JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

PRELIMINARY STUFF *Neypes v. CA 496 SCRA 633 (2005) (See case of PCI Leasing & Finance v. Milan @ p 32 for a better discussion) - FRESH PERIOD RULE: it is practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a Notice of Appeal counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. - The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance to law. o It should be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from. - A FINAL ORDER or JUDGMENT is one that finally disposes of a case; an adjudication on the merits. *Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago 494 SCRA 393 (2006) - The constitutional faculty of the SC to promulgate rules of practice & procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents regarding remedial law. - If a complainant is dismissed due to his/her own fault, the dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants right to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action. - But if it were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary to the main action. - Dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim is automatic upon the dismissal of the complaint whether upon initiative of the plaintiff or defendant. o HOWEVER, 2 & 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not because of the survival of the main complaint. Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86 (2001) - JURISDICTION OF THE A COURT is determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action unless such statute provides for its retroactive application. - Once jurisdiction attaches, it continues until the case is finally terminated. The court having acquired it cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. - A Motion for Bill of Particulars becomes moot & academic where, prior to filing, the defendant has already filed his Answer and several other pleadings. Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol, & Tibayan 502 SCRA 614 (2006) - Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice. - Procedural rules will only be relaxed upon showing of any compelling reason for not resorting to the proper remedy. - *LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED WHEN: o Rigid application will result in failure or miscarriage of justice; o In the interest of substantial justice; o Where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the discretion of the court; or o Injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of thoughtfulness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. Paloma v. Mora 470 SCRA 711 (2005) - Mandamus lies to compel performance when refused of a ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of a discretionary one. - *If a law is silent as to the retroactivity of the law to pending cases and must therefor be taken to be of prospective application. Quesada v. DOJ 500 SCRA 454 (2006) - A direct recourse to the SC is warranted only where there are special & compelling reasons specifically alleged in the petition to justify such action. - Where the issuances of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the CA or RTC, it is in either that the action must be presented. [RULE ON HIERARCHY OF COURTS] - *CONCURRENCE OF JURISDICTION is not, to be taken as an absolute & an unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which one will seek recourse from.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo 163 SCRA 614 (1988) - *POLICY OF JUDICIAL STABILITY/DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE: the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. - A court cannot refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a final & executor judgment except when certain facts & circumstances transpired after the finality which would render the execution of the judgment unjust. - The filing of several cases against the same party over the same issue after the appellate court has decided adversely against them constitutes a contumacious defiance of the authority of courts and impedes the speedy administration of justice. *Ella v. Salonga 35 SCRA 86 (1970) - Jurisdiction is vested on the court, not the judges. When a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or the judge alone to the exclusion of other branches. - Trial may be held or proceedings continued by and before another judge or branch. - The apportionment or raffle of cases does not involve a grant or limitation of jurisdiction. o Jurisdiction attaches and continues to be vested in the court of the province or city. - Coordinate and co-equal branches cannot unduly interfere with the processes and proceedings of another branch or judge. Villamor v. Salas 203 SCRA 540 (2006) - Judges of co-equal branches may not interfere with each others judgments. - A judge is not liable for an erroneous decision in the absence of malice or wrongful conduct in rendering it. Dela Rosa v. Roldan 501 SCRA 34 (2006) - What determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any and all reliefs prayed for. - *Jurisdiction is CONFERRED BY LAW and not by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. o Cannot be waived, enlarged, or diminished by the parties act or omission. o It cannot be conferred through the acquiescence of the court. *Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29 (1968) - GENERAL Rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time in the proceedings because lack thereof affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case. - EXCEPTION: A party may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking it. - LACHES: Failure or neglect for an unreasonable & unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. o Negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. - A party cannot invoke the courts jurisdiction and then deny it to escape a penalty. Calimlim v. Ramirez 118 SCRA 399 (1982) - The ruling in Tijam is to be considered as a mere exception rather than the general rule. - When a party erroneously files a suit in a court without jurisdiction, such act cannot be a sufficient basis for estoppel in raising the question of jurisdiction. Dela Cruz v. CA 510 SCRA 103 (2006) - *Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by law to a court/tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies. - Rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict & rigid application which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. - SCs power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling that as to alte r even that which this court itself has already declared to be final. o In its rule-making power, it can suspend its rules with respect to a particular case ( pro hac vice) Sta. Clara Homeonwers Association v. Gaston 374 SCRA 396 (2002) - A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as having hypothetically admitted the factual averments in the complaint. - *TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS CONSTITUTING THE CAUSE OF ACTION is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment on the prayers. o It implies the issue must be passed upon based on the bare allegations in the complaint. - *ELEMENTS OF CAUSES OF ACTION:

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

o o o

Legal right of the plaintiff exists. Correlative obligation of defendant to respect the plaintiffs rights. Act/omission of defendant violating such right.

*Sun Insurance v. Asuncion 170 SCRA 274 (1989) - Statutes regulating court procedures are applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. o Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. - It is not only the filing of the complaint but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. - Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the fee, the court may allow payment within a reasonable time but not beyond the prescriptive or reglementary period. o This rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims, and the like. - When the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, the additional filing fee constitutes a lien on the judgment. *Ballatan v. CA 304 SCRA 34 (1999) - In REAL ACTIONS, the docket & filing fees are based on the value of the property & amount of damages claimed, if any. - If a complaint is filed but not paid during filing, the court acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant, barring prescription. - Where the prescribed fees for the real action have been paid but fees for damages have not, the court, although having jurisdiction over the real action, may not have acquired jurisdiction over the claim for damages. o The court may expunge those claims or allow, on motion, a reasonable time for amendment of the complaint to allege the precise amount of damages & accept payment of the requisite legal fees. Yuchengco v. Republic 333 SCRA 368 (2000) - Timely filing of correct docket fees is jurisdictional but the SC, in various decisions, applied considerations of law & equity on a case-to-case basis. - *Sandiganbayan now tries civil cases. o Parties filing such cases are liable to pay the required docket fees. Vda. De Murga v. Chan 25 SCRA 441 (1968) - *Notice giving the lessee the alternative of either paying or vacating the land is not the demand contemplated by the Rules in Unlawful Detainer cases. - Without a DEFINITE DEMAND TO VACATE, the lessee is not considered to be in default which would give rise to a right on the part of the lessor to bring an action for Unlawful Detainer. - *Where it is clearly shown in the pleadings that the controversy is on the correct interpretation of a clause in a lease contract, the action is not for Unlawful Detainer but one not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, beyond the competence of the MTC. [RTC has jurisdiction] Heirs of Concha v. Sps. Lumocso 540 SCRA 1 (2007) - JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER is the power to hear & determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belong. o It is conferred by law. - *To determine if a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action & the relief sought. Agustin v. Bacalan 135 SCRA 340 (1985) - A judgment may be attacked directly or collaterally on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or by petition for relief. - A defendant in an Ejectment action may setup a counterclaim for moral damages and may be awarded to the defendant. - A counterclaim beyond the courts jurisdiction (ie. beyond P 10k in Ejectment) may only be pleaded by way of defense to weaken the plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief. o The court has no jurisdiction to hear & determine a set-off or counterclaim in excess of its jurisdiction. - *Only the award by a court of an amount in excess of its jurisdiction is void and of no effect. o Thus, it can be attacked even if the decision has become final & executor. - Nullity of a portion of a decision that has become final & executor cannot affect its conclusion over the main action for Ejectment.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral 474 SCRA 153 (2005) - Generally, a direct recourse to the SC is highly improper for it violates the established policy of strict observance to the judicial hierarchy of courts. - Hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally applies to cases with different factual allegations. As such, it does not involve when cases do not involve factual questions. - Where the amount of the demand in a civil case exceeds P 100k, RTC has jurisdiction. In 1999, it was increased to P 200k. Bejer v. CA 169 SCRA 566 (1989) - *Failure to avail of the conciliation process (PD 1508) does not warrant jurisdictional objection. o It merely renders the complaint vulnerable to a timely Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action or prematurity. - For purposes of VENUE, the residence of a person is his personal, actual, or physical habitation, or his actual residence, or place of abode, such residence being more than temporary. [characteried by continuity & consistency] - PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PD 1508: provide the conciliation mechanism as an alternative to litigations in dispute settlement to members of corresponding barangays who are actually residing therein. Zamora v. Heirs of Carmen 443 SCRA 24 (2004) - Purpose of PD 1508 is to reduce court litigations & prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in courts. - As a precondition to filing a complaint in court, parties shall go through the conciliation proceedings either before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat - *Motion to Dismiss an action for Unlawful Detainer may be filed if based on: (1) lack of jurisdiction; or (2) failure to comply with PD 1508. Aquino v. Aure 546 SCRA 71 (2008) - Non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement. It cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. o For this reason, the court cannot motu propio dismiss the case. - *Failure to object to the deficiency in the complaint (ie. failure to resort to barangay conciliation) in the defendants answer is deemed a waiver or acquiescence to such defect. Banares II v. Balising 328 SCRA 36 (2000) - FINAL ORDER: one which disposes the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: one which does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. - An order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no MR or appeal is timely filed. - After finality, the court has no power to amend & modify it. o A party wishing to reinstate the case has no other remedy but to file a new complaint. o This rule applies to Civil, Criminal, & Summary Proceedings. RULE 1: General Provisions Yu v. Placeb 580 SCRA 197 (2009) - The AIM and OBJECT of an action determine its character. Whether it is in rem, in personam, or quasi in rem, is determined by its nature and purpose and by these only. - *IN PERSONAM: enforce personal rights & obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction over the person. o Its purpose is to impose, through court action, some responsibility or liability on the defendant. o A judgment in personam binds only the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. - *QUASI IN REM: one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. o Judgments herein only bind the parties in the action. - *An action for specific performance is an action in personam. - *CLASS NOTES: o Personal/Real Actions: important for purposes of venue (ie. where to properly file the action) o In Personam/In Rem: important for purposes of knowing whether summons or publication is required to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the action. o Quasi in Rem: initially in personam but evolves into in rem (usually when property of the defendant is attached)

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Domagas v. Jensen 448 SCRA 663 (2005) - *Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. o Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Entry is a REAL ACTION & IN PERSONAM. - *In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is needed for the court to validly try and decide the case. - Defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be served with Summons. o If Summons cannot be served within a reasonable time, SUBSTITUTED SERVICE may be made pursuant to 8 Rule 14. - Service of summons on a person at a place where he was a visitor is not considered to have been left at the residence or place of abode where he has another place which he ordinarily stays. Republic v. CA 315 SCRA 600 (1999) - A judgment may be annulled on the following grounds: o Void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process; or o Obtained through extrinsic fraud - *IN REM: directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments thereto against the whole world. Tamano v. Ortiz 291 SCRA 584 (1998) - *PERSONAL ACTIONS, such as Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, may be commenced & tried where the plaintiff or any principal plaintiff resides or where defendant/s resides at the election of the plaintiff. - *Courts jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, motion to dismiss, or MR, but only in the allegations of the complaint. - Where the complaint alleges that the marriage was pursuant to the Civil Code, said Code is applicable not the Muslim Code. o Sharia courts are not vested with original jurisdiction when it comes to marriages under Civil & Muslim laws. La Tondena Distillers v. Ponferrada 264 SCRA 540 (1996) - *An order denying a motion to dismiss is only interlocutory and thus is neither appealable until final judgment nor assailable via certiorari. o The remedy is to file an answer pursuant to 4 Rule 16, interpose as defences the objections in the motion to dismiss, go to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, appeal. - However, certiorari can be availed of if the denial of the motion to dismiss amounts to grave abuse of discretion. Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction & Development 383 SCRA 353 (2002) - *Actions affecting TITLE or POSSESSION of Real Property or any interest therein shall be commenced & tried in the court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the property lies. ( 1 & 2 Rule 4) - Misjoinder/Non-joinder of parties is NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL because parties may be dropped or added by order of the court, on motion of any party or through the courts own initiative at any stage of the proceeding. - Non-inclusion of a Necessary Party does not prevent the court from proceeding & judgment shall be without prejudice to the rights of such party. - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: classified as an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Go v. UCPB 442 SCRA 264 (2004) - In REAL ACTIONS, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property or that which is provided under 1 Rule 4. - *Cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage is a REAL ACTION considering that the mortgaged property is a real right and a real property by itself. o It also affects title to the property. o Therefore, it should be commenced where the property is situated. *Manchester Development Corp. v. CA 149 SCRA 562 (1987) - When the allegations in the complaint, designation, & prayer clearly show that the action is for damages & specific performance, the DOCKET FEE should be assessed by considering the amount of damages as alleged in the original complaint. - Case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing in court. - The basis of the fee should be the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT and not the amended complaint. - The practice of omitting the amount of damages in the prayer although it is actually indicated in the body of the original complaint is frowned upon it shows an intention of thwarting payment of the correct fees and is unethical. - Henceforth, all complaints, petitions, answers, and other pleadings SHOULD SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES PRAYED FOR in the Body & in the Prayer and that damages should be considered in the assessment of filing fees. - Failure to comply will make the pleading inadmissible.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Sun Insurance v. Asuncion 170 SCRA 274 (1989) - See page 3.

Negros Oriental Planters v. Presiding Judge 575 SCRA 575 (2008) - *VERIFICATION: a partys knowledge must be specifically alleged under oath to be either personal knowledge or at least based on authentic records. o One cannot now merely state that he believes the statements made in the pleading nor merely has knowledge that they are true and correct. - Failure to properly verify will amount to regard the pleading as UNSIGNED. - Improper verification subjects the pleading to the courts discretion to allow the defect to be remedied. - *Where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in paying docket fees, the liberal doctrine in Sun Insurance and not the strict rule in Manchester will apply. Ayala Corp. v. Madayag 181 SCRA 687 (1990) - Amount of docket fees is computed based on amount of damages in the complaint. - Amount of any claim for damages arising on/before the filing the complaint or any pleading should be specified. - Determination of exemplary or correlative damages is left to the discretion of the court. But the party has the duty to specify the amount sought so the court may make a proper determination & proper assessment of the fees. o *EXCEPTION: if damages arise after filing of the complaint or subsequent pleadings. - A complaint failing to specify the amount of damages suffers from a material defect. Tacay v. RTC of Tagum 180 SCRA 433 (1989) - A CERTIFICATION made by petitioners counsel & not by the proper clerk of court or his representatives is NOT ALLOWED. - *Damages arising after filing the complaint or similar pleading will constitute as a LIEN on the judgment to the extent of the additional filing fees therefor. - *Where the action is purely for recovery of money/damages docket fees are assessed based on the AGGREGATE AMOUNT claimed, exclusive of interests & costs. - Where the action involves REAL PROPERTY & CLAIM FOR DAMAGES, fees shall be based on both. o If the fee based on the assessed value of the real property is paid but the fee corresponding to the damages is not, the court will still have jurisdiction with respect to the real property. - *2 SITUATIONS: o Claim for money/damages without precise statement of amount: (1) Not be accepted/admitted; or (2) Expunged; or (3) Sun Insurance doctrine. o Pleading specifies amount but payment is insufficient: (1) Apply Sun Insurance doctrine (defect is cured upon full payment) Citizens Surety v. Melencio-Herrera 38 SCRA 369 (1971) - IN PERSONAM: personal service of summons is essential to acquire jurisdiction over the person who does not submit himself voluntarily. - Due process requires personal service to support a personal judgment. - Prescription period is TOLLED as long as debtor remains in hiding. o His absence would be a matter of court record. RULE 2: Cause of Action Joseph v. Bautista 170 SCRA 540 (1989) - *CAUSE OF ACTION: the delict or wrongful act/omission committed by the defendant in violation of the rights of the plaintiff. - When there is only 1 delict or wrong, there is only 1 cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person. - The SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION lies in the singleness of the delict violating the rights of 1 person. o *If only 1 injury resulted from several wrong acts, only 1 cause of action arises. Monzon v. Sps. Relova v. Addio Properties 565 SCRA 514 (2008) - *ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION o Right in favor of plaintiff arises or is created. o Obligation on the part of defendant to respect or not violate such right. o Act/omission on the part of defendant in violation of plaintiffs right.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Where prescription, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state cause of action clearly appears on the complaint filed, the action may be dismissed by the court motu proprio, even if the case has been elevated for review on different grounds. Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period and failure to appear at the hearing is the sole ground for an order of default. o *This should be an exception rather than the general rule and should only be allowed in clear cases of obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect to comply with the order of the court.

PNCC v. CA 514 SCRA 569 (2007) - *CAUSE OF ACTION is the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in his behalf. o It is the reason why the litigation has come about, it is the act or omission of the defendant resulting in the violation of someones rights. *Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Roxas 335 SCRA 540 (2000) - In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint may be properly considered. o Lack thereof must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations of the complaint. o The consideration of other facts is proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances is not allowed. - TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF FACTS CONSTITUTING A CAUSE OF ACTION is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. *San Lorenzo Village Association v. CA 288 SCRA 115 (1998) - A complaint states a cause of action where it contains the 3 essential elements of a cause of action. - If the allegations are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, the different recourse is not a motion to dismiss BUT A BILL OF PARTICULARS. - A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein. o Admission does not, however, extend to conclusions of law nor does it cover allegations of fact the falsity of which is subjected to judicial notice. - *CLASS NOTES: o Failure to state cause of action before evidence o Lack of cause of action after evidence Zepeda v. China Banking Corp. 504 SCRA 126 (2006) - A cause of action is a formal statement of operative facts that give rise to a remedial right. o It is determined by its averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Sea Land Service Inc. v. CA 327 SCRA 135 (2000) - *In determining if the complaint states a cause of action, the ANNEXES ATTACHED to the complaint may be considered since they are deemed to be parts of the complaint. - A party is barred from taking judicial action against another if by clear terms of their agreement, arbitration is the mode provided by which damages and/or indemnity may be recoverd. Lorbes v. CA 351 SCRA 716 (2001) - Courts should be more liberal in setting aside Orders of Default because judgments of default are frowned upon unless it clearly appears that reopening it is for purposes of delay. o That the complaint filed to the court was categorized as Reformation of an Instrument should not preclude the court from passing upon the issues which were raised in the body of the complaint. Progressive Development Co. v. CA 301 SCRA 637 (1999) - Filing a Motion for Reconsideration before availing of certiorari is not a condition sine qua non to hear the issue raised as one purely of law. - The pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause is a ground for dismissal of an action ( litis pendentia) - *A CLAIM CANNOT BE DIVIDED in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and the rest in another (ie. splitting causes of action) - FORUM SHOPPING: whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Flores v. Mallare-Philipps 144 SCRA 377 (1986) - Where 2 OR MORE PLAINTIFFS sue a defendant in a single complaint or ONE PLAINTIFF sues several defendants in a single complaint based on several causes of action, the TOTALITY RULE applies only where: o Causes of action arose from the same series of transaction; or o Theres a common question of fact or law among them as provided in 6 Rule 3. - Where the plaintiff sues a defendant, the total demand furnishes the jurisdictional test irrespective of whether several causes of action arose out of different transactions, although, their joinder would only be permissive not mandatory. RULE 3: Parties to Civil Actions 1-11 Rayo v. Metrobank 539 SCRA 571 (2007) - *REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: one with a present substantial interest or such interest in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him, under substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal title to demand. PNB v. Megaprime Realty 567 SCRA 633 (2008) - Under the Rules, it is presumed that a person is innocent of crime or wrong and that private transactions have been fair & regular. o While disputable, these presumptions can be overcome only by clear & convincing preponderant evidence. - In determining actual damages, the courts cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures, or guesswork but must depend on competent proof or the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount of the loss. - In granting exemplary damages, the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent manner. - Attorneys fees may be awarded only when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest. Aguila v. CA 319 SCRA 246 (1999) - *A complaint filed against a party who is not a real party in interest SHOULD BE DISMISSED for Failure to State Cause of Action. Vlason Enterprises v. CA 310 SCRA 26 (1999) - *Mere failure to include the name of a party in the title of a complaint is NOT FATAL BY ITSELF if it is found in the body. - A Compromise Agreement is immediately final & executory. - A Notice of Hearing is conceptualized as an integral component of procedural due process intended to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before a motion is resolved by the court. - A summons addressed to a corporation & served on the secretary of its president binds the corporation. - Although an amended pleading supersedes the original one, which is thus deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record, it does not follow ipso facto that the service of a new summons for the amended petitions/complaints is required. - When defendants have not yet appeared in court & no summons has been validly served, new summons for the amended complaint must be served on them. - A declaration of default is not an admission of truth or the validity of the plaintiffs claims. - Plaintiff cannot be granted an award greater than or different in kind from that specified in the complaint. *Agro Conglomerates v. CA 348 SCRA 450 (2000) - NON-INCLUSION OF A NECESSARY PARTY does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. - CLASS NOTES: o Indispensible Party: must be joined under any and all conditions; court cannot proceed without this party. o Necessary Party: should be joined only whenever possible to complete relief; has separate interest from that of the indispensible party. Co v. Acosta 134 SCRA 185 (1985) - *Where 2 defendants are sued under a common cause of action, plaintiffs agreement to drop & release one of the defendants should extend to the other even if both defendants have not yet filed any answer. - *It is to be assumed that when any defendant allows himself to be in default knowing that his co-defendant had already answered, he does so trusting in the assurance that his default is, in essence, a mere formality that deprives him no more than the right to take part in the trial and that the court would deem anything done by or for the answering defendant as by or for him.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Samaniego v. Aguila 334 SCRA 438 (2000) - INDISPENSIBLE PARTY: a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action without that party being impleaded. o Those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the court cannot proceed without their presence. - INTEREST: material, directly in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere incidental interest. - NOMINAL/PRO FORMA PARTY: one joined as a plaintiff/defendant, not because such has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded but merely because technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record. (ex. Office of the President, Court of Appeals in special civil actions for certiorari) - *CLASS NOTES: o Necessary Party: failure to comply with the order for the partys inclusion will be deemed a waiver to claim against such party Court is not prevent from proceeding with the action. Judgment rendered therein will not prejudice such necessary party. Failure to implead such party will not amount to dismissal of the action. o Indispensible Party: failure to comply with the order for the partys inclusion will be a cause for dismissal for Failure to Comply with an Order of the Court and not because of misjoinder/non-joinder. (See 11 Rule 3) Domingo v. Scheer 421 SCRA 468 (2004) - *Absence of an indispensible party renders all subsequent actions of the court null & void. o Joinder of indispensible parties is mandatory, - Without the presence of such party to the suit, the judgment cannot attain a real finality. - Strangers to the case are not bound by the judgment. - *NON JOINDER OF INDISPENSIBLE PARTIES is not a ground for the dismissal of an action since parties may be added by order of the court or on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage and/or such times as are just. *Plasabas v. CA 582 SCRA 686 (2009) - Any one of the CO-OWNERS may bring an action for ejectment. - Any judgment of the court in favor of plaintiff benefits other co-owners. o However, if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice rights of the unimpleaded co-ownership. - The only exception to the rule that a party does not have to implead his co-owners in an action for Recovery of Property is when the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and thus, entitled to possession thereof. Erna Casals v. Tayud Golf & Country Club 593 SCRA 468 (2009) - Indispensible Parties: parties without whom there can be no final determination of an action. - Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them. Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole 644 SCRA 741 (2011) - TEST TO DETERMINE IF PARTY IS INDISPENSIBLE o A party who has not only an interest in the subject matter but also an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy. 12-22 *Mathay v. Consolidated Bank 58 SCRA 559 (1974) - REQUISITES OF A CLASS SUIT: o Subject matter of the controversy be one of common/general interest to many persons; and o Such persons be so numerous to make it impracticable to bring them all to court. o Parties are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class & can fully protect the interests of all concerned. - The existence of a class suit depends upon attending facts and not upon the designation in the complaint. o Complaint should allege the existence of necessary facts (ie. requisites) to contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine if claimants on record adequately represent the class and subject matter. - SUBJECT MATTER physical facts (things, money, lands, chattels) in relation to which the suit is prosecuted and not the delict committed. - Class suit will not prosper when brought by stockholders who have determinable, though undivided interest, in the property in question. o The wrongs committed to each individual would not create a community of interest in the subject matter.

