Rule 5-10 CivPro Dean Jara
Rule 5-10 CivPro Dean Jara
Rule 5-10 CivPro Dean Jara
(1) Whether or not a complaint for sum of money is the proper remedy for the
petitioner, notwithstanding theKasunduang Pag-aayos; 13 and
1. CRISANTA ALCARAZ MIGUEL, petitioner, vs. JERRY D.
MONTANEZ, respondent.[G.R. No. 191336. January 25, 2012.] (2) Whether or not the CA should have decided the case on the merits rather
than remand the case for the enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos.
FACTS:
RULE 7
Furthermore, the Barangay Captain, as a public official, is presumed to act regularly
in the performance of official duty. 13 In the absence of contrary evidence, this 1. Traveo v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-purpose Cooperative, G.R. No.
presumption prevails; his issuance of the disputed Certification to File an Action was 164205, [September 3, 2009]
regular and pursuant to law. 14 Thus, the Barangay Captain properly issued the Facts:
Certification to File an Action.
Petitioner Oldarico Traveo and his 16 co-petitioners, in 1992, respondent Timog
Agricultural Corporation (TACOR) and respondent Diamond Farms, Inc. (DFI)
Even granting that an irregularity had intervened in the Barangay Captain's issuance hired them to work at a banana plantation at Bobongon, Santo Tomas, Davao Del
Norte. Petitioners asseverated that while they worked under the direct control of
of the Certification to File and Action, we note that this irregularity is not a
supervisors assigned by TACOR and DFI, these companies used different schemes
jurisdictional flaw that warrants the dismissal of the criminal cases before the MTC. to make it appear that petitioners were hired through independent contractors,
including individuals, unregistered associations, and cooperatives; that the
successive changes in the names of their employers notwithstanding, they
Thus, the MTC has jurisdiction to try and hear the petitioner's case; the claimed continued to perform the same work under the direct control of TACOR and DFI
irregularity in conciliation procedure, particularly in the issuance of the Certification supervisors; and that under the last scheme adopted by these companies, the
to File an Action, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction. If at all, the irregularity nominal individual contractors were required to, as they did, join a cooperative and
merely affected the parties' cause of action. The petitioner next contends that even if thus became members of respondent Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-purpose
there was a valid Certification to File an Action, the lower courts still erred in Cooperative (the Cooperative). Sometime in 2000, above-named respondents
began utilizing harassment tactics to ease them out of their jobs Soon thereafter,
admitting the Certificate into evidence as the prosecution did not formally offer it as they stopped paying their salaries, prompting them to stop working.
required by the Rules on Evidence. He emphasizes that in Fideldia v. Sps.
Mulato, 18 the Court held that a formal offer is necessary because judges are required One after another, three separate complaints for illegal dismissal were filed by
petitioners, individually and collectively, with the National Labor Relations
to base their findings solely upon evidence offered by the parties. In the absence of a
Commission (NLRC) against said respondents including respondent Dole Asia
By Resolution dated February 20, 2004, the appellate court dismissed 6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the
petitioners' petition for certiorari on the ground that the accompanying party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
verification and certification against forum shopping was defective, it having reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
been signed by only 19 of the 22 therein named petitioners. Their Motion for Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of May 13, 2004, petitioners (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
lodged the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
In this case, the foregoing restated pronouncements were lost in the challenged
Petitioners posit that the appellate court erred in dismissing their petition on a mere Resolutions of the appellate court. Petitioners' contention that the appellate court
technicality as it should have, at most, dismissed the petition only with respect to should have dismissed the petition only as to the non-signing petitioners or
the non-signing petitioners. merely dropped them as parties to the case is thus in order.
Issue: WON the appellate court erred in dismissing their petition due to the defect in
the verification and certification against forum shopping
RULE 10
Held: 1. Philippine Ports Authority v. William Gothong & Aboitiz, Inc., G.R. No.
