirmed
required to work more than 8 hours a day without - This is a ―representative suit‖ as distinguished from
―class suit‖
o Class suit: only one right or cause of action duly constituted BoD and officers be elected and
pertaining or belonging in common to many qualified.
persons, not separately or severally to o Also asked for damages
distinct individuals - Respondents claimed by way of defense that petitioners
- ITC: there are multiple rights or causes of action failed (a) to show that it was authorized by SBGSI to file
pertaining separately to several, distinct employees the Complaint on the said corporation‘s behalf; (b) to
- Art. 242 of the Labor Code authorizes a union to file a comply with the requisites for filing a derivative suit and
―representative suit‖ for the benefit of its members in the an action for receivership; and (c) to justify their prayer
interest of avoiding an otherwise cumbersome for injunctive relief since the Complaint may be
procedure of joining all union members in the complaint, considered a nuisance or harassment suit under Section
even if they number by the hundreds 1(b), Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-
Corporate Controversies. Thus, they prayed for the
- the detail that the number and names of the striking dismissal of the Complaint.
members of petitioner union were not specified in the
decision nor in the complaint is of no consequence. - RTC dismissed the complaint otg that it is a derivative
o it was the function precisely of a labor suit
union to carry the representation of its o this case is intended not only for the benefit
members and to file an action for their of the two petitioners. This is apparent from
benefit and behalf without joining them and the caption of the case which reads Nestor
avoid the cumbersome procedure joining Ching, Andrew Wellington and the Subic
each and every member as a separate Bay Golfers and Shareholders, Inc., for and
party. in behalf of all its members as petitioners.
This is also shown in the allegations of the
- A ―representative suit‖ is akin to a ―class suit‖ in the petition.
limited sense that the phrases found in Sec. 12 of Rule o Being a derivative suit, the stockholders
3, ―one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all,‖ and members may bring an action in the
and ―the parties actually before it are sufficiently name of the corporation or association
numerous and representative,‖ are similar to the phrase provided that he (the minority stockholder)
―may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose exerted all reasonable efforts and allege[d]
benefit the action is presented or defended‖ found in the same with particularity in the complaint
Sec. 3 of the same Rule. In other words, both suits are to exhaust of (sic) all remedies available
always filed in behalf of another or others. under the articles of incorporation, bylaws
- Before money claims can be the object of settlement or rules governing the corporation or
through a union, the individual consent of the employees partnership to obtain the reliefs he desires.
concerned should first be procured. This is because o ITC: petitioners did not apply for redress to
waiver of money claims is considered a personal right the BoD of the corp. there being no
which must be protected by the courts on consideration demand, oral or written on the respondents
of public policy. to address their complaints. Neither did the
o There is no evidence on record that the petitioners apply for redress to the
compromise agreement was approved by stockholders of the corp. and make an
the complainants individually. effort to obtain action by the stockholders
as a whole.  should have asked for a
meeting first!
Ching v. Subic Bay Golf and Country Club, Inc., G.R. No. o The shareholdings of petitioners out of 409
174353, 10 September 2014 outstanding shares or 0.24% is an
- petitioners Nestor Ching and Andrew Wellington filed a indication that the action is a nuisance or
Complaint with RTC Olongapo on behalf of the harassment suit which may be dismissed
members of Subic Bay Golf and Country Club, Inc. either motu proprio or upon motion
(SBGCCI) against the said country club and its Board of - CA affirmed RTC
Directors and officers - Before the CA, petitioners argued that the Complaint
- The complaint alleged that the defendant corporation they filed with the RTC was not a derivative suit. They
sold shares to plaintiffs at US$22,000.00 per share but claim that they filed the suit in their own right as
the Articles of Incorporation made known to them was stockholders against the officers and BoD under Section
amended to make the shares nonproprietary, as it takes 5(a) of PD902A (which transferred jurisdiction over
away the right of the shareholders to participate in the such cases from SEC to the RTC) which allows any
pro rata distribution of the assets of the corporation after stockholder to file a complaint against the BoD for
its dissolution employing devices or schemes amounting to fraud and
o The By-Laws was also amended misrepresentation which is detrimental to the interest of
suspending the voting rights of the the public and/or the stockholders.
shareholders o They also argued that even if this were
o Aside from these amendments the BoD treated as a derivative suit, the RTC erred
and officers committed several instances of in dismissing it otg of failure to exhaust
fraudulent mismanagement of the remedies within the corporation because in
corporation Republic Bank v. Cuaderno, the Court
- The complaint prayed that upon the filing of the case a allowed the derivative suit as it was futile to
TRO be issued enjoining the defendants from acting as exhaust internal remedies since the BoD
Officers and BoD and a Receiver be appointed until a were all members of the same family.
HELD: Petition DENIED damages in the amount of the decrease in the value of
- the Complaint in question appears to have been filed the shares of stock) = to curb the alleged
only by the two petitioners, namely Nestor Ching and mismanagement of SBGCCI. The causes of action
Andrew Wellington, who each own one stock in the pleaded by petitioners do not accrue to a single
respondent corporation SBGCCI. While the caption of shareholder or a class of shareholders but to the
the Complaint also names the ―Subic Bay Golfers and corporation itself.
Shareholders, Inc. for and in behalf of all its members,‖ - as minority stockholders, petitioners do not have any
petitioners did not attach any authorization from said statutory right to override the business judgments of
alleged corporation or its members. Thus, the Complaint SBGCCI‘s officers and BoD
is deemed filed only by petitioners and not by SBGSI. o PD902A does not grant minority
- On WoN it is a derivative suit, the nature of an action, as stockholders a cause of action against
well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is waste and diversion by the BoD but merely
determined based on the allegations contained in the identifies the jurisdiction of the SEC over
complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not actions already authorized by law or
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the jurisprudence. It is settled
claims asserted therein. Also, the body rather than the o a stockholder‘s right to institute a derivative
title of the complaint determines the nature of an action suit is not based on any express provision
Direct Action Derivative of the Corporation Code, or even the
Individual Suit Class suit Suit/Derivative Securities Regulation Code, but is impliedly
Action recognized when the said laws make
(Representative corporate directors or officers liable for
Suit) damages suffered by the corporation and
wrong is done to Where the wrong where the acts its stockholders for violation of their
him personally is done to a group complained of fiduciary duties
and not to the of stockholders, constitute a wrong - Section 1, Rule 8 of the Interim Rules of Procedure
other as where to the corporation Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies imposes the
stockholders or preferred itself, cause of following requirements for derivative suits:
the corporation. stockholders‘ action belongs to o stockholder or member at the time the acts
rights are the corporation and subject of the action occurred and at the
violated; not to the individual time of filing of action
stockholder or o exerted all reasonable efforts, and alleges
member  theory the same available under the articles of
of separate entity, incorporation, bylaws, laws or rules
avoidance of o No appraisal rights are available for the act
multiplicity of suits, or acts complained of
and priority rights of o suit is not a nuisance or harassment suit
creditors - RTC dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with
DERIVATIVE SUIT  in cases of mismanagement where the nd th
the 2 and 4 requisites
wrongful acts are committed by the directors or trustees
themselves; an individual stockholder is permitted to institute
- SC thinks that 4
th
requisite was present here. But 2
nd

requisite was not


a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holds
stock in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights,
Villamor, Jr. v. Umale, G.R. No. 172843, 24 September
whenever officials of the corporation refuse to sue or are the
2014
ones to be sued or hold the control of the corporation. In such
actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as the nominal - Pasig Printing Corporation (PPC) obtained an option to
party, with the corporation as the party-in-interest lease portions of the property of Mid-Pasig Development
o seeks to recover for the benefit of the Corporation.
corporation and its whole body of - PPC‘s BoD issued a resolution waiving all its rights,
shareholders when injury is caused to the interests and participation in the option to lease contract
corporation that may not otherwise be in favor of the law firm of Atty. Villamor (petitioner). PPC
redressed because of failure of the received no consideration from Villamor‘s law firm
corporation to act.
o ―derivative‖ = in the corporate right 
- PPC, represented by Villamor entered into a MOA with
MC Home Depot to occupy a portion of the property as
gravamen of the complaint is injury to the
a sub-lessee. MC Home Depot issued checks
corporation, or to the whole body of its
representing rental payments
stock and property without any severance
or distribution among individual holders, or - Hernando Balmores, respondent, and a stockholder and
it seeks to recover assets for the director of PPC, wrote a letter to PPC‘s BoD that
corporation or to prevent the dissipation of Villamor should be made to deliver to PPC and account
its assets. for MC Home Depot‘s checks or their equivalent value
o E.g. when the damages shown at trial were - Due to the alleged inaction of the BoD, Balmores filed
the loss of corporate profits  since with the RTC an intracorporate controversy complaint
shareholders own neither the property nor against petitioners for their alleged devices or schemes
the earnings of the corporation amounting to fraud or misrepresentation ―detrimental to
- ITC: reliefs sought (enjoining defendants from acting as the interest of the corporation and its stockholders.‖ He
officers and BoD, appointment of a receiver, prayer for
prayed for appointment of a receiver or the creation of a Interim Rules which refers to acts of the board,
management committee associates, and officers, amounting to fraud or
- RTC denied because the resolution issued by PPC‘s misrepresentation, which may be detrimental to the
BoD waiving its rights to the option to lease contract in interest of the stockholders  these may also be class
favor of Villamor‘s law firm, must be accorded prima or individual suits
facie validity - Hence, Balmores‘ action was an individual suit. He did
o Also, there was a pending case filed by one not bring the action for the benefit of the corporation.
Leonardo Umale against Villamor, involving Instead, he was alleging that the acts of PPC‘s directors,
the same checks. Umale was also claiming specifically the waiver of rights in favor of Villamor‘s law
ownership of the checks. Hence, firm and their failure to take back the MC Home Depot
weakening Balmores‘ claim that the checks checks from Villamor, were detrimental to his individual
are property of PPC interest as a stockholder.
o Also, failure to implead PPC was fatal. PPC - Balmores has no cause of action that would entitle him
should have been impleaded as an to the reliefs sought. He did not allege any cause of
indispensable party action that is personal to him. His allegations are limited
- CA reversed the trial court‘s decision, and issued a new to wrongs that pertain to PPC. Therefore, the cause of
order placing PPC under receivership and creating an action belongs to PPC — not to respondent Balmores or
interim management committee any stockholders as individuals.
o danger of dissipation, wastage, and loss of - Hence, Balmores is not entitled to the reliefs sought in
PPC‘s assets if the review of the trial the complaint. Only the corporation, or arguably the
court‘s judgment would be delayed stockholders as a group, is entitled to these reliefs,
o the case filed was a derivative suit because which should have been sought in a proper derivative
there were allegations of fraud or ultra vires suit filed on behalf of the corporation.
acts by PPC‘s BoD
o board‘s waiver of PPC‘s rights in favor of D. Deceased parties
Villamor‘s law firm without any
consideration and its inaction on Villamor‘s Contract/Quasi- Recovery of
failure to turn over the proceeds of rental contract property/Tort
payments to PPC warrant the creation of a P dies before Administrator, Administrator,
management committee filing exectutor (87.2) executor (87.2)
HELD:
P dies during Substitute heirs or Substitute heirs or
- th
5 requisite for filing derivative suits: to bring the action case legal legal
in the name of the corporation or the association representatives representatives
o Not only is the corporation an indispensible (3.16) (3.16)
party, but it is also the present rule that it P dies before executor or executor or
must be served with process. The reason execution administrator, or administrator, or
given is that the judgment must be made successor in interest successor in
binding upon the corporation in order that (39.7) interest (39.7)
the corporation may get the benefit of the D dies before File claim in Administrator,
suit and may not bring a subsequent suit service settlement executor (87.1)
against the same defendants for the same proceedings of
cause of action. In other words, the estate of defendant
corporation must be joined as party (86.5)
because it is its cause of action that is
being litigated and because judgment must D during case Substitute heirs or Substitute heirs or
be a res judicata against it legal legal
- ITC, Balmores‘ action failed to meet 2 requisites for filing representatives representatives
a derivative suit: (3.16, 3.20), file (3.16), no
o Balmores failed to exhaust all available contingent claim contingent claim
remedies to obtain the reliefs he prayed for. with settlement
Though hetried to communicate with PPC‘s proceedings of
directors about the checks in Villamor‘s estate (86.5)
possession before he filed an action with D before executor or executor or
the RTC, he was not able to show that this execution administrator, or administrator, or
comprised all the remedies available under successor in interest successor in
the articles of incorporation, bylaws, laws, (39.7) interest (39.7)
or rules governing PPC.
 Balmores failed to allege that sections 16-17, 20, Rule 3
appraisal rights were not available Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a
for the acts complained of here party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
o Neither did respondent Balmores implead extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
PPC as party in the case nor did he allege court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
that he was filing on behalf of the thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
corporation. representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
- Also, Balmores did not refer to his action as a derivative comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
suit but as an action under Rule 1, Section 1(a)(1) of the The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an Section 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a against executor or administrator. — No action upon a claim
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or commenced against the executor or administrator; but to
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from
of thirty (30) days from notice. the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal,
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear may be commenced against him.
within the specified period, the court may order the opposing
party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and section 7, Rule 39
the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the Section 7. Execution in case of death of party. — In case of
deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, the death of a party, execution may issue or be enforced in
if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. the following manner:
(16a, 17a) (a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee,
upon the application of his executor or administrator,
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public or successor in interest;
officer. — When a public officer is a party in an action in his (b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or against his executor or administrator or successor in
otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or
and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty personal property, or the enforcement of a lien
(30) days after the successor takes office or such time as thereon;
may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the (c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after
court by any party that there is a substantial need for execution is actually levied upon any of his property,
continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or the same may be sold for the satisfaction of the
continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale
continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution shall account to the corresponding executor or
is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly administrator for any surplus in his hands. (7a)
assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the
application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. section 4, Rule 111
(18a) Section 4. Effect of death on civil actions. — The death of
the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of
Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising
the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, from the delict. However, the independent civil action
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall obligation may be continued against the estate or legal
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A representative of the accused after proper substitution or
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the
enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for accused may be substituted for the deceased without
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and
(21a) the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
section 5, Rule 86 (covers contracts and quasi-contracts) representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not of thirty (30) days from notice.
filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall
decent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules
same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.
expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent, If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be
and judgment for money against the decent, must be filed dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended
within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred party may file against the estate of the deceased. (n)
forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in
any action that the executor or administrator may bring Sarsaba v. Vda. De Te, G.R. No. 17591030, July 2009
against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator - a Decision was rendered in NLRC in favor of Patricio
commences an action, or prosecutes an action already Sereno who was illegally dismissed by Teodoro Gasing,
commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may ordering Gasing to pay him his monetary claims
set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent,
instead of presenting them independently to the court as - After the Writ of Execution was returned unsatisfied,
herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against Labor Arbiter Newton R. Sancho issued an Alias Writ of
each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in Execution directing Sheriff Lavarez of the NLRC to
favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be satisfy the judgment award
considered the true balance against the estate, as though the - Lavarez, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel,
claim had been presented directly before the court in the petitioner Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba, levied a Fuso Truck
administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or in the possession of Gasing. The truck was sold at
contingent, may be approved at their present value. public auction, with Sereno appearing as the highest
bidder
section 1, Rule 87
- respondent Fe Vda. de Te, represented by her attorney- against all the defendants and that the
in-fact, Faustino Castañeda, filed with the RTC Digos a same should be filed against his estate
complaint for the recovery of motor vehicle, damages o SC ruled that Sarsaba raised this out of
with prayer for the delivery of the truck pendente lite time (only in his Omnibus MTD, after his
against petitioner, Sereno, Lavarez and the NLRC first MTD and answer). Also, The court‘s
Davao City (NOTE: Sereno died before he was served failure to acquire jurisdiction over one‘s
summons) person is a defense which is personal to
o wife of the late Pedro Te, the registered the person claiming it
owner of the truck  Failure to serve summons on
o Gasing merely rented the truck from her Sereno‘s person will not be a
o Lavarez erroneously assumed that Gasing cause for the dismissal of the
owned the truck complaint against the other
o since neither she nor her husband were defendants, considering that they
parties to the labor case between Sereno have been served with copies of
and Gasing, she should not be made to the summons and complaints and
answer for the judgment award have long submitted their
respective responsive pleadings.
- Petitioner filed MTD otg:
o respondent has no legal personality to sue, - Re: Vda. De Te
having no real interests over the property o petitioner moves that respondent‘s
subject of the case attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castañeda, be
o allegations in the complaint do not discharged as he has no more legal
sufficiently state that the respondent has personality to sue on behalf of Fe Vda. de
cause of action Te
o not accompanied by an Affidavit of Merit o SC rules that respondent‘s counsel did not
and Bond that would entitle the respondent make any manifestation before the RTC as
to the delivery of the tuck pendente lite. to her death. In fact, he had actively
participated in the proceedings. Neither
- RTC denied Petitioner‘s MTD had he shown any proof that he had been
- Petitioner fliled his Answer: retained by respondent‘s legal
o no showing that the heirs have filed an representative or any one who succeeded
intestate estate proceedings of the estate respondent‘s legal representative or any
of Pedro Te, or that respondent was duly one who succeeded her.
authorized by her co-heirs to file the case  BUT failure of the counsel to
o the truck was already sold to Gasing by comply with his duty to inform the
one Jesus Matias, who bought the same court of the death of his client,
from the Spouses Te. Corollarily, Gasing such that no substitution is
was already the lawful owner of the truck effected, will not invalidate the
when it was levied on execution proceedings and the judgment
- Petitioner filed Omnibus MTD the case otg of lack of rendered thereon if the action
jurisdiction over one of the principal defendants (Sereno survives the death of such party.
who was not served with summons because he was The trial court‘s jurisdiction over
already dead) and to discharge respondent‘s attorney- the case subsists despite the
in-fact for lack of legal personality to sue. death of the party
 RATIO: protection of the right to
- Fe Vda. de Te died during pendency due process of every party to the
- Vda. De Te‘s lawyer contended that failure to serve litigation who may be affected by
summons upon Sereno is not a ground for dismissing the intervening death. The
the complaint (other defendants already filed MTD!); deceased litigants are themselves
also, respondent‘s death did not render functus officio protected as they continue to be
her right to sue since her attorney-in fact, Faustino properly represented in the suit
Castañeda, had long testified on the complaint for and through the duly appointed legal
on her behalf representative of their estate
- Sarsaba filed another Motion to Inhibit and MR of the o Petitioner argues that the SPA executed by
RTC‘s denial of his MTD‘s respondent in favor of Faustino has
become functus officio and that the agency
- petitioner directly sought recourse from the SC constituted between them has been
HELD: extinguished upon the death of respondent
- petitioner submits pure questions of law involving the (principal)
effect of non-service of summons following the death of SC agrees that the agency has been extinguished BUT it
the person to whom it should be served (Sereno), and should not lead to dismissal of the case because an action
the effect of the death of the complainant during the for the recovery of a personal property is an action that
pendency of the case (Vda. De Te) survives pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of
- re: Sereno Court. As such, it is not extinguished by the death of a party.
o petitioner argues that since Sereno died
before summons was served on him, the Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra
RTC should have dismissed the complaint
Metrobank v. Absolute Management Corp., G.R. No. must be included in the claims required to be
170498, 9 January 2013 filed with the judicial settlement of the
- Sherwood Holdings Corporation Inc. (SHCI) made deceased‘s estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of
advance payments to Absolute Management the Rules of Court. As such claim, it should
Corporation (AMC) for the purchase of 27,000 pieces of have been filed in Special Proceedings, not in
plywood and 16,500 plyboards in the sum of the RTC as a fourth-party complaint.
P12,277,500.00, covered by Metrobank Checks. These - CA affirmed RTC
checks we all crossed, and were all made payable to o Based on the statutory construction principle of
AMC. They were given to Chua, AMC‘s General lex specialis derogat generali, the CA held that
Manager Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court is a
- Chua died and a special proceeding for the settlement special provision that should prevail over the
of his estate was commenced before the Pasay RTC general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6. The
- SHCI made demands on AMC, after Chua‘s death, for latter applies to money claims in ordinary
allegedly undelivered items actions while a money claim against a person
- According to AMC, these transactions could not be already deceased falls under the settlement of
found in its records. Upon investigation, AMC his estate. Rules for ordinary actions only apply
discovered the transactions made by Chua suppletorily to special proceedings.
- SHCI filed a complaint for sum of money against AMC HELD: Petition DENIED. CA Affirmed
before the QC RTC - Metrobank‘s claim against the Estate of Jose Chua
- In its answer with counterclaims and third-party (fourth-party complaint) is based on a quasi-contract
complaint, AMC averred that it had no knowledge of o Solutio indebiti, as defined in Article 2154 of
Chua‘s transactions with SHCI and it did not receive any the Civil Code, has two indispensable
money from the latter. AMC also asked the RTC to hold requisites: first, that something has been
Metrobank liable for the subject checks in case it is unduly delivered through mistake; and second,
adjudged liable to SHCI. that something was received when there was
- Metrobank filed a motion for bill of particulars which bill no right to demand it
was not submitted by AMC. Hence, Metrobank filed a o Metrobank‘s claim fulfills the requisites of
motion to strike out the third-party complaint solutio indebiti. First, Metrobank acted in a
- Metrobank also filed MTD against AMC otg of forum manner akin to a mistake when it deposited the
shopping because AMC‘s claim against it is the same AMC checks to Ayala Lumber and Hardware‘s
claim that it raised against Chua‘s estate in Special account; because of Chua‘s control over
Proceedings before the Pasay RTC  motion denied AMC‘s operations, Metrobank assumed that
- Metrobank admitted that it deposited the checks in the checks payable to AMC could be deposited
question to the account of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, to Ayala Lumber and Hardware‘s account.
a sole proprietorship Chua owned and managed. The Second, Ayala Lumber and Hardware had no
deposit was allegedly done with the knowledge and right to demand and receive the checks that
consent of AMC. were deposited to its account; despite Chua‘s
o Chua gave the assurance that the arrangement control over AMC and Ayala Lumber and
for the handling of the checks carried AMC‘s Hardware, the two entities are distinct, and
consent. Chua also submitted documents checks exclusively and expressly payable to
showing his position and interest in AMC. It one cannot be deposited in the account of the
was also admitted by AMC that it allowed Chua other
to manage AMC with a relative free hand. - Metrobank‘s fourth-party complaint, as a contingent
Hence it was AMC‘s own gross negligence that claim, falls within the claims that should be filed under
was the proximate cause of the loss that AMC Section 5, Rule 86
must now bear. o It is contingent because the claim depends on
o Chua‘s records show that the proceeds of the the possibility that Metrobank would be
checks were remitted to AMC which cannot adjudged liable to AMC
therefore now claim that it did not receive these
proceeds.
o Metrobank also raised the defense of estoppel. Cabugao v. People, G.R. No. 163879, G.R. No. 165805, 30
According to Metrobank, AMC had knowledge July 2014
of its arrangements with Chua for several - Dr. Antonio P. Cabugao (family med) and Dr. Clenio
years. AMC did not object to nor did it call the Ynzon (surgeon) were convicted of Reckless
attention of Metrobank about Chua‘s alleged Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
lack of authority to deposit the checks in Ayala o attending physicians of one RODOLFO
Lumber and Hardware‘s account. PALMA, JR., a minor 10 years old
- Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit fourth-party o through negligence, carelessness and
complaint against Chua‘s estate. It alleged that Chua‘s imprudence to perform immediate operation
estate should reimburse Metrobank in case it would be upon their patient of acute appendicitis
held liable in the third-party complaint filed against it by - While this case is pending appeal, counsel for petitioner
AMC. Dr. Ynzon informed the Court that the latter died
- RTC denied the motion to admit fourty-party complaint HELD:
o It is a ―cobro de lo indebido‖ – a kind of quasi- - the effect of death, pending appeal of his conviction of
contract that mandates recovery of what has petitioner Dr. Ynzon with regard to his criminal and
been improperly paid. Quasi-contracts fall pecuniary liabilities should be in accordance to People
within the concept of implied contracts that v. Bayotas
o Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives o Luis claimed that it was true that he was an
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the overseer of Manuela Ibarra, but that upon her
same may also be predicated on a source of death on the possession that he held of the
obligation other than delict. land as overseer passed on to the
o Where the civil liability survives, an action for administrator of the estate; he no longer had
recovery therefor may be pursued but only by anything to do with said property
way of filing a separate civil action and subject o Manolita claimed that she was never made a
to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on party to the case and had never been served
Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate any process or notice of hearing therein, and
civil action may be enforced either against the that an examination of the record of the case
executor/administrator or the estate of the would show that from the inception of the case
accused, depending on the source of obligation up to the rendering of the decision, her name
upon which the same is based as explained was never mentioned by any of the parties;
above. that although she was one of the five heirs of
- If the same act or omission complained of arises from Manuel Ibarra, she, Manolita, was not the
quasi-delict, as in this case, a separate civil action must actual owner of the estate which was then
be filed against the executor or administrator of the under probate proceedings; if Ferreria had any
estate of the accused, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of claim against the estate, he should file the
the Rules of Court: actions to recover damages for an same to be passed upon by the probate court.
injury to person or property, real or personal, may be HELD:
commenced against him - Manolita had not been duly served with the order of
- Conversely, if the offended party desires to recover substitution. She was not living with her niece when a
damages from the same act or omission complained of copy was given to the latter.
arising from contract, the filing of a separate civil action - there had been no court order for the legal
must be filed against the estate, pursuant to Section 5, representative of Manuela Ibarra to appear, nor had any
Rule 86 of the Rules of Court such legal representative ever appeared in court to be
- the policy against double recovery requires that only substituted for the deceased; neither had complainant
one action be maintained for the same act or omission Ferreria ever procured the appointment of such legal
whether the action is brought against the executor or representative of the deceased, nor had the heirs of the
administrator, or the estate. deceased, including Manolita ever asked to be allowed
o The heirs of JR must choose which of the to be substituted for the deceased Manuela.
available causes of action for damages they o Manolita argued: Atty. Emilio Fernandez
will bring. represented Manuela and Luis Tecson but
upon the death of Manuela, his relationship as
Ferreria v. Vda. De Gonzales, G.R. No. L-11567, 17 July counsel ceased, and he was never authorized
1958 to appear for Manolita Gonzales
- Manuela Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales presumably owned a - HOWEVER, the fact that the landlord dies does not
parcel of land in Umingan, Pangasinan, cultivated by mean that the relation of landlord and tenant ends,
tenants because the estate continues to be the landlord
- After the sharing of the crop for the agricultural year o The obligation to Ferreria remained a charge
1946-47, a number of the tenants, dissatisfied with their on Manuela‘s estate after she died and there
share on the basis of 60-40, claiming that they were was no necessity for the tenant to file a claim
entitled to 70% of said crop, filed complaints with the with the probate court in charge of the estate
Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice. - BUT the SC set aside not only the writ of execution, the
o only tenant Ferreria continued the complaint resolution of the Agrarian Court and its order denying
(the others withdrew) the motion for reconsideration of the same, now sought
- Ferreria's complaint was filed not only against Manuela to be reviewed, but also the original decision of the
Ibarra, but also against the overseer, Luis Tecson Tenancy Division for lack of jurisdiction.
- During the pendency of the case, Manuela died. o Case remanded to Court of Agrarian Relations
o Counsel for Ferreria filed a petition for for further proceedings, in which proceedings,
substitution which was granted by the DOJ the Agrarian Court may bear in mind and
- In the DOJ order, the address of Manolita Gonzales was consider the rulings and holdings contained in
specified. this decision, specially with regards to
o The return of service of said order shows that a substitution of parties
copy was left with Aurora Gonzales, niece of
Manolita Gonzales, apparently living in said
address Carandang v. Heirs of de Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, 29
o Manolita Gonzales claims that she did not own November 2006
the land in question; that her only right and - Spouses Carandang and spouses De Guzman are the
interest in it was as an heir, being one of the stockholders of Mabuhay Broadcasting System. When
five surviving children of Manuel. they increased the capital stock of the corporation, De
- The scheduled hearing was held in the absence of Guzman claimed that he was the only one who paid for
Manolita Gonzales. Decision was rendered ordering the such increase. Hence Quirino De Guzman filed an
landlord to deliver to tenant Ferreria 20 cavans of rice action to recover from Spouses Carandang. One of the
and the CIR issued a writ of execution of the judgment arguments raised by spouses Carandang before the SC
- Luis Tecson and Manolita Gonzales each filed a petition is Quirino De Guzman‘s failure to include in the
to set aside said writ complaint his wife Milagros de Guzman, who is an
indispensable party since some of the checks issued Spouses Algura v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135, 20 Oct
were bearing her name. The SC ruled that the failure to 2006
include Milagros does not warrant the dismissal of the - spouses Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita S.J. Algura
case because Milagros and Quirino, being spouses filed a Complaint for damages against the Naga City
whose property were under the CPG regime, should be Government, for the alleged illegal demolition of their
considered co-owners. Art.487 would apply residence and boarding house and for payment of lost
income derived from fees paid by their boarders
amounting to PhP 7,000.00 monthly
E. Indigent parties o Simultaneously, petitioners filed an Ex Parte
sec. 11, Art III, 1987 Const. Motion to Litigate as Indigent Litigants
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial  Appended Antonio Algura‘s Pay Slip
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to (showing a gross monthly income of
any person by reason of poverty. PhP 10,474.00 and a net pay of PhP
3,616.99)
sec. 21, Rule 3  Also attached was a Certification
Section 21. Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to issued by the Office of the City
litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, Assessor of Naga City, which stated
upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the that petitioners had no property
party is one who has no money or property sufficient and declared in their name for taxation
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself purposes
and his family.  Because of the loss of rental income,
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of Lorencita Algura‘s sarisari store
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of income and Antonio Algura‘s small
stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished take home pay became insufficient for
him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the expenses of the Algura spouses
the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any and their 6 children for their basic
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, needs including food, bills, clothes,
unless the court otherwise provides. and schooling, among others
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at - Executive Judge of Naga City RTC granted petitioners‘
any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the plea for exemption from filing fees.
court should determine after hearing that the party declared - The City Government countered that the defenses of the
as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or petitioners in the complaint had no cause of action, the
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be spouses‘ boarding house blocked the road right of way,
assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not and said structure was a nuisance per se.
made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue o filed a Motion to Disqualify the Plaintiffs for
or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other Non-Payment of Filing Fees
sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)  in addition to the more than PhP
3,000.00 net income of petitioner
sec. 19, Rule 141 Antonio Algura, who is a member of
Sec. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal the Philippine National Police, spouse
fees. - Indigent litigants (a) whose gross income and that of Lorencita Algura also had a ministore
their immediate family do not exceed an amount double the and a computer shop on the ground
monthly minimum wage of an employee and (b) who do not floor of their residence
own real property with A FAIR MARKET VALUE AS STATED - RTC issued an Order disqualifying petitioners as
IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION of more than indigent litigants on the ground that they failed to
THREE hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos shall be substantiate their claim for exemption from payment of
exempt from the payment of legal fees. legal fees and to comply with the third paragraph of Rule
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in 141, Section 18
the case favorable to the indigent litigant unless the court o Spouses submitted MR with their affidavits and
otherwise provides. affidavits of their neighbors
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant - RTC still denied their MR because Antonio Algura‘s
shall execute an affidavit that he and his immediate family do salary in his pay slip was over and above the amount
not earn a gross income abovementioned, nor they own any mentioned in the first paragraph of Rule 141, Section 18
real property with the fair value aforementioned, supported by for pauper litigants residing outside Metro Manila
an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of o rule provides that the gross income of the
the litigant‘s affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall litigant should not exceed PhP 3,000.00 a
be attached to the litigant‘s affidavit. month and shall not own real estate with an
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person assessed value of PhP 50,000.00
shall be sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint or action or HELD: Petition GRANTED. RTC Order set aside. Naga
to strike out the pleading of that party, without prejudice to City RTC is ordered to set the ―Ex Parte Motion to Litigate as
whatever criminal liability may have been incurred. (16a) Indigent Litigants‖ for hearing and apply Rule 3, Section 21
- AT PRESENT: Amendments to Rule 141 (including the
amendment to Rule 141, Section 18) were made to
OCA Circular Nos. 34-15 & 125-14 implement RA 9227 which brought about new increases
exempt from sheriff‘s fees not from sheriff‘s expenses (Rule in filing fees
141, Sec. 10) o the ceiling for the gross income of litigants
applying for exemption and that of their
immediate family was increased from PhP payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants even if
4,000.00 a month in Metro Manila and PhP the foundations are working for indigent and
3,000.00 a month outside Metro Manila, to underprivileged people.
double the monthly minimum wage of an - only a natural party litigant may be regarded as an
employee; and the maximum value of the indigent litigant
property owned by the applicant was increased - extending the exemption to a juridical person on the
from an assessed value of PhP 50,000.00 to a ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged
maximum market value of PhP 300,000.00, to people may be prone to abuse (even with the imposition
be able to accommodate more indigent litigants of rigid documentation requirements), particularly by
and promote easier access to justice by the corporations and entities bent on circumventing the rule
poor and the marginalized in the wake of these on payment of the fees. Also, the scrutiny of compliance
new increases in filing fees with the documentation requirements may prove too
- BUT ITC: Complaint was filed on September 1, 1999. time-consuming and wasteful for the courts
However, the Naga City RTC, in its April 14, 2000 and
July 17, 2000 Orders, incorrectly applied Rule 141, V. Motions
Section 18 on Legal Fees when the applicable rules at MOTION V. PLEADING
that time were Rule 3, Section 21 on Indigent Party MOTION = application for relief other than a pleading (not
which took effect on July 1, 1997 and Rule 141, Section based on cause of action)
16 on Pauper Litigants which became effective on July PLEADING = claims and defenses (based on causes of
19, 1984 up to February 28, 2000. action)
o In the old rules, there are two requirements:
a) income requirement—the applicants should Rule 15
not have a gross monthly income of more than Section 1. Motion defined. — A motion is an application for
PhP 1,500.00, and relief other than by a pleading. (1a)
b) property requirement——they should not Section 2. Motions must be in writings. — All motions shall
own property with an assessed value of not be in writing except those made in open court or in the course
more than PhP 18,000.00 of a hearing or trial. (2a)
- the income requirement was not satisfied. The trial court Section 3. Contents. — A motion shall state the relief sought
was therefore correct in disqualifying petitioners Alguras to be obtained and the grounds upon which it is based, and if
as indigent litigants required by these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged
- It may be argued that Rule 3, Section 21 has been therein, shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and
impliedly repealed by the recent 2000 and 2004 other papers. (3a)
amendments to Rule 141 on legal fees. This position is Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which
bereft of merit. Implied repeals are frowned upon unless the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
the intent of the framers of the rules is unequivocal adverse party), every written motion shall be set for hearing
- the two (2) rules can stand together and are compatible by the applicant.
with each other Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of
o When applicant complies with the income and the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to
property standards prescribed in the present ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days
Section 19 of Rule 141, then the authority to before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause
litigate as indigent litigant is automatically sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)
granted and the grant is a matter of right Section 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall
o However, if the trial court finds that one or both be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the
requirements have not been met, then it would time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten
set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)
that the applicant has ―no money or property Section 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion
sufficient and available for food, shelter and set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof
basic necessities for himself and his family.‖ of service thereof. (6a)
 In that hearing, the adverse party may Section 7. Motion day. — Except for motions requiring
adduce countervailing evidence to immediate action, all motions shall be scheduled for hearing
disprove the evidence presented by on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working day, in the
the applicant; after which the trial afternoon of the next working day. (7a)
court will rule on the application Section 8. Omnibus motion. — Subject to the provisions of
depending on the evidence adduced. section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order,
 adverse party may later still contest judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
the grant of such authority at any time available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed
before judgment is rendered by the waived. (8a)
trial court, possibly based on newly Section 9. Motion for leave. — A motion for leave to file a
discovered evidence not obtained at pleading or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or
the time the application was heard motion sought to be admitted. (n)
- ITC: when the Alguras did not pass the standards in Section 10. Form. — The Rules applicable to pleadings shall
Rule 141, the trial court should have called a hearing as apply to written motions so far as concerns caption,
required by Rule 3, Section 21 designation, signature, and other matters of form. (9a)

