TOBIAS SELGA and CEFERINA GARANCHO SELGA, Petitioners, vs. SONY ENTIERRO BRAR, represented b !er Attorne"in"Fa#t $ARINA T. ENTIERRO, Respondent. G.R. No. %&'%'% Septe(ber )%, )*%% FACTS: Francisco Entierro died intestate and left behind a parcel of land, identified as Lot 1138-A, located in Himamalan Cit, !e"ros #ccidental$ Francisco%s spo&se, 'asilia Tabile ('asilia), and le"iti mate children, Esteban, Herminia, Elma, *erci+al, and ilda, all s&rnamed Entierro (collecti+el referred to as 'asilia, et al$), eec&ted a .eed of Sale /ith .eclaration of Heirship$ 0n said .eed, 'asilia, et al$, declared themsel+es to be Francisco%s onl heirs /ho inherited the s&bect propert2 and at the same time, sold the s&bect propert to petitioners, spo&ses Tobias Tobias Sel"a and Ceferina arancho Sel"a, for *14,444$44$ ' reason of said sale, TCT !o$ T-1453 T-1453 in Francisco%s name /as cancelled and replaced b TCT !o$ T-136648 T-136648 in petitioners% names$ Se+en ears later, respondent Son Entierro 'rar, represented b her sister-in-la/ and attorne-in-fact, 7arina T$ Entierro, filed before 'ranch of the 9TC of Himamalan Cit, !e"ros #ccidental (9TC-'ranch ) a Complaint for Ann&lment of Sale /ith .ama"es a"ainst petitioners, /hich /as doceted as Ci+il Case !o$ 5;$ 9espondent claimed that she /as one of the le"itimate children of Francisco and 'asilia, and that she had been preterited and ille"all depri+ed of her ri"htf&l share s hare and interests in the s&bect propert as one of Francisco%s le"al heirs$ Amon" respondent%s alle"ations in her Complaint /as: 14$ That as one of the co-heirs of the &ndi+ided portion of the <&estioned lot 1138-A, =herein respondent> is le"all entitled to redeem the said propert from the =herein petitioners> for the price the said =petitioners> ha+e paid her coheirs as appearin" in the .eed of Sale /ith .eclaration of Heirship, Anne ?'$?6 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch rendered the &d"ment declarin" the ann&lment of the .eed of Sale /ith .eclaration of heirship ad&dicatin" o/nership of Lot !o$ 1138-A in the name of =herein respondent> Son Entierro 'rar bein" one of the le"itimate heirs of spo&ses Francisco Entierro and 'asilia Tabile one ele+enth (1@11) share and ten ele+enth (14@11) share in the name of =herein petitioner> Tobias Tobias Sel"a married to Ceferina arancho$ nsatisfied, respondent filed an appeal of the afore<&oted &d"ment of 9TC-'ranch before the Co&rt of Appeals, /here it /as doceted as CA-$9$ CB !o$ 4A .D$ Ho/e+er, respondent s&bse<&entl mo+ed to /ithdra/ her appeal$ The .ecision dated 7a 7a 8, 1; of 9TC-'ranch e+ent&all attained finalit$ 0n a Letter dated A&"&st 11, 15, respondent informed petitioners that she /as eercisin" her ri"ht to redeem petitioners% ten-ele+enth (14@11) (14@11) share in the s&bect propert$ propert$ 0n their 9epl-Letter dated dated A&"&st 4, 4, 15, petitioners% co&nsel reected respondent%s demand$ This prompted respondent to instit&te on an&ar 1, 18 a Complaint for Le"al 9edemption /ith .ama"es, /hich /as doceted as Ci+il Case !o$ 53 before 9TC-'ranch ;$ 0n their Ans/er /ith Co&nterclaim in Ci+il Case !o$ 5;, petitioners in+oed the defenses of res &dicata and@or for&m shoppin", ar"&in" that the ca&se of action pleaded b respondent /as amon" those that had alread been liti"ated in Ci+il Case !o$ 5; before 9TC-'ranch $ 0n its .ecision dated &l &l 5, 441, 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch ; a"reed /ith petitioners and dismissed Ci+il Case !o$ 53$ 9espondent%s appeal of the aforementioned &d"ment of 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch ; /as doceted as CA-$9$ CB !o$ 585 before the Co&rt of Appeals$#n 7a 31, 44;, 44;, the Co&rt of Appeals Appeals prom&l"ated its .ecision in CA-$9$ CB !o$ 585, /hich re+ersed and set aside the assailed &l &l 5, 441 .ecision of 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch ; in Ci+il Case !o$ 53$ The Co&rt of Appeals held that respondent had +alidl eercised her ri"ht to redemption of the s&bect propert$The propert$The appellate co&rt f&rther r&led that Ci+il Case !o$ 53 before 9TC-'ranch ; /as not barred b the final &d"ment in Ci+il Case !o$ 5; of 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch $ *etitioners filed a *etition for 9e+ie/ before the S&preme Co&rt, insistin" that respondent%s ri"ht to redemption of the s&bect propert from petitioners /as amon" the ca&ses of action alread liti"ated in Ci+il Case !o$ 5; before 9TC'ranch 2 and the +er same ca&se of action bet/een the same parties i n+ol+in" the same s&bect matter /as merel d&plicated in Ci+il Case !o$ 53 before 9TC-'ranch ;$ Th&s, the prior final &d"ment rendered in Ci+il Case !o$ 5; alread barred Ci+il Case !o$ 53$ 9espondent co&nters that Ci+il Case !o$ 53 before 9TC-'ranch ; in+ol+in" her le"al ri"ht to redeem the s&bect propert from petitioners cannot be deemed deemed barred b the final &d"ment &d"ment in Ci+il Case !o$ 5; rendered b 9TC9TC'ranch beca&se said iss&e /as not eplicitl r&led &pon in the latter case$
0SSE: hether or not the present action is barred b res &dicata in +ie/ of the finalit of the decision in Ci+il Case !o$ 5;$ HEL.: 9es &dicata has t/o concepts$ The first is bar b b prior &d"ment &nder 9&le 3, Section 65(b), and the second is concl&si+eness of &d"ment &nder 9&le 3, Section 65(c)$ 9es &dicata &nder the first concept or as a bar a"ainst the prosec&tion of a second action eists /hen there is identit identit of parties, s&bect matter and ca&se of action in the first first and second actions$ The &d"ment in the first action is final as to the claim or demand in contro+ers, incl&din" incl&din" the parties and those in pri+it /ith them, not onl as as to e+er matter /hich /as offered and recei+ed recei+ed to s&stain or defeat
the claim or demand, b&t as to an other admissible matter /hich mi"ht ha+e been offered for that p&rpose and of all matters that co&ld ha+e been ad&d"ed in that case$ 0n contrast, res &dicata &nder the second concept or estoppel b &d"ment eists /hen there is identit of parties and s&bect matter matter b&t the ca&ses of action are completel distinct$ The first &d"ment is concl&si+e onl as to those matters a ct&all and directl contro+erted and determined and not as to matters merel in+ol+ed herein$ The case at bar satisfies the fo&r essential re<&isites of res &dicata &nder the first concept, bar b prior &d"ment, +iG: (a) finalit of the former &d"ment2 (b) the co&rt /hich rendered it had &risdiction o+er the s&bect matter and the parties2 (c) it m&st be a &d"ment on the merits2 and (d) there m&st be, bet/een the first and second actions, identit of parties, s&bect matter and ca&ses of action$18 0t is not disp&ted that the .ecision dated 7a 8, 1; of 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch in Ci+il Case !o$ 5; had become final and eec&tor$ *etitioners no lon"er appealed the said decision, /hile respondent /ithdre/ her appeal of the same before the Co&rt of Appeals$ There is also no <&estion that 9TC-'ranch had &risdiction o+er the s&bect matter and parties in Ci+il Case !o$ 5;, and that its .ecision dated 7a 8, 1; /as a &d"ment on the merits, i$e$, one rendered after a consideration of the e+idence or stip&lations s&bmitted b the parties at the trial of the case$ Contro+ers herein arises from the fo&rth re<&irement: the identit of parties, s&bect matter and, partic&larl, the ca&ses of action bet/een Ci+il Case !o$ 5; and Ci+il Case !o$ 53$ There is identit of parties$ Ci+il Case !o$ 5; and Ci+il Case !o$ 53 /ere both instit&ted b respondent a"ainst petitioners$ There is also identit i dentit of s&bect matter$ Ci+il Case !o$ 5; and Ci+il Case !o$ 53 both in+ol+ed respondent%s ri"hts and interests o+er the s&bect propert as Francisco%s le"itimate child and comp&lsor heir$ Finall, there is identit of ca&ses of action$ Section , 9&le of the 9&les of Co&rt defines a ca&se of action as ?the act or omission b /hich a part +iolates a ri"ht of another$? The The ca&se of action in Ci+il Case !o$ 53 and Ci+il Case !o$ 5; is the sale of the entire s&bect propert b 'asilia, et al$, to petitioners /itho&t respondent%s respondent%s no/led"e no/led"e and consent, hence, depri+in" respondent respondent of her ri"hts and interests o+er her pro-indi+iso share in the s&bect propert as a co-heir and co-o/ner$ The ann&lment of the sale of respondent%s share in the s&bect propert, the le"al redemption b respondent of her co-heirs% share sold to petitioners, and the claim for dama"es sho&ld not not be mistaen to be the ca&ses of action, b&t the /ere the remedies and reliefs praed for b the respondent to redress the /ron" alle"edl committed a"ainst her$ The alle"ations in respondent%s Complaint in Ci+il Case !o$ 53 initiall "i+e the impression that the ca&se of action therein /as petitioners% ref&sal ref&sal to heed respondent%s demand to redeem petitioners% petiti oners% ten-ele+enth ten-ele+enth (14@11) share in the s&bect propert$ '&t a closer st&d of said Complaint, Co mplaint, as /ell as the trial proceedin"s before 9TC-'ranch ;, re+eal that respondent%s ri"ht to redeem petitioners% ten-ele+enth (14@11) (14@11) share in the s&bect propert also arose from the sale s ale of the said s&bect propert to petitioners b respondent%s co-heirs co-heirs and co-o/ners, alle"ed to be /itho&t respondent%s no/led"e or consent the +er same ca&se of action at the cr& of Ci+il Case !o$ 5;$ Therefore, Ci+il Case !o$ 53 before 9TC-'ranch 9TC-'ranch ; sho&ld be dismissed, bein" barred b res &dicata, "i+en the final and eec&tor .ecision dated 7a 8, 1; of 9TC-'ranch in Ci+il Case !o$ 5;$ e e stress that res &dicata, in the concept of bar b prior &d"ment, renders the &d"ment or final order concl&si+e bet/een the parties and their pri+ies, not &st /ith respect to a matter directl ad&d"ed, ad&d"ed, b&t also an other matter that co&ld ha+e been been raised in relation thereto$ Gar#+a"+ia-on vs. Been G.R. No. %/0%)% 1+ 2%, )*%2
FACTS: Elise I&iaGon is the da&"hter of Eliseo I&iaGon and his common-la/ /ife 7a$ Lo&rdes 'elen$ hen Eliseo died intestate, Elise represented b b her mother, Lo&rdes, filed a *etition for Letters of Administration before the 9TC of Las *iJas Cit in order to preser+e the estate of Eliseo and to pre+ent the dissipation of its +al&e$ She lie/ise so&"ht her appointment as administratri of her late father%s estate$ Amelia I&iaGon, to /hom Eliseo /as married, to"ether /ith her t/o children, filed an #pposition@7otion to .ismiss on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e assertin" as sertin" that Eliseo /as a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las *iJas *i Jas Cit$ 0n addition to their claim of improper +en&e, the petitioners a+erred that there are no fact&al and le"al bases for Elise t o be appointed administrati of Eliseo%s Eliseo%s estate$ 9TC rendered a decision directin" the iss&ance of Letters of Administration to Elise &pon postin" the necessar necessar bond The Co&rt of Appeals affirmed 9TC$ 9TC$ 0t held that Elise /as able to pro+e that Eliseo and Lo&rdes li+ed to"ether as h&sband and /ife b establishin" est ablishin" a common residence at Las *iJas Cit, from 15 &p to the time of Eliseo%s death in 1$ For p&rposes of fiin" the t he +en&e of the settlement of Eliseo%s estate, the Co&rt of Appeals &pheld the concl&sion reached b the 9TC that the decedent /as a resident of Las *iJas Cit$