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

SPURIOUS CLASS ACTION: merely a permissive joinder device and cannot be regarded as a class suit. The existence of a common question of law would not suffice to maintain a class action. There must be a showing that sufficient representative parties have been joined. Allegation that one is entitled to something is a conclusion of law. The allegation that an act was unlawful or wrongful is a mere conclusion of law.

Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Ruiz 148 SCRA 326 (1987) - A class suit is not proper where the plaintiffs are individually claiming a specific portion of the hacienda in dispute. o No common/general interest in the subject matter. Newsweek v. IAC 142 SCRA 171 (1986) - *Defamatory remarks against a group of persons is not actionable unless statements are ALL-EMBRACING or SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC for the victim to be indentifiable. - An action for libel allegedly directed at a group of sugar planter cannot be done by resort to filing a class suit as each victim of libel has his specific reputation to protect. Sulo ng Bayan Inc. v. Araneta 72 SCRA 347 (1976) - Venue of action is not left to the caprice of plaintiff who must follow the Rules. - The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice approved the transfer of a case to another court branch does not divest the court originally taking cognizance of the case of its jurisdiction. - *Absent any showing of interest, a corporation has no personality to bring an action to recover property belonging to its members or stockholders in their personal capacities. - *A CLASS SUIT does not lie in actions for recovery of property portions of which are being claimed by several persons. *Aguas v. Llemos 5 SCRA 959 (1962) (But see 20 Rule 3) - ACTIONS ABATED BY DEATH: o Claims for funeral expenses or last sickness. o Judgment for money. o Claims for money against decedent from a contract. - ACTIONS THAT SURVIVE against the decedents executor/administrator: o Recovery of Real or Personal property from the estate. o Actions enforcing a lien on the estate. o Recover of damages from injury to person or property. (Tort or Delict) Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of Kalaw 20 SCRA 987 (1967) - A suit to recover damages based on an alleged tort committed by the manager of a corporation survives. o It is not a mere money claim extinguished upon the death of the party. *Sps. Algura v. City of Naga 506 SCRA 81 (2006) - The rule on PAUPER LITIGANTS was inserted in Rule 141 without revoking or amending 21 Rule 3 which provides for the exemption of such litigants from paying filing fees. Both are still valid & enforceable rules. - If trial courts find that the application to litigate as a pauper litigant meets the income & property requirements, authority to litigate as such is automatically granted as a matter of right. - If it is found that one or both requirements have not been met, it should set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that he has no money or property sufficient & available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for himself and his family. - CLASS NOTES: o Indigent civil actions o Pauper criminal actions - CLASS NOTES: o If a judgment has been rendered and it is found that the party is not an indigent, judgment can be nullified for having acquired no jurisdiction for failure to pay proper docket fees. *White Light Corp. v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416 (2009) - Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to & harm from the law or action challenged to support that partys participation in the case. [ DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST] - EXCEPTIONS TO LOCUS STANDI: o Third Party Standing: right to bring actions on behalf of third parties provided (1) litigants suffer an injury-in-fact which gives rise to a sufficient concrete interest; (2) close relationship to the third party; and (3) third party is hindered from protecting his own interests.

10

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Overbreadth Doctrine: applies when a government act needlessly restrains even constitutionally granted rights (ie. free speech); rights of third parties can be raised.

*Province of North Cotobato v. GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain 568 SCRA 402 (2008) - RIPE: something that had already been performed before a court may come into the picture o Petitioner must allege the presence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. - Concrete acts are not necessary to render a controversy ripe. o That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness. - To have locus standi, one must allege a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. o When the issue concerns a public right, it is enough that petitioner is CITIZEN and has an interest in the execution of the laws. - Judicial review is limited to actual cases/controversies. o An actual case involves a conflict of legal rights & an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from hypothetical/abstract difference or disputes. Kilosbayan v. Guingona 232 SCRA 110 (1994) - *A partys standing before the court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. - The Court has brushed aside this technicality because of the TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE to the public of the issues which demand that they be settled promptly. - Objections to TAXPAYER SUITS for lack of sufficient personality are procedural matters. Velarde v. Social Justice Society 428 SCRA 282 (2004) - An action for Declaratory Relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument and those whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance. - *REQUISITES: o Existence of a justiciable controversy; o Controversy is between persons with adverse interests; o The party seeking relief has a legal interest; and o It is ripe for adjudication. - *Parties challenging the constitutionality of a law or act must show now only that the law is invalid but also that they have sustained or are in immediate/imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result. RULE 4: Venue of Actions *United Overseas Bank Philippines v. Rosemoore Mining 518 SCRA 123 (2007) - The ESSENCE OF FORUM SHOPPING is the filing of the multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of actions, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. o Identity of parties or parties representing the same interests o Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts o Identity is such that any judgment rendered would amount to res judicata - VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS affecting properties found in different provinces is determined by the singularity or plurality of transactions involving said land. o Where said parcels of land are the object of one transaction, the venue is in the court of any of the provinces the land is situated. *Nocum v. Tan 470 SCRA 639 (2005) JURISDICTION Substantive Law Authority to hear & determine a case. Establishes a relation between the court & subject matter. Fixed by law & cannot be conferred by the parties. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time in the proceedings.

VENUE Procedural Law Place where the case is to be heard or tried. Establishes a relation between the parties (plaintiff-defendant) May be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties. Objections to venue may be waived because they do not involve a question of jurisdiction.

GENERAL RULE

RULES ON VENUE OF CIVIL & CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN WRITTEN DEFAMATIONS Where first published & printed or where any of the offended parties actually reside during the commission.

11

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

PUBLIC OFFICER (MANILA) PUBLIC OFFICER (OUTSIDE) PRIVATE PERSON

Manila courts or where it was first published & printed. Court where he holds office or where it was first published & printed. Same as the general rule.

Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco 30 SCRA 187 (1969) - *Stipulation that Parties agree to sue & be sued in the courts of Manila does not preclude filing in the residence of the plaintiff/defendant pursuant to the Rules because there is an absence of QUALIFYING or RESTRICTIVE WORDS indicating that Manila alone is the venue. o The stipulation is simply permissive. Mangila v. CA 387 SCRA 162 (2002) - A mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude the parties from bringing a case in other venues parties should show that such stipulation is exclusive. - Venue stipulations in a contract, while valid & enforceable, do not supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4. - **It is the RESIDENCE OF THE PROPRIETOR that should be considered as one of the proper venues and not the business address of the sole proprietorship. - If the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to choose where to file, the objective of the rules to ensure a just & orderly administration of justice or impartial & even-handed determination of every action and proceeding will not be attained. Sps. Lantin v. Judge Lantion 499 SCRA 718 (2006) - In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation on venue should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum and not as limiting the venue to a specified place. Unimasters Conglomeration Inc. v. CA 262 SCRA 759 (1997) - *Parties may, by stipulation, WAIVE THE LEGAL VENUE & such waiver is valid & effective being merely a personal privilege, which is not contrary to public policy or prejudicial to third persons. - Venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction except in criminal cases. Pacific Consultants International Asia v. Schonfeld 516 SCRA 209 (2009) - Venue stipulations do not, as a rule, supersede the rule set forth in Rule 4. - Under 9 of B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7902, the CA is empowered to pass upon the evidence if and, when necessary, to resolve factual issues. Dacoycoy v. IAC 195 SCRA 641 (1991) - Jurisdiction treats of the power of the court to decide a case on the merits while venue deals on the locality, the place where the suit may be had. - *Where a defendant fails to challenge the venue timely in a Motion to Dismiss and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot appeal or belatedly challenge the wrong venue. o Objection thereto is DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED. *Hyatt Elevetors & Escalors v. Goldstar Elevators 473 SCRA 705 (2005) - Residence is the permanent home or the place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return. o It is vital when dealing with venue. - A CORPORATION, however, has no residence in the same manner as applied to a natural person. o Its residence is the PRINCIPAL OFFICE as stated in its articles of incorporation. o The residence or domicile of a juridical person is fixed by the law creating or recognizing it. o The fact that Hyatt relocated to Mandaluyong after closing in Makati does not matter since it is not the principal place of business in its articles of incorporation. - RESIDENCE for purposes of venue is synonymous with domicile. - Venue of PERSONAL ACTIONS are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiff and their witnesses subject to regulation by the Rules of Court. RULE 5: Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts 1 & 2 RULE 6: Kinds of Pleadings 1-13 *International Container Terminal Services v. CA 214 SCRA 456 (1992) - A COUNTERCLAIM IS COMPULSORY where:

12

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

It arises out of, or necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. o It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. o The court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The dismissal of the complaint operated also to dismiss the counterclaim questioning the complaint. ( But see Pinga at page 1) CLASS NOTES: In the Pinga case, dismissal of the main case does not affect the counterclaim (permissive or compulsory) o The only time it is dismissed is if there is no cause of action. A COUNTERCLAIM IS PERMISSIVE if it does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. A claim for damages caused by wrongful issuance of a preliminary injunction can be made in the form of a counterclaim.

*Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. CA 203 SCRA 273 (1991) - If the COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the same, the compulsory counterclaim must likewise be dismissed. - No need to pay docket fees for a compulsory counterclaim. Cojuanco v. Villegas 184 SCRA 138 (1990) - No court has the power to interfere by injunction with judgments of a court having concurrent jurisdiction. - A claim for compensation should be presented as a counterclaim in the ejectment suit rather than in a separate civil action. - *The RULE ON COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM was designed to enable the disposition of the entire conflict at one time & in one action [AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS] Chan v. CA 230 SCRA 685 (1994) - A counterclaim is in itself a distinct & independent cause of action. o *It is any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party. - A counterclaim for ejectment may be set up in a complaint for consignation. However, consignation is not proper where the refusal of the creditor to accept is with just cause. *Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park 338 SCRA 346 (2000) - A compulsory counterclaim is one which arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurnce that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. - TESTS USED TO DETERMINE IF COUNTERCLAIM IS COMPULSORY: o Are the issues of fact/law raised largely the same? o Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the defendants claim without the compulsory counterclaim rule? o Will the same evidence support or refute the plaintiffs claim as well as the defendants counter claim? o Is there any logical relation between the claim & counterclaim? - FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the counter claim. o Filing an MTD & setting up a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. o But see Pinga case at page 1. Anaya v. Palaran 36 SCRA 97 (1970) - *If in a Reply, a party-plaintiff is not permitted to amend/change the cause of action set forth in his complaint, there is more reason not to allow such party to allege a new & additional cause of action in the Reply. - Otherwise, pleadings would become interminable. Balbastro v. CA 48 SCRA 231 (1972) - * 12 Rule 6 does not compel the defendant to bring third parties into litigation, rather it simply permits the inclusion of anyone who meets the standard set forth in the rule. o The secondary or derivative liability of the third party is central whether for indemnity, subrogation, contribution, warranty, or other theories. o The impleader of new parties is proper only when a right to relief exists under substantive law. - Secondary liability of a third party is necessary for availability of recourse against said third party. - A THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT should not be a party to the action. - *A claim against the third party defendant MUST BE BASED ON PLAINTIFFS CLAIM AGAINST THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT. o TEST: Whether the plaintiffs claim arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiffs claim is based or the third partys claim, though arising out of another contract, is connected to the plaintiffs claim.

13

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Rubio v. Mariano 52 SCRA 338 (1973) - Respondents denials of the petitioners claims in his amended & supplemental answer and third party complaint can best be ventilated at a full-blown trial. *Mercader v. Development Bank of the Philippines 332 SRA 82 (2000) - A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING was meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with the latter. o It serves to aver supervening facts not originally ripe for relief. RULE 7: Parts of Pleadings Banco Filipino v. CA 332 SCRA 241 (2000) - *It is the MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS in the complaint, not the legal conclusions made therein or the prayer that determines the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. - The allegations determine the nature of the action and the court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations & proof even if no relief is prayed for. Gochan v. Gochan 372 SCRA 256 (2001) - *The NATURE OF THE ACTION is determined in the body of the pleading/complaint itself rather than by its title or heading. - Although denominated as Specific Performance and Damages but the relief sought is the CONVEYANCE or TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY or EXECUTION OF DEEDS OF CONVEYANCE, the action is a real action. *Republic v. Kenrick Development Corp. 498 SCRA 220 (2006) - 3 Rule 7 requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. o Only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. - Counsels duty & authority to sign a pleading is PERSONAL. Ergo, he may not delegate it to just any person. o Signature by lawyers agents amounts to signing by an unqualified person. - Signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the pleadings and that, to the best of his knowledge, information, & belief that there is good ground to support it. *Argallon-Jocson v. CA 594 SCRA 343 (2009) - Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Otherwise, the pleading produces no legal effect. - LACK OF CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING or a DEFECTIVE CERTIFICATION is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction unless there is a need to relax the Rules under special circumstances or for compelling reasons. Vicar International v. FEB 456 SCRA 588 (2005) - Failure to attach a Resolution authorizing a corporate officer to represent the corporation is, under certain circumstances, excusable. o Immediate correction is deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. Robern Development Corp. v. Quitain 315 SCRA 150 (1999) - *Lack of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. o Its absence does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Maranaw Hotels & Resort Corp. v. CA 576 SCRA 463 (2009) - *The very PURPOSE for which Certificate Against Forum Shopping is required is to inform the court of the pendency of any other cases representing similar issues & involving similar parties. *Huibonhoa v. Concepcion 497 SCRA 562 (2006) - Rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different forums. - To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important question to ask is: o Whether the elements of LITIS PENDENTIA are present; or o Whether a final judgment in one case will result in RES JUDICATA in another. *San Miguel Corp. v. Aballa 461 SCRA 392 (2005) - GENERAL RULE: certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by ALL the plaintiffs/petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient.

14

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Strict compliance with provisions regarding the certificate merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certificate cannot be altogether dispensed with or requirements disregarded. CLASS NOTES: Permissive counterclaims require a certificate of non-forum shopping.

*National Steel Corp. v. CA 388 SCRA 85 (2002) - The certificate of non-forum shopping may be signed, and on behalf of a corporation, by a SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED LAWYER who has personal knowledge of facts required to be disclosed. *Vallacar Transit Inc. v. Catubig 649 SCRA 281 (2011) - VERIFICATION is a formal requirement merely intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true & correct and not of mere speculation. o When circumstances warrant, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules to serve the ends of justice. - A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on information & belief or upon knowledge, information, and belief shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. o A pleading verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations are true & correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. - GENERAL RULE: a pleading need not be verified unless there is a law or rule specifically requiring it. - **EXAMPLES OF PLEADINGS THAT NEED VERIFICATION: 1. All pleadings filed in civil cases under 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; 2. Petition for Review from the RTC to the SC raising only questions of law (Rule 41, 2); 3. Petition for Review of decision of the RTC to CA (Rule 42, 1); 4. Petition for Review from quasi-judicial bodies to CA (Rule 43, 5); 5. Petition for Review before the SC (Rule 45, 1); 6. Petition for Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions (Rule 47, 4); 7. Complaint for Injunction (Rule 58, 4); 8. Application for Preliminary Injunction or TRO (Rule 58, 4); 9. Application for Appointment of Receiver (Rule 59, 1); 10. Application for Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61, 1); 11. Petition for Certiorari against judgments, final orders, or resolutions of constitutional commissions (Rule 64, 2); 12. Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, & Mandamus (Rule 65, 1-3); 13. Petition for Quo Warranto (Rule 66, 1); 14. Complaint for Expropriation (Rule 67, 1); 15. Petition for Indirect Contempt (Rule 71, 4); 16. All complaints or petitions involving Intra-Corporate Controversies (Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies); 17. Complaint or petition for Rehabilitation & Suspension of Payment (Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation); and 18. Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Annulment of Voidable Marriages, & Petition for Summary Proceedings (Family Code). - ALL COMPLAINTS, PETITIONS, APPLICATIONS, & OTHER INITIATORY PLEADINGS must be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping (certificate of non-forum shopping). RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings Canete v. Genuino Ice Co. 542 SCRA 206 (2008) - The basic rules of proper pleading and procedure require that every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts. - All averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. - *ULTIMATE FACTS means the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action , or such facts as are so essential that they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. La Mallorca v. CA 17 SCRA 739 (1996) - *The inclusion of the averment of quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Sec 2 of Rule 8, which allows a plaintiff to allege cause of action in the alternative , be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined. *Toribio v. Bidin 134 SCRA 162 (1985) - The ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT RULE covers both action and defense based on documents.

15

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Where the defense is anchored on a deed of sale, the plaintiff must deny its due execution under oath if the plaintiffs theory is he has never disposed his property.

*Hibberd v. Rhode 32 Phil. 476 (1915) - By the admission of the GENUINESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF AN INSTRUMENT is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; - That the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; - That the document was delivered and that the formal requisites required by law such as a seal, an acknowledgement, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him. *Imperial Textile Mills v. CA 183 SCRA 584 (1990) - In an action based on an instrument, if the defendant fails to specifically deny under oath the genuiness and due execution of the instrument, the same is deemed admitted. - Defenses which are inconsistent with the due execution and genuiness of the written instrument are cut-off by such admission *Central Surety & Insurance Co. v. Hodge - If there is any ambiguity in the surety bond, it should be interpreted against the surety company that prepared it and that the action could be filed within the statutory period of prescription. - Where a case has been tried in complete disregard of the rule and the plaintiff laying pleaded a document by copy, presents oral evidence to prove the due execution of the document as well as the agents authority and no objections are made to the defendants evidence in refutation, the rule will be considered waived. - *Failure to specifically deny under oath the genuiness and due execution of an actionable document generally implies an admission of the same by the other party. o However, such implied admission is deemed waived if the party asserting the same has allowed the adverse party to present evidence contrary to the contents of such document without objection. *Guevara v. Eala 529 SCRA 1 (2007) - NEGATIVE PREGNANT Denial: a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. o It was in effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. - A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it in affirmation, or at least an implication of some kind favourable to the adverse party. *Philippine American General Insurance Co. v. Sweet Lines - Bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents which under the rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses. - The genuiness and due execution of which are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party - JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. - Negative Pregnant is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. - Non-inclusion of the controverted bills of lading in the formal offer of evidence cannot be considered a fatal procedural lapse as would bar respondent carrier from raising the defense of prescription RULE 9: Effect of Failure to Plead *Ferrer v. Ericta 84 SCRA 705 (1978) - DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION not deemed waived for failure to allege the same in an answer or in a motion to dismiss. - **The court shall dismiss the claim if prescription can be ascertained on the face of the pleadings or evidence on the record. Garcia v. Mathis 100 SCRA 250 (1980) - *Rule that an action does not prescribe if prescription is not expressly invoked does not apply where the allegations in the complaint clearly show that the action had already long prescribed. *Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago 494 SCRA 393 (2006) - Dismissal of plaintiffs complaint is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action.

