Define or Eplain t$e concept of Remedial law' Remedial law is also 4nown as procedural or ad9ecti&e law. It is tat %ranc of law tat prescri%es te metod of enforcin! ri!ts or o%tainin! redress for teir in&asion.
A PRE-WEEK REVIEWER IN REMEDIAL LAW By ALFREDO R. CENTENO PROFESSOR OF LAW ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY City Prosecutor & Deputized Ombudsman Prosecutor Professor in Remedial Law Review, Evidence, Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure & Labor Law Review College of Law, t! Louis "niversity College of Law, "niversity of #aguio College of Law, Cordillera Career Development Development College Lecturer, Premier #ar Review Center Lecturer, Power$aus #ar Review Center #aguio City
($at is ubstantive law) It is tat law tat creates, defines and re!ulates ri!ts. (#ustos vs! Lucero, *+ P$il! -./ ($at are t$e 0inds of remedial law) :e a&e a&e two two !enera !enerall 4inds 4inds of remedi remedial al law, law, namely namely;; public remedial la2 wic la2 wic affords a remedy in fa&or of te State a!ainst indi&iduals 1criminal procedure2< in fa&or of te indi&i indi&idua duall a!ains a!ainstt te state state 1a%ea 1a%eas s corpus corpus2< 2< and private remedial la2 wic la2 wic affords a remedy in fa&or of an indi&idual a!ainst anoter indi&idual 1ci&il procedure2 Define Procedure! It is te metod metod of conduc conductin tin! ! 9udici 9udicial al procee proceedin din! ! and em%races pleadin!s, practice and e&idence.
Foreword
Epl Eplai ain n t$e t$e conc concep eptt of Plea Pleadi ding ngs, s, Prac Practi tice ce and and Evidence. Evidence. Pleadings are te written written statements statements of te respecti&e respecti&e claims and defenses of te parties su%mitted to te court for appropriate 9ud!ment 1ec! +, Rule /! Practice refers to tose rules, !o&ernin! te conduct of a case from its inception to final 9ud!ment and e=ecution. Evidence is te means means sanctio sanctioned ned %y tese tese rules of ascertainin! in a 9udicial proceedin!, te trut respectin! a matter of fact. 1ec! +, Rule +2*/
This is an updated, revised, compiled and codified edition based on the lectures, notes and comments delivered by the late Professor Jose E. Cristobal, Professor Emeritus of the Baguio Baguio Colleg Colleges es Founda Foundatio tion, n, Colleg College e of La and !ean !ean "ono "onora rato to #. $%ui $%uino no of the the Bagu Baguio io Coll Colleg eges es Foun Founda dati tion on,, Coll Colleg ege e of La. La. &ome &ome of the the mate materi rial als s incorporated herein ere the products gathered by this riter from 'urisprudence as printed in the &upreme Court (eport (eports s $nnota $nnotated ted and the &uprem &upreme e Court Court $dvanc $dvance e !ecisions and the treatises treatises and ritings of )non riters on the sub'ect.
($at is t$e ob3ect of Procedure) Te main o%9ect of procedure is to ma4e te powers of te courts fully and completely a&aila%le for 9ustice. It aims to facilita facilitate te te application application of 9ustice 9ustice to te ri&al claims of cont conten endi din! n! part partie ies s and and not not to ind inder er or dela delay y te te administration of 9ustice. 14RR vs! 5ttorney 6eneral, 2. P$il! 728/
GENERAL PRINCIPLES %rac %race e t$e t$e $ist $istor ory y of our our Reme Remedi dial al Law Law in t$e t$e P$ilippines! Our remedial law system or laws of procedure were of Spanis ori!in. Te "mericans later can!ed tis wen our our "mer "meric ican an Syst System em of #rim #rimin inal al $roc $roced edur ure e was was introduced %y &irtue of te promul!ation of 'eneral Order No. () on "pril *+, -//. On "u!ust 0, -/-, "ct No. -/ 1#ode of #i&il $rocedure2 was enacted.
($at are t$e bases of t$e promulgati promulgation on of t$e Rules Rules of Court) Te power to promul!ate rules is &ested in te Supreme #ourt. 1Sec. (172, "rticle VIII, $ilippine #onstitution2
Te #ode of #i&il $rocedure 1"ct No. -/2 repealed all laws on te matter. Te two laws 3 *eneral +rder o. - and and $ct o. /01 constituted our principal remedial laws until te -+( $ilippine #onstitution %ecame effecti&e. Te -+( #onstitution repealed *eneral +rder o. - and and $ct o. /01 as statutes %ut declared te same as te (ules of Court . Tey were owe&er superseded %y te Old Rules of #ourt tat too4 effect on 5uly -, -6/. Te New Rules of #ourt tat too4 effect on 5uly -, -76 tereafter superseded te Old Rules of #ourt. 1Nue&as on Remedial Law2.
Te Te said said powe powerr of te te Supr Suprem eme e #our #ourtt incl includ udes es te te promul!ation of rules concernin!; -. Te Te prot protec ecti tion on and and enfo enforc rcem emen entt of cons consti titu tuti tion onal al ri!ts< *. $lead $leadin! in!s, s, pract practic ice e and proced procedure ure in all all courts courts<< +. Te admiss admission ion to te te prac practic tice e of law< law< 6. Te Inte Inte!ra !ratio tion n of te te Bar and and le!al le!al assist assistanc ance e to te underpri&ile!ed. ($at are t$e limitati limitations ons on t$e rule9ma0i rule9ma0ing ng power of t$e upreme Court) Te followin! are te limitations; -. Te rules rules sall sall pro&id pro&ides es simpli simplifie fied d and ine=pen ine=pensi& si&e e procedure for te speedy disposition of cases< *. Te rule rules s sall sall %e unif uniform orm for for all all courts courts of of te same same !rade, and +. Te Te rule rules s sal salll not not dimi dimini nis s,, incr increa ease se or modi modify fy su%stanti&e ri!ts!1ec ri!ts!1ec!! 7, 5rticle 5rticle :;;;, :;;;, P$ilippi P$ilippine ne Constitution/
Te -76 Rules of #ourt as under!one se&eral can!es since ten. On 5anuary -, -)(, te Rules on #riminal $rocedure was introduced. In -)), te Rules of #riminal $rocedure underwent an amendment. On 5uly -, -), te Re&ised Rules on E&idence %ecame effecti&e and on 5uly -, -0, te Rules on #i&il $rocedure was li4ewise introduced and %ecame effecti&e. On 8ecem%er -, *///, te Rules Rules on #rimin #riminal al $roced $rocedure ure underw underwent ent a ma9or ma9or re&ision
%o w$at cases are t$e Rules of Court not applicable)
1
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te rules sall not apply to te followin!; a2 Land Land re! re!is istr trat atio ion n case cases< s< %2 Elec Electi tion on case cases< s< c2 Natu Natura rali li>a >ati tion on case cases< s< d2 Inso Insol& l&en ency cy proc procee eedi din! n!s< s< e2 Ote Oterr cases cases not pro& pro&id ided ed in te rules rules e=ce e=cept pt in a suppletory caracter and wene&er practica%le and con&enient. 1ec! -, Rule + and Rule +-8/
Te Te Cues Cuesti tion on of 9uri 9urisd sdic icti tion on is te te firs firstt tin tin! ! to %e determined %y te 9ud!e in e&ery action %rou!t %efore im. :ere te court %elie&es tat it as no 9urisdiction o&er te action, te only &alid determination it can do is to a&e te case or action dismissed. Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from Procedure! Jurisdiction refers to te autority of a court to ear and decide a class of cases and is conferred %y su%stanti&e law 1De Leon vs! C5 2-7 CR5 +> 4orales vs! C5/ 4 wil wile e procedure procedure is te means wic puts te power or autority to ear and decide into action. 1P$arma ;nc! vs! ecretary 6!R! o! =2=*+ ?anuary =, +==2/
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from Eercise of ?urisdiction' Jurisdiction refers Jurisdiction refers to te autority to decide a case and not te decision decision render rendered. ed. It does does not depend depend upon upon te re!ularity of te e=ercise of tat power or te ri!tfulness of te decision rendered. E5ercise of 'urisdiction refers 'urisdiction refers to te resolution of all oter Cuestions arisin! in te case! case ! @Palma vs! & L92.8 4ay +=, +=
C$aracterize our rules of procedure. procedure. Te rules are procedural procedural in nature, ence, it must not %e construed to supplant or defeat su%stanti&e ri!ts of te partie parties s in liti!a liti!atio tion. n. Its Its purpos purpose e is to put in order order te liti!ation of ri!ts and not to esta%lised new ri!ts were none none e=is e=ists ts.. 1Constitut 1Constitutiona ionall limitatio limitations ns on t$e rule9 ma0ing power of t$e upreme Court/
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from :enue' Jurisdiction Jurisdiction refers to te power of a court to ear and decide a case, wereas 6enue refers 6enue refers to te place were an action is to %e instituted and tried. 1see Rule -, Rules Rules of Court/
4ay party waive t$e application of t$e rules of court) Rules are laid down for te con&enience of te parties, suc as rules on &enue may %e wai&ed, %ut rules adopted in te interest of speedy administration of 9ustice may not %e wai&ed.
Jurisdiction may may not not %e wai& wai&ed ed %ein %ein! ! %ase %ased d in law< law< werea wereas s 6enue 6enue may %e te su%9ect of wai&er %ein! a matter of procedure. ;n w$o is 3urisdiction vested) It is &ested in te court and not on te 9ud!e. " court may a&e se&eral %rances, %ut eac %ranc is not a court distinct and separate from te oters. " case filed %efore a %ranc or any oter %ranc or 9ud!e tereof may%e tried %y any 9ud!e or %ranc tereof. (%agum %agumpay pay vs! 4oscoso/
4ay 4ay t$e t$e Rule Rules s of proc proced edur ure e be t$e t$e sub3 sub3ec ectt of agreements' "!reements relatin! to te rules of procedure, wic in&ol&es anytin!, inconsistent wit te course of 9ustice or wic o%struct or interfere wit te administration of 9ustice and contracts, wic tend to di&est or oust courts of teir 9urisdiction are &oid &oid %ein! contrary to pu%lic policy. policy.
($at are t$e 6eneral classes of ?urisdiction) 5urisdiction may %e classified into; -. 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te te Su%9e Su%9ect ct Datter Datter *. 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te $ers $ersons ons of of te $arti $arties es +. 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te te Natur Nature e of te te "ction "ction 6. 5uri 5urisd sdic icti tion on o&er o&er te te Res Res
4ay t$e upreme Court suspend t$e application of its own Rules) Only te Supreme #ourt as te power to suspend te applic applicati ation on of te rules of proced procedure ure.. It was was eld eld tat tat under special circumstances te court may suspend te applicati application on of te rules in order to enance fair trials and e=peditin! 9ustice. If te application of te rules would tend to su%&ert and@or defe defeat at inst instea ead d of prom promot ote e and and ena enanc nce e it, it, tei teirr suspension is 9ustified. 1Republic vs! C5 *8 CR5 -7=> Republic vs! C5 ept! +., +=*+/
Eplain briefly t$e concept concept of t$e 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter! 5urisdiction o&er te Su%9ect Datter refers to te power of a court or tri%unal to ear and determine cases of te !eneral class to wic te proceedin! in Cuestion %elon!s. Tis 4ind of 9urisdiction %ein! conferred %y law cannot %e te su%9ect su%9ect of any a!reemen a!reement. t. None None of te parties parties to liti!ations can enlar!e or diminis it or dictate wen it sall attac or wen it sall %e remo&ed. Tat power is &ested in te le!islature. (Aamora vs! C5 +*8 CR5 2B=/
JURISDICTION Define or eplain ?urisdiction! Te term is ta4en from te Latin term A 'us A 'us dicere3 or Ari!t to spea4. It is te power and autority of a court to ear, try and decide a case. @Aamora vs! C5 +*8 CR5 2B= It It is te ri!t to act in a case. (Herrera v. !arreto" #$ P%i&. #')
($at ($at is t$e effect effect of lac0 lac0 of 3urisd 3urisdict iction ion over t$e sub3ect matter) :ere :ere te court court as no 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te su%9ec su%9ectt matter matter,, it as no power power to ear te case, case, muc muc less, less, decide it. Te only &alid act it as is to dismiss te case.
2
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te rules sall not apply to te followin!; a2 Land Land re! re!is istr trat atio ion n case cases< s< %2 Elec Electi tion on case cases< s< c2 Natu Natura rali li>a >ati tion on case cases< s< d2 Inso Insol& l&en ency cy proc procee eedi din! n!s< s< e2 Ote Oterr cases cases not pro& pro&id ided ed in te rules rules e=ce e=cept pt in a suppletory caracter and wene&er practica%le and con&enient. 1ec! -, Rule + and Rule +-8/
Te Te Cues Cuesti tion on of 9uri 9urisd sdic icti tion on is te te firs firstt tin tin! ! to %e determined %y te 9ud!e in e&ery action %rou!t %efore im. :ere te court %elie&es tat it as no 9urisdiction o&er te action, te only &alid determination it can do is to a&e te case or action dismissed. Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from Procedure! Jurisdiction refers to te autority of a court to ear and decide a class of cases and is conferred %y su%stanti&e law 1De Leon vs! C5 2-7 CR5 +> 4orales vs! C5/ 4 wil wile e procedure procedure is te means wic puts te power or autority to ear and decide into action. 1P$arma ;nc! vs! ecretary 6!R! o! =2=*+ ?anuary =, +==2/
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from Eercise of ?urisdiction' Jurisdiction refers Jurisdiction refers to te autority to decide a case and not te decision decision render rendered. ed. It does does not depend depend upon upon te re!ularity of te e=ercise of tat power or te ri!tfulness of te decision rendered. E5ercise of 'urisdiction refers 'urisdiction refers to te resolution of all oter Cuestions arisin! in te case! case ! @Palma vs! & L92.8 4ay +=, +=
C$aracterize our rules of procedure. procedure. Te rules are procedural procedural in nature, ence, it must not %e construed to supplant or defeat su%stanti&e ri!ts of te partie parties s in liti!a liti!atio tion. n. Its Its purpos purpose e is to put in order order te liti!ation of ri!ts and not to esta%lised new ri!ts were none none e=is e=ists ts.. 1Constitut 1Constitutiona ionall limitatio limitations ns on t$e rule9 ma0ing power of t$e upreme Court/
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from :enue' Jurisdiction Jurisdiction refers to te power of a court to ear and decide a case, wereas 6enue refers 6enue refers to te place were an action is to %e instituted and tried. 1see Rule -, Rules Rules of Court/
4ay party waive t$e application of t$e rules of court) Rules are laid down for te con&enience of te parties, suc as rules on &enue may %e wai&ed, %ut rules adopted in te interest of speedy administration of 9ustice may not %e wai&ed.
Jurisdiction may may not not %e wai& wai&ed ed %ein %ein! ! %ase %ased d in law< law< werea wereas s 6enue 6enue may %e te su%9ect of wai&er %ein! a matter of procedure. ;n w$o is 3urisdiction vested) It is &ested in te court and not on te 9ud!e. " court may a&e se&eral %rances, %ut eac %ranc is not a court distinct and separate from te oters. " case filed %efore a %ranc or any oter %ranc or 9ud!e tereof may%e tried %y any 9ud!e or %ranc tereof. (%agum %agumpay pay vs! 4oscoso/
4ay 4ay t$e t$e Rule Rules s of proc proced edur ure e be t$e t$e sub3 sub3ec ectt of agreements' "!reements relatin! to te rules of procedure, wic in&ol&es anytin!, inconsistent wit te course of 9ustice or wic o%struct or interfere wit te administration of 9ustice and contracts, wic tend to di&est or oust courts of teir 9urisdiction are &oid &oid %ein! contrary to pu%lic policy. policy.
($at are t$e 6eneral classes of ?urisdiction) 5urisdiction may %e classified into; -. 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te te Su%9e Su%9ect ct Datter Datter *. 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te $ers $ersons ons of of te $arti $arties es +. 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te te Natur Nature e of te te "ction "ction 6. 5uri 5urisd sdic icti tion on o&er o&er te te Res Res
4ay t$e upreme Court suspend t$e application of its own Rules) Only te Supreme #ourt as te power to suspend te applic applicati ation on of te rules of proced procedure ure.. It was was eld eld tat tat under special circumstances te court may suspend te applicati application on of te rules in order to enance fair trials and e=peditin! 9ustice. If te application of te rules would tend to su%&ert and@or defe defeat at inst instea ead d of prom promot ote e and and ena enanc nce e it, it, tei teirr suspension is 9ustified. 1Republic vs! C5 *8 CR5 -7=> Republic vs! C5 ept! +., +=*+/
Eplain briefly t$e concept concept of t$e 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter! 5urisdiction o&er te Su%9ect Datter refers to te power of a court or tri%unal to ear and determine cases of te !eneral class to wic te proceedin! in Cuestion %elon!s. Tis 4ind of 9urisdiction %ein! conferred %y law cannot %e te su%9ect su%9ect of any a!reemen a!reement. t. None None of te parties parties to liti!ations can enlar!e or diminis it or dictate wen it sall attac or wen it sall %e remo&ed. Tat power is &ested in te le!islature. (Aamora vs! C5 +*8 CR5 2B=/
JURISDICTION Define or eplain ?urisdiction! Te term is ta4en from te Latin term A 'us A 'us dicere3 or Ari!t to spea4. It is te power and autority of a court to ear, try and decide a case. @Aamora vs! C5 +*8 CR5 2B= It It is te ri!t to act in a case. (Herrera v. !arreto" #$ P%i&. #')
($at ($at is t$e effect effect of lac0 lac0 of 3urisd 3urisdict iction ion over t$e sub3ect matter) :ere :ere te court court as no 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te su%9ec su%9ectt matter matter,, it as no power power to ear te case, case, muc muc less, less, decide it. Te only &alid act it as is to dismiss te case.
2
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te dismissal of te case does not &iolate ones ri!t of free free access access to te courts. courts. *antos vs! ort$west, 2+. CR5 27
pre&ent pre&ent te Supreme #ourt from addressin! addressin! te issue, issue, especi especiall ally y so wen wen te court courts s lac4 lac4 of 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion is appa appare rent nt on te te face face of te te comp compla lain int. t. Issu Issues es of 9urisdiction are not su%9ect to te wims of te parties. 15tuel 15tuel vs! :aldez :aldez,, 6!R! 6!R! o! +8=7+, +8=7+, ?une ?une +., 2..8/ 2..8/ Gowe&er, wen te party participate in te proceedin! and only only raises raises te Cuesti Cuestion on of lac4 lac4 of 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion after after an unfa&ora%le unfa&ora%le 9ud!ment 9ud!ment as %een issued a!ainst im, $e may be barred by t$e principle of estoppel to Fuestion t$e lac0 of 3urisdic 3urisdiction tion of t$e court t$at rendered rendered t$e decision! 1#P; vs! 5L, 6!R +7+*2+, 5pril +-, 2..-> #atangas #atangas Power Power Corporatio Corporation n vs! #atangas #atangas City,6!R o! +72B7, 5pril 2*, 2..-/
($at is t$e nature of a 3udgment 3udgment t$at is rendered by a court w$en it $as no 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect) :ere :ere a court court a&in! a&in! no 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te su%9ec su%9ectt matter renders a decision, te same is a total nullity. No ri!t or o%li!ation may arise from suc decision. 1Dava vs! People 2.2 CR5 2/ 2/ " &oid 9ud!ment cannot %e te proper %asis for te issuance of a writ of e=ecution. 15tuel vs! :aldez, :aldez, 6!R! 6!R! o! +8=7+, +8=7+, ?une ?une +., 2..8/ 2..8/ Titles issued issued pursuant pursuant to a &oid 9ud!ment 9ud!ment are necessarily necessarily &oid. FRepublic vs! 4arcos 72 CR5 28* )
. ($at law determines determines t$e 3urisdiction 3urisdiction of t$e court over t$e sub3ect matter) Te law in force at te time of te commencement commencement of te action action determines determines te 9urisdiction 9urisdiction of te court o&er te su%9ect matter and not te law at te time te cause of action accrued.. accrued.. 5le3e 7 vs! Crystal 2-. CR5 -=7
($at determines 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter + 5urisdict 5urisdiction ion o&er te su%9ect matter is determined determined on te %asis of te complaint. It is te complaint tat commences te action. action. @armiento vs! C5, 27. CR5 +.* :ate&er :ate&er is filed %y te defendant tereafter as notin! to do wit te commencement of te action. action . @5brin vs! Campos, 2.8 CR5 -2. . Te defenses in te answer or motion to dism dismis iss s are are not not to %e cons consid ider ered ed for for purp purpos oses es of esta esta%l %lis isi in! n! 9uri 9urisd sdic icti tion on o&er o&er te te su%9 su%9ec ectt matt matter er.. *4ultinational vs! C5 2.8 CR5 +.- It It is determined %y te alle!ations of te complaint and cannot %e made to depend on te defenses of te defendant. defendant . 1Republic 1Republic vs! andiganbayan, andiganbayan, 6!R! o! +-8277, 4arc$ 8., 2..-/
Eplain briefly t$e concept of 3urisdiction over t$e person of t$e parties! parties! Tis refers to te parties to a case, as eiter plaintiffs or defendants. 5urisdiction o&er te plaintiff is acCuired %y te court from te time te complaint is filed. Te Te plai plaint ntif ifff may may %e esto estopp pped ed from from Cues Cuesti tion onin in! ! te te 9urisdiction of te court o&er is person. " non?resident alien wo files a complaint in court su%mits imself to te 9urisdiction of te said court.
($en must 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter eist) 5urisdict 5urisdiction ion o&er te su%9ect matter matter must e=ist at te %e!innin! of te action and as suc continues to e=ist up to te rendition of te 9ud!ment. 5urisdiction of courts o&er te te su%9 su%9ec ectt matt matter er is conf confer erre red d e=cl e=clus usi& i&el ely y %y te te #onstitution and %y law.
5urisdiction o&er te defendant is acCuired %y te court %y; a2 Gis Gis &olu &olunt ntar ary y su%m su%mis issi sion on to te te aut autor orit ity y of te court eiter %y is personal appearance or trou! is counsel< or %2 Trou! Trou! te e=erci e=ercise se of te te coerci& coerci&e e process processes es of te court %y te proper ser&ice of summons upon te defendant.
4ay a court motu proprio consider t$e issue of lac0 of 3urisdiction even if not c$allenged by any party) Te answer is YES. Te #ourt 1Supreme #ourt2 may motu propri proprio o consid consider er te issue issue of 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion e&en e&en if not callen!ed %y any party to te case. It as discretion to determ determine ine wet weter er a partic particula ularr court court &alidl &alidly y acCuir acCuired ed 9urisdiction o&er a particular case. 5urisdiction o&er te case is conferred %y law. It may not %e conferred on te court %y consent or wai&er of te parties were were te court oterw oterwise ise would would a&e a&e no 9urisd 9urisdict iction ion o&er o&er te su%9ec su%9ectt matter of te action. 15tuel vs! :aldez, 6!R! 6!R! o! +8=7+, ?une +., 2..8/
Under te new rules a defendant wo files a motion to dismiss %ased on te said !round may as4 for oter relief witout witout considerin! considerin! is appearance appearance as &oluntary &oluntary.. @ec! 2., Rule +- 5urisdiction o&er te person of a party may %e wai&ed. Te Cuestion of lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te person of a party must %e raised at te earliest opportunity and it must %e raised in a motion to dismiss.
4ay 3urisdictio 3urisdiction n be acFuired acFuired t$roug$ t$roug$ or waived waived by, any act or omission of a party) Te answer is No. 5urisdiction 5urisdiction o&er te su%9ect su%9ect matter cannot cannot %e acCuir acCuired ed trou! trou!, , or wai&ed wai&ed %y, %y, any act or omission omission of te parties. parties. Te acti&e participation participation of te parties in te proceedin!s %efore te court or a!ency does not &est 9urisdiction on te court or a!ency, as 9urisdiction is conferred only %y law. Te courts or te parties cannot disre!ard te rule of non?wai&er of 9urisdiction 15tuel vs! :aldez, 6!R! o! +8=7+, ?une +., 2..8/
Does Does esto estopp ppel el appl apply y to conf confer er 3uri 3urisd sdic icti tion on to a tribunal, agency board or court) :e dist distin in!u !uis is. . Esto Estopp ppel el does does not not appl apply y to conf confer er 'urisdiction to a tribunal tat as none o&er a cause of acti action on.. Te Te fail failur ure e of te te part partie ies s to cal calle len! n!e e te te 9urisdiction of te court, tri%unal, a!ency or %oard does not
($at ($at is lac0 of 3urisd 3urisdict iction ion over t$e nature nature of t$e action) It is te situation tat arises wen a court, wic ordinarily would a&e te autority and competence to try a case is rendered rendered witout witout suc autority autority and competenc competence e eiter eiter %ecaus %ecause e a specia speciall law as limite limited d te e=ercise e=ercise of its
3
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
normal 9urisdiction on a particular matter or %ecause te type of action as %een reposed %y law in certain oter courts< or Cuasi?9udicial %odies or a!encies. *La aval vs! C5 28 CR5 B* H "n e=ample of te situation was durin! te time tat $8 /*?" was enacted, or te effects of te e=panded 9urisdiction of te DT# on B$ ** cases.
interest, owe&er intellectually callen!in!. callen!in! . 1Republic 1Republic vs! %an 6!R! o! +-7277, 4arc$ 8., 2..-/ ($at ($at is meant meant by t$e p$rase p$rase H3uris H3urisdic dictio tion n must must be raised in raised in t%e a-e proceedinI proceedinI 9 :en te rule says tat suc issue %e raised in te a-e proceedin, proceedin, it simply means tat it must %e raised in te proceedin!s of te same case and durin! te appeal of te same case. It does not mean tat lac4 of 9urisdiction of a court in a case may %e raised durin! te proceedin!s of anote anoterr case, case, in anote anoterr court court and e&en e&en %y any%od any%ody. y. 5ragon 7 vs! C5, 6!R! 6!R! o! +2-888, 4arc$ 4arc$ 2, +==B
Eplain briefly t$e concept of 3urisdiction over t$e res! Tis 4ind of 9urisdiction comes into play only in situations were 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant cannot %e acCuir acCuired ed %ecaus %ecause e e is a non?re non?resid sident ent,, cannot cannot %e foun found d in te te $il $ilip ippi pine nes, s, or cann cannot ot %e ser& ser&ed ed wit wit summons. summons. Tese Tese actions refer to %uasi in rem actions. 5urisdiction o&er te res, or property of te defendant or tin! in contest is o%tained %y te actual or constructi&e sei>ure sei>ure of te property property %y placin! te same in custodia legis. (ection +B, Rule +-, Rules of Court ,
5re t$ere ot$er classes of 3urisdiction) Te answer is yes, tey are as follows; -. Resi Residu dual al 9uri 9urisd sdic icti tion on *. 8ele 8ele!a !ate ted d 5uri 5urisd sdic icti tion on +. Spec Specia iall 5uri 5urisd sdic icti tion on
;s presentation of evidence in support of opposition to a moti motion on to dism dismis iss s on t$e t$e grou ground nd of lac0 lac0 of 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter matter necessary) 'enera 'enerally lly,, tere tere is no need need to presen presentt any e&iden e&idence ce %ecause 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter is determined %y te alle!ations of te complaint.
($at is meant by residual 3urisdiction) It is te power power of te court court to issue issue suc orders orders and perform suc acts after te perfection of an appeal from its decision %ut prior to te transmittal of te ori!inal record or te record on appeal to te appellate court. E=amples of tis 4ind of 9urisdiction are tose found in te last para!rap of ec! =, Rule -+, to wit'
Te only e=ception to tis rule is in a suit for e9ectment were a party raises te defense of a!ricultural tenancy. In suc a situation, te court is called upon to conduct a prelim prelimina inary ry earin earin! ! to decide decide te issue issue of a!ricu a!ricultu ltural ral tenancy. Te court may reCuire te reception of e&idence durin! durin! te preli prelimin minary ary earin!. earin!. *Concep Concepcio cion n vs! CG; #ulaca #ulacan n ++= CR5 CR5 222 222 . It must must %e %e reme remem%e m%ered red owe&e owe&err tat tat te rules on summa summary ry proced procedure ure do not apply apply to cases cases co&ere co&ered d %y a!ricu a!ricultu ltural ral tenanc tenancy y laws. laws. @#ayog vs! atino 27* CR5 8B*
-.
*. +. 6. (.
Issue Issue order orders s for te prote protect ction ion and and preser& preser&ati ation on of te ri!ts of te parties wic do not in&ol&e any matter liti!ated %y te appeal< "ppr "ppro& o&e e compr comprom omis ises es<< $ermit $ermit appeal appeals s of indi!e indi!ent nt liti liti!an !ants ts<< Orde Orderr e=ec e=ecut utio ion n pendi pendin! n! appe appeal al unde underr ec! ec! 2, Rule 8=/ 8=/ "llow "llow wit witdr draw awal al of appe appeal als. s.
