You are on page 1of 57

Dean’s

Circle 2016
University of Santo Tomas

Digested by: DC 2016 Members

Editors:
Tricia Lacuesta
Lorenzo Gayya
Cristopher Reyes
Macky Siazon
Janine Arenas
Ninna Bonsol
Lloyd Javier

CIVIL
PROCEDURE
Remedial Law First Semester Cases

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle
2016

Table of Contents

Effect of estoppels on objections to jurisdction .................................................................................................................. 3
Over the res or property in litigation ................................................................................................................................... 3
Jurisdiction of Courts ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Indispensable Party ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
Class Suit ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
How to Implead an Unknown Owner................................................................................................................................... 7
Counterclaims ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Certification against forum shopping................................................................................................................................... 9
Manners of making allegations .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Failure to plead defenses.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Relief from an order of default, extent of relief ................................................................................................................ 11
Effect of appeal by default; defendant .............................................................................................................................. 12
Payment of docket fees ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
Amendment as a matter of right ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Substituted Service ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Extraterritorial service when allowed ................................................................................................................................ 17
Service upon Public Corporations ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Notice and hearing of motions ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Motion to Dismiss ............................................................................................................................................................... 21
Grounds ................................................................................................................................................................ 21
When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses ............................................................................................................... 22
Pre-trial Order ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Requisites for Intervention ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Quashing of subpoena; grounds ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Depositions pending action ................................................................................................................................................ 26
Depositions before action pending appeal ........................................................................................................................ 27
Interrogatories of parties .................................................................................................................................................... 28
Requisites for admission by adverse party ........................................................................................................................ 29
Nature of demurrer to evidence ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Meaning of “genuine issue” ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Judgments and final orders subject to appeal................................................................................................................... 33
Matters not appealable ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC .......................................................................................................... 36
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC ........................................................................................................... 37
Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial bodies................................................................................... 39

1|Page

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle
2016

Relief from judgment .......................................................................................................................................................... 41
Annulment of judgment ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
Grounds ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
How a judgment is executed .............................................................................................................................................. 44
By motion or independent action ....................................................................................................................... 44
Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons ................................................................................................ 45
Discharge of attachment and counter-bond ..................................................................................................................... 46
Preliminary Injunction ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
When Preliminary Injunction improper ............................................................................................................................. 48
Receivership ........................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Nature of replevin ............................................................................................................................................................... 50
Declaratory Relief treated as prohibition .......................................................................................................................... 51
Function of writ of certiorari .............................................................................................................................................. 52
Mandamus ........................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Contempt ............................................................................................................................................................................. 54
How contempt proceedings commenced ......................................................................................................................... 55

2|Page

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle
2016

REMEDIAL LAW

Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

ATTY. CUDIAMAT, et al. v. BATANGAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC., et al.
G.R. No. 182403, March 9, 2010, Carpio Morales, J.

Citing Lozon vs NLRC, the Court ruled that the operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction
seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the
case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from
assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of
the parties or by estoppel. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon
a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such
theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position that the lower court had jurisdiction.

Facts:

Atty. Restituto Cudiamat and his brother Perfecto were the registered co-owners of the disputed
property located in Balayan, Batangas. Perfecto mortgaged the said property to Batangas Savings and Loan
Bank, Inc. (the bank) as security for a loan he obtained there from but this was made without the knowledge
and consent of Atty. & Mrs. Restituto Cudiamat. Eventually, the same was foreclosed. A complaint for quieting
of title with damages was consequently filed by Restituto, et al with the RTC of Balayan. In its Answer, the bank
alleged that the Balayan RTC had no jurisdiction over the case as the bank had been placed under receivership
and under liquidation by the PDIC to which a petition for assistance in the liquidation has been filed with the
RTC of Nasugbu. Thus, it is the latter court which jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed claims against it. The
Balayan RTC rendered a judgment in favor of Restituto et al. Upon appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the bank.
Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether the Balayan RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of title.

Ruling:

No. Estoppel bars the bank from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Balayan RTC. In the
present case, the Balayan RTC, sitting as a court of general jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the complaint for
quieting of title filed by petitioners in 1999. The Nasugbu RTC, as a liquidation court, assumed jurisdiction over
the claims against the bank only in 2000, when PDICs petition for assistance in the liquidation was raffled
thereat and given due course. While it is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction on the subject matter can be raised
at any time and is not lost by estoppel by laches, the present case is an exception. To compel petitioners to re-
file and relitigate their claims before the Nasugbu RTC when the parties had already been given the opportunity
to present their respective evidence in a full-blown trial before the Balayan RTC which had, in fact, decided
petitioners complaint (about two years before the appellate court rendered the assailed decision) would be an
exercise in futility and would unjustly burden petitioners.

Over the res or property in litigation

FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR v. REPUBLIC/ IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 189434/ G.R. No. 189505, March 12, 2014, Sereno, J.

3|Page

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle
2016

In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take
actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from
the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.

Facts:

The Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming the decision of Sandiganbayan declaring all the
assets of Arelma, S.S., an entity created by the late Ferdinand Marcos, forfeited in favor of the Republic of the
Philippines. The anti graft court found that the totality of assets and the properties acquired by the Marcos
spouses was manifestly and grossly disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials and that the
petitioners were unable to overturn the prima facie presumption of ill-gotten wealth, pursuant to Sec. 2 of RA
1379 (forfeiture law). Petitioners seek reconsideration of the denial of their petition, reiterating among others,
that the Sandiganbayan does not possess territorial jurisdiction over the res or the Arelma proceeds which are
held by Merill Lynch in the United States.

Issue:

Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the Arelma proceeds.

Ruling:

Yes. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction despite the fact that the Arelma account and proceeds are
held abroad. To rule otherwise contravenes the intent of the forfeiture law, and indirectly privileges violators
who are able to hide public assets abroad: beyond the reach of the courts and their recovery by the
State. Forfeiture proceedings, as we have already discussed exhaustively in our Decision, are actions considered to
be in the nature of proceedings in rem or quasi in rem, such that Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by
the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a
result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be in
the actual custody of said court.

The concept of potential jurisdiction over the res, advanced by respondent, is not at all new. As early as
Perkins v. Dizon, deciding a suit against a non-resident, the Court held that in order that the court may exercise
power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential
custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the
power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.

Jurisdiction of Courts

SUPAPO v. SPOUSES DE JESUS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015, Brion, J.

That all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the regional trial courts regardless
of the value of the property no longer holds true. As things now stand, a distinction must be made between those
properties the assessed value of which is below P20, 000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within. In
this regard, the complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the
interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.

Facts:

The Spouses Supapo are the registered owners of the disputed property located in Novaliches, Quezon
City over which the Spouses De Jesus, et al. were allegedly squatting. The land has an assessed value of

4|Page

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. The assessed value of real property is its fair market value multiplied by the assessment level. The complaint alleged that spouses Odones are the owners of the disputed property by virtue of an Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale executed by the heirs of Donata Lardizabal who is the registered owner thereof. v. denied the foregoing affirmative defenses and insisted that the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale was valid. located in Metro Manila. In view of these amendments. 7691. Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. the Spouses Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the subject lot. However. Hence. RA 8638 repealed PD 772 which resulted to the dismissal of the criminal case. Spouses Ordones. No. Indispensable Party SOCORRO LIMOS.980. 186979. August 11. The respondents do not deny the genuineness and authenticity of this tax declaration.00). the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC which granted the same. J. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear actions where the assessed value of the property does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20.000.00. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Facts: Respondent Spouses Odones filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed. or Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50. The respondents thus filed with the CA a petition for certiorari which the CA granted. Title and Damages against Petitioners Socorro Limos. however. in their reply. SPOUSES ODONES G. The respondents moved for the quashal of the writ but the RTC denied the same. While their appeal was pending with the CA. is P39. ET AL. the Spouses Supapo moved for the execution of the respondents’ civil liability. et al thereafter served upon the Spouses Ordones a Request for Admission of matters in 5|Page . the former filed a criminal case against the latter for violation of PD No. Issue: Whether the MeTC has jurisdiction to try the present case of accion publiciana. RA No. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. if the property is located in Metro Manila. Upon appeal. Ruling: Yes. The Spouses Supapo thus filed the complaint for accion publiciana with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City in which the said court ruled in favor of Spouses Supapo. praying that the latter vacate the subject lot to which the RTC granted and issued the writ of execution. 2010. the latter pleaded affirmative defenses which also constitute grounds for dismissal of the complaint one among which is the non-joinder of the other heirs of Donata Lardizabal as indispensable parties. In the present case. the jurisdiction of the RTC over actions involving title to or possession of real property is plenary. et al.980. In their answer. Consequently. it was later found out that the same had already been cancelled and registered in the names of Socorro Limos. the CA noted that recourse may be had in court by filing the proper action for recovery of possession. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 P39. divested the RTC of a portion of its jurisdiction and granted the Metropolitan Trial Courts. jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property is now determined by its assessed value. the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. However. It is synonymous to taxable value. This is proven by the tax declaration issued by the Office of the City Assessor of Caloocan.00. Notwithstanding the dismissal. Nachura.R. this petition.000. Thereafter. Socorro Limos. Given that the Spouses Supapo duly complied with the jurisdictional requirements. 772 (Anti- Squatting Law) in which the trial court convicted the respondents. we hold that the MeTC of Caloocan properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint for accion publiciana.00). et al.

If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. Non-joinder means the "failure to bring a person who is a necessary party or in this 6|Page . it can be readily seen that the inclusion of Theresa’s co-heirs does not fall under any of the above elements. Norman S. as attorney-in-fact of his siblings (Mesina heirs) filed an action for quieting of title and damages naming only Theresa Fian Yray (Theresa) as the representative of the Heirs of Fian. and (c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said right. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. The infirmity is. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 support of their defense. The RTC dismissed the complaint which was likewise affirmed by the CA. Hence. Ruling: Yes.R. Ruling: No. Issue: Whether the non-joinder of the other heirs of Donata Lardizabal as indispensable parties a ground for the dismissal of the action. 2013.. not being a juridical person as well. Issue: Whether the complaint states a cause of action. thus they could not be deemed as the real parties in interest in violation of Sections 1 and 2. 201816. That for failure to name or implead all the heirs of the late spouses Fian who are indispensable parties to the case. Theresa filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. J. SR. Spouses Ordones failed to respond to the Request for Admission. namely: (a) The legal right of the plaintiff. Neither could the "Heirs of Fian" be made as defendant. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. No. the same warrants the dismissal of the complaint. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. in fact. The RTC denied the Motion which was likewise affirmed by the CA. prompting Socorro Limos. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. no such order was issued by the trial court. Velasco. Upon the death of the latter. their heirs refused to acknowledge the sale and remained in the possession of the property despite demands by the Mesina heirs for them to vacate. It is only when the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. bought from the spouses Fian two (2) parcels of land on installment. April 8. In this case. Mesina. not a failure to state a cause of action but a non-joinder of an indispensable party. It is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. et al to file a Motion to Set for Preliminary Hearing on the Special and Affirmative Defenses. She claims that the "Heirs of Mesina" could not be considered as a juridical person or entity authorized by law to file a civil action. arguing that the complaint states no cause of action since the names of all the heirs of the late spouses Mesina and spouses Fian were not individually named. A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action. Facts: The late spouses Mesina. G. HEIRS OF SPOUSES MESINA v. that the latter may dismiss the complaint. (b) The correlative obligation of the defendant. Thus. By a simple reading of the elements of a failure to state a cause of action. Jr. this petition. during their lifetime. HEIRS OF SPOUSES FIAN. Hence. this petition.

The Manifestation of Desistance was filed by the President of the National Printing Office Workers Association (NAPOWA) which expressed NAPOWAs opposition to the filing of the instant petition in any court. 16620. 2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court. and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned. G. No. and not a failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. Ruling: No. the dismissal of the case for failure to state a cause of action is improper. As such. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 case an indispensable party into a lawsuit. representative number of NPO employees have instituted this purported class suit. 378) which provides that government agencies and instrumentalities are allowed to source their printing services from the private sector through competitive bidding. subject to the condition that the services offered by the private supplier be of superior quality and lower in cost compared to what was offered by the National Printing Office (NPO). Where the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class they seek to represent are diametrically opposed. Facts: Petitioners filed the present petition challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 378 (E. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Rule 3). Issue: Whether or not the instant case is a class suit. as counsel for respondents. What the trial court should have done is to direct petitioner Norman Mesina to implead all the heirs of Domingo Fian. and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. as defendants within a reasonable time from notice with a warning that his failure to do so shall mean dismissal of the complaint. and the complaint. The 67 petitioners undeniably comprised a small fraction of the NPO employees whom they claimed to represent. J. (See Sec 12. Perceiving E. It is highly doubtful that a sufficient. They characterize their action as a class suit filed on their own behalf and on behalf of all their co-employees at the NPO. ET AL. v. the said number was reduced to 20 as the number of petitioners who effectively instituted the present case. No. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending facts. Moreover.O. ET AL. another element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation." An indispensable party. ERMITA. Class Suit BANDA. the class suit will not prosper. An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. Here. 2010. 378 as a threat to their security of tenure as employees of the NPO. who pointed out that there were about 549 employees in the NPO. petitioners now challenge its constitutionality. April 20.R. the petition failed to state the number of NPO employees who would be affected by the assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly represented by petitioners. There is here an apparent conflict between 7|Page . this is properly a non-joinder of indispensable party. on the other hand. No. or other pleading initiating the class action should allege the existence of the necessary facts. It was the Solicitor General. Sr. Leonardo-De Castro. Thus. The requisites of a class suit are: 1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons. the indispensable parties who were not included in the complaint being the other heirs of Fian. Subsequently. is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of the action.O.

