Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: 1.

RULE MAKING POWER

OF THE

SC:

Art 8 Sec 5(5) of the Consti: Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in: o All courts o The admission to the practice of law o The Integrated Bar o And Legal assistance to the underprivileged Guidelines on the rules: o They must provide a simplified and speedy disposition of cases o The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade o The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights These powers may not be reduced by Congress but Congress may add more

It is within the court's sound discretion to relax procedural rules in order to fully adjudicate the merits of a case. This Court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent grave abuse or palpable error. Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure even mandates a liberal construction of the rules to promote their objectives of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
5. 6. PROCEDURAL RULES THAT PARTIES JURISDICTION Jurisdiction: The right and power of an authority to interpret and apply the law or to deal and make pronouncements on legal matters o Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner. o Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons. o Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. o Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 10. o Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject of the litigation). This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant. (de Joya v. Marquez G.R. 162416) It may be true that the court by an erroneous ruling on such question may enrcroach upon issues completely foreign to those defined in the pleadings, but in such case the question of jurisdiction that may arise would not be one of jurisdiction over the subject-matter but of jurisdiction over the issue. o In order that a court may validly try and decide a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and jurisdiction over the persons of the parties (Banco Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca) 1
MAY

CHANGE

Art 6 Sec 30 of the Consti: No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence 2. PROCEDURAL
AND

SUBSTANTIVE

Procedural and Substantive Rules Procedural law is the body of legal rules that govern the process for determining the rights of parties Substantive law refers to the body of rules that determine the rights and obligations of persons 3. FORCE AND EFFECT
OF

RULES

OF

COURT

Rules of Courts, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law; and rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. (Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil., 333) 4. POWER
OF THE

SC

TO SUSPEND

RULES

OF

COURT

Nonetheless, it is also true that procedural rules are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application should be relaxed when they hinder rather than promote substantial justice. Public policy dictates that court cases should, as much as possible, be resolved on the merits not on mere technicalities. Substantive justice trumps procedural rules

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: But in some instances it is said that the court should also have jurisdiction over the issue (15 C. J., 734; Hutts vs. Martin, 134 Ind., 587; 33 N. E., 676), meaning thereby that the issue being tried and decided by the court be within the issues raised in the pleadings. But this kind of jurisdiction should be distinguished from jurisdiction over the subject matter, the latter being conferred by law and the former by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject-matter, may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. (Rule 17, sec. 4, Rules of Court.) Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties. o This cannot be done when jurisdiction over the subject-matter is involved. In truth, jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. o Where, for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the defendant cannot be said to have been served with process as to that issue. (Cf. Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs. Domingo, 44 Phil., 680.) o At any rate, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such importance as to call for the intervention of this court. o 7. ESTOPPEL
TO

o This notwithstanding, the RTC reaffirmed the reinstatement Thereafter, the heirs of Hinog filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the case to be reinstated

Issue: Is the petitioner estopped from questioning the RTCs jurisdiction? YES First off, the SC said that the petitioners committed a procedural error in directly filing the instant petition in the SC because adherence must be made to the principle of hierarchy of courts. The petitioners should have first went to the CA. Direct recourse to the SC will only be allowed when there is a special or important circumstance More importantly, when the petitioners motioned to serve a supplemental pleading upon the respondents, they sought affirmative relief from the courts Consequently, petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial courts jurisdiction If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the courts jurisdiction in the same case. Petition dismissed, RTC did not act with GADLEJ 8. JURISDICTION
IS

DETERMINED AT

THE

TIME

OF

FILING ACTION

DENY JURISDICTION

Hinog v. Melicor The Balanes filed a complaint in the RTC for recovery of ownership and possession, removal of construction and damages against Bertuldo This is because the Balanes let Bertuldo use a portion of their land for 10 years, and upon expiration of the period, Bertuldo refused to leave and instead claimed ownership over all of the property by virtue of a deed of sale In the trial, after the Balanes rested their case, Bertuldo died without completing his presentation of evidence Meanwhile, Bertuldos lawyer field a motion to expunge the complaint on the ground that the Balanes failed to specify in the complaint the amount of damages claimed and alleging further that the Balanes failed to even pay the correct docket fee The RTC ordered the complaint to be expunged because the proper payment of docket fee was not made according to procedure (more specifically, the respondents failed to specify in the complaint the amount of damages claimed so as to pay the correct docket fees) Thereafter, upon payment of a deficiency docket fee, the Balanes moved to reinstate the case and on March 22, 1999, it was granted o On May 24, 1999 the petitioners-heirs of Hinog, filed a supplemental pleading, appending the Deed of Sale which serves as proof o When this was denied, the petitioners questioned the courts jurisdiction because it had already expunged the complaint previously

