CIVPRO 1st-14 Compliled
CIVPRO 1st-14 Compliled
CIVPRO 1st-14 Compliled
[Atty. Rondez enumerated the title of each rule. So, Let us do a simple illustration:
memorize the Rules. Consult your Rules of Court codal Payment of a sum of money – A versus B
xD]
When we speak of over the person, we are
- Included within its scope are the 1991 Rules on referring to the parties to an action. The parties are the
Summary Procedure and the provisions on the plaintiff and the defendant. In the given illustration, the
Katarungang Pambarangay under the Local plaintiff is A and the defendant is B. When we say
Government Code. jurisdiction over the person then we are referring to
Before we begin discussing the rules specifically, jurisdiction over the plaintiff and jurisdiction over the
we should always have a discussion of JURISDICTION. defendant.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power of the court How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the
to hear, try, and decide a case. person of the plaintiff?
If a court does not have jurisdiction, the only thing Upon the filing of the complaint.
that the court can do is to dismiss the case. Why is jurisdiction acquired over the person of the
Stated otherwise, when we say the court has plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint?
jurisdiction that means it has the power to hear, try, and It is because when the plaintiff files his
decide a case. So if the court has jurisdiction, the Rules complaint, he is actually asking the court to
now will have application because the Rules are grant him relief. In so doing, he is aware that it is
considered procedural in character (procedural law) as the court that can grant him the relief. The court
opposed to what is known as substantive law. When we now can hear, try, and decide his complaint.
say substantive law, we are talking of a law which
creates, define, and regulates the rights and obligations
of a party. In other words, it is the law which determines [Simple analogy, if you are still receiving an
whether you have a right or obligation. Procedural law allowance from your parents and your allowance is
means the law or the rules that prescribe the method by deficient, from whom do you ask for allowance? Of
which you can enforce your rights or the method by course, still from your parents because you know
which you can obtain redress of a violation of your that they are the persons you can give you your
rights. allowance. The concept is the same in court].
The Rules on Civil Procedure are procedural. How about the defendant?
Procedural law is a law and so the Rules on Civil
Procedure carry the force and effect of a law. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
acquired through the a) service of summons,
The court must have jurisdiction before the rules or b) voluntary appearance.
apply. The court cannot hear, try, and decide a case if it
has no jurisdiction (paulit-ulit hahahah xD) Service of summons is covered by Rule 14.
Summons is the way by which the court may acquire
The Rules are HOW. How will you obtain redress? jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Summons
How will you enforce your rights? may be served properly or improperly. Of course, what is
important is proper service of summons. So let us
Example: assume now that service of summons is proper. It means
The action is for specific performance, you are the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
trying to enforce a right. Let us say the action is payment defendant. Naturally, it follows that if service is
of a sum of money, you are asking the court to direct the improper, jurisdiction is NOT acquired.
defendant to pay you a sum of money, so you are seeking Voluntary appearance is an invocation of a
redress. You have this right. You are able to obtain court’s jurisdiction. Estoppel applies to this.
redress because that is based on substantive law. Now
how you actually do that is procedural. Example:
We need to study jurisdiction because without The defendant B has not yet been served with
jurisdiction, the Rules do not apply (ulit na naman xD). summons, so there is no jurisdiction yet. Service of
summons CAN be dispensed with if there is a voluntary
appearance. When B returns home, A informs him that
he will file a case against him (B). So B is aware. B went When we say, look at the allegations in the
to the court and found out that A really filed a case complaint, we have to look into the four corners of the
against him. B will now ask the court and say, “Can I have complaint, nothing beyond the complaint (kung anong
more time to file my answer?” This is voluntary nakasulat sa complaint, iyon lang. Walang iba) EXCEPT
appearance because he is invoking the court’s when the defendant raises the defense of agricultural
jurisdiction. He is asking the court to give him relief. tenancy. In this case, we can consider the answer of the
When you ask somebody to give you relief, it means that defendant to the complaint. The general rule is look at
that person can give you the relief. In this case, B is the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint not the
recognizing the court’s jurisdiction. answer of the defendant (EXCEPT when the defense is
agricultural tenancy).
*** Once there is jurisdiction now over BOTH the parties,
then there is jurisdiction over the person. Why are we limited to the complaint? Why should we
not look at the answer of the defendant?
It is because if we allow a resort to the answer, it
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter (Subject will be easy for the defendant to avoid
matter jurisdiction). jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired Example:
by the a) allegations in the complaint and by the b)
law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint. The complaint was filed in the RTC but the
defendant claimed, “150 lang ang utang ko” or “mas
In the context of civil actions, we have our basic malaki pa diyan iyong utang ko.” In here, the greater evil
courts. MTC, RTC (and Quasi-judicial bodies), CA, and SC. is allowing the defendant to choose the court (pwedeng
The trial courts are the MTCs and RTCs but under Rule paglaruan ng defendant ang jurisdiction).
46 there are actions that are within the jurisdiction of
the CA. While both the CA and the SC are appellate
courts, they also have original jurisdiction.
The court only has the power to dismiss.
If the case involves money or a claim for a
payment of a sum of money: MTC – threshold amounts: The power of the court to dismiss can be undertaken by
P300k and below, P400k Metro Manila; in a real action – the court itself, motu proprio or upon its own initiative
Assessed value: P20k, P50k Metro Manila (this is the If the court recognizes that he has no jurisdiction over
law in force at the time of the filing of a complaint by the matter, then he can dismiss the complaint already.
A against B)
It can also be brought in the attention of the court by the
In Baguio: A is asking that B should pay him P350k party (defendant).
(allegation in the complaint). A files his complaint in
the RTC. Does the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject How? By the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 16
matter? saying: the court has no jurisdiction be it jurisdiction
over the person or jurisdiction over the subject matter.
YES because based on the allegation – P350k
and the law in force states that if the claim is Sec. 1, Rule 16: first two grounds for motion to dismiss
P300k and below, MTC has jurisdiction; if P300k are:
and above RTC has jurisdiction. In case A files in
the MTC, the MTC will not acquired subject 1. Lack of jurisdiction over the person
matter jurisdiction. 2. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
X v. Y for recovery of real property. Sometimes, the court itself or the parties themselves
does not recognize that he has no jurisdiction.
X says Y occupied his property without his permission so
X would like to recover possession of the property. X Consequence on the judgment/ proceedings that had
says that his property has an assessed value of P19k. X been undertaken before the court:
filed in the RTC. Does RTC has jurisdiction?
If proceedings are undertaken, and the court has no
No jurisdiction because the allegation reveals jurisdiction, all those proceedings/ judgments are NULL
that the assessed value is P19k and the law in and VOID; no rights are created, no obligations are
force states that if assessed value is P20k and created by a void judgment.
below (outside Metro Manila), MTC has
If that is the case, the requirement then is for a party, if
jurisdiction. In this case, it should be filed in the
the court does not recognize it on its own, to bring the
MTC not the RTC.
issue of jurisdiction at eth earliest possible opportunity.
Rule regarding bringing the issue of lack of jurisdiction - Consequence: all proceedings, judgment, is null and
before the court: void.
That can be done at any time even on appeal provided - You can question jurisdiction at any time even on
the party bringing it is not barred by estoppel or laches. appeal as long as you have not been barred by laches or
estoppel.
Eve n if proceedings had been undertaken already the
issue of lack of jurisdiction can still be questioned. Usual na mangyayari: On appeal, the court ordinarily if it
is questioned before the trial court, the trial court
Even if there’s judgment and it has already been dismisses it if it appeals but if it is going to be questioned
appealed the issue of lack of jurisdiction can still be on appeal, the appellate court should dismiss unlike
questioned. MTC, RTC.
The 1st available opportunity to question jurisdiction is 2. Action incapable of pecuniary estimation
at the time the defendant is served with a copy of the
summons. If the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
jurisdiction is vested with the RTC.
Qualifier: before he is barred by laches or estoppel
It is a jurisdictional problem because there is difficulty in
When will a party intending to question lack of determining whether it is capable of PEor incapable of
jurisdiction be considered barred by laches or estoppel? PE.
If he is already participating in the proceedings before The way to determine whether it is capable or incapable
the court where he has recognized the court’s is to apply: Nature of the Action Test
jurisdiction
An action is said to be incapable of pecuniary estimation
Further qualification: knowing that the court does not if you are unable to attach a monetary value to the
have jurisdiction subject matter of the action
When one questions jurisdiction but he is barred by Ex. you want to recover a parcel of land worth 100K;
laches or estoppel one can no longer question when you’re asking to be paid moral damages of 200K
jurisdiction, the consequence on the proceedings or =capable
judgment rendered becomes VALID.
Nature of the Action Test examples:
Why? Because that is the penalty imposed on the person
who should have questioned jurisdiction in a timely o Reformation of a Contract – the action to compel
manner but who is now unable to do so because he is the defendant to agree to a change in a written
barred by laches or estoppel. (necessary consequence). contract to fully reflect the agreement between
the parties. = incapable
*judgment – null and void o Specific performance – when you want to
MTC renders a judgment without jurisdiction. On appeal compel a performance of an act =incapable
to the RTC, sec. 8 of Rule 40 says: if the RTC has o Support = incapable (why? The person asking
jurisdiction, it should now resolve the case (as if it was for support may…but the support awarding him
originally filed with it) in accordance with the provisions or her as the case may be is going to depend on
of Rule 40 without prejudice to the admission of what the court determines as what he is entitled
additional evidence and the filing of memoranda. to or what the person obliged to give support is
capable of giving.
The RTC does not have jurisdiction. It is appealed to the o Expropriation = incapable (why? The court still
CA. The CA will see the issue of jurisdiction. The CA has to determine just compensation)
agrees that the RTC has no jurisdiction. The judgment
will be dismissed by the CA then the remedy of the Test to be employed whether it is capable or incapable:
plaintiff is to refile it in the proper court (MTC). NOTAT
Sec. 8, Rule 40: if the MTC decided a case without There are cases which appear to be incapable but in the
jurisdiction, on appeal to the RTC, the RTC ordinarily end, they are capable – that is where jurisdiction
should (do this- if rendered without decision, you refile). problem arises.
The RTC should resolve the case as if it was originally
filed with it. Example: specific performance- nature of the action is
incapable BUT if we use the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE
Problem areas: TEST, it may appear to be capable.