0SSE: 1$hether or not Las *inas Cit /as the proper +en&e$ $hether or not Elise is <&alified to be administrator of the estate$ HEL.: 1$ KES$ nder Section 1, 9&le 53 of the 9&les of Co&rt, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent sho&ld be filed in the 9TC of the pro+ince /here the decedent resides at the time of his death: Sec$ 1$ here estate of deceased persons settled$ 0f the decedent is an inhabitant of t he *hilippines at the time of his death, /hether a citiGen or an alien, his /ill shall be pro+ed, or letters of administration "ranted, and his estate settled, in the Co&rt of First 0nstance no/ 9e"ional Trial Co&rt in the pro+ince in /hich he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a forei"n co&ntr, the Co&rt of First 0nstance no/ 9e"ional Trial Co&rt of an pro+ince in /hich he had estate$ The co&rt first tain" co"niGance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall eercise &risdiction to the ecl&sion of all other co&rts$ The &risdiction ass&med b a co&rt, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a s&it or proceedin", ecept in an appeal from that co&rt, in the ori"inal case, or /hen the /ant of &risdiction appears on the record$ The term ?resides? connotes e +i termini ?act&al residence? as distin"&ished from ?le"al residence or domicile$? This term ?resides,? lie the terms ?residin"? and ?residence,? is elasti c and sho&ld be interpreted in the li"ht of the obect or p&rpose of the stat&te or r&le in /hich it is emploed$ 0n the application of +en&e stat&tes and r&les Section 1, 9&le 53 of the 9e+ised 9&les of Co&rt is of s&ch nat&re residence rather than domicile is the si"nificant factor$13 E+en /here the stat&te &ses /ord ?domicile? still it is constr&ed as meanin" residence and not domicile in the technical sense$ Some cases mae a distinction bet/een the terms ?residence? and ?domicile? b&t as "enerall &sed in stat&tes fiin" +en&e, the terms are snonmo&s, and con+e the same meanin" as the ter m ?inhabitant$? 0n other /ords, ?resides? sho&ld be +ie/ed or &nderstood in its pop&lar sense, meanin", the personal, act&al or phsical habitation of a person, act&al residence or place of abode$ 0t si"nifies phsical presence in a place and act&al sta thereat$ Ben&e for ordinar ci+il actions and that for special proceedin"s ha+e one and the same meanin"$ As th&s defined, ?residence,? in the contet of +en&e pro+isions, means nothin" more than a person%s act&al residence or place of abode, pro+ided he resides therein /ith contin&it and consistenc$ Bie/ed in li"ht of the fore"oin" principles, the Co&rt of Appeals cannot be fa<ed for affirmin" the r&lin" of the 9TC that the +en&e for the settlement of the estate of Elis eo /as properl laid in Las *iJas Cit$ 0t is e+ident from the records that d&rin" his lifetime, Eliseo resided at !o$ ; E+erlastin" 9oad, *hase , *ilar Billa"e, Las *iJas Cit$ For this reason, the +en&e for the settlement of his estate ma be laid in the said cit$ $Elise, as a comp&lsor heir /ho stands to be benefited b the distrib&tion of Eliseo%s estate, is deemed to be an interested part$ ith the o+er/helmin" e+idence on record prod&ced b Eli se to pro+e her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioners% po&ndin" on her lac of interest in the administration of the decedent%s estate, is &st a desperate attempt to s/a this Co&rt to re+erse the findin"s of the Co&rt of Appeals$ Certainl, the ri"ht of Elise to be appointed administrati of the estate of Eliseo is on "ood "ro&nds$ 0t is fo&nded on her ri"ht as a comp&lsor heir, /ho, &nder the la/, is entitled to her le"itimate after the debts of the estate are satisfied$Ha+in" a +ested ri"ht in the distrib&tion of Eliseo%s estate as one of his nat&ral children, Elise can ri"htf&ll be considered as an interested part /ithin the p&r+ie/ of the la/$ 3an4ie Barra-ona vs. RTC Br. 5% o6 Ba4+io and San Reat 7 8ev. Corp. 9/5 SCRA ''' & Apri )**5
FACTS: San 9ealt .e+elopment Corp$ o/ns a b&ildin" located at !a"&ilian cor$ Asin 9oad, 'a"&io Cit$ Ban"ie 'arraGona is leasin" nit 43 A and ' of said b&ildin" for a period of ears, from 1 &l 441 to 34 &ne 443$ *hp 644 per s
#n 3 &ne 44, 'arraGona filed a 7otion to .ismiss for lac of &risdiction$ S he contends that the alle"ations in the complaint clearl indicate that the action is one for eectment (&nla/f&l detainer) ---an action /ithin the ecl&si+e ori"inal &risdiction of the 7TC$ *ara"raphs 6 and of the complaint alle"es that 'arraGona failed to pa her rentals and San 9ealt pre+io&sl demanded for its pament and for 'arraGona to +acate the leased premises$ The 9TC denied the motion$ 'arraGona filed a *etition for Certiorari before the S&preme Co&rt assailin" the &risdiction of 9TC 'ranch ;1$
0SSE: 0s the action instit&ted b San 9ealt one for eectmentM HEL.: KES$ &risdiction is based on the alle"ations of the complaint at the time of its filin"$ The nat&re of the action pleaded appearin" from the alle"ations in the complaint, s&ch as the a+erments and the character of the relief so&"ht, determines the co&rt%s &risdiction$ The caption or denomination of the complaint is not controllin"$ 0n this case, the complaint, specificall para"raphs 6 and , clearl indicate that the action is one for eectment$ 0ts caption that it is one for collection of s&m of mone is immaterial$ The alle"ations therein are to be cons<ed$ CONRA8O $AGBAN:A and ROSE$ARIE $AGBAN:A"TABORA8A, t!e atter assisted b !er !+sband ARTE$IO TABORA8A " vers+s " PILAR S. 1:NSAY, asssisted b !er !+sband 3ICENTE 1:NSAY, IBARRA LOPE;, and 1:ANITO 1ACELA
Febr&ar 1, 445 FACTS *etitioner 9osemarie 7a"ban&a, /ho /ored as a ho&semaid in the residence of complainant and herein respondent *ilar S$ &nsa /as char"ed as a co-acc&sed /ith the crime of 9obber before the 9TC, 'ranch NL0 of 'acolod Cit in Criminal Case !o$ 8$ The records sho/ that onl petitioner 9osemarie /as tried in Criminal Case !o$ 8$ Her co-acc&sed, Ernesto FernandeG and a certain &do, remain at lar"e$ The case for the prosec&tion relied on an alle"ed confession made b petitioner 9osemarie, admittin" her participation in the crime of 9obber$ The defense contested the admissibilit of the confession, and a+erred that the same /as made &nder d&ress$ #n 4 .ecember 18, the 9TC, 'ranch NL0 of 'acolod Cit, rendered a .ecision,=6> ac<&ittin" petitioner 9osemarie of the crime of 9obber$ The 9TC held: The e+idence for acc&sed =herein petitioner 9osemarie> more partic&larl the 7edical Certificate and the testimon of the attendin" phsician as /ell as the .ecision of the !A*#LC#7 findin" the in+esti"atin" officers "&ilt has clearl establish (sic) the fact that acc&sed /as phsicall maltreated b the in+esti"atin" officers in an attempt to force her to confess her participation in the robber$ N N N N N N The decretal portion of the 4 .ecember 18 9TC .ecision prono&nced: 0! B0E #F THE F#9E#0! THE9EF#9E, this Co&rt finds the e+idence for the prosec&tion not onl ins&fficient to pro+e the "&ilt of the acc&sed beond reasonable do&bt b&t e+en ins&fficient to establish a prima facie case a"ainst her for ha+in" participated in the robber s&bect of the abo+e entitled case and therefore ACI0TS acc&sed on the "ro&nd of ins&fficienc of e+idence$ The bailbond of the acc&sed for her pro+isional libert is hereb ordered cancelled$=;>
#n 7arch 185, petitioner 9osemarie, assisted b Artemio Taborada, and to"ether /ith co-petitioner Conrado 7a"ban&a (9osemaries father) filed /ith the 9TC, 'ranch 1, 'acolod Cit, a Complaint for .ama"es=5> a"ainst respondent *ilar, assisted b her h&sband Bicente &nsa, 0barra LopeG, and &anito acela$ 9espondent *ilar /as the emploer of petitioner 9osemarie, /hile respondents 0barra and &anito /ere members of the police force of 'acolod Cit, and assi"ned at the *olice Station in Tac&lin",'acolod Cit$ The Complaint, alle"ed, inter alia, that b reason of respondents false, malicio&s, and ille"al act&ations in fili n" Criminal Case !o$ 8 for 9obber a"ainst petitioner 9osemarie, the latter s&ffered &ntold pain, shame, h&miliation, /orr, and mental an"&ish, /hich if assessed in monetar terms /ill not be less than *44,444$44$=8> 0t /as f&rther alle"ed therein that Conrado, 9osemaries father, lost his ob and his entire famil s&ffered$=> *etitioners maintained that 9osemarie s&ffered phsical pain and mental tort&re d&e to the filin" of the false criminal char"e a"ainst her$=14> The so&"ht moral and eemplar dama"es, incl&din" attornes fees and liti"ation epenses, as /ell as loss of earnin"s and epenses inc&rred in connection /ith 9osemaries defense in Criminal Case !o$ 8 for 9obber$=11> The similarl praed for pament of the epenses inc&rred in the prosec&tion of the instant case$ 9espondent *ilar filed a 7otion to .ismiss,=13> on the "ro&nd that the ca&se of action is barred b the Stat&te of Limitations, as crstalliGed in Article 116;=16> of the Ci+il Code$ From the time the ca&se of action arose to the filin" of the Complaint, fo&r ears and ei"ht months had alread lapsed$ *etitioners filed an #pposition to the 7otion to .ismiss,=1> contendin" that their ca&se of action is not for dama"es based on the phsical in&ries s&ffered b 9osemarie d&rin" the in+esti"ation of the criminal case nor the +iolation of her ri"hts for the indi"nities foisted &pon her b the respondents from 18 &l 18, and se+eral das thereafter$=1;> The posited that the dama"es so&"ht are for the malicio&s prosec&tion of 9osemarie$ The reasoned that the baseless filin" of the criminal case for 9obber a"ainst 9osemarie, despite her protestations of innocence and the lac of e+idence a"ainst her, ca&sed her famil to inc&r epenses and s&bected her to &ntold shame and h&miliation$ *etitioners post&lated that as the Complaint for .ama"es is for mali cio&s prosec&tion, the prescripti+e period sho&ld be co&nted from the date of 9osemaries ac<&ittal in Criminal Case !o$ 8, or on 4 .ecember 18, and not from 18 &l 18, the date /hen respondents in&red the ri"hts of 9osemarie$ From the time &d"ment in Criminal Case !o$ 8 /as rendered to the filin" of the Complaint in the instant case, not more than one ear and three months had passed$ #n 6 7arch 188, the 9TC iss&ed an #rder=1> denin" respondents 7otion to .ismiss for lac of merit$ 0t fo&nd that the ca&se of action of petitioners Complaint /as based on malicio&s prosec&tion2 hence, the prescripti+e period shall be co&nted from the date of petitioner 9osemaries ac<&ittal$ Accordin" to the 9TC, the alle"ations abo&t the /anton +iolation of the ri"hts of 9osemarie as a person /ere to sho/ the pattern of respondents malice$ 9espondent *ilar filed before the 9TC an Ans/er,=4> dated 18 7a 188, disclaimin" petitioners alle"ation that she maltreated petitioner 9osemarie /hile the latter /as bein" in+esti"ated b the police a&thorities$ *etitioners alle"ed that respondent *ilar cannot claim lac of no/led"e of the maltreatment and indi"nities s&ffered b petitioner 9osemarie beca&se she herself participated in s&ch maltreatment$ *etitioners f&rther contended, inter alia, that the ha+e a proper and +alid ca&se of action a"ainst the respondents, incl&din" petitioner Conrado /ho s&ffered and inc&rred epenses to defend his da&"hter, 9osemarie, /ho /as then a minor a"ainst &n&st acc&sation, maltreatment and tort&re$ #n &l 1, the 9TC rendered a .ecision dismissin" the Complaint$ The 9TC applied the established r&le that for a malicio&s prosec&tion s&it to s&cceed, t/o indispensable elements m&st be sho/n to eist, to /it: (a) malice and (b) absence of probable ca&se$ 0t fo&nd that the elements /ere not s&ccessf&ll sho/n b petitioners$ 0t hel d that the mere filin" of a s&it does not render a person liable for malicio&s prosec&tion sho&ld he be &ns&ccessf&l for the la/ co&ld not ha+e meant to impose a penalt on the ri"ht to liti"ate$=> *etitioners filed a !otice of Appeal on the &l 1 .ecision of the 9TC$ Th&s, the records of the case /ere s&bse<&entl for/arded to the Co&rt of Appeals$ The Co&rt of Appeals affirmed the 9TC in toto$ Hence, petitioners come to the s&ccor of this Co&rt +ia the instant Appeal b Certiorari to assail the .ecision of the Co&rt of Appeals, /hich affirmed the .ecision of the 9TC, that there /as no malicio&s prosec&tion$
