CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS: MARCH 28, 2015

There was corporation owned by the spouses Manalo. The corporation took a loan from BPI Alabang
Branch, secured by a promissory note with deed of real estate mortgage. The corporation had its office in
Manila. It has a real property located along Roxas Blvd.
The corporation defaulted, it was not in good faith. This prompted the bank to sue the corporation and the
spouses.
1. Was it proper for the bank to engage the spouses? No. In a collection suit, if it was the corporation who obtained the loan, it
was the corporation who was answerable. A corporation has a personality distinct and separate from the owners, the
spouses.
2.

Summonses were sent which were received by

(a) Alma, the sister of the wife, Mrs. Manalo, who happened to be at the latters home in
Muntinlupa City.
-Recipient must be
a. someone with sufficient age and discretion, and
b. residing therein
In this problem, there was no showing that the sister was a resident therein.
(b)Leonardo de Leon, the in house counsel
-he is one of the individuals who are authorized to receive the summons.

3.

The spouses went to their lawyer and the latter gave the following advices:
(a) The complaint is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action and failure to state a cause of action. Was the
lawyer correct?

-No. the ground should have been failure to state a cause of action. Because walang
compliance sa condition precedent. They have an agreement saying that before filing the suit,
the matter shall be first referred to the counsel of the association. Non-compliance with a
condition precedent is equivalent to a failure to state a cause of action.
(b) The complaint is dismissible as the spouses are not real party in interest.
-Yes, because it was the corporation which obtained the load.
(c) The complaint is dismissible on the ground of improper venue.
- the parties did not agree as to a specific venue. But the indicators state that the case could
either be filed in the National Capital Judicial Region. Makati is within the NCJR.
(d) The complaint is dismissible on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defendants (the corp and spouses).
-The spouses should not have been included. So it is futile to discuss the propriety of acquiring
jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants.
(e) The complaint is dismissible for lack of legal capacity to sue.
- there was no board resolution attached to the complaint. Corporations can only act through
its Board of Directors. In filing of suits, the corporation should be armed with the necessary
board resolution. Otherwise, it will have no legal capacity to sue.
4. Assuming that the spouses were erroneously impleaded, may they move for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground of misjoinder? Is misjoinder a reason for dismissal? No.
5. Assuming that the court denied the motion to dismiss, may the corporation appeal from such denial?
No, an order denying the motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order. Hence, not appealable. It should be
certiorari if there was grave abuse of discretion.
6. In its answer, the corporation put up the defense that the interest is very high and shocking to the
conscience of man. It prayed for damages at around 2 million. BPI moved for summary judgment. Is it
correct? No. An answer is a pleading. There is no genuine issue at all. The proper remedy is a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
7. Is the prayer of XYZ corp for the award of damages is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim? Yes.
8. During the pre-trial, the spouses were able to obtain an admission from the counsel of BPI that XYZ has
personality separate and distinct from its officers. The spouses moved for judgment on the pleadings. Is
the motion proper? No. The proper motion is a motion for summary judgment.
9. Class suit. It was an improper case for class suit. Some died, some were merely hospitalized. If the
parties are not similarly situated we rule out class suit.
10. How do we sue an entity without juridical personality?
11. Period within which further remedies could be obtained. The corporation failed to present its evidence.
You should file a responsive pleading.
Note: We issue a declaration of default when there was failure to file an answer, not evidence.
12. A decision was rendered on Feb 22, it was received on Feb 8, 2015. What is the period from receipt of
decision?
Remedies: Either a motion for reconsideration or appeal, within the 15 day period.

13. Assuming the corp learned of the decision on Feb 28, and discovered further that its counsel
received a copy thereof as early as Feb 7, 2015. The 15 day period has already lapsed.
Remedy: Petition for relief from judgment. It is a remedy that can be availed of after the decision has been
final.
2 periods:
1. 60 days from knowledge that a decision has been rendered
2.

6 months from entry of judgment.

14. Supposing a petition for relief was filed by the corporation, what is the effect of that to BPIs right to
move for execution of the decision? None. Unless, under rule 37, a writ of preliminary injunction is issued
by the court. In which case, it will stay, suspend, stop the execution of judgment.
15. Where do we file our petition for relief? What court? The same court that rendered the judgment. It
does not require the payment of docket fees.
REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT
-The right to revive a judgment is an entirely new cause of action. There has to be a determination again
as to what kind of action are we trying to impose through the revival. If it is a personal action, the rule in
venue is at the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant at the option or election of the plaintiff. If
the cause of action has something to do with the title to or possession of a real property, venue shall be
at the place where the property or a portion thereof is located or situated.
-your action to revive could be going to another court. It is raffled. It is the subject again, for the second
time, of another damages.
If it is an action for revival of judgment, are we going to retry or re-examine the case again? No. We do not
repeat everything already presented. The only scope is:
a. WON indeed this judgment was rendered we are after the authenticity of the judgment.
b.

WON this judgment was not enforced within 5years from finality of the judgment upon mere motion

After the lapse of the 5yr period, it can no longer be enforced upon mere motion but by an independent
action. However, Dean Riano said, your 5yr period is not absolute.
The 5yr period may lapse, but still, the judgment may be enforced upon mere motion, if the failure to
enforce the same within the said number of years could be attributed solely to the