CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEW

2015-2016
From the Lectures of Atty. Caesar Europa

November 16, 2015 Jurisdiction over the subject matter (JOSM)

How do you determine? What are the important things to

General vs Limited (Jurisdiction) remember over JOSM? To me, what is the most important
thing to remember is that it is conferred by law. Because of
General Jurisdiction Limited Jurisdiction this:
covers all types of actions, it is the authority of the court
suits, criminal, civil, real or with respect to a particular  it cannot be the subject matter of the agreement of
personal case the parties
 It cannot be waived
 It cannot be acquired through acquisence, it cannot
Like the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction. Now, there are be acquired through acquisence of the court.
certain RTCs that can be considered in that particular sense,
courts of limited jurisdiction, like RTC designated as special Actually I had some experience of this once. Nakalagay sa
corporate court. In their character as special corporate court, contrata ba: any action arising out of this contract will be
they can be considered courts of limited jurisdiction; but in instituted in the MTC of Davao City only, to the exclusion of all
their character as RTC, because they still accept other types other courts.
of cases, but not as a special corporate court.
Obviously, the tenor is Davao City. But the question was, it
Original vs Appellate shouldn’t be included because it was an action for unlawful
detainer. Yun yung kaso, tapos lampas naman dun sa date
Original Appellate from last demand bago na file yung kaso. It cannot be
– the power of the court to – the power vested in the unlawful detainer anymore. It has to be a plenary action, to
take cognizance of a case at superior court to review, recover possession of the property, at least. Jurisdiction was
the first instance, at the revise a judicial action of the already dependent on the assessed value of the property. In
beginning, at its inception. lower court. this case, it was more than 50k, so jurisdiction was vested in
the RTC. I don’t know what the lawyer from Manila, he was
insisting that it was a binding stipulation in the contract and
As you all know, the only court that has absolute and no he was citing American cases. When I said JOSM is conferred
appellate jurisdiction is the MTC, for the simple reason that it by law and I began citing the cases with regard to distinction
is the lowest court. RTC, CA, SB, both have original and between venue and jurisdiction. Bottom line is, you can’t cite
appellate jurisdiction. The CA, in fact is more appellate than US cases, sorry nalang sya. Gusto ng judge sabihin na “Anong
original, although it does have original jurisdiction in certain tinging mo sa akin, tanga?”. Bottom line, sabi ng judge, hindi
cases. naman applicable yang cases na yan dito. The rule is very
clear, JOSM is not the subject matter of an agreement. It
Exclusive vs Concurrent or Coordinate cannot even be the subject matter of waiver. There is only
one very very exceptional situation, that estoppel will apply:
Exclusive Concurrent
that is Guiang vs Pumanoy (can’t find the case, dili man gud
– sya lang. – jurisdiction possessed by
ko sure sa title) case will apply, which is very very rare.
court together with another
court over the same subject The SC said, the waiver of issue of jurisdiction by reason of
matter. estoppel should be applied sparingly and only where the
reason will result in manifest injustice.
The coordinate and concurrent, all regular RTCs are Now, what is very important for you to remember is that
coordinate courts. They have jurisdiction over the same kinds JOSM in civil case is determined on the basis of the
of cases. Now, it can be said that their jurisdiction is also allegations in the complaint. In relation to the law at the time
concurrent but really if you wanna be technical about it, the of the institution of the case. So it is based on the allegations
term coordinate means trial court in the same level; in the complaint. Even if your defense, in your answer, it
whereas concurrent, you can say that 2 or more courts have would seem to imply or they conclude that the jurisdiction of
concurrent jurisdiction even they belong to different levels. the case should be the RTC or some other body. That is not
Like the SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction for binding upon the court because what is important is the
example petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Concurrent matter of the allegations of the complaint.
yan.
Kamag-anak lang yan nung nag allege nung… kunwari utang
The jurisdiction in civil cases: tapos ang gina claim is 100K so RTC. Sabihin ng defendant na
nagbayad naman ako. Eto mga recibo. Ang naiwan nalang is
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter 50k so dapat MTC na yan. The jurisdiction is determined by
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the parties the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in the answer
3. Jurisdiction over the res
will not be binding.
4. Jurisdiction over the issues

1
Papano kung nag file ka ng complaint, tapos halimbawa ang
complaint moa ng may jurisdiction is MTC, kasi ang claim mo
na mabayaran is 150k; but the other guy is claiming damages
amounting to 600k. Would that bring the case outside of the
jurisdiction of the MTC? NO.
Can the RTC award 600k? Sige daw. Hindi man kaya mawala
ang jurisdiction ng MTC. Can the MTC award 600k as
counterclaim? Ano man? Sagot gud kayo. Pwede hindi?
HINDI.
Hindi talaga maka award ang MTC ng more than the amount
of its jurisdiction. Diba?
Answer: There can be no counter claim outside the
jurisdiction of the court.
Except that case is filed in the RTC and the counterclaim
would fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC, then the RTC
can take cognizance of it.
Diba? Anong gawin mo? File ka ng separate case. You can
actually raise it as?? An affirmative defense.
A claim that cannot be a counterclaim because it is beyond
the jurisdiction of the court cannot be raised as a
counterclaim, it can be raised as an affirmative defense.
The leading case there is MACEDA vs. CA:
Maceda's petition for review (G.R. No. 83545) has no merit.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the municipal trial
court did not have original jurisdiction over his counterclaim
as it exceeds P20,000. Correspondingly, the regional trial
court did not have appellate jurisdiction over the claim. The
decision of the Municipal Trial Court of San Juan awarding
him P158,000 on his counterclaim, and that of the Regional
Trial Court raising the award to P182,200, were invalid for
lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Court in a civil action for sum of money (Maceda's
counterclaim for the value of his improvements is one such
action) is limited to a demand that "does not exceed twenty
thousand pesos exclusive of interest and costs but inclusive of
damages of whatever kind." (Sec. 33, subpar. 1, B.P. Blg. 129.)
A counterclaim in the municipal or city court beyond that
jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by way of defense
to weaken the plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain affirmative
relief. (Agustin vs. Bacalan, 135 SCRA 340).
Jurisdiction of the res
Literally, the meaning of the word “res” is “thing”. Kaya nga
res ipsa loquitor. The res here is the thing in dispute.
How is jurisdiction of the res acquired?
It is acquired by:
1. Seizure; or
2. Legal processes from the court
What’s also very important that you have to remember: in
actions in rem and quasi in rem, even if the court does not
have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, there are
cases where the jurisdiction over the thing would be
sufficient for the court to act.
For example, the defendant is abroad and cannot be reached
by summons issued by the court. That has been made as an
exception. Baka mawala pa yun.
How do you convert an action in rem into an action quasi in
rem?
Attachment.
For you to implement a writ of attachment, whether a
preliminary attachment, there has to be prior or
contemporaneous service of summons. There are tons of
case jan.
Except in cases where the defendant’s whereabouts are
unknown, if the defendant is abroad for example, but his
whereabouts are known, can you serve summons by
publications? In an action in personam?
NO YOU CANNOT.
The only time you can serve summons by publication in
actions in personam is when it falls within section 14 Rule
14, when the defendant is unknown and his whereabouts
are unknown.
Bakit nga yan? Kasi ang umpisa nyan sa codal “in any case”:
Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or
whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the
defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court,
be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation and in such places and for such time as the
court may order. (16a)
May decided cases pa yan na sabi ng SC ang meaning ng “in
any case” eh kahit anong case, pati yung action in personam.
Pero dun lang. In all other cases, extrajudicial service by
publication, extraterritorial rather, via publication, you will
need to convert an action in personam to an action quasi in
rem.
Kung in personam, convert to quasi in rem, how? By
attachment. Eto na yung problema ngayon, papano ka
makaka attach para maconvert mo sya from action in
personam to action quasi in rem, in order to implement the
writ of attachment, there has to be prior and/or
contemporaneous service of summons. Yan ang tanong na
nalibog si Dean Inigo?
Anong sagot?
The objective is sue somebody who is abroad but you know
where he is. What is the remedy?
You have to acquire jurisdiction over his res. One of the
remedies there is serve summons by publication.
How do you do that? You can only do that through section
13, via, in cases of in rem or quasi in rem? How do you
convert it? By attachment.
How do you attach when the rule is that the implementation
of the writ of attachment, there has to be prior and
contemporaneous service of summons. Paano yun?
The answer is in the rules. It is an exception. It was an
amendment introduced in the 1997 rules. Before that, that
was not there. When the 1997 rules came out, tinawag nya
na ako agad. Sinagot nya na ako, that is now in the rules. That
is now an exception.
2
Rule 57:
Section 5. Manner of attaching property. — The sheriff
enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all reasonable
diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the
action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the
party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's
demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court
from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond
executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond
fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value
of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs. No levy on
attachment pursuant to the writ issued under section 2
hereof shall be enforced unless it is preceded, or
contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons,
together with a copy of the complaint, the application for
attachment the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order
and writ of attachment, on the defendant within the
Philippines.
The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of
summons shall not apply where the summons could not be
served personally or by substituted service despite diligent
efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Philippines
temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a non-
resident of the Philippines, or the action is one
in rem or quasi in rem. (5a)
This is already review, we will jump from one topic to
another. We will now be correlating what you have studied.
Jurisdiction over the issues
The authority of the court to try the issues raised in the
pleadings of the parties.
What are the issues? These are the issues that are raised in
the pleadings.
What are the pleadings? The rule says, the complaint and the
answer and all those counterclaims, etc, reply,…
Basically, the allegations in the complaint and allegations in
the defenses will determine what the issues are.
Is this very important? YES. Why? Because, only the issues
that are properly raised in the pleadings can be determined
by the court. The court cannot decide on an issue that was
not raised on the pleadings.
Any judgment of the court must be secundum allegata et
probata (must be based on the allegations and proof).
Pero nung natapos na yung pretrial, during the precon, pinag
usapan na yung mga issues. so mag iisue ang judge ng pretrial
order.
Kunwari meron ng pretrial order tapos nag attempt ngayon
na magpresenta na ebidensya ang plaintiff on an issue that is
not among those raised in the pretrial and not included in the
pretrial order. Hindi yan pwede iconsider ng court. Diba?
Kung giraise mo sya sa pleadings, what should prevail? The
pretrial order or the pleadings? Which one? PRETRIAL ORDER
because the rule 18 is very very clear. The pretrial order will
control all subsequent proceedings. Diba?
Section 7. Record of pre-trial. — The proceedings in the pre-
trial shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the
court shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the
matters taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon,
the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the
agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of
the matters considered. Should the action proceed to trial,
the order shall, explicitly define and limit the issues to be
tried. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent
course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent
manifest injustice. (5a, R20)
So even if raised in the pleadings, but not included in the
pretrial order, that is not considered an issue in the case. And
if it is not considered an issue in the case, the court has no
authority to make a determination or decide on a particular
issue.
Nag present na sya, nakakita ng magandang abogado sa
katabi nya. Kinausap, nakipag chismisan, nakapag presenta ng
ebidensya ngayon si counsel for the plaintiff on the matter or
an issue that is not included in the pretrial order.
Papano yan? Can the judge decide on that particular issue
that is not in the pretrial order? YES.
Pwede. bakiT? May waiver ng failure to object? Evidence baa
ng applicable jan? kasi sinasabi nyong waiver by failure to
object eh kasi di ka nag object. Eh sa evidence yan. Hindi yang
applicable jan.
Rule 10! Bakit? Dibaaaa nakalagay jan sa rule 10,
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the
parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been
raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as
may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence
and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any
party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend
does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If
evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not
within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow
the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if
the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of
substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may
grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
(5a)
You actually you don’t have to amend anymore, you can
actually ask the court to amned the pleading to allow you to
conform to the evidence. If evidence is presented on an issue
that was not raised in the pleadings including the pretrial
order, there is deemed to be an amendment of the pleading.
Include mon a jan, sabi ng jurisprudence, there is deemed an
amendment of the pretrial order.
Kung gusto mo lang talagang klarohin, eh di iamend nyo. Pero
rule 10 already provides.
Kunwari, nag presenta ng evidence, eh yung kalaban mo
naman, hindi nakipag chismisan, yung issue na gina present
mo is wala naman sa pretrial order, eh pati sa pleadings, and
it relates to a very material matter.
Tapos nag OBJECTION YOUR HONOR.
If one of the parties start present evidence on the issued that
was not raised in the pleadings and in the pretrial order, ano
ang objection? Rules of evidence?
3
IMMATERIAL OR IRRELEVANT.
Why irrelevant? Because for evidence to be relevant, it must
tend to prove the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.
Kung immaterial, isa lang ang possible objection. Kung
irrelevant, relevant lang. It does not prove or disprove a fact
in issue. Don’t forget the distinction between immaterial and
irrelevant.
IRRELEVANT YOUR HONOR. THE QUESTION IS ILLICITING AN
ANSWER WHICH IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT TEND TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE PROBABILITY
OR IMPROBABILITY OF ANY FACT OR DOES NOT RELATE TO
ANY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRETRIAL.
Anong sabihin ng judge? SUSTAINED.
Kung ikaw yung abogado, anong gagawin mo? Hilak nalang?
Anong magawa mo? Andun din yun sa sinabi ko kanina,
amendment to authorize. You must be able to convince the
court that this relates to a matter that is so material to the
case that even if you failed to include in the pleadings or
included in the pretrial order, justice will be better serve if
you are allowed to amend the pleadings; to authorize the
presentation of evidence. You can actually ask for a
continuance. You can amend the pleadings and now you will
be authorized and it will now be material and relevant
because it relates to an issue material to the case.
Ano nga yun difference ng AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO
EVIDENCE and AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE?
Don’t worry, we’ll go back to that.
It’s very important that these basic principles of jurisdiction
are very very related to conception topics that we will discuss
in the rules proper. They are not separate matters. Related
yan sya.
There’s one example. *asks about BusOrg, appeal daw is not
notice of appeal but petition for review* This is related to
doon sa WON an issue is included secundum allegata et
probata - a court cannot rule on a matter that is not raised as
an issue. There’s a new one on it, Steel Corporation of the
Philippines v. Equitable PCI Bank Nov. 17, 2010 (G.R. 190462),
this also applies to appellate cases. The appellate courts also
cannot rule on the matter that was not raised. Here, hindi
kasi ininclude nung appealing party kasama sa kanyang
prayer yung summary claim? ng proceedings, but that is what
the CA did. SC said CA cannot do that because it was not
prayed for secundum allegata et probata. "It is elementary
that a judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both
the pleadings and the evidence, and must be in accordance
with the theory of the action on which the pleadings are
framed and the case was tried. The judgment must be
secundum allegata et probata."
Creation of courts – Who creates courts? The Supreme Court
is created by the Constitution. [Note: other courts are created
by law, so Congress] *stories, Constitutional Law lessons* You
also have to remember that there limits to the powers of
Congress to create courts.
Article VI. Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in
this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
Bottomline, ayaw ng SC magpadagdag ng trabaho. *stories*
Fabian v. Desierto [I inserted the ruling of the case because
inaudible giingon ni Sir] “Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770
cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the proscription in
Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which
increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.”
PROBLEM: Kunwari merong kaso sa office of the OMB, file-an
siya ng kaso, normally joint yan, merong criminal
investigation, meron ding admin. Ngayon, may joint
resolution, sabi ng office of the OMB, there is probable cause
to file a case against you for violation of RA 3019 3(e) and
administratively you are guilty of grave misconduct. Anong
gagawin mo? Pwede ka magfile ng motion for
reconsideration. Kaya lang iba yung period, sa criminal 5 days
ka, sa admin 10. Kaya gawin mo yung joint motion for
reconsideration mo within 5 days. Ang problema mo lang
kung dismissal or suspension yung gi-cite, immediately
executory yan.
 Will a filing for a motion for reconsideration stop
that? No. the policy of the office of the OMB is that
its still executory if you file, although if you look at
the Rules of the Office of the OMB, the graft officer
is only given 5/10 days to resume. Kung ganyan ang
situation, ang gagawin lang ng graft investigator is to
file yung basis to modify the earlier *inaudible* but
that’s not a good ground.
 So paano mo yan istop? The only to stop the
immediately executory order is to get a restraining
order.
 Where? Concurrent jurisdiction yan, CA and SC.
 Saan ka magfile? CA, kasi magalit sayo ang SC if ifile
mo doon because you are not following the
hierarchy of courts. If you don’t follow the hierarchy
of courts, they will dismiss. So file ka sa CA rule 65,
hingi ka ng injunction kasi kung walang TRO, walang
injunction, tuloy tong case.
Hindi ba yan forum shopping? Nagfile ka na ng motion for
reconsideration nagfile ka pa ng petition sa rule 65? Okay,
ngayon, nadeny ang motion for reconsideration mo.
 Anong gawin mo? What is the remedy under RA
6170 for administrative issuances from the office of
the OMB? There are 2 separate remedies which you
cannot join together. Why? Because an appeal from
the office of the OMB in so far as the finding of
probable cause cannot go to the CA, it has to go to
the SC. And the mode of raising it to the SC is Rule
65. Pero yung resolution ng iba, yung administrative
aspect nun, saan ka? Sinasabi ng SC hindi niyo
pwedeng gawing appealable to the SC yang filing for
administrative cases kasi hindi kayo naghingi sa amin
ng advice or concurrence. So saan? CA, under Rule
43. So 1 resolution, nag-Rule 65 ka sa SC, nag-43 ka
sa CA, meron ka pang pending na Rule 65 sa CA.
 May forum shopping ba? Wala, iba ang subject
matter.
 Pero ano ang dapat mong gawin para hindi magalit
sayo ang CA at SC? Ilagay mo yan sa pleading mo na
nagfile ka ng separate na petition sa SC because of
the finding of probable cause which is appealable
only to the SC by virtue of a petition under rule 65 to
the SC. Doon naman sa SC magsabi ka mga bossing
nagfile din ako sa CA for 43 kasi sabi ng Rules at sabi
ng mga cases decided niyo hindi ko pwedeng
ipagsama at kailangan ipaghiwalay ko. Tapos meron
4
 pa akong nauna na 65 doon (sa CA) kasi naghingi ako
ng TRO.
So yan ang epekto ng kaso ng Fabian v. Desierto.
Art. VIII. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
“No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.”
 Anong ibig sabihin niyan? Anong nangyari bakit
kailangan ilagay natin yan dito? This is the first time
the provision of the Constitution is related to BP 129.
*stories about Marcos and control over judiciary*
Jurisdiction of Regular Courts:
Does the SC have original jurisdiction? Yes.
Art. VIII. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
Pwede mo idagdag jan ang inimbento ng SC writ of kalikasan,
writ of amparo. Pwede ba daw yan na wala man yang
concurrence and advice? Sila man naggawa, hindi man
Congress. *stories about the origin of the case of writ of
amparo*
Appellate jurisdiction of SC:
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
“All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.”
 Although they invented in the Matteo case the
concept of an intermediate appeal – in criminal
cases where the penalty imposed is RP or higher,
pasa mo muna yan sa CA. This case evolved into
changes in the Rules.
“All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.”
 Actually, all of these grounds in the Constitution are
questions of law.
Mode of appeal from Constitutional Commission to the SC,
certiorari under rule 65 within 30 days from receipt of
resolution. Congress changed that in so far as CSC decisions
are concerned, now decisions of the CSC are appealable to
the CA. Is that allowed? Yes.
Art. IX. Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority
vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it
within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision
or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself.
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
So it can be changed by law. There is no violation of the
Constitution there.
Jurisdiction of the SC as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal:
Art. VII. Section 4. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President,
and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the CA:
1. Writs of mandamus
2. Prohibition
3. Certiorari
4. Habeas corpus
5. Quo warranto
6. And auxiliary writs and other processes, blablabla
7. Add: Writ of kalikasan, amparo, habeas data
Why would you ever want to file a petition for writ of amparo
with the SC or CA?
 Coverage, kasi kung doon ka sa RTC doon ka lang sa
territorial jurisdiction. So lets isang grupo
pinaghiwahiwalay, ang isa dinala sa Visayas, isa sa
Luzon, isa sa Mindanao, but same group na inabduct.
So file ka sa CA para coverage ng writ whole country.
Appeallate jurisdiction of the CA, basahin niyo lang yan 
From Dean Inigo’s TSN:
Section 9. Jurisdiction. — The Intermediate Appellate Court
shall exercise: (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of:
1. RTCs
-The decision of the RTCs (in its appellate jurisdiction) shall be
appealable by petition for review to the CA which may give it
due course only when the petition shows :
i. prima facie that the lower court has committed an
error of fact or law
ii. that will warrant a reversal or modification of the
decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
5
2. quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, EXCEPT:
a. those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
b. The Labor code of the Philippines under P.D. 442
NOTE: NLRC decisions are appealed to CA (St.
Martin’s Funeral Home vs. NLRC)
c. the provisions of this Act, and
d. Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, paragraphs:
i. [1] in petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus
ii. [4] in actions brought to prevent and restrain
violations of law concerning monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade
Except those falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the CA,
and those falling under the Labor Code. St. Martin’s Funeral
Homes case, the SC said, kahit pa rule 65 ang mode from the
NLRC tapos aakyat ka, kahit concurrent with the SC, pero
doon kayo sa CA mag-file.
November 17, 2015
We are now in the jurisdiction of the RTC. If you don’t know
where the codal provisions are on the jurisdiction of the RTC,
they are found in BP 129, Sec.19. Let’s begin with the original
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
People get confused with the first one. You were taught that
breach of contract is incapable of pecuniary estimation. In
your vast knowledge of Negotiable Instruments Law and your
basics in ObliCon, they would tell you that a promissory note
(PN) is a contract. Is it or not? It is. It’s a promise to pay.
There is subject matter, consideration and agreement. If you
fail to pay a PN, what is that? That is a breach of contract.
What if I file an action for specific performance based on a PN
because there is a breach? Am I allowed to do that? Yes! So is
it incapable of pecuniary estimation? Certainly not. Don’t get
confused with this, that whenever the cause of action is for
breach of contract or specific performance, it is always
incapable of pecuniary estimation. That’s normally just a rule
of thumb. Kagaya ng mga gi-hire na magkanta pero ayaw
magkanta, file-an ka ng breach. The other party to the
contract has every right to sue you for the breach. ‘Yan,
incapable ‘yan. But what really determines whether or not an
action is incapable of pecuniary estimation is truly the
intention. If it is primarily for collection of an amount certain
in money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation. In such cases, the court which has jurisdiction will
be determined by the amount. Other than Metro Manila, the
threshold amount is 300,000. NCR, it’s 400,000.
What I’m trying to drive at is the emphasis on what the case
is all about. What it is primarily for. Because don’t forget that
there could be joinder of causes of action. There can be cases
where the cause of action may seem to be incapable of
pecuniary estimation, but part of it is capable of pecuniary
estimation, how will you determine jurisdiction in those
cases? What is the primary intention behind the case? If it is
primarily to recover a sum of money, then it is capable of
pecuniary estimation. When the basic issue is something
other than the right to recover a sum of money or when the
money claim is purely incidental to or a consequence of the
principal – specific performance – kagaya nung example ko
kanina, “with damages”. Eh yung mga action for damages,
that’s an amount certain in money, ‘di ba? Kay nakalagay
naman sa complaint na obliged to pay 100,000. What is it?
Again, go back to the basic rule. What is the case for? What is
the primary purpose behind the case? The reverse can be
true. I’m sure you all know the case of Russell v Vestil (G.R.
119347). The complaint can be denominated as an action to
recover a sum of money. But if you go through it, it would
turn out to be incapable of pecuniary estimation. Read the
case of Villena v Manolo (April 27, 2007), where the claim of
money was just a consequence because it was a case for
rescission. When there’s rescission, you know there’s
restitution.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
When it came to real actions, it used to be so easy because all
real actions used to be under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
These are cases involving title to, possession of, ownership of
real property or any interest therein. It used to be so easy
because they were all to be filed in the RTC, except unlawful
detainer and forcible entry. But now, the fact is even MTC has
jurisdiction over real actions. But the limit is determined by
the assessed value.
You have to be very careful with this because what this is
based on is the assessed value. Some people believe that this
is pretty much useless because the amounts are too small.
Yes, if you are thinking about market value. But the fact is,
there are many properties in many places where the assessed
value is too small. A large tract of land may be assessed as
having a value of only 5000. May mga lands na hindi na
nakaulit sa tax mapping, so their assessed value is from 19-
kopong kopong. That’s why there are cases dismissed
because there is no allegation of the value of the property.
Because there is no way of determining which court has
jurisdiction.
There was an interesting explanation behind that in the case
of Fernanda Geozon v Heirs of Legaspi (December 12, 2002).
Can the RTC have jurisdiction over recovery of possession of
real property? But the allegation there was the present
estimated value was 50,000 but the tax declaration showed
that the assessed value was only 11,000. The ruling of the SC
was that the subject land has an assessed value of P11,160 as
reflected in Tax Declaration No. 7565, a common exhibit of
the parties. The bare claim of respondents that it has a value
of P50,000 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where
the demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or
claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in
6
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
Actually, wala na yan kasi they now fall with the Family
Courts. Eh di ba ang Family Court, RTC rin? That’s actually
debatable because if you look at the law, the SC designated
the RTC as a Family Court. So, applicable pa ba o hindi? NO.
Because RTCs which are not family courts will not have
jurisdiction over this case. It’s only the family courts – RTCs
designated as family courts – that have jurisdiction over these
cases.
What’s the definition of insanity? The definition of insanity is
you keep doing the same thing, but you expect a different
result.
Ano ba nahuhulog sa jurisdiction ng family court na civil?
Please take note na ang habeas corpus is for the custody of
children. Adoption of children, declaration of nullity, petitions
for support, summary judicial proceedings brought under the
provisions of the Family Code. ‘Pag may dispute sa
administration of property, where to establish domicile, etc.
It’s so stupid that the jurisdiction of the family court includes
petitions for the constitution of the family home. This is a
blatant display of ignorance. Kasi mula nung August 1988,
wala na ito. Kasi sa Family Code, kung magsimula ka mabuhay
o tumira sa isang bahay and all of the requisites of a family
home are there, it’s AUTOMATICALLY constituted as a family
home without need of judicial declaration.
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as
now provided by law; and
Balik ka lang sa Family Code. All civil actions and special
proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court are now within the
jurisdiction of the FAMILY COURTS.
Cases covered by the Court of Agrarian Relations, sa DARAB
na ito ngayon. Wala nang Court of Agrarian Relations pero
meron na tayong Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Bakit? Dun
lang siya sa determination of just compensation. Dun lang.
DUN LAAAANG. So kung may determination ang DARAB,
pwede ka pa mag-appeal. Punta ka sa SAC. Sabi kasi ng SC,
the determination of just compensation is judicial in nature.
(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 One hundred thousand pesos
(100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds
Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by
R.A. No. 7691*)
300,000 na ‘pag nasa probinsiya at 400,000 pag nasa Manila.
What would be the basis for determining the jurisdiction in
these cases? The principal amount of the personal property
involved, without including the incidental claims of damages.
Ang problema dito, kalian mo isasali? Kasi ‘di ba, may
Administrative Circular ang SC na pag purely damages ang
kaso, isali mo lahat. Kagaya ng naglalakad ka tapos
nasagasaan ka. Ano i-file mo? Kung namatay, ano cause of
action? Quasi-delict. Principally a claim damages. So ano
kailangan niyo gawin? Alamin niyo yung mga kaso.
MOVERS-BASECO INTEGRATED SERVICES INC. V CYBORG
LEASING CORP (October 25, 1999)
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 09-94 provides:
2. The exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind in
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19(8)
and Section 33(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely
incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action.
However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main
cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
of the court.
The complaint filed by Cyborg with the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila prayed for the return of the Nissan Forklift to
it, as owner and as lessor pursuant to a lease agreement
executed by it in favor of Conpac, or, in the alternative for the
payment of P150,000.00 (the actual market value of the
forklift), plus damages, plus the amount of unpaid lease,
starting 09 April 1995 at P11,000.00 per month, which as of
the time of the filing of the complaint on 22 August 1996 had
amounted to P180,000.00 which, together with the value of
the forklift, reach the sum of P230,000.00 excluding the
amount of damages and attorneys fees likewise claimed. It
would be incorrect to argue that the actual damages in the
form of unpaid rentals were just incident of the action for the
return of the forklift, considering that private respondent
specifically sought in the complaint not only the seizure of the
forklift from petitioner - Movers, which took control of the
operations of Conpac, but likewise the payment of unpaid
and outstanding rentals.
FLORDELIZA MENDOZA V MUTYA SORIANO, JUNE 8, 2007.
Petitioner argues that the amount claimed by respondents is
within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. She
posits that to determine the jurisdictional amount, what
should only be considered are the following: P22,250 for
funeral services; P45,000 for burial lot; P15,150 for interment
and lapida; P8,066 for hospitalization and transportation;
P28,540 for food and drinks during the wake; and P60,000
indemnity for Sorianos death. She maintains that the sum of
these amounts, P179,006, is below the jurisdictional amount
of the Regional Trial Court. She states that under Section
19(8) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the
following claims of respondents must be excluded: P200,000
moral damages, P500,000 for lost income; P50,000 exemplary
damages; P25,000 attorneys fees plus P500 per court
appearance.
Section 19(8) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691, states the pertinent law.
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxxx
(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 One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where
7
the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
But relatedly, Administrative Circular No. 09-94 expressly
states:
xxxx
2. The exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind in
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19(8)
and Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691,
applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to
or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in
cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of
action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such
claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of
the court.
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts, as in this case,
are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum
of money for the damages for tortious acts. In this case,
respondents claim of P929,006 in damages and P25,000
attorneys fees plus P500 per court appearance represents the
monetary equivalent for compensation of the alleged injury.
These money claims are the principal reliefs sought by
respondents in their complaint for damages. Consequently
then, we hold that the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City
possessed and properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.
ELMER F. GOMEZ V MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN, March 14,
2008
Petitioner’s Complaint before the RTC reads:
3. On or about August 26, 1998, [herein respondent] obtained
from the [herein petitioner] a loan for the principal sum of
FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00) with a voluntary
proposal on her part to pay as much as 15% interest per
month. Machine copy of Cash Voucher dated August 26, 1998
is herewith attached as Annex A.
4. Upon receipt of the proceeds of the said loan, [respondent]
issued in favor of the Plaintiff Capitol Bank Check with check
nos. 0215632 postdated on October 26, 1998 for the sum of
Forty Six Thousand Pesos (P46,000.00) as security on the loan
with P6,000.00 as the first month of interest charges. When
the check became due, [respondent] defaulted to pay her
loan despite several allowances of time and repeated verbal
demands from the [petitioner]. The said check was later on
dishonored for the reason: Account Closed. Machine copy of
Capitol Bank Check wit nos. 0215632 is herewith attached as
Annex B.
5. On July 4, 2002, [petitioner] engaged the services of the
undersigned counsel to collect the account of the
[respondent]; thus, on the same day, a demand letter was
sent to and received by her on July 9, 2002. And despite
receipt thereof, she failed and continues to evade the
payment of her obligations to the damage and prejudice of
the [petitioner]. Thus, as of July 4, 2002, [respondent]s loan
obligation stood at TWO HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND
PESOS (P 239,000.00), inclusive of interest charges for 32
months. Machine copy of Demand Letter and its registry
receipt and return card is herewith attached as Annexes C; C-
1 and C-2, respectively.
6. In view of [respondent]s refusal to pay her loan,
[petitioner] is constrained to engage the services of counsel
to initiate the instant action for a fee of 25% for whatever
amounts is collected as flat attorneys fee. [Petitioner] will
likewise incur damages in the form of docket fees.
The Court gleans from the foregoing that petitioner’s cause of
action is the respondent’s violation of their loan agreement.
In that loan agreement, respondent expressly agreed to pay
the principal amount of the loan, plus 15% monthly interest.
Consequently, petitioner is claiming and praying for in his
Complaint the total amount of P238,000.00, already inclusive
of the interest on the loan which had accrued from 1998.
Since the interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable
component of the cause of action, not merely incidental
thereto, and already determinable at the time of filing of the
Complaint, it must be included in the determination of which
court has the jurisdiction over petitioner’s case. Using as basis
the P238,000.00 amount being claimed by petitioner from
respondent for payment of the principal loan and interest,
this Court finds that it is well within the jurisdictional amount
fixed by law for RTCs.
There can be no doubt that the RTC in this case has
jurisdiction to entertain, try, and decide the petitioners
Complaint.
To this Court, it is irrelevant that during the course of the
trial, it was proven that respondent is only liable to petitioner
for the amount of P40,000.00 representing the principal
amount of the loan; P57,000.00 as interest thereon at the
rate of 24% per annum reckoned from 26 August 1998 until
the present; and P15,000.00 as attorneys fees. Contrary to
respondent’s contention, jurisdiction can neither be made to
depend on the amount ultimately substantiated in the course
of the trial or proceedings nor be affected by proof showing
that the claimant is entitled to recover a sum in excess of the
jurisdictional amount fixed by law. Jurisdiction is determined
by the cause of action as alleged in the complaint and not by
the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined
by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs
cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which
court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on
the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
The case of NORMA MANGALIAG V HON. EDELWINA
CATUBIG-PASTORAL (October 3, 2005) is an example of what I
just said earlier na best example of a situation where Admin
Circular 09-94 or the cases where the incidental damages are
already included to determine the jurisdiction of the court,
are actions for damages based on quasi-delicts.
Then we have the CATCH ALL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
BP 129. Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by
the latter.
8
This is the reason why RTC can also be called the
WORKHORSE OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. Because if
there’s any case not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal or body, you file it with the RTC. How do
you apply this provision? You should know what cases fall
within the jurisdiction of administrative bodies and tribunals,
then apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This states
that a court cannot resolve a controversy which is within the
jurisdiction of some other administrative body, quasi-judicial
agency, tribunal of special competence.
Do you remember the Nestle v CA (November 1991) case?
The ratio behind the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is well-
explained.
It is a principle too well established that the construction
given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with
the interpretation and application of that statute is entitled
to great respect and should be accorded great weight by the
courts, unless such construction is clearly shown to be in
sharp conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution
and other laws. As long ago as 1903, this Court said in In re
Allen that
[t]he principle that the contemporaneous construction of a
statute by the executive officers of the government, whose
duty is to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and should
ordinarily control the construction of the statute by the
courts, is so firmly embedded in our jurisdiction that no
authorities need be cited to support it.
The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence
of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society
and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for
addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to
accumulation of experience and growth of specialized
capabilities by the administrative agency charged with
implementing a particular statute. In Asturias Sugar Central,
Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, the Court stressed that
executive officials are presumed to have familiarized
themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the
meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed an
independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion
thereon. The courts give much weight to contemporaneous
construction because of the respect due the government
agency or officials charged with the implementation of the
law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed
judgment, and the fact that they frequently are the drafters
of the law they interpret.
So these administrative bodies are focusing on specialized
fields. And since they’re focused only on those particular
fields, over the years of experience, they have developed
special skills and special knowledge about the cases which are
the subject matter of ___. This is why the power, authority
and jurisdiction of these bodies are given preference over the
general jurisdiction of the courts.
Ano pa magandang example? All cases involving
implementation of mining agreements - Mines and
Geosciences Bureau. Bakit? Kasi minerals ang pinag-uusapan,
malay ba ng judge ano ang mga minerals na yan. [story about
mercury poisoning and the Minamata disease] The
jurisdiction of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC)
includes the administrative cases filed against the
professionals under the PRC umbrella. Maraming boards
under PRC (Board of Medicine, Board of Accountancy, Board
of Real Estate Brokers, etc). So you file with these particular
boards, then if you’re unhappy with the decision, go to PRC.
Then go to CA. [story about exam leakage] Naglabas ng
resolution ang PRC na bawal na ang review schools (since sila
daw naglalabas ng leakage), siyempre palag ang mga may-ari.
Nag-file sila ng injunction sa RTC. Of course, ang SolGen sinabi
no jurisdiction because clearly, ang may jurisdiction ay PRC or
since nag-file against PRC, Court of Appeals by virtue of Rule
43. Sabi ng SC, MALI. You have to distinguish. Kung yung act is
quasi-judicial, dun ka pupunta sa CA. In this case, policy
issuance na pinagbabawal ang review schools. It’s a quasi-
legislative act, so it should be filed with the RTC.
PRC may revoke licenses. So kung gusto mong ipatanggal ang
license ng isang doctor, dun ka sa PRC mag-file. Pero kung
gusto mo magclaim ng damages dahil you suffered damages
because of the incompetence/negligence, dun ka mag-file sa
RTC. Your cause of action will be quasi-delict. Wala tayong
law on medical malpractice, ‘di ba? Ang meron tayo is law on
torts and damages. So can you file a case in court? Yes. Will it
not violate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction? No.
Read the case regarding CIAC. Compliance with the
Arbitration Law by referring the case to an arbitrator can be a
condition sine qua non before going to court. So if there’s a
provision of prior resort to arbitration before going to court,
that’s a binding stipulation under the ADR Law.
LM POWER ENGINEERING CORPORATION v CAPITOL
INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS, INC. MARCH 26, 2003.
Essentially, the dispute arose from the parties’ incongruent
positions on whether certain provisions of their Agreement
could be applied to the facts. The instant case involves
technical discrepancies that are better left to an arbitral body
that has expertise in those areas. In any event, the inclusion
of an arbitration clause in a contract does not ipso facto
divest the courts of jurisdiction to pass upon the findings of
arbitral bodies, because the awards are still judicially
reviewable under certain conditions.
The arbitral clause in the Agreement is a commitment on the
part of the parties to submit to arbitration the disputes
covered therein. Because that clause is binding, they are
expected to abide by it in good faith. And because it covers
the dispute between the parties in the present case, either of
them may compel the other to arbitrate.
Since petitioner has already filed a Complaint with the RTC
without prior recourse to arbitration, the proper procedure
to enable the CIAC to decide on the dispute is to request the
stay or suspension of such action, as provided under RA 876
[the Arbitration Law]
LT. GEN. ALFONSO P. DAGUDAG (RET.) VS. JUDGE MAXIMO
G.W. PADERANGA, ETC., June 19, 2008
The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of
forestry laws. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192 states that
the DENR shall be the primary agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development, and proper use of
the country’s natural resources.
Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by
Executive Order No. 277, states that possessing forest
products without the required legal documents is punishable.
Section 68-A states that the DENR Secretary or his duly
authorized representatives may order the confiscation of any
forest product illegally cut, gathered, removed, possessed, or
abandoned.
9
In the instant case, the forest products were possessed by
NMC Container Lines, Inc. without the required legal
documents and were abandoned by the unknown owner.
Consequently, the DENR seized the forest products.
Judge Paderanga should have dismissed the replevin suit
outright for three reasons. First, under the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, courts cannot take
cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies.
In Factoran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
basic. Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience,
should not entertain suits unless the available administrative
remedies have first been resorted to and the proper
authorities have been given an appropriate opportunity to act
and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the
administrative forum.
In Dy v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a party must
exhaust all administrative remedies before he can resort to
the courts. In Paat v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that:
This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that
before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all
the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence,
if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first
before court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of
action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel
the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action.
(Emphasis ours)
In the instant case, Edma did not resort to, or avail of, any
administrative remedy. He went straight to court and filed a
complaint for replevin and damages. Section 8 of Presidential
Decree No. 705, as amended, states that (1) all actions and
decisions of the Bureau of Forest Development Director are
subject to review by the DENR Secretary; (2) the decisions of
the DENR Secretary are appealable to the President; and (3)
courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR Secretary
except through a special civil action for certiorari or
prohibition. In Dy, the Court held that all actions seeking to
recover forest products in the custody of the DENR shall be
directed to that agency — not the courts. In Paat, the Court
held that:
Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action in
view of the private respondents’ failure to exhaust
administrative remedies should have been the proper course
of action by the lower court instead of assuming jurisdiction
over the case and consequently issuing the writ [of replevin].
Exhaustion of the remedies in the administrative forum,
being a condition precedent prior to one’s recourse to the
courts and more importantly, being an element of private
respondents’ right of action, is too significant to be waylaid
by the lower court.
xxxx
Moreover, the suit for replevin is never intended as a
procedural tool to question the orders of confiscation and
forfeiture issued by the DENR in pursuance to the authority
given under P.D. 705, as amended. Section 8 of the said law is
explicit that actions taken by the Director of the Bureau of
Forest Development concerning the enforcement of the
provisions of the said law are subject to review by the
Secretary of DENR and that courts may not review the
decisions of the Secretary except through a special civil action
for certiorari or prohibition.
Second, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts
cannot take cognizance of cases pending before
administrative agencies of special competence. The DENR is
the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws.
The complaint for replevin itself stated that members of
DENR’s Task Force Sagip Kalikasan took over the forest
products and brought them to the DENR Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office. This should have
alerted Judge Paderanga that the DENR had custody of the
forest products, that administrative proceedings may have
been commenced, and that the replevin suit had to be
dismissed outright. In Tabao v. Judge Lilagan — a case with a
similar set of facts as the instant case — the Court held that:
The complaint for replevin itself states that the shipment x x x
[was] seized by the NBI for verification of supporting
documents. It also states that the NBI turned over the seized
items to the DENR "for official disposition and appropriate
action." x x x To our mind, these allegations [should] have
been sufficient to alert respondent judge that the DENR has
custody of the seized items and that administrative
proceedings may have already been commenced concerning
the shipment. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before
administrative agencies of special competence. x x x The
prudent thing for respondent judge to have done was to
dismiss the replevin suit outright.
In Paat, the Court held that:
[T]he enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and
the protection, development and management of forest lands
fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the
very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free
hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a
controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The
assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit
filed by private respondents constitutes an unjustified
encroachment into the domain of the administrative agency’s
prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not
warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to
resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially
lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
November 19, 2015
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
One where RTC, CA, Supreme Court share CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION.
Certioriari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Habeas
Corpus, Injunction.
Here is a very important phrase "which may be enforced in
any part of their respective regions." So, writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and injunction as well
as writ of kalikasan, habeas corpus, habeas data issued by the
courts which may be enforced within the judicial region.
10
Please take not that some people have this idea that
enforceability of an RTC’s writ is also equated into territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases. That is wrong. The writ of
injunction issued here in Davao may be enforced in Tagum or
in Digos or anywhere within the 11th judicial region. THE
ENFORCEABILITY OF THE WRIT IS DIFFERENT FROM PROPER
VENUE.
WHAT IS THE RULE ON VENUE IN CIVIL CASES? If PERSONAL
ACTION, where the plaintiff or defendant resides. REAL
ACTIONS, it is where property is located. So, it may be the
court in Davao city which has jurisdiction because the plaintiff
lives here. But if the acts sought to be enjoined is in Malita,
can the writ be issued in Davao and enforced there? Yes!
Why? Because it is within the area of judicial region
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Of course, the RTC has appellate jurisdiction but the MTC is
the only court which is lower than the RTC.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
Now, let us go to the MTCs.
1) Regular
2) Delegated
3) Special
ORDINARY, REGULAR JURISDICTION OF MTCS
... including the grant of provisional remedies in cases if the
value or amount does not exceed P300,00. In Metro Manila,
P400,000.
And then you have ORIGINAL ACTION OVER FORCIBLE ENTRY
AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. In relation to that, it always
comes up with issue of ownership. CAN THE MTC RULE ON
THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP IN A FORCIBLE ENTRY CASE? The
answer is yes but only for purposes of determining who has
the better right to possess. It would not be binding as to the
actual ownership. So, if you will utilize that in a problem or a
situation, let us say A filed a case against B for forcible entry.
B was invoking the defense that he and his family has
ownership of the property from the time when the title was
still in the name of A. Question, does that later on prohibit B
from filing an action later on of the declaration of the nullity
of the title of A or recovery of ownership of A? IS THERE RES
JUDICATA? No, why not? THE DETERMINATION OF
OWNERSHIP ON THE FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL
DETAINER CASE IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING WHO HAS THE BETTER RIGHT TO POSSESS.
Again, very important general rule. JURISDICTION OVER
UNLAWFUL DETAINER, FORCIBLE ENTRY IS AGAIN
DETERMINED SOLELY UPON ALLEGATIONS IN THE
COMPLAINT.
There was one case that I found that seems to be an
exception to that rule. It is the case of DELA CRUZ V CA
(DECEMBER 6, 2009) Normally, unlawful detainer case is filed
and then the defendant would raise an issue on tenancy,
again, the general rule there is jurisdiction over the case is
determined upon the basis of the complaint. Here, it was not
just a matter of allegation of tenancy or tenurial issues. It
turned out to be the real issue. It is not just an allegation. But
general rule, jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the
complaint. But the very exceptional circumstances in Dela
Cruz v CA and the court cited that in BONIFACIO V CFI calls
for an exception rather than the general rule. I suggest that
you read that case.
Real actions. Again, as we discussed earlier, the MTC WILL
HAVE JURISDICTION WHERE THE ASSESSED VALUE DOES
NOT EXCEED P20,000 IN PROVINCES, IN METRO MANILA,
P50,000.
There is a very important issue with regard to xxx the issue on
payment of docket fees.
Legaspi v Ramolete
Manchester Case
Sun Insurance
Takay
The case of LEGASPI V RAMOLETE which is earlier than the
Manchester case is very, very lapse in the application of the
rule on docket fees. First things first. The question is: IS THE
MATTER OF THE PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES
JURISDICTIONAL OR NOT? Put in another way, can the court
have jurisdiction over the case if the docket fees were not
paid? The answer is PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES IS
JURISDICTIONAL. How strictly is it applied? There were
seemingly conflicting decisions because in the case of
Manchester, the SC is very strict. Before that, in LEGASPI V
RAMOLETE, the SC is not that strict. The plaintiff is always
allowed to pay docket fees. And in the Manchester case, the
SC said that it is very clear, non-payment of docket fees is
jurisdictional.
Now, here comes the case of SUN INSURANCE V ASUNCION.
Sometimes, people misconstrue the Sun Insurance and say
that failure to pay docket fees is no longer jurisdictional.
Actually, it’s wrong. The Sun Insurance case never said that
non-payment of dockets fees is not jurisdictional. In fact, if
you look closely at the ruling of the case, it still says that non-
payment of docket fees is jurisdictional. But what is
important in this case is that the Supreme Court said that
THERE SHOULD BE NO OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL. THE
PLAINTIFF, according to the Sun Insurance case, should BE
GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ERROR BY ALLOWING
THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE PROPER DOCKET FEES FOR AS
LONG AS THE PAYMENT MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE LAPSE
OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.
Why? Because jurisdictional. Settled is the rule that non-
payment of docket fees is jurisdictional. The only difference is
how strictly it is applied. In Manchester, if you fail to pay,
your case is dismissed. In Sun Insurance, the Supreme Court
should be given opportunity to pay the proper docket fees for
as long as the payment is made before the prescriptive period
lapses because until it is paid, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the case. Until you pay your docket fees,
your case cannot be considered as fully filed. The prescriptive
period is not considered interrupted and in the prescriptive
period is not interrupted, if the payment of docket fees is
paid after the lapse of the prescriptive period, then the cause
of action must have already prescribed. The court has to
dismiss the case on the ground of prescription of cause of
action. So again, the rule is Sun Insurance case is non-
payment of docket fees is considered jurisdictional but the
11
plaintiff should be given opportunity to pay docket fees
before the prescriptive period for the cause of action lapses.
There have been several cases where the Supreme Court still
applied the Manchester Ruling, even after the ruling in Sun
Insurance. WHEN SHOULD THE MANCHESTER CASE BE
APPLIED? AND WHEN SHOULD THE SUN INSURANCE CASE
BE APPLIED? Very nice explanation of the Supreme Court is in
UNITED OVERSEAS BANK V JUDGE (?) (AUGUST 7, 2007).
It all boils down to whether there is good faith or bad faith. In
case the plaintiff does not deliberately intend to defraud the
court in the payment of docket fees and manifests his
willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket
fees, then the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance
and not strict regulation in Manchester will apply. So stated
inversely, if there is a showing of deliberate intent to avoid
the payment of docket fees then Manchester will apply.
Otherwise, Sun Insurance will apply.
There is this very interesting case of TAKAY VS RTC OF
TAGUM. This case is very important because it exemplifies
the consequences of applying the rule that non-payment of
docket fees is jurisdictional. There was joinder of causes of
action. There was more than one cause of action raised in the
complaint. However, the plaintiff failed to pay the full docket
fees. It reached the judgment stage without the plaintiff
paying the full docket fees. WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN
ONE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE DOCKET FEES WERE NOT
PAID, THE COURT CAN STILL GRANT THE RELIEFS PRAYED IN
THE CAUSE OF ACTION WHERE THE DOCKET FEES WERE
PAID AND REFUSE OR DENY ONLY THOSE CLAIMS OR
CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE DOCKET FEES WERE NOT
PAID.
Another case of a very good example of the Sun Insurance
case is the case of RAMOS VS DEL ROSARIO (JANUARY 15,
2000).
DELEGATED JURISDICTION
Delegated jurisdiction of MTCs has something to do with
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS. Normally, cadastral proceedings
would fall under the jurisdiction of RTCs. But, MTCs can be
assigned by the Supreme Court to hear land registration cases
where there is no controversy or opposition and the value of
which does not exceed P100,000. We ascertain from the
affidavit of the complainant or by agreement of the
respective claimants xxx or from the tax declaration. Decision
from these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as
the decisions of the xxx.
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
Habeas Corpus cases
In the absence of judges in the RTC in the province or city,
any MTC judge may hear and decide the petitions for habeas
corpus in the province or city where the absent RTC judge
sits. There are two possibilities: (1) Habeas corpus (2)
applications for bail; only if all the RTC judges in the city or
province are absent.
[STORY ABOUT NOT BEING DISCHARGED IN THE HOSPITAL
FOR NON-PAYMENT – REMEDY IS PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS]
Let us now go to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
What are the classifications of civil actions?
Nature
1) Ordinary
2) Special
Cause or Foundation
1) Real
2) Personal
Place of Filing
1) Local
2) Transitory
As to object
1) Actions in personam
2) Actions in rem
3) Action quasi in rem
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ORDINARY CIVIL
ACTION AND A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION? The only difference is
that in special civil actions, there are provisions or rules that
are applicable only to that special civil action. Otherwise, the
rules on ordinary civil action will apply. So, certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus. The rules of ordinary civil action will
apply except when they are in conflict with rules in Rules 65.
In such case, it shall be the rules in Rule 65 which shall
prevail.
What is the test? When do you apply MANCHESTER and
when do you apply SUN INSURANCE?
Sabi ng Supreme Court, it all boils down to whether or not
there is good faith or bad faith. In case the party (?)does not
deliberately intend to defraud the court in the payment of
docket fees and manifests its willingness to abide to the rules
by paying additional docket fees when required by the court,
then the liberal doctrine enunciated in SUN INSURANCE and
not the strict regulation in MANCHESTER case will apply.
So, if you state it inversely, if there is a showing of a
deliberate intent to avoid the payment of docket fees, then
the case of Manchester will apply. Otherwise, you apply Sun
Insurance.
There is an interesting case of TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM.
Earlier in this case is very important because it exemplifies
the consequences of applying the rule that non-payment of
docket fees is jurisdictional.
What happened here was that there was joinder of causes of
action. There were more than one cause of action raised in
the complaint. However, the plaintiff failed to pay the full
docket fees. Umabot ng judgment stage na hindi nabayaran
ang additional docket fees. So, dinimiss ng court.
Ang sabi ng SC, hindi naman dapat ganun. Kasi when it is
more than one cause of action in the complaint and the
docket fees for one of them is sufficiently paid but the docket
fees of some were not paid, the rule should be that the court
can still grant the reliefs prayed in the causes of action for
which the docket fees were paid and refuse to grant or deny
only those claims for the causes of action where the docket
12
fees were not fully paid. If nabayaran, I award. Pero if hindi
nabayaran, hindi i-award. But again, that applies only if it
involves more than one cause of action in the same complaint
which is usually the case.
Bakit? Akala ng mga tao if ordinary yan, isang cause of action
lang. That is more common than rare. Halos lahat ng mga
complaint, action for sum of money plus damages and
attorney’s fees. Actually you are claiming for other damages
and attorney’s fees. That is a separate cause of action. Mag
claim ng moral damages because of the sleepless nights,
embarrassment etc. suffered. Mag claim ka ng exemplary
damages because the defendant is transacting or dealing with
bad faith. Ibang cause of action yan. Yung iba ang based on
culpa contractual, breach of contract. Pero yung iba based na
on culpa acquillana. Quasi delict na ang iba. Yung iba based
on actions for payment of attorney’s fees which is found on
the law on damages. So iba na ang basis.
Another case which is a very nice application of the Sun
Insurance case is the case of ADELFA RIVERA VS DEL ROSAL,
January 15, 2004.
Sabi natin kanina merong regular jurisdiction, may delegated
jurisdiction and may special jurisdiction ang MTC.
Ano yang DELEGATED JURISDICTION?
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land
registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be
assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the
where the value of which does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained
by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their
decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691)
Ang delegated jurisdiction ng MTCs as to CADASTRAL
PROCEEDINGS (CA 141). Normally, cadastral cases fall within
the jurisdiction of RTCs. But MTCs can be assigned by the SC
to hear and determine cadastral and non-registration cases
covering lots when there is no controversy or opposition and
the value of which does not exceed 100,000 to be ascertained
upon the affidavit of the claimant or by the agreement of the
respective claimants or from the transcript of valuation of the
property. Decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the
same manner as the decisions of the RTCs.
So, especially in places where there is no RTCs. Malayo
masyado ang RTC. The SC does that. The SC delegate the
authority to hear and determine cadastral cases to the MTC.
Pero, again dapat walang opposition and the value must not
exceed 100,000.
Then you have, SPECIAL JURISDICTION.
Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge,
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions
for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in
criminal cases in the province or city where the absent
Regional Trial Judges sit.
Ito yung habeas corpus. Bakit? In the absence of all RTC
judges in the province or city, any MTC judge may hear and
decide petitions for habeas corpus or applications for bail in
criminal cases in province or city where the absent RTC judge
sits. So only two possibilities:
1. Habeas corpus
2. Applications for bail
Only if all RTC judges in the city or province are absent. This
normally happens if there is convention. Normally magsama
man lahat. Enjoy silang lahat. Walang naiwan. May mag file
ng habeas corpus. Pwede siyang pumunta sa MTC basta
walang available na judge. RTC Bakit nga? Kasi -- yan.
Actually matandaan ko, nagfile kami ng ganito. Basta wala
lahat ang RTC judges. I’m not too sure if it happened in
Bukidnon or somewhere in Davao del Sur. Basta wala ang
mga RTC judges. Tapos merong long lost kaibigan ng tatay ko
, yung aak niya na hospital bah. Hindi lagi palabasin kasi hindi
nakabayad. Ano ba ang remedy nyan? Habeas corpus. Pag
tinanong yan, kasi isa yang magandang tanong sa bar that will
shake the brain out.
Let us now go to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
What are the CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL ACTIONS?
A. As to NATURE
1. Ordinary
2. Special
B. As to CAUSE or FOUNDATION
1. Real
2. Personal
3. Mixed
C. As to PLACE OF FILING
1. Local
2. Transitory
D. As to object
1. Action in personam
2. Action in rem
3. Action quasi in rem
Now, ordinary as against special. What is the difference
between an ordinary civil action and special civil action? For
example, mag order ka ng ordinary halo halo walang ice
cream. Mag order ka ng special, may ice cream. Wala naman
talagang nagbago dyan. They are exactly the same. Why?
The only difference between ordinary civil action and special
civil action is that in special civil action, there are provisions
or the rules or processes that are applicable only to that
particular special civil action. Otherwise, the rules on ordinary
civil actions apply.
So you have certiorari, prohibition, mandamus. The rules on
ordinary civil procedure apply except when they come in
conflict with the provisions under the Rule 65 in which case it
is the rule under Rule 65 that will prevail. These special rules
or provisions that are applicable only to the particular special
civil action is the ice cream. This is the difference between
the ordinary civil action and that particular special civil action.
Ano nga yung special civil actions?
1. Interpleader
2. Declaratory relief and similar remedies
13
 3. Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions
of the Comelec and COA
4. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
5. Quo warranto
6. Expropriaton
7. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
8. Partition
9. Forcible Entry and Unlawful detainer
10. Contempt
So any civil action not covered by rules 62 to 71 is an ordinary
civil action.
As to FOUNDATION, real as against personal. Real action
based on privity of real estate. Bottomline is the subject
matter of the case is title, ownership, possession or interest
in real property. That is a real action.
Personal actions are those founded on privity of contract,
quasi delicts where there is no issue over ownership, title or
possession of interest over personal property. In other words,
an action is personal if it is not real.
There can also be mixed actions. Like I told you, most cases
involving real property are mixed actions. Bakit?
Example,recovery of possession of real property and damages
and attorney’s fees. Yung recovery of possession of real
property is a real action pero yung damages and attorney’s
fees personal man yan. How do you determine now? Which
rule shall apply? The rules in real or rules in personal actions?
There can also be mixed actions. Like I told you, most cases
involving real property are mixed actions. Bakit?
Example,recovery of possession of real property and damages
and attorney’s fees. Yung recovery of possession of real
property is a real action pero yung damages and attorney’s
fees personal man yan. How do you determine now? Which
rule shall apply? The rules in real or rules in personal actions?
The SC has also been very strict in cases where the party
asking for liberal construction has already shown intention to
violate the rules. Late na yung answer mo, hnd ka pa na
kasubmit ng pretrial, JA, sige ka lng liberality.
Example: Land Bank of the Philippines v _ Oct 19, 2007
CAUSE OF ACTION
An act or omission by which a party violates a right.
ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
1. There must be a right pertaining to the plaintiff
2. There is a correlative obligation on the part of the
defendant
3. There is a violation of the plaintiff's right
4. There must be damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Example: natural obligation. There is a promissory note, 15
years wala na nagsingil tapos nagbayad ka pa. Nag prescribe
na man pla yun. Mabawi mo pa? hindi, kasi natural obligation
na. Meron hnd pa nagbayad, gi filean ng kaso kaso prescribed
na. May cause of action ka pa kasi there is an act or omission
violative of plaintiff's right, but there is NO RIGHT OF ACTION,
which was already lost by prescription.
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
VERY IMPORTANT: A party may not institute more than one
suit for a single cause of action.
Example:
cause of action: failure to pay based on a promissory note
Remedies: foreclosure OR collection, not both
The choice of one will amount to the abandonment of the
other. If you file a foreclosure case and during the pendency
thereof, you file for collection based on the same PN, that is
splitting a cause of action. There is only one cause of action,
although there are more than one remedies.
Basis:
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.
— If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of
the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others.
Example may foreclosure case, tapos kulang ang nacollect.
Pwde ka pa ba magsingil? It depends. Kung chattel, it depends
WON the Recto Law is applicable. Remedies of an unpaid
seller. If a chattel is sold on installment, kailangan mo ng more
than two installments bago ka mag foreclose. Pag nag
foreclose ka, hnd kana makasingil ng balance. Pero kung hindi
yan installment, example, umutang si Jose sa akin ng 500k,
security Volks car. Hindi nakabayad, so giforeclose. Ang
proceeds 200k lang, so short sya. You can still collect because
it did not involve a sale on installment.
Kung real property ang security tapos may extrajudicial
foreclosure. Ang utang 1M, ang nacollect 600 lang. Pwde ako
magfile ng separate civil action to collect. Anong basis? Act
3135 - The law itself provides for the filing of an action to
recover a deficiency.
Question: Hindi ba yan splitting of a cause of action? No,
because the cause of action there is no longer the breach, it is
the consequence of the fact that proceeds of the foreclosure
is deficient.
Rules in determining the number of cause of action in
relation to a contract
1. One contract, one cause of action.
2. If a contract provides for several stipulations to be
performed at different times, they can give rise to
as many causes of action as there are stipulations.
For example a promissory note, payable in
installments no acceleration clause. One million,
100k, payable in installments, January, nakabayad,
February wala, so pwede ko sya kasuhan dun sa
February, March na naman, pwede ko sya file-an ng
kaso. Why? It is a separate cause of action.
3. All obligations that are due and demandable at the
time of filing of the case should become one. Again,
we are dealing here with a single contract.
4. If the failure to comply with any of the
obligations/stipulations amounts to a total breach,
then you can sue for all. Even without an
acceleration clause. Like, hindi sya nakapagbayad
January, February, ang sagot nya wala akong utang
sayo. Or dinagdagan mo lang ng zero zero yang
utang. That’s a denial of everything, so kung
nagmature nay an, pwede mo na syang kasuhan.
14
 That’s the reason why it’s always good to include an
acceleration clause.
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may
in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
What are the types of joinder of causes of action? You have
alternative and cumulative. What we talked about kanina is
cumulative. May utang sya sayo (5) 100,000, can I file 5
different cases? Yes. But can I join them all together? Yes! So if
I file it separately, the jurisdiction is under the MTC. But if the
other way around, 500k, it is already in the RTC. Does that
mean I’m the one choosing the court? Yes, that’s allowed by
the law.
Ano naman yung alternative. Example, nakasakay ka sa bus,
nabangga at sa isa pang sasakyan, tapos nahospital ka. Sino
file-an mo ng kaso. Sino idemanda mo? Silang dalawa, ang
tawag dyan alternative defendant. Against A or B or Both. One
example is when you go down the stairs and one pushes you.
Nakita mo yung dalawa nagtuturuan. Sino file-an mo ng kaso,
eh silan dalawa. Alternative defendants, then ang causes of
action, alternative din. Kung sino man sa kanila. It is allowed.
One of the questions that I make when I used to teach second
year, mag recite ako ng requisites ng joinder of parties, then
my question is , is this an element for causes of action. Yes,
because among the requisites of joinder of causes of action,
you should also comply with the joinder of parties. If it’s an
element for proper joinder of parties which in turn is an
element for joinder of causes of action, so logic will dictate
that it is also a requisite.
The joinder should not include:
 Special civil actions
 Actions governed by special rules
Let’s take a very practical example. One is for prohibition, one
is for injunction. Kasi public official sya,
(c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein; and
So, simple, if it is between the same parties, for as long as one
of the cases fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC even if the
other cases are in different venues, they can be joined, for as
long as may isa, sa RTC. Like what, real property in Tagum,
Davao, pareho yung basis, allegedly the same transaction,
yung doon assessed value is 10, yung dito 35, so saan
magkaroon ng joinder, sa Davao. Kung pareho ng value,
mamili ka, pwede doon, pwede dito. Kung pareho 10, sa MTC
yan, hindi pwede magjoinder, kasi nga dapat may isang RTC.
Eh tatlo man sila, meron pa jud sa Digos, pwede basta may
isang RTC. Other than that, kung same parties.
Totality Rule: The aggregate amount claim is the value
considered for jurisdiction. 5 promissory notes, tag 100k.
Pwede hiwa-hiwalay, MTC. Pag inisa ko, 500k, totality rule, sa
RTC na.
November 23, 2015
Parties to Civil Actions
Section 1.Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. —
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law
may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer
to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term
"defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant. (1a)
One of the things I like emphasizing is, generally, entities that
do not have juridical personalities cannot be made a party to
a case. A party without legal personality cannot be held liable.
Who are you going to demand debts from?
A good example is the Lin Ton Kua case: related companies as
a group of companies, like RCBC group—Yuchengco group of
companies. Unless it is incorporated as a holding company –
a corporation made solely for the purpose of holding shares
of other corporation—and unless there is an actual corporate
entity, you cannot sue for the simple reason that it does not
have legal capacity to sue. Just because you call it “a group of
companies”, does not make it acquire legal personality. Those
group of people representing themselves as a company and
deal with other persons as such but without legal
personalities are sued not as an entity but those natural
persons individually.
Section 2.Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest. (2a)
Basic rule in Section 2 is that suits may only be prosecuted in
the name of real parties in interest—party who stands to be
benefitted or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
You can also relate this in representatives as parties. If you
issue an SPA to someone who can sue and be sued in your
name, in realtion to a particular transaction. The title should
be “Cesar Europa, represented by Juan dela Cruz, plaintiff”
because the case still has to be in the name of the real party
in interest.
Tankinko (?) vs Cezar (1999)
This is about sales patent application. For one reason or
another, the name of one person was mistakenly placed in
15
the sales patent of another. That sales patent applicant sued
for reconveyance contending that he was the original
applicant. The SC said that the applicant cannot be a real
party in interest. The real party in interest is the State. That is
why the case will be represented by the Solicitor General. In
cases involving OCT, a private person cannot file an action to
nullify an OCT. It has to be the SolGen because if an original
certificate of title is declared null and void, the property
reverts back to the public domain.
BSC Commercial Enterprises vs. CA (Dec 16 2002)
A private person cannot institute an action for cancellation of
title. One exception is what is provided in the Rule “or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit”. An example is where
the contract has a stipulation pour autrui – a stipulation
where the benefit is for a third person not a party to the
contract.
Baluyot vs. CA
A part of UP campus, the Krus na Ligas, there were informal
settlers. There was a contract between UP and Quezon City.
UP Board of Regents donated the property to LGU-Quezon
City and the latter was to distribute the property among the
settlers under the contract.
But UP did not divide the title. So nag demanda ang mga
occupant. One of the contentions of UP is that they cannot
sue since they are not parties in interest. But SC said
stipulation pour autrui is applicable, thus, this falls under the
exceptions. Even if you are not part of the contract you can
sue already.
Let’s go to representatives of parties.
Can a person sue for and in behalf of another? Yes, as a
representative. Also if there is an authority.
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is
allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall
be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be
the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee
of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator,
or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in
his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal
may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when
the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
First, the action must be one allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in a
fiduciary capacity.
So hindi ka pwede mag-execute ng power of attorney para i-
appoint mo yung isang party para mag-file ng declaration of
nullity ng marriage. Weird yan. Kasi gagawin yan ng lahat.
Nangyari na yan before. Di yan pwede kay personal man na.
Examples, may SPA, mag-kolekta ng utang si Pedro. Wala
man xa sa Pilipinas, i-appoint nya si Jose. Pwede yan.
Anong labas nyan? Ang beneficiary should be stated as a real
party in interest. So dapat ang complaint mo nyan: Pedro,
plaintiff represented by Jose vs. Juan, defendant. Kasi
representative lang man si Jose.
Who can be a representative (agents or attorneys-in fact)?
1. The trustee of an express trust;
2. A guardian;
3. An executor or administrator; or
4. A trustee of an express trust.
5. A party authorized by law or these Rules. (An attorney
in fact or an agent.)
In so far as AGENTS are concerned, we have to relate this to
Article 1883 of the Civil Code. “An agent acting in his own
name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue
or be sued without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal.”
If the case involves property belonging to the principal, the
agent cannot sue in his own name. The principal must be
disclosed. It has to be “Cesar Europa, represented by: Juan
dela Cruz” and not “Juan dela Cruz vs. ___”.
Last year’s tsn: An agent acting in his own name and for the
benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without
impleading the principal but the judgment will not be binding
upon the principal. The principal must be impleaded in order
to bind him. That’s basic due process.
When is due process observed?
When he is given the opportunity to be heard whether
personally or through another. So a party who is not
impleaded cannot be bound.
Alfredo Ching vs. CA, January 11, 1990
When you sue an estate, you have to sue it in the name of
the executor or administrator. The problem here is that
there was a man who had a claim for a real property but the
name that was registered in the Title was “Ching Le” as the
registered owner. The plaintiff wanted to sue for
reconveyance. The problem was that he does not know if
Ching Le is still alive or already dead. So he filed a case
against the defendant “Ching Le and/or the estate of Ching
Le”.
He actually won the case but later it was found out that Ching
Le has long been dead.
Is the judgment binding upon the estate of Ching Le?
The SC said No. You cannot sue someone who is dead. As far
as the estate is concerned, it can only be sued through an
administrator or executor as the representative of the estate.
Going further with that, what happens if there is no estate
proceeding and you have a claim with the estate?
You can initiate the estate proceedings. Creditors can start
estate proceedings. Better if you can claim under Rule 86 on
Claims Against the Estate (Special Proceeding).
Last year’s tsn: But since the executor or administrator was
not named because there was no information whether such
estate was already being settle or any settlement proceedings
had been filed, the judgment still could not be considered as
binding upon the estate despite the fact that the title of the
case was Ching Le and/or Estate of Ching Le.
16
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall sue or be
sued jointly, except as provided by law.
The spouses must sue and be sued together. Why? The
presumption is that the property is conjugal.
However, if the property is paraphernal or paternal, like
inherited properties, it is owned by the spouse who acquired
the property by gratuitous title.
Last year’s tsn:
What is the rule?
Husband and wife MUST sue or be sued JOINTLY, as a general
rule. And only when the law specifically allows them to sue
individually should that be allowed.
Like what?
When in relation to exclusive property. Like what? Under the
Family Code. Take note of when the parties got married to
determine the appropriate property regime. Prior to the
Family Code, the default regime was conjugal partnership of
gains. After the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3,
1988), absolute community of property. Big difference.
Example: inherited property. Inherited property under the
Family Code is still exclusive property.
(in an ejectment case) Since it is PRESUMED TO BE CONJUGAL
PROPERTY, they are presumed to be co-owners. And under
the rules or law on co-ownership, any one of the co-owners
can sue for ejectment. Kasi presumed to benefit all other co-
owners. So emphasize this fact. As co-owners, even one of
them is allowed to sue ALONE under the law on co-ownership
in the Civil Code.
The SC also said that both of them are administrators of the
conjugal property. The prosecution of an action for ejectment
in relation to conjugal property is considered as an act of
administration. You are acting to protect the property. You
are not disposing it. So it is considered as an act of
administration.
Can minors sue and be sued?
Yes but not directly. He has to be assisted by his parents,
guardian, or guardian ad litem.
Do you need to start a guardianship proceeding?
No. You can ask the court to appoint a guardian ad litem if he
has no parents.
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in whom or
against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of
the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,
except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs
or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all
such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may
make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have no
interest.
What are the requisites for permissive joinder of parties?
1. There is a right to relief in favor of or against the
parties joined with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions.
2. There must be a common question of fact or law to
the parties joined in the action.
Please take note that the word transaction should not be
strictly construed as to refer to commercial transactions but
may refer to some incident or occurrence.
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties
in interest without whom no final determination can be had
of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Last year’s tsn: Basic rule: an action cannot proceed unless all
the INDISPENSABLE parties have been impleaded. Compulsory
or mandatory joinder.
What are good examples?
1. You cannot have an action for partition without
impleading all the co-owners.
2. An action for reconveyance of title to property. The
registered owner is an indispensable
party. So kung multiple ang registered owners, kelangan
silang lahat.
Why is this the rule?
They can file a single case so that the same testimonies will
only be given once. Like in a case of multiple injuries out of a
vehicular accident.
Can you file a case separately?
Yes, especially if you have separate causes of action like culpa
contractual or culpa aquiliana.
Indispensable parties – are those without whom there can be
no final determination without joining the parties. They can
either be plaintiff or defendant. SHALL. Mandatory. Eg. Action
for partition.
Necessary party - one who is not indispensable but who
ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the
action. (Rule 3, Section 8)
In an action for partition where one co-owner does not want
to be involved in a case, he can be compelled to be involved
in the case as defendant or plaintiff. All owners must be
impleaded. He will be impleaded as a defendant because that
person is an UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF.
Last year’s tsn: Why is it necessary to assert in the pleading
the failure to implead? To give the court opportunity to make
a determination if the failure to implead is justified. If the
court feels that it is NOT justified, the court should order the
party to be impleaded.
Metrobank vs. Floro Alejo (Sept. 2001)
Last year’s tsn: In an action to nullify transfer of certificate of
title, if the mortgage is annotated, the mortgagee is
considered an indispensable party.
Kuyaw ba kasi kung ako, hindi man xa indispensable party.
Bakit? Di man xa maapektuhan dba? Pero un ang sabi ng SC
that a mortgagee is an indispensable party.
17
Anyway, why did I emphasize that it should be a transfer of
certificate of title? Kasi di yan applicable sa original transfer
of title. Bakit? Sino pla ang real party-in-interest sa OCT?
Private individuals cannot file actions to nullify an OCT. why?
Bcoz if you nullify an OCT, balik xa sa unregistered public land,
public domain. So, an action to nullify an OCT is actually an
action for REVERSION. An action for reversion can only be
filed by Solicitor General. Why? Bcoz the OSG is the real party
in interest as lawyer of the government.
This is an action for annulment of judgment of the RTC, so
you file the case in the CA.
Section 8. Necessary party – a necessary party is one who is
not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if
complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties,
or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action. (8a)
Best example here is where there is a suretyship agreement.
Surety by its nature its liability is solidary with the debtor. You
can file against any of them. You don't need to sue
everybody. Unlike in guaranty, there is benefit of EXCUSSION.
You file a case against the surety. The principal debtor is the
necessary party. If you win in the case, the surety can also sue
the principal debtor under the concept of subrogation.
In culpa aquiliana, the employer may be sued but the
employee is impleaded as a necessary party.
Why do you have to include the necessary party?
Section 9.
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. –
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the
court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party. (8a, 9a)
Why? For a complete relief. So that the court could also be
given opportunity to rule on the liabilities of the debtor as to
the surety. Katanga na lang talaga ng surety if hindi sila mag
cross claim diba?
Please take note that if there is failure to join necessary
parties that should stated in the pleading. Bakit? Kasi dapat
nakalagay sino ung necessary parties at bakit hindi naisali.
When the necessary party is not included but it is obvious in
the allegations in the complaint that there is a necessary
party that was not impleaded, the pleading should give an
explanation why the necessary party wasn’t included.
Should the court find the reason for the omission
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted
necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be
obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party.
What is so important about that?
For example, there is a principal debtor and there is an
allegation to that effect in the complaint but there is no such
allegation in the answer that can be tantamount as waiver on
the par
Now, why is it necessary to assert in the pleading the failure
to implead?
To give the court opportunity to make a determination if the
failure to implead is justified. If the court feels that it is NOT
justified, the court should order the party to be impleaded.
Example. There is a bus that hit a pedestrian. The action is
culpa aquiliana but the complaint did not state the necessary
party. Although it is not a ground for dismissal, I raised it in
court. There was therefore an order in the court to explain
why the necessary party was not impleaded. If the plaintiff
does not comply with the order then you may file a motion to
dismiss based on Rule 17, Section 3 -- Failure to comply with
an order of the court. This may amount to dismissal. (along
with failure to prosecute and failure to follow the rules)
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
be stated in the complaint. (10)
Put in your allegations that he is an indispensable party who
should join as a plaintiff but refused to do so. Therefore, he
should be impleaded as an unwilling co-plaintiff but you
include him as a defendant.
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal
of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of
the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at
any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any
claim against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately. (11a)
Adding dropping. It depends upon the court. But if the court
orders and you do not comply, then Rule 17, Section 3.
Dismissal.
THE DOCTRINE OF VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION.
Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)
18