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Facts: In 1995. the resolution of the Motion to Disclose was unnecessary for the purpose of setting the case for pre-trial. the instant case cannot be properly treated as a class suit. Inc. PCIC alleged that its Motion to Disclose was inadvertently filed with the RTC Branch 38 and not with Branch 37. devisee. he may be sued as the unknown owner. EXPLORER MARITIME CO. September 7.. Section 14. a domestic corporation. the pleading must be amended accordingly. 8|Page . Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Wallem Philippines Shipping.R. co-defendant Wallem Philippines Shipping. (ship agent). claiming it was premature for it to move for the setting of the pre-trial conference before the resolution of the Motion to Disclose which has not yet been decided for almost three (3) years already. PCIC alleged that defendant Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer is a foreign corporation whose identity or name or office address are unknown to PCIC but is doing business in the Philippines through its local agent. Since it cannot be said that petitioners sufficiently represent the interests of the entire class. LTD. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which provides that: Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown. The case was raffled to Branch 37. Hence. when his identity or true name is discovered. the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer. ET AL. the fourth defendant is the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Taygetus. PCIC filed its Opposition. or by such other designation as the case may require. In the Complaint. Ruling: Yes. Inc. J. Upon appeal. (broker) to recover from the latter the value of lost or damaged shipment paid to the insured. In 2000. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown. G. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 petitioners’ interests and those of the persons whom they claim to represent. he may be sued as the unknown owner.. which was then referred to as the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer. the pleading must be amended accordingly. However. Asian Terminals. As all the parties have been properly impleaded. 175409. when his identity or true name is discovered. heir. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) filed with the RTC a Complaint against respondents: the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Explorer (common carrier). which was correctly done pursuant to Section 12. this petition. Asian Terminals and Foremost Int’l but this time. the CA affirmed the RTC decision. where the present case was pending.. PCIC filed a similar case against Wallem Phils. Leonardo-De Castro. heir. and Wallem Phils filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time. On the same date. Respondent Explorer Maritime Co. Issue: Whether the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Explorer has been properly impleaded. Inc. devisee. (arrastre). Inc. PCIC then added that both defendants may be served with summons and other court processes in the address of Wallem Philippines Shipping. Inc. Ltd. had already been properly impleaded pursuant to Section 14. The second case was raffled to Branch 38. or by such other designation as the case may require. 2011. How to Implead Unknown Owner PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. and Foremost International Port Services. No....

permissive counterclaim. filed an action for declaration of nullity of contract. BUNGCAYAO. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Counterclaims (Compulsory counterclaim. a counter-offer of P400. The compelling test of compulsoriness characterizes a counterclaim as compulsory if there should exist a logical relationship between the main claim and the counterclaim.000 given to Manuel. who attended the meeting. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS. represented in this case by his Attorney-in-fact ROMEL R. Fort Ilocandia prayed that Bungcayao Sr. Effect on the counterclaim when complaint is dismissed.00. RTC confirmed the agreement of the parties to cancel the Deed of Assignment. Carpio. and the third was for damages..000 to respondent. The criteria to determine whether the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive are as follows: (a) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same?. Respondent filed three counterclaims. Respondent waived and renounced the third counterclaim for damages. J. be required to return the amount of P400. The only counterclaim that remained was for the recovery of possession of the subject property. 170483 April 19. Jr. (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claim. he accepted the payment and signed the Deed of Assignment. Jr. on the condition that the claimants would vacate the area identified as Fort Ilocandia’s property. effect if compulsory counterclaim is not answered) MANUEL C. manifested that he still had to consult his parents about the offer but upon the undue pressure exerted by the mediator. 000. Waiver and Quitclaim. Hence. Release. Issue: Whether Fort Ilocandia’s counterclaim is compulsory. is only a permissive counterclaim. contrary to the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. SR. the second was for recovery of possession of the subject property. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. 9|Page . BUNGCAYAO v. Facts: During a luncheon meeting. Ruling: No. Bungcayao Sr. Bungcayao Sr. and to pay damages. The first was for recovery of the P400. Manuel Bungcayao. Release. Waiver and Quitclaim. alleged that his son. Respondent’s second counterclaim. No. While this counterclaim was an offshoot of the same basic controversy between the parties. It dismissed Bungcayao’s claim for damages and granted the counterclaim of Fort Ilocandia for recovery of possession of the lot. The first counterclaim was rendered moot with the issuance of the 6 November 2003 Order confirming the agreement of the parties to cancel the Deed of Assignment.. AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.00 was made as financial settlement per claimant in consideration of the improvements introduced in Calayab Baech. 2010. 000. absent the compulsory rule?. (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendants counterclaim?. to vacate the portion of the Fort Ilocandia’s property he was occupying. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Release.. respondent’s permissive counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice to filing a separate action against petitioner. It is capable of proceeding independently of the main case. it is very clear that it will not be barred if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. As a counterclaim. It is not a compulsory counterclaim.R. Waiver and Quitclaim and to return the P400. (d) Is there any logical relations between the claim and the counterclaim? A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.

Ruling: No. the parties entered into a joint compromise agreement. The Court has espoused leniency and overlooked such procedural misstep in cases bearing substantial merit complemented by the written authority or general power of attorney granted by the parties to the actual signatory. and not always the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case. During pendency of appeal before the CA. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. MELANIE BRIONES. LUISA CRUZ. a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification. the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the attorney. RUSTY BAUTISTA. No. with the complainants named as his co–petitioners. Quitain: x x x [T]he certification (against forum shopping) must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the attorney. ALEJANDRO YUAN. The purpose of the rule rests mainly on practical sensibility. Atty. However. 174564. Hence. EMMANUEL D. no analogous justifiable reasons exist in the case at bar neither do the claims of Atty. This was admitted by the CA and dismissed the case with prejudice. an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties. For such certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party. 2014. They engaged the services of Atty. Alejandro Cruz-Herrera. x x x Obviously it is the petitioner. MA. J. The petition is dismissible outright for being accompanied by a defective certification of non– forum shopping having been signed by Atty. monetary claims and damages against Podden and its President. In the case of natural persons. the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the attorney. Facts: The complainants. It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the case of natural persons. Displeased. MARY JANE OLASO. a writ of execution was filed but was opposed by Herrera because some of the employees already executed Waivers and Quitclaims. Thereafter. AGUSTIN. assemblers and/or line leader assigned at the production department. JOCELYN LAVARES. Reyes. On appeal. AND JANET YUAN v. issues and causes of action. ROWENA PATRON. Agustin filed MR but was denied.R. February 12. who is in the best position to know whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case. NLRC reversed the judgment and denied the MR of Herrera. ALEJANDRO CRUZ–HERRERA G. filed illegal dismissal case. Agustin merit substantial consideration to justify a relaxation of the rule. he. Agustin instead of the complainants as the principal parties. SUSAN TAPALES. The LA ruled in favor of the complainants. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Certification against forum shopping ATTY. LA denied the issuance of writ. JOSEPHINE SOLANO. As explained in Clavecilla v. Emmanuel Agustin upon the verbal agreement that he will be paid on a contingency basis. Manner of making allegations 10 | P a g e . interposed the present case. Issue: Whether the appeal must be taken cognizance. ADELAIDA FERNANDEZ.

A document is actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon such written instrument or document. About four years thereafter. that her husband and co-defendant. among others. Failure to plead defenses and objections BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES. that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Later.R. In the instant case. and that the court must also dismiss the case against Lolita Toledo in accordance with Section 6. such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the defense. 173946 June 19. INC. In fact. LOURDES K. These documents need not be attached to or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature.R. Del Castillo. the CA granted the petition. On appeal. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G. MENDOZA G. Issue: Whether Lolita is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. Facts: Boston Equity Resources Inc. a Complaint for a sum of money against Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ASDC). the petition was partly granted. Ruling: No. filed before the RTC of Caloocan City. J. Mendoza. Perez. TOLEDO G. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.. but it was denied. BERI then filed a Motion for Substitution which was granted. Facts: Lourdes K. respondent’s cause of action is not based on these documents but on the contract of sale between the parties. Manuel is already dead. Ruling: 11 | P a g e . the Charge Invoices are not actionable documents per se as these only provide details on the alleged transactions. ASDC moved for a bill of particulars on the ground that no copies of the purchase orders and invoices were attached. Issue: Whether the charge invoices are actionable document. Charge Invoices are not actionable documents per se as these only provide details on the alleged transaction. that the trial court erred in ordering the substitution of the deceased Manuel by his heirs. 176949 June 27. Hence. Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9. v. the RTC ruled in favor of Mendoza. The motion and MR of Lolita were denied by the trial court. Lolita filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged. No. Lolita filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett). J. 2013. 2012. No. This was affirmed with modification by the CA. (BERI) filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo.

since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived x x x subject. extent of relief SPOUSES BENEDICT AND SANDRA MANUEL v. 8 Rule 15). Consequently. 1 Rule 9 and Sec. the principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in this case. (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule. Here. As explained in Spouses Delos Santos v. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. RAMON ONG G. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 No. what respondent was questioning in her motion to dismiss before the trial court was that court’s jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel. a complaint for accion reivindicatoria against Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel. Consistent with Rule 9. and another. CA dismissed the Spouses Manuel's Rule 65 petition for lack of merit. Carpio. On appeal." All these requisites were complied with by respondent Ramon Ong. No. the motion to declare the Spouses Manuel in default was granted. October 15. the Spouses Manuel's motion to lift order of default was also shown to be procedurally infirm. J. "the remedy 12 | P a g e . Based on the foregoing provisions (Sec. such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the defense. Issue: Whether Spouses Manuel may be granted relief from the RTC’s order of default. however. Not only were the requisites for declaring a party in default satisfied. to the principle of estoppel by laches.R. setting forth facts constituting the party's meritorious defense or defenses. Later. Instead. Ong moved for the ex parte presentation of evidence. the principles relating to jurisdiction over the person of the parties are pertinent herein. Section 3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Spouses Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default but was denied. "there are three requirements which must be complied with by the claiming party before the court may declare the defending party in default: (1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default. 205249. (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default. Relief from an order of default." Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9. even for the first time on appeal. which was granted. x x x Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised anytime. the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. Facts: Ramon Ong filed with the RTC of La Trinidad. Benguet. denominated affidavit of merit. Their MR was likewise denied. the "objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even if not alleged in a motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. of default must be appended an affidavit showing the invoked ground. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Ruling: No. To the motion to lift order. Thus. 2014 LEONEN.

it is not only the motion to lift order of default which a defendant must file. 2011. DE JESUS. of default must "be appended an affidavit showing the invoked ground. has the right to appeal from the judgment by default and assail said judgment on the ground. denominated affidavit of merit. Peralta. Undoubtedly. Department of Education. on motion of Arquero. Arquero insists that respondents could not have appealed the RTC decision having been declared in default. the same affidavits as are required in a motion to lift order of default must be attached. In Rural Bank of Sta. As this court emphasized in Agravante v. 168053 September 21. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 against an order of default is a motion to set it aside on the ground of fraud. inter alia. Hence. the Court provided a comprehensive restatement of the remedies of the defending party declared in default: It bears stressing that a defending party declared in default loses his standing in court and his right to adduce evidence and to present his defense. a defaulted defendant may file a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. Puerto Princesa City. If judgment has become final and executory. Land Bank of the Philippines. a defendant declared in default retains the right to appeal from the judgment by default on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of the complaint." However. to the motion to lift order. or that the decision is contrary to law. Ruling: Yes. On appeal. Indeed. EDILBERTO C. The Executive Judge issued a 72-Hour TRO. Still. and NORMA BRILLANTES. courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default and that default judgments are frowned upon. DR. Arquero was allowed to present her evidence ex parte. accident. a petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud remains available. The RTC later issued the writ of preliminary injunction. an appeal asserting that the judgment was contrary to the law or to the evidence. as a rule. G. RTC rendered a Judgment by Default in favor of Arquero. that 13 | P a g e . other remedies are available to a defaulted defendant even after judgment has been rendered. Regional Office IV-MIMAROPA. Patriarca. setting forth facts constituting the party's meritorious defense or defenses. PARALUMAN GIRON. No. DR. and another. Director. the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. apart from a motion to lift order of default. Respondents failed to file their Answer. even without need of the prior filing of a motion to set aside the order of default except that he does not regain his right to adduce evidence. or a motion for new trial under Rule 37. In the case of the latter. the Court declared respondents in default. Effect of appeal by defaulted defendant REBECCA T. EDUARDO LOPEZ. if judgment had already been rendered but has not yet become final and executory. Issue: Whether the respondents can appeal the RTC decision despite having been declared in default. in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education. COURT OF APPEALS (Former Thirteenth Division). J. In the same order. however. Catalina v. should the defaulted defendant fail to file a petition for relief. Schools Division Superintendent. may be filed. Thus. Arquero filed the Petition for Quo Warranto with Prayer for Issuance of TRO and/or Injunctive Writ before the RTC of Palawan against public and private respondents.R. mistake." We do not lose sight of the admonitions that have been made in jurisprudence that. or excusable negligence. ARQUERO v. He. Facts: Rebecca T.

Payment of docket fees THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO. 14 | P a g e . No. The passenger jeepney was owned by Ponciano Tapales. allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. dismissal. as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances. while the truck was owned by Jose Guballa.R. Guballa filed a third party complaint against Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (FGAC). J. Ltd. a right which he lost in the trial court when he was declared in default. 2011. The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. In turn. and FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION G. the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office. Facts: A collision of a passenger jeepney and a truck occurred. and which he failed to have vacated. CA. he would thereby be allowed to regain his right to adduce evidence. Issue: Whether the CA misapplied the ruling in Manchester v. second. for if it were otherwise. died. represented by Ruben Reinoso Jr. the Court stated: Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees. In the more recent case of United Overseas Bank v. It has been on record that the Court. or that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. In this case. They filed MR but was denied. not automatic. we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the following: first. the petitioner sought the modification of the decision of the trial court based on the evidence submitted by it only in the Court of Appeals. In the case of La Salette College v. As a result. in several instances.. Ruben Reinoso. failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary. v. CA. will apply. COURT OF APPEALS. Pilotin. or that the decision is contrary to law. Ros. SR. The heirs of Reinoso filed a complaint for damages against Tapales and Guballa. the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees. such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. Mendoza. RTC ruled against Guballa. Ruling: Yes. On appeal.. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 the amount of the judgment is excessive or is different in kind from that prayed for. the CA reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-payment of docket fees pursuant to the doctrine laid down in Manchester v. and not the strict regulations set in Manchester. The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. a passenger of the jeepney. and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court. Such party declared in default is proscribed from seeking a modification or reversal of the assailed decision on the basis of the evidence submitted by him in the Court of Appeals. JOSE GUBALLA. Sr. 116121 July 18. PONCIANO TAPALES.

Moreover. Undoubtedly. the Court citing Echegaray v. such situation is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Courts guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its independence. took away the power of Congress to repeal. Facts: Perpetual Help Community Cooperative (PHCCI) requests for the issuance of a court order to clarify and implement the exemption of cooperatives from the payment of court and sheriffs fees pursuant to RA 6938. Issue: Whether cooperatives are exempt from the payment of court and sheriffs fees. On 11 February 2010. Article 61 of RA 9520. 2012 A. Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by Congress to government-owned or controlled corporations and local government units will necessarily reduce the JDF and the SAJF. with the Executive. Legal fees therefore do not only constitute a vital source of the Courts financial resources but also comprise an essential element of the Courts fiscal independence. 08-2-01-0.M. are liable for the difference between the actual fees paid and the correct payable docket fees to be assessed by the clerk of court which shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 141. alter. With the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court. 15 | P a g e . legal fees under Rule 141 have two basic components. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 The petitioners. assess and collect fees. it is evident that the exemption of cooperatives from payment of court and sheriffs fees no longer stands. the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). as basis for exemption from the payment of legal fees. which denied the petition of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for recognition of its exemption from payment of legal fees imposed under Section 22 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. PHCCI contends that as a cooperative it enjoys the exemption provided for under Section 6. or supplement rules concerning pleading. No. practice and procedure. otherwise known as the Philippine Cooperative Act of 2008. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. 9520 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008. In the GSIS case. as amended by RA 9520. 6938. Fiscal autonomy recognizes the power and authority of the Court to levy. PERPETUAL HELP COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE (PHCCI) March 13. Perez. the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Resolution in A. Secretary of Justice. more so. No. Cooperatives can no longer invoke Republic Act No. The laws which established the JDF and SAJF expressly declare the identical purpose of these funds to guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy. stressed that the 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL COURT AND SHERIFFS FEES OF COOPERATIVES DULY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. as amended by Republic Act No.fiscal autonomy. including legal fees. 9520. thus: Congress could not have carved out an exemption for the GSIS from the payment of legal fees without transgressing another equally important institutional safeguard of the Courts independence . 12-2-03-0. and held that the power to promulgate these Rules is no longer shared by the Court with Congress. J. Ruling: No. however.M.

