Civil Procedure

ESGUERRA NOTES

An instance is where Congress expressly

CIVIL PROCEDURE enabled the courts to establish all necessary rules for
the orderly conduct of business, provided such rules
were not repugnant to the laws of the United States, in
the great case of Wayman vs. Southard ([1825], 10
Rule 1 Wheat., 1), made the remark that "these section give
General Provisions the court full power over all matters of practice. . . ."

Recurring now to section 28 of the Judiciary

I. Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court Law, and section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which
constitute the legislative authority for the promulgation
¤ 1987 Constitution Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5) of rules by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands,
it is to be noted, in the first place, that the court is given
The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate the power to make all necessary rules for orderly
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of procedure in the court, and for regulating the conduct of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure business in the court. We apprehend that within this
in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the language would be included regulations having to do
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the with the preparation and filing of briefs. The law also
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified provides that such rules shall be binding and must be
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of observed. The general limitation is, that the rules must
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, not be in conflict with laws of the United States or of the
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive Philippine Islands. The specific limitation is that no
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi- judgment shall be reversed by reason of the failure of
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved the court to comply with such rules, unless the
by the Supreme Court. substantial rights of the party have been impaired buy
such failure. (Shioji v. Harvey, G.R. No. 18940, 27 April
¤ 1987 Constitution Article VI, Section 30 1922)

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate IV. Power of Supreme Court to suspend the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Rules of Court
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
The Supreme Court may suspend the effectivity or apply
At present, the laws governing jurisdiction of the courts with leniency the Rules of Court in the following
are B.P. Blg. 129 and R.A. No. 296 insofar as it has not circumstances:
been repealed by B.P. Blg. 129.
1. When compelling reasons so warrant or when
the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes and
II. Distinction between procedural and good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of
substantive rules the rules is discretionary upon courts (CIR v. Migrant
Pagbilao Corp., G.R. No. 159593, 12 October 2006).
Among the reasons that would warrant the suspension
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights of the Rules are:
and duties regarding life, liberty or property which when
violated gives rise to a cause of action (Bustos v. a. the existence of special or compelling
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640). circumstances
b. merits of the case
c. cause not entirely attributable to the fault
Procedural law prescribes the methods of enforcing
or negligence of the party favored by the
those rights and obligations created by substantive law
suspension of rules
by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress
d. a lack of ay showing that the review
for the invasion of rights and violations of duties and by
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried and
e. the other party will not be unjustly
decided by the courts.
prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan,
G.R. No. 167471, 5 February 2007).
As applied to civil law, substantive law is that
which declares the rights and obligations of parties who 2. To relieve a litigant of an injustice
enter into contracts, while procedural law provides or commensurate with his failure to comply with the
regulates the steps to be taken by a person whose rights prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of
under the contract was breached. substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will
automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural
rules. (Cu-Unjieng v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139596,
III. Force and effect of Rules of Court
24 January 2006)
Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of
3. Where substantial and important issues await
law, have the force and effect of law, if not in conflict
resolution. (Migrant Pagbilao Corp., supra)
with positive law (Inchausti & Co. vs. De Leon [1913],
24 Phil., 224.) The Rules of Court is subordinate to the
4. When transcendental matters of life, liberty or
statute, and, in case of conflict, the statute will prevail.
state security are involved (Mindanao Savings Loan
Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416).

Page 1
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

5. The constitutional power of the Supreme Court ii. The term “subject matter” also refers to
to promulgate rules of practice and procedure the item with respect to which the
necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial controversy has arisen, or concerning
precedents on points of remedial law through the which the wrong has been done, and it is
amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of ordinarily the right, the thing, or the
Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, 30 June 2006). contract under dispute (De la rama v.
Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704).
V. Compliance with, amendment to, or
waiver of the Rules of Court provisions iii. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law which may be either the
Justice Moran points out that rules of Constitution or a statute (Guinhawa v.
procedure are matters of public interest (Sanidad v. People of the Philippines, 468 SCRA 278).
Cabotaje, 5 Phil. 204; Castaño v. Lobingier, 7 Phil 91, Since jurisdiction is a matter of
94; Arzadon v. Arzadon, 15 Phil. 77) and cannot be substantive law, the established general
changed by agreement of parties (Banco Español-Filipino rule is that the statute in force at the time
v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Yangco v. Herrera, 11 Phil 402- of the commencement of the action
404). determines jurisdiction of the court (Cang
v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 128).
When, however, the Rules themselves allow
the parties to agree on a procedure different from that iv. Since jurisdiction over the subject matter
provided therein, the agreement is valid. Thus, Rule 4, is conferred only by the Constitution or by
Section 3 provides that parties may agree to change or law, it cannot be: (a) granted by
transfer the venue from one province to another. agreement of the parties; (b) acquired,
Moreover, Rule 24, Section 14 allows the parties to waived, enlarged, or diminished by any
agree as to the procedure for taking depositions which act or omission of the parties; or (c)
will be deemed valid as other dispositions. conferred by the acquiescence of the
courts (Republic v. Estipular, 336 SCRA
It must be noted, upon the other hand, that 333). Neither can jurisdiction over the
there are matters of procedure which may be waived if subject matter be conferred by the
public interest is not affected thereby. If, for instance, administrative policy of any court or a
the defendant fails to file his answer within fifteen (15) court’s unilateral assumption of
days, but plaintiff refuses to as for judgment in default, jurisdiction.
he thereby waives a right given him by the Rules. Since
the Court cannot declare defendant in default without a v. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
motion to that effect by plaintiff, the latter’s right to file determined by the allegations in the
the motion is exclusively his; which he may waive while complaint which comprise a concise
public interest is unaffected. When, however, plaintiff’s statement of ultimate facts constituting
silence is so long that it amount to a failure to prosecute the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature
his case for an unreasonable length of time, the Court of the action, as well as which court or
may stop his inaction by dismissing the case. And, body has jurisdiction over it, is
again, mistakes of procedure which do not affect the determined based on the allegations
merits of the case or substantial rights of the parties are contained in the complaint of the plaintiff,
not grounds for revising orders or judgments (I Moran, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
1979 ed.). is entitled to recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein (City of
JURISDICTION Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority,
In General G.R. No. 168973, 24 August 2011).

1. Definition of jurisdiction vi. The court’s jurisdiction over the subject

matter cannot be made to depend upon
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to defenses set up in the answer or in a
hear, try and decide a case (Cuenca v. PCGG, 535 SCRA motion to dismiss (Tomas Claudio
102). It has also been referred to as the power or Memorial College, Inc. v. Court of
capacity given by law to a court or tribunal to entertain, Appeals, 316 SCRA 502). The settled rule
hear, and determine certain controversies (De la Cruz v. is that jurisdiction is based on the
Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103). allegations in the initiatory pleading and
the defenses in the answer are deemed
a. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter irrelevant and immaterial in its
determination (De la Cruz v. Court of
i. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is Appeals, 510 SCRA 103).
referred to as the power of a particular
court to hear the type of case that is then vii. The general rule is that the objection for
before it. The term also refers to the want of jurisdiction of the controversy or
jurisdiction of the court over the class of the subject matter may be made at any
cases to which a particular case belongs. time and at any stage of the proceedings.
It is the power or authority to hear and The court may on its own initiative object
determine cases of the general class to to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex
which the proceeding in question belongs mero motu take cognizance of lack of
(Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484). jurisdiction at any point in the case and
has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction in any

Page 2
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

proceeding (Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA iii. Any relief granted in actions in rem or
470). Lack of jurisdiction is one of those quasi in rem must be confined to the res,
excepted grounds where the court may and the court cannot lawfully render a
dismiss a claim or a case at any time judgment against the defendant (Banco
when it appears from the pleadings or the do Brasil v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA
evidence on record that any of those 545). For instance, if an action to
ground exists, even if they were not foreclose a real estate mortgage, where
raised in the answer or in a motion to the jurisdiction acquired by the court is
dismiss (Geonzon Vda. De Barrera v. Heirs only over the res and not over the person
of Vicente Legaspi, 565 SCRA 192). of the defendant because the debtor-
mortgagor is a non-resident who is also
viii. However, while it is true that jurisdiction outside of the Philippines, the relief of the
over the subject matter may be raised at creditor extends only to the property
any stage of the proceedings since it is foreclosed. If in the foreclosure sale, there
conferred by law, it is nevertheless settled arises a deficiency, a deficiency judgment
that a party may be barred from raising it authorized by Section 6, Rule 68 against
on the ground of estoppel (La’o v. the debtor-mortgagor would not be
Republic, 479 SCRA 439). In Tijam v. feasible because a collection of the
Sibonghanoy, the Supreme Court barred a deficiency is a proceding in personam
belated objection to jurisdiction that was which requires jurisdiction over the person
raised only after an adverse decision was of the debtor-mortgagor.
rendered by the court against the party
raising the issue of jurisdiction and after c. Jurisdiction over the Issues
seeking affirmative relief from the court
and after participating in all stages of the i. Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of
proceedings. The doctrine of estoppel by the court to try and decide issues raised in
laches in this case according to the the pleadings of the parties (Reyes v.
Supreme Court is based upon grounds of Diaz, 73 Phil. 484).
public policy and is principally a question
of inequity or unfairness of permitting a ii. An issue is a disputed point or question to
right or claim to be enforced or asserted. which parties to an action have narrowed
down their several allegations and upon
ix. It must, however, be noted that the ruling which they are desirous of obtaining a
in Tijam is the exception rather than the decision.
rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked
to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only iii. Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred
in cases in which the factual milieu is and determined by the pleadings of the
analogous to that in Tijam. In such parties. The pleadings present the issues
controversies, laches should have been to be tried and determine whether or not
clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction the issues are of fact or of law. With
must have been raised so belatedly as to respect to an issue raised by the
warrant the presumption that the party pleadings, an issue arises because a
entitled to assert it had abandoned or material allegation of a claiming party is
declined to assert it (Regalado v. Go, 514 specifically denied by the defending party.
SCRA 616).
iv. Jurisdiction over the issues may also be
b. Jurisdiction over the res or property determined and conferred by stipulation of
the parties as when in the pre-trial, the
i. Jurisdiction over the res refers to the parties enter into stipulations of facts and
court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the documents or enter into an agreement
property which is the subject of the simplifying the issues of the case.
action. This type of jurisdiction is
necessary when the action is an action in v. Jurisdiction over the issues may also be
rem or quasi in rem. When the action is conferred by waiver or failure to object to
one in personam, jurisdiction over the res the presentation of evidence on a matter
is not sufficient to authorize the court to not raised in the pleadings.
render a judgment against the defendant.
d. Jurisdiction over the Parties
ii. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired
by the court by placing the property or i. Jurisdiction over the parties is the legal
thing under its custody or constructive power of the court to render personal
seizure (Example: attachment of judgment against a party to an action or
property). It may also be acquired by the proceedings.
court through statutory authority
conferring upon it the power to deal with ii. The manner by which the court acquires
the property or thing within the court’s jurisdiction over the parties depends on
territorial jurisdiction (Example: suits whether the party is the plaintiff or the
involving the status of the parties or suits defendant. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is
involving the property in the Philippines of acquired by his filing of the complaint or
non-resident defendants). petition. By doing so, he submits himself
to the jurisdiction of the court (Davao

Page 3
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of 2. ESTOPPEL TO DENY JURISDICTION

Appeals, 204 SCRA 343). On the other
hand, jurisdiction over the defendant in Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor (2005)
civil cases is acquired either by his Facts: In May 1991, Custodio, Rufo, Tomos and
voluntary appearance in court and his Honorio, all surnamed Balane (the “Balane’s”) filed a
submission to its authority, or by service complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession,
of summons (Ang Ping v. Court of Removal of Construction and Damages against Bertuldo
Appeals, 310 SCRA 343). Hinog (“Bertuldo”). In July 1991, Bertuldo filed his
answer alleging ownership of the disputed property by
iii. To constitute voluntary appearance, it virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 2 July 1980,
must be the kind that amounts to a executed by one Tomas Pahac with the knowledge and
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of conformity of private respondents. Pre-trial and trial
the court. Submission to the court’s ensued. In November 1997, the Balane’s rested their
jurisdiction takes the form of an case and Bertuldo started his direct examination.
appearance that seeks affirmative relief However, in June 1998, Bertuldo died without
except when the relief sought is for the completing his evidence. Bertuldo was later substituted
purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of by his heirs, who, through counsel, filed a motion to
the court over the person of the expunge the complaint from the record and nullify all
defendant. court proceedings on the ground that private
respondents failed to specify in the complaint the
iv. Jurisprudence states that jurisdiction over amount of damages claimed so as to pay the correct
the person of the defendant is required docket fees. The trial court granted the motion to
only in action in personam. Jurisdiction expunge. In May 1999, the heirs of Betuldo filed their
over the person of the defendant is not a supplemental pleading, appending therein a Deed of
prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi Sale dated 15 November 1982. After paying the
in rem. However, despite the fact that deficiency in the docket fees, the trial court granted the
jurisdiction over the person is not required Balane’s prayer for reinstatement of the case. On 14
in actions in rem and quasi in rem, July 1999, Bertuldo’s heirs manifested that the trial
summons must still be served upon the court having expunged the complaint and nullified all
defendant not for the purpose of vesting court proceedings, there is no valid case and the
the court with jurisdiction but merely for complaint should not be admitted for failure to pay the
satisfying the due process requirement correct docket fees; that there should be no case to be
(Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 296 reinstated and no case to proceed as there is no
SCRA 539). complaint filed.

v. An objection to the jurisdiction over the Issue: Whether the heirs of Bertuldo can question the
person of the defendant may be raised as jurisdiction of the trial court over the case
a ground for a motion to dismiss. If the
objection is not raised either in a motion Held: No. After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial
to dismiss or in the answer, the objection court by seeking affirmative relief in their motion to
to the jurisdiction over the person is serve supplemental pleading upon the Balane’s, the
deemed waived by virtue of the provisions heirs of Bertuldo are effectively barred by estoppel from
of Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction. If a party
invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter
vi. A party contesting the court’s lack of challenge the court’s jurisdiction in the same case. To
jurisdiction over the person of the rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the
defendant may also raised other defenses. fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the
The rule allows the raising of defenses in Court.
addition to lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant without creating It is also worth noting that when Bertuldo filed
an inference of a voluntary submission to his Answer on 2 July 1991, he did not raise the issue of
the jurisdiction of the court. Section 20, lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of correct docket
Rule 14 provides: fees. Instead, he based his defense on a claim of
ownership and participated in the proceedings before the
Voluntary Appearance—The trial court. It was only on 22 September 1998 or more
defendant’s voluntary than seven years after filing the answer, and under the
appearance in the action shall auspices of a new counsel, that the issue of jurisdiction
be equivalent to service of was raised for the first time in the motion to expunge by
summons. The inclusion in a Bertuldo’s heirs.
motion to dismiss of other After Bertuldo vigorously participated in all
grounds aside from lack of stages of the case before the trial court and even
jurisdiction over the person of invoked the trial courts authority in order to ask for
the defendant shall not be affirmative relief, petitioners, considering that they
deemed a voluntary merely stepped into the shoes of their predecessor, are
appearance. effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial
court’s jurisdiction. Although the issue of jurisdiction
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings as the
same is conferred by law, it is nonetheless settled that a
party may be barred from raising it on ground of laches
or estoppel.

Page 4
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

3. JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF FILING OF i. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or

ACTION mandamus against the RTC
(Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987
Cang v. Court of Appeals (1998) Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P.
Facts: Herbert Cang (“Cang”) and Anna Marie Clavano Blg. 129); and
(“Anna Marie”) were married in 1973 and begot three ii. Petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan (A.M.
(3) children. Later, Cang was able to secure a divorce No. 09-6-8-SC).
decree from Anna Marie in the United States (US). The
US court issued the divorce decree that also granted c. With the RTC and CA:
sole custody of the three minor children to Anna Marie, i. Petitions for Habeas Corpus (Section
reserving "rights of visitation at all reasonable times and 5 (1), Article 8, 1987
places" to Cang. While in the US, Cang remitted a Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P.
portion of his salary to the Philippines for his children's Blg. 129; and Section 21(a), B.P.
expenses and another, deposited in the bank in the Blg. 129);
name of his children. Meanwhile, in September 1987, ii. Petitions for Quo Warranto (Section 5
Anna Marie’s brother and sister-in-law filed an action for (1), Article 8, 1987 Constitution;
the adoption of Cang and Anna Marie’s three (3) minor Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; and
children. Attached to the application was Anna Marie’s Section 21(a), B.P. Blg. 129);
consent to the adoption. Upon knowing this, Cang and
returned to the Philippines and opposed the adoption. iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus against inferior
However, the trial court granted the petition courts and other bodies (Section
for adoption, and which ruling was affirmed by the Court 5 (1), Article 8, 1987
of Appeals. The trial court and the Court of Appeals Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P.
ruled that Anna Marie’s consent was sufficient Blg. 129; and Section 21(a), B.P.
compliance with the requisites of Article 188 of the Blg. 129).
Family Code, considering that Cang had already
abandoned his children Cang elevated his case to the d. With the RTC, CA & Sandiganbayan
Supreme Court, alleging that the petition for adoption i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo (A.M.
was fatally defective as it did not have his written No. 07-9-12-SC); and
consent as a natural father as required by Article 31 (2) ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Data
of Presidential Decree No. 603, the Child and Youth (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
Welfare Code, and Article 188 (2) of the Family Code.
3. Appellate jurisdiction
Issue: Whether the Child and Youth Welfare Code or a. By way of Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45)of
the Family Code should govern the petition for adoption the decisions of the:
of Cang’s three (3) children i. CA;
ii. Sandiganbayan;
Held: Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the iii. RTC on pure questions of law;
established rule is that the statute in force at the time of iv. In cases involving the
the commencement of the action determines the constitutionality or validity of a
jurisdiction of the court. As such, when private law or treaty, international
respondents filed the petition for adoption on September agreement or executive
25, 1987, the applicable law was the Child and Youth agreement, law, presidential
Welfare Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 91. decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance or
regulation, legality of a tax,
VI. JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL impost, assessment, toll or
CASES penalty, jurisdiction of a lower
court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII,
A. SUPREME COURT (SC) Constitution); and
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over v. Court of Tax Appeals en banc.
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus against the:
i. Court of Appeals (CA) (Section 17,
R.A. No. 296; Rule 65);
ii. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
(Rule 64);
iii. Commission on Audit (COA) (Rule
64); and
iv. Sandiganbayan.

2. Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the

hierarchy of courts with:
a. With the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in
cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls (Section 17, R.A.
No. 296 in relation to Section 21(b), B.P.
Blg. 129).

b. With the CA, in

Page 5
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

B. COURT OF APPEALS C. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS and MUNICIPAL

(B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7902) TRIAL COURTS
(B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of the RTC (Section
REGIONAL MUNICIPAL
9(2), B.P. Blg. 129). CIVIL
TRIAL COURTS TRIAL COURTS
CASES
2. Concurrent jurisdiction with: If the gross value,
a. The SC: If the gross value,
claim, or demand
claim, or demand
i. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or does not exceed
exceeds P300,000
mandamus against the RTC; P300,000 (outside
(outside Metro
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan; and Metro Manila), or
Manila), or
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or does not exceed
exceeds P400,000
mandamus against the NLRC P400,000 (Metro
(Metro Manila):
(but according to the SC in Manila):
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. CA 1. Actions involving personal property
(G.R. No. 130866, September depending on the value;
16, 1998), all such petitions 2. Admiralty and maritime cases
should be initially filed in the CA depending on the amount of demand
in strict observance of the rule or claim;
on hierarchy of courts. The 3. Probate proceedings (testate or
concurrent original jurisdiction of intestate) depending on the gross
the SC can be availed of only value of the estate;
under compelling and 4. Demand for money depending on the
exceptional circumstances amount.
(Regalado, p. 40).
NOTE: Exclusive of Interest, Damages
b. The SC and RTC: of whatever kind, Attorney’s fees,
i. Petitions for Habeas Corpus; Litigation Expenses, and Costs
ii. Petitions for Quo Warranto; and (IDALEC), the amount of which must
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or be specifically alleged, but the filing
mandamus against inferior fees thereon shall be paid.
courts and other bodies.
NOTE: The exclusion of the term
c. With the RTC, SC and Sandiganbayan: “damages of whatever kind” applies to
i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo; and cases where the damages are merely
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Data. incidental to or a consequence of the
main cause of action. However, in
d. Appellate jurisdiction (Section 9(3), B.P. Exclusive
cases where the claim for damages is
Blg. 129): Original
the main cause of action, the amount
i. By way of Ordinary Appeal from the of such claim shall be considered in
RTC and the Family Courts; determining the jurisdiction of the court
ii. By way of Petition for Review from (Administrative Circular No. 09-94).
the RTC rendered in the exercise If the assessed If the assessed
of its appellate jurisdiction; value or interest value or interest
iii. By way of Petition for Review from in the real in the real
the final judgments, decisions, property exceeds property does
resolutions, orders or awards of P20,000 (outside not exceed
any quasi-judicial agency in the Metro Manila), or P20,000 (outside
exercise of its quasi-judicial exceeds P50,000 Metro Manila), or
functions, such as the: (Metro Manila): does not exceed
- Securities and Exchange P50,000 (Metro
Commission; Manila):
- Social Security Commission; 5. Actions involving title to or
- Employees Compensation possession of real property, or any
Commission; interest therein depending on the
- Civil Service Commission; assessed value.
- Office of the Ombudsman in 6. Actions the 6. Inclusion and
administrative disciplinary subject matter exclusion of
cases; and of which is voters (BP 881,
- Other bodies mentioned in incapable of Sec.138);
Rule 43; and pecuniary
iv. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over estimation. 7. Those covered
decisions of the MTCs in by the Rules on
cadastral or land registration The basic issue in Summary
cases pursuant to its delegated an action Procedure
jurisdiction. incapable of
pecuniary
estimation is one a. Forcible
other than the Entry and

Page 6
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

recovery of Unlawful controversies

money. In this Detainer ;
kind of action, the c. Controversies
money claim is in the
merely incidental NOTE: With elections or
(Singsong v. jurisdiction to appointments
Isabela Sawmill, resolve issue of of directors,
G.R. No. L- ownership to trustees,
27343, February determine only officers or
28, 1979), the issue of managers of
possession; corporations,
NOTE: Annulment partnerships
of judgments of NOTE: or
the RTC is also an Irrespective of associations;
action which is the amount of d. Petitions of
incapable of damages or corporations,
pecuniary unpaid rentals partnerships
estimation but is sought to be or
cognizable by the recovered; associations
CA by express to be
mandate of BP NOTE: Where declared in a
129. In other attorney’s fees state of
words, all actions are awarded, the suspension of
which are same shall not payments.
incapable of exceed P20,000. SC may designate Petition for Habeas
pecuniary certain branches Corpus or
estimation is b. Other civil of RTC to try application for bail
cognizable by the cases, except exclusively in criminal cases
RTC except the probate criminal cases, in the absence of
annulment of proceedings, juvenile and all RTC judges in
judgments of the where the domestic relations the province or
RTC. total amount cases, agrarian city.
of the Special cases, urban land
7. Cases not plaintiff’s reform cases not
within the claim does falling w/in the
exclusive not exceed jurisdiction of any
jurisdiction of PhP100,000 quasi-judicial
any court, or does not body and other
tribunal, person exceed special cases in
or body PhP200,000 the interest of
exercising in Metro justice.
judicial or Manila,
quasi-judicial exclusive of With the SC
functions interests and Actions affecting
(General costs (as ambassadors,
Jurisdiction of amended by public ministers
RTC); A.M. No. 02- and consuls.
11-09-SC,
8. Under Sec. 5.2 effective With the SC and
of the November CA
Securities and 25, 2002).
Regulations a. Petitions for
Code to hear Habeas Corpus
and decide: ;
a. Devices or b. Petitions for
schemes Concurrent Quo Warranto; --------
employed by
or any acts c. Petitions for
of the board certiorari,
of directors, prohibition or
business mandamus
associates, against inferior
its officers or courts and
partnership, other bodies.
amounting to
fraud and
misrepresent
ation;
b. Intra-
corporate

Page 7
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

With the SC, CA pertain to the ancillary remedy that may be

and availed of in conjunction with a petition for
Sandiganbayan custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules
a. Petitions for a of Court. In other words, the issuance of the
Writ of Amparo; writ is merely ancillary to the custody case
b. Petitions for a pending before the family court. The writ must
Writ of Habeas be issued by the same court to avoid splitting
Data. of jurisdiction, conflicting decisions,
interference by a co-equal court and judicial
instability. – Madrian v. Madrian, G.R. No.
159374, 12 July 2007. See also In the Matter
With the of Application for the Issuance of a Writ of
Insurance Habeas Corpus Richard Brian Thornton v.
Commissioner Adelfa Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, 16 August
Claims not 2004)
exceeding
PhP100,000. b. Petitions for adoption of children and the
All cases decided revocation thereof;
by the lower c. Complaints for annulment and declaration of
courts in their nullity of marriage, matters relating to marital
respective status and property relations of husband & wife
territorial or those living together under different status
Appellate jurisdiction except --------- or agreement, and petitions for dissolution of
decisions of lower conjugal partnership of gains;
courts in the d. Support and/or acknowledgment;
exercise of e. Summary judicial proceedings under the
delegated Family Code; and
jurisdiction. f. Petition for declaration of status of children,
May be assigned voluntary or involuntary commitment of
by the SC to hear children, matters relating to parental authority
cadastral or land and other cases cognizable under PD 603, EO
registration cases 56 (series of 1996) and other related laws.
where there is no
Delegated ------ controversy or 2. Special provisional remedies:
opposition over a. In cases of violence among the family
the land or in case members living in the same domicile or
of contested lands, household, the Family Court may issue a
the value does not restraining order against the accused or
exceed P100,000. defendant upon verified application by the
complainant or the victim for relief from abuse.
N.B. Under Section 5, R.A. No. 7691 (approved on 25 b. The court may order the temporary custody of
March 1994), the amounts which determine the children in all civil actions for their custody,
jurisdiction of the RTC under Section 19 (3), (4) and (8) support pendente lite, including deduction from
of B.P. Blg. 129 were as follows: the salary, and use of conjugal home and other
a. From 25 March 1994 to 25 March 1999: properties in all civil actions for support.
exceeds P100,000 – outside Metro Manila, and
exceeds P200,000 – inside Metro Manila; E. Special Courts
b. From 26 March 1999 to 26 March 2004:
exceeds P200,000 – outside Metro Manila, and a. Sandiganbayan
exceeds P400,000 – inside Metro Manila; and (P.D. No. 1616, as amended by R.A. No. 7975
c. From 27 March 2004 to present: exceeds and R.A. No. 8249)
P300,000 – outside Metro Manila, and exceeds
P400,000 – inside Metro Manila. 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil cases
filed pursuant to and in connection with E.O
Accordingly, if the amount of the claim does not No. 1, 2 14 and 14-A (Sequestration cases)
exceed the abovementioned amounts during the issued in 1986.
relevant periods, the MTC shall have jurisdiction.
2. Concurrent jurisdiction with:
D. FAMILY COURTS (R.A. No. 8369) RTC, CA and SC in:
i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo;
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction and
a. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas
habeas corpus in relation to the custody of Data.
children;
3. Original jurisdiction over petitions for the
N.B. The SC and the CA have not issuance of the writs of mandamus,
been deprived of their original jurisdiction to prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
issue writs of habeas corpus. Writs of habeas injunction and other ancillary writs and
corpus which may be issued exclusively by processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
family courts under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 and over petition of similar nature, including
quo warranto, arising or that may arise in

Page 8
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

cases file or which may be filed under E.O. Republic Act No. 8800, where either party
Nos. 1, 2 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 may appeal the decision to impose or not
PROVIDED, that the jurisdiction over these to impose said duties.
petitions shall not be exclusive of the supreme
Court. F. Quasi-judicial bodies

b. Court of Tax Appeals R.A. No. 9282 a. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)
(Sec. 5.2, RA 8799, Securities Regulation
1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by Code)
appeal, as herein provided:
a. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal The SEC’s jurisdiction over all cases
Revenue in cases involving disputed enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No.
assessments, refunds of internal revenue 902-A has been transferred to the Courts of general
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court. The
relation thereto, or other matters arising cases covered by this provision have been included in
under the National Internal Revenue or the table above.
other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue;
b. Civil Service Commission
b. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue in cases involving disputed Magpale vs. CSC (1992)
assessments, refunds of internal revenue Facts : Magpale is an employee of the Philippine Ports
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in Authority (PPA). A formal charge for Dishonesty, Pursuit
relations thereto, or other matters arising of Private Business without permission as required by
under the National Internal Revenue Code Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Frequent and
or other laws administered by the Bureau Unauthorized Absences and Neglect of Duty was filed
of Internal Revenue, where the National against him. A Decision was rendered by the Secretary
Internal Revenue Code provides a specific of the DOTC finding him guilty of Gross Negligence on
period of action, in which case the inaction two counts: (a) for his failure to account for the forty-
shall be deemed a denial; four (44) assorted units of equipment, among them a
Sony Betamax and a TV Camera, and (b) for failing to
c. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the render the required liquidation of his cash advances
Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases amounting to P44,877.00 for a period of four years. He
originally decided or resolved by them in was also found guilty of frequent and unauthorized
the exercise of their original or appellate absences. Accordingly, he was meted the penalty of
jurisdiction; dismissal from the service with the corresponding
accessory penalties. When petitioner's motion for
d. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision was denied in
in cases involving liability for customs the DOTC's Order, he appealed to the Merit System and
duties, fees or other money charges, Protection Board (MSPB) of Civil Service Commission.
seizure, detention or release of property The MSPB rendered a Decision reversing the Decision of
affected, fines, forfeitures or other the DOTC. The PPA filed an appeal with the Civil Service
penalties in relation thereto, or other Field Office-PPA, and the latter office indorsed the
matters arising under the Customs Law or appeal to respondent CSC. Magpale filed a Motion to
other laws administered by the Bureau of Dismiss the PPA’s appeal claiming among others that the
Customs; CSC has no jurisdiction over said appeal.

e. Decisions of the Central Board of

Issue: Whether a decision exonerating a government
Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
employee from administrative liability and reinstating
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
him to his former position is appealable to the to the
the assessment and taxation of real
CSC
property originally decided by the
provincial or city board of assessment
appeals; Held: No. While it is true, as contended by respondent
Civil Service Commission that under Section 12 (par.
f. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on 11), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Book V of Executive Order
customs cases elevated to him 292, the CSC does have the power to —
automatically for review from decisions of
the Commissioner of Customs which are
adverse to the Government under Section Hear and decide
2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; administrative cases instituted by or
brought before it directly or on
g. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and appeal, including contested
Industry, in the case of nonagricultural appointments, and review decisions
product, commodity or article, and the and actions of its offices and of the
Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agencies attached to it. . . .
agricultural product, commodity or article,
involving dumping and countervailing The exercise of the power is qualified by and should be
duties under Section 301 and 302, read together with the other sections of the same sub-
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs title and book of Executive Order 292, particularly
Code, and safeguard measures under

Page 9
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Section 49 which prescribes the following requisites for Issue: Does the HLURB have jurisdiction over all
the exercise of the power of appeal, to wit: cancellations of contracts of sale involving a parcel of
a. the decision must be appealable; residential land?
b. the appeal must be made by the
party adversely affected by the Held: No. The scope and limitation of the jurisdiction of
decision; the HLURB is well-defined. Its precursor, the National
c. the appeal must be made within Housing Authority (NHA), was vested under Presidential
fifteen days from receipt of the Decree (P.D.) No. 957 with exclusive jurisdiction to
decision, unless a petition for the regulate the real estate trade and business, specifically
reconsideration is seasonably filed; the registration of subdivision or condominium
and projects and dealers, brokers and salesmen of
d. the notice of appeal must be filed subdivision lots or condominium units; issuance and
with the disciplining office, which suspension of license to sell; and revocation of
shall forward the records of the case, registration certificate and license to sell. Its jurisdiction
together with the notice of appeal to was later expanded under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
the appellate authority within fifteen 1344 of April 2, 1978, to include adjudication of the
days from filing of the notice of following cases:
appeal, with its comments, if any.
Sec. 1. In the exercise of its function
Under Section 47 of the same Code, the CSC to regulate the real estate trade and
shall decide on appeal all administrative disciplinary business and in addition to its powers
cases involving the imposition of: provided for in Presidential Decree
a. a penalty of suspension for more No. 957, the National Housing
than thirty days; or Authority shall have exclusive
b. fine in an amount exceeding thirty jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
days salary; or of the following nature:
c. demotion in rank or salary or
transfer; or A. Unsound real estate business practices;
d. removal or dismissal from office.
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed
The 5 February 1990 decision of the MSPB did by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
not involve dismissal or separation from office, rather, against the project owner, developer, dealer,
the decision exonerated Magpale and ordered him broker or salesman; and
reinstated to his former position. Consequently, in the
light of our pronouncements in the aforecited cases C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual
of Mendez v. Civil Service Commission and Paredes and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
vs. Civil Service Commission, the MSPB decision was not subdivision lot or condominium unit against the
a proper subject of appeal to the CSC. owner, developer, broker or salesman. (Emphasis
ours.)
………
e. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
At present, therefore, it is clear that the
(HLURB)
jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is
determined by the nature of the cause of action, the
Delos Santos vs. Sps. Sarmiento (2007)
subject matter or property involved and the parties.
Facts: Spouses Sarmiento agreed to sell to
Santos a residential lot. Of the P842,000.00 purchase
The cases over which HLURB has jurisdiction
price, P300,000.00 shall be paid by Santos at the time
are those arising from either unsound real estate
of the execution of the Contract to Buy and Sell and the
business practices, or claims for refund or other claims
remaining balance to be paid within five (5) years at a
filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers
monthly amortization. Before the purchase price could
against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or
be paid in full, Santos and Spouses Sarmiento entered
salesman, or demands for specific performance of
into a Cancellation of Contract to Buy and Sell of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers
wherein Spouses Sarmiento agreed to refund Santos the
of subdivision lots or condominium units against the own
P584,355.10 remitted by the latter, while Santos agreed
er, developer, broker or salesman.
to surrender possession of the lot to former. On 14 July
1999, Santos wrote Spouses Sarmiento, demanding
In addition, these cases must involve a
refund of P760,000.00 with interest. Spouses
subdivision project, subdivision lot, condominium project
Sarmiento wrote back that they intend to refund the
or condominium unit. A subdivision project or
amount within 90 days. When Spouses Sarmiento failed
subdivision lot is defined under Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 957,
to refund Santos, the latter filed with the HLURB a
thus:
Complaint, to enforce the cancellation of contract and
demand payment of the refund plus interest and
Section 2 x x x
damages. Arbiter San Vicente issued an Order dated 7
June 2000, declaring respondents therein in default for
D. Subdivision project Subdivision
failure to file an answer despite notice. It is noted,
project shall mean a tract or a parcel
however, that the respondent named in the 7 June
of land registered under Act No. 496
2000 Order is IA-JAN Sarmiento Realty, Inc. (IJSRI), not
which is partitioned primarily for
Spouses Sarmiento.
residential purposes into individual
lots with or without improvements
thereon, and offered to the public for

Page 10
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

sale, in cash or in installment terms. VII. KINDS OF ACTION

It shall include all residential,
commercial, industrial and An “action” is the legal and formal demand of
recreational areas as well as open one’s right from another person made and insisted upon
spaces and other community and in a court of justice (Hermanos v. de la Riva, G.R. No. L-
public areas in the project. 19827, 6 April 1923). A “civil action” is one by which a
party sue another for the enforcement or protection of a
E. Subdivision lot. Subdivision lot right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Rule 1,
shall mean any of the lots, whether Section 3(a)).
residential, commercial, industrial, or
recreational, in a subdivision project. 1. As to cause or foundation
a. Personal
In quite a number of cases, we declared the i. An action which is not founded upon
HLURB without jurisdiction where the complaint filed did the privity of real rights or real
not allege that the property involved is a subdivision or property.
condominium project or a subdivision lot or
condominium unit. ii. In a personal action, the plaintiff
Going back to the jurisdictional requirements, generally seeks the recovery of
it is also important that, with reference to cases arising personal property, the enforcement
from a claim for refund or specific performance, said of a contract or the recovery of
cases must be filed by the subdivision lot or damages.
condominium unit buyer or owner against the
subdivision or condominium project owner, developer, iii. Personal action is one brought for the
broker or salesman. Cases filed by buyers or owners recovery of personal property, for the
of property which is not alleged to be a subdivision or enforcement of some contract or
condominium property do not fall within the jurisdiction recovery of damages for its breach,
of the HLURB for the complainants in said cases are or for the recovery of damages for
treated as ordinary real estate buyers or owners, not the commission of an injury to the
subdivision or condomium buyers or owners. person or property (Go v. United
Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No.
What about cases filed by subdivision or 156187, 11 November 2004).
condominium project owners or developers against their
buyers? The rules on this matter differ. b. Real

The general rule is stated in Pilar Development i. An action is “real” when it affects title
Corporation v. Villarand Suntay v. Gocolay where we to or possession of real property, or
held that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over cases filed an interest therein. All other actions
by subdivision or condominium owners or developers are personal.
against subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers or
owners. The rationale behind this can be found in the ii. An action is real when it is founded
wordings of Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1344, which expressly upon the privity of real estate. That
qualifies that the cases cognizable by the HLURB are means that realty, or an interest
those instituted by subdivision or condomium buyers or therein is the subject matter of the
owners against the project developer or owner. This action.
rationale is also expressed in the preambles of P.D. No.
957 and P.D. No. 1344 which state that the policy of the iii. Not every action, however, involving
law is to curb unscrupulous practices in real estate trade a real property is a real action
and business.[52] because the realty may only be
incidental to the subject matter of the
The only instance that HLURB may take suit. To be a real action it is not
cognizance of a case filed by the developer is when said enough that the action must deal
case is instituted as a compulsory counterclaim to a with real property. It is important
pending case filed against it by the buyer or owner of a that the matter in litigation must also
subdivision lot or condominium unit. We allowed this involve any of the following issues:
in Francel Realty Corporation v. Sycip in order to title to, ownership, possession,
forestall splitting of causes of action. partition, foreclosure of mortgage, or
any interest in real property.
To summarize, not every case involving buyers
and sellers of real estate may be filed with the
HLURB. Its jurisdiction is limited to those cases filed by
the buyer or owner of a subdivision or condominium and
based on any of the causes of action enumerated under
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344, and which jurisdictional facts
must be clearly alleged in the complaint.

Page 11
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Importance of distinction between personal action c. Quasi in rem

and real action
i. An action quasi in rem is one wherein
 The distinction between a real action and a personal an individual is named as defendant
action is important for the purpose of determining and the purpose of the proceeding is
the venue of the action. Questions involving the to subject his interest therein to the
propriety or impropriety of a particular venue are obligation or lien burdening the
resolved by initially determining the nature of the property. (Asiavest Limited v. Court
action. of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539).

 A real action is local, i.e., its venue depends upon ii. The object of an action quasi in rem
the location of the property involved in the is the sale or disposition of the
litigation. property whether by attachment,
foreclosure or any other form of
 A personal action is transitory, i.e., its venue remedy (Banco Español-Filipino v.
depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the Palanca, 37 Phil 921). A proceeding
defendant. A personal action may be commenced quasi in rem is one brought against
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal persons seeking to subject the
plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of property of such persons to the
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a discharge of the claims assailed. In
non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at an action quasi in rem, an individual
the election of the plaintiff. is named as defendant and the
purpose of the proceeding is to
2. As to object subject his interests therein to the
a. In rem obligation or loan burdening the
property.
i. An action in rem is an action against
the thing itself instead of against the iii. Actions quasi in rem deal with the
person. status, ownership or liability of a
particular property but which are
ii. A judgment in rem is binding upon intended to operate on these
the whole world, such as a judgment questions only as between the
in a land registration case or probate particular parties to the proceedings
of will. and not to ascertain or cut-off the
rights or interests of all possible
iii. In an action in rem jurisdiction over claimants (Domagas v. Jensen, 448
the person of the defendant is not a SCRA 663).
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on
the court provided that the court Significance of distinction between actions in rem,
acquires jurisdiction over the res. in personam and quasi in rem

b. In personam  The distinction is important to determine whether

or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
i. An proceeding in personam is a is required and consequently to determine the type
proceeding to enforce personal rights of summons to be employed.
and obligations brought against the
person and is based on the  Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
jurisdiction of the person, although it necessary for the court to validly try and decide a
may involve his right to, or the case against said defendant where the action is one
exercise of ownership of, specific in personam but not where the action in in rem or
property, or seek to compel him to quasi in rem.
control or dispose of it in accordance
with the mandate of the court.  In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
ii. The purpose of a proceeding in over the person of the defendant is not a
personam is to impose through the prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
judgment of a court, some provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over
responsibility or liability directly upon the res. In said action, the court is not concerned
the person of the defendant with the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person
(Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663). of the defendant. In these actions, it is the
iii. An action in personam is an action acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the res
against a person on the basis of his which principally matters.
personal liability.
iv. An action in personam is said to be  Although summons is not required in actions in rem
one which has for its object a and quasi in rem, nonetheless, summons must be
judgment against the person. served upon the defendant not for the purpose of
vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely fore
satisfying the due process requirement.

Page 12
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

VIII.COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION must be raised in the Answer, or in such other

pleading allowed under the Rules of Court. (Espino
Civil actions are commenced upon filing of the v. Legarda, G.R. No. 149266, 17 March 2006;
Complaint (Section 5, Rule 1, Rules of Court). Civil Sabay v. People of the Philippines. (G.R. No.
actions are deemed commenced from the date of the 192150, 1 October 2014).
filing and docketing of the Complaint, without taking into
account the issuance and service of summons (Cabrera  Barangay conciliation is a condition precedent for
v. Tiano, G.R. No. L-17299, July 31, 1963). filing a claim, and compliance of the same must be
alleged in the pleading. Failure to resort to
conciliation is a ground for motion to dismiss for
1. Condition Precedent
non-compliance of condition precedent. (Willard
Riano, Civil Procedure 2009 ed., p. 97)
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW
 It is true that the precise technical effect of failure
Under Sections 399-422, Chapter 7, Title One, Book
to comply with the requirement on barangay
III, Republic Act No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local
conciliation is much the same effect produced by
Government Code, all disputes may be subject of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies -- the
barangay proceedings for amicable settlement except:
complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-
a. Where one party is the government or any
maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not
subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
ripe for judicial determination. The complaint
b. Where one party is a public officer or becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss. (Aquino
employee; and the disputes relates to the v. Aure, G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008)
performance of his judicial functions;
c. xxx xxx xxx Parties may go directly to court without need of
d. Disputes involving parties who actually prior barangay conciliation under Section 412 of
reside in barangays of different cities or R.A. No. 7110 in the following instances:
municipalities, except where such a. When the accused is under detention;
barangay units adjoin each other and the
b. Where a person has otherwise been
parties thereto agrees to submit their deprived of personal liberty calling for
differences to amicable settlement by an habeas corpus proceedings;
appropriate lupon;
c. Where actions are coupled with
e. Such other classes or disputes which the provisional remedies such as preliminary
president may determine in the interest of injunction, attachment, delivery of
justice or upon the recommendation of the personal property and support pendente
Secretary of Justice; lite; and
f. Where the disputes involve real properties
d. Where action may otherwise be barred by
located in different cities or municipalites
the statute of limitations.
unless the parties thereto agree to submit
their differences to amicable settlement
2.PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES
by an appropriate lupon; and
g. xxx xxx xxx Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor (2005)
h. Sec, 1, Rule VI, Katarungang reiterating Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion
Pambarangay Rules provide for additional (1989)
exception which is any complaint by or
against corporations, partnerships or  While the payment of the prescribed docket fee
juridical entities. is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-
payment at the time of filing does not
automatically cause the dismissal of the case,
Lumbuan v. Ronqullo (2006) as long as the fee is paid within the applicable
The Supreme Court held that although there prescriptive or reglementary period, more so
was no Pangkat Tagapamayapa constituted to hear the when the party involved demonstrates a
parties’ claims, as required under R.A. No. 7160, there willingness to abide by the rules prescribing
was already substantial compliance of the required such payment.
conciliation proceedings before the barangay, when the
parties met before the Barangay Chairman to discuss  Guidelines regarding the payment of filing
the possibility of amicable settlement. fees:
- It is not simply the filing of the complaint
Barangay conciliation is a condition precedent to or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
the filing of an action (Uy v. Contreras, G.R. No. payment of the prescribed docket fee, that
111416 , 26 September 1994). While failure to vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
comply with a condition precedent is not the subject-matter or nature of the action.
jurisdictional, it may be a ground to dismiss under Where the filing of the initiatory pleading
Section 1 (j), Rule 16, Rules of Court. is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment
 Non-compliance with the condition precedent of of the fees within a reasonable time but in
barangay conciliation does not prevent a court of no case beyond the applicable prescriptive
competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of or reglementary period.
adjudication over a case where the defendants fail
to object to such exercise of jurisdiction. But such
- The same rule applies to permissive
objection should be seasonably made before the
counterclaims, third-party claims and
court first taking cognizance of the complaint, and

Page 13
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

similar pleadings, which shall not be grounds that the petitioners do not have a cause of
considered filed until and unless the filing action the RTC dismissed the complaint filed by the
fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court petitioner.
may also allow payment of said fee within
a reasonable time but also in no case Issue: Whether or not petitioners’ Complaints state a
beyond its applicable prescriptive or cause of action.
reglementary period.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that each of the
- Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction Complaints filed by petitioners sufficiently stated a cause
over a claim by the filing of the of action. The Complaints alleged that petitioners are
appropriate pleading and payment of the the owners of the subject properties by acquisitive
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, prescription. As owners thereof, they have the right to
the judgment awards a claim not specified remain in peaceful possession of the said properties and,
in the pleading, or if specified the same if deprived thereof, they may recover the same. The
has been left for determination by the petitioners are in open, continuous and notorious
court, the additional filing fee therefor possession of the disputed parcels of land for more than
shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It 90 years.
shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of
Court or his duly authorized deputy to The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action
enforce said lien and assess and collect is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true
the additional fee. would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the
sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations.
If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis
on which it can be maintained, it should not be
Rule 2 dismissed regardless of the defense that may be
Causes of Action presented by the defendant. The rule of civil procedure
provides the elements of a cause of action ; 1) a right in
favor of a plaintiff. 2) An obligation on the part of the
I. Causes of Action (Sections 1 and 2) defend ant to violate such right. 3) an act or omission
on the part of defendant of the right of the plaintiff
Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of which constitutes such right.
Court requires that every ordinary civil action must be
based on a cause of action. Section 2 of the same rule II. Distinguished from Right of Action
defines a cause of action as an act or omission by which
a party violates the right of another. Right of Action is the right to commence and
prosecute an action to obtain the relief sought. (Herrera,
In order that one may claim to have a cause of Vol. 1, p. 285, citing 1 C.J.S. 988).
action, the following elements must concur:
The term "cause of action" has been held to be
1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever synonymous with "right of action” but in the law of
means and under whatever law it arises or is pleading one is distinguished from the other in that a
created; right of action is a remedial right belonging to some
2) an obligation on the part of the named person, while a cause of action is a formal statement of
defendant to respect or not to violate such the operative facts that give rise to such remedial right.
right; and The one is a matter of right and depends on the
3) an act or omission on the part of such substantive law, while the other is a matter of statement
defendant in violation of the right of the and is governed by the law of procedure. (L.G. Marquez
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the v. Varela, G.R. No. L-4845, 24 December 1952)
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for The right of action accrues when there exists a
recovery of damages or other appropriate cause of action. (Espanol vs. Chairman, Philippine
relief. In other words, "a cause of action arises Veterans Administration, 137 SCRA 314).
when that should have been done is not done,
or that which should not have been done is The elements of a right of action are: (a) the
done. (Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, G.R. existence of a cause of action; (b) the performance of all
No. 191178, 13 March 2013) conditions precedent to the brining of the action; and (c)
the right to bring and maintain the action must be in the
Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs. Fil-Estate person instituting it.
Management, Inc. (2009)
III. Splitting a cause of action (Secs. 3-4)
Facts: Petitioner-heirs filed for quieting of title and/or
recovery of ownership and possession with preliminary Splitting a single cause of action is the act of
injunction/restraining order and damages against dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into
respondents Fil-Estate Management Inc. They claimed several parts or claims and instituting two or more
that they have been in open, exclusive, and notorious actions upon them. (Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
possession of parcels of land for more than 90 years No. 157616, 22 July 2005)
until Fil-Estate forcibly ousted them. Fil-Estate
contended that that have in their possession numerous A party may not institute more than one suit
certificates covering the parcels of land and can only be for a single cause of action. (Section 3, Rule 2, Rules of
attacked collaterally pursuant to PD 1529. The Court)
respondents also filed a motion to dismiss on the

Page 14
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis

of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a PDCP appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a reversed the RTC. It opined that PDCP was not barred
ground for the dismissal of the others. (Section 4, Rule from exercising its right to foreclose on the property of
2, Rules of Court) petitioners despite suing Sammy for violation of BP 22.

The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended: Issue: Whether or not the subsequent foreclosure of the
a. to prevent repeated litigation between the mortgaged property was barred by the previous filing of
same parties in regard to the same subject of the complaint for violation of B.P. 22.
controversy;
b. to protect the defendant from unnecessary Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the
vexation; and complaint for violation of B.P. 22. did not bar the
c. to avoid the costs and expenses incident to subsequent foreclosure of the mortgaged property.
numerous suits. It comes from the old
maxim nemo debet bis vexari, pro una et Petitioners anchor their position on Supreme
eadem causa (no man shall be twice vexed for Court Circular 57-97, which provides for the rules and
one and the same cause). (Chua v. Metrobank, guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases
G.R. No. 182311, 19 August 2009, citing under BP 22. Pertinent portions of Circular 57-97
Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal, 68 Phil provide:
287)
1.The criminal action for
violation of [BP] 22 shall be
Sps Yap vs. First E-Bank Corporation (2009)
deemed to necessarily
include the corresponding
Facts: Sammy Yap (“Sammy”) obtained a P2 million
civil action, and no
loan from PDCP Development Bank, Inc. (“PDCP”). As
reservation to file such civil
security, Sammy’s parents, petitioners Simon Yap and
action separately shall be
Milagros Guevarra, executed a third-party mortgage on
allowed or recognized.
their land and warehouse standing on it, which
mortgage agreement allowed PDCP to extrajudicially
Circular 57-97 has been institutionalized as
foreclose the property in case Sammy failed to pay the
Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court:
loan.
Section
1. Institution of criminal and
Sammy issued a promissory note and six
civil actions.—xxx
postdated checks in favor of PDCP as additional
securities for the loan. When Sammy defaulted on the
(b) The criminal action for violation of [BP] 22
payment of his loan, PDCP presented the six checks to
shall be deemed to include the corresponding
the drawee bank but the said checks were dishonored.
civil action. No reservation to file such civil
This prompted PDCP to file a complaint against Sammy
action separately shall be allowed.
for six counts of violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks
Law).
However, Circular 57-97 (and, it goes without
saying, Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court)
Therafter, PDCP filed an application for
was not yet in force when PDCP sued Sammy for
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage on the property of
violation of BP 22 and when it filed a petition for
petitioners which served as principal security for
extrajudicial foreclosure on the mortgaged property of
Sammy’s loan.
petitioners on February 8, 1993 and May 3, 1993,
respectively. In Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, Circular 57-97
Subsequently, on motion of Sammy and
was not applied because the collection suit and the
without objection from the public prosecutor and PDCP,
criminal complaints for violation of BP 22 were filed prior
the BP 22 cases were provisionally dismissed.
to the adoption of Circular 57-97. The same principle
applies here.
Petitioners filed in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan (the “lower court”)
Thus, prior to the effectivity of Circular 57-97,
a complaint for injunction (with prayer for the issuance
the alternative remedies of foreclosure of mortgage and
of a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction),
collection suit were not barred even if a suit for BP 22
damages and accounting of payments against PDCP. The
had been filed earlier, unless a judgment of conviction
complaint sought to stop the foreclosure sale on the
had already been rendered in the BP 22 case finding the
ground that PDCP waived its right to foreclose the
accused debtor criminally liable and ordering him to pay
mortgage on their property when it filed the BP 22 cases
the amount of the check(s).
against Sammy.
In this case, no judgment of conviction (which
The lower court ruled in favor of petitioners. It
could have declared the criminal and civil liability of
held that PDCP had three options when Sammy
Sammy) was rendered because Sammy moved for the
defaulted in the payment of his loan: enforcement of the
provisional dismissal of the case. Hence, PDCP could
promissory note in a collection case, enforcement of the
have still foreclosed on the mortgage or filed a collection
checks under the Negotiable Instruments Law and/or BP
suit.
22, or foreclosure of mortgage. The remedies were
alternative and the choice of one excluded the others.
Furthermore, it is undisputed that the BP 22
Thus, PDCP was deemed to have waived its right to
cases were provisionally dismissed at Sammy’s instance.
foreclose on the property of petitioners when it elected
In other words, PDCP was prevented from recovering
to sue Sammy for violation of BP 22.
the whole amount by Sammy himself. To bar PDCP from

Page 15
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

foreclosing on petitioners’ property for the balance of in its Decision, ordered PDCP to release and cancel the
the indebtedness would be to penalize PDCP for the act mortgages and FEBTC to pay P965,000 with interest,
of Sammy. That would not only be illogical and absurd which Decision became final and executory on November
but would also violate elementary rules of justice and 23, 1999; and that a Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment
fair play. In sum, PDCP has not yet effectively availed of between petitioners and FEBTC was in fact submitted on
and fully exhausted its remedy. August 8, 2000, hence, the issue between them was
finally settled under the doctrine of res judicata.
Note:
The Supreme Court stated the present rule in Issue: Whether or not the second Complaint docketed
this case. If the debtor fails (or unjustly refuses) to pay as Civil Case No. 00-540 was correctly dismissed on the
his debt when it falls due and the debt is secured by a ground of splitting of causes of action.
mortgage and by a check, the creditor has three options
against the debtor and the exercise of one will bar the Held: Yes. There is a splitting of causes of action in this
exercise of the others. He may pursue either of the case. The Supreme Court noted that in the two cases,
three but not all or a combination of them. petitioners imputed to FEBTC the same alleged wrongful
act of mistakenly receiving and refusing to return an
First, the creditor may file a collection suit amount in excess of what was due it in violation of their
against the debtor. This will open up all the properties of right to a refund. The same facts and evidence
the debtor to attachment and execution, even the presented in the first case, Civil Case No. 94-1610, were
mortgaged property itself. Second, the creditor may opt the very same facts and evidence that petitioners
to foreclose on the mortgaged property. In case the debt presented in Civil Case No. 00-540.
is not fully satisfied, he may sue the debtor for
deficiency judgment (not a collection case for the whole Notably, the same facts were also pleaded by
indebtedness), in which case, all the properties of the the parties in support of their allegations for, and
debtor, other than the mortgaged property, are again defenses against, the recovery of the P4.335 million.
opened up for the satisfaction of the deficiency. Lastly, Petitioners, of course, plead the CA Decision as basis for
the creditor may opt to sue the debtor for violation of BP their subsequent claim for the remainder of their
22 if the checks securing the obligation bounce. Circular overpayment. It is well established, however, that a
57-97 and Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting
both provide that the criminal action for violation of BP a different method of presenting his case, or by pleading
22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the justifiable circumstances as herein petitioners are doing,
corresponding civil action, i.e., a collection suit. No escape the operation of the principle that one and the
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.
allowed or recognized.
The Supreme Court finds well-taken then the
Del Rosario vs Far East Bank and Trust Company pronouncement of the court a quo that to allow the re-
(2007) litigation of an issue that was finally settled as between
petitioners and FEBTC in the prior case is to allow the
Facts: Petitioners a Complaint for sum of money against splitting of a cause of action, a ground for dismissal
Private Development Corporation of the Philippines under Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court reading:
(PDCP) and Far East Bank and Trust Company
(FEBTC) before the RTC, Makati, Branch 132, docketed SEC. 4. Splitting of a single cause of
as Civil Case No. 94-1610, mainly to recover the action; effect of. – If two or more suits are
payment of P5.3 million – P4.335 million to PDCP, instituted on the basis of the same cause of
and P965,000 to FEBTC (the “Civil Case No. 94-1610”). action, the filing of one or a judgment
After the trial, the RTC-Makati rendered a Decision upon the merits in any one is available as
ordering PDCP to pay petitioners the sum of P4.035 a ground for the dismissal of the others.1
million, to bear interest at 12% per annum from April
25, 1994 until fully paid. As regards FEBTC, the trial This rule proscribes a party from dividing a
court dismissed it for lack of cause of action. The parties single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that claims and instituting two or more actions based on
the party bound to refund the excess payment of P5 it. Because the plaintiff cannot divide the grounds for
million was FEBTC as it received the overpayment. recovery, he is mandated to set forth in his first action
Noting, however, that DATICOR claimed in its complaint every ground for relief which he claims to exist and upon
only the amount of P965,000 from FEBTC, the CA held which he relies; he cannot be permitted to rely upon
that it could not grant a relief different from or in excess them by piecemeal in successive actions to recover for
of that prayed for. The CA Decision became final and the same wrong or injury.
executory.
Clearly then, the judgment in Civil Case No.
Subsequently, petitioners filed before the RTC 94-1610 operated as a bar to Civil Case No. 00-540,
of Makati a Complaint against FEBTC to recover the following the above-quoted Section 4, Rule 2 of the
balance of the excess payment of P4.335 million. The Rules of Court.
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-540, the
precursor of the present case and raffled to Branch 143 Petitioners were sternly reminded that both the
of the RTC, which dismissed the complaint on the rules on res judicata and splitting of causes of action are
ground of res judicata and splitting of cause of action. It based on the salutary public policy against unnecessary
recalled that petitioners had filed Civil Case No. 94-1610 multiplicity of suits – interest reipublicae ut sit finis
to recover the alleged overpayment both from PDCP and litium. Re-litigation of matters already settled by a
FEBTC and to secure the cancellation and release of
their mortgages on real properties, machinery and
equipment; that when said case was appealed, the CA, 1 Emphasis supplied.

Page 16
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

court's final judgment merely burdens the courts and and occupation of their properties could not thus be
the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and considered as splitting of a cause of action.
wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted
to worthier cases.
Joseph v. Bautista (1989)
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against
CGR Corporation vs. Treyes, Jr. (2007)
respondent Patrocinio Perez, as owner of the cargo
Facts: Petitioners claimed to have occupied 37.3033
truck, based on a breach of contract of carriage and
hectares of public land in Barangay Bulanon, Sagay City,
against respondents Antonio Sioson and Lazaro
Negros Occidental even before the notarized separate
Villanueva, as owner and driver, respectively, of the
Fishpond Lease Agreements in their respective favor
pick-up truck, based on quasi-delict.
were approved in October 2000 by the Secretary of
Agriculture for a period of twenty-five (25) years or until
December 31, 2024. Consequently, respondents Sioson, Pagarigan,
Cardeno and Villanueva filed a Motion to Exonerate and
Respondent Ernesto L. Treyes, Jr. allegedly Exclude Defs/ Cross defs. Alberto Cardeno, Lazaro
forcibly and unlawfully entered the leased properties and Villanueva, Antonio Sioson and Jacinto Pagarigan on the
once inside barricaded the entrance to the fishponds, set Instant Case, alleging that respondents Cardeno and
up a barbed wire fence along the road going to Villanueva already paid P 7,420.61 by way of damages
petitioners’ fishponds, and harvested several tons of to respondent Perez, and alleging further that
milkfish, fry and fingerlings owned by petitioners. respondents Cardeno, Villanueva, Sioson and Pagarigan
paid P 1,300.00 to petitioner by way of amicable
Petitioners was thus prompted to file with the settlement.
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Sagay City separate
complaints for Forcible Entry With Temporary
Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction And Thereafter, respondent Perez filed his motion
to dismiss premised on the fact that the release of claim
Damages, docketed as Civil Case Nos. 1331, 1332 and
executed by petitioner in favor of the other respondents
1333, against respondent.
inured to his benefit, considering that all the
respondents are solidarity liable to herein petitioner.
In a separate move, petitioners filed in March
2004 with the Bacolod RTC a complaint for
damages against respondent, docketed as Civil Case No, RTC dismissed the case against Perez. Hence, this
04-12284. The Bacolod RTC dismissed petitioners’ petition.
complaint for damages on the ground of prematurity.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner’s Issue:WON the judgment on the compromise
complaint for damages, filed after the ejectment case, is agreement under the cause of action based on quasi-
correct. delict is a bar to the cause of action for breach of
contract of carriage
Held: No. The Court ruled that petitioners’ claim for
damages have no direct relation to their loss of Held: YES. The trial court was, therefore, correct in
possession of the premises. It had to do with holding that there was only one cause of action involved
respondents alleged harvesting and carting away several although the bases of recovery invoked by petitioner
tons of milkfish and other marine products in their against the defendants therein were not necessarily
fishponds,ransacking and destroying of a chapel built by Identical since the respondents were not identically
petitioner CGR Corporation, and stealing religious circumstanced. However, a recovery by the petitioner
icons and even decapitating the heads of some of under one remedy necessarily bars recovery under the
them, after the act of dispossession had occurred. other. This, in essence, is the rationale for the
proscription in our law against double recovery for the
Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentia - same act or omission which, obviously, stems from the
that the identity between the pending actions, with fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.
respect to the parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed
for, is such that any judgment rendered on one action
will, regardless of which is successful, amount A cause of action is understood to be the delict
to res judicata in the action under consideration - is not or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant
present, hence, it may not be invoked to dismiss in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is
petitioners complaint for damages. true that a single act or omission can be violative of
various rights at the same time, as when the act
Res judicata may not apply because the court constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and
in a forcible entry case has no jurisdiction over claims distinct legal obligations. However where there is only
for damages other than the use and occupation of the one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action
premises and attorneys fees. regardless of the number of rights that may have been
violated belonging to one person.
Neither may forum-shopping justify a dismissal
of the complaint for damages, the elements The singleness of a cause of action lies in the
of litis pendentia not being present, or where a final singleness of the- delict or wrong violating the rights of
judgment in the forcible entry case will not amount one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted
to res judicata in the former. from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action
arises. In the case at bar, there is no question that the
Petitioners filing of an independent action for petitioner sustained a single injury on his person. That
damages other than those sustained as a result of their vested in him a single cause of action, albeit with the
dispossession or those caused by the loss of their use

Page 17
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

correlative rights of action against the different being claimed before the RTC which had no direct
respondents through the appropriate remedies allowed relation to loss of material possession. It clarified that
by law. since the damages prayed for in the amended complaint
with the RTC were those caused by the alleged high-
handed manner with which petitioner reacquired
The respondents having been found to be
possession of the leased premises and the sale of
solidarity liable to petitioner, the full payment made by
private respondents movables found therein, the RTC
some of the solidary debtors and their subsequent
and not the MeTC had jurisdiction over the action of
release from any and all liability to petitioner inevitably
damages.[7]
resulted in the extinguishment and release from liability
of the other solidary debtors, including herein Petitioner filed the instant petition for review
respondent Patrocinio Perez. on certiorari against the CA claiming that that the trial
judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion in taking
Progressive Development Corporation, Inc., v. CA cognizance of the action for damages and injunction
(1999) despite the pendency of the forcible entry case with the
MeTC; and, (c) ruling that private respondent did not
Facts: Petitioner leased to private respondent Westin commit forum shopping since the causes of action
Seafood Market, Inc., a parcel of land with a commercial before the RTC and MeTC were not identical with each
building. Private respondent failed to pay rentals despite other.
several demands by petitioner. This constituted breach
of their contract; thus, pursuant to the express authority Issue: WON the action for damages filed with the RTC
granted under the lease agreement, petitioner should be dismissed on the ground of pendency of
repossessed the leased premises. Private respondent another action for forcible entry and damages earlier
filed with the MeTC of QC a complaint against petitioner filed by the same lessee against the same lessor before
for forcible entry with damages and a prayer for a the MeTC.
temporary restraining order and/or writ of Held: YES. The restoration of possession and demand
preliminary injunction. At the continuation of the hearing for actual damages in the case before the MeTC and the
on the issuance of a writ preliminary mandatory demand for damages with the RTC both arise from the
injunction, the parties agreed, among others, that same cause of action, i.e., the forcible entry by
private respondent would deposit money to guarantee petitioner into the leased premises.
the payment of its back rentals. This agreement was
incorporated in the order of the court which in effect Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides
terminated for all intents and purposes the incident on that any person deprived of the possession of any land
the issuance of a preliminary writ of injunction. or building by force, indimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth, or against whom the possession of any land or
Private respondent did not comply with its building is unlawfully withheld, may bring an action in
undertaking to deposit. Instead, with the forcible entry the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or
case still pending with the MeTC, private respondent persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
instituted another action for damages against petitioner possession, together with damages and costs. The
with the RTC of QC. mandate under this rule is categorical: that all cases for
forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be filed before
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the damage
the Municipal Trial Court which shall include not only the
suit on the ground of litis pendencia and forum
plea for restoration of possession but also all claims for
shopping. Instead of ruling on the motion, RTC issued
damages and costs arising therefrom. Otherwise
an order archiving the case pending the outcome of the
expressed, no claim for damages arising out of forcible
forcible entry case being heard at the MeTC for the
entry or unlawful detainer may be filed separately and
reason that "the claim for damages is principally
independently of the claim for restoration of possession.
anchored on whether or not the defendants (petitioner
herein) have committed forcible entry. This is consistent with the principle laid down in
Sec. 1, par. (e), of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which
Before petitioner's motion to dismiss could be
resolved, private respondent filed with the RTC an states that the pendency of another action between the
amended complaint for damages and an Urgent Ex-Parte same parties for the same cause is a ground for
Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and Motion for the dismissal of an action.
Grant of a Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary Res adjudicata requires that there must be
Mandatory Injunction. On the very same day, Judge between the action sought to be dismissed and the other
Santiago issued an order (a) denying petitioner's motion action the following elements:
to dismiss, (b) admitting private respondent's amended
complaint, and (c) granting private respondent's a. identity of parties or at least such as
application for a temporary restraining order against representing the same interest in both
petitioner. actions;
Thus, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a b. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
special civil action for certiorari. But the Court of the relief being founded on the same facts;
Appeals dismissed the petition due to the failure of and,
petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration. It also
found that the elements of litis pendencia were lacking c. the identity in the two (2) preceding particulars
to justify the dismissal of the action for damages with should be such that any judgment which may
the RTC because despite the pendency of the forcible be rendered on the other action will,
entry case with the MeTC the only damages recoverable regardless of which party is successful,
thereat were those caused by the loss of the use and amount to res adjudicata in the action under
occupation of the property and not the kind of damages consideration.

Page 18
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

It is likewise basic under Sec. 3 of Rule 2 of the independent actions, one for recovery of possession
Revised Rules of Court, as amended, that a party may only, and the other, for the recovery of damages. That
not institute more than one suit for a single cause of would inevitably lead to what is termed in law as
action. Under Sec. 4 of the same Rule, if two or splitting up a cause of action. In David v. de la Cruz we
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause observed -
of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the
Herein tenants have but one cause of action
dismissal of the other or others. "Cause of action" is
against their landlord, their illegal ejectment or removal
defined by Sec. 2 of Rule 2 as the act of omission by
from their landholdings, which cause of action however
which a party violates a right of another. These premises
entitles them to two (2) claims or remedies - for
obtaining, there is no question at all that private
reinstatement and damages. As both claims arise from
respondent's cause of action in the forcible entry
the same cause of action, they should be alleged in a
case and in the suit for damages is the alleged illegal
single complaint.
retaking of possession of the leased premises by the
lessor, petitioner herein, from which all legal reliefs
arise. A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part
of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case
Restated in its bare essentials, the forcible and the rest, in another. In Bachrach v. Icarangal we
entry case has one cause of action, namely, the alleged explained that the rule was aimed at preventing
unlawful entry by petitioner into the leased premises out repeated litigations between the same parties in regard
of which three (3) reliefs (denominated by private to the same subject of the controversy and to protect
respondent as its causes of action) arose: the defendant from unnecessary vexation. Nemo debet
bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.
a. the restoration by the lessor (petitioner herein)
of the possession of the leased What then is the effect of the dismissal of the
premises to the lessee; other action? Since the rule is that all such rights should
be alleged in a single complaint, it goes without
b. the claim for actual damages due to the losses
saying that those not therein included cannot be the
suffered by private respondent such as the
subject of subsequent complaints for they are barred
deterioration of perishable foodstuffs stored
forever. If a suit is brought for a part of a claim, a
inside the premises and the deprivation of the
judgment obtained in that action precludes the plaintiff
use of the premises causing loss of expected
from bringing a second action for the residue of the
profits; and,
claim, notwithstanding that the second form of action is
c. the claim for attorney's fees and costs of suit. not identical with the first or different grounds for relief
are set for the second suit. This principle not only
On the other hand, the complaint embraces what was actually determined, but also
for damages prays for a monetary award consisting of extends to every matter which the parties might have
(a) moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary litigated in the case. This is why the legal basis upon
damages of another P500,000.00; (b) actual damages which private respondent anchored its second claim for
ofP20,000,000.00 and compensatory damages damages, i.e., Art. 1659 in relation to Art. 1654 of the
of P1,000,000.00 representing unrealized profits; and, Civil Code, not otherwise raised and cited by private
(c) P200,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs, all based respondent in the forcible entry case, cannot be
on the alleged forcible takeover of the leased premises used as justification for the second suit for damages. We
by petitioner. Since actual and compensatory damages note, not without some degree of displeasure, that by
were already prayed for in the forcible entry case before filing a second suit for damages, private respondent was
the MeTC, it is obvious that this cannot be relitigated in not only able to press a claim for moral and exemplary
the damage suit before the RTC by reason of res damages which by its failure to allege the same in its
adjudicata. suit before the MeTC foreclosed its right to sue on it, but
it was also able to obtain from the RTC, by way
The other claims for moral and exemplary of another temporary restraining order, a second
damages cannot also succeed considering that these reprieve from an impending public auction sale of its
sprung from the main incident being heard before the movables which it could not anymore secure from the
MeTC. Jurisprudence is unequivocal that when a single MeTC before which the matter of the issuance of a
delict or wrong is committed - like the unlawful taking or preliminary writ of injunction was already closed.
detention of the property of another - there is but one
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights The foregoing discussions provide sufficient
that may have been violated, and all such rights should basis to petitioner's charge that private respondent and
be alleged in a single complaint as constituting one its counsel in the trial courts
single cause of action. In a forcible entry case, the real committed forum shopping. In Crisostomo v. Securities
issue is the physical possession of the real property. The and Exchange Commission we ruled -
question of damages is merely secondary or incidental,
so much so that the amount thereof does not affect
There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an
the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, the unlawful
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable
act of a deforciant in taking possession of a piece of land
opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in
by means of force and intimidation against the rights of
another. The principle applies x x x with respect to suits
the party actually in possession thereof is a delict or
filed in the courts x x x in connection with litigations
wrong, or a cause of action that gives rise to two (2)
commenced in the court x x x in anticipation of an
remedies, namely, the recovery of possession and
unfavorable x x x ruling and a favorable case where the
recovery of damages arising from the loss of possession,
court in which the second suit was brought, has no
but only to one action. For obvious reasons, both
jurisdiction.
remedies cannot be the subject of two (2) separate and

Page 19
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

This Court likewise elucidated in New Pangasinan VI. Requisites for Joinder of Causes of Action:
Review, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission that there is forum shopping when the 1. The party joining the causes of action must
actions involve the same transactions, the same comply with the rules on joinder of parties.
essential facts and circumstances. The reason behind
the proscription of forum shopping is obvious. This Note: The following are elements for
unnecessarily burdens a joinder parties (Sec. 6, rule 3):
our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the
manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and a. A right to relief in respect to
trifles with and mocks our judicial processes, thereby or arising out of the same
adversely affecting the efficient administration of transaction or series of
justice. This condemnable conduct has prompted the transaction; and
Court to issue circulars ordering among others that a b. A common question of law
violation thereof shall be cause for the dismissal of the or fact.
case or cases without prejudice to the taking of
appropriate action against the counsel or party 2. The joinder shall not include special civil action
concerned. or actions governed by special rules.

IV. Remedies against splitting a single cause 3. Where the causes of action are between the
of action same parties but pertain to a different venues
or jurisdiction is with the regional trial court,
There are two remedies against splitting a single cause provided that:
of action, namely:
a. One of the causes of
(a) by filing a motion to dismiss on the action falls within the
ground of litis pendentia (Section 1(e), jurisdiction of the RTC;
Rule 16, Rules of Court), or res judicata and
(Section 1(f), Rule 16, Rules of Court); b. The venue lies thereon.
and
(b) by filing an answer alleging either of the 4. Where the claims in the causes of action are
aforementioned grounds as affirmative principally for recovery of money, the
defense. aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction (Totality Rule)

V. Joinder of Causes of Action Sps. Perez vs. Hermano (2005)

Facts: Petitioners filed a civil case for Enforcement of
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a Contract and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a
joinder of causes of action is meant the uniting of two or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary
more demands or rights of action in one action, the Injunction against Zescon Land, Inc. and/or its President
statement of more than one cause of action in a Zenie Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele and
declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of against respondent Antonio Hermano before the
action, each of which could be made the basis of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch
separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or 224. Respondent filed his Answer with Compulsory
petition. A plaintiff may under certain circumstances join Counterclaim. Thereafter, respondent Hermano filed a
several distinct demands, controversies or rights of "Motion with Leave to Dismiss the Complaint or Ordered
action in one declaration, complaint or petition. (Ada v. Severed for Separate Trial" which was granted by the
Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, 13 August 2012) trial court in an Order dated 28 February 2000.

The objectives of the rule or provision are to Issue: Whether or not the trial court correctly ordered
avoid a multiplicity of suits where the same parties and that petitioners’ causes of action be severed.
subject matter are to be dealt with by effecting in one
action a complete determination of all matters in Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court
controversy and litigation between the parties involving committed grave abuse of discretion in severing from
one subject matter, and to expedite the disposition of the complaint petitioners’ cause of action against
litigation at minimum cost. The provision should be respondent.
construed so as to avoid such multiplicity, where
possible, without prejudice to the rights of the While joinder of causes of action is largely left
litigants.(Id.) to the option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of our
present Rules allows causes of action to be joined in one
Nevertheless, while parties to an action may complaint conditioned upon the following requisites: (a)
assert in one pleading, in the alternative or otherwise, it will not violate the rules on jurisdiction, venue and
as many causes of action as they may have against an joinder of parties; and (b) the causes of action arise out
opposing party, such joinder of causes of action is of the same contract, transaction or relation between
subject to the condition, inter alia, that the joinder shall the parties, or are for demands for money or are of the
not include special civil actions governed by special same nature and character.
rules. (Id.)
In this case, petitioners have adequately
alleged in their complaint that after they had already
agreed to enter into a contract to sell with Zescon Land,
Inc., through Sales-Contreras, the latter also gave them
other documents to sign, to wit: A Deed of Absolute Sale

Page 20
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

over the same properties but for a lower consideration, possession of the property is a real action, the same
two mortgage deeds over the same properties in favor may, nevertheless, be joined with the rest of their
of respondent Hermano with accompanying notes and causes of action for damages, conformably with Section
acknowledgment receipts for Ten Million pesos 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
(P10,000,000) each. Petitioners claim that Zescon Land,
Inc., through Sales-Contreras, misled them to mortgage By way of reply, the respondents averred that
their properties which they had already agreed to sell to Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court applies only
the latter. when one or more of multiple causes of action falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first level courts,
From the averments in the complaint, it and the other or others are within the exclusive
becomes reasonably apparent that there are questions jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue lies therein.
of fact and law common to both Zescon Land, Inc., and
respondent Hermano arising from a series of transaction RTC denied the motion to dismiss finding that
over the same properties. There is the question of fact, Section 5(c), Rule 2 was applicable. Upon motion for
for example, of whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., reconsideration however, the court granted the motion
indeed misled petitioners to sign the mortgage deeds in to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. It
favor of respondent Hermano. There is also the question ruled that the principal action of the petitioners was a
of which of the four contracts were validly entered into real action and should have been filed in the RTC of
by the parties. Note that under Article 2085 of the Civil Paranaque City where the property subject matter of the
Code, for a mortgage to be valid, it is imperative that complaint was located. However, since the case was
the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing filed in the RTC of Bulacan where the petitioners reside,
mortgaged. Thus, respondent Hermano will definitely be which court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter
affected if it is subsequently declared that what was of the action, it must be dismissed.
entered into by petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc., was a
Contract of Sale (as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Issue: WON Section 5 (c) Rule 2 of the ROC is
Sale signed by them) because this would mean that the applicable.
contracts of mortgage were void as petitioners were no
longer the absolute owners of the properties mortgaged. Held:No. After due consideration of the foregoing, we
Finally, there is also the question of whether or not find and so rule that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
Zescon Land, Inc., as represented by Sales-Contreras, Court does not apply. This is so because the petitioners,
and respondent Hermano committed fraud against as plaintiffs in the court a quo, had only one cause of
petitioners as to make them liable for damages. action against the respondents, namely, the breach of
the MOA upon the latter’s refusal to pay the first two
Sps. Decena, v. Sps. Piquero (2005) installments in payment of the property as agreed upon,
and turn over to the petitioners the possession of the
Facts: Spouses Danilo and Cristina Decena were the real property, as well as the house constructed thereon
owners of a house and lot in Parañaque City. The occupied by the respondents. The claim for damages for
petitioners and the respondents, the Spouses Pedro and reasonable compensation for the respondents’ use and
Valeria Piquero, executed a Memorandum of Agreement occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as
in which the former sold the property to the latter for moral and exemplary damages suffered by the
P940,250.00 payable in six (6) installments via petitioners on account of the aforestated breach of
postdated checks. The vendees forthwith took contract of the respondents are merely incidental to the
possession of the property. It appears in the MOA that main cause of action, and are not independent or
the petitioners obliged themselves to transfer the separate causes of action. The action of the petitioners
property to the respondents upon the execution of the for the rescission of the MOA on account of the
MOA with the condition that if two of the postdated respondents’ breach thereof and the latter’s failure to
checks would be dishonored by the drawee bank, the return the premises subject of the complaint to the
latter would be obliged to reconvey the property to the petitioners, and the respondents’ eviction therefrom is a
petitioners. On May 17, 1999, the petitioners, then real action. As such, the action should have been filed in
residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed a Complaint against the proper court where the property is located, namely,
the respondents with the RTC Malolos, Bulacan, for the in Parañaque City, conformably with Section 1, Rule 4 of
annulment of the sale/MOA, recovery of possession of the Rules of Court. Since the petitioners, who were
the property, and damages. residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the
said RTC, venue was improperly laid; hence, the trial
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on court acted conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of
the ground the said court had no jurisdiction over the the Rules of Court when it ordered the dismissal of the
property subject matter of the action because it was complaint.
located in Paranaque City. They averred that the
principal action of the petitioners for the rescission of VII. Totality Rule
the MOA, and the recovery of the possession of the
property is a real action and not a personal one; hence, “Totality rule" under Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg.
it should have been brought in the RTC of Paraaque City, 129 states that "where there are several claims or
where the property subject matter of the action was causes of action between the same or different parties,
located, and not in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, where embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
the petitioners resided. demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
In opposition, the petitioners insisted that their action arose out of the same or different transactions."
action for damages and attorneys fees is a personal
action and not a real action; hence, it may be filed in the Determination of Jurisdictional Amount in Relation to the
RTC of Bulacan where they reside. They averred that Totality Rule
while their second cause of action for the recovery of the

Page 21
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Under BP 129, as amended, and under R.A a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there
7691, the jurisdictional amount excludes the following: is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims
against respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate
a. Interest and distinct and neither of which falls within its
b. Damages of whether kind jurisdiction.
c. Attorney’s Fees
d. Litigation expenses and cost VII. Estoppel to Question Jurisdiction
These matters, however, shall be included in
determining the fililng fees (Riano, p. 179) Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor (2005)
Facts: Private respondents own a parcel of land. They
“Damages of whatever kind” applies to cases allowed Bertuldo Hinog to use a portion of the said
where the damages are merely incidental to or property for a period of ten years and construct thereon
consequence of the main cause of action (Adm. Circ. No. a small house. After the expiration of the ten-year
09-94, June 14, 1994). Thus , if the main cause of period, they demanded the return of the occupied
action is the recovery of damages, the amount of portion and removal of the house constructed thereon
damages should not be excluded in determining the but Hinog refused and instead claimed ownership.
jurisdictional amount (Sante v. Claravall, G.R 173915, Private respondents filed a complaint for “Recovery of
February 22, 2010). Ownership and Possession, Removal of Construction and
Damages”against Hinog. Trial ensued but Hinog died
Flores vs. Mallare-Phillipps (1986) without completing his evidence. New counsel appeared
Facts: Petitioner Remedio Flores (“petitioner”) filed a for the deceased and filed a motion to expunge the
Complaint against respondents Ignacio Binongcal complaint from the record and nullify all court
(“Binongcal”) and Fernando Calion (“Calion”) with the proceedings on the ground that private respondents
Regional Trial Court, Baguio and Benguet Province (the failed to specify the amount of damages claimed so as to
“lower court”). Said Complaint consists of two (2) pay the correct docket fees and further alleged that the
causes of action: (a) the first cause of action alleged in private respondents failed to pay the correct docket fee
the complaint was against respondent Ignacio Binongcal since the main subject matter of the case cannot be
for refusing to pay the amount of P11,643.00 estimated as it is for recovery of ownership, possession
representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on and removal of construction. Private respondents
credit from petitioner on various occasions from August opposed. While the trial court ordered the complaint to
to October, 1981; and (b) the second cause of action be expunged from the records, it held however that
was against respondent Fernando Calion for allegedly upon the complete payment of such fees, the Court may
refusing to pay the amount of P10,212.00 representing take appropriate action in the light of the ruling in the
cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from case of Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court
petitioner on several occasions from March, 1981 to of Appeals.
January, 1982.
Thereafter, the private respondents, upon
Respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss payment of deficiency docket fee, filed a manifestation
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amount of with prayer to reinstate the case. Despite petitioners’
the demand was only P11,643.00 and under Section opposition, the trial court issued the assailed Order
19(8) of BP129 the regional trial court shall exercise reinstating the case.
exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of the
demand is more than twenty thousand pesos Issue: Whether or not the trial court correctly
(P20,000.00), and although another person, Calion, was reinstated the complaint upon the payment of deficiency
allegedly indebted to petitioner in the amount of docket fees.
P10,212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct
from that of Calion, who joined Binongcal’s Motion to Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. reinstatement of the complaint was just and proper
considering that the cause of action of private
The lower court ordered the dismissal of respondents, being a real action, prescribes in thirty
petitioner’s complaint. Hence, the appeal. years, and private respondents did not really intend to
evade the payment of the prescribed docket fee but
Issue: Whether or not the RTC dismissed for lack of simply contend that they could not be faulted for
jurisdiction. inadequate assessment because the clerk of court made
no notice of demand or reassessment. They were in
Held: Yes. The lower court correctly dismissed good faith and simply relied on the assessment of the
petitioner’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In cases of clerk of court.
permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as
defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, the total of all While the payment of the prescribed docket fee
the claims shall now furnish the jurisdictional test. If the is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at
causes of action are separate and independent, their the time of filing does not automatically cause the
joinder in one complaint is permissive and not dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within
mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more
of the demand is twenty thousand pesos or less may be so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness
the subject of a separate complaint filed with a to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus,
metropolitan or municipal trial court. when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
In the case at bar, the lower court correctly government, the Manchester rule does not apply.
held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on
joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and
Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after

Page 22
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The Supreme Court held that the Manchester (c) Corporations, partnerships
rule has been modified in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. and associations for private
(SIOL) vs. Asuncion, which defined the following interest or purpose to which
guidelines involving the payment of docket fees: the law grants a juridical
personality, separate and
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or distinct from that of each
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the shareholder, partner or
payment of the prescribed docket fee, which member.
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject-matter or nature of the action. Where 3. Entities authorized by law
the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, o One need not be or juridical person to be
the court may allow payment of the fees within a party to a civil action. As long as an
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the entity is authorized by law to be a party,
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. such entity may sue or be sued or both.

2. The same rule applies to permissive o The following are examples of entities
counterclaims, third-party claims and similar authorized by law to be parties (W. B.
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for
until and unless the filing fee prescribed the Bar, 2009 ed., p. 212):
therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of said fee within a reasonable time a. Under Sec. 21 of the Corporation
but also in no case beyond its applicable Code of the Philippines, a
prescriptive or reglementary period. corporation by estoppel is
precluded from denying its existence
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over and the members thereof can be
a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading sued and be held liable as general
and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, partners.
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim
not specified in the pleading, or if specified the b. A contract of partnership having a
same has been left for determination by the capital of three thousand pesos
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall or more but which fails to comply
constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be with the registration
the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his requirements is nevertheless liable
duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and as a partnership to third persons (Art.
assess and collect the additional fee. 1772 in relation to Art. 1768 of the
New Civil Code).

Rule 3 Articles 1772 and 1768 of the New Civil Code

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS provide:

Article 1772. Every

I. WHO MAY BE PARTIES contract of partnership having a
capital of three thousand pesos or
 Only natural or juridical persons, or entities more, in money or property, shall
authorized by law may be parties in a civil appear in a public instrument, which
action (Rule 3, Sec. 1). must be recorded in the Office of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
1. Natural Persons Article 1768. The
o A natural person is a human partnership has a juridical personality
being, which is a product of separate and distinct from that of
procreation (Jurado, Civil Law each of the partners, even in case of
Reviewer, 21st ed., p. 62). failure to comply with the
2. Juridical Persons requirements of Article 1772, first
paragraph.
o A juridical person exists only in
contemplation of law, and is a c. The estate of a deceased person may be a
product of legal fiction (Jurado, party to an action (Limjoco v. Intestate Estate
supra.). of Fragante, 8 Phil. 776; Nazareno v. Court of
Appeals, 343 SCRA 637).
o The juridical persons who may
be parties to a civil action are d. A legitimate labor organization may sue
those enumerated in Article 44 and be sued in its registered name (Labor
of the New Civil Code, namely: Code, Article 242[e]).
(a) The State and its political
subdivisions; e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party
(b) Other corporations, and as to its properties, the archbishop or
institutions and entities for diocese to which they belong may be a party
public interest or purpose, (Barlin v. Ramirez, 7 Phil. 47; Versoza v.
created by law; and Fernandez, 49 Phil. 627).

Page 23
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and a. Lack of Personality to Sue

defend suits by or against it provided that the
suits (i) occur within three (3) years after its Evangelista vs. Santiago (2005)
dissolution, and (ii) the suits are in connection
with the settlement and closure of its affairs Facts: Petitioners filed with the trial court an action for
(Corporation Code, Sec. 122). declaration of nullity of respondents certificates of the
title of parcels of land which Petitioners allegedly
 The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming occupied and possessed. They claimed that the OCT was
party, the counter-claimant, the cross- fake and spurious. Respondent filed his Answer and
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party claimed that the petitioners had no legal capacity to
plaintiff (Rule 3, Sec. 1). file the Complaint since such an action will result in the
reversion of the ownership of the Subject Property to
 The term "defendant" may refer to the the State and hence it is the State which must bring the
original defending party, the defendant in a action; thus, the Complaint stated no cause of action.
counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant (Rule 3, The trial court decided against the Petitioners. The
Sec. 1). trial court ratiocinated that the Petitioners did not have
the legal standing to sue because it is the State who
 Remedy when a party impleaded is not must file the corresponding case of annulment of illegal
authorized to be a party (Riano, supra.) title through the Office of the Solicitor General. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of the trial court
o Where the plaintiff is not a natural or and denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
a juridical person or an entity
authorized by law, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground ISSUE: WON the petitioners had the legal personality to
that “the plaintiff has no legal file the action?
capacity to sue” (Rule, 16, Sec.1[d]).
HELD: No, they had no legal personality to sue. The
o Where it is the defendant who is not Court believes that the trial court rightfully dismissed
any of the above, the complaint may petitioners Complaint, but for reasons different from
be dismissed on the ground that the those relied upon by the RTC and the CA.
“pleading asserting the claim states
No legal capacity v. No COA
no cause of action” (Rule 16, Sec.
1[g]), because there cannot be a Before anything else, it should be clarified that the
cause of action against one who plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue and the pleading
cannot be a party to a civil action. asserting the claim states no cause of action are two
different grounds for a motion to dismiss or are two
o If the plaintiff has capacity to sue but different affirmative defenses.
he is not the “real party in interest,”
he ground for dismissal is “failure to Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA: Lack of legal
state a cause of action” (Aguila v. capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the
Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 246; exercise of his civil rights, or does not have the
Balagtas v. Court of Appeals, 317 necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does
SCRA 69), not “lack of legal capacity not have the character or representation he claims. On
to sue.” the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of
personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the
II. CLASSIFICATION OF PARTIES real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state
a cause of action. The term "lack of capacity to sue"
A.Real Party in Interest should not be confused with the term "lack of
personality to sue." While the former refers to a
Definition - A real party in interest is the party plaintiffs general disability to sue, such as on account of
who stands to be benefited or injured by the minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the personality or any other general disqualifications of a
avails of the suit (Rule 3, Section 2). party, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not
the real party- in-interest. Correspondingly, the first can
Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground
Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended of lack of legal capacity to sue; whereas the second can
in the name of the real party in interest (Rule 3, be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on
Section 2). the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof,
evidently states no cause of action.
The determination of who the real party-in-interest
is requires going back to the elements of a cause of Despite the allegation of the respondent that
action. A cause of action involves the existence of a petitioners had no legal capacity to sue, this Court
right and a violation of such right. Evidently, the may assume that the respondent is raising the
owner of the right violated stands to be the real affirmative defense that the Complaint filed by the
party in interest as plaintiff and the person petitioners before the trial court stated no cause of
responsible for the violation is the real party in action because the petitioners lacked the personality to
interest as defendant (Lee v. Romillo, 161 SCRA sue, not being the real party-in-interest. It is the
589). respondent’s contention that only the State can file an
action for annulment of his certificates of title, since

Page 24
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

such an action will result in the reversion of the and was issued a business permit by the Office of the
ownership of the Subject Property to the State. Mayor of Manila.

In their instant Petition, petitioners further averred

that rather than an action for nullity of respondent’s RTC granted the motion of Win for EQA to deposit the
certificates of title, theirs was more appropriately an amount. Upon deposit, Win move for the release of the
action to remove a cloud on or to quiet their title over garnished money, which was vehemently objected to by
the Subject Property. the Petitioners but nevertheless granted by the RTC.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA
No legal or equitable title annulled the two orders of the RTC but ruled that the
RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
Even as this Court agrees with the petitioners that
their action was one for removal of a cloud on or
quieting of title, it does arrive at the same conclusion as Issue:WON Win has a legal personality to institute the
the RTC and the CA that petitioners had no personality present case.
to file the said action, not being the parties-in-interest.
Held:No, Win is NOT a real party in interest. A suit may
The plaintiff, in an action to remove a cloud on or
only be instituted by the real party in interest as defined
to quiet title, must have legal or equitable title to, or
in Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
interest in, the real property which is the subject matter
of the action. Petitioners failed to establish in their
Complaint that they had any legal or equitable title to, Win admitted that the contract was executed
or legitimate interest in, the Subject Property so as to between Multi-Rich and petitioner. It further admitted
justify their right to file an action to remove a cloud on that Multi-Rich was a sole proprietorship with a business
or to quiet title. permit issued by the Office of the Mayor of Manila. A
sole proprietorship is the oldest, simplest, and most
Therefore, without legal or equitable title to the prevalent form of business enterprise.31 It is an
Subject Property, the petitioners lacked the personality unorganized business owned by one person. The sole
to file an action for removal of a cloud on, or quieting of, proprietor is personally liable for all the debts and
title and their Complaint was properly dismissed for obligations of the business. In the case of Mangila v.
failing to state a cause of action. CA, we held that: … In fact, there is no law authorizing
sole proprietorships to file a suit in court…. A sole
Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi Rich proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality
Builders, Inc. (2009) separate and distinct from the personality of the owner
of the enterprise.
Facts: This case involves a claim for a sum of money
which arose from a construction dispute.
The original petition was instituted by Win,
Petitioner Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. entered into a which is a SEC-registered corporation. It filed a
contract with Multi-Rich Builders (Multi-Rich) collection of sum of money suit which involved a
represented by Wilson G. Chua (Chua), its President and construction contract entered into by petitioner and
General Manager, for the construction of a garment Multi-Rich, a sole proprietorship. The counsel of Win
factory. The construction of the factory building was wanted to change the name of the plaintiff in the suit to
completed on 27 November 1996. Multi-Rich. The change cannot be countenanced. The
plaintiff in the collection suit is a corporation. The name
cannot be changed to that of a sole proprietorship.
Respondent Win Multi-Rich Builders, Inc. (Win) was Again, a sole proprietorship is not vested with juridical
incorporated with the Securities and Exchange personality to file or defend an action.34
Commission (SEC) on 20 February 1997 with Chua as its
President and General Manager. On 26 January 2004,
Win filed a complaint for a sum of money against In order for a corporation to be able to file suit
petitioner and Mr. Ying amounting to P8,634,448.20 and claim the receivables of its predecessor in business,
in this case a sole proprietorship, it must show proof
that the corporation had acquired the assets and
Petitioner also denied owing anything to Win, as it had liabilities of the sole proprietorship. Win could have
already paid all its obligations to it. easily presented or attached any document e.g., deed of
assignment which will show whether the assets,
In the hearing held on 10 February 2004, the counsel of liabilities and receivables of Multi-Rich were acquired by
Win moved that its name in the case be changed from Win. Having been given the opportunity to rebut the
"Win Multi-Rich Builders, Inc." to "Multi-Rich Builders, allegations made by petitioner, Win failed to use that
Inc." In the Reply filed by petitioner, it moved to dismiss opportunity. Thus, we cannot presume that Multi-Rich is
the case since Win was not the contractor and neither a the predecessor-in-business of Win and hold that the
party to the contract, thus it cannot institute the case. latter has standing to institute the collection suit.
Petitioner obtained a Certificate of Non-Registration of
Corporation/Partnership from the SEC which certified b.Standing to Sue
that the latter did not have any records of a "Multi-Rich
Builders, Inc." Moreover, Win in its Rejoinder did not He who is directly affected and whose interest is
oppose the allegations in the Reply. Win admitted that it immediate and substantial has the standing to sue.
was only incorporated on 20 February 1997 while the Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the
construction contract was executed on 26 March 1996. outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be
Likewise, it admitted that at the time of execution of the redressed by a favorable decision in order to warrant an
contract, Multi-Rich was a registered sole proprietorship invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and justify the

Page 25
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

exercise of judicial power on his behalf. (Domingo vs. Judicial power is the power to hear and decide
Carague, 456 SCRA 450, 2005) cases pending between parties who have the right to
sue in courts of law and equity. Corollary to this dictum
is the principle of locus standi of a litigant. He who is
Domingo v. Carague (2005)
directly affected and whose interest is immediate and
Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the
substantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a party must
constitutionality or legality of Resolution No. 2002-05 of
show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an
the Commission on Audit (COA) providing for
injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable
Organizational Restructuring Plan.
decision in order to warrant an invocation of the court’s
jurisdiction and justify the exercise of judicial power on
Petitioners are retired Commissioners of COA his behalf.
and incumbent officers or employees of COA. The retired
Commissioners claim "to maintain a deep-seated abiding
Petitioners’ reliance upon our rulings
interest in the affairs of COA while these officers and
in Chavez, Agan, Jr., and Information Technology
employees claim that they were unceremoniously
Foundation is flawed:
divested of their designations/ranks as Unit Head, Team
Supervisor, and Team Leader upon implementation of
the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan without just  Chavez, we ruled that the petitioner has
cause and without due process, in violation of Civil legal standing since he is a taxpayer and
Service Law. Moreover, they were deprived of their his purpose in filing the petition is to
respective Representation and Transportation compel the Public Estate Authority (PEA)
Allowances (RATA), thus causing them undue financial to perform its constitutional duties. We
prejudice. held that these matters are of
transcendental public importance.
 Agan, Jr., we held that petitioners have
PETITIONERS: invoke Chavez v. Public Estates
legal standing as they have a direct and
Authority, Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air
substantial interest to protect. By the
Terminals Co., Inc., and Information Technology
implementation of the PIATCO contracts,
Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections
they stand to lose their source of
the subject matter of a case is a matter of public
livelihood, a property right zealously
concern and imbued with public interest, then this fact
protected by the Constitution.
alone gives them legal standing to institute the instant
 Information Technology Foundation, the
petition. Petitioners contend that the COA Organizational
nation’s political and economic future
Restructuring Plan is not just a mere reorganization but
virtually hangs in the balance, pending the
a revamp or overhaul of the COA, with a "spillover
outcome of the 2004 elections.
effect" upon its audit performance. This will have an
Accordingly, the award for the automation
impact upon the rest of the government bodies subject
of the electoral process was a matter of
to its audit supervision, thus, should be treated as a
public concern, imbued with public
matter of transcendental importance.
interest. Second, the individual
petitioners, as taxpayers, asserted a
OSG: Petitioners have no legal standing to file as they material interest in seeing to it that public
have not shown "a personal stake in the outcome of the funds are properly used.
case" or an actual or potential injury that can be
redressed by our favorable decision. Petitioners
As re the employees’, Matib, Pacpaco,
themselves admitted that "they do not seek any
Sanchez, and Sipi-An, allegations that they were
affirmative relief nor impute any improper or
demoted and unceremoniously divested of their previous
improvident act against the said respondents". Nor may
designations, deprived of their RATA; that they were
petitioners claim that as taxpayers, they have legal
relegated to being mere Team Members, entitled to only
standing since nowhere in their petition do they claim
a reimbursable transportation allowance; and that they
that public funds are being spent in violation of law or
were denied due process:
that there is a misapplication of the taxpayers’ money.

 Such averments lack merit. Actually, they

Issue:WON the petitioners have the legal standing to
were not demoted. Under the
impugn the validity of the COA Resolution
Administrative Code of 1987, a demotion
is the movement from one position to
Held: NO. Petitioners have not shown any direct and another involving the issuance of an
personal interest in the COA Organizational appointment with diminution in duties,
Restructuring Plan. There is no indication that they have responsibilities, status, or rank which may
sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some or may not involve reduction in salary.
direct injury as a result of its implementation. In fact, Here, there have been no new
they admitted that "they do not seek any affirmative appointments issued under the COA
relief nor impute any improper or improvident act Organizational Restructuring Plan.
against the respondents" and "are not motivated by any  Moreover, the change in their status from
desire to seek affirmative relief from COA or from COA auditors cannot be attributed to the
respondents that would redound to their personal COA Organizational Restructuring Plan but
benefit or gain." Clearly, they do not have any legal to the implementation of the Audit Team
standing to file the instant suit. Approach (ATAP), pursuant to COA
Resolution No. 96-305 dated April 16,
1996.

Page 26
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

 Matib, Pacpaco, Sanchez, and Sipi-An are Compulsory joinder of Indispensable Parties - The
not qualified to be Audit Team Leaders or joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without
to receive fixed monthly RATA since none the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the
of them holds the rank or position of State judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
Auditor IV. But this does not mean that Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment
they are not entitled to receive rendered by the court (Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No.
reimbursable RATA if they are designated 159794, 19 December 2006).
as Audit Team Leaders. It is clear from
the text of the said COA Memorandum Dismissal For Failure To Implead an Indispensable
that the principle of non-diminution of Party
benefits has been upheld.
o Since the joinder of indispensable parties is
compulsory, the action should be dismissed
B.Representative Parties
when indispensable parties are not impleaded
of are not before the court. The absence of
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and
indispensable parties renders all subsequent
defended by a representative or someone acting in a
actions of the trial court null and void for want
fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in
of authority to act not only as to the absent
the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
parties but even as to those present (MWSS v.
real property in interest (Rule 3, Sec. 3).
Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 287).
A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust,
o An outright dismissal of the action when
a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
indispensable parties are not impleaded is a
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in
procedural error. Instead, parties may be
his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
dropped or added by the court on motion of
principal may sue or be sued without joining the
any party or on its own initiative at any stage
principal except when the contract involves things
of the action and on such terms as are just
belonging to the principal (Rule 3, Sec. 3).
(Rule 3, Sec. 11). It is when the order of the
court to implead an indispensable party goes
Oposa v. Factoran(1993)
unheeded may the case be dismissed. The
court is fully clothed with the authority to
Facts: This is a class suit brought by 44 children,
dismiss a complaint due to the fault of the
through their parents, claiming that they bring the case
plaintiff as when, among others, he does not
in the name of “their generation as well as those
comply with any order of the court (Rule 17,
generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stop deforestation, it
Sec. 3; Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
was filed against the Secretary of the Department of
166519, 31 March 2009).
Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have
him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in
Pascual v. Robles: In the Matter of the Heirship
the country and to cease and desist from accepting and
(Intestate Estates) of the Rodriguezes (2010)
approving more timber license agreements. The children
Facts: A petition for Declaration of Heirship and
invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology
Appointment of Administrator and Settlement of the
and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens
Estates of the Late Rodriguez (Hermogenes) and Antonio
patriae.. The petitioners claimed that the DENR
Rodriguez (Antonio) was filed before the RTC of Iriga
Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop
City.
issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of
humankind-- the natural law—and violative of plaintiffs'
right to self-preservation and perpetuation." The case Since nobody opposed the petition, the RTC
was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on entered a general default against the whole world,
non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the except the Republic of the Philippines. Thereafter, the
Supreme Court on certiorari. RTC rendered a Partial declaring Henry, Certeza and
Rosalina Rodriguez as heirs in the direct descending line
Issue:Did the children have the legal standing to file of the late Antonio.
the case?
Subsequently, six groups of oppositors entered
Held:Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition
their appearances, including respondent Jaime Robles
ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the
(Robles). The RTC issued an Order declaring Robles to
case based on the concept of “intergenerational
be an heir. However, the RTC flipped-flopped in its
responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment
subsequent decisions but the latest decision reinstated
carried with it an obligation to preserve that
the original order declaring Henry, Certeza, and Rosalina
environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the
Rodriguez as the heirs.
Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of
future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-
impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise Robles then appealed but RTC denied the
of the police power of the state in the interest of public appeal. Robles filed a petition for review on certiorari
welfare. with the SC. SC referred the petition to the CA. The CA
rendered judgment annulling the Amended Decision of
C.Indispensable Parties the RTC. Nevertheless, Robles filed an appeal with this
Court assailing a portion of the CA Decision. SC denied
Definition – An indispensable party is a real party-in- the petition of Robles and the said Resolution became
interest without whom no final determination can be had final and executory.
of an action (Rule 3, Sec. 7).

Page 27
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

A petition for certiorari was filed before the SC of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an
by petitioner Rene B. Pascual but Robles was not indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
impleaded. Thereafter, the SC rendered a decision. court null and void for want of authority to act, not only
as to the absent parties but even as to those present.6
Hence this petition assailing the decision which
was rendered without him being impleaded. Robles In the case at bar, Robles is an indispensable
contends that he is a party-in-interest who stands to be party. He stands to be injured or benefited by the
adversely affected or injured or benefited by the outcome of the petition. Robles is interested in
judgment in the instant case. Hence, the failure of sustaining the assailed CA Decision, considering that he
service upon him of a copy of the instant petition as well would benefit from such judgment. As such, his non-
as petitioner's memorandum, and the fact that he was inclusion would render the petition for certiorari
not required or given the opportunity to file his comment defective. Petitioner, thus, committed a mistake in
or answer to the said petition nor served with any order, failing to implead Robles as respondent.
resolution or any other process issued by this Court in
the instant petition, is a clear denial of his right to due
The rule is settled that the non-joinder of
process.
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of
an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party
In his Comment and Opposition, Pascual claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by
contends that Robles has no legal standing to participate order of the court on motion of the party or on its own
in the instant petition. Petitioner argues that in an initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times
original action for certiorari, the parties are the as are just. If petitioner refuses to implead an
aggrieved party against the lower court and the indispensable party despite the order of the court, the
prevailing party. Robles was never impleaded, because latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the
he was not the prevailing party in the assailed Decision plaintiff’s/petitioner's failure to comply therewith.
of the CA as well as the questioned Order of the RTC.
Based on the foregoing, and in the interest of
Issue: WON Robles is an indispensable party in the fair play, the Court finds it proper to set aside its
Petion for Certiorari before the SC. decision and allow Robles to file his comment on the
petition.
Held: YES. Robles is an indispensable party. Petitioner
admitted in his Comment and Opposition to Robles' Limos v. Spouses Odones (2010)
Motion that in the instant petition he filed, only the CA Facts: Private respondents Sps Odones filed a complaint
and the RTC were impleaded as respondents. for Annulment of Deed, Title and Damages against
petitioners Limos, Rosa delos Reyes and Sps Delos
Reyes before Tarlac RTC. The complaint alleged that
Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
they are the owners of a 940 sq m land by virtue of an
Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale dated Jan 29,
Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain 2004, executed by the surviving heirs of Donata
cases. – When the petition filed relates to the acts or Lardizabal, in whom the original title was vested. After
omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, registering the document of conveyance, they found out
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the that the OCT was cancelled and replaced by a TCT in the
petitioner shall join as private respondent or petitioners’ name. Respondents sought the cancellation
respondents with such public respondent or of said TCTs on the ground that the Sps Lardizabal’s
respondents, the person or persons interested in signatures were forgeries.
sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it In response, petitioners filed a Motion for Bill
shall be the duty of such private respondents to of Particulars, which was denied, and in their answer
appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf pleaded affirmative defenses one of which was the non-
and in behalf of the public respondent or joinder of the other heirs of Donata as
respondents affected by the proceedings, and the indispensable parties .
costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the
petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, RTC & CA denied Motion to Set for Preliminary
and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, Hearing on the Special and Affirmative Defenses
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded because respondents had already replied, hence this
as public respondent or respondents. petition for certiorari.

Issue: WON the affirmative defense of non-joinder of

In Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,5 this Court indispensable parties is a ground for dismissal of action
ruled as follows:
Held: No. Non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
An indispensable party is a party-in-interest ground for dismissal of an action. The remedy is to
without whom no final determination can be had of an implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of
defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the
mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is action and/or such times as are just. It is only when the
necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party
"the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right despite the order of the court, that the latter may
to act in a case." Thus, without the presence of dismiss the complaint. In this case, no such order was
indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment issued.

Page 28
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

On March 14, 2002, an Alias Writ of

Uy v. CA (2006) Execution was issued by CIAC and on the following day,
a Notice of Garnishment was served on private
Facts: The Heritage Memorial Park is a flagship project respondent.
of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA)
Private respondent HPMC then filed a petition
in Fort Bonifacio. To implement the project, the BCDA,
for Injunction/Prohibition before the Court of Appeals on
on September 9, 1994, entered into an agreement
the ground that CIAC had no jurisdiction over the
denominated as the Pool Formation Trust
subject matter since HPMC was not impleaded as a party
Agreement (PFTA) with the Philippine National Bank
thereby depriving it of its right to be heard. The
(PNB) and the Public Estates Authority (PEA). The BCDA
appellate court ruled in favor of respondent,
was designated as the Project Owner; PEA, the Project
Manager; and PNB as the Trustee.
Petitioners contention is that private
respondent HPMC is not a party-in-interest to the case
As project owner, the BCDA was tasked to sell
since it is a mere trustee of the construction and
the Heritage Park Investment Certificates to the public
development funds and would not be directly benefited
and buyers become certificate holders. The certificate
or injured by the outcome of the case.
gives the PNB the absolute legal and beneficial title
to Heritage Park in trust for the certificate holders. The
Private respondent contends that upon its
PNB, as trustee, shall protect the values of the assets in
incorporation and election of its Board of Trustees, it
the trust, receive and have custody over the proceeds
assumed ownership of the Heritage Park
from the sale of the certificates, administer the various
Project. Further, since it is a non-stock, non-profit
funds, including disbursements for project costs and
corporation, with the certificate holders as its members,
related expenses, turnover the Perpetual Care Fund to
any claim against the PEA is in reality a claim against all
the Successor Trustee, turnover custody over
the parties who pooled and contributed their resources
documents pertaining to the Heritage Park and the
for the project; hence, it is an indispensable party.
residual funds to BCDA, and turnover all the documents
and records to the Board of Trustees after completion of
Issue: WON HPMC a real party-in-interest or an
the project.
indispensable party
PEA, as project manager, is tasked to
Held: An indispensable party is one whose interest will
implement and complete the various engineering works
be affected by the courts action in the litigation, and
and improvements of Heritage Park.
without whom no final determination of the case can be
had. The partys interest in the subject matter of the suit
On November 20, 1996, PEA and the
and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined
petitioner, a single proprietorship doing business under
with the other parties that his legal presence as a party
the name and style of Edison Development and
to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
Construction, executed a Landscaping and Construction
Agreement whereby the petitioner undertook to do all
Based on the Construction Agreement, PEA
the landscaping, including the construction of
entered into it in its capacity as Project Manager,
a terrasoleum of the Heritage Park. The Heritage Park
pursuant to the PFTA. According to the provisions of the
Executive Committee approved the agreement on May
PFTA, upon the formation of the HPMC, the PEA would
29, 1997.
turn over to the HPMC all the contracts relating to
the Heritage Park. At the time of the filing of the CIAC
Pursuant to Section 11.01 of the PFTA, in April
Case on May 31, 2001, PEA ceased to be the Project
1999, the certificate holders of the project organized
Manager of the Heritage Park Project, pursuant to
themselves into a non-stock, non-profit corporation, the
Section 11 of the PFTA. Through a Deed of
Heritage Park Management Corporation (HPMC), now
Assignment, PEA assigned its interests in all the existing
the private respondent herein.
contracts it entered into as the Project Manager
for Heritage Park to HPMC. As early as March 17, 2000,
In October 1999, alleging delay in the PEA officially turned over to HPMC all the documents and
construction of the projects and huge discrepancy equipment in its possession related to the Heritage Park
between the Accomplishment Report and the actual Project. Petitioner was duly informed of these incidents
physical accomplishment of petitioners construction firm, through a letter dated March 13, 2000. Apparently, as of
the Heritage Park Executive Committee terminated the the date of the filing of the CIAC Case, PEA is no longer
two construction contracts namely, the landscaping and a party-in-interest. Instead, it is now private respondent
nursery works, and the construction of the terrasoleum. HPMC, as the assignee, who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit. In its absence, there
cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties
On March 17, 2000, pursuant to the terms of before the court which is effective, complete or
the PFTA, HPMC assumed all the functions, duties and equitable.[ We thus reiterate that HPMC is an
responsibilities of the PEA, including those under an indispensable party.
assailed contract.
Does CIAC have jurisdiction over the dispute?
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 1008] is pertinent. It
On May 31, 2001, petitioner filed a
provides that the jurisdiction of the CIAC over the
complaint against the PEA before the Construction
parties is dependent on the agreement and consent of
Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) where it sought
the parties to the construction contract, to submit their
to recover payment for its progress billings on the said
dispute for arbitration. Absent such consent, the CIAC
projects.
cannot validly proceed against a party for lack of
jurisdiction.

Page 29
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

delict, affects the procedural and jurisdictional issues of

In this instance, both parties agreed to submit the action.
the dispute for arbitration. However, the CIAC should Tuazon chose to file an action for damages
have dismissed the same on the ground that the private based on a quasi-delict. In his complaint, Tuazon alleged
respondent was not impleaded, it being an indispensable that Mrs. Cerezo, without exercising due care and
party to the case. diligence in the supervision and management of her
employees and buses, hired Foronda as her driver.
Indispensable parties must be joined either as Tuazon became disabled because of Forondas
plaintiffs or defendants. Whenever it appears to the recklessness, gross negligence and imprudence,
court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable aggravated by Mrs. Cerezos lack of due care and
party has not been joined, it is the duty of the court to diligence in the selection and supervision of her
stop the trial and to order the inclusion of such employees, particularly Foronda.
party. The absence of an indispensable party renders all The trial court thus found Mrs. Cerezo liable
subsequent actuations of the court null and void, for under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Article 2180 states
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent in part:
parties, but even as to those present. Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household helpers acting
It has come to the Courts attention that from within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though
the inception of the case, PEA informed the CIAC that the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
pursuant to the PFTA and the Deed of Assignment, all its Contrary to Mrs. Cerezos assertion, Foronda is
rights and obligations under the contract have already not an indispensable party to the case. An indispensable
been assigned to private respondent. party is one whose interest is affected by the courts
action in the litigation, and without whom no final
resolution of the case is possible. However, Mrs. Cerezos
The responsibility of impleading all the liability as an employer in an action for a quasi-delict is
indispensable parties rests on the plaintiff. The not only solidary, it is also primary and direct. Foronda
defendant does not have the right to compel the plaintiff is not an indispensable party to the final resolution of
to prosecute the action against a party if he does not Tuazons action for damages against Mrs. Cerezo.
wish to do so, but the plaintiff will have to suffer the The responsibility of two or more persons who
consequences of any error he might commit in are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Where there is a
exercising his option. solidary obligation on the part of debtors, as in this
case, each debtor is liable for the entire obligation.
 Where obligation of the parties is solidary, Hence, each debtor is liable to pay for the entire
either of the parties is indispensable obligation in full. There is no merger or renunciation of
rights, but only mutual representation. Where the
obligation of the parties is solidary, either of the parties
Cerezo v.Tuazon (2004)
is indispensable, and the other is not even a necessary
party because complete relief is available from either.
Facts: A passenger bus collided with a tricycle
Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not even
somewhere in Pampanga. The tricycle driver Tuazon
necessary as Tuazon may collect damages from Mrs.
filed a complaint for damages against Mrs. Cerezo, as
Cerezo alone.
owner of the bus line, and her husband Attorney
Moreover, an employers liability based on a
Juan Cerezo. However, the summons issued by the trial
quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the employers
court was returned unserved as the Cerezo spouses no
liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary.The words
longer held office nor resided in Makati. The trial court
primary and direct, as contrasted with subsidiary, refer
issued alias summons against the Cerezo spouses at
to the remedy provided by law for enforcing the
their address in Camiling, Tarlac.
obligation rather than to the character and limits of the
Mrs. Cerezon brings this present petition lack
obligation. Although liability under Article 2180
of jurisdiction. Mrs. Cerezo asserts that the trial court
originates from the negligent act of the employee, the
could not validly render judgment since it failed to
aggrieved party may sue the employer directly. When an
acquire jurisdiction over Foronda. Mrs. Cerezo points out
employee causes damage, the law presumes that the
that there was no service of summons on Foronda.
employer has himself committed an act of negligence in
Moreover, Tuazon failed to reserve his right to institute
not preventing or avoiding the damage. This is the fault
a separate civil action for damages in the criminal
that the law condemns. While the employer is civilly
action.
liable in a subsidiary capacity for the employees criminal
negligence, the employer is also civilly liable directly and
Held:Such contention betrays a faulty foundation. Mrs.
separately for his own civil negligence in failing to
Cerezos contention proceeds from the point of view of
exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising his
criminal law and not of civil law, while the basis of the
employee. The idea that the employers liability is solely
present action of Tuazon is quasi-delict under the Civil
subsidiary is wrong.
Code, not delict under the Revised Penal Code.
The action can be brought directly against the person
The same negligent act may produce civil
responsible (for another), without including the author
liability arising from a delict under Article 103 of the
of the act. The action against the principal is accessory
Revised Penal Code, or may give rise to an action for a
in the sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial
quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. An
act committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary
aggrieved party may choose between the two remedies.
in the sense that it can not be instituted till after the
An action based on a quasi-delict may proceed
judgment against the author of the act or at least, that
independently from the criminal action. There is,
it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action for
however, a distinction between civil liability arising from
responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal
a delict and civil liability arising from a quasi-delict. The
action.
choice of remedy, whether to sue for a delict or a quasi-

Page 30
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Thus, there is no need in this case for the trial RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
court to acquire jurisdiction over Foronda. The trial in the annulment of a decision of an equal body. CA
courts acquisition of jurisdiction over Mrs. Cerezo is affirmed the RTC but held, however, that attorney's fees
sufficient to dispose of the present case on the merits. were due Atty. Banzon in the cases of Laperal
In contrast, an action based on a delict seeks Development Corporation v. Ascario Tuazon and Ascario
to enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer for the Tuazon v. Judge Maglalang and Republic v. Sunbeams
criminal negligence of the employee as provided in Convenience Foods. Inc.. 2
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. To hold the
employer liable in a subsidiary capacity under a delict,
Petitioners now challenges the decision insofar
the aggrieved party must initiate a criminal action where
as it orders them to pay Banzon attorney's fees for his
the employees delict and corresponding primary liability
legal services in the aforementioned cases.
are established.[47] If the present action proceeds from
a delict, then the trial courts jurisdiction over Foronda is
necessary. However, the present action is clearly for the Held: Concerning one of the cases, Republic vs.
quasi-delict of Mrs. Cerezo and not for the delict of Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc. (G.R. No. 50464),
Foronda. this case was also included in the Compromise
Agreement.
D.Necessary Party or Proper Party
Notably, Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc.
 Definition – A necessary party is one who is not (Sunbeams, for brevity), referred to in the complaint as
indispensable but who ought to be joined as a "Mr. Laperal's Corporation," was not joined by name as
party if complete relief is to be accorded as to a party-defendant. Apparently, the private respondent
those already parties, or for a complete believed that Oliverio Laperal, being the president of the
determination or settlement of the claim subject of said company, was directly obligated to him for the
the action (Rule 3, Sec. 8). attorney's fees due him for his handling of the case for
Sunbeams.
 Non-joinder of necessary parties to be
pleaded - Whenever in any pleading in which a
claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, It is settled that a corporation is clothed with a
the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and personality separate and distinct from that of the
shall state why he is omitted (Rule 3, Sec. 9). persons composing it. 3 It may not generally be held
liable for the personal indebtedness of its stockholders
o Should the court find the reason for the omission or those of the entities connected with it. 4 Conversely, a
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the stockholder cannot be made to answer for any of its
omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his financial obligations even if he should be its president. 5
person may be obtained (Rule 3, Sec. 9).
There is no evidence that Sunbeams and
o The failure to comply with the order for his Laperal are one and the same person. While it is true
inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be that Laperal is a stockholder, director and officer of
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party Sunbeams, that status alone does not make him
(Rule 3, Sec. 9). answerable for the liabilities of the said corporation.
Such liabilities include Banzon's attorney's fees for
o The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not representing it in the case of Republic v. Sunbeams
prevent the court from proceeding in the action, Convenience Foods, Inc.
and the judgment rendered therein shall be
without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
party (Rule 3, Sec. 9). Sunbeams should have been joined as a party-
defendant in order that the judgment of the lower court
Laperal Development Corporation, et. al v. CA could legally affect it. But even if it was not impleaded,
(1993) the court could still validly proceed with the case
Facts: Atty. Filoteo T. Banzon sought recovery of because Sunbeams was not an indespensable party but
attorney's fees from Oliverio Laperal, Laperal only a proper party. A proper party is one which ought
Development Corporation, and Imperial Development to be a party if complete relief is to be accorded as
Corporation for professional services rendered by him in between those already parties. 6 A party is
the various cases. On 1983, the case was thereafter indespensable if no final determination can be had of an
decided on the basis of a Compromise Agreement. One action unless it is joined either as plaintiff or
of the provisions in the Compromise Agreement stated defendant. 7
that Atty. Banzon was waiving all other claims he may
have against the defendant. The Compromise Agreement upon which the decision of
the court was based was between plaintiff Atty. Banzon
Banzon filed a complaint against Oliverio and the defendants represented by Oliverio Laperal. To
Laperal. Laperal Development Corporation. Imperial repeat, Sunbeams was not a party to this agreement
Development Corporation, Sunbeams Convenience and so could not be affected by it.
Foods, Inc. and Vicente Acsay for the annulment of the
Compromise Agreement and the collection of Atty’s Fees
that was adjudged payable to him as attorney's fees by
Ascario Tuazon in Civil Case No. 3918; and 4) the
payment to him of nominal damages and attorney's
fees.

Page 31
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

III. Permissive Joinder of Parties V. Class Suits

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All
Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject
persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in
matter of the controversy is one of common or general
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or
interest to many persons so numerous that it is
series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise
which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and
provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
representative as to fully protect the interests of all
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law
concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any
or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
party in interest shall have the right to intervene to
defendants may arise in the action; but the court may
protect his individual interest.
make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff
or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense
in connection with any proceedings in which he may
have no interest. Requisites for a class suit to prosper:

The rule on permissive joinder of parties is that the 1. The subject matter of the controversy must be of
parties (plaintiff/defendant) can be joined in a single common or general interest to many persons;
complaint and can sue or be sued in separate suits. 2. The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable
to join all as parties;
3. The parties actually before the court are sufficiently
Requisites:
numerous and representative as to fully protect the
i. The right to relief arises out of the same
interests of all concerned; and
transaction or series of transactions;
4. The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of
ii. There is a question of law or fact common to
all. (Berses v. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473; Sulo ng
all the plaintiffs or defendants; and
Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta, 72 SCRA 347)
iii. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the
provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and
venue. (Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Mathay v. Consolidated Bank & Trust Company
Standard Insurance) (1974)

Facts: Plaintiffs Mathay and other former stockholders

IV. Effect of Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
of Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) filed a complaint
denominated as a class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3 the Rules of Court. The complaint alleged that
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. plaintiffs and other CMI subscribing stockholders were
— Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is entitled to subscribe to the capital stock of the
ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be defendant bank but that they were denied, through the
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any unlawful acts and manipulation of defendant bank, the
party or on its own initiative at any stage the action and right to subscribe in proportion to their equities. The
on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined complaint further alleged that the individual defendants
party may be severed and proceeded with separately. who were members of the Board of Directors acquired
stockholdings in excess of what they were lawfully
entitled to. Hence, plaintiffs prayed that these
subscriptions, to the extent that plaintiffs were
 An outright dismissal is not the immediate remedy in deprived of their right to subscribe, be annulled and
case of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. transferred to the latter and other CMI subscribing
Instead, parties may be dropped or added by the stockholders.
court on motion of any party or on its own initiative.
It is when the order of the court to implead an The trial court granted the motion to dismiss,
indispensable party goes unheeded that the case holding that a class suit could not be maintained
may be dismissed. because there was no showing in the complaint that
 The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a plaintiffs were sufficiently numerous and
ground for the dismissal of the action. At any stage representative, and that plaintiffs did not have a
of the judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are common legal interest in the subject matter of the suit.
just, parties may be added on the motion of a party
or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the Issue: Whether or not the instant action could be
plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party maintained as a class suit.
despite the order of the court, the court may dismiss
the complaint for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Ruling: No. The necessary elements for the
order. (Pamplona Plantation Co. v. Tinghil) maintenance of a class suit are accordingly:

(1) that the subject matter of the controversy be

one of common or general interest to many
persons, and
(2) that such persons be so numerous as to make
it impracticable to bring them all to the court.

Page 32
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

An action does not become a class suit merely  Plaintiff may sue the shipping company and the
because it is designated as such in the pleadings. arrastre operator alternatively for the recovery of
Whether the suit is or is not a class quit depends upon damages to goods shipped through a maritime
the attending facts, and the complaint, or other vessel (Rizal Surety & Insurance Company v.
pleading initiating the class action should allege the Manila, 70 SCRA 187)
existence of the necessary facts, to wit, the existence
of a subject matter of common interest, and the
3. Unknown defendant
existence of a class and the number of persons in the
alleged class, in order that the court might be enabled
to determine whether the members of the class are so 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3
numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all
before the court, to contrast the number appearing on Section 14. Unknown identity or name of
the record with the number in the class and to defendant. — Whenever the identity or name of a
determine whether claimants on record adequately defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown
represent the class and the subject matter of general owner heir devisee, or by such other designation as the
or common interest. case may require, when his identity or true name is
discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly.
The complaint in the instant case did not state
the number of said CMI subscribing stockholders so
that the trial court could not infer, much less make
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 14
sure, that the parties actually before it were numerous
and representative, so that the interests of the parties
Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity
concerned might be fully protected, and that it was
or whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where
impracticable to bring such a large number of parties
the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or
before the court.
the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown
and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service
The statute also requires, as a prerequisite to a
may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by
class suit, that the subject-matter of the controversy
publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in
be of common or general interest to numerous
such places and for such time as the court may order.
persons. The interest that plaintiffs and the CMI
stockholders had in the subject matter of this suit —
the portion of stocks offering of the Bank left
unsubscribed by CMI stockholders who failed to 4. Entity without juridical personality as
exercise their right to subscribe — was several, not defendant
common or general in the sense required by the
statute. Each one of the plaintiffs and the CMI
stockholders had determinable interest; each one had a
right, if any, only to his respective portion of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3
stocks. No one of them had any right to, or any
interest in, the stock to which another was entitled Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as
defendant. — When two or more persons not organized
Where it appeared that no sufficient as an entity with juridical personality enter into a
representative parties had been joined, the dismissal of transaction, they may be sued under the name by
the action is in order. which they are generally or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendant, the name and

VI. Defendants
addresses of the persons composing said entity must
all be revealed.
1. Unwilling co-plaintiff

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 14
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent
Section 8. Service upon entity without juridical
of any party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be
personality. — When persons associated in an entity
obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason
without juridical personality are sued under the name
therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
by which they are generally or commonly known,
service may be effected upon all the defendants by
2. Alternative defendant serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in
charge of the office or place of business maintained in
such name. But such service shall not bind individually
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3 any person whose connection with the entity has, upon
due notice, been severed before the action was
Section 13. Alternative defendants. — Where the brought.
plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is
entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as
defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief
against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief
against the other.