For o&r resol&tion is the iss&e of /hether petitioners are entitled t o dama"es for malicio&s prosec&tion$ Ho/e+er, before /e co&ld resol+e said iss&e, /e sho&ld first determine /hether the filin" of a criminal case for 9obber a"ainst petitioner 9osemarie constit&ted malicio&s prosec&tion$ 0t is petitioners s&bmission that the prosec&tion of petitioner 9osemarie /as fo&nded &pon baseless acc&sations$=36> *etitioners posit that the char"es /ere based on false affida+its and false police reports, /itho&t /hich the criminal case a"ainst petitioner 9osemarie /o&ld not ha+e been filed$=3> *etitioners f&rther decr the maltreatment /hich petitioner 9osemarie alle"edl s&ffered from the hands of respondents$ 0SSE hether or not petitioners ha+e a +alid ca&se of action a"ainst respondents$
9L0! !#$ 0n this &risdiction, the term malicio&s prosec&tion has been defined as an action for dama"es bro&"ht b one a"ainst /hom a criminal prosec&tion, ci+il s&it, or other le"al proceedin" has been instit&ted malicio&sl and /itho&t probable ca&se, after the termination of s&ch prosec&tion, s&it, or other proceedin" in fa+or of the defendant therein$=38>hile "enerall associated /ith &nfo&nded criminal actions, the term has been epanded to incl&de &nfo&nded ci+il s&its instit&ted &st to +e and h&miliate the defendant despite the absence of a ca&se of action or probable ca&se$ This Co&rt has dra/n the fo&r elements that m&st be sho/n to conc&r to reco+er dama"es for malicio&s prosec&tion$ Therefore, for a malicio&s prosec&tion s&it to prosper, the plaintiff m&st pro+e the follo/in": (1) the prosec&tion did occ&r, and the defendant /as himself the prosec&tor or that he insti"ated its commencement2 () the criminal action finall ended /ith an ac<&ittal2 (3) in brin"in" the action, the prosec&tor acted /itho&t probable ca&se2 and (6) the prosec&tion /as impelled b le"al malice -- an improper or a sinister moti+e$=61> The "ra+amen of malicio&s prosec&tion is not the filin" of a complaint based on the /ron" pro+ision of la/, b&t the deliberate initiation of an action /ith the no/led"e that the char"es /ere false and "ro&ndless$=6> e shall proceed to determine /hether in the prosec&tion of petitioner 9osemarie for the crime of 9obber, all fo&r elements /ere in attendance$ 0t is not disp&ted that the first and second elements are present$ #n the <&estion of probable ca&se, this Co&rt has r&led that for p&rposes of malicio&s prosec&tion, probable ca&se means s&ch facts and circ&mstances as /o&ld ecite the belief, in a reasonable mind, actin" on the facts /ithin the no/led"e of the prosec&tor, that the person char"ed /as "&ilt of the crime for /hich he /as prosec&ted$=63> 0t is merel based on opinion and reasonable belief$=66> Th&s, a findin" of probable ca&se does not re<&ire an in<&ir into /hether there is s&fficient e+idence to proc&re a con+iction$=6> Anent the <&estion of /hether the prosec&tor acted /itho&t probable ca&se in brin"in" the action a"ainst petitioner 9osemarie, /e find no reason to depart from the concl&sions reached b the 9TC and the Co&rt of Appeals$ The filin" of Criminal Case !o$ 8 for 9obber /as not /itho&t probable ca&se$ 0ndeed, d&rin" the in+esti"ation petitioner 9osemarie admitted her participation in the commission of the incident complained of$ The inadmissibilit of the aforesaid admission on the "ro&nd that the same /as etracted &nder d&ress /as an e+identiar matter, /hich does not detract from the fact that based on petitioner 9osemarie%s admission2 there /as reason for the respondents to belie+e that the s&it /as not &nfo&nded, and that the crime /as committed$ Finall, in an action to reco+er dama"es based on malicio&s prosec&tion, it m&st be established that the prosec&tion /as impelled b le"al malice$ Applin" the r&le to the case at bar, /e affirm the findin"s of the 9TC and the Co&rt of Appeals that there /as no proof of a sinister desi"n on the part of the respondents to +e or h&miliate petitioner 9osemarie b instit&tin" the criminal case a"ainst her and her co-acc&sed$ 9espondent *ilar /ho /as robbed of her +al&able belon"in"s can onl
be epected to brin" the matter to the a&thorities$ There can be no e+il moti+e that sho&ld be attrib&ted to one, /ho, as +ictim of a crime instit&tes the necessar le"al proceedin"s$ At the ris of red&ndanc, /e stress that the proscription a"ainst the imposition of penalt on the ri"ht to liti"ate m&st not be +iolated$ 7ere filin" of a s&it does not render a person liable for malicio&s prosec&tion sho&ld he be &ns&ccessf&l, for the la/ co&ld not ha+e meant to impose a penalt on the ri"ht to liti"ate$=1> There /as no other eplanation or moti+e as to /h respondents /o&ld instit&te baseless prosec&tion of petitioner 9osemarie$ !o e+idence /as sho/n that there /as bad blood bet/een respondent *ilar and petitioner 9osemarie prior to the s&pposed robber$ e also do not find the act&ations of respondents 0barra and &anito to be impelled b le"al malice$ Their commencement of the action a"ainst petitioner 9osemarie and her co-acc&sed /as p&rs&ant to their d&ties as police officers$ The same /as made s&bse<&ent to the report of respondent *ilar of the commission of the crime, and the in+esti"ation on the person of petitioner 9osemarie$ E+en then, mistaes committed b a p&blic officer are not actionable absent an clear sho/in" that the /ere moti+ated b malice or "ross ne"li"ence amo&ntin" to bad faith, => /hich /as not established in the case at bar$ 7oreo+er, as /as clear from the o&tset, the instant case is a s&it s eein" dama"es for malicio&s prosec&tion, and not for the +iolations and maltreatment that respondents alle"edl committed a"ainst petitioner 9osemarie in etractin" the admission from her$ At an rate, the 9TC had r&led that the instant case is not an action on the in&ries alle"edl s&ffered b petitioner 9osemarie, b&t rather for malicio&s prosec&tion$ #ther/ise, an action seein" dama"es for her in&ries sho&ld ha+e been deemed prescribed$ '. :$ALE vs CANOGA PAR< 8E3ELOP$ENT CORPORATION G.R. No. %5&)95= 1+ )*, )*%%
FACTS: #n an&ar 6, 444, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease /hereb the petitioner, eor"e Leonard S$ male, a"reed to lease, for a period of t/o () ears, an ei"ht h&ndred sit (8;4)-s<&are-meter prime lot located in #rti"as Center, *asi" Cit o/ned b the respondent$ The respondent ac<&ired the s&bect lot from #rti"as Co$ Ltd$ *artnership thro&"h a .eed of Absol&te Sale, s&bect to the follo/in" conditions: (1) that no shoppin" arcades or retail stores, resta&rants, etc$ shall be allo/ed t o be established on the propert, ecept /ith the prior /ritten consent from #rti"as Co$ Ltd$ *artnership and () that the respondent and@or its s&ccessors-in-interest shall become member@s of the #rti"as Center Association, 0nc$ (Association), and shall abide b its r&les and re"&lations$ 'efore the lease contract epired, the respondent filed an &nla/f&l detainer case a"ainst the petitioner before the 7etropolitan Trial Co&rt, *asi" Cit 'ranch ;8$ 9espondentOs "ro&nd for eect ment in this 1st Ci+il Case (!o$ 8486) /as the petitioners +iolation of stip&lations in the leas e contract re"ardin" the &se of the propert$ nder this contract, the petitioner shall &se the leased lot as a parin" space for li"ht +ehicles and as a site for a s mall dri+ers canteen, and ma not &tiliGe the s&bect premises for other p&rposes /itho&t the respondents prior /ritten consent$ The petitioner, ho/e+er, constr&cted resta&rant b&ildin"s and other commercial establishments on the lot, /itho&t first sec&rin" the re<&ired /ritten consent from the respondent, and the necessar permits$ The petitioner also s&bleased the propert$ The 7TC 'r$ ;8 fa+ored the respondent as to the eectment case /hich /as affirmed in toto b 9TC-'ranch 1, *asi" Cit$ Ho/e+er, the case /as re-raffled to the 9TC-'ranch ;5, *asi" Cit beca&se the *resi din" &d"e of inhibited himself from resol+in" the petitioners motion for reconsideration$ The 9TC-'ranch ;5 "ranted the petitioners motion, thereb re+ersin" and settin" aside the 7TC-'r ;8 decision$ Accordin"l, the Ci+il Case /as dismissed for bein" premat&rel filed$ Th&s, the respondent filed a petition for re+ie/ /ith the CA$ .&rin" the pendenc of the petition for re+ie/, the respondent filed a nd Ci+il Case (!o$ 14) for &nla/f&l detainer a"ainst the petitioner before the 7TC-'ranch 51, *asi" Cit$ This time, the respondent &sed as a "ro&nd for eectment the epiration of the parties lease contract$ 7TC-'ranch 51 rendered a decision in fa+or of the respondent orderin" the petitioner to peacef&ll +acate the premises, ordered to pa herein respondent dama"es for the &se of the propert after the epiration of the lease contract, attornes fees /ith cost of s&it$ ith respect to the commercial &nits b&ilt b petitioner on the s&bect land, he is hereb ordered to remo+e the same and to restore the s&bect land in the s ame condition as it /as recei+ed b petitioner$ #n appeal, the 9TC-'ranch ;8 re+ersed and set aside the decision of the 7TC-'ranch 51, and dismissed the nd Ci+il Case on the "ro&nd of litis pendentia$ 9espondentOs Ar"&ment- it filed a *etition for 9e+ie/ &nder 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt /ith the CA and ar"&ed that there eists no litis pendentia bet/een the first and second Ci+il Cases beca&se the t/o cases in+ol+ed different "ro&nds for eectment, i$e$, the first case /as filed beca&se of +iolations of the lease contract, /hile the second case /as filed d&e to the epiration of the lease contract$ The respondent emphasiGed that the second case /as filed based on an e+ent or a ca&se not et in eistence at the time of the filin" of the first case$
*etitionerOs Ar"&ment - litis pendentia eists bet/een the t/o eectment cases filed a"ainst him beca&se of their identit /ith one another and that an &d"ment on the first case /ill amo&nt to res &dicata on the other$ The petitioner ar"&es that the respondent reiterated the "ro&nd of +iolations of the lease contract, /ith the additional "ro&nd of the epiration of the lease contract in the second eectment case$ Also, the petitioner alle"es that all of the elements of litis pendentia are present in this case, th&s, he pras for the re+ersal and settin" aside of the assailed CA decision and resol&tion, and for the dismissal of the complaint in the nd Ci+il Case on the "ro&nd of litis pendentia and@or for&m shoppin"$ CAOs r&lin"- n&llified and set aside the assailed decision of the 9TC-'ranch ;8, and r&led that there /as no litis pendentia beca&se the t/o ci+il cases ha+e different ca&ses of action$ The decision of the 7TC- 'ranch 51 /as ordered reinstated$ Hence, petitioner filed petition for re+ie/ on certiorari$ 0SSE: 1) #! there is litis pendencia2 ) #! the t/o Ci+il Cases ha+e the same ca&ases of action HEL.: 1$ There /as no litis pendentia As a "ro&nd for the dismissal of a ci+il action, litis pendentia refers to a sit&ation /here t/o actions are pendin" bet/een the same parties for the same ca&se of action, so that one of them becomes &nnecessar and +eatio&s$ Litis pendentia eists /hen the follo/in" re<&isites are present: identit of the parties in the t/o actions2 s&bstantial identit in the ca&ses of action and in the reliefs so&"ht b the parties2 and the identit bet/een the t/o actions sho&ld be s&ch that an &d"ment that ma be rendered in one case, re"ardless of /hich part is s&ccessf&l, /o&ld amo&nt to res &dicata in the other$ $ Ci+il Case !os$ 8486 and 14 in+ol+e different ca&ses of action enerall, a s&it ma onl be instit&ted for a sin"le ca&se of action$ 0f t/o or more s&its are instit&ted on the basis of the same ca&se of action, the filin" of one or a &d"ment on the merits in an one is "ro&nd for the dismissal of the others$ Se+eral tests eist to ascertain /hether t/o s&its relate to a sin"le or common ca&se of action, s&ch as /hether the same e+idence /o&ld s&pport and s&stain both the first and second ca&ses of action (also no/n as the same e+idence test), or /hether the defenses in one case ma be &sed to s&bstantiate the complaint in the other$ Also f&ndamental is the test of determinin" /hether the ca&se of action in the second case eisted at the time of the filin" of the first complaint$ #f the three tests cited, the third one is especiall applicable