Class suit. This is what Atty. Fortun is threatening to do
against Cebu Pacific.
Can he file a class suit? First and foremost, you cannot file a
class suit if you are just alone. Thres no such thing as a class
suit file by one man.
What are the requisites?
1. subject matter of the controversy is common and of
general interest to many persons
2. they are so numerous that it is impracticable to join
all of them
A few of them will represent the class.
If you are claiming for actual damages and moral damages,
can it be a class suit?
What comes to mind is the case of Sulo ng Bayan vs.
Araneta.
Last year’s tsn: Sulo ng Bayan Association filed a case against
Araneta over a piece of property they were claiming. They
said that members were just suing as a class. Did this
argument prosper? NO. SC said in Class suit, matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons. SC: each individual there is occupying a specific
portion of that property and he is not claiming to the rest of it
right? There is no common or general interest to all of them.
Regarding the association, as a corporate entity, it does not
have any claim at all. It is neither claiming a portion of the
land nor the whole.
Going back to the claim of Fortun, is he allowed to file a class
suit? No. each passenger is claiming his own actual, and
moral damages and you cannot file a complaint claiming only
exemplary damages (for the claim to fall under “common or
general interest”).
In one case, nagkahalo halo na ang pera kaya di na maidentify
ang claim of every claimant, thus when they filed a complaint,
it was filed as a class suit. It has become a common or general
interest.
Last year’s tsn: Ang pinakakulba na kaso ng class suit is still
Oposa vs Factoran. This was the 1st decision by Supreme
Court in the world giving legal standing to future generations.
What is so important about that? Because if you look at the
Rules, you have to be natural or at least juridical person to
sue or to be sued.
The issue in that case is “Can an existing person sue for and
behalf future generations?” and the SC said YES. Under the
theory of Intergenerational responsibility.
Even if the unborn do not have natural or juridical
personalities, they are necessary real-parties-in-interest. If
you destroy the environment, these future generation will be
affected. They have an interest to be protected. That is why
this was allowed.
Section 13. Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is
uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. (13a)
Example, someone pushed you and you saw two persons
behind you. So, you file a case against the two of them
because you are not sure who between the two of them
pushed you.
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. —
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown,
he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by
such other designation as the case may require, when his
identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be
amended accordingly. (14)
Example, you were hit by a car but it ran away. You saw the
plate number but were not able to identify the driver. Just
place in the complaint “the unknown driver and /or Toyota
vios with plate number LOVE 111”.
Why do you do this? You do not want the cause of action to
prescribe.
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.
— When two or more persons not organized as an entity with
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be
sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of
the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (15a)
When you do not know the name of the persons working in
the company or when you can only identify one person in the
company, you can put, “doing business under the name and
style ABCD”. They will be sued under that name. The
defendant who was identified will be required when they file
the answer to give the names and addresses of the persons
composing the entity. So once identified, the plaintiff will
now amend the complaint to implead all of them. It is actually
NOT a suit against an entity without juridical personality. The
use of the name or appellation by which the group is known
is just a means by which the suit can be filed in court and
later on the actual composition of the entity can be identified
and can be sued in their individual personal capacity. Like I
said, it seems to be an exemption, but it really is not because
it will be a suit against a natural person.
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a
party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear
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 the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)
What happens to the case if a party dies and the claim is not
extinguished?
(motion for substitution in a case under Article 36 of the
Family Code is not proper)
19
If not extinguished, , it shall be the duty of his counsel to
inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of
the fact thereof.
If the claim survives, then the claim will survive. If the plaintiff
dies, at any stage, there can be substitution. If it is the
defendant who dies, and there has been no judgment, there
can be substitution by heirs/executor/administrator, if it is a
case that can be continued.
If it is a contractual money claims, thre can be substutiin.
What if he died after final judgment? If there has already
been properties levied, the sale will continue and judgment
will be satisfied out of it. If theress anything in excess, the y
shall be returned to the executor/administraot.
If thre is no execution yet, then utilize that as a proven claim
under Rule 86. Raise it as a claim under the estate
proceedings. There is no need to prove the claim anymore.
SUMALJAG vs. LITERATO
Facts: (1st civil case) Josefa Maglasang (Josefa) filed a
complaint with the RTC for the nullity of a deed of sale of real
property purportedly executed between her as vendor and
the spouses Diosdidit and Menendez Literato (spouses) as
vendees. Josefa was the sister of Menendez and were 2 of
the 6 heirs who inherited equal parts of a property (Josefa w/
Lot 1220-D and Menendez w/ Lot 1220-E) passed on to them
by their parents. The spouses responded by filing a
counterclaim denying Josefa’s allegation and impleaded
Josefa as a counterclaim defendant, alleging that petitioner
Judge Antonio Sumaljag (Sumaljag), occupied both Lots 1220-
D and E) at the instance of Josefa w/out their authority. They
claimed that Lot 1220-E is theirs by inheritance and Lot 1220-
D by purchase from Josefa. RTC dismissed the counterclaim.
(2nd civil case) After the RTC dismissed the counterclaim,
Menendez filed a complaint for declaration of the inexistence
of a lease contract, recovery of possession of land and
damages against Sumaljag & Josefa. Josefa died during
pendency of both cases. Atty. Puray, Sumaljag and Josefa’s
common counsel, filed a notice of death and substitution of
party, praying that Josefa be substituted by Sumaljag, alleging
that prior to her death, Josefa executed a Quitclaim Deed
over Lot 1220-D in favor Maglasang(her nephew), who in turn
sold the same to Sumaljag. RTC denied the motion for
substitution and instead ordered Michaeles (Josefa’s sister) to
serve as Josefa’s representative. MR denied. CA upheld the
RTC.
Issue: W/N Sumaljag as a transferee pendete lite, may
substitute Josefa pursuant to Rule 3 of the Rules of Court?
Held and Ratio: He cannot. The legal representatives
contemplated under Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules refer to
those authorized by law – the administrator, executor or
guardian, who, under the rule on settlement of estate of
deceased persons, is constituted to take over the estate of
the deceased. Sec. 13 Rule 3 expressly provides that “the
heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator.” Sumaljag is not one of those
mentioned. Instead, he is a counterclaim co- defendant of
Josefa whose proferred justification for substitution is the
transfer to him of the interests of Josefa in the litigation prior
to her death.
Moreover, the notice of death and substitution that Atty.
Puray filed reflect a claim against the interest of Josefa
through the transfer of her remaining interest in the litigation
to another party. The reason for Rule 3, Section 16 on
Substitution is to protect all concerned who may be affected
by the intervening death particularly Josefa and her estate. To
suggest then that Sumaljag substitute Josefa would bring to
naught such protection since the transferee who his own
interest to protect, cannot at the same time represent and
fully protect the interest of the deceased therefor.
While Atty. Puray has every authority to manifest to court
changes in interest that transpire in the course of litigation,
pursuant to Sec. 19 Rule 3, this can only happen while the
client- transferor was alive and while the manifesting counsel
was still the effective and authorized counsel for the client-
transferor, not adter the death of the client when the lawyer-
client relationship was terminated. Thus at most, Sumaljag
can be said to be a transferee pendent lite whose status is
pending with the lower court. Lastly, the documents attached
disclose that the subject matter of the quitclaim is Lot 1220-E
while the subject matter of the deed of sale executed by
Maglasang in favour of Sumaljag is Lot 1220-D.
*The rule that it is only in case of unreasonable delay in the
appointment of an executor or administrator, or where the
heirs resort to an extrajudicial settlement of the estate that
the court may adopt the alternative of allowing the heirs of
the deceased to be substituted for the deceased is no longer
true.
Also the case of
Nudo v. Caguioa
Private respondents, spouses Petronilo and Marcela Nudo,
filed a complaint for partition and damages against the
Petitioners, spouses, Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo. Petronilo
and Gumersindo are brothers and pro-indiviso co-owners of a
parcel of land, with an area of 425 square meters, located at
Regidor Street, Pacdal, Baguio City. Since 1990, Petronilo had
requested Gumersindo to accede to the partition of the
property, but the latter refused, thus forcing him to initiate
the said complaint.
During the pendency of the case, Gumersindo [Petitioner-
husband] died. No substitution was effected by the court.
On July, 24, 2001, the RTC ruled in favor of private
respondents and ordered the parties to partition the property
among themselves in accordance with Section 2, Rule 69 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and to submit to this Court
their partition agreement within sixty (60) days after their
partition.
Petitioners’ counsel brought the case to the CA but the same
was dismissed for failure to file appellants’ brief. The
dismissal was dated November 21, 2002. Zosima Nudo
[Petitioner-wife] died.
In 2004, private respondents filed a motion for execution,
which was granted by the court. Accordingly, a writ of
execution was issued by the Clerk of Court. The Sheriff
returned the writ unenforced on the ground that Susana
Nudo, daughter of Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo, promised
to settle with private respondents and offer the purchase of
their share in the subject property.
In 2005, private respondents filed an Ex-Parte Motion for the
Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution, which the court
granted. The same was again returned unenforced. The
return stated that the petitioners’ house, which was being
20
occupied by petitioners’ heirs, still encroached approximately
82 sq m of the portion allotted to the private respondents,
and that Susana Nudo refused to accept private respondents’
proposed partition.
Petitioner, Andrew B. Nudo, son of Gumersindo and Zosima
Nudo, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, seeking to
annul the RTC Decision in the partition case. Petitioner
alleged therein that neither he nor the other heirs were
substituted in place of their parents in the proceedings for
partition before the trial court. This allegedly rendered the
proceedings null and void. Petitioner further alleged that he
only found out about the case sometime in March 2006 when
respondents, Sheriffs Romeo R. Florendo and Ruben L.
Atijera, went to the office of Susana Nudo and showed her a
blueprint of a subdivision plan.
The CA issued a Resolution dismissing outright the petition
for annulment of judgment. According to the CA, annulment
of judgment could not be availed of since petitioner’s
predecessors-in-interest had availed themselves of the
remedy of appeal. Petitioner’s recourse should have been
against the CA Resolution dated November 21, 2002, which
dismissed the appeal.
Petitioner filed an MR which was also denied. Petitioner filed
this petition, raising the issue of whether the judgment in
Civil Case No. 3493-R dated November 21, 2002 could be
annulled on the ground that he was not substituted for his
deceased parents in the said case.
Issue: Should the judgment dated November 21, 2002 be
annulled on the ground that petitioner was not substituted
for his deceased parents? Ruling:
No. An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary
remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the
Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed only in
exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is to prevent
this extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to
make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that
has long become final and executory. Under Section 2, Rule
47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for
annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of
judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party or over the subject matter of the
claim.
Non-substitution of the heirs of a deceased party is not
jurisdictional. The rule on substitution by heirs is not a
matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. It
was designed to ensure that the deceased party would
continue to be properly represented in the suit through his
heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his
estate. It is only when there is a denial of due process, as
when the deceased is not represented by any legal
representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial
proceedings and the resulting judgment therein.
In the case at hand, both parents of the petitioner were
defendants in the case for partition. Hence, even after
Gumersindo died, Zosima remained a party. And both
defendants continued to be represented by counsel as, in
fact, a notice of appeal was filed by their counsel before the
CA. petitioner gives the impression that his mother, Zosima
Nudo, died while the appeal was still pending before the CA.
The records, however, show that Zosima died on June 22,
2003, after the CA’s resolution dismissing the appeal became
final and executory. Therefore, at no time were the
petitioner’s parents deprived of any representative in the
partition case, until the judgment therein became final and
executory.
Petitioner cannot therefore claim now that the judgment in
the partition case is null and void for failure of the court to
implead him, as the judgment became final and executory
prior to the death of his mother. The judgment in the
partition case is now enforceable against Gumersindo and
Zosima’s successor-in-interest, including herein petitioner
(digest copied from some site)
Here, there were representations like the lawyer was there
and the children. It’s just that there was no formal
substitution.
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public
officer. — When a public officer is a party in an action in his
official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or
otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued
and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty
(30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may
be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court
by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or
maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the
action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the
party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting
thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application
therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)
Normally when the person is sue d in his official capacity, the
reason for that is the decisions he made by reason of his
office. If he dies and someone takes over, the successor may
or may not take his view. If he does not take the view of the
predecessor, then within thirty (30) days after the successor
takes office or such time as may be granted by the court,
there is a need for the court to know if the case still proceeds.
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party becomes
incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with
notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the
incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal
guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)
Section 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of
interest, the action may be continued by or against the
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted
in the action or joined with the original party. (20)
What is the property which is the subject matter of the case
is sold? Kung may notis of lis pendens, whatever happens in
the case will be binding on the transferee. But what will
happen if there is a sale of res, the first possibility is the case
will continue without impleading the transferee. But since the
transferee has knowledge of the pendency of the case, the
transferee will be considered bound. Second the transferee
will be substituted in lieu of the transferor. Kasi magkakaroon
ng subrogation. And finally, the transferee can also be added
as a co-party of the transferor. So, pwedeng substitution,
adhesion or status quo. Pero sa status quo, same parties pa
rin but considering that there is a showing na alam nung
transferee ang existence ng kaso….. Alam nyo naman diba?
kung may notice of lis pendens, walang problema – bound
talaga. Kung walang notice of lis pendens, or any indication
but there is evidence of actual knowledge… actual knowledge
is equivalent to registration… so bound ka rin.
21
Section 21. Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to
litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court,
upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the
party is one who has no money or property sufficient and
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a
lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at
any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the
court should determine after hearing that the party declared
as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not
made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue
or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other
sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)
You cannot deny a person access to the courts just because
he has no money. What should happen? What happens is the
lawyer who is handling that indigent party should file a
motion to allow that party to litigate as indigent litigant. The
old term was pauper litigate. You do not need to be a pauper
to be an indigent litigant. A person who simply does not have
a surplus income in order to sustain litigation should be
treated as an indigent litigant. The joint income of husband
and wife must not exceed 13k per month (in Davao City) in
order to be qualified assistance by the Public Attorney’s
Office.
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action
involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in
its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor
General who may be heard in person or a representative duly
designated by him. (23a)
November 26, 2015
*skype session with Sir, so dili klaro kaayo ang audio. Sorry.
Late nagstart ang audio…*
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. — This
Rule shall not apply.
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof.
Based on TSN last year, there are exceptions to Section 4:
1. If the rule states the different rule on venue
And a good example of that would be a civil action for
extrinsic fraud or libel where Article 390. would also take
place because under Article ___ it can only filed where the
offended party resides or where the article was first printed
or published, and if the offended party is a public officer, the
venue is where first printed, published or where he holds
office. So if there is a civil action ex delicto based also on
Article 393 of the RPC on libel, this is the particular rule you
will apply, not the rules in Rule 4. Why should it be premised
on ex delicto? Because if it is premised on a cause of action
based on quasi-delict under 2176, then the general rules will
apply, Article ___ will no longer be applicable.
2. Second, if the SC under the power in Section 5,
Article VIII will order a change in venue. You all know
that under Constitutional law.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers: Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
3. Also, the 3rd one, if there is a binding stipulation in
the contract stipulating the venue of the action.
We all know this as an application of the Polytrade doctrine.
We call this the Polytrade doctrine because it was decided by
the SC in the case of Polytrade v. Blanco. Please take note
that in the case the stipulation in the contract was “shall be”
but there was no indication that the venue should be
exclusive. So if there is no stipulation about that, that the
venue of action is intended to be exclusive then it will only be
treated as an additional venue. In other words, you can
choose the venue. If it is a personal action, for example, you
would still apply Section 1, but you can also utilize the
stipulated venue of action.
One of the cases that applies that is the case of Sweetlines v.
Teves. A lawyer was confronted with a clear stipulation of
venue that was intended to be exclusive ___ case of
sweetlines. But please take note that in so many cases, the SC
has said that the ruling in Sweetlines v. Teves is unique
because of the surrounding circumstances of the case. The SC
in that case took note of the consideration of the fact that 1)
the stipulation of the venue was on the ticket and it was not
intended to be read or you cannot expect anyone to read
those stipulations 2) in the interest of justice, there would be
much more prejudice to Sweetlines even if the stipulation on
venue is not enforced because Sweetlines had an office in
CDO. So it would not be convenient for Sweetlines to defend
itself if the venue is anywhere else? because he did not have
any personnel there. Whereas, the passengers would find it
difficult to prosecute the case in Cebu. Among the
circumstances considered by the SC in that case was the fact
that Sweetlines had a virtual monopoly of the route between
CDO and Cebu at that point in time.
Interestingly enough, there was a very nice explanation on
the general rule as against the exception here in Teves in the
2004 case Pilipino Phone Company vs Delfino Tecson. IN that
case, the lawyer was trying to cite the Sweetlines case to
apply the exception rather than the rule. This involves a
mobile service agreement and the stipulation there was
similar to the polytrade case, but there was an additional
stipulation that the subscriber expressly waives any other
venue. In other words, it was not just when the place was
that similar to the Polytrade case, there was an additional
clause? saying that the subscriber waives any other venue.
*nawala si Sir sa skype, pagbalik, girecap lang niya iyahang
giingon earlier* Sabi ng stipulation “in the proper courts of
Manila” pero may additional provision … a very clear
stipulation on venue that will be clearly treated as exclusive, I
22
normally provide “that any action arising from this contract
shall be properly filed in the proper courts of Davao City only
to the exclusion of any other venue of action. So I don’t know
how can anybody argue that is not to be treated as exclusive.
Normally, the questions on venue in the bar is on the basic
rule *audio problem* Please read the Sweetlines v. Teves
case and take note of the very special circumstance why that
was treated as an exception rather than the rule.
Now let’s go to Rule 5.
RULE 5
Uniform Procedure In Trial Courts
Section 1. Uniform procedure. — The procedure in the
Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional
Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular provision expressly
or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or (b) in civil
cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. (n)
Section 2. Meaning of terms. — The term "Municipal
Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. (1a)
It basically says that the Rule is the same, whether they are in
the RTC, MTC except only in cases where there is a specific
provision in the Rules that is applicable to only either court. A
good example of that is when the RTC is governed by the
Rules on Summary Procedure.
Let’s go to Rule 6. I will jump to the rule on summary
procedure. What if I’m going to ask you, in a case governed
by the Summary Procedure, a position paper takes the place
of trial. What if, a position paper is filed in a case governed by
the rules on summary procedure and it is not verified,
because the rule on summary procedure is very very specific
*nagskip ang audio*
Rules on Summary Procedure
The position paper that I acquired(?) should be expunged
from the records that is not recognized, meaning that it was a
violation of the rule on summary procedure
Is that correct? A position paper is not a pleading. A position
paper is not among the pleadings allowed in a case covered
the by the rule on summary procedure.
Second, you go by the definition of what a pleading is. And
section 1 of Rule 6
Section 1. Pleadings defined. — Pleadings are the written
statements of the respective claims and defenses of the
parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (1a)
It is not merely limited to the statements of the witnesses.
More importantly, if we go over rule 6, it provides what are
the pleadings in a civil case.
1. complaint
2. answer
3. counterclaim
4. crossclaim
5. reply
Ok, hindi kasama sa list ang position paper. Ok? So, kung
hindi kasama sa list ang position paper, what is the rule in
statutory construction? When the law and the rule does not
include, it exclude. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
Simply stated, a position paper is not a pleading, therefore, if
we apply the rule on civil procedure, it cannot be required to
be verified. Unless, you were in a situation like I was in.
What is very very important about pleadings is we go back to
that any judgment in the place must be segumdum allegata et
probata, premised on allegations and proof.
So, how will that apply? Remember the court cannot grant a
relief and a court cannot take into consideration an issue that
was not raised or prayed for in the pleadings. OK?
Remember, we already discussed the pretrial orders and the
effects of presentation of evidence without objection, etc etc
But the basic rule is still that: claims and defenses have to be
alleged in the pleadings before they could be considered as
relevant to or which tend to prove a fact in issue, can be
allowed, that’s still the general rule.
Very very important that your pleadings, when you're a
lawyer, it is very important that it should be made completely
but do not forget that what should be stated there are only
the ultimate facts.
Ultimate facts - facts relating to your cause of action or
defense.
Sec. 2
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. — The claims of a party are
asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third
(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-
intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
pleading asserting a claim against him.
An answer may be responded to by a reply. (n)
I leave it to you to read the definition of each.
BTW, de Borja vs de Borja1 on counter claims. Bakit? In that
case, it involves an administrator representing an estate.
Now, the administrator filed a case against the debtor of the
estate. But remember, the estate that was the plaintiff was
only represented by the administrator. But what happened
was, a counterclaim was filed by defendant was against the
administrator and not the estate. Is that allowed?
NO. Why? Because a counterclaim is a claim against the
opposite party, not against the representative of the opposite
party.
I. — Section 1, Rule 10, of the Rules of Court defines a
counterclaim as:
SECTION 1. Counterclaim Defined. — A
counterclaim is any claim, whether for money or
otherwise, which a party may have against the
opposing party. A counterclaim need not dismiss
or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing
party, but may claim relief exceeding in amount
or different in kind from that sought by the
opposing party's claim.
It is an elementary rule of procedure that a counterclaim is
a relief available to a party-defendant against the adverse
1 G.R. No. L-6622, July 31, 1957
23
party which may or may not be independent from the
main issue. There is no controversy in the case at bar, that
the acts, manifestations and actuations alleged to be
defamatory and upon which the counterclaim was based
were done or prepared by counsel for oppositors; and the
administrator contends that as the very oppositors
manifested that whatever civil liability arising from acts,
actuations, pleadings and manifestations attributable to
their lawyer is enforceable against said lawyer, the
amended counterclaim was filed against the latter not in
his individual or personal capacity but as counsel for the
oppositors. It is his stand, therefore, that the lower erred
in denying admission to said pleading. We differ from the
view taken by the administrator. The appearance of a
lawyer as counsel for a party and his participation in a case
as such counsel does not make him a party to the action.
The fact that he represents the interests of his client or
that he acts in their behalf will not hold him liable for or
make him entitled to any award that the Court may
adjudicate to the parties, other than his professional fees.
The principle that a counterclaim cannot be filed against
persons who are acting in representation of another —
such as trustees — in their individual capacities
(Chambers vs. Cameron, 2 Fed. Rules Service, p. 155; 29 F.
Supp. 742) could be applied with more force and effect in
the case of a counsel whose participation in the action is
merely confined to the preparation of the defense of his
client. Appellant, however, asserted that he filed the
counterclaim against said lawyer not in his individual
capacity but as counsel for the heirs of Quintin de Borja.
But as we have already stated that the existence of a
lawyer-client relationship does not make the former a
party to the action, even this allegation of appellant will
not alter the result We have arrived at.
Granting that the lawyer really employed intemperate
language in the course of the hearings or in the
preparation of the pleadings filed in connection with this
case, the remedy against said counsel would be to have
him cited for contempt of court or take other
administrative measures that may be proper in the case,
but certainly not a counterclaim for moral damages.
Let’s now go to the concept of compulsory counterclaim.
Well, it is a type of counterclaim. Why is it compulsory?
What makes it compulsory is that it arises out of or is
connected with the contract, which is the subject matter of
the opposing parties' claim. Yung mga additional
requirement, include:
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular
courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of
the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
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
the nature thereof, except that in an original action before
the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount. (n)
What is important there is that it is connected with or relating
to the subject matter of the complaint. Now, why is it
compulsory?
when you say compulsory, meaning "you have to".
The answer is found in effects of failure to plead. Because,
we all know that when a counterclaim is compulsory, and it is
not raised, it will be barred forever. That is actually what
makes it or why it is called compulsory counterclaim. You
have to raise it otherwise it will be barred forever.
Please take note, remember when i was asking you about
WON a counterclaim can be raised in the MTC and then the
claim is actually outside of the jurisdiction of the MTC, and
we said, NO you cannot (file the counterclaim in the MTC)
because it is no longer a counterclaim, diba? You have to file
a separate action. Although you have the option of raising it
as an affirmative defense.
But that is not the rule in reverse. Meaning to say, if the case
is in the RTC and the, what should be the counterclaim should
be within the jurisdiction of the MTC, could still be raised as a
counterclaim if the case is in the RTC.
Please go over the requisites for compulsory counterclaims.
It requires a logical relationship between the claim and the
counterclaim. That is, conducting separate trials would be in
effect a substantial duplication of the effort and time of the
parties and the court.
Because you will practically be presenting the same evidence
and witnesses. So that is one limitation, that a counterclaim if
it is a compulsory counterclaim. It establishes the fact that it
draws connection from the claim and the counterclaim.
Cross-claim
Section 8. Cross-claim. — A cross-claim is any claim by one
party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may
include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or
may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim
asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. (7)
In relation to this, what the SC has been flipflop for a while.
The question is: what is the effect upon a cross-claim or
counterclaim if the main action is dismissed.
The SC had been flipflopping on that because there were so
many cases where the SC said that "a counterclaim is only
ancillary to the main action, therefore if the main action is
dismissed, the counterclaim will necessarily be dismissed.
The cases in 2000 and up also reiterated the same rule.
For example FINANCIAL BUILDING CORP vs FORBES PARK2
decided in 2000, what was so surprising about this case is the
fact that it was after the 1997 rules. Why? Because the 1997
rules already provides several instances where a counterclaim
will survive despite the dismissal of the main action.
I actually like the explanation given by the SC in the 2009 case
of SPS CORPUZ VS CITIBANK3, where the SC cited or
abandoned the earlier cases which mandated the dismissal of
the counterclaim in case of the dismissal of the complaint,
citing the very specific provisions in the 1997 rules allowing:
2 G.R. No. 133119, August 17, 2000
3 G.R. No. 175677, July 31, 2009
24
Rule 17, section 3 - you remember this rule, this was with
regard to the failure to comply with the order of the court.
Very specific there, the defendant
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of
the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right
of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared
by the court. (3a)
Section 3, Rule 17 provides that if a complaint is dismissed
due to the fault of the plaintiff, such dismissal is "without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. Under this
new innovation, the dismissal of the complaint due to the
fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the
dismissal of the counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In
fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the
right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim. In this
case, the private respondent bank, after moving that the case
against it be dismissed for failure of the petitioners to
prosecute, properly moved that it be allowed to present
evidence ex-parte on its counterclaim. (Citations omitted;
emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Very specific there, the defendant can use any of the grounds
under Rule 17 and the option of having the counterclaim or
cross-claim ____.
So its still there. When we go to motions to dismiss under
Rule 16, you can also raise as grounds for dismissal as
affirmative defenses and if you file after a counterclaim and
you include a prayer for preliminary hearing on the
affirmative defenses as if a motion to dismiss is filed.
Rule 16 on motion to dismiss, when you raise the defenses as
affirmative defenses. If you have the resolution, it means the
complaint has been dismissed, the counterclaim can still be
prosecuted in the same case. Therefore, there is an obvious
solution. It is now very clear that the dismissal of the
complaint cannot automatically mean the dismissal of the
counterclaim or cross-claim.
BTW, there’s a case.. that’s not here in my notes. I’ll give you
the citation later on.
What happened was, you remember diba, if the plaintiff fails
to appear during the pretrial, what is the consequence? The
dismissal, it is within the discretion of the court to dismiss the
case because the plaintiff did not comply.
There is a question, whether the counterclaim can be
prosecuted considering that the rule on pretrial, rule 18, does
not have a specific provision unlike rule 17 section 3 and the
provisions on motion to dismiss, that the counterclaim can
still be prosecuted if the plaintiff fails to appear during the
main action.
The question is: is the dismissal of the case by reason of the
failure of the plaintiff to appear during pretrial (sorry pero di
jud masabtan ang gina ingon ni sir).
Can the counterclaim of the defendant be prosecuted? The
SC said YES.
Papano? Wala naman provisions sa Rule 18. If you look at the
rules, rule 17 sec 3, remember2 of the grounds in rule 17 sec
3 is:
1. failure to comply with the rules
2. failure to comply with the orders of the court
In view of this, remember that there is a notice of pretrial
directing the parties to appear for pretrial.
If the plaintiff fails to appear during pretrial, the plaintiff not
only violate the rules but it also fails to comply. Rule 17 sec 3
does have a specific provision allowing a counterclaim to be
prosecuted despite the dismissal of the main complaint, then
the dismissal by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear
during pretrial, the counterclaim can still be prosecuted in
this case.
Reply
Section 10. Reply. A reply is a pleading, the office or function
is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new
matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby
join or make issue as to such new matters. If the party does
not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer
are deemed controverted. (11)
You should never forget that a reply in effect is mandatory if
an actionable document is being the basis of the answer.
Why? If your cause of action or defense is based on an
actionable document, is NOT properly alleged, even if it is not
denied under oath, you do not get the benefit of the
presumed admission of it. So, for an actionable document to
be considered an actionable document, it has to be properly
alleged as such. If it is NOT properly alleged as such, then it
will not be considered as an actionable document and its
genuineness and due execution will not be required to be
denied under oath.
The GR: An actionable document needs to be denied under
oath for it to be considered denied, otherwise it will be
admitted.
If the plaintiff wishes to dispute the genuineness and due
execution of an actionable document that is claimed in the
answer, the filing of the reply is in a sense mandatory.
Anyway, I will stop there and continue with this lecture on …
holiday (Bonifacio Day) pala sa Monday noh? Magsched tayo
ng make up class kasi kulangin ng oras.
December 7, 2015
REPLY
What are you responding to? The answer
There is no need even to file a reply.
There is one instance when reply becomes seemingly
mandatory. And that is when the defense is premised upon
an actionable document for the simple reason that the denial
of an actionable document must be under oath. So if there is
no reply or the reply is not under oath, the genuineness or
due execution of the actionable document will be deemed
admitted. So in a sense, if you want to contest the
genuineness and due execution of an actionable document
25
that has been made the basis of the defense then the filing of
a verified reply becomes mandatory.
THIRD, FOURTH PARTY COMPLAINT
It is a claim of a defending party. Remember, it does not say
defendant because the plaintiff can also be made a defending
party once a counterclaim is concerned.
Again, what are the grounds or objects of a third party
complaint? CONTRIBUTION. What does that mean? Against
the defending party who should not be the one to shoulder
the claims made by the claiming party and the third-party
defendant is xxx by the filing of the third party complaint to
the case so that the original defending party can share in
assuming liability for the claim. Perfect example there is in
case of a solidary debtor. So, any one of the debtors can be
made to pay for the entire amount. Of course, that debtor
has the right to seek contribution from his co-debtor. That co-
debtor, if he is not a party to the case, it is quite possible a
third party complaint can be filed by the defendant to the
other debtor to drag him to the case.
You have to relate the concept to INDISPENSABLE AND
NECESSARY PARTIES. Of course, the solidary co-debtor is not
an indispensable party. You can sue anybody for the entire
amount but that person is a necessary party. Do not forget
that under the rules on necessary parties, what will happen is
that a complaint is filed and will include explanations why the
solidary debtor was not impleaded because if you failed to
implead a necessary party, the complaint is xxx. And when
the court feels that the reason is does not justifying omitting
the other solidary debtor, the court may order an
amendment. So in a sense, there are stages to this. At the
first instance, the first possibility is that the complaint itself
will already include all the necessary parties. So in our
example, all solidary debtors. The next stage is if the plaintiff
has a reason why one of the solidary debtors has not been
included then you will sue only one and then explain to the
court why you did not implead the other solidary debtors. So,
the court has the option of xxx if the court is not satisfied
with the explanation or justification of the failure to implead
necessary parties. The court may offer to amend the
complaint to implead. But then, there is still a possibility that
the one who was impleaded as a defendant will be the one to
initiate the effort to bring in the other solidary debtors thru a
third party complaint. The plaintiff does not necessarily know
what the defendant does. Maybe the plaintiff did not implead
him anymore because he has no idea where the solidary
debtor is and impleading him would necessarily delay the
case because of inability to serve the summons, because he
does not know where he is. So, when he files a case against
one of the solidary debtors, that person may know exactly
where the person is. It will be easy for him to cause the
service of summons upon that co-debtor. What I’m trying to
drive at is that those concepts are related.
INDEMNITY. Contribution, sila lang magshare. Indemnity,
pasa ko sa iyo lahat. Surety, wala man yan syang utang. Ang
meron talagang utang is the principal debtor. Siya lang yung,
technically you are not to use the term, guarantee sa
creditor. So, he assumes solidary liability not because he is a
co-debtor but because he wishes to lend his credit to some
other person by assuming liability as a surety.
When it comes to indemnity, everything that the surety is
made to pay can be passed on to the principal debtor.
Subrogation – stepping to the shoes. Paboritong example dito
ni Dean is lessor ni-lease nya ang property nya to B. Si B
subleases to C. Pero nasira. Wala mang contractual
relationship si A and C. Sino idedemanda ni A? Si B, sya yung
may responsibility for that as far sa A is concerned. So, B now
will file a third party complaint against C so that C can step
into the shoes of B. Why? To answer for any liability of B and
second, if there is any defense that C could raise would also
benefit from B. Di man alam ni B paano nangyari ang damage.
Ang may alam noon is si C kase sya man yung nandoon sa
lugar. If C can establish that there are substandard materials
used in the building, only C can raise that because it is only C
who knows.
Similar din yan sa ANY OTHER RELIEF. That is actually
subrogation sa damage. If C would raise the defense, pwede
yan mahulog sa any other relief.
[Story about 19 years of practice and only filed third-party
complaint once]
WHAT ARE THE TESTS TO DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY OF
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT? [See notes; Sir mumbling]
SECTION 12
INSERT PROVISION
PARTS OF A PLEADING (JUST READ)
Pag complaint gane, lista mo yan (referring to defendants)
lahat. [Story about secretary having hard time
typing/justifying names of defendants because she does not
know how to use MS Word table ]
PARAGRAPHS
Each of which shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstance so far as that can be done with convenience.
When you file an answer, you do not have to repeat
everything said in the complaint. You can just simply say,
paragraph 1 of the complaint is specifically denied, the truth
of the matter being blah blah blah.
[Rant about lawyers or judges using one paragraph for more
than 1 idea; basic rule in English; Difference between decision
by Justice Cruz and Justice Paras; Tip for exam: Have a
structure already]
HEADINGS (JUST READ)
RELIEF
Very important. You must pray for the relief. The court
cannot grant a relief that is not prayed for. The general rule is
you should specify the relief sought. Although, the courts can
also grant under a general prayer – plaintiff likewise prays for
such other relief as the court may find just and equitable.
SIGNATURE (JUST READ)
But please take note that when a lawyer signs a pleading, he
is telling the court that it is to the best of his knowledge and
belief that there is good ground to support it. And fact is,
when you file something in court and you know that it is
false, you can be administratively liable.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. When you
say unsigned pleading, that means lahat ng dokumento, di
pirmado. But kung yung na-file sa court may pirmi at meron
26
lang isa, yung na-serve na copy, walang pirma, honest
mistake yun. Di yun sya unsigned pleading.
Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading or signs a
pleading which alleges scandalous or indecent matters… In
legal ethics, you are not allowed to used scandalous or
implicit language in your pleadings. (Story about younger
lawyers using base language in their pleading, attacking the
other counsel or to get the attention of the court; Do it
elegantly)
Dec 7 2015, Civil Procedure, 40:00 to 1:11:17
Unsigned Pleadings
GR: Specify relief sought but court can grant certain reliefs.
Signature: just read that.
Section 3. Signature and address. — Every pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
either case his address which should not be a post office
box. The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him
that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to
support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
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
inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in
violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
matter therein, or fails promptly report to the court a
change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action. (5a)
When a lawyer signs a pleading he is telling the court that to
the best of his knowledge and information there is good
ground for it and it is not interposed for delay. Fact is if you
file something in court, it becomes apparent to the court that
you knew that there was something false, yo can be
administratively sanctioned and there are cases like the case
against IBP lawyers can be held administratively liable
An unsigned pleading produces no effect
When you say an unsigned pleading that means lahat ng
kopya hindi pirmado. But if what was filed in court was may
pirma pero yung na serve na copy walang pirma, honest
mistake lang yun. Hindi sya unsigned pleading. Pero if you
deliberately file an unsigned, scandalous, or indecent
pleading xxx scandalous in legal ethics is xxx. Sometimes I
notice that many of the younger lawyers sometimes sign
pleadings na medyo masakit pakinggan. If you want to
complain you can do so anytime. There is no use of using
these language when you want to bring to the attention of
the court something that one has done wrong. You can do it
differently? For me there is no use in using these language.
This just means that the opposing counsel is displaying a
limited vocabulary.
Sameer v Santos aug 4 2009 GR No.158579
There was an MR which was not signed by the lawyer but by
the president of the corporation. The other party was
insisting that these pleadings be expunged because these are
unsigned pleadings. SC: this is not an unsigned pleading.
There was a board resolution authorizing the president to
represent the company. Under the rules the lawyer is acting
as a representative to the party, and corporations act through
he person appointed by the corporation. If it is singed by the
authorized person of the party itself, it cannot be considered
an unsigned pleading.
Verification
Just read the codal. What is important here is the evolution of
the wordings required in verification.
Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise
specifically 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
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his knowledge and belief. A pleading required to
be verified which contains a verification based on
"information and belief", or upon "knowledge, information
and belief", or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as
an unsigned pleading. (6a)
What is verification. It is an affidavit stating that the things
stated in the pleading is the (inaudible: truth?)
So what is the value of it? It gives more weight because what
has been stated there was made under oath and
consequently judges are supposed to be able to rely on
verified pleading unlike unverified ones because verified
pleadings are under oath.
Why is it more reliable? Because the person who executes it,
if it is later on shown that there is something false in the body
of that pleading and that person knew or should have known
that allegation is false, you are liable for perjury.
Discussion: This is unlike what happens on industrialized
countries. Yung mga puti kala mo arogante, they really ask
the meaning of the words. Kasi you can be held liable for that.
Kaya nga minsan nakakainis dito kasi ang dali dali para sa mga
tao na mag lie. Ilang beses na kayo na gumawa ng Affidavit of
Loss na hindi naman kayo nagsearch? Despite diligent
search… Nagsearch ka ba?
So I was talking for verification, (Inaudible: Dati?), nagfile ka,
you said that was the information that I received. Tinangal,
naging knowledge and belief. Eh yun yung paniniwala ko. So
ngayon pinalitan na nila, even before the 1997 Rules. It was
just adopted when the 1997 rules came out, pinasok na sa
rules. So kelangan ngayon, based upon true and correct
personal knowledge or based on authentic records. Actually
last amendment dito, tinangal yung information, tapos naging
true and correct based on authentic documents.
Certification of non forum shopping.
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
27
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal
with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well
as a cause for administrative sanctions. (n)
Ang daming nadadagdag sa pleadings dahil sa walang tiwala
ang Korte Suprema sa mga abogado. Bakit kailangan mo pa
magcertify na you are not engaged in forum shopping? Nag
start lang yan 1991. The problem is the penchant of lawyers
to forum shop.
What is forum shopping? When you institute the same case
raising a cause of action involving similar parties before
different fora.
Why? Because looking for the court or forum where you can
get a better treatment. You are hoping that one of them will
agree with you.
What is being violated here? Basic rule against splitting cause
of action. That is what is being violated. Because of that the
SC required lawyers, parties rather, to execute an affidavit
that the case is not engaged in forum shopping. That began in
SC circular 28-91 in 1991, pero noon appellate lang yun kasi
noon mas prevalent ito sa appellate, yung magfifile ka ng
petition for certiorari sa Supreme Court then nagfile na pala
ng petition for review sa CA. Hiniwalay. To deal with that, the
Supreme Court, dun nagumpisa yung requirement ng
Certification for non forum shopping. Pero napansin din ng SC
na there were also many instances at the first instance,
where the case begins. So in 1994, I remember because this
was a hot issue when I was taking the bar in 1995, the
Supreme Court required the execution of certification of non
forum shopping for all initiatory pleadings.
Ano ang naka certify? That the party is certifying that he has
not commenced any action involving the same issues in any
court or quasi judicial agency and to the best of his
knowledge no such other action is pending. In addition, kung
meron, they are supposed to state the complete status and if
you should learn subsequently that the same action is
pending on another court, it should be reported within 5 days
in the court where you filed the certification.
Ang maraming issue is yung if there is such pending action, a
complete status thereof part. That is basically an admission
that you are forum shopping.
Discussion: E.G. I did this once. This is a case under the
Ombudsman. Joint yan. Preliminary investigation and
administrative. Docket is with A and C. Obviously yung C is
criminal, yung A is administrative. So sa joint resolution,
found guilty yung client ko so meron penalty na dismissal sa
admnistrative na aspect and also criminal. In the Office of the
Ombudsman, you only have 5 days to file the MR. So since it
was a joint resolution, I decided to abide with the 5 days but
yung isa sinama ko na. Now my problem was that the Office
has a policy that the filing of the MR will not stop the
implementation of the penalty. So if you file a MR,
matatangal pa rin sa trabaho yung client mo. So I file a
petition for certiorari (with injunction) under Rule 65 with the
CA even if I already filed an MR with the Office of
Ombudsman. But very clear in the opening paragraphs of my
petition, that the petition for certiorari will only be with
regard the administrative nature of the penalty of dismissal.
And I also included that in the Certification for non forum
shopping as well that there was an MR with the Office of the
Ombudsman. But my explanation also included in the body
na Kailangan ko mag file kasi immediately executory yung
penalty. So nadeny yung MR.
Now you should know that the appeal from a resolution of
the Office of Ombudsman will differ depending of what kind
of resolution it is. If it is a resolution to an administrative
case, you are supposed to go to the CA Under Rule 43. But if
there is a finding of probable cause, you go to the SC, Rule 65.
Certiorari yung isa, petition for review yung isa.
Remember na may pending petition ako for Certiorari sa CA
na di pa nareresolve. I was now faced with a situation where I
have to file 2 separate petitions arising out from the joint
resolution denying my MR. So I had to file a petition for
certiorari to the SC as well as a petition for review to the CA
in so far as the administrative aspect is concerned in addition
to the already pending petition for certiorari under Rule 65
with the CA. So what is the solution? Would I be forum
shopping? Conceptually yes because the case involves very
similar issues but no in the sense that the Rules and
jurisprudence compel the filing of separate petitions.
So what is the solution? Include in all the petitions, nauna
yung CA ko eh, mas mahaba kasi yung period for Petition for
Certiorari under rule 65, although iba yung nakalagay sa rules
on Office of the Ombudsman instead of 60, anyway, inuna ko
yung sa CA, pag file ko sa CA ng petition, included there is a
manifestation in the petition that there is a pending action in
the CA under Rule 65, which is there was already a comment
on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman but it was still
pending resolution. Yung status nun, nakalagay sa Certificate
of Non Forum Shopping doon sa Petition for Review with CA.
In the separate Rule 65 petition, I filed a manifestation, why?
Because you are required. Once you’ve learned of a filing of a
similar petition, you are required to manifest it with the court
where the case is pending. So I filed a manifestation. In the
decision of the CA where my earlier petition is already
pending, stating that I had filed a separate petition and
explaining why, and manifest na yun.
Eto na naman yung sa Supreme Court ko under Rule 65. So
pag file ko ng Petition for Certiorari sa SC, sa opening pa lang,
nag gawa gawa ako ng sarili ko na heading na “Manifestation
in Pendency of Petitions” So inexplain ko dun yung
immediately executory nature of the Ombudsman decision
insofar as the penalty is concerned, kung ano yung status,
and the fact that I included a separate petition under Rule 43
after the MR was filed. So explained yan. Nakalagay din yan
sa Certification of Non Forum Shopping kasi required ka to
put a complete statement of the status of the other pending
cases. After I filed that, yung kopya na merong tatak na
reCeipt ng SC, well sakin I personally filed, so kung imail mo,
yung kopya ng affidavit of service saka ng Registry Receipt,
nagfile din ako ng manifestation in the CA in the 2 petitions,
the same 65 ad 43 decisions, stating the fact that I had file a
separate petition under Rule 65 with the SC.
So ano yung dapat tandaan? Gawa kayo ng outline. Ano yung
violation, ano yung penalty.
28
Violation Sanctions
Failure to comply, wala kang Failure to comply will not be
certification for non forum curable by mere amendment.
shopping in the initiatory It Shall be a cause for the
pleading, ano ang effect. dismissal of the case without
prejudice unless provided.
Dapat merong motion for
leave?
The submission of a false Shall constitute indirect
certification (meron na contempt of court, without
existing case di mo nilagay) prejudice to administrative
or non compliance with any criminal actions and dismissal
of the undertakings therein of the case. So pag
(di ka nagreport na meron na submission of false
pala na ifile) certification, non compliance
of other case therein, indirect
contempt
If the acts of the party clearly summary dismissal with
constitute willful and prejudice, direct contempt,
deliberate forum shopping, administrative sanctions.
So violation sanctions.
Are you required to submit certification of forum shopping
for compulsory counterclaims? No. Why? Faiza Tejero: Not
initiatory. Why? Hindi sya initiatory kasi it is a counterclaim
which MUST be raised. It is not your choice whether or not
you should raise these compulsory counterclaims. In a sense
kaya nga tinawag na compulsory because you have to file it,
otherwise these claims will be barred forever. It is not your
option. The very nature of you claim as a necessary
counterclaim makes it necessary for you to raise it. So it is not
an initiatory pleading.
clearly and concisely stated.
If we will be very strict about it, it is actually not that easy.
Kasi diba pag gawa mo ng answer, you’re supposed to state
what parts you are admitting, and what parts you are denying
and state the basis for denial. So isang paragraph then two
points nakalagay dyan, kahirap nyan isa isahin. Kung sira ulo
ka lang, pwede ka mag file ng motion to expunge. Marami
lang magalit sayo.
Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A party
may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense
alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action
or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. When
two or more statements are made in the alternative and one
of them if made independently would be sufficient, the
pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one
or more of the alternative statements.
When in second year, I like confusing my students. So explain
that to me. But you all know that you can actually raise
alternative causes of action. You can raise in a pleading,
alternative, affirmative defense even if they would seem to
counter each other. For example, in a case based on a
promissory note.
I deny that I have an obligation. The signature
purporting to be mine is not mine, It is forged. If I signed it,
then it has already been paid.
There was no consideration for it because I never
received anything. If there was consideration for it,it was
already paid.