Page 33
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

VII. Death of party; duty of counsel representative of the deceased to appear and
be substituted for said deceased.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3  Examples of actions which survive the death of a
party:
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — 1. Actions and obligations arising from
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the delicts;
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of 2. Actions based on the tortious conduct of
his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days the defendant;
after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the 3. Actions to recover real and personal
name and address of his legal representative or property;
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his 4. Actions to enforce a lien on such
duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. properties;
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be 5. Actions to recover damages for an injury
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the to person or property by reason of tort or
appointment of an executor or administrator and the delict committed by the deceased;
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor 6. An ejectment case survives the death of
heirs. a party and continues until judgment
The court shall forthwith order said legal because the issue concerning the
representative or representatives to appear and be illegality of the defendant’s possession
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from continues. (Vda. De Salazar v. Court of
notice. Appeals, 250 SCRA 305)
If no legal representative is named by the counsel
for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3
to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time to
Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. —
procure the appointment of an executor or administrator
When the action is for recovery of money arising from
for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased.
before entry of final judgment in the court in which the
The court charges in procuring such appointment, if
action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not
defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as
be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue
costs.
until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
 Upon receipt of the notice of death, the court manner especially provided in these Rules for
shall determine whether or not the claim is prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased
extinguished by such death. If the claim person.
survives, the court shall order the legal
representative/s of the deceased to be  Execution shall not issue in favor of the winning
substituted for the deceased. party. The final judgment should be filed as a claim
 The purpose behind the rule on substitution of against the estate of the decedent without need of
parties is the protection of the right of every proving the claim under Rule 86, Section 5 of the
party to due process. (Torres v. Court of Rules of Court.
Appeals, 278 SCRA 793)
 General Rule: Non-compliance with the rules on
substitution of a deceased party renders the VIII. EFFECT OF NON-SUBSTITUTION OF A
proceedings of the trial court infirm because the DECEASED PARTY
court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of
the legal representative of the deceased. (Brioso Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor
v. Rili-Mariano, 396 SCRA 549) (2005)
o Exception: In an ejectment case, the non- Facts: Respondents Custodio, Rufo, Tomas and Honorio,
substitution of the deceased by his legal all surnamed Balane, filed a complaint against petitioner
representatives does not deprive the court Bertuldo Hinog for the Recovery of the possession and
of jurisdiction. A judgment in the ownership of their property which was leased to Hinog.
ejectment case may be enforced not only Allegedly, despite the expiration of the ten-year period
against the defendant, but also against lease contract, Hinog refused to vacate. Bertuldo was
the members of their family, their able to file his Answer and start his direct examination.
relatives, or privies who derived their right However, he died on 24 June 1998 without completing
of possession from the deceased his evidence. Atty. Tinampay withdrew as counsel. Atty.
defendant. (Florendo, Jr. v. Coloma, 129 Petalcorin then entered his appearance as new counsel.
SCRA 304)
Atty. Petalcorin filed a motion to expunge the
 Formal substitution is not necessary when the
complaint from the record and nullify all court
heirs themselves voluntarily appeared in the
proceedings on the ground that private respondents
action and participated therein. (Vda. De
failed to pay the correct docket fees. Private
Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 305)
respondents opposed the motion to expunge, raising as
one of its grounds the lack of legal personality of Atty.
 Service of summons is not required to effect
Petalcorin to represent the litigants for his non-
proper substitution. Instead of service of
compliance with Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
summons the court shall order the legal
Court.

Page 34
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The motion was granted but subject to the The CA resolved in favor of Joaquin. In CA’s
payment of the deficiency docket fees. Upon such 2004 Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for
payment, the trial court reinstated the complaint. This reconsideration, CA ordered a substitution by legal
order was contested by petitioners. In its 15 October representatives. In this present Petition for Review, the
1999 Order denying petitioners’ MR, the trial court noted petitioners assert that the trial court lost jurisdiction
that there has been no substitution of parties following over the case upon the death of Pedro Joaquin during
the death of Bertuldo. Hence, it directed Atty. Petalcorin the pendency of the case and having no substitution by
to comply with the provisions of Section 16, Rule 3 of the heirs made.
the Rules of Court. On 19 November 1999, Atty.
Petalcorin complied with such directive.
Issue: WON a formal substitution by the heirs of Pedro
Joaquin is necessary when they themselves actively
Petitioners filed the present petition for participated in the case?
certiorari and prohibition alleging that the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the case
Held:No. As a general rule, the Court nullifies not only
to be reinstated.
trial proceedings conducted without the appearance of
the legal representatives of the deceased, but also the
In their Comment, private respondents resulting judgments since the courts acquired no
assailed Atty. Petalcorin’s lack of legal personality to jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives
appear as counsel for the heirs of Bertuldo for his failure or the heirs upon whom no judgment was binding.
to comply with Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Notwithstanding this general rule, a formal substitution
by heirs is not necessary when they themselves
voluntarily appear, participate in the case, and present
Issue: What is the effect of the non-compliance on the
evidence in defense of the deceased. These actions
rule on substitution (Section 17) upon the legal
negate any claim that the right to due process was
personality to sue of Atty. Petalcorin?
violated. The alleging party must prove that there was
an undeniable violation of due process.
Held: Strictly speaking, before said compliance, Atty.
Petalcorin had no standing in the court a quo when he
The Rules require the legal representatives of a
filed his pleadings. Be that as it may, the matter has
dead litigant to be substituted as parties to a litigation.
been duly corrected by the Order of the trial court dated
Strictly speaking, this requirement is necessitated by
15 October 1999.
due process and not a matter of jurisdiction. Thus, when
the rights of the legal representatives of a decedent are
Nevertheless, the court emphasized that the actually recognized and protected, noncompliance or
purpose behind the rule on substitution is the protection belated formal compliance with the Rules cannot affect
of the right of every party to due process. It is to ensure the validity of the promulgated decision. After all, due
that the deceased party would continue to be properly process had thereby been satisfied.
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
representative of his estate. Non-compliance with the
The heirs of Pedro Joaquin voluntary appeared
rule on substitution would render the proceedings and
and participated in the case. We stress that the
judgment of the trial court infirm because the court
appellate court had ordered his legal representatives to
acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal
appear and substitute for him. The substitution even on
representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial and the
appeal had been ordered correctly. In all proceedings,
judgment would be binding. Thus, proper substitution of
the legal representatives must appear to protect the
heirs must be effected for the trial court to acquire
interests of the deceased. After the rendition of
jurisdiction over their persons and to obviate any future
judgment, further proceedings may be held, such as a
claim by any heir that he was not apprised of the
motion for reconsideration or a new trial, an appeal, or
litigation against Bertuldo or that he did not authorize
an execution. Considering the foregoing circumstances,
Atty. Petalcorin to represent him.
the Motion for Substitution may be deemed to have
been granted; and the heirs, to have substituted for the
In this case, formal substitution of the parties deceased, Pedro Joaquin. There being no violation of
was effected sixteen months after the death of Bertuldo due process, the issue of substitution cannot be upheld
and only when the trial court directed Atty. Petalcorin to as a ground to nullify the trial court’s Decision.
comply as required by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Factual milieu not similar to Chittick v. CA. In
the Chittick case, the children who allegedly substituted
De la Cruz v. Joaquin (2005) for their mother refused to continue the case against
Facts: Respondent Pedro Joaquin filed against their father and vehemently objected to their inclusion
Petitioners Sps. dela Cruz for recovery of possession and as parties. The father also died during the pendency of
ownership of his land. Joaquin alleged that he obtained a the case; thus, the children were bound to substitute for
loan from dela Cruz. As security, he executed a Deed of the defendant also. The substitution effectively merged
Sale. He alleged that the sale was in fact an equitable the persons of the plaintiff and the defendant and thus
mortgage and he was deprived of his right to extinguished the obligation being sued upon.
repurchase. On 24 December 1988, Pedro Joaquin died.
In 1990, the RTC decided in favor of Joaquin. On 15
February 2002, before the CA, the daughter of the
deceased Pedro, Lourdes dela Cruz, moved for her
substitution as the party-plaintiff.

Page 35
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Charles Limbauan v. Faustino Acosta (2008) The phrase “in his official capacity”
emphasized that the public officer is a party
Facts: Respondent Faustino Acosta took possession of a in an action in his official capacity, and not
portion of an unused land which should have been private, capacity. (Herrera, 2000, citing Feria)
utilized by the government as a leprosarium. A portion
of the land which Acosta possessed for himself was
X. INCOMPETENCY OR INCAPACITY
occupied by Paulino Calanday who in turn conveyed the
(SEC. 18)
land to Juanita Roces. Roces paid her rentals to Acosta.
Subsequently, she sub-leased it to her nephew Charles
Limbauan. In 1987, Limbauan stopped paying his rentals
claiming the land was government property. Years later, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3
the government declared the land for the housing
projects for DOH employees. Acosta thereafter filed a Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. — If a
complaint for unlawful detainer against Limbauan. The party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court,
MTC, RTC, and CA decided in favor of Acosta. However, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be
during the pendency of the case before the CA, Acosta continued by or against the incompetent or
died on 22 October 2000. incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or
guardian ad litem.

The present petition seeks to reverse the CA

ruling, raising as one of its grounds the lack of proper XI. TRANSFER OF INTEREST (SEC. 19)
substitution of a party in compliance with Rule 3,
Section 16 (now 17) of the Rules of Court which
rendered the case moot and academic. The petition Where a party to an action filed with the CA a motion
alleges that on account of the failure of Acosta’s counsel stating that it had sold, transferred, and assigned to a
to inform the CA of the death of Acosta during the third person the property subject of the litigation, and
pendency of the appeal before it, the proceedings and prayed that the latter be substituted as party-defendant-
judgment should be invalidated. appellee, although the motion was not acted upon, the
transferee is bound by any judgment which may be
rendered for or against the transferor. The transfer was
Issue: WON the failure of the counsel to comply with made pendent lite, and with notice of lis pendens. As the
his duty under Section 17 will invalidate the proceedings new owner of the property, the transferee is the party
and the judgment thereon? with a substantial interest in the property. Hence, it
would be the most interested in terminating the case.
Held: No, this kind of action survives the death of Herrera citing Mayuga v. CA, 154 SCRA 309, 28
Acosta. Hence, the failure of counsel to comply with his September 1987.
duty under Section 17 to inform the court of the death
of his client and no substitution of such party is effected Even if the transferee is not a formal party to the case,
will NOT invalidate the proceedings and the judgment the motion for substitution not having been acted upon,
thereon if the action survives the death of such party. it is nonetheless bound by a compromise agreement,
Moreover, the decision rendered shall bind his said transferee being one of the contracting parties.
successor-in-interest. The instant action for unlawful Persons who are not formal parties to a civil case but
detainer, like any action for recovery of real property, is who willingly and voluntarily enter into a compromise
a real action and as such survives the death of Acosta. agreement are bound thereby. Supra.
His heirs have taken his place and now represent his
interests in the instant petition.21 Hence, the present
case cannot be rendered moot despite the death of The Supreme Court has declared in a number of
respondent. decisions that a transferee pendente lite stands in
exactly the same position as its predecessors-in-
interest, the original defendant, and is bound by the
IX. DEATH OR SEPARATION OF PARTY WHO proceedings has in the case before the property was
IS A PUBLIC OFFICER (SEC. 17) transferred to it. It is a proper but not an indispensable
party as it would in any event be bound by the judgment
Requisites for substitution of public officer: against his predecessor. This would follow even if it is
1. Removal/death of public officer and not formally included as a defendant through an
appointment of successor within 30 amendment of the complaint. Herrera citing Fatalino v.
days unless otherwise provided. Sanz, 44 Phil. 691.
2. Successor adopts, continues, or
threatens to continue the act sued
against The appeal, however, of the original party should also
3. There is substantial need to continue redound to the transferee’s benefit. As it is the
the action transferee that may ultimately be required to satisfy the
judgment if it is affirmed on appeal, it is only fair that it
be deemed to have also appealed together with its
Substitution is not automatic. Requisites: predecessor-in-interest, from the decision. To erase all
1. Notice to the new public officer doubts as to the status of the transferee, the latter may
2. Opportunity to be heard for the new be deemed impleaded in substitution of the original
officer defendant. Herrera citing Jocson v. CA, G.R. No. 95446,
(Section 17) 16 March 1992.

Page 36
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Thus, where an assignable right has been transferred affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth
before action is brought, the proceeding ought to be of the litigants affidavit. The current tax declaration, if
instituted in the name of the assignee; and where an any, shall be attached to the litigants affidavit.
assignment is effected pendente lite, it is proper to have
the assignee substituted for the original plaintiff. If such
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested
substitution should not be effected and the transfer of
person shall be sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint
the right action should not be brought to the attention of
or action or to strike out the pleading of that party,
the court, the original plaintiffs, if successful in litigation
without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have
would hold the fruits of the action as a sort of trustee for
been incurred.
the use and benefit of his assignee. But it would be
surprising doctrine to hold that where the assignee has
assented to the continued prosecution of the action by If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and
the original plaintiff, the defendant can nullify the property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141,
judgment, after litigation has been concluded on the then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the
ground that the interest in litigation has been other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or
transferred. When this feat is attempted, the defendant both requirements, then the application should not be
can be properly met by the proposition that if any denied outright; instead, the court should apply the
irregularity was committed in the prosecution of the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its
case, it was, as to him, error without injury. Certainly it sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer
cannot be contended that the transfer of the right of for exemption. Sps. Algura v. the LGU of Naga, G.R. No.
action pendente lite affects the jurisdiction of the court. 150135, 30 October 2006.
Herrera citing E.B. Marcha Transport Co., Inc. v. IAC,
147 SCRA 276. A party may be allowed to litigate in forma pauperis
only upon a proper showing that he has no means to
that effect by affidavits, certificate of the corresponding
XII. INDIGENT PARTY (SEC. 21)
provincial, city, or municipal treasurer, or otherwise.
Thus, every would-be litigant who seeks exemption from
Under the present rule, the application to litigate as a
the payment of the fees prescribed for maintaining an
pauper may be filed by either the plaintiff or defendant
action must establish, not simply allege, his lack of
and hearing to litigate as a pauper may be made ex
means. Herrera citing Admin. Matter No. 88-1-646-0, En
parte.
Banc, Minute Resolution, 159 SCRA 623.
Proof in support of the application need not necessarily
be by affidavits, certificate of the corresponding
Where there is a multiplicity of such parties, each must
provincial, city, or municipal treasurer for as long as the
show lack, in propia persona, as it were. The particular
court is satisfied that the party is one who has no money
circumstances or possible consequences of an actual or
or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, and
contemplated suit are such as to transcend the narrow
basic necessities for himself and his family.
personal interests of the immediate parties thereto and
to so impugn upon the wider interests of the people at
The exemption includes transcript of stenographic notes
large as to assume an aspect of “national importance,”
which the court may order to be furnished for himself
does not under any existing law or rules justify excusing
and his family.
such parties from paying the requisite judicial fees or
costs. Supra.
Unlike the former rule which creates a lien only for legal
fees, under the present rule, the amount of the docket
and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted XIII. NOTICE TO SOLICITOR GENERAL
from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in
(SEC. 22)
the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court
otherwise provides. Herrera, 2000.
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 3
Compare with Section 19 of Rule 141:
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. — In
any action involving the validity of any treaty, law,
SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or
legal fees. Indigent litigants (a) whose gross income and regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the
that of their immediate family do not exceed an amount appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in
double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and person or a representative duly designated by him.
(b) who do not own real property with a fair market
value as stated in the current tax declaration of more
than three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos shall Under this new rule, “presidential decree” is now
be exempt from payment of legal fees. included and the term “superior” from the term court
has been deleted. Thus this provision is now applicable
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered to any court and not limited to a superior court. Herrera,
in the case favorable to the indigent litigant unless the 2000.
court otherwise provides.

To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the

litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his
immediate family do not earn a gross income
abovementioned, and they do not own any real property
with the fair value aforementioned, supported by an

Page 37
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

VI. When rule not applicable

Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS 1. Where a specific rule or law provides
otherwise

I. Venue refers to the place where a civil action may

be tried; in civil cases, it essentially concerns a rule Diaz v. Adiong (1993)
of procedure which looks primarily at the
convenience of the litigants. (Gumabon, et al. v. Certain public officers instituted with the Regional Trial
Larin, G.R. No. 142523, 27 November 2001) Court, Marawi City, separate criminal & civil complaints
for libel against Patricio Diaz (“Diaz”), the publisher and
editor of the Mindanao Kris, a newspaper of general
II. Venue and jurisdiction, distinguished. circulation in Cotabato City. Diaz moved for the
dismissal of the action for damages, arguing that venue
was improperly laid since neither respondents hold office
in Marawi nor was the article published there.
Venue Jurisdiction
It is the place where the It refers to the authority of Ruling: An offended party who is at the same time a
cause is instituted, heard the court to hear and decide public official can only institute an action arising from
or tried. a case. libel in two (2) venues: the place where he holds office,
It may be waived. Jurisdiction over the subject and the place where the alleged libelous articles were
matter is conferred by law printed & first published.
and cannot be waived.
It may be changed by the It is fixed by law and cannot In the present case, it is indubitable that venue was
written agreement of the be the subject of agreement improperly laid. However, unless and until the
parties. of the parties. defendant objects to the venue in a motion to
It is not a ground for a Lack of jurisdiction over the dismiss prior to a responsive pleading, the venue
motu proprio dismissal, subject matter may be a cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid
except in summary ground for a motu proprio since, for all practical intents and purposes, the
procedure. dismissal. venue though technically wrong may yet be
Procedural Substantive considered acceptable to the parties for whose
convenience the rules on venue had been devised.
Petitioner Diaz then should have timely challenged the
III. Venue of real actions
venue laid in Marawi City in a motion to dismiss,
pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 4, of the Rules of Court.
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 4 Unfortunately, Diaz had already submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed his Answer to
Section 1. Where the action is real, the venue is the Complaint with Counterclaim. His motion to dismiss
local; hence, the venue is the place where the real was therefore belatedly filed and could no longer deprive
property involved, or any portion thereof, is situated. the trial court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the
instant civil action for damages. Well-settled is the rule
that improper venue may be waived and such
IV. Venue of personal actions waiver may occur by laches.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 4 Withal, objections to venue in civil actions arising from
libel may be waived; it does not, after all, involve a
Section 2. If the action is personal, the venue is question of jurisdiction. Indeed, the laying of venue is
transitory; hence, it is the residence of the plaintiff or procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to
defendant at the option of the plaintiff. jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the
subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to
jurisdiction.
V. Venue of actions against non-residents
1. Quasi in rem (action affects personal Finally, Sec. 1 of Rule 16 provides that objections to
status of plaintiff) – residence of plaintiff improper venue must be made in a motion to dismiss
Where the defendant does not reside and is before any responsive pleading is filed. Responsive
not found in the Philippines, and the action pleadings are those which seek affirmative relief and set
affects the personal status of the plaintiff, up defenses. Consequently, having already submitted
the action may be commenced and tried in his person to the jurisdiction of the trial court,
the court of the place where the plaintiff petitioner may no longer object to the venue
resides. (Rule 4, Sec.3) which, although mandatory in the instant case, is
nevertheless waivable. As such, improper venue must
2. In rem (action affects property of be seasonably raised, otherwise, it may be deemed
defendant in Philippines) – location of waived.
property
Where the defendant does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects any property of said defendant
located in the Philippines, the action may be
commenced and tried where the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found.
(Rule 4, Sec.3)

Page 38
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

2. Where parties have validly agreed in writing The parties, however, are not precluded
before filing of the action on exclusive venue from agreeing in writing on an exclusive
thereof venue, as qualified by Section 4 of the same
rule. Written stipulations as to venue may
be restrictive in the sense that the suit may
The parties may agree on a specific venue which
be filed only in the place agreed upon, or
could be in a place where neither of them resides
merely permissive in that the parties may
(Universal Robina Corp., vs. Lim, 535 SCRA 95) The
file their suit not only in the place agreed
parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the
upon but also in the places fixed by law. As
agreement is (a) in writing; (b) made before the
in any other agreement, what is essential is the
filing of the action; and (c) exclusive as to the
ascertainment of the intention of the parties
venue. (Rule 4, Sec. 4[b])
respecting the matter.
The mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not
As regards restrictive stipulations on venue,
enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in
jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown
other venues. It must be shown that such stipulation
that such stipulation is exclusive. In the
is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or
absence of qualifying or restrictive words,
restrictive words, such as "exclusively" and
such as "exclusively," "waiving for this
"waiving for this purpose any other venue,
purpose any other venue," "shall only"
"shall only" preceding the designation of venue,
preceding the designation of venue, "to the
"to the exclusion of the other courts," or words
exclusion of the other courts," or words of
of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed
similar import, the stipulation should be
as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not
deemed as merely an agreement on an
as limiting venue to the specified place. (Auction in
additional forum, not as limiting venue to
Malinta, Inc., vs. Luyaben, G.R. No. 173979, 12
the specified place.
February 2007)
In the present case, the Construction
Legaspi v. Republic (2008) Agreement provides:
Jesusito D. Legaspi, as owner and manager of J.D.
Legaspi Construction (“petitioner”), entered into a ARTICLE XIV – JUDICIAL REMEDIES
Construction Agreement with the Social Security All actions and controversies that
System (“respondent”) in June 1997 for the may arise from this Agreement
construction of a four-storey building in Baguio City involving but not limited to demands
which will serve as respondent's branch office. for the specific performance of the
obligations as specified in the
Petitioner had several meetings with respondent's clauses contained herein and/or as
representatives during which he informed them of his resolved or interpreted by the
difficulty in meeting his obligations under the contract CLIENT pursuant to the third
due to the devaluation of peso. After several failed paragraph of Article I hereof may be
meetings, petitioner sent a letter to respondent brought by the parties before the
requesting an adjustment in the contract price, which proper courts in Quezon City where
was denied by respondent. This constrained petitioner the main office of the CLIENT is
to file a complaint for payment of sum of money plus located, the CONTRACTOR hereby
damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati expressly waiving any other
City. venue.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Instead of filing an answer, respondent, filed a Motion
to Dismiss on the grounds that venue was improperly The venue is specific - Quezon City - and
laid and petitioner had no cause of action. On the accompanied by the words "the
ground of improper venue, it was respondent's CONTRACTOR hereby expressly waiving any
argument that the Construction Agreement provided other venue," which connote exclusivity of
that all actions may be brought before the proper the designated venue. These terms clearly
court in Quezon City and that petitioner waived any stipulate exclusively the venue where
other venue. actions arising from the Construction
Agreement should be filed.
Ruling: As a general rule, venue of personal actions is
governed by Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
VII. Waiver of improper venue
to wit:
When improper venue is not objected to in a motion to
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. –
dismiss it is deemed waived. In other words, venue is
All other actions may be
waivable. It is procedural, not a jurisdictional matter. It
commenced and tried where the
is intended to provide convenience to the parties, rather
plaintiff or any of the principal
than restrict their access to the courts. The rules on
plaintiffs resides, or where the
venue simply arrange for the convenient and effective
defendant or any of the principal
transaction of business in the courts and do not relate to
defendants resides, or in the case of
their power, authority or jurisdiction over the subject
a non-resident defendant, where he
matter of the action. (Philippine Banking Corp., vs.
may be found, at the election of the
Tensuan, G.R. No. 104649, 28 February 1994)
plaintiff.

Page 39
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

defendant objects to the venue in a motion

to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have
1. Express waiver
been improperly laid. The trial court cannot pre-
empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the
The parties may expressly waive improper venue,
improper laying of the venue by motu proprio
when they agree on a specific venue which could
dismissing the case.
be in a place neither of them resides in nor where
the property is located.
VIII. How to question improper venue
The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as
the agreement is (a) in writing; (b) made before
1. Motion to dismiss
the filing of the action; and (c) exclusive as to the
venue. (Rule 4, Sec. 4[b])
Under Rule 16, Sec. 1(c), a motion to dismiss
may be filed if the venue was improperly laid.
2. Implied waiver
2. Affirmative defense in answer
There is an implied waiver of improper venue,
If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of
when the defendant filed his answer and went to
the grounds provided for dismissal under Rule
trial without objecting to the improper venue.
16 may be pleaded as an affirmative defense
(Rule 9, Sec. 1)
in the answer and in discretion of the court, a
preliminary hearing may be made as if a
The ground of improperly laid venue must be
motion to dismiss has been filed. (Rule 16,
raised seasonably, else it is deemed waived.
Sec. 6) Thus, if no motion to dismiss was filed,
Where the defendant failed to either file a motion
the defendant may question the improperly
to dismiss on the ground of improper venue or
laid venue in his answer.
include the same as an affirmative defense, he is
deemed to have waived his right to object to
improper venue. (Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages,
Inc., G.R. No. 148361, 29 November 2005)

Dacoycoy vs. IAC(1991)

Petitioner Jesus Dacoycoy filed, before the RTC

of Antipolo, Rizal, a complaint against private
respondent Rufino De Guzman for the annulment of 2
deeds of sale involving a parcel of rice land located
in Barrio Estanza, Lingayen, Pangasinan, the surrender
of the produce thereof, and damages due to the latter’s
refusal to have said deeds set aside upon petitioner's
demand.

Before summons could be served on De Guzman, the

RTC issued an order requiring counsel for the petitioner
to confer with respondent judge on the matter of
venue. After said conference, the trial court dismissed
the complaint on the ground of improper venue. It
found, based on the allegations in the complaint, that
petitioner's action is a real action as it sought not only
the annulment of the deeds of sale but also the recovery
of ownership of the subject property, which is outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioner
then lodged an appeal to the Intermediate Appellate
Court, which affirmed the order of dismissal of his
complaint.

Ruling: The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner's

complaint by respondent trial court on the ground
of improper venue is plain error, obviously
attributable to its inability to distinguish between
jurisdiction and venue.

Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper

venue is inappropriate because venue may be
waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails
to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as
provided by Rule 4, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, and
allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered,
he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted
to challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is
deemed waived. Thus, unless and until the

Page 40
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

PLEADINGS the nature thereof, except that in an original action

(SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENTS) before the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may
be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
PLEADINGS, IN GENERAL
(c) Cross-claim
Defined
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-
claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is
court for appropriate judgments. (Section 1, Rule 6) the subject matter either of the original action or of a
Thus, pleadings cannot be oral because they are clearly counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a
described as “written” statements. (Riano, p.51). claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or
may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a
Pleadings have the following purposes: claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
a. To apprise the Court of the rival claims in a judicial
controversy submitted for trial and decision; (d) Third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint
b. To indicate fairly the nature of the claims and
defense of both parties; and A third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint is a claim that a
c. To present, define and narrow the issues, to limit defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
the proof to be submitted in the trial and form the person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
foundation of proof to be submitted during trial as etc.) — party defendant for contribution, indemnity,
well as advice a party to what his adversary would subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
rely on as a cause of actions or as defense. opponent's claim.
(Lianga Lumber v. Lianga Timber, G.R. No.
386685, 31 March 1977). (e) Complaint-in-intervention

Distinguished from motion (Rule 15, Sec. 1) One filed by an intervenor asserting a claim against
either or all of the original parties. (Section 3, Rule 19).
A pleading is different from a motion. Section 1, Rule
15, of the Rules of Court expressly states that a motion (f) Answer
is an application for relief other than by a pleading.
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets
Pleading Motion forth his defenses.
Purpose: To submit a Purpose: To apply for an
claim or defense for order not included in the Parts of a pleading:
appropriate judgment. judgment. Ordinarily, a pleading has the following parts:
It may be initiatory It cannot be initiatory as
they are always made in a 1. Caption. It sets forth the name of the court,
case already filed in court. the title of the action, and the docket number if
It is always filed before It may be filed even after assigned. The title of the action indicates the names of
judgment. judgment. the parties. They shall all be named in the original
There are only nine (9) Any application for relief complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it
kinds of pleadings not by a pleading is a shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each
allowed by the Rules of motion. side be stated with an appropriate indication when there
Court. are other parties. Their respective participation in the
It must be written. It may be oral when made case shall be indicated.
in open court or in the
course of a hearing or trial. 2. The body. The body of the pleading sets forth
its designation, the allegations of the party's claims or
Pleadings allowed under the Rules of Court defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the
pleading.
(a) Complaint
a. Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
cause or causes of action. The names and residences of numbered to be readily identified, each of which
the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the shall contain a statement of a single set of
complaint. circumstances so far as that can be done with
convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by
(b) Counterclaim its number in all succeeding pleadings.

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may b. Headings. — When two or more causes of action
have against an opposing party. are joined the statement of the first shall be
prefaced by the words "first cause of action,'' of
A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being the second by "second cause of action", and so on
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of for the others.
or is connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
claim and does not require for its adjudication the addressed to one of several causes of action in the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words
acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within "answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to
the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the second cause of action" and so on; and when
one or more paragraphs of the answer are

Page 41
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

addressed to several causes of action, they shall Effect of failure to comply:

be prefaced by words to that effect.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
c. Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
sought, but it may add a general prayer for other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
such further or other relief as may be deemed dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
just or equitable. provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance
d. Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute
indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
3. Signature and address. Every pleading must be corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful
in either case his address which should not be a post and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
office box. ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him administrative sanctions.
that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground What is forum shopping?
to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. There is forum shopping "when a party repetitively
avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded
the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to on the same transactions and the same essential facts
be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. same issues either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court." Forum shopping is an
Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned
signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges because it trifles with the courts and abuses their
scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails promptly processes. It degrades the administration of justice and
report to the court a change of his address, shall be adds to the already congested court dockets. (Heirs of
subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, 17 February
2014.)
4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically An important factor in determining its existence is the
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the
same reliefs. (Id.)
How a pleading is verified The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or
read the pleading and that the allegations therein are whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res
true and correct of his knowledge and belief. judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping
when the following elements are present, namely: (a)
A pleading required to be verified which contains a identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent
verification based on "information and belief", or upon the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights
"knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two
preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered
Purpose of verification: in the other action will, regardless of which party is
The purpose of requiring verification is to secure an successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under
assurance that the allegations in the petition are true consideration. (Id.)
and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is
simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and How allegations made
noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render
the pleading fatally defective. (Torres-Gomez v. Codilla,
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8
G.R. No. 195191. 20 March 2012.)
Section 1. In general. Every pleading shall
5. Certification against forum shopping.
contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
case may be, omitting the statement of mere
claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
evidentiary facts.
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he
has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if clearly and concisely stated.
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he "Ultimate facts" means the essential facts constituting
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or the plaintiff's cause of action, or such facts as are so
claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that essential that they cannot be stricken out without
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.
his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been (Cañete, et al. v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., G.R. No.
filed. 154080, 22 January 2008).

Page 42
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Need to bring new parties.

Evidentiary facts – refer to those which are necessary to
prove the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence of the When the presence of parties other than those to the
existence of some other facts. original action is required for the granting of complete
relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-
claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8 defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained.

Section 4. Capacity. Facts showing the capacity of COMPLAINT

a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6
existence of an organized association of person that is
made a party, must be averred. Section 3. Complaint. Complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal names and residences of the plaintiff and
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to defendant must be stated in the complaint.
sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so
by specific denial, which shall include such supporting ALLEGATIONS
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's
knowledge. 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8 Section 1. In General. Every pleading shall
contain in a mathematical and logical form, a plain,
Section 2. Alternative claims and defenses. A concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
party may set forth two or more statements of a claim which the party relies for his claim and defense, as the
or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one case may be, containing the statement of mere
cause of action or defense or in separate causes of evidenciary facts.
action or defenses.
When two or more statements are made in the Manner of making allegations in a Complaint
alternative and one of them if made independently
would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient 1. Conditions precedent are matters which must
by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative be complied with before a cause of action arises.
statements. When a claim is subject to a condition precedent,
the compliance of the same must be alleged in the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8 pleading.
2. Failure to comply with a condition precedent is
Section 3. Conditions precedent. In any an independent ground for a motion to dismiss:
pleading a general averment of the performance or that a condition precedent for filing the claim has
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. not been complied (Sec. 1[j], Rule 16).

3. When making averments of fraud or mistake,

the circumstances constituting such fraud or
mistake must be stated with particularity (Sec. 5,
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8
Rule 8). It is not enough therefore, for the
complaint to allege that he was defrauded by the
Section 5. Fraud and mistake, condition of
defendant. Under this provision, the complaint must
mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake the
state with particularity the fraudulent acts of the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be
adverse party. These particulars would necessarily
stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge,
include the time, place and specific acts of fraud
or other condition of the mind of a person may be
committed against him.
averred generally.
4. Malice, intent, knowledge or other conditions of
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8 the mind of a person may be averred
generally(Sec. 5, Rule 8). Unlike in fraud or
Section 6. Judgments. In pleading a judgment or mistake, they need not be stated with particularity.
decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi- The rule is borne out of human experience. It is
judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to difficult to state the particulars constituting these
aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matters. Hence, a general averment is sufficient.
matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
5. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8 be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity or the legal
Section 9. Official documents or act. In existence of an organized association of person that
pleading an official document or official act, it is is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring
sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any
party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued
act done in compliance with law.
in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific
denial, which shall include such supporting
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's
knowledge. (Sec. 4, Rule 8)

Page 43
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Reyes v. Makati RTC (2008) a. to attach the original or the copy of the document to
Facts: Petitioner Oscar and private respondent Rodrigo the pleading as an exhibit and to be part of the
C. Reyes (Rodrigo) are two of the four children of the pleading; or
spouses Pedro and Anastacia Reyes. Pedro, Anastacia, b. with like effect, to set forth in the pleading said copy
Oscar, and Rodrigo each owned shares of stock of Zenith of the instrument or document (Sec. 7, Rule 8).
Insurance Corporation (Zenith), a domestic corporation
established by their family. Pedro died in 1964, while This manner of pleading a document applies only to one
Anastacia died in 1993. The former had his estate which is the basis of action or a defense. Hence, if the
judicially partitioned among his heirs, but the latter had document does not have the character of an actionable
not made the same in her shareholding in Zenith. Zenith document, as when it is merely evidentiary, it need not
and Rodrigo filed a complaint with the Securities and be pleaded strictly in the manner prescribed by Sec. 7,
Exchange Commission (SEC) against Oscar to obtain Rule 8.
accounting of funds and assets of Zenith, and to
determine the shares of stock of deceased Pedro and ANSWER
Anastacia that were arbitrarily and fraudulently
appropriated. In his answer with counterclaim, Oscar Defined; in general
denied the illegality of the acquisition of shares of
Anastacia and questioned the jurisdiction of SEC to 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6
entertain the complaint because it pertains to settlement
of Anastacia’s estate. The case was then transferred to Section 4. An answer is a responsive pleading in
Makati Regional Trial Court. Oscar then filed a “Motion to which a defending party sets forth his defenses.
Declare Complaint as Nuisance or Harassment Suit” and
prayed that the same must be dismissed. The RTC
denied the motion. The motion was elevated to the Types of Defenses
Court of Appeals by way of petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, but was again denied. 1. Negative
a. A negative defense is the specific
Issue: Whether or not the complaint is a mere nuisance denial of the material fact or facts
or harassment suit. alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his cause or
Held: The rule is that a complaint must contain a plain, causes of action. [Rule 6, Section
concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts 5(a)]
constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action and must
specify the relief sought. Section 5, Rule 8 of the b. How alleged, generally (Section
Revised Rules of Court provides that in all averments of 10, Rule 8)
fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or
mistake must be stated with particularity. These rules A negative defense is stated in the form of a
find specific application to Section 5(a) of P.D. No. 902- specific denial, which may be a/an:
A which speaks of corporate devices or schemes that
amount to fraud or misrepresentation detrimental to the (1) Absolute denial
public and/or to the stockholders. There is absolute denial when the defendant
specifies each material allegation of fact the
Allegations of deceit, machination, false truth of which he does not admit and whenever
pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats are largely practicable, shall set forth the substance of the
conclusions of law that, without supporting statements matters upon which he relies to support his
of the facts to which the allegations of fraud refer, do denial.
not sufficiently state an effective cause of action. Fraud
and mistake are required to be averred with particularity (2) Partial denial
in order to enable the opposing party to controvert the There is partial denial when the defendant
particular facts allegedly constituting such fraud or denies only a part of the averment, as when he
mistake. Tested against these standards, charges of specifies so much of it as is true and material
fraud against Oscar were not properly supported by the and denies the remainder.
required factual allegations. While the complaint
contained allegations of fraud purportedly committed by (3) Denial by disavowal of knowledge
him, these allegations are not particular enough to bring There is denial by disavowal of knowledge
the controversy within the special commercial court’s when the defendant alleges having no
jurisdiction; they are not statements of ultimate facts, knowledge or information sufficient to form a
but are mere conclusions of law: how and why the belief as to the truth of the material averment
alleged appropriation of shares can be characterized as made in the complaint. Such denial must be
“illegal and fraudulent” were not explained nor made in good faith.
elaborated on. The case must be dismissed.
Note: When the defendant alleges having no
Actions based upon a document knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of the
An actionable document is a document relied upon by other party but such matters are plainly and
either the plaintiff or the defendant. necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge,
a claim of “ignorance or lack of information”
Whenever an actionable document is the basis of a will not be considered as a specific denial.
pleading, the rule specifically direct the pleader to set (Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No. 166704, 20
forth in the pleading the substance of the instrument or December 2006)
the document and:

Page 44
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Memitas’ evidence reveal that Memita failed to

c. Capacity of parties (Sec.4, Rule 8) prove fraud on Masongsong’s part. Therefore, the trial
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the court is correct in stating that Memitas is liable to
legal existence of any party or the capacity of Masongsong in the amount of P603,520.50 plus interest
any party to sue or be sued in a representative of 12% per annum as agreed upon by the parties and as
capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which stated in the sales invoices.
shall include such supporting particulars as are
peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.
e. Negative pregnant
A negative pregnant is a denial pregnant with an
d. Genuineness of documents (Sec. 8,
admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
Rule 8)
responded to. It is not a specific denial and is actually an
Rule: When an action or defense is founded
admission. This arises when the pleader merely repeats
upon a written instrument, copied in or
the allegations in a negative form. (Regalado, Remedial
attached to the corresponding pleading as
Law Compendium (2000), p.177)
provided in the preceding Section, the
genuineness and due execution of the
Philippine American General Insurance Co. v.
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless
Sweet Lines (1992)
the adverse party, under oath, specifically
denies them, and sets forth what he claims to
Facts: A total of 7,000 bags of low density
be the facts.
polyethylene (600 bags of polyethylene 641 and 6,400
bags of polyethylene 647) were shipped from Baton
Exceptions: The requirement of an oath does
Rouge, LA to Manila on board SS Vishva Yash, a vessel
not apply when:
belonging to the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI).
a) the adverse party does not appear to
From Manila, the cargoes were shipped to Davao on
be a party to the instrument; or
board MV Sweet Love, a vessel owned by Sweet Lines.
b) when compliance with an order for an
The consignee was Far East Bank with arrival notice to
inspection of the original instrument
Tagum Plastics, Inc. (“Tagum Plastics”), Tagum, Davao
is refused.
City. The cargoes were insured by Far East Bank with
the Philippine American General Insurance Co
Memita v. Masongsong (2007)
(“Philamgen”). After the shipments were discharged, it
was discovered that there were damages, losses and
Facts: Masongsong, under the business name
shortages on the cargo covered by the bills of lading.
of RM Integrated Services, was the distributor of San
Philamgen and Tagum Plastics commenced a suit against
Miguel Foods, Inc.’s Magnolia chicken
Sweet Lines Inc.(SLI), Davao Arrastre, SCI Line and FE
products. Masongsong supplied Magnolia chicken
Zuellig to recover the cost of damaged shipment.
products on a 25-day payment credit to Memitas Vicor
Philamgen argued, among others, that SLI failed to
Store (“Memitas”) in Burgos Public Market, Bacolod City.
adduce any evidence in support of its defense of
Masongsong filed a complaint for collection of sum of
prescription and that the bills of lading said to contain
money against Memitas for its alleged non-payment of
the shortened periods for filing and for instituting an
purchased goods from the former. In his answer, while
action against the carrier were never offered in
Memitas did not deny that he purchased goods on credit
evidence.
from Masongsong, he claimed, however, that there were
questionable deliveries, short deliveries and
Held: As petitioners are suing upon SLI's
discrepancies, and possible manipulation of delivery
contractual obligation under the contract of carriage as
receipts, hence his refusal to pay. The trial court ruled in
contained in the bills of lading, such bills of lading can
favor of Masongsong, and was upheld by the Court of
be categorized as actionable documents which under the
Appeals. Memitas assail, among others, the admissibility
Rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of
of the sales invoices presented by Masongsong.
action or defenses, and the genuineness and due
execution of which are deemed admitted unless
Held: Memita, in alleging questionable and
specifically denied under oath by the adverse party. The
short deliveries, in effect alleges that Masongsong
rules on actionable documents cover and apply to both a
committed fraud. As the party invoking fraud, Memita
cause of action or defense based on said documents.
has the burden of proof. Whoever alleges fraud or
Petitioners' failure to specifically deny the existence,
mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate his
much less the genuineness and due execution, of the
allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes
instruments in question amounts to an admission.
ordinary care of his concerns and private concerns have
Judicial admissions, verbal or written, made by the
been fair and regular.
parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or
other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no
The best evidence of the transaction between
evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot
Memita and Masongsong are the sales invoices. The
be contradicted unless shown to have been made
sales invoices show that Memita or his representative
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
acknowledged receipt of Masongsongs deliveries without
made. Moreover, when the due execution and
protest. Memita aired his doubts about the amounts only
genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted
after Masongsong asked him to pay his credit. Moreover,
because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific
although Memita confronted Masongsong with a check
verified denial thereof, the instrument need not be
dated 1 July 1996 in the amount of P127,238.40 payable
presented formally in evidence for it may be considered
to RM Integrated Services, Masongsong stated that the
an admitted fact.
said amount did not include any transaction in the
present case.
Even granting that petitioners' averment
in their reply amounts to a denial, it has the

Page 45
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

procedural earmarks of what in the law on

pleadings is called a negative pregnant, that is, a Periods to Plead
denial pregnant with the admission of the
Pleading Time to File
substantial facts in the pleading responded to
which are not squarely denied. It is in effect an General Rule within fifteen (15)
admission of the averment it is directed to. Thus, days after service of
while petitioners objected to the validity of such summons
agreement for being contrary to public policy, the (a) within
existence of the bills of lading and said stipulations were fifteen (15) days
nevertheless impliedly admitted by them. after service of
summons to resident
2. Affirmative agent or to agent or
Defendant is officer in the
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new foreign private Philippines;
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the juridical entity
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, (b) within 30
would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. days after receipt of
summons by the
Affirmative defenses include home office of the
(1) fraud, To Complaint foreign private
(2) prescription, entity, when there is
(3) release, neither resident
(4) payment, agent nor officer.
(5) illegality, When service of Within the time
(6) statute of frauds, summons is by specified in the order
(7) estoppel, publication granting leave to
(8) former recovery, serve summons by
(9) discharge in bankruptcy, and publication, which
(10) any other matter by way of confession shall not be less than
and avoidance. sixty (60) days
Non-resident At least sixty (60)
defendant on days to answer
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8 whom
Answer extraterritorial
Section 11. Material averment in the complaint, service of
other than those as to the amount of unliquidated summons is made
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not When filing is a Within fifteen (15)
specifically denied. matter of right days from service of
To Amended amended complaint.
Complaint When filing is NOT Within ten (10) days
 Admissions may be withdrawn by
amendments. The original pleadings are superseded by a matter of right from notice of the
the amended pleading (Insular Veneer, Inc. v. Plan, G.R. court order admitting
No. L-40155, 10 September 1976) the amended
complaint.
 Failure to specifically deny under oath an
actionable document results in the admission of the To Within ten (10) days from service of
genuineness and due execution of said document. Counterclaim pleading.
/
Note: While failure to specifically deny under oath the Crossclaim
genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document generally implies an admission of the same
by the other party, such implied admission is deemed To Same period as with the original
waived if the party asserting the same has allowed the Third(Fourth, defendant.
adverse party to present evidence contrary to the Etc.)- Party
contents of such document without objection. (Central Complaint
Surety v. Hodges, G.R. No. 12730, 22 August 1960).

To Within ten (10) days from the notice of the

Supplemental order admitting the same, unless a
Complaint different period is fixed by the court.
Reply Within ten (10) days from service of the pleading
responded to.

Page 46
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Waiver of Defenses Plaintiffs alleged that through the machinations of Aum,

KEB granted a loan to the PHDI for 500kUSD, with the
General Rule: Defenses and objections not pleaded condition that it be deposited to KEB in the name of
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are PHDI. Plaintiffs executed a real estate mortgage over
deemed waived. (Sec.1, Rule 9) their properties. The only authorized by the BOD of PHDI
are Aum and Mendoza. Aum withdrew 160kUSD from
Exceptions: the account by forging the signature of Mendoza. He
1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; was again allowed to withdraw, leaving 163kUSD as the
2) Litis pendentia balance. Aum could not have withdrawn without the
3) Res judicata; and connivance of KEB. KEB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
4) Prescription of action ground that the the case was within SEC’s jurisdiction.
When the Motion was denied, KEB filed a petition for
COUNTERCLAIMS certiorari in with the CA but which was also dismissed by
said court. They appealed said dismissal to the SC.
Defined and in general
Pending resolution, KEB filed a complaint
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6 against the BOD and PHDI for sum of money and
reformation of the mortgage (“Civil Case No. G-3119”).
Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any KEB alleged that the true agreement was to bind only
claim which a defending party may have against an PHDI as the debtor. KEB prayed that PHDI pay the
opposing party. 50kUSD plus interest. PHDI filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground of forum shopping, saying that KEB should
have filed its counterclaim for the reformation of the
How raised mortgage and collection of 500kUSD in Civil Case No. G-
3012. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. PHDI filed
Included in answer an answer with counterclaims and alleged that its loan
(Rule 6, Sec. 9; Rule 11 Sec. 8) should be extinguished by set-off.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6 In Civil Case No. G-3012, KEB filed a motion to
dismiss for forum shopping.
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-
crossclaims. — A counter-claim may be asserted against The lower court denied the Motion to dismiss in
an original counter-claimant. Civil Case No. G-3012 on the ground that the causes of
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original action of PHDI in the latter were different from their
cross-claimant. counterclaim in Civil Case No. G-3119. The lower court
also denied the Motion to dismiss the counterclaims of
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 11 PHDI in Civil Case No. G-3119 in finding that the reliefs
prayed for by PHDI did not include the collection of the
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — 160kUSD from KEB.
A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he files his answer shall Held: A counterclaim, as now used and understood,
be contained therein. includes both set-off and recoupment and is broader
than both; it includes equitable demands and secures to
the defendant full relief which is a separate action at law
and would have secured him on the same state of facts
being substantially a cross-action by the defendant
After Answer against the plaintiff.
(Rule 6 , Sec.9; Rule 11 Sec. 9)
A set-off (compensacion) is a money demand
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 11 by the defendant against the plaintiff arising upon
contract and constituting a debt independent of and
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after unconnected with the cause of actions set forth in the
answer. — A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either complaint, and may be used to offset a plaintiffs claim
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his but not to recover affirmatively. As in the case with
pleading may, with the permission of the court, be recoupment, set-off may be used to offset a plaintiffs
presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by claim but not to recover affirmatively. This is similar to
supplemental pleading before judgment. the English rule which was first authorized by an English
statute in 1729.

A recoupment (reconvencion) differs from a

Permissive Counterclaim
counterclaim (contrarreclamacion) in that, under a
counterclaim, the defendant may have an affirmative
Korean Exchange v. Gonzales (2005) judgment where he is able to prove a demand in excess
Facts: The de Mesa siblings are the original of the plaintiffs demand, whereas in the case of
incorporators of the board of directors (“BOD”) of Phi- recoupment, whatever the damages proved by the
Han Development, Inc. (PHDI). The President is Jae II defendant, they can go only to reduce or extinguish the
Aum (“Aum”), a Korean national, was the president and claim against him. Recoupment must arise out of the
Lourdes de Mesa Mendoza (“Mendoza”) was the contract or transaction upon which the plaintiffs claim is
corporate secretary. PHDI and the de Mera siblings founded. Recoupment is of French origin and means the
(‘plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Aum and Korea cutting back of the plaintiffs claim by the defendant. It
Exchange Bank (KEB) (“Civil Case NO. G-3012”). thus implies an admission of the plaintiffs claim.

Page 47
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In Lopez v. Gloria and Sheriff of Leyte, the As the Court held in Yulienco v. Court of
Court ruled that for set-off or recoupment to be Appeals: A counterclaim is defined as any claim for
considered as a counterclaim, the following must money or other relief which a defending party may have
concur: (1) the same be essentially a genuine action of against an opposing party. A counterclaim is compulsory
the defendant against the plaintiff; (2) the same should if (a) it arises out of, or is necessarily connected with,
have as its object to neutralize, wholly or partially, that the transaction or occurrence which is the subject
which the plaintiff is trying to obtain; (3) the same does matter of the opposing partys claim; (b) it does not
not have for its object to destroy directly the action of require for its adjudication the presence of third parties
the plaintiff; and (4) the same ought not to pray for a of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (c)
positive remedy distinct from the payment of money. the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In other
words, a compulsory counterclaim cannot be made the
The Court explained that under the first subject of a separate action but should be asserted in
requisite, independent of any other consideration, a the same suit involving the same transaction or
genuine action is constituted by the defendant which occurrence giving rise to it.
could be employed separately against the plaintiff. On
the second requisite, the Court declared that the The criteria or tests by which the compulsory
defendant admits the facts upon which the action of the or permissive nature of specific counterclaims can be
plaintiff is based. The second requisite is absent if the determined are as follows:
defendant bases his claim on facts which directly destroy (1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim
the action or cause of action of the plaintiff. In such a and counterclaim largely the same?
case, the claim of the defendant would only be a special (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on
defense.[36] On the third requisite, set-off or defendants claim absent the compulsory
recoupment may be merely a defense and not a counterclaim rule?
counterclaim if it only tends to oppose or to destroy the (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or
action of the plaintiff. refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendants
counterclaim?
After consideration of the material allegations (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and
of the answer of the respondents in Civil Case No. G- the counterclaim?
3119, we believe that the respondents claim of set-off or
compensation of the US$160,000.00 against the claim of In the present case, the issues of fact and law
US$500,000.00 of the petitioner against the raised by the petitioner in its complaint in Civil Case No.
respondents is a counterclaim. The respondents admit in G-3119, and in the counterclaims of the respondents for
their complaint in Civil Case No. G-3012 and in their the set-off of not only the US$160,000.00 but the
answer in Civil Case No. G-3119 that they secured a entirety of the deposits of the respondent PHDI of
loan from the petitioner in the amount of US$500,000.00, and for moral and exemplary damages,
US$500,000.00, but maintain that they are not liable for are not identical or even largely the same. In the
the payment of the said loan because the petitioner, in complaint of the petitioner in Civil Case No. G-3119, the
connivance with Jae Il Aum, had withdrawn not only issue is whether the loan of US$500,000.00 was secured
US$160,000.00 but the entire deposit of US$500,000.00 by respondent PHDI from the petitioner, and whether
from the peso and dollar accounts of respondent PHDI the respondents failed to pay the same and its
without the consent of the respondents. The latter did increment despite the petitioners demands. On the other
not seek to recover affirmatively from the petitioner. hand, the issues in the respondents counterclaims for
set-off of the amount of US$160,000.00 are the
However, we do not agree with the contention following: whether the signature of respondent Lourdes
of the respondents that their counterclaims are Mendoza appearing on the said withdrawal application
compulsory in nature. Section 7, Rule 5 of the Rules of was forged; whether the petitioner connived with Jae Il
Court reads: Aum when the latter withdrew the said amount from the
accounts of respondent PHDI; whether the petitioner
Sec. 7. Compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory and Jae Il Aum are obliged to pay the said amount to
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the respondent PHDI; and whether the obligations of the
the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is respondent to pay their loan of US$500,000.00 is
connected with the transaction or occurrence extrajudicial pro tanto. Any judgment of the court on the
constituting the subject matter of the opposing complaint of the petitioner in Civil Case No. G-3119
partys claim and does not require for its would not bar any suit on the respondents counterclaim.
adjudication the presence of third parties of The evidence of the petitioner on its claim in its
whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such complaint, and that of the respondents on their
a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of counterclaims are thus different. There is, likewise, no
the court both as to the amount and the nature logical relation between the claim of the petitioner and
thereof, except that in an original action before the counterclaim of the respondents. Hence, the
the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be counterclaim of the respondents is an initiatory pleading,
considered compulsory regardless of the amount. which requires the respondents to append thereto a
certificate of non-forum shopping. Their failure to do so
As correctly held by the CA, the counterclaim results to the dismissal of their counterclaim without
of the respondents for moral and exemplary damages prejudice.
against the petitioner is permissive. So is the
respondents claim of a set-off or compensation of the
US$160,000.00 which they sought in Civil Case No. G-
3012 against the US$500,000.00 claimed by the
petitioner against the respondents in Civil Case No. G-
3119.

Page 48
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Compulsory Counterclaims
Financial Building, the contractor or USSR’s
It is one which, being cognizable by the regular building, filed a complaint for injunction and damages
courts, arises out of or is connected with the transaction against Forbes Park with the Regional Trial Court of
or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the Makati. The latter, in turn, filed a Motion to Dismiss on
opposing party’s claim and does not require for its the ground that Financial Building had no cause of action
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the because it was not the real party-in-interest. Financial
court cannot acquire jurisdiction. (Rule 6, Sec. 7) Building’s case was dismissed and terminated.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 9 After the termination of Financial Building’s
case, Forbes Park filed a complaint for damages against
Section 2. Compulsory Counterclaim. — A Financial Building arising from violation of its rules and
compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up regulations.
shall be barred.
Issue: Whether Forbes Park’s complaint for damages
Spouses Mendiola v. Court of Appeals (2012) arising from violation of its rules and regulations is
proper for adjudication in a separate and subsequent
The four tests to determine whether a counterclaim is action
compulsory or not are the following:
Held: No. Financial Building’s case and the instant case
a. Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim arose from the same occurrence the construction work
and the counterclaim largely the same? done by Financial Building on the USSRs lot in Forbes
b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on Park Village. The issues of fact and law in both cases are
defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory identical. The factual issue is whether the structures
counterclaim rule? erected by Financial Building violate Forbes Parks rules
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or and regulations, whereas the legal issue is whether
refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the Financial Building, as an independent contractor working
defendant’s counterclaim? and for the USSR, could be enjoined from continuing with
d. Is there any logical relation between the claim the construction and be held liable for damages if it is
and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of found to have violated Forbes Parks rules.
separate trials of the respective claims of the
parties would entail a substantial duplication of As a result of the controversy, Financial
effort and time by the parties and the court? Building seized the initiative by filing the prior injunction
case, which was anchored on the contention that Forbes
Of the four, the one compelling test of Park’s prohibition on the construction work in the
compulsoriness is the logical relation between the claim subject premises was improper. The instant case on the
alleged in the complaint and that in the counterclaim. other hand was initiated by Forbes Park to compel
Such relationship exists when conducting separate trials Financial Building to remove the same structures it has
of the respective claims of the parties would entail erected in the same premises involved in the prior case
substantial duplication of time and effort by the parties and to claim damages for undertaking the said
and the court; when the multiple claims involve the construction. Thus, the logical relation between the two
same factual and legal issues; or when the claims are cases is patent and it is obvious that substantially the
offshoots of the same basic controversy between the same evidence is involved in the said cases.
parties. If these tests result in affirmative answers, the
counterclaim is compulsory. Moreover, the two cases involve the same
parties. The aggregate amount of the claims in the
Nature of compulsory counterclaims instant case is within the jurisdiction of the regional trial
court, had it been set up as a counterclaim in Civil Case
a. It is auxiliary to the original suit such that as No. 16540. Therefore, Forbes Park’s claims in the instant
a general rule, the court must have case should have been filed as a counterclaim in Civil
jurisdiction over the original action in order to Case No. 16540.
hear the compulsory counterclaim. The
exception is discussed in Padilla v. Globe A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to
Asiatique below (page 51). the proceeding in the original suit and derives its
jurisdictional support therefrom. A counterclaim
Financial Building Corp. vs. Forbes Park presupposes the existence of a claim against the
Association (2000) party filing the counterclaim. Hence, where there
is no claim against the counterclaimant, the
Facts: The then Union of Soviet Socialist Republic counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed,
(“USSR”) owned a residential lot in Forbes Park, Makati. more so where the complaint is dismissed at the
Due to the USSR’s representation and repeated instance of the counterclaimant. In other words, if
reassurance that it would be building a residence for its the dismissal of the main action results in the
Trade Representative, Forbes Park authorized its dismissal of the counterclaim already filed, it
construction and work began shortly thereafter. Despite stands to reason that the filing of a motion to
this, and upon ocular inspection, Forbes Park discovered dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the
that USSR was constructing a multi-level apartment compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the
building, in violation of Forbes Park’s deeds of motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the
restrictions. Thus, Forbes Park suspended all permits of counterclaim.
entry for the personnel and materials to USSR’s
construction site. Thus, the filing of a motion to dismiss and the
setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are

Page 49
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

incompatible remedies. In the event that a defending 3, Rule 17 mandates that the dismissal of the complaint
party has a ground for dismissal and a compulsory is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
counterclaim at the same time, he must choose only one prosecute the counterclaim in the same or separate
remedy. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he will action. If the RTC were to dismiss the counterclaim, it
lose his compulsory counterclaim. But if he opts to set should be on the merits of such counterclaim. Reversal
up his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his of the RTC is in order, and a remand is necessary for
ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his trial on the merits of the counterclaim.
answer. The latter option is obviously more favorable to
the defendant although such fact was lost on Forbes Ratio: Whatever the nature of the counterclaim, it bears
Park. the same integral characteristics as a complaint; namely
a cause (or causes) of action constituting an act or
The ground for dismissal invoked by Forbes omission by which a party violates the right of another.
Park in Financial Building’s case was lack of cause of The main difference lies in that the cause of action in the
action. There was no need to plead such ground in a counterclaim is maintained by the defendant against the
motion to dismiss or in the answer since the same was plaintiff, while the converse holds true with the
not deemed waived if it was not pleaded. Nonetheless, complaint. Yet, as with a complaint, a counterclaim
Forbes Park still filed a motion to dismiss and thus without a cause of action cannot survive.
exercised bad judgment in its choice of remedies. Thus,
it has no one to blame but itself for the consequent loss It would then seemingly follow that if the
of its counterclaim as a result of such choice. dismissal of the complaint somehow eliminates the
cause(s) of the counterclaim, then the counterclaim
b. Effect of dismissal. - If the dismissal of the cannot survive. Yet that hardly is the case, especially as
complaint somehow eliminates the cause of a general rule. More often than not, the allegations
the counterclaim, then the counterclaim that form the counterclaim are rooted in an act or
cannot survive. Conversely, if the omission of the plaintiff other than the plaintiff’s
counterclaim itself states sufficient cause of very act of filing the complaint. Moreover, such
action then it should stand independently of acts or omissions imputed to the plaintiff are often
and survive the dismissal of the complaint. claimed to have occurred prior to the filing of the
However, if the dismissal is pursuant to complaint itself. The only apparent exception to
circumstances covered by Section 6, Rule 16 this circumstance is if it is alleged in the
and Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17, then the counterclaim that the very act of the plaintiff in
dismissal of the complaint does not result in filing the complaint precisely causes the violation
the dismissal of the counterclaim, whether of the defendant’s rights. Yet even in such an
compulsory or permissive. instance, it remains debatable whether the
dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint is
sufficient to obviate the pending cause of action
Pinga vs. Santiago (2006) maintained by the defendant against the plaintiff.

Facts: Pinga was a defendant in a complaint for These considerations persist whether the
injunction filed by Santiago in 1998. On October 2004, counterclaim in question is permissive or compulsory. A
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) already ordered the compulsory counterclaim arises out of or is connected
dismissal of the complaint after Santiago’s counsel had with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
sought the postponement of the hearing scheduled subject matter of the opposing party’s claim, does not
then. However, the order of dismissal was subsequently require for its adjudication the presence of third parties,
reconsidered by the RTC in an Order dated 9 June 2005, and stands within the jurisdiction of the court both as to
which took into account the assurance of Santiago’s the amount involved and the nature of the claim. The
counsel that he would give priority to that case. On the fact that the culpable acts on which the counterclaim is
scheduled hearing, Santiago’s counsel still failed to based are founded within the same transaction or
appear, thus, the RTC dismissed the complaint and occurrence as the complaint, is insufficient causation to
allowed Pinga to present his evidence ex parte. negate the counterclaim together with the complaint.
The dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint does not
Santiago filed a Motion for Reconsideration of traverse the boundaries of time to undo the act or
the RTC’s Order, opting however not to seek that their omission of the plaintiff against the defendant, or vice
complaint be reinstated, but praying instead that the versa. While such dismissal or withdrawal precludes the
entire action be dismissed and petitioner be disallowed pursuit of litigation by the plaintiff, either through
from presenting evidence ex-parte. The RTC granted the his/her own initiative or fault, it would be iniquitous to
Motion for Reconsideration and dismissed the similarly encumber the defendant who maintained no
counterclaim, citing as the only ground therefor that such initiative or fault. If the defendant similarly moves
"there is no opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration for the dismissal of the counterclaim or neglects to
of [Pinga]." timely pursue such action, let the dismissal of the
counterclaim be premised on those grounds imputable
Issue: Whether the dismissal of a complaint for failure to the defendant, and not on the actuations of the
to prosecute must necessarily result in the dismissal of plaintiff.
the counterclaim therein.
The other considerations supplied in Metals are
Held: No. The dismissal of a complaint due to fault of anchored on the premise that the jurisdictional
the plaintiff is without prejudice to the right of the foundation of the counterclaim is the complaint itself.
defendant to prosecute any pending counterclaims of The theory is correct, but there are other facets to this
whatever nature in the same or separate subject that should be taken into account as well. On
action. Accordingly, the RTC clearly erred when it the established premise that a counterclaim involves
ordered the dismissal of the counterclaim, since Section separate causes of action than the complaint even if

Page 50
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

derived from the same transaction or series of

transactions, the counterclaim could have very well been It may also do well to remember that it is this
lodged as a complaint had the defendant filed the action Court which mandated that claims for damages and
ahead of the complainant. The terms ancillary or attorney’s fees based on unfounded suit constitute
auxiliary may mislead in signifying that a complaint compulsory counterclaim which must be pleaded in the
innately possesses more credence than a counterclaim, same action or, otherwise, it shall be barred. It will then
yet there are many instances wherein the complaint is be iniquitous and the height of injustice to require the
trivial but the counterclaim is meritorious. In truth, the petitioner to make the counterclaim in the present
notion that a counterclaim is, or better still, appears to action, under threat of losing his right to claim the same
be merely ancillary or auxiliary is chiefly the offshoot of ever again in any other court, yet make his right totally
an accident of chronology, more than anything else. dependent on the fate of the respondent’s complaint.

The formalistic distinction between a complaint If indeed the Court dismisses petitioner’s
and a counterclaim does not detract from the fact that counterclaim solely on the basis of the dismissal of
both of them embody causes of action that have in their respondent’s Complaint, then what remedy is left for the
end the vindication of rights. While the distinction is petitioner? It can be said that he can still file a separate
necessary as a means to facilitate order and clarity in action to recover the damages and attorney’s fees based
the rules of procedure, it should be remembered that on the unfounded suit for he cannot be barred from
the primordial purpose of procedural rules is to provide doing so since he did file the compulsory counterclaim in
the means for the vindication of rights. A party with a the present action, only that it was dismissed when
valid cause of action against another party cannot be respondent’s Complaint was dismissed. However, this
denied the right to relief simply because the opposing reasoning is highly flawed and irrational considering that
side had the good fortune of filing the case first. Yet this petitioner, already burdened by the damages and
in effect was what had happened under the previous attorney’s fees it may have incurred in the present case,
procedural rule and correspondent doctrine, which under must again incur more damages and attorney’s fees in
their final permutation, prescribed the automatic pursuing a separate action, when, in the first place, it
dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim upon the should not have been involved in any case at all.
dismissal of the complaint, whether upon the initiative of
the plaintiff or of the defendant. c. The court must have jurisdiction both as to
amount and nature of the counterclaim, except
Thus, the present rule embodied in when the original action was filed before the
Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more Regional Trial Court. In the latter case, the
equitable disposition of the counterclaims by counterclaim may be considered compulsory
ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on regardless of the amount.
the merit of the counterclaim itself and not on the
survival of the main complaint. Certainly, if the Maceda vs. Court of Appeals (1989)
counterclaim is palpably without merit or suffers
jurisdictional flaws which stand independent of the Facts: Private respondent Cement Center, Inc.
complaint, the trial court is not precluded from (“Cement Center”) filed a case for ejectment against
dismissing it under the amended rules, provided that the Maceda. In his answer to the complaint, Maceda set up a
judgment or order dismissing the counterclaim is counterclaim for P240,000, the alleged value of the
premised on those defects. At the same time, if the improvements which he introduced to the subject
counterclaim is justified, the amended rules now property. Maceda claimed that the original owners of the
unequivocally protect such counterclaim from property promised to reimburse him of his expenses for
peremptory dismissal by reason of the dismissal of the said property’s improvement.
complaint.
In its decision, the Metropolitan Trial Court
Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings (MTC) ordered Maceda to vacate the premises and pay
Corporation (2014) the plaintiff P2,000 per month as reasonable
compensation for his use of the premises until he
If the dismissal of the complaint somehow actually vacates, and P5,000 as attorney's fees. It
eliminates the cause of the counterclaim, then the ordered Cement Center to pay Maceda P158,000 as the
counterclaim cannot survive. Conversely, if the value of his improvements and repairs, less his accrued
counterclaim itself states sufficient cause of action then rentals of P64,000 as of December 1985 and the sum of
it should stand independently of and survive the P12,000 which he had earlier received as partial
dismissal of the complaint. reimbursement. The MTC’s mandate for Cement Center
to pay Maceda was upheld by the Regional Trial Court
It bears to emphasize that petitioner’s (RTC).
counterclaim against respondent is for damages and
attorney’s fees arising from the unfounded suit. While On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the
respondent’s Complaint against petitioner is already RTC’s decision and set aside Cement Center’s obligation
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia, petitioner to pay Maceda P182,200.00 corresponding to the value
may have very well already incurred damages and of the supposed necessary and useful improvements.
litigation expenses such as attorney’s fees since it was
forced to engage legal representation in the Philippines Held: MTC had NO jurisdiction over Maceda’s
to protect its rights and to assert lack of jurisdiction of counterclaim of P240,000. The Court of Appeals
the courts over its person by virtue of the improper correctly ruled that the MTC did not have original
service of summons upon it. Hence, the cause of action jurisdiction over his counterclaim as it exceeds P20,000.
of petitioner’s counterclaim is not eliminated by the Correspondingly, the RTC did not have appellate
mere dismissal of respondent’s complaint. jurisdiction over the claim. The decision of the Municipal

Page 51
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Trial Court of San Juan awarding him P158,000 on his f. A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not
counterclaim, and that of the Regional Trial Court raising raised (Rule 11, Sec. 8 and Rule 9, Sec. 2)
the award to P182,200, were invalid for lack of
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial i. A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim
Court in a civil action for sum of money (Maceda's that a defending party has at the time he
counterclaim for the value of his improvements is one files his answer shall be contained therein.
such action) is limited to a demand that "does not (Rule 11, Sec. 8)
exceed twenty thousand pesos exclusive of interest and ii. A compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not
costs but inclusive of damages of whatever kind." (Sec. set up shall be barred. (Rule 9, Sec. 2)
33, subpar. 1, B.P. Blg. 129.) A counterclaim in the iii. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
municipal or city court beyond that jurisdictional or a cross-claim through oversight,
limit may be pleaded only by way of defense to inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or
weaken the plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain when justice requires, he may, by leave of
affirmative relief. court, set up the counterclaim or cross-
claim by amendment before judgment.
d. When original action filed with RTC, the (Rule 11, Sec. 10)
counterclaim is deemed compulsory
regardless of amount. g. A compulsory counterclaim need not be
answered.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6 Sarmiento v. San Juan (1983)

Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. xxx xxx xxx Facts: Private respondent Belfast Surety & Insurance
Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of Co. Inc. (“Belfast”) filed a civil action against Sarmiento
the court both as to the amount and nature thereof, for indemnification under an Indemnity Agreement
except that in an original action before the Regional Trial executed by them in connection with a bail bond.
Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory Sarmiento filed an answer with compulsory
regardless of the amount. counterclaim. Thereafter, upon motion from Belfast, the
judge scheduled the pre-trial. At the scheduled pre-trial,
e. Filing fees and certificate of non-forum only Belfast’s counsel appeared. Sarmiento was declared
shopping are not required in compulsory as “non-suited” and the court allowed Belfast to present
counterclaims its evidence ex parte. Upon the denial of Sarmiento’s
motion for reconsideration, he filed a case for certiorari
Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas (Batangas), against the judge, alleging in part that the pre-trial was
Inc (1996) premature inasmuch as Belfast did not file an answer to
Sarmiento’s counterclaim. Thus, the "last pleading" has
Facts: Carpio filed a Complaint for annulment of not yet been filed so as to authorize the judge to
foreclosure sale and damages) against the Rural Bank schedule a pre-trial in accordance with the Rules of
of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, Inc. Respondent bank filed its Court.
Answer with Counterclaim, denying specifically the
material allegations of the complaint, and praying for Held: No. An answer to a compulsory counterclaim is
damages. Carpio filed a motion to dismiss the NOT required before pre-trial may be scheduled. While it
counterclaim on the ground that respondent banks may be true that the private respondent had not filed
counterclaim was not accompanied by a certification any answer to the counterclaim contained in the
against forum shopping. petitioner's answer, such circumstance does not prevent
the trial court from conducting the pre-trial.
Held: A certificate of non-forum shopping is NOT
required for the filing of compulsory counterclaims. It The requirement that the pre-trial shall be
bears stressing that the Section 5, Rule 7 distinctly scheduled "after the last pleading has been filed" is
provides that the required certification against forum intended to fully apprise the court and the parties of all
shopping is intended to cover an initiatory pleading, the issues in the case before the pre-trial is conducted.
meaning an incipient application of a party asserting a It must be remembered that the issues may only be
claim for relief. Certainly, respondent bank’s Answer ascertained from the allegations contained in the
with Counterclaim is a responsive pleading, filed pleadings filed by the parties. The last permissible
merely to counter petitioners complaint that initiates the pleading that a party may file would be the reply to the
civil action. In other words, the rule requiring such answer to the last pleading of claim that had been filed
certification does not contemplate a in the case, which may either be the complaint, a cross-
defendants/respondents claim for relief that is derived claim, a counterclaim or a third party complaint, etc.
only from, or is necessarily connected with, the main Any pleading asserting a claim must be answered, and
action or complaint. In fact, upon failure by the plaintiff the failure to do so by the party against whom the claim
to comply with such requirement, Section 5, quoted is asserted renders him liable to be declared in default in
above, directs the dismissal of the case without respect of such claim. There are, however,
prejudice, not the dismissal of recognized exceptions to the rule, making the
respondents counterclaim. failure to answer a pleading of claim as a ground
for a default declaration, such as the failure to
answer a complaint in intervention, or a
compulsory counterclaim so intimately related to
the complaint such that to answer to same would
merely require a repetition of the allegations
contained in the complaint.

Page 52
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In the case presently considered, the nature of  A reply is the responsive pleading to an
the counterclaim in the petitioner's answer has not been answer, not to counterclaim or cross-claim.
made clear, except to categorize it as a compulsory  Not mandatory—If a party does not file such
counterclaim. Such being the case, it is likely to be one reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are
where the answering thereof is not necessary, and the deemed controverted.
failure to do so would not be a ground to be declared in
default. In any event, the private respondent's failure to When required
answer the petitioner's counterclaim after the period to
file the answer had lapsed is no obstacle to holding a a. Challenge due to authenticity of documents
pre-trial. The requirement that the last pleading must
have been filed before a pre-trial may be scheduled 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 8
should more appropriately be construed to mean not
only if the last pleading had been actually filed, but also Section 8. How to contest such documents. —
if the period for filing the same had expired. When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
h. A compulsory counterclaim is allowed under pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
the Rule on Summary Procedure (Rules of genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall
Summary Procedure (RSP), A. M. No. 00-11- be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under
01-SC, Sec. 3) oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath
The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the does not apply when the adverse party does not appear
complaints, compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims' to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with
pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto. (RSP, an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
Sec. 3) refused.

Remedy for omitted counterclaim due to oversight,  “Actionable document” – the document
excusable neglect (Rule 11, Sec. 10) relied upon by either the plaintiff and the defendant.
E.g. Promissory note in an action for collection of sum of
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 11 money; Deed of mortgage in an action for foreclosure of
mortgage
Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. —
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-  Denial under oath means that the denial must
claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable be verified. The absence of an oath will result in the
neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of implied admission of the due execution and genuineness
court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by of the document
amendment before judgment.
 When a party is deemed to have admitted the
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document, defenses that are implied from said
In General admission are necessarily waived, such as the following:
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6 a) defenses of forgery of the document;
b) the lack of authority to execute the document;
Section 4. Answer. — An answer is a pleading in c) that the party charged signed the document in
which a defending party sets forth his defenses. some other capacity than that alleged in the
pleading; or
Period to plead d) that the document was never delivered (Hibberd
v. Rhode McMillian, 32 Phil 476)
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 11
 Also cut-off by the admission is the defense
that the document was not in words and figures as set
Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim.
out in the pleadings (Imperial Textile Mills v. CA, 183
— A counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered
SCRA 584).
within ten (10) days from service.
 However, the following defenses may still be
interposed despite the implied admission of the
REPLY genuineness and due execution of the document, since
Defined and in general these are not inconsistent with the admission of the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6 genuineness and due execution of the instrument:
a. payment;
Section 10. Reply - A reply is a pleading, the office b. want of consideration;
or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial c. illegality of consideration;
or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense d. usury;
in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such e. fraud.
new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the
new matters alleged in the answer are deemed Prescription, release, waiver, statute of frauds, estoppel,
controverted. former recovery or discharge in bankruptcy are likewise
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising not barred, since these defenses have no direct
out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be relationship to the concepts of “genuineness and due
set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. execution” (Riano).

Page 53
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Casent Realty Development Corp. vs. Philbanking Reply. Thus, where the defense in the Answer is based
Corporation (2007) on an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying
it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness
Facts: In 1984, petitioner Casent Realty Development and due execution of the document will be deemed
Corporation executed two promissory notes in favor of admitted. Since respondent failed to deny the
Rare Realty Corporation (Rare Realty) involving the genuineness and due execution of the Dacion and
amounts of P 300,000.00 and P681,500.00. On 8 Confirmation Statement under oath, then these are
August 1986, these promissory notes were assigned to deemed admitted. This judicial admission should have
respondent Philbanking through a Deed of Assignment. been considered by the court in resolving the demurrer
to evidence.
Petitioner failed to pay the promissory notes
despite demands. Thus, respondent filed a complaint for Nevertheless, petitioner remains liable to
the collection of sum of money. Respondent raised the respondent. In this case, the Dacion and Confirmation
defense of extinguishment of obligation, stating that on Statement do not sufficiently prove that petitioner’s
27 August 1986, the parties executed a Dacion en Pago liability was extinguished. In executing the Dacion¸ the
which conveyed petitioner’s property to respondent with intention of the parties was to settle only the loans of
the intention of extinguishing petitioner’s outstanding petitioner with respondent, not the obligation of
accounts with the respondent. Petitioner presented a petitioner arising from the promissory notes that were
Confirmation Statement stating that petitioner no longer assigned by Rare Realty to respondent. When petitioner
had loans with the respondent. and respondent executed the Dacion on 27 August 1986,
what was then covered was petitioner’s subsequent loan
After respondent presented its evidence, from the respondent in the amount of P3,921,750.00.
petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment on Demurrer to
Evidence, pointing out that respondent’s failure to file a It must be noted that the promissory notes
Reply to the Answer which raised the dacion and subject of the case were given as security for the loan
Confirmation Statement constituted an admission of the granted by respondent to Rare Realty. Through the
genuineness and due execution of said documents, and Deed of Assignment, respondent stepped into the shoes
that since these obligation was extinguished, respondent of Rare Realty as petitioner’s creditor. Thus, in 1989,
no longer had the right to collect from petitioner. when Rare Realty defaulted in its payment to
Respondent, on the other hand, filed an Opposition respondent, respondent proceeded against the security
stating that since it did not file a Reply, all new matters assigned to it, that is, the promissory notes issued by
alleged in the Answer are deemed controverted, the petitioner. Under these promissory notes, petitioner
pursuant to Rule 6, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. is still liable for the amount of P300,000.00 with interest
thereon.
Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the
complaint on the ground of extinction of obligation. The THIRD / FOURTH PARTY COMPLAINT
Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that in resolving
petitioner’s Demurrer, the trial court erred in considering Defined
the affirmative defenses raised in the Answer. 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6

Issue: Whether or not respondent’s failure to file a Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint.
Reply and deny the Dacion and Confirmation Statement — A third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint is a claim that
under oath constitute a judicial admission of the a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
genuineness and due execution of these documents? person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
YES. etc.) — party defendant for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
Held: What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss opponent's claim.
based on a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff
is entitled to the relief based on the facts and the law. Remedies when denied
The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is When a complaint is dismissed, the third-party
that which pertains to the merits of the case, excluding complaint is also dismissed. But if the plaintiff appeals
technical aspects such as capacity to sue. However, the the dismissal, the defendant-third-party plaintiff must
plaintiff’s evidence should not be the only basis in also appeal to obtain affirmative relief.
resolving a demurrer to evidence. The "facts" referred to
should include all the means sanctioned by the Rules of ANSWER TO THIRD/FOURTH PARTY COMPLAINT
Court in ascertaining matters in judicial proceedings.
These include judicial admissions, matters of judicial In general
notice, stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial,
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 6
admissions, and presumptions, the only exclusion being
the defendant’s evidence.
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)—party
complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant
The defense of Dacion and Confirmation
may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or
Statement, which were submitted in the Answer, should
cross-claims, including such defenses that the third
have been specifically denied under oath by respondent
(fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff may have against the
in accordance with Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of
original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also
Court. These defenses are not deemed controverted by
assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff in
respondent’s failure to file a Reply. Rule 8, Section 8
respect of the latter's claim against the third-party
specifically applies to actions or defenses founded upon
plaintiff.
a written instrument and provides the manner of
denying it. It is more controlling than Rule 6, Section 10
which merely provides the effect of failure to file a

Page 54
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Time to plead
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 11 Certification against forum shopping
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 7
Section 5. The time to answer a third (fourth,
etc.)—party complaint shall be governed by the same Section 5. The plaintiff or principal party shall
rule as the answer to the complaint. certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
Extension of time to plead certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 11 therewith:
a. that he has not theretofore commenced any
Section 11. Extension of time to plead. - Upon action or filed any claim involving the same issues
motion and on such terms as may be just, the court may in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
extend the time to plead provided in the Rules of Court to the best of his knowledge, no such other action
or claim is pending therein;
The court may also, upon like terms, allow an b. if there is such other pending action or claim,
answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed a complete statement of the present status thereof;
by these Rules. and
c. if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he
(FORMAL REQUIREMENTS)
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS
the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
AND ORDERS
pleading has been filed.
Verification
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 7 not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not provided, upon motion and after hearing. The
be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. submission of a false certification or non-compliance
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute
has read the pleading and that the allegations therein indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
A pleading required to be verified which contains a acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful
verification based on "information and belief", or upon and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
"knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
 The verification requirement is “deemed
substantially complied with when one who has  The certification is mandatory under Sec. 5 of Rule
an ample knowledge to swear to the truth of 7 but not jurisdictional since jurisdiction over the
the allegations in the complaint or petition subject of the action is conferred by law. (Robert
signs the verification, and when matters Development Corporation v. Quitain, 315 SCRA
alleged in the petition have been made in good 150).
faith or are true and correct (Vda. De Formoso
v. Philippine National Bank, 650 SCRA 35).  There is forum shopping when a party repetitively
avails of several judicial remedies in different
 The verification requirement is significant, as it courts, simultaneously or successively, all
intends to secure an assurance that the substantially founded on the same transactions and
allegations in a pleading are true and correct the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
and not the product of the imagination or a raising substantially the same issues either pending
matter of speculation and that the pleading is in or already resolved adversely by some other
filed in good faith (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, 514 court (Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company,
SCRA 246) Inc., G.R. No. 191388).
 A pleading required to be verified but lacks the
proper verification shall be treated as an  Three ways of committing forum shopping:
unsigned pleading. Hence, it produces no legal o Filing multiple cases based on the
effect. The lack of proper verification is cause same cause of action and with the
to treat the pleading as unsigned and same prayer, the previous case not
dismissible. (Chua v. Torres, 468 SCRA 358) having been resolved yet;
o Filing multiple cases based on the
 It was, however, been held that the absence of same cause of action and the same
a verification or the non-compliance with the prayer, the previous case having
verification requirement does not necessarily been finally resolved; and
render the pleading defective. It is only a o Filing multiple cases based on the
formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. same cause of action, but with
The requirement is a condition affecting only different prayers (Chua v. Metrobank,
the form of the pleading and non-compliance 596 SCRA 535).
therewith does not necessarily render it fatally
defective. (Benguet Corporation v. Cordillera
Caraballo Mission, Inc.)

Page 55
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

 The rationale against forum shopping is that a party

should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous  A false certification shall constitute indirect
remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple contempt of court without prejudice to the
petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court corresponding administrative and criminal
processes, which tends to degrade the sanctions.
administration of justice, wreaks havocs upon
orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the  Failure to comply with the undertakings in the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the certification against forum shopping has the same
courts. effect as the submission of a false certification
(Oliveros v. Sison, 548 SCRA 265).
 The certification against forum shopping must be
executed by the party, not the attorney (Damasco Ao-As v. CA (2006)
v. NLRC, 346 SCRA 714) Facts: The Lutheran Church in the Philippines is a
religious organization duly registered with the SEC. At
 While it is true that the certification against forum the time of its incorporation, the church was divided into
shopping must be executed by the party-pleader three districts, namely: North Luzon District (NLD); the
and not by his counsel, the rule is subject to South Luzon District (SLD); and the Mindanao District
exceptions. If for reasonable or justifiable reasons, (MDD). Subsequently, new districts were added. Since
the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must the addition of the new districts an 11 member board of
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his directors representing 5 districts managed the church
counsel of record to sign on his behalf. (Vda. de without challenged from the membership until several
Formoso v. Philippine National Bank). years later when certain controversies arose involving
the resolutions of the Board terminating the service of
 Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as the LCP business manager and corporate treasurer since
when the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common 1979, Mr. Hipe. The controversies divided the board into
interest and invoke a common cause of action or two groups the Ao-as group and the Batong group.
defense, the signature of only one of them
substantially conforms with the Rule. (Vda. de The termination of Mr. Hipe sparked a series of
Formoso v. Philippine Naitonal Bank) cases filed in different tribunals between the Ao-As
group and the Batong group. One of which is the SEC
 The failure to comply with the required certification case No. 3857 for accounting and damages with prayer
is not curable by a mere amendment and shall be a for preliminary injunction and appointment of a
cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal for management committee, filed by the Ao-As group
failure to comply with the certification requirement against the Batong group. This SEC case reached the
is not to be done by the court motu proprio. The Court of Appeals, the CA held that the issues raised by
rule requires that the dismissal be upon the motion the Ao-As group in the said case were already raised
and after hearing. and passed upon in other cases pending at the time the
Ao-As group filed their SEC case.
 Strict compliance with the provision regarding the
certificate of non-forum shopping underscores its Held: Ao-As group did NOT commit deliberate and
mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be intentional forum shopping. The elements of forum
altogether dispensed with or its requirements shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such
completely disregarded. It does not, however, parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
prohibit substantial compliance therewith under (b) identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for,
justifiable circumstances, considering especially the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
The substantial compliance rule, however, will not judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of
be applied if dishonesty attended the signing of the which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
certification. action under consideration.

 It has also been held that the rules on forum Otherwise stated, there is forum shopping
shopping, which were precisely designed to where a litigant sues the same party against whom
promote or facilitate the orderly administration of another action or actions for the alleged violation of the
justice, should not be interpreted with such same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are
absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case
and legitimate objective which is the goal of all is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one
rules of procedure—that is, to achieve substantial that would constitute res judicata and thus would cause
justice as expeditiously as possible (Great Southern the dismissal of the rest. Absolute identity of the parties
Maritime Services v. Acuña, 452 SCRA 422). is not required. It is enough that there is substantial
However, any liberal application has to be justified identity of the parties. It is enough that the party
by ample and sufficient reasons that maintain the against whom the estoppel is set up is actually a party
integrity of, and not detract from, the mandatory to the former case. There is identity of causes of action
character of the rule (BPI v. CA, G.R. No. 168313). if the same evidence will sustain the second action. The
principle applies even if the relief sought in the two
 If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly cases may be different. Forum shopping consists of filing
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
same shall be a ground for summary dismissal. cause of action, either simultaneously or successively,
Here, no motion to dismiss and hearing are for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.
required. The dismissal in this case is with prejudice
and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as As the present jurisprudence now stands,
cause for administrative sanctions. forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1)

Page 56
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action committee, board or body upon petition or motu propio
and with the same prayer, the previous case not having to undertake the management of corporations,
been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple partnerships or other associations not supervised or
cases based on the same cause of action and the same regulated by other government agencies in appropriate
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved cases when there is imminent danger of dissipation,
(res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the loss, wastage or destruction of assets or other properties
same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting or paralization of business operations of such
of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is corporations or entities which may be prejudicial to the
also either litis pendentia or res judicata11 ). If the forum interest of the minority stockholders, parties-litigants or
shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the the general public.
subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice
on one of the two grounds mentioned above. However, if Evidently, it should be difficult to deduce the
the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, "imminent danger of dissipation, loss, wastage or
if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed destruction of assets or other properties" from an
with prejudice. allegation of a single act of previous misappropriation or
dissipation on the part of the Batong group. It is often
The six grounds originally relied upon by the only when the previous misappropriations and
Ao-As group in SEC-SICD Case No. 3857 are entirely dissipations have become extensive and out of control
different from the causes of action in the other cases that it can be candidly said that there is an imminent
NLRC Cases No. 03-01935-90 and 04-01979-90, Civil danger of further dissipation. The Ao-As group cannot be
Cases No. 133394-CV and 131879-CV, and SEC-SICD faulted therefore for not praying for the creation of a
Cases No. 3556 and 3524. management committee in the first couple of cases it
filed with the SEC, and neither can they be faulted for
It is true that the causes of action in the latter using the causes of action in previously filed cases to
cases were included as additional grounds in SEC-SICD prove their allegation of imminent dissipation. We
Case No. 3857 for the appointment of the management cannot rule out the possibility that the danger of
committee and for accounting "of all funds, properties imminent dissipation of the corporate assets became
and assets of LCP which may have come into their apparent only in the acts of the respondents subsequent
possession during their incumbency as officers and/or to the filing of the first two SEC cases.
directors of LCP." However, the creation of a
management committee and the prayer for accounting Forum Shopping certificate for a corporation
could not have been asked for in the labor (NLRC Cases
No. 03-01935-90 and 04-01979-90) and forcible entry  A juridical entity, unlike a natural person, can only
(Civil Cases No. 133394-CV and 131879-CV) cases. perform physical acts through properly delegated
individuals. The certification against forum shopping
As regards the other SEC Cases, though, the where the plaintiff or a principal party is a juridical
Ao-As group could have indeed prayed for the creation entity like a corporation, may be executed by
of the management committee and the accounting of properly authorized persons. This person may be
the funds of the LCP. In fact, as stated by the Court of the lawyer of the corporation. As long as he is duly
Appeals, the petitioner in SEC-SICD Case No. 3556 had authorized by the corporation and has personal
prayed for the appointment of a management committee knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in
in a motion dated 18 June 1991. This motion, however, the certification against forum shopping, the
was subsequent to the filing of SEC-SICD Case No. 3857 certification may be signed by the authorized
on 17 August 1990, for which reason the SEC-SICD lawyer (National Steel Corporation v. CA, 388 SCRA
ruled that such motion cannot be given due course 85).
considering that it was one of the incidents of SEC-SIDC
Case No. 3857. In effect, the SEC-SIDC had denied the
subsequent motion on the ground of litis pendentia. But PAL v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Assn of the
should SEC-SICD Case No. 3857, which contains the Philippines (FASAP) (2006)
earlier prayer to create a management committee, be
likewise dismissed? Following the rules set forth in the Facts: FASAP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice,
preceding paragraphs, it would depend on whether the illegal suspension, and illegal dismissal against PAL
different SEC cases constitute willful and deliberate before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in
forum shopping on the part of Ao-As group. favor of FASAP. The NLRC modified the arbiter’s decision
by setting aside the finding that PAL was guilty of unfair
We hold that this is not a case of willful and labor practice, but affirming the rest of the decision.
deliberate forum shopping and, hence, the SEC-SICD
Case No. 3857, which contains the earlier prayer to Subsequently, PAL filed a petition for certiorari
create a management committee, should not be with the CA, it was accompanied by a Certification of
dismissed. The reason for this is the strict evidentiary Non-forum shopping executed by Cesar R. Lamberte and
requirement needed to grant a prayer to create a Susan Del Carmen, Vice-President Human Resources
management committee. The power of the SEC to create and Assistant Vice-President Cabin Services of PAL,
a management committee is found in Section 6(d) of respectively, who are not parties to the case. The
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended, which certification, however, was without proof that the two
provides: affiants had authority to sign in behalf of petitioners. As
a result, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case for
Sec. 6. In order to effectively exercise such failure to show the authority of affiants to sign for PAL
jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the following and for failure of the other petitioners to join in the
powers: execution of the certification. A motion for
reconsideration was filed with a Secretary’s Certificate
d) To create and appoint a management attached evidencing that affiants Cesar R. Lamberte and

Page 57
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Susan Del Carmen have been authorized by Board granted on February 15, 2000. The petition, on the other
Resolution No. 00-02-03 to initiate and/or cause to be hand, was filed on January 24, 2000 and was dismissed
filed on behalf of PAL petitions and pleadings in all labor- by the Court of Appeals on January 31, 2000. This
related cases. As to the other petitioners, it was argued means that at the time the certification was signed,
that they are mere nominal parties so that their failure Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen were not duly
to execute the certification does not justify dismissal of authorized by the Board of Directors of PAL and,
the petition. Despite this submission, the Court of consequently, their signing and attestations were not in
Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, representation of PAL. This effectively translates to a
the case is now before this Court. petition that was filed without a certification at all as
none was issued by PAL, the principal party to the case.
Held: The petitioner violated the rules on certificate of
non-forum shopping. The necessity for a certification of The required certification of non-forum
non-forum shopping in filing petitions for certiorari is shopping must be valid at the time of filing of the
found in Rule 65, Section 1, in relation to Rule 46, petition. An invalid certificate cannot be remedied by the
Section 3 of the Rules of Court. These provisions require subsequent submission of a Secretary’s Certificate that
it to be executed by the corresponding petitioner or vests authority only after the petition had been filed.
petitioners. As no distinction is made as to which party
must execute the certificate, this requirement is made to Filing and service defined
apply to both natural and juridical entities. When the
petitioner is a corporation, the certification should be 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13
executed by a natural person. Furthermore, not just any
person can be called upon to execute the certification, Section 2. Filing and service defined. -
although such a person may have personal knowledge of
the facts to be attested to. Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other
paper to the clerk of court.
This Court has explained that a corporation has
no power except those conferred on it by the Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
Corporation Code and those that are implied or pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared
incidental to its existence. The exercise of these powers by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his
is done through the board of directors and/or duly counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party
authorized officers and agents. Given these corporate himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel
features, the power of a corporation to sue in any court appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to
is generally lodged with the board of directors. The one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite
board, in turn, can delegate the physical acts needed to side.
sue, which may be performed only by natural persons,
to its attorneys-in-fact by a board resolution, if not o If a party has not appeared by counsel, then
already authorized under the corporate by-laws. service must be made upon him.
o If a party has appeared by counsel, then service
Thus, only individuals vested with authority by upon said party shall be made upon his counsel or
a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non- one of them, unless service upon the party himself
forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. In addition, is ordered by the court.
the Court has required that proof of said authority must o The rule is that when a party is represented by
be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of non-forum counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds,
shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. including motions, pleadings, and orders must be
Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a served on said counsel and notice to him is notice
certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of to the client. (People v. Gabriel, 501 SCRA 197).
the signatory’s authority. o It has been held that notice or service made
upon a party who is represented by counsel is a
The petition filed with the Court of Appeals had nullity. As a rule, notice to the client and not to his
a certification of non-forum shopping executed by Cesar counsel of record is not notice in law unless for
R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen. The certification, instance when the court or tribunal orders service
however, was without proof of authority to sign. When a upon the party or when the technical defect in the
motion for reconsideration was filed, a Secretary’s manner of notice is waived. (Heirs of Benjamin
Certificate was submitted as proof that the board of Mendoza v. CA, 565 SCRA 506).
directors of PAL had authorized the two to execute the o Where one counsel appears for several parties,
certificate. Nonetheless, the Court finds that this belated service shall be made upon said counsel but he
submission is an insufficient compliance with the shall be entitled only to one copy of any paper
certification requirement. served upon him by the opposite side.

This Court has allowed the reinstatement of

petitions that were dismissed due to lack of proof of Modes of Service
authority to sign the certification upon its subsequent a. In general, filing
submission, saying that this amounted to
substantial compliance. The rationale was that
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13
the signatories, at the time of execution of the
certification, were in fact authorized to sign, although
Section 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of
proof of their authority was lacking.
pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders,
judgments and all other papers shall be made by
This is not what happened in this case. A
presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated
perusal of the Secretary’s Certificate submitted reveals
as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending
that the authority to cause the filing of the petition was

Page 58
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of (b) or by leaving the papers in his office with
court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of his clerk or a person having charge thereof.
filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of If no person is found in the office, or his office is not
motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or known or he has no office, then by leaving a copy of
deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the the papers at the party’s or counsel’s residence, if
envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion
the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The residing therein between eight in the morning and six
envelope shall be attached to the record of the case in the evening.

 There are two modes of filing, to wit: ii.Mail

o by presenting the original copy of the pleading 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13
notice, appearance, motion, order or judgment
personally with the clerk of court or Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered
o by registered mail. mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post
office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the
 In the first mode, the clerk of court shall indicate or party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at
endorse on the pleading or paper filed, the date and his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and
hour of filing. with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no
 In the second mode, the date of mailing as shown registry service is available in the locality of either the
by the post office stamp on the envelope or registry senders or the addressee, service may be done by
receipt shall be considered as the date of filing, ordinary mail. (5a; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February
payment or deposit in court. 1998)

b. In general, service  The preferred service by mail is registered mail.

Service by ordinary mail may be done only if no
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13 registry service is available in the locality of either
the sender or the addressee.
Section 5. Modes of service. — Service of  Service by registered mail is complete upon actual
pleadings motions, notices, orders, judgments and receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from
other papers shall be made either personally or by the date he received the first notice of the
mail. postmaster, whichever is earlier.

Section 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or c. Substituted service

resolutions. — Judgments, final orders or resolutions
shall be served either personally or by registered 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13
mail. When a party summoned by publication has
failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders Section 8. Substituted service. — If service of
or resolutions against him shall be served upon him pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and
also by publication at the expense of the prevailing other papers cannot be made under the two preceding
party. sections, the office and place of residence of the party or
his counsel being unknown, service may be made by
 Under the Rules, there are two modes of delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of
service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, failure of both personal service and service by mail. The
judgments, and other papers: service is complete at the time of such delivery.
(a) personally or by
(b) mail.  This mode is availed of only when there is failure to
effect service personally or by mail. This failure
 However, if personal service and service by occurs when the office and residence of the party or
mail cannot be made, service shall be done by counsel are unknown.
substituted service.
 Subsituted service is effected by delivering the copy
i. Personal to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13 personal service and service by mail.

Section 6. Personal service. — Service of the d. Priority

papers may be made by delivering personally a copy
to the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13
office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof. If no person is found in his office, or his office Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing.
is not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the — Whenever practicable, the service and filing of
copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and pleadings and other papers shall be done personally.
six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's Except with respect to papers emanating from the court,
residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a
and discretion then residing therein. written explanation why the service or filing was not
done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to
 Personal service is made by: consider the paper as not filed.
(a) delivering a copy of the papers personally
to the party or his counsel, or

Page 59
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

 The service and filing of pleadings and other papers Section 13. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal
shall be done personally, whenever practicable. This service shall consist of a written admission of the party
is the preferred mode of service (Uy v. Medina). If served, or the official return of the server, or the
another mode of service is used other than personal affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement
service, the service must be accompanied by a of the date, place and manner of service. If the service
written explanation why the service or filing was is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an
not done personally. Exempt from this explanation affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing
are the service of papers emanating from the court. compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made
A violation of this requirement may be cause for the by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit
paper to be considered as not having been filed. and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The
registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its
Upon party in default receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed
letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 9 notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

Section 13. Default; declaration of. — If the  The filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved by
defending party fails to answer within the time allowed its existence in the record of the case. If it is not in
therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming the record, but is claimed to have been filed
party with notice to the defending party, and proof personally, the filing shall proved by the written or
of such failure, declare the defending party in default. stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment of court on a copy of the same.
granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may
warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the  If the pleading or paper is filed by registered mail,
claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence the proof of filing is by the registry receipt and by
may be delegated to the clerk of court. the affidavit of the person who did the mailing,
containing a full statement of the date and place of
Completion of service depositing the mail in the post office in a sealed
envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13 prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if
Section 10. Completeness of service. — Personal not delivered.
service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10)  Proof of personal service shall consist of the written
days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. admission of the party served. It may also be
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual proven by the official return of the server, or the
receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the affidavit of the party serving, containing full
date he received the first notice of the postmaster, information of the date, place and manner of
whichever date is earlier. service.

 If service is by registered mail, the proof shall

 Upon actual delivery, personal service is
consist of the affidavit of the person mailing and the
deemed complete.
registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The
registry return card is to be filed immediately upon
 Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the
its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the
expiration of ten (10) days after mailing,
unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
unless the court otherwise provides.
copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the
addressee.
 Substituted service is complete at the time of
delivery of the copy to the clerk of court.
 If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall
consists of the affidavit of the person mailing of the
Proof of filing and service
facts showing compliance with Section 7, Rule 13.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13 Lis Pendens

Section 12. Proof of filing. — The filing of a

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13
pleading or paper shall be proved by its existence in the
record of the case. If it is not in the record, but is
Section 14. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action
claimed to have been filed personally, the filing shall be
affecting the title or the right of possession of real
proved by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its
property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
filing by the clerk of court on a copy of the same; if filed
affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in
by registered mail, by the registry receipt and by the
the office of the registry of deeds of the province in
affidavit of the person who did the mailing, containing a
which the property is situated notice of the pendency of
full statement of the date and place of depositing the
the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the
mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to
parties and the object of the action or defense, and a
the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with
description of the property in that province affected
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for
sender after ten (10) days if not delivered.
record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the
property affected thereby, be deemed to have
constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13

Page 60
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

only of its pendency against the parties designated by During Barfel’s presentation, Reginas filed a
their real names. motion for leave to file an amended complaint and
motion to admit the same. The amendment sought to
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned implead PISO bank as additional party defendant and
may be cancelled only upon order of the court, after compel it to accept payment of the existing second
proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of mortgage from Reginas, since no complete relief can be
molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary had unless the second mortgage is released.
to protect the rights of the rights of the party who
caused it to be recorded. Barfel opposed. The RTC admitted the
amended complaint. The CA sustained the lower court’s
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS order saying that the amendment was made without
intent to delay the action. The essence of liberal
AMENDMENTS construction was accorded by the courts.

In General Held: The amended complaint should not be allowed.

The amendment was made with intent to delay the
Pleadings may be amended: action and substantially alters the cause of action of
(1) by adding or striking out an allegation or the Reginas and the defense of Barfel. After the case is set
name of any party, or for hearing, substantial amendments may be made only
(2) by correcting a mistake in the name of a party upon leave of court. Such leave may be refused if it
or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or appears that the motion was made with intent to delay
description in any other respect the action or that the cause of action or defense is
substantially altered. (Sec. 3, Rule 10)
Purpose: So that the actual merits of the controversy
may speedily be determined, without regard to The amendment sought by private
technicalities, and in the most expeditious and respondents, which is to include a new party defendant
inexpensive manner. at a late stage in the proceeding, is not a formal but a
substantial one. Private respondents will have to present
Liberality additional evidence on the PISO second mortgage. The
effect would be to start trial anew with the parties
Barfel dev’t. Corp v. CA (1993) recasting their theories of the case. The correct amount
Facts: Barfel sold to Reginas two parcels of land with of the second mortgage owed by petitioners to PISO
two houses erected thereon in Ayala Alabang, stipulating bank (apparently a controverted point), would have to
that the Barfel will apply the payment of the cash be litigated and this could be time consuming.
portion of the purchase price to the removal of any and
all liens on the properties. The contract stated that apart As a general policy, liberality in allowing
from a BPI mortgage and the Deed of Restrictions amendments is greatest in the early stages of a
annotated at the back of the title, the subject property law suit, decreases as it progresses and changes
was free from all liens. Reginas made the downpayment at times to a strictness amounting to a prohibition.
upon signing the agreement. This is further restricted by the condition that the
amendment should not prejudice the adverse
It was later discovered that there was party or place him at a disadvantage.
apparently a second mortgage with the PISO/Central
Bank. Upon this information, Victor Barrios assured the Form
buyer that the second mortgage has been reduced and
that he will submit the necessary documents to support When any pleading is amended, the following shall be
a legal and valid acceptable arrangement for the release filed:
of such mortgage. Thereafter, the PSB granted Reginas (1) a new copy of the entire pleading,
loan, which again subjected aforesaid properties to a (2) incorporating the amendments, which shall be
mortgage. PSB now promises to pay directly to BPI indicated by appropriate marks,. (Sec. 7, Rule
from the proceeds of the loan and pay the sellers the 13)
purchase price. The latter conformed to the
arrangement. Effect

Given the prior assurance of a workable An amended pleading supersedes the pleading it
arrangement regarding the Central Bank mortgage, the amends.
buyers now manifested its willingness to pay P2M ahead  However, admissions in superseded pleadings
of the proceeds for the PSB loan. Notwithstanding such may be received in evidence against the
negotiations however, the sellers here are in gross and pleader; and
evident bad faith and malicious breach of contract for  Claims or defenses alleged therein not
they have failed to comply with the obligation to release incorporated in the amended pleading shall be
the second mortgage. BPI further averred that the deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 10)
sellers actually disauthorized them to consummate the
transaction despite previous arrangements. Kinds of amendment
Amendments may either be formal or substantial.
Reginas and Zaragoza filed a complaint for Formal amendment is one, which seeks to correct a
specific performance and damages against Barfel and mere defect in the designation of the parties and other
the Spouses Barrios. Pre-trial was conducted and both clearly clerical or typographical error. (Rule 10, Sec. 4)
parties presented evidence. Amendments, which go beyond such corrections, are
substantial.

Page 61
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Formal amendments may be corrected by the court at SEC. 1. Amendments in general.

any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion, Pleadings may be amended by adding or
provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse striking out an allegation or the name of any
party. (Rule 10, Sec. 4) Except where the amendment is party, or by correcting a controversy may
a matter of right, substantial amendment may be made speedily be determined without regard to
only upon leave of court. Such leave may be refused if it technicalities, and in the most expeditious
appears to the court that the motion was made with and inexpensive manner.
intent to delay.
SEC. 4. Formal amendments. A
Godinez vs. Court of Appeals (2007) defect in the designation of the
Facts: On August 30, 2000, Delfina Village Subdivision parties and other clearly clerical or
Homeowners Association (DVSHA) (“respondent”), filed typographical errors may be summarily
with the Regional Trial Court, Tagum City, Davao del corrected by the court at any stage of the
Norte, an amended complaint for injunction and action, at its initiative or on
damages against spouses Zosimo and Elizabeth Godinez motion, provided no prejudice is caused
and their son Edwin (“petitioners”), The complaint thereby to the adverse party.
alleges that petitioners were operating a mineral
processing plant in the annex of their residential house Here, the amendment of respondent’s
located within Delfina Village. Municipal Ordinance No. complaint at the instance of the trial court merely
63 s. 1993, has classified the village, as a medium- involves the designation of respondent as a proper
density residential district. party, i.e., whether it has a juridical personality and,
therefore, can sue or be sued. We note that when
On September 13, 2000, petitioners filed their respondent amended its complaint by attaching the
answer raising the following affirmative defenses: a) the required supporting documents, such amendment did
complaint states no cause of action; b) respondent has not change its cause of action. Nor was its action
no capacity to sue; c) it is not a real party in interest; d) intended to prejudice petitioners. Verily, the Court
the complaint fails to implead the real parties in of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely
interest; and e) respondent failed to refer the case for abuse its discretion when it ordered the amendment of
conciliation to the barangay before filing its complaint. the complaint.

On April 3, 2001, the trial court issued an Amendments as a matter of right

Order directing respondent to amend its complaint and
attach thereto proofs showing that it is a juridical person 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 10
with capacity to sue and that it is the real party in
interest. Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right - A
party has the right to amend his pleading once before a
On April 16, 2001, respondent submitted its responsive pleading thereto is served by the other
amended complaint impleading, as additional plaintiffs, party; in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10)
its officers and members, and attaching thereto its days after is served.
Certificate of Registration with the Home Insurance and
Guaranty Corporation, as well as its Articles of The right to amend a pleading as a matter of right
Incorporation and By-Laws. may be exercised only once, Hence, even if no
responsive pleading has yet been served, if the
Held: In resolving this issue, we are guided by two amendment is subsequent to a previous amendment
principles. First, there is nothing sacred about processes made as a matter of right, the subsequent amendment
or pleadings and their forms or contents, their sole must be with leave of court.
purpose being to facilitate the application of justice to
the rival claims of contending parties. Hence, pleadings A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.
as well as procedural rules should be construed liberally. Even if the motion to dismiss is granted by the court,
Second, the judicial attitude has always been favorable the plaintiff may still amend his complaint as a matter of
and liberal in allowing amendments to a pleading in right before the dismissal becomes final as long as o
order to avoid multiplicity of suits and so that the real answer has yet been served (Bautista vs. Maya-Maya
controversies between the parties are presented, their Cottages, G.R No. 148361, November 29, 2005).
rights determined, and the case decided on the merits
without unnecessary delay. The court would be in error if it refuses to admit an
amended pleading when its exercise is a matter of right.
Here, we find no reason to deviate from the The error is correctible by mandamus (Breslin vs. Luzon
foregoing dicta. It is on record that in its first amended Stevedoring, G.R. No. L-3346, September 29, 1949)
complaint, respondent DVSHA alleged that it is a because the trial court’s duty to admit an amendment
registered association. However, it failed to attach to its complaint made as a matter of right is purely
complaint the supporting certificate of registration, as ministerial.
well as its articles of incorporation and by-laws. In their
answer, petitioners promptly assailed respondent’s lack Alpine Lending Investors vs. Corpuz (2006)
of personality to sue. The trial court, desiring to
determine if indeed respondent has the capacity to sue, Facts: This case stemmed from a complaint
directed respondent to amend its complaint anew by for replevin filed by Estrella Corpuz (“respondent”),
attaching thereto the necessary documents. against Alpine Lending Investors (“Alpine”), one of the
petitioners herein, and Zenaida Lipata (“Zenaida”). The
Sections 1 and 4, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of complaint alleges that Zenaida was respondents former
Civil Procedure, as amended, provide: neighbor. Pretending to help respondent in securing a

Page 62
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Garage Franchise from the Land Transportation Office

(LTO), Zenaida took from her the original registration SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of
papers of her vehicle, a Toyota Tamaraw FX with Plate right. A party may amend his pleading
No. UMR 660. Zenaida, using respondent’s registration once as a matter of right at any time
papers in representing herself as the owner of the before a responsive pleading is
vehicle, was able to retrieve it served or, in the case of a reply, at any
from Richmond Auto Center where it was being time within ten (10) days after it is served.
repaired. Thereafter, Zenaida disappeared with the
vehicle. Respondent then reported the incident to the As earlier mentioned, what petitioner Alpine
LTO Muntinlupa City Branch. There, she was informed filed in Civil Case No. C-20124 was a motion to dismiss,
that Zenaida mortgaged her vehicle with petitioner not an answer. Settled is the rule that a motion to
Alpine. The LTO showed respondent the Chattel dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of
Mortgage Contract bearing her forged signature. Section 2, Rule 10. As no responsive pleading had been
filed, respondent could amend her complaint in Civil
Forthwith, respondent informed Alpine about Case No. C-20124 as a matter of right. Following this
the spurious mortgage and demanded the release of her Courts ruling in Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Co.,
vehicle. Alpine promised to comply with her request on considering that respondent has the right to amend her
condition that Zenaida should first be charged criminally. complaint, it is the correlative duty of the trial court to
accept the amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus
Respondent then caused the filing with the would lie against it. In other words, the trial courts duty
Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City complaints for to admit the amended complaint was purely
falsification of private document and estafa against ministerial. In fact, respondent should not have filed a
Zenaida. Eventually, a warrant of arrest was issued motion to admit her amended complaint.
against her. Respondent informed Alpine about these
developments, but the latter still refused to turn over It has always been the policy of this Court to
the vehicle to her. be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings in order
that the real controversies between or among the
Instead of filing an answer to respondent’s parties may be presented and cases be decided on the
complaint, Alpine submitted to the RTC a motion to merits without delay.
dismiss on the ground that it is not a juridical person,
hence, not a proper party in the case. Amendments by leave of court
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 10
In an Order dated September 2, 2002, the RTC
denied Alpines motion to dismiss. Alpine then filed a Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. - When
motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The RTC a substantial amendment is sought to be made after a
then directed respondent to file her amended complaint responsive pleading has already been served, it is
within ten (10) days. necessary for the party seeking such amendment to
obtain leave of court. A motion must be filed in court
However, respondent filed her Amended with notice to the adverse party who shall be afforded
Complaint with an accompanying Motion to Admit the opportunity to be heard.
Amended Complaint two (2) days late. Nonetheless, in
an Order dated December 13, 2002, the RTC admitted
the amended complaint. Amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence
On January 3, 2003, Alpine filed a Motion
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 10
to Expunge respondents motion to admit amended
complaint on the ground that the latter motion was not
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or
accompanied by a notice of hearing.
authorize presentation of evidence. - When issues
not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or
In her Comment on Alpines motion to
implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated as if
expunge, respondent averred that her contested motion
they had been raised in the pleadings. The pleading may
need not be accompanied by a notice of hearing as it is
be amended to conform to evidence, upon motion of any
a non-litigated motion.
party at any time, even after judgment and failure to
amend shall not affect the result of the trial on these
On January 24, 2003, the RTC denied Alpines
issues.
motion to expunge for lack of merit. Alpine moved for a
reconsideration, but this was denied in an Order
dated January 28, 2003. Philippine Ports Authority vs. William Gothong &
Aboitiz (Wg&A), Inc., (2008)
Held: Sections 1 and 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Facts: Petitioner William Gothong & Aboitiz, Inc.
Civil Procedure, as amended, provide: (“WG&A”), is a duly organized domestic corporation
engaged in the shipping industry. Respondent Philippine
SEC. 1. Amendments in general. Pleadings Ports Authority (“PPA”), upon the other hand, is a
may be amended by adding or striking an government-owned and controlled company created and
allegation or the name of any party, or by existing by virtue of the provisions of P.D. No. 87 and
correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mandated under its charter to operate and administer
mistaken or inadequate allegation or description the country's sea port and port facilities.
in any other respect, so that the actual merits of
the controversy may speedily be determined, After the expiration of the lease contract of
without regard to technicalities, and in the most Veterans Shipping Corporation over the Marine Slip Way
expeditious and inexpensive manner. in the North Harbor on December 31, 2000, petitioner

Page 63
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

WG&A requested respondent PPA for it to be allowed to Reformation of Contract. Also, it included as its fourth
lease and operate the said facility. Thereafter, then cause of action and additional relief in its prayer, the
President Estrada issued a memorandum dated reformation of the contract as it failed to express or
December 18, 2000 addressed to the Secretary of the embody the true intent of the contracting parties.
Department of Transportation and Communication
(DOTC) and the General Manager of PPA, stating to the The admission of the second amended
effect that in its meeting held on December 13, 2000, complaint met strong opposition from the respondent
the Economic Coordinating Council (ECC) has approved PPA. It postulated that the reformation sought for by the
the request of petitioner WG&A to lease the Marine Slip petitioner constituted substantial amendment, which if
Way from January 1 to June 30, 2001 or until such time granted, will substantially alter the latter's cause of
that respondent PPA turns over its operations to the action and theory of the case.
winning bidder for the North Harbor Modernization
Project. On March 22, 2002, the respondent judge
issued an Order denying the Admission of the Second
The said contract was eventually conformed to Amended Complaint. Petitioner filed a motion for
and signed by the petitioner company, through its reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the same was
President/Chief Executive Officer Endika Aboitiz, Jr. again denied in an order dated April 26, 2002.
Thereafter, in accordance with the stipulations made in
the lease agreement, PPA surrendered possession of the Held: The CA did not err in finding that the RTC
Marine Slip Way in favor of the petitioner. committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order
dated March 22, 2002 denying the admission of
However, believing that the said lease already respondent's second amended complaint.
expired on June 30, 2001, respondent PPA subsequently
sent a letter to petitioner WG&A dated November 12, The RTC applied the old Section 3, Rule 10 of
2001 directing the latter to vacate the contested the Rules of Court:
premises not later than November 30, 2001 and to
turnover the improvements made therein pursuant to Section 3. Amendments by leave of
the terms and conditions agreed upon in the contract. court. – after the case is set for hearing,
substantial amendments may be made only
In response, petitioner WG&A wrote PPA on upon leave of court. But such leave may be
November 27, 2001 urging the latter to reconsider its refused if it appears to the court that the
decision to eject the former. Said request was denied by motion was made with intent to delay the
the PPA via a letter dated November 29, 2001. action or that the cause of action or defense is
substantially altered. Orders of the court upon
On November 28, 2001, petitioner WG&A the matters provided in this section shall be
commenced an Injunction suit before the Regional Trial made upon motion filed in court, and after
Court of Manila. Petitioner claims that the PPA unjustly, notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity
illegally and prematurely terminated the lease contract. to be heard.
It likewise prayed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order to arrest the evacuation. In its Instead of the provisions of the 1997 Rules of
complaint, petitioner also sought recovery of damages Civil Procedure, amending Section 3, Rule 10, to wit:
for breach of contract and attorney's fees.
SECTION 3. Amendments by leave of
On December 11, 2001, petitioner WG&A court. Except as provided in the next preceding
amended its complaint for the first time. The complaint section, substantial amendments may be
was still denominated as one for Injunction with prayer made only upon leave of court. But such
for TRO. In the said amended pleading, the petitioner leave may be refused if it appears to the
incorporated statements to the effect that PPA is already court that the motion was made with
estopped from denying that the correct period of lease is intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the
"until such time that the North Harbor Modernization matters provided in this section shall be made
Project has been bidded out to and operations turned upon motion filed in court, and after notice to
over to the winning bidder. It likewise included, as its the adverse party, and an opportunity to be
third cause of action, the additional relief in its prayer, heard.
that should the petitioner be forced to vacate the said
facility, it should be deemed as entitled to be refunded The Court has emphasized the import of
of the value of the improvements it introduced in the Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
leased property. in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, thus:

Following the first amendment in the Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the

petitioner's complaint, respondent PPA submitted its 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the
answer on January 23, 2002. Meanwhile, the TRO former rule in such manner that the phrase "or
sought by the former was denied by the trial court by that the cause of action or defense is
way of an order dated January 16, 2002. substantially altered" was stricken-off and not
retained in the new rules. The clear import of
Petitioner later moved for the reconsideration such amendment in Section 3, Rule 10 is
of the said Order on February 11, 2002. Shortly that under the new rules, "the
thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Attached amendment may (now) substantially alter
Second Amended Complaint. This time, however, the the cause of action or defense." This should
complaint was already captioned as one for Injunction only be true, however, when despite a
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ substantial change or alteration in the cause of
of Preliminary Injunction and damages and/or for action or defense, the amendments sought to

Page 64
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

be made shall serve the higher interests of amend the Answer to conform to the evidence, and this,
substantial justice, and prevent delay and respondents failed to do.
equally promote the laudable objective of the Held: Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court provides
rules which is to secure a "just, speedy and that issues not raised by the pleadings may be tried by
inexpensive disposition of every action and express or implied consent of the parties, as if they had
proceeding." been raised in the pleadings and the court can validly
resolve them. There is express consent to the evidence
The application of the old Rules by the RTC on an issue not raised in the pleading when the adverse
almost five years after its amendment by the 1997 Rules party agrees to its presentation by the other party.
of Civil Procedure patently constitutes grave abuse of There is implied consent when the adverse party fails to
discretion. object thereto.

Panganiban vs. Sps. Roldan (2009) The general rule is that a judgment must
Facts: On April 7, 1998, petitioner Agrifina Panganiban conform to the pleading and the theory of the action
filed a complaint against herein respondents, spouses under which the case is tried. But court may also rule
Romeo Roldan and Elizabeth Roldan, for recovery of and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before
possession and damages in the Municipal Trial Court it, even though the relevant pleading has not been
previously amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice
(MTC), Third Judicial Region, Subic, to the adverse party is thereby caused and there is
Zamabales. She alleged that she was the registered express or implied consent to the presentation of
owner of a parcel of land with an area of 271 square evidence. In fact, there is no need to formally amend
meters, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. the pleadings to raise the issues because such issues are
P-12388, located in Ilwas, Subic, Zambales; that considered as if they have been in the pleadings.
sometime in 1984, respondents entered the land and
built a small hut on a portion thereof without her In the case at bench, since there was no
knowledge and consent; that respondents asked dispute that no objection was interposed by appellee to
permission if they could temporarily reside thereat, since the presentation of the evidence, the same should have
they came from Bicol and had no place to stay in been admitted by the court a quo, consonant with
Zambales; that she took pity on them and agreed on the Section 5, Rule 10 and the rule on liberal construction
condition that they would vacate upon demand; that in under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court.
1997, petitioner asked respondents to vacate the land,
as she would be putting up a fence thereon; that We have stressed that the rule on amendment
respondents, who were occupying an area measuring need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no
about 103 sq m, refused to vacate; that because of their surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party.
obstinate refusal to vacate, she suffered mental anxiety; Where there is a variance in defendant’s pleadings and
and that for being deprived of the use and enjoyment of the evidence adduced at the trial, the Court may treat
the land, respondents should be required to pay a rental the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to
of P500.00 per month from December 1997 until they the evidence. In Royal Cargo Corporation v. DFS Sports
vacate. Unlimited, Inc., the Court stated that:

In their defense, respondents denied that they The failure of a party to amend a pleading to
entered into an agreement with petitioner allowing them conform to the evidence adduced during trial does not
to stay on the land. They claimed that they had been preclude adjudication by the court on the basis of such
occupying the lot as caretakers of the heirs of evidence which may embody new issues not raised in
Concepcion dela Paz-Lesaca since 1973, as evidenced by the pleadings. x x x Although, the pleading may not
a Kasunduan. They alleged that the lot was part of the have been amended to conform to the evidence
land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be
14884 issued in 1972, registered in the name of rendered, not simply on the basis of the issues alleged
Concepcion dela Paz-Lesaca; and that in December but also on the issues discussed and the assertions of
1997, two (2) men who were barangay officials went to fact proved in the course of the trial. The court may
the premises in order to survey the lot for purposes of treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform
putting up a fence. Respondents thus objected to the to the evidence, although it had not been actually
intrusion knowing that petitioner had no right or amended. x x x Clearly, a court may rule and render
personality to eject them from the land. Respondents judgment on the basis of the evidence before it even
averred that petitioner was merely a neighbor and that though the relevant pleading had not been previously
they were surprised to find out that she was able to amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby
secure a new title over their portion of the land. caused to the adverse party. Put a little differently, so
long as the basic requirements of fair play had been
On March 23, 2001, the MTC rendered met, as where the litigants were given full opportunity to
judgment2 in favor of petitioner. The MTC did not admit support their respective contentions and to object to or
respondents’ evidence presented during the trial refute each other’s evidence, the court may validly treat
consisting of: (1) the TCT of the subject property the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform
registered under the name of Concepcion dela Paz- to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis
Lesaca; and (2) the Kasunduan purportedly executed by of all the evidence before it.
Concepcion dela Paz-Lesaca allowing Spouses Roldan to
stay on the land on the ground that these matters were Thus, the CA cannot be faulted for admitting
not raised in their Answer or in their Pre-trial Brief. The the evidence because it found them necessary to prove
MTC discerned a "variance of the allegation and proof," respondents’ right of possession. A scrutiny of the
and thus considered the evidence as no proof at all. The records further reveals that there is no prohibition on
MTC stated that in such situation, the remedy was to the admission of the Kasunduan and the TCT. The
evidence when presented and offered were not actually

Page 65
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

excluded by the lower court. In the pre-trial brief, i. Distinguished from amended pleadings
respondents (defendants therein) reserved the right to
present additional documentary exhibits in the course of Shoemart, Inc. v. CA (1990)
the trial, considering that the evidence was not yet
available at the time. For the proper disposition and Facts: Anson Emporium Corp. (Anson) leased from
resolution of the issue as to who has the right of Shoemart portion of a building for two years. The lease
possession of the subject land, the admission and stipulated that if after termination of the lease,
consideration of the documents were in order. Shoemart permits Anson to remain, the lease shall be
understood to be on a month to month basis in the
absence of a contrary written agreement.
REMEDIES
Anson remained in possession after the two-
Periods to answer year period but on an increased rental. Four years later,
Shoemart terminated the lease and gave notice to
a. Amendments Anson to vacate, which the latter refused. A complaint
for ejectment was filed against him with the MTC.
Amendment as a matter of right— Shoemart asked for, and was granted, leave to file
The defendant shall answer the same within supplemental complaint which alleged that the rental of
fifteen (15) days after being served with a all tenants of the premises had been increased to
copy thereof. P45,142.00, which Anson refused to pay. Anson alleged
that Shoemart’s claim for increased rentals has been
Amendment not a matter of right— barred. MTC ruled for Anson.
The defendant shall answer within ten (10)
days from notice of the Order admitting the The RTC reversed the judgment and ordered
same. Anson to vacate the premises and to pay P34,622 and
 An answer earlier filed may serve as P45,142 respectively for the two lease agreements, with
the answer to the amended 1% interest from October 1977. Shoemart filed a motion
complaint, if no new answer is filed. for reconsideration of the award of damages, saying it is
less than what is really due. RTC granted this motion.
Applicability
This Rule shall apply to the answer to CA affirmed the ejectment of respondent but
(1) an amended counterclaim, reduced the damages awarded by stating that the 1%
(2) amended cross-claim, interest will start to run from October 1987. Private
(3) amended third (fourth, etc.)— party respondent sought the correction of the clerical error
complaint, and regarding date of the effectivity of the payment for
(4) amended complaint-in-intervention. damages. Said motion was granted
(Sec. 3, Rule 11)
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration seeking
the reinstatement of the RTC’s decision was denied. CA
b. Supplemental complaint ruled that petitioner’s claim for damages is limited to the
P45,142 alleged in the supplemental complaint.
This may be answered within ten (10) days from
notice of the order admitting the same, unless a Held: The subsequently amended complaint in the case
different period is fixed by the court. at bar does not render the original complaint abandoned
 If no new or supplemental answer is or inexistent. Petitioner's recovery is not limited by the
filed— amount of P45,142.00 prayed for in the supplemental
The answer to the complaint shall serve as complaint as increased rental. This is not a case of a
the answer to the supplemental complaint subsequently amended, the effect of which is
complaint. (Sec. 7, Rule 11) to render the original complaint abandoned or inexistent
and let the amendment take form as the sole substitute
upon which the case stands for trial.
c. Supplemental pleadings
A supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, A supplemental complaint or pleading supplies
occurrences or events which have happened since the deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, not to entirely
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented may be substitute the latter. A perusal of the original complaint
permitted shows that it prayed, among others, that the private
(1) upon motion of a party respondent be ordered to pay petitioner P34,622.00 and
(2) reasonable notice and all other rentals and charges that may be due until
(3) upon such terms as are just respondent vacates the premises. Petitioner, therefore,
did not foreclose its right to demand increased rentals
Period to answer that may be recovered expressed in terms of the fair
The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use
days from notice of the order admitting the and occupation of the real property. Unlike in an
supplemental pleading. (Sec. 6, Rule 11) amended complaint, the original complaint exists side by
side with the supplemental complaint.

The supplemental pleading merely served to

aver supervening facts which were then not ripe for
judicial relief when the original pleading was filed.
Supplemental pleadings are meant to supply deficiencies

Page 66
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with plaintiff alleged four actionable wrongs against
the latter. petitioner: (1) his participation in the reduction of the
electric franchise tax and the tariff duty of fuel oil
The failure of petitioner to amend its complaint imports by all public utilities (2) his participation in the
or file additional supplemental pleadings to allege the approval of the '3-Year Program for the Extension of
subsequent rental increases is of no moment. MERALCO's Services to Areas’ (3) his participation in the
formation of Erectors Holdings, Inc. and (4) his acting as
In view of the failure of private respondent to a dummy of corporations controlled by Romualdez and
object to the presentation of evidence showing that Marcos.
there were four (4) rental increases on the subject
premises although three (3) of said increases are not Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on
alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be rendered various grounds including the failure of the expanded
validly as regards the said increases or issues which Second Amended Complaint to state a cause of action.
shall be considered as if they have been raised in the The motion was denied by Sandiganbayan. SC affirmed
pleadings. As found by the RTC, private respondent did the Sandiganbayan, and advised petitioner that if he
not controvert the evidence submitted by petitioner in perceive some ambiguity or vagueness therein, the
determining the fair rental value of the premises remedy is not a motion to dismiss, but rather for a bill of
including those imposed on all other tenants of particulars.
petitioner occupying the Makati Arcade. If, indeed, the
rental increases were unconscionable, respondent should Petitioner filed a motion for bill of particulars,
have at least presented evidence to substantiate its claiming that the general and sweeping allegations of
claim. The burden of proof to show that the rental the Second Amended Complaint and the purported
demanded is unconscionable or exorbitant rests upon illegal acts imputed to them as well as the alleged
private respondent as the lessee. causes of actions are vague and ambiguous. They are
not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity
Private respondent failed to discharge its as would enable defendant Virata to properly prepare his
burden when it omitted to present any evidence at all on answer or responsive pleading. Sandiganbayan partially
what it considers is the fair rental value other than what granted the motion; of the four actionable wrongs, it
were submitted by petitioner. As a matter of fact, all the granted the motion with respect only to the fourth, since
other tenants did not question the reasonableness of the the other three actionable wrongs are not squarely
rental increases. under the Tantuico case.

