PNB VS. PEREZ VS. PEREZ, ET. AL.

, 16 SCRA 270

Trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of
prescription when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed
time-barred; and it may do so on the basis of a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1,f, Rule 16,
Rules of Court), or an answer which sets up such ground as an affirmative defense
(Sec. 5, Rule 16), or even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits, as in a
motion for reconsideration; or even if the defense has not been asserted at all, as
where no statement thereof is found in the pleadings; or where a defendant has been
declared in default. What is essential only, to repeat, is that the facts demonstrating
the lapse of the prescriptive period be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily
apparent on the record; either in the averments of the plaintiff's complaint, or
otherwise established by the evidence."

CAMARA VS. AGUILAR, ET. AL., 94 PHIL 527

The court held that this action is barred by the prior judgment because there is
identity of parties, the same subject matter and the same cause of action, as provided
for in section 45, Rule 39, the herein plaintiffs having intervened and joined the
defendants in the former case, the subject matter involved in both cases being the
same parcel of land and the cause of action being ejectment. The fact that damages
were awarded to the then plaintiff against the then defendants and intervenors
negatives the latter’s right to claim damages in the present case, for such award is
inconsistent with the claim that they were in possession of the parcel of land in good
faith and are entitled to recover what they spend for clearing, cultivating and planting
the parcel of land and the fruits which they failed to reap or harvest therein or their
value.

LEDESMA VS. MORALES, G.R. L-3251, AUG. 24, 1950

The court ruled that in a special civil action for declaratory relief, to the
petition filed by the petitioner, the defendant or respondent or may set up in his
answer a counterclaim based on or arising from the same transaction, deed or contract
on which the petition is based. He may also set up said counterclaim in an amended
answer filed before judgment, provided that his failure to include the counterclaim in
the original answer was due to oversight, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Courts
should be liberal in the admission, especially of compulsory counterclaims which may
be barred unless so interposed.

BUENAVENTURA VS. BUENAVENTURA, 94 PHIL 193

The reason given by the court was that the parties had failed to file their
promised agreed statement of facts and memoranda within a period of ten days. As
counsel for appellant rightly observes in his brief, the court’s reasoning would put it
within the power of one party to have a case dismissed by simply not signing any
stipulation of facts which his adversary might propose. We think that the ends of
justice would have been better served had the trial court, upon being apprised that the
parties could not agree on the facts, set the case for hearing and permitted them to
present evidence on those matters where no agreement could be reached.

PAGALARAN VS. BAL-LATAN, 13 PHIL 135

Even if there had been no complaint or formal summons, no law or reason
whatever justifies the nonappearance of the defendant after having been summoned,
inasmuch as even if it were for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court,
or of alleging the nullity of the summons, she ought to have appeared and not have
abandoned the action, filing then the motion which she did not make until after
judgment in default had been rendered.

J.M. TUASON & CO. VS. ESTABILLO, 62 SCRA 1

The irregularity, if it vitiated the lower court's jurisdiction over Estabillo's
person, was waived by him when he filed motions to lift the order of default and for
relief from judgment.

YEE VS. JUDGE ROSALES, ADM. MATTER OCA IPI NO. 05-1673-MTJ,
APRIL 5, 2006

Under the Rules, summons should be served by the sheriff, his deputy or other
proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons, by any suitable person authorized by
the court issuing the summons and service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders and
other papers are made either personally or by mail. In the service of summons or
subpoenas, only service by those persons enumerated under the Rules is valid. The
enumeration is exclusive. In instances where the defendant is residing in another
province, the Court as a matter of practice, deputizes the sheriff of the court nearer to
the place of residence of the defendant for expediency. The expenses incurred
therefore, shall be reimbursed by the Supreme Court upon presentation of the required
documents.
The Rules do not allow the service of court processes by persons who are not
members of the judiciary or properly deputized by the courts. A non-judicial person
has no place in the judicial service.