16

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

If the court dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the compulsory counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary to the main action and no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim. Counterclaim bears the same integral characteristics as a complaint: namely a cause of action constituting an act or omission by which a party violates the right of another Allegation that form the counterclaim are rooted in an act or omission of the plaintiff other than the plaintiffs very act of filing the complaint. ** 2 & 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not because of the survival of the main complaint.

Gojo v. Goyala 35 SCRA 557 (1970) - *Compulsory counterclaim does not call for an independent answer. It is now settled that a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in default , principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint. - Failure to comply with a void order of a court will not justify the dismissal of complaint. *Meliton v. CA 216 SCRA 485 (1992) - One compelling TEST OF COMPULSORINESS is the logical relationship between the claim alleged in the complaint and that in the counterclaim. - Where a compulsory counterclaim is made the subject of a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea of auter action pendant or litis pendentia and/or dismissed on the ground of res judicata, depending on the stage of the other suit. - **Dismissal of the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissal had not been commenced. - An action shall not be dismissed at the request of the plaintiff after the service of the answer except by order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. **Korea Technologies Co Ltd v. Lerma 542 SCRA 1 (2008) - Effective August 16, 2004 under 7 Rule 141amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaims and cross claims. *Cavili v. Flrorendo 154 SCRA 610 (1987) - LOSS OF STANDING in court is the consequence of an order of default. Thus a party declared in default is considered out of court and cannot appear therein, adduce evidence, and be heard and for that reason he is not entitled to notice. - However, loss of standing must be understood to mean only the forfeiture of ones rights as a party litigant , contestant or legal adversary. A party in default loses his right present his defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. o No right to expect that his pleadings be acted upon by the court nor may he object to or refute evidence or motions filed against him. Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank 485 SCRA 108 (2006) - 3 Rule 9 governs procedure which the trial court is directed to take when defendant fails to file an answer - Sec 3 Rule 9 and Sec 1 Rule 133 are not incompatible. - *Complainants are NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR once the defendants are declared in default favourable relief can be granted only after the court has ascertained that the relief is warranted by the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party. Pascua v. Florendo 136 SCRA 208 (1985) - Where a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription was not denied on the merits, the court is NOT PRECLUDED FROM DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BASED ON PRESCRIPTION after evidence is adduced. - The rules on default do not dictate that judgment by default should always be in favor of the plaintiff o Favorable relief can only be granted after the court has ascertained that the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party warrant the grant of the same. - Fact that defendant was declared in default does not warrant receipt by court of incompetent or illegal evidence. *Laus v. CA 219 SCRA 6988 (1993) - GENERALLY, summons must be served personally and if it cannot be effected within a reasonable time , substituted service may be resorted to.

17

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Statutes prescribing modes other than personal service of summons must be strictly complied with to give the court jurisdiction and such compliance must appear affirmatively in the return. WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME contemplates a period of time longer than that demarcated by the word prompt, and presupposes that a prior attempt at personal service within a justifiable time frame as would be necessary to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court had failed. If a defendant had not been properly summoned, the period to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over his person does not commence until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

Philippine British Co v. De Los Angeles 63 SCRA 50 (1975) - *In view of the omission to accompany their Motion to Lift Order of Default with any affidavit of merit , the trial court had no authority to consider it. o MOTION MUST BE MADE UNDER OATH. - Party in default is not entitled to notice of motion to declare him in default. - A party who, by inaction or negligence, allows himself to be declared in default offends the rule requiring him to answer the summons without unnecessary delay to the end that the issues may be duly joined and the litigation be expeditiously terminated. It is but proper that he must justify his failure to comply with the rule before he is relieved from the adverse consequences of his omission. De Guia v. De Guia 356 SCRA 287 (2001) - ABSENCE OF THE NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL upon the counsel and his client renders the proceedings VOID, and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally. - *NO NEED TO ATTACH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT to the Motion to Lift Order of Default where the defenses of the party had been set out in his Answer. **Lina v. CA 135 SCRA 637 (1985) - Granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. - REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO DEFAULTED DEFENDANTS: o File a motion at any time before judgment, under oath, to Set Aside the Order of Default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to FAME, and that he has a meritorious defense o After judgment, when the defendant discovered the default, but before having become final & executory, a Motion for New Trial under Sec 1 Rule 37. o If discovery of default after judgment has become final, Petition for Relief under Sec 2 Rule 38. o Appeal from judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, eve n if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. Torres v. CA 49 SCRA 67 (1973) - *Where a CROSS-CLAIM is defensive in nature, it cannot stand after the complaint in same action is dismissed with prejudice. o Cross-claim seeking affirmative relief can stand upon dismissal of the main complaint. Lorbes v. CA - It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action and relief will be granted based on the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for. RULE 10: Amended & Supplemental Pleadings *Paeste v. Jaurigue 94 Phil. 179 (1954) - Amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice. - A party may amend his pleading without leave of court at any time before a responsive pleading is served . - A MOTION TO DISMISS is not a responsive pleading. - Where the complaint alleges that plaintiff have executed certain documents through force or intimidation, prescription does not begin to run until the party affected is perfectly free to go to court as he wishes. *Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages Inc. 476 SCRA 416 (2005) - Before filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AMEND HIS PLEADING; regardless of whether a new cause of action or change in theory is introduced. - Since a MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING contemplated, a plaintiff may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed provided that the dismissal has not become final.

18

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Alpine Lending Investors v. Corpuz 508 SCRA 45 (2008) - A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. - *When amendment is a matter of right, it is the correlative DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Otherwise, mandamus would lie against it. o It has always been a policy of the Supreme Court to be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings in order that the real controversies between or among the parties may be presented and cases be decided on the merits without delay. *Siasoco v. CA 303 SCRA 186 (1999) - Where the questioned CA decision is a disposition on the merits, and where said court has no remaining issue to resolve, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a Petition for Review under Rule 45, not Rule 65. o Under Rule 65, petitioner must show that the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion AND that there is no appeal, or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. - Where some but not all the defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely AGAINST THE NON-ANSWERING DEFENDANTS, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants. - After the filing of a responsive pleading, an amendment may be rejected when the defense is substantially altered since such amendment does not only prejudice the rights of the defendant but also delays the action. *PPA v. William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc 542 SCRA 514 (2008) - Rule 10, 3: amendments may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense. - This should only be true when, despite a substantial alteration, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE and PREVENT DELAY and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to SECURE A JUST, SPEEDY, AND EXPENSIVE DISPOSITION OF CASES. *Swagman Hotels & Travel Inc v. CA 455 SCRA175 (2005) [doctrine still stands Judge Jolo] - The curing effect of Rule 10 5 applies only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts. o Example: if a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during trial, and the complaint may accordingly be amended thereafter. - A complaint whose CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT YET ACCRUED cannot be cured or remedied by an amended complaint. *Campos Rueda Corp v. Bautista 6 SCRA 240 (1962) - An amendment of a complaint to confer jurisdiction on the court is not allowed. [Rule applicable if leave of court is required] Gumabay v. Baralin 77 SCRA 258 (1977) - NO ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS IS NECESSARY for service to defendant of the amended complaint as jurisdiction over the defendants person was already acquired after receipt of the first summons on the original complaint. - No new trial will be granted defendants were given ample time to answer the complaint and there is no probability that the defendants evidence would justify a reversal. *Azolla Farms v. CA 442 SCRA 133 (2004) - Rule 10 5 envisions 2 scenarios: 1. When evidence is introduced on an issue not alleged in the pleadings and no objection was interjected. 2. When evidence is offered on an issue not alleged in the pleadings but an objection was interpolated. a. Court may admit evidence if adverse party fails to satisfy the court that admission thereof would prejudice him in maintaining his defense. - Courts are given the discretion to allow amendments of pleadings to conform to the evidence presented during trial. **Versoza v. CA 299 SCRA 100 (1998) - For purposes of determining the commencement of the suit, the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IS DEEMED ABANDONED and SUPERSEDED by the amendment complaint only if the amended complaint introduces a new or different cause of action or demand. o Equivalent to a fresh suit upon a new cause of action o Statute of limitations continues to run until the amendment is filed. - CASE AT BAR: Complaint for injunction was amended to include a larger tract of land. The suit will be deemed to have been commenced upon the date of the amendment, in determining whether or not prescription had set in.

19

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

When the amended complaint DOES NOT INTRODUCE NEW CAUSE/S OF ACTION, the suit is deemed to have been commenced on the DATE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT was filed. An amendment which merely supplements or amplifies the facts originally alleged relates back to the date of the commencement. o It is the actual filing in court that controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading.

*Magaspi v. Ramolete 115 SCRA 193 (1982) - A case is DEEMED FILED ONLY UPON PAYMENT OF THE DOCKET FEE regardless of the actual date of its filing in court. - Court may proceed to take to take cognizance of the case even if docket fee paid is insufficient. - PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE shall be measured BASED UPON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT because the original pleading is superseded. Mercader v. DBP (Cebu Branch) 332 SCRA 82 (2000) - *A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING (rule 10, 6) was meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading, and not to dispense with the latter. o It serves to aver supervening facts which were then not ripe for judicial relief when the original pleading was filed. - Departure from procedure may be forgiven where they do not appear to prejudice or impair the substantial rights of the parties. Young v. Sps. Sy 503 SCRA 151 (2006) - A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading it EXISTS SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE ORIGINAL and does not replace that which it supplements. o PURPOSE: bring into the records new facts which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. RULE 11/12: When to File Responsive Pleadings/Bill of Particulars Naga Development Corp v. CA 41 SCRA 105 (1971) - The granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the court. - Substantial grounds must be shown by the party declared in default in order that the questioned order of trial court may be reversed. - *ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF A RESPONSIVE PLEADING is to secure a joinder of the issues and not to lay down evidentiary matter. *Amante v. Sunga 64 SCRA 192 (1975) - The MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME within which a party may plead is not a litigated motion were notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter the opportunity to resist the application. - As a GENERAL RULE, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that its rights be not affected without an opportunity to be heard. - EX PARTE MOTIONS are frequently permissible in procedural matters, and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency. - *Pendency of a Motion for Bill of Particulars interrupts the period within which to file a responsive pleading. - A default judgment does not pretend to be based on the merits of the controversy o Its exercise is justified by expediency o When no real injury would result to the interests of the plaintiff by the reopening of the case, the only objection to such action would be solely on technicality. o It would be a grievous error to sacrifice substantial rights of a litigant. - Rules should be liberally construed Sarmiento v. Juan 120 SCRA 403 (1983) - The LAST PERMISSIBLE PLEADING that a party may file would be the REPLY to the answer to the last pleading of claim that had been filed in the case, which may either be a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third party complaint. - The requirement that the last pleading must have been filed should mean not only if the last pleading had been ACTUALLY FILED but also if the PERIOD FOR FILING HAS EXPIRED. - While it is true that the motion for postponement was not accompanied by a medical certificate, it must be considered that not every ailment is attended to by a physician, or if so, a medical certificate under oath as required by the Rules. - DEFAULT JUDGMENTS and proceedings with emphasis on procedural niceties are frowned upon. - Declaration of default against petitioner who did not appear at the pre-trial is not proper where respondent himself was equally guilty for his non-appearance.

20

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Barraza v. Campos Jr. 120 SCRA 881 (1983) - A Motion to Dismiss is the usual, proper, and ordinary method of testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint. If the motion to dismiss is denied or if the termination thereof is deferred, the movant shall file his answer within the time prescribed by Rule 11, computed from the time he received notice of the denial or deferment, unless the court provides a different period. o 1 of Rule 11 in relation to 4 of Rule 16 allows the defendant to file his answer not only within the original 15 day period but also within a different period fixed by the court. - The court after hearing may deny or grant the motion to dismiss or allow amendment of pleading, or may defer the hearing and determination of the motion until the trial if the ground alleged therein does not appear to be indubitable. Luna v. Mirafuente 471 SCRA 1 (2005) - *For forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases involve perturbation of social order, which must be restored as promptly as possible, such that technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should carefully be avoided. o That explains why the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure which governs ejectment, among other cases, lays down procedural safeguards to guarantee expediency and speedy resolution. - Liberality in the interpretation and application of Rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. - *The court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the end of justice may thereby be served. Go Occo & Co. v. Dela Costa and Reyes 63 Phil. 446 (1936) - While pleadings should be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, courts should not be left to conjectures in the determination of issues submitted by the parties litigant or their attorneys. - *Where the pleading is vague and uncertain, courts will not allow themselves to be led to the commission of error or injustice by exploring in the midst of uncertainty and divining the intention of the parties or their counsel. *Santos v. Liwag 101 SCRA 327 (1980) Allowance of bill of particulars is discretionary upon the court. - Failure of plaintiff to comply with a court order to file a bill of particulars results in dismissal of complaint. *Filipinas Fabricators & Sales v. Magsino 157 SCRA 469 (1988) - A filed motion for bill of particulars which is sufficient in form and substance renders the running of the reglementary period to answer SUSPENDED. - Failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of motions in the motion for bill of particulars is fatal to the motion. - Where the motion for bill of particulars did not contain the notice of hearing and proof of service required by the Rules, the motion is nothing but a MERE SCRAP OF PAPER. A DEFECTIVE MOTION DOES NOT INTERRUPT THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD within which to file answer - Fact that the court had taken cognizance of the defective motion did not cure the defect nor alter the nature of the defective motion. Dumanon v. Butuan Rural Bank 119 SCRA 193 (1982) - *Filing of motion for bill of particulars suspends time for filing motion to dismiss and answer. o The time to file a motion to dismiss is coterminous with the period to answer o Hence, as long as the time to file the answer has not lapsed, a motion to dismiss may be filed within such time, instead of an answer. Baritua v. Mecader 350 SCRA 86 (2001) - A motion for bill of particulars BECOMES MOOT AND ACADEMIC where, prior to its filing, the defendant has already filed his answer and several other pleadings. RULE 13: Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers Delos Santos v. Elizalde 514 SCRA 14 (2007) - The 15-day period begins to run upon receipt of notice of decision or final order by the COUNSEL OF RECORD which is considered notice to the parties. - *Service upon the parties counsels of record is tantamount to service upon the parties themselves but service upon the parties themselves is not considered service upon their lawyers.

21

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Parties, generally, have no formal education or knowledge of the rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment of legal remedies. Thus, they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of a litigant relative to the receipt of a decision. o It is best for the courts to deal only with one person in the interest of orderly procedure either the lawyer retained by the party or the party him/herself ifs/he does not intend to hire a lawyer. Unless the change of attorneys is carried out properly [rule 138, 26] the counsel of record shall still be considered as the partys counsel and the notice sent to such counsel shall be considered as notice to the party represented. Late filing of notices of appeal are seldom condoned and only in very exceptional instances to better serve the ends of justice. *Equitable grounds cannot be sought when the party is guilty of negligence. o Litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax, and await the outcome of their case. They should give necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake is their interest in the case. The general rule is that motions for extension of time to file an APPELLANTS BRIEF shall not be granted except for a good cause.

*De Leon v. CA 383 SCRA 216 (2007) - A SEVERAL JUDGMENT is proper only when the liability of each party is CLEARLY SEPARABLE and distinct from that of his coparties, such that the CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OF THEM COULD HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SEPARATE SUITS, and judgment for or against one of them will not necessarily affect the other. - Where a common cause of action exists against the defendants, as in actions against solidary debtors, a several judgment is not proper. Between 2 judgments rendered by a trial court, there could only be one judgment that finally disposes of the case on the merits, and it is receipt of notice of said final judgment that marks the point when the reglementary period is to begin running. - Where the spouses have been JOINTLY SUED UNDER A COMMON CAUSE OF ACTION, an appeal made by the husband inures to the benefit of the wife. *Duque v. CA 383 SCRA 520 (2002) - The GENERAL RULE under Rule 13, 2 of the Rules of Court is that all notices must be served upon counsel and not upon the party. This is so because the attorney of a party is the agent of the party and is the one responsible for the conduct of the case in all its procedural aspects; hence, notice to counsel is notice to party. - EXCEPTION: where the law expressly provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. In such cases, service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid. Peoples Homesite & Housing Corp. v. Tiongco 12 SCRA 471 (1964) - A petition for relief from judgment PRESENTED OUTSIDE THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD of sixty days may nevertheless, due to very peculiar circumstances obtaining in the premises, be considered as having substantially complied with the rule and therefore seasonably filed. o Procedural technicality should not be made a bar to the vindication of a legitimate grievance. o When such technicality deserts from being an aid to justice , courts are justified in excepting from its operation a particular case. - Period to file may be computed from date of receipt of writ of execution. Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corp v. CA 567 SCRA 483 (2008) - *Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. o In ADJUDGING THE PLAUSIBILITY OF AN EXPLANATION, a court shall likewise consider the IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER of the case or the ISSUES involved therein, and the PRIMA FACIE MERIT of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of 11. United Pulp & Paper Co. v. United Pulp & Paper Workers 426 SCRA 329 (2004) - Where no explanation is offered to justify the service of pleadings by other modes, the discretionary power of the court to expunge the pleading becomes mandatory. [rule 13, 11] *MC Engineering Inc. v. NLRC 360 SCRA 183 (2001) - While a certification of non-forum shopping not attached to the complaint or petition or one belatedly filed or one signed by counsel and not the party himself constitutes a violation of the requirement which can result in the dismissal of the complaint or petition, the rule of SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE MAY BE AVAILED OF WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENTS OF THE CERTIFICATION.

22

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

CASE AT BAR: Considering that the local private employment agency may sue on behalf of its foreign principal on the basis of its contractual undertakings submitted to the POEA, there is no reason why said agency cannot likewise sign or execute a certification of non-forum shopping for its own purposes and/or on behalf of its foreign principal . o It is the local private employment agency, which is in the best position to know of the matters required in a certification of non-forum shopping. The utter disregard of the requirement in Rule 13, 11 cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction and substantial compliance. o *The AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE accompanying their petition DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE with the requirement of an explanation why other modes of service other than personal service were resorted to. o The Affidavit of Service [rule 13, 13] is required only as proof that service has been made to the other parties in a case. It is totally different from the requirement than an explanation be made if personal service was not resorted to.

*Alberto v. CA 334 SCRA 756 (2000) - NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation, and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property. - Notice of lis pendens is proper in the following cases: (1) action to recover possession of real estate; (2) action to quiet title; (3) action to remove clouds on title; (4) action for partition; and (5) any other proceedings of any kind directly affecting title to land, use, or occupation thereof or buildings thereon. o *It likewise pertains to actions brought to establish an equitable estate, interest, or right, in specific real property, or to enforce any lien, charge, or encumbrance against it. - There is NO REQUIREMENT that the right to or the interest in the property subject of a lis pendens be proven by the applicant the Rule merely requires that an affirmative relief be claimed. - GENERAL RULE: In resolving a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, only the averments in the complaint and no other are to be consulted. - *EXCEPTIONS: (1) All documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuineness of which are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon; and (2) Other pleadings submitted by the parties, in addition to the complaint, may be considered in deciding whether the complaint should be dismissed. *Romero v. CA 458 SCRA 483 (2005) - Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. - *TWO-FOLD EFFECT of filing a notice of lis pendens: o Keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations. o Bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently. - *GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION of lis pendens: o If the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party; or o When the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded. - There is nothing in the rules which requires a party seeking annotation of lis pendens to show that the land belongs to him. Aberca v. Ver 668 SCRA 173 (2012) - Procedural due process contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting one s person or property. - The only modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers allowed by the rules are PERSONAL SERVICE, SERVICE BY MAIL and SUBSTITUTED SERVICE if either personal service or service by mail cannot be made, as stated in 6, 7 & 8 of Rule 13. o Basic rules on modes of service are MANDATORY and must be strictly observed. RULE 14: Summons 1-10 *Umandap v. Sabio, Jr. 338 SCRA 243 (2000) - Service of summons upon defendant is necessary in order that a court may ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER HIS PERSON. - Any judgment without such service in the absence of a valid waiver is NULL and VOID. - GENERAL RULE: Summons must be served to defendant personally. - EXCEPTION: Substituted Service when defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time after efforts to locate him have failed. (see 7)

23

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

o A method of extraordinary character *REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE: (1) Indicate possibility of service of summons within a reasonable time; (2) Specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners; and (3) State that it was served on a person of sufficient age and discretion. The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is considered ineffective. Sheriffs act enjoys presumption of regularity.

*Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank 515 SCRA 106 (2007) - The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court likewise apply according to the NATURE OF THE ACTION (ie. action in personam or action in rem) o In Personam: action against a person on the basis of his personal liability; jurisdiction over person of defendant o In Rem: action against the thing itself; jurisdiction over the res o Quasi In Rem: where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. - **JURISDICTION OVER THE RES is acquired: (1) by the seizure of property under legal process; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which power of the court is recognized and made effective. o Summons must still be served upon defendant not for vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying due process requirements. Toyota Cubao Inc. v. CA 281 SCRA 198 (1997) - A law prescribing the manner in which the service of summons should be effected is JURISDICTIONAL IN CHARACTER and its proper observance is what dictates the courts ability to take cognizance of the litigation before it. - *Substitute service must be used only in the way prescribed, and under circumstances authorized, by law. o Compliance therewith must appear affirmatively in the return. o It must so be as substitute service is a mode that departs or deviates from the standard rule. *PCI Bank v. Alejandro 533 SCRA 738 (2007) - In case the defendant DOES NOT RESIDE and is NOT FOUND IN THE PHILIPPINES (and hence personal service and substituted service cannot be effected), the remedy of the plaintiff in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction to try the case is to CONVERT THE ACTION INTO A PROCEEDING IN REM or QUASI IN REM by attaching the property of the defendant. o Attach defendants property - The service of summons in this case (which may be by publication coupled with the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons and the court order to the last known address of the defendant), is no longer for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction but for compliance with the requirements of due process. - Substituted service of summons is the normal mode of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over the person of residents temporarily out of the Philippines. o Court may acquire jurisdiction over an action in personam by mere substituted service without need of attaching the property of the defendant. *Vlason Enterprises Corp v. CA 310 SCRA 26 (1999) - A CORPORATION may be served summons through its agents or officers who, under the Rules, are designated to accept service of process. o A summons addressed to a corporation and served on the secretary of the president BINDS that corporation. o **This rule requires, however, that the SECRETARY SHOULD BE AN EMPLOYEE of the corporation sought to be summoned. Only in this manner can there be an assurance that the secretary will bring home to the corporation the notice of the filing of the action against it. - Though an amended pleading supersedes the original, it does not follow ipso facto that the service of a new summons for amended petitions/complaints is required. o HOWEVER, when defendants have not yet appeared in court and no summons has been validly served, new summons for the amended complaint must be served on them. Pagalaran v. Bal-latan 13 Phil. 135 (1909) [Judge skipped this] - When a party is duly served with a summons, although no copy of the complaint be attached to the summons, he should appear and plead to the jurisdiction of the court. o Nonappearance will justify the entry of judgment by default.

24

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Ong Peng v. Custodio 1 SCRA 780 (1961) - *After the defendant has appeared by virtue of a summons and presented a motion to dismiss, he may be served with the amended complaint, without need of another summons, and in the same form and manner ordinary motions or papers are served. Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. Domingo 44 Phil. 680 (1923) [Judge skipped this] - Where a judgment was rendered based on the amended complaint, the amended complaint and summons should have been served upon the defendant with the same formalities as the original complaint and summons. Bello v. Ubo 117 SCRA 91 (1982) - Rule 14 5 expressly provides that summons may be served by the sheriff or other proper court officer or, for special reasons, by a person especially authorized by the judge of the court issuing the same. o *A policeman, not specially authorized by the court to serve, cannot validly serve the courts summons. - Service of only one copy of the complaint on two defendants is irregular. - *Failure to return under oath service of summons is also irregular. o This is a ground to set aside order of default. *Filmerco Commercial Co. v. IAC 149 SCRA 193 (1987) [Judge said take note of this case] - Court did not acquire jurisdiction over defendants who were not validly served with summons. - DWELLING HOUSE or RESIDENCE: refer to the place where the person to be summoned is living at the time when service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. - OFFICE or REGULAR PLACE OF BUSINESS: refer to the office or place of business defendant at the time of service. **Laus v. CA 219 SCRA 6988 (1993) - GENERALLY, summons must be served personally and, if it cannot be effected within a reasonable time , substituted service may be resorted to. - WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME contemplates a period of time longer than the word prompt. o Presupposes that a prior attempt at personal service within a justifiable time frame as would be necessary to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court had failed. - Service of summons may be made AT NIGHT as well as DURING THE DAY or even on a SUNDAY or HOLIDAY. - Service of summons is MINISTERIAL in character. - If a defendant had not been properly summoned, the PERIOD TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction over his person does not commence to run until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court . De Leon v. Hontanosas 67 SCRA 458 (1975) - Service of summons on husband binding on his wife. *Cariaga Jr. v Malaya 143 SCRA 441 (1986) [Judge said take note of this case] - NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS where defendants actually received the summons and copies of the complaint, although service thereof may be defective, but which was CORRECTED BY THE COURT. Ablaza v. Court of Industrial Relations 126 SCRA 246 (1983) - Service of summons made upon a person in charge of an office or place of business maintained in the common name is adequate. - *The PURPOSE OF SUMMONS is to give notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against him. o Defendant or respondent is thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiffs or petitioners. - CASE AT BAR: Since personal service of summons was made impossible by the refusal of the owner/general manager of the defendant company to accept the same, substituted service was availed of by the bailiff by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. - MELENCIO-HERRERA J., concurring: Summons issued in case at bar is defective as defendant was not included therein o The defect, however, could have been cured by amending the name of the defendant in the title to read Victoria Ablaza, doing business under the name and trademark Cerisco Blackcat Trading, since t he intention was to sue the owner of the business enterprise. Summons 11-20 Delta Motor Sales Corp v. Mangosing 70 SCRA 589 (1976) - *Strict compliance with the mode of service of summons to a CORPORATION is necessary.

25

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

The officer upon whom service is made must be one who is named in the statute, otherwise the service is insufficient.

E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd v. Benito 312 SCRA 65 (1999) - The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a DOMESTIC CORPORATION or PARTNERSHIP is not limited and more clearly specified in 11, Rule 14. o *Summons upon the branch manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro, instead of upon the general manager at its principal office at Davao is improper. Pioneer Insurance Corp. v. A.C. Ordonez Group 561 SCRA 327 (2008) - *Service of summons to someone other than the corporations president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, and in-house counsel, is not valid. *Litton Mills Inc. v. CA 256 SCRA 696 (1996) - A court need not go beyond the allegations in the complaint to determine whether or not a defendant foreign corporation is doing business for the purpose of Rule 14, 14. - CASE AT BAR: Allegation that Empire, for and in behalf of Gelhaar, ordered 7,770 dozens of soccer jerseys from Litton and for this purpose Gelhaar caused the opening of an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of Litton is a sufficient allegation that Gelhaar was doing business in the Philippines. - DOING BUSINESS a single act or transaction of a foreign corporation is not merely incidental or casual but is of such character as distinctly to indicate a purpose on the part of the foreign corporation to do other business in the state, such act will be considered as constituting doing business. *Wang Laboratories Constipating v. Mendoza 156 SCRA 44 (1987) - THREE (3) MODES of effective service of summons upon PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS: o Serving upon agent designated in accordance with law to accept service of summons; o If there is no resident agent, by service on the government official designated by law to that office; and o Serving on any officer/agent of said corporation within the Philippines. - CASE AT BAR: Summons intended for a corporation domiciled in the US was properly served on its authorized exclusive representative domiciled in the Philippines o Shown by its various public advertisements and its admission that it deals exclusively with the representative in the sale of its products in the Philippines. - DOING BUSINESS no general rule/principle can be laid down as to what constitutes doing or engaging or trading in business. o Each case must be judged in the light of peculiar facts and upon the language of the applicable law. o CASE AT BAR: US corp cannot unilaterally declare that it is not doing business in the Philippines when in fact it has installed different products in several Philippine corporations, registered its trade name with the Philippines Patent Office and has made it known that it has a designated distributor in the Philippines. - Court has categorically stated that although a foreign corporation is not doing business in the Philippines, it may be sued for acts done against persons in the Philippines. - A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of formal notice. Sahagun v. CA 198 SCRA 44 (1991) - *When the defendant is a non-resident (as indicated by the certification of the Commissioner of Immigration & Deportation) by the time the suit is brought, EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE is warranted. - CASE AT BAR: Also, since the suit, involves real property wherein said defendant ostensibly has an interest and which property has in fact been attached, the court a quo correctly ordered service of summons on the defendant out of the Philippines. - While there is no prohibition against availing of a FOREIGN NEWSPAPER IN EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE of summons, neither should such publication in a local newspaper of general circulation be altogether interdicted. *Velayo-Fong v. Velayo 510 SCRA 320 (2006) - EXTRAJUDICIAL SERVICE apply only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem o The rationale for this is that in such actions, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. - Process Servers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. To overcome this, the evidence must be clear and convincing.

26

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

When a party files a motion to lift order of default, she must also show that she has a MERITORIOUS DEFENSE or that something would be gained by having the order of default set aside . *MERITORIOUS DEFENSE implies that the applicant has the burden of proving such a defense in order to have the judgment set aside. o TEST EMPLOYED: whether there is enough evidence to present an issue for submission to the trier of fact. o Motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted.

Jose v. Boyon 414 SCRA 216 (2003) - Personal service of summons is preferred to substituted service. Only if the former cannot be made promptly can the process server resort to the latter. - **A general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons. o The Return must show that effort was actually exerted and positive steps taken to locate and serve the summons personally on respondents. o Merely stating the alleged whereabouts without indicating that such information was verified from a person who had knowledge thereof is not enough. - Extraterritorial service of summons or summons by publication applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. - *CASE AT BAR: An action for specific performance is an action in personam. While the suit incidentally involved a piece of land, the ownership or possession thereof was not put at issue since they did not assert any rights over it. La Naval Drug Corp. v. CA 236 SCRA 78 (1994) - If the defendant, besides setting up in a motion to dismiss his objection to the jurisdiction of the court, alleges at the same time any other ground for dismissing the action, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. - Appearance by motion must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. - *Voluntary appearance cures defects of summons, if any. Such defect, if any, was further cured when defendant filed its answer to the complaint. Boticano v. Chu, Jr. 148 SCRA 541 (1987) - *Defect in service of summons CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. - Defect of summons is cured by the voluntary appearance of the defendant. o CASE AT BAR: filed a Notice of Appeal, Appeal Bond, Motion for Extension of Time to File Record on Appeal, Record on Appeal, Motion for Withdrawal of Appearance, Notice of Appearance and Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. - If the defendant in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has been declared in default, may he appeal the default judgment that may subsequently be rendered even if he has not asked the RTC to set aside the declaration of default? YES. o However, DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE as to the effects of such appeal: If an appeal is made without first asking the RTC to set aside the declaration of default, and the appellate court sets aside on said declaration, all he can get is a review of the RTC's default judgment without the opportunity of having the higher court consider defense evidence for the simple reason that no evidence was even adduced by him in the RTC. If upon the other hand, the defendant first asks the RTC to set aside the declaration of default ( see rule 18, 2 &3), and he is able to prevail, the declaration will be set aside, and he will now have the opportunity to present his evidence in the RTC. *Cezar v. Ricafort-Bautista 506 SCRA 322 (2006) - Jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be acquired NOTWITHSTANDING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PENDENCY OF A CASE AGAINST HIM unless he was validly served with summons. - Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made in the proof of service. - If the sheriffs return does not contain any statement with regar d to the impossibility of personal service the same is PATENTLY DEFECTIVE and so the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY in the performance of official functions WILL NOT LIE. - Although the substituted service upon him was defective, said defect was cured by his voluntary appearance. o Appearance in WHATEVER FORM (ex. via Motion) without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent.

27

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

UCPB v. Ongpin 368 SCRA 464 (2001) - Jurisdiction cannot be acquired over the person of respondent even if he knows of the case against him unless he is validly served with summons. - **OFFICE or REGULAR PLACE OF BUSINESS: it does not necessarily follow that the regular place of business of a chairman of the board of directors is the same as the address of the corporation as it is possible for him to HOLD OFFICE ELSEWHERE. (CASE AT BAR: held office in his residence) *HSBC v. Catalan 440 SCRA 498 (2004) - The Court has held that the filing of motions seeking AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. - A party who makes a SPECIAL APPEARANCE in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court, cannot be considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. RULE 15: MOTIONS *Cledera v. Sarmiento 39 SCRA 552 (1971) - Failure to oppose an MR places the other party in estoppel from questioning its validity due to its defects (ie. noncompliance with the Rules) and also constitutes abandonment or waiver of the right to challenge the validity of the order that granted such MR. o Defects in an MR cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. - Defective motion is a MERE SCRAP OF PAPER and DOES NOT TOLL THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL *Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v Cheng 509 SCRA 552 (2006) - A motion which does not meet the requirements of 4 & 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the clerk of court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. o Service of a copy of a motion containing a notice of the time and the place of hearing of that motion is a mandatory requirement. - EXCEPTIONS: o Rigid application will result in a manifest failure/miscarriage of justice; especially if a party successfully shows that the defect in the final & executor judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals concerned; o In the interest of substantial justice; o Where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court; and o Where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate to the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. - Where the other party received a copy of the other partys motion and in fact HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE the same, the demands of substantial justice and due process were satisfied. *Boiser v. Aguirre 458 SCRA 430 (2005) - A motion without notice of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of paper presenting no question which the court could decide the court has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it. - The OBJECTIVE of the rule on the requirement for a NOTICE OF HEARING is to avoid a capricious change of mind in order to provide due process to both parties and ensure impartiality in the trial. - WITHOUT PROOF OF SERVICE to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance. Andrada v. CA 60 SCRA 379 (1974) - *Defect in the notice of hearing is not cured by subsequent action of the court. o CASE AT BAR: a notice addressed to the Clerk of Court requesting him to set the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof does not comply with the requirements of 5 of Rule 15. - CASE AT BAR: subsequent action of the court thereon does not cure the flaw. Supreme Investment Corp v. Engineering Equipment Inc. 44 SCRA 244 (1972) [note to self: read original] - A trial court commits no reversible error in considering the pendency of a case between the same parties and for the same cause as a good cause, under the said 4, to hear and act on the motion to dismiss the case on shorter notice.

28

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Davao Light & Power Co., Inc v. CA 204 SCRA 343 (1991) - After an action is properly commenced by the filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT (see Rule 57) upon fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may do so at any time, either BEFORE OR AFTER SERVICE OF SUMMONS on the defendant. - Writ of attachment may properly issue ex parte. *Sarmiento v. Zaratan 514 SCRA 246 (2007) - The 3-DAY NOTICE required by law is intended not for the benefit of the movant but to AVOID SURPRISES upon the adverse party and to give the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion. - **The TEST is the presence of the OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, as well as to have TIME TO STUDY THE MOTION and MEANINGFULLY OPPOSE OR CONTROVERT THE GROUNDS upon which it is based. - GENERAL RULE: Notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that his rights be not affected without an opportunity to be heard. - EX PARTE MOTIONS: frequently permissible in procedural matters, and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency, and where notice or the resulting delay might tend to defeat the objective of the motion. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Magdangal 4 SCRA 84 (1962) - **PURPOSE OF 3-DAY NOTICE: intended not for the movant's benefit but to avoid surprises upon the opposite party and to give the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion. - Where the opposing party himself is WILLING TO HAVE THE MOTION HEARD ON SHORTER NOTICE, there is nothing that precludes the court from hearing and disposing of it earlier than the regular motion day, or in less than three days from notice or filing of the motion. *Azajar v. CA 145 SCRA 333 (1986) - NOTICE OF A MOTION shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned at least 3 days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any AFFIDAVITS and OTHER PAPERS accompanying it; and that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, stating the time and place of the hearing of the motion. o FAILURE TO COMPLY with the requirement is a FATAL FLAW. - The duty to give that notice is imposed on the movant, not on the Court. RULE 16: Motion to Dismiss (part 1) De Dios v. Bristol Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. 55 SCRA 349 (1974) - To sustain a dismissal on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint. o The TEST OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTS ALLEGED in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. - **For the purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. o The admission, however, is limited only to all material and relevant facts which are well pleaded in the complaint. o Does not extend to mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated, nor conclusions of law; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage & irrelevant matter. - The allegation characterizing the letter of dismissal as a libellous letter is a conclusion of law without factual basis. - Allegations that the charges and statements mentioned in said letter are not true, and that defendants knowingly made the same, are legal conclusions or mere expressions of opinion, there being no factual premises showing why the charges and statements in the letter are not true; nor is there stated any particular fact or circumstance upon which the defendants knowledge of the falsity thereof can be predicated. Dalandan v. Julio 10 SCRA 400 (1964) - *LACHES is also a valid ground for a motion to dismiss. - *An allegation in the complaint that the questioned contract is an equitable mortgage is a mere conclusion and is not a material allegation. o It cannot be deemed admitted by the motion to dismiss filed by defendants. - It is not the fact of alleged payment of taxes that gives rise to the disputable presumption of equitable mortgage under the Civil Code but an AGREEMENT whereby the vendor a retro binds himself to pay the taxes on the property, and there is no allegation of such agreement in the complaint.

29

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia 143 SCRA 178 (1986) - EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION OF FACTS ALLEGED: o Allegations of which the court will take judicial notice are not true; o Legally impossible facts; o Facts inadmissible in evidence; or o Facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded. - The trial court can consider all the pleadings filed, including annexes, motions and evidence then on record for purposes of resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action. o By literally referring only to the allegations of the complaint would amount to a rigid application of the Rules. *La Naval Drug Corp. v. CA 236 SCRA 78 (1994) - Any ground for dismissal in a motion to dismiss, except improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense and a preliminary hearing may be had as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. - However, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer, except for failure to state a cause of action, are deemed waived. Toyota Cubao, Inc. v. CA 281 SCRA 198 (1997) - A law prescribing the manner in which the service of summons should be effected is jurisdictional in character and its proper observance is what dictates the courts ability to take cognizance of the litigation before it. - ^^This case is more on Summons and Substituted Service. I think the relevance of this to Rule 16 is that non-compliance with proper service of summons can be a ground for a Motion to Dismiss. *Duero v. CA 373 SCRA 11 (2002) - The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their express consent. - A party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal. Even if private respondent actively participated in the proceedings before said court, the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be properly invoked against him because the question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at anytime and at any stage of the action. - Since a decision of a court without jurisdiction is null & void, it could logically never become final and executory. o Appeal therefrom by writ of error would be out of the question. o A petition for certiorari would be in order. Leviton Industries v. Salvador 114 SCRA 420 (1982) - *The LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE should not be merely assumed. The facts showing such capacity to sue should be averred in the complaint itself. o Failure to state such may be a ground for a motion to dismiss. - CASE AT BAR: All that is alleged in private respondents complaint is that it is a foreign corporation. The action was anchored on the Trademark Law of the Philippines, a law which, explicitly sets down the conditions precedent for the successful prosecution thereof. o It is therefore incumbent to comply with these requirements or aver its exemption therefrom, if such be the case. o It may be that private respondent has the right to sue before Philippine courts, but our rules on pleadings require that the necessary qualifying circumstances which clothe it with such right be affirmatively pleaded. *Valencia v. CA 263 SCRA 275 (1996) - If a party-litigant splits his single cause of action, the other action or actions filed may be dismissed by invoking litis pendentia. - REQUISITES FOR THE EXISTENCE OF LITIS PENDENTIA: 1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interests in both actions; 2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for (relief based on the same facts); and 3. Identity with respect to the 2 preceding particulars in the 2 cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case. Pacsports Phils., Inc. v. Niccolo Sports, Inc. 370 SCRA 338 (2001) - *When the elements of litis pendentia exist, the ACTION FILED LATER should be abated to avoid multiplicity of suits.

30

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Linzag v. CA 291 SCRA 304 (1998) - RATIONALE FOR RES JUDICATA: 1. Republicae ut sit litium public policy and necessity which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; and 2. Nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa Hardship on the person that he should be vexed twice for the same cause. - REQUISITES FOR RES JUDICATA 1. There must be a final judgment or order; 2. The court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter & the parties; 3. It must be a judgment or order on the merits; and 4. Between the 2 cases, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, & causes of action. - A party cannot evade or avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case. o CASE AT BAR: The claim that the judgment of the first case was for annulment of title only whereas the latter was for annulment of judgment is palpably unmeritorious. o The remedy of annulment of judgment is available only where ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. o The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a CA decision in an action to annul a judgment of the RTC is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) where only questions of law may be raised. *Hacienda Bigaa Inc. v. Chavez 618 SCRA 559 (2010) - There are 2 DISTINCT CONCEPTS of res judicata under 37 Rule 39. - 1ST CONCEPT (BAR BY FORMER JUDGMENT): Res judicata absolutely bars any subsequent action when the requisites in Linzag (see above case) concur. - 2ND CONCEPT (CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT): Where there is no identity of causes of action but only identity of issues exist. 1. Bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues involving the same parties even if raised under different claims or causes of action. 2. 2nd concept finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The conclusively settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest either for the same or for a different cause of action. 4. It continues to bind the parties while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition. 5. Only the identity of parties & issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. **While 2ND does not have the same barring effect as that of the 1ST that proscribes subsequent actions, the former nonetheless estops the parties from raising in a later case the issues or points that were raised and controverted, and were determinative of the ruling in the earlier case. FELS Energy Inc. v. Province of Batangas 516 SCRA 186 (2007) - *The application of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties. o There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter. Sempio v. CA 284 SCRA 580 (1998) - ELEMENTS OF LITIS PENDENTIA o Identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; o Identity of rights asserted & reliefs prayed for where such reliefs are founded on the same facts; and o Identity in both cases such that the judgment rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the other. - *IDENTITY OF PARTIES: only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required for litis pendentia, or in any case, res judicata, to lie. - CASE AT BAR: Private Respondent Tuazon is the plaintiff in Case 3 (dismissed for litis pendentia), intervenor in Case 1, & not a party in Case 2. o However, Tuazon has a community of interest with the parties and subject of the case in Case 2. Thus, there is substantial identity of parties in all 3 cases.