BILL OF PARTICULARS/INTERVENTION Not satisfied with the partial grant of the

motion, petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule
BILL OF PARTICULARS 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Definition Held: The Motion for Bill of Particulars be granted

A bill of particulars is a detailed explanation respecting totally. It was grave error for the Sandiganbayan to
any matter which is not averred with sufficient state that "[a]lleging the specific nature, character, time
definiteness/particularity in the complaint as to enable a and extent of the phrase 'active collaboration' would be
party to properly prepare his responsive pleading or to a mere surplus age and would not serve any useful
prepare for trial (Rule 12, Sec. 1). purpose" for precisely, without any amplification or
particularization thereof, the petitioner would be hard
Office and Purpose: put in meeting the charges squarely and in pleading
appropriate defenses. Nor can We accept the public
 The proper preparation of an intelligent answer respondent's postulation that "any question as to the
requires information as to the precise nature, validity or legality of the transactions involved in the
character, scope and extent of the cause of action charges against defendant-movant is irrelevant and
in order that the pleader may be able to squarely immaterial in the resolution of the instant incident,
meet the issues raised, thereby circumscribing inasmuch as the same is a matter of defense which shall
them within determined confines and preventing have its proper place during the trial on the merits, and
surprises during trial, and in order that he may set on the determination of the liability of defendant-movant
forth his defenses which may not be so readily after the trial proper." This is absurd, for how may the
availed of if the allegation controverted are vague, petitioner set up a defense at the time of trial if in his
indefinite, uncertain or are mere general own answer he was not able to plead such a defense
conclusions (Virata v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA precisely because of the vagueness or indefiniteness of
52, 1993). the allegations in the complaint? Unless he pleads the
defense in his answer, he may be deprived of the right
 The proper office of a bill of particulars is to inform to present the same during the trial because of his
the opposite party and the court of the precise waiver thereof.
nature and character of the cause of action (Tan v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84195, 11 December Since the issues have not as yet been joined
1989). and no evidence has so far been adduced by the parties
the Sandiganbayan was in no position to conclude that
Virata v. Sandiganbayan (1993) the matters which the. petitioner seeks are "within his
intimate or personal knowledge."
Facts: Cesar Virata was among the forty-four co-
defendants of Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez in a It is the office or function, as well as object or
complaint filed by the Sandiganbayan. The complaint purpose, of a bill of particulars to (1) amplify or limit a
was amended thrice, the last amendment thereto is pleading, (2) specify more minutely and particularly a
denominated as Second Amended Complaint. The claim or defense set up and pleaded in general terms,

Page 67
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

(3) give information, not contained in the pleading, to Subsequently, the PCGG filed an Expanded
the opposite party and the court as to the precise Complaint. In essence, these are the allegations of
nature, character, scope, and extent of the cause of PCGG:
action or defense relied on by the pleader, and (4)
apprise the opposite party of the case which he has to 1. The petitioner Lucio Tan was Mr. Marcos' business
meet, (a) to the end that the proof at the trial may be partner;
limited to the matters specified, and (b) in order that 2. Through undue influence, coercion, and abuse of
surprise at, and needless preparation for, the trial may light they acquired shareholdings from various
be avoided, and (c) that the opposite party may be firms, and built a business empire therefrom;
aided in framing his answering pleading and preparing 3. The remaining petitioners acted as their
for trial. It has also been stated that it is the function or "dummies, nominees, or agents";
purpose of a bill of particulars to (5) define, clarify, 4. Together with the Marcoses, they maneuvered
particularize, and limit or circumscribe the issues in the their way into these firms and acquired control
case, to (6) expedite the trial, and assist the court. A thereof;
general function or purpose of a bill of particulars is to 5. The same were accomplished through
(7) prevent injustice or do justice in the case when that unacceptable machinations such as insider trading
cannot be accomplished without the aid of such a bill. and similar acts, in violation of existing laws;
6. They also unjustly enriched the petitioners at the
Moreover, the phrase "to enable him properly expense of the Republic of the Philippines and the
to prepare his responsive pleading . . ." in Section 1 of Filipino people.
Rule 12 implies not just the opportunity to (8) properly
prepare a responsive pleading but also to (9) prepare an Notwithstanding this, the twenty-two
intelligent answer. The proper preparation of an petitioners moved for a bill of particulars. The
intelligent answer requires information as to the precise respondent Court denied the petitioners' motion, and
nature, character, scope and extent of the cause of denied reconsideration. The petitioners submit that the
action in order that the pleader may be able to squarely PCGG's averments are made up of bare generalizations,
meet the issues raised, thereby circumscribing them presumptuous conclusions of fact and law, and plain
within determined confines and, preventing surprises speculations, for which a motion for a more definite
during the trial, and in order that he may set forth his statement or for a bill of particulars allegedly lies.
defenses which may not be so readily availed of if the
allegations controverted are vague, indefinite, uncertain The Sandiganbayan's decided that Paragraphs
or are mere general conclusions. 14 to 15, inclusive of the Expanded Complaint, had
already supplied or provided the specifications and
 What is beyond its scope particulars theretofore lacking in the original Complaint.

o The complaint for which a bill for a more Held:

definite statement is sought need only inform the The Motion for Bill of Particulars should NOT be
defendant of the essential (or ultimate) facts to enable granted. The foregoing allegations of the PCGG are
him, the defendant, to prepare his answer… Any more actionable wrongs that are proper for a complaint. The
‘particulars’ in that event would be evidentiary in PCGG's Complaint/Expanded Complaint is garbled in
character, which must be adduced at the trial proper many respects, but this is no excuse for sloth on the
(Tan v. Sandiganbayan, supra.). part of the petitioners. The Complaint/Expanded
Complaint is complete enough to perish fears of the
o Notes: PCGG pulling a surprise subsequently.

 If the purpose is for preparation for trial, the It is not the office of a bill of particulars to
appropriate remedy is to avail discovery supply material allegations necessary to the validity of a
procedures or pre-trial. pleading, or to change a cause of action or defense
stated in the pleading, or to state a cause of action or
 It is erroneous to require disclosure of defense other than the one stated. Also it is not the
evidence relied upon by the adverse party in a office or function, or a proper object, of a bill of
motion for bill of particulars. particulars to set forth the pleader's theory of his cause
of action or a rule of evidence on which he intends to
 A motion for bill of particulars to require a rely, or to furnish evidential information whether such
pleader to set forth matters showing information consists of evidence which the pleader
jurisdiction of a court to render its judgment is proposes to introduce or of facts which constitute a
not proper. defense or offset for the other party or which will enable
the opposite party to establish an affirmative defense
Tan v. Sandiganbayan (1989) not yet pleaded. The PCGG's complaint (as amended)
does set out allegations, however confusingly put in
Facts: print, which, interrelated to one another, are enough to
The PCGG filed a complaint against the twenty-two support a formal civil charge. If the petitioners are not
petitioners, together with the late Ferdinand Marcos, aware of the PCGG's asseverations, the remedy is to
Mrs. Imelda Marcos, Don Ferry, and Federico Moreno, deny the same in their answer for lack of "knowledge or
praying, among others, for the return and reconveyance information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
of all funds and other property impressed with the said averments. They cannot, however, demand for
constructive trust in favor of PCGG and the Filipino any more particulars without actually making the PCGG
people, as well as funds and other property acquired by expose its evidence unnecessarily before the trial stage.
Defendants by abuse of right and power and through
unjust enrichment.

Page 68
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

When to file INTERVENTION

The Motion for Bill of Particulars should be filed
before responding to a pleading. If the pleading is a Definition
reply, the motion must be filed within ten (10) days
from service thereof.  Intervention is a legal proceeding by which a
person who is not a party to the action is
o If directed to a complaint, the motion shall be filed permitted by the court to become a party by
fifteen (15) days after service of summons. intervening in a pending action after meeting
o If directed to a counterclaim, the motion shall be the conditions and requirements set by the
filed ten (10) days from service of the Rules of Court (First Philippine Holdings
counterclaim. Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 30;
o If directed to a reply, the motion shall be filed ten Rule 19).
(10) days from the service of said reply.
 It is a remedy by which a third party, not
originally impleaded in the proceedings,
Requisites becomes a litigant therein to enable him to
protect or preserve a right or interest which
The Motion for Bill of Particulars shall point out may be affected by such proceeding (Office of
(a) defects complained of; the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. No.
(b) paragraphs wherein they are contained; and 175573, 11 September 2008).
(c) the details desired.
 It is never an independent proceeding, but is
ancillary and supplemental to an existing
Action of the Court (Sec. 2, Rule 12) litigation. Its purpose is to enable a stranger
to an action to become a party to protect his
Upon receipt of the motion, which the clerk must interest (Santiago Land Development
immediately bring to the court’s attention, the court Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 79;
may: See Saw vs. CA, 195 SCRA 740 and
(a) deny the motion outright; Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Presiding
(b) grant the motion outright; or Judge, 182 SCRA 820, 1990).
(c) hold a hearing on the motion.
Saw v. CA (1991)

Facts: Equitable Banking Corporation (“Equitable”) filed

Compliance a collection suit with preliminary attachment against
Freeman, Inc. (“Freeman”) and Saw Chiao Lian, its
o Compliance with the order granting the motion President and General Manager. The petitioners moved
— If the motion is granted, either in whole or in part, to intervene, alleging that (1) the loan transactions
the compliance therewith must be effected within ten between Chiao Lian and Equitable were not approved by
(10) days from notice of the order, unless a different the stockholders representing at least two thirds (2/3) of
period is fixed by the court. (Rule 12, Section 3). corporate capital; (2) Chiao Lian had no authority to
contract such loans; and (3) there was collusion
o Effect of non-compliance (Rule 12, Section 4) between the officials of Freeman and Equitable in
— If the order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient securing the loans. The motion to intervene was denied,
compliance therewith, the court may: and the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
(a) order the striking out of the pleading or the
portions thereof to which the order was Meanwhile, Equitable and Chiao Lian entered
directed; or into a compromise agreement which was approved by
(b) make such other order as it deems just the lower court. However, it was not complied with, so
Equitable secured a writ of execution, and two lots
owned by Freeman, Inc. were levied upon and sold at
Stay of period to file responsive pleading public auction.

After service of the bill of particulars or of a more The CA sustained the denial of the motion for
definite pleading, or after notice of denial of his motion, intervention, holding that the compromise agreement
the moving party may file his responsive pleading within will not necessarily prejudice petitioners whose rights to
the period to which he was entitled at the time of filing corporate assets are at most inchoate, prior to the
his motion, which shall not be less than five (5) days in dissolution of Freeman, and that intervention under Sec.
any event (Rule 12, Sec. 5). 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court is proper only
when one's right is actual, material, direct and
immediate and not simply contingent or expectant.
Bill a part of pleading
Held: The petitioners may NOT be allowed to intervene
A bill of particulars becomes part of the pleading for in the action. To allow intervention: (a) it must be
which it is intended (Rule 12, Sec. 6). shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter
in litigation, or otherwise qualified; and (b) consideration
must be given as to whether the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties may be delayed or
prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be
protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both

Page 69
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

requirements must concur as the first is not more After the intervenor has appeared in the
important than the second. action, the plaintiff has no absolute right to put the
intervenor out of court by the dismissal of the action.
The interest which entitles a person to The parties to the original suit have no power to waive
intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the or otherwise annul the substantial rights of the
matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate intervenor. When an intervening petition has been filed,
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by a plaintiff may not dismiss the action in any respect to
the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. the prejudice of the intervenor.
Here, the interest, if it exists at all, of petitioners-
movants is indirect, contingent, remote, conjectural, It has even been held that the simple fact that
consequential and collateral. While a share of stock the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action does
represents a proportionate or aliquot interest in the not require dismissal of the action of the intervenor. An
property of the corporation, it does not vest the owner intervenor has the right to claim the benefit of the
thereof with any legal right or title to any of the original suit and to prosecute it to judgment. The right
property, his interest in the corporate property being cannot be defeated by dismissal of the suit by the
equitable or beneficial in nature. Shareholders are in no plaintiff after the filing of the petition and notice thereof
legal sense the owners of corporate property, which is to the other parties. A person who has an interest in the
owned by the corporation as a distinct legal person. subject matter of the action has the right, on his own
motion, to intervene and become a party to the suit, and
Intervention is not an independent proceeding, even after the complaint has been dismissed, may
but an ancillary and supplemental one which, in the proceed to have any actual controversy established by
nature of things, unless otherwise provided for by the the pleadings determined in such action. The trial court's
statute or Rules of Court, must be in subordination to dismissal of plaintiff’s action does not require dismissal
the main proceeding. It may be laid down as a general of the action of the intervenor.
rule that an intervenor is limited to the field of litigation
open to the original parties. In the case at bar, there is The intervenor in a pending case is entitled to
no more principal action to be resolved as a writ of be heard like any other party. A claim-in-intervention
execution had already been issued by the lower court that seeks affirmative relief prevents a plaintiff from
and the claim of Equitable had already been satisfied. taking a voluntary dismissal of the main action. Where
The decision of the lower court had already become final a complaint in intervention was filed before plaintiff's
and in fact had already been enforced. There is action had been expressly dismissed, the intervenor's
therefore no more principal proceeding in which the complaint was not subject to dismissal on the ground
petitioners may intervene. that no action was pending, since dismissal of plaintiffs
action did not affect the rights of the intervenor or affect
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Presiding Judge the dismissal of intervenor's complaint. An intervenor's
(1990) petition showing it to be entitled to affirmative relief will
be preserved and heard regardless of the disposition of
Facts: Metrobank loaned Good Earth Emporium (GEE) the principal action.
P4.9M, and the latter mortgaged its air conditioning
units as security. Said units were purchased from Raycor
Air Control systems. However, Raycor was not  Intervention cannot alter the nature of the action
completely paid by GEE on the installation costs to the and the issues already joined (Castro v. David, 100
extent of P150,000. Phil. 454).

When GEE was foreclosed by BPI Consortium,  It is neither compulsory nor mandatory but only
Metrobank filed a complaint for replevin to recover the optional and permissive (Mabayo Farms, Inc. v.
units. The defendants consortium filed their answer. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140058, 1 August 2002).
Subsequently, Raycor filed a motion for leave to
intervene, which was granted.

The complaint was later dismissed with Legal interest

prejudice when the parties agreed to a compromise
settlement, without informing the intervenor Raycor. The legal interest must be one that is actual and
material, direct and of an immediate character, not
Held: The intervenor in a pending case is entitled to be merely contingent or expectant so that the intervenor
heard like any other party.There is here no final will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of
dismissal of the main case. The aforementioned order of the judgment (Firestone Ceramics v. Court of Appeals,
the lower court has the effect not only of allowing the 313 SCRA 522; Office of the Ombudsman v,
intervention suit to proceed but also of vacating its Samaniego, supra.).
previous order of dismissal. The reinstatement of the
case in order to try and determine the claims and rights
of the intervenor is proper. The joint motion of therein
plaintiff and the original defendants to dismiss the case,
without notice to and consent of the intervenor, has the
effect of putting to rest only the respective claims of the
said original parties inter se but the same cannot in any
way affect the claim of private respondent which was
allowed by the court to intervene without opposition
from the original parties.

Page 70
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

the trial court also denied. PNCC filed a petition for

certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-
Requisites; Who may intervene (Rule 19, Sec. 1) G.R. SP No. 66654, assailing the denial of the motion to
dismiss. On 30 August 2002, the Court of Appeals
(1) There must be a motion for intervention filed before denied PNCC’s petition. PNCC filed a motion for
rendition of judgment by the trial court; reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals also denied
in its 22 January 2003 Resolution. PNCC filed a petition
(2) The movant must be a person who has a legal for review before the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R.
interest No. 156887.
(a) in the matter in litigation,
(b) in the success of either of the parties, or an The trial court continued to hear the main
interest against both, or case. On 10 December 2002, the trial court ruled in
(c) is so situated as to be adversely affected by a favor of Radstock. PNCC thereafter appealed the trial
distribution or other disposition of property in courts’ decision to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-
the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. G.R. CV No. 87971.. In a Resolution dated 4 December
2006 in G.R. No. 156887, the Supreme Court referred
(3) The intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the Compromise Agreement to the Commission on Audit
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties (COA) for comment. The COA recommended approval of
and that the intervenor’s rights may not be fully the Compromise Agreement. Thus, the Supreme Court
protected in a separate proceeding (Rule 19, Sec. 1). noted the Compromise Agreement and referred it to the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87971. In its 25
Time to intervene January 2007 Decision, the Court of Appeals approved
the Compromise Agreement.
The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before
rendition of judgment by the trial court (Rule 19, Sec. PNCC and Radstock entered into a Compromise
2). Agreement. Under this agreement, PNCC shall pay
Radstock the reduced amount of P6,185,000,000.00 in
 A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be full settlement of PNCC’s guarantee of CDCP Mining’s
attached to the motion and served on the debt. In its 25 January 2007 Decision, the Court of
original parties Appeals approved the Compromise Agreement.

Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Strategic Alliance Development Corporation

Radstock Securities Limited (2009) (STRADEC) moved for reconsideration. STRADEC alleged
that it has a claim against PNCC as a bidder of the
Facts: Construction Development Corporation of the National Government’s shares, receivables, securities
Philippines (CDCP) was granted a franchise to construct, and interests in PNCC. The matter is subject of a
operate and maintain toll facilities in the North and complaint filed by STRADEC against PNCC and the
South Luzon Tollways and Metro Manila Expressway. Privatization and Management Office (PMO) for the
CDCP Mining Corporation (CDCP Mining), an affiliate of issuance of a Notice of Award of Sale to Dong-A
CDCP, obtained loans from Marubeni Corporation of Consortium of which STRADEC is a partner. The case,
Japan (Marubeni). CDCP Mining secured the Marubeni docketed as Civil Case No. 05-882, is pending before the
loans when CDCP and CDCP Mining were still privately Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146 (RTC Branch
owned and managed. 146).

In 1983, CDCP’s name was changed to The Court of Appeals treated STRADEC’s
Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) in motion for reconsideration as a motion for intervention
order to reflect that the Government already owned and denied it on the ground that the motion was filed
90.3% of PNCC and only 9.70% is under private only after the Court of Appeals and the trial court had
ownership. Meanwhile, the Marubeni loans to CDCP promulgated their respective decisions.
Mining remained unpaid. On 20 October 2000 and 22
November 2000, the PNCC Board of Directors (PNCC Rodolfo Cuenca (Cuenca), a stockholder and
Board) passed Board Resolutions admitting PNCC’s former PNCC President and Board Chairman, filed an
liability to Marubeni. Previously, for two decades the intervention before the Court of Appeals. Cuenca alleged
PNCC Board consistently refused to admit any liability that PNCC had no obligation to pay Radstock. The Court
for the Marubeni loans. of Appeals also denied Cuenca’s motion for intervention.
Cuenca did not appeal the denial of his motion.
In January 2001, Marubeni assigned its entire
credit to Radstock Securities Limited (Radstock), a Meanwhile, Sison, also a stockholder and
foreign corporation. Radstock immediately sent a notice former PNCC President and Board Chairman, filed a
and demand letter to PNCC. On 15 January 2001, Petition for Annulment of Judgment Approving
Radstock filed an action for collection and damages Compromise Agreement before the Court of Appeals.
against PNCC before the Regional Trial Court of The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97982.
Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 (trial court). In its order
of 23 January 2001, the trial court issued a writ of Asiavest, a judgment creditor of PNCC, also
preliminary attachment against PNCC. The trial court filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File
ordered PNCCs bank accounts garnished and several of the Attached Opposition and Motion-in-Intervention
its real properties attached. On 14 February 2001, PNCC before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97982.
moved to set aside the 23 January 2001 Order and to The Court of Appeals denied Asiavest’s urgent motion.
discharge the writ of attachment. PNCC also filed a
motion to dismiss the case. The trial court denied both
motions. PNCC filed motions for reconsideration, which

Page 71
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Held: The Court of Appeals improperly denied Asiavest’s

motions for intervention. The rule that the motion for Rule 14
intervention must be filed before the rendition of Summons
judgment by the trial court is not absolute. The rule on
intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended
to make the powers of the Court completely available for Definition and purpose
justice. It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive
adjudication of rival claims, overriding technicalities on Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified
the timeliness of the filing of the claims. of the action brought against him.

Concededly, STRADEC has no legal interest in  The issuance of summons is mandatory on the
the subject matter of the Compromise Agreement. part of the court.
STRADECs interest is dependent on the outcome of Civil  In an action in personam, the purpose of
Case No. 05-882. Unless STRADEC can show that RTC summons is not only to notify the defendant of
Branch 146 had already decided in its favor, its legal the action, but also to acquire jurisdiction over
interest is simply contingent and expectant. his person.
 Service of summons is required even if the
However, Asiavest has a direct and material defendant is aware of the filing of the action
interest in the approval or disapproval of the against him.
Compromise Agreement. Asiavest is a judgment creditor  In an action in rem or quasi in rem, the
of PNCC and a court has already issued a writ of purpose of summons is mainly to satisfy the
execution in its favor. Asiavest’s interest is actual and constitutional requirements of due process.
material, direct and immediate characterized by either
gain or loss from the judgment that this Court may Duty to issue
render. Considering that the Compromise Agreement The clerk of court shall issue the corresponding
involves the disposition of all or substantially all of the summons to the defendants
assets of PNCC, Asiavest, as PNCCs judgment creditor, (1) upon the filing of the complaint and
will be greatly prejudiced if the Compromise Agreement (2) payment of the requisite legal fees. (Sec. 1,
is eventually upheld. Rule 14)

Pleadings-in-intervention Issuance of alias summons—

If a summons is returned without being served on any
The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if or all of the defendants, the server:
he asserts a claim against either or all of the original (1) shall also serve a copy of the return on the
parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he unites with plaintiff’s counsel,
the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter (2) stating the reasons for the failure of service,
(Rule 19, Sec. 3). (3) within five (5) days from such failure.

Answer to complaint-in-intervention The clerk may issue an alias summons

(1) on demand of the plaintiff,
The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be (2) if the summons has been lost, or
filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order (3) if the summons has been returned without
admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by being served (Sec. 5, Rule 14)
the court (Rule 19, Sec. 4).
Form

Content
The summons shall be
(1) directed to the defendant,
(2) signed by the clerk of court, and
(3) under seal.

The summons shall contain:

(a) the name of the court and the names
of the parties to the action;
(b) a direction that the defendant answer
within the time fixed by these Rules;
and
(c) a notice that unless the defendant so
answers, plaintiff will take judgment
by default and may be granted the
relief applied for.

A copy of the complaint and order for

appointment of guardian ad litem, if any, shall
be attached to the original and each copy of
the summons. (3a)

If with leave of court

It shall be made
(1) by motion,

Page 72
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

(2) in writing, agreed that in case of litigation arising from any dispute,
(3) supported by affidavit of the plaintiff the venue shall be in the proper courts of Makati.
or some person on his behalf, and
(4) setting forth the grounds for the The private respondent subsequently filed a
application. (Sec. 17, Rule 14) Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against
Who serves the petitioner before the Trial Court of Makati for lack of
The summons may be served by developments within the aforesaid properties. The
(1) the sheriff, Service of Summons as well as the complaint was
(2) his deputy, served upon the branch manager in Cagayan de Oro.
(3) other proper court officer, or Plaintiff filed a Special Motion to Dismiss alleging that
(4) any suitable person authorized by the court the summons was improperly served and for lack of
issuing the summons, for justifiable reasons. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
(Sec. 3, Rule 14) Respondent says that the Service was improperly served
since it was given to an employee in its branch office
On whom and not to one of the persons enunciated in Rule 14
section 11 of the ROC.
In general
The clerk of court shall issue the corresponding The trial court ruled in favor of respondent
summons to the defendants. (Sec. 1, Rule 14) hence this petition.

Service in person on defendant— ISSUE: Whether the service of summons on the branch
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be manager was proper
served
(1) by handing a copy thereof to the NO. Section 11, Rule 14 allows service to the
defendant in person, or general manager, not the branch manager. The maxim
(2) by tendering it to him, if he refuses expression unios est exclusion alterius applies in this
to receive and sign for it. (Sec. 6, case. The enumeration of persons whom summons may
Rule 14) be served is restricted, limited and exclusive. The new
rule specifically changed the proper recipient of a service
Entity without juridical personality from a mere manager to a general manager in order to
When persons associated in an entity without prevent ambiguous and illogical interpretations in the
juridical personality are sued under the name future. The court therefore acquires no jurisdiction over
by which they are generally or commonly the person of the defendant.
known, service may be effected
(1) upon all the defendants by serving In the case at bar, since the service was given
upon any one of them, or to a mere branch manager in one of petitioner’s
(2) upon the person in charge of the branches instead of the general manager in its main
office or place of business maintained office in Davao, such service is deemed insufficient. The
in such name. courts therefore did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner.
BUT such service shall not bind individually any
person whose connection with the entity has,
upon due notice, been severed before the Foreign Juridical Entity (Rule 14, Sec. 12, as
action was brought. (Sec. 8, Rule 14) amended by AM. No. 11-3-6-SC)
 When the defendant is a foreign private juridical
Associations entity which has transacted business in the
Philippines, service may be made on its resident
Domestic agent designated in accordance with law for that
Service upon domestic private purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
juridical entity— government official designated by law to that
Service may be made on effect, or on any of its officers or agents within
(1) the president, the Philippines.
(2) managing partner,
(3) general manager,  If the foreign private juridical entity is not
(4) corporate secretary, registered in the Philippines or has no resident
(5) treasurer, or agent, service may, with leave of court, be
(6) in-house counsel. (Sec. 11, effected out of the Philippines through any of the
Rule 14) following means:

List exclusive a) By personal service coursed through the

appropriate court in the foreign country with the
E.B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO., LTD. V. BENITO assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
(1999)
b) By publication once in a newspaper of
FACTS: Petitioner E.B. Villarosa, a limited general circulation in the country where the
partnership, and private respondent Benita executed a defendant may be found and by serving a copy
deed of sale with development agreement wherein of the summons and the court order by-
Villarosa agreed to develop certain parcels of land registered mail at the last known address of the
belonging to Benito into a housing subdivision for the defendant;
construction of low cost housing units. They further

Page 73
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means despite earnest efforts to do so. On PNOC’s motion, the
that could generate proof of service; or trial court allowed service of summons by publication.
PNOC then caused the publication of the summons in
d) By such other means as the court may in its Remate, a newspaper of general circulation in the
discretion direct. Philippines. Thereafter, PNOC submitted the affidavit of
publication of the advertising manager of Remate and an
Public corporation affidavit of service of the PNOC’s employee to the effect
When the defendant is the Republic of the that he sent a copy of the summons by registered mail to
Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor Santos’ last known address.
General.
When Santos failed to file his answer, PNOC
In case of a province, city or municipality, or like moved the case be set for the reception of its evidence ex
public corporations, service may be effected on parte. The trial court granted the motion. An omnibus
(1) its executive head, or motion for reconsideration was then sought by Santos,
(2) on such other officer or officers as the law or alleging that the affidavit of service submitted by PNOC
the court may direct. (Sec. 13, Rule 14) failed to comply with Sec. 19, Rule 14, as it was not
executed by the Clerk of Court. He also claimed denial of
Prisoners due process for he was not notified of the trial court’s
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 14 order. PNOC opposed the motion and insisted that it
complied with the rules on service by publication. The
Section 9. Service upon prisoners. - When the trial court denied Santos’ motion.
defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution,
service shall be effected upon him by the officer having ISSUE: Whether there is improper service of summons
the management of such jail or institution who is because summons by publication only applies to actions
deemed deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose. in rem, and not in personam

Minors NO. Since petitioner could not be personally

When the defendant is a minor, service shall be made served with summons despite diligent efforts to locate his
(1) upon him personally and whereabouts, respondent sought and was granted leave
(2) on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, of court to effect service of summons upon him by
upon his guardian ad litem whose appointment publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus,
shall be applied for by the plaintiff, or petitioner was properly served with summons by
(3) on his father or mother, In the case of a minor, publication.
service may also be made. (Sec. 10, Rule 14)
The in rem/in personam distinction was
Insane, incompetents significant under the old rule because it was silent as to
When the defendant is insane or otherwise an the kind of action to which the rule was applicable.
incompetent, service shall be made Because of this silence, the Court limited the application
(1) upon him personally and of the old rule to in rem actions only. This has been
(2) on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, changed. The present rule expressly states that it applies
upon his guardian ad litem whose appointment "[i]n any action where the defendant is designated as an
shall be applied for by the plaintiff. (Sec. 10, unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts
Rule 14) are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry." Thus, it now applies to any action, whether in
Unknown defendant or whereabouts unknown personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
Where the defendant is
(1) designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or Service of summons by publication is proved by
(2) whenever his whereabouts are unknown and the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk,
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, or of the editor, business or advertising manager of the
newspaper which published the summons. The service of
Service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him summons by publication is complemented by service of
by summons by registered mail to the defendant's last
(1) publication in a newspaper of general circulation known address. This complementary service is evidenced
and by an affidavit "showing the deposit of a copy of the
(2) in such places and for such time as the court summons and order for publication in the post office,
may order. (Sec. 14, Rule 14) postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered
mail to his last known address." The rules, however, do
*Whether in rem, quasi in rem or personal not require that the affidavit of complementary service be
executed by the clerk of court. While the trial court
SANTOS v. PNOC (2008) ordinarily does the mailing of copies of its orders and
processes, the duty to make the complementary service
FACTS: PNOC Exploration Corp. (respondent) by registered mail is imposed on the party who resorts to
filed a complaint for a sum of money against Pedro T. service by publication.
Santos, Jr. (petitioner), seeking to collect the
P698,502.10 unpaid balance of the car loan advanced to The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the
Santos when he was still member of the board of person of petitioner by his own voluntary appearance in
directors. the action against him. This was equivalent to service of
summons and vested the trial court with jurisdiction over
Personal service of summons to Santos failed the person of petitioner.
because he could not be located in his last known address

Page 74
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Residents temporarily out at the time it was served. Palma thus filed this petition
When any action is commenced against a defendant for certiorari under Rule 65.Issues:1.
who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who
is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, Issue: Whether or not there was a valid service
be also effected out of the Philippines by of summons on Agudo.
extraterritorial service. (Sec. 16, Rule 14)
Held: YES. In civil cases, the trial court acquires
Extraterritorial service: When the defendant does jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by
not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the service of summons or by the latter’s voluntary
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff appearance and submission to the authority of the
or relates to, or the subject of which is, property former. Agudo was a Filipino resident temporarily out of
within the Philippines, in which the defendant has the country at the time of the service of summons, thus
or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or service of summons on her is governed by Sec. 16, Rule
in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in 14 of the ROC:
part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
therein, or the property of the defendant has been “Sec. 16. When an action is
attached within the Philippines, service may, by commenced against a defendant who
leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but
personal service; or by publication in a newspaper who is temporarily out of it, service may, by
of general circulation in such places and for such leave of court, be also effected out of the
time as the court may order, in which case a copy Philippines, as under the preceding section.”
of the summons and order of the court shall be sent “Sec. 15. When the defendant does not reside
by registered mail to the last known address of the and is not found in the Philippines x x x
defendant, or in any other manner the court may service may, by leave of court, be effected
deem sufficient. (Sec. 15, Rule 14). out of the Philippines by personal service as
under section 6;or by publication in
PALMA VS. GALVEZ (2010) a newspaper of general circulation in such
places x x x”
Facts: On July 28, 2003, Palma filed with the RTC an
action for damages against the Philippine Heart Center, The use of the words “may” and
Dr. Giron, Dr. Cruz, alleging that the defendants “also” in Sec. 16 means that it is not
committed professional fault, negligence and omission for mandatory. Other methods of service of
having removed her right ovary against her will, and summons allowed may also be availed of.
losing the same and the tissues extracted from her during Thus, if a resident defendant is temporarily
her surgery; and that although the specimens were out of the country, any of the following modes
subsequently found, Palma was doubtful and uncertain of service may be resorted to: (1) submitted
that the same was hers as the label therein pertained service set forth in Sec. 7, Rule 14; (2)
that of somebody else. Later, Palma filed a Motion for personal service outside the country with
Leave to Admit Amended Complaint, praying for inclusion leave of court, (3) service of publication, with
of some nurses, one of which is respondent Agudo. leave of court; (4) in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. Sec. 7 states that:
The RTC’s process server submitted his return
of summons stating that the alias summons, together “Sec. 7. If, for justifiable causes, the
with a copy of the amended complaint and its annexes, defendant cannot be served within a
were served upon Agudo thru her husband Alfredo, who reasonable time as provided in the preceding
received and signed the same since Agudo was out of the section, service may be effected (a) by
country. leaving copies of the summons at defendant’s
residence with some person of suitable age
Agudo’s counsel filed a Notice of Appearance and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
and Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer stating leaving the copies at defendant’s office or
that he was just engaged by Alfredo Agudo, as regular place of business with some
respondent Agudo was out of the country and the Answer competent person in charge thereof.”
was already due. Two weeks later, counsel again filed
a Motion for Another Extension of Time to File Answer, In this case, the service of summons was made
stating that the draft answer was finished but would be at her residence with her husband, Alfredo Agudo,
sent to Agudo for clarification/verification before the Phil. acknowledging receipt thereof. Alfredo was presumably
Consulate in Ireland. Two weeks later, Agudo filed a of suitable age and discretion, who was residing in that
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC had not place, and therefore, was competent to receive the
acquired jurisdiction over her as she was not property summons on Agudo’s behalf.
served with summons since she was temporarily out of
the country. Palma filed her Opposition to the MTD, Statements were made that establish the fact
arguing that a substituted service of summons on Agudo’s that Agudo had knowledge of the case filed against her,
husband was valid and binding on her, that the service of and that her husband had told her about the case as
summons under Sec. 16, Rule 14 was not exclusive and Alfredo even engaged the services of her counsel: (1) In
maybe effected by other modes of service. the notice of appearance and Motion for Extension of
Time to File Answer, Agudo’s counsel confirmed that
RTC granted Agudo’s MTD. RTC found that while Agudo was out of the country and his service was
summons was served at Agudo’s house and received by engaged by the husband. In the other motion for
her husband, such service did not qualify as a valid extension of time, Agudo’s counsel stated that a draft of
service of summons on her as she was out of the country the answer had already been prepared, to be submitted
to Agudo in Ireland. RTC acquired jurisdiction over the

Page 75
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

person of Agudo when her counsel entered his Impossibility of prompt service must appear in the
appearance on Agudo’s behalf, without qualification and return of the service
without questioning the propriety of the service of
summons, and even filed 2 Motions for Extension of SPOUSES GALURA VS. MATH-
Time to File Answer. In effect, Agudo, through counsel, AGRO CORPORATION (2009)
invoked RTC’s jurisdiction over her person. This is
considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of Facts:Spouses Galura purchased broiler starters and finishers
the court. Petition is granted. Agudo is directed to file from Math-Agro Corporation (MAC). The Spouses Galura paid
her Answer. MAC P72,500. Despite several demands, they failed to pay the
P353,500 unpaid balance. MAC engaged the services of a
Non-resident certain Atty. Pasamba for the purpose of collecting the unpaid
*in rem, quasi in rem balance from the Spouses Galura. A demand letter was sent to
spouses Galura wherein it stated that they were giving them 5
When the defendant days upon receipt of the letter, to pay the unpaid balance plus
(1) does not reside and is not found in the interest; that failure to pay would result in an action in court.
Philippines, and Because of non-payment after demand was made, MAC filed a
(2) the action affects complaint with the RTC praying that the court would order
a. the personal status of the plaintiff or spouses Galura to settle the balance plus attorney’s fee and
b. relates to, or the subject of which is, litigation expenses. In their complaint, MAC provided for their
property within the Philippines, in which address where summons may be served to them. Clerk of
the defendant has or claims a lien or Court Ortega issued the summons. 1st SERVICE: went to 230
interest, actual or contingent; or Apo St., Sta. Mesa Heights , Quezon City where he was
c. in which the relief demanded consists, informed that the Spouses Galura were presently residing at
wholly or in part, in excluding the Tierra Pura Subdivision, Tandang Sora, Quezon City . 2nd
defendant from any interest therein, or SERVICE: went to G.L. Calayan Agro System, Inc. in Barrio
d. the property of the defendant has been Kalayaan, Gerona , Tarlac to serve the summons, however he
attached within the Philippines, learned that the property had been foreclosed and that the
Spouses Galura no longer resided there. 3rd SERVICE: went to
Service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Tierra Pura Subdivision, Tandang Sora, Quezon City , to serve
Philippines the summons. Sildo served the summons on Teresa L.
(1) by personal service as under section 6; or Galura’s sister, Victoria Lapuz. The Spouses Galura failed to
(2) by publication in a newspaper of general file their answer. RTC declared them in default and allowed
circulation in such places and for such time as MAC to present its evidence ex parte. RTC ruled in favor of
the court may order, MAC and ordered the Spouses Galura to pay the unpaid
 in which case a copy of the summons balance, attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation.
and order of the court shall be sent by Subsequently, RTC issued a writ of execution to implement its
registered mail to the last known Decision. Thereafter, Spouses Galura received ―from their
address of the defendant, parents-in-law‖ a copy of the 10 November 2004 Order.
(3) or in any other manner the court may deem Spouses Galura filed with the CA a petition for annulment of
sufficient. judgment and final order under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court,
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
Any order granting such leave shall specify a or temporary restraining order, claiming that the RTC’s
reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty Decision and Order were void beacuse the RTC failed to
(60) days after notice, within which the defendant acquire jurisdiction over their persons because the substituted
must answer. (Sec. 15, Rule 14) service of summons was invalid, and there was extrinsic fraud
because MAC made them believe that it would not file a case
Modes of service against them - MAC, despite the commitment of its owner not
to file the complaint, did so. Such an act on the part of Math-
Personal Agro and its owner constitutes extrinsic fraud, as it prevented
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be petitioners from defending themselves in the action lodged
served with the RTC. common law; it is a method extraordinary in
(1) by handing a copy thereof to the character, and hence may be used only as prescribed and in
defendant in person, or the circumstances authorized by statute.‖ CA dismissed the
(2) by tendering it to him, if he refuses petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals held that there
to receive and sign for it. (Sec. 6, was a valid substituted service of summons, that the
Rule 14) allegation of extrinsic fraud was unbelievable, and that the
Spouses Galura should have first availed of the ordinary
Substituted remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief. The
If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot Spouses Galura filed a MR but was denied. Hence, the present
be served within a reasonable time as provided petition. In the present case, there was no showing in the
in the preceding section, service may be return of service (1) of the impossibility of personal service
effected within a reasonable time; (2) that Lapuz, the person on whom
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at summons was served, was of suitable age and discretion; and
the defendant’s residence with some (3) that Lapuz resided in the residence of the Spouses Galura.
person of suitable age and discretion Consequently, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
then residing therein, or persons of the Spouses Galura, and thus the Spouses Galura
(b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s are not bound by the RTC’s Decision and Order.
office or regular place of business
with some competent person in Issue:Was there a valid substituted service of summons?
charge thereof. (Sec. 7, Rule 14) NONE.

Page 76
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Held: Sildo, in his Rertun, did not state that his attempts gave a discussion as to the nature of the requisites of
to serve the summons by personal service at the Tierra substituted service in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals. We can
Pura Subdivision address failed, and that the same could break down this section into the following requirements to
not be made within a reasonable time. He likewise failed effect a valid substituted service:
to state facts and circumstances showing why personal
service of the summons upon the petitioners at the said 1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal
address was impossible. Finally, he also failed to state Service
that Ms. Victoria Lapuz, the person with whom he left the 2) Specific Details in the Return
summons, was a person of sufficient age and discretion, 3) A Person Suitable of Age and
and residing in the said Tierra Pura address. In a case Discretion
where a petition for annulment of a judgment or final 4) A Competent Person in Charge
order of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court Petitioner contends that there was a
is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the valid substituted service of summons
defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject of the as shown in three officer’s return.
action, the petitioner need not allege in the petition that
the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the However, this Court stresses that the Process
final order or judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer Server must show that the defendant cannot be served
available through no fault of her own. This is so because promptly, or that there was an impossibility of service. The
a judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC Return of Summons in this case does not show or indicate
without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed the actual exertion or any steps by the officer to serve the
any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by summons. In the absence of even the barest compliance
resisting such judgment or final order an any action or with the procedure for substituted service of summons
proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by outlined in the Rules, the principle of “Presumption of
laches. Regularity” cannot apply.

Presumption of regularity in the performance of Exception – the absence in the sheriff’s return of a
official functions does not apply statement about the impossibility of personal
service does not conclusively prove that the
PASCUAL V. PASCUAL (2009) service is invalid (liberal rule)

Facts: Constatino A. Pascual filed a complaint for Specific MAPA V. CA (1993)

Performance before the RTC. In the Return Service, the
Process Server reported that he failed to deliver the Facts: A complaint for Recovery of sum of money was
summons to the defendant. According to the report, the filed vs. High Peak Mining. Summons was issued to be
defendant [Dr. Lourdes Pascual] was not at her home and served upon Mapa, the chairperson, & upon other officers
only her maid was there who refused to receive the of the corporation. However, said summons was served
summons. His efforts to effect the service is backed up by upon an employee of said corp. Defendants were declared
a certification of the Barangay in the area. The following in default. Defendants filed an MTD & Set Aside Default
day, the Process Server went back at the defendant’s Judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the ct.
place, but again she is not home. over their person as the service of summons was
improper, i.e., served upon an EE who may not be
Thereafter, an alias summons was issued by the considered as an “agent” of the corporation; moreover,
RTC. Subsequently, the Process Server returned with the Sheriff did not indicate in his Return his efforts at serving
report that a substituted service was effected. For failure summons personally before resorting to substituted
of respondent to file a responsive pleading, petitioner, service.
filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default to which
Dr. Lourdes Pascual filed an opposition claiming that she Issue: WON the Court the Court acquired jurisdiction over
was not able to receive any summons and a copy of the the defendant. NO
complaint hence the RTC cannot exercise jurisdiction
over her person. RTC declared Dr. Lourdes Pascual in Held: The Court lacked jurisdiction.
Default. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was
denied. Consequently, the RTC in its decision found favor 1. General Rule: Sheriff’s Return must show
on Mr. Constantino Pascual against Dr. Lourdes Pascual. that prior attempts at personal service were made by the
She then filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default with Sheriff & that such attempts had failed, prompting him to
the argument of non-service of Summons. RTC denied resort to Substituted service. HOWEVER, it must be
and on the same day issued a Certificate of Finality and emphasized that Absence in the Sheriff’s Return of a
Entry of Judgment. Dr. Lourdes filed a Petition for statement about the impossibility of personal service DOES
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 in the CA. The CA NOT conclusively prove that the service is invalid. Proof of
ruled favoring her. Petitioner herein [Constantino such prior attempts may be submitted by the plaintiff
Pascual] through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under during the hearing of any incident assailing the validity of
Rule 45 comes now to the SC. the substituted service. While Sheriff’ Return carries w/ it
the presumption of regularity, that entries therein are
Issue: Whether the Service of Summons is valid? deemed correct, it does not necessarily follow that an act
done in relation to the official duty for w/c the return is
Held: In a case where the action is ‘in personam’ and the made was not simply done bec. it is not disclosed
defendant is in the Philippines, the service may be done by therein. Besides, the sheriff’s neglect in making such a
personal or substituted. A plain reading of Rule 14, disclosure should not unduly prejudice the plaintiff if what
Sections 6 and 7 indicates that “Personal Service” should was undisclosed was in fact done.
and always be the first option, only when the said
summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can 2. The EE may be considered as an “agent” for
the process server resort to substituted service. The Court the purpose of Sec. 13, & there was a substantial

Page 77
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

compliance under the said sec. because in the CAB, Obviously, it was impossible for the sheriff to
petitioner failed to deny the statement in Sheriff’s Return effect personal or substituted service of summons upon
that the EE is “authorized to receive process of this petitioner. We note that she failed to controvert the
nature”, said Return enjoying the presumption of sheriff’s declaration. Nor did she deny having received the
regularity, & the logical conclusion is that she delivered the summons through the security guard. Considering her
summons to the corporation. strict instruction to the security guard, she must bear its
consequences. Thus, we agree with the trial court that
3. In an action in personam as in the CAB, summons has been properly served upon petitioner and
personal service of summons w/in the forum is essential to that it has acquired jurisdiction over her.
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the Where the action is in personam and the
authority of the court. defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons
may be made through personal or substituted service in
Effect of receipt by security guard the manner provided for in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of
the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended.
Individual Defendant
Under our procedural rules, personal service is
ROBINSON v. MIRALLES (2006) generally preferred over substituted service, the latter
mode of service being a method extraordinary in
FACTS:Respondent Celita Miralles filed a character. For substituted service to be justified, the
complaint for collection of sum of money against petitioner following circumstances must be clearly established: (a)
Remelita Robinson, alleging that $20,054 was borrowed by personal service of summons within a reasonable time
Robinson, as shown in the MOA they both executed. was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the
party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of
Summons was served on Robinson at her given sufficient age and discretion residing at the party’s
address. However, per return of service of the Sheriif, residence or upon a competent person in charge of the
petitioner no longer resides there. Thus, the trial court party’s office or place of business.
issued an alias summons to be served at Muntinlupa City,
petitioner’s new address. Defendant Corporation

Again, the Sheriff reported twice thereafter that

the summons could not be served on petitioner. Sheriff ORION SECURITY CORPORATION
Pontente, who was to serve the summons interposed that V. KALFAM ENTERPRISES, INC.
he was stopped by the Security Guard of Alabang Hills (2007)
Village because they were allegedly told by Robinson not FACTS: Petitioner Orion Security Corporation is
to let anyone proceed to her house if she is not around. a domestic private corporation engaged in the business
Despite the explanations of the Sheriff, the guards didn’t of providing security services. One of its clients is
let him in. Thereafter, the Sheriff just left a copy of the respondent Kalfam Enterprises, Inc. Respondent was not
complaint to a guard, who refused to affix his signature on able to pay petitioner for services rendered. Petitioner
the original copy, so he will be the one to give the thus filed a complaint against respondent for collection
summons to petitioner Robinson. of sum of money. The sheriff tried to serve the
summons and a copy of the complaint on the secretary
Eventually, petitioner Robinson was declared in of respondent’s manager. However, respondent’s
default for her failure to file an answer seasonably despite representatives allegedly refused to acknowledge their
service of summons. The trial court rendered its decision in receipt. The summons and the copy of the complaint
favor of Miralles ordering Robinson to pay her obligations were left at respondent’s office. When respondent failed
plus cost of damages. A copy of the court Order was sent to file an Answer, petitioner filed a motion to declare
to petitioner by registered mail at her new address and a respondent in default. The trial court, however, denied
writ of execution was also issued. the motion on the ground that there was no proper
service of summons on respondent.
Robinson filed a petition for relief from the
judgment by default. She claimed that summons was Petitioner then filed a motion for alias
improperly served upon her, thus, the trial court never summons, which the trial court granted. The process
acquired jurisdiction over her and that all its proceedings server again left the summons and a copy of the
are void. Petitioner Robinson contends that the service of complaint at respondent’s office through respondent’s
the summons upon the subdivision guard is not in security guard, who allegedly refused to acknowledge
compliance with Section 7, Rule 14 since he is not related their receipt. Again, respondent failed to file an Answer.
to her or staying at her residence, as required by the rule. On motion of petitioner, respondent was declared in
default. Thereafter, petitioner was allowed to adduce
ISSUE: Whether the substituted service of summons evidence ex parte.
effected is valid
Respondent filed a motion for
YES. Although the SC have ruled that the reconsideration of the resolution declaring it in default.
statutory requirements of substituted service must be Respondent alleged the trial court did not acquire
followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any substituted jurisdiction over its person due to invalid service of
service other than that authorized by the Rules is summons. The trial court denied the motion for
considered ineffective, the Court frowns upon an overly reconsideration. The trial court rendered a default
strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that
the letter of the procedural rules, that governs. summons was not validly served on respondent.
Petitioner’s MR of the Court of Appeals’ decision was
denied. Hence, the instant petition.

Page 78
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Petitioner contends that the trial court acquired Publication

jurisdiction over respondent due to the latter’s voluntary Where the defendant is
appearance in the proceedings before the said court. (1) designated as an unknown owner, or the like,
Petitioner insists substituted service of summons on or
respondent’s security guard is substantial compliance (2) whenever his whereabouts are unknown and
with the rule on service of summons, in view of the cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry,
exceptional circumstances in the present case.
Service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by
Respondent counters that the special (1) publication in a newspaper of general
appearance of its counsel does not constitute voluntary circulation and
appearance. Respondent maintains that its filing of an (2) in such places and for such time as the court
opposition to petitioner’s motion to declare respondent may order. (Sec. 14, Rule 14)
in default and other subsequent pleadings questioning
the trial court’s jurisdiction over it does not amount to
voluntary appearance. Respondent stresses it was not Extraterritorial
properly served with summons via substituted service. When the defendant
(1) does not reside and is not found in the
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court acquired Philippines, and
jurisdiction over respondent either by (1) valid (2) the action affects
substituted service of summons on respondent; or (2) a. the personal status of the plaintiff or
respondent’s voluntary appearance in the trial court and b. relates to, or the subject of which is,
submission to its authority. property within the Philippines, in
which the defendant has or claims a
HELD: NO. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs lien or interest, actual or contingent;
upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, or
jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is c. in which the relief demanded
acquired either through the service of summons upon consists, wholly or in part, in
them or through their voluntary appearance in court and excluding the defendant from any
their submission to its authority. interest therein, or
d. the property of the defendant has
As a rule, summons should be personally been attached within the Philippines,
served on the defendant. It is only when summons
cannot be served personally within a reasonable period Service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the
of time that substituted service may be resorted to. In Philippines
this case, records show that respondent’s president, (4) by personal service as under section 6; or
managing partner, general manager, corporate (5) by publication in a newspaper of general
secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel never received circulation in such places and for such time as
the summons against respondent, either in person or by the court may order,
substituted service.  in which case a copy of the summons
and order of the court shall be sent
Note that in case of substituted service, there by registered mail to the last known
should be a report indicating that the person who address of the defendant,
received the summons in the defendant’s behalf was one (6) or in any other manner the court may deem
with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence sufficient.
ensuring that the latter would actually receive the
summons. Here, petitioner failed to show that the Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable
security guard who received the summons in time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after
respondent’s behalf shared such relation of confidence notice, within which the defendant must answer. (Sec.
that respondent would surely receive the summons. 15, Rule 14)
Hence, we are unable to accept petitioner’s contention
that service on the security guard constituted substantial Residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
compliance with the requirements of substituted service. When any action is commenced against a defendant who
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is
Neither did the trial court acquire jurisdiction temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be
over respondent by the latter’s voluntary appearance in also effected out of the Philippines by extraterritorial
court proceedings. Note that a party who makes a service. (Sec. 16, Rule 14)
special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction
of said court based on the ground of invalid service of VALMONTE v. CA (1996)
summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, records show FACTS: Rosita Dimalanta, sister of petitioner Lourdes
that respondent, in its special appearance, precisely Valmonte, filed a complaint for partition of real property
questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court on the and accounting of rentals against petitioners Valmonte
ground of invalid service of summons. Thus, it cannot be spouses. Lourdes Valmonte is a foreign resident. The
deemed to have submitted to said court’s authority. RTC denied private respondent's motion to declare
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default. A motion for
Hence, respondent cannot be bound by the reconsideration was similarly denied. Private respondent
trial court’s judgment ordering it to pay petitioner a sum filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition
of money. and mandamus with the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition and
declaring Lourdes in default. A copy of the appellate

Page 79
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

court's decision was received by petitioner Lourdes’ Dakila filed another Motion for the Issuance of
husband at his Manila law office and in Seattle, Summons and for Leave of Court to Deputize DGM to
Washington. serve summons outside the Philippines. RTC granted
the motion. RTC thus issued summons and the DGM
ISSUE: Whether in an action for partition filed went to Singapore and served summons on PES.
against her and her husband, who is also her attorney,
summons intended for her may be served on her Meanwhile, RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss
husband, who has a law office in the Philippines filed by PEIP, compelling the latter to file its Answer to
the Amended Complaint.
NO. Private respondent's action, which is for
partition and accounting under Rule 69, is in the nature PES filed with the RTC a Special Appearance
of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially and Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, which
for the purpose of affecting the defendant's interest in a were denied. It held that even though the Amended
specific property and not to render a judgment against Complaint is primarily for damages, it does relate to a
him. As petitioner Lourdes Valmonte is a nonresident property of PES, to which the latter has a claim interest,
who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons or an actual or contingent lien, which will make it fall
on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, §17. Such under one of the requisites for extraterritorial service.
service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be PES filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with
made either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication application for temporary restraining order and/or
in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and preliminary injunction before the CA. The CA affirmed
for such time as the court may order, in which case a the RTC Orders.
copy of the summons and order of the court should be
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the ISSUE: Whether summons were properly
defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court served under the 2nd or 4th instance of extra-territorial
may deem sufficient. service

PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE v. DAKILA TRADING NO. Extraterritorial service of summons

(2007) applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem,
but not if an action is in personam. In the case at bar,
there can never be a valid extraterritorial service of
FACTS: Dakila Trading Corp (Dakila) entered summons upon it, because the case involving collection
into a Distribution Agreement with Perkin-Elmer of a sum of money and damages is an action in
Singapore Pte. Ltd. (PES) which appointed Dakila as sole personam, as it deals with the personal liability of PES
distributor of its products in the Philippines. PES was by reason of the alleged unilateral termination of the
obligated to give Dakila a commission for the sale of its Distribution Agreement. The objective sought in Dakila’s
products in the Philippines. Dakila was granted the right Complaint was to establish a claim against PES.
to purchase and sell the products of PES. The agreement Moreover, The action instituted by Dakila affects the
further stipulated that Dakila shall order the products of parties alone, not the whole world.
PES, which it shall sell in the Philippines, either from PES
itself or from PEIP. Thus, being an action in personam, personal
service of summons within the Philippines is necessary
However, PES unilaterally terminated the in order for the RTC to validly acquire jurisdiction over
Distribution Agreement, prompting Dakila to file before the person of PES, and this is not possible in the present
the RTC a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and case because the PES is a non-resident and is not found
Damages with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of within the Philippines. Dakila’s allegation in its Amended
Attachment against PES and its affiliate, Perkin-Elmer Complaint that PES had personal property within the
Instruments Philippines Corporation (PEIP). RTC denied Philippines in the form of shares of stock in PEIP did not
respondent’s prayer. make the case fall under any of the four instances
mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
Dakila filed Ex-Parte Motions for Issuance of as to convert the action in personam to an action in rem
Summons and for Leave of Court to Deputize Dakila’s or quasi in rem and, subsequently, make the
General Manager (DGM) to Serve Summons Outside of extraterritorial service of summons upon the petitioner
the Philippines. RTC granted this motion. Thus, an Alias valid.
Summons was issued by the RTC to PES. But the said
Alias Summons was served and received by Perkin- The 2nd instance for extra-territorial service
Elmer Asia (PEA), a corporation allegedly unrelated to has no application in the case. The action for collection
PES. PEIP moved to dismiss the Complaint filed by of a sum of money and damages was purely based on
Dakila. PEA, on the other hand, sent letters to Dakila the personal liability of the PES. For the action to be one
and RTC to inform them of the wrongful service of falling under the 2nd instance, the main subject matter
summons. of the action must be the property itself of the PES in
the Philippines and in such instance, judgment will be
Accordingly, Dakila filed an Ex-Parte Motion to limited to the res. However, the allegations made by the
Admit Amended Complaint, together with the Amended respondent that the petitioner has property within the
Complaint claiming that (1) PEA had become a sole Philippines in support of its application for the issuance
proprietorship owned by the PES, (2) PES changed its of a writ of attachment was actually denied by the RTC.
name to PEA, (3) such changes did not avoid its due and
outstanding obligations to Dakila, and (4) the name of Neither does the allegation that PES had
PES in the complaint should be changed to PEA. RTC personal property within the Philippines in the form of
admitted the Amended Complaint. shares of stock in PEIP convert the case from an action
in personam to one quasi in rem, so as to qualify said
case under the 4th instance of extra-territorial service.

Page 80
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

What is required is not a mere allegation of the Petitioner, by way of special appearance,
existence of personal property belonging to the non- argued that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
resident defendant within the Philippines but that the over his person. This motion was denied. Petitioner filed
non-resident defendant’s personal property located before the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment,
within the Philippines must have been actually attached. Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Temporary
Evidently, PES’s personal property within the Philippines, Restraining Order. This petition was dismissed for
in the form of shares of stock in PEIP, had not been “failure to attach an affidavit of merit alleging the facts
attached; hence, the case for collection of sum of money supporting the good and substantial defense, as well as
and damages remains an action in personam. the affidavits of witnesses or document supporting the
defense.”
In the case at bar, there can never be a valid
extraterritorial service of summons upon it, because the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but
case involving collection of a sum of money and this was denied. Following this set-back, petitioner filed
damages is an action in personam, as it deals with the before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari of
personal liability of PES by reason of the alleged the resolutions of the CA, which was also denied for
unilateral termination of the Distribution Agreement. The failure to comply with procedural requirements. Our
objective sought in Dakila’s Complaint was to establish a resolution became final and executory. Private
claim against PES. Moreover, The action instituted by respondent filed a Motion for Execution before the trial
Dakila affects the parties alone, not the whole world. court.

Thus, being an action in personam, personal ISSUE: Whether the court acquired jurisdiction
service of summons within the Philippines is necessary over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the
in order for the RTC to validly acquire jurisdiction over substituted service of summons effected by the sheriff
the person of PES, and this is not possible in the present
case because the PES is a non-resident and is not found NO. The person who allegedly received the
within the Philippines. Dakila’s allegation in its Amended summons was identified in the sheriff’s return as Arsenio
Complaint that PES had personal property within the Robles, was not petitioner’s employee, was a native of
Philippines in the form of shares of stock in PEIP did not Batangas and was merely peddling mango seedlings
make the case fall under any of the four instances within the vicinity of his office when the summons was
mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, served.
as to convert the action in personam to an action in rem
or quasi in rem and, subsequently, make the In the event that summons cannot be served
extraterritorial service of summons upon the petitioner within a reasonable time, the Rules permit that
valid. substituted service may be resorted to. In this case, the
sheriff employed the substituted service of
Voluntary appearance summons. The defect, however, in the manner in which
The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall he implemented this mode of service of summons is
be equivalent to service of summons. readily apparent on the face of the return. It must be
emphasized that laws providing for modes other than
The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds the personal service of summons must be strictly
aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the followed in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction
defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. over the person of respondent or defendant. As the
(Sec. 20, Rule 14) sheriff’s return in the present case does not contain any
statement with regard to the impossibility of personal
CEZAR v. RICAFORT-BAUTISTA (2006) service the same is patently defective and so the
FACTS: Private respondent Specified Materials presumption of regularity in the performance of official
Corporation filed a Complaint for collection of sum of functions will not lie.
money against petitioner Cezar due to the latter’s failure
to pay the construction materials it purportedly ISSUE: Whether petitioner’s voluntary
purchased under a credit line extended by private appearance cured the defect in service of summons.
respondent. At the time of the institution of the action,
petitioner’s obligation stood at P1,860,000.00, and HELD: YES. In Flores v. Zurbito, we held that
under the terms of the credit arrangement, materials an appearance in whatever form without expressly
sold to petitioner were supposed to be paid within 30 objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person,
days from date of delivery, subject to a 3% interest per is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the
month for delayed payments. person of the defendant or respondent, thus:

After the filing of the complaint, summons was He may appear without such formal
issued, and this was received by a certain Robles. As appearance and thus submit himself to the jurisdiction
petitioner failed to file his answer to the complaint, of the court. He may appear by presenting a motion, for
private respondent moved that he be declared in example, and unless by such appearance he specifically
default. This motion was granted. objects to the jurisdiction of the court, he thereby gives
his assent to the jurisdiction of the court over his
Private respondent filed a Motion to Admit person.
Amended Complaint alleging that it erroneously
computed petitioner’s obligation to be P1,860,000.00, Hence, in this case, petitioner’s filing of a
when it should have amounted to P2,005,000.00. A Motion for Re-setting of the Hearing effectively cured the
copy of the motion and the Amended Complaint were defect of the substituted service of
personally received by petitioner as evidenced by his summons. Petitioner’s insistence of lack of jurisdiction
signatures thereon. The Amended Complaint was over his person is utterly lacking in any legal basis.
ordered admitted. The court ruled in favor of plaintiff.

Page 81
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

LHUILLER v. BRITISH AIRWAYS (2010) HELD: NO. The Warsaw Convention has the
force and effect of law in this country. The Warsaw
FACTS: Lhuillier took respondent British Convention applies because the air travel, where the
Airway’s flight 548 from London, United Kingdom to alleged tortious conduct occurred, was between the
Rome, Italy. Once on board, she allegedly requested United Kingdom and Italy, which are both signatories to
Halliday, one of the respondent’s flight attendants, to the Warsaw Convention. Since the Warsaw Convention
assist her in placing her hand-carried luggage in the applies in the instant case, then the jurisdiction over the
overhead bin. However, Halliday allegedly refused to subject matter of the action is governed by the
help and assist her, and even sarcastically remarked provisions of the Warsaw Convention.
that "If I were to help all 300 passengers in this flight, I
would have a broken back!" Respondent, in seeking remedies from the trial
court through special appearance of counsel, is not
Petitioner further alleged that when the plane deemed to have voluntarily submitted itself to the
was about to land in Rome, Italy, another flight jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, a defendant who files
attendant, Kerrigan, singled her out from among all the a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the
passengers in the business class section to lecture on court over his person, together with other grounds
plane safety. Allegedly, Kerrigan made her appear to the raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared
other passengers to be ignorant, uneducated, stupid, voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary
and in need of lecturing on the safety rules and appearance means is that the voluntary appearance of
regulations of the plane. Affronted, petitioner assured the defendant in court is without qualification, in which
Kerrigan that she knew the plane’s safety regulations case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of
being a frequent traveler. Thereupon, Kerrigan allegedly jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of
thrust his face a mere few centimeters away from that summons.
of the petitioner and menacingly told her that "We don’t
like your attitude." A special appearance before the court––
challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a
Upon arrival in Rome, petitioner complained to motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other
respondent’s ground manager and demanded an grounds––is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by
apology. However, the latter declared that the flight the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his
stewards were "only doing their job." person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Thus, petitioner filed the complaint for
damages. Summons, together with a copy of the In this case, the special appearance of the
complaint, was served on the respondent through counsel of respondent in filing the Motion to Dismiss and
Echevarria, General Manager of Euro-Philippine Airline other pleadings before the trial court cannot be deemed
Services, Inc. to be voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the said
trial court.
Respondent, by way of special appearance
through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of Return of service
lack of jurisdiction over the case and over the person of When the service has been completed, the server shall,
the respondent. Respondent alleged that only the courts (1) within five (5) days therefrom,
of London, United Kingdom or Rome, Italy, have (2) serve a copy of the return, personally or by
jurisdiction over the complaint for damages pursuant to registered mail, to the plaintiff’s counsel, and
the Warsaw Convention. Thus, since respondent is (3) shall return the summons to the clerk who
domiciled in London; respondent’s principal place of issued it,
business is in London; petitioner bought her ticket in (4) accompanied by proof of service. (Sec. 4, Rule
Italy (through Jeepney Travel S.A.S, in Rome); and 14)
Rome, Italy is petitioner’s place of destination, then it
follows that the complaint should only be filed in the
proper courts of London, United Kingdom or Rome, Italy. Alias summons
Likewise, it was alleged that the case must be dismissed If a summons is returned without being served on any
for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent or all of the defendants, the server shall also serve a
because the summons was erroneously served on Euro- copy of the return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the
Philippine Airline Services, Inc. which is not its resident reasons for the failure of service, within five (5) days
agent in the Philippines. therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has been
lost, the clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an
Instead of filing a Comment/Opposition, alias summons.
petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit
Formal Amendment to the Complaint and Issuance of
Alias Summons. Petitioner alleged that upon verification Proof of service
with the SEC, she found out that the resident agent of The proof of service of a summons shall be
respondent in the Philippines is Alonzo Q. Ancheta. (1) made in writing by the server and
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion to Resolve (2) shall set forth the manner, place, and date of
Pending Incident and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. service;
(3) shall specify any papers which have been
ISSUE: Whether British Airways, in filing its served with the process and
motion to dismiss may be deemed as having in fact and (4) the name of the person who received the
in law submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the lower same; and
court,. (5) shall be sworn to when made by a person
other than a sheriff or his deputy. (Sec. 18,
Rule 14)

Page 82
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The following are prohibited in Small Claims Cases:

Publication (1) Motion to dismiss the complaint, except on
If the service has been made by publication, service ground of lack of jurisdiction’
may be proved by (2) Motion for bill of particulars;
(1) the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or (3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
principal clerk, or of the editor, business or judgment, or for reopening of trial;
advertising manager, (4) Petition for relief from judgment;
(2) an attached copy of the publication, and (5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
(3) an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of affidavits and other papers;
the summons and order for publication in the (6) Memoranda;
post office, postage prepaid, directed to the (7) Petition for certiorari, and mandamus or
defendant by registered mail to his last known prohibition against an interlocutory order of the
address. (Sec. 19, Rule 14) court;
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(9) Dilatory motions for postponement
Rule 15 (10) Reply;
Motions (11) Third-party complaints;
(12) Interventions.

In general
A motion is an application for relief other than by a Contents
pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 15) A motion shall
(1) state the relief sought to be obtained
Form (2) the grounds upon which it is based, and
General rule: All motions shall be in writing. (3) shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits
and other papers, if required by these Rules or
Exceptions: necessary to prove facts alleged therein. (Sec.
(1) Motions made in open court or 3, Rule 15)
(2) Motions made in the course of a hearing or
trial. (Sec. 2, Rule 15)
Omnibus motion rule
Generally A motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or
The Rules applicable to pleadings shall apply to written proceeding shall include all objections then
motions so far as concerns available, and all objections not so included shall be
(1) caption, deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 15)
(2) designation,
(3) signature, and Exceptions
(4) other matters of form. (Sec. 10, Rule 15) The court shall dismiss the claim
when it appears from the pleadings
May be oral or the evidence on record that
General rule: All motions shall be in writing. (1) the court has no jurisdiction
Exception Motions made in open court or in the over the subject matter,
course of a hearing or trial. (Sec. 2, Rule 15) (2) there is another action
pending between the same
Motion for leave parties for the same cause,
A motion for leave to file a pleading or motion shall be or that
accompanied by the pleading or motion sought to be (3) the action is barred by a
admitted. (Sec. 9, Rule 15) prior judgment or
(4) barred by the statute of
Prohibited motion limitations. (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
The following pleadings and motions are prohibited in a
summary procedure:
(1) Motion to dismiss except on the ground of lack Notice of hearing
of jurisdiction over subject matter and failure General Rule: Every written motion shall be set for
to comply with barangay conciliation hearing by the applicant.
proceedings;
(2) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a Exception: Motions which the court may act upon
judgment, or for reopening of trial; without prejudicing the rights of the adverse
(3) Petition for relief from judgment; party. (Sec. 4, Rule 15)
(4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits and other papers; NOTE: Every written motion required to be heard
(5) Memoranda; and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be
(6) Petition for certiorari, and mandamus or served
prohibition against an interlocutory order of the (1) in such a manner as to ensure its
court; receipt by the other party
(7) Motion to declare the defendant in default; (2) at least three (3) days before the
(8) Dilatory motions for postponement date of hearing, unless the court for
(9) Reply; good cause sets the hearing on
(10) Third-party complaints; shorter notice.
(11) Interventions.

Page 83
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Notice of hearing— extension of time to file an answer, and a motion for

The notice of hearing shall be extension of time to file a record on appeal. The
(1) addressed to all parties concerned, requirement of notice under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 is
and mandatory and the lack thereof is fatal to a motion for
(2) shall specify the time and date of the reconsideration. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err
hearing which must not be later than when it affirmed the RTC ruling that petitioners motion
ten (10) days after the filing of the for reconsideration is but a mere scrap of paper because
motion. (Sec. 5, Rule 15) it does not comply with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15.

General rule: without compliance — Defective notice of hearing

scrap of paper
A motion which does not meet the VICTORY LINER, INC. v. MALINIAS (2007)
requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule
15 is a mere scrap of paper which the FACTS: A vehicular collision happened between
clerk of court has not right to receive and petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) and an Isuzu Truck
the trial court has no authority to act used by respondent Michael Malinias. No one died, but
upon. both vehicles were damaged. Malinias filed a complaint
for damages against petitioner and the bus driver,
SPOUSES RUSTIA V.EMERITA RIVERA (2006) Leoncio Bulaong with the MTC, alleging pecuniary
damage to the truck worth P47,180 representing lost
FACTS: Emerita Rivera filed with the income for the non-use of the truck. After pre-trial, the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 36, Quezon bus driver was dropped as defendant in the case.
City, a complaint for sum of money against spouses
Carlos and Teresita Rustia, petitioners, and Rosemarie F. During trial, respondent finished presenting his
Rocha. The trial court rendered its Decision in favor of evidence and rested his case. Counsel for petitioner VLI
Emerita Rivera. The MeTC ruled in favor of Emerita filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, but the same was
Rivera. On appeal by spouses Rustia, the Regional Trial denied. When the case was called for reception of
Court (RTC), Branch 77, Quezon City affirmed the petitioner’s evidence, no appearance was made for the
MeTCs Decision in toto. Spouses Rustia filed a motion bus company. Respondent thus moved that petitioner be
for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC as it declared to have waived its right to adduce evidence in
does not contain a notice of the time and place of its favor. The case was deemed submitted for judgment
hearing required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the and the MTC ruled in favor of respondent Malinias,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. ordering VLI to pay him.

ISSUE: Whether the motion for reconsideration VLI’s new counsel filed a Motion for
filed with the RTC by spouses Rustia is a mere scrap of Reconsideration. The Notice of Hearing therein stated:
paper for lack of notice of hearing; "Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration
for hearing before the CA at a schedule and time
HELD: Yes. convenient to the Court and the parties.” The MTC ruled
that the notice did not conform with the mandatory
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil requirements of Section 5, Rule 15, and that the motion
Procedure, as amended, provide: was thus a mere scrap of paper which did not suspend
the period to appeal.
SEC. 4. Hearing of motion.
Except for motions which the court may act Petitioner VLI thereafter filed a Notice of
upon without prejudicing the rights of the Appeal and a motion for the inhibition by the MTC, which
adverse party, every written motion shall was granted. The case was assigned to a new MTC
be set for hearing by the applicant. judge, who was tasked to rule on the Notice of Appeal.
The MTC ruled that it had been filed beyond the
Every written motion required to reglementary period. Again, the MTC reiterated its initial
be heard and the notice of the judgment in favor of Malinias since the fatally defective
hearing thereof shall be served in such a MR did not toll the reglementary period for appeal.
manner as to ensure its receipt by the
other party at least three (3) days before The RTC affirmed the judgment of the MTC and
the date of hearing, unless the court for held the decision final and executory.
good cause sets the hearing on shorter
notice. ISSUE: Whether the Notice of Hearing filed
was defective
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing.
The notice of hearing shall be addressed HELD: YES. The most crucial failure on the
to all parties concerned, and shall specify part of petitioner was to file a Motion for Reconsideration
the time and date of the hearing which of the MTC Judgment which contained a defective Notice
must not be later than ten (10) days after of Hearing, failing as it did to set a date for hearing.
the filing of the motion. Under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 15, the notice of hearing
shall be addressed to the parties concerned and shall
Section 4 lays the general rule that all written specify the time and date of the hearing of the motion;
motions shall be set for hearing by the movant, except no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof
the non-litigated motions or those which may be acted of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is
upon by the court without prejudicing the rights of the satisfied that the rights of the adverse party are not
adverse party. These ex parte motions include a motion affected. Unless the movant sets the time and place of
for extension of time to file pleadings, motion for hearing, the court will be unable to determine whether

Page 84
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

the adverse party agrees or objects to the motion, and if ISSUE: Whether the dismissal order issued without any
he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the rules hearing on the motion to dismiss is void
themselves do not fix any period within which he may
file his reply or opposition. NO. Petitioner was given the chance to adduce
his case, yet it is because of his constant absences that
Not only did the defect render the motion for he was unable to present his arguments. One good
reconsideration itself unworthy of consideration, it more reason for the statutory requirement of hearing on a
crucially failed to toll the period to appeal. A motion motion is to enable the suitors to adduce evidence to
without a notice of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of support their claims. But here the Motion to Dismiss is
paper that does not toll the period to appeal, and upon grounded on the lack of cause of action. Existence of a
the expiration of the 15-day period, the questioned cause of action or lack of it is determined by a reference
order or decision becomes final and executory. to the facts averred in the challenged pleading. The
question raised in the motion is purely one of law. In
That did not mean that petitioner was left this posture, oral arguments on the motion are reduced
bereft of further remedies under our Rules. For one, to an unnecessary ceremony and should be overlooked.
petitioner could have assailed the MTC’s denial of the The hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was set, yet the
Motion for Reconsideration through a special civil action petitioner failed to appear (only his counsel showed up).
for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of Moreover, without any clear showing to the contrary,
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of there is a presumption of regularity within the actions of
the MTC in denying the motion. If that remedy were the court with regard to entertaining motions. In the
successful, the effect would have been to void the MTC’s case at bar, petitioner failed to show irregularity within
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, thus allowing the courts.
petitioner to again pursue such motion as a means
towards the filing of a timely appeal. VLASON ENTERPRISES CORP v. CA (1999)

Another remedy for the petitioner is found FACTS: Duraproof sought to enforce its
under Rule 38, which governs petitions for relief from preferred salvors lien by filing with the RTC a petition for
judgment. Indeed, Section 2, Rule 38 finds specific certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the
application in this case, as it provides that "[w]hen a actions of the Customs Officers in forfeiting the vessel
judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a and cargo owned by Omega, which Duraproof contracted
case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, to repair. It impleaded PPA and Med Line Philippines,
or excusable negligence, has been prevented from Inc. as respondents.
taking an appeal, he may file a petition [for relief from
denial of appeal] in such court and in the same case Duraproof amended its petition to include the
praying that the appeal be given due course."36 Such former District Collector, and other companies involved,
petition should be filed within sixty (60) days after the including Vlason Enterprises. In both Petitions,
petitioner learns of the judgment or final order, and not Duraproof failed to allege anything pertaining to Vlason
more than six (6) months after such judgment or final Enterprises, or any prayer for relief against it.
order was entered. The facts of this case indicate that
petitioner could have timely resorted to this remedy. Summonses for the amended Petition were
served. Duraproof moved several times to declare the
Exceptions respondents it impleaded in default. Out of those
Motions which may be granted ex parte respondents, only the following were declared by RTC in
An ex parte motion does not require that default: the Singkong Trading Co., Commissioner Mison,
parties be hard. An example is a motion to set M/V Star Ace and Omega. Duraproof filed an ex parte
the case for pre-trial. Motion to present evidence against the defaulting
respondents, which was granted.
NOTE: A motion to dismiss, a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, and a summary Duraproof alleged that Vlason Enterprises,
judgment are litigated motions. through constant intimidation and harassment in
utilizing the PPA Management of La Union, caused
Where adverse party had opportunity to oppose Duraproof to incur heavy overhead expenses, causing
irreparable damages of about P3 Million worth of ship
LANTO v. DIMAPORO (1966) tackles, rigs, and appurtenances including radar
antennas and apparatuses, which were taken
FACTS: Resolution No. 7, adopted by the surreptitiously by persons working for Vlason Enterprises
Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte, reverted a previous or its agents.
salary appropriation for the position of Assistant
Provincial Assessor to the general fund. In effect, that The RTC ruled that in favor of Duraproof and
position then held by petitioner was then abolished. He ordered Vlason to pay P3 Million worth of damages.
sought relief to various government officials, including Duraproof and the other companies entered into a
the President but was disappointed. He then went to the compromise agreement, except Vlason. Duraproof
court seeking mandamus praying for annulment of the moved for the execution of judgment. The Motion was
resolution, payment of backwages, restatement of salary granted and a Writ of Execution was issued.
appropriations as well as reinstatement.
Vlason Enterprises filed a Motion for
Respondents moved to dismiss stating lack of cause of Reconsideration addressed to Duraproof’s counsel, Atty.
action. Petitioner’s counsel moved to postpone the Concepcion, on the ground that it was allegedly not
hearing, but failed to appear. The court below granted impleaded as a defendant, served summons or declared
such motion and dismissed said petition. Hence this in default, and hence Duraproof may not present
appeal. evidence against it in default. Duraproof opposed the

Page 85
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Motion, arguing that it was a mere scrap of paper due to object to the said Motion for lack of notice to him; in
its defective notice of hearing. fact, he was furnished in open court with a copy of the
motion and was granted by the trial court thirty days to
RTC reversed its Decision, finding that there file his opposition to it. These circumstances clearly
never was issued an order of default against Vlason justify a departure from the literal application of the
Enterprises, so there could not have been any valid notice of hearing rule. In other cases, after the trial
default-judgment rendered against it. court learns that a motion lacks such notice, the prompt
resetting of the hearing with due notice to all the parties
The CA ruled that there was no need to serve is held to have cured the defect.
summons anew on Vlason Enterprises, since it had been
served summons when the second amended petition Proof of service
was filed; and that Vlason Enterprisess Motion for No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by
Reconsideration was defective and void, because it the court without proof of service thereof. (Sec. 6, Rule
contained no notice of hearing addressed to the counsel 15)
of Duraproof in violation of Rule 16, Section 4 of the
Rules of Court.
Hearing of motion
ISSUE: Whether the motion for reconsideration General rule: All motions shall be scheduled for hearing
filed by Vlason was void for not containing a notice of on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working day,
hearing to Duraproof’s counsel in the afternoon of the next working day

HELD: NO. The Motion contained a notice of Exception: Motions requiring immediate action. (Sec. 7,
hearing sent to Atty. Concepcion who had already died Rule 15)
and had since been substituted by Duraproof’s new
counsel, Atty. Desierto. Although Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court requires Vlason Enterprises to address and to Rule 16
serve on the counsel of Duraproof the notice of hearing Motion to Dismiss
of the Motion for Reconsideration, the case at bar,
however, is far from ideal. First, Vlason Enterprises was
not validly summoned and it did not participate in the Four general types of motion to dismiss under the
trial of the case in the lower court; thus, it was Rules
understandable that Vlason Enterprises would not be 1. Motion to dismiss before answer
familiar with the parties and their counsels. Second, (Rule 16)
Atty. Desierto entered his appearance only as 2. Motion to dismiss by plaintiff (Rule
collaborating counsel, who is normally not entitled to 17)
notices even from this Court. Third, Duraproof made no 3. Motion to dismiss on demurrer to
manifestation on record that Atty. Concepcion was evidence after plaintiff has rested his
already dead. Besides, it was Atty. Concepcion who case under Rule 33
signed the Amended Petition, wherein Vlason 4. Motion to dismiss appeal either in
Enterprises was first impleaded as respondent and RTC (Rule 41, Sec. 13), CA (Rule 50,
served a copy thereof. Naturally, Vlason Enterprisess Sec. 1) or SC (Rule 56, Sec. 5)
attention was focused on this pleading, and it was within
its rights to assume that the signatory to such pleading Grounds (Sec. 1)
was the counsel for Duraproof. 1. Lack of jurisdiction

The Court has consistently held that a motion a. That the court has no jurisdiction over the
which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and person of the defending party.
5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a
worthless piece of paper, which the clerk of court has no
right to receive and the trial court has no authority to i. The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction over a
act upon. However, there are exceptions to the strict defendant in a civil case is acquired either
application of this rule. These exceptions include: “(1) through service of summons or through
where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure voluntary appearance in court and
or miscarriage of justice; especially if a party submission to its authority. If a defendant
successfully shows that the alleged defect in the has not been properly summoned, the court
questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent acquires no jurisdiction over its person, and
on its face or from the recitals contained therein.” The a judgment rendered against it is null and
present case falls under such exception since Vlason void. (Planters Development Bank v.
Enterprises was not informed of any cause of action or Chandumal, G.R. No. 195619, 5 September
claim against it. All of a sudden, the vessels which 2012)
Vlason Enterprises used in its salvaging business were
levied upon and sold in execution to satisfy a supposed ii. Where the action is in personam, and the
judgment against it. To allow this to happen simply defendant is in the Philippines, service of
because of a lapse in fulfilling the notice requirement summons may be made through personal
which, as already said, was satisfactorily explained service, that is, summons shall be served by
would be a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice. handing to the defendant in person a copy
thereof, or if he refuses to receive and sign
Circumstances in the case at bar show that for it, by tendering it to him. If the
Duraproof was not denied procedural due process, and defendant cannot be personally served with
that the very purpose of a notice of hearing had been summons within a reasonable time, it is then
served. On the day of the hearing, Atty. Desierto did not that substituted service may be made.

Page 86
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Personal service of summons should and objection is not raised either in a motion to
always be the first option, and it is only dismiss or in the answer, the objection to
when the said summons cannot be served the jurisdiction over the person of the
within a reasonable time can the process plaintiff or the defendant is deemed
server resort to substituted service. (Id.) waived. (Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, 19 June
iii. The court’s jurisdiction over a defendant is 2013)
founded on a valid service of summons.
Without a valid service, the court cannot vii. The ground of "lack of jurisdiction over the
acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, person, being subject to waiver, is a
unless the defendant voluntarily submits to personal defense which can only be
it. The defendant must be properly asserted by the party who can thereby
apprised of a pending action against him waive it by silence.(Id.)
and assured of the opportunity to present
his defenses to the suit. Proper service of b. That the court has no jurisdiction over the
summons is used to protect one’s right to subject matter of the claim.
due process. (Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 130974, 16 August 2006)
viii. Under Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court, the
objection based on lack of jurisdiction over
iv. In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,2 the Supreme the subject matter is not waived even if not
Court detailed the requisites for a valid alleged in a motion to dismiss or the
substituted service of summons, summed answer. Lack of jurisdiction over the
up as follows: (1) impossibility of prompt subject matter can always be raised
personal service – the party relying on anytime, even for the first time on appeal,
substituted service or the sheriff must show since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived
that the defendant cannot be served subject, however, to the principle of
promptly or there is impossibility of prompt estoppel by laches.
service; (2) specific details in the return –
the sheriff must describe in the Return of ELISEO BOTICANO V. MANUEL CHU, JR. (1987)
Summons the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal Facts: Eliseo Boticano (“Boticano”) filed a complaint for
service; (3) a person of suitable age and damages against Manuel Chu (“Chu”) and Jamie Sigua
discretion – the sheriff must determine if (“Sigua”) for allegedly causing damaged to Boticano’s
the person found in the alleged dwelling or Bedford truck .Summonses were issued against Chua
residence of defendant is of legal age, what and Sigua. However, the same was returned unserved
the recipient’s relationship with the for Sigua.
defendant is, and whether said person
comprehends the significance of the receipt Thereafter, Boticano moved to dismiss the case
of the summons and his duty to against Sigua, and to declare in default Chu for failure to
immediately deliver it to the defendant or file responsive pleadings within the reglementary period,
at least notify the defendant of said receipt which motions were granted by the trial court and
of summons, which matters must be clearly allowed Boticano to present evidence ex parte.
and specifically described in the Return of
Summons; and (4) a competent person in The trial court ruled in favor of Boticano, and
charge, who must have sufficient ordered Chu to pay damages.
knowledge to understand the obligation of
the defendant in the summons, its Aggrieved, Chu filed a Notice of Appeal and
importance, and the prejudicial effects an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file Record
arising from inaction on the summons. on Appeal which was granted by the trial court on the
same date.
v. In Pascual v. Pascual,3 the substituted service
of summon made was invalidated due to After the case was brought to the Court of
the sheriff’s failure to specify in the return Appeals and the parties had filed their respective
the necessary details of the failed attempts briefs, said Appellate Court issued its decision on March
to effect personal service which would 31, 1981, setting aside the appealed judgment directed
justify resort to substituted service of that the same be remanded to the court of origin and
summons. that Chu be properly served with summons and a copy
of the complaint.
vi. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of a party to a case is not one of Issue: Whether or not the question of jurisdiction over
those defenses which are not deemed the person of the defendant can be raised for the first
waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, and thus, time on appeal.
it must be invoked when an answer or a
motion to dismiss is filed in order to Held: No. In fact, one of the circumstances considered
prevent a waiver of the defense. If the by the Court as indicative of waiver by the defendant-
appellant of any alleged defect of jurisdiction over his
person arising from defective or even want of process,
2 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, 16 is his failure to raise the question of jurisdiction in the
August 2006. Court of First Instance and at the first opportunity. It
3 G.R. No. 171916, 4 December 2009.

Page 87
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

has been held that upon general principles, defects in Issue: Whether the action should be dismissed on the
jurisdiction arising from irregularities in the ground of res judicata.
commencement of the proceedings, defective process
or even absence of process may be waived by a failure Held: YES. There is no doubt that the judgment on
to make seasonable objections. appeal relative to the first civil case was a final
judgment. Not only did it dispose of the case on the
In this case, Chu voluntarily appeared thru merits, it also became executory as a consequence of
counsel in the trial court. He filed a Notice of Appeal, the denial of FEBTC’s motion for reconsideration and
Appeal Bond, Motion for Extension of Time to File appeal. In fact, authorities tend to widen rather than
Record on Appeal, Record on Appeal, Motion for restrict the doctrine of res judicata on the ground that
Withdrawal of Appearance, Notice of Appearance and public as well as private interest demands the ending of
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and suits by requiring the parties to sue once and for all in
for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. Not only did he the same case all the special proceedings and remedies
submit pleadings and motions, but he likewise to which they are entitled.
appeared in person, thru counsel in the hearing held on
May 14, 1979 at 8:30 a.m. and orally argued in open Section 47 of Rule 39 lays down two main
court on the pending incident. rules. Section 49(b) enunciates the first rule of res
judicata known as “bar by prior judgment” or “estoppel
Under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Rules of by judgment,” which states that the judgment or decree
Court, the defendant's voluntary appearance in the of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits
action shall be equivalent to service. Thus, under this concludes the parties and their privies to the litigation
principle, it has been consistently held by the Supreme and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving
Court that the defect of summons is cured by the the same cause of action either before the same or any
voluntary appearance of the defendant. other tribunal.

Stated otherwise, “bar by former judgment”

2. Res judicata makes the judgment rendered in the first case an
absolute bar to the subsequent action since that
DEL ROSARIO V. FAR EAST BANK judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters
AND TRUST COMPANY (2007) offered and received to sustain it but also as to any
other matter which might have been offered for that
Facts: PDCP extended a loan agreement of USD265,000 purpose and which could have been adjudged therein. It
and P2.5million to DATICOR. DATICOR paid 3million to is in this concept that the term res judicata is more
PDCP which latter applied to the interest, service fees commonly and generally used as a ground for a motion
and other charges. There was still a balance of to dismiss in civil cases.
10million. DATICOR filed a complaint against PDCP for
the violation of the Usury Law, annulment of contract The second rule of res judicata embodied in
and damages (Civil Case No. 82-8088) but it was Section 47(c), Rule 39 is “conclusiveness of
dismissed by the CFI. IAC set aside the dismissal and judgment.” This rule provides that any right, fact, or
declared the stipulation of interest in the contract as matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily
void. PDCP appealed to the SC (G.R. NO. 73198). In the involved in the determination of an action before a
interim, PDCP assigned its interest to FEBTC . FEBTC competent court in which a judgment or decree is
and DATICOR executed a Memorandum of Agreement rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
where DATICOR agreed to pay FEBTC P6.4million as full judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between
settlement of the receivables. SC then affirmed the the parties and their privies whether or not the claim or
decision of the IAC, and saying that the balance was demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two suits is
only 1.4 million. DATICOR filed a complaint for sum of the same. It refers to a situation where the judgment in
money against PDCP and FEBTC before RTC to recover the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the
the excess payments of 5.3million (Civil Case No. 94- matters actually determined or which were necessarily
1610). RTC ordered PDCP to pay DATICOR. The case included therein.
against FEBTC was dismissed for lack of cause of action
saying that the MOA between DATICOR and FEBTC was The case at bar satisfies the four essential
not a subject of the SC decision. From the trial court's requisites of “bar by prior judgment,” viz:
decision, petitioners and respondent PDCP appealed to
the Court of Appeals (CA). The appeal was docketed as a) finality of the former judgment;
CA-G.R. CV No. 50591. On May 22, 1998, the CA b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over
rendered a decision13 in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591, holding the subject matter and the parties;
that petitioners' outstanding obligation, which this Court c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
had determined in G.R. No. 73198 to be P1.4 million, d) there must be, between the first and second
could not be increased or decreased by any act of the actions, identity of parties, subject matter and
creditor PDCP. FEBTC later filed a 3rd party complaint causes of action
against PDCP on the ground that it received a
consideration when it assigned the receivables. PDCP
went on to contend that since the final and executory
decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591 had held that
DATICOR has no cause of action against it for the refund
of any part of the excess payment, FEBTC can no longer
re-litigate the same issue.

Page 88
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

3. Failure to state cause of action HALIMAO v. Villanueva

(1996)
HEIRS OF ANTONIO SANTOS VS. HEIRS OF
CRISPULO BERAMO (2010) Facts: Reynaldo Halimao wrote a letter to the Chief
Justice, alleging that respondents, without lawful
Facts: Respondents filed a complaint for reconveyance authority and armed with armalites and handguns,
against spouses borreros and NORCAIC. petitioners heirs forcibly entered the Oo Kian Tiok Compound in Cainta,
of Antonio Santos and Luisa Esguerra Santos filed a Rizal, of which complainant was caretaker. Complainant
Motion to Dismiss3 on the ground that the Amended prayed that an investigation be conducted and that
Complaint stated no cause of action against them. They respondents be disbarred.
pointed out that respondents were unable to
substantiate their claim of ownership over the subject Respondents Villanueva et. al. filed a
property, since they failed to present any documentary comment, claiming that the complaint is a mere
proof which established prima facie that the subject duplication of the complaint filed by Danilo Hernandez in
parcels of land were owned by their predecessor-in- Administrative Case No. 3835, which this Court had
interest. Moreover, respondents did not annex already dismissed for lack of merit. They pointed out
documents to the Amended Complaint evincing their that both complaints arose from the same incident and
right over the subject property. Petitioners also asserted the same acts complained of and that Danilo Hernandez,
that respondents failed to substantiate their claim of who filed the prior case, is the same person whose
fraud on the part of defendants spouses Antonio and affidavit is attached to the complaint in this case.
Luisa Santos; hence, respondents were unable to
establish a right that was allegedly violated by the Co-respondent Ferrer claimed that the two
defendants Spouses Santos. complaints were filed for the purpose of harassing him
because he was the principal lawyer of Atty. Daniel
Held: The contention lacks merit. Villanueva in two cases before the SEC.

When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint This case was referred to the IBP, whose Board
states no cause of action under Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of of Governors dismissed the case. The Investigating
the Rules of Court, such fact must be determined from Commissioner found that the complaint is barred by the
the allegations of the complaint. In a motion to dismiss, decision in Administrative Case No. 3835 which involved
a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the the same incident. The complaints in the two cases were
material allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint15 for the similarly worded.
purpose of resolving the motion. The general rule is that
the allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration
a cause of action against the defendant, if, admitting the of the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, alleging
facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment that the commissioner erroneously dismissed the
upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. To complaint since the respondents are deemed to have
sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, admitted the allegations of the complaint against them
the complaint must show that the claim for relief does by filing a motion to dismiss
not exist.
Issue: Whether the respondents hypothetically
From the amended complaint, it appears that since admitted petitioner’s allegations by filing a motion to
1892, private respondents' predecessor, Don Juan dismiss
Beramo, was in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the subject Held: NO. The rule that a motion to dismiss is to be
property, an agricultural land of the public domain; that considered as a hypothetical admission of the facts
the subject property was merely entrusted by private alleged in the complaint applies more particularly to
respondents' predecessor, Don Juan Beramo, to Cornelio cases in which the ground for dismissal is the failure of
Borreros, from whom petitioners derived their title; and the complaint to state a cause of action. This rule does
that the titling of the subject property and transfers not apply to other grounds for dismissal. In such cases,
thereof were simulated and fraudulent. These averments the hypothetical admission is limited to the facts alleged
indicate that private respondents are the rightful owners in the complaint which relate to and are necessary for
of the subject property but the same was wrongfully the resolution of these grounds as preliminary matters
registered by petitioners' predecessors, the Borreros involving substantive or procedural laws, but not to the
spouses. Such averments make out a case for other facts of the case.
reconveyance.
Two motions for reconsideration of this resolution were
Contrary to the contention of petitioners, respondents filed by the complainant therein, both of which were
did not have to present or append proof of their denied. While the complainant (Danilo Hernandez) in
allegations in the complaint to establish a sufficient Administrative Case No. 3835 is different from the
cause of action for reivindicacion and/or reconveyance in complainant in the present case, the fact is that they
their Amended Complaint. The Court has held that in have an identity of interest, as the Investigating
determining whether the allegations of a complaint are Commissioner ruled. Both complainants were employed
sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne at the Oo Kian Tiok Compound at the time of the alleged
in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or incident. Both complain of the same act allegedly
allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at committed by respondents. The resolution of this Court
the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the in Administrative Case No. 3835 is thus conclusive in
merits of the case. this case, it appearing that the complaint in this case is
nothing but a duplication of the complaint of Danilo
Hernandez in the prior case.

Page 89
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

TAN v. CA (1998)
Petitioners constructed a weaving factory on
Facts: Tan Keh sold two parcels of land to Tan Kiat, but the leased lot. Unfortunately, private respondents,
failed to effect the immediate transfer of the properties despite extensions granted, failed to comply with their
since Tan Kiat was still a foreign national at the time of undertaking to execute the deed of sale and to assign
the sale. Nevertheless Tan Keh secured the sale by the contract despite the fact that they were able to
executing a lease contract of 40 years in favor of Tan encash the checks in the total amount of P30,000.
Kiat. Worse, the lot owner made it plain to petitioners that he
was unwilling to give consent to the assignment of the
Four years later, Tan Keh sold the properties to his lease unless petitioners agreed to certain onerous terms,
brother, Tan. Tan knowingly held the property in trust such as an increase in rental, or the purchase of the
for Tan Kiat until the latter acquires Filipino citizenship. land at a very unconscionable price.
The new TCTs were issued in the name of Tan as trustee
of Tan Kiat. Tank Keh and Tan executed another lease Petitioners removed all their property,
contract to secure the conveyance of the property to Tan machinery and equipment from the building, vacated the
Kiat. Tan Kiat never paid rental and no demand for same and returned its possession to private
rentals was made on him. respondents. They demanded from the latter the return
of their partial payment for the purchase price of the
Tan Died. Tan Kiat thereafter demanded for the building in the total sum of P50,000, which respondents
conveyance of the property as he was finally a refused to return. Petitioner filed a complaint for
naturalized Filipino. Petitioners failed to convey them. recovery and of actual, moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees with the CFI.
Tan Kiat filed a complaint for recovery of property.
Petitioners moved for its dismissal based, among others, Hua was declared in default. Dy filed a motion
on failure to state a cause of action. RTC dismissed to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claim on
complaint acceding to all grounds set forth by the which the action is based — an alleged purchase of a
petitioners. CA reversed and ordered that case be building which is not evidenced by any writing — cannot
remanded for further proceedings. be proved by parol evidence since Article 1356 in
relation to Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that it
Issue: Whether the complaint stated no cause of action. should be in writing. The RTC granted the motion to
dismiss on the ground that the complaint is barred by
Held: YES. Averments in the complaint are deemed hypothetically the Statute of Frauds. Their motion for reconsideration
admitted upon filing of a Motion to Dismiss grounded on failure to was denied for the reason that the oral contract in this
state a cause of action. But there are also limitations to such rule. case was not removed from the operation of the Statute
of Frauds because there was no full or complete
In the case at bar, the “trust theory” claimed by Tan performance by the petitioners of the contract as
Kiat does not hold water. The lease contract as required by jurisprudence.
evidenced by document attached with the Motion to
Dismiss and admitted by Tan Kiat already belies the Issue: Whether petitioner’s action is barred by the
latter’s claim of ownership. There is an apparent lessor- Statute of Frauds.
lessee relationship. Ownership of Tan is further
supported by the annotated mortgage on the back of the Held: NO. Article 1403 of the Civil Code declares the
TCT which Tan executed in favor of a bank so as to following contracts, among others, as unenforceable,
secure a loan. In truth, By the very nature of a unless they are ratified: The purpose of the statute is to
mortgage contract, Tan could not have mortgage the prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of
property if he was not the real owner. obligations depending for their evidence on the
unassisted memory of witnesses by requiring certain
Having failed to prove the trust relationship, it may be enumerated contracts and transactions to be evidenced
gleaned from the allegations that the transaction was a by a writing signed by the party to be charged. It was
double sale instead. Since Tan had the TCT in his name, not designed to further or perpetuate fraud.
he is presumed to have the better right.
Under Article 1403, the contracts concerned
4. Statute of Frauds are simply "unenforceable" and the requirement that
they—or some note or memorandum thereof — be in
ASIA PRODUCTION CO., INC. V. PANO (1992) writing refers only to the manner they are to be proved.
It goes without saying then, that the statute will apply
Facts: Respondents Hua and Dy, owners of a building only to executory rather than executed contracts. Partial
constructed on a lot leased from Lucio San Andres and execution is even enough to bar the application of the
located in Bulacan, sold the building to the petitioners statute.
for P170,000.00, with the assurance that respondents
will also assign to them the contract of lease over the The instant case is not for specific performance
land. The above agreement and promise were not of the agreement to sell the building and to assign the
reduced to writing. leasehold right, but to recover the partial payment for
the agreed purchase price of the building. By their
Private respondents undertook to deliver the motion to dismiss, private respondents theoretically or
deed of conveyance over the building and the deed of hypothetically admitted the truth of the allegations of
assignment of the contract of lease within sixty (60) fact in the complaint. The action is definitely not one for
days upon the P20,000 downpayment. The balance was specific performance; hence the Statute of Frauds does
to be paid in monthly installments. Petitioners paid the not apply. And even if it were for specific performance,
downpayment and issued eight (8) postdated checks for partial execution thereof by petitioners effectively bars
the payment of the eight (8) monthly installments. the private respondents from invoking it.

Page 90
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

5. Condition precedent Who files

The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based
SUNVILLE TIMBER PRODUCTS, INC. V. ABAD on any of the grounds stated under Section 1, Rule 16,
(1992) to wit:
Facts: Sunville Timber Products (Sunville) was granted
a Timber License Agreement (TLA), authorizing it to Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but
cut, remove and utilize timber within the concession before filing the answer to the complaint or
area covering 29,500 hectares of forest land in pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may
Zamboanga del Sur, for a period of 10 years. be made on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
The respondents filed a petition with the person of the defending party;
DENR for the cancellation of the TLA and with the RTC (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
for injunction in a civil case, both on the ground of subject matter of the claim;
serious violations of its conditions and the provisions of (c) That venue is improperly laid;
forestry laws. (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between
Sunville moved to dismiss this case on the the same parties for the same cause;
ground that the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior
administrative remedies, among others. The motion to judgment or by the statute of limitations;
dismiss and the motion for reconsideration were (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no
denied. cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the
The CA sustained the RTC’s decision. CA held plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived,
that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
remedies was not without exception and pointed to the (i) That the claim on which the action is founded
several instances approved by this Court where it could is enforceable under the provisions of the
be dispensed with. The applicable exception was the statute of frauds; and
urgent need for judicial intervention because City (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim
Council of Pagadian requested the Bureau of Forest has not been complied with.
Development to reserve 1,000 hectares in Lison Valley.
This request remained unacted upon. Instead a TLA
covering 29,500 hectares, including the area How pleaded
requested, was given to petitioner Sunville. Due to the a. Period
erosion caused by Sunville’s logging operations heavy
floods have occurred in areas adjoining the logging A motion to dismiss may be filed
concessions. Thus, it is urgent that indiscriminate within the time for but before filing
logging be stopped. Sunville contends that the doctrine the answer to the complaint or
of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not pleading asserting a claim. (Sec. 1,
correctly applied Rule 16)

Issue: Whether the application of the doctrine of b. As affirmative defense

exhaustion of administrative remedies is correct
Section 6, Rule 16. Pleading grounds as
Held: NO. The doctrine of exhaustion of affirmative defenses. — If no motion to
administrative remedies calls for resort first to the dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds
appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution for dismissal provided for in this Rule may
of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before be pleaded as an affirmative defense in
the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for the answer and, in the discretion of the
review. court, a preliminary hearing may be had
thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been
There is the explicit language of pertinent filed.
laws vesting in the DENR the power and function "to
regulate the development, disposition, extraction, The dismissal of the complaint
exploration and use of the country's forests" and "to under this section shall be without
exercise exclusive jurisdiction" in the "management prejudice to the prosecution in the same
and disposition of all lands of the public domain," and or separate action of a counterclaim
in the Forest Management Bureau the responsibility for pleaded in the answer.
the enforcement of the forestry laws aid regulations
here claimed to have been violated. This The counterclaim which may be
comprehensive conferment clearly implies at the very prosecuted in the same or separate action
least that the DENR should be allowed to rule in the refers to permissive counterclaim
first instance on any controversy coming under its
express powers before the courts of justice may
intervene. Hearing and resolution

The charge involves factual issues calling for a. Hearing

the presentation of supporting evidence. Such evidence At the hearing of the motion, the parties
is best evaluated first by the administrative authorities, shall submit
employing their specialized knowledge of the agreement (1) their arguments on the
and the rules allegedly violated, before the courts may questions of law and
step in to exercise their powers of review.

Page 91
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

(2) their evidence on the Held: Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure
questions of fact involved except prescribes that the resolution of the motion to dismiss
those not available at that time. shall clearly and distinctly declare the reasons
therefor. The directive proscribes the common practice
NOTE: Should the case go to trial, the of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for lack of merit
evidence presented during the hearing which can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on
shall automatically be part of the evidence the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse
of the party presenting the same. (Sec. 2, therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon
Rule 16) to resolve the same. In this case, the trial court merely
stated:
b. Resolution of motion
After the hearing, the court may Examining the allegations in the complaint the
(1) dismiss the action or claim, Court finds that a cause of action sufficiently exist[s]
(2) deny the motion, or against defendants.
(3) order the amendment of the
pleading. The trial court did not explain why a sufficient
cause of action existed in this case. The trial court
The court shall not defer the merely cited Article 19 of the Civil Code which provides
resolution of the motion for the reason that that [e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights
the ground relied upon is not indubitable. and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
In every case, the resolution shall faith. The disposition of the trial court clearly fell short of
state clearly and distinctly the reasons the requirement set forth under Section 3, Rule 16 of
therefor. (Sec. 3, Rule 6) the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also sustained the dismissal of the

LUISTRO V. COURT OF APPEALS AND FIRST GAS complaint. The complaint was based on the alleged
POWER CORPORATION (2009) breach of the Contract and violation of the undertaking
that petitioners house was supposed to be 20 to 25
Facts: Respondent First Gas Power Corporation entered meters away from the transmission line. But as pointed
into an agreement with Meralco and the National Power out by the Court of Appeals, there was no such
Corporation to design, construct and energize an electric undertaking in the contract. The contract only granted
power transmission line. This undertaking entailed the respondent an easement on portions of petitioner’s
acquisition of easements of right-of-way over lands property, as indicated in the sketch plan, for the
located along the route of the transmission line, installation and maintenance of poles, towers and
including that of petitioner. wires. Therefore, the alleged right of petitioner, which
respondent supposed to have violated, did not exist in
Respondent entered into a Contract of the contract.
Easement of Right-of-Way (contract) with petitioner. It
then commenced the construction of the transmission MUNICIPALITY OF BIÑAN, LAGUNA V. COURT OF
line. Subsequently, petitioner’s counsel wrote a letter to APPEALS AND JESUS GARCIA (1993)
respondent, asking for a temporary stoppage of all kinds
of work within the vicinity of petitioner’s residential Facts: Petitioner filed a civil case for unlawful detainer
house since the transmission line being constructed against private in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
above it would endanger the life and health of the Biñan, alleging that it was no longer amenable to the
persons in the vicinity. renewal of its lease contract with respondent.
Respondent filed an answer contending that the contract
Since the grievance remained unresolved, of lease for the original period of 25 years had not yet
petitioner filed a complaint for Rescission/ Amendment expired, and assuming that it expired, he had exercised
of Contract of Easement against respondent, alleging his option to stay in the premises as expressly provided
that by means of fraud and machinations, respondent in said contract.
was able to convince him to enter into the contract.
Thus, while his house was supposed to be 20 to 25 Upon petitioner’s filing of a reply, respondent
meters away from the transmission line, it turned out filed a “Motion for Preliminary Hearing as if a Motion to
that his house was only 7.23 meters directly under the Dismiss Has Been Filed” (motion for preliminary hearing)
transmission line. on the ground that the complaint states no cause of
action, reiterating its arguments in the answer.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that petitioner failed to state a cause of action in The MTC rendered judgment ordering
his complaint. The trial court denied the motion to respondent to vacate the premises subject of the
dismiss. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed ejectment case. Respondent filed an appeal to the
and ordered the dismissal of the complaint for failure to Regional Trial Court (RTC), contending that the
state a cause of action. The Court of Appeals ruled that judgment by the MTC was irregularly and improvidently
the trial court failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 16 of issued when said court failed to resolve the motion for
the 1997 Rules of Procedure which requires that the preliminary hearing before rendering judgment on the
resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons merits. Petitioner filed a motion for execution pending
therefor. appeal with the RTC, which motion the RTC granted.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court’s Order failed to Thus, respondent filed with the Court of
comply with Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari assailing the RTC’s
Procedure. order of execution pending appeal. The CA invalidated

Page 92
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

said order for failure of the petitioner to comply with the The respondent Judge departed from this rule
mandatory proof of notice of the motion for execution to in conducting a hearing and in receiving evidence in
the adverse party. However, the CA likewise annulled support of private respondent's affirmative defense,
the judgment of the MTC which judgment is pending that is, lack of cause of action.
before the RTC.

Hence the instant petition for certiorari Effects of dismissal

contending that the CA overstepped its bounds in An order granting a motion to dismiss based
annulling the decision of the MTC even if said decision on the following shall bar the refiling of the
was not an issue raised by respondent, and which same action or claim:
decision was in fact pending on appeal with the RTC.
(1) That the cause of action is barred by a
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals had prior judgment [res judicata] or by the
jurisdiction to annul the decision of the MTC. statute of limitations [prescription];
(2) That the claim or demand set forth in
Held: Respondent Court of Appeals has no the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid,
jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding involving an waived, abandoned, or otherwise
incident in a case to rule on the merits of the main case extinguished; and
itself which was not on appeal before it. The validity of (3) That the claim on which the action is
the order of the RTC authorizing the issuance of a writ of founded is unenforceable under the
execution during the pendency of the appeal therein was provisions of the statute of frauds;
the sole issue raised in the petition for certiorari. Even
assuming that the validity of the judgment rendered by a. Appealable; refiling barred if motion
the MTC was squarely raised and before the CA, the based on Sec. 1(f), (h) and (i)
same cannot be considered a proper subject of a special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 which is limited Dismissal based on the above grounds is
only to challenges against errors of jurisdiction. The appealable. (Sec. 5, Rule 16)
jurisdiction of the MTC over the ejectment case filed by
the petitioner against private respondent is not disputed. Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal.
The error, if any was committed by the MTC, was at Subject to the right of appeal, an order
most one of judgment or procedure correctible by granting a motion to dismiss based on
ordinary appeal. paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of Section 1 hereof
shall bar the refiling of the same action or
Neither can it be said that the MTC committed claim.
a grave abuse of discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction
when it failed to conduct a preliminary hearing before b. On periods for pleading
summarily rendering judgment on the merits of the
case. Contrary to the claim of respondent, the If the motion is denied—
preliminary hearing permitted under Section 5 (now The movant shall file his answer within the
Section 6) of Rule 16 is not mandatory even when the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to
same is prayed for. It rests largely on the sound which he was entitled at the time of serving his
discretion of the trial court. The use of the word "may” motion, BUT not less than five (5) days in any
shows that such a hearing is not a matter of right event, from his receipt of the notice of the
demandable from the MTC. denial.

Moreover, a preliminary hearing on an If the pleading is ordered to be amended—

affirmative defense for failure to state a cause of action He shall file his answer within the period
is not necessary. As ruled in Heirs of Juliana Clavano prescribed by Rule 11 counted from service of
vs. Genato, et al.: the amended pleading, unless the court
provides a longer period. (Sec. 4, Rule 16)
…[R]espondent Judge committed an error in
conducting a preliminary hearing on the private c. On other grounds and omnibus motion
respondent's affirmative defenses. It is a well-settled rule
rule that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground A motion attacking a pleading, order,
that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the judgment, or proceeding shall include all
question submitted to the court for determination is the objections then available, and all objections
sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint itself. not so included shall be deemed waived. (Sec.
Whether those allegations are true or not is beside the 8, Rule 15)
point, for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the
motion. The issue rather is: admitting them to be true, Exceptions
may the court render a valid judgment in accordance The court shall dismiss the claim when it
with the prayer of the complaint? Stated otherwise, the appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
sufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the record that –
face of the complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the
this ground. No extraneous matter may be considered subject matter,
nor facts not alleged, which would require evidence and (2) there is another action pending between
therefore, must be raised as defenses and await the the same parties for the same cause, or
trial. In other words, to determine sufficiency of the that
cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint, (3) the action is barred by a prior judgment
and no other should be considered. or barred by the statute of limitations.
(Sec. 1, Rule 9)

Page 93
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Remedies More importantly, petitioner’s motion to

dismiss is based on the ground that the complaint states
If motion granted – appeal or refile complaint no cause of action, so that there is no need for a full
blown trial. It is also important to note that the courts
If motion denied – file answer, unless without will strive to settle the controversy in a single
jurisdiction, in which case, Rule 65 petition proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds
of future litigation.
Effects of Action on Remedy
Motion to Dismiss
Order granting motion Re-file the complaint. Rule 17
to dismiss is a final Dismissal of Actions
order (without
prejudice)
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 17
Order granting motion Appeal.
to dismiss (with Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A
prejudice) complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a
notice of dismissal at any time before service of the
Order denying the File answer and proceed answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon
motion to dismiss is with the trial. If there is such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order
interlocutory grave abuse of discretion confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the
amounting to lack or excess notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a
of jurisdiction, certiorari or notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when
prohibition under Rule 65 filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a
may lie. competent court an action based on or including the
same claim.
NPC v. CA (1990)
O.B. JOVENIR CONSTRUCTION AND
Facts: FINE Chemicals, a company engaged in the DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS.
manufacturing of plastics applied with the NPC for direct MACAMIR REALTY AND CA (2006)
power connection. Meralco assured that it had the
capabilities to serve FINE but that to allow direct Facts: Respondent Macamir Realty, and spouses
connections will be detrimental to other consumers since Miranda filed a complaint seeking the annulment of
they’ll shoulder the additional subsidy burden. certain agreements it had with petitioner O.B. Jovenir
Construction and Dev’t Corp (“Jovenir Corp), Oscar
However, NPC went on with the plan anyway Jovenir, and Gregorio Liongson after it discovered that
and provided its services with FINE. Because of this, Jovenir had misrepresented itself as a legitimate
Meralco filed a petition for Prohibition, Mandamus and contractor.
Damages with Preliminary Injunction with the RTC. FINE
countered saying that Injuction would be moot since the Ten days after the filing of the complaint,
service has already been consummated and the facilities Macamir filed a Motion to Withdraw Compliant, alleging
have been installed and are functional. Meralco that its counsel discovered a supposed technical defect
amended its petition by incorporating an application for (lack of authority of Spouses Miranda to sue on behalf of
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. FINE moved Macamir Corp) in the compliant. Thus, respondent
to dismiss the amended petition on the ground of prayed that they be allowed to withdraw the compliant
insufficiency of the allegations in the petition to plead a without prejudice.
cause of action. The trial judge allowed Meralco to
adduce evidence over FINE’s objection. FINE then filed a Subsequently, Macamir filed a similar
manifestation adopting its Motion to Dismiss but was complaint (2nd Complaint) against the same parties. This
denied. time, however, a Board Resolution authorizing the
spouses Miranda to file a complaint on behalf of Macamir
Undaunted, FINE proceeded directly to the CA Corp was attached to the complaint.
and filed a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus. CA dismissed. Hence this petition. Eleven days after the filing of the Motion to
Withdraw and seven days after the filing of the second
Issue: Whether Meralco’s petition in the lower court complaint, the Makati RTC granted Macamir’s Motion to
should be dismissed Withdraw. Meanwhile, Jovenir Corp filed a motion to
dismiss the 2nd complaint on the grounds of forum-
Held: YES. As a general rule, whenever a motion is shopping. Said motion was, however, denied. The court
denied, the petitioner should file an answer, go to declared that at the time the Motion to Withdraw
trial and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the Complaint was filed, none of the defendants had filed
issue on appeal. However, if the court who denies any answer or any responsive pleading. Thus, it was
the motion acts without or in excess of jurisdiction then within respondents right to cause the dismissal of
or with grave abuse of discretion the proper move the complaint without having to await action of the court
is to proceed to a higher court for relief. It would be on their motion. This Order was affirmed by the Court of
unfair to require the defendant to undergo the ordeal Appeals
and expense of trial under such circumstances as the
remedy of appeal would not be plain and adequate. Issue: Does Macamir have to wait for an order from the
court granting its Motion to Withdraw its first complaint
before it can file its second compliant?

Page 94
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Evidently, respondents had the right to dismiss

Held: No. We find no error on the part of the lower their complaint by mere notice on 13 February 1997,
courts since the denial of the motion to dismiss is wholly since as of even date, petitioners had not yet served
in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure. their answer on respondents. The Motion to Withdraw
Complaint makes clear respondents desire to withdraw
Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure the complaint without prejudice. That respondents
stated: resorted to a motion to effect what they could have
instead by mere notice may be indicative of a certain
Dismissal by the plaintiff An action may be degree of ignorance of procedural rules on the part of
dismissed by the plaintiff without order of respondents counsel. Yet such error, if it could be called
court by filing a notice of dismissal at any as such, should hardly be of fatal consequence.
time before service of the answer or of a Petitioners posit that the remedy of filing a notice of
motion for summary judgment. Unless dismissal is not exclusive, respondents having the option
otherwise stated in the notice, the of securing the courts approval to the dismissal. On the
dismissal is without prejudice, except that a contrary, the trial court has no discretion or option
notice operates as an adjudication upon the to deny the motion, since dismissal by the plaintiff
merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once under Section 1, Rule 17 is guaranteed as a matter
dismissed in a competent court an action based of right to the plaintiffs. Even if the motion cites
on or including the same claim. A class suit shall the most ridiculous of grounds for dismissal, the
not be dismissed or compromised without the trial court has no choice but to consider the
approval of the court. complaint as dismissed, since the plaintiff may opt
for such dismissal as a matter of right, regardless
of ground.
Indubitably, the provision ordained the
dismissal of the complaint by the plaintiff as a matter of
right at any time before service of the answer. The 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 17
plaintiff was accorded the right to dismiss the complaint
without the necessity of alleging in the notice of Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. —
dismissal any ground nor of making any reservation. Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint
shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save
In Go v. Cruz, the Court, through Chief Justice upon approval of the court and upon such terms and
Narvasa, has recognized that where the dismissal of an conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
action rests exclusively on the will of a plaintiff or has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service
claimant, to prevent which the defending party and even upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the
the court itself is powerless, requiring in fact no action dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal
whatever on the part of the court except the acceptance shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant
and recording of the causative document. The facts in to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless
that case are well worth considering. Therein, the notice within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he
of dismissal was filed by the plaintiff on 12 November manifests his preference to have his counterclaim
1981. Respondent filed his answer three days earlier, or resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified
on 9 November, but plaintiff was served a copy of the in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be
answer by registered mail only on 16 November. without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or
Notwithstanding the fact that the answer was filed with compromised without the approval of the court.
the trial court three days prior to the filing of the notice
of dismissal, the Court still affirmed the dismissal sought ANTONIO, JR. VS. MORALES (2007)
by the plaintiff. The Court declared that the right of the
plaintiff to cause the dismissal of the complaint by mere
notice is lost not by the filing of the answer with the trial Facts: E.M Morales & Associates (“EMMA”) filed a
court, but upon the actual service to the plaintiff of the complaint for a sum of money against Pablo Antonio (the
answer. “petitioners”), to which petitioner filed a Motion to
Dismiss on two grounds: (a) respondent’s failure to
The Court further ruled that [plaintiffs] notice attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to its
ipso facto brought about the dismissal of the action then complaint; and (b) respondent’s lack of legal capacity to
pending in the Manila Court, without need of any order sure, since it is a sole proprietorship.
or other action by the Presiding Judge. The dismissal
was effected without regard to whatever reasons or Subsequently, Engr. Morales filed an Amended
motives [plaintiff] might have had for bringing it about, Complaint, attaching thereto a certificate of non-forum
and was, as the same Section 1, Rule 17 points out, shopping. RTC admitted the amended complaint and
without prejudice, the contrary not being otherwise denied petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner, thus,
stated in the notice and it being the first time the action filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and eventually a
was being so dismissed. Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which
remained pending for more than six years.
It is quite clear that under Section 1, Rule 17
of the old Rules, the dismissal contemplated therein During the pendency of the Petition for
could be accomplished by the plaintiff through mere Certiorari, respondent Morales filed with the RTC a
notice of dismissal, and not through motion subject to Motion to Dismiss his complaint. The RTC granted said
approval by the Court. Dismissal is ipso facto upon Motion and dismissed the case without prejudice.
notice, and without prejudice unless otherwise stated in Thereafter, respondent filed a manifestation with the
the notice. It is due to these considerations that the Court of Appeals, informing the CA that the case was
petition should be denied. dismissed without prejudice.

Page 95
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Meanwhile, Morales filed a new complaint for 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 17
the collection of sum of money against petitioner. This
prompted the petitioner to file a Motion to Dismiss on Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If,
the ground of prescription. Petitioner maintains that for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on
from August 14, 1995, when he received respondents the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on
last letter of demand, to September 23, 2002, when the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an
respondent filed his second complaint, more than seven unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these
years had elapsed; and that the first case, Civil Case No. Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
95-1796, did not interrupt the running of the period. The dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
RTC, however, denied petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss, court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the
prompting the latter to file a petition for certiorari with defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or
the CA, which eventually denied their petition. Thus, in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect
petitioner appealed to the SC. of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise
declared by the court.
Issue: Is petitioner’s cause of action already barred
by prescription?
CRUZ VS. CA (2006)
Held: No, petitioner’s invocation of prescription is
misplaced. We recall that on December 18, 1995, FACTS: There are four different cases between the
respondent initially filed with the RTC of Makati parties, which are involved in the present controversy,
City its first complaint. While it was later namely: (1st) an unlawful detainer case; (2nd) a Quieting
dismissed without prejudice to his own motion, we of Title; (3rd) an injunction case; and (4th) an Annulment
note that the dismissal sought was not for the of Title with Damages. The first case was resolved
purpose of voluntarily abandoning his claim. On the in favor of petitioner Cruz. As regards the second case,
contrary, respondent’s intention was to expedite the it was dismissed by the RTC for respondents’ failure to
enforcement of his rights. Understandably, he felt prosecute. Lastly, the third case was dismissed on the
frustrated at the snails pace at which his case was ground of res judicata.
moving. As mentioned earlier, CA-G.R. SP No. 59309
remained pending before the Court of Appeals for six (6) As regards the fourth case, petitioners
long years. interposed a Motion for Outright Dismissal, which was
granted by the court. As such, respondents filed a
We further observe that respondent acted Motion for Reconsideration. The court granted said
swiftly after the dismissal of his case without prejudice Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, it reversed its
by the Makati RTC. He immediately filed with the Court prior order and reinstated the case. Aggrieved,
of Appeals a manifestation that Civil Case No. 95-1796 petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the CA.
was dismissed by the lower court. But the Court of Unfortunately, the CA held that there was no res
Appeals acted on his manifestation only after one year. judicata and thus, dismissed the Petition. Thereafter,
This delay, beyond respondents control, in turn further petitioners sought relief before the SC.
caused delay in the filing of his new complaint with the
Quezon City RTC. Clearly, there was no inaction or lack ISSUE: Are all the elements of res judicata present?
of interest on his part.
HELD: No. As regards the second element of res
The statute of limitations was devised to judicata, private respondents argue that the dismissal of
operate primarily against those who slept on their rights Civil Case No. 1600 (for Quieting of Title) was not a
and not against those desirous to act but could not do so dismissal on the merits. The dismissal of this case, they
for causes beyond their control. Verily, the Court of claim, will not bar the filing of the instant case (Civil
Appeals did not err in holding that the RTC, Branch 215, Case No. 2583-02 for Annulment of Title) because there
Quezon City did not gravely abuse its discretion when it was neither litigious consideration of the evidence nor
denied petitioners motion to dismiss respondents any stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial. In
complaint and ruled that respondents filing of the fact, there was no pre-trial conference and that after
complaint in Civil Case No. Q-02-47835 is not barred by four years of court inactivity, the case was dismissed for
prescription. failure to prosecute.

Effect on counterclaim Their argument does not hold water. Section 3

If a counterclaim has already been pleaded by of Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s
motion to dismiss, and the court grants the said motion, Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. -
the dismissal “shall be limited to the complaint.” The If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to
counterclaim is not dismissed, whether it is a appear on the date of the presentation of his
compulsory or permissive counterclaim because the rule evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
makes no distinction. prosecute his action for an unreasonable length
of time, or to comply with these Rules or any
The defendant if he so desires may prosecute order of the court, the complaint may be
his counterclaim either in a separate action or in the dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
same action. Should he choose to have his counterclaim upon the court's own motion, without prejudice
resolved in the same action, he must notify the court of to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
his preference within fifteen days from notice of the counterclaim in the same or in a separate
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Should he opt to prosecute action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
his counterclaim in a separate action, the court should an adjudication upon the merits, unless
render the corresponding order granting and reserving otherwise declared by the court.
his right to prosecute his claim in a separate complaint.

Page 96
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The rule enumerates the instances where the Dismiss on the ground of res judicata, alleging that the
complaint may be dismissed due to plaintiff's fault: (1) if Complaint is barred by prior judgment. In an Order, the
he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his RTC denied said motion. The court ruled that, since
evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action there was no determination of the merits of the first
for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to case, the filing of the second Complaint was not barred
comply with the rules or any order of the court. Once a by res judicata.
case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has the
effect of an adjudication on the merits and is understood Subsequently, petitioner filed two more
to be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless motions to dismiss raising forum-shopping and lack or
otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. In other jurisdiction as a ground, respectively. Both motions
words, unless there be a qualification in the order of were, however, denied. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
dismissal that it is without prejudice, the dismissal Orders. Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court.
should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and
is with prejudice. The order dismissing Civil Case No. Issue: Whether or not the second complaint is NOT
1600 reads: barred by res judicata because there was no
determination of the merits of the first case?
For failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to
appear on several settings despite due notices, Held: No. In any case, we agree with the CAs
precisely for the reception of plaintiffs' conclusion that the trial court did not commit
evidence, upon motion of the defendant grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners
through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is Motion to Dismiss. However, we do not agree that
dismissed for failure to prosecute. the judgment of dismissal in the first case was not
on the merits. A ruling on a motion to dismiss,
It is clear from the afore-mentioned order that issued without trial on the merits or formal
said case was dismissed, upon petitioners' motion, for presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment
failure of private respondents and their counsel to on the merits. Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of
attend several scheduled hearings for the presentation Court is explicit that a dismissal for failure to
of their evidence. Since the order did not contain a comply with an order of the court shall have the
qualification whether same is with or without prejudice, effect of an adjudication upon the merits. In other
following Section 3, it is deemed to be with prejudice words, unless the court states that the dismissal is
and shall have the effect of an adjudication on the without prejudice, the dismissal should be
merits. A ruling based on a motion to dismiss, without understood as an adjudication on the merits and is
any trial on the merits or formal presentation of with prejudice.
evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits.
Nonetheless, bearing in mind the
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. DE GUZMAN circumstances obtaining in this case, we hold that res
(2010) judicata should not be applied as it would not serve the
interest of substantial justice. Proceedings on the case
had already been delayed by petitioner, and it is only
Facts: Respondent Gina de Guzman obtained a
fair that the case be allowed to proceed and be resolved
P300,000.00 loan from petitioner, Philippine National
on the merits. Indeed, we have held that res judicata is
Bank, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of
to be disregarded if its rigid application would involve
land registered in her name. Gina acquired the property
the sacrifice of justice to technicality, particularly in this
from her father, Francisco de Guzman, through a Deed
case where there was actually no determination of the
of Absolute Sale dated August 28, 1978. Gina’s sister,
substantive issues in the first case and what is at stake
Rosalia de Guzman, the beneficiary of the family home
is respondents home.
standing on the said lot, gave her consent to the
mortgage.
3A APPAREL CORPORATION VS. METROPOLITAN
Later, Rosalia filed a Complaint for Declaration BANK AND TRUST CO. (2010)
of Nullity of Document, Cancellation of Title,
Reconveyance, Cancellation of Mortgage, and Damages Facts: Petitioner 3A Apparel Corporation (the
against Gina and petitioner, alleging that the purported corporation) mortgaged its condominium unit to
sale of the property by Francisco to Gina was fraudulent. respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
The Complaint was then amended to replace respondent (MBTC) to secure a loan. For failure to settle its
Intestate Estate of Francisco de Guzman as plaintiff. obligation, MBTC extrajudicially foreclosed the
mortgage, drawing the corporation, represented by its
Subsequently, the RTC dismissed the case due president Ray Shu, to file a complaint for petition for
to Rosalia’s failure to comply with the court’s order to annulment of real estate mortgage, promissory note,
pay the legal fees so that alias summons could be foreclosure of sale, and related documents before the
served. No appeals was taken from this order, thus, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig against MBTC and its
dismissal became final and executory. officers.

