He Outline Civil Procedure: Lyceum of the Philippines Remedial Law Review 1. General Principles of Remedial Law A. Prospective and nat Retroactive effect Bermejo vs Barrios, 31 SCRA 764, > In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon Simeon Datumanong, 497 SCRA 26 5 > Govs Subanon, 642 SCRA 367 4% Neypesvs CA, G.R. No. t41524, September 14, 2005 > Herve, Jrvs Municipality of Cabuyao, 512 SCRA 332 B. Concept of remedial law; » Must be distinguished from substantive law. Refer to section 5 (5) Article VIIL Constitution wherein specifies the Supreme Court's power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, Neypes vs Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633. & Indudes power to amend repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process and speedy disposition of eases. Includes power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendmentof the Rules of Court 4) Accept a second MR raising previous ground (PP vs Romualdo, 587 SRA 123) 2) Power to reverse itself to make findings conformable to law and justice $ Pinga vs Heirs of Santiago, 494 SCRA Includes power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a ease from their operation when compelling reasons warrant or when the Purpose of justice require it Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Mirant Outline Remedial Law(2017) Page 1 of 192 flag Corporation, 504 SCRA 484, De la Cruz vs Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA ‘Samala vs Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 535 Tneludes power to alter that which has already become final " ‘Kpo fruits Corporation vs Land Bank of the Philippines, 632 SCRA 727 1}? Manotok IV vs Heirs of Borque, 574 SCRA 468 > Limitations on Rule making Power 1. Rules shall provide simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy’ disposition of cases 2. Rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. lxample Small elaims court substantive rights 4. Rule shall not diminish increase or modi 1. Jurisdiction A. Laws 1) Art. 8, See. 1, 1987 Constitution 2) Ratas Pambansa Bldg., 129 (“An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and fr other purposes”) 3)RA No. 7902 (“An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, ‘Amending for the purpase Section 9 of B.P. 129°) 4)P.D. No, 1606, RA. 7080 and Executive Order No. 14 as amended (May 7, 1986) in relation to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 5) RA 7601 (“An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal ‘Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending the Purpose of B.P_ 120") 6) SC. Administrative No. 09-94 (‘Guidelines in the Implementation of RA 7691") 7) RA 8369 (“An Act Establishing Family Courts, Granting them Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Child and Family Cases") 8 8) Braza vs The City Civil Register of the Himamaylan City, 607 SCRA 638 9) Sec. 5.2, Chapter Ll 0 R.A. 8799 (“The Securities Code) Page 2 of 19,AM. No. 01-2-04-SC (“Interim Rules of Procedures for Intra-Corporate versies”) Calleja vs Panday, G.R. No. 168696, February 28, 2006 12)A.M. No, 08-0-7 Rules of Procedure for Small Claims (Qetober 01, 2008) Basic Principles of Civil Jurisdiction 1). Determined by the law in force at the time of commencement ee Dayap vs Sandiong, 577 SCRA 134 2) Application of equity jurisdiction when there is no applicable statutory law or annulment of sale over asked out to have seller deposit down payment judickal rule Qeed Chan vs Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677, Reyes vs Lim, 408 SCRA 560. Cannot be applied where there is statutory law or clear rule of procedure. Reasons: » Imposition limited time of the court > Inevitably will resort to delay because case may be remanded Exception: Direct invocation may be involved when there are special ‘and important reasons specified in petition 8 3) Principle of Judicial Hierarchy, Purok Bagong Silang vs Yuipeo, 489 SCRA 382, Gruzvs Gingoyan, G.R. No. 170404, September 28, 2011 Waa Tle oreps Pome cae 4) Doctrine of non-interference for judicial stability becomes regard or modesty Lapu-lapu Development nd Housing Corp. vs Group Management Corporation, 388 SCRA 493 Philippine Sinter Corporation vs Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc., 381 SCRA 