($at is t$e Doctrine of Primary ?urisdiction) It simply means tat te re!ular courts cannot and will not determine determine a contro&ers contro&ersy y in&ol&in! in&ol&in! a Cuestion, Cuestion, wic is witin te 9urisdiction of an administrati&e tri%unal. :ere te Cuestion demands te e=ercise of sound administrati&e discretion reCuirin! te special 4nowled!e, e=perienc e=perience e or ser&ices ser&ices of an administra administrati&e ti&e tri%unal to determine tecnical and intricate matters of fact and were a unifor uniformit mity y of rulin! rulin! is essent essential ial To compl comply y wit wit te purposes of te re!ulatory statute administered. @#rett vs! ;5C +=+ CR5 *B, see also ;ndustrial Enterprises vs! C5 +*- CR5 -2 )
($en may t$e issue of lac0 of 3urisdict 3urisdiction ion over t$e sub3ect matter be raise) uestion of lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter may %e raised at any sta!e of te proceedin! and e&en for te first time one appeal.* appeal .*Lagman Lagman vs! C5 -- CR5 22* 8 Te party entitled to te defense of lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect su%9ect matter must raise te same %efore it is %arred %y laces or estoppel. estoppel. *Lam vs! C$ua, 6!R! o! +8+2*, 4arc$ +*, 2..->Lopez vs! ort$west 228 CR5 -=, avo avoa a vs! vs! C5 27+ 27+ CR5 CR5 7-7 7-7 see see also also %i3a %i3am m vs! vs! ibong$anoy ibong$anoy 28 CR5 2= and ec! 8 and +., Rule -B ($en ($en may may t$e t$e cour court, t, boar board, d, agen agency cy or trib tribun unal al eercise its power to ad3udicate) Te rule is well?settled tat for a court to e=ercise its power of ad9udication tere must %e an actual case or 9usticia%le contro&ersy. 1Rep 1Repub ubli lic c vs! vs! %an %an 6!R! 6!R! o! o! +-7277, 4arc$ 8., 2..-/
tate t$e elements of a valid eercise of 3urisdiction' :e sould ma4e a distinction as to weter te action is a criminal or a ci&il action. In; Civil $ctions Criminal $ctions a2 5urisdiction 5urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter a2 5urisdiction 5urisdiction o&er te offense %2 5urisdiction o&er te res %2 5urisdiction o&er te territory c2 5urisdiction o&er te parties c2 5urisdiction o&er te accused d2 5urisdiction o&er te issues d2 $ayment of filin! fees e2 $ayment of filin! fees ( 5dm! 5dm! Circular 5ugust +7, 2..-, 2..-,
($at ($at is mean meantt by an actu actual al case case or 3ust 3ustic icia iabl ble e controversy) "n actual case or 9usticia%le contro&ersy is one, wic in&ol& in&ol&es es a confli conflict ct of le!al le!al ri!ts ri!ts and an assert assertion ion of opposite opposite le!al claims claims suscepti% suscepti%le le of 9udicial 9udicial resolution resolution.. :ere te issue as %ecome moot and academic, tere is no 9usticia%l 9usticia%le e contro&ers contro&ersy, y, and an ad9udicat ad9udication ion tereon tereon would would %e of no practical practical use or &alue as courts do not sit to ad9udicate mere academic Cuestions to satisfy scolarly
($at is t$e rule on payment of filing fees regarding t$e 3urisdiction of t$e court over t$e sub3ect matter) Te filin! of te complaint or appropriate initiatory pleadin! and te payment of te prescri%ed doc4et fee &est a trial court wit 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter or nature of te action. action. 1Rivera vs! Del Rosario, Rosario, 6!R! o! +--=8-, ?an! +7, 2..-/
4
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
($at is t$e effect in case of deficiency in t$e payment of filing fees) If te amount paid %y way of filin! fees is found insufficient after te payment of te case, considerin! te amount of claim, te cler4 of court of te lower court in&ol&ed, or is duly autori>ed deputy, as te responsi%ility of ma4in! a deficiency assessment. Te party filin! te case will %e reCuired to pay te deficiency, %ut 9urisdiction is not automatically lost. 1Rivera vs! Del Rosario, 6!R! o! +--=8-, ?an! +7, 2..-/
c! ?urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter' Tis is conferred %y law and, unli4e 9urisdiction o&er te parties, cannot %e conferred on te court %y te &oluntary act or a!reement of te parties. d! ?urisdiction over t$e issues of t$e case' Tis is determined and conferred %y te pleadin!s filed in te case %y te parties, or %y teir a!reement in a pre?trial order or stipulation, or, at times %y teir implied consent as %y te failure of a party to o%9ect to e&idence on an issue not co&ered %y te pleadin!s, as pro&ided in Sec. (, Rule -/.
($at factors are to be considered in determining w$ic$ court $as 3urisdiction over a particular case) In determinin! wic court as 9urisdiction o&er a case, te a&erments of te complaint@counterclaim, ta4en as a wole, are to %e considered li4e; 1a2 intra?corporate disputes 1:elarde vs! C5 6!R! o! +78**, ?an! +-, 2..-/> 1%2 a!rarian dispute 1Rivera vs! C5, 6!R! o! +--=8-, ?an! +7, 2..-/
e! ?urisdiction over t$e res 1or t$e property or t$ing w$ic$ is t$e sub3ect of t$e litigation/! Tis is acCuired %y te actual or constructi&e sei>ure %y te court of te tin! in Cuestion, tus placin! it in custodia le!is, as in attacment or !arnisment< or %y pro&ision of law wic reco!ni>es in te court te power to deal wit te property or su%9ect matter witin its territorial 9urisdiction, as in land re!istration proceedin!s or suits in&ol&in! ci&il status or real property in te $ilippines of a non?resident defendant.
($at is meant by t$e principle Hcoram non93udiceI regarding 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter or nature of t$e action) Te principle simply means tat te court as no power to decide Cuestions, e=cept as presented %y te parties in teir pleadin!s. "ny 9ud!ment rendered %y te court %eyond tem is considered Hcoram non93udiceI and terefore &oid. So wen a court renders a 9ud!ment or awards relief %eyond te prayer of te complaint or scope of its alle!ations, te e=cessi&e relief is not merely irre!ular %ut is &oid for want of 9urisdiction. 1Lam vs! C$ua, 6!R! o! +8+2*, 4arc$ +*, 2..-/
:it re!ard te case of a non?resident defendant, in two cases, te court acCuires 9urisdiction to try te case, e&en if it as not acCuired 9urisdiction o&er te person of a non? resident defendant, as lon! as it as 9urisdiction o&er te res, as wen te action in&ol&es te personal status of te plaintiff or property in te $ilippines in wic te defendant claims an interest. In suc cases, te ser&ice of summons %y pu%lication and notice to te defendant is merely to comply wit due process reCuirements. Dore, under Sec. -++ of te #orporation #ode, wile a forei!n corporation doin! %usiness in te $ilippines witout a license cannot sue or inter&ene in any action ere, it may %e sued or proceeded a!ainst %efore our courts or administrati&e tri%unals. 1De ?oya vs! 4arFuez, 6!R! o! +2-+, ?an! 8+, 2../
J filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against K! #efore t$e filing of t$e action J and K $ad a c$ild! %$e petition for declaration of nullity of t$e marriage did not contain any prayer for support of t$e minor c$ild! 4ay t$e court validly include in its 3udgment declaring t$e marriage a nullity an award for support of t$e minor c$ild) Te answer is no. Te award of te support for te cild falls witin te pur&iew of te principle re!ardin! Hcoram non93udiceI . Tat is, any award made %y te court outside of te relief prayed for %y a party is &oid for lac4 of 9urisdiction. 1Lam vs! C$ua, 6!R! o! +8+2*, 4arc$ +*, 2..-/
COURTS Concept and 6eneral Principles: Define Courts! It is tat entity in te !o&ernment or!ani>ed for te proper administration of 9ustice at te time and place prescri%ed %y law. It is an entity in wic a portion of te 9udicial power is &ested.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RULES ON THE VALID EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION %$e reFuisites for t$e eercise of 3urisdiction and $ow t$e court acFuires suc$ 3urisdiction may be summarized as follows'
($at are t$e functions of courts) To dispense 9ustice, decide contro&ersies filed %efore it and to interpret te laws of te state.
a! ?urisdiction over t$e plaintiff or petitioner' Tis is acCuired %y te filin! of te complaint, petition or initiatory pleadin! %efore te court %y te plaintiff or petitioner.
($at are t$e in$erent powers of Courts 1ec! 7, Rule +8/) Te inerent powers of courts are; a2 $reser&e and enforce order in its immediate presence< %2 Enforce order in proceedin!s %efore it, or %efore a person or persons empowered to conduct a 9udicial in&esti!ation under its autority< c2 #ompel o%edience to its 9ud!ments, orders and processes, and to te lawful orders of a 9ud!e out of court, in a case pendin! %efore it<
b! ?urisdiction over t$e defendant or respondent or accused' Tis is acCuired %y te &oluntary appearance or su%mission %y te defendant or respondent to te court or %y coerci&e process issued %y te court to im, !enerally %y te ser&ice of summons or warrant of arrest in criminal cases.
5
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
d2
e2 f2
!2
#ontrol te conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all oter persons in any manner connected wit a case %efore it and in e&ery manner appertainin! tereto< #ompel attendance of persons to testify in a case pendin! terein< "dminister or cause to %e administered oats in a case pendin! terein, and in all oter cases were it may %e necessary in te e=ercise of its powers< "utori>e a copy of a lost or destroyed pleadin! or oter paper to %e filed and used instead of te ori!inal and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedin!s.
e=ercise of te S#s primary 9urisdiction. 1Prov! Of #atangas vs! Romulo, 6!R! o! +72BB-, 4ay 2B, 2..-/
Eplain t$e Principle of
es liti!ants to see4 proper relief from te lower courts %efore ele&atin! te same to te i!er courts. In tose cases were te Supreme #ourt as concurrent 9urisdiction wit te #" and te RT# to issue te e=traordinary writs, a party is o%li!ed to first see4 relief from te RT#.
Under tis concept, te Supreme #ourt is a co?eCual %ranc of te !o&ernment. #on!ress terefore as no power to alter or modify te composition of te S#. Neiter can con!ress reduce te 9urisdiction of te Supreme #ourt. Its 9urisdiction is defined and fi=ed %y te #onstitution.
Te S# sould not %e %urdened wit te tas4 of dealin! wit causes in te first instances. Te S# ori!inal 9urisdiction to issue e=traordinary writs sould %e e=ercised only were a%solutely necessary or were serious or important reasons terefore e=ist. 1 Pearson vs! ;5C 2=7 CR5 2B :
($at body $as t$e power to define, prescribe and apportion t$e 3urisdiction of courts) Te #on!ress as te power to define, prescri%e and apportion te 9urisdiction of te &arious courts, %ut it cannot depri&e te Supreme #ourt of its 9urisdiction as pro&ided %y te #onstitution.1ections 2 & 7, 5rticle :;;;, Constitution2 #on!ress may increase te appellate 9urisdiction of te S# only wit te ad&ice and concurrence of te said #ourt. 1ection 8., 5rticle :;, Constitution2
Gollowing t$e principle of $ierarc$y of courts, to w$at court must an aggrieved party in administrative cases decided by t$e Ombudsman appeal) #ases decided %y te Om%udsman in ad-initrative dicip&inar0 cae must %e appealed to te #" under Rule 6+, not appeal %y certiorari under Rule 6(. Te pro&isions of Sec. *0 of R.". 700/ wic autori>es appeal %y certiorari under Rule 6(, in administrati&e disciplinary cases as %een declared unconstitutional %y te S#. 1:illavert vs! Desierto, L9+88B+7, Geb! 28, 2... 2.
($at are t$e powers of t$e upreme Court) Te powers of te Supreme #ourt may %e classified as follows; a2 +riginal Jurisdiction o&er cases affectin! am%assadors, oter pu%lic ministers and consuls, and o&er petitions for certiorari, proi%ition, mandamus, Cuo warranto and a%eas corpus< %2 Re&iew, re&ise, re&erse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as te law or Rules of #ourt may pro&ide final 9ud!ments and orders of lower courts in; 1.2? "ll cases in wic te constitutionality or &alidity of any treaty, international or e=ecuti&e a!reement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order instruction, ordinance or re!ulation is in Cuestion<
Does t$e same remedy apply to aggrieved parties in criminal cases) In criminal cases, te a!!rie&ed party may Cuestion te decision of te Om%udsman %y a $etition for #ertiorari under Rule 7(. Te said petition must %e filed in te Supreme #ourt and not in te #ourt of "ppeals. $etitions for certiorari Cuestionin! te Om%udsmans orders, or decisions in criminal cases sould %e filed in te Supreme #ourt and not te #ourt of "ppeals. ; P erez vs! Ombudsman, et al!, 6!R! o! +8+--7, 4ay 2B, 2..-> uizon vs! Ombudsman> 4endoza 5rce vs! Ombudsman/ uppose t$e appeal is purely on a Fuestion of law, w$ere must t$e aggrieved party appeal) "ppeal on pure Cuestion of law from te Om%udsman may %e made to te S#, te findin!s of facts %ein! conclusi&e wen supported %y su%stantial e&idence. ; 4orong (ater District vs! Ombudsman L9++B7-, 4ar! +B, 2.../
1.#? "ll cases in&ol&in! te le!ality of any ta=, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation tereto<
;s t$e rule on $ierarc$y of courts absolute) Te principle of hierarchy of courts may %e rela=ed wen te redress desired cannot %e o%tained in te appropriate courts or were e=ceptional and compellin! circumstances 9ustify te a&ailment of a remedy witin and callin! for te
1.'3 "ll cases in wic only an error or Cuestion of law is in&ol&ed.
1.$3 "ll cases in wic te 9urisdiction of any lower court is in issue<
c2
6
+riginal and Concurrent Jurisdiction wit te #" and RT# in cases in&ol&in!; Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
c.23 $etitions for te issuance of writs of certiorari, proi%ition, mandamus, Cuo warranto and a%eas corpus<
In te case of 4agat vs! People 2.+ CR5 2+, te Supreme #ourt eld tat in e=ceptional cases, were trou! ne!li!ence or i!norance of counsel, te properties, li&es and future of accused persons may un9ustly %e pre9udiced as wen an innocent person, may %e railroaded to prison or proof %eyond reasona%le dou%t was not adduced, te #ourt wai&ed te tecnical rules under its eCuity 9urisdiction and in te interest of su%stanti&e 9ustice.
c.#3 "ction %rou!t to pre&ent and restrain &iolations of law concernin! monopolies and com%inations or restraint of trade. d2
E5clusive Jurisdiction to re&iew, re&ise, re&erse modify or affirm on appeal, as te law or te rules of court may pro&ide, final 9ud!ments or decrees of all inferior courts, suc as; d.23 #riminal cases in&ol&in! offenses for wic te penalty of deat, or life imprisonment and tose in&ol&in! oter offenses wic, altou! not punised %y suc penalty, arise out of te same occurrence or wic may a&e %een committed %y te accused on te same occasion, as tat !i&in! rise to te more serious offense, re!ardless of weter te accused are car!ed as principals, accomplices or accessories, or weter tey a&e %een tried 9ointly or separately<
In anoter case ; Pimentel vs! CO4ELEC, +8 CR5 +*=/, te Supreme #ourt ordered te countin! and can&assin! of &otes in te presence of te ad&erse parties ri!t in te Supreme #ourt e&en if suc function ri!tfully %elon!s to te #ODELE# te latter %ein! te sole 9ud!e of all contest relatin! to election returns. "lso in te case of %ang0i0o vs! Cezar, 1infra2 te Supreme #ourt ruled tat; ECuity 9urisdiction is a&aila%le only in te a%sence of law and not as its replacement. ECuity is descri%ed as 9ustice witout le!ality, wic simply means tat it cannot supplant te law altou! it may, as often appens, supplement te law. @5guila v! Court of Girst ;nstance of #atangas, +. CR5 872, 87=98., 5pril +7, +=**,! ECuity can only supplement te law, not supplant it. F%ang0i0o vs! Cezar, 6!R! o! +8+2BB, Geb! 2, +===H
d.#3 #ases in&ol&in! petitions for naturali>ation or denaturali>ation 1under e=istin! laws and circulars, decisions of RT# in said cases are now appeala%le to te #"2<
;n w$at instances may t$e "PRE4E CO"R% eercise its eFuity 3urisdiction) Te Supreme #ourt may e=ercise its eCuity 9urisdiction only in a suit filed %y one wo is a real party in interest. ECuity is in&o4ed only wen te plaintiff, on te %asis of te action filed and te relief sou!t, as a clear ri!t tat e see4s to enforce, or tat would o%&iously %e &iolated if te action filed were to %e dismissed for lac4 of standin!. :ere te plaintiff as no clear enforcea%le ri!t, since is claim in te case is merely incoate and uncertain, eCuity 9urisdiction cannot %e in&o4ed, muc less e=ercised.
d.$3 8ecisions of te #O" ele&ated on certiorari %y pri&ate persons or entity< d.'3 #ases were 9urisdiction of any inferior court is in issue< d.3 Oter cases in wic only errors or Cuestion of law are in&ol&ed. e2
Poer to decide on constitutional issues2 In te case of !umlao vs. C+ , te court ruled tat constitutional Cuestions may only %e eard %y te S#, if te followin! reCuisites are present; e.23 Tat tere %e an actual contro&ersy<
tate t$e 3urisdiction of t$e CO"R% OG 5PPE5L! Te 9urisdiction of te court of appeals may %e di&ided into; a2 E=clusi&e Ori!inal 5urisdiction; "ctions for annulment of 9ud!ment of Re!ional Trial #ourts< %2 Ori!inal 5urisdiction; Re!ardin! te issuance of writs of mandamus, certiorari, a%eas corpus or Cuo warranto and oter ancillary writs or processes weter in aid of its appellate 9urisdiction or not< c2 E=clusi&e "ppellate 5urisdiction; O&er all final 9ud!ments, decisions or resolutions, order or awards of RT# 1ordinary appeals2 and petitions for re&iew 1RT# decided a case appealed to it2 and Cuasi?9udicial %odies, a!encies, instrumentalities, %oards or commissions 1%rou!t on ordinary appeal2. 3 SE#, SS#, E##, etc. e=cept tose fallin! witin te e=clusi&e appellate 9urisdiction of te S#.
e.#3 Te Cuestion of constitutionality must %e raised %y te proper party< 1a proper party is one wo may %e affected %y suc constitutional Cuestion. 2 e.$?Tat te constitutional Cuestion must %e raised at te earliest opportunity< e.'3Tat te determination of te constitutional Cuestion must %e necessary to te determination of te case itself. ($at is meant by t$e EFuity 3urisdiction of t$e upreme Court) It is te inerent power of te Supreme #ourt to wai&e tecnical rules of procedure in order to %e a%le to rule on important su%stanti&e matters. 14agat vs! People 2.+ CR5 2> %ang0i0o vs! Cezar, 6!R! o! +8+2BB, Geb! 2, +===> 5guila v! Court of Girst ;nstance of #atangas, +. CR5 872, 87=98., 5pril +7, +=** Pimentel vs! CO4ELEC, +8 CR5 +*=/
tate t$e 3urisdiction of t$e 5D;65#5K5 It is a court created pursuant to te #onstitution %ut is not considered a constitutional court. It is a trial court a&in! te same le&el as tat of te #ourt of "ppeals and its decisions, weter rendered in te e=ercise of its ori!inal or appellate 9urisdiction, are directly appeala%le to te Supreme #ourt.
7
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te Sandi!an%ayan sall also a&e te power ear and decide cases in&ol&in!; a2 Violations of R" +/- as amended %y R" -+0< %2 #rimes committed %y pu%lic officers and employees includin! tose employed in 'O##, weter simple or comple= wit oter crimes< c2 Oter crimes or offenses committed %y pu%lic officers or employees includin! tose in 'O## in relation to teir official functions.
its appellate 9urisdiction. 15bbot vs! 4apayo ?ul! , 2...> 5larilla vs! #, 5ugust 22, 2... , Te case of *arcia vs. &andiganbayan, earlier decided %y te Supreme #ourt, is deemed a%andoned. In te said case te S# ruled tat te Sandi!an%ayan did not a&e suc a 9urisdiction.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
($at is t$e nature of t$e 3urisdiction of t$e andiganbayan) Te 9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan is ori!inal and e=clusi&e if te offense car!ed is punisa%le %y penalty i!er tan prision correccional or its eCui&alent. :ere a pu%lic officer is car!ed wit pri&ate indi&iduals in wate&er de!ree of participation, te accused sall %e 9ointly tried.
($at is t$e 3urisdiction of t$e Regional %rial Courts in civil cases9 Te re!ional trial courts sall a&e ori!inal e=clusi&e 9urisdiction o&er all ci&il cases; a2 Te su%9ect matter in liti!ation is not capa%le of pecuniary estimation. 1e.!. annulment of or rescission of contracts, de Leon &s. #", Darc 7, -0< %2 :ic in&ol&e te title to or possession of real property or any interest terein were te assessed &alue of te property in&ol&ed e=ceeds */, ///< or suc 4inds of ci&il actions in Detro?Danila te &alue must %e o&er (/,///< c2 "ctions in admiralty and maritime 9urisdiction were te &alue in contro&ersy e=ceeds +//,/// or in Detro?Danila 6//,///< d2 $ro%ate 1testate or intestate2 were te !ross &alue of te estate e=ceeds +//,/// or in Detro?Danila? 6//,///< e2 #ases not witin te 9urisdiction of any court, tri%unal, person or %ody e=ercisin! 9urisdiction of any court, tri%unal, person or %ody e=ercisin! 9udicial or Cuasi?9udicial functions< f2 "ll oter cases in wic te demand, e=clusi&e of interest, dama!es or wate&er 4ind, attorneys fees, liti!ation e=penses and costs or te &alue of te property in contro&ersy e=ceeds +//,/// or in metro?manila 6//,///<
4ay t$e civil liability arising from t$e offense cognizable by t$e andiganbayan be validly t$e sub3ect of a separate civil action) Te answer is no. "ny ci&il action filed aead and separately from te criminal action sall %e transferred to te Sandi!an%ayan. ($at is t$e nature 3urisdiction of t$e andiganbayan over offenses and felonies) Te Sandi!an%ayan as 9urisdiction o&er all offenses, weter simple or comple= wit oter crimes, committed %y pu%lic officers or employees mentioned in Sec. 6, R" 00(, as amended %y R" )*6 in relation to teir office, were te accused olds a position wit salary !rade *0 and i!er under te #ompensation #lassification "ct of -). 1Cuyco vs! 5D;65#5K5 L9+8B.B, Geb! +*, 2.../!
By implication pu%lic officers and employees accused of similar offenses or felonies tat carry a salary !rade lower tan !rade *0 sall %e tried %y te Re!ional Trial #ourts. Tis means tat it is te salary !rade and not te actual salary recei&ed %y te pu%lic officers weter local or national tat determines te 9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan. 1Llorente vs! 5D;65#5K5! L9 +222=B ?an! +=, 2...> see also Layus vs! #, Dec! *,+===/
Do actions involving contract of marriage and marital relations fall wit$in t$e 3urisdiction of t$e Regional %rial Courts) Te answer would seem to %e in te ne!ati&e. Under te present rules actions in&ol&in! contract of marria!e and marital relations now fall witin te 9urisdiction of te Kamily #ourts. Te rules pro&ide tat ci&il actions and special proceedin!s fallin! witin te e=clusi&e ori!inal 9urisdiction of te 58R# now fall witin te 9urisdiction of te Kamily #ourts.
Does t$e andiganbayan $ave 3urisdiction over civil and criminal cases involving ill9gotten wealt$) Te answer is Yes. Te 9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan includes all ci&il and criminal cases filed pursuant of E.O J -,*,-6 and -6?" re!ardin! ill?!otten wealt. Te ci&il cases related to ill?!otten wealt eard, tried and decided %y te Re!ional Trial #ourts may %e annulled %y te Sandi!an%ayan. 1PC66 vs! andiganbayan, L9+82B8*, Geb! 28, 2...> see also 4C vs! #, ept! +-, 2.../
($at ot$er cases fall wit$in t$e 3urisdiction of t$e regional trial courts) Te re!ional trial courts may also e=ercise ori!inal 9urisdiction in cases in&ol&in!; a2 Issuance of writs of certiorari, proi%ition, mandamus, a%eas corpus and in9unction wic may %e enforced in any part of teir respecti&e re!ions< %2 "ctions affectin! am%assadors and oter pu%lic ministers and consuls.
4ay t$e andiganbayan $ave 3urisdiction to issue writs of pro$ibition, mandamus, in3unction, certiorari or $abeas corpus) Te answer is yes. $ursuant to te pro&isions of R" 00(, te Sandi!an%ayan is empowered to issue writs of mandamus, proi%ition, certiorari, a%eas corpus, in9unction and oter ancillary writs and processes in aid of
($at criminal cases fall wit$in t$e eclusive original 3urisdiction of t$e regional trial courts) Te re!ional trial courts sall e=ercise e=clusi&e ori!inal 9urisdiction o&er all #riminal actions not fallin! witin te e=clusi&e 9urisdiction of any court, tri%unal or %ody, e=cept
8
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
tose now fallin! under te e=clusi&e and concurrent 9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan.
%2
($at is t$e appellate 3urisdiction of t$e regional trial courts) It sall e=ercise appellate 9urisdiction o&er all cases decided %y te DT# in teir respecti&e territorial 9urisdiction. Te decision of te RT# sall %e su%9ect to re&iew %y te #".
($at is t$e so9called Hpecial ?urisdictionI of t$e first level courts) 2 Te so?called Aspecial 9urisdiction refers to teir power to; a2 Gear and decide petitions for writ of a%eas corpus< %2 "pplications for %ail. 1Tis can %e e=ercised only in te a%sence of te RT#2
($at is t$e so9called Hpecial ?urisdictionI of regional trial courts) Te S# may desi!nate certain RT# to andle e=clusi&ely criminal cases, 9u&enile case, "!rarian cases, ur%an land reform cases wic do not fall under te 9urisdiction of Cuasi?9udicial %odies and a!encies and suc oter cases determined %y te S# in te interest of speedy and efficient administration of 9ustice.
($at is t$e 3urisdictional test in real actions) #i&il affectin! title to, or possession, of real property, or interest terein is %ased on te aeed va&4e of te property su%9ect matter of te case. If te real property as not %een assessed ten te &alue sall %e %ased on te assessed &alue of ad9acent properties. If te ad9acent properties a&e not %een assessed, te "ssessor sould %e as4ed to ma4e te proper assessment.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS 1Kirst Le&el #ourts?
($at is t$e 3urisdictional test in personal actions) Under te law, only te %asic claim of te plaintiff furnises te 9urisdictional test. 8ama!es of wate&er 4ind, attorneys fees, liti!ation e=penses, interest and costs are all e=cluded as %asis for determinin! te 9urisdictional amount of te court.
tate t$e 3urisdiction of t$e municipal trial courts or t$e so9called first level courts! Te municipal trial courts or first le&el courts e=ercise 9urisdiction o&er te followin! cases, to wit; a, Cri-ina& action: a.23 "ll &iolations of city or municipal ordinances committed witin teir respecti&e territorial 9urisdiction.
a.#3 O&er all offenses punisa%le wit imprisonment not e=ceedin! 7 years irrespecti&e of te amount of fine, and re!ardless of oter imposa%le accessory or oter penalties includin! ci&il lia%ility arisin! from suc offense. a.$3 O&er all rec4less imprudence cases irrespecti&e of te amount of dama!e in&ol&ed. a.'3 Violations of Batas $am%ansa re!ardless of te imposa%le fine.
Bl!.
Gear and determine cadastral or land re!istration cases concernin! contested lots te &alue of wic does not e=ceed -//,///. 1Note tat te decisions rendered in tese cases sall %e appealed to te RT#
**
Gowe&er, in cases were te claim of dama!es is te main cause of action, one of te causes of action, te amount of suc claim sall %e considered in determinin! te 9urisdiction of te court.
1, Civi& action< 1.23 #i&il actions and pro%ate proceedin!s 1testate or intestate2 includin! te !rant of pro&isional remedies were te &alue of te property, estate or te amount of te dama!e does not e=ceed +//,/// or in metro?Danila 6//,/// e=clusi&e of te interest or dama!es<
($at $appens w$en t$e main cause of action falls wit$in t$e 3urisdiction of t$e first level courts) If te main cause of action falls witin te co!ni>ance of te first le&el courts, ten all te 9oined causes of action, assumin! tere is proper 9oinder, sould %e included in one complaint to %e filed in te first le&el courts.
1.#3 #ases of forci%le entry and unlawful detainer< 1.$3 "ll oter ci&il actions wic in&ol&e title to or possession of, real property or any interest terein were te assessed &alue of te property or interest terein does not e=ceed */,/// or in metro?manila does no e=ceed (/,///.
But, if te main cause of action is co!ni>a%le %y te RT#, ten te incidental or ancillary causes sould follow te main cause of action and sould %e filed in te same RT# to a&oid multiplicity of suits and splittin! sin!le cause of action.
($at is t$e so9called HDelegated ?urisdictionI of t$e first level courts) 2 Te so?called Adele!ated 9urisdiction of te first le&el courts refers to teir power to; a2 Gear and determine cadastral or land re!istration cases co&erin! lots were tere is no contro&ersy or opposition<
($at $appens w$en t$ere is a valid 3oinder of causes of action, some of w$ic$ fall wit$in t$e cognizance of t$e first level courts and t$e ot$ers fall wit$in t$e cognizance of t$e regional trial courts)
9
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te se&eral claims or causes of action tus 9oined, weter %etween te same or different parties em%odied in te same complaint, te amount of demand sall %e te totality of all te claims in all te causes of action, irrespecti&e of weter te cause of action arose out of te same or different transactions.1Sec. ++, B$ -*2 Note owe&er, tat in cases of 9oinder of causes of action, tere must %e proper 9oinder of parties.
THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE ($at actions fall wit$in t$e coverage of t$e Rules on ummary Procedure)' Te followin! actions fall witin te co&era!e of te Rules on Summary $rocedure, to wit; 2, Civi& Action invo&vin: Korci%le entry and unlawful detainer cases, irrespecti&e of te amount of dama!es or unpaid rentals, and oter claims related to te main case. 1%ugot vs! Coliflores, 54 o! 4%?9..9 +882, Geb! +, 2..-> LR vs! C5, L9+2.B, Oct! +, 2.../> Oter ci&il cases, e=cept pro%ate proceedin!s were te total amount of te plaintiffs claim does not e=ceed $p-//,/// e=clusi&e of interest and costs. •
uppose t$at in a complaint filed wit$ t$e 4%C, t$e defendant files a motion to dismiss on t$e ground of lac0 of 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter and t$e motion is granted! %$e plaintiff appeals t$e order of dismissal to t$e R%C, can t$e R%C dismiss t$e case on t$e ground t$at t$e 4%C did not $ave original 3urisdiction over t$e case and t$erefore it cannot eercise appellate 3urisdiction) It is su%mitted tat te answer is NO ! ection *, Rule -. , mandates tat te RT# sould e=ercise its ori!inal 9urisdiction o&er te case. In suc a case, te RT# sall try te case on te merits as if te case was ori!inally filed wit it. It re&erses te order< te case must %e remanded to te court of ori!in
•
#, Cri-ina& Action: Violation of traffic laws, rules and re!ulations< Violation of te Rental Law< Violation of city or municipal ordinances< Oter criminal actions were te penalty prescri%ed %y law does not e=ceed imprisonment of si= monts or fine of $-,///< • • •
In instances were te case was tried on te merits %y te DT# in spite of te fact tat it ad no 9urisdiction, te RT# may try te case as if it ad ori!inal 9urisdiction o&er te case. 1ec!*, Rule -. 2
•
($at are t$e Pleadings allowed by t$e rules on summary procedure) Only te followin! &erified pleadin!s are allowed %y te said rules; -. #omplaint< *. #ompulsory counterclaims< +. #ross claims< and 6. "nswer
;s t$e payment of filing fee a ground for dismissal of a case based on lac0 of 3urisdiction) Te answer is !enerally No. $ursuant to decisions of te S#, te courts may not ta4e any action on a case filed were te filin! fee as not %een paid. But it does not mean tat te court lac4s 9urisdiction.1 4egaspi vs! Ramolete ++7 CR5 +=8> 4anc$ester vs! C5 +-= CR 72 and uns ;nsurance vs! 5suncion 1Geb! +8, +=*=/
($at options does t$e court $ave upon t$e filing of a complaint covered by t$e rules on summary procedure) Upon te filin! of a complaint, te court may opt; To dismiss te case on any of te !rounds for dismissin! a ci&il action 1Rule -7 and under oter rules2< or Issue te correspondin! summons if none of te !rounds for motion to dismiss is applica%le.
;s t$e payment of filing fee reFuired wit$ regard to counterclaims) $ursuant to new "dm. #ircular of te S# tat too4 effect "u!ust -(, *//6, te answer would seem to %e yes.
•
($at are t$e rules to be followed regarding t$e payment of filing fees) Kollowin! te rulin!s of te Supreme #ourt in te a%o&e? cited case and "dm. #ircular, te followin! appear to %e te applica%le rules, to wit; a2 :ere te initiatory pleadin! is not accompanied %y te payment of te doc4et fee, te court may allow te payment of te fee witin a reasona%le period %ut in no case %eyond te applica%le prescripti&e period. 1uns ;nsurance vs! 5suncion 1Geb! +8, +=*=/ %2 Te rule applies to all 4inds of counter?claims, tird? party complaints and similar pleadin!s. c2 :ere te court acCuires 9urisdiction o&er te case %y te payment of te appropriate filin! fee %ut su%seCuently te 9ud!ment awards a claim not specified in te complaint, or te determination of wic was left to te discretion of te court, te additional filin! fee must %e paid tereafter or tat te same may%e considered as a first lien on te 9ud!ment 14aerc0s vs! C5 ?uly 2., +==. :.
•
($at follows after service of summons $as been validly made) "fter a &alid ser&ice of summons te defendant must file is answer witin -/ days from receipt of te summons. Te answer must em%ody all te defendants defenses 1affirmati&e and ne!ati&e2< counterclaims or cross?claims. Kailure on te part of te defendant to include suc alle!ations would %e deemed a wai&er on is part. 1Omnibus motion rule2 Te only e=ception to tis rule is wen te !round not included is lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter wic, cannot %e wai&ed %ut may %e %arred %y laces or estoppel. 1%i3am vs! ibung$anoy, supra :. "fter te filin! of te answer, te court sall set te case for preliminary conference or may refer te case for ar%itration 158R2. ($at is t$e effect if t$e defendant fails to file an answer wit$in t$e prescribed period)
10
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Kailure on te part of te defendant to file an answer witin te period prescri%ed %y te rules sall empower te court motu proprio or upon motion of te plaintiff to render a 9ud!ment %ased on te complaint 1ec! / and as warranted %y te facts 1ordan vs! ?udge de 6uzman, Oct! 7, 2.../.
apparent from te case alon! wit te e&idence su%mitted terein. Under tis pro&ision and e=cept for ne!ati&e and affirmati&e defenses not raised in te answer were an answer as %een filed, te trial court under summary procedure is empowered to dismiss te complaint upon !rounds adduced in te respecti&e position papers of te parties as was done in te instant case . 1Ong, vs! C 5 6!R! o! +--7*+, ?uly 7, 2..2/
4ay t$e defendant or any party for t$at matter be allowed to file any motion to etend t$e period for filing t$e answer) Te rules specifically proi%it te filin! of any motion for e=tension of te periods prescri%ed or fi=ed in te order of te court. 1ec! +=> :illanueva vs! EstoFue ov! 2=, 2.../
uppose a complaint asserts a common cause of action against several defendants, some answer and t$e ot$ers fail to answer, will ection apply) Te answer is no. In instances were tere are se&eral defendants, some of wo appear or answer and te oters do not, ec! 8, Rule = of te re!ular rules of procedure sall apply. In wic case te court sall try te case a!ainst all upon te answers tus filed and renders 9ud!ment upon te e&idence presented.
($at is t$e effect of a partyMs failure to appear during t$e preliminary conference) "fter te last pleadin! as %een filed, te preliminary conference sall %e set not later tan +/ days from te filin! of said pleadin!. 1ec! B R 2 If te Plaintiff fails to appear, te court may order te dismissal of te complaint< and if it is te !efendant wo fails to appear, te plaintiff may o%tain 9ud!ment as if no answer was filed.
%$e plaintiff failed to appear during t$e preliminary conference, t$e court ordered t$e dismissal of t$e case on t$e ground of suc$ non9appearance! 4ay t$e plaintiff validly file a motion for reconsideration of t$e order of dismissal) Te answer is yes. Te rule re!ardin! te proi%ition of te filin! of a motion for reconsideration in cases !o&erned %y te rules on summary procedure applies only in circumstances were te court as rendered a 9ud!ment on te merits of te case. Te Supreme #ourt eld;
5re t$ere pleadings t$at are not allowed under t$e rules on summary procedure) Yes, tere are pleadin!s tat are not allowed under te rules, tey are te followin!; 1ec! +=/ a2 Dotion to 8ismiss< Dotion to uas< 1Eception' :en te !round for te motion is lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter or offense< or failure to comply wit a condition precedent, 1e.!. R" 0-7/< %2 Dotion for Bill of $articulars< c2 $etition for Relief from 5ud!ment< d2 Dotion for E=tension of time to plead or file pleadin!s< e2 Demorandum< f2 $etitions for certiorari, proi%ition or mandamus< !2 Dotion for 8eclaration of 8efault< 2 Dotion for $ostponement intended for delay< i2 Reply< 92 +rd $arty, 6 t party etc. complaint< 42 Inter&entions.
?The motion prohibited by this &ection is that hich see)s reconsideration of the 'udgment rendered by the court after trial on the merits of the case.? 7Joven v. Court of $ppeals, >/> &C($ @11, @1@A@1 ;/00>:8 "ere, the order of dismissal issued by respondent 'udge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference is obviously not a 'udgment on the merits after trial of the case. "ence, a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under &ection /0 ;c: of the present (ule on &ummary Procedure.3 1Lucas vs! Gabros, ?an! 8+, 2.../ ($at actions are governed by t$e Rules on Civil Procedure) 5ctions not governed) Te rules on ci&il procedure !o&ern te followin!; Civi& action wic is defined as an action were%y a party sues anoter for te enforcement or protection of a ri!t, or te pre&ention or redress of a wron! FSec. +a Rule -H it may eiter %e ordinary or special and are !o&erned %y te rules for ordinary ci&il actions. 1i%id.2
($en are t$e rules on summary procedure not applicable) Te said rules do not apply to te followin!; -. #i&il cases were te plaintiffs cause of action is pleaded in te complaint wit anoter cause of action tat is !o&erned %y te ordinary rules of procedure< *. #riminal cases were te offense car!ed is necessarily related to anoter criminal case su%9ect to ordinary procedure.
•
•
Does t$e rule on waiver of defenses and ob3ections under ec! +, Rule =, +==B Rules of Civil Procedure apply to cases governed by t$e rules on summary procedure) Te answer is no. te Supreme #ourt eld tat te said rule does not also apply suppletorily or directly to cases !o&erned %y te rules on summary procedure. :at !o&erns is ec! - of t$e +==+ Re&ised Rules on Summary $rocedure were te trial court is at li%erty to ta4e notice of te !rounds for te dismissal of a ci&il action tat are
•
Cri-ina& action are defined as an action %y wic te state prosecutes a person for an act or omission punisa%le %y law. FSec. +%, Rule -H Specia& Proceedin are defined as remedies %y wic a party see4s to esta%lis a status, a ri!t or a particular fact.FSec. +c, Rule -H.
Te followin! cases are not co&ered or !o&erned %y te rules; ; Rule +-8 and ec! -, Rule +/ a2 Election cases< %2 Land Re!istration #ases< c2 #adastral #ases< d2 Insol&ency proceedin!s<
11
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
e2
Oter cases e=cluded from te rules. Note owe&er, tat were te law !o&ernin! said cases does not pro&ide for specific rules of procedure te rules of court sall %e made to apply only in a suppletory caracter.
wic, if true, sow an inconsistent interest, te proceedin!, is in rem. If te main purpose of te proceedin! is to su%9ect te property of te defendant to te o%li!ation or lien, te action is Fuasi in rem. 5re t$ere ot$er classifications t$an t$ose already discussed) 5ccion $ipotecaria is a real action to foreclose a lien or mort!a!e on real property. 5ccion ;nterdictal is an action for unlawful detainer or forci%le entry %rou!t for te purpose of recoverin act4a& poeion o9 rea& propert0. Te term was %rou!t a%out in a S# case? ?4 %uazon vs! :illanueva, ept! 8., +=7*! 5ccion Publiciana is an action to recover t%e ri%t o9 poeion over rea& propert0 were depri&ation of possession as e=ceeded one year. 1?4 %uazon, ept! 8., +=7*/ It is te plenary action for te reco&ery of possession wen dispossession was effected %y means oter tan tose mentioned in Rule 0/. Te plenary action may %e %rou!t eiter in te DT# or RT# dependin! on te assessed &alue of te real property in&ol&ed. 5ccion reinvidicacion is an action to recover owner%ip o9 rea& propert0 includin! reco&ery of possession. It may also %e filed in te DT# or RT# dependin! on te assessed &alue of te property in liti!ation. ($at determines t$e nature of an action) Te nature of te action is determined %y te alle!ations of te complaint and not te relief demanded, in certain cases, te relief demanded may elp in te determination of te action.
ACTIONS IN GENERAL
•
($at is an action) "n action is an ordinary suit in a court of 9ustice %y wic one party prosecutes anoter for te enforcement or protection of a ri!t, or te pre&ention or redress of a wron!. (De 6uzman vs! C5, +=2 CR5 7.> Note also tat tis definition was te definition in Sec. -. Rule * %efore te amendment of te -76 Rules of #ourt2
•
•
($at is t$e distinction between an 5ction and pecial Proceeding) Te terms may %e distin!uised in tis wise; "n action reCuires te filin! of formal pleadin!s wile in special proceedin!s relief may %e o%tained %y mere application or petition. "n action reCuires two or more definite and particular ad&erse parties wo are eiter called te plaintiff or defendant, wereas in special proceedin!s, tere is a definite petitioner %ut tere is no definite ad&erse party, as te proceedin! is usually considered a!ainst te wole world. ;in rem:
•
Classify Civil 5ctions! #i&il actions may %e classified as follows; a2 5s to nature; Under te class, a ci&il action may %e ordinary or special. E=amples of special ci&il actions are tose for nterpleader,; Rules 2 to B+2 "ll oter ci&il actions are considered ordinary ci&il actions.
($at is meant by t$e term Hub3ect matter of t$e action) Te prase Hsub3ect matter of t$e actionI means te pysical facts, te tin!s, real or personal, te money, land and cattels, and te li4e, in relation to wic a suit is prosecuted. In sort, it refers to te tin! or o%9ect in dispute.
%2 5s to cause or foundation; Under tis class, a ci&il action may %e rea&" perona& or -ixed. Rea& action are tose founded on te pri&ity of real estate, suc as action affectin! title to or possession of, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure on, real property. Personal actions are tose founded on te pri&ity of contract or on Cuasi?delict, suc as actions for reco&ery of sum of money, or dama!es, for te enforcement or resolution of a contract, or for reco&ery of personal property. 1Read 5rt! -+7 CC 2 "nd mied actions are tose pertainin! in some de!ree to %ot real and personal and, terefore are properly reducti%le to neiter or te earlier classification, %ein! %rou!t for te specific reco&ery of land and for dama!es sustained in respect to suc land.
tate t$e basis and meaning of a cause of action) E&ery action must %e %ased on a cause of action or te act or omission %y wic a party &iolates te ri!ts or anoter 1ec!+, Rule 2/! Te term cause of action is te delict or wron! %y wic te defendant &iolates te ri!t or ri!ts of te plaintiff. 1Davao Lig$t vs! Osabel, et al! 6!R! o! +-B.7*, 4arc$ +., 2.. , Note; Tis would also answer te Cuestion wat is te %asis of an action.2 tate t$e basic elements of a cause of action Te tree 1+2 %asic or essential elements of a cause of action are; -. ri!t pertainin! to te plaintiff< *. correlati&e o%li!ation of te defendant to respect or not to &iolate suc ri!t< +. &iolation of te said ri!t %y te defendant in &iolation of is o%li!ation< and 8ama!es suffered %y te plaintiff as a conseCuence of te &iolation. 14elc$or vs! 4elc$or, 6!R! o! +7.88, ov! +8, 2..8/
c2 5s to ob3ect 2 "ctions may %e in perona-" in reor 84ai in re-. :en te purpose of te suit is to esta%lis a claim !enerally a!ainst a particular person wit a 9ud!ment, wic %inds is person or to %ar some indi&idual claim or o%9ection, so tat te 9ud!ment will only %indin! a!ainst suc person, te action is in personam 16omez vs! C5, 6!R! o! +2B=2, 4arc$ +., 2..-/. If te main purpose of te suit is to %ar indifferently all wo mi!t %e similarly minded or if any one in te world as, a ri!t to %e eard on te stren!t of alle!in! facts,
12
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
" sin!le contract pro&idin! for se&eral o%li!ations to %e performed at different times, !i&es rise to a sin!le and independent cause of action for eac o%li!ation tat is not performed at te proper time.
tate t$e basic distinctions between a Cause of 5ction and a Rig$t of 5ction! Te %asic distinctions are; 1a2 Cause of action refers to te act or omission committed %y te defendant, wereas rig$t of action refers to te ri!t of te plaintiff to institute te action< 1%2 Cause of action is determined %y te pleadin!s, wereas rig$t of action is determined %y te su%stanti&e law< and 1c2 Rig$t of action may %e ta4en away %y te runnin! of te statute of limitations, %y estoppel or oter circumstances wic do not affect at all te cause of action.
If se&eral o%li!ations a&e already matured all of tem sall %e considered as inte!ratin! a sin!le cause of action and must all %e included in te complaint. Tose tat are not included are %arred fore&er. In fine, were no action is %rou!t until more tan one is due, all tat are due must %e included in one action< If an action is %rou!t to reco&er upon one or more tat are due %ut not upon all tat are due, a reco&ery in suc action will %e a %ar to a se&eral or oter actions %rou!t to reco&er one or more claims of te oter claims tat were due at te time te first action was %rou!t.1 #P; G54;LK 5:;6 #5, ;C! vs! COCOLL"EL5, 6!R! o! +BB2-, 2.. ?un 2B/
($at is t$e %est of sufficiency of facts constituting eistence of a cause of action) Te test of te sufficiency of te facts to constitute a cause of action is weter admittin! te facts alle!ed in te complaint, te court could render a &alid 9ud!ment in accordance wit te prayer of te complaint. Te court in resol&in! te issue must only consider te facts asserted in te complaint witout modification altou! wit reasona%le inference tere from!1Davao Lig$t vs! Osabel, et al! 6!R! o! +-B.7*, 4arc$ +., 2.. :
" contract a&in! an acceleration clause, tat is, wen te failure to comply wit one of se&eral stipulations in a continuin! contract constitutes a total %reac, a sin!le cause of action arises from te %reac. 1 #lossoms vs! 4anila 6as 77 P$il! =28/ uppose t$e contract of loan is secured by mortgage, in case of breac$ may t$e creditor9mortgagee file two simultaneous or cumulatively separate actions of specific performance and foreclosure of mortgage) Te answer is NO. In te a%sence of e=press statutory pro&isions, a mort!a!ee?creditor may institute a!ainst te mort!a!e de%tor eiter a personal action for de%t or a real action to foreclose te mort!a!e. In oter words, e may pursue eiter of te two remedies, %ut not %ot. 1#P; G54;LK 5:;6 #5, ;C! vs! COCOLL"EL5, 6!R! o! +BB2-, 2.. ?un 2B/
($at is splitting a single cause of action) It is te act of a party di&idin! a sin!le cause of action into different parts and ma4in! eac part te su%9ect of a separate complaint. tate t$e rule on splitting a single cause of action! tate t$e purpose of t$e rule! "s a !eneral rule a person may only file one suit from a sin!le cause of action. 1ec! 8, Rule 2/ It comes from tat old ma=im??? Anemo de%et %is &e=are pro una et eadem causa1no man s$all be twice veed for one and t$e same cause!/ 1E parte Lange, +* (all +8, +*> 2+ Law Ed *B2> "!! vs! %$roc0morton, =* "!! +> 27 Law Ed! =8/. Te rule is on te principles of pu%lic policy to pre&ent incon&enience and ardsip incident to repeated and unnecessary liti!ations. 1City of #acolod vs! an 4iguel #rewery October 8., +==/ Te purpose of te rule a!ainst splittin! a cause of action isM to pre&ent repeated liti!ation %etween te same parties in re!ard to te same su%9ect of contro&ersy< to protect defendant from unnecessary &e=ation< and to a&oid te costs and e=penses incident to numerous suits1+ C!?! ++.B/
($at is t$e effect of t$e election made by t$e mortgagee9creditor to pursue a cause of action) By suc election, is cause of action can %y no means %e impaired, for eac of te two remedies is complete in itself. Tus, an election to %rin! a personal action will lea&e open to im all te properties of te de%tor for attacment and e=ecution, e&en includin! te mort!a!ed property itself. "nd, if e wai&es suc personal action and pursues is remedy a!ainst te mort!a!ed property, an unsatisfied 9ud!ment tereon would still !i&e im te ri!t to sue for a deficiency 9ud!ment, in wic case, all te properties of te defendant, oter tan te mort!a!ed property, are a!ain open to im for te satisfaction of te deficiency. In eiter case, is remedy is complete, is cause of action undiminised, and any ad&anta!es attendant to te pursuit of one or te oter remedy are purely accidental and are all under is ri!t of election. 1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! o! +BB2-, 2.. ?un 2B/
•
•
tate t$e test for determining w$et$er or not a cause of action is single or not! Test for determining hether a cause of action is single; Te rule a!ainst splittin! cause of action depends upon weter te wron! for wic redress is sou!t is te same in %ot actions.
($at is t$e effect if a rule would allow t$e plaintiff to pursue bot$ actions simultaneously or successively) " rule tat would autori>e te plaintiff to %rin! a personal action a!ainst te de%tor and simultaneously or successi&ely anoter action a!ainst te mort!a!ed property, would result not only in multiplicity of suits so offensi&e to 9ustice 1Soriano &. EnriCues, *6 $il. ()62 and o%no=ious to law and eCuity 1Osorio &. San "!ustin, *( $il. 6/62, %ut also in su%9ectin! te defendant to te
13
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
&e=ation of %ein! sued in te place of is residence or of te residence of te plaintiff, and ten a!ain in te place were te property lies.1 1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! o! +BB2-, 2.. ?un 2B/
operation of te doctrine if te party a!ainst wom te 9ud!ment is offered in e&idence was also te party in te first action. Tis rule wards off te possi%ility of renewin! liti!ation %etween te same parties %y te simple e=pedient %rin!in! into te second action a new party. 1 5bines vs! #P;, 6!R! o! +B=.., 2.. Geb +8/ Te doctrines of res 'udicata and litis pendencia are principles sanctioned %y pu%lic policy in order tat multiplicity of suits may %e a&oided.
($at is t$e remedy against splitting a single cause of action) Te defendant may mo&e to dismiss te case on te !round of litis pendencia, if te complaints are still pendin! 1ec! +c, Rule + : or on te !round of res 'udicata, if te first case as %een terminated %y final 9ud!ment 1ec! +f, Rule +/!
tate t$e concept of ?oinder of causes of action! 5oinder of causes of action simply means tat a party may assert, in one pleadin!, in te alternati&e or oterwise as many causes of action as e may a&e a!ainst an opposin! party su%9ect to te rules on &enue, 9urisdiction and 9ointer of parties. Tere can %e no 9oinder of causes of action to include special ci&il actions or actions !o&erned %y special rules.
:ere a party mo&es to dismiss on te !round of litis pendencia, te followin! reCuisites must %e present; a2 Identity of parties or at least suc as representin! te same interest in %ot actions< %2 Identity of ri!ts asserted and relief prayed for, te relief %ein! founded on te same facts< and c2 Te identity in te two cases sould %e tat te 9ud!ment rendered in one would, re!ardless of wic party is successful, amount to res 'udicata in te oter. 1ote' %$e 3udgment in one must $ave become final and eecutory as distinguis$ed from interlocutory, ;nvestment, ;nc! vs! C5 ?une 2B, +=*B :
($at is t$e concept of Permissive 3oinder of parties) $ermissi&e 9oinder of parties means tat all persons in wom or a!ainst wom any ri!t to relief in respect to or arisin! out of te same transaction or series of transactions is alle!ed to e=ist, weter 9ointly, se&erally or in te alternati&e, may, e=cept as oterwise pro&ided in tese rules, 9oin as plaintiffs or %e 9oined as defendants in one complaint, were any Cuestion of law or fact common to all suc plaintiffs or to all suc defendants may arise in te action, %ut te court may ma4e suc orders as may %e 9ust to pre&ent any plaintiff or defendant from %ein! em%arrassed or put to e=pense in connection wit any proceedin!s in wic e may a&e no interest 1Glores vs! P$illipps, ept! 2-, +=*/!
($at is t$e Doctrine of Nlaw of t$e caseI) Te doctrine simply means tat wate&er is once irre&oca%ly esta%lised as te controllin! le!al rule or decision %etween te same parties in te same case continues to %e te law !o&ernin! te parties so lon! as te facts on wic suc decision was predicated continue to %e te facts of te case %efore te court. 14angoma vs! C5 L9==8B7, Geb!+, +==7/
;n case of a valid 3oinder of parties w$at s$all be t$e 3urisdictional test) In case of a &alid 9oinder of parties 1plaintiff or defendant2 te total of all te claims sall furnis te 9urisdictional test. 1Glores vs! P$illipps, ept! 2-, +=*/!
($at is t$e HDoctrine of res 3udicataI) Te rule of res 'udicata, is also 4nown as %ar %y prior 9ud!ment. It means tat a final 9ud!ment or order on te merits, rendered %y a #ourt a&in! 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter and of te parties, is conclusi&e in a su%seCuent case %etween te same parties. Te 9ud!ment also %inds teir successor?in?interest %y title su%seCuent to te commencement of te action or special proceedin!, liti!atin! for te same tin! and under te same title and in te same capacity. Fee also ection -B 1b/ Rule 8=, Rules of Court!
uppose all t$e causes of action 3oined are principally for sum of money w$at s$all be t$e 3urisdictional test) :ere all te causes of action 9oined are principally for te reco&ery of sum of money, te a!!re!ate amount claimed sall %e te test of 9urisdiction. Te totality of te demand in te suits for reco&ery of sums of money %etween te same parties in te complaint constitutes te %asis of 9urisdiction and determines te 9urisdictional amount in ci&il cases 1#ulig9#ulig vs! ulpicio Lines 4ay +=, +=*=/
($at are t$e reFuisites of res 3udicata) Te reCuisites essential for te application of te principle of res 9udicata are; a2 tere must %e a final 9ud!ment or order< %2 said 9ud!ment or order must %e on te merits< c2 te #ourt renderin! te same must a&e 9urisdiction on te su%9ect matter and te parties< and d2 tere must %e %etween te two cases identity of parties, identity of su%9ect matter, and identity of causes of action. @EFuitable PC;# vs! C5, 6!R! o! +-877, 4arc$ +, 2..-
($at is t$e effect if t$e parties decide not to be 3oined in a single complaint) If te parties decided not to %e 9oined in a sin!le complaint, te 9urisdictional %asis sall %e te amounts in eac of te separate complaints. 1#ulig9#ulig vs! ulpicio Lines 4ay +=, +=*=/ Te ri!t of a party to cause te 9oinder of causes of action is merely permissi&e. It is not an o%li!atory rule. Te ri!t or pri&ile!e is &ested in te plaintiff. ;s 4is3oinder of causes of action in one complaint a ground for motion to dismiss) Te answer is no. It is not a !round for motion to dismiss. Te court may motu proprio order te separation of te causes of action or on motion of a party. Tereafter te court may proceed wit te trial of eac of te causes of
($at is t$e concept of H;dentity of partiesI) Identity of parties as an indispensa%le condition for te e=istence of res 'udicata does not mean a%solute or total identity of all te parties. Te inclusion of a new party in te second action does not remo&e te case from te
14
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
action separately. " mis9oinder nor a non?9oinder of parties is a !round for dismissal of an action, %ecause parties may %e dropped or added at any sta!e of te proceedin!s. 1ec! , Rule 2, Cabuti$an vs!Landcenter ;nc! 6!R! o! +-7=-, 2..2/
Te purpose of allowin! 9oinder of causes of action is to a&oid multiplicity of suits. Te rule on 9oinder of causes of action %ein! procedural in nature sould %e li%erally construed to te end tat related contro&ersies %etween te same parties may %e ad9udicated at one time. 1Grancisco on t$e Rule of Court/
($at is t$e effect of a Hno9action clauseI embodied in a contract on t$e rules on 3oinder of causes of action) " Ano?action clause em%odied in a contract cannot supersede te rules on 9oinder of causes of action or 9oinder of parties wit respect to tird persons wo are not parties to te contract. 16uingon vs! del 4onte 5ug! +B, +=B 2 ($o may be a party to a civil action) Sec. -, Rule + pro&ides tat only natural or 9uridical persons or entities autori>ed %y law may %e parties in a ci&il action weter as party plaintiff or party defendant.
($at is t$e effect of t$e dismissed of t$e complaint on t$e ground of t$e plaintiffMs failure to prosecute on t$e running of t$e period of prescription) Te effect is tat as if no complaint was filed and it would re&ert %ac4 to tat time wen te complaint as not yet %een filed.
atural Persons' a2 Tose of le!al a!e and a&e capacity to act. 1"rt. +0 N##2; %2 Dinor or incompetent persons assisted %y teir fater, moter, !uardian or if none, !uardian ad litem< c2 Dinors wo ad %een emancipated %y marria!e, or %y &oluntary concession< d2 Non?resident may sue or %e sued in te $ilippines if it in&ol&es is personal status as plaintiff or properties located in te $ilippines 1Sec. +, Rule 6, Sec. -(, Rule -62
($en is a complaint deemed filed) " complaint is deemed filed only upon pa yment of te full doc4et fee re!ardless of te actual date of filin! in court. Te court acCuires 9urisdiction o&er te case only upon payment of te full doc4et fee. It is not simply te filin! of te complaint or appropriate initiatory pleadin! %ut te payment of te prescri%ed fee, tat &est te trial court wit 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect or nature of te action. 14anc$ester vs! C5 +-= CR5 7*8/ :ere te initiatory pleadin! is not accompanied %y payment of te reCuired doc4et fee, te court may, in its discretion, allow te payment of te fee witin a reasona%le time %ut in no case %eyond te applica%le prescripti&e or re!lementary period. Te prescripti&e period sall mean te period of prescription of te action. 1uns ;nsurance vs! 5suncion +B. CR5 72> ote also t$at t$e circular of t$e C dated 5ugust +7, 2..- $as mandated t$e payment of fees even in compulsory counterclaims/!