1. What is the consequence of lack of jurisdiction and 1st situation:
when can it be questioned
A brought property form B. A paid 150K for the
property, then he occupied the property already but
could not get a title in his name so for him to get the title, Exception of MTC to award an amount greater than its
he will bring an action for specific performance against B monetary threshold:
to compel B to execute a deed of absolute sale. =
incapable (why? Ownership has 2 aspects: equitable and 1. Illegal detainer (ex. unclaimed rental 2M – MTC can
legal title. A already has equitable title, he is already in award)
occupation and what he needs is the legal title only.) 2. BP 22 (If amount of the check is 1 billion – MTC can
2nd situation; award)
A brought property form B. A paid 150K for the RTC: 300K above
property, but A does not occupy so A cannot now Claim is 350 but the court determines that instead of
establish his right since he just paid B and did not 350K, defendant is entitled to1 peso = the court CAN
occupy. A brought an action for specific performance for AWARD an amount even beyond its jurisdictional
B to execute a deed of absolute sale AND surrender threshold; Jurisdiction is not affected.
possession. = capable (why? A is acquiring both legal and
equitable title. ownership has value and that value is PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
probably what he paid but for purposes of determining
jurisdiction, you have to take a look at the assessed value Principle: Can the subject matter be given monetary
of the property 18,500) file it in the proper court – MTC value (yes-capable, no-incapable)
UOT- get the property Problem: actions which appear to be incapable but are
really capable
If we use NOTAT, one is incapable
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
If we use UOT, one is capable and the other is capable
- Situation where you have a plaintiff and
(summary: it is a jurisdictional problem because the defendant and the plaintiff may file several
incapable pecuniary estimation should be filed only with complaint against the defendant so when he
the RTC. You can make a mistake because what you think does that, he is joining his causes of action.
is incapable may be capable. That mistake can be
prevented from being made if you are aware of the kinds ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION
of tests that you can use to determine. 1st test NOTA but
- Situation where one can base his right upon
this may not be sufficient because there are actions
several things. Meaning, his right is based
where just because of its nature, they are without any
on different substantive laws (creates,
doubt incapable ex. support, expropriation. There are
defines, and regulates rights and duties that
also NOTA, specific performance but it may not be so so
give rise to a cause of action) upon which he
we need to apply the UOT; what is the ultimate objective
can base his right of recovery.
of the plaintiff. If the UOT of the plaintiff cannot be
quantified or no monetary value can be attached to it, Ex. A is riding in a common carrier (bus) for a trip from
then it is incapable but if you attached a monetary value Manila to Baguio. Along the way, the bus is involved in
to it, then it becomes capable. Once it is capable, the an accident, because it collides with another vehicle
determination now will go to a court’s jurisdiction, it causing A injuries.
depends on what the law says. If the property’s assessed
value is 200K and below, MTC and greater than that, A now has a right to recover damages for his injuries.
RTC. The right to recover damages based on his injuries, can
be based on 2 things: (ONE recovery based on 2 things)
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, up to when can the
court exercise that jurisdiction? 1. Based on breach of the contract of carriage
(common carrier)
Until judgment has been rendered and an appeal has 2. He can also sue the party responsible for the
been perfected if any. accident based on quasi-delict
Once jurisdiction is acquired, that court can exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts – Doctrine The rules allow a plaintiff to plead alternative causes of
of Adherence to Jurisdiction action so that the plaintiff is not going to be forced to
make a choice. If he can recover on several alternative
Monetary threshold~ causes of action, he can plead all of them so that he is not
forced to make a choice.
MTC: 300K
Illustration: A filed an action for recovery of ownership
A case is filed with the MTC and the claim is 250K (court and possession against B. The object is real property
has jurisdiction) and it turns out that instead of 250K, with an assessed value of P12,500.00. A also has another
the claim that he is entitled to is 350K = the court CAN cause of action which is for annulment of deeds. He is
ONLY AWARD AN AMOUNT UP TO ITS JURISDICTIONAL saying that the deed held by B to claim ownership of the
THRESHOLD
property he is seeking to recover (are patent nullities) A: Real object: recognition – incapable. So even the
should be annulled. subject matter of the judgment sought to be recognized
is capable, the action for the recognition of a foreign
Q: Can A join the 2 actions? YES. He can join these causes judgment is always incapable.
of action or he can plead them as alternative causes of
action. FILING AND DOCKETING
1. Action for recovery of ownership = capable Basic principle: The court acquires jurisdiction upon
Capable because you can attach monetary value docketing.
to the subject matter of the action (ownership
and possession of real property has pecuniary Docketing involves payment of docket fees.
value- P12,500,MTC) Problem: What you find in Rule 2.
2. Action for annulment of deeds = incapable
Applying NOTAT, it is incapable because no Rule 2: when an action is considered as having
monetary value can be attached to the subject commenced, it is considered as having commenced upon
matter of the action. (RTC) the filing of a complaint.
Q: Can A file 1 without filing 2? Yes So when a complaint is filed based on Rule 2, that means
the court should already have jurisdiction over the
Q: If A will file 1 and he will lose, can he still file 2 or vice complaint.
versa? No. (resjudicata)
Qualifier: Filing should immediately be followed after
If A loses in 1, the court now will confirm that the owner docketing; it is actually upon filing and docketing that
is B. Can A still file an action to annul the deeds held by the court acquires jurisdiction.
B? No more. This will be res judicata in so far as ______ is
concerned. Example: A complaint is filed but it is not docketed, is the
court said to have jurisdiction? No.
If he will file 1 and he will lose, he cannot file 2 because
the court will affirm the validity of the deeds being held Docketing means there is a need to pay docket fees.
by B since this will be res judicata insofar as _____ is
concerned. Purpose of docket fees: Docket fees are utilized by the
court for efficient administration of justice.
So yes he can file 1 and not file 2, he can file 2 and not file
1 but he runs the rest of losing the case and if he lose the Basic concept: For the court to have jurisdiction, it must
case, he can no longer file the other one. (Splitting of not only be filed, but the docket fees should be paid.
cause of action –Rule 2). Exemption of filing, docketing, without docket fees:
What will A do? Join the causes of action when a party is allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant
or an indigent litigant. If so allowed, the case will be
Where will A file? RTC filed, it will be docketed, but there is no docket fees paid.
Reason: Situations:
1. You will ignore the action thus capable of 1. If docket fees are not paid, no jurisdiction except
pecuniary estimation and go with the action pauper litigant.
capable of pecuniary estimation and file it in the 2. There is partial payment of docket fees.
RTC;
2. When we discuss joinder of causes of action, a 1st situation: Plaintiff is aware that docket fees are not
person or party can join his causes of action in paid in full.
the RTC provided, the RTC has jurisdiction over
Rule: the court should allow the plaintiff to complete
one causes of action and venue lies therein.
payment of docket fees within a reasonable period of
Another Illustration: X vs Y time but before it is bared by prescription.
X files an action in the USA against Y. The court in the Example: An action to enforce a written contract
USA says that Y is indebted to X in the amount of S7,000. prescribes in 10 years
Y is in the Philippines and he has a lot of properties in The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant
the Philippines. X will come to the Philippines. He will after a period of 9 years, 11 months, and 15 days. How
bring an action for recognition of a foreign judgment. many more days does he have before his cause of action
So that the judgment obtained in the USA where Y is prescribes? Another 15 days.
indebted to him for S7,000 or approximately P350,000,
can be enforced in the Philippines. He filed an action and his docket fees are not enough and
he is aware that his docket fees are insufficient so for the
Q: Is the actin filed by X in the Philippines capable or court to have to have jurisdiction, he must pay the full
incapable of pecuniary estimation? docket fees but the rule is he is allowed a reasonable
period of time to pay docket fees but before he is barred 2. The docket fees are not paid in full but
by description. So the court will now say that he will be jurisdiction is not affected.
granted 30 days to pay. So does he have the full 30 days
within which to pay? No, because he only has 15 days What distinguishes one from the other? The awareness
before it is barred by prescription. of the plaintiff that he has deficient docket fees.
If he pays 10 days after, he is still okay because he has If the plaintiff has knowledge that his docket
paid the full docket fee before it is barred by prescription fees are deficient and he did not pay, that affects
so the court now has jurisdiction jurisdiction.
If the plaintiff has no knowledge that his docket
If he pays 20 days after, the court will have no fees are deficient for some reason or another
jurisdiction because he is already barred by prescription. and he did not pay, the Court is the one to be
He had only 15 days, he paid 20 days thereafter, he is blamed (mistake of the court) or later on he is
now barred by prescription so the court does not acquire able to prove a greater amount than what he is
jurisdiction. If summons had been issued, then the originally claiming, or he has an additional pay
defendant can simply the motion on the ground that the which he was able to prove. In this case, the
court has no jurisdiction because the docket fees have court still has jurisdiction, except that the
not been paid. corresponding docket fees for the additional
amount that he receives will now constitute a
Other situation where you have partial docket fees:
lien on the judgment.
If the plaintiff is not aware.
General rule: when the court has no jurisdiction, he
Like, he should have paid 2,000 but ang siningil lang only has the power to dismiss.
sakanya 1,500 did he commit the mistake? No.
Note: In the RTC, some RTC can be designated as
If it turns out later that it is discovered that there are special courts.
insufficient docket fees, will that affect the court’s
RTC can be designated as a special
jurisdiction? No. The court’s exercising of jurisdiction is
commercial court.
valid. The deficient docket fees would constitute a lien
RTC can also be designated as a public
on the judgment.
court.
Ex. plaintiff won and the additional docket fees he needs
to pay will be deducted to his recovery. Using the general principle, if a complaint that is within
the jurisdiction of a special commercial court is filed in
Another situation where insufficient docket fees will an RTC which is not a special commercial court, the
arise but it does not affect jurisdiction: general rule is, the RTC has no power except to dismiss.
It cannot transfer it to the special commercial court
He will make a claim but he will not specify how which is also an RTC.
much.
But now, it is an EXCPETION.
The plaintiff says: I’m entitled to the payment of
damaged but he doesn’t specify how much. He is able to Gonzales vs GJH Land (Nov. 2015, Court en banc)
prove that he is entitled to damages. What happens now?
This is no longer the rule. If you file a case that is
For example his original claim is P220,000 and he is able
cognizable by a special commercial court with the RTC,
to prove the claim of P50,000 damages, and the court
the case is simply going to be returned to the executive
awards the P50,000. Is the judgement of the court valid?
judge, and transmitted to the special commercial court. If
Yes, it doesn’t affect the jurisdiction of the court.
you file a complaint that is cognizable by an ordinary
However, same situation. The corresponding docket fees
RTC, with the special commercial court, the case is
for the additional P50,000 will constitute a lien on the
returned back to the executive judge, the executive judge
judgment.
will assign it or raffle it off to the other branches of the
He files the complaint, pays the docket fees, RTC.
when the case is being litigated it turns out that
JURISDICTION
he has another claim.
The courts has an original and concurrent Jurisdiction.
Can he prosecute that claim? Yes.