to the present case, i$e$, /hether the ca&se of action in the second case eisted at the time of the filin" of the first complaint and to /hich /e ans/er in the ne"ati+e$ The facts clearl sho/ that the filin" of the first eectment case /as "ro&nded on the petitioners +iolation of stip&lations in the lease contract, /hile the filin" of the second case /as based on the epiration of the lease contract$ At the time the respondent filed the first eectment complaint on #ctober 14, 444, the lease contract bet/een the parties /as still in effect$ The lease /as fied for a period of t/o () ears, from an&ar 1;, 444, and in the absence of a rene/al a"reed &pon b the parties, the lease remained effecti+e &ntil an&ar 1, 44$ 0t /as onl at the epiration of the lease contract that the ca&se of action in the second eectment complaint accr&ed and made a+ailable to t he respondent as a "ro&nd for eectin" the petitioner$ Th&s, the ca&se of action in the second case /as not et in eistence at the ti me of filin" of the first eectment case$ 9estatement does not res< in s&bstantial identit bet/een the t/o cases$ E+en if the respondent alle"ed +iolations of the lease contract as a "ro&nd for eectment in the second complaint, the main basis for eectin" the petitioner in the second case /as the epiration of the lease contract$ 0f not for this s&bse<&ent de+elopment, the respondent co&ld no lon"er file a second complaint for &nla/f&l detainer beca&se an eectment complaint ma onl be filed /ithin one ear after the accr&al of the ca&se of action, /hich, in the second case, /as the epiration of the lease contract$ Similarl, /e do not find the respondent "&ilt of for&m shoppin" in filin" the second ci+il case$ To determine /hether a part +iolated the r&le a"ainst for&m shoppin", the test applied is /hether the elements of litis pendentia are present or /hether a final &d"ment in one case /ill amo&nt to res &dicata in another$ Considerin" o&r prono&ncement that not all the re<&isites of litis pendentia are present in this case, the CA did not err in declarin" that the respondent committed no for&m shoppin"$ RESI8ENT $ARINE $A$$ALS OF THE PROTECTE8 SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT vs. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES G.R. No. %/*&&%, Apri )%, )*%', LEONAR8O"8E CASTRO, 1. Action in+ol+ed parties consolidated *etitions filed &nder 9&le ; of the 15 9&les of Co&rt concernin" Ser+ice Contract !o$ 6; (SC-6;) allo/in" the eploration, de+elopment, and eploitation of petrole&m reso&rces /ithin TaJon Strait$
$9$ !o$ 184551 - ori"inal *etition for Certiorari, 7andam&s, and 0n&nction seein" to enoin respondents from implementin" SC-6; and to ha+e it n&llified for /illf&l and "ross +iolation of the 185 Constit&tion and certain international and m&nicipal la/s *etitioners P9esident 7arine 7ammalsQ in+ol+in" toothed /hales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species inhabitin" in TaJon Strait, and seein" their protection are loria EstenGo 9amos 9ose-LiGa Eisma-#sorio (the Ste/ards) $9$ !o$ 1815 - ori"inal *etition for Certiorari, *rohibition, and 7andam&s seein" to n&llif the En+ironmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) iss&ed b the En+ironmental 7ana"ement '&rea& (E7') of .E!9 9e"ion 5 in connection /ith SC-6;2 to prohibit respondents from implementin" SC-6;2 and to compel p&blic respondents to pro+ide petitioners access to the pertinent doc&ments in+ol+in" the TaJon Strait #il Eploration *roect *etitioners - Central Bisaas Fisherfol .e+elopment Center (F0.EC) an or"aniGation established for the /elfare of the mar"inal fisherfol in 9e"ion 5 Facts: 1$ A eophsical S&r+e and Eploration Contract-14 (SEC-14) /as entered into b the o+ernment of the *hilippines thro&"h the .epartment of Ener" (.#E) and apan *etrole&m Eploration Co$, Ltd$ (A*EN) on &ne 13, 44$ S&ch contract in+ol+ed "eolo"ical and "eophsical st&dies of the TaJon Strait$ $ .ecember 1, 446 - .#E and A*EN formall con+erted SEC-14 into SC-6; for the eploration, de+elopment, and prod&ction of petrole&m reso&rces in the TaJon Strait$ 3$ A*EN /as to drill a /ell in the marine /aters of Alo"&insan and *inam&n"aan /here the TaJon Strait /as declared a protected seascape$ 6$ 9esol&tion !o$ 445-441 /as iss&ed b the *rotected Area 7ana"ement 'oard of TaJon Strait (*A7'-TaJon Strait) adoptin" the 0nitial En+ironmental Eamination (0EE) commissioned b A*EN and fa+orabl recommended the appro+al of A*ENOs application for an ECC$ $ The E7' of .E!9 9e"ion 5 "ranted an en+ironmental compliance certificate (ECC) to the .#E and A*EN for the offshore oil and "as eploration proect, hence, A*EN be"an to drill an eplorator /ell near *inam&n"aan to/n in the /estern Ceb& *ro+ince /hich lasted &ntil Febr&ar 8, 448$ ;$ separate ori"inal petitions /ere filed b petitioners /ith SC s eein" respondents to be enoined from implementin" SC-6; for +iolation of the 185 Constit&tion$ 5$ 7otion to Strie its name as a respondent /as filed b S&ppl #ilfield Ser+ices, 0nc$ (S#S) as t he alle"ed *hilippine a"ent of A*EN claimin" that it had acted as a mere lo"istics contractor for A*EN in its oil and "as eploration acti+ities$ 8$ S&ch motion /as opposed b petitioners on the follo/in" "ro&nds /hich /as also adopted b F0.EC: a$ 0t /as premat&re, it /as pro-forma, and it /as patentl dilator$ b$ S#S admitted that ?it is in la/ a pri+ to A*EN? since it did the drillin" and other eploration acti+ities in TaJon Strait &nder the instr&ctions of its principal, A*EN$ c$ 0t /o&ld be premat&re to drop S#S as a part as A*EN had not et been oined in the case$ $ *etitioners ased the Co&rt to implead A*EN *hilippines as a co-respondent or as a s&bstit&te for its parent compan, A*EN$ A*EN d&rin" all this time, did not file an comment at all$ 14$ SC iss&ed and personall ser+ed a 9esol&tion directin" the Co&rtOs process ser+icin" &nit to a"ain ser+e the parties /ith a cop of the September 3, 448 9esol&tion re<&irin" the parties to s&bmit their respecti+e memoranda$ 11$ 7otion to Admit its 7otion for Clarification filed b A*EN b /a of special appearance /here it re<&ested to be clarified as to /hether or not it sho&ld deem the Febr&ar 5, 41 9esol&tion as this Co&rtOs #rder of its incl&sion in the case, as it has not been impleaded$ 0t also alle"ed that A*EN *H had alread stopped eploration acti+ities /a bac in 448, renderin" this case moot$ 1$ 7otion for Etension of Time to file its 7emorand&m filed b A*EN *H also b special appearance 13$ SC iss&ed 9esol&tion (April 6, 41) - "rantin" A*EN *HOs 7otion to Admit its 7otion for Clarification, and statin" that: a) it considers A*EN *H - a real part-in-interest in these cases b) Section , 9&le 3 of the 15 9&les of Co&rt - a real part-in-interest is the part /ho stands to be benefited or in&red b the &d"ment in the s&it, or the part entitled to the a+ails of the s&it$ c) A*EN *H has no separate personalit from its mother forei"n corporation, A*EN Compan, Ltd$ /hich /as the part impleaded in this case beca&se it /as established as a mere branch office, for the p&rpose of carrin" o&t the latterOs b&siness transactions here in the *hilippines$ d) Section 18 of the Corporation Code the f&nction of a resident a"ent is to recei+e s&mmons or le"al processes t hat ma be ser+ed in all actions or other le"al proceedin"s a"ainst the forei"n corporation$
*etitionersO Alle"ations: 1$ Ad+erse ecolo"ical impact of A*ENOs oil eploration acti+ities in the TaJon Strait: a$ A st&d made after the seismic s&r+e sho/ed that the fish catch /as red&ced drasticall b 4 to 54 percent d&e to the destr&ction of the ?paao? or ?fish a""re"atin" de+ice? or ?artificial reef? $ The ECC obtained b A*EN is in+alid beca&se p&blic cons<ations and disc&ssions /ith t he affected staeholders, a pre-re<&isite to the iss&ance of the ECC, /ere not held prior to the ECCOs i ss&ance$ 3$ 9espondents .E!9 and E7' ab&sed their discretion /hen the iss&ed an ECC to p&blic respondent .#E and pri+ate respondent A*EN /itho&t ens&rin" the strict compliance /ith the proced&ral and s&bstanti+e re<&irements &nder the En+ironmental 0mpact Assessment sstem, the Fisheries Code, and their implementin" r&les and re"&lations$ 6$ *etitioners, thro&"h the Ste/ards, claim that the ha+e the le"al standin" t o file this action since the stand to be benefited or in&red b the &d"ment in this s&it$ a$ #posa +$ Factoran, r$ the assert their ri"ht to s&e and the ri"ht to demand that the be accorded the benefits "ranted to them in m<ilateral international instr&ments that the *hilippine o+ernment had si"ned, &nder the concept of stip&lation po&r a&tr&i$ b$ The Ste/ards ha+e ri"ht to represent the 9esident 7arine 7ammals as the ha+e staes in the case as forer&nners of a campai"n to b&ild a/areness amon" the affected residents of TaJon Strait and as ste/ards of the en+ironment since the primar ste/ard, the o+ernment, had failed in its d&t to protect the en+ironment p&rs&ant to the p&blic tr&st doctrine$ c$ SC ma lo/er the benchmar in loc&s standi as an eercise of epistolar &risdiction 9espondentsO Alle"ations: 1$ petitioners 9esident 7arine 7ammals and Ste/ards ha+e no le"al standin" to file the present petition $ SC-6; does not +iolate the 185 Constit&tion and the +ario&s la/s cited in the petitions 3$ the ECC /as iss&ed in accordance /ith eistin" la/s and re"&lations2 6$ p&blic respondents ma not be compelled b mandam&s to f&rnish petitioners copies of all doc&ments relatin" to SC-6; $ petitioners failed to sho/ that the are entitled to i n&ncti+e relief ;$ the iss&es raised in these petitions ha+e been rendered moot and academic b the fact that SC-6; had been m&t&all terminated b the parties thereto effecti+e &ne 1, 448 5$ 9esident 7arine 7ammals ha+e no standin" &nder Section 1, 9&le 3 of the 9&les of Co&rt re<&ires parties to an action to be either nat&ral or &ridical persons$ a$ !on-applicabilit of #posa case since the petitioners therein /ere all nat&ral persons, albeit some of them /ere still &nborn$ Since the petition /as not bro&"ht in the name of a real part -in-interest, it sho&ld be dismissed for fail&re to state a ca&se of action$ b$ The Ste/ards cannot claim of le"al standin" on the "ro&nd that the are representin" animals, /hich cannot be parties to an action$ The Ste/ards are not the real parties-in-interest for their fail&re to sho/ ho/ the stand to be benefited or in&red b the decision in this case$ c$ 0n+oin" the alter e"o principle in political la/ - respondents claim that absent an proof that former *resident Arroo had disappro+ed of their acts in enterin" into and implementin" SC-6;, s&ch acts remain to be her o/n$ 0ss&es: 1$ *roced&ral 0ss&e: Loc&s Standi of the 9esident 7arine 7ammals and Ste/ards, petitioners in $9$ !o$ 184551 $ 7ain 0ss&e: Le"alit of Ser+ice Contract !o$ 6;$ 9&lin": Loc&s Standi of *etitioners 9esident 7arine 7ammals and Ste/ards 1$ The 9&les of *roced&re for En+ironmental Cases allo/s for a ?citiGen s&it? and permit an Filipino citiGen to fil e an action before o&r co&rts for +iolations of o&r en+ironmental la/s: SEC$ $ CitiGen s&it$ - An Filipino citiGen in representation of others, incl&din" minors or "enerations et &nborn, ma file an action to enforce ri"hts or obli"ations &nder en+ironmental la/s$ pon the filin" of a citiGen s &it, the co&rt shall iss&e an order /hich shall contain a brief description of the ca&se of action and the reliefs praed for, re<&irin" all interested parties to manifest their interest to inter+ene in the case /ithin fifteen (1) das from notice thereof$ The plaintiff ma p&blish the order once in a ne/spaper of a "eneral circ&lation in the *hilippines or f&rnish all affected baran"as copies of said order$ $ 9ationale for this r&le - to f&rther enco&ra"e the protection of the en+ironment, the 9&les enable liti"ants enforcin" en+ironmental ri"hts to file their cases as citiGen s&its$ This pro+ision liberaliGes standin" for all cases filed enforcin"