?uridical Persons & Entities aut$orized by law Te most common 9uridical persons reco!ni>ed %y law and te rules tat may %e parties to ci&il actions are corporations or!ani>ed under te #orporation #ode and $artnersips or!ani>ed under te #i&il #ode. ($at entities are included in t$e term 3uridical persons) Te !eneral rule is to te effect tat tese 9uridical persons must %e autori>ed %y law %efore tey can %e parties. Tis autority emanates from te law autori>in! teir e=istence. Te term 9uridical person includes te state and its political su%di&isions includin! !o&ernment owned or controlled corporations.
Recapitulation of t$e Rules of ?oinder of Causes of 5ction and ?oinder of Parties In summary, 9oinder of causes of action is te unitin! of two or more demands or ri!ts of action in one action, te statement of more tan one cause of action in a declaration. 1+ C? sec! + p! ++*/!
Oter 9uridical persons may also refer to; 2. 8uly re!istered la%or or!ani>ations< #. Estate of 8eceased persons 1Estate of deceased persons $as legal personality to sue or be sued for purposes of settlement of t$e estate and all matter related to suc$ proceedings regarding t$e estate of t$e deceased!/ $. Korei!n #orporations in cases pro&ided for %y law< '. 'o&ernment entities e=ercisin! proprietary functions< . 'o&ernment owned or controlled corporations< 6. Local !o&ernment Units< 5. $artnersips or!ani>ed 15rt! +BB, +BB2/
It is te union of two or more ci&il causes of action, eac of wic could %e made te %asis of a separate suit, in te same complaint or petition. It is tat situation were a plaintiff, under certain circumstances and limitations 9oin se&eral distinct demands, contro&ersies or ri!ts of action in one declaration, complaint or petition. ($at is t$en t$e nature of allowing t$e 3oinder of causes of action) 5oinder of causes of action is merely permissi&e as tere is no rule or law reCuirin! or compellin! a party to 9oin is causes of action. ($at is t$e purpose of allowing 3oinder of causes of action)
15
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Gor legal purposes as a party litigant wit$ w$at government agency must t$e labor organization be registered) Te duly re!istered la%or or!ani>ation may refer to re!istration wit te SE# and wit te 8OLE. Note owe&er, tat for purposes of collecti&e %ar!ainin! and oter matters relatin! to employer?employee relationsips, te la%or or!ani>ation DUST %e re!istered wit te 8OLE.
($at is meant by H4aterial interest) Daterial Interest is te interest in issue 1alleged in t$e pleadings9complaint or answer/ and to %e affected %y te decree, as distin!uised from mere interest in te Cuestion in&ol&ed, or a mere incidental interest. It is te interest of te party tat is personal to te liti!ant and not one %ased on a desire to &indicate te constitutional ri!t of some tird and unrelated party.1Ortigas & Company Limited Partners$ip v! :elasco, 28- CR5 -77, ?uly 27, +==-/
4ay foreign corporations sue or be sued in t$e P$ilippines) Korei!n #orporations doin! %usiness in te $ilippines under license or autority %y te proper !o&ernment entity may sue or %e sued in te $ilippines. Unlicensed or not duly autori>ed forei!n corporations tat do %usiness in te $ilippines may %e sued %ut may not sue e=cept in connection wit some isolated %usiness transactions or to protect teir intellectual property ri!ts.
($at is meant by t$e term Hpresent substantial interestI) Te term present substantial interestI concretely means tat interest of a party in te su%9ect matter of te action so as to entitle im, under su%stanti&e law, to reco&er if te e&idence is sufficient, or tat e as te le!al title to demand and te defendant will %e protected in payin! to or reco&ery from im. 1 ?oaFuin, et al! vs! C5, ov! 2., 2..8/
($at is t$e limitation on t$e suits against t$e tate) Te state and its local political su%di&isions may %e parties to ci&il actions. Note tat te state can only %e sued wit its consent. Suc consent may %e !i&en impliedly or e=pressly %y te state.
($at is meant by t$e term Hpresent substantial interestI) Te term present substantial interestI concretely means tat interest of a party in te su%9ect matter of te action so as to entitle im, under su%stanti&e law, to reco&er if te e&idence is sufficient, or tat e as te le!al title to demand and te defendant will %e protected in payin! to or reco&ery from im. 1 ?oaFuin, et al! vs! C5, ov! 2., 2..8/
($o is a real party in interest plaintiff) Defendant) 5 real party in interest9plaintiff is one wo as a le!al ri!t wile a real party in interest9defendant is one wo as a correlati&e le!al o%li!ation wose act or omission &iolates te le!al ri!ts of te former .1Lee, et al! v! Romillo!, et al! ,6!R! o! .=8B, 4ay 2*, +=**/
($o is a real party9in9interest) " real party in interest is a party wo would %e %enefited or in9ured %y te 9ud!ment in a suit or is te party entitled to te a&ails of te suit. It simply means tat te action must %e %rou!t %y te person wo, %y su%stanti&e law, possesses te ri!t sou!t to %e enforced. 1%an vs! C5, 6!R! o! +2BB2+., 5ugust B, 2..8/
($at is included in t$e term real party in interest) Te term real party in interest may include representati&es, parents, or !uardians and !uardian ad litem of minors, or incompetents. " real party in interest is te party wo stands to %e %enefited or in9ured %y te 9ud!ment in te suit, or te party entitled to te a&ails of te suit. Unless oterwise autori>ed %y law or tese Rules, e&ery action must %e prosecuted or defended in te name of te real party in interest.1Sec. *2
J and K are t$e $eirs of JA, w$o operates a restaurant business in #inondo! JA leased a space in t$e building of 5#C as evidenced by a contract of leased signed by 5#C and JA! JA died! E and G, t$e $eirs of JA continued t$e business of t$e late JA! %$ereafter, 5#C filed a suit for rescission of t$e contract of lease! 5re E and G considered real parties9in9interest defendants) Te answer is yes. #onsiderin! tat E and K are te eirs of P and tey continued te %usiness after te deat of teir predecessor ma4es tem real parties in interest defendants. Te fact tat tey are not si!natories to te lease contract is not material to te issue. 1ui 4an vs! C5, 6!R! o! +-B===, Geb! 2B, 2..-/
($at are t$e purposes of t$e provision regarding real parties in interest) Te purposes of te pro&ision are; -2 To pre&ent te prosecution of actions %y persons witout any ri!t, title or interest in te case< *2 To reCuire tat te actual party entitled to le!al relief %e te one to prosecute te action< +2 To a&oid a multiplicity of suits< and 62 To discoura!e liti!ation and 4eep it witin certain %ounds, pursuant to sound pu%lic policy.
($at is meant by H;nterest or Real interestI) It means a present su%stantial interest or material interest an interest in issue and to %e affected %y te decree as distin!uised from a mere e=pectancy or a future, contin!ent, su%ordinate, incidental or conseCuential interest. Interest tat is %ased on a mere e=pectancy is not te interest meant in te rules. 1%an vs! C5, 6!R! o! +2BB2+., 5ugust B, 2..8< ?oaFuin, et al! vs! C5, ov! 2., 2..8/
($at is t$e effect w$en a suit is not prosecuted in t$e name of a real party in interest) :en te plaintiff is not te real party in interest, te case is dismissi%le on te !round of lac4 of cause of action. 1#P; G54;LK 5:;6 #5, ;C! vs! COCOLL"EL5, 6!R! o! +BB2-, 2.. ?un 2B/
16
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
in dispute. 1"LO 6 #5K5, ;C!, vs! 5R5E%5, ;C!, et al! 6!R! o! L98+.+5ug! +B, +=B/
One a&in! no material interest to protect cannot in&o4e te 9urisdiction of te court as te plaintiff in an action. 1Oco vs! Limbaring, 6!r! o! ++2=* ?an! 8+, 2../
tate t$e rules to be followed w$en a party to a suit dies! In case a party dies durin! te pendency of a suit, te followin! rules sall %e o%ser&ed;
;n suits regarding representative parties, may t$e person represented be named in t$e pleading) :it re!ard to representati&e parties, te person1s2 represented may or may not %e 9oined in te suit were te a!ent acted in is own name or for te %enefit of an undisclosed principal. Te e=ception to tis rule is wen te suit in&ol&es tin!s %elon!in! to te principal ! 1ec! 8, Rule 8/
a, :en te action is not e=tin!uised %y reason of te deat; -. It is te duty of te counsel of te deceased to notify te court witin a period of +/ days from 4nowled!e tereof and to !i&e te names and addresses of te le!al representati&es of te deceased< *. Te eirs may %e allowed to %e su%stituted witout reCuirin! te appointment of an e=ecutor or administrator< were tere are minors left %y te deceased, tey may %e assisted %y teir !uardian ad litem< +. "n order of su%stitution may %e issued %y te court to te effect. 6. :en 9ud!ment as already %een rendered and te same as %ecome final and e=ecutory; (. If te o%li!ee dies; te e=ecutor or administrator of is estate may apply for a writ of e=ecution of te 9ud!ment. 1sec. 0a, Rule +2 7. If it is te o%li!or wo dies; te e=ecution of te 9ud!ment may %e directed a!ainst te e=ecutor or administrator of is estate 1Sec. 0%,Rule +2 if te 9ud!ment is for reco&ery of real pr personal property or te enforcement of a lien< 0. If te deat of te o%li!or occurred after le&y te auction sale sall proceed< ). If deat occurred %efore te rendition of 9ud!ment, te case sall %e dismissed and te claim sall %e prosecuted in te estate proceedin! of te deceased defendant.
($o is an indispensable party) "n indispensa%le party is a party wo as suc an interest in te contro&ersy or su%9ect matter tat a final ad9udication cannot %e made, in is a%sence, witout in9urin! or affectin! tat interest. " party wo as not only an interest in te su%9ect matter of te contro&ersy, %ut also as an interest of suc nature tat a final decree cannot %e made witout affectin! is interest or lea&in! te contro&ersy in suc a condition tat its final determination may %e wolly inconsistent wit eCuity and !ood conscience. "n indispensa%le party is a person in wose a%sence tere can %e no determination %etween te parties already %efore te court wic is effecti&e, complete, or eCuita%le. Ge is one wo must %e included in an action %efore it may properly !o forward.15rcelona vs! C5, 2*. CR5 2./ote' %$is would also answer t$e Fuery' Compulsory 3oinder of indispensable parties! ec! B, Rule 8! If is interest in te contro&ersy or su%9ect matter is separa%le from te interest of te oter parties, so tat it will not necessarily %e directly or in9uriously affected %y a decree wic does complete 9ustice %etween tem, e is NOT an IN8IS$ENS"BLE $"RTY.
1, In case te action does not sur&i&e, te same sall %e dismissed.
($at are t$e reFuisites of a class suit) In order tat a class suit may prosper, te followin! reCuisites must %e present; 1-2 Tat te su%9ect matter of te contro&ersy is one of common or !eneral interest to many persons< and 1*2 Tat te parties are so numerous tat it is impractica%le to %rin! tem all %efore te court. Te person wo sues must a&e an interest in te contro&ersy, common wit tose for wom e sues, and tere must %e tat unity of interest %etween im and all suc oter persons wic would entitle tem to maintain te action if suit was %rou!t %y tem 9ointly. 1"LO 6 #5K5, ;C!, vs! 5R5E%5, ;C!, et al! 6!R! o! L98+.+ 5ug! +B, +=B/ ($at constitutes Hcommon interestI) "s to wat constitutes common interest in te su%9ect matter of te contro&ersy, it as %een eld as an interest tat will allow parties to 9oin in a %ill of complaint, or tat will ena%le te court to dispense wit te presence of all te parties, wen numerous, e=cept a determinate num%er, is not only an interest in te Cuestion, %ut one in common in te su%9ect matter of te suit< a community of interest !rowin! out of te nature and condition of te ri!t
($en do we say t$at t$e action survives t$e deat$ of t$e party) "n action is considered to sur&i&e te deat of a party to an action wen te action can %e pursued a!ainst te e=ecutor or administrator of te estate of te deceased or wen it can %e prosecuted a!ainst suc estate.1ec!+, Rule *B> ec! 7, Rule *7/ ($at actions may and may not, be prosecuted against t$e estate of a deceased) No action upon a claim for te reco&ery of money or de%t or interest tereon sall %e commenced a!ainst te e=ecutor or administrator of te estate of a deceased person. Gowe&er, %ut actions to reco&er real or personal property or of an interest terein, from te estate, or to enforce a lien tereon, and actions to reco&er dama!es for an in9ury to person or property, real or personal, may %e commenced a!ainst said e=ecutor or administrator !1ec! +, Rule *B/ ($at actions may be broug$t or defended by t$e eecutor or administrator of t$e estate of a deceased)
17
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te e=ecutor or administrator may %rin! or defend actions for te reco&ery or protection of te property or ri!ts of te deceased, as well as causes tat sur&i&e.
"n a!reement as to &enue is not conclusi&e and does not preclude te filin! of an action in te place of te parties residence. Te e=ception to te rule is tat wen it is clear from te e=press terms of te a!reement tat te parties a&e stipulated tat te action can %e filed ONLY in te place a!reed upon.
($at is t$e effect of transfer of interest over t$e property sub3ect of t$e litigation) If te property in liti!ation is sold pendent elite, te seller remains to %e te real party in interest. Te action may %e continued %y or a!ainst te ori!inal party. Gowe&er, te court, upon motion, directs te transferee to %e instituted in te action or 9oined wit te ori!inal party. 1 ec! +=, Rule 8> Commodities torage, ;nc! vs! C5 6!R! +27..*, ?une +=, +==B/
J and K entered into a contract of real estate mortgage over a parcel of land located in #aguio City to secure t$e fulfillment of a loan obligation! %$e real estate mortgage contained a stipulation t$at t$e mortgagee may etra93udicially foreclose t$e mortgage in case of breac$! %$e contract of loan provided t$at any action arising from t$e loan obligation s$all be eclusively filed in t$e proper court of La "nion only! J failed to comply wit$ t$e loan obligation! K etra93udicially foreclosed t$e mortgage in #aguio City and t$ereafter applied for a writ of possession wit$ t$e R%C of #aguio! J opposed on t$e ground of improper venue! Decide! Te opposition is witout merit. Te e=tra?9udicial foreclose sale sall %e !o&erned %y Sec. *, "ct +-+( as amended %y "ct 6--) wic pro&ides tat sale cannot %e made le!ally outside of te pro&ince in wic te property sold is situated< and in case te place witin said pro&ince in wic te sale sall %e made is te su%9ect of stipulation, suc sale sall %e made in said place or in te municipal %uildin! of te municipality in wic te property or part tereof is situated. Gere, te real property su%9ect of te sale is situated in Ba!uio #ity. Te stipulation as to &enue in te principal contract of loan cannot o&erride te pro&ision of "ct +-+( as amended %y "ct 6--). 1upena vs! Dela Rosa 6!R! o! R%?9=89+.8+, ?anuary 2*, +==B/
P appointed 5 as $is agent to sell a parcel of land! 5 entered into a contract of sale wit$ #! Later t$e property sub3ect of t$e sale was not delivered to # in spite of t$e payment! $ould # decide to sue, $ow will $e do it) B may institute te action a!ainst $ and " %y 9oinin! tem as alternati&e defendants. :ere te plaintiff is uncertain a!ainst wom of se&eral person e is entitled to relief, e may 9oin any or all of tem as defendants in te alternati&e, altou! is ri!t to relief a!ainst one may %e inconsistent wit is ri!t to relief a!ainst te oter. ;&ec. /=, (ule /=: Te principal and is a!ent may %e sued as 9oint defendants. If te a!ency is pro&ed, te principal sall %e eld lia%le, if not te a!ent can %e eld lia%le. ($at is meant by venue) : enue is te place were an action must %e instituted and tried. +8*! ! tate t$e venue of real actions! "ctions affectin! title to or possession of real property, or interest terein sall %e commenced and tried in te proper court wic as 9urisdiction o&er te area werein te real property in&ol&ed or a portion tereof is situated. Korci%le entry and unlawful detainer cases are to %e instituted and tried in te municipal trial court of te municipality or city were te real property in&ol&ed or a portion tereof is situated. 1ec! +, Rule -/
tate t$e guidelines to be observed by t$e court w$en t$e Fuestion of improper venue is raised based on a stipulation in a contract! Te !uidelines are; 1-2 Te a!reement on &enue sall, in te first instance, %e normally considered as merely permissi&e< 1*2 To %e restricti&e, te lan!ua!e or terminolo!y employed in te stipulation must %e uneCui&ocal and admit of no contrary or dou%tful interpretation< 1+2 In case of irreconcila%le dou%t, te &enue pro&ision sall %e deemed to %e permissi&e< and 162 In ascertainin! te intent in tat pro&ision wic reasona%ly admits of more tan one meanin!, te construction sould %e adopted wic most conduces to te con&enience of te parties! 1"nimasters vs! C5, 6!R! o! ++=7B, Gebruary B,+==B/
tate t$e venue of personal actions! "ctions oter tan real actions sall %e instituted and tried in te proper court were te plaintiff or any of te principal plaintiffs reside or were te defendant or any of te principal defendants reside, at te option of te plaintiff. 1ec!2, Rule -/ tate t$e venue of actions against non9resident defendant) "ctions a!ainst non?resident defendants sall %e instituted and tried in te proper court of te place were te plaintiff resides or were te defendant may %e found, at te option of te plaintiff . 1ec! 2, Rule -/ If any of te defendants does not reside and is not found in te $ilippines, and te action affects te personal status of te plaintiff, or any property of te defendant located in te $ilippines, te &enue of te action sall %e at te place were te plaintiff resides or were te property of defendant is found, at t%e option o9 t%e p&ainti99 . 1ec! 8, Rule -/
%R# ;nc!, a corporation wit$ principal office at 4a0ati City sold a parcel of land located in #aguio City to ELP; ;nc!, a corporation wit$ principal office at Davao City, %$ereafter, ELP; discovered t$at t$e lot was not $abitable! ELP; filed an action for rescission andor annulment of t$e deed of sale before t$e R%C of Davao City! %R# files a motion to dismiss on t$e ground of improper venue! Decide t$e motion! Dotion !ranted. Te &enue of suc action is unCuestiona%ly witin te territorial 9urisdiction of te proper court were te real property or part tereof lies. Te action filed %y te plaintiff is one affectin! title to real property it sall %e commenced and tried in te proper court a&in! 9urisdiction o&er te area were te real
;s an agreement as to venue conclusive on t$e parties)
18
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
property or any part tereof lies.1E4ER6ECK LO5 P5(
tere%y %e ser&ed.1:aldecantos vs! People, 6!R! o! +-**72, 2.. ep 2B, / tate t$e meaning and concept of Gorum s$opping! Korum soppin! is te act of a party a!ainst wom an ad&erse 9ud!ment as %een rendered in one forum, of see4in! anoter 1and possi%ly2 opinion in anoter forum oter tan %y appeal or te special ci&il action of certiorari, or te institution of two or more actions or proceedin!s !rounded on te same cause on te supposition tat one or te oter court mi!t loo4 wit fa&or upon te party. (Repol vs! CO4ELEC, 6!R! o! ++-+*, 5pril 2*, 2..-, -2* CR5 82+/
Define pleadings! $leadin!s are te written statements of te respecti&e claims FcomplaintH and defenses FanswerH of te parties su%mitted to te court for appropriate 9ud!ment! @ec! +, Rule ($at is meant by t$e HLaw of PleadingsI) Te law of pleadin!s refers to tat %ody of rules and principles in accordance wit wic te pleadin!s, as formal alle!ations of te parties, are to %e framed or drafted. (-+ 5m3ur 2*=,
($at is t$e so9called HCertificationI on Gorum $opping) Tis is a certification e=ecuted under oat %y a party filin! an initiatory pleadin! to certify tat tere is not pendin! action %etween te same parties and in&ol&in! te same issues in anoter forum. Te rule applies weter te cases are pendin! %efore te courts or oter administrati&e %odies.
($at pleadings are allowed under t$e Rules of Court) Te $leadin!s allowed %y te Rules of #ourt 1re!ular procedure2 are te complaint, answer, counterclaims Fcompulsory or permissi&eH, + rd. 6t. $arty etc. complaints, complaint in inter&ention, reply and te cross?claim. Under te Rules on Summary $rocedure only te complaint, answer, compulsory counterclaim, cross?claim and reply are allowed pleadin!s.
($o must eecute t$e certificate on non9forum s$opping) Kor a certification to %e &alid te same must %e e=ecuted %y te petitioner imself or te principal parties. " lawyer for a party may e=ecute te said certificate pro&ided e is cloted wit a special power of attorney. FEscorpizo vs! "niversity of #aguio, 6R9+2+=2, 5pril 8., +===, Condo %ravel vs! Lalo 6!R! o! +27B+, ?an! 2*, 2...
tate t$e distinction between Pleadings and 4otions! " pleadin! relates to te cause of action, eiter to support it or to defeat it 1-+ 54?"R 2**/< wereas a motion does not relate to te cause of action %ut it is a mere application for an order not included in te 9ud!ment. 1ec! +, Rule +7/ 1ote' Read $owever, Rules 88, 8-, & 87 w$ere t$e relief soug$t for in t$e said motions may be included in t$e 3udgment and may finally dispose of t$e case! %$ese are t$e rules on ummary ?udgment, ?udgment on t$e Pleadings and Demurrer to Evidence! /
uppose t$ere are several parties to an initiatory pleading must all of t$em sign t$e certification) Eception) Te answer is !enerally yes. :ere tere are se&eral parties to an initiatory pleadin!, all must si!n or e=ecute te certificate on non?forum soppin!. Tere is no suc rule a su%stantial compliance.
4ay t$e lawyer validly delegate t$e signing of t$e pleading) #ounsels autority and duty to si!n a pleadin! are personal to im. Ge may not dele!ate it to 9ust any person. Te preparation and si!nin! of a pleadin! constitute le!al wor4 in&ol&in! practice of law wic is reser&ed e=clusi&ely for te mem%ers of te le!al profession. #ounsel may dele!ate te si!nin! of a pleadin! to anoter lawyer %ut cannot do so in fa&or of one wo is not!1Republic vs! enric0 Development ;nc! 6!R! o! +-=7B, 2.. 5ug *, 2nd Division/
Te e=ception to tis rule is wen te party e=ecutin! te certificate on non?forum soppin! is duly autori>ed %y a special power of attorney! 1LoFuias vs! Ombudsman 6!R! o! +8=8=, 5ug! +7, 2... ;s t$e lac0 of certification regarding forum s$opping 3urisdictional) Te answer is no. :ile te lac4 of certification a!ainst forum soppin! is !enerally not cured %y its su%mission after te filin! of te petition, and te su%mission of a certificate a!ainst forum soppin! is deemed o%li!atory, it is not 9urisdictional. Not %ein! 9urisdictional, te reCuirement can %e rela=ed under 9ustifia%le circumstances under te rule on su%stantial compliance. 1:aldecantos vs! People, 6!R! o! +-**72, ept! 2B, 2../
4ust all Pleadings be verified) 'enerally te &erification of a pleadin! is not necessary, e=cept wen tere is some specific law or rule reCuirin! a particular pleadin! to %e &erified. Under te Rules on Summary $rocedure all te allowed pleadin!s must %e &erified. (ec! -, Rule B 2 Te purpose of te &erification of pleadin!s is to insure !ood fait on te part of te pleader. Lac4 of &erification is not 9urisdictional %ut merely formal.
4ay t$e court still admit t$e certification on non9 forum s$opping after t$e complaint or petition $as been ordered dismissed by t$e court) 'enerally te courts may no lon!er accept te certification owe&er in i!ly e=ceptional cases te court may accept te same. Te #ourt considered as su%stantial compliance te filin! of a certification a!ainst forum soppin! -6 days %efore te dismissal of te petition for re&iew. 1Roadway Epress vs! C5, 822 P$il! 288>
4ay t$e court order t$e correction of a pleading t$at is not verified) Te answer is yes. Te court may order te correction of te pleadin! if &erification is lac4in! or act on te pleadin! altou! it is not &erified, if te attendin! circumstances are suc tat strict compliance wit te rules may %e dispensed wit in order tat te ends of 9ustice may
19
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
anc$ez vs! C5, 6!R! +++277, Gebruary B, +==-4 Ga3ardo, ?r! vs! C5, 6!R! ++277*,/
causes of actions or defenses remainin! are still sufficient. 1La 4allorca vs! C5 ?uly 2B, +=/
($at is t$e test to determine w$et$er t$ere is forum s$opping) Te test to determine weter forum soppin! e=ist in a case is weter te elements of litis pendencia or res 9udicata are present in te cases. 1P$il! (omenMs C$ristian College vs! 5biertas, 2=2 CR5 B*7/
($at are H5ctionable documentsI)
($at is t$e effect of failure to comply wit$ t$e rule) Kailure to comply wit te fore!oin! reCuirements sall not %e cura%le %y mere amendment of te complaint or oter initiatory pleadin! %ut sall %e cause for te dismissal of te case witout pre9udice, unless oterwise pro&ided, upon motion and after earin!.
($at is t$e effect w$en a party fails to contest an actionable document in t$e manner provided by t$e rules) In case of suc failure, te followin! specific facts are deemed admitted; -. $arty wose si!nature it %ears si!ned it< *. If si!ned %y anoter, it was si!ned for im and wit is autority< +. Te document was deli&ered< and 6. Te formal reCuisites of te law are wai&ed %y im.
($at is t$e effect of t$e Eecution of false certification) Te su%mission of a false certification or non?compliance wit any of te underta4in!s terein sall constitute indirect contempt of court, witout pre9udice to te correspondin! administrati&e and criminal actions. If te acts of te party or is counsel clearly constitute willful and deli%erate forum soppin!, te same sall %e !round for summary dismissal of te case ith pre'udice and sall constitute direct contempt , as well as a cause for administrati&e sanctions. 11P$il! (omenMs C$ristian College vs! 5biertas, 2=2 CR5 B*7/
Te followin! defenses are not, owe&er, deemed admitted; -. $ayment %y mista4e< *. #ompromise< +. Estoppel< 6. :ant or ille!ality of consideration< (. Statute of Krauds< 7. Kraud, minority im%ecility or duress
Define Complaint and 5nswer! Te complaint is te pleadin! alle!in! te plaintiffs cause or causes of action. :ile te answer is te pleadin! in wic te defendin! party sets fort is defense1s2 ($at are t$e 0inds of defenses t$at may be interposed by a defending party) Tese defenses may eiter %e ne!ati&e defense or an affirmati&e defense. " ne!ati&e defense is te specific denial of te material fact or facts alle!ed in te pleadin! of claimant essential to is cause or causes of action< wile an affirmati&e defense is an alle!ation of a new matter wic wile ypotetically admittin! te material alle!ations in te pleadin! of te claimant, would ne&erteless pre&ent or %at reco&ery %y im. 1ec! 8, & -, 7 Rule /
tate t$e nature and concept of a Counterclaim! #ounterclaim is any claim wic a defendin! party may a&e a!ainst an opposin! party. It may %e compulsory or permissi&e. ($en is a counterclaim compulsory) ($en is it permissive) " counterclaim is considered compulsory wen %ein! co!ni>a%le %y te re!ular courts of 9ustice, arises out of or is connected wit te transaction or occurrence constitutin! te su%9ect matter of te opposin! partys claim and does not reCuire for its ad9udication te presence of tird parties of wom te court cannot acCuire 9urisdiction. 1 This is hat e call in la as t$e principle of recoupment/
($at are t$e so9called Hultimate factsI to be stated in t$e complaint) ltimate facts are te essential facts constitutin! te plaintiffs cause of action. " fact is considered essential if it cannot %e stric4en out witout lea&in! te statement of te cause of action insufficient.
" permissi&e counter?claim is one wic does not arise out of te opposin! partys claim or necessarily connected wit te transaction or occurrence constitutin! te su%9ect matter of te opposin! partys claim. Tis reCuires te presence of +rd parties o&er wom te court cannot acCuire 9urisdiction.1 T his is hat e call in la as t$e principle of set9off/
($at is t$e test of determining t$e sufficiency of facts alleged in t$e complaint) Te test in determinin! te sufficiency of facts alle!ed in a complaint constitutin! te cause of action is weter upon suc facts a &alid 9ud!ment may %e rendered a!ainst te defendant.