582, court cannot interfere in ruling by a equal brand 2s i 5) Jurisdiction — Power or authority of a court Cuenca vs PCGG, 535 SCRA 102 24 6) Jurisdiction over Subject matter conferred by the Constitution or law (City of ‘Dumaguete vs Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, BF2r Homes Ine vs MERAI.CO, 636 SCRA 495 2% + Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiscience of the courts, Republic 6 SCRA 333, De La Rosa vs Roldan, 501 SCRA 34, Security Commission 138 SCRA 428 ‘Outline Remecia! Law(2017) Page 3 of19+ Jurisdiction cannot be the subject matter of agreement or contract 2a (Atlast Developer and Steel Industries Inc vs Sarmiento Enterprises, 184 SCRA 153 + Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waived (Cadimas vs Carrion 567 SCRA 101, Peralta-LAbrador vs Bugarin, 468 SCRA 305 ‘+ Jurisdiction over subject matter determined (City of Dumaguete supra + Is notaffected by theories or defenses set up in the answer ora motion to dismiss (Del Monter Phil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries vs Sagunay,, 641 SCRA 87, Spouses Villacastin vs Pelaez, 554 SCRA 189, Cadimas vs Carrion vs Carrion, 567 SCRA 101, Tomas Claudia Memorial College vs Court of Appeals; 316 SCRA 502) * Qualification: If it is determined that court has no jurisdiction case should be dismissed (Hilado vs Chavez, 438 SCRA 623) + Ignacie vs CFI of Bulacan, g2 SCRA 89 7) Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiciton Non-exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Court cannot resolve a controversy involving a question victim the jurisdiction of an administrative tibunal-especially if issue involves matter Of technical expertise. Exception: [fissuc is purely legal one * BEHomes Inc. vs Manila Electric Company, 636 SCRA 495, » Nestle Philippines Inc_ vs Uniwide Sales Inc., 634 SCRA 232 © Concerned Officials of the MWS vs Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502, © Exception: When the issue is purely a legal one. Philippine > Pharmawealth Ine. vs Pfizer, 635 SCRA 140 swAddition Hills Mandaluyong Civic and Social Organization Inc. vs Megaworlds Properties and Holdings Inc., G.R. No. 175036, 18 April 2012 8) Difference between Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction +4)Platinum Tours vs Panlilio, G.R, No, 133365, September 16, 2003 9) Difference between Jurisdiction and Venue + Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 396 + Nocum vs Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005 10) Error of Jurisdiction as distinguished from Error of Judgement > Error committed by court in rendition of decision convertible by appeal Outline Remedial Law(2047) Page ¢of19Decision issued by a court without or in excess of jurisdiction > Convertible by certiorari 16 Soneja vs Court of Appeals (Second Division) 588 SCRA 450 Donato vs Court of Appeals, 417 SCRA 26 Republic vs “E” Holdings Inc., 475 SCRA 608 citing Tolentino ws Leviste, 443 SCRA 274 a 11) Payment of Docket Fees 4t« Manchester Dev't.Corp. Vs CA, 19 SCRA 562 (May 7, 1987) ate Sun Insuranee vs Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274 (1989) 49 © PROTON Pilipinas Corporation vs Banque Nationale De Paris, G.R. No- 151242, June 15, 2005 tee Tokio Marine Malaya Insurance Co., Inc. vs Jorge Valdez, G.R. No. | 150108, January 28, 2008 : «Luvs Lu, G.R. No. 153690/G.R. No. 157381/G.R. No. 170889, August 4. | 2009 } 12) Staggered Docket Fee ste Sps. Gregorio Go und Juana Tan Go vs Tong, G.R. 11942, November 27, 2003 2 AM No. 04-2-04-SC, Re: Amendment of Section 21(i), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court [A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, August 16, 2004] by Clarifying the Manner of Payment of the Increased Fees for Corporate Rehabilitation Potitions, Taking Into Account the Court's Issnance in Amendment on the Clarification on the Legal Fees to be Collected in Cases of Corporate Rehabilitation [A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, December 10, 20021, September | 19, 2006 13) Adherence Lo Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction cannot be ousted % Consequently courts may on its own initiative object lo an erroneous ] jurisdiction > ‘Thrua motion filed, even on appeal ssa San Miguel Corporation vs Sandiganbayab, 346 