The Supreme Court is very strict with regard to Certification
of Non Forum Shopping.
Melo v CA – (not discussed) still applied. But there are cases
where the SC is more lax. Like in a case, that in a property
controv
Like, yung CNFS nasubmit, pero yung secretary’s or Board
resolution ng corporation, hinabol lang, ok lang yun. Can the
lawyer sign the CNFS? GR: NO, because it requires personal
knowledge. But, you have to compare that with other cases.
In one case it was a lawyer, it was the lawyer who was also
the one authorized by the corporation to represent it. It was
also acting as counsel also acting as authorized official to sign
the CNFS. In one case, involving a property, only one spouse
signed the certificate, the Supreme Court allowed that.
You have to identify the matters that have to be stated with
specificity and those that can be the subject of general
allegations.
RULE 8
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
Can you do that? Yes, problema lang, di na maniwala ang
court.
Section 3. Conditions precedent. — In any pleading a general
averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions
precedent shall be sufficient. (3)
For example, barangay conciliation proceedings. You do not
need to specify what happened, like there was a lupon
constituted. You can just place a general allegation that there
was a prior attempt yet failed.
Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party
to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued
in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an
organized association of person that is made a party, must be
averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or
be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific
denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are
peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. (4)

Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading
relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting
the statement of mere evidentiary facts. (1)
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be
You have to be specific, you have to state that you have the
authority to sue and in the case of a foreign corporation,
kailangan specific. Gaya ng foreign corporation kailanagan
nakalagay na whether or not doing business in the
Philippines, or it is under the isolated transaction rule. It has
to stated specifically. A good idea example of this. New York
Managers Inc vs CA 1995. Soriente vs Estate Artemio
Concepction GR 160239, the question was whether the

29
 failure to deny specifically the capacity to sue or person
claiming the right to represent an estate amount to a waiver
of the right to question such capacity? SC said Yes. Ito kasi,
ejectment case also, conjugal property. The wife not that
representing herself but pursuing the case in behalf of the
estate of the decedent/ husband. Pero walang nakalagay dn
sa complaint na she already have been issued letters of
administration.
Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all
averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances constituting
fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice,
intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a person
may be averred generally.(5a)
It’s very difficult to be specific about it because you do not
know what’s in the mind of someonelse.
Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision of
a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal,
or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or
decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to
render it. (6)
Section 7. Action or defense based on document. —
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or
document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original
or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading,
or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.
(7)
Section 9. Official document or act. — In pleading an official
document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the
document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.
(9)
Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed
admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than
those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be
deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of
usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9)
Can be averred generally Specific
 Performance of a condition  Capacity to sue or be sued
precedent  When you want to raise an
 Malice, intent, knowledge, issue as regards the legal
and other conditions of the existence of a party
mind of the person  Circumstances constituting
 Pleading a judgment or fraud or deceit
decision of a domestic or
foreign court
 Pleading an official
document to an official act
Let’s now go to the concept of an actionable document. What
is an actionable document? If the document is the basis of a
cause of action. It’s an actionable document for example a
promissory note. If your defense is premise on a document, it
is also considered an actionable document like receipt. Best
evidence of payment. How do you allege actionable
document?
1. You basically have the first option to make a summary on
what is contained in the document and you attach now.
2. Actually include it in your pleading
How to contest?
Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action
or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or
attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
party, under oath specifically denies them, and 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 refused.
(8a)
Kailangan nga na ang genuineness and due execution must be
denied under oath. What will happen if there is failure to
contest? Then the genuineness and due execution of that
document is deemed admitted. But don’t forget that you
don’t really admit everything. You don’t lose all your defenses
against the document. Filipinas Textile Mills vs CA decided in
2002.
Take note, fraud, mistake, compromise, prescription,
estoppel, duress, minority, imbecility, all these are not
deemed admitted.
When is a denial which is not under oath still a valid denial?
1. First, when the party to the denial is not made a party to
document.
2. If there was a motion for production for inspection of
documents and there was an order to produce the original of
the document and was refused, even if the denial is not
under oath, it is sufficient.
That presupposes that a motion for production or inspection
was filed before the filing of the answer. Because if you
already filed the answer, and then there was already a denial
in your answer, deemed admitted already, you cannot admit
what has already been deemed admitted. Finally if it turns
out that it is not questionable.
Modes of making a denial.
Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not
admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial.
Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an
averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this
shall have the effect of a denial. (10a)
In other words, you must state what the allegations you are
denying. Example, paragraph 5 of the complaint is specifically
denied. Kaya nga mas maganda if per number. You’re
supposed to state what you are admitting and deny the rest.
The rule is state what you admit, and deny only the rest. The
30
problem is if you do not properly comply the second one in
making the denial.
Kung dineny mo lahat tapos it turns out that there is a part
pala na you admit, what is the effect? That is what is called a
negative pregnant. A negative pregnant is a failure to comply
with the second rule of making a denial in cases when there is
only a partial denial of the allegation. You’re supposed to
state when you admit, then deny the rest. Set forth the facts,
of the basis of your denial. If you don’t do that, and it turns
and you’re denying and admitting only a part of it, then it is
called a negative pregnant, admitted as a general denial
which has an effect as an admission. That is why it is called a
negative pregnant, because it is a denial that is pregnant with
admissions. If you failed to comply with the second rule, it
will be treated as a general denial which would be treated as
an admission.
Yung third: Where a defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made to the complaint, he shall so state,
and this shall have the effect of a denial. (10a)
You just have to follow the codal, you deny by reason of that
defendant has no knowledge or information. Example,
nagaclaim ng moral damages, I have suffered sleepless nights,
kung ikaw ang defendant, malay mo ba, bakit katabi ba tayo
matulog. Hindi ko man alam kung di ka nakatulog, alangan
sabihin ko the allegation that the plaintiff suffered serious
anxiety is specifically denied, you don’t know that! If you
don’t know, you state that based on number 3.
Simple lang sabi ng SC, pag hindi ka nagbayad, sabihin mo di
ka nagbayad, hindi mo pwedeng sabihin na hindi mo alam
kung nakapambayad ka ba o hindi. Negative averment. You
can actually have an instance when the answer is full of
denials.
Section 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained
therein. — Upon motion made by a party before responding
to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by
these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20)
days after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the
court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any
pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false,
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
stricken out therefrom.
December 10, 2015
December 14, 2015
San ba ako nag-stop? RULE 13, SEC. 6.
Section 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers
may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party or
his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with
a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his
office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by
leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning
and six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if
known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then
residing therein. (4a)
We are now in the modes of service. Section 6 deals with
personal service. The codal provision is pretty clear. Please
remember that when it comes to papers, pleadings, etc.,
leaving it with the clerk or person in charge of the office – or
if he doesn’t have an office/office not known, [leaving it] in
his house with a person of sufficient age AND discretion – is
considered personal service. Take note that you can only
serve personally at his house if:
1. No person is found in his office;
2. His office is not known; or
3. He has no office.
So pwede mo siyang iwanan sa residence. One issue that
keeps coming up in the Bar exam involves two cases. Because
normally, a court ____tasked to receive. Some lawyers who
prefer not to have secretaries at all. Then it becomes difficult.
If you look at the codal, that’s an instance where you can try
to serve at his home. The same thing as when you file
personally in court and you don’t know anyone there. It’s
always a good policy to get the person to sign and write the
date. And these days, with the advent of smart phones,
almost all cameras have smart phones. Pwede mong picture-
an yung nag-receive kung hindi mo kilala.
(Inaudible yung title ng 2 cases na sinabi ni Sir, sorry huhu) In
this case (this is not so much a problem in Davao because we
don’t have a lot of high-rise buildings), paano kung sa lobby
iniwan? Ang firm rule talaga diyan is, it’s not enough. You
serve it in the office, not in the Information Counter. There is
only one instance where it will be sufficient service, and it
had something to do with estoppel. That is what happened in
the case of PCIB v Office. Kasi ever since, lahat ng mga sine-
serve sa kanila, doon sine-serve. Natatanggap naman nila.
‘Pag may setting ng hearing, uma-appear naman sila. ‘Pag
may motion, nagfi-file sila ng opposition. ‘Pag may order
galling sa court, nagco-comply sila. Ganun ba. Hanggang sa
judgment. Nag-lapse ‘yung period. So they cited the case of
PLDT v NLRC. Sabi ng SC, hindi. ESTOPPEL. Pinasanay niyo
‘yung korte ng ganyan tapos biglang deny-deny. So, I would
like to emphasize that the PCIB case is the exception rather
than the rule.
Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered
mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office in
a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his
counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if
known, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to
the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10)
days if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the
locality of either the senders or the addressee, service may be
done by ordinary mail. (5a; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February
1998)
Service by mail is service via REGISTERED mail. What’s the
distinguishing feature of registered mail? For one, kaya siya
“registered” kasi nililista. Merong registry receipt number,
naka-logbook kung kelan dinala doon. And more importantly,
may return card. Ano ‘yung return card? It’s basically a self-
addressed prepaid stamp. Nandun ‘yung address mo. Kung
sino man nag-receive, ilagay dun. Kukunin niya yung name
tsaka signature. And then that return card will be mailed back
to you. Kaya siya tinawag na return kasi nagrereturn siya
sa’yo. Ito na ‘yung actual evidence mo na natanggap nila.
Before that, we actually had the registry receipt. That is the
receipt issued by the Post Office. The Registry Receipt
Number is used to track where the mailed matter is, kasi nga
nilo-log every time. Lahat ng post office na dinaanan niyan,
tinatatakan ng postmark. Ma-trace ‘yan kung saan. Basically,
that is the tracking number.
If no registry service is available in the locality of the sender
or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail.
31
What’s the difference? Well, if you serve or file via registered
mail, the date of mailing is the date of service or filing. If it’s
by ordinary mail, date of receipt is date of service or filing.
Very important when we’re talking about instances when
there’s a fixed period.
Section 8. Substituted service. — If service of
pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other
papers cannot be made under the two preceding sections,
the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel
being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy
to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal
service and service by mail. The service is complete at the
time of such delivery. (6a)
This applies only if they had already been attempts at
personal service and – AND yan ha – registered mail. What do
you do? You go to the clerk of court where the case is
pending to show proof of failure of personal service and
service by registered mail. At that point in time, service will
be deemed complete.
Section 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or
resolutions. — Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be
served either personally or by registered mail. When a party
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
prevailing party. (7a)
Now, another very important provision is service of judgment
or orders from the court. Personal or registered mail. Pero
kung summons via publication, via publication din ang pag-
serve ng judgment.
Section 10. Completeness of service. — Personal
service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by ordinary
mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after
mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service by
registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the
addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the
first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. (8a)
People get confused between this and what I said earlier
about serving and filing DEEMED to be the date of… Well,
that refers to the date you serve but completeness is the
presumption na natanggap na niya from service. Mayroon na
bang presumption na natanggap niya? As to whether or not
nag-comply ka na sa, for example, judgment kung saan natalo
ka, magpapadala ka ng notice of appeal and ipapadala mo rin
sa kalaban mo. If you do that via registered mail, it is the date
of mailing that is deemed to be the date that you filed and
served. Compliance with the reglementary period. As to
whether or not the opposing party is deemed to have
received the notice – completeness of service – eto ‘yun.
Kelan served? Nung day na pinadala. Kelan received?
1. Actual receipt
2. Ordinary mail - 10 days after mailing, unless the
court otherwise provides
3. Registered mail – upon actual receipt by the
addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he
received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier
Ano itong 5 days? May notice kasi na pinapadala, kunwari pag
may parcel ka sa post office, padalhan ka ng notice para kunin
mo doon ‘yung parcel. Ibig sabihin meron kang babayaran na
tax. As far as this provision is concerned, ‘yung mga post
office dati na konti lang ang postmen at masyado na silang
maraming dala, nagbibigay nalang ng notice. ‘Yung notice,
dadalhin sa opisina niyo tapos ikaw ang kukuha ng mail sa
post office. Bakit kailangan ng presumption? Kasi dati,
kunwari may decision tapos talo ka, ayaw mo pa ma-receive
para humaba ‘yung period mo to file an appeal. Lalo na kung
kunwari, decision ng CA so mag-petition ka na sa SC under
Rule 45. Ayaw ng abogado ma-receive kasi ayaw niya
tumakbo yung period niya. So, ‘yun yung problema. When is
he deemed to have received it para tumakbo ‘yung period
niya? Section 10. So paglampas ng 5 days, mayroon nang
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE.
Example, ang pinadala is Answer, ‘yung period to file a Reply
mag-uumpisa AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 5 DAYS or upon
actual receipt, whichever is earlier.
Here is another problem. If you want to rely on constructive
service… Like, you are alleging that the decision had already
become final and it is being denied by the other party, you
have to prove that there is already constructive notice. You
have the burden of proving the existence of fact upon which
there can be a presumption of constructive service. You need
to prove that the postman already served him [other party]
or his office with the notice. ‘Yung sinabi kong rule kanina, old
case ‘yun “it is incumbent upon a party, who relies on
constructive service or who contends that his adversary was
served with a copy of a final order or judgment upon the
expiration of five days from the first notice of registered mail
sent by the postmaster to prove that first notice was sent and
delivered to the addressee. A certification from the
postmaster would be the best evidence of that fact” (Grafil
vs. Feliciano L-27156, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 616). The
mailman's testimony may also be adduced to prove that fact,
as was done in Aldecoa vs. Hon. Arellano and Siguenza, 113
Phil. 75, 78.
An earlier case would give us guidelines on what would be
sufficient to prove the existence of the fact upon which the
presumption can already be made. In service by registered
mail, the general rule is that service is complete upon actual
receipt by the addressee. The exception is that when the
addressee does not claim his mail within five days from the
date of the first notice of the postmaster, then the service
takes effect at the expiration of such time.
As illustrated by Justice Cesar Bengzon, if the first notice is
received by the addressee on December 1, and he gets his
mail on December 3, the service is complete on December 3,
the date of the actual receipt (general rule).
But if the addressee gets his mail only on December 15,
service is deemed complete on December 6 or five days from
December 1, the date of the first notice (exception).
If the addressee never gets the mail, service is also deemed
complete on December 6, as provided in the exception to the
general rule. If he receives his mail two months after it is
registered and there is no proof of the first notice, then
service is complete on the date of actual receipt, following
the general rule. (Grospe vs. Court of Appeals and Uera, 106
Phil. 1144, 1148-9).
Bearing in mind that the exception in service by registered
mail refers to constructive service, not to actual receipt of the
mail, it is evident that the fair and just application of that
exception depends upon conclusive proof that a first notice
was sent by the postmaster to the addressee. The
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed
should not be applied to such a situation.
32

