Shioji v. Harvey G.R. No. L-18940. April 27, 1922 FACTS: In cause No.

19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, wherein S. Shioji was plaintiff, and the To o !isen !aisah and the "acific Mail Stea#ship Co., were defendants, jud$#ent was rendered on %cto&er '1, 19(), & *ud$e Concepcion presidin$ in the second &ranch of the court, in fa+or of the plaintiff and a$ainst the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants dul perfected an appeal & wa of &ill of e,ceptions, to the Supre#e Court of the "hilippine Islands filed on Fe&ruar 1-, 19((. The counter#o+e of the respondents in the injunction proceedin$s pendin$ the Court of First Instance was to file a co#plaint in prohi&ition in the Supre#e Court, to co#pel the respondent *ud$e of First Instance to desist fro# interferin$ with the e,ecution of the jud$#ent in case No. 19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and to issue an order re+o.in$ the pre+iousl pro#ul$ated & hi#. The preli#inar injunction pra ed for as an incident to the co#plaint in prohi&ition was i##ediatel issued & the Supre#e Court, and has &een co#plied with & the respondents herein. Counsel "etitioner herein #o+es for jud$#ent on the pleadin$s. ISSUE: /10 1hether or not the *ud$e of First Instance #a assu#e the jurisdiction to interpret and re+iew jud$#ent and order of the Supre#e Court, and to o&struct the enforce#ent of the decisions of the appellate court. /(0 1hether or not 2ule (4 /a0 is in conflict with an law of the 3nited States or of the "hilippine Islands.

HELD: /10 No. The onl function of a lower court, when the jud$#ent of a hi$h court is returned, is the #inisterial one, the issuin$ of the order of e,ecution, and that lower court is without super+isor jurisdiction to interpret or to re+erse the jud$#ent of the hi$her court as it would see# to &e superfluous. 4 jud$e of a lower court cannot enforce different decrees than those rendered & the superior court. The Supre#e Court of the "hilippine Island is e,pressl authori5ed & statute to #a.e rules for re$ulation of its practice and the conduct of its &usiness. Section (6 of the *udiciar 4ct /No. 1'-0, $rants to the #e#&ers of the Supre#e Court the power to 7#a.e all necessar rules for orderl procedure in Supre#e Court . . . in accordance with the pro+isions of the Code of Ci+il "rocedure, which rules shall &e . . . &indin$ upon the se+eral courts.7 /(0 No, 2ule (4 /a0 is not in conflict with an law of the 3nited States or of the "hilippines, &ut is a necessar rule for orderl procedure and for re$ulatin$ the conduct of &usiness in Supre#e Court. It is a rule which relates to a #atter of practice and procedure o+er which the 8e$islature has not e,ercised its power. It is a rule which does not operate to depri+e a part of an statutor ri$ht. It is a rule in har#on with judicial practice and procedure o+er which the 8e$islature has not e,ercised its power. It is a rule which does not operate to depri+e a part of an statutor ri$ht. It is a rule in har#on with judicial practice and procedure and essential to the e,istence of the courts. 4nd, finall , it is a rule which #ust &e enforced accordin$ to the discretion of the court. Independent of an statutor pro+ision, the court asserts that e+er court has inherent power to do all thin$s reasona&l necessar for the ad#inistration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.

RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE GSIS FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES. A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 Febr !r" 11# 2010 FACTS9 The :SIS see.s e,e#ption fro# the pa #ent of le$al fees i#posed on :%CCs under Sec ((, 2ule 141 /8e$al Fees0 of the 2%C. The said pro+ision states9 S;C. ((. :o+ern#ent e,e#pt. < The 2epu&lic of the "hilippines, its a$encies and instru#entalities are e,e#pt fro# pa in$ the le$al fees pro+ided in this 2ule. 8ocal $o+ern#ent corporations and $o+ern#ent=owned or controlled corporations with or without independent charter are not e,e#pt fro# pa in$ such fees. ,, The :SIS anchors its petition on Sec '9 of its charter, 24 6(91 /The :SIS 4ct of 199709 S;C. '9. ;,e#ption fro# Ta,, 8e$al "rocess and 8ien. < It is here& declared to &e the polic of the State that the actuarial sol+enc of the funds of the :SIS shall &e preser+ed and #aintained at all ti#es and that contri&ution rates necessar to sustain the &enefits under this 4ct shall &e .ept as low as possi&le in order not to &urden the #e#&ers of the :SIS and their e#plo ers. Ta,es i#posed on the :SIS tend to i#pair the actuarial sol+enc of its funds and increase the contri&ution rate necessar to sustain the &enefits of this 4ct. 4ccordin$l , notwithstandin$ an laws to the contrar , the :SIS, its assets, re+enues includin$ accruals thereto, and &enefits paid, shall &e e,e#pt fro# all ta,es, assess#ents, fees, char$es or duties of all .inds. These e,e#ptions shall continue unless e,pressl and specificall re+o.ed and an assess#ent a$ainst the :SIS as of the appro+al of this 4ct are here& considered paid. Conse>uentl , all laws, ordinances, re$ulations, issuances, opinions or jurisprudence contrar to or in dero$ation of this pro+ision are here& dee#ed repealed, superseded and rendered ineffecti+e and without le$al force and effect. ,, 2e>uired to co##ent on the :SIS? petition, the %S: #aintains that the petition should &e denied. %n this Court?s order, the %ffice