. The granting of leave to file amended pleading is a matter particularly addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. as enunciated in Valenzuela. SORIANO. Soriano. Even if the amendment substantially alters the cause of action or defense. J. Hence. 143264 April 23. Soriano filed a Complaint against BDO Unibank. A responsive pleading having been filed. RTC issued a TRO. Lilian S. SARTE G. Thereafter. (formerly PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK). (LEI).. Branch 4. therefore. represented by Lolita A. thereby giving the petitioners all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Inc. SORIANO. RTC denied both the MR and the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint. INC. SORIANO. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. was directed to admit the Amended Complaint. 16 | P a g e . REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEGASPI CITY. represented by LOLITA A. be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of right. Soriano. Facts: Lisam Enterprises. and secure a just. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Amendment as a matter of right LISAM ENTERPRISES. Soriano. Register Of Deeds of Legaspi City. JR. Estate Of Leandro A. such amendment could still be allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of substantial justice. No. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit. subject only to the limitations that the amendments should not substantially change the cause of action or alter the theory of the case. amendments to the complaint may. and LOLITA A. ESTATE OF LEANDRO A. and secure a just. Jr. even if the amendment substantially alters the cause of action or defense. Sarte for Annulment of Mortgage with Prayer for TRO & Preliminary Injunction with Damages with the RTC of Legaspi City. Soriano. filed an Answer. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK. after the order of dismissal was issued but before its finality. and JESUS L. Lilian S. already filed their Answer. While awaiting resolution of the MR. their rights determined. SORIANO v. speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and proceedings. such amendment could still be allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of substantial justice. Peralta.* LILIAN S. and that discretion is broad. 2012. RTC dismissed LEI and Lolita’s Complaint. The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid a multiplicity of suits and in order that the real controversies between the parties are presented. Jr.R. and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. they also filed a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint. and the claims being asserted were made against said parties. to petitioners' complaint. the RTC of Legaspi City. or that it was not made to delay the action. The latter then filed a MR. INC. prevent delay. Nevertheless. Ruling: Yes. prevent delay. It should be noted that respondents Lilian S. Jr. and Jesus L. speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and proceedings. especially in this case where the amendment was made before the trial of the case. Issue: Whether RTC committed a reversible error when it denied the admission of LEI's amended complaint filed as a matter of right.

No. service on the security guard could not be considered as substantial compliance with the requirements of substituted service. faithfully and full. Extraterritorial service. Facts: 17 | P a g e . 2003. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to. ABELARDO LICAROS G. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Substituted service SIXTO N. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. Also. Extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three modes: (1) by personal service out of the country. It is to be noted that in case of substituted service. Hence. Ruling: No. Issue: Whether there was a valid substituted service of summons. may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Clearly. The Sheriff then resorted to substituted service by having the summons and the complaint received by Rolando Bonayon. with leave of court. Chu. Carpio. it was not shown that the security guard who received the summons in behalf of the petitioner was authorized and possessed a relation of confidence that petitioner would definitely receive the summons. Chu failed to file any responsive pleading and was declared in default upon motion of MATC. 2013 Peralta. there should be a report indicating that the person who received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence. (MATC) filed a complaint before the RTC of Cebu City for sum of money. with leave of court. The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly. (2) by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address. J. As a rule. The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly. This is not the kind of service contemplated by law. the petition was granted. attorney’s fees and damages against Sixto N. and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective. RTC ruled in favor of MATC and was affirmed by the CA. It is a method extraordinary in character. Facts: Mach Asia Trading Corp. summons should be personally served on the defendant. faithfully and fully. Thus. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. No. 150656. April 29. hence. replevin. or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient. ensuring that the latter would actually receive the summons. J. since the latter was not there. a security guard of Chu. when allowed MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v.R. CHU v.R. Sheriff Doroteo P. impossibility of prompt personal service must be shown by stating that efforts have been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed. Cortes failed to serve the summons personally upon Chu. MACH ASIA TRADING CORPORATION G. 184333 April 1.

(3) when the relief demanded consists. Maximo Dela Rosa. submitted his Officer’s Return stating that he served the summons and complaint case upon Margarita c/o DFA (sent by Mail). in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. Nine years later. Margarita applied for divorce and was granted such decree with a distribution of properties between her and Abelardo. No.S. summons and the petition at her address in the U. the spouses decided to separate from bed and board. Margarita went to the U. Abelardo filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage and during which. to find out any possible collusion between the parties and with the negative report of collusion. but under the third mode. In these instances. 18 | P a g e . this is exactly what the trial court required and considered as sufficient to effect service of summons under the third mode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14. with her children. a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff. Margarita received a letter from Atty. Valencia informing her that she no longer has the right to use the family name “Licaros” since her marriage was already dissolved. Jr. Abelardo was allowed to present his evidence ex parte.” The Process Server’s Return of 15 July 1991 shows that the summons addressed to Margarita together with the complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the Department of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of receipt.R. through the DFA. also with leave of court. 175299. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. The Process Server’s certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate. Abelardo moved that summons be served through the International Express Courier Service but the court denied it and ordered that summons be served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. Before proceeding to declare the marriage between Margarita and Abelardo null and void. Leonardo-De Castro. at the same time furnishing Margarita a copy of the order. The case was referred to Prosecutor Bruselas.S. 2011. However. with leave of court. actual or contingent. or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient. Process Server. This refers to “any other means that the judge may consider sufficient. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Abelardo and Margarita were married and had two children namely Maria Concepcion and Abelardo. J. Abelardo and Margarita executed an “Agreement of Separation of Properties” and later a petition was filed for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the spouses and for the approval of the agreement of separation of their properties which was granted. the court has jurisdiction. or the subject of which is property within the Philippines. Margarita was still residing at the U. in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines. After all. the marriage between Abelardo and Margarita was declared null and void. Under Section 15 of Rule 14. (2) when the action relates to. hence. September 14. Issue: Whether or not the service of summons on Margarita was valid.S. The trial court’s prescribed mode of extraterritorial service does not fall under the first or second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule 14. extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three modes: (1) by personal service out of the country. ALBERTO DOMINGO G. or (4) when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. wholly or in part. Later. Service Upon Public Corporations REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the trial court stated in its Decision dated 8 November 1991 that “compliance with the jurisdictional requirements have been duly established.” The Court holds that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was sufficient compliance with the rule. (2) by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address. Ruling: Yes. Jr.

Ruling: No. or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court in rendering its assailed Decision. As correctly argued by the Republic. the DPWH and its regional office are merely the agents of the former (the Republic). or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. possesses no juridical personality of its own. Such an oversight on the part of the Court of Appeals is most unfortunate given the relevance and materiality of Section 13. Domingo claimed that the unpaid rentals amounted to P6. Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency. 2006 shows that the appellate court mainly dissertated regarding the functions and organizational structures of the DPWH and the OSG. 333-M-2002. service may be effected on its executive head. the provisions of Section 13. in addition to the fact that the Republic itself quoted the aforesaid provision in its petition before the appellate court. city or municipality. because it is unincorporated. as mandated by Section 13. the summons in this case should have been served on the OSG. A perusal of the Decision dated May 19. as provided for in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. which is the real party in interest in Civil Case No. service may be effected on its executive head. the State. The Republic. Domingo filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default for failure of the DPWH Region III to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period. Domingo filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against DPWH. service may be effected on the Solicitor General. Thus. or like public corporations. In the instant case. service may be effected on the Solicitor General. to even consider.163. the Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages filed by Domingo specifically named as defendant the DPWH Region III. filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction arguing that it was not impleaded as an indispensable party and that since no summons was issued to its representatives. Pinatubo. Facts: Domingo entered into seven contracts for the lease of his construction equipment to implement the projects of the DPWH to control the flow of lahar from Mt.320. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to the instant case.05 but DPWH Region III failed to pay its obligations despite demands. Quite inexplicably. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court states that: When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines. the Court of Appeals failed to apply. the suit is against the agency's principal. The RTC declared the DPWH Region III in default and set the date for the reception of Domingo's evidence ex parte and later decided that Domingo is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Region III. Domingo filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution which was granted. nay.e. in an attempt to demonstrate the relationship between the DPWH and its regional offices.. Notice and hearing of motions 19 | P a g e . First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines. Hence. which. Summons was issued by the RTC with the Proof of Service of the Sheriff. city or municipality. the court never acquired jurisdiction over the Republic. in case of a province. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Section 13. represented by the OSG. i. in case of a province. as well as to refute the claim that the service of summons upon the Republic should be made exclusively upon the OSG. Issue: Whether or not the service of summons upon the DPWH Region III alone was sufficient. or like public corporations.

The Court categorically ruled in the recent case of Flores v. 6713. Training and Technical Assistance Facility (PTTAF) of CIDA. 20 | P a g e . February 27. the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Flores is considered pro forma which did not toll the running of the period to appeal. No. the mandatory setting for hearing a motion for reconsideration to reverse or modify a judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan is already settled. Motion Day. Ruling: Yes. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. the assailed judgment of this Court has become FINAL and EXECUTORY. ROGER POSADAS and DR. informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan which found them guilty. Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs. Contrary to petitioners’ stance. J. As the motion did not contain any notice of hearing. An Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) was constituted by the Board of Regents which found Dr. UP President Dr. Then. SO ORDERED. the Prosecution filed its Motion to Expunge from the Records Accused’s Motion for Reconsideration. Posadas received his P30. the President of Hua Qiao University in China invited Dr. Posadas and the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) as the Local Executing Agency of the Policy. Dr. on the next working day.R.Except for motions which may be acted upon ex parte. Later. or if that day is a non-working holiday. .000 consultancy fees. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. ordered an investigation on the basis of an administrative complaint. Javier. July 17. Posadas and Dayco guilty and endorsed the case to the Ombudsman which ordered that they be indicted for violation of R. as it provides under Rule VII: “SECTION 1. in view of the foregoing. the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for being a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing and disposed as follows: WHEREFORE. Dayco appointed Dr.000 per month honoraria and P100. and thus. Posadas as Project Director of UP TMC and later hired Dr. the provisions of Sec. Dr.” In its Resolution. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 DR. Motions requiring immediate action may be acted upon on shorter notice. Posadas was the UP Diliman Chancellor and was nominated as director of the Technology Management Center (TMC) but he declined and designated Prof. 181354. A MOA was executed between Dr. No. Dr. Dayco. the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan requires a motion for reconsideration to be set for hearing. on Motions shall apply. Villarama.A. Posadas submitted to NEDA an Application for Funding of his proposed project “Institutionalization of Technology Management at UP” which is to be funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). as OIC of UP Diliman. Issue: Whether or not notice of hearing in motions for reconsideration is mandatory. 3019 and R. 2007. all motions shall be scheduled for hearings on a Friday. Hence. ROLANDO DAYCO v.A. Dayco. Tabbada as Acting Director. Posadas and a delegation from UP Diliman to visit. rendering the motion pro forma. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. President Javier issued the formal charges for Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority.. the legality of which was questioned and later on suspended by COA. Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.R. even before the issuance of the suspension notices. In appealed cases. Posadas designated Dr. 2013. Facts: Dr. Dr. Jr. Javier created a Fact-Finding Committee which conducted a preliminary investigation and finding a prima facie case against the Dr.” In any event. dated November 29. 168951 & 169000. 3. Dr. People (G. Posadas as Consultant for the TMC Project. However. Posadas and Dayco filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied since it has not been set for hearing as required by the rules. 2013): “Flores filed a motion for the reconsideration. The 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan requires a motion for reconsideration to be set for hearing. Posadas and Dr. as amended.

Issue: 21 | P a g e . Cunanans. namely: (a) the failure to state a cause of action.6 million was to be paid to Benito Co and Security Bank. September 12." Thereafter. the Chus brought another suit against the Carloses and Benelda Estate. the requirement is mandatory. and the claim or demand had been paid. She later transferred two of the lots to Spouses Carlos.090. The ownership would only be transferred to Cunanan upon complete payment and compliance with the terms of the deed. waived. whereby the Cunanans transferred to the Chus their 50% share in all the parcels of land registered in the name of Cool Town Realty "for and in consideration of the full settlement of their case. a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading. Benelda Estate assailed the denial on certiorari in the CA but the court upheld the dismissal. (b) bar by prior judgment. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. and (d) identity of parties. seeking the cancellation of the TCTs of the two lots in the name of Benelda Estate and impleaded the Cunanans. that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Rule 121 states: The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. Meanwhile. (b) res judicata or bar by prior judgment. and that Cunanan would pay the balance within three months. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal. However. No. They also executed a side agreement. The Chus. G. et al. Hence. subject matter. Section 4. et al. claiming there is no cause of action because it acted in good faith in buying the lots which was denied. J.” Motion to Dismiss Grounds CATALINA CHU. Benelda Estate also moved to dismiss citing as grounds: (a) forum shopping. “As a rule. the Chus caused the annotation of an unpaid vendor's lien on three of the lots but Cunanan still assigned the lots to Cool Town Realty. and (c) bar by statute of limitations. (b) judgment is rendered by a court having jurisdiction. Benelda Estate filed its answer with a motion to dismiss. the Carloses sold the two lots to Benelda Estate thus. and abandoned. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor. and cause of action in the first and second action. Facts: Spouses Chu executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage involving their five parcels of land in favor of Trinidad Cunanan.R. v. and to borrow money with the lots as security without paying the balance.161. and (c) failure to state a cause of action. the Carloses raised affirmative defenses in their answer. and Cool Town Realty entered into a compromise agreement. 2011. The following are the requisites of res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action: (a) final former judgment. time and again. that the amount of P1. Bersamin. They impleaded Cool Town Realty and the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga. the Chus impleaded Benelda Estate. clarifying that Cunanan paid only P1 million despite the Chus having acknowledged receiving P5. SPOUSES FERNANDO CUNANAN and TRINIDAD CUNANAN. (c) judgment on the merits. Cunanan was able to transfer the title to her name without the knowledge of the Chus. The Chus filed a complaint to recover the unpaid balance from the Cunanans and later amended the complaint to seek the annulment of the deed and the TCTs issued and recover damages. The Court has indeed held. 156185. On their part. The Cunanans moved to dismiss on the ground of bar by prior judgment.