1. Original means that the court exercises
If he is awarded an additional amount, the docket fees or jurisdiction at the first instance as opposed to
the additional claim constitute a lien on the judgment. what is known as appellate jurisdiction.
Summary: 2 situations:
So MTC-RTC-CA and the SC.
1. One doesn’t pay the docket fees in full – affects
Our principal trial courts are the MTC and the RTC. They
jurisdiction.
are the courts that exercise original Jurisdiction.
However, the CA and the SC also exercise original criminal and special proceedings. Focus
jurisdiction because there are certain actions that can be is: civil 1-71.
filed either with the CA or the SC. The court exercises Q:To what cases the rules of court don’t
appellate jurisdiction if it is reviewing the decision of an apply?
interior court. If the RTC reviews the decision of MTC, it - cadastral cases, election cases, land
is exercising appellate jurisdiction so on and so forth. registration, naturalization and
When the RTC renders a decision and goes to CA, then insolvency proceedings etc.
CA is exercising appellate jurisdiction and of course the The only application of rules of court is
SC exercising appellate jurisdiction. by analogy meaning, there may be a
counterpart rule in this type of cases
2. Then you have the matter of Concurrent ,however, they don’t know how it
jurisdiction as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction. applies and is similar to the provision of
the rules of court then they will use the
Concurrent means several courts can exercise
application as we do it under the rules
original jurisdiction. Referring specifically to the
of court for that particular case or in a
RTC, CA, and SC, they can exercise original-
suppletory character . if there are
concurrent jurisdiction. In order words, for a
applicable rules in the rules of court
particular kind of case, it can be filed with RTC, CA
then the rules of court will have a
or the SC.
suppletory application. (kleer!)
EXAMPLE: Certiorari under rule 65, is an action that
can be filed with the RTC, can be filed in CA and can Our focus now is Civil procedure which
also be filed in SC. So you now have 3 courts now applies to:
exercising original jurisdiction concurrently. (kleer!) 1. Civil cases or civil actions as
distinguished from criminal actions
Exclusive when it is to the exclusion of other courts. and as opposed to special
Example, MTC has original-exclusive jurisdiction for proceedings. Civil action can be
Forcible Entry and Illegal detainer case. No other categorized as follows:
court will accept a complaint for FE or ID except for a. Ordinary or special
MTC. The civil action is special when
the fact that there is a rule
Q: Where do file an action if several courts exercise specifically to cover it.
concurrent jurisdiction ?
Civil actions can be classified in 3 BASIS:
A: You will file in the lowest court. That is in
accordance with the DOCTRINE OF HEIRARCHY OF 1. IN PERSONAM- the basis is one’s personal
COURTS. liability to another.
For example:
That means kung mag e-exercise ng jurisdiction B owes A a sum of money. A now wants to sue B
ang RTC , CA at SC, Punta ka sa RTC. However, it to enforce payment of that sum of money. That
doesn’t mean that you cannot go to the CA or SC. You action is in personam because A can only sue B.
can! But it would depend on the nature of the action The reason why he can only sue B is because of
or the subject matter. So if you feel that the subject B’s personal liability to A. A cannot sue anybody
matter of your petition for certiorari, as for our else, he can only sue one person and that is B.
example, is something that should be resolved Therefore that action is in personam.
immediately and preferably by the SC because of its
importance, then you directly go to the SC. But if you 2. IN REM- it is an action that is directed against a
don’t have that option, the Doctrine of hierarchy of thing itself, or property or status and the object
courts must be observed. is to enforce it against the whole world.
We will now begin with the discussion of rules, Example: -land registration is in rem because
you like to establish your ownership over the
RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS property.
-adoption is in rem, you would like to
There are 3 things that you will find in rule 1: establish a status of an adopted child with all the
1. Applicability of rules rights of an legitimate child.
2. Commencement of an action
3. Construction of the rules 3. QUASI IN REM-when your object really is to
subject property to a corresponding lien or
1. Applicability. Section one of rule 1 says obligation. Like, foreclosure of mortgage. There
the rules shall be known as rules of is a defendant but your real object is to get the
court. It also tells us to what action do property that serves as security for the
they apply to. They apply to civil, obligation constituted by the defendant in your
favor. May defendant dito pero ang talagang if in rem then everybody that is why it
intention mo ay habulin ang property niya. needs publication,
if quasi in rem the important thing is
Example: You are seeking to enforce a right jurisdiction over the res or the subject
against a defendant who does not reside in the matter of the action. But it doesn’t mean
Philippines and who cannot be found in the that you will not serve the defendant, you
Philippines. But he has property in the still have to serve him. What is essential is
Philippines, so, the object now is to deprive him for the court is to acquire jurisdiction over
of his interest in that property. Your action is the res and the court is able to acquire if the
now considered quasi in rem property is in the Philippines.
An action for payment for the issuance of writ VENUE-place where you file the action, not
of preliminary attachment. Yes you are asking the court where you will file the action.
payment to that person but what you are really Rules in venue:
want to do is go over his property. 1. If the action is real then that means you
will file it in the place where the
FOUNDATION: property is located
Civil actions can also be classified as follows: 2. If it is personal, it is to be filed in the
They can be real or personal place where the plaintiff or defendant
1. REAL- sec.1 of rule 4. “a real action is one has residence at the option of the
that affects title to, possession of or any plaintiff.
interest in real property. All others are This are the two basic rule is so far as
personal. So pag hindi siya real, it is venue/
personal.
2. PERSONAL – are actions where one is Summary:Civil cases can be classified as
seeking recovery of personal property, -ordinary-special;
enforcement of a contract or recovery of
damages then that is personal. -in personam, in rem or quasi-in rem;
Q:when is the action considered as having commenced A: We want an orderly administration of justice; because
against Z? rules are in place to put order to things so that we can
have order and all rules have this as the basis.
A: January 11, 2018. Not yet prescribed
Q: When can we invoke liberal construction?
“When a defendant is impleaded later, it is commenced
upon the filing of the later pleading irrespective of the If we follow the rule strictly, can we say liberal
denial of the motion to admit.” construction? No more.
Situation: the court denied the amended complaint. Does If we do not follow the rule, can we invoke liberal
it affect the commencement of action against Z? construction? Maybe.
If you don’t invoke liberal construction, then the Rule 2 says: The basis of every civil action, is a cause
sanction will be forthcoming and eventually, that of action,
sanction will not going to be felt by you but by the party
you are representing. Civil action =an action that is filed for the purpose of
enforcement of a right, protection or redress of a wrong.
What is the way out of your situation? The way out of
your situation is to invoke a liberal construction of the What gives rights to a COA: an act or omission that
Rules. violates the right of another.
When you invoke liberal construction of the Rule, The basis of every civil action is a cause of action.
you need to cover up an explanation and it is upon Meaning, if we don’t have a cause of action, you
your explanation that the court may actually allow cannot file a civil action.
you to invoke liberal construction. Requisites of a Cause of Action:
Example: This is the reason why I failed to comply with 1. Right – meaning if you are a plaintiff, you must
what was required by the Rule… have a right;
Once you are able to do that, and the Court finds your 2. Obligation – the defendant must have a
explanation to be sufficient or acceptable, then the Court corresponding obligation to respect that right;
will allow liberal construction. 3. Act or omission – the defendant committed an
act or omission that violates that right.
While it says liberal, it is not automatic. It depends on
who you will ask it for because there are some Judges Ex. If the plaintiff owns property and the defendant
enters into the property without any authority from the
plaintiff and occupies it now adversely to the plaintiff, right. If you fail to do that, then the complaint fails to
does the plaintiff have a cause of action as against the state a COA.
defendant?
Q: How many actions can you file of you have only 1
YES, The plaintiff has a right of ownership; the defendant COA?
is under obligation to respect the right of ownership and
possession over real property; the defendant committed The filing of one or a judgment on the merits in another
an act that violates the right of the plaintiff –he entered is a ground for dismissal
into the plaintiff’s property without permission and now
he is in possession adverse to plaintiff. What the Rule is saying: If you have 1 COA, you can only
Speaking of an omission, let’s do creditor-debtor file 1 action.
The COA is this (Refer to requisites) So you have 1 COA, you file your 1 st ACTION then you file
The ROA = power to bring the action. the 2nd action but you only have 1 COA. What happens is,
the filing of one is ground for the dismissal of the other.
If you have a cause of action, you can file a civil action In other words, when you files one already and you file
and that ability to bring that action is your ROA. another, then it is going to be dismissed.
The Actual action or actual suit that you filed is your It is also a situation where you have 1 COA in the 1 st
ACTION. action there is already a judgment on the merits is
ground now for dismissal of the other. Meaning, when
When you speak of your cause of action, that is a you file for a second action, this is going to be dismissed.
situation where, the plaintiff has a right, the defendant
has an obligation, and the defendant committed an act or 1st Version: (LITIS PENDENTIA – 2 or more cases
an omission that violate the right of the plaintiff. pending at the same time)
When a party or a plaintiff do this, he will now file at
The Right of Action on the other hand is the ability of least 2 actions when he only has 1 COA or after 1
the plaintiff to bring the action and he brings the action ACTION has been decided, he will file a 2 nd action when
because he has a cause of action and he can now act with he only has 1 COA what did he do with this COA?
that cause of action. SPLITTING OF A CAUSE OF ACTION (You only have 1
The ability is his right of action; when he now acts upon COA and you are now filing 2 or more actions)
it, and he files a suit, that is the action.
Why do they do this? When they file 2 or more actions
This is important because if you take a look at Sec. 1 of because they only have 1 COA, they are hoping that at
Rule 16, you will see that one of the grounds for a motion least 1 of the two will be favorable.
to dismiss is the failure to state the COA. As between 1 action only and 2 actions, which situation
do you think will give the plaintiff a better chance of
How do you know that there’s a failure to state the COA? winning? 2 actions.
When there’s a failure to state the COA, there is no right,
obligation, act, or omission or pwedeng may right pero The plaintiff wants to better his chances of getting a
walang obligation so kung walang obligation, wala yung favorable judgment so what he will do now is to file
omission or pwedeng may right, may obligation, kaso several action even if he only has 1 COA. This is not
walang act or omission; so what is stated now in the allowed because the Rule is, 1 COA is equal to1 ACTION
complaint is simply a right, and an obligation but there is Only. If he has only 1 action and he files 2 or more, he is
no act or omission so question: is there a COA? None. splitting a COA which is a ground of dismissal.
When we say there is a failure to state the COA among
others because later on especially when we take up 2nd version: (RES JUDICATA – situation where there’s
parties and Rule 3, there are other manifestations of the already a decision in the merits in one case and a
failure to state the COA but the basic failure to fail to subsequent case is filed based on the same cause of
state the COA is the failure to state in your complaint action)
that you have a right you are a plaintiff, that the 1 COA he files the action and he lose so what he will do is
defendant has an obligation, and the defendant to slightly modify the COA but it is still the same thing.
committed an act or omission in violation of that He will now file the 2nd action.
