2017 DOJ BAR LECTURE INTEGRATION SERIES POINTERS ON REMEDIAL LAW Prof. Manuel R. Riguera
7 October 2017 CIVIL PROCEDURE
Jurisdiction In an action for recovery of possession filed with the RTC, the failure to allege the assessed value of the land meant that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction. jurisdiction . The failure to allege the assessed value may be raised even in the CA as lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time. (Heirs of Julao v. Sps. De Jesus, 29 September 2014). If an ordinary civil case filed with the RTC is mistakenly raffled to a Special Commercial Court, the latter should refer the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case rather than dismissing the same. (Gonzales v. GJH Land Inc., 10 November 2015, en banc). This overturns Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-II Builders, Inc., 9 March 2011. The designation of Branch 149 as an SCC did not diminish its power as a court of general jurisdiction to hear hear and decide decide cases of all nature, whether civil, civil, criminal or special proceedings. proceedings. (Concorde Condominium Inc. v. Baculio, 17 February 2016, Peralta, J.). Rule 2. Cause of of action action Stipulation in compromise agreement allowing splitting of cause of action is void. (Riviera Golf Club v CCA Holdings, B.V., 17 June 2015). Rule 3. Parties to to Civil Actions Actions Stewards may be allowed to file R65 to enforce environmental laws not in representation of marine mammals but in their own right by by way of a citizen suit which allows any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, nature, to bring bring suit to enforce envi envi laws. (Resident Marine Marine Mammals v. Reyes, Reyes, 21 April 2015). In a collection suit brought by non-resident plaintiffs as represented by their attorney-in-fact, the real parties-in-interest parties-in- interest are the plaintiffs pursuant to S3 S3 R3. Hence the venue should have been laid in the place where the defendant resides and not where the attorney-in-fact attorney -in-fact resides. (Ang v. Ang, 22 August 2012). Travel agent cannot sue in its own name to recover value of unused tickets which it had bought in behalf of airplane passengers. (V-Gent, Inc. v. Morning Star Travel & Tours, 22 July 2015, Brion, J.). Rule 4. Venue An action to recover the deficiency after extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is a personal action since it does not affect title to or possession of real property or any interest therein. (BPI Family Bank v Yujuico, 22 July 2015, Bersamin, J.) Rule 5. Uniform procedure procedure in in trial courts When defendant fails to file an answer, the court can render judgment based solely on the allegations in the complaint. No need for plaintiff to present evidence. evidence. (Fairland Knitcraft Corp. v. Po, 27 January 2016, Mendoza, J.). Rule 6. Kinds of pleadings Where the mortgagee after an extrajudicial foreclosure, had filed an action for the deficiency, the mortgagor’s claim for the nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure is a compulsory counterclaim counterclaim which cannot cannot be set up in a separate separate action. action. (Sps. Mendiola Mendiola v. CA, 18 July July 2012, Bersamin, J.). Action for deficiency filed by the mortg agee bank. The mortgagor’s claim for refund of the excess over the bid price was a compulsory compulsor y counterclaim. On appeal, the CA cannot award refund even if excess was raised as a defense because contrary to S2 R9. (Metrobank v. CPR Promotions, 22 June 2015, Velasco, J.).