Identity of the causes of action was also met. March 11. There is identity of parties when the parties in both actions are the same. Later. or they are successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. G-1936 for the enforcement or rescission of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage. and the Cunanans. because the Chus. was immediately final and unappealable. J. They argued that: First. because Case No. When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO. continuous. The requirement of the identity of parties was fully met. a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit. which was an action whose subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation. et al. voidable or unenforceable and that they were the true owners of the property. Facts: A complaint for Annulment and Quieting of Title was filed by the petitioners alleging that they were the heirs of Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista.R. CESAR QUIAZON. in order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action. on the one hand. (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. they received demand letters from the respondents claiming ownership over the subject property and demanding that they vacate the same. who acquired a house and lot by virtue of a Deed of Sale and since then. Second. because their deed of sale was spurious. (ii) identity of the subject matter. As to identity of the subject matter. both actions dealt with the properties involved in the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage. The respondents asserted that they were the absolute owners of the subject land and they had inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest and that petitioners had been occupying the property by mere tolerance. or there is privity between them. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. legal and sufficient cause of action" against them. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Whether or not the case is barred by res judicata although the compromise agreement did not expressly include Benelda Estate as a party and it made no reference to the lots. for the judgment. the petitioners "have no valid. However. ineffective. et al. That the compromise agreement explicitly settled the entirety of Civil Case No. Yet. 2015. Mendoza. the RTC had jurisdiction over the cause of action in Civil Case No. the following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final. The first requisite was attendant. being upon a compromise. They denied the allegations in the complaint and proffered affirmative defenses with counterclaims. G-1936 by resolving all the claims of the parties against each other indicated that the third requisite was also satisfied. v. Ruling: Yes. has been held to be improper and impermissible.the failure of Cunanan to pay in full the purchase price of the five lots subject of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage. and (d) there must be between the first and second actions (i) identity of parties. were the parties in both cases along with their respective privies. (c) it must be a judgment on the merits. G. they had been in open. G-1936 and Civil Case No. G-1936 was already terminated under the compromise agreement. and notorious possession for more than a hundred years. No. such hearing is not necessary when the affirmative defense is failure to state a cause of action. and (iii) identity of cause of action. Upon inquiry with the RD. it confirmed that the property had been titled in the name of respondents and they claim that the title was invalid. 12251 were rooted in one and the same cause of action . The trial court may hold a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. Under the doctrine of res judicata. 201248. the action 22 | P a g e . on the other hand. adverse. Civil Case No. As to the second requisite. The reception and the consideration of evidence on the said ground.

to be unfounded. on the defendant's affirmative defense if no corresponding motion to dismiss was filed. the CA ruled that it was within the trial court's discretion to receive and consider other evidence aside from the allegations in the complaint in resolving a party's affirmative defense. Thus. that such a hearing is not necessary when the affirmative defense is failure to state a cause of action. which allowed the court to conduct a preliminary hearing. The reception and the consideration of evidence on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. considering that petitioners had earlier filed a similar case for quieting of title against respondents. Pre-trial Order PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION v.R. the action was also barred by res judicata and violated the prohibition against forum shopping. et al. J. It held that this discretion was recognized under Section 6 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. and that it is. Issue: Whether or not it is within the trial court’s discretion to receive other evidence in resolving an affirmative defense on the ground of failure to state cause of action. motu proprio. by record or document included in the pleadings. The trial court may indeed elect to hold a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses as raised in the answer under Section 6 of Rules 16 of the Rules of Court. The RTC set a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses. does not apply to the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. However. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. AMALGAMATED MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Second. The issues to be tried between the parties shall be limited to those defined in the pre-trial order. 177729. therefore. 2011. however. however. there is no hypothetical admission of (a) the veracity of allegations if their falsity is subject to judicial notice. in a preliminary hearing on a motion to dismiss or on the affirmative defenses raised in an answer. (b) allegations that are legally impossible. G. inquiry is not confined to the complaint if culled (a) from annexes and other pleadings submitted by the parties. (b) from documentary evidence admitted by stipulation which disclose facts sufficient to defeat the claim. Facts: 23 | P a g e . thus. Section 6. it is unavoidable that there are issues that are impliedly included or that may be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as much integral as those expressly listed. (c) facts inadmissible in evidence. Third. September 28. or (c) from evidence admitted in the course of hearings related to the case. It has been held. erred in receiving and considering evidence in connection with this ground. in fact. that there are exceptions to the general rule that allegations are hypothetically admitted as true and inquiry is confined to the face of the complaint. Bersamin. First. The trial court. The Court does not discount. No. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 was barred by prescription and that petitioners were guilty of laches in asserting their interest over the subject lot. the parties are allowed to present evidence except when the motion is based on the ground of insufficiency of the statement of the cause of action which must be determined on the basis only of the facts alleged in the complaint and no other. error for the court to hold a preliminary hearing to determine the existence of external facts outside the complaint. Ruling: No. Pointing to the exception that inquiry was not confined to the complaint if evidence had been presented in the course of hearings related to the case. and (d) facts which appear. has been held to be improper and impermissible.

which was to put an end to controversies. PEFLGC paid the obligation to NCBSA.3 million to finance the working capital requirements and the down payment for the trucks to be used in AMDC's hauling project in the Middle East. As the security for the guaranty. as its co-obligors in which they were jointly and severally bound to pay PEFLGC whatever damages or liabilities that PEFLGC would incur by reason of the guaranty. because such issue was deemed necessarily included in or inferred from the stated issue of whether there was a deficiency still to be paid by AMDC. At any rate. Thereby. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation (PEFLGC). Cuevas. Hence. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Amalgamated Management and Development Corporation (AMDC) obtained from the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia (NCBSA) a loan amounting to SR3. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. and Saddul all sought the dismissal of the complaint. Requisites for intervention 24 | P a g e . it extra-judicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage. The pre-trial order nowhere stated that Cuevas and Saddul already admitted their liability on the petitioner's deficiency claim. and to settle the rights and obligations of the parties. Amalgamated Motors Philippines Incorporated (AMPI). Whether Cuevas and Saddul were liable on the deficiency claim was proper for the ascertainment and determination by the RTC as the trial court and the CA as the appellate tribunal. It is true that the issues to be tried between the parties in a case shall be limited to those defined in the pre-trial order. for it is unavoidable that there are issues that are impliedly included among those listed or that may be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as much integral parts of the pre-trial order as those expressly listed. AMDC defaulted and upon demand. a pre-trial order is not intended to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be taken during the trial. the RTC acted in conformity with the avowed reason for which the courts are organized. and adduced against them evidence to prove their liabilities. AMDC also executed a deed of undertaking with Cuevas and Saddul. Cuevas and Saddul. and that the real estate mortgage securing the loan had already been foreclosed. Cuevas and Saddul to recover for the deficiency since the proceeds of the foreclosure sale were not sufficient to cover the guaranty. Their admission appearing in the pre-trial order referred only to the fact that they and AMDC had received advances in large amounts from the petitioner. a GOCC which guarantees foreign loans granted to any domestic entity. Issue: Whether or not the liability of Cuevas and Saddul on the deficiency claim was already an admitted fact under the pre-trial order. The sheriff conducted a public auction and PEFLGC acquired the mortgaged properties as the highest bidder. it remains that the petitioner impleaded Cuevas and Saddul as defendants. PEFLGC demanded that AMDC. AMDC. PEFLGC sued AMDC. However. With Cuevas and Saddul being parties to be affected by the judgment. but did not comply. acted as an accommodation mortgagor. Hence. Ruling: No. However. it was only appropriate for the RTC to inquire into and determine their liability for the purpose of arriving at a complete determination of the suit. a sister company of AMDC. its President and Vice-President respectively. notwithstanding the silence of the pre-trial order on it. to decide the questions submitted by the litigants. and executed in favor of PEFLGC a real estate mortgage. issued a letter of guaranty in favor of NCBSA as the lending bank upon the request of AMDC. Cuevas and Saddul should pay the obligation.

The CA denied the Motion for Intervention for having been filed beyond the period allowed by law. Dalisay contended that Ongco did not have a legal interest over the property and the intervention would unduly delay the registration proceeding. the Court held that the petitioner who anchored his motion to intervene on his legal interest arising from his pending application for a free patent over a portion of the subject land merely had a collateral interest in the subject matter of the litigation. becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. 1999). her interest is indirect and contingent. CA (G. but is left to the court's sound discretion. 2012. The trial court must not only determine if the requisite legal interest is present. Petitioner has not shown any legal interest of such nature that she "will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. Intervention is a remedy by which a third party. His collateral interest could not have justified intervention. becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. 127022. She has not been granted a free patent over the subject land. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. The court found Dalisay to have clearly shown a registrable right over the subject property and ordered that a decree of registration be issued by the LRA. but also take into consideration the delay and the consequent prejudice to the original parties that the intervention will cause. Ongco filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene" with an attached Answer-in-Intervention seeking the dismissal of Dalisay's application on the ground that the property was not free from any adverse claim.R. July 18. September 2. In Firestone Ceramics v. It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of right. Ongco had allegedly been previously found to be in actual possession of the subject land in an earlier case filed before when she applied for a free patent on the land. No oppositor aside from the Republic came. Facts: Dalisay applied for registration of a parcel of land before the MTC. however. Intervention is a remedy by which a third party." On the contrary. the Rules also explicitly say that intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment by the trial court. No. The Republic filed an appeal and while the case was pending appeal. grounds 25 | P a g e . Sereno. but is left to the trial court's sound discretion. Ongco never intervened in the proceedings in the trial court. Dalisay pointed out that intervention may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. not originally impleaded in the proceedings. J. Ruling: No. Issue: Whether or not Ongco may be allowed to intervene. not originally impleaded in the proceedings. VALERIANA UNGCO DALISAY G. Intervention is not a matter of right. 190810. as the first requirement on legal interest is not more important than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result.R. Her interest is at best inchoate. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 LORENZA ONGCO v. Both requirements must concur. but not at any other time. as she in fact admits being only in the process of applying for one. To help ensure that delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene. No. This remedy. is not a right. Quashing of subpoena.

were children of Lee and Keh. Section 4. Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. or the relevancy of the books. Facts: Spouses Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng entered the Philippines in the 1930s as immigrants from China and had 11 children. in any event. 2010. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE RECORD OF BIRTH. No. Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence. Regarding the physical and emotional punishment that would be inflicted on Tiu if she were compelled at her age and condition to come to court to testify. July 13. claiming that it was oppressive and violated the rule on parental privilege. in any event.R. the Lee-Keh children filed the deletion from the certificate of live birth of Emma Lee. As the CA correctly ruled. If she is fit. documents or things does not appear. The RTC quashed the subpoena it issued for being unreasonable and oppressive considering that Tiu was already very old and that the obvious object of the subpoena was to badge her into admitting that she was Emma Lee's mother. Lee brought from China a young woman named Tiu Chuan to serve as housemaid. petitioner Emma Lee must establish this claim to the satisfaction of the trial court. one of Lee's other children. the name Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her true mother's name. COURT OF APPEALS. Tiu has no need to worry that the oral examination might subject her to badgering by adverse counsel. The Lee-Keh children learned that Tiu's children with Lee claimed that they. too. documents or things does not appear. EMMA LEE v. at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive. and had a relation with him. a command that has a tendency to infringe on the right against invasion of privacy. or the relevancy of the books. The RTC granted the motion but Tiu moved to quash the subpoena.” Hence. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. et al. Ruling: Yes. But here Tiu. About five years have passed from the time the Lee-Keh children sought the issuance of a subpoena for Tiu to appear before the trial court. she must obey the subpoena issued to her. most probably TIU CHUAN. invoking Section 25. 177861. petitioner Emma Lee. Abad. claims 26 | P a g e . who invokes the filial privilege. but a much younger woman. Issue: Whether or not the trial court may compel Tiu to testify in the correction of entry case that the Lee- Keh children filed for the correction of Emma’s birth certificate. The RTC would have to update itself and determine if Tiu's current physical condition makes her fit to undergo the ordeal of coming to court and being questioned. or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof. the grounds cited--unreasonable and oppressive--are proper for quashing subpoena ad duces tecum or for the production of documents and things in the possession of the witness. The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and. The trial court's duty is to protect every witness against oppressive behavior of an examiner and this is especially true where the witness is of advanced age. The Lee-Keh children believe that Tiu moved into another property of Lee nearby. G. The Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum to compel Tiu to testify in the case. J. Tiu claimed before the trial court the right not to testify against her stepdaughter. at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive. This prompted the Lee-Keh children to request the NBI to investigate the matter and stated in the report that “It is very obvious that the mother of these 8 children is certainly not KEH SHIOK CHENG. thus provides: The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and. or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.

Invoking Section 1. 152375. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its sub-paragraphs (a) to (d).” The notice also states that the Republic shall use the Bane deposition “in evidence… in the main case of Civil Case No. G.” A plain reading of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court readily rejects the petitioner’s position that Bane’s deposition can be admitted into evidence without observing the requirements of Section 47. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. J. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. In Civil Case No. The testimony of Maurice Bane (former director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI) was taken by way of deposition upon oral examination. Jr. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. through the PCGG. In Civil Case 0130. A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother. restitution. the Sandiganbayan denied it for the reason that the deponents are not available for cross-examination. et al. Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending action. Civil Case No. two sets of ETPI board and officers were elected – one which is a PCGG-controlled board and another is the board elected by the registered ETPI stockholders. The Republic alleged that the respondents illegally manipulated the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines. 27 | P a g e . On the other hand. held for themselves and beneficially for the Marcoses. reversion. compliance with “the rules on evidence. Hence. The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to "direct" ascendants and descendants. Hence. However. 0009 was consolidated. Rule 24. Ruling: No. No. 2011. or at the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding. PCGG assailed this resolution. accounting. (ETPI). it also requires. the Republic filed motions seeking the admission of the Bane’s deposition but was again denied. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on “Deposition Pending Action” provides for the circumstances when depositions may be used in the trial. 0009. involving the same parties and subject matter. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides “The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify. Section 4. Brion. Section 47. given in a former case or proceeding. Africa prayed for the issuance of an order for the “calling and holding of ETPI annual stockholders meeting for 1992 under the court’s control and supervision and prescribed guidelines” which was granted. 0130 and Civil Case No. as a condition for admissibility. In the meantime. Section 4.R. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. judicial or administrative. Issue: Whether or not Bane’s deposition is admissible. only Africa was present and he cross-examined Bane.” Facts: Republic of the Philippines. and damages before the Sandiganbayan. the notice stated that “the purpose of the deposition is for Bane to identify and testify on the facts set forth in his affidavit to prove the ownership issue in favor of the Republic and/or establish the prima facie factual foundation for sequestration of ETPI’s Class A stock in support of the Urgent Petition. filed Civil Case No.” On the scheduled deposition date. SANDIGANBAYAN. 0009 against the respondents for reconveyance. which shareholdings Africa and Nieto. 0009 the Republic offered to present its witnesses including Bane and wishes to adopt their testimonies and the documentary exhibits. a family tie connected by a common ancestry. Inc. Depositions pending action REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. December 13.