Thereafter, respondent Intestate Estate filed After almost two years from the time the
another Complaint, also for Declaration of Nullity of case was scheduled for presentation of the corporation’s
Documents, Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance, evidence, without it having presented any evidence,
Cancellation of Mortgage, and Damages, against Gina Branch 264 of the Pasig, RTC, upon motion of MBTC,
and petitioner, with essentially the same allegations as dismissed the corporation’s complaint for failure to
the former Complaint. prosecute.

On June 1, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to The corporation’s motion for reconsideration

Page 97
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

having been denied by the trial court, it filed a petition During the trial of the case, respondent failed
for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, positing that to present his evidence. It appears that on 25 October
substantial justice must prevail over mere technicalities. 2004, the RTC already ordered the dismissal of the
By Decision of July 18, 2008, the appellate court complaint after respondents counsel had sought the
dismissed the petition. It held that dismissal on the postponement of the hearing scheduled then. However,
ground of failure to prosecute has, citing Section 3 of the order of dismissal was subsequently reconsidered by
Rule 17, the effect of an adjudication on the merits, the RTC in an Order dated 9 June 2005, which took into
unless otherwise declared by the court. account the assurance of respondents counsel that he
would give priority to that case.
Issue: Is dismissal for failure to prosecute an
adjudication on the merits? At the hearing of 27 July 2005, respondent’s
counsel once again failed to appear, sending in his stead
Held: Yes, Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is a representative who sought the postponement of the
indeed clear that a dismissal for failure to prosecute is hearing. Petitioner’s counsel opposed the motion for
an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise postponement and moved instead for the dismissal of
declared by the court. No such declaration was made by the case. The RTC noted that it was obvious that
the trial court, hence, its dismissal of the corporations respondents had failed to prosecute the case for an
petition should be challenged by appeal within the unreasonable length of time, in fact not having
reglementary period. presented their evidence yet. On that ground, the
complaint was dismissed.
The invocation of justice and fair play by the
corporation does not impress. Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, opting, however, not to seek that their
. . . In order to perfect an appeal all that is complaint be reinstated, but praying instead that the
required is a pro forma notice of appeal. entire action be dismissed and petitioner be disallowed
Perhaps due to failure to file a notice of from presenting evidence ex parte. They cited two cases
appeal within the remaining two days of the which noted the instances in which a counterclaim could
appeal period, petitioners counsel instead not remain pending for independent adjudication. The
filed the instant petition. The rules of court granted respondent’s motion and dismissed
procedure, however, do not exist for the petitioner’s counterclaim. This prompted petitioner to file
convenience of the litigants. These rules are a Motion for Reconsideration, but the court denied the
established to provide order to and enhance same. Notably, respondent filed an Opposition to
the efficiency of our judicial system. They are petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration wherein they
not to be trifled with lightly or overlooked by argued that compulsory counterclaims cannot be
mere expedience of invoking substantial adjudicated independently of plaintiff’s cause of action,
justice. and a conversu, the dismissal of the complaint carries
with it the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaims.
Indeed, a plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute its
action with utmost diligence and with reasonable Issue: Is the dismissal of the complaint due to failure
dispatch in order to obtain the relief prayed for and, at to prosecute carries with it the dismissal of the
the same time, minimize the clogging of court dockets. compulsory counterclaim?
The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty
of the plaintiff as the courts. Held: No. We hold that under Section 3, Rule 17 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the
The corporation’s attempt to attribute part of complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not
the blame to the trial court which cancelled the hearing necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the
on April 15, 2002 when the presiding judge was on counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In fact, the
official leave, and that on June 20, 2002 during the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the
semestral docket inventory of cases, at which times the right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim.
corporation claims to have been ready to present
evidence does not impress too. If indeed that were the Our core discussion begins with Section 3, Rule
case, it could have presented its evidence during the 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states:
succeeding scheduled hearings. Yet, it did not. Instead,
it caused the postponement of the subsequent six SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.If,
scheduled hearings from August 7, 2002 to July 9, 2003 for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to
inclusive for unjustifiable reasons. appear on the date of the presentation of
his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
Effect on counterclaim prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time, or to comply with these
PINGA VS. SANTIAGO (2006) Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion
Facts: Respondent Santiago filed a complaint for of defendant or upon the court's own
injunction against petitioner Pinga. The complaint motion, without prejudice to the right of
alleged that petitioner and one Saavedra had been the defendant to prosecute his
unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent, counterclaim in the same or in a separate
cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of action. This dismissal shall have the effect
the coconut. In their Amended Answer with of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
Counterclaim, petitioner disputed respondent’s otherwise declared by the court.
ownership over the properties and claimed that his
father had been in possession thereof since the 1930s. The express qualification in the provision that
the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiffs fault,

Page 98
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

as in the case for failure to prosecute, is without On 2 August 1997, PEIA unilaterally terminated
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his the agreement, prompting respondent to file before the
counterclaim in the same or separate action. This stands RTC a Complaint for collection of sum of money and
in marked contrast to the provisions under Rule 17 of damages against PEIA and PEIP.
the 1964 Rules of Court which were superseded by the
1997 amendments. In the 1964 Rules, dismissals due to Dakila then filed Ex-Parte Motions for Issuance
failure to prosecute were governed by Section 3, Rule of Summons and for Leave of Court to Deputize
17, to wit: Respondents General Manager, Richard A. Tee, to Serve
Summons Outside of the Philippines, which the RTC
SEC. 3. Failure to prosecute. If plaintiff fails granted in its Order, dated 27 April 2000., an Alias
to appear at the time of the trial, or to Summons, dated 4 September 2000, was issued by the
prosecute his action for an unreasonable RTC to PEIA. However, said Alias Summons was served
length of time, or to comply with these rules on 28 September 2000 and received by Perkinelmer
or any order of the court, the action may be Asia, a Singaporean based sole proprietorship, owned
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or by the petitioner Perkin Elmer Singapore, Ltd (PSE) and,
upon the courts own motion. This dismissal allegedly, a separate and distinct entity from PEIA.
shall have the effect of an adjudication upon
the merits, unless otherwise provided by Subsequently, Dakila filed an Ex-Parte motion
court. to Admit Amended Complaint. In its Amended
Complaint, Dakila claimed that PEIA had become a sole
Evidently, the old rule was silent on the effect proprietorship owned by PSE. According to Dakila, a
of such dismissal due to failure to prosecute on the change in PEIA’s name and juridical status did not
pending counterclaims. As a result, there arose what detract from the fact that all its due and outstanding
one authority on remedial law characterized as the obligations to 3rd parties were assumed by PSE. Thus, in
nagging question of whether or not the dismissal of the its amended complaint, Dakila sought to change the
complaint carries with it the dismissal of the name of PEIA to PSE.
counterclaim. Jurisprudence construing the previous
Rules was hardly silent on the matter. Thereafter, the RTC admitted respondent’s
amended complaint. This prompted PSE to file a Special
Accordingly, the RTC clearly erred when it Appearance and Motion to Dismiss respondent’s
ordered the dismissal of the counterclaim, since Section Amended Complaint. PSE’s Motion to Dismiss, however,
3, Rule 17 mandates that the dismissal of the complaint was denied. As such, Petitioner PSE filed an answer ad
is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to cautelam with compulsory counterclaim. In its
prosecute the counterclaim in the same or separate counterclaim, petitioner PSE sought payment of
action. If the RTC were to dismiss the counterclaim, it damages and attorney’s fees by reason of the alleged
should be on the merits of such counterclaim. Reversal unfounded suit filed by respondent Dakila.
of the RTC is in order, and a remand is necessary for
trial on the merits of the counterclaim. Issue: Will the dismissal of the instant case carry with
it the dismissal of petitioner’s counterclaim?
The present rule embodied in Sections 2 and 3
of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable disposition of the Held: No. Finally, as regards the petitioners
counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is counterclaim, which is purely for damages and
based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not on attorney’s fees by reason of the unfounded suit filed by
the survival of the main complaint. Certainly, if the respondent against it, it has long been settled that the
counterclaim is palpably without merit or suffers same truly falls under the classification of compulsory
jurisdictional flaws, which stand independent of the counterclaim and it must be pleaded in the same action,
complaint, the trial court is not precluded from otherwise, it is barred. In the case at bar, this Court
dismissing it under the amended rules, provided that the orders the dismissal of the Complaint filed by the
judgment or order dismissing the counterclaim is respondent against the petitioner because the court a
premised on those defects. At the same time, if the quo failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
counterclaim is justified, the amended rules now latter. Since the complaint of the respondent was
unequivocally protect such counterclaim from dismissed, what will happen then to the counterclaim of
peremptory dismissal by reason of the dismissal of the the petitioner? Does the dismissal of the complaint carry
complaint. with it the dismissal of the counterclaim?

PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. VS. DAKILA In the cases of Metal Engineering Resources
TRADING CORPORATION (2007) Corp. v. Court of Appeals, International Container
Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, and BA
Facts: Respondent Dakila entered into a Distribution Finance Corporation v. Co., the Court ruled that if the
Agreement with petitioner Perkin-Elmer Instruments court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main
Asia (PEIA), a corporation duly organized and existing action of the case and dismisses the same, then the
under the laws of Singapore and engaged in the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the principal
business of manufacturing, producing, selling or controversy, must likewise be dismissed since no
distributing of laboratory equipment. By virtue of the jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the
agreement, PEIA appointed the Dakila as the sole counterclaim. If we follow the aforesaid pronouncement
distributor of its products in the Philippines. of the Court in the cases mentioned above, the
Furthermore, the agreement provides that Dakila shall counterclaim of the herein petitioner being compulsory
order the products of PEIA, which it shall sell in the in nature must also be dismissed together with the
Philippines, either from PEIA itself or from Perkin-Elmer Complaint. However, in the case of Pinga vs. Heirs of
Instrument Philippines (PEIP), an affiliate of PEIA. German Santiago, the Court explicitly expressed that:

Page 99
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Similarly, Justice Feria notes that the present counterclaim is maintained by the defendant
rule reaffirms the right of the defendant to against the plaintiff, while the converse holds
move for the dismissal of the complaint and to true with the complaint. Yet, as with a
prosecute his counterclaim, as stated in the complaint, a counterclaim without a cause of
separate opinion [of Justice Regalado in BA action cannot survive.
Finance]. Retired Court of Appeals Justice
Hererra pronounces that the amendment to x x x if the dismissal of the complaint
Section 3, Rule 17 [of the 1997 Revised somehow eliminates the cause(s) of the
Rules of Civil Procedure] settles that counterclaim, then the counterclaim cannot
nagging question whether the dismissal of survive. Yet that hardly is the case, especially
the complaint carries with it the dismissal as a general rule. More often than not, the
of the counterclaim, and opines that by allegations that form the counterclaim are
reason of the amendments, the rulings in rooted in an act or omission of the plaintiff
Metals Engineering, International other than the plaintiffs very act of filing the
Container, and BA Finance may be complaint. Moreover, such acts or omissions
deemed abandoned. x x x. imputed to the plaintiff are often claimed to
have occurred prior to the filing of the
x x x, when the Court promulgated the 1997 complaint itself. The only apparent
Rules of Civil Procedure, including the exception to this circumstance is if it is
amended Rule 17, those previous jural alleged in the counterclaim that the very
doctrines that were inconsistent with the new act of the plaintiff in filing the complaint
rules incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil precisely causes the violation of the
Procedure were implicitly abandoned insofar defendants rights. Yet even in such an
as incidents arising after the effectivity of the instance, it remains debatable whether
new procedural rules on 1 July 1997. BA the dismissal or withdrawal of the
Finance, or even the doctrine that a complaint is sufficient to obviate the
counterclaim may be necessarily dismissed pending cause of action maintained by the
along with the complaint, clearly conflicts with defendant against the plaintiff.
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The
abandonment of BA Finance as doctrine Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Court, if
extends as far back as 1997, when the Court the dismissal of the complaint somehow eliminates the
adopted the new Rules of Civil Procedure. If, cause of the counterclaim, then the counterclaim cannot
since then, abandonment has not been survive. Conversely, if the counterclaim itself states
affirmed in jurisprudence, it is only because no sufficient cause of action then it should stand
proper case has arisen that would warrant independently of and survive the dismissal of the
express confirmation of the new rule. That complaint. Now, having been directly confronted with
opportunity is here and now, and we thus the problem of whether the compulsory counterclaim by
rule that the dismissal of a complaint due reason of the unfounded suit may prosper even if the
to fault of the plaintiff is without main complaint had been dismissed, we rule in the
prejudice to the right of the defendant to affirmative.
prosecute any pending counterclaims of
whatever nature in the same or separate It bears to emphasize that petitioners
action. We confirm that BA Finance and all counterclaim against respondent is for damages and
previous rulings of the Court that are attorneys fees arising from the unfounded suit. While
inconsistent with this present holding are respondents Complaint against petitioner is already
now abandoned. [Emphasis supplied]. dismissed, petitioner may have very well already
incurred damages and litigation expenses such as
It is true that the aforesaid declaration of attorneys fees since it was forced to engage legal
the Court refers to instances covered by Section 3, Rule representation in the Philippines to protect its rights and
17 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure on to assert lack of jurisdiction of the courts over its person
dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of the by virtue of the improper service of summons upon it.
plaintiff. Nonetheless, it does not also preclude the Hence, the cause of action of petitioners counterclaim is
application of the same to the instant case just because not eliminated by the mere dismissal of respondent’s
the dismissal of respondents Complaint was upon the complaint.
instance of the petitioner who correctly argued lack of
jurisdiction over its person. It may also do well to remember that it is
this Court which mandated that claims for damages and
Also in the case of Pinga v. Heirs of German attorneys fees based on unfounded suit constitute
Santiago, the Court discussed the situation wherein the compulsory counterclaim which must be pleaded in the
very filing of the complaint by the plaintiff against the same action or, otherwise, it shall be barred. It will then
defendant caused the violation of the latters rights. As be iniquitous and the height of injustice to require the
to whether the dismissal of such a complaint should also petitioner to make the counterclaim in the present
include the dismissal of the counterclaim, the Court action, under threat of losing his right to claim the same
acknowledged that said matter is still debatable, viz: ever again in any other court, yet make his right totally
dependent on the fate of the respondents complaint.
Whatever the nature of the counterclaim, it
bears the same integral characteristics as a If indeed the Court dismisses petitioners
complaint; namely a cause (or causes) of counterclaim solely on the basis of the dismissal of
action constituting an act or omission by which respondents Complaint, then what remedy is left for the
a party violates the right of another. The main petitioner? It can be said that he can still file a separate
difference lies in that the cause of action in the action to recover the damages and attorneys fees based

Page 100
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

on the unfounded suit for he cannot be barred from adjudication on the merits, petitioners counsel should
doing so since he did file the compulsory counterclaim in have filed a notice of appeal with the appellate court
the present action, only that it was dismissed when within the reglementary period. Instead of filing a
respondents Complaint was dismissed. However, this petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the proper
reasoning is highly flawed and irrational considering that recourse was an ordinary appeal with the Court of
petitioner, already burdened by the damages and Appeals under Rule 41, which provides:
attorneys fees it may have incurred in the present case,
must again incur more damages and attorneys fees in Sec. 2. Modes of Appeal.
pursuing a separate action, when, in the first place, it
should not have been involved in any case at all. (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial
Since petitioners counterclaim is compulsory in Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
nature and its cause of action survives that of the shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
dismissal of respondents complaint, then it should be court which rendered the judgment or final order
resolved based on its own merits and evidentiary appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
support. adverse party x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Remedy of plaintiff
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 17
KO V. PNB (2006)
Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim,
Facts: Petitioners filed an action for the Annulment of or third-party complaint. — The provisions of this Rule
Mortgage, Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, and Annulment shall apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-
of TCTs and Deed of Sale. The complaint alleged that claim, or third-party complaint. A voluntary dismissal by
the assailed mortgage and foreclosure proceedings were the claimant by notice as in section 1 of this Rule, shall
null and void since the written consent of petitioners, as be made before a responsive pleading or a motion for
beneficiaries of the mortgaged property were not summary judgment is served or, if there is none, before
secured. the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

During the course of the proceedings, petitioners and

their counsel failed to attend a scheduled trial. Upon DEFAULT
motion of respondent bank, the complaint was (RULE 9, SEC. 3)
dismissed.
Nature in general
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration claiming If the defending party fails to answer within the time
that they have been continuously pursuing negotiations allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the
with respondent bank to purchase back the property and claiming party with notice to the defending party, and
have gained positive results. Respondent bank proof of such failure, declare the defending party in
countered that from the time the complaint was filed, a default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
period of three years had elapsed but petitioners failed judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
to prosecute their case, showing lack of interest in the pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
early resolution thereof. requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of
Issue: Is an Appeal under Rule 45 the proper remedy in court. (Rule 9, Section 3, par. 1)
elevating a case dismissed due to failure to prosecute?

Held: No. On the procedural aspect, we find that When may a defendant be declared in default?
petitioners erred in filing a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court instead of 1. Failure to file answer
filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals. Section 3,
Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides: Default; declaration of. — If the defending party
fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the
SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to notice to the defending party, and proof of such
appear on the date of the presentation of his failure, declare the defending party in default.
evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
the complaint may be dismissed upon the motion of discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
the defendant or upon the courts own motion, Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to clerk of court. (Rule 9, Section 3, par. 1)
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. This dismissal shall have the 2. Failure to furnish copy of answer
effect of an adjudication upon the merits,
unless otherwise declared by the court. 3. Failure to appear at pre-trial
(Emphasis supplied) Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the
Upon the order of dismissal, petitioners counsel next preceding section (duty of parties and their
filed a timely motion for reconsideration which was counsel to appear at pre-trial) shall be cause for
denied by the trial court. Considering that an order of dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with
dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an prejudice, unless other-wise ordered by the court. A

Page 101
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be bid price was neither unconscionable, nor shockingly
cause to allow the plaintiff to present his low.
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment During trial, a big conflagration hit the City Hall
on the basis thereof. (Rule 18, Section 5) of QC destroying the records of the case. After the
records were reconstituted, it was discovered that the
4. Failure to comply with modes of discovery foreclosed property was sold by respondent to the
Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or Ceroferr Realty Corporation, and that the notice of lis
managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order pendens annotated on the certificate of title had already
made under section 1 of this Rule requiring him to been cancelled. Petitioners, with leave of court,
answer designated questions, or an order under amended their complaint, but the trial court dismissed
Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for the case without prejudice for failure to pay additional
inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit filing fees.
it to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other
property or an order made under Rule 28 requiring Petitioners re-filed the complaint with the same court,
him to submit to a physical or mental examination, impleading as additional defendants the Ceroferr Realty
the court may make such orders in regard to the Corporation, and as additional cause of action, that the
refusal as are just, and among others the following: new defendants conspired with respondent in canceling
… the notice of lis pendens. Petitioner filed a motion to set
… the case for pre-trial, which motion was denied by the
… trial court on the ground that respondent bank has not
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, yet filed its answer. Petitioner filed a motion to declare
or staying further proceedings until the order is respondent in default, alleging that no answer has been
obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or filed despite the service of summons. Accordingly,
any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by respondent was declared in default and petitioners were
default against the disobedient party. [Rule 29, allowed to present evidence ex parte. A partial decision
Section 3(c)] was rendered.

Respondent filed a motion to set aside partial decision

When allowed by default and admit the Answer with counterclaim. The
court denied said motion. Respondent appealed the
Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending Partial Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA
party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, ruled in favor of the respondents.
the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, Petitioners challenge the CA Decision for failing to apply the
declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the provisions of Section 3, Rule 9. In essence, petitioners argue
court shall proceed to render judgment granting the that the quantum of evidence for judgments flowing from a
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless default order under Section 3 of Rule 9 is not the same as
the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit that provided for in Section 1 of Rule 133.
evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated
to the clerk of court. (Rule 9, Section 3, par. 1) Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in failing to apply
the provisions of Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of
Effects Civil Procedure and in applying instead the rule on
preponderance of evidence under Section 1, Rule 133.
Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be
entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to Ruling: No. The Petition has no merit. Between the two
take part in the trial. [Rule 9, Section 3 (a)] rules, there is no incompatibility that would preclude the
application of either one of them. To begin with, Section
Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a 3 of Rule 9 governs the procedure which the trial court
claim states a common cause of action against several is directed to take when a defendant fails to file an
defending parties, some of whom answer and the others answer. According to this provision, the court "shall
fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such
the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the relief as his pleading may warrant," subject to the
evidence presented. [Rule 9, Section 3 (c)] court’s discretion on whether to require the presentation
of evidence ex parte. The same provision also sets down
guidelines on the nature and extent of the relief that
GAJUDO V. TRADERS ROYAL BANK (2006) may be granted. In particular, the court’s judgment
"shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from
Facts: Petitioners alleged that petitioner Chua obtained that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages."
a loan from respondent in the amount of P75k secured
by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land, and As in other civil cases, basic is the rule that the
owned in common by petitioners. As the loan was not party making allegations has the burden of proving them
paid, respondent commenced extra-judicial foreclosure by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the parties
proceedings and the property was sold to respondent for must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not
the sum of P24.9k. Petitioners filed a complaint against upon the weakness of the defense offered by their
respondent seeking the annulment of the extra-judicial opponent. This principle holds true, especially when the
foreclosure and auction sale of the property, allegedly latter has had no opportunity to present evidence
because the sale was tainted with irregularity and the because of a default order.
bid price was shockingly or unconscionably low, among
others. Respondent filed its answer with counterclaim, Regarding judgments by default, it was
asserting that the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged explained in Pascua v. Florendo that complainants are
property was done in accordance with law and that the not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for, once

Page 102
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

the defendants are declared in default. Favorable relief Summonses for the amended Petition were
can be granted only after the court has ascertained that served. Duraproof moved several times to declare the
the relief is warranted by the evidence offered and the respondents it impleaded in default. Out of those
facts proven by the presenting party. respondents, only the following were declared by RTC in
default: the Singkong Trading Co., Commissioner Mison,
As held in the case of Lim v. Ramolete, the M/V Star Ace and Omega. Duraproof filed an ex parte
default or failure of the defendant to answer should not Motion to present evidence against the defaulting
be interpreted as an admission that the plaintiff’s cause respondents, which was granted.
of action find support in the law or that plaintiff is
entitled to the relief prayed for. Being declared in The RTC ruled in favor of Duraproof and
default does not constitute a waiver of rights except that ordered Vlason to pay P3 Million worth of damages.
of being heard and of presenting evidence in the trial Duraproof moved for the execution of judgment. The
court. A defaulted defendant is not actually thrown out Motion was granted and a Writ of Execution was issued.
of court. While in a sense it may be said that by
defaulting he leaves himself at the mercy of the court, Vlason Enterprises filed a Motion for
the rules see to it that any judgment against him must Reconsideration on the ground that it was allegedly not
be in accordance with law. The evidence to support the impleaded as a defendant, served summons or declared
plaintiff’s cause is, of course, presented in his absence, in default, and hence Duraproof may not present
but the court is not supposed to admit that which is evidence against it in default. The trial court issued a
basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not cease and desist order to restrain the implementing the
be in a position to object, elementary justice requires Writ of Execution and from levying on the personal
that only legal evidence should be considered against property of the defendants. The order was unheeded.
him. If the evidence presented should not be sufficient
to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint Duraproof filed with the CA a Petition for
must be dismissed. And if an unfavorable judgment Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify the cease and desist
should be justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be orders of the trial court. CA issued a TRO against the
different in kind from what is prayed for in the RTC order. The CA rendered the assailed Decision,
complaint. stating that the decision of the RTC had become final
and executory, never having been disputed or appealed
In sum, while petitioners were allowed to to a higher court, and that the lower court may now
present evidence ex parte under Section 3 of Rule 9, take appropriate action on the urgent ex-parte motion
they were not excused from establishing their claims for for issuance of a writ of execution. Thus, the RTC issued
damages by the required quantum of proof under a writ of possession over petitioner’s barge Lawin.
Section 1 of Rule 133. Stated differently, any advantage
they may have gained from the ex parte presentation of Issue: Whether or not the default judgment rendered
evidence does not lower the degree of proof required. by the RTC was binding on Vlason.
Clearly then, there is no incompatibility between the two
rules. Ruling: No. Vlason was never declared in default. The
trial court denied Duraproof’s motion to declare all the
VLASON ENTERPRISES v. CA (1999) defendants in default, but it never acted on the latter’s
subsequent motion to likewise declare Vlason in default.
Facts: Poro Point Shipping Services, then acting as the The RTC declared in default only Atty. Eddie
local agent of Omega Sea Transport Company of Tamondong, as well as the other defendants Hon.
Honduras & Panama, requested permission for its Salvador Mison, M/V Star Ace, Omega Sea Transport
vessel M/V Star Ace, which had engine trouble, to Co., Inc. of Panama and Sinkong Trading Co., but
unload its cargo and to store it at the Philippine Ports despite due notice to them, they failed to appear. Even
Authority (PPA) compound in San Fernando, La Union. Duraproof cannot pinpoint which trial court order held
Despite the approval of the request, the customs petitioner in default.
personnel boarded and seized the vessel on suspicion
that it was the hijacked M/V Silver Med and that its More important, the trial court admitted that it
cargo would be smuggled into the country. While never declared petitioner in default. There could not
seizure proceedings were ongoing, La Union was hit by 3 have been any valid default-judgment rendered against
typhoons, which damaged the vessel. Because of this, it. The issuance of an order of default is a condition sine
Omega entered into a salvage agreement with qua non in order that a judgment by default be clothed
respondent Duraproof Services to secure and repair the with validity.
vessel at an agreed consideration.
Furthermore, it is a legal impossibility to
The District Collector of Customs lifted the declare a party-defendant to be in default before it was
warrant of seizure, but the Customs Commissioner validly served summons.
declined to issue a clearance and instead forfeited the
vessel and its cargo. This prompted Duraproof to enforce
its preferred salvors lien by filing with the RTC a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the
actions of the Customs Officers, and impleading PPA and
Med Line Philippines, Inc. as respondents. Duraproof
amended its petition to include other companies
involved, including Vlason Enterprises. In both Petitions,
Duraproof failed to allege anything pertaining to Vlason,
or any prayer for relief against it.

Page 103
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Order of default The spouses Ramnani did not appear during

the pre-trial; hence they were declared in default.
 When some answer and others default Consequently, the spouses Dizon presented their
evidence ex parte. The lower court ruled in against the
(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading spouses Ramnani, holding them liable to the spouses
asserting a claim states a common cause of Dizon.
action against several defending parties, some of
whom answer and the others fail to do so, the The Ramnanis filed a motion for
court shall try the case against all upon the reconsideration on the ground that a "personal
answers thus filed and render judgment upon the obligation contracted by the wife without the consent of
evidence presented. [Rule 9, Section 3(c)] the husband (was) being made enforceable against the
spouses' conjugal partnership despite absence of any
 Extent of relief to be awarded allegation and proof that the same redounded to the
benefit of the family. The motion was denied. Hence, a
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment Petition for Certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals
rendered against a party in default shall not (CA), arguing that the trial court erred in denying the
exceed the amount or be different in kind from motion to lift order of default despite a clear showing of
that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages. a meritorious defense.
[Rule 9, Section 3(d)]
The CA denied the petition, stressing that the
 Where not allowed writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting
(e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s allegation
defending party in an action for annulment or of a valid and meritorious defense is a matter that could
declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal very well be ventilated in an ordinary appeal.
separation fails to answer, the court shall order
the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in not setting aside
or not a collusion between the parties exists, and the order of default against petitioner Ramnani.
if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State Ruling: No. The remedies available to a defendant who
in order to see to it that the evidence submitted has been declared in default are:
is not fabricated. [Rule 9, Section 3(e)]
a) The defendant in default may, at any time after
Procedure after order of default discovery thereof and before judgment, file a
motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default
Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending on the ground that his failure to answer was due to
party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and
the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with that he has a meritorious defense; (Sec. 3, Rule
notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, 18)
declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the b) If the judgment has already been rendered when
court shall proceed to render judgment granting the the defendant discovered the default, but before
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the same has become final and executory, he may
the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit file a motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of
evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated Rule 37;
to the clerk of court. (Rule 9, Section 3, par. 1) c) If the defendant discovered the default after the
judgment has become final and executory, he may
Remedy from order of default file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38;
and
Motion to set aside d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered
(b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared against him as contrary to the evidence or to the
in default may at any time after notice thereof and law, even if no petition to set aside the order of
before judgment file a motion under oath to set default has been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule
aside the order of default upon proper showing that 41)
his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a While the first remedy was adopted by the
meritorious defense. In such case, the order of petitioner, the motion to lift the order of default was
default may be set aside on such terms and denied for failure to prove that the non-appearance is
conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of excusable. The invocation of the deteriorating health of
justice. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)] defendant Josephine necessitating her trip abroad for
appropriate medical treatment is unavailing and there is
no medical certificate to attest to such illness.
BHAGWAN RAMNANI V. COURT OF APPEALS
(1993) The petitioner insists, however, that he had a
meritorious defense which the trial court should not
Facts: The Dizons filed a case for a sum of money have disregarded. A meritorious defense is only one of
against the spouses Ramnani for their failure to remit the two conditions. A satisfactory showing by the
the value of jewelry which they received on a movant of the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or
consignment basis. Josephine Ramnani submitted an excusable neglect is also an indispensable requirement
answer with counterclaim stating the fact that it was the for the setting aside of a judgment of default or the
Dizons who owed them money. order of default. In view of petitioners’ non-compliance
with this requirement, the motion to lift the order of
default was properly denied.

Page 104
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Remedies from judgment by default b) If the judgment has already been rendered when
the defendant discovered the default, but before the
Before finality same has become final and executory, he may file a
motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;
1. Motion for reconsideration or new trial
2. Appeal c) If the defendant discovered the default after the
judgment has become final and executory, he may
MARTINEZ V. REPUBLIC (2006) file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38;
and
FACTS: Jose R. Martinez filed a petition for the
registration in his name of three (3) parcels of land he d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered
allegedly purchased from his uncle. He claimed against him as contrary to the evidence or to the
continuous possession of the lots, that the lots had law, even if no petition to set aside the order of
remained unencumbered, and that they became private default has been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)
property through prescription.
The fourth remedy, that of appeal, is anchored
The OSG, in behalf of the Republic of the on Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1964 Rules. Yet even after
Philippines, opposed the petition. Despite the opposition that provision’s deletion under the 1997 Rules, the Court
filed by the OSG, the RTC issued an order of general did not hesitate to expressly rely again on the Lina
default, even against the Republic of the Philippines. doctrine, including the pronouncement that a defaulted
This ensued when during the hearing, no party appeared defendant may appeal from the judgment rendered
before the Court to oppose Martinez’s petition. against him.

RTC concluded that Martinez and his Yet even if it were to assume the doubtful
predecessors-in-interest had been for over 100 years in proposition that this contested right of appeal finds no
possession characterized as continuous, open, public, anchor in the 1997 Rules, the doctrine still exists,
and in the concept of an owner. The RTC thus decreed applying the principle of stare decisis. Jurisprudence
the registration of the three (3) lots in the name of applying the 1997 Rules has continued to acknowledge
Martinez. From this Decision, the OSG filed a Notice of the Lina doctrine which embodies this right to appeal as
Appeal. However, after the records had been among the remedies of a defendant, and no argument in
transmitted to the CA, the RTC received a letter from this petition persuades the Court to rule otherwise.
the Land Registration Authority (LRA) stating that only
two of the lots sought to be registered were referred to The OSG does not impute error on the part of
in the Notice of Hearing published in the Official Gazette, RTC in improperly declaring the Republic in default even
and that the third lot was omitted due to the lack of an though an opposition had been filed to Martinez’s
approved survey plan for that property. LRA manifested petition. The RTC appears to have issued the order of
that this lot should not have been adjudicated to general default simply on the premise that no oppositor
Martinez for lack of jurisdiction. This letter was referred appeared before it on the hearing. But it cannot be
by the RTC to the CA for appropriate action. denied that the OSG had already duly filed its Opposition
to Martinez’s petition long before the said hearing. It
The CA reversed the RTC and ordered the was improper to declare the oppositor in default simply
dismissal of the petition for registration. It found the because he failed to appear on the day set for the initial
evidence presented by Martinez as insufficient to healing. Strangely, the OSG did not challenge the
support the registration of the subject lots. Martinez propriety of the default order. It would thus be improper
directly assailed the CA decision before the SC, claiming for the Court to make a pronouncement on the validity
that the OSG no longer had personality to oppose the of the default order since the same has not been put
petition, or appeal its allowance by the RTC, following into issue.
the order of general default.
After finality
ISSUE: Whether an order of general default bars the
Republic from interposing an appeal from the trial 1. Petition for relief from judgment
court’s subsequent decision. 2. Annulment of judgment

HELD: No. We hold that a defendant party declared in

default retains the right to appeal from the judgment by Is certiorari a proper remedy?
default on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove
the material allegations of the complaint, or that the JAO & COMPANY, INC. V. CA (1995)
decision is contrary to law, even without need of the
prior filing of a motion to set aside the order of default. FACTS: Due to the non-appearance of the petitioner Jao
& Company, Inc., during the hearing on the merits, the
By 1997, the doctrinal rule concerning the remedies of a RTC Manila, upon motion of herein private respondent
party declared in default had evolved into a fairly Top Service, Inc., issued an order dated April 14, 1989
comprehensive restatement as offered in Lina v. Court declaring said petitioner in default and allowed evidence
of Appeals: to be presented ex-parte. The petitioner however filed
an answer. On May 26, 1989, the trial court rendered a
a) The defendant in default may, at any time after decision ordering Jao to pay Top Service the agreed
discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, rentals with 12% interest. A writ of preliminary
under oath, to set aside the order of default on the injunction was issued by the RTC. By virtue of such
ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, decision, Top Service stated that Jao’s counsel had
accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he withdrawn his appearance in the trial court and left no
has meritorious defenses; (Sec 3, Rule 18) forwarding address. No notice of the said order of

Page 105
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

default and the decision could be given it. The former directed CHED to file its Answer to the decision within 15
contends that the latter’s remedy was timely appeal, days from the receipt of the Court Order – which was
which the latter failed to perfect. August 15, 1998. On September 22, 1998, petitioner
filed Motion to Declare Respondent in Default pursuant
ISSUE: Whether the decision of the trial court, to Section 9, Section 3. On the same day, respondent
promulgated on May 26, 1989, became final. CHED filed for Motion for Extension of Time to File its
Answer until November 18, 1998 and submitted its
HELD: Yes. Under ordinary circumstances, the proper Answer on November 17, 1998. On November 11,
remedy of a party wrongly declared in default is either petitioner filed its Opposition to the Motion for Extension
to appeal from the judgment by default or to file a of Time to File respondent’s Answer. The trial court
petition for relief from judgment, and not certiorari. A rendered its Decision and granted petitioner’s motion to
default judgment is an adjudication on the merits and is, declare respondent CHED in Default.
thus, appealable. Since appeal is the proper remedy, the
extraordinary writ of certiorari will not lie. Respondent CHED consequently filed with the
CA a petition for certiorari arguing that the RTC had
Petitioner contends that it could not be bound committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring
by the questioned Order of April 14, 1989 declaring it in respondent CHED in default despite its Filing of an
default and the subsequent Decision of May 20, 1989 Answer. The CA ruled that respondent CHED should not
because it did not receive copies thereof. Respondents have been declared in default, because its answer had
counter that such non-service was due to petitioner's been filed long before the RTC ruled upon petitioner’s
fault in not furnishing the trial court with its "forwarding Motion to declare respondent in default. Thus,
address" after its counsel withdrew his appearance. This respondent had not obstinately refused to file an
Court is not in a position to settle this issue of fact — as Answer; on the contrary, its failure to do so on time was
indeed the Supreme Court does not decide such due to excusable negligence.
questions.
ISSUE: Whether or not certiorari was the proper
But it is not disputed that after receipt of the remedy to assail the order declaring CHED in default.
decision, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
Thus, whatever defects — if indeed there was any — HELD: The SC agreed with respondent CHED that
may have been committed by the trial court in failing to certiorari was the only plain, speedy and adequate
give constructive notice of its erroneous default order remedy in the ordinary course of law, because the
was cured by petitioner's voluntary filing of the said default Order had improvidently been issued.
motion for reconsideration. Upon denial thereof,
petitioner should have appealed. But instead of doing The remedies available to a defendant declared
that, it opted for the wrong remedy of certiorari. in default are as follows:

(1) a motion to set aside the order of default under

INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY V.
Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, if the
COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (2001)
default was discovered before judgment could be
rendered;
FACTS: In 1996, the Chairman of the Technical Panel (2) a motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule
for Engineering, Architecture, and Maritime Education of 37, if the default was discovered after judgment but
CHED, received a letter from Douglas Macias, Chairman while appeal is still available;
of the Board of Aeronautical Engineering, PRC inquiring (3) a petition for relief under Rule 38, if judgment
whether petitioner Indiana Aerospace University had has become final and executory; and
already acquired university status in view of their (4) an appeal from the judgment under Section 1,
representation in the advertisement in the Manila Rule 41, even if no petition to set aside the order of
Bulletin. default has been resorted to.

After investigation, it was found that there was These remedies, however, are available only to
a violation committed by petitioner when it used the a defendant who has been validly declared in
term “university” when it had not yet complied with the default. Such defendant irreparably loses the right to
basic requirement of being a university as prescribed in participate in the trial. On the other hand, a defendant
CHED Memorandum. It was affirmed that petitioner improvidently declared in default may retain and
(registered as Indiana School of Aeronautics, Inc.) had exercise such right after the order of default and the
not amended its Articles of Incorporation to change its subsequent judgment by default are annulled, and the
name to a “university.” CHED ordered petitioner to case remanded to the court of origin. The former is
desist from using the word “university.” Petitioner limited to the remedy set forth in section 2, paragraph 3
through its chairman and founder appealed the Order of of Rule 41 of the pre 1997 Rules of Court, and can
CHED averring that the school will suffer damage if it therefore contest only the judgment by default on the
will not be allowed to use the word “university” in its designated ground that it is contrary to evidence or
school name. law. The latter, however, has the following options: to
resort to this same remedy; to interpose a petition for
Prior to the court decision granting the Cease certiorari seeking the nullification of the order of default,
and Desist Order filed by CHED, petitioner filed even before the promulgation of a judgment by default;
Complaint for Damages before the Court. Respondent or in the event that judgment has been rendered, to
CHED then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for have such order and judgment declared void.
damages. Petitioner filed Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss. The trial court denied respondent CHED’s In prohibiting appeals from interlocutory
motion to dismiss and issued a writ of preliminary orders, the law does not intend to accord executory
injunction in favor of petitioner. The trial court also force to such writs, particularly when the effect would be

Page 106
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

to cause irreparable damage. If in the course of trial, a LCK INDUSTRIES, INC. VS. PLANTERS DEV’T. BANK
judge proceeds without or in excess of jurisdiction, this (2007)
rule prohibiting an appeal does not leave the aggrieved
party without any remedy. In a case like this, a special FACTS: Petitioner LCK is a domestic corporation duly
civil action of certiorari is the plain, speedy and organized and existing as such under Philippine laws.
adequate remedy. Respondent bank is a banking institution duly authorized
to engage in banking business under Philippine laws.
Hence, a petition for certiorari is available to
respondent CHED to assail the judgment by default on On 1 September 1995, petitioner LCK obtained
the ground that it is intrinsically void for having been a loan from the respondent bank in the amount of
rendered pursuant to a patently invalid order of default. P3,000,000.00 as evidenced by two promissory notes.
As a security for the loan obligation, petitioners-spouses
Chiko and Elizabeth Lim executed a Real Estate
Rule 18 Mortgage over a parcel of land at Quezon City (Quezon
Pre-Trial City property). Later on, to secure the same obligation,
another Real Estate Mortgage was executed over
another parcel of land located at Baguio City (Baguio
Nature and purpose City property).
Pre-trial is a procedural device held prior to the trial for
the court to consider the following purposes: Subsequently, petitioner LCK incurred default
1. The possibility of amicable settlement or of a in its payment; thus, making the obligation due and
submission to alternative modes of dispute demandable. Several demands were thereafter made by
resolution; the respondent bank to no avail. On 13 October 1997, a
2. The simplification of issues; final letter-demand was sent by respondent bank to
3. The necessity or desirability of amendments to petitioner LCK asking for the payment of its obligation in
the pleadings; the amount of P2,962,500.00. Such final demand
4. The possibility of obtaining stipulations or notwithstanding, petitioner LCK failed or refused to pay
admissions of facts and documents to avoid its obligation.
unnecessary proof;
Consequently, respondent bank caused the
The process of securing admissions, extrajudicial foreclosure of the Baguio City property
whether of facts or evidence, is which was sold at the public auction. Since the proceeds
essentially voluntary. When the of the foreclosed Baguio City property were not enough
parties are unable to arrive at a to satisfy the entire loan obligation which amounted to
stipulation of agreed facts, the court P2,962,500.00, respondent bank further caused the
must close the pre-trial and proceed extrajudicial foreclosure of the Quezon City property.
with the trial of the case (Filioil
Marketing Corp. vs. Dy Pac & Co., Prior to the auction sale of the Quezon City
G.R. No. 296636, 30 September property on 18 March 1998, petitioners, on 12 March
1982) 1998, filed with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 81, an
action for Annulment of the Foreclosure of Mortgage and
5. The limitation of the number of witnesses; Auction Sale of the Quezon City property with
6. The advisability of a preliminary reference of Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction and with
issues to a commissioner; Damages.
7. The propriety of rendering judgment on the
pleadings, or summary judgment, or of Thereafter, the RTC conducted a pre-trial
dismissing the action should a valid ground conference. In the Pre-Trial Order dated 8 September
therefor be found to exist; 2000, the parties made admissions and stipulations.
8. The advisability or necessity of the suspending
the proceedings; and On 18 April 2001, the parties agreed to submit
9. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt the case for the decision of the RTC based on the
disposition of the cases. (Sec. 2, Rule 18) stipulations and admissions made at the pre-trial
conference.
Note: Pre-trial is mandatory in civil cases.
HELD: Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the
When speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the most
After the last pleading has been served and important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice
filed, the pre-trial should already be conducted. It shall in the nineteenth century, pre-trial is a device intended
be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties.
that the case be set for pre-trial. (Sec. 1, Rule 18) It thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and
resolution of the case. Pre-trial seeks to achieve the
The motion is to be filed within five (5) days following:
after the last pleading joining the issues has been a. The possibility of an amicable
served and filed. (Administrative Circular No. 3- settlement or of a submission to
99,January 15, 1999) alternative modes of dispute
resolution;
The “last pleading” need not to be literally
construed as one having been served and field. For b. The simplification of the issues;
purposes of pre-trial, the expiration of the period for
filing of the last pleading is sufficient. (Sarmiento vs. c. The necessity or desirability of
Juan, G.R. No. 56605, 28 January 1983) amendments to the pleadings;

Page 107
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

or if the issues are impliedly included therein or may be

d. The possibility of obtaining stipulations or inferable therefrom by necessary implication to be
admissions of facts and of documents to integral parts of the pre-trial order as much as those
avoid unnecessary proof; that are expressly stipulated, the general rule will not
apply.
e. The limitation of the number of witnesses;
The case at bar falls under this particular
f. The advisability of a preliminary reference exception. Upon scrupulous examination of the Pre-Trial
of issues to a commissioner; Order dated 8 September 2000, it can be deduced that
the parties stipulated that the remaining sum of
g. The propriety of rendering judgment on petitioner LCKs obligation as of 13 October 1997 was
the pleadings, or summary judgment, or P2,962,500.00. In the same Pre-Trial Order, the parties
of dismissing the action should a valid likewise stipulated that the Baguio City property was
ground therefor be found to exist; sold at the public auction for P2,625,000.00 and the
Quezon City property for P2,231,416.67. On both
h. The advisability or necessity of suspending occasions, respondent bank emerged as the highest
the proceedings; and bidder. By applying simple mathematical operation, the
mortgaged properties were purchased by the respondent
i. Such other matters as may aid in the at the public auctions for P4,856,416.67; thus, after
prompt disposition of the action. deducting therefrom the balance of petitioner LCKs
obligation in the amount of P2,962,500.00, an excess in
the sum of P1,893,916.67 remains.
The purpose of entering into a stipulation of
facts is to expedite trial and to relieve the parties and
Requirements for appearance
the court as well of the costs of proving facts which will
not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be
It shall be the duty of both parties and their
ascertained by reasonable inquiry. Its main objective is
counsels to appear at the pre-trial. The non-
to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally
appearance of a party may be excused only if:
dispense with it.
1. A valid cause is shown therefor; and
The parties themselves or their
2. A representative shall appear in his behalf fully
representative with written authority from them are
authorized in writing to:
required to attend in order to arrive at a possible
a. Enter into amicable settlement;
amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of
b. Submit to alternative modes of dispute
dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
resolution; and
admissions of facts and documents. All of the matters
c. Enter into stipulations or admissions of
taken up during the pre-trial, including the stipulation of
facts and of documents. (Sec. 4, Rule 18)
facts and the admissions made by the parties, are
required to be recorded in a pre-trial order.
Procedure
It shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly
In the Pre-Trial Order dated 8 September
move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. (Sec. 1,
2000, the RTC defined the issues as follows: (1) whether
Rule 18)
or not the petition was filed with the Office of the Clerk
of Court; (2) whether or not the extrajudicial foreclosure
Under the Supreme Court Guidelines on Pre-
of real estate mortgage by defendant bank was made in
Trial and Discovery (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, effective 16
accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135; and (3)
August 2004), if the plaintiff fails to file the motion to
whether or not the parties are entitled to their
set the case for pre-trial, the clerk of court shall issue a
respective claims for attorneys fees and damages.
notice of pre-trial.
Based on the admissions and stipulations
Notice
during the pre-trial conference and the issues defined by
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on
the court a quo as embodied in the Pre-Trial Order, the
counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. The
parties agreed to submit the case for the resolution of
counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty
the RTC. Both petitioners and respondent also
of notifying the party represented by him. (Sec. 3, Rule
manifested that they would forego their respective
18)
claims for attorneys fees, leaving solely the issue of the
validity of the foreclosure of mortgage and auction sale
for the RTCs disposition. However, in petitioners Pre-trial brief required (Sec. 6)
Memorandum filed after the case was submitted for
resolution, petitioners raised the question of The parties shall file with the court and serve
overpayment, a new issue that was included neither in on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their
their Complaint nor in the issues defined in the Pre-Trial receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of
Order issued by the RTC. the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs.

Generally, pre-trial is primarily intended to Contents of the pre-trial:

make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition 1. A statement of their willingness to enter into
of a case are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the amicable settlement or alternative modes of
element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms
the pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact they thereof;
intend to raise at the trial. However, in cases in which 2. A summary of admitted facts and proposed
the issue may involve privileged or impeaching matters, stipulation of facts;

Page 108
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

3. The issues to be tried or resolved; Effect of failure to appear

4. The documents or exhibits to be presented
stating the purpose thereof; Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear.
5. A manifestation of their having availed or their
intention to avail themselves of discovery The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
procedures or referral to commissioners; and required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be
6. The number and names of the witnesses, and the cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be
substance of their respective testimonies. with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be
Failure to file pre-trial brief shall have the cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex
same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. parte and the court to render judgment on the basis
thereof.
No evidence shall be allowed to be presented
and offered during the trial in support of party’s
CALALANG VS. CA (1993)
evidence–in-chief other that those that had been earlier
identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if
Facts: On April 29, 1980, respondent Filipinas
allowed by the court for good cause shown. (A.M. No.
Manufacturers Bank filed a complaint for collection of a
03-1-09-SC, July 13, 2004)
sum of money against petitioner Conrado Calalang and 3
other defendants namely, Hugo M. Arca, Rio Arturo
Record or order of pre-trial
Salceda and the Acropolis Trading Corporation with the
The pre-trial order shall be issued within ten
Court of First Instance of Rizal, 7th Judicial District,
(10) days after the termination of the pre-trial (A.M. No.
Branch 36, Makati under Judge Segundo M. Zosa.
03-1-09-SC).
Petitioner, after having been served with
This order recites in detail the following:
summons on May 19, 1980, filed a Motion to Dismiss on
1. Matters taken up in the conference;
June 2, 1980. The other summoned defendant, Hugo M.
2. Actions taken thereon;
Arca, filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars on June 5,
3. Amendments allowed to the pleadings;
1980. The two other defendants namely, the Acropolis
and
Trading Corporation and Rio Arturo Salceda were also
4. Agreements or admissions made by the
summoned but only a clerk-employee of the Acropolis
parties as to any of the matters
Trading Corporation received the summons while Arturo
considered.
R. Salceda was no longer residing at his given address.
Should the action proceed to trial, the pre-trial order:
On November 16, 1987, the trial court issued
1. Defines and limits the issues to be tried;
an Order setting the
pre-trial of the case for January 7,
and
2. Controls the subsequent course of the 1988 at 8:30 a.m.
action except if it is modified before trial
to prevent manifest injustice. At the pre-trial conference, respondent bank's
counsel arrived 15 minutes late or at 8:45 a.m..
The contents of the pre-trial order shall control the However, the case had already been dismissed. Thus, in
the Order of January 7, 1988, the court declared:
subsequent course of the action, unless:
1. Modified before trial to prevent manifest
For failure of plaintiff's counsel to appear
injustice (Sec. 7, Rule 18).
inspite of notice and considering that this
2. Issues that are impliedly included among
case has been pending for seven (7)
those listed or that may be inferable from
years, without plaintiff having taken
those listed by necessary implication
positive steps to prosecute the same, it is
which are as much integral parts of the
hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Section 3,
pre-tral order as those expressly listed
Rule 17, Rules of Court. Defendants'
(Philippine Export and Foreign Loan
counterclaim is likewise dismissed.
Guarantee Corporation vs. Amalgamated
Management and Development
On January 12, 1988, counsel for the
Corporation, G.R. No. 177729, 28
respondent bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
September 2011).
the order of dismissal citing as reason for his late arrival
3. Sec. 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court
"the unusually heavy traffic he encountered along
which allows the trial of issues not raised
Kamias Road in Quezon City, which was caused by a
in the pleadings but not objected to or
stalled jeepney along the main thoroughfare." The
tried with the express or implied consent
motion was denied on January 26, 1988.
of the parties, and permits an amendment
of the pleadings to conform to the
evidence (Son vs. Son, G.R. No. 73077, Ruling: The pre-trial conference scheduled for
29 December 1995). January 8, 1987 was not premature. A pre-trial cannot
validly be held until the last pleading has been filed,
A party is deemed to have waived the right to which last pleading may be the plaintiff's reply, except
where the period to file the last pleading has lapsed. 15
invoke stipulations in the pre-trial order if he failed to
The period to appear and file the necessary pleading
object the introduction of evidence outside of the pre-
having expired on the Acropolis Trading Corporation, the
trial order, as well as in cross-examining the witness in
lower court can direct that a pre-trial conference be held
regard to said evidence.
among the answering defendants. However, though it is
within the discretion of the trial court to declare a party
non-suited for non-appearance in the pre-trial

Page 109
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

conference, such discretion must not be abused. The 132,000 liras or P3,175.00 at the time. Citibank did not
precipitate haste of the lower court in declaring the respond to the letter, however, drawing Azucena to
respondent bank non-suited was uncalled for and write Citibank for the cancellation of the cards].
deserved a second look. Considering the fact that the
counsel for the plaintiff/respondent bank did arrive for Citibank still sent billing statements to
the pre-trial conference, though a bit late and that Azucena, however, charging her interest charges and
counsel for the defendant was himself also late, the trial late payment penalties. Only after Azucenas counsel
court should have called the case again. An admonition informed Citibank of imminent legal remedieson her part
to both counsels to be more prompt in appearing before did Citibank indulge Azucena with a written explanation
the Court as scheduled would have sufficed, instead of why her credit cards were not honored in Italy.
having dismissed the complaint outright.
Azucena and Renato (hereafter the
Unless a party's conduct is so negligent, spouses) later filed on November 12, 1999 a complaint
irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide for damages against Citibank at the Regional Trial Court
substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, of Las Pias City.
the courts should consi
der lesser sanctions which would still amount After an exchange of pleadings ─ reply,
into achieving the desired end. rejoinder and sur-rejoinder ─ by the parties, and the
To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay issues having been joined, the trial court set the case for
must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary and pre-trial conferenceon May 5, 2003 during which the
dilatory resulting in trifling of judicial processes. spouses and their counsel failed to appear, despite
notice. On Citibanks counsels motion, the trial court, by
On plaintiff Orderof even date, dismissed the spouses Complaint and
Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. directed Citibank to present evidence on its Compulsory
If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to Counterclaim.
appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in
chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an The spouses moved for the reconsideration
unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these of the trial courts May 5, 2003 Order, explaining that
Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be their failure to attend the pre-trial conference was due
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the to the negligenceof their counsel who failed to inform
court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the [them]
about [the pre-trial] and include the same in his
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or calendar because . . . the pre-trial was still far away.
in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect The spouses motion for reconsideration was denied by
of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise Order of September 17, 2003
declared by the court.
HELD: Section 5of Rule 18 provides that the dismissal
SPOUSES CORPUZ VS. CITIBANK (2009) of an action due to the plaintiffs failure to appear at the
pre-trial shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise
FACTS: Azucena Corpuz (Azucena) was a cardholder of ordered by the court. In this case, the trial court
Citibank Mastercard No. 5423-3925-5788-2007 and deemed the plaintiffs-herein spouses as non-suited and
Citibank VISA Card No. 4539-7105-2572-2001 both ordered the dismissal of their Complaint. As the
issued by Citibank, N.A. (Citibank). Each card had a dismissal was a final order, the proper remedy was to
credit limit of P40,000.00. In view of her then impending file an ordinary appeal and not a petition for certiorari.
official business trip to Europe, Azucena paid in full on The spouses petition for certiorari was thus properly
December 7, 1998 her monthly chargeson both credit dismissed by the appellate court.
cards via checks and also made advance check
payments of P20,000.00 on December 8, 1998 for her Procedural infirmities aside, this Court took
VISA Card, and another P20,000.00 for her Mastercard a considered look at the spouses excuse to justify their
on December 14, 1998, to cover future transactions. non-appearance at the pre-trial but found nothing
exceptional to warrant a reversal of the lower courts
While in Italy on December 9, 1998, disposition thereof.
Azucena dined at a restaurant. To settle her bill of
46,000 liras, she presented her VISA Card, but to her Counsel for the spouses admit having failed
surprise and embarrassment, the restaurant did not to inform his clients of the scheduled pre-trial because
honor it. She then brought out her Mastercard which the he forgot to note the same in his calendar and
restaurant honored. On even date, Azucena incurred a eventually forgot about it due to heavy workload. The
bill of 378,000 liras at a shop which she intended to spouses eventually admitted too having received the
charge to her credit cards. This time, both her VISA and notice of pre-trial. Azucena, who is a lawyer herself,
Mastercard were not honored, drawing her to pay the advanced the reason that she forgot about the
bill in cash. scheduled pre-trial owing to her then forthcoming
retirement at the Office of the Solicitor General to thus
Informed of the incidents via overseas press her to accomplish her assigned work including
telephone calls to Manila, Azucenas husband Renato winding up all administrative matters in the office prior
Corpuz (Renato) inquired why his wifes credit cards to her leaving.
were not honored, to which Citibank explained that her
check-payments had not yet been cleared at the time. While Section 4 of Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court allows as an exception a valid cause for the non-
Upon her return to the country, Azucena appearance of a party at the pre-trial, the instances
wrote Citibank on January 13, 1999 informing it that her cited by the spouses and their counsel hardly constitute
credit cards had not been honored and demanding the compelling exigencies or situations which warrant
refund of her overseas call expenses amounting to occasional flexibility of litigation rules.

Page 110
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

On defendant, compare with default 28, 1988, the investigating fiscal recommended the
If the defending party fails to answer within filing of an information against private respondents for
the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion violations of the mentioned laws.
of the claiming party with notice to the defending party,
and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in On June 13, 1989, petitioner bank submitted
default. its answer to the complaint filed by private respondents.
In the Order dated February 20, 1990, the case was set
CITIBANK, N.A. VS. CHUA (1993) for pre-trial on March 30, 1990 and petitioner bank was
directed to submit its pre-trial brief at least 3 days
Facts: On September 4 of 1985, he (private respondent before the pre-trial conference. Petitioner bank only filed
Crescencio Velez) deposited his unfunded personal its pre-trial brief on March 30, 1990.
checks with his current account with the petitioner. But
prior to depositing said checks, he would present his On March 30, 1990, the date of the pre-trial
personal checks to a bank officer asking the latter to conference, counsel for petitioner bank appeared,
have his personal checks immediately credited as if it presenting a special power of attorney executed by
were a cash deposit and at the same time assuring the Citibank officer Florencia Tarriela in favor of petitioner
bank officer that his personal checks were fully funded. bank's counsel, the J.P. Garcia & Associates, to
Having already gained the trust and confidence of the represent and bind petitioner bank at the pre-trial
officers of the bank because of his past transactions, the conference of the case at bar.
bank's officer would always accommodate his request.
After his requests are granted which is done by way of Inspite of this special power of attorney,
the bank officer affixing his signature on the personal counsel for private respondents orally moved to declare
checks, private respondent Cresencio Velez would then petitioner bank as in default on the ground that the
deposit his priorly approved personal checks to his special power of attorney was not executed by the Board
current account and at the same time withdraw sums of of Directors of Citibank. Petitioner bank was then
money from said current account by way of petitioner required to file a written opposition to this oral motion to
bank's manager's check. Private respondent would then declare it as in default. In said opposition petitioner
deposit petitioner bank's manager's check to his various bank attached another special power of attorney made
current accounts in other commercial banks to cover his by William W. Ferguson, Vice President and highest
previously deposited unfunded personal checks with ranking officer of Citibank, Philippines, constituting and
petitioner bank. Naturally, petitioner bank and its appointing the J.P. Garcia & Associates to represent and
officers never discovered that his personal check bind the BANK at the pre-trial conference and/or trial of
deposits were unfunded. On the contrary, it gave the the case of "Cresencio Velez, et al. vs. Citibank, N.A.".
petitioner bank the false impression that private In an Order dated April 23, 1990, respondent judge
respondent's construction business was doing very well denied private respondents' oral motion to declare
and that he was one big client who could be trusted. petitioner bank as in default and set the continuation of
This deceptive and criminal scheme he did every the pre-trial conference for May 2, 1990.
banking day without fail from September 4, 1985 up to
March 11, 1986. The amounts that he was depositing On the scheduled pre-trial conference, private
and withdrawing during this period (September 4, 1985 respondents reiterated, by way of asking for
to March 11, 1986) progressively became bigger. It reconsideration, their oral motion to declare petitioner
started at P46,000.00 on September 4, 1985 and on bank as in default for its failure to appear through an
March 11, 1986 the amount of deposit and withdrawal authorized agent and that the documents presented are
already reached over P3,000,000.00. At this point in not in accordance with the requirements of the law.
time (March 11, 1986), the private respondent
Cresencio Velez presumably already feeling that sooner On August 15, 1990, respondent judge issued
or later he would be caught and that he already wanted an order declaring petitioner bank as in default.
to cash in on his evil scheme, decided to run away with
petitioner's money. On March 11, 1986, he deposited HELD: We reiterate the previous admonitions of this
various unfunded personal checks totalling Court against "precipitate orders of default as these
P3,095,000.00 and requested a bank officer that the have the effect of denying the litigant the chance to be
same be credited as cash and after securing the heard. While there are instances, to be sure, when a
approval of said bank officer, deposited his various party may be properly defaulted, these should be the
personal checks in the amount of P3,095,000.00 with his exceptions rather than the rule and should be allowed
current account and at the same time withdrew the sum only in clear cases of an obstinate refusal or inordinate
of P3,244,000.00 in the form of petitioner's manager's neglect to comply with the orders of the court. Absent
check. Instead of using the proceeds of his withdrawals such a showing, the party must be given every
to cover his unfunded personal checks, he ran away with reasonable opportunity to present his side and to refute
petitioner bank's money. Thus, private respondent the evidence of the adverse party in deference to due
Cresencio Velez's personal checks deposited with process of law".
petitioner bank on March 11, 1986 in the total aggregate
amount of P3,095,000.00 bounced. The checks bounced Considering further that petitioner bank has a
after said personal checks were made the substantial meritorious defense and that the amount in contest is
basis of his withdrawing the sum of P3,244,000.00 from substantial, the litigants should be allowed to settle their
his current account with petitioner bank." claims on the arena of the court based on a trial on the
merits rather than on mere technicalities.
Subsequently, on August 19, 1986, petitioner
bank filed a criminal complaint against private
respondents for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(Bouncing Checks Law) and estafa (six counts) under
Article 315 par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. On April

Page 111
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Rule 20 Rule 30
Calendar of Cases Trial

Calendar (Rule 20, Sec. 1) Notice of Trial (Rule 30, Section 1)

 The clerk of court, under the direct supervision  Upon entry of a case in the trial calendar, the
of the judge, shall keep a calendar of cases for clerk shall notify the parties of the date of its
pre-trial, for trial, those whose trials were trial in such manner as shall ensure his receipt
adjourned or postponed, and those with of that notice at least five (5) days before such
motions to set for hearing. date.

Preferences (Rule 20, Sec. 1) Adjournments and postponements (Rule 30,

 Preference shall be given to: Section 2)
o habeas corpus cases;  A court may adjourn a trial from day to day,
o election cases; and to any stated time, as the expeditious and
o special civil actions; and convenient transaction of business may
o those so required by law. require, but shall have no power to adjourn a
trial for a longer period than one month for
Assignment of cases (Rule20, Sec. 2) each adjournment nor more than three months
 The assignment of cases to the different in all, except when authorized in writing by the
branches of a court shall be done exclusively Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
by raffle.
 The assignment shall be done in open session
of which adequate notice shall be given so as Absence of Evidence (Rule 30, Section 3)
to afford interested parties the opportunity to  A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of
be present. absence of evidence can be granted only upon
affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy
of such evidence, and that due diligence has
Rule 21 been used to procure it.

Computation of Time  If the adverse party admits the facts to be

given in evidence, even if he objects or
reserves the right to object to their
How to compute time (Rule 22, Section 1) admissibility, the trial shall not be postponed.

 In computing any period of time prescribed or Illness of party or counsel (Rule 30, Section 4)
allowed by the Rules of Court, or by order of  A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of
the court, or by any applicable statute, the day illness of a party or counsel may be granted if:
of the act or event from which the designated a) it appears upon affidavit or sworn
period of time begins to run is to be excluded certification that the presence of such
and the date of performance included. party or counsel at the trial is
indispensable; and
 If the last day of the period, as thus computed, b) that the character of his illness is
falls on a Saturday a Sunday, or a legal holiday such as to render his non-attendance
in the place where the court sits, the time shall excusable.
not run until the next working day.
Subpoena (Rule 21)
Effect of interruption (Rule 22, Section 2)
 Subpoena is a process directed to a person
 Should an act be done which effectively requiring him to attend and to testify at the
interrupts the running of the period, the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any
allowable period after such interruption shall investigation conducted under the laws of the
start to run on the day after notice of the Philippines, or for taking of his deposition (Rule
cessation of the cause thereof. 21, Sec. 1).

 The day of the act that caused the interruption  SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM - is a process
shall be excluded in the computation of the directed to a person requiring him to
period. bring with him at the hearing or trial of
an action any books, documents, or
other things under his control.

 SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM – is a
process directed to a person requiring
him to attend and testify at the hearing
or the trial of the action, or at any
investigation conducted by the
competent authority, or for the taking
of his deposition.

Page 112
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

 Service of Subpoena (Rule 21, Section 6)  Quashing a subpoena (Rule 21, Section 4)

 Service of subpoena shall be made in the  The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum
same manner as personal or substituted upon motion promptly made and, in any event,
service of summons. at or before the time specified therein if it is
 The original shall be exhibited and a copy unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy
thereof delivered to the person on whom of the books, documents or things does not
it is served, tendering to him the fees for appear, or if the person in whose behalf the
one day's attendance and the kilometrage subpoena is issued fails to advance the
allowed by these Rules, except that, when reasonable cost of the production thereof.
a subpoena is issued by or on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines or an  The court may quash a subpoena ad
officer or agency thereof, the tender need testificandum on the ground that the witness is
not be made. not bound thereby. In either case, the
 The service must be made so as to allow subpoena may be quashed on the ground that
the witness a reasonable time for the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by
preparation and travel to the place of these Rules were not tendered when the
attendance. subpoena was served.
 If the subpoena is duces tecum, the
reasonable cost of producing the books, Conduct
documents or things demanded shall also Order of Trial (Rule 30, Section 5)
be tendered.
 Unless the court for special reasons otherwise
 Compelling attendance (Rule 21, Sec. 8) directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues
stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as
 In case of failure of a witness to attend, follows:
the court or judge issuing the subpoena,
upon proof of the service thereof and of a. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support
the failure of the witness, may issue a of his complaint;
warrant to the sheriff of the province, or
his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring b. The defendant shall then adduce evidence in
him before the court or officer where his support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-
attendance is required, and the cost of claim and third-party complaints;
such warrant and seizure of such witness
shall be paid by the witness if the court c. The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce
issuing it shall determine that his failure evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-
to answer the subpoena was willful and claim and fourth-party complaint;
without just cause.
d. The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall
 Exceptions (Rule 21, Sec. 10): This rule adduce evidence of the material facts pleaded
shall not apply to: by them;
a) a witness who resides more than
one hundred (100) kilometers e. The parties against whom any counterclaim or
from his residence to the place cross-claim has been pleaded, shall adduce
where he is to testify by the evidence in support of their defense, in the
ordinary course of travel; or order to be prescribed by the court;
b) a detention prisoner if no
permission of the court in which f. The parties may then respectively adduce
his case is pending was obtained. rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for
good reasons and in the furtherance of justice,
 Contempt (Rule 21, Sec. 9) permits them to adduce evidence upon their
original case; and
 Failure by any person without adequate
cause to obey a subpoena served upon g. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall
him shall be deemed a contempt of the be deemed submitted for decision, unless the
court from which the subpoena is issued. court directs the parties to argue or to submit
If the subpoena was not issued by a court, their respective memoranda or any further
the disobedience thereto shall be punished pleadings.
in accordance with the applicable law or
Rule.  If several defendants or third-party defendants,
and so forth, having separate defenses appear by
 Exceptions (Rule 21, Sec. 10): This rule different counsel, the court shall determine the
shall not apply to: relative order of presentation of their evidence.
c) a witness who resides more than one
hundred (100) kilometers from his Agreed statement of facts (Rule 30, Section 6)
residence to the place where he is to
testify by the ordinary course of  The parties to any action may agree, in
travel; or writing, upon the facts involved in the
d) a detention prisoner if no permission litigation, and submit the case for judgment on
of the court in which his case is the facts agreed upon, without the introduction
pending was obtained. of evidence.

Page 113
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

 If the parties agree only on some of the facts Trial by commissioner (Rule 32)
in issue, the trial shall be held as to the
disputed facts in such order as the court shall  Reference by consent (Rule 32, Sec. 1)
prescribe.  By written consent of both parties, the
court may order any or all of the issues in
 During the Pre-Trial Conference, the court shall a case to be referred to a commissioner to
consider the possibility of obtaining stipulations be agreed upon by the parties or to be
or admissions of facts and of documents to appointed by the court.
avoid unnecessary proof (Rule 18, Section 2  The word "commissioner" includes a
(d). referee, an auditor and an examiner.

Statement of judge (Rule 30, Section 7)  Reference ordered on motion (Rule 32, Sec. 2)
 During the hearing or trial of a case any  When the parties do not consent, the
statement made by the judge with reference to court may, upon the application of either
the case, or to any of the parties, witnesses or or of its own motion, direct a reference to
counsel, shall be made of record in the a commissioner in the following cases:
stenographic notes.
a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires
Suspension of Actions (Rule 30, Section 8) the examination of a long account on
either side, in which case the
 The suspension of actions shall be governed by commissioner may be directed to hear
the provisions of the Civil Code. and report upon the whole issue or any
specific question involved therein;
 The Civil Code provides:
b) When the taking of an account is
Article 2030. Every civil action or proceeding necessary for the information of the
shall be suspended: court before judgment, or for carrying a
judgment or order into effect;
(1) If willingness to discuss a possible
compromise is expressed by one or both c) When a question of fact, other than upon
parties; or the pleadings, arises upon motion or
otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for
(2) If it appears that one of the parties, before carrying a judgment or order into effect.
the commencement of the action or proceeding,
offered to discuss a possible compromise but  Order of reference; powers of the
the other party refused the offer. commissioner (Rule 32, Sec. 3)

The duration and terms of the  When a reference is made, the clerk shall
suspension of the civil action or proceeding and forthwith furnish the commissioner with a copy
similar matters shall be governed by such of the order of reference. The order may
provisions of the rules of court as the Supreme specify or limit the powers of the
Court shall promulgate. Said rules of court shall commissioner, and may direct him to report
likewise provide for the appointment and duties only upon particular issues, or to do or perform
of amicable compounders. particular acts, or to receive and report
evidence only and may fix the date for
Article 2035. No compromise upon the following beginning and closing the hearings and for the
questions shall be valid: filing of his report. Subject to other
specifications and limitations stated in the
(1) The civil status of persons; order, the commissioner has and shall exercise
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal the power to regulate the proceedings in every
separation; hearing before him and to do all acts and take
(3) Any ground for legal separation; all measures necessary or proper for the
(4) Future support; efficient performance of his duties under the
(5) The jurisdiction of courts; order. He may issue subpoenas and subpoenas
(6) Future legitime. duces tecum, swear witnesses, and unless
otherwise provided in the order of reference,
Duty of judge to receive evidence and power to he may rule upon the admissibility of evidence.
delegate to clerk of court (Rule 30, Sec. 9) The trial or hearing before him shall proceed in
 The judge of the court where the case is all respects as it would if held before the court.
pending shall personally receive the evidence
to be adduced by the parties. However, in
default or ex parte hearings, and in any case Consolidation of trial (Rule 31, Sec. 1)
where the parties agree in writing, the court
may delegate the reception of evidence to its  When actions involving a common question of
clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The law or fact are pending before the court, it may
clerk of court shall have no power to rule on order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
objections to any question or to the admission matters in issue in the actions; it may order all
of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved the actions consolidated, and it may make
by the court upon submission of his report and such orders concerning proceedings therein as
the transcripts within ten (10) days from may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
termination of the hearing.

Page 114
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Philippine National Bank v. Gotesco Tyan Ming

Development, Inc. (2009) The rule allowing consolidation is designed to
avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression
Facts: The Philippine National Bank (PNB) extended or abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested
credit facilities worth P800,000,000.00 to respondent dockets, and to simplify the work of the trial court; in
Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc. (GOTESCO). To short, the attainment of justice with the least expense
secure the credit facility, GOTESCO executed a Mortgage and vexation to the parties- litigants. Thus, in
Trust Indenture over a parcel of land in Pasig City. Philippine Savings Bank v. Maalac, Jr., we disregarded
GOTESCO failed to pay the amount in full. Accordingly, the technical difference between an action and a
PNB instituted foreclosure proceedings on the GOTESCO proceeding, and upheld the consolidation of a petition
property. for the issuance of a writ of possession with an
ordinary civil action in order to achieve a more
The one-year redemption period expired expeditious resolution of the cases.
without GOTESCO exercising its right of redemption.
Accordingly, PNB consolidated the title in its name. PNB But in the instant case, the consolidation of
filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of PNBs petition for a writ of possession with GOTESCOs
Possession with the RTC of Pasig City. The case was complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceeding
docketed as LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG and was raffled serves none of the purposes cited above. On the
to Branch 155. GOTESCO then filed a motion to contrary, it defeated the very rationale of consolidation.
consolidate LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG with its case for The record shows that PNBs petition was filed on May
annulment of foreclosure proceedings, specific 26, 2006, and remains pending after three (3) years,
performance and damages against PNB, docketed as despite the summary nature of the petition. Obviously,
Civil Case No. 68139, and pending with RTC Branch 161. the consolidation only delayed the issuance of the
The Hon. Judge Luis R. Tongco of Branch 155 issued an desired writ of possession. Further, it prejudiced PNBs
Order granting the motion for consolidation. right to take immediate possession of the property and
gave GOTESCO undue advantage, for GOTESCO
PNB filed a motion for reconsideration with RTC continues to possess the property during the pendency
Branch 161 but it was denied. PNB then filed a petition of the consolidated cases, despite the fact that title to
for certiorari with the CA. CA rendered the assailed the property is no longer in its name. It is clear that
Decision dismissing the petition. PNB contends that the the motion for consolidation was filed merely to
consolidation of its petition for issuance of a writ of frustrate PNBs right to immediate possession of the
possession with GOTESCOs case for annulment of property.
foreclosure proceedings has seriously prejudiced its right
to a writ of possession. It points that after the Moreover, jurisprudence teems with
consolidation of title in its name, when GOTESCO failed pronouncements that, upon the expiration of the
to redeem the property, entitlement to a writ of redemption period, the right of the purchaser to the
possession becomes a matter of right. Moreover, a possession of the foreclosed property becomes
petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non- absolute. Thus, the mere filing of an ex parte motion
litigious proceeding; hence, it must not be consolidated for the issuance of a writ of possession would suffice,
with a civil action for the annulment of foreclosure and there is no bond required since possession is a
proceedings, specific performance, and damages, which necessary consequence of the right of the confirmed
is litigious in nature. owner. It is a settled principle that a pending action for
annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not
Issue: Whether or not the lower courts properly granted stay the issuance of the writ of possession.
GOTESCO’s motion for consolidation. Indisputably, the consolidation of PNBs petition with
GOTESCOs complaint runs counter to this well
Held: No. The legal basis of an order of consolidation of established doctrine.
two (2) cases is Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, which states: Compare with:

SECTION 1. Consolidation. When actions Rule 2, Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A

involving a common question of law or fact are party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
pending before the court, it may order a joint otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
hearing or trial of any or all the matters in against an opposing party, subject to the following
issue in the actions; it may order all the conditions:
actions consolidated; and it may make such
orders concerning proceedings therein as may a. The party joining the causes of action shall
tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
b. The joinder shall not include special civil actions
In Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines, we or actions governed by special rules;
laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases, c. Where the causes of action are between the
viz.: same parties but pertain to different venues or
A court may order several actions pending jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
before it to be tried together where they arise from Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
the same act, event or transaction, involve the action falls within the jurisdiction of said court
same or like issues, and depend largely or and the venue lies therein; and
substantially on the same evidence, provided that d. Where the claims in all the causes action are
the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
party an undue advantage or prejudice the
substantial rights of any of the parties.

Page 115
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Rule 3, Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All action at the time he filed the instant complaint, as
persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in defendants obligation are not yet due and demandable
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or then, he may nevertheless recover on the first two
series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, promissory notes in view of the introduction of evidence
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise showing that the obligations covered by the two
provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as promissory notes are now due and demandable. The
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in toto.
or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action; but the court may Issue: Whether or not a complaint that lacks a cause of
make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff action at the time it was filed can be cured by the
or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the
in connection with any proceedings in which he may case.
have no interest.
Held: No. At the time the complaint was filed with the
Severance of trial trial court on 2 February 1999, none of the three
promissory notes was due yet; although, two of the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 31 promissory notes with the due dates of 7 August 1999
and 14 March 2000 matured during the pendency of the
Section 2. Separate trials. — The court, in case with the trial court. Despite its finding that the
furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may petitioner corporation did not violate the modified terms
order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, of the three promissory notes and that the payment of
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any the principal loans were not yet due when the complaint
separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, was filed, the trial court did not dismiss the complaint,
counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues citing Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which reads:
Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of
Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of
Appeals (2005)
evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried with the express or implied consent of the parties,
Facts: Petitioner Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc., they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been
through Atty. Leonor L. Infante and Rodney David raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
Hegerty, its president and vice-president, respectively, pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to
obtained from private respondent Neal B. Christian loans conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may
evidenced by three promissory notes dated 7 August be made upon motion of any party at any time, even
1996, 14 March 1997, and 14 July 1997. The three after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the
promissory notes were for the amount of P50,000 each result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected
and uniformly provided for (1) a term of three years; (2) to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
an interest of 15 % per annum, payable quarterly; and issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
(3) the repayment of the principal loans after three pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if
years from their respective dates. In December 1997, the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends
the parties entered into a renegotiation of the three of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The
promissory notes resulting in the reduction of the court may grant a continuance to enable the
interest from 15% to 6% per annum. In a letter dated amendment to be made.
16 December 1998, Christian informed the petitioner
corporation that he was terminating the loans and The lower court’s interpretation of Section 5, Rule 10 of
demanded from the latter payment in the total amount the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is erroneous.
of US$150,000 plus unpaid interests. Amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule 10 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order that the actual
On 2 February 1999, private respondent Christian filed a merits of a case may be determined in the most
complaint for a sum of money and damages against the expeditious and inexpensive manner without regard to
petitioner corporation, Hegerty, and Atty. Infante. The technicalities, and that all other matters included in the
petitioner corporation, together with its president and case may be determined in a single proceeding, thereby
vice-president, filed an Answer raising as a defense the avoiding multiplicity of suits. Section 5 applies to
lack of cause of action, among others. According to situations wherein evidence not within the issues raised
them, Christian had no cause of action because the in the pleadings is presented by the parties during the
three promissory notes were not yet due and trial, and to conform to such evidence the pleadings are
demandable. subsequently amended on motion of a party. Thus, a
complaint which fails to state a cause of action may be
During the pendency of the case, two of the promissory cured by evidence presented during the trial.
notes with due dates of 7 August 1999 and 14 March
2000 matured. The trial court rendered a decision on 5 However, the curing effect under Section 5 is
May 2000 declaring the first two promissory notes dated applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at
7 August 1996 and 14 March 1997 as already due and the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is
demandable and ordered the payment of the amount defective for failure to allege the essential facts.
due plus unpaid interests. While conceding that at the For example, if a complaint failed to allege the
time the complaint was filed, none of the promissory fulfillment of a condition precedent upon which the
notes was due and demandable, the trial court ruled cause of action depends, evidence showing that such
that under Section 5 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of condition had already been fulfilled when the complaint
Civil Procedure, a complaint which states no cause of was filed may be presented during the trial, and the
action may be cured by evidence presented without complaint may accordingly be amended thereafter. It
objection. Thus, even if the plaintiff had no cause of thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has

Page 116
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an The Republic filed a Manifestation, contending
amended or supplemental pleading alleging the that the demurrer is not based on the insufficiency of its
existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case evidence but on the strength of the evidence of
is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and respondents as shown by their own exhibits.
is, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be
dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably In its Resolution dated 23 May 2001, the
filed by the defendant. As this Court eloquently said in Sandiganbayan sustained the demurrer to evidence and
Surigao Mine Exploration Co., Inc. v. Harris: referred to the decision of this Court in Ysmael in
holding that res judicata applies.
It is a rule of law to which there is, perhaps, no
exception, either at law or in equity, that to recover at Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly
all there must be some cause of action at the sustained the demurrer to evidence.
commencement of the suit…unless the plaintiff has a
valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his Held: No. The Supreme Court noted that the
action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or Sandiganbayan justified the grant of demurrer with res
remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the judicata as rationale. Res judicata is an inappropriate
action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an ground for sustaining a demurrer to evidence, even as it
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of stands as a proper ground for a motion to dismiss. A
action is not permissible. demurrer may be granted if, after the presentation of
plaintiff’s evidence, it appears upon the facts and the
law that the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. In
Rule 33 contrast, the grounds for res judicata present
Demurrer to Evidence themselves even before the presentation of evidence,
and it should be at that stage that the defense of res
judicata should be invoked as a ground for dismissal.
Properly speaking, the movants for demurral who wish
Republic vs. Tuvera (2007)
to rely on a controlling value of a settled case as a
ground for demurrer should invoke the ground of stare
Facts: The Philippine Commission on Good Government
decisis in lieu of res judicata.
(PCGG), in behalf of the Republic, filed before the
Sandiganbayan a Complaint against Juan and Victor
Tuvera, seeking to recover funds allegedly acquired by Distinguished from motion to dismiss for failure to
said parties in flagrant breach of trust and fiduciary state a cause of action (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [g])
obligations with grave abuse of right and power in
violation of the Constitution and the laws of the Republic The Supreme Court distinguished a motion to
of the Philippines. In particular, the Complaint alleged dismiss for failure of the complainant to state a cause of
that Juan Tuvera, as Presidential Executive Assistant of action from a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause
President Marcos, took advantage of his relationship to of action.
influence upon and connection with the President by
engaging in a scheme to unjustly enrich himself at the 1. The first [situation where the complaint does
expense of the Republic and of the Filipino people, not alleged cause of action] is raised in a motion to
specifically, by securing TLA No. 356 on behalf of Twin dismiss under Rule 16 before a responsive pleading is
Peaks despite existing laws expressly prohibiting the filed and can be determined only from the allegations
exportation of mahogany of the narra species and Twin in the initiatory pleading and not from evidentiary or
Peaks’ lack of qualification to be a grantee thereof for other matter aliunde. The second [situation where the
lack of sufficient logging equipment to engage in the evidence does not sustain the cause of action alleged]
logging business. is raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33
after the plaintiff has rested his case and can be
In their Answer, respondents Victor Tuvera and resolved only on the basis of the evidence he has
Twin Peaks claimed that Twin Peaks was awarded TLA presented in support of his claim. (Republic vs.
No. 356 only after its articles of incorporation had been Tuvera, id., citing Domondon v. Lopez, 383 SCRA
amended enabling it to engage in logging operations, 376).
that the Republic’s reference to Chinese operations and
revenue of approximately P45 million were merely 2. The first does not concern itself with the truth
imagined, and that the PCGG has no statutory authority and falsity of the allegations while the second arises
to institute the action. precisely because the judge has determined the truth
and falsity of the allegations and has found the
The trial ensued. After the Republic rested its evidence wanting. (Id.)
case, with leave of court, respondents filed a Demurrer
to Evidence. Respondents argued that the Republic 3. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of
failed to present sufficient legal affirmative evidence to action is filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has
prove its claim. In particular, respondents’ demurrer presented his evidence on the ground that the latter
contends that the memorandum (Exh. B) and TLA No. has shown no right to the relief sought. While a
356 are not "legal evidence" because "legal evidence" is motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is based on
not meant to raise a mere suspicion or doubt. preliminary objections which can be ventilated before
Respondents also claim that income tax returns are not the beginning of the trial, a motion to dismiss under
sufficient to show one’s holding in a corporation. Rule 33 is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence on
Respondents also cited the factual antecedents the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is
culminating with the Court’s decision in Felipe Ysmael, presented only after the plaintiff has rested his case.
Jr. & Corp., Inc. v. Sec. of Environment and Natural (Id.)
Resources.

Page 117
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

4. If a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is was not even alleged in the complaint. And since the
DENIED, the defendant may file his responsive deed of dacion en pago had been expunged from the
pleading. Under Rule 33, the defendant may present record, the trial court erred in its finding of payment and
his evidence. (Riano, p. 399) lack of cause of action based on the deed. In fact, on
January 11, 2002 or just three months before it
5. If a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is dismissed the amended complaint, the trial court had
GRANTED, the complaint may be refiled, depending even noted petitioner counsel’s manifestation regarding
on the ground for dismissal. In Rule 33, the complaint the parties’ initial efforts to enter into a "dacion en pago
may not be refiled, and the remedy of the plaintiff is but not based on the previous offer made but on a new
to appeal from the order of dismissal. (Id.) proposal involving new properties" and urged them to
pursue further settlement discussions.
The Manila Banking Corp. vs. University of
Baguio,Inc, (2007) In addition, the motion alleged that petitioner
had "no more cause of action" or lacked a cause of
Facts: Manila Banking Corporation (“MBC”) filed a action against the university. Said motion was a motion
Complaint for Sum of Money against the University of to dismiss under Rule 33 in the nature of demurrer to
Baguio for the latter’s failure to pay its loan. Five years evidence and would be proper only after petitioner had
later, MBC amended the complaint and impleaded GDI presented its evidence and rested its case. In the case
as additional defendant, alleging that it was unaware at bar, there had been no presentation of evidence yet
and did not approve the diversion of the loan to GDI; and petitioner had not rested its case. Therefore, the
that it granted the loan without collateral upon the August 17, 1999 Order properly denied the motion to
university’s undertaking that it would construct new dismiss for being improper under either Rule 16 or 33.
buildings; and that GDI connived with the university and
Bautista, Jr. in fraudulently contracting the debt.
Distinguished from demurrer in criminal case
(Rule 119, Sec. 23)
In its Answer, the university claimed that the
bank and GDI approved the diversion. Allegedly, Victor 1. In a civil case, leave of court is NOT required
G. Puyat, then GDI’s President, and Vicente G. Puyat, before filing a demurrer. In a criminal case, a
then the bank’s President, decided to use the proceeds demurrer is filed with or without leave of court.
of the loan. The university stated that Vicente G. Puyat 2. In a civil case, if the demurrer is granted, the
and Victor G. Puyat even assured the university, in order of dismissal is appealable. In a criminal
separate letters11both dated October 22, 1981, that it case, the order of dismissal is NOT appealable
would be relieved of any liability from the loan. because of the constitutional policy against double
Consequently, even if the loan was overdue, the bank jeopardy.
did not demand payment until February 8, 1989. 3. In a civil case, if the demurrer is denied, the
defendant may proceed to present his evidence. In
a criminal case, the accused may adduce his
Thereafter, MBC and GDI executed a deed evidence only if the demurrer is filed with leave of
of dacion en pago, whereby the latter ceded and court. He cannot present his evidence if he filed
transferred to MBC a parcel of land consisting of the demurrer without leave of court. (Riano, p.
210,000 square meters located in Nasugbu, Batangas 401)
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70784,
in full settlement of the loan.
Rule 34
The university moved to dismiss the amended Judgment on the Pleadings
complaint on the grounds that: (1) there was "no more
cause of action" against it since the loan had been
settled by GDI; and (2) the bank "failed to prosecute the Sunbanun vs. Go (2010)
action for an unreasonable length of time." Said motion
was, however, denied, by the trial court since the Facts: Sunbanun is the owner of a residential house. Go
"matters relied upon by the university were evidentiary leased the entire ground floor of petitioner’s house for
in nature." The university moved for reconsideration, one year which was to expire 7 July 1996. To earn extra
which was opposed by MBC. The trial court granted the income, Go accepted ldodgers from whom she received
University’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and a monthly income of P15,000. Go paid for the monthly
the Complaint for Sum of Money. rental until March 1996 when petitioner drove away Go’s
lodgers by telling them that they could stay on the
rented premises only until 15 April 1996 since she was
Issue: Did the trial court err in dismissing the amended terminating the lease. The lodgers left the rented
complaint, without trial, upon motion of respondent premises by 15 April 1996, and petitioner then
university? padlocked the rooms vacated by Go’s lodgers. Go filed
an action for damages against petitioner. Go alleged
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the that she lost her income from her lodgers. Petitioner
university’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint alleged that Go violated the lease contract when she
was improper under Rule 16 because it was filed after subleased the premises. Petitioner moved for the case to
respondent university filed its responsive pleading, its be submitted for judgment on the pleadings considering
Answer. Also, the motion’s merit could not be that the only disagreement between the parties was the
determined based solely on the allegations of the correct interpretation of the lease contract.
initiatory pleading, the amended complaint, since the
motion was based on the deed of dacion en pago, which

Page 118
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Held: In this case, the trial court rendered a judgment the contract prior to its expiration because respondent
on the pleadings. Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of allegedly violated the terms of the lease contract by
Court reads: subleasing the rented premises. Petitioners assertion is
belied by the provision in the lease contract[12] which
SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings. Where an states that the lessee can use the premises as a dwelling
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the or as lodging house. Furthermore the lease contract
material allegations of the adverse partys pleading, the clearly provides that petitioner leased to respondent the
court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on ground floor of her residential house for a term of one
such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of year commencing from 7 July 1995. Thus, the lease
nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, contract would expire only on 7 July 1996.
the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always However, petitioner started ejecting respondents lodgers
be proved. in March 1996 by informing them that the lease contract
was only until 15 April 1996. Clearly, petitioners act of
The trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for ejecting respondents lodgers resulted in respondent
judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no losing income from her lodgers. Hence, it was proper for
controverted matter in the case after the answer is the trial court and the appellate court to order petitioner
filed.[7] A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on to pay respondent actual damages in the amount
the facts as pleaded,[8] and is based exclusively upon of P45,000.
the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties
and the accompanying annexes. Distinguished from summary judgment

This case is unusual because it was petitioner, and not Diman vs. Alumbres (1998)
the claimant respondent, who moved for a judgment on
the pleadings during the pre-trial. This is clear from the Facts: A complaint for Quiting of Title and Damages by
trial courts Order dated 7 October 1997 which reads: Lacalle against Diman. Diman personally served a
Request for Admission from Lacalle but it was unheeded.
ORDER Lacalle did not file their Answer as well. Dimans moved
When this case was called for pre-trial, parties for summary judgment for failure of Lacalle to file their
appeared together with counsel. Defendant pre-trial briefs. Lacalle opposed such motion. Diman’s
[Doris U. Sunbanun] moved that considering that motion was denied by the RTC on the ground that the
there is no dispute as far as the contract is complaint and answer shows a material issue.
concerned and the only disagreement between
the parties is on the interpretation of the contract Held: It is also the law which determines when a
so that the issue boils down on to which of the summary judgment is proper. It declares that although
parties are correct on their interpretation. With the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues of fact
the conformity of the plaintiff [Aurora B. Go], this -- e.g., there are denials of, or a conflict in, factual
case is therefore considered closed and allegations -- if it is shown by admissions, depositions or
submitted for judgment on the pleadings. x x x affidavits, that those issues are sham, fictitious, or not
(Emphasis supplied) genuine, or, in the language of the Rules, that "except
as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue
Petitioner, in moving for a judgment on the as to any material fact and that the moving party is
pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of her entiled to a judgment as a matter of law, the Court shall
own allegations and without giving respondent the render a summary judgment for the plaintiff or the
opportunity to introduce evidence, is deemed to have defendant as the case may be.
admitted the material and relevant averments of the
complaint, and to rest her motion for judgment based on Parenthetically, the existence or appearance of
the pleadings of the parties. As held in Tropical Homes, ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and
Inc. v. CA: their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what
distinguish a proper case for a summary judgment from
As to the amount of damages awarded as a one for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 19 of
consequence of this violation of plaintiffs rights, the the 1964 Rules. In the latter case, there is no ostensible
lower court based its award from the allegations and issue at all, but the absence of any because of the
prayer contained in the complaint. The defendant, failure of the defending party's answer to raise an
however, questions this award for the reason that, issue. Rule 19 expresses the principle as follows:
according to the defendant, the plaintiff, in moving for
judgment on the pleadings, did not offer proof as to the "Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or
truth of his own allegations with respect to the damages otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
claimed by him, and gave no opportunity for the party's pleading, the court may, on motion of that party,
appellant to introduce evidence to refute his claims. We direct judgment on such pleading **."
find this objection without merit. It appears that when
the plaintiff moved to have the case decided on the On the other hand, in the case of a summary
pleadings, the defendant interposed no objection and judgment, issues apparently exist -- i.e., facts are
has practically assented thereto. The defendant, asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet
therefore, is deemed to have admitted the allegations of no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific
fact of the complaint, so that there was no necessity for denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the
plaintiff to submit evidence of his claim. answer – but the issues thus arising from the pleadings
are sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown by
In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner admissions, depositions or admissions. In other words,
ejected respondents lodgers three months before the as a noted authority remarks, a judgment on the
expiration of the lease contract on 7 July 1996. pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded while a
Petitioner maintains that she had the right to terminate summary judgment is a judgment on the facts as

Page 119
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or When, on their face, the pleadings tender a
admissions. Another distinction is that while the remedy genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. An
of a judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a issue is genuine if it requires the presentation of
claimant (one seeking to recover upon a claim, evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious,
counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory contrived or false claim.
relief, supra), a summary judgment may be applied for
by either a claimant or a defending party. In the instant case, the summary judgment
was rendered afterthe presentation of evidence by both
These basic distinctions escaped His Honor. He parties in a full blown trial. Records show that during the
denied the Dimans' motion for summary judgment in his two-year trial of the case, Ontimare Sr. had presented
Order of June 14, 1995, opining that a "perusal of the his own witnesses, all four of them, and had cross-
Complaint and the Answer will clearly show that material examined the witnesses of the opposing party. The trial
issue is raised in that both plaintiffs and defendants courts decision was merely denominated as summary
claimed ownership over the land in dispute, presenting judgment. But in essence, it is actually equivalent to a
their respective titles thereto and accused each other of judgment on the merits, making the rule on summary
possessing false title to the land." He added, citing judgment inapplicable in this case.
cases, that a summary judgment "is not proper where
the defendant presented defenses tendering factual Motion required
issues which call for the presentation of evidence." Such Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. PCIB
a ratiocination is grossly erroneous. Clearly, the grounds (2006)
relied on by the Judge are proper for the denial of a
motion for judgment on the pleadings -- as to which the Facts: PCIBank filed a complaint for sum of money with
essential question, as already remarked, is: are there prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against
issues arising from or generated by the pleadings? -- but Asiakonstrukt (defendant). After ex-parte presentation
not as regards a motion for summary judgment -- as to of evidence, RTC issued the writ of preliminary
which the crucial question is: issues having been raised attachment. Defendant pleaded in its Answer severe
by the pleadings, are those issues genuine, or sham or financial and currency crisis which adversely affected
fictitious, as shown by affidavits, depositions or and put defendant out of business. PCIBank filed a
admissions accompanying the application therefor? verified Motion for Summary Judgment contending that
the defenses interposed by the defendant are sham, and
contrived. RTC rendered a summary judgment ordering
Rule 35 defendant to pay PCIBank.
Summary Judgments
Held: Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as
amended, except as to the amount of damages, when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
Ontimare vs. Elep (2006)
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law, summary judgment may be allowed. Summary or
Facts: Plaintiffs and Respondents are neighbors in
accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at
Quezon City. Respondent wanted to build a four-door,
weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage
two-storey apartment on their lot. Petitioner owned the
of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of
adjoining house and adjacent lot. His terrace extends to
time involved in a trial.
the boundary between his property and respondents.
Respondents wrote to petitioner to seek his consent to
Under the Rules, summary judgment is
the construction of a firewall adjacaent to his existing
appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact
firewall. Instead of consenting, petitioner filed a
which call for the presentation of evidence in a full-
complaint with the Building Official asking that the
blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to
request for a building permit be withheld since a firewall
raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and
would adversely affect the ventilation and market value
admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then
of his property. A cease and desist order to stop the
summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must
construction was issued but was thereafter lifted upon
ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor,
written explanation by respondents to the City engineer.
therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the
Respondents were issued a new building. While workers
presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any
were construction the firewall, petitioner fired his
material fact.
shotgun, threatening to kill anyone who would enter his
property. As a result, a portion of the firewall remained
A genuine issue is an issue of fact which
unfinished. According to respondents, water seeped in
requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished
the building and damaged the sanding, the wood
from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When
parquet floors and the ceiling. Respondents filed an
the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed,
action for damages with application for preliminary
then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to
injunction and restraining order against petitioner, who
the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The
moved for summary judgment. RTC issued the summary
party who moves for summary judgment has the burden
judgment in favor of respondents and ordered petitioner
of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine
to pay respondent damages. CA affirmed the decision of
issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is
the RTC.
patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine
issue for trial. Trial courts have limited authority to
Held: Hence, for summary judgment to be proper, two
render summary judgments and may do so only when
(2) requisites must concur, to wit: (1) there must be no
there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact.
genuine issue on any material fact, except for the
When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or
amount of damages; and (2) the moving party must be
contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
take the place of trial.

Page 120
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Concept of final judgment and final order

Rule 36
Judgments, Final Orders and Entry BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals (1994)

Facts: Yanky Hardware Company, Inc. (YANKY), applied

for and was granted by petitioner BA Finance
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 36
Corporation a credit accommodation. To secure the
payment of all its loans, YANKY executed a chattel
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders.
mortgage over its stock-in-trade or merchandise
— A judgment or final order determining the merits of
inventory in favor of petitioner. In time, petitioner
the case shall be in writing personally and directly
demanded from YANKY the payment of its accumulated
prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the
obligations, or the delivery of the mortgaged chattels for
facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him,
purposes of extrajudicial foreclosure.
and filed with the clerk of the court.
Petitioner filed a complaint against YANKY for replevin
Section 2. Entry of judgments and final orders. — If
with damages or, in the alternative, payment of the
no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is
amount of P559,565.00 plus interest, contending that it
filed within the time provided in these Rules, the
had the right to take possession of the chattels
judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the
described in the chattel mortgage or to be paid the total
clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date of
amount of the loans plus interest. The trial court
finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to
ordered the seizure of all the merchandise and other
be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the
personal properties described in the chattel mortgage.
dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall
The sheriff accordingly seized chattels found in the
be signed by the clerk, within a certificate that such
premises of YANKY and later transferred them to
judgment or final order has become final and executory.
petitioner's warehouse.
Section 3. Judgment for or against one or more of
Upon motion, the trial court accordingly issued an order
several parties. — Judgment may be given for or against
for the sale of the mortgaged properties at public
one or more of several plaintiffs and for or against one
auction to prevent depreciation of value. Respondent
or more of several defendants. When justice so
Wilson Siy won as highest bidder. Petitioner then filed
demands, the court may require the parties on each side
an Urgent Motion to Cancel Auction Sale stating that it
to file adversary pleadings as between themselves and
was not given an opportunity to participate in the sale
determine their ultimate rights and obligations.
and was deprived of its right to bid. The trial court
granted petitioner’s motion and cancelled the auction
Section 4. Several judgments. — In an action
sale.
against several defendants, the court may, when a
several judgment is proper, render judgment against
Respondent Siy filed a motion for reconsideration of the
one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed
order cancelling the auction sale. The trial court, in an
against the others.
order dated 20 June 1984, granted the motion for
reconsideration and allowed respondent Siy to put up a
Section 5. Separate judgments. — When more than
bond to justify the release of properties to him.
one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court,
Respondent Siy submitted a surety bond after which, on
at any stage, upon a determination of the issues
28 June 1984, the sheriff was directed to deliver to Siy
material to a particular claim and all counterclaims
the chattels thus sold. Conformably with the above
arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the
order, the sheriff delivered assorted hardware materials
subject matter of the claim, may render a separate
to Siy and submitted a Sheriff's Report on the properties
judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall
actually delivered. On 24 July 1984, respondent Siy
terminate the action with respect to the claim so
filed his motion to compel delivery of certain chattels
disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the
sold in the auction sale but not delivered by petitioner to
remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is
him. In an order dated 27 July 1984, the trial court
rendered the court by order may stay its enforcement
directed petitioner to produce and/or account for the
until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or
undelivered properties. On 22 January 1986, the trial
judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be
court issued an order directing petitioner to deliver to
necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in
Siy the properties appearing in the inventory minus the
whose favor the judgment is rendered.
properties already delivered, and if this be not possible,
to pay the equivalent amount thereof.
Section 6. Judgment against entity without juridical
personality. — When judgment is rendered against two
Twenty-three (23) days after its receipt of the
or more persons sued as an entity without juridical
aforementioned order, petitioner filed its notice of
personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or
appeal and a record on appeal with the Court of Appeals.
proper names, if known.
In its appeal, petitioner questioned the 20 June 1984
order of the trial court which, in effect, permitted the
Form intervention of respondent Siy by entertaining his
motion for reconsideration and allowing him to put up a
Rule 36, Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final surety bond to justify the release of the properties to
orders. — A judgment or final order determining the him. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner could no
merits of the case shall be in writing personally and longer appeal the 20 June 1984 order because it was
directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and already way beyond the reglementary period to appeal.
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,
signed by him, and filed with the clerk of the court.

Page 121
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Petitioner submits that the order of 20 June 1984 was Kinds (as to finality)
merely interlocutory hence unappealable, and that in
appealing the final order of 22 January 1986, it should 1. Rendition of judgment
be allowed to question the order of 20 June 1984
because its reversal will necessarily render null and void Rule 36, Section 1. Rendition of judgments and
the final order of 22 January 1986. final orders. — A judgment or final order
determining the merits of the case shall be in
Issue: Whether the order dated 20 June 1984 granting writing personally and directly prepared by the
respondent Siy’s motion for reconsideration of the order judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
cancelling the auction sale can be assailed in the present the law on which it is based, signed by him, and
appeal. filed with the clerk of the court.

Held: No. The principal case filed with the trial court by 2. Entry of judgment
petitioner against YANKY was for replevin or, in the
alternative, for collection of the amount of the loans, Rule 36, Section 2. Entry of judgments and final
plus interest owed by YANKY. This Court likewise noted orders. — If no appeal or motion for new trial or
that the disputed order of 22 January 1986, subject of reconsideration is filed within the time provided in
the present appeal, only directed petitioner to turn over these Rules, the judgment or final order shall
to respondent Siy properties which had remained forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of
undelivered to the latter as highest bidder, a matter entries of judgments. The date of finality of the
which was merely an incident of the principal case. The judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the
order of the trial court was already final so far as it date of its entry. The record shall contain the
concerned the dispute between petitioner and dispositive part of the judgment or final order and
respondent Siy because it was to resolve the right of the shall be signed by the clerk, within a certificate
latter to receive the disputed properties and petitioner's that such judgment or final order has become final
obligation to deliver those properties to Siy. This is and executory.
based on the settled rule that only a final order or
judgment on the merits may be the subject of an 3. Entry of satisfaction of judgment
appeal. A final order is defined as one which disposes of
the whole subject matter or terminates a particular
Rule 39, Section 44. Entry of satisfaction of
proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to
judgment by clerk of court. — Satisfaction of a
enforce by execution what has been determined; on the
judgment shall be entered by the clerk of court in
other hand, an order is interlocutory if it does not
the court docket, and in the execution book, upon
dispose of a case completely, but leaves something
the return of a writ of execution showing the full
more to be done upon its merits.
satisfaction of the judgment, or upon the filing of
an admission to the satisfaction of the judgment
Hence, the argument of petitioner that it can still
executed and acknowledged in the same manner
question the order of 20 June 1984 while appealing the
as a conveyance of real property by the judgment
final order of 22 January 1986 is untenable. It may be
obligee or by his counsel unless a revocation of his
true that the 20 June 1984 order allowed the
authority is filed, or upon the endorsement of such
intervention of respondent Siy and reversed the court's
admission by the judgment obligee or his counsel,
previous order setting aside the auction sale. However,
on the face of the record of the judgment.
upon submission by Siy of a surety bond with the court,
the latter issued a final order dated 28 June 1984, which
Rule 39, Section 45. Entry of satisfaction with or
was issued earlier than the final order of 22 January
without admission. — Whenever a judgment is
1986. The order of 28 June 1984 directed the delivery of
satisfied in fact, or otherwise than upon an
the auctioned properties to respondent Siy.
execution on demand of the judgment obligor, the
judgment obligee or his counsel must execute and
Although the order of 20 June 1984 may be considered
acknowledge, or indorse an admission of the
interlocutory as it required something more to be done
satisfaction as provided in the last preceding
by respondent Siy, i.e., the filing of the bond, the
section, and after notice and upon motion the
subsequent order of 28 June 1984 can be considered a
court may order either the judgment obligee or his
final one which determined and settled the issue on the
counsel to do so, or may order the entry of
validity of the auction sale and the right of respondent
satisfaction to be made without such admission.
Siy as highest bidder to acquire the properties he
purchased. Petitioner should have appealed the 28 June
1984 order if it wanted to question the validity of the
Kinds (as to process procuring)
intervention of respondent Siy as well as of the auction
sale. But it did not do so. Moreover, records show that
1. Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34)
after the issuance of the order of 28 June 1984 directing
the delivery of the properties to Siy, the remaining
proceedings in the trial court pertained only to the Rule 34, Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings.
execution and implementation by the sheriff of the order — Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or
of 28 June 1984. otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party's pleading, the court may; on
motion of that party, direct judgment on such
pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal
separation, the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved.

Page 122
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

2. Judgment on demurrer to evidence (Rule 33) (d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A

judgment rendered against a party in default
Rule 33, Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — shall not exceed the amount or be different in
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation kind from that prayed for nor award
of his evidence, the defendant may move for unliquidated damages.
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and
the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If (e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the
his motion is denied he shall have the right to defending party in an action for annulment or
present evidence. If the motion is granted but on declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal
appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall separation fails to answer, the court shall order
be deemed to have waived the right to present the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether
evidence. or not a collusion between the parties exists,
and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the
3. Summary judgments (Rule 35) State in order to see to it that the evidence
submitted is not fabricated.
Rule 35, Section 1. Summary judgment for
claimant. — A party seeking to recover upon a 5. Judgments after ex parte presentation of
claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a evidence
declaratory relief may, at any time after the
pleading in answer thereto has been served, move Rule 18, Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. —
with supporting affidavits, depositions or The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor required pursuant to the next preceding section
upon all or any part thereof. (duty of parties and counsel to appear at the pre-
trial) shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The
Rule 35, Section 2. Summary judgment for dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless other-
defending party. — A party against whom a claim, wise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the
counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the
declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor
as to all or any part thereof. 6. Orders for dismissal
a. Motion to dismiss under Rule 16, supra
4. Default judgments
b. Dismissals under Rule 17
Rule 9, Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If
the defending party fails to answer within the time Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff.
allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of — A complaint may be dismissed by the
the claiming party with notice to the defending plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any
party, and proof of such failure, declare the time before service of the answer or of a
defending party in default. Thereupon, the court motion for summary judgment. Upon such
shall proceed to render judgment granting the notice being filed, the court shall issue an
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, order confirming the dismissal. Unless
unless the court in its discretion requires the otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is
claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of without prejudice, except that a notice
evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court operates as an adjudication upon the merits
when filed by a plaintiff who has once
(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in dismissed in a competent court an action
default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent based on or including the same claim.
proceedings but not to take part in the trial.
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff.
(b) Relief from order of default. — A party — Except as provided in the preceding
declared in default may at any time after notice section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at
thereof and before judgment file a motion under the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of
oath to set aside the order of default upon the court and upon such terms and conditions
proper showing that his failure to answer was as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the
negligence and that he has a meritorious service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for
defense. In such case, the order of default may dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the
be set aside on such terms and conditions as complaint. The dismissal shall be without
the judge may impose in the interest of justice. prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in a separate
(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading action unless within fifteen (15) days from
asserting a claim states a common cause of notice of the motion he manifests his
action against several defending parties, some preference to have his counterclaim resolved
of whom answer and the others fail to do so, in the same action. Unless otherwise specified
the court shall try the case against all upon the in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph
answers thus filed and render judgment upon shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall
the evidence presented. not be dismissed or compromised without the
approval of the court.

Page 123
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, 2. Several judgments

for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear
on the date of the presentation of his evidence in Rule 36, Section 4. Several judgments. — In an
chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action action against several defendants, the court may,
for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply when a several judgment is proper, render
with these Rules or any order of the court, the judgment against one or more of them, leaving
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the the action to proceed against the others.
defendant or upon the court's own motion, without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to 3. Against entity without juridical personality
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. This dismissal shall have the Rule 36, Section 6. Judgment against entity
effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless without juridical personality. — When judgment is
otherwise declared by the court. rendered against two or more persons sued as an
entity without juridical personality, the judgment
Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, shall set out their individual or proper names, if
or third-party complaint. — The provisions of this known.
Rule shall apply to the dismissal of any
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party Kinds (as to claims)
complaint. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant
by notice as in section 1 of this Rule, shall be 1. Entire
made before a responsive pleading or a motion for
summary judgment is served or, if there is none,
2. At various stages or separate judgments
before the introduction of evidence at the trial or
hearing.
Rule 36, Section 5. Separate judgments. —
c. Dismissals under Rule 18, Section 5 When more than one claim for relief is presented
in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a
determination of the issues material to a particular
Rule 18, Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. —
claim and all counterclaims arising out of the
The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
transaction or occurrence which is the subject
required pursuant to the next preceding section
matter of the claim, may render a separate
(duty of parties and counsel to appear at pre-trial)
judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment
shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The
shall terminate the action with respect to the claim
dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless other-
so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to
wise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the
the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment
part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the
is rendered the court by order may stay its
plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent
court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
judgment or judgments and may prescribe such
conditions as may be necessary to secure the
d. Dismissals under Rule 29, Section 5
benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the
judgment is rendered.
Rule 29, Section 5. Failure of party to attend or
serve answers. — If a party or an officer or Rule 41, Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An
managing agent of a party willfully fails to appear appeal may be taken from a judgment or final
before the officer who is to take his deposition, order that completely disposes of the case, or of a
after being served with a proper notice, or fails to particular matter therein when declared by these
serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rules to be appealable.
Rule 25 after proper service of such No appeal may be taken from:
interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, xxx
may strike out all or any part of any pleading of (f) An order of execution
that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or
any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default Kinds (as to how executed)
against that party, and in its discretion, order him
to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, 1. Judgments not stayed on appeal
including attorney's fees.
Rule 39, Section 4. Judgments not stayed by
appeal. — Judgments in actions for injunction,
Kinds (as to parties)
receivership, accounting and support, and such
other judgments as are now or may hereafter be
1. As against one or more several parties
declared to be immediately executory, shall be
enforceable after their rendition and shall not, be
Rule 36, Section 3. Judgment for or against one stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless
or more of several parties. — Judgment may be otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal
given for or against one or more of several therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may
plaintiffs and for or against one or more of several make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or
defendants. When justice so demands, the court granting the injunction, receivership, accounting,
may require the parties on each side to file or award of support.
adversary pleadings as between themselves and
determine their ultimate rights and obligations.

Page 124
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

2. Judgments for money personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy

the judgment and lawful fees.
Rule 39, Section 9. Execution of judgments for
money, how enforced. — Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and
other personal property, or any interest in either
(a) Immediate payment on demand. — The real or personal property, may be levied upon in
officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment like manner and with like effect as under a writ of
for money by demanding from the judgment attachment.
obligor the immediate payment of the full amount
stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. (c) Garnishment of debts and credits. — The
The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified officer may levy on debts due the judgment
bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or obligor and other credits, including bank
any other form of payment acceptable to the deposits, financial interests, royalties,
latter, the amount of the judgment debt under commissions and other personal property not
proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or capable of manual delivery in the possession or
his authorized representative if present at the control of third parties. Levy shall be made by
time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed serving notice upon the person owing such debts
under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who or having in his possession or control such credits
shall turn over the said amount within the same to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The
day to the clerk of court of the court that issued garnishment shall cover only such amount as will
the writ. satisfy the judgment and all lawful fees.

If the judgment obligee or his authorized The garnishee shall make a written report to the
representative is not present to receive payment, court within five (5) days from service of the
the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid notice of garnishment stating whether or not the
payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall judgment obligor has sufficient funds or credits to
turn over all the amounts coming into his satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the
possession within the same day to the clerk of report shall state how much funds or credits the
court of the court that issued the writ, or if the garnishee holds for the judgment obligor. The
same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check
a fiduciary account in the nearest government issued in the name of the judgment obligee, shall
depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of the be delivered directly to the judgment obligee
locality. within ten (10) working days from service of
notice on said garnishee requiring such delivery,
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange except the lawful fees which shall be paid directly
for the remittance of the deposit to the account to the court.
of the court that issued the writ whose clerk of
court shall then deliver said payment to the In the event there are two or more garnishees
judgment obligee in satisfaction of the judgment. holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the
The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment, the judgment obligor, if available,
judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be shall have the right to indicate the garnishee or
retained by the clerk of court for disposition as garnishees who shall be required to deliver the
provided by law. In no case shall the executing amount due, otherwise, the choice shall be made
sheriff demand that any payment by check be by the judgment obligee.
made payable to him. The executing sheriff shall observe the same
procedure under paragraph (a) with respect to
(b) Satisfaction by levy. — If the judgment delivery of payment to the judgment obligee.
obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in
cash, certified bank check or other mode of 3. Judgments for specific acts
payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the
officer shall levy upon the properties of the Rule 39, Section 10. Execution of judgments
judgment obligor of every kind and nature for specific act. —
whatsoever which may be disposed, of for value
and not otherwise exempt from execution giving (a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other
the latter the option to immediately choose which specific acts; vesting title. — If a judgment
property or part thereof may be levied upon, directs a party to execute a conveyance of land
sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the or personal property, or to deliver deeds or other
judgment obligor does not exercise the option, documents, or to perform, any other specific act
the officer shall first levy on the personal in connection therewith, and the party fails to
properties, if any, and then on the real properties comply within the time specified, the court may
if the personal properties are insufficient to direct the act to be done at the cost of the
answer for the judgment. disobedient party by some other person
appointed by the court and the act when so done
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of shall have like effect as if done by the party. If
the personal or real property of the judgment real or personal property is situated within the
obligor which has been levied upon. Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a
conveyance thereof may by an order divest the
When there is more property of the judgment title of any party and vest it in others, which shall
obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment have the force and effect of a conveyance
and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the executed in due form of law.

Page 125
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

legal condition or status of a particular person or

(b) Sale of real or personal property. — If the his relationship to another, the judgment or final
judgment be for the sale of real or personal order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the
property, to sell such property, describing it, and will or administration or the condition, status or
apply the proceeds in conformity with the relationship of the person, however, the probate of
judgment. a will or granting of letters of administration shall
only be prima facie evidence of the death of the
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. — The testator or intestate;
officer shall demand of the person against whom
the judgment for the delivery or restitution of (b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is,
real property is rendered and all persons claiming with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as
rights under him to peaceably vacate the to any other matter that could have been missed
property within three (3) working days, and in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties
restore possession thereof to the judgment and their successors in interest, by title
obligee, otherwise, the officer shall oust all such subsequent to the commencement of the action or
persons therefrom with the assistance, if special proceeding, litigating for the same thing
necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and and under the same title and in the same
employing such means as may be reasonably capacity; and
necessary to retake possession, and place the
judgment obligee in possession of such property. (c) In any other litigation between the same
Any costs, damages, rents or profits awarded by parties or their successors in interest, that only is
the judgment shall be satisfied in the same deemed to have been adjudged in a former
manner as a judgment for money. judgment or final order which appears upon its
face to have been so adjudged, or which was
(d) Removal of improvements on property actually and necessarily included therein or
subject of execution. — When the property necessary thereto.
subject of the execution contains improvements
constructed or planted by the judgment obligor 2. Foreign
or his agent, the officer shall not destroy,
demolish or remove said improvements except Rule 39, Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments
upon special order of the court, issued upon or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final
motion of the judgment obligee after the hearing order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
and after the former has failed to remove the jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is
same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a
(e) Delivery of personal property. — In judgment specific thing, the judgment or final order, is
for the delivery of personal property, the officer
conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
shall take possession of the same and forthwith
deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy
any judgment for money as therein provided. (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is
4. Special judgments presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by a
Rule 39, Section 11. Execution of special subsequent title.
judgments. — When a judgment requires the
performance of any act other than those In either case, the judgment or final order may
mentioned in the two preceding sections, a be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction,
certified copy of the judgment shall be attached want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
to the writ of execution and shall be served by clear mistake of law or fact.
the officer upon the party against whom the
same is rendered, or upon any other person Amendment of judgment
required thereby, or by law, to obey the same,
and such party or person may be punished for 1. Before it becomes final and executory
contempt if he disobeys such judgment.
Eternal Gardens Memorial v. Intermediate
Appellate Court (1988)
Effects of judgments and final orders
Facts: Petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Parks
1. Local
Corporation and private respondent North Philippine
Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day
Rule 39, Section 47. Effect of judgments or final Adventists executed a Land Development Agreement
orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order whereby the former undertook to introduce and
rendered by a court of the Philippines, having construct at its own expense and responsibility
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final necessary improvements on the property owned by
order, may be as follows: private respondent into a memorial park to be
subdivided into and sold as memorial plot lots.
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a Respondent executed in petitioner's favor a Deed of
specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, Absolute Sale with Mortgage) on the lots with titles
or the administration of the estate of a deceased involved in the land development project.
person, or in respect to the personal, political, or

Page 126
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

All went well until Maysilo Estate asserted its The essence of an interpleader, aside from the
claim of ownership over the parcel of land in question. disavowal of interest in the property in litigation on the
Confronted with such conflicting claims, petitioner as part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or
plaintiff filed a complaint for interpleader against funds in controversy with the court. The IAC found that
respondent and Maysilo Estate, alleging that it has no more than twenty million pesos are involved; so that
claim of ownership except as a purchaser thereof and is interest alone for savings or time deposit would be
willing to pay whoever is entitled or declared to be the considerable, now accruing in favor of the Eternal
owners of said properties. Gardens. Finding that such is violative of the very
essence of the complaint for interpleader, the Court of
During trial of the case, respondent presented Appeals cannot be faulted for finding that the lower
a motion for the placing on judicial deposit the amounts court committed a grave abuse of discretion which
due and unpaid from petitioner. The trial court denied requires correction by the requirement that a deposit of
judicial deposit in its order dated February 13, 1984. said amounts should be made to a bank approved by the
Another order dated October 26, 1984 was issued Court.
amending the February 13, 1984 order, (1) setting aside
the order for respondent's deposit of the amounts it had 2. After it becomes final and executory
previously received from petitioner; and (2) denying
respondent’s motion to require Eternal Gardens to Nunal v. Court of Appeals (1993)
deposit the balance under the Land Development
Agreement. Facts: Respondents filed a case for partition and
accounting of a parcel of land located in Isabela against
Respondent filed before the Intermediate Luisa Lyon Nuñal, now deceased and herein represented
Appellate Court (IAC) a petition for certiorari praying by her heirs. Subject parcel of land was formerly owned
that the Orders of February 13, 1984 and October 26, by Frank C. Lyon and Mary Ekstrom Lyon, deceased
1984 of the Regional Trial Court be set aside and that an parents of petitioner and the respondents. Respondents
order be issued to deposit in court or in a depositor claimed that said parcel of land has been in possession
trustee bank of any and all payments, plus interest of petitioner Luisa Lyon Nuñal since 1946 and that she
thereon, due the private respondent. The IAC dismissed made no accounting of the income derived therefrom,
the petition in its decision on February 27, 1985. despite demands made by private respondents for the
However, in its Resolution dated 5 September 1985m ut partition and delivery of their shares.
reversed its decision and ordered the respondent to
deposit whatever amounts are due from it under the On December 17, 1974, the trial court
Land Development Agreement. rendered its judgment in favor of private respondents
and ordered the partition of the property. On July 30,
Eternal Gardens moved for a reconsideration of 1982, the order of partition was affirmed in toto by the
the above decision but it was denied. Hence this Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the court
petition. of origin for the ordered partition.

Issue: Whether or not the IAC abused its discretion On July 17, 1984, Mary Lyon Martin, daughter
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reconsidering its of the late Frank C. Lyon and Mary Ekstrom Lyon, filed a
resolution of February 27, 1985 and in requiring instead motion to quash the order of execution with preliminary
in the resolution of September 5, 1985, that petitioner injunction. In her motion, she contends that not being a
Eternal Gardens deposit whatever amounts are due from party to the case her rights, interests, ownership and
it under the Land Development Agreement. participation over the land should not be affected by a
judgment in the said case; that the order of execution is
Held: No. There is no question that courts have unenforceable insofar as her share, right, ownership and
inherent power to amend their judgments, to make participation is concerned, said share not having been
them conformable to the law applicable provided that brought within the jurisdiction of the court.
said judgments have not yet attained finality. In fact,
motions for reconsideration are allowed to convince the The trial court dismissed the motion to quash
courts that their rulings are erroneous and improper and order of execution with preliminary injunction filed by
in so doing, said courts are given sufficient opportunity Mary Lyon Martin and directed the partition. The private
to correct their errors. respondents filed motion for clarification as to whether
the partition of property is to be confined merely among
In the case at bar, petitioner admitted among the party plaintiffs and defendants, to the exclusion of
others in its complaint in Interpleader that it is still Mary Lyon Martin. On January 9, 1987, the lower court
obligated to pay certain amounts to private respondent; issued the assailed order directing the inclusion of Mary
that it claims no interest in such amounts due and is Lyon Martin as co-owner with a share in the partition of
willing to pay whoever is declared entitled to said the property, it would be unfair and unjust if she would
amounts. Such admissions in the complaint were be left out in the partition of said property. The
reaffirmed in open court before the IAC as stated in the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
latter court's resolution dated September 5, 1985. dismissed the appeal.
Under the circumstances, there appears to be no
plausible reason for petitioner's objections to the deposit Issue: Whether of not the trial court may order the
of the amounts in litigation after having asked for the inclusion of Mary L. Martin as co-heir entitled to
assistance of the lower court by filing a complaint for participate in the partition of the property in considering
interpleader where the deposit of aforesaid amounts is that the decision rendered in that case has long become
not only required by the nature of the action but is a final and executory.
contractual obligation of the petitioner under the Land
Development Program.

Page 127
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Held: No. In the case of Manning International determined and fixed in the order which became final
Corporation v. NLRC, We held that ". . ., nothing is more and executory. It is argued that to allow the
settled in the law than that when a final judgment recomputation and the increase of the monetary award
becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and to the respondents would in effect allow an arbiter to
unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in change a decision that has become final and executory.
any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact Issue: Whether or not the petitioners can be held liable
or law, and regardless of whether the modification is for the recomputed amount although the resolution has
attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by already become final and executory.
the highest Court of land. The only recognized
exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the Held: Yes. It is true that after a judgment has become
making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause final and executory, it can no longer be modified or
no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the otherwise disturbed. However, this principle admits of
judgment is void." exceptions, as where facts and circumstances transpire
which render its execution impossible or unjust and it
Furthermore, "any amendment. or alteration therefore becomes necessary, "in the interest of justice,
which substantially affects a final and executory to direct its modification in order to harmonize the
judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, disposition with the prevailing circumstances."
including the entire proceedings held for that purpose."
In this case, the back wages and other benefits
In the case at bar, the decision of the trial awarded by Arbiter Solamo to each of the private
court in the case has become final and executory. Thus, respondents in the amount of P24,300.00 correspond
upon its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction over merely to the period between their illegal dismissal on
the case. Consequently, any modification that he would April 26, 1986, up to the time of the rendition of the
make, as in this case, the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin decision on February 26, 1987. There is no dispute that
would be in excess of his authority. The remedy of Mary from April 26, 1986, to this date, the private
Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the respondents have not been reinstated nor has payment
parties in the case and all other heirs for her share in of the monetary awards decreed by the NLRC been
the subject property, in order that all the parties in made to them.
interest can prove their respective claims.
It may be true that the amount of backwages
Industrial Timber Corporation v. Court of Appeals and other benefits due to the private respondents as
(1994) recomputed, is not in harmony with the literal import of
the dispositive portion of the decision subject of
Facts: In the earlier case of Industrial Timber execution. However, sight must not be lost of the fact
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. that at the time the recomputation was made in 1992,
No. 83616, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of five (5) years had already elapsed from the time the
the NLRC that the petitioners are the employers of Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision on February 26,
private respondents and remanded the case for a 1987. Thus, a recomputation was necessary to arrive at
determination of the validity of the quitclaim allegedly a just and proper determination of the monetary awards
signed by the latter. In its resolution dated February 3, due the private respondents.
1992, the NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of Labor
Arbiter on February 26, 1987, ordering the petitioners to Supplemental Judgment
reinstate the private respondents, and to pay them back
wages and other benefits. In view of the lapse of time Esquivel v. Alegre (1989)
since the promulgation of the decision, the NLRC
likewise directed the petitioners to pay the private Facts: Spouses Teotimo and Visitacion (“private
respondents severance benefits should reinstatement of respondents”) filed a case for unlawful detainer against
the private respondents to their former position be no Spouses Cresenciana and Lamberto (“petitioners”). The
longer possible. trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, which
decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the
This resolution became final and executory on Supreme Court. After private respondents secured a writ
March 9, 1992, and entry of judgment was made on of execution in the unlawful detainer case, petitioners
March 25, 1992. The respondents meanwhile had filed filed a complaint for reconveyance with nullity of
on March 20, 1992, an ex parte motion for issuance of a judgment damages and preliminary injunction (the
writ of execution with manifestation that from February “second case”) alleging that they had prior possession
26, 1987, up to the present, they have not been over the land subject of the unlawful detainer case.
reinstated and thus were entitled to back salaries for the Notably, the question of prior possession of the land in
said period and until actual reinstatement shall have question was raised and passed upon in the unlawful
been made. detainer case. Hence, the courts ruled in favour of
private respondents in the second case.
Upon computation, the Labor Arbiter held
petitioners liable to the respondents for the total amount After their motion for reconsideration of the
of P387,122.65 for back salaries. The NLRC, on appeal, second case was denied, petitioners filed their notice of
only made a slight modification of the amount of the appeal but due to the opposition of private respondents
award and directed the petitioners to pay respondents to the non-inclusion in the record on appeal of certain
the sum of P375,795.20. pleadings, orders and decisions which they claimed are
relevant to the disposition of the appeal, petitioners
Petitioners submit that the recomputation were ordered by respondent court to amend their record
should not have been allowed because the monetary on appeal to satisfy the objections of the private
awards due the respondents had already been respondents. In the meantime private respondents

Page 128
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

transferred the property in question to the spouses original defendants in Civil Case No. 4883 such that they
Wilfredo Encinas and Patrocinia Dasmarinas. Petitioners must be adjudged as successors-in-interest of original
must have learned of the sale before they could file their defendants Teotimo Alaurin and Visitacion Magno. This
amended record on appeal, which must have prompted interpretation is borne by the statement of respondent
them to file a motion for supplemental complaint against court at the end of the paragraph preceding that which
the vendees of the property in question, the spouses petitioners herein claim to have revised the original
Wilfredo Encinas and Patrocinia Dasmarinas which was decision, which states:
admitted by respondent court. As borne by the records
of the case, respondent court ruled in favor of herein ... One thing, however, clear is that both
petitioners in the supplemental complaint which was supplemental defendants are successors-in-interest of
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Teotimo Alaurin The prayer for reconveyance of the
property in question cannot be justified in the light of
Petitioners claim that the decision of the decision of Hon. Jose C. Razo.
respondent court in the supplemental complaint revised
the decision in the original complaint tantamount to an It must be pointed out that the dispositive
amendment or reversal of said original decision of portion itself of the supplemental decision is clear and
respondent court penned by a previous presiding judge unambiguous. It does not make any declaration or
therein. pronouncement that may be taken to have revised or
amended the original decision. All that it declares is that
Issue: Whether or not the decision rendered by a trial the supplemental defendants Wilfredo Encinas and
court in a supplemental complaint modified the decision Patrocinia Dasmarinas are successors-in-interest of
of the same branch of the court in the original complaint defendants Teotimo Alaurin and Visitacion Magno such
and amounts to an amendment of the original decision that whatever is the result of the appealed case shall be
legally binding upon them.
Held: No. There is a difference between an amended
judgment and a supplemental judgment. In an amended Judgments Nun Pro Tunc
and clarified judgment, the lower court makes a
thorough study of the original judgment and renders the Cardoza v. Singson (1990)
amended and clarified judgment only after considering
all the factual and legal issues. The amended and Facts: Plaintiffs in Civil Case No.1853 filed for a Motion
clarified decision is an entirely new decision which for Execution of Judgment on 29 August 1979. The
supersedes the original decision. Following the Court's motion alleged that a decision dated February 7, 1938 of
differentiation of a supplemental pleading from an the Court of First Instance, Leyte which was affirmed
amending pleading, it can be said that a supplemental with modification in the decision of the Court of Appeals
decision does not take the place or extinguish the in C.A. G.R. No. 3645, promulgated on December 6,
existence of the original. As its very name denotes, it 1939 had long been final and executory. Plaintiffs
only serves to bolster or adds something to the primary allegedly acquired knowledge of the appellate court's
decision. A supplement exists side by side with the decision only in November 11, 1974 because before the
original. It does not replace that which it supplements. death of their original counsel in 1944 they were not
informed of the said decision. In an order dated
In the instant case no restudy was made by September 4, 1979, the trial court directed the
respondent court of the original decision but only on the plaintiffs-movants to submit their memorandum within
issues raised in the supplemental complaint. The fifteen days and for the defendants-oppositors to file
supplemental decision cannot stand alone as a judgment their opposition thereto within the same period from
on the merits as there was no declaration of the receipt of the memorandum.
respective rights and duties of the parties. It only
declared the supplemental defendants as successors-in- On May 4, 1980, plaintiffs' counsel filed a
interest of the defendants in the original complaint, motion to defer the consideration of the motion for
"such that whatever is the result of the appealed case execution on the ground that in during one of the
shall be legally binding upon them ...". hearings, they allegedly discovered that no entry of
judgment had been made and that nobody could tell
The part of the supplemental decision which whether parties or their counsel received a copy of the
petitioners claim to have revised the original, is quoted decision of the Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs therefore,
as follows: prayed for the recording of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in the book of entries of Judgment.
In the light of the foregoing testimony of the
witnesses presented by supplemental plaintiffs together On July 6, 1981, the trial court issued an order
with the documentary exhibits supporting the allegations that "a nunc pro tunc judgment be entered pursuant to
of the supplemental complaint, the Court finds that the the decision of the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No.
evidence presented by the supplemental plaintiffs are C.A. G.R. No. 3545." For the satisfaction of the
preponderantly sufficient to justify and warrant a judgment it likewise ordered the issuance of a writ of
judgment in their favor. execution.