Rule 7. Parts of a Pleading Pleading Corporate officers who can sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping without need of an authorizing board resolution: (1) Chairperson of the board of directors, (2) President, (3) General Manager or acting general manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) Employment Specialists in a labor case. (Mid- Pasig Land Dev’t Corp. v. Tablante, 4 February 2010). Rule 8 S5 R8 requires that in all averments of fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. particular ity. The mere invocation of the words "surreptitiously "surrept itiously and fraudulently" does not make the allegation particular. particular. (Villalon v. Lirio, 3 August 2015) Denial based on lack of knowledge or information ineffective where paragraph in complaint averred matters that the Defendant ought ought to know or could have easily known. (Fernando Medical Enterprises Enterprises v. v . Wesleyan University Phil., Inc., 20 Jan 2016, Bersamin, J.). Rule 9 A judgment by default default which awards a relief greater than that prayed for is a nullity as to the excess since the defendant’s right right to due process was violated. Hence the same same may be set aside under R47 even if the default judgment had become final and unappealable. (Diona v. Balangue, 7 January 2013). Rule 13. Filing & Service of Pleadings Service and filing filing of pleadings by courier courier service is a mode not provided provided in the Rules. Since there was no motion for reconsideration properly and timely filed, the judgment against the defendant became be came final and executory. (Palileo v. Planters Dev’t Bank, 8 October 2014). Rule 14. Service of of summons summons A “competent person in charge” refers to one managing the the office or the business, such as the president, manager, or the officer-in-charge. A property custodian cannot be be considered as such. such. (Ang v. Chinatrust Commercial Bank Corp., 18 April 2016, Brion, J.). Substituted service done in one day and in two tries only upheld by SC where the defendants were roving newspapermen who most often were out of the the office (Abante Tonite). (Macasaet v Co, 5 June 2013, Bersamin, J.). As a basic principle, courts c ourts look with disfavor on piecemeal piecemeal arguments in motions filed by the parties. Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available. available . The defendant should raise the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person in the very first motion to dismiss . Failure to raise the issue of improper service of summons in the first motion to dismiss is a waiver of this defense and cannot be belatedly raised in succeeding motions and pleadings. Such amounted to a voluntary appearance which is equivalent to service of summons under S20 R14. (Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp. v. Ting Guan Trading Corp., 7 April 2014). Rule 18 A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC does not relieve the plaintiff of the duty under S1 R18 to promptly promptly move m ove that the case be set for pre-trial pre-tria l nor does it repeal S3 R17 that allows dismissals dismiss als due to plaintiff’s plaintiff’s fault. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC together with S3 R17 and S1 R18 accommodates the outright dismissal of a complaint upon plaintiff’s failure to show justifiable reason for not promptly setting the case for pre-trial. (BPI v. Genuino, 22 July 2015). Rule 19. Intervention The 1997 Rules requires the original parties to file an answer to the complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. Failure to do so can give rise to default. (Lim v NAPOCOR, 14 Nov 12). Discovery
Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides that "a party not served serv ed with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court." Where the adverse party was a corporation, the bar on being compelled to testify extends to the corporation’s officers. (Sps Afulugencia v Metrobank, 5 Feb 2014). S5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule expressly excludes from its application adverse party and hostile witnesses. Enough for the party calling the adverse party witness to serve beforehand written interrogatories pursuant to S6 R25. (Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corp., 5 August 2015). Rule 39 Awards of moral and exemplary exemplary damages and attorney’s fees may not be the subject of execution pending appeal. (Tiorosio-Espinosa v. Hofileña-Europa, 20 January 2016, Jardeleza, J.). In a criminal case S6 R39 does not apply to the enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment since it is Art. 93 of the Revised Penal Code which applies. applies. S6 R39 applies however however to civil liability arising from crime. (Basilonia v. Villaruz, 10 Aug 2015, Peralta, J.). Finding by DARAB that Petitioner was a bona fide tenant meant that the RTC in criminal case cannot convict him of theft because of conclusiveness conclusiv eness of judgment. (Ligtas v. People, 17 August 2015, 2015, Leonen, Leonen, J.). Appeal Neypes Rule not applicable to administrative appeals, such as appeal from HLURB Board of Commissioners Commissioners to the Office of the President. (San Lorenzo Ruiz Ruiz Builders Inc. v. Bayang, 20 April 2015). 