Re Query of Roger Prioreschi, A.M. 09-6-9-SC (2009) section 3, Rule 35 (Summary Judgments/MSJ) 
- Courts cannot grant to foundations like the Good exemption from 3-day and 10-day rule (because it‘s hard
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from to produce affidavits, depositions, or admissions in less
than 10 days)  MSJ = essentially a MTD because the assigned.
trial has to be quick The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in
shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the
specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve first party on each side be stated with an appropriate
opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three indication when there are other parties.
(3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting (1a, 2a)
affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, Section 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets forth
except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine its designation, the allegations of the party's claims or
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (3a, R34) (n)
(a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a
GR: All hearings shall be set for hearing by the applicant pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
EX: Motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing numbered to be readily identified, each of which
the rights of the adverse party (e.g. Motion for Extension) shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstances so far as that can be done with
What is the 3-day/10-day rule? convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its
 3-day rule: the notice of hearing and a copy of the motion number in all succeeding pleadings. (3a)
shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt (b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action
by the other party at least 3 days before the date of are joined the statement of the first shall be prefaced
hearing by the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by
 10-day rule: the hearing shall not be later than 10 days "second cause of action", and so on for the others.
after the filing of the motion When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
Exception to the 3-day/10-day rule: Motion for Summary complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words
Judgment (MSJ) because it‘s hard to produce affidavits, "answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to
depositions or admissions in less than 10 days the second cause of action" and so on; and when
 An MSJ is essentially a MTD because the trial has to be one or more paragraphs of the answer are
quick addressed to several causes of action, they shall be
prefaced by words to that effect. (4)
VI. Pleadings (c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief
sought, but it may add a general prayer for such
A. Complaint further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable. (3a, R6)
1. General: (d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (n)
Sections 1, 3, Rule 6 Section 3. Signature and address. — Every pleading must
Section 1. Pleadings defined. — Pleadings are the written be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
statements of the respective claims and defenses of the either case his address which should not be a post office box.
parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (1a) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that
Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge,
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and
and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated that it is not interposed for delay.
in the complaint. (3a) An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the
court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be
remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
Section 5, Rule 1 inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the matter therein, or fails promptly report to the court a change
action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the action. (5a)
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically
(6a) required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit .(5a)
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
2. Format, certification, verification the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his knowledge and belief.
GR: Not all pleadings need to be verified A pleading required to be verified which contains a
EX: Pleadings should only be verified if specifically required verification based on "information and belief", or upon
by law or rule "knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper
 Normally, only pleadings that carry opposing sides are verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (6a)
verified (e.g. petition) Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
Rule 7 (Parts of a Pleading) complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name of the relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
court, the title of the action, and the docket number if simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same Strict compliance herewith is hereby enjoined
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to effective immediately.
the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or a. Forum shopping
claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar Ayala Land v. Valisno, 324 S 522 (2000)
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report - Ayala Land discovered that several persons had
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his adverse claims of ownership over its property
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. o Among these claimants is respondent Marietta
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be Valisno
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other - On the premise that portions of respondent‘s claimed
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the land overlap petitioner‘s properties covered in fourteen
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon of petitioner‘s torrens titles, petitioner instituted actions
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false to quiet its titles
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings o Since petitioner‘s entire property in Las Piñas
therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without is allegedly covered by twenty-one separate
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal torrens titles, petitioner contends that it could
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly have brought twenty-one distinct actions to
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same quiet title
shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and o Upon advice of counsel, however, petitioner
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for filed only eight cases on a ―per lot/per TCT (or
administrative sanctions. (n) sets thereof)‖ basis. Among those eight cases,
respondent was named respondent in five of
SC AM 00-2-10 SC them (some in Makati, some in Las Pinas)
RULE 7 - Respondent, on the other hand, filed with the Las Pinas
SEC. 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically RTC an action against petitioner and several others
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, wherein she claimed ownership of the 1,082,959 square
verified or accompanied by affidavit. meter tract of land and prayed that petitioner‘s TCTs be
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read declared null and void.
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and - Both parties accused each other of forum-shopping.
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic o Petitioner: respondent‘s action = counterclaim!
records. Should have pleaded in the cases s initiated by
A pleading required to be verified which contains a petitioner against her
verification based on ―information and belief,‖ or upon o Respondent: why file five distinct cases all on
―knowledge, information and belief,‖ or lacks a proper the ground that her lands overlapped those of
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.(4a) petitioner?
RULE 41 - Las Pinas RTC Judge in Branch 253 found petitioner
SEC. 13. Dismissal of appeal. - Prior to the transmittal of the guilty of forum-shopping, ordered the dismissal of its
original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, complaint and maintained the civil case filed by
the trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the respondent against petitioner
appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-payment - Las Pinas RTC Judge in Branch 275 denied
of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary respondent‘s motion to cite petitioner guilty of forum-
period. (13a) shopping and found respondent guilty of forum-shopping
The foregoing amendments shall take effect on May 1, 2000, - Makati RTC Judge found neither party guilty of forum-
following the publication of this Resolution in two (2) shopping
newspapers of general circulation not later than March 15, - CA found petitioner guilty of forum-shopping and
2000. ordered the dismissal of the five cases filed by petitioner
HELD: CA Decision REVERSED. all five cases filed by
Bar Matter No. 1132 petitioner against respondent Marietta Valisno, which were
RE:REQUEST TO REQUIRE LAWYERS TO INDICATE IN ordered dismissed by the CA, are revived, and ordered
THE PLEADING THEIR NUMBER IN THE ROLL OF ATTYS. consolidated to be jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court
EN BANC of Las Piñas City, where the real property is situated
Gentlemen: - Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
Court dated 12 NOV 2002. case will amount to res judicata in another
Bar Matter No. 1132(Re:Request to Require Lawyers - Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following
to Indicate in the Pleading their Number in the Roll of requisites:
Attorneys.) 1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
The Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the representing the same interests in both actions;
Office of the Bar Confidant, to GRANT the request of the 2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to require 3. Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars
all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all in the two cases, such that any judgment that may
papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi- be rendered in the pending case, regardless of
judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the which party is successful, would amount to res
current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official adjudicata in the other case
Receipt or Life Member Number.
- ITC: while there may be identity of parties and of some 4. There must be between the first and
reliefs prayed for, any judgment rendered in one of the second actions identity of parties, subject
actions filed by petitioner will not amount to res judicata matter, and cause of action
in the other actions - the five actions filed by petitioner were for quieting of
o The following are the elements of res judicata: title based on separate certificates of title. Hence, the
1. The former judgment must be final; subject matters and causes of action involved are
2. The court which rendered judgment must different in each case. Corollarily, a judgment in any one
have jurisdiction over the parties and the case will not affect the issue in the other cases
subject matter; inasmuch as those pertain to different lands covered by
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and different certificates of title. Consequently, petitioner
could not have been guilty of forum-shopping
SPLITTING v. LITIS PENDENTIA/RES JUDICATA v. FORUM SHOPPING
(Based on Cause of Action)
SPLITTING LITIS PENDENTIA/RES FORUM SHOPPING
JUDICATA
(Preclusion of claims v.
Preclusion of issues)
Public Policy To avoid multiplicity of suits To avoid multiplicity of suits To avoid different tribunals having
To have finality of decisions contradictory ruling
Basis Rule 2 Sec. 4 Rule 39 Sec. 47 Rule 7 Sec. 5
Definition If two or more suits are instituted In other cases, the judgment or commenced any action or filed
on the basis of the same cause of final order is, with respect to the any claim involving the same
action, the filing of one or a matter directly adjudged or as to issues in any court, tribunal or
judgment upon the merits in any any other matter that could quasi-judicial agency
one is available as a ground for have been raised in relation
the dismissal of the others. thereto, conclusive between the
parties and their successors in
interest, by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for
the same thing and under the
same title and in the same
capacity;
EXAMPLES
Theft, victim Yes Yes Yes
asserting violation
of us posidendi and
jus vindicandi  1
cause of action
with (several
matters that could
have been raised
in relation thereto)
10 punches  10 Yes Yes Yes
causes of action, 1
transaction
(several matters
that could have
been raised in
relation thereto)
10 punches  No No No
breach of contract
in one, tort in
another, criminal
action in another
2 independent No No (no preclusion of claims) No
contracts between
a minor and
another person. In
1 case, minority
was not raised as a
defense. In another
it was raised  2
transactions
2 independent No Yes (preclusion of issues) No
contracts between
a minor and
another person. In
1 case, minority
was raised as a
defense. In another
it was not raised 
2 transactions
 There can only be forum shopping if there is res judicata that is preclusion of claims, not just preclusion of issues.
 There could be litis pendentia without forum shopping but there can be no forum shopping without litis pendentia.
Summary of rule on Forum Shopping (Rule 7, Sec. 5) repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
1. No certification severely
a. No forum shopping – dismissal upon - with respect to the argument of respondent Judge that
motion without prejudice herein complainant is guilty of forum-shopping for
b. With forum shopping having filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the
i. Not deliberate – dismissal upon Ombudsman involving the same facts and the same
motion without prejudice issues, suffice it to state that the Court, in the case of
ii. Deliberate – summary dismissal PNB Republic Bank vs. Court of Appeals, has already
(motu proprio) with prejudice ; ruled that a case pending before the Ombudsman
direct contempt; admin. sanction cannot be considered for purposes of determining if
2. With Certification there was forum-shopping, as the power of the
a. No forum shopping Ombudsman is only investigative in character and its
b. With forum shopping resolution cannot constitute a valid and final judgment
i. No falsification because its duty is to file the appropriate case before
1. Not deliberate – the Sandiganbayan
dismissal upon motion
without prejuice
2. Deliberate – summary Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, 10 December 2008
dismissal (motu proprio) - Mayor Quijano sent notices of numerous vacant career
with prejudice; direct positions in the city government to the CSC. The city
contempt; admin. government and the CSC thereupon proceeded to
sanction publicly announce the existence of the vacant positions.
ii. With falsification - Petitioners and other applicants submitted their
1. Not deliberate – applications for the different positions where they felt
dismissal upon motion qualified.
without prejudice; indirect - Toward the end of his term Mayor Quijano issued
contempt; admin. and appointments to petitioners.
crim. sanction - the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued Resolution
2. Deliberate – summary addressed to the CSC Iligan City Field Office requesting
dismissal (motu proprio) a suspension of action on the processing of
with prejudice; direct appointments to all vacant positions in the plantilla of the
contempt; admin. city government until the enactment of a new budget.
Sanction and crim. o Also issued a resolution in view of its stated
sanction policy against ―midnight appointments,‖
directed the officers of the City Human
Sevilleja v. Laggui, 362 S 715 (2001) Resource Management Office to hold in
- In the May 11, 1998 elections, herein complainant abeyance the transmission of all appointments
Marco Francisco Sevilleja was proclaimed the winner in signed or to be signed by the incumbent mayor
the local election for Mayor in the Municipality of Sta. in order to ascertain whether these had been
Teresita, Cagayan hurriedly prepared or carefully considered and
o took his oath of office and assumed the whether the matters of promotion and/or
position qualifications had been properly addressed.
- his rival Romeo Garcia filed with the Aparri RTC an - Respondent city accountant Empleo did not thus issue a
election protest certification as to availability of funds for the payment of
o Sevilleja filed a motion to inhibit respondent salaries and wages of petitioners
Judge on the ground that the wife of the o the other respondents did not sign petitioners‘
protestant, Mrs. Lolita Garcia, is the legal position description forms
researcher of respondent Judge Laggui. - CSC Field Office disapproved the appointments issued
o Motion granted to petitioners invariably due to lack of certification of
- Judge Agcaoili rendered a decision declaring Romeo availability of funds.
Garcia as the duly elected mayor. - On appeal by Mayor Quijano, CSC Regional Office
o Sevilleja filed a notice of appeal dismissed the appeal, it explaining that its function in
o Garcia filed a motion for execution pending approving appointments is only ministerial
appeal - Petitioners thus filed with the Iligan RTC a petition for
- Judge Agcaoili ordered that the entire records be mandamus against respondent Empleo or his successor
elevated to the Commission on Elections. in office for him to issue a certification of availability of
- Due to the absence of Judge Agcaoili, Judge Laggui, in funds for the payment of the salaries and wages of
his capacity as Executive Judge, issued an order petitioners, and for his corespondents or their
holding in abeyance the transmittal of the records to successors in office to sign the position description
Comelec pending resolution of the motion for execution forms
pending appeal - Iligan RTC denied petitioners‘ petition for mandamus:
o He eventually granted the motion for execution the city accountant cannot be compelled to issue a
pending appeal certification as to availability of funds for the payment of
- Sevilleja filed the present administrative complaint on salaries and wages of petitioners as this ministerial
the ground of gross misconduct function pertains to the city treasurer
HELD: Judge Laggui be fined in the amount of Five - Petitioners brought the case before the SC
Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos with a stern warning that a
- Respondents assail as defective the verification and ground of ―substantial compliance‖ or presence of
certification against forum shopping attached to the ―special circumstances or compelling reasons.‖
petition as it bears the signature of only 11 out of the 59 5. The certification against forum shopping must be
petitioners, and no competent evidence of identity was signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
presented by the signing petitioners. They thus move for otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped
the dismissal of the petition as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
o Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the
have a justifiable cause for their inability to plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and
obtain the signatures of the other petitioners as invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
they could no longer be contacted or are no signature of only one of them in the certification
longer interested in pursuing the case against forum shopping substantially complies with
HELD: Moot and academic the Rule
- re: forum shopping 6. Finally, the certification against forum shopping
o it is a far better and more prudent course of must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
action to excuse a technical lapse and afford counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
the parties a review of the case to attain the reasons, the party pleader is unable to sign, he
ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case must execute a Special Power of Attorney
on technicality and cause grave injustice to the designating his counsel of record to sign on his
parties, giving a false impression of speedy behalf.
disposal of cases while actually resulting in
more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice Verification Certification
o ITC: signing of the verification by only 11 out of (stricter)
the 59 petitioners already sufficiently assures Non-compliance Not fatally Not curable/
the Court that the allegations in the pleading defective/ Curable Dismissible
are true and correct and not the product of the Submission of
imagination or a matter of speculation; that the Defective
pleading is filed in good faith; and that the - Incomplete No effect Non-signing
signatories are unquestionably real parties-in- parties (because Court parties will be
interest who undoubtedly have sufficient already assured dropped
knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of by one party of
the allegations in the petition. personal
o the failure of the other petitioners to sign as knowledge) 
they could no longer be contacted or are no substantial
longer interested in pursuing the case need not compliance
merit the outright dismissal of the petition - It is the No effect Dismissible
without defeating the administration of justice. counsel that (because Court
The non-signing petitioners are, however, verified already assured
dropped as parties to the case by counsel that it
- Summary of jurisprudential pronouncements already is true)
reflected above respecting noncompliance with the
requirements on, or submission of defective, verification
and certification against forum shopping: Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, G.R. No. 154704, 1 June 2011
1. A distinction must be made between non- - Nellie Panelo Vda. de Formoso and her children
compliance with the requirement on or submission executed a SPA in favor of Primitivo Malcaba
of defective verification, and non-compliance with authorizing him, among others, to secure all papers and
the requirement on or submission of defective documents including the owner‘s copies of the titles of
certification against forum shopping real properties pertaining to the loan with REM originally
2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a secured by Nellie and her late husband from PNB
defect therein does not necessarily render the - The Formosos sold the subject mortgaged real
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its properties to Malcaba through a Deed of Absolute Sale
submission or correction or act on the pleading if - Malcaba and his lawyer went to PNB to fully pay the
the attending circumstances are such that strict loan obligation including interests
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in - PNB, however, allegedly refused to accept Malcaba‘s
order that the ends of justice may be served tender of payment and to release the mortgage or
thereby surrender the titles of the subject mortgaged real
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with properties
when one who has ample knowledge to swear to - the petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific
the truth of the allegations in the complaint or Performance against PNB before the Vigan RTC
petition signs the verification, and when matters praying that PNB be ordered to accept the amount of
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith P2,461,024.74 as full settlement of the loan obligation of
or are true and correct the Formosos
4. As to certification against forum shopping, - RTC ruled in favor of petitioners
noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike - When petitioners received their copy of the decision,
in verification, is generally not curable by its they filed their Petition for Relief from Judgment
subsequent submission or correction thereof, questioning the RTC decision that there was no
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the testimonial evidence presented to warrant the award for
moral and exemplary damages
o They reasoned out that they could not then file - the Circular does not require corporate officers to sign
a motion for reconsideration because they the certificate. More important, there is no prohibition
could not get hold of a copy of the transcripts of against authorizing agents to do so
stenographic notes - In fact, not only was BA Savings Bank authorized to
o denied by RTC for lack of merit name an agent to sign the certificate; it also exercised
- CA dismissed the petition stating that the verification its appointing authority reasonably well. For who else
and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by knows of the circumstances required in the Certificate
only one (Macalba) of the many petitioners but its own retained counsel. Its regular officers, like its
- Before the SC, petitioners argued substantial board chairman and president, may not even know the
compliance details required therein.
HELD: Petition DENIED
- Admittedly, among the seven (7) petitioners mentioned,
only Malcaba signed the verification and certification of Cagayan Valley Drug v. CIR, G.R. No. 151413, 13 Feb
non-forum shopping in the subject petition. There was 2008
no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co- - Petitioner is a duly licensed retailer of medicine and
petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power other pharmaceutical products
of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing Malcaba - it granted 20% sales discounts to qualified senior
as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on citizens on purchases of medicine
certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at least a o In compliance with Revenue Regulation No.
reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the (RR) 2-94, petitioner treated the 20% sales
verification and certification of non-forum shopping. discounts granted to qualified senior citizens as
- The petitioners were given a chance by the CA to deductions from the gross sales in order to
comply with the Rules when they filed their motion for arrive at the net sales, instead of treating them
reconsideration, but they refused to do so. Despite the as tax credit as provided by Section 4 of RA
opportunity given to them to make all of them sign the 7432
verification and certification of non-forum shopping, they o however, petitioner filed with the BIR a claim
still failed to comply. Thus, the CA was constrained to for tax refund/tax credit of the full amount of the
deny their motion and affirm the earlier resolution 20% sales discount it granted to senior citizens
- At any rate, the Court cannot accommodate the o The BIR‘s inaction on petitioner‘s claim for
petitioners‘ request to re-examine the testimony of refund/tax credit compelled petitioner to file a
Malcaba in the transcript of stenographic notes of the petition for review before the CTA
April 25, 1999 hearing concerning his alleged - CTA rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for
testimonial proof of damages review for lack of merit
o CTA rejected the refund as it is clear that RA
7432 only grants the 20% sales discounts
b. Corporations extended to qualified senior citizens as tax
credit and not as tax refund
BA Savings v. Sia, 336 S 484 (2000) o while petitioner may be qualified for a tax
- CA issued a Resolution denying due course to a Petition credit, it cannot be so extended to petitioner on
for Certiorari filed by BA Savings Bank, on the ground account of its net loss
that ―the Certification on anti-forum shopping  if no tax has been paid or if no amount
incorporated in the petition was signed not by the duly is due and collectible from the
authorized representative of the petitioner, as required taxpayer, then a tax credit is
under Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 but by its unavailing
counsel, in contravention of said circular‖ - CA issued the assailed Resolution dismissing the
- BA Savings filed MR showing that petitioner‘s Board of petition on procedural grounds
Directors approved a Resolution authorizing the o the person who signed the verification and
petitioner‘s lawyers to represent it in any action or certification of absence of forum shopping, a
proceeding before any court, tribunal or agency; and to certain Jacinto J. Concepcion, President of
sign, execute and deliver the Certificate of Nonforum petitioner, failed to adduce proof that he was
Shopping, among others. duly authorized by the board of directors to do
- MR denied so
HELD: Petition GRANTED HELD: CA reversed
- A corporation, such as the petitioner, has no powers - an individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise
except those expressly conferred on it by the any corporate power pertaining to the corporation
Corporation Code and those that are implied by or are without authority from the board of directors.
incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation o In a slew of cases, however, we have
exercises said powers through its board of directors recognized the authority of some corporate
and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical officers to sign the verification and certification
acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed against forum shopping: (1) the Chairperson of
only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a
by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting
directors. General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and
- ITC, the Resolution by the BoD was sufficient to vest (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.
such persons with the authority to bind the corporation - the determination of the sufficiency of the authority was
and was specific enough as to the acts they were done on a case to case basis.
empowered to do
- ITC: petitioner substantially complied with Secs. 4 and compliance with the provisions regarding the
5, Rule 7 certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores
o requisite board resolution has been submitted its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
albeit belatedly by petitioner altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
o we apply our ruling in Lepanto with the disregarded
rationale that the President of petitioner is in a - ITC: CA should have taken into consideration the fact
position to verify the truthfulness and that petitioner Hanil is being sued by private respondent
correctness of the allegations in the petition in its capacity as the foreign principal of petitioner MCEI.
o President of petitioner has signed the It was petitioner MCEI, as the local private employment
complaint before the CTA at the inception of agency, who entered into contracts with potential
this judicial claim for refund or tax credit overseas workers on behalf of petitioner Hanil.
- Re: tax credit o the local private employment agency may sue
o the CTA erred in denying the tax credit to on behalf of its foreign principal on the basis of
petitioner on the ground that petitioner had its contractual undertakings submitted to the
suffered net loss POEA  there is no reason why the said
o petitioner is entitled to a tax credit for the full agency cannot likewise sign or execute a
20% sales discounts it extended to qualified certification of non-forum shopping for its own
senior citizens purposes and/or on behalf of its foreign
principal.
- the rationale behind the requirement that the petitioners
MC Engineering v. NLRC, 360 S 183 (2001) or parties to the action themselves must execute the
- Petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd. is the overseas certification of non-forum shopping is that the said
employer of all contract workers deployed by petitioner petitioners or parties are in the best position to know of
MC Engineering, Inc. the matters required by the Rules of Court in the said
- private respondent Aristotle Baldameca entered into an certification
Employment Agreement with MCEI for deployment as a o ITC: It is the local private employment agency,
plumber in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. in this case petitioner MCEI, who is in the best
o commenced working for petitioner Hanil in position to know of the matters required in a
Saudi Arabia on September 21, 1992 certification of non-forum shopping.
o contract was for a term of twelve (12) months. - Re: filing of pleading
- private respondent was not able to finish the full term of o service and filing of pleadings and other papers
his contract and he was repatriated back to Manila must, whenever practicable, be done
- private respondent filed a complaint with the POEA personally. Section 11 of Rule 13 gives the
against petitioners for illegal dismissal court the discretion to consider a pleading or
o prayed for the payment of his salaries for the paper as not filed if the other modes of service
unexpired portion of his employment or filing were resorted to and no written
agreement and the reimbursement of his explanation was made as to why personal
airfare service was not done in the first place
- LA ruled in favor of private respondent o ITC: there was no substantial compliance
- NLRC dismissed appeal made by petitioners of the requirement in
- CA dismissed Petition for Certiorari for being fatally Section 11, Rule 13. The fact that an affidavit
defective for two (2) reasons: (1) there is no certification of service accompanied their petition does not
against forum shopping by co-petitioner Hamil amount to a substantial compliance with the
Development Co., Ltd.; and (2) there is no written requirement of an explanation why other
explanation why the service of the pleading was not modes of service other than personal service
done personally were resorted to,
o The certification against forum shopping was  An affidavit of service is required
signed only by the corporate secretary of merely as proof that service has been
petitioner MCEI. No representative of petitioner made to the other parties in a case.
Hanil signed the said certification Thus, it is a requirement totally
HELD: dismissal affirmed because of improper filing of different from the requirement that an
pleading explanation be made if personal
- in all cases filed in the Court of Appeals, as with all service of pleadings was not resorted
initiatory pleadings before any tribunal, a certification of to
non-forum shopping signed by the petitioner must be
filed together with the petition. The failure of a petitioner
to comply with this requirement constitutes sufficient LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, G.R. No. 159653, 25
ground for the dismissal of his petition. January 2006
o Thus, the Court has previously held that a - Erlinda Dyolde Monter, a cashier at the Red Tag
certification not attached to the complaint or Convenience Store, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
petition or one belatedly filed or one signed by and related causes of action against petitioner LDP
counsel and not the party himself constitutes a Marketing, Inc. owner-operator of the store, and LDP‘s
violation of the requirement which can result in Vice-President-co-petitioner Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña
the dismissal of the complaint or petition - LA ruled in favor of respondent; affirmed by NLRC
- However, with respect to the contents of the - Petition for certiorari was filed before the CA wherein the
certification, the rule of substantial compliance may be Verification/Certification of non-forum shopping was
availed of. This is because the requirement of strict
accomplished by petitioner Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña- non-forum shopping even without the submission of the
VicePresident of its co-petitioner corporation board‘s authorization.
- CA dismisses petition for ―failing to attach to the petition o In sum, we have held that the following officials
a copy of the company board resolution authorizing said or employees of the company can sign the
Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña to sign the said Verification/ verification and certification without need of a