en+ironmental la/s and collapses the traditional r&le on personal and direct interest, on the principle that h&mans are ste/ards of nat&re$ The terminolo" of the tet reflects the doctrine first en&nciated in #posa +$ Factoran$ 3$ Altho&"h this petition /as filed in 445, ears before the effecti+it of the 9&les of *roced&re for En+ironmental Cases, it has been consistentl held that r&les of proced&re ?ma be retroacti+el applied to actions pendin" and &ndetermined at the time of their passa"e and /ill not +iolate an ri"ht of a person /ho ma feel that he is ad+ersel affected, inasm&ch as there is no +ested ri"hts in r&les of proced&re$? 6$ E+en before the 9&les of *roced&re for En+ironmental Cases became effecti+e, this Co&rt had alread taen a permissi+e position on the iss&e of loc&s standi in en+ironmental cases$ 0n #posa, /e allo/ed the s&it to be bro&"ht in the name of "enerations et &nborn ?based on the concept of inter"enerational responsibilit insofar as the ri"ht to a balanced and healthf&l ecolo" is concerned$? F&rthermore, /e said that the ri"ht to a balanced and healthf&l ecolo", a ri"ht that does not e+en need to be stated in o&r Constit&tion as it is ass&med to eist from the inception of h&manind, carries /ith it the correlati+e d&t to refrain from impairin" the en+ironment$ $ 0n li"ht of the fore"oin", the need to "i+e the 9esident 7arine 7ammals le"al standin" has been eliminated b o&r 9&les, /hich allo/ an Filipino citiGen, as a ste/ard of nat&re, to brin" a s&it to enforce o&r en+ironmental la/s$ 0t is /orth notin" here that the Ste/ards are oined as real parties in the *etition and not &st in representation of the named cetacean species$ The Ste/ards, 9amos and Eisma-#sorio, ha+in" sho/n in their petition that there ma be possible +iolations of la/s concernin" the habitat of the 9esident 7arine 7ammals, are therefore declared to possess t he le"al standin" to file this petition$ #n the main iss&e - Ser+ice Contract !o$ 6; is declared !LL A!. B#0. for +iolatin" the 185 Constit&tion, 9ep&blic Act !o$ 58;, and *residential .ecree !o$ 18;$
THEO8ORE and NANCY ANG, represented b ATTY. EL8RIGE $AR3IN B. ACERON vs. SPO:SES ALAN and E$ ANG G.R. No. %/5002 A+4+st )), )*%)
FACTS: #n Sept$ 1, spo&ses Alan and Em An" (respondents) obtained a loan in the a mo&nt of SR344,444$44 from Theodore and !anc An" (petitioners)$ As sec&rit, the respondents iss&ed a promissor note /ith an interest at the rate of ten percent (14) per ann&m, paable &pon demand$ Ho/e+er, despite repeated demands, the respondents defa<ed$ 0n 44;, the debt a""re"ated to a total of SR51,;51$3, incl&si+e of the ten percent (14) ann&al interest that had acc&m&lated o+er the ears$ !ot/ithstandin" the receipt of the demand letter iss&ed, the respondents still failed to settle their loan obli"ation$ 0n the same ear, the petitioners, /ho /ere then residin" in Los An"eles, California, eec&ted an S*A in fa+or of Attorne Eldri"e 7ar+in '$ Aceron (Att$ Aceron) for the p&rpose of filin" an action in co&rt a"ainst the respondents$ #n September 1, 44;, Att$ Aceron, in behalf of the petitioners, filed a Complaint for collection of s&m of mone /ith the 9TC of I&eGon Cit a"ainst the respondents$ Ho/e+er, the respondents mo+ed for the dismissal of the complaint on the "ro&nds of improper +en&e and prescription$ 0nsistin" that the +en&e of the petitioners% action /as improperl laid, the respondents asserted that the complaint a"ainst them ma onl be filed in t he co&rt of the place /here either the or the petitioners reside$ The a+erred that the reside in 'acolod Cit /hile the petitioners reside in Los An"eles, California, SA$ Th&s, the respondents maintain, the filin" of the complaint a"ainst them in the 9TC of I&eGon Cit /as improper$ *ET0T0#!E9S: 7aintain that their complaint for collection of s&m of mone a"ainst the respondents ma be filed i n the 9TC of I&eGon Cit$ 0n+oin" Section 3, 9&le 3 of the 9&les of Co&rt, the insist that Att$ Aceron, bein" their attorne-in-fact, is deemed a real part in interest in the case belo/ and can prosec&te the same before the 9TC of I&eGon Cit, /here he resides$ 9ES*#!.E!TS: Assert that the petitioners are proscribed from filin" their complaint in the 9TC of I&eGon Cit$ The assert that the residence of Att$ Aceron, bein" merel a representati+e, is immaterial to the determination of the +en&e of the petitioners% complaint$ 0SSES: 1$ hether or not the filin" of the complaint in 9TC I&eGon Cit is proper $ hether or not Att$ Aceron, bein" an attorne-in-fact is a real part in interest HEL.:
1$ !o$ The case sho&ld ha+e been filed /ith the 9TC of 'acolod Cit$ The petitioners% complaint for collection of s&m of mone a"ainst the respondents is a personal action as it primaril sees the enforcement of a contract$ The 9&les "i+e the plaintiff the option of choosin" /here to file his complaint$ He can file it in the place (1) /here he himself or an of them resides, or () /here the defendant or an of the defendants resides or ma be fo&nd$ The plaintiff or the defendant m&st be residents of the place /here the action has been instit&ted at the time the action is commenced$ Ho/e+er, if the plaintiff does not reside in the *hilippines, the complaint in s&ch case ma onl be filed in the co&rt of the place /here the defendant resides$ Here, the petitioners are residents of Los An"eles, California, SA /hile the respondents reside in 'acolod Cit$ Applin" the fore"oin" principles, the petitioners% complaint a"ainst the respondents ma onl be filed in the 9TC of 'acolod Cit the co&rt of the place /here the respondents reside$ The petitioners, bein" residents of Los An"eles, California, SA, are not "i+en the choice as to the +en&e of the filin" of their complaint$ $ !o$ Contrar to the petitioners% claim, Att$ Aceron, despite bein" the attorne-in-fact of the petitioners, is not a real part in interest in the case belo/$ Section , 9&le 3 of the 9&les of Co&rt reads: Sec$ $ *arties in interest$ A real part in interest is the part /ho stands to be benefited or in&red b the &d"ment in the s&it, or the part entitled to the a+ails of the s&it$ nless other/ise a&thoriGed b la/ or these 9&les, e+er action m&st be prosec&ted or defended in the name of the real part in interest$ 0nterest /ithin the meanin" of the 9&les of Co&rt means material interest or an interest in iss&e to be affected b the decree or &d"ment of the case, as distin"&ished from mere c&riosit abo&t the <&estion in+ol+ed$ A real part in interest is the part /ho, b the s&bstanti+e la/, has the ri"ht so&"ht to be enforced$ 'ein" merel a representati+e of the petitioners, Att$ Aceron in his personal capacit does not ha+e the ri"ht to file the complaint belo/ a"ainst the respondents$ He ma onl do so, as /hat he did, in behalf of the petitioners the real parties in interest$ To stress, the ri"ht so&"ht to be enforced in the case belo/ belon"s to the petitioners and not to Att$ Aceron$ Clearl, an attorne-in-fact is not a real part in interest$ S&ch appointment, ho/e+er, does not mean that he is s&bro"ated into the ri"hts of petitioners and o&"ht to be considered as a real part in interest$ The petitioner%s reliance on Section 3, 9&le 3 of the 9&les of Co&rt to s&pport their concl&sion that Att$ Aceron is lie/ise a part in interest in the case belo/ is misplaced$ Section 3, 9&le 3 of the 9&les of Co&rt pro+ides that: Sec$ 3$ 9epresentati+es as parties$ here the action is allo/ed to be prosec&ted and defended b a representati+e or someone actin" in a fid&ciar capacit, the beneficiar shall be incl&ded in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real propert in interest$ A representati+e ma be a tr&stee of an epert tr&st, a "&ardian, an eec&tor or administrator, or a part a&thoriGed b la/ or these 9&les$ An a"ent actin" in his o/n name and for the benefit of an &ndisclosed principal ma s&e or be s&ed /itho&t oinin" the principal ecept /hen the contract in+ol+es thin"s belon"in" to the principal$ !o/here in the r&le cited abo+e is it stated or, at the +er least implied, that the representati+e is lie/ise deemed as the real part in interest$ The said r&le simpl states that, i n actions /hich are allo/ed to be prosec&ted or defended b a representati+e, the beneficiar shall be deemed the real part in interest and, hence, sho&ld be incl&ded in the ti tle of the case$ 0ndeed, to constr&e the epress re<&irement of residence &nder the r&les on +en&e as applicable to the attorne-in-fact of the plaintiff /o&ld abro"ate the meanin" of a ?real part in interest?, as defined in Section of 9&le 3 of the 15 9&les of Co&rt +is--+is Section 3 of the same 9&le$ The petition is denied$ ------re---->G.R. No. %)%%&%. 8e#e(ber )0, %00/? ASSET PRI3ATI;ATION TR:ST, petitioner, vs., CO:RT OF APPEALS, 1ES:S S. CABARR:S, SR., 1ES:S S. CABARR:S, 1R., 1AI$E T. CABARR:S, 1OSE $IG:EL CABARR:S, ALE1AN8RO S. PASTOR, 1R., ANTONIO :. $IRAN8A, and $IG:EL $. ANTONIO, as $inorit Sto#@ Hoders o6 $arind++e $inin4 and Ind+stria Corporation, respondents.
Facts: The de+elopment, eploration and &tiliGation of the mineral deposits in the S&ri"ao 7ineral 9eser+ation ha+e been a&thoriGed b 9ep&blic Act !o$ 188, b +irt&e of /hich la/, a 7emorand&m of A"reement /as dra/n on &l 3, 1;8, /hereb the 9ep&blic of the *hilippines thr& the S&ri"ao 7ineral 9eser+ation 'oard, "ranted 7arind&<&e 7inin" and 0nd&strial Corporation (770C) the ecl&si+e ri"ht to eplore, de+elop and eploit nicel, cobalt and other minerals in the S&ri"ao mineral reser+ation$ The *hilippine o+ernment &ndertoo to s&pport the financin" of 770C b p&rchase of 770C debent&re and etension of "&arantees$ The "o+ernment then iss&ed debent&re bonds in fa+or of 770C /hich enabled the latter to tae o&t loans from the .e+elopment 'an of the *hilippines (.'*) and the *hilippine !ational 'an (*!')$ The loans /ere mort"a"ed b 770C%s assets$
' 186, .'* and *!'s financial epos&re both in loans and in e<&it in 770C had reached tremendo&s proportions, and 770C /as ha+in" a diffic< time meetin" its financial obli"ations$ 770C had an o&tstandin" loan /ith .'* in the amo&nt of *13,5,;45,;$ as of A&"&st 31, 186 and in the amo&nt of *8,58,48,6$38 as of &l 1, 186 or a total o+ernment epos&re of T/ent T/o 'illion Si H&ndred Sit-Ei"ht 7illion Fi+e H&ndred Thirt-Se+en Tho&sand Se+en H&ndred Se+ent and 4@144 (*,;;8,35,554$4), *hilippine C&rrenc$ 0n order to miti"ate 770C%s loan liabilit, a financial restr&ct&rin" plan (F9*) /as drafted in the presence of 770C%s representati+es as /ell as representati+es from .'* and *!'$ The t/o bans ho/e+er ne+er formall appro+ed the said F9*$ 0n A&"&st and September 186, as the +ario&s loans and ad+ances made b .'* and *!' to 770C had become o+erd&e and since an restr&ct&rin" pro"ram relati+e to the loans /as no lon"er feasible, and in compliance /ith the directi+e of *residential .ecree !o$ 38, .'* and *!' as mort"a"ees of 770C assets, decided to eercise their ri"ht to etra&diciall foreclose the mort"a"es in accordance /ith the 7ort"a"e Tr&st A"reement$ The foreclosed assets /ere sold to *!' as the lone bidder and /ere assi"ned to three ne/l formed corporations, namel, !onoc 7inin" Corporation, 7arical&m 7inin" and 0nd&strial Corporation, and 0sland Cement Corporation$ 0n 18;, these assets /ere transferred to the Asset *ri+atiGation Tr&st (A*T)$ #n Febr&ar 8, 18, es&s S$ Cabarr&s, Sr$, to"ether /ith the other stocholders of 770C, filed a deri+ati+e s&it a"ainst .'* and *!' before the 9TC of 7aati, 'ranch ;, for Ann&lment of Foreclos&res, Specific *erformance and .ama"es$ The s&it, doceted as Ci+il Case !o$ 44, praed that the co&rt: (1) ann&l the foreclos&re, restore the foreclosed assets to 770C, and re<&ire the bans to acco&nt for their &se and operation in the interi m2 () direct the bans to honor and perform their commitments &nder the alle"ed F9*2 and (3) pa moral and eemplar dama"es, attornes fees, liti"ation epenses and costs$ 0n the co&rse of the trial, pri+ate respondents and petitioner A*T, as s&ccessor of the .'