There can be no other interpretation of the On July 21, 1981, the writ of execution was
above statement of respondent court than that all issued directing the Provincial Sheriff of Southern Leyte
documentary and testimonial evidence prescribed by or his deputies to enforce and execute the decision of
supplemental plaintiffs, petitioners herein, sufficiently the trial court as modified by the appellate court.
prove that when supplemental defendants entered into
the contract of absolute sale with the original On January 8, 1982 herein petitioner Juanito
defendants, they already had full knowledge of the Cardoza filed the instant petition for certiorari,
controversy between supplemental plaintiffs and the mandamus and prohibition with preliminary injunction.

Page 129
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In his petition, he alleged inter alia that the respondent Note: This rule does not apply to resolutions rendered in
judge usurped the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals connection with the case wherein no rationale has been
when it issued the Order of July 6, 1981 directing that "a expounded on the merits of that action (Jarantilla v.
non pro tunc' judgment be entered pursuant to the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80194, Mar. 21, 1989).
decision of the Court of Appeals in Civil Case C.A. G.R.
No. 3545" because (a) under Section 10 of Rule 5 of the Bar By Former Judgment And Conclusiveness Of
Revised Rules of Court, its issuance is the ministerial Judgment, Distinguished
duty of the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals; (b)
that the trial court erred in granting the application for Del Rosario vs Far East Bank and Trust Company
issuance of a nunc pro tunc judgment because plaintiffs' (2007)
inaction to move for the execution of the Judgment 40
years after its promulgation is a ground for its denial; Facts: On May 21, 1974, petitioner Davao Timber
(c) that private respondents have not adduced evidence Corporation (DATICOR) and respondent Private
to overcome the regularity in the performance of official Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP)
function so that it can be presumed that the Clerk of entered into a loan agreement under which PDCP
Court of the Court of Appeals made the entry of extended to DATICOR a foreign currency loan of US
judgment; and (d) that respondent judge gravely $265,000 and a peso loan of P2.5 million or a total
abused his discretion when he deprived petitioner of his amount of approximately P4.4 million, computed at the
property without due process of law. then prevailing rate of exchange of the dollar with the
peso. The loans were secured by real estate mortgages
Issue: Whether or not the trial court committed a grave over six parcels of land.
abuse of discretion when it made the entry of judgment
nunc pro tunc and issued the writ of execution. Petitioners paid a total of P3 million to PDCP,
which the latter applied to interest, service fees and
Held: Acting not only as a court of law but also as a penalty charges. This left petitioners, by PDCP’s
court of equity, the trial court correctly made the entry computation, with an outstanding balance on the
of a judgment nunc pro tunc pursuant to the decision of principal of more than P10 million as of May 15, 1983.
the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No. C.A. G.R. No. By March 31, 1982, petitioners had filed a complaint
3545. In so doing, the lower court merely ordered the against PDCP before the then Court of First Instance
judgment of the, Court of Appeals to be executed. (CFI) of Manila for violation of the Usury Law, annulment
of contract and damages. The appeal before the
Supreme Court was docketed as G.R. No. 73198.
The issuance of a nunc pro tunc order was
recognized by this Court in Lichauco v. Tan Pho, 51 Phil.
In the interim, PDCP assigned a portion of its
862 where an order or judgment actually rendered by a
receivables from petitioners (the receivables) to its co-
court at a former time had not been entered of record as
respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC)
rendered. There is no doubt that such an entry operates
under a Deed of Assignment dated April 10, 1987 for a
to save proceedings had before it was made.
consideration of P5,435,000. FEBTC, as assignee of the
receivables, and petitioners later executed a
Contrary to what the petitioner claims, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated December 8,
lower courts action—decreeing the entry of a 1988 whereby petitioners agreed to, as they did pay
judgment nunc pro tunc—was not done arbitrarily nor FEBTC the amount of P6.4 million as full settlement of
capriciously. The petitioner was allowed to oppose the the receivables.
motions in open court and was even required to submit
a memorandum to support his position. The petitioner, On September 2, 1992, the Supreme Court
however, failed to submit a memorandum. Neither did promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 73198. It
he adduce sufficient evidence to support his claims over determined that after deducting the P3 million earlier
the properties in question. paid by petitioners to PDCP, their remaining balance on
the principal loan was only P1.4 million.
Finally, well settled is the rule that a judgment Based on the Supreme Court decision,
which has become final and executory can no longer be petitioners filed on April 25, 1994 a Complaint for sum
amended or corrected by the court except for clerical of money against PDCP and FEBTC before the RTC
errors or mistakes. In such a situation, the trial court of Makati, mainly to recover the excess payment which
loses jurisdiction over the case except to execute the they computed to be P5.3 million -- P4.335 million from
final judgment, as in this case. PDCP, and P965,000 from FEBTC. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1610.
Law of The Case
On May 31, 1995, Branch 132 of
According to this principle, whatever is once the Makati RTC rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 94-
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or 1610 ordering PDCP to pay petitioners the sum
decision between the same parties in the case continues of P4.035 million, to bear interest at 12% per annum
to be the law of the case whether correct on general from April 25, 1994 until fully paid; to execute a release
principles or not, so long as the facts on which such or cancellation of the mortgages. As for the complaint of
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the petitioners against respondent FEBTC, the trial court
case before the court. This principle generally finds dismissed it for lack of cause of action, ratiocinating that
application in cases where an appellate court passes on the MOA between petitioners and FEBTC was not subject
a question and remands the case to the lower court for to the Supreme Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 73198,
further proceedings. The question there settled becomes FEBTC not being a party thereto.
the law of the case upon subsequent appeal (RCPI v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139763, April 26, 2006).

Page 130
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

From the trial court’s decision, petitioners and jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final
respondent PDCP appealed to the Court of Appeals order, may be as follows:
(CA). The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
50591. xxxx

On May 22, 1998, the CA rendered a (b) In other cases, the judgment or final
decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591, holding that order is, with respect to the matter directly
petitioners outstanding obligation, which the Supreme adjudged or as to any other matter that could have
Court had determined in G.R. No. 73198 to be P1.4 been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between
million, could not be increased or decreased by any act the parties and their successors in interest by title
of the creditor PDCP. The CA held that when PDCP subsequent to the commencement of the action or
assigned its receivables, the amount payable to it by special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and
DATICOR was the same amount payable to under the same title and in the same capacity; and
assignee FEBTC, irrespective of any stipulation that
PDCP and FEBTC might have provided in the Deed of (c) In any other litigation between the
Assignment, DATICOR not having been a party thereto, same parties or their successors in interest, that
hence, not bound by its terms. Citing Articles 2154 and only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former
2163 of the Civil Code which embody the principle judgment or final order whichappears upon its face
of solutio indebiti, the CA held that the party bound to to have been so adjudged, or which was actually
refund the excess payment of P5 million was FEBTC as it and necessarily included therein or necessary
received the overpayment; and that FEBTC could thereto. (Underscoring supplied)
recover from PDCP the amount of P4.035 million
representing its overpayment for the assigned The above-quoted provision lays down two
receivables based on the terms of the Deed of main rules. Section 49(b) enunciates the first rule of res
Assignment or on the general principle of equity. judicata known as bar by prior judgment or estoppel by
judgment, which states that the judgment or decree of a
Noting, however, that DATICOR claimed in its court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes
complaint only the amount of P965,000 from FEBTC, the the parties and their privies to the litigation and
CA held that it could not grant a relief different from or constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the
in excess of that prayed for. Finally, the CA held that the same cause of action either before the same or any
claim of PDCP against DATICOR for the payment of P1.4 other tribunal.
million had no basis, DATICORs obligation having
already been paid in full, overpaid in fact, when it paid Stated otherwise, bar by former judgment
assignee FEBTC the amount of P6.4 million. This makes the judgment rendered in the first case an
decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal. absolute bar to the subsequent action since that
judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters
On April 25, 2000, petitioners filed before the offered and received to sustain it but also as to any
RTC of Makati a Complaint against FEBTC to recover the other matter which might have been offered for that
balance of the excess payment of P4.335 million. The purpose and which could have been adjudged therein. It
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-540. is in this concept that the term res judicata is more
commonly and generally used as a ground for a motion
In its Answer, FEBTC denied responsibility, it to dismiss in civil cases.
submitting that nowhere in the dispositive portion of the
CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591 was it held liable The second rule of res judicata embodied in
to return the whole amount of P5.435 million Section 47(c), Rule 39 is conclusiveness of
representing the consideration for the assignment to it judgment. This rule provides that any right, fact, or
of the receivables, and since petitioners failed to claim matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily
the said whole amount in their original complaint in Civil involved in the determination of an action before a
Case No. 94-1610 as they were merely claiming the competent court in which a judgment or decree is
amount of P965,000 from it, they were barred from rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
claiming it. judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between
the parties and their privies whether or not the claim or
On July 10, 2001, the trial court issued the demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two suits is
assailed Decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint on the same. It refers to a situation where the judgment
the ground of res judicata and splitting of cause of in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to
action. the matters actually determined or which were
necessarily included therein.
Issue: Whether in filing an action against FEBTC for the
difference in its original claim and the claim adjudged by In determining whether causes of action are
the courts in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591, FEBTC forum- identical to warrant the application of the rule of res
shopped judicata, the test is to ascertain whether the same
evidence which is necessary to sustain the second action
Held: Yes, the filing of Civil Case No. 00-540 constitutes would suffice to authorize a recovery in the first even in
forum shopping as the issue raised by petitioner is cases in which the forms or nature of the two actions
covered by the doctrine of res judicata. Section 47 of are different. Simply stated, if the same facts or
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on the doctrine evidence would sustain both, the two actions are
of res judicata, reads: considered the same within the rule that the judgment
in the former is a bar to the subsequent action.
Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final
orders. The effect of a judgment or final order There is no doubt that the judgment on appeal
rendered by a court of the Philippines, having relative to Civil Case No. 94-1610 (that rendered in CA-

Page 131
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

G.R. CV No. 50591) was a final judgment. Not only did it Held: No. Labor Arbiter Layawens decision is already
dispose of the case on the merits; it also became final and executory and can no longer be the subject of
executory as a consequence of the denial of FEBTCs an appeal. Thus, petitioner is bound by
motion for reconsideration and appeal. the decision and can no longer impugn the same.
Indeed, well-settled is the rule that a decision that has
Neither is there room to doubt that the attained finality can no longer be modified even if the
judgment in Civil Case No. 94-1610 was on the merits modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions
for it determined the rights and liabilities of the parties. of fact or law. The doctrine of finality of judgment is
To recall, it was ruled that: (1) DATICOR overpaid explained in Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo:
by P5.3 million; (2) FEBTC was bound to refund the
excess payment but because DATICORs claim against Nothing is more settled in law than that once a
FEBTC was only P965,000, the court could only grant so judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable
much as the relief prayed for; and (3) PDCP has no and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any
further claim against DATICOR because its obligation respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
had already been paid in full. Right or wrong, that what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact
judgment bars another case based upon the same cause or law, and regardless of whether the modification is
of action. attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by
the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party
Immutability against Final Judgment has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed
period, the winning party also has the correlative right
Griffith vs. Estur (2008) to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. The
doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on
Facts: On 25 July 1997, respondents Estur, Ofalsa, fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
and Ereve (respondents) filed an amended complaint for practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the
illegal dismissal, nonpayment of legal holiday pay, judgments or orders of courts must become final at
13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay against some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would
Lincoln Gerald, Inc. (Lincoln) and petitioner Dominic be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main
Griffith (petitioner). role of courts of justice which is to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of
Lincoln, a corporation owned by peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with
the Griffith family, is engaged in the manufacture of finality.
furniture. Respondents alleged that petitioner Dominic
Griffith, the Vice President for Southeast Asia While petitioner can no longer challenge the
Operations, managed the corporation. decision which has become final and executory, he can
question the manner of its execution especially if it is
On 4 October 1999, Labor Arbiter Vicente not in accord with the tenor and terms of the judgment.
R. Layawen (Labor Arbiter Layawen) decided the case in As held in Abbott v. NLRC:
favor of respondents. Lincoln filed a notice of appeal
on 9 November 1999 but failed to file the required In Sawit v. Rodas and Daquis v. Bustos, we
memorandum of appeal. On 6 July 2001, the decision of held that a judgment becomes final and executory by
Labor Arbiter Layawen became final and executory, and operation of law, not by judicial declaration. Accordingly,
the first writ of execution was issued on 2 October 2001. finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of
In February 2002, petitioner received a copy of the first the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is
alias writ of execution dated 7 January 2002, issued by perfected. In such a situation, the prevailing party is
Labor Arbiter Jaime Reyno (Labor Arbiter Reyno) entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution; and
directed against him and Lincoln. issuance thereof is a ministerial duty, compellable
by mandamus.
On 19 February 2002, petitioner filed a motion
to quash the first alias writ of execution. Petitioner In the instant case, however, what is sought to
alleged in his motion that he was unaware of the labor be reviewed is not the decision itself but the manner of
case filed against him because he was Lincolns Vice its execution. There is a big difference. While it is true
President for Southeast Asia Operations only until 17 that the decision itself has become final
September 1997. Petitioner contended that the addition and executory and so can no longer be challenged, there
of the execution fee in the writ in effect modified Labor is no question either that it must be enforced in
Arbiter Layawens decision, and thus nullified the accordance with its terms and conditions. Any
writ. Furthermore, petitioner maintained that as an deviation therefrom can be the subject of a proper
officer of Lincoln, he was not personally liable to pay the appeal.
judgment debt because he acted in good faith and within
the bounds of his authority. Labor Arbiter Reyno denied
the motion in an order dated 24 April 2002. Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denied on 16 July
2002.

On 11 September 2002, Labor

Arbiter Reyno issued a second alias writ of execution
against petitioner and Lincoln.

Issue: Whether the petitioner Griffith can assail the

decision of Labor Arbiter Layawens based on the
defenses which he raised

Page 132
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

REMEDIES AGAINST JUDGMENTS OR FINAL (2) It shall be made in writing, stating the ground or
ORDERS grounds therefor
(3) Written notice shall be served by movant on the
Remedies Before Finality Of Judgment adverse party
(1) Motion for reconsideration
(2) Motion for new trial NOTE: Non-compliance with this requirement would
(3) Appeal reduce the motion to a mere pro forma motion, which
shall not toll the period for appeal.
DEFINITION
A motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 is directed Contents of a motion for new trial
against a judgment or final order. It is not the motion (1) If based on FAME, it shall be supported by an
for reconsideration of interlocutory order, which often affidavit of merits
precedes a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It does
not apply to cases that fall under Summary Procedure. NOTE: An affidavit of merits is one which recites the
nature and character of FAME on which the motion is
GROUNDS: [Rule 37, Sec. 1] based and stating the movant’s good and substantial
Grounds for Motion for New Trial: cause of action or defense and the evidence he intends
(1) FAME – Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable to present if granted
negligence
(2) If based on newly found evidence, it shall be
(a) Conditions: supported by:
(i) Which ordinary prudence could not have (a) Affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is
guarded against; and expected or given; or
(ii) By reason of which such aggrieved party has (b) Duly authenticated documents which are
probably been impaired in his rights proposed to be introduced in evidence

NOTE: Fraud must be extrinsic fraud which means any Contents of a motion for reconsideration
fraudulent scheme executed by the prevailing party (1) Shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions
outside of the trial against the losing party who because of the judgment or final order which are not supported
of such fraud is prevented from presenting his side of by evidence or which are contrary to law
the case. (2) Make express reference to testimonial or
documentary evidence or provisions of law alleged to be
(2) Newly discovered evidence contrary to such findings or conclusions
(a) Requisites:
(i) It must have been discovered after the trial RESOLUTION OF MOTION AND COURT ACTION
(ii) It could not have been discovered and Court action – The court may: [Rule 37, Sec. 3]
produced at the trial even with the exercise of (1) Set aside the judgment or final order and grant a
reasonable diligence; and new trial; or upon such terms as may be just
(iii) The evidence is of such weight that if (2) Deny the motion
admitted, would probably alter the result of the (3) Amend such judgment or final order accordingly if:
action; and (a) The court finds that excessive damages have
(iv) It must be material and not merely collateral, been awarded or that; or
cumulative, or corroborative (b) That the judgment or final order is contrary to
the evidence or law
Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration: Resolution [Rule 37, Sec. 4] – he motion shall be
(1) Damages awarded are excessive resolved within 30 days from submission
(2) Evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final
order The 30-day period to resolve the motion is held to be
(3) The decision or final order is contrary to law mandatory [Gonzales v. Bantolo (2006)]

WHEN TO FILE: GRANT OF THE MOTION; EFFECT

An aggrieved party may file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration within the period for taking an appeal. Grant of motion for reconsideration
The motions are filed with the court which rendered the The court may amend the judgment or final order
questioned judgment or final order. accordingly. The amended judgment is in the nature of a
The period for appeal is within 15 days after notice to new judgment, which supersedes the original judgment.
the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed
from. The 15-day period is deemed to commence upon Grant of motion for new trial
receipt by the counsel of record, which is considered The original judgment shall be vacated, and the action
notice to the parties. Service upon the parties shall stand for trial de novo. The recorded evidence
themselves is prohibited and is not considered as official upon the former trial shall be used at the new trial
receipt of judgment. without retaking them (if they are material and
Effect of Filing – The filing of a timely motion interrupts competent).
the period to appeal.
Partial grant
FORM AND CONTENTS [Rule 37, Sec. 2] Rule 37, Sec. 7 allows the court to order a new trial or
Form: grant reconsideration as to such issues if severable
(1) The motion must comply with the provisions of Rule without interfering with the judgment or final order upon
15 otherwise it will not be accepted for filing and/or will the rest.
not suspend the running of the reglementary period.

Page 133
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

REMEDY WHEN MOTION IS DENIED; FRESH 15- If a new trial is If the court finds that
DAY RULE granted, originalexcessive damages have
Effect of Denial of Motion – The judgment or final order judgment or final orderbeen awarded or that the
shall stand as is is vacated. judgment or final order is
Single-Motion Rule [Rule 37, Sec. 5] The case stands for contrary to the evidence or
A party shall not be allowed to file a 2nd motion for trial de novo and will law, it may amend such
reconsideration. be tried anew judgment or final order
 Follow the Omnibus Motion Rule accordingly
Available even on Available against the
NOTE: While a 2nd motion for reconsideration is not appeal but only on the judgments or final orders or
allowed, a second motion for new trial is authorized ground of newly both the trial and appellate
 However, it must be based on a ground not discovered evidence courts
existing nor available when the 1st motion was * Both are prohibited motions under Summary
made within the period allowed but excluding Procedure
the time during which the first motion had
APPEALS IN GENERAL
been pending.
NATURE OF APPEAL
Fresh 15-Day Rule: The aggrieved party has a “fresh
period” of 15 DAYS within which to file his appeal. (1) Not a natural right nor a part of due process
If the motion is denied, the movant has a “fresh period” (2) It is merely a statutory right, and may be exercised
of 15 days from receipt or notice of the order denying only in the manner and in accordance with provisions of
the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration the law. It must comply with the requirements; failing to
within which to file an appeal. [Neypes v. CA, 2005] do so, the right to appeal is lost
(3) Once granted, appeals become part of due process
NOTES: and should be liberally applied in favor of the right to
(1) This fresh period becomes significant only when a appeal
party opts to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS SUBJECT TO
(2) This rule does not refer to the period within which to APPEAL; MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE
appeal from the order denying the motion for
reconsideration but to the period within which to appeal Rule 41, Sec. 1, as amended by AM 07-7-12-SC (2007)
from the judgment itself. provides:

Filing of a proper motion for new trial interrupts the (1) Appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order
running of the period of appeal which begins to run that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
again from receipt of the notice of the movant of the matter therein when declared by the Rules to be
order denying his motion (fresh 15 day period) [Phil. appealable
Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Ortiz]
(2) No appeal may be taken from:
Remedies if Motion is DENIED: (a) An order denying a petition for relief or any
(1) To appeal from the judgment or final order itself similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
(2) The order denying the motion may itself be assailed
by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (b) An interlocutory order;
(3) Rule 37, Sec. 9 says that an order denying a motion
for new trial or reconsideration is NOT appealable (c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(a) NOTE HOWEVER: AM 07-7-12 amended Sec. 1 of
Rule 41 by deleting “An order denying a motion for (d) An order denying a motion to set aside a
new trial or reconsideration” from the non-appealable judgment by consent, confession or compromise on
orders. the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any
other ground vitiating consent;
Motion for New Trial Motion for
Reconsideration (e) An order of execution;
Grounds: Grounds:
(1) Fraud, accident, (1) Damages awarded are (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or
mistake, or excusable excessive more of several parties or in separate claims,
negligence (2) That evidence is counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party
(2) Newly discovered insufficient to justify the complaints, while the main case is pending, unless
evidence decision or final order the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(3) 3. That decision or final
order is contrary to law (g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

Second motion may be Second motion from the NOTE: AM 07-7-12-SC removed from the original list “an
allowed so long as same party is prohibited. order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration.”
based on grounds not The prohibition applies only NOTE, HOWEVER: Rule 37, Sec. 9 which states that no
existing or available at to final orders or judgments, appeal can be made from an order denying MR or MNT.
the time the first hence it is allowed in
motion was made interlocutory orders Only final judgments or orders can be appealed as
distinguished from interlocutory judgments or orders
which are not appealable.

Page 134
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Final Order Interlocutory Order ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

Disposes of the matter in its Does not dispose of a case Appeal is limited to cognizable judgments/issues.
entirety, leaving nothing completely but leaves The appellate court has no jurisdiction to review a
more to be done but to something more to be judgment which is immediately final and executory by
enforce execution decided upon. express provision of law. [Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino
Appealable Not appealable except (2005)]
through a petition for Rationale: Appeal is merely a privilege conferred by law
certiorari under Rule 65 upon the litigants.
Must clearly and distinctly No need to comply with A party cannot change the theory on appeal. Only issues
state the law and the facts such a requirement pleaded in the lower court and properly raised may be
on which it is based resolved by the appellate court. [Medina v. CA (1992)]
However, issues which are inferred from or necessarily
connected with the issue properly raised and pleaded
An interlocutory order is one that does not finally may be resolved by the appellate court. [Espina v. CA
dispose of the case, and does not end the court's task of (1992)]
adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining
their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND OTHER
obviously indicates that other things remain to be done. PROCEEDINGS
[BPI v. Lee (2012)] [Rule 38]

CONCEPT
REMEDY AGAINST JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS Remedies AFTER finality of judgment
WHICH ARE NOT APPEALABLE (1) Petition for relief [Rule 38]
The aggrieved party may file a special civil action under (2) Action to Annul Judgment [Rule 47]
Rule 65. [Rule 41, Sec. 1] (3) Collateral Attack of a Judgment that is Void on its
Face
MODES OF APPEAL
A petition for relief from judgment together with a
(1) Ordinary appeal – Rule 40 and 41 motion for new trial and a motion for reconsideration are
(a) Notice of appeal remedies available only to parties in the proceedings
(b) Record on appeal where the assailed judgment is rendered. In fact, it has
(2) Petition for review – Rule 42 been held that a person who was never a party to the
(3) Petition for review on certiorari – Rule 45 case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot avail
of a petition for relief from judgment [Alaban v. Cam]
NOTE: This is not applicable to the SC since it is not a
trier of facts.
Ordinary Petition for Petition for
Appeal Review Review on
RULE 37 v. RULE 38
Certiorari
Appeal by writ of Rule 42 Rule 45
Rule 37 Rule 38
error
Available BEFORE judgment Available AFTER judgment has
becomes final and executory become final and executory
Case is decided Case decided by Case decided by
by RTC in its RTC in the the RTC, CA, CTA, Applies to judgments or final Applies to judgments, final
original exercise of its and orders only orders and other proceedings
jurisdiction appellate Sandiganbayan Grounds: (1) FAME and (2) Ground: FAME
jurisdiction Newly discovered evidence
Appealed to the Petition for review Appealed to the Filed within the time to Filed within 60 days from
CA with the CA SC appeal knowledge of judgment and
File notice of File a verified File verified within 6 months from entry of
appeal or record petition for review petition for review judgment
of appeal with with CA. on certiorari with If denied, order of denial is If denied, order denying a
court of origin Pay docket and the SC. not appealable; hence, petition for relief is not
and give a copy lawful fees and Pay docket and remedy is appeal from appealable; remedy is
to adverse party P500 as deposit lawful fees and judgment appropriate civil action under
for costs with the P500 for costs. Rule 65
CA. Submit proof of Legal remedy Equitable remedy
Furnish RTC and service of a copy Motion need not be verified Petition must be verified
adverse party a to the lower court
copy of such and adverse party Rule 37 and Rule 38 are EXCLUSIVE remedies.
A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial
Within 15 days Within 15 days Within 15 days and/or reconsideration cannot file a petition for relief
from notice of from notice of from notice of after his motion has been denied.
judgment for decision to be judgment or order A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial or
notice of appeal reviewed or from of denial of MFR motion for reconsideration can no longer file a petition
and 30 days for denial of a MFR or or MFNT for relief from judgment after his motion has been
records on MFNT denied. These remedies are mutually exclusive. It is only
appeal in appropriate cases where a party aggrieved by the
judgment has not been able to file a motion for new trial
or motion for reconsideration that a petition for relief
can be filed. [Francisco v. Puno, 1981]

Page 135
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

WHEN PROPER The absence of an affidavit of merits is a fatal defect and

Rule 38 can be availed of once the judgment has warrant denial of the petition [Fernandez v. Tan Tiong
become final and executory. Tick].

The relief provided for by Rule 38 is of equitable However, it is not a fatal defect so long as the facts
character and is only allowed in exceptional cases, that required to be set out also appear in the verified petition
is where there is no other available or adequate remedy. [Fabar Inc. v. Rodelas].
A petition for relief is not regarded with favor and
judgment will not be disturbed where the party
complaining has or by his exercising proper diligence When Affidavit of Merit is not necessary:
would have had an adequate remedy at law, as where
petitioner could have proceeded by appeal to vacate or (1) When there is lack of jurisdiction over the
modify the default judgment. [Manila Electric v. CA defendant;
(1990)] (2) When there is lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
Under Sec. 1, it is also available when “any other (3) When judgment was taken by default;
proceeding is thereafter taken against the petitioner in (4) When judgment was entered by mistake or was
any court through FAME” obtained by fraud; or
(5) Other similar cases.
Thus, it was held that a petition for relief is also
applicable to a proceeding taken after entry of judgment ORDER TO FILE ANSWER
or final order such as an order of execution [Cayetano v. [Rule 38, Sec. 4]
Ceguerra] or an order dismissing an appeal [Medran v. An order to answer shall issue only if petition is
CA] sufficient in form and substance.
If petition is sufficient in form and in substance, the
WHERE FILED court shall issue an order requiring the adverse party to
Rule 38 is not an independent action but a continuation answer within 15 days from receipt thereof.
of the old case. Hence, it is filed with the same court
and same branch which decided the case. PROCEEDINGS AFTER ANSWER IS FILED [Rule 38,
Sec. 6]
GROUNDS [Rule 38, Sec. 1 and 2] After filing of answer or expiration of the period therefor,
(1) When judgment or final order is entered or any other court shall hear the petition.
proceeding is thereafter taken against petitioner through If the court finds that the allegations are not true –
FAME Petition is dismissed.
(2) When petitioner has been prevented from taking an If the court finds that allegations are true:
appeal by FAME
(1) It shall set aside the judgment, final order, or other
PERIOD FOR FILING [Rule 38, Sec. 3] proceeding complained of upon such terms as may be
just
(1) Within 60 days after petitioner learns of the (2) Thereafter, case shall stand as if such had never
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set been rendered, issued, or taken
aside; AND (3) The court shall then proceed to hear and determine
(2) Not more than 6 months after such judgment or final the case as if timely motion for new trial or
order was entered, or such proceeding was taken reconsideration has been granted by it

The two periods for the filing of a petition for relief are REMEDY FOR DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RELIEF.
not extendible and never interrupted. Both periods must
be complied with. [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. v. Ariaga] Appeal from an order denying a petition for relief is no
longer available under the present rules.
Reckoning points: The remedy against a denial of a petition for relief is
certiorari under Rule 65, when proper.
(1) The 60-day period is reckoned from the time the
party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS
proceeding. Not from the date he actually read the same AND RESOLUTIONS
[Perez v. Araneta] [Rule 47]
(2) 6-months period is computed from the date of entry
of the order or judgment
Annulment of Judgment is a remedy in law independent
FORM AND CONTENTS OF THE PETITION of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled
was rendered and may be availed of though the
(1) The petition for relief must be verified judgment has been executed.
(2) The petition must be accompanied by an affidavit
showing the FAME relied upon; and
(3) The affidavit of merit accompanying the petition
must also show the facts constituting the petitioner’s
good and substantial cause of action or defense as the
case may be

Page 136
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Effect of motion for extension of time

Rule 37 - The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a
New Trial or Reconsideration timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.

Not required for appeal

Grounds and nature (Rule 37, Sec. 1)
Second motion for new trial
Motion for New Trial Sec. 5. Second motion for new trial.
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved A motion for new trial shall include all grounds then
party may move the trial court to set aside the available and those not so included shall be deemed
judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or waived. A second motion for new trial, based on a
more of the following causes materially affecting the ground not existing nor available when the first motion
substantial rights of said party: was made, may be filed within the time herein provided
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable excluding the time during which the first motion had
negligence (FAME) which ordinary prudence could been pending.
not have guarded against and by reason of which such
aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his Second motion for reconsideration
rights; or
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Milan (2010)
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could
not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
Facts: The instant case was commenced on February
produced at the trial, and which if presented would
18, 2000, upon the filing of a Complaint for Sum of
probably alter the result.
Money[6] by petitioner PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc.
(PCI Leasing) against herein respondents Antonio C.
Distinguish from motion to reopen trial
Milan (Antonio) and Laura M. Milan. The complaint was
A motion to reopen the trial is different and distinct from
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-40010 in the RTC of
a motion for new trial.
Quezon City, Branch 226.
For one thing, a motion to reopen may properly be
On March 2, 2000, the RTC issued summons to
presented only after either or both parties have formally
respondents, addressed to their place of residence as
offered, and closed their evidence, but before judgment.
stated in the complaint, which is at No. 47 San Ildefonso
On the other hand, a motion for new trial is proper only
Drive, Torres Village, Novaliches, Quezon City.
after rendition or promulgation of judgment.
On March 10, 2000, the process server of the
For another, a motion for reopening, unlike a motion for
RTC filed his Officers Return, stating that he went to the
new trial, is not specifically mentioned and prescribed as
aforementioned address on two occasions to serve the
a remedy by the Rules of Court. There is no specific
summons and the copy of the complaint to the
provision in the Rules of Court governing motions to
respondents. At both times, however, the process server
reopen. It is albeit a recognized procedural recourse or
was told by the people he encountered there that
device, deriving validity and acceptance from long,
respondents had already transferred to an unknown
established usage.
location. The summons and the copy of the complaint
were, thus, returned unserved.
A motion for new trial in civil or criminal actions may be
applied for and granted only upon specific, well-defined
In view of the above situation, PCI Leasing
grounds, set forth respectively in Rules 37 (Section 1)
filed on April 10, 2000 a Motion to Archive Civil Case No.
and 121 (Section 2). On the other hand, the reopening
Q-00-40010, asserting that it was then conducting an
of a case for the reception of additional evidence after a
investigation in order to ascertain the whereabouts of
case has been submitted for decision but before
the respondents. PCI Leasing prayed that the case be
judgment is actually rendered is, it has been said,
archived, subject to its reinstatement after the
controlled by no other rule than that of the paramount
whereabouts of the respondents was determined.
interests of justice, resting entirely in the sound judicial
discretion of a Trial Court; and its concession, or denial,
In an Orderdated April 13, 2000, the RTC
by said Court in the exercise of that discretion will not
denied the Motion to Archive given that the
be reviewed on appeal unless a clear abuse thereof is
circumstances of the case were not within the purview of
shown. A brief review of precedents treating of the
the provisions of paragraph II (c) of Administrative
matter of reopening a trial provides a clearer insight into
Circular No. 7-A-92 (Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases
the nature of the remedy, and is not inutile at this point.
(Alegre v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-56923, 9 May 1988)
Subsequently, on July 13, 2000, the RTC
issued an Order,[16] directing PCI Leasing to take the
Motion for Reconsideration
necessary steps to actively prosecute the instant case
within ten days from receipt under pain of dismissal of
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also
the case for lack of interest.
move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the
damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence
On July 31, 2000, PCI Leasing filed a Motion
is insufficient to justify the decision or final order,
for Issuance of Alias Summons.[17] Said motion was,
or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.
however, denied by the RTC via an Order[18] dated
Periods
August 3, 2000 on the ground that the same was a mere
scrap of paper for apparently containing a defective
For filing - Within the period for taking an
notice of hearing.
appeal

Page 137
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

On September 5, 2000, PCI Leasing filed which are not supported by the evidence or which are
another Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons, which contrary to law, making express reference to the
the RTC scheduled for hearing on October 13, 2000. testimonial or documentary evidence or to the
During the hearing of the motion on said date, there was provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings
no appearance from both counsels of PCI Leasing and or
respondents. Accordingly, the RTC issued an Order conclusions.
dated October 13, 2000 dismissing the instant case.
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
PCI Leasing sought a reconsideration of the not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
above Order. In a Resolution dated January 4, 2001, the
RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration. On January Sec. 3. Contents.
26, 2001, PCI Leasing filed an Ex Parte Motion for A motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and
Reconsideration, once more seeking a reconsideration of the grounds upon which it is based, and if required by
the dismissal of its case. Given the alleged amount of these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein,
the respondents liability, PCI Leasing stressed that it shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other
had a valid cause of action against the former and it papers.
never lost interest in the prosecution of its case. PCI
Leasing then implored the RTC to revisit the Order dated Motion for new trial
October 13, 2000 and the Resolution dated January 4, A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner
2001 to make the dismissal without prejudice, in order provided for proof of motions. A motion for the cause
for PCI Leasing to maintain its right to re-file its legal mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding section
claim against respondents. shall be supported by affidavits of merits which may be
rebutted by affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned
The RTC denied the Ex Parte Motion for in paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits of the
Reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 6, 2001. The witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be
trial court observed, inter alia, that the Ex Parte Motion given, or by duly authenticated documents which are
was already the second motion for reconsideration filed proposed to be introduced in evidence.
by PCI Leasing. Also, the RTC made mention of the
provisions of Section 3, Rule 17of the Rules of Court Motion for reconsideration
relating to the dismissal of a case due to the fault of a A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically
plaintiff. the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order
which are not supported by the evidence or which are
On May 11, 2001, PCI Leasing filed a Notice of contrary to law, making express reference to the
Appeal in an attempt to challenge the Order dated testimonial or documentary evidence or to the
October 13, 2000 of the RTC, as well as the Resolutions provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings
dated January 4, 2001 and April 6, 2001. On August 3, or conclusions.
2001, the RTC rendered a Resolution dismissing the
Notice of Appeal, given that the same was filed beyond Pro forma motion and its effects
the reglementary period. A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
Held: No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order. A second Marina Properties Corp. v. CA (1998)
motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.
Facts: Petitioner Marina Properties Corporation
For resolution (MARINA for short) is a domestic corporation engaged in
the business of real estate development. Among its
Sec. 4. Resolution of motion. projects is a condominium complex project, known as
A motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be the MARINA BAYHOMES CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it is consisting of 10 building clusters with 31 housing units
submitted for resolution. to be built on a parcel of land at Asiaworld City, Coastal
Road in Paranaque, Metro Manila. The area is covered by
T.C.T. No. (121211) 42201 of the Registry of Deeds of
Contents the same municipality.
In General
Sec. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or The construction of the project commenced
reconsideration and notice thereof. sometime in 1988, with respondent H.L. Carlos
The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground Construction, Inc. (H.L. CARLOS for brevity) as the
or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be principal contractor, particularly of Phase III. CARLOS to
served by the movant on the adverse party. A motion purchase a condominium unit therein known as Unit B-
for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for 121. Thus, on October 9, 1988, the parties entered into
proof of motions. A motion for the cause mentioned in a Contract to Purchase and to Sell covering Unit B-121
paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall be for P3,614,000.00. H.L. CARLOS paid P1,034,200.00 as
supported by affidavits of merits which may be rebutted downpayment, P50,000.00 as cash deposit and
by affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned in P67,024.22 equivalent to 13 monthly amortizations.
paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits of the
witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be After paying P1,810,330.70, which was more
given, or by duly authenticated documents which are than half of the contract price, H.L. CARLOS demanded
proposed to be introduced in evidence. for the delivery of the unit, but MARINA refused. H.L.
CARLOS filed the instant complaint for specific
A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically performance with damages against MARINA with the
the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

Page 138
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In its answer, MARINA claimed that its MARINAs claim that the present complaint
cancellation of the Contract to Purchase and Sell is should be dismissed on the ground of splitting a cause of
justified since H.L. CARLOS has failed to pay its monthly action, deserves scant consideration. The two
installment since October 1989 or for a period of almost complaints did not arise from a single cause of action
two (2) years; that H.L. CARLOS abandoned its work on but from two separate causes of action. It bears
the project as of December 1989; and that the instant emphasis that H.L. CARLOS cause of action in the civil
case should have been suspended in view of the case stemmed from the breach by MARINA of its
pendency of Civil Case No. 89-5870 for damages in the contractual obligation under the Construction Contract,
Makati RTC involving the same issues. while in the case at bench, H.L. CARLOS cause of action
is premised on the unilateral cancellation of the Contract
On February 21, 1992, the HLURB, through to Purchase and Sell by MARINA.
Atty. Abraham N. Vermudez, Arbiter, rendered a
decision, declaring the cancellation of the subject Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Contract to Sell as null and void. Order of the Office of the President but deleted the
award of actual damages.
Whereupon, MARINA interposed an appeal to
the Board of Commissioners of HLURB (First Division) Held: Although a motion for reconsideration merely
which affirmed the assailed decision. On further appeal reiterate the issues already passed upon by the court,
to the Office of the President, the decision of the Board that by itself does not make it pro forma and is
of Commissioners (First Division) was affirmed. immaterial because what is essential is compliance with
the requisites of the Rules. An aggrieved party is
MARINA filed a motion for reconsideration but allowed one motion for reconsideration of the assailed
was denied. decision or final order before he may file a petition for
review with the CA.
The Court of Appeals sustained MARINA as
regards the award of actual damages, finding that no Republic v. ICC (2006)
evidence was presented to prove the P30,000.00 award Facts: On April 4, 1995, respondent ICC, holder of a
as monthly rental for the condominium unit. However, legislative franchise under Republic Act (RA) No. 7633 to
as to the pronouncement of the Office of the President operate domestic telecommunications, filed with the NTC
that MARINAs motion for reconsideration was merely an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
pro-forma, the Court of Appeals noted that MARINA did Necessity to install, operate, and maintain an
not raise any new issue in its motion for reconsideration. international telecommunications leased circuit service
In the same vein, respondent court ruled that MARINA between the Philippines and other countries, and to
was not deprived of its right to appeal. charge rates therefor, with provisional authority for the
purpose.
The Court of Appeals likewise brushed aside
MARINAs assertion that the complaint should have been In an Order dated June 4, 1996, the NTC
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. approved the application for a provisional authority
subject to conditions. Respondent ICC filed a motion
There is no dispute that the case at bench and for partial reconsideration of the Order insofar as the
Civil Case No. 89-5870 for damages at the Makati RTC same required the payment of a permit fee. In a
involves the same parties although in the civil case, the subsequent Order dated June 25, 1997, the NTC denied
officers of MARINA have been impleaded as co- the motion.
defendants. While the first requisite obtains in this case,
the last two are conspicuously absent. Therefrom, ICC went to the CA on a petition
for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining
It will be observed that the two cases involve order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, questioning
distinct and separate causes of action or rights asserted. the NTC's imposition against it of a permit fee of
Civil Case No. 89-5870 is for the collection of sums of P1,190,750.50 as a condition for the grant of the
money corresponding to unpaid billings and labor costs provisional authority applied for.
incurred by H.L. CARLOS in the construction of the
project under the Construction Contract agreed upon by In its original decision dated January 29,
the parties. Upon the other hand, the case at bench is 1999, the CA ruled in favor of the NTC whose
for specific performance (delivery of the condominium challenged orders were sustained, and accordingly
unit) and damages arising from the unilateral denied ICC's certiorari petition
cancellation of the Contract to Purchase and to Sell by
MARINA. In time, ICC moved for a reconsideration.
This time, the CA, in its Amended Decision dated
Moreover, the reliefs sought are also different. September 30, 1999, reversed itself. Petitioner NTC
In the civil case, H.L. CARLOS prays for the award of filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was
P7,065,885.03 representing unpaid labor costs, change denied by the CA in a Resolution dated January 24,
orders and price escalations including the sum of 2000.
P2,000,000.00 as additional compensatory damages. In
the instant case, H.L. CARLOS seeks not only the Held: The mere fact that a motion for reconsideration
awa[r]d of actual and exemplary damages but also the reiterates issues already passed upon by the court does
delivery of the condominium unit upon MARINAs not, by itself, make it a pro forma motion. Among the
acceptance of the monthly amortization on the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed
remaining balance, the execution of a final deed of sale is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is
and the delivery of the title to the said private erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or
respondent. evidence. The movant has to dwell of necessity on
issues already passed upon.

Page 139
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Action by court Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall

Options in general file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within
Sec. 3. Action upon motion for new trial or thirty (30) days after notice of the judgment or final
reconsideration. order.
The trial court may set aside the judgment or final order
and grant a new trial, upon such terms as may be just, The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely
or may deny the motion. If the court finds that motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for
excessive damages have been awarded or that the extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or reconsideration shall be allowed.
law, it may amend such judgment or final order
accordingly. How to appeal
Sec. 3. How to appeal.
Grant of motion for new trial The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
Sec. 6. Effect of granting of motion for new trial. court that rendered the judgment or final order appealed
If a new trial is granted in accordance with the from.
provisions of this Rule, the original judgment or final
order shall be vacated, and the action shall stand for The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the
trial de novo; but the recorded evidence taken upon the appeal, the judgment or final order or part thereof
former trial, in so far as the same is material and appealed from, and state the material dates showing the
competent to establish the issues, shall be used at the timeliness of the appeal.
new trial without retaking the same.
A record on appeal shall be required only in special
Partial new trial or reconsideration proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate
Sec.7. Partial new trial or reconsideration. appeals.
If the grounds for a motion under this Rule appear to
the court to affect the issues as to only a part, or less The form and contents of the record on appeal shall be
than all of the matter in controversy, or only one, or less the following:
than all, of the parties to it, the court may order a new (Section 6, Rule 41)
trial or grant reconsideration as to such issues if a. Full names of all the parties to the
severable without interfering with the judgment or final proceedings shall be stated in the caption of
order upon the rest. the record on appeal;

b. Include the judgment or final order from

Sec. 8. Effect of order for partial new trial.
When less than all of the issues are ordered retried, the which the appeal is taken;
court may either enter a judgment or final order as to
the rest, or stay the enforcement of such judgment or c. In chronological order, copies of only such
final order until after the new trial. pleadings, petitions, motions and all
interlocutory orders as are related to the
Denial Remedy appealed judgment or final order for the
Sec. 9. Remedy against order denying a motion for new
proper understanding of the issue involved;
trial or reconsideration.
An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy being an d. Together with such data as will show that
appeal from the judgment or final order. the appeal was perfected on time.

APPEAL e. Every record on appeal exceeding twenty

ORDINARY APPEAL (20) pages must contain a subject index.

Rule 40 Copies of the notice of appeal and the record on appeal

where required, shall be served on the adverse party.
MTC to RTC
Perfection of appeal
Where to appeal Sec. 5. Notice of appeal.
Sec. 1. Where to appeal. The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the
An appeal from a judgment or final order of a Municipal appeal, specify the judgment or final order or part
Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial Court thereof appealed from, specify the court to which the
exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former appeal is being taken, and state the material dates
pertains. The title of the case shall remain as it was in showing the timeliness of the appeal.
the court of origin, but the party appealing the case
shall be further referred to as the appellant and the Appeal is deemed perfected (Rule 41, Sec. 9):
adverse party as the appellee. a. By notice of appeal: as to him, upon
the filing of the notice of appeal in
When to appeal due time; and
Sec. 2. When to appeal.
An appeal may be taken within fifteen (15) days after b. By record on appeal: as to him, with
notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order
respect to the subject matter thereof,
appealed from.
upon the approval of the record of
appeal filed in due time.

Page 140
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Appellate court docket and other lawful fees On March 2, 2001, petitioner filed a complaint
Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. for ejectment (unlawful detainer) with the MTC after his
Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant February 1, 2001 letter to the respondent demanding
shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the that the latter vacate the premises remained unheeded.
judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount The letter was received by the respondent on February
of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof 12, 2001.
of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the
appellate court together with the original record or the Respondent alleged that he has been in actual
record on appeal. N.B Same as (Rule 41, Sec. 4) possession and occupation of a portion of the subject
land since 1968.
Procedure in RTC
Sec. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the
(a) upon receipt of the complete record or the record on plaintiff, but the RTC dismissed the case on appeal, on
appeal, the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court the ground that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the
shall notify the parties of such fact. case. Hence the latter acquired no appellate jurisdiction
over thereof.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be
the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum Petitioner filed a petition for review before the
which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the RTC
lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to for the proper action.
the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the appellant’s memorandum, the appellee may file Held: The RTC should have taken cognizance of the
his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a case. If the case is tried on the merits by the Municipal
memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the Court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
appeal. RTC on appeal may no longer dismiss the case if it has
original jurisdiction thereof. Moreover, the RTC shall no
(c) Upon the filing of the memorandum of the appellee, longer try the case on the merits, but shall decide the
or the expiration of the period to do so, the case shall be case on the basis of the evidence presented in the lower
considered submitted for decision. The Regional Trial court, without prejudice to the admission of the
Court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire amended pleadings and additional evidence in the
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and interest of justice.
such memoranda as are filed.
MTC with jurisdiction
Appeal from MTC order dismissing case
a. Without Trial on the Merits Canlas v. Tubil (2009)
Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial;
lack of jurisdiction. Facts: On June 9, 2004, a complaint for unlawful
If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court detainer was filed by respondent Iluminada Tubil against
dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the petitioners Rodolfo Canlas, Victoria Canlas, Felicidad
Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case Canlas and spouses Pablo and Charito Canlas before the
may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of MTC. The pertinent allegations read:
dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging
shall try the case on the merits as if the case was that the MTC is without jurisdiction over the subject
originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall matter, and that the case was not prosecuted in the
be remanded for further proceedings. name of the real parties in interest.

b. With Trial on the Merits On September 14, 2004, the MTC denied the
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court motion because the grounds relied upon were
without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the evidentiary in nature which needed to be litigated.
Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case
if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the Thus, petitioners filed their answer where they
case in accordance with the preceding section, without denied the allegations in the complaint. They claimed
prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and that together with their predecessors-in-interest, they
additional evidence in the interest of justice. had been in open, continuous, adverse, public and
uninterrupted possession of the land for more than 60
MTC without jurisdiction years; that respondents title which was issued pursuant
to Free Patent No. 03540 was dubious, spurious and of
Encarnacion v. Amigo (2006) unlawful character and nature; and that respondents
cause of action was for an accion publiciana, which is
Facts: On April 11, 1995, petitioner became the owner beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC.
of a parcel of land by virtue of a waiver of rights
executed by his mother-in-law, which he thereafter On October 23, 2006, the MTC rendered
subdivided into two lots. judgment dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer
because respondent failed to show that the possession
Sometime in 1985, respondent allegedly entered the of the petitioners was by mere tolerance.
premise and took possession of a portion of the property
without the permission of the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent appealed to the RTC which
the said property. rendered its Decision on April 11, 2007 affirming in toto
the judgment of the MTC. Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied in an Orderdated June

Page 141
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

8, 2007. 4. An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment

by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of
Respondent filed a petition for review with the fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating
Court of Appeals, which rendered the assailed decision consent;
on June 12, 2008, which reversed the Regional Trial 5. An order of execution;
Courts Decision. 6. A judgment or final order for or against one or more
of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims,
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main
was denied by the Court of Appeals in its September 1, case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal
2008 Resolution. therefrom; and
7. An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
Held: If the case was tried on the merits by the lower
court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved
Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case party may file an appropriate special civil action as
if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the provided in Rule 65.
case in accordance with the preceding section, without
prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and RULE 45
additional evidence in the interest of justice. SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment,
final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Rule 41 Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional
RTC to CA Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law,
may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for
review on certiorari. The petition may include an
Subject of appeal application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other
Sec.1. Subject of appeal. provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of
An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner
that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular may seek the same provisional remedies by verified
matter therein when declared by these Rules to be motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any
appealable. time during its pendency.

No appeal may be taken from: RULE 58

(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or SEC. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without
reconsideration; notice; exception.
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar No preliminary injunction shall be granted without
motion seeking relief from judgment; hearing and prior notice to the party or persons sought
(c) An interlocutory order; to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; affidavits or by the verified application that great or
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment irreparable injury would result to the applicant before
by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which
fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating the application for preliminary injunction was made, may
consent; issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be
(f) An order of execution; effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from
(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more service on the party or person sought to be enjoined,
of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, except as herein provided. Within the twenty-day
crossclaims and third-party complaints, while the main period, the court must order said party or person to
case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal show cause at a specified time and place, why the
therefrom; and injunction should not be granted. The court shall also
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice. determine, within the same period, whether or not the
preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly
In all the above instances where the judgment or final issue the corresponding order.
order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. However, subject to the provisions of the preceding
sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the
Non-appealable orders applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable
injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or
AM 07-7-12-SC dated 4 December 2007 the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex
Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58, and 65 parte a temporary restraining order effective for only
seventy-two (72) hours from issuance, but shall
RULE 41 immediately comply with the provisions of the next
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. – An appeal preceding section as to service of summons and the
may be taken from a judgment or final order documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within
that completely disposes of the case, or of a the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before
particular matter therein when declared by whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary
these Rules to be appealable. hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining
order shall be extended until the application for
No appeal may be taken from: preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case shall the
1. An order denying a petition for relief or any similar total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining
motion seeking relief from judgment; order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original
2. An interlocutory order; seventy-two hours provided herein.
3. An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;

Page 142
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In the event that the application for preliminary parties to submit memoranda. If, after such hearing or
injunction is denied or not resolved within the said filing of memoranda or upon the expiration of the period
period, the temporary restraining order is deemed for filing, the court finds that the allegations of the
automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary petition are true, it shall render judgment for such relief
restraining order is not extendible without need of any to which the petitioner is entitled.
judicial declaration to that effect, and no court shall
have authority to extend or renew the same on the However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds
same ground for which it was issued. the same patently without merit or prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised herein are
However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member too unsubstantial to require consideration. In such
thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be event, the court may award in favor of the respondent
effective for sixty (60) days from service on the party or treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel,
person sought to be enjoined. A restraining order issued in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative
by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B of the Rules of
effective until further orders. Court.

The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbyan The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa
or the Court of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures on
preliminary injunction against a lower court, board, erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main petitions for certiorari.
case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance
of the writ. Denial of motion for reconsideration of order
dismissing a complaint not an interlocutory order
RULE 65
Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. Silverio, Jr. v. CA (2009)
The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case Facts: On November 16, 2004, during the pendency of
a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, the case, Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a petition to remove
whether such motion is required or not, the petition Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. as the administrator of the
shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from subject estate. On November 22, 2004, Edmundo S.
the notice of the denial of the motion. Silverio also filed a comment/opposition for the removal
of Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the estate
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a and for the appointment of a new administrator.
municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an
officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional On January 3, 2005, the RTC issued an Order
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area granting the petition and removing Ricardo Silverio, Sr.
as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed as administrator of the estate, while appointing Ricardo
with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, Silverio, Jr. as the new administrator.
whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate
jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission On January 26, 2005, Nelia S. Silverio-Dee
of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated
law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be January 3, 2005, as well as all other related orders.
cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. In election
cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a On February 4, 2005, Ricardo Silverio Jr. filed
regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively an Urgent Motion for an Order Prohibiting Any Person to
with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate Occupy/Stay/Use Real Estate Properties Involved in the
jurisdiction. Intestate Estate of the Late Beatriz Silverio, Without
Authority from this Honorable Court.
Sec. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief.
The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders Then, on May 31, 2005, the RTC issued an
expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a Omnibus Order affirming its Order dated January 3,
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary 2005 and denying private respondents motion for
injunction for the preservation of the rights of the reconsideration. In the Omnibus Order, the RTC also
parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not authorized Ricardo Silverio, Jr. to, upon receipt of the
interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a order, immediately exercise his duties as administrator
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary of the subject estate. The Omnibus Order also directed
injunction has been issued, enjoining the public Nelia S. Silverio-Dee to vacate the property at No. 3,
respondent from further proceeding with the case. Intsia, Forbes Park, Makati City within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the order.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal
case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for Nelia Silverio-Dee received a copy of the
certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005 on June 8, 2005.
temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction,
or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent On June 16, 2005, private respondent filed a
to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for Motion for Reconsideration dated June 15, 2005 of the
an administrative charge. Omnibus Order. This was later denied by the RTC in an
Order dated December 12, 2005, which was received by
Sec. 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. private respondent on December 22, 2005.
After the comment or other pleadings required by the
court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has Notably, the RTC in its Order dated December
expired, the court may hear the case or require the 12, 2005 also recalled its previous order granting

Page 143
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Ricardo Silverio, Jr. with letters of administration over (c) Appeal by certiorari - In all cases where only
the intestate estate of Beatriz Silverio and reinstating questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall
Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as the administrator. be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
From the Order dated December 12, 2005,
Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration Period of ordinary appeal
which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated October Sec.3. Period of ordinary appeal
31, 2006. In the same order, the RTC also allowed the The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
sale of various properties of the intestate estate of the notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
late Beatriz Silverio to partially settle estate taxes, Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall
penalties, interests and other charges due thereon. file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within
Among the properties authorized to be sold was the one thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final
located at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City. order.

Meanwhile, on January 6, 2006, Nelia Silverio- The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely
Dee filed a Notice of Appeal dated January 5, 2006 from motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for
the Order dated December 12, 2005 while the Record on extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
Appeal dated January 20, 2006 was filed on January 23, reconsideration shall be allowed.
2006.
Motion for Reconsideration filed on last day of 15-
Thereafter, on October 23, 2006, Ricardo day period
Silverio, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for
Issuance of a Writ of Executionagainst the appeal of Manila Memorial Park v. CA (2000)
Nelia Silverio-Dee on the ground that the Record on
Appeal was filed ten (10) days beyond the reglementary Facts: On 04 June 1975, respondents filed an action for
period pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of reconveyance and recovery of parcels of land against
Court. petitioner Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., and its
co-defendants United Housing Corporation, Victorino
Thus, on April 2, 2007, the RTC issued an Hernandez, heirs of Aurelio de Leon, and heirs of Nicolas
Order denying the appeal on the ground that it was not Gatchalian.
perfected within the reglementary period. The RTC
further issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of After a protracted litigation, the trial court,
the Order dated May 31, 2005 against private through then Presiding Judge Efricio B. Acosta,
respondent to vacate the premises of the property dismissed the complaint in a decision, dated 17 June
located at No. 3, Intsia, Forbes Park, Makati City. The 1983.
writ of execution was later issued on April 17, 2007 and
a Notice to Vacatewas issued on April 19, 2007 ordering Respondents received a copy of the decision on 04 July
private respondent to leave the premises of the subject 1983. On 19 July 1983, the last day of the prescribed
property within ten (10) days. fifteen-day period for appeal, private respondents filed a
motion for new trial and/or reconsideration. The motion
Held: An interlocutory order is one which does not was denied by the trial court in its order of 03 October
dispose of the case completely but leaves something to 1989. A copy of the order was received by respondents
be decided upon. It is only after judgment has been on 28 November 1989.
rendered in the case that the ground for the appeal of
the interlocutory order may be included in the appeal of On 07 December 1989, respondents filed a
the judgment itself. The interlocutory order generally notice of appeal and, on 11 December 1989, the trial
cannot be appealed separately from the judgment. It is court gave due course to the appeal and directed the
only when such interlocutory order was rendered transmittal of the records of the case to the Court of
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse Appeals. The records of the case, however, were not
of discretion that certiorari under Rule 65 may be transmitted to the appellate court due to missing
resorted to. transcript of stenographic notes. On 23 April 1996, the
trial court required the parties to appear in conference.
Sec.2. Modes of appeal Almost a year had lapsed but the missing stenographic
(a) Ordinary appeal - The appeal to the Court of notes were still not submitted to the trial court.
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by On 28 February 1997, respondents filed a
filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered motion for new trial for the retaking and presentation of
the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a testimonial and documentary evidence on the ground
copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on that the reconstitution of the missing stenographic notes
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings was no longer possible considering that the court
and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where stenographers who had transcribed the testimony of
the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the witnesses by then since retired from the service, their
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like whereabouts unknown.
manner.
On 22 April 1997, petitioner filed a motion to
(b) Petition for review - The appeal to the Court of dismiss the appeal and an opposition to the motion for
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in new trial filed by respondents contending that the
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by appeal was filed out of time and that the remedy for
petition for review in accordance with Rule 42. new trial could not be availed of since it was filed long
after the reglementary period to appeal had lapsed.

Page 144
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The trial court, in its order of 16 July 1997 from March 3, 1998 or the day they received the
granting the Motion for New Trial and denying the February 12, 1998 order dismissing their complaint.
Motion to Dismiss of Manila Memorial Park. According to the appellate court, the order was the “final
order” appealable under the Rules.
The trial court ratiocinated that the final
resolution of the case could not be held in abeyance Held: To standardize the appeal periods provided in the
indefinitely nor could petitioner's motion to dismiss the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal
appeal still be entertained after their having waited for their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh
eight years before raising the issue. period of 15 days within which to file the notice of
appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order
Petitioner moved to reconsider, but to no avail, dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for
the trial court's order of 16 July 1997. Dissatisfied, reconsideration.
petitioner elevated the matter via a petition for certiorari
to the Court of Appeals insisting that the trial court had When appeal allowed even if period to appeal has
acted capriciously and whimsically, as well as with grave expired
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, in holding that it was barred from assailing Trans International v. CA (1998)
the timeliness of the appeal and in granting
respondent's motion for new trial long after the decision Facts: Petitioner Trans International filed a complaint
of the trial court had already become final and for damages against respondent National Power
executory. Corporation (NAPOCOR for brevity) and two of its
principal officers arising from the rescission of a contract
Held: In an ordinary appeal from the final judgment or for the supply and delivery of woodpoles before the
order of a MeTC or MTC to the RTC, and from the RTC to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which was docketed
the CA in actions or proceedings originally filed in the as Civil Case No. Q-94-20960.
RTC, the 15-day period for appeal prescribed by Section
39 of BP 129 and Sec. 19(a) of the Interim Rules is On May 22, l996, the trial court rendered a
interrupted or suspended by a motion for new trial or decision sustaining the claim of petitioner corporation. It
reconsideration duly filed, and if the motion for new trial awarded to petitioner the following amounts:
or reconsideration is denied, the moving party has only $1,325,703.65 representing the amount of profit which
the remaining period from notice of denial within which it could have enjoyed had the contract been observed;
to file a notice of appeal. $10,000.00 for expenses incurred by petitioners local
agent in the preparation and execution of the contract;
New rule on appeal after denial of Motion for P932,102.53 representing the combined premium paid
Reconsideration or Motion for New Trial by petitioner for the bidders bond, performance bond
and surety bond; and P200,000.00 as attorneys fees.
Neypes v. CA (2005)
A copy of the aforesaid decision was received
Facts: Petitioners filed an action for annulment of by respondents on June 6, l996. On June 19, l996,
judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance and/or respondents filed their motion for reconsideration
reversion with preliminary injunction before the RTC alleging in the main that certain facts were overlooked,
against the private respondents. Later, in an order, the ignored or wrongly appreciated by the trial court. An
trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint on the opposition to said motion was filed by petitioner on July
ground that the action had already prescribed. 11, l996. On August 2, l996, the trial court issued an
Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of order denying the motion for reconsideration. A copy of
dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15th day the aforesaid order was personally delivered to
thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for respondent NAPOCORS office on August 23, l996
reconsideration. On July 1, 1998, the trial court issued (Friday) and was received by Ronald T. Lapuz, a clerk
another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration assigned at the office of the VP-General Counsel.
which petitioners received on July 22, 1998. Five days
later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of Considering that it was almost 5:00 p.m.,
appeal and paid the appeal fees on August 3, 1998. Lapuz placed the said order inside the drawer of his
table. However, on August 26 and 27, l996 (Monday and
On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the Tuesday, respectively) said clerk was unable to report
notice of appeal, holding that it was filed eight days late. for work due to an illness he suffered as a result of the
This was received by petitioners on July 31, 1998. extraction of his three front teeth. Said order was
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this too retrieved from his drawer only in the afternoon of the
was denied in an order dated September 3, 1998. Via a 27th and was immediately forwarded to the secretary of
petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65, Atty. Wilfredo J. Collado, counsel for the respondents. At
petitioners assailed the dismissal of the notice of appeal 3:10 p.m. that same day, respondents thru counsel filed
before the CA. In the appellate court, petitioners claimed their notice of appeal.
that they had seasonably filed their notice of appeal.
They argued that the 15-day reglementary period to On August 29, l996, petitioner filed a motion
appeal started to run only on July 22, 1998 since this for execution before the trial court contending that its
was the day they received the final order of the trial decision dated May 22, l996 had become final and
court denying their motion for reconsideration. When executory since respondents failed to make a timely
they filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998, only appeal and praying for the issuance of an order granting
five days had elapsed and they were well within the the writ of execution. On the other hand, respondents
reglementary period for appeal. On September 16, filed an opposition thereto alleging therein that the
1999, the CA dismissed the petition. It ruled that the cause of their failure to make a timely appeal was due to
15-day period to appeal should have been reckoned unforeseeable oversight and accident on the part of their

Page 145
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

employee who was unable to report for work because of Contending that petitioner's answer failed to
illness. On September 9, l996 petitioner filed a reply to tender a genuine issue, Camacho moved for a judgment
said opposition. On September 11, l996 respondents on the pleadings which respondent Judge Leviste
counsel filed a supplemental opposition to the motion for granted in his order of February 12, 1988. In said order,
execution attaching thereto the affidavit of Lapuz. respondent Judge directed petitioner to pay Camacho
Finally, on September 18, l996, respondents filed their P57,349.00 "minus the P10,000.00 pertaining to the lost
rejoinder to said reply. check, or a total of P47,349.00 with interest at the legal
rate of 6% from June 2, 1987, until fully paid, with costs
On September 13, l996, the trial court issued or attorney's fees."
an order denying respondents notice of appeal and
granting the motion for execution filed by petitioner. On February 25, 1988, petitioner seasonably
filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing the
On September 20, l996, respondents filed a February 12, 1988 order to the Court of Appeals.
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals Respondent Judge duly approved said notice in his order
questioning the validity of the issuance of the aforesaid of February 29, 1988.
order on the ground that the denial of their notice of
appeal was on the basis of a mere technicality and that On the other hand, despite the reduced money
the writ of execution should not have been issued since judgment, Camacho made no move to contest the
there are strong considerations which militate the strict award. Instead, he filed a motion/manifestation praying
application of the rules on procedure. Petitioner that petitioner's notice of appeal be stricken off the
corporation filed its comment to the petition dated record as a mere scrap of paper.
September 25, l996 claiming that the event which
happened in respondents office does not amount to an Acting on the aforesaid motion, respondent
honest mistake nor an unavoidable accident that would Judge issued the assailed order of March 29, 1988
legally excuse their neglect. setting aside the previously approved notice of appeal
and adopting Camacho's view that the proper remedy
Held: For a party to seek exception for its failure to from a judgment on the pleadings was a petition for
comply strictly with the statutory requirements for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
perfecting its appeal, strong compelling reasons such as
serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave Held: Issues that involve pure questions of law are
miscarriage thereof must be shown, in order to warrant within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SC. However,
the Court’s suspension of the rules. Rule 41 does not authorize the trial court to disallow an
appeal on the ground that there is no question of fact,
RTC cannot dismiss appeal on ground that only but only a question of law, involved. Whether an appeal
questions of law involved involves only question of law or both questions of fact
and law, this question should be left for the
Kho v. Camacho (1991) determination of an appellate court, and not by the
court which rendered the subject decision appealed
Facts: In payment of attorney's fees resolved against from.
him, petitioner Narciso Kho, a businessman, issued in
favor of private respondent Atty. Manuel Camacho six Appellee who has not appealed may not obtain
(6) postdated Manila Bank checks in the total sum of affirmative relief from appellate court
P57,349.00. One of the checks, in the amount of
P10,000.00, was lost by Atty. Camacho who promptly Custodio v. CA (1996)
notified petitioner. When the other five (5) checks were
negotiated by Camacho with the Philippine Amanah Facts: On August 26, 1982, Civil Case No. 47466 for
Bank, the same were returned uncleared because Manila the grant of an easement of right of way was filed by
Bank had been ordered closed by the Central Bank. Pacifico Mabasa against Cristino Custodio, Brigida R.
Custodio, Rosalina R. Morato, Lito Santos and Maria
Because of petitioner's refusal to replace the Cristina C. Santos before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila Bank checks or pay his obligation, Camacho Pasig and assigned to Branch 22 thereof.
instituted an action for a sum of money against
petitioner before respondent trial court. On February 27, 1990, a decision was
rendered by the trial court, with this dispositive part:
In his answer, petitioner alleged that he was Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered as
under no obligation to replace the lost check for follows:
P10,000.00, arguing that Camacho should have 1) Ordering defendants Custodios and Santoses to give
executed a sworn statement that he lost the check plaintiff permanent access - ingress and egress, to the
issued to him and furnished both the drawer and the public street;
bank with said statement so that the bank could place 2) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendants Custodios
on the check "under alarmed," instead of merely and Santoses the sum of Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000)
informing petitioner. as indemnity for the permanent use of the passageway.
The parties to shoulder their respective
Petitioner also refused to issue new checks litigation expenses.
maintaining that the closure of Manila Bank (in which he
had an outstanding deposit of P581,571.84 which was Not satisfied therewith, therein plaintiff
more than enough to cover the cost of the five checks) represented by his heirs, herein private respondents,
was beyond his control and therefore he was in no went to the Court of Appeals raising the sole issue of
financial position to pay Camacho unless and until his whether or not the lower court erred in not awarding
money in that beleaguered bank was released. damages in their favor. On November 10, 1993, as
earlier stated, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision

Page 146
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

affirming the judgment of the trial court with though jointly and severally liable with petitioner, is the
modification. one ultimately held responsible for the damages incurred
by the private respondent inasmuch as the trial court
On July 8, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied ordered "defendant Marine Midland to reimburse
petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then defendant Citytrust of whatever amount the latter will
took the present recourse to us, raising two issues, be made to pay the plaintiff by reason of this judgment
namely, whether or not the grant of right of way to and costs."
herein private respondents is proper, and whether or not
the award of damages is in order. The Court is of the considered view that it was
the trial court judgment that created a joint and several
Held: An appellee in a civil case, who has not himself obligation to pay the private respondent certain sums.
appealed may not obtain from the appellate court any No solidary liability as between them existed from the
affirmative relief other than what was granted in the drawer-drawee relationship in the draft transaction.
decision of the lower court.
The trial court judgment, however, does not
When there is solidarity obligations alter the fact that the respective defenses of the co-
defendants are distinct on trial and even on appeal.
Citytrust Banking Corporation v. CA (1991) Citytrust and Marine Midland were not in privity with
each other in a transaction involving payment through a
Facts: Samara purchased from Citytrust a bank draft for bank draft. A bank draft is a "bill of exchange drawn by
$US40,000.00, the payee being Thai International a bank upon its correspondent bank, . . . issued at the
Airways and the drawee is a US bank, Marine Midland. solicitation of a stranger who purchases and pays
Several days after said purchase, Samara executed a therefor" (Kohler v. First National Bank, 289 P 47, 49,
stop-payment order of the bank draft instructing 157 Wash. 417 [1930]). It is also defined as an "order
Citytrust to inform Marine Midland about the order for payment of money." (Polotsky v. Artisans Savings
through telex. Citytrust complied with Samara’s Bank, Del. 180 A. 791, 792, 7 WW. Harr 142 [1935]).
instruction and informed Marine Midland about the stop-
payment order. Marine Midland acknowledged receipt of In the case at bar, Citytrust from which
Samara’s stop-payment order and informed Citytrust Samara purchased the bank draft, was the drawer of the
that it did not pay the bank draft. draft through which it ordered Marine Midland, the
drawee bank, to pay the amount of US $40,000.00 in
Due to the non-payment of the draft, Citytrust favor of Thai International Airways, the payee. The
credited Samara’s account for $US40,000.00 due to the drawee bank acting as a "payor" bank is solely liable for
non-payment. However, seven months after, Citytrust acts not done in accordance with the instructions of the
re-debited Samara’s account upon discovering that drawer bank or of the purchaser of the draft. The
Marine Midland had already debited Citytrust’s despite drawee bank has the burden of proving that it did not
the Marine Midland’s statement that it did not pay the violate. Meanwhile, the drawer, if sued by the purchaser
bank draft. Due to Citytrust’s act of re-debiting of the draft is liable for the act of debiting the
Samara’s account, the latter filed a complaint for the customer's account despite an instruction to stop
recovery of sum of money against the two banks. payment. The drawer has the duty to prove that he
complied with the order to inform the drawee.
The RTC found both banks jointly and severally
liable to Samara in the amount of US$40,000.00. From The fact that the petitioner previously filed a
the RTC’s decision the two banks filed separate appeals. cross-claim against Marine Midland does not make the
Citytrust’s appeal was dismissed for having been filed former a party in the latter's appeal where all reliefs
out of time. Accordingly, Citytrust questioned the CA’s granted to the plaintiff and/or to the petitioner who was
dismissal of his appeal before the SC. Citytrust argued a co-defendant are up for review. The rights and
that his appeal was not filed out of time since Marine liabilities of Citytrust as a defensive cross-claimant,
Midland filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which which alleged that the proximate cause of the injury to
according to Citytrust, inured to its benefit. the plaintiff was the wrongful action of Marine Midland,
have already been litigated before the trial court which
Issue: Whether or not Marine Midland’s appeal inured to ordered full reimbursement in favor of Citytrust. Until
Citytrust’s benefit? petitioner Citytrust appeals for the review of the trial
court decision either in part or in toto, its rights and
Held: No. It must be noted that the two defendants, obligations as pre-determined cannot generally be
Marine Midland and Citytrust, filed cross claims against affected by an appeal of a co-defendant. The respondent
each other in their answer. Citytrust alleged that the appellate court made this clear in its decision dated
proximate cause of the injury should be attributed to co- February 23, 1989, when it stated that even assuming
defendant Marine Midland when the latter failed to that the petitioner may be considered an appellee, "such
promptly inform Citytrust that the demand draft a standing was only with respect to the cross-claim
Citytrust issued was really paid by Marine Midland on against (appellant Marine Midland) and not with respect
December 22, 1980. For its part, Marine Midland alleged to its (petitioner's) liability in favor or private respondent
that Citytrust did not properly advise it of the actual Samara", the judgment on which had already become
circumstances relating to the dates of payment of the final and executory as to the Petitioner. The petitioner
draft and of the receipt by the latter of the stop- cannot now present a subverted interpretation of what
payment instructions. The rights and liabilities of both the appellate court meant.
parties concerned are not so interwoven in such a
manner that their defenses are similar and that a
reversal of the judgment as to one should operate as a
reversal to the other. Furthermore, a perusal of the
decision appealed from shows that Marine Midland,

Page 147
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Perfection of appeal
Sec. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof Rule 42
A party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected RTC to CA
as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due
time. A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed
perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter Appeal from RTC decision rendered in the exercise
thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed of its appellate jurisdiction
in due time.
Rose Rica Sales Center v. Ong (2005)
Loss of jurisdiction
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses Facts: Rose Rica Sales Center (RRSC) filed a complaint
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the for ejectment against the spouses Ong (the
appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time “respondents”). The MTC, in resolving the ejectment
to appeal of the other parties. In appeals by record on case, ruled in favor of RRSC and ordered the
appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject respondents to vacate the subject property. On appeal,
matter thereof upon the approval of the records on the RTC affirmed the MTC’s Decision in its entirety.
appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to Subsequently, respondents filed a Notice of Appeal with
appeal of the other parties. the RTC. The day after respondents filed their Notice of
Appeal, they field before the RTC a Motion for
Reconsideration. The RTC gave due course to
Residual powers respondents’ Notice of Appeal, however, it denied their
Residual power/jurisdiction of the court after losing MR.From the denial of respondents’ MR, respondents
jurisdiction but prior to the transmittal of the original filed a Petition for Review with the CA. The CA granted
record or record on appeal: respondents’ petition. As such, RRSC appealed to the
SC.
a.) Order execution pending appeal
under Rule 39, Sec. 2 (motion for Issue: Whether or not the filing of a notice of appeal is
the proper remedy to appeal a decision rendered by the
execution was filed before the
RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction?
expiration of the period of appeal);

b.) To issue orders for the preservation Held: No. Since the unlawful detainer case was filed
with the MTC and affirmed by the RTC, RRSC should
of the rights of the parties which do
have filed a Petition for Review with the CA and not a
not involve matters litigated by Notice of Appeal with the RTC. However, we consider
appeal; this to have been remedied by the timely filing of a
Motion for Reconsideration the day after said Notice of
c.) To approve compromise prior to the Appeal was filed.
transmittal of the record;
Perforce, the period of appeal was tolled by the
d.) Permit appeal by an indigent; Motion for Reconsideration and started to run again from
the receipt of the order denying the Motion for
e.) Allow withdrawal of the appeal.
Reconsideration. A Motion for Additional Time to File
Petition was likewise filed with the Court of Appeals.
The concept of residual jurisdiction of the trial Counting fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial of
court is available at a stage in which the court the Motion for Reconsideration and the ten (10)-day
is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction request for additional period, it is clear that respondents
over the case or the subject matter involved in filed their Petition for Review on time.
the appeal. There is no residual jurisdiction to
speak of where no appeal or petition has even In the case at bar, a petition for review before
been filed. (Fernandez vs. CA, G.R. No. the CA is the proper mode of appeal form a decision of
131094, 16 May 2005). the RTC. Since the filing of the notice of appeal is
erroneous, it is considered as if no appeal was
interposed.
Dismissal of appeal
Sec. 13. Dismissal of appeal. Pure questions of law may be raised
Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the
record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court Sec.2. Form and contents
may motu proprio or on motion dismiss the appeal for:
a. having been filed out of time; or The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies,
b. non-payment of docket and other lawful fees with the original copy intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall:

(a) State the full names of

the parties to the case, without
impleading the lower courts or judges
thereof either as petitioners or
respondents;
(b) Indicate the specific
material dates showing that it was filed
on time;

Page 148
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

(c) Set forth concisely a jurisdiction must be brought directly to the Supreme
statement of the matters involved, the Court in cases where the appellant raises only questions
issues raised, the specification of errors of of law.
fact or law, or both, allegedly committed
by the Regional Trial Court, and the On the other hand, Rule 42 provides that
reasons or arguments relied upon for the appeals from judgments of the regional trial courts in
allowance of the appeal; the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction must be
(d) Accompanied by clearly brought to the Court of Appeals, whether the appellant
legible duplicate originals or true copies of raises questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of
the judgments or final orders of both fact and law.
lower courts, certified correct by the clerk
of court of the Regional Trial Court, the Effect of failure to comply with the
requisite number of plain copies thereof requirements
and of the pleadings and other material
portions of the record as would support Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements
the allegations of the petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
The petitioner shall also submit together with docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof
the petition a certification under oath that he has not of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
commenced any other action involving the same issues documents which should accompany the petition shall be
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if
there is such other action or proceeding, he must state Action by court
the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn
that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is Sec. 4. Action on the petition.
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of The Court of Appeals may:
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other a. Require the respondent to file a
tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform comment on the petition, not a
the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof motion to dismiss, within ten
within five (5) days therefrom.
(10) days from notice; or
Macawiwili Gold Mining v. CA (1998)
b. Dismiss the petition if it finds the
Facts: Philex Mining (PM) filed a complaint for same to be:
expropriation against Macawiwili Gold Mining (MGM) 1. Patently without merit;
before the RTC. The RTC, however, dismissed PM’s 2. Prosecuted manifestly for
complaint. Accordingly, PM moved for reconsideration, delay; or
however, the same was likewise denied. As such, it
3. That the questions raised
appealed the case to the CA. While the case was
pending before the CA, MGM filed a Motion to Dismiss therein are too
Appeal on the ground that only questions of law were unsubstantial to require
involved and, therefore, the appeal should be to the SC. consideration.
MGM’s said motion was denied.
When petition given due course
Issue: Is MGM correct in contending that PM should Sec. 6. Due course.
have filed its appeal directly to the SC since its appeal
merely raises questions of law? If upon the filing of the comment or such other
pleadings as the court may allow or require, or after the
Held: Yes. The first four arguments advanced by PM expiration of the period for the filing thereof without
raise the sole issue of whether it has, under Presidential such comment or pleading having been submitted, the
Decree No. 463, the right to expropriate the 21.9 Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the lower court
hectare mining areas where petitioners mining claims has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a
are located. On the other hand, its final argument raises reversal or modification of the appealed decision, it may
the issue of whether the rules on the allegation of accordingly give due course to the petition.
alternative causes of action in one pleading under Rule
8, 1 of the Rules of Court are applicable to special civil Prima facie finding that lower court has committed
actions. These are legal questions whose resolution does errors of fact or law warranting reversal or
not require an examination of the probative weight of modification.
the evidence presented by the parties but a Petition dismissed for late filing after finding the
determination of what the law is on the given state of same prima facie meritorious
facts. These issues raise questions of law, which should
be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Ditching v. CA & Motas (1996)
Rule 45 filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Court
of Appeals committed a grave error in ruling otherwise. Facts: Ditching and Bacani (collectively, the
“petitioners”) as co-owners of a parcel of land situated
Under Rule 41, judgments of the regional trial in Laguna, filed an ejectment case against Motas (the
courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction are to “respondent”) before the MTC. The MTC found that there
be elevated to the Court of Appeals in cases where the existed a tenancy relationship between petitioners and
appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of respondent. As such, it dismissed petitioners’ complaint.
fact and law. However, appeals from judgments of the Petitioners thus, appealed the case before the RTC,
regional trial courts in the exercise of their original which affirmed in toto the MTC’s decision. Thereafter,

Page 149
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR), Effect of appeal

which was granted by the RTC. However, when a new (b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on
judge took over as presiding judge of the RTC where the Summary Procedure, the appeal shall stay the judgment
case was pending, he reversed the previous judge’s or final order unless the Court of Appeals, the law, or
order granting petitioners MR. these Rules shall provide otherwise.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed before the CA a

petition for review. In a resolution dated 23 June 1992, Rule 43
the CA stated that the petition filed with it was prima Quasi-Judicial Agencies to CA
facie meritorious. Subsequently however, the CA
dismissed said petition on the ground that it was
belatedly filed. 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 43

Issue: Whether or not the CA can be faulted for stating Section 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals
in its resolution dated 23 June 1992 that the petition from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax
filed with it was prima facie meritorious, only to dismiss Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or
it thereafter for being filed out of time? resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency
in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
Held: No. Where no timely appeal was taken, the
judgment becomes final, and the legality of the Among these agencies are the Civil Service
allowance of the appeal may be raised at any stage of Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
the proceedings in the appellate court. Further, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
respondent Court was not precluded from dismissing the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security
petition on the ground that it was filed late, inasmuch as Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents,
the recognition of the merit of the petition did not carry Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National
with it any assumption or conclusion that it was timely Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board,
filed. National Telecommunications Commission, Department
of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657,
Under Section 1(a) Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Government Service Insurance System, Employees
Court, the CA motu proprio or on motion of the appellee Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions
may dismiss the appeal for inter alia: Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission, Board of Investments, Construction
(a) Failure of the record on appeal to show on its Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary
face that the appeal was perfected within the period arbitrators authorized by law.
fixed by these rules.
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is involved only
Perfection of appeal whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken
Sec. 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action.
(a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the It cannot be taken into account where an original action
payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy
fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal
petitioner. action.

Loss of jurisdiction Whenever the legislature intends that the decisions or

The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case resolutions of the quasi-judicial agency shall be
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and reviewable by the Supreme Court or the Court of
the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Appeals, a specific provision to that effect is included in
the law creating that quasi-judicial agency and, for that
Residual powers matter, any special statutory court.
Residual power/jurisdiction of the court after losing
jurisdiction but prior to the transmittal of the original Fabian v. Desierto (1998)
record or record on appeal: Facts: Petitioner Teresita Fabian was the major
a.) Order execution pending appeal stockholder and President of PROMAT Construction
under Rule 39, Sec. 2 (motion for Development Corporation, which was engaged in the
execution was filed before the construction business. Private respondent Nestor
expiration of the period of appeal); Agustin was the District Engineer of the First Metro
Manila Engineering District. PROMAT participated in the
bidding for government construction projects, and
b.) To issue orders for the preservation
private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of his
of the rights of the parties which do official position, inveigled petitioner into an amorous
not involve matters litigated by relationship. Their affair lasted for some time, in the
appeal; course of which, private respondent gifted PROMAT with
public works contracts and interceded for it in problems
c.) To approve compromise prior to the concerning the same in his office. When petitioner tried
transmittal of the record; to terminate their relationship, private respondent
refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent
of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and
d.) Permit appeal by an indigent; threats. Accordingly, Fabian filed the an administrative
case against Agustin in a letter-complaint dated July 24,
e.) Allow withdrawal of the appeal. 1995.

Page 150
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The complaint sought the dismissal of Agustin In a resolution, Graft Investigator Ramos
for violation of Section 19, R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The
Act of 1989) and Section 36 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil recommendation was approved by Ombudsman
Service Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his Desierto. Subsequently, Lanting filed an MR, which was
preventive suspension. The case later led to an appeal eventually denied by the Ombudsman. Aggrieved,
to the Ombudsman - who inhibited himself - and Lanting filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The
transferred the case to the Deputy Ombudsman. The CA, however, dismissed said petition for lack of
deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and in the order jurisdiction.
exonerated the private respondents from the
administrative charges. Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing
Lanting’s petition?
Fabian elevated the case to the SC, arguing
that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Held: No. Lanting’s complaint-affidavit before the Office
Act of 1989) that all administrative disciplinary cases, of the Ombudsman is for violation of the Anti-Graft and
orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Corrupt Practices Acts. It is not an administrative
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by complaint. Nowhere in her complaint did she allege
filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from administrative offenses, such as dishonesty or
receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or misconduct on the part of respondents.
decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It bears stressing that the allegations in
petitioners complaint describe respondents actuations as
Issue: Whether or not administrative disciplinary cases, willful, felonious, unlawful, odious and despicable
orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the criminal activities. In her motion for reconsideration of
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court? the Ombudsman’s Resolution, petitioner claimed that
Graft Investigator Ramos skirted the issue of
Held: No. Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly falsification of public documents which is crystal
authorize an appeal to the SC from decisions of the clear in my complaint. Likewise, in her petition in CA-
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary G.R. SP No. 54274, petitioner sought to nullify the
cases. It consequently violates the proscription in resolution of the Honorable Ombudsman dated April 8,
Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law 1999 dismissing petitioners complaint for anti-graft
which increases the Appellate jurisdiction of the SC. No and falsification of public documents and to direct
countervailing argument has been cogently presented to respondent Ombudsman to give due course to the
justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition. complaint.
That constitutional provision was intended to give the SC
a measure of control over cases placed under its Considering that petitioners complaint is
appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate criminal in nature, this Court has the sole authority to
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate review the Ombudsmans Resolutions on pure question of
jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the SC. law as expressly mandated in Section 14, 2nd paragraph
of R.A. 6770, which provides:
Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution is
clear when it states that the appellate jurisdiction of the Sec. 14. Restrictions. x x x.
SC contemplated therein is to be exercised over “final
judgments and orders of lower courts,” that is, the No court shall hear any appeal or application for
courts composing the integrated judicial system. It does remedy against the decision or findings of the
not include the quasi-judicial bodies or agencies. Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court on pure
question of law.
Appeals from judgments and final orders of
quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought In Fabian vs. Desierto, we held that only
to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review, appeals from the decisions of the Office of the
under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should
Rules of Court which was precisely formulated and be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of
adopted to provide for a uniform rule of appellate Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure).
procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe v. Ombudsman and
recently in Barata v. Abalos, Jr. and Coronel v. Aniano
Desierto.
Ombudsman criminal cases – Supreme Court via
Rule 65 Therefore, the Court of Appeals, in issuing its
questioned Resolutions, did not commit grave abuse of
discretion. Clearly, it has no jurisdiction over petitioners
Lanting v. Ombudsman (2005) criminal action. As earlier mentioned, jurisdiction lies
with this Court.
Facts: Lanting filed an affidavit-complaint with the
Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint charging Atienza,
Sison and Rumbo (collectively, the “respondents”) for Cases not covered
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She
alleged that the respondents unlawfully appointed 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 43
Ernesto Saw, a Chinese citizen working in Taiwan, and
brother-in-law of Rumbo, to the position of Researcher Section 2. Cases not covered. — This Rule shall not
in the City Council. apply to judgments or final orders issued under the
Labor Code of the Philippines.

Page 151
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (1998) drove away from the scene. However, PNCC guards
were able to intercepe Alcaraz at the Skyway tollgate.
Facts: Private respondent Aricayos worked as St. Martin
Funeral Home’s (the “petitioner”) operations manager. Gonzales reported the matter to the Parañaque
When petitioner’s owner discovered that there were City Police and filed a criminal complaint for attempted
arrears in the payment of taxes and other government homicide against Alcaraz. After the Office of the City
fees, she made some changes in the business operation. Prosecutor conducted an inquest, an information for
Among those changes was the owner’s decision to attempted homicide was filed with the MeTC of
disallowing Aricayos from participating in the Parañaque City. Thereafter, Alcaraz filed a motion to
management of the business. Aggrieved, Aricayos filed a conduct a preliminary investigation. Such motion was
complaint against petitioner for illegal recruitment. granted. However, after the conducting a preliminary
investigation, the investigating prosecutor still found
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor probable cause against Alcaraz.
of petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor
arbiter’s decision. Accordingly, petitioner moved for Dissatisfied with the prosecutor’s resolution,
reconsideration, which was denied. Dissatisfied, Alcaraz filed an MR, which was eventually denied.
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the SC. Aggrieved, Alcaraz filed a petition for review with the
Secretary of Justice (SOJ). The SOJ, granted said
Issue: Is a petition for certiorari the proper remedy to petition and ordered the prosecutor to withdraw the
question the decision of the NLRC? information.

Held: Yes. When the issue was raised in an early case From the SOJ’s Resolution, Gonzales filed an
on the argument that this Court has no jurisdiction to MR and subsequently a petition for review under Rule 43
review the decisions of the NLRC, and formerly of the before the CA. The CA ruled that the petition for review
Secretary of Labor, since there is no legal provision for under Rule 43 was meritorious. Accordingly, Alcaraz
appellate review thereof, the Court nevertheless appealed the case with the SC.
rejected that thesis. It held that there is an underlying
power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such Issues: Is a petition for review under Rule 43 the
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even proper remedy to assail the decision of the SOJ in cases
though no right of review is given by statute; that the involving the determination of probable cause?
purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative
agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial Held: No. We agree with petitioner's contention that
rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the respondent resorted to an improper remedy when he
checks and balances which restricts the separation of filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Court, instead of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule
65.
Pursuant to such ruling, and as sanctioned by
subsequent decisions of this Court, the remedy of the It bears stressing that in the determination of
aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for probable cause during the preliminary investigation, the
reconsideration as a precondition for any further or executive branch of government has full discretionary
subsequent remedy, and then seasonably avail of the authority. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss
special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, for which the criminal complaint against the private respondent is
said Rule has now fixed the reglementary period of sixty necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the
days from notice of the decision. Curiously, although the Investigating Prosecutor and ultimately, that of the
10-day period for finality of the decision of the NLRC Secretary of Justice. Courts are not empowered to
may already have lapsed as contemplated in Section substitute their own judgment for that of the executive
223 of the Labor Code, it has been held that this Court branch.
may still take cognizance of the petition for certiorari on
jurisdictional and due process considerations if filed The resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor
within the reglementary period under Rule 65. is subject to appeal to the Justice Secretary who, under
the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of
However, in observance of the doctrine of control and supervision over said Investigating
hierarchy of courts, the petition for certiorari should be Prosecutor; and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or
filed in the Court of Appeals and not directly to the SC. modify the ruling of such prosecutor. Thus, while the CA
may review the resolution of the Justice Secretary, it
Decisions of DOJ Sec. in petitions for review may do so only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
prosecutors’ resolutions – Petition for Certiorari to CA of the Rules of Court, solely on the ground that the
under Rule 65 Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of his
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Alcaraz v. Gonzales (2006)
It bears stressing that the Resolution of the
Facts: Intending to use the skyway, Alcaraz signaled Justice Secretary affirming, modifying or reversing the
and proceeded to the right-most lane. Gonzales who resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is final. Under
was on the right-most lane at that time, was forced to the 1993 Revised Rules on Appeals (now the 2000
swerve his car to the right to avoid colliding with National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeals),
Alacaraz. As such, Gonzales nearly hit the concrete resolutions in preliminary investigations or
island. reinvestigations from the Justice Secretary's resolution,
except the aggrieved party, has no more remedy of
Aggrieved, Gonzales chased after Alcaraz, opened his appeal to file a motion for reconsideration of the said
windows and shouted at Alcaraz. Subsequently, Alcaraz resolution of such motion if it is denied by the said
fired two gunshots towards Gonzales car and hurriedly Secretary. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a

Page 152
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. But the
since there is no more appeal or other remedy available jurisdiction of these three (3) courts are also delineated
in the ordinary course of law. in that, if the challenged act relates to acts or omissions
of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or
In the present case, respondent filed a petition person, the petition must be filed with the Regional Trial
for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing Court which exercises jurisdiction over the territorial
the resolutions of the Justice Secretary. Instead of area as defined by the Supreme Court. And if it involves
dismissing the petition, however, the CA gave due the act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, the
course to it and thereafter granted the petition, on its petition shall be filed only with the Court of Appeals,
finding that the Justice Secretary erred in reversing the unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court.
resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor which found We have clearly discussed this matter of concurrence of
probable cause against petitioner for attempted jurisdiction in People vs. Cuaresma, et. al., through now
homicide. Patently, the ruling of the CA is incorrect. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, thus:

Not applicable where there is error of jurisdiction x x x. This Courts original jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition,
Fortich v. Corona (1998) mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this
Facts: Aggrieved by the Office of the President’s (OP) Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts
Decision which approved the conversion of 144-hectare of First Instance), which may issue the writ,
land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional enforceable in any part of their respective
area, farmers staged a hunger strike in front of the DAR regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by
compound. the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of
Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court),
Said hunger strike led the Office of the although prior to the effectivity of Batas
President, through Executive Secretary Corona Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the
(“Corona”) issued a “Win-Win Resolution” which latters competence to issue the extraordinary
substantially modified its earlier decision despite it being writs was restricted to those in aid of its appellate
already final and executory. jurisdiction. This concurrence of jurisdiction is
not, however, to be taken as according to parties
Aggrieved by said modification, petitioners filed a seeking any of the writs an absolute,
petition for certiorari before the SC and prayed for the unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to
annulment of said Win-Win Resolution. which application therefor will be directed. There
is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is
Issue: Did petitioners avail of the proper remedy in determinative of the venue of appeals, and
assailing the Win-Win Resolution issued by the Office of should also serve as a general determinant of the
the President? appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that
Held: Yes. It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, against first level (inferior) courts should be filed
including the Office of the President, may be taken to with the Regional Trial Court, and those against
the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for the latter, with the Court of Appeals. (Citations
review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said omitted)
judgment, final order or resolution, whether the appeal
involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of But the Supreme Court has the full
fact and law. discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition
filed directly to it if compelling reasons, or the nature
However, we hold that, in this particular case, and importance of the issues raised, warrant. This has
the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable been the judicial policy to be observed and which has
considering that the present petition contains an been reiterated in subsequent cases, namely: Uy vs.
allegation that the challenged resolution is patently Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. Arranz, Bercero vs. De
illegal and was issued with grave abuse of discretion and Guzman, and Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. As we have
beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Coronas) further stated in Cuaresma:
jurisdiction when said resolution substantially modified
the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts
long become final and executory. In other words, the original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be
crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, allowed only when there are special and important
not an error of judgment, which is reviewable by an reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in
appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy
annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as what upon the Courts time and attention which are
the petitioners have correctly done. better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-
Section 1 of Rule 65 mandates that the person crowding of the Courts docket.
aggrieved by the assailed illegal act may file a verified
petition (for certiorari) in the proper court. Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to
take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the
Under Section 4 of Rule 65, the Supreme interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations
Court, Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court have so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy
original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked

Page 153
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

national interest because of the magnitude of the Forms and contents

problem created by the issuance of the assailed Sec. 6. Contents of the petition.
resolution. Moreover, as will be discussed later, we find 1. State the full names of the parties to the case;
the assailed resolution wholly void and requiring the 2. Set forth concisely a statement of the facts and
petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of issues involved and the grounds relied upon for
Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money.
review;
That the Court has the power to set aside its 3. Accompanied by clearly legible duplicate
own rules in the higher interests of justice is well- originals or certified true copy of the award,
entrenched in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we judgment, final order or resolution appealed
said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals: from;
4. Certificate of non-forum shopping;
Be it remembered that rules of procedure are 5. State the specific material dates showing that
but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
it was filed on time.
justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Effect of failure to comply with requirements
Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.
and excepted a particular case from their operation The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
whenever the higher interests of justice so require. In foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof
the proper procedure that should have been taken by of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of documents which should accompany the petition shall be
the case." sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

Action by court
Where to appeal Sec. 8. Action on the petition.
Sec. 3. Where to appeal The Court of Appeals may:
An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of a. Require the respondent to file a
Appeals within the period and in the manner herein comment on the petition, not a
provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, motion to dismiss, within ten (10)
of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. days from notice; or

Pure questions of law may also be raised. b. Dismiss the petition if it finds the
same to be:
Period of appeal
Sec. 4. Period of appeal.
Fifteen (15) days from: 1. Patently without merit;
2. Prosecuted manifestly for
1. Notice of the award, judgment, final order or delay; or
resolution; or 3. That the questions raised
2. Date of publication, if publication is required by therein are too
law for its effectivity; or unsubstantial to require
3. Denial of petitioner’s MNT or MR. (only 1 MR consideration.
shall be allowed)
When petition given due course
The CA may grant additional 15 days only within which
to file the petition for review, upon proper motion and Sec. 10. Due course.
payment in full of docket fee. If upon the filing of the comment or such other
pleadings or documents as may be required or allowed
No further extension shall be granted except for the by the Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the
most compelling reason and in no case shall exceed 15 period for the filing thereof, and on the basis of the
days. petition or the records the Court of Appeals finds
prima facie that the court or agency concerned has
How appeal taken committed errors of fact or law that would warrant
Sec. 5. How appeal taken reversal or modification of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, it
1. By filing a verified petition for review in 7 may give due course to the petition; otherwise, it shall
legible copies; dismiss the same. The findings of fact of the court or
agency concerned, when supported by substantial
2. With proof of service of a copy thereof on the
evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.
adverse party and on the court or agency a
quo; Effect of appeal
3. Pay to the clerk of court of CA docket and
other lawful fees; and Sec. 12. Effect of appeal.
4. Deposit the sum of P 500 for costs. The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final
order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the
Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms
as it may deem just.

Page 154
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

General rule: appeal does not stay award, judgment, specific provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office
final order, or resolution of the Ombudsman. Here, Section 7, Rule III of the
Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as
Exceptions: amended, is categorical, an appeal shall not stop the
a. when CA directs otherwise; or decision from being executory.
b. when the law directs otherwise
Moreover, Section 13 (8), Article XI of the
(additional exception) Constitution authorizes the Office of the Ombudsman to
The fact that the Ombudsman Act gives parties the right promulgate its own rules of procedure. In this
to appeal from its decisions should generally carry with connection, Sections 18 and 27 of the Ombudsman Act
it the stay of these decisions pending appeal. Otherwise, of 1989 also provide that the Office of the Ombudsman
the essential nature of these judgments as being has the power to promulgate its rules of procedure for
appealable would be rendered nugatory. The general the effective exercise or performance of its powers,
rule is that judgments by lower courts or tribunals functions and duties and to amend or modify its rules as
become executory only after it has become final and the interest of justice may require. For the CA to issue a
executory, execution pending appeal being an exception preliminary injunction that will stay the penalty imposed
to this general rule. by the Ombudsman in an administrative case would be
to encroach on the rule-making powers of the Office of
Where the legislature has seen fit to declare that the the Ombudsman under the Constitution and RA 6770 as
decision of the quasi-judicial agency is immediately final the injunctive writ will render nugatory the provisions of
and executory pending appeal, the law expressly so Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office
provides. Sec. 12 of Rule 43 should therefore be of the Ombudsman.
interpreted as mandating that the appeal will not stay
the award, judgment, final order or resolution unless the Clearly, Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of
law directs otherwise. (Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supersedes
29, 2000) the discretion given to the CA in Section 12, Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court when a decision of the Ombudsman in
NOTE: Lapid v. CA and Ombudsman v. Laja no an administrative case is appealed to the CA. The
longer apply due to Resolution dated 5 October provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
2010 Ombudsman that a decision is immediately executory is
a special rule that prevails over the provisions of the
Ombudsman v. Samaniego (2010) Rules of Court. Specialis derogat generali. When two
rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially
Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of designed for the said case must prevail over the other.
the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by
Administrative Order No. 17 dated 15 September 2003 PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
provides:
… Rule 45
An appeal shall not stop the decision from Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme
being executory. In case the penalty is suspension
or removal and the respondent wins such appeal,
Court
he shall be considered as having been under
preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary What to file; from what courts
and such other emoluments that he did not receive Sec. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.
by reason of the suspension or removal. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment
or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
A decision of the Office of the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.
Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be
strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal The petition shall raise only questions of law which must
or failure by any officer without just cause to comply be distinctly set forth.
with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to
remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a Remedies of appeal and certiorari mutually
ground for disciplinary action against such officer exclusive; Rule 45 distinguished from Rule 65;
Petition for Certiorari treated as Petition for
An Ombudsman’s decision imposing the Review
penalty of suspension for one year is immediately The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
executory pending appeal. It cannot be stayed by the exclusive and not alternative nor successive. The
mere filing of an appeal to the CA. Respondent cannot distinctions between Rules 45 and 65 are far and wide.
successfully rely on Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of However, the most apparent is:
Court which provides: RULE 45 – Petition for review on
certiorari (appeal by certiorari)
SEC. 12. Effect of appeal—The appeal shall not - involves correction of errors and judgment
stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution - mode of appeal
sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall
direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just. RULE 65 – Petition for certiorari (special
civil action for certiorari)
In the first place, the Rules of Court may apply - involves error of jurisdiction
to cases in the Office of the Ombudsman suppletorily
- special civil action
only when the procedural matter is not governed by any

Page 155
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

CERTIORARI UNDER CERTIORARI UNDER 65 denied GFB’s MR. Accordingly, GFB filed a Notice of
RULE 45 Appeal, to which petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss for
being filed late. Said Motion to Dismiss was granted.
Petition is based on Petition raises the issue as to GFB then elevated the case before the CA. The CA ruled
questions of law. whether the lower court acted in GFB’s favor hence, petitioner filed a petition for
without jurisdiction or in excess of certiorari under Rule 65 before the SC.
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. Issue: Are petitioners’ mode of appeal (petition for
It is a mode of appeal. It is an original action. certiorari under Rule 65) the proper remedy to elevate
Involves the review of the Directed against an interlocutory the CA’s decision before the SC?
judgment award or final order of the court or where there is
order on the merits. no appeal or any other plain, Held: No. Petitioners and counsel confuse their petition
as one Petition for Review under Rule 45 with a Petition
speedy or adequate remedy.
for Certiorari under Rule 65. For while they treat it as
one for Review on Certiorari, they manifest that it is filed
Must be made within the Filed not later than 60 days from
pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
reglementary period. notice of judgment, order or
Procedure in relation to Rule 45 of the New Rules of
resolution appealed from.
Court.
Stays the judgment or Unless a writ of preliminary
order appealed from. injunction or temporary restraining
In Ligon v. Court of Appeals where the therein
order is issued does not stay the
petitioner described her petition as an appeal under
challenged proceeding.
Rule 45 and at the same time as a special civil
The appellant and the The parties are the aggrieved party
action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
appellee are the original against the lower court or quasi-
Court, this Court, in frowning over what it described as
parties to the action, and judicial agency and the prevailing
a chimera, reiterated that the remedies of appeal and
the lower court or quasi- parties.
certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative nor
judicial agency is not
successive.
impleaded.
Motion for reconsideration Motion for reconsideration or for To be sure, the distinctions between Rules 45
is not required. new trial is required; and 65 are far and wide. However, the most apparent is
If a motion for reconsideration or that errors of jurisdiction are best reviewed in a special
new trial is filed, the period shall civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 while errors of
not only be interrupted but another judgment can only be corrected by appeal in a petition
60 days shall be given to the for review under Rule 45.
petitioner. ( SC Admin. Matter 02-
03 ) This Court, however, in accordance with the
The court is in the exercise Court exercises original jurisdiction. liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in
of its appellate jurisdiction the interest of justice may treat a petition for certiorari
and power of review. as having filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was
filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition
for review.
Nuez v. GSIS Family Bank (2005)
The records show that the petition was filed on
Facts: Petitioners are heirs of Leonilo who, during his time both under Rules 45 and 65. Following Delsan
lifetime, obtained loans from GSIS Family Bank (GFB). Transport, the petition, stripped of allegations of grave
All these loans were secured by a real estate mortgage. abuse of discretion, actually avers errors of judgment
On the maturity of said loans, Leonilo executed a which are the subject of a petition for review.
promisory note. 19 years after the promisory note
matured, GFB undertook to extrajudicially foreclose the
properties which secured the loans. During the auction Only questions of law may be raised in Rule 65
sale, GFB was the highest bidder thus, a certificate of
sale was issued in its favor. Exceptions:

Subsequently, Leonilo filed a complaint with

the RTC against GFB for the Annulment of Extrajudicial A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
Foreclosure Sale, Reconveyance and Cancellation of 25 September 2007
Encumbrances. Leonilo alleged that GFB no longer had THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
the right to file its petition for extrajudicial foreclosure
since prescription had already set in. SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
The RTC found for Leonilo who died during the The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
pendency of the trial thus, he was substituted by
petitioners. GFB filed an MR on the last day of the 15- The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from
day period within which it could interpose an appeal, but the date of notice of the adverse judgment.
it did not comply with the rules on notice of hearing. As
such, petitioners filed a Motion to Strike Out MR with The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas
Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. corpus cases.

GFB filed an Opposition with Motion to Admit

its MR, attributing its failure to incorporate the notice of
hearing to inadvertent deletion. Eventually, the RTC

Page 156
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC Contents of and documents to accompany petition

22 January 2008 Sec. 4. Contents of petition.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA 1. State the full names of the appealing party as
the petitioner and the adverse party as
SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the respondent;
judgment or final order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law
2. Indicate the specific material dates showing
or both.
that it was filed on time;
The period of appeal shall be five (5) work days from the
date of notice of the judgment or final order. 3. Set forth concisely a statement of the:

The appeal shall be given the same priority as habeas a. Matters involved;
corpus and amparo cases.
b. Reasons or arguments relied upon for the
Questions of law and questions of fact
distinguished; if no questions of fact, Rule 45 allowance of the appeal;
petition
4. Accompanied by clearly legible duplicate
A question of law exists when there is doubt or original or certified true copy of the judgment
controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of or final order or resolution;
facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or 5. Certificate of non-forum shopping.
when the query necessarily invites calibration of the
whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific Effect of failure to comply with requirements
surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition.
and to the whole and probabilities of the situation. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
involves only questions of law or both questions of law docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of
and fact is best left to the appellate court, and all doubts service of the petition, and the contents of and the
as to the correctness of such conclusions will be resolved documents which should accompany the petition shall be
in favor of the Court of Appeals. sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is
not the appellation given to such question by the party Denial moto proprio
raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the
court can determine the issue raised without reviewing petition on the ground that the appeal is without merit,
or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact. questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
(China Road and Bridge Corp. v. CA, GR 137898, consideration.
December 15, 2000)
Review discretionary
Time for filing Sec. 6. Review discretionary.
Sec. 2. Time for filing; extension A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from discretion, and will be granted only when there are
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution special and important reasons therefor. The following,
appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s
for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which
notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, will be considered:
with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees (a) When the court a quo has decided a
and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the question of substance, not theretofore
reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for determined by the Supreme Court, or has
justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days decided it in a way probably not in accord with
only within which to file the petition. law or with the applicable decisions of the
Supreme Court; or
Docket and other lawful fees (b) When the court a quo has so far departed
Sec. 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of from the accepted and usual course of judicial
petition. proceedings, or so far sanctioned such
Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall departure by a lower court, as to call for an
pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to exercise of the power of supervision.
the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the
amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of Pleadings and documents that may be required
the petition. Sec. 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required;
sanctions.
Proof of service For purposes of determining whether the petition should
Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this
concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted Rule, or where the petition is given due course under
together with the petition. Section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may require or
allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or
documents as it may deem necessary within such
periods and under such conditions as it may consider

Page 157
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in 4.1.1. Whether or not the amended complaint
case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such together with the Annexes attached and forming an
pleadings and documents or noncompliance with the integral part thereof, states a sufficient cause of action
conditions therefor. against the defendant-appellee;

Sec. 8. Due course; elevation of records. 4.1.2. Whether or not there was an
If the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court unwarranted reversal of the Honorable Regional Trial
may require the elevation of the complete record of the Court's Orders stating that the complaint states a
case or specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days sufficient cause of action;
from notice.
4.2.1. Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss
Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases the complaint can be considered also as a Motion to
Sec. 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases. Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be
applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in We fail to see how these issues raised by
criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death. JADEBANK could be properly denominated questions of
fact. The test of whether a question is one of law or of
Questions of law and questions of fact fact is not the appellation given to such question by the
distinguished; if no questions of fact, Rule 45 party raising the same; rather, it is whether the
petition. appellate court can determine the issue raised without
reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is
China Road and Bridge Corp v. CA (2000) a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.
Applying the test to the instant case, it is clear that
Facts: China Road and Bridge Corp (CRBC), is a private respondent raises pure questions of law which
corporation organized under the laws of China, which is are not proper in an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, but
duly licensed by the SEC to do business in the should be raised by way of a petition for review on
Philippines. It was awarded by the Philippine certiorari under Rule 45.
Government the contract to construct the EDSA Shaw
Overpass. To which, it subcontracted High Quality In resolving the issue it is necessary to
Builders and Traders (HQBT), a domestic corporation. determine only if private respondent's appeal to the
Court of Appeals involved purely questions of law, in
The president of HQBT executed a Continuing which case the proper mode of appeal would be a
Suretyship in favor of Jade Bank binding herself to pay petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
the obligation of HQBT arising from all credit under Rule 45; or questions of fact or mixed questions
accommodations executed by Jade Bank to HQBT. of fact and law, in which case the proper mode would be
Subsequently, HQBT executed a Deed of Assignment in by ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
favor of Jade Bank in consideration of a 5Million pesos
loan. Said Deed was with the approval of CRBC. A question of law exists when there is doubt or
Thereafter, HQBT obtained several loans secured by controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of
various promisory notes. HQBT also indorsed different facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or
checks covering the amount released by Jade Bank. difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or
when the query necessarily invites calibration of the
When Jade Bank deposited the checks for whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
payment, they were all dishonored. Jade Bank witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific
demanded HQBT to pay its obligations, however, the surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other
same were unheeded. Accordingly, Jade Bank filed a and to the whole and probabilities of the situation.
case for collection against HQBT, HQBT’s president, and Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal
CRBC. involves only questions of law or both questions of law
and fact is best left to the appellate court, and all doubts
CRBC filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground as to the correctness of such conclusions will be resolved
of lack of cause of action, which was granted by the in favor of the Court of Appeals. However, in the instant
RTC. Its MR having been denied, Jade Bank appealed to case, we find that there was grave abuse of discretion
the CA under Rule 41. Subsequently, CRBC filed with the on the part of respondent Court of Appeals, hence, we
CA a Motion to Dismiss Appeal asserting that the grant the petition.
determination of whether the ultimate facts in a
Complaint state a cause of action against defendant is a The ground for dismissal invoked by petitioner
pure question of law and does not involve any question is that the complaint of JADEBANK before the trial court
of fact. As such, the proper mode of appeal must be stated no cause of action, under Sec. 1, par. (g), Rule
under Rule 45 and not Rule 41. The CA denied CRBC’s 16, the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It is well
motion to dismiss. Aggrieved, CRBC elevated the case settled that in a motion to dismiss based on lack of
before the SC. cause of action, the issue is passed upon on the basis of
the allegations assuming them to be true. The court
Issue: Is a petition for review under Rule 45 the proper does not inquire into the truth of the allegations and
mode of appeal in this case since the issues raised by declare them to be false, otherwise it would be a
Jade Bank are purely questions of law? procedural error and a denial of due process to the
plaintiff. Only the statements in the complaint may be
Held: Yes. Jade Bank in its Appellant's Brief raised the properly considered, and the court cannot take
following questions, which it erroneously designated as cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings
questions of fact, in an attempt to place its appeal within to ascertain their existence. To put it simply, the test for
the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: determining whether a complaint states or does not
state a cause of action against the defendants is

Page 158
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied.
allegations of fact made in the complaint, the judge may Subsequently, the CA resolution became final and
validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint. executory. Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
In a motion to dismiss based on failure to state Civil Procedure assailing the resolutions of the CA, which
a cause of action, there cannot be any question of fact dismissed his petition for certiorari. In Our Resolution
or "doubt or difference as to the truth or falsehood of dated July 16, 2007, We denied the petition. Thus,
facts," simply because there are no findings of fact in petitioner filed the instant petition for relief from
the first place. What the trial court merely does is to judgment.
apply the law to the facts as alleged in the complaint,
assuming such allegations to be true. It follows then Issue: Can petitioner avail of a petition for relief from
that any appeal therefrom could only raise questions of judgment under Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
law or "doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a Procedure from the resolution denying his petition for
certain state of facts." Therefore, a decision dismissing a review?
complaint based on failure to state a cause of action
necessarily precludes a review of the same decision on Held: We answer in the negative. A petition for relief
questions of fact. One is the legal and logical opposite of from judgment is not an available remedy in the
the other. Supreme Court. First, although Section 1 of Rule 38
states that when a judgment or final order is entered
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
Rule 38 negligence, a party in any court may file a petition for
Relief from Judgments, Orders or relief from judgment, this rule must be interpreted in
harmony with Rule 56, which enumerates the original
Other Proceedings cases cognizable by the Supreme Court. A petition for
relief from judgment is not included in the list of Rule56
cases originally cognizable by this Court. Second, while
Rule 38 uses the phrase "any court," it refers only to
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 38 Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts. Third,
the procedure in the CA and the Supreme Court are
Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court.
or other proceedings. — When a judgment or final order Neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules
is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken of the CA allows the remedy of petition for relief in the
against a party in any court through fraud, accident, CA. There is no provision in the Rules of Court making
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition the petition for relief applicable in the CA or this Court.
in such court and in the same case praying that the The procedure in the CA from Rules 44 to 55, with the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. exception of Rule 45which pertains to the Supreme
Court, identifies the remedies available before said Court
Section 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal. such as annulment of judgments or final orders or
— When a judgment or final order is rendered by any resolutions (Rule 47), motion for reconsideration (Rule
court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, 52), and new trial (Rule 53). Nowhere is a petition for
mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented relief under Rule 38mentioned.If a petition for relief
from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such from judgment is not among the remedies available in
court and in the same case praying that the appeal be the CA, with more reason that this remedy cannot be
given due course. availed of in the Supreme Court. A petition for relief
raises questions of facts on fraud, accident, mistake, or
* The phrase “any court” refers only to excusable negligence, which are beyond the concerns of
Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts. this Court.

Purcon vs. MRM Philippines, Inc. (2008) Grounds

Facts: Petitioner was hired by respondent MRM (1) When judgment or final order is entered or any other
Philippines, Inc as a seaman on January 28, 2002. On proceeding is thereafter taken against petitioner through
June 2002, petitioner felt an excruciating pain in his left FAME
testicle. After being examined, he was diagnosed with (2) When petitioner has been prevented from taking an
hernia. Subsequently, petitioner was repatriated due to appeal by FAME
his ailment. Upon his return to the Philippines, petitioner
was again examined by the company physician and the * Requires final judgment or loss of appeal
latter declared that he was fit to resume work. When * Only available against a final and executory
petitioner reported to MRM Philippines, Inc. hoping to be judgment
re-hired for another contract, he was told that there was
no vacancy for him. Petitioner a complaint filed by Valencia v. CA (2001)
petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses,
sickness allowance and permanent disability benefits Facts: Rufino Valencia entered into a lease agreement
with prayer for compensatory, moral and exemplary with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos (RCBM)
damages and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. involving a fishpond. The people of Barrio Sta. Cruz,
However, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for Paombong filed a complaint against RCBM for
utter lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the declaration of nullity of the title of the fishpond alleging
decision of the labor arbiter. Thereafter, petitioner filed ownership of the fishpond and that RCBM was a mere
a petition for certiorari under Rule65 of the Revised trustee. They prayed for the issuance of an injunction to
Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals(CA). However, prevent RCBM from leasing the fishpond or in case it had
the CA dismissed the case due to formal infirmities. already been leased, from implementing the lease.

Page 159
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The RTC rendered judgment upholding the Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence
validity of RCBMs title and its lease contract with
petitioner. However, he dismissed petitioners Gomez v Montalban (2008)
counterclaim for lack of evidence. Upon belatedly
learning of said judgment, petitioner moved for Facts: Lita Montalban obtained a loan from Elmer
execution pending appeal, contending that since the trial Gomez in the amount of P40,000 with a voluntary
court found him entitled to possession of the fishpond, it proposal on her part to pay 15% interest per month.
is unfair to deprive him thereof. Meanwhile, he filed a Montalban failed to comply with her obligation so Gomez
petition for relief from the portion of the judgment filed a complaint in the RTC for sum of money.
dismissing his counterclaim, where he alleged that his Summons was served but despite her receipt, she still
failure to move for reconsideration of or appeal from failed to file an Answer. She was declared in default and
said judgment was due to a mistaken belief of his upon motion, Gomez was allowed to present evidence ex
former counsel that he was no longer interested to parte. The RTC rendered a decision ordering Montalban
pursue the counterclaim. to pay Gomez.

The RTC deferred action on the petition for Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for
relief. The trial court also said that a grant of the Relief from Judgment alleging that there was no proper
petition for relief during the pendency of the appeal service of summons since there was no personal service.
would pre-empt the appellate court’s ruling in case She alleged that one Mrs. Alicia Dela Torre was not
private respondents would appeal. The court added that authorized to receive summons and that her failure to
they were entitled to have their appeal given due file an Answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake,
course, otherwise, the grant of the petition might bring excusable negligence (FAME). The Petition was set for
incalculable harm to them. Petitioner filed with the Court hearing but counsel for respondent failed to appear
of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the court hence the dismissal of the Petition.
contending that it was grave abuse of discretion for the
trial court to defer action on his petition for relief. Montalban filed for a Motion for
Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition stating
The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision that counsel’s failure to appeal was unintentional to
dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus which the RTC granted. To this instance, Gomez filed a
concludin that there was nothing capricious or whimsical Petition for Reconsideration.
in the trial court’s decision to defer action on the petition
for relief on the ground that it would pre-empt the ruling Issue: WON the granting of Petition for Relief from
of the Court of Appeals. Lastly, since the petition for Judgment by the RTC is proper.
relief remained to be resolved by the trial court, the
Court of Appeals did not deem it appropriate to pass Held: NO. The RTC committed an error in doing so. A
upon the issue of whether the dismissal of petitioners Petition for Relief under Rule 38 is only available against
counterclaim was a violation of his right to due process. a final and executory judgment and the grounds include
Hence, this petition for review. fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.

Issue: WON the trial court should have allowed the When a party has another remedy available to
petition for relief. him, which may be either a motion for new trial or
appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and
Held: Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or
in refusing to compel the trial court to act on the petition excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking
for relief. According to him, the trial courts duty under such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition.
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, except sections 4 & 6
thereof, is ministerial such that upon finding the petition Discussion on Grounds:
sufficient in form and substance, the judge must order
the other party to answer, conduct a hearing and decide "Mistake" refers to mistake of fact, not of law,
whether to grant or deny the petition. The judge was which relates to the case. The word "mistake," which
therefore remiss in his duty when he deferred action on grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was
the petition, since his only role was either to dismiss or never intended to apply to a judicial error which the
grant it, according to petitioner. court might have committed in the trial. Such errors
may be corrected by means of an appeal. This does not
Private respondents argue that the trial court exist in the case at bar, because respondent has in no
was correct in deferring action on the petition for relief, wise been prevented from interposing an appeal.
in the interest of justice and equity. To grant the petition
pending private respondents appeal, they aver, would "Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic
pre-empt the Court of Appeals. This, they say, is not or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his
case to the court,or was used to procure the judgment
We find no merit in petitioners without fair submission of the controversy. This is not
argument. A petition for relief under Rule 38 is only present in the case at hand as respondent was not
available against a final and executory judgment. In this prevented from securing a fair trial and was given the
case, the trial courts judgment subject of the petition for opportunity to present her case.
relief has not yet attained finality because of the timely
appeal by private respondents. Therefore, petitioner Negligence to be excusable must be one which
cannot require the judge to follow the procedure laid ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded
down in Rule 38. The judge did not err nor abuse his against. Under Section 1 Rule 38, the "negligence" must
discretion when he deferred action on the petition. be excusable and generally imputable to the party
because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on

Page 160
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

the client. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to Victory Liner, Inc. v. Michael Malinias
disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings (2007)
indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the
mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the Facts: A vehicular collision occurred between a bus
aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative owned by petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. and an Isuzu
sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the Truck used by respondent Michael Malinias. Nobody
reversal of the court's ruling. died, but both vehicles were damaged from the accident.
A complaint for sum of money and damages was
In Tuason v CA, the court explained the nature instituted by respondent against petitioner and the bus
of a Petition for Relief from Judgment: driver.
In the course of trial, respondent finished
“A petition for relief from judgment is an presenting his evidence and rested his case. In the
equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional meantime, counsel for petitioner filed a motion to
cases where there is no other available or adequate withdraw as counsel, but the same was denied by the
remedy. When a party has another remedy available to MTC as the motion did not bear any signature of
him, which may be either a motion for new trial or conformity from the petitioner. When the case was
appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and called for the reception of petitioner’s evidence, no
he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or appearance was made for the bus company. Respondent
excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking thus immediately moved that petitioner be declared to
such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition. have waived its right to adduce evidence in its favor and
Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks that the case be deemed submitted for judgment. The
avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the MTC found merit in respondent’s contention, and
loss of the remedy at law was due to his own ordered the case be deemed submitted for decision.
negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be used Through its new counsel, petitioner filed a
to revive the right to appeal which had been lost thru Motion for Reconsideration with a defective Notice of
inexcusable negligence.” Hearing. Accordingly, the MTC declared that its earlier
judgment had become final and executory. In the same
In the case, Montalban contended that order and upon the same predicates, the MTC also
judgment was entered against her through mistake or granted the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution
fraud because she was not duly served summons. filed by respondent.
However, under the discussion of the following grounds, Petitioner responded to the foregoing
the SC sees no merit in her petition. Petition for Relief developments by filing a Notice of Appeal which was
from Judgment is set aside. however denied, the MR being defective and not having
tolled the reglementary period for appeal.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 38 the MTC which was denied by the MTC on the ground
that it had been filed out of time. The MTC explained
Section 3. Time for filing petition; contents and that the petition for relief from judgment must have
verification. — A petition provided for in either of the been filed either within sixty (60) days from the date
preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed petitioner’s new counsel learned of the judgment, or
within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the sixty (60) days after learning that the Motion for
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set Reconsideration had been denied for having been filed
aside, and not more than six (6) months after such out of time. Neither circumstance was met by petitioner.
judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding Subsequently, the MTC likewise denied a Motion for
was taken, and must be accompanied with affidavits Reconsideration filed by petitioner.
showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable Second, petitioner filed a petition for
negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the certiorari with the RTC. The petition for certiorari was
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or dismissed by the RTC agreeing with the MTC that the
defense, as the case may be. Petition for Relief from Judgment had been belatedly
filed. Petitioner filed an MR, which was again denied.
(1) Within 60 days after petitioner learns of the Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a "Petition for
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set Certiorari to Annul Judgment" under the aegis of Rule 47
aside; AND of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Interestingly,
(2) Not more than 6 months after such judgment or final based on the first paragraph and the express relief
order was entered, or such proceeding was taken prayed for in this petition, the "judgment" sought to be
annulled was not the final and executory judgment of
The two periods for the filing of a petition for relief are the MTC, but rather, the two orders of the RTC which
not extendible and never interrupted. Both periods must successively dismissed the special civil action for
be complied with. [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. v. Ariaga] certiorari, and directed the issuance of a writ of
execution in favor of respondent. However, in explaining
Reckoning points: the "nature of the petition," petitioner claimed that it
(1) The 60-day period is reckoned from the time the was seeking to annul the judgment and orders of both
party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or the RTC and the MTC, although the issues identified in
proceeding. Not from the date he actually read the same the petition pertain only to "serious errors" and "grave
[Perez v. Araneta] abuse of discretion" on the part of the RTC. There is a
(2) 6-months period is computed from the date of entry general allegation that the acts of the RTC in granting
of the order or judgment the motion for execution even before petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was acted upon constituted an
* Strictly followed extrinsic fraud, but no particular arguments were offered
to explain why that was so.