of the Chief 4ttorne /%C4T0 su&#itted a report and reco##endation on the petition of the :SIS and the co##ent of the %S: thereon. 4ccordin$ to the %C4T, the clai# of the :SIS for e,e#ption fro# the pa #ent of le$al fees has no le$al &asis. ISSUE9 Ma the le$islature e,e#pt the :SIS fro# le$al fees i#posed & the Court on :%CCs and local $o+ern#ent units@ HELD9 1A;2;F%2;, the petition of the :SIS for reco$nition of its e,e#ption fro# the pa #ent of le$al fees i#posed under Sec (( of 2ule 141 of the 2%C on :%CCs and 8:3s is here& B;NI;B . NO 2ule 141 /on 8e$al Fees0 of the 2%C was pro#ul$ated & this Court in the e,ercise of its rule=#a.in$ powers under Sec C/C0, 4rt DIII of the Constitution9 Sec. C. The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$ powers9 ,,,,,,,,, /C0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts, pleadin$, practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to the practice of law, the Inte$rated Ear, and le$al assistance to the underpri+ile$ed. ,,,,,,,, Clearl , therefore, the pa #ent of le$al fees under 2ule 141 of the 2%C is an inte$ral part of the rules pro#ul$ated & this Court pursuant to its rule=#a.in$ power under Section C/C0, 4rticle DIII of the Constitution. In particular, it is part of the rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure in courts. Indeed, pa #ent of le$al /or doc.et0 fees is a jurisdictional re>uire#ent. Since the pa #ent of le$al fees is a +ital co#ponent of the rules pro#ul$ated & this Court concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure, it cannot &e +alidl annulled, chan$ed or #odified & Con$ress. 4s one of the safe$uards of this Court?s institutional independence, the power to pro#ul$ate rules of pleadin$, practice and procedure is now the Court?s e,clusi+e do#ain. That power is no lon$er shared & this Court with Con$ress, #uch less with the ;,ecuti+e. NOTES9 =The :SIS cannot successfull in+o.e the ri$ht to social securit of $o+ern#ent e#plo ees in support of its petition. It is a corporate entit whose personalit is separate and distinct fro# that of its 2

indi+idual #e#&ers. The ri$hts of its #e#&ers are not its ri$htsF its ri$hts, powers and functions pertain to it solel and are not shared & its #e#&ers. =Con$ress could not ha+e car+ed out an e,e#ption for the :SIS fro# the pa #ent of le$al fees without trans$ressin$ another e>uall i#portant institutional safe$uard of the Court?s independence G fiscal autono# . Fiscal autono# reco$ni5es the power and authorit of the Court to le+ , assess and collect fees, includin$ le$al fees. Moreo+er, le$al fees under 2ule 141 ha+e two &asic co#ponents, the *udiciar Be+elop#ent Fund /*BF0 and the Special 4llowance for the *udiciar Fund /S4*F0. The laws which esta&lished the *BF and the S4*FH''I e,pressl declare the identical purpose of these funds to J$uarantee the independence of the *udiciar as #andated & the Constitution and pu&lic polic .K 8e$al fees therefore do not onl constitute a +ital source of the Court?s financial resources &ut also co#prise an essential ele#ent of the Court?s fiscal independence. 4n e,e#ption fro# the pa #ent of le$al fees $ranted & Con$ress to $o+ern#ent=owned or controlled corporations and local $o+ern#ent units will necessaril reduce the *BF and the S4*F. 3ndou&tedl , such situation is constitutionall infir# for it i#pairs the Court?s $uaranteed fiscal autono# and erodes its independence. =Spea.in$ for the Court, then 4ssociate *ustice /now Chief *ustice0 2e nato S. "uno traced the histor of the rule=#a.in$ power of this Court and hi$hli$hted its e+olution and de+elop#ent in ;che$ara +. Secretar of *ustice9 3nder the 19'C Constitution, the power of this Court to pro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure was $ranted &ut it appeared to &e co=e,istent with le$islati+e power for it was su&ject to the power of Con$ress to repeal, alter or supple#ent. Thus, its Section 1', 4rticle DIII pro+ides9 Sec. 1'. The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the power to pro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure in all courts, and the ad#ission to the practice of law. Said rules shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade and shall not di#inish, increase, or

#odif su&stanti+e ri$hts. The e,istin$ laws on pleadin$, practice and procedure are here& repealed as statutes, and are declared 2ules of Court, su&ject to the power of the Supre#e Court to alter and #odif the sa#e. The Con$ress shall ha+e the power to repeal, alter or supple#ent the rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure, and the ad#ission to the practice of law in the "hilippines. The said power of Con$ress, howe+er, is not as a&solute as it #a appear on its surface. In In re Cunanan, Con$ress in the e,ercise of its power to a#end rules of the Supre#e Court re$ardin$ ad#ission to the practice of law, enacted the Ear Flun.ers 4ct of 19C' which considered as a passin$ $rade, the a+era$e of 7)L in the &ar e,a#inations after *ul 4, 194- up to 4u$ust 19C1 and 71L in the 19C( &ar e,a#inations. This Court struc. down the law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr. *ustice Bio.no held that J, , , the disputed law is not a le$islationF it is a jud$#ent < a jud$#ent pro#ul$ated & this Court durin$ the aforecited ears affectin$ the &ar candidates concernedF and althou$h this Court certainl can re+o.e these jud$#ents e+en now, for justifia&le reasons, it is no less certain that onl this Court, and not the le$islati+e nor e,ecuti+e depart#ent, that #a do so. 4n atte#pt on the part of these depart#ents would &e a clear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the law in >uestion.K The +enera&le jurist further ruled9 JIt is o&+ious, therefore, that the ulti#ate power to $rant license for the practice of law &elon$s e,clusi+el to this Court, and the law passed & Con$ress on the #atter is of per#issi+e character, or as other authorities sa , #erel to fi, the #ini#u# conditions for the license.K E its rulin$, this Court >ualified the a&solutist tone of the power of Con$ress to Jrepeal, alter or supple#ent the rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure, and the ad#ission to the practice of law in the "hilippines. The rulin$ of this Court in In re Cunanan was not chan$ed & the 197' Constitution. For the 197' Constitution reiterated the power of this Court Jto pro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure in all courts, , , , which, howe+er, #a &e repealed, altered or supple#ented & the Eatasan$ "a#&ansa , ,