SCRA 289 yae Flores vs Sumalaysay, 290 SCRA 568 sr Basilio vs Dinio 634 SCRA 516 sym? § & Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 108 14) Effect of lack of Jurisdiction } Issue of jurisdiction raised in lower court and later on, on appeal so party cannot be accused of sleeping on his rights Outline Remedial Law(2017) Page 5 of 19“6 * Asiatrust Development Bank supra, Asia International Auctioneer Inc. vs Parayno, J, 540 SCRA 536 ‘Tijam vs Sibonghanoy, et. al., 23 SCRA 29 (1968) <#@ Laovs Republic, 479 SCRA 446 sf PAL vs Kurangking, 389 SCRA 588 16) Hierarchy of Courts Agan, et. al. Vs Philippine International Air Terminals, G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003 IIL. Rule 1, Sections 1 to 6 ROC GA. Redefia ws CA, G.R. No. 146611, February 06, 2007 6B, Vdade Victoria vs CA, G.R. No. 147550, January 06, 2007 ©. Philippine National Bank vs Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 437 (1987) » D. ‘Tesorero vs Mathay, 185 SCRA 328 “ E. Manila Llotel vs CA, 384 SCRA 515 IV, Rule 2, Section 1 to 6 yA. Subic Telecommunications Co. vs Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, 603 SCRA 470 @ B. Heirs of Maramag vs Maramag, 588 SCRA 774 C. Baliwag Transit, Ine vs. Ople, 171 SCRA 250 (1989) )D, Manoloto vs Veloso, G.R. No, 71365, October 6, 2010 > B. Domondon vs Lopez, 383 SCRA 376 F, Santos vs De Leon, 470 SCRA 41 2G. Heirs of Dolleton vs Fil-Estate Managlot, Ine. G.R. No. 170750, April 7.2009 H. Umali vs Canoga Pack Development, 654 SCRA 155 V. Rule 3 ~ Section 1 to 3: Parties to a Civil Action 9A. Iron and Steel Authority vs CA, 249 SCRA 538 (1995) B. Figuracion vs Libi, 539 SCRA 50 | %C. Leevs Romillo, 161 SCRA 589 © D, Aguila vs Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 246 "B, Pascual vs Pascual, G-R. No. 157830, November 17, 2005 ©F, Golango vs Jone 8. Fung, G.R. No. 157952, September 8, 2009 9G. Equitable PCI Bank, Ine. (now known as Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc.) vs Heirs of Antonio C. Tiu, et- al, G.R- No. 178529, September 04, 2009 VI. Rule 3, Sections q to 6: Parties to a Civil Action Outline Remedial Law(2017) Page 6 of 19VIL. Ix, XL. A. Lucman ys Malawi, 511 SCRA 268 B. MWSS vs Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 287 ©. Pamplona Plantation Co. vs Tinghil, 450 SCRA 421 D, Pantranco vs Buncan, C.R. No. 10746, March 16, 2015 Sections 7 to 12 (Parties to a Civil Action) A. Chua vs Torres, 468 SCRA 358 B. Seno vs Mangubat, 156 SCRA 113 (1987) C. Lotte Phils vs Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 1663302, July 28, 2005 D. Domingo vs Scheer, 421 SCRA 468 E. Chua vs Torres, G.R. Na. 151900, August 30, 2005 Republic vs Campos, G.R. No. 84895, May 4, 1989 G. Algra vs LGU of Naga City, G-R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006 Rule 3, Sections 13 to 19: Parties toa Civil Action A. Chiang Kai Shek School vs C4, G.R. No. 58028, April 18, 1989 B. Lawas vs CA, 146 SCRA 173 (198) C. Bonifacio, et. al. Vs Hon. Dizon, et. al., (1989) D. The Heirs of the the late Forentina Nuguid vda de Haberer vs C: 534. (198) 5, Gochan vs Gochan, 398 SCRA 323 104 SCRA Rule 3, Sections 18 to 22: Parties to a Civil Action A. The Board of Liquidators vs Heirs of Maximo M. Kalaw, 20 SCRA 1967 B, Aguas vs Llemos, 5 SCRA 595, Rule 4 Venue A. Hoechst Philippines, Ine. petitioner vs Torres, 83 SCRA 297 (1978) B. Surigao Century Sawmill vs CA, 218 SCRA 623 €. Philippine Banking Corporation vs Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413 (1994) D. Phil. Bank of Commerce vs Lim, G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006 E_ Irene Mareas Araneta vs CA. G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008 F. Sps. Lantin vs Lantin, GR. No. 150053, August 28, 2006 Rule 5: Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts A. Law: Rule on Summary Procedure (SC Resolution date October 15, 1994) No. 02-11-09- {. Sec. 1 A(2) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedures is amended to read as follows:"(2) all other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiffs clam does not exceed on hundred thousand pesos Outline Remedia! Law(2017) Page 7 of 29XL XI. XIV. XVI. (P100,000.00) or, two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in Metropolitan ‘Manila, exclusive of interest