- This is also prohibited because he has split Do not be confused with the Alternative Causes
his COA of Action. When you have ACA, you can only
bring one action, because your recovery will
You cannot split your CO. If you split your COA, the filing only be based on one of those alternative causes
of one or judgment of the merits on another is ground of action.
for a dismissal.
For example: He can claim recovery for his
Sec. 1 of Rule 16 provides the grounds for a motion to injury based on DELICT and he can also based
dismiss and splitting of COA is not one of the grounds his recovery on BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
mentioned. CARRIAGE, so he has alternative causes of action
but since he only sustain one injury, he can only
recover ones. If he base it on Delict, isa lang ang
DETERMINE whether or not a party or plaintiff has kanyang cause of action.
split his cause of action: 1 delict-1 injury = only 1 cause of action
How to determine that? When we are talking about CONTRACT
1. SAME OBJECTIVE TEST however, the first thing now to determine is the
-SOT requires identity of –parties if the contract is DIVISIBLE OR INDIVISIBLE.
-causes Q: What makes a contract Divisible or what
-reliefs makes it indivisible
a. Identity of parties A: It depends on the NUMBER OF OBLIGATION.
Example: A vs. B, in one case and A vs. B in the Indivisible: If only one obligation,
other case. So there is identity of the parties. Divisible: if there are several obligation
Pag X vs. Y, A vs. Y , or any other
combination, can there be an identity of parties Eg. He wants to recover on tort so one COA, he
still? Yes, kasi kahit iba na yung tao, may wants to recover on breach of contract of
identity of parties parin specially if they turn out carriage contract. Is that contract divisible or
to be successor in interest, there can still be indivisible? INDIVISIBLE kasi isa lang ang
identity of the parties. obligation and that is to carry the passenger
So the point is identity of parties really is a from point A to point B. There is only one
situation where the parties are really identical obligation so the contract is indivisible.
or the situation where the action is between
successors in interest of persons who were If contract is indivisible = rule : only one COA;
prior parties. If contract is Breach= only ONE COA because it
indivisible
b. identity of causes:
We go back to the requisites of a cause of action. If you determine a contract to be DIVISIBLE.
In here, the RIGHT is the same, the OBLIGATION Several obligation makes a contract divisible.
is the same, the ACT/OMISSION is the same. Are there several obligations?
(ROA) Example: The plaintiff lend to defendant 1.2M
pesos payable by 10 equal monthly installments
c. identity of Reliefs or 100K each. This is INDIVISIBLE because there
In other words, in both cases, they are asking for is only one obligation and that is to pay the 1.2M
the same thing. The plaintiff is asking for the pesos although it is payable by 10 equal
same thing. So if he is asking for recovery of installments.
personal property and in another case, he is
asking for the same thing, so, in other words, Example2: Supply contract A and B
there is identity of reliefs. A wants to have goods . B is supposed to
SOT is one way to determine whether or deliver to A the following units:
not there is splitting of cause of action. 1-deliver 10k good
2-deliver 15k
2. SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION 3-deliver 20k
Singleness of a cause of action will first look at 4-deliver 10k
the BASIS of the action. Ang basis pwedeng 5-deliver 15k
delict or it can be a contract. If the basis of the 6-deliver 20k
supposed cause of action is Delict, then the rule In 6 months
is there is only one cause of action. The This is DIVISIBLE because there are several
reason is because there is only one injury. That obligations.
is why there is only one Cause of action.
If the contract is said to be DIVISIBLE,
1st rule: Every breach of the contract = to one (1) b. Identity of reliefs: delivery of car
cause of action. c. Identity of parties: meron din
Q: If for B did not deliver, how many cause So based on the Same objective test there is
of action does A have? splitting.
A: He has 6 because every breach is equivalent Q: If the action is based on contract,
to one cause of action. divisible or indivisible?
2 QUALIFICATIONs: A: INDIVISIBLE. The only obligation is to
1. If a party has not acted on previous deliver the car. One cause of action only.
breaches, he is required to include in his There were two actions which is not
actions a claim for all previous breaches. allowed therefore it is splitting COA
Example hindi nagdeliver si B for the first 2
months tapos walang COA, pero nung 3rd 2. A files a recovery of ownership over real
month, he now files an action. He is now property against B;
required to include in his action all previous A’ files an action for unlawful detainer against X
breaches. whom B allowed to occupy the property.
1st COA The Rule also says they may be joined together as
2nd COA plaintiffs or defendants in the alternative.
3rd COA That means you can join in the alternative if there’s a
right to relief as against them but you cannot determine
If the COA on the other hand are in the alternative, he as against whom the right of relief can be enforced.
will say:
You join them together in the alternative if you have a
1st COA, alternative COA right of relief as against them but you are uncertain as
against whom exactly the right to relief exists.
So that means, he is seeking only 1 recovery but he is
basing his claim on 2 or more COA. 2. They must be bound by a common question
(This is what is meant by “in the alternative”) of law or fact.
Q: If one would like to join his COA, what are the We are now considering joining COA:
conditions that he must comply with or observe?
(Sec. 5, Rule 2) The 1st thing that we need to do is we need to
comply with the Rule on Joinder of Parties.
a) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties; I. The Rule on Joinder of Parties requires us to
b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions join parties together be it as plaintiffs, or as
or actions governed by special rules; defendants.
c) Where the causes of action are between the If they are going to be joined as
same parties but pertain to different venues or defendant, they can be joined also in the
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the alternative. You have defendants against
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes whom you can assert a right of relief but
of action falls within the jurisdiction of said you are uncertain who among them is liable
court and the venue lies therein; and to you. So if the case is like this, you join
them together in the alternative; the next is:
(a) Recovery of personal property with a value
II. They must be bound together by a of P120,000;
common question of law or a common (b) Claim for payment of a sum of money based
question of fact. on a promissory note and the amount due is
P150,000;
For example, (common question of law) (c) Recovery of ownership over real property
the assessed value of which is P15,000
We feel that we are going to be affected located in Dagupan;
by the New Train Law but we do not know (d) Damages in the amount of P450,000
exactly how that law will apply to us so we (e) Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage the
would now like to get clarification. We now assessed value of the property is P50,000
bring an action as against the Commissioner located in La Trinidad, Benguet;
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue so that (f) Specific performance
we will know what our rights and
obligations are. So all of us can be joined He now has 6 causes of action.
together as plaintiffs for the Court to
declare in an action for declaratory relief Issue: Can A join these COA?
what our rights and obligations are under
the law. In that situation, since we are all I. Rule on Joinder of Parties
entitled to relief, the relief being to know
what our rights and obligations are, we can 1st thing we need to consider is the need to comply with
join together as plaintiffs and the reason the Rule on Joinder of Parties.
that we can all join together as plaintiffs is So do we need to comply?
because we are bound by a common
question of law. - No, because there are no other parties involved
except A and B.
For example, (common question of fact, in
the alternative) For example, in the specific performance action, A can
compel performance from either B or C.
A wants to sue B because B was Do we need to comply now the Rule on Joinder of
supposed to deliver merchandise to A. Parties?
When A is asking B for the merchandise
supposed to be delivered, B now says “No! I - Yes, because they are liable in the alternative,
gave it to C already for deposit and C was and they are bound by a common question of
supposed to hand it to you.” When A now fact as to whether or not the specific
asks C “where is the merchandise that was performance of action of the contract which is
supposed to be delivered to me?”C will now sought to be enforced ca be enforced as against
say, “B never gave it to me.” Can A now sue either B or C.
both B and C in one action? Yes, A will be
suing 2 parties; there are 2 parties who may So we can only consider the Rule on Joinder of Parties if
be libale to him and he is now joining the we have multiple parties. We will not consider it if it is
both of them. However, while he is joining clear that you only have 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant.
the both of them, he is joining them in the
alternative because he can only recover II. You cannot join special civil actions or
once. actions governed by special rules
Situation: A vs B and C based on their So: (Keep in mind: Is this COA bound or covered by a
respective obligations to A in respect to the special rule?)
merchandise which was never delivered.
(a) Recovery of personal No (ordinary civil
The can be joined because they are bound property with a value of action)
by A now not a common question of law but P120,000;
by a common question of fact who is liable (b) Claim for payment of a Yes (covered by the
to who. sum of money based on Rule on Small claims)
a promissory note and
Illustrate: the amount due is
P150,000;
A wants to join causes of action as against B. He has the (c) Recovery of ownership No (ordinary civil
following COA: over real property the action)
assessed value of which
is P15,000 located in
Dagupan; amount is P230,000.
(d) Damages in the amount No (ordinary civil
of P450,000 action) Will that change our assessment now that the last
(e) Foreclosure of Real Yes (Special civil condition does not apply?
Estate Mortgage the action)
assessed value of the Because you now have 5 [(a),(c),(d),(f),(g)] COA that can
property is P50,000 be joined.
located in La Trinidad,
Benguet; Balik tayo sa rule: “If they are all for the payment of a
(f) Specific performance No (ordinary civil sum of money, the aggregate amount is determinative of
action) jurisdiction.”
So there are 6 COA, (2 of them) 1 (b) is covered by a So does it change our answer? Because our answer a
special rule, the other (e), is clearly a special civil action. while ago (no 7th COA) is that is does not apply because
only 1 [referring to (d)] action is for the payment of a
Q: Can there be joinder of COA? Qualify, meaning yes, sum of money, the 3 [referring to (a),(c),(f)] others are
you can join 4 of the 6 COA. 2 of those COA cannot be not. Will the Rule apply?
joined because they are either covered by a special rule
or is a special civil action. A: Qualify because the basic rule is: When you have
several COA you can have a smany action as you have
Note: If they are all for the payment of a sum of COA. Mind you, the Rule on joinder of COA is NOT
money, the aggregate amount is determinative of compulsory. So you can file as many action as you have
jurisdiction. COA.
Looking at the causes of action which we can join Now when you join, is there are Rule that says, you may
[referring to (a),(c),(d),(f)] are they all for the payment join all you COA together? No.
of a sum of money? No, the rule will not apply. That does mean now that you can choose what you want
to join? Yes.
Assuming that I add a 7th COA:
So will the addition of an action (g) For the payment of a
(g) For the payment of a sum of money the amount is sum of money the amount is P230,000, change our
P230,000. original action that the 4th condition does not apply?