Rule 1 Sec 5: A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading. The action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. People v. Cawaling An information for murder was filed against Mayor Cawaling and Policemen Tumbaghan, de los Santos, Cajilo and Hilario. The prosecutions version narrated that the accused chased and shot the victim, a certain Ronnie Elisan. The defense narrated that the accused were merely on patrol and heard the victim, who was allegedly drunk, proclaim he was going to kill somebody that night. They allege that they killed him in the lawful performance of their duties They all pleaded not guilty but were convicted (conspiracy) by the RTC on October 1994. The accused, namely policeman Tumbaghan and Cajilo argue that the RTC did not have jurisdiction as it was Sandiganbayan which had jurisdiction since they were public officers at the time of their killing which was allegedly committed in relation to their office.

Issue: Did the RTC have jurisdiction? Yes The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by a new law placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal 2

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: Exceptions: An express provision in the statute The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment The SB may exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction over a case when: o The offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office o The penalty prescribed is higher than pricion correccional or imprisonment for 6 years or higher than a fine of 6k In this case, however, the information filed against the accused contains no allegations that they were public officers who committed the crime in relation to their office. o It must be remembered that jurisdiction is determined by allegations in the complaint or information. In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in relation to the office of appellants or was necessarily connected with the discharge of their duties, the RTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. o 9. COURTS this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within 3 months, unless extended by the CJ

RTC: Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

Art 8 Sec 1: The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice t osettle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government BP 129: Pertinent Provisions: CA: Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxilliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees'Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of

In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; 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 value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; 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 (P200,000.00); 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 Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00); In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and 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 the demand exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand 3

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees:Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws; Petitions for the constitution of the family home; Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and Cases of domestic violence against: o Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and o Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.

Sandiganbayan: A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: "(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads; "(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads; "(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher; "(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; "(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the 4

Family Courts: The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases: Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code"; Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter; Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher; "(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; "(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. B. Other offenses orfelonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subSec. a of this Sec. in relation to their office. C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court ' as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction orof their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. "The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in govemment-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had therefore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned."

Quasi Judicial Bodies SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission Section 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. 5.1. The commission shall act with transparency and shall have the powers and functions provided by this code, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation Code, the Investment Houses law, the Financing Company Act and other existing laws. Pursuant thereto the Commission shall have, among others, the following powers and functions: (a) Have jurisdiction and supervision over all corporations, partnership or associations who are the grantees of primary franchises and/or a license or a permit issued by the Government; (l) Issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the Commission and in appropriate cases, order the examination, search and seizure of all documents, papers, files and records, tax returns and books of accounts of any entity or person under investigation as may be necessary for the proper disposition of the cases before it, subject to the provisions of existing laws; 5

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: (n) Exercise such other powers as may be provided by law as well as those which may be implied from, or which are necessary or incidental to the carrying out of, the express powers granted the Commission to achieve the objectives and purposes of these laws. 5.2. The Commissions jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court:Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intracorporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payment/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed. CSC: Magpale, Jr vs. Civil Service Commission Petitioner Magpale, Jr. worked for the Philippine Port Authority (PPA) as Port Manager. He was first assigned in PPA-Tacloban, but was subsequently assigned to PPA-Manila. In a report made by the PPA-Tacloban Inventory Committee and COA, they found that Magpale, Jr. failed to account for equipment valued at P65,542 and to liquidate cash advances amounting to P130,069. Charges were filed against him and the Sec. of DOTC found Magpale, Jr. guilty of gross negligence, frequent and unauthorized absences, and was thereafter dismissed from service. Magpale, Jr. appealed to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB) of respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC). MSPB reversed the DOTC decision and ordered for his immediate reinstatement. Respondent Dayan (General Manager of PPA) then appealed with the Civil Service Field Office-PPA, which was indorsed to the CSC. CSC then granted said appeal. Magpale, Jr now assails the CSC decision. The MSPB decision did not involve dismissal or separation from office, but rather exonerated Magpale, Jr and ordered him reinstated to his former position. Therefore, the MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the CSC. Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred by law to hear and decide the case.