an cost” D. The amendment took effect on November 25, 2002 Rule 6: Kinds of Pleadings ‘A. United Pulp and Paper Co. vs Acropolis Central Guaranty Corp., G-R. No 371750, January 25,2012 B. Loadmaster Customs Service Inc., vs. Glodel Brokerage Corp. (G.R. No. 179446, January 10, 2011) ©. Chan vs CA, 230 SCRA 685, D. ICTSIvs CA, 214 SCRA 456 (1992) E. Metals Engincering resources Corporation vs CA 203 SCRA 273 (1992) F. Cojuangco vs Villegas, et. al. 184 SCRA 374 (1990) G. Agana vs Lagman, C.R. No. 139018, April 11, 2005, UL. Singapore Airlines vs CA, 243. SCRA 143 (1995) Rule 7 Parts of Pleading ‘A. Prince Transport Inc. vs Garcia, 639 SCRA 312 B. Garrucho ws Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA 165 C. Republic vs Kenrick Development Corporation, 498 SCRA 220 D. Chua vs Torres, 468 SCRA 358 E. Vda de Formoso vs PNB, 650 SCRA 35, F. Chua vs Metrobank, 596 SCRA 524 G. Huibonhoa vs Concepcion, 497 SCRA 562 Rule 8 ‘A. La Mallorea vs Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 739 B. Hibberd vs Rhode and McMillan, 32 Phil 476 €. People vs Gabriel, 510 SCRA 197 D. De los Santos vs Elizalde, 514 SCRA 14 Rule 9 ‘A. Spouses de los Santos vs Carpio, 5o1 SCRA 390 B. Sablas vs Sublas, 526 SCRA 992 C. Republic vs Sandiganbayan, 540 SCRA 431 D. Meteado vs Court of Appeals, 569 SCRA 503 Rule 10 ‘A. Alpine Lending Investors vs Corpuz, 50-8 SCRA 45, B. Bautista vs Maya-Maya CAtlongen Inc, 476 SCRA 416 C. Philippine Ports Authority vs Gathong-Aboitiz (WG &A) Inc., 542 SCRA 514 D, Swagman Hotels and Travel Incorporated vs Court of Appeals, 455 SCRA 175, Outline Remedial Law(2017), Page 8 of 19Rules A. Philippine Bank of Communications vs Go, 642 SCRA 693 B. Camitan vs Court of Appeals, 511 SCRA 364 ©. Pesane Animas Mongao vs Pryee Properties, 467 SCRA 201 D. Pinga vs Ieirs of Santiago, 494 SCRA 393, Rule 12 Bill of Particulars ‘A. Republic vs SAndiganbayab, 540 SCRA 431 Rule 13, A. People vs Gabriel, 510 SCRA 197 B. Heirs of Benjamin Mendoza vs Court of Appeals, 565 SCRA 506 €. De los Santos vs Elizalde, 514 SCRA 14 | D. GSIS vs NLRC, 635 SCRA 251 E. Mariduque Mining and Industrial Corp. vs Court of Appeals, 567 SCRA 483 Development Bank of the Philippines vs Commission on Audit, 498 SCRA 537 XX. Rule 14, Sees. 15 to 20 A. Echeverria vs Parsons Hardware Ca, B. republic vs Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, ©. Licaros vs Licaras, G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003 D. De Midgely vs Ferandos, 64 SCRA 23 (1975) E. Gonzales vs State Properties Corp. G.R. No. 149765, January 25, 2001 F. Velayo vs Velayo, 510 SCRA 320 G. E. B. Villarosa & Partner Ltd vs Benito, 312 SCRA 65 H., Manotoc vs CA, 499 SCRA 21 1. Robinsons vs Miralles, 510 SCRA 678 1 Phil 980 September 14, 2011 XXI. Rule 15: Motions Sees. 1 to 10 A. Dela Pena vs Dela Pena, 258 SCRA 208, B. Manaoop vs CA, 215 SCRA 773 (1992) C. Yapvs CA, 115 SCRA 105 D, Azajar vs CA, 145 SCRA 333 jarmiento vs Zaratan, G.R. No.167471, February 5, 2007 F, Aneco Realty Dev't vs Landex, G-R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008 G. Dela Reyes vs Rammani, G-R. No. 169135, June 18, 2010 1H. Preysler vs Manila South Coast Dev. Corporation, G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010 EXI. Rule 16: Motion to Dismiss A. Vitangeol vs New Vista Properties, Ine. ct. al., G.R. No. 176014, September 17, 2009 B, Chua vs Ang, G.R, No, 156164, September 4, 2009 (exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies) Outline Remedial Law(2027) Page 9 of 19,C. Tan vs tan, G.R. No. 167139, Vebruary 35, 2010 D. Misamis Occidental Cooperatve Inc. vs Patvid, 468 SCRA E. FELS Energy Inc. vs Province of Batangas, 516 SCRA 186 ¥. Pineda ys Heirs of Guevara, 515 SCRA 627 XXIIL. Rule 17: Dismissal of Actions A. Dael vs Sps.Beltran, C.R. No. 156470, Aptil 30, 2008 B. Ping vs Heirs of Santiago, supra G. Samson vs Macaraig, GR. No. 166356, February 2, 2070 XXIV, Rule a8; Pre-trial ‘A. AM. No. 03-1-09-SC, “Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by the Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the conduct of Pre-trial and Use of B. Deposition-discovery measure. C. PNB ws Spouses Perey, G.R. No. 187640, June 15, 2011 D. Philippine Ports Authority vs City of Iloilo, G-R. No. 109791, duly 14, 20 Middleton, 310 SCRA 58 E, Dulos