Probably or maybe because the plaintiff may choose to
(a) Recovery of personal No (ordinary civil join (d) 450k and (e)+ (g) 230k = P680,000 (clearly
property with a value action) within the jurisdiction of the RTC).
of P120,000;
(b) Claim for payment of Yes (covered by the Subukan daw palitan kalokaa. So magiging ganito:
a sum of money Rule on Small
based on a claims) (d) damages in the amount of P210,000
promissory note and (g) For a payment of a sum of money the amount is
the amount due is P230,000
P150,000;
(c) Recovery of No (ordinary civil If he chooses to join that, clearly, the addition of 210k
ownership over real action) and 230k will take it out of the jurisdiction of the MTC
property the assessed (440k) so he can now file it in the RTC.
value of which is
P15,000 located in III. When causes of action that are to be
Dagupan; joined pertain to different jurisdiction
(d) Damages in the No (ordinary civil and different venues.
amount of P450,000 action)
(e) Foreclosure of Real Yes (Special civil *A is a resident of Baguio B is a resident of Tarlac.
Estate Mortgage the action) (I am introducing residency because of the Rule on
assessed value of the Venue)
property is P50,000
located in La Rule on Venue: Personal action in the place where the
Trinidad, Benguet; plaintiff or the defendant resides at the option of the
(f) Specific performance No (ordinary civil plaintiff. If it is a real action, in the place where the
action) property or any portion thereof is located.
(g) For the payment of a
sum of money the (a) Recovery of personal property Personal MTC
with a value of P120,000; of REM the
(b) Claim for payment of a sum of Personal MTC assessed
money based on a promissory value of the
note and the amount due is property is
P150,000; P50,000
(c) Recovery of ownership over real Real MTC located in
property the assessed value of La
which is P15,000 located in Trinidad;
Dagupan;
(d) Damages in the amount of Personal RTC (f) Specific Personal RTC Baguio/Tarlac
P450,000 performanc
e
(e) Foreclosure of Real Estate Real RTC
Mortgage the assessed value of
the property is P50,000 located in When you have COA, which pertain to different
La Trinidad; jurisdiction and different venue, you can now have
(f) Specific performance Personal RTC joinder of causes of action in the RTC provided, the RTC
where you joined your COA, has jurisdiction over one of
Q: Do you now have COA which can be joined but they the COA and venue lies therein.
pertain to different jurisdictions and different venue?
What can you actually join? Q: Can you join all these COA in the RTC of Baguio?
Exclude -> (b) and (c) Requirement: RTC of Baguio should have jurisdiction
Include -> (a), (c) and (d) over 1 of the COA. Does it? Yes – damages (d) or specific
performance (f).
Q: do they pertain to different jurisdiction and different
venue? Yes because you have cases covered or within the Q: Does venue lie in Baguio?
jurisdiction of the MTC, cases within the jurisdiction of
the RTC, different jurisdiction and different venue: Yes, because it is a personal action. Venue is either the
place where the plaintiff resides (Baguio), or the place
(a) Recovery of Personal MTC Baguio/Tarlac where the defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff.
personal So it can be joined in the RTC of Baguio because the RTC
property of Baguio has jurisdiction over 1 of the COA and venue
with a value lies therein.
of
P120,000; Q: Can you have it in the RTC of Tarlac?
(b) Claim for Personal MTC Baguio/Tarlac
payment of You can have Joinder of COA in the RTC provided it has
a sum of jurisdiction over 1 of the COA and venue lies therein.
money Tarlac RTC has jurisdiction over one of the COA so Tarlac
based on a is proper venue (personal damages).
promissory
note and For example: palitan daw ulet lokaret!
the amount
due is (c) Recovery of ownership over real Dagupan
P150,000; property the AV of which is P8,000
located in Dagupan;
(c) Recovery of Real MTC Dagupan
ownership
So can it happen in the RTC of Dagupan? Yes! Because
over real
the RTC of Dagupan has jurisdiction over this (c) COA,
property
and venue lies therein. Why? Because it is a real action.
the AV of
Venue of a real action is the place where the property is
which is
located or any portion thereof is located.
P15,000
located in
Joinder of Causes of Action:
Dagupan;
The plaintiff is joining all his causes of action as against a
(d) Damages in Personal RTC Baguio/Tarlac defendant. The causes of action that are joined are either
the amount original causes of action against the same defendant, or
of P450,000 causes of action in the alternative against the same
defendant.
(e) Foreclosure Real RTC La Trinidad
When one wants to join causes of action, what are the -Require that there are several causes of action, and if
conditions that must be observed? The conditions are: there are several COA, the options are, you can file as
many actions as you have causes of action:
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties 1. Join COA in one action- Joinder of COA
- We need to comply when there are multiple Conditions:
parties and these parties are bound by a
common question of fact or a common question a. It must comply with the Rule on Joinder of parties.
of law.
2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or -there must be commonalities on one side or the
actions governed by special rules; other or both : either as plaintiff, defendants or
in the alternative, so you join them together. If
3. Where the causes of action are between the same these people are joined together by a common
parties but pertain to different venues or question of Fact or a common question of law
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the then they must be joined together.
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of b. You cannot join Special civil actions or those
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and covered by special rules.
the venue lies therein; and
-if you are joining COA, you can only join COA
4. Where the claims in all the causes action are which are considered ordinary civil actions. Hindi
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate pwedeng pagsamahin ang SCA with OCA.
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Q: What happens if you join special civil action with
Sometimes, COA which are not supposed to be joined are ordinary civil action?
joined. We call them MISJOINED CAUSES OF ACTION.
A: That is Misjoinder of COA. If we are able to catch the
misjoinder, then the misjoinder is not a ground for
The Rule also says that if the COA is misjoined, it is not a
dismissal rather it is ground for acceptance. That means
ground for dismissal. It is only a ground for severance. In
it will only be separated from the joined actions and it
other words, it will be severed from the action where
will be litigated separate from the joined COA.
one has joined causes of action. It can be severed by:
1. The action of court, motu proprio or Q:We also said that sometimes there are COAs not
2. Upon motion of a party. supposed to be joined but they are joined. What happens
now?
What the Rule doesn’t say: If a misjoined COA is not
severed, what will happen? If a court renders judgment A: the court may render a valid judgment on a misjoined
on a misjoined COA is the judgement valid? As to those COA provided, the court has jurisdiction on the
actions which have been properly joined, the RTC can misjoined COA. If the court has no jurisdiction, then the
render a valid judgment. If it is a misjoined COA, a court’s judgment is valid only insofar as the COA which have
judgement will only be valid if it has jurisdiction over the been joined validly. That if there is misjoinder of COA
misjoined COA. and the court has no jurisdiction, that is not a valid
judgment.
(b) Claim for payment of a sum of money based
Example: joinder in RTC. Then you have an action for
on a promissory note and the amount due is
forcible entry or unlawful detainer that is joined in the
P150,000
RTC, this is a misjoined COA. Why? Because this is a
This should not be joined. Jurisdiction of this special civil action. So the RTC cannot render a valid
COA is with the MTC. The RTC cannot render a judgment because RTC has no Jurisdiction.
valid judgment because it is not within its
jurisdiction. As distinguished in the situation where there is an
Action for Partition of real property with an AV of
(e) Foreclosure of REM the assessed value of the 80,000. This is a special civil action but, if you were to
property is P50,000 located in La Trinidad file this separately, the RTC has jurisdiction. So if you
This is within the jurisdiction of the RTC but this join your COA in the RTC including this you have a
is misjoined because it is a special civil action. If misjoined COA. However RTC can render a valid
the RTC renders a judgment, it is valid because it judgment over the misjoined COA.(kleer?)
is within its jurisdiction.
c. if you have COA’s which pertain to different
jurisdiction or venue.(MTC or RTC).
Recap:
- If all COA’s pertain to MTC then joinder is on
Joinder of COA: the MTC. If all the COA pertain to RTC then
joinder is on RTC. We will only consider this if
you have at least one COA that pertains to the authorizes us to sue entities without juridical
MTC, one COA pertains to RTC, so what can be personality. There is NO POWER given to it to sue.
done?
When we speak of parties they are either:
A: It can be joined in the RTC provided the RTC
has Jurisdiction over one of COA and venue lies 1. PLAINTIFFs
therein. That is the case now then joinder can be Those with an Interest in the subject matter
done in the RTC. of the action or those who are interested in
obtaining reliefs.
d. If they are all for the payment of sum of money, the 2. DEFENDANTS
aggregate amount determines jurisdiction. Those persons whose interest is adverse to
the plaintiff.
RULE 3: PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Plaintiff is the one who has a COA, and the defendant is
WHO? -Natural, the one who is trying to resist the enforcement of the
-Juridical, COA. Specifically the COA is for the payment of a sum of
money, yung plaintiff ang humihingi ng payment, yung
-Entities authorized by law defendant naman ay yung nagreresist ng payment.
1. NATURAL PERSONS You must understand though that those characters may
SHIFT.
- each and everyone of as are natural person.
EXAMPLE: A VS. B
2. JURIDICAL PERSONS
A is the plaintiff, B is the defendant. A and B
-Those who exist in the contemplation of the law. It is may shift depending on what you are looking at. The
the law that gives them personality. situation is the A-plaintiff, B-defendant, that is in the
Example: State, corporations, partnerships, original complaint. But when we are now talking of
associations..etc. COUNTERCLAIM , a counterclaim is defined as a claim
which the defending party may have as against the other
3. ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW party. So in this situation , B(Defendant) can file a
counterclaim because he is the defending party. So when
-they really do not have juridical personality, we are now looking at the counterclaim , the rows are
however, the law recognize them to exist. As such they reversed. The plaintiff now is B and the defendant now
are given the right to become parties. in the counterclaim is A.
Examples: Labor unions, estate of deceased There is also such a thing as CROSS CLAIM and
person, Roman catholic church.. there can also be a THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT.
“This are the persons who can become CROSS CLAIM is a claim by which a party may have as
parties.” against a co-party arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence, subject matter of either the original action
or a counterclaim.
The First part of rule 3 indicates a person who can
Illustration: AX(plaintiffs) VS. BY(defendants)
become PARTIES, NATURAL, JURIDICAL, ENTITIES
AUTHORIZED BY LAW CAN BECOME PARTIES.We will Now, there is a cross claim. B, can cross claim against
have to add to this enumeration what we found in Y and vise versa. Because a crossclaim is claim that a
section 15 of rule 3. It speaks of entities without legal party may have against a co-party arising out of the
personality. original claim.
4.Entities without legal personality can be sued after Example: The plaintiff sued for a collection of a sum of
the name by which they are generally or thoroughly money. Supposedly, they are suppose to share the
known. However in answer to their complaints there obligation 50/50 but the quality of the matter is B only
name , and addresses must be revealed. availed of 20% , Y for 80%. So it is now possible for B to
crossclaim for the additional 30%.