Certification board resolution:
o Petitioner filed MR attaching Secretary‘s (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors,
Certificate quoting a Resolution adopted by the (2) the President of a corporation, (Cagayan
Board of Directors of petitioner corporation case)
during a special meeting authorizing Dela Pena (3) the General Manager or Acting General
o MR denied Manager,
HELD: Petition GRANTED (4) Personnel Officer, and
- In Digital Microwave Corporation case relied upon by (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case
the CA in dismissing petitioners‘ Petition for Certiorari, - It must be stressed, however, that the Cagayan ruling
the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by qualified that the better procedure is still to append a
the therein petitioner corporation‘s counsel board resolution to the complaint or petition to obviate
- In the more recent case of Shipside Incorporated v. questions regarding the authority of the signatory of the
Court of Appeals the SC held that in certain exceptional verification and certification
circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the - the requirement of the certification of non-forum
belated filing of the certification in the same way that it shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant
allowed non-filing of the certification when there are shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in
special circumstances or compelling reasons that different fora, as this practice is detrimental to an orderly
justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification judicial procedure. However, the Court has relaxed,
and certification on non-forum shopping under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the
submission of such certification considering that,
although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. Not being
South Cotabato Communications Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of
G.R. No. 173326, 15 December 2010 substantial compliance
- an inspection was conducted at the premises of - ITC: there has been substantial compliance  the
appellant DXCP Radio Station where it was found to President of petitioner-corporation is in a position to
violate labor standards law by underpayment of min. verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations
th
wage, underpayment of 13 month pay, non-payment of in the petition
SIL pay, Non-remittance of SSS premiums, Non- o Petitioner Benzonan clearly satisfies the
payment of rest day premium pay of some employee, aforementioned jurisprudential requirement
Non-payment of holiday premium pay, and Some because he is the President of petitioner South
employees are paid on commission basis aside from Cotabato Communications Corporation.
their allowances Moreover, he is also named as co-respondent
- he Regional Director issued the assailed Order, of petitioner-corporation in the labor case
directing appellants to pay appellees the aggregate
amount of Php759,752.00
- DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas dismissed appeal Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. Treasurer of the City
- CA dismissed petition for certiorari because it was not of Manila, G.R. No. 181277, 3 July 2013
properly verified and the Certification of Non-Forum - Petitioner paid taxes to respondent based on the Manila
Shopping was not executed by the plaintiff or principal Revenue Code. Part of the amount was pursuant to
party Section 21 of said code. Assenting that it was not liable
- CA denied MR because while 2 petitioners and to pay taxes under Section 21, petitioner filed a Petition
petitioner Gauvain Benzonan signed the verification and for Refund of Taxes with Manila RTC.
the certificate of non-forum shopping of the petition, the - RTC dismisses petition for the failure of petitioner to
records show that petitioner Gauvain Benzonan did not plead the latter‘s capacity to sue and to state the
initiate the petition in his own capacity to protect his authority of Tiarra T. Batilaran-Beleno who had
personal interest in the case but was, in fact, only acting executed the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
for and in the corporation‘s behalf as its president Shopping
o Having acted in the corporation‘s behalf, - CTA denied petition for review for the same reason
petitioner Benzonan should have been clothed - Before the SC, petitioner argues that there can be no
with the corporation‘s board resolution dispute that Ms. Beleno was acting within her authority
authorizing him to institute the petition when she instituted the Petition for Refund before the
o attachment of a ―Secretary‘s Certificate‖ was RTC, notwithstanding that the Petition was not
insufficient since their submission merely accompanied by a Secretary‘s Certificate. Her authority
authorized petitioner Benzonan ―to represent was ratified by the Board in its Resolution
the corporation and cause the preparation and o even if she was not authorized to execute the
filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before the Verification and Certification at the time of the
Court of Appeals.‖ filing of the Petition, the ratification by the
HELD: Petition GRANTED board of directors retroactively applied to the
- in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC date of her signing.
Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), we ruled HELD: Petition GRANTED
that the Chairperson of the Board and President of the - a verification signed without an authority from the board
Company can sign the verification and certificate against of directors is defective. However, the requirement of
verification is simply a condition affecting the form of the facts alleged by him are true to his knowledge and
pleading and noncompliance does not necessarily belief. However, the same does not apply as regards the
render the pleading fatally defective. requirement of a certification against forum shopping.
o The court may in fact order the correction of - certification must be made by petitioner himself and not
the pleading if verification is lacking or, it may by counsel since it is petitioner who is in the best
act on the pleading although it may not have position to know whether he has previously commenced
been verified, where it is made evident that any similar action involving the same issues in any other
strict compliance with the rules may be tribunal or agency
dispensed with so that the ends of justice may - BA Savings Bank must be distinguished from the case
be served at bar because in the former, the complainant was a
- ITC: Petition filed with the RTC was accompanied by a corporation, and hence, a juridical person. Therefore,
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that case made an exception to the general rule that the
signed by Ms. Beleno, although without proof of certification must be made by the petitioner himself
authority from the board. However, this Court finds that since a corporation can only act through natural persons
the belated submission of the Secretary‘s Certificate - ITC: petitioners are all natural persons and there is no
constitutes substantial compliance showing of any reasonable cause to justify their failure
o the Secretary‘s Certificate signed by to personally sign the certification
petitioner‘s Corporate Secretary Rafael Khan o it was petitioners themselves who executed the
and submitted to the RTC shows that not only verification and certification requirements in all
did the corporation authorize Ms. Beleno to their previous pleadings
execute the required Verifications and/or o Counsel for petitioners argues that as a matter
Certifications of Non-Forum Shopping, but it of policy, a Special Power of Attorney is
likewise ratified her act of filing the Petition with executed to promptly and effectively meet any
the RTC contingency relative to the handling of a case
o It should be noted that the nature of the  in the case of natural persons, this
position of Ms. Beleno as the corporation‘s policy serves no legal purpose.
finance director/manager is relevant to the Convenience cannot be made the
determination of her capability and sufficiency basis for a circumvention of the Rules
to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the Petition  for this particular
case, Ms. Beleno, as finance director, may be Fiel v. Kris Security Systems Inc., G.R. No. 155875, 3
said to have been in a position to verify the April 2003
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations - Petitioners were employed by private respondent Kris
in the claim for a refund of the corporation‘s Security Systems, Inc., as security guards. On different
business taxes dates, private respondent terminated the services of
petitioners
- Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
c. Individuals - LA held that they were constructively dismissed
- NLRC reversed LA
Santos v. CA, 360 S 521 (2001) - Petitioners filed petition for certiorari with CA which
- petitioners Ismael V. Santos and Alfredo G. Arce were dismissed the petition because only three of the four
employed by PEPSI as Complimentary Distribution petitioners signed the mandatory verification and
Specialists while Hilario M. Pastrana was employed as certification of non-forum shopping
Route Manage HELD: Petition GRANTED
- PEPSI informed its employees that due to poor - The greater interest of justice would be served if the
performance of its Metro Manila Sales Operations it petition for certiorari filed by petitioners before the Court
would restructure and streamline certain physical and of Appeals is adjudicated on its merits with respect to
sales distribution systems  employees with affected the three petitioners who have signed the verification
positions were terminated and certification on non-forum shopping The greater
- petitioners left their respective positions, accepted their interest of justice would be served if the petition for
separation pays and executed the corresponding certiorari filed by petitioners before the Court of Appeals
releases and quitclaims. However, before the end of the is adjudicated on its merits with respect to the three
year, petitioners learned that PEPSI created new petitioners who have signed the verification and
positions called Account Development Managers with certification on non-forum shopping
substantially the same duties and responsibilities - The three petitioners who have faithfully observed the
- petitioners filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for rules by signing the requisite verification and certification
illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement on non-forum shopping, should not be unduly prejudiced
- LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; affirmed by by the fault of their co-petitioner who apparently has lost
NLRC interest in pursuing his case.
- CA dismissed the petition outright because the - technical rules of procedure should be used to promote,
verification and certification against forum shopping not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swift
were executed merely by petitioners‘ counsel and not by unclogging of court dockets is a laudable aim, the just
petitioners resolution of cases on their merits, however, cannot be
HELD: CA affirmed sacrificed merely in order to achieve that objective
- It is true that insofar as verification is concerned, we - Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but
have held that there is substantial compliance if the to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and
same is executed by an attorney, it being presumed that rigid application may, for good and deserving reasons,
have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the need service. It is a method extraordinary in
to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal course character and hence may be used only as
prescribed and in the circumstances authorized
Hamilton v. Levy, 344 S 821 (2000) by statute. Here, no such explanation was
- Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money and made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully
damages, with prayer for preliminary attachment against comply with the requirements of substituted
respondents and one Pablo de Borja with the Angeles service renders said service ineffective)
RTC
- RTC issued an Order for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment. Cavile v. Cavile, 400 S 255 (2003)
o the court sheriff levied on a Cherokee 180 - Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. The first
Piper aircraft, allegedly owned by respondent marriage was with Ines Dumat-ol with whom he had one
David Levy child, Simplicia. The second was with Orfia Colalho with
o the Return manifested that the sheriff whom he had two children: Fortunato and Vevencia.
personally served summons and a copy of the And the third was with Tranquilina Galon with whom he
writ of preliminary attachment to respondents, had three children: Castor, Susana and Benedicta.
through Mercita S. Reyes and Ramon Araneta, Throughout his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili acquired six
secretaries of W.E.L. Phils., Inc., at Subic Bay parcels of land which became the subject of the instant
Freeport Zone, Olongapo City, the address of case
respondents stated in the complaint - Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by his third
- Ramon Araneta filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim marriage, Castor Cavili, took possession of the
asserting ownership of the levied aircraft by virtue of a properties as administrator for and in behalf of his
sale from W.E.L. Phils., Inc., represented by respondent coowners. However, when Castor died, his children took
Levy possession of the parcels of land but no longer as
- petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in administrators. They claimed the properties as well as
Default for failure to file any responsive pleading within their fruits as their own and repeatedly refused
the reglementary period. This was granted by the trial respondents‘ demand for partition
court - the descendants of Bernardo‘s first and second
- petitioner proceeded with the presentation of evidence marriage (herein respondents) filed a complaint for
ex parte partition against the descendants of his third marriage
- Prior to the presentation of evidence, however, (herein petitioners)
respondents‘ counsel filed a Special Appearance to - As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the
Question the Jurisdiction of the trial court. When no reglementary period, they were declared in default and
action was made on the Special Appearance, respondents were allowed to present evidence, ex parte
respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA - TC ordered the partition of the six parcels of land.
o While the petition for certiorari was pending o However, upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and
before the Court of Appeals, proceedings Quirino Cavili who were not properly served
before the trial court continued with summons, TC held a new trial and allowed
- CA issued the assailed Decision granting the Petition said parties to present evidence. Among the
and ordering the dismissal of the case without prejudice, evidence they proferred was a Deed of
on its finding that summons was not validly served upon Partition which appeared to have been
respondents, hence, the trial court never assumed executed by the heirs of Bernardo Cavili
jurisdiction over their persons o Giving weight to the documentary evidence
- Before the SC, petitioner alleges (inter alia) that the presented by Primitivo Cavili and Quirino
certification on nonforum shopping attached to Cavili, TC rendered another decision and
respondents‘ Petition was prepared not by respondents DISMISSED the complaint for partition
but by one Teresita Torres, who was not a party to the - CA reversed, TC erred in admitting the Deed of Partition
suit either before the trial court or the certiorari as evidence without proof of its authenticity and due
proceedings in the Court of Appeals execution. CA ordered partition
- respondents explained that they were both abroad when - Before the SC:
the petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of o Petitioners essentially argue that the Deed of
Appeals Partition is a public document duly
HELD: CA affirmed acknowledged before a Notary Public. Hence,
- that the respondents were abroad is reasonable cause its genuineness and due execution need not be
to exempt them from compliance with the requirement proved.
that they personally execute the certification. Moreover, o Respondents, on the other hand, pray for the
to dismiss their petition for certiorari on this sole ground denial of the petition because it violates the
would deny them the opportunity to question the lack of rule on the certification against forum shopping
jurisdiction of the trial court over their persons required to be attached to petitions for review
- (Re: improper service of summons: filed with this Court
o The pertinent facts and circumstances  only one of the twenty-two (22)
attendant to the service of summons must be petitioners, Thomas George Cavili,
stated in the proof of service or Officer‘s Sr., executed and signed the
Return; otherwise, any substituted service certification against forum shopping
made in lieu of personal service cannot be when the Rules require that said
upheld. This is necessary because substituted certification must be signed by all the
service is in derogation of the usual method of petitioners
HELD: Petition GRANTED. TC decision reinstated
- the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of section 16(g), Rule 16
all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing
shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a
Rules. motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
o All the petitioners, being relatives and co- grounds:
owners of the properties in dispute, share a (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no
common interest thereon. They also share a cause of action;
common defense in the complaint for partition
filed by the respondents. Tantuico v. Republic, 204 S 428 (1991)
o when they filed the instant petition, they filed it - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG
as a collective, raising only one argument to filed with the Sandiganbayan a case against Benjamin
defend their rights over the properties in (Kokoy) Romualdez, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda
question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, R. Marcos. for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and restitution and damages
in behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not o Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. was included as
filed any action or claim involving the same defendant on the theory that he conspired with
issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there them as COA chair
other pending action or claim in another court - after his motion for production and inspection of
or tribunal involving the same issues documents was denied by respondent court, petitioner
o Moreover, it has been held that the merits of filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars alleging inter alia
the substantive aspects of the case may be that he is sued for acts allegedly committed by him as
deemed as ―special circumstance‖ for the Court (a) a public officer-Chairman of the Commission on
to take cognizance of a petition for review Audit, (b) as a private individual, and (c) in both
although the certification against forum capacities, in a complaint couched in too general terms
shopping was executed and signed by only one and shorn of particulars that would inform him of the
of the petitioners factual and legal basis thereof, and that to enable him to
- TC was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition, understand and know with certainty the particular acts
it appearing that the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavili have allegedly committed by him and which he is now
already divided the properties among themselves, as charged with culpability, it is necessary that plaintiff
evidenced by the Deed of Partition furnish him the particulars sought therein so that he can
intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and
prepare for trial.
3. Alleging causes of action o dates of the resolutions or acts issued or
sections 1-2, 5, 6, 9, Rule 8 performed by Tantuico which allowed the
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings facilitation of, and made possible the,
Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a withdrawals, disbursements and questionable
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct use of government funds
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading o ministries or Departments, offices or agencies
relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting of the government involved in these
the statement of mere evidentiary facts. (1) questionable use of government funds
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent o names of the auditors who had the original
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be audit jurisdiction over the said withdrawals,
clearly and concisely stated. (n) disbursements and questionable use of
Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A government funds
party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or o amount of government funds involved in these
defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of questionable-disbursements, individually and in
action or defense or in separate causes of action or total
defenses. When two or more statements are made in the o ETC.
alternative and one of them if made independently would be - SB denied BoP on the ground that the particulars sought
sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the by petitioner are evidentiary in nature
insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. (2) HELD: Petition GRANTED. SB committed GAD.
Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all Respondents ordered to file BoP
averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances constituting - Complaint: Its office, purpose or function is to inform the
fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, defendant clearly and definitely of the claims made
intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a person against him so that he may be prepared to meet the
may be averred generally.(5a) issues at the trial. The complaint should inform the
Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision defendant of all the material facts on which the plaintiff
of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial relies to support his demand; it should state the theory
tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the of a cause of action which forms the bases of the
judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing plaintiffs claim of liability
jurisdiction to render it. (6) o Ultimate facts  essential facts constituting the
Section 9. Official document or act. — In pleading an official plaintiff ‗s cause of action. A fact is essential if
document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the it cannot be stricken out without leaving the
document was issued or the act done in compliance with law. statement of the cause of action insufficient.
(9) Ultimate facts are important and substantial
facts which either directly form the basis of the
primary right and duty, or which directly make policies prejudicial to plaintiff are, why they are
up the wrongful acts or omissions of the prejudicial, and what petitioner had to do with
defendant. The term does not refer to the the granting, issuance, and or formulation of
details of probative matter or particulars of such concessions, orders, and/or policies
evidence by which these material elements are - The allegations in the complaint, above-referred to,
to be established. It refers to principal, pertaining to petitioner are, therefore, deficient in that
determinate, constitutive facts, upon the they merely articulate conclusions of law and
existence of which, the entire cause of action presumptions unsupported by factual premises. Hence,
rests without the particulars prayed for in petitioner‘s motion
o Evidentiary facts  facts which are necessary for a bill of particulars, it can be said the petitioner
for determination of the ultimate facts; they are cannot intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and
the premises upon which conclusions of for trial
ultimate facts are based - the particulars prayed for, such as, names of persons,
- Where the complaint states ultimate facts that constitute names of corporations, dates, amounts involved, a
the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, specification of property for identification purposes, the
namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the particular transactions involving withdrawals and
correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or disbursements, and a statement of other material facts
omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right, as would support the conclusions and inferences in the
the complaint states a cause of action, otherwise, the complaint, are not evidentiary in nature
complaint must succumb to a motion to dismiss on that o those particulars are material facts that should
ground of failure to state a cause of action. be clearly and definitely averred in the
o However, where the allegations of the complaint in order that the defendant may, in
complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form fairness, be informed of the claims made
of conclusions, the proper recourse would be, against him to the end that he may be prepared
not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a bill to meet the issues at the trial.
of particulars - the purpose or object of a bill of particulars is to amplify
- ITC: or limit a pleading, specify more minutely and
o the allegations that defendant Ferdinand E. particularly a claim or defense set up and pleaded in
Marcos, together with the other defendants general terms, give information, not contained in the
―embarked upon a systematic plan to pleading, to the opposite party and the court as to the
accumulate ill-gotten wealth‖ and that said precise nature, character, scope, and extent of the
defendants acted ―in flagrant breach of public cause of action or defense relied on by the pleader, and
trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public apprise the opposite party of the case which he has to
officers, with gross and scandalous abuse of meet, to the end that the proof at the trial may be limited
right and in brazen violation of the Constitution to the matters specified, and in order that surprise at,
and laws of the Philippines‖, are conclusions of and needless preparation for, the trial may be avoided,
law unsupported by factual premises. and that the opposite party may be aided in framing his
o the allegation that petitioner ―took undue answering pleading and preparing for trial
advantage of his position as Chairman of the
Commission on Audit,‖ that he ―failed to
perform his constitutional duties as such Convets, Inc. v. National Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. L-10232,
Chairman,‖ and acting in concert with 28 February 1958
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, - Confederation of Filipino Veterans (CONVETS) filed a
―facilitated and made possible the withdrawals, complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against
disbursements, and questionable use of the National Development Company (NDC), Land
government funds as stated in the foregoing Settlement and Development Corporation
paragraphs, to the grave and irreparable (LASEDECO), and the Board of Liquidators before CFI
damage and injury of plaintiff and the entire Manila for the recovery of the sum of P36,000 as agent's
Filipino people‖, are mere conclusions of law commission on the sale of certain commodities
o On top of that, the complaint does not even - a committee of the NDC in a memorandum submitted to
contain any factual allegation which would the latter's general manager recommended that plaintiff
show that whatever withdrawals, be allowed a 10% straight commission on sales of items
disbursements, or conversions were made, from the Caledonia Pile (a mass of surplus goods which
were indeed subject to audit by the COA. the NDC had in the compound in Manila) where plaintiff
o the allegation that petitioner acted as dummy, had a direct hand in the sale
nominee, or agent by allowing himself ―to be - plaintiff informed the NDC Board that it had found a
used as instrument in accumulating illgotten buyer, the firm of Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc.
wealth through government concessions, - through the direct intervention of plaintiff in its capacity
orders and/or policies prejudicial to Plaintiff‖ or as sole agent of the defendant NDC, a contract of sale
―to be (an) incorporator, director, or member of was approved by the NDC'S Board of Directors
corporations beneficially held and/or controlled‖ - in confirmation of previous commitments, promises and
by the Marcoses and Romualdezes, is a past business dealing between plaintiff and the NDC, a
conclusion of law without factual basis. written agency agreement was entered into between
o there is no averment in the complaint how them with retroactive effect
petitioner allowed himself to be used as - upon the promulgation of Executive Order No. 355 the
instrument in the accumulation of ill-gotten management and disposition of the Caledonia Pile were
wealth, what the concessions, orders and/or transferred from the NDC to the LASEDECO and that
upon the latter being dissolved by Republic Act No. - French Oil itself filed a special appearance with MTD
1160 its assets were turned over to the Board of contending that the court had no jurisdiction over its
Liquidators person due to improper service of summons. It argued
- plaintiff being, for that reason, uncertain from which one that:
of the defendants it is entitled to get relief; and that o it is not doing business in the Philippines
notwithstanding repeated demands, the defendants o Trans-World is not its agent
have failed and refused to pay plaintiff its commission - RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
on the sale mentioned. petitioner
- Defendants filed MTD otg that the complaint did not - Upon MR, RTC reversed the order of dismissal and
state a cause of action and that plaintiff's action, if it had ruled that summons was properly served on petitioner
any, had already prescribed whom it found doing business in the Philippines thru
- LC granted MTD Trans-World as its agent
HELD: Petition GRANTED - CA affirmed RTC: summons properly served
- The LC inferred from the documents submitted that the - Before the SC, French Oil contends that it is not doing
sale in question was neither initiated nor consummated business in the Philippines and that Trans-World is not
by plaintiff but was a direct transaction between the its agent, and thus, the summons served on the latter
management of the NDC and Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc has no effect on the former
- it is elementary that lack of cause of action as ground for HELD: CA affirmed
dismissal must appear on the face of the complaint and - It is not enough to merely allege in the complaint that a
that to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, defendant foreign corporation is doing business. For
only the facts alleged in the complaint, and no other, purposes of the rule on summons, the fact of doing
should be considered business must first be ―established by appropriate
- ITC: the allegations in the complaint, the truth of which allegations in the complaint‖ and the court in
is hypothetically admitted by defendants' motion to determining such fact need not go beyond the
dismiss, do constitute a cause of action for the recovery allegations therein
of the stipulated commission; and while the annexes to - ITC: the ff. allegations are sufficient that petitioner is
the complaint do also mention certain terms under which doing business for purposes of Section 14, Rule 14
the sales of merchandise from the Caledonia Pile should o allegations that petitioner entered into a
be made, there is really nothing in said annexes that contract with private respondent to supply and
contradicts or nullifies the ultimate facts alleged in the install various machineries and equipments for
complaint or proves by itself alone that the terms the use of the latter‘s oil mill factory
prescribed were not complied with to the satisfaction of o that the first shipment of machineries from
the principal petitioner was received by private respondent
o Any such non-compliance is a matter of - The determination that a foreign corporation is doing
defense, which should be alleged in the answer business is merely tentative and only to enable the local
and proved at the trial. court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
foreign corporation through service of summons. It does
4. Alleging capacity to sue or be sued not foreclose a subsequent finding to the contrary
section 4, Rule 8 depending on the evidence
Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party - Under the Rules of Court, if the defendant is a foreign
to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued corporation doing business in the Philippines, summons
in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an may be served on
organized association of person that is made a party, must be (a) its resident agent designated in accordance with law;
averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal (b) if there is no resident agent, the government official
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or designated by law to that effect; or
be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific (c) any of its officer or agent within the Philippines.
denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are - For purposes of the rules on summons, the
peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. (4) determination of principal-agent relationship from the
allegations in the complaint is only preliminary and is not
even conclusive as to liability. Nothing bars the court
section 16(d), Rule 16 from later making a different finding after the parties had
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing substantiated their respective allegations with respect to
the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a agency should the same be disputed.
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following - As found by both courts below, petitioner treated Trans-
grounds: World as its Philippine agent in the assailed transaction.
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; Such factual assessment is binding on this Court and
will not be disturbed as no exceptional circumstances
nor cogent reasons were shown to justify its reversal
French Oil v. CA, 295 S 462 (1998)
- Ludo and Luym Oleochemical, Co. filed a complaint for
breach of contract with damages against French Oil Mill Scenario 1: What will happen if a juridical person fails to
Machinery (a corporation with principal office at Piqua, state in the complaint the facts regarding its legal capacity?
Ohio, USA) and its alleged Philippine agent Trans-World Effect: The complaint may be dismissed on the ground of
Trading Company failure to state of cause of action because the juridical person
- Summons was served on Trans-World which moved to does not have any right which may be violated (which is an
dismiss the complaint arguing that it is not petitioner‘s element of a cause of action) since it does not exist. In this
agent.
case, the juridical person may have legal capacity to sue but
its personality may be questioned. (a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof;
Scenario 2: What will happen if a natural person fails to state
in the complaint the facts regarding his/her legal capacity? (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the
Effect: The complaint may be dismissed on the ground of dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
lack of legal capacity to sue. Contrary to Scenario 1, the
plaintiff in this case exists and has legal personality, although (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1)
his/her legal capacity may be questioned. year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