The postmaster's certification as to the sending of the first
notice "should include the data not only as to whether or not
the corresponding notices were issued or sent but also as to
how, when and to whom the delivery thereof was made."
(Hernandez vs. Navarro, L-28296, November 24, 1972, 48
SCRA 44, 64, per Barredo, J.).
As stressed by Justice Barredo in a recent case, "there must
be clear proof of compliance with the postal regulations
governing the sending and receipt of the notice referred to
in" section 8 of Rule 13 (Vecino vs. Court of Appeals, L-386f2,
March 29, 1977). The mere exhibition in court of the
envelope containing the unclaimed mail is not sufficient proof
that a first notice was sent.
Note that in a certain case a first notice was sent but it was
received by the addressee's eleven-year old child who did not
deliver it to the addressee himself. It was held that to apply
the presumption in that case and to insist on constructive
service would work an injustice rather than promote justice
(Cabuang vs. Hon. Bello, 105 Phil. 1135, 1138).
The best evidence to establish constructive service would be:
1. a certification from the post office that the notice
was delivered to the party on a certain day;
2. call the mailman who actually went there to serve
the notice, so he can testify that he actually went
there
REGARDING THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING UNCLAIMED MAIL
AS PROOF TO ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE: In the
instant case, there is no evidence that the first notice was
sent to Barrameda's lawyer and that it was delivered to him
or should have been received by him. The envelope
containing the unclaimed mail was presented in court. The
face of the envelope contains the notation "Returned to
sender. Reason: Unclaimed". Above the stamp, on the back of
the envelope, with the legend "City of San Pablo, Philippines,
Jan. 29, 1966", are written the dates, "2-3-66 and 2-9-66."
Written also on the back of the envelope are the following: "R
to S, notified 3/3/66."
Relying on those notations on the envelope, the trial court
literally and rigidly applied the presumption as to constructive
service. It did not require appellee to present the
postmaster's certification that a first notice was sent to
appellant's lawyer and that the notice was received by the
latter.
Johnson & Johnson Phils. v CA (201 SCRA 768): We held that
the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that therein petitioner
had been duly served with a copy of the assailed resolution,
as there was utter lack of sufficient evidence to support the
appellate courts conclusion. Nothing in the records showed
how, when, and to whom the delivery of the registry notices
of the registered mail addressed to petitioner was made and
whether said notices were received by the petitioner. The
envelope containing the unclaimed mail merely bore the
notation return to sender: unclaimed on its face and Return
to: Court of Appeals at the back. We concluded that the
respondent court should not have relied solely on these
notations to support the presumption of constructive service,
and accordingly, we set aside the questioned resolution and
ordered the appellate court to properly serve the same on
therein petitioner.
Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. —
Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and
other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to
papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes
must be accompanied by a written explanation why the
service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this
Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (n)
THIS IS VERY STRICT. YOU CAN LOSE A CASE BECAUSE OF THIS
SECTION. Bakit? Kasi failure to serve is deemed to be an
unfiled pleading. Magla-lapse ‘yung period. So Section 11
requires that there must be an explanation when resort to
service by mail is availed of. Why? Because the priority should
be personal service or filing. RESORT TO SERVICE VIA
REGISTERED MAIL SHOULD BE YOUR LAST RECOURSE.
The SC required an explanation, kasi ang mga abogado
abusado. Kunwari mag-file ka ng motion mo tapos ayaw
mong masagot ng kabila hanggang sa mag-abot na sa motion
day, para maka-yawyaw ka. Anong gawin? I-mail ‘yung
motion sa adverse party pero sa court, personally mag-file. So
this requirement of explanation is very strict and it has been
reiterated in many cases.
Example of explanation sufficient to justify service via
registered mail: By reason of the lack of available personnel
sufficiently familiar with the place or address of the party or
his counsel to cause personal service. Hindi enough ang “lack
of available personnel” kasi kung walang tao, edi ikaw! It’s
such an easy excuse to make for ignoring the priority of
personal service.
Section 12. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or
paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of the
case. If it is not in the record, but is claimed to have been
filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the written or
stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court on
a copy of the same; if filed by registered mail, by the registry
receipt and by the affidavit of the person who did the mailing,
containing a full statement of the date and place of
depositing the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope
addressed to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (10) days if not delivered. (n)
Personal, walang problema. Pinirmahan, tinanggap. Sa court,
may tatak na “RECEIVED”. Ang problema is registered mail.
Pagdating sa registered mail, dalawa yan:
1. Registry Receipt
2. Affidavit of Service [of the person who did the
mailing, containing a full statement of the date and
place of depositing the mail in the post office in a
sealed envelope addressed to the court, with
postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten
(10) days if not delivered]
Wag niyo talagang kalimutan ang affidavit of service.
Sangkatutak na na kaso ang na-dismiss dahil diyan.
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 manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail,
proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person
mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this
Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be
made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the
mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed
immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof
the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
33
copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
(10a)
(naputol ‘yung recording pag-start ni Sir mag-discuss ng proof
of service)
January 4, 2016
Atty. Europa: Haaaa! Saan ba tayo nag stop?
Rule 14 section 11, service upon domestic private juridical
entity, when the defendant is a corporation partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary
treasurer or in-house counsel..
ATTY. EUROPA: How do you serve corporation which has
juridical personality? You serve the summons to the
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary treasurer or in-house counsel.. Please take note,
hindi kasama sa listahan ang director, so ordinary member
of the board directors is not among the person define where
you can served the summons in order to bind the
corporation.. but of course, a board member and a director
who also happens to be the corporate secretary, ibang
kwento yan... I have a case once, we serve a summon, by a
financing company(my client), so na serve ang summon to a
director who was a lawyer, sa office nya, then binagay din ng
secretary nya na hindi naman binasa kasi confidential,
anyway, since gusto nya ma settle agad, anyway, the issue is
na mention kasi yong “in house-counsel”...
What is an in-house counsel and what makes you one? If you
are a lawyer employed as such by the corporation, employed
ha! Hindi ka retain or engaged sa a retainer, employed ka by
the corporation to act in behalf of them at nasa plantilla ka ng
corporasyon, and you handle their sangkatutak na cases
nila..ahhh.. then pwede ba sa iyo iserve ang
summons/notices, yes, he is not an external counsel but in
house counsel ka nila.. so in maintaining the general rules
which is very consistent, this general rules which should be
strictly construed...may lumang luman na na leading case na
A.B VILLAROSA AND PARTNER COMPANY VERSUS TORICO,
1999 pa yan na kaso, balik balik yan, hanggang ngayon.. thats,
pretty firm GENERAL RULE, wherein there is an instances
where the supreme court said that there is already
SUBSTANTIAL compliance with the provisions and with the
requirements, in a for the case of ahhh,, TAN TRUCKING
CORPORATED vs CA, cited among others, ___ Industrial
COMMERCIAL Corporations vs. TAN decided in 2000 and it
also has its own reparations when the following requisites are
present, there can be, the court can consider, that there is
already substantial compliance of the requirements for the
service of summons even if the person actually served is not
among those listed... then WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES?
FIRST: there must be actual service of summons by
the person served.. in other words, there was a transfer of
possession from the sheriff or whoever is serving the
summons to the person served;
SECOND: the person served must have
acknowledged receipt of summons served or, an
acknowledgement receipt or may copy sya ng summons na
pinirmahan nya ng received or may return slip na pinirmahan
din nya. Okay??.. in other words, there must be showing that
the person actually received the summons, and then FINALLY,
ito ang pinaka important at mahirap, that there must be
SHOWING THAT THE SUMMONS MUST ACTUALLY RECEIVED
BY THE CORPORATIONS THROUGH THE PERSON UPON
WHOM THE SUMMONS WAS ACTUALLY SERVED.... this is the
one that is most difficult to prove..
There are cases wherein, prayer for an injunction or
reliefs, EVEN IF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS ARE DEFECTIVE,
for as long as it reach into the attention of the officers of the
corporations because the external counsel directly filed an
opposition from such reliefs at lalo na pag verified pa jud
ng...ahhh..let say the president or the authorized
representative.... may roon kaming case noon na, ahhhh...na
na receive ng secretary, ng ahhh, hindi corporate secretary
but the president’s secretary.... ahhh.. if meron maka testify
or that a witness can testify that the president was there
while ni receive at si-sign ng kanyang secretary, then its a
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE...but then and again, DONT
FORGET, the AG VILLAROSA is still a firm GERERAL RULE in the
application of substantial compliance in applying the rules,
the exemptions can only happen, when theirs a clear showing
of ALL REQUISITES that i just, ahhhh, ENUMERATE and
discussed.......after complying with the requisites....(coughing,
coughing, coughing)
ATTY. E: OKAY!!! FORIEGN CORPORATIONS
Alright! When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity... kasi may mga juridical entity from other
places na hindi recognized as juridical entity dito...... which
will be discussed at mapapag usapan yan in the partnership,
etc, gaya ng BRITISH COMMONWEALTH created a LIMITED
COMPANY but dito sa atin walang limited company but
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP na meron sa atin ito, DIBA? -------------
Anyway, SO HOW DO YOUR SERVED FORIEGN CORP DOING
BUSINESS INSIDE THE PHILIPPINES and TRANSACTED
BUSINESS in the Philippines...Actually ganito yan eh, doing
business here in the Philippines tapos ISOLATED transactions
doon...that corporation must be registered by the SEC, they
have to have a certificate ng resident agent nila but if they
have its own RESIDENT AGENTS then walang problema tayo
dyan....service of summons may be made on its resident
agents for that purpose.... in an ISOLATED TRANSACTION,
theres must be someone for that transaction to sue a
corporations, if its a FILIPINO ang mag file ng case against
foreign corporation, then it is considered an isolated
transaction....
If there is no such resident agent, and its among a
corporation which can be sued in the Philippines, then service
can be then on the government official designated by law to
that effect or on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines...
Government official designated by law.... SINO YON SILA?
DFA, doon mo iseserve ang summons kasi sila yong mag
serve, normally sa mga consuls or consular offices yan... kaya
kung ikaw, hintayin mo nalang mag dating....
In the case of small scale miners used by foreign
corporations.... so maski sino sa mga officers that represents
the forieng corporations, then pwede yan....... Theres an old
case, west korean airlines vs____, sinabi dito pag may
resident agents, kalimutan muna ang mga consular official....
nangyari kasi dito sinerve ang summons sa official na
nandyan naman ang resident agent... kung ganito, dapat sa
diretso muna sa resident agent ang service...
Another case, SHELL INTERNATIONAL AT SHELL PHILIPPINES,
if your suing shell international, then foreign corporation yan,
dapat mga resident agent sila ditto sa philipinas... diba under
34
CORPORATION code, separate and distinct juridical
personality, so even if my interlacking sa directors, syempre
it is very important because it determines first the service of
summons, whether or not you can execute on the particular
deposit or property of the corporation...... SHELL PHILIPPINES
is a local corporation... make sure at hindi pwe-pwede na
BASTA SHELL! SHELL! Yon na!!! Better be sure talaga..
Pangalawa, kanino bang assets ang habol mo?
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THAT CORPORATION IS DOING
BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES? Ahhh, The best case for this is
ANGELA TECHNOLOGY SINGAPORE, believe me, the lines are
getting clearer along the way, you will understand what is
meant..
TWO GENERAL TEST,
FIRST is the SUBSTANCE test, whether or not the
foreign corporation is a continuing body and conducting
business or enterprise for which it is organized or whether or
not it substantially comply with the requirement.... so for
example is FORD international, why is it organized? To
manufacture and sell cars, so if that is whats going on here in
the Philippines, then substance test is complied, because the
primary reason for their establishment is practice here in the
Philippines, diba?
The Second test is the CONTINUITY TEST, what is it
said, it implies that there is continuity in there commercial
dealing and transactions as a commercial corporation, to the
extent of the performance of an acts or works or exercise of
some of their functions in progressive prosecution of the
purpose or object of its corporation for which it is form... it
is basically the same with substance test, ONLY their is
CONTINUITY, meaning to say, it has a series of commercial
dealings or transactions... okay!!
WHY DID I SAY, THE LINES ARE GETTING CLEARER
(ANSWERED BY STORY TELLING WITH BOSS ON TAX
COMPUTATION, MICROSOFT, VOLTAGE AND CHARGER, IOS
AND APPS, APPLE APPS )
OKAY, SECTION 13. Service upon public
corporation... when the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service may be effected on the SOLICITOR
GENERAL but if base on Section 11, then it would be the
President or executive secretary..
Who is the in house counsel of the RP, its the
Sol.gen, in rules of court, sol gen is identified.. say for
example mag file ka ng case against the city government of
davao city, you have no choice, you must include them as
party defendants.... abogado din yan, diba kakainin ka din
nila..
Atty. E reading the provision..... in case of province,
city or municipality or like public corporations, service may be
effected on its executive head, or in such other officer or
officers as the law or court may direct under the legal city
officer for davao city...
Ito, hinihintay sa Bar exams, section 14 as amended
in 1997, in such amendment that it got unnoticed by a few,
our late late DEAN Inigo, kasi dati, wala itong IN ANY ACTION,
if you remember when we were discussing classifications of
actions, among the discussion is in rem or quasi judicial.. we
have to know the importance of distinctions it is aside from
limitation, it is a determination as to whether or not the
summons can be served in publication, because as a general
rule, summons by publication can only be served in cases
wherein it is in rem or quasi in rem... alam naman ninyo ang
in rem diba? It involves status and so on... so article 15 will
apply to that.... but now, IN ANY ACTION na, included na ang
Section 14....defendant in unknown or his whereabouts is
unknown...so the ruling dito in consolidated in the case of in
(Crebans committee) Davao City 166 SCRA 589, as lately as
PCIB vs Anthony decided on December 21, 2007, the
consolidated amendment will also apply.... (story telling with
Dean Inigo, note audio not clear)
So ano ang rule talaga, in 2008 in SANTOS vs PNOC,
expropriation case, September 23, 2008 is a MUST READ
case... ( story telling, you file case against unknown owner in
an unknown car....GOODLUCK!...... parking lot incident,
intended accelerations’, backing by the owner, tapos
dumiretso..... celphone ultrathin,extended battery)
Atty. Europa, reading the provisions.....Now,
SECTION 15 extraterritorial service of summons.... when the
defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines,
and the actions affects the personal status of the plaintiff or
relates to, or the subject of which is property within the
Philippines, etc..blablabla.. with leave of court, be effected
out of the Philippines by PERSONAL SERVICE as under Section
6, or by PUBLICATION in newspaper of general circulation in
such places and for such time as the court may order, in
which case a copy of summons and order of the court shall be
sent BY REGISTERED MAIL to the last known address of the
defendant or in any manner the court may deem
sufficient...any order granting sucj leave of court shall be
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty
(60) days after notice, within which defendant must
answer......ahhh, so meron kanang WHOM, WHAT, then
WHAT, then HOW.... if nasa US sya, puntahan ka ng sheriff
doon.. sarap naman ng buhay ng sheriff noh? Pero meron ng
incharge dyan....
a. Personal service
b. Newspaper
c. Registered mail at meron pa yan iba
d. Or in such cases ---
Saan ang publication of service? Ahhh... Say nakatira sa new
York city, new York, saan i-publish? Is it supposed to be
published in new York city? No.. In such cases or for such
time, the court may ordered.. the best explanation for that is
cited in the case of Fajardo vs CA, 198 SCRA___, maganda ang
explanation ng SC.. doon ka mag publish, although its not
difficult to do, you can do it or you can post a publication in
New York Times.... (story telling, stocks, manila hotel)
May nag tanong, not a resident but found in the Philippines
Okay SECTION 16, when any action is commenced against a
defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but
who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be
also effected out of the Philippines...
My Commentary to that... useless provision, dito sa
Philippines, pag resident ka, automatic may residence ka,
hindi pwede wala.. now if your out of country, hindi mo lang
basta basta i padlock ang bahay mo na wala tao, meron
talagang katiwala.... then, sheriff can make substituted
service of summons after effecting failure of personal service
summons....it can be done... in 22SCRA, wala pang celphone
noon, the rules did not state that pag nasa abroad ka, di
pweding ma serve ang summon.....(story telling, nanguta ka
tapos nag tour, maka bad trip yan oi... pag umaalis ka, from
time to time diba nag Check kung nandyan pa bahay mo or na
sunog na..) for me, substituted service of summons will do.
Than go through publications....
SECTION 17, LEAVE OF COURT, any application to the court
under this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner for
which leave of court is necessary shall be made by motion in
35
writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person
on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application.
SECTION 18.. PROOF OF SERVICE of summons shall be made
in writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place
and date of service; shall specify any papers which have been
served with process and the name of the person who
received the same and shall be sworn to when made by a
person other than a sheriff of his deputy.
ITO, SECTION 19.. memorizin nyo ito kung pwede lang...
PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION... affidavit of the printer,
editor, etc..
Very important also... SECTION 20.. VOLUNTARY
APPEARANCE.. the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the
action shall be equivalent to service of summons... the
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be
deemed a voluntary appearance..
RULE 15 MOTIONS
Section 1. Motion is an application for relief other than by a
pleading.
So i will explain to you the importance.... sometimes there a
notion than motion is a pleading, technically, hindi diba! That
is why you have to know what is pleadings what is motions...
diba do you remember i was discussing on the rules of
summary procedures, he files a motion in a caption as
manifestation and the last part states that wherefore, the
defendant blab la bla... this is not a manifestation but a
MOTION because you are asking for a relief... so anong
pinagka iba ng MANIFESTATION, meron ka lang gustong
sabihin sa court, yon lang...like what, namatay ang defendant,
manifest ka sa court, then attach death certificate, yon
lang...pero pag MOTION, meron kang hinihingi sa court...
MANIFESTATION is USED AND MISUSED BY THE LAWYERS
Alright.. requisite for a valid motion is this, well...
SECTION 2.. MOTIONS MUST BE IN WRITING... all motions
shall be in writing except those made in open court or in the
course of a hearing or trial.......bakit di kasali ang those made
in an open court in the course of trial..ito kay kataw
anan...pak..objection your honor, blablabla..sustained...
(story telling, please stop moving.... mas importante ang
sinusulat kaysa sa sinasabi... kasi nakakalimutan ang
sinasabi... )
Well... atty. Europa reading....SECTION 3. CONTENTS = a
motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the
grounds upon which it is based, and if required by these Rules
or necessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be
accompanied by supporting affidavits and other pages...
We have cross reference this with the rules of
evidence..evidence on motion... example deposition,
affidavits and if required by law... of course sa affidavits
pwede mong samahan ng documentary evidences unless of
course public documents yan...
Now “if required by law”... what if the judge would require
you to present a witness..... (story telling: ako na pagalitan
na ng Justice kasi late daw ako, JUSTICE: DONT YOU KNOW
THAT THE HEARING WILL START AT 8:00... SABI KO, your
honor naka lagay sa notice is 8:30 dumating ako ng 8:20, late
pala ako? I apologize ur honor...)
SECTION 4 = HEARING OF MOTION = except for motions
which the court ay act upon without prejudicing the rights of
the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for
hearing by the applicant..Every written motion required to be
heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in
such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at
least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the
court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice...
January 7, 2016
Motions shall be set for hearing and you are supposed to
make sure that, it shall be served in such a manner that
would ensure receipt to the other party, at least 3 days from
the hearing period, what is the logic? The opposing party
should be apprised of the motion, so that he would be able to
prepare in order to oppose the motion or argue against it
during the hearing day.
Now the problem that I was talking earlier is that lawyers
sometimes would utilize service by registered mail. And then
they sent it by mail 3 days before the scheduled hearing.
Section 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be
addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time
and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10)
days after the filing of the motion. (5a)
Section 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion
set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof
of service thereof. (6a)
Now section 5, talks about notice of hearing. It is basically
part of the motion that you are setting the motion to a
particular day, please take note that the court will set the
case for hearing, and the movant will choose what date and
time under certain limitation of course, like the rules as well
as special issuances by the SC. General rule is that hearing on
motions should be conducted friday afternoon. Sadly, many
judges don’t know that, specially judges who are assigned far
from their residence, kasi ang malalayo gingawa ng judge
gusto maguwi agad ng Friday ng hapon. There has been
decided cases where the SC said that hearings should be done
on a Friday afternoon. In fact we have a special issuances by
the SC.
Now one very important matter, there has been many
decided cases in where the notice of hearing were addressed
to the clerk of court. What does the notice of hearing look
like?
“greetings please take notice that the undersigned counsel
submits a motion for reconsideration and set the hearing
on___”
The addressee should be the other party. It is not supposed
to be to the clerk of court, SC in several cases rule that notice
of hearing that is addressed to the clerk of court is not
complian with section 5, and if you do that, it will be
considered as a PRO FORMA motion, a motion that fails to
comply with the strict requisite of the rules and some cases
nga like this Noris v Palmera, 2003 case, section 5 clearly
states the notice shall be addressed to all parties concerned,
notice to the clerk does not suffice. A motion that does not
contain a notice of hearing to the adverse party is but a MERE
SCRAP OF PAPER! And the clerk of court does not have the
duty to accept it kasi nga PRO FORMA.
36
So ano nga yung requirement? First there must be a notice of
hearing, kelangan naka address to parties. One of the very
important requisite that a lot of people forget, most people
who have studied law would remember the 3 days notice
rule, but they often forget the 10 day rule. Whats the 10 day
rule? You are not supposed to set the hearing 10 days after
the filing. So meron kang 3 days, it has to be received by the
opposing party before the hearing but you cannot set it more
than 10 days from the date of filing. Now why is there a rule?
Simple! Abuso na naman. WHY? Some lawyer file it as
dilatory tactic, ang gawin nila iset nila ang hearing isang
buwan after gi file tapos may scheduled na hearing yung
ibang kaso niya sabihin there is still a pending motion, hindi
matuloy kay may pending siya na motion. So to do away with
that SC instituted the 10 day rule.
But if both of these rules should be strictly complied with, it
can lead to an impossibility, ok lang yan if you live in the same
place, while there is no resort to service by mail anymore.
What if you case is in QC and the opposing counsel is in QC, it
is required that you set the hearing which must not be later
than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. Kung sa
Manila you file and serve with a registered mail, maximum is
10 days, and on the day you mail it, ang pinakamalayo is the
next Friday afternoon that is within the 10 day period, yun
gingawa ko noh, I will set the hearing on the farthest Friday
afternoon that is still within the 10 day period.
So what’s the problem? Definitely it will not reach the court
on time, second it will not reach to the opponent 3 days
before the scheduled hearing. Why? On average, It takes
about 2-3 weeks for a registered mail to be delivered from
Davao to NCR. If Davao to Davao it takes about the same
time.
Now I maximize the time noh, so that when the opposing
counsel would argue that it is a pro forma motion, I would
not be blame, what I would do is to show that I gave it as
much time as possible as allowed by the rules. That would be
considered as substantial compliance of the rules.
The case of Octavio v Alvarez 2004, since the word na ginamit
is “must not” be later than 10 days from filing it is certainly
mandatory.
In earlier case of Barceliona v CA, decided in 2003 where SC
emphasized that since the rules particularly rule 15 section 5
uses the term MUST in fixing the 10 day period within which
the motion set for hearing It is considered as mandatory and
therefore if there is failure to comply with that, it would be
considered as PRO FORMA motion.
The trend of jurisprudence there is very consistent actually.
Failure to comply with the 3 day notice rule – PRO FORMA
If you do not have a notice of hearing- PRO FORMA
Notice of hearing address to the clerk of court is treated as no
notice at all- PRO FORMA
Failure to comply with the 10 day maximum limit- PRO
FORMA
However, in 2005 and this has been reiterated by the SC
several times, the case of (dili madungog kay ng bell)
Sabi ng SC even if there Is failure to comply with theses
mandatory requirements, but when the adverse party had
the actual opportunity to be heard, like andun siya sa hearing,
nkafile pa ng writ of execution, then the SC said the rationale
behind the rules has been achieved. Then there is still
substantial compliance.
How about motion for extension of time unless ilang beses na
ginawa, bat ka pa mag oppose? Grabe naman.
Section 7. Motion day. — Except for motions requiring
immediate action, all motions shall be scheduled for hearing
on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working day, in the
afternoon of the next working day. (7a)
Section 8. Omnibus motion. — Subject to the provisions of
section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order,
judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived. (8a)
All you have to remember here is that if there is a motion,
and a motion is one attacking a pleading, judgement, or
proceeding, you are supposed to include ALL objections. and
all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. But
the same exception as in of RULE 9, yang hindi ma waive in
case of failure to raise: jurisdiction of the subject matter, litis
pendentia, res adjudicata.
In its simplest form, you can say that any ground of objection
that is not in the motion are waive.
Oh one important case, the case of Payshen incorporation v
Ca November 22, 2002, the omnibus motion rule applies to
all grounds of objection that are already existent at the time
of the filing of the motion. It will not cover ground for
objections that come about after the motion has been filed.
Section 9. Motion for leave. — A motion for leave to file a
pleading or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or
motion sought to be admitted. (n)
If you file a motion for leave of court, the pleading or motion
should already be attached, for example you want to file an
amended complaint and it is one where leave is necessary, in
filing an amended complaint the pleading should be attached.
This applies to all kind of motions.
For example you want to file a complaint in intervention. And
you supposed to file a motion for leave, when you do that the
complaint or answer in intervention as the case may be
should be already attach to the motion. I know of only one
exception to this where a motion for leave is not required,
and that is in a case for demurrer of evidence in criminal
cases. There is no decided cases that say so. I do not need a
decided case. Why? Because you cannot construe the rules
otherwise. WHY? If you look at section 23 of Rule 119 on
demurrer of evidence, it provides you for different periods, a
filing period from the time the prosecution rest to file a
motion for leave for demurrer of evidence, which is very
important in a criminal case because you all know that if you
file a demurrer of evidence without asking for leave if it is
deniend then the accused is deemed to have waived the right
to present evidence, and section 23 119 says that if leave is
granted then the accused will have 10 days from the receipt
of notice such grant or approval to file a demurrer of
evidence. So since the rules provides for separate periods of
time for filing a motion for leave and to file for an action
demurrer, then it is very clear that the demurrer is not
expected to be attached in the motion for leave. Diba? I’ll go
over that next time
Section 10. Form. — The Rules applicable to pleadings shall
apply to written motions so far as concerns caption,
designation, signature, and other matters of form. (9a)
37
RULE 16
Motion to Dismiss
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing
the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment or by the statute of limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is
enforceable under the provisions of the statute of
frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has
not been complied with. (1a)
Lets go now to rule 16 a special kind of motion. Motion to
dismiss
What is the period given in section 1? Actually does not give a
period but what it says is when Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds.
So the period to file a MTD is the period to file an answer.
Now if the MTD in relation to a counterclaim? YES you it can
be against a complaint, a pleading, because a counterclaim Is
a pleading asserting a claim.
So generally when it is a complaint you need to file an answer
within 15 days. Whereas so far as a counterclaim is concern
the period to file an answer is 10 days. Lets go now to the
grounds.
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party;
This is normally due to failure or defective service of
summons upon the defendant. The court will not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party. One thing
you should remember here is rule 14 of section 20 on
voluntary appearance. Noon kasi if you file a MTD for lack of
jurisdiction over defendant, and if madeny you file another
on other grounds, to get rid of the situation the SC in the case
of La naval drug Corporation v ca 236 scra 78, what is called
the la naval doctrine which says that even a if a MTD includes
grounds other than lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant that will not be deemed a voluntary appearance or
waiver of right to question the jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant. That was a very hot case when I took the bar.
But in 1997 it was already incorporated in section 20.
Section 20. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of
other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
appearance. (23a)
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the claim
There are few principles that you should not forget, first
determination of the jurisdiction of the subject matteri s
based on the allegation in the complaint and not the
allegations in the answer. So no matter what ground you
raise in the answer it will not affect jurisdiction of the court.
Good example is a complaint is filed for a collection of sum of
money for 500k, but the defense raised by defendant most of
that has already been paid, so naiwan dapat is 150 k nalang
pwede ba sabihin ni defendant na RTC does not have
jurisdiction anymore it should be before the MTC considering
the receipts will clearly show that the amount being claimed
is less than the 300k threshold. Of course not. Why because
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint.
Another principle when a defendant files a MTD on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject, the
defendant must argue under a hypothetical admission of the
allegations in the complaint. To be simple, you must be able
to sustain the argument that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject even if everything in the complaint is true.
Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost at the instance of the
parties, the court retains jurisdiction over that case until that
case is terminated. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and not the parties, it cannot be the subject
of any agreement, stipulation, estoppel, acquiescence. So
when does this apply for example congress changes the
jurisdiction of courts again, na file na ang kaso sa korte under
the old law,your claim is above 300k, na file na, giincrease
ngayon ang jurisdiction ng MTC to 500k or 1M so ung gifile na
complaint sa RTC is within the jurisdiction na of MTC, does
the MTC automatically assumes that case? No? Why?
Because of the principle that jurisdiction once acquired is
never lost.
SC came out of issuance for guidance of the distribution of
cases, so sabi ng SC mga kaso na hindi pa umabot ng pre trial
stage ilipat na, ung umabot na ng pretrial stage retain. So
guidance lang yun but in so far as the jurisdiction is
concerned the RTc will not lose jurisdiction over the case.
Next, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at anytime even on appeal and we all know the only
exception to that is the application of Tijam ruling, the case of
Tijam v sibonghanoy, don’t forget that the tijam ruling is
premise upon the concept of laches, so it is not the mere
lapse of time but the issue of whether or not the elements of
laches to apply exists. Hindi siya automatic. There are several
reiteration of tijam ruling but among them, is a 1999 case I
like which is the case of Pangilinan vs CA because the SC
38
nicely explained when the TIjam ruling should apply, the tijam
ruling should only apply when if not to do so, it would be
prejudicial to the interest of justice so don’t forget that the
tijam case is the exception rather than the rule
c) That venue is improperly laid;
The ground of improper venue is waivable is you don’t raise it
in a motion to dismiss
Next ground.
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
It could either mean of two situations, first is that the plaintiff
does not possess the necessary qualifications to sue in the
Philippines. Like what? Like na convict na with a penalty of
civil interdiction.
Second when plaintiff does not have the character of
representation which he claims like he claims to be a
guardian when in reality he is not.
Next. (e) That there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause;
Litis pendentia another name is otor accion pendant
What is the requisite of litis pendentia?
1 Identity of parties- representing the same interest like what
c lolo ni A nakasuhan na ni lolo ni B involving a certain
property.
Natalo yung lolo ni A, namatay na sila tska yung children nila,
hangang na inherit na ng apo. Ngfile ngayon ang apo ni A sa
apo ni B raising the same grounds, res judcata bayan? Yes.
While the actual parties are not the same parties, the fact the
matter is that they are representing the same interest.
2 identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, normally
the relief is founded on the same fact
3 the identity of the two cases shall be such the judgment be
entered in the pending case would regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under
consideration
Kunwari ng file ka ng judicial foreclosure. Now there is a
pending case of nullity of promissory note with Real estate
mortgage, question! will the pendency of the action for
nullity sufficient be a ground for litis pendentia in sofar as the
action for judicial foreclosure is concern. Let’s examine
If the debtor will win, the plaintiff in the nullity case and the
respondent/defendant in foreclosure case, if he will win, the
judge would declare the promissory note null and void, then
the judicial foreclosure cannot continue. What if the bank will
win, there would be no res judicata as againt the foreclosure
case, because the affirmation of the validity of the promissory
note with real estate mortgage will support the continuation
of judicial forecloseure proceeding, because of that litis
pendentia cannot apply as a ground as a dismissal of the case
kasi it will have the effect of res judicata if one of the parties
will win, if the other party will win definitely there is no res
judicata, therefore there can be no litis pendentia.
If all of the above the requisite are existing, next question is
which case would be dismiss?
Marami yan, there is a priority in time rule, so ang later in
time na nafile, yun ang idismiss.
Next is what we call the more appropriate action rule. This is
actually what is normally applied by the SC, it is the case that
would better threshed out all the issues between the parties,
that will be given due course.
Ang matandaan ko dito na case is the case regarding habeas
corpus in relation custody of minors. There was a case file for
habeas corpus in relation to custody, there is already a case
filed for custody before the family court. So which of the two
cases is better suited to threshed out the issues?
So next test is, I would not rather call it as a test but an
exception to the rule, why? Because this is called the interest
of justice criterion meaning to say even if it is shown that the
custody case is the better suited action, if one of the parties
would be substantially prejudiced by allowing the custody
case to proceed, if there would be substantial prejudice to be
avoided, then the SC said that the interest of justice should
prevail, whichever would better serve the interest of justice.
So you are the judge, which of this three would you choose,
priority of time, appropriate action rule or interest of justice
rule, but for me the better of rule is a combination of the
three
f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by
the statute of limitations;
Next is res adjudicate, now ang kaibahan lang ng litis
pendentia, sa res judicata meron ng final judgment.
What if pending appeal? Litis pendentia wla pa ang final
judgment
Requisites:
1 former judgment must be final
2 court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties
3 judgment must be on the merits
A judgment on the merits is a judgment that has determined
that issue and controversy of the case, but please do not
forget that there are some judgments, not to have resolve
the controversies and issue but has the effect of judgment on
the merits. Ano ito? You have to remember the concept of
with prejudice or without prejudice in the case of dismissal of
action under rule 17. Kung without prejudice walang res
judicata, refile. Kung with, res judicata na.
Example. Even if there is no resolution of the issues or
controversy but the case was dismiss by failure of the plaintiff
to comply with its obligation or order of the court, under rule
17 sec 3, then that dismissal is presumed to be with prejudice
unless otherwise stated in the order. It can have an effect on
the merits.
4 there must be between the first and second action, identity
of parties, subject matter and causes of action.
39
PRESCRIPTION
How do you determine that? On the basis of the allegation in
the complaint viz a viz the prescriptive period prescribe under
the civil code.
The prescriptive period of enforcement of judgment is 10
years so that was applied also under the rules of court. As
long as you keep reviving the judgment, it is a never ending
story, why? Because the reviving of the dormant judgment is
itself a judgment, then therefore the prescriptive period
begins to run. Then you have another 10 years na naman.
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action;
Note the difference between the lack of cause of action and
failure to state a cause of action
Simple lng yan, failure to state of cause of action even you
assume everything in the complaint to be true it will not
justify the relief prayed for, lack of cause of action there is a
cause of action, but it is shown some of the extent there is
not true, there is actually no cause of action. Failure to state
on the face itself.
What is the test of sufficiency in the complaint? WON
admitting the facts allege the court would render a valid
judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of
the complaint. if assuming what was allege in the complaint
was true can the court render a valid judgment?.
If you file a MTD on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action you must argue it under a hypothetical admission of
the allegations in the complaint kagaya kanine under lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Please take note that it is not an absolute rule, because there
is something in the complaint that would not be admitted,
and there are also things that is not allege in the complaint
that can be considered in determination of WON the
complaint states a cause of action.
There is a case decided in june 30, 2000 the case of ZAIDA
Albert vs CA, this is the case that gave us what can be taken
into consideration by the court in addition to the bare
allegation in the complaint, the SC said that the court can also
take cognizance of the document attach to the complaint, the
due execution and genuineness of which is not denied under
oath by the defendant. So this can be taken into
consideration by the court in determining WON the
complaint states a cause of action.
Also the court can take consideration other papers and
pleadings submitted by the parties in addition to the
complaint before resolution. Pano nagkaroon ng other
papers? It is quite possible for additional papers already filed
in court because of the possibility there might have been
arguments relating to provisional remedies. Example before
complaint was filed there was already a prayer for injunctive
relief or TRO(parties can submit evidence and opposition). So
parties marami ng na file. So hindi pa ngfile ng MTD minsan
may presentation na ng evidence.
Ang nakalagay dun sa rules, kunwari may TRO, then set for
hearing, the defending parties supposed to present evidence
why the injuction should not be issued. Although there are
decided cases where SC said that is not a hard and fast rule,
the court can also require the movant to present evidence to
justify the prayer for injunctive relief.
I explain it in another way, for me, if the petition and the
attached documents is found by the court to be already
sufficient for the issuance of injunctive relief then it will be
the defending party to present evidence, but it is the
discretion of the court to require presentation of additional
evidence if the allegation in the petition and document
attached thereto is insufficient.
There is an old case Rava vs CA which gives us the limitation
of the hypothetical admission, the admission is limited only to
all material and relevant facts which are pleaded in the
complaint. it does not admit the truth of bare allegations of
fraud, because allegations of fraud must be specific, legal
conclusions, erroneous statements of the law are not
considered and written. Does not extend to conclusions of
inferences and conclusions of fact which are not allege, nor
mere influences, nor matters of evidence, nor any surplusage
or irrelevant matters. Why? Because pleading are supposed
to contain only ultimate facts. So therefore evidentiary
matters are not deemed admitted. Not supposed to be stated
in the complaint.
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's
pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise
extinguished
Review the modes of extinguishing obligations.
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is
enforceable under the provisions of the statute
of frauds; and
Article 1403. I want to remind you some principles regarding
SOF
I write a letter to a friend stating that I want to buy your car
for 300k, you agreed, then sends me a letter back saying “ok”.
And then later on ok pare ideposit ko na ang bayad, sabi niya
Ha? Gusto ko 500k
Can I file a specific performance? Or the SOF apply?
The answer is no. why not because of the two letters, taken
together will reveal the basic element of a contract.
1403 does not require the execution of a contract, it requires
that the agreement must be in a written memoranda.
For example walang letter, down ako ng 10k ideposit ko. Can I
sue for specific performance? Yes. Because SOF only applies
to wholly executory contracts. If there is partial execution
1403 does not apply.
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has
not been complied with. (1a)
Another way of saying is that the cause of action is
premature.
Example: exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Barangay conciliation law
40
Failure to comply with article 151 of FC, Art. 151. No suit
between members of the same family shall prosper unless it
should appear from the verified complaint or petition that
earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but
that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts
were in fact made, the same case must be dismissed.
This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the
subject of compromise under the Civil Code
Ascendant descendants no limit, will apply to brothers and
sisters, but this will not apply to, nephews, nieces, uncle.
This rule will not apply if there is one party to the case that is
not a family member. Example; A case was file against a
brother and a stranger
Section 2. Hearing of motion. — At the hearing of the motion,
the parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of
law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved
except those not available at that time. Should the case go to
trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall
automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting
the same. (n)
Section 3. Resolution of Motion. — After the hearing, the
court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or
order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the
reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly
the reasons therefor.
What can the judge to when MTD is submitted the
resolution?
The court can grant the MTD, case is dismissed
The court can deny the MTD, case will proceed
The court may order amendment of the pleadings
The court shall clearly state the facts and the law upon which
the resolution is based.
The case of Luis go vs CA april 16 2009
Ang ruling the sa RTC sa MTD: the court find the cause of
action sufficiently exist against the debtor. MTD is denied.
Pano mo nasabi na may cause of action?
Section 4. Time to plead. — If the motion is denied, the
movant shall file his answer within the balance of the period
prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the time of
serving his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any
event, computed from his receipt of the notice of the denial.
If the pleading is ordered to be amended, he shall file his
answer within the period prescribed by Rule 11 counted from
service of the amended pleading, unless the court provides a
longer period. (4a)
For example the MTD was filed on the 10th day, in filing an
answer, from the date he receives the denial, how many days
left? 6 uy! Bakit?.computation of time.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be
excluded in the computation of the period. Wag niyong
kalimutan niyan!
Section 5. Effect of dismissal. — Subject to the right of
appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of section 1 hereof shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim. (n)
Unless it is based on prescription, extinguishment of
obligation, res judicata, or unenforceable it can be refiled.
ection 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — If no
motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for
dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an
affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the
court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a)
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)
This is the mode I actually prefer, you can chose not to raise
the grounds for dismissal in a MTD, you can raise it in an
answer for grounds of dismissal as affirmative defenses and
can include a prayer for preliminary hearing on affirmative
defenses as if a MTD has been filed.
WHY if prefer? Para wala ng amend2
What is the effect of the counterclaim if the main action is
dismissed? The answer is not necessarily why? SC said gi
abandon na nila yung luma na cases and said that
counterclaim can survive the dismissal of the complaint. for
one under rule 17 section 3
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of
the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right
of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared
by the court.
I prefer to file an answer with affirmative defenses, because
by then I would have release the counterclaim giving my
client an option to prosecute the counterclaim if the
complaint is dismissed.
Very important case of rioferio v CA. ngfile siya ng answer
with affirmative defenses and then prayer for preliminary
hearing, so he was insisting that the court is duty bound to
set the hearing, and the SC said look at the rule, the rule
states “in the discretion of the court a preliminary hearing
may be had thereon as if there is MTD’ it is not mandatory
but discretionary
41
RULE 17
Dismissal of Actions
Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint
may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal
at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for
summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court
shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless
otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without
prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication
upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or
including the same claim. (1a)
Tandaan nyo lang which is with prejudice and without.
Section 1 tawag ko dit “urong sulong” it deals a situation the
plaintiff after filing the complaint, but before he was served
with any answer or any motion for summary judgment
decides to withdraw. Ano gawin ng plaintiff? Magpadal lng
siya sa court ng notice of dismissal
Question when the court grants it is the dismissal with or
without prejudice? GR: is NO!
Kung merong specific na nakalagay sa order na with or
without prejudice, yun ang masunod. Ang problem is walang
nakalagay. What is the presumption? The first time that it is
done, without prejudice yan. But there is what we call as
“two dismissal rule” the second time that the plaintiffs does
that, ng notice of dismissal na naman siya then wlag
nakalagay with or without prejudice, the presumption is with
prejudice.
What will happen if the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal?
The court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Why
is that important?
Here is a situation, c plaintiff filed a complaint, files a notice
of dismissal, ngissue ang court ng order, but before nglampas
ang 15 days ng refile siya hindi niya nalagay doon sa kanyang
cert of Non forum shopping na merong pending, so question?
May violation ba, did he submit a false certification? SC said
NO! why not? Kasi nakalagay dyan, the court will only confirm
the dismissal of the complaint. so the date of action of
dismissal is the date of filing the notice of dismissal. The order
of the court is only confirmatory, therefore, there is no
violation of CNFS, no litis pendentia because na dismiss nay
yung kaso upon the filing of the notice of dismissal. Case of
Herminia Roxa V CA 2012
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as
provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be
dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the
court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems
proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant
prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for
dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The
dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action
unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he
manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in
the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a
dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A
class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the
approval of the court. (2a)
Kung meron ng answer, meron ng summary judgment, hindi
pwedeng mgfile lang ng notice of dismissal. The plaintiff shall
file a motion to ask for the dismissal of the case. In other
words may leave of court na ito. Kung may counterclaim
pleaded by defendant, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint, The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a
separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the motion he manifests his preference to have his
counterclaim resolved in the same action.
So pwede mgpili ang defendant pwede siya mg file ng
separate action or pwede nya ituloy. A dismissal under this
paragraph is without prejudice unless otherwise stated.
A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without
the approval of the court. Bakit? Kasi ang kaso those
participating are only representative of the general class.
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of
the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right
of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared
by the court.
Ano nga to? Failure to prosecute. Second failure to comply
with the rules. Third failure to comply with the order of the
court, it can be upon motion or moto proprio. Please take
note if the dismissal is under section 3 unless otherwise
stated by the court, the dismissal is with prejudice.
Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-
party complaint. — The provisions of this Rule shall apply to
the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
complaint. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant by notice as
in section 1 of this Rule, shall be made before a responsive
pleading or a motion for summary judgment is served or, if
there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial
or hearing
January 14, 2016
RULE 18 - Pre-Trial
Please remember that Pre-Trial is mandatory not only in Civil
Cases but also for Criminal Cases.
So what exactly is Pre-Trial and why is that the Supreme
Court has shall we say, express a lot of frustration when it
comes to the application of pre-trial procedures. Wherein
there are a lot of cases where the Supreme Court had
mention and discussed the importance of the application of
Pre-Trial Rules and the importance of the Pre-Trial Brief.
What is Pre-Trial – It is what it is. It is what it says. It is Pre-
Trial. It involves processes and procedures which supposed to
be done before trial proper. The sole purpose of which is to
minimized the matters that need to be tried during trial. Like
what? You already know in your rules of evidence, the so
called Modes of Discovery. These processes are done before
trial, because this will shorten and lessen the matters that
need to be discussed during the hearing and trial of the case.
42
The Supreme Court had made several ruling highlighting the
application of these processes.
Section 1. When conducted. — After the last pleading has
been served and filed, if shall be the duty of the plaintiff to
promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
So when is this conducted? Pre-Trial is done after the last
pleading has been served and filed, why? Because that is the
time when all of the issues have been joined. Diba? Because
you remember, all of the issues of the case are set in the
pleadings. Like, what are the issues raised in the compliant.
What are the matters raised in the answer. What are the
allegations stated in the reply. So it is conducted when the
last pleading has been served and filed. When is that, well
usually after the filing of the reply.
Section 2. Nature and purpose. — The pre-trial is mandatory.
The court shall consider:
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a
submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;
(b) The simplification of the issues;
(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the
pleadings;
(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a
commissioner;
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or
summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid
ground therefor be found to exist;
(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the
proceedings; and
(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of
the action. (1a, R20)
Then we go to Pre-Trial. If you look at the rules, Section 2 tells
you the purposes of the Pre-Trial. Somehow, many lawyers
believed that pre-trial had pro-longed the time for settlement
of cases. However, I have a different view on it.
So, we all know that the Supreme Court have been pushing
for the application of the Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR), the purpose of which is to encourage the settlement
of cases, so that the parties will instead have an amicable
settlement of the dispute.
However, some lawyers treat this as a loss of their income.
You know, lawyers should have a paradigm-shift on the
notion that a pro-longed trial will give them higher income.
But I think this is wrong. You may have a higher appearance
fees for a longer trial, but if you go through dispute
resolution, I may not have to engage myself, much effort in
this particular case. I can now devote my time and effort to
engage in another case, thereby having more clients in the
end. So for me meron mga kaso na umaabot ng isang dekada,
oumunta pa sa Supreme Court pero mga madali lang naman
na kaso. Pataasan lang nang-ihi. So I encourage dispute
resolution.
Meron pa gani yan Court Annexed Mediation. Ngayon meron
na din Judicial Dispute Resolution. (JDR). So these had pro-
longed the processes and conduct of the Pre-Trial. However,
if you take a closer look on it, many cases had been settled
without even going through the trial proper of the case
because of these different processes.
So, to tell you the story. Ano yung kwento. Ito yun. So before
Pre-Trial Proper, there are many processes that the case ior
dispute must go through or must be undertaken. First, there
must be a Pre-Trial Brief, which must be filed within Three (3)
days before the conduct of the Pre-Trial Proper. Then, under
the Judicial Affidavit Rule, you are supposed to submit the
judicial affidavits of your witnesses. There must also be a
Preliminary Conference. That was designed to save the time
of the judges, kasi this may be referred to the clerk of court.
Alam nyo this Preliminary Conference, during this, the parties
go to the clerk of court, and the parties may enter into
stipulation, admission, very importantly, they will mark all
their exhibits. Diba, the exhibits that will be presented during
trial. This will clearly shorten the conduct of the trial itself.
There is this Pre-Marking of Exhibits. Alam nyo bah yan.?
Remember nyo bah ito.? Sige na lang. One of the things that
pro-longed the conduct of the trial is this Marking of Exhibits.
Example, you want to present numerous checks and you
want your witness, for example to identify a check that is
marked as DAIF (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds) or DAUD
(Draw Against Uncleared Funds), you ask your witness, have
you seen this check, with check number 12345, and with an
amount of ______, and a signature in the dorsal portion? Yes
your honor. Can you identify the signature indicated in the
check? Yes Your Honor. To whom does this signature belong?
The respondent your honor. Kahit leading most of the
questions, ginapabayaan ko na lang kasi ganun man din yan.
So, what is the importance of this process? Dapat alaw nyo
yan sa rules on evidence ninyo, that is the PROCESS OF
AUTHENTICATION. Diba, before identifying and marking the
evidence, you have to authenticate the said evidence. You
have studied that it your evidence, I am sure. So after
authenticating the document that is the time that you will ask
the court, that the said evidence be marked as exhibit
______. So, isang checke lang yan ha. What if you are about
to authenticate, identify and marked fifty (50) checks, isipin
nyo lang gaano katagal yan. Pa-ulit2x lang. aaboting talaga ng
ilang taon ang kaso.
However, if you through Preliminary Conference or Pre-Trial,
the parties may agree that the said documents be admitted
and marked. So, you need not go through all those
authenticating processes that I have mentioned before. So
the admissions and identification of the witnesses are stated
and discussed during the preliminary conference with the
clerk of court. So madali na lang.
Now, you must have to remember that evidences and witness
not stipulated or indicated in the Preliminary Conference or
in the Pre-Trial Order would not be allowed to be presented
or to testify during trial. That is the sanction of the Supreme
Court to lawyers, to force them to go through Preliminary
Conference. Is this strictly enforced? Well in some instances,
judges are strict and disallowed the said witness or the
particular evidence to be presented during trial. So this is
discretionary on the judge.
43
So that is the process. You to administrative dispute
resolution and then after Mediation, The judge will conduct a
JDR, where the judge will try to mediate. One of the reasons
why the judge is now free during the JDR, to make the
preliminary conference is that under the rules, if JDR fails, the
judge will have to inhibit and it will be raffled to another
court, in a multi-sala court. (Note - that the judge is free
(Discretionary) to conduct the Preliminary Conference). In a
single-sala court, the parties are given the choice, if they want
to go through JDR. If they do, there is waiver that the judge
will not inhibit. The agreement must be in-writing.
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
Case in Point - SILVESTRE TIU, vs. DANIEL MIDDLETON –
GR#134998 July 19, 1999.
Pre-trial is an essential device for the speedy disposition of
disputes. Hence, parties cannot brush it aside as a mere
technicality. Where the pre-trial brief does not contain the
names of witnesses and the synopses of their testimonies as
required by the Rules of Court, the trial court, through its pre-
trial order, may bar the witnesses from testifying. However,
an order allowing the presentation of unnamed witnesses
may no longer be modified during the trial without the
consent of the parties affected.
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that pre-trial and its
governing rules are not technicalities which the parties may
ignore or trifle with. As earlier stated, pre-trial is essential in
the simplification and the speedy disposition of disputes. In a
pre-trial, the judge is not a passive arbiter; he is an active
participant who constantly seeks avenues through which trial
can be expedited, simplified or even avoided by a resort to
alternative modes of dispute resolution. In light of the
objectives of a pre-trial and the role of the trial court therein,
it is evident that judges have the discretion to exclude
witnesses and other pieces of evidence not listed in the pre-
trial brief, provided the parties are given prior notice to this
effect.
Section 3. Notice of pre-trial. — The notice of pre-trial shall
be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel.
The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty
of notifying the party represented by him. (n)
Section 4. Appearance of parties. — It shall be the duty of the
parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-
appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is
shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his
behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute
resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documents. (n)
Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next
preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action.
The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless other-wise
ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the
defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the
basis thereof. (2a, R20)
Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next
preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action.
The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless other-wise
ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the
defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the
basis thereof. (2a, R20)
Kung ako sa inyo gawa kayo ng diagram about this things. The
non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid
cause. However, Non-Appearance without valid cause may
result in the dismissal of the case WITH PREJUDICE.
A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to
allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the
court to render judgment on the basis thereof. Tandaan nyo
wala na kasi ang default. Hindi na pwede ang court
magdiretso isyu ng judgment. Ang consequence ng failure to
appear ng defendant is exparte ang presentation of evidence.
What does this mean? This basically means that the
defendant loses the personality to intervene with the case.
Hindi na sya maka-present evidence, or hindi na sya maka
present witness. However, the law still requires that lawyer
of the defendant be still furnished copies of orders,
resolutions, etc. So remember this.
So paano kung wala ditto yung defendant of party? Natural
persons walang problema, kailangan lang gina-require
naming yung party mismo na mag-execute ng Special Power
of Attorney (SPA). Pero kung corporation yan, ang kailangan
Board Resolution. Don’t be confused with a secretary
certificate ha. Mag-kaiba yan sila. Pero pwede din i-submit
ang secretary certificate. So in lieu of Board Resolution
pwede Secretary Certificate. Pero magkaiba yan sila. Meron
nag-tanong sakin new lawyer, pwede secretary certificate sir.
In a Secretary Certificate, the secretary certifies that on such
time and date, the board met and the following resolutions
had been agreed upon. So a secretary certificate is only a
certification of the corporate secretary of the existence of a
board resolution. In other words, a secretary certificate is
only a proof of the existence of a Board Resolution. Because
the law does not require that each and every time there is a
case, the board will sign everything. Pwede ang minutes lang
ang nandyan, agreed upon by the board. Then the corporate
secretary will merely attest and state in the secretary
certificate that the said resolution was agreed upon on such a
meeting by the board.
Section 6. Pre-trial brief. — The parties shall file with the
court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall
ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the
date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which
shall contain, among others:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable
settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution,
indicating the desired terms thereof;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of
facts;
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented stating the
purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention
to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to
commissioners; and
44
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the
substance of their respective testimonies.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as
failure to appear at the pre-trial. (n)
Kayo na lang magbasa kung ano contents ng Pre-Trial Brief.
Isa yan sa tinanong samin sa Bar nung time ko. Binigyan kami
facts ng examiner, and we were ask to prepare a pre-trial
brief. So please take a look at these documents, baka itanong.
Example, prepare a letters to the Court. Mind you kasali yan
sa Bar Coverage ha. It is not out of the coverage. Because it is
part of the annexes to the Rules of Court. So be careful on
this things.
Now pre-trial brief, ensure their receipt thereof at least three
(3) days before the date of the pre-trial, not filed or serve. So,
you are supposed to serve in such a manner to ensure receipt
3 days before the scheduled pre-trial. So dapat mag-
allowance ka 2 week before. At least kung wala pa din
natangap, meron ka grounds na hindi ka remiss sa iyung duty
kasi nagbigay ka allowance.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as
failure to appear at the pre-trial. So pwede ma-dismiss ang
case, with prejudice and submission of evidence exparte.
Case in Point – DR. EMMANUEL VERA, vs. ERNESTO F. RIGOR
G.R. No. 147377 August 10, 2007
It is mandatory for the trial court to conduct pre-trial in civil
cases in order to realize the paramount objective of
simplifying, abbreviating, and expediting trial. In light of these
objectives, the parties are mandatorily required to submit
their respective pre-trial briefs. Failure of the parties to do so
is a ground for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless
otherwise ordered by the court.
Clearly, the above Rule mandatorily requires the parties to
seasonably file their briefs and failure to do so shall be cause
for the dismissal of the action. As mentioned earlier,
respondent did not file a pre-trial brief in violation of the
above Rule. But what surprised us is the fact that the trial
court conducted the pre-trial conference on January 21, 1997
despite the lack of respondent’s pre-trial brief and thereafter
terminated the same. It was only on July 17, 1997 during the
initial hearing (after two postponements) that the trial judge
came to know, after being apprised by petitioner’s counsel,
that respondent did not file a pre-trial brief.
While the trial judge erroneously proceeded with the trial
conference, the fact remains that respondent did not file a
pre-trial brief. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 quoted above,
such failure is a cause for dismissal of the action. We have to
emphasize that pre-trial and its governing rules are not
technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with.
Obviously, since respondent did not file a pre-trial brief, it
follows that the trial judge failed to conduct the pre-trial
conference in accordance with Rule 18. In fact, he did not
issue the required pre-trial order stating the various matters
which should have been included therein. Indeed, the trial
judge showed his ignorance of the Rules, specifically Rule 18.
And by failing to take appropriate steps to enable the parties
reach an amicable settlement, the trial judge showed his
gross inefficiency.
Section 7. Record of pre-trial. — The proceedings in the pre-
trial shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the
court shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the
matters taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon,
the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the
agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of
the matters considered. Should the action proceed to trial,
the order shall, explicitly define and limit the issues to be
tried. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent
course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent
manifest injustice. (5a, R20)
One of the more important provisions here is section 7. This
is the Pre-Trial Order. This contains all that was discussed and
agreed upon during the pre-trial. Such as among others,
issues, stipulations agreed upon, witnesses to be presented,
evidences marked and others, even trial dates are included
there.
The last sentence is very important; the contents of the order
shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless
modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. So this
dictates the proceedings of the trial proper.
Example, meron issue included sa pleadings pero wala sa pre-
trial brief. Present ng evidence ang counsel, object ang kabila,
irrelevant or immaterial as the case may be, because it does
not prove or disprove a fact in issue or it does not prove or
disprove the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. But
it was raised in my pleadings, ang tamang sagot, it is not
among the issues raised in the pre-trial brief. Which will
govern then? ang Pre-Trial Brief. So objection sustained. The
key to be a good lawyer or litigator is only one word
PREPARATION.
Note – Please relate to Rule 10 – amendments to conform
with presented evidence.
RULE 19 Intervention
The secret to this rule is simple – ito yung rule na paki-
alamero. Sino bah yung pwedeng maki-alam, yung lang
meron pake-alam. So ito yung Motion to Intervene.
Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either
of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as
to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition
of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the
action. 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 may be fully protected in a separate
proceeding.
Ito yung mga meron cause of action on the case. Yung mga
indispensable parties or a member of a class, in a class suit,
under Rule 3 on Parties to Civil Actions.
How do you intervene? You have to file a motion to
intervene. So there must be either a complaint on
intervention (plaintiff) or an answer in intervention
(defendant), depending on which side you have to act or
represent.
Now, when you file a motion to intervene, you are asking the
court to admit your complaint on intervention (plaintiff) or an
answer in intervention, please do not forget, it is part of the
45
rules, that these documents should be attached to the
motion to intervene.
Note – separate pala ang complaint on intervention (plaintiff)
or an answer in intervention sa Motion to intervene.
Case in point - ALBERTO LOOYUKO vs. CA G.R.102696
Intervention. – A person may, before or during a trial be
permitted by the court, in its discretion, to intervene in an
action, if he has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by
a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody
of the court or of an officer thereof.
The rule stated above also requires that a motion for
intervention should be made "before or during a trial."
Because of varying interpretations of the phrase, the present
Rules have clarified that the motion should be filed "any time
before rendition of judgment."
In the present case, the motions for intervention were filed
after judgment had already been rendered, indeed when the
case was already final and executory. Certainly, intervention
can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final
judgment.
Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene may
be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be
attached to the motion and served on the original parties. (n)
Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall
file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against
either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-
intervention if he unites with the defending party in resisting
a claim against the latter. (2[c]a, R12)
Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — The
answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court. (2[d]a, R12)
RULE 20 - Calendar of Cases
Section 1. Calendar of cases. — The clerk of court, under the
direct supervision of the judge, shall keep a calendar of cases
for pre-trial, for trial, those whose trials were adjourned or
postponed, and those with motions to set for hearing.
Preference shall be given to habeas corpus cases, election
cases, special civil actions, and those so required by law. (1a,
R22)
Section 2. Assignment of cases. — The assignment of cases to
the different branches of a court shall be done exclusively by
raffle. The assignment shall be done in open session of which
adequate notice shall be given so as to afford interested
parties the opportunity to be present. (7a, R22)
RULE 21 – Subpoena
Section 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. —
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to
attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or
at any investigation conducted by competent authority, or for
the taking of his deposition. It may also require him to bring
with him any books, documents, or other things under his
control, in which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.
(1a, R23)
A subpoena (pronounced "suh-pee-nuh") is a request for the
production of documents, or a request to appear in court or
other legal proceeding. It is court-ordered command that
essentially requires you to do something, such as testify or
present information that may help support the facts that are
at issue in a pending case. The term "subpoena" literally
means "under penalty". A person who receives a subpoena
but does not comply with its terms may be subject to civil or
criminal penalties, such as fines, jail time, or both.
There are two types of subpoenas. The first, called subpoena
ad testificandum (pronounced "ad test- te-fi-kan-dum"),
requires you to testify before a court, or other legal authority.
The second, called subpoena duces tecum (pronounced "doo-
seez tee-kum"), requires you to produce documents,
materials, or other tangible evidence.
Section 2. By whom issued. — The subpoena may be issued
by —
(a) the court before whom the witness is required to attend;
(b) the court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
(c) the officer or body authorized by law to do so in
connection with investigations conducted by said officer or
body; or
(d) any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of
Appeals in any case or investigation pending within the
Philippines.
When application for a subpoena to a prisoner is made, the
judge or officer shall examine and study carefully such
application to determine whether the same is made for a
valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and who is confined in any penal institution
shall be brought outside the said penal institution for
appearance or attendance in any court unless authorized by
the Supreme Court
It is important to note that the jurisdiction of the court plays
a vital part on the validity of the issuance of a subpoena. Like
in one case where there is a subpoena issued in Cebu,
intended to be served in Davao, for the conduct of a
deposition. Wala nag-attend yung witness kaya gipa-
contempt. Pero sorry ang cebu court kasi out-side nay an sa
100km rule on territorial jurisdiction. So dapat court of the
place where the deposition should be made, so dapat davao
court mag-issue.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and who is confined in any penal institution
shall be brought outside the said penal institution for
appearance or attendance in any court unless authorized by
the Supreme Court
Naglabas din ito sa bar bah. Dapat mag-ask ka sa supreme
court.
Section 3. Form and contents. — A subpoena shall state the
name of the court and the title of the action or investigation,
shall be directed to the person whose attendance is required,
and in the case of a subpoenaduces tecum, it shall also
contain a reasonable description of the books, documents or
things demanded which must appear to the court prima
facie relevant.
Basahin nyo na lang ito.
46
Section 4. Quashing a subpoena. — The court may quash a
subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in
any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is
unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books,
documents or things does not appear, or if the person in
whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of the production thereof.
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the
ground that the witness is not bound thereby. In either case,
the subpoena may be quashed on the ground that the
witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these Rules were
not tendered when the subpoena was served. (4a, R23)
I suggest gawan nyo na lang ito ng diagram.
quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made
1. unreasonable and oppressive
2. relevancy of the books, documents or things does
not appear
3. if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued
fails to advance the reasonable cost of the
production thereof.
4. the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these
Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was
served
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum
1. the witness is not bound thereby
2. the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these
Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was
served
Case in Point UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., vs. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS - - G.R. No. L-30266 June 29, 1984
As a general rule, on obtaining an injunction for infringement
of a trademark, complainant is entitled to an accounting and
recovery of defendant's profits on the goods sold under that
mark, as incident to, and a part of, his property right, and this
rule applies in cases of unfair competition. In such case, the
infringer or unfair trader is required in equity to account for
and yield up his gains on a principle analogous to that which
charges as trustee with the profits acquired by the wrongful
use of the property of the cestuique trust, and defendant's
profits are regarded as an equitable measure of the
compensation plaintiff should receive for the past harm
suffered by him. 6
Well-settled is Our jurisprudence that, in order to entitle a
party to the issuance of a "subpoena duces tecum ", it must
appear, by clear and unequivocal proof, that the book or
document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant
and material to the issue before the court, and that the
precise book, paper or document containing such evidence
has been so designated or described that it may be
identified. 7 A "subpoena duces tecum once issued by the
court may be quashed upon motion if the issuance thereof is
unreasonable and oppressive or the relevancy of the books,
documents or things does not appear, or if the persons in
whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of production thereof.
In giving life to this remedial statute, We must uphold the
order of the court a quo denying the motion. of the petitioner
to quash the "subpoena duces tecum" previously issued
against the petitioner. In a suit for unfair competition, it is
only through the issuance of the questioned "subpoena duces
tecum " that the complaining party is afforded his full rights
of redress. The argument that the petitioner should first be
found guilty unfair competition before an accounting for
purposes of ascertaining the amount of damages recoverable
can proceed, stands without merit.. The complaint for unfair
competition is basically a suit for "injunction and damages"
Section 5. Subpoena for depositions. — Proof of service of a
notice to take a deposition, as provided in sections 15 and 25
of Rule 23, shall constitute sufficient authorization for the
issuance of subpoenas for the persons named in said notice
by the clerk of the court of the place in which the deposition
is to be taken. The clerk shall not, however, issue a
subpoena duces tecum to any such person without an order
of the court. (5a, R23)
Section 6. Service. — Service of a subpoena shall be made in
the same manner as personal or substituted service of
summons. The original shall be exhibited and a copy thereof
delivered to the person on whom it is served, tendering to
him the fees for one day's attendance and the kilometrage
allowed by these Rules, except that, when a subpoena is
issued by or on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or an
officer or agency thereof, the tender need not be made. The
service must be made so as to allow the witness a reasonable
time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance. If
the subpoena is duces tecum, the reasonable cost of
producing the books, documents or things demanded shall
also be tendered. (6a, R23)
Section 7. Personal appearance in court. — A person present
in court before a judicial officer may be required to testify as
if he were in attendance upon a subpoena is sued by such
court or officer.
This is important. This is in relation to the discussion on a
hostile witness. I discussed this before with you. Take note on
that.
So if you are in court, present during trial, you may be called
in the witness stand, as if he were in attendance upon a
subpoena is sued by such court or officer.
Section 8. Compelling attendance. — In case of failure of a
witness to attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena,
upon proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the
witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or
his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him before the
court or officer where his attendance is required, and the
cost of such warrant and seizure of such witness shall be paid
by the witness if the court issuing it shall determine that his
failure to answer the subpoena was willful and without just
excuse. (11, R23)
Ito yung result or mangyari sa tao na merong subpoena pero
hindi nag-attend. So pwede ka ipahuli.
Section 9. Contempt. — Failure by any person without
adequate cause to obey a subpoena served upon him shall be
deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is
issued. If the subpoena was not issued by a court, the
disobedience thereto shall be punished in accordance with
the applicable law or Rule. (12a R23)
Yung tao nah yun pwede din ipa-contempt ng court. So dapat
be careful.
47
Section 10. Exceptions. — The provisions of sections 8 and 9
of this Rule shall not apply to a witness who resides more
than one hundred (100) kilometers from his residence to the
place where he is to testify by the ordinary course of travel,
or to a detention prisoner if no permission of the court in
which his case is pending was obtained.
Take note of this. Basahin nyo lang ito. Pero hind ito
applicable sa criminal case ha. Kasi nasa bill of rights sa
constitution on compulsory processes.
January 18, 2016
RULE 22 - Computation of Time
Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period
of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of
the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or
event from which the designated period of time begins to run
is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the
last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday a
Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits,
the time shall not run until the next working day.
Section 2. Effect of interruption. — Should an act be done
which effectively interrupts the running of the period, the
allowable period after such interruption shall start to run on
the day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be
excluded in the computation of the period. (n)
This is a very short rule but many take this for granted that is
why they do not know how to compute for time. This is
similar with the rules on your civil law. Exclude the First Day
but Include the Last Day.
However, it is good policy to prepare everything ahead of
time. Our policy in the office is to finish a document five (5)
days before the deadline.
Case in Point – BPI vs. CA - G.R. No. 142731 June 8,
2006
Judge Victorio, in an order dated April 14, 1998, issued a TRO
for five days, then, in an order dated April 15, 1998, extended
it for fifteen more days, totaling twenty days. However, in the
first order, Judge Victorio excluded Saturdays and Sundays;
and in the latter order he added legal holidays to the
exclusions. As quoted above, a TRO is effective only for a
period of twenty days from notice to the party sought to be
enjoined. The rule does not specify that the counting of the
twenty-day period is only limited to working days or that
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded from the
twenty-day period. The law simply states twenty days from
notice. Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court is pertinent, to
wit:
How to compute time. – In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the
court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event
from which the designated period of time begins to run is to
be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last
day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a
Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits,
the time shall not run until the next working day.
It is clear from the last sentence of this section that non-
working days (Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) are
excluded from the counting of the period only when the last
day of the period falls on such days. The Rule does not
provide for any other circumstance in which non-working
days would affect the counting of a prescribed period. Hence,
Judge Victorio exceeded the authority granted to lower
courts, in Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, when he
excluded non-working days from the counting of the twenty-
day period.
In sum, private respondent was not entitled to the TRO nor to
the preliminary injunction, and the period granted in the TRO
issued by Judge Victorio exceeded that prescribed in the
Rules of Court.
We now go to the Modes of Discovery. It is a field of the rules
where some lawyers tend to forget and do not apply in realty.
Note – Meron daw Power Point si Sir, sorry wala po copy ang
transcriber, so take note na lang po, or cross reference.
Mode of Discovery - It is a device employed by a party to
obtain information about relevant matters on the case from
the adverse party in preparation for trial; it may be used by
all parties to the case.
1. Rule 23 and 24 Depositions
2. Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties
3. Rule 26 Admission by Adverse Party
4. Rule 27 Production or Inspection of Documents or
Things
5. Rule 28 Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
Depositions - taking of the testimony of any person, whether
a party or not, but at the instance of the parties to the action;
taken out of court.
Interrogatories to Parties - to elicit material and relevant
facts from any adverse party. In such a case, the party sends
their question in writing to both the person interrogated and
the other party’s counsel
Admission by Adverse Party - to allow one party to request
the adverse party in writing to admit certain material and
relevant facts which most likely will not be disputed during
trial
Production or Inspection of Documents or Things - to allow a
party to seek an order from the court to: order any party to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing of any documents, books, etc., which are in
his possession and to order any party to permit entry upon a
designated land or other property
Physical and Mental Examination of Persons - applies to an
action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is
in controversy.
RULE 23 - Depositions Pending Action
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. —
By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over
any defendant or over property which is the subject of the
action, or without such leave after an answer has been
served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not,
may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition
upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The
attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a
subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken
only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a
person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court
on such terms as the court prescribes. (1a, R24)
48