So we have an entity without juridical personality as an
addition to the enumeration. B, no bayad pero may utang si Y sa kanya pero
bago pa man makipag usap kay A at X, may utang na si Y
But when we are speaking of entities without juridical
sakanya(B). so he will now sue Y to make sure that he
personality, it can only become a party but only as a
has something to pay them. Is that proper cross claim?
DEFENDANT. Because the rule specifically says that they
NO, Because it does not arise of the same occurance or
may be SUED under the name that they are commonly
transaction, subject matter of the original claim. Hindi
known. However, when they file their ANSWER, they
siya connected kasi there is separate obligation, kaya
must indicate their names and addresses. It only
hidi pwede and cross claim. However he can file separate
complaint of an independent action but not by way of
cross claim. Q: if it bring suit and it cannot become a party,
what happens now?
So if we are speaking of a counterclaim , who are A: a suit can be dismissed on the “ground lack
cross claiming as against each other, it is the original of legal capacity to sue”. Sec1 rule 16
plaintiff are the ones cross claiming. Nag counterclaim
sila against the original plaintiffs and the original
plaintiffs can counter claim against each other. It can however happen that instead of plaintiff having
lack of the capacity to sue, it is now the DEFENDANT is
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT is a complaint that is the one who is not N,J E/L.
brought by a defendant against a person who in not yet a
party for what purpose: contribution, indemnification, 2. Sole proprietorship
subrogation, or any other claim in respect to the Sari sari store- not a n,j,e. So it lack of legal
opposing parties claim . capacity to sue
The ground for dismissal is lack of legal capacity
Example(same scenario above): to sue.
A and X only file suit against B. So Y is not a party. But Y
shares the obligation, So B may file a THIRD PARTY The ground for dismissal if the defendant is not
COMPLAINT to add Y in the picture. In which case now, authorized to be a party is failure to state a
he is asking Y to either contribute, indemnification or COA .
subrogation or any other claim in respect to the For you to be able to say that there is failure to
opposing parties claim. state the COA, the requisites of COA must be
incomplete.
In a Cross claim, who is the Plaintiff and who is the It can also be that the requisites are complete
defendant? In a cross claim, one of the defendants but there is still a failure to state a COA,that
become the plaintiff and the other defendant become the happens when the defendant is not authorized
defendant in the crossclaim. Not only as he is a to be a party. Meaning, you cannot enforce the
defendant in the original complaint, but he is also a COA as against 1 who cannot be a party. If the
defendant in the cross claim. But the one making the sole proprietorship cannot be a party even if the
crossclaim is the plaintiff in the cross claim. plaintiff has a valid COA, that COA cannot be
enforced as against it. Because it is not a PARTY!
In a third party complaint, the original defendant is now -Sometimes called: LACK OF LEGAL
the plaintiff, and person brought in is the defendant, PERSONALITY: inability to enforce the COA.
third party defendant. When there is inability to enforce COA, the
Q: Can a third party defendant become a plaintiff? ground for DISMISSAL is failure to state the
COA.
A: YES in two ways. He can file a fourth party complaint
in which case he become the plaintiff or when he file his IF NOT N,J,E- then it lacks legal capacity to sue.
aswer to the third party complaint, he can counter claim
as against the third party plaintiff. In this case it is now Who can become parties?
the plaintiff in the counterclaim. So the personalities will 1. Natural person
shift depending on what you are looking at. 2. Juridical person
P vs. D 3. Entity authorized by law
If plaintiff is not neither natural, juridical, or entity
authorized by law. In other word ewan natin kung ano
siya. Let us say it is a: They can be plaintiff or defendant.
1. Partnership by estoppel, in other words it is not
N, J, E. Plaintiff = person who has interest on the
Example : A -123Partnership subject matter or receiving relief.
A is a partner to 123 partnership. But not Defendant = in a position adverse to the
actually a partner. So A will transact with X who
plaintiff.
is a natural person.
X now will not pay A. what are the things that Entity without juridical personality can only be a
can happen: defendant.
A now will say: “1,2,3 partnership vs.
X”
Q:Can 123P become a party? Original complaint
A: No. because it is not N,J,E. it neither exist in Counterclaims
law or in fact. Cross-claims
Third party complaint
Father
Mother
In this case, somebody is usually Guardian
designated as a defendant and Guardian ad litem
became a plaintiff. When a representative sues for another, the
The PLAINTIFF is not a natural person, juridical person representative must state that he is suing as a
or entity authorized by law then the action is dismissible representative of another. If a representative is being
on the ground of LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE. sued, it must be stated that he is being used as a
representative of another,
The DEFENDANT is not a natural person, juridical
person or entity authorized by law then the action is What we have discussed so far is what is required when
dismissible on the ground of FAILURE TO STATE A one is going to sue or be sued. What is required? The
CAUSE OF ACTION because a party cannot seek relief basic requirement: You must be a: Natural person,
from one who cannot be a party. Juridical person, or Entity authorized by law and with a
qualification of (?)
REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY
Specifically, when one can sue or be Example:
sued, he can sue or be sued in a representative Jose (he can sue and can be sued)
capacity. In other words, he can be represented Juan (he can sue and can be sued)
by somebody else. RSR
Example: While they may have the capacity to sue or to be sued,
A vs B they cannot be parties in every action.
Can this suit take place between X and Y as
representatives of A and B? Yes, provided if that The only way it can happen, is that, RSR or Jose or Juan
happens, it must be stated that this persons are suing as should be a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
representatives of either plaintiff or they are being sued
as representatives of a defendant. A real party in interest is one who is going to be
benefited or one who is going to be injured by the
HUSBAND AND WIFE decision, or one entitled to the avails of the suit.
Rule: Husband and wife must sue jointly. That **Real party in interest can be:
means:
o Real party in interest-plaintiff
o If they are bringing a suit, both husband - The one who has a right that is sought to be
and wife should appear as plaintiff. enforced in the action.
o If they are being sued, both husband and o Real party in interest-defendant
wife should appear as defendant. - One who has a corresponding obligation
and whose act or omission violated the right
Exception: If they are suing to recover their own of the plaintiff.
personal properties. In other words, you have either a:
Plaintiff is the one to be benefited;
Defendant is the one to be injured.
(1) Complete separation of property as the property
regime, or Plaintiff = Pwede ba siyang manalo na nag benefit siya or
(2) You have a situation where they have properties pwede ba siyang matalo na nagbenefit siya?
which they own by themselves to the exclusion of Defendant= Pwede ba siyang matalo na na-injure siya or
the spouse. pwede ba siyang mag benefit na-natalo siya?
Furthermore, if one does not include the husband, We don’t know who is the party who is going to be
or does not include a wife in a complaint, that is a MERE benefited and who is the party who is going to be injured
FORMAL DEFECT and it can be remedied by the because there is no guarantee that just because you are
inclusion of the husband or the wife as the case the plaintiff, you will prevail; there’s no guarantee on the
maybe. other hand because you are the defendant, you will lose.
MINORS AND INCOMPETENTS
A real party in interest is one who is supposed to be
Minors and incompetents are natural persons. They benefited, or supposed to be injured by the decision.
have the capacity to sue and to be sued. However, if they Hindi sumusunod na plaintiff yun, hindi rin sumusunod
are going to sue or going to be sued, they need to be na defendant yun. As long as what can happen to a party
assisted by: is that he will be benefited or he might be injured, he is a
real party in interest.
“The one entitled to the avail of the suit” Jose: Eh alam mo naman tayo ehmasyado tayong
pasensyoso. Pabayaan nalang natin siya…
When we say avail of the suit, we are talking of the Pedro: Ano!? Papabayaan nalang natin?!
consequences. So ang consequences kasi is: Panalo, talo, Jose: Oo
tabla. So if they will both be affected, they are the parties Pedro: Ah hindi pwede sakin yan ah! I will take up the
in interest. How? They will either lose, they will either cudgels for you!
win or they may either walk away with nothing, both of
them. It really depends how the court will perceive the 2nd illustration (Defended)
COA and how it will consider the evidences that are
presented. Pedro vs Juan
Determination of a real party in interest-plaintiff as Pedro says he has a right and Juan committed an
opposed to a real party in interest-defendant, hindi siya omission and that he (Pedro) has an obligation as well as
pareho. Both of them may either benefit or be injured. an act or omission. Can this proceed? No! because Pedro
That’s why they are two different things. Both of them is not a real party in interest.
are real parties in interest because they may benefit or
they may be injured. (kleer! Potspa paulit ulit yukuna Juan: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground of
xD). failure to state a COA.
Q: What does it require us to do? So when an action is A: When clearly a COA is stated it is still considered
filed, even if the plaintiff or the defendant is a natural, failure to state a COA because, Pedro is not entitled to
juridical, or an entity authorized by law, what else is now any relief yet he has stated a COA but the COA does not
required? belong to him. Since it doesn’t belong to him, he has no
right to relief. That’s why, even if a COA is stated, the
A: They must be real parties in interest. It is not ground for dismissal is still- a failure to state a COA
sufficient that you be a natural person (kaya nga sinabi insofar as he is concerned- because the COA belongs to
ko kanina, can I intervene in all actions? No! and if I ask Jose. It doesn’t belong to Pedro. That’s why insofar as
you: Why not? I’m a natural person? Because, I’m not a Pedro is concerned, while he has stated a COA, the stated
real party in interest.) The Rule requires all actions to COA does not belong to him. It belongs to Jose.
be prosecuted and defended in the name of a real
party in interest. Baliktarin natin: (yawkuna)
1st illustration (prosecuted) Jose, states his COA (he has a right, he has stated an act
or omission and he has an obligation) but he filed it
Jose v Juan against Mario (Maurer :3 charot!). Jose taught Juan is
Mario or talagang gusto ng idemanda si Juan kayalang
Jose has a COA against Juan. There is a right now in favor nung pinakulong si Juan, si Mario (Maurer maylabs)
of Juan, there is an obligation and an act or omission was yung sabat ng sabat so dinemanda ni Jose si Mario (sabi
committed by Juan. niya daw: ikaw kaya idemanda ko xD)
Q: Are they real parties in interest? Question: Is Mario, a real party in interest defendant?
A: No! because the obligation is imposed upon Juan. Juan
A: Yes, they can be parties because they are both natural is the one who committed an act or omission. So Mario is
person. Yes, they are real parties in interest because Jose not a real party in interest-defendant.
(real party in interest-plaintiff), has a right that he wants
to enforce. Juan is also a real party in interest-defendant So the rule now is violated. Since the rule is: all actions
because he has an obligation and he committed an act or should be prosecuted and defended, in the name of a
omission that violates the right of Jose. real party in interest.