Scenario 3: What will happen if the plaintiff did not allege (d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
that defendant corporation was doing business in the
Philippines (although it was indeed doing business in the (e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in
Philippines)? different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto
Effect: There is no ground for dismissal. A complaint may not agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
be dismissed for lack of legal capacity to be sued (Rule 16, appropriate lupon;
Sec.16d only contemplates a plaintiff who has no legal
capacity to sue). Note that the French Oil case is not (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
applicable because the issue in French Oil is barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where
factual/evidentiary. such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
Scenario 4: What will happen if the plaintiff alleged that the appropriate lupon;
defendant corporation was doing business in the Philippines
when in fact, it was not doing business in the Philippines? (g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may
Effect: The complaint may be dismissed for the lack of determine in the interest of Justice or upon the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Note that our recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
summons and other judicial processes do not operate
extraterritorially (vis-à-vis in the US which recognizes long- The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the
arm jurisdiction). Also, in the corporation code, ―doing authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any
business‖ does not refer to an isolated transaction but applies time before trial motu propio refer the case to the lupon
only to continuous business in the Philippines. concerned for amicable settlement.

Section 409. Venue.


5. Alleging compliance with conditions precedent
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same
section 3, Rule 8 barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the
Section 3. Conditions precedent. — In any pleading a general lupon of said barangay.
averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions
precedent shall be sufficient. (3) (b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays
within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the
section 1(j), Rule 16 barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the actually resides, at the election of the complaint.
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following (c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein
grounds: shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or
the larger portion thereof is situated.
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been
complied with. (1a) (d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending
parties are employed or at the institution where such parties
art. 151, Family Code are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the barangay where
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall such workplace or institution is located.
prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or
petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation
made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the
such efforts were in fact made, the same case must be same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which may
dismissed. confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to
venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the Justice, or his duly designated representative, whose ruling
subject of compromise under the Civil Code. (222a) thereon shall be binding.

sections 408-409, Local Government Code art. 2035, NCC


Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Article 2035. No compromise upon the following questions
Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have shall be valid:
authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the
same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all (1) The civil status of persons;
disputes except: (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
o ITC: it does not involve a testator and a
(4) Future support; compulsory heir. Also, the subject properties
(5) The jurisdiction of courts; cannot be considered as ―future legitime‖ but
(6) Future legitime. (1814a) are in fact, legitime, as the instant complaint
was filed after the death of the decedent
Conditions precedent HELD: CA Decision REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. RTC
1. Compromise under the Family Code AFFIRMED
o Effort for compromise must be alleged in - Rule 16 provides the grounds that can be raised in a
verified complaint MTD. Said grounds cannot be the basis of motu
o Includes illegitimate siblings (Heirs of Favis v. proprio dismissal. Only the grounds in Sec. 1, Rule 9
Gonzales) can be the grounds for motu proprio dismissal (Omnibus
Ground Effect Motion Rule). The grounds in Rule 16 must be raised
No allegation Curable before the filing of an answer, or else they are deemed
Unverified allegation Curable waived
No compromise Dismissible - ITC: respondents did not file MTD. The CA motu proprio
dismissed the case on the basis of a condition
2. Barangay Conciliation Proceedings precedent that was not complied with only upon appeal.
o Applies only: This is not allowed under the rules
 when both parties reside in the same - Even assuming that the CA may motu proprio dismiss
city or municipality or the case on the ground of failure to comply with a
 when the parties reside in barangays condition precedent for filing a claim, the facts of the
of different cities or municipalities but case show that compromise was never an option insofar
such barangays adjoin each other and as the respondents were concerned
the parties there to agree to submit - The impossibility of compromise instead of litigation was
their differences to amicable shown not alone by the absence of a motion to dismiss
settlement but on the respondents‘ insistence on the validity of the
o when real property is involved, the dispute shall donation in their favor of the subject properties
be brought to the barangay where the real
property or a larger portion thereof is situated Note:
o disputes arising in the workplace where the  the RTC may only dismiss motu proprio on the grounds
contending parties are employed or at the enumerated in Rule 9, Sec.1 (Omnibus Motion Rule)
institution where such parties are enrolled for  the MTC may dismiss motu proprio on any ground,
study, shall be brought in the barangay where following the rules on summary procedure
such workplace or institution is located
Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. 28394, 26 Nov 1970
3. Arbitration – usually, a case is not dismissed for - Petitioner Pedro Gayon filed a complaint against
failure to resort to arbitration as stipulate or provided respondent spouses Silvestre and Genoveva Gayon
by law; instead of dismissing the case, the judge asking for a judicial decree for consolidation of title
would refer the case for arbitration and suspend the o The spouses Gayon failed to repurchase the
proceedings pending arbitration land within the 5-year redemption period
- Respondent Genoveva filed MTD otg that petitioner did
Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 185922, 15 not exert efforts for compromise before filing the present
January 2014 suit, considering that petitioner Pedro Gayon and
- Dr. Favis died intestate in 1995 (due to several illnesses respondent Silvestre Gayon are brothers
since 1992) leaving behind several properties - CFI dismissed
- Allegedly, Dr. Favis executed a Deed of Donation in HELD: Petition granted. The CFI should not have
1994 transferring some of the properties in favor of his dismissed
grandchildren with his second wife - Pedro Gayon did not need to exert efforts for
- Claiming that said donation prejudiced their legitime, Dr. compromise before filing the case
Favis‘ children with his first wife, petitioners herein, filed - ―Members of the same family‖ in Art. 222 (now Art. 151)
an action for annulment of the Deed of Donation of the Civil Code was defined in Art. 217 (now Art.150)
- RTC: nullified the Deed of Donation as:
o Dr. Favis, at the age of 92 and plagued with o Between husband and wife
illnesses, could not have had full control of his o Between parents and children
mental capacities to execute a valid Deed of o Among other ascendants and descendants
Donation. o Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full
- CA: motu proprio ordered the dismissal of the or half-blood
petitioners‘ nullification case on the ground that - ITC: Genoveva was petitioner‘s sister-in-law while her
petitioners failed to make an averment that earnest children are petitioner‘s nieces and nephews. None of
efforts toward a compromise have been made, as them are included in the enumeration in the Civil Code
mandated by Article 151 of the Family Code.
- Respondents filed MR contending that the case is not Sps. Hontiveros v. RTC, G.R. No. 125465, 29 Jun 1999
subject to compromise as it involves future legitime - spouses Augusto and Maria Hontiveros filed a complaint
- CA denied MR: the prohibited compromise is that which for damages against Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora
is entered between the decedent while alive and Ayson before the RTC alleging that:
compulsory heirs. o they were deprived of income from the parcel
of land that they owned because the
respondents filed a land registration case
involving said land court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any
o respondents withheld possession of the land in pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false,
bad faith redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
- respondents answered, stricken out therefrom. (5, R9)
o denying that they had deprived petitioners of
possession of and income from the land B. Answer
o alleging that the complaint failed to state a 1. General
cause of action since it did not allege that
earnest efforts towards a compromise had section 4, Rule 6
been made (Augusto and Gregorio are Section 4. Answer. — An answer is a pleading in which a
brothers) defending party sets forth his defenses. (4a)
- petitioners filed an Amended Complaint alleging that
earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made section 1, 2, 11, Rule 11
but were unsuccessful Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall
- respondents filed an Answer to Amended Complaint file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after
with Counterclaim in which they denied that earnest service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the
efforts had been made to reach a compromise court. (la)
- TC: dismissed the case on the ground that the complaint
was not verified as required by Art. 151 FC and, Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical
therefore, it did not believe that earnest efforts had been entity. — Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical
made to arrive at a compromise entity and service of summons is made on the government
HELD: petition granted, TC should not have dismissed official designated by law to receive the same, the answer
- The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does shall be filed within thirty (30) days after receipt of summons
not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject by such entity. (2a)
matter of the complaint. The verification is merely a
formal requirement intended to secure an assurance Section 11. Extension of time to plead. — Upon motion and
that matters which are alleged are true and correct. If on such terms as may be just, the court may extend the time
the court doubted the veracity of the allegations to plead provided in these Rules.
regarding efforts made to settle the case among The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other
members of the same family, it could simply have pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules. (7)
ordered petitioners to verify them
- The court may simply order the correction of Rule 22 - Computation of Time
unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of
justice may be served. Otherwise, mere suspicion or the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or
doubt on the part of the trial court as to the truth of the event from which the designated period of time begins to run
allegation that earnest efforts had been made toward a is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the
compromise but the parties efforts proved unsuccessful last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday
is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only if it is a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits,
later shown that such efforts had not really been exerted the time shall not run until the next working day. (a)
would the court be justified in dismissing the action
- Art. 151 of the Family Code does not apply in this case Section 2. Effect of interruption. — Should an act be done
since the suit is not exclusively among family which effectively interrupts the running of the period, the
members. Whenever a stranger is a party in a case allowable period after such interruption shall start to run on
involving family members, the requisite showing of the day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.
earnest efforts to compromise is no longer mandatory. The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be
Since Ayson is admittedly a stranger to the Hontiveros excluded in the computation of the period. (n)
family, the case is not covered by the requirements of
Art. 151 of the Family Code section 11, RSC
- Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not Section 11. Response - The defendant shall file with the court
given any legal effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified
Ayson, who is described in the complaint as the spouse Response within a non - extendible period of ten (10) days
of G. Hontiveros, and Maria Hontiveros, who is from receipt of summons. The Response shall be
admittedly the spouse of A. Hontiveros, are considered accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as well
strangers to the Hontiveros family, for purposes of Art. as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support
151 thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing
which was not attached to or submitted together with the
Response, unless good cause is shown for the admission of
6. Striking out additional evidence.

section 12, Rule 8 section 5, RSP


Section 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained Sec. 5. Answer. — Within ten (10) days from service of
therein. — Upon motion made by a party before responding summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint
to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. Affirmative and
these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) negative defenses not pleaded therein shall be deemed
days after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the waived, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be
the answer shall be considered barred. The answer to deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of
counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
ten (10) days from service of the answer in which they are admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9)
pleaded.
section 1, Rule 9
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses
2. Alleging defenses
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in
section 5, Rule 6 the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears
Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court
affirmative. has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material another action pending between the same parties for the
fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment
to his cause or causes of action. or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter (2a)
which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations
in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or section 6, Rule 16
bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud, Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — If no
statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for
frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an
and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance. affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the
(5a) court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a)
section 2, 7-8, 10-11, Rule 8 Specific denial
Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A
party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or 1. Where a defendant does not admit the truth of a
defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of material allegation of fact:
action or defense or in separate causes of action or Par. 1 is denied, the truth being that.. (state the truth)
defenses. When two or more statements are made in the
alternative and one of them if made independently would be 2. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an
sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the averment:
insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. (2) Par. 1 is denied insofar as it alleges that… the truth being
Section 7. Action or defense based on document. — that… the rest is denied for lack of knowledge or
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or thereof
document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original
or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an 3. Where a defendant is without knowledge or
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. (7) of a material averment made in the complaint:
Par. 1 is denied for lack of knowledge or information
Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof
action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as 4. Where a defendant does not admit the truth of a
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due material allegation of fact but does not have an
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless alternative version of the fact:
the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and Par. 1 is denied for being a conclusion of law
sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement
of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not
appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance
with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is Philippine American General Insurance v Sweet Lines,
refused. (8a) G.R. No. 87434, 5 August 1992
- Sweetlines was supposed to ship bags of Polyethylene
Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each to Tagum Plastics from LA to Manila and then to Davao
material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit - May 15, 1977: the shipments were discharged into the
and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of custody of the consignee
the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where - July 8, 1977: a survey was conducted showing that
a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he there were shortages, damages and losses
shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall - April 28, 1978: Tagum Plastics filed claim with
deny only the remainder Sweetlines (almost a year after the delivery)
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information - May 12, 1978: Tagum Plastics and Philamgen
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material Insurance (subrogated to the right of Tagum Plastics)
averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this filed action to recover the cost of lost or damaged
shall have the effect of a denial. (10a) shipment (almost a year after the delivery)
- Sweetlines invoked the following stipulation in the bill of
Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed lading:
admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than
o ―Claims for shortage, damage, must be made - Laperal eventually subdivided the properties, and sold
at the time of delivery to consignee or agent, if portions thereof to petitioner spouses Abrajano, et.al.
container shows exterior signs of damage or - The heirs of Augusto Salas filed a complaint for
shortage. Claims for non-delivery, misdelivery, declaration of nullity of sale, conveyance, cancellation of
loss or damage must be filed within 30 days contract, accounting and damages against petitioners
from accrual. Suits arising from shortage, - Laperal filed MTD on the ground of failure to comply
damage or loss, non-delivery or misdelivery with arbitration requirement first before filing the suit
shall be instituted within 60 days from date of - Other petitioner-buyers filed separate answers, some of
accrual of right of action. Failure to file claims them also raising the argument regarding arbitration
or institute judicial proceedings as herein - Respondent heirs opposed the MTD on the ground that
provided constitutes waiver of claim or right of the arbitration clause is not applicable because there
action.‖ are petitioners who are not privy to the Owner-
- Philamgen answered, not denying the presence of the Contractor Agreement
stipulation but claiming that it is contrary to public policy - RTC granted MTD, dismissed
(NEGATIVE PREGNANT) - SC set aside the order of dismissal and directed the trial
- TC ruled in favor of Philamgen, ordering Sweetlines to court to proceed with the hearing; hence, remanded
pay - Petitioners Vacuna and Capellan filed Motion for Leave
- CA reversed, dismissing the complaint on the ground of to Conduct Preliminary Hearing on the Defendants‘
prescription Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Rule 16, Sec. 6
- Philamgen and Tagum Plastics filed MR, contending - RTC granted the motion, hence preliminary hearings
that CA erred in reversing the RTC decision and were conducted
dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription - Respondents filed a motion to inhibit the RTC judge but
because Sweetlines failed to present the bills of lading this was denied; hence filed petition for certiorari with
as evidence, hence the said prescriptive periods were the CA
not proven - CA ordered inhibition and ruled that preliminary hearing
- CA denied MR, resolving that although the bills of lading on the affirmative defense SHOULDN‘T have been
were not offered in evidence, the litigation obviously conducted because Rule 16, Sec. 6 only applies in
revolves on such bills of lading which are practically the cases where no motion to dismiss has been filed
documents or contracts sued upon, hence, they are o ITC: Laperal already filed MTD
inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be HELD: preliminary hearings on the affirmative defenses
disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of were properly ordered
the parties thereto - Rule 16, Sec. 6 only allows the hearing for affirmative
- Before the SC, petitioners argue that the CA should not defenses if a motion to dismiss has already been filed.
have considered the issue on prescription HOWEVER, the section doesn‘t contemplate a situation
HELD: dismissal proper because the action has where there are several defendants but only one filed a
prescribed motion to dismiss
- prescription as an affirmative defense was seasonably - The MTD filed by petitioner Laperal doesn‘t affect the
raised by Sweetlines in its answer, except that the bills right of the other petitioners to plead their own
of lading embodying the same were not formally offered affirmative defenses and be preliminarily hear thereon
in evidence - ONLY CAVEAT: Ground for non-compliance with the
- non-inclusion of the controverted bills of lading in the condition precedent of resorting to arbitration may no
formal offer of evidence is not a fatal procedural lapse in longer be included in the preliminary hearing because it
this case has already been heard and finally resolved in Laperal‘s
o petitioners are suing upon the contract of MTD
carriage as contained in the bills of lading
o bills of lading can be categorized as actionable
documents which under the Rules must be Associated Bank v. Spouses Montano, Sr., G.R. No.
properly pleaded either as causes of action or 166383, October 16, 2009
defenses, and the genuineness and due - Spouses Justiniano and Ligaya Montano owned 3
execution of which are deemed admitted parcels of land
unless specifically denied under oath by the - When Marcos declared martial law, Justiniano went on
adverse party. The rules on actionable self-exile to the US to avoid harassments and threats
documents cover and apply to both a cause of - While in the US, the Montanos transferred the said
action or defense based on said documents properties to Tres Cruces Agro-Industrial Corporation
- Petitioners‘ failure to specifically deny the existence, (TCAIC) in exchange for shares of stock, allowing the
much less the genuineness and due execution, of the Montanos to control 98% of the stockholdings
instruments in question amounts to an admission - TCAIC sold the properties to International Country Club,
Inc. (ICCI)
Note: Philamgen‘s answer was a negative pregnant. - ICCI mortgaged the parcels of land to Associated Bank.
NEGATIVE PREGNANT = denial pregnant with admission The loan matured but remained unpaid, prompting
Associated Bank to foreclose the mortgage. The
properties were put on public auction and were sold for
Spouses Abrajano v. Heirs of Salas, Jr., G.R. No. 158895, P5.7M to Associated Bank
February 16, 2006 - After the ouster of Marcos, the Montanos returned to the
- Augusto Salas, a registered owner of a large parcel of country. After discovering the transfer of the properties,
land, entered into an owner-contractor agreement with the Montanos immediately took physical possession of
petitioner Laperal Realty Development the same and began cultivating the land.They filed an
action for reconveyance of title praying that the transfer - Caluntad argued: Sun Bros just made Caluntad sign a
of the properties be declared null and void deed of sale for P3,440.00 → he was made to enter a
- Associated Bank filed an Answer setting forth affirmative usurious transaction under the guise of a contract of
defenses. Basically argued that the complaint did not sale
state a cause of action because the allegation of threat - The allegation of usury made by Caluntad in his answer
and intimidation was not averred with particularity; and was not denied under oath by Sun Bros and so the court
even if the complaint stated a cause of action, the same a quo considered said allegation as admitted under
had already prescribed Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
- 8 years after Associated Bank filed its answer and while - the court a quo considered the transaction null and void
the case was still on its pretrial stage, the bank filed a and on that basis dismissed the complaint
Motion for Preliminary Hearing on the Affirmative HELD: Decision appealed from reversed. the failure of
Defenses and/or MTD plaintiff to specifically deny under oath the allegation of
- RTC dismissed complaint usury in his answer does not constitute an implied
- CA reversed, reinstated the case for further proceedings admission of usury
- Before the SC, Associated Bank argued that the failure - The mere failure to deny under oath the allegation that
of the Montanos to file a comment on or an the transaction was actually a usurious loan does not
objection to the motion to dismiss despite amount to an admission. Such transaction must still be
opportunity to do so should be construed as a proven before usury can be invoked
waiver in contesting the allegations and affirmative - If it is alleged in the complaint that the defendant,
defenses raised by Associated Bank whether an individual or a corporation, has entered into
HELD: Petition denied for lack of merit a contract of loan with the plaintiff, there is no need for a
- It is inconsequential that Associated Bank had already sworn answer. But if it be added that on this loan the
filed an answer to the complaint prior to its filing of a defendant has collected usurious interest, then there is
MTD. The option of whether to set the case for need of an oath. In that case, if no oath is taken to the
preliminary hearing after the filing of an answer which answer, the only thing admitted is the allegation that the
raises affirmative defenses, or to file a motion to dismiss interest charged is usurious, not that the contract
raising any of the grounds set forth in Section 1, Rule 16 entered into is a loan, which is something that must be
of the Rules are procedural options which are not proved independently of the admission
mutually exclusive of each other
- Moreover, as petitioner correctly pointed out, Toribio v. Bidin, G.R. No. L-57821, 17 January 1985
respondents failed to oppose the motion to dismiss - upon the death of Engracio Francisco and Juliana
despite having been given the opportunity to do so by Esteban, their land was subdivided among their 10 heirs
the RTC. Therefore, any right to contest the same was - the share of Dionisio Toribio as sold to Juan Camacho
already waived by them. - the other heirs (herein petitioners) filed a complaint
On whether the complaint for reconveyance should be against Camacho and Dalmacio Ramos for recovery of
dismissed: hereditary rights, alleging that their shares had never
- the complaint clearly states a cause of action and been sold nor in any wise transferred or disposed to
raises issues of fact that can be properly settled only others
after a full-blown trial. On this ground, petitioner‘s motion - respondents answered that petitioners actually sold their
to dismiss must, perforce, be denied shares to Dionisio who, in turn, sold the shares to
- the Court does not agree that the action has already respondents, as evidenced by Deeds of Sale and TCTs
prescribed. - While testifying during trial, Eusebia (one of petitioners)
- An action for annulment shall be brought within four was asked whether she executed any sale of her share
years. This period shall begin: In case of intimidation, in the parcel of land in litigation
violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of o Counsel for respondents objected, raising the
the consent ceases. proper mode of contesting genuineness of an
● In the circumstances prevailing in this case, the actionable document pursuant to Sec. 7 and 8,
threat or intimidation upon respondents is Rule 8 (should be specific denial under oath)
deemed to have ceased only upon the ouster of o Basically respondents are emphasizing that the
Marcos. The four-year prescriptive period must, Deed of Sale being assailed by Eusebia in her
therefore, be reckoned from the said date. Thus, testimony is an actionable document
when respondents filed their complaint for o TC sustained the objection
reconveyance on September 15, 1989, the period - Petitioners filed MR arguing that the deeds of sale and
provided for by law had not yet prescribed. TCTs are merely evidentiary in nature and NOT a cause
of action or defense of which due execution and
genuineness had to be proven (hence, not actionable
Sun Bros. v. Caluntad, G.R. No. L-21440, 30 April 1966 documents)
- Conditional sale of a GE television between Caluntad o Hence, simple specific denial without oath
and Sun Bros under the condition that the price would should have been sufficient
be P3,440.00, the down payment P884.00, and it would - CFI declared that deeds of sale and TCTs are
be paid in monthly installments of P142.00 each for 18 actionable documents and not merely evidentiary in
months nature
- Caluntad only paid the amount of P1,442.00, leaving a HELD: the deeds of sale and TCTs are actionable
balance of P1,988.00 documents BUT there was no need to specifically deny
- Sun Bros filed an action praying that if said balance is their genuineness and due execution because plaintiffs
not paid, the property be returned to plaintiff already stated in the complaint that these were not
executed
- Jurisprudence has centered mainly on a discussion of
actionable documents as basis of a plaintiff‘s cause of a different period is fixed by the court. The bill of particulars
action but little has been said of them being a foundation or a more definite statement ordered by the court may be
for defense. However, Rule covers both an action or a filed either in a separate or in an amended pleading, serving
defense based on documents a copy thereof on the adverse party. (n)
o Usual situation: Defendant would present a Section 4. Effect of non-compliance. — If the order is not
document, to which both are parties and which obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance therewith, the
states that the plaintiff relinquishes his rights to court may order the striking out of the pleading or the portions
the defendant, as his defense thereof to which the order was directed or make such other
o ITC: respondent presented a document to order as it deems just. (1[c]a)
which petitioner was a party and respondent Section 5. Stay of period to file responsive pleading. — After
was not (the deed of sale between Dionisio and service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite pleading,
Eusebia) or after notice of denial of his motion, the moving party may
- Test as to essentiality of any allegation: Can it be file his responsive pleading within the period to which he was
made the subject of a material issue? In other words, if it entitled at the time of filing his motion, which shall not be less
be denied, will the failure to prove it decide the case in than five (5) days in any event. (1[b]a)
whole or in part? IF NOT: Fact is NOT essential Section 6. Bill a part of pleading. — A bill of particulars
o Fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out becomes part of the pleading for which it is intended. (1[a]a)
without leaving the statement of the cause of
action or defense insufficient Tantuico v. Republic, supra
- ITC, although the documents are actionable documents,
the court grants the petition out of equitable 4. Default
considerations
- Reason for rule on contesting actionable documents → section 3, Rule 9
to relieve a party of the trouble and expense of proving Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending party
in the first instance an alleged fact, the existence or fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court
nonexistence of which is necessarily within the shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the
knowledge of the adverse party, and of the necessity (to defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the
his opponent‘s case) of establishing which such adverse defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed
party is notified by his opponent‘s pleading to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
o to enable the adverse party to know pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
beforehand whether he will have to meet the requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of
issue of genuineness or due execution of the evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. (1a, R18)
document during trial (a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be
o While mandatory, the rule is a discovery entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take
procedure and must be reasonably construed part in the trial. (2a, R18)
to attain its purpose, and in a way as not to (b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared in default
effect a denial of substantial justice may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment file
o The interpretation should be one which assist a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon
the parties in obtaining a speedy, inexpensive, proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud,
and most important, a just determination of the accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a
disputed issues meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may
- ITC: the private respondents will still have to introduce be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may
evidence to establish that the deeds of sale are genuine impose in the interest of justice. (3a, R18)
and that they were truly executed by the parties with (c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a
authority to dispose of the disputed property claim states a common cause of action against several
defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail
to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the
3. Bill of particulars answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence
presented. (4a, R18).
Rule 12 (d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment rendered
Section 1. When applied for; purpose. — Before responding against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be
to a pleading, a party may move for a definite statement or for different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated
a bill of particulars of any matter which is not averted with damages. (5a, R18).
sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him properly (e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the defending party in an
to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply, action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for
the motion must be filed within ten (10) days from service legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the
thereof. Such motion shall point out the defects complained prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion
of, the paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to
details desired. (1a) intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence
Section 2. Action by the court. — Upon the filing of the submitted is not fabricated. (6a, R18)
motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring it to the
attention of the court which may either deny or grant it section 3, Rule 67 (Expropriation)
outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be heard. (n) Section 3. Defenses and objections. — If a defendant has no
Section 3. Compliance with order. — If the motion is granted, objection or defense to the action or the taking of his
either in whole or in part, the compliance therewith must be property, he may file and serve a notice of appearance and a
effected within ten (10) days from notice of the order, unless manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or
to answer and there was a judgment by default and writ
identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, of execution)
within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be
entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same. If a Filinvest v. CA, 182 S 664 (1990)
defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations - Filinvest Land Incorporated filed with the RTC Makati, a
in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of complaint against Philippine Underwriters Finance
his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated Corporation, for Recovery of Possession of a parcel of
in the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or land
identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, o Summons, together with a copy of the
state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and complaint, was served upon the defendant.
adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his - A motion was filed by defendant, through Atty. Emerita
property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party T. Salva, requesting for an extension of 20 days on the
complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any ground that counsel had to confer with the officers of the
subsequent pleading. A defendant waives all defenses and corporation (GRANTED)
objections not so alleged but the court, in the interest of - A second motion for extension of 15 days to file an
justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made answer was filed by the defendant, through Atty. Pastor
not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However, M. Reyes, Jr., on the ground that the transactions
at the trial of the issue of just compensation whether or not a involved voluminous records and in order to prepare an
defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may intelligent answer, undersigned counsel had to read all
present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be the records in his possession in addition to the heavy
paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution of pressure of work in other equally important cases.
the award. (n) (ALSO GRANTED)
- A third motion for extension to file an answer for 10 days
Party in default  precluded from presenting evidence was filed by defendant, through Atty. Angel D. Bautista,
ONLY (defendant may still oppose motions) Jr., on the ground that the lawyer assigned to handle
this case was quite busy preparing for his wedding, as
A party cannot be held in default in the ff. cases: well as daily court appearances (ALSO GRANTED)
1. Annulment of marriage - An urgent request for another extension of 20 days was
2. Declaration of nullity of marriage also filed through Atty. Magno F. Salva, on the ground
3. Legal separation that the issues to be brought up for judicial scrutiny in
4. Expropriation  just compensation the answer and in the third party complaint of defendant
5. RSC are very controversial, complicated and difficult requiring
6. RSP careful analysis, study and research (ALSO GRANTED)
- For the fifth time, defendant filed another urgent motion
Rules on default = benefit of defendant  when the for extension of time to file its answer, asking for another
defendant reads the complaint, he would rather accept the 20 days, on the following grounds: the heavy pressure
prayer instead of presenting evidence as long as he would of work in pending cases before the SEC; the
only be adjudged to pay what was prayed for preparation of other pleadings, motions, memoranda
and papers in other cases; the preparation and
Order of default Judgment by default attendance in the trial of cases before the RTCs, all of
- Definition: Order for the - Remedy: which would prevent counsel for defendant from being
party to be declared in 1. Motion for New Trial able to file their answer (GRANTED BUT ONLY FOR
default  present new FIVE DAYS UPON RECEIPT OF ORDER)
- Remedy: Motion to Set evidence (by - Finally, another verified urgent motion, asking for a final
Aside Order of Default defendant) and last extension of 10 days was filed by defendant's
 before judgment 2. Appeal  same counsel on the ground that Atty. Emerito Salva, who
- Grounds to set aside: evidence was the one personally studying and preparing the
1. Fraud (presented by answer, was stricken ill and collapsed in his house due
2. Accident plaintiff), but the to lobar pneumonia, and was bedridden for 10 days.
3. Excusable conclusions of law Besides, even while still recuperating, he had to file a
negligence by the court are not lengthy motion for reconsideration in another case
4. Meritorious defense correct (FINALLY DENIED)
3. Petition for Relief - The day after, plaintiff, through counsel, filed a motion to
from Judgment declare defendant in default and be allowed to adduce
under Rule 38 (After evidence ex-parte. On the same date, the lower court
judgment has issued an order declaring the defendant in default, and
become final and allowing the plaintiff to adduce evidence ex-parte. A
executory) if hearing ex-parte was conducted and terminated that
granted, 1 or 2 same day.
(Usually if not able - The very next day, a two-page decision was rendered
to file MR, MNT or by the lower court in favor of plaintiff.
appeal within - A verified Answer with Counterclaim consisting of 15
reglementary pages, excluding its annexes, was filed by the
period) defendant on January 12, 1984, at 8:00 o'clock in the
 Certiorari only proper if not in default but held in default morning, which denied plaintiff‘s claims
(e.g. if not properly served with summons and not able - the lower court denied defendant's motion/ petition
HELD:
- Respondent's counsel, through 4 of its lawyers filed no
less than 6 motions for extension of time asking for a Garcia v. CA, 209 S 732 (1992)
total of 98 days to answer the complaint. - Petitioner Garcia filed an action for damages against
- The lower court granted the 5 motions and denied the respondent spouses Uy after the latter padlocked
sixth motion before it declared Philfinance in default. All commercial stalls being rented by Garcia at Virra Mall
in all, the lower court gave the private respondent 88 Shopping Center, Greenhills
days to answer the complaint, so it can not be stated - Uys failed to file answer within reglementary period
that the trial court has in any way unduly favored the - Garcia moved to declare Uys in default and for reception
petitioner neither can it be considered that private of his evidence ex parte  granted by RTC (a copy of
respondent has been denied due process. the order was received by Uys)
- Uy filed an appearance with motion for extension of time
Cavili v. Florendo, G.R. No. 73039, 9 October 1987 to file answer  denied by RTC for having been filed out
- private respondents filed for Partition, Accounting, and of time
Damages with CFI Negros Oriental against the - RTC issued judgment by default, in favor of Garcia
petitioners (Perfecta, Quirino and Primitivo Cavili) - Garcia filed ex parte motion for execution pending
- summons was issued to the three petitioners appeal  granted by RTC, which issues the writ
- server went back to the court stating in the return that - Uy filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA,
Quirino and Primitivo Cavili cannot be contacted challenging validity of writ of execution which was
- The defendants failed to file their answer within the granted without proper notice to them and without
requested period and upon motion of the plaintiffs, the hearing
defendants were declared in default - CA granted Uy‘s petition because after the judgment by
- a judgment by default was promulgated default was rendered, Uy automatically regained their
- Atty. Almarillo filed a motion for new trial in behalf of the standing and were entitled to notice of proceedings
defendants on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subsequent to the final judgment of default
persons of Primitivo and Quirino Cavili who had not HELD: a defendant declared in default entitled to notice of
been legally served with summons final judgment or order rendered against him
o Also alleged a meritorious defense that the - a defaulted defendant is entitled to notice of final orders
properties sought to be partitioned have or judgments. Being in default doesn‘t imply a waiver of
already been the subject of a written partition rights.
agreement o What is waived: Right to be heard and present
- CFI granted motion for new trial evidence during trial while the default prevails
- In the new trial, defendants, (now petitioners), presented - Requirement on notice to the adverse party is
Perfecta Cavili dela Cruz as their first witness MANDATORY
- respondents, through counsel, moved for disqualification
of Perfecta as a witness on the ground that having been Talsan v Baliwag, G.R. No. 126258, 8 July 1999
declared in default, Perfecta has lost her standing in - a passenger bus owned by respondent Baliwag Transit,
court and she cannot be allowed to participate in all Inc. and driven by respondent Angeles Ramos, hit and
proceedings therein, even as a witness bumped a Kia Ceres Van owned by petitioner Francisco
- CFI sustained the respondents' contention and P. San Diego and driven by Alfredo Santiago. As a
disqualified her from testifying result of the mishap, petitioners instituted a civil
HELD: Perfecta may testify as a witness despite being complaint for damages against herein private
declared in default respondents before RTC Makati
- There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties - Summons and copy of the complaint were served upon
declared in default from taking the witness stand for private respondent‘s cashier, Miss Baby Cansino at
nondisqualified parties respondent‘s bus station, who received the court
- Loss of standing in court is the consequence of an order process but refused to sign the original summons
of default - TC upon motion of petitioners, declared private
o a party declared in default is considered out of respondents in default. Pursuant to the order of default,
court and cannot appear therein, adduce petitioners presented their evidence ex-parte
evidence, and be heard and for that reason he - Respondents received a copy of the default order and
is not entitled to notice filed MR alleging that the trial court did not acquire
o "loss of standing" must be understood to mean jurisdiction over its person by reason of improper service
only the forfeiture of one's rights as a party of summons. Respondents argued that the person who
litigant, contestant or legal adversary received the summons is only a cash receiving clerk
o A party in default loses his right to present his - Without ruling on the respondents motion, the trial court
defense, control the proceedings, and examine rendered a decision ordering defendants to jointly and
or cross-examine witnesses severally pay petitioners
o no right to expect that his pleadings would be - respondents appealed the decision to the CA, arguing
acted upon by the court nor may he object to or that they could not be held in default because the
refute evidence or motions filed against him receipt of summons by Ms. Baby Cansino, a mere cash
- There is nothing in the rule, however, which receiving clerk in one of the respondents station does
contemplates a disqualification to be a witness or a not bind the petitioner
deponent in a case - CA: annulled and set aside the order of default and the
- A party in default may thus be cited as a witness by his judgment by default and remanded the case to the trial
codefendants who have the standing and the right to court for appropriate proceedings
present evidence which the former may provide HELD: petition denied, CA affirmed; remand to TC
- The service of summons upon Angeles Ramos, the bus - MTCC issued an order declaring him in default. Tan was
driver, was improper then allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
o the sheriff hastily effected the service of - MTC ruled in favor of Tan, ordering Otero to pay his
summons upon respondent Ramos by obligation
substituted service without first attempting to - RTC affirmed MTC decision
personally serve the same upon him. This is in - CA denied Otero‘s petition for review, holding that any
violation of the rule which provides that service defense which Otero may have against Tan‘s claim is
of summons upon the defendant shall be by already deemed waived due to Otero‘s failure to file his
personal service first and only when the answer
defendant cannot be promptly served in person HELD: Petition Denied. Otero, having been declared in
will substituted service be availed of default by the MTCC, may, in the appellate proceedings,
o the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over still raise the failure of Tan to authenticate the
the person of Ramos and for that reason it has statements of account which he adduced in evidence.
no right or power to render judgment against But Tan was able to prove the material allegations of his
him. The judgment against him is nugatory and complaint.
without effect - the fact that a defendant has lost his standing in court
- With regard to the service of summons upon Baliwag for having been declared in default does not mean that
Transit through its cashier, Ms. Baby Cansino, the Court he is left sans any recourse whatsoever
finds such service of summons proper - a defending party declared in default retains the right to
o Under Section 13 of Rule 14 of the Revised appeal from the judgment by default. However, the
Rules of Court, if the defendant is a corporation grounds that may be raised in such an appeal are
organized under the laws of the Philippines, restricted to any of the following:
such as private respondent Baliwag, service of o first, the failure of the plaintiff to prove the
summons may be made on the president, material allegations of the complaint;
manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of o second, the decision is contrary to law;
its directors (NOTE: NO LONGER GOOD o third, the amount of judgment is excessive or
LAW) different in kind from that prayed for
- On the second issue, the appeal taken by the private - the appellate tribunal should only consider the pieces of
respondents was proper. It is well-settled that, a defendant evidence that were presented by the plaintiff during the
who has been declared in default has the following ex parte presentation of his evidence
remedies: o A defendant who has been declared in default
(a) he may, at any time after discovery of the default is precluded from raising any other ground in
but before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set his appeal from the judgment by default since,
aside the order of default on the ground that his otherwise, he would then be allowed to adduce
failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake evidence in his defense, which right he had lost
or excusable neglect, and that he has a meritorious after he was declared in default
defense;
b) if judgment has already been rendered when he 5. Counter-claims
discovered the default, but before the same has
section 2, 6-7, 9, Rule 6
become final and executory, he may file a motion for
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. — The claims of a party are
new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;
c) If he discovered the default after the judgment asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross- claim, third
has become final and executory, he may file a (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
d) he may also appeal from the judgment rendered pleading asserting a claim against him. An answer may be
against him as contrary to the evidence or to the responded to by a reply. (n)
Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim
law, even if no petition to set aside the order of
default has been presented by him. which a defending party may have against an opposing party.
- It must be recalled that after private respondents received a (6a)
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory
copy of the resolution declaring them in default, they
seasonably filed MR. However, pending resolution, the court counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular
rendered its decision. Given this factual milieu, private courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
respondents can appeal the judgment pursuant to Section transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of
2(3), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. A default judgment is an the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication on the merits and is thus appealable adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be
within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and
Ortero v. Tan, GR. No. 200134, 15 August 2012 the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
- Roger Tan filed complaint for sum of money and Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered
damages with the Cagayan de Oro MTC alleging that on compulsory regardless of the amount. (n)
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-crossclaims.
several occasions, Otero purchased on credit petroleum
products from him. Despite several verbal demands, — A counter-claim may be asserted against an original
Otero failed to settle his obligation. counter-claimant.
- Despite receipt of the summons (by his wife), Otero A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-
failed to file his answer with the MTC claimant. (n)
- Tan filed motion to declare Otero in default for his failure
section 2, Rule 9
to file his answer
Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject
up barred. — A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, matter of the plaintiff‘s claim; (c) does not require for its
not set up shall be barred. (4a) adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is not the
subject of another
sections 4, 8- 10, Rule 11 pending action, the claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in
Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A the Response; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from
counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within ten (10) suit on the counterclaim. The defendant may also elect to file
days from service. (4) a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A the same transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount
compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending and nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and
party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.
therein. (8a, R6)
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. section 3(A), 5, RSP
— A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or Sec. 3. Pleadings. —
was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with A. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to be
the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim filed are the complaints, compulsory counterclaims and
or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment. cross-claims' pleaded in the answer, and the answers
(9, R6) thereto.
Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. — When a B. Verifications. — All pleadings shall be verified.
pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross- claim Sec. 5. Answer. — Within ten (10) days from service of
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint
when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. Affirmative and
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. negative defenses not pleaded therein shall be deemed
(3, R9) waived, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in
Section 6, Rule 16 the answer shall be considered barred. The answer to
Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — If no counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within
motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for ten (10) days from service of the answer in which they are
dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an pleaded.
affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the
court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a OCA Circular 096-09
motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a) A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC suspending payment of filing fees for
compulsory counterclaims remains in effect.
The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be
without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate
action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer. (n) Requisites of a compulsory counterclaim:
1. cognizable by the regular courts of justice
2. arises out of or is connected with the transaction or
Section 2, Rule 17 occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as opposing party's claim
provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be 3. does not require for its adjudication the presence of third
dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
court and upon such terms and conditions as the court o when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over an
deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a indispensable party-defendant (e.g. A, B, and C are
defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs parties to a contract. A filed an action for damages
motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the on the ground of breach of contract against B. C is
complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the abroad. B filed counterclaim: rescission. This is not
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a a compulsory counterclaim because C must be a
separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of party for an action for rescission to prosper.
the motion he manifests his preference to have his 4. must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the
counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise amount and the nature thereof
specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall o except that in an original action before the Regional
be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered
compromised without the approval of the court. (2a) compulsory regardless of the amount

