You are on page 1of 13

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 the 3nited States or of the "hilippine Islands.

law of

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 $o+ern#ent e#plo ees in support of its petition. It is a corporate entit whose personalit is separate and distinct fro# that of its indi+idual #e#&ers. The ri$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 4

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$e did not act in e,cess of his jurisdiction or in a&use of discretion in refusin$ 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.

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 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.

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 # e t e r i e s , c o n + e n t s , a n d o t h e r &uildin$s erected on land &elon$in$ to the town &elon$ to the town. 4s such, the are notif in$ the priest that all re+enues and products of the church #ust &e turned o+er to the treasur of the #unicipalit . 4 l l a l # s $ i + e n & c h u r c h $ o e r s a n d de+otees to the i#a$e of St. Dicente lod$ed in the church should also &e turned intothe #unicipal treasur . Two wee.s later, the defendants too. possessi on of the church and all of thepersonal properties contained therein. The plaintiff, as the priest and as the personi n c h a r $ e t h e r e o f , # 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 . A e n c e , a n a c t i o n w a s &rou$ht & hi# to reco+er fro# the defendants the +alue of the articles and therental +alue of the church. The lower court ruled in fa+or of the plaintiff. In the

defendants? appeal, one of thedefenses presented was that the plaintiff was not the real part in interest. Thedefendants assert that the court erred in per#ittin$ the action o &e &rou$ht andcontinued in the na#e of the plaintiff, To#as Dilla#or, instead of in the na#e of the&ishop of the diocese within which the church was located or in the na#e of the2o#an Catholic 4postolic Church. ISSUE: 1hether or not the for#alNtechnical defect raised & the defendant constitutesenou$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#e nd an pleadin$ 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 Churc h, and that 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. The 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 Ma afternoon /see Teehan.ee, concurrin$ opinion0c. *ud$e?s contention that there were ( court steno $raphers wor.in$ on ti#e until late that ni$ht does not con ser+e consideration &ecause it is not just an e#plo ee in lower court who can properl recei+e pleadin$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

which #a.es her score 9 or the First place. Issue9 1hether the 2TC re+erse the decision of the &oard of 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,

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

1)

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

11

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.

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. '. $!rr+o%# G.R. No. L1540# De(e.ber 4# 106?# ?0 P>+). /// :106?; 4 cause of action is an act or o#ission of one part in+iolation of the le$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; -

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

1(

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.

1'