vs CA, 188 SCRA.413 (1990) F, Fountainhead International Philippines, Ine. vs CA, G-R. No. 86505, February 11,1991 G. Saguid vs CA, GR. No. 150611, June 19, 2003 H. Corpuzvs Citibank, N.A, et. al./Citibank, NA vs Spouses Azucena 8. Corpuz and Renato $. Corpuz, G.R. No, 175677, G.R. No. 177133, July 31, 2009 1. BPLvs Dando, G.R. No. 17456, September 4, 2009 J. Kent vs Micarez, et. al. G.R. No. 185788, March 9, 2011 rin vs XXV. _Rule1g, Intervention ‘A. Pagtalunan vs Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990 B. Magysaysay-Labrador vs CA, G.R. No. 58168, December 19, 1989 C. Ordonez vs Gustilo, 192 SCRA 469 D, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, 189 SCRA 821 E. Quinto and Tolentino, Jr. vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010 XXVI. Rule 20: Calendar of Cases ‘A. Ang Kek Chen vs Bello, G.R. No, L-76344-46, June 30, 1988 XXVIT. Rule 21 A. Universal Rubber Products, Ine. vs CA, 130 SCRA 104 (1984) B. People vs Montejo, 21 SCRA 722 (1967) C. Genorga vs Quintain, 78 SCRA 94 (1977) XXVIIL Rule 29 ‘Outline Remedial Law{2017) Page 10 0f 19,‘A. Nuctor vs IAC, 158 SCRA 635 (1988) B. Mayor vs IAC, 161 SCRA 63 (1088) . Luzys National Amnesty Commission, G.R. No. 159708, September 24, 2004 D. Neypesvs CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005 XXIX. Rule 23: Deposition Pending Action A. AM. No. 03-1-09-SC, “Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by the Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of B. Deposition-discovery measures. G. Koh vs IAG, 144 SCRA 259 (1986) D. Republic vs Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 (1991) E. Caguiat ws Torres, 30 SCRA 106 (1969) F. Santiago Land Dev't Corp. vs CA, C.R. No. 103922, July 9, 1996 G. Vda de Manguerr vs Risos, G.R. No. 152643, August 28, 2008 XXX. Rule 24-28 (other modes of discovery) A. Lafiada vs CA, G.R. No. 102390, February 1, 2002 B, Security Bank Corp, vs Del Alcazar, G.R. No. 151310, March 11, 2002 C. Rosete vs Lim, G.R. No. 13605, June 8, 2006 D. Solidbank vs Gateway Electronic Corporation, G.R. No, 164805, April 30, 2008 XXX1._Rulezg ‘A. Lopez ws Maceren, 95 SCRA 753 B. Fortune Corp. vs CA, 355 S XXXII Rule go A. Laluan vs Malpaya, 65 SCRA 494 (1975) B. Yuvs Mapayo, 44 SCRA 163 C. Leevs Ramillo, 161 SCRA 589 (1988) D. Continental Bank vs Tiangeo, 04 SCRA 715 (1979) OQ. Rulega XXXIV. Rule 32 A. Wassmer vs Velez, 12 SCRA 618 XXKV. Rule 99: Demurrerto Evidence A. Radiowealth Finance Cos Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739, July 6, 2000 B. Choa vs Choa, 392 SCRA 641 C. Uy vs Chua, G.R, No. 183965, September 18, 2009 Outline Remedial Law(2017) Page 11 of 19D. Heits of Pasay vs Parocha, G.R. No. 155483, April 27,2007 E. Cosant Realty vs Philbanking, G.R. No. 150731, September L4, 2007 XXXVI. Rule 34, Judgment on the Pleadings A. Wood Technology Corp vs Equitable Bank, February 17, 2005 XXXVI. Rule 35 A, Auman vs Estenzo, 69 SCRA 524 (1976) B. Estrada vs Consolacion, 71 SCRA 523 (1976) C. Galicia ws Polo, 179 SCRA 372 (1989) D, Grand Farms, Inc. vs CA 193 SCRA 748 (1991) E. Kalilid Wood Industries, Corp. ws LAC, 155 SCRA 594 (1987) F. Excelsa Industries vs CA, G.R. No, 105455, August 23, 1995 G. Solidbank Comp. vs CA, G.R. No. 120020, October, 2602. H. Bitanga vs Pyramid Construction, G.R. No, 173526, August 28, 2008 XXXVI. — Rule 36: Judgments, Final Orders and Entry A. Pengson vs IAG, 130 SCRA 289 (1984) B. Mangelen, petitioner vs CA, et. al., 215 SCRA 230 (1992) °. Barrera vs Militante, ct. Al, 114 SCRA 323 (1982) D. Lianga Bay Logging Co, Ine., petitioner vs Enage, etl. 152 SCRA 80 (1987) indo vs COMELEG, 194 SCRA 25 (1991) F. Echaus vs CA, 87 SCRA 672 (1990) G. Neypes ws CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005 IL, Ybiernas vs Gabaldon, G.R.No. 178925, June 1, 2011 1. Garrido vs Tortogo, G-R. No. 178928, June 1, 2011 J. The Law Firm of Raymundo Amovit, G.R. No. 154559, October 5, 2011 K. Ranola vs Ranola, G.R. No. 185095, July’ 31, 2009 XXXIX. Rule 37 A. Abe Industries, ine. el. Alvs CA, et. al. 162 SCRA 48 (1998) B. Yap vs Tafiada, 163 SCRA 464 (1988) ‘C. Mendoza ws Bautista, 121 SCRA 7o (1983) D, Llantero vs-CA, 105 SCRA 609 (1981) E, PCIB ws Judge Ortiz. of QC, 150 SCRA 380 (1987) F. Lacsamana Vs 1AC, 143 SCRA 643(1086) Note Neypes case G. Gonzales