,.K More co#pletel , Section C/(0C of its 4rticle M pro+ided9 ,,,,,,,,, Sec. C. The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$ powers. ,,,,,,,,, /C0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to the practice of law, and the inte$ration of the Ear, which, howe+er, #a &e repealed, altered, or supple#ented & the Eatasan$ "a#&ansa. Such rules shall pro+ide a si#plified and ine,pensi+e procedure for the speed disposition of cases, shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade, and shall not di#inish, increase, or #odif su&stanti+e ri$hts. 1ell worth notin$ is that the 197' Constitution further stren$thened the independence of the judiciar & $i+in$ to it the additional power to pro#ul$ate rules $o+ernin$ the inte$ration of the Ear. The 1967 Constitution #olded an e+en stron$er and #ore independent judiciar . 4#on$ others, it enhanced the rule #a.in$ power of this Court. Its Section C/C0, 4rticle DIII pro+ides9 ,,,,,,,,, Section C. The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$ powers9 ,,,,,,,,, /C0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts, pleadin$, practice and procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to the practice of law, the Inte$rated Ear, and le$al assistance to the underpri+ile$ed. Such rules shall pro+ide a si#plified and ine,pensi+e procedure for the speed disposition of cases, shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade, and shall not di#inish, increase, or #odif su&stanti+e ri$hts. 2ules of procedure of special courts and >uasi=judicial &odies shall re#ain effecti+e unless disappro+ed & the Supre#e Court. The rule #a.in$ power of this Court was e,panded. This Court for the first ti#e was $i+en the power to pro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts. The Court was also $ranted for the first ti#e the power to disappro+e rules of procedure of special courts and >uasi=judicial &odies. Eut #ost i#portantl , the 1967 Constitution too. awa the power of Con$ress to repeal, alter, or supple#ent rules concernin$

pleadin$, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to pro#ul$ate rules of pleadin$, practice and procedure is no lon$er shared & this Court with Con$ress, #ore so with the ;,ecuti+e. $ %&o% '. L (ero :.2. No. 8=()-6 %cto&er (), 1946 Tuason, *. F!(&%: The petitioner herein, an accused in a cri#inal case, filed a #otion with the Court of First Instance of "a#pan$a after he had &een &ound o+er to that court for trial, pra in$ that the record of the case &e re#anded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol, the court of ori$in, in order that the petitioner #i$ht cross=e,a#ine the co#plainant and her witnesses in connection with their testi#on , on the stren$th of which warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused. The #otion was denied and that denial is the su&ject #atter of this proceedin$. 4ccordin$ to the #e#orandu# su&#itted & the petitioner?s attorne to the Court of First Instance in support of his #otion, the accused, assisted & counsel, appeared at the preli#inar in+esti$ation. In that in+esti$ation, the justice of the peace infor#ed hi# of the char$es and as.ed hi# if he pleaded $uilt or not $uilt , upon which he entered the plea of not $uilt . JThen his counsel #o+ed that the co#plainant present her e+idence so that she and her witnesses could &e e,a#ined and cross=e,a#ined in the #anner and for# pro+ided & law.K The fiscal and the pri+ate prosecutor o&jected, in+o.in$ section 11 of rule 1)6, and the o&jection was sustained. JIn +iew thereof, the accused?s counsel announced his intention to renounce his ri$ht to present e+idence,K and the justice of the peace forwarded the case to the court of first instance. I%% e: whether the respondent jud$e did not act in e,cess of his 4

jurisdiction or in a&use of discretion in refusin$ to $rant the accused?s #otion to return the record for the purpose set out therein He)*: No. Section 11 of 2ule 1)6 does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the #atter. 1hile section 11 of 2ule 1)6 defines the &ounds of the defendant?s ri$ht in the preli#inar in+esti$ation, there is nothin$ in it or an other law restrictin$ the authorit , inherent in a court of justice, to pursue a course of action reasona&l calculated to &rin$ out the truth. Befendant cannot, as a #atter of ri$ht, co#pel the co#plaint and his witnesses to repeat in his presence what the had said at the preli#inar e,a#ination &efore the issuance of the order of arrest. The constitutional ri$ht of an accused to &e confronted & the witnesses a$ainst hi# does not appl to preli#inar hearin$s? nor will the a&sence of a preli#inar e,a#ination &e an infrin$e#ent of his ri$ht to confront witnesses. 4s a #atter of fact, preli#inar in+esti$ation #a &e done awa with entirel without infrin$in$ the constitutional ri$ht of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial.