Section 2. Scope of examination. — Unless otherwise ordered
by the court as provided by section 16 or 18 of this Rule, the
deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not
privileged, which is relevant to the subject of the pending
action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other
party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any books, documents, or other
tangible things and the identity and location of persons
having knowledge of relevant facts. (2, R24)
Section 3. Examination and cross-examination. —
Examination and cross-examination of deponents may
proceed as permitted at the trial under sections 3 to 18 of
Rule 132. (3a, R24)
Section 4. Use of depositions. — At the trial or upon the
hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part
or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of
evidence, may be used against any party who was present or
represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due
notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following
provisions;
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose
of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as
a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of
taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or
association which is a party may be used by an adverse party
for any purpose;
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may
be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1)
that the witness is dead, or (2) that the witness resides at a
distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the
place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it
appears that his absence was procured by the party offering
the deposition, or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or
testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment,
or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable
to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5)
upon application and notice, that such exceptional
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of
justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting
the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the
deposition to be used; and
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a
party, the adverse party may require him to introduce all of it
which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may
introduce any other parts. (4a, R24)
Section 5. Effect of substitution of parties. — Substitution of
parties does not affect the right to use depositions previously
taken; and, when an action has been dismissed and another
action involving the same subject is afterward brought
between the same parties or their representatives or
successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken and duly
filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if
originally taken therefor. (5, R24)
Section 6. Objections to admissibility. — Subject to the
provisions of section 29 of this Rule, objection may be made
at the trial or hearing, to receiving in evidence any deposition
or part thereof for any reason which would require the
exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present
and testifying (6, R24)
Section 7. Effect of taking depositions. — A party shall not be
deemed to make a person his own witness for any purpose by
taking his deposition. (7, R24)
Section 8. Effect of using depositions. — The introduction in
evidence of the deposition or any part thereof for any
purpose other than that of contradicting or impeaching the
deponent makes the deponent the witness of the party
introducing the deposition, but this shall not apply to the use
by an adverse party of a deposition as described in paragraph
(b) of section 4 of this Rule. (8, R24)
Section 9. Rebutting deposition. — At the trial or hearing any
party may rebut any relevant evidence contained in a
deposition whether introduced by him or by any other party.
(9, R24)
Section 10. Persons before whom depositions may be taken
within the Philippines. — Within the Philippines depositions
may be taken before any judge, notary public, or the person
referred to in section 14 hereof. (10a, R24)
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in
foreign countries. — In a foreign state or country, depositions
may be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent of the Republic of the Philippines, (b) before such
person or officer as may be appointed by commission or
under letters rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in section
14 hereof. (11a, R24)
Section 12. Commission or letters rogatory. — A commission
or letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or
convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms,
and with such direction as are just and appropriate. Officers
may be designated in notices or commissions either by name
or descriptive title and letters rogatory may be addressed to
the appropriate judicial authority in the foreign country. (12a,
R24)
Section 13. Disqualification by interest. — No deposition shall
be taken before a person who is a relative within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or employee or counsel of
any of the parties, or who is a relative within the same
degree, or employee of such counsel; or who is financially
interested in the action. (13a, R24)
Section 14. Stipulations regarding taking of depositions. — If
the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken
before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any
time or place, in accordance with these Rules and when so
taken may be used like other depositions. (14a, R24)
Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time
and place. — A party desiring to take the deposition of any
person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in
writing, to every other party to the action. The notice shall
state the time and place for taking the deposition and the
name and address of each person to be examined, if known,
and if the name is not known, a general description sufficient
to identify him or the particular class or group to which he
belongs. On motion of any party upon whom the notice is
served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the
time.
Section 16. Orders for the protection of parties and
deponents. — After notice is served for taking a deposition by
oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party
or by the person to be examined and for good cause shown,
49
the court in which the action is pending may make an order
that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken
only at some designated place other than that stated in the
notice, or that it may be taken only on written
interrogatories, or that certain matters shall not be inquired
into, or that the scope of the examination shall be held with
no one present except the parties to the action and their
officers or counsel, or that after being sealed the deposition
shall be opened only by order of the court, or that secret
processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed,
or that the parties shall simultaneously file specified
documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be
opened as directed by the court or the court may make any
other order which justice requires to protect the party or
witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.
(16a, R24)
Section 17. Record of examination, oath; objections. — The
officer before whom the deposition is to be taken shall put
the witness on oath and shall personally, or by some one
acting under his direction and in his presence, record the
testimony of the witness. The testimony shall be taken
stenographically unless the parties agree otherwise. All
objections made at the time of the examination to the
qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or to the
manner of talking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the
conduct of any party, and any other objection to the
proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the
deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the
objections. In lieu of participating in the oral examination,
parties served with notice of taking a deposition may transmit
written interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound
them to the witness and record the answers verbatim. (17,
R24)
Section 18. Motion to terminate or limit examination. — At
any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion or
petition of any party or of the deponent, and upon a showing
that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in
such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or
oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action
is pending or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the
deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting
the examination to cease forthwith from taking the
deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking
of the deposition, as provided in section 16 of this Rule. If the
order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed
thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the
action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or
deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for
the time necessary to make a notice for an order. In granting
or refusing such order, the court may impose upon either
party or upon the witness the requirement to pay such costs
or expenses as the court may deem reasonable. (18a, R24)
Section 19. Submission to witness; changes; signing. — When
the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall be
submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to
or by him, unless such examination and reading are waived
by the witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or
substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered
upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the
reasons given by the witness for making them. The deposition
shall then be signed by the witness, unless the parties by
stipulation waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be
found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not signed by the
witness, the officer shall sign it and state on the record the
fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness
or the fact of the refusal to sign together with the reason be
given therefor, if any, and the deposition may then be used as
fully as though signed, unless on a motion to suppress under
section 29 (f) of this Rule, the court holds that the reasons
given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the
deposition in whole or in part. (19a, R24)
Section 20. Certification, and filing by officer. — The officer
shall certify on the deposition that the witness was duly
sworn to by him and that the deposition is a true record of
the testimony given by the witness. He shall then securely
seal the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title of
the action and marked "Deposition of (here insert the name
of witness)" and shall promptly file it with the court in which
the action is pending or send it by registered mail to the clerk
thereof for filing. (20, R24)
Section 21. Notice of filing. — The officer taking the
deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing to all the
parties. (21, R24)
Section 22. Furnishing copies. — Upon payment of
reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy
of the deposition to any party or to the deponent. (22, R24)
Section 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice. — If the
party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to
attend and proceed therewith and another attends in person
or by counsel pursuant to the notice, the court may order the
party giving the notice to pay such other party the amount of
the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his counsel in
so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees. (23a, R24)
Section 24. Failure of party giving notice to serve subpoena.
— If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition
of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him and the
witness because of such failure does not attend, and if
another party attends in person or by counsel because he
expects the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court
may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other
party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him
and his counsel in so attending, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
Section 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of
notice and of interrogatories. — A party desiring to take the
deposition of any person upon written interrogatories shall
serve them upon every other party with a notice stating the
name and address of the person who is to answer them and
the name or descriptive title and address of the officer before
whom the deposition is to be taken. Within ten (10) days
thereafter, a party so served may serve cross-interrogatories
upon the party proposing to take the deposition. Within five
(5) days thereafter, the latter may serve re-direct
interrogatories upon a party who has served cross-
interrogatories. Within three (3) days after being served with
re-direct interrogatories, a party may serve recross-
interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the
deposition. (25, R24)
Section 26. Officers to take responses and prepare record. —
A copy of the notice and copies of all interrogatories served
shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the
officer designated in the notice, who shall proceed promptly,
in the manner provided by sections 17, 19 and 20 of this Rule,
to take the testimony of the witness in response to the
interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the
deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the
interrogatories received by him. (26, R24)
50
Section 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies. — When a
deposition upon interrogatories is filed, the officer taking it
shall promptly give notice thereof to all the parties, and may
furnish copies to them or to the deponent upon payment of
reasonable charges therefor. (27, R24)
Section 28. Order for the protection of parties and deponents.
— After the service of the interrogatories and prior to the
taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in which
the action is pending, on motion promptly made by a party or
a deponent, and for good cause shown, may make any order
specified in sections 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule which is
appropriate and just or an order that the deposition shall not
be taken before the officer designated in the notice or that it
shall not be taken except upon oral examination. (28a, R24)
Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. —
(a) As to notice. — All errors and irregularities in the notice
for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is
promptly served upon the party giving the notice.
(b) As to disqualification of officer. — Objection to taking a
deposition because of disqualification of the officer before
whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the
taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the
disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with
reasonable diligence.
(c) As to competency or relevancy of evidence. — Objections
to the competency of witness or the competency, relevancy,
or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make
them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the
ground, of the objection is one which might have been
obviated or removed if presented at that time.
(d) As to oral examination and other particulars. — Errors and
irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner
of taking the deposition in the form of the questions or
answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of the
parties and errors of any kind which might be obviated,
removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are waived unless
reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the
deposition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. — Objections to the
form of written interrogatories submitted under sections 25
and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served in writing upon
the party propounding them within the time allowed for
serving succeeding cross or other interrogatories and within
three (3) days after service of the last interrogatories
authorized.
(f) As to manner of preparation. — Errors and irregularities in
the manner in which the testimony is transcribed or the
deposition is prepared, signed, certified, sealed, indorsed,
transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the officer
under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this Rule are waived
unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part
thereof is made with reasonable promptness after such
defect is, or with due diligence might have been, ascertained.
(29a, R24)
Leave of Court Requirement
1. Taken by leave of court after court obtains
jurisdiction over any defendant or property subject
of the action
2. Taken without leave after an answer has been
served
3. Teken with leave of court, when person to be
deposed is a convicted person.
G.R. No. 163515 October 31, 2008 - PAJARILLAGA, vs. CA
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary
function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the
purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the
parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the
preparation for trial. 9 It should be allowed absent any
showing that taking it would prejudice any party. It is
accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a
party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the
matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not
privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within
the bounds of law. It is allowed as a departure from the
accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining
witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be
observed by the trial judge, consistent with the principle of
promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding; and provided it is taken in accordance
with the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of
court if summons have been served, and without such leave if
an answer has been submitted; and provided further that a
circumstance for its admissibility exists.10
There is nothing in the Rules of Court or in jurisprudence
which restricts a deposition to the sole function of being a
mode of discovery before trial. Under certain conditions and
for certain limited purposes, it may be taken even after trial
has commenced and may be used without the deponent
being actually called to the witness stand.11 There is no rule
that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or
before it; no prohibition exists against the taking of
depositions after pre-trial. There can be no valid objection to
allowing them during the process of executing final and
executory judgments, when the material issues of fact have
become numerous or complicated.12
Such being the case, there is really nothing objectionable, per
se, with petitioner availing of this discovery measure after
private respondent has rested his case and prior to
petitioner’s presentation of evidence. To reiterate,
depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of
any action, whenever necessary or convenient.
Ground for Opposition – Fishing Expedition
On this point, it is well to reiterate the Court’s
pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan - G.R. No.
90478, November 21, 1991
What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of
information which may be useful in the preparation for trial,
such as the identity and location of persons having
knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts themselves;
and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition,
and location of any books, documents, or other tangible
things. Hence, "the deposition-discovery rules are to be
accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the
time-honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ serve to preclude a
party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s
case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by
both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end,
either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts
he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure
simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be
compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it,
thus reducing the possibility, of surprise.
Limitations of Deposition
1. Limited only to those matters that are relevant and
subject matter of the issue of the case.
2. Those matters that are privilege
51
 3. Court may issue orders limiting the subject matter of
the deposition under section 16 and 18 of rule 23.
Uses of Deposition
1. contradict or Impeach the testimony of the Deponent
(the person being deposed)
- Under the rules on evidence on prior and inconsistent
statement.
Rule 132 - SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence
of inconsistent statements — Before a witness can be
impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the persons
present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
statements be in writing they must be shown to the
witness before any question is put to him concerning
them
2. The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time
of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation,
partnership, or association which is a party may be used
by an adverse party for any purpose.
3. The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may
be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds:
(1) that the witness is dead, or (2) that the witness
resides at a distance more than one hundred (100)
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of
the Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was
procured by the party offering the deposition, or (3) that
the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age,
sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment, or (4) that the party
offering the deposition has been unable to procure the
attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon
application and notice, that such exceptional
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the
interest of justice and with due regard to the importance
of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open
court, to allow the deposition to be used; and
4. If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a
party, the adverse party may require him to introduce all
of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any
party may introduce any other parts.
Note – Natural Witness - A witness who is not a party to the
case.
G.R. No. 159127 March 3, 2008 SAN LUIS, vs. ROJAS
Unequivocally, the rule does not make any distinction or
restriction as to who can avail of deposition. The fact that
private respondent is a non-resident foreign corporation is
immaterial. The rule clearly provides that the testimony of
any person may be taken by deposition upon oral
examination or written interrogatories, at the instance of any
party. Depositions serve as a device for ascertaining the facts
relative to the issues of the case. The evident purpose is to
enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts
before civil trials and thus prevent the said trials from being
carried out in the dark.
Depositions may be used without the deponent being
actually called to the witness stand by the proponent, under
certain conditions and for certain limited purposes. These
exceptional situations are governed by Section 4, Rule 24 of
the Rules of Court. The principle conceding admissibility to a
deposition when the deponent is dead, out of the
Philippines, or otherwise unable to come to court to testify,
is consistent with another rule of evidence, found in Section
47, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Depositions are allowed as a departure from the accepted
and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open
court, where their demeanor could be observed by the trial
judge; and the procedure is not on that account rendered
illegal nor is the deposition, thereby taken, inadmissible. 34 It
precisely falls within one of the exceptions where the law
permits such a situation, i.e., the use of a deposition in lieu of
the actual appearance and testimony of the deponent in
open court and without being subject to the prying eyes and
probing questions of the Judge.35Depositions are consistent
with the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action or proceeding.36 Depositions are
allowed provided the deposition is taken in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court; that is, with
leave of court if the summons have been served, without
leave of court if an answer has been submitted; and provided,
further, that a circumstance for their admissibility exists. 37
Effect of taking depositions. (Section 7)
— A party shall not be deemed to make a person his own
witness for any purpose by taking his deposition.
This is in relation to Rule 132 Section 12 - may not impeach
his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses referred
to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing
a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse
interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled
the party into calling him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness
who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party
presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He
may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse
party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
subject matter of his examination-in-chief.
If section 7 was not provided atty. Europa will not use
deposition for the witness of the adverse party, because in
doing so, he would not be able to impeach the same.
However, because of this section 7, the deponent will not be
regarded as my witness, and I may still be able to impeach
said statements.
Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign
countries. – In a foreign state or country
1. on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent
of the Republic of the Philippines,
2. before such person or officer as may be appointed
by commission or under letters rogatory; or
3. the person referred to in section 14 hereof. (
52
G.R. No. 137136 November 3, 1999 NORTHWEST AIRLINES,
INC., vs. CAMILLE T. CRUZ and COURT OF APPEALS,
Section 11 of Rule 24 provides: "In a foreign state or country,
depositions shall be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul or
consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, or (b)
before such person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory." The deposition
document clearly indicates that while the consul swore in the
witness and the stenographer, it was another officer in the
Philippine Consulate who undertook the entire proceedings
thereafter. Respondent Northwest argues on the
presumption of regularity of official functions and even
obtained a certification to this effect plus an assertion that
none of the participants in the Consulate were in any way
related to the respondent or their counsel. But presumptions
should fail when the record itself bears out the irregularity.
The Rules (Rules 24, Sec. 29) indicate that objections to the
oral deposition will be waived unless the objections are made
with reasonable promptness. In this case, the objections have
been prompt and vehement, yet they were disregarded as
not material such that the deposition and the exhibits related
thereto were admitted. Moreover, a Supplemental Offer of
Evidence pertaining to a certification by the consul in New
York which tends to correct the objections raised was also
admitted by the Court. Respondents argue that the rules
were not exactly mandatory but merely guides to ensure that
the ends of justice are met. The Court interpreted with
leniency the objections despite the acknowledged mandatory
language of the rules. There is clear language of the law and
the same should not be modified in practice.
Commission or letters rogatory.
— A commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when
necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on
such terms, and with such direction as are just and
appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or
commissions either by name or descriptive title and letters
rogatory may be addressed to the appropriate judicial
authority in the foreign country.
— are requests from courts in one country to the courts of
another country requesting the performance of an act which,
if done without the sanction of the foreign court, could
constitute a violation of that country's sovereignty. This is an
authority or an appointment.
Deposition upon oral examination — A party desiring to take
the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give
reasonable notice in writing, to every other party to the
action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the
deposition and the name and address of each person to be
examined, if known, and if the name is not known, a general
description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or
group to which he belongs. On motion of any party upon
whom the notice is served, the court may for cause shown
enlarge or shorten the time.
- Subpoena must be given by the court where the deposition
should be conducted. This is in relation to Rule 21, Section 2.
(a) the court before whom the witness is required to
attend;
(b) the court of the place where the deposition is to
be taken;
(c) the officer or body authorized by law to do so in
connection with investigations conducted by said
officer or body; or
(d) any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court
of Appeals in any case or investigation pending
within the Philippines.
When application for a subpoena to a prisoner is
made, the judge or officer shall examine and study
carefully such application to determine whether the
same is made for a valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment and who is confined in
any penal institution shall be brought outside the
said penal institution for appearance or attendance
in any court unless authorized by the Supreme Court
(2a, R23)
— there is no objections. Any objection thereof will be
merely noted and not ruled upon. I always advice my
students to be very careful, especially when taking
examinations of witnesses when there is no adverse party,
since your mistakes will not be objected upon and will be
carried in the transcripts. Like in one of my cases, wherein in
the deposition, despite the fact that there is no opportunity
to have cross-examination, all the questions that were asked
was all leading and the answer of the witness, was only yes or
no.. What I did was, I challenged the admissibility of the
testimony on the ground that the questions were all leading
questions, buti na lang naniwala ang court.
— Also, changes are not allowed. Any objections on the
answer will be later checked by the deponent. However, he
cannot make any changes. Objections thereof will be noted.
Later the judge will determine whether the objection is valid
or it is merely a typo.
Deposition upon written interrogatories
— A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon
written interrogatories shall serve them upon every other
party with a notice stating the name and address of the
person who is to answer them and the name or descriptive
title and address of the officer before whom the deposition is
to be taken.
— Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party so served may
serve cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to take
the deposition. Within five (5) days thereafter, the latter may
serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who has served
cross-interrogatories. Within three (3) days after being served
with re-direct interrogatories, a party may serve recross-
interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the
deposition.
— The difference in this type of deposition is, the deposition
officer is the one who is tasked to ask questions, whether it is
on direct, cross or re-cross examination.
— Whether or not in deposition, judicial affidavit is required.
Wala pa itong concrete na sagot pero meron akong nakita na
medyo merong valid basis. Nakita ko sa revision on the rules,
that in deposition, kailangan daw i-attach yung judicial
affidavit ng deponent. So please take note on that.
Motion to terminate or limit examination.
53
— At any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion
or petition of any party or of the deponent, and upon a
showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith
or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or
oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action
is pending or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the
deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting
the examination to cease forthwith from taking the
deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking
of the deposition, as provided in section 16 of this Rule. If the
order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed
thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the
action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or
deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for
the time necessary to make a notice for an order. In granting
or refusing such order, the court may impose upon either
party or upon the witness the requirement to pay such costs
or expenses as the court may deem reasonable.
— Take note ha, any objection shall be heard only by the
court in which the action is pending or the Regional Trial
Court of the place where the deposition
Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions.
— All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a
deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly
served upon the party giving the notice.
— Objection to taking a deposition because of disqualification
of the officer before whom it is to be taken is waived unless
made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon
thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be
discovered with reasonable diligence.
— Objections to the competency of witness or the
competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not
waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of
the deposition, unless the ground, of the objection is one
which might have been obviated or removed if presented at
that time.
— Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination
in the manner of taking the deposition in the form of the
questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the
conduct of the parties and errors of any kind which might be
obviated, removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are
waived unless reasonable objection thereto is made at the
taking of the deposition.
— Objections to the form of written interrogatories
submitted under sections 25 and 26 of this Rule are waived
unless served in writing upon the party propounding them
within the time allowed for serving succeeding cross or other
interrogatories and within three (3) days after service of the
last interrogatories authorized.
— Errors and irregularities in the manner in which the
testimony is transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed,
certified, sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed, or otherwise
dealt with by the officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of
this Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the
deposition or some part thereof is made with reasonable
promptness after such defect is, or with due diligence might
have been, ascertained.
January 19, 2016
Civil Procedure – January 19, 2016 – 1 Hour
RULE 26 - Admission by Adverse Party
Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues
have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other
party may file and serve upon any other party a written
request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of
any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the
documents shall be delivered with the request unless copy
have already been furnished. (1a)
A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to
admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an
adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or
deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests
for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil
case.
In a civil action, a request for admission is a discovery device
that allows one party to request that another party admit or
deny the truth of a statement under oath. If admitted, the
statement is considered to be true for all purposes of the
current trial. Parties may also use this discovery device to
request that other parties verify that documents are genuine.
The difference with this from Rule 25 – Interrogatories to
Parties is, in Rule 26 – Request for Admission - A party may
serve on any other party a written request to admit, for
purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any
matters relating to:
(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions
about either; and
(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
Normally, when it comes to Request for Admission, it is
normally filed after issues had been joined. So generally from
the filing for the last pleading, either Answer or Reply.
Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit
the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a
copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise
furnished or made available for inspection and copying.
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which
an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless,
within a period designated in the request, which shall not be
less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such
further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to
whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party
requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or
setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully
either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to
the court by the party requested within the period for and
prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in
the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall
be deferred until such objections are resolved, which
resolution shall be made as early as practicable. (2a)
What’s so important about request for admission? – all
matters that are deemed to be admitted are will be deemed
54
admitted if you failed to file a sworn statement either
denying specifically the matters stated in the request.
Effect of Not Responding – A matter is admitted unless,
within 15 days after being served, the party to whom the
request is directed serves on the requesting party a written
answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by
the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for
responding may be stipulated to under Rules or be ordered
by the court.
It is important to note that, unlike depositions, where matters
tackled may be used in any action or not limited to a pending
issue, in Request for Admission, admissions made thereof can
only be used in a pending action and not for the purpose of
any other proceedings.
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by a
party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the
pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by
him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against
him in any other proceeding. (3)
Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party
making an admission under the Rule, whether express or
implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be
just. (4)
Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for
admission. — Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a party who
fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse
party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or
ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall
not be permitted to present evidence on such facts. (n)
The final provision for the rule is very2x important, a party
who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which
are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the
latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such
facts.
A lot of lawyers today do not realized the importance of this
provision. The provision states that a party shall not be
permitted to present evidence on such facts, it is just a fancy
way of saying that you cannot be allowed to prove the fact in
issue. So the consequence of this is, if you failed to make
request for admission, the other party may object and state
in court that you failed to use this mode of discovery, which
will bar you from presenting a witness to prove a fact in issue,
to the detriment of your case.
G.R. No. L-34341 – August 22, 1988 – PO, vs. CA
An examination of petitioner's complaint and her request for
admission confirms Judge Lustre's finding (which the Court of
Appeals upheld) that the "fact" set forth in the request for
admission, including the amount of damages claimed, are the
same factual allegations set forth in her complaint which the
defendant either admitted or denied in his answer.
A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact
already admitted by his pleading and concerning which there
is no issue (Sherr vs. East, 71 A2d 752, Terry 260, cited in 27
C.J.S. 91), nor should he be required to make a second denial
of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. A
request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or
reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading
but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or
documents described in and exhibited with the request,
whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or
defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is, as correctly
observed by the Court of Appeals, "pointless, useless," and "a
mere redundancy."
G.R. No. 186979 – August 11, 2010 – SOCORRO LIMOS, vs.
SPOUSES FRANCISCO P. ODONES
A party who fails to respond to a Request for Admission shall
be deemed to have impliedly admitted all the matters
contained therein. It must be emphasized, however, that the
application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the
sound discretion of the court. As such, it is the duty of the
courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case
and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery,
bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious
administration of justice. The determination of the sanction
to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the
modes of discovery also rests on sound judicial
discretion. Corollarily, this discretion carries with it the
determination of whether or not to impose the sanctions
attributable to such fault.
As correctly observed by the trial court, the matters set forth
in petitioners’ Request for Admission were the same
affirmative defenses pleaded in their Answer which
respondents already traversed in their Reply. The said
defenses were likewise sufficiently controverted in the
complaint and its annexes. In effect, petitioners sought to
compel respondents to deny once again the very matters
they had already denied, a redundancy, which if abetted, will
serve no purpose but to delay the proceedings and thus
defeat the purpose of the rule on admission as a mode of
discovery which is "to expedite trial and relieve parties of the
costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and
the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry."
A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce
or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading
but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact
described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said
party’s cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that
purpose, it is pointless, useless, and a mere redundancy.
Verily then, if the trial court finds that the matters in a
Request for Admission were already admitted or denied in
previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter cannot
be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In turn, the
requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response to the
request and thereafter, assume or even demand the
application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule
26.
Also, if you remember, there is a similar provision in
Rule 25 – Interrogatories to Parties. That is under Section 6.
Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. —
Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown
and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with
written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse
party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
pending appeal.
In this instance, the effect of which is if you failed to avail of
the modes of discovery, you may be allowed to call the
adverse party as a hostile witness. Then the adverse party
may rightfully refuse to testify, and be called as a hostile
witness.
So some lawyers, gusto nila yung gulpi-de-gulat. Biglang
tawagin yung adverse party, example client mo sa witness-
55
stand to testify. Your honor, I would like to call, as my first
witness, the defendant.!
Ano ang isasagot mo, you will state that your honor my client
cannot be called in the witness stand since he was not served
with subpoena.
Ang isasagot naman ng kabila is, your honor, the rules allows
that if a party is currently present during trial he may be
called in the witness—stand to testify, as if he was served
with a subpoena.
Pag-nangyari yan sa inyo, ano gagawin mo? Ano isasagot mo?
You will not raised this provision, you will state that, a party
not served with written interrogatories may not be
compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open
court, or to give a deposition pending appeal. a party not
served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by
the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal.
So failure to avail of the remedies of modes of discovery, very
clearly results in the disallowing a party to call the opposing
party as a hostile witness. Please take note of that. So ito
yung exception to exception sa rule on subpoena.
RULE 27 – Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. —
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the
court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
involved in the action and which are in his possession,
custody or control, or (b) order any party to permit entry
upon designated land or other property in his possession or
control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying,
or photographing the property or any designated relevant
object or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time,
place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies
and photographs, and may prescribe such terms and
conditions as are just. (1a)
Requests for production may be used to inspect and copy
documents or tangible items held by the other party.
Generally, a request for production asks the responding party
to make available the original documents, but a requesting
party may permit photocopies of the requested documents
be sent instead, if inspection of the original document is not
necessary. Requests for production can also be used to test,
measure, photograph, etc., physical evidence in the other
party’s possession or control.
Ang story dito, dapat merong reasonable notice to the
adverse party, na gusto mo ipa-present yung, example,
Transfer Certificate of Title na nasa possession ng adverse
party. So, dapat before ka magfile ng request for production
or inspection, dapat mag bigay ka muna notice sa adverse
party. Ask him first, if you can have a copy. Pag nagdeny sya,
then ask the court, following rule 27.
G.R. No. 135874 – January 25, 2000 – SECURITY BANK
CORPORATION, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES UY
Litigation should not be carried on in the dark. Courts are
given great latitude in enabling the parties to inform
themselves of all relevant facts, including those known only
to their adversaries. For this reason, the rules on discovery
are accorded broad and liberal interpretation.
In the present case, the CA did not err in affirming the trial
court ruling that there was "good cause" for the grant of the
Motions for inspection of documents. The latter's holding
that the documents were not indispensable to the
preparation of the answer of Uy to the cross-claim did not
militate against respondents' availment of this important
mode of discovery. As he himself averred in his Motion, the
subject documents were "material and important to the
issues raised in the case in general, and as between
defendant and SBC in particular." Verily, the CA noted that
the documents would enable Respondent Uy to "intelligently
prepare his defenses against the cross-claim of petitioner
SBC," and not merely to formulate his answer. Likewise, we
agree with the appellate court that the Motion of Spouses
Agustin Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc Ten was for a good cause,
because the said documents were "necessary for a
determination of the issues raised in Civil Case No. Q-97-
30330."
Petitioner points out that a party may be compelled to
produce or allow the inspection of documents if six
procedural requisites are complied with, viz.:
(a) The party must file a motion for the production or
inspection of documents or things, showing good
cause therefor;
(b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other
parties of the case;
(c) The motion must designate the documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things which the party wishes to be
produced and inspected;
(d) Such documents, etc. are not privileged;
(e) Such documents, etc. constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the action; and
(f) Such documents, etc. are in the possession, custody
or control of the other party.
These arguments are not persuasive. Section 1 of Rule 27
clearly provides that the documents sought must be "material
to any matter involved in the action." Respondents have
shown that the subject documents are indeed material to the
present action. Indeed, the rule is that courts, in passing upon
a motion for discovery, should be liberal in determining
whether the documents in question are relevant to the
subject matter of the action. To repeat, the rule on discovery
"requires the parties to play the game with cards on the table
so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is
measurably increased."
Please take note of this requirement, The motion must
designate the documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things which the party
wishes to be produced and inspected;
- Maraming lawyers dyan na pag hindi ikaw specific sa inyong
mga details or sa evidence na gusto mo makuha, chances are
lulunorin kah ng evidence. Isang truck ipapadala sa iyo. So be
specific okay.
January 26, 2016
RULE 30 TRIAL
Section 1. Notice of Trial. — Upon entry of a case in the trial
56
calendar, the clerk shall notify the parties of the date of its
trial in such manner as shall ensure his receipt of that notice
at least five (5) days before such date. (2a, R22)
Section 2. Adjournments and postponements. — A court may
adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the
expeditious and convenient transaction of business may
require, but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a longer
period than one month for each adjournment nor more than
three months in all, except when authorized in writing by the
Court Administrator, Supreme Court. (3a, R22)
Section 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for absence
of evidence. — A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of
absence of evidence can be granted only upon affidavit
showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and
that due diligence has been used to procure it. But if the
adverse party admits the facts to be given in evidence, even if
he objects or reserves the right to object to their
admissibility, the trial shall not be postponed. (4a, R22; Bar
Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998)
Section 4. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of
party or counsel. — A motion to postpone a trial on the
ground of illness of a party or counsel may be granted if it
appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that the
presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable
and that the character of his illness is such as to render his
non-attendance excusable. (5a, R22)
Rule 30 is mostly codal.
Some would say the case would not proceed to trial kay
walay ebidensya. Although there are requisites here that
would confuse lawyers. Dapat daw kung merong absence of
evidence dapat daw sworn certification that the presence of
such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the
character of his illness is such as to render his non-
attendance excusable. Now there is another decision of the
supreme court saying that it must be notarized.
Section 5. Order of trial. — Subject to the provisions of
section 2 of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons
otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues
stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows:
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his
complaint;
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of
his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party
complaints;
(c) The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce evidence of
his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party
complaint;
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce
evidence of the material facts pleaded by them;
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim
has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their
defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting
evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the
furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence
upon their original case; and
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to
argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any
further pleadings.
If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth,
having separate defenses appear by different counsel, the
court shall determine the relative order of presentation of
their evidence. (1a, R30)
A lot of students don't like and get confused with section 5. I
suggest you just over it, learn it and ipasok mo kung saan
dapat ipasok and 3rd party. 4th party.
Last year’s tsn:
When you look at section 5, what I want you to do is to look
at the things or order of the things that parties need to
present without considering 3rd party. Huwag nyo munang
isipin ang 3rd party or 4th party. Okay? So the basic order of
trial or the normal order of trial, what should be presented
there? Evidence that would substantiate the allegations of
the complaint. After taking the evidence in chief, you have
the evidence of the defendant on his defenses as well as his
counterclaims or cross claims if any. And when the defendant
has presented his evidence in chief, including the
counterclaims and cross claims, you go back to the plaintiff.
Why? Because the plaintiff will be allowed to present rebuttal
evidence.
What is rebuttal evidence?
Refers to the evidence that is being presented to counteract
the evidence that is presented by the defendant. The plaintiff
will present evidence to support his cause of action, the
defendant will establish his defenses through his evidence in
chief, the plaintiff now will present his rebuttal evidence and
the evidence against his defenses on the counter claim. Tapos
defendant ulit to present his surrebuttal evidence based on
the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff.
If you notice, the scope gets smaller and smaller. You have
evidence in chief of both the plaintiff then the defendant
respectively and also the defendant’s evidence on the
counterclaim, then rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff where
the scope is getting smaller because rebuttal evidence only
the matters that were raised in the defendant’s defense and
counterclaim, so yun lang. ang surrebuttal evidence naman
will be based only on the rebuttal evidence by the plaintiff. So
the scope of what is being presented in each stage of the trial
is getting smaller and smaller.
So now, when you already have mastered the order in that
order of trial, then and only then should you begin to insert
the possibility of entrance of 3rd party defendant, 4th party,
etc. okay?
What happens after the surrebuttal evidence?
The case shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless the
court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective
memoranda or any further pleadings. The court may give you
the opportunity to summarize everything which is very rare.
What if there are several defendants?
Kasi nga normally, plaintiff-defendant. What if there are
several defendants?? Who among the defendants will go
first? That will be left to the discretion of the court. (story
about his personal experience, in his mind he wants to
57
suggest that it would be through alphabetical order) But I
think, it should be based on the gravity of the participation of
each defendant.
But is there a specific rule? No. the rule says, “If several
defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth, having
separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court shall
determine the relative order of presentation of their
evidence. (1a, R30)”
What you should remember also is that when it comes to
trial, what must be presented is only evidence that is material
and competent and relates to the issue that is presented in
the pre-trial order. that’s very important.
Now, there is a possibility that the order of trial is reversed.
Just like in criminal actions diba, in criminal cases wherein the
accused will present first his arguments on self-defense. It is
also possible in civil cases when the defendant’s defenses are
all affirmative defenses, defenses of confession and
avoidance. Why? Because if the defendant is presenting
affirmative defenses, the defendant is admitting the offense
but there are other matters that should be considered in the
case. there is nothing more for the plaintiff to prove kasi
inadmit naman lahat ng defendant. So that will happen only if
the defendant is presenting affirmative defenses or all of his
defenses are affirmative defenses- confession and avoidance.
Section 6. Agreed statement of facts. — The parties to any
action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the
litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the facts
agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial
shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the
court shall prescribe. (2a, R30)
Remember that in the pre-trial there is a possibility of
entering into stipulations, now there are instances that the
parties have agreed on all statement of facts. Now, in those
cases, pwede namang di namagtrial kasi they will just be
arguing on how the law should be applied on the case. okay?
Section 7. Statement of judge. — During the hearing or trial of
a case any statement made by the judge with reference to
the case, or to any of the parties, witnesses or counsel, shall
be made of record in the stenographic notes. (3a, R30)
Courts in the Philippines are supposed to be courts of record
so anything that the judge says are supposed to be recorded.
The thing is when you are a practicing lawyer, as musch as
possible do not invite the ire of the judge.
They shall be formed parts of the records. They shall
comprise the transcript of stenographic notes that’s why we
have a court stenographer because she is expected to record
it all. But sometimes other lawyers will say “off the record
your honor” so hindi nay an isali. Is that allowed? Technically
no, but that happens normally. Are there instances when
hindi na dapat irecord? For me yes, kunyari may mga judge
na mangasaba. Normal lang man sa judge na mangasaba diba
considering that judges are under so much stress, so to give
due respect, pwede hindi nay an isali sa record ng TSN yung
kasaba judge when the judge has overstepped yung sobra
naba yung blatant na ang partiality or pagbastos sayo ng
judge. Pero when you feel like sobra na yung judge you can
actually ask the stenographer to produce it if you want to file
administrative case against the judge. Section 7 is very clear
During the hearing or trial of a case any statement made by
the judge with reference to the case, or to any of the parties,
witnesses or counsel, shall be made of record in the
stenographic notes. What if the judge will say “I already told
you its off the record bakit mo sinali?” then you can actually
invoke against the judge Rule 30 section 7, that everything
that is covered or said will be formed part of the records.
Section 8. Suspension of actions. — The suspension of actions
shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code. (n)
Actions can be suspended if the parties entered into a
compromise agreement. So, definitely, this will not apply to
cases wherein compromise agreement is not allowed. Subject
matter are like declaration of nullity of marriage, legal
separation, civil status of persons, mutual support, so those
are not allowed to be compromised.
Section 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of
court. — The judge of the court where the case is pending
shall personally receive the evidence to be adduced by the
parties. However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any
case where the parties agree in writing, the court may
delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court who is
a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power
to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of
exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court upon
submission of his report and the transcripts within ten (10)
days from termination of the hearing. (n)
It is supposed to be the judge himself who will receive
evidence. It is only when the other party was in default and
the parties agreed in writing that the court may delegate the
reception to the clerk of court.
Why is this important?
There are instances when the judge can delegate the task of
reception of evidence to the clerk of court. Bakit may clerk of
court ban a hindi member of the bar? Yes, sometimes.
Kunyari matagal na masyado walang clerk of court,
sometimes it’s the senior legal officer which will do the task.
When shall it be done? The judge of the court where the case
is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be
adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex parte
hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing,
the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk
of court who is a member of the bar. Those are the situations
when the judge can delegate the task to the clerk of court.
Take note no, when the reception of evidence, the clerk of
court cannot accept objections ha. clerk of court shall have no
power to rule on objections to any question or to the
admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by
the court upon submission of his report and the transcripts
within ten (10) days from termination of the hearing. It is for
the judge. Kaya lang, the only possibility there if the parties
agree in writing. The rule is mandatory and not subject to any
more exceptions. Remember allowed if the parties agreed in
writing.
58
RULE 31
CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
Section 1. Consolidation.
When actions involving a common question of law or fact
are pending before the court, it may order a joint
hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in
the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated;
and it may make such orders concerning proceedings
therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or
delay.
Requisites:
1. the actions involve common question of fact and law
2. the actions are pending before the same court
how do you do consolidation? File a motion in both courts
and if granted, there will be a raffling as to which court will
hear the case.
Semantics: Mali ang term na “RTC of Digos”. It should be “RTC
in Digos”. Because it is an RTC for the 11th region. Both salas
or both branches (RTC in Digos and Davao) are part of the
same court, the Regional Trial Court of the 11th Judicial
Region.
Case: ___ vs. Marinay August 12, 2005. One party filed a
Motion for Reconsideration. Problem was, the other party
already had a final and executory judgment. The doctrine of
finality of the case applies. You cannot remove that or revive
the case considering that there was already a final and
executory judgment simply by asking a MR. while generally,
consolidation is done in the trial court, cases can be
consolidated in the appellate courts if you want to
consolidate related appeals. The SC really likes to do that
especially the original actions like certiorari.
Sec. 2. Separate trials.
The court, in furtherance of convenience or
to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim,
cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any
separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims,
counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues.
This is especially in relation to cases with multiple parties
where there are matters of interest to some but not all in
relation to certain issues. Best example is actions for
expropriations filed in the office of the Solicitor General. The
issue that is left there after there has been determination of
the propriety of the taking is the value of just compensation.
Every property owner is only concerned in the valuation of his
own property. Why would the judge compel all the parties to
be present in the presentation of evidence when a separate
trial can be had? The judge can only compel them if they are
very similarly situated.
RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
Section 1. Reference by consent.
By written consent of both parties, the
court may order any or all of the issues in a case to
be referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by
the parties or to be appointed by the court. As used
in these Rules, the word "commissioner" includes a
referee, an auditor and an examiner.
Please be very careful with this Rule espcially when it
comes to the technicalities and the powers of the
Commissioners Pinakamadali is the written consent
by both parties but the judge may also refer.
Sec. 2. Reference ordered on motion.
When the parties do not consent, the court
may, upon the application of either or of its own
motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the
following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the
examination of a long account on either side, in
which case the commissioner may be directed to
hear and report upon the whole issue or any specific
question involved therein;
(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the
information of the court before judgment, or for
carrying a judgment or order into effect; 

