FEB 1, 2001 – Jerry Montanez (R) MeTC favoured P; 2007 – RTC

loaned from Crisanta Miguel (P) – affirmed MeTC; CA – reversed

P 143 864; payable within one RTC’s decision
year; Collateral house in NO NOVATION – no change in
Caloocan stipulation; period of payment has
expired; merely supplemented the
R failed to pay the loan – P filed a
old agreement
complaint in LupTagapa – Brgy.
San Jose, Rizal ISSUE: Sum of Money is proper
remedy – YES; Should decide on
Settlement – pay 2K every month;
merits rather than remand
settle balance if house is sold
enforcement of Kasunduang Pag-
2004 – failed to pay; certificate to aayos? YES
file action
RULING:
2005 – P filed a collection of sum
of money in MeTC (Makati) –
Cause of action is the collection IBP – Baguio-Beng Chapter
of sum of money; enforce original
Violation – Sec 9 of PD 1508
action as the Kasunduan was
KPLaw
already rescinded based on Art
2041 – Fails or refuses to abide by Malecdan v. James & Josephine
compromise – rescinded Baldo – Estafa; Breach of
SEC 417 – 6 mo. Execution; Contract (Brgy. Pico, LT)
judicial action
2014– R went as counsel
SEC 416 – repudiation
(hearing)
ART 2037 – RES JUDICATA
IBP Hearing – R admitted that he
Chavez v CA – Non-compliance to
was present but stated that he
amicable settlement allows Art
was permitted by barangay
2041
officials and parties to be there;
CELESTINO MALECDAN (Comp)
Malecdan responded that he
v. ATTY SIMPSON BALDO (Resp)
vehemently objected to the 1998-2009 – P supplied R with KG
presence of the counsel Orange Bottles and Caps for its
catsup products
CBD – reprimand for insensitivity
– KP Law is not definitive; IBP TERMS (PO) – 1) up to standard;
BOG – reprimand – Sec 9 is 2) Buyer returns non-compliant
mandatory with damages; 3) arbitration
committee
CANON 1 – Uphold the Cons;
Obey the Laws; Promote Respect 2009 – P filed a complaint for sum
for Law and Leg Proc (Rule 1.01) of money; Case – RTC Manila; Y?
A lawyer shall not engage in Sales Invoice (SI) Clause
unlaw, dishon, deceitful, immoral
Nutri-Asia pay +9M, 12% interest
conduct – obedience to law
per annum; attorney’s fee (25%);
300K for acceptance fee counsel;
HYGIENIC (P) v. NUTRI-ASIA (R)
4000 – appearance fee
 PO was inoperative – conflict of SI
R – should dismiss; failed to
and PO; PO was only offer, no
comply with pre-condition of
agreement
arbitration; venue was improper
(place of residence); SI is not RTC – venue proper; no
binding; claim is extinguished by compensation
compensation for destroyed
CA –P is estopped from rebutting
goods of Nutri-Asia bec of
PO arbi cause – they benefited; P-
Hygienic changing the colorant in
Arbi Clause is not binding
bottles (36 M - 26 M);
COMPENSATION: 26 M–9M = 16 M ISSUE: Collection of sum of
money was properly filed - NO
HYGIENIC (P) opposed thru
OMNIBUS MOTION (Sec8, Rule15) RULING: Article 1306 – Contracting
parties may establish such stipu,
claus, term, and cond as they may
deem convenient as long as lawful
Both the PO and SI were not JOSE, JOSEPHINE, JIMMY, JOHN
binding ABAGATNAN (Heirs of Wenceslao
A.) V. SPOUSES JONATHAN AND
Purpose of PO – acknowledge
ELSA CLARITO
order; SI – acknowledge receipt;
NO CONTRACT – no meeting of Wenceslao Abagatnan and Lydia
the minds in relation to arbitration Capote bought a land in Roxas
City from Mateo Ambrad and
VENUE – 1997 CivPro Rule 4, Sec
Soterana Clarito.