Art. 1283, NCC Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. L-26768 30 October 1970
Article 1283. If one of the parties to a suit over an obligation - Spouses Segundo and Antonina Goyala sold to Gojo
has a claim for damages against the other, the former may through a pacto de retro sale an agricultural land with a
set it off by proving his right to said damages and the amount redemption period of 1 year
thereof. (n) - 10 years after, Goyala still failed to repurchase. Gojo
filed petition for consolidation of ownership of the land
section 13, RSC - Goyala opposed and by way of counterclaim, raised that
SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule.—If the transaction was actually an equitable mortgage
at the time the action is commenced, the defendant - Counsel of Segundo Goyala filed Manifestation
possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the informing the TC that Antonina was already dead
coverage of this Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b)
- CFI: Ordered Segundo Goyala to submit an amended - CA: nullified writ and dismissed the complaint
complaint substituting the successors-in-interest of - SC: affirmed dismissal
Antonina - After the Financial Building case (1988) was terminated
- Gojo filed MTD for Goyala‘s failure to submit amended with finality, Forbes Park filed with RTC Makati a
complaint Complaint for Damages against Financial Building
- CFI: Dismissed the case, wihtout prejudice arising from the violation of its rules and regulations
- Gojo then filed a Motion to Declare Petitioner in default - RTC: rendered decision in favor of Forbes Park (ordered
in respect of the Respondent‘s counterclaim contained demolition of building within 3 months when judgment
in his answer to the dismissed complaint becomes final and executory, ordered payment of
- CFI: Granted, declared Goyala in default damages)
- CFI then issued a favorable judgment in Gojo‘s - CA: affirmed RTC decision
counterclaim HELD: CA reversed
- Before the SC, Goyala argued that the counterclaim in - instant case is barred due to Forbes Park‘s failure to
this case falls within the category of ―compulsory set it up as a counterclaim in the previous civil case
counterclaim‖ wc doesn‘t call for an independent answer (the prior injunction suit initiated by Financial Bldg.
as the complaint already denies its material allegations. against Forbes Park)
Also, the dismissal of the complaint in this case without - a compulsory counterclaim cannot be the subject of a
prejudice carried with it the dismissal of the counterclaim separate action but it should instead be asserted in the
HELD: Goyala should not have been declared in default with same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence,
respect to Gojo‘s counterclaim; CFI shouldn‘t have dismissed which gave rise to it. To determine whether a
the complaint counterclaim is compulsory or not, we have devised the
- Rule: Plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a following tests:
compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in default, (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim
principally because the issues raised in the and the counterclaim largely the same?
counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on
the allegations of the complaint. defendant‘s claim absent the compulsory
- ITC: counterclaim was a compulsory one inasmuch as it counterclaim rule?
arises out of or is necessarily connected with transaction (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or
or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint refute plaintiff‘s claim as well as the defendant‘s
o the counterclaim was clearly inconsistent with counterclaim? and
and directly controverted the whole theory and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim
basic allegations of the complaint and the counterclaim?
- Hence, the original complaint stood as the answer to the Affirmative answers to the above queries indicate the
counterclaim existence of a compulsory counter-claim
- Not proper to dismiss a complaint when a compulsory - A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding
counterclaim has been pleaded by defendant in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support
o the right of the plaintiff to move for the therefrom. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of
dismissal of an action after the defendant has a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. Hence,
filed his answer is qualified by the clause where there is no claim against the counterclaimant, the
providing that: ―If a counterclaim has been counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed, more so
pleaded by a defendant prior to the service where the complaint is dismissed at the instance of the
upon him of the plaintiffs motion to dismiss, the counterclaimant
action shall not be dismissed against the - if the dismissal of the main action results in the
defendant‘s objection unless the dismissal of the counterclaim already filed, it stands to
counterclaim can remain pending for reason that the filing of a motion to dismiss the
independent adjudication by the court.‖ complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory
o Purpose: avoid multiplicity of suits over the counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately
same suits and possibility of conflict and results in the dismissal of the counterclaim
inconsistency and resolution - the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a
compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. In
Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park Association, G.R. the event that a defending party has a ground for
No. 133119, 17August 2000 dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same
- USSR owns a lot in Forbes Park; engaged the services time, he must choose only one remedy. If he decides to
of Financial Building for the construction of a multi-level file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his compulsory
office and staff apartment building counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his compulsory
- Forbes Park reminded the USSR of existing regulations counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for dismissal
authorizing only the construction of a single-family as an affirmative defense in his answer. The latter
residential building in each lot within the village. It option is obviously more favorable to the defendant
enjoined further construction work although such fact was lost on Forbes Park
- Financial Building filed in RTC Makati a Complaint for - ITC: the ground for dismissal invoked by Forbes Park in
Injunction and Damages with a prayer for Preliminary the prior civil case was lack of cause of action. There
Injunction against Forbes Park. was no need to plead such ground in a motion to
- Forbes Park filed MTD on the ground that Financial dismiss or in the answer since the same was not
Building had no cause of action because it was not a deemed waived if it was not pleaded. Nonetheless,
real party-in-interest Forbes Park still filed a motion to dismiss and thus
- RTC: issued a writ of preliminary injunction against exercised bad judgment in its choice of
Forbes Park remedies. Thus, it has no one to blame but itself for the
consequent loss of its counterclaim as a result of such  P10,000.00 in concept of exemplary
choice damages.
 In addition, defendant has been
Notes: compelled to retain the services of
- Filing MTD bars setting up the same grounds as a undersigned counsel to resist
counterclaim (Rule 9, Sec. 2) plaintiffs‘ reckless, malicious and
- Better to be declared in default than answering because frivolous claim and to protect and
a judgment rendered against a party in default shall not enforce his rights for which he
exceed the amount or be different in kind from that obligated himself to pay the further
prayed for nor award unliquidated damages (Rule 9, sum of P3,500.00 as attorney‘s fees
Sec. 3d) - City court dismissed the counterclaim; ordered
o E.g. of unliquidated damages: ―medical respondent to vacate the premises and pay petitioner
expenses as may be proved‖ - CFI set aside judgment, reversed and ordered petitioner
to pay:
o P10,000 - moral damages
Calo v. Ajax, G.R. No. L-22485, 13 March 1968 o P5,000 - exemplary damages
- Consuelo Calo ordered 1,200 ft wire rope from Ajax o P1,000 - atty‘s fees
International but when it was delivered it was short by - Decision became final and executory → Writ of
300 ft. Calo then wrote letters asking either for execution issued
completion of delivery or account adjustment - Petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of nullity of
- A certain Adolofo Benavides filed a complaint with the decision alleging that CFI‘s exercise of appellate
MTC Manila, claiming that he acquired the outstanding jurisdiction was null and void from the beginning
credit account of Calo from Ajax. The transaction because Total relief granted was P16,000 which is
involving the wire rope was among the assigned credits clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the City Court of Cebu
o A judgment by default was entered, and a writ (city court limited to P10,000 damages)
of execution issued against Calo HELD: CFI decision is NULL AND VOID insofar as it awards
o Calo filed petition for certiorari with SC which damages on the RESP‘s counterclaim in excess of P6,000.00
set aside the judgment and remanded the case beyond its appellate jurisdiction
for further proceedings - Rule: court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a
- Calo filed before CFI a complaint against Ajax asking: set-off or counterclaim in excess of its jurisdiction
o Ajax to effect complete delivery OR that she - A counterclaim beyond the court‘s jurisdiction may
relieved from paying the balance of P855 AND only be pleaded by way of defense, the purpose of
o Ajax to indemnify her for P12,000 as attorney‘s which, however, is only to defeat or weaken plaintiff‘s
fees, damages and expenses of litigation claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief
- Ajax filed MTD otg that the subject matter was intimately - Legal effect: Party is considered as having voluntarily
related with the case in the MTC waived so much of his claim as would exceed the
o CFI sustained the motion and dismissed the jurisdiction Therefore, by presenting his claim voluntarily
case before the City Court of Cebu, Bacalan submitted the
HELD: Dismissal by CFI was not proper same to the jurisdiction of the court → became bound to
- Calo‘s claim is not a compulsory counterclaim because P10,000 as the jurisdictional amount
the amount thereof exceeds the jurisdiction of the MTC o deemed to have waived the excess of his claim
beyond P10,000.00
Note: According to Sir Lumba, the case should have been - Rule: counterclaim not presented in the inferior court
dismissed by the SC because of litis pendentia. cannot be entertained in the CFIon appeal

Meliton v CA, 216 S 485 (1992)