*Pedro is aware of what Juan did to violate the rights of Based on our illustrations, it is not being defended in the
Jose. name of the real party in interest and it can be dismissed
on the ground of FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
Pedro: Oh! Yun yung ginawa sayo ni Juan, anong ACTION.
ginagawa mo?
Yes, a COA is stated, BUT the one with an obligation is
not the named defendant. That’s why insofar as the
name defendant, there is no COA. That’s why it is failure LOCUS STANDI = your right to participate in an action.
to state a COA. (Kleer!)
So if you are a real party in interest, you have locus
Reminder: This failure to state a COA, must not be standi or you have standing.
magulo (messy :3 cheret engelesh) but there are now
VARIANTS OF A FAILURE TO STATE A COA: But there are certain actions specifically “tax
payer’s suit” where there are issues as to standing
1) A COA is composed of a right, an obligation, because when we speak of LS, we are preparing to one’s
or an act or omission; right to appear before a court on a given question.
- So if you have a statement that is
insufficient, in other words walang right, In ordinary and special civil actions for that matter,
walang obligation or walang act or omission standing or locus standi is granted or is governed by the
or wala yung dalawa or wala yung tatlo, Rules on Real party in Interest.
(lahat na lahat na wala ser) that is clearly, a
failure to state a COA. o If you are a real party in interest, then you have
2) A COA is stated however, the defendant is not standing.
one who can become a party. o If you are not a real party in interest, then of
- Failure to state a COA parin because you course, you do not have standing.
cannot enforce a COA as against one who
cannot be a party. (kleer!) However, that being said, the SC in certain instances,
3) Plaintiff is not a real party in interest; have allowed persons without standing to appear before
- He has no right that can be enforced. So the a court and litigate a particular matter. They are
name plaintiff now states no COA because referring to cases of transcendental importance.
he has no right. He cannot state a COA in his Meaning, because of the issues involved, the SC will
favor because the COA belongs to somebody overlook or disregard the rule on standing and allow a
else. That’s why (walang forever cheret), party to appear before the court even if that party really
insofar as he is concerned, there is a failure has no standing.
to state a COA.
Defendant is not a real party in interest RECAP:
- Real party in interest defendant- the one
who has corresponding obligation, whose Real Party in Interest: RPI is one who stands to be
act or omission violated the right of the benefited or injured by the decision or judgment.
plaintiff. So if a person named as a
RPI-Plaintiff : Is the one who has a right that he
defendant is not a real party in interest,
is seeking to enforce.
then that mean, he has no obligation and he
RPI-Defendant: the one who has the
is not the one who committed the act or
corresponding obligation who committed an act
omission. That’s why, insofar (naka ilang
or omission in violation of the right of the
insofar na tayo insofar? xD) as he is
plaintiff.
concerned, no COA is stated as against him.
The rule as found in sec 2 of rule 3: “actions are
Kaya failure to state a COA even if there is
to be prosecuted and defended in the name
really a COA. (Duyufalow?)
of the real party in interest.”
If the plaintiff is not a RPI or the defendant is not
A vs B
RPI or both are not RPI, the action can be
Q: If X represents A, how should the complaint appear so
dismissed on the ground: “failure to state a
that it will not be dismissed on the ground of failure to
COA”.
state a COA?
Why? Dahil nga kung hindi siya RPI-Plaintiff he
has no right of action, if hindi siya RPI-
A: It should now appear this way:
Defendant then there is no act/or omission. That
A vs B A is represented by X
is why there is failure to state a COA.
A vs B as represented by Y
Q: Will that be sufficient for the court to render a valid Main question: Can the court render a valid judgment
judgment? without affecting the rights of another?
A NO! Why? Because there are indispensable parties. The If YES, then the other is simply a
court cannot partition the property between A and B NECESSARY PARTY. Because in the
because it affects the interest of C and D or ABCD. But situation X can only recover 250 from A,
the situation is only B is impleaded. C and D are not he has no right recovering the 250 from
impleaded so the court cannot render a valid judgement B. so when he sues A alone, B is a
dividing the property into four. Because any such NECESSARY PARTY. Because B ought to
judgment affects the right of C and D. They are be joined and the relief will be
indispensible parties. Kleer. complete.
Object of the rule: AVOID
If you are going to be ask if a party is indispensible or MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS. Lahat ng
not, you simply ask yourselves: “Can the court render a dapat majoin, ijoin mo na!
valid judgment without affecting the rights of a party MAIN DISTINCTIONS:
who is not impleaded?” -pag indispensible ang party then, if you
do not join, there is no final
determination.
-pag Necessary party, if you do not join, X only sues A. We have identified B to be a necessary
then there is no complete relief. party. So when X only sues A, the complaint must state
the name of B as a necessary party, and the reason why
Q: If it is determined that an indispensible party is he is not being joined. Now, after the complaint is filed,
missing, is that a ground for Dismissal? the court will now make a determination if the reason is
A: NO because what should happen is that the court VALID /JUSTIFIED or NOT. Then , if the court will now
should order the amendment of the pleadings to include say that the reason is valid, then the case will proceed. In
the indispensible party. other words, the court will continue to hear the case as
against A and it does not matter now whether B is joined
If the Indispensible party despite an order or not because there is valid reason not to join B.
is not joined,or the plaintiffs fails or
refuses to join the indispensible party or If the court determines that the reason
because the IP cannot be sued on account is NOT VALID, the court will now issue
of the fact that he is not a resident and the an order requiring A to implead B.
action is personal then the action can be If A fails or refuses to implead B, the
DISMISSED. It is not dismissed because consequence is, the claim of X as against
there is non-joinder of an indispensible B is considered WAIVED. The action
party but it is dismissed because there is now proceeds and any judgment is
failure to comply with an order to join without prejudice to any right which B
an indispensible party. may have as against X.
On the other hand there is also a possibility that: A RPI shall be classified further as IP or NP. IP are parties
vs. B,C,D,E,F those who ought to be joined to be able to get a final
determination of the action. The failure to implead an IP,
Sabi ni A: Para walang problema isama ko na silang will not allow the court to render a valid judgment,
lahat. Although hindi dapat kasama si E at F. Is that a because the judgment, affects the right of the persons
problem?NO because if a party is misjoined they who should be joined because they are IP.
will be SEVERED from the action.
If it is discovered that there is an IP to be joined, the
Q: what will lead to a party being misjoined? court should order the plaintiff to amend his pleading to
join an IP. When the plaintiff fails or refuse or the
A: he is not a Real Party in Interest. If one is not jurisdiction over the indispensible party cannot be
RPI, he is misjoined. obtained because the action is personal and the party is
When a necessary party is not joined, the rules nonresident defendant, then that is the time the action is
require that: DISMISSED.
1.When a plaintiff files his complaint, he must state the When we are talking of a necessary party, it is not
name of the necessary party who ought to be joined indispensible but they ought to be joined for complete
relief. When a necessary party is not joined, the rules
2. State the reason why that person is not being joined. require: that the complaint shall state the necessary
party, together with the reason why the NP is not being
EXAMPLE: joined. The court now will make a DETERMINATION if
the reason is meritorious or valid or not. If VALID, then
the action proceeds as against the impleaded party. That If A will only sue B, he needs to join C and D because
means now that later on can X decide to sue B…? YES. If they are real parties in interest and they are fully
NOT VALID/MERITORIOUS, then consequence is there indispensable parties. If that is the situation, for relief
is a WAIVER of the claim of the plaintiff as against the to be obtained by A, A needs to join C and D.
NP who is not joined. The court will now proceed to
judgment and such is without prejudice to any right So in this situation, in so far as Joinder of Parties is
which a NP out to be joined may have as against the concerned, kase if you Join Parties, you included B,C, and
plaintiff. D together or it can be “A,C, and D vs. B”.
Finally, when parties are misjoined, that is determined to Q:Did you join parties? (yes) that is Joinder of Parties
be the fact then the misjoined parties can simply be because they are bound by a common question of fact.
severed from the action.
So we now have 2 situations on the board. One is the Illustration: If you read the book of the Dean, where the
exception, the other one is the general rule. So the (Donia Pascual?) where a thousand passengers were
general rule is: joinder of party is simply permissive. So injured and died. Some died, some are injured. So the
the choice now is upon the plaintiff, whether he will join subject matter of the action is the claim of all those who
all the plaintiffs together, against a single defendant, or are injured, or all those who died who is their
join all the defendants together or if marami kang representatives or heirs, for the payment of damages.
plaintiff you can join them all together vs all the That situation is not proper for a class suit because while
defendant because , general rule is that it is permissive. is it true that the subject matter is of common general
interest to many, there interest is divisible because those
We have identified that all of them are indispensable. So who were injured or those who died, did not occupy the
all of them ought to be joined . this illustrates the same social positions. (ex. there are laborers,
exception to the general rule. If you determine all the employees, professionals, business men, and so on) the
parties to be indispensable, the requirement now is, claim for damages vary as to each of them. The claim for
you must join all of them. one is not the same as the claim for the other that’s why
it is not proper for a class suit. In some other
Q: Why is it required that you join all of them?
jurisdictions, that would be proper for a class suit. But in
A: Because without all of them being joined, there will our jurisdiction, it is improper for a class suit. In fact it
never be a final determination. That’s why, you need to could even be said that we have a more stringent
join all of them. (so exception, all of them are requirement for the institution of class suits because our
supposed to be joined if they are all indispensable interpretation of a common or general interest, is that it
parties) should be indivisible. Meaning you cannot separate the
interest of one from the other. That’s why sometimes,
we have to be careful when asking for the payment of INDIVISIBLE or simply put, the benefit of one, if the
damages. Because if you file a class suit and you ask for benefit of everybody; where one benefits, everybody
the payment of damages, sometimes, that can be benefits. So yun ang ibig sabihin ng proper subject
interpreted as having the effects of converting the matter.
subject matter from one that is indivisible, to divisible
because ang mangyayari, the members of the class will We also made a comparison between a class suit
receive a definite sum of money in the form of damages. under jurisdiction, and class suits in our own
So when the sum becomes definite, there is interest in jurisdiction. In other jurisdiction, even if the subject
the subject matter becomes divisible, so hindi na ngayon matter is capable of division or separation, it is still
proper for a class suit. proper a CS. For example, the suit filed against the
Tobacco Distributive Manufacturing (Firms of) the
United States, that is a CS. However, the interest of the
parties or the members of the class is SEPARABLE. In
PARTIES other words, hinid sila pare-pareho. Some may get
Natural greater settlement, some may get lesser settlement. Now
Juridical in our setting, that will not work. In our setting it should
Entity authorized by law be, everbody should have the same thing or should be
Entity without juridical personality entitled to the SAME THING. The benefit of one, is the
benefit that is going to be enjoyed by the others.