;s t$eir difference between compulsory counterclaims interposed in t$e municipal trial court and in t$e regional trial court) It is su%mitted tat te answer is yes. " counterclaim interposed in te -4nicipa& tria& co4rt must %e wit%in t%e ;4ridiction o9 t%e aid co4rt 1ot% a to t%e a-o4nt
20
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
and a to t%e nat4re t%ereo9 in order tat it may %e considered as a compulsory counterclaim. " counterclaim interposed in an ori!inal action filed in te reiona& tria& co4rt -a0 1e rearded a a co-p4&or0 co4nterc&aireard&e o9 t%e a-o4nt. 1ec! B, Rule /
%y way of affirmati&e defense. Under Sec. 7, Rule -7 of te -0 Rules on #i&il $rocedure, if te action is dismissed as a result of te affirmati&e defense pleaded in te answer, te counterclaim pleaded in te answer may continue in te same action. (Ginancial #ldg! Corporation vs! Gorbes Par0 ;nc! 6!R! +88+=, 5ugust +B, 2.../
4ay a compulsory counterclaim be t$e sub3ect of a separate action) Te answer is no. " compulsory counterclaim cannot %e te su%9ect of a separate action %ut it sould instead %e asserted in te same suit in&ol&in! te same transaction or occurrence, wic !a&e rise to it. 1Kulienco v! Court of 5ppeals, 6!R! o! +8+=2, ?une +., +===! see also :alencia vs! C5 28 CR5 2B7 1+== : If it is witin te 9urisdiction of te court and it does not reCuire for its ad9udication te presence of tird parties o&er wom te court cannot acCuire 9urisdiction, suc compulsory counterclaim is %arred if it is not set up in te action filed %y te opposin! party. 1Kulienco v! Court of 5ppeals, 6!R! o! +8+=2, ?une +., +===! see also :alencia vs! C5 28 CR5 2B7 1+== :
;s payment of doc0et fees reFuired in counterclaims) Te answer is yes. Under S# circular of "u!ust *//(, a party interposin! a counterclaim weter compulsory or permissi&e must pay te reCuisite doc4et fee. ($at is t$e effect of t$e absence of t$e certificate concerning forum s$opping in t$e counterclaim) Tere is no need for a certificate of non?forum soppin! in compulsory counterclaims e=cept were te counterclaim is permissi&e %ecause te same is considered as an initiatory pleadin!. ($at is t$e so9called Hcompelling test of compulsorinessI in counterclaims) Te compellin! test of compulsoriness means tat wic reCuires a lo!ical relationsip %etween te claim and counterclaim, tat is, were conductin! separate trials of te respecti&e claims of te parties would entail a su%stantial duplication of effort and time %y te parties and te court. (uintanilla vs! C5 6!R! o! +.+B-B, +==B eptember 2-, +==B, see also ;nternational Containers vs! C5 2+- CR5 -7 , :ere %ot claims are mere offsoots of te same %asic contro&ersy, te counterclaim may%e considered compulsory.
;n t$e above Fuestion, suppose t$e compulsory counterclaim arose only after t$e answer $as been filed w$at s$ould be done by t$e party) " counterclaim or cross?claim arisin! or maturin! only after te filin! of te answer must %e interposed, %y lea&e of court %y way of supplemental pleadin! at anytime %efore 9ud!ment is rendered. 1ec! = & +., Rule ++/ In tis case, te oter party must file is answer to te supplemental pleadin! containin! te counterclaim or cross?claim witin -/ days from notice of te order admittin! te said pleadin! (ec! B, Rule ++,
tate t$e nature and concept of Cross9claim! " cross?claim is any claim %y one party a!ainst a co?party arisin! out of te transaction or occurrence tat is te su%9ect matter eiter of te ori!inal action or of a counterclaim terein. It is always compulsory and terefore must %e interposed in te same proceedin! and at te same time filed at any time %efore 9ud!ment is rendered in te main case. 1ec! = & +., Rule ++ : " cross?claim cannot %e te su%9ect of a separate action or proceedin!. (Compare t$is wit$ Rule +++, ection + on t$e prosecution of t$e civil action arising from crime!/
($at is t$e effect of t$e dismissal of t$e complaint on a compulsory counterclaim) Te dismissal of te main action %ars any compulsory counterclaim. ("% vs! urla 2=- CR5 8*21+==* ,Te reason %ein! tat a compulsory counterclaim arises out of or is necessarily connected wit te transaction or occurrence tat is te su%9ect matter of te complaint. It is au=iliary to te proceedin! in te ori!inal suit and deri&es its 9urisdictional support terefrom. @4etals Engineering Resources Corp! v! Court of 5ppeals 2.8 CR5 2B8, 2*2 1+==+/
tate t$e nature and concept of a Reply! It is a pleadin! te function of wic is to deny or alle!e facts in denial or a&oidance of new matters alle!ed %y way of defense in a responsi&e pleadin! and tere%y 9oin or ma4e issue as to suc new matters.
If tere is no claim a!ainst te counterclaimant te counterclaim is improper and it must %e dismissed, more so were te complaint is dismissed at te instance of te counterclaimant. *;bid!, p! 2*8> ;ntestate Estate of 5mado #! Dalisay v! 4arasigan 27B CR5 7.=, 7+89 7+- 1+==/
($at is t$e effect of t$e failure of a party to ma0e a reply) :en a party fails to file a reply, it amounts to a denial of te new matters alle!ed in te answer. Reply is reCuired to deny te !enuineness and due e=ecution of an actiona%le document or wen alle!ations of usury are interposed in te pleadin! of te ad&erse party.
In oter words, if te dismissal of te main action results in te dismissal of te counterclaim already filed, it stands to reason tat te filin! of a motion to dismiss te complaint is an implied wai&er of a compulsory counterclaim %ecause te !rant of te motion ultimately results in te dismissal of te counterclaim. Te settin! up of a compulsory counterclaim and a motion to dismiss are incompati%le remedies.
tate t$e nature and concept of a t$ird9party complaint! It is a claim tat a defendin! party may, wit lea&e of court, file a!ainst a person not a party to te action for contri%ution, indemnity, su%ro!ation or any oter relief in respect of is opponents claim. Te purpose of a tird party complaint is to ena%le a defendin! party to o%tain
;s t$ere an eception to t$e above rule) Te answer is yes. Te defendant may not %e considered to a&e wai&ed te compulsory counterclaim if e interposes te !rounds for motion to dismiss in te answer
21
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
contri%ution, indemnity, su%ro!ation or oter relief from a person not a party to te action, it may proceed independently of te main action.
*.
uppose a 3udgment on t$e pleadings $as been rendered by t$e court in t$e main action, may t$e t$ird party complaint still be prosecuted) Tus, notwitstandin! te 9ud!ment on te pleadin!s in te main action a party could still proceed wit te prosecution of its tird party complaint. (arra v! C5 6!R! +8B=+7, ov! +7, 2... ,
In te case of a reply, anytime witin -/ days after ser&ice of te answer. Te defendant as te ri!t to amend te answer %efore a reply is served . 15znar vs! #ernard ++ CR5 2B*/
$laintiff may amend complaint as a matter of ri!t e&en after defendant files a Dotion to 8ismiss, since te same is not a responsi&e pleadin!.1Contec$ vs! C5 2++ CR5 =2/ ;s leave of court needed before a party may amend $is pleading under t$e above circumstances) Te rules and 9urisprudence old tat lea&e of court is not needed. " party is !i&en te ri!t to file an amended pleadin! witin te time and upon te conditions specified and witout te necessity of o%tainin! lea&e of court since a party may amend is pleadin! once, weter a new cause of action or can!e in teory is introduced, as a matter of ri!t at any time %efore a responsi&e pleadin! is ser&ed. 1;bid!/
4ay t$e court, in t$e main action, render 3udgment based on a motion for summary 3udgment despite t$e pendency of a t$ird9party complaint) Te answer is also yes. Te reason %ein! tat te plaintiff in te main action is not interested in te outcome of te tird party complaint, te purpose of te latter complaint %ein! for indemnification, su%ro!ation, etc. (arra v! C5 6!R! +8B=+7, ov! +7, 2... , ($at court $as 3urisdiction over t$e t$ird9party complaint) Te tird?party complaint is %ut a continuation of te main action, its purpose %ein! merely to see4 Qcontri%ution, indemnity, su%ro!ation or any oter relief, in respect of is opponentQs claim.Q (Rule , ec! +2 , It is an ancillary suit wic depends on te 9urisdiction of te court o&er te main action. Since te trial court ad acCuired 9urisdiction o&er te complaint, it necessarily follows tat it li4ewise acCuires 9urisdiction o&er te tird?party complaint wic is %ut an incident tereof.
tate t$e policy of t$e courts regarding amendment of pleadings! "mendment of pleadin!s is fa&ored and sould %e li%erally allowed in te furterance of 9ustice in order to determine e&ery case as far as possi%le on its merits witout re!ard to tecnicalities. Tis principle is !enerally reco!ni>ed in order tat te real contro&ersies %etween te parties are presented, teir ri!ts determined and te case decided on te merits witout unnecessary delay to pre&ent circuitry of action and needless e=pense !1Dela Rosa vs! %razo, 6!R! o! +77.., 5ug! 8., 2../> 5ndres vs! Cuevas, 6!R! o! +7.*=, ?une =, 2..7/
4ay t$e complaint still be amended after a motion to dismiss $as been granted) "fter a motion to dismiss as %een !ranted, amendment of te complaint %y lea&e of court may still %e allowed provided t%e order o9 di-ia& %a not 0et 1eco-e 9ina&. Te reason for allowin! te amendment on tis condition is tat, upon finality of te dismissal, te court loses 9urisdiction and control o&er te complaint. Tus, it can no lon!er ma4e any disposition on te complaint in a manner inconsistent wit te dismissal. Rules of $rocedure, after all, are %ut tools desi!ned to facilitate te attainment of 9ustice 1:alenzuela vs! Court of 5ppeals, 88 CR5 BB=> P#C vs! %razo, 6!R! o! +77.. 5ugust 8., 2../
($at is t$e effect of t$e valid amendment of a pleading) :en a pleadin! is &alidly amended, te prior or ori!inal pleadin! is deemed a%andoned and ceases to %e part of te record and te admissions terein no lon!er a&e te caracter of a 9udicial admission. 1ec! -, rule +2=/ Te case stands for trial on te %asis of te amended pleadin!. "n amended pleadin! supersedes te pleadin! tat it amends %ut admissions in superseded pleadin!s may %e pro&ed %y e&idence as e=tra9udicial admissions a!ainst te pleader.
($at is t$e remedy of t$e plaintiff if t$e order of dismissal $as already become final) "fter te order of dismissal witout pre9udice %ecomes final, and terefore falls outside te courts power to modify, a party wo wises to reinstate te case as no remedy oter tan to file a new complaint. 16emabay vs! #aralia, BB CR5 27*/
($at is t$e effect of non9incorporation of allegations found in t$e original pleading) #laims and defenses and oter alle!ations included in ori!inal %ut not incorporated in te amended pleadin! are deemed wai&ed and a%andoned.
5 complaint was dismissed by t$e court for lac0 of 3urisdiction upon a motion to dismiss filed by t$e defendant! %$e plaintiff filed $is motion for reconsideration wit$in t$e +79day period! During t$e pendency of t$e motion for reconsideration, t$e plaintiff moved to wit$draw t$e motion and filed a motion to admit amended complaint! 4ay t$e court admit t$e amended complaint)
($en may a party amend a pleading as a matter of rig$t) "mendments of pleadin!s may %e made once as a matter of ri!t; -. "t any time %efore responsi&e pleadin! is ser&ed<
22
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te answer is no. Te witdrawal of te motion for reconsideration ad te effect of ma4in! te order of dismissal final. Upon te witdrawal %y respondent of is Dotion for Reconsideration, it was as if no motion ad %een filed. Gence, te Order of te trial court dismissin! te complaint %ecame final and e=ecutory -( days from notice %y te party concerned. :ile te filin! of te Dotion for Reconsideration interrupted te runnin! of te -(?day re!lementary period, its witdrawal left respondent in e=actly te same position as tou! no motion ad %een filed at all. Te witdrawal of te Dotion for Reconsideration effecti&ely erased te tollin! of te re!lementary period to amend te #omplaint! 1De la 4erced vs! 5guilar, et al!, 6!R! o! +7=-*2, 5ug! 8., 2..7/
If te amendment merely completes an imperfect cause of action, te plea of te statute of limitations relates %ac4 to te date of te filin! of te ori!inal pleadin! 1Pantranco vs! P$ilGarming *+ P$il 2B8> 4aniago vs! 4allari Oct! 8+, +=7/ ($at is t$e so9called H5mendment to Conform to EvidenceI) :en issues not raised in te pleadin!s are tried %y e=press or implied consent of te parties, tey sall %e treated, in all respects, as if tey a&e %een raised in te pleadin!s. In suc a case te court may, upon motion of any party or at anytime, order te amendment of te pleadin!s to conform to te e&idence. Similarly, if e&idence is o%9ected to at te trial on te !round tat it is not included in te pleadin!s, te court may, in te e=ercise of its sound discretion, still allow an amendment to conform to te e&idence wen te presentation of te merits of te action will %e su%ser&ed and te o%9ectin! party fails to satisfy te court tat te admission of suc e&idence will pre9udice im in maintainin! is cause of action or defense. 1ec! 7> Rule +.> P5L vs! C5 ept! +7, +==8/
;n w$at instances may t$e court deny leave to amend a pleading) Te court may deny lea&e to amend a pleadin! under any of te followin! circumstances; 2. Te amendment is for te purpose of delay 1Rule +./> #. Te cause of action or defense or te teory of te case is su%stantially altered 16uiang vs! 4adayag 2+- CR5 87> see also %orres vs! %omacruz -= P$il! =+8 /> $. Te amendment see4s to alter a final 9ud!ment rendered %y te court 1Ocampo vs! 4anlac =2 P$il! *./> '. Te amendment see4s to confer 9urisdiction upon te court 1Rosario vs! Carandang 1= P$il! *-7/ . Te amendment see4s to cure a premature or non?e=istin! cause of action 1(ong vs! Katco == P$il B=+> Note in letter 1e2 te cause of action sou!t to %e amended is a pre?mature or non? e=istin! cause of action. It does not refer to an imperfect cause action. Tere is a difference %etween premature or non?e=istent cause of action and imperfect cause of action.
4ay t$e appellate court treat t$e pleading as amended to conform to t$e evidence alt$oug$ t$e pleadings were actually not amended in t$e trial court) Te answer is yes. :ere tere is a &ariance in te defendants pleadin!s and te e&idence adduced %y it at te trial, te #ourt may treat te pleadin! as amended to conform wit te e&idence!1Kuseco vs! C5 6! R! o! +8*.*7, ov! ++, 2..-/ B.! ($at are t$e scenarios envisioned by ection 7, Rule +. on amendment to conform to t$e evidence) Te two scenarios en&isioned %y te rule are; 1a2 wen e&idence is introduced on an issued not alle!ed in te pleadin!s and no o%9ection was inter9ected< and 1%2 wen te e&idence is offered on an issue not alle!ed in te pleadin!s %ut an o%9ection was timely inter9ected %y te opposin! party. 14ercader vs! Development #an0 of t$e P$ils! 1Cebu #ranc$/
Distinctions between on9eistent cause of action and imperfect cause of action! a2 Non?e=istent or premature cause of action refers to a situation were no delict or wron! as yet %een committed %y te defendant. 1Limpangco vs! 4ercado/ "n imperfect cause of action refers to a situation were a delict or wron! as already %een committed and alle!ed in te complaint %ut te cause of action is incomplete 15lto urety vs! 5guilar , %2 Non?e=istent or premature cause of action is not cura%le %y amendment (S4riao i11on" 65 P%i&. $52 and A&to S4ret0 v. A4i&ar,!
In cases were an o%9ection is made, te court may ne&erteless admit te e&idence were te ad&erse party fails to satisfy te court tat te admission of te e&idence would pre9udice im in maintainin! is defense upon te merits, and te court may !rant im a continuance to ena%le im to meet te new situation created %y te e&idence! 1Kuseco vs! C5, 6!R! o! +8*.*7, ov! ++, 2..-/ tate t$e nature and concept of upplemental Pleadings! Tey are pleadin!s wic a&er facts occurrin! after te filin! of te ori!inal pleadin!s and wic are material to te matured claims or defenses. Te matters to %e included tat tose transactions, occurrences or e&ents wic too4 place after te filin! of te ori!inal pleadin!. 1Del #ros vs! ;5C +7= CR5 788/
tate t$e effect of amendment of pleadings on t$e tatute of Limitations! If te amendment introduces a new and different cause of action, te statute of limitations is interrupted as to te new cause of action on te date of te filin! of te amendment pleadin! (R40-an v. Director 4pra,.
;s a party reFuired to file an answer to a supplemental pleading) 'enerally, a party must file an answer to te supplemental pleadin!, oterwise, te party may %e declared in te
23
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
default, e=cept wic te answerin! party as already tra&ersed and 9oined te alle!ations in te answer. 1Del #ros vs! ;5C +7= CR5 788/ :ere an answer is reCuired %y te rules, a party may file is answer to te supplemental complaint witin -/ days from notice of te order admittin! te same, unless a new period is fi=ed %y te court. 1ection B, Rule ++/
"mended pleadin!s will result into te witdrawal of te ori!inal pleadin!< wereas supplemental pleadin!s will not affect te e=istence of te ori!inal pleadin!< "mended pleadin!s may %e done once as a matter of ri!t or as a matter of discretion wereas in supplemental pleadin!s, it is always done as matter discretion and wit lea&e of court.
;s t$e filing of supplemental pleadings a matter of rig$t or discretion) Te admission of supplemental pleadin!s, includin! supplemental complaints, does not arise as a matter of ri!t on te pleader, %ut remains in te sound discretion of te court, wic is well witin its ri!t to deny te admission of te pleadin!. Section 7, Rule -/ of te -0 Rules of #i&il $rocedure, !o&ernin! supplemental pleadin!s, is clear tat te court only Amay admit te supplemental pleadin!, and is tus not o%li!ed to do so.
(it$in w$at time must a party file $is responsive pleading) " party must file is responsi&e pleadin! witin te periods pro&ided for %y law under te followin! circumstances; -. "nswer to complaint ? 2 days from ser&ice, unless different period is fi=ed %y te courts< *. "nswer of a defendant forei!n pri&ate 9uridical entity ? wen ser&ice of summons is made on te !o&ernment official desi!nated %y law, answer to %e filed witin $? days from receipt of summons %y suc entity< +. "nswer to an "mended complaint ? if amended as a matter of ri!t, 2 days from %ein! ser&ed wit copy tereof< if amended not as a matter of ri!t, 2? days from notice of order admittin! te same< 6. "nswer to #ounterclaim, #rossclaim 3 2? days from ser&ice of te pleadin!< (. "nswer to +rd party, 6 t party complaint, etc 3 2 days from ser&ice of te pleadin!< 7. "nswer to amended counterclaim, crossclaim, + rd party or 6t party complaints, etc 3 2 days from receipt of order admittin! te amended pleadin!< 0. "nswer to complaint?in?inter&ention 3 2 days from receipt of te order admittin! te complaint?in? inter&ention< ). Reply to a pleadin! wen reCuired? 2? days from ser&in! of te pleadin! to %e responded to.
($en is t$e original pleading deemed augmented by t$e supplemental pleading) It is only upon te admission %y te court of te supplemental complaint tat it may %e deem to au!ment te ori!inal complaint. Until suc time, te court acCuires no 9urisdiction o&er suc new claims as may %e raised in te supplemental complaint. 1Gar East #an0 vs! C5! 6!R! o! +8*=+=, 4ay 2, 2../ ($at is t$e office or purpose of allowing t$e filing of supplemental pleadings) Te purpose or office of te supplemental pleadin! is to %rin! into te records new facts wic will enlar!e or can!e te 4ind of relief to wic te plaintiff is entitled< ence, any supplemental facts wic furter de&elop te ori!inal ri!t of action, or e=tend to &ary te relief, are a&aila%le %y way of supplemental complaint e&en tou! tey temsel&es constitute a ri!t of action.1 Koung vs! y, 6!R! o! +7BB-7 1C596!R! P o! B.+./, ept! 2, 2../
5re t$ere instances w$ere no counterclaim, crossclaim or 8rd party complaints are allowed) Te answer is yes. Suc pleadin!s are not allowed in e=propriation proceedin!s 1Sec. +, Rule 702 or in te prosecution of te ci&il action arisin! from te crime 1Sec. -, Rule ---2.
Gowe&er, a party is not allowed to include a different cause of action from tat of te ori!inal cause of action. Supplemental pleadin!s only supply deficiencies in aid of an ori!inal pleadin!, %ut not to introduce new and independent causes of action.1Leobrera v! Court of 5ppeals, 6R! o!*...+, Geb! 2B, +=*B, +B. CR5 B++/
5re t$ere instances w$ere no counterclaim, crossclaim or 8rd party complaints are allowed) Te answer is yes. Suc pleadin!s are not allowed in e=propriation proceedin!s 1Sec. +, Rule 702 or in te prosecution of te ci&il action arisin! from te crime 1Sec. -, Rule ---2.
($at is t$e so9called Hbroad definition ruleI in supplemental pleadings) It refers to tat rule tat wile a matter stated in a supplemental complaint sould a&e some relation to te cause of action set fort in te ori!inal pleadin!, te fact tat te supplemental pleadin! tecnically states a new cause of action sould not %e a %ar to its allowance %ut only a factor to %e considered %y te court in te e=ercise of its discretion. 1Planters Development #an0 v! LA +7= CR5 788> Koung vs! y, 6!R! o! +7BB-7>C596!R! P o! B.+./, ept! 2, 2../
tate t$e concept and nature of #ill of particulars! It is a more definite statement of any matter wic is not a&erred wit sufficient definiteness and particularity in a pleadin! so as to ena%le te opposin! party to prepare is responsi&e pleadin! or to prepare for trial. It %ecomes part of te pleadin! wic it supplements and sall %e !o&erned %y te law on pleadin!s upon its admission. 1ection / It may %e filed eiter in a separate or in amended pleadin! and ser&ed upon te ad&erse party! 1ection 8/
Distinguis$ amended pleadings from supplemental pleadings! "mended pleadin!s refer to facts e=istin! at te time of te commencement of te action< wereas Supplemental pleadin!s refer to facts arisin! after te filin! of te ori!inal pleadin!<
($at t$e effects of filing a 4otion for #ill of Particulars)
24
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te filin! of a motion for %ill of particulars stays te runnin! of te period for te filin! of te responsi&e pleadin!. " motion for %ill of particulars may %e filed %efore respondin! to a pleadin!. :en no responsi&e pleadin! is reCuired or allowed, te motion for a %ill of particulars must %e filed witin -/ days from ser&ice of te pleadin! su%9ect of te motion.
e=planation may %e a cause to consider te paper as not filed.
(it$in w$at time must t$e movant for a bill of particulars file $is responsive pleading) :en te party ordered to su%mit a %ill of particulars as ser&ed te %ill of particulars upon te mo&ant, te later must file is responsi&e pleadin! witin same period reCuired %y te rules for filin! suc responsi&e pleadin! at te time of te filin! of te motion for %ill of particulars. te same rule applies wen te motion for %ill of particulars is denied %y te court.
($at proofs are admissible to establis$ valid service) Te proofs admissi%le to esta%lis &alid ser&ice are; 1a2 :ritten admission of party ser&ed< or 1%2 Official return of te ser&er< or 1c2 "ffida&it of party ser&in!, containin! a full statement of te date, place and manner of ser&ice.
(it$in w$at time must a party file t$e bill of particulars w$en t$e motion is granted by t$e court) " party ordered to su%mit a %ill of particulars must o%ey te order of te court witin -/ days after notice of te order or witin suc time as te court may fi=.
4ercenido vs!C5, 8* P$il!2B> 5limboboyug vs! C5, 6!R! o! +877, ?une +, 2..> PC vs! %ac9an, --7 P$il! 8+712..8/
($at is t$e effect of refusal to comply wit$ an order to submit bill of particulars) Te court may order te stri4in! out of te pleadin! to wic te motion was directed or ma4e suc oter order as it deems 9ust if te order for te fillin! of a %ill of particulars is diso%eyed. 5re t$e above principles on bill of particulars applicable to criminal actions) Te answer is yes. Sec. , Rule --7 of te Re&ised Rules on #riminal $rocedure pro&ides; H%$e accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable $im to properly plead and prepare for trial!I
Notice to t%e part0 i not conidered va&id ervice and t%e r4nnin o9 an0 period does not commence to run. Gowe&er, if ser&ice to te party as %een ordered %y te court, suc ser&ice is considered &alid. 1 5limboboyug vs! C5, 6!R! o! +877, ?une +, 2..> PC vs! %ac9an, --7 P$il! 8+712..8/
tate t$e distinctions between Hfiling of pleadingsI from Hservice of pleadings and ot$er papersI! Fi&in of pleadin!s and oter papers refers to te deli&ery of te pleadin!s and oter papers to te cler4 of court wile ervice refers to te deli&ery of te same to te ad&erse party.1ec! 2, Rule +8/
($en is service by mail deemed complete) :e must distin!uis. :en ser&ice is done %y re!istered mail, te same is deemed complete upon actual receipt %y te addressee. If e fails to claim te mail from te post office witin days from date o9 9irt notice o9 t%e pot-ater , ser&ice sall ta4e effect at te e=piration of te fi&e?day period. 1ec! +., Rule +8> iliman "niv! vs! LRC, 2+8 CR5 87=/
tate t$e 4odes of filing of pleadings and ot$er papers! $leadin!s and oter papers are filed wit te cler4 of court eiter %y; 1a2 $ersonal deli&ery< or 1%2 By sendin! tem tru re!istered mail
:en ser&ice is done %y ordinary mail, ser&ice is deemed complete upon e=piration of te ten (2?,3da0 period a9ter it -ai&in" unless te court pro&ides for a different period!1ec! +., Rule +8/
tate t$e 0inds of service of pleadings and ot$er papers! $leadin!s and oter papers may%e ser&ed %y; 1a2 $ersonal ser&ice ? to %e done wene&er practica%le 14ost preferred mode/> or 1%2 Ser&ice %y mail 1ordinary if no re!istered mail2 1c2 Su%stituted ser&ice 1deli&erin! copy to cler4 of court wit proof of failure to ser&e personally or ser&ice %y mail2 Gowe&er, if te papers or documents do not emanate from te court, a resort to oter modes must %e accompanied %y a written e=planation wy te ser&ice or filin! was not done personally. Kailure to ma4e suc
($at is a notice of lis pendens) It is simply a notice of te pendency of an action affectin! title to or ri!t of possession of real property. It is recorded in te office of te re!istry of deeds of te pro&ince or city were te property is located. It may only %e cancelled upon order of te court. 1ec! +-, Rule +8/ Define summons! Summons is a writ or process issued and ser&ed upon te defendant in a ci&il action for te purpose of securin! is appearance terein!1#allantines Law Dictionary 2 ($en may summons be issued and by w$om)
25
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Upon te filin! of te complaint and payment of te reCuisite le!al fees te cler4 of court sall issue te correspondin! summons to te defendant. 1ec! +2
tate t$e modes of serving summons) Summons may %e ser&ed %y; a2 $ersonal ser&ice< %2 Su%stituted Ser&ice< or c2 $u%lication.
($at is meant by t$e rules regarding leaving a copy of t$e summons wit$ a Dperson of sufficient age and discretionI) " person of suita%le a!e and discretion is one wo as attained te a!e of full le!al capacity 1-) years old2 and is considered to a&e enou! discernment to understand te importance of a summons. A8iscretion is defined as Ate a%ility to ma4e decisions wic represent a responsi%le coice and for wic an understandin! of wat is lawful, ri!t or wise may %e presupposed. 14anotoc vs! %ra3ano, 6!R! o! 6!R! o! +8.=B-, 5ug! +, 2../
Eplain briefly t$e different modes of serving summons! a2 $ersonal ser&ice sall %e done wene&er practica%le. It is done %y andin! a copy of te summons to te defendant in person. If e refuses to accept and si!n a receipt tereof, personal ser&ice can still %e done %y tenderin! a copy of te summons to im. 1ec! 2 %2 Su%stituted ser&ice of summons may %e effected in eiter of two ways; 1-2 %y lea&in! copies of te summons at te residence of te defendant wit some person of suita%le a!e and discretion residin! tereon< or 1*2 %y lea&in! copies of te summons at defendants office or re!ular place of %usiness wit some competent person in car!e tereof.
