47. Divinagracia vs. Parilla, G.R. No.

196750, March 11, 2015

Topic: Rule 3 > Parties to Civil Action

a) An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the
litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party’s
interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so intextricably
intertwined with the other’s parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is
an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the
parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
b) In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them
and not to dismiss the case, to wit: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such
times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the
tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the
order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the nonparty claim to be indispensable.

48. Enriquez Vda. de Santiago vs. Vilar 857 SCRA 451 , March 06, 2018

By definition, an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final

determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
It is a party whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation. In the Matter of
the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. v. Robles, 638 SCRA
712 (2010), the Court held that: The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence
of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the authority to
hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case. Thus, without the presence of indispensable
parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality

Verily, Rosario is an indispensable party in the petition before the CA as she is the
widow of the original party-plaintiff Eduardo. The determination of the propriety of the action of
the trial court in merely noting and not granting his motion would necessarily affect her interest
in the subject matter of litigation as the party-plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court differs with the
CA in ruling that the petition for certiorari filed before it merely delves into the issue of grave
abuse of discretion committed by the lower court. Guilty of repetition, the final determination of
the case would pry into the right of Rosario as party-plaintiff before the lower court who is
entitled to the proceeds of the judgment award. As it is, the CA did not actually rule on the issue
of grave abuse of discretion alone as its corollary ruling inquired into the right of Rosario. In
ruling for Vilar’s substitution, the right of Rosario as to the proceeds of the judgment award was
thwarted as the CA effectively ordered that the proceeds pertaining to Rosario be awarded
instead to Vilar. Likewise, the Court finds merit in Rosario’s contention that her failure to
participate in the proceedings before the CA constitutes a denial of her constitutional right to due
process. Hence, failure to implead Rosario as an indispensable party rendered all the proceedings
before the CA null and void for want of authority to act. Moreover, even the basis for the
substitution of Vilar as pronounced by the CA was unfounded. In ruling so, the CA merely relied
on the purported Deeds of Assignment of Rights executed between Eduardo and Vilar in
considering that the latter is a transferee pendente lite, who can rightfully and legally substitute
Rosario as party-plaintiff in the implementation of a writ of execution. Yet, it is significant to
note that the Court already brushed aside said Deeds of Assignment for being belatedly filed in
its Decision dated October 21, 2015 in G.R. Nos. 194814 and 194825. The Court did not discuss
any further the validity and due execution of said Deeds as the same were brought to the
attention of the trial court more than 20 years after the same were allegedly executed.

49. PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA vs. SCHONFELD, 516 SCRA

Venue; Venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in
Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words.

The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by this Court in the vintage case of
Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413 (1994), is that while they are
considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the
general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or
restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the
intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and
categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at
the place named by them.

50. BPI Family Savings Bank vs. Sps. Yujuico 763 SCRA 486

The venue of an action depends on whether it is a real or a personal action. An action to recover
the deficiency after extrajudicial foreclosure of a real property mortgage is a personal action
because it does not affect title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. The real
action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein
the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. All other actions are personal actions.
The venue of a personal action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason the
action is considered a transitory one.
51. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Spouses Yujuico 763 SCRA 486

Based on the distinctions between real and personal actions, an action to recover the deficiency
after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property mortgage is a personal action, for it does
not affect title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. Accordingly, the proper
venue in this case is in Makati RTC because Makati was the place where the main office of BPI
was located.

52. Planters Development Bank vs. Ramos 840 SCRA (2017)

In cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written
instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be
binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of
improper venue. Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the written
instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and
should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would be inherently
consistent for a complaint of this nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in
fact, precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is contained.

53. A.L Ang Network Inc. vs Mondejar 714 SCRA

A.L Ang Network Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money under the Rule of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases before the MTCC, seeking to collect from Emma Mondejar the amount
of ₱23,111.71 which represented her unpaid water bills for the period June 1, 2002 to September
30, 2005.

MTC ruled in favor of Emma Mondejar. Petitioner now then filed before the RTC a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule,
the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for
its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other
proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner is correct when it filed the said petition before the proper forum (i.e., the RTC).
To be sure, the Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. Such concurrence of jurisdiction, however, does not give
a party unbridled freedom to choose the venue of his action lest he ran afoul of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. Instead, a becoming regard for judicial hierarchy dictates that petitions for
the issuance of writs of certiorari against first level courts should be filed with the Regional Trial
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals, before resort may be had before
the Court. This procedure is also in consonance with Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
 Small claims cases are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, certiorari petitions assailing its dispositions should be filed before their corresponding
Regional Trial Courts. This petitioner complied with when it instituted its petition for certiorari
before the RTC which, as previously mentioned, has jurisdiction over the same.

54. Alba vs Malapajo 780 SCRA 534

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party.