Agustin v. Bacalan, G.R. No. L-46000, 18 March 1985 - Nelia Ziga filed a complaint before RTC Naga against
- Bacalan was a lessee of a one-door ground floor space Lydia Meliton for rescission of a contract of lease over a
in a building administered by petitioner Agustin but she parcel of land for Meliton‘s failure as lessee to deposit
failed to pay rentals despite repeated demands the one month rental and to pay the monthly rentals
- Agustin filed Complaint for ejectment with damages in due; her construction of a concrete wall and roof on the
the city court site of a demolished house on the leased premises
- Bacalan filed an answer including counterclaim alleging: without the lessor‘s written consent; and her
o That the present action was ―clearly unfounded unauthorized sublease of the property to a third party
and devoid of merits, as it is tainted with malice - Lydia Meliton filed an answer to the complaint denying
and bad faith on the part of the plaintiff for the the material averments and setting up three
obvious reason that plaintiff pretty well knows counterclaims
that defendant does not have any rentals in o recovery of the value of her kitchenette
arrears‖ constructed on the leased parcel of land and
o That by virtue of the unwarranted and which was demolished by private respondent,
malicious filing of this action by the plaintiff in the amount of P34,000
against the defendant: o value of the improvements introduced in the
 the latter suffered, and will continue to kitchenette to beautify it, in the amount of
suffer, actual and moral damages in P10,000
the amount of no less than o value of the furniture and fixtures purchased for
P50,000.00; use in the kitchenette in the amount of P23,000
o moral damages in the amount of P20,000
o attorney‘s fees of P5,000 and P250 per court - Reparations Commission (REPACOM) contracted the
appearance, with litigation expenses in the sale of a cannery plant, a tin manufacturing plant, and
amount of P1,000 three (3) filing boats to Visayan Packing (VISPAC) to be
- RTC: dismissed the complaint on motion of plaintiff Ziga paid in 10 equal yearly installments
(cause of action already became moot and academic by - REPACOM sent VISPAC a written reminder of the first
the expiration of the lease); counterclaims were also installment
dismissed for nonpayment of docket fees - Instead of paying, VISPAC filed with CFI a special civil
- Meliton filed a complaint against private respondent for action for declaratory relief, alleging that its contract with
recovery of the same amounts involved and alleged in REPACOM was ambiguous as to the precise time when
her counterclaims in the prior case the obligation to pay the first installment would arise
- Ziga filed MTD on the ground that the cause of action - On the other hand, REPACOM filed a complaint for
was barred by prior judgment collection of the first installment
- RTC dismissed motion to dismiss (prior dismissal was - VISPAC moved to dismiss this collection suit on the
not an adjudication on the merits bec the court did not ground of the pendency of the declaratory relief action,
acquire jurisdiction bec of failure to pay the docket fees) arguing that until and unless the latter were resolved, no
- CA: reversed RTC, granted petition cause of action could be deemed to exist in favor of
nd
HELD: Meliton is not barred from filing the 2 case REPACOM for collection of said first installment
- Contrary to the claim of private respondent, it cannot be - On the declaratory relief action:
said that herein petitioners failed to duly interpose their o CFI dismissed, holding that the issues raised
causes of action as counterclaims in the previous action. would be necessarily threshed out in the
Petitioners‘ claims were duly set up as counterclaims in collection suit
the prior case but the same were dismissed by reason o SC affirmed dismissal of the declaratory relief
of nonpayment of docket fees suits, holding that the clarity of the terms of the
- Where a compulsory counterclaim is made the subject contract eliminated all occasion for
of a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea of auter interpretation thereof
action pendant or litis pendentia and/or dismissed on the - On the collection suit:
ground of res judicata, depending on the stage or status o CFI denied MTD, ordering VISPAC to pay
of the other suit REPACOM the sum claimed
- The present action cannot be dismissed either on the o CA affirmed CFI
ground of litis pendentia since there is no other pending o VISPAC appealed to SC (subject of the present
action between the same parties and for the same case)
cause, nor on the ground of res judicata. - Before the SC, VISPAC argued that REPACOM‘s
- The first case was dismissed upon motion of private money claim should have been set up as a compulsory
respondent, plaintiff therein, under Section 2 of Rule 17. counterclaim in the declaratory relief action, and since
Dismissal thereunder is without prejudice, except when REPACOM had not done this, but had instead set it up
otherwise stated in the motion to dismiss or when stated in a separate suit, the claim had thereby become barred
to be with prejudice in the order of the court. HELD: Petition dismissed for lack of merit
- The order of dismissal of the first case was unqualified, - a compulsory counterclaim cannot be made the subject
hence without prejudice and, therefore, does not have of a separate action but should be asserted in the same
the effect of an adjudication on the merits. On a parity of suit involving the same transaction or occurrence giving
rationale, the same rule should apply to a counterclaim rise to it. The omission is not however irremediable or
duly interposed therein and which is likewise dismissed irreversibly fatal
but not on the merits thereof. o when a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
- In the same order of dismissal of the complaint, the through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable
counterclaims of herein petitioners were dismissed by negligence, or when justice requires, he may,
reason of the fact that the RTC had not acquired by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or
jurisdiction over the same for non-payment of the docket crossclaim by amendment before judgment
fees. On that score, the said dismissal was also without - Where the counterclaim is made the subject of a
prejudice, since a dismissal on the ground of lack of separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea of auter
jurisdiction does not constitute res judicata, there having action pendant or litis pendentia, and/or dismissed on
been no consideration and adjudication of the case on the ground of res adjudicata
the merits. o Res adjudicata may be pleaded as a ground for
dismissal on the theory that what is barred by
Note: The Meliton case is the precursor of Rule 17, Sec. 2 of prior judgment are not only the matters
the present Rules of Court. squarely raised and litigated, but all such other
matters as could have been raised but were
Rule 17 Sec. 1 v. Rule 17 Sec. 2 not
Rule 17 Sec. 1: upon dismissal of complaint, counterclaim - there is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for
will not survive because notice of dismissal was filed before declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a
service of answer (counterclaim is set up in the answer) counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or
Rule 17 Sec. 2: upon dismissal of complaint, counterclaim contract subject of the complaint
may survive - Ideally, in the case at bar, the separate action for
collection should have been dismissed and set up as a
compulsory counterclaim in the declaratory relief suits,
Visayan Packing v. Reparations Commission, G.R. No. L- by way of an amended answer. This was not done.
29673, 12 November 1987 - The final verdict was that the declaratory relief suits
instituted by VISPAC were unmeritorious, and, in the
light of all the relevant facts, appear to have been - RTC denied prayer for issuance of writ (MR also denied)
initiated by VISPAC merely to obstruct and delay the - Dakila then filed Ex Parte Motions for Issuance of
payment of the installments clearly due from it, payment Summons
of which was decreed in the collection suit - An Alias Summons, was issued by the RTC to PEIA. But
- Under the circumstances, and taking account of the not the said Alias Summons was served and received by
inconsiderable length of time that the case at bar has Perkinelmer Asia, a Singaporean based sole
been pending, it would be to do violence to substantial proprietorship, owned by the petitioner and, allegedly, a
justice to pronounce the proceedings fatally defective for separate and distinct entity from PEIA.
breach of the rule on compulsory counterclaims - PEIP filed MTD on the ground that it states no cause of
action. Perkinelmer Asia, on the other hand, through its
counsel, sent letters, to Dakila and to the RTC,
Francisco Motors v. CA, 309 S 72 (1999) respectively, to inform them of the wrongful service of
- Francisco Motors filed a complaint for collection of sum summons upon Perkinelmer Asia
of money - Dakila filed an Ex Parte Motion to Admit Amended
o P3,412.06, representing the balance of the Complaint, together with the Amended Complaint
jeep body purchased by the Manuels claiming that PEIA had become a sole proprietorship
o P20,454.80 for the unpaid balance of the cost owned by the petitioner, and subsequently changed its
of repair of the vehicle name to Perkinelmer Asia. Being a sole proprietorship of
o P6,000 for cost of suit and attys fees the petitioner, a change in PEIA‘s name and juridical
- Manuels filed an answer with counterclaim for: status did not detract from the fact that all its due and
o P50,000 for unpaid legal services of Gregorio outstanding obligations to third parties were assumed by
Manuel who used to be the Assistant Legal the petitioner
Officer of PET and he represented members of - Amended complaint was accepted by RTC. It also
the Francisco family (who are incorporators, deputized Dakila‘s General Manager to serve summons
directors and members of Francisco motors) on petitioner in Singapore. RTC thus issued summons
- Francisco Motors failed to answer the counterclaim; to petitioner.
hence, the RTC declared Francisco Motors in default - Meanwhile, RTC denied PEIP‘s MTD, compelling the
- RTC ordered Manuel to pay Francisco Motors‘ claim for latter to file its Answer to the Amended Complaint
money but also allowed Manuel‘s counterclaim - PEIP filed with RTC a Special Appearance (Answer ad
- On appeal to the CA, Francisco Motors argued that: cautelam with compulsory counterclaim) and MTD
o RTC didn‘t acquire jurisdiction over it because respondent‘s Amended Complaint based on the
no summons was validly served together with following grounds:
the copy of the answer containing the (1) the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
permissive counterclaim ofthe petitioner;
o Not a RPI in the permissive counterclaim, but it (2) the respondent failed to state a cause of action
is the individual members of the Francisco against the petitioner because it is not the real party-in-
family interest;
- CA affirmed RTC (3) even assuming arguendo that the respondent
HELD: Petitioner was properly held in default but the correctly filed the case against the petitioner, the
permissive counterclaim should not be granted (without Distribution Agreement which was the basis of its claim
prejudice to filing the proper suit against the concerned grants PEIA the right to terminate the contract at any
members of the Francisco family in their personal capacity) time; and
- Nothing in the ROC says that summons should first be (4) the venue was improperly laid
served on the defendant before an answer to - RTC denied MTD; affirmed by CA
counterclaim must be made HELD: counterclaim should not be dismissed
- Purpose of summons: enable the court to acquire - The action for collection of sum of money and damages
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant from breach of Distribution Agreement is an action in
o In the case of counterclaims → the defendant personam; the Court cannot acquire jurisdiction by
in the counterclaim, being the plaintiff in the extraterritorial service of summons
original complaint, has already submitted to the o Petitioner seeks to recover damages and
jurisdiction of the court attorney‘s fees as a consequence of the
- But the piercing of the corporate veil in this case was not unfounded suit filed by Dakila against it. Thus,
proper petitioner‘s compulsory counterclaim is only
o Francisco Motors‘ corporate assets could not consistent with its position that the respondent
be used to answer for the liabilities of its wrongfully filed a case against it and the RTC
individual directors, officers, and incorporators erroneously exercised jurisdiction over its
person.
Singapore v. Dakila Trading, 530 S 170 (2007) - Distinction must be made in the case as to the
- Dakila entered into a Distribution Agreement with jurisdiction of the RTC over respondent‘s complaint and
Perkin-Elmer Instruments Asia Pte Ltd (PEIA). PEIA over petitioner‘s counterclaim—while it may have no
appointed Dakila as the sole distributor of its products in jurisdiction over the former, it may exercise jurisdiction
the Philippines over the latter. The compulsory counterclaim attached to
- PEIA unilaterally terminated the Distribution Agreement, petitioner‘s Answer ad cautelam can be treated as a
prompting Dakila to file before the RTC of Mandaluyong separate action, wherein petitioner is the plaintiff while
City, Branch 212, a Complaint for Collection of Sum of respondent is the defendant
Money and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ - Petitioner could have instituted a separate action for the
of Attachment very same claims but, for the sake of expediency and to
avoid multiplicity of suits, it chose to demand the same. - GSIS filed answer with affirmative defenses and
Jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter and the counterclaim
parties in the counterclaim must thus be determined o Fernando lost right of redemption when he
separately and independently from the jurisdiction of the failed to repurchase the property
same court in the same case over the subject matter o Fernando owed GSIS the rentals that he
and the parties in respondent‘s complaint unlawfully collected from Carmelita which
- Since etitioner‘s counterclaim, which is purely for should have been paid to GSIS
damages and attorney‘s fees by reason of the - RTC ruled in favor of GSIS and dismissed the
unfounded suit filed by the respondent against it falls complaint; also granted GSIS‘ counterclaim and ordered
under the classification of compulsory counterclaim, it Fernando to pay the rentals given by Carmelita
must be pleaded in the same action, otherwise, it is - CA affirmed RTC, but deleted the portion ordering
barred Fernando to pay rentals given by Carmelita
- The Court orders the dismissal of the Complaint filed by - GSIS appealed to the SC regarding the deletion of the
the respondent against the petitioner because the court portion ordering Fernando to pay rentals
a quo failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the o GSIS argues that its counterclaim is in the
latter. nature of a compulsory counterclaim in the
- Ordinarily, if the court does not have jurisdiction to original action filed by Fernando
entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the o Fernando counters that this counterclaim is
same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary merely permissive and failure to pay the
to the principal controversy, must likewise be dismissed prescribed docket fees results into dismissal of
since no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief the claim
under the counterclaim HELD: petition denied. CA affirmed
- HOWEVER, if dismissal of a complaint is due to fault - GSIS‘ counterclaim is permissive because the evidence
of the plaintiff, it will be without prejudice to the needed by Fernando to cause annulment of the award,
right of the defendant to prosecute any pending DOAS, and TCT, is entirely different from the issue in
counterclaims of whatever nature in the same or the counterclaim which is the entitlement of GSIS to
separate action receive CMTC‘s rentals
- While respondent‘s Complaint against petitioner is - The rule in permissive counterclaims is that for the trial
already dismissed, petitioner may have very well court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is
already incurred damages and litigation expenses bound to pay the prescribed docket fees
such as attorney‘s fees since it was forced to - ITC: Since petitioner failed to pay the docket fees, the
engage legal representation in the Philippines to RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its permissive
protect its rights and to assert lack of jurisdiction of the counterclaim. The judgment rendered by the RTC,
courts over its person by virtue of the improper service insofar as it ordered Fernando to pay petitioner the
of summons upon it. Hence, the cause of action of rentals which he collected from CMTC, is considered
petitioner‘s counterclaim is not eliminated by the null and void. Any decision rendered without jurisdiction
mere dismissal of respondent‘s complaint is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time,
even on appeal
Action in personam v. Action quasi in rem
Action in personam: judgment may be executed on all the Note: The Court could have applied the Manchester doctrine
properties of the person in this case. The Manchester doctrine, as amended by the
Action quasi in rem: judgment may only be executed on the Sun Insurance doctrine, states that if there is no intent to
property subject of the action defraud the government of the docket fee due it:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket
GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090, 4 October fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
2010 matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory
- Fernando Caballero obtained a loan from GSIS secured pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
by a mortgage over his lot with a 2-storey the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
residential/commercial building time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
- Defaulted in payment, mortgage foreclosed, Fernando reglementary period.
failed to repurchase within period of redemption 2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third
- GSIS scheduled the subject property for public bidding party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be
- Fernando‘s daughter Jocelyn submitted a bid but considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
Carmelita Mercantile Trading Corporation (CMTC) therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
submitted a higher bid and was awarded the subject within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its
property applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
- Fernando and Jocelyn filed with the RTC a complaint 3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by
against CMTC and GSIS asking for nullification of the the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the
GSIS Resolution awarding the property to CMTC, the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards
DOAS between GSIS and CMTC, and the registration of a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same
the TCT in the name of CMTC. has been left for determination by the court, the additional
o Alleged irregularities in the bidding such as the filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment.
misrepresentation by CMTC that it was wholly
Filipino-owned and the lack of authority of Compulsory counterclaim Permissive counterclaim
Carmelita Ang Hao as representative of CMTC Answer not required (Gojo v. Answer required; otherwise,
Goyala) might be held in default
(Francisco Motors v. CA) HELD: The third-party complaint is an ancillary suit which
Exempted from filing fees Filing fees required to depends on the jurisdiction of the court over the main action.
acquire jurisdiction Since the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the
complaint, it necessarily follows that it likewise had
jurisdiction over the third-party complaint which is but an
7. Third-party complaint incident thereof. This must be so because jurisdiction over
the main case embraces all incidental matters arising
sections 11, Rule 6 therefrom and connected therewith. A contrary rule would
Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint. — A third result in "split jurisdiction" which is not favored, and in
(fourth, etc.) — party complaint is a claim that a defending multiplicity of suits, a situation obnoxious to the orderly
party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a administration of justice.
party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.) — party The third-party complaint is but a continuation of the main
defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any action
other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim. (12a) - 'where a court has jurisdiction of a claim and the parties
in the principal action, it generally has jurisdiction also of
section 14, RSC a suit or proceeding which is a continuation of or
Section 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following incidental and ancillary to the principal action, even
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in the though it might not have jurisdiction of the ancillary
cases covered by this Rule: proceeding if it were an independent and original action
(a) Motion to dismiss the compliant except on the ground of or proceeding. The jurisdiction of the ancillary suit or
lack of jurisdiction; proceeding is referrable to or dependent upon the
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars; jurisdiction of the court over the principal suit or
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgement, proceeding.
or for reopening of trial; - A third-party complaint cannot be likened to a
(d) Petiton for relief from judgement; counterclaim which must be within the jurisdiction of the
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or court trying the main case, because unlike a third-party
any other paper; complaint, a counterclaim 'need not diminish or defeat
(f) Memoranda; the recovery sought by the opposing party, but may
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against claim itself exceeding in amount or different in kind from
any interlocutory order issued by the court; that sought in the opposing party's claim.' (Rule 6, Sec.
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; 6)
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement; - A third-party complaint may likewise be likened to a
(j) Reply; cross claim under Rule 9, section 5. The principle is at
(k) Third-party complaints; and once apparent, namely, that where an action is ancillary
(l) Interventions. to a main action over which a court has jurisdiction, no
independent jurisdiction is needed to enable the court to
section 19, RSP take cognizance of the ancillary action.
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following
pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the
cases covered by this Rule: Samala v. Victor, G.R. No. L-53969, 21 February 1989
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint - Three-way vehicular accident: passenger jeepney,
or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over delivery van, and passenger bus, due to the negligence
the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding of the bus driver.
section; - Main complaint: Passenger sued jeepney owner and
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars; driver.
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, - Third-party complaint: Jeepney owner and driver sued
or for opening of trial; bus owner and driver.
(d) Petition for relief from judgment; - TC held bus owner and driver liable.
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or - Before the SC, bus owner and driver argued:
any other paper; o since plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages
(f) Memoranda; against the defendants on a breach of contract
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against of carriage, they cannot recover from the third-
any interlocutory order issued by the court; party defendants on a cause of action based
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; on quasi-delict
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement; o third party defendants are never parties liable
(j) Reply; with respect to plaintiff s claim although they
(k) Third party complaints; are with respect to the defendants for
(l) Interventions. indemnification, subrogation, contribution or
other reliefs. Consequently, they are not
Republic v Central Surety, 25 S 641 (1968) directly liable to the plaintiffs. Their liability
The Surety executed in favor of the Deportation Board a bond commences only when the defendants are
for the release of Po Kee Nam, a Chinese citizen in a adjudged liable and not when they are
deportation proceeding. Because the Chinese national failed absolved from liability as in the case at bar
to appear in one hearing, the Commissioner of Immigration HELD: bus owner and driver liable
informed the Surety of the forfeiture of the bond. Surety filed  a person not a party to an action may be impleaded by
a third-party complaint against Po Kee Nam and Tony Go. the defendant either:
(a) on an allegation of liability to the latter;
(b) on the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff-, or,
(c) both (a) and (b)
 The situation in (a) is covered by the phrase "for Pascual v Bautista, 33 S 301 (1970)
contribution, indemnity or subrogation;" while (b) and (c) ● In the Civil Case entitled "Wenceslao Pascual vs.
are subsumed under the catch all "or any other relief, in Pilar Bautista, Primitivo Lovina, Nelly Montilla de
respect of his opponent's claim." Lovina and Leon Yambao", Bautista filed a third-
 ITC: the third party defendants are brought into the party complaint against Mariano R. Flores. Having
action as directly liable to the plaintiffs upon the failed to answer the third-party complaint, Flores
allegation that "the primary and immediate cause as was declared in default
shown by the police investigation of said vehicular ● after due trial of the whole case, the court rendered
collision was the recklessness and negligence of the judgment in favor of Pascual and against Bautista. It
third-party defendant Esguerra, driver of the bus. ordered Bautista to pay Pascual.
 it is not indispensable in the premises that the defendant ● Judgment was also rendered in favor of Bautista as
be first adjudged liable to plaintiff before the third-party third-party plaintiff against Flores, as third-party
defendant may be held liable to the plaintiff defendant
o it is the third party defendant, and not the ● all parties except third-party defendant Flores,
defendant, who is directly liable to plaintiff appealed to CA
 the argument of Samala and Esguerra would properly ● CA affirmed TC; SC affirmed CA
pertain to situation (a) above wherein the third party ● Bautista secured the corresponding writ to execute
defendant is being sued for contribution, indemnity or the decision rendered in her favor as third-party
subrogation plaintiff, but the writ returned unsatisfied.
 on Samala and Esguerra‘s claim that plaintiff who sued ● Bautista filed a petition for the examination under
on contractual breach cannot recover on the basis of oath of Flores alleging that the latter had
quasi-delict: fraudulently disposed of his properties, and, the
o as the primary purpose of this rule is to avoid court ordered said judgment debtor to appear before
circuity of action and to dispose of in one it for examination.
litigation, the entire subject matter arising from ● Upon petition of Flores, however, the court set aside
a particular set of fact it is immaterial that the its order for his examination as well as the writ of
third-party plaintiff asserts a cause of action execution on the ground that "more than ten years
against the third party defendant on a theory had already elapsed since the judgment was
different from that asserted by the plaintiff entered, so that no writ of execution of said
against the defendant judgment can now be issued (Sec. 6, Rule 39 ROC)
o a defendant in a contract action may join as ● Bautista filed a petition for relief but the same was
third-party defendants those liable to him in tort denied by the court.
for the plaintiff s claim against him or directly to ● Bautista filed an action in CFI Manila for the revival
the plaintiff of final judgment.
● Flores answered that judgment already prescribed.
● The SC REVIVED judgment.
ISSUE: Which judgment, that of CFI Manila or that of the SC
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, G.R. No. affirming the CA decision could be revived as against
161909, 25 April 2012 appellant
- Inland Trailways bus was bumped by a Philtranco bus Flores?
- Main complaint: Inland bus passenger sued Inland Context:
- Third-party complaint: Inland sued Philtranco ● If CFI, action to revive it is too late --
- RTC and CA held Philtranco liable rendered March 7, 1951
HELD: In an action for breach of contract of carriage ● If SC, action for revival is timely filed. --
commenced by a passenger against his common carrier, the rendered April 18, 1956
plaintiff can recover damages from a third-party defendant ● Action to revive was filed on November 21,
brought into the suit by the common carrier upon a claim 1961
based on tort or quasi-delict. The liability of the third-party HELD: None actually applies
defendant is independent from the liability of the common ● In CFI decision, all parties except third-party
carrier to the passenger defendant Flores, appealed to CA.
● Flores, therefore, was not affected at all neither by
REQUISITES of a THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT the decision rendered by the CA nor by the one
(1) The party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to subsequently rendered by SC.
the action ● The decision of the CFI Manila was, as far as Flores
(2) The claim against the third-party defendant must was concerned, a judgment by default which, under
belong to the original defendant the law then in force, was not appealable and was
(3) The claim of the original defendant against the third- deemed to be immediately executory. Therefore,
party defendant must be based upon the plaintiff‘s claim even if Flores had attempted to appeal therefrom,
against the original defendant his appeal would have been out of order.
(4) The defendant is attempting to transfer to the third- ● It has been argued that, as the judgment by default
party defendant the liability asserted against him by against Flores was in favor of Bautista upon her
the original plaintiff [PHILTRANCO SERVICES third-party complaint, the same may not be
ENTERPRISES INC V PARAS] considered final or enforceable until the final
th
There could also be a 4 /etc-party complaint with the same determination of the main case— which took place
purpose and function only upon the finality the SC decision—and that, this
being so, the action for revival in question was filed the time for payment, which would be much
on time. higher
● This argument might apply if the cause of action o The Cochingyans filed an ex-parte motion
alleged in Bautista's third 'party complaint against asking permission to file a third party complaint
Flores was dependent upon the success or failure of which was forthwith granted.
the claim subject matter of the main action instituted o On the same day, another motion was filed
by Pascual against Bautista. Such, however, is not asking for immediate admission of the third
the case. party complaint, which likewise, was forthwith
● Bautista's cause of action as third party plaintiff granted.
against third party defendant Flores was based on a o The third-party complaint included in the
stipulation in their agreement that Bautista will be prayer, among other reliefs, the following:
entitled to recover from Flores damages in the event  Issuance of writ of preliminary
that for any reason whatever, Lovina should refuse mandatory injunction ex-parte, without
to execute a deed of sale of the fishpond notice to the other parties, ordering
● The cause of action or claim of Bautista, as third the third-party defendants
party plaintiff, against Flores, as third party Commissioner of Customs and
defendant, did not depend upon the outcome of the Collector of Customs and Reparations
principal action Commission to release the shipment
● Moreover, it is clear from the provisions of the ROC of goods that were supposed to be
that for a claim to be properly raised in a pending delivered to the third-party plaintiffs
action by way of third party complaint, it is not pursuant to their contract with
necessary that it be one arising from or entirely Warvets
dependent upon the main action; it is enough that it o On the same day, (without hearing the third-
be "in respect" of the claim of third party plaintiff‘s party defendants), an order was issued
opponent (Rule 6, Section 12, ROC), or that it be granting the petition for the issuance of a writ of
"connected with plaintiff‘s claim." preliminary injunction
● WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered setting o A motion to lift the writ was filed
aside the appealed decision, without costs. o Respondent court denied the motion to lift
- Commissioner of Customs filed this Petition for certiorari
and prohibition to annul and set aside orders of
respondent court
Commissioner of Customs v Cloribel, G.R. No. L-21036, HELD: respondent court gravely abused its discretion in
30 June 1977 allowing the filing of and in admitting the third-party
- World War II Veterans Enterprises, Inc. (Warvets) was complaint of the Cochingyans
granted an allocation to purchase reparation goods - Civil Case No. 52318 was a special civil action for
- First case (Civil Case No. 34998) → pending in Manila declaratory relief
CFI o No positive or affirmative, much less any
o minority suit filed by certain stockholders of material relief was sought therein
Warvets alleging irregularities in the o it is in the very nature of a 'declaratory relief
management and disposition of the reparation special civil action that "the Relief is confined to
goods being purchased by the corporation a case of actual controversy within the Court's
o They asked for the appointment of receivers jurisdiction, without the need of injunction,
o Two receivers were appointed: Ramon E. execution or other relief beyond the
Saura and Macario M. Ofilada adjudication of the legal rights which are the
o In the same case, Ofilada was ordered to subject of controversy between the parties."
deliver to Jose Cochingyan and Susana - a third-party complaint is inconceivable when the main
Cochingyan the second shipment of goods case is one for nothing more than a declaratory relief
under Warvets' allocation, pursuant to the o In a third-party complaint, the defendant or
Cochingyans‘ contract with Warvets regarding third-party plaintiff is supposed to seek
said goods contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any
 An MR of this order was filed and was other relief from the third-party defendant is
still unresolved when the CFI Judge respect to the claim of the plaintiff against him
Francisco Arca ordered that all - The test to determine whether the claim for indemnity in
resolutions be held in abeyance until a third-party complaint in respect to plaintiff's claim is
such time that the Court knows the proper, are:
result of the pending settlement being (a) whether it arises out of the same transaction on which
negotiated among the parties plaintiff's claim is based; or
- Second case (Civil Case No. 52318) → being tried by (b) whether the third-party's claim, although arising out of
Judge Gaudencio Cloribel another or different contract or transaction, is connected with
o Ofilada filed a special civil action for plaintiff's claim;
declaratory relief seeking a judicial declaration (c) whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the
as to whether, under the allocation granted to plaintiff or to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff‘s claim
said Warvets to purchase reparations goods, against the original defendant, although the third- party
the conversion into pesos of the dollar prices of defendant's liability arises out of another transaction; or
said goods should be at the rate of two pesos (d) whether the third-party defendant may assert any defense
to one dollar or at the prevailing market rate at which the third-party plaintiff has, or may have, against
plaintiff's claim.
- The present case fails these tests Summons on third (fourth, etc)-party defendants must be
- respondent court also paid no heed to the requirement served for the court to obtain jurisdiction over his person,
that: "Before the service of his answer a defendant may since he is not an original party
move ex parte or, after the service of his answer, on
notice to the plaintiff, for leave as third- party plaintiff to ANCILIARY JURISDICTION
file a complaint against a third-party defendant." If court has jurisdiction over main case, it has jurisdiction over
o ITC: the motions of the Cochingyans for leave the third party complaint
to file their third-party complaint and for the  Jurisdiction not cause of action
admission thereof were granted ex parte
notwithstanding that the trial of the case had CLAIM INDEPENDENT ANCILLIARY
already been terminated COUNTERCLAIM ✔
(COMPULSORY)
RD
COUNTERCLAIM ✔
CROSS-CLAIM COUNTERCLAIM 3 PARTY (PERMISSIVE)
COMPLAINT CROSSCLAIM ✔
Against a co-party Against an Against a person (DEFENSIVE OR
opposing party not a party to the OFFENSIVE)
action RD
3 PARTY ✔
Must arise out of May arise out of or Must be in COMPLAINT
the transaction be necessarily respect of the
that is the subject connected with the opponent‘s
matter of the transaction or the (plaintiff‘s) claim
original action or subject matter of D. Intervention
of a counterclaim the opposing
therein party‘s claim Rule 19
(compulsory Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal
counterclaim), or interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of
it may not the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to
(permissive be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
counterclaim) property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
No need for leave No need for leave Leave of court is may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
of court of court needed The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights
3
RD
PARTY COMPLAINT COMPLAINT IN may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (2[a], [b]a,
INTERVENTION R12)
Brings into the action a 3
rd
Brings into the action a 3
rd Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene may
person who was not person who was not be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
originally a party originally a party court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached
Initiative is with a non-party to the motion and served on the original parties. (n)
Initiative is with the person
Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall
already a party to the action who seeks to join the action
file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against
either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-
RD intervention if he unites with the defending party in resisting a
3 PARTY COMPLAINT COUNTERCLAIM
claim against the latter. (2[c]a, R12)
Need not be within the Must be within the Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — The
jurisdiction of the court trying jurisdiction of the court trying answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within
the main case the main case fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
Diminishes/defeats the Need not diminish/defeat the unless a different period is fixed by the court. (2[d]a, R12)
recovery sought by the recovery sought by the
opposing party opposing party section 6, Rule 3
Cannot exceed the amount COMPULSORY: may Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in
stated in the original exceed in amount or be whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or
complaint different in kind from that arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is
sought in the original alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
complaint alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
PERMISSIVE: The Rules are complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all
not as categorical as in the such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the
case of compulsory action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to
counterclaims prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or
put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which
ADDITIONAL RULES he may have no interest. (6n)
rd
Leave of court to file a 3 -party complaint may be obtained
by motion filed under Rule 15
● Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not
originally impleaded in a proceeding, becomes a litigant
therein to enable him to protect or preserve a right or (ii) in the success of either party in the
interest which may be affected by such proceeding. action, or
(iii) against both parties.
(b) That the movant is so situated as to be adversely
Pleadings-in-Intervention [Sec. 3, Rule 19] affected by a distribution or other disposition of
(1) Complaint-in-intervention – If intervenor asserts a claim property in the custody of the court or an officer
against either or all of the original parties. thereof
(2) Answer-in-intervention – If intervenor unites with the (c) That the intervention must not unduly delay or
defending party in resisting a claim against the latter. prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties; and
● Intervention is never an independent action, but is (d) That the intervenor‘s rights may not be fully
ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation, and protected in a separate proceeding.
in subordination to the main proceeding. [Saw v. CA,
G.R. No. 90580 (1991)] How to Intervene
● Its purpose is "to settle in one action and by a single (1) With leave of court, the court shall consider the 2 factors
judgment the whole controversy (among) the persons (2) Motion to intervene may be filed at anytime before
involved." [First Philippine Holdings v. Sandiganbayan judgment is rendered by trial court
(1996), G.R. No. 88345; Rule 19] (3) Copy of the pleadings-in-intervention shall be attached to
the motion and served on the original parties

When Allowed Time to Intervene [Sec. 2, Rule 19]


Intervention shall be allowed when a person has: GENERAL RULE: The motion to intervene must be filed at
(1) A legal interest in the matter in litigation  sets up a any time before the rendition of judgment by the trial court
cause of action EXCEPTIONS:
example: when a solidary creditor files a complaint-in- (1) With respect to indispensable parties, intervention may be
intervention allowed even on appeal [Falcasantos v. Falcasantos (1952)]
(2) A legal interest in the success of any of the parties (2) When the intervenor is the Republic [Lim v. Pacquing
 does not require setting up a new cause of action (1995)]
(the case of Virra Mall Tenants v. Virra Mall should have (3) Intervention may be allowed after judgment where
applied this theory) necessary to protect some interest which cannot otherwise
example: when a guarantor files an answer-in- be protected, and for the purpose of preserving the
intervention intervenor‘s right to appeal [Pinlac v. CA (2003)]
(3) An interest against the parties
(4) When he is so situated as to be adversely affected Remedies for Denial of Motion for Intervention
by a distribution or disposition of property in the (1)The movant may file a motion for reconsideration since the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof.  for denial of a motion for intervention is an interlocutory order.
this to apply property must be in the custody of the court (2) Alleging grave abuse of discretion, movant can also file a
such as when the property has been attached [Sec. 1, certiorari case.
Rule 19; Fernandez v. CA, A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-
CA-J (2013)] Virra Mall Tenants v. Virra Mall, 2011
● Ortigas & Company is the owner of the Greenhills
● The Court has full discretion in permitting or disallowing Shopping Center (GSC).
intervention, which must be exercised judiciously and ● Ortigas and Virra Realty Development Corporation
only after consideration of all the circumstances entered into a Contract of Lease over a portion of the
obtaining in the case. [Mago v. CA, G.R. No. 115624 GSC. Pursuant thereto, Virra Realty constructed a
(1999)] commercial building, the Virra Mall Shopping Center
● It is not an absolute right as it can be secured only in ● Thereafter, Virra Realty organized Virra Mall Greenhills
accordance with the terms of applicable statute or rule. Association (VMGA), an association of all the tenants
[Office of Ombudsman v. Samaniego (2010)] and leasehold right holders, who managed and
operated Virra Mall.
Legal Interest ○ VMGA assumed and was subrogated to all the
● Interest must be of a direct and immediate character so rights, obligations and liabilities of Virra Realty.
that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct ○ VMGA secured two insurance policies to protect
legal operation of the judgment. The interest must be Virra Mall against damage by fire and other causes.
actual and material, a concern which is more than mere ● Virra Mall was gutted by fire, requiring substantial repair
curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it must not and restoration. VMGA thus filed an insurance claim
be indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, through the insurance broker, RESP Winternitz
conjectural, consequential or collateral. [Virra Mall Associates Insurance Company, Inc.
Tenants v. Virra Mall, G.R. No. 182902 (2011)] ● The President of VMGA, Uy, assigned and transferred
to Virra Mall Tenants Association (VMTA) all his rights
Requisites for a Valid Intervention and interests over the property.
(1) There must be a motion for intervention filed before ● Ortigas filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with
judgment is rendered by the trial court. Damages and Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of
(2) Movant must show in his motion: Preliminary Attachment on the grounds of fraud,
(a) That he has a legal interest: misappropriation and conversion of substantial portions
(i) in the matter of litigation, of the insurance proceeds for their own personal use
unrelated to the repair and restoration of Virra Mall
● VMTA filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, claiming that Note:
upon the order of Ortigas, it had engaged the services - The court can always make a formal amendment motu
of various contractors who undertook the restoration of proprio
the damaged area of Virra Mall. Hence it sought the - Parties can only make formal amendment as a matter of
reimbursement of the expenses right before responsive pleading (thereafter, upon
● RTC admitted the Complaint-in-Intervention motion)
● Virra Mall filed a MTD the Complaint-in-Intervention on - Court can never make substantial amendment motu
the ground that it stated no cause of action proprio. Only upon motion!
● RTC denied MTD because by filing the same, Virra Mall - Parties can only make substantial amendment as a
hypothetically admitted the truth of the facts alleged in matter of right before responsive pleading (thereafter,
the Complaint-in-Intervention upon motion)
● CA reversed, granted MTD, dismissed the Complaint-in-
Intervention
Rule 10
○ VMTA failed to state a cause of action
Section 1. Amendments in general. — Pleadings may be
○ VMTA has no legal interest in the matter in litigation
○ Complaint-in-Intervention would cause a delay in the amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name
trial of the action, make the issues more of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party
complicated, prejudice the adjudication of the rights or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any
of the parties, stretch the issues, and increase the other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy
breadth of the remedies and relief. may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities,
HELD: Complaint-in-Intervention should be admitted and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. (1)
Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may
 VMTA has a legal interest in the case, which is rooted in
amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time
the alleged failure of VMGA to turn over the insurance
before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
proceeds for the restoration and rehabilitation of Virra
reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. (2a)
Mall, in breach of the latter‘s contractual obligation to
Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as
Ortigas
provided in the next preceding section, substantial
VMTA has a cause of action ( not necessarily cause of
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But
action but legal interest  not necessarily legal damage but
such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the
injury if Ortigas wins)
motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the court
● VMTA as real beneficiary of the insurance proceeds,
upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon
on the grounds that it had:
motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party,
○ (a) facilitated the repair and restoration of
and an opportunity to be heard. (3a)
the insured infrastructure upon the orders
Section 4. Formal amendments. — A defect in the
of Ortigas, and
designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
○ (b) advanced the costs thereof
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court
● Virra Mall has a duty to reimburse it for its expenses
at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion,
since the insurance proceeds had already been
provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.
issued in favor of RESP VMGA, even if the latter
(4a)
was not rightfully entitled thereto.
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize
VMTA has a legal interest in the matter in litigation
presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the
● VMTA had already advanced substantial amounts
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the
for the repair and restoration of Virra Mall. That
parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they had
VMTA seeks reimbursement from Ortigas is
been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
precisely the reason why intervention is proper.
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to
● The main issue in the civil case is whether Ortigas
the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon
has a contractual right to the insurance proceeds
motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
received by VMGA.
failure to amend does not effect the result of the trial of these
○ Thus, the recoupment by VMTA of the
issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground
expenses it incurred in the repair of Virra
that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the
Mall depends on the success of either
court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so
party in the main case.
with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action
VMTA therefore has an undeniable stake in the case that
and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby.
would warrant its intervention therein.
The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment
to be made. (5a)
VII. Amendments and Supplements
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of a
party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such
Amendment - adding or striking out an allegation or the
terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental
name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of
pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events
a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description
which have happened since the date of the pleading sought
in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the
to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto
controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to
within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the
technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive
supplemental pleading. (6a)
manner
Section 7. Filing of amended pleadings. — When any
Supplement - setting forth transactions, occurrences or
pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
events which have happened since the date of the pleading
incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated by
sought to be supplemented.
appropriate marks, shall be filed. (7a)
● Amended pleading should be attached to the motion
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended
[Sec. 9, Rule 15]
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, (2) Notice is given to the adverse party
admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in (3) Parties are given opportunity to be heard
evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged
therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be When amendment may not be allowed
deemed waived. (n) (1) If the cause of action, defense or theory of the case is
changed
section 7, Rule 18
(2) If amendment is intended to confer jurisdiction to the
Section 7. Record of pre-trial. — The proceedings in the pre- court.
trial shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court ● If the court has no jurisdiction in the subject matter
shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the matters of the case, the amendment of the complaint cannot
taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon, the be allowed so as to confer jurisdiction on the court
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements over the property. [PNB v. Florendo, G.R. No. L-
or admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters 62082 (1992)]
considered. Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall, (3) If amendment is for curing a premature or inexistent
explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried. The contents cause of action.
of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action, ● The cause of action must exist at the time the action
unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. (5a, was begun, and the plaintiff will not be allowed by an
R20) amendment to introduce a cause of action which
had no existence when the action was commenced.
How to Amend Pleadings [Sec. 1, Rule 10] [Surigao Mine Exploration v. Harris et al, G.R. No. L-
(1) Adding an allegation of a party; 45543 (1939)]
(2) Adding the name of a party; (4) If amendment is for purposes of delay.
(3) Striking out an allegation of a party;
(4) Striking out the name of a party; FORMAL AMENDMENTS
(5) Correcting a mistake in the name of a party; and Instances:
(6) Correcting a mistaken or inadequate allegation or (1)Mere defect in the designation of the parties;
description in any other respect (2) Other clearly clerical or typographical errors

● A new copy of the entire pleading, incorporating the ● The formal amendment must not cause prejudice to the
amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate adverse party.
marks, shall be filed. [Sec. 7, Rule 10]
● Purpose: That the actual merits of the controversy may How formal amendments are effected
speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, (1) May be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of
and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. the action
[Sec. 1, Rule 10] (2) A party may, by motion, call for the formal amendment
● As a general policy, liberality in allowing amendments is
greatest in the early stages of a law suit, decreases as it AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO OR AUTHORIZE
progresses and changes at times to a strictness PRSENTATION OF EVIDENCE [Sec. 5, Rule 10]
amounting to a prohibition. This is further restricted by This is an instance wherein the court acquires jurisdiction
the condition that the amendment should not prejudice over the issues even if the same are not alleged in the
the adverse party or place him at a disadvantage. original pleadings, where the trial of said issues is with the
[Barfel Development v. CA, G.R. No. 98177 (1993)] express or implied consent of the parties.