R. Rule 23 on the taking of depositions of witnesses in civil cases cannot apply suppletorily to the case since there is a specific provision in the Rules of Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution 28 | P a g e . Li Luen Ping. The witness himself. is also inadmissible for the same reason. Section 4. 0130) is an argument in favor of the requisite unavailability of the witness. which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet the witness against him face to face. alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital and that he could not travel to the Philippines by reason of ill health which the court granted. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on Bane’s deposition in the other case (Civil Case No. trial dates were postponed due to his unavailability. The private prosecutor filed a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping. Hence. However. must be produced in court as if he were testifying de novo since his testimony given at the former trial is mere hearsay. et al. Since the basis for the admission of Bane’s deposition. the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari which the RTC granted stating that Section 17. as a condition for admissibility. et al. Cambodia.90 in favor of ML Resources and Highdone Company Ltd. 2012. Depositions before action pending appeal HARRY GO. is from Laos. even Section 4. it also requires. 0009). reliance cannot be given on one provision to the exclusion of the other. otherwise available. that the previous condition. 185527.266. the petitioner failed to recognize that the principle conceding admissibility to a deposition under Rule 23 should be consistent with the rules on evidence under Section 47. For purposes of the present case (Civil Case No. Although the testimony of a witness has been given in the course of a former proceeding between the parties to a case on trial. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court makes an implied reference to Section 47. and neither can or should the Court. In determining the admissibility of Bane’s deposition. July 18. if available. equipment and raw materials installed and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory. Tonny Ngo. the burden of establishing its existence rests on the party who seeks the admission of the evidence. compliance with “the rules on evidence. Perlas-Bernabe. G. which previously allowed the use of the deposition.. in principle. even if the other case or proceeding is before the same court. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court before the deposition may be used in evidence. this testimony alone is not a ground for its admission in evidence. Rule 130. All accused said to Li Luen Ping that they have chattels such as machinery. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending action. being necessity.” Thus. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY. No. Section 17. Indeed. therefore. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on the taking of depositions of witnesses in civil cases cannot apply suppletorily to criminal cases since there is a specific provision in the Rules of Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases. represented by Li Luen Ping. and executed a Deed of Mortgage for a consideration of the amount of $464. the Sandiganbayan would have no basis to presume. The deposition of a witness. LTD. however. who traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged for Other Deceits for conspiring in defrauding Highdone Company Ltd. spare parts. prosecution’s complaining witness. v. By reading Rule 23 in isolation. Facts: Harry Go. This is particularly true in this case where the evidence in the prior proceeding does not simply refer to a witness’ testimony in open court but to a deposition taken under another and farther jurisdiction. The accused represented that the deed is a first mortgage when in fact it had been mortgaged and foreclosed by China Bank. J. This burden cannot be supplanted by assuming the continuity of the previous condition or conditions in light of the general rule against the non-presentation of the deponent in court. both provisions must be considered. remains and would thereby justify the use of the same deposition in another case or proceeding.

the Court concludes that the language of Section 15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony at the hearing through live witnesses. RTC and Ex Officio Sheriff. Clerk of Court. One of the purposes of requiring written interrogatories to the adverse party is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 witnesses in criminal cases. This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witnessess against him face to face. Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at no other place than the court where the case is pending. said rule substantially provides that he should be conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. more particularly of a prosecution witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Issue: Whether or not the taking of the deposition of Li Luen Ping infringed the right of the petitioners to a public trial. Province of Bulacan G. whose demeanor and credibility can be evaluated by the judge presiding at the hearing. the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant. The requirement is the “safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts” as it enables the judge to test the witness' credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying. or at least before the judge. rather than by means of deposition. But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases. The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court. J. however. the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in Laos. and EMMANUEL L. Facts: 29 | P a g e . Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Interrogatories to parties SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA v. Thus. it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age falls within the provision of Section 15 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. Ruling: Yes. Nowhere in the said rule permits the taking of deposition outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.R. No. February 5. Del Castillo. Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories. 2014. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. 185145. which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet the witness against him face to face. where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15. ORTEGA. which is especially intolerable when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his credibility. the testimonial examination should be made before the court. Cambodia. It is not without exceptions. However. Certainly.

Metrobank’s officers – who are considered adverse parties – may not be compelled to appear and testify in court for the petitioners since they were not initially served with written interrogatories.. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. and Capt. This is embodied in Section 6. compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand may result in the calling party damaging its own case. Instead. One of the purposes of the said rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays. 2002. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ROGELIO and ELIZA HEMEDEZ NESTLE PHILIPPINES. foreclosure. As a rule in civil cases. Thereafter. unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. Jr. February 1. Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories. praying for indemnity for the death of their son. as well as those covering the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of their mortgaged property. the Spouses filed a motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum to require Metrobank’s officers to appear and testify as the spouses’ initial witnesses and to bring the documents relative to their loan. No. Rey Laada. De Leon. since the calling party is deemed bound by the adverse party’s testimony. Facts: Spouses Hemedez filed a civil case against Nestle. certificate of sale. Issue: Whether or not petitioners must first serve written interrogatories to respondent bank’s officers before they can be subpoenaed. The defendants filed their respective Answers denying liability. Besides. and that pursuant to Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules. and thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand. J. moral and exemplary damages. Pacifico Galasao. auction sale. Jesus Alimagno. Rule 25 of the Rules. Request for admission by adverse party REY LAADA v. with damages against respondent Metrobank and Emmanuel Ortega. the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Spouses Afulugencia filed a complaint for nullification of mortgage. the spouses Hemedez served the defendants a request for admission of the truth of the facts set 30 | P a g e . Ruling: Yes. the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant. Metrobank filed an Opposition arguing among others. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. After filing the parties’ pleadings and with the conclusion of pre-trial. it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. and other documents. actual compensation for the destruction of the car. When Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request for admission. Francis Santos. the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings. that the Motion must be denied for lack of proper notice and hearing. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ROGELIO and ELIZA HEMEDEZ G. it produces no significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring. INC. 102390 & 102404. and FRANCIS SANTOS v.R. it should not be restrictively construed to mean that a party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response in his behalf.

Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. Jr. Go objected to the Comment reasoning that it was not under oath as required by Section 2.” Thus. Thereafter. Annulment of Titles. to the request for admission. That the Comment was not under oath is not a substantive. Nestle and Santos.” In the case at bar. This is not the first time that the Court is faced with the said issue. The issue in this case may be stated in this wise: should a person to whom a request for admission is addressed personally answer the request? It calls for an interpretation of the phrase the party to whom the request is directed. Spouses Hemedez sought the striking out of said answers contending that under Section 2 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court the parties themselves and not their counsel should personally answer the request for admission and hence the answer filed by their counsel in their behalf was by nature based on hearsay. BENITO A. J.R. Facts: Rosalinda Canadalla-Go filed a Supplemental Complaint for the Exercise of Right of Redemption and Determination of Redemption Price. it should not be restrictively construed to mean that a party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response in his behalf. with Damages. Go filed a Request for Admission by Adverse Party. the following has been cited: “Section 21 of Rule 138 states that “an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears. Section 23 of Rule 138 provides that “attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing. neither is there a showing that petitioners Nestle and Santos did not authorize their respective counsel to file in their behalf the respective answers requested of them by private respondents in the latters written request for admission. represented by her Attorney-in-Fact. For its part. allegations. the defendants asserted that they observed the rules in filing their answers. After the DBP filed its Answer but before the parties could proceed to trial. and that it failed to state the reasons for the admission or denial of matters for which an admission was requested. and documents contained in 31 | P a g e . 153034. the statements. and Alimagno and Galasao filed their verified answer to the request for admission. but merely a formal defect which can be excused in the interest of justice. and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure x x x . when Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request for admission. first. On the other hand. CANADALLA G. Nullification of Consolidation. and in taking appeals. Laada. Ruling: Yes. through their lawyers. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 forth in their complaint and the genuineness of each of the documents appended thereto. A party cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the Request for Admission for the mere reason that its Comment was not under oath. No. Through their respective counsel. there is no reason to strictly construe the phrase the party to whom the request is directed to refer solely or personally to the petitioners themselves. In PSCFC Financial Corporation v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROSALINDA CANADALLA-GO. Issue: Whether or not an answer to a request for admission signed and sworn to by the counsel of the party so requested is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Plus Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Davide. As the Court has said. Capt. the DBP manifested that.. 2005. September 20. and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client x x x” Furthermore. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the DBP filed its Comment. CA.

000 from petitioner. DBP cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the Request for Admission for the mere reason that its Comment was not under oath. as a mode of discovery.00 reservation fee paid through Sarmiento. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Trial proceeded and only two pieces of evidence were admitted by the court: (1) the Official Receipt issued by MGM Motors wherein it acknowledged receipt of P200. J. the document of sale by installment covering the vehicle. to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law. Facts: Frederick Felipe filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against respondent MGM Motors and Ayala Insurance. 191849. Nature of demurrer to evidence FREDERICK F. MGM MOTOR TRADING CORPORATION. despite repeated demands. That the Comment was not under oath is not a substantive. whether true or not. to make out a case or sustain the issue. and third. A request for admission that merely reiterates the allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand. Ruling: No. contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in the pleading. the reasons for the denial or admission had already been specifically stated therein. It becomes unnecessary to dwell on the issue of the propriety of an unsworn response to the request for admission.R. but merely a formal defect which can be excused in the interest of justice conformably to the well-entrenched doctrine that all pleadings should be liberally construed as to do substantial justice. Felipe’s Nissan Terano Wagon was reportedly lost. a response to the request is no longer required. FELIPE v. Petitioner allegedly paid additional P200. No.000. September 23. Issue: Whether or not matters requested to be admitted under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court which are mere reiterations of the allegations in the complaint and are specifically denied in the answer may be deemed impliedly admitted on the ground that the response thereto is not under oath. and AYALA GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION G. MGM Motors denied receiving the down payment of P200. Court of Appeals. Perez. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 the Request for Admission are substantially the same as those in the Supplemental Complaint. where it is ruled that if the factual allegations in the complaint are the very same allegations set forth in the request for admission and have already been specifically denied or otherwise dealt with in the answer.000. He tried to claim from Ayala Insurance but the latter refused to pay its liability.000. The filing of such Comment substantially complied with Rule 26. Court of Appeals [a] party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. As held in Po v. v. MGM Motors refused to produce. which. Rule 26 does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings. The Po doctrine was brought a step further in Concrete Aggregates Co. and (2) the testimony of his father Alberto that he was present when 32 | P a g e . second. 2015. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action. doing business under the name and style NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case.00 and P5.00 as partial payment for the vehicle. they had already been either specifically denied or admitted by the DBP in its Answer.

When the airport expansion project fell through. and UNIVERSITY OF CEBU BANILAD. and UCB’s motion for summary judgment. July 27. LINDA LOGARTA. and Linda Logarta. Held: Yes. There is no genuine issue of fact where a party does not have any legally enforceable right to the properties in question. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. who in turn had purchased the same from Ines Ouano. Petrosa. the National Airports Corporation. There is no dispute that the only pieces of evidence admitted in court are the testimony of Alberto and the receipt showing MGM Motors receiving P200. the lots remained registered in the former’s name and she was able to sell these lots to National Airports Corporation for its airport expansion project. No. the RTC 33 | P a g e . Considering that the trial court only admitted two pieces of evidence in petitioner's favor and none of those tend to prove loss of the subject car and coverage thereof under the insurance policy. J. 2011. respondents Melba Limbaco. whether true or not. In the same vein. Defendants filed their respective Motions to Dismiss on demurrer to evidence which was granted by the trial court. as their predecessors-in-interest are not buyers in good faith. Petitioner did not present any document to prove said allegation while MGM Motors produced a sales invoice wherein it was stated that the mode of payment is "COD" or cash on delivery. The receipt of a partial payment does not suffice to prove that the purchase was made on an installment basis. According to the RTC.00 from petitioner as partial payment of the subject car.R. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show that a loss occurred and said loss was covered by his insurance policy. PETROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Since good faith is always presumed. Well-established is the rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. G. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case. FREDDIE GO. Lolita Cabigas and her late husband. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 petitioner paid P200. Ramon Logarta. to make out a case or sustain the issue. petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation against Ayala Insurance. AWG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. while the petitioners alleged bad faith and malice on the part of Ouano when she sold the same properties to the National Airports Corporation. Nicolas Cabigas purchased two lots from Salvador Cobarde. to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law. 175291.000.000 to MGM Motors. HENRY SEE. The allegation that the purchase of the vehicle was on an installment basis was not supported by any evidence. Brion. Meaning of “genuine issue” THE HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. They subdivided the lots and sold them to the other respondents in this case. INC. who are the legal heirs of Ouano. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action. succeeded in reclaiming title to the two lots through an action for reconveyance. Notwithstanding the sale between Ouano and Cobarde. MELBA LIMBACO. CABIGAS v. RAMON LOGARTA. they never alleged bad faith on the part of the buyer. RTC issued a resolution granting respondents AWG. BENEDICT QUE. Issue: Whether or not the trial court correctly granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the complaint. Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of titles of various parcels of land registered in the names of respondents. petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs he had prayed for.

citing Section 50 of P. Ltd. and stipulated upon by the parties. if "it puts an end to a particular matter. As astutely observed by the CA. Consequently. 1529. 171496. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 concluded that the National Airports Corporation was a buyer in good faith and its registration of the properties in its name effectively transferred ownership. However. Judgments and final orders subject to appeal REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. A motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision. and the RTC erred in rendering summary judgment. including the prior sale to Cobarde. it is noted from the respondents’ pleadings that several respondents denied that the sale between Ouano and Cobarde ever occurred. In other words. 3 March 2014. It would. Finding merit in respondent Ortigas' petition. free from all the unrecorded prior transactions involving these properties. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP G. the RTC resolution merely collated from the pleadings the facts that were undisputed." leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute the decision. Facts: Respondent Ortigas and Co. the Republic filed a notice of appeal to the CA which was dismissed on the ground that an order of judgment denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable. the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn from these facts is correct is a question of law. subject to an appeal. only legal ones. the pleadings. admitted. the Republic filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating its opposition. the Regional Trial Court issued an order authorizing the sale of the lot to petitioner. a summary judgment may be rendered where. Ruling: No. At the outset. Issue: 34 | P a g e .R. which was however denied by the RTC. Subsequently. the RTC did not resolve any factual issues. there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. depositions and admissions on file show that. Ortigas alleged that the DPWH requested the conveyance of the property for road widening purposes. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. J. and thereafter ruled on the legal issues raised by applying the pertinent laws and jurisprudence on the matter. represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) v. Leonen. on motion of a party and after hearing.D. a closer examination of the parties’ submissions makes it apparent that this is not a genuine issue of fact because the petitioners do not have any legally enforceable right to the properties in question. filed with the RTC a petition for authority to sell to the government one of their lots. The Republic filed an Opposition alleging that the subject property can only be conveyed by way of donation to the government. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment. Orders denying a motion for reconsideration are not always interlocutory orders. except as to the amount of damages. Under the Rules of Court. therefore. No. appear that a factual issue existed that required resolution through a formal trial. No. supporting affidavits. When there is no dispute as to the facts. as their predecessors- in-interest are not buyers in good faith.