harass#ent, inti#idation and threats. "etitioner filed an ad#inistrati+e co#plaint a$ainst pri+ate respondent. %#&uds#an found pri+ate respondent $uilt of #isconduct and #eted out the penalt of suspension without pa for 1 ear. 4fter pri+ate respondent #o+ed for reconsideration, the %#&uds#an disco+ered that the pri+ate respondent?s new counsel had &een his class#ate and close associate, hence, he inhi&ited hi#self. The case was transferred to respondent Beput %#&uds#an who e,onerated pri+ate respondent fro# the ad#inistrati+e char$es. "etitioner appealed to the SC & certiorari under 2ule 4C of the 2ules of Court. I%% e: 1hether or not Section (7 of 24 -77) which pro+ides for appeals in ad#inistrati+e disciplinar cases fro# the %ffice of the%#&uds#an to the SC in accordance with 2ule 4C of the 2ules of Court is +alid He)*: The re+ised 2ules of Ci+il "rocedure preclude appeals fro# >uasi=judicial a$encies to the SC +ia a petition for re+iew on certiorari under 2ule 4C. 3nder the present 2ule 4C, appeals #a &e &rou$ht throu$h a petition for re+iew on certiorari &ut onl fro# jud$#ents and final orders of the courts enu#erated in Sec. 1 thereof. 4ppeals fro#jud$#ents and final orders of >uasi=judicial a$encies are now re>uired to &e &rou$ht to the C4 on a +erified petition for re+iew, under there>uire#ents and conditions in 2ule 4' which was precisel for#ulated and adopted to pro+ide for a unifor# rule of appellate procedure for >uasi=judicial a$encies. Section (7 of 24 -77) cannot +alidl authori5e an appeal to the SC fro# decisions of the %ffice of the %#&uds#an in ad#inistrati+e disciplinar cases. It conse>uentl +iolates the proscription in Sec. '), 4rt. DI of the Constitution a$ainst a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of the SC.

F!b+!, '%. De%+er&o# Se-&e.ber 1/# 1008

F!(&%: "etitioner Teresita Fa&ian was the #ajor stoc.holder and "resident of "2%M4T Construction Be+elop#ent Corporation which was en$a$ed in the construction &usiness. "ri+ate respondent Nestor 4$ustin was the Bistrict ;n$ineer of the First Metro Manila ;n$ineerin$ Bistrict. "2%M4T participated in the &iddin$ for $o+ern#ent constructionprojects, and pri+ate respondent, reportedl ta.in$ ad+anta$e of hisofficial position, in+ei$led petitioner into an a#orous relationship. Their affair lasted for so#e ti#e, in the course of which, pri+ate respondent $ifted "2%M4T with pu&lic wor.s contracts and interceded for it in pro&le#s concernin$ the sa#e in his office. 1hen petitioner tried to ter#inate their relationship, pri+ate respondent refused and resisted her atte#pts to do so to the e,tent of e#plo in$ acts of

E)!*+o A)o,%o, +.To.!% 1+))!.or e& !) * u l ( - , 1 9 1 ) FACTS: Befendants were #e#&ers of the #unicipal &oard of the #unicipalit of "lacer. The wrote a letter addressed to the plaintiff who at that ti #e was the priest inchar$e of the church. The contents of the letter &asicall stated that there was an order fro# the pro+incial fiscal sa in$ that c e m e t e r i e s , c o n v e n t s , a n d o t h e r buildings erected on land belonging to the town belong to the town. As such, they are notifying the priest that all revenues and products of the church must be turned over to the treasury of the municipality. All alm s g i v e n b y c h u r c h g o e r s a n d devotees to the image of St. icente lodged in the church should also be turned intothe municipal treasury. !wo wee"s later, the defendants too" possession of the churc h and all of thepersonal properties contained therein. !he plaintiff, as the priest and as the personi n c h a r g e t h e r e o f , m a d e p r o t e s t s t h a t w e n t u n h e e d e d . # e n c e , a n a c t i o n w a s brought by him to recover from the defendants the value of the articles and the rental value of the church. !he lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. $n the defendants% appeal, one of thedefenses presented was that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. !hedefendants assert that the court erred in permitting the action o be brought andcontinued in the name of the plaintiff, !omas illamor, instead of in the name of thebishop of the diocese within which the church was located or in the name of the &oman 'atholic Apostolic 'hurch. ISSUE: 1hether or not the for#alNtechnical defect raised & the de fendant constitutesenou$h $round to re+erse the decision of the court RULING2RATIO: No, the Court allowed the su&stitution of the plaintiff as the part in interest. Sec.C)' of the Code of Ci+il "rocedure pro+ides that JNo jud$#ent shall &e re+ered onfor#al or technical $rounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced real ri$hts of thee,ceptin$ part .K

Sec. 11) of the sa#e code also pro+ides that in furtherance of justice, the court is e#powered to allow a part to a#end an p leadin$ orproceedin$ at an sta$e of the action.In this case, it is undou&ted that the &ishop of the diocese or the 2o#an Catholic4postolic Church itself is the real part in interest. The plaintiff asserted the sa#e inthe co#plaint, and #aintained that assertion all throu$h the record. Ae clai#ed nointerest whatsoe+er in the liti$ation. The su&stitution, then, of the na#e of the&ishop of the diocese as part plaintiff, is in realit not a su&station of the identit of another &ut is si#pl to #a.e the for# e,press the su&stance that is alread there. There is nothin$ sacred a&out processes or pleadin$s, their for#s or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the ri+al clai#s of contendin$ parties. The were created, not to hinder and dela , &ut to facilitate and pro#ote, the ad#inistration of justice. The do not constitute the thin$ itself, which courts are alwa s stri+in$ to secure to liti$ants. The are desi$ned as the #eans &est adapted to o&tain that thin$. In other words, the are a #eans to an end. 1hen the lose the character of the one and &eco#e the other, the ad#inistration of justice is at fault and courts are correspondin$l re#iss in the perfor#ance of their o&+ious dut .