vs COMELEC, G.R. No, 192856, March 8, 2011 H. UE vs UE Employees Association, G.R. No. 179503, September 4, 2001 XL. Rule 38: Relief from Judgment, ete. A. Demetriou vs CA, 238 SCRA 158 ‘Qutline Remedial Law(2017) Page 12 of 198, Arcilla vs Arcilla, 138 SCRA 560 ©. Ibabao vs IAG, 180 SCRA 560 D. Marasigan vs IAC, 15 SCRA 253 (1987) E. Quelman vs VHF, G.R. No. 18500, September 16, 2005 F. Sps. Dela Crurvs Sps. Andres, G.R. No. 161864, April, 2007 G. Pareon vs MRM Philippines, G.R. No. 182718, September 26, 2008 Rule 39, Sees 1 to 14 A. Tuballa Heirs vs Cabrera, G. B. Heirs of the late Justice 2000 C. Katon vs Palanca, G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004 D. Globe Telecom Ine. vs Florendo-Flores, 390 SCRA z10 E. Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Mana; Environmental Comp., 494 SCRA 296 .R. No. 173104, February 29 2008 Jose B.L, Reyes vs CA, G.R. No. 135180-81, August 16, igeinent Committee ys Joncon, F. Lows Siapno, 335 SCRA 26. G. Laovs King, 500 SCRA 280 H. Perla Compania vs Ramolete, 203 SCRA 487 (1991) 1. Soleo vs Orovide, G.R. No. 176533, February 11, 2008 4. Reburiano vs Ga, 301 SCRA 342, citing Limpin vs IAV, 147 § K. Saligumba vs Palonog 573 SCRA 8 L. PNB vs Bondoc, 14 SCRA 770 M. Maricalum Mining Corp, vs NLRC, 298 SCRA 378 N- Infante vs Aran Builders Ine, 531 SCRA 193 Rule 39: Sees. 15 to 30. A. Ong vs Tating, 149 SCRA 60 265 (1987) B. Naguiat vs CA, 347 SCRA 60 (2000) C. Bangkok Bank Public Co.vs Se 479 SCRA 267 D. Camacho vs Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 611 FE G. Cononezatido vs Benitez, 122 SCRA 610 International School of Manila vs CA, 309 SCRA 474 Leahon vs Pascua, A.M. No. P-11-297, September 38, 2011 Hi. Buado vs Ca, G.R. No. 145222, April 24, 009 Rule 39, Secs. 31 to 50 A. Dilag ys IAC, 152 SCRA 459 (1987) B. Campillo vs CA, 153 SCRA 382 (1987) ¢. National Power Corporation vs Gonong, 177 SCRA 366 (1989) D. Northwest Airlines vs CA, 241 SCRA 192 (1995) 5, Asiawest Merchant Bankers Bethard vs Co 20, 2001 F. Garcia vs Recio, October 2, 2001 Rochr vs Rudriguez, G.R. No. 142890, June 2, 2002 urt of Appeals, G-R. No. 110963, July G Outline Remedial LawiZ0i7) Poge 13 of 19H. Oropera Marketing Corp. vs Allied Banking, G.R. No. 129788, December 03, 2002 1. Philippine Health Providers, Inc. vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR. No. 167330, September 18, 2009 J. Mjates vs Granada, G.R. No. 130325, April 12, 2005 K. Policarpio vs Active Bank, G.R. No. 157125, September 19, 2008 L. Calalng vs Register of Deeds of QC, 231 SCRA 88. M. Spouses Layos vs Fil-Kstate Golf and development Ine. 561 SCRA 75 Rule 40 A. Silverio, Jr. vs CA, G.R. No. 178933, B. Mebume vs Ganzon, G.R, No. 178034, September 18, 2009 Rule 41 1) Heirs of Sps. Reterto vs Spouses Amores, G.R> No. 159041, August 17, 2012 2) AM. No. 07-7-12 SC (Amending Rules 41, 45, 48 and 65) #) Penta vs Capital Finance Corporation vs bay, GR> No. 162100, January 18, 2012 4) Madrigal Transport vs Lapanday Holdings, G-R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004 §) Danilo |. Parel vs Heizs of Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No. 192217, March 3, 2018 6) Makati Insurance Co vs Hon. Reyes, G.R. No. 167403, August 06, 2008 7) PNB-Republic Bank vs Sps. Cordova, G.R. No. 169314, May 14, 2008 8) Abedes ¥s CA, G.R. No. 174373, October 15, 2007 9) Lazaro vs CA, G.R. No. 137761, April 6, 2000 10)RP vs CA, G.R. No. 163504, May 6, 2605 41) Elepante vs Madayag, G.R, No. 93559, April 26, 1991 12) Sesbreno vs CA, 240 SRA 606 1g) Obando vs CA 366 SCRA 673 14) Oro ws Diaz, 361 SCRA 108 (2001) 15) Hufana vs Genato, 365 SCRA 384 16) Cosmos Bottling Corp. vs Nagrama, G.R. No. 164403, March 04, 2008 17) People vs Mateo, G.R. No. 147678, July 7, 2004 18)see also A.M. No. 00-5-09-SC re Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern death penalty. Rule gz 2) Cantons City of Cebu, G.R. No. 152898, February 12, 2007 2) Yao vs Hon. Rose Tatad and People, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011 Rule 43 3) AM. No. 00-5-03-SC, October 15, 2004 2) AM. No. 04-9-07 SC Re Mode of Appeal in Cases Formerly Cognizable by the Securities nd Exchange Commission Outline Remedial Law(z037) Page 14 0f 19XLIL. XLII. XLIV. XLV. 3) Santos vs Go, G.R. No. 156081, October 19, 2005, 4) PCG, Chairman Elma vs Jacobi, G.R. No. 155906, June 27, 2012 5) Gonzales vs Civil Service Commission, 390 SCRA 124 6) Jaro vs CA, 377 SCRA 282 2) YZaragosa vs Nobleza, G.R. No. 144560, May 13, 2004 8) St. Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC, G.R. No.130866, September 16, 1988 9) Santos vs Committee on Claims Settlement, G.R. No. 158071, April 2, 2009 Rule 44 1) Buead vs CA, 216 SCRA 423, 2) Lianga Lumber o vs Lianga ‘Tmber Co., G.R. No.L-38685, March 31, 1977 3) Del Rosario vs Bonga, G.R. No.136308, January 23,2001 4) VinavsCA, G.R. No. 132036, February 17, 2003 5) Maricalum Mining Corporation vs Remington Industrial, G.R. No. 1583; February 11, 2608 Rule 45 1) A.M. No. 07-7-12 SC (Amending Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65) 2) Conejos vs CA, 387 SCRA 142 3) PP. vs A, 389 SCRA 189 4) RP vsCA, G.R. No. 119393, April 26, 2000. Rule 46 1) Mendoza vs CA, G.R.No. 148505, February 20, 2007 2) Vital-Gozon, 212 SCRA 2 Rule 47 1) Philippine Tourism Authority vs Philippine Golf Development, G.R. No. 176628, March 19, 2010 2) Anuran¥s Aquino, 38 Phil 29 3) Demetriu-vs CA, 238 SCRA 158 4) Ancheta vs Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 04, 2004 5) Ramos vs Combonng, G-R. No. 144273, October 20, 2005 6) Springfield Devt Comp. vs Ion. Presiding Judge, G.R. No.142628, February 6, 2007 7) Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa Sian vs PNB, G.R. No.168882, January 31, 2007 8) Llamas, et. al. vs ‘The Honorable Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No.149588, ‘September 29, 2009 9)_ RP. Ws'Technological Advocates, C.R> No. 165933, February 10, 2010 30)Sps. Arcenas vs Queen City Development Bank, GR. No. 166819, June 16, 2010 Rules 48, 49, 50 Outline Remedial aw{2017) Page 15 of 19XLVI. XLVI. XLVI. XLIX. i Rule 51 4) Limkaichong vs Comelec/Biraogo vs Nograles, ct. al./ Paras vs Nograles, et. al. Villando vs Comelee, et. al., G.R. No.178831-32/G.R. No. 179190/G-R. No.179132-33/G.R. No.179240-41, July 30, 2009 2) GovsCA, 100 SCRA 549 3) Natalia Realty vs CA, G.R. No.azéq6a, February 5, 2003 4) PP. vs Cabalguinto, G.R. No.167693, September 19, 2006 5) Mercury Drug vs Home Development Fund, G.R. No. 171438, December 17, 2007 Rule s3 1) Heirs of Montinola vs CA and Samson, 158 SCRA 247 2) Navarro vs CA, 204 SCRA 850 3) Cuenea vs CA, 250 SCRA 485 Rule 56 1) Firestone Ceramics, Inc. vs CA, 334 SCRA 465 (2000) Rules7 1) Davao light vs CA, 204 SCRA 343 2) Mangila vs CA, 387 SCRA 15, 3) Adlawan vs Torres, 233 SCRA 645 4) Phil. Bank Communications vs CA, G.R. No.115678, February 23, 2001 5) Wee vs Tiangsee, G.R. No.7L124, February 13, 2008 6) Foundation Specialist, Inc. vs Betonval Ready Concrete, Inc. etal., G.R. No. 170674, August 24, 2009 2) Leelin Vs Agro Dev't, 121 SCRA 725 8) Uys CA, 215 SCRA 859 Rule 58 1) Administrative Circular No. 11-2000 Re ban on the issuance of TRO ot Writs of Prohibitory or mandatory Injunction in cases involving government infrastrueture projects (November 13, 20000) 2) AM. No. o7-7-12 $¢ (Amending Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65) a) Paras vs Roura, 163 SCRA 1 4) Miranda vs SC, et ul. G.R. No.1g0130, October 1999 5) Universal Motors vs Judge Rojas, A.M. No. RY'J-03-1814, May 26, 2005, ©) Los Bafios Rural Bank vs Afriea (384 SCRA 385) Outline Reme dial Law(2017) Page 16 of 19,Li. LIL un. Liv. IL 7) First Global vs San Agustin, 377 SCRA 341 8) Developers Group. of Companies, Inc, vs Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 715, 9) Borromeo vs CA, G.R. No. 169846, March 28, 2008 10)Sps. Yap vs International Exchange Bank, G.R. No.175145, March 28, 2008 11) GC Sportswear Mfg. Group vs BDO, G.R. No. 184434, February 8, 2011 32) Sps. Lazo vs Judge Abul, A.M. No, RTJ-10-2255, January 17, 2011 Rule 59 2) Akantara vs Abbas, 9 SCRA 54 2) Dolar vs Sundiam, 38 SCRA 616 8) Central Sawmill vs Alto Surety, 27 SCRA 997 4) Descallerws CA, 224 SCRA 566 5) Ventosa vs Fernan, 10 SCRA 59 6) Pacific Corp. vs Surety Co.,73 SCRA 564 Rule 60 (Replevin) 1) Bachrach Motor Company, Inc, ys Summers, 42 Phil 3 (1921) 2) Femandez vs International Corp. Bank, G.R. No.131283, October 7, 1999 4) Service Specialist vs CA, 251 SCRA 70 (1995) 4) Chua ws CA, 222 SCRA 85 (1993) 5) Stronghold Insurance vs CA, 208 SCRA 336 (1992) Rule 61 (Support Pendente