HLURB: House and Land Use Regulatory Board Sandoval vs. Caeba Private respondent Estate Developers & Investors Corporation filed a complaint in the RTC of Manila against petitioner Sandoval for the collection of unpaid installments regarding a subdivision lot, pursuant to a promissory note. RTC of Manila ordered Sandoval to pay the respondent. Sandoval filed a motion to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, making its decision null and void.

Issue: W/n the ordinary courts have jurisdiction over the collection of unpaid installments regarding a subdivision lot. No. Under, Sec 1 PD 957, the National Housing Authority (NHA), now known as House and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide a complaint for collection of unpaid installments against a subdivision lot buyer, not the regular courts. Also, where the RTC jurisdiction was timely questioned, its decision over a case which is has no jurisdiction, is null and void. 10. KINDS
OF

ACTION

Real Action: (Go v. United Coconut Planters Bank G.R. No. 15618) In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or as provided for in Section 1, Rule 4 a real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. o These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property. The venue for real actions is the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property or any part thereof lies

Issue: Was the appeal made to the CSC proper? No. The extent of the authority of CSC to review decision of the MSPB is now a settled manner. Under Sec 47, EO 292, CSC shall decide on appeal all administrative cases involving the imposition of: o A penalty of suspension for more than 30 days o Fine in an amount exceeding 30 days salary o Demotion in rank or salary or transfer o Removal or dismissal from office

Personal Action Personal action is one brought for the o recovery of personal property 6

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach o or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property The venue for personal actions is o The court of the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides o Or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff, as indicated in Section 2 of Rule 4 o If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. o If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: Substituted service set forth in Section 8 Personal service outside the country, with leave of court Service by publication, also with leave of court; ( o Any other manner the court may deem sufficient. However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. o An exception was laid down in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a nonresident was served with summons through his wife, who was a resident of the Philippines and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him; moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the first case. On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. o Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines and 1. the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; 2. the action relates to, or the subject matter of which is property in the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest 3. the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any interest in the property located in the Philippines; or 4. the property of the defendant has been attached in the Philippines o service of summons may be effected by a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; b) publication, also with leave of court; or c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient o 11. COMMENCEMENT
OF

Action in Rem: An action against the thing itself, instead of against a person. Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem. In rem rights are property rights and are enforceable against the whole world. Action in Personam: An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. It is a personal right attached to a specific persons. Action quasi in rem: The action quasi in rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstances that in the former an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. A legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction of the court. A quasi in rem action is commonly used when jurisdiction over the defendant is unobtainable due to his/her absence from the state. Any judgment will affect only the property seized, as in personam jurisdiction is unobtainable.

In Rem v. In Personam: In Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, the Court underscored the necessity of determining first whether the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to the nature of the action. Thus: In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

ACTION: CONDITION PRECEDENT

Lumbuan v. Ronquillo 7

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: o It is noteworthy that under the aforequoted provision, the confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court
OF

Lumbuan is the registered owner of a certain lot in Tondo. She leased it to Ronquillo for 3 years with an agreed yearly rent increase and with the agreement that the premises will be used solely for Ronquillos fastfood business Ronquillo, however, used the premises as his residence without Lumbuans prior consent and he failed to pay the 10% annual increase in rent. He refused to pay the rent in arrears despite demands so Lumbuan asked him to vacate Thereafter, Lumbuan referred the matter to the Barangay Chairmans office but the parties failed to arrive at a settlement and then, the chairman issued a certificate to file action Lumbuan then filed an action for unlawful detainer against Ronqullo in the MeTC of Manila o Before the MeTC received Ronquillos answer, Lumbuan filed a motion for summary judgment so the MeTC rendered a decision ordering the respondent to vacate the premises and to pay rents in arrears o Respondent filed a manifestation stating that he filed his answer on time and prayed that the decision be set aside. This was however denied by the MeTC Upon appeal to the RTC, the RTC directed the parties to go back to the Lupon Chairman for futher proceedings and to comply strictly with the condition that should the parties fail to reach a settlement, the case will be remanded to the MeTC yet again o The CA, upon petition for review by respondent, ordered the dismissal of the ejectment case, ruling that when a complaint is prematurely instituted, the court should dismiss the case Petitioner appealed this and this is the one for resolution in the case at bar Meanwhile, the parties went through barangay conciliation proceedings as directed by the RTC and they failed to arrive at a settlement. The case was remanded to the MeTC and the MeTC ordered Ronquillo to vacate and pay