A)o,%o '. 1+))!.or# 3 )" 2/# 1010#

1. The propert sued for was, at the ti#e it was ta.en & the defendants, the propert of the 2o#an Catholic Church, and th at the sei5ure of thesa#e and occupation of the church and its appurtenances & the defendants were wron$ful and ille$al. The conclusions of the court &elow as to the +alue of the articles ta.en & the defendants and of the rent of the church for the ti#e of its ille$al occupation & the defendants were also correct and proper. a. The 2o#an Catholic Church a$ainst the #unicipalit of "lacer /Septe#&er (', 19)609 Court ruled that the propert &elon$ed to the2o#an Catholic Church. &. Earlin + 2a#ire5, Municipalit of "once + 2o#an Catholic 4postolic Church in "orto 2ico (. It is undou&ted that the &ishop of the diocese or the 2o#an

Catholic 4postolic Church itself is the real part in interest. The plaintiff personall hasno interest in the cause of action.a. Sec. 114 of the Code of Ci+il "rocedure9 ;+er action #ust &e prosecuted in the na#e of the real part in interest.'. This Court has full power, apart fro# that power and authorit which is inherent, to a#end the process, pleadin$s, proceedin$s, and decision in thiscase & su&stitutin$, as part plaintiff, the real part in interest. Not onl are we confident that we #a do so, &ut we are con+inced that we should do so.a. Sec. 11) of the Code of Ci+il "rocedure9 4#end#ents in $eneral. G The court shall, in furtherance of justice, and on such ter#s, if an , as #a &e proper, allow a part to a#end an pleadin$ or proceedin$ and at an sta$e of the action, in either the Court of First Instance or the Supre#e Court, & addin$ or stri.in$ out the na#e of an part , either plaintiff or defendant, or & correctin$ a #ista.ein the na#e of a part , or a #ista.en or inade>uate alle$ation or description in an other respect so that the actual #erits of thecontro+ers #a speedil &e deter#ined, without re$ard to technicalities, and in the #ost e,peditious, and ine,pensi+e #anner. Thecourt #a also, upon li.e ter#s, allow an answer or other pleadin$ to &e #ade after the ti#e li#ited & the rules of the court for filin$ the sa#e. %rders of the court upon the #atters pro+ided in this section shall &e #ade upon #otion filed in court, and after notice to the ad+erse part , and an opportunit to &e heard. &. Sec. C)'9 *ud$#ent not to &e re+ersed on technical $rounds .G No jud$#ent shall &e re+ersed on for#al or technical $rounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real ri$hts of the e,ceptin$ part . c. Such an a#end#ent does not constitute a chan$e in the identit of the parties.i. The plaintiff asserts in his co#plaint, and #aintains that assertion all throu$h the record, that he is en$a$ed in theprosecution of this case, not for hi#self, &ut for the &ishop of the dioceseGnot & his own ri$ht, &ut & ri$ht of another. Aesee.s #erel to do for the &ishop what the &ishop #i$ht do for hi#self.

Ais own personalit is not in+ol+ed. Ais own ri$htsare not presented. Ae clai#s no interest whate+er in the liti$ation. Ae see.s onl the welfare of the $reat church whoseser+ant he is. :ladl per#its his identit to &e wholl swallowed up in that of his superior.d. For#al su&stitution = Su&stitution so as to #a.e the for# e,press the su&stancei. No one is decei+ed for an instant as to whose interest are at sta.e. The for# of its e,pression is alone defecti+e.ii. For# is a #ethod of speech used to e,press su&stance and #a.e it clearl appear. It is the #eans & which the su&stancere+eals itself. If the for# &e fault and still the su&stance shows plainl throu$h no, har# can co#e & #a.in$ the for#accuratel e,pressi+e of the su&stance.e. No one has &een #isled & the error in the na#e of the part plaintiff. If we should & reason of this error send this &ac. for a#end#ent and new trial, there would &e on the retrial the sa#e co#plaint, the sa#e answer, the sa#e defense, the sa#e interests,the sa#e witnesses, and the sa#e e+idence. The na#e of the plaintiff would constitute the onl difference &etween the old trial andthe new. In our jud$#ent there is not enou$h in a na#e to justif such action.f. There is nothin$ sacred a&out processes or pleadin$s, their for#s or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the ri+al clai#s of contendin$ parties. T he were created, not to hinder and dela , &ut to facilitate and pro #ote, thead#inistration of justice. The error in this case is purel technical. To ta.e ad+anta$e of it for other purposes than to cure it, does notappeal to a fair sense of justice. Technicalit , when it desserts its proper office as an aid to justice and &eco#es its $reat hindranceand chief ene# , deser+es scant consideration fro# courts. There should &e no +ested ri$hts in technicalities. No liti$ant should &eper#itted to challen$e a record of a court of these Islands for defect of for# when his su&stantial ri$hts ha+e not &een prejudicedthere& .