The RTC denied the motion and approved only the 15% Attorney’s Lien on the money judgment in favor of Atty. appealable. 2006. unlike a final order or judgment. Escano on the ground of loss of confidence. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. the Republic appealed under Rule 41. Escano filed a Motion to Enter into the Records Attorney’s Lien for additional Attorney’s fees. J. The trial court’s order denying petitioner Republic of the Philippines’ motion for reconsideration of the decision granting respondent Ortigas the authority to sell its property to the government was not an interlocutory order because it completely disposed of a particular matter. 2011. TONGONAN HOLDING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. on the other hand. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the ground that a motion for reconsideration is not appealable. An interlocutory order or judgment. petitioner Republic of the Philippines’ appeal to the CA was properly dismissed because the former used the wrong mode of appeal." leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute the decision. provides that "[n]o appeal may be taken from [a]n order denying a x x x motion for reconsideration. What Section 1 of Rule 41 prohibits is an appeal taken from an interlocutory order." It is an appeal from a final decision or order. THDC contends that it was merely interlocutory because the issue was only collateral to the main issue of eminent domain. counters that the Orders are not interlocutory. He reasons that both orders finally disposed the issue of his attorney’s fees before the RTC and there was nothing more to be done pertaining to the same matter. Atty. Atty. THDC then filed its Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Dismiss Appeal arguing that the Notice of Appeal was not the proper remedy as the order being questioned was interlocutory which could not be the subject of an appeal. JR. FRANCISCO ESCANO. subject to an appeal. "An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself. does "not completely dispose of the case [because it leaves to the court] something else to be decided upon. Atty. An appeal from it would not cause delay in the administration of justice. A motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision.R. Appeals from interlocutory orders are generally prohibited to prevent delay in the administration of justice and to prevent "undue burden upon the courts. THDC terminated the services of Atty." Orders denying motions for reconsideration are not always interlocutory orders. Ruling: No. but final orders and. After his motion for reconsideration was denied on January 26. An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action. ATTY. 190994. Facts: Respondent Atty. which was approved by the RTC." is based on the implied premise in the same section that the judgment or order does not completely dispose of the case. Escaño and his former partners. Issue: 35 | P a g e . since the issue involves a question purely of law. Escaño filed a Notice of Appeal. Mendoza. Afterwards. September 7. paragraph (a) of the Rules of Court. Section 1. if "it puts an end to a particular matter. therefore. Escano sought the entry of his attorney’s liens on the basis of the Memorandum of Agreement contracted between him and THDC. No. Nevertheless. Escaño. Rule 41. Instead of appealing through a petition for review under Rule 45. Francisco Escano was the counsel of petitioner THDC in a case for eminent domain. Atty. Eventually. so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. G.

Thereafter. Escaño’s attorney’s fees when it rendered the aforementioned orders. The petitioners moved for but were denied reconsideration. it was the subject of several motions for execution.. found wide variances with Flor Gupilan-Aguilar’s acquired assets and overseas travels in relation to her income. Jr.R.A. EDUARDO MATILLANO G. was already final. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Whether or not the RTC’s order of denial of the motion for entry for additional attorney’s fees was interlocutory. the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. No. Facts: The PNP-CIDG. Moreover. after conducting an investigation on the lavish lifestyle and alleged nefarious activities of certain Bureau of Customs’ personnel. In Planters Products. 1479 (in relation to R. 197307. 36 | P a g e . February 16. No. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. Appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43. having ruled that he was not entitled to it. The RTC need not resolve anything else thereby making the said orders final. 2014. On the other hand. Consequently.A. 3019 and R. 6713) and for grave misconduct and dishonesty. the RTC ended with finality the issue of Atty. There is nothing left for the judge to perform except to enforce the judgment. The Ombudsman found Aguilar and Hernandez guilty of the offenses charged. and PNP-CIDG represented by DIR. except the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. 27 of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 which provides that “no court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decisions or findings of the Ombudsman. Ruling: No. Matters not appealable FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR & HONORE R. Thus. The CA denied their petition and declared that petitioners’ remedy under the premises is an appeal to the Supreme Court by force of Section 14 in relation to Sec.” while Sec. v. Velasco. In other words. No. a complaint was filed against her for violation of R. an order which does not dispose of the case completely and indicates that other things remain to be done by the court as regards the merits. An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action. Customs Officer III of the BOC was likewise charged. In fact. 27 states that “findings of fact by the [OMB] when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Honore Hernandez. the Court ruled that the order of the respondent trial court awarding attorney's fees in favor of a claimant-lawyer is a final order and not interlocutory. is interlocutory. Court of Appeals. they went to the CA on a petition for review under Rule 43 asserting among others the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations in the complaint. The Court is of the view that the RTC orders denying the claim for additional attorney’s fees were final considering that the main action for eminent domain. MARCELO.A. Inc. represented by HON. as correctly noted by the CA. No. HERNANDEZ v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. SIMEON V.” Issue: Whether or not a Rule 43 petition to assail the findings or decisions of the Ombudsman in an administrative case is proper. J. the RTC had nothing more to do with respect to the relative rights of the parties therein.

First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Ruling: Yes. It declared such action by the RTC as unwarranted because it amounted to the reopening of the trial. those portions of said Sec. in the exercise of his administrative disciplinary jurisdiction had. and making a determination of whether there was an encroachment based on such survey and testimony of the surveyor. Desierto: “wherefore. by ordering the relocation and verification survey “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” upon motion of the petitioners and over the objection of the respondents. In the case at bar. which was not allowed. violate Article VI. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC RUBEN MANALANG. No. appeals from decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43. the petitioners commenced an action for unlawful detainer. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.” As a consequence and in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi–judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. J. The RTC. however. Issue: Whether or not the RTC essentially conducted a trial de novo when it ordered another relocation and verification survey. Section 27 of R. January 12. There is no trial de novo of the case. which promulgated a ruling reversing and setting aside the RTC’s decision and reinstating the MTC’s decision. 14 in relation to Sec. 2015. CONCEPCION GONZALES and LUIS MANALANG v.A. Facts: Petitioners caused the relocation and verification survey of their lot and the adjoining lots. The CA concluded that the RTC. 156995. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 37 | P a g e . 6770 x x x insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the OMB to the Supreme Court. Bersamin. adjudged petitioners guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty and meted the corresponding penalty. The respondents thereafter appealed to the CA. had acted as a trial court in complete disregard of the second paragraph of Section 18. As has been held. No. Sec. Rule 43 governs appeals to the CA from decisions or final orders of quasi–judicial agencies. Upon remand. after due investigation. the RTC reversed the MTC’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. 30 of the 1987 Constitution.R. BIENVENIDO and MERCEDES BACANI G. insofar as they expanded the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its concurrence. 27 and any other provisions implementing RA 6770. On appeal. the result of which showed that the respondents had encroached on their lot. the MTC ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Court held in the landmark case of Fabian v. The MTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction based on its finding that the action involved an essentially boundary dispute that should be properly resolved in an accion reinvindicatoria. CARLOS MANALANG. When the respondents refused to vacate the encroached portion and to surrender peaceful possession thereof despite demands. are hereby declared INVALID and of no further force and effect. Once more. the RTC shall decide the appeal of the judgment of the MTC in unlawful detainer or forcible entry cases on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be required by the RTC. Reliance by the CA on Sec. the Ombudsman. 27 of RA 6770 to support its position as to which court a party may repair to assail the OMB’s decision in disciplinary cases is misinformed. Recourse to the CA via a Rule 43 petition is the proper mode of appeal. the petitioners appealed to the RTC. reversed and set aside the MTC’s decision. after ordering another relocation and verification survey.

ELIZABETH MONZON. It is done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Both parties acknowledged the Order but neither presented additional evidence. that it will take cognizance of the case pursuant to Section 8. In this connection. Respondents appealed to the RTC which issued an Order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over petitioner’s cause of action. It is done by filing a Petition for Review with the CA. a petition for reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of OCT against respondents. 2013. Section 18. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact and law. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Held: Yes. shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de novo. The RTC Judge issued its May 4. They asserted that the proper mode of appeal is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 because the RTC rendered its Resolution in its appellate jurisdiction. hence. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Held: Yes. in its October 22. and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BENGUET G. for its doing so was tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. 174908. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. Facts: Darma Maslag filed before the MTC of La Trinidad. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court clearly provides: x x x The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court. in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case. The RTC further held. 38 | P a g e . There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact and law. Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. No. The CA dismissed the appeal and observed that the RTC in its decision set aside an MTC judgment. June 17. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. The RTC’s violation of the said rule was accented by the fact that the RTC ultimately decided the appeal based on the survey and the surveyor’s testimony instead of the record of the proceedings in the court of origin. The RTC. The respondents moved to dismiss Maslag’s ordinary appeal for being the improper remedy. Maslag thereafter filed a notice of appeal from the RTC’s decision. 2003 Resolution. The RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the relocation and verification survey “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” and by hearing the testimony of the surveyor. Del Castillo. the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 42.R. Issue: Whether or not the CA decided the case on its appellate jurisdiction. J. Simply put. Benguet. The distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed. The MTC found respondent Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT over petitioner’s property and ordered her to reconvey the property. WILLIAM GESTON. the distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed. 2004 Resolution reversing the MTC decision and remanded the case to the court a quo. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC DARMA MASLAG v.

let alone the parties. The MTC ruled in favor of Boardwalk but it was reversed by the RTC. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. Shahani A. 2003 Order.-spouse. Consequently. the CA is correct in holding that the proper mode of appeal should have been a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. This being so an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. there is no other way the RTC could have taken cognizance of the case and review the court a quo’s judgment except in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review and thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC which the said court denied for being a wrong mode of appeal. the same should be disregarded for it produces no effect (other than to confuse the parties whether the RTC was invested with original or appellate jurisdiction).R. Shekinah Marie Villareal-Azugue-daughter. Consequently. Del Castillo. It is a mere statutory privilege. Issue: Whether or not the liberal construction of the Rules of Court should be applied in this case. failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. Hence. Section 8 of Rule 42 provides that the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees. Hence. Villareal-son. Accordingly. hence. 2003 Order. The CA held that Boardwalk erred in filing its Motion for Extension with the RTC. is a duly organized and existing domestic corporation engaged in the selling of ready-to. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Besides. INC. 181182. 2013. and Billy Ray A. With regard to the RTC’s earlier October 22. Ruling: No. VILLAREAL (deceased) substituted by Reynaldo P. Villareal. it filed a Petition for Review with the CA which the said appellate court dismissed outright. instead it should have done so with the CA. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. J. for the latter’s alleged failure to pay a car loan obtained from the former. v. BOARDWALK BUSINESS VENTURES. April 10. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. Villareal-son G. it was as if no Motion for Extension was filed and the subsequent filing of its Petition with the appellate court was thus late and beyond the reglementary 15-day period. 39 | P a g e . to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.wear merchandise while Elvira A. No. More significantly. It is a mere statutory privilege. this petition in which Boardwalk is invoking the liberal application of the Rules of Court. Jr. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Since the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Villareal is one of Boardwalk’s distributors. ELVIRA A. Reynaldo A. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. It cannot be overemphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law and it is “not within the courts. Thus. Inc.” Thus. the new RTC Judge actually treated the case as an appeal despite the October 22. Boardwalk filed a Complaint for replevin against Villareal covering a 1995 Toyota Tamaraw FX. Villareal-daughter. Boardwalk filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. Facts: Boardwalk Business Ventures.

this petition merits an outright dismissal. Sucgang. Boardwalk’s subsequent payment to the clerk of the CA of the docket fees and other lawful fees did not cure such defect. the Office of the Ombudsman recommended the dismissal of the cases. in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. it was grave error on the part of the petitioner to have misinterpreted the Rules of Court and consequently mistakenly remitted its payment to the RTC clerk. As a result. pursuant to Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act. Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43. 40 | P a g e . an appeal in a criminal case filed with the Office of the Ombudsman should be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On the other hand. and Nilo Igtanloc. the CA properly dismissed outright the Petition because it never acquired jurisdiction over the same. Issue: Whether or not the appeal of Contes should be dismissed. SUCGANG and NILO IGTANLOC G. after his motion reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman. JULIO E. 2013. the Office of the Solicitor General sought the dismissal of the petition because petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. Barangay Captain of Barangay Soncolan and Grader Operator. Julio E. Unfortunately. thus. Nos. On the other hand. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS). CONTES v. Consequently. In their Comment.R. Its appeal was not perfected because of its failure to timely file the Petition and to pay the docket and other lawful fees before the proper court which is the CA. the RTC’s Decision had long become final and executory. via a petition for review on certiorari. Contes took the appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. FERNANDEZ. an appeal in a criminal case filed with the Office of the Ombudsman should be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. of the Province of Aklan. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 In this case. 187896-97. In a Consolidated Evaluation Report. Considering that the case at bar was a consolidation of an administrative and a criminal complaint. petitioner had the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals or directly file a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before this Court. respectively. Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial bodies AMANDO P. J. VICTORY M. Ruling: Yes. Neither of these two remedies was resorted to by petitioner. Ferrnandez. Facts: Amado Contes filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of Ombudsman against Victory M. Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43. Perez. in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi- judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. June 10. who were sued in their capacity as Provincial Engineer.

2010. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief. the decision became final 15 days after January 29. In this case. Thus. represented by his attorneys-in-fact and acting in their personal capacities. or until August 12. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief. Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied with. 2014. MORALES and CAROLINA N. 2010. This argument stereotypes and demeans senior citizens. SPOUSES JESUS D. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Relief from judgment JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME. The RTC ruled in favor of spouses Morales. The double period required under Section 3. 2. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under exceptional circumstances. through counsel. Leonen. received a copy of the trial court’s decision on January 29. 2010. otherwise. Ruling: 1. 199283. or on February 13. Whether or not the failure to appeal within the period was due to an excusable negligence on the part of the petitioner’s age. June 9. Issues: 1. A petition for relief from judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright. to file a petition for relief from judgment. It asks the Court to assume that a person with advanced 41 | P a g e . Tugonon’s failure to appeal within the reglementary period was a mistake and an excusable negligence due to their former lawyer’s old age but the RTC denied the petition for relief from judgment on the ground that it was filed beyond 60 days from the finality of the trial court’s decision. Yes. contrary to Section 3. No. They argued that Atty.R. parties must file the petition within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months after the judgment or final order was entered. Spouses Bartolome filed a petition for relief from judgment blaming their 80-year-old lawyer who failed to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period. Since petitioners filed their petition for relief from judgment on September 24. J. petitioners argue that their former counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period was a mistake and an excusable negligence due to their former counsel’s age. 2010. No. If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable negligence of counsel. 2010. Thereupon. the petition for relief from judgment was filed beyond six (6) months from finality of judgment. parties must file the petition within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months after the judgment or final order was entered. parties must show that their counsel’s negligence could not have been prevented using ordinary diligence and prudence. petitioners. MORALES G. Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. the petition shall be dismissed outright. spouses Bartolome filed a notice of appeal but it was denied for having been filed out of time. which the latter mortgaged as a security for the loan they obtained from the former. Facts: Respondent spouses Morales filed with the RTC a complaint for judicial foreclosure of a house and lot owned by spouses Bartolome. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under exceptional circumstances. RODOLFO and RUBY BARTOLOME v. Whether or not the petition for relief was filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioners had six (6) months from February 13. 2010. 2. In this case. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law.