AMENDMENTS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT What Sec. 5 contemplates


A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right, at (1) Allows a complaint which failed to state a cause of
any time before a responsive pleading is served, thus: action to be cured either by:
(1) Amendment of complaint is before an answer is served. (a) Evidence presented without objection or
(2) Amendment of answer is before a reply is filed, or before (b) In the event of an objection sustained by the
the period for filing a reply expires, and court, by an amendment of the complaint with
(3) Amendment of reply any time within 10 days after it is leave of court
served (2) Also allows admission of evidence on a defense not
raised in a motion or answer:
A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading and does (a) if no objection is made thereto; or
not preclude the exercise of the plaintiff‘s right to amend his (b) in the event of such objection, upon amendment
complaint. [Remington Industrial Sales v. CA, G.R. No. of the answer with leave of court
133657 (2002)]
● However, where the plaintiff has no cause of action at
AMENDMENTS BY LEAVE OF COURT the time of the filing of the complaint, this defect cannot
Leave of court is necessary in the following instances: be cured or remedied in this manner by the acquisition
(1) Further amendments after the party has already amended or accrual of one while the action is pending.
his pleading as a matter of right; and
(2) When a responsive pleading has already been served. Two Scenarios
(1) No objection to the evidence is raised – amendment of
Requisites pleading to conform with the evidence presented
(1) A motion for leave of court to amend pleading is filed
● Issues not raised in pleadings are tried by express Surigao Mine v. Harris, G.R. No. 45543, 17 May 1939
or implied consent of the parties; they are treated in - Surigao Mine Exploration Co. Inc. filed a complaint
all respects as if they had been raised. asking CFI Surigao to declare them the owner and
● Such amendments as may be necessary to cause possessor of the 14 placer mining claims and to annul
the pleadings to conform to the evidence may be the forty-three lode mining claims of the defendants, C.
made upon motion of any party at any time, even Harris, Surigao-Mainit Mining Syndicate. Surigao
after judgment  for purposes of appeal Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., and Otto Weber
● Failure to amend does not affect the result of the - Defendants C. Harris, Surigao Mainit Mining Syndicate,
trial of those issues Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., and Otto Weber
(2) Objection to the evidence is raised – amendment of demurred to the complaint on the grounds
pleading to authorize presentation of evidence (1) that there was a misjoinder of parties in that Otto
● Objection on the ground that it is not within the Weber had been included as defendant;
issues made by the pleadings (2) that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to
● Court may allow the pleadings to be amended constitute a cause of action, because it merely alleged
and shall do so freely when the presentation of the that the plaintiff was the owner by purchase of the placer
merits of the action will be subserved  even after claims named therein; and
pre-trial (3) that the complaint was ambiguous and unintelligible.
● As safeguard, the court may grant a continuance to
enable the objecting party to meet such evidence - CFI Surigao entered an order finding merit in the third
ground of the demurrer and requiring the plaintiff to
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS amend its complaint so as to contain a detailed
● A pleading which sets forth transactions, description of its placer claims
occurrences or events which have happened since - An amended complaint was filed to which another
the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. demurrer was interposed. The CFI overruled the
[Sec. 6, Rule 10] demurrer and required the defendants to file their
● Purpose: To bring into the records new facts which answer within the reglementary period.
will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the - Before the plaintiff could close its evidence, the
plaintiff is entitled [Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint on
(2012)] the ground that, when the action was commenced,
● How Made: Upon motion of a party, with reasonable plaintiff's right of action had not yet accrued, since,
notice and upon terms as are just. under its own evidence, the plaintiff did not become the
● The admission or non-admission of a supplemental owner of the claims in dispute until after the original
pleading is not a matter of right but is discretionary complaint was filed in the CFI of Surigao
on the court. - CFI dismissed the complaint
HELD: dismissal by CFI affirmed
Amended versus Supplemental Pleadings - an action commenced before the cause of action has
Amendments Supplemental pleadings accrued is prematurely brought and should be
Reason for amendment is Grounds for supplemental dismissed, provided an objection on this ground is
available at time of the first pleading arose after the filing properly and seasonably interposed.
pleading of the first pleading - The cause of action must exist at the time the action
Either as a matter of right or Always by leave of court was begun, and the plaintiff will not be allowed by an
by leave of court amendment to introduce a cause of action which had no
Supersedes the original Merely supplements, and existence when the action was commenced
exists side-by- side with the - Amendments "must be such, and only such, as are
original necessary to promote the completion of the action
A new copy of the entire Does not require a new copy begun—all parties necessary for that purpose may
pleading must be filed of the entire pleading come or be brought into it, and so also, any and all such
amendments may be made as to the cause of action, as
Supplemental pleadings are not allowed on separate and may be necessary to its completeness in all respects.
distinct causes of action but a supplemental pleading may But neither general principles of practice, nor the statute
raise a new cause of action as long as it has some relation to providing for amendments, authorize amendments that
the original cause of action set forth in the original complaint. reach beyond these purposes
[Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)] - the court has no authority to allow such amendments as
to parties, or as to the cause of action, as make a new,
EFFECT OF AMENDED PLEADING or substantially a new action, unless by the consent of
(1) An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it the parties. Indeed, this would not be to amend, in any
amends proper sense, but to substitute a new action by order, for
(2)Admissions in the superseded pleading can still be and in place of a pending one, which the court cannot
received in evidence against the pleader (as extrajudicial do
admissions) - Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of
(3) Claims or defenses alleged therein but not incorporated or action at the time his action is commenced, the defect
reiterated in the amended pleading are deemed waived [Sec. cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or
8, Rule 10] accrual of one while the action is pending, and a
supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up
such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible
Gumabay v Baralin, G.R. L-30683, 31 May 1977 British Steel committed any act or is guilty of any
- Gumabay sued Baralin in CFI Cagayan to recover omission in violation of petitioners legal rights
possession of the subject parcel of land; alleging that - Remington sought to amend its complaint by
the defendants forcibly entered the land incorporating therein additional factual allegations
- Defendants filed MTD: inasmuch as it alleged a cause of constitutive of its cause of action against British Steel
action for forcible entry, the CFI had no jurisdiction - RTC noted the amended complaint and further
- Gumabay filed an amended complaint wherein she proceedings are held in abeyance until final resolution
alleged that the defendants claimed to be the owners of by the CA
the land. She transformed her forcible entry action into - CA granted the writ of certiorari and ordered RTC to
an action to quiet title dismiss without prejudice the Complaint
- CFI admitted the amended complaint, ordered the HELD:
defendants to answer it, and denied the MTD - Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court
- Defendants were eventually declared in default explicitly states that a pleading may be amended as a
- CFI declared Gumabay the owner of the land and matter of right before a responsive pleading is served
ordered the defendants to vacate it, restore its - This right granted to the plaintiff to amend the complaint
possession to her, and to pay her damages before an answer has been served is not precluded by
- Before SC, defendants argued: the lower court erred in the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other proceeding
not dismissing the original complaint, in admitting the contesting its sufficiency
amended complaint, in assuming that it acquired - The fact that the other defendants below has filed their
jurisdiction over their persons on the basis of the answers to the complaint does not bar petitioners
amended complaint even without service of new right to amend the complaint as against British Steel
summons, in declaring them in default, and in not - Where some BUT NOT ALL the defendants have
granting them relief from the judgment by default answered, the plaintiff may still amend its complaint
HELD: Petition DENIED once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted
- The original complaint for forcible entry contained the solely against the non-answering defendant, but not as
basic prayer ―that the plaintiff be declared the absolute to claims asserted against the other defendants.
owner of the land in question‖. That relief was retained
in the amended complaint. The only difference between
the original and amended complaints is that the latter Leobrera v. CA, G.R. No. 80001, 27 Feb 1989
contained the additional allegation that the ―defendants - Leobrera obtained a credit facility from BPI secured by
are now asserting and claiming title and absolute two real estate mortgages
ownership over the land in question which is adverse - Leobrera also obtained from BPI a separate three-year
and against the interest of the plaintiff‖. term loan also secured with a real estate mortgage
- The plaintiff explained that she had to amend her - Leobrera failed to settle his loans under the credit facility
complaint in order that the ―real matter in dispute‖, which thus BPI prepared to foreclose the real estate
is ―the question of ownership‖, may be ―determined in a mortgages securing the same. Before BPI could institute
single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits‖ foreclosure proceedings however, Leobrera filed
- CFI‘s order admitting the amended complaint is in complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of
consonance with the object of the Rules of Court to a writ of preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin BPI
assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and from foreclosing the mortgages
inexpensive determination of every action and - Meanwhile, bank wrote Leobrera claiming that he failed
proceeding. to pay the amortization due on the three-year term loan,
- To dismiss the original complaint and to require the as a result of which, BPI opted to accelarate the maturity
plaintiff to file another action to quiet title would have of the loan and called the entire loan due and
resulted in a circuitous, dilatory and expensive demandable. Leobrera likewise failed to remit the
proceeding which, in the case of a pauper litigant like amount due and BPI thus threatened to foreclose the
Celestina Gumabay, should have been avoided, as it real estate mortgage securing the loan
was prudently avoided by the trial court. - Before BPI can foreclose, petitioner filed with the trial
court a ―Motion to File Supplemental Complaint,‖
Note: Notwithstanding the ruling in Gumabay v. Baralin, the attaching thereto the supplemental complaint which
rule now is that amendment cannot cure the lack of subject prayed for the issuance of an injunction to restrain BPI
matter jurisdiction (Sante v. Claravell, 2010) from foreclosing the third mortgage
- Motion granted by RTC
- BPI filed pet. for certiorari before CA
Remington v. CA, G.R. No. 133657, 29 May 2002 - CA granted BPI‘s petition
- Remington Industrial Sales Corporation filed a complaint HELD: CA affirmed. RTC committed GAD in admitting the
for sum of money and damages arising from breach of supplemental complaint
contract before Manila RTC. Principal defendant was - As to the supplemental complaint, the matters involved
Industrial Steels, Ltd. (ISL), with Ferro Trading GMBH therein are entirely different from the causes of action
(Ferro) and British Steel as alternative defendants. mentioned in the original complaint. A supplemental
- ISL and British Steel separately filed MTD otg of failure complaint should, as the name implies, supply only
to state cause of action deficiencies in aid of an original complaint. It should
- RTC denied MTD contain only causes of action relevant and material to
- ISL then filed its answer to the complaint the plaintiff‘s right and which help or aid the plaintiff‘s
- On the other hand, British Steel filed petition for right or defense
certiorari and prohibition before the CA. It claimed that - The supplemental complaint must be based on matters
the complaint did not contain a single averment that arising subsequent to the original complaint related to
the claim or defense presented therein, and founded on action, distinct from those mentioned in the original
the same cause of action. It cannot be used to try a new complaint
matter or a new cause of action - RTC admitted supplemental complaint
- ITC: the main action in the original complaint concerned - CA affirmed RTC
BPI‘s threat to foreclose 2 real estate mortgages HELD: CA affirmed; admit supplemental complaint
securing the first credit facility obtained by Leobrera - the issue as to whether the petitioner stopped the
- The supplemental complaint on the other hand alleged payment of rentals and the application thereof on the
acts of harassment committed by BPI in unreasonably perceived loan deficiency of the respondent, is a new
opting to declare petitioner in default and in demanding matter that occurred after the filing of the original
full liquidation of the three-year term loan. This three- complaint. However, the relief for damages, the
year term loan, as previously mentioned, was entirely collection of the rentals and the application thereof by
distinct and separate the petitioner to the perceived loan deficiency of the
- The two causes of action being entirely different, the respondent are germane to, and are in fact, intertwined
latter one could not be successfully pleaded by with the cause of action of nullification of the real estate
supplemental complaint mortgage and the extrajudicial foreclosure thereof, as
well as the sale at public auction
Note: - By its supplemental complaint, the respondent merely
Sir Lumba thinks that the SC might have made a mistake in enlarged its original causes of action on account of
this case because a supplemental complaint is essentially a events that transpired after the filing of the original
joinder which allows unrelated causes of action if the parties complaint and prayed for additional reliefs. The principal
are the same. and core issues raised by the parties in their original
pleadings remain the same. There is no showing on
Supplemental Complaint v. Joinder record that the petitioner would be prejudiced by the
Joinder: none of them are after-acquired admission of the supplemental complaint.
Supplemental Complaint: may include after-acquired
causes of action
Lambino v. Presiding Judge, G.R. No. 169551, 14 Jan
Supplemental Complaint v. Amendment 2007
Amendment: only omitted causes of action may be set up - Lambino entered a Mortgage Loan Agreement with BPI
Supplement: must be after-acquired - Lambino failed to pay amortizations
- BPI filed petition for extrajudicial foreclosure
- Lambino filed complaint for annulment of the MLA and
Planters Development Bank v. LZK Holdings & the extrajudicial foreclosure sale
Development Corp., G.R. No. 153777, 15 April 2005 - Parties tried to settle amicably
- LZK obtained loan from Planters; secured by real estate - BPI furnished Lambino with statements of their account
mortgage over AGZ Building - Lambino objected to the damages included by BPI in the
- For non-payment of loan, non-compliance with the terms statement of account
and conditions of the Deed of Assignment, and failure to - Lambino filed Motion to Admit their Supplemental
comply with the conditions of the promissory notes, Complaint alleging that he was forced to litigate due to
Planters caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage
estate mortgage; property sold to Planters as highest filed by BPI and unlawful imposition of escalating and
bidder arbitrary rate of interest without the consent of the
- LZK filed with Makati RTC a complaint against the plaintiffs which Lambino only found about during pretrial
Planters for ―Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure, - RTC and CA denied motion
Mortgage Contract, Promissory Notes and for Damages‖ HELD: deny motion to admit supplemental complaint
- just before the scheduled pre-trial, the LZK filed a - Before they filed their original complaint, PET were
―Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Complaint‖ to already aware of the deductions made on the proceeds
cover occurrences subsequent to the original complaint of the loan, for interest charges, MRI premium, and fire
○ alleged that after the filing of the original insurance premium. They received notices on the
complaint, it agreed in principle to enter following dates
into a contract of lease with a prospective o because PET had alleged all these charges in
lessee, AMA Computer College, over three the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure sale, it
floors of AGZ Building but the lessee behooved PET to have incorporated in their
required LKZ to first secure Planters‘ original complaint as a cause of action the
consent. However, the latter gave alleged illegal/unauthorized and
unreasonable conditions in its reply, unconscionable charges for MRI, escalating
prompting AMA Computer College to back- interest charges, liquidated damages, attorneys
out from the contract of lease fees, and foreclosure expenses.
○ Planters wrote other tenants demanding - They should have sought to nullify such charges in
that they directly remit their respective the original complaint, but they did not. They are
rentals to it thus proscribed from incorporating the same via a
o Planters, which was leasing a space in the supplemental complaint.
same building for its branch, had ceased
paying its rentals Note: Sir Lumba thinks that what Lambino was actually
- Planters opposed the supplemental complaint: matters asking for was an amendment of the complaint
involved therein would bring into the case new causes of
Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, 13 August 2012 Caputatan Norte, Medellin, Cebu containing an area of
- petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for partition, two (2) hectares and seven (7) centares.
accounting and damages against Florante, Rita and ● Sometime in 1972, upon discovery that a portion of said
Panfila land, 6,324 square meters to be exact, was being
o they averred that the 43 parcels of land occupied by petitioners, private respondents demanded
originally owned by spouses Baylon were that the latter return the land to their possession.
possessed by Rita who appropriated for herself ● Petitioners refused and claimed that they owned the
all the income from said properties and bought said portion as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale
two other properties using said income allegedly executed by Pedro Son on 5 November 1957
o Rita, Florante and Panfila denied this (only 22 ● Private respondents filed a complaint with the CFI Cebu
parcels were co-owned and the others were for annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 5
individually owned) November 1957 on grounds of forgery and for recovery
- During the pendency of the case, Rita, through a Deed of real property.
of Donation conveyed 2 properties to Florante and ● During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to
subsequently died limit the issue to the validity or invalidity of the deed of
- petitioners filed a Supplemental Pleading praying that absolute sale
the said donation in favor of the respondent be ● TC: rendered DOAS null and void; ordered petitioners to
rescinded because it was executed without their return land to respondents
competent judicial authority (since it refers to the parcels ● Petitioners filed MR insisting that by virtue of an earlier
of land in litigation without the knowledge and approval Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, wherein Pedro
of the plaintiffs or of the Court) Son allegedly sold to petitioners one-half (1/2) of the
- RTC declared co-ownership and partition of the subject land he inherited but with a right to repurchase within
properties and rescinded the donation inter vivos one (1) year, petitioners acquired ownership thereof for
- CA reversed the RTC‘s rescission of the Deed of failure of Pedro Son to redeem the same within the
Donation and remanded the same to the RTC period stipulated.
o before the petitioners may file an action for ● TC: reversed earlier decision (resps‘ MR DENIED)
rescission, they must first obtain a favorable ● CA: upheld ruling that DOAS is null and void
judicial ruling that said properties actually HELD: The parties are not bound by the delimitation of
belonged to the estate of Spouses Baylon issues in the Pre-trial order
HELD: RTC decision rescinding Deed of Donation is ● A pre-trial order is not meant to be a detailed catalogue
reinstated of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up
- While a matter stated in a supplemental complaint during the trial. Issues that are impliedly included
should have some relation to the cause of action set therein or may be inferable therefrom by necessary
forth in the original pleading, the fact that the implication are as much integral parts of the pretrial
supplemental pleading technically states a new cause of order as those that are expressly stipulated.
action should not be a bar to its allowance but only a ● The case at bar falls under this particular exception.
matter that may be considered by the court in the Contrary to private respondents‘ contention, petitioners
exercise of its discretion. In such cases, we stressed did not raise the issue of the 1951 Deed of Sale with
that a broad definition of ―cause of action‖ should be Right to Repurchase only in their motion for
applied. reconsideration before the trial court.
- ITC: the donation inter vivos made by Rita in favor of ● They also categorically stated it In their answer to
Florante is a new cause of action that occurred after the private respondents‘ original complaint.
filing of the original complaint. However, the petitioners‘ ● Private respondents‘ failure to raise any objection (a)
prayer for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos when petitioners presented in evidence the 1951 Deed
in their supplemental pleading is germane to, and is in of Sale with Right to Repurchase; (b) when petitioners‘
fact, intertwined with the cause of action in the partition counsel vigorously cross-examined respondent Teofista
case. Son Arcipe on the aforementioned deed; and (c) when
o The petitioners‘ supplemental pleading merely Anastacio Son testified on said document, constitutes
amplified the original cause of action an implied assent on the part of respondents to
o the principal issue raised by the petitioners in depart from the issue contained in the pre-trial
their original complaint remained the same. order.
● Private respondents‘ implied consent to try the issue
Pre-existing After-acquired was further demonstrated by their own counsel‘s
Related AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENT extensive cross-examination of petitioners‘ witness
Unrelated AMENDMENT NA Anastacio Son regarding both the 1951 Deed of Sale
with Right to Repurchase and the 1957 Deed of
Absolute Sale.
Son v. Son, 251 S 556 (1995) ● Private respondents cannot claim that they were not
● Private respondents are the children and heirs of the adequately prepared to meet petitioners‘ defense. They
late spouses Pedro Son, who died sometime in were simply not ―caught in surprise.‖ On the other hand,
November 1957 and Marcelina Tudtud who died on 2 they had every opportunity to present rebuttal or
January 1972. counterevidence on the issue.
● Petitioners are the heirs of Anastacio Son, brother of
Pedro Son. Note: Son v. Son is an example of amendment of pleading to
● During his lifetime, Pedro Son inherited from his parents conform with the evidence
Juan Son and Susana Perilla a parcel of land located at
4. Any other
VIII. Filing & Service of Pleadings 5. Voluntary Appearance

Filing Service Service of Service of


of Judgment Summons A. Modes of filing
Pleading
section 2-4, 11-12, Rule 13
Personal X X X X
Section 2. Filing and service, defined. — Filing is the act of
Registered X X X
presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.
Mail
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
Ordinary X pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by
Mail counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or
Substitution X X one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered
Publication X X by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties,
Any X he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served
upon him by the opposite side. (2a)
Notes: Section 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings,
Ways to file appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all
1. Personal – to clerk of court other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies
2. Registered Mail (same as registered mail in service thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of
of pleading) court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case,
the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and
Ways to serve pleading hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of
1. Personal motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or
a. Hand (1) deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope
i. Party or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their
ii. Counsel filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be
b. Office (1) - leaving it in his office with his attached to the record of the case. (1a)
clerk or with a person having charge Section 4. Papers required to be filed and served. — Every
thereof. judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent to the
c. Residence (2) - If no person is found in his complaint, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer
office, or his office is not known, or he has of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and
no office, then by leaving the copy, served upon the parties affected. (2a)
between the hours of eight in the morning Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. —
and six in the evening, at the party's or Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and
counsel's residence, if known, with a other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to
person of sufficient age and discretion then papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes
residing therein  must understand must be accompanied by a written explanation why the
English and the import of the document service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this
given Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (n)
 GR: if there is counsel, always serve to counsel Section 12. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or paper
 EX: if the rules provide otherwise or if ordered by court shall be proved by its existence in the record of the case. If it
(e.g. Rule 25 Sec. 1 – Interrogatories to Parties) is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed
2. Registered Mail (1) - made by depositing the copy in personally, the filing shall be proved by the written or
the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court on
addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if a copy of the same; if filed by registered mail, by the registry
known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with receipt and by the affidavit of the person who did the mailing,
postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the containing a full statement of the date and place of depositing
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to
(10) days if undelivered the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to
3. Ordinary Mail (2) - If no registry service is available the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10)
in the locality of either the senders or the addressee days if not delivered. (n)
4. Substituted service (last resort)

Ways to serve a judgment FILING VERSUS SERVICE OF PLEADINGS


1. Personal (1) – same manner in serving pleading ● Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other
2. Registered mail (1) - same manner in serving paper to the clerk of court. [Sec. 2, Rule 13]
pleading ● Service is the act of providing a party or his counsel
3. Publication (2) – only if party summoned by with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned.
publication failed to appear in the action, judgments, [Sec. 2, Rule 13]
final orders or resolutions
Papers required to be filed and served: [Sec. 4, Rule 13]
Ways to serve summons 1. Pleading subsequent to the complaint;
1. Personal (1) 2. Appearance;
2. Substituted 3. Written Motion;
a. Office (1) 4. Notice;
b. Residence (1) 5. Order;
3. Publication 6. Judgment;
7. Demand; Filing by Registered Mail [Sec. 3, Rule 13]
8. Offer of Judgment; ● Filing by mail should be through the registry service
9. Resolution; (i.e. by depositing the pleading in the post office).
10. Similar papers. ● Deemed filed on the date it was deposited with the
post office, as shown by the post office stamp on the
PERIODS OF FILING OF PLEADINGS envelope or the registry receipt.
Period Reckoning point ● NOTE: Filing a pleading by facsimile is not
sanctioned. But fax was allowed in an extradition
Answer to the complaint
case [Justice Cuevas v. Juan Antonio Muoz (2000)]
General rule: Within 15 days Service of summons, unless
a different period is fixed by Filing by Private Carrier
the court [Sec. 1, Rule 11] If a party avails of a private carrier, the date of the court‘s
Foreign private juridical entity Receipt of summons [Sec. 2, actual receipt of the pleading (not the date of delivery to the
defendant, summons through Rule 11] private carrier) is deemed to be the date of the filing of that
government official: Within pleading. [Benguet Electric Cooperative v. NLRC, G.R. No.
30 days 89070 (1992)]
Non-resident defendant, with Service of extrajudicial
extraterritorial service of summons [Sec. 15, Rule 14]
summon: reasonable time B. Modes of service
not less than 60 days set by
section 5-10, 13, Rule 13
court
Section 5. Modes of service. — Service of pleadings
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall
Answer to the amended complaint be made either personally or by mail. (3a)
Section 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers may be
Amendment was matter of Service of a copy of the
made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his
right: Within 15 days amended complaint
counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a
Amendment not matter of Notice of the order admitting
person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his
right: Within 10 days the same [Sec 3, Rule 11]
office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by
Answer to Counterclaim or Cross-Claim leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning
Within 10 days From service [Sec. 4, Rule and six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if
11] known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then
residing therein. (4a)
Answer to third (fourth, etc)-party complaint Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail
Within 15 days Same rule as answer to the shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office in a
complaint [Sec. 5, Rule 11] sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his
counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if
Reply known, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the
Within 10 days From service of the pleading postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days
responded to [Sec. 6, Rule if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality
11] of either the senders or the addressee, service may be done
by ordinary mail. (5a; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
Answer to supplemental complaint Section 8. Substituted service. — If service of pleadings,
Within 10 days From notice of the order motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot
admitting the same, unless a be made under the two preceding sections, the office and
different period is fixed by place of residence of the party or his counsel being unknown,
the court service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of
court, with proof of failure of both personal service and
Extension of Time to Plead service by mail. The service is complete at the time of such
Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court delivery. (6a)
may extend the time to plead provided in these Rules. The Section 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions.
court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other — Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be served
pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules. [Sec. either personally or by registered mail. When a party
11, Rule 11] summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action,
judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be
served upon him also by publication at the expense of the
MANNER OF FILING prevailing party. (7a)
Personal Filing Section 10. Completeness of service. — Personal service is
● By personally presenting the original copy of the complete upon actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is
pleading, notice, appearance, motion, order, or complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing,
judgment to the clerk of court. [Sec. 3, Rule 13] unless the court otherwise provides. Service by registered
● Deemed filed upon the receipt of the same by the mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or
clerk of court who shall endorse on it the date and after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of
hour of filing. the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. (8a)
Section 13. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal service
shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the
official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party
serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and Filing by registered mail
manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof On the date the pleading was (1) Registry receipt, and
thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of deposited with the post office (2) Affidavit of the person
facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If who did the mailing
service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing In the case of filing by registered mail, when the paper does
office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon not appear in the record, the affidavit of the person who did
its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed the mailing must contain:
letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice
given by the postmaster to the addressee. (10a) (1) A full statement of the date and place of depositing the
mail in the post office
section 1, Rule 25 (2) The fact that the paper was in a sealed envelope
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof. — Under addressed to the court
the same conditions specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any (3) The fact that postage was fully paid
party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any (4) The fact that there were instructions to the postmaster to
adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written return the mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered
interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the
party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership
or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in Completeness of service Proof of service [Sec. 13,
its behalf. (1a) [Sec. 10, Rule 13] Rule 13]
section 1, Rule 26
Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues Personal service
have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other Upon actual delivery (1) Written admission of the
party a written request for the admission by the latter of the party served; or
genuineness of any material and relevant document (2) Official return of the
described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of server; or
any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the (3) Affidavit of the party
request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the serving, with a full statement
request unless copy have already been furnished. (1a) of the date/place/manner of
service.
Service of Judgments, Final Orders, or Resolutions Service by ordinary mail