($en is a person said to be of sufficient discretion) To %e of sufficient discretion, suc person must 4now ow to read and understand En!lis to compreend te import of te summons, and fully reali>e te need to deli&er te summons and complaint to te defendant at te earliest possi%le time for te person to ta4e appropriate action. Ge must a&e te Arelation of confidence to te defendant, ensurin! tat te latter would recei&e or at least %e notified of te receipt of te summons. . 14anotoc vs! %ra3ano, 6!R! o! 6!R! o! +8.=B-, 5ug! +, 2../
($at is t$e nature and concept of substituted service) Su%stituted ser&ice of summons is e=traordinary in caracter and in dero!ation of te usual metod of ser&ice. 1ed %y te rules. #ompliance wit te rules re!ardin! te ser&ice of summons is as muc important as te issue of due process as of 9urisdiction. 1 5ng Ping v! C5, 6!R! o! +2=-B, ?uly +7, +===, 8+. CR5 8-8/
;n w$at instance may summons by publication be effected) Summons %y pu%lication may %e effected %y lea&e of court; a2 In actions in rem or Cuasi in rem, tat affect te personal status of te plaintiff< or were te su%9ect matter is a property located in te $ilippines in wic te defendant as a claim or interest< or wen te purpose of te action is to e=clude te defendant from any interest in te property< and %2 Tat suc action is a!ainst a un4nown defendant< or wose werea%outs is un4nown and cannot %e ascertain %y dili!ent inCuiry< or wen te defendant is a non?resident wo is not found in te $ilippines< or a resident of te $ilippines %ut is temporarily out of te country. 1Sec. -62
ed under te laws of te $ilippines or a partnersip duly re!istered, ser&ice may %e made on te president, mana!in! partner, !eneral mana!er, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in?ouse counsel! 1ec! ++/ Ser&ice upon pri&ate forei!n 9uridical entity transactin! %usiness in te $ilippines and duly autori>ed to do %usiness is done %y ser&in! te summons to te 1a2 resident a!ent desi!nated in accordance wit law< or 1%2 if no suc resident a!ent, on !o&ernment official desi!nated %y law< 1c2 or any of its officers or a!ents witin te $ilippines. 1Note; IK NO RESI8ENT "'ENT, SERVI#E OK SUDDONSES "N8 $RO#ESSES ON TGE SE#2
($en etraterritorial service of summons allowed) E=traterritorial ser&ice of summons may %e allowed wit lea&e of court in any of te followin! instances; a2 :en te defendant is a non?resident and is not found in te $ilippines were te action affects te personal status of te plaintiff< .1Sec. -(2< %2 :en te action refers a property witin te $ilippines in wic te defendant as or claims a lien or interest tereon< .1Sec. -(2< c2 :en te relief demanded %y te plaintiff consist, in wole or in part, in e=cludin! te defendant from any interest in a property located in te $ilippines< .1Sec. -(2< d2 :en te property of te defendant as %een attaced witin te $ilippines.1Sec. -(2<
($at mode of service is preferred in actions purely in personam) In an action strictly in personam, personal ser&ice on te defendant is te preferred mode of ser&ice, tat is, %y andin! a copy of te summons to te defendant in person. If defendant, for e=cusa%le reasons, cannot %e ser&ed wit te summons witin a reasona%le period, ten su%stituted ser&ice can %e resorted to. 1
26
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
e2
:en te defendant is a resident of te $ilippines %ut is temporarily out of te country. 1Sec. -7
($at is t$e purpose of t$e notice of $earing in a litigated motion) Te purpose of a notice of a motion is to a&oid surprises on te opposite party and to !i&e im time to study and meet te ar!uments. Te notice of a motion is reCuired wen te party as te ri!t to resist te relief sou!t %y te motion and principles of natural 9ustice demand tat is ri!t %e not affected witout an opportunity to %e eard.
;n Fuestion o! 82, $ow may suc$ etraterritorial service be effected) E=traterritorial ser&ice of summons may %e effected %y; a2 $ersonal Ser&ice to te party outside of te $ilippines< %2 By $u%lication of te summons in te place were te party may appen to reside outside of te country plus sendin! of summons %y re!istered mail to is last 4nown address< c2 "ny oter manner as te court may deem sufficient.
($at is t$e so9called omnibus motion rule) Eceptions) E&ery motion attac4in! a pleadin!, order, 9ud!ment or proceedin! sall include all o%9ections a&aila%le to te mo&ant at te time of te filin! of te motion, any o%9ection not included in te said motion is deemed wai&ed. Te rule admits of some e=ceptions. Te followin! are not deemed wai&ed and co&ered %y te omni%us motion rule, to wit; a2 :en te court as no 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter< %2 :en tere is a pendin! action %etween te same parties 1litis pendencia/> c2 :en te action is %arred %y prior 9ud!ment 1Res 3udicata/> d2 :en te action is %arred %y te statute of limitations>1ec! +, Rule =/
($at is t$e effect of 3udgments rendered w$ere t$ere is no valid service of summons) ?urisdiction o&er te defendant is acCuired eiter upon a &alid ser&ice of summons or te defendants &oluntary appearance in court. :en te defendant does not &oluntarily su%mit to te courts 9urisdiction or wen tere is no &alid ser&ice of summons, Aany 9ud!ment of te court wic as no 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant is null and &oid.1Domagas v! ?ensen, 6!R! o! +7*-.B, ?anuary +B, 2..7, --* CR5 8/ Define motion! It is an application for relief oter tan %y a pleadin!. It is a mere application for an order not included in te 9ud!ment.
($at is t$e effect of filing a motion to dismiss on t$e ground of lac0 of cause of action) " motion to dismiss %ased on lac4 of cause of action ypotetically admits te trut of te alle!ations in te complaint. Te alle!ations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action a!ainst te defendants if, ypotetically admittin! te facts alle!ed, te court can render a &alid 9ud!ment upon te same in accordance wit te prayer terein.
($at are t$e 0inds of motions) Tere are two !eneral 4inds of motions namely; liti!ated and unliti!ated motions. Liti!ated motions are tose motions tat cannot %e disposed of or resol&ed %y te court witout a earin!. Unliti!ated motions are tose tat may %e resol&ed e&en if no earin! is conducted %ecause it would not in any way pre9udice te ri!ts of te ad&erse party.
($en may party file a motion to dismiss) " motion to dismiss sould %e filed witin te time for filin! te answer. Tis rule owe&er is not a%solute. E&en after an answer as %een filed, a defendant can still file a motion to dismiss on te followin! !rounds; 1-2 lac4 of 9urisdiction, 1*2 litis pendentia 1+2 lac4 of cause of action, and 162 disco&ery durin! trial of e&idence tat would constitute a !round for dismissal. 1Panganiban vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation respondent!, 6!R! o! +8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
($at is t$e t$ree9day 18/ notice rule regarding motions) E&ery written motion tat is reCuired to %e eard must %e ser&ed upon te ad&erse party at least tree 1+2 days %efore te earin! unless te court for !ood cause sets te earin! on a sorter notice. 1ec! -/ ($at are t$e reFuirements to be complied regarding t$e filing of litigated motions) E&ery liti!ated motion must contain a notice of earin! addressed to te ad&erse party and sall specify te time and date of earin! wic must not %e later tan ten 1-/2 days from te filin! of te motion. Te mo&ant must su%mit proof of ser&ice of te said motion to te court. Te court may not act on a motion in te a%sence of te proof of ser&ice. 1ec! /
4ay t$e court motu proprio dismiss a case) 'enerally te answer is NO. Te court may only dismiss a case upon motion filed %y te ad&erse party. 1Sec. -, Rule -72 Te court may, owe&er, order dismissal of te case motu proprio wen te !round is eiter; a2 Litis pendentia< or 1%2 lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter< or 1c2 prescription< or res 9udicata.1ec!+, Rule =, Panganiban vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation respondent!, 6!R! o! +8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
($at is t$e effect if t$e movant fails to comply wit$ t$e reFuirements in t$e preceding Fuestion) Te motion sall %e considered as a mere scrap of paper and te cler4 of court may not e&en %e reCuired to accept te same. Dore, a motion tat does not comply wit te reCuirements sall not toll te runnin! of any period prescri%ed %y te rules. In sort, te motion is considered as a pro forma motion. Tis rule applies to Dotion for New Trial, Reconsideration, Dotion to 8ismiss
5t w$at stage of t$e proceeding may party file a motion to dismiss) 'enerally a motion to dismiss sould %e filed witin te time for filin! an answer. Te reCuirement owe&er is not a%solute. E&en after an answer as %een filed, a defendant can still file a motion to dismiss on te followin!
27
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
!rounds; 1-2 lac4 of 9urisdiction, 1*2 litis pendentia 1+2 lac4 of cause of action, and 162 disco&ery durin! trial of e&idence tat would constitute a !round for dismissal. 1Panganiban vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation respondent!, 6!R! o! +8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
te trut of te facts alle!ed in te complaint. Te admission, owe&er, is limited only to all material and rele&ant facts wic are well pleaded in te complaint. Te motion does not admit te trut of mere epitets car!in! fraud< nor alle!ations of le!al conclusions< nor an erroneous statement of law< nor matters of e&idence< nor to le!ally impossi%le facts
%$e defendant filed a motion to dismiss but t$e court denied t$e same for lac0 of merit! Can t$e same defendant still incorporate t$e same grounds for motion dismiss as affirmative defenses in $is answer)
($at is t$e test for determining t$e sufficiency of facts t$at constitute a cause of action) Te test of sufficiency of te facts found in a complaint as constitutin! a cause of action is weter or not, admittin! te facts alle!ed, te court can render a &alid 9ud!ment upon te same in accordance wit te prayer in te complaint. :en a motion to dismiss is !rounded on te failure to state a cause of action, a rulin! tereon sould %e %ased only on te facts alle!ed in te complaint. Te rule is tat only te alle!ations in te complaint may properly %e considered in ascertainin! te e=istence of a cause of action. Lac4 of cause of action must appear on te face of te complaint, and its e=istence may %e determined only %y te alle!ations of te complaint. #onsideration of oter facts is out of te Cuestion, and any attempt to pro&e e=traneous circumstances is not allowed. 1EFuitable PC;#an0 vs! ta! Rosa 4ining, 6!R! o! +-877, 4arc$ +7, 2..-/
Te answer is yes. It is su%mitted owe&er, tat te defendant may no lon!er %e allowed to mo&e for a preliminary earin! on te same !rounds tat ad %een te su%9ect of te earin! in te motion to dismiss tat was denied. 1ec! , Rule +> Dacillo, et al! vs! alas & C5, 6!R! o! +7**=7, Geb! +, 2../ ;n t$e above problem suppose t$e ot$er defendants w$o did not 3oin in t$e motion to dismiss instead filed t$ere answer and incorporated t$e grounds for motion to dismiss, may t$ey be allowed to be $eard preliminarily on t$eir affirmative defenses) In suc a case, te denial of te motion to dismiss of te oter defendants does not pre9udice a defendant wo did not 9oin in te motion to dismiss tat was denied. Tey are still entitled to %e eard on teir affirmati&e defenses. Te trial court is li4ewise not proscri%ed from !rantin!, in its discretion, suc a motion for preliminary earin!. Te only ca&eat is tat te !round of motion to dismiss tat was already eard sould already %e e=cluded in te said earin! %ecause it as %een eard and finally resol&ed. 1Panganiban vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation respondent!, 6!R! o! +8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
tate t$e elements of litis pendentia and res 3udicata as grounds for motion to dismiss! Te reCuisites of &iti pendentia are as follows; a2 Identity of parties@interest< %2 Identity of ri!ts asserted and prayed for@relief founded on te same facts< c2 Identity of te * cases 1suc tat 9ud!ment in one would amount to res 9udicata in te oter2
tate t$e grounds for motion to dismiss! 'rounds for motion to dismiss; a2 #ourt as no 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant? unli4e old rule, inclusion in motion to dismiss of oter !rounds aside from lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te person does NOT constitute a wai&er of te said !round or &oluntary appearance< %2 #ourt as no 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter of te claim< c2 Venue is improperly laid< d2 $laintiff as no le!al capacity to sue< e2 Tere is anoter action pendin! %etween te same parties for te same cause< f2 $leadin! assertin! claim states no cause of action< !2 #laim or demand in te plaintiffQs pleadin! as %een paid, wai&ed, a%andoned, e=tin!uised< 2 #laim on wic action is founded is unenforcea%le under te statute of frauds< i2 #ondition precedent for filin! as not %een complied wit 1tis includes prior recourse to %aran!ay conciliation, or failure to ma4e attempts to reac a compromise in cases %etween mem%ers of te same family2
ReCuisites of re ;4dicata; a2 Kinal 9ud!ment or order< %2 Rendered %y court of competent 9urisdiction c2 On te merits 1e&en witout trial, suc as cases decided %y 5ud!ment on te $leadin!s, Summary 5ud!ment, or dismissed for failure to prosecute or for refusal to o%ey an order of te court2 d2 Identity of te parties 5n action for reformation of instrument was filed by 5 against #! %$ereafter # also filed an action for collection against 5 using t$e same agreement sub3ect in t$e reformation case as basis for $is claim! 5pplying t$e rule on litis pendentia, w$ic$ of t$e two cases s$ould be dismissed and w$ic$ s$ould be tried) "s a rule, preference is !i&en to te first action filed to %e retained. Tis is in accordance wit te ma=im ui prior est tempore, potior est 9ure 1%$is is t$e Priority in %ime Rule/. Tere are, owe&er, limitations to tis rule. Gence, te first action may %e a%ated if it was filed merely to pre? empt te later action or to anticipate its filin! and lay te %asis for its dismissal. Tus, te %ona fides or !ood fait of te parties is a crucial element. " later case sall not %e a%ated if not %rou!t to arass or &e=< and te first case can %e a%ated if it is merely an anticipatory action or, more appropriately, an anticipatory defense a!ainst an e=pected suit. "noter e=ception to te priority in time rule is te criterion of te more appropriate action. Tus, an
($at is t$e effect of filing a motion to dismiss on t$e ground of failure to state a cause of action) " motion to dismiss on te !round of failure to state a cause of action in te complaint must ypotetically admit
28
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
action, altou! filed later, sall not %e dismissed if it is te more appropriate &eicle for liti!atin! te issues %etween te parties.1Compania 6eneral de %abacos vs! C5, -22 P$il! -.712..+/> 5bines vs! #P;, 6!R! o! +B=.., 2.. Geb +8/
dismissal sall %e considered as an acCuittal on te merits. ($o may as0 for a 3udgment on t$e pleadings) Te $laintiff may as4 for a 9ud!ment on te pleadin!s at any time after te filin! of an answer %ut %efore trial wen suc answer fails to tender an issue.
($at is a demurrer to evidence) It is a motion to dismiss a case filed %y te ad&erse party after te plaintiff as rested its case on te !round of insufficiency of e&idence.
($en is summary 3udgment availed of) Summary 9ud!ment may %e a&ailed of %y eiter te plaintiff or te defendant at any sta!e of te proceedin! %ut %efore 9ud!ment wen tere is no !enuine issue as to any material fact in te action and te mo&in! party is entitled to a 9ud!ment as a matter of law.
($at is t$e nature of an order denying a demurrer to evidence) "s a !eneral rule an order denyin! a demurrer to e&idence or motion to dismiss is interlocutory and is not appeala%le. #onseCuently, te defendant must !o to trial and adduce e&idence, and appeal, in due course, from an ad&erse decision of te trial court. 1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! o! +BB2- ?une 2B, 2../
($at is a genuine issue of fact) " !enuine issue as %een defined as an issue of fact wic calls for te presentation of e&idence, as distin!uised from an issue wic is sam, fictitious, contri&ed and patently unsu%stantial so as not to constitute a !enuine issue for trial. 1EFuitable PC; #an0 vs! Ong, 6!R! o! +72.B, ept! +7, 2../
;s t$ere an eception to t$e above rule) Te answer is yes. Te rule admits of e=ceptions. :ere te denial %y te trial court is tainted wit !ra&e a%use of discretion amountin! to e=cess or lac4 of 9urisdiction, te a!!rie&ed party may assail te order in a petition for certiorari under Rule 7( of te Rules of #ourt. Te court as discretion in certiorari proceedin!s in te interest of su%stantial 9ustice and to pre&ent su%stantial wron!. 1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! o! +BB2- ?une 2B, 2../
tate t$e reFuisites t$at must be complied before a motion for summary 3udgment can be given due course! Under Section +, Rule +(, of te -0 Rules of #i&il $rocedure, summary 9ud!ment may %e allowed were, sa&e for te amount of dama!es, te followin! reCuisites must concur; 1-2 tere must %e no !enuine issue on any material fact, e=cept for te amount of dama!es< 1*2 te mo&in! party must %e entitled to a 9ud!ment as a matter of law and 1+2 te motion for summary 9ud!ment must %e ser&ed at least ten 1-/2 days %efore te earin! tereof. 1EFuitable PC; #an0 vs! Ong, 6!R! o! +72.B, ept! +7, 2../ Te party wo mo&es for summary 9ud!ment as te onus of demonstratin! clearly te a%sence of any !enuine issue of fact, or tat te issue posed in te complaint is patently unsu%stantial so as not to constitute a !enuine issue for trial.1Kuc$engco vs! PC66, 6!R! o! +78-7= 2.. ?an 2./
4ay a demurrer to evidence be filed even wit$out leave of court) Te answer is yes. In ci&il actions as well as criminal actions, te defendant is allowed to file a demurrer to e&idence wit or witout lea&e of court. ($at is t$e effect if a demurrer to evidence is denied by t$e court) :e a&e to Cualify our answer. In ci&il actions, if te court resol&es to deny te demurrer to e&idence, te defendant may still %e allowed to present is e&idence as a matter of ri!t e&en if te demurrer to e&idence was filed witout lea&e of court.
($en can we say t$at t$ere is a genuine issue of a material fact in an action) " A!enuine issue, as differentiated from a fictitious or contri&ed one, is an issue of fact tat reCuires te presentation of e&idence. "n issue is !enuine if it reCuires te presentation of e&idence as distin!uised from a sam, fictitious, contri&ed or false claim. :en tere is a !enuine issue of any material fact in an action, summary 9ud!ment is not proper.1Ontimare vs! Elep, 6!R! o! +7=22-, ?an! 2., 2../.
In criminal actions, te rule is different. If te demurrer to e&idence is filed witout lea&e of court and te same is denied, te accused is no lon!er allowed to adduce e&idence in is fa&or. Gowe&er, if te demurrer to e&idence was filed wit lea&e of court and is denied, te accused may, as a matter ri!t, adduce e&idence in is defense. ($at is t$e effect if t$e court resolves to grant t$e demurrer to evidence) :e also a&e to Cualify our answer.
tate t$e nature and purpose of a summary 3udgment Summary or accelerated 9ud!ment is a procedural tecniCue aimed at weedin! out sam claims or defenses at an early sta!e of te liti!ation, tere%y a&oidin! te e=pense and loss of time in&ol&ed in a trial. E&en if te pleadin!s appear, on teir face, to raise issues, summary 9ud!ment may still ensue as a matter of law if te affida&its, depositions and admissions sow tat suc issues are not !enuine. 1Ontimare vs! Elep, 6!R! o! +7=22-, ?an! 2., 2../.
In ci&il actions, if te court !rants te demurrer to e&idence, te plaintiff is still entitled to appeal te order of dismissal. Sould te appellate court re&erse te order of dismissal, te defendant may not lon!er %e allowed to adduce e&idence on appeal. In criminal actions, sould te court order te dismissal of te case %ased on te demurrer to e&idence, te prosecution is no lon!er allowed to appeal %ecause te
4ay t$e court validly issue a partial ummary ?udgment)
29
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
By e=press pro&ision of te rules 1Sec. 6, Rule +(2 Te court can &alidly issue a partial summary 9ud!ment were tere are se&eral causes of action incorporated in a pleadin!.
;n t$e above situation, w$at is t$e nature of suc$ dismissal) Eceptions) "s a !eneral rule, te dismissal sall %e considered witout pre9udice. Te e=ceptions to te rule are tat wen te notice of dismissal filed %y te complaint states tat te dismissal sall %e wit pre9udice< or were te plaintiff as pre&iously filed a notice of dismissal of te same. Te second instance is wat we called as te Atwo?dismissal rule.1Sec. *, Rule -02
1!#!9 ;n fine, "445RK ?"D64E% ; 5:5;L5#LE ( w$ile t$e plaintiff can only move of summary 3udgment after t$e answer $as been filed9ec! 2, Rule 87/
uppose a responsive pleading containing a counterclaim $as been served upon t$e plaintiff, can t$e latter still file a notice of dismissal) Te answer is still yes %ut tis time tere must %e prior lea&e of court. Te counterclaim interposed %y te ad&erse party can %e pursued %y te latter in te same proceedin! or in a separate action.
4ay a complaint be dismissed by t$e plaintiff wit$out leave of court) Te answer is yes. Te plaintiff may, at any time %efore a responsi&e pleadin! or a motion for summary 9ud!ment as %een ser&ed upon im, file a notice of dismissal of te complaint. 1Sec. -, Rule -02 "ll tat te court will do is to confirm te dismissal of te complaint.
4ay t$e court order t$e dismissal of t$e complaint by reason of t$e absence of $is counsel at t$e pre9trial> or allows t$e presentation of evidence by t$e plaintiff in case of absence of counsel for t$e defendant at t$e said pre9trial) Section (, Rule -), pro&ides tat te failure of te plaintiff or defendant to appear durin! pre?trial autori>es te court to eiter dismiss te complaint, if te plaintiff were a%sent< or to allow te plaintiff to present e&idence e= parte, if te defendant were a%sent. Te rule owe&er does not contemplate te same in case of te a%sence of counsel.
;n t$e above situation, w$at is t$e nature of suc$ dismissal) Eceptions) "s a !eneral rule, te dismissal sall %e considered witout pre9udice. Te e=ceptions to te rule are tat wen te notice of dismissal filed %y te complaint states tat te dismissal sall %e wit pre9udice< or were te plaintiff as pre&iously filed a notice of dismissal of te same. Te second instance is wat we called as te Atwo?dismissal rule.1Sec. *, Rule -02
Simply put, notin! in te Rules of #ourt autori>es a trial 9ud!e to cause te dismissal of a complaint or allow te plaintiff to present e&idence e= parte on account of te a%sence durin! pre?trial of te counsel!1ections - & 7, Rule +*> #aybay, et al vs! :erano, et al, 6!R! o! +-8B7, 2.. Oct +2/
uppose a responsive pleading containing a counterclaim $as been served upon t$e plaintiff, can t$e latter still file a notice of dismissal) Te answer is still yes %ut tis time tere must %e prior lea&e of court. Te counterclaim interposed %y te ad&erse party can %e pursued %y te latter in te same proceedin! or in a separate action.
tate t$e nature of a dismissal of a case by reason of failure to prosecute! Te orders dismissin! te case for failure to prosecute are final orders, %ecause suc orders of dismissal operate as a 9ud!ment on te merits. Tis principle is now an e=press pro&ision in Section +, Rule -0 of te Rules of #ourt. If, for no 9ustifia%le cause, te plaintiff fails to appear on te date of te presentation of is e&idence in cief on te complaint, or to prosecute is action for an unreasona%le len!t of time, or to comply wit tese Rules or any order of te court, te complaint may %e dismissed upon motion of te defendant or upon te courts own motion, witout pre9udice to te ri!t of te defendant to prosecute is counterclaim in te same or in a separate action. Tis dismissal sall a&e te effect of ad9udication upon te merits, unless oterwise declared %y te court. 1Koung vs! y, ept!2, 2../
tate t$e instances w$en a complaint may be ordered dismissed by t$e court by reason of causes attributable to t$e plaintiff! 8ismissal due to plaintiffQs fault ? te followin! must %e witout 9ustifia%le cause; a2 If plaintiff fails to appear on te date of presentation of is e&idence in cief< %2 $laintiff fails to prosecute claim for an unreasona%le len!t of time c2 $laintiff fails to comply wit te Rules of #ourt or any order of te court d2 Te court may motu proprio order te dismissal of te #omplaint or upon defendantQs motion. Unless oterwise declared %y te court, dismissal as effect of ad9udication upon te merits.
($at is t$e remedy of t$e party aggrieved by t$e issuance of suc$ order) It is firmly esta%lised, and wit &ery few e=ceptions, tat te remedy a!ainst suc final order is appeal and not certiorari. Te !eneral rule is tat a writ of certiorari will not issue were te remedy of appeal is a&aila%le to te a!!rie&ed party. Te remedies of appeal in te ordinary course of law and tat of certiorari under Rule 7( are mutually e=clusi&e and not alternati&e or cumulati&e. Gence, te special ci&il action of certiorari under Rule 7(
4ay a complaint be dismissed by t$e plaintiff wit$out leave of court) Te answer is yes. Te plaintiff may, at any time %efore a responsi&e pleadin! or a motion for summary 9ud!ment as %een ser&ed upon im, file a notice of dismissal of te complaint. 1Sec. -, Rule -02 "ll tat te court will do is to confirm te dismissal of te complaint.
30
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
cannot %e a su%stitute for an appeal were te latter remedy is a&aila%le. 11Koung vs! y, ept!2, 2../
prayed for in is complaint< ence, te court is autori>ed to order te dismissal of te complaint on its own motion or on motion of te defendants. Te presumption is not, %y any means, conclusi&e %ecause te plaintiff, on a motion for reconsideration of te order of dismissal, may alle!e and esta%lis a 9ustifia%le cause for suc failure. 14alayan ;nsurance vs! ;pil ;nternational ;nc!, 6!R! o! +-+*., 2.. 5ug 8+, 8rd Division/
($o $as t$e duty to $ave t$e case set for pre9trial after t$e last pleading $as been filed) It is te duty of te plaintiff to mo&e e= parte for te settin! of te case for pre?trial. Gowe&er, if plaintiff answers te defendantQs counterclaim, it will %e te latterQs duty to set te pre?trial.
($at t$e test to determine w$et$er a plaintiff is guilty of failing to prosecute a claim to 3ustify dismissal of t$e complaint) In determinin! weter tere is failure to prosecute, te test is weter under te facts and circumstances, te plaintiff is car!ea%le wit want of due dili!ence in failin! to proceed wit reasona%le promptitude. ;*oldloop vs. C$ >/> &. 0:
($at is t$e effect of failure of a party to appear at pre9 trial) Te un9ustified failure of plaintiff to appear sall %e cause for dismissal of te action. Te un9ustified non?appearance of defendant is cause to allow plaintiff to present e&idence e= parte and te court to render 9ud!ment on %asis tereof. Gowe&er te appearance of a representati&e wo appears in %ealf of a party fully autori>ed in writin! to enter into an amica%le settlement, to su%mit to alternati&e modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents is not considered failure to appear.1ec! 7, Rule +*, ?onat$an Landoil ;nternational Co! v! 4angudadatu 16!R! o! +77.+., 5ug! +, 2..-, -8 CR5 77=> "nited Coconut Planters #an0 v! 4agpayo, 6!R! o! +-==.*, 4ay 2B, 2..-, -2= CR5 =/
($at is t$e purpose of a notice in t$e motion to declare defendant in default) Te purpose of a notice of in te motion is to a&oid surprises on te opposite party and to !i&e im time to study and meet te ar!uments. Te notice of a motion is reCuired wen te party as te ri!t to resist te relief sou!t %y te motion and principles of natural 9ustice demand tat is ri!t %e not affected witout an opportunity to %e eard.1Delos antos vs! 4etro#an0, et al!, 6!R! o! +78=,et! ++, 2../
Effect of t$e failure of party to file t$e reFuisite pre9 trial brief! Te purpose of te reCuirement re!ardin! te filin! of a pre?trial %rief is to ensure tat te oter party recei&es it at least tree 1+2 days %efore te pre?trial. Te failure to file te pre?trial %rief as te same effect as failure to appear at te pre?trial.
($at must t$e court do after t$e termination of t$e pre9trial conference) "fter te pre?trial, te court sall issue te pre?trial order. Tis order sall control te course of action, unless te same is modified %efore te trial to pre&ent manifest in9ustice. "t te new pre?trial conference or preliminary conference %efore te cler4 of court, it is te duties of te latter to e=ert all efforts to a&e te parties arri&e at a compromise. Dar4in! of documents as e=i%its may %e done %efore te cler4 of court durin! te preliminary conference.
%o w$om must t$e notice of pre9trial be sent or served) Te notice of pre?trial must %e furnised te parties and teir counsels. Te rule pro&ides tat separate notices must %e sent to te party and counsel.. :en notice to a party is ser&ed trou! is counsel tere must %e an e=press instruction upon te counsel for te latter to notify is client. Te client may deli&er to is counsel a written autority to represent im durin! te pre?trial. Oterwise te party may %e declared non?suited or te oter party entitled to present e&idence e=?parte. Note te rule on declaration of party as in default as %een remo&ed from te new rules. 16olden Glame vs! C5 5pril 8, +==7/
($at is t$e effect if a party is validly declared in default) Remedy of t$e party declared in default! " party in default sall %e entitled to notice of su%seCuent proceedin!s %ut not to ta4e part in te trial. tate t$e reFuirements before t$e court may declare a party in default! 1-2 Te claimin! party must file a motion as4in! te court to declare te defendin! party in default< 1*2 Te defendin! party must %e notified of te motion to declare im in default< 1+2 Te claimin! party must pro&e tat te defendin! party as failed to answer witin te period pro&ided %y te Rule.(De&o Santo v. .R. No. 2$676" Sept. 22" #??6,
Does t$e application of ec! 2, Rule +B and ec! 7, Rule +* contravene t$e rule on due process) Te operation of te said rules may defeat te cause of action or te defense of te party wo &iolated te procedural rule. Yet it could not %e said tat any resultant ad&erse 9ud!ment would contra&ene te due process clause. Te parties are presumed to a&e 4nown te !o&ernin! rules and te conseCuences for te &iolation of suc rules.1Paredes vs! :erano, 6!R! o! +-8B7, 2.. Oct +2/
Remedy of a party declared in default! " party declared in default may at any time after notice tereof and %efore 9ud!ment file a -otion 4nder oat% to et aide t%e order o9 de9a4&t upon proper sowin! tat is failure to answer was d4e to 9ra4d" accident" -ita@e or exc4a1&e ne&ience and t%at %e %a a -eritorio4 de9ene. In suc case, te order of default may %e set aside on suc terms and conditions as te 9ud!e may impose in te interest of 9ustice.
4ay t$e court motu proprio dismiss a case on t$e ground t$at t$e plaintiff failed to prosecute $is claim) Te answer is yes. Te failure of a plaintiff to prosecute te action witout any 9ustifia%le cause witin a reasona%le period of time will !i&e rise to te presumption tat e is no lon!er interested to o%tain from te court te relief
31
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te party may %e ordered arrested or reCuire im to post %ail.
;s t$ere suc$ t$ing as partial default) Te answer is yes. :en a pleadin! assertin! a claim states a common cause of action a!ainst se&eral defendin! parties, some of wom answer and te oters fail to do so, te court sall try te case a!ainst all upon te answers tus filed and render 9ud!ment upon te e&idence presented.
