You are on page 1of 9

Submitted by: Clarence Gabriel D.

Revadillo
Submitted to: Judge Roland Moreno

Tables of Content

Strategic Alliance Development Corp. vs. Star Infrastructure Development Corp. 1


Oscar P. Mallion vs. Editha Alcantara . 2
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Hon. Floro T. Alejo . 3
Francisco I. Chaves vs. Sandiganbayan ... 4
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Hon. Salvador Abad Santos ... 5
Spouses Miniano B. Dela Cruz vs. Ana Marie Conception .... 6
Leonardo Arcenas vs. Court of Appeals .. 7
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Strategic Alliance Development Corp. (STRADEC) vs Star Infrastructure Development


Corp. (SIDC)
The jurisdiction of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over all cases enumerated under
Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A has been transferred to Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) designated by the
Court as Special Commercial Court (SCC) pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on
21 November 2000.
Facts:
Petitioner STRADEC is domestic corporation primarily engaged in the business of
development and with principal place of business at Bayambang, Pangasinan. Along with five
individuals, and three other corporations, STRADEC incorporated respondent SIDC on 28
October 1997, for the purpose of engaging in the general construction business. STRADEC fully
paid and owned 49% of the shares of stock of SIDC.
In 2004, respondents Yujuico and Sumbilla, in their respective capacities as then
President and Treasurer of STRADEC, executed a Promissory Note for and inconsideration of a
loan in the sum of P10,000,000.00 ostensibly extended in favor of said
corporation by respondent Robert L. Wong, one of the incorporators of SIDC. As security for the
payment of the principal as well as the stipulated interests thereon, a pledge constituted
over STRADECs entire shareholdings in SIDC was executed by respondent Yujuico on 1 April
2005.
In view of STRADECs repeated default on its obligations, however, the shares thus
pledged were sold by way of the 26 April 2005 notarial sale conducted in Makati City by
respondent Raymond M. Caraos. Having tendered the sole bid of P11,800,000.00, respondent
Wong was issued the corresponding certificates of stocks by respondent Bede S. Tabalingcos,
SIDCs Corporate Secretary for the years 2004 and 2005, after the transfer was recorded in the
corporations stock and transfer book.
In 2006,Quiambao, in his capacity as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors
of STRADEC, commenced the instant suit with the filing of the petition before a commercial
court in Batangas City alleging four causes of action, to wit: that respondents Yujuico and
Sumbilla were not authorized to enter into any loan agreement with respondent Wong, that the
auction sale was held in a wrong venue, that the transfer of STRADED shares in SIDC was made
fraudulently and that the 30 July 2005annual stockholders meeting and 20 July 2006 special
stockholders meeting of SIDC where the change of principal place of business was approved is
invalid pending determination of the legitimate Board of Directors for STRADEC.
Issue:
Whether the issue is of intra-corporate dispute that the RTC has jurisdiction upon.
Ruling:
It bears emphasizing that the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the case is determined
by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims ascertain therein. Moreover,
pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation
Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential
Decree No. 902-A has been transferred to RTCs designated by this Court as SCCs pursuant to
A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000.

1 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Mallion vs Alcantara
Res judicata as a bar by prior judgment requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1)
the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is-between
the first and second action-identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.
Facts:
On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed a petition with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 29, of San Pablo City seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to
respondent Editha Alcantara, citing respondents alleged psychological incapacity. The petition
was denied by the RTC due to failure to adduce preponderant evidence to warrant the grant of
the relief. It was appealed before the Court of Appeals and was subsequently denied due to
failure to pay docket fees.
After the decision attained finality, petitioner filed on 12 July, 1999 another petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of San Pablo City, this time alleging that his
marriage with the respondent was null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a
valid marriage license. Respondent filed an answer with a motion to dismiss on the ground of res
judicata and forum shopping.
Issue:
Whether the second case filed by the petitioner is barred by the decision reached in the
first case.
Ruling:
Yes, under the doctrine of res judicata.
Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing or matter settled by judgment. It also refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit.
This doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and
is founded upon the following precepts of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity,
which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, and (2) the
hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause. A contrary doctrine
would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the
gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public
tranquility and happiness.