2015). Rule 42. An appeal from an RTC decision in a R65 case should be by way of R41 (ordinary appeal) and not by R42 (petition for review), even if the R65 case dealt with an interlocutory order of the MTC. The reason is that in R65, the RTC is acting in the exercise of original not appellate jurisdiction. (Heirs of Garcia Garcia v. Mun. Mun. of Iba, Zambales, 22 July 2015). Rule 47. Annulment of judgments Extrinsic fraud where Petitioner in marriage nullity case willfully indicated a wrong “last known address” of Respondent in his application for extraterritorial extraterritoria l service under S15 R14. Judgment should be annulled. (Yu v. Yu, 20 June 2016, Peralta, J.). Rule 57. Preliminary Preliminary attachment attachment A status quo ante order ante order directing the developer to post security guards on the property subject of the joint-venture joint-venture agreement agreement is is improper. (Mega-World Properties Properties & Holdings Inc. v. Majestic Finance & Investment Co., 9 December 2015, Bersamin, J.) Rule 58. Preliminary Preliminary Injunction. Injunction. First paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770 which bars courts from issuing a TRO or preliminary injunction against investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, encroaches upon the SC’s rule making authority. (Carpio Morales v. CA, 10 Nov 2015, e.b., Perlas-Bernabe, J.). A writ of preliminary injunction is deemed dissolved dissolved or lifted upon the dismissal of the main case, even if such dismissal is appealed. Hence the defendants cannot be cited for contempt if they close the right of way. (Buyco v. Baraquia, Baraquia, 21 December 2009). Rule 62. Interpleader An adverse claimant claimant in an interpleader interpleader case case may be declared in in default. default. Under Rule 62, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a claimant who fails to answer within the required period may, on motion, be declared in default. (Lui Enterprises v Zuellig Pharma, 12 March 2014). Rule 65. Certiorari, Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
The Secretary of Justice’s Justice ’s DOJ Order No. 182 directing all Regional State Prosecutors, Provincial Prosecutors, and City Prosecutors to forward all cases already filed against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al . to the Secretariat of the DOJ Special Panel in Manila for appropriate action may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari certiorar i under R65. (Sps. Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, 8 January 2013, Bersamin, J.). Prohibition and certiorari before SC proper to challenge the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and related issuances of the DBM implementing the DAP notwithstanding that the same do not involve judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial acts. ( Araullo ( Araullo v. Aquino, Aquino, 1 July 2014, e.b., Bersamin, J.) Judgment declaring presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory and cannot be appealed, the remedy of the aggrieved party is a special civil action for certiorari under R65. (Republic (Republic v Cantor, 10 10 December 2013). Small-claims decision may be assailed by a special civil action for certiorari under R65. (A.L. Ang Network, Network, Inc. v Mondejar, Mondejar, 22 January January 2014). Rule 69. Partition Partition Dismissal with prejudice under S3 R17 cannot bar co- owner’s right to ask for partition at anytime, if there is no adjudication of ownership of shares yet . Between S3 R17 and the right granted to co-owners under Art. 494 of the Civil Code, the latter must prevail. (Quintos v. Nicolas, 16 Jun 14). In an action for partition, the court cannot review the validity of the adoption decree issued in favor of the Plaintiff. (Oribello (Oribel lo v. CA, 5 August 2015, Bersamin, J.). Rule 70. Ejectment Ejectment suit suit may not be resorted to in in order to resolve a boundary boundary dispute. (Javier v. De Guzman, 2 September 2015, Peralta, J.). The MTC cannot be ousted of jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case just because the determination of the issue of possession requires the interpretation of the contract (contract to sell). (Union Bank v. Maunlad Maunlad Homes, Inc., 15 August August 2012, Brion, J.). SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS The petition for habeas corpus was properly filed in the RTC of Caloocan. Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, 03-04-04-SC, which states that “the petition for custody for custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner resided or where the minor may be found,” is not applicable because it refers to a petition for custody of minors. What is applicable is Section 20 which covers petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors. Considering that the writ is made enforceable within a judicial region, petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, whether they be filed under R102 of the Rules of Court or pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may be filed with any of the proper RTCs within the judicial region where enforcement thereof is sought. (Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera, 28 July 2014). As regards Petitioner’s Petitioner’s assertion that the summo ns was improperly served, service of summons is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under R102 or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. A writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. (Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera, 28 July 2014). The grant of the privilege of writ of habeas data not proper with regards to photos posted on Facebook. There is no right ri ght to information privacy. (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, 29 September 2014, Velasco, J.). CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Preliminary considerations considerations While custody of the law is required for a court to act upon a bail application, it is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs (e.g. motion for redetermination of probable cause) where the mere application constitutes a submission of one’s person to the court’s jurisdiction. (David v. Agbay, 18 March 2015). 2015).