* and *!'s interest in 770C, m&t&all a"reed to s&bmit the case to arbitration b enterin" into a Compromise and Arbitration A"reement to determine (a) hether *LA0!T0FFS ha+e the capacit or the personalit to instit&te this deri+ati+e s&it in behalf of the 770C or its directors2 (b) hether or not the actions leadin" to, and incl&din", the *!'-.'* foreclos&re of the 770C assets /ere proper, +alid and in "ood faith$ After cond&ctin" se+eral hearin"s, the Arbitration Committee rendered a maorit decision in fa+o&r of 770C$ 7otions for reconsiderations /ere filed b both parties b&t the same /ere denied$ 0n 16, pri+ate respondents filed in the same Ci+il Case !o$ 44 an Application@7otion for Confirmation of Arbitration A/ard$Q *etitioner co&ntered /ith an opposition ar"&in" that a dismissal of Ci+il Case !o$ 44 /as merel a <&alified dismissal to pa+e the /a for the s&bmission of the contro+ers to arbitration, and operated simpl as Pa mere s&spension of the proceedin"s$Q 0n an #rder dated !o+ember 8, 16, the trial co&rt confirmed the a/ard of the Arbitration Committee$ 0ss&e: hether or not the 9TC of 7aati has &risdiction to confirm the arbitral a/ard Held: Admittedl the correct proced&re /as for the parties to "o bac to the co&rt /here the case /as pendin" to ha+e the a/ard confirmed b said co&rt$ Ho/e+er, 'ranch ; made the fatal mistae of iss&in" a final order dismissin" the case$ hile 'ranch ; sho&ld ha+e merel s&spended the case and not dismissed it, neither of the parties <&estioned said dismissal$ Th&s, both parties as /ell as said co&rt are bo&nd b s&ch error$ 0t is erroneo&s then to ar"&e, as pri+ate respondents do, that petitioner A*T /as char"ed /ith the no/led"e that the case /as merel staed &ntil arbitration finished, as a"ain, the order of 'ranch ; in +er clear terms stated that the complaint /as dismissed$ ' its o/n action, 'ranch ; had lost &risdiction o+er the +ase$ 0t co&ld not ha+e +alidl reac<&ired &risdiction o+er the said case on mere motion of one of the parties$ The 9&les of Co&rt is specific on ho/ a ne/ case ma be initiated and s&ch is not done b mere motion in a partic&lar branch of the 9TC$ Conse<&entl, as there /as no pendin" action to spea of, the petition to confirm the arbitral a/ard sho&ld ha+e been filed as a ne/ case and raffled accordin"l to one of the branches of the 9e"ional Trial Co&rt$ Estoppel The Co&rt of Appeals r&led that A*T /as alread estopped to <&estion the &risdiction of the 9TC to confirm the arbitral a/ard beca&se it so&"ht affirmati+e relief in said co&rt b asin" that the arbitral a/ard be +acated$ The r&le is that here the co&rt itself clearl has no &risdiction o+er the s&bect matter or the nat&re of the action, the in+ocation of this defense ma de done at an time$ 0t is neither for the co&rts nor for the parties to +iolate or disre"ard that r&le, let alone to confer that &risdiction, this matter bein" le"islati +e in character$ *etitioners sit&ation is different beca&se from the o&tset, it has consistentl held the position that the 9TC, 'ranch ; had no &risdiction to confirm the arbitral a/ard2 conse<&entl, it cannot be said that it /as estopped from <&estionin" the 9TCs &risdiction$ *etitioners praer for the settin" aside of the arbitral a/ard /as not inconsistent /ith its disa+o/al of the co&rts &risdiction$ !at&re and limits of the Arbitrators po/ers As a r&le, the a/ard of an arbitrator cannot be set aside for mere errors of &d"ment either as to the la/ or as to the facts$=> Co&rts are /itho&t po/er to amend or o+err&le merel beca&se of disa"reement /ith matters of la/ or facts
determined b the arbitrators$=34> The /ill not re+ie/ the findin"s of la/ and fact contained in an a/ard, and /ill not &ndertae to s&bstit&te their &d"ment for that of the arbitrators, since an other r&le /o&ld mae an a/ard the commencement, not the end, of liti"ation$=31> Errors of la/ and fact, or an erroneo&s decision of matters s&bmitted to the &d"ment of the arbitrators, are ins&fficient to in+alidate an a/ard fairl and honestl made$=3> &dicial re+ie/ of an arbitration is, th&s, more limited than &dicial re+ie/ of a trial$=33> !onetheless, the arbitrators a/ards is not absol&te and /itho&t eceptions$ The arbitrators cannot resol+e iss&es beond the scope of the s&bmission a"reement$=36> The parties to s&ch an a"reement are bo&nd b the arbitrators a/ard onl to the etent and in the manner prescribed b the contract and onl if the a/ard is rendered in conformit thereto$ Accordin"l, Section 4 of 9$A$ 85; pro+ides: SEC$ 4$ Form and contents of a/ard$ The a/ard m&st be made in /ritin" and si"ned and acno/led"ed b a maorit of the arbitrators, if more than one2 and b the sole arbitrator, if there is onl one$ Each part shall be f&rnished /ith a cop of the a/ard$ The arbitrators in their a/ard ma "rant an remed or relief /hich the deem &st and e<&itable and /ithin the scope of the a"reement of the parties, /hich shall incl&de, b&t not be limited to, the specific performance of a contract$ The arbitrators shall ha+e the po/er to decide onl those matters /hich ha+e been s&bmitted to them$ The terms of the a/ard shall be confined to s&ch disp&tes$ (nderscorin" o&rs)$ PA$PLONA PLANTATION CO$PANY, INC. vs. TINGHIL G.R. No. %'0%)%= Febr+ar 2, )**'
FACTS: Sometime in 13, =*etitioner> *amplona *lantations Compan, 0nc$ (compan for bre+it) /as or"aniGed for the p&rpose of tain" o+er the operations of the cocon&t and s&"ar plantation of Hacienda *amplona located in *amplona, !e"ros #riental$ 0t appears that Hacienda *amplona /as formerl o/ned b a certain 7r$ 'o/er /ho had in his emplo se+eral a"ric<&ral /orers$ hen the compan too o+er the operation of Hacienda *amplona in 13, it did not absorb all the /orers of Hacienda *amplona$ Some, ho/e+er, /ere hired b the compan d&rin" har+est season as cocon&t hooers or saador, cocon&t filers, cocon&t ha&lers, cocon&t scoopers or l&"iteros, a nd charcoal maers$ Sometime in 1, *amplona *lantation Leis&re Corporation /as established for the p&rpose of en"a"in" in the b&siness of operatin" to&rist resorts, hotels, and inns, /ith complementar facilities, s&ch as resta&rants, bars, bo&ti<&es, ser+ice shops, entertainment, "olf co&rses, tennis co&rts, and other land and a<&atic sports and leis&re facilities$ #n 1 .ecember 1;, the *amplona *lantation Labor 0ndependent nion (*A*L0) cond&cted an or"aniGational meetin" /herein se+eral =respondents> /ho are either &nion members or officers participated in said meetin"$ pon learnin" that some of the =respondents> attended the said meetin", =*etitioner> ose L&is 'ondoc, mana"er of the compan, did not allo/ =respondents> to /or anmore in the plantation$ Thereafter, on +ario&s dates, =respondents> filed their respecti+e complaints /ith the !L9C, S&b-9e"ional Arbitration 'ranch !o$ B00, .&ma"&ete Cit a"ainst =petitioners> for &nfair labor practice, ille"al dismissal, &nderpament, o+ertime pa, premi&m pa for rest da and holidas, ser+ice incenti+e lea+e pa, dama"es, attornes fees and 13th month pa$ #n 4 #ctober 15, =respondent> Carlito Tin"hil amended his complaint to implead *amplona *lantation Leis&re Corporation $ #n 31 A&"&st 18, Labor Arbiter ose $ &tierreG rendered a decision findin" =respondents>, ecept 9&fino 'ac&bac, Antonio Caolas and Feli Torres /ho /ere complainants in another case, to be entitled to separation pa$ =*etitioners> appealed the Labor Arbiters decision to =the> !L9C$ 0n the assailed decision dated 1 &l 444, the !L9Cs Fo&rth .i+ision re+ersed the Labor Arbiter, r&lin" that =respondents>, ecept Carlito Tin"hil, failed to implead *amplona *lantation Leis&re Corporation, an indispensable part and that there eist no emploer-emploee relation bet/een the parties$ =9espondents> filed a motion for reconsideration /hich /as denied b =the> !L9C in a 9esol&tion dated 4; .ecember 444$=8>
9espondents ele+ated the case to the CA +ia a *etition for Certiorari &nder 9&le ; of the 9&les of Co&rt$ CA held that respondents /ere emploees of petitioner-compan$ Findin" there /as a po/er to hire, the appellate co&rt considered the admission of petitioners in their Comment that the had hired respondents as cocon&t filers, cocon&t scoopers, charcoal maers, or as piece/orers$ The fact that respondents /ere paid b piece/or did not mean that the /ere not emploees of the compan$ F&rther, the CA r&led that petitioners necessaril eercised control o+er the /or the performed, since the latter /ere /orin" /ithin the premises of the plantation$ Accordin" to the CA, the mere eistence -- not necessaril the act&al eercise -- of the ri"ht to control the manner of doin" /or s&fficed to meet the fo&rth element of an emploer-emploee relation$ The appellate co&rt also held that respondents /ere re"&lar emploees, beca&se the tass the performed /ere necessar and indispensable to the operation of the compan$ Since there /as no compliance /ith the t/in re<&irements of a +alid and@or a&thoriGed ca&se and of proced&ral d&e process, their dismissal /as ille"al$ Hence, this *etition$
0SSE: hether or not the case sho&ld be dismissed for the non-oinder of the *amplona *lantation Leis&re Corporation$
HEL.: rantin" for the sae of ar"&ment that the *amplona *lantation Leis&re Corporation is an indispensable part that sho&ld be impleaded, !L9Cs o&tri"ht dismissal of the Complaints /as still erroneo&s$ The non-oinder of indispensable parties is not a "ro&nd for the dismissal of an action$ At an sta"e of a &dicial proceedin" and@or at s&ch times as are &st, parties ma be added on the motion of a part or on the initiati+e of the trib&nal concerned$ 0f the plaintiff ref&ses to implead an indispensable part despite the order of the co&rt, that co&rt ma dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs fail&re to compl /ith the order$ The remed is to implead the non-part claimed to be indispensable$ 0n this case, the !L9C did not re<&ire respondents to implead the *a mplona *lantation Leis&re Corporation as respondent2 instead, the Commission s&mmaril dismissed the Complaints$ 0n an e+ent, there is no need to implead the leis&re corporation beca&se, insofar as respondents are concerned, the leis&re corporation and petitioner-compan are one and the same entit$ Sal+ador +$ Co&rt of Appeals has held that this Co&rt has f&ll po/ers, apart from that po/er and a&thorit /hich is inherent, to amend the processes, pleadin"s, proceedin"s and decisions b s&bstit&tin" as part-plaintiff the real part-in-interest$ 0n Alonso +$ Billamor, /e had the occasion to state th&s: There is nothin" sacred abo&t processes or pleadin"s, their forms or contents$ Their sole p&rpose is to facilitate the application of &stice to the ri+al claims of contendin" parties$ The /ere created, not to hinder and dela, b&t to facilitate and promote, the administration of &stice$ The do not constit&te the thin" itself, /hich co&rts are al/a s stri+in" to sec&re to liti"ants$ The are desi"ned as the means best adapted to obtain that thin"$ 0n other /ords, the are a means to an end$ hen the lose the character of the one and become the other, the administration of &stice is at fa< and co&rts are correspondin"l remiss in the performance of their ob+io&s d&t$ The controllin" principle in the interpretation of proced&ral r&les is liberalit, so that the ma promote their obect and assist the parties in obtainin" &st, speed and inepensi+e determination of e+er action and proceedin"$ hen the r&les are applied to labor cases, this liberal interpretation m&st be &pheld /ith e+en "reater +i"or$ itho&t in an /a depri+in" the emploer of its le"al ri"hts, the thr&st of stat&tes and r&les "o+ernin" labor cases has been to benefit /orers and a+oid s&bectin" them to "reat delas and hardships$ This intent holds especiall in this cas e, in /hich the plaintiffs are poor laborers$ ----cos a"on---%). BPI FA$ILY SA3INGS BAN<, INC., Petitioner, v. SPO:SES BENE8ICTO 7 TERESITA Y:1:ICO, Respondents. G.R. No. %&'&05, 1+ )), )*%'
BERSA$IN, 1.