GALDO ' ROSETE !,* ROA

= Technicalit , when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and &eco#es its $reat hindrance and chief ene# ,deser+es scant consideration fro# courts. There should &e no +ested ri$hts in

technicalitiesK / 4lonso + Dilla#or0 .1. Notice of appeal, cash &ond, and #otion for e,tension of ti#e were all filed within re$le#entar period. 4ttendant circu#stances do not warrant such aca+alier disappro+al of such record on appeal and conse>uent denial of his appeal.a. earnest effort to finish t pewritten record hi#self &. su &stantial co#pliance when su&#itted to opposin$ counsel on )C M a afternoon /see Teehan.ee, concurrin$ opinion0c. *ud$e?s conte ntion that there were ( court steno$raphers wor.in$ on ti#e until la te that ni$ht does not conser+e consideration &ecause it is not just an e#plo ee in lower court who can properl recei+e pleadin$s, &ut it is the recei+in$ or doc.et cler. or deput cler. of court particularl assi$ned torecei+e pleadin$s(. Eer.en.otter + C4 set the #ood for a #ore li&eral construction of rules as #andated & S( 2ule 1 2oC Jin order to pro#ote their o&ject and to assistthe parties in o&tainin$ just, speed , and ine,pensi+e deter#ination of e+er action and proceedin$.K Further#ore, Jliti$ations should, as #uch as possi&le,&e decided on #erits and not on technicalit K / :re$orio + C40

jud$es to o&tain a new award@ Aeld9 Me#&ers of the court so#eti#es are #e#&ers of the &oard of jud$es in an oratorical contest. Eut it is 3N12ITT;N in the law that in such contests the decisions of the &oard of jud$es &e final and cannot &e appealed. The contestants do not ha+e the ri$ht to the pri5es &ecause theirs is onl a pri+ile$e to co#pete for the pri5e and did not &eco#e a de#anda&le ri$ht. The respondent jud$e erred in his reasonin$ that where there is a wron$ there is re#ed . To >uote JThe flaw in his reasonin$ lies in the assu#ption that I#perial suffered so#e wrong at the hands of the &oard of jud$es. If at all, there was error on the part of one jud$e, at #ost. ;rror and wron$ do not #ean the sa#e thin$. 71ron$7 as used in the aforesaid le$al principle is the depri+ation or +iolation of a ri$ht. 4s stated &efore, a contestant has no right to the pri5e unless and until he or she is declared winner & the &oard of referees or jud$es. :rantin$ that I#perial suffered so#e loss or injur , et in law there are instances of 7da#nu# a&s>ue injuria7. This is one of the#. If fraud or #alice had &een pro+en, it would &e a different proposition. Eut then her action should &e directed a$ainst the indi+idual jud$e or jud$es who fraudulentl or #aliciousl injured her. Not a$ainst the other jud$es.K

R!.o, Fe)+-e '%. 3o%e Le &er+o

M!" 40# 1052 02 SCRA 682 Po,e,&e: 3 %&+(e $e,78o, Facts9 %n March 1(, 19C) an inter=colle$iate oratorical co#petition was held in Na$a Cit . Felipe was one of the *ud$es and was the chair#an. Nosce was awarded the first price and I#perial the second price. I#perial addressed a letter to the Eoard of *ud$es protestin$ the +erdict and alle$ed that one of the jud$es co##itted a #athe#atical error on co#putin$ the scores. The Eoard refused to a#end their award, I#perial filed a co#plaint in court. She asserts that she should ha+e ran.ed 'rd place in the +ote, which #a.es her score 9 or the First place. Issue9 1hether the 2TC re+erse the decision of the &oard of FELIPE 1 LEUTERIO 9G.R. No. L-6/0/ :M!" 40# 1052;<N!& re: Special Ci+il 4ction Po,e,&e: Een$5on F!(&%: March 1(, 19C)9 Eenefit inter=colle$iate oratorical contest was held in Na$a with 6 contestants and C jud$es /Felipe chair#an0 where 1st pri5e was awarded to Nestor Nosce and (nd to ;##a I#perial Four da s after, I#perial addressed a letter to the Eoard of *ud$es protestin$ the +erdict, and alle$in$ that one of the*ud$es had co##itted a #athe#atical #ista.e which was refused. She then filed a co#plaint in CFI.

The $rades $i+en & jud$es were tallied and the contestant recei+in$ the lowest nu#&er /1 was hi$hest0 $ot 1st pri5e.Nosce and I#perial &oth $ot the lowest nu#&er of 1). The chair#an, with the consent of the &oard, &ro.e the tieawardin$ 1st honors to Nosce and (nd to I#perial. For the con+enience of the jud$es the t pewritten for#s contained &lan. spaces in which, after the na#es of the ri+alorators and their respecti+e orations, the jud$e could not jot down the $rades he thou$ht the contestants deser+edaccordin$ to 7%ri$inalit 7, 7 Ti#eliness7, 7;n$lish7, 7Sta$e "ersonalit 7, 7"ronunciation and ;nunciation7 and 7Doice7. Fro#such data he #ade up his +ote. I#perial asserts that her total should &e 9C instead of 94 and therefore should ran. 'rdplace in 2odri$ue5O +ote. 4nd if she $ot ' fro# 2odri$ue5, her total +ote should ha+e &een 9 instead of ten, with the resultthat she copped first place in the spea.in$ joust. I%% e2%: 1%N courts ha+e the authorit to re+erse the award of the &oard of jud$es of an oratorical co#petition He)*: NO R!&+o: The i#portant thin$ is 2odri$ue5O +ote durin$ and i##ediatel after the affair. Ais +ote in ;,hi&it ' definitel $a+e :eneralplace No. ' and I#perial place No. 4. Ais calculations recorded on ;,hi&it ' were not #aterial. In fact the Chair#an did not&other to fill out the &lan. spaces in his own for#, and #erel set down his conclusions $i+in$ one to I#perial, ( toEena+ides etc. without specif in$ the ratin$s for 7Doice7, 7;n$lish7, 7Sta$e "ersonalit 7 etc. In other words what countedwas the +ote. Li.e the ancient tourna#ents of the Sword, these tourna#ents of the =ord appl the hi$hest tenets of sport#anship9finall of the refereeOs +erdict. No ali&is, no #ur#urs of protest. The participants are supposed to join the co#petition tocontri&ute to its success & stri+in$ their ut#ost9 the pri5es are secondar . N o ri$hts to the pri5es #a &e asserted & the contestants, &ecause theirs was #erel the pri+ile$e to co#pete for the pri5e, and that pri+ile$e did not ripen into a de#anda&le

