GONZALES V BALIKATAN KILUSANG BAYAN
Facts: Florentino Gonzales obtained a loan from
Respondent. When the former failed to pay
despite repeated written demands, Respondent
filed for collection of sum and damages in MTC-
Bocaue. Summons were issued. On the
scheduled hearing, because they failed to file
answer, Gonzales et al were declared in default.
MTC- ruled in favor of the plaintiff
RTC- Bulacan- affirmed MTC, thus appeal to CA
CA- Dismissed for the following reasons:
- Failure to sign the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping
- All relevant documents are not attached
to parties’ memoranda
ISSUES:
1. Whether there was substantial compliance
with the certificate on non-forum shopping.
2. Whether there was valid service of
summons to declare PETITIONER in default.
RULING:
1. No. The certificate of non-forum shopping
should be signed by all petitioners or plaintiffs
in a case, otherwise, it would be deemed
insufficient.
ITC, petitioners only filed an MR which did not
cure the defect nor satisfactorily explain the
failure to certify non-forum shopping.
2. YES. Rule 15, Sec. 2 provides that all motions
shall be in writing except those made in open
court or in the course of a hearing or trial.
ITC, respondent moved in an open court to
declare petitioners in default and IN THEIR
PRESENCE. The same constituted NOTICE
already. Petitioners’ failure to lift the order of
default [at that time] serves as a waiver on their
part.
SALVADOR V ANGELES
Facts: ANGELES is the registered owner of a
parcel of land in Sampaloc Manila occupied by
GALIGA who later sold the same to Salvador.
After unheeded demands to vacate the subject
property, ANGELES filed for an ejectment case
thru DIAZ, the attorney in fact. METC, RTC, and
CA all rendered decisions in favor of ANGELES.
Petitioners in the course of proceedings
questioned the authority of DIAZ to represent
Angeles.
ISSUE: Whether DIAZ has the authority to file
the case.
RULING: No.
In TAMANDONG v CA, if a complaint is filed for
and in behalf of the plaintiff by one who is not
authorized to do so, the complaint is not
deemed filed. An UNAUTHORIZED COMPLAINT
does not produce any legal effect. HENCE, the
court should dismiss the complaint on the
ground that it has no jurisdiction over the
complaint and the plaintiff.
- REITERATED in COSCO PH v KEMPER
ITC, there was no copy of any document
attached to prove DIAZ has the authority to
initiate action. It WAS ONLY A YEAR AFTER when
petitioner raise the same that respondent
attached THE SPA which was executed on
November 16, 1994 [more than a month after
the complaint was filed]. Further, the SPA was
not certified by the Consul Gen of SF, Ca. USA to
evidentiary weight or value can attached.
FINANCIAL BUILDING v FORBES PARK structures it has erected in the same premises
involved in the prior case and to claim damages for
Facts: undertaking the said construction.
After the Civil Case 16540 [an injunction suit
initiated by FINANCIAL BUILDING against Forbes
Park] was terminated with finality, in favor of
Financial Building, FORBES PARK filed an
ACTION FOR DAMAGES before the RTC-
MAKATI. The trial court ruled in favor of Forbes
and ordered FB to demolish illegal structures
[and ofc, damages]

FB APPEALED TO CA. CA AFFIRMED RTC’S.

REVIEW on Certiorari to SC.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS

BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT IN THE EARLIER
CASE.

RULING: YESSSSS!

A compulsory counterclaim is one which arises

out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim.

- Cannot be the subject of a separate

action but it should instead be asserted
in the same suit involving the same
transaction or occurrence, which gave
rise to it.
- Auxiliary to the proceeding in the
original suit and derives its
jurisdictional support therefrom.
- Presupposes the existence of a claim
against the party filing the
counterclaim.

ITC, FORBES PARK failed to set up as

compulsory counterclaim the claims in the
instant case in CIVIL CASE 16540. Barred by the
prior judgment Forbes Park is deemed to have
waived to interpose the same under the rule on
compulsory counterclaims.

NB: The instant case was initiated by Forbes Park to

compel Financial Building to remove the same