No. The Court's guidelines for the bench and bar in Altres v. Empleo, 20 which were 158401, [January 28, 2008]
culled "from jurisprudential pronouncements", are instructive: For the guidance of
the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential Facts:
pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the After the expiration of the lease contract of Veterans Shipping Corporation over the
requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification Marine Slip Way in the North Harbor on December 31, 2000, petitioner WG&A
against forum shopping: requested respondent PPA( Philippine Ports Authority) for it to be allowed to lease
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or and operate the said facility. Thereafter, then President Estrada issued a
submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or memorandum dated December 18, 2000, stating to the effect that in its meeting held
submission of defective certification against forum shopping. on December 13, 2000, the Economic Coordinating Council (ECC) has approved the
request of petitioner WG&A to lease the Marine Slip Way from January 1 to June
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not
30, 2001 or until such time that respondent PPA turns over its operations to the
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission
winning bidder for the North Harbor Modernization Project. However, believing that
or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict
the said lease already expired on June 30, 2001, respondent PPA subsequently sent a
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice letter to petitioner WG&A dated November 12, 2001 directing the latter to vacate the
may be served thereby. contested premises not later than November 30, 2001 and to turnover the
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample improvements made therein pursuant to the terms and conditions agreed upon in the
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition contract. In response, petitioner WG&A wrote PPA on November 27, 2001 urging
On November 28, 2001, petitioner WG&A commenced an Injunction suit before the Held:
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner claims that the PPA unjustly, illegally and No. The CA did not err in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
prematurely terminated the lease contract. It likewise prayed for the issuance of a in issuing the Order dated March 22, 2002 denying the admission of respondent's
temporary restraining order to arrest the evacuation. In its complaint, petitioner also second amended complaint.
sought recovery of damages for breach of contract and attorney's fees. On December
11, 2001, petitioner WG&A amended its complaint for the first time. The The RTC applied the old Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court:
complaint was still denominated as one for Injunction with prayer for TRO. In the Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. after the case is set
said amended pleading, the petitioner incorporated statements to the effect for hearing, substantial amendments may be made only upon
that PPA is already estopped from denying that the correct period of lease is "until leave of court. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the
such time that the North Harbor Modernization Project has been bidded out to and court that the motion was made with intent to delay the action or
operations turned over to the winning bidder. It likewise included, as its third cause that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered. Orders
of action, the additional relief in its prayer, that should the petitioner be forced to of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be
vacate the said facility, it should be deemed as entitled to be refunded of the value of made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse
the improvements it introduced in the leased property. party, and an opportunity to be heard.
Following the first amendment in the petitioner's complaint, instead of the provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, amending Section
respondent PPA submitted its answer on January 23, 2002. Meanwhile, the TRO 3, Rule 10, to wit:
sought by the former was denied by the trial court by way of an order dated January
16, 2002. SECTION 3. Amendments by leave of court. Except as
provided in the next preceding section, substantial amendments
Petitioner later moved for the reconsideration of the said Order on February 11, may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may be
2002. Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Attached Second refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made
Amended Complaint. This time, however, the complaint was already captioned as with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the matters
one for Injunction with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court,
Preliminary Injunction and damages and/or for Reformation of Contract. Also, it and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be
included as its fourth cause of action and additional relief in its prayer, the heard.
reformation of the contract as it failed to express or embody the true intent of the
contracting parties. The admission of the second amended complaint met strong The Court has emphasized the import of Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of
opposition from the respondent PPA. It postulated that the reformation sought Civil Procedure in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, thus:
for by the petitioner constituted substantial amendment, which if granted, will Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
substantially alter the latter's cause of action and theory of the case. amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the cause of
RTC issued an Order denying the Admission of the Second Amended Complaint. action or defense is substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the same was in the new rules. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3, Rule
again denied in an order dated April 26, 2002. Herein respondent WG&A then filed 10 is that under the new rules, "the amendment may (now)
a petition for certiorari with the CA seeking the nullification of the aforementioned substantially alter the cause of action or defense." This should only be
RTC orders. The CA granted respondent's petition, thereby setting aside the RTC true, however, when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause
orders and directing the RTC to admit respondent's second amended complaint of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the
pursuant to Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner higher interests of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally
moved for reconsideration but the same was denied per Resolution dated May 15, promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just,
2003. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."
Hence, the present petition. 2. Swagman Hotels & Travel Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, [April
8, 2005]
Held:
No. Amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure in order that the actual merits of a case may be determined in the most
expeditious and inexpensive manner without regard to technicalities, and that all