4ay a person be reFuired to testify even if not issued a subpoena) Te answer is yes wen te party or person is already in court. De9ine Depoition It is a written testimony of a witness !i&en in te course of a 9udicial proceedin! in ad&ance of te trial upon oral e=amination or in response to written interro!atories.
;n case of default w$at is t$e etent of reliev t$at may be awarded by t$e court) " 9ud!ment rendered a!ainst a party in default sall not e=ceed te amount or %e different in 4ind from tat prayed for. No unliCuidated dama!es sall %e awarded..
Purpose of t$e rules on depositions and discovery! Te e&ident purpose is to ena%le te parties, consistent wit reco!ni>ed pri&ile!es, to o%tain te fullest possi%le 4nowled!e of te issues and facts %efore ci&il trials and tus pre&ent tat said trials are carried on in te dar4. Te &arious modes or instruments of disco&ery are meant to ser&e 1-2 as a de&ice, alon! wit te pre?trial earin! under Rule */, to narrow and clarify te %asic issues %etween te parties, and 1*2 as a de&ice for ascertainin! te facts relati&e to tose issues. 1 PC66 :! %5%OCO 6!R! o! =.-B*, +==+ ov 2+, En #anc/
($en is default not allowed) No default is allowed in; a2 an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marria!e< %2 or for le!al separation Te court sall order te prosecutin! attorney to in&esti!ate weter or nor a collusion %etween te parties e=ists, and if tere is no collusion, to inter&ene for te State in order to see to it tat te e&idence su%mitted is not fa%ricated.
;s leave of court reFuired of a party availing of t$e rules on deposition and discovery) In line wit te principle of li%eral treatment to te deposition?disco&ery mecanism, suc modes of disco&ery as 1a2 depositions 1weter %y oral e=amination or written interro!atories2 under Rule *6, 1%2 interro!atories to parties under Rule *(, and 1c2 reCuests for admissions under Rule *7, may %e a&ailed of witout lea&e of court, and !enerally, witout court inter&ention. PC66 :! %5%OCO 6!R! o! =.-B*, +==+ ov 2+, En #anc/
;s t$e party ipso fact entitled to t$e relief prayed for in $is complaint in case of default) In 9ud!ments %y default, complainants are not automatically entitled to te relief prayed for, once te defendants are declared in default. Ka&ora%le relief can %e !ranted only after te court as ascertained tat te relief is warranted %y te e&idence offered and te facts pro&en %y te presentin! party. In sort te plaintiff must still present e&idence in order to comply wit te reCuirement of due process. 8efaults are not to %e interpreted as an admission %y te said defendant tat te plaintiffs cause of action find support in te law or tat plaintiff is entitled to te relief prayed for. 1Lim %an$u vs! Ramolete/ Not in e&ery case of default %y te defendant is te complainant entitled to win automatically. Te plaintiff must still present e&idence to pro&e its claim in te complaint %y preponderance of e&idence as reCuired %y te rules. 16a3udo vs! %raders Royal #an0, 6!R! o! +7+.=*, 4arc$ 2+, 2../
Te Rules of #ourt e=plicitly pro&ide tat lea&e of court is not necessary to a&ail of said modes of disco&ery after an answer to te complaint as %een ser&ed. It is only wen an answer as not yet %een filed 1%ut after 9urisdiction as %een o%tained o&er te defendant or property su%9ect of te action2 tat prior lea&e of court is needed to a&ail of tese modes of disco&ery, te reason %ein! tat at tat time te issues are not yet 9oined and te disputed facts are not clear. 1PC66 :! %5%OCO 6!R! o! =.-B*, +==+ ov 2+, En #anc/
Define subpoena! It is a process directed to a person reCuirin! im to attend and to testify at te trial of an action or at any in&esti!ation conducted under te laws of te $ilippines< or for te ta4in! of deposition (41poena ad teti9icand4-, It may refer to 41poena d4ce tec4- wic reCuires te %rin!in! of %oo4s or documents.
($en is leave of court necessary) Lea&e of court is reCuired as re!ards disco&ery %y 1a2 production or inspection of documents or tin!s in accordance wit Rule *0, or 1%2 pysical and mental e=amination of persons under Rule *), wic may %e !ranted upon due application and a sowin! of due cause. 1PC66 :! %5%OCO 6!R! o! =.-B*, +==+ ov 2+, En #anc/
($at is t$e viatory rig$t of person reFuired by a subpoena) It simply means tat a witness may not %e %ound %y te su%poena wen e resides at a place more tan -// 4m. away from te place of trial< 1ec! +., Rule 2+/ or wen te person is a detention prisoner ser&in! sentence at te National Bili%id $rison only te Supreme #ourt may allow im. ConseFuences of un3ustified refusal to obey subpoena!
($at is t$e sanction w$en a party refuses to comply wit$ t$e reFuest for discovery) Te law imposes serious sanctions on te party wo refuses to ma4es disco&ery, suc as dismissin! te action or proceedin! or part tereof, or renderin! 9ud!ment %y default a!ainst te diso%edient party< contempt of court, or arrest of te party or a!ent of te party< payment of te amount of reasona%le e=penses incurred in o%tainin! a court order to compel disco&ery< ta4in! te matters
32
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
inCuired into as esta%lised in accordance wit te claim of te party see4in! disco&ery< refusal to allow te diso%edient party support or oppose desi!nated claims or defenses< stri4in! out pleadin!s or parts tereof< stayin! furter proceedin!s. 1PC66 :! %5%OCO 6!R! o! =.-B*, +==+ ov 2+, En #anc/
($at reFuirements are needed in case of p$ysical or mental eamination of persons) Te pysical or mental condition of a party must %e in issue< Tere must %e a motion statin! te reasons terefor< Tere must %e notice to te party su%9ect of te reCuest for pysical or mental e=amination.
tate some limitations to availment of discovery procedure! :en it can %e sown tat te e=amination is %ein! conducted in %ad fait or in suc a manner as to annoy, em%arrass, or oppress te person su%9ect to te inCuiry. Dore, wen it is sown tat te inCuiry touces upon te irrele&ant or encroaces upon te reco!ni>ed domains of pri&ile!e communication.
($at is intervention) It is a proceedin! in a suit or action %y wic a tird person is permitted %y te court to ma4e imself as party, eiter %y 9oinin! te plaintiff in claimin! wat is sou!t %y te complaint or %y unitin! wit te defendant in resistin! te claims of te plaintiff, or demand sometin! ad&ersely to %ot of tem.
($en may ob3ections to t$e admissibility of a deposition be made) Tey may %e made at te trial or earin!. Errors or irre!ularities of any 4inds wic mi!t a&e %een o%&iated if promptly presented are deemed wai&ed unless tey ad %een o%9ected to at te time of te deposition ta4in!.
($en filed) It is filed at any time %efore 9ud!ment is rendered %y te trial court. It must %e always wit lea&e of court and wit notice to te ori!inal parties of te case.
($at is letters rogatory) It is an instrument were%y a forei!n court is informed of te pendency of a case and is reCuested to cause te ta4in! of depositions of persons witin its territory wit offer on te part of te reCuestin! court to do te same in a similar situation. @tis is !o&erned %y te principle of comity.
6rounds for intervention -. Le!al interest in te matter in liti!ation< *. In a case settlement of estate were te administrator of te estate is %elie&ed to a&e a%use is powers, te eirs may &alidly %e! to inter&ene %ecause tey a&e a le!al interest in te ereditary estate< +. Interest in te success of eiter or %ot parties or interest a!ainst %ot< 6. In action for sum of money %ased on loan filed %y te creditor a!ainst a surety, te principal de%tor may %e! lea&e to inter&ene and 9oin te defendant surety in opposin! te plaintiff?creditor. (. In action of reco&ery of real property %etween two persons, a person wo claims to %e te owner of te property in dispute may %e! lea&e to inter&ene %ecause e as an interest a!ainst %ot parties 7. $arty is so situated as to %e ad&ersely affected %y te distri%ution of te court
#efore w$om may t$e deposition be ta0en in foreign countries) It may %e ta4en %efore; a2 secretary of em%assy or le!ation< %2 consul !eneral, &ice?consul or consular a!ent of te $ilippines< c2 any person appointed %y commission or under letters ro!atory Depositions ta0en in t$e P$ilippines s$all be made before' a2 "ny 9ud!e< %2 "ny municipal trial court 9ud!e< c2 " notary pu%lic
ature of t$e action #omplaint in inter&ention is merely collateral to te principal action. Gence, it will %e dismissed if main action is dismissed.
tate t$e difference w$en t$e deposition is ta0en before a person appointed by means of a commission and by letters rogatory! :en te deposition is ta4en %efore a person appointed %y means of a commission, te rules of procedure to %e followed %y te said person sall %e tat of te appointin! court< wile in letters ro!atory, te rules of procedure to %e followed sall %e tat of te forei!n court ta4in! te deposition.
" complaint in inter&ention tat see4s affirmati&e relief pre&ents a plaintiff from ta4in! a &oluntary dismissal of te main action. Suc a case is not su%9ect to dismissal upon inter&enorQs petition sowin! im to %e entitled to affirmati&e relief. Te petition will %e preser&ed and eard re!ardless of te disposition of te main action. Inter&ention is not an independent action %ut it is au=iliary or supplemental to an e=istin! action or liti!ation. 1'arcia &s. 8a&id 70 $il. *02
Difference between written interrogatories 1Rule 27/ and interrogatories to parties in deposition ta0ing 1Rule 2-/ Te main difference is tat te written interro!atories under Rule *(, are ser&ed directly to te ad&erse party for im to answer te same< wile te written interro!atories under Rule *6 in deposition ta4in! are deli&ered to te officer autori>ed to ta4e te deposition for answer to %e !i&en %y te deponent wo is not necessarily te ad&erse party.
($en may t$e court deny leave to intervene) Te court may no lon!er entertain or allow a motion for inter&ention after 9ud!ment as %een rendered and te same as %ecome final and e=ecutory. 1Vda de #i &s. Tanedo --- S -/2 Or were te ri!t or interest of a
33
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
party can %e liti!ated. 1Bayer &s. "!ana 7+ S +7(< 'i%son &s. Re&illa * S *-2
Te summons sall also contain a notice tat if suc answer is not filed, te plaintiffs@petitioners sall ta4e a 9ud!ment %y default and may %e !ranted te relief applied for.
($at is t$e remedy of t$e party w$ose motion for leave to intervene $as been denied) a2 If te reason for te denial is %ecause 9ud!ment as %een rendered in main case, te party may file a separate action a!ainst te proper party. 1:da de C$i vs! %anedo +++ +=./ %2 If te cause of te denial is not te rendition of 9ud!ment, is remedy is ordinary appeal and not mandamus e=cept wen tere is !ra&e a%use of discretion.
Te court, owe&er, may ?? upon suc terms as may %e 9ust ?? allow an answer to %e filed after te time fi=ed %y te Rules. If te answer sets fort a counterclaim or cross?claim, it must %e answered witin ten 1-/2 days from ser&ice. " reply may %e filed witin ten 1-/2 days from ser&ice of te pleadin! responded to.
;s a party w$ose motion for leave to intervene $as been denied entitled to notices) Ge is not entitled to notices %ecause %efore te inter&ention is admitted te party as no personality in te case 14acias vs! Cruz -= *./
:en an answer fails to tender an issue or admits te material alle!ations of te ad&erse partys pleadin!, te court may, on motion of tat party, direct 9ud!ment on te pleadin!s 1e=cept in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marria!e or for le!al separation2.
Define %rial! It is an e=amination %efore a competent court of te facts or law put in issue in a case for t e purpose of determinin! suc issue.
Deanwile, a party see4in! to reco&er upon a claim, a counterclaim or crossclaim ?? or to o%tain a declaratory relief ?? may, at any time after te answer tereto as %een ser&ed, mo&e for a summary 9ud!ment in its fa&or.
Define ?udgment! It is te final consideration and determination %y a court of te ri!ts of te parties as tose ri!ts presently e=ist, upon matter su%mitted to it in an action or proceedin!.
Similarly, a party a!ainst wom a claim, a counterclaim or crossclaim is asserted ?? or a declaratory relief sou!t ?? may, at any time, mo&e for a summary 9ud!ment in its fa&or.
Essential reFuisites of a valid 3udgment! Te court renderin! te 9ud!ment after a &alid earin!; -. must a&e 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter< *. must 9urisdiction o&er te parties or o&er te res< +. must 9urisdiction o&er te issues (t%oe raied in t%e p&eadin,<
"fter te motion is eard, te 9ud!ment sou!t sall %e rendered fortwit if tere is a sowin! tat, e=cept as to te amount of dama!es, tere is no !enuine issue as to any material fact< and tat te mo&in! party is entitled to a 9ud!ment as a matter of law.
Gormal reFuisites of a valid 3udgment! -. Te 9ud!ment sall %e in writin!< *. It sall %e personally and directly prepared %y te 9ud!e< +. It sall state clearly and distinctly te facts and te law on wic it is %ased< 6. It sall %e si!ned %y te 9ud!e and filed wit te cler4 of court.
If te motion is denied, te mo&ant may file an answer witin te %alance of te period ori!inally prescri%ed to file an answer, %ut not less tan fi&e 1(2 days in any e&ent, computed from te receipt of te notice of te denial. If te pleadin! is ordered to %e amended, te defendant sall file an answer witin fifteen 1-(2 days, counted from te ser&ice of te amended pleadin!, unless te court pro&ides a lon!er period.
"fter te last pleadin! as %een ser&ed and filed, te case sall %e set for pretrial, wic is a mandatory proceedin!. " plaintiffs@ petitioners 1or its duly autori>ed representati&es2 non?appearance at te pretrial, if witout &alid cause, sall result in te dismissal of te action wit pre9udice, unless te court orders oterwise.
$refatorily, te trial court may, motu proprio or upon motion of te defendant, di-i a complaint 1or petition, in a special civil action/ tat does not alle!e te plaintiffs 1or petitioners2 cause or causes of action.
" similar failure on te part of te defendant sall %e a cause for allowin! te plaintiff@petitioner to present e&idence e= parte, and te court to render 9ud!ment on te %asis tereof.
Upon te filin! of te complaint@petition and te payment of te reCuisite le!al fees, te cler4 of court sall fortwit issue te correspondin! summons to te defendants or te respondents, wit a directi&e tat te defendant answer witin -( days, unless a different period is fi=ed %y te court.
Te parties are reCuired to file teir pretrial %riefs< failure to do so sall a&e te same effect as failure to appear at te pretrial. Upon te termination of te pretrial, te court sall issue te pretrial order wic sall recite, in detail, te followin!;
34
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
1a2 te matters ta4en up at te conference< 1%2 te action ta4en on tem, 1c2 te amendments allowed to te pleadin!s< and 1d2 te a!reements or admissions, if any, made %y te parties re!ardin! any of te matters considered.
" pro?forma motion is one tat does not comply wit te form and reCuisites pro&ided for %y te rules. Distinction between a 4otion ew %rial and 4otion for Reconsideration Te distinction lies on te !round to %e relied on %y te mo&ant. In a motion for new trial te !rounds are FA
Te parties may furter a&ail temsel&es of any of te modes of disco&ery, if tey so wis. Tereafter, te case sall %e set for trial, in wic te parties sall adduce teir respecti&e e&idence in support of teir claims and@or defenses. By teir written consent or upon te application of eiter party, or on its own motion, te court may also order any or all of te issues to %e referred to a commissioner, wo is to %e appointed %y it or to %e a!reed upon %y te parties.
ReFuisites for newly9discovered evidence a2 must a&e %een disco&ered after trial %2 could not a&e %een disco&ered and produced at te trial c2 if presented would alter te result of te action oterwise, it is called for!otten e&idence
Te trial or earin! %efore te commissioner sall proceed in all respects as it would if eld %efore te court. Upon te completion of suc proceedin!s, te commissioner sall file wit te court; 1a2 a written report on te matters referred %y te parties< 1%2 te report sall %e set for earin!< 1c2 after te earin! on te report te court sall issue an order adoptin!, modifyin! or re9ectin! it in wole or in part< or recommittin! it wit instructions< or reCuirin! te parties to present furter e&idence %efore te commissioner or te court.
;f t$e 3udgment $as become final is t$ere anot$er available remedy for t$e aggrieved party) Yes. Te a!!rie&ed party may a&ail of Rule +), tat is, %y filin! a petition for relief from 9ud!ment.
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
($at must accompany a motion for new trial) If te !round for te motion is FA
"fter a 9ud!ment as %een rendered in fa&or of a party a!ainst te ad&erse party, any of tem may interpose a motion for consideration or new trial. If te motion for new trial or reconsideration is 8ENIE8 %y te court, te remedy of te a!!rie&ed party is to "$$E"L te 9ud!ment or final order and not te order of 8ENI"L.
($at is t$e effect of t$e grant of t$e motion for new trial) Te 9ud!ment already rendered is set aside, as if no 9ud!ment at all was rendered. Te court will conduct a new trial and may render anoter 9ud!ment after conductin! te new trial. In decidin! tis case now,
(it$in w$at period may motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration be filed) At any time %efore te 9ud!ment %ecomes final. "fter te 9ud!ment as %ecome final, te remedy is no lon!er a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Te filin! of te motion stops te runnin! of te period of appeal. Gowe&er a pro?forma motion does not stop te runnin! of te period to appeal.
($at now is t$e effect of t$e order granting t$e motion for new trial on t$e evidence already received) If te motion for new trial is %ased on FA
Kinally, a 9ud!ment or final order determinin! te merits of te case sall %e rendered. Te decision sall %e in writin!, personally and directly prepared %y te 9ud!e, statin! clearly and distinctly te facts and te law on wic it is %ased, si!ned %y te issuin! ma!istrate, and filed wit te cler4 of court.
If te !round for new trial is NDE" a&& t%e evidence add4ced d4rin t%e previo4 trial sall %e considered %y te count plus te so?called newly disco&ered e&idence. Te rules owe&er allow te reception of additional e&idence durin! te new trial proceedin!.
PRO3FOR
4ay a party be allowed to file a second motion for new trial) 1ec! 7, Rule 8B/ 'enerally, a second motion for new trial is not allowed %y reason of te omni%us motion rule wic states tat a motion for new trial must include all a&aila%le !rounds at
35
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
te time of its filin! and tose not included are wai&ed. " second motion to new trial may %e allowed if it is %ased on anoter !round tat was not a&aila%le or e=istin! at te time of te first motion for new trial.
4ay t$e petitioner avail of t$e provisional remedy of in3unction in con3unction wit$ t$e petition for relief from 3udgment) Te answer is yes. 1Sec. (, Rule +)2 Te reason is to preser&e te ri!ts of te parties durin! te earin! of te petition for relief and to stay te e=ecution of te 9ud!ment. Te petitioner is owe&er, reCuired to post te reCuired %ond in fa&or of te ad&erse party.
;s partial new trial allowed by t$e rules) Te answer is yes. :en te !round for new trial interposed %y te party appears to te court tat tey only affect part or less tan all te matters in contro&ersy, te court may order a new trial or reconsideration only as to te issues raised in te motion. 1Sec. 0, Rule +02
Gor w$at is t$is bond responsible) Te %ond will %e made lia%le for te dama!es and costs tat may %e awarded in fa&or of te ad&erse party. It does not operate to discar!e or e=tin!uis any lien wic te ad&erse party as acCuired upon te property of t e petitioner.
($at is t$e effect of granting a partial new trial) Te court may eiter; 1a2 enter a 9ud!ment or final order as to te issues not tra&ersed %y te motion for new trial< or 1%2 stay te enforcement of te 9ud!ment until after te new trial. 1Sec. ), Rule +02
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT E=ecution is a remedy pro&ided %y law for te enforcement of a final 9ud!ment. Once a decision %ecomes final and e=ecutory, it is remo&ed from te power of 9urisdiction of te court wic rendered it to furter amend, muc less re&o4e. 1Repu%lic &s. Reyes -(( S#R" +-+ 1-)02
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT Petition for relief from 3udgment assumes tat te 9ud!ment as already %ecome final< and te fact tat te 9ud!ment or final order as already %een entered. It is a&aila%le only wen tere is no oter plain, speedy and adeCuate remedy in fa&or of te petitioner. $etition for relief is not applica%le in te presence of oter remedies in law.
8ecisions wic a&e lon! %ecome final and e=ecutory cannot %e annulled %y courts. 1United #D# &s. La%or "r%iter, -6 S#R" 6*61-)02 #asis of t$e doctrine of Ginality of 3udgments9 Te doctrine of finality of 9ud!ment is !rounded on fundamental considerations of pu%lic and sound practice tat at te ris4 of occasional error, te 9ud!ments of te courts must %ecome final at some definite date set %y law 1Edra &. Intermediate "ppellate #ourt, -0 S#R" +66 F-)H2. Reopenin! of a case wic as %ecome final and e=ecutory is disallowed 1$ilippine Ra%%it Bus Lines, Inc. &. "rcia!a, -6) S#R",6++ F-)0H
($at may be t$e sub3ect of a petition for relief from 3udgment) Tere are two t%in t%at can 1e t%e 41;ect o9 petition 9or re&ie9: a2 " 9ud!ment rendered %y reason of K"DE or a proceedin! attended %y K"DE< or %2 " depri&ation of a party of te ri!t to appeal %y reason of K"DE. ($at court must entertain a petition for relief from 3udgment) Te petition for relief from 9ud!ment sall %e filed wit te court wic rendered te 9ud!ment. Te petition must %e filed witin 6? da0 from te time te a!!rie&ed party learned of te 9ud!ment and in no e&ent %eyond ix (6, monts from te entry of te 9ud!ment. T%e period cited are non3extendi1&e 1eca4e t%e re-ed0 i -ere&0 an act o9 race on t%e part o9 t%e tate in 9avor o9 t%e arieved part0.
Te su%seCuent filin! of a motion for reconsideration cannot distur% te finality of a 9ud!ment and restore 9urisdiction wic ad already %een lost 1$fleider &. Victorino, ) S#R" 6- F-)/H< Geirs of $atriaca &. #", supra2 It is well?settled tat once a decision %ecomes final and e=ecutory, it is remo&ed from te power or 9urisdiction of te #ourt wic rendered it to furter amend, muc less re&o4e it 1TurCuie>a &. Gernando, 0 S#R" 6)+ F-)/H
;s t$ere a need for t$e petitioner to serve a copy of $is petition for relief from 3udgment to t$e adverse party) Te answer is no. Te court in wic te petition is filed must first ma4e a determination weter or not te petition is sufficient in form and su%stance. If te court finds te petition to %e sufficient in form and su%stance, it sall order te ad&erse party to file is answer witin -( days from receipt of te order.
4ay t$e 3udgment t$at $as become final be altered) "fter te 9ud!ment as %ecome final, no addition can %e made tereto and notin! can %e done terewit e=cept its e=ecution< oterwise, tere can %e no end to liti!ation, tus settin! at nau!t te main role of #ourts of 5ustice, wic is to assist in te enforcement of te rule of law and te maintenance of peace and order, %y settlin! 9usticia%le contro&ersies wit finality. 1UIB"L &s. UNIVERSITY OK TGE $GILI$$INES,'.R. No. -6)6(7, *//7 Sep -(.2
($at now is t$e effect of t$e grant of t$e petition on t$e 3udgment already rendered) Te 9ud!ment pre&iously rendered is set aside. Te court sall ten ear te case as if a timely motion for new trial was filed. Reception of e&idence will ten follow and tereafter te court may render 9ud!ment tereon.
($at is meant by f inal 3udgment) #y final order) Tere are two concepts of finality of a final order or 9ud!ment, one, it is considered final, wit respect to te en9orcea1i&it0 of te 9ud!ment or order and final wit respect to te appea&a1i&it0 of te 9ud!ment or order.
36
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Grom t$e point of view of enforceability , a final order or a final 9ud!ment is one wic can already %e enforced %ecause te period for an appeal as e=pired and no appeal was interposed.
considered immediately e=ecutory cannot %e stayed %y appeal. 1Sec. 6, Rule +2 Effect of reversal of t$e 3udgment t$at was eecuted pending appeal In case te e=ecuted 9ud!ment is partly or wolly re&ersed on appeal, te trial court sall issue orders of restitution or reparation of dama!es as eCuity and 9ustice may warrant. 1Sec. (, Rule +2
Grom t$e point of view of appealability, tis simply means weter or not te order is appealla%le or not. ;n t$e case of interlocutory order " after its issuance, tere is still sometin! to %e done wit respect to te merits of te case. So, te order does not put an end to a case. Te order is not appealla%le. "n order denyin! te motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, ence not appealla%le. But an order !rantin! a motion to dismiss is final ence appealla%le. 1ote' Rule 8= spea0s of t$e finality of a final 3udgment or final order from t$e PO;% OG :;E( OG EGORCE5#;L;%K/
($at $appens w$en a t$ird party is affected by t$e implementation of a writ of eecution) Te tird party sall e=ecute an affida&it statin! is title or ri!t to te possession of te property su%9ect of te e=ecution and ser&e te same upon te seriff and te 9ud!ment creditor. Tis affida&it is wat we call a tird party claim of terceria. If is tird party claim is denied, te tird person may file a rein&indicatory action a!ainst te 9ud!ment creditor or purcaser< or an action for dama!es a!ainst te indemnity %ond posted %y te 9ud!ment creditor.
($at are t$e modes of eecution of a final 3udgment or final order) Kinal 9ud!ment or order may %e enforced in eiter of two ways;? %y te filin! of a -otion for te issuance of a writ of e=ecution witin KIVE 1(2 YE"RS from te entry of 9ud!ment< or %y an independent action (reviva& o9 ;4d-ent, after te lapse of te fi&e 1(2 years period pro&ided te action %a not precri1ed.
Rig$t of redemption in case t$e 3udgment is validly eecuted Te 9ud!ment de%tor as -* monts from te re!istration of te certificate of sale to e=ercise is ri!t of redemption. If redemption is e=ercised %y anoter person, su%seCuent redemption must %e done witin 7/ days from te last redemption. Te moment redemption is e=ercised %y te %y 9ud!ment de%tor no furter redemption is allowed.
($ere is t$e venue of t$e action to revived 3udgment) "n action to re&i&e a 9ud!ment is a personal action. It is not a real action. Tis %ein! a personal action, it will %e !o&erned %y Rule 6, te &enue could %e te residence of te plaintiff or te residence of te defendant at te option of te plaintiff.
Effect of a 3udgment or final order rendered by a court of t$e P$ilippines, $aving 3urisdiction to pronounce t$e 3udgment or final order, may be as follows' Sec. 60 of Rule + !roups into tree 1+2 te actions co&ered, tey are; a2 cases in&ol&in! title to specific property< %2 cases in&ol&in! pro%ate of a will< c2 cases in&ol&in! te administration of te estate of te decedent< d2 cases in&ol&in! te political, le!al and personal condition or status of a person< and e2 cases in&ol&in! te relation of a person to anoter. Effect of ?udgment rendered by a Goreign Court Te effect of a 9ud!ment or final order of a tri%unal of a forei!n country, a&in! 9urisdiction to render te 9ud!ment or final order is as follows; 1a2 In a case of 9ud!ment or final order upon a specific tin!, te 9ud!ment or final order is conclusi&e upon te title to te tin!< and 1%2 In case of a 9ud!ment or final order a!ainst a person, te 9ud!ment or final order is presumpti&e e&idence of a ri!t as %etween te parties and teir successors in interest %y a su%seCuent title. In eiter case, te 9ud!ment or final order may %e repelled %y e&idence of a want of 9urisdiction, want of notice to te party, collusion, fraud or clear mista4e of law or fact. " 9ud!ment rendered %y a forei!n court cannot %e enforced in te $ilippines e=cept %y action.
($at is t$e lifetime of a writ of eecution issued by t$e court) Under te new rule, we now a&e a lon!er lifetime of a writ of e=ecution. Te lifetime corresponds to te period witin wic a 9ud!ment may %e e=ecuted %y mere motion. It means to say furter tat durin! tis 9ive30ear period" no oter writ of e=ecution is reCuired to %e issued. Te seriff can enforce tat witin tis fi&e?year period for as lon! as te 9ud!ment is not satisfied witin te (?year period. Te effecti&ity of te writ of e=ecution is fi&e 1(2 years. ($at is a dormant 3udgment) It is one wic as not %een enforced %y motion witin fi&e 1(2 years from its entry. It is reduced to a mere ri!t of action in fa&or of te 9ud!ment creditor. It may %e enforced %y action 1re&i&al of 9ud!ment2 4ay t$e court order t$e eecution of t$e 3udgment pending appeal) Section *, Rule + pro&ides tat te trial court may, in te e=ercise of its discretion, order te e=ecution of te 9ud!ment pendin! appeal. Some autorities say tat tere must %e a special reason for te !rantin! of e=ecution pendin! appeal. In wic case, te order !rantin! e=ecution pendin! appeal must state suc reason terein. ($at 3udgments are not stayed by appeal) 5ud!ments in actions for in9unction, recei&ersip accountin! and support and suc oter 9ud!ment tat are
($at does t$e rule say wit$ respect to t$e 3udgment t$at may be rendered in t$ese cases) Te rule says 1-2 tat if te 9ud!ment is wit respect to te specific property, it is conclusi&e on te title to te
37
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
property< 1*2 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e on te pro%ate of te will< 1+2 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e to te administration of te estate< 162 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e on te personal, political or le!al condition of a person< and 1(2 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e on te relation of a person to anoter.
attacment may %e issued %y te court, te applicant must e=ecute te necessary affida&it in accordance wit te rule and post te attacment %ond in an amount fi=ed %y te court. 1ec! 8 and -, Rule 7B/
($at is t$e Lifetime of a (rit of 5ttac$ment)
Te only e=ception to tis rule tat 9ud!ment is not conclusi&e, is wen it comes to te pro%ate of a will or te administration of te estate. Te 9ud!ment ere is merely prima facie e&idence tat te testator or te person wose estate is under administration, is dead.