Rule 110 Filing of the complaint with th e Prosecutor’s office already tolls the running of the prescriptive period even if the offense is for the violation violatio n of a special law (in this case, B.P. 22). The phrase “proceedings” in Section 2 of Act. 3326 by which prescription is interrupted should be deemed to refer to proceedings judicial or executive in character. (Panaguiton v. DOJ, G.R. 167571, 25 25 November 2008). Zaldivia v. Reyes, Reyes , 3 July 1992, overturned. Zaldivia ruling applicable to violations of ordinances, prescriptive period tolled only upon filing of information information in court. (Jadewell Parking Parking Systems, Corp. v. Lidua, 7 October 2013). The offended party may file a R65 certiorari petition to challenge the RTC’s giving of due course to appeal, where there was grave abuse of discretion because of the violation of S6 R120. (Salvador v. Chua, 15 July 2015, Bersamin, J.). In R65 certiorari petition with CA to set aside RTC order denying motion to quash search warrant, the People is an indispensable party and should be impleaded even if no pending criminal case. (Te v. Breva, 5 August 2015, Bersamin, J.). Treachery must be sufficiently averred in the information; mere use of term “treachery” is not a sufficient averment for it is a conclusion of law. (People v. Valdez, 13 February 2013, Bersamin, J.). Venue of a BP 22 case may be laid in the situs of the collecting bank. (Morillo v People, 9 December 2015, Peralta, J.). Where the evidence during the trial of a criminal case shows that venue was misplaced, the court should dismiss the case since venue is jurisdictional. (Navaja v. De Castro, 22 June 2015). Rule 112. Preliminary Investigation Investigation Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. However, in administrative administrat ive cases, where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated, adjudicated , what is required is “substantial evidence” which cannot rest entirely or even partially on hearsay evidence. (Estrada v. Ombudsman, 21 January 2015). After the trial court has issued the warrant of arrest, is it superfluous superfluous for the accused to file a motion for judicial determination of probable cause (Balindong v. Court of Appeals, 19 October 2015, Bersamin, J.). Rule 114. Bail In determining whether an offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, what is taken into account is the prescribed penalty not the imposable penalty. (People v Valdez, 8 December 2015, e.b., Peralta, J.). Rule 117. Motion to Quash Order granting a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is not governed by Section 8 of Rule 117. While the provision on provisional dismissal is found within Rule 117 (entitled Motion to Quash), it does not follow that a motion to quash results in a provisional dismissal to which S8 R117 applies. Hence the time-bar time-bar rule does not apply to the dismissal of the information and the case may be re-opened if the trial court finds that the quashal was improper. (Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. 173588, 22 April 2009). Motion to revive provisionally dismissed criminal case (selling dangerous drugs) may be filed by arresting officer since offense charged a victimless crime. (Saldariega v. Panganiban, 15 April 2015). Rule 120. Judgment Accused could be convicted of possession possession of marijuana under an information information charging sale of marijuana. (Pp v Manansala, Manansala, 3 April 2013, Bersamin, J.). In case of variance between the allegation and proof, a defendant may be convicted of the offense proved when the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved. There is no dispute that a variance exists between the offense alleged against Sevilla and that proved by the prosecution – the – the Information charged him with the intentional felony of falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the RPC while the prosecution was able to prove reckless imprudence resulting to falsification falsificat ion of public documents. Parenthetically, the question that has to be resolved then is whether reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public document is necessarily included in the intentional felony of falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the RPC. The answer is in the affirmative. (Sevilla v. People, 13 August 2014, Peralta, J.). Appeal The fresh 15-day period provided for in Neypes Neypes applies to appeals in criminal cases, notwithstanding notwithstand ing the wordings of S6 R122. (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. 170979, 9 February 2011). EVIDENCE
Here the documents embody the c onfidential information on Rina’s drug rehabilitation obtained by the physician. Hence the same are also barred under under the physician-patient physician -patient privilege. (Chan v. Chan, 24 July 2013). The right to information does not extend to matters acknowledged as privileged information under the separation of powers, which include Presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed door Cabinet meetings. (Sereno v. Committee on Tariff and Related Matters, 1 February 2016, Bersamin, J.). The importer-consignee may not be held criminally liable for false import declarations prepared and signed by his customs broker under the principle of res inter alios acta embodied in S28 R130. (Mercado v. People, 8 July 2015, Bersamin, J.) By entering into a joint venture, MBMI has a joint interest with Corporations A, B, and C. Hence its statements in relation to such joint venture are an exception to the res inter alios acta rule. (Narra Nickel Mining Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., 21 April 2014). The presumption under S2(b) R131 does not bar a tenant from challenging the landlord’s title by title subsequent subsequent to the commencement of the lease contract. Here the tenant Paglas had purchased the leased land from the mortgagee-purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and hence his title was subsequent to the commencement of the lease contract. (Ermitaño v. Paglas, 23 Jan 2013, Peralta, J.). The certification of the USAID as to the income of its employee is a public document under S19(a) R132. Hence it does not need to be supported by other evidence evidence for it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein pursuant to S23 R132. (Heirs of Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corp., 16 July 2012).
-oOo-