An action to reco+er the deficienc after etra&dicial foreclos&re of a real propert mort"a"e is a personal action beca&se it does not affect title to or possession of real propert, or an interest therein$ FACTS: #n 1;, the Cit of 7anila filed a complaint a"ainst the respondents for the epropriation of fi+e parcels of land located in Tondo, 7anila and re"istered in the name of respondent Teresita K&&ico$ T/o of the parcels of land, TCT !o$ ;1331 and TCT !o$ ;133, /ere pre+io&sl mort"a"ed to Cittr&st 'anin" Corporation, the petitioner%s predecessor-in-interest, &nder a First 9eal Estate 7ort"a"e Contract$ The 7anila 9TC declared the fi+e parcels of land epropriated for p&blic &se$ The &d"ment became final and eec&tor and /as entered in the boo of entries of &d"ment$ The petitioner then filed a 7otion to 0nter+ene in Eec&tion /ith *artial #pposition to .efendant%s 9e<&est to 9elease, b&t the 9TC denied the motion for ha+in" been Pfiled o&t of time$Q Hence, the petitioner decided to etra&diciall foreclose the mort"a"e constit&ted on the t/o parcels of land s&bect of the respondents% loan$ After holdin" the p&blic a&ction, the sheriff a/arded the t/o lots to the petitioner as the hi"hest bidder at *14,444,444$44$ Claimin" a deficienc amo&ntin" to *18,$1$6, the petitioner s&ed the respondents to reco+er s&ch deficienc in the 7aati 9TC$ The respondents mo+ed to dismiss the complaint on se+eral "ro&nds: that the s&it /as barred b res &dicata2 that the complaint stated no ca&se of action2 and that the plaintiff%s claim had been /ai+ed, abandoned, or etin"&ished$ The 7aati 9TC denied the respondents% motion to dismiss, r&lin" that there /as no res &dicata2 that the complaint stated a s&fficient ca&se of action to reco+er the deficienc2 and that there /as nothin" to s &pport the claim that the obli"ation had been abandoned or etin"&ished apart from the respondents% contention that the properties had been s&bected to epropriation b the Cit of 7anila$ The respondents mo+ed for reconsideration, reiteratin" their "ro&nds earlier made in their motion to dismiss$ The petitioner adopted its comment@opposition to the motion to dismiss$ The respondents then filed their repl, in /hich the raised for the first time their obection on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e contendin" that the action for the reco+er of the deficienc, bein" a s&pplementar action of t he etra&dicial foreclos&re proceedin"s, /as a real action that sho&ld ha+e been bro&"ht in the 7anila 9TC beca&se 7anila /as the place /here the properties /ere located$ The 7aati 9TC denied the respondents% motion for reconsideration for its lac of merit2 and held that it is improper to dismiss the plaintiff%s complaint on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e, ass&min" that the +en&e is indeed improperl laid, since the said "ro&nd /as not raised in the defendant%s 7otion to .ismiss$ pon appeal, the CA "ranted the petition for certiorari of the respondents holdin" that a s&it for reco+er of the deficienc after the foreclos&re of a mort"a"e is in the nat&re of a mort"a"e action beca&se its p&rpose is precisel to enforce the mort"a"e contract2 it is &pon a /ritten contract and &pon an obli"ation of the mort"a"e-debtor to pa the deficienc /hich is created b la/$ As s&ch, the +en&e of an action for reco+er of deficienc m&st necessaril be the same +en&e as that of the etra&dicial foreclos&re of mort"a"e Th&s, the s&it for &d"ment on the deficienc filed b respondent '*0 a"ainst petitioners K&&ico, bein" an action emanatin" from the foreclos&re of the real estate mort"a"e contract bet/een them, m&st necessaril be filed also at the 9TC of 7anila, not at the 9TC of 7aati$ The CA denied the respondents% 7otion for *artial 9econsideration and the petitioner%s *artial 7otion for 9econsideration on .ecember 5, 44;$ 0ss&es: 0s the CA correct in r&lin" that the +en&e of an action for reco+er of deficienc m&st necessaril be the same +en&e as that of the etra&dicial foreclos&re of mort"a"eM 9&lin" of the Co&rt: !o$ 0t is basic that the +en&e of an action depends on /hether it is a real or a personal action$ The determinants of /hether an action is of a real or a personal nat&re ha+e been fied b the 9&les of Co&rt and rele+ant &rispr&dence$ Accordin"
to Section 1, 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt, a real action is one that affects title to or possession of real propert, or an interest therein$ Th&s, an action for partition or condemnation of, or foreclos&re of mort"a"e on, real propert is a real action$ The real action is to be commenced and tried in the proper co&rt ha+in" &risdiction o+er the area /herein the real propert in+ol+ed, or a portion thereof, is sit&ated, /hich eplains /h the action is also referred to as a local action$ 0n contrast, the 9&les of Co&rt declares all other actions as personal actions$ S&ch actions ma incl&de those bro&"ht for the reco+er of personal propert, or for the enforcement of some contract or reco+er of dama"es for its breach, or for the reco+er of dama"es for the commission of an in&r to the person or propert$ The +en&e of a personal action is the place /here the plaintiff or an of the principal plaintiffs resides, or /here the defendant or an of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant /here he ma be fo&nd, at the election of the plaintiff, for /hich reason the action is considered a transitor one$ 'ased on the distinctions bet/een real and personal actions, an action to reco+er the deficienc after the etra&dicial foreclos&re of the real propert mort"a"e is a personal action, for it does not affect title to or possession of real propert, or an interest therein$ i+en the fore"oin", the petitioner correctl bro&"ht Ci+il Case !o$ 43-64 in the 7aati 9TC beca&se 7aati /as the place /here the main office of the petitioner /as located$ 7oreo+er, the 7aati 9TC obser+ed, and the obser+ation is correct in o&r +ie/, that it /o&ld be improper to dismiss Ci+il Case !o$ 43-64 on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e, ass&min" that the +en&e had been improperl laid, considerin" that the respondents had not raised s&ch "ro&nd in their 7otion to .ismiss$ As earlier indicated, the came to raise the obection of improper +en&e for the first time onl in their repl to the petitioner%s comment on their 7otion for 9econsideration$ The did so belatedl$ e &nderscore that in ci+il proceedin"s, +en&e is proced&ral, not &risdictional, and ma be /ai+ed b the defendant if not seasonabl raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the ans/er$ Section 1, 9&le of the 9&les of Co&rt th&s epressl stip&lates that defenses and obections not pleaded either in a motion t o dismiss or in the ans/er are deemed /ai+ed$ As it relates to the place of trial, indeed, +en&e is meant to pro+ide con+enience to the parties, rather than to restrict their access to the co&rts$ 0n other /ords, &nless t he defendant seasonabl obects, an action ma be tried b a co&rt despite its bein" the improper +en&e$ *etition is "ranted$ CA decision re+ersed and set aside$ 9TC orders reinstated$ OCHOA 3S CHINA BAN
FACTS: *etitioners insist that it /as error for the CA to r&le that the stip&lated ecl&si+e +en&e of 7aati Cit is bindin" onl on petitioners% complaint for Ann&lment of Foreclos&re, Sale, and .ama"es filed before the 9e"ional Trial Co&rt of *araJa<&e Cit, b&t not on respondent ban%s *etition for Etra&dicial Foreclos&re of 7ort"a"e, /hich /as filed /ith the same co&rt$ 0SSE: hether or not the action /as filed in the ri"ht +en&e 9L0!: The etra&dicial foreclos&re sale of a real estate mort"a"e is "o+erned b Act !o$ 313, as amended b Act !o$ 6118, other/ise no/n as ?An Act to 9e"&late the Sale of *ropert nder Special *o/ers 0nserted 0n or Anneed to 9eal-Estate 7ort"a"es$? Sections 1 and thereof clearl state: Section 1$ hen a sale is made &nder a special po/er inserted in or attached to an real-estate mort"a"e hereafter made as sec&rit for the pament of mone or the f&lfillment of an other obli"ation, the pro+isions of the follo/in" sections shall "o+ern as to the manner in /hich the sale and redemption shall be effected, /hether or not pro+ision for the same is made in the po/er$ Sec$ $ Said sale cannot be made le"all o&tside of the pro+ince in /hich the propert sold is sit&ated2 and in case the place /ithin said pro+ince in /hich the sale is to be made is the s&bect of stip&lation, s&ch sale shall be made in said place or in the m&nicipal b&ildin" of the m&nicipalit in /hich the propert or part thereof is sit&ated$
The case at bar in+ol+es petitioners% mort"a"ed real propert located in *araJa<&e Cit o+er /hich respondent ban /as "ranted a special po/er to foreclose etra-&diciall$ Th&s, b epress pro+ision of Section , t he sale can onl be made in *araJa<&e Cit$ The ecl&si+e +en&e of 7aati Cit, as stip&lated b the parties ; and sanctioned b Section 6, 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt, cannot be made to appl to the *etition for Etra&dicial Foreclos&re filed b respondent ban beca&se the pro+isions of 9&le 6 pertain to +en&e of actions, /hich an etra&dicial foreclos&re is not$ Section 1, 9&le =of the 9&les of Co&rt> defines an action in this /i se: ?Action means an ordinar s&it in a co&rt of &stice, b /hich one part prosec&tes another for the enforcement or protection of a ri"ht, or the pre+ention or redress of a /ron"$? 0t is clear that the determinati+e or operati+e fact /hich con+erts a claim i nto an ?action or s&it? is the filin" of the same /ith a ?co&rt of &stice$? Filed else/here, as /ith some other bod or office not a co&rt of &stice, the claim ma not be cate"oriGed &nder either term$ nlie an action, an etra&dicial foreclos&re of real estate mort"a"e is initiated b filin" a petition not /ith an co&rt of &stice b&t /ith the office of the sheriff of the pro+ince /here the sale is to be made$ ' no stretch of the ima"ination can the office of the sheriff come &nder the cate"or of a co&rt of &stice$ Beril then, /ith respect to the +en&e of etra&dicial foreclos&re sales, Act !o$ 313, as amended, applies, it bein" a special la/ dealin" partic&larl /ith etra&dicial foreclos&re sales of real estate mort"a"es, and not the "eneral pro+isions of the 9&les of Co&rt on Ben&e of Actions$ Conse<&entl, the stip&lated ecl&si+e +en&e of 7aati Cit is rele+ant onl to actions arisin" from or related to the mort"a"e, s&ch as petitioners% complaint for Ann&lment of Foreclos&re, Sale, and .ama"es$ -----d&ran-----
:NI$ASTERS CONGLO$ERATION, INC. vs. CO:RT OF APPEALS and <:BOTA AGRI"$ACHINERY PHILIPPINES, INC. G.R. No. %%05'&. Febr+ar &, %00&
FACTS: #n #ctober 8, 188 D&bota A"ri-7achiner *hilippines, 0nc$ and nimasters Con"lomeration, 0nc$ entered into a ?.ealership A"reement for Sales and Ser+ices? of the formerOs prod&cts in Samar and Lete *ro+inces$ The contract contained, amon" others: 1) a stip&lation readin": ?All s&its arisin" o&t of this A"reement shall be filed /ith@in the proper Co&rts of I&eGon Cit,? and ) a pro+ision bindin" !07ASTE9S to obtain (as it did in fact obtain) a credit line /ith 7etropolitan 'an and Tr&st Co$-Tacloban 'ranch in the amo&nt of *,444,444$44 to ans/er for its obli"ations to D'#TA$ Some ears later, or more, !07ASTE9S filed an action in the 9TC of Tacloban Cit a"ainst D'#TA, a certain 9enaldo o, and 7etropolitan 'an and Tr&st Compan-Tacloban 'ranch for dama"es for breach of contract, and in&nction /ith praer for temporar restrainin" order$ The action /as doceted and assi"ned to 'ranch ;$ 9TC ri"ht a/a iss&ed a restrainin" order enoinin" 7ET9#'A!D from ?a&thoriGin" or effectin" pament of an alle"ed obli"ation of !07ASTE9S to defendant D'#TA arisin" o&t of or in connection /ith p&rchases made b defendant o a"ainst the credit line ca&sed to be established b !07ASTE9S for and in the amo&nt of * million co+ered b defendant 7ET9#'A!D or b /a of char"in" !07ASTE9S for an amo&nt paid and released to defendant D'#TA b the Head #ffice of 7ET9#'A!D in 7aati, 7etro-7anila$ The Co&rt also set the application for preliminar in&nction for hearin" on an&ar 14, 16 at 8:34 oOcloc in the mornin"$ #n an&ar 6, 16 D'#TA th&s praed for dismissal of the case on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e (said motion bein" set for hearin" on an&ar 11, 16)2 and for the transfer of the in&nction hearin" to an&ar 11, 16 beca&se its co&nsel /as not a+ailable on an&ar 14 d&e to a prior commitment before another co&rt$