(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings,
arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a
case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect.


On letter b. The interest now is 6%, no more 12 %.
Sec. 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner.
When a reference is made, the clerk shall
forthwith furnish the commissioner with a copy of
the order of reference. The order may specify or
limit the powers of the commissioner, and may
direct him to report only upon particular issues, or to
do or perform particular acts, or to receive and
report evidence only, and may fix the date for
beginning and closing the hearings and for the filing
of his report. Subject to the specifications and
limitations stated in the order, the commissioner has
and shall exercise the power to regulate the
proceedings in every hearing before him and to do
all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for
the efficient performance of his duties under the
order. He may issue subpoenas and subpoenas
duces tecum, swear witnesses, and unless otherwise
provided in the order of reference, he may rule upon
the admissibility of evidence. The trial or hearing
before him shall proceed in all respects as it would if
held before the court.
Eto yung general powers. Take note of the word “may”.
Sec. 4. Oath of commissioner.
Before entering upon his duties the
commissioner shall be sworn to a faithful and honest
performance thereof.
Sec. 5. Proceedings before commissioner.
Upon receipt of the order of reference and
unless otherwise provided therein, the
commissioner shall forthwith set a time and place
for the first meeting of the parties or their counsel to
be held within ten (l0) days after the date of the
order of reference and shall notify the parties or
their counsel.
Now what if parties do not appear before a
Commissioner? If a party fails to appear at the time
and place appointed, the commissioner may proceed
ex parte or, in his discretion, adjourn xxx. Kunyari
may order ang commissioner and the party does not
appear, pwede ba siya magpatuloy? Pwede.
Remember that due procees does not mean actually
“be heard” but the “opportunity” to be heard.
Last year’s tsn:
Algem Corporation v. CA.
Is a Commissioner required to conduct a formal
hearing? Na ang witness is subject to cross
59
 examination? Ang sabi ng Supreme Court: If the
presentation of evidence is such that yung kabilang
party, kung mag present na ng evidence is there was
cross examination, hindi mo pwedeng i-deny na
ganun din sa kabilang party. But this should not be
applicable to a situation where there is no actual
reception of testimony of evidence. Kataw-anan man
masyado kung ang surveyor ang nagasulti na there is
a failure of cross examination during the survey.
Sec. 6. Failure of parties to appear before commissioner.
If a party fails to appear at the time and
place appointed, the commissioner may proceed ex
parte or, in his discretion, adjourn the proceedings
to a future day, giving notice to the absent party or
his counsel of the adjournment.
Sec. 7. Refusal of witness.
The refusal of a witness to obey a subpoena
issued by the commissioner or to give evidence
before him, shall be deemed a contempt of the court
which appointed the commissioner.
DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THIS. The commissioner does
not have contempt powers. He has to refer the
matter to the court that appointed him.
Sec. 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays.
It is the duty of the commissioner to
proceed with all reasonable diligence. Either party,
on notice to the parties and commissioner, may
apply to the court for an order requiring the
commissioner to expedite the proceedings and to
make his report.
Sec. 9. Report of commissioner.
Upon the completion of the trial or hearing
or proceeding before the commissioner, he shall file
with the court his report in writing upon the matters
submitted to him by the order of reference. When
his powers are not specified or limited, he shall set
forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law in his
report. He shall attach thereto all exhibits, affidavits,
depositions, papers and the transcript, if any, of the
testimonial evidence presented before him.
Last year’s tsn:
Report. Yan. Ito na yung nangyari. A very common
instance where there is also a referral to a
commissioner is also with regard to expropriation
cases. Let us say valuation of property. What will
happen is that there will be a commissioner that will
be nominated by the Solicitor General o kung
paminsan Napocor. The defendant will also
nominate a commissioner. And a third commissioner
will be chosen by the two or appointed by the court.
And will be appointed. Pagkatapos, pag gawa na nila
ng kanilang study, minsan may reception of
evidence, minsan they will gather evidence on their
own, they will conduct an ocular inspection etc.
After they have rendered their report, they will be,
yan Section 10: Notice to parties of the filing of
report. The parties should be given 10 days within
which to signify grounds of objections to the findings
of the report.
Sec. 10. Notice to parties of the filing of report.
Upon the filing of the report, the parties
shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be
allowed ten (l0) days within which to signify grounds
of objections to the findings of the report, if they so
desire. Objections to the report based upon grounds
which were available to the parties during the
proceedings before the commissioner, other than
objections to the findings and conclusions therein
set forth, shall not be considered by the court unless
they were made before the commissioner.
Sec. 11. Hearing upon report.
Upon the expiration of the period of ten (l0)
days referred to in the preceding section, the report
shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall
issue an order adopting, modifying, or rejecting the
report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with
instructions, or requiring the parties to present
further evidence before the commissioner or the
court.
Hearing upon report. Upon the expiration of the period of 10
days, it shall be set for hearing. Dyan pwede mo na i-cross
examine ang mga commissioner.
Sec. 12. Stipulations as to findings.
When the parties stipulate that a
commissioner’s findings of fact shall be final, only
questions of law shall thereafter be considered.
Last year’s tsn:
Section 12 is very, very important. This is something I like
resorting to even during pre-trial. If I think that a particular
case can be determined on the basis of the conduct of, for
example, the conduct of a geodetic survey, I will make it a
point, lalo na kung confident talaga yung client mo na siya
ang tama, I will make it a point to get the other side to agree
to a referral to a commissioner, a geodetic engineer, with a
stipulation that whatever the findings will be will already be
binding. Ang problema kasi, merong commissioner, may
geodetic, tapos pag hindi mag agree yung isang party sa
results, mag hire din ng sarili niyang geodetic na iba naman
ang resulta ng report. Diba. So mas maganda kung mag
karoon kayo ng prior stipulation that the findings of fact will
be final. Is that allowed? Yes.
Sec. 13. Compensation of commissioner.
The court shall allow the commissioner such
reasonable compensation as the circumstances of
the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against the
defeated party, or apportioned, as justice requires.
RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence.
After the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied,
he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence.
We now go to Rule 33. This is a favorite source of Bar
problems.
Demurrer to Evidence.
Is motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence in a
civil case required? Tingnan mo. Walang leave of court sa
60
Rule 33. Tingnan mo Section 1. Ano ba ulit ang demurrer to
evidence? It’s a motion to dismiss diba. After the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant
may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts
and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Walang
nakalagay na leave of court. Bakit sa criminal cases may leave
of court? Sa civil cases walang leave of court. Even if you file
demurrer the defendant will always be given the opportunity
to present evidence. Unlike in criminal cases, if an accused
files a motion without seeking prior leave of court, if it is
denied, he will be deemed to have waived his right to present
evidence in court.
In civil cases, if the demurrer to evidence is granted, and is
reversed on appeal, then the defendant will no longer be
allowed to present evidence. Insofar as the trial court is
concerned, there’s no difference. The risk is on appeal.
Meron ngang trick question diyan eh. What is the effect of
the grant or denial of the motion for leave of court to file a
demurrer to evidence in a civil case? Absolutely nothing.
Why? Because there is no requirement. Why? Because
regardless of whether or not. Ako, I still, even in civil cases, I
normally file a motion for leave to admit demurrer to
evidence. Hindi required pero respeto na lang. Hindi man siya
required because regardless of whether or not, for me, a
prior leave of court is filed, if a demurrer to evidence is
denied, the defendant is still allowed to present his evidence.
In criminal cases kasi, if you file a demurrer to evidence
without leave of court and if it is denied, the accused will lose
his right to present evidence. Walang ganyan sa civil case. So
if it is denied, you will be allowed to present evidence.
Ang danger sa civil case is if it is granted. Why? Because if a
demurrer to evidence in a civil case is granted and on appeal
it is reversed, then the defendant will have waived his right to
present evidence. Kuha nyo? Ulitin ko ha. In civil cases, the
danger if a demurrer to evidence is granted. Because if the
demurrer to evidence is granted and on appeal it is reversed,
di na pwede mag presenta ng ebidensya ang defendant.
Bakit hindi na lang gi-ganyan sa criminal case? Bakit hindi na
lang sa criminal case, if the demurrer to evidence is denied,
allowed presentation of evidence. But if it is granted and
reversed on appeal, (he is not allowed to present evidence).
Yan nangyari sa isang estudyante nag tanong, akala niya
bright siya ba. Sabi ko, isipan mo daw ng mabuti ang sinasabi
mo. If the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case is granted
and on appeal is reversed. Hindi pwede. Kasi nga if the
demurrer to evidence is granted, acquital yan eh! Di ka na
maka-appeal kasi double jeopardy yan eh! So that is why the
rule is different. In civil cases, we are not required to ask for
leave of court regardless of whether or not we do it, if it is
denied we will be allowed to present evidence. Only when it
is granted and on appeal it is reversed then we will have lost
or waived the right to present evidence.
Merong magandang example nito. The case of Consolidated
Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Del Monte Motor
Works (G.R. No. 143338, July 29, 2005). The Supreme Court
says the Court of Appeals cannot remand the case to the trial
court for reception of evidence. Kung gi-reverse niya dapat
parte ng decision nila na idiretso na nila i-rule yung case.
Sabin g Supreme Court: If the defendant’s motion for
judgment on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order is
subsequently reversed on appeal, judgment is rendered in
favor of the adverse party because the movant loses his right
to present evidence. The reviewing court cannot remand the
case for further proceedings; rather, it should render
judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by the
plaintiff. So hindi pwede i-remand.
RULE 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings.
Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or
otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party,
direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal
separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall
always be proved.
Last year’s tsn:
Grounds for judgment on the pleadings. Answer fails to
tender an issue. Or when the answer admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. This may refer to
claiming party ang mag file ng judgment on the pleadings. Dili
pwede ang defending party. Eh bakit claiming party? Eh kasi
sa counterclaim, ang claiming party ang defendant.
Kunwari, bakit pa siya nag answer na gi-admit naman pala
nya lahat? Posible ba gud yan? Posible. Bakit? Kasi may mga
answer na mukhang may denial pero wala. Example nyan
yung Capitol Motors v. Yabut (G.R. No. L-28140, March 19,
1970). Ang sabi sa complaint hindi siya nagbayad ng
instalment. Ang sagot niya I deny that by reason of lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. Ano sabi
ng Supreme Court. Not allowed. Kasi it’s either you paid or
did not. You cannot say you don’t know. Sabi ng Supreme
Court, ano effect niyan, that it will be treated as a general
denial which will amount to an admission. So kahit na may
mga denial, deny, deny, deny, pero lahat general denial,
pwede ka ma judgment on the pleadings.
Similar to that, negative pregnant. Improper use of the
second mode, when you only admit part and deny the rest.
Hindi niya gilagay kung ano yung gina admit niya, basta gi
outright deny lang niya, na kung basahin mo yung kanyang
pleadings, meron siyang gina admit pero hindi maklaro. That
is an improper use of the second mode of making a denial,
diba. What is that? Negative pregnant. Why do we call it
that? Because it is a denial that is pregnant with admissions.
So it can be a combination of any of these. Meron siyang mga
admissions, tapos meron siyang mga denial na improper
which amounts to an admission, so based on the pleadings
alone, you can already ask the court to render judgment. But
please take note ha, walang judgment on the pleadings on
the part of the defendant, or more accurately, on the part of
the defending party. Only a claiming party can ask for a
judgment on the pleadings.
Basahin nyo yung kaso ng Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform (G.R. No. 156304, October 23, 2006).
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING
BY THE DEFENDANT. ONLY THE CLAIMANT CAN FILE. Why?
Because it is stated in the Rules.
RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant.
A party seeking to recover upon a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief
may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has
been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or
61
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or
any part thereof.
Meron tayong judgment on the pleadings. Eh ano naman
itong summary judgment? Ang summary judgment either
way ha. It is also called the law of accelerated judgment. A
party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross
claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after
the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a
summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
So it can be summary judgment for a claiming party or
summary judgment for a defending party.
Rule 34
Sec. 1- Judgment on the Pleadings. When an answer fails to
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations
of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of
that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in
actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or
for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved.
Grounds for judgment on the pleadings. Answer fails to
tender an issue. Or when the answer admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. This may refer to
claiming party ang mag file ng judgment on the pleadings. Dili
pwede ang defending party. Eh bakit claiming party? Eh kasi
sa counterclaim, ang claiming party ang defendant.
Kunwari, bakit pa siya nag answer na gi-admit naman pala
nya lahat? Posible ba gud yan? Posible. Bakit? Kasi may mga
answer na mukhang may denial pero wala. Example nyan
yung Capitol Motors v. Yabut (G.R. No. L-28140, March 19,
1970). Ang sabi sa complaint hindi siya nagbayad ng
instalment. Ang sagot niya I deny that by reason of lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. Ano sabi
ng Supreme Court. Not allowed. Kasi it’s either you paid or
did not. You cannot say you don’t know. Sabi ng Supreme
Court, ano effect niyan, that it will be treated as a general
denial which will amount to an admission. So kahit na may
mga denial, deny, deny, deny, pero lahat general denial,
pwede ka ma judgment on the pleadings.
Similar to that, negative pregnant. Improper use of the
second mode, when you only admit part and deny the rest.
Hindi niya gilagay kung ano yung gina admit niya, basta gi
outright deny lang niya, na kung basahin mo yung kanyang
pleadings, meron siyang gina admit pero hindi maklaro. That
is an improper use of the second mode of making a denial,
diba. What is that? Negative pregnant. Why do we call it
that? Because it is a denial that is pregnant with admissions.
So it can be a combination of any of these. Meron siyang mga
admissions, tapos meron siyang mga denial na improper
which amounts to an admission, so based on the pleadings
alone, you can already ask the court to render judgment. But
please take note ha, walang judgment on the pleadings on
the part of the defendant, or more accurately, on the part of
the defending party. Only a claiming party can ask for a
judgment on the pleadings.
Basahin nyo yung kaso ng Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform (G.R. No. 156304, October 23, 2006).
RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. A party seeking to
recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading
in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment
in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
Sec. 2. Summary judgment for defending party. A party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is
asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time,
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions
for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part
thereof.
Sec. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. The motion shall be
served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the
hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits,
depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the
hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be
rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to
the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
Sec. 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. If on motion
under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole
case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the
court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the
pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating
counsel shall ascertain what material facts exist without
substantial controversy and what are actually and in good
faith controverted. It shall thereupon make an order
specifying the facts that appear without substantial
controversy, including the extent to which the amount of
damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing
such further proceedings in the action as are just. The facts so
specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be
conducted on the controverted facts accordingly.
Sec. 5. Form of affidavits and supporting papers. Supporting
and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal
knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible
in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is
competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Certified
true copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in the
affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.
Sec. 6. Affidavits in bad faith. Should it appear to its
satisfaction at any time that any of the affidavits presented
pursuant to this Rule are presented in bad faith, or solely for
the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the
offending party or counsel to pay to the other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the
affidavits caused him to incur, including attorney’s fees. It
may, after hearing, further adjudge the offending party or
counsel guilty of contempt.
Let’s go to summary judgments, Rule 35. Ang summary
judgment naman, it’s either you’re saying that there is no
genuine cause of action or no genuine defense. It is also
called the law of accelerated judgment. A party seeking to
recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading
in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment
in his favor upon all or any part thereof. So it can be summary
judgment for a claiming party or summary judgment for a
defending party.
What are you seeking when you ask for a summary
judgment? That there is no genuine issue; that it’s a sham
claim or that it’s a sham defense. If you look at the pleadings,
as if the issues are joined. It looks as if there is a proper cause
62
of action. But in truth, there is none, and you can prove it
easily. Bakit kailangan easily? Kasi pag hindi easily then you
go to trial. Now what is your basis? You can use admissions,
supporting affidavits, depositions. Ito yung mga one of the
(instances) na pwede natin gamitin yung depositions. File ka
ng motion for summary judgments. This is, for me, one of the
more difficult motions to prepare and to file. Because you file
a motion for summary judgment kung sure na sure na; na ma-
convince mo yung judge na either atik yung claim or atik yung
defense. You have to have a very convincing evidence,
otherwise, the court will just proceed to trial. Here you are
saying that the claim or defense is sham; that it should be
dismissed or disregarded outright.
Please take note that the motion for summary judgment is
very special. Iba ang period. While normally in motions, the
other party should receive it 3 days from the scheduled
hearing. Ang motion for summary judgment, at least 10 days
before the scheduled hearing. Bakit? Para mabigyan ang
opposing party na mag serve ng opposing affidavits,
depositions 3 days before the hearing.
After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions,
and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. Please take note ha: except as to the amount
of damages. Pag dating sa damages, kailangan talaga mag
present ng evidence. Bakit? Because of the rule in civil law
that actual damages have to be proven.
There can be a motion for partial summary judgment. Pwede
rin gani motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Bakit?
In case separable siya. Ako paborito ko itong ginagawa sa mga
kaso ng mga (banks) tapos mag file ng pleading na
unconscionable yung interest. Ipa-stop ang foreclosure
proceedings kasi mali yung amount na ginasingil kay
unconscionable yung interest. Ngayon kasi may
administrative order, mas difficult na to get an injunction.
Marami ng requirements, dili na madali dali mag injunction.
Anyway, kung basahin mo ang complaint parang may issue
lahat. Pero if you look at it closely, it’s more likely on
judgment on the pleadings. Sabihin ko, okay, gina dispute nila
yung interest, but the principal is not disputed. In breach of
promissory note, it is not disputed that the principal is due
and demandable. So what I normally do is file a motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings, kasi judgment should
already be rendered to cover mainly the principal. Anyway
yung gina dispute lang man ay yung interest. So that’s an
example of the application of Rule 33 and 34, dun sa motion
for partial judgment on the pleadings which is very similar to
a motion for partial summary judgment.
Form of affidavits, basahin nyo na lang yan. Pati yang Section
6, basahin nyo na lang yan. You should remember to comply
with rules on evidence. Everything that is stated in the
affidavit must be admissible in evidence. Affidavits in bad
faith, pwede kang mapunish, pwede kang madismiss.
Ang very interesting case that you should read on the
distinction of judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgment is the case of Galan(?) vs …(?)
RULE 36
JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A
judgment or final order determining the merits of the case
shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the
judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of
the court.
Sec. 2. Entry of judgments and final orders. If no appeal or
motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the
time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final order
shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries
of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final
order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record
shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final
order and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that
such judgment or final order has become final and executory.
Sec. 3. Judgment for or against one or more of several
parties. Judgment may be given for or against one or more of
several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several
defendants. When justice so demands, the court may require
the parties on each side to file adversary pleadings as
between themselves and determine their ultimate rights and
obligations.
Sec. 4. Several judgments. In an action against several
defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is
proper, render judgment against one or more of them,
leaving the action to proceed against the others.
Sec. 5. Separate judgments. When more than one claim for
relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a
determination of the issues material to a particular claim and
all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence
which is the subject matter of the claim, may render a
separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment
shall terminate the action with respect to the claim so
disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the remaining
claims. In case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by
order may stay its enforcement until the rendition of a
subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe such
conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof
to the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered.
Sec. 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality.
When judgment is rendered against two or more persons
sued as an entity without juridical personality, the judgment
shall set out their individual or proper names, if known.
This is the last stage. The court now has to render its decision
as to who is right or who is wrong.
What are the requisites of a valid judgment in a civil case?
(A) As to substance
(1) The court rendering the judgment must
have jurisdiction over the
(a) subject matter;
(b) person of the defendant,
OR if the defendant is a non-
resident or it’s an action in rem,
then jurisdiction over the res;
(c) issues.
(2) The court rendering the judgment must be
a validly constituted court, meaning to say,
the judge should preferrably be a judge de
jure or at the very least, a judge de facto;
and finally
(3) The judgment must be rendered after a
lawful hearing (observance of due process)
(B) As to court
(1) It must be in writing
63
 (2) It must personally and directly prepared by
the judge; hindi pwedeng ghost writer; at
saka kung ang judge biglang namatay tapos
napirmahan na yung decision, remember
that the judge na nipirma sa decision is a
judge of the court;
(3) It must clearly and distinctly set forth the
facts and the law; that is required by the
Constitution, pero remember ha na yung
personally and directly prepared by the
judge is required by the Rules of Court not
the Constitution. So, pag magretire ang
judge na hindi pa napipirmahan yung
judgment, then yung pumalit, pirmahan
nalang yung nagawa ng previous judge,
anong tawag dun? Plagiarism. Hindi sayo
yun eh. In forums on the change of the
rules, I suggest to allow the parties to
submit a draft decision para mas madali sa
judge. Also I would require the parties to
submit soft copies of their pleadings, yung
Word document talaga, not the way the
Court is doing it now by requiring scanned
images.
What is required in the Constitution is that the decision must
clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is
based. The requirement that it be personally and directly
prepared by the judge is a required merely by the Rules of
Court.
But is there such a thing called a memorandum decision?
What is it? It is a decision of the APPELATE COURT (CA)
affirming that of the lower court, and since it is affirmed, the
court would simply adopt the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the trial court as its own findings and conclusions. In
Rule 51, Section 5 under the 1997 Rules, every decision or
final resolution of the court in appealed cases shall clearly
and distinctly state the findings of fact and the conclusions of
law on which it is based, which may be contained in the
decision or final resolution itself, or adopted from those set
forth in the decision, order, or resolution appealed from.
There is one decision by the Supreme Court allowing the
creditor to adopt the findings of the lower court. That has
been institutionalized already in the Rules of Court. Dati ina-
allow lang yan.
Rendition of judgments and final orders.
What is a sin perjuicio judgment? Marunong kayo mag
pusoy? Yung good, better, best? So, ang judgment meron
syang caption tapos discussion sa gitna then dispositive
portion…(?) A sin perjuicio judgment is a judgment containing
only the dispositive portion and reserves the making of the
findings of fact and conclusions of law in a subsequent
judgment. Hindi yan pwede. Void yan. Walang findings of fact
and conclusions of law. Nangyayari yan? Nakita ko yan
personally. Election case. Ang gibuhat ng judge para mahabol
giuna yung caption and last page. Void yun. Pero sabi ng
judge iapas lang nako ni…
Conditional judgment. A judgment which is subject to a
performance of a condition precedent is not final until the
condition is performed, hindi yan void.
Incomplete judgment. It leaves certain matters to be settled
in a subsequent proceeding. Kunyari may award of damages
pero walang amount. Hindi yan void.
Ito minsan common gina tanong sa bar: What is a judgment
nunc pro tunc? It is a judgment now for then. Maraming hindi
nakakaintindi nyan. Merong nagtanong sa akin. Is it a valid
judgment? If properly applied/used, yes. How is it properly
applied? It is a judgment that it brings into record something
that was actually done but is not part of the record. It should
not have any substantial effect on the judgment. It cannot be
used to modify the judgment, even if to correct an error of
judgment. Bakit? Doctrine of finality of judgment. Even if the
judge has an error of judgment, for so long as it is not an
error in jurisdiciton, the judgment stands, and it becomes the
law of the case. As far as the parties there are concerned,
even if the judgment is wrong, it is the law as between them.
Ok? The law of the case and doctrine of finality of judgment.
Very importnant. So, ang erroneous judgment i-correct mo
through a judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the substance is
not allowed. So, again, it is valid for the purpose of making of
record lang something that was not made of record. But it
cannot be utilized to make any substantial change in the
judgment. In other words, modify the judgment. Di na pwede
yan.
According to the Supreme Court, a judgment nunc pro tunc is
not proper in the following cases:
1. it cannot remedy errors or (information) in an
imperfect or improper judgment;
2. it cannot change the judgment in any material
respect; and
3. it cannot correct judicial errors however flagrant or
glaring it may be.
Judgment upon a compromise. If the parties submit a
compromise agreement, is that it? No. There has to be a
judgment upon the compromise. It is a judgment of the court
approving the compromise agreement and rendering
judgment in accordance with such compromise agreement.
What will be implemented is not the compromise agreement
but the judgment upon the compromise. That is why you
have to be careful. You have to compare what is stated in the
judgment upon a compromise with the actual compromise
agreement. Kasi baka magkaroon ng discrepancy. Sumakit
ang ulo mo when the execution stage comes.
What are its legal effects? It is not appealable. It is
immediately executory. Pano ka mag-aapeal eh kayo gumawa
nyan. Appeal cannot be allowed unless vitiated by error,
deceit, violence or forgery. It also constitutes res judicata.
Paano kung may vitiation of consent? The only way you can
avoid the execution of a judgment upon a compromise when
consent was vitiated is to file an action with the Court of
Appeals under Rule 47, annulment of judgment.
What is a cognovit judgment? It is a judgment upon a
confession of judgment. What is a confession of judgment?
Pag file ng complaint. Hindi nag file ng answer. Nag file ng
mea culpa, mea culpa. I admit everything, kasalanan ko ito
lahat. Ano sya? Honest  Is that valid? Yes, even better than
default judgment, kasi active, hindi passive yung admission.
Ano yung sinasabi nilang bawal? Ang bawal, what is not
allowed, what is illegal because it is contrary to public policy
is a stipulation in a contract allowing one party to confess
judgment for and in behalf of the other party. Biro mo, A will
file a case against B, and then A will also confess judgment
against B as a representative of B because he is authorized to
do so by the contract. Sabi ng Supreme Court, hindi pwede
yan. That is contrary to public policy.
64
So, are cognovits judgment valid? Yes. It is allowed because
the defendant confesses judgment, basically admits liability.
Judgment will be rendered against him. What is not allowed
is a stipulation in a contract authorizing one party to confess
judgment for and in behalf of the other party.
You know, some people just didn’t understand. People were
thinking that a cognovit judgment is void. It is not. Cognovit
judgments and a stipultion in a contract allowing one party to
confess for and in behalf of the other party are two entirely
different concepts. The former is allowed, but the latter is not
valid. It is a stipulation contrary to law, morals, public order
or public policy. You cannot waive your right to defend
yourself in a suit.
Entry of judgment. If no appeal or motion for new trial or
reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these
Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered
by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments.
Why is it called an entry of judgment? Because the judgment
is not supposed to be entered in the book of judgment if it is
not yet final and executory. Entry because inenter mo sya dun
sa book of judgment.
There is an actual book of judgments. Yung dispositive
portion ng judgments, ginasulat yan doon. Kaya yan
ginatawag na entry of judgment kasi supposedly ginapasok
lang yan doon pag naging final and executory na ang
judgment. That’s why when you have an entry of judgment,
there is actually a piece of paper, that is your evidence that
the judgment has already been final and executory. Now in
case i-mail ang decision, hindi man malaman kaagad ng court
kung kailangan natanggap, malaman lang yan ng court kung
mabalik na ang return card, nakalagay dun kung kailan na
receive. Pag the time na na receive lumampas na yung araw
na naging final, posible yan. Na mail. Natanggap. Pagka
tanggap umpisa na yung period to appeal. Natagalan bumalik
yung return card. By the time bumalik yung return card,
lumampas na yung 15 days. So after ng date of finality na.
Hindi pa yan gina enter kaagad kasi baka nag mail din ng
motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. So usually
napapasok sa judgment book yung decision long after the
actual date of finality. Ang tanong which prevails? Ang sabi ng
Supreme Court, the date of entry of judgment retroacts to
the date when the order or judgment actually became final
and executory. So it is the actual date of finality that prevails,
not the date when the judgment was actually entered into
the book of judgments.
What’s so important about the finality of the judgment?
Because of the consequences/effects. Once a judgment is
final, there is already an entry of judgment, the prevailing
party is entitled to execution of judgment as a matter of right
and the issuance of the writ of execution becomes ministerial
on the part of the court. The court rendering the judgment
loses jurisdiction over the case. It can no longer correct the
judgment in substance. That’s the doctrine of finality of
judgments (res judicata). So even if there was an error of
judgment, so long as it does not amount to an error of
jurisdiction, the judgment becomes the law of the case. Note
the distinction between the law of the case and case law.
Can there be judgment for or against one or more of several
parties? Yes, Section 3. It does not mean that if there is more
than one defendant, they should all be liable, because they
may have different defenses. So it is allowed by the Rules.
May mga defendant na manalo, may mga defendant na
matalo. In fact, the Rules says na if necessary the court may
order several defendants to file adversarial pleadings against
each other. So, one judgment for or against one or more
several parties. Pwede yan.
Can there be several judgments in a single case? Yes, Section
4. This is important in relation to the law on appeals because
in cases where several judgments are allowed, multiple
appeals are also allowed. Therefore, when you appeal, a
record on appeal is required. Why? Kasi ongoing pa yung
kaso. Anong gagamitin nung appellate court? Diba? That’s the
purpose of a record on appeal. A record on appeal is required
in special proceedings and in cases where multiple appeals
are allowed. Why? Because there would be no record to
submit to the appellate court for the simple reason that the
case in the lower court is still ongoing, and since the appellate
court needs the record to render a judgment, the lower
courts are required to file a record on appeal.
The perfect example would be the case of Municipality of
Biñan vs Garcia—an action for expropriation. For example,
there is already a determination as to one of the defendants,
judgment can already be issued. If that defendant is not
happy, he can appeal. And then the court can proceed with
the others. Or the course can also wait to finish all and render
one decision. Pwede rin.
Take note: It is not mandatory for the court to render several
judgments. The court “may”.
Meron separate judgments, Section 5. Remember ha, yung
several judgments, several parties, several defendants, so
kada party. If it is proper, the court can issue several
judgments in the case, each one being in relation to a
particular defendant because there are several defendants in
the case.
So, what is this separate judmgment? Ito an action involving
several claims, more than one cause of action. So this is more
applicable to a situation where singular parties on either side,
for one reason or another, join several claims in a single
action. So, if the court deems it fit to be separable, the court
can order separate judgments on each one that is separable.
It is not disallowed. Kunwari si A madaming utang kay B.
Sabihin natin 20 na PN. And you all know that each PN is
equivalent to one cause of action. And there was joinder of
cause of action, lahat sinama in one complaint. Pwede mo
yan isabaysabay para isang judgment lang. Discretion din ng
court, sabi nya pwede namang ihiwalay so ihiwalay natin. Ano
nangyari? Inuna muna yung presentation of evidence, claims
and defenses nung PN 1. Natapos na yun lahat, so pwede na
magissue si judge ng decision kung gugustuhin nya. Anong
tawag dun? Separate judgment. Hindi sya several. Wag nyo
munang guluhin isip nyo ha? Isang defendant, isang plaintiff,
madaming cause of action si plaintiff against the defendant.
Inisa isa pag trial, hindi sya sinabay sabay. Inuna yung PN 1,
claims, defenses, etc. natapos yun lahat, pwede nang
magrule? Pwede! So, ngayon yung PN 2 nanaman, natapos na
din lahat, pwede na ulit magissue si judge ng decision and so
on. Tawag dun, separate judgments.
Pero papano, kung ang ginawa, kasi parepareho ang facts
nung transaction kasi magkakaibigan si B hanggang si F. 5 sila.
Hiwa-hiwalay na PN pero pare-pareho ang itsura.
Magbabarkada sila and sabay silang nagutang kay A. So, each
one is a separate case, diba? Separate cause of action pero
pinagsama-sama mo sa isang complaint. We go by the
requisites for joinder of causes of action. Similarities in issue,
etc. so, pinagsama-sama, puro sila defendants. Ang ginawa ni
judge inuna nya yung PN ni B. Nagpresenta ng ebidensya,
tapos na sya lahat. As to the claim against B, pwede sya
65
magissue ng judgment. Anong tawag dun? Several judgment.
Yun ang kaibahan ng separate sa several.
Again, marami ang defendants tapos hiwa-hiwalay yung
kanilang claims, several judgments ang pinag-uusapan. When
you’re talking about more than one claim or relief in a single
action, pwedeng separate judgment. Ang sinasabi dito is
pwede. Kung dapat ba, aba isipin mo din yan. Kung ako ang
judge, bakit ko pa putol putulin trabaho ko, tapusin ko na
lahat yan uy.
Judgment against entity without juridical personality, Section
6. Let’s correlate this with what we already studied. Can you
sue persons acting under an entity without juridical
personality? Yes. Diba you name the persons who appeared
to be acting under an entity without juridical personality,
pero yung defendant mo originally yung entity, and they are
required in their answer to say kung sino yung mga kasali.
After that, supposedly magkaroon ng amendment. Eh pano
kung umabot ng judgment na hindi na amend, ito yun. 2 or
more persons sued. So it is against them. But the court is
under the obligation to specify the extent of the liability of
each at saka kung sino sila, kung sino yung kasama dun sa
group that became the entity without juridical personality.
The illegal entity is not an artificial person cannot be held
liable. Liability has to pertain to the persons composing it.
And the judge must determine the extent of their individual
liability.
January 28, 2016
RULE 37: NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
SECTION 1
You can ask for new trial or reconsideration during the period
of appeal.
And the grounds for MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL are (1) FAME –
Fraud, Accident, Mistake or Excusable Negligence and (2)
Newly Discovered Evidence.
The fraud that we are talking about here is EXTRINSIC
FRAUD. It involves denial of opportunity to be heard.
Examples of intrinsic fraud is using forged documents, using it
as evidence. Why is it that only extrinsic fraud is allowed in
motion for new trial or reconsideration? Going back to
extrinsic fraud, there is denial of due process. You have been
denied opportunity to be heard. You were denied
opportunity to contest. Whereas when it comes to intrinsic
fraud, and when the opponent uses falsified document, you
have had all the opportunity to meet that. You can cross-
examine the witness. You are give opportunity to meet any
fraudulent document presented in court. So, intrinsic fraud is
not a ground for motion for new trial because in cases of
intrinsic fraud, you had or you have had the opportunity to
contest or to meet the false testimony or fraudulent
evidence.
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE. It is excusable when the negligence
is of such a degree it resulted to a party effectively denied the
assistance of a counsel. But the general rule is negligence of
the lawyer is binding upon the client.
NEW DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. Importante dito is it could not
have been discovered and produced at the trial, even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence. And the second is
materiality because if you have newly discovered evidence
that is merely corroborative, that is not a ground for motion
for new trial.
The next one is MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Unlike in
motion for new trial, in motion for reconsideration, we are
asking for the court to take a look at the case. What are the
grounds? The evidence is not enough to justify the decision.
The decision is contrary to law. The damages awarded by the
court are excessive. Or any combination of these. It is more
difficult to get a court to reconsider the petition than getting
a xxx judgment after a trial in a motion for new trial. Why?
Kase in new trial, merong additional evidence that the court
could not have been taken consideration before. When it
comes to reconsideration, you just ask the court to take a
look at the same evidence unless you have law or
jurisprudence that clearly shows that the decision is wrong.
(Story about appreciation for judges who grants motion for
reconsideration for having admitted that they have
committed a mistake)
(Story about taking over a case involving Domestic Adoption
Act)
SECTION TWO
What if you filed a motion for reconsideration and it was
granted by the court, can you file a motion for new trial after
that? If you file a motion for new trial and it is granted by the
court and you are still not agreeable with the new decision,
can you file a motion for reconsideration? Or another motion
for new trial? The answer is not exact. It is dependent on your
ground because if the ground already exists at the time you
filed your earlier motion for new trial then it cannot. You will
be barred.
(Story about long argument with the judge for placing
everything in a verified motion; A motion for new trial or
reconsideration need not be verified; When you verify a
motion, it converts the same into an affidavit)
You are supposed to state when you received the decision so
that you can show to the court that the motion for
reconsideration was filed within the allowable period.
Now, let us go the effects. The consequence of a motion for
new trial is dependent on the grounds. When your motion for
new trial is premised upon FAME, what will happen?
Whatever portion of the proceeding related to FAME will be
set aside and in effect abrogated. But whatever other portion
of the proceeding that were not affected by FAME will remain
as is.
If your ground is based on newly discovered evidence then
evidence already presented will remain as is.
Again, under the discretion of the court to allow additional
evidence… as the judge sees fit.
Here’s the thing: I believe that a second MR (motion for
reconsideration) is not allowed as a general rule. But there
are exceptions. I believe that if there was a motion for new
trial (MNT) and there is a judgment after that… if the ground
of your MR is premised upon whatever the subject matter of
that new trial is… then I believe that it should be allowed. For
the same reason that the ground was not yet in existence at
the time that the MNT was not yet filed.
66
So ano yung bawal na 2nd MR? Yung sa 2nd MR, yung mag file
ka ng MR for the denial sa MR mo. Yan, klaro yan masyado
hindi yan pwede.
Another question: If A files an MR and is granted by the court.
Can B file an MR? YES! But that’s a second MR… NO! That’s
not a 2nd MR because it is the first MR filed by the party.
The basis na bawal ang 2nd MR is the application of the
Omnibus Motion Rule: 2 motions for reconsideration… you’re
supposed to raise all the available grounds.
RULE 38: Petition for Relief
RULE 38: Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or
other proceedings. — When a judgment or final order is
entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a
party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and
in the same case praying that the judgment, order or
proceeding be set aside. (2a)
Section 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal. —
When a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a
case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an
appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same
case praying that the appeal be given due course. (1a)
Section 3. Time for filing petition; contents and
verification. — A petition provided for in either of the
preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within
sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment,
final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more
than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was
entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts
constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of
action or defense, as the case may be. (3)
Section 4. Order to file an answer. — If the petition is
sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the court in
which it is filed, shall issue an order requiring the adverse
parties to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the
receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner as
the court may direct, together with copies of the petition and
the accompanying affidavits. (4a)
Section 5. Preliminary injunction pending proceedings.
— The court in which the petition is filed may grant such
preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the
preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing by the
petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned
that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the
trial of the case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party
all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by reason
of the issuance of such injunction or the other proceedings
following the petition, but such injunction shall not operate to
discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party may
have acquired upon, the property, of the petitioner. (5a)
Section 6. Proceedings after answer is filed. — After
the filing of the answer or the expiration of the period
therefor, the court shall hear the petition and if after such
hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof are not true, the
petition shall be dismissed; but if it finds said allegations to be
true, it shall set aside the judgment or final order or other
proceeding complained of upon such terms as may be just.
Thereafter the case shall stand as if such judgment, final order
or other proceeding had never been rendered, issued or taken.
The court shall then proceed to hear and determine the case
as if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration had
been granted by it. (6a)
Section 7. Procedure where the denial of an appeal is
set aside. — Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the
lower court shall be required to give due course to the appeal
and to elevate the record of the appealed case as if a timely
and proper appeal had been made. (7a)
The grounds are pretty much the same. What is the situation
here? There’s already a final judgment. Don’t forget that.
Because if the judgment is not yet final, you have no basis for
a petition for relief. A petition for relief is only in relation to a
final judgment.
Ano ang grounds? FAME.
Another thing that people get confused with… kasi nga ang
tawag sa kanya, “petition”…
Even if it is a petition, “he may file a petition in such court
and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or
proceeding be set aside.”
But you say, it is a petition! But the rules are clear that you
file it in the same court, in the same case. It is not docketed
separately!
Now, an important amendment was made in 1997, insofar as
Section 1 is involved. Yung… “In any court”…
Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or
other proceedings. — When a judgment or final order is
entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a
party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence… xxx
Ano pala yan dati? Dati, pwede ka mag file ng petition for
relief sa CFI, sa RTC lang. Hindi pwede mag file in relation to a
judgment of an MTC.
Now, pwede na pati sa MTC. Sabi ng SC, ginawang “any
court” yan para kasama na ang MTC.
Petition for relief before the CA? So kung any court, judgment
ng CA, nag file ng petition for relief. Kung isipin mo, tama siya.
Diba? Anong sabi ng SC? Pinalitan nga yan ng “any court”, but
the CA is not included in the term, “any court”. Yan ang sabi
ng court sa Sps roland dela Cruz v. sps Feliciano Andres, Apr
27, 2007.
What the SC said was that the reason that led to the
amendment of Section 1… that the intention was to include
MTC. Final orders or subsequent proceedings in MTCs. There
was never any intention to include judgments and
proceedings before the CA.
67