31

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

RULE 16: Motion to Dismiss (part 2) De Los Reyes v. CA 285 SCRA 81 (1998) IM NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE RIGHT CASE THOUGH - A cause of action, being an act/omission by a party violating the right of another party arises at the moment such right is violated. o CASE AT BAR: When the sale was registered in 1943 which included an additional 3,000 sqm that was not included in the agreement, this was the time the cause of action arose. o Action was filed only 36 years after which was well beyond the statute of limitations. o While an action to nullify a contract does not prescribe, laches applied in this case. o In the span of more than 20 years, the property had passed through 4 owners but, nonetheless, no object was raised at that time. [INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE] - The remedy of an owner who was fraudulently deprived of his land which was subsequently sold to an IPV is to file an action for damages against the person who perpetrated the fraud within 4 years after its discovery. Aznar III v. Bernad 161 SCRA 276 (1988) Landayan v. Bacani 117 SCRA 117 (1982) Dulay v. CA 243 SCRA 220 (1995) Suyom v. Collantes 69 SCRA 514 (1976) Tan v. Director of Forestry 125 SCRA 302 (1983) Peregrina v. Panis 133 SCRA 72 (1984) Pineda v. CFI of Davao 1 SCRA 1020 (1961) Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy 104 SCRA 668 (1981) Bank of America v. CA 400 SCRA 156 (2003) Associated Bank v. Montano, Sr. 604 SCRA 134 (2009) Lu Ym v. Nabua 452 SCRA 298 (2005) --------------------------------------------------------- End of Midterms ---------------------------------------------------------------RULE 17: Dismissal of Actions Republic Planters Bank v. Molina 166 SCRA 39 (1988) - A judgment, to be considered res judicata, must be binding, and must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. o If a court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondents, it cannot render any binding decision. - *CASE AT BAR: The order of dismissal does not have the effect of an adjudication on the merits because the court rendering it did not have the requisite jurisdiction over the defendants. o It cannot be the basis of res judicata and it cannot be a bar to a lawful claim. o If at all, such a dismissal may be considered as one without prejudice. PCI Leasing & Finance v. Milan 617 SCRA 258 (2010) - FRESH PERIOD RULE (Neypes Case): The Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. o Shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the MTC to the RTC; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the RTC to the CA; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA; and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court - *INSTANCES WHEN COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED DUE TO PLAINTIFFS FAULT: o Failure to appear on the date for the presentation of evidence in chief on the complaint; o Failure to prosecute action for an unreasonable length of time; or o Failure to comply with the Rules or any order of the court.

32

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Meliton v. CA 216 SCRA 485 (1992) - A dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction does not constitute res judicata. - The dismissal of the case without prejudice indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissal action had not been commenced. - An action shall not be dismissed at the request of the plaintiff after the service of the answer, except by order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. *Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago 494 SCRA 393 (2006) (Already cited above but no harm in doing it again) - If a complainant is dismissed due to his/her own fault, the dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants right to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action. - But if it were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary to the main action. - Dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim is automatic upon the dismissal of the complaint whether upon initiative of the plaintiff or defendant. o **HOWEVER, 2 & 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not because of the survival of the main complaint. RULE 18: Pretrial 1-7 *Martinez v. De La Merced 174 SCRA 182 (1989) - Absence of a preliminary conference (Summary Procedure) would NOT necessarily render nugatory the proceedings had in the court below. o While termed a preliminary conference, a closer look thereat would reveal that the provision is akin and similar to the provision on pre-trial. - Both provisions are essentially designed to promote amicable settlement or to avoid or simplify the trial. - Jurisprudence on the matter reveals that proceedings undertaken without first conducting a pre-trial or with a legally defective pre-trial is voided because either of the parties thereto suffered substantial prejudice thereby or they were denied their right to due process. o Unless there is a showing of substantial prejudice caused to a party, the trial courts inadvertent failure to calendar the case for a pre-trial or a preliminary conference cannot render the proceedings illegal or void ab initio. o Failure to object to the absence of a pre-trial is deemed a waiver of his right thereto. (Ex. Submitting to jurisdiction) *Sarmiento v. Juan 120 SCRA 403 (1983) - The requirement that the pre-trial shall be scheduled after the last pleading has been filed is intended to fully appraise the court and the parties of all the issues in the case before the pre-trial is conducted. o Issues may only be ascertained from the allegations contained in the pleadings filed by the parties. - LAST PERMISSIBLE PLEADING: Reply to the answer to the last pleading of claim that has been filed in the case which may be in a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint. - GENERAL RULE: Any pleading asserting a claim must be answered. Otherwise, party to whom such claim is asserted may be declared in default with regard such claim. - EXCEPTIONS: Failure to answer (1) complaint-in-intervention; or (2) compulsory counterclaim so intimately related to the complaint such that to answer the same would merely require a repetition of the allegations contained in the complaint. - The requirement that the last pleading must have been filed before a pre-trial may be scheduled should more appropriately be construed to mean not only if the last pleading had been actually filed, but also if the period for filing the same had expired. - A plaintiff who makes no valid appearance at pre-trial may not ask that the defendant be punished for the same shortcoming it was equally guilty of. *Paredes v. Verano 504 SCRA 264 (2006) - Judgment of default against a defendant who failed to attend pre-trial, or even any defendant who failed to file an answer, implies a waiver only of their right to be heard and to present evidence to support their allegations but not all their other rights. - Failure of the PLAINTIFF to appear during pre-trial authorizes the court to either dismiss the complaint. - Failure of DEFENDANT to appear during pre-trial allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. - *Nothing in the Rules of Court authorizes a trial judge to allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte on account of the absence during pre-trial of the COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT. o What 5 penalizes is the failure to appear of either the plaintiff or the defendant, and not their respective counsel.

33

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Tria v. Lirag 1 SCRA 1207 (1961) - Where a party failed to appeal from an order granting the motion for the execution of a compromise agreement, it is too late for him to question the alias writ of execution and invoke the alleged breach of the compromise agreement. o He should have appealed from the order granting execution. - A compromise, approved by the court, is more than a contract. It may be enforced by execution. [JUDICIAL COMPROMISE] Zagala v. Jimenez 152 SCRA 147 (1987) - *A COMPROMISE JUDGMENT is not appealable and is immediately executory unless a motion is filed to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, in which event an appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion. - Parties are encouraged to compromise a case to avoid protracted litigation and costs of suit. *Mercader v. DBP 332 SCRA 82 (2000) Discussed somewhere above. - Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised. o PURPOSE: To obviate the element of surprise, the parties are expected to disclose at the pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matter. RULE 19: Intervention 1-4 *Big Country Ranch Corp. v. CA 227 SCRA 161 (1993) - The right to intervene is not an absolute right. o Statutory rules & conditions for the right of intervention must be shown. - The allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. [PERMISSIVE] o Court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties & if intervenors rights be protected in a separate proceeding. - Intervention will not be allowed when it will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the principal parties, especially if intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. o It is not intended to change the nature and character of the action itself, or to stop or delay the placid operation of the machinery of the trial. - The discretion of the court, once exercised, cannot be reviewed by certiorari nor controlled by mandamus save in instances where such discretion has been so exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. - An independent controversy CANNOT BE INJECTED into a suit by intervention, hence such intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies. o The proper course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his claim in a separate suit. - A motion for intervention filed after trial should be denied. - An intervention is merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to the principal action and not an independent proceeding. o Where the main action ceases to exist, there is no pending proceeding wherein the intervention may be based. BarangayMatictic v. Elbinias 148 SCRA 83 (1987) - With the final dismissal of the original action, the complaint in intervention can no longer be acted upon. - CASE AT BAR: The dismissal of the expropriation case has no less the inherent effect of also dismissing the motion for intervention which is but the unavoidable consequence. o Intervention by the barangay unnecessary where the barangay can establish its claim by a separate and independent action of its own, or can obtain authority for itself from the municipality to pursue the action of eminent domain. Metrobank v. Presiding Judge RTC Manila Br. 39 189 SCRA 820 (1990) - Intervenor in a pending case is entitled to be heard like any other party. - Claim in intervention that seeks affirmative relief prevents a plaintiff from taking a voluntary dismissal of the main action . - *Where a complaint in intervention was filed before plaintiffs action had been expressly dismissed, the intervenors complaint was not subject to dismissal. o Dismissal of plaintiffs action did not affect the rights of the intervenor or affect the dismissal of intervenors complaint. - *An intervenors petition showing it to be entitled to AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF will be preserved and heard regardless of the disposition of the principal action.

34

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Batama Farmers Cooperative v. Rosal 42 SCRA 408 (1971) - To be permitted to intervene in a pending action, the party must have a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, or he must be so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of the property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof. - *LEGAL INTEREST must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and expectant. o A mere collateral interest in the subject matter of the litigation cannot justify intervention. Magsaysay-Labrador v. CA 180 SCRA 266 (1950) Interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. - *INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT mean a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, and which would put the intervenor in a legal position to litigate a fact alleged in the complaint, without the establishment of which plaintiff could not recover. o Not indirect, contingent, conjectural, and purely inchoate. o A share of stock in a corporation does not vest the owner thereof with any legal right or title to any of the property. Looyuko v. CA 361 SCRA 150 (2001) - The motion for intervention should be filed any time before rendition of judgment. - Intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. **Bon-Mar Realty & Sport Corporation v. De Guzman 563 SCRA 737 (2008) To warrant intervention, TWO REQUISITES must concur: o Movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and o Intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. RULE 20, 21, 22: Calendar of Cases ( 1-2); Subpoena ( 1-10); Computation of Time ( 1-2) People v. Montejo 21 SCRA 722 (1967) *The rule excusing a witness from appearance before a court, judge, or other officer of the province in which he resides if the distance exceeds 100 km from his place of residence to the place of trial by the usual course of travel, applies solely to CIVIL CASES and not to criminal cases. o CASE AT BAR: Refusal by respondent Judge to grant the prosecutions motion to arrest a material witness in a criminal case, or in the alternative, to cite him for contempt, amounted to grave abuse of discretion. CIR v. Primetown Property Group Inc. 531 SCRA 436 (2007) - The 2-year prescriptive period is reckoned from the filing of the final adjusted return. - A year is equivalent to 365 days regardless of whether it is a regular or a leap year. - CALENDAR MONTH: Month designated in the calendar without regard to the number of days it may contain . o Period of time running from the beginning of a certain numbered day up to, but not including, the corresponding numbered day of the next month, and if there is not a sufficient number of days in the next month, then up to and including the last day of that month. o ILLUSTRATION: one calendar month from December 31, 2007 will be from January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2008; one calendar month from January 31, 2008 will be from February 1, 2008 until February 29, 2008. RULE 30, 31, 32, 33: Trial ( 1-9); Consolidation ( 1-2); Trial by Commissioner ( 1-13); Demurrer to Evidence ( 1) Republic v. Sandiganbayan & Marcos 406 SCRA 190 (2003) - SUMMARY JUDGMENT has been described as a judgment which a court may render before trial but after both parties have pleaded. It seeks to avoid unnecessary expense and loss of time in a trial. - Agreeing to proceed to trial during the pre-trial conference, does not amount to a waiver of the right to summary judgment. o CASE AT BAR: Republic moved for summary judgment after pre-trial and before its scheduled date for presentation of evidence. Marcoses argue that by agreeing to proceed to trial during the pre-trial conference, Republic waived its right to summary judgment. - If, as correctly ruled by the New York court, Republic was allowed to move for summary judgment even after trial and submission of the case for resolution, more so should we permit it in the present case where petitioner moved for summary judgment before trial. - CASE AT BAR: Republic could validly move for summary judgment any time after the Marcoses answer was filed or, for that matter, at any subsequent stage of the litigation.

35

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Yu v. Mapayo 44 SCRA 163 (1972) - CASE AT BAR: Yu sued Mapayo for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of an engine. The answer admitted the transaction and the balance due but contended that due to hidden defects, Mapayo was forced to spend P2,800 for repairs. - Where the answer of the defendant admitted the obligation stated in the complaint, although special defenses were pleaded, the plaintiff has every right to insist that it was for the defendant to come forward with evidence in support of his special defenses. - CASE AT BAR: The judges despotic and outrageous insistence that plaintiff should present proof in support of allegations that were not denied but admitted by the adverse party was totally unwarranted. o Mapayo, not having supported his special defenses, the dismissal of the case was manifestly untenable and contrary to law. Sarmiento v. Juan 120 SCRA 403 (1983) - CASE AT BAR: Sarmiento had manifested to the Court that his inability to appear before the pre-trial was due to a sudden ailment (LBM) that befell him while preparing to go to Court. While it is true that the motion for postponement was not accompanied by a medical certificate, it must be considered that not every ailment is attended to by a physician, or if so, a medical certificate under oath as required by the Rules could be secured within the limited time available. People v. Mazo 367 SCRA 462 (2001) Crim case. Relevance: unknown. - Where the accused owns up to the killing of the victim, the burden of evidence shifts to him and he must show by clear and convincing proof that he indeed acted in self-defense. Lopez v. Liboro 81 Phil. 429 (1948) It is within the discretion of the court whether or not to admit further evidence after the party offering the evidence has rested, and this discretion will not be reviewed except where it has clearly been abused. Additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered. Salazar v. CFI of Laguna 64 Phil. 785 (1937) - 3 ways of consolidating actions or special proceedings where the questions at issue and the parties in interest are the same. o Recasting the cases already instituted, conducting only one hearing and rendering only one decision; o When the existing cases are consolidated, only one hearing held and only one decision rendered; or o Without recasting or consolidating the cases, the principal one is heard, the hearing on the others being suspended until judgment has been rendered in the first case. - The court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may adopt any of these three forms of consolidation whenever in its opinion the proceeding is beneficial to and convenient for the parties. Superlines Transport v. Victor 124 SCRA 939 (1983) - CASE AT BAR: A more pragmatic solution to the case at bar is to consolidate the Gumaca (where the bus company filed its complaint) case with the Cavite case (where injured victims filed their complaint). o Considerations of judicial economy and administration, as well as the convenience of the parties for which the rules on procedure and venue were formulated, dictate that it is the Cavite court, rather than the Gumaca court, which serves as the more suitable forum for the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties concerned. o To require respondent-victims who are all residents of Cavite, to litigate their claims in the Quezon Court would unnecessarily expose them to considerable expenses. Aljems Corp. v CA 355 SCRA 550 (2001) The COMMISSIONER substitutes for the judge, and whatever the judge can or cannot do, the commissioner also can or cannot do. o If a judge cannot decide a question without hearing the parties on oath or affirmation, neither can the commissioner. The ORDER OF REFERENCE may specify only particular issues to be determined by the commissioner. o It may direct him to do only particular acts or just to receive and report evidence. Whichever the case, the requirement for the commissioner to hold a hearing is clear, for this is the essence of due process. Northwest Airlines v. CA 284 SCRA 408 (1998) - Where a court denies a demurrer to evidence, it should set the date for the reception of the defendants evid ence in chief and not proceed to grant the plaintiffs claims.

36

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Radiowealth Finance Corp v. Del Rosario 335 SCRA 288 (2000) Defendants who present a demurrer to the plaintiffs evidence retain the right to present their own evidence, if the trial court disagrees with them. If the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees with both of them and reverses the dismissal order, the defendants lose the right to present their own evidence. Where the Court of Appeals reversed a demurrer to evidence rendered by a trial court, it should render judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by plaintiff instead of remanding the case for further proceedings. David v. Rivera 420 SCRA 90 (2004) - GENERAL RULE: Being interlocutory, an order denying a demurrer to evidence is not appealable. o Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. - EXCEPTION: When the denial of a demurrer is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. RULE 34, 35: Judgment on the Pleadings ( 1); Summary Judgments ( 1-6) Sy-quia v. Marsman 22 SCRA 927 (1968) - Judgment on the pleadings was warranted when the answer merely consisted of general denials which had the effect of admitting the material allegations of the complaint. Meneses v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform 505 SCRA 90 (2006) A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who is the party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or to obtain a declaratory relief. Hontiveros v. RTC of Iloilo 309 SCRA 340 (1999) - Where there are actual issues raised in the answer, such as one involving damages, which require the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the trial court, it is improper for the judge to render judgment based on the pleadings alone . - CASE AT BAR: aside from the amount of damages, the following factual issues have to be resolved, namely: o Respondents participation and/or liability, if any, to petitioners; and o The nature, extent, and duration of private respondents possession of the subject property. **Bitanga v. Pyramid Construction 563 SCRA 544 (2008) - For a SUMMARY JUDGMENT to be proper, the movant must establish two REQUISITES: o There must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; o The party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. - If on the basis of the pleadings of a moving party, including documents appended thereto, no genuine issue as to a material fact exists, the burden to produce a genuine issue shifts to the opposing party. o If the opposing party fails, the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment. GENUINE ISSUE: an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. o In summary judgments, the trial court can determine a genuine issue on the basis of the pleadings, admissions, documents, affidavits or counter affidavits submitted by the parties. Asian Construction & Development v. PCI Bank 488 SCRA 192 (2006) - Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. o Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. Ontimare Jr. v. Elep 479 SCRA 257 (2006) - An issue is genuine if it requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. - CASE AT BAR: summary judgment was rendered after the presentation of evidence by both parties in a full blown trial. o The trial courts decision was merely denominated as summary judgment. o But in essence, it is actually equivalent to a judgment on the merits, making the rule on summary judgment inapplicable in this case.

37

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

**Diman v. Alumbres 299 SCRA 459 (1998) No party has a right to an extension of time to comply with an obligation within the period set therefor by law. Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of course; their concession lies in the sound discretion of the Court exercised in accordance with the attendant circumstances. Although the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues of fact, if it is shown by admissions, depositions, or affidavits that those issues are sham, fictitious, or not genuine, the Court shall render a SUMMARY JUDGMENT for the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be. The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for a summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS There is no ostensible issue at all. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Issues apparently exist but those arising from the pleadings are a sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown by admissions, depositions, or admissions. Judgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or admissions. Remedy may be applied for by either a claimant or a defending party.

Judgment on the facts as pleaded. Remedy may only be sought by a claimant (claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, obtain declaratory relief)

Pineda v. Heirs of Guevara 515 SCRA 627 (2007) - **The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment on an action is in order. o The defending party or the claimant, as the case may be, must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion. o The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary judgment and furnished with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted. Bungcayao v. Fort Ilocandia 618 SCRA 381 (2010) Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Velasquez v. CA 309 SCRA 539 (1999) - JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: Movant has the burden of proving the absence of any genuine issue of fact or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently unsubstantial as to not constitute a genuine issue for trial. - SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: Arises out of the facts already established or admitted during the pre-trial held beforehand. Narra Integrated Corp v. CA 344 SCRA 781 (2000) A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, while a SUMMARY JUDGMENT is a judgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. - **Even if the answer does tender issues and therefore a judgment on the pleadings is not proper a summary judgment may still be rendered on the plaintiffs motion if he can show that the issues thus tendered are not genuine, sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, or patently unsubstantial. Trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings even if there is pending before the same court, a third party complaint. *Calubaquib v. Republic 652 SCRA 523 (2011) - A factual issue raised by a party is CONSIDERED AS SHAM when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. - Non-observance of the procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a hearing on the said motion warrants the setting aside of the summary judgment. RULE 36: Judgment, Final Orders, and Entry Thereof ( 1-6) *Acosta v. COMELEC 293 SCRA 578 (1998) - SAFEGUARDS that must be met before any decision can be validly rendered in a case: o The court or tribunal must be clothed with judicial authority to hear and determine the matter before it; o It must have jurisdiction over the person of the party or over the property subject of the controversy; o Parties must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf; and o Such evidence must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the case.