D'#TA claims that not/ithstandin" that its motion to transfer hearin" had been "ranted, the 9TC /ent ahead /ith the hearin" on the in&nction incident on an&ar 14, 16 d&rin" /hich it recei+ed the direct testimon of !07ASTE9SO "eneral mana"er, ilford Chan2 that D'#TAOs co&nsel /as ?shoced? /hen he learned of this on the mornin" of the 11th, b&t /as nonetheless instr&cted to proceed to cross-eamine the /itness2 that /hen said co&nsel remonstrated that this /as &nfair, the Co&rt reset the hearin" to the afternoon of that same da, at /hich time ilford Chan /as recalled to the stand to repeat his direct testimon$ 0t appears that cross-eamination of Chan /as then &ndertaen b D'#TAOs la/er /ith the ?epress reser+ation t hat D'#TA /as not thereb /ai+in" and@or abandonin" its motion to dismiss2? and that in the co&rse of the cross-eamination, ehibits (n&mbered from 1 to 4) /ere presented b said attorne /ho after/ards s&bmitted a memorand&m in lie& of testimonial e+idence$ 9TC: a&thorised the iss&ance of the preliminar in&nction praed for, &pon a bond of *,444,444 and denied D'#TAOs motion to dismiss$ 0t maintained that !07ASTE9S Con"lomeration is holdin" its principal place of b&siness in the Cit of Tacloban /hile the defendant D'#TA is holdin" its principal place of b&siness in I&eGon Cit$ The proper +en&e therefore p&rs&ant to 9&les of Co&rt /o&ld either be I&eGon Cit or Tacloban Cit at the election of the plaintiff$ I&eGon Cit and 7anila (sic), as a"reed &pon b the parties in the .ealership A"reement, are additional places other than the place stated in the 9&les of Co&rt$ The filin", therefore, of this complaint in the 9e"ional Trial Co&rt in Tacloban Cit is proper$ 'oth orders /ere challen"ed as ha+in" been iss&ed /ith "ra+e ab&se of discretion b D'#TA in a special ci+il action of certiorari and prohibition filed /ith the Co&rt of Appeals$ 0t contended, more partic&larl, that: (1) the 9TC had ?no &risdiction to tae co"niGance of !07ASTE9S% action considerin" that +en&e /as improperl laid,? () !07ASTE9S had in tr&th ?failed to pro+e that it is entitle d to the /rit of preliminar in&nction2? and (3) the 9TC "ra+el erred ?in denin" the motion to dismiss$ CA: a"reed /ith D'#TA that -- in line /ith the 9&les of Co&rt and this Co&rtOs rele+ant r&lin"s The stip&lation respectin" +en&e in its .ealership A"reement /ith !07ASTE9S did in tr&th limit the +en&e of all s&its arisi n" there&nder onl and ecl&si+el to ?the proper co&rts of I&eGon Cit$Q The participation of D'#TAOs co&nsel at the hearin" on the in&nction incident did not in the premises operate as a /ai+er or abandonment of its obection t o +en&e2 that ass&min" that D'#TAOs standard printed in+oices pro+ided that the +en&e of actions there&nder sho&ld be laid at the Co&rt of the Cit of 7anila, this /as inconse<&ential since s&ch pro+ision /o&ld "o+ern ?s&its or le"al actions bet/een petitioner and its b&ers? b&t not actions &nder the .ealership A"reement bet/een D'#TA and !07ASTE9S, the +en&e of /hich /as controlled b para"raph !o$ 5 thereof2 and that no impediment precl&des iss&ance of a T9# or in&ncti+e /rit b the I&eGon Cit 9TC a"ainst 7ET9#'A!D-Tacloban since the same ?ma be ser+ed on the principal office of 7ET9#'A!D in 7aati and /o&ld be bindin" on and enforceable a"ainst, 7ET9#'A!D branch in Tacloban$ CA denied motion for reconsideration$ 0SSE: 1$ #! the participation b the la/er of D'#TA at the in&nction hearin" operated as a /ai+er of its obection to +en&e $ hat constr&ction sho&ld be placed on the stip&lation in the .ealership A"reement that ?(a)ll s&its arisin" o&t of this A"reement shall be filed /ith@in the proper Co&rts of I&eGon CitMQ 3$ #! this stip&lation had the effect of effecti+el eliminatin" the latter as an optional +en&e and limitin" liti"ation bet/een !07ASTE9S and D'#TA onl and ecl&si+el to I&eGon Cit$
HEL.: 6$ !#$ The record sho/s that /hen D'#TAOs co&nsel appeared before the Trial Co&rt in the mornin" of an&ar 11, 16 and /as then informed that he sho&ld cross-eamine !07ASTE9SO /itness, /ho had testified the da before, said co&nsel dre/ attention to the motion to dismiss on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e and insistentl attempted to ar"&e the matter and ha+e it r&led &pon at the time2 and /hen the Co&rt made no/n its intention (a) ?to (resol+e first the) iss&e (of) the in&nction then r&le on the motion to dismiss,? and (b) conse<&entl its desire to forth/ith concl&de the eamination of the /itness on the in&nction incident, and for that p&rpose reset the hearin" in t he afternoon of that da, the 11th, so that the matter mi"ht be resol+ed before the lapse of the temporar restrainin" order on the 13th, D'#TAOs la/er told the Co&rt: ?Ko&r Honor, /e are not /ai+in" o&r ri"ht to s&bmit the 7otion to .ismiss$Q0t is plain that &nder these circ&mstances, no /ai+er or abandonment can be imp&ted to D'#TA$ $ 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt sets forth the principles "enerall "o+ernin" the +en&e of actions, /hether real or personal, or in+ol+in" persons /ho neither reside nor are fo&nd in the *hilippines or other/ise$ A"reements on +en&e
are eplicitl allo/ed$ ?' /ritten a"reement of the parties the +en&e of an action ma be chan"ed or transferred from one pro+ince to another$?*arties ma b stip&lation /ai+e t he le"al +en&e and s&ch /ai+er is +alid and effecti+e bein" merel a personal pri+ile"e, /hich is not contrar to p&blic polic or pre&dicial to third persons$ 0t is a "eneral principle that a person ma reno&nce an ri"ht /hich the la/ "i+es &nless s&ch ren&nciation /o&ld be a"ainst p&blic polic$ ritten stip&lations as to +en&e ma be restricti+e in the sense that the s&it ma be filed onl in the place a"reed &pon, or merel permissi+e in that the parties ma file their s&it not onl in the place a"reed &pon b&t also in the places fied b la/ (9&le 6, specificall)$ As in an other a"reement, /hat is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties respectin" the matter$ Since con+enience is the raison dOetre of the r&les of +en&e, it is eas to accept the proposition that normall, +en&e stip&lations sho&ld be deemed permissi+e merel, and that interpretation sho&ld be adopted /hich most ser+es the partiesO con+enience$ 0n other /ords, stip&lations desi"natin" +en&es other than those assi"ned b 9&le 6 sho&ld be interpreted as desi"ned to mae it more con+enient for the parties to instit&te actions arisi n" from or in relation to their a"reements2 that is to sa, as simpl addin" to or epandin" the +en&es indicated in said 9&le 6$ #n the other hand, beca&se restricti+e stip&lations are in dero"ation of this "eneral polic, the lan"&a"e of the parties m&st be so clear and cate"orical as to lea+e no do&bt of their intention to limit the place or places, or to fi places other than those indicated in 9&le 6, for their actions$ This is easier said than done, ho/e+er, as an eamination of precedents in+ol+in" +en&e co+enants /ill immediatel disclose$ 0n a line of cases, the Co&rt constr&ed the +en&e stip&lations in+ol+ed as merel permissi+e (13)$ There are cases ho/e+er, /here stip&lations on +en&e /ere held to be restricti+e, or mandator$ #f the essence is the ascertainment of the partiesO intention in their a"reement "o+ernin" the +en&e of actions bet/een them$ That ascertainment m&st be done eepin" in mind that con+enience is the fo&ndation of +en&e re"&lations, and that that constr&ction sho&ld be adopted /hich most cond&ces thereto$ Hence, the in+ariable constr&ction placed on +en&e stip&lations is that the do not ne"ate b&t merel complement or add to the codal standards of 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt$ 0n other /ords, &nless the parties mae +er clear, b emploin" cate"orical and s&itabl limitin" lan"&a"e, that the /ish the +en&e of actions bet/een them to be laid onl and ecl&si+el at a definite place, and to disre"ard the prescriptions of 9&le 6, a"reements on +en&e are not to be re"arded as mandator or restricti+e, b&t merel permissi+e, or complementar of said r&le$ The fact that in their a"reement the parties specif onl one of the +en&es mentioned in 9&le 6, or fi a place for their actions different from those specified b said r&le, does not, /itho&t more, s&ffice to characteriGe the a"reement as a restricti+e one$ There m&st, to repeat, be accompanin" lan"&a"e clearl and cate"oricall epressin" their p&rpose and desi"n that actions bet/een them be liti"ated onl at the place named b them,re"ardless of the "eneral precepts of 9&le 62 and an do&bt or &ncertaint as to the partiesO intentions m&st be resol+ed a"ainst "i+in" their a"reement a restricti+e or mandator aspect$ An other r&le /o&ld permit of indi+id&al, s&becti+e &dicial interpretations /itho&t stable standards, /hich co&ld /ell res< in precedents in hopeless inconsistenc$ The record of the case at bar discloses that !07ASTE9S has its principal place of b&siness in Tacloban Cit, and D'#TA, in I&eGon Cit$ nder 9&le 6, the +en&e of an personal action bet/een them is ?/here the defendant or an of the defendants resides or ma be fo&nd, or /here the plaintiff or an of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff$Q 0n other /ords, 9&le 6 "i+es !07ASTE9S the option to s&e D'#TA for breach of contract in the 9e"ional Trial Co&rt of either Tacloban Cit or I&eGon Cit$ '&t the contract bet/een them pro+ides that ?All s&its arisin" o&t of this A"reement shall be filed /ith@in the proper Co&rts of I&eGon Cit,? /itho&t mention of Tacloban Cit$ 1$ 0n li"ht of all the cases abo+e s&r+eed, and the "eneral post&lates distilled therefrom, the <&estion sho&ld recei+e a ne"ati+e ans/er$ Absent additional /ords and epressions definitel and &nmistaabl denotin" the partiesO desire and intention that actions bet/een them sho&ld be +entilated onl at the place selected b them, I&eGon Cit -- or other contract&al pro+isions clearl e+incin" the same desire and intention -- the stip&lation sho&ld be constr&ed, not as confinin" s&its bet/een the parties onl to that one place, I&eGon Cit , b&t as allo/in" s&its either in I&eGon Cit or Tacloban Cit, at the option of the plaintiff (!07ASTE9S in this case)$
#ne last /ord, respectin" D'#TAOs theor that the 9e"ional Trial Co&rt had ?no &risdiction to tae co"niGance of !07ASTE9S% action considerin" that +en&e /as improperl laid$? This is not an acc&rate statement of le"al principle$ 0t e<&ates +en&e /ith &risdiction2 b&t +en&e has nothin" to do /ith &risdiction, ecept in criminal actions$ This is f&ndamental$The action at bar, for the reco+er of dama"es in an amo&nt considerabl in ecess of *4,444$44, is ass&redl /ithin the &risdiction of a 9e"ional Trial Co&rt$ Ass&min" that +en&e /ere improperl laid in the Co&rt /here the action /as instit&ted, the Tacloban Cit 9TC, that /o&ld be a proced&ral, not a &risdictional impediment -- precl&din" +entilation of the case before that Co&rt of /ron" +en&e not/ithstandin" that the s&bect matter is /ithin its &risdiction$ Ho/e+er, if the obection to +en&e is /ai+ed b the fail&re to set it &p in a motion to dismiss, the 9TC /o&ld proceed in perfectl re"&lar fashion if it then tried and decided the action$ This is tr&e also of real actions$ Th&s, e+en if a case ?affectin" title to, or for reco+er of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclos&re of mort"a"e on, real propert?/ere commenced in a pro+ince or cit other than that ?/here the propert or an part thereof lies,?if no obection is seasonabl made in a motion to dismiss, the obection is deemed /ai+ed, and the 9e"ional Trial Co&rt /o&ld be actin" entirel /ithin its competence and a&thorit in proceedin" to tr and decide the s&it$ A+#tion in $ainta, In#. vs arren L+aben '%' SCRA '%0 Febr+ar %), )**&
Facts: L&aben, resident of Dalin"a, filed /ith the Dalin"a 9TC a complaint for dama"es a"ainst A&ction in 7alinta 0nc$ (7alinta) on the "ro&nd that 7alinta failed to deli+er the /heel loader after L&aben tendered pament bein" the hi"hest bidder in an a&ction cond&cted b 7alinta$ 7alinta mo+ed to dismiss the case on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e$ 7alinta ar"&ed that the correct +en&e is the 9TC of BalenG&ela Cit p&rs&ant to stip&lation in the 'idders Application and 9e"istration 'iddin" A"reement /hich states that all co&rt liti"ation proced&res shall be cond&cted in the appropriate co&rts of BalenG&ela Cit, 7etro 7anila$ 9TC dismissed the case on the "ro&nd of improper +en&e beca&se there /as a clear intention of the parties to limit the +en&e$ pon appeal, the CA re+ersed the resol&tion of 9TC and reinstated the complaint$ Hence this petition$ 0ss&e: hether or not the stip&lation in the parties 'idders Application and 9e"istration 'iddin" A"reement effecti+el limited the +en&e ecl&si+el to the proper co&rt of BalenG&ela Cit$ Held: !o, the stip&lation in the parties a"reement did not effecti+el limited the +en&e ecl&si+el to the proper co&rt of BalenG&ela$ nder Section , 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt, all other actions ma be commenced and tried /here the plaintiff or an of the plaintiff resides or /here the defendant or an of the principal defendant resides or in the case of a nonresident defendant, /here he ma be fo&nd at the election of the plaintiff$ Ho/e+er, Section 9&le 6 of the 9&les of co&rt does not appl /here the parties before the filin" of the action ha+e +alidl a"reed in /ritin" on an ecl&si+e +en&e$ 0n this case, the stip&lation in the parties a"reement e+identl lacs the restricti+e and <&alifin" /ords that /ill limit +en&e ecl&si+el to the 9TC of BalenG&ela Cit$ Hence, the BalenG&ela co&rts sho&ld onl be considered as an additional +en&e to those mentioned &nder Section , 9&le 6 of the 9&les of Co&rt$ The +en&e in the case /as properl laid do/n /ith the 9TC of Dalin"a$