4 in relation to Sec 2 (Absence of
stipulation) – Personal Action – 1999 – Lydia died. Her heirs
where the plaintiff resides; succeeded in the property.
defendant resides 1990– Claritos seeked for
RULES OF DISMISSAL RULE 16 permission fr. Wenceslao to
SEC 1126 - VENUE is improperly construct a residential house in a
laid – Manila part of their property. He agreed.
CONDITION- leave when they CA – premature filing in MTCC;
need the property should be in Lupon
2006 – Abagatnan opted to sell Was CA correct? NO. SEC 412 (A)
the property; demanded them to – CONCILIATION; Confrontation
leave; offered to sell to Clarito; in Lupon Chairman (Living same
did not heed notice; declined sale city/municipality/barangay)
Filed a complaint for Unlawful Sec 2 and 3, Rule 3 of ROC –
Detainer and Damages in MTCC of REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST;
Roxas NOT ATTORNEYS-in-fact
Abagatnan (R) – improper venue; Not in Pre-Trial Order; Parties did
KataPambaran; Jimmy (Laguna) not agree to include lack of prior
and Jenalyn (Pasig) executed barangay conciliation
SPA proceedings in its issue; barred
MTCC favored P; RTC favoured P consideration in trial
ELIZABETH LANSANGAN (P) VS. RTC – Motu proprio dismissed; no
ANTONIO CAISIP (R) conciliation proceedings. CA –
affirmed RTC.
Petitioner Lansangan is from
Purok 4, Rose Park, Concepcion, ISSUE: Did CA err in dismissing
Tarlac alleged that Respondent motu proprio? YES
Caisip loaned the amount of 2,522
SEC 1, RULE 16 ROC – GROUNDS
EUROS from her and executed a
FOR MOTION TO DISMISS (j) that
promissory note payable in 2
a condition precedent for the
installments. Respondent
filing of the claim has not been
defaulted and refused to comply.
complied with. GENERAL RULE –
Petitioner moved to declare him in must be raised at the earliest
default through the MCTC. Case possible time. SEC 412 A RA 7160
was dismissed due to – barangay conciliation, condition
noncompliance with LGC 7160. precedent.
Sec 409 A – same barangay –
lupon. However, the ground of
noncompliance was not raised at
earliest possible time.
Respondent was in default for
failure to file a responsive
pleading due notice.
MICHAEL SEBASTIAN V.
ANNABEL LAGMAY NG,
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ANGELITA Execution.
LAGMAY
1997 – Angelita, repping for
Annabel Ng, filed a complaint
before Brgy. Siclong Laur, Ecija.
Collect from Michael 350 K.
Annabel and Michael –
sweethearts; purchase truck.
Broke up. Did not buy truck.
1997 – Kasunduan – pay 250K on
specific dates. NOT REPUDIATED.
Michael failed to pay. Lupon
issued a Certification to File
Action. Filed a Motion for
MTC favoured
Lagmay; RTC favoured Ng,
Michael failed to assail the
validity of the Kasunduan. RTC
(Reconsideration) favoured
Michael. Should be enforced by EXECUTION IS INITIATORY
Lupon, not MCTC. ACTION. LAGMAY’S IS AN
ORIGINAL ACTION. MOTION IS
CA – favoured Lagmay –
COMPLETE IN FORM AND
appropriate local trial court (RA
SUBSTANCE.
7160) refers to MTC. Michael’s
failure to repudiate made it res MICHAEL NEVER REPUDIATED.
judicata. IRREGULARITIES ARE DEEMED
WAIVED.
ISSUE: DOES MCTC HAVE
JURISDICTION TO EXECUTE MCTC HAS JURISDICTION TO
KASUNDUAN? ENFORCE KASUNDUAN – NO
DISTINCTION AS TO THE
RULING: YES. SEC 417 OF LGC.
AMOUNT.
LAGMAY CHOSE TO ENFORCE
2ND MODE – MUNICIPAL OR TRIAL
COURT, MOTION FOR