38

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Ting v. Velez-Ting 582 SCRA 694 (2009) - The principle of STARE DECISIS enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. o Based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. It is a bar to relitigate the same issues by reason of economy and stability. The interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted. o It is only when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith. **San Pedro v. Binalay 468 SCRA 47 (2005) See Hacienda Bigaa Inc. v. Chavez - The principle of RES JUDICATA has 2 aspects a) BAR BY FORMER JUDGMENT; and, b) CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT. - BAR BY FORMER JUDGMENT: a bar to the prosecution of a subsequent action based on the same claim or cause of action. o REQUISITES: (a) Final judgment or order; (b) Court has jurisdiction; (c) Judgment on the merits; and (d) Identity of parties, subject matter, & causes of action. - CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT: preclusion to the relitigation of particular issues or facts in another action between the same parties on a different demand or cause of action. o Judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matter in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or judgment was rendered. Rams Studio & Photographic Equipment v. CA 346 SCRA 691 (2000) Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. o Failure to perfect that appeal renders the challenged judgment final and executory. A judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, hence, may no longer be modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest. People v. Escober 157 SCRA 541 (1988) - Every decision of a court of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. - CASE AT BAR: The decision falls short of this standard. The inadequacy stems primarily from the judges tendency to generalize and to form conclusions without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced. Barrera v. Militante 114 SCRA 323 (1982) Trial courts should not issue minute resolutions. Minute resolutions are not sanctioned by our jurisprudence. A trial court should specify in its order the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint so that when the order is appealed, this Court can readily determine from a casual perusal thereof whether there is a prima facie justification for the dismissal. *Smith Bell & Co. v. CA 197 SCRA 201 (1991) - CASE AT BAR: That this Court denied Go Thongs Petition for Review in a minute Resolution did not in any way diminish the legal significance of the denial so decreed by this Court. - The Supreme Court is not compelled to adopt a definite and stringent rule on how its judgment shall be framed. - This Court has discretion to decide whether a minute resolution should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and that a minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for Review on Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits of the controversy or subject matter of the Petition. - A minute Resolution denying a Petition for Review of a Decision of the Court of Appeals can only mean that the Supreme Court agrees with or adopts the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, in other words, that the Decision sought to be reviewed and set aside is correct. Lizardo v. Montana 332 SCRA 163 (2000) - CASE AT BAR: When respondent filed with the trial court an omnibus motion for payment of attorneys fees on January 5, 1996, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the case. o More than 13 years had lapsed after finality of the judgment. (Kapal ng mukha haha) Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case, it retains such jurisdiction until the final termination of the case. The court loses jurisdiction upon the finality of the decision, except to order execution within its lifetime. o A decision becomes final upon the expiration of the period to appeal, which is uniformly fixed at 15 days from notice to the parties, and no appeal is taken therefrom.

39

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Equatorial Realty v. Mayfair Theater 332 SCRA 139 (2000) - It is a fundamental rule that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration, which substantially affects a final and executory judgment, is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. A WRIT OF EXECUTION must conform to the judgment to be executed and adhere strictly to the very essential particulars. o One which varies from the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. **Salvador v. Ortoll 343 SCRA 658 (2000) Well-settled that a JUDICIAL COMPROMISE has the effect of res judicata and is immediately executory and not appealable. o EXCEPTION: When a motion to set aside the same is filed on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, in which event an appeal may be filed from an order denying the same . *De Leon v. CA 383 SCRA 216 (2002) - A SEVERAL JUDGMENT is proper only when the liability of each party is clearly separable and distinct from that of his coparties, such that the claims against each of them could have been the subject of separate suits, and judgment for or against one of them will not necessarily affect the other. - Where a common cause of action exists against the defendants, as in actions against solidary debtors, a several judgment is not proper. - Receipt of notice of this final judgment marks the point when the reglementary period is to begin running. **Manning International Corp v. NLRC 195 SCRA 155 (1991) When a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. o The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land.
o
-

EXCEPTION: (a) Correction of clerical errors; (b) the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (c) where the judgment is void.

The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that has been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth.

Briones-Vasquez v. CA 450 SCRA 482 (2005) - Same doctrine as above case regarding the exceptions to immutability & unalterability of a final judgment. - A nunc pro tunc judgment cannot correct judicial error nor supply nonaction by the court. *Lacurom v. Tienzo 535 SCRA 253 (2007) - The MEMORANDUM DECISION, to be valid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decision is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum decision. o It must provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision. - As an additional condition for its validity, this kind of decision may be resorted only in cases where the facts are in the main accepted by both parties or easily determinable by the judge and there are no doctrinal complications involved that will require an extended discussion of the laws involved. - Memorandum decision may be employed in simple litigations only, such as ordinary collection cases, where the appeal is obviously groundless and deserves no more than the time needed to dismiss it. *Nazareno v. CA 378 SCRA 28 (2002) - A judgment promulgated after the judge who signed the decision has ceased to hold office is not valid and binding. - CASE AT BAR: Judge Icasiano, Jr., in promulgating a decision penned by Judge Diosomito, who has ceased to be a member of the judiciary at the time of the promulgation of the decision. - When a judge retired all his authority to decide any case, i.e., to write, sign and promulgate the decision thereon also retired with him. People v. Escalante 131 SCRA 237 (1984) It is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case to decide it on the basis of the record for the trial judge might have died, resigned, retired, transferred, etc.

40

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

The fact that the Judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment and that for that reason the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.

*Cadano v. Cadano - The validity of a judgment or order of a court cannot be collaterally attacked except: o On the ground of LACK OF JURISDICTION; and o IRREGULARITY OF ITS ENTRY apparent from the face of the record. - If the supposed nullity is based on the partys alleged lack of consent to the compromise agreement, the remedy is to move for its reconsideration and to appeal from the judgment if the motion is denied; or if the judgment is already final and executory, to file a petition for relief. Dela Merced v. GSIS 661 SCRA 83 (2011) - PRINCIPLE OF LAW OF THE CASE: determinations of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. - CASE AT BAR: The prior Decision allowing the execution of the judgment against GSIS is the law of the case and controls the proceedings below which are already in the execution stage. o GSISs attempt to resurrect the same issue by interjecting the same in this proceeding is barred. Pena v. GSIS 502 SCRA 383 (2006) The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, except where it is granted by statute in which case it should be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final, executory and unappealable. Sacdalan v. CA 428 SCRA 586 (2004) - Same doctrine regarding immutability & unalterability of final judgments and the exceptions thereto. RULE 37, 38: New Trial or Reconsideration ( 1-9); Relief from Judgment, Orders, or Other Proceedngs ( 1-7) *Neypes v. CA 496 SCRA 633 (2005) (See case of PCI Leasing & Finance v. Milan @ p 32 for a better discussion) - FRESH PERIOD RULE: it is practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a Notice of Appeal counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. - The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance to law. o It should be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from. - A FINAL ORDER or JUDGMENT is one that finally disposes of a case; an adjudication on the merits. Dacanay v. Alvendia 30 SCRA 31 (1969) MR which in substance is but a reiteration of reasons and arguments previously set forth in respondent's memorandum submitted to the trial court and which the latter had already considered, weighed and resolved adversely to him when it rendered its decision on the merits did not suspend the running of the period of perfecting an appeal because it is pro forma. o Mere citation and/or amplification of authorities not previously brought to the court's attention on the same arguments does not remove the pleading from the ambit of the pro forma doctrine. OMNIBUS MOTION RULE: a motion attacking a plead/proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. **BA Finance Corp. v. Pineda 119 SCRA 493 (1982) Fact that plaintiff filed a motion to strike out defendants motion for reconsideration shows that plaintiff had prior notice of defendants motion. *Different effects of the PRO FORMA RULE: o MR against a FINAL JUDGMENT or ORDER: a repetition of arguments or grounds already sufficiently discussed in prior incidents may properly be categorized as being merely for purposes of delay. [Pro Forma applies] o MR against an INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: reiteration of the ground or argument previously advanced is not necessarily indicative that the movant filed the motion merely for gaining delay. [Pro Forma does not apply] Before filing a certiorari, it is required that a motion for reconsideration of the question order must first be filed, such being considered a speedy and adequate remedy at law which must first be resorted to as a condition precedent for filing of any of such proceedings.

41

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

CASE AT BAR: reiteration of the argument that the respondent Judge committed error in his computation of the period to file an answer after a motion to dismiss shall have been denied becomes a necessity in view of the fact that, although the first motion for reconsideration of the order of default was granted, the Judge subsequently revoked his favorable action thereon. The period for filing a responsive pleading commences to run all over again from the time the defendant receives notice of the denial of his.

Lucas v. Fabros 324 SCRA 1 (2000) *Motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. o This rule, however, applies only where the judgment sought to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. - CASE AT BAR: the order of dismissal issued by respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference is obviously not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case. Hence, a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading as contemplated. Cansino v. CA 409 SCRA 403 (2003) Rules provide that courts have the inherent power to amend their decisions to make them conformable to law and justice. This prerogative, however, is not absolute. o Rules do not contemplate amendments that are substantial in nature. - Courts will violate due process if they make substantial amendments in their decisions without affording the other party the right to contest the new evidence presented in a motion for reconsideration. - Rule 37 requires the motion to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making specific reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence presented or to the provisions of law alleged to be violated. o *A motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence. - **ELEMENTS TO WARRANT A NEW TRIAL FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE o Must be discovered after the trial; o It could not have been discovered or produced at the trial despite reasonable diligence; o It must be material and not merely collateral, cumulative, corroborative, or purely for impeaching a witness, merely important evidence being not enough; and o If presented, it would probably alter the result of the action. *Magno v. CA 107 SCRA 285 (1981) The authority of a Court of First Instance to take cognizance of a suit to annul a final and executory Decision rendered by another Court of First Instance is beyond doubt. o Since the cause of action in an annulment suit is entirely different from the action which gave rise to the judgment sought to be annulled, a direct attack against it being the main object of such proceeding, there is no plausible reason, why the venue of the action to annul the judgment should necessarily follow the venue of the previous action. - EXTRINSIC FRAUD: one which prevents the losing party from defending the action brought against him. Examples: o Keeping the unsuccessful party away from court by a false promise of compromise; o Purposely keeping him in ignorance of the suit; o Attorney fraudulently pretends to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or o Being regularly employed, corruptly sells out his clients interest. Conde v. IAC 144 SCRA 144 (1986) - *CASE AT BAR: records of the appellate court on this case shows that even on the assumption that all the facts alleged in the petition are true, the petition should be dismissed for lack of merit because the fraud allegedly perpetrated by the private respondent in AC-G.R. SP No. 03301 is only intrinsic in nature and not extrinsic. o The fraud was in the nature of documents allegedly manufactured by Gutierrez to make it appear that he was the rightful heir of the disputed property. [INTRINSIC] Salazar v. Salazar 8 SCRA 183 (1907) - CASE AT BAR: it was natural and logical that the Victoriano Salazar believed that the action brought against him by the Cayetana Salazar had been ended by compromise and that he was relieved, from the duty of filing his answer. o Such belief being. excusable and having prevented the plaintiff herein from making a defense that would have been good and efficacious, the judgment by default must be set aside and a new trial ordered. [MISTAKE]

42

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Ayllon v. Sevilla 156 SCRA 257 (1987) - MISTAKE: client is bound by the mistakes and omissions of his counsel, so that if an appeal is lost through the unjustified neglect of counsel, as happened in the instant case, that loss is binding upon the client. o CASE AT BAR: Petitioner's counsel ignored compliance with the requirement of filing a record on appeal, hence, there is no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing petitioner's appeal. *National Shipyards & Steel Corp. (NASSCo) v. Asuncion 103 Phil. 67 (1958) - CASE AT BAR: NASSCo was ordered to pay Asuncion compensation, fees, and costs. Thereafter, it filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence that Asuncion had already contracted tuberculosis before he became an employee of NASSCo. o The newly discovered evidence was ignored. Hence, NASSCo appealed by certiorari. - RULING: Assuncion underwent pre-employment physical exams prescribed by NASSCo who found the former to be physically fit. o Such newly discovered evidence could have been produced at the trial if the petitioner had exercised due diligence, because claimant's records had always been in petitioner's possession. o With full opportunity and adequate means of checking the petitioner cannot now have any reason either to complain about or to reopen the matter. *Uy v. First Metro Integrated Steel Corp. 503 SCRA 704 (2006) - *EXCLUSABLE NEGLIGENCE: one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. - CASE AT BAR: court scheduled the hearing for the reception of petitioners evidence seven times. o Scrutiny of the records discloses that the hearings were postponed or cancelled without any justification. However, the trial court accommodated the requests for postponement or resetting in order to accord petitioner due process. o Under the circumstances, petitioners counsels failure to attend the seven scheduled hearings without justifiable reason tantamount to inexcusable neglect. Hence, it cannot be a ground for a new trial. - **Motions for new trial founded on F.A.M.E. must be accompanied by AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS. o Affidavits showing the facts (not mere conclusions or opinions) constituting the valid cause of action or defense which the movant may prove in case a new trial is granted, because a new trial would serve no purpose and would just waste the time of the court as well as the parties if the complaint is after all groundless or the defense is nil or ineffective. [MUST SHOW MERITORIOUS DEFENSE] - CASE AT BAR: The allegations that he has a meritorious defense and a good cause are mere conclusions which did not provide the court with any basis for determining the nature and merit of the case. - Gross negligence is not one of the grounds for a motion for new trial. - Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. Amil v. CA 316 SCRA 317 (1999) - GENERAL RULE: A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. o If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned. - **EXCEPTION: the negligence of the latter is so gross that the former was deprived of his day in court, as a result of which he is deprived of property without due process of law. - Trial courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default and granting motions for new trial if the defendant appears to have a meritorious defense. Ganaban v. Bayle 30 SCRA 365 (1969) Verification and affidavit of merits are not required by the Rules except when the motion for reconsideration is based either upon F.A.M.E.
*Vda. De Sayman v. CA 120 SCRA 676 (1983)

By filing the PETITION FOR RELIEF, it is assumed that the judgment in the main case had already become final and executory. o In effect, it is a 2nd opportunity for an aggrieved party to ask for a new trial. An appeal is allowed from the denial of a petition for relief. o In the course of such appeal, a party may also assail judgment on the merits, upon the ground that it is not supported by the evidence or it is contrary to law. In an appeal from the denial of a petition for relief the RECORDS ON APPEAL of both the main case and a related petition for review must be elevated to the CA to avoid delay. Otherwise, in its discretion, the court can dismiss the appeal.

43

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Servicewide Specialists Inc. v. Sheriff of Manila 145 SCRA 139 (1986) - Petition for relief should be filed in the same case and in the same branch of the court which rendered the judgrnent from which relief was sought. - *Unless a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued , execution of the judgment shall proceed even if the order denying the petition for relief is pending on appeal. o Said writ may be sought either in the trial or appellate courts. - The judge who rendered the judgment is not a party in a petition for relief from said judgment. o It is not like a petition for certiorari wherein the judge is made a party respondent because he is alleged to have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. - In a petition for relief from judgment, the petitioner claims that due to extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he has been unjustly deprived of a hearing or has been prevented from taking an appeal. To stay execution of a final and executory judgment, a writ of preliminary injunction must be obtained. - *A judgment or order DENYING RELIEF is final and appealable. - *An order GRANTING RELIEF is interlocutory. If the petition for relief is against an order disallowing an appeal for having been filed out of time and the petition is denied or dismissed, in the appeal from the denial or dismissal the appellate court must also be apprised of the merit of the case of the party who assails such denial or dismissal. o If the appellate court finds a justifiable ground and a meritorious case, it will reverse the denial or dismissal and allow the appeal from the decision in the main case. *Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Ortiz 150 SCRA 380 (1987) Service of notices, pleadings, motions and other papers, to be valid and efficacious, shall be made on the party's attorney of record and not on the party himself, unless the court shall otherwise direct. Where a motion for new trial on the ground of F.A.M.E. is unaccompanied by either or both affidavits, the motion is pro forma or a scrap of paper, and will not interrupt the running of the period of appeal. CASE AT BAR: But wherethe motion for new trial is founded not only on fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, but also on the ground of award of excessive damages, as to which no affidavit of fraud, etc., or of merits is required, what being required of the movant being to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment demonstrating the invoked ground, the motion cannot be denied as pro forma. SKIPPED APPEALS FOR NOW. Do it when you have time. RULE 57: Preliminary Attachment Peregrina v. Panis 133 SCRA 72 (1984) *Fundamentally, a Writ of Attachment is not available in a suit for damages where the amount, including moral damages, is contingent or unliquidated. *Carpio v. Macadaeg 9 SCRA 552 (1963) - Mere removal or disposal of property, by itself, is not ground for issuance of preliminary attachment, notwithstanding absence of any security for the satisfaction of any judgment against the defendant. o It must have been made with intent to defraud creditors. o A hearing on the issue of fraudulent disposal is necessary. *Adlawan v. Torres 233 SCRA 645 (1994) The factual basis on defendants intent to defraud must be clearly alleged in the affidavit in support of the prayer for the writ of attachment if not so specifically alleged in the verified complaint. - The AFFIDAVIT is the foundation of the writ. o Bare allegation that an encumbrance of a property is in fraud of the creditor does not suffice. o Factual bases for such conclusion must be clearly averred. o A writ of attachment can only be granted on concrete and specific grounds and not on general averment quoting perfunctorily the words of the Rules. - Inability to pay ones creditors is not necessarily synonymous with fraudulent intent not to honor an obligation. - A writ of attachment is substantially a writ of execution except that it emanates at the beginning, instead of at the termination of the suit. Aboitiz & Co. v. Cotabato Bus Co. 105 SCRA 88 (1981) - INSOLVENCY is not a proper ground for issuance of a writ of attachment.

44

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Filinvest Credit Corp. v. Relova 117 SCRA 420 (1982) - A writ of attachment may be issued ex parte. - An applicant for an order of attachment shall is required to file a affidavit and a bond. - *AFFIDAVIT should show that: o There is a sufficient cause of action; o Covers cases covered under 1; o No other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced; and o Amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. *A writ of attachment may be discharged without the necessity of filing the cash deposit or counter-bond. A hearing must be conducted by the judge for the purpose of determining whether or not there really was a defect in the issuance of the attachment. o Where a petition to dissolve the writ of attachment is applied for, the attaching creditor must prove that the attachment was not irregularly issued. *Davao Light & Power Co. v. CA 204 SCRA 343 (1991) Compare with Onate v. Abrogar 241 SCRA 659 below - Preliminary attachment may be VALIDLY APPLIED for and GRANTED before defendant is summoned or is heard from. AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION refers to the date of the filing of the complaint. - After an action is properly commenced by the filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may do so at any time, either before or after service of summons on the defendant. **Onate v. Abrogar 241 SCRA 659 (1995) Judge said take not of this. - The writ cannot bind and affect the defendant until jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained. - Therefore, it is required that when the proper officer commences IMPLEMENTATION of the writ of attachment, service of summons should be simultaneously made. - At the very least, then, the writ of attachment must be served simultaneously with the service of summons before the writ may be enforced. Otherwise, the levy would be void. o To authorize the attachment of property even before jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through the service of summons or his voluntary appearance could lead to abuse. - The Rules allow the defendant to move to discharge the attachment even before any attachment is actually levied upon. - Proceedings for the issuance of a writ of attachment are generally ex parte. o However, it is not notice to defendant that is sought to be avoided but the time which such hearing would take because of the possibility that defendant may delay the hearing to be able to dispose of his properties. - There may in fact be a need for a hearing before the writ is issued as where the issue of fraudulent disposal of property is raised. **Mangila v. CA 387 SCRA 162 (2002) Judge said take note of this. - Distinction should be made between issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired to validly implement the writ. - Party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies. o The reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues. - **THREE STAGES IN GRANTING THE PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT: o Court issues the order granting the application; o Writ of Attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and o Implementation of the writ. - *For the INITIAL TWO STAGES, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. - *Once the IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WRIT COMMENCES, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. o An alias summons belatedly served on a defendant cannot be deemed to cure the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment. *Uy v. CA 191 SCRA 275 (1990) - Levy by the sheriff of a property by virtue of a writ of attachment may be considered as made under the authority of the court only when the property levied upon belongs to the defendant. o If he attaches properties other than those of the defendant, he acts beyond the limits of his authority. - Attachment & sale of properties belonging to a third person is void because such properties cannot be attached and sold at public auction to enforce a judgment against the judgment debtor.

45

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

**Motion to quash or discharge the questioned attachment in the court a quo is in effect a motion for reconsideration which cured any defect of absence of notice.

