MODULE 2

GENERAL PROVISIONS (RULE 1)

(One Hour)

Lesson Outline:

1) In what courts are the Rules of Court applicable?

Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except
as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (n)

2) What cases are governed by these rules?

Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in
actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.

(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection
of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)

A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n

(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law. (n)

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a

right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2)

3) In what cases are these rules not applicable?

Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to election cases,
land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases
not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (R143a)

4) What are the kinds of civil actions?

Contract Disputes

Contract disputes occur when one or more parties who signed a contract cannot or will
not fulfill their obligations. Occasionally, this is due to a contract that is written in fuzzy
terms that creates disparate expectations in the signers, but usually it is because one
party overextends itself and doesn’t have the money or employees to fulfill their
obligations.

Property Disputes
Property law involves disputes about property ownership and damages to one person’s
property or real estate. There are many different types of property disputes that a civil
litigation attorney may handle. One common one is property line disputes, in which one
party alleges that a neighbor crossed the property line boundary between their two
homes for building or planting.

Torts

A tort is a civil case in which one party alleges that another caused them physical or
emotional harm. Tort cases can take many different forms, and can relate to a person’s
personal safety, safety of their property, and financial security. Common torts related to
accident and injury include assault or battery cases, and negligence cases in which one
party alleges that a caregiver did not do their assigned duty.

Class Action Cases

Class action cases are similar to tort cases, only the prosecution in these cases
represents represents a group or class of people who have all been injured by the same
thing. These are common in cases of defective products or exposure to hazardous
materials in which the faulty item injured multiple people before it was recalled.

Complaints Against the City

Complaints against the city or federal government are generally settled out of court, but
in the event that the government refuses to settle, the complaints are generally tried as
civil cases. These cases can be brought in any case where the plaintiff alleges that city
law or policy has caused harm to its citizens.

There are numerous other types of civil cases, and sometimes a civil cases will follow up
a criminal case that has had an unfavorable outcome for the prosecution. If you think
you may have ground for a case, contact us at Brent George Law to discuss options.

5) What are the distinctions between civil actions and special proceedings?

An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding, on
the other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact (Sec. 1[a] and [c], Rule 1, RoC).

6) How is a civil action commenced?

A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. ... Cause of
action, defined. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right
of another.

7) How should the Rules of Court be construed?

Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (2a)

Readings:

a) Dionisio v. Linsangan, G.r. No. 178159, March 2, 2011

FACTS:

Gorgonio M. Cruz (Cruz) owned agricultural lands inSan Rafael, Bulacan, that his tenant,
Romualdo San Mateo (Romualdo) cultivated.Upon Romualdos death, his widow,
Emiliana, got Cruzs permission to stay on the property provided she would vacate it
upon demand.In September 1989, spouses Vicente and Anita Dionisio (the Dionisios)
bought the property from Cruz. In April 2002, the Dionisios found out that Emiliana had
left the property and that it was already Wilfredo Linsangan (Wilfredo) who occupied it
under the strength of a "Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Karapatan" dated April 7, 1977.

The Dionisios, on April 22, 2002, demanded that Wilfredo vacate the land but the latter
declined, prompting the Dionisios to file an eviction suit against him before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of San Rafael, Bulacan.Wilfredo filed an answer with counterclaims in
which he declared that he had been a tenant of the land as early as 1977. At the pre-
trial, the Dionisios orally asked leave to amend their complaint.The Dionisios filed their
amended complaint on August 5, 2003; Wilfredo maintained his original answer.

The MTC ruled for the Dionisios and asked Wilfredo to vacate the property and pay rent
and costs. The RTC affirmed, adding that the action was one for forcible entry. The CA,
however, reversed. The CA held that, by amending their complaint, the Dionisios
effectively changed their cause of action from unlawful detainer to recovery of
possession which fell outside the jurisdiction of the MTC.Further, since the amendment
introduced a new cause of action, its filing on August 5, 2003 marked the passage of the
one year limit from demand required in ejectment suits.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the amended complaint changed the cause of action

2. Whether or not the action is within the jurisdiction of the MTC

HELD:

The petition is granted.

REMEDIAL LAW: Effect of amendment of the complaint; nature of the action.

First issue: To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the

test is whether such amendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability or
obligation which is completely different from that stated in the original complaint.
Here, both the original and the amended complaint have identical allegations, and
required Wilfredo to defend his possession based on the allegation that he had stayed
on the land after Emiliana left out of the owners mere tolerance and that the latter had
demanded that he leave.It did not introduce a new cause of action.

Second issue: Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case since it involved tenancy relation under the DARABs jurisdiction. But jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint.
The records show that Wilfredo failed to substantiate his claim that he was a tenant of
the land.