12. COMMENCEMENT

ACTION: PAYMENT

OF

FILING FEE

Hinog v. Melicor (reiterating Sun Insurance) Same facts, but the issue delves on the payment of docket fees o Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable reglementary period, moreso when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules o In this case, the reinstatement of the complaint was just considering that the cause of action of the respondents, being a real action, prescribes in 30 years and they did not really intend to evade the payment of the prescribed fees. o Sun Insurance: Filing fees for damages and awards that cannot be estimated constitute liens on the awards finally granted by the court o Thus, while the docket fees were based only on the real property valuation, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the action.

Sun Insurance Office, Ltd (SIOL) vs. Asuncion Petitioner Sun Insurance filed a complaint with the RTC for consignation of a premium refund on a fire insurance policy with a prayer for judicial declaration of its nullity, against respondent Manuel Uy Po Tiong. But Tiong also filed a complaint with the RTC for refund of premiums against Sun Insurance. The complaint sought for payment of damages in the amount of about P50M, as inferred from the body of the complaint. But only a docket fee of PP210 was paid by Tiong. SC then ordered the records of said case and 22 others to be investigated for under-assessment of docket fees. SC then issued a Resolution directing judges to reassess the docket fees and in case of deficiency, order its payment. Clerks of court were ordered to issue certificates of re-assessment and litigant were ordered to specify in their pleadings the amount sought to be recovered in their complaints. However, the Clerk of Court assigned in Tiongs case had difficulty following the SC resolution because the Tiong didnt indicate the exact amount he wanted to recover. Tiong then filed a Re-Amended Complaint stating a claim of not less than P10M as actual compensatory damages. In the body of the 2nd complaint, the total damages asked for was P44M. Clerk of Court then reassessed the docket fee to amount to P38,786 which was paid by Tiong. Tiong then filed a supplemental complaint for an additional P20M. Tiong then paid an additional docket fee of P80,396. 8

Issue: Was the CA correct in dismissing the unlawful detainer case for the alleged failure of the parties to comply with the mandatory and conciliation proceedings in the barangay level? No Lumbuan alleges that the parties have already complied with the conciliation proceedings as shown by the Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupon Secretary. The prime objective of the Katarungnang Pambarangay Rules is to reduce the number of court litigations In this case, the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed the Certificate to File Action stating that no settlement was reached by the parties. While admittedly no pangkat was constituted, it was not denied that the parties met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible settlement. o The efforts of the Barangay Chairman, however, proved futile as no agreement was reached. Although no pangkat was formed o There was substantial compliance with the law.

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: Sun Insurance filed a petition with CA claiming the docket fees were insufficient, which was denied. Section 3: A party mat not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action Joseph v. Bautista Perez is the owner of a truck conveying cargoes for passenger (driven by Villa) and the truck veered out of the road which resulted to injury to Joseph, a passenger o The truck veered out of the road because of a faulty overtake by a pick up truck owned by Sioson and Pagarigan, then driven by Villanueva Joseph filed a complaint for damages against Perez, as owner of the truck based on a breach of contract of carriage He also filed a complaint against Sioson and Villanueva, based on quasi-delict o Joseph then filed an amended complaint impleading Paragiran and a certain Vargas as additional defendants because he could not ascertain who the real owner of the pick up truck was. Perez, filed a cross-claim against her co-defendants (pick up) in the event she is ordered to pay Thereafter, Villanueva, Sioson and Pagarigan (pick up) paid Joseph (by reason of this, Joseph executed a release of claim releasing Villanueva, Sioson and Paragiran from liability) and Perez through their insurance provider o Because of this, the defendants (pick up) asked the court for exoneration o Thereafter, Perez filed a motion to dismiss and this was granted by the court. This was premised on the fact that the release of claim executed by Joseph in favor of the pick up party inured to her favor considering that all of them are solidarily liable to Joseph Joseph now contends that the release of claim he executed did not inure to Perezs benefit (Joseph still wants to go after Perez)