Page 161
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The Court of Appeals further held that it was  The absence of an affidavit of merits is a fatal
clear that the ground of extrinsic fraud raised by defect and warrant denial of the petition
petitioner had already been availed of in its earlier [Fernandez v. Tan Tiong Tick].
petition for relief from judgment before the MTC. Such
 However, it is not a fatal defect so long as the
circumstance contradicted Section 2 of Rule 47, which
provides that "extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground facts required to be set out also appear in the
(for annulment of judgment) if it was availed of, or could verified petition [Fabar Inc. v. Rodelas].
have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
petition for relief." When Affidavit of Merit is not necessary:
(1) When there is lack of jurisdiction over the
Issue: What should have been the remedy pursued by defendant;
petitioner? (2) When there is lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
Held: A proper remedy for the petitioner is found under (3) When judgment was taken by default;
Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which (4) When judgment was entered by mistake or
governs petitions for relief from judgment. Indeed, was obtained by fraud; or
Section 2, Rule 38 finds specific application in this case, (5) Other similar cases.
as it provides that "[w]hen a judgment or final order is
rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by When motion for reconsideration considered as petition
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has for relief
been prevented from taking an appeal, he may file a
petition [for relief from denial of appeal] in such court Action of court before answer
and in the same case praying that the appeal be given
due course." Such petition should be filed within sixty Power to deny (Sec. 4)
(60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 38
final order, and not more than six (6) months after such
judgment or final order was entered. The facts of this Section 4. Order to file an answer. — If the petition
case indicate that petitioner could have timely resorted is sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the
to this remedy. court in which it is filed, shall issue an order requiring
Notably, it was only after the Notice of Appeal the adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen
was denied that the petitioner had pursued the two (15) days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be
remedies it could have undertaken from the MTC Order served in such manner as the court may direct, together
declaring its motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap with copies of the petition and the accompanying
of paper. First, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from affidavits.
Judgment with the MTC. The problem with this remedy
was the utter belatedness in the resort thereto. Section Preliminary injunction pending proceedings (Sec. 5)
3 of Rule 38 requires that said petition must be filed 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 38
within sixty (60) days after petitioner learns of the
judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set Section 5. Preliminary injunction pending
aside, and not more than six (6) months after such proceedings. — The court in which the petition is filed
judgment or final order was entered. Neither benchmark may grant such preliminary injunction as may be
was met by the petitioner, since the petition was filed necessary for the preservation of the rights of the
only on 25 October 1999, or some sixteen (16) months parties, upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in
after the rendition of the judgment sought to be set favor of the adverse party, conditioned that if the
aside, and around fourteen (14) months after such petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of
judgment was declared final and executory. Petitioner the case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party
had opportunely learned of both the rendition of the all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by
judgment and the Order refusing to give cognizance to reason of the issuance of such injunction or the other
the motion for reconsideration. Had it simply consulted proceedings following the petition, but such injunction
the rulebook, it should have realized that a petition for shall not operate to discharge or extinguish any lien
relief from judgment was a remedy available to it, and which the adverse party may have acquired upon, the
certainly one more appropriate than the Notice of Appeal property, of the petitioner.
it ultimately resorted to.
Order to file answer (Sec. 4)
Contents
Procedure
Affidavit of merit (Sec. 3)
Availability of preliminary injunction (Sec. 5)
FORM AND CONTENTS OF THE PETITION
Proceedings after answer is filed (Sec. 6)
(1) The petition for relief must be verified
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 38
(2) The petition must be accompanied by an
affidavit showing the FAME relied upon; and Section 6. Proceedings after answer is filed. —
After the filing of the answer or the expiration of the
(3) The affidavit of merit accompanying the petition period therefor, the court shall hear the petition and if
must also show the facts constituting the after such hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof
petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or are not true, the petition shall be dismissed; but if it
defense as the case may be finds said allegations to be true, it shall set aside the
judgment or final order or other proceeding complained
of upon such terms as may be just. Thereafter the case

Page 162
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

shall stand as if such judgment, final order or other In a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
proceeding had never been rendered, issued or taken. prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary
The court shall then proceed to hear and determine the restraining order filed with the Intermediate Appellate
case as if a timely motion for a new trial or Court, the spouses Alvendias sought the annulment of
reconsideration had been granted by it. the writ of execution, the levy made upon the leasehold
rights and the writ of possession.
Where denial of appeal is set aside (Sec. 7)
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 38 The IAC dismissed the aforesaid petition. The
Alvendias filed an urgent motion for reconsideration.
Section 7. Procedure where the denial of an appeal Pending action thereon, the spouses manifested to the
is set aside. — Where the denial of an appeal is set court, thru motion, their willingness to immediately pay
aside, the lower court shall be required to give due to Bonamy the remaining balance of the judgment
course to the appeal and to elevate the record of the sought to be enforced. The IAC issued two resolutions,
appealed case as if a timely and proper appeal had been denominated as Resolutions I and II.
made. Resolution I denied the Alvendias' motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit. Resolution II granted
their motion to satisfy the judgment sought to be
Action of court after giving due course
enforced in cash thereby directing the parties to submit
to the court an agreement duly signed by both parties
Grant of petition for relief (Sec. 7)
regarding full satisfaction of the judgment but only after
the total amount involved in said judgment had been
Denial of petition for relief (Rule 41, Sec. 1 (b))
tendered and delivered to Bonamy. The Alvendias then
tendered payment to Bonamy in the form of a cashier's
Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may
check. Bonamy refused said tender of payment, and
be taken from a judgment or final order that
instead moved for a reconsideration of Resolution II.
completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
Hence, this petition for certiorari and
appealable.
prohibition, praying for the annulment of respondent
court's Resolution I and II alleging that respondent court
No appeal may be taken from:
committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the
…
Alvendias' motion that they be allowed to pay the
judgment debt in cash. Petitioner claims that the
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any
assailed resolutions are in effect an annulment of the
similar motion seeking relief from judgment.
assailed Orders and Writs of the Bulacan Regional Trial
…
Court, the Certificate of Sale and the Final Deed of Sale
of the Leasehold Rights over the Foreshore Lands;
* Appeal from an order denying a petition for relief is no
longer available under the present rules. The remedy
Issue: WON the writs and orders may be annulled or at
against a denial of a petition for relief is certiorari under
least reopened.
Rule 65, when proper.
Held: No. The writs and orders of the lower court
Remedies after petition for relief expires
sought to be annulled or at least reopened are already
final and executory and in fact already executed. The
Reopening not allowed
judgment which was executed was a compromise
judgment, duly approved by the court and therefore,
Alvendia v. IAC (1990)
final and immediately executory. Bonamy was clearly
entitled to execution since the Alvendias failed to pay on
Facts: A simple collection suit was filed by Bonifacio
time the judgment.
Bonamy against the spouses Alvendia. Thereafter, both
parties submitted to the trial court a "Compromise
It is axiomatic that there is no justification in
Agreement." Subsequently, Bonamy moved for
law and in fact for the reopening of a case which has
execution of judgment. The court ordered the issuance
long become final and which has in fact been
of the writ prayed for. The Alvendias did not move for
executed. Time and again this Court has said that the
reconsideration nor did they elevate the matter to the
doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded on
higher courts. Bonamy sought the issuance of an alias
fundamental consideration of public policy and sound
writ of execution, the first writ having been returned
practice that at the risk of occasional error the
unsatisfied. Pursuant to the alias writ , the provincial
judgments of courts must become final at some definite
sheriff levied on the Alvendias "leasehold rights" over a
date fixed by law.
fishpond. Thereafter, a certificate of sale over said
leasehold right was executed by the Sheriff in favor of
The Alvendias cannot invoke equity as a
Bonamy. More than a year later, the spouses moved for
ground for reopening the case and making the payment
the quashal and annulment of the writ of execution, levy
of the judgment in cash possible. The records show that
and sale.
they had all the opportunity to make such payments on
four occasions but failed. The Alvendias failed to pay on
A final deed of sale was executed and
time the judgment of which the execution sale was a
registered with the Register of Deeds. In an order, the
necessary consequence. They also failed to redeem the
trial court denied the spouses' motion to quash and
property within the required period despite the fact that
ordered instead the issuance of a writ of possession in
the Final Deed of Sale was issued long past the aforesaid
Bonamy's favor. The possession of the fishpond was
period; undeniably showing a lack of intention or
delivered to Bonamy.
capability to pay the same.

Page 163
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Cosmic Lumber Co v. CA (1996)

Rule 47
Annulment of Judgment Facts: Cosmic Corporation, through its General
Manager, executed a Special Power of Attorney
appointing Paz G. Villamil-Estrada (“Estrada”) as
I. When remedy available attorney-in-fact to initiate, institute and file any court
action for the ejectment of third persons and/or
 An action for annulment of judgment is a squatters of the entire lot 9127 and 443 for the said
remedy in law independent of the case where the squatters to remove their houses and vacate the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. premises in order that the corporation may take material
 Annulment of judgment is resorted to in cases possession of the entire lot, one of which is respondent
where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, Isidro Perez (“Perez”). Estrada, by virtue of her power of
petition for relief from judgment, or other attorney, instituted an action for the ejectment of
appropriate remedies are no longer available private respondent Isidro Perez and recover the
through no fault of petitioner, and is based on possession of a portion of lot 443 before the Regional
only two grounds, extrinsic fraud and lack of Trial Court (RTC).
jurisdiction. (Alaban v. Court of Appeals, 470
SCRA 697) Estrada entered into a Compromise Agreement
with Perez. Although the agreement was approved by
the trial court and the decision became final and
a. Where applicable executory, it was not executed within the 5 year period
 Annulment of judgment does not apply to from date of its finality allegedly due to the failure of
judgments rendered by quasi-judicial Cosmic Lumber to produce the owner’s duplicate copy of
bodies. It does not also apply to decisions title needed to segregate from lot 443 the portion sold
or orders of the Ombudsman in by the attorney-in-fact, Paz Estrada to Perez under the
administrative cases whose decisions or compromise agreement. Respondent filed a complaint to
orders may be appealed to the Court of revive the judgment. Petitioner sought the annulment of
Appeals under Rule 43. (Macalalag v. the decision of the trial court based on the compromise
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 147995, 5 March agreement, alleging that it had no knowledge of the
2004) compromise agreement.

Issue: Whether the annulment of the decision of the

II. Grounds (Sec. 2) trial court must be sustained.

1. Extrinsic fraud or collateral fraud Held: Yes. Nowhere in the authorization was Estrada
 is trickery practiced by the prevailing granted expressly or impliedly any power to sell the
party upon the unsuccessful party, which subject property nor a portion thereof. Neither can a
prevents the latter from fully proving his conferment of the power to sell be validly inferred from
case. It affects not the judgment itself but the specific authority to enter into a compromise
the manner in which said judgment is agreement because of the explicit limitation fixed by the
obtained. (People v. Bitanga, G.R. No. grantor that the compromise entered into shall only
159222, 26 June 2007) be so far as it shall protect the rights and interest of the
 must emanate from an act of the adverse corporation in the aforementioned lots.
party, and the fraud must be of such It is therefore clear that by selling to respondent
nature as to have deprived the petitioner Perez a portion of petitioners land through a
of its day in court. The fraud is not compromise agreement, Villamil-Estrada acted without
extrinsic if the act was committed by the or in obvious authority. The sale ipso jure is
petitioner's own counsel. (Pinausukan consequently void. So is the compromise
Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. v. agreement. This being the case, the judgment based
Far East Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. thereon is necessarily void. Antipodal to the opinion
159926, 20 January 2014) expressed by respondent court in resolving petitioners
 must be sought within four (4) years from motion for reconsideration, the nullity of the settlement
discovery of the fraud, which fact should between Villamil-Estrada and Perez impaired the
be alleged and proven; the particular acts jurisdiction of the trial court to render its decision based
and omissions constituting extrinsic fraud on the compromise agreement.
must be clearly established. (People v.
Bitanga, supra) Under authority of Sec. 9, par. (2), of B.P. Blg.
129, a party may now petition the Court of Appeals to
annul and set aside judgments of Regional Trial Courts.
2. Lack of jurisdiction Thus, the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of
 petitioner must show not merely an abuse Appeals) shall exercise x x x x (2) Exclusive original
of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute jurisdiction over action for annulment of judgments of
lack of jurisdiction. The concept of lack of the Regional Trial Courts x x x x However, certain
jurisdiction as a ground to annul a requisites must first be established before a final and
judgment does not embrace abuse of executory judgment can be the subject of an action for
discretion. (Antonino v. The Register of annulment. It must either be void for want of jurisdiction
Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 185663, 20 or for lack of due process of law, or it has been obtained
June 2012) by fraud.

Conformably with law and the above-cited

authorities, the petition to annul the decision of the trial

Page 164
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

court in Civil Case No. D-7750 before the Court of Section 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders
Appeals was proper. Emanating as it did from a void of Municipal Trial Courts. — An action to annul a
compromise agreement, the trial court had no judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall
jurisdiction to render a judgment based thereon. be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil
It would also appear, and quite contrary to the action and sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall
finding of the appellate court, that the highly be applicable thereto.
reprehensible conduct of attorney-in-fact Villamil-
Estrada in Civil Case No. 7750 constituted an extrinsic or IV. Annulment of MTC judgment should be
collateral fraud by reason of which the judgment filed with RTC
rendered thereon should have been struck down.
Victory Liner v. Malinias (2007)
For sure, the Court of Appeals restricted the
concept of fraudulent acts within too narrow limits. Facts: On 17 July 2001 petitioner filed with the Court
Fraud may assume different shapes and be committed in of Appeals a "Petition for Certiorari to Annul Judgment"
as many different ways and here lies the danger of under the aegis of Rule 47. In explaining the "nature of
attempting to define fraud. For man in his ingenuity and the petition," petitioner claimed that it was seeking to
fertile imagination will always contrive new schemes to annul the judgment and orders of both the RTC and the
fool the unwary. MTC, although the issues identified in the petition
pertain only to "serious errors" and "grave abuse of
There is extrinsic fraud within the meaning of Sec. discretion" on the part of the RTC. There is a general
9, par. (2), of B.P. Blg. 129, where it is one the effect of allegation that the acts of the RTC in granting the
which prevents a party from hearing a trial, or real motion for execution even before petitioner’s motion for
contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, reconsideration was acted upon constituted an extrinsic
or where it operates upon matters, not pertaining to the fraud, but no particular arguments were offered to
judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was explain why that was so. The CA dismissed the petition.
procured so that there is not a fair submission of the
controversy. In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals was the
any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the proper venue for the petition.
litigation which is committed outside of the trial of
the case, whereby the defeated party has been Held: Section 2 of Rule 47 does disqualify extrinsic
prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case fraud as a valid ground "if it was availed of, or could
by fraud or deception practiced on him by his have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
opponent. Fraud is extrinsic where the unsuccessful petition for relief," and such provision would have found
party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, incontestable relevance had the clear object of the
by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, petition for annulment been the MTC judgment. But
as by keeping him away from court, a false petitioner’s action for annulment of judgment did not
promise of a compromise; or where the defendant provide clarity in that regard, and in fact does devote
never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in considerable effort in imputing errors on the part of the
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an RTC with the objective of annulling, in particular, the
attorney fraudulently or without authority RTC decision. If that were so, reliance on Section 2 of
connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which Rule 47 would have been misplaced, since the judgment
show that there has never been a real contest in the subject of the petition for relief was different from the
trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new decision subject of the action for annulment of
suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment. Still, given the confused nature of the petition
judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing. for annulment of judgment, blame could hardly be
attributed to the RTC.
III. Where petition filed (Secs. 1, 10)
All told, even if we were to hold that the Court
Judgments, Final Judgments, Final of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the
Orders of Resolutions Orders or Resolutions perceived defect in the verification and certification
of RTC of MTC requirements, the appellate court would have been left
Filed with the Court of Filed with the RTC with an action stigmatized by error upon error
Appeals interminably. Most frustratingly, for every procedural
Basis: It has exclusive Basis: RTC as a court of misstep committed by petitioner, there existed a
original jurisdiction over general jurisdiction under corresponding viable alternative which would have
said action under Sec. 9 Sec. 19 (6) of B.P. 129 necessitated a ruling on the merits, and which petitioner
(2) of B.P. 129 could have chosen with ease. Instead of filing a Notice of
Appeal, it could have instead filed a special civil action
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 47 for certiorari or a petition for relief from judgment.
Instead of filing the no longer timely petition for relief
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the from judgment, it could have instead by then filed a
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final petition for annulment of judgment. When it did file a
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial petition for annulment with the Court of Appeals, it could
Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, have instead filed a more feasible petition for annulment
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies with the RTC.
are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner.
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 47 V. Period for filing (Sec. 3)

Page 165
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Extrinsic Fraud Lack of VI. Parties and contents (Sec. 4)

Jurisdiction
Period for Four (4) years Before it is barred The action for annulment of judgment
filing from discovery by laches or shall be commenced by filing:
estoppel.
1. Verified petition alleging therein:
 Laches a. With particularity the facts and the
 A party may be barred by laches from law relied upon; and
invoking lack of jurisdiction for the first b. Petitioner’s good and substantial
on time on appeal for the purpose of cause of action or defense.
annulling everything doen in the case, 2. Filed in seven (7) legible copies together
with the active participation of said party with sufficient copies corresponding to the
invoking the plea. (Tijam v. number of respondents.
Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 3. Certified true copy of the judgment or
1968) final order or resolution shall be attached
to the original copy of the petition.
Marcelino v. Court of Appeals (1992) 4. Affidavits of witnesses or documents
supporting the cause of action or defense;
Facts: Petitioners are the registered owners of the land and
in Tarlac but even before WWII respondents have been 5. Certificate of non-forum shopping.
and still are in possession of these lands and the titles.
Petitioners demanded the restitution to them of the
physical possession and titles of the property but was  May be filed by a non-party to the
refused by the respondents. RTC dismissed the case on judgment
the ground of laches. CA upheld the decision of the RTC.  The petitioner need not be a party to
the judgment sought to be annulled.
Issue: Whether petitioners are guilty of laches. What is essential is that the petitioner
is one who can prove his allegation
Held: Yes. Laches in a general sense, means the failure that the judgment was obtained and
or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length that he was affected thereby. (Alaban
of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence v, Court of Appeals, supra)
could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence
or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,  Available even if judgment has been
warranting the presumption that the party entitled to executed (Sec. 9)
assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.  The judgment of annulment may
include the award of damages,
In the case at bar, the petitioners admitted in attorney's fees and other relief.
their complaint, that the private respondents had been  If the questioned judgment or final
occupying the parcels of land in question even before order or resolution had already been
World War II, and that they (private respondents) have executed the court may issue such
in their possession the titles thereof. For almost 50 orders of restitution or other relief as
years, or until June 20, 1988 no action had been taken justice and equity may warrant under
by the petitioners, or their predecessors-in-interest, to the circumstances. (n)
recover possession of the land and the titles thereof.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the petitioner's long Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Phils. vs. Court of
inaction in asserting their right to the contested lots bars Appeals (1989)
them from recovering the same. The law serves those
who are vigilant and diligent and not those who sleep Facts: Da Sila, mortgagor and petitioner, mortgagee,
when the law requires them to act. executed a Real Estate Mortgage over a land in Cubao
as security for a 1 million promissory note. Upon default,
Although the parcels of land in question are petitioner filed for foreclosure with the RTC. Parties
registered under the Torrens System, it is nevertheless entered into a Compromise Agreement that the land will
settled in this jurisdiction that the ownership of be transferred to petitioners. The title was then
registered land may be lost through laches. The doctrine transferred in the name of the petitioner. Araneta filed
of laches or of "stale demands" is based on grounds of with the RD a notice of lis pendens in connection with
public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the the ejectment case filed by petitioner against Araneta
discouragement of stale claims. Unlike the statute of but was later on withdrawn by the petitioner. Araneta
limitations, laches is not a mere question of time but is filed a notice of adverse claim in connection with the
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of case filed by da Silva against Araneta. Both lis pendens
permitting a stale right or claim to be enforced or and adverse claim were annotated on the title. Petitioner
asserted. filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of
possession against Araneta and for the cancellation of
The individual elements of laches were the 2 annotations. Pending said case, heirs of Araneta
sufficiently and thoroughly discussed by the appellate filed in the CA a petition to annul the judgment in the
court in its decision. We find no need to make any foreclosure case. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the
further disquisition on the matter. case before the CA on the ground that the decision in
the foreclosure proceeding had already been executed
and that the heirs were not a party to the proceedings
before the lower court.

Page 166
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Issue: Whether the petition for annulment of judgment IX. Effect of judgment. (Sec. 7)
is proper.
Extrinsic Fraud Lack of
Held: There can be no question as to the right of any Jurisdiction
persons adversely affected by a judgment to maintain Effect of Court may on Set aside the
an action to enjoin its enforcement and to have it judgment motion, order the questioned
declared a nullity on the ground of fraud and collusion trial court to try judgment and
practiced in the very matter of obtaining the judgment the case as if a render the same null
when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters timely motion for and void, without
involved in the issues raised at the trial which resulted in new trial had been prejudice to the
such judgment. granted. original action being
re-filed in the proper
It is therefore clear from the foregoing that a court.
person need not be a party to the judgment sought
to be annulled. What is essential is that he can X. Suspension of prescriptive period
prove his allegation that the judgment was
obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 47
would be adversely affected thereby.
Section 8. The prescriptive period for the refiling of
In this present case it is true that the heirs of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended
Araneta are not parties to the foreclosure case. Neither from the filing of such original action until the finality of
are they principally nor secondarily bound by the the judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive
judgment rendered therein. However, their petition filed period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic-fraud
with the Court of Appeals they alleged fraud and is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action.
connivance perpetuated by and between the Da Silvas
and the Council as would adversely affect them. This
allegation, if fully substantiated by preponderance of
evidence, could be the basis for the annulment of the
civil case. Rule 65
Finally, the Council asserts that the remedy of Certiorari
annulment of judgment applies only to final and
executory judgment and not to that which had already Constitutional provisions on judicial power
been fully executed or implemented. The Council’s
contention is devoid of merit. In Garchitorena v. Sotelo,
¤ 1987 Constitution Article VIII, Section 1, par. 2
the Court affirmed the trial court’s annulment of the
judgment on foreclosure notwithstanding the fact that
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
ownership of the house and lot subject of the mortgage
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
had passed from the mortgagee who foreclosed the
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
mortgage and purchased the property at public auction
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
to a person who bought the same and finally to another
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
individual in whose name the Torrens certificate of title
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
stood by the time the case reached this Tribunal. (An
Government.
action for annulment of judgment may be availed
of even if the judgment sought to be annulled had
been fully executed and implemented.) Petition for certiorari, in general

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 65

VII. Action by the court.
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any
Two Stages: tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
 Should the court find no substantial judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or
merit in the petition, the same may be his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
dismissed outright with specific reasons amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
for such dismissal. no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
 Should prima facie merit be found in in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
the petition, the same shall be given thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
due course and summons shall be alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
served on the respondent. (Sec. 5, Rule judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
47) proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
VIII. Procedure. require.
 The procedure in ordinary civil cases
shall be observed. Should trial be The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true
necessary, the reception of the copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject
evidence may be referred to a member thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant
of the court or a judge of a Regional and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-
Trial Court. (Sec. 6, Rule 47) forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
section 3, Rule 46.

Page 167
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Distinction between without jurisdiction, in excess allowed the immediate recourse to this Court, we find
of jurisdiction and grave of abuse of nothing herein that could warrant an exceptional
discretion treatment to this petition. Moreover, The unquestioned
rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if
a. Without jurisdiction – the court has no there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
jurisdiction from the beginning; there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against
absolute want of jurisdiction. the acts of respondent. In the case at bench, the plain
b. In excess of jurisdiction – if the court has and adequate remedy referred to in Rule 65, Section 1,
acted beyond the limits of its authority. is a motion for reconsideration of the challenged
c. Grave abuse of discretion – too patent and decision and the resolution thereof.
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty Petitioners asseverate that respondent NLRC
enjoined or an act in contemplation of law, or committed a grave abuse of discretion when it reversed
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter.
and despotic manner by reason of passion and
personal hostility; does not encompass an In asserting that there was grave abuse of
error of law nor does it include a mistake in the discretion, petitioners advert to alleged variances in the
appreciation of the contending parties’ factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the respondent
respective evidence or the evaluation of their NLRC. This is inept and erroneous. Firstly, errors of
relative weight. judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction,
are not within the province of a special civil action
Remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction for certiorari. Secondly, a careful reading of the records
of this case would readily show that if there is any error
Jamer v. NLRC (1997) by public respondent in its analysis of the facts and its
evaluation of the evidence, it is not of such a degree as
Facts: Petitioners worked as store cashiers at may be stigmatized as a grave abuse of discretion.
respondents’ Isetann Department Store. Their work as Grave abuse of discretion is committed when the
store cashiers is to accumulate, at the end of daily judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical,
operations, the cash sales receipts of the selling floor arbitrary or despotic manner. An abuse of discretion
cash register clerks. Thereafter, petitioners will reconcile does not necessarily follow just because there is a
the cash sales with the tally sheets to determine reversal by the NLRC of the decision of the Labor
shortages and deposit the same with the bank depositor Arbiter. Neither does the mere variance in the
of Isetann. evidentiary assessment of the NLRC and that of the
Labor Arbiter would, as a matter of course, so warrant
Petitioners discovered a shortage another full review of the facts. The NLRC's decision, so
of P15,353.78. It was complainant Corazon Jamer who long as it is not bereft of support from the records,
first discovered the shortage. She informed her co-store deserves respect from the Court.
cashier, complainant Cristina Amortizado, about the
shortage. Amortizado also reconciled and re-counted the The special civil action for certiorari is a
sale and she also confirmed that there was a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
discrepancy or a shortage of P15,353.78. They did not jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The rationale for
immediately report the shortage to management hoping this rule is simple. When a court exercises its jurisdiction
to find the cause of the shortage but to no avail. Hence, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it
they had no other alternative but to report the same to of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is
the management. committed. If it did, every error committed by a court
would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous
Respondents placed both petitioners under judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be
preventive suspension for the alleged shortages. allowed. The administration of justice would not
Thereafter, respondents conducted an administrative countenance such a rule. Consequently, an error of
investigation. Finding the explanation of the judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of
complainants to be unsatisfactory, respondent dismissed its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original
the complainants on the alleged ground of dishonesty. special civil action of certiorari.
Aggrieved, complainant instituted an action for illegal
dismissal. On the merits, there is substantial evidence
exists to warrant the finding that petitioners were validly
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor dismissed for just cause and after observance of due
of herein petitioners, finding that petitioners had been process. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of
illegally dismissed. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the latter the public respondent that the herein petitioners were
rendered the challenged decision of the Labor Arbiter guilty of acts of dishonesty by incurring several
and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal. Hence occurrences of shortages in the amounts
the present petition for certiorari. of P15,353.78, P1,000.00, P450.00 andP70.00 which
they failed to turnover and account for/and in behalf of
Issue: Whether NLRC committed grave abuse of respondent Isetann. The failure of petitioners to report
discretion in finding that petitioners were validly the aforequoted shortages and overages to management
dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. as soon as they arose resulted in the breach of the
fiduciary trust reposed in them by respondent company,
Held: At the outset, the Court notes petitioners thereby causing the latter to lose confidence in them.
inexcusable failure to move for the reconsideration of This warrants their dismissal.
respondent NLRCs decision. Thus, the present petition
suffers from a procedural defect that warrants its The NLRC, therefore, did not act with grave
outright dismissal. While in some exceptional cases we abuse of discretion in declaring that petitioners were

Page 168
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

legally dismissed from employment. The failure of should be assigned as error and reviewed in the appeal
petitioners to report to management the aforementioned properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial
irregularities constitute fraud or willful breach of the court on the merits of the case. Admissibility of
trust reposed in them by their employer or duly evidence is a matter that is addressed to the sound
authorized representative one of the just causes in discretion of the trial court (the MTC in this case). Such
terminating employment as provided for by paragraph being the case, no potent reason existed to justify
(c), Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended. respondent RTC’s substitution of the lower court’s
judgment with its own judgment. "Questions of fact
Distinction between error of jurisdiction and error cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. Only
of judgment established or admitted facts can be considered." (Rubio
v. Reyes, Et Al., L-24581, May 27, 1968)
a. When court without jurisdiction and it rendered
decision, committed error of jurisdiction - It is therefore clear that respondent court
decision null and void even if correct, and erred in reversing the lower court’s findings regarding
remedy is certiorari. the sufficiency of the Barangay Certificate of 1982. It
was an error for the respondent court to rule upon a
b. When court with jurisdiction and rendered question of fact or procedural question already decided
decision, but decision not correct, committed by the lower court.
error of judgment – decision valid even if
wrong, and remedy is appeal Furthermore, only errors of jurisdiction are
correctible by certiorari. Clearly, the only grounds which
Questions of fact cannot be raised may serve as the basis for the respondent court to raise
the writ of certiorari are lack of jurisdiction or grave
Day v. RTC of Zamboanga City (1990) abuse of discretion by the lower court or that the said
lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
Facts: Petitioner Victorino Day is the registered owner its appreciation of the barangay certification as
of a parcel of land in Zamboanga City. Respondent Go constituting sufficient compliance with P.D. No. 1508. In
Chu is the owner of a building constructed on said lot. the ejectment suit filed by petitioner against respondent,
Petitioner asked respondent to peacefully vacate and the lower court undoubtedly acquired jurisdiction over
remove the latter’s building on the former’s lot. Due to the subject matter and over the person of the
private respondent’s refusal to vacate the premises, on respondent. Thus, it cannot be said that the lower court
April 17, 1982, petitioner instituted a formal complaint had no jurisdiction to render the decision set aside by
against respondent with the Office of the Barangay respondent court. Assuming that the lower court
Chairman. As no amicable settlement could be reached, committed a mistake on the merits of the case, it was in
the Barangay Chairman issued a certification that the exercise of such jurisdiction. The error, if at all, is at
conciliation of the dispute at the barangay level had most one of judgment and not of jurisdiction, which
failed. cannot be the object of a petition for certiorari. The
proper remedy in such case was appeal. Errors in the
On January 15, 1985, petitioner again made application of the law and the appreciation of evidence
another demand on respondent to remove the building. committed by a court after it has acquired jurisdiction
Because of respondent’s adamant and continued refusal over a case, are correctible only by appeal.
to vacate the disputed lot, petitioner filed with the MTC
on March 25, 1985 an action for unlawful detainer with Neither can it be said that the lower court
application for a writ of preliminary mandatory. committed a grave abuse of discretion or exceeded its
Petitioner did not use the former Barangay Certification jurisdiction when it appreciated the barangay
in commencing the said suit against respondent. The certification as sufficient compliance with P.D. 1508. In
MTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, ordering the petition for certiorari filed by respondent before the
defendant to vacate the premises and remove the respondent court, he did not allege that the lower
portion of his building over petitioner’s property. The court’s decision was outside or in excess of its
MTC considered the April 1982 certification to file action jurisdiction, or was issued in grave abuse of discretion.
as sufficient compliance with the provision of P.D. No. Respondent merely alleged that the lower court
1508 requiring prior conciliation proceedings. "erroneously" appreciated facts and evidence, issued
interlocutory orders, and appreciated the issues. He also
Respondent filed an original action for challenged the soundness of the decision. These do not
certiorari with the RTC. The RTC granted the petition for constitute excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
certiorari, setting aside the decision of the MTC. Hence discretion.
the present petition for review assailing the decision of
the RTC. Neither questions of fact nor of law entertained

Issue: Whether or not procedural questions or Romy’s Freight Service v. Castro (2006)
questions of facts or substance may be entertained in a
petition for certiorari. Facts: In 1975, respondent Castro was hired by
respondent as a mechanic, and later as supervisor. In
Held: No. The RTC has no jurisdiction in 1994, he suffered a stroke and had to take a leave of
a certiorari case to entertain procedural questions or absence from work. While on leave, petitioner sent him
questions of facts or substance already passed upon by several demand letters urging him to work. Later he
the lower court. The barangay certificate of 1982 was was asked to show cause why he should not be
admitted and found to be sufficient by the MTC after disciplined for prolonged absence. Cruz also filed
considering the circumstances surrounding its issuance. complaints for estafa and qualified theft against him.
This is a procedural question or a question of fact which Because of these, Castro was constrained to file a case
cannot be raised or corrected in a certiorari case, but for illegal dismissal against petitioner on the ground that

Page 169
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Cruzs acts constituted constructive dismissal. Only issue involved is jurisdiction, either want of
Respondent Veloria was hired in 1977 as a carpenter, or excess thereof
and later as a senior mechanic. Sometime in 1995, he
figured in an accident. He was forced to absent himself Gerardo vs. De la Pena (1990)
from work to undergo recuperation. During his absence,
he received several letters from Cruz. One letter Facts: Angel Gerardo owned three parcels of lots.
required him to explain the loss of several tools, another Filomina, Berta, and Santiago were his children.
ordered him to pay his loan and still another required Filomina and Berta were both survived by their
him to explain his absences. He was later charged for respective children, herein respondents. Santiago was
qualified theft of the missing tools. Because of also survived by his children, herein petitioners.
petitioner’s acts against him, Veloria joined Castro in
filing a case for illegal constructive dismissal against Before the cadastral hearing involving the
petitioner. subject parcels of lots could commence, Angel Gerardo
died. Subsequently, Santiago filed the corresponding
The labor arbiter ruled that petitioner was answers for the three lots in question. It was alleged in
guilty of illegal dismissal. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the said answers that he (Santiago) was the heir of Angel
NLRC set aside the labor arbiter’s ruling. Finding Gerardo and that said three lots were being claimed by
respondents guilty of abandonment of work, the NLRC him as his inheritance from his late father, Angel
dismissed their complaint for illegal dismissal. Gerardo. Consequently, after hearing, the lots were
Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with registered in Santiago’s name.
the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition
and reinstated the decision of the labor arbiter. Hence About sixteen (16) years later, or on April 28,
the present petition for certiorari, faulting the CA for 1960, respondents instituted an action for ownership,
reversing the decision of the NLRC. partition and accounting against the petitioners. The
case, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 3191-11,
Issue: Whether or not the issues of illegal dismissal, prayed for the cancellation of title in the name of
abandonment and entitlement to backwages and Santiago. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
benefits are proper subjects of a petition for certiorari. respondents, declaring all the petitioners and
respondents as legal heirs of Angel Gerardo and co-
Held: No. The issues raised by petitioner, i.e., whether owners of the subject lots. Petitioners elevated the case
respondents were illegally dismissed (as the CA and the to the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed the same.
labor arbiter ruled) or abandoned their work (as the Thus, the judgment became final and executory on
NLRC held) and whether they were entitled October 11, 1965.
to backwages, unpaid benefits, separation pay and
attorneys fees, are not proper subjects of a petition for Several years later, or on March 18, 1982,
certiorari. They involve an inquiry into factual matters. petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance of
properties, annulment of judgment and damages in the
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more lower court against respondents. The lower court
so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata.
certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are According to the lower court, all the elements or res
entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of judicata are present: (1) the judgment in Civil Case No.
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The sole object 3191-II became final on October 11, 1965; (2) the court
of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave in taking cognizance of the case had jurisdiction over the
abuse of discretion. The phrase grave abuse of discretion subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment was
has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of rendered on the merits of the case; and (4) in both
discretion too patent and gross as to amount to an cases, the same parties and properties and the same
evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform causes of action are involved.
the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and Hence, petitioners elevated the case to the
despotic manner by reason of passion and personal Supreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari.
hostility. It does not encompass an error of law. Nor
does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the Issue: Whether or not the lower court committed a
contending parties respective evidence or the evaluation grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the dismissal
of their relative weight. The Court cannot be tasked to of the complaint on the ground of res judicata.
go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze,
assess and weigh them all over again to ascertain if the Held: No. The Supreme Court possesses no authority to
trial court or quasi-judicial agency and the appellate rule upon non-jurisdictional issues in a
court were correct in according superior credit to this or certiorari proceeding. The only question involved
that piece of evidence of one party or the other. The in Certiorari is jurisdiction; either want of or in excess
sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of thereof. In the case at bar, respondent Judge correctly
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave dismissed the complaint in based on res judicata
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and considering the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 3191-
does not include the review of public respondents 11. There is no question that petitioners have no right
evaluation of the evidence and the factual findings based at all to claim exclusive ownership of the properties in
thereon. Therefore, the present petition for certiorari question. Ownership thereof having been settled in favor
fails insofar as it questions the affirmation by the CA of of both herein petitioners and private respondents as co-
the factual finding of the labor arbiter that private owners of the subject properties in Civil Case No. 3191-
respondents were illegally dismissed, entitling them to 11 which constitutes res judicata to Civil Case No. 7590.
an award of backwages, unpaid benefits, separation pay
and attorney’s fees. Grave abuse of discretion means such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is

Page 170
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion subject matter; (2) litis pendentia; and (3) failure to
must be grave as where the power is exercised in an state a cause of action. Likewise, on November 10,
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or 1995, private respondent Nancy L. Ty filed a separate
personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to motion to dismiss, alleging the same grounds as those
amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined by or to invoked by private respondents Ongking, et. al.
act at all in contemplation of law. Respondent judge
who dismisses a complaint on the ground of res judicata These motions to dismiss alleged, among
does not commit grave abuse of discretion. others, that aside from the said suit before the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 28, other suits involving
Distinction between certiorari under Rule 45 as a certain Quezon City, Lucena City, Malolos and Manila
mode of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 as a branches of Banco Filipino are also pending in other
special civil action Regional Trial Courts.

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. CA Banco Filipino filed separate oppositions, dated
(2000) October 14, 1995, October 31, 1995 and November 21,
1995 respectively, to the motions to dismiss. After a
Facts: The instant case originated from the sale by protracted exchange of pleadings, the trial court
Banco Filipino to Tala Realty of four (4) lots in Iloilo City, dismissed the complaint on April 22, 1996.
covered and described in the aforementioned TCT Nos.
62273 and 62274, for two million one hundred ten On June 27, 1996, the trial court denied Banco
thousand pesos (P2,110,000.00). Tala Realty then Filipinos motion for reconsideration. Banco Filipino
leased them back to Banco Filipino for a monthly rental received a copy of said order of denial on July 5, 1996
of twenty one thousand pesos (P21,000.00) /for a but instead of filing an appeal, it filed, on July 24, 1996,
period of twenty (20) years and renewable for another a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of
twenty (20) years. The lease contracts of the other Appeals. Banco Filipino alleged in its petition that the
branch sites sold to Tala Realty have substantially trial courts decision was issued with grave abuse of
similar terms and conditions, except for the amount of discretion because it did not comply with the
the rent. constitutional mandate on the form of decisions.

Banco Filipino alleges that a trust was created However, the Court of Appeals dismissed
by virtue of the above transactions. Tala Realty was Banco Filipinos petition on the ground, among others,
allegedly established to serve as a corporate medium to that the "[p]etitioners recourse to Rule 65 of the Revised
warehouse the legal title of the said properties for the Rules of Court is patently malapropos." It reiterated the
beneficial interest of Banco Filipino and to purchase rule that a special civil action for certiorari may be
properties to be held in trust for the latter. resorted to only when there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
However, sometime in August 1992, Tala law. Banco Filipinos failure to appeal by writ of error
Realty demanded payment of increased rentals, deposits within the reglementary period and its belated recourse
and goodwill from Banco Filipino, with a threat of to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was interpreted
ejectment in case of failure to comply thereto. On April by the Court of Appeals as a desperate attempt by
20, 1994, some stockholders of Banco Filipino filed a Banco Filipino to resurrect what was otherwise already a
derivative suit against Tala Realty before the SEC for the lost appeal. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals debunked
reconveyance of the properties sold by the former to the Banco Filipinos theory that the assailed order of the RTC
latter. However, on March 6, 1995, the SEC dismissed did not comply with the substantive requirements of the
the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Constitution, and was thus, rendered with grave abuse
of discretion.
Due to Banco Filipinos failure to comply with
Tala Realtys terms, the latter carried out its threat by On December 28, 1996, Banco Filipino received
filing numerous ejectment suits against Banco Filipino. a copy of the Court of Appeals decision dismissing its
This prompted Banco Filipino to file, on August 16, 1995, petition thereby prompting the latter to file a motion for
an action for recovery of real properties before the reconsideration on January 10, 1997. The Court of
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 28, on the ground Appeals denied the said motion for reconsideration on
of breach of trust. Incidentally, during the period from December 19, 1997 in a resolution, a copy of which was
August to September 1995, Banco Filipino also filed received by Banco Filipino on January 7, 1998. Banco
sixteen (16) other complaints for recovery of real Filipino then filed with this Court its subject petition for
properties which it had previously sold to Tala Realty. certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court on
March 9, 1998.
These complaints, including the one filed in the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 28, were Held: Without need of delving into the merits of the
uniformly worded in their material allegations. case, this Court hereby dismisses the instant petition.
For in filing a special civil action for certiorari instead of
As regards Banco Filipinos complaint in the an ordinary appeal before this Court, Banco Filipino
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Tala Realty filed on violated basic tenets of remedial law that merited the
October 9, 1995 a motion to dismiss on the following dismissal of its petition.
grounds: (1) forum-shopping; (2) litis pendentia; (3)
pari delicto; (4) failure to implead indispensable parties; A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper
and (5) failure to state a cause of action. On the same if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
date, private repondents Pilar D. Ongking, Elizabeth H. judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
Palma, Dolly W. Lim and Rubencito del Mundo filed a jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
separate motion to dismiss in the same case on the to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal,
following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the

Page 171
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the No appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate
ordinary course of law. remedy

We have said time and again that for the General rule, if appeal available, no certiorari
extraordinary remedy of certiorari to lie by reason of
grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion, must Fajardo vs. Bautista (1994)
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty Facts: Private respondents Isabelo Jareño and Purita
enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the Jareño (hereinafter JAREÑOS) are the owners and
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner developers of a subdivision known as the Calamba
by reason of passion and personal hostility. Central Compound. On various dates, they as SELLERS,
and the petitioners as BUYERS signed separate
The availability to Banco Filipino of the remedy contracts, each designated as a CONTRACT TO SELL,
of a petition for review from the decision of the Court of under which, for the considerations therein stated, they
Appeals effectively foreclosed its right to resort to a bound themselves to sell to the petitioners the lots
petition for certiorari. This Court has often enough subject thereof, and after the latter shall have paid the
reminded members of the bench and bar that a special purchase price and interest, to execute in favor of the
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when petitioners the corresponding deeds of transfer of title,
there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate free from any lien or encumbrance except those
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is not expressly provided for in the Contract to Sell.
allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a
judgment despite the availability of that remedy. The On the other hand, private respondent
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive Fernando Realty and Development Corporation
and not alternative or successive. (hereinafter FERNANDO) as SELLER, and petitioner
Emily Yu Fajardo as BUYER signed on 22 February 1985
The antithetic character of the remedies of a CONTRACT TO SELL under which for the
appeal and certiorari has been generally observed by considerations therein stated, FERNANDO agreed to sell
this Court save only in those rare instances where to Fajardo Lot No. 10, Block No. 3, also located at the
appeal is satisfactorily shown to be an inadequate Calamba Central Compound Subdivision, and upon full
remedy. In the case at bar, Banco Filipino has failed to payment of the agreed price and interest thereon, to
show any valid reason why the issues raised in its execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Fajardo.
petition for certiorari could not have been raised on
appeal. To justify its resort to a special civil action for It appears, however, that on 18 October 1986,
certiorari under Rule 65, it erroneously claims that an the JAREÑOS sold the aforesaid lots subject of the
appeal is not a speedy and adequate remedy because different contracts to sell to private respondent Ruben
further delay in the disposition of this case would Habacon (hereinafter HABACON) under separate
effectively deprive Banco Filipino of the full use and documents denominated as "Kasulatan ng Bilihan." On
enjoyment of its properties. However, the further delay 18 February 1991, HABACON caused the cancellation of
that would inadvertently result from the dismissal of the the certificates of title covering the said lots and the
instant petition is one purely of Banco Filipinos own issuance of new ones in his name.
doing. We cannot countenance an intentional departure
from established rules of procedure simply to When the petitioners learned of these, they
accommodate a case that has long been pending in the filed on 21 June 1991 separate complaints with the court
courts of law because of the partys own fault or a quo for annulment of the sales in favor of HABACON
negligence. and of the new certificates of title issued to him, for
reinstatement of the certificates of title cancelled by
Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for those issued to HABACON, and for accounting and
the lapsed or lost remedy of appeal. Banco Filipinos damages. The complaints were docketed as Civil Cases
recourse to a special civil action for certiorari was borne Nos. 1683-91-C, 11 1684-91-C, 12 1685-91-C, 13
not out of the conviction that grave abuse of discretion 1686-91-C, 14 and 1688-91-C, 15 and were assigned to
attended the resolution of its petition before the Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba.
Appeals but simply because of its failure to file a timely
appeal to this Court. This observation is shared by the On 9 August 1991, HABACON filed a motion to
Court of Appeals, which was quick to point out that dismiss the complaints on the ground that the plaintiffs
when Banco Filipino filed its petition for certiorari (petitioners herein) have no legal capacity to sue
assailing the RTC order, the reglementary period for because they were not parties to the "BILIHAN."
filing a petition for review before the Court of Appeals
had already lapsed. In its Order of 4 September 1991, 20 the trial
court dismissed the aforesaid civil cases for lack of
It is true that this Court may treat a petition jurisdiction.
for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45 to serve
the higher interest of justice, but not when the petition The petitioners filed a motion for the
is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a reconsideration of the order, but the trial court denied
petition for review and without offering any reason this in its Order of 20 September 1991. 22 It ruled that
therefor. while HABACON may not be the developer, the JAREÑOS
are, and by selling the same lots to HABACON after they
were previously sold to different parties, the JAREÑOS
may have committed an "unsound business practice."
Moreover, it ruled that Section 19(2) of B.P. Blg. 129,
being a general law, should yield to P.D. No. 957, as
amended by P.D. No. 1344, which is a special law.

Page 172
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

On 24 December 1991, the petitioners filed the favor of Salangsang. From said judgment, petitioners
instant special civil action for certiorari to annul the 4 filed a “motion for reconsideration and/or to set aside
September 1991 and 20 September 1991 Orders of the order or decision and to allow them to present their
trial court on the ground that the judge acted with grave evidence.” Petitioners’ motion was, however, denied.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
dismissing their complaints and that they have no other Thereafter, petitioners filed their notice of
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary appeal with the RTC. The RTC approved the appeal and
course of law. The petitioners maintain that the trial ordered the records of the case to be forwarded with the
court has jurisdiction over their complaints. appellate court. Later on, petitioners filed a Petition for
Certiorari, wherein they alleged that “they already
In the Resolution of 18 November 1991, 23 we perfected their appeal and that they are not abandoning
required the respondents to comment on the petition. it, but the same is not an adequate, speedy and plain
Private respondent HABACON filed his comment and remedy due to the P250.00 daily penalty in the RTC’s
opposition on 27 August 1992 24 while public award.” Subsequently, the appellate court dismissed
respondent Cesar S. Reyes filed his comment on 24 petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari.
August 1993. 25 Both respondents rely on our
pronouncement in Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal and According to the CA, petitioners, by filing a
echo the ruling of the trial court in the questioned petition for certiorari, in effect abandoned their appeal
orders. The copy of the resolution sent to the JAREÑOS and that the perfected appeal is inconsistent with the
was returned unserved and in the Resolution of 21 July remedy of certiorari. Furthermore, the CA held that
1993, we considered it as served on them. As required, petitioners cannot be permitted to first resort to appeal
the petitioners filed a reply to the comment. On 8 and then shift the remedy to certiorari.
November 1993, we resolved to give due course to the
petition and required the parties to submit their Issue: Is a perfected appeal inconsistent with the
memoranda, which the petitioners complied with on 29 remedy of certiorari?
December 1993 and the private respondents, on 28
March 1994. Held: No. The purpose of an appeal is to bring up for
review a final judgment or order of the lower court. The
Held: The remedies of appeal and certiorari are remedy of certiorari is to correct certain acts of any
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions
Accordingly, although the special civil action of certiorari performed without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal
may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly ordinary course of law. A certiorari proceeding may be
relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order instituted during the pendency of a case or even after
complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and judgment.
ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a
substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where If after judgment, the petition for certiorari is
such loss is occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect availed of when appeal is plain, speedy and adequate
or error in the choice of remedies. remedy, then the petition must fail as certiorari may not
be resorted to as a substitute for appeal much less for a
The petitioners admit that they received a copy lost one. In such a case, the right to appeal is
of the trial court's order dismissing their complaints on 4 abandoned. However, after a judgment had been
October 1991. The instant petition was filed on 24 rendered and an appeal therefrom had been perfected, a
October 1991 or beyond the 15-day period to appeal petition for certiorari relating to certain incidents therein
from the order. The petitioners have not even attempted may prosper where the appeal does not appear to be
to explain why they were unable to appeal from the plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, appeal and
challenged order within the reglementary period. This certiorari are not remedies that exclude each other.
civil action then was resorted to as a substitute for the
lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, and since none of the Indeed, there are instances when this Court
exceptions to the rigid rule barring substitution of relaxed the application of Rule 65 on certiorari and
remedies was alleged to exist in this petition, or even allowed the writ to issue even while appeal was available
indicated by the pleadings, this petition must be in the interest of justice, or due to the dictates of public
dismissed. welfare and for the advancement of public policy.

Exceptions In this case, after judgment was rendered,

petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which is in
(1) May be availed of even when appeal is available or effect a motion for the trial. The failure of counsel and
period to appeal has expired petitioners to appear on November 8, 1985 in order to
present its evidence was duly explained and which may
Lansang v. CA (1990) be considered excusable. The courts are called upon to
be liberal in the assessment of the non-appearance of
Facts: Private respondent Salangsang filed a complaint counsel or the party if only to promote the greater
for damages arising from a vehicular accident against interest of justice.
Spouses Lansang (the “petitioners”) before the RTC of
South Cotabato. During trial, Salangsang was able to While it appears that the vehicle of petitioners
present his evidence. Thereafter, the court issued an hit the car of private respondent while parked it is
order resetting the hearing. On the date of hearing, contended by petitioners that it was parked in a
neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared. As such, prohibited zone. Assuming the petitioners to be at fault,
on the same day, the Court submitted the case for they contend the additional damage of P250.00 per day
resolution. Subsequently, the RTC rendered judgment in is unconscionable in addition to the actual damage to

Page 173
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

the car of P19,500.00 and P10,000.00 attorney's fees Motion for reconsideration required; exceptions
and expenses of litigation. They estimate the damage
awarded can run up to the amount of P600,000.00. Settled is the rule the rule that, except in some
recognized situations, the filing of a motion for
These circumstances justify the grant to reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the filing
petitioners of another day in court. It is a pity that this of a petition for certiorari to allow the court an
case has been pending in court for so long. But this is opportunity to correct its imputed errors. The filing of a
what happens when an overly strict and narrow motion for reconsideration before a resort to certiorari is
interpretation of the rules is undertaken. The liberal intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity
application of the rules must always be in the mind of to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by
the courts. way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of
the case.

(2) When appeal not adequate, or equally beneficial, Some of the recognized exceptions where the special
speedy or adequate civil action for certiorari will lie even without first
availing of a motion for reconsideration include:
Jaca v. Davao Lumber Co. (1982)
a. The order is a patent nullity, as where the
Facts: Urbano and Bonifacio Jaca (the “petitioners”) court a quo has no jurisdiction;
filed a complaint for Accounting, Return of Price b. The questions raised in the certiorari
Differentials and Damages against Davao Lumber (the proceeding have been duly raised and passed
“respondent”). The trial court, in resolving the case, upon by the lower court or are the same as
rendered judgment in favor of respondent. Thereafter, those raised and passed upon in the lower
petitioners filed an appeal. Meanwhile, respondent filed court;
a motion for execution pending appeal, which was c. There is an urgent necessity for the resolution
granted by the trial court. Subsequently, petitioners filed of the question and any further delay would
a motion for reconsideration of the order granting prejudice the interests of the government or of
respondent’s motion, but the same was denied. As such, the petitioner;
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, contending that d. The subject matter of the action is perishable;
the Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and/or with e. Under the circumstances, a motion for
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order granting reconsideration would be useless;
execution pending appeal, and denying their motion for f. Petitioner was deprived of due process and
reconsideration. In its answer to petitioners’ petition for there is an extreme urgency for relief;
certiorari, respondent contends that petitioners, having g. In a criminal case, relief from order of arrest is
availed of the remedy of appeal are barred from filing a urgent and the granting of such relief by the
petition for certiorari. trial court is improbable;
h. The proceedings were done ex parte or in
Issue: Are petitioners barred from filing a petition for which the petitioner had no opportunity to
certiorari since they already availed of the remedy of object;
appeal? i. Where the issue raised is one purely of law; or
j. Where public interest is involved.
Held: No. Although Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari Tan v. CA & DPG Development (1997)
may only be invoked when “there is no appeal, nor plain
speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law,” the Facts: Tan was the lessee of a piece of property in
rule is not without exception. The availability of the Sampaloc, Manila when DPG Development (the
ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient “respondent”) acquired ownership over said property
ground to prevent a party from making used of the from one Manuel Gonzales. Subsequently, respondent
extraordinary remedy of certiorari where the appeal is filed an ejectment suit for non-payment of rentals
not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy against Vermont Packaging, which was managed by Tan.
and sufficient. It is the inadequacy—not the mere
absence—of all other legal remedies and the danger of During the pendency of the ejectment suit, Tan
failure of justice without the writ, that must usually filed a complaint for the cancellation/annulment of title.
determine the propriety of certiorari. For respondent’s failure to file an answer, Tan moved
that respondent be declared in default. Tan’s said
In the case at bar, the remedy of appeal is inadequate. motion was granted and thereafter, the trial court
It will not immediately relieve petitioners from the rendered judgment in Tan’s favor. From the trial court’s
injurious effect of the order granting execution. The slow judgment, respondents filed a motion for new trial,
and inexpensive remedy of appeal will not prevent which was denied by the trial court. Thereafter,
respondent judge from executing his decision requiring respondents filed a petition for certiorari, which was
petitioners to pay the huge amount of P867,887.52. granted by the CA.
Moreover, to dismiss the petition on the ground that
petitioner has already availed of the remedy of appeal Issue: Did the CA err in not dismissing respondent’s
will only aggravate the patent injustice already inflicted petition for certiorari considering that no motion for
on petitioners. reconsideration was filed before said petition was
resorted to?

Held: No. The special civil action of certiorari will not lie
unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before
the respondent court to allow it an opportunity to correct

Page 174
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

its errors. However, this rule admits of certain DEPOSITIONS

recognized exceptions such as (a) where the order is a
patent nullity, as where the Court a quo had no
jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the Rule 23
certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed Depositions Pending Action
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised
and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is
an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question Deposition – definition and purpose.
and any further delay would prejudice the interests of
the Government or of the petitioner or the subject People vs. Webb (1999)
matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be Facts: Respondent Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb (“Webb”) is
useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 95-404 for Rape
process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) with Homicide. During the course of the proceedings in
where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest the trial court, respondent filed on May 2, 1997, a
is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial Motion To Take Testimony By Oral Deposition1 praying
Court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the that Webb be allowed to take the testimonies of five (5)
lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) citizens and residents of the United States before the
where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the proper consular officer of the Philippines in Washington
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where D.C. and California, as the case may be. Webb alleged
the issue raised is one purely of law or where public that the taking of the oral depositions of the
interest is involved. It is exceptive circumstance (b) that aforementioned individuals whose testimonies are
justified DPGs non-filing of a motion for reconsideration, allegedly "material and indispensable" to establish his
inasmuch as DPGs petition for certiorari before the CA innocence of the crime charged is sanctioned by Section
involved a similar issue or question passed upon by the 4, Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court.
trial court in its November 23, 1990 Order, i.e., the
propriety of the motion for new trial filed by DPGs new The prosecution thereafter filed an opposition
counsel (Atty. Formoso). to the said motion averring that: 1.] Rule 24, Section 4
of the Rules of Court, contrary to the representation of
It must also be stressed that what is respondent-accused, has no application in criminal
determinative of the propriety of certiorari is the danger cases; 2.] Rule 119, Section 4 of the Rules of Court on
of failure of justice without the writ, not the mere Criminal Procedure, being a mode of discovery, only
absence of all other legal remedies. Thus, even when provides for conditional examination of witnesses for the
appeal is available and is the proper remedy, a writ of accused before trial not during trial; 3.] Rule 19, Section
certiorari has been allowed when the orders of the lower 5 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure does not
court were issued either in excess of or without sanction the conditional examination of witnesses for the
jurisdiction. Certiorari may also be availed of where an accused/defense outside Philippine Jurisdiction.
appeal would be slow, inadequate and insufficient and
that to strictly observe the general rule would result in a In an Order dated 11 June 1997, the trial court
miscarriage of justice. This is especially true when the denied the motion of respondent on the ground that the
petition, such as DPGs certiorari petition before the CA, same is not allowed by Section 4, Rule 24 and Sections
appears to be meritorious and the trial judge indeed 4 and 5 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
seems to have committed grave abuse of discretion. Webb’s Motion for Reoncisderation having been denied,
he elevated his cause to the Court of Appeals by way of
a petition for certiorari.
Period for filing (Sec. 4)
The Court of Appeals granted Webb’s Petition
Rule 65, Section 4. When and where petition filed. — for Certiorari, and set aside and annulled the trial court’s
The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days Order dated 11 June 1997. Thus, the People challenged
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case the Court of Appeals’ Decision before the Supreme
a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, Court.
whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60)
day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly set
said motion. aside the trial court’s Order dated 11 June 1997,
denying Webb’s motion to take testimony by oral
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it depositions in the United States which would be used in
relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a the criminal case before her Court.
corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area Held: No. As defined, a deposition is —
as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in The testimony of a witness taken upon oral
the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of question or written interrogatories, not in open court,
its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is but in pursuance of a commission to take testimony
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts issued by court, or under a general law or court rule on
or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise the subject, and reduce to writing and duly
provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed authenticated, and intended to be used in preparation
in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. and upon the trial of a civil or a criminal prosecution. A
pretrial discovery device by which one party (through his
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted or her attorney) ask oral questions of the other party or
except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding of a witness for the other party.
fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July
1998; A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)

Page 175
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The person who is deposed is called the Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. vs. Reyes (1993)
deponent. The deposition is conducted under oath
outside of the court room, usually in one of the lawyer's Facts: The American President Lines, Ltd. (“APL”) sued
offices. A transcript — word for word account — is made Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. to recover the sum of US
of the deposition. Testimony of [a] witness, taken in $53,228.45 as well as an amount equivalent to twenty-
writing, under oath or affirmation, before some judicial five percent (25%) thereof as attorney's fees and
officer in answer to questions or interrogatories . . . and litigation expenses.
the purposes of taking depositions are to: (a) give
greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the In one of the hearings for the presentation of
truth and in checking and preventing perjury; (b) its witnesses, APL filed a motion praying that it intended
provide an effective means of detecting and exposing to take the depositions of H. Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh in
false, fraudulent claims and defenses; (c) make Taipei, Taiwan and prayed that for this purpose, a
available in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, "commission or letters rogatory be issued addressed to
facts which otherwise could not be proved except with the consul, vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic
great difficulty; (d) educate the parties in advance of of the Philippines in Taipei . . . " Five (5) days later APL
trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses filed an amended motion stating that since the Philippine
thereby encouraging settlements; (e) expedite litigation; Government has no consulate office in Taiwan in view of
(f) safeguard against surprise; (g) prevent delay; (h) its "one China policy," there being in lieu thereof an
Simplify and narrow the issues; and (i) expedite and office set up by the President "presently occupied by
facilitate both preparation and trial. Director Joaquin Roces which is the Asia Exchange
Center, Inc.," it was necessary — and it therefore
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, a prayed — "that commission or letters rogatory be issued
deposition, in keeping with its nature as a mode of addressed to Director Joaquin Roces, Executive Director,
discovery, should be taken before and not during trial. Asian Executive Exchange Center, Inc., Room 901, 112
In fact, rules on criminal practice — particularly on the Chunghsiao, E. Road, Section 1, Taipe, Republic of
defense of alibi, which is respondent's main defense in China, to hear and take the oral deposition of the
the criminal proceedings against him in the court below aforenamed persons
— states that when a person intends to rely on such a
defense, that person must move for the taking of the The motion was opposed by Dasmariñas. It
deposition of his witnesses within the time provided for contended that (a) the motion was "fatally defective in
filing a pre-trial motion. that it does not seek . . . that a foreign court examine a
It needs to be stressed that the only reason of person within its jurisdiction;" (b) issuance of letters
respondent for seeking the deposition of the foreign rogatory was unnecessary because the witnesses "can
witnesses is "to foreclose any objection and/or rejection be examined before the Philippine Court;" and (c) the
of, as the case may be, the admissibility of Defense Rules of Court "expressly require that the testimony of a
Exhibits "218" and "219"." This issue has, however, long witness must be taken orally in open court and not by
been rendered moot and academic by the admission of deposition."
the aforementioned documentary exhibits by the trial
court in its order dated 10 July 1998. The trial court granted APL’s Motion. Motion for
Reconsideration having been denied, Dasmarinas
The Supreme Court ruled that the factual instituted a special civil action of certiorari before the
circumstances of this case only serves to underscore the Court of Appeals, which likewise denied said petition.
immutable fact that the depositions proposed to be
taken from the five U.S. based witnesses would be Issue: Whether or not there was grave abuse of
merely corroborative or cumulative in nature and in discretion in granting APL’s motion to take testimonies
denying respondent's motion to take them, the trial of the Taiwanese witnesses.
court was but exercising its judgment on what it
perceived to be a superfluous exercise on the belief that Held: No. Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery.
the introduction thereof will not reasonably add to the They are intended as a means to compel disclosure of
persuasiveness of the evidence already on record. facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person
which are relevant in some suit or proceeding in court.
Depositions pending action, when may be taken. Depositions, and the other modes of discovery
(interrogatories to parties; requests for admission by
1. By leave of court after jurisdiction has been adverse party; production or inspection of documents or
obtained over any defendant or over property things; physical and mental examination of persons) are
which is the subject of the action, or without such meant to enable a party to learn all the material and
leave after an answer has been served, the relevant facts, not only known to him and his witnesses
testimony of any person, whether a party or not, but also those known to the adverse party and the
may be taken, at the instance of any party, by latter's own witnesses. In fine, the object of discovery is
deposition upon oral examination or written to make it possible for all the parties to a case to learn
interrogatories. all the material and relevant facts, from whoever may
have knowledge thereof, to the end that their pleadings
2. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled or motions may not suffer from inadequacy of factual
by the use of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. foundation, and all the relevant facts may be clearly and
Depositions shall be taken only in accordance completely laid before the Court, without omission or
with these Rules. suppression.

3. The deposition of a person confined in prison may Depositions are principally made available by
be taken only by leave of court on such terms as law to the parties as a means of informing themselves of
the court prescribes. all the relevant facts; they are not therefore generally
meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in

Page 176
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

open court of a party or witness. The deponent must as therefor, e.g., that "certain matters shall not be inquired
a rule be presented for oral examination in open court at into" or that the taking be "held with no one present
the trial or hearing. This is a requirement of the rules of except the parties to the action and their officers or
evidence. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court counsel," etc. (Sec. 16, Rule 24), or (3) to terminate the
provides: process on motion and upon a showing that "it is being
conducted in bad faith or in such manner as
Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court. unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the
— The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or deponent or party" (Sec 18, Rule 24).
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, Where the deposition is to be taken in a
or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the foreign country where the Philippines has no "secretary
answers of the witness shall be given orally. or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent," then obviously it may be
Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the taken only "before such person or officer as may be
facts therein set out during a trial or hearing, in lieu of appointed by commission or under letters rogatory.
the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court,
may be opposed and excluded on the ground that it is A commission may be defined as "(a)n
hearsay; the party against whom it is offered has no instrument issued by a court of justice, or other
opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the time competent tribunal, to authorize a person to take
that his testimony is offered. It matters not that that depositions, or do any other act by authority of such
opportunity for cross-examination was afforded during court or tribunal" (Feria, J., Civil Procedure, 1969 ed., p.
the taking of the deposition; for normally, the 415, citing Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, p. 200). Letters
opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a rogatory, on the other hand, may be defined as "(a)n
party at the time that the testimonial evidence is instrument sent in the name and by the authority of a
actually presented against him during the trial or judge or court to another, requesting the latter to cause
hearing. to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a cause
pending before the former, a witness who is within the
However, depositions may be used without the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters
deponent being actually called to the witness stand by are addressed" (Feria, J., op. cit., citing Cyclopedic Law
the proponent, under certain conditions and for certain Dictionary, p. 653). Section 12, Rule 24 just quoted
limited purposes. These exceptional situations are states that a commission is addressed to "officers . . .
governed by Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. designated . . . either by name or descriptive title,"
while letters rogatory are addressed to some
The principle conceding admissibility to a "appropriate judicial authority in the foreign state."
deposition when the deponent is dead, out of the Noteworthy in this connection is the indication in the
Philippines, or otherwise unable to come to court to Rules that letters rogatory may be applied for and issued
testify, is consistent with another rule of evidence, found only after a commission has been "returned unexecuted"
in Section 47, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. as is apparent from Form 21 of the "Judicial Standard
It is apparent then that the deposition of any person Forms" appended to the Rules of Court, which requires
may be taken wherever he may be, in the Philippines or the inclusion in a "petition for letters rogatory" of the
abroad. If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his following paragraph, viz.:
deposition "shall be taken before any judge, municipal xxx xxx xxx
or notary public" (Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court). If in 3. A commission issued by this Court
a foreign state or country, the deposition "shall be on the ______ day of ______, 19__, to take
taken: (a) on notice before a secretary or embassy or the testimony of (here name the witness or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular witnesses) in (here name the foreign country
agent of the Republic of the Philippines, or (b) before in which the testimony is to be taken), before
such person or officer as may be appointed by _________________ (name of officer),
commission or under letters rogatory" (Sec. 11, Rule was returned unexecuted by
24). __________________ on the ground that
____________, all of which more fully appears
Leave of court is not necessary where the from the certificate of said __________ to said
deposition is to be taken before "a secretary or embassy commission and made a part hereof by
or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or attaching it hereto (or state other facts to
consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines," and show commission is inadequate or cannot be
the defendant's answer has already been served (Sec. 1 executed) (emphasis supplied).
Rule 24). After answer, whether the deposition-taking is
to be accomplished within the Philippines or outside, the In the case at bar, the Regional Trial Court has
law does not authorize or contemplate any intervention issued a commission to the "Asian Exchange Center, Inc.
by the court in the process, all that is required being thru Director Joaquin R. Roces" "to take the testimonies
that "reasonable notice" be given "in writing to every of . . . Kenneth H. Lee and Yeong Fah Yeh, by deposition
other party to the action . . . (stating) the time and (upon written interrogatories) . . . ." It appears that said
place for taking the deposition and the name and Center may, "upon request and authority of the Ministry
address of each person to be examined, if known, and if (now Department) of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the
the name is not known, a general description sufficient Philippines" issue a "Certificate of Authentications"
to identify him or the particular class or group to which attesting to the identity and authority of Notaries Public
he belongs. . . . " (Sec. 15, Rule 24). The court and other public officers of the Republic of China, Taiwan
intervenes in the process only if a party moves (1) to (eg., the Section Chief, Department of Consular Affairs
"enlarge or shorten the time" stated in the notice (id.), of the latter's Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (Annex B of
or (2) "upon notice and for good cause shown," to Annex N of the petition for review on certiorari) —
prevent the deposition-taking, or impose conditions a prima facie showing not rebutted by petitioner.

Page 177
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (1991) The resolution of controversies is, as everyone

knows, the raison d'etre of courts. This essential
Facts: Private respondents Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. function is accomplished by first, the ascertainment of
and Dominador R. Santiago — together with Ferdinand all the material and relevant facts from the pleadings
E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, and from the evidence adduced by the parties,
Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and Maria Lourdes Tantoco- and second, after that determination of the facts has
Pineda-are defendants in Civil Case No. 0008 of the been completed, by the application of the law thereto to
Sandiganbayan. the end that the controversy may be settled
authoritatively, definitely and finally.
Tantoco and Santiago then presented a
"motion for leave to file interrogatories under Rule 25 of It is for this reason that a substantial part of
the Rules of Court" dated February 1, 1988, and the adjective law in this jurisdiction is occupied with
"Interrogatories under Rule 25." Basically, they sought assuring that all the facts are indeed presented to the
an answer to the question: "Who were the Court; for obviously, to the extent that adjudication is
Commissioners of the PCGG (aside from its Chairman, made on the basis of incomplete facts, to that extent
Hon. Ramon Diaz, who verified the complaint) who there is faultiness in the approximation of objective
approved or authorized the inclusion of Messrs. justice. It is thus the obligation of lawyers no less than
Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. and Dominador R. Santiago of judges to see that this objective is attained; that is to
as defendants in the . . case?" The PCGG responded by say, that there no suppression, obscuration,
filing a motion dated February 9, 1988 to strike out said misrepresentation or distortion of the facts; and that no
motion and interrogatories as being impertinent, party be unaware of any fact material a relevant to the
"queer," "weird," or "procedurally bizarre as the purpose action, or surprised by any factual detail suddenly
thereof lacks merit as it is improper, impertinent and brought to his attention during the trial.
irrelevant under any guise."
Seventy-one years ago, in Alonso v.
Afterwards, by Resolution dated July 4, 1988, Villamor, this Court described the nature and object of
the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to strike out, for litigation and in the process laid down the standards by
bill of particulars, and for leave to file interrogatories, which judicial contests are to be conducted in this
holding them to be without legal and factual basis. It jurisdiction. It said:
opined, among others, that service of interrogatories
before joinder of issue and without leave of court is A litigation is not a game of technicalities in
premature absent any special or extraordinary which one, more deeply schooled and
circumstances, which would justify the same. skilled in the subtle art of movement and
position, entraps and destroys the other. It
On July 27, 1989 Tantoco and Santiago filed is, rather a contest in whicheach
with the Sandiganbayan a pleading denominated contending party fully and fairly lays before
"Interrogatories to Plaintiff," and on August 2, 1989, an the court the facts in issue and then
"Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff"' as well as a brushing aside as wholly trivial and
Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents. indecisive all imperfections of form and
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice
By Resolutions dated August 21, 1989 and be done on the merits. Lawsuits, unlike
August 25, 1989, the Sandiganbayan admitted the duels, are not to be won by a rapier's
Amended Interrogatories and granted the motion for thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its
production and inspection of documents (production proper office as an aid to justice and
being scheduled on September 14 and 15, 1989), becomes its great hindrance and chief
respectively. PCGG’s Motion for Reconsideration having enemy, deserves scant consideration from
been denied, it filed a Petition for Certiorari before the courts. There should be no vested right in
Supreme Court. technicalities. . . .

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly The message is plain. It is the duty of each
admitted the Amended Interrogatories and granted the contending party to lay before the court the facts in
motion for production and inspection of documents. issue-fully and fairly; i.e., to present to the court all the
material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing
Held: Involved in the present proceedings are two of or concealing nothing, nor preventing another party, by
the modes of discovery provided in the Rules of Court: clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of
interrogatories to parties, and production and inspection pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the facts
of documents and things. Now, it appears to the Court within his knowledge.
that among far too many lawyers (and not a few
judges), there is, if not a regrettable unfamiliarity and Initially, that undertaking of laying the facts
even outright ignorance about the nature, purposes and before the court is accomplished by the pleadings filed
operation of the modes of discovery, at least a strong by the parties; but that, only in a very general way.
yet unreasoned and unreasonable disinclination to resort Only "ultimate facts" are set forth in the pleadings;
to them — which is a great pity for the intelligent and hence, only the barest outline of the facfual basis of a
adequate use of the deposition-discovery mechanism, party's claims or defenses is limned in his pleadings. The
coupled with pre-trial procedure, could, as the law says that every pleading "shall contain in a
experience of other jurisdictions convincingly methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
demonstrates, effectively shorten the period of litigation statement of the ultimate factson which the party
and speed up adjudication. Hence, a few words about pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may
these remedies is not at all inappropriate. be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts."

Page 178
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Parenthetically, if this requirement is not (b) "the identity and location of persons having
observed, i.e., the ultimate facts are alleged too knowledge of relevant facts."
generally or "not averred with sufficient definiteness or What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery
particularity to enable . . (an adverse party) properly to of every bit of information which may be useful in the
prepare his responsive pleading or to prepare for trial," preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of
a bill of particulars seeking a "more definite statement" persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those
may be ordered by the court on motion of a party. The relevant facts themselves; and the existence,
office of a bill of particulars is, however, limited to description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
making more particular or definite the ultimate facts in a any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence,
pleading It is not its office to supply evidentiary matters. "the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a
And the common perception is that said evidentiary broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-
details are made known to the parties and the court only honored cry of "fishing expedition" serve to preclude a
during the trial, when proof is adduced on the issues of party from inquiring into the facts underlying his
fact arising from the pleadings. opponent's case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant
The truth is that "evidentiary matters" may be facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper
inquired into and learned by the parties before the trial. litigation. To that end, either party may compel the
Indeed, it is the purpose and policy of the law that the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his
parties — before the trial if not indeed even before the possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply
pre-trial — should discover or inform themselves of all advances the stage at which the disclosure can be
the facts relevant to the action, not only those known to compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding
them individually, but also those known to adversaries; it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise, . . .
in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should
not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court In line with this principle of according liberal
make this ideal possible through the deposition- treatment to the deposition-discovery mechanism, such
discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. The modes of discovery as (a) depositions (whether by oral
experience in other jurisdictions has been that ample examination or written interrogatories) under Rule 24,
discovery before trial, under proper regulation, (b) interrogatories to parties under Rule 25, and (c)
accomplished one of the most necessary of modern requests for admissions under Rule 26, may be availed
procedure: it not only eliminates unessential issue from of without leave of court, and generally, without court
trials thereby shortening them considerably, but also intervention. The Rules of Court explicitly provide that
requires parties to play the game with the cards on the leave of court is not necessary to avail of said modes of
table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial discovery after an answer to the complaint has been
is measurably increased. . ." served. It is only when an answer has not yet been filed
(but after jurisdiction has been obtained over the
As just intimated, the deposition-discovery defendant or property subject of the action) that prior
procedure was designed to remedy the conceded leave of court is needed to avail of these modes of
inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial discovery, the reason being that at that time the issues
functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact are not yet joined and the disputed facts are not clear.
revelation theretofore performed primarily by the
pleadings. On the other hand, leave of court is required
as regards discovery by (a) production or inspection of
The various modes or instruments of discovery documents or things in accordance with Rule 27, or (b)
are meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre- physical and mental examination of persons under Rule
trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the 28, which may be granted upon due application and a
basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for showing of due cause.
ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The
evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable parties, To ensure that availment of the modes of
consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the
fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses
trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in to make discovery, such as dismissing the action or
the dark. proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by
default against the disobedient party; contempt of court,
To this end, the field of inquiry that may be or arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of
covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining
when the interrogated party is called as a witness to a court order to compel discovery; taking the matters
testify orally at trial. The inquiry extends to all facts inquired into as established in accordance with the claim
which are relevant, whether they be ultimate or of the party seeking discovery; refusal to allow the
evidentiary, excepting only those matters which are disobedient party support or oppose designated claims
privileged. The objective is as much to give every party or defenses; striking out pleadings or parts thereof;
the fullest possible information of all the relevant facts staying further proceedings.
before the trial as to obtain evidence for use upon said Of course, there are limitations to discovery,
trial. The principle is reflected in Section 2, Rule 24 even when permitted to be undertaken without leave
(governing depositions) which generally allows the and without judicial intervention. "As indicated by (the)
examination of a deponent — Rules . . ., limitations inevitably arise when it can be
1) "regarding any matter, not privileged, which is shown that the examination is being conducted in bad
relevant to the subject of the pending action, whether faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarass, or
relating to the claim or defense of any other party;" oppress the person subject to the inquiry. And . . .
2) as well as: further limitations come into existence when the inquiry
(a) "the existence, description, nature, touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the
custody, condition and location of any books, recognized domains of privilege."
documents, or other tangible things" and

Page 179
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In fine, the liberty of a party to make discovery Use of depositions.

is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are
otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is  At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an
made in good faith and within the bounds of the law. interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a
It is in light of these broad principles underlying the deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of
deposition-discovery mechanism, in relation of course to evidence, may be used against any party who was
the particular rules directly involved, that the issues in present or represented at the taking of the
this case will now be resolved. deposition or who had due notice thereof, in
accordance with any one of the following
The petitioner's objections to the provisions;
interrogatories served on it in accordance with Rule 25 (a) Any deposition may be used by any party for
of the Rules of Court cannot be sustained. the purpose of contradicting or impeaching
the testimony of deponent as a witness;
It should initially be pointed out — as regards (b) The deposition of a party or of any one who
the private respondents "Motion for Leave to File at the time of taking the deposition was an
Interrogatories" dated February 1, 1988 — that it was officer, director, or managing agent of a
correct for them to seek leave to serve interrogatories, public or private corporation, partnership, or
because discovery was being availed of before an association which is a party may be used by
answer had been served. In such a situation, i.e., "after an adverse party for any purpose;
jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or (c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not
over property subject of the action" but before answer, a party, may be used by any party for any
Section 1 of Rule 24 (treating of depositions), in relation purpose if the court finds:
to Section 1 of Rule 25 (dealing with interrogatories to (1) the witness is dead;
parties) explicitly requires "leave of court." But there (2) the witness resides at a distance more
was no need for the private respondents to seek such than one hundred (100) kilometers
leave to serve their "Amended Interrogatories to from the place of trial or hearing, or is
Plaintiff" (dated August 2, 19) after they had filed their out of the Philippines, unless it appears
answer to the PCGG's complaint, just as there was no that his absence was procured by the
need for the Sandiganbayan to act thereon. party offering the deposition;
(3) the witness is unable to attend or testify
The petitioner's first contention — that the because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
interrogatories in question are defective because they imprisonment;
(a) do not name the particular individuals to whom they (4) the party offering the deposition has
are propounded, being addressed only to the PCGG, and been unable to procure the attendance
(b) are "fundamentally the same matters . . (private of the witness by subpoena;
respondents) sought to be clarified through their (5) upon application and notice, that such
aborted Motion . . for Bill of Particulars" — are untenable exceptional circumstances exist as to
and quickly disposed of. make it desirable, in the interest of
justice and with due regard to the
The first part of petitioner's submission is importance of presenting the testimony
adequately confuted by Section 1, Rule 25 which states of witnesses orally in open court, to
that if the party served with interrogatories is a juridical allow the deposition to be used.
entity such as "a public or private corporation or a (d) If only part of a deposition is offered in
partnership or association," the same shall be "answered evidence by a party, the adverse party may
. . by any officer thereof competent to testify in its require him to introduce all of it which is
behalf." There is absolutely no reason why this relevant to the part introduced, and any
proposition should not be applied by analogy to the party may introduce any other parts.
interrogatories served on the PCGG. That the
interrogatories are addressed only to the PCGG, without Effect of substitution of parties.
naming any specific commissioner o officer thereof, is
utterly of no consequence, and may not be invoked as a 1. Substitution of parties does not affect the right to
reason to refuse to answer. As the rule states, the use depositions previously taken.
interrogatories shall be answered "by any officer thereof
competent to testify in its behalf." 2. When an action has been dismissed and another
action involving the same subject is afterward
brought between the same parties or their
Scope of examination. representatives or successors in interest, all
depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the
 Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided former action may be used in the latter as if
by section 16 or 18 of this Rule, the deponent may originally taken therefor.
be examined regarding any matter, not privileged,
which is relevant to the subject of the pending Objections to admissibility.
action, whether relating to the claim or defense of Subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Rule,
any other party, including the existence, objection may be made at the trial or hearing, to
description, nature, custody, condition, and location receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for
of any books, documents, or other tangible things any reason which would require the exclusion of the
and the identity and location of persons having evidence if the witness were then present and testifying.
knowledge of relevant facts.

Page 180
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Effect of taking depositions. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time

and place.
A party shall not be deemed to make a person his own
witness for any purpose by taking his deposition. (a) A party desiring to take the deposition of any
person upon oral examination shall give
Effect of using depositions. reasonable notice in writing, to every other party
to the action.
The introduction in evidence of the deposition or any
part thereof for any purpose other than that of (b) The notice shall state the time and place for
contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes the taking the deposition and the name and address
deponent the witness of the party introducing the of each person to be examined, if known, and if
deposition, but this shall not apply to the use by an the name is not known, a general description
adverse party of a deposition as described in paragraph sufficient to identify him or the particular class or
(b) of section 4 of this Rule. group to which he belongs.

Rebutting deposition. (c) On motion of any party upon whom the notice is
served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or
At the trial or hearing any party may rebut any relevant shorten the time.
evidence contained in a deposition whether introduced
by him or by any other party. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents.

(a) After notice is served for taking a deposition by

oral examination, upon motion seasonably made
Persons before whom depositions may be taken by any party or by the person to be examined
within the Philippines. and for good cause shown, the court in which the
action is pending may make an order that:
Within the Philippines depositions may be taken before
any judge, notary public, or the person referred to in 1. the deposition shall not be taken;
section 14 hereof. 2. it may be taken only at some designated place
other than that stated in the notice;
Persons before whom depositions may be taken in 3. it may be taken only on written
foreign countries. interrogatories;
4. certain matters shall not be inquired into;
In a foreign state or country, depositions may be taken: 5. the scope of the examination shall be held with
(a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or no one present except the parties to the
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or action and their officers or counsel;
consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines; 6. after being sealed the deposition shall be
(b) before such person or officer as may be opened only by order of the court;
appointed by commission or under letters 7. secret processes, developments, or research
rogatory; or need not be disclosed;
(c) the person referred to in section 14 hereof. 8. the parties shall simultaneously file specified
documents or information enclosed in sealed
Commission or letters rogatory. envelopes to be opened as directed by the
court;
(a) A commission or letters rogatory shall be issued 9. the court may make any other order which
only when necessary or convenient, on justice requires to protect the party or
application and notice, and on such terms, and witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or
with such direction as are just and appropriate. oppression.

(b) Officers may be designated in notices or Record of examination, oath; objections.

commissions either by name or descriptive title
and letters rogatory may be addressed to the (a) The officer before whom the deposition is to be
appropriate judicial authority in the foreign taken shall put the witness on oath and shall
country. personally, or by someone acting under his
direction and in his presence, record the
Disqualification by interest. testimony of the witness.

No deposition shall be taken before a person who is: (b) The testimony shall be taken stenographically
(a) a relative within the sixth degree of unless the parties agree otherwise.
consanguinity or affinity, or employee or counsel
of any of the parties; (c) All objections made at the time of the
(b) a relative within the same degree, or employee of examination to the qualifications of the officer
such counsel; taking the deposition, or to the manner of
(c) financially interested in the action. talking it, or to the evidence presented, or to
the conduct of any party, and any other
Stipulations regarding taking of depositions. objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by
the officer upon the deposition.
If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be (d) Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to
taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, the objections. In lieu of participating in the oral
at any time or place, in accordance with these Rules and examination, parties served with notice of
when so taken may be used like other depositions. taking a deposition may transmit written

Page 181
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

interrogatories to the officers, who shall (b) He shall then securely seal the deposition in an
propound them to the witness and record the envelope indorsed with the title of the action and
answers verbatim. marked "Deposition of (here insert the name of
witness)" and shall promptly file it with the court
Motion to terminate or limit examination. in which the action is pending or send it by
registered mail to the clerk thereof for filing.
(a) At any time during the taking of the deposition,
on motion or petition of any party or of the Notice of filing.
deponent, and upon a showing that the
examination is being conducted in bad faith or in The officer taking the deposition shall give prompt notice
such manner as unreasonably to annoy, of its filing to all the parties.
embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the
court in which the action is pending or the Furnishing copies.
Regional Trial Court of the place where the
deposition is being taken may order the officer Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the
conducting the examination to cease forthwith officer shall furnish a copy of the deposition to any party
from taking the deposition, or may limit the or to the deponent.
scope and manner of the taking of the deposition,
as provided in section 16 of this Rule. Failure to attend of party giving notice.

(b) If the order made terminates the examination, it If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and
of the court in which the action is pending. another attends in person or by counsel pursuant to the
notice, the court may order the party giving the notice
(c) Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, to pay such other party the amount of the reasonable
the taking of the deposition shall be suspended expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so
for the time necessary to make a notice for an attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.
order.

(d) In granting or refusing such order, the court may

impose upon either party or upon the witness the Failure of party giving notice to serve subpoena.
requirement to pay such costs or expenses as the
court may deem reasonable. If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon
Submission to witness; changes; signing. him and the witness because of such failure does not
(a) When the testimony is fully transcribed, the attend, and if another party attends in person or by
deposition shall be submitted to the witness for counsel because he expects the deposition of that
examination and shall be read to or by him, witness to be taken, the court may order the party
unless such examination and reading are waived giving the notice to pay to such other party the amount
by the witness and by the parties. of the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his
counsel in so attending, including reasonable attorney's
(b) Any changes in form or substance which the fees.
witness desires to make shall be entered upon
the deposition by the officer with a statement of Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of
the reasons given by the witness for making notice and of interrogatories.
them.
(a) A party desiring to take the deposition of any
(c) The deposition shall then be signed by the person upon written interrogatories shall serve
witness, unless the parties by stipulation waive them upon every other party with a notice stating
the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be the name and address of the person who is to
found or refuses to sign. answer them and the name or descriptive title
and address of the officer before whom the
(d) If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the deposition is to be taken.
officer shall sign it and state on the record the
fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of (b) Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party so
the witness or the fact of the refusal to sign served may serve cross-interrogatories upon the
together with the reason be given therefor, if party proposing to take the deposition.
any, and the deposition may then be used as
fully as though signed, unless on a motion to (c) Within five (5) days thereafter, the latter may
suppress under section 29 (f) of this Rule, the serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who
court holds that the reasons given for the refusal has served cross-interrogatories.
to sign require rejection of the deposition in
whole or in part. (d) Within three (3) days after being served with re-
direct interrogatories, a party may serve recross-
Certification, and filing by officer. interrogatories upon the party proposing to take
the deposition.
(a) The officer shall certify on the deposition that the
witness was duly sworn to by him and that the
deposition is a true record of the testimony given
by the witness.

Page 182
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Officers to take responses and prepare record. (f) As to manner of preparation. — Errors and
irregularities in the manner in which the testimony is
A copy of the notice and copies of all interrogatories transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed,
served shall be delivered by the party taking the certified, sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed, or
deposition to the officer designated in the notice, who otherwise dealt with by the officer under sections 17,
shall proceed promptly, in the manner provided by 19, 20 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless a motion to
sections 17, 19 and 20 of this Rule, to take the suppress the deposition or some part thereof is made
testimony of the witness in response to the with reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with
interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail due diligence might have been, ascertained.
the deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice
and the interrogatories received by him.

Notice of filing and furnishing copies.

Rule 24
When a deposition upon interrogatories is filed, the Depositions before Action or Pending
officer taking it shall promptly give notice thereof to all
the parties, and may furnish copies to them or to the
Appeal
deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor.
Depositions before action; petition.
Order for the protection of parties and deponents.
A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony
After the service of the interrogatories and prior to the or that of another person regarding any matter that may
taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in be cognizable in any court of the Philippines may file a
which the action is pending, on motion promptly made verified petition in the court of the place of the residence
by a party or a deponent, and for good cause shown, of any expected adverse party.
may make any order specified in sections 15, 16 and 18
of this Rule which is appropriate and just or an order Contents of petition.
that the deposition shall not be taken before the officer
designated in the notice or that it shall not be taken The petition shall be entitled in the name of the
except upon oral examination. petitioner and shall show:

Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an
action in a court of the Philippines but is
(a) As to notice. — All errors and irregularities in the presently unable to bring it or cause it to be
notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written brought;
objection is promptly served upon the party giving the
notice. (b) the subject matter of the expected action and his
interest therein;
(b) As to disqualification of officer. — Objection to taking
a deposition because of disqualification of the officer (c) the facts which he desires to establish by the
before whom it is to be taken is waived unless made proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring
before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon to perpetuate it;
thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or
could be discovered with reasonable diligence. (d) the names or a description of the persons he
expects will be adverse parties and their
(c) As to competency or relevancy of evidence. — addresses so far as known; and
Objections to the competency of witness or the
competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are (e) the names and addresses of the persons to be
not waived by failure to make them before or during the examined and the substance of the testimony
taking of the deposition, unless the ground, of the which he expects to elicit from each, and shall
objection is one which might have been obviated or ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take
removed if presented at that time. the depositions of the persons to be examined
named in the petition for the purpose of
(d) As to oral examination and other particulars. — perpetuating their testimony.
Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral
examination in the manner of taking the deposition in Notice and service.
the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or
affirmation, or in the conduct of the parties and errors of (a) The petitioner shall serve a notice upon each
any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if person named in the petition as an expected
promptly prosecuted, are waived unless reasonable adverse party, together with a copy of the
objection thereto is made at the taking of the petition, stating that the petitioner will apply to
deposition. the court, at a time and place named therein, for
the order described in the petition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. — Objections to
the form of written interrogatories submitted under (b) At least twenty (20) days before the date of the
sections 25 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served hearing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be
in writing upon the party propounding them within the served on the parties and prospective deponents
time allowed for serving succeeding cross or other in the manner provided for service of summons.
interrogatories and within three (3) days after service of
the last interrogatories authorized.

Page 183
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Order and examination.

Rule 25
(a) If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of Interrogatories to Parties
the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of
justice, it shall make an order designating or
describing the persons whose deposition may be Interrogation to parties; service thereof
taken and specifying the subject matter of the
examination and whether the depositions shall be A party may serve written interrogatories:
taken upon oral examination or written
interrogatories. 1. Without leave of court after answer has
been served, for the first set of interrogatories.
(b) The depositions may be taken in accordance with 2. With leave of court in the following
Rule 23 before the hearing. circumstances: (a) before answer has been
served; and (b) for the second set of
Reference to court. interrogatories for the same adverse party
(Section 4, Rule 25).
For the purpose of applying Rule 23 to depositions for
perpetuating testimony, each reference therein to the Answer to interrogatories
court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and
refer to the court in which the petition for such shall be signed and sworn to by the person making
deposition was filed. them.
N.B. A judgment by default may be rendered against a
Use of deposition. party who fails to answer written interrogatories
(Section 3(c), Rule 29).
If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under Objections to interrogatories
this Rule, or if, although not so taken, it would be
admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to
involving the same subject matter subsequently brought the court within 10 days after service thereof, with
in accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of notice as in the case of motion. Answers shall be
Rule 23. deferred until objections are resolved, which shall be at
the earliest possible time.
Depositions pending appeal.
Number of interrogatories
(a) If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of a
court, including the Court of Appeals in proper No party may, without leave of court, serve more than
cases, or before the taking of an appeal if the one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same
time therefor has not expired, the court in which party.
the judgment was rendered may allow the taking
of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their Scope and use of interrogatories
testimony for in the event of further proceedings
in the said court. The scope of interrogatories shall be the matters
mentioned in Sec. 2, Rule 23. The answers may be
(b) In such case the party who desires to perpetuate used for the same purpose provided in Sec. 4 of the
the testimony may make a motion in the said same Rule.
court for leave to take the depositions, upon the
same notice and service thereof as if the action
was pending therein. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories

(c) The motion shall state (a) the names and Unless a party had been served with written
addresses of the persons to be examined and the interrogatories, he may not be compelled by the adverse
substance of the testimony which he expects to party (a) to give testimony in open court; or (b) to give
elicit from each, and (b) the reason for a deposition pending appeal.
perpetuating their testimony.
The only exception is when the court allows it for good
(d) If the court finds that the perpetuation of the cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of
justice, it may make an order allowing the
deposition to be taken, and thereupon the
depositions may be taken and used in the same
manner and under the same conditions as are
prescribed in these Rules for depositions taken in
pending actions.

Page 184
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

summary judgment on the ground that there exists no

Rule 26 genuine or substantial controversy on any issue of fact
Admission by Adverse Party since Mananzan has deemed admitted the matters
stated in the request for admission for his failure to
answer the same. Respondent Judge Lustre denied the
Request for admission motion for summary judgment, observing that "the
interrogatories ... are nothing but a reiteration of a
When request may be made: portion of the plaintiffs allegations in the complaint,
At any time after the issues have been joined (after the which have already been answered and denied by the
responsive pleading has been served). defendant in his answer" hence, they "need not be
answered again if asked in the form of interrogatories."
What request may include:
1. Admission of the genuineness of any material and Issue: Whether or not the material facts in a complaint,
relevant document described in and exhibited which were made subject to a request for admission, are
with the request; and deemed admitted upon failure to answer the request
2. Admission of the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Held: No. A party should not be compelled to admit
matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and
Implied admission concerning which there is no issue, nor should he be
required to make a second denial of those already
Each of the matters of which an admission is requested denied in his answer to the complaint. A request for
shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period admission is not intended to merely reproduce or
designated in the request, which shall not be less than reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's
fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary
further time as the court may allow on motion, the party matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited
to whom the request is directed files and serves upon with the request, whose purpose is to establish said
the party requesting the admission a sworn statement party's cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that
either denying specifically the matters of which an purpose, it is, as correctly observed by the Court of
admission is requested or setting forth the reasons why Appeals, "pointless, useless," and "a mere redundancy."
he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.

Objections to any request for admission shall be

submitted to the court by the party requested within the Rule 27
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement Production or Inspection of Document
as contemplated in his compliance therewith shall be
deferred until such objections are resolved, which or Things
resolution shall be made as early as practicable.
Motion for production or inspection; order

Effect of admission Requisites of the motion for production or inspection:

An admission under this Section is for the purpose of the 1. A motion must be filed by a party showing
pending action only and cannot be used in other good cause therefor;
proceedings.
2. The motion must sufficiently describe the
Withdrawal document or thing sought to be produced or
inspected;
The party making an admission under this Rule, may be
allowed by the court to withdraw or amend it upon such 3. The motion must be given to all the other
terms as may be just. parties;

Effect of failure to file and serve request for 4. The document or thing sought to be produced
admission or inspected must constitute or contain
evidence material to any matter involved in the
The party who fails or refuses to request the admission action;
of facts in question is prevented from thereafter
presenting evidence thereon unless otherwise allowed by 5. The document or thing sought to be produced
the court. or inspected must not be privileged; and

Po v. Court of Appeals (1988) 6. The document or thing sought to be produced

or inspected must be in the possession of the
Facts: The petitioner filed a complaint for damages adverse party or, at least under his control.
against the private respondent Jose P. Mananzan as
operator of a banca service for shooting the rapids at
Pagsanjan Falls, arising from an accidental spill into the
water, which she and her friend suffered when the banca
in which they were riding capsized during their trip back
to town. After Mananzan had answered the complaint,
petitioner served upon him a request for admission.
Mananzan failed to file and serve an answer to the
request for admission. Petitioner thus filed a motion for

Page 185
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Rule 28 Rule 29
Physical and Mental Examination Refusal to Comply with Modes of
Discovery
This mode of discovery is available in an action in which
the mental or physical condition of a party is in If a party refuses to answer any question, the
controversy. following may be the consequences:
1. The court, may, upon proper application,
Examples of these actions are: compel a refusing deponent to answer (Sec.1).
a. An action for annulment of a contract where a. If granted and refusal to answer is
the ground relied upon is insanity or dementia; without substantial justification, court
b. A petition for guardianship of a person alleged may require the refusing party to pay
to be insane; and the proponent the amount of the
c. An action to recover damages for personal reasonable expenses incurred in
injury where the issue is the extent of the obtaining the order, including
injuries of the plaintiff. attorney's fees.
b. If denied and filed without substantial
Order for examination justification, court may require the
proponent to pay the refusing party
The following are the requisites to obtain an order for the amount of the reasonable
examination: expenses incurred in obtaining the
1. A motion must be filed for the physical and order, including attorney's fees.
mental examination;
2. The motion must show good cause for the 2. A refusal to answer after being directed by the
examination; court to do so may be considered as contempt
3. The mental or physical condition of a party is of court (Sec. 2)
in controversy;
4. Notice to the party to be examined and to all If a person refuses to be sworn in as a witness, he
other parties; and may be cited in contempt of court.
5. The motion shall specify the time, place,
manner, conditions, and scope of the If a person refuses to answer designated
examination and the person or persons by questions or refusal to produce documents or to
whom it is made. submit to physical or mental examination (Sec. 3),
the court may make the following orders:
Report of findings 1. Prohibit the disobedient party to introduce
evidence of physical or mental condition;
1. The person examined shall, upon request, be 2. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to
entitled to a copy of a detailed written report of support or oppose claims or defenses;
the examining physician setting out his findings 3. Strike out pleadings or parts thereof;
and conclusions. 4. Stay further proceedings;
2. After such request and delivery, the party 5. Dismiss the action or proceeding or any part
causing the examination to be made shall be thereof;
entitled upon request to receive from the party 6. Render a judgment by default against
examined, a like report of any examination disobedient party; and
previously or thereafter made, of the same 7. Direct the arrest of any party or agent of a
physical or mental condition. party disobeying any of such orders except an
3. If the party examined refuses to deliver such order to submit to a physical or mental
report, the court on motion and notice may make examination.
an order requiring delivery.
4. If a physician fails or refuses to make such If a person denies the genuineness of any document or
report, the court may exclude his testimony if the truth of any matter of fact in a request for admission
offered at the trial. under Rule 26, and the party requesting for admission
proves said document to be genuine or said fact to be
Waiver of privilege true, the court may, upon motion, order the party
Where the party examined requests and obtains a report requested to admit, to pay the expenses incurred in
on the results of the examination, the consequences making such proof unless the court finds that there were
are: sufficient grounds for the denial.
1. He has to furnish the other party a copy of the
report of any previous or subsequent If a person fails despite due notice to attend a schedule
examination of the same physical and mental for deposition-taking, or fails to file his answer to written
condition; and interrogatories, the court may:
2. He waives any privilege he may have in that 1. Strike out all or any part of any pleading of
action or any other involving the same disobedient party;
controversy regarding the testimony of any other 2. Dismiss the action or proceeding or any part
person who has so examined him or may thereof;
thereafter examine him. 3. Enter a judgment by default against
disobedient party; or
4. Order payment of reasonable expenses
incurred by the other including attorney's fees.

Page 186
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC f. The number and names of the witnesses, the
13 July 2004 substance of their testimonies, and the approximate
number of hours that will be required by the parties for
GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED BY TRIAL COURT the presentation of their respective witnesses.
JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE CONDUCT
OF PRE-TRIAL AND USE OF DEPOSITION- A copy of the Notice of Pre-trial Conference is hereto
DISCOVERY MEASURES attached as Annex "B." The rule on the contents of the
pre-trial brief must strictly be complied with. The parties
The use of pre-trial and the deposition-discovery are bound by the representations and statements in
measures are undeniably important and vital their respective pre-trial briefs.
components of case management in trial courts. To
abbreviate court proceedings, ensure prompt disposition 3. At the start of the pre-trial conference, the judge
of cases and decongest court dockets, and to further shall immediately refer the parties and/or their counsel
implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in if authorized by their clients to the PMC mediation unit
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 for purposes of mediation if available.5 If mediation
and except as otherwise specifically provided for in other fails, the judge will schedule the continuance of the pre-
special rules, the following guidelines are issued for the trial conference. Before the continuance, the Judge may
observance and guidance of trial judges and clerks of refer the case to the Branch COC for a preliminary
court: conference to assist the parties in reaching a settlement,
to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by
I. PRE-TRIAL the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the
records after comparison and to consider such other
A. Civil Cases matters as may aid in its prompt disposition.

1. Within one day from receipt of the complaint: During the preliminary conference, the Branch COC shall
also ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and
1.1 Summons shall be prepared and shall contain a admissions on the genuineness and due execution of the
reminder to defendant to observe restraint in filing a documents marked as exhibits. The proceedings during
motion to dismiss and instead allege the grounds thereof .the preliminary conference shall be recorded in the
as defenses in the Answer, in conformity with IBP-OCA "Minutes of Preliminary Conference" to be signed by
Memorandum on Policy Guidelines dated March 12, both parties and/or counsel, the form of which is hereto
2002. A copy of the summons is hereto attached as attached as Annex. "C".
Annex "A;" and
The minutes of preliminary conference and the exhibits
1.2 The court shall issue an order requiring the parties shall be attached by the Branch COC to the case record
to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and before the pre-trial.
request for admission by adverse party under Rule 26 or
at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule 4. Before the continuation of the pre-trial conference,
23 or other measures under Rules 27 and 28 within five the judge must study all the pleadings of the case, and
days from the filing of the answer. A copy of the order determine the issues thereof and the respective
shall be served upon the defendant together with the positions of the parties thereon to enable him to
summons and upon the plaintiff. intelligently steer the parties toward a possible amicable
settlement of the case, or, at the very least, to help
Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply, the reduce and limit the issues. The judge should not allow
plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be the termination of pre-trial simply because of the
set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file manifestation of the parties that they cannot settle the
said motion within the given period, the Branch COC case. He should expose the parties to the advantages of
shall issue a notice of pre-trial. pre-trial. He must also be mindful that there are other
important aspects of the pre-trial that ought to be taken
2. The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days up to expedite the disposition of the case.
before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs containing the
following: The Judge with all tact, patience, impartiality and with
due regard to the rights of the parties shall endeavor to
a. A statement of their willingness to enter into an persuade them to arrive at a settlement of the dispute.
amicable settlement indicating the desired terms thereof The court shall initially ask the parties and their lawyers
or to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of if an amicable settlement of the case is possible. If not,
dispute resolution; the judge may confer with the parties with the opposing
b. A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation counsel to consider the following:
of facts; a. Given the evidence of the plaintiff presented in his
c. The issues to be tried or resolved; pre-trial brief to support his claim, what manner of
d. The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating compromise is considered acceptable to the defendant
the purpose thereof. (No evidence shall be allowed at the present stage?
to be presented and offered during the trial in b. Given the evidence of the defendant described in his
support of a party's evidence-in-chief other than pre-trial brief to support his defense, what manner of
those that had been earlier identified and pre- compromise is considered acceptable to the plaintiff at
marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the present stage?
the court for good cause shown);
e. A manifestation of their having availed or their If not successful, the court shall confer with the party
intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or and his counsel separately.
referral to commissioners; and

Page 187
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

If the manner of compromise is not acceptable, the allow the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with
judge shall confer with the parties without their counsel Section 35, Rule 132;
for the same purpose of settlement.
j. Determine the most important witnesses to be heard
5. If all efforts to settle fail, the trial judge shall: and limit the number of witnesses (Most Important
a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part Witness Rule). The facts to be proven by each witness
of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm markings of and the approximate number of hours per witness shall
exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on be fixed;
the genuineness and due execution of documents;
b. Inquire if there are cases arising out of the same facts k. At his discretion, order the parties to use the
pending before other courts and order its consolidation if affidavits of witnesses as direct testimonies subject to
warranted; the right to object to inadmissible portions thereof and
c. Inquire if the pleadings are in order. If not, order the to the right of cross-examination by the other party. The
amendments if necessary; affidavits shall be based on personal knowledge, shall
set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence, and
d. Inquire if interlocutory issues are involved and resolve shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to
the same; testify to the matters stated therein. The affidavits shall
be in question and answer form, and shall comply with
e. Consider the adding or dropping of parties; the rules on admissibility of evidence;

f. Scrutinize every single allegation of the complaint, l. Require the parties and/or counsel to submit to the
answer and other pleadings and attachments thereto Branch COC the names, addresses and contact numbers
and the contents of documents and all other evidence of the witnesses to be summoned by subpoena;
identified and pre-marked during pre-trial in determining
further admissions of facts and documents. To obtain m. Order the delegation of the reception of evidence to
admissions, the Court shall ask the parties to submit the the Branch COC under Rule 30; and
depositions taken under Rule 23, the answers to written
interrogatories under Rule 25 and the answers to n. Refer the case to a trial by commissioner under Rule
request for admissions by the adverse party under Rule 32.
26. It may also require the production of documents or
things requested by a party under Rule 27 and the During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask
results of the physical and mental examination of questions on issues raised therein and all questions or
persons under Rule 28; comments by counsel or parties must be directed to the
judge to avoid hostilities between the parties.
g. Define and simplify the factual and legal issues arising
from the pleadings. Uncontroverted issues and frivolous 6. The trial judge shall schedule the pre-trial in the
claims or defenses should be eliminated. For each afternoon sessions and set as many pre-trial
factual issue, the parties/counsel shall state all the conferences as may be necessary.
evidence to support their positions thereon. For each
legal issue, parties/counsel shall state the applicable law 7. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded.
and jurisprudence supporting their respective positions The minutes of each pre-trial conference shall contain
thereon. If only legal issues are presented, the judge matters taken up therein more particularly admissions of
shall require the parties to submit their respective facts and exhibits and shall be signed by the parties and
memoranda and the court can proceed to render their counsel.
judgment;
8. The judge shall issue the required Pre-Trial Order
h. Determine the propriety of rendering a summary within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-
judgment dismissing the case based on the disclosures trial. Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to
made at the pre-trial or a judgment based on the matters not disposed of and control the course of the
pleadings, evidence identified and admissions made action during the trial. A sample Pre-Trial Order is
during pre-trial; hereto attached as Annex "D."

i. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates for However, the Court may opt to dictate the Pre-Trial
continuous trial in accordance with Circular No. 1-89 Order in open court in the presence of the parties and
dated January 19, 1989; adhere to the case flow chart their counsel and with the use of a computer, shall have
determined by the court, which shall contain the the same immediately finalized and printed. Once
different stages of the proceedings up to the finished, the parties and/or their counsel shall sign the
promulgation of the decision and use the time frame for same to manifest their conformity thereto.
each stage in setting the trial dates. The One-Day
Examination of Witness Rule, that is, a witness has to be 9. The court shall endeavor to make the parties agree to
fully examined in one (1) day only, shall be strictly an equitable compromise or settlement at any stage of
adhered to subject to the courts' discretion during trial the proceedings before rendition of judgment.
on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-
examination for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing B. Criminal Cases
day allotted for each party, he is required to make his
formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last 1. Before arraignment, the Court shall issue an order
witness and the opposing party is required to directing the public prosecutor to submit the record of
immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the preliminary investigation to the Branch COC for the
the Judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence latter to attach the same to the record of the criminal
in open court. However the judge has the discretion to case.

Page 188
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Where the accused is under preventive detention, his the genuineness and due execution of documents and
case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the list object and testimonial evidence;
judge to whom the case was raffled within three days
from the filing of the complaint or information. The b. Scrutinize every allegation of the information and the
accused shall be arraigned within ten days from the date statements in the affidavits and other documents which
of the raffle. The pre-trial of his case shall be held within form part of the record of the preliminary investigation
ten days after arraignment unless a shorter period is and other documents identified and marked as exhibits
provided for by law. in determining farther admissions of facts, documents
and in particular as to the following:
2. After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith set
the pre-trial conference within thirty days from the date 1. the identity of the accused;
of arraignment, and issue an order: (a) requiring the 2. court's territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense/s
private offended party to appear thereat for purposes of charged;
plea-bargaining except for violations of the 3. qualification of expert witness/es;
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and for 4. amount of damages;
other matters requiring his presence; (b) referring the 5. genuineness and due execution of documents;
case to the Branch COC, if warranted, for a preliminary 6. the cause of death or injury, in proper cases;
conference to be set at least three days prior to the pre- 7. adoption of any evidence presented during the
trial to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented preliminary investigation;
by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the 8. disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-
records after comparison and to consider other matters defense, exercise of public authority and justifying or
as may aid in its prompt disposition; and (c) informing exempting circumstances; and
the parties that no evidence shall be allowed to be 9. such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.
presented and offered during the trial other than those
identified and marked during the pre-trial except when c. Define factual and legal issues;
allowed by the court for good cause shown. A copy of
the order is hereto attached as Annex "E". In mediatable d. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and
cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their counsel adhere to the flow chart determined by the court which
to the PMC unit for purposes of mediation if available. shall contain the time frames for the different stages of
the proceeding up to promulgation of decision and use
3. During the preliminary conference, the Branch COC the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates;
shall assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the
civil aspect of the case, mark the documents to be e. Require the parties to submit to the Branch COC the
presented as exhibits and copies thereof attached to the names, addresses and contact numbers of witnesses
records after comparison, ascertain from the parties the that need to be summoned by subpoena; and
undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and
due execution of documents marked as exhibits and f. Consider modification of order of trial if the accused
consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.
disposition of the case. The proceedings during the
preliminary conference shall be recorded in the Minutes 7. During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask
of Preliminary Conference to be signed by both parties questions on issues raised therein and all questions
and counsel. (Please see Annex "B") must be directed to him to avoid hostilities between
parties.
The Minutes of Preliminary Conference and the exhibits
shall be attached by the Branch COC to the case record 8. All agreements or admissions made or entered during
before the pre-trial. the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they
4. Before the pre-trial conference the judge must study cannot be used against the accused. The agreements
the allegations of the information, the statements in the covering the matters referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118
affidavits of witnesses and other documentary evidence shall be approved by the court. (Section 2, Rule 118)
which form part of the record of the preliminary
investigation. 9. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded,
the transcripts prepared and the minutes signed by the
5. During the pre-trial, except for violations of the parties and/or their counsels.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the trial
judge shall consider plea-bargaining 10. The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order within
arrangements. Where the prosecution and the offended ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial
party agree to the plea offered by the accused, the court setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial
shall: conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions
a. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining made, evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be
arrived at; presented and the schedule of trial. Said Order shall
b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of
case; and and control the course the action during the trial.
c. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction,
including the civil liability or damages duly established
by the evidence.

6. When plea bargaining fails, the Court shall:

a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part
of the pre-trial proceedings, confirm markings of
exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on

Page 189
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Case: avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to

commissioners.
Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Ley
Construction (2006) Since the pertinent incidents of the case took place prior
to the effectivity of said issuance, however, the
Facts: Ley Construction and Development Corporation depositions sought by LCDC shall be evaluated based on
(LCDC) filed a complaint for specific performance and the jurisprudence and rules then prevailing, particularly
damages with the Regional Trial Court of Makati against Sec. 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Court which
petitioner Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation provides as follows:
(Hyatt). LCDC filed an amended
complaint impleading Princeton Development SECTION 1. Depositions pending action, when may be
Corporation (Princeton) as additional defendant. taken.--- By leave of court after jurisdiction has
Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC filed notices been obtained over any defendant or over
to take the depositions of Yu; Pacita Tan Go, Account property which is the subject of the action, or
Officer of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC); without such leave after an answer has been
and Elena Sy, Finance Officer of Hyatt. Hyatt also filed served, the testimony of any person, whether a
notice to take deposition of Manuel Ley, President of party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any
LCDC, while Princeton filed notice to take the party, by deposition upon oral examination or
depositions of Manuel and Janet Ley. The RTC ordered written interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses
the deposition-taking to proceed. At the scheduled may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided
deposition of Elena Sy on September 17, 1996, Hyatt in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance
and Yu prayed that all settings for depositions be with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in
disregarded and pre-trial be set instead, contending that prison may be taken only by leave of court on such
the taking of depositions only delay the resolution of the terms as the court prescribes. (Emphasis supplied).
case. The RTC agreed and on the same day ordered all
depositions cancelled and pre-trial to take place As correctly observed by the CA, LCDC complied with
on November 14, 1996. the above quoted provision as it made its notice to take
depositions after the answers of the defendants have
Issue: Whether or not deposition as a mode of been served. LCDC having complied with the rules then
discovery should be dispensed with, and the parties to prevailing, the trial court erred in canceling the
proceed with pre-trial, to expedite the proceedings of a previously scheduled depositions.
case
While it is true that depositions may be disallowed by
Held: No. A deposition should be allowed, absent any trial courts if the examination is conducted in bad faith;
showing that taking it would prejudice any party. It is or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress
accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of the person who is the subject of the inquiry, or when the
a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon
matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not the recognized domains of privilege, such circumstances,
privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and however are absent in the case at bar.
within the bounds of law. It is allowed as a departure
from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of The RTC cites the delay in the case as reason for
examining witnesses in open court where their canceling the scheduled depositions. While speedy
demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, disposition of cases is important, such consideration
consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy however should not outweigh a thorough and
and inexpensive disposition of every action and comprehensive evaluation of cases, for the ends of
proceeding; and provided it is taken in accordance with justice are reached not only through the speedy disposal
the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of of cases but more importantly, through a meticulous and
court if summons have been served, and without such comprehensive evaluation of the merits of the
leave if an answer has been submitted; and provided case. Records also show that the delay of the case is not
further that a circumstance for its admissibility attributable to the depositions sought by LCDC but was
exists (Section 4, Rule 23, Rules of Court). The rules on caused by the many pleadings filed by all the parties
discovery should not be unduly restricted, otherwise, the including petitioners herein.
advantage of a liberal discovery procedure in
ascertaining the truth and expediting the disposal of The argument that the taking of depositions would cause
litigation would be defeated. unnecessary duplicity as the intended deponents shall
also be called as witnesses during trial, is also without
Indeed, the importance of discovery procedures is well merit.
recognized by the Court. It approved A.M. No. 03-1-09-
SC on July 13, 2004 which provided for the guidelines to The case of Fortune Corp. v. Court of Appeals which
be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in already settled the matter, explained that:
the conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition-discovery
measures. Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, trial courts are The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in
directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of court does not constitute good cause to justify the
interrogatories to parties under Rule 45 and request for courts order that his deposition shall not be taken. That
admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their the witness is unable to attend or testify is one of the
discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or grounds when the deposition of a witness may be used
other measures under Rule 27 and 28 within 5 days in court during the trial. But the same reason cannot be
from the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise successfully invoked to prohibit the taking of his
required to submit, at least 3 days before the pre-trial, deposition.
pre-trial briefs, containing among others a manifestation
of the parties of their having availed or their intention to

Page 190
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The right to take statements and the right to use them As also pointed out by the CA:
in court have been kept entirely distinct. The utmost
freedom is allowed in taking depositions; restrictions are x x x To unduly restrict the modes of discovery during
imposed upon their use. As a result, there is accorded trial, would defeat the very purpose for which it is
the widest possible opportunity for knowledge by both intended, as a pre-trial device. By then, the issues would
parties of all the facts before the trial. Such of this have been confined only on matters defined during pre-
testimony as may be appropriate for use as a substitute trial. The importance of the modes of discovery cannot
for viva voce examination may be introduced at the be gainsaid in this case in view of the nature of the
trial; the remainder of the testimony, having served its controversy involved and the conflicting interest claimed
purpose in revealing the facts to the parties before trial, by the parties.
drops out of the judicial picture.
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary
x x x [U]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules, the function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the
deposition serves the double function of a method of purpose of disclosing the real matters of dispute
discovery - with use on trial not necessarily between the parties and affording an adequate factual
contemplated - and a method of presenting basis during the preparation for trial.
testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other than
relevancy and privilege have been placed on the taking Further, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan the Court
of depositions, while the use at the trial is subject to explained that:
circumscriptions looking toward the use of oral
testimony wherever practicable. The truth is that evidentiary matters may be inquired
into and learned by the parties before the trial. Indeed,
Petitioner also argues that LCDC has no evidence to it is the purpose and policy of the law that the
support its claims and that it was only after the filing of parties - before the trial if not indeed even before
its Complaint that it started looking for evidence through the pre-trial - should discover or inform
the modes of discovery. themselves of all the facts relevant to the action,
not only those known to them individually, but
On this point, it is well to reiterate the Courts also those known to their adversaries; in other
pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan: words, the desideratum is that civil trials should
not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court
What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every make this ideal possible through the deposition-
bit of information which may be useful in the preparation discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. The
for trial, such as the identity and location of persons experience in other jurisdictions has been the ample
having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts discovery before trial, under proper regulation,
themselves; and the existence, description, nature, accomplished one of the most necessary ends of modern
custody, condition, and location of any books, procedure; it not only eliminates unessential issues from
documents, or other tangible things. Hence, the trials thereby shortening them considerably, but also
deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad requires parties to play the game with the cards on the
and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial
cry of fishing expedition serve to preclude a party from is measurably increased.
inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s
case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts As just intimated, the deposition-discovery procedure
gathered by both parties is essential to proper was designed to remedy the conceded inadequacy and
litigation. To that end, either party may compel the cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of notice-
other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his giving, issue-formulation and fact revelation theretofore
possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply performed primarily by the pleadings.
advances the stage at which the disclosure can be
compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding The various modes or instruments of discovery are
it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise. meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial
hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic
It also does not escape this Courts attention that the issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for
trial court, before dismissing LCDCs complaint, gave ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The
LCDC two options: (a) enter into a pre-trial conference, evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties,
advising LCDC that what it would like to obtain at the consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the
deposition may be obtained at the pre-trial conference, fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before
thus expediting early termination of the case; and (b) civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on
terminate the pre-trial conference and apply for in the dark.
deposition later on. The trial court erred in forcing LCDC
to choose only from these options and in dismissing its In this case, the information sought to be obtained
complaint upon LCDCs refusal to choose either of the through the depositions of Elena and Pacita are
two. necessary to fully equip LCDC in determining what
issues will be defined at the pre-trial. Without such
The information LCDC seeks to obtain through the information before pre-trial, LCDC will be forced to
depositions of Elena Sy, the Finance Officer of Hyatt prosecute its case in the dark --- the very situation
and Pacita Tan Go, an Account Officer of RCBC, may not which the rules of discovery seek to prevent. Indeed,
be obtained at the pre-trial conference, as the said the rules on discovery seek to make trial less a game of
deponents are not parties to the pre-trial conference. blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic
issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable
extent.

Page 191
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

accompanied, by service on the defendant of summons,

Rule 57 a copy of complaint, the application for attachment, the
Preliminary Attachment order of attachment, and the plaintiff’s attachment
bond.

I. Nature of attachment Olib v. Pastoral (1990)

 A preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy
by virtue of which a plaintiff or other party may, Facts: Corazon Navia (“Navia”) sued the spouses Oscar
at the commencement of the action or at any and Rober Olib (“Spouses Olib”) for dissolution of their
partnership, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
time thereafter, have the property of the adverse
preliminary attachment. The writ was granted, resulting
party taken into the custody of the court as in the attachment of six (6) parcels of land belonging to
security for the satisfaction of any judgment that Spouses Olib, along with stocks of merchandise. The
may be recovered. (Davao Light and Power, Inc. writ was amended later to release the merchandise. Two
v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 93262, 29 years later, Spouses Olib filed a motion to discharge the
December 1991) preliminary attachment on the ground that the
attachment bond executed for one year had already
 Preliminary attachment is designed to: lapsed, which motion was accompanied by a certification
that the bond had not been renewed.

(a) seize the property of the debtor before final Meanwhile, Judge Miguel Rallos of the Regional
judgment and put the same in custodia legis Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City
even while the action is pending for the rendered judgment in favor of Spouses Olib, and
satisfaction of a later judgment; or ordered Navia to pay damages , attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses. Navia appealed said judgment to the
Court of Appeals.
(b) to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the res or the property subject of the action in Although the trial court found in the text of the
cases where service in person or any other decision that NAvia was not entitled to the issuance of
service to acquire jurisdiction over the the writ of preliminary attachment, no mention was
defendant cannot be effected. made of said writ in the dispositive portion. As a result,
the annotation of the preliminary attachment on the
Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals certificates of titles of the attached lands was
(1991) maintained and could not be cancelled.

Facts: Davao Light & Power Co. (“Davao Light”) filed a Thereafter, Spouses Olib moved for the
complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment in view
against Queensland Hotel (“Queensland”) and Teodorico of the judgment rendered in their favor. Navia opposed
Adarna (“Adarna”), with an ex parte application for a said motion, contending that as she had perfected her
writ of preliminary attachment. The court granted the ex appeal to the Court of Appeals, the trial court could no
parte application and fixed the attachment bond in the longer had any jurisdiction over the case. The motion to
amount of Php4,600,513.37. Thereafter, the summons discharge was denied.
and a copy of the complaint, together with the writ of
attachment, were served on defendants Queensland and Issues:
Adarna, and pursuant to the writ, the sheriff seized 1. Whether or not the trial court no longer had
properties belonging to the latter. any jurisdiction over the preliminary
attachment when the main action was
Queenland and Adarna filed a motion to appealed.
discharge the attachment for lack of jurisdiction to issue 2. Whether or not non-payment of the premium
the same because at the time the order of attachment
on the attachment bond will result in the lifting
was promulgated and the writ was issued the trial court
had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cause and of the attachment.
over the persons of the defndants. The trial court denied
said motion to discharge. Queensland and Adarna filed Held:
a petition for certiorari assailing the trial court’s Order 1. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that where the
denying the motion to discharge before the Court of main action is appealed, the attachment which
Appeals, which annulled said Order. may have been issued as an incident of that
action, is also considered appealed and so also
Issue: Whether or not a writ of preliminary attachment removed from the jurisidiction of the court a
may issue ex parte against a defendant before
quo. The attachment itself cannot be the
acquisition of jurisdiction of the latter’s person.
subject of a separate case independent of the
Held: Yes. The Court ruled that writs of attachment may prinicipal action because the attachment was
properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is only an incident of such action.
satisfied that the relevant requisites therefor have been
fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in its 2. No. The rule is that the bond is not deemed
discretion, require prior hearing on the application with extinguished by reason alone of non-payment
notice to the defendant; but that levy on the property of the premium on the attachment bond.
pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be validly
effected unless preceded, or contemporaneously

Page 192
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

II. When issued; grounds (Philippine Bank of Communications v.

1. Action for recovery of specified amount Court of Appals, supra)
 The cause of action is for money or
damages, on a cause of action arising 5. Action against party who has removed or
from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict dispensed of property to defraud creditors
or quasi-delict.  Two elements required: (a) there is a
 A writ of preliminary attachment cannot removal or disposal of the property; and
be issued for moral and exemplary (b) the removal or disposal must be with
damages and other unliquidated and intent to defraud the creditor.
contingent claims. (Insular Savings Bank
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123638, 15 6. Action against non-resident defendant
June 2005)  The attachment is intended to enable the
 The writ can only be issued against a court to acquire jurisdiction over the res
party about to depart from the Philippines by converting the action in personam to
or with intent to defraud his creditors. an action quasi in rem and thus, justifying
summons by publication and other modes
2. Action involving embezzled property of summons under Sec.15 of Rule 14.
 The defendant may be a public officer, a  When the property located in the
corporate officer, an attorney, a factor, Philippines of a non-resident who at the
broker, agent, a clerk or any other person same time is outside the Philippines is
acting in a fiduciary capacity; he may also attached, the court acquires jurisdiction
be a person who acted in a manner as to over the res and in that event, the
willfully violate his duty not to embezzle, jurisdiction over the person of said
fraudulently misapply, or not to convert defendant is not essential. (Philippine
money or property for his own use. Commercial International Bank v.
 The allegations of fraud, embezzlement Alejandro, supra)
and misappropriation must be
substantiated. (Philippine Bank of III. Issuance and contents of order
Communications v. Court of Appeals, G.R.  An order of attachment may be issued either
No. 115678, 23 February 2011) ex parte or upon motion with notice and
hearing by the court in which the action is
3. Action to recover property fraudulently pending, or by the Court of Appeals of the
taken Supreme Court and must require the sheriff of
 It must be alleged and shown that the the court to attach so much of the property in
property involved or any part thereof has the Philippines of the party against who it is
been concealed, removed or disposed of issued, not exempt from execution, as may be
to prevent its being found or taken by the sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand,
applicant or an authorized person. unless such party makes deposit or gives a
 The property unjustly or fraudulently bond as hereinafter provided in an amount
taken, detained and converted by the equal to that fixed in the order, which may be
defendant may also be a real property, the amount sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s
since the rule makes no distinction. demand or the value of the property to be
(Philippine Commercial International Bank attached as stated by the applicant, exclusive
v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, 21 of costs. (Sec.2, Rule 57)
September 2007)
 Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57, merely require
4. Action involving fraud in contracting or that an applicant for an order of
performing obligations attachment file an affidavit and a bond.
 The fraud may either be dolo causante or The affidavit to be executed by the
dolo incidente. applicant himself or some other person
 Dolo causante is fraud used to induce who personally knows the facts and to
another to enter into a contract. (Art. show that:
1338, Civil Code) while dolo incidente is (1) there is a sufficient cause of action;
the fraud employed by a party in the (2) the case is one of those mentioned
in Section 1 of Rule 57;
fulfillment of his obligation or after the
(3) there is no other sufficient security
obligation has been contracted. (Art. for the claim sought to be enforced;
1344, Civil Code) and
 There could also be fraud in contracting (4) the amount claimed in the action is
the obligation where the debtor has a as much as the sum for which the order
preconceived plan not to pay the creditor is granted above all legal
but fraudulent intent by the debtor cannot counterclaims;
be inferred from the mere inability to pay.

Page 193
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The bond, on the other hand, must be "executed to reconsideration. Via Petition for Certiorari, the Court of
the adverse party in an amount fixed by the judge, Appeals found grave abuse of discretion on the part of
not exceeding the applicant's claim, conditioned the trial court in denying respondents’ Motion to
that the latter will pay all the costs which may be Discharge, and ordered the lifting of the writ of
adjudged to the adverse party and all damages attachment.
which he may sustain by reason of the attachment,
if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant Issue: Whether or not the lifting of the writ of
was not entitled thereto." attachment is proper.