J. appeal. It is based on an unwarranted stereotype of people in their advanced years. 2011. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. appeal. However. Consequently. The only grounds provided in Sec. Whether or not the ordinary remedies of new trial. 163602. that is. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available due to the negligence of their former counsel. the RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC and ordered the spouses Manzo to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor spouses Manila and this decision became final and executory.. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available to spouses Manzo due to the negligence of their former counsel. Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is a proper remedy for spouses Manzo. they alleged that the RTC is without jurisdiction to order the sale of the property since the subject of the appeal is one for ejectment. It is as empty as the bigotry that supports it. No. they alleged that ordinary remedies of new trial. In a petition for annulment of judgment. Second. The CA granted the petition. appeal. to which the said court ruled in their favor. A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial. SPOUSES EDERLINDA GALLARDO-MANZO and DANIEL MANZO G. No. they should have constantly monitored the progress of their case by directly inquiring the status of their case with the RTC. the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Annulment of judgment Grounds SPOUSES EULOGIA MANILA and RAMON MANILA v. As party litigants.R. 2. Issues: 1. lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction. September 7. In this case. A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of the RTC in civil actions can only be availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial. spouses Manzo filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision in the CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Jr. Villarama. Facts: Respondent spouses Manzo filed an ejectment case against spouses Manila before the MeTC. spouses Manzo is at fault when their counsel failed to file the necessary appeal. Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. It is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party’s own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies. it annulled the RTC decision and reinstated MeTC decision. appeal. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 age is prone to incompetence. Ruling: 1. Having completely entrusted their case to their former counsel and believing his word 42 | P a g e . 2. First.

due to failure to appeal. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law. among others. Rule 4733 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. Sonny. January 7. There is no dispute that the RTC is vested with appellate jurisdiction over ejectment cases decided by the MeTC. Facts: Respondents Romeo. respondents failed to pay and thus. to pay the principal obligation plus interest rate of 5% per month. In a petition for annulment of judgment. however. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. MTC or MCTC. Diona filed with the RTC a Complaint praying that respondents be ordered. BALANGUE. they failed to show that the RTC did not have the authority to decide the case on appeal. this petition in which Diona argues that the remedy of Petition for Annulment of Judgment shall be based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction and that since the allegation of the respondents was not anchored on either of such ground. 2. to pay the principal obligation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. BALANGUE. lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction. Consequently. the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 that everything is alright. LETICIA DIONA. 173559. When the debt became due. No. ROMEO A. that is. Del Castillo. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. 2013. they have no one to blame but themselves when it turned out that their opportunity to appeal and other remedies from the adverse ruling of the RTC could no longer be availed of due to their counsel’s neglect. REYNALDO A. MARCELINA DIONA v. is but an exercise of jurisdiction by the RTC. BALANGUE. among others. and ESTEBAN A. represented by her Attorney-in-Fact. spouses Manzo’s attack on the validity of the RTC decision pertains to a relief erroneously granted on appeal. and beyond the scope of judgment. The grant of a relief neither sought by the party in whose favor it was given nor supported by the evidence presented violates the opposing party’s right to due process and may be declared void ab initio in a proper proceeding. While under Section 2. The CA ruled in favor of the respondents and concluded that the awarded rate of interest is void for being in excess of the relief sought in the Complaint. then the said remedy is not proper. Reynaldo and Esteban Balangue obtained a loan from Leticia Diona which was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage. such erroneous grant of relief on appeal. an action for annulment of judgment is not available to spouses Manzo in consonance with the principle that an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. No. Hence. In this case.The RTC ruled in Diona’s favor and ordered the respondents.R. JR. Thus. J. Issue: Whether or not the remedy of Petition for Annulment of Judgment is available to the respondents. Respondents filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment contending that the portion of the RTC Decision granting petitioner 5% monthly interest rate is in gross violation of Section 3(d) of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and of their right to due process as the loan did not carry any interest. SONNY A. Ruling: 43 | P a g e . G. BALANGUE. while respondents assailed the content of the RTC decision.

Clearly. A final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in. Serra further granted RCBC the option to buy the land and improvement within 10 years from the signing of the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. Issue: Whether or not the motion for execution filed by RCBC has prescribed. Ruling: 44 | P a g e . Carpio. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. How a judgment is executed By motion or independent action RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. RCBC informed Serra of its decision to exercise its option to buy the property. In the case at bench. A final and executory judgment may still be set aside if. July 10. the grant of 5% monthly interest is way beyond the 12% per annum interest sought in the Complaint and smacks of violation of due process. FEDERICO A. Accordingly. They cannot also grant a relief without first ascertaining the evidence presented in support thereof. However. 2013. wherein Serra agreed to lease his land to RCBC for 25 years. Court of Appeals. No. 264 (1997). The RTC ruled in favor of RCBC declaring the donation and the subsequent sale null and void. Serra replied that he was no longer interested in selling the property. The Real Estate Mortgage executed by the parties does not include any provision on interest and the Complaint before the RTC includes the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. its patent nullity can be shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law (See: Arcelona v. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It is not supported both by the allegations in the pleadings and the evidence on record. an execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years when the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage. Due process considerations require that judgments must conform to and be supported by the pleadings and evidence presented in court. Facts: Respondent Federico Serra and petitioner RCBC entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. RCBC moved for the execution of the decision in the Specific Performance case which was opposed by Serra on grounds of prescription and laches. The RTC denied RCBC’s motion for execution. this was affirmed by the CA. Hence. RCBC filed a Complaint for Nullification of Deed of Donation and Deed of Sale with Reconveyance and Damages before the RTC. jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. as an exception. However. While under Section 2. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Yes. it is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party. 345 Phil. 250. RCBC filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against Serra. upon mere inspection thereof. Thus. The RTC ordered Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of RCBC. who in turn sold the property. SERRA G. it appears that Serra donated the property to his mother. this petition. However. J.R. Thus. Furthermore. 203241. the RTC’s award of 5% monthly interest or 60% per annum lacks basis and disregards due process.

the pendency of the Annulment case effectively suspended the five-year period to enforce through a motion the decision in the Specific Performance case. VILLASI v. Thus. No. A Writ of Execution was issued commanding the Sheriff to execute and make effective the Decision. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 No. GARCIA. RCBC’s motion is deemed filed within the five-year period for enforcement of a decision through a motion. The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in. THERESA GARCIA-TIANGSON. GARCIA. January 15. 2014. to evade obligation to RCBC. Serra transferred the property to his mother. 190106. Accordingly. To satisfy the judgment. MARLENE GARCIA-MOMIN. The motion was opposed by Villasi who insisted that its ownership belongs to FGCI and not to the Spouses Garcia as shown by the tax declaration. ERMELINDA H. This judgment became final and executory after the Supreme Court ruled on its finality. Since the decision in the Annulment case attained finality on 3 March 2009 and RCBC’s motion for execution was filed on 25 August 2011. Thus. FILOMENO GARCIA. GARCIA. the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra for his own advantage. Thus. allows exceptions when execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years when the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage. The RTC issued an Order directing the Sheriff to hold in abeyance the conduct of the sale on execution. there is no dispute that RCBC seeks to enforce the decision which became final and executory on 15 April 1994. In the present case. Issue: Whether or not the court erred suspending the sale on execution of the building on the basis of the respondent spouses Garcia’s Affidavit of third-party claim. GARCIA G. spouses Garcia filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim claiming that they are the lawful owners of the property which was erroneously levied upon by the sheriff. namely. who then sold it. however. the lots in which it was erected were registered in the names of the respondent spouses Garcia. Perez. Ruling: 45 | P a g e . and ERMELINDA H. this petition. Hence. However. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. LIZA GARCIA-GONZALEZ. to construct a seven- storey condominium building. the claimant must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon before the court can direct the release of the property mistakenly levied. GARCIA. substituted by his heirs. GARCIA and GENEROSO H. They argued that the building covered by the levy was mistakenly assessed by the City Assessor in the name of FGCI. J. GERARDO H. Serra’s action prompted RCBC to file the Annulment case. Facts: Petitioner Magdalena Villasi engaged the services of Fil-Garcia Construction.R. The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. the sheriff levied on a building which was declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI. For failure of Villasi to fully pay the contract price. Inc. Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons MAGDALENA T. Villasi filed a Motion for Execution which was favorably acted upon by the RTC. FGCI initiated a suit for collection of sum of money before the RTC to which the said court ruled in its favor. However. GIDEON H. The Court. MARIVIC H. Clearly.

or an independent separate action to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. and the spouses Mapua before the CFI for the collection of an indebtedness of Peroxide wherein Eastman and spouses Mapua bound themselves to be solidarily liable. 46 | P a g e . Consequently. Regalado.R. HON. In contrast. When the attachment is challenged for having been illegally or improperly issued. In this case. the law presumes them to be owners of the improvements built thereon. Judge Pineda denied the motion to set for hearing filed by BPI and granted the lifting of the attachment. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. EASTMAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES. The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. 1991. it appears that in the course of the appeal of Peroxide before the CA. Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond PEROXIDE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION. J. Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies of either terceria. Villasi was able to satisfactorily establish the ownership of FGCI thru a tax declaration which shows that the building in litigation was declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI and not in the Spouses Garcias’. to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor. they were unable to adduce credible evidence to prove their ownership of the property.. they failed to prove that they have a bona fide title to the building in question. the Spouses Garcia availed themselves of the remedy of terceria. they constitute credible proof of claim of title over the property. However. 92813. COURT OF APPEALS and BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS G. Upon the filing of said action after BPI filed an attachment bond. July 31. claiming that the sheriff mistakenly levied the building that lawfully belongs to them. BPI filed the a motion to set for hearing for the motion to lift attachment and its opposition. The CA and SC thereafter ruled affirming the issuance of the preliminary attachment. EDMUNDO O. Judge Pineda of the said the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on the properties of the petitioners. Thus. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Yes. the claimant must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon before the court can direct the release of the property mistakenly levied. However. Eastman Chemical Industries. to which the said Judge ruled upholding the writ of attachment. there must be a hearing with the burden of proof to sustain the writ being on the attaching creditor. MAPUA and ROSE U. That hearing embraces not only the right to present evidence but also a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing parties and meet them. the person other than the judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over levied properties is not precluded from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his claim. Inc. MAPUA v. Issue: Whether or not the writ of attachment was validly lifted and suspended. Facts: Private respondent BPI sued petitioners Peroxide Philippines Corporation. Section 16. Eastman and spouses Mapua moved to lift the attachment. However. the RTC issued an order suspending the writ of preliminary attachment pursuant to the an ex parte motion filed by it. While it is true that tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership. INC.. The motion for reconsideration for such decision filed by BPI was re-assigned to Judge Reyes. No. Aside from their postulation that as titleholders of the land.

Hence. JR. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. Facts: A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay." states that no injunctive writ could be issued to delay the Ombudsman's investigation unless there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter thereof is outside the latter's jurisdiction. are matters of procedure which belong exclusively within the province of the Court. et al. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA seeking the nullification of the preventive suspension order. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) and JEJOMAR ERWIN S. Thus. G. That hearing embraces not only the right to present evidence but also a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing parties and meet them. The CA granted the application for TRO. 2015. Perlas-Bernabe. there must be a hearing with the burden of proof to sustain the writ being on the attaching creditor. and other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati. otherwise the right would be a barren one. correct in holding that the attachment of the properties of Eastman and the Mapuas remained valid from its issuance since the judgment had not been satisfied. in addition to that on which the attachment was made. Nos. And. the order of suspension of the trial court was void. it contends that it was inappropriate for the CA to have considered the condonation doctrine in the issuance of the injunctive writ since it was a matter of defense which should have been raised and passed upon by her office during the administrative disciplinary proceedings. Consequently. the Ombudsman issued a preventive suspension order. 217126-27. Pursuant to this. the Ombudsman argues that Section 14 of RA 6770. and subsequently issued a WPI. Binay. the Ombudsman filed this present petition assailing the issuance of the TRO on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. or "The Ombudsman Act of 1989.R. Second. Jr. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Ruling: No. the attaching creditor should be allowed to oppose the application for the discharge of the attachment by counter-affidavit or other evidence. 47 | P a g e . The issuances of TRO and WPI. as provided by Section 13 of Rule 57. v. placing Binay. provisional reliefs and auxiliary writs created under the provisions of the Rules of Court. BINAY. therefore.. Jr. Preliminary Injunction CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES. nor has the writ been validly discharged either by the filing of a counter-bond or for improper or irregular issuance. J. under preventive suspension for not more than six (6) months without pay. and praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin its implementation. Whether or not the CA can not issue a TRO and/or WPI against the Ombudsman on the ground of Section 14 of RA 6770. Issues: 1. The right to submit arguments implies that opportunity. by nature. which are. The ex parte discharge or suspension of the attachment is a disservice to the orderly administration of justice and nullifies the underlying role and purpose of preliminary attachment in preserving the rights of the parties pendente lite as an ancillary remedy. Jr. November 10. When the attachment is challenged for having been illegally or improperly issued. in her capacity as the Ombudsman. accusing them of Plunder and violation of RA No. First. Respondent court was. 3019.