Service is done either: 10 days after mailing, unless Affidavit of person mailing of
(1) Personally otherwise provided by the facts showing compliance
(2) By registered mail court with Sec. 7 of Rule 13.
(3) By publication, if: Service by registered mail
(a)A party is summoned by publication; and
(b)Such party failed to appear in the action Whichever is earlier of: (1) Affidavit of person mailing
(1) Actual receipt by the showing compliance as
NOTE: There is NO substituted service of judgments and addressee; or above; and
final orders. (2) 5 days after addressee (2) Registry receipt issued by
received postmaster's notice the post office
PRIORITIES IN MODES OF SERVICE AND FILING Substituted Service
GENERAL RULE: Personal filing and service is preferred.
[Sec. 11, Rule 13] At the time of delivery of the copy to the clerk of court
together with proof of failure of both personal service and
Resort to other modes of filing and service must be service by mail
accompanied by an explanation why the service/filing was not
done personally. If there is no written explanation, the paper Duties of sender when service is effected by registered
is considered not filed. mail:
(1)The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its
Exception: Papers emanating from the court. receipt by the sender; or
(2) The unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
COMPLETENESS AND PROOF OF FILING copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee
GENERAL RULE: The filing of a pleading or paper is proved shall likewise be filed immediately. [Sec. 13, Rule 13]
by its existence in the record of the case [Sec. 12, Rule 13]
EXCEPTION: When the pleading or paper is not in the Service to the lawyer binds the party. But service to the
record, its filing may be proved as shown below party does not bind the lawyer, unless ordered by the
court in the following circumstances:
Completeness of Filing Proof of filing [Sec. 12, (1) When it is doubtful who the attorney for such party is; or
[Sec. 3, Rule 13] Rule 13] (2) When the lawyer cannot be located; or
(3) When the party is directed to do something personally, as
Personal filing when he is ordered to show cause. [Retoni, Jr. v. CA,
Upon receipt by the clerk of Written or stamped G.R. No. 96776 (1993)]
court acknowledgment by the clerk
of court
Notice to the lawyer who appears to have been was no valid reason for not serving personally (distance
unconscionably irresponsible cannot be considered as notice of counsels‘ offices only 20m away, post office was
to his client, as it would then be easy for the lawyer to even farther)
prejudice the interests of his client by just alleging that he just ● public respondent Judge Bautista-Ricafort issued an
forgot every process of the court affecting his clients, order stating that under Section 11 of Rule 13 ―it is
because he was so busy. [Bayog v. Natino, G.R. No. 118691 within the discretion of the [trial court] whether to
(1996)] consider the pleading as filed or not,‖ and denying, for
lack of merit, petitioner‘s motion to expunge the ―Answer
1. Personal (with Counterclaims)‖ and to declare private
respondents in default
(1) Delivering personally a copy to the party, who is not HELD: Judge Ricafort did not commit GAD
represented by a counsel, or to his counsel; or ● Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion
(2) Leaving a copy in counsel‘s office with his clerk or with a to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other
person having charge thereof; or modes of service or filing were resorted to and no
(3) Leaving the copy between 8am and 6pm at the party‘s or written explanation was made as to why personal
counsel‘s residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age service was not done in the first place. The exercise of
and discretion then residing thereon – if not person is found discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability
in his office, or if his office is unknown, or if he has no office of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the
clause ―whenever practicable.‖
2. Mail ● personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort
to other modes of service and filing, the exception.
(1)Ordinary Mail - it does not constitute filing until the papers Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
are actually delivered into the custody of clerk or judge practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place
(a) Service may be done by ordinary mail if no and person, personal service or filing is mandatory.
registry service is available in the locality of either Only when personal service or filing is not practicable
sender or addressee may resort to other modes be had, which must then be
accompanied by a written explanation as to why
(2) Registered Mail - The date of mailing is the date of filing personal service or filing was not practicable to begin
(a)Date of filing is determinable from 2 sources: with
(i) From the post office stamp on the ● In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court
envelope shall likewise consider the importance of the subject
(ii) From the registry receipt matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and
(b)It is done by depositing in the post office: the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be
(c) In a sealed envelope expunged for violation of Section 11.
(d) Plainly addressed to the party or his counsel ● proximity would seem to make personal service most
(i) At his office if known practicable, but exceptions may nonetheless apply. For
(ii) Otherwise, at his residence if known instance, where the adverse party or opposing counsel
(e) Postage fully pre-paid to be served with a pleading seldom reports to office
(f) With instructions to the postmaster to return the and no employee is regularly present to receive
mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered pleadings, or where service is done on the last day of
the reglementary period and the office of the adverse
3. Substituted party or opposing counsel to be served is closed, for
whatever reason.
Done by delivery of the copy to the clerk of court with proof of ● ITC: the proximity between the offices of opposing
failure of both personal and service by mail counsel was established; moreover, the office of private
respondents‘ counsel was ―ten times farther‖ from the
Proper only when: post office than the distance separating the offices of
(1) Service cannot be made personally or by mail opposing counsel. Private respondents‘ counsel violated
(2) Office and place of residence of the party or his counsel Section 11 of Rule 13 and the motion to expunge was
being unknown prima facie meritorious
● BUT: the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect only
Service is complete at the time of such delivery. on 1 July 1997, while the questioned ―Answer (with
Counterclaims)‖ was filed only on 8 August 1997, or on
4. Publication the 39th day following the effectivity of the 1997 Rules.
Hence, private respondents‘ counsel may not have
Solar v Ricafort, G.R. No. 132007, 5 August 1998 been fully aware of the requirements and ramifications
● Solar Entertainment [PET] filed before Paranaque RTC of Section 11, Rule 13.
a complaint for recovery of possession and damages ● instant petition is DISMISSED considering that while the
with prayer for a writ of replevin vs. Felix Co, Jeffrey Cal justification for the denial of the motion to expunge the
and King Cuisia [RESP] ―Answer (with Counterclaims)‖ may not necessarily be
● RESP filed their ―Answer (with Counterclaims)‖. A copy correct, yet, for the reasons above stated, the violation
thereof was furnished counsel for PET by registered of Section 11 of Rule 13 may be condoned
mail; however, the pleading did not contain any written
explanation as to why service was not made personally,
as required by Section 11 of Rule 13
● PET filed a motion to expunge the ―Answer (with
Counterclaims)‖ and to declare RESP in default. There
IX. Service of Summons ● Before the expiry of the redemption period, the spouses
Trocino sold the property to PET Sps Fortunato and
section 1(c), Rule 16
Aurora Gomez on December 12, 1989, who in turn,
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the redeemed the same from Dr. Yujuico.
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a ● The spouses Trocino, however, refused to convey
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following ownership of the properties to PET, hence, the
grounds: complaint for specific performance and/or rescission
(c) That venue is improperly laid; ● RTC‘s Process Server served summons on RESP
through RESP Caridad Trocino (mother of RESPs)
section 4, Rule 46
● RESP filed their Answer verified by RESP Caridad
Section 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how ● RTC ruled in favor of PET, ordered RESPs to execute a
acquired. — The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the Deed of Sale in favor of the PET and to deliver the
person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or owner‘s duplicate copies of TCTs
resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his ● RESP Adolfo and Mariano Trocino filed petition for the
voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. (n) annulment of the judgment rendered by RTC, alleging
that it did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons as
section 7, Rule 24
they were not validly served with a copy of the
Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. — If an appeal has summons and the complaint. At the time summons was
been taken from a judgment of a court, including the Court of served on them, Adolfo Trocino was already in Ohio,
Appeals in proper cases, or before the taking of an appeal if U.S.A., and has been residing there for 25 years, while
the time therefor has not expired, the court in which the Mariano Trocino was in Talibon, Bohol, and has been
judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions residing there since 1986. They refuted the receipt of
of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for in the event of the summons by Caridad A. Trocino, and the
further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party representation made by Atty. Bugarin in their behalf.
who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion ● CA granted petition for annulment of judgment, annulled
in the said court for leave to take the depositions, upon the decision of RTC Cebu
same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending HELD: When the process server personally served the
therein. The motion shall state (a) the names and addresses summons on Caridad Trocino, the trial court validly acquired
of the persons to be examined and the substance of the jurisdiction over her person alone. Hence, the trial court‘s
testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and (b) the decision is valid and binding with regard to her, but only in
reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that proportion to Caridad Trocino‘s share
the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure
or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the
ACTIONS IN PERSONAM ACTIONS IN REM/QUASI IN
deposition to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may
REM
be taken and used in the same manner and under the same
summons on the defendant jurisdiction over the person
conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for depositions
must be served by handing a of the defendant is NOT a
taken in pending actions. (7a, R134)
copy thereof to the defendant prerequisite to confer
in person, or, if he refuses to jurisdiction on the court
A. Modes of service receive it, by tendering it to provided that the court
1. Personal him. (R14.7) acquires jurisdiction over the
If efforts to find the defendant res, although summons must
section 6, Rule 14 personally makes prompt be served upon the
Section 6. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever service impossible, defendant in order to satisfy
practicable, the summons shall be served by handling a copy substituted service may be the due process
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive effected requirements
and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (7a)
ITC: since the case is an action in personam because it is an
2. Substituted action against persons on the basis of their personal liability,
personal service of summons upon the RESPs is
section 7, Rule 14 essential in order for the court to acquire of jurisdiction
Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the over their persons
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as Consequently, the judgment sought to be executed
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) against respondents were rendered without jurisdiction
by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's as there was neither a proper service of summons nor
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion was there any waiver or voluntary submission to the trial
then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at court‘s jurisdiction. Hence, the same is void, with regard to
defendant's office or regular place of business with some private respondents except Caridad Trocino
competent person in charge thereof. (8a)
Notes:
Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, 10 March Technique when some co-owners are abroad: have their
2004 properties attached to convert the in personam action into
● RESP Sps Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged two quasi in rem
parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 10616 and 31856
to Dr. Clarence Yujuico. Philam Life v. Breva, G.R. 147937, 11 November 2004
● Mortgage was subsequently foreclosed and the - respondent Milagros Morales filed a complaint for
properties sold at public auction on July 11, 1988 damages and reimbursement of insurance premiums.
Complaint stated that petitioner could be served with
summons and other court processes thru its Manager at trial court over her person due to an invalid substituted
its branch office in Davao City service of summons
- Summons served upon Philam‘s Davao office and HELD: There was no valid substituted service of
received by Insurance Service Officer summons for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction
- Philam filed MTD otg of lack of jurisdiction over its - There is no clear valid reason cited in the Return why
person due to improper service of summons. The efforts to serve summons on Manotoc proved
employee who received was not among those inadequate, to reach the conclusion that personal
enumerated in Rule 14, RoC service has become impossible or unattainable
- Morales filed amended complaint alleging that summons - Before resorting to substituted service, a plaintiff
may also be served at Philam‘s principal office in Manila must demonstrate an effort in good faith to locate
- RTC denied MTD and directed service of alias the defendant through more direct means
summons in Manila (improper service of summons not - The narration of the efforts made to find the
ground for dismissal because case is still in its initial defendant and the fact of failure written in broad
stage) and imprecise words will not suffice
- CA held that the service of alias summons vested the - The facts and circumstances should be stated with
RTC with jurisdiction over the person of petitioner more particularity and detail on the number of
HELD: attempts made at personal service, dates and times of
- An alias summons may be served in case of wrongful the attempts, inquiries to locate defendant, names of
service of summons occupants of the alleged residence, and the reasons for
- ITC, complaint was amended after the petitioner filed failure should be included in the Return to satisfactorily
the motion to dismiss. show the efforts undertaken
- Where the defendant has already been served - ADDED TO THIS, the Court ruled that the requirements
summons on the original complaint, the amended of (1) being a person of suitable age and discretion; and
complaint may be served upon him without need of (2) that the recipient must reside in the house or
another summons. But if no summons yet been validly residence of the defendant; were NOT MET in serving
served on the defendant, new summons for the the summons to the caretaker
amended complaint must be served on him
- ITC, since at the time the complaint was amended no
summons had been properly served on the petitioner 3. Publication
and it had not yet appeared in court, new summons
section 14, Rule 14
should have been issued on the amended complaint.
SO, the TC should have ordered the service of an Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or
original summons, not an alias summons (which is just a whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the
continuation of an original summons) defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
- Nonetheless, alias vs. original = mere nomenclature whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court,
Note: be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of
- The ruling in Philamlife is the exact opposite of the general circulation and in such places and for such time as
ruling in Manotoc. But Sir Lumba thinks that the the court may order. (16a)
Philamlife ruling should be followed.
section 1(f), Rule 57
- MTD for lack of jurisdiction over the person is only
applicable among others if foreign corporation not doing Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At
business in the Philippines the commencement of the action or at any time before entry
of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the
Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. 130974, 16 August 2006 property of the adverse party attached as security for the
- PET Ma. Imelda M. Manotoc is the defendant in a civil satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
case entitled Agapita Trajano, pro se, and on behalf of following cases:
the Estate of Archimedes Trajano v. Imelda ‗Imee‘ R. (f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not
Marcos-Manotoc for Filing, Recognition and/or found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment served by publication. (1a)
- RESP Trajano seeks the enforcement of a foreign
court‘s judgment in US District Court of Honolulu, 4. Extraterritorial
Hawaii, in a case entitled Agapita Trajano, et al. v. Imee
Marcos-Manotoc a.k.a. Imee Marcos for wrongful death sections 12, 15-16, Rule 14
of deceased Archimedes Trajano committed by military Section 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. —
intelligence officials of the Philippines allegedly under When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
the command of Manotoc has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be
- trial court issued a Summons addressed to PET at made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law
Alexandra Homes, E2 Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
Avenue, Pasig City. The Summons and a copy of the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any
Complaint were allegedly served upon Macky de la of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (14a)
Cruz, an alleged caretaker of PET at the condominium Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant
unit. When petitioner failed to file her Answer, the trial does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the
court declared her in default. action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to,
- PET, by special appearance of counsel, filed a Motion or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in
to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest transaction which occurred in the Philippines, service of any
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached summons or other legal process may be made upon the
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be Securities and Exchange Commission and that such service
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under shall have the same force and effect as if made upon the duly
section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general authorized officers of the corporation at its home office."
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may Whenever such service of summons or other process shall
order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the be made upon the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known Commission shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, transmit by
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court mail a copy of such summons or other legal process to the
may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty such copy by the Commission shall be necessary part of and
(60) days after notice, within which the defendant must shall complete such service. All expenses incurred by the
answer. (17a) Commission for such service shall be paid in advance by the
Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — party at whose instance the service is made. In case of a
When any action is commenced against a defendant who change of address of the resident agent, it shall be his or its
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is duty to immediately notify in writing the Securities and
temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also Exchange Commission of the new address. (72a; and n)
effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding Section 133. Doing business without a license. - No foreign
section. (18a) corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a
license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
section 1(f), Rule 57 maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At court or administrative agency of the Philippines; but such
the commencement of the action or at any time before entry corporation may be sued or proceeded against before
of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid
property of the adverse party attached as security for the cause of action recognized under Philippine laws. (69a)
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
following cases: A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is hereby amended
found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be to read as follows:
served by publication. (1a) "SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. —
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
sections 123, 128, 133, Corporation Code has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be
Section 123. Definition and rights of foreign corporations. - made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law
For the purposes of this Code, a foreign corporation is one for that purpose, or, i f there be no such agent, on the
formed, organized or existing under any laws other than government official designated by law to that effect, or on any
those of the Philippines and whose laws allow Filipino of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
citizens and corporations to do business in its own country or If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
state. It shall have the right to transact business in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave
Philippines after it shall have obtained a license to transact of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the
business in this country in accordance with this Code and a following means:
certificate of authority from the appropriate government a) B y personal service coursed through the appropriate court
agency. (n) in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department
Section 128. Resident agent; service of process. - The of Foreign Affairs;
Securities and Exchange Commission shall require as a b) B y publication once in a newspaper of general circulation
condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact in the country where the defendant may be found and by
business in the Philippines by any foreign corporation that serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-
such corporation file with the Securities and Exchange registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
Commission a written power of attorney designating some c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could
person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom generate proof of service; or
any summons and other legal processes may be served in all d) B y such other means as the court may in its discretion
actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, direct."
and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall This rule shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in
be admitted and held as valid as if served upon the duly a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home March 15, 2011
office. Any such foreign corporation shall likewise execute
and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission an
agreement or stipulation, executed by the proper authorities WoN the court can acquire jurisdiction:
of said corporation, in form and substance as follows: "The
(name of foreign corporation) does hereby stipulate and PENNOYER (TERRITORIAL): substituted service of process
agree, in consideration of its being granted by the Securities for in personam actions and acquisition of jurisdiction may not
and Exchange Commission a license to transact business in be permitted if the defendant does not reside (for
the Philippines, that if at any time said corporation shall corporations, was not incorporated) and is not found (for
cease to transact business in the Philippines, or shall be corporations, is not doing business) in the territory  applies
without any resident agent in the Philippines on whom any to the Philippines
summons or other legal processes may be served, then in Found Not found
any action or proceeding arising out of any business or Related (to a Yes In personam – No
transaction in the In rem/quasi in
territory) rem - Yes permitted only for in rem actions. There could be no judgment
Unelated Yes In personam – No regarding the personal rights of the parties without personal
In rem/quasi in jurisdiction, so the sale was void. However, the sale would
rem - Yes have been valid if the plaintiff had attached the real property
in the state when the action was brought, which would have
SHAFFER/INTERNATIONAL SHOE/DAIMLER (LONG conferred in rem jurisdiction
ARM): substituted service of process for in personam actions
and acquisition of jurisdiction may be permitted even if the Note:
defendant does not reside (for corporations, was not - Attaching the property converts the action to a quasi in
incorporated) and is not found (for corporations, is not doing rem action
business) in the territory so long as there are MINIMUM - But according to Sir Lumba, MORTGAGE ALWAYS IN
POINTS OF CONTACT IN THE TERRITORY QUASI IN REM

Found (General Not found


Jurisdiction – (Specific Authority El Blanco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390,
continuous and – isolated 26 March 1918
systematic) transaction) - Palanca executed mortgage in favor of PET. After
Related Yes Yes if there are executing the instrument, Palanca returned to China (his
minimum points of native country)
contact - PET El Banco Espanol-Filipino filed action to foreclose a
Unrelated Yes No because there mortgage upon various parcels of real property situated
are no minimum in the city of Manila
points of contact - publication was made in due form in a newspaper of the
city of Manila
LUZON IRON CASE (2016)  changed the rule in Ph for - CFI made a judgment by default; property was sold
foreign corporations; applied long arm jurisdiction in ph but - Palanca died in China without returning to Manila
only for foreign corporations, not to foreign natural persons - 7 years after the confirmation of the sale, the
Found (General Not found administrator of the estate filed motion to set aside the
Jurisdiction – (Specific Authority order of default and the judgment alleging that the court
continuous and – isolated had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or
systematic) transaction) over the subject of the action
HELD: the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter
Related Yes Yes
but jurisdiction over the person was not acquired
Unrelated Yes In personam – No
- in proceedings in rem or quasi in rem against a
In rem/quasi in
nonresident who is not served personally within the
rem - Yes
state, and who does not appear, the relief must be
confined to the res
For Foreign Corporations:
Singapore v. Dakila Luzon Iron Development v. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Trading Bridestone Mining
- Heitner, a nonresident of Delaware, is the owner of one
Doing business matters Doing business does not share of stock in the Greyhound Corp., a business
matter (treats foreigners and incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its
foreign corporations principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona
differently) - Filed a shareholder's derivative suit in the Court of
Applies Pennoyer Akin to long arm jurisdiction Chancery for New Castle County, Delaware. Heitner
alleged that the individual defendants had violated their
Note: Sir Lumba prefers that we apply Pennoyer, even to duties to Greyhound by causing it and its subsidiary to
foreign corporations (like the Singapore case) engage in actions that resulted in the corporation's
being held liable for substantial damages in a private
antitrust suit and a large fine in a criminal contempt
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) action. The activities which led to these penalties took
Mitchell sued Neff for legal fees that Neff allegedly owed to place in Oregon
him. The action was brought in Oregon, where Neff owned - Heitner filed a motion for an order of sequestration of
real property but was not a resident. After Neff was served by the Delaware property of the individual defendants. This
publication notice, he failed to respond, and Mitchell motion was accompanied by a supporting affidavit of
ultimately received a default judgment. Neff's land was sold counsel which stated that the individual defendants
at a sheriff's sale to satisfy the judgment, and Pennoyer were nonresidents of Delaware
bought it. Neff later sued in Oregon court to recover the - the sequestrator "seized" approximately 82,000 shares
property, once he found out about the sale, and he argued of Greyhound common stock belonging to 19 of the
that the sale was improper because the court that issued the defendants, and options belonging to another 2
judgment against him did not have personal jurisdiction over defendants
him. This would have prevented it from adjudicating the HELD: The Delaware courts based their assertion of
personal rights between the two parties. jurisdiction in this case solely on the statutory presence of
HELD: People or property outside the boundaries of a state appellants' property in Delaware. Yet that property is not the
may not be subject to its direct jurisdiction, and substituted subject matter of this litigation, nor is the underlying cause of
service of process in actions against non-residents may be action related to the property. Appellants' holdings in
Greyhound do not, therefore, provide contacts with Delaware Two categories of personal jurisdiction were
sufficient to support the jurisdiction of that State's courts over subsequently developed (International Shoe Co v
appellants. If it exists, that jurisdiction must have some other Washington):
foundation 1. Specific authority - in which the in-state activities of the
corporate defendant ―ha[d] not only been continuous and
International Shoe v. Washington systematic, but also g[a]ve rise to the liabilities sued on.‖
International Shoe Co. was a business incorporated in - commission of some single or occasional acts of the
Delaware with its principal place of business in Missouri. It corporate agent in a state may sometimes be enough to
employed about a dozen salesmen in the state of subject the corporation to jurisdiction in that State‘s tribunals
Washington, who were residents of that state paid by with respect to suits relating to that in-state activity
commissions on their sales. International Shoe did not own 2. General jurisdiction - situations where a foreign
any property or have a permanent location in Washington, corporation‘s ―continuous corporate operations within a state
since the salesmen used hotels and rented spaces to interact [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit
with potential clients. This system was designed to restrict the against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely
company's location to Missouri, although the business earned distinct from those activities.‖
about $30,000 annually from customers in Washington. - affiliations with the State are so ‗continuous and
The state enacted a tax on companies doing business there systematic‘ as to render them essentially at home in the
that functioned as a mandatory contribution to its forum State.‖
Unemployment Compensation Fund. When International
Shoe failed to comply with the tax, the state of Washington ITC: neither Daimler nor MBUSA is incorporated in
served a notice of assessment on one of the resident California, nor does either entity have its principal place of
salesmen and sent a letter by registered mail to the business there. Hence, there is no general jurisdiction.
company's Missouri headquarters. International Shoe tried to Plaintiffs have never attempted to fit this case into the
forestall the case at the outset by moving that it be dismissed specific jurisdiction category
for a lack of personal jurisdiction
HELD: Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible
when a defendant has minimum contacts with the state Asiavest v. CA, 296 S 539 (1998)
where a lawsuit is brought such that notions of fair play and - Asiavest Limited filed a complaint against the defendant
substantial justice would not be offended Antonio Heras praying that said defendant be ordered to
- due process requires only that, in order to subject a pay to the plaintiff the amounts awarded by the Hong
defendant to a judgment in personam,if he be not Kong Court Judgment
present within the territory of the forum, he have certain - MR. LOUSICH: presented as an expert on the laws of
minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of Hong Kong, and as a representative of the law office of
the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play the defendant‘s counsel who made a verification of the
and substantial justice." record of the case filed by the plaintiff in Hong Kong
- Since the corporate personality is a fiction, it is clear against the defendant, as well as the procedure in
that, unlike an individual, its "presence" without, as well serving Court processes in Hong Kong
as within, the state of its origin can be manifested only - Under Hong Kong laws: The writ of summons or claim
by activities carried on in its behalf by those who are can be served by the solicitor (lawyer) of the claimant or
authorized to act for it plaintiff. In Hong Kong there are no Court personnel
- Whether due process is satisfied must depend, rather, who serve writs of summons and/or most other
upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to processes
the fair and orderly administration of the laws which it - there was an application for service of summons upon
was the purpose of the due process clause to insure the defendant outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong;
there was an order of the Court authorizing service upon
Heras outside of Hong Kong, particularly in Manila or
Daimler A.G. v. Baumann any other place in the Philippines; there was an affidavit
Argentinian residents filed in the United States District Court stating that service was effected in a particular man
for the Northern District of California a complaint against here in Manila; such affidavit was filed by one Jose R.
DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler), a German Fernandez of the firm Sycip Salazar
public stock company, headquartered in Stuttgart, that - TC: concluded that the Hong Kong court judgment
manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany. They should be recognized and given effect in this jurisdiction
alleged that during Argentina‘s 1976–1983 ―Dirty War,‖ for failure of Heras to overcome the legal presumption in
(military dictatorship) Daimler‘s Argentinian subsidiary, favor of the foreign judgment
Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina) collaborated with - CA: reversed the TC decision and dismissed
state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain ASIAVEST‘s complaint without prejudice; underscored
MB Argentina workers. Damages for the alleged human- the fact that a foreign judgment does not of itself have
rights violations were sought from Daimler under the any extraterritorial application. For it to be given effect,
laws of the United States, California, and Argentina the foreign tribunal should have acquired jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the lawsuit was predicated on the over the person and the subject matter. If such tribunal
California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC has not acquired jurisdiction, its judgment is void
(MBUSA), a subsidiary of Daimler incorporated in HELD: There was no valid service of summons
Delaware with its principal place of business in New - In view of the absence of proof of the Hong Kong law on
Jersey. MBUSA distributes Daimler-manufactured this particular issue, the presumption of identity or
vehicles to independent dealerships throughout the similarity or the so-called processual presumption shall
United States, including California come into play. It will thus be presumed that the Hong
HELD: No jurisdiction Kong law on the matter is similar to the Philippine law
- In the case at bar, the action filed in Hong Kong against made not through Section 12, but pursuant to Section
HERAS was in personam, since it was based on his 15
personal guarantee of the obligation of the principal - Section 15, Rule 14, however, is the specific provision
debtor dealing precisely with the service of summons on a
- The extraterritorial service in the Philippines was defendant which does not reside and is not found in the
therefore invalid and did not confer on the Hong Kong Philippines. Only four instances wherein a defendant
court jurisdiction over his person. It follows that the who is a non-resident and is not found in the country
Hong Kong court judgment cannot be given force and may be served with summons by extraterritorial service:
effect here in the Philippines for having been rendered (1) when the action affects the personal status of the
without jurisdiction plaintiffs;
- Even assuming that HERAS was formerly a resident of (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is
Hong Kong, he was no longer so when the property, within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims
extraterritorial service of summons was attempted to be a lien or an interest, actual or contingent;
made on him (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in
property located in the Philippines; and
Singapore v. Dakila Trading, supra (4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been
Sir Lumba‘s summary of the Singapore case‘s doctrine re: attached within the Philippines
voluntary appearance (Note: all these four instances are ACTIONS IN REM)
Affirmative Defense  No voluntary appearance In these instances, service of summons may be effected by
Affirmative Relief  voluntary appearance EXCEPT (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b)
compulsory counterclaim (because if not set up, deemed publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner
waived); hence, permissive counterclaim is voluntary the court may deem sufficient
appearance - extraterritorial service of summons applies only
where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if
an action is in personam
NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd. v. Lepanto - ITC: Action to declare the loan and Hedging Contracts
Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. 175799, 28 November between the parties void with a prayer for damages →
2011 Action in personam
- Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company filed Complaint - BUT RESP voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of
against PET NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited the court
praying for a judgment declaring the loan and hedging o distinction between the raising of affirmative
contracts between the parties void defenses in an Answer (which would not
- RTC authorized respondents‘ counsel to personally amount to acceptance of the jurisdiction of the
bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine court) and the prayer for affirmative reliefs
Consulate General in Sydney, Australia for the latter (which would be considered acquiescence to
office to effect service of summons on petitioner the jurisdiction of the court)
- PET filed Special Appearance With Motion to Dismiss:
(a) the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of Note:
petitioner due to the defective and improper service of Under Section 12, Rule 14, it doesn‘t matter if action is in rem
summons; or in personam because the rule does not distinguish.
(b) the Complaint failed to state a cause of action and Under Section 15 however the action must be in rem,
respondent does not have any against petitioner; particularly, it must be one of the instances enumerated
(c) the action is barred by estoppel; and therein.
(d) respondent did not come to court with clean hands
Luzon Iron Development Group Corp. v. Bridestone Mining
- PET filed two Motions: (1) a Motion for Leave to take the and Development Corp., G.R. No. 220546, 7 December 2016
deposition of Mr. Paul Murray (Director, Risk - Bridestone Mining and Development Corporation
Management of petitioner) before the Philippine Consul (Bridestone) and Anaconda Mining and Development
General; and (2) a Motion for Leave to Serve Corporation (Anaconda) filed separate complaints
Interrogatories on respondent. before the RTC for rescission of contract and damages
- RTC: Denied MTD because there was a proper service against petitioners Luzon Iron Development Group
of summons through the DFA on account of the fact that Corporation (Luzon Iron) and Consolidated Iron Sands,
the defendant has neither applied for a license to do Ltd. (Consolidated Iron).
business in the Philippines, nor filed with the SEC a - Both complaints sought the rescission of the Tenement
Written Power of Attorney designating some person on Partnership and Acquisition Agreement (TPAA) entered
whom summons and other legal processes maybe into by Luzon Iron and Consolidated Iron, on one hand,
served and Bridestone and Anaconda, on the other, for the
HELD: Court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner of PET assignment of the Exploration Permit Application of the
- Irrelevant to discuss whether or not petitioner is doing former in favor of the latter. The complaints also sought
business in the Philippines because since the Complaint the return of the Exploration Permits to Bridestone and
was filed on August 30, 2005, the provisions of the 1997 Anaconda
Rules of Civil Procedure govern the service of summons - Luzon Iron and Consolidated Iron filed their Special
(Section 12, Rule 14) Appearance with Motion to Dismiss separately
- Service of summons to petitioner through the DFA by against Bridestone‘s complaint and Anaconda‘s
the conveyance of the summons to the Philippine complaint. They contended that the RTC could not
Consulate General in Sydney, Australia was clearly acquire jurisdiction over Consolidated Iron because it
was a foreign corporation that had never transacted ● CIR ultimately ruled in favor of RESP, ordered PET
business in the Philippines to pay full backwages, plus OT pay, and swing shift
- RTC: denied the MTDs, finding that Consolidated Iron and graveyard shift differentials
was doing business in the Philippines, with Luzon Iron ● considering that PET paid the claims of RESP, the
as its resident agent case had become moot and academic. Besides, the
HELD: Summons were not validly served in this case fact of such payment amounts to an
- The Rule on Summons, as it now reads, thus, makes acknowledgment on the part of PET of the
the question whether Consolidated Iron was “doing jurisdiction of the court over it (but the SC still
business in the Philippines” irrelevant as Section discussed the main issue since other cases tackle
12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court was broad enough the same question)
to cover corporations which have “transacted HELD: PET has been ‗doing business in the Philippines‘
business in the Philippines.” so that the service of summons upon its agent in the
- In the case at bench, it is crystal clear that Consolidated Philippines vested the Court with jurisdiction
Iron transacted business in the Philippines as it was a - if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the
signatory in the TPAA that was executed in Makati. Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from
Hence, as the respondents argued, it may be served courts in the Philippines, a fortiori that same corporation
with the summons in accordance with the modes cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine
provided under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of courts for acts done against a person or persons in the
Court Philippines
- Consolidated Iron was not properly served with
summons through any of the permissible modes
under the Rules of Court. Indeed, Consolidated Iron Avon Insurance v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97642, 29
was served with summons through Luzon Iron. August 1997
Such service of summons, however, was defective ● Yupangco Cotton Mills engaged to secure with
because Luzon Iron was never registered before the Worldwide Security and Insurance Co., Inc. several
SEC as Consolidated Iron‘s resident agent of its properties.Both contracts were covered by
reinsurance treaties (made through an international
Note: Case was dismissed for wrong service of summons but insurance broken) between Worldwide Surety and
in Philamlife v. Breva the wrong service of summons is not Insurance and several foreign reinsurance
the ground for dismissal if the court can still acquire companies, including the petitioners.
jurisdiction ● The properties insured by Yupangco were razed by
fire and thus, partial payments were made by
Facilities Management Corporation v. De la Osa, 89 Worldwide Surety and Insurance and some of the
SCRA 131 1979 insurance companies to indemnify the former.
● Leonardo dela Osa [RESP] filed a petition before the ○ Worldwide acknowledged, in a Deed of
CIR for reinstatement with full backwages, plus OT Assignment, a remaining balance of P19M
pay, and swing shift and graveyard shift differentials due to Yupangco, and assigned to the
○ Worked as painter, houseboy, cashier for latter all reinsurance proceeds still
Facilities Management Corp collectible form all the foreign reinsurance
● Facilities Management Corporation (FMC) and J. S. corporations.
Dreyer [PET] interposed special defenses: ● In its interest as assignee and original insured,
○ that they were domiciled in Wake Island Yupangco instituted a collection suit against the
which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of petitioners. Service of summons upon the latter was
the Philippine Government; made by notification to the Insurance Commissioner,
○ that petitioner J. V. Catuira, though an pursuant to Sec. 14, Rule 14 of the RoC.
employee of PET corporation presently ● Petitioner‘s argument: (1) Court has no jurisdiction
stationed in Manila, is without power and over them, being all foreign corporations not doing
authority of legal representation; and business in the PH, with no office, place of business
○ that the employment contract between or agents in the PH and (2) extra-territorial service of
petitioner and respondent corporation summons on petitioners in null and void since the
carries the approval of the Department of complaint for collection is not one affecting plaintiff‘s
Labor. status and not relation to property within the PH.
● PET then filed MTD otg of lack of jurisdiction ● CA: (1) petitioners were properly served with
● CIR denied MTD summons and whatever defects were cured by their
○ while it is true the site of work is identified voluntary appearance in court via an MTD, (2) Being
as Wake Island, it is equally true the place reinsurers of Worldwide, petitioners cannot now
of hire is established in Manila validly argue that they do not do business in the
○ what is important is the fact that the country.
contract of employment between the HELD: Court does not have jurisdiction over petitioners.
parties litigant was shown to have been ● Yupangco did not make an allegation or
originally executed and subsequently demonstration of the existence of petitioner‘s
renewed in Manila domestic agent, but avers simply that they are doing
○ Hence, any dispute arising therefrom business not only abroad, but in the PH as well. A
should Hence, any dispute arising general allegation standing alone, that a party is
therefrom should doing business in the PH does not make it so.
● The reinsurance treaties b/w the petitioners and
Worldwide were made through an international
insurance broker, and not through any entity or
means remotely connected with the Philippines. or hearing. (4a)
○ Furthermore, a contract of reinsurance is
section 6, Rule 16
generally a separate and distinct
arrangement from the original contract of Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — If no
insurance whose contracted risk is insured motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for
in the reinsurance agreement. Hence, the dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an
original insured has generally no affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the
interest in the contract of reinsurance. court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
● A foreign corporation, is one which owes its motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a) The dismissal of the
existence to the laws of another state, and generally complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
has no legal existence within the state in which it is prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim
foreign. pleaded in the answer. (n)
■ Before a FC can transact
business in the country, it must BA Finance v. Rufino, 224 S 163 (1993)  bad law
first obtain a license to transact ● BA Finance [PET] filed petition to recover a sum of
business here and secure the money arising from a credit accommodation in the form
proper authorizations under of a discounting line which it granted to defendant Rufino
existing law; purpose: to subject Co [RESP]
the FC doing business in the PH ● After defendants' Amended Answer to Complaint with
to the jurisdiction of the courts. Compulsory Counterclaim was admitted, the case was
● The same danger does not exist among FC that are set for Pre-Trial Conference. For various reasons,
indubitably NOT doing business in the PH. If a FC however, the conference was repeatedly reset
does not do business here, there would be no ● PET failed to attend the Pre-Trial Conference.
reasons for it to be subject to the State‘s ● RESP moved for dismissal of the case without prejudice.
regulation. As far as the State is concerned, such The motion was granted
FC has no legal existence thus, to subject the FC to ● RESP moved to set the reception of their evidence in
the courts‘ jurisdiction would violate the essence of support of their counterclaim → PET opposed
sovereignty ● TC denied the motion of RESP
● CA reversed, directed TC to set the reception of RESP‘s
evidence on their counterclaim
X. Early Dismissal ● Before SC, PET contends that the dismissal of the
A. Dismissal by the plaintiff complaint carries with it the dismissal of the
section 1-2, 4, Rule 17 counterclaim. Private respondents, on the other hand,
Section 1.Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint claim that their compulsory counterclaim should not have
may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of been included in the dismissal.
HELD: Petition GRANTED. CA decision reversed. TC
dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a
motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, decision reinstated.
the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. ● The counterclaim of private respondents is not merely
Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without permissive but compulsory in nature
prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication ● The counterclaim of private respondents is denominated
upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once "compulsory" and consists of claims for alleged
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or overpayments and damages. They assert that they are
including the same claim. (1a) no longer indebted to petitioner and are in fact entitled to
Section 2.Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as reimbursement for overpayments. They ask for da