IV. Attachment bond required Held: Yes. The Supreme Court sustained the lifting of
 The bond posted by the attaching creditor the writ of attachment. The grant of the provisional
answers for the damages and costs which may remedy of attachment involves three stages: first, the
court issues the order granting the application; second,
be adjudged to the adverse party arising from
the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order
and by the reason of the attachment. (Carlos granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For
v. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266) the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant be first obtained.
V. Writ may issue ex parte; prior or However, once the implementation of the writ
contemporaneous service of summons commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction
required for enforcement over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the
court has no power and authority to act in any manner
 An application for an order and writ of against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court
will not bind the defendant.
execution may be granted ex parte because it
is possible that during the course of the Thus, it is indispensable not only for the
hearing, the party against whom the writ is acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
sought may dispose of his property or abscond defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to
before the writ is issued. (Filinvest Credit v. apprise the defendant of the complaint against him and
Relova, 117 SCRA 420) the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the
 The writ of preliminary attachment may be grounds therefor that prior or contemporaneously to the
serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons,
issued ex parte and even before the summons
together with a copy of the complaint, the application for
is served upon the defendant. However, the attachment, the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the
writ may not be enforced and may not be order must be served upon him.
validly implemented unless preceded by a
service of summons upon the defendant, or In the instant case, assuming arguendo that
simultaneously accompanied by service of the trial court validly issued the writ of attachment on
November 15, 2002, which was implemented on
summons, a copy of the complaint, the
November 19, 2002, it is to be noted that the summons,
application for attachment, the order of together with a copy of the complaint, was served only
attachment, and the attachment bond. (Davao on November 21, 2002.
Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
204 SCRA 343) Moreover, again assuming arguendo that the writ of
attachment was validly issued, although the trial court
VI. Belated service of summons not allowed later acquired jurisdiction over the respondents by
service of the summons upon them, such belated service
 Implementation of the writ of attachment
of summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have
without the required jurisdiction over the cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The
person of the defendant is null and void. (BAC trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on
Mfg. & Sons Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 200 respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction over their
SCRA 130) person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be
served after or simultaneous with the service of
Torres v. Satsatin (2009) summons on the defendant whether by personal service,
substituted service or by publication as warranted by the
Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for sum of money circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of
against respondents. Thereafter, petitioners filed an Ex- summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of
Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Attachment, jurisdiction over her person because the law does not
which the trial court granted. A copy of the writ of allow for retroactivity of a belated service.
attachment was served upon respondents and the
appointed sheriff levied real and personal properties of VII. When attachment may be enforced without
respondents. Thereafter, summons, together with a service of summons
copy of the complaint, was served upon respondents.  Prior or contemporaneous service of summons may
NOT apply when:
Respondents filed a Motion to Discharge Writ of (a) Summons could not be served personally or
Attachment (“Motion to Discharge”) because, among
by substituted service;
others the writ of attachment was issued before the
summons was received by the respondents. (b) Defendant is a resident of the Philippines
temporarily absent therefrom;
The trial court denied respondents’ Motion to (c) Defendant is a non-resident; and
Discharge, which respondents moved for (d) The action is one in rem or quasi in rem.

Page 194
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Valmonte v. Court of Appeals (1996) or some person on his behalf and setting forth the
grounds for the application.
Facts: Respondent Rosita Dimalanta (“Rosita”) filed a
complaint for partition of real property and accounting of Finally, and most importantly, because there
rentals against petitioners Lourdes Valmonte (“Lourdes”) was no order granting such leave, Lourdes was not
and Alfredo Valmonte (“Alfredo”) before the Regional given ample time to file her Answer which, according to
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48. Summons was served the rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after
upon Alfredo, who accepted the summons insofar as he notice. It must be noted that the period to file an
was concerned, but refused to accept the summons for Answer in an action against a resident defendant differs
his wife, Lourdes, who was abroad, on the ground that from the period given in an action filed against a
he was not authorized to accept the process on her nonresident defendant who is not found in the
behalf. Philippines. In the former, the period is fifteen (15) days
from service of summons, while in the latter, it is at
Thereafter, Alfredo file dhis Answer with least sixty (60) days from notice.
Counerclaim. Lourdes, however, did not file her Answer.
Thus, Rosita moved to declare her in default, which the Strict compliance with these requirements
trial court denied. Rosita’s motion for reconsideration alone can assure observance of due process. That is why
having likewise been denied, she filed a petition for in one case, although the Court considered publication in
certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which granted the Philippines of the summons (against the contention
said petition and declared Lourdes in default. that it should be made in the foreign state where
defendant was residing) sufficient, nonetheless the
Issue: Whether or not Lourdes was validly served with service was considered insufficient because no copy of
summons. the summons was sent to the last known correct
address in the Philippines.
Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no
valid service of process on Lourdes. Rosita’s
action which is for partition and accounting under Rule
69, is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an VIII. Discharge of attachment
action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the
defendant's interest in a specific property and not to
render a judgment against him. 1. Upon giving counterbond

As Lourdes is a nonresident who is not found in

the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 57
accordance with Rule 14, §17. Such service, to be
effective outside the Philippines, must be made either Section 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving
(1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a counterbond. – At anytime after an order of
newspaper of general circulation in such places and for attachment has been granted, the party whose
such time as the court may order, in which case a copy property has been attached, or the person appearing
of the summons and order of the court should be sent on his behalf, may, upon reasonable notice to the
by registered mail to the last known address of the applicant, apply to the judge who granted the order, or
defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court to the judge of the court in which the action is pending,
may deem sufficient. for an order discharging the attachment wholly or in
part on the security given. The judge shall, after
Since in the case at bar, the service of hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if a
summons upon Lourdes was not done by means of any cash deposit is made, or a counterbond executed to the
of the first two modes, the question is whether the attaching creditor is filed, on behalf of the adverse
service on her attorney, Alfredo, can be justified under party, with the clerk or judge of the court where the
the third mode, namely, "in any . . . manner the court application is made, in an amount equal to the value of
may deem sufficient." the property attached as determined by the judge, to
secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching
The Supreme Court hold it cannot. This mode creditor may recover in the action. Upon the filing of
of service, like the first two, must be made outside the such counter-bond, copy thereof shall forthwith be
Philippines, such as through the Philippine Embassy in served on the attaching creditor or his lawyer. Upon
the foreign country where the defendant resides. the discharge of an attachment in accordance with the
Moreover, there are several reasons why the service of provisions of this section the property attached, or the
summons on Alfredo cannot be considered a valid proceeds of any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the
service of summons on Lourdes. In the first place, party making the deposit or giving the counter-bond,
service of summons on Alfredo was not made upon the or the person appearing on his behalf, the deposit or
order of the court as required by Rule 14, §17 and counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the
certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court property so released. Should such counterbond for any
which in fact refused to consider the service to be valid reason be found to be, or become, insufficient, and the
and on that basis declare Lourdes in default for her party furnishing the same fail to file an additional
failure to file an answer. counter-bond, the attaching creditor may apply for a
new order of attachment.
In the second place, service in the attempted
manner on petitioner was not made upon prior leave of
the trial court as required also in Rule 14, §17. As
provided in §19, such leave must be applied for by
motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff

Page 195
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate

2. On other grounds Court (1984)

Facts: Traders Royal Bank (“TRB”) filed a complaint for

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 57
the recovery of a sum of money, docketed as Civil Case
No. 9894, against Remco Alcohol Distillery, Inc.
Section 13. Discharge of attachment for improper
(“REMCO”) before the RTC,Branch 110, Pasay City
or irregular issuance. - The party whose property has
(“RTC-Pasay”), and was able to obtain a writ of
been attached may also, at any time either before or
preliminary attachment against the assets and
after the release of the attached property, or before
properties of REMCO. Pursuant to said writ, Deputy
any attachment shall have been actually levied, upon
Sheriff Edilberto Santiago (“Sheriff Santiago”) levied
reasonable notice to the attaching creditor, apply to the
among others about 4,600 barrels of aged or rectified
judge who granted the order, or to the judge of the
alcohol found inside REMCO’s premises. A third party
court in which the action is pending, for an order to
claim was filed by respondent La Toñdena, Inc. (“La
discharge the attachment on the ground that the same
Toñdena”), claiming ownership over the attached
was improperly or irregularly issued. If the motion be
property. Thereafter, La Toñdena filed a complaint-in-
made on affidavits on the part of the party whose
intervention in Civil Case No. 9894. La Toñdena also
property has been attached, but not otherwise, the
filed a “Motion to Wirthdraw” praying that it be allowed
attaching creditor may oppose the same by counter-
to withdraw alcohol and molasses from REMCO’s
affidavits or other evidence in addition to that on which
Distillery Plant, which motion was granted by RTC-
the attachment was made. After hearing, the judge
Pasay.
shall order the discharge of the attachment if it appears
that it was improperly or irregularly issued and the
Thereafter, La Toñdena filed a complaint before
defect is not cured forthwith.
the RTC, Branch 9, Malolos, Bulacan (“RTC Malolos”),
docketed as Civil Case No. 7003, in which it asserted its
3. Judgment rendered against attaching party – claim of ownership over the properties attached in Civil
dismissal of principal action Case No. 9894, and likewise prayed for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment. The RTC-Malolos
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 57 declared La Toñdenato be the owner of the disputed
alcohol and granted the latter’s application for injunctive
Section 19. Disposition of attached property where relief. Thus, Sheriff Victorino Evangelista (“Sheriff
judgment is for party against whom attachment was Evangelista”) issued on Sheriff Santiago of RTC-Pasay
issued. – If judgment be rendered against the the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction.
attaching party, all the proceeds of sales and money
collected or received by the sheriff, under the order of RTC-Pasay ordered Sheriff Santiago to enforce the writ
attachment, and all property attached remaining in any of preliminary attachment issued by said court.
such sheriff’s hands, shall be delivered to the party
against whom attachment was issued, and the order of Issue: Whether or not it was proper for the RTC-
attachment discharged. Bulacan to issue an injunction enjoining the sale of
property previously levied upon by Sheriff Santiago
pursuant to a writ of attachment issued by RTC-Pasay.
IX. Third party claim
Held: There is no question that the action filed by La
Tondeña, as third-party claimant, before the RTC-
1. Same procedure as in Sec.16, Rule 39 in
Bulacan in Civil Case No. 7003 wherein it claimed
levy of property on execution claimed by ownership over the property levied upon by Pasay City
third party Deputy Sheriff Santiago is sanctioned by Section 14,
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Thus —
 Third person may avail of the remedy called
terceria by making an affidavit of his title If property taken be claimed by any person
other than the party against whom attachment
thereto or his right to possession thereof,
had been issued or his agent, and such person
stating the grounds of such right or title. The makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right
affidavit must be served upon the sheriff and to the possession thereof, stating the grounds
the attaching party. of such right or title, and serves such affidavit
 Upon service of the affidavit upon him, the upon the officer while the latter has possession
sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property of the property, and a copy thereof upon the
under attachment except if the attaching party attaching creditor, the officer shall not be
bound to keep the property under the
files a bond approved by the court. The sheriff
attachment, unless the attaching creditor or
shall not be liable for damages for the taking his agent, on demand of said officer, secures
or keeping of the property, if such bond shall aim against such claim by a bond in a sum not
be filed. greater than the value of the property
 A third party claim may be filed with the sheriff attached. In case of disagreement as to such
while he has possession of the properties value, the same shall be decided by the court
issuing the writ of attachment. The officer shall
levied upon, this being the only time fixed for
not be liable for damages, for the taking or
the purpose. (Mangaoang v. Provincial Sheriff
keeping of such property, to any such third-
of La Union, G.R. No. L-4869, 26 May 1952) party claimant, unless such a claim is so made
and the action upon the bond brought within
one hundred and twenty (120) days from the

Page 196
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

date of the filing of said bond. But nothing (c) By collecting from all persons having in their
herein contained shall prevent such third possession credits belonging to the judgment debtor,
person from vindicating his claim to the or owing debts to the latter at the time of the
property by proper action ... attachment of such credits or debts, the amount of
such credits and debts as determined by the court in
The foregoing rule explicitly sets forth the the action, and stated in the judgment, and paying the
remedy that may be availed of by a person who claims proceeds of such collection over to the judgment
to be the owner of property levied upon by attachment, obligee.
viz: to lodge a third- party claim with the sheriff, and if
the attaching creditor posts an indemnity bond in favor XI. Claims for damages on account of improper,
of the sheriff, to file a separate and independent action
irregular or excessive attachment
to vindicate his claim (Abiera vs. Court of Appeals, 45
SCRA 314). And this precisely was the remedy resorted
to by La Tondeña when it filed the vindicatory action  Damages may be awarded on account of
before RTC-Bulacan. improper, irregular or excessive attachment.
The application for damages must be filed (a)
Generally, the rule that no court has the power before the trial, or (b) before appeal is
to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees perfected, or (c) before the judgment becomes
of a concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal
executory. There must be notice to the
power to grant the injunctive relief sought by injunction,
is applied in cases where no third-party claimant is attaching party and his surety or sureties.
involved, in order to prevent one court from nullifying (Sec. 20, Rule 57)
the judgment or process of another court of the same  Where there is wrongful attachment, the
rank or category, a power which devolves upon the attachment defendant may recover actual
proper appellate court. The purpose of the rule is to damages even without proof that the
avoid conflict of power between different courts of
attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in
coordinate jurisdiction and to bring about a harmonious
obtaining the attachment. However, if it is
and smooth functioning of their proceedings.
alleged and established that the attachment
It is further argued that since La Tondeña, had was not merely wrongful but also malicious,
voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of RTC- the attachment defendant may recover moral
Pasay by filing a motion to intervene in Civil Case No. damages and exemplary damages as well.
9894-P, the denial or dismissal thereof constitutes a bar (Spouses Yu v. Ngo Yet Te, G.R. No. 155868, 6
to the present action filed before RTC-Bulacan. The
February 2007)
Supreme Court did not sustain this view. Suffice it to
state that intervention as a means of protecting the  The damages may be awarded only upon
third-party claimant's right in an attachment proceeding proper hearing. The judgment for damages
is not exclusive but cumulative and suppletory to the shall be included in the judgment of the main
right to bring an independent suit. The denial or case. (Sec. 20, Rule 57)
dismissal of a third-party claim to property levied upon
cannot operate to bar a subsequent independent action Pacis v. COMELEC (1969)
by the claimant to establish his right to the property
even if he failed to appeal from the order denying his
Facts: After promulgation of the 28 September 1968
original third-party claim.
main decision of the Supreme Court Court in this case
confirming the 11 May 1968 resolution of the
X. Satisfaction of judgment out of property
Commission on Elections, dissolving the writ of
attached preliminary injunction issued by this Court on June 11,
1968 and declaring valid and subsisting the canvass of
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 57 votes and the proclamation of private respondent
Anatacio Negre as Mayor-elect of the Municipality of
Section 15. Satisfaction of judgment out of property Sanchez Mira, Province of Cagayan, the latter, through
attached; return of officer. — If judgment be recovered counsel, moved for assessment and award of damages
by the attaching creditor and execution issue thereon, sustained by him as a result of the preliminary
the sheriff or other proper officer may cause the injunction issued in favor of petitioner Pantaleon Pacis,
judgment to be satisfied out of the property attached, upon the P1,000 cash bond deposited with this Court by
if it be sufficient for that purpose, in the following said petitioner, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 58, in
manner: connection with Section 20, Rule 57, of the Rules of
Court.
(a) By paying to the judgment creditor the
proceeds of all sales of perishable or other property Petitioner opposed, pleaded good faith. A
sold in pursuance of the order of the judge, or so much hearing was conducted by an officer of the Court to
as shall be necessary to satisfy the judgment; ascertain the amount of damages.

(b) If any balance remain due, by selling so much The unrebutted evidence is that private
of the property, real or personal, as may be necessary respondent was enjoined from performing his duties as
to satisfy the balance, if enough for that purpose Mayor of Sanchez Mira from June 19, 1968, after receipt
remain in the officer's hands, or in those of the clerk of of the injunctive writ on June 18, 1968, until October
the court; 17, 1968 when judgment in this case became final and
executory, thus depriving him of four months' salaries at
P500 per month totalling a little less than P2,000.

Page 197
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Issue: Whether or not respondent can validly claim

damages in this case. Damages sustained as a result of a wrongfully
obtained injunction may be recovered upon the
Held: It may be well to state at this point that the injunction bond required to be filed with the court. This
present is a motion of private respondent for principle of recovery of damages has been recognized in
assessment and award of damages upon the P1,000 our jurisdiction in the early case of Molina vs.
cash bond. The reglementary period within which to file Somes (1913), 24 Phil. 49, 61-62.
the appropriate motion is before the main judgment
becomes executory. The filing of a bond before the issuance of an injunction
has been made a reglementary requisite under the same
The judgment dissolving the preliminary rule which permits the issuance of an injunction. It is
injunction issued in favor of petitioner and dismissing this same rule therefore which must first be examined in
the main cause became final and executory on October determining whether good faith is a proper defense
17, 1968. The motion herein was filed on October 16. It against a claim for damages.
can be seen from the procedure laid out in the Rules of
Court for proceeding against an injunction bond that the The statutory undertaking of the bond is that it
motion of private respondent barely missed the shall answer for all damages which the party to be
statutory period. Section 9 of Rule 58 on preliminary restrained may sustain by reason of the injunction "if
injunctions directs that the procedure in Section 20 of the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not
Rule 57 on attachment be followed, viz: entitled thereto." Malice or lack of good faith is not an
element of recovery on the bond. This must be so,
SEC. 20. Claim for damages on account of illegal because to require malice as a prerequisite would make
attachment. — If the judgment on the action be the filing of a bond a useless formality. Too, it is
in favor of the party against whom attachment axiomatic that probable cause is necessary before an
was issued, he may recover, upon the bond injunction may be ordered, and if good faith were
given or deposit made by the attaching creditor, tenable as a defense, it would rule out practically all
any damages resulting from the attachment. relief from actual damages sustained as a result of an
Such damages may be awarded only upon injunction.
application and after proper hearing, and shall
be included in the final judgment. The Jurisprudence, evolved from jurisdictions
application must be filed before the trial or where this equitable relief originated and expanded,
before appeal is perfected or before the supports the view we just expressed. The holding is that
judgment becomes executory, with due notice the dissolution of the injunction, even if the injunction
to the attaching creditor and his surety or was obtained in good faith, "amounts to a determination
sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right that the injunction was wrongfully obtained and a right
to damages and the amount thereof. of action on the injunction bond immediately accrues to
the defendant." 4 The dissolution of the injunction
If the judgment of the appellate court be because of the failure of petitioner's main cause of
favorable to the party against whom the action, therefore, is an "actionable wrong," so to speak,
attachment was issued, he must claim damages for the purpose of recovery upon the bond.
sustained during the pendency of the appeal by
filing an application with notice to the party in The foregoing background paves the way for a
whose favor the attachment was issued or his discussion whether private respondent can recover
surety or sureties, before the judgment of the damages in excess of the amount of the bond.
appellate court becomes executory. The
appellate court may allow the application to be As stated, this present proceeding is upon a
heard and decided by the trial court. motion for assessment of damages on the bond. There is
nothing in the Rules of Court which allows recovery of
The foregoing remedy has been said to be damages other than upon the bond pledged by the party
exclusive such that no claim for recovery of damages suing for an injunction.
may be filed after the judgment has become final and
executory. Recovery of private respondent must therefore
be limited to the amount of the bond. Where the bond is
Good faith on petitioner’s part in obtaining the insufficient in amount, the law expressly gives the party
injunction because the main cause was then undecided affected the recourse of excepting thereto and provides
by this Court, petitioner deposits, is fatal to any claim for the dissolution of the injunction if "a bond sufficient
for damages. in amount with sufficient sureties approved after
justification is not filed forthwith."
The foregoing question entails an expansive discussion
on the principles governing recovery of damages Because petitioner's bond is only for
sustained as a result of a wrongfully obtained injunction. P1,000.00, it will not be sufficient to satisfy even the
The practice of issuing restraining orders (used here in actual damages suffered by private respondent. So it is
its generic term as referring to all types of "status that there is no imperative need to discuss petitioner's
quo"orders) started as a common-law equitable relief in assertion that only actual damages may be allowed.
the English courts to preserve the status quo of a case
pending the final determination of the relative rights of The Court thus ruled that private respondent
the parties. Since these orders cause damages to the Atanacio Negre is entitled to recover only upon the
restrained party if his rights were later affirmed — more P1,000 cash deposit of petitioner.
than what would be occasioned him as an ordinary party
litigant if no restraining order were issued — a system
by which he was recompensed evolved.

Page 198
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

to P5,000,000.00 executed to the effect that petitioners

Rule 58 will pay all the damages the NAPOCOR may sustain by
Preliminary Injunction reason of the injunction if the Court should finally decide
that the petitioners are not entitled thereto.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58 In the challenged decision of 3 May 2000, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts order. In the
Section 1. Preliminary Injunction defined; – A Court of Appeals rationale, the proscription on
preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage injunctions against infrastructure projects of the
of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or government is clearly mandated by the above-quoted
final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1818, as reiterated
person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may by the Supreme Court in its Circulars No. 2-91 and No.
also require the performance of a particular act or acts, 13-93, dated 15 March 1991 and 5 March 1993,
in which case it shall be known as a preliminary respectively.
mandatory injunction.
As their motion for reconsideration was met
Injunction as a main action with similar lack of success, petitioners, in a last attempt
at vindication, filed a petition for review with the
Hernandez v. NAPOCOR (2006) Supreme Court.

Facts: On 9 March 2000, petitioners filed a Complaint Held: For a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued,
for Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a the Rules do not require that the act complained of be in
Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of violation of the rights of the applicant. Indeed, what the
Preliminary Injunction against NAPOCOR. Harping on the Rules require is that the act complained of be probably
hazardous effects of exposure to electromagnetic in violation of the rights of the applicant. Under the
radiation to the health and safety to themselves and Rules of Court, probability is enough basis for injunction
their families, petitioners, through the instant case, to issue as a provisional remedy, which is different from
sought what they had failed to achieve through amicable injunction as a main action where one needs to establish
means with NAPOCOR and prayed, inter alia, for absolute certainty as basis for a final and permanent
damages and the relocation of the transmission lines to injunction.
Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio.

On 13 March 2000, Judge Francisco B. Ibay Nature and purpose of preliminary injunction
issued an order in Civil Case No. 00-352,
which temporarily restrained the respondent from Sabalones vs. Court of Appeals (1994)
energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current
through the said project. By order of 15 March 2000, Facts: As a member of our diplomatic service assigned
the trial court extended the restraining order for 18 to different countries during his successive tours of
more days. duties, petitioner Samson T. Sabalones (the “petitioner”)
left to his wife, herein respondent Remedios Gaviola-
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with Sabalones (the “respondent”), the administration of
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary some of their conjugal, properties for fifteen years.
Injunction with the Court of Appeals assailing the above
order by the trial court. Alluding to Presidential Decree Petitioner retired as ambassador in 1985 and
No. 1818 (1981), "Prohibiting Courts from Issuing came back to the Philippines but not to his wife and their
Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in Cases children. Four years later, he filed an action for judicial
Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource authorization to sell a building and lot located at #17
Development Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated Eisenhower St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila,
by, the Government, particularly Sec. 1, NAPOCOR belonging to the conjugal partnership. He claimed that
stalwartly sought the dismissal of the case on the he was sixty-eight years old, very sick and living alone
ground of lack jurisdiction. without any income, and that his share of the proceeds
of the sale to defray the prohibitive cost of his
In the interregnum, by order dated 3 April hospitalization and medical treatment.
2000, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR. The trial court In her answer, respondent opposed the
articulated that an injunction was necessary to stay authorization and filed a counterclaim for legal
respondent NAPOCORs activation of its power lines due separation. She alleged that the house in Greenhills was
to the possible health risks posed to the being occupied by her and their six children and that
petitioners. Asserting its jurisdiction over the case, the they were depending for their support on the rentals
trial court was of the view that Presidential Decree No. from another conjugal property, a building and lot in
1818 and jurisprudence proscribing injunctions against Forbes Park which was on lease to Nobumichi Izumi. She
infrastructure projects do not find application in the case also informed the court that despite her husband's
at bar because of the health risks involved. retirement, he had not returned to his legitimate family
and was instead maintaining a separate residence in
The trial court, thus, enjoined the NAPOCOR Don Antonio Heights, Fairview, Quezon City, with
from further preparing and installing high voltage cables Thelma Cumareng and their three children.
to the steel pylons erected near petitioners homes and
from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric In her prayer, she asked the court to grant the
current through said cables while the case is pending decree of legal separation and order the liquidation of
final adjudication, upon posting of the bond amounting their conjugal properties, with forfeiture of her
husband's share therein because of his adultery. She

Page 199
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

also prayed that it enjoin the petitioner and his agents Implementation of the Writ of Execution dated 6 March
from a) disturbing the occupants of the Forbes Park 1989." Due to the intervening death of Valentina
property and b) disposing of or encumbering any of the Salazar, a motion for substitution by her lone heir, Nelia
conjugal properties. Salazar, was filed. On 8 May 1989, the lower court
issued two (2) orders in Civil Case No. 2380-0, one
After trial, the judge found that petitioner had granting the substitution of Valentina Salazar as party
indeed contracted a bigamous marriage on October 5, plaintiff by her daughter Nelia Salazar and at the same
1981, with Thelma Cumareng, to whom he had returned time denying Roberto Ulang's motion for reconsideration
upon his retirement in 1985 at a separate residence. The and suspension of implementation of the writ of
court thus decreed the legal separation of the spouses execution, and the other allowing an Alias Writ of
and the forfeiture of the petitioner's share in the Execution to issue. Petitioner filed a petition
conjugal properties, declaring as well that he was not for certiorari to annul these two (2) orders before the
entitled to support from his respondent wife. Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 17938.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
This decision was appealed to the Court of
Appeals. Pendente lite, respondent wife filed a motion On 17 July 1990, petitioner Ulang filed a suit
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to for foreclosure of mortgage with preliminary injunction
enjoin petitioner from interfering with the administration and damages against Nelia Salazar and the Sheriff of
of their properties in Greenhills and Forbes Park. She Branch LXII of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City.
alleged inter alia that he had harassed the tenant of the The new case was docketed as Civil Case No. 383-0-90.
Forbes Park property by informing him that his lease Both cases (Civil Case No. 2380-0 and Civil Case No.
would not be renewed. She also complained that 383-0-90) pertain to one and the same property.
petitioner had disposed of one of their valuable conjugal
properties in the United States in favor of his paramour, On 17 July 1990, or on the day the suit for
to the prejudice of his legitimate wife and children. foreclosure of mortgage was filed, the court a quo issued
a restraining order enjoining Nelia Salazar and the
Petitioner opposed this motion and filed his respondent sheriff from ejecting Roberto Ulang pending
own motion to prevent his wife from entering into a new the hearing of his application for a writ of preliminary
contract of lease over the Forbes Park property with its injunction.
present tenant, or with future tenants, without his
consent. After hearing, the Court of Appeals, in an order On 20 August 1990, the court a quo issued the
dated April 7, 1992, granted the preliminary injunction Order denying Ulang's prayer for a writ of preliminary
prayed for by his wife. injunction on the ground that the foreclosure proceeding
was still pending and the issue as to whether petitioner
Petitioner now assails this order, arguing that is justified to foreclose the mortgage had not yet been
since the law provides for a joint administration of the determined. His motion for reconsideration was likewise
conjugal properties by the husband and wife, no denied on 18 September 1990 for being moot and
injunctive relief can be issued against one or the other academic because on 28 August 1990, respondent
because no right will be violated. He further notes that sheriff succeeded in evicting petitioner Ulang from the
the Court of Appeals failed to appoint an administrator premises in question and placed private respondent in
of the conjugal assets as mandated by Art. 61 of the possession thereof pursuant to the second alias writ of
Code. execution issued in Civil Case No. 2380-0, as evidenced
by a Certificate of Delivery and Certificate of
Held: The primary purpose of the provisional remedy of Acceptance.
injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things
subject of the action or the relations between the parties On 29 September 1990, petitioner filed before
and thus protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting respondent court a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
these matters during the pendency of the suit. of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a
Otherwise, the defendant may, before final judgment, Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction directed
do or continue doing the act which the plaintiff asks the against the issuance by Judge Esther Nobles Dans of the
court to restrain and thus make ineffectual the final abovesaid Orders dated 20 August 1990, on the ground
judgment that may be rendered afterwards in favor of of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
the plaintiff. Injunction is primarily a preventive remedy. jurisdiction. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
Its province is to afford relief against future acts which 22944, where the resolution rendered on 28 February
are against equity and good conscience and to keep and 1991 is now the subject of this appeal.
preserve the thing in the status quo, rather than to
remedy what is past or to punish for wrongful acts As aforesaid, the respondent Court of Appeals
already committed. It may issue to prevent future denied due course to the petition and dismissed the
wrongs although no right has yet been violated. same. The respondent court likewise reiterated the
rulings in AC-G.R. CV No. 01089 and CA-G.R. SP No.
Nature and purpose of preliminary injunction 17938 to the effect that the deed of sale between the
deceased Valentina Salazar and Brigida Julian was
Ulang v. Court of Appeals (1993) absolute and the transfer of ownership unto the
deceased Salazar was not conditioned upon full payment
Facts: On 8 February 1989, a motion for issuance of a of the purchase price.
writ of execution was filed by Valentina Salazar before
the trial court in Civil Case No. 2380-0. On 6 March Petitioner interposed the present appeal on the
1989, the motion was granted and a writ of execution main contention that respondent court erred in ruling
was issued. However, before the writ of execution could that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party
be carried out, petitioner Roberto Ulang filed an "Urgent is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution
Motion for Reconsideration and for Suspension of because such ruling admits of an exception.

Page 200
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Held: Injunction, whether preliminary or final, is not date of notice of said preliminary injunction, until further
designed to protect contingent or future rights. An orders from the Court."
injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and
which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does After trial, while agreeing with respondent Edu
not give rise to a cause of action. The complainant's that petitioner's appointment as janitor was temporary
right or title, moreover, must be clear and and therefore the latter could be ousted from his
unquestioned, for equity, as a rule, will not take position at any time with or without cause, the lower
cognizance of suits to establish title, and will not lend its court nevertheless declared in its judgment of October
preventive aid by injunction where the complainant's 29, 1968 that petitioner's removal was null and void
title or right is doubtful or disputed. The possibility of upon the ground that under the law, respondent
irreparable damage, without proof of violation of an Commissioner of Land Transportation was not the
actual existing right, is no ground for an injunction, appointing authority insofar as the position of petitioner
being mere damnum absque injuria. Injunction will not and another minor positions in his office were
lie to defeat execution of final judgment so as to take concerned; and thus lacking the power of appointment,
property out of successful party’s possession. said respondent had neither the power of removal.

Which court may issue writ Held: In seeking reversal of the trial court's decision,
respondents make capital of the fact that the petition for
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58 mandamus with injunction was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan while respondent Edu holds
Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction; – office in Quezon City which, they claim, is beyond the
A preliminary injunction may be granted by the court territorial jurisdiction of the said court. Respondents cite
where the action or proceeding is pending. If the action the long line of cases from the 1960 case of Acosta vs.
or proceeding is pending in the Court of Appeals or in Alvendia where this Court, pursuant to sec. 44 (h) of the
the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said court or Judiciary Act, jointly or alternatively with sec. 4, Rule 65
any member thereof. of the Rules of Court and/or section 2 of Rule 58, ruled
that a court of first instance has no jurisdiction to
Territorial jurisdiction to issue writ require or control the execution of an act committed
beyond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. These
Decano v. Edu (1980) cases invariably involved petitions for writs of injunction
seeking to control the actions of courts or officers
Facts: On September 12, 1962, the then outside the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent
Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications courts of first instance where said petitions had been
issued to Federico Decano, herein petitioner-appellee, a filed. The Acosta ruling of non-jurisdiction does not
temporary appointment to the position of janitor in the apply, however, to the facts and circumstances at bar.
Motor Vehicles Office, Dagupan City Agency, with
compensation at the rate of P1,440.00 per annum. The Here, petitioner seeks primarily the annulment
appointment having been approved by the of the dismissal order issued by respondent Edu,
Commissioner of Civil Service, the said appointee mandamus and injunction being then merely coronary
assumed office on September 10, 1962 and he served remedies to the main relief sought, and what is prayed
therein for almost four years, or until April 29, 1966 to be enjoined, as in fact the trial court did enjoin by
when herein respondent-appellant Cipriano Posadas, as preliminary injunction, is the implementation of the
Acting Registrar, Land Transportation Commission, termination order against the petitioner. It is true that
Dagupan City, received a telegram from respondent- the order of dismissal was issued by respondent Edu,
appellant Romeo F. Edu, in his then capacity as Acting but it was to be implemented in Dagupan City by his
Commissioner of Land Transportation Commission subordinate officer, respondent Acting Registrar of the
(LTC), terminating his (Decano's) services effective as of LTC stationed at Dagupan City. Insofar, therefore, as
the close of business on that day. respondent Edu is concerned, the order terminating the
services of respondent was a fait accompli and this he
Shortly thereafter, the aggrieved petitioner- had done without authority, as earlier discussed. The
appellee filed before the Court of First Instance of injunction is question, consequently, must be taken only
Pangasinan a petition for "Mandamus and Injunction" to restrain the implementation of respondent Edu's order
claiming that the aforementioned officials of the LTC by his co-respondent whose official station at Dagupan
acted without power and in excess of authority in City is within the territorial boundaries of the trial court's
removing him from the service, and therefore praying of jurisdictional district.
the court to declare as null and void the order for his
removal, to declare him entitled to the position, to Thus, in Director of the Bureau of
compel his reinstatement and payment of his regular Telecommunications vs. Aligaen, et al., 9 in which the
salary, and to enjoin, preliminary, and then acts sought to be controlled by "Injunction with
permanently, respondents from disturbing, molesting or Preliminary Injunction" were relative to the
otherwise ousting him from his position as janitor. establishment of a local telephone system being done
within the territorial boundaries of the judicial district of
As prayed for, a writ of preliminary injunction the Court of First Instance of Roxas, the Court similarly
was issued by the trial court at the commencement of upheld the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of
the proceedings commanding respondents "to desist and Roxas over the petition, although two of the
refrain from disturbing, molesting or otherwise ousting respondents named therein the Director of the Bureau of
the petitioner from his position as janitor in the Land Telecommunications, and the Regional Superintendent
Transportation Commission, Dagupan City Agency, and of Region IV of the Bureau of Telecommunications —
to pay the petitioner his corresponding salary from the had their official stations at Manila and Iloilo City,
respectively.

Page 201
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

As in the above-cited case of Aligaen, the Versoza argued that the status quo ante which
national official stationed at Quezon City, namely, the writ of preliminary injunction must refer to was the
respondent Commissioner Edu, was impleaded as sale of the land to Martinez. Versoza argued that the
respondent in the Pangasinan court for a complete relief of preliminary injunction cannot apply to
determination of the issues involved, the legality of consummated acts.
Edu's order of dismissal being the pivotal issue to
determine the merits of the mandamus and injunction Issue: From what point should a status quo ante be
aspects of the petition. In other words, Mr. Edu was reckoned if the original complaint was amended to
joined as respondent not for injunction purposes but include the proper verification of the complainant?
mainly for testing the legality of his dismissal order and
his transmittal thereof to his correspondent registrar at Held: The status quo ante refers to situation when the
Dagupan City to implement the same and terminate the Complaint was filed. The status quo is the last actual
services of the petitioner in Dagupan City. peaceful uncontested situation which precedes a
controversy, and its preservation is the office of an
Grounds for issuance injunctive writ. In this case, Uson although the
Complaint was subsequently amended, the controversy
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58 began when the first Complaint was filed. Further, the
amendment did not include a new or different cause of
Section 3. A preliminary injunction may be granted action or demand so as to consider the Complaint
when it is established: entirely superseded.

(a)That the applicant is entitled to the relief As to the issue of supposedly enjoining a
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists consummated act, the same is without merit. Uson was
in restraining the commission or continuance of the act still the owner and was in possession of the property at
or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance the time the Complaint was filed. The rule is that a court
of an act or acts, either for a limited period or should not by means of preliminary injunction transfer
perpetually; the property in litigation from the possession of one
party to another where the legal title is in
(b)That the commission, continuance or non- dispute and the party having possession asserts owners
performance of the act or acts complained of during hip thereto. When private respondent filed the original
the litigation would probably work injustice to the Complaint, she had title to and possession of the
applicant; or property and was asserting ownership thereto.

(c)That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, Where the acts have been performed prior to
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or the filing of the injunction suit, the general rule is that
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in consummated acts can no longer be restrained by
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the injunction. However, where the acts are performed after
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to the injunction suit is brought, a defendant may not as a
render the judgment ineffectual matter of right proceed to perform the acts sought to be
restrained and then be heard to assert in the suit that
Acts consummated may not be enjoined the injunction will not lie because he has performed
these acts before final hearing has been had, but after
Versoza v. Court of Appeals (1998) the beginning of the action. A defendant thus acts at his
peril. It has been held that the general rule of law is
Facts: Private respondent Uson was the owner of a that, where a defendant completes, after the beginning
parcel of land which she mortgaged to Versoza. She of an action, the act thereby sought to be restrained,
failed to pay the loan, thus, Versoza caused the and before the issue of any final order or decree,
foreclosure of the land. To prevent the Office of the the court has the power to, and may, compel, by a
Provincial Sheriff from proceeding with the foreclosure mandatory injunction, the restoration of the former
sale, and while she was still in possession of the subject condition of things and thereby prevent the giving of an
land, Uson filed with the RTC a complaint against advantage by reason of the wrongful act. And where a
Verzosa and the Provincial Sheriff for annulment of defendant does an act thus sought to be restrained, he
mortgage with prayer for the issuance of a writ of proceeds at his peril, and the court in which the action
preliminary injunction (the “Complaint”). This was is pending may compel a restoration of the former
dismissed for not having been verified by Uson. On status or grant to the plaintiff such relief as may be
motion for reconsideration, she was allowed to file an proper.
amended complaint, to include the required verification
(the “Amended Complaint”). Meanwhile, during the When injunction is improper
period between the dismissal of the Complaint and the
filing of the Amended Complaint, Versoza proceeded Tay Chun Suy v. Court of Appeals (1994)
with the foreclosure, and the land was sold to the
highest bidder. After the foreclosure sale was Facts: Sta. Clara Lumber Co., Inc. (SCLC), obtained a
completed, and the title to the property transferred to loan from private respondent Development Bank of the
Martinez, the court granted Uson’s prayer for the Philippines (DBP). As security for the loan, SCLC
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and directed mortgaged some of its properties, among which was a
Versoza to cease and desist from entering, making vessel, MV Sta. Clara I. Upon SCLC's failure to pay the
constructions and performing any act of possession or loan, the mortgage was foreclosed. On 18 August 1982,
ownership over the land. the Clerk of Court and Provincial Sheriff Ex-Officio of
Sultan Kudarat conducted an auction sale and sold the
vessel to DBP. He thereafter issued a certificate of sale
dated 18 August 1982 in favor of DBP. However, DBP

Page 202
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

did not register with the Philippine Coast Guard the Laws prohibiting injunction
mortgage; neither the foreclosure nor the auction sale.
 P.D. No. 385 - Requiring Government Financial
In 1986, the MV Sta. Clara I was again Institutions to Foreclose Mandatorily All Loans qith
subjected to foreclosure by petitioner to satisfy a Arrearages, Including Interest and Charges Amounting
judgment against SCLC.
to at least Twenty (20%) Percent of the Total
Upon being informed of the execution sale to Outstanding Obligation (31 January 1974)
petitioner, DBP filed a complaint for annulment of the o Section 2. No restraining order, temporary or
execution sale, recovery of possession, damages and permanent injunction shall be issued by the court
attorney's fees with prayer for restraining order and against any government financial institution in any
preliminary injunction. Petitioner moved to dismiss the action taken by such institution in compliance with the
complaint for alleged lack of jurisdiction, cause of action mandatory foreclosure provided in Section 1 hereof,
and/or legal personality to sue on the part of DBP. The
whether such restraining order, temporary or permanent
court denied the motion to dismiss but granted DBP's
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner injunction is sought by the borrower(s) or any third
moved for reconsideration of the denial but said motion party or parties, except after due hearing in which it is
was likewise denied. established by the borrower and admitted by the
government financial institution concerned that twenty
In 1987, the trial court issued a decision percent (20%) of the outstanding arrearages has been
which, among other matters, declared that DBP was the
paid after the filing of foreclosure proceedings.
lawful owner of MV Sta. Clara I and that the public
auction sale conducted and the resultant certificate of
In case a restraining order or injunction is
sale in favor of petitioner were null and void.
issued, the borrower shall nevertheless be legally
obligated to liquidate the remaining balance of the
In questioning the issuance of the writ of
arrearages outstanding as of the time of foreclosure,
preliminary injunction issued by the court in favor of
plus interest and other charges, on every succeeding
DBP, petitioner vigorously maintains that the failure of
thirtieth (30th) day after the issuance of such
DBP to register its title to MV Sta. Clara I with the
restraining order or injunction until the entire arrearages
Philippine Coast Guard is fatal to its claim of ownership.
have been liquidated. These shall be in addition to the
Petitioner also assails the jurisdiction of the trial court to
payment of amortization currently maturing. The
issue the writ.
restraining order or injunction shall automatically be
dissolved should the borrower fail to make any of the
Issue: Whether DBP’s failure to register its title over the
above-mentioned payments on due dates, and no
vessel is fatal to its claim for ownership, such that it
restraining order or injunction shall be issued thereafter.
cannot avail of the relief of preliminary injunction
This shall be without prejudice to the exercise by the
government financial institutions of such rights and/or
Held: No. Petitioner’s contention was already denied by
remedies available to them under their respective
the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 78383, where
charters and their respective contracts with their
it held in part that: “A certificate of registration of
debtors, nor should this provision be construed as
ownership of a vessel is only presumptive evidence that
restricting the government financial institutions
the registered owner has a legal title to the vessel.
concerned from approving, solely at its own discretion,
DBP's failure to register with the Philippine Coast Guard
any restructuring, recapitalization, or any other
its prior acquisition of the vessel is not fatal to its
arrangement that would place the entire account on a
ownership of said vessel, vis-a-vis petitioner herein, who
current basis, provided, however, that at least twenty
similarly failed to register the alleged subsequent sale of
percent (20%) of the arrearages outstanding at the time
the vessel to himself in an execution sale.”
of the foreclosure is paid.
The general rule that no court has the power to
All restraining orders and injunctions existing
interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of
as of the date of this Decree on foreclosure proceedings
another court with concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction
filed by said government financial institutions shall be
possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief, applies
considered lifted unless finally resolved by the court
only when no third-party claimant is involved. When
within sixty (60) days from date hereof.
a third-party, or a stranger to the action, asserts a claim
over the property levied upon, the claimant may
 P.D. No. 605 - Banning the Issuance by Courts of
vindicate his claim by an independent action in the
proper civil court which may stop the execution of the Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving Concessions,
judgment on property not belonging to the judgment Licenses, and Other Permits Issued by Public
debtor. Administrative Officials or Bodies for the Exploitation of
Natural Resources (12 December 1974)

o Section 1. No court of the Philippines shall have

jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary
injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any
case involving or growing out of the issuance, approval
or disapproval, revocation or suspension of, or any
action whatsoever by the proper administrative official
or body on concessions, licenses, permits, patents, or
public grants of any kind in connection with the

Page 203
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

disposition, exploitation, utilization, exploration, and/or This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or
development of the natural resources of the Philippines. controversies instituted by a private party, including but
not limited to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to
 P.D. No. 1818 - Prohibiting Courts from Issuing have rights through such bidders involving such
contract/project. This prohibition shall not apply when
Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in Cases
the matter is of extreme urgency involving a
Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary
Development Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated restraining order is issued, grave injustice and
by, the Government (16 January 1981) irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a
o Section 1. No court in the Philippines shall have bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary shall accrue in favor of the government if the court
injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled
to the relief sought.
case, dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure
project, or a mining, fishery, forest or other natural In after due hearing the court finds that the award
resource development project of the government, or any of the contract is null and void, the court may, if
public utility operated by the government, including appropriate under the circumstances, award the contract
among others public utilities for the transport of the to the qualified and winning bidder or order a rebidding
goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre of the same, without prejudice to any liability that the
guilty party may incur under existing laws.
contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or
governmental official from proceeding with, or
o Section 4. Nullity of Writs and Orders. – Any temporary
continuing the execution or implementation of any such
restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary
project, or the operation of such public utility, or
mandatory injunction issued in violation of Section 3
pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such
hereof is void and of no force and effect.
execution, implementation or operation.
Exception to prohibition under P.D. No. 1818
 R.A. No. 8975 - An Act to Ensure the Expeditious
Implementation and Completion of Government Hernandez v. National Power Corporation (2006)
Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from
Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Facts: Sometime in 1996, NAPOCOR began the
Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, construction of 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for other with a height of 53.4 meters to support overhead high
tension cables. Said transmission line passes through
Purposes. (7 November 2000)
the Sergio Osmeña, Sr. Highway (South Superhighway),
the perimeter of Fort Bonifacio, and Dasmariñas Village
o Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary proximate to Tamarind Road, where petitioners’ homes
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. – are.
No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or On 9 March 2000 filed a Complaint for
preliminary mandatory injunction against the Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any
against NAPOCOR. Harping on the hazardous effects of
person or entity, whether public or private acting under
exposure to electromagnetic radiation to the health and
the government direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel safety to themselves and their families, petitioners
the following acts: prayed for damages and the relocation of the
transmission lines to Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio. The
a. Acquisition, clearance and development of the trial court issued a temporary restraining order and
right-of-way and/or site or location of any later, extended its effectivity. Subsequently, a writ of
preliminary injunction was issued.
national government project;
Citing P.D. No. 1818, NAPOCOR filed a Petition
b. Bidding or awarding of contract/ project of the for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
national government as defined under Section 2 Order and Preliminary Injunction with the Court of
hereof; Appeals assailing the above order by the trial court.

c. Commencement prosecution, execution, Issue: Whether or not the trial court may issue a
implementation, operation of any such contract temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
to enjoin the construction and operation of the 29
or project;
decagon-shaped steel poles or towers by the NAPOCOR,
notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818
d. Termination or rescission of any such
contract/project; and Held: Yes. While its sole provision would appear to
encompass all cases involving the implementation of
e. The undertaking or authorization of any other projects and contracts on infrastructure, natural
lawful activity necessary for such resource development and public utilities, this rule,
however, is not absolute as there are actually instances
contract/project.
when Presidential Decree No. 1818 should not find
application. In a spate of cases, this Court declared that
although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any

Page 204
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

court from issuing injunctions in cases involving Preliminary injunction not granted without
infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to notice; exception
the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58
administrative acts in controversies involving facts or Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted
the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues without notice; exception. - No preliminary injunction
clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the
law, this Court declared that courts could not be party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear
prevented from exercising their power to restrain or from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified
prohibit administrative acts. application that great or irreparable injury would result
to the applicant before the matter can be heard on
In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 notice, the court to which the application for
aims to avert is the untimely frustration of government preliminary injunction was made, may issue a
infrastructure projects, particularly by provisional temporary restraining order to be effective only for a
remedies, to the detriment of the greater good by period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or
disrupting the pursuit of essential government projects person sought to be enjoined, except as herein
or frustrate the economic development effort of the provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court
nation. Presidential Decree No. 1818, however, was not must order said party or person to show cause, at a
meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the specified time and place, why the injunction should not
fundamental right to health, safety and well-being of a be granted, determine within the same period whether
community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and
land. accordingly issue the corresponding order.

Verified application and bond However, and subject to the provisions of the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58 preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency
Section 4. Verified application and bond for and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. - irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-
A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order sala court or the presiding judge of a single sala court
may be granted only when: may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order
effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance
(a)The application in the action or proceeding is but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of
verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the the next preceding section as to service of summons
relief demanded; and and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter,
within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge
(b) Unless exempted by the court the applicant files before whom the case is pending shall conduct a
with the court where the action or proceeding is summary hearing to determine whether the temporary
pending, a bond executed to the party or person restraining order shall be extended until the application
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case
effect that the applicant will pay to such party or shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary
person all damages which he may sustain by reason of restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including
the injunction or temporary restraining order if the the original seventy-two hours provided herein.
court should finally decide that the applicant was not
entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a In the event that the application for preliminary
writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued. injunction is denied or not resolved within the said
period, the temporary restraining order is deemed,
(c)When an application for a writ of preliminary automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary
injunction or a temporary restraining order is included restraining order is not extendible without need of any
in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall
filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after have authority to extend or renew the same on the
notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or same ground for which it was issued.
the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice
shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a
by service of summons, together with a copy of the member thereof, the temporary restraining order shall
complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant's be effective for sixty (60) days from service on the
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining,
Philippines. order issued by the Supreme Court or a member
thereof shall be effective until further orders.
However, where the summons could not be served
personally or by substituted service despite diligent
efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the Distinction between RTC, CA and SC TROs
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a
nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Phils. v.
contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply. Court of Appeals (1995)

(d)The application for a temporary restraining order Facts: Private respondent Torres was ordered by then
shall thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran of the Department of
heard in a summary hearing which shall be conducted Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to vacate a
within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff's return parcel of land located in Antipolo, Rizal. He refused to
of service and/or the records are received by the leave the premises, claiming that he had been in actual
branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall possession thereof for more than 30 years. Thus, his
be transmitted immediately. case was referred to the Secretary of Justice, who ruled

Page 205
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

that Torres failed to show proof that the land was validly Said Survey and ocular inspection is for the
transferred to him, and thus, he could be ejected purpose of pinpointing the area allegedly titled in the
therefrom as a squatter and be prosecuted for unlawful name of Torres, the area of Marikina Watershed
occupation of forest lands under Section 69 of the Reservation, the disposable and alienable area not yet
Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. titled in favor of any other person and the area for the
townsite reservation pursuant to Proclamation No. 1283
On the strength of said opinion, the DENR now being claimed by the Federation of Land Reform
formally demanded that private respondent vacate the Farmers and earmarked by the government for them."
land. Again, he refused to heed the demand. Instead, he Clearly then, this Order was issued to maintain the
filed a complaint for injunction before the RTC of status quo while the committee ascertained facts
Antipolo, Rizal to enjoin the DENR from ejecting him, necessary in resolving whether or not the writ of
wherein he alleged that he had a pending application for preliminary injunction should be issued. By issuing said
registration of title of the property. On 8 August 1988, Order, the trial court should be deemed as merely
the court issued a temporary restraining order, directing exercising its inherent power under Section 5(b), Rule
the parties to maintain the status quo and enjoining the 135 of the Revised Rules of Court "to enforce order in
DENR from ejecting Torres. On 23 August 1988, upon proceedings before it" in the absence of any showing
the agreement of the parties, the trial court ordered that that it has gravely abused its discretion in so doing.
the status quo be maintained and created a committee,
composed of representatives of the court, the DENR and
private respondent, to conduct a survey and ocular Dissolution of injunction or TRO
inspection for the purpose of pinpointing the areas
allegedly titled in private respondent’s name 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58

Meanwhile, petitioner Federation of Land Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of
Reform Farmers of the Phils. (“FLRP”) filed a motion for dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. – The
intervention, on the ground that it had entered into a application for injunction or restraining order may be
Memorandum of Agreement with DENR for the lease of denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. The
the subject parcel of land. The court denied FLRP’s injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or,
motion. Subsequently, FLRP filed a motion to declare if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon
without force and effect the 23 August 1988 Order of affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which
the court arguing that said order had long become may be opposed by the applicant also by
functus officio because under Section 5, Rule 58 of the affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if granted,
Revised Rules of Court a temporary restraining order may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that
has a lifespan of only 20 days and that by its failure to although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or
decide whether to grant the writ of preliminary restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof,
injunction within said period, the trial court could no as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage
longer grant the said writ. to the party or person enjoined while the
applicant can be fully compensated for such
Issue: Whether the trial court could extend the damages as he may suffer, and the former files a
temporary restraining order beyond the 20-day period. bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned
that he will pay all damages which the applicant
Held: Counted from 8 August 1988, the temporary may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the
restraining order automatically expired on 28 August injunction or restraining order. If it appears that
1988, the end of the twentieth day from its issuance. the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining
Thus, when the trial court issued the Order of 23 August order granted is too great, it may be modified.
1988 directing the maintenance of the status quo upon
agreement of the parties, the temporary restraining Counterbond – person enjoined will pay all damages
order was still in full force and effect. which applicant may suffer by the denial or dissolution
of the injunction or restraining order.
Ordinarily, the efficacy of a temporary
restraining order is non-extendible and the courts have
no discretion to extend the same considering the Judgment to include damages against party and
mandatory tenor of the Rule. However, there is no sureties
reason to prevent a court from extending the 20-day
period when the parties themselves ask for such
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58
extension or for the maintenance of the status quo.
Section 8. Judgment to include damages against
The questioned order of 23 August 1988 was
party and sureties. – At the trial, the amount of
necessary for an orderly resolution of the application for
damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond
a writ of preliminary injunction. It states: "Upon
of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and
agreement of parties, the status quo is hereby
awarded under the same procedure prescribed in
maintained. As further agreed by the parties in
section 20 of Rule 57.
connection with the verification, relocation or ocular
inspection the Court hereby appoints a Committee which
is composed of the Court Interpreter and Legal N.B. Same procedure as in Sec. 20, Rule 57
Researcher representing the Court, Geodetic Engineer
Romulo Unciano representing the defendants and Junco
Surveying Office representing the plaintiffs and the
parties are directed to be present in the premises
starting August 29, 1988 at 1:00 o’clock (sic) in the
afternoon and every afternoon until it is finished.”

Page 206
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

When final injunction granted incur any obligation or expenditure without leave of the
court and it is the responsibility of the court to supervise
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58 the receiver and see to it that he adheres to the above
standard of his trust and limits the expenses of the
Section 9. When final injunction granted. – If after receivership to the minimum. For these reasons, it is
the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is generally the receivership court that is in a better
entitled to have the act or acts complained of position to determine whether a particular expenditure is
permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final reasonable and satisfied or not and its ruling thereon
injunction perpetually restraining the party or person may not be disturbed by this Court.
enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act
or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory Appointment of receiver
injunction.
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 59

Section 1. Appointment of Receiver. – Upon a

Rule 59 verified application, one or more receivers of the
Receivership property subject of the action or proceeding may be
appointed by the court where the action is pending, or
by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, or a
Receiver defined member thereof, in the following cases:

Pilar M. Normandy v. Calixto Duque, et. Al (1969) (1) When it appears from the verified application and
other proof that the applicant has an interest in the
Facts: Ramon E. Saura appointed receiver of the World property or fund which is the subject of the action or
War II Veterans Enterprises, Inc. (“WARVETS”). During proceeding, and that such property or fund is in danger
his term, he went to Japan by authority of the lower of being lost, removed, or materially injured unless a
court's order for the purpose of checking on the reported receiver be appointed to administer and preserve it;
undervaluation of goods shipped to the WARVETS and of (2) When it appears in an action by the mortgagee
preparing the shipment of the goods which had not yet for the foreclosure of a mortgage that the property is in
been committed. danger of being wasted or dissipated or materially
injured, and that its value is probably insufficient to
When Saura resigned from his post as receiver, discharge the mortgage debt, or that the parties have
he prayed that the lower court accept it and at the same so stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
time fix the amount of his fees and compensation as (3) After judgment, to preserve the property during
receiver. Thereafter, he was discharged as receiver and the pendency of an appeal, or to dispose of it according
his compensation was fixed at P10,000.00. to the judgment, or to aid execution when the
Subsequently, one Atty. Anacleto Magno, on his own execution has been returned unsatisfied or the
behalf, presented before the lower court a motion for judgment obligor refuses to apply his property in
the payment of attorney's fees to him in the amount of satisfaction of the judgment, or otherwise to carry the
P10,000.00 for his alleged services as legal counsel for judgment into effect;
Saura when he was still a receiver. Saura, himself, filed (4) Whenever in other cases it appears that the
another motion for the payment and cancellation of his appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and
receiver's bond and for the reimbursement to him as feasible means of preserving, administering, or
premium for said bond which he paid out of his personal disposing of the property in litigation.
funds The court granted both motions. Saura filed
another motion for reimbursement, this time for the
amount he allegedly paid as compensation of a clerk Receivership other than that under Rule 58
whom he employed when he was still a receiver.
1. Receivership in aid of execution of judgment under
Issue: Whether or not he is not entitled to Rule 39, Sec. 1
reimbursement of the salaries paid by him to his clerk as 2. Bank receivership
receiver of the WARVETS. 3. Receivership in petitions for insolvency under
the Insolvency Law
Held: No. He is now estopped from claiming any further
amount as compensation for alleged clerical services Notice and hearing required
employed by him as such receiver without prior approval
or authority of this Court." The employment of a clerk  incumbent upon applicant to present evidence to
was made without prior leave of court. establish condition precedent that property is in
danger of being lost.
A receiver is a representative of the court  removed or materially injured unless a receiver
appointed for the purpose of preserving and is appointed to guard and preserve it
conserving the property in litigation and prevent
its possible destruction or dissipation if it were left
in the possession of any of the parties. The receiver
is not the representative of any of the parties but of all
of them to the end that their interests may be equally
protected with the least possible inconvenience and
expense. It is inherent in the office of a receiver not only
that he should act at all times with the diligence and
prudence of a good father of a family but should also not

Page 207
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Oath and bond of receiver (Secs. 2,4) Judgment to include recovery against sureties
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 59 (Sec. 9)

Section 2. Bond on appointment of receiver. — 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 59

Before issuing the order appointing a receiver the court
shall require the applicant to file a bond executed to Section 9. Judgment to include recovery against
the party against whom the application is presented, in sureties. — The amount, if any, to be awarded to any
an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that party upon any bond filed in accordance with the
the applicant will pay such party all damages he may provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, ascertained,
sustain by reason of the appointment of such receiver and granted under the same procedure prescribed in
in case the applicant shall have procured such section 20 of Rule 57.
appointment without sufficient cause; and the court
may, in its discretion, at any time after the  Same procedure as in Rule 57, Sec. 20
appointment, require an additional bond as further
security for such damages. See Rule 58, Sec. 8:

Section 4. Oath and bond of receiver. — Before 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58
entering upon his duties, the receiver shall be sworn to
perform them faithfully, and shall file a bond, executed Section 8. Judgment to include damages against
to such person and in such sum as the court may party and sureties. — At the trial, the amount of
direct, to the effect that he will faithfully discharge his damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond
duties in the action or proceeding and obey the orders of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and
of the court awarded under the same procedure prescribed in
section 20 of Rule 57.
Denial of application or discharge of receiver
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 59

Section 3. Denial of application or discharge of Rule 60

receiver. — The application may be denied, or the Replevin
receiver discharged, when the adverse party files a
bond executed to the applicant, in an amount to be
fixed by the court, to the effect that such party will pay Replevin defined
the applicant all damages he may suffer by reason of
the acts, omissions, or other matters specified in the BA FINANCE CORP. v. CA (1996)
application as ground for such appointment. The
receiver may also be discharged if it is shown that his Facts: Spouses Manahan executed a promissory note
appointment was obtained without sufficient cause. binding themselves to pay Carmasters, Inc. P83,080.00
in 36 monthly installments. To secure the payment,
1. Upon motion and prior notice, receivership may be spouses Manahan executed a deed of chattel mortgage
discharged if it shown that his appointment was over a motor vehicle, Ford Cortina. Carmasters, Inc.
obtained without sufficient cause; later assigned the promissory note and chattel mortgage
2. Adverse party files a counterbond – will pay to BA Finance with the conformity of spouses Manahan.
applicant all damages he may suffer by reason of BA Finance filed a complaint for replevin with alternative
acts, omissions, or other matters specified in the prayer for the payment of sum of money because of the
application as ground for such appointment. failure of spouses Manahan to heed the demands of BA
(Compare to counter-bond in injunction). Finance. It also paid a bond which caused the issuance
of the writ of replevin. The service of summons
General powers of receiver
addressed to spouses Manahan had the name and
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 59
signature of Reyes indicating he received a copy of the
Section 6. General powers of receiver. — Subject to summons and the complaint. BA Finance issued a
the control of the court in which the action or certification that they have received from the sheriff the
proceeding is pending a receiver shall have the power vehicle seized from Reyes.
to bring and defend, in such capacity, actions in his
own name; to take and keep possession of the BA Finance filed a notice of dismissal and the
property in controversy; to receive rents; to collect
withdrawal of the replevin bond. The RTC noted the
debts due to himself as receiver or to the fund,
property, estate, person, or corporation of which he is dismissal and denied the motion to withdraw the
the receiver; to compound for and compromise the replevin bond considering that it has been implemented.
same; to make transfers; to pay outstanding debts; to Upon motion, RTC set aside the dismissal of the case
divide the money and other property that shall remain and ordered the service of summons on the Spouses
among the persons legally entitled to receive the same; Manahan but were subsequently declared in default.
and generally to do such acts respecting the property
The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that
as the court may authorize. However, funds in the
Reyes is merely an ancillary debtor and the spouses
hands of a receiver may be invested only by order of
the court upon the written consent of all the parties to Manahan, being the principal debtors, then BA Finance
the action. has no cause of action against them.

No action may be filed by or against a receiver

without leave of the court which appointed him.

Page 208
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

In its appeal to the Court of Appeals, BA character and determined nothing more than the right of
Finance asserted that a suit for replevin aimed at the possession. However, when the title to the property is
foreclosure of the chattel is an action quasi in rem which distinctly put in issue by the defendant's plea and by
reason of the policy to settle in one action all the
does not necessitate the presence of the principal
conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the
obligors as long as the court does not render any property in controversy, the question of ownership may
personal judgment against them. be resolved in the same proceeding.

Issue: Whether or not the presence of spouses Finally, although a "replevin" action is primarily
Manahan is a requisite for replevin to prosper one for the possession of personality, yet it is sufficiently
flexible to authorize a settlement of all equities between
Held: No. Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form the parties, arising from or growing out of the main
of principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may controversy. Thus, in an action for replevin where the
refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the defendant is adjudged entitled to possession, he need
possession of personal chattels being wrongfully not go to another forum to procure relief for the return
detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the of the replevied property or secure a judgment for the
provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to value of the property in case the adjudged return
retain the thing during the pendency of the action and thereof could not be had. Appropriately, the trial court
hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily possessory rendered an alternative judgment.
in nature and generally determines nothing more than
the right of possession. Replevin is so usually described Application
as a mixed action, being partly in rem and partly in
personam-in rem insofar as the recovery of specific 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
property is concerned, and in personam as regards to
damages involved. As an "action in rem," the gist of the Section 1. Application. — A party praying for the
replevin action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain recovery of possession of personal property may, at
possession of specific personal property by reason of his the commencement of the action or at any time before
being the owner or of his having a special interest answer, apply for an order for the delivery of such
therein. Consequently, the person in possession of the property to him, in the manner hereinafter provided.
property sought to be replevied is ordinarily the proper
and only necessary party defendant, and the plaintiff is Affidavit and bond
not required to so join as defendants other persons
claiming a right on the property but not in possession
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
thereof. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court allows an
application for the immediate possession of the property
Section 2. Affidavit and bond. — The applicant must
but the plaintiff must show that he has a good legal
show by his own affidavit or that of some other person
basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking
who personally knows the facts:
such interim possession.
Where the right of the plaintiff to the possession of the
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property
specific property is so conceded or evident, the action
claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the
need only be maintained against him who so possesses
possession thereof;
the property.
(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the
adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof
Nature
according to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief;
Chiao Liong Tan vs. CA (1993)
(c) That the property has not been distrained or
taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or
Facts: Tan claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle,
seized under a writ of execution or preliminary
particularly described as Isuzu Elf van which was taken
attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis,
from him by his older brother Yong. Tan relies on the
or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or
fact that the van is registered under his name. Tan
custody; and
asserts that he gave the payment for the van to Yong
(d) The actual market value of the property
and let him use it since Yong was working for Tan’s
company.
The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the
adverse party in double the value of the property as
Yong alleged that the he was the one who gave stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of
the payment for the van to Tan. And Yong was also the the property to the adverse party if such return be
one who paid for the balance for the van. adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of
such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the
RTC rendered a decision declaring Yong as the action
owner of the van and entitled to its possession. It also
ordered the delivery of the van to Yong. Foreclosure of chattel mortgage

Northern Motors, Inc. v. Herrera (1973)

Issue: Whether or not a suit for replevin resolve the
issue of ownership Facts: Manila Yellow Taxicab purchased from Northern
Motors 200 Holden Torana Cars and executed chattel
Held: Yes. It is true that the judgment in a replevin suit mortgages on the case in favor of the latter. The
must only resolve in whom is the right of possession. mortgages were then assigned to Filinvest Credit Co.
Primarily, the action of replevin is possessory in

Page 209
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Tropical obtained a judgment against Manila Return of property

Yellow Taxicab and part of the judgment was assigned
to Ong. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied on 20 * Counterbond – double the value of the property, for
delivery thereof to the applicant, if such be adjudged,
taxicabs. 8 of which were mortgaged to Northern Motors
and for payment of such sum as may be recovered
and 12 to Filinvest Credit Co. Northern and Filinvest filed against the adverse party
third-party claims with the sheriff but the taxicabs were
still sold. 35 more taxicabs were sold at auction which 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
were also mortgaged to Northern and Filinvest. The RTC
ruled that the chattel mortgagee were not entitled to the Section 5. Return of property. — If the adverse
possession of the taxiabs by the mere fact of the party objects to the sufficiency of the applicant's bond,
execution of the mortgage and that the mortgage lien or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot
immediately require the return of the property, but if
followed the chattel whoever might be its actual
he does not so object, he may, at any time before the
possessor. delivery of the property to the applicant, require the
return thereof, by filing with the court where the action
Issue: whether or not Northern Motor’s chattel is pending a bond executed to the applicant, in double
mortgage lien over the taxicabs, which were levied upon the value of the property as stated in the applicant's
by the mortgagor's unsecured judgment creditor, affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if
Tropical Commercial, could be asserted in the same case such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of
where the judgment was rendered such sum, to him as may be recovered against the
adverse party, and by serving a copy of such bond on
Held: Yes. We hold, under the facts of this case, that the applicant.
Northern Motors, Inc., as chattel mortgagee and unpaid
vendor, should not be required to vindicate in a separate Disposition of property by sheriff
action its claims for the seven mortgaged taxicabs and - property seized not to be delivered immediately to
for the proceeds of the execution sale of the other eight plaintiff but must retain it in custody for 5 days and
mortgaged taxicabs. shall return it to the defendant if the latter files a
counterbond and requires its return
Inasmuch as the condition of the chattel
mortgages had already been broken and Northern - counterbond must be filed within 5 days from
Motors, Inc. had in fact instituted an action for replevin taking of property; period mandatory, so that a
so that it could take possession of the mortgaged lower court which approves a counterbond filed
taxicabs (Civil Case No. 20536, Rizal CFI), it has a beyond the period acts in excess of jurisdiction
superior, preferential and paramount right to have
possession of the mortgaged taxicabs and to claim the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
proceeds of the execution sale (See Bachrach Motor Co.
vs. Summers, 42 Phil. 3;, Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Section 6. Disposition of property by sheriff. — If
Herrera, L-32674, February 22, 1973, 49 SCRA 392) within five (5) days after the taking of the property by
the sheriff, the adverse party does not object to the
sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties
Respondent sheriff wrongfully levied upon the
thereon; or if the adverse party so objects and the
mortgaged taxicabs and erroneously took possession of
court affirms its approval of the applicant's bond or
them. He could have levied only upon the right or equity
approves a new bond, or if the adverse party requires
of redemption pertaining to the Manila Yellow Taxicab
the return of the property but his bond is objected to
Co., Inc . as chattel mortgagor and judgment debtor,
and found insufficient and he does not forthwith file an
because that was the only leviable or attachable
approved bond, the property shall be delivered to the
property right of the company in the mortgaged
applicant. If for any reason the property is not
taxicabs
delivered to the applicant, the sheriff must return it to
the adverse party.
Replevin does not issue against property in
custodia legis
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
Third party claim
Section 3. Order. — Upon the filing of such affidavit
and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an order 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
and the corresponding writ of replevin, describing the Section 7. Proceedings where property claimed by
personal property alleged to be wrongfully detained third person. — If the property taken is claimed by any
and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such person other than the party against whom the writ of
property into his custody. replevin had been issued or his agent, and such person
makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the
possession thereof, stating the grounds therefor, and
Where writ may be served (anywhere in the Phils.) Is
serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter
hearing required? (Compare to preliminary attachment
has possession of the property and a copy thereof upon
and preliminary injunction)
the applicant, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the
N.B. Unlike in attachment and injunction which is
property under replevin or deliver it to the applicant
usually issued only after hearing, with certain
unless the applicant or his agent, on demand of said
exceptions, order for delivery of personal property as a
sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to
provisional remedy is issued ex parte and, given the
indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less
requisites for its issuance, is granted as a matter of
than the value of the property under replevin as
course.
provided in section 2 hereof. In case of disagreement

Page 210
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

as to such value, the court shall determine the same. Rule 57, Sec. 14
No claim for damages for the taking or keeping, of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 57
property may be enforced against the bond unless the
action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) Section 14. Proceedings where property claimed by
days from the date of the filing of the bond. third person. — If the property attached is claimed by
any person other than the party against whom
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages, for the attachment had been issued or his agent, and such
taking or keeping of such property, to any such third- person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right
party claimant if such bond shall be filed. Nothing to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such
herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any right or title, and serves such affidavit upon the sheriff
third person from vindicating his claim to the property, while the latter has possession of the attached
or prevent the applicant from claiming damages property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party,
against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property
plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate under attachment, unless the attaching party or his
action. agent, on demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond
approved by the court to indemnify the third-party
When the writ of replevin is issued in favor of the claimant in a sum not less than the value of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly property levied upon. In case of disagreement as to
representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be such value, the same shall be decided by the court
required, and in case the sheriff is sued for damages as issuing the writ of attachment. No claim for damages
a result of the replevin, he shall be represented by the for the taking or keeping of the property may be
Solicitor General, and if held liable therefor, the actual enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is
damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the
National Treasurer out of the funds to be appropriated date of the filing of the bond.
for the purpose.
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the
See Rule 39, Sec. 16; taking or keeping of such property to any such third-
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 39 party claimant, if such bond shall be filed. Nothing
herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any
Section 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person from vindicating his claim to the property,
third person. — If the property levied on is claimed by or prevent the attaching party from claiming damages
any person other than the judgment obligor or his against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or
agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate
thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the action.
grounds of such right or title, and serves the same
upon the officer making the levy and copy thereof, When the writ of attachment is issued in favor of the
stating the grounds of such right or tittle, and a serves Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly
the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be
thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not required, and in case the sheriff is sued for damages as
be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment a result of the attachment, he shall be represented by
obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond the Solicitor General, and if held liable therefor, the
approved by the court to indemnity the third-party actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by
claimant in a sum not less than the value of the the National Treasurer out of the funds to be
property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such appropriated for the purpose.
value, the same shall be determined by the court
issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for Judgment to include recovery against sureties
the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced (Sec. 10)
against the bond unless the action therefor is filed
within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 60
the filing of the bond.
Section 10. Judgment to include recovery against
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the sureties. — The amount, if any, to be awarded to any
taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party party upon any bond filed in accordance with the
claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, ascertained,
shall prevent such claimant or any third person from and granted under the same procedure as prescribed in
vindicating his claim to the property in a separate section 20 of Rule 57.
action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming
damages in the same or a separate action against a
third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly Same procedure as in Rule 57, Sec. 20
spurious claim.
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 57
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly Section 20. Claim for damages on account of
representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be improper, irregular or excessive attachment. — An
required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is application for damages on account of improper,
sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before
represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the
therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the
shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such attaching party and his surety or sureties setting forth
funds as may be appropriated for the purpose. the facts showing his right to damages and the amount

Page 211
 Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 61
proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment
on the main case. Section 6. Support in criminal cases. — In criminal
actions where the civil liability includes support for the
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable offspring as a consequence of the crime and the civil
to the party against whom the attachment was issued aspect thereof has not been waived, reserved and
he must claim damages sustained during the pendency instituted prior to its filing, the accused may be ordered
of the appeal by filing an application in the appellate to provide support pendente lite to the child born to the
court, with notice to the party in whose favor the offended party allegedly because of the crime. The
attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, before application therefor may be filed successively by the
the judgment of the appellate court becomes offended party, her parents, grandparents or guardian
executory. The appellate court may allow the and the State in the corresponding criminal case during
application to be heard and decided by the trial court. its pendency, in accordance with the procedure
established under this Rule.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party
against whom the attachment was issued from
recovering in the same action the damages awarded to
him from any property of the attaching party not
exempt from execution should the bond or deposit Rule 62
given by the latter be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy
the award.
Interpleader

See Rule 58, Sec. 8; Interpleader, defined

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 58
Beltran v. People’s Homesite & Housing
Section 8. Judgment to include damages against Corporation (1969)
party and sureties. — At the trial, the amount of
damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond Facts: Plaintiffs, in their own behalf and in behalf of all
of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and residents of Project 4 in Quezon City, filed an
awarded under the same procedure prescribed in interpleader suit, praying that the two defendant-
section 20 of Rule 57. government corporations, the People's Homesite &
Housing Corporation (PHHC) and the Government
Rule 59, Sec. 9 Service Insurance System (GSIS) , be compelled to
litigate and interplead between themselves their alleged
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 59
conflicting claims involving said Project 4.
Section 9. Judgment to include recovery against
Plaintiffs alleged that since they first occupied
sureties. — The amount, if any, to be awarded to any
in 1953 their respective housing units at Project 4,
party upon any bond filed in accordance with the
under lease from PHHC and paying monthly rentals
provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, ascertained,
therefor, they were assured by competent authority that
and granted under the same procedure prescribed in
after five years of continuous occupancy, they would be
section 20 of Rule 57.
entitled to purchase said units. Subsequently, the PHHC
announced that the management, administration and
ownership of Project 4 would be transferred by the PHHC
Rule 61 to the GSIS in payment of PHHC debts to the GSIS. The
Support Pendente Lite tenants signified their conformity thereto. Thereafter,
the PHHC announced in another circular that all
payments made by the tenants would be considered as
Support during pendency of action for support amortizations or installment payments. The PHHC
furthermore instructed the Project Housing Manager to
 “Pendente lite” – pending or during litigation accept as installments on the selling price the payments
made.
 N.B. The amount is temporarily fixed by the court in
favor of the persons entitled thereto during the On December 27, 1961, the agreement of
pendency of the action for support. turnover of administration and ownership of PHHC
properties, including Project 4 was executed by PHHC in
favor of GSIS. Subsequently, however, PHHC through
Support pendente lite in other actions its new Chairman-General Manager, Esmeraldo Eco,
refused to recognize all agreements and undertakings
1. Habeas corpus filed by the mother on behalf of a minor previously entered into with GSIS, while GSIS insisted
child against the father, where the father has recognized on its legal rights to enforce the said agreements.
the child as his own and has not been giving him Plaintiffs thus claimed that these conflicting claims
support between the defendants-corporations caused them great
inconvenience and incalculable moral and material
2. Rape cases for the offspring of the accused as a damage, as they did not know to whom they should pay
consequence thereof the monthly amortizations or payments.

The trial court dismissed the complaint for

interpleader for failure to state a cause of action.

Page 212
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Issue: Whether or not a complaint for interpleader was

properly dismissed by the trial court. Rule 63
Declaratory Relief and Similar
Held: Yes, the dismissal was proper. As borne by the
records of the case, the GSIS has no objection that
Remedies
payments on the monthly amortizations from the
residents of Project 4 be made directly to PHHC. In so Declaratory Relief, defined
far as payments are concerned, GSIS has expressed its
conformity that they be made directly to PHHC. Board of Optometry v. Hon. Angel Colet (1996)
Whatever dispute, if any, may exist between the two
corporations over the lots and buildings in Project 4, Facts: R.A. No. 8050, entitled "An Act Regulating the
payments made to the PHHC will not and cannot in any Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating
way affect or prejudice the rights of the residents Optometrists, and for Other Purposes," otherwise known
thereof as they will be credited by either of the two as the Revised Optometry Law of 1995, was approved
defendants. into law on 7 June 1995. The private respondents filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for
Rule 63, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction to
Court (formerly Rule 14) requires as an indispensable restrain the implementation and enforcement of R.A. No.
element that "conflicting claims upon the same subject 8050. In support of the petition, respondents alleged
matter are or may be made" against the plaintiff-in- that: (1) there was an unauthorized insertion of
interpleader "who claims no interest whatever in the provisions in the reconciled bill which vitiated legislative
subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is consent; (2) the law violates the fundamental right of
not disputed by the claimants." While the two defendant Filipinos to safeguards against violation of life, liberty,
corporations may have conflicting claims between and property; (3) it violates the principle against undue
themselves with regard to the management, delegation of legislative power when it provides for a
administration and ownership of Project 4, such penalty of imprisonment for a maximum of eight years
conflicting claims are not against the plaintiffs nor do and a fine not exceeding P40,000.00; (4) it suppresses
they involve or affect the plaintiffs. No allegation is truthful advertising concerning optical goods and
made in their complaint that any corporation other than services in violation of the guaranty of freedom of
the PHHC which was the only entity privy to their lease- speech and press; and (5) employs vague ambiguous
purchase agreement, ever made on them any claim or terms in defining prohibitions and restrictions and is void
demand for payment of the rentals or amortization for vagueness.
payments. The questions of fact raised in their complaint
concerning the enforceability, and recognition or non- The trial court issued the challenged order,
enforceability and non-recognition of the turnover granting the writ of preliminary injunction. Aggrieved,
agreement of December 27, 1961 between the two the petitioners then filed this special civil action
defendant corporations are irrelevant to their action of for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the absence of a
interpleader, for these conflicting claims, loosely so- valid cause of action for either declaratory relief or
called, are between the two corporations and not against prohibition.
plaintiffs. Both defendant corporations were in
conformity and had no dispute, as pointed out by the Issue: Whether or not the petition for declaratory relief
trial court that the monthly payments and amortizations may prosper.
should be made directly to the PHHC alone.
Held: No. As a special civil action for declaratory
Clearly, there were no conflicting claims by relief, its requisites are: (1) the existence of a justiciable
defendant corporations as against plaintiff-tenants, controversy; (2) the controversy is between persons
which they may properly be compelled in an interpleader whose interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking
suit to interplead and litigate among themselves. Both the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4)
defendant corporations were agreed that PHHC should that the issue invoked is ripe for judicial
continue receiving the tenants' payments, and that such determination. On this score, we find no difficulty
payments would be duly recognized even if the GSIS holding that at least the first and fourth requisites are
should eventually take over Project 4 by virtue of their wanting.
turnover agreement of December 27, 1961. As held by
this Court in an early case, the action of interpleader is a There is the unbending rule in constitutional
remedy whereby a person who has property in his law that courts will not assume jurisdiction over a
possession or has an obligation to render wholly or constitutional question unless the following requisites
partially, without claiming any right in both, comes to are first satisfied: (1) there must be an actual case or
court and asks that the defendants who have made controversy involving a conflict or rights susceptible of
upon him conflicting claims upon the same property or judicial determination; (2) the constitutional question
who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance must be raised by a proper party; (3) the constitutional
with the obligation be required to litigate among question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
themselves in order to determine who is entitled to the (4) the resolution of the constitutional question must be
property or payment of the obligation. "The remedy is necessary to the resolution of the case.
afforded not to protect a person against a double liability
but to protect him against a double vexation in respect An actual case or controversy means as
of one liability." existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe
for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory. There
The trial court, therefore, did not err in is yet no actual case or controversy involving all or any
ordering the dismissal of the complaint for interpleader. of the private respondents on one hand, and all or any
of the petitioners on the other, with respect to rights or

Page 213
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

obligations under R.A. No. 8050. This is plain because Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the petition for
Civil Case No. 95-74770 is for declaratory relief. declaratory relief was proper.
Moreover, private respondents OPAP, COA, ACMO, and
SMOAP have not sufficiently established their locus Held: Yes. Without deciding the question of whether
standi to question the validity of R.A. No. 8050 for the petition under consideration has, in reality "become
failure to show that they are juridical entities groundless", we believe that, upon the facts appearing
of record, said petition was correctly dismissed.
Hence, respondent Judge acted with grave Petitioner himself alleged that his petition:
abuse of discretion when he issued a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. No. has sufficiently alleged ultimate facts which
8050, as well as of the Code of Ethics promulgated violated his right as a duly qualified and
thereunder. Even if there was before him a case accredited Certified Public Accountant by the
involving the law, prudence dictated that the respondent Board of Accountancy (which is the only
Judge should not have issued the writ with undue haste, Government body with absolute powers to
bearing in mind the pronouncement in Drilon v. Lim that regulate the practice of CPAs), and in addition
every court is charged with the duty of a purposeful to such allegations, he has also alleged that by
hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the virtue of the violation of his right and that of
theory that the measure was first carefully studied by numerous CPAs, he has suffered serious injury
the executive and legislative departments and in that the questioned requirement which is
determined by them to be in accordance with the collaterally attacked by this action (in the
fundamental law before it was finally approved. honest belief of the petitioner that the same) is
an unlawful restraint of the fee pursuit and
Respondent Judge was directed to dismiss the practice of petitioner's profession as a CPA;
petition for declaratory relief and prohibition. and also that the action of the respondent
Central Bank of the Philippines complained of,
Declaratory relief distinguished from interpleader is also an unlawful invasion into the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Board of Accountancy as the
 Interpleader is filed by a person who claims no sole body vested by our laws to lay down rules
interest whatsoever in the subject matter, whereas and regulations for the practice of public
in declaratory relief, the party seeking relief has a accountancy in the Philippines. . .
legal interest in the controversy
Petitioner submits that the respondent's
requirement complained of (CB-IED Forms
When remedy is improper – where there is a Nos. 5 and 6) is an act of constituting a
breach of contract, or violation of statute or right violation of the Constitution and also a
violation of the petitioners right to freely
Ollada v. Central bank (1962) practice his profession anywhere and in any
government office in the Philippines ... It is
Facts: Felipe B. Ollada is a certified public accountant, undisputed that the only body that can
having passed the examination given by the Board of regulate the practice of accountancy in the
Accountancy, and is duly qualified to practice his Philippines is the Board of Accountancy. The
profession. Subsequently, by reason of a requirement of action thus of the respondent in requiring the
the Import-Export Department of the Central Bank that accreditation of CPAs before they can practice
CPAs submit to an accreditation under oath before they with the Central Bank of the Philippines is an
could certify financial statements of their clients applying unlawful invasion into the exclusive jurisdiction
for import dollar allocations with its office, Ollada's of the said Board of Accountancy. Why was
previous accreditation was nullified. petitioner's right as a CPA violated by the
respondent? Because the respondent's placing
Assailing said accreditation requirement on the of a ban to CPAs including the petitioner with
ground that it was (a) an unlawful invasion of the respect to certification of financial statements
jurisdiction of the Board of Accountancy, (b) in excess of of their clients applying for dollar(s) allocation
the powers of the Central Bank and (c) unconstitutional in the Central Bank of the Philippines has
in that it unlawfully restrained the legitimate pursuit of resulted in the unlawful restraint in the
one's trade, Ollada, for himself and allegedly on behalf practice of CPAs in the office of the Central
of numerous other CPAs, filed a petition for Declaratory Bank of the Philippines.
Relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila to nullify
said accreditation requirement. Ollada also applied for a Petitioner commenced this action as one for
writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the respondent Declaratory Relief. On the question of when a special
Central Bank of the Philippines from enforcing the civil action of this nature would prosper, we have
accreditation requirement aforesaid until final already held that the complaint for declaratory relief will
adjudication. not prosper if filed after a contract, statute or right has
been breached or violated. In the present case such is
In a memorandum submitted by respondent precisely the situation arising from the facts alleged in
Central Bank opposing the issuance of the writ, it the petition for declaratory relief. As vigorously claimed
manifested that it was willing to delete paragraph 13 by petitioner himself, respondent had already invaded or
from its CB-IED Form No. 5, and to modify paragraph violated his right and caused him injury — all these
14, the objectionable features of the assailed Central giving him a complete cause of action enforceable in an
Bank requirement. Upon compliance with said appropriate ordinary civil action or proceeding. The
undertaking, the trial court dismissed the petition for dismissal of the action was, therefore, proper in the light
declaratory relief for having become groundless upon of our ruling in De Borja vs. Villadolid, 47 O.G. (5) p.
the elimination of said objectionable features. 2315, and Samson vs. Andal, G.R. No. L-3439, July 31,

Page 214
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

1951, where we held that an action for declaratory relief Held: No. Petitioners insist that this is mainly a petition
should be filed before there has been a breach of a for declaratory relief. Section 1, Rule 63 of the 1997
contract, statutes or right, and that it is sufficient to bar Rules of Court provides:
such action, that there had been a breach — which
would constitute actionable violation. The rule is that an SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
action for Declaratory Relief is proper only if adequate interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
relief is not available through the means of other instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
existing forms of action or proceeding. executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
Reyes v. Ortiz (2010) thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial
Court to determine any question of construction or
Facts: In a complaint for Recovery of Possession and/or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or
Ownership of Real Property (Recovery Case) filed with duties, thereunder.
the RTC Caloocan, respondents Segundo Bautista and
spouses Bernard and Florencia Perl sought the ouster An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet
from the contested lots of Erlinda Reyes, which form title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to
part of the Tala Estate, the spouses Rene and Rosemarie consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Matienzo and Sergio Abejero. Shortly thereafter, a Code, may be brought under this Rule.
separate but related action involving the Tala Estate was
initiated by the Republic of the Philippines for Annulment The foregoing section can be dissected into two
of Title/Reversion (Annulment/Reversion case) against parts. The first paragraph concerns declaratory relief,
Biyaya Corporation and the Register of Deeds of the which has been defined as a special civil action by any
Cities of Pasig, Caloocan, and Quezon. person interested under a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument or whose rights are affected by a
Thereafter, the Quezon City RTC in the statute, ordinance, executive order or regulation to
Annulment/Reversion case issued a Preliminary determine any question of construction or validity
Injunction (Injunction) freezing all pending ejectment arising under the instrument, executive order or
cases involving the Tala Estate. Believing that the regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights
Injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC can be and duties thereunder. The second paragraph pertains
beneficial to them in the Recovery case, spouses Rene to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument;
and Rosemarie Matienzo filed a motion to suspend the (2) an action to quiet title; and (3) an action to
proceedings of the Recovery case. Said motion was consolidate ownership in a sale with a right to
denied by the RTC Caloocan. repurchase.

The second case, an ejectment complaint, was The first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63
commenced by spouses Bernard and Florencia Perl on enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon in a
June 25, 1997, against Erlinda Reyes before the declaratory relief namely, deed, will, contract or other
Caloocan City MeTC (Ejectment Case). Erlinda Reyes written instrument, a statute, executive order or
moved for the suspension of the proceedings and/or for regulation, or any government regulation. This Court, in
the dismissal of these cases citing the Injunction issued Lerum v. Cruz declared that the subject matters to be
by the QC RTC. This motion was also denied. tested in a petition for declaratory relief are exclusive.
The foregoing holding was reiterated in Natalia Realty,
The Recovery case and the Ejectment cases Inc. v. Court of Appeals, wherein this Court stressed that
converged when petitioners Rosemarie Matienzo and court orders or decisions cannot be made the subject
Erlinda Reyes joined in filing directly with this Court the matter of a declaratory relief, viz:
instant petition denominated as "Declaratory
Relief, Certiorari, and Prohibition," mainly assailing the [A] court decision cannot be interpreted as included
denial of their respective motions for suspension. within the purview of the words "other written
Petitioners Matienzo and Reyes asked that the instrument," as contended by appellant, for the simple
proceedings in the Ejectment cases and the Recovery reason that the Rules of Court already provide for the
case be declared null and void for violating the ways by which an ambiguous or doubtful decision may
Injunction order of the Quezon City RTC. be corrected or clarified without need of resorting to the
expedient prescribed by Rule 66 [now Rule 63].
Respondent Segundo Bautista contends that
petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy. He argues that In the instant case, petitioners Erlinda Reyes
the action for declaratory relief can only prosper if the and Rosemarie Matienzo assailed via Declaratory Relief
statute, deed, or contract has not been violated. Hence, under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, the orders of the
where the law or contract has already been breached trial courts denying their motions to suspend
prior to the filing of the declaratory relief, courts can no proceedings. This recourse by petitioners, unfortunately,
longer assume jurisdiction since this action is not geared cannot be countenanced since a court order is not one of
towards the settling of issues arising from breach or those subjects to be examined under Rule 63. The
violation of the rights and obligations of the parties proper remedy that petitioner Erlinda Reyes could have
under a statute, deed, and contract, but rather it is utilized from the denial of her motion to suspend
intended to secure an authoritative statement for proceedings in the Caloocan City MeTC was to file a
guidance in their enforcement or compliance of the motion for reconsideration and, if it is denied, to file a
same. petition for certiorari before the RTC pursuant to Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner
Issue: Whether or not petitioners’ resort to a petition Matienzo should have filed a special civil action on
for declaratory relief was proper. certiorari also under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals
from the denial of her motion by the Caloocan City RTC.

Page 215
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

At all events, even if this petition delves on Service Department, with an enclosed check to cover for
questions of law, there is no statutory or jurisprudential the expenses on construction of polling booths. It was
basis for according to this Court original and exclusive addressed Mrs. Lucita Garces E.R. Gutalac, Zamboanga
jurisdiction over declaratory relief which advances only del Norte which Garces interpreted to mean as
questions of law. Finally, while a petition for declaratory superseding the deferment order. Meanwhile, since
relief may be treated as one for prohibition if it has far respondent Concepcion continued occupying the Gutalac
reaching implications and raises questions that need to office, the COMELEC en banc cancelled his appointment
be resolved, there is no allegation of facts by petitioner to Liloy.
tending to show that she is entitled to such a writ.
Garces filed before the Regional Trial Court
Conversion into ordinary action (RTC) a petition for mandamus with preliminary
prohibitory and mandatory injunction and damages
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 63 against Empeynado and Concepcion, among others.
Meantime, the COMELEC en banc through a Resolution
Section 6. Conversion into ordinary action. — If dated 3 June 1988, resolved to recognize respondent
before the final termination of the case, a breach or Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac, and
violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order ordered that the appointments of Garces to Gutalac and
or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental of Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled.
regulation should take place, the action may thereupon
be converted into an ordinary action, and the parties The jurisdiction of the RTC was challenged by
shall be allowed to file such pleadings as may be Empeynado contending that this is a case or matter
necessary or proper. cognizable by the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of
the 1987 Constitution. The COMELEC resolution
RTC has exclusive jurisdiction; SC has no cancelling the appointment of Garces as Election
jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief Registrar of Gutalac, he argues, should be raised only on
certiorari before the Supreme Court and not before the
RTC, else the latter court becomes a reviewer of an en
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 63 par. 1
banc COMELEC resolution contrary to Sec. 7, Art. IX-A.
The RTC, thereafter, dismissed the petition for
Section 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
mandamus on two grounds, viz., (1) that quo warranto
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
is the proper remedy, and (2) that the cases or matters
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
referred under the constitution pertain only to those
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
involving the conduct of elections. On appeal, the CA
governmental regulation may, before breach or
affirmed the RTCs dismissal of the case.
violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of
Issue: Whether or not this case is cognizable by the
construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of
COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987
his rights or duties, thereunder…
Constitution, and therefore may be raised only on
certiorari before the Supreme Court and not before the
RTC.
Rule 64 Held: The case is not cognizable by the COMELEC under
Review of Judgments and Final Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution as there was
Orders or Resolution of COMELEC and no case or matter filed before the COMELEC. Thus, it
may not be raised on certiorari before the Supreme
COA Court. Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution provides:

What may be reviewed by the Supreme Court Each commission shall decide by a majority
vote of all its members any case or matter brought
Garces v. CA (1996) before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is
Facts: Lucita Garces was appointed Election Registrar of deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte on July 27, 1986. She filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum
was to replace Election Registrar Claudio Concepcion, required by the rules of the commission or by the
who, in turn, was transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Norte. Correspondingly approved by the Civil Service constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
Commission, both appointments were to take effect each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court
upon assumption of office. Concepcion, however, on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days
refused to transfer post as he did not request for it. from receipt of a copy thereof.
Garces, on the other hand, was directed by the Office of
Assistant Director for Operations to assume the Gutalac On the contrary, it was the COMELECs
post. But she was not able to do so because of a resolution that triggered this Controversy. The case or
Memorandum issued by Provincial Election Supervisor matter referred to by the Constitution must be
Salvador Empeynado that prohibited her from assuming something within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it
office in Gutalac as the same is not vacant. must pertain to an election dispute. The settled rule is
that decision, rulings, order of the COMELEC that may
On February 24, 1987, Garces was directed by be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under
the same Office of Assistant Director to defer her Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that relate to the COMELECs
assumption of the Gutalac post. On April 15, 1987, she exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers
received a letter from the Acting Manager, Finance involving elective regional, provincial and city officials.
In this case, what is being assailed is the COMELECs

Page 216
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

choice of an appointee to occupy the Gutalac Post which exercise in the power of the Supreme Court to
is an administrative duty done for the operational set-up promulgate rules on practice and procedure as provided
of an agency. The controversy involves an appointive, by Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution.
not an elective, official. Hardly can this matter call for Rulemaking is different from the Supreme Court’s
the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To rule adjudicatory function. Rulemaking is an act of
otherwise would surely burden the Court with trivial legislation, directly assigned to the Supreme Court by
administrative questions that are best ventilated before the Constitution, that requires the formulation of policies
the RTC, a court which the law vests with the power to rather than the determination of the legal rights and
exercise original jurisdiction over all cases not within the obligations of litigants before us. As a rule, rulemaking
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or requires that the Supreme Court consult with its own
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. constituencies, not necessarily with the parties directly
affected in their individual cases, in order to ensure that
Fresh period rule not applicable the rule and the policy that it enunciates are the most
reasonable that we can promulgate under the
Pates v. Comelec (2009) circumstances, taking into account the interests of
everyone not the least of which are the constitutional
Facts: The petitioner argued that his petition for parameters and guidelines for our actions. Thus, the
certiorari assailing a Resolution of the COMELEC was Supreme Court’s adjudicatory powers should not be
seasonably filed under the fresh period rule enunciated confused with its rulemaking prerogative.
by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. He claims
that, historically, the fresh period rule was the prevailing The avoidance of confusion through the use of
rule in filing petitions for certiorari. The Supreme Court, uniform standards is not without its merits. No less than
he continues, changed this rule when it promulgated the the Constitution requires that motions for
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Circular No. 39-98, reconsideration of [division] decisions shall be decided
which both provided for the filing of petitions within the by the Commission en banc. Thus, the ruling of the
remainder of the original period, the remainder being Commission en banc on reconsideration is effectively a
the original period less the days used up in preparing new ruling rendered separately and independently from
and filing a motion for reconsideration. He then points that made by a division. Counterbalanced against these
out that on 1 September 2000 or only three years after, reasons, however, are other considerations no less
the Supreme Court promulgated A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC weighty, the most significant of which is the importance
bringing back the fresh period rule. According to the the Constitution and the Supreme Court, in obedience to
petitioner, the reason for the change, was the the Constitution, accord to elections and the prompt
tremendous confusion generated by Circular No. 39-98. determination of their results. Section 3, Article IX-C of
the Constitution expressly requires that the COMELECs
Issue: Is the fresh period rule applicable in Rule 64 of rules of procedure should expedite the disposition of
the Rules of Court? election cases. The Supreme Court labors under the
same command, as the proceedings are in fact the
Held: No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution constitutional extension of cases that start with the
provides that unless otherwise provided by the COMELEC.
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the Court on Motion for reconsideration of decision of COMELEC
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from Division required; not of COMELEC En Banc
receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of
Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically  Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure
applicable only to decisions of the COMELEC and the states:
Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the
application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for What Pleadings are not Allowed. - The
certiorari, subject to the exception clause except as following pleadings are not allowed:
hereinafter provided.
... ... ...
Rule 64, however, cannot simply be equated to
Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule. They (d) motion for reconsideration of an en
exist as separate rules for substantive reasons as banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in
discussed below. Procedurally, the most patent election offense cases;
difference between the two i.e., the exception that
Section 2, Rule 64 refers to is Section 3 which provides N.B. MR of COMELEC Division ruling should first be
for a special period for the filing of petitions for certiorari filed with COMELEC En Banc, whose decision may
from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The be brought on certiorari to SC. Exc. when division
period is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling committed grave abuse of discretion, in which
(instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with the case the aggrieved party may directly file a
intervening period used for the filing of any motion for petition for certiorari with SC.
reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted
30 days (instead of the fresh period of 60 days that Rule  Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as
65 provides). amended by Resolution No. 9523,4 provides:

In harking back to the history of the fresh

period rule, what the petitioner apparently wants for
reasons of uniformity and convenience is the 4 In The Matter Of the Amendment to Rules 23, 24, And
simultaneous amendment of Section 3, Rule 64 and the 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure for Purposes of
application of his proposed new rule to his case. To state The 13 May 2013 National, Local And ARMM Elections
the obvious, any amendment of this provision is an And Subsequent Elections.

Page 217
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Section 7. Motion for Reconsideration. — A appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
motion to reconsider a Decision, Resolution, Order or in the ordinary course of law. (Id.)
Ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days
from receipt thereof and upon the payment of filing fee 3. A special civil action of prohibition is
in the amount of P1,000.00. Such motion, if not pro- an original and independent action and not merely a
forma, suspends the execution for implementation of the continuation or a part of the trial resulting in the
Decision, Resolution, Order and Ruling. The movant shall rendition of the judgment or order complained of.
be required to furnish a copy of his motion for Neither is such an action ancillary or substitute to the
reconsideration to the adverse party prior to filing the action against which the supervisory authority of the
same with the Office of the Clerk of Commission. appellate court is sought and directed. It bears stressing
that an action for prohibition or certiorari, for that
Within forty-eight (48) hours from the filing matter, does not divest the inferior or trial court of its
thereof, the Clerk of the Commission shall notify the jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending
Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) before it; it is merely an invocation for the exercise of its
days thereafter certify the case to the Commission En supervisory power over the lower court to insure that
Banc. the lower court acts within its jurisdiction. If the lower
court errs in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the remedy
The Clerk of the Commission shall calendar the of the aggrieved party is to appeal in due course from
Motion for Reconsideration for the resolution of the an adverse judgment of the trial court, absent grave
Commission En Banc within three (3) days from the abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of
certification thereof without need of comment from the jurisdiction. (Mayon Estate Corporation v. Altura, G.R.
adverse party. No. 134462, 18 October 2004).

Vergara v. Rugue (1977)

Rule 65
Prohibition and Mandamus Facts: Abraham Rugue (“Rugue”) filed a complaint for
the annulment of sale against Alfonso Vergara in whose
favor the Land Tenure Administration sold a parcel of
Prohibition land covered by TCT No. 59274";. After trial, the lower
court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint but
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 65 par. 1 ordering the Land Tenure Administration to refund to
Abraham Rugue all the payments that he has made on
Section 2. Petition for Prohibition. — When the the property, as well as to reimburse him for whatever
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer improvement he has made on the property. Upon
or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of
ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or the trial court. Thereafter, Rugue filed with the lower
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion court a motion for execution of the Court of Appeals’
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is Decision, which the lower court granted.
no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person Thus, Vergara filed before the Supreme Court
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the a petition for "prohibition with mandatory injunction,
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and seeking to: (a) restrain respondent Judge, the Sheriff,
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the and the Register of Deeds, from enforcing the order of
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals; (b)
action or matter specified therein, or otherwise declare Vergara as the rightful owner of the lot and to
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may order Rugue to pay petitioner P29,000.00 as attorney's
require. fees and moral damages as may be determined by the
court. In his petition, Vergara argued, among others,
Nature and purpose that the Court of Appeals erred when it honored the sale
of the questioned lot in favor of Abraham Rugue.
1. The principal purpose for the writ of
prohibition is to prevent an encroachment, excess, Issue: Whether or not Vergara’s petition for prohibition
usurpation or assumption of jurisdiction on the part of may prosper.
an inferior court or quasi-judicial tribunal. It is granted
when it is necessary for the orderly administration of Held: No. The Supreme Court denied Vergara’s petition
justice, or prevent the use of the strong arm of the law for prohibition. It explained that the office of the
in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or multiplicity of extraordinary remedy of prohibition is not to correct
actions. The writs of certiorari and prohibition, for that errors of judgment but to prevent or restrain usurpation
matter, are intended to annul or void proceedings in by inferior tribunals and to compel them to observe the
order to insure the fair and orderly administration of limitation of their jurisdictions. It is a preventive
justice. (Longino v. General, G.R. No. 147956, 16 remedy. Its function is to restrain the doing of some act
February 2005). to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for
acts already accomplished. This remedy will lie only to
2. For a party to be entitled to a writ of "prevent an encroachment, excess, usurpation, or
prohibition, he must establish the following requisites: improper assumption of jurisdiction on the part of an
(a) it must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, inferior court or tribunal, or to prevent some great
board or person exercising functions, judicial or outrage upon the settled principles of law and
ministerial; (b) the tribunal, corporation, board or procedure; but, if the inferior court or tribunal has
person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter of the
or with grave abuse of discretion; and (c) there is no controversy, the writ will not lie to correct errors and
irregularities in procedure, or to prevent an erroneous

Page 218
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

decision or an enforcement of an erroneous judgment, Mandamus

or even in cases of encroachment, usurpation, and
abuse of judicial power or the improper assumption or 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 65
jurisdiction, where an adequate and applicable remedy
by appeal, writ of error, certiorari, or other prescribed Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any
methods of review are available." It may be safely tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
asserted as a settled law, that "unless the court sought unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
to be prohibited is wanting in jurisdiction over the class the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
of cases to which the pending case belongs or is office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another
attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction in a case of from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which it rightfully has cognizance, the writ will be which such other is entitled, and there is no other
denied." plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
The writ of prohibition does not lie against the with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
exercise of a quasi-legislative function. commanding the respondent, immediately or at some
other time to be specified by the court, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the
Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v. Defensor petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
(2006) petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
Facts: Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition, with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, seeks to prevent non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph
respondents from enforcing the implementing rules and of section 3, Rule 46.
regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9207, otherwise
known as the "National Government Center (NGC)
Housing and Land Utilization Act of 2003." Mandamus will not issue to compel a discretionary
act
Issue: May a writ of prohibition be issued to enjoin an
exercise of a quasi-legislative function? Sharp International Marketing v. Court of Appeals
(1991)
Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled a petition for
prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an IRR Facts: This case involves the aborted sale of the
issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Garchitorena estate to the Government in connection
Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether (CARP). On 27 April 1988, United Coconut Planters
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, Bank (UCPB) entered into a Contract to Sell said
ordering said entity or person to desist from further property to Sharp International Marketing, the
proceedings when said proceedings are without or in agreement to be converted into a Deed of Absolute Sale
excess of said entity’s or person’s jurisdiction, or are upon payment by the latter of the full purchase price of
accompanied with grave abuse of discretion, and there P3,183,333.33. On 14 May 1988, even before it had
is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate acquired the land, the petitioner, through its President
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Prohibition lies Alex Lina, offered to sell it to the Government for
against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against P56,000,000.00, (later increased to P65,000,000.00).
legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the
purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court Subsequently, a Deed of Absolute Sale was
within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain executed between UCPB and Sharp by virtue of which
the administration of justice in orderly the former sold the estate to the latter for the stipulated
channels. Prohibition is the proper remedy to afford consideration of P3,183,333.33. Thereafter, or on 29
relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an December 1988, DAR Secretary Philip Ella Juico issued
inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in an order directing the acquisition of the estate for the
handling matters clearly within its cognizance the recommended amount of P62,725,077.29. Thus,
inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by Secretary Juico and petitioner Lina signed the Deed of
the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available Absolute Sale.
in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be
obtained. Where the principal relief sought is to The LBP received a copy of the order issued by
invalidate an IRR, petitioners’ remedy is an ordinary Secretary Juico. However, LBP President Deogracias
action for its nullification, an action which properly falls Vistan, upon discovery that Sharp had acquired the
under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. In any property from UCPB for only P3.1 million, requested
case, petitioners’ allegation that "respondents are Secretary Juico to reconsider his 29 December 1988
performing or threatening to perform functions without order. Meantime, Vistan informed Juico that LBP would
or in excess of their jurisdiction" may appropriately be not pay the stipulated purchase price. Sharp then filed
enjoined by the trial court through a writ of injunction or a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to
a temporary restraining order. compel the DAR and LBP to comply with the contract,
prompting Juico to issue an order for a reevaluation and
reappraisal of the subject property, in view of the
findings that the value of P62,725,077.29 is definitely
too high as a price for the property in question.

Page 219
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The petition was referred to the Court of January 1989 was incomplete and therefore had no
Appeals, which dismissed the same, ruling that binding effect at all. Consequently, Sharp cannot claim
mandamus did not lie because the LBP was not a mere any legal right thereunder that it can validly assert in a
rubber stamp of the DAR and its signing of the Deed of petition for mandamus.
Absolute Sale was not a merely ministerial act.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to a Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of
writ of mandamus to compel the LBP President an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty
Deogracias Vistan to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated January 9, 1989.
Henares v. LTRFB and DOTC (2006)
Held: No. It is settled that mandamus is not available
to control discretion. The writ may issue to compel the Facts: Petitioners challenge the Supreme Court to issue
exercise of discretion but not the discretion itself. a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land
Mandamus can require action only but not specific Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
action where the act sought to be performed involves (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and
the exercise of discretion. Section 18 of RA 6657 reads Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles
as follows: (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as
alternative fuel.
Sec. 18. Valuation and mode of compensation. — The
LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as Petitioners allege that the particulate matters
may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and (PM) – complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid
the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in droplets have caused detrimental effects on health,
Secs. 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life.
or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just Petitioners particularly cite the effects of certain fuel
compensation for the land. ... emissions from engine combustion when these react to
other pollutants. For instance, petitioners aver, with
The act required of the LBP President is not hydrocarbons, oxide of nitrogen (NOx) creates smog;
merely ministerial but involves a high degree of with sulfur dioxide, it creates acid rain; and with
discretion. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals: ammonia, moisture and other compounds, it reacts to
form nitric acid and harmful nitrates. To counter the
[T]he LBP is an essential part of the government sector aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions from
with regard to the payment of compensation to the PUVs, petitioners propose the use of CNG.
landowner. It is, after all, the instrumentality that is The Solicitor General counters that nothing in
charged with the disbursement of public funds for Rep. Act No. 8749, otherwise known as the "Philippine
purposes of agrarian reform. It is therefore part, an Clean Air Act of 1999” that petitioners invoke prohibits
indispensable cog, in the governmental machinery that the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor
fixes and determines the amount compensable to the vehicles. Sadly too, according to the Solicitor General,
landowner… If the LBP agrees on the amount stated in Rep. Act No. 8749 does not even mention the existence
the DAS, after its review and evaluation, it becomes its of CNG as alternative fuel and avers that unless this law
duty to sign the deed. But not until then… Inversely, if is amended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs,
the LBP, after review and evaluation, refuses to sign, it the respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as
is because as a party to the contract it does not give its alternative fuel.
consent thereto. This necessarily implies the exercise of
judgment on the part of LBP, which is not supposed to Issue: Whether or not the respondent can be compelled
be a mere rubber stamp in the exercise… to require public utility vehicles to use compressed
natural gas through a writ of mandamus.
Under the facts, SHARP is not entitled to a writ of
mandamus. For, it is essential for the writ to issue that Held: No. Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of
the plaintiff has a legal right to the thing demanded and Court, mandamus lies under any of the following cases:
that it is the imperative duty of the defendant to (1) against any tribunal which unlawfully neglects the
perform the act required. The legal right of the plaintiff performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
to the thing demanded must be well-defined, clear and as a duty; (2) in case any corporation, board or person
certain. The corresponding duty of the defendant to unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
perform the required act must also be clear and law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
specific … station; and (3) in case any tribunal, corporation, board
or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and
Likewise, respondents cannot be compelled by a writ of enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
mandamus to discharge a duty that involves the legally entitled; and there is no other plain, speedy, and
exercise of judgment and discretion, especially where adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
disbursement of public funds is concerned. It is In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
established doctrine that mandamus will not issue to the Supreme Court held:
control the performance of discretionary, non-
ministerial, duties, that is, to compel a body discharging …It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the
duties involving the exercise of discretion to act in a performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this
particular way or to approve or disapprove a specific being its main objective. It does not lie to require
application. anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a
course of conduct, nor to control or review the exercise
Moreover, without the signature of the LBP of discretion. On the part of the petitioner, it is essential
President, there was simply no contract between Sharp to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should
and the Government. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated 9 have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it

Page 220
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

must be the imperative duty of the respondent to Exception: When there is grave abuse of discretion
perform the act required. It never issues in doubtful
cases. While it may not be necessary that the duty be
absolutely expressed, it must however, be clear. The First Philippine Holdings Corporation v.
writ will not issue to compel an official to do anything Sandiganbayan (1996)
which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do,
or give to the applicant anything to which he is not Facts: In Civil Case No. 0035 pending before the
entitled by law. The writ neither confers powers nor respondent Sandiganbayan, the PCGG prays for the
imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a return, reconveyance, accounting and restitution - with
power already possessed and to perform a duty already damages - of certain funds and properties which were
imposed. (Emphasis supplied) allegedly acquired by private respondents through
"abuse of right and power and through unjust
Petitioners invoke the provisions of the enrichment". Part of these funds and properties are
Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for some 6,299,177 sequestered shares of stock in the
issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIBank)
respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as an which were allegedly acquired by the respondent
alternative fuel. Although both are general mandates spouses Romualdez, as beneficial owners, in violation of
that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended,
of fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an and therefore subject to forfeiture in favor of the
executive order implementing a program on the use of Republic for being "unexplained wealth". Said shares
CNG by public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290, were allegedly purchased from petitioner by respondent
entitled Implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program Romualdez using respondents Equities and Narciso as
for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect on February "his dummy buyers."
24, 2004. The program recognized, among others,
natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel for vehicle Petitioner filed a "Motion for Leave to
which has the potential to produce substantially lower Intervene and to Admit Complaint in Intervention" in
pollutants. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 of E.O. No. 290 said Civil Case No. 0035, alleging that the PCIBank
cites as one of its objectives, the use of CNG as a clean shares were obtained by means of fraud. Thus,
alternative fuel for transport. Furthermore, one of the petitioner prayed for the nullification of the Sale of
components of the program is the development of CNG Stocks and Escrow Agreement" and for the return of the
refueling stations and all related facilities in strategic shares to it. However, the respondent Sandiganbayan
locations in the country to serve the needs of CNG- denied the motion to intervene.
powered PUVs. Par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the DOTC,
working with the DOE, to develop an implementation Aggrieved, petitioner filed an original action for
plan for "a gradual shift to CNG fuel utilization in PUVs certiorari and mandamus to review and set aside a
and promote NGVs [natural gas vehicles] in Metro Resolution of the respondent Sandiganbayan denying its
Manila and Luzon through the issuance of motion to intervene and litigate its claim of ownership
directives/orders providing preferential franchises in over the shares.
present day major routes and exclusive franchises to
NGVs in newly opened routes…" To a certain extent, The Solicitor General, in his Comment stated
the instant petition had been mooted by the that petitioner did not have a "legal interest" to
issuance of E.O. No. 290. intervene because "(t)he judgment would merely render
defendant Benjamin Romualdez and his corresponding
The writ of mandamus is unavailing in this co-defendants personally obligated to either return or
case. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing reconvey said shares of stock to the Republic and would
of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, not bar petitioner’s cause of action to invalidate the
there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB "Sale of Stock and Escrow-Agreement."
and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use
CNG. At most the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. Issue: Whether or not the writ of mandamus can be
290 in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 "to grant preferential and issued to compel the Sandiganbayan to grant the motion
exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) or for intervention.
franchises to operators of Natural Gas Vehicles based on
the results of the DOTC surveys." Held: Yes. First, the FPHC has the right to intervene in
this case. Petitioner has a legal interest in the shares
In sum, petitioners are unable to pinpoint the which are the subject of the controversy. At the very
law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on least, it is "so situated as to be adversely affected by a
respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of distribution or disposition of the (sequestered shares) in
mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public utility the custody of the court".
vehicles. It appears that more properly, the legislature
should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the Second, the Sandiganbayan has the legal
complex environmental problems bared by herein authority to declare as void the sale of the disputed
petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is PCIBank shares in favor of respondents Narciso and
taken. Equities as alleged dummies of respondent Romualdez.
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan has been clarified
in the case of PCGG vs. Hon. Emmanuel G. Peña, etc.,et
al. and subsequent cases as extending not only to the
principal causes of action, i.e., the recovery of alleged
ill-gotten wealth, but also to "all incidents arising from,
incidental to, or related to, such cases," such as the
dispute over the sale of the shares, the propriety of the
issuance of ancillary writs or provisional remedies

Page 221
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

relative thereto, the sequestration thereof, which may person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
not be made the subject of separate actions or jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by
proceedings in another forum. the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the
In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in
Court resolved that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
to grant a motion for intervention to file an answer in a Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate
suit (similar to the case a quo) pending before the jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of
respondent Sandiganbayan for the reconveyance of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
(some lots and) shares of stock. Intervention is not an provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall
independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of
an existing litigation. Since the respondent Appeals.
Sandiganbayan has the exclusive and original
jurisdiction over the principal case, it has likewise3. 3. Jurisdiction to issue writ
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the private
respondents' action for intervention therein.
Fortich v. Corona (1998)
From the foregoing, respondent
Sandiganbayan abused its discretion in denying the Facts: The strikers protested the 29 March 1996
motion to intervene because, clearly, the question of Decision of the Office of the President (OP), issued
ownership of the shares under sequestration is within its through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres in OP
jurisdiction, being an incident arising from or in Case No. 96-C-6424, which approved the conversion of
connection with the case under its exclusive and original a one hundred forty-four (144)-hectare land from
jurisdiction. With the denial of its intervention, agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional area. This led
petitioner is deprived of a remedy in law to recover its the Office of the President, through then Deputy
property alleged to have been taken illegally from it. Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-
called Win-Win Resolution on 7 November 1997,
As provided under Rule 12, Sec. 2 (b), substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it had
intervention shall be allowed "in the exercise of already become final and executory. The said Resolution
discretion" by a court. Ordinarily, mandamus will not modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-
prosper to compel a discretionary act. But where there is industrial area only to the extent of forty-four (44)
"gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred (100)
excess of authority" equivalent to denial of a settled hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-
right to which petitioner is entitled, and there is no other beneficiaries.
plain, speedy and adequate remedy, the writ shall issue.
A copy of the Win-Win Resolution was received
These exceptions were recognized by this by Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon, Mayor Rey B.
Court in Kant Kwong vs. PCGG, et al. as follows: Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and NQSRMDC on 24
November 1997 and, on 4 December 1997, they filed
Although, as averred by respondents, the recognized with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari,
rule is that, in the performance of an official duty or act prohibition (under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court)
involving discretion, the corresponding official can only and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary
be directed by Mandamus to act but not to act one way restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
or the other, "yet it is not accurate to say that the writ (under Rule 58, ibid.), against then Deputy Executive
will never issue to control his discretion. There is an Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary Ernesto
exception to the rule if the case is otherwise proper, as D. Garilao.
in cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice
or palpable excess of authority." Respondents, through the Solicitor General,
opposed the petition and prayed that it be dismissed
In Antiquera vs. Baluyot, et al., such outright on the ground, among others, that the proper
exceptions were allowed, "because the discretion must remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition
be exercised under the law, and not contrary to law. for review directly with the Court of Appeals in
accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Common requisites
Issue: Whether petitioners correctly filed the petition
1. Verified petition (Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 65); for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the
Supreme Court?
2. When and where to file petition (Section 4 of
Rule 65) Held: Yes. It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any
 The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions,
days from notice of the judgment, order or including the Office of the President, may be taken to
resolution. the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for
review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said
 In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial judgment, final order or resolution, whether the appeal
is timely filed, whether such motion is required or involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of
not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted fact and law. However, in this particular case, the
from notice of the denial of said motion. remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering
that the petition contains an allegation that the
 The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court challenged resolution is patently illegal and was issued
or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower with grave abuse of discretion and beyond his
court or of a corporation, board, officer or (respondent Secretary Renato C. Corona’s) jurisdiction

Page 222
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

when said resolution substantially modified the earlier Who should be respondents
OP Decision of 29 March 1996 which had long become
final and executory. In other words, the crucial issue 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 65
raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error
of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.
Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set — When the petition filed relates to the acts or
aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency,
action for certiorari under Rule 65, as what the tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the
petitioners have correctly done. petitioner shall join, as private respondent or
respondents with such public respondent or
The office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to respondents, the person or persons interested in
truly extraordinary cases cases in which the act of the sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be
lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void. Section the duty of such private respondents to appear and
1 of Rule 65 mandates that the person aggrieved by the defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of
assailed illegal act may file a verified petition (for the public respondent or respondents affected by the
certiorari) in the proper court. Under Section 4 of Rule proceedings, and the costs awarded in such
65, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Regional proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against
Trial Court have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue the private respondents only, and not against the
a writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. But the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal,
jurisdiction of these three (3) courts are also delineated corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as
in that, if the challenged act relates to acts or omissions public respondent or respondents.
of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or
person, the petition must be filed with the Regional Trial Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court
Court which exercises jurisdiction over the territorial where the petition is pending, the public respondents
area as defined by the Supreme Court. And if it involves shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the
the act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated
petition shall be filed only with the Court of Appeals, to a higher court by either party, the public
unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules of respondents shall be included therein as nominal
Court. The Supreme Court clearly discussed this matter parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed
of concurrence of jurisdiction in People vs. Cuaresma, by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the
et. al., thus: proceedings therein.

x x x. This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue Contents of petition

writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not  Section 2 of Rule 65 provides that the petition
exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial for prohibition shall be accompanied by a
Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may certified true copy of the judgment, order or
issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the and documents relevant and pertinent thereto,
Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping
(formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3 of
to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on Rule 46.
August 14, 1981, the latters competence to issue the
extraordinary writs was restricted to those in aid of its  Section 3 of Rule 65 provides that the petition
appellate jurisdiction. This concurrence of jurisdiction is for mandamus shall also contain a sworn
not, however, to be taken as according to parties certification of non-forum shopping as provided in
seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained the third paragraph of Section 3 of Rule 46.
freedom of choice of the court to which application
therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of Non-forum shopping certification
courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of
appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant Section 3 of Rule 46 provides:
of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial The petition shall contain the full names and
hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents,
issuance of extraordinary writs against first level a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual
(inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of the relief prayed for.
Appeals.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition
shall further indicate the material dates showing when
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
subject thereof was received, when a motion for new
trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice
of the denial thereof was received.

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible

copies together with proof of service thereof on the
respondent with the original copy intended for the court
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or

Page 223
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it
ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted
record as are referred to therein, and other documents manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised
relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly
authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the Section 9. Service and enforcement of order or
court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly judgment. — A certified copy of the judgment rendered
authorized representative. The other requisite number of in accordance with the last preceding section shall be
copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal,
legible plain copies of all documents attached to the corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such
original. manner as the court may direct, and disobedience
thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution
The petitioner shall also submit together with may issue for any damages or costs awarded in
the petition a sworn certification that he has not accordance with section 1 of Rule 39.
theretofore commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals
or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he Rule 66
must state the status of the same; and if he should Quo Warranto
thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any Definition
other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly
inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency Quo warranto and mandamus distinguished
thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
Lota v. CA (1961)
Other common provisions/requisites:
Facts: Sangalang alleged that he was the caretaker of
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 65 the municipal cemetery of Taal, Batangas and he was
unlawfully ousted from office. He filed a case against
Section 6. Order to comment. — If the petition is Lota, the mayor of tall who allegedly ousted him from
sufficient in form and substance to justify such process, office and appointed Beron.
the court shall issue an order requiring the respondent
or respondents to comment on the petition within ten The CFI declared Sangalang as the legally appointed
(10) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Such order cemetery porter. On appeal, Lota contended that the CA
shall be served on the respondents in such manner as erred in holding that the present action is quo warranto.
the court may direct together with a copy of the
petition and any annexes thereto.
Issue: Whether the case was one of quo warranto
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court
Held: Yes. The claim that the instant action is one
and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of section 2,
of mandamus, not quo warranto, is devoid of basis.
Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course
While quo warranto and mandamus are often concurrent
thereto, the court may require the respondents to file
remedies, however, there exists a clear distinction
their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the
between the two. The authorities are agreed that quo
petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of
warranto is the remedy to try the right to an office or
a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as
franchise and to oust the holder from its enjoyment,
it may deem necessary and proper.
while mandamus only lies to enforce clear legal duties,
not to try disputed titles, 38 C.J. 546; 2 Moran,
Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive
Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 ed., 200; that
relief. — The court in which the petition is filed may
where here is usurpation or intrusion into an office, quo
issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may
warranto is the proper remedy, Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez,
also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of
36 Phil. 491, and that where the respondent, without
preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights
claiming any right to an Office, excludes the petitioner
of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition
therefrom, he remedy is mandamus, not quo
shall not interrupt the course of the principal case
warranto. Manalo vs. Sevilla, 24 Phil. 609; Lino Luna vs.
unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
Rodriguez,supra.
preliminary injunction has been issued against the
public respondent from further proceeding in the case.
As we analyze the facts in the light of the above rules,
the instant action is clearly one of quo warranto,
Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. —
although mandamus is also invoked therein as an
After the comment or other pleadings required by the
ancillary remedy. It also appears that Moises Sangalang
court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has
alleges in his complaint that he had the right to the
expired, the court may hear the case or require the
possession and enjoyment of said office to which he had
parties to submit memoranda. If after such hearing or
legally been appointed, and asks hat Jose Sangalang,
submission of memoranda or the expiration of the
who is occupying it unlawfully, be ousted. The present
period for the filing thereof the court finds that the
action, therefore, is one whose purpose is to try the
allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
right or title to a public office and oust he alleged
judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the
unlawful holder from its enjoyment. Such proceeding
petitioner is entitled.
and remedy could only be litigated in a quo
warranto action according to the authorities.

Page 224
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Liban v. Gordon (2009) resignations were accepted by the mayor and the
payments on the applications for leave were paid to the
Facts: Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a 24 petitioners.
Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited
His Seat in the Senate. Petitioners are officers of the On 10 January 1968, Petitioners sent letters to
Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross the Police Commission and CSC complaining that the
Chapter while Gordon is Chairman of the Philippine
mayor threatened them into filing their resignations. The
National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors. During
Gordon’s incumbency as a member of the Senate of the hearing officer of the Police Commission recommended
Philippines, he was elected Chairman of the PNRC during that petitioners be reinstated and pay their back
the 23 February 2006 meeting of the PNRC Board of salaries.
Governors. Petitioners allege that by accepting the
chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, Issue: Whether their petition will prosper.
respondent has ceased to be a member of the Senate as
provided in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution Held: No. In order to make the parties aware already of
another fatal and incurable defect of the case of
In his Comment, Gordon asserts that petitioners and thereby save those concerned from any
petitioners have no standing to file this petition which further futile effort to pursue any judicial remedy, with
appears to be an action for quo warranto, since the the concomitant waste of money and time, the
unbending jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the
petition alleges that Gordon committed an act which, by
effect that a petition for quo warranto and mandamus
provision of law, constitutes a ground for forfeiture of his affecting titles to public office must be filed within one
public office. Petitioners do not claim to be entitled to (1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his
the Senate office of respondent. Under Section 5, Rule position.
66 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only a person
claiming to be entitled to a public office usurped or Accordingly, after said period has lapsed, the
unlawfully held by another may bring an action for quo remedy of the aggrieved party, if any, lies exclusively
warranto in his own name. If the petition is one for quo with administrative authorities. In the case at bar, the
warranto, it is already barred by prescription since under theory of petitioners themselves is that they were
Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the separated from the service thru the ruse of accepting
their "courtesy resignations" between January 2 and 6,
action should be commenced within one year after the
1968 and the record shows that they were aware of the
cause of the public officers forfeiture of office.
supposed illegality of their ouster as early as January
10, 1968, the date of their separate letters to the Police
Issue: Whether the petitioners may legally file this Commission and the Civil Service Commission
petitioner against Gordon. impugning the action of respondent mayor. It is thus
evident that in the premises, they are beyond the help
Held: No. Thus, petitioners are alleging that by of the courts, their time to resort thereto having lapsed.
accepting the position of Chairman of the PNRC Board of
Governors, respondent has automatically forfeited his
seat in the Senate. In short, petitioners filed an action The reason is obvious. While it may be
for usurpation of public office against respondent, a desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted
public officer who allegedly committed an act which to, no one is compelled or bound to do so; and as said
constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his public remedies neither are pre-requisite to nor bar the
office. Clearly, such an action is for quo warranto, institution of quo warranto proceedings, it follows that
specifically under Section 1(b), Rule 66 of the Rules of he who claims the right to hold a public office allegedly
Court. usurped by another and who desires to seek redress in
the courts, should file the proper judicial action within
Quo warranto is generally commenced by the the reglementary period.
Government as the proper party plaintiff. However,
under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an Exception
individual may commence such an action if he claims to
be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by
another, in which case he can bring the action in his own Cristobal v. Melchor (1977)
name. The person instituting quo warranto proceedings
in his own behalf must claim and be able to show that Facts: Cristobal was formerly employed as a private
he is entitled to the office in dispute, otherwise the secretary in the President’s Private Office in Malacañang.
action may be dismissed at any stage. In the present On or about the second week of January, 1962, the then
case, petitioners do not claim to be entitled to the Executive Secretary Mutuc, by means of a letter dated
Senate office of respondent. Clearly, petitioners have no January 1, 1962, informed Cristobal that his he is being
standing to file the present petition. “terminated effective today”. A similar letter was
addressed by Secretary Mutuc to some other employees
Period for filing – within one (1) year from date in the Office of the President. The dismissed employees
petitioner ousted from his position appealed to the President by means of letters dated
January 3, 1962 and January 26, 1962 for a
Galano v. Roxas (1975) reconsideration of their separation from the service. In a
letter dated February 27, 1962, their request for
Facts: Roxas was elected mayor of San Mateo, Rizal. reconsideration was denied by Secretary Mutuc, acting
From 2 and 6 January 1968, 24 policemen filed their by authority of the President.
resignations and application of their terminal leaves. The

Page 225
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

On March 24, 1962, five of the employees who We lay stress on the findings of the trial court
were separated (excluding Cristobal) filed a civil action based on the uncommitted evidence of plaintiff Cristobal
before CFI a complaint against Secretary Mutuc and the that upon receipt of the letter or January 1, 1962,
advising him of his separation from the service,
cash disbursing officer of the Office of the President
Cristobal, with the other dismissed employees, sought
praying for reinstatement and the payment of their reconsideration in a letter dated January 3, 1962, calling
salaries effective as of January 1, 1962 (Ingles case). inter alia the attention of then Executive Secretary
From a judgment dismissing their complaint, the said Amelito Mutuc that he (Cristobal) was a civil eligible
employees appealed to the Supreme Court which employee with eight years of service in the government
rendered a decision promulgated on November 29, 1968 and consequently entitled to security of tenure under
reversing the dismissal of their complaint and declaring the Constitution. This was followed by another letter of
January 26, 1962.
their removal from office as illegal and contrary to law,
and ordering their reinstatement and the payment of
their salaries from January 1, 1962 up to the date of Reconsideration having been denied, a
complaint was filed on March 24, 1062, with the Court of
their actual reinstatement.
First Instance of Manila entitled "Raul R. Ingles, et al.
vs. Amelito R. Mutuc, et al.", (Civil Case 49965) which
Sometime in Ma 1962, when the civil action
prayed for reinstatement and payment of salaries as of
filed by Ingles, et als. was still pending in the CFI. the January 1, 1962. The trial court dismiss this complaint
dismissed employees who filed said action were recalled but upon appeal to the Supreme Court the judgment
to their , without prejudice to the continuation of their was reversed in a Decision promulgated on November
civil action, With respect to the other employees who 29, 1968, in G.R. L-20390, the Court holding that the
were not reinstated, efforts were exerted by Secretary removal of the plaintiff-employees was illegal and
contrary to law and that they were entitled to be
Mutuc to look for placements outside of Malacañang so
reinstated with payment of their salaries from January 1,
that they may be re-employed. Cristobal was one of 1962 up to the date of their actual reinstatement.5
those who had not been fortunate enough to be
reappointed to any positions as befits his qualifications.
Cristobal was not one of the plaintiffs in the
civil case, it is true, but his non-participation is not fatal
He waited for Secretary Mutuc to make good
to his cause of action. During the pendency of the civil
his assurance that he would be recalled to the service, case Cristobal continued to press his request for
until Secretary Mutuc was replaced by other executive reinstatement together with the other employees who
secretaries who likewise assured the plaintiff of had filed the complaint and was in fact promised
assistance to be reemployed at "the opportune time." reinstatement as will be shown more in detail later.