BELLO VS. UBO, 117 SCRA 91

The policeman merely tendered the summons to them and did not give then a
copy of the same and of the complaint. For, the records of the case are replete with
indications that the serving policeman was grossly ignorant of the rules concerning
summons. Thus, the return of service shows that the summons was first served on the
plaintiff. Besides, such return of service was not made under oath in violation of Sec.
20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court - which requires that "the proof of service of a
summons ... shall be sworn to when made by a person other than the sheriff or his
deputy." The service of the summons is also irregular since it is expressly admitted
therein that only one copy of the summons and of the complaint was served on the
two defendants.
Since a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant only by
means of a valid service of summons, trial and judgment without such valid service
are, therefore, null and void.

DULTRA VS. CFI OF AGUSAN, 70 SCRA 465

Respondent City of Butuan argues that the presumption is always in favor of
the validity of the ordinance. This maybe the rule but it has already been held that
although the presumption is always in favor of the validity or reasonableness of the
ordinance, such presumption must nevertheless be set aside when the invalidity or
unreasonableness appears on the face of the ordinance itself or is established by
proper evidence.37 The exercise of police power by the local government is valid
unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or
unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating
or in derogation of a common right.

LITONJUA VS. CA, 80 SCRA 246

Well-settled is the rule that the finding of the facts of administrative bodies
will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on
the part of said agencies, or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by
substantial evidence. In a long string of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently
adhered to the rule that decisions of administrative officers are not to be disturbed by
the courts except when the former have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion

DOLE PHILS. VS. QUILALA, G.R. NO. 168723, JULY 9, 2008

The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the rules on service of
summons and voluntary appearance. Service of summons on a domestic corporation is
limited to the designated persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14. However, a
defendant's voluntary appearance in the action, such as filing motions seeking
affirmative relief, is equivalent to service of summons.
Dole Philippines, Inc. voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by
acknowledging the receipt of the summons and seeking additional time to respond.
Therefore, the court held that the trial court had valid jurisdiction over the
corporation.

VALMONTE VS. CA, 252 SCRA 92

The service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior
leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, sec 17. As provided in sec 19, such
leave must be applied for by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff
or some person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application.
Finally, because there was no order granting such leave, petitioner Lourdes
was not given ample time to file her Answer which, according to the rules, shall be
not less than sixty (60) days after notice.

REGNER VS. LOGARTA, G.R. NO. 168747, OCT 19, 2007

 Personal service of summons on Cynthia within the Philippines is required for
an action in personam. However, since Cynthia is a non-resident and not found in the
Philippines, service of summons should have been done through extraterritorial
service.
The dismissal of the complaint is affirmed due to the failure to serve summons
on Cynthia, an indispensable party, and the failure to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable length of time. This decision is in line with the need to have jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant and to avoid unnecessary delays in the administration
of justice.

PHIL COMMERCIAL INTL BANK VS. ALEJANDRO, G.R. NO. 175587,

SEPT 21, 2007
The court found that PCIB acted in bad faith by misrepresenting Alejandro's
residence and suppressing the fact that he had a permanent residence in the
Philippines. The Court found that PCIB's claim of good faith was barred by the
principle of conclusiveness of judgment.
The court held that even if Alejandro was considered a resident temporarily
out of the Philippines, attachment was still not proper because the trial court could
have acquired jurisdiction through substituted service of summons instead of
attaching the property.