2 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Metrobank v. Hon. Alejo and Sy Tan Se


Section 7, Rule 3. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest without
whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants.
Facts:
Spouses Raul and Cristina Acampado obtained loans from petitioner in the amounts of
P5M and P2M. As security for the payment of these credit accomodations, the Acampados
executed in favor of petitioner a Real Estate Mortgage and an Amendment of Real Estate
Mortgage over a parcel of land registered in their names.
A complaint for Declaration of Nullity was filed by Sy Tan Se against the spouses.
Despite being the registered mortgagee of the real property covered by the title sought to be
annulled, petitioner was not made a party to the case, nor was she notified of its existence.
Extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated upon the spouses default in the
payment of their loan. Petitioner submitted the winning bid, and a Certificate of Sale was issued
in its favor. Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership to have a new TCT
issued in its name. Upon presentation to the Register of Deeds, petitioner was informed of the
existence of the RTC Decision annulling the TCT in the name of Raul Acampado.
Petitioner filed with the CA for annulment of the RTC Decision. The CA dismissed the
petition, and ruled that petitioner should have filed a petition for relief from judgment or action
for quieting of title.
Issue:
Whether petitioner is an indispensable party (thus, whether the RTC Decision should be
annulled)
Ruling:
Yes; thus, it should have been impleaded as a defendant. An indispensable party is a party
who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be
made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. It must be included in an action
before it may properly go forward.
The joinder of indispensable parties to an action is mandated by Section 7, Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedures, which states that, Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

3 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Chaves vs Sandiganbayan
Counterclaims. The claim for damages against the Solicitor General arising from the filing of
the alleged harassment suit does not constitute a compulsory counterclaim, it must be the subject
of a separate and distinct action for damages. (Permissive counterclaim)
Facts:
On July 31, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG) with the assistance of Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed
with the respondent Sandiganbayan a complaint docketed as Civil Case No.0033 against
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Juan Ponce Enrile, among others, for reconveyance, reversion and
accounting, restitution and damages.
After the denial of his motion to dismiss, respondent Enrile filed his answer with
compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim with damages. The compulsory counterclaim is against
the petitioner Chaves on the ground of harassment by filing baseless cases against Enrile.
Issue:
Whether Petitioner Chaves, by representing PCGG, is immune to suit and thus the
counterclaim should be dismissed.
Ruling:
Petitioner is not immune to suits. The general rule is that public officials can be held
personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties
where they have acted ultra vires or where there is a showing of bad faith.
Under the circumstances of this case, we rule that the charges pressed by respondent
Enrile for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code arising from the filing of an alleged
harassment suit with malice and evident bad faith do not constitute a compulsory counterclaim.
To vindicate his rights, Senator Enrile has to file a separate and distinct civil action for damages
against the Solicitor General.
In the case of Tiu Po v. Bautista, (103 SCRA 388 [1981]), we ruled that damages claimed
to have been suffered as a consequence of an action filed against the petitioner must be pleaded
in the same action as a compulsory counterclaim. We were referring, however, to a case filed by
the private respondent against the petitioners or parties in the litigation. In the present case, the
counterclaim was filed against the lawyer, not against the party plaintiff itself.

4 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Metrobank vs Abad Santos


Since a petition for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is neither
a complaint nor an initiatory pleading, a certificate against non-forum shopping is not required.
Facts:
Respondent Manfred Jacob De Koning (De Koning) obtained a loan from Metrobank in
the principal amount of P2,019,000.00, evidenced by promissory note dated July 24, 1997. To
secure the payment of this loan, De Koning executed a real estate mortgage (REM) in favor of
Metrobank dated July 22, 1996 over a condominium unit and all its improvements.
When De Koning failed to pay his loan despite demand, Metrobank instituted
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against the REM. Metrobank was the highest bidder at the
public auction and a Certificate of Sale was issued in the banks favor.
The redemption period lapsed without De Koning redeeming the property. Thus,
Metrobank demanded that he turn over possession of the condominium unit. When De Koning
refused, Metrobank filed on July 28, 2000 with the RTC Makati, Branch 65, an ex parte petition
for a writ of possession over the foreclosed property, pursuant to Act No.3135, as amended. The
petition was dismissed for failure to file a certification against non-forum shopping is not
required.
Issue:
Whether a certification against non-forum shopping is required for an ex parte hearing.
Ruling:
Since a petition for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is
neither a complaint nor an initiatory pleading, a certificate against non-forum shopping is not
required. The certificate that Metrobank attached to its petition is thus a superfluity that the
lower court should have disregarded.
A judicial proceeding, order, injunction, etc., is ex parte when it is taken or granted at the
instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or contestation by, any
person adversely interested.

5 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Sps. Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion


Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court allows the amendments to conform to
or authorize presentation of evidence. (Amendments to conform to or authorize presentation of
evidence)
Facts:
On March 25, 1996, petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with respondents involving
a house and lot for a consideration of P2,000,000. The consideration shall be paid in four equal
installments of P500,000.
In the last installment payment by the respondent, her check bounced, but was
subsequently replaced and the consideration was fully paid. The parties agreed that P200,000
will be the interest and penalty to be charged to the respondent.
After demand, the respondent failed to pay the P200,000 interest and penalty which
caused the filing of by the petitioners for Claim of Sum of Money with Damages amounting to
P487,384 before the RTC. In her answer, the respondent claimed that her unpaid obligation was
P200,000 as earlier confirmed by the petitioner and not P487,384.
During the trial, respondent presented her evidence of payment of P200,000 to Loslos
who allegedly received on behalf of petitioners. RTC dismissed the case and was affirmed by the
CA.
Issue:
Whether the defenses and objections not pleaded in the responsive pleading are
admissible to the case.
Ruling:
As a general rule: Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court states that Defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Hence,
respondent should have been barred from raising the defense of payment of the unpaid P200,000.
However, Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court allows the amendments to conform to or
authorize presentation of evidence.