After the decision of the of the Supreme Court More importantly, Cristobal could be expected
of the Ingles case on November 29, 1968, Cristobal — without necessarily spending time and money by
addressed a letter to the Office of the President dated going to court — to relied upon the outcome of the case
January 19, 1969, requesting reinstatement to his filed by his co-employees to protect his interests
former position and the payment of salary from January considering the similarity of his situation to that of the
plaintiffs therein and the Identifical relief being sought.
1, 1962 up to the time of actual reinstatement,
supposedly in accordance with the Ingles case. This
request was denied repeatedly by the Office of the Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does
not apply to quo warranto cases against persons
President in successive letters addressed to the plaintiff
who usurp an office in a private corporation
dated September 1, 1969, January 19, 1970, April 23,
1970, May 23, 1970, and May 19, 1971, the last of
which declared the matter "definitely closed." Calleja v. Panday (2006)

Having received the letter of May 19, 1971, Facts: Panday et al. filed a petition with the Regional
from the Office of the President, Jose Cristobal filed on Trial Court (“RTC”) of San
August 10, 1971, with the Court of First Instance of Jose, Camarines Sur for quo warranto under Rule 66 of
Manila a complaint the Rules of Court against Calleja et al., alleging that
from 1985 up to the filing of the petition with the trial
court, they had been members of the board of directors
Issue: Whether the case is barred for Cristobal’s failure and officers of St. John Hospital, Incorporated, but
to file the case within the 1 year prescriptive period sometime in May 2005, Calleja et al., who are also
among the incorporators and stockholders of said
Whether plaintiff can seek judicial relief for not corporation, forcibly and with the aid of armed men
having filed his complaint within one year? usurped the powers which supposedly belonged to
Panday et al.
Held: Yes. There are certain exceptional circumstances
attending which take this case out of the rule enunciated The RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur issued an
above and lead Us to grant relief to appellant. Thus — Order transferring the case to the RTC in Naga City,
since the verified petition showed Panday et al. to be
residents of Naga City, then pursuant to Section 7, Rule
There was no acquiescence to or inaction on 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the action
the part of Jose Cristobal amounting to abandonment of for quo warranto should be brought in the RTC
his right to reinstatement in office.

Page 226
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the office; and associations which act as corporations
respondents or any of the respondents without being legally incorporated, while
resides. However, the Executive Judge of [a]ctions of quo warranto against corporations, or
RTC, Naga City refused to receive the case folder of the against persons who usurp an office in a corporation, fall
subject case for quo warranto, stating that improper under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange
venue is not a ground for transferring Commission and are governed by its rules. (P.D. No.
a quo warranto case to another administrative 902-A as amended).
jurisdiction.
However, R.A. No. 8799 was passed and
In its assailed Order, the RTC of San Jose, Section 5.2 thereof provides as follows:
Camarines Sur ruled in part that:
5.2. The Commissions jurisdiction over all
It is undisputed that the plaintiffs cause of cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential
action involves controversies arising out of intra- Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of
corporate relations, between and among stockholders, general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial
members or associates of the St. John Hospital Inc. Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise
which originally under PD 902-A approved on March 11, of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court
1976 is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these
the Securities and Exchange Commission to try and cases. xxx
decide in addition to its regulatory and adjudicated
functions (Section 5, PD 902-A). Upon the advent of RA Therefore, actions of quo warranto against
8799…, the Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases persons who usurp an office in a corporation, which
enumerated in Section 5, Presidential Decree 902-A were formerly cognizable by the Securities and
were transferred []to the Court of general jurisdiction or Exchange Commission under PD 902-A, have been
the appropriate Regional Trial Court with a proviso that transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But, this
the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may does not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules
designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall of Civil Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases
exercise jurisdiction over these cases. Pursuant to this against persons who usurp an office in a private
mandate of RA 8799, the Supreme Court…, promulgated corporation. Presently, Section 1(a) of Rule 66 reads
A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC…designat[ing] certain branches of thus:
the Regional Trial Court to try and decide Securities and Section 1. Action by Government against
Exchange Commission Cases arising within their individuals. An action for the usurpation of a public
respective territorial jurisdiction with respect to the office, position or franchise may be commenced by a
National Capital Region and within the respective verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of
provinces in the First to Twelve Judicial the Philippines against
Region. Accordingly, in the Province of Camarines Sur,
(Naga City) RTC Branch 23 presided by the Hon. Pablo (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or
M. Paqueo, Jr. was designated as special court (Section unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or
1, A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC). franchise;
… … …
In the light of the above-noted observations xxxx
and discussion, the Motion to
Dismiss is DENIED pursuant to the Interim Rules of As explained in the Unilongo case, Section 1(a)
Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies (A.M. No. of Rule 66 of the present Rules no longer contains the
01-2-04-SC) which mandates that motion to dismiss is a phrase or an office in a corporation created by authority
prohibited pleading (Section 8) and in consonance with of law which was found in the old Rules. Clearly, the
Administrative Order 8-01 of the Supreme Court dated present Rule 66 only applies to actions
March 1, 2001, this case is hereby of quo warranto against persons who usurp a
ordered remanded to the Regional Trial Court Branch public office, position or franchise; public officers
23, Naga City which under A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC has who forfeit their office; and associations which act
been designated as special court to try and decide intra- as corporations without being legally incorporated
corporate controversies under R.A. 8799. despite the passage of R.A. No. 8799. It is,
therefore, the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing
Issue: Whether it was proper for the RTC of San Jose, Intra-Corporate Controversies Under R.A. No. 8799
Camarines Sur to order the transfer of venue of the case (hereinafter the Interim Rules) which applies to the
to RTC Naga based on Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, petition for quo warranto filed by Panday et al. before
considering that the case involved an alleged usurpation the trial court since what is being questioned is the
in the offices, powers and functions of duly elected authority of Calleja et al. to assume the office and act as
members of the board of directors. the board of directors and officers of St. John Hospital,
Incorporated.
Held: No. It should be noted that allegations in a
complaint for quo warranto that certain persons usurped Showing of clear right
the offices, powers and functions of duly elected
members of the board, trustees and/or officers make
out a case for an intra-corporate controversy. Prior to General v. Urro (2011)
the enactment of R.A. No. 8799, the Court, adopting
Justice Jose Y. Ferias view, declared in Unilongo v. Court Facts: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (“President
of Appeals that Section 1, Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Arroyo”) appointed Imelda C. Roces (“Commissioner
Civil Procedure is limited to actions of quo Roces”) as Commissioner of the National Police
warranto against persons who usurp a public office, Commission on 20 September 2004. Under the law, she
position or franchise; public officers who forfeit their

Page 227
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

was supposed to serve said position for six (6) years, he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the
had it not been for her untimely demise in September action may be dismissed at any stage.
2007. As a result, President Arroyo appointed petitioner
General’s appointment as acting Commissioner on 21 Emphatically, Section 6, Rule 66 of the
July 2008. same Rules requires the
petitioner to state in the petition his right to the
Later, President Arroyo appointed respondent public office and the respondent’s unlawful
Urro to take the place of General. Urro’s appointment possession of the disputed position.
paper was dated 5 March 2010. In a letter dated 19
March 2015, the Chief of Staff of the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) expressed his As early as 1905, the Court already held
congratulations to Urro and attached his appointment that for a petition for quo warranto to be successful, the
paper to said letter. Urro took his oath of office as suing private individual must show a clear right to the
NAPOLCOM Commissioner on 25 March 2010. contested office. His failure to establish this right
warrants the dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of
On 22 March 2010, General filed the present action; it is not even necessary to pass upon the right of
petition for quo warranto, and certiorari and/or the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment,
prohibition questioning the validity of Urro’s continues in the undisturbed possession of his office.
appointment on the ground, among others, that the
appointment issued to him was really a regular Since General merely holds an acting
appointment since R.A. No. 6975 does not allegedly appointment (and an expired one at that), he clearly
allow an appointment of a NAPOLCOM Commissioner in does not have a cause of action to maintain the present
an acting capacity. As a regular appointee, the petitioner petition. The essence of an acting appointment is its
argues that he cannot be removed from office except for temporariness and its consequent revocability at any
cause. time by the appointing authority. The petitioner in a quo
warranto proceeding who seeks reinstatement to an
Issue: Whether Atty. General has clearly shown his office, on the ground of usurpation or illegal deprivation,
right to the position of Commissioner of the NAPOLCOM. must prove his clear right to the office for his suit to
succeed; otherwise, his petition must fail.
Held: No. There is nothing in the provisions of R.A. No.
6975 which prevents the president from appointing
NAPOLCOM commissioners in an acting capacity. Given Rule 67
the wide latitude of the President’s appointing authority Expropriation
(and the strict construction against any limitation on or
qualification of this power), the prohibition on the
President from issuing an acting appointment must Distinction between eminent domain and
either be specific, or there must be a clear repugnancy expropriation
between the nature of the office and the temporary
appointment. No such limitation on the Presidents Eminent domain - one of the inherent powers of the
appointing power appears to be clearly deducible from state; it is the right to take or reassert dominion over
the text of R.A. No. 6975. There is also nothing in the property within the state for public use or to meet a
enumeration of the functions of the members of the public exigency and is said to be an essential party of
NAPOLCOM that would be subverted or defeated by the governance even in its most primitive form
President’s appointment of an acting NAPOLCOM
Commissioner pending the selection and qualification of Expropriation - process by which the power of eminent
a permanent appointee. domain is carried out; taking as of private owned
property, by government under eminent domain
General’s appointment in an acting capacity
was subject to the condition that he shall surrender the
office once he is called to do so by the appointing Stages of expropriation; Period to appeal from
authority, the president of the Republic of the order of expropriation
Philippines. His separation from the service does not
import removal but merely the expiration of his term a Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia (1989)
mode of termination of official relations that falls outside
the coverage of the constitutional provision on security Facts: The expropriation suit involved in this case was
of tenure since no removal from office is involved. Thus, commenced by complaint of the Municipality of Biñan,
General’s appointment as Acting Commissioner ipso Laguna filed in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna and
facto expired on July 21, 2009 when it was not renewed City of San Pablo, presided over by respondent Judge
either in an acting or a permanent capacity. With an Jose Mar Garcia. The complaint named as defendants
expired appointment, he technically now occupies no the owners of eleven (11) adjacent parcels of land in
position on which to anchor his quo warranto petition. Biñan. The land sought to be expropriated was intended
for use as the new site of a modern public market and
Quo warranto is a remedy to try disputes with the acquisition was authorized by a resolution of the
respect to the title to a public office. Generally, quo Sangguniang Bayan of Biñan approved on April 11,
warranto proceedings are commenced by the 1983.
Government as the proper party-plaintiff. However,
under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an One of the defendants, Erlinda Francisco, filed
individual may commence such action if he claims to be a "Motion to Dismiss" on the following grounds; (a) the
entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by allegations of the complaint are vague and conjectural;
another. We stress that the person instituting the quo (b) the complaint violates the constitutional limitations
warranto proceedings in his own behalf must show that of law and jurisprudence on eminent domain; (c) it is

Page 228
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

oppressive; (d) it is barred by prior decision and A similar two-phase feature is found in the
disposition on the subject matter; and (e) it states no special civil action of partition and accounting under Rule
cause of action. She also filed a "Motion for Separate 69 of the Rules of Court.
Trial," alleging that she had, among other defenses, "a
constitutional defense of vested right via a pre-existing This Court has settled the question of the
approved Locational Clearance” which supposedly finality and appealability of a decision or order decreeing
constitutes a legal bar against the right of plaintiff partition or recovery of property and/or accounting. In
Municipality to expropriate the said property. Miranda v. Court of Appeals, it was held that a decision
or order of partition is not final because it leaves
Thereafter, the respondent Judge issued an something more to be done in the trial court for the
Order dated July 27, 1984, dismissing the complaint as complete disposition of the case, i.e, the appointment of
against defendant Francisco and amending the Writ of commissioners, the proceedings for the determination
Possession so as to exclude therefrom and from its force by said commissioners of just compensation, the
and effects said defendant and her property. On even submission of their reports, and hearing thereon, and
date, the notice of Order was served on the Municipality. the approval of the partition. As pointed out in Miranda,
imperative considerations of public policy, of sound
The Municipality filed on August 17, 1984 a practice and adherence to the constitutional mandate of
Motion for Reconsideration. It argued, among others, simplified, just, speedy and inexpensive determination
that the locational clearance did not mean that other of every action require that judgments for recovery (or
persons are already prevented from filing locational partition) of property with accounting be considered as
clearance for the same project, and so could not be final judgments, duly appealable. This, notwithstanding
considered a bar to expropriation. Francisco filed an that further proceedings will still have to be rendered by
"Ex-Parte Motion for Execution and/or Finality of Order," the party required to do so, it will be ventilated and
contending that the Order of July 27, 1984 had become discussed by the parties, and will eventually be passed
final and executory on August 12, 1984 for failure of the upon by the Court.
Municipality to file a motion for reconsideration and/or
appeal within the reglementary period, 14 i.e fifteen (15) No reason presents itself for different
days counted from the notice of the final order appealed disposition as regards cases of eminent domain. On the
from. contrary, the close analogy between the special actions
of eminent domain and partition already pointed out,
The respondent court issued an Order argues for the application of the same rule to both
declaring the Municipality's motion for reconsideration proceedings. The Court therefore holds that in actions
dated August 15, 1984 to have been filed out of time. of eminent domain, as in actions for partition, since no
less than two (2) appeals are allowed by law, the period
Issue: Whether or not the Motion for Reconsideration for appeal from an order of condemnation is thirty (30)
was filed out of time. days counted from notice of order and not the ordinary
period of fifteen (15) days prescribed for actions in
Held: No. There are two (2) stages in every action of general, conformably with the provision of Section 39 of
expropriation. The first is concerned with the Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, in relation to paragraph 19
determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise (b) of the Implementing Rules to the effect that in
the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its "appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule
exercise in the context of the facts involved in the 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein
suit. 19 It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall
action, "of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has be thirty (30) days, a record of appeal being required.
a lawful right to take the property sought to be
condemned, for the public use or purpose described in The municipality's motion for reconsideration
the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation filed on August 17, 1984 was therefore timely
to be determined as of the date of the filing of the presented, well within the thirty-day period laid down by
complaint." An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, law therefor; and it was error for the respondent court
would be a final one, of course, since it finally disposes to have ruled otherwise and to have declared that the
of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the order sought to be considered had become final and
Court on the merits. So, too, would an order of executory.
condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as the Rules
expressly state, in the proceedings before the Trial Meaning of just compensation
Court, "no objection to the exercise of the right of
condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or “Just compensation” is the full and fair equivalent
heard. of the property sought to be expropriated

The second phase of the eminent domain Republic Act No. 8974 mandates immediate
action is concerned with the determination by the Court payment of the initial just compensation prior to
of "the just compensation for the property sought to be the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of
taken." This is done by the Court with the assistance of the Government
not more than three (3) commissioners. 23 The order
fixing the just compensation on the basis of the Republic of The Philippines v. Hon. Gingoyon
evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners (2005)
would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the second
stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by Facts: This case stemmed from the promulgation of the
the Court regarding the issue. A dissatisfied party may Court’s decision in the 2003 case of Agan v. PIATCO.
seek reversal of the order by taking an appeal This decision nullified the "Concession Agreement for the
therefrom. Build-Operate-and-Transfer Arrangement of the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III"

Page 229
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

entered into between the Philippine Government payment of just compensation to PIATCO as builder of
(Government) and the Philippine International Air the structures.
Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO), on the ground, among
others, that Paircargo Consortium, predecessor of Rule 67 outlines the procedure under which
PIATCO, did not possess the requisite financial capacity eminent domain may be exercised by the Government.
when it was awarded the NAIA 3 contract and that the Yet by no means does it serve at present as the solitary
agreement was contrary to public policy. guideline through which the State may expropriate
private property. For example, Section 19 of the Local
At the time of the promulgation of the 2003 Government Code governs as to the exercise by local
Decision, the NAIA 3 facilities had already been built by government units of the power of eminent domain
PIATCO and were nearing completion. However, through an enabling ordinance. And then there is Rep.
the ponencia was silent as to the legal status of the Act No. 8974, which covers expropriation proceedings
NAIA 3 facilities following the nullification of the intended for national government infrastructure
contracts, as well as whatever rights of PIATCO for projects.
reimbursement for its expenses. Thus, in its 2004
Resolution, the Supreme Court held that since the Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for a
structures comprising the NAIA IPT III facility are almost procedure eminently more favorable to the property
complete and that funds have been spent by PIATCO in owner than Rule 67, inescapably applies in instances
their construction, the government, for it to take over when the national government expropriates property
the facility, has to compensate respondent PIATCO as "for national government infrastructure projects." Thus,
builder of the said structures. if expropriation is engaged in by the national
government for purposes other than national
After the promulgation of the rulings in Agan, infrastructure projects, the assessed value standard and
the NAIA 3 facilities have remained in the possession of the deposit mode prescribed in Rule 67 continues to
PIATCO. Thus, the Government filed a complaint for apply.
expropriation with the RTC. The Government deposited
the amount of P3,002,125,000.00 in Cash with the Land Under both Rule 67 and Rep. Act No. 8974, the
Bank of the Philippines, representing the NAIA 3 Government commences expropriation proceedings
terminal’s assessed value for taxation purposes. through the filing of a complaint. The most crucial
difference between Rule 67 and Rep. Act No. 8974
The respondent Judge noted that under concerns the particular essential step the Government
Republic Act No. 8974, otherwise known as "An Act to has to undertake to be entitled to a writ of possession.
Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Rule 67 merely requires the Government to deposit with
Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects an authorized government depositary the assessed
and For Other Purposes", the Government is required to value of the property for expropriation for it to be
make immediate payment to the property owner upon entitled to a writ of possession. On the other hand, Rep.
the filing of the complaint to be entitled to a writ of Act No. 8974 requires that the Government make a
possession, whereas in Rule 67, the Government is direct payment to the property owner before the writ
required only to make an initial deposit with an may issue. Moreover, such payment is based on the
authorized government depositary. Moreover, Rule 67 zonal valuation of the BIR in the case of land, the value
prescribes that the initial deposit be equivalent to the of the improvements or structures under the
assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation, replacement cost method, or if no such valuation is
unlike Rep. Act No. 8974 which provides, as the relevant available and in cases of utmost urgency, the proffered
standard for initial compensation, the market value of value of the property to be seized.
the property as stated in the tax declaration or the
current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Clearly, the staging of expropriation
Internal Revenue (BIR), whichever is higher, and the proceedings in this case with the exclusive use of Rule
value of the improvements and/or structures using the 67 would allow for the Government to take over the
replacement cost method. Accordingly, the Government NAIA 3 facilities in a fashion that directly rebukes the
was prohibited from performing acts of ownership prior 2004 Resolution in Agan, since under Rule 67, all the
to full payment of just compensation. Government need do to obtain a writ of possession is to
deposit the amount equivalent to the assessed value
The Government insists that Rule 67 of the with an authorized government depositary. Applying
Rules of Court governs the expropriation proceedings in Rule 67 herein would violate the Court’s requirement in
this case to the exclusion of all other laws. On the other the 2004 Resolution that there must first be payment of
hand, PIATCO claims that it is Rep. Act No. 8974 which just compensation to PIATCO before the Government
does apply may take over the property.

Issue: Whether Rule 67 of the Rules of Court or Rep. As regards the proper amount which should be
Act No. 8974 governs the expropriation proceedings in paid to PIATCO by the Government before the writ of
this case. possession may issue under Rep. Act No. 8974. The BIR
zonal valuation under Rep. Act No. 8974 cannot apply in
Held: The pronouncement in the 2004 Resolution is this case since zonal valuations are only for parcels of
especially significant to this case in two aspects, land, not for airport terminals, and PIATCO cannot be
namely: (i) that PIATCO must receive payment of just reimbursed or justly compensated for the value of the
compensation determined in accordance with law and parcel of land on which NAIA 3 stands, not being the
equity; and (ii) that the government is barred from owner of said land. Nevertheless, Rep. Act No. 8974
taking over NAIA 3 until such just compensation is paid. permits an expedited means by which the Government
Thus, as things stood after the 2004 Resolution, the can immediately take possession of the property without
right of the Government to take over the NAIA 3 having to await precise determination of the valuation of
terminal was preconditioned by lawful order on the the improvements and structures. Section 4(c) of Rep.

Page 230
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Act No. 8974 states that "in case the completion of a Held: Yes. Lourdes filed her Motion to Dismiss on 25
government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency April 1995. It was denied by the trial court on 7 May
and importance, and there is no existing valuation 1996. At that time, the rule on expropriation was
of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall governed by Section 3, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of
immediately pay the owner of the property Court which provides:
its proferred value, taking into consideration the
standards prescribed in Section 5 [of the law]. "SEC. 3. Defenses and objections. – Within the
time specified in the summons, each defendant, in lieu
In this case, the Court sees no impediment to of an answer, shall present in a single motion to dismiss
recognize the sum of P3 Billion which the Government or for other appropriate relief, all his objections and
has deposited as the proffered value under Section 4(b) defenses to the right of the plaintiff to take his property
of Rep. Act No. 8974. However, while the Court agrees for the use or purpose specified in the complaint. All
that P3 Billion should be considered as the correct such objections and defenses not so presented are
proffered value, still the Government cannot be waived. A copy of the motion shall be served on the
considered to have faithfully complied with Rep. Act No. plaintiff’s attorney of record and filed with the court with
8974. For the law plainly requires direct payment to the proof of service."
property owner, and not a mere deposit with the
authorized government depositary. Without such direct The motion to dismiss contemplated in the
payment, no writ of possession may be obtained. Rep. above Rule clearly constitute the responsive pleading
Act No. 8974 represents a significant change from which takes the place of an answer to the compliant for
previous expropriation laws such as Rule 67, or even expropriation. Such motion is the pleading that puts in
Section 19 of the Local Government Code. Rule 67 and issue the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the
the Local Government Code merely provided that the defendant’s property for the use specified in the
Government deposit the initial amounts antecedent to complaint. All that the law requires is that a copy of the
acquiring possession of the property with, respectively, said motion be served on plaintiff’s attorney of record. It
an authorized Government depositary or the proper is the court that at its convenience will set the case for
court. In both cases, the private owner does not receive trial after the filing of the said pleading.
compensation prior to the deprivation of property. On
the other hand, Rep. Act No. 8974 mandates immediate The CA therefore erred in holding that the
payment of the initial just compensation prior to the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner hypothetically
issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the admitted the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint,
Government. “specifically that there is a genuine necessity to
expropriate petitioner’s property for public use.”
Accordingly, the Writ of Possession dated 21 Pursuant to the above Rule, the motion is a responsive
December 2004 should be held in abeyance, pending pleading joining the issues. What the trial court should
proof of actual payment by the Government to PIATCO have done was to set the case for the reception of
of the proffered value of the NAIA 3 facilities, which evidence to determine whether there is indeed a
totals P3,002,125,000.00. genuine necessity for the taking of the property, instead
of summarily making a finding that the taking is for
public use and appointing commissioners to fix just
Motion to dismiss is not permitted in a complaint compensation. This is especially so considering that the
for expropriation purpose of the expropriation was squarely challenged
and put in issue by petitioner in her motion to dismiss.
Lourdes Masikip V. The City of Pasig, et al. (2006)
Significantly, the above Rule allowing a
Facts: Lourdes Masikip (“Lourdes”) is the registered defendant in an expropriation case to file a motion to
owner of a parcel of land in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig dismiss in lieu of an answer was amended by the 1997
City. Pursuant to an Ordinance enacted by the Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1,
Sangguinang Bayan of Pasig, Lourdes received a letter 1997. Section 3, Rule 67 now expressly mandates that
from the City of Pasig (the “respondent”), informing her any objection or defense to the taking of the property of
of its intention to expropriate a portion of her land. a defendant must be set forth in an answer.
Lourdes replied that the intended expropriation of her
property is unconstitutional, invalid and oppressive. Writ of possession
Accordingly, respondent filed with the trial court a
complaint for expropriation. In response, Lourdes filed a Republic Of The Philippines V. Tagle (1998)
Motion to Dismiss. Thereafter, the trial court issued an
Order denying Lourdes’ Motion to Dismiss, on the Facts: Benitez is the registered owner of two (2) parcels
ground that there is genuine necessity to expropriate of land (the “subject land”) in Cavite. On 30 March
the property. Aggrieved, Lourdes filed a Motion for 1983, Benitez signed a Memorandum of Agreement with
Reconsideration, which was likewise denied by the trial the Philippine Human Resources Development Center
court. Lourdes then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the (“PHRDC”) which provides, among others, that Benitez
Court of Appeals (“CA”), which was dismissed for lack of undertakes to lease within the period of twenty (20)
merit. In its Decision, the CA held that in filing a motion years and/or sell a portion of that property in favor of
to dismiss, Lourdes hypothetically admitted the truth of PHRDC. Accordingly, a lease contract was executed.
the facts alleged in the complaint. After the expiration of the lease contract, negotiations
began on the purchase of the subject land. However, for
Issues: Did the CA err in applying the rule on reasons known only to her, Benitez did not sign the
hypothetical admission in this case in relation to Deed of Absolute Sale thus reneging on her commitment
Lourdes’ motion to dismiss? to sell the lot in question. Thereafter, Benitez demanded
PHRDC the payment of rentals and to vacate the
premises. Subsequently, Benitez filed an unlawful

Page 231
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

detainer case against PHRDC. Meanwhile, due to its It would be circuitous, if not legally absurd, for
failure to acquire the subject land through negotiated this Court to require petitioner to first vacate the
sale, PHRDC, through the Department of Trade and property in view of the adverse judgment in the unlawful
Industry (the “petitioner”), instituted a complaint for detainer case, and soon afterwards, order the trial court
Eminent Domain. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a to issue in petitioners favor a writ of possession
Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, which was pursuant to the expropriation proceedings. Such a
granted. Aggrieved, Benitez filed a Motion for scenario is a bureaucratic waste of precious time and
Reconsideration (“MR”). Said MR was granted, thus the resources. This precisely is the sort of pernicious and
Writ of Possession previously issued was quashed. The unreasonable delay of government infrastructure or
judge quashed the Writ of Possession on the ground that development projects, which EO 1035 intended to
the petitioner is already occupying the property sought address by requiring the immediate issuance of a writ of
to be expropriated. possession. Ineludibly, said writ is both necessary and
practical, because mere physical possession that is
Issue: May a judge quash a writ of possession on the gained by entering the property is not equivalent to
ground that the expropriating agency is already expropriating it with the aim of acquiring ownership
occupying the property sought to be expropriated? over, or even the right to possess, the expropriated
property.
Held: No. It is undisputed that the expropriation
proceeding in the case at bar involves a development Conflicting claims on the property
project covered by EO 1035. Section 7 of EO 1035
provides: Philippine Veterans Bank v. Bases Conversion
Development Authority, et al. (2011)
SEC 7. Expropriation. If the parties fail to
agree in negotiation of the sale of the land as provided Facts: In late 2003, Bases Conversion Development
in the preceding section, the government implementing Authority (“BCDA”) filed several expropriation actions
agency/instrumentality concerned shall have authority before the various branches of the RTC of Angeles City
to immediately institute expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of lands needed for the construction
through the Office of the Solicitor General, as the case of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway Project. Upon
may be. The just compensation to be paid for the learning of the expropriation cases, Philippine Veterans
property acquired through expropriation shall be in Bank (the “petitioner”) filed motions to intervene in all
accordance with the provisions of P.D. No. 1533. Courts the cases with attached complaints-in-intervention.
shall give priority to the adjudication of cases on Petitioner alleged that the properties subject of
expropriation and shall immediately issue the necessary expropriation actually belonged to Belmonte Agro-
writ of possession upon deposit by the government Industrial Development Corp., which mortgage the lands
implementing agency/instrumentality concerned of an to petitioner in 1976. Petitioner had since foreclosed on
amount equivalent to ten per cent (10%) of the amount the mortgages and bought the same at public auction in
of just compensation provided under P.D. No. 1533; 1982. Unfortunately, petitioner had been unable to
Provided, That the period within which said writ of consolidate ownership in its name.
possession shall be issued shall in no case extend
beyond five (5) days from the date such deposit was In its Order dated 18 August 2004, however,
made. the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for intervention on
the ground that the intervention amounts to a third-
Under this statutory provision, when the party complaint that is not allowed in expropriation
government or its authorized agent makes the required cases and that the intervention would delay the
deposit, the trial court has a ministerial duty to issue a proceedings in the cases before it. Aggrieved, petitioner
writ of possession. elevated the case before the CA, which affirmed the
RTC’s Order denying petitioner’s motion for intervention.
The expropriation of real property does not Meanwhile, the RTC issued separate decisions granting
include mere physical entry or occupation of land. the expropriation of the subject properties.
Although eminent domain usually involves a taking of
title, there may also be compensable taking of only Issue: Did the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is not
some, not all, of the property interests in the bundle of allowed to intervene in the expropriation cases?
rights that constitute ownership.
Held: Although under Section 9, Rule 67 of the 1997
In the instant case, it is manifest that the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court
petitioner, in pursuit of an objective beneficial to public adjudicating the expropriation case to hear and decide
interest, seeks to realize the same through its power of conflicting claims regarding the ownership of the
eminent domain. In exercising this power, petitioner properties involved, such rule obviously cannot apply to
intended to acquire not only physical possession but also petitioner because at the time petitioner tried to
the legal right to possess and ultimately to own the intervene in the expropriation cases, its conflict with the
subject property. Hence, its mere physical entry and farmer beneficiaries who held CLOAs, EPs, or TCTs
occupation of the property fall short of the taking of emanating from such titles were already pending before
title, which includes all the rights that may be exercised Angeles City RTC Branch 62, a co-equal branch of the
by an owner over the subject property. Its actual same court. As such, Branch 58 had no authority to pre-
occupation, which renders academic the need for it to empt Branch 62 of its power to hear and adjudicate
enter, does not by itself include its acquisition of all the claims that were already pending before it.
rights of ownership. Its right to possess did not attend
its initial physical possession of the property because the While petitioner withdrew the actions it filed with Branch
lease, which had authorized said possession, lapsed. In 62 after the CA dismissed its petition, the same cannot
short, petitioner wanted not merely possession de facto still authorize Branch 58 to decide the conflicting claims
but possession de jure as well. because jurisdiction over the annulment of the individual

Page 232
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

defendants CLOAs and EPs (which titles if annulled

would leave PVBs titles to the lands unchallenged) lies Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale. The
with the DARAB. Accordingly, Branch 58 would still have amount realized from the foreclosure sale of the
no power to adjudicate the issues of ownership mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of
presented by the PVBs intervention. the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the
mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or
residue, after paying off the mortgage debt due, the
Rule 68 same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage order of their priority, to be ascertained by the court,
or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a
balance or residue after payment to them, then to the
mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or to the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 68 person entitled to it.

Section 1. Complaint in action for foreclosure. — In

an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other Section 5. How sale to proceed in case the debt is
encumbrance upon real estate, the complaint shall set not all due. If the debt for which the mortgage or
forth the date and due execution of the mortgage; its encumbrance was held is not all due as provided in the
assignments, if any; the names and residences of the judgment, as soon as a sufficient portion of the
mortgagor and the mortgagee; a description of the property has been sold to pay the total amount and the
mortgaged property; a statement of the date of the costs due, the sale shall terminate; and afterwards, as
note or other documentary evidence of the obligation often as more becomes due for principal or interest and
secured by the mortgage, the amount claimed to be other valid charges, the court may, on motion, order
unpaid thereon; and the names and residences of all more to be sold. But if the property cannot be sold in
persons having or claiming an interest in the property portions without prejudice to the parties, the whole
subordinate in right to that of the holder of the shall be ordered to be sold in the first instance, and the
mortgage, all of whom shall be made defendants in the entire debt and costs shall be paid, if the proceeds of
action. the sale be sufficient therefor, there being a rebate of
interest where such rebate is proper.
Section 2. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or
sale. If upon the trial in such action the court shall find
the facts set forth in the complaint to be true, it shall Section 6. Deficiency judgment. If upon the sale of
ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff upon the any real property as provided in the next preceding
mortgage debt or obligation, including interest and section there be a balance due to the plaintiff after
other charges as approved by the court, and costs, and applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon
shall render judgment for the sum so found due and motion, shall render judgment against the defendant
order that the same be paid to the court or to the for any such balance for which, by the record of the
judgment obligee within a period of not less than case, he may be personally liable to the plaintiff, upon
ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred twenty which execution may issue immediately if the balance
(120) days from the entry of judgment, and that in is all due at the time of the rendition of the judgment;
default of such payment the property shall be sold at otherwise, the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at
public auction to satisfy the judgment. such time as the balance remaining becomes due under
the terms of the original contract, which time shall be
Section 3. Sale of mortgaged property; effect. stated in the judgment.
When the defendant, after being directed to do so as
provided in the next preceding section, fails to pay the
amount of the judgment within the period specified Section 7. Registration. A certified copy of the final
therein, the court, upon motion, shall order the order of the court confirming the sale shall be
property to be sold in the manner and under the registered in the registry of deeds. If no right of
provisions of Rule 39 and other regulations governing redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name of
sales of real estate under execution. Such sale shall not the mortgagor shall be cancelled, and a new one issued
affect the rights of persons holding prior encumbrances in the name of the purchaser.
upon the property or a part thereof, and when Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of
confirmed by an order of the court, also upon motion, it title in the name of the mortgagor shall not be
shall operate to divest the rights in the property of all cancelled, but the certificate of sale and the order
the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the confirming the sale shall be registered and a brief
purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may memorandum thereof made by the registrar of deeds
be allowed by law. upon the certificate of title. In the event the property is
redeemed, the deed of redemption shall be registered
Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon with the registry of deeds, and a brief memorandum
the expiration of the period of redemption when thereof shall be made by the registrar of deeds on said
allowed by law, the purchaser at the auction sale or certificate of title.
last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of
possession of the property unless a third party is sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at
actually holding the same adversely to the judgment the foreclosure sale shall be registered with the registry
obligor. The said purchaser or last redemptioner may of deeds; whereupon the certificate of title in the name
secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the of the mortgagor shall be cancelled and a new one
court which ordered the foreclosure. issued in the name of the purchaser.

Page 233
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Section 8. Applicability of other provisions. The mortgage over said two (2) lots (together with the two
provisions of sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall be (2) others mortgaged to him Judgment was rendered in
applicable to the judicial foreclosure of real estate his favor and became final; and at the ensuing
mortgages under this Rule insofar as the former are foreclosure sale, the lots were acquired by Ponce himself
not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the as highest bidder. Ponce then moved for confirmation of
provisions of the latter. the foreclosure sale, but the Court confirmed the sale of
only two lots, refusing to do so as regards the two which
had been subject of the execution sale in Limpin's favor
Indispensable and necessary parties in a (i.e., those covered TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837).
foreclosure complaint
On March 11, 1988-nine months or so after
- mortgagor and mortgagee (plaintiff) entry of the judgment recognizing his equity of
redemption as successor-in-interest of the original
Modes of foreclosure of REM mortgagors that Sarmiento finally be stirred himself to
attempt to exercise his unforeclosed equity of
Judicial – Rule 68 redemption. On that day he filed a motion with the
Extrajudicial – Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118 Court presided over by Hon. Judge Antonio Solano,
manifesting that he would exercise the right and asked
Modes of foreclosure of chattel mortgage the Court to fix the redemption price. The Court opined
that "this should be the subject of the agreement
Judicial – Rule 68; Replevin under Rule 60may be between Ponce and Sarmiento.
availed of to secure possession of property as
preliminary to its sale Sarmiento then wrote to Ponce on March 23,
Extrajudicial – Sec. 14, Act 1508 1988 offering "P 2.6 million as redemption price for the
two lots originally covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and
Equity of redemption 92837, now 307100 and 307124. Ponce's answer,
dated March 25, 1988, rejected the offer said averred
Equity of redemption, means "the right of the "that the period within which ... (Sarmiento) could have
mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property after his exercised such right ... (had) lapsed. Sarmiento reacted
default in the performance of the conditions of the by filing a motion with the Solano Court, dated March
mortgage but before the sale of the property or the 29, 1988, asking it to "fix the redemption price ... and
judicial) confirmation of the (Sheriffs) sale. that the implementation of the writ of possession be
provisionally deferred. An opposition was promptly filed
The equity of redemption is, to be sure, by Ponce under date of May 4, 1988 in which he argued
different from and should not be confused with the right that "Sarmiento's right to exercise his equity of
of redemption. The right of redemption in relation to a redemption over those lots had long expired," the
mortgage-understood in the sense of a prerogative to opportunity to exercise it having presented itself but not
re-acquire mortgaged property after registration of the availed of "(i) after ... default in the performance of the
foreclosure sale exists only in the case of the conditions of the mortgage and (ii) before the Sheriffs
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. No such right sale of the property and the judicial confirmation
is recognized in a judicial foreclosure except thereof." According to Ponce, "from October 17, 1982,
only where the mortgagee is the Philippine National ... (when) Sarmiento's predecessors-in-interest
Bank or a bank or banking institution. defaulted in their obligations over the mortgaged
properties, up to June 17, 1987, when this ... (Trial)
Where a mortgage is foreclosed extrajudicially, Court confirmed the auction sale of those properties,
Act 3135 grants to the mortgagor the right of Sarmiento could (and should) have exercised his 'equity
redemption within one (1) year from the registration of of redemption.'" Judge Solano did not share this view,
the sheriffs certificate of foreclosure sale. and ruled accordingly

Held: The equity of redemption is, to be sure, different

Limpin vs. IAC (1988) from and should not be confused with the right of
redemption.
Facts: The proceedings concern two (2) lots, then
covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837, which, together The right of redemption in relation to a mortgage-
with two (2) others, were originally mortgaged in 1973 understood in the sense of a prerogative to re-acquire
to herein private respondent Ponce by their former mortgaged property after registration of the foreclosure
owners, the Spouses Jose and Marcelina Aquino. These sale- exists only in the case of
two lots were afterwards sold in 1978 by the same the extrajudicialforeclosure of the mortgage. No such
Aquino Spouses to Butuan Bay Wood Export right is recognized in a judicial foreclosure except only
Corporation. Against this corporation herein petitioner where the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or a
Limpin obtained a money judgment in 1979; and to bank or banking institution.
satisfy the judgment, the two lots were levied on and
sold at public auction in 1980, Limpin being the highest Where a mortgage is foreclosed extra-judicially, Act
bidder. Limpin later sold the lots to his co-petitioner, 3135 grants to the mortgagor the right of redemption
Sarmiento. within one (1) year from the registration of the sheriffs
certificate of foreclosure sale.
Earlier however or a day before levy was made
on the two lots in execution of the judgment against Where the foreclosure is judicially effected, however, no
Butuan Bay Wood Export Corporation. Ponce had equivalent right of redemption exists. The law declares
initiated judicial proceedings for the foreclosure of the that a judicial foreclosure sale, "when confirmed by an
order of the court, shall operate to divest the rights of

Page 234
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the On January 23, 1971, after the mortgagor
purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may Pedro Oliverio had served notice in writing of the
be allowed by law. Such rights exceptionally "allowed by redemption and had paid on said date to defendant-
law" (i.e., even after confirmation by an order of the appellee Deputy Sheriff the principal amount of
court) are those granted by the charter of the Philippine P14,500.00 plus P1,691.00 representing the one (1 %)
National Bank (Acts No. 2747 and 2938), and the per centum interest per month, the latter executed a
General Banking Act (R.A. 337). These laws confer on Deed of Certificate of Redemption restoring, conveying
the mortgagor, his successors in interest or any and assigning unto the said mortgagor, his heirs and
judgment creditor of the mortgagor, the right to redeem assigns all the estate, right, title and interest on said
the property sold on foreclosure-after confirmation by foreclosed property.
the court of the foreclosure sale-which right may be
exercised within a period of one (1) year, counted from
Rosales filed the instant complaint for
the date of registration of the certificate of sale in the
cancellation of certificate of redemption alleging that no
Registry of Property.
valid redemption was effected because the mortgagor
failed to tender payment of 1) the full interest on the
But, to repeat, no such right of redemption exists in
purchase price, while should be P1,715.84, instead of
case of judicial foreclosure of a mortgage if the
Pl,691.00 actually paid by the mortgagor, thereby
mortgagee is not the PNB or a bank or banking
leaving a deficiency in the sum of P24.84; 2) the sum of
institution.
P3.00 representing the registration fee of the certificate
of sale, plus interest thereon of P0.04; 3) the delinquent
No right of redemption in judicial foreclosure of
real estate taxes of the subject property for the years
REM except when allowed by law
1960 to 1970 amounting to P745.47; and 4) the
Sheriff's commission in the sum of P99.82.
In Judicial Foreclosure:

General Rule: No right of redemption only equity The RTC declared that the Certificate of
redemption. Redemption of the property sold at public auction is
Exception: Those granted by banks or banking valid and legal "without prejudice to the right of the
institutions as provided by the General Banking Act. plaintiff-appellant to recover from the redemptioner the
deficiencies.
Hence, if a mortgagee is a bank, the mortgagor may
exercise a right of redemption and this rule applies even
if the foreclosure is judicial in accordance with Rule 68 of Issue: Whether or not a valid and legal redemption was
the Rules of Court. made by the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio of his titled
property.

In Extrajudicial Foreclosure: Held: The requisites for a valid redemption are: 1) the
redemption must be made within twelve (12) months
General Rule: Mortgagor has the right to redeem the from the time of the registration of the sale in the Office
property. of the Register of Deeds; 2) payment of the purchase
price of the property involved, plus 1% interest per
Period: Within one (1) year from the registration of the month thereon, if any, paid by the purchaser after the
deed of sale. sale with the same rate of interests; and 3) written
notice of the redemption must be served on the officer
Except: Sec. 47 of the General Banking Act provides who made the sale and a duplicate filed with the
that in case of extrajudicial foreclosure, notwithstanding Register of Deeds of the province.
ACT 3135, juridical persons shall have the right to
redeem the property until, but not after, the registration
of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the applicable There is no dispute, that in the case at bar, the
Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than mortgagor Pedro Oliverio tendered payment of the
three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is higher. purchase price well within the redemption period of
twelve (12) months after the registration of the sale on
February 3,1970 and that defendants-appellees Deputy
Right of redemption in extrajudicial foreclosure Sheriff of Samar and the Register of Deeds of Samar
were duly notified in writing of the mortgagor's desire to
Rosales v. Yboa (1983) redeem the subject property. Equally beyond question is
the fact that mortgagor Pedro Oliverio tendered the sum
of P14,500.00 corresponding to the purchase of the
property, and the amount of P1,691.00 representing the
Facts: By virtue of the foreclosure of real estate 1% monthly interest thereon, although the trial court
mortgage duly executed by the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio found a deficiency of P0.67 due and owing to the
in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines, as plaintiff-appellant. The mortgagor, therefor, has
security for the payment of the amount of P12,000.00, substantially complied with the requirements of the law
Deputy Sheriff of Samar Peregrin Yboa, sold at public to effect redemption, for which reason a Certificate of
auction to Rosales, the highest bidder, for the total Redemption was issued in his favor by defendant-
amount of fourteen thousand five hundred pesos appellee Deputy Sheriff.
(P14,500.00). The corresponding Sheriff's certificate of
sale was issued in favor of plaintiff-appellant, which
certificate was registered in the Office of the Register of The failure of the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio to
Deeds for the Province of Samar on February 3, 1970. tender the amount of P745.47 representing the
delinquent real estate taxes of the subject property, the

Page 235
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

registration fee of P3.00 and the interest thereon of the court action to enforce redemption, being equivalent
P0.04, the Sheriff's Commission in the sum of P99.82, to a formal offer to redeem, would have the effect of
and the deficiency interest on the purchase price of the preserving his redemptive rights and "freezing" the
subject property, will not render the redemption in expiration of the one-year period. In this case, the
question null and void, it having been established that period of redemption expired on January 21, 1992. The
he has substantially complied with the requirements of complaint was filed on December 20, 1992.
the law to effect a valid redemption, with his tender of
payment of the purchase price and the interest thereon
Moreover, while the complaint alleges that
within twelve (12) months from the date of the
private respondent made an offer to redeem the subject
registration of the sale.
property on August 6, 1991, which was within the period
of redemption, it is not alleged in the complaint that
Filing of court action to enforce redemption has there was an actual tender of payment of the
effect of preserving redemptioner’s rights and redemption price as required by the rules. It was alleged
“freezing” expiration of one year period. that private respondent merely made an offer
of P700,000.00 as redemption price, which however, the
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. CA redemption money was the total bank claim
(2005) of P925,448.17 plus lawful interest and other allowable
expenses incident to the foreclosure proceedings. Thus,
the offer was even very much lower than the price paid
Facts: Santiago (Isabela) Memorial Park, Inc. filed a
by petitioner as the highest bidder in the auction sale.
complaint for redemption and specific performance
against Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank,
alleging, among others, that SMP Inc. made manifest its In BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Veloso,
interest to exercise its right of redemption through we held: The general rule in redemption is that it is not
numerous communications and negotiation with the sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his
defendant. Also, SMP Inc. alleges that the delay of desire to do so. The statement of intention must be
Banco Filipino in the finalization of the terms of accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of
redemption did not in any manner alter the right of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to
plaintiff to redeem the property. repurchase.

Banco Filipino filed a motion to dismiss on the Prescriptive period to file action for deficiency in
ground that the complaint does not state a cause of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage
action. It alleges that assuming that the allegations in
the complaint are true and correct, still there was no * Ten (10) years (Arts. 1144 and 1142, Civil Code)
redemption effected within one year from the date of
registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale with the Article 1142. A mortgage action prescribes after ten
Register of Deeds on January 21, 1991, thus private years. (1964a)
respondent had lost its right to redeem the subject land.
Petitioner claimed that the letter cited was a mere offer Article 1144. The following actions must be brought
to redeem the property which was promptly answered within ten years from the time the right of action
by a letter dated August 28, 1991, which categorically accrues:
denied private respondent’s offer and stated that when it
comes to redemption, the basis of payment is the total (1) Upon a written contract;
claim of the bank at the time the property was (2) Upon an obligation created by law;
foreclosed plus 12% thereof and all litigation expenses (3) Upon a judgment.
attached thereto or its present appraised value
whichever is higher; that the letter mentioned was about
negotiation and special arrangement and not redemption Writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding -
for at that stage the period of redemption had already no need for notice to adverse party
expired;
De Vera v. Agloro (2005)
The RCT ruled in favor of Banco Filipino. The
Facts: The Spouses Salvador F. De Vera and Feliza V.
CA however reversed and set aside the order of the RTC,
De Vera secured a loan from the BPI Family Savings
declaring SMP Inc. entitled to repurchase the property in
Bank, Inc. (“BPI”). To secure the payment thereof, the
question within THIRTY (30) days from CA’s notice.
Spouses executed a Real Estate Mortgage over their
property. When the Spouses failed to pay their loan, the
Issue: Whether SMP Inc.’s offer and negotiation with property was extrajudicially foreclosed, with BPI being
Banco Filipino for the redemption is sufficient to stall the the highest bidder in the public auction.
running of the redemption period.
The Bank filed an Ex Parte Petition for Writ of
Held: Clearly, the right of redemption should be Possession with the RTC impleading the Spouses as
exercised within the specified time limit. The respondents The trial court ruled that the purchaser of
redemptioner should make an actual tender in good the foreclosed property, upon ex parte application and
faith of the full amount of the purchase price. In case of the posting of the required bond, has the right to
disagreement over the redemption price, the acquire possession of the foreclosed property during the
redemptioner may preserve his right of redemption 12-month redemption period. According to the trial
through judicial action which in every case must be filed court, this is sanctioned under Section 7 of Act No.
within the one-year period of redemption. The filing of 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. The trial court also

Page 236
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

declared that considering that the redemption period Respondents filed a complaint to declare
had already expired, the Bank as purchaser, can, and the Provisional Certificate of Sale and the auction and
with more reason, demand for a writ of possession. The foreclosure proceedings null and void. PNB filed a Motion
trial court emphasized that it is its ministerial duty to for execution pending appeal. The RTC granted PNB’s
issue the writ of possession in favor of a purchaser at petition for issuance of a writ of possession over seven
public auction. (7) parcels of land and directed the execution pending
appeal of such writ of possession. The CA however
annulled the ruling of the RTC. Hence, this Petition for
The Spouses filed a motion for reconsideration
Review
which was however denied. Aggrieved, the Spouses De
Vera filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with
Issue: Whether or not PNB is entitled to the writ of
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
possession pending appeal
injunction before the CA, which was again denied.
Hence, this petition.
Held:

Issue: Whether or not there was denial of due process A writ of possession is "a writ of execution
when the RTC took cognizance of the ex parte petition employed to enforce a judgment to recover the
for a writ of possession without prior service of copies of possession of land. It commands the sheriff to
the petition and of the notice of hearing thereof on the enter the land and give possession of it to the
Spouses. person entitled under the judgment."

A writ of possession may be issued under the

Held: The bare fact that the petitioners were impleaded following instances: (1)in land registration proceedings
in the ex parte petition for a writ of possession filed by under Section 17 of Act 496; (2) in a judicial
the respondent did not alter the summary nature of the foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the
proceedings in Act No. 3135. Indeed, there was no need mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the
for the respondent to implead the petitioners as parties- foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) in an extrajudicial
respondents in its petition with the RTC. Hence, the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of
petitioners cannot claim that they were denied due Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (4) in
process when the RTC took cognizance of the execution sales (last paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of
respondent’s petition without prior service of copies of the Rules of Court).
the petition and of the notice of hearing thereof on
them. The present case falls under the third instance.
Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
An ex parte petition for the issuance of a 4118, a writ of possession may be issued either (1)
possessory writ under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not, within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of
strictly speaking, a "judicial process" as contemplated in a bond, or (2) after the lapse of the redemption period,
Article 433 of the Civil Code.34 It is a judicial proceeding without need of a bond. The purchaser in a foreclosure
for the enforcement of one’s right of possession as sale may apply for a writ of possession during the
purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under
filed in court, by which one party "sues another for the oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration
enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the or cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered
prevention or redress of a wrong." It is a non-litigious by a Torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the
proceeding authorized in an extrajudicial foreclosure of approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in
mortgage pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended. It is express terms directs the court to issue the order for a
brought for the benefit of one party only, and without writ of possession.
notice to, or consent by any person adversely
interested. It is a proceeding where the relief is granted A writ of possession may also be issued after
without an opportunity for the person against whom the consolidation of ownership of the property in the name
relief is sought to be heard. No notice is needed to be of the purchaser. It is settled that the buyer in a
served upon persons interested in the subject property. foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the
Hence, there is no necessity of giving notice to the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the
petitioners since they had already lost all their interests period of one year after the registration of sale. As such,
in the property when they failed to redeem the same. he is entitled to the possession of the property and can
demand it any time following the consolidation of
ownership in his name and the issuance of a new
Writ of possession is like a writ of execution transfer certificate of title. In such a case, the bond
required in Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is no longer
PNB v. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION (2005) necessary. Possession of the land then becomes an
absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner.
Facts: Sanao Marketing Corporation, the spouses Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance
Amado A. Sanao and Soledad F. Sanao and the spouses of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of
William (Willy) F. Sanao and Helen Sanao, as joint and the court.
solidary debtors, obtained a loan from PNB secured by a
real estate mortgage of several parcels of land. For
failure of respondents to fully pay the loan upon its
maturity, PNB caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgage. A Provisional Certificate of Sale was issued in
favor of PNB.

Page 237
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

An action to invalidate the mortgage or the

foreclosure sale is not a valid ground to oppose Rule 69
issuance of writ of possession. Partition

Arquiza vs. CA (2005) Partition defined

Facts: The petitioners, spouses Godofredo V. Arquiza Villamor v. CA (1988)

and Remedios D. Arquiza, obtained a loan from private
respondent Equitable PCIBank. To secure the payment Facts: Special Proceedings, which relates to the
thereof, the petitioners executed a Real Estate Mortgage intestate estates of Eugenia, Casimira Florencio, Braulia,
over their parcel of land. When the spouses defaulted in Margarita and Barbara, all surnamed Cortes was filed.
the payment of their loan, the private respondent filed a This proceeding evidently did not include a brother,
petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate Rufino Cortes. A scramble over the control and
mortgage. A public auction was held and a Certificate of possession of the properties ensued between the heirs of
Sale over the property was issued in favor of the private Barbara Cortes, and the Rufino Cortes line. A project of
respondent. This was registered with the Registry of partition was entered into by all the heirs of decedent.
Deeds of Quezon City.
Issue:
Following the expiry date of the redemption period
without the petitioners having exercised their right to 1. May the heirs of Rufino participate in
redeem the property, the private respondent the partition?
consolidated its ownership over the subject property. As 2. Definition of partition
a consequence, the Registry of Deeds issued TCT No. N-
221650 in the name of the private respondent, canceling Held: The lower courts erred in relying on the alleged
the petitioners former title. absence of evidence showing that Rufino Cortes had at
any time been declared an owner of the lands in
The petitioners filed a complaint against the question for taxation purpose poses. The records show
private respondent and the sheriffs with the RTC of that before the project of partition was executed the
Quezon City for the declaration of the nullity of the contending parties in Special Proceedings had been
promissory note, real estate mortgage and the fighting for eight years because the properties listed in
foreclosure sale and damages with a plea for injunctive the inventories submitted by the administrators were
relief for the suspension redemption period. Identical. To settle their differences amicably, the
parties who all claim to be the heirs of decedents, all
Thereafter, Equitable PCIBank filed an Ex children of Victor Cortes and Maria Castañeda, decided
Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession. The to partition the properties.
RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of Equitable
PCIBank. The CA rendered judgment affirming the
appealed decision. The CA held that the rule requiring Partition is defined as a division between two
the highest bidder to be placed in possession of the or more persons of real or personal property which they
property is founded on the right of ownership, which own as co-partners, joint tenants or tenants in common,
becomes absolute after title thereto has been issued in effected by the setting apart of such interests so that
favor of the new owner, and that the court must aid in they may enjoy and possess it in severalty. The
effecting its delivery. purpose of partition is to put an end to the common
tenancy of the land or co-ownership. It seeks a
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari , severance of the individual interest of each joint owner
contending, among others, that the writ of possession vesting in each a sole estate in specific property and
should not have been issued considering the pendency giving to each one the right to enjoy his estate without
of a complaint for the annulment of the foreclosure sale supervision or interference from the other. And a
partition by deed is a recognized method of effectuating
Issue: Whether or not the writ of possession may be a separation of interest in property held in common.
opposed on the ground of a pendency of a proceeding
for the annulment of the foreclosure sale. It is clear therefore that a partition
presupposes that the thing to be divided is owned in
Held: The petition is denied for lack of merit. As a rule, common. It is immaterial in whose name the properties
any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or were declared for taxation purposes for it is presumed
its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the beforehand that the parties to the partition admit the
issuance of a writ of possession. Regardless of whether fact of co-ownership and now want to effect a separation
or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the of interest.
mortgage or the foreclosure itself, the purchaser is
entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of
course to the eventual outcome of said case. MTC may have jurisdiction in actions for partition

1. Real property - P20,000.00/P50,000.00

2. Personal property – P300,000.00/P400,000.00

Page 238
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Final order decreeing partition and accounting Who may file complaint; who should be made
appealable defendants [Rule 69, Sec. 1]

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 69 Who May File: A person having the right to compel
partition of real estate, or of personal property, or both
Section 2. Order for partition and partition by real and personal property [Sec. 1, Sec. 13]
agreement thereunder. — If after the trial the court
finds that the plaintiff has the right thereto, it shall order Venue: An action for partition should be filed in the RTC
the partition of the real estate among all the parties in of the province where the property or part thereof is
interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to situated.
agree, make the partition among themselves by proper
instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm Parties:
the partition so agreed upon by all the parties, and such (1) The plaintiff is the person who is supposed to be a
partition, together with the order of the court confirming co-owner of the property
the same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of (2) Defendants are all the co-owners, who are
the place in which the property is situated. indispensable parties
(3) Creditors or assignees of co-owners may also
A final order decreeing partition and accounting may intervene and object to the partition
be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.
* Appeal period – 30 days
Who may effect partition
Action for partition raises two issues
Alejandrino v. CA (1998)
1. whether plaintiff is co-owner of property
2. assuming plaintiff is co-owner, how to divide the
property between plaintiff and defendant Facts: Spouses Labunos left their six children named
or among the co-owners Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco, Mauricia, Laurencia and
Abundio properties in Cebu. Mauricia allegedly
Two stages in every action for partition purchased Gregorio's share Ciriaco's share and
Abundio's share. It turned out, however, that a third
First Stage: Determination of the propriety of partition party named Licerio Nique, the private respondent in
This involves a determination of whether the subject this case, also purchased portions of the property from
property is owned in common and whether all the co- Laurencia and from Gregorio, Marcelino and Abundio
owners are made parties in the case. through Laurencia.
The order may also require an accounting of rents and
profits recovered by the defendant. This order of However, Laurencia later questioned the sale in an
partition is appealable. [Miranda v. Court of Appeals action for quieting of title and damages against private
(1976)] respondent Nique in Civil Case No. CEB-7038 wherein
If not appealed, then the parties may partition the the trial court declared Nique owner of the properties.
common property in the way they want. If they cannot Nique filed a motion for the segregation of the portion of
agree, then the case goes into the second stage. the property pursuant to said judgment.
However, the order of accounting may in the meantime
be executed. [De Mesa v. CA (1994)]
Meanwhile, Mauricia filed a complaint for
Second Stage: Actual partitioning of the subject redemption and recovery of properties with damages
property against private respondent Nique that was docketed as
This is also a complete proceeding and the order or Civil Case No. CEB-11673.
decision is appealable.
When there was a prior partition, the fact that the share Mauricia questioned this order of the lower court in
of each co-heir has not been technically described and a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
the title over the whole lot remains uncancelled does not the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed
negate such partition. before the CA. The CA dismissed the petition stating that
There can be no partition again because there is no the respondent court was merely performing its job of
more common property. [Noceda v. CA (1999)] seeing to it that execution of a final judgment must
conform to that decreed in the dispositive part of the
Who are indispensable parties decision.
* All the co-owners (Rule 3, Sec. 7)

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 69 Issue: Whether or not as an heir of the Alejandrino
property, Laurencia may validly sell specific portions
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable thereof to a third party.
parties. — Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined Held: Art. 1078 of the Civil Code provides that where
either as plaintiffs or defendants. there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the
decedent is, before partition, owned in common by such
heirs, subject to the payment of the debts of the
deceased. Under a co-ownership, the ownership of an
undivided thing or right belongs to different
persons. Each co-owner of property which is held pro
indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and

Page 239
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation Extrajudicial partition by heirs (Sec. 1, Rule 74)
than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-
owners. The underlying rationale is that until a division 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 74
is made, the respective share of each cannot be
determined and every co-owner exercises, together with Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement
his co-participants, joint ownership over the pro between heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no
indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are
of the same. represented by their judicial or legal representatives
duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without
Although the right of an heir over the property securing letters of administration, divide the estate
of the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has not among themselves as they see fit by means of a public
been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co- instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds,
owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary
right. With respect to properties shared in common by action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may
virtue of inheritance, alienation of a pro indiviso portion adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an
thereof to a stranger before the partition, any or all of affidavit filled in the office of the register of deeds. The
the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public
purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for
provided they do so within the period of one month from partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire
the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file,
vendor. simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the
filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action
In the instant case, Laurencia was within her for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the
hereditary rights in selling her pro indiviso share. register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds,
However, because the property had not yet been in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal
partitioned in accordance with the Rules of Court, no property involved as certified to under oath by the
particular portion of the property could be identified as parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of
yet and delineated as the object of the sale. A co-owner any just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this
has the right to alienate his pro-indiviso share in the co- rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no
owned property even without the consent of the other debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of
co-owners. Nevertheless, as a mere part owner, he administration within two (2) years after the death of
cannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners. the decedent.

As there is no pending administration The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or

proceedings, the property of the Alejandrino spouses administration shall be published in a newspaper of
can only be partitioned by the heirs themselves in an general circulation in the manner provided in the nest
extrajudicial settlement of estate. However, evidence on succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall
the extrajudicial settlement of estate was offered before be binding upon any person who has not participated
the trial court and it became the basis for the order for therein or had no notice thereof.
segregation of the property sold to Nique. Mauricia does
not deny the fact of the execution of the deed of
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. She only Partition of personal property (Sec. 13, Rule 69)
questions its validity on account of the absence of
notarization of the document and the non-publication
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 69
thereof.
Section 13. Section 13. Partition of personal
It appears that when a co-owner sells his
property. — The provisions of this Rule shall apply to
inchoate right in the co-ownership, he expresses his
partitions of estates composed of personal property, or
intention to "put an end to indivision among (his) co-
of both real and personal property, in so far as the same
heirs." Partition among co-owners may thus be
may be applicable.
evidenced by the overt act of a co-owner of renouncing
his right over the property regardless of the form it
takes. In effect, Laurencia expressed her intention to
terminate the co-owner by selling her share to private
respondent. Moreover, the execution of the deed of
extrajudicial settlement of the estate reflected the
intention of both Laurencia and petitioner Mauricia to
physically divide the property.

On the part of Laurencia, the court found that

she had transmitted her rights over portions she had
acquired from her brothers to private respondent Nique.
The sale was made after the execution of the deed of
extrajudicial settlement of the estate that private
respondent himself witnessed. The extrajudicial
settlement of estate having constituted a partition of the
property, Laurencia validly transferred ownership over
the specific front portion of the property with an area of
146 square meters.

Page 240
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

RTC has jurisdiction where cause of dispossession

Rule 70 not among grounds for FEUD, or possession lost
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer for more than one year

Natalia Realty, Inc., v. CA (2002)

Distinguish the different actions to recover Facts: Natalia Realty Inc. filed an action (Civil Case No.
possession of real property 359-A) for recovery of possession of two parcels of land,
alleging that Antonio Martinez, Felipe Padua, Mario
1. forcible entry and unlawful detainer Perfecto and Hermito Salodega were occupying and
2. accion publiciana illegally squatting on certain portions of the subject
property.

Forcibly Entry Unlawful Detainer RTC dismissed the case for petitioner’s failure
(Detentacion) (Desahucio) to prosecute. The trial court issued another Order
Possession of land by Possession is inceptively granting the motions of respondents to order petitioner
defendant is unlawful from lawful but it becomes illegal to surrender possession of portions of the subject
the beginning as he by reason of the property to private respondents.
acquires possession by termination of his right to
force, intimidation, possession of the property Respondents filed with the trial court a motion
strategy, threat, or stealth under his contract with the for the issuance of a writ of execution. They sought to
plaintiff enforce the orders of the trial court dated August 26,
No previous demand for Demand is jurisdictional if 1991 and April 20, 1992 that respectively referred to (1)
defendant to vacate the the ground is non-payment the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute
premises is necessary of rentals or failure to and (2) the surrender of possession of portions of the
comply with lease contract subject property to respondents. Petitioner opposed the
Plaintiff must prove that he Plaintiff need not have been motion arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court
was in prior physical in prior physical possession in Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
possession of the premises dated August 12, 1993 is a supervening event that
until he was deprived prevents the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No.
thereof by defendant 359-A.
The 1-year period is Period is counted from the
generally counted from date of last letter of Issue Whether or not the ruling in Natalia Realty v. DAR
date of actual entry on land demand is applicable to the present case
The issue centers on who The issue centers on
was in prior possession de whether the defendant’s Held: The ruling in Natalia Realty vs. Department of
facto. right to possess has expired Agrarian Reform does not qualify as a supervening
or not. event. A plain reading of the decision in that case will
readily reveal that it is not applicable to Civil Case No.
359-A. The sole issue in Natalia Realty vs. Department
of Agrarian Reform was whether the land registered
under the name of therein petitioner Natalia, covered by
Accion Accion Accion TCT No. 31527, was within the coverage of the
Interdictal Publiciana Reivindicato Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL for
ria brevity).
Summary action for A plenary An action for
The present case stemmed from a complaint
recovery of physical action for recovery of
for recovery of possession or accion publiciana filed by
possession where the recovery of ownership,
Natalia, herein petitioner. Accion publiciana is a plenary
dispossession has not real right of which
action to recover possession. When the cause of
lasted for more than 1 possession necessarily
dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible
year when includes the
entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has
dispossession recovery of
been lost for more than one year and can no longer be
has lasted for possession
maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the
more than
complaint should be for accion publiciana. The objective
one year
of the parties in accion publiciana is to recover
All cases of forcible entry RTC has jurisdiction if value of
possession only, not ownership.
and unlawful detainer, the property exceeds P20,000
irrespective of the outside Metro Manila; exceeds
The rights asserted and reliefs prayed for
amount of damages or P50,000 within Metro Manila.
in Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian Reform and
unpaid rentals sought to MTC has jurisdiction if value
in this case are very different. Natalia Realty vs.
be recovered should be of property does not exceed
Department of Agrarian Reform did not involve the
brought to the MTC. the above amounts
question of possession, not even the issue of
However, if not brought (RA 7691 expanded the
ownership. The decision in that case merely resolved the
within 1 year, RTC has jurisdiction of 1st level courts)
issue of whether the land covered by TCT No. 31527
jurisdiction
should be placed under the coverage of CARL. The Court
in Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian
Reform even underscored the fact that the question of
possession is a separate and distinct issue.

Page 241
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

3. accion reivindicatoria them, for the restitution of such possession, together

with damages and costs. Thus, if the dispossession has
Encarnacion v. Amigo (2006) not lasted for more than one year, an ejectment
proceeding is proper and the inferior court acquires
Facts: Victoriano M. Encarnacion is the registered owner jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the dispossession
of lots which he acquired from his mother-in-law. lasted for more than one year, the proper action to be
Respondent Nieves Amigo allegedly entered the filed is an accion publiciana which should be brought to
premises and took possession of a portion of the the proper RTC
property when the same was still owned by
Encarnacion’s father-in-law, Victoriano Magpantay, From the allegations in the complaint, it
without the latter’s permission of the then owner. Said appears that the petitioner became the owner of the
occupation by respondent continued even after titles property on April 11, 1995 by virtue of the waiver of
were issued to Encarnacion. rights executed by his mother-in-law. He filed the
complaint for ejectment on March 2, 2001 after his
Encarnacion sent a letter demanding that the February 1, 2001 letter to the respondent demanding
respondent vacate the subject property but still refused that the latter vacate the premises remained unheeded.
to vacate the subject property. Thereafter petitioner While it is true that the demand letter was received by
filed a complaint for ejectment, damages with injunction the respondent on February 12, 2001, thereby making
and prayer for restraining order with the MTC. the filing of the complaint for ejectment fall within the
requisite one year from last demand for complaints for
MTC judged in favor of Encarnacion. On unlawful detainer, it is also equally true that petitioner
appeal, the RTC dismissed the case on the ground that became the owner of the subject lot in 1995 and has
the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case, thus RTC been since that time deprived possession of a portion
acquired no appellate jurisdiction thereof. The CA held thereof. From the date of the petitioner's dispossession
that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana in 1995 up to his filing of his complaint for ejectment in
and not unlawful detainer as determined by the 2001, almost 6 years have elapsed. The length of time
allegations in the complaint filed by petitioner. that the petitioner was dispossessed of his property
made his cause of action beyond the ambit of an accion
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction. interdictal and effectively made it one for accion
publiciana. After the lapse of the one-year period, the
Held: The action being an accion publiciana, RTC has suit must be commenced in the Regional Trial Court via
the jurisdiction. an accion publiciana which is a suit for recovery of the
In this jurisdiction, the three kinds of actions right to possess. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to
for the recovery of possession of real property are: determine the better right of possession of realty
1. Accion interdictal, or an ejectment independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit
proceeding which may be either that for forcible entry filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of
(detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), which is the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
a summary action for recovery of physical possession possession of the realty.
where the dispossession has not lasted for more than
one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior
court; The RTC does not have jurisdiction over all cases
2. Accion publiciana or the plenary action for of recovery of possession regardless of the value
the recovery of the real right of possession, which of the property involved
should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court
when the dispossession has lasted for more than one Quinagoran v. CA (2007)
year; and
3. Accion reinvindicatoria or accion de Facts: The heirs of Juan dela Cruz filed a Complaint for
reivindicacion, which is an action for the recovery of Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with
ownership which must be brought in the proper Regional Compensation and Damages against Victorino
Trial Court. Quinagoran, alleging that the latter started occupying a
house on the north-west portion of their property by
Based on the foregoing distinctions, the tolerance of respondents.
material element that determines the proper action to
be filed for the recovery of the possession of the
Quinagoran filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming
property in this case is the length of time of
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. He
dispossession. Under the Rules of Court, the remedies of
argued that since the 346 sq m lot which he owns
forcible entry and unlawful detainer are granted to a
adjacent to the contested property has an assessed
person deprived of the possession of any land or
value of P1,730.00, the assessed value of the lot under
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
controversy would not be more than the said amount.
stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of The RTC denied petitioner's MTD. The CA
the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, affirmed the RTC ruling that where there is no allegation
express or implied, or the legal representatives or that there was denial of possession through any of the
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other methods stated in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of
person. These remedies afford the person deprived of Court, or where there is no lease contract between the
the possession to file at any time within one year after parties, the proper remedy is the plenary action of
such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, recovery of possession or accion publiciana and thus is
an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the within the proper jurisdiction of the RTC.
person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
possession, or any person or persons claiming under

Page 242
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Issue: Does the RTC have jurisdiction over all cases of Court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB
recovery of possession regardless of the value of the validly acquired jurisdiction over the case.
property involved?
In their complaint for recovery of possession,
the Spouses Valdez alleged, among others, that they are
Held: No. The doctrine on which the RTC anchored its
farmers and beneficiaries of an emancipation patent.
denial of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, as affirmed by
The Spouses Valdez also alleged that the Spouses Atuel
the CA -- that all cases of recovery of possession
and the Spouses Galdiano stealthily and fraudulently
or accion publiciana lies with the regional trial courts
occupied the property. The Spouses Valdez claimed that
regardless of the value of the property -- no longer
despite repeated demands, the Spouses Atuel and the
holds true. As things now stand, a distinction must be
Spouses Galdiano refused to vacate and restore
made between those properties the assessed value of
possession of the Subject Lot to the Spouses
which is below P20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila;
Valdez. The Spouses Valdez prayed that the Spouses
andP50,000.00, if within.
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano be ordered to vacate
and restore possession of the Subject Lot to the Spouses
The Court has also declared that all cases Valdez.
involving title to or possession of real property with an
assessed value of less than P20,000.00 if outside Metro The Spouses Valdez did not allege the
Manila, falls under the original jurisdiction of the existence of tenancy relations, if any, between
municipal trial court. them and the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano.
Atuel v. Valdez: Jurisdiction over an accion In the instant case, the allegations in the
publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. complaint, which are contained in the decision of the
Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive MARO, indicate that the nature and subject matter of
original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve x x the instant case is for recovery of possession or
x possession of real property." However, if the accion publiciana. The issue to be resolved is who
assessed value of the real property involved does between the Spouses Valdez on one hand, and the
not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano on the other,
and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the have a better right to possession of the property. The
municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano likewise raise
actions to recover possession of real property. the issue of ownership by insisting that Cab is the real
and lawful owner of the Subject Lot.
Atuel v. Valdez (2003)
For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the
Facts: Atty. Manuel D. Cab appointed Federico Atuel as case, there must exist a tenancy relations between the
administrator of his Property. Cab leased a portion of parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold
his property to Bernabe Valdez. Cab allowed the over a dispute, it is essential to establish all its
Spouses Federico and Sarah Atuel (Spouses Atuel) and indispensable elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are
the Spouses George and Eliada Galdiano (Spouses the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
Galdiano) to occupy a portion of the Cab Property. The lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is
Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano constructed an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between
their respective houses thereon. the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of
the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
The Ministry of Human Settlements Regulatory 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the
Commission (MARO) of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is
informed Cab that Valdez was properly identified as a shared between the landowner and the tenant or
tenant, and thus deemed to be the owner of the land he agricultural lessee.
cultivated. The MARO issued an Emancipation Patent in
favor of Valdez for a portion of Cab’s Property, which
included the portion occupied by the houses of the Canlas v. Tubil (2009)
Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.
Facts: On June 9, 2004, a complaint for unlawful
Spouses Valdez filed a complaint for Recovery detainer was filed by respondent Iluminada Tubil against
of Possession with Damages with the DARAB in petitioners Rodolfo Canlas, Victoria Canlas, Felicidad
Malaybalay, Bukidnon against the Spouses Atuel and the Canlas and spouses Pablo and Charito Canlas before the
Spouses Galdiano. In their complaint, the Spouses MTC. The complaint alleged that plaintiff (herein
Valdez alleged that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses respondent) is the owner of a residential lot in Guagua,
Galdiano stealthily and through fraud entered and Pampanga; that sometime ago, the defendants (herein
occupied a portion of their. petitioners) erected their houses in said land and are
presently occupying the same as their residential house;
Issue: Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction for the that said houses were erected by mere tolerance of
recovery possession of the lots from the Spouses. plaintiff; that demands were verbally made upon
defendants to vacate and remove their house therefrom,
Held: The DARAB has no jurisdiction to take cognizance but defendants just ignored the plea and refused to
of the Spouses Valdezs complaint for recovery of remove their houses; and that in light of said refusal,
possession of the Subject Lot. Though the parties do the plaintiff referred the matter to a lawyer, who sent
not challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court defendants demand letters to vacate dated January 12,
may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The 2004, but in spite of receipt of the same defendants
failed and refused to vacate and remove their houses.

Page 243
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

The MTC rendered judgment, affirmed by the refused to vacate despite several demands. The MTC
RTC, dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the
because respondent failed to show that the possession respondents to vacate the property. The Court of
of the petitioners was by mere tolerance. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ruled that the MTC
Appeals reversed and ordered the RTC to decide the has no jurisdiction over the complaint for unlawful
case on the merits. detainer for failure of the petitioners to allege that they
had given the respondents the right to occupy the
Issue: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over the premises or that they had tolerated respondents’
instant complaint for unlawful detainer. possession of the same.

Held: Yes. Well-settled is the rule that what determines Issue: Whether or not based on the allegations of the
the nature of the action as well as the court which has complaint, the MTC had jurisdiction over the complaint
jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the for unlawful detainer.
complaint. In ejectment cases, the complaint should
embody such statement of facts as to bring the party Held: The MTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint.
clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential
provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in that the plaintiff’s supposed acts of tolerance must have
nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to been present right from the start of the possession
give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol which is later sought to be recovered. Otherwise, if the
evidence. possession was unlawful from the start, an action for
unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. As
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover explained in Sarona vs. Villegas, cited in Muñoz vs.
possession of real property from one who illegally Court of Appeals, tolerance must be present right from
withholds possession after the expiration or termination the start of possession sought to be recovered, to
of his right to hold possession under any contract, categorize a cause of action as one of unlawful detainer
express or implied. The possession of the defendant in not of forcible entry
unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal
due to the expiration or termination of the right to It is the nature of defendant’s entry into the
possess. land which determines the cause of action, whether it is
forcible entry or unlawful detainer. If the entry is illegal,
An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in then the action which may be filed against the intruder
nature, jurisdiction of which lies in the proper municipal is forcible entry. If, however, the entry is legal but the
trial court or metropolitan trial court. The action must be possession thereafter becomes illegal, the case is
brought within one year from the date of last demand unlawful detainer.
and the issue in said case is the right to physical
possession. On the other hand, accion publiciana is the Indeed, to vest the court jurisdiction to effect
plenary action to recover the right of possession which the ejectment of an occupant, it is necessary that the
should be brought in the proper regional trial court when complaint should embody such a statement of facts as
dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an brings the party clearly within the class of cases for
ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of which the statutes provide a remedy, as these
possession of realty independently of title. In other proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must
words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more show enough on its face the court jurisdiction without
than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned resort to parol testimony.
plaintiff out of possession or defendant’s possession had
become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible The jurisdictional facts must appear on the
entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver
facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer,
In the instant case, respondent’s allegations in as where it does not state how entry was affected or
the complaint clearly make a case for an unlawful how and when dispossession started, the remedy should
detainer, essential to confer jurisdiction on the MTC over either be an accion publiciana or an accion
the subject matter. Respondent alleged that she was the reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.
owner of the land; that the land had been declared for
taxation purposes and she had been paying the taxes In the instant case, the allegations in the
thereon; that petitioners’ entry and construction of their complaint do not contain any averment of fact that
houses were tolerated as they are relatives; and that would substantiate petitioners’ claim that they permitted
she sent on January 12, 2004 a letter demanding that or tolerated the occupation of the property by
petitioners vacate the property but they failed and respondents. The complaint contains only bare
refused to do so. The complaint for unlawful detainer allegations that "respondents without any color of title
was filed on June 9, 2004, or within one year from the whatsoever occupies the land in question by building
time the last demand to vacate was made. their house in the said land thereby depriving petitioners
the possession thereof." Nothing has been said on how
When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive respondents’ entry was effected or how and when
of forcible entry or unlawful detainer dispossession started. Admittedly, no express contract
existed between the parties. This failure of petitioners to
Valdez, Jr. v. CA (2006) allege the key jurisdictional facts constitutive of unlawful
Facts: Petitioners Valdez filed with the MTC a complaint detainer is fatal. Since the complaint did not satisfy the
for unlawful detainer against respondents Fabella, jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful
alleging that they are the registered owners of a piece of detainer, the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction
residential lot, that respondents (therein defendants) over the case. Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly
Fabella, without any color of title, occupied the lot by found that the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction
building their house thereon, and that respondents over the complaint.

Page 244
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Jurisdiction: Municipal Trial Court Effect of claim of ownership on MTC jurisdiction

Exception: Estoppel by laches Hilario v. CA (1996)

Velarma v. CA (1996) Facts: Petitioner spouses Hilario purchased a house and

lot in Bulacan from respondent spouses Rosauro Palileo
Facts: Respondent Josefina Pansacola filed an and Josefina Anastacio under a deed of sale dated March
“ejectment suit” against petitioner before the Regional 5, 1986. A separate document, executed on the same
Trial Court (RTC) of Mauban, Quezon. In her complaint, day by the parties, granted petitioners the right to
she alleged that sometime in May 1981, petitioner repurchase the property within one year from said date.
surreptitiously built his dwelling on a portion of her land Petitioners further allowed respondents to remain in
registered in the name of her husband Publio possession of the premises on the verbal understanding
(deceased); (2) that during several conferences before that the latter would vacate the same after two years
the barangay captain, petitioner promised to vacate the from the date of the sale. As said period passed without
land but he still failed or refused to do so; (3) that she respondents complying therewith, even after several
instituted a criminal case against petitioner for violation demands by petitioners, the latter instituted a complaint
of the Anti-Squatting Law; (4) that the trial court for unlawful detainer with the MTC.
convicted petitioner of the offense; and (5) that despite
such judgment, and notwithstanding repeated demands Respondents alleged in their answer that deed
to vacate, petitioner continued occupying the property. of conveyance was actually a deed of mortgage and
since their corresponding obligation had been
The RTC ordered petitioner to vacate the extinguished by payment, they remained as owners of
subject land and remove his house therefrom. This was the subject property.
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner noe insists
that respondent had no cause of action against him The MTC ordered respondents to vacate. This
because the land on which his house stands belongs to was affirmed by the RTC. The Court of Appeals,
the government. Allegedly, in the "Minutes of the however, reversed and dismissed the complaint on the
Meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mauban, Quezon" ground that the issue raised by respondents involved the
Publio Pansacola signified before the Sangguniang Bayan question of ownership.
of Mauban his agreement to the transfer of the portion
of the subject land traversed by the new provincial Issue: Whether or not the claim of ownership divests
highway and its shoulder in exchange for a the MTC of jurisdiction over a complaint for ejectment.
corresponding portion of the old abandoned provincial
road. Notably, said minutes of the meeting of the
Sangguniang Bayan did not mention the execution of Held: No. Section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
any deed to perfect the agreement. prescribes the jurisdiction of inferior courts in forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases as follows:
Issue: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction
over the case. Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Held: As found by the trial court, the said minutes of Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. —
the meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan do not mention Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trail Courts,
the execution of any deed to perfect the agreement. An and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
engineer was appointed to survey the old abandoned xxx xxx xxx
road, but this act does not in any manner convey title (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over
over the abandoned road to the Pansacola spouses nor cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
extinguish their ownership over the land traversed by Provided, That when in such cases, the
the new provincial highway. No evidence was introduced defendant raises the question of ownership in
by petitioner to show that the survey was actually his pleadings and the question of possession
undertaken and a specific portion of the abandoned road cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
partitioned and conveyed to the Pansacolas. It must be ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
stressed that the agreement to transfer the property resolved only to determine the issue of
was made in 1974. More than twenty years later, no possession.
actual transfer had yet been made. Unless and until the
transfer is consummated, or expropriation proceedings Similarly, the Interim Rules and Guidelines on
instituted by the government, private respondent the jurisdiction of inferior courts in ejectment cases
continues to retain ownership of the land subject of this provides:
case.
10. Jurisdiction in ejectment cases. —
The Supreme Court noted that the ejectment Metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts,
suit should have been filed before the MTC, and not the and municipal circuit trial court, without
RTC. The issue of ownership, however, had been distinction, may try cases of forcible entry and
specifically raised before the RTC by petitioner himself, unlawful detainer even if the question of
who at the same time did not move to dismiss the ownership is raised in the pleadings and the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he filed his question of possession could not be resolved
answer and went to trial. Estoppel by laches has already without deciding the issue of ownership, but the
set in at this point in time. question of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.

Republic Act No. 7691 amended pertinent

portions of B.P. Blg. 129. The jurisdiction of the

Page 245
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

aforesaid courts as defined in Section 33(2) of B.P. Blg. Held: No. It is a question that is far from novel, one
129 was, however, retained by said amendatory Act. As that has been passed upon and resolved by the Court in
the law now stands, inferior courts retain jurisdiction numerous cases, and one to which a negative answer
over ejectment cases even if the question of possession has invariably been given. The relevant precedents are
cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of hereunder outlined:
ownership; but this is subject to the same caveat that
the issue posed as to ownership could be resolved by 1. Injunction suits instituted in the RTC by
the court for the sole purpose of determining the issue defendants in ejectment actions in the municipal
of possession. trial courts or other courts of the first level do not
abate the latter; and neither do proceedings on
It is underscored, however that the allegations consignation of rentals;
in the complaint for ejectment should sufficiently make 2. An "accion publiciana" does not suspend an
out a case for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as the ejectment suit against the plaintiff in the former;
case may be; otherwise, jurisdiction would not vest in 3. A "writ of possession case" where ownership is
the inferior court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter concededly the principal issue before the
is, after all, determined by the nature of the action as Regional Trial Court does not preclude nor bar
alleged or pleaded in the complaint. Thus, even where the execution of the judgment in an unlawful
the defendant alleges ownership or title to the property detainer suit where the only issue involved is the
in his or her answer, the inferior court will not be material possession or possession de facto of the
divested of its jurisdiction. A contrary rule would pave premises;
the way for the defendant to trifle with the ejectment 4. An action for quieting of title to property is not a
suit, which is summary in nature, as he could easily bar to an ejectment suit involving the same
defeat the same through the simple expedient of property;
asserting ownership. 5. Suits for specific performance with damages do
not affect ejectment actions;
Cases that do not prejudice ejectment suit 6. An action for reformation of instrument does not
suspend an ejectment suit between the same
Wilmon Auto Supply v. CA (1992) parties;
7. An action for reconveyance of property or "accion
Facts: Petitioners were lessees of a commercial building reivindicatoria" also has no effect on ejectment
and bodegas. The lease contracts provided, among suits regarding the same property; and
others, that the lessor reserves the rights to sell or 8. Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title, or
encumber the property so long as it requires the document affecting property operate to abate
purchaser to respect the terms of the lease contract, ejectment actions respecting the same property.
and that the lessee shall be duly informed about the
lessor’s plan to sell the property. After the expiration of The underlying reasons for the above rulings
the period fixed in the lease agreements, the lessors were that the actions in the RTC did not involve physical
executed a public instrument entitled "Deed of Absolute or de facto possession and, on not a few occasions, that
Sale," by virtue of which they sold the leased property the case in the RTC was merely a ploy to delay
to respondent Star Group Resources and Development disposition of the ejectment proceeding, or that the
Inc. issues presented in the former could quite as easily be
set up as defenses in the ejectment action and there
Subsequently, Star Group brought separate resolved.
actions of unlawful detainer in the MTCC against
petitioners. The lessees impugned Star Group’s right to As the law now stands, even when, in forcible
eject them. They argued that the sale violated their entry and lawful detainer cases, the defendant raises the
leasehold rights because they were not accorded their question of ownership in his pleadings and the question
right of preemption and they were denied the option to of possession cannot be resolved without deciding that
renew their leases upon expiration. issue of ownership, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts
The same propositions were also set out as nevertheless have the undoubted competence to resolve
causes of action in a complaint filed on by some of them "the issue of ownership … only to determine the issue of
in the RTC – Iloilo to declare the sale as null and void ab possession."
initio and to allow them to exercise their right of
preemption. Forcible Entry distinguished from Unlawful
Detainer
In the unlawful detainer actions, petitioner
lessees prayed for the dismissal of the ejectment suits Prior Possession
on the ground of litis pendentia in view of the action  Forcible Entry – required
instituted before the RTC. The motion was denied. On  Unlawful detainer – not required
the other hand, the RTC dismissed the petitions and
ruled that the pendency of an action involving ownership In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical
and annulment of sale does not stay the proceedings in possession of real property by means of force,
the ejectment case. intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth whereas in
unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds possession
Issue: Whether or not the action for unlawful detainer after the expiration or termination of his right to hold
filed in the MTC should be abated or suspended until possession under any contract, express or implied. The
resolution of the cases in the RTC involving the sale, two are distinguished from each other in that in forcible
ownership and physical possession of the subject entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the
property. beginning, and that the issue is which party has prior de
facto possession while in unlawful detainer, possession

Page 246
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

of the defendant is originally legal but became illegal Ong v. Parel (2001)
due to the expiration or termination of the right to
possess… Both actions must be brought within one year Facts: Spouses Pedro and Veronica Ong (“Spouses
from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of Ong”) are the registered owners of Lot A, having
forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case purchased the property from Spouses Magbag in
of unlawful detainer. (Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 1994. Adjacent to Lot A is Lot B registered under the
No. 132424, 2 May 2006) name of Visitacion Beltran (“Beltran”), grandmother of
respondent Socorro Parel (“Parel”).
Possession by tolerance
On 25 May 1995, Spouses Ong filed an action for
Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus (2005) forcible entry before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
against Parel alleging among other things that Parel
Facts: Rafael Magpily (“Magpily”) is the owner of a through strategy and stealth constructed an overhang
parcel of land planted with fruit-bearing trees and and hollow block wall along the common boundary of
tenanted by Nazaria Tope (“Tope”). Sometime in July the parties’ adjoining lot, thereby illegally depriving
1978, upon Tope’s request, Magpily allowed Tope’s plaintiffs of possession of the said portion of their lot.
nephew, herein private respondent to construct a house Spouses Ong alleged that they discovered Parel’s illegal
of light materials on a portion of the land and to possession of their lot on 23 August 1994 when they had
gratuitously occupy the same. The agreement was the boundaries of their lot resurveyed. Finally, Spouses
embodied in a Salaysay duly signed by the parties. Their Ong alleged that they made various demands from Parel
relationship, however, turned sour when private to remove the constructions which he introduced in Lot
respondent interfered with the gathering of coconuts A, and to vacate the same, the last of which demands
and other fruits in the lot. Magpily requested private having been made on 19 December 1994.
respondent to vacate the premises but the latter
refused, prompting him to file the instant ejectment suit. Parel denied the material allegations of the
In his defense, private respondent alleged that he is a complaint and alleged that the overhang and hollow
bona fide agricultural tenant, and the case must be block wall had already been in existence since 1956 and
dismissed since the court had no jurisdiction over the that these structures are within the boundary of Lot B
issue. Private respondent argued that the subject matter owned by him. Parel argued that the alleged
involves a tenancy dispute within the exclusive encroachments were made by the late Beltran at the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform time when she still owned both Lots A and B.
Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Issues:
Issue: Whether the ejectment suit is proper in this case
a. Can the construction of an overhand
Held: Yes. Private respondent failed to discharge the and hollow block wall along a
burden of proving that he was an agricultural tenant of common boundary of adjoining lots
Magpily and that the instant case involves an agrarian
be the subject of an action for
dispute cognizable by the DARAB. The MTC thus lawfully
took cognizance of the present controversy which forcible entry?
involves the gratuitous occupation of another’s property b. How is stealth defined for purposes
which became unlawful by virtue of the owners for an action for forcible entry? In
withdrawal of consent or tolerance to such occupation. cases of entry through stealth, when
should the one-year period to file an
The rule is that possession by tolerance is action for forcible entry be counted?
lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful when
the possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon
Held: Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires
demand made by the owner. A person who occupies the
that in actions for forcible entry the plaintiff is allegedly
land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission,
deprived of the possession of any land or building by
without any contract between them, is necessarily
force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that
bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand,
the action is filed any time within one year from the time
failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the
of such unlawful deprivation of possession. This
proper remedy.
requirement implies that in such cases, the possession
of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the
Considering that private respondent’s
beginning as he acquires possession thereof by unlawful
occupation of the subject land is now unlawful in view of
means. The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was
Magpily’s demand to vacate the premises, ejectment of
in prior physical possession of the property in litigation
private respondent therefrom is warranted.
until he was deprived thereof by the defendant. The one
year period within which to bring an action for forcible
entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry
When to count one year period (prescription to file
on the land, except that when entry was made through
the action under Rule 70, Rules of Court)
stealth, the one year period is counted from the time the
plaintiff learned thereof. If the alleged dispossession did
 In actions for forcible entry, the one year period
not occur by any of the means stated in section 1, Rule
should be reckoned from the actual entry, 70, the proper recourse is to file a plenary action to
except where the entry was committed with recover possession with the regional trial court.
stealth. If the entry was done through stealth,
the one year period shall be counted from the In their complaint, Spouses Ong aver that
date of discovery of the entry. through stealth and strategy Parel constructed the
controversial overhang and hollow block wall along the

Page 247
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

common boundary of the parties adjoining lots a case for unlawful detainer, cognizable by the Municipal
which encroached on petitioners’ Lot A. Stealth is Trial Court. Aside from ruling that the case was filed
defined as any secret, sly, or clandestine act to avoid within the period provided by the Rules of Court, the
discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within Supreme Court added that “the Regional Trial Court
residence of another without permission. However, would have jurisdiction if the deprivation of possession
petitioners failed to establish that Parel encroached upon had been committed through other means than those
their property through stealth as it was not shown when enumerated in Rule 70, or if the period of dispossession
and how the alleged entry was made on the portion of under Rule 70 has lasted for more than a year.”
their lot. On the other hand, Parel’s position that Beltran
constructed the alleged encroachments in 1956, and Racaza v. Gozum (2006)
was present at the time Spouses Ong purchased Lot A
from spouses Magbag, was affirmed by the MTC and the Facts: Petitioners are the co-owners of a subject
Regional Trial Court since Spouses Ong themselves property, which was formerly owned by their father
admitted that they discovered such encroachment only Carlos Torres. In 1981, respondent occupied the back
after a relocation survey on their lot in 1994. portion of the subject property on a monthly rental of
P3,500.00 and continued to occupy the same even after
It becomes clear that this is not a proper case the death of Carlos Torres.
for forcible entry wherein one party unlawfully deprives
another of possession of the property subject of the On 1 July 1995, petitioners sent respondent a
litigation. It is a boundary dispute wherein the adobe letter demanding that the latter vacate the subject
wall, overhang and window grill on the respondents side property but to no avail. On 27 May 1997, petitioners
of the property encroach petitioners side of the sent another demand letter on the ground that the
property. The proper action should either be accion verbal contract of lease over the property had already
publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria for which the MTC expired sometime in July 1995, and the same has not
has no jurisdiction. been renewed and since then, respondent had
discontinued paying the monthly rentals of P3,500.00.
When the second demand was not heeded, on 4 June
 In actions for unlawful detainer, the one year 1997, the present complaint for recovery of possession
period is determined from the last demand to or accion publiciana was initiated before the Regional
vacate. However, said period shall be counted Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC).
from the date of first demand when the
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, alleging
subsequent demands are merely in the nature of
that the proper complaint should be one for unlawful
reminders or reiterations of the original demand. detainer within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court. In the Order dated 30 September 1997, the RTC
Labastida v. Court of Appeals (1998) denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that an
unlawful detainer must be filed within one (1) year from
Facts: Private respondents Deleste are the owners of the notice to vacate given as early as July 1, 1995 and
the subject parcel of land. A portion of said lot was since over two (2) years had passed when the case was
leased to Labastida. On 6 December 1983, Deleste filed filed, the proper action is accion publiciana and no
a complaint against Labastida, alleging that in 1979, longer unlawful detainer. The Court of Appeals reversed
Deleste served notice to Labastida to vacate the leased the decision of the RTC and dismissed the case, holding
premises, but the latter refused to oblige. On 20 that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the
February 1983, Deleste sent another written notice to complaint for accion publiciana considering that it had
Labastida to vacate, but to no avail. Labastida filed a been filed before the lapse of one (1) year from the date
motion to dismiss, alleging among others that the action the last letter of demand to respondent had been made.
has prescribed since no verbal or written demand to
vacate was made by the Deleste in 1979 or in 1980 . Issue: Was the complaint filed within the prescriptive
period?
Issue: Was the complaint filed within the prescriptive
period under Rule 70? Held: Yes. To summarize, petitioners claim that (1) they
are the owners of the property, being the successors-in-
Held: Yes. In case several demands to vacate are made, interest of the original owners; (2) their predecessors-
the period is reckoned from the date of the last demand. in-interest entered into a verbal lease agreement with
In this case, several demands to vacate were alleged to respondent on a month-to-month basis; (3) they
have been made by Deleste, the last of which was dated decided to terminate the verbal lease contract upon the
20 February 1983. As the complaint was filed on 3 expiration of the last monthly term sometime in 1995;
December 1983, that is, within one year from 20 and (4) on 1 July 1995, they demanded that respondent
February 1983, it is clear that the case for unlawful leave the property, but respondent refused to do so.
detainer was filed within the prescriptive period under
Section 1, Rule 70. As we have already stated, where Undeniably, the foregoing averments
there are several demands made, the period of unlawful constitute a cause of action that is based primarily on
withholding starts to run from the date of the last unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.
demand on the theory that if the lessor brings no action Petitioners seek the recovery of the possession of the
shortly after the demand, it may be because he has leased premises following the lapse of the term of the
agreed to the renewal of the lease. verbal lease contract entered into by petitioners’
predecessors-in-interest with respondent. The allegation
N.B. The complaint was denominated as “recovery of that the contract is on a month-to-month basis becomes
possession” and filed before the Regional Trial Court. material in this sense because it signifies that the lease
The Supreme Court held that the case should have been contract is terminable at the end of every month. Thus,

Page 248
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

petitioners may exercise their right to terminate the and attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000.00. In its
contract at the end of any month even if none of the decision, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), granted the
conditions of the contract had been violated, and such prayer for damages, the pertinent part of the dispositive
right cannot be defeated by the lessee's timely payment portion reads:
of the rent or by his willingness to continue doing so.
The defendants are likewise ordered to pay
Respondent’s right to remain in possession of jointly and severally the plaintiffs the amount
the property subject of the lease was extinguished upon of P30,000.00 as actual damages plusP500.00 a day as
the expiration of the grace period mentioned in the 1 lost earning of the premises from October 30, 1996 up
July 1995 demand letter. It thus becomes respondent’s to the time defendants vacate the premises; P30,000.00
obligation to turn over the property to petitioners, failing as moral damages; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages;
which petitioners would have the right to immediately and P30,000.00 as attorneys fee and to pay double cost.
resort to ejectment action to recover possession. Their
complaint could thus fall under two kinds of ejectment On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
suits, the first being for unlawful detainer cognizable by reversed the MTC’s decision. However, the Court of
the metropolitan or municipal trial courts under Rule 70 Appeals (CA) reinstated with modification the MTC
and the second being for accion publiciana cognizable by decision by deleting the awards for actual, moral and
the regional trial courts. exemplary damages. Petitioners appealed the CA
decision, on the ground among others that the CA did
An action for unlawful detainer exists when a not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter of damages
person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or because this issue was not raised in the appeal filed
building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or before it.
other persons, after the expiration or termination of the
right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, Issue: What are the forms of damages which may be
express or implied. This summary action should be filed awarded in complaints for forcible entry?
with the municipal trial courts within one year after the
occurrence of the unlawful deprivation or withholding of Held: There is no basis for the MTC to award actual,
possession. Beyond the one-year period, the real right moral and exemplary damages in view of the settled
of possession may be recovered through the filing of rule that in ejectment cases, the only damage that can
an accion publiciana with the regional trial courts. be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the
Notably, demand or notice to vacate is not a property. Considering that the only issue raised in
jurisdictional requirement when the action is based on ejectment is that of rightful possession, damages which
the expiration of the lease. Any notice given would only could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could
negate any inference that the lessor has agreed to have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by
extend the period of the lease. The law requires notice the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and
to be served only when the action is due to the lessee’s not the damages which he may have suffered but which
failure to pay or the failure to comply with the conditions have no direct relation to his loss of material
of the lease. The one-year period is thus counted from possession. Although the MTC’s order for the
the date of first dispossession. To reiterate, the reimbursement to petitioners of their alleged lost
allegation that the lease was on a month-to-month basis earnings over the subject premises, which is a beach
is tantamount to saying that the lease expired every resort, could have been considered as compensation for
month. Since the lease already expired mid-year in 1995 their loss of the use and occupation of the property
as communicated in petitioners’ letter dated 1 July while it was in the possession of the respondents,
1995, it was at that time that respondent’s occupancy records do not show any evidence to sustain the same.
became unlawful. Thus, we find no error in the ruling of the RTC that the
award for lost earnings has no evidentiary or factual
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that basis; and in the decision of the CA affirming the same.
a demand or notice to vacate was necessary, a reading
of the letter dated 27 May 1997 shows that petitioners Summary nature of FEUD
were merely reiterating their original demand for
respondent to vacate on the basis of the expiration of Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
the verbal lease contract mentioned in the first letter.
The Court has, in the past, ruled that subsequent I.
demands which are merely in the nature of reminders or Applicability
reiterations of the original demand do not operate to Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary
renew the one-year period within which to commence procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal
the ejectment suit considering that the period will still be Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the
reckoned from the date of the original demand. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases
falling within their jurisdiction:
Damages that can be recovered - fair rental value
or the reasonable compensation for the use and A. Civil Cases:
occupation of the leased property
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
Dumo vs. Espinas (2006) irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand
against respondents, praying for the payment of actual pesos (P20,000.00).
damages in the amount of P75,000.00, lost earnings … … …
of P5,000.00 per day, moral damages of P100,000.00

Page 249
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

II. a. Whether the parties have arrived at

Civil Cases an amicable settlement, and if so, the terms
thereof;
Sec. 3. Pleadings. —
b. The stipulations or admissions
A. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to
be filed are the complaints, compulsory counterclaims entered into by the parties;.
and cross-claims' pleaded in the answer, and the
answers thereto. c. Whether, on the basis of the
pleadings and the stipulations and admissions
B. Verifications. — All pleadings shall be verified. made by the parties, judgment may be
rendered without the need of further
Sec. 4. Duty of court. — After the court determines
proceedings, in which event the judgment shall
that the case falls under summary procedure, it may,
from an examination of the allegations therein and such be rendered within thirty (30) days from
evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case issuance of the order;
outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for
the dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal d. A clear specification of material facts
is found it shall forthwith issue summons which shall which remain controverted; and
state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall
apply.
e. Such other matters intended to
Sec. 5. Answer. — Within ten (10) days from service of expedite the disposition of the case.
summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein Sec. 9. Submission of affidavits and position papers. —
shall be deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order
over the subject matter. Cross-claims and compulsory mentioned in the next preceding section, the parties
counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other
considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or evidence on the factual issues defined in the order,
cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten (10) together with their position papers setting forth the law
days from service of the answer in which they are and the facts relied upon by them.
pleaded.
Sec. 10. Rendition of judgment. — Within thirty (30)
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the days after receipt of the last affidavits and position
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the
above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of same, the court shall render judgment.
the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted
by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what However should the court find it necessary to
is prayed for therein: Provided, however, that the court clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said
may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and period, issue an order specifying the matters to be
attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or
unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days
applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered
if there are two or more defendants. within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last
clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for
Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. filing the same.
— Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is
filed, a preliminary conference shall be held. The rules The court shall not resort to the clarificatory
on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the procedure to gain time for the rendition of the
preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the judgment.
provisions of this Rule.
Judgment immediately executory
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the  Section 19 - when stayed:
preliminary conference shall be a cause for the dismissal
of his complaint. The defendant who appears in the Immediate execution of
absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on judgment; how to stay same. If judgment is
his counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof. All rendered against the defendant, execution
cross-claims shall be dismissed. shall issue immediately upon motion unless an
appeal has been perfected and the defendant
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in accordance with bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court
Section 6 hereof. This Rule shall not apply where one of and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the
two or more defendants sued under a common cause of rents, damages, and costs accruing down to
action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear the time of the judgment appealed from, and
at the preliminary conference. unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he
deposits with the appellate court the amount of
Sec. 8. Record of preliminary conference. — Within five rent due from time to time under the contract,
(5) days after the termination of the preliminary if any, as determined by the judgment of the
conference, the court shall issue an order stating the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a
matters taken up therein, including but not limited to:

Page 250
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

contract, he shall deposit with the Regional 1993 without effecting the substitution of heirs in
Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and accordance with Section 17, Rule 3, of the Rules of
occupation of the premises for the preceding Court thereby depriving her of her day in court.
month or period at the rate determined by the
judgment of the lower court on or before the Issue: Where the defendant in an ejectment case dies
tenth day of each succeeding month or period. before the rendition by the trial court of its decision
The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by therein, does the trial court's failure to effectuate a
the Municipal Trial Court, with the papers, to substitution of heirs before its rendition of judgment
the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which render such judgment jurisdictionally infirm?
the action is appealed.
Held: No. Ejectment, being an action involving recovery
All amounts so paid to the appellate of real property, is a real action which as such, is not
court shall be deposited with said court or extinguished by the defendant's death. The question as
authorized government depositary bank, and to whether an action survives or not depends on the
shall be held there until the final disposition of nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the
the appeal, unless the court, by agreement of causes of action which survive, the wrong complained
the interested parties, or in the absence of affects primarily and principally property and property
reasonable grounds of opposition to a motion rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental,
to withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall while in the causes of action which do not survive, the
decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to injury complained of is to the person, the property and
make the payments above prescribed from rights of property affected being incidental. There is no
time to time during the pendency of the dispute that an ejectment case survives the death of a
appeal, the appellate court, upon motion of the party, which death did not extinguish the deceased's
plaintiff, and upon proof of such failure, shall civil personality. More significantly, a judgment in an
order the execution of the judgment appealed ejectment case is conclusive between the parties and
from with respect to the restoration of their successors in interest by title subsequent to the
possession, but such execution shall not be a commencement of the action.
bar to the appeal taking its course until the
final disposition thereof on the merits.
Rule 71
After the case is decided by the Contempt
Regional Trial Court, any money paid to the
court by the defendant for purposes of the stay
of execution shall be disposed of in accordance 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 71
with the provisions of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court. In any case wherein it Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. —
appears that the defendant has been deprived A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so
of the lawful possession of land or building near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings
pending the appeal by virtue of the execution before the same, including disrespect toward the court,
of the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be
damages for such deprivation of possession sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an
and restoration of possession and restoration affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so,
of possession may be allowed the defendant in may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court
the judgment of the Regional Trial Court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand
disposing of the appeal. pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or
both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of
 Section 21 – cannot be stayed: equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding
two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one
Immediate execution on appeal to (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court.
Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. — The
judgment of the Regional Trial Court against Section 2. Remedy therefrom. — The person
the defendant shall be immediately executory, adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not
without prejudice to a further appeal that may appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the
be taken therefrom. remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of
the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of
Ejectment case survives death of defendant such petition, provided such person files a bond fixed
by the court which rendered the judgment and
Vda. De Salazar v. Court of Appeals (1995) conditioned that he will abide by and perform the
judgment should the petition be decided against him.
Facts: Private respondents Nepomuceno filed separate
complaints for ejectment against petitioner’s deceased Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
husband Benjamin Salazar. The trial court ruled in favor charge and hearing. — After a charge in writing has
of Nepomuceno, which decision was affirmed by the been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent
Court of Appeals. Almost a year after the termination of to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed
that petitioner assailed the same trial court decision as by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a
having been rendered by a court that did not have person guilty of any of the following acts may be
jurisdiction over her and the other heirs of her deceased punished for indirect contempt;
husband because notwithstanding the fact that her
husband had already died on 3 October 1991, the trial a.Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
court still proceeded to render its decision on 23 August performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions;

Page 251
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

amount fixed by the court, for his appearance at the

b.Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, hearing of the charge. On the day set therefor, the
process, order, or judgment of a court, including the court shall proceed to investigate the charge and
act of a person who, after being dispossessed or consider such comment, testimony or defense as the
ejected from any real property by the judgment or respondent may make or offer.
process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters
or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon Section 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. — If
such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt
ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of
possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a
thereto; fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. If
c.Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting lower court, he may be punished by a fine not
direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule; exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the contempt
d.Any improper conduct tending, directly or consists in the violation of a writ of injunction,
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the temporary restraining order or status quo order, he
administration of justice; may also be ordered to make complete restitution to
the party injured by such violation of the property
e.Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, involved or such amount as may be alleged and
and acting as such without authority; proved.

f.Failure to obey a subpoena duly served The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions,
shall issue for the enforcement of a judgment imposing
g.The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or a fine unless the court otherwise provides.
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
order or process of a court held by him Section 8. Imprisonment until order obeyed. —
When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to do an act which is yet in the power of the
to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order
respondent into court, or from holding him in custody of the court concerned until he performs it.
pending such proceedings.
Section 9. Proceeding when party released on bail
Section 4. How proceedings commenced. — fails to answer. — When a respondent released on bail
Proceedings for indirect contempt may be fails to appear on the day fixed for the hearing, the
initiated motu propio by the court against which the court may issue another order of arrest or may order
contempt was committed by an order or any other the bond for his appearance to be forfeited and
formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause confiscated, or both; and, if the bond be proceeded
why he should not be punished for contempt. against, the measure of damages shall be the extent of
the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved party by
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall reason of the misconduct for which the contempt
be commenced by a verified petition with supporting charge was prosecuted, with the costs of the
particulars and certified true copies of documents or proceedings, and such recovery shall be for the benefit
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with of the party injured. If there is no aggrieved party, the
the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil bond shall be liable and disposed of as in criminal
actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges cases.
arose out of or are related to a principal action pending
in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that Section 10. Court may release respondent. — The
fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and court which issued the order imprisoning a person for
decided separately, unless the court in its discretion contempt may discharge him from imprisonment when
orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and it appears that public interest will not be prejudiced by
the principal action for joint hearing and decision. his release.

Section 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the Section 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond
charge for indirect contempt has been committed for stay. — The judgment or final order of a court in a
against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent case of indirect contempt may be appealed to the
or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, proper court as in criminal cases. But execution of the
the charge may be filed with such court. Where such judgment or final order shall not be suspended until a
contempt has been committed against a lower court, bond is filed by the person adjudged in contempt, in an
the charge may be filed with the Regional Trial Court of amount fixed by the court from which the appeal is
the place in which the lower court is sitting; but the taken, conditioned that if the appeal be decided against
proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court him he will abide by and perform the judgment or final
subject to appeal to the Regional Trial Court of such order.
place in the same manner as provided in section 11 of
this Rule.

Section 6. Hearing; release on bail. — If the hearing Section 12. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities.
is not ordered to be had forthwith, the respondent may — Unless otherwise provided by law, this Rule shall
be released from custody upon filing a bond, in an apply to contempt committed against persons, entities,

Page 252
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

bodies or agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, Held: No. Judge Asdala abused her contempt powers. If
or shall have suppletory effect to such rules as they at all, complainant was guilty of indirect contempt and
may have adopted pursuant to authority granted to not direct contempt. Indirect or constructive contempt is
them by law to punish for contempt. The Regional Trial committed outside of the sitting of the court and may
Court of the place wherein the contempt has been include misbehavior of an officer of the court in the
committed shall have jurisdiction over such charges as performance of his official duties or in his official
may be filed therefor. transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court,
or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or
Contempt, definition any unlawful interference with the process or
proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt,
In Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to
Management Association of the Philippines (G.R. No. impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
155849, 31 August 2011), the Supreme Court defined justice.
contempt of court as follows:
For not affording complainant the opportunity
Contempt of court has been defined as to explain why he
a willful disregard or disobedience of a public should not be cited in contempt, she blatantly
authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregarded Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. In Lim v.
disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or Domagas where the therein judge declared the therein
orders of a legislative or judicial body or an complainant guilty of contempt and ordered his arrest
interruption of its proceedings by disorderly for failure to bring three minors before the court without
behavior or insolent language in its presence or the benefit of a hearing, the Court faulted the therein
so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to judge not only for grave abuse of discretion but also for
impair the respect due to such a body. In its gross ignorance of the law.
restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, Prosecutor Baculi v. Judge Belen (2009)
justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase
contempt of court is generic, embracing within its There are two kinds of contempt punishable by
legal signification a variety of different acts. law: direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct
contempt is committed when a person is guilty of
The power to punish for contempt is misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to
inherent in all courts, and need not be specifically obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same,
granted by statute. It lies at the core of the including disrespect toward the court, offensive
administration of a judicial system. Indeed, there personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to
ought to be no question that courts have the answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or
power by virtue of their very creation to impose deposition when lawfully required to do so. Indirect
silence, respect, and decorum in their presence, contempt or constructive contempt is that which is
submission to their lawful mandates, and to committed out of the presence of the court. Any
preserve themselves and their officers from the improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
approach and insults of pollution. The power to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
punish for contempt essentially exists for the justice would constitute indirect contempt.
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and
for the enforcement of judgments, orders, and Criminal and civil contempt
mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for
the due administration of justice. The reason
behind the power to punish for contempt is that Remman Enterprises v. Court of Appeals (1997)
respect of the courts guarantees the stability of
their institution; without such guarantee, the Held: The real character of the proceedings in contempt
institution of the courts would be resting on a cases is to be determined by the relief sought or by the
very shaky foundation. dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded
as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment,
Distinction between direct and indirect contempt and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or
remedial.
Atty. Tabujara v. Judge Asdala (2009)
In general, criminal contempt proceedings
Facts: Atty. Tabujara failed to appear and produce should be conducted in accordance with the principles
before the court the body of his son, Carlos Tabujara, and rules applicable to criminal cases, in so far as such
who was the subject of a Petition for Habeas Corpus procedure is consistent with the summary nature of
case filed by his wife against him. For his failure to contempt proceedings. Strict rules that govern criminal
appear, Judge Asdala declared him in contempt of court prosecutions apply to a prosecution for criminal
and issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Atty. contempt; the accused is to be afforded many of the
Tabujara “until such time that he is willing to appear and protections provided in regular criminal cases; and
comply with the order of this Court...” proceedings under statutes governing them are to be
strictly construed. However, criminal proceedings are
not required to take any particular form so long as the
substantial rights of the accused are preserved.
Issue: Is the declaration of contempt by respondent
judge proper in this case? Civil contempt proceedings, on the other hand, are
generally held to be remedial and civil in nature; that is,
for the enforcement of some duty, and essentially a

Page 253
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

remedy resorted to, to preserve and enforce the rights Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct
of a private party to an action and to compel obedience contempt as he had no knowledge of, or participation in,
to a judgment or decree intended to benefit such a party the preparation and filing of the subject manifestation. It
litigant. The rules of procedure governing criminal was signed and filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as
contempt proceedings, or criminal prosecutions, the trial prosecutor in the arson case. The attached
ordinarily are inapplicable to civil contempt proceedings. complaint against Awayan was filed with the Office of
the Palawan Governor, and not with the RTC.

An order of direct contempt is not immediately Apparently, Judge Blancaflor’s conclusion, that
executory or enforceable the subject manifestation containing derogatory matters
was purposely filed to discredit the administration of
justice in court, is unfounded and without basis. There
Rodriguez and Tulali v. Blancaflor (2011) being no factual or legal basis for the charge of direct
contempt, it is clear that Judge Blancaflor gravely
Facts: A criminal case for arson was pending before the abused his discretion in finding petitioners guilty as
sala of respondent Judge Blancaflor. Atty. Tulali was the charged.
prosecutor in said case. During the pendency of the
case, Atty. Tulali was implicated in a purported bribery In fine, having established that Judge
involving Judge Blancaflor’s driver, Awayan, to assure Blancaflor committed grave abuse of discretion
the acquittal of the accused therein. Tulali then filed amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, petitioners
an Ex-Parte Manifestation withdrawing his appearance in are entitled to the remedy of prohibition under Section
the said case to prevent any suspicion of misdemeanor 2, Rule 71 of the Rules on Contempt which provides:
and collusion. He attached to the said manifestation a
copy of the administrative complaint against Awayan SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. - The person
filed (but eventually withdrawn) by his superior, adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not
Rodriguez, before the Office of the Governor of Palawan. appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies
Judge Blancaflor acquitted the accused. of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the
judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such
Purportedly on the basis of the administrative petition, provided such person files a bond fixed by the
complaint filed against Awayan and Rodriguez, Judge court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that
Blancaflor summoned several witnesses including Tulali he will abide by and perform the judgment should the
and heard their testimonies. On 30 July 2009, he issued petition be decided against him.
an order summoning Rodriguez to appear before him for
the purpose of holding an inquiry on matters pertaining Accordingly, an order of direct contempt is not
to his possible involvement in Tulali’s filing of the ex- immediately executory or enforceable. The contemnor
parte manifestation and the administrative complaint must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or
against Awayan, among others. In another order dated purge himself of the contempt. Where the person
13 August 2009, Judge Blancaflor informed the adjudged in direct contempt by any court avails of the
Rodriguez and Tulali that he was proceeding against remedy of certiorari or prohibition, the execution of the
them for direct contempt and violation of their oath of judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such
office on the basis of Tulali’s Ex-Parte Manifestation. In petition provided the contemnor files a bond fixed by the
his 13 October 2009 Decision, Judge Blancaflor found court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that
Rodriguez and Tulali guilty of direct contempt and he will abide by and perform the judgment should the
ordered them to issue a public apology to the court. In petition be decided against him.
the same decision, Judge Blancaflor suspended them
indefinitely from the practice of law. Two ways of initiating indirect contempt
proceedings
Issue: Whether the proceedings for direct contempt
conducted by Judge Blancaflor were proper Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Inc. v.
Valdez (2008)
Held: No. Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the
presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt Facts: On 15 October 1998, respondent filed with the
the proceedings before the same, including disrespect Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Manila a complaint for
toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, damages against petitioners. Petitioners filed their
or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to respective motions to dismiss which were denied by the
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully trial court. On 24 May1999, petitioners filed a petition
required to do so. for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction with the Court of
Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in Appeals as regards the trial court’s denial of their
filing the Ex-Parte Manifestation cannot be construed as motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals granted a writ
contumacious within the purview of direct contempt. It of preliminary injunction, restraining the trial court from
must be recalled that the subject manifestation bore conducting further proceedings.
Tulali’s voluntary withdrawal from the arson case to
dispel any suspicion of collusion between him and the On 7 December 1999, respondent filed with
accused. Its filing on the day before the promulgation of the Court of Appeals an “Urgent Notice of Taking of
the decision in the pending criminal case, did not in any Deposition Upon Oral Examination of Private Respondent
way disrupt the proceedings before the court. Jorge Valdez For Purposes of the Above-Captioned
Accordingly, he should not be held accountable for his Pending Case And For Such Other Legal Purposes As
act which was done in good faith and without malice. May Be Warranted By Existing Law and
Jurisprudence.” It appears that respondent was already
75 years old and sickly. On 13 December 1999,

Page 254
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition to

cite respondent in contempt of court, alleging that in
filing with the appellate court an urgent notice of taking Torcende v. Judge Sardido (2003)
his deposition, respondent violated the preliminary
injunction issued by the said court. Held: Section 3, Rule 71, of the Revised Rules of Court
provides for the mode of commencing proceedings for
Issue: Was respondent’s insistence to take his indirect contempt, to wit:
deposition, despite the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by the Court of Appeals, tantamount to an act of SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
indirect contempt of court? charge and hearing. - After charge in writing has
been filed, and an opportunity given to the accused
Held: No. Contempt of court is a defiance of the to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
authority, justice or dignity of the court: such conduct as any of the following acts may be punished for contempt:
tends to bring the authority and administration of the (a) Misbehavior of an office of a court in the
law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice performance of his official duties or in his official
parties litigants or their witnesses during transactions;
litigation. Succinctly, it is the despising of the (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
authority, justice, or dignity of the court. Rule 71 writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court,
provides for two forms of contumacious acts direct and or injunction granted by a court or judge. . . (Emphasis
indirect. and italics supplied)
… … …
Indirect contempt refers to contumacious acts
perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and may Nazareno v. Barnes interpreted a written
include misbehavior of an officer of a court in the charge to mean that either: 1.] an order requiring the
performance of his official duties or in his official person to be charged with contempt to show cause why
transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful he should not be punished for contempt, be issued by
writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, the court; or 2.] a petition for contempt by way of a
or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or special civil action under Rule 71 be initiated in order for
any unlawful interference with the process or contempt proceedings to prosper:
proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt,
or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to At the outset, let it be stated that the
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of contempt proceeding against the petitioner was wrongly
justice. It is governed by Section 3, Rule 71 of the 1997 initiated. The nature thereof being that of indirect
Rules of Civil Procedure. contempt, a written charge is necessary pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. the written
Before one may be convicted of indirect charge may partake of the nature of (1) an Order
contempt, there must be compliance with the following requiring the respondent (not accused) to show cause
requisites: (a) a charge in writing to be filed; (b) an why he should not be punished for contempt for having
opportunity for respondent to comment thereon within committed the contemptuous acts imputed against him;
such period as may be fixed by the court; and (c) an or (2) a petition for contempt by way of special civil
opportunity to be heard by himself or by counsel. action under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. The first
Records show that these requirements were complied procedure applies only where the indirect contempt is
with. committed against a court or judge possessed and
clothed with contempt powers. The second, if the
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. contemptuous act was committed not against a court
56579, dismissed the charge for indirect contempt, nor a judicial officer with authority to punish for
holding that respondent’s deposition was done in good contemptuous acts.
faith, thus:
Strict compliance with the afore-cited guidelines is
It should be emphasized that what triggered mandatory considering that proceedings against a
the holding of private respondents deposition last person alleged to be guilty of contempt, as in this case,
December 14, 1999 was the use by the petitioners of are commonly treated as criminal in nature
the June 09 and 28, 1999 depositions when at that time
no orders were issued by Us enjoining any proceedings Remedies
below. The use of the petitioners of June 09 and 28  Please see Section 2 for direct contempt and
depositions have been vigorously objected to by the Section 11 for indirect contempt quoted above
private respondent, contending that there was a
misunderstanding created when the private respondent
was cross-examined by the counsel for the
petitioners, and in his honest belief to clarify such
misunderstanding in the previous depositions,
the December 14, 1999 deposition was taken.

We see no reason to depart from the

foregoing findings by the appellate court. Moreover, the
taking of respondent’s deposition is not a part of the
court proceedings in Civil Case No. 98-91356, hence, Use of falsified and forged documents constitutes
not covered by the writ of injunction issued by the Court indirect contempt not direct contempt
of Appeals. Let it be stressed at this point that we have
always abided by the dogma that courts must exercise
their contempt powers sparingly.

Page 255
Civil Procedure
ESGUERRA NOTES

Judge Dolores Espanol v. Atty. Benjamin Formoso acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
(2007) departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions.

Facts: On 15 April 1994, Sharcons Builders Philippines, In Gener v. De Leon, we held that courts are
Inc. (“Sharcons”) bought the subject parcel of land from not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
its supposed seller-owner, Morales. Subsequently, a records of other cases even when such cases have been
transfer certificate of title was issued in Sharcons’ name. tried or pending in the same court. Hence, we reiterate
However, when Sharcons began to contruct a fence that petitioner took judicial notice of the Decision
around the property, they were prevented by the rendered by another RTC branch and on the basis
caretaker of said lot who alleged that the property is thereof, concluded that respondents used falsified
registered under the name of Spouses Mapua. Upon documents (such as land title and tax declaration)
checking with the Register of Deeds, this fact was when Sharcons filed its complaint for quieting. Verily,
confirmed by the records. Based on these the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that
circumstances, Sharcons filed a case for quieting of title respondents are not guilty of direct contempt of court.
against Spouses Mapua. In their answer, Spouses Mapua
alleged, among others, that all the documents relied
upon by Sharcons are spurious and falsified.

In the course of the proceedings, or on 9 July

2001, Judge Dolores L. Español issued an Order stating
that Benito See and Marly See, president and treasurer,
respectively, of Sharcons, and its counsel, Atty.
Benjamin Formoso have used a spurious certificate of
title and tax declaration when it (Sharcons) filed with
the RTC its complaint for quieting of title. Consequently,
petitioner declared respondents guilty of direct contempt
of court and ordered their confinement for ten (10) days
in the municipal jail of Dasmariñas, Cavite.

Issue: Whether Sharcons and its representatives may

be held liable for direct contempt

Held: No. The use of falsified and forged documents is a

contumacious act. However, it constitutes indirect
contempt not direct contempt. Such act is an improper
conduct which degrades the administration of justice.
In Santos v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch
VI, we ruled that the imputed use of a falsified
document, more so where the falsity of the document is
not apparent on its face, merely constitutes indirect
contempt, and as such is subject to such defenses as
the accused may raise in the proper proceedings. Thus,
following Section 3, Rule 71, a contemner may be
punished only after a charge in writing has been filed,
and an opportunity has been given to the accused to be
heard by himself and counsel. Moreover, settled is the
rule that a contempt proceeding is not a civil action, but
a separate proceeding of a criminal nature in which the
court exercises limited jurisdiction. Thus, the modes of
procedure and the rules of evidence in contempt
proceedings are assimilated as far as practicable to
those adapted to criminal prosecutions. Perforce,
petitioner judge erred in declaring summarily that
respondents are guilty of direct contempt and ordering
their incarceration. She should have conducted a
hearing with notice to respondents.

Petitioner, in convicting respondents for direct

contempt of court, took judicial notice of the Decision in
Civil Case No. 623-92, assigned to another RTC branch,
presided by then Judge Tagle. Section 1, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall

take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence,
of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government, and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and
maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official

Page 256