Issue: W/n the court acquired jurisdiction over a case when the correct and proper docket fee has not been paid. No. It is not only the filing of the complaint, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of action. Courts may allow payment of said fees within a reasonable time, but not beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. o Also, permissive counter-claims, third-party claims and the like shall not be considered filed until and unless the prescribed filing fee is paid. When the judgment of the courts awards a claim not specified in the pleading, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. In the case at bar, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering Tiong demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules and pay the additional docket fees ad required. Petition dismissed. Clerk of Court ordered to reassess and determine the additional filing fee, and ask Tiong to pay if ever there is any deficiency.

13. CAUSE Rule 2

OF

ACTION: RULE 2

Section 1: Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action The elements of a cause of action are: 1. a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2. an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and 3. an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. o o A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged facts were admitted or proved. In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been merely defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain

Issue: Did the RTC judge err in dismissing the case? No. It is true that a single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the same time. However, when there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person o The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict or wrong vilating the rights of one person. o In the case at bar, there is no question that Joseph sustained a single injury on his person AND that vested him a single cause of action, even with the correlative rights of action against the different respondents Further, a recovery by Joseph under one remedy necessarily bars recovery under the other o The respondents having been found solidarily liable to petitioner, the full payment by some of the solidary debtors and their subsequent release resulted in Perezs release also. 9

Section 2: A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: Section 4: If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company Petitioner DATICOR and Respondent PDCP entered into an agreement whereby PDCP extended to DATICOR a foreign loan of 4.4M (dollar loan and peso loan) with various rates of interest on both Petitioners paid a total of 3M but was still left with an outstanding balance of more than 10M. Petitioners contested this loan for being usurious and this was pending in a CA case. o Meanwhile PDCP assigned its receivables to co-respondent FBTC o FBTC and DATICOR agreed that DATICOR would pay, and they did, 6.4M as full settlement Meanwhile, the CA case held that the only remaining balance that Petitioners had to pay was only 1.4M In response, DATICOR filed a case against PDCP and FBTC to get back the excess payment they made (CIVIL CASE 1) and the RTC ordered PDCP to give back the excess payment o PDCP appealed this order (CIVIL CASE 2) and the CA ruled that indeed, the petitioners outstanding obligation was 1.4M and it cannot be increased or decreased. However, the CA ruled that it was FBTC that should return the amount of (only) 965k, the amount that DATICOR prayed for. Thereafter, DATICOR filed a complaint against FEBTC to recover the excess payment (CIVIL CASE 3). FBTC denied responsibility and only wanted to pay the 965k o FBTC then filed a complaint against PDCP, alleging that it should pay the 965k and the complete overpayment o In this case, the most important one, the RTC dismissed DATICORs complaint against FBTC, because it amounted to a splitting of a cause of action Basically, DATICOR cant ask FBTC to overpay because their rights were already litigated. Its cause of action was based on the same facts because the same alleged wrongful act (refusing to return the overpayment) is the one put at issue.

Progressive v. CA Progressive Development Corp (petitioner) leased to respondent Westin seafood market a parcel of land with a building thereon located in Araneta Center Cubao for 9 years o The lease contained clauses whereby violations of conditions would cause the lease to be terminated Westin failed to pay rentals and it resulted into a breach of contract/violation of the conditions and thus, petitioner repossessed the leased premises Westin then filed a complaint against Progressive for forcible entry in the MeTC o In this case, the parties compromised and agreed that Westin would deposit 8M to guarantee payment of its back rentals to terminate the courts TRO against Progressive It was further agreed upon that if a settlement is not reached by a certain date, the forcible entry case would proceed o Westin however failed to comply with the deposit and instead, while the case was pending, filed an action for damages (MORAL and EXEMPLARY) in the RTC against Progressive Progressive filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendencia and forum shopping o The RTC judge however, issued an order archiving the damages case pending the outcome of the MeTC case. He also issued an order denying Progressives motion to dismiss, issued a TRO against Progressive and allowed Westin to amend its complaint Progressive went to the CA, alleging GADLEJ but it was dismissed because Progressive failed to file an MR as regards the RTC judges decision. This is a pre-requisite to filing a petition for certiorari