Bottomline: CA is not included in the term, “any court”.
You can also file a petition for relief if your appeal was denied
by the court by reason of fraud, accident mistake or
excusable negligence.
Ano yung requisites?
Sec 3: xxx must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after
the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other
proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months
after such judgment or final order was entered, or such
proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with
affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense,
as the case may be.
Ang pinaka magulo sa petition for relief is kung kelan siya i-
file. Kasi meron ka nang 60 days, meron ka pang 6 months.
Hindi to mahirap, math lang ito. Diba, meron tayong set tsaka
subset. Yang 60 days mo, subset yan. In other words, the 60
days must be within the 6 months.
Ano ba yang 6 months? From the date of finality. So ang
outside maximum mo talaga, ang pinaka last day mo na mag
file a petition for relief is yang 60 days from the date of the
finality of the judgment, regardless kung kelan nalaman nung
tao, yung affected party, yung existence ng judgment.
Remember: the date of entry is the date of finality. Diba? So,
it’s 6 months from the date of finality, yan ang maximum.
Ano yung 60 days? “sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns
of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set
aside”
What will happen if the 60 days will go beyond the 6 months?
Simple. Math! Sabi natin outside maximum, 6 months. Yun na
ang max mo. Eh papano kung maiwan dun sa 60 days, 5 days
nalang. 5 days nalang! Hindi ka pwedeng lumampas ng 6
months.
Ano ang effect? The judgment, final order or other
proceeding will be set aside… as if you were able to file a
timely MR or MNT.
We all know that one of the effects under the doctrine of
finality, one of the effects of finality is that the prevailing
party will be entitled to an execution of judgment as a matter
of right. Jurisprudence tells us that the execution of a final
order shall not be a subject of an injunction. This is one
exception to that. Why?
Because when you file your petition for relief, you can also
ask the court to suspend the execution of the judgment that
you are seeking to be set aside, under Sec 5.
Papano naman if the subject matter is wrongly denied?
Ganon din. The appeal will remain denied. But if the court
sees that the allegations of FAME are correct, then the court
will give due course to the appeal as if a timely appeal has
been made.
RULE 39: EXECUTION
This is one of the most important rules. Why? Because the
entire process will be useless if there is no execution. Diba?
You will only have a paper judgment.
It is Rule 39 that converts a paper judgment into justice!
Magkaka justice ka pag na impose na. It is what converts a
judgment into justice.
Section 1 deals with compulsory execution. Bakit
compulsory? Kasi final na yung judgment. It is no longer
within the discretion of the court to deny execution, it is
mandatory. Sabi natin kanina, one of the effects of the finality
of a judgment is that the prevailing party is entitled to the
execution as a matter of right.
So when is the execution compulsory? If it is final and
executory… but you have to break it down:
1. Nag lapse na yung period to appeal without any
appeal being perfected
2. If there is an appeal and the appeal has been finally
resolved.
Now, here is an amendment made in 1997 that is very
important. If you look at Sec 1, if there is an appeal and the
judgment of the appellate court is already final and
executory, what do you need to have the judgment executed
by the lower court/court of origin? Again remember, it is not
the appellate court that will execute the judgment, it is the
court of origin. Ano ang kailangan mo?
You need to have an original or certified copy of the
judgment plus the original or certified copy of the entry of
judgment. Yan lang ang kailangan mo para mag file ka ng
motion for execution sa trial court.
Bakit yan important? The importance becomes very clear
when you take into consideration yung rules, under the 64
rules…
Under the 64 rules, you would have to wait for the records of
the case to be transmitted back to the court of origin before
you can have a final judgment executed. And believe me, that
can take eons. Bakit? Because the high level of efficiency in
our judicial system. Sometimes they just forget!
It takes time. They will send it via registered mail and it will go
directly to the office of the clerk of court. Now, it allows the
execution of judgment of the trial court or court of origin
simply on the basis of the original or certified true copy of the
judgment of the appellate court and original or certified true
copy. Bakit ko ineemphasize ang original or certified?
Because it is written in the codal. It is in section 1, it is
certified. Minsan hindi nila tinatanggap ang original, kasi daw
certified dapat nasa codal.
Actually ang CA for a while, nagkaroon ng similar problem. In
petition for review, Rule 42, one of the requirements there is
that there must be a certified true copy of the judgment that
is the subject matter of the review. Mga kaso ipandismiss ng
CA kasi daw original, strange talaga (frustrated sir)!
Sir, sabi mo hindi pwede mag-execute ng judgment ang
appellate court, bakit nakalagay dyan, you can file a motion
to the appellate court? The appellate court may upon motion
in the same case for the interest of justice so requires direct
the court of origin to issue the writ of execution, so it is not
the appellate court who will execute the judgment. The order
68
will emanate if you file a motion to the appellate court to
issue an order directing the issuance the writ of execution. It
is still the court of origin.
That is compulsory-discretionary. Now, first and foremost,
first question: saan mo ifile ang motion for execution pending
appeal? It depends whether or not the court still has
jurisdiction over the case, whether the records are still there.
1. Still has jurisdiction: At least one party still has
remaining a period to appeal. What if a party will
appeal, files a notice of appeal, pays the docket fees
and transmits notice of appeal. Does the court lose
jurisdiction? Yes. Kung wala pa, then the court still
has jurisdiction. But some people still don’t
understand that.
One party has already filed a notice of appeal, can
the other party still file a motion for
reconsideration? Yes. Why, because his period to
appeal has not yet lapsed. IF the court can still act on
the motion for reconsideration or on a motion for
new trial because, period to appeal of that party has
not yet lapsed, then definitely the court has
jurisdiction over the case.
The thing to look at is whether or not the period to
appeal of all the parties have already lapse and have
perfected an appeal. Because if all of them have
perfected an appeal and meron pang naiwan na
period, wala na. The court loses jurisdiction over the
case.
2. Dapat andyan pa ang records. Kung natransmit na
ang records, I’m sorry, hindi ka na pwedeng magfile
ng motion for execution pending appeal sa Trial
Court.
Pero kung talagang urgent yang motion for execution
mo, habulin mo. Bakit? Kasi matagal pa yang maabot sa
Appellate court, ipapadala pa ang records dun. Hindi pa
yang mag-act agad. Very important piece of advice,
habulin mo.
Now, some people do not realize that the trial court
retains a copy of the record. Everytime, you file a
pleading in court, 2 copies ang kinukuha ng court, at
least. Why? Kasi pag titingnan moa ng buong record ng
court, duplicate yan, Tinatahi yan. Ididivide nila yan, kasi
isplit yan. What is transmitted is only one set. So ano ang
original, yung pinadala. Yun yung considered na original
record, eto preserved copy lang to. It is not the
preserved copy that is used in determining whether or
not a motion for execution pending appeal can be filed, it
is one that is sent.
Let’s go now to what could be a ground.
Section 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order
pending appeal. — On motion of the prevailing
party with notice to the adverse party filed in
the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the
case and is in possession of either the original
record or the record on appeal, as the case may
be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said
court may, in its discretion, order execution of a
judgment or final order even before the
expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the
motion for execution pending appeal may be
filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon
good reasons to be stated in a special order
after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial
judgments. — A several, separate or partial
judgment may be executed under the same
terms and conditions as execution of a
judgment or final order pending appeal. (2a)
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good
reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
SO what are the requisites for a motion for execution
pending appeal?
1. There should be a motion filed by the prevailing
party.
2. Notice of the motion sent to the other party.
3. Good reasons for execution pending appeal
4. The order of the court granting it should take why it
was issued.
Now, what should be the policy regarding motions for
execution pending appeal? It should be granted only for really
meritorious reasons. Because this is execution pending
appeal, there will always be a possibility that a judgment
executed will be reversed. The fact of the matter is, most of
the time, you cannot restitute the party. You cannot go back
in time and place the parties as there were before the
execution.
In the case of Carlos vs Napocor, SC said, if a judgment is
executed and on appeal, it was reversed, although there are
provisions for restitution, oftentimes damages would arise
and should be compensated. Execution should only be
granted when these considerations are clearly outweighed by
the superior circumstances demanding urgency and the
provision of Rule 39 Section 2, requires payment of these
circumstances as security.
Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying
execution, then the judgment becomes illusory. What are
examples? Malapit nang mamatay. The prevailing party nasa
ICU na, kailangan na ang pera na pang gamot, kahit ganyan
ang situation pero ang judge alanganin sa judgment, di yan
igrant ng judge.
Another time that the court will allow it is if the losing party is
a foreign corporation and is about to cease business in the
Philippines. May isang case, just compensation. Under to sa
DARAB, nagkaroon ng maliit na just compensation, inakayat
sa SAC, special agrarian court. So, ang nangyari dito, matanda
na sila, hiningi na nila inenforce ang judgment kasi nga
mababa masyado yung bond equal to ½ of the valuation of
the SAC. So, sa DARAB maliit masyado, inakyat sa SAC, tinaas,
so nag file ang Landbank. The parties filed a motion for
execution pending appea, ang ginawa nila. Una matanda na
sila at may sakit, pangalawa mababa talaga, third, in their
motion they are willing to put up a bond. This was granted.
Landbank of the Philippines vs Spouses Ormilla. June 27,
2008.
69
Very interesting proposition in the case of Dizon Construction
Company January 20, 2000. Ang contention ng other party is
that if you would say that the prevailing party is already old,
that is a good reason, then if the prevailing party is in danger
of closing and bankruptcy and the judgment is very important
for the prevailing party to survive, then that is also a good
ground, the Supreme Court said NO! Do not weigh the death
of a human being as to the bankruptcy of the corporation.
The financial distress of a juridical person is not comparable
to the life of a natural person.
There’s this very very important rule. The assertion is that the
appeal is merely dilatory. The very firm general rule, the trial
court cannot grant it. Why? Because the Trial court would not
say that an appeal is frivolous or dilatory. Judgment nya yun,
dun mo yan sa appellate court I file wag sa trial court. There is
only one case where the court made an exception to the
general rule, the case of City of Iligan 2003, what happened
here is halos wala nang trial kasi undisputed ang facts, ang
ginawa nalang ng court, this is how the laws will be applied.
Other than the application of the law, there is little
interpretation of the court as to factual basis. So yun lang ang
alam ko na pwede mag grant ng motion for execution of
pending appeal based on the ground that the appeal is
frivolous and dilatory.
How do you stop discretionary execution? You file a
supersedeas bond. There are of course judgments that
cannot be stopped by a bond.
1. Injunction
2. Receivership
3. Support
You have to relate Rule 58 with this, so for example there’s
an action with prayer for Injunctive relief, nakakuha ng TRO,
then natalo sa judgment, do not forget that immediately
dissolves the injunction. What this means is kung meron
injunction granted by the trial court, tuloy tuloy yan unless
irecall ng Trial court. Injunctive reliefs are immediately
executory, they are immediately dissolved if once ordered
dissolved let’s say nasa judgment denied, immediately
executory.
February 1, 2016
1ST PART
R-39. Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent
action. — A final and executory judgment or order may be
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its
entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by
the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by
action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter
by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. (6a)
What exactly this mean? If the Judgment is already
final and executory, we have 5 years to have it executed.
Meaning to say, within a 5-year period you have to file a
motion for execution, and the cause the implementation of
the writ AFTER the decision. So filing of the motion and the
issuance of the writ.
What about after the judgment lapse after the 5-
year period, it becomes dormant. What does that mean? That
means that you cannot ask a court to issue a writ of execution
anymore because the period to have the judgment executed
by motion has already lapsed. The solution is to file an action
for Revival of Judgment. Once you file an action for Revival of
Judgment, what would happen then? Remember, you have 5
years to do it by motion, after 5 years you have to file an
action for Revival of Judgment. Let's us say that the Revival of
Judgment was granted, how long will that Revival be
executed? You have another 5 years.
There was confusion before on whether after the
lapse of 5-year period, you can file again an action for Revival
of Judgment. Finally it was clarified by the Supreme Court,
Jurisprudence had been consistent in saying that there is a
limit(?!) you get. So how long is the limit? As long as you
want? Why is that? The thing is, what is the basis of this 5
years? Well, the Rules of court and more importantly, the
Supreme Court, if you look at the provisions on Prescription
in Civil Code, The prescriptive period there is 10 years under
Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
NCC. Article 1144. The following actions must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment. (n)
So, hindi pala matapos yung 10 years? Bakit
pwedeng paulit ulit? Well don't forget that the Judgment
reviving the judgment is itself a judgment. 5 years by motion,
5 years by revival of action. So again, for as long as you keep
filing an action for Revival of Judgment, then its actually____.
But if 10 years will lapse without you doing anything, then it
becomes a stale judgment, it cannot be revived anymore.
What will you do? You file an action, file ka ng bago.
Like I said kanina that even the issuance of the writ
of execution, let's say for example just before the lapse of the
5 years, you file your motion for execution, then umabot
yung 5year period, can the court still issue a writ for
execution? NO. That was the ruling in the case of SPS
BARRERA vs CA, an old case (2001).
LEONCIO and ENRIQUETA, both surnamed BARRERA,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSENDO C. PALABASAN,G. R.
No. 123935. December 14, 2001
SC: We find respondent Palabasan to be the owner of the
property.
The decision of the then Court of First Instance, Pasig,
Branch XIX in Civil Case No. 38608, promulgated on
September 4, 1981[31] and reinstated on August 10,
1990,[32] finding respondent Palabasan to be the lawful owner
of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
167387 may not be invoked in this case since said decision
had become stale.[33]
Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code provides that an action
upon a judgment must be brought within ten years from the
time the right of action accrues.
On the other hand, Section 6, Rule 39, Revised Rules of
Court, states:
A final and executory judgment or order may be
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date
of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is
barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be
enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date
of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred
by the statute of limitations.
70
 The rule is that the court could issue a writ of execution
by motion within five (5) years from finality of the SEC. 39. Preparation of Decree and
decision.[34] A writ of execution issued after the expiration of Certificate of Title. After the judgment
that period is null and void.[35]There is a need for the directing the registration of title to land has
interested party to file an independent action for revival of become final, the court shall, within fifteen
judgment. The judgment may be enforced after the lapse of days from entry of judgment, issue an order
this period and before the same is barred by the statute of directing the Commissioner to issue the
limitations, by instituting an ordinary civil action.[36] The corresponding decree of registration and
reason is that after the lapse of the five-year period, the certificate of title. The clerk of court shall
judgment is reduced to a mere right of action, which send, within fifteen days from entry of
judgment must be enforced, as all other ordinary actions, by judgment, certified copies of the judgment
the institution of a complaint in the regular form. Such action and of the order of the court directing the
must be filed within ten (10) years from the date the Commissioner to issue the corresponding
judgment became final.[37] decree of registration and certificate of
title, and a certificate stating that the
The decision having become stale, any action to enforce
decision has not been amended,
or revive it has prescribed.[38]
reconsidered, nor appealed, and has
This notwithstanding, the greater weight of evidence become final. Thereupon, the
lies in favor of respondent Palabasans claim of ownership Commissioner shall cause to be prepared
over the land. Surely, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167387 the decree of registration as well as the
and Tax Declaration No. 03251 which respondent Palabasan original and duplicate of the corresponding
offered in evidence is more convincing than petitioners original certificate of title. The original
evidence. certificate of title shall be a true copy of the
decree of registration. The decree of
The certificate of title issued is an absolute and registration shall be signed by the
indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of Commissioner, entered and filed in the
the person whose name appears therein. It is binding and Land Registration Commission. The original
conclusive upon the whole world. of the original certificate of title shall also
be signed by the Commissioner and shall be
A few things for you to remember, why there is sent, together with the owners duplicate
a singular exception under, ah two. The 1st exception as certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the
emphasized by the SC in the case of REPUBLIC VS LOURDES city or province where the property is
ABIERA NILLAS, Jan, 23, 2007, the 5year period does not situated for entry in his registration book.
apply in land Registartion cases. Please read that case.
The provision lays down the procedure that
REPUBLIC VS LOURDES ABIERA NILLAS, Jan, 23, 2007, G.R.
interposes between the rendition of the judgment and the
No. 159595
issuance of the certificate of title. No obligation whatsoever is
SC: We affirm Sta. Ana not out of simple reflex, but because
imposed by Section 39 on the prevailing applicant
we recognize that the principle enunciated therein offers a
or oppositor even as a precondition to the issuance of the
convincing refutation of the current arguments of the
title. The obligations provided in the Section are levied on the
Republic.
land court (that is to issue an order directing the Land
Registration Commissioner to issue in turn the corresponding
Rule 39, as invoked by the Republic, applies only to ordinary
decree of registration), its clerk of court (that is to transmit
civil actions, not to other or extraordinary proceedings not
copies of the judgment and the order to the Commissioner),
expressly governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure but by
and the Land Registration Commissioner (that is to cause the
some other specific law or legal modality such as land
preparation of the decree of registration and the transmittal
registration cases. Unlike in ordinary civil actions governed by
thereof to the Register of Deeds). All these obligations are
the Rules of Civil Procedure, the intent of land registration
ministerial on the officers charged with their performance and
proceedings is to establish ownership by a person of a parcel
thus generally beyond discretion of amendment or review.
of land, consistent with the purpose of such extraordinary
proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status, condition or
The failure on the part of the administrative
fact. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating such
authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree of
ownership, no further step is required to effectuate the
registration cannot oust the prevailing party from ownership
decision and a ministerial duty exists alike on the part of the
of the land. Neither the failure of such applicant to follow up
land registration court to order the issuance of, and the LRA
with said authorities can. The ultimate goal of our land
to issue, the decree of registration.
registration system is geared towards the final and definitive
determination of real property ownership in the country, and
The Republic observes that the Property Registration
the imposition of an additional burden on the owner after the
Decree (PD No. 1529) does not contain any provision on
judgment in the land registration case had attained finality
execution of final judgments; hence, the application of Rule
would simply frustrate such goal.
39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in suppletory fashion.
Quite the contrary, it is precisely because PD No. 1529 does
Clearly, the peculiar procedure provided in the
not specifically provide for execution of judgments in the
Property Registration Law from the time decisions in land
sense ordinarily understood and applied in civil cases, the
registration cases become final is complete in itself and does
reason being there is no need for the prevailing party to apply
not need to be filled in. From another perspective, the
for a writ of execution in order to obtain the title, thatRule 39
judgment does not have to be executed by motion or
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is not applicable to land
enforced by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997
registration cases in the first place. Section 39 of PD No.
Rules of Civil Procedure.
1529 reads:
71

Following these premises, it can even be posited that
in theory, there would have been no need for Nillas, or others
under similar circumstances, to file a petition for revival of
judgment, since revival of judgments is a procedure derived
from civil procedure and proceeds from the assumption that
the judgment is susceptible to prescription. The primary
recourse need not be with the courts, but with the LRA, with
whom the duty to issue the decree of registration remains. If
it is sufficiently established before that body that there is an
authentic standing judgment or order from a land registration
court that remains unimplemented, then there should be no
impediment to the issuance of the decree of registration.
However, the Court sees the practical value of necessitating
judicial recourse if a significant number of years has passed
since the promulgation of the land court's unimplemented
decision or order, as in this case. Even though prescription
should not be a cause to bar the issuance of the decree of
registration, a judicial evaluation would allow for a thorough
examination of the veracity of the judgment or order sought
to be effected, or a determination of causes other than
prescription or laches that might preclude the issuance of the
decree of registration.
Another important ruling was reiterated in the case
of CENTRAL SURETY INS CO. VS PLANTERS PRODUCT, March
7, 2007, where the SC said that even the 5year limitation to
execute the motion will not apply if the delay of the motion
was caused by the defendant. Ang ginawa kasi ng defendant
dito, Kung ano anong motion, manifestation, appeals ang
sinasubmit, sabi ng SC unfair naman yan. Kasi diba pag mga
banks, mahirapan yan sila mag execute. Diba do you
remember in your 2nd year, the reason for posting a bond in
certain cases is to make it easy to execute diba. Ngayon
intawon ang mga bonding company, musukol. They will find
loopholes, they will find technicalities in order to avoid. So,
don't forget that the limitations in section 6 will not apply if
you can show that the cause of the delay was the judgment
obligor.
CENTRAL SURETY INS CO. VS PLANTERS PRODUCT, March 7,
2007, G.R. No. 149053
SC: The only relevant issue for our resolution is whether the
execution of a final judgment may be made by mere motion
despite the lapse of five years.
In this case, we answer in the affirmative.
Under Rule 39, Section 6,[15] the rule is that a final
judgment may be executed by mere motion within five years
from the date of entry of judgment. However, the rule is not
absolute and admits one notable exception and that is when
the delay in enforcing the judgment is caused by the party
assailing the filing of the motion.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[16] we declared that,
on meritorious grounds, execution of final judgment by mere
motion may be allowed even after the lapse of five years
when delay in the execution is caused or occasioned by the
actions of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his
benefit.
Similarly, in Camacho v. Court of Appeals,[17] we
ruled that the five-year period allowed for enforcement of
judgment by mere action is deemed effectively interrupted or
suspended when the delay in the execution is occasioned by
the oppositors own initiatives in order to gain an undue
advantage.
Based on the attendant facts, the present case falls
within the exception. Petitioner triggered the series of delays
in the execution of the RTCs final decision by filing numerous
motions and appeals in the appellate courts, even causing the
CAs issuance of the TRO enjoining the enforcement of said
decision. It cannot now debunk the filing of the motion just so
it can delay once more the payment of its obligation to
respondent. It is obvious that petitioner is merely resorting to
dilatory maneuvers to skirt its legal obligation.
Lastly, in Republic and Camacho, we ruled that the
purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for
enforcing a judgment or action is to prevent a party from
sleeping on his rights. Far from sleeping on its rights,
respondent pursued its claim by persistently seeking the
execution of the RTCs final judgment of November 6, 1991. It
would be unjust to frustrate respondents effort to collect
payment from petitioner on sheer technicality. While strict
compliance to the rules of procedure is desired, liberal
interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict
enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice.
Another interesting case was 2007 case, INFANTE VS
ARAN BUILDERS, August 24, 2007. What is interesting about
the case is it dealt with a topic that will catch other people
unaware. The question was, where should an action for
Revival of Judgment be filed? Is it personal or is it real? kasi
yung action is for Revival eh, so what is the venue? The SC
said well, it depends on the determination of judgment of a
right. If the judgment has something to do with ownership,
possession or privity or relation to any right over real
property, then it is considered a real action which means that
it should be filed in the court of the place where the property
is located. Otherwise, it would be considered a personal
action, in which case it could be filed according to Rule 4 (The
place where the plaintiff or defendant resides). So that is not
automatic.
INFANTE VS ARAN BUILDERS, August 24, 2007, G.R.
NO. 156596
SC: Thus, the question that must be answered is: where is the
proper venue of the present action for revival of judgment?
Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that after the lapse of five (5) years from entry of
judgment and before it is barred by the statute of limitations,
a final and executory judgment or order may be enforced by
action. The Rule does not specify in which court the action for
revival of judgment should be filed.
In Aldeguer v. Gemelo,[3] the Court held that: x x x an action
upon a judgment must be brought either in the same court
where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the
plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place
designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of
actions in general. (Emphasis supplied)[4]
but emphasized that other provisions in the rules of
procedure which fix the venue of actions in general must be
considered.[5]
Under the present Rules of Court, Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 4
provide:
Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions
affecting title to or possession of real
property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court
which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a
72
 portion thereof, is situated. x x x x
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All
other actions may be commenced and tried
where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or
any of the principal defendants resides, or
in the case of a non-resident defendant
where he may be found, at the election of
the plaintiff.
Thus, the proper venue depends on the determination of
whether the present action for revival of judgment is a real
action or a personal action. Applying the afore-quoted rules
on venue, if the action for revival of judgment affects title to
or possession of real property, or interest therein, then it is a
real action that must be filed with the court of the place
where the real property is located. If such action does not fall
under the category of real actions, it is then a personal action
that may be filed with the court of the place where the
plaintiff or defendant resides.
In support of her contention that the action for revival of
judgment is a personal action and should be filed in the court
of the place where either the plaintiff or defendant resides,
petitioner cites the statements made by the Court
in Aldeguer v. Gemelo[6] and Donnelly v. Court of First Instance
of Manila[7]. Petitioner, however, seriously misunderstood
the Court's rulings in said cases.
In Aldeguer, what the Court stated was that [t]he action for
the execution of a judgment for damages is a personal one,
and under section 377 [of the Code of Civil Procedure], it
should be brought in any province where the plaintiff or the
defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff[8] (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied). Petitioner apparently took such
statement to mean that any action for revival of judgment
should be considered as a personal one. This thinking is
incorrect. The Court specified that the judgment sought to be
revived in said case was a judgment for damages. The
judgment subject of the action for revival did not involve or
affect any title to or possession of real property or any
interest therein. The complaint filed in the revival case did
not fall under the category of real actions and, thus, the
action necessarily fell under the category of personal actions.
In Donnelly, the portion of the Decision being relied upon by
petitioner stated thus:
Petitioner raises before this Court two (2)
issues, namely: (a) whether an action for
revival of judgment is one quasi in rem and,
therefore, service of summons may be
effected thru publication; and (b) whether
the second action for revival of judgment
(Civil Case No. 76166) has already
prescribed. To our mind, the first is not a
proper and justiciable issue in the present
proceedings x x x. Nevertheless, let it be
said that an action to revive a judgment is a
personal one. (Emphasis supplied)[9]
The Court clearly pointed out that in said case, the issue on
whether an action for revival of judgment is quasi in rem was
not yet proper and justiciable. Therefore, the foregoing
statement cannot be used as a precedent, as it was merely
an obiter dictum. Moreover, as in Aldeguer, the judgment
sought to be revived in Donnelly involved judgment for a
certain sum of money. Again, no title or interest in real
property was involved. It is then understandable that the
action for revival in said case was categorized as a personal
one.
Clearly, the Court's classification in Aldeguer and Donnelly of
the actions for revival of judgment as being personal in
character does not apply to the present case.
The allegations in the complaint for revival of judgment
determine whether it is a real action or a personal action.
The complaint for revival of judgment alleges that a final
and executory judgment has ordered herein petitioner to
execute a deed of sale over a parcel of land in
Ayala AlabangSubdivision in favor of herein private
respondent; pay all pertinent taxes in connection with said
sale; register the deed of sale with the Registry of Deeds and
deliver to Ayala Corporation the certificate of title issued in
the name of private respondent. The same judgment ordered
private respondent to pay petitioner the sum
of P321,918.25 upon petitioner's compliance with the
aforementioned order. It is further alleged that petitioner
refused to comply with her judgment obligations despite
private respondent's repeated requests and demands, and
that the latter was compelled to file the action for revival of
judgment. Private respondent then prayed that the judgment
be revived and a writ of execution be issued to enforce said
judgment.
The previous judgment has conclusively declared private
respondent's right to have the title over the disputed
property conveyed to it. It is, therefore, undeniable that
private respondent has an established interest over the lot in
question; and to protect such right or interest, private
respondent brought suit to revive the previous judgment. The
sole reason for the present action to revive is the
enforcement of private respondent's adjudged rights over a
piece of realty. Verily, the action falls under the category of a
real action,for it affects private respondent's interest over
real property.
The present case for revival of judgment being a real action,
the complaint should indeed be filed with the Regional Trial
Court of the place where the realty is located.
What will happen in the execution stage if the party dies?
R-39. Section 7. Execution in case of death of party. — In case
of the death of a party, execution may issue or be enforced in
the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee, upon
the application of his executor or administrator, or
successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
against his executor or administrator or successor in
interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or
personal property, or the enforcement of a lien
thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after
execution is actually levied upon any of his property, the same
may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation,
and the officer making the sale shall account to the
corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his
hands. (7a)
There is no problem if it is the Judgement Obligee
because the Rule says there is substitution by his executor or
administrator, or successor in interest. It is when the
Judgment obligor dies that we'll have problem. So basically
ano ba yan? What we're talking here is when there is already
a final and executory judgment kasi if you remember
73
  Under Rule 3 on parties, if there is no final and
executory judgment, there will also be a
substitution.
 Now what will happen to the execution of the case
Kung namatay? Well, if it is an action that survives,
tuloy. Wala tayong problema dyan.
 But if the action does not survive, what do you do? If
the entire execution process has not yet started,
then what will happen is that final and executory
judgment, we will treat it as proven claim in the
estate proceedings that is filed.
There was a student of mine who asked once, Sir what if
there is none and the judgment obligee does not want to
wait. Can the Judgment obligee start one? Yes, because even
creditor can start the estate proceeding. So pwede siya ang
mag umpisa.
 Now, what will happen if property has already been
levied, there is already final judgment. Ay, before the
death of the judgment obligor died, the properties
had already been levied. So in that case, nastart na
ang levy, ituloy na yung sale. So what will happen
during the sale, eh yun na, any proceeds of the sale
execution, you utilized it for the judgment. If there is
still excess, the sheriff will be under obligation to
account for whatever excess the executor or
administrator received.
What I want to emphasize here is what the sheriff or the
executing officer required to do.
Section 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution.
— The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted the
motion; (2) state the name of the court, the case number and
title, the dispositive part of the subject judgment or order;
and (3) require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it
is directed to enforce the writ according to its terms, in the
manner hereinafter provided:
(a) If the execution be against the property of the
judgment obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with
interest, out of the real or personal property of such
judgment obligor;
(b) If it be against real or personal property in the
hands of personal representatives, heirs, devisees,
legatees, tenants, or trustees of the judgment
obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with interest, out of
such property;
(c) If it be for the sale of real or personal property to
sell such property describing it, and apply the
proceeds in conformity with the judgment, the
material parts of which shall be recited in the writ of
execution;
(d) If it be for the delivery of the possession of real
or personal property, to deliver the possession of
the same, describing it, to the party entitled thereto,
and to satisfy any costs, damages, rents, or profits
covered by the judgment out of the personal
property of the person against whom it was
rendered, and if sufficient personal property cannot
be found, then out of the real property; and
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall specifically
state the amount of the interest, costs, damages,
rents, or profits due as of the date of the issuance of
the writ, aside from the principal obligation under
the judgment. For this purpose, the motion for
execution shall specify the amounts of the foregoing
reliefs sought by the movant.(8a)
Here is a lot of people do not know. Who is
supposed to compute itong mga legal interest na to? Palagi
na yang nangyayari ang sheriff ang nagacompute. Do not do
that because the sheriff has absolutely no authority to
compute. What is supposed to be done? If you look at par (e),
you file a motion for execution. Well, the necessary
requirements for motion for execution is that it must specify
the amounts of the amounts sought by the movant. In other
words, it would be the lawyer seeking the issuance of a writ
of execution that should provide the computation. Kaya lang,
gaya ng sinasabi natin, mga abogado bobo sa math so ang
nangyayari karamihan sa dispositive portion ______ yang
amount of. pagdating din sa clerk of court, ayaw din niya
magcompute, issue lang yan siya ng writ of execution, e-
quote lang niya yung dispositive portion. Sino nagcompute?
ang sheriff. hindi yan dapat. hayan na oh sa Rules "the writ of
execution shall specifically state the amount of the interest,
costs, damages, rents, or profits due as of the date of the
issuance of the writ, aside from the principal obligation under
the judgment". Kung ako ang counsel for defendant, makakita
ako ng execution na ganyan, i-contest ko to.
Heto na, how do you enforce a judgment?
Section 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced.
—
(a) Immediate payment on demand. — The officer shall
enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding
from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full
amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees.
The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check
payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of
payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the
judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment
obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time
of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper
receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said
amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court
that issued the writ.
If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is
not present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall
deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The
latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his
possession within the same day to the clerk of court of the
court that issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable,
deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest
government depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of
the locality.
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the
remittance of the deposit to the account of the court that
issued the writ whose clerk of court shall then deliver said
payment to the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the
judgment. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the
judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be retained by
the clerk of court for disposition as provided by law. In no
case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by
check be made payable to him.
(b) Satisfaction by levy. — If the judgment obligor cannot pay
all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or
other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee,
the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment
obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be
disposed, of for value and not otherwise exempt from
execution giving the latter the option to immediately choose
which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient
74
to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not
exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal
properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the
personal properties are insufficient to answer for the
judgment.
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal
or real property of the judgment obligor which has been
levied upon.
When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is
sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell
only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient
to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other
personal property, or any interest in either real or personal
property, may be levied upon in like manner and with like
effect as under a writ of attachment.
(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. — The officer may levy
on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits,
including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties,
commissions and other personal property not capable of
manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties.
Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing
such debts or having in his possession or control such credits
to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The garnishment
shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and
all lawful fees.
The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within
five (5) days from service of the notice of garnishment stating
whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or
credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the
report shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee
holds for the judgment obligor. The garnished amount in
cash, or certified bank check issued in the name of the
judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the judgment
obligee within ten (10) working days from service of notice on
said garnishee requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees
which shall be paid directly to the court.
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding
deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the
judgment obligor, if available, shall have the right to indicate
the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to deliver
the amount due, otherwise, the choice shall be made by the
judgment obligee.
The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure under
paragraph (a) with respect to delivery of payment to the
judgment obligee. (8a, 15a)
JUDGMENT FOR MONEY:
-Mayroon ka ng writ of execution, yung sheriff together with
the writ of execution, mayroon siyang gagawin na demand.
-Pag nagbayad ka na, ibigay niya yan dun sa Judgement
obligor, of course the Judgement obligor can pay but the
sheriff encash a check unless it is a managers check.
-To whom the payment should be given? Judgment Obligee
or his authorized representative, pero kung wala sila, pwede
na magtanggap ang sheriff pero dapat may acknowledgment
receipt.
-Now don't forget that the sheriff is required to turn over or
to give the same thing to the clerk of court who issued the
writ.( Di ko marinig, maingay daw ang 3rdyear sa labas)
Dapat makipag arrange siya dun sa clerk of court ng
nearest RTC, tapos dun niya edeposit. Ang clerk of court
ngayon ang dapat mag arrange ng mga ______ dun sa clerk of
court na nag issue ng writ of execution. Bottomline is: Hindi
dapat hawak hawak ni sheriff ang pera. Bakit? Eh baka
mawala.
SATISFACTION BY LEVY
Papaano kung meron ng demand of payment, meron
ng writ of execution, di magbayad? Then the next step is by
levy. You attach levy on execution. anong gagawin? Basically,
the remedy is to take property of the Judgment obligor and
sell it on public auction.
Ano ba uunahin mo? personal or real?First and
foremost, don't forget that if the Judgment obligor is dead, he
has ____, kasi you have to choose. hindi siya pwedeng right
to choose does not right to impose certain values. No. It is the
sheriff who has that discretion and the sheriff has to be
careful. kasi kung kulang naman yung kunin ng sheriff pwede
siyang file-an ng kaso ng judgment obligee. kung sobra naman
masyado, pwede naman siya file-an ng judgment obligor ng
over execution.
Normally pag wala dyan ang judgment obligor,
unahin yang personal property bago real. Pero pag andyan,
pwede siya magpili. Pwede niya sabihin na heto muna e-levy
mo. Pero to the satisfaction of the sheriff. Hindi pwede na
sabihin nya, yang dalawa lang, kulang man yan sabi ng sheriff.
During the sale, ano ang mangyayari. Kung andyan
ang judgment obligor, pwede rin siya magpili Kung alin ipauna
niya pero Kung wala siya, of course yung sheriff na ang
magpili.
Another possibility is GARNISHMENT.
Ano yung garnishment? It simply means that you can
execute against debtors who owed the Judgment obligor.
Pwede mong kolektahin sa kanila yung dapat bayaran nila sa
Judgment Obligor. And they must produce payment as far as
they are concern up to the amount that they pay.
So what is the most common example? Kung may deposits
and Obligor sa bangko. Well, this is a problem because some
think how could a bank be a debtor? Well, the banks are the
biggest debtors as they are. Kaya nga yan tinawag na credit.
kasi pag nagdeposit ka dyan, you are lending to the bank. You
are earning interest.
So anong magyayari dyan sa garnishment? You go to
the bank. The sheriff gives notice. Pagdating sa bangko, ano
ang gagawin ng bangko? Hindi niya pwedeng sabihin ang
laman ng account. Bakit? Kasi violation yan ng Bank Secrecy
Act.
Second half
Pagdating sa bangko, yung banks issue statements kung
magkano ang allowed na money. Bakit? Violation yan ng
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law. So yung bangko or any
garnishee for that matter has 5 days to tell the court whether
or not there is enough money to satisfy the amount stated in
the Notice of Garnishment. Kung not enough, sabihin nya
hanggang magkano, "upto this much enough".
Sec. 9(c), Rule 39. The garnishee shall make a written report
to the court within five (5) days from service of the notice of
garnishment stating whether or not the judgment obligor has
sufficient funds or credits to satisfy the amount of the
75
judgment. If not, the report shall state how much funds or
credits the garnishee holds for the judgment obligor. The
garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check issued in
the name of the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly
to the judgment obligee within ten (10) working days from
service of notice on said garnishee requiring such delivery,
except the lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the
court.
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding
deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the
judgment obligor, if available, shall have the right to indicate
the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to deliver
the amount due, otherwise, the choice shall be made by the
judgment obligee.
Mga obligor muna, kung wala ang obligor, then mga obligee.
Bakit hindi isa isahin? File ka dito muna, kung wala dyan dito
ka naman. Kasi kung matiktikan ka nang judgment obligor
nyan, example pumunta ka sa bank A, walang pera. Ang pera
sa Bank B ilipat nya sa Bank A eh kasi tapos na nagreport eh,
wala laman. Remember, ang deposit would have be after
nareceive yung Notice of Garnishment. So maganda sabay-
sabay.
Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. —
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific
acts; vesting title. — If a judgment directs a party to execute a
conveyance of land or personal property, or to deliver deeds
or other documents, or to perform, any other specific act in
connection therewith, and the party fails to comply within
the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at
the cost of the disobedient party by some other person
appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have
like effect as if done by the party. If real or personal property
is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing
a conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any
party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and
effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. (10a)
Yung judgment obligor will be ordered to execute the Deed of
Reconveyance or any Deed of Sale. It will authorize him to do
that. Kung hindi nya magawa, ipapagawa sa iba at his cost.
Pero kunwari, execution of a Deed, ayaw nya talaga, yung
Clerk of Court ang gagawa. The court can offer the Clerk of
Court to execute the Deed of Sale in favor of the prevailing
party and it will be as if made by judgment obligor. Bakit? kasi
kung magtago tago yan, hindi maeexecute. Pwede nga
iorderan ng court ang Register of Deeds na icancel ang title
and issue a new title in the name of judgment obligee.
Case: Spouses Abaga vs Spouses Panes August 24, 2007
(b) Sale of real or personal property. — If the judgment be for
the sale of real or personal property, to sell such property,
describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the
judgment. (8[c]a)
If it requires that the judgment requires the sale of judgment
real or personal property, the Sheriff will be directed to sell.
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. — The officer shall
demand of the person against whom the judgment for the
delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all
persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the
property within three (3) working days, and restore
possession thereof to the judgment obligee, otherwise, the
officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the
assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and
employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to
retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in
possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or
profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the
same manner as a judgment for money. (13a)
What does that mean? yung iba ginagamit to para
ipalagay yung judgment obligee.You have to be very careful
about the technicalities here. Kunwari may writ of execution,
yan ay iseserve lang kasi nakalagay dun sa writ of execution
commands the Sheriff to put the winning party in possession
of the property. So pwede nilang isabay sa writ of execution
ang Notice to Vacate indicating therein example, 3 working
days to vacate, otherwise, the officer shall oust all such
persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of
appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as
may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place
the judgment obligee in possession of such property. Ang
problema, okay lang yan if walang structures and
improvements, pwede mo talaga syang i-oust physically after
the period given to vacate the lot. But then, if may bahay,
pwede mo bang sirain yan? Hindi, kasi hindi man pwedeng
magdemolish on the basis of the Notice to Vacate for the
restitution. Kailangan pa nang special order of demolition.
How? The Sheriff, after giving notice to vacate together with
the writ of execution, gagawa sya ng return sa Court
informing the latter na naserve na nya, adding therein sa
return, na may mga structures sa area at hindi mapa-oust so
kailangan nila ng special order of demolition. Ang judgment
obligee ngayon will have to file a motion for the issuance of
special order of demolition using that return. So motion,
notice to the other party, hearing. The court will then again
order that the judgment obligee will dismantle whatever
structures or improvements there and vacate. After that,
pwede nang mag order ang court ng special order of
demolition.
Case: A.M. No. MTJ-07-1680 August 17, 2007
KATIPUNAN NG TINIG SA ADHIKAIN, INC. (KATIHAN) vs JUDGE
LUIS ZENON O. MACEREN
It emphasizes the fact that you cannot just go with
demolition. You have to follow the exact procedure.
(e) Delivery of personal property. — In judgment for the
delivery of personal property, the officer shall take
possession of the same and forthwith deliver it to the party
entitled thereto and satisfy any judgment for money as
therein provided.
Example, in replevin, you are the lawyer for bank. So
A buys a brand new car, go to the bank for financing. What
will the bank do? check the credit, arrangement with the car
company, process the loan, the balance is financed and
usually secured with a chattel mortgage. In your credit
transactions, ano ba dapat ang nasa chattel mortgage to
enable the mortgagee to cause extra-judicial foreclosure?
wala. Pinakaimportante is SPA which will authorize the
mortgagee to sell the chattel in the public auction. Assuming
that the chattel mortgage is suppliant (?), the bank can
initiate extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings if there is
failure to pay. Kailangan to foreclose property sold on
installment, under Recto Law, at least 2 installments. Si bank,
magpapadala sya ng letter dun sa mortgagor na pkisurrender
na yung sasakyan para mabenta namin sa public auction. Kasi
nga naman, you cannot sell at public auction if you are not in
possession of the property. So you file a replevin. The banks
will file an action for replevin. It is an action to recovere
personal property (as a cause of action). There is also a
76
replevin as a provisional remedy. Nagfile ka na ng kaso for
replevin, makukuha mo na yung sasakyan. Dapat makuha mo
yung property para ikaw mag-alaga para pag natapos na yung
kaso meron ka ng judgment in your favor. You are authorized
to take possession of that property so it will be sold in public
auction, buo pa sya. Ano yung remedy? Writ of Seizure, para
ma-authorize yung Sheriff kunin yung personal property para
pending litigation, andun, technically sa Sheriff, or sa plaintiff.
Ano na ang gagawin? Diba nagfile ng verified
complaint, bond (double the value of the property), para mag
issue ang court ng Writ of Seizure. Pwede na ngayon kunin ni
Sheriff yung chattel. Then, ibenta na. Kailangan ng judgment.
Section 11. Execution of special judgments. — When a
judgment requires the performance of any act other than
those mentioned in the two preceding sections, a certified
copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of
execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party
against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other
person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and
such party or person may be punished for contempt if he
disobeys such judgment. (9a)
Yung mga kailangan gawin na sya lang dapat pwede gumawa.
So yung tao na dapat gumawa, yung natalo, bibigay sa kanya
yung copy of judgments, etc.. kung hindi nya magawa you can
be punished for CONTEMPT.
Section 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third person. —
The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor of the
judgment obligee over the right, title and interest of the
judgment obligor in such property at the time of the levy,
subject to liens and encumbrances then existing.
What is the effect of levy on execution as to third
persons? Third party with liens existing over the property
should not be affected. Take note that it only refers to those
liens which have been registered. Kunwari, meron utang, a
mortgage over the property, and nkatatak sa property sa
likod ng title specifically sa memorandum of encumbrances.
Ano ibig sabihin nyan pag nakatatak na yan doon? Once a lien
that is registered with the registry of deeds, it is notice to the
entire world. What if napasok sa RoD pero hindi nakatatak at
the back? It is not actual annotation, it is the entry in the
book of primary entries that is material. In fact, it is the series
of the entry in the book of primary entries that will determine
who has a superior lien. Kahit na nauna na itype yung isang
lien, pero mas mababa ang kanyang entry number. Kunwari,
isang levy isang mortgage. Nauna natype sa likod yung
mortgage bago yung levy, automatic ba na superior yung
mortgage? Hindi. Titingnan mo yung entry number kasi yung
entry number determines which was entered in the book of
primary entries first. So whichever is earlier sa book
regardless of the annotation, yun ang superior lien.
Kaya walang effect sa mga tao na may previous prior
registered liens ang whatever subsequent levy on the
property because the presumption is that the person causing
the levy, regardless of whether or not he has actual
knowledge, he is deemed to know that these liens exist for
the simple reason that all of these liens that are registered
are subject to the presumption of notice to the entire world.
So before accepting any sale, mortgage, anything
that has to do with the registered property, first thing to do
as a lawyer or should know is to get a certified copy from the
registry of deeds copy of that title for the peace of mind of
your client.
Section 13. Property exempt from execution. — Except
as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following
property, and no other, shall be exempt from execution:
Basically, this provision, the execution should not
extend to leaving the family destitute.
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or
the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used
in connection therewith;
Meron case, apartment, nagfile ng unlawful
detainer. Di daw sila pwede paalisin kasi daw Family Home.
Remember ang requirement, owner of the land on which it
was constituted.
(b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in
his trade, employment, or livelihood;
Example Security agency, pag hindi nakabayad,
ginalevy yung mga baril. Sabi nila: No! That cannot be levied
because those are tools of the trade. No! hindi yan covered.
This provision, the tools and implements, refers to the
artisans - carpenters, plumber.
c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other
beasts of burden, such as the judgment obligor may select
necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation;
(d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal
use, excluding jewelry;
(e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for
housekeeping, and used for that purpose by the judgment
obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may
select, of a value not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos;
(f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four
months;
(g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges,
lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers,
surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not
exceeding three hundred thousand pesos in value;
Pwedeng ma.stop ang SCRA. Ang hindi pwede
mastop ang Philippine Reports because yan ang official
publication.
(h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total
value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman
and by the lawful use of which he earns his livelihood;
(i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the
judgment obligor for his personal services within the four
months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of
his family;
(j) Lettered gravestones;
Anong gagawin nyo dito eh may pangalan na to?
Yung wala pang sulat pwede pang iexecute, pero ito, ano?
(k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any
manner growing out of any life insurance;
77
(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government;
(m) Properties specially exempted by law.
Kailan sya pwedeng ienforce? During the 5-year
period.
February 4, 2016
Rule 39 Sec. 15
Section 15. Notice of sale of property on execution. — Before
the sale of property on execution, notice thereof must be
given as follows:
(a) In case of perishable property, by posting
written notice of the time and place of the sale in
three (3) public places, preferably in conspicuous
areas of the municipal or city hall, post office and
public market in the municipality or city where the
sale is to take place, for such time as may be
reasonable, considering the character and condition
of the property;
(b) In case of other personal property, by posting a
similar notice in the three (3) public places above-
mentioned for not less than five (5) days;
(c) In case of real property, by posting for twenty
(20) days in the three (3) public places
abovementioned a similar notice particularly
describing the property and stating where the
property is to be sold, and if the assessed value of
the property exceeds fifty thousand (P50,000.00)
pesos, by publishing a copy of the notice once a
week for two (2) consecutive weeks in one
newspaper selected by raffle, whether in English,
Filipino, or any major regional language published,
edited and circulated or, in the absence thereof,
having general circulation in the province or city;
(d) In all cases, written notice of the sale shall be
given to the judgment obligor, at least three (3)
days before the sale, except as provided in
paragraph (a) hereof where notice shall be given
the same manner as personal service of pleadings
and other papers as provided by section 6 of Rule
13.
The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time of the
sale which should not be earlier than nine o'clock in the
morning and not later than two o'clock in the afternoon. The
place of the sale may be agreed upon by the parties. In the
absence of such agreement, the sale of the property or
personal property not capable of manual delivery shall be
held in the office of the clerk of court of the Regional Trial
Court or the Municipal Trial Court which issued the writ of or
which was designated by the appellate court. In the case of
personal property capable of manual delivery, the sale shall
be held in the place where the property is located. (18a)
This talks about how long the rules require a notice of sale
before a sale is done. If it is perishable, the only requirement
is that written notice of the time and place of the sale in
three (3) public places, preferably in conspicuous areas of the
municipal or city hall, post office and public market in the
municipality or city where the sale is to take place. Now, you
will see that there is also no time requirement. It must be
reasonable considering the character of the goods. Because
like talking about fresh fish. Halos walang notice yan. Posting
in the morning, sale agad lunch time. I remember, we have
some experience like this when we won in one case a long
long time ago. I was already a lawyer that time. What was to
be executed was 2 container vans—frozen, refrigerated
goods. Kataw-anan yun ba kay kami na lang ato.
Yung hindi perishable, posting a similar notice in the three (3)
public places above-mentioned for not less than five (5) days
pero if real property, it depends on the ASSESSED VALUE.of
course, kailangan ng 20 days in 3 public places na posting. If
the assessed value of the property exceeds fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos, there is a requirement that you publish
the copy of the notice in a newspaper for two (2) consecutive
weeks. Dati you could choose, kasi ang nakalagay dyan
“chosen by raffle” hindi yan masyadong inienforce. Ngayon,
stirctly enforced yan. Talagang sa office of the clerk of court
ng RTC magrequest. I-raffle talaga yan. Kasi syempre dati ang
mga tao will go to the cheapest ones and there are many
what we call “fly by night” newspapers. Nakakita na ba kayo
ng newspaper na ANG MGA TALAAN? (krooo… krooo…)
kataw-anan yan sila ba kay kunwari page 2B, andoon lahat ng
notices. Minsan malaman mong atik pala ba kung nandoon na
kayo sa court. Pagtingin mo same issue kayo ba ng katabi mo.
Same page pa talaga. Pareho kayong nasa page 2B, ang
problema lang yung kopya nya, wala yung notice mo, yung sa
kopya mo, wala yung notice nya. E di shempre, tumahimik na
lang kayo. Haha. Basahin nyo lang yang iba.
Now, what is so important about these notices? What is the
ratio behind all these notices? Because we want to have as
much participation as possible in an auction sale because the
ideal auction sale is that the more bidders there would be,
the higher the price can get. Kasi kung wala kang notice, baka
magsabot-sabot lang yung mga bidders kung magkano yung
claim. Do not forget that publication requirement is strictly
applied.
Let’s now go to Sec. 16
Section 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third
person. — If the property levied on is claimed by any person
other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such
person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the
possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title,
and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and
copy thereof, stating the grounds of such right or tittle, and
a serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a
copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not
be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment
obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by
the court to indemnity the third-party claimant in a sum not
less than the value of the property levied on. In case of
disagreement as to such value, the same shall be
determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No
claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property
may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor
is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date
of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or
keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such
bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such
78
claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to
the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment
obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate
action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or
plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic
of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the
filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the
sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of
the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and
if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the
court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such
funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
This is all about TERCERIA or what you call third party claim.
What is the story here? The story here is that the property
belongs to someone else was levied upon to enforce the
judgment against another person. The common example of
this yung mga iniiwan na personal properties. Kasi real
properties, wala masyadong problema. Although posible pa
rin na magkaroon ng ganito sa real properties kasi nga yung
titulo nasa pangalan ng may-ari, walang ibang makaclaim.
Now, going back, ang good example nito is yung mga
tindahan. Well most stores buy wholesale and then benta nila
tingi2 pagdating sa kanila but there is also what we call
“consignment basis”. Di ba consignment lang ba. (sir
nagshare na wala pa siyay tulog. So anyway, if I fall asleep,
just wake me up.) San na ako? So yun nga, consignment, here
there is no transfer of ownership di ba? There will just be
sharing in the profit. The price of the property insofar as the
supplier is concerned will be paid in installment. So ano ang
nangyari? Ayun, may utang pala yung may-ari ng tindahan
hindi nya nabayaran after execution, (si beshy nag-knock sa
door… everybody’s attention on him while he was bringing a
large size slurpy. Sir Jik2: Anong flavor nito? Beshy
[pinamaldita]: MANGGA Swer! Lol!) San na ako? Ah ok… (guys
pasensya ani nga time kay murag lutang si sir jik2 ani na
session) consignment basis, common yan sa mga nagaparenta
ng plastic like plastic chairs, monobloc. Ngayon, wala man
syang maipakita na iba ang may-ari, hindi man rin maniwala
ang sheriff na consignment yan, so anong ginawa ng may-ari?
Nagpagawa siya ng affidavit. Third party claim. Sino ang
magfile nito? Yung claimant. Now the sheriff will tell the
judgment obligee “oi, merong third party claim.” The
judgment obligee has a choice. Pwede siya magput up ng
bond conditioned to pay the third party claimant whatever
damage he may suffer when he proves that those properties
are his. In such a case, if there is a bond, the sheriff cannot be
liable for damages on the part of the claimant because may
bond nga. Ito yung The officer shall not be liable for
damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any
third-party claimant if such bond is filed.
Now, paano kung walang bond na nafile? Actually discretion
ng sheriff.
What else should you remember here… yung mga periods of
time. You can only enforce against the bond within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the
bond. That’s the only period for you to make a claim against
the bond.
Now, do not forget that this is not the only remedy. The
claimant actually has several:
1. He can file a separate civil action
2. He can invoke the supervisory power of the court
3. Terceria process
Now with respect to terceria, do not forget that when the
writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, there is no
bond requirement required and in case the sheriff is sued for
damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by
the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual
damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National
Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the
purpose.
Section 17, basahin nyo lang yan.
Section 17. Penalty for selling without notice, or
removing or defacing notice. — An officer selling without
the notice prescribed by section 15 of this Rule shall be liable
to pay punitive damages in the amount of five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured thereby, in addition
to his actual damages, both to be recovered by motion in
the same action; and a person willfully removing or defacing
the notice posted, if done before the sale, or before the
satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfied before the sale,
shall be liable to pay five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos to any
person injured by reason thereof, in addition to his actual
damages, to be recovered by motion in the same action.
Sec. 18 is very important!
Section 18. No sale if judgment and costs paid. — At
any time before the sale of property on execution, the
judgment obligor may prevent the sale by paying the
amount required by the execution and the costs that have
been incurred therein.
Kahit may nalevy na, kapag binayaran yung claim, ba’t ka pa
magbebenta? That will stop the sale.
Section 19. How property sold on execution; who may
direct manner and order of sale. — All sales of property
under execution must be made at public auction, to the
highest bidder, to start at the exact time fixed in the notice.
After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the
execution, no more shall be sold and any excess property or
proceeds of the sale shall be promptly delivered to the
judgment obligor or his authorized representative, unless
otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the court.
When the sale is of real property, consisting of several
known lots, they must be sold separately; or, when a portion
of such real property is claimed by a third person, he may
require it to be sold separately. When the sale is of personal
property capable of manual delivery, it must be sold within
view of those attending the same and in such parcels as are
likely to bring the highest price. The judgment obligor, if
present at the sale, may direct the order in which property,
real or personal shall be sold, when such property consists of
several known lots or parcels which can be sold to
advantage separately. Neither the officer conducting the
execution sale, nor his deputies, can become a purchaser,
nor be interested directly or indirectly in any purchase at
such sale. (21a)
Actually, we talked about this already di ba? You go over the
provisions here kasi it is very important for you to know
about this. I suggest that you make diagram here.
Eto, sec. 20
Section 20. Refusal of purchaser to pay. — If a purchaser
refuses to pay the amount bid by him for property struck off
79
to him at a sale under execution, the officer may again sell
the property to the highest bidder and shall not be
responsible for any loss occasioned thereby; but the court
may order the refusing purchaser to pay into the court the
amount of such loss, with costs, and may punish him for
contempt if he disobeys the order. The amount of such
payment shall be for the benefit of the person entitled to the
proceeds of the execution, unless the execution has been
fully satisfied, in which event such proceeds shall be for the
benefit of the judgment obligor. The officer may thereafter
reject any subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to
pay.
Anong nangyari dito? Yung highest bidder nanalo, tapos ayaw
magbayad. Anong mangyari? the officer may again sell the
property to the highest bidder or the court may order the
refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount of such
loss, with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he
disobeys the order.
Some people have difficulty understanding it dahil dito sa
“struck off”. Alam nyo ba ang ibig sabihin ng “struck off”? it’s
banging of the gavel. When say “sold!” then magbang ng
gavel yan yun. That means that the property has already been
sold.
Kung gusto nyo talaga makakita ng auction, dyan oh sa harap
ng court. Halos everyday. Paano ba yan? The sheriff will shout
“auction sale! Auction sale! Blah blah blah blah!” required
yan ha. Sus kataw-anan jud tan-awon. I don’t know where my
father got the idea na kailangan abogado ang mag-auction.
Yung mga sheriff, walang kaso sanay na yan sila. Pero
abogado magsigaw2 dyan “auction sale! Auction sale!”
tandaan nyo yan ha.
May question na pwedeng itanong eh, is the second to the
highest bidder entitled kung hindi magbayad ang first, siya
na? NO! kasi sabi dito, the officer may again sell the property
to the highest bidder. Tandaan nyo rin dito ha na ang pwede
nyo lang ibayad sa auction sale ay CASH or MANAGER’S
CHECK. The sheriff will take a very serious mistake if he
accepts a personal check.
Tapos…
Section 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. — When
the purchaser is the judgment obligee, and no third-party
claim has been filed, he need not pay the amount of the bid
if it does not exceed the amount of his judgment. If it does,
he shall pay only the excess.
Eto very important rin…
Section 22. Adjournment of sale. — By written consent of
the judgment obligor and obligee, or their duly authorized
representatives, the officer may adjourn the sale to any date
and time agreed upon by them. Without such agreement, he
may adjourn the sale from day to day if it becomes
necessary to do so for lack of time to complete the sale on
the day fixed in the notice or the day to which it was
adjourned.
Remember that this is also applicable in foreclosure sales. (Sir
talking about luma na furniture na binebenta sa auction sale
na magandang bilhin)
Section 23. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property
capable of manual delivery. — When the purchaser of any
personal property, capable of manual delivery, pays the
purchase price, the officer making the sale must deliver the
property to the purchaser and, if desired, execute and
deliver to him a certificate of sale. The sale conveys to the
purchaser all the rights which the judgment obligor had in
such property as of the date of the levy on execution or
preliminary attachment. (25a)
Section 24. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property
not capable of manual delivery. — When the purchaser of
any personal property, not capable of manual delivery, pays
the purchase price, the officer making the sale must execute
and deliver to the purchaser a certificate of sale. Such
certificate conveys to the purchaser all the rights which the
judgment obligor had in such property as of the date of the
levy on execution or preliminary attachment. (26a)
Pwede diay na sir na personal property man na? OF COURSE!
May mga personal property na not capable of manual
delivery example: sira na tractor. Sige i-deliver mo. I-deliver
mo! Try mo! (suko jud ka sir?) so in those cases, ito na ang
mag-apply.
Section 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof
given to purchaser and filed with registry of deeds. — Upon
a sale of real property, the officer must give to the purchaser
a certificate of sale containing:
(a) A particular description of the real property
sold;
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or parcel;
(c) The whole price paid by him;
(d) A statement that the right of redemption expires
one (1) year from the date of the registration of the
certificate of sale.
Such certificate must be registered in the registry of deeds of
the place where the property is situated.
Kailangan nyong tandaan na yung 1 year redemption period
na yan will not start until the certificate of sale is registered.
Tapos, like in special cases, may sariling period of redemption
like 5 year redemption period under CA 414, yung mga
Homestead, tapos may 1 year pa dito, ang total nyan 6 years.
May 5 years ka under CA 414 meron ka pang 1 year under the
Rules of Court.
Section 26. Certificate of sale where property claimed by
third person. — When a property sold by virtue of a writ of
execution has been claimed by a third person, the certificate
of sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant to sections 23, 24
and 25 of this Rule shall make express mention of the
existence of such third-party claim. (28a)
Ok, let’s go to redemption. People get confused here and I do
not know why. Sino ang pwede magredeem?
Section 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. — Real
property sold as provided in the last preceding section, or
any part thereof sold separately, may be redeemed in the
manner hereinafter provided, by the following persons:
(a) The judgment obligor; or his successor in
interest in the whole or any part of the property;
80