It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. further injury. Pursuant to this. in his petition. Whether or not the CA is correct in considering the condonation doctrine in issuing the injunctive relief. The CA's resolutions directing the issuance of the assailed injunctive writs were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation doctrine. Bersamin. Cebu City. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 2. these issuances. and quo warranto. and auxiliary writs or processes. Spouses Xerxes and Erlinda Facultad. Regional Trial Court. which are. Accordingly. unwittingly remained good law. Ruling: 1. With these considerations in mind. HONTANOSAS.and XM Facultad and Development Corporation commenced a case to seek the declaration of the nullity of the promissory notes. Yes. A preliminary injunction should not determine the merits of a case. June 25. are matters of procedure which belong exclusively within the province of the Court. and that the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of such right. habeas corpus. 2014. the CA did not err in passing upon the same at least for the purpose of issuing the subject injunctive writs. and XM FACULTAD & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G. Facts: Respondents Spouses Borbon. Branch 16. prohibition. JR. 3. When preliminary injunction improper BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. the WPI against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension order was correctly issued. SILVERIO BORBON. No. for. and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court. Thus. Clearly. 2. SPOUSES XERXES and ERLINDA FACULTAD. Section 9(1). JUDGE AGAPITO L. Thus. and irreparable harm or injustice until the rights of the parties can be settled. certiorari. whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. 3. The CA was not precluded from considering condonation doctrine given that it was material to the propriety of according provisional injunctive relief. by nature. it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution above.. it took away from the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in applying the condonation doctrine in issuing the injunctive writ. provisional reliefs and auxiliary writs created under the provisions of the Rules of Court. J. which at that time. when Congress passed Section 14 of RA 6770. The power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. being a preventive remedy. No. No.R. Chapter I of BP 129 provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. 157163. This jurisdiction is not only original but also concurrent with the RTC and the SC. since condonation was duly raised by Binay. This encroached upon the Court's constitutional rule-making authority. pleading. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. or decide controverted facts. by merely following settled precedents on the condonation doctrine. HON. practice. it only seeks to prevent threatened wrong.real estate and 48 | P a g e . Jr. Injunction should not issue except upon a clear showing that the applicant has a right in esse to be protected.

or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. Velasco. BPI filed its opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction contending that the foreclosure of the mortgages was within its legal right to do. or a right which is merely contingent and may never arise. In this case. She insisted that unless a receiver is appointed by the court. to be protected by injunction. They further applied for a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the petitioner BPI from foreclosing on the mortgages against their properties. it is essential that there is a clear showing that there is imminent danger that the properties sought to be placed under receivership will be lost. (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right. J. Their mother. Receivership MILA CABOVERDE TANTANO and ROSELLER CABOVERDE v. Jr. 1(d) of Rule 59 on receivership. Facts: Eve and Fe Caboverde sought to annul the deed of sale allegedly executed by their parents in favor of two of their siblings. 49 | P a g e . Dominalda filed an application for receivership. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 chattel mortgages and continuing surety agreement they had executed in favor of the petitioner.R. Dominalda declared that there was never a sale of parcels of land and that she intended to divide all their properties equally among their children. leaving three contested properties for further proceedings in the main case. 2013. Indeed.. Even in cases falling Sec. July 29. It held that placing the disputed properties under receivership would ensure that Dominalda would receive her share in the income which she supposedly needed in order to pay for her medicines. EVE CABOVERDE-YU. Mila and Roseller. and (c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. the RTC issued the writ of preliminary injunction. the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the respondents was improper. as such. Ruling: No. This was affirmed by the CA. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse. DOMINALDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE. means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. No. CABOVERDE G. The respondents had admittedly constituted the real estate and chattel mortgages to secure the performance of their loan obligation. However. a right. Thus. Issue: Whether or not the application for Receivership must be sustained. lost and entirely spent solely by Mila. they were fully aware of the consequences on their rights in the properties given as collaterals should the loan secured be unpaid. and JOSEPHINE E. the foreclosure of the mortgages would be the remedy provided by law for the mortgagee to exact payment. Fearing that the contested properties would be squandered. The conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are: (a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. The lower court approved the Partial Settlement Agreement. the income or produce from these properties is in grave danger of being totally dissipated. 203585. or to prevent the perpetration of an act prohibited by statute. Issue: Whether or not the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against BPI was in order. wasted or injured. FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR. The RTC approved the application for receivership.

becomes functus officio and should be lifted. Ruling: Yes. Upon the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Ruling: No. However. No. the writ of seizure. the writ of seizure issued as an incident of the main action (for replevin) became functus officio and should have been recalled or lifted. the trial court dismissed the replevin case for Advent’s failure to prosecute. which delivered the same to the rehabilitation receiver. Since there was no adjudication on the merits of the case. Facts: Advent filed for corporate rehabilitation with the RTC. Young prayed that Advent return the subject car and pay him P1. There was no adjudication on the merits. It held that upon dismissal of the case by the trial court. The car which was in possession of Advent’s former president. to be charged against the replevin bond posted by Advent. ALCANTARA and EDITHA I. But it can be gleaned from her application that. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. 2012. which is merely ancillary in nature. Abad. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Young. aside from her bare assertion that petitioner Mila solely appropriated the fruits and rentals earned from the disputed properties in connivance with some of her siblings. J. became functus officio and should have been lifted.2 million in damages or the improper and irregular seizure of the subject car. Based on the allegations in her application. NICASIO I. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in directing the trial court to return the seized car to Young since this is the necessary consequence of the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute without prejudice. January 25. Young turned over the car to Advent. Upon receipt of the Writ of Seizure. Young. was included in the inventory of the assets of Advent. it appears that Dominalda sought receivership mainly because she considers this the best remedy to ensure that she would receive her share in the income of the disputed properties. Upon the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute.R. Nature of replevin ADVENT CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION v. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that she needed this income for her medical expenses and daily sustenance. which is merely ancillary in nature. The rehabilitation court approved the rehabilitation plan submitted by Advent. the writ of seizure. ALCANTARA G. the parties should be restored to their status immediately before the institution of the case. which means that there was no determination of the issue who has the better right to possess the 50 | P a g e . As such. the issue of who between has the better right to possess the car was not determined. Issue: Whether or not the seized car must be returned to Young. 183050. The trial court issued a writ of seizure when Advent filed a replevin case. Dominalda has not presented or alleged anything else to prove that the disputed properties were in danger of being wasted or materially injured and that the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means to preserve their integrity.

it is not only the right. Issue: Whether or not the Court may treat the petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition Ruling: Yes. the imposition of VAT on toll fees has far-reaching implications. 2011. the Court issued another resolution treating the petition as one for prohibition. Its imposition would impact. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the BIR action in the form of an appeal to the Secretary of Finance. as if no complaint was filed at all. not only on the more than half a million motorists who use the tollways everyday. 193007. but more so on the government’s effort to raise revenue for funding various projects and for reducing budgetary deficits. Advent cannot therefore retain possession of the subject car considering that it was not adjudged as the prevailing party entitled to the remedy of replevin. Consequently. Abad. The Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the VAT. the same must be returned to him.R. There are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for the public good. The dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration of the parties status prior to litigation. petitioners Diaz and Timbol has a plain. There are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for the public good. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 subject car. Facts: Diaz and Timbol filed a petition for declaratory relief assailing the impending imposition of VAT on the collection of tollway operators. Here. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE G. as if no complaint was filed at all. Since Young possessed the subject car before the filing of the replevin case. or ministerial functions when it sought to impose VAT on toll fees. Court of Appeals applies to this case. TIMBOL v. the parties must be reverted to their status quo ante. Besides. Later. To let the writ of seizure stand after the dismissal of the complaint would be adjudging Advent as the prevailing party. No. DIAZ and AURORA MA. J. speedy. The government contends that the petition does not meet the requirements of Rule 65 for actions for prohibition since the BIR did not exercise judicial. when precisely no decision on the merits had been rendered. Olympia International Inc. v. A belated declaration of nullity of the BIR action would make any attempt to refund to the motorists what they paid an administrative nightmare with no solution. Contrary to Advent's view. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. quasi-judicial. July 19. after the challenged VAT has been imposed. but the duty of the Court to take cognizance of and resolve the issues that the petition raises. Declaratory relief treated as prohibition RENATO V. 51 | P a g e . could cause more mischief both to the tax-paying public and the government. The Court has also held that a petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority. F. Accordingly. To dismiss the petition and resolve the issues later.

the authority to approve partakes of an exercise of legislative power under Article VI. 52 | P a g e . The Memorandum states that the TRB prescribes the periodic toll rate adjustment. The present petitions allege that then President Ramos had exercised an assignment of franchise. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD G. appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify. acts of legislative and executive officials. seek to nullify the various STOAs and the corresponding TRB resolutions. as taxpayers and expressway users. No. On the other hand. FRANCISCO. particularly the transfer effected by PNCC to MNTC. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. 1113 and P. Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are. specifically the BOT Law (R. virtually enlarged.D. when proper.D. too. They executed a Memorandum of Understanding aimed at infusing private capital in the expansion of the expressways. 1112 allowed the collection of toll fees for the use of certain public improvements. Additionally. petitioners also seek to nullify certain provisions of P. The Government Corporate Counsel then allowed PNCC to enter into a joint venture agreements with private entities without going into public bidding. which uniformly grant the President the power to approve the transfer or assignment of usufruct or the rights and privileges thereunder by the tollway operator to third parties. a function legislative in character. when an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution. To the petitioners. 166910. Section 1 of the Constitution. Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) was granted a franchise to construct toll facilities. JR. Facts: To attract private sector involvement in the establishment of toll facilities.A. O. HIZON v. The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) was established to fix initial toll rates from time to time. Grave abuse of discretion is also laid on the doorstep of the TRB for its act of entering into these same contracts or agreements without the required public bidding mandated by law. October 19. as here. The usurpation came in the form of executing the assailed STOAs and the issuance of TOCs. 9184). as amended) and the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.R. the STOAs and the toll rate-fixing resolutions violate the Constitution in that they veritably impose on the public the burden of financing tollways by way of exorbitant fees and thus depriving the public of property without due process. J. Petitioners Francisco and Hizon.A. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 Function of writ of certiorari ERNESTO B. thereby usurping a legislative prerogative. and JOSE MA. Issue: Whether or not petitions for certiorari and prohibitions are proper remedies to nullify the aforementioned acts. The Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement (STOA) includes provisions on initial toll rate and a built-in formula for adjustment of toll rates. 2010. Verily. the TRB.D. it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. fixing initial rates and/or approving periodic toll rate adjustments. Ruling: Yes. As alleged. Velasco. in the guise of entering into contracts or agreements with PNCC and other juridical entities. modified to the core and/or extended the statutory franchise of PNCC. P. 6957. As argued. 1894.. Jr.

Ampatuan wrote a letter to Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon requesting the inclusion of Dalandag in the informations for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed his participation in the massacre through his two sworn declarations. v. No. Ruling: No. J.R. the judiciary merely defends the sanctity of its duties and powers under the Constitution. an actual case or controversy ripe for judicial review exists. However. LEILA DE LIMA. In doing so.. respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letter-request of petitioner. capricious. It is notable in this regard that petitioner does not assail the joint resolution recommending such number of individuals to be charged with multiple murder. the certiorari petitions impute on then President Ramos and the TRB. The petitions make a prima facie case for certiorari and prohibition.e. Considering that 53 | P a g e . Ampatuan brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the various murder cases undergoing trial. April 3. CSP CLARO ARELLANO. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 In fine. headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE G. it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. but only seeks to have Dalandag be also investigated and charged as one of the accused based because of his own admissions in his sworn declarations. Dalandag was admitted to the Witness Protection Program and thereafter listed as one of the witnesses of the prosecution. Verily. Mandamus DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion. as Secretary of the Department of Justice. Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s request. the commission of acts that translate inter alia into usurpation of the congressional authority to grant franchises and violation of extant statutes. and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE. to grant or deny such letter-request. whimsical or despotic. The panel partly relied on the twin affidavits of one Kenny Dalandag in charging the said individuals. 197291. of the crime of murder in relation to the Maguindanao Massacre. The Panel of Prosecutors also charged some 196 individuals with multiple murder. mandamus cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment and discretion are to be exercised. as Chief State Prosecutor. but may not be compelled to act in a certain way. Issue: Whether or not respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder despite his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. SEC. Bersamin. However. National Prosecution Service. As such. i. his exclusion as an accused from the informations did not at all amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Panel of Prosecutors whose procedure in excluding Dalandag as an accused was far from arbitrary. Facts: The Department of Justice charged Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr. The records herein are bereft of any showing that the Panel of Prosecutors committed grave abuse of discretion in identifying the 196 individuals to be indicted for the Maguindanao massacre. when an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution. 2013.

199462. during a press conference. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 respondent Secretary of Justice already denied the letter-request. a review of the respondents' comments reveals that they were simply stating that it had not yet resolved their petition." By no stretch of the imagination could the respondents' comments pose a serious and imminent threat to the administration of 54 | P a g e . 199462. This is merely a reiteration of their position in G. There was no complaint. February 12. "Ang problema po e hangang ngayon. The power to punish for contempt. As to the conduct of the Court. or does not even tend to. MONIQUE CU-UNJIENG LA'O G. Ruling: No. particularly the guilt of petitioner. etc. which precisely calls the Court to upgrade the charges from homicide to murder. Atty. Monique La’O. As to the merits. upon the theory that in such a case. Atty. Contempt P/SUPT. No. being drastic and extraordinary in its nature. pushed for the upgrade of the charge from homicide to murder. J. No. it must necessarily tend to obstruct the orderly and fair administration of justice. Anton’s murder by police officers was captured by a television crew. we filed a Petition in the Supreme Court December 6. influence the Court. The mere restatement of their argument in their petition cannot actually.R. Issue: Whether or not respondents are liable for indirect contempt. Mendoza. obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. uttered comments on the conduct of the Supreme Court in handling the case." Marantan submits that the respondents violated the sub judice rule.R. should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice. express or implied. 2014. that an inordinate amount of time had passed since the petition was filed without any action from the Court. MARANTAN v. ATTY JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO. Diokno allegedly said. mother of Anton. There appears no attack or insult on the dignity of the Court either. HANSEL M. No. humihingi po kami noon ng Temporary Restraining Order. La’O and her counsel. the comments seem to be what the respondents claim to be an expression of their opinion that their loved ones were murdered by Marantan. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. and the conduct of the Court as to its failure to decide G.R. 2011. "A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still pending in the courts. mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's recourse. 205956. for their contemptuous statements and improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede. making them liable for indirect contempt. Diokno. – hangang ngayon wala pa pong action ang Supreme Court yong charge kung tama ba yong pag charge ng homicide lamang e subalit kitang kita naman na they were killed indiscriminately and maliciously. The Court detects no malice on the face of the said statements. The contemptuous statements made by the respondents allegedly relate to the merits of the case. Facts: Marantan was charged with homicide in relation to the murder of Anton Cu-Unjieng.

In indirect contempt proceedings. or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt. the court or respondent 55 | P a g e . and there must be a hearing. the respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against him or her. Inc. to impede. the order stated that in case of non-compliance. How contempt proceedings commenced CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB. No. directly or indirectly. MANUEL O. obstruct. filed a petition for the nullification of the annual and special meeting of stockholders. Facts: Sanchez. to impede. To the Court’s mind. Capitol Hills shall pay a fine of P10. 000. Issue: Whether or not the imposition of the threatened imminent action of 10. February 24. or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt. SANCHEZ G. the Resolution issued by the RTC could be treated as a mere reiteration of the inspection order. Peralta. In this case. 2014. the respondent must be given the right to defend himself or herself and have a day in court – a basic requirement of due process. Capitol Hills claim that the threatened citation for contempt is not in line with the policy that there should be willfulness or that the contumacious act be done deliberately in disregard of the authority of the court. INC. a stockholder of Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club. The court orders Capitol Hills to strictly comply with the inspection order stating that in case of failure to comply. directly or indirectly. This is especially so in indirect contempt proceedings. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 justice. ROMAN. or degrade the administration of justice can be inferred from the comments of the respondents. obstruct. A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or commits any improper conduct tending. v. Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. JR. the proceedings for indirect contempt have not been initiated. obstruct. Further. Sanchez likewise filed a Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents. No criminal intent to impede. as the court cannot decide them summarily pursuant to the Rules of Court. the latter will be cited in contempt of court. During the inspection. J. Ruling: Yes.000 fine and contempt issued by the RTC is proper. 182738. This was granted by the court ordering Capitol Hills to produce and make available for inspection certain documents. In case of another failure or refusal to comply with the directive. A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or commits any improper conduct tending. and the court must investigate the charge and consider the respondent’s answer. In contempt proceedings. the only document that was produced was the Stock and Transfer Book of the Corporation.R. and PABLO B. It is not yet a “judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt” as contemplated under the Rules. The penalty mentioned therein only serves as a reminder to caution Capitol Hills of the consequence of possible non–observance of the long– overdue order to produce and make available for inspection and photocopying of the requested records/documents.00 for every day of delay until it shall have fully and completely complied with the said order.

56 | P a g e . Civil Procedure (Remedial Law. First Semester Cases) Dean’s Circle 2016 could formally initiate the indirect contempt proceedings pursuant to the mandatory requirements of the Rules and existing jurisprudence.