A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises
out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of
whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction
of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before
the Regional Trial Court, necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's
claim or even where there is such a connection, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
claim or it requires for adjudication the presence of third persons over whom the court acquire
jurisdiction.

A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the same action.

A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be
filed separately in another case.

“Since respondents' counterclaim is compulsory, it must be set up in the same action; otherwise,
it would be barred forever. If it is filed concurrently with the main action but in a different
proceeding, it would be abated on the ground of litis pendentia; if filed subsequently, it would
meet the same fate on the ground of res judicata. There is, therefore, no need for respondents to
pay docket fees and to file a certification against forum shopping for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the said counterclaim.
55. LIM TECK CHUAN vs. UY (752 SCRA 268)

A dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. For this reason,
since only the complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of said dismissal
may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action. The dismissal of the complaint does not
necessarily result to the dismissal of the counterclaim.

56. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. CPR promotions and Marketing Inc. (760
SCRA 59, June 22, 2015)

It is elementary that a defending party’s compulsory counterclaim should be interposed at the

time he files his Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar such claim. 

57. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Yujuico

763 SCRA 486
July 22, 2015

Topic: Venue; Real Action/Personal Action

Doctrine:

According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects title to or
possession of real property, or an interest therein. Thus, an action for partition or condemnation
of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property is a real action. The real action is to be
commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action is also referred
to as a local action.

In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions. Such actions may
include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some
contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the
commission of an injury to the person or property. The venue of a personal action is the place
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found,
at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason the action is considered a transitory one.

In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant
if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court thus expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. As it relates to the place of trial, indeed,
venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than to restrict their access to the
courts. In other words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a
court despite its being the improper venue.

Based on the distinctions between real and personal actions, an action to recover the deficiency
after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property mortgage is a personal action, for it does
not affect title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein.

58. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (406 SCRA 190)

A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at

least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying
or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally
denied, has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted.

59. Caneland Sugar Corporation vs. Alon (533 SCRA 28)

Pleadings and Practice; Negative Pregnant; Words and Phrases; A negative pregnant is a form of
negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind
favorable to the adverse party—it is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts
alleged in the pleading.—Petitioner does not dispute its loan obligation with respondent.
Petitioner’s bone of contention before the RTC is that the promissory notes are silent as to
whether they were covered by the Mortgage Trust Inden-ture and Mortgage Participation on its
property covered by TCT No. T-11292. It does not categorically deny that these promissory
notes are covered by the security documents. These vague assertions are, in fact, negative
pregnants, i.e., denials pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied. As defined in Republic of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190 (2003), a negative pregnant is a “form of negative expression
which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the
adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the
pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the
allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, has been held that the qualifying
circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.”

60. Alma Jose vs. Javellana (664 SCRA 1)

Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom an adverse judgment has been
rendered in one forum seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other
than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause or supposition that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition. Forum shopping happens when, in the two or more pending cases, there is
identity of parties, identity of rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought. Where the
elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in the other, there is forum shopping. For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal
of an action, there must be: (a) identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the same
interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same acts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment
which may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other. For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same
transaction, same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action,
subject matter and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders were questioned, two
distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought. Dangers of
forum shopping. The first danger, i.e., the multiplicity of suits upon one and the same cause of
action, would not materialize considering that the appeal was a continuity of Civil Case No. 79-
M-97, whereas C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60455 dealt with an independent ground of alleged grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC. The
second danger, i.e., the unethical malpractice of shopping for a friendly court or judge to ensure a
favorable ruling or judgment after not getting it in the appeal, would not arise because the CA
had not yet decided C.A.-G.R. CV No. 68259 as of the filing of the petition for certiorari.

61. MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO CONSING (665 SCRA 534)

DOCTRINE: DISTINGUISH VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs
in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also
stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the
orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial
compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is
because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of
non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, under justifiable
circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification
considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
62. COA vs. PALER (614 SCRA)

The authority to file the petition and sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping.

The petitioner in this case is the Commission on Appointments, a government entity created by
the Constitution, and headed by its Chairman. There was no need for the Chairman himself to
sign the verification. Its representative, lawyer or any person who personally knew the truth of
the facts alleged in the petition could sign the verification. With regard, however, to the
certification of non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed by the
plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by counsel. In this case, Atty. Tiu failed to show
that he was specifically authorized by the Chairman to sign the certification of non-forum
shopping, much less file the petition in his behalf. There is nothing on record to prove such
authority. Atty. Tiu did not even bother to controvert Paler’s allegation of his lack of authority.
This renders the petition dismissible.