6 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

Arcenas vs. Court of Appeals


It is a well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in personam, like the
one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court.
Facts:
The case takes its roots from a previous case of an action for annulment of the foreclosure
sale of barge. The trial court rendered judgment on March 21, 1985 which states that the
plaintiffs Espino and Arcenas (plaitiffs of the previous case) are sentenced to pay jointly Dela
Riva moral and exemplary damages amounting to P20,000 and P10,000; respectively.
On October 13, 1993, five years from the time of entry of judgement, private respondent
Dela Riva filed a revival of judgment before the RTC. RTC issued summons against Arcenas
which was not received and upon return by the Sheriff, it was stated that the plaintiff is already
residing in United States and his mother decline to sign its receipt. Thus a substituted service was
conducted by the Sheriff.
RTC declared Arcenas in default and rendered its decision ex parte in favor of private
respondent Dela Riva.
Issue:
Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff.
Ruling:
The court did not acquired jurisdiction over the person of Arcenas, therefore its
judgement is null and void.
Petitioner is no longer residing and found in the Philippines. He left for the United States
in June of 1993 as evidenced by the Sheriffs Return. Hence, summons may be served on him
either personally or by publication. However, since the complaint filed against him is one in
personam (a personal action) and does not involve the personal status of the private respondent,
nor any property in the Philippines in which petitioner has or claim or an interest, or which the
private respondent has attached, summons should be served on him personally. The deputy
sheriff cannot serve the summons by substituted service.
In Panteleon vs. Asunsion we ruled:
It is a well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in personam,
like the one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition
of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court.

7 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures

ROGER MANZANO v. LUZ DESPABILADERAS


G.R. No. 148786, December 16, 2004, CARPIO-MORALES, J:

The request for admission is a remedy afforded to any party after the issues had been
joined. Despabiladeras having failed to deny under oath the facts on the request, she was
deemed to have admitted the same. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 26 of the 1964 Rules of Court
should not be disregarded just because the parties mutually agreed that petitioner submit an
offer to stipulate.
Facts:
Respondent obtained on credit from petitioner various construction materials which she
used in her construction project at the Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges. Petitioner claims that
he delivered a total of P307,140.50 worth of construction materials payable upon respondents
initial collection from CSPC, to bear 8% monthly interest until fully paid. Since respondent has
only paid P130K exclusive of interest, despite receipt of payments from CSPC, petitioner filed a
complaint against her for sum of money with damages.
In her Answer with Counterclaim, respondent alleged that petitioner had substantially
altered the prices of the construction materials delivered, and that she had made additional
payments via 2 checks (P43,069 and P14K). Petitioner alleged, in his Reply and Answer to
Counterclaim, that the 2 checks represented for past obligations not subject of the case.
Issues having been joined, the case was set for pre-trial. During pre-trial, it was mutually
agreed that the plaintiff shall submit an offer to stipulate showing an itemized list of construction
materials delivered and the cost claimed by the plaintiff, and that defendant shall state her
objections, if any.
Instead of submitting an offer to stipulate, petitioner filed a Request for Admission asking
respondent to admit within 15 days that she received the various items delivered by petitioner,
and she has paid only P130K. Respondent did not respond within the said period.
RTC ordered that since the defendant has not answered under oath the request for
admission, the facts requested to be admitted are hereby confirmed.
RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. CA set aside RTC Decision and dismissed petitioners
complaint.
Issue:
What is the legal consequence when a request for admission of material and relevant facts
pursuant to Rule 26 is not answered under oath within the period stated in the Rules by a party
litigant served therefore?
Ruling:
Respondent having failed to discharge what is incumbent upon her under Rule 26, which
is to deny under oath the facts contained in the request, she was deemed to have admitted that
she received the construction materials, the cost indicated therein and debt of P184,610.50. (
However, petitioner admitted during trial that he had received an additional P122,000;
thus, respondent had a remaining balance of P62,610.50.)
The agreement of the parties during the pre-trial was that petitioner shall submit an offer
to stipulate showing an itemized list of construction materials delivered to respondent and the
cost claimed by petitioner, and that respondent will state her objections, if any. In substantial
compliance, petitioner chose to instead file a request for admission, a remedy afforded by a party
under Rule 26.

8 | Page