Issue: Is DATICOR entitled to collect the full overpayment from FBTC? No First off, the SC ruled that Civil Case 2 had the effect of res judicata. The judgment in Civil Case 2 was a final judgment: it ruled that DATICOR overpaid by 5.3M, FBTC must only pay 965k and that PDCP had no more claim against DATICOR To allow re-litigation of the issue in that was settled in CIVIL CASE 2 that was finally settled would allow the splitting of a cause of action, which a ground for dismissal under the RoC. o This rule prevents a party from dividing a single or indivisible cause of action it into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions based on it o Clearly then, the judgment in CIVIL CASE 2 bars further recovery

Issue: Should an action for damages filed with the RTC by the lessee against the lessor be dismissed on the ground of the pendency of another action of forcible entry with damages with the MeTC? No The RoC clearly provides that no claim for damages arising out of forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be filed separately and independently of the claim for restoration of possession o This is consistent with Sec 1 of Rule 16 which states that the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause is a ground for dismissal of an action. Elements of res judicata: 1. Identity of rights asserted and prayed for, founded on the same facts 2. Identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions

10

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: The identity in the two preceding numbers should be such that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicate More importantly, the restoration of possession and demand for actual damages in the MeTC and the demand from the RTC both arise from the same cause of action namely: the forcible entry of Progressive into the leased premises o Applying Sec 4, there is a ground to dismiss the RTC action Further, a claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case, and the rest in, another. 3. through check and secured the balance by mortgaging the bought parcels of land and on another piece of property Upon failure of Ramos to pay, the vendors instituted an action for foreclosure on April 1959 in RTC QC o Ramos however, argues in her motion to dismiss that on Feb 1959, the vendors already filed an action in the RTC Manila for recovery of the 2.5k paid by check and that this constituted the splitting of a cause of action o This motion was denied by the RTC and after trial, Ramos was ordered to pay and further decreed the foreclosure if payment is not made within 90 days Ramos appealed, insisting that the vendors split their cause of action

CGR Corporation v. Treyes Petitioners CGR Corporation, Benedicto claimed to have occupied 37ha of public land in Sagay City even before (2000) their fishpond lease agreement were approved by the Sec of Agri for 25 years Thereafter, Treyes allegedly forcibly entered the leased properties and barricaded the fishponds Petitioners then filed with the MTC separate complaints for Forcible Entry with TRO and/or preliminary injunction with damages In a separate move, they also filed a complaint for damages in the Bacolod RTC alleging that Treyes intrusion caused them damage: Treyes is alleged to have taken away the fish after the intrusion and even destroyed a chapel o In response, Treyes filed a motion to dismiss the damages case The RTC dismissed petitoners complaint on the ground of prematurity

Issue: Did the vendors split their cause of action? NO An examination of the first complaint filed against appellant in the Court of First Instance of Manila shows that it was based on appellants' having unlawfully stopped payment of the check for P2,500.00 she had issued in favor of appellees; o while the complaint in the present action was for non-payment of the balance of P96,000.00 guaranteed by the mortgage. The claim for P2,500.00 was, therefore, a distinct debt not covered by the security and since the mortgage was constituted on lands situated in Quezon City, the vendor-mortgagees could not ask for its foreclosure in the Manila courts. The two causes of action being different, section 4 of Rule 2 does not apply

Issue: Can petitioners independently institute and maintain an action for damages which they claim arose from incidents occurring AFTER their dispossession? The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases refer to rents of the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. o The only form of damages that may be recovered in a forcible entry action is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the properties In this case, the petitioners claim for damages have no direct relation to the loss of possession of the premises o It had to do with respondents alleged harvesting and carting away several tons of milkfish in the fishponds, the destruction of the chapel AFTER the act of dispossession In this case, there is no identity in the facts, the damages are not prayed for in relation to the dispossession o In the progressive case, the damages prayed for was based solely on the dispossession There was no splitting of a cause of action in this case.