63. BASANv s. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES (749 SCRA 541)

Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that the rule on verification is deemed substantially
complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been
made in good faith or are true and correct. Similarly, the Supreme Court has consistently held
that when under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as when all the petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, as in this case, the signature
of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the
certification requirement. Also, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in
labor cases to serve the demand of justice

64 UY vs. CA (770 SCRA 513)

There was substantial compliance with the requirements on

certification against forum shopping. (Rule 7)

A certification against forum shopping is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an
assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving
basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. It must be executed by the party-pleader,
not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable
to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) designating his counsel of record to
sign on his behalf.
Here, the original complaint contained a proper verification and certification against forum
shopping duly signed by Naval-Sai as plaintiff. The verification and certification in the amended
complaint, on the other hand, was only signed by her counsel, Atty. Norberta L. Ela. Atty. Ela
was not authorized to sign on behalf of Naval-Sai, as in fact, she assigned one Rodolfo
Florentino as agent. The Court of Appeals pointed out that in the certification in the amended
complaint, Atty. Ela specified that it should be taken and read together with the original
complaint. The Court of Appeals took this as a cautionary move on the part of Naval-Sai,
justifying the relaxation of the rules on the ground of substantial compliance. We find, however,
that this cautionary move is ineffectual because under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the original
complaint and its verification and certification ceased to exist. This, notwithstanding, we find
there was still substantial compliance with the Rules.

In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, while we said that, strictly, a
certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective ce1iification, the verification,
signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is substantial compliance because it served the
purpose of the Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action or proceeding
involving the same issues. We then explained that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice which should be used to achieve such end and not to derail
it.

We also find that the prima facie merits of the case serve as a special circumstance or a
compelling reason to relax the rules on certification against forum shopping.

In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, we recognized the flaw in the certification against forum
shopping which was signed only by the counsel, and not by the party. In LDP Marketing, Inc. v.
Monter, there was initially no proof that the one who signed the certification was authorized to
do so in behalf of the corporation. In these two cases, we nonetheless chose to overlook the
procedural lapses in the interest of substantial justice and the existence of prima facie merit in the
petitions.

We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction. However, there are cases where we exercised
leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of special
circumstances or compelling reasons. The rules on forum-shopping are designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice and "should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subve1i its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of
procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."
65. People vs. Arojado - 774 SCRA 193 (2015)

All pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of
their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the
immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

An information is, for all intents and purposes, considered an initiatory pleading because it is a
written statement that contains the cause of action of a party, which in criminal cases is the State
as represented by the prosecutor, against the accused. Like a pleading, the Information is also
filed in court for appropriate judgment. Undoubtedly then, an Information must contain the
number and date of issue of the prosecutor’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance.

66. Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs. Rey 807 SCRA 8, November 07, 2016

Rule 7 Parts and Contents of a Pleading, Case

a. In previous cases, we held that the following officials or employees of the company can
sign the verification and certification against Forum Shopping without need of a board
resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors; (2) the President of a
corporation; (3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager; (4) Personnel Officer;
and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case. The rationale applied in these cases is
to justify the authority of corporate officers or representatives of the corporation to sign
the verification or certificate against forum shopping, being “in a position to verify the
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.”

67. Heirs of Josefina Gabriel vs. Segundina Cebrero, November 12, 2018

Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by
his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign,
he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his
behalf.

Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification against forum shopping
must be executed by the plaintiff or principal party. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or the
principal knows better than anyone, whether a petition has previously been filed involving the
same case or substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the
petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized.
68. Rule 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

FERNANDO MEDICAL ENTERPRISES INC. V. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY

G.R. No. 207970; January 20, 2016
Bersamin, J.

The trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings upon motion of the claiming party when
the defending party's answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations
of the adverse party's pleading. For that purpose, only the pleadings of the parties in the action
are considered. It is error for the trial court to deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings
because the defending party's pleading in another case supposedly tendered an issue of fact.

Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court recognizes only three modes by which the denial in the
answer raises an issue of fact. The first is by the defending party specifying each material
allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, setting forth
the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. The second applies to the
defending party who desires to deny only a part of an averment, and the denial is done by the
defending party specifying so much of the material allegation of ultimate facts as is true and
material and denying only the remainder. The third is done by the defending party who is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made in the complaint by stating so in the answer. Any material averment in the
complaint not so specifically denied are deemed admitted except an averment of the amount of
unliquidated damages.

69. Go Tong Electrical Supply vs. BPI Family Savings Bank

G.R. No. 187487. June 29, 2015

DOCTRINE:

The mere statement in paragraph 4 of their Answer, i.e., that they “specifically deny” the
pertinent allegations of the Complaint “for being self-serving and pure conclusions intended to
suit plaintiff’s purposes,” does not constitute an effective specific denial as contemplated by law.
Verily, a denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. Stated
otherwise, a general denial does not become specific by the use of the word “specifically.”
Neither does it become so by the simple expedient of coupling the same with a broad conclusion
of law that the allegations contested are “self-serving” or are intended “to suit plaintiff’s
purposes.