**Calderon v. IAC 155 SCRA 531 (1987) - GENERAL RULE: Liability on the attachment bond is limited to actual damages. - EXCEPTION: Moral and exemplary damages may be recovered where the attachment was alleged to be maliciously sued out and established to be so. - CASE AT BAR: Applicant for a writ who fails to appear in court to support his charge of misappropriation and, in effect, prevented his being cross-examined, indicates bad faith. - While Rules provide that upon the filing of a counterbond, the attachment is discharged or dissolved, nowhere is it provided that the attachment bond is rendered void and ineffective upon the filing of counterbond. - Upon the dismissal of an attachment wrongfully issued, the surety is liable for damages as a direct result of the attachment. - TWO WAYS WHEN ATTACHMENT CAN BE DISCHARGED: o By filing a counterbond (speedier way); or o Showing that order of attachment was improperly or irregularly issued. - Atachment debtor canot be deemed to have waived any defect in the issuance of the attachment writ. **NBI v. Tuliao 270 SCRA 351 (1997) Judge referred to this - A sheriffs act of leaving personal property in the possession and control of the creditor does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. - *Where a court has no storage facility to house a property attached, the sheriff should deposit such property in a BONDED WAREHOUSE. - *The attaching creditor was not authorized to have possession of the attached property. - *When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. o He is supposed to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. [MINISTERIAL DUTY] o If he fails to comply, he is liable to the person in whose favor the process or writ runs. Escovilla v. CA 179 SCRA 189 (1989) - The court issuing a writ of execution is supposed to enforce its authority only over properties of the judgment debtor. - If a third party claim is filed, the sheriff is not bound to proceed with the levy of the property unless he is given by the judgment creditor an indemnity bond against the claim. o By doing so, the judgment creditor assumes the direction and control of the sheriffs action; so far as it might constitute a trespass and thus he becomes, to that extent, the principal and the sheriff, his agent. *Fort Bonifacio Dev. Corp v. Yllas Lending 567 SCRA 454 (2008) - The timing of the filing of the third party claim is important because the TIMING determines the remedies that a third party is allowed to file. - A third party claimant under 16 of Rule 39 may vindicate his claim to the property in a separate action, because intervention is no longer allowed as judgment has already been rendered. - A third party claimant under 14 of Rule 57, on the other hand, may vindicate his claim to the property by intervention because he has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. - Under 14 of Rule 57, the purpose of the bond is to indemnify the sheriff against any claim by the intervenor to the property seized or for damages arising from such seizure, which the sheriff was making and for which the sheriff was directly responsible to the third party. - 3, on the other hand, refers to the ATTACHMENT BOND to assure the return of defendants personal property or the payment of damages to the defendant if the plaintiffs action to recover possession of the same property fails in order to protect the plaintiffs right of possession of said property, or prevent the defendant from destroying the same during the pendency of the suit . Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. v. Hontanosas 78 SCRA 447 (1977) Claim for damages against a bond in an alleged wrongful attachment can only be prosecuted in the same court where the bond was filed and the attachment issued.

46

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Magaling v. Ong 562 SCRA 152 (2008) - The chief purpose of the remedy of attachment is to secure a contingent lien on defendants property until plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have such property applied to its satisfaction, or to make some provision for unsecured debts in cases where the means of satisfaction thereof are liable to be removed beyond the jurisdiction, or improperly disposed of or concealed, or otherwise placed beyond the reach of creditors. Consolidated Bank v. IAC 150 SCRA 591 (1987) - Property levied and attached pursuant to a writ of attachment annotated in the books of the Register of Deeds is in custodia legis. - When a writ of attachment has been levied on real property or any interest therein belonging to the judgment debtor, the levy thus effected creates a lien which nothing can destroy but its dissolution. - *An attaching creditor may succeed to the incidental rights to which the debtor was entitled by reason of his ownership of the property. o Attaching creditor acquires the right of redemption of debtors attached properties subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by third parties. *Carlos v. Sandoval 471 SCRA 266 (2005) - Rules require that there be a PROPER HEARING before the application for damages on the attachment bond may be granted. o No judgment for damages may be entered and executed against the surety without giving it an opportunity to be heard as to the reality or reasonableness of the damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of the writ. - It was neither mandatory nor fatal that there should be a separate hearing in order that damages upon the bond can be claimed, ascertained, and awarded. o WHAT IS NECESSARY only is for the attaching party and his surety or sureties to be duly notified and given the opportunity to be heard. o There is no express requirement under the rule that the hearing be done in open court, or that the parties be allowed to confront adverse witnesses to the claim of damages on the bond. - There MUST BE A HEARING with the burden of proof to sustain the writ being on the attaching creditor. - *Even a PARTY WHO LOSES THE ACTION IN MAIN but is able to establish a right to damages by reason of improper, irregular or excessive attachment may be entitled to damages. The bond issued upon an application for preliminary attachment answers for all damages, incurred at whatever stage, which are sustained by reason of the attachment. o INTEREST should start to accrue only from the moment it had been finally determined that the attachment was unlawful since it is on that basis that the right to damages comes to existence. - *Under 20, the application for damages on the attachment bond cannot be independently set up, but must be filed in the main case, before the judgment therein becomes final and executory. - *Application for judgment on the attachment bond cannot be considered as an initiatory pleading as it cannot be independently set up from the main action. Likewise, it is not chargeable with legal fees. Yu v. Ngo Yet Te 514 SCRA 423 (2007) - If the surety was not given notice when the claim for damages against the principal in the replevin bond was heard, then as a matter of procedural due process the surety is entitled to be heard when the judgment for damages against the principal is sought to be enforced against the suretys replevin bond. - *Wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant. o The defendant must first discharge the burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of the wrongful attachment. o Must prove with the best evidence obtainable the fact of loss or injury suffered and the amount thereof. - *As to MORAL and EXEMPLARY damages, to merit an award thereof, it must be shown that the wrongful attachment was obtained by the attachment plaintiff with malice or bad faith. Leelin Marketing v. C & S Agro 121 SCRA 725 (1983) - It is the claim for damages on account of illegal attachment that may be awarded only after proper hearing and which shall be included in the final judgment. o That claim must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching creditor and his surety. - In order that the judgment creditor may recover from the surety on the counterbond, it is necessary: o Execution be first issued against the principal debtor and that such execution was returned unsatisfied in whole or in part;

47

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

o o

Creditor made a demand upon the surety for the satisfaction of the judgment; and Surety be given notice and a summary hearing in the same action as to his liability for the judgment under his counterbond.

RULE 58: Preliminary Injunction *Estares v. CA 459 SCRA 604 (2005) - Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of substantive rights or interests. o It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. - PURPOSE: So that the court may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. - EXTREME REMEDY: Resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation. - *TO BE ENTITLED; WHAT MUST BE ESTABLISHED: o Existence of their right to be protected; and o That the ACTS against which the injunction is to be directed ARE VIOLATIVE OF SUCH RIGHT. - EVIDENCE: The assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination. o A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. o DUE PROCESS is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of ones defense.
Mabayo Farms v. CA 386 SCRA 110 (2002)
-

As an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary injunction may therefore be resorted to by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. o It aint a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. *OBJECTIVE: To preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. CASE AT BAR: A person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued. o He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger. The grant of a preliminary mandatory injunction rests on the sound discretion of the court. o The exercise of sound judicial discretion by the lower court should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse. The absence of a showing that petitioners have an urgent and paramount need for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to prevent irreparable damage, they are not entitled to such writ. A court should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which would effectively dispose of the main case without trial. **Since a PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION commands the performance of an act, it does not preserve the status quo and is thus more cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive injunction. o Accordingly, the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute.

*China Banking Corp. v. Co 565 SCRA 600 (2008)

*Light Rail Transit Authority v. CA 444 SCRA 125 (2004) The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. - REQUISITES: o A right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; o A violation of that right; and o That there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. - **An injunction issued AFTER a contract had already expired and which ordered a contracting party to refrain from terminating the contract, in effect, VIRTUALLY EXTENDED THE ORIGINAL PERIOD agreed upon by the parties. o CASE AT BAR: Respondent, therefore, has no clear and unmistakable right to be protected by the issuance of the writ. o A contract can be renewed, revived or extended only by mutual consent of the parties.

48

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Bacolod City Water District v. Hon. Labayen 446 SCRA 110 (2004) - INJUNCTION: A judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. o **It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action. - The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. o In an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. o The main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. - *A RESTRAINING ORDER is issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction which cannot be issued ex parte. o Under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary restraining order with a limited life of 20 days from date of issue. o If before the expiration of the 20-day period the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary restraining order would be deemed automatically vacated. o If no action is taken by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the said 20 days, the temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. - *The 20-DAY PERIOD provided by the Rules of Court should be deemed incorporated in the Order where there is an omission to do so. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando v. Soriano do this shit later Medina v. Hon. Canoy 666 SCRA 424 (2012) - *An injunction cannot be issued to transfer possession or control of a property to another when the legal title is in dispute between the parties and the legal title has not been clearly established. Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. CA 162 SCRA 165 (1988) - Grant or refusal to issue writ of preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the court. - Courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which in effect disposes of the main case without trial. o This is precisely the effect of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the respondent appellate court. Having granted through a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction the main prayer of the complaint, there is practically nothing left for the trial court to try except the plaintiffs claim for damages. Merville Park Homeowners Association v. Velez 196 SCRA 189 (1991) - *PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION is not a proper remedy to take property, possession of which is being disputed, out of the possession and control of one party and to deliver the same to the other party. o It may issue pendente lite only in cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the possession, during the pendency of the main case, of the property involved is very clear. o Where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the possession of pendente lite; o Where there was wilful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs rights, over his protest; o It is for the party requesting the writ to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the above grounds. Buyco v. Baraquia 608 SCRA 699 (2009) - The writ of preliminary injunction is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action. - *Writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted where the case in which it had been issued had been heard and found dismissible, as it was in fact dismissed. - A dismissal, discontinuance, or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction, regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired.

49

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Heirs of J.B.L Reyes v. CA 338 SCRA 282 (2000) - Any member of the Court of Appeals may issue preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. o *Said power is exercised only in case of extreme urgency, and in the tradition of the Supreme Court, the Court en banc or division ratifies or confirms the act of the single justice at the very next session of the Court. PNB v. Ritratto Group, Inc. 362 SCRA 216 (2001) - Dismissal of the principal action thus results in the denial of the prayer for the issuance of the writ. - An injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. **Brocka v. Enrile 192 SCRA 183 (1990) - GENERAL RULE: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. - EXCEPTIONS: o To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; o When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; o When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice; o Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; o Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; o Double jeopardy is clearly apparent; o Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; o Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and o There is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. - CASE AT BAR: Criminal prosecution may be stopped if preliminary investigation conducted hastily. *Medina v. Greenfield Development Corp. 443 SCRA 150 (2004) - Where the complainants right or title is DOUBTFUL or DISPUTED, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction. o CASE AT BAR: petitioners failed to discharge the burden of clearly showing a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. China Banking Corp. v. CA 265 SCRA 327 (1996) - Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. - CASE AT BAR: We fail to see any reason why the foreclosure of the mortgages should be enjoined. On the face of the clear admission by private respondents that they were unable to settle their obligations which were secured by the mortgages, petitioners have a clear right to foreclose the mortgages which is a remedy provided by law. Hutchison Ports Philippines Ltd. v. SBMA 339 SCRA 434 (2000) - REQUISITES: o First. That the petitioner/applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right. o Second. That there is a material and substantial invasion of such right. o Third. That there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. 516 SCRA 231 (2007) - The grant of a preliminary injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court with the caveat that it should be made with great caution. o Rests upon an alleged existence of an emergency or of a special reason for such a writ before the case can be regularly tried. - In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified. Director of Bureau of Telecommunications v. Aligaen 33 SCRA 368 (1970) - To establish the essential requisites for a preliminary injunction, the evidence to be submitted by the plaintiff need not be conclusive and complete.

50

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Aquino v. Socorro 35 SCRA 373 (1970) - Malice or lack of good faith is not an element of recovery on the bond. - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION and LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE are essential requisites in order that damages can be awarded. Zuno v. Cabredo 402 SCRA 75 (2003) - The collection of duties and taxes due on the seized goods is not the only reason why trial courts are enjoined from issuing orders releasing imported articles under seizure and forfeiture proceedings by the Bureau of Customs. o The issuance of TROs and the granting of writs of preliminary injunction in seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of Customs may arouse suspicion that the issuance or grant was for considerations other than the strict merits of the case. *Filipino Metals Corp. v. Sec. of DTI 463 SCRA 616 (2005) - No court is allowed to grant injunction to restrain the collection of any internal revenue tax. - A law need not be declared unconstitutional first before a preliminary injunction against its enforcement may be granted. RULE 59: Receivership *Normandy v. Duque 29 SCRA 385 (1969) - A receiver is a representative of the court appointed for the purpose of preserving and conserving the property in litigation and prevent its possible destruction or dissipation, if it were left in the possession of any of the parties. - The receiver is not the representative of any of the parties but of all of them to the end that their interests may be equally protected with the least possible inconvenience and expense. o He should act at all times with the diligence and prudence of a good father of a family but should also not incur any obligation or expenditure without leave of the court. - It is the responsibility of the court to supervise the receiver and see to it that he adheres to the above standard of his trust and limits the expenses of the receivership to the minimum. *Commodities Storage & Ice Plant Corp. v. CA 274 SCRA 439 (1997) - RECEIVER: A person appointed by the court in behalf of all the parties to the action for the purpose of preserving and conserving the property in litigation and prevent its possible destruction or dissipation, if it were left in the possession of any of the parties. - Appointment of a receiver is not a matter of absolute right. It depends upon the sound discretion of the court and is based on facts and circumstances of each particular case. - The GUIDING PRINCIPLE in the appointment of a receiver is the prevention of imminent danger to the property. o If an action by its nature, does not require such protection or preservation, said remedy cannot be applied for and granted. - *REQUISITES FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER (what must appear in the pleadings): o Actual interest in the property subject to the action; and o (a) Property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured; or (b) When it appears to be most convenient and feasible means of preserving or administering property in litigation. - General rule is that neither party to a litigation should be appointed as receiver without the consent of the other because a receiver should be a person indifferent to the parties and should be impartial and disinterested. o A receiver is not the representative of any of the parties but of all of them to the end that their interests may be equally protected with the least possible inconvenience and expense. o The power to appoint a receiver must be exercised with extreme caution. - The question of venue relates to the principal action and is prejudicial to the ancillary issue of receivership. Delos Reyes v. Bayona 107 SCRA 449 (1960) - Transfer of property to a receiver is not favourable when the other party would be obtaining indirectly what he could not obtain directly; namely, deprive the former of the possession of the property until the controversy between them is finally settled. National Investment & Development Corp. v. Aquino 163 SCRA 153 (1988) - A receiver of real or personal property, which is the subject of the action, may be appointed by the court when it appears from the pleadings that the party applying for the appointment of receiver has an interest in said property. - The prevention of imminent danger to property is the guiding principle that governs courts in the matter of appointing receivers.

51

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

It is necessary in granting the relief of receivership that the property or fund be in danger of loss, removal or material injury. Evidence regarding this must be presented.

Dolar v. Sundiam 38 SCRA 616 (1971) - ORDINARILY, a receiver cannot be put on property which is already in custody of the law under process from another court of competent jurisdiction; and there cannot be more than one receiver over the same property. - A court of equity has power to appoint a receiver of property which is already in the hand of an executor or administrator, but such power should be exercised with caution. - A receiver will be appointed when the executor or administrator has been guilty of misconduct, waste, or misuse of assets, and there is real danger of loss. - A receiver will not be appointed to take assets from the custody of an executor or administrator unless there is manifest danger of loss or destruction of, or material injury to, the assets. *Traders Royal Bank v. IAC 273 SCRA 521 (1997) - When the services of a receiver who has been properly appointed terminates, his COMPENSATION is to be charged against the defeated party, or the prevailing litigant may be made to share the expense, as justice requires. RULE 60: Replevin *Yang v. Valdez 177 SCRA 141 (1989) - BOND: An obligation reduced to writing binding the obligor to pay a sum of money to the obligee under specified conditions. - A BOND that is required to be given by law is commonly understood to refer to an obligation or undertaking in writing that is sufficiently secured. - It is not indispensably necessary, however, that the obligation of the bond be secured or supported by cash or personal property or real property or the obligation of a surety other than the person giving the bond. - The provisional remedy of replevin is in the nature of a POSSESSORY ACTION and the applicant who seeks immediate possession of the property involved need not be holder of the legal title to the property. o It is sufficient that he is entitled to the possession thereof at the time of application. - Failure of a replevin bond to state expressly that it was conditioned for the return of the property to the defendant if the return thereof be adjudged is not fatal to the validity of such replevin bond. *Filinvest Credit Corp. v. CA 248 SCRA 549 (1995) - CASE AT BAR: Filinvest is liable for damages not because it commenced an action for replevin to recover possession of the truck prior to its foreclosure, but because of the manner it carried out the seizure of the vehicle. o It was not the sheriff or any other proper officer of the trial court who implemented the writ of replevin. o It used its own employees who misrepresented themselves as deputy sheriffs to seize the truck without having been authorized by the court. - Replevin is the appropriate action to recover possession preliminary to the extrajudicial foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. - It is not only the owner who can institute a replevin suit a person entitled to the possession of the property also can. Adoma v. Gatcheco 448 SCRA 299 (2005) - Acts of a sheriff in accepting and soliciting monetary considerations in the execution of a writ make him liable not only for conduct unbecoming a court employee but also for grave misconduct and dishonesty. - Where the adverse party did not object to the complainants bond nor posted a redelivery bond to recover possession of the vehicle taken under the writ of replevin, respondent sheriff is under obligation to deliver the van to complainant. *Paat v. CA 266 SCRA 167 (1997) - A party cannot, without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, seek courts intervention by filing an action for replevin for the grant of their relief during the pendency of an administrative proceeding. Citibank v. CA 304 SCRA 679 (1999) - *There is substantial compliance with the rule requiring that an affidavit of merit support the complaint for replevin if the complaint itself contains a statement of every fact required to be stated in the affidavit of merit and the complaint is verified like an affidavit. [THIS ALSO APPLIES TO APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT UNDER RULE 57] - FACTS SET FORTH IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT: o Plaintiff owns the property or that he is entitled to its possession and particularly describing the same; o Wrongful detention by defendant of said property; o Property is not taken by virtue of a tax assessment or fine pursuant to law or seized under execution or attachment or, if it is so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure; and

52

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

o Actual value of the property. Pertinent rules require that the affidavit of merit should state the ACTUAL VALUE of the property subject of a replevin suit and not just its probable value. A REPLEVIN BOND is intended to indemnify the defendant against any loss that he may suffer by reason of its being compelled to surrender the possession of the disputed property pending trial of the action.

Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank 316 SCRA 326 (1999) - A writ of replevin may be served anywhere in the Philippines. RULE 61: Support Pendente Lite *Reyes v. Ines-Luciano 88 SCRA 803 (1979) - The ADULTERY of the wife is a defense in an action for support. o It is a good defense and if properly proved and sustained will defeat the action. o However, the alleged adultery of the wife must be established by competent evidence. o Mere allegation that the wife has committed adultery will not bar her from the right to receive support pendente lite. - FACTORS CONSIDERED IN AWARDING SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE: o It is not necessary to go fully into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly resolve the application in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be entered. o *Mere affidavits may satisfy the court as well as other documentary evidence appearing on the record. Lam v. Chua 426 SCRA 29 (2004) - *A judgment for support does not become final. - During the entire period that a needy party is entitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. - It is incumbent upon the trial court to base its award of support on the evidence presented before it. o Evidence must prove the capacity or resources of both parents. (Monthly expenses for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation of the child. CLASS NOTES: See Becket Case (2013): Custody cases, like support, do not obtain finality. - Rules can be disregarded for the best interests of the child

RULE 62: Interpleader *Ocampo v. Tirona 455 SCRA 62 (2005) - An ACTION FOR INTERPLEADER is proper when the lessee does not know the person to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property. o It is a remedy whereby a person who has property whether personal or real, in his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both, or claims an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the conflicting claimants, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said property or who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate among themselves, in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. o The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against a double liability but to protect him against a double vexation in respect of one liability. - When the court orders that the claimants litigate among themselves, there arises in reality a new action and the former are styled interpleaders. o The pleading which initiates the action is called a complaint of interpleader and not a cross-complaint. **Wack Wack Golf & Country Club v. Won 70 SCRA 165 (1976) - Stakeholder should file action of interpleader within reasonable time after dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by claimants. o Otherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. - However, where he acts with reasonable diligence in view of the environmental circumstances, the remedy is not barred. - A stakeholders action of interpleader is TOO LATE when filed after judgment has been rendered against him in favor of one of the contending claimants, especially where he had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the suit where judgment was entered. - If a stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the adverse claimants and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he cannot later on have that part of the litigation repeated in an interpleader suit.

53

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Party who files action of interpleader should show that he has not been made independently liable to any of the claimants. A successful litigant cannot later be impleaded by his defeated adversary in action of interpleader and compelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants.