Rule 2 Section 5: 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 of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. Uniwide Holdings, Inc vs Cruz 11

Enriquez v. Ramos Enriquez and the spouses Dizon sold to Ramos 11 parcels of land in QC for 101k. Ramos paid a down payment amounting to 12.5, 2.5k of which was

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by: Petitioner Uniwide Holdings, Inc (UHI) entered into a Franchise Agreement, granting respondent Cruz, a 5-year franchise to adopt and use Uniwide Family Store System for the establishment of a Uniwide Family Store along Marcos Highway, Marikina. Art 10.2 of the agreement called for Cruz to pay UHI a monthly service fee of P50k or 3% of gross monthly purchases. Cruz bought goods from UNHI-affiliated companies First Paragon Corp (FPC) and Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc (USWCI). FPC and USWCI then executed Deeds of Assignment in favor of UHI assigning all their rights and interest over Cruz accounts payable to them. UHI then filed a complaint before the RTC of Paraaque for collection of Cruz debt. o Causes of action: 1. For the payment of monthly service fee (P1,327,669); 2. Being assignee of the receivable of FPC, which Cruz failed to pay (actual damages - P64,165); 3. Being assignee of the receivable of USWCI, which Cruz failed to pay (actual damages P1,579,062); 4. Attys fees (P250k) Where there is a joinder of causes of action between the same parties of one which does not arise out of the contract where the exclusive venue was stipulated upon, the complaint may be brought before other venues provided that such other cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and the venue lies therein. The 2nd and 3rd causes of action are based on the deeds of assignment in its favor by FPC and USWCI, and not from the Franchise agreement containing the exclusive venue stipulation, the general rule on venue applies that the complaint may be filed in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides (Sec 2, Rule 4 Rules of Court).
A

14. REMEDY AGAINST SPLITTING Rule 16 Section 1. Grounds.

SINGLE CAUSE

OF

ACTION

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: (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; Rule 16 Sec. 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. 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. 15. TOTALITY RULE: PERMISSIVE JOINDER Flores v. Mallare-Phillips Petitioner has appealed by certiorari from the order of Judge Heilia S. MallarePhillipps of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province which dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The order: o First COA: against Binongcal for refusing to pay 11k representing truck tires bought from petitioner Flores o Second COA: against Calion for refusing to pay 10k representing also truck tires 12
OF

Cruz filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, claiming that under Art 27.5 of the agreement, courts of QC has exclusive jurisdiction. RTC Paraaque granted motion to dismiss. Hence the present petition. UHI is claiming FPC and USWCI is not part of their agreement and therefore now bound by the stipulation on exclusive venue.

PARTIES

Issue: W/n a case based on several causes of action is dismissable on the ground of improper venue where only one of the causes of action arises from a contract with exclusive venue stipulation. NO Sec 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court allows parties, before filing the action, to validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue, but such doesnt preclude parties from bringing a case to other venues.

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

On December 15, 1983, counsel for respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amount of the demand against said respondent was only P11,643.00, and under Section 19(8) of BP129 the regional trial court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). o It was further averred in said motion that although another person, Fernando Calion, was allegedly indebted to petitioner in the amount of P10,212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct from that of the other respondent. At the hearing of said Motion to Dismiss, counsel for respondent Calion joined in moving for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Counsel for petitioner opposed the Motion to Dismiss. As above stated, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner maintains that the lower court has jurisdiction over the case following the "novel" totality rule introduced in Section 33(l) of BP129 and Section 11 of the Interim Rules.

Needless to state, if the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder in one complaint is permissive and not mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount of the demand is twenty thousand pesos or less may be the subject of a separate complaint filed with a metropolitan or municipal trial court.

Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more defendants joined in a single complaint. o However, the causes of action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common question of law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3. In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction.

Issue: Does the Court have jurisdiction? The pertinent portion of Section 33(l) of BP129 reads as follows: o ... Provided,That where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. ... Section 11 of the Interim Rules provides thus: o Application of the totality rule.-In actions where the jurisdiction of the court is dependent on the amount involved, the test of jurisdiction shall be the aggregate sum of all the money demands, exclusive only of interest and costs, irrespective of whether or not the separate claims are owned by or due to different parties. If any demand is for damages in a civil action, the amount thereof must be specifically alleged.

Petitioner argues that with the deletion of the proviso in the former rule, the totality rule was reduced to clarity and brevity and the jurisdictional test is the totality of the claims in all, not in each, of the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. o This argument is partly correct. There is no difference between the former and present rules in cases where a plaintiff sues a defendant on two or more separate causes of action. o In such cases, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. o If the total demand exceeds twenty thousand pesos, then the regional trial court has jurisdiction. 13