(b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an
attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property
sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the
lien under which the property was sold. Such
redeeming creditor is termed a redemptioner.
Is this important? YES. Ito ang magandang case dito ay yung
kaso ni Villegas 2007. Kasi ang redemptioner dito ay hindi ang
judgment obligor kundi yung misis. Pwede ba ang asawa ang
magredeem? SC said, YES! Kasi at the very least successor-in-
interest niya yan eh. In fact, co-owner siya.
Now eto ha sa Sec. 28,
Section 28. Time and manner of, and amounts payable
on, successive redemptions; notice to be given and filed. —
The judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the
property from the purchaser, at any time within one (1) year
from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, by
paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with
the per centumper month interest thereon in addition, up to
the time of redemption, together with the amount of any
assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid
thereon after purchase, and interest on such last named
amount at the same rate; and if the purchaser be also a
creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner,
other than the judgment under which such purchase was
made, the amount of such other lien, with interest.
Property so redeemed may again be redeemed within sixty
(60) days after the last redemption upon payment of the
sum paid on the last redemption, with two per
centum thereon in addition and the amount of any
assessments or taxes which the last redemptioner may have
paid thereon after redemption by him, with interest on such
last named amount, and in addition, the amount of any liens
held by said last redemptioner prior to his own, with
interest. The property may be again, and as often as a
redemptioner is so disposed, redeemed from any previous
redemptioner within sixty (60) days after the last
redemption, on paying the sum paid on the last previous
redemption, with two per centum thereon in addition, and
the amounts of any assessments or taxes which the last
previous redemptioner paid after the redemption thereon,
with interest thereon, and the amount of any liens held by
the last redemptioner prior to his own, with interest.
Written notice of any redemption must be given to the
officer who made the sale and a duplicate filed with the
registry of deeds of the place, and if any assessments or
taxes are paid by the redemptioner or if he has or acquires
any lien other than that upon which the redemption was
made, notice thereof must in like manner be given to the
officer and filed with the registry of deeds; if such notice be
not filed, the property may be redeemed without paying
such assessments, taxes, or liens.
Please be careful here. Again, as I always suggest whenever
the provision is long or confusing, my solution is always to
break it down.
Ay, by the way si redemptioner kailangan ang lien niya ay
subsequent to the lien after the property has been sold. E
papano naman yung mga may lien before the property is
sold? Papano naman sila? Pwede ba silang magredeem? Yung
mga people na lien annotated encumbrances of the title of
the real property before the property under which is sold, can
they exercise the right to redeem the property as
redemptioners? THE ANSWER IS WHY WOULD THEY?!!!
Remember all prior liens will not be affected. If there is
already a mortgage there of that property, whoever buys it in
the auction, buys it under the mortgage. So if the obligations
secured by the buyer is not fulfilled, then the mortgagee can
still foreclose the property. that is the reason why the rules
are very clear that all prior lien will be respected. They will
not be affected.
Ok, going back, iba ang judgment obligor sa redemptioner.
So, Ito muna yung crucial Iba ang nagapply sa notice of
redemption judgement obligor one year lang inabot jan up
to six years yan ok in junior attachment pag may nag redeem
isa diba pag may nagumpisa na junior redemptioner marami
na sila kunwari marami sila tapos yung maunang mag redeem
kung naumpisahan na yan dire diretso na yan ha kailangan
yung pagredeem from one year within 60 days from the last
redemption kasi kung hindi, undang ok wala pati yung
judgment obligor gisaaran ha , no, ibang klaseng application
sa judgement obligor siya at least one year ang kanyang
redemption pero sa ibang reedemptioner kung meron na
nagumpisa kunwari si A dapat nagredeem within sixty days
from his redemption meron na namang iba na magredeem
and so on and so forth otherwise maputol hindi ka
makaexercise ng right of redemption nyan may mga ibang
redemptioner
Magkano babayaran? Ah simple lang. Kung ano yung
binayaran mo nung previous plus interest. Kunwari yung
interest mo is 1% diba? Ganun diba? nasan yung abogado na
si tampolano nagbayad sayo ng ganitong amount tapos diba
so yung sumunod sa kanya reimburse yun sa kanya yung
amount plus interest . full time. And then kung mayron na
man magkuha magkano nanaman bayaran nya? Yung amount
plus interest din. And so on and so forth. Habang may
redemptioner Ganun din K?
Basahin nyo lang yung interest rate sa tax alam ko nadiscuss
nyo na yan. Oh by the way don’t forget that when we are
talking about obligations that was the subject matter of the
case is one based on compoundo? Because of the a provision
of the bangko sentral law , banagko financing institution
thatthe interest rate was one provided by the rules of court
deals with interest rate .. k? .
Next equity of redemption. Yun. Rules on the requirement n
redemption. Annotation yan eh.
Who was entitled to possession of the fruits of the property
when the property is sold to pubilc auction you have to take
note that . ha? Yan ang tanong ng lahat. Lalo na sa
foreclosure sale noh. Kung corporation ang judgment ang
nangutang , ano tawag dyan tapos nagdaan sa foreclosure
tapos pero sa bangko yanna utang pagkatapos corporation
tapos hindi natural peron yung may utang wala ng right of
redemption ang meron eh equity of redemption. Ok? Pano
nga ulit yun bangko sentrall na yan
Eto who is entitled to possession – can it still be the judgment
obligor – who is entitled to the possession of the property
duly encumbered but, to prevent wastage of the propertyor
the structure of the property if you can show that the
judgment obligor is no longer interested and like to destroy,
then it can be placed under receivership . pwede ba magfile
ani?
And what will happen after that , paglampas ng judgment
period nnaa file certificate of sale , upon the filing of the
certifictate of sale it will be submitted by the sheriff issue na
ang sheriff, will be registered the entire building and will
81
cause the absolute registration of the title in the name of the
purchaser .
Ah, paano ba kung ang naka sulat dun eh lalo na kung yung
judgment obligor? Eh di naman yun sya nakabayad nandito
yung titulo sakin? Paano bay an?
Pwede bay an ? pano nay an? Paalisin? Yun nga eh tapos
basta ayoko, paano ba magfile ba ngseparate case? Para
mapaalis sya dun? Actually yung subject matter is to stop,
yung property nya isama na sa execution.
Oh eto, the answer to that is found in section 23 , once there
is consolidation the winning purchaser is entitled to be
placed in possession of the property as against the judgment
obligor so what will be the issued by the court ? A motion will
be filed by the redeemer in the court with the issuance of the
writ of possession. And that writ of possession once issued
can be enforced against the judgment obligor.
Now papano kung may mga taong nakatira dun? Paglapit mo
dun eh ang sabi eh ___ ko. May investigator pagtingin dun
wala ang judgment obligor nandun lang mga anak niya pwede
ba ienforce? Yes! Successors in interest baasta any person
claiming under the writ. And di lang pwede unless somebody
else who asserts a claim even as against the judgment
obligor. Kunwari, meron sya giinstall tapos nagexecute tapos
nag file ka ng motion for writ of possession tapos gigrant ng
court tapos gi issue ang court yunng mga tao dun ayaw
magalis meron pa ako 3 years to go updated man ang bayad
ko magfile to go pwede ko na maenforce ang possession,
writ no.
Paano kung may nakatira dun sabihin nya tenant sya ni
ganito tapos ayaw nya mag alis kasi may nakatanim pa, may
lessor- lessee relationship. may a writ of possession be
enforced against him, no! You cannot assert a claim even if
against the judgment obligor and remember thee rules on
substitution he cannot assert his right against them. My
better right eh. the spring cannot arise above his course. You
cannot be more righteous than the judgment obligor over
the property that has been executed upon.
Paano kung di maennforce, pwede ba na sabihin lang kung
magkano babayaran mo? Contribution Or reimbursement. Si
tampolano marami ang babayaran ehMarami din ang may
utang pwede ba makasingil ako sa iba? Basahin nyo na lang
yan
Very important- If there is any property exempt from
execution, that exemption must raised in the earliest time ,
otherwise it is deemed waived , as long as it is aid of
execution
Section 36 talks about separation of judgment obligor, when
judgment was already done. What has happened here?
A writ of execution was issued there were attempts of
executing it and upon executing it may nakuha may kulang
despite ng public auction kulang pa rin , ano ba ang pwede
mong gawin? Ang gawin, tawagin ang judgment obligor
pasubpoena mo sya sa court para examine sya to where his
other properties are ganyan yan, panakot lang gud patawag
mo yan matakot man yan
Tapos ipatawag yung may utang sa judgment obligor, kasi
pwede sya orderan na babayaran nya ang judgment obligor ,
their payment will be treated as and will have the effect of
___
( nay nagakatawa di nao mkllaro audio) basahin nyo na lang
yan
Enforcement of a detainer the same as a subpoena issued dis
ya sipot contempt man sya basahin nyo na lang yan
39, 40 basahin nyo yan importante yan basahin nyo yan
Appointment of a receiver – there must be a supposed to a
appointment
Section 44 ano yung – what is so difficult about this lalo na
yung mga abogado sige tanong sa kin- kasi daw yung heir sila
, hindi daw na subdivide. Sabi ng abogado Di daw na dibay
dibay (hahahha) hindi daw na divided by (background
laughing) the term is di daw na partition and property. Pwede
ba daw Buo pa. Pwede ba daw maexecute? Pwede ba? Does
he own it Yes! Whether it is real or personal
Basta owner ka it is your real right over the property– . basta
kay share niya. Sale of an interest of a judgment obligor in
real estate. – sale of an ascertainable interest of a judgment
obligor in the real estate
Kasi ganito ang situation, diba ang heirs, ok, alam nyo na diba,
ok lang kung agreeable sila lahat na mag partition, kasi, wlay
problema. Kung wla maghire ng surveyor, sabihan na mag
gawa ng deed of partition, pakita mo technical description
tingnan if pwede na ma divide ang property tapos naa na ang
plan tapos naa deed of partition bayaran ang lahat ng fees
lang then issuehan namo og titulo. Eto yung one case na
tinanong ako na.
Naa daw sya ginaserbisyohan na nagimplement og writ
abogado ba tinanong nya ako kung ano ( kwento si sir)
nagtawag daw sa kanya abogado nagtawag din daw yug client
akala daw ng client na alam na alam ng aboogado nya na
client din daw ni sir. Ngcross check daw ang client sa kay sir.
You can sell your pro indiviso share – that is within the
commerce of man, dba? Or nasobrahan lang tong iyang
sample sa deed of sale, noh di naman ako makasali sa hatian
nila. Hmm.
Kwento si sir
ang kataw-anan nito na ang sinasabi ng Judgment obligee na
ganito man yan gusto magexecute tapos yung judgment
obligor sabihin na di man yan akin. San ka man maghanap?
Ano gawin? Failure of judgment, inadmit ng obligor?
Section 47 talks about the basis of res judicata – ano ba yang
res judicata? Is it part of judgment? What is barred ba? Is it
everything or a particular construction or we go to the rules?
what are the injunctive reliefs or actions barred by prior
judgment that has been raised or could have been raised are
barred
Kung conclusiveness of judgment ka, only those matters that
are actually raised upon.
Balik tau requisites, ah
1. Order of Res judicata has been final, kung hindi sya
final litis pendentia na sya
2. Court hearing such have acquired jurisdiction over
the parties
3. Judgment or order will be upon the res
82
Remember ang systema sa mga ganyan ha? It was a subject
matter ng kaso but there are instances where termination
acts will have the effect of judgment of the case kunwari
rule 76 sec 3 ibig sabihin nyan barred na sya kaya with
prejudice na, why? Dismissed by the court by reason of __
There must be between the cases indentity of the parties and
subject matte rof the case .everything that was raised in the
previous case or could have been raised – barred. Pag may
identity of parties and identity of subject matter and may
deterrence of the cause of action, ano meron dyan,
conclusiveness of judgment- in aid of under litigation with
regard to successor in interest that could have deemed
admitted by th judge by the former judgment that order whic
appears upon that has been so adjudged and was actually
caused to be included therein or if necessary thereto.
Haba magsabi ng supreme court ng could have been raised
and actually raised in the case , ano pa was actually raised by
the parties thereto kasi nga this is conclusiveness of
judgment.
May case ditto na Kung walang jurisdiction- 2008 case
tornillon vs. Bastarde na sa mtctapos ang rtc took
cognizance of an expropriation case sabi ng SC. Weird kasi
yung court is magissue daw ng yung sa pdaf wala eh void
yung judgment wala jurisdiction yung court
There is a case i want you to read
Eto yung kung ano yung tungkol sa conclusiveness of
judgement lang review this case oropeza marketing
corporation vs. Allied bank corporation decided on december
8, 2002.
Then on 2005 the case of spouses cascas et. Al versus Jaime
espelor Decembe30, 2005
What is the effect of foreign judgment? If it is ah... Sabi dto
baakit Kailangan pa ba dalhin ang foreign judgment sa
pilipinas na court para bakit? Judgment or prior order of a
specific king Conclusive upon the title of the king pero judged
by the order of his person generally presumed evidence
conclusive upon the right claimed of the parties . bakit
conclusive? Whether conclusive sya or presumption lang can
be contestedor repelled by evidence want of jurisdiction
want or to presume heirship so what is the importance of
foreign judgment dyan , it can be contested. it is upon the
parties that must prove.
Now lets go to appeals i have to look for law of appeals.. wha
happened here?
All of the rules of appeals codal lang gyud eto ha. Kaya
basahin nyo talaga yung codal.
How should the rules of appeals be construed ?
By th supreme court in The case of MCAFBF vs.MDF Card
production Corporation decided on March 14, 2012 case
decided by its cause blah blah blah
Rules on how to file Appellants brief is insignificant as to
hierarchy as to when it is proper contrary as to establish its
course . pano pala to iaapply kung di ka magfile ng appellants
brief, ma dismiss ang imohang appeal
While General rule is , literal application of the rules and
rules are deemed to be followed as to simply assigned the
fatalities
Remember what are the types of ordinary appeal
Ano yung Requisites:
Gr: Pleadings
Mode of appeal
If ordinary appealWhat is a notice of appeal. Contents of the
notice of appeal
I suggest that you take a look at a notice of appeal, you go to
my office baka tanungin sa forms
Special procedding where multiple of appeals are allowed.
There are cases where it is allowed, expropirtation
30 days period of appeal
Requisites:
Notice of appeal
Pay docket fees
Include record on appeal- you have to produce so that the
justices may read
Don’t forget ha, sa Habeas corpus cases: 48 hours period to
file an appeal, notice of appeal and pay docket fees.
Kwento si sir... experience nya sa pag file sa habeas corpus-
kilala daw nya.. patay!
Period to appeal may be extended? GR: No! Basta gani
notice of appeal, wla extend, period to appeal, petition for
review or certiorari
Motion for recon and new trial: to the court of appellate
court jurisdiction
From the time you receive the denial: the period left would
be the period you can file you r appeal
Fresh period of 15 days
Issues: certificate is very important
Motion to dismiss- MTC- grant dismiss, tama diba,rtc man ito
but should not dismiss it but to proceed to file a case as if
originally filed in the appellate court, a lot of people dont
remember. Rtc an maya jurisdiction
What should MTC do- pano kung nag karoon ng trialsa mtc
tapos pagdating sa rtc ang finding is bakit gitry nyo man ito na
gideny ang motion to dismiss sa mtc nagpatuloy sila nagtrial
sila gidismiss kasi wala daw sila juristdiction tapos inakyat sa
rtc tapos may assertion na wala jurisdiction kasi wala daw
jurisdiction. So what should have been agreed by rtc tama pa
rin na wala sya jurisdiction . ano ang gagawin ng rtc? back to
square? Hindi! Kung ano yung ebisdensya na ipresent yunpa
rin yun as if pressentd to the rtc pwede sya magpatuloy and
allowed din yung admission of amended pleadings under
petition for review as if originally filed in the RTC
A lot of lawyers forget about this rule, tapos gifile sya sa mtc
grant yung motion to dismiss tapos pagdating sa rtc mao lang
ghapon kasi nga pare preho na dismiss tapos ng order ang
judge na ipatuloy sya eh silent type na lang ako ang ginawa
nila na nag refile ng recon. Pero dapat sana eh nag patuuloy
sya, file the said case as iif originally filed pa rin sa rtc
83
Appeals to the rtc or alam nyo kung bakit same sya sa section
1 eh on rule 41because ooriginally those who put up the
appeal usually denial of a motion for recon or new trial, ang
sabi ng rules eh dapat you have a fresh period in a sense that
you are appealing from the decision of the rules of court you
will ha count from the period of receipt of denial of the
motion for reconsideration or new trial , dto yung start ng
period to appeal mo eh because if you cannot appeal the
denial of the motion for reconsideration you have to file on
the period from the date of the receipt of the motion only
interrupted by the dnenial of the motion for reconsideration
after it is stopprf and once stopped kasi after it fresh period
the court will count the fresh period from the date oof the
receipt of the order denying the motion for recon or new trial
then in essence the rules allow the aappeal from the receipt
of denial of the motion for recon or . so that is why the
supreme court has to Amend to the rules ito sya. By removing
the phrase no appeal shall be taken by an orddr denying the
motion for new trial or reconsideration . yun lang yun
So if it is an interlocutory order , from the date that the order
becomes final actually dili pa sya final order. As long as di pa
sya macover . then there was a motion to dismiss that was
denied by the court i reviewed the record and i have found
that there was a motion to dismiss but that was not well
argued and there were cases that were cited so i reviewed it
and a motion for recon oof the denial was being dismissed.
After the original one has been denied di ko pa na take over
sabi ko what was that ordr and then sabi ko the order has
long been final and executory . there was an exaggeration
moot and academic nay an eh. Final nay an
I filed a motion for recon for an order denying motion to
dismiss , that order has long been final and executory, oo
nga! Finalna yan! So discuss na ako dun sa motion to dismiss.
Distinguish a final order from an interlocutory one? Diba
The test is whether or not that there is something that has to
be done for the court to do?
A denial of a motion to dismiss is certainly not final, why?
because there is something for the court to do, the court can
still proceed diba? So the supreme court has said that it is not
a final order so it is a interlocutory order. And as it is
interlocutory it could never be final. There is no such thing as
final and executory interlocutory order.
Comment si sir about lawyer and judges as to review-
interlocutory orders cannot be final
As far as the judgment, yes! Whatever be the subject matter
of the interlocutory order, yes! It can be part of the judgment
and then But not on itself.
Denial of a motion for leave? Motion of interlocutory order
oorder allowing dismiss Dismissal of appeal, order denying
order of execution ( nagenumerate si sir og klase klaseng
court order )judgement or final order order or dismissal
without prejudice, eto meron pa isa, pag na dismiss ang kaso
tapos without prejudice, tapos di man yan nag appeal,
certiorari man yan bakit di pwede magappeal, finalo order
man yan dapat mag appeal – a dismissal order is a final order,
diba? There is nothing more for the court to do diba?
You agreed that you file a petition for certiorari under rule
65, ang order na denying the motion to intervene is it final?
both. Sa original parties are concerned final, bakit, bcause
they can proceed by themselves and sa intervenor is
concerned, it is, why? Because there is nothing more for the
court to do . so what will happen so pwede na sila mag
appeal.
What are the modes of appeal. Ayan. May appeal by
certiorari may ordinary appeal, diba?
For those who are under me in civil procedure you know that
there are steps in the modes of appeal, diba? Tandaan nyo
yun , dba? Di nyo na matandaan yun? The one step two step
rule
If it is One step- it will be a notice of appeal from mtc to rtc,
or rtc to ca notice of appeal rtc exercising original jurisdiction
Two steep- petition for review rtc to ca ( rule 42),
Two or more- petition for review by certiorari sa sc or also
known as appeal by certitorari rule 65
Payment of docket fees on appeal is discretionary to allow
appeals but you should remember that the dismissal or
denial of Appeal is discretionary, not mandatory as to the
failure of payment of docket fees . dismissal is discretionary
upon the court. Discretion of the court to accept or deny the
appeal. Not like on the courts of original jurisdiction that
payment of docket fees is jurisdictional that non payment of
docket fees could not be granted . k
What is the effect of availing the wrong mode of appeal-
discretion nga ng court diba? We will act upon this but usually
patay yan kung nagkamali ka. basahin nyo peneyano vs. Pp
aug 13, 2010. –petiton for review ang gifile nya , habas corpus
dapat eh petition for review sabi nya as a mode of appeal
raw. Sabi ng supreme court hindi
How do you have a Perfection of an appeal- how do you
perfect an appeal in the course of who has jurisdiction over
the case noh when is it deemed perfected nga? kung walang
gusto mag appeal, upon the filing of the notice of appeal
tapos last day to appeal, kung kailangan talaga eh upon
approval assuming that it is done by the party
When does the court lose of jurisdiction, in appeals by notice
of appeal- upon perfection of the appeal timely filed and
the expiration of the time to appeal the judgment
Remember when we are talking about discretionary
jurisdiction, the Appeals by record of appeal – court only
loses jurisdiction over the subject matter if approval of the
record of the appeal duly filed by the party and the expiration
of the right of time to appeal by the other party ganyan lang
yan
In other cases, prior to transmittal of the original records
they had the so called residual powers of the court, the court
will issue orders with regards to the right of the parties .
approved compromise with the appeals of the litigants Order
execution pending the appeal, with the court exercising
jurisdiction as to allow withdrawal of the appeal. So kahit na
may residual powers ang court
Ano pa ba importante sa rule 42? Is the period to appeal the
same as ___when? How? File a motion with the court of
appeals to extension of the period to file state the material
dates ? And then you pay the fees na ha.
Jurisdiction on Service of certified copies , ano ba dapat
yung included dito judgment and order of appeal,on the part
of benchable appeals they are not required to be so
84
Rule 43- appeals from ( matapos na daw ) ha? Laughing..
coughing naa gnasulti si sir di gyud masabtan
Appeals from the cta or other quasi judicial bodies ano yung
dapat memorize dto yung sa Saan ka magpapeal? Ano pwede
mo iappeal under rule 43 ? Ha?
May mga case na mahulog dito sa Philippine atomic energy
commission, meron yang sila quasi judicial power, ano ang
ginagaawa ng mga tao dto? I don’t know ano gngawa nla
ditto I don’t think that the reactor that we would know, what
do they do there, i mean have you ever asked yourselves why
do we have to appear to atomic energy commission,
syempre may mga tao na dyan, ano kaya ginagawa nila?
( William answered di kaau mklaro ) murag nagamurmur na
gyud si sir
Eto maganda, alam nyo man yung department of yung hindi
nako mklaro, when and how do you appeal on the
prosecuting investigator approve by the secretary of defense-
pag nag appeal ka san aabot yan. Saan ka magpunta ? Bell
rings.. di ka agreeable ? kay de lima? Sa murmur na sir Di ba
mali? How? Yan yung masakit dyan Bakit? Years ago 1990 the
office of the president appears from the op yan, sa office of
the president, but the people who act upon would be under
the office of the desla deputy executive secretary for legal
affairs- from the office of the secretary there was supposed
to the office of the president the thing is there was an
issuance by the office of the president i just forgot maybe
department order no. 58 or 48 what was important was the
issuance that the office of the president will no longer take
cognizance of cases appealed from the office of the secretary
and then unless the penalty imposes is life imprisonment
or reclusion perpetua case k?
Sopano na yun? San ka magpunta galing sa office of the
secretary . simple kung ang imposable penalty is life
imprisonment or reclusion perpertua petition for review sa
office of the president diba? Ang problema kung hindi saan?
Sa ca?- applicable ditto ang office of the secretary? Wala.
Because rule 43 applies to the orders and resoulutionss of
the office of the president, it does not apply sa ordrs and
resolutions of the department secretary . So you cannot go to
the CA from the resolution of the secretary.
So ano yun? There are decided cases on such rule apply the
basics lang yan. Ysoucannot go to the office of the president
because the office of the president will only accept decisions
in cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment . pwede. Diba? Youcannot go to the court
of appeals under the rule of proceeding. Because there is no
order from the office of the president diba? Kuha nyo? Pero
ano remedy nyo ca pa rin under rule 65- certiorari yan sya.
Bakit? Bakit ka mag 65 kasi no other way to reasonable and
appropriate remedy available , di man tanggapin ng office of
the president, hindi man rin tanggapin ng ca under rule 43 ,
wala ka ng ibang magawa , so kung wala ka ng ibang magawa
mabalikana mo nay un gidismiss diba yun na ang solusyon,
bakit ba na hindi ka magpunta sa sa sc, nag 65 ka lang man
din tamaan ka nanaman ng hierarchy of courts. So ang
gawin mo na lang ca pero hindi sa 43 kundi 65. Diba? Bell
rings may ginasabi sis sir pero din a pud clear ah
May ginakwento si sir about sa mas maganda pa kausap ang
senior partner kaysa sa mga associate
45! Rule 45! Pasensyahan nyo na ako na. Nasobrahan lang
ko.. (hyper lang)sc. Ano nga ang meron dto, mga Pure
questions of law.very important On 2007, it simply
Emphasize that you can ask for , injunctive reliefs. Why is it so
important. Based on the amendment Not administrative
matter on rule 65. Ewan ko if you know this, natake up
naman cguro ninyo ni Are you familiar with the concept of
judicial courtesy . It was discussed under 65. What is judicial
courtesy ? it is basically a concept that If the matter is still
determined with the lower court, the lower court will not do
anything with the matter. Now the thing is, it became a
favourite topic of lawyers before trial begins to raise
interlocutory orders on matters of certiorari to the ca . and
that without the ca granting the injunctive relief cite the
principle of or doctrine of judicial courtesy saying that the
lower court should stop the proceedings because there is still
a lot of something for the appellate court to tackle, and by
then nagaing effective the trial court will then proceed with
the issue to avail of decisions of the supreme court or trial
court din a mklaro or not following the doctrine of judicial
courtesy . pero meron din mga decision na pina (ano daw)
meron naman daw injunction, bakit hindi na lang And yung
bottom line. Wla bottom line. Basta yun lang ang gustso na
korte suprema . kung ayaw mo yung paagmumukha ng huwes
, ok lang o di kaya eh yan ang sinasabi natin na ang sc is not
final and because it is impartiable and when it is impartiable,
because it is final.
Anyway that was addressed in 2007. Because it is a problem
that is a decision where you really don’t know the facts so in
2007, rule 65 was amended for other or the quasi judicia
agencies . to proceed, with the case even if there is a
provision for certiorari that was filed unless the appellate
court issues injunctive reliefs and not only that it was also
specified that if failure to proceed despite the absence of an
injunctive relief will be a ground for administrative sanctions .
Yung sa mga appellate court na mga petitions sinama na nila
yan na it woud define a petition na it will also ask the
appellate court na part of injunctive relief, basta, is it
necessary, no! Because what will we do is issuance of this
injunctive reliefs , diba, these are ancillary powers of the
appellate court pero kung ano man ang pinaplano ng judge so
yun yung dahilan kung bakit ganun yung concepto . so pure
questions of law ehano nga yun kahit simple na lang na
questions involved no longer have any issue as to what
happen and the only issue are issue that remain as to how
the laws would be applied to the given circumstance that are
purely questions of law. Otherwise, there were already
Mixed question of fact and law and if it is a mixed question of
fact and law it cannot be .the subject matter of a petition
for certitorari under rule 45. The supreme court ruled that
will not remand the sc will dismiss the case
Pero ag sabi ng Ang Supreme court dyan sa mga cases na
may exception na depend sa facts bottomline here what will
the sc pertain to issues on facts diba ewan ko , so what if they
are wrong, they cannot be wrong why because they are the
supreme court is diba ayan di yan sila pwede magkamali,
dahil korte suprema sila tandaan nyo yan pero pag nagkamali
ang trial court, ignorance of the law , pero pa gang sc justice
yan naagkamali, error of judgment. Pag ang suprme court ang
nagkamali it becomes part of the law of the land. Diba ganyan
na man yan tawag nyan stare decisis.
Rule 46 originalcases. You do not know what are original
cases? Ha? What? Yung mga original jurisdiction nila.
Certiorari, Mandamus, injunction, habeas corpus. Habeas
data. Ano mangyayari sa rule. Yung ganyan. For example daw
magcite ako eto. Supreme court.
Rule 47 , annulment of judgmentby the way what court that
has jurisdiction on this? Annulment of judgment of the rtc,
file mo sya sa ca. Ano ang Makita dun, the only ground would
be walang jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud and please take
85
note thata extrinsic fraud is cannot be a ground in rule 47. It
does not have opportunity to raise such. Either motion for
new trial or a petition for writ?
Period to file extrinsic fraud.within 4 years from discovery.
Kung wala jurisdiction prescriptive period may lie void man
diba ang limit nya lang eh kung ewan di madungog Unless
disbarred by laches
Sec 48. Preliminary conference bago yan mag pre trial.
49. oral argument. Inaanticipate mo na magpunta kka ng sc.
Makabilib daw sa sarili, nagisa lang yan sya pero natatakot 15
gyud na sila, en banc, oral argument pa gyud makatakot oi.
Masabon ka pa lang, naa daw mag appear sila sa sc, nagsama
ako sa kanila kay mag appear daw sa supreme court en banc
punta daw sila dun tapos yun nakita daw nya daw yung isang
abogado chairs daw ng chief justice mataas. Ang isa ka
abogado di makaconcentrate, kulba kausapin ka daw ng
lawyers, ayon na daw magsimula na tapos sabay sabi daw na
gawa tau ng motion to admit memorandum in lieu of oral
arguments. Sus katakot .
Pano kaya yan madisbar ka ba. Diba? Ok lang kung sa CA ka
mmag oral argument.
Dismissal of appeals- ano lang man to dismiss lang ang
appeal.
All the rest just read, 51, estoppel
55- promulgation of (murmur)
Procedure in the supreme court- basically the same sa ca
pero dib a original cases eto dapat tandaan, procedure in
opinion is equally divided – you cannot get the necessary
majority for those thatbelong to the lone issues where
opinion is required, what will happen, pwede man ibalik yan ,
ang gawin is vote, wala pa rin, equally dividedor no vote
answer, vote wala pa rin ano effect, tapos vote tapos ano
effect ok so ano na ( din a nagpatuloy)
Original action dismiss, appealed acases affirmed, all
incidental matter , petition or motion denied, sabihin natin
divided nga no majority or not necessarily majority matters
on petition or motion is fraudulent tapos ang naging issue sa
kaso ay fraud. Meron na decision ang division, file ka ng
motion for reconsideration equally divided pa rin, so ang
contention dapat eh iakyat nay an sc na yan, bakit, kasi wala
majority sa division sabi ng supreme court eh dapat en banc
na recon nay an , you have a motion for consideration it will
fall on all incidental matters motion is denied, if there is no
majority the motion is denied. Clear? Sa umpisa pa lang wala
nay an sila majority sa decision, eto wala sila nito sa recon
since this is a motion for reconsideration it will be covered
under incidental matters therefore the effect of lack of the
necessary majority is that the motion will be denied.
Yay tapos na.. shagit si sir.. gehehhehehe.. the end.. pasesnya

Ai eto, How does the ca vote, how does the ca decide kasi 3
yan sila, every decision of the court, does need the
concurrence of the 3 ca justices kasi tatlo lang man talaga
yan sila, tapos sila tanan mag judge if one of them
deliberates if sila tanan affirm no problem, because they have
to be unanimous tapos na ang problema if hindi sila
unanimous, yan ang problema,after nyan dili pa yan ang
decide nila irefer sa pj,ano yang pj? Pajamas? No, presiding
justice, the pj will assign two more justices to create a
special division, and the votes will be majority between the
parties any decision of the ca will need to be made at least by
3 justices. either unanimous, at least 3 out of 5 dapat.

Disposition basahin nyo na lang to , anastero eto basahin nyo

na lang ha , minsan nga eh nagalabas sa bar exam tapos yung
error is everybody forgot and it was Not harmless at all.
Basahin nyo na lang yan

Recon- the same as the filing of a second motion for ___

unless the rules say otherwise (murmur) motion for new
trial, (talking to self) based on newly discovered evidence.
Basahin nyo na lang yan

ca newly discovered, maiksi lang yan,

Internal business- basahin nyo na lang di yan lalabas sa bar.

By the way have you ever asked kung

Does Ca ever sit en banc? Yeah we know that there are

divisions in the supreme court . does th ca ever sit en banc?
Yes- apply lang it own rules and mag issue yan ng internal
rules ang ca? Yan!

86