Second, the Court ruled that this is not an action for forcible entry, since the complaint
contained no allegation that the Dionisios were in possession of the property before
Wilfredo occupied it either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, an element
of that kind of eviction suit

The Court ruled that this is an action for unlawful detainer: (1) the defendant has
possession of property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) such
possession became illegal upon plaintiffs notice to defendant, terminating the latter's
right of possession; (3) the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of
the enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiff's last demand that
defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for ejectment. If the
defendant had possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance
must be present at the beginning of defendants possession.

Here, while there was no specific allegation of "tolerance" in the complaint, the Court
concedes that the rules do not require the plaintiff in an eviction suit to use the exact
language of such rules.The Dionisios alleged that Romualdo used to be the lands tenant
and that when he died, the Dionisios allowed his widow, Emiliana, to stay under a
promise that she would leave upon demand.These allegations clearly imply the Dionisios
"tolerance" of her (or any of her assignees).

Petition is GRANTED.

The decision of the CA is reversed and that of the MTC reinstated.

b) Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organizatin v. CA, G.R.

No. 109373, March 20, 1995

FACTS:

On March 13, 1989 the Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization (Union for
short), petitioner in G.R. No. 109373, filed a complaint-in-intervention seeking payment
of holiday pay, 13th month pay differential, salary increase differential, Christmas bonus,
and cash equivalent of Sick Leave Benefit due its members as employees of PaBC.

September 13, 1991, The trial court ordered payment of the principal claims of the
Union.
September 16, 1991, The Liquidator received a copy of the order.

October 16, 1991, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of the order.

December 6, 1991, the judge modified his September 13, 1991 but in effect denied the
Liquidator’s motion for reconsideration

The following day, he filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Additional Time to
Submit Record on Appeal.

February 10, 1992, respondent judge disallowed the Liquidator’s Notice of Appeal on the
ground that it was late, i.e., more than 15 days after receipt of the decision. The judge
declared his September 13, 1991 order and subsequent orders to be final and executory
and denied reconsideration.

March 27, 1992, he granted the Union’s Motion for issuance of a writ of Execution.

September 30, 1992 he moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the
court on October 2, 1992.

October 14, 1992 he filed a Notice of Appeal from the orders of granting the Union’s
Motion for issuance of a writ of execution and denied Motion for reconsideration.
However, the judge ordered the Notice of Appeal stricken off the record on the ground
that it had been filed without authority of the Central Bank and beyond 15 days.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

The Liquidator filed petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in the Court of
Appeals to set aside the orders of the trial court denying his appeal from the orders
granting the claims of Union.

In its decision of November 17, 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 27751 (now G.R. No. 09373) the
Fifth Division held in the case of the Union that the proceeding before the trial court was
a special proceeding and, therefore, the period for appealing from any decision or final
order rendered therein is 30 days. Since the notice of appeal of the Liquidator was filed
on the 30th day of his receipt of the decision granting the Union’s claims, the appeal
was brought on time. The Fifth Division, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower
court and directed the latter to give due course to the appeal of the Liquidator and set
the Record on Appeal he had filed for hearing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a petition for liquidation under sec 29 of Rep. Act No. 265 is in the
nature of a special proceeding.

If it is, then the period of appeal is 30 days and the party appealing must, in addition to
a notice of appeal, file with the trial court a record on appeal in order to perfect his
appeal. Otherwise, if a liquidation proceeding is an ordinary action, the period of appeal
is 15 days from notice of the decision or final order appealed from.

HELD:

Yes. The Interim Rules and Guidelines to implement BP Blg. 129 provides:

19. Period of Appeals. —

(a) All appeals, except in habeas corpus cases and in the cases referred to in paragraph
(b) hereof, must be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, order,
resolution or award appealed from.

(b) In appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court
and other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeals shall be
thirty (30) days, a record on appeal being required.

§1. Action defined. — Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which the
party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention
or redress of a wrong.

§2. Special Proceeding Distinguished. — Every other remedy, including one to establish
the status or right of a party or a particular fact, shall be by special proceeding.

Elucidating the crucial distinction between an ordinary action and a special proceeding,
Chief Justice Moran states:”

Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is
the act by which one seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
Hence, action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a formal
demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is but a petition for a
declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a party litigant seeks to recover property
from another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his purpose is to seek the
appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish
the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship

Considering this distinction, a petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should

be classified a special proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such petition does not
seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong
against a party. It does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party’s
wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced against any
person.

What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of the corporation’s insolvency so
that its creditors may be able to file their claims in the settlement of the corporation’s
debts and obligations.