Lite) 1) San Juan vs Valenzuela, 117 SCRA 926 (1982) 2) Vasco vs CA, 81 SCRA 762 (1978) 3) Vinluan vs CA, 24 SCRA 787 (1968) 4) Reyes vs Ines-Luciano, 88 SCRA 803 (February 28, 1979) Rule 62 (Interpleader) 1) Mesina vs LAC, 145 SCRA 497 (1986) Rule 63, Declaratory Relief 1) Santos vs Aquino, 94 Phil 65 (1953) 2) Gomez vs Palomar, 25 SCRA 827 (1968) 3) Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association, Ine. vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 28, 2010 Rule 64, D Chavez vs Comelee, G.R. No. 162731-32, April 13, 2004 2) Jumamil vs Comelec, G.R. No. 167080-93, March 6, 2007 Outline Remedial Law(2017) Page 17 of 19LVI LVL. LIX. Rule 65 1) AM. No. 07-7-12 SC (Amending Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65) 2) Tagle vs Equitable PCI Bank, G-R. No. 172209, April 22, 2008 3) Fortich vs Corona, 289 SCRA 624 4) Dauzvs Eliosida, 1 SCRA 990 (1961) 5) De bacang ws Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 137 (1983) 6) Hufana, et. al. vs William Ong Genato, 365 SCRA 384 (2001) 7). Metropolitan Bank vs Veridiano, 360 SCRA 359 8) Santos, et.al. vs CA, 360 SCRA 521 9) Bernardo vs Abalos, St., 371 SCRA 459 10) Calim vs Hon. Jesus Guererro, G.R. No. 156527, March 5, 2007 Rule 66 Quo Warranto Cases 1) Campos vs Degamo, 6 SCRA 235 (1962) 2) Sison vs Pangramuven, 84 SCRA 364 (1078) 3) Mun. of San Nareiso vs Mendez, 239 SCRA 11 (1994) 4) Calim vs Lon. Jessis Guerrero, G.R. No. 156527, March 5, 2007 5) Arguero vs C4, G.R. No. 168053, Scplember 11, 2011 6) General vs Uno, G.R. No. 191500, March 5, 2001 Rule 67 Expropriation 1) Gadnaman vs Tibungan, G.R. No. 182185, September 18, 2009 2) The Gity of Manila vs The Arellano Law Colleges, Inc., 85 SCRA 663 (1950) 3) Export Processing Zone Authority vs Dulay, C.R. No. 1-59693, April 29, 1987 4) Robern Dev't. Inc. vs Judge Quintain, G.R. No. 135042, September 93, 1990 5) Lintag vs NPC, GR. No. 158609, July 27, 2007 6) Republic vs Phil-Ville Dev't Housing Corp., G.R. No.172243, June 26, 2007 7) Republic vs Far Rast Enterprises, Ine, et. al., G.R. No.176487, August 25, 2009 '8) City of Hloilo vs Lon. Besana, G.R. No. 168967, February 12, 2010 9) Apo Fruits Corp vs LBP, G.R, No. 164195, Oclober 12, 2010 Rule 68 Foreclosure 4) Rehabilitation Finanee vs Alto Surety, Inc. G.R. No. 1714303, March 24, 1960 2) Tiglao vs Botones, C.R. No. 1-3619, October 29, 1951 3) GSIS, vs CF of Hoilo branch IIL, Hoilo City, G.R. No.45322, July 5, 1989 4) Crunvs LAC, G.R. No. 72806, January 9, 1989 5) Sps. Kho vs CA G.R, No. 1-83498, October 23, 1991 6) Roxas vs CA, G.R. No. 10080, May 11, 1993, 7) Flores vs Sps. Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011 Rule 69 4) Roque vs IAC, G.R. No. L-75886, August 30, 1988. taw(2027) Page 18 of 19LXIL. LXIL 2) Fabrica vs CA, G-R. No. L-47360, December 15, 1986 3) Austria vs Liekmaco, G.R. No. 170080, April 4, 2007 Rule 70: Forcible Entry 1) Calixto vs Gonzales, G.R. No. 169047, November 3, 2008 2) Bejar ws Caluag, G.R. No. 171277, February 15, 2007 3) Francel Realty vs CA, 252 SCRA 127 (1996) 4) Del Rosario vs Sps. Manuel, G.R. No. 1533652, January 16, 2004 5) Buenaventura vs Uy, et. AL, G.R. No. 149 SCRA 565 (1994) 6) Javier vs Veridiano, 237 SCRA 565 (1994) 7) Baens vs CA, 125 SCRA 634 (1983) 8) Azcuna, Jr. vs CA, 255 SCRA 215 (1996) 9) Penas, Jr. vs CA, 233 SCRA 744 (1094) 10)Lim Keih Tong vs CA, 195 SCRA 398 (1991) 411) Clutario vs CA, 216 SCRA 341 (1992) 412) Cursing vs Bautista, 176 SCRA 65 (1989) 13) Acab vs CA, 241 SCRA 546 (1995) 14) Bandoy vs CA, 175 SCRA 459 (1989) 15)Peran vs Presiding Judge, 125 SCRA 258 (1977) 16)Racaza vs Susan Realty, 18 SCRA 1172 (1966) 17) San Manuel Wood Products, Inc. vs Judge Tupas 249 SCRA 466 (1995) 18)Vda de Ampil vs Alvendia, 10 SCRA 828 (1964) 19) City of Manila vs CA, 149 SCRA 183 (1987) 20) _ San Pedro vs CA, 235 SCRA 145 (1994) 21)Sunflower Neighborhood Association vs CA, G. 2003 . No, 136274, September 3, Rule 71, Contempt 1) Ang vs Castro, G.R. No. L-66371, May 15, 1985 2) Pp.vs Torio, GR. No. 1-27152, November 2, 1982 3) Pascua vs Simeon, 161 SCRA 1 44) Tacardon vs Ang, G.R. No. 159286, April 0s, 2005 5) Regalado vs Ong, G.R. No. 167988, February , 2007 6) Arriola vs Arriola, G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008 Outline Remedial Law(2027) Page 19 of 19