CORSINO VS. NICOLAS, 87 SCRA 58

Flora Corsino and Monico Nicolas, voluntarily appeared before the trial court,
when they filled an ex-parte motion for extension of time to file answer. Such
voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. Since the said defendants,
Flora Corsino and Monico Nicolas, filed their answer to the complaint on August 20,
1973, after the lapse of only four (4) days from the service of summons, the
reglementary period for the filing of an answer had not yet expired when their answer
was filed. The respondent Judge, therefore, abused his discretion, amounting to lack
of jurisdiction, in declaring said defendants, Flora Corsino and Monico Nicolas, in
default and in ordering their answer stricken from the record on the ground that the
same was filed out of time.
 PRADO VS. VERIDIANO II, 204 SCRA 654
The court held that the urgent motion for the issuance of the status quo order did not
comply with the rules of court. The motion did not contain a notice of hearing
addressed to the counsel of the adverse parties and was unverified and did not show
sufficient proof of service to counsel for the defendants.
There was no sense of urgency to justify acting on the motion on shorter
notice. The private respondents, as mere sublessees, did not show any clear and
positive right to be entitled to the protection of a preliminary injunction.
The status quo order was in fact a preliminary injunction and could not be
issued without compliance with the bond requirement.

DAEL VS. BENEDICTO, G.R. NO. 156470, APRIL 30, 2008

Under the rule, it is mandatory that the trial court issue an order confirming
such dismissal and, unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without
prejudice and could be accomplished by the plaintiff through mere notice of
dismissal, and not through motion subject to approval by the court. Dismissal is ipso
facto upon notice, and without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice. The
trial court has no choice but to consider the complaint as dismissed, since the plaintiff
may opt for such dismissal as a matter of right, regardless of the ground.
Moreover, to allow the case to be dismissed with prejudice would erroneously
result in res judicata and imply that petitioner can no longer file a case against
respondents without giving him a chance to present evidence to prove otherwise.

MELITON VS. CA, 216 SCRA 485

The dismissal of the counterclaims in the previous case was without prejudice
and did not constitute res judicata. The dismissal was due to non-payment of docket
fees and lack of jurisdiction, and there was no consideration and adjudication of the
case on the merits.
The rules of procedure should not be applied in a rigid and technical sense.
Substantial justice should prevail.

REPUBLIC VS. OLETA, G.R. NO. 156606, AUG 17, 2007

On Failure to File Pre-trial Brief
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court had "no discretion" on
the matter of a party’s failure to file a pre-trial brief. If the trial court has discretion to
dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to appear at pre-trial, then the trial court
also has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial
brief. Moreover, whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the
circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside depends on the
sound discretion of the trial court.
In this case, petitioner sufficiently explained that the pre-trial brief was sent by
registered mail to the trial court and respondent on 8 June 2001. That the trial court
and respondent did not receive the pre-trial brief at least three days prior to the pre-
trial was already beyond petitioner’s control. Therefore, the trial court had discretion
to lift the order of dismissal after giving credence to petitioner’s explanation.

On the Absence of a Special Power of Attorney

"The rules now require the special power of attorney be in writing because the
courts can neither second-guess the specific powers given to the representative, nor
can the courts assume that all the powers specified in Section 4 of Rule 18 are granted
by the party to his representative."
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court "abused its discretion" when it
reinstated the complaint despite the fact that petitioner’s counsel had no special
authority to represent petitioner at pre-trial. However, abuse of discretion is not
sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The abuse must be
grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily
and despotically.18 In this case, there is no showing that the trial court gravely abused
its discretion in reinstating petitioner’s complaint.
Exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their
application.20 In this instance, substantial justice can be best served if both parties are
given the full opportunity to litigate their claims in a full-blown trial.

HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET. AL. VS. NORTHEAST FREIGHT

FORWARDERS, INC., G.R. NO. 141297, OCT 8. 2001
Respondent is similarly situated as the Subic enterprises that instituted Civil
Case No. 179-0-05, and would be prejudiced in much the same way as the said Subic
enterprises with the implementation of Executive Order No. 418. Respondent should
be allowed to intervene in Civil Case No. 179-0-05 so it could be accorded equal
favor as the Subic enterprises before the law and, if the contrary so warrants, suffer
equally the brunt of the same law.
It even appears to this Court to be more beneficial and convenient for
petitioners, because they would only have to defend the constitutionality of Executive
Order No. 418 in one case and forum. Finally, given the closely related, if not exactly
similar, causes of action of respondent and the Subic enterprises against petitioner.