RULE 63: Declaratory Relief Department of Budget and Management v. Manilas Finest Retirees Assoc 523 SCRA 90 (2007) - There is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed, or contract subject of the complaint. - **A special civil action is after all not essentially different from an ordinary civil action except that the former deals with a special subject matter which makes necessary some special regulation. o The same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil actions. Tano v. Socrates 278 SCRA 154 (1997) - *The Supreme Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved. o Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such petitions. **Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation 556 SCRA 663 (2008) - PURPOSE OF THE ACTION: To secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc. for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach. o It may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it refers. - Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. Singson v. Republic 22 SCRA 353 (1968) - There can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Dela Llana v. COMELEC 80 SCRA 525 (1977) - The power to determine when a referendum should be called and what matter is important for referral to the people, resides the political branch of the Government. Velasco v. Villegas 120 SCRA 569 (1983) RULE 64: Review of Judgments & Final Orders or Resolutions of COMELEC & COA No cases here RULE 65: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus CERTIORARI Balba v. Peak Development Inc. 466 SCRA 604 (2005) - **It is sometimes necessary to delve into FACTUAL ISSUES in order to resolve allegations of grave abuse of discretion as a ground for the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition. o CASE AT BAR: The conflicting views of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on the factual issues or the insufficiency of the evidence supporting the respective allegations of the parties, warranted the review thereof by the CA, at the very least to determine the existence of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. **New Frontier Sugar Corporation v. RTC of Iloilo 513 SCRA 601 (2007) - Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. - Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment or where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy. o It should be filed not later than 60 days from the notice of judgment, order, or resolution, and a motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Camutin v. Potente 577 SCRA 151 (2009) - Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

54

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Bugarin v. Palisoc 476 SCRA 587 (2005) - *The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is that there should be no appeal. - Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. o Thus, the filing of the petition did not prevent the RTC decision from becoming final and executory. Lalican v. Vergara 276 SCRA 518 (1997) - *Certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that: o There is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty; or o To virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or o To act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. - GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION: a capricious and whimsical exercise of power. - Where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, its questioned acts would at most constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. o Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and NOT to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions. - *Certiorari is not the proper remedy where a motion to quash an information is denied. o The appropriate recourse is to proceed to trial and in case of conviction, to appeal such conviction, as well as the denial of the motion to quash. - *The remedies of APPEAL and CERTIORARI are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. - An interlocutory order may be assailed by certiorari or prohibition only when it is shown that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. o Court generally frowns upon this remedial measure as regards interlocutory orders. o To tolerate the practice of allowing interlocutory orders to be the subject of review by certiorari would not only delay the administration of justice but also would unduly burden the courts. Dillena v. CA 163 SCRA 630 (1988) - *CASE AT BAR: The petition for certiorari which was belatedly filed by petitioner before the Court of Appeals on February 20,1986 should have been dismissed outright because the remedy of certiorari does not lie where appeal has been lost. o Certiorari cannot take the place of an appeal. Indiana Aerospace University v. CHED 356 SCRA 367 (2001) - In computing the TIMELINESS OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, what should be considered is not the receipt of the Order denying the Motion to Dismiss and issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction but receipt of the Order declaring the petitioner in default. - *GENERAL RULE is that, in order to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself , a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to certiorari. o Also basic that a petitioner must exhaust all other available remedies before resorting to certiorari. - **EXCEPTIONS: o The issues raised are purely legal in nature; o Public interest is involved; o Extreme urgency is obvious; or o Special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. - CASE AT Bar: The regulation or administration of educational institutions, especially on the tertiary level, is invested with public interest. o Hence, the haste with which the solicitor general raised these issues before the appellate court is understandable. - An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and so the proper remedy in such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. - A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling; it is resorted to only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. San Pedro v. CA 235 SCRA 145 (1994) - *In a petition for certiorari, the court must CONFINE ITSELF TO THE ISSUE of whether or not the respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion.

55

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

CASE AT BAR: The question of whether or not the action for unlawful detainer was the proper remedy of the private respondent should be addressed in that appeal, not in this certiorari proceeding. Equitable PCI Bank v. Ng Sheung Ngor 541 SCRA 223 (2007) - *2 SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENTS IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI: o The tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of his or its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and o That there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. - Petitioner must show that the public respondent patently and grossly abused his discretion and that abuse amounted to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. **Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Escolin 56 SCRA 265 (1974) - In determining whether or not a special civil action of certiorari or prohibition may be resorted to in lieu of appeal, it is not enough that the remedy of appeal exists or is possible. o It is indispensable that taking all the relevant circumstances of the given case, appeal would better serve the interests of justice. o The longer delay, augmented expense, and trouble and unnecessary repetition of the same work attendant to the present multiple appeals, which, after all, deal with practically the same basic issues that can be more expeditiously resolved or determined in a single special civil action, make the remedies of certiorari and prohibition preferable for purposes of resolving the common basic issues raised in all of them, despite the conceded availability of appeal. Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. 516 SCRA 231 (2007) - GENERAL RULE is that before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the petitioner is mandated to comply with a condition precedent: the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order, and the subsequent denial of the court a quo. - EXCEPTIONS: o Order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; o Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; o There is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; o Where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; o Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; o In a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; o Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; o Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and o Issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. Matute v. CA 28 SCRA 768 (1969) - While as a matter of policy a motion for reconsideration in the lower court has often been considered a condition sine qua non for the granting of a writ of certiorari, this rule does not apply where the proceeding in which the error occurred is a patent nullity. - Petition for certiorari is not a substitute for the remedy of appeal. Yau v. Manila Banking Corp. 384 SCRA 340 (2002) - General Rule: Motion for Reconsideration as a condition precedent. But there are exceptions ( See Nisce case) Barrazona v. RTC Baguio 486 SCRA 555 (2006) - The writ of certiorari is granted to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

56

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

**San Miguel Corp v. Layoc 537 SCRA 77 (2007) APPEAL BY CERTIORARI (RULE 45) Based on questions of law which the appellant desires the appellate court to resolve. Involves the review of the judgment, award or final order on the merits. Made within the reglementary period for appeal. Stays the judgment, award or order appealed from. ORIGINAL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI (RULE 65) Raises the issue as to whether the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. May be directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the judgment or where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy May be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. Does not stay the challenged proceeding unless a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order shall have been issued. Parties are the aggrieved party against the lower court or quasijudicial agency and the prevailing parties, who thereby respectively become the petitioner and respondents. Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent subject to certain exceptions. Higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts.

Petitioner and respondent are the original parties to the action, and the lower court or quasi-judicial agency is not to be impleaded. Prior filing of a motion for reconsideration is not required. Appellate court is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power of review.

Macabangkil v. Peoples Homesite & Housing Corporation 72 SCRA 326 (1976) - The office of the writ of certiorari has been reduced to the correction of defects in jurisdiction solely and cannot legally be used for any other purpose. Paa v. CA 282 SCRA 448 (1997) - The mode of appeal from a decision of the Civil Service Commission to bring it within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review. - A special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. PROHIBITION *David v. Rivera 420 SCRA 90 (2004) - PROHIBITION is the proper remedy to afford relief against o Usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court; or o When in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law; or o Where there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained. - PURPOSE: To keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels. - The right to prohibition is defeated by the adequacy of a remedy by appeal. o It may accordingly be granted where the remedy by appeal is not plain, speedy or adequate. Tan v. COMELEC 142 SCRA 727 (1986) - Prohibition suit to enjoin COMELEC from conducting a plebiscite. MANDAMUS Mayuga v. CA 261 SCRA 309 (1996) - *Mandamus will lie to compel a judge or other public officer to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law once it is shown that the judge or public officer has unlawfully neglected the performance thereof. - A court neglects the performance of its duties only when after demand has been made upon it, it refuses to perform the same. - CASE AT BAR: Petitioners have failed to prove their cause of action for mandamus, hence, the petition was correctly dismissed.

57

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Kant Kwong v. PCGG 156 SCRA 222 (1987) - In the performance of an official duty or act involving discretion, the corresponding official can only be directed by Mandamus to act. o *Yet it is not accurate to say that the writ will never issue to control his discretion. - There is an exception to the rule if the case is otherwise proper, as in cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. *Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee 610 SCRA 211 (2010) - Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. o Recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest. - Writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution. o Will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights. - *MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE in the absence of any of the following grounds: o Court, officer, board, or person against whom the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station; or o Court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled. - It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded. o Must be the imperative duty of respondent to perform the act required. - Mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations. - *It is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public. Magtibay v. Garcia 120 SCRA 370 (1983) - *A writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise judgment. o It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. Paloma v. Mora 470 SCRA 711 (2005) - Mandamus lies to compel performance when refused of a ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of a discretionary one. - *If a law is silent as to the retroactivity of the law to pending cases and must therefor be taken to be of prospective application. MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay 574 SCRA 661 (2008) - MINISTERIAL DUTY is one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.\ - Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other. - CONTINUING MANDAMUS: Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. - CASE AT BAR: Continuing mandamus was issued against various government agencies in order that they may continue cleaning Manila Bay. RULE 66: Quo Warranto Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez, Sr. 239 SCRA 11 (1994) - QUO WARRANTO is a prerogative writ by which the Government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. o When the inquiry is focused on the legal existence of a body politic, the action is reserved to the State in a proceeding for quo warranto or any other direct proceeding. - Such officers may, under certain circumstances, bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another person with the permission of the court. - The Rules also allow an individual to commence such action in his own name but this initiative can be done when he claims to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another . - A quo warranto proceeding assailing the lawful authority of a political subdivision must be timely raised.

58

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

CASE AT BAR: It was only after 30 years that the Municipality decided to challenge the legality of the executive order.

Tarrosa v. Singson 232 SCRA 553 (1994) - SCA of quo warranto can only be commenced by: o The Solicitor General; or o By a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another. - A petitioner who did not aver that he was entitled to the office could not bring the action to oust the respondent from said office as a mere usurper. - The question of title to an office, which must be resolved in a quo warranto proceeding, may not be determined in a suit to restrain the payment of salary to the person holding such office, brought by someone who does not claim to be the one entitled to occupy the said office. *Lota v. CA 2 SCRA 715 (1961) QUO WARRANTO MANDAMUS Remedy to try the right to an office or franchise and to oust the Lies to enforce clear legal duties not to try disputed holder from its enjoyment. titles. Used where there is usurpation or intrusion into an Used where the respondent, without claiming any office. right to an office, excludes the petitioner therefrom. - Any person claiming to be entitled to a public office may bring an action of quo warranto without the intervention of the Solicitor-General or the Fiscal. - Only the person who is in unlawful possession of the office, and all who claim to be entitled to that office may be made parties in order to determine their respective rights thereto in the same action. RULE 67: Expropriation Republic v. Gingoyon 478 SCRA 474 (2005) - CASE AT BAR: The case is a highly unusual case, whereby the Government seeks to expropriate a building complex constructed on land which the State already owns. o There is an inherent illogic in the resort to eminent domain on property already owned by the State. o Since the State already owns the property on which NAIA 3 stands, the proper remedy should be akin to an ACTION FOR EJECTMENT. - **CASE AT BAR: Mandatory guidelines which the Government must observe before it could acquire the NAIA 3 facilities. o PIATCO must receive payment of just compensation determined in accordance with law and equity; and o That the government is barred from taking over NAIA 3 until such just compensation is paid. - Eminent domain though may be the most effective, as well as the speediest means by which such goals may be accomplished. o Not only does it enable immediate possession after satisfaction of the requisites under the law, it also has a built-in procedure through which just compensation may be ascertained. - Rule 67 merely requires the Government to deposit with an authorized government depositary the assessed value of the property for expropriation for it to be entitled to a writ of possession. - RA 8974 requires that the Government make a direct payment to the property owner before the writ may issue. o The plain intent of RA8974 is to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of immediate payment in cases involving national government infrastructure projects. - CASE AT BAR: Once the Writ of Possession is effective, the Government itself is authorized to perform the acts that are essential to the operation of the NAIA 3 as an international airport terminal. - The APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS under Rule 67 may be resorted to in expropriation proceedings under RA 8974, since the application of Rule 67 in that regard do not conflict with the statute. - Nothing in Rule 67 or RA 8974 requires that the RTC consult with the parties in the expropriation case on who should be appointed as commissioners. o What Rule 67 does allow is for the parties to protest the appointment of any of these commissioners, as provided under 5. - CLASS NOTES o 67: based on assessed value for purposes of taxation o RA: based on market value/zonal value o LGC: authorized depositary, based on assessed value (15% downpayment); prior offer by LGU

59

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*NAPOCOR v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corp. 437 SCRA 60 (2004) - Acquisition of an easement of right of way falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. - *JUST COMPENSATION: full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. o The measure is not the takers gain, but the owners loss. o The owner of a condemned property is entitled is generally the market value - MARKET VALUE: Not limited to the assessed value of the property or to the schedule of market values determined by the provincial or city appraisal committee. o The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given. o All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered. - The REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS are merely advisory and recommendatory in character, as far as the courts are concerned. Republic v. CA & Santos 383 SCRA 611 (2002) - The right of eminent domain is usually understood to be an ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose. - *Expropriation proceedings are NOT ADVERSARIAL in the conventional sense, for the condemning authority is not required to assert any conflicting interest in the property. o By filing the action, the condemnor in effect merely serves notice that it is taking title and possession of the property, and the defendant asserts title or interest in the property, not to prove a right to possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking. - **LIMITATIONS: o Taking must be for public use; and o Just compensation must be given to the private owner of the property. - DETERMINING PUBLIC USE o There is public employment or the actual use by the public; and o There is is public advantage or benefit. - The grant of the power of eminent domain to LGUs under RA 7160 cannot be understood as being the pervasive and allencompassing power vested in the legislative branch of government. - **JUST COMPENSATION: sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, it fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. o If property is taken for public use BEFORE compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. *Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation v. City of Pasig 466 SCRA 235 (2005) - The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemnor. - The condemnor has the burden of proving all the essentials necessary to show the right of condemnation. - **REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY LGUS o An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property. o Exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. o Payment of just compensation. o A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. - **It is incumbent upon the condemnor to exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the land it desires by agreement. o Condemnor was burdened to prove the mandatory requirement of a valid and definite offer to the owner of the property before filing its complaint and the rejection thereof by the latter. o Failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirement will result in the dismissal of the complaint. o Offer must be complete, indicating with sufficient clearness the kind of contract intended and definitely stating the essential conditions of the proposed contract. - PURPOSE OF OFFER: to encourage settlements and voluntary acquisition of property needed for public purposes in order to avoid the expense and delay of a court action - CASE AT BAR: letter offered only to prove the municipalitys desire or intent to acquire a property for a right -of-way does not prove that the LGU made a definite and valid offer.

60

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Robern Development Corp. v. Quitain 315 SCRA 150 (1999) - Owner should be given an opportunity to file its answer to the Complaint for expropriation in accordance with 3. *Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi 58 SCRA 336 (1974) - *ELEMENTS OF TAKING: o Expropriator must enter a private property; o Entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period; o Entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority; o Property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and o Utilization for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. - Value of property expropriated determined as of the DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT. o When the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. - *Payment of interest on amount adjudged as the value of the property expropriated not allowed for the period during which the owner of the property received rentals from the condemnor.

RULE 68: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage CLASS NOTES: MTC can take cognizance of such action; involves title, possession in real estate ( BUT this is contrary to jurisprudence which states that only the RTC can take cognizance of such actions.) *Limpin v. IAC 166 SCRA 87 (1988) - RIGHT OF REDEMPTION: Prerogative to re-acquire mortgaged property after registration of the foreclosure sale. ( Extrajudicial Foreclosure) o No right is recognized in Judicial Foreclosure EXCEPT where the mortgagee is a banking institution. o Mortgagor may exercise the right of redemption within 1 year from registration of sheriffs certification of foreclosure sale. - EQUITY OF REDEMPTION (Judicial Foreclosure): The mortgagor can redeem the mortgaged property within 90 days from service of the order (and even after the foreclosure sale) provided it is before the order of confirmation of sale. o After confirmation, no redemption can be effected. *BPI v. Veloso 436 SCRA 1 (2004) - In a real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose on the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold, and to apply the proceeds to the obligation. o *Foreclosure is proper if the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation. - *GENERAL RULE IN REDEMPTION is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. o Statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. - Bona fide redemption necessarily implies a reasonable and valid tender of the entire repurchase price, otherwise the rule on the redemption period fixed by law can easily be circumvented. RULE 69: Partition CLASS NOTES: Presupposes a co-owned property; at the instance of even just 1 co-owner **Figuracion-Gerilla v. Vda. De Figuracion 499 SCRA 484 (2006) - Partition is PREMATURE when ownership of the lot is still in dispute. - In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate. o CASE AT BAR: The heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their fathers estate to settlement because the determination of these expenses cannot be done in an action for partition. - 2 WAYS PARTITION CAN TAKE PLACE: o By agreement under 2; or o Through commissioners when such agreement cannot be reached under 3-6. Ruguian et al. v. Ruguian 9 Phil. 527 (1908) - *Action for the partition of an undivided interest in land cannot be maintained unless all the co-owners are made parties to the action.

61

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

RULE 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer **Valdez, Jr. v. CA 489 SCRA 369 (2006) - 3 KINDS OF ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY o Accion Interdictal; o Accion Publiciana; and o Accion Reivindicatoria - TWO CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER ACCION INTERDICTAL: FORCIBLE ENTRY (detentacion) UNLAWFUL DETAINER (desahuico) Summary in nature; jurisdiction is with the MTC regardless of the amount Issue: right to physical possession One is deprived of physical possession of real property by One illegally withholds possession after the expiration or means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth termination of his right to hold possession under any (FISTS) contract, express or implied. Possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning. possession of the defendant is originally legal but became Issue is which party has prior de facto possession illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess Brought within 1 year from the actual entry. Brought within 1 year from date of last demand. - ACCION PUBLICIANA is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. o An ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. - ACCION REIVINDICATORIA is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper RTC court in an ordinary civil proceeding. - It is the nature of defendants entry into the land which determines the cause of action, whether it is forcible entry or unlawful detainer. Sampayan v. CA 448 SCRA 220 (2005) - In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession of the land or building and that he was deprived thereof by means of FISTS. Sarmiento v. CA 250 SCRA 108 (1995) - *Where the facts averred in the complaint reveals that the action is neither one of forcible entry nor of unlawful detainer but essentially involves a boundary dispute, the same must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria. Co v. Militar 421 SCRA 455 (2004) - The only issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. - An ejectment suit is summary in nature and is not susceptible to circumvention by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the property. **Duran v. CA 488 SCRA 438 (2006) - It is settled that a motion for reconsideration may be filed from a decision of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the inferior courts in ejectment cases. Unida v. Heirs of Urban 460 SCRA 68 (2005) - *To justify an action for UNLAWFUL DETAINER, the permission or tolerance must have been present at the beginning of the possession, for if the possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. *Larano v. Celendacion 525 SCRA 57 (2007) - Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint. o It cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant. - **REQUISITES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING AN EJECTMENT SUIT: o Failure to pay the installment due or comply with the conditions of the Contract o There must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in 2 of Rule 70, namely: 15 days in case of land and 5 days in case of buildings.

62

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

*Bugarin v. Palisoc 476 SCRA 587 (2005) - A JUDGMENT on a forcible entry and unlawful detainer action is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor, and the courts duty to order the execution is practically ministerial. - **DEFENDANT MAY STAY IT BY: o Perfecting an appeal; o Filing a supersedeas bond; and o Making a periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal. - **Once the RTC decides on the appeal, such decision is immediately executory without prejudice to an appeal via a PETITION FOR REVIEW before the CA or SC. RULE 71: Contempt **Montenegro v. Montenegro 431 SCRA 415 (2004) - CONTEMPT: Disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. - The power to punish contempt is INHERENT IN ALL COURTS, because it is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the courts; and, consequently, to the due administration of justice. - RULES PENALIZE 2 TYPES OF CONTEMPT o DIRECT: committed in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, and includes disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so. o INDIRECT: not in the presence. - ACTS CONSIDERED INDIRECT CONTEMPT: o Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties/transactions; o Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court; o Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt; o Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; o Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority; o Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; - INDIRECT CONTEMPT MAY EITHER BE INITIATED o Motu proprio by the court by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt; or o By the filing of a verified petition, complying with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings. - Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act. o CRIMINAL (purpose is to punish): Conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a judge acting judicially. o CIVIL (purpose is to compensate): Failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made. - CASE AT BAR: Partys refusal to be examined, without justifiable reason, constituted indirect contempt which is civil in nature. Ang v. Castro 136 SCRA 653 (1985) - Use of disrespectful or contemptuous language against a particular judge in pleadings presented in another court or proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt as it is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. o Direct contempt if submitted in the same court or judge. **People v. Godoy 243 SCRA 64 (1995) - Snide remarks or sarcastic innuendoes do not necessarily assume that level of contumely which is actionable under Rule 71. - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, being directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an offense against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense against public justice which raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are punitive. o Intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt. - Proceedings to punish a CIVIL CONTEMPT are remedial and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private persons. It is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court. o Good faith or the absence of intent to violate the courts order is not a defense in civil contempt .

63

JMHR (B 2015)

Civil Procedure Doctrines

JUDGE DELA ROSA

Civil contempt proceedings should be instituted by an aggrieved party while in criminal contempt the State is the real prosecutor. One may still be cited for contempt of court even after a case has ended, where such punitive action is necessary to protect the court and its dignity and to vindicate it from acts or conduct intended or calculated to degrade, ridicule or bring the court into disfavor and thereby erode or destroy public confidence in that court. **Where the entire case has already been appealed, jurisdiction to punish for contempt rests with the appellate court.

Pimentel v. Majaducon 407 SCRA 356 (2003) - The power to declare a person in contempt of court must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. - A judge, as a public servant, should not be so thin-skinned or sensitive as to feel hurt or offended if a citizen expresses an honest opinion about him which may not altogether be flattering to him. **Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines 656 SCRA 331 (2011) - Inherent power of courts to punish contempt of court committed in the presence of the courts without further proof of facts and without aid of a trial is not open to question. o Such summary conviction and punishment accord with due process of law. - Proceedings for the punishment of the contumacious act committed outside the personal knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the elements of due process of law, that is, notice, written charges, and an opportunity to deny and to defend such charges before guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed.

64