Real parties in interest
The best standing example of a class suit is the case
Real party in interest-plaintiff = the one with a of OPOSA V. FACTORAN because that is an
right environmental landmark case brought by children are
Real party in interest-defendant = the one represented by their parents to make sure that the
whose act or omission violated the right of the Manila Bay is cleaned up. So this is a CS because all of
plaintiff our interest for the generation to come is really
incapable of separation. If one will really benefit then
Representatives everybody will benefits from the cleaning up of Manila
Bay.
Husband and wife
Minors and incompetents Another example, if a class will all reside in one
locality and to get to get to and from our respective
This discussion is in connection with the rule that residences, we only pass one road. Now if the owner of
requires actions to be prosecuted and defended in the the parcel of land wherein the road is standing decides
name of your real party in interest then we discussed to close it, can we bring a class suit? Yes we can. But we
necessary and indispensable parties. have to be careful in the sense that we should ensure
that our interest in keeping the road open is COMMON to
IP = Party who ought to be joined for a final everybody wala tayong mas malapit ako, ams gusto ko,
determination or w/o whom there can be no final you may not want it you may want some other way of
determination. getting to and from your property, it should be of
NP = Party who is not indispensable but who ought to be common interest to everybody. That may be proper for a
joined for complete relief. CS but take note that the minute we now say that I am
entitled not only to the opening of the road + damages in
Rule on Joinder of party this amount, medyo delikado na yon because that
changes the character of the subject matter from one
Permissive however the rule on joinder of party that is indivisible to all, to divisible now because you can
becomes compulsory if all the parties to be now quantify your interest and the way you quantify
joined are indispensable parties so you need to your interest is not necessarily the same way by which
join all of them. one will quantify his or her own interest. If you can
The compulsory nature of joinder of parties will maintain it as one where the interest of everybody
yield to an exception and that is when you’re remains to be the same then it should be proper for a
talking of a CLASS SUIT. class suit.
REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS SUIT:
2. The parties are so numerous that it is
1. The subject matter should be of common or impracticable to join all of them as parties
general interest to many
This requirement is relative kasi, can we assign a
This dictates what can be the subject matter of a CS. particular number numerous? Hindi. If we decide to
We say, while it is of common general interest to many. bring a class suit, are we numerous enough? That’s
When we say it is of common general interest to many, where it becomes relative. Some may say we are a
kailangan na the nature of the interest should be sufficient number but it is impracticable to join all of us
as plaintiffs or as defedants for that matter. So as you can intervene because it is clear that he or she has
see, relative yan. an interest in the SM.
Effects of incompetency or incapacity (1) His gross income and that of his immediate
family does not exceed an amount double the
Here, the situation is, the party becomes incompetent or monthly minimum wage of an employee.
becomes incapacitated during the pendency of the
action. If that happens, the action continues however the For example, the minimum wage is P300.00 a day so that
party incompetent now or incapacitated must be means, we’re talking ‘double’, so P600.00 a day. If one
assisted by a guardian or a guardian ad litem. wishes to litigate as a pauper litigant, it needs that his GI
together with that of the immediate members of his
Transfer pendent lite family, should not exceed P600.00.
So let us say that it is the husband who wants to litigate a
o What is being transferred? The subject matter pauper litigant, so the other persons earning income
within his immediate family is the spouse. So is the
o Who is transferring the SM? The party spouses’ income is P200 not P300, then they would
qualify to litigate as a pauper litigant because their GI,
o When is the party transferring it? During the meaning, that of the person who wishes to litigate as a
pendency of the litigation pauper litigant and those of his immediate family, does
not exceed an amount double the minimum wage. In this
If it is a TPL, it means that the transferee pendent lite case, P300 ang example, basta hindi lumalamang sa
automatically becomes a party. However the thing that P600, okay.
gives rise to publication is if the court allows the action
to proceed as between the original parties. In other (2) He may own real property provided the real
words, hindi pumapasok or hindi nag susurface yung property does not have a fair market value in
transfer pendent lite as a party-plaintiff or as a party- excess of P300,000
defendant.
So sa tax declaration, so nakalagay na “less than
What you have to remember always: As long as you P300,000”, even if he has real property, then he will not
recognize it to be a TPL, a transferee pendente lite is be disqualified from litigating as a pauper litigant.
always a party.
So there are two conditions: If he does not exceed double
Q: What is the consequence if he be considered as a the minimum wage, and no real property, yes he can
party? litigate as a pauper litigant. If it does exceed, okay. But he
has real property- the condition is, the fair market value
A: He will be bound by all the proceedings and the should not be greater than P300,000. So if he has real
judgment. If he wants to take relief from a judgment that property and the fair market value is only P250,000,
is adverse, then he himself can appeal. then he can litigate as a pauper litigant.
*then I cautioned you regarding intervention because The way to litigate as a pauper litigant:
the probable question in so far as intervention:
File an application then that application to
Q: Will there be a need for a person or a transferee litigate as a pauper litigant, is supposed to be
pendente lite to still intervene? accompanied by an affidavit stating the facts
A: No, because he is already a party. A person intervenes required by the circular.
only if he has an interest in the subject matter of the It must also be accompanied by an affidavit of a
litigation and he is not yet a party. A transferee pendent disinterested person attesting to the facts stated
lite notwithstanding his absence as a named party, he is in the primary affidavit.
already a party.
So what will the pauper litigant do?
Indigent or a pauper litigant
1) He will file his complaint Need for the appearance of a SOLICITOR
GENERAL
2) He will file his application to litigate as a pauper
litigant A SolGen is supposed to appear in any action involving
the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
Attached in his application is his: order, presidential decree, rule, or regulation before in
a. Primary affidavit saying that he is qualified and its discretion, may require the appearance of a SolGen
an who may be heard in person or through a representative
designated by it.
b. Affidavit of a disinterested person confirming
the facts stated in his primary affidavit. The SolGen is not a party. The action is between different
parties. However, if the subject matter in the action has
3) He will now submit that. something to do with the validity of a treaty, a law,
ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rule or
regulation, the court in the exercise of its discretion, may
Once it is submitted, the Clerk of Court now require a SolGen to appear. The purpose is, ofcourse the
will bring to the attention of the Executive SolGen is there to ensure that the questioned matter is in
Judge. order kase the law is accorded a presumption of
regurality. So the SolGen, is supposed to defend that or if
The Executive Judge now will make a the SolGen really finds that there is something wrong
determination whether or not the plaintiff with the subject matter of the law, then it should make
can be allowed to litigate as a pauper the necessary measures to inform the court or to advice
litigant. the court appropriately as to the actual status of the law.
Kase the lawyer of the state is always the SolGen.
Once the Judge says he can litigate as a
pauper litigant, the complaint will now be RULE 4
docketed. (Pag file ng complaint, ma
dodocket siya. Kailan siya ma dodocket? Pag VENUE
binayaran na yung filing fees.) Here in this Venue is defined as:
case, if the plaintiff is allowed to litigate
as a pauper litigant, he does not pay the The place where the action is to be commenced
filing fees. and tried.
Subsequently, summons will be issued. It has also been defined as the proper location for
the trial of a case.
Note: while there appears to be an exception as to the
payment of docket fees that is really not the case because Venue is not jurisdiction. In other words, when we say
the docket fees will constitute a lien on the judgment. If venue is not jurisdictional, we are saying that venue is
the pauper litigant eventually prevails, the docket fees not the same as jurisdiction. However, venue becomes
supposed to be paid will constitute a lien on the jurisdictional only, in criminal cases because the only
judgment. In other words, pag collect niya or pag enforce case where you can commence a criminal action is the
niya ng judgment, babawasan na dun yung docket fees. place where the offense or any of its essential elements
occurred. That is why in criminal cases, venue is
What else is covered by a favorable grant of an jurisdictional because no other court can take
application to litigate as a pauper litigant? What will be cognizance of a criminal action except the court where
covered likewise is an exemption from the payment of the offense was committed.
DSL fees or the payment for securing transcripts of
stenographic notes (P10 per page). In civil cases, venue is not jurisdictional. To illustrate:
If you want to recover property with an AV of P70,000
However, if it turns out that there is a falsity in the then jurisdiction is RTC because it is already beyond
affidavit, the other party can bring that to the attention P50,000 or in MTCs, beyond P20,000. So it is clearly with
of the court. If it finds out that indeed there is a false the RTC. If this property is located in Baguio, then venue
statement in the affidavit, it shall constitute sufficient should be in Baguio because the Rule on venue is that, in
ground to dismiss the action or to strike out the pleading real actions, venue should be in the place where the
without prejudice the filing of appropriate criminal cases property or any portion thereof is located.
because there is now a false statement in the affidavit so
that would constitute perjury. When we say venue is not jurisdictional, here we are:
This is supposed to be filed in Baguio but let us say that
The best thing that you can get away with, is for the it is filed in the RTC of Manila. Can you file a motion in
court to simply say, pay for the docket fees. But the Rules the RTC of Manila saying that it has no jurisdiction on the
say, that if there’s a falsity that is ground for a dismissal, ground that it should be filed in Baguio? No, because the
or for a pleading to be stricken out. RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over this kinds of actions.
Except that, the proper place where it is supposed to be
commenced and tried is Baguio.
Let us say, same property, 5% Baguio, 95% in La
When venue is not questioned, in other words, as Trinidad. Where is the venue? Either in La Trinidad or in
between the plaintiff and the defendant, they are Baguio because there is no distinction as long a portion
perfectly happy litigating it in Manila, is that okay? Yes, thereof is located within the territorial jurisdiction of a
because venue is not jurisdictional. The RTC of Manila locality, then venue is proper in that locality.
even if the property is located in Baguio, can actually try
the case.
Venue vs Jurisdiction 2. If the action is personal, venue is in the place
where plaintiff resides or the defendant resides,
VENUE JURISDICTION at the option of the plaintiff.
3. Venue can be the 3. Jurisdiction can never If you are talking however, of a NON-RESIDENT
subject of a be the subject of an DEFENDANT, in other words, he does not have
written agreement (since it is residence in the Philippines, a non-resident defendant
agreement fixed by law) can be sued wherever he may be found. If the action is
personal, the plaintiff’s residence or the defendant’s
4. The court cannot 4. On account of lack of
residence at the option of the plaintiff. If we’re talking of
motu proprio jurisdiction, a court
a NRD, can the action still be brought in the plaintiff’s
dismiss on the can motu proprio
residence? Yes because it is his choice. However, it can
ground of dismiss an action if it
also be brought wherever the NRD can be found.
improper venue finds that it doesn’t
have jurisdiction