ri$ht unless and until the were proclai#ed winners of theco#petition & the appointed ar&iters or referees or jud$es. Now, the fact that a particular action has had no precedent durin$ a lon$ period affords so#e reason for dou&tin$ thee,istence of the ri$ht sou$ht to &e enforced, especiall where occasion for its assertion #ust ha+e often arisenF and courtsare cautious &efore allowin$ it, &ein$ loath to esta&lish a new le$al principle not in har#on with the $enerall accepted+iews thereon. =e o&ser+e that in assu#in$ jurisdiction o+er the #atter, the respondent jud$e reasoned out that where there is a wron$there is a re#ed and that courts of first instance are courts of $eneral jurisdiction. T he flaw in his reasonin$ lies in theassu#ption that I#perial suffered so#e 1ron$ at the hands of the &oard of jud$es. If at all, there was error on the part of one jud$e, at #ost. ;rror and wron$ do not #ean the sa#e thin$. 7=ron$7 as used in the aforesaid le$al principle is thedepri+ation or +iolation of a ri$ht. 4s stated &efore, a contestant has no ri$ht to the pri5e unless and until he or she isdeclared winner & the &oard of referees or jud$es. :rantin$ that I#perial suffered so#e loss or injur , et in law there are instances of 7da#nu# a&s>ue injuria7. This is oneof the#. If fraud or #alice had &een pro+en, it would &e a different proposition. Eut then her action should &e directeda$ainst the indi+idual jud$e or jud$es who fraudulentl or #aliciousl injured her. Not a$ainst the other jud$es. D+%-o%+&+'e: 2e+ersed.

S!7r!*! Or*e, '%. N!(o(o 01 P>+). 504 :1052; Nature9 appeal fro# jud$#ent of CFI of Manila
Facts and Eac.$round of the Case = %n *an 4, 194(, durin$ the *apanese occupation, Taiwan Te..osho /*apanese corporation0 ac>uired the plaintiff?s propert /land with warehouse in "andacan, Manila0 for "hp14)! = %n 4pril 4, 194-, after the li&eration, the 3S too. control and custod of the afore#entioned ene# ?s land under Sect 1( of the Tradin$ with the ;ne# 4ct

= In the sa#e ear, the Copra ;,port Mana$e#ent Co#pan occupied the propert under custodianship a$ree#ent with the 3nited States 4lien "ropert Custodian = In 4u$ust 194-, when the Copra ;,port Mana$e#ent Co. +acated the propert , the National Coconut Corporation /N4C%C%0, the defendant, occupied it ne,t = Sa$rada %rden /plaintiff0 files clai#s on the propert with the Court of First Instance of Manila and a$ainst the "hilippine 4lien "ropert 4d#inistrator = "laintiff petitions that the sale of the propert to Taiwan Te..osho should &e declared null and +oid as it was e,ecuted under duress, that the interest of the 4lien "ropert Custodian &e cancelled, and that N4C%C% &e $i+en until Fe&ruar (6, 1949 to reco+er its e>uip#ent for# the propert and +acate the pre#ise = The 2epu&lic of the "hilippines is allowed to inter+ene = CFI9 the defendant /"hilippine 4lien "ropert 4d#inistrator0 and the inter+enor /2"0 are released fro# an lia&ilit &ut the plaintiff #a reser+e the ri$ht to reco+er fro# N4C%C% reasona&le rentals for the use and occupation of the pre#ises = The sale of the propert to the Taiwan Ta..esho was declared +oid and the plaintiff was $i+en the ri$ht to reco+er "hp',)))N#onth as reasona&le rental fro# 4u$ust 194- /date when N4C%C% occupied propert 0 to the date N4C%C% +acates the pre#ises = the jud$#ent is appealed to the SC 8e$al Issues 1. 1%N the defendant is lia&le to pa rent for occup in$ the propert in >uestion *ud$#ent 1. The CFI?s decision that the defendant should pa rent fro# 4u$ust 194- to Fe&ruar (6, 1949 was re+ersed, costs a$ainst the plaintiff 2atio %&li$ations can onl arise fro# four sources9 law, contracts or >uasi=contracts, cri#e, or ne$li$ence /4rt 1)69, Spanish Ci+il Code0.

There were no laws or an e,press a$ree#ent &etween the defendant or the 4lien "ropert Custodian with the plaintiff re$ardin$ pa #ent of rent. The propert was ac>uired & the 4lien "ropert 4d#inistrator throu$h law /Tradin$ with the ;ne# 4ct0 on the sei5ure of alien propert and not as a successor to the interests of the latter. There was no contract of rental &Nw the# and Taiwan Ta..esho. N4C%C% entered possession of the propert fro# the 4lien "ropert Custodian without an e,pectation of lia&ilit for its use. N4C%C% did not co##it an ne$li$ence or offense, and there was no contract, i#plied or otherwise, entered into, that can &e used as &asis for clai#in$ rent on the propert &efore the plaintiff o&tained the jud$#ent annullin$ the sale to Taiwan Ta..esho. The plaintiff has no ri$ht to clai# rent fro# N4C%C%. ISSUE 1as National Coconut Corporation lia&le for rentals prior to the date the propert was returned to Sa$rada %rden@ RULING No. National Coconut Corporation was not lia&le for the rentals prior to the date the propert was returned to Sa$rada %rden. For National Coconut Corporation to &e lia&le, its o&li$ation #ust arise fro# the law, contract or >uasi= contract, cri#e or ne$li$ence as pro+ided & 4rticle 11C7 of the Ci+il Code which was ta.en fro# 4rticle 1)69 of the old Ci+il Code. 4s none of these sources were present, National Coconut Corporation cannot &e held lia&le. There was also no e,press a$ree#ent &etween the entit which had le$al control and ad#inistration of the propert and the National Coconut Corporation for the latter to pa rentals on the propert so there was no o&li$ation. I#portant Notes 4rticle 11C7 of the New Ci+il Code states that there are C sources of o&li$ations9 laws, contracts, >uasi=contracts, felonies /acts or o#issions punished & law0, and >uasi=delicts.

1,

6. S!7r!*! Or*e, *e Pre(!*ore% *e) S!,&+%+.o Ro%!r+o *e F+)+-+,!% '. N!&+o,!) Co(o, & Cor-or!&+o,# G.R. No. L-4?5/# 3 ,e 40# 1052# 01 P>+). 504:1052; To &e held lia&le, the o&li$ation #ust arise fro# an of the four sources of o&li$ations, na#el , law, contract or >uasi=contract, cri#e, or ne$li$ence.Befendant=appellant is not $uilt of an offense at all, &ecause it entered the pre#ises and occupied it with the per#ission of the entit which had the le$alcontrol and ad#inistration thereof, the 4lien "ropert 4d#inistration. Neither was there an ne$li$ence on its part. There was also no pri+it &etween the 4lien "ropert Custodian and the Taiwan Te..osho, which had secured the possession of the propert fro# the plaintiff= appellee & the use of duress, suchthat the 4lien "ropert Custodian or its per#ittee /defendant=appellant0 #a &e held responsi&le for the supposed ille$alit of the occupation of the propert & the said Taiwan Te..osho. The 4lien "ropert 4d#inistration had the control and ad#inistration of the propert not as successor to the interests of theene# holder of the title, the Taiwan Te..osho. Neither is it a trustee of the for#er owner, the plaintiff=appellee herein, &ut a trustee of then :o+ern#ent of the 3nited States, in its own ri$ht, to the e,clusion of, and a$ainst the clai# or title of, the ene# owner. Fro# 4u$ust, 194-, when defendant=appellant too.possession, to the late of jud$#ent on Fe&ruar (6, 1946, 4lien "ropert 4d#inistration had the a&solute control of the propert as trustee of the:o+ern#ent of the 3nited States, with power to dispose of it & sale or otherwise, as thou$h it were the a&solute owner. Therefore, e+en if defendantappellant were lia&le to the 4lien "ropert 4d#inistration for rentals, these would not accrue to the &enefit of the plaintiff=appellee, the owner, &utto the 3nited States :o+ern#ent 5. M!-!o S 7!r.Ce,&r!) Co. '. $!rr+o%# G.R. No. L-1540# De(e.ber 4# 106?# ?0 P>+). /// :106?; 4 cause of action is an act or o#ission of one part in+iolation of the le$al ri$ht or ri$hts of the otherF and its essential ele#ents are le$al ri$ht of the plaintiff, correlati+e o&li$ation of the defendant, and act or o#ission of the defendant in +iolation of said le$al ri$ht

/. D!,@o%%# I,(. '. Co,&+,e,&!) Ce.e,& Cor-or!&+o,# G.R. No. 164?88# Se-&e.ber 0# 2005# 6/0 SCRA 505 :2005; In order to sustain a dis#issal on the$round of lac. of cause of action, the insufficienc #ust appear on the face of the co#plaint. 4nd the test of the sufficienc of the facts alle$ed in theco#plaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, ad#ittin$ the facts alle$ed, the court can render a +alid jud$#ent thereon in accordance with thepra er of the co#plaint. For this purpose, the #otion to dis#iss #ust h potheticall ad#it the truth of the facts alle$ed in the co#plaint.

C%NST., 4rt. DIII, Sec. C /C0 Section C. The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$ powers9/C0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts, pleadin$, practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to thepractice of law, the inte$rated &ar, and le$al assistance to the under=pri+ile$ed. Such rules shall pro+ide a si#plified and ine,pensi+e procedure for thespeed disposition of cases, shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade, and shall not di#inish, increase, or #odif su&stanti+e ri$hts. 2ules of procedure of special courts and >uasi=judicial &odies shall re#ain effecti+e unless disappro+ed & the Supre#e Court.

11