" writ of attacment duly issued remains in full force and effect until te de%t is fully paid. Te law or te rules do not fi= a period for te lifetime of a writ of attacment. Tus, te property under attacment remains as suc until te 9ud!ment is satisfied or te attacment is discar!ed or &acated in te manner pro&ided %y law. 1C$ua uy vs! C5, 5ug! 2., +==2> C$unaco vs! 5lano, ?an! 28, +=72/
Concepts compre$ended under t$e doctrine of res 3udicata' Te doctrine of res 9udicata em%races to concepts, tey are;? 1ar 10 prior ;4d-ent and conc&4ivene o9 ;4d-ent.
($at is t$e HPR;C;PLE OG PR;OR OR CO%E4POR5RK ?"R;D;C%;OI) Enforcement of writ of preliminary attacment must %e preceded %y or simultaneously accompanied %y ser&ice of summons, copy of complaint, application and affida&its for te attacment and te %ond upon te ad&erse party.
Distinctions between bar by prior 3udgment and conclusiveness of 3udgment' Tere are two %asic distinctions of te terms. A to re84iite: Tere is %ar %y prior 9ud!ment if all tree identities of parties, su%9ect matter and cause of action are present< and tere is conclusi&eness of 9ud!ment if tere is no identity of cause of action %etween te two cases %ut tere is identity of parties or su%9ect matter.
:ere te plaintiff incorporates in is complaint an application for te issuance of a writ of attacment, te same must %e ser&ed upon te defendant simultaneously wit te summons. Te reason for tis is tat %efore an order of attacment can %e effected, te court must first acCuire 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant. 1ievert vs! C5, +* CR5 =2> #5C vs! C5, 2.. CR5 +8.> see also #runner vs! 5brogar, Geb! 2+, +==-/
A to e99ect: In %ar %y prior 9ud!ment te first 9ud!ment constitutes an a%solute %ar to all matters directly ad9ud!ed, as well as matters tat mi!t a&e %een ad9ud!ed in te first action< wereas in conclusi&eness of 9ud!ment, te first 9ud!ment is conclusi&e only on matter actually liti!ated and ad9ud!ed in te first action.
($en is t$e reFuirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons not applicable) It sall not apply were te summons could not %e ser&ed despite dili!ent efforts, or te defendant is a resident of te $ilippines temporarily a%sent terefrom, or te defendant is a non?resident of te $ilippines or te action is in rem or %uasi in rem. 1ievert vs! C5, +* CR5 =2> #5C vs! C5, 2.. CR5 +8.> see also #runner vs! 5brogar, Geb! 2+, +==-/
APPEAL (SEE CHART,
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ;(ules -@A/2
($at is t$e etent of t$e application of t$e remedy of 5ttac$ment) a2 "&aila%le e&en if te reco&ery of personal property is only an incidental relief sou!t in te action< %2 Day %e resorted to e&en if te personal property is in te custody of a tird person< c2 E=tends to all 4inds of property, real or personal or incorporeal< d2 To reco&er possession of personal property un9ustly detained, presupposes tat te same is %ein! concealed, remo&ed, or disposed of to pre&ent its %ein! found or ta4en %y te applicant< e2 #an still %e resorted to e&en if te property is in custodia legis, as lon! as te property %elon!s to te defendant, or is one in wic e as proprietary interests, "N8 wit permission of te court.
Provisional remedies, concept of' Tese are remedies resorted to %y parties to a liti!ation for te preser&ation or protection of teir ri!ts or interest, and for no oter purpose, durin! te pendency of te principal action. Tey are ancillary in nature, suc tat tey cannot e=ist witout te e=istence of te main or principal action. Concept and ature of' "ttacment is a pro&isional remedy, incidental or ancillary to a principal action or proceedin!, were%y a plaintiff or any proper party may, at te start of te action or e&en at anytime tereafter 1%ut %efore entry of final 9ud!ment2 a&e te property of te ad&erse party attaced or ta4en into le!al custody as security for te satisfaction of any 9ud!ment tat plaintiff may reco&er. 1Read ec! +8, Rule 8=/
tate t$e grounds for t$e issuance of a writ of attac$ment! a. Reco&ery of specified amount of money and dama!es, e5cept moral or e=emplary, were party is a%out to depart from te $ilippines wit intent to defraud creditors<
"n order of "ttacment may %e issued %y te court, if it is pro&en %y te applicant tat e is entitled to te relief and tat te application is %ased on any of te !rounds enumerated under Sec. -, Rule (0. Before an order of
38
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
%.
c.
d.
e.
f.
"ction for money or property em%e>>led or for willful &iolation of duty %y pu%lic officers, officers of corporation, a!ent, or fiduciary< Reco&ery of possession of property 1%ot real and personal2 un9ustly detained, wen te property is concealed or disposed of to pre&ent its %ein! found or ta4en< "ction a!ainst party !uilty of fraud in contractin! te de%t or incurrin! te o%li!ation or in te performance tereof< "ction a!ainst party wo is concealin! or disposin! of property, or is a%out to do so, wit intent to defraud creditors< "ction a!ainst party wo is not a resident of te $ilippines and cannot %e found terein or upon wom ser&ice %y pu%lication can %e made.
tate t$e purpose of t$e cas$ deposit or counter9 bond! Te #as deposit or counter?%ond sall secure te payment of any 9ud!ment tat te attacin! party may reco&er. tate t$e procedure to be followed in case a t$ird person lays a claim on t$e property sub3ect of t$e application! Te procedure to %e followed sall %e te same as tat of a terceria in e=ecution of 9ud!ment under Rule +. "side from filin! a tird party claim, te tird person may eiter inter&ene %y 9oinin! te defendant 1Rule +=/ in te main action, or file a separate ci&il action a!ainst te plaintiff and te seriff, or file a complaint for dama!es a!ainst te %ond filed %ut tis action sould %e filed not later tan one undred twenty 1-*/2 days from filin! of te %ond.
($at are t$e 0inds of 5ttac$ment) a2 $reliminary "ttacment; One tat is !i&en at te %e!innin! of or durin! te pendency of te action or %efore entry of 9ud!ment. %2 'arnisment; One %y wic te plaintiff su%9ects to is claim te defendants property in te possession of a tird person, or money owed %y tird persons to te defendant. c2 Le&y on E=ecution; Tis is also 4nown as final attacment %ecause tis is !i&en %y te court to enforce or satisfy a 9ud!ment tat as %ecome final and e=ecutory 1ec! =, Rule 8=/
tate t$e ot$er instances w$ere a defendant may recover from t$e attac$ment bond! a2 " defendant wo lost in te main case may still claim for dama!es on te attacment %ond, if it is sown tat te plaintiff fraudulently o%tained te writ of attacment or tat te writ was issued not on any of te !rounds enumerated in Sec. -, Rule (0! 1#aron vs! David, 7+ P$il! +/ %2 " defendant wo lost in te main case %efore te trial court %ut te 9ud!ment was re&ersed on appeal, e may claim dama!es durin! te pendency of te appeal %y filin! an application in te appellate court wit notice to te party in wose fa&or te attacment was issued or is surety, %efore te 9ud!ment of te appellate court %ecomes e=ecutory. Te appellate court may allow te trial court to decide te application for dama!es. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
4ay a property already in custodia legis by t$e sub3ect of an order of attac$ment) Te answer is yes. "ll tat is needed to %e done wen property su%9ect of te application of a writ of attacment is in custodia legis is to a&e a copy of te writ of attacment filed wit te proper court or Cuasi?9udicial a!ency a&in! custody of te property and notice is ser&ed upon te custodian of said property. 1Last paragrap$ ec! B, Rule 7B/
($en to apply for damages against t$e attac$ment bond' a. Before trial< %. Before appeal is perfected< c. Before 9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory< d. In te appellate court for dama!es pendin! appeal, %efore 9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory.
tate t$e remedies of t$e defendant w$ose property was sub3ect to attac$ment! a2 Te defendant may mo&e to discar!e te attacment %y postin! cas deposit or a counter? %ond to secure te payment of wate&er 9ud!ment te plaintiff may reco&er in te main or principal action! 1ec! +2, Rule 7B/ If te attacment to %e discar!ed is wit respect to a particular property, counter?%ond or cas deposit sall %e eCual to te &alue of te property as determined %y te court< in all oter cases, amount of counter?%ond sould %e eCual to te amount fi=ed in te order of attacment. %2 Te defendant may mo&e to Cuas or discar!e te attacment on te !round tat te attacment was improperly or irre!ularly issued. 1posting of deposit or counter9bond is not necessary/ c2 "pplicants %ond is insufficient or sureties fail to 9ustify< d2 $roperty attaced is e=empt from e=ecution< e2 5ud!ment is rendered a!ainst attacin! party< f2 "ttacment is e=cessi&e 3 discar!e is wit respect to te e=cess
O%E' 5n action to recover damages against t$e bond must be commenced before t$e finality of t$e 3udgment> ot$erwise it is barred 1Enrile vs! Capulong 4ay +*, +==./ 5pplication for disc$arge, w$ere filed' "ny application for te discar!e of an attacment may only %e filed wit te court were te action is pendin!. ($en may an application for disc$arge be filed) "ny application for discar!e may %e filed e&en %efore enforcement of te writ so lon! as tere as %een an order of attacment. :en 9ud!ment in te main case %ecomes final and e=ecutory, te sureties, on counter?%ond to lift attacment, are car!ed and can %e eld lia%le for te amount of 9ud!ment and costs upon notice and summary earin!.
39
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
;s t$ere a need to first eecute t$e 3udgment in t$e main case before a proceeding can be $ad against t$e surety) Tere is no need to first e=ecute 9ud!ment a!ainst te 9ud!ment o%li!or %efore proceedin! a!ainst sureties. Te proceedin! a!ainst te surety is independent of te 9ud!ment in te main case.
te facts a!ainst wic te in9unction is to %e directed are &iolati&e of said ri!t. It is necessary tat one must sow an unCuestiona%le ri!t o&er te premises!1Pena vs! Cipres, 6 R! o! +-7B-2, ?uly +-, 2..7/ ($at is meant by t$e term status Fuo) It refers to tat last peaceful and uncontested sta!e %etween te parties in te main action tat preceded te contro&ersy. 1Rodulfa vs! 5lfonso, B P$il! 22+, see also abalones vs! C5, Geb! +-, +==-> #engzon vs! C5 ++ CR5 B-7/
4ay claims for damages against t$e bond be t$e sub3ect of a separate action) #laims for dama!es a!ainst te %ond cannot %e su%9ect of independent action e5cept ; a2 : en principal case is dismissed %y te trial court for lac4 of 9urisdiction witout !i&in! te claimin! party opportunity to pro&e claim for dama!es< %2 :en dama!es are sustained %y a tird person not a party to te action.
;s t$e principle of PR;OR OR CO%E4POR5RK ?"R;D;C%;O applicable in in3unction cases) Li4e in $reliminary "ttacments, te so?called principle of P(+( +( C+TE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
;t t$ere a difference of t$e application of t$e principle of prior and contemporaneous 3urisdiction in Preliminary 5ttac$ment from t$at of Preliminary ;n3unction) Te answer is yes. In attac$ment , te principle applies only in te implementation of te writ, wile in applications for in3unction or TRO, tis principle applies %efore te raffle and issuance of te writs or TRO.
R4&e = 1Sec. -?2 tate t$e concept of a preliminary in3unction! $reliminary in9unction is an order !ranted at any sta!e of te main action, %ut prior to final 9ud!ment reCuirin! a person; a2 To refrain from doin! a particular act 1preliminary proi%itory in9unction2< or %2 To perform a particular act 1preliminary mandatory in9unction2< or c2 :en te court, after trial, en9oins a party permanently from doin! an act or to perform te act reCuired. 1Kinal In9unction2
4ay a writ of in3unction be issued e parte) Te answer is no. a writ of in9unction may only %e issued after due notice and earin! is afforded te ad&erse part. No in9unction can terefore %e issued e= parte. Neiter may a court issue a status Cuo order in lieu of TRO. Gowe&er, te court may issue e= parte, a temporary restrainin! order wic sall %e effecti&e only for an non? e=tendi%le period of twenty 1*/2 days wen te non? issuance of te in9unction e= parte would cause !reat and irrepara%le in9ury to te applicant. 1:alencia vs! C5, Geb! +=, 2..+, see also P:%5 vs! Delos 5ngeles +- CR5 7-8< avarro vs! C5 6!R! o! --7+., ?an! 2B, +==2/
($y is t$e issuance of a writ of preliminary in3unction also referred to as Htrong 5rm of EFuityI) "t times it is referred to as te AStron! "rm of ECuity, %ecause te e=ercise of wic is more delicate and wic calls for !reater circumspection. It sould only %e e=tended in cases of !reat in9ury were courts of law cannot afford an adeCuate or commensurate remedy in dama!es. In9unctions must only %e issued in cases of e=treme ur!ency< were te ri!t is &ery clear< were considerations of relati&e incon&enience %ear stron!ly in complainants fa&or< were tere is a willful and unlawful in&asion of plaintiffs ri!t. 1
($at is t$e life time of temporary restraining orders issued by a court) :e a&e to Cualify, ordinarily a temporary restrainin! sall remain effecti&e only for a period of twenty 1*/2 days wen issued %y a court lower tat te #ourt of "ppeals< tus a temporary restrainin! order issued %y te #ourt of "ppeals a&e a lifetime of si=ty 17/2 days from te issuance tereof wile a restrainin! order issued %y te Supreme #ourt seems to a&e no fi=ed period. 1upreme Court Resolution Geb! +B, +==*/ Te said resolution states tat a temporary restrainin! order issued %y te Supreme #ourt remains effecti&e until furter orders from te said court.
tate t$e purpose of a Preliminary ;n3unction! Te purpose of a preliminary in9unction is to maintain te status %uo of te parties wit re!ard te su%9ect matter of te liti!ation durin! te pendency of te main action. "n in9uncti&e writ may only %e issued wen te applicant as pro&en tat e as a clear ri!t and te e=istence of an impendin! in9ury to %e pre&enti&e %y te writ. 12* 5m! ?ur! 2.+> see also avarro vs! C5, 6!R! --7+., ?an! 2B, +==2/
;s ;n3unction is applicable to en3oin government infrastructure pro3ect and t$ose underta0en by t$e government for development purposes) Te Supreme #ourt applyin! $residential 8ecree -)-) declared te in9unction issued %y te lower court in&alid.
tate t$e reFuisites before a court may issue an in3unctive writ! Kor te writ to issue, two reCuisites must %e present, namely, te e=istence of te ri!t to %e protected, and tat
40
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Note te decree e=pressly proi%its or en9oins any court or %ody to issue in9unctions re!ardin! said pro9ects. 14alayan ;ndustries vs! C5 ept! -, +==2/ Te same rulin! was reiterated %y te #ourt in anoter case were it eld tat; ANo TRO, preliminary in9unction or preliminary mandatory in9unction may issue a!ainst te !o&ernment in cases in&ol&in! implementation of !o&ernment infrastructure pro9ects. 16arcia vs! #urgos, reiterated in 5dministrative Circular no! B9==, promulgated ?une 27, +===/
in3unction bond is insufficient to answer for t$e damages sustained by $im) Te party may, in te same action, e=ecute on te property of te applicant in order to reco&er te dama!es e sustained as a result of te issuance of an impro&ident writ. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/ ($at is t$e remedy of an aggrieved party w$en an in3unctive writ is improvidently issued by reason of misrepresentation on t$e part of t$e applicant) Te a!!rie&ed party may file an application for dama!es a!ainst te in9uncti&e %ond %efore te trial of te main cause or %efore appeal is perfected or %efore te 9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory wit notice to te ad&erse party and te latters surety.
;s t$e term HcourtI in PD +*+* applicable to t$e upreme Court) Te answer is no. Te pro&ision of $8 -)-) does not apply to te Supreme #ourt. In fact, $8 -)-) as %een amended %y R" )0(, Section - of te said law pro&ides tat te Supreme #ourt is empowered to issued a writ of in9unction e&en wit re!ard to !o&ernment infrastructure pro9ects. 1Roas vs! ;5C, 4ay 2=, +=*=/
uppose a 3udgment $as been rendered by t$e trial court but t$e same is reversed by t$e appellate court in favor of t$e party against w$om t$e writ $as been issued, is t$e latter entitled to claim for damages against t$e in3unctive bond) Te answer is yes. In suc a situation, te party a!ainst wom an in9uncti&e writ as %een issued may claim for dama!es a!ainst te %ond %y !i&in! notice to te ad&erse party and te surety. Te claim for dama!es sustained durin! te proceedin!s on appeal must %e filed wit te appellate court %efore te latters 9ud!ment %ecomes final and e=ecutory. Te appellate court may allow te application %ut it may direct te trial court to ear and decide te application. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
($at is t$e etent of applicability of an ;n3unction issued by a court "n in9uncti&e writ issued %y a court lower tan te #ourt of "ppeals sall only apply witin te 9udicial re!ion. Gowe&er, a writ of in9unction issued %y te #ourt of "ppeals or te Supreme #ourt can %e enforced anywere in te $ilippines. ;s t$e posting of a bond in in3unction cases mandatory) Unless e=empted %y te court, e&ery applicant for an in9uncti&e writ must post te reCuired %ond e=ecuted in fa&or of te party a!ainst wom te in9uncti&e writ is issued. 1ec! -b, Rule 7*/! Gowe&er in te case of 5ctive (ood vs! ;5C, 4arc$ 2, +==., te court ruled tat an order !rantin! te issuance of an in9uncti&e writ is immediately effecti&e e&en %efore te %ond is filed %y te applicant witin te period fi=ed %y te court.
($at is t$e remedy of a party against w$om an improvident in3unction $as been issued w$en t$e in3unction bond is insufficient to answer for t$e damages sustained by $im) Te party may, in te same action, e=ecute on te property of te applicant in order to reco&er te dama!es e sustained as a result of te issuance of an impro&ident writ. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
($at is t$e remedy of an aggrieved party w$en an in3unctive writ is improvidently issued by reason of misrepresentation on t$e part of t$e applicant) Te a!!rie&ed party may file an application for dama!es a!ainst te in9uncti&e %ond %efore te trial of te main cause or %efore appeal is perfected or %efore te 9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory wit notice to te ad&erse party and te latters surety.
Concept of Receivers$ip It is te status of a person appointed %y te #ourt durin! te tendency of a case in&ol&in! property for all te parties, to old and recei&e te real and@or personal properties in liti!ation, durin! suc liti!ation, wit power to possess, control and dispose te same, su%9ect to te direction of te court appointin! im. Te recei&er is usually appointed %y te court were te action is pendin!, #ourt of "ppeals or te Supreme #ourt or a mem%er tereof. Te person appointed as recei&er must %e impartial and disinterested and neiter of te parties to te liti!ation may %e appointed recei&er. 1" lcantara vs. $bbas 0 &C($ -2
uppose a 3udgment $as been rendered by t$e trial court but t$e same is reversed by t$e appellate court in favor of t$e party against w$om t$e writ $as been issued, is t$e latter entitled to claim for damages against t$e in3unctive bond) Te answer is yes. In suc a situation, te party a!ainst wom an in9uncti&e writ as %een issued may claim for dama!es a!ainst te %ond %y !i&in! notice to te ad&erse party and te surety. Te claim for dama!es sustained durin! te proceedin!s on appeal must %e filed wit te appellate court %efore te latters 9ud!ment %ecomes final and e=ecutory. Te appellate court may allow te application %ut it may direct te trial court to ear and decide te application. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
;mportant principles to be remembered in Receivers$ip' a2 Te order appointin! a recei&er is interlocutory< %2 Te appointment of a recei&er is purely discretionary upon te court< c2 " recei&er cannot %e appointed in an action of in9unction< d2 "ppointment of recei&er must always %e su%9ect to notice and earin!< 1E5ception2 $rce vs. &undiam
($at is t$e remedy of a party against w$om an improvident in3unction $as been issued w$en t$e
41
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
e2
'enerally, property in custodia le!is cannot %e te su%9ect of recei&ersip e=cept under special circumstances. 1!olar vs. &undiam = &C($ /: f2 " corporation under recei&ersip as no power to e=ecute a mort!a!e o&er its properties. "ny mort!a!e e=ecuted %y te corporation is null and &oid. !2 Neiter party to a liti!ation in&ol&in! property sall %e appointed as recei&er.
a. %. c.
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE RULE 7Concept' Support is anytin! tat is indispensa%le for te sustenance, dwellin!, clotin! and medical attendance, accordin! to te social position of te family. It includes education of te person entitled to support until e completes is education or trainin! for some profession, trade, and &ocation e&en %eyond te a!e of ma9ority. 1Verso>a &s. Verso>a *7 S#R" *)2
Replevin, its concept' It is a pro&isional remedy, consistin! in te deli&ery, %y order of te court, of personal property %y te defendant to te plaintiff wile te main action for reco&ery of said personal property is pendin! liti!ation. Tis remedy, wile primarily desi!ned for te reco&ery of personal property may also e=tend to autori>e te settlement of eCuities %etween liti!atin! parties arisin! from te main contro&ersy. ;Chiao Liong Tan vs. C$ ov. /0, /00=:
Support pendente lite is a pro&isional remedy in a main action reCuirin! te !i&in! of allowance or support to te plaintiff or is family durin! te pendency of te main action.
Te court may also pass upon te issue of ownersip in te earin! of te petition for reple&in. 1bid.: " property su%9ect matter of a foreclosure of a cattel mort!a!e may also %e te proper o%9ect of a petition for reple&in. ;Bachrach Phil. =:
Effect w$en a person w$o was ordered to give support pendente lite is found not to be liable to give support'
Te person a&ailin! of te remedy must %e te older of te le!al title o&er te property. 1Sec. *a, Rule 7/2 It would seem tat te decision of te Supreme #ourt in te case of #ang vs. 6aldeG /@@ &C($ -6- were it eld tat it is enou! tat e is entitled to te possession of te same durin! te pendency of te main action as %een a%andoned %y te amendment to te rule.
a2
%2
Proceedings in case a t$ird person claims title to t$e property' Sould a tird person &alidly lay a claim upon te property su%9ect of te writ of reple&in, te seriff sall not %e %ound to old on to te property unless te applicant files a %ond, in an amount eCui&alent to te &alue of te property, appro&ed %y te court to indemnify te said tird person. Te %ond posted %y te applicant sall %e eCui&alent to te &alue of te property. Te moment a %ond is filed, te seriff sall not %e lia%le for dama!es.
%.
c. d.
e.
Te court sall order te person to wom te support was !i&en to reim%urse plus interest< witout pre9udice on te ri!t of recipient to o%tain reim%ursement from te person o%li!ed to !i&e support in a separate action< Sould te recipient fail to reim%urse or una%le to do te same, te person wo !a&e support may sue in anoter action te person le!ally o%li!ed to !i&e support.
upport in criminal cases W$en applicable' a2 in criminal a ctions were t e ci&il lia%ility includes support for te offsprin! as a conseCuence of te crime< "N8 %2 te ci&il aspect tereof as not %een wai&ed, reser&ed or instituted prior to its filin!
ome important principles to remember regarding replevin' a.
Ge seasona%ly posts redeli&ery %ond $laintiffs %ond is insufficient or defecti&e $roperty is not deli&ered to plaintiff for any reason.
($o may file' 1in successive order/ a2 offended party< %2 er parents< c2 !randparents or d2 !uardian< e2 State
"&aila%le only were te principal relief sou!t in te action is te reco&ery of possession of personal property< #an %e sou!t only were te defendant is in te actual or constructi&e possession of te personal property in&ol&ed. E=tends only to personal property capa%le of manual deli&ery< "&aila%le to reco&er personal property e&en if te same is NOT %ein! concealed, remo&ed, or disposed of< #annot %e a&ailed of if property is in custodia legis, as were is it under attacment, or was sei>ed under a searc warrant or distrained for ta= assessment.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS 1Rule 7* to 0-2 NTERPLEADER Concept' It is special ci&il action were%y a person wo as property in is possession or an o%li!ation to render, wolly or partly %ut wo claims no interest in te su%9ect or wose interest is not disputed %y oters !oes to court and
($en is t$e defendant entitled to t$e return of t$e property sub3ect of replevin' 8efendant entitled to return of property ta4en under writ if;
42
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
as4s tat te conflictin! claimants to liti!ate amon! temsel&es in order to determine finally wo is entitled to te same. Interpleader action may prosper only wen; a2 Te plaintiff as no claim o&er te property or is claim o&er te property is not disputed< %2 Tere are at least two or more conflictin! claimants o&er te same property< c2 Te conflictin! claimants must a&e &alid and effecti&e claims< d2 Te su%9ect matter must %e one and te same.
($en may t$e remedy be availed by a party) Based on case law, an action for declaratory relief is proper only if adeCuate relief is not a&aila%le trou! oter e=istin! forms of actions or proceedin!s. " petition for a declaratory relief cannot %e made a su%stitute for all e=istin! remedies and sould %e used wit caution. Relief %y declaratory 9ud!ment is sui !eneris and not strictly le!al or eCuita%le yet its istorical affinity is eCuita%le. Te remedy is not desi!ned to supplant e=istin! remedies. 1Dulti?Realty &s. D4ati Tuscany '.R. No. -670*7, *//7 5un -72
"n action to interplead must %e filed %efore te person wo as possession o&er te property or interest is sued %y any of te claimants and 9ud!ment as %een rendered %y te court tereon. ;Tirona vs. +campo *( o. /@/>, $pril , >11-4Hac) Hac) vs. Tan and Lee, , /0@:
" declaratory 9ud!ment does not create or can!e su%stantial ri!ts or modify any relationsip or alter te caracter of contro&ersies 1De9ia &s.'a%ayan, '.R. No. -607(, *//( "pr -*2
" writ of reple&in cannot %e issued %y anoter court reCuirin! te deli&ery of a property su%9ect matter of an interpleader action in anoter court. Te reason %ein! tat te issue of ri!tful possession or ownersip is in dispute in te interpleader action. 1&anpiro vs. $C, >>1 &C($ -=@:
ReFuisites of t$e action for declaratory relief' a2 e=istence of a 9usticia%le contro&ersy< %2 contro&ersy must %e %etween persons wose interest are ad&erse< c2 party see4in! declaratory relief must a&e a le!al ri!t in te contro&ersy< d2 issue must %e ripe for 9udicial determination< e2 must %e filed %efore tere is a %reac or &iolation.
" depositary of a personal property wo as !i&en receipt terefore may file an action of interpleader wen confronted wit a situation tat se&eral persons demand from im te deli&ery of te tin! !i&en in deposit. Or in a lease a!reement were te tenant is informed %y se&eral persons to a&e te ri!t to collect te rentals. Or after a seriff as conducted te sale of property on e=ecution is as4ed %y se&eral persons to deli&er te proceeds to tem may !o to court and reCuire te claimants to interplead.
($o may be parties to t$e action' a2 all persons wo a&e a claim or interest< %2 solicitor !eneral if te action in&ol&es a statute, etc. c2 correspondin! prosecutor or le!al officer if in&ol&es an L'U, re!ardin! ordinances< 4ay t$e court validly refuse cognizance of a declaratory relief action) Te answer is yes. Te court can refuse co!ni>ance wen it would not terminate te uncertainty wic !a&e rise to te action or wen te declaration or constructions is not necessary and proper under te circumstances.
Procedure' Upon te filin! of te complaint, te court reCuires te parties named to interplead and order tem to file teir respecti&e answers witin -( days from receipt of te summons. Te court may, in te interest of 9ustice reCuire tat te property su%9ect matter of te action %e deposited in court. Kailure on te part of any claimant to file is answer witin te period sall %e deemed to a&e wai&ed any claim and te court may render 9ud!ment %arrin! im from any claim wit respect to te property.
" tird party complaint is not a&aila%le in declaratory relief actions considerin! tat te purpose of te said action is only to see4 a clarification or construction of te a%o&e su%9ects and tat no positi&e relief or material relief is sou!t for %y te party. 1#lori%el &s. #om. Of #ustoms 00 S#R" 6(2
Te parties notified to interplead may owe&er file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer witin te period to file an answer.
Kor a petition for declaratory relief to prosper, te followin! conditions sine Cua non must concur; 1-2 tere must %e a 9usticia%le contro&ersy< 1*2 te contro&ersy must %e %etween persons wose interests are ad&erse< 1+2 te party see4in! declaratory relief must a&e a le!al interest in te contro&ersy< and 162 te issue in&ol&ed must %e ripe for 9udicial determination.1Dulti?Realty &s. D4ati Tuscany '.R. No. -670*7, *//7 5un -72
DECLARATORY RELIEF Concept o9 Dec&arator0 Re&ie9 action: It is a special ci&il action %rou!t %y a person 3 a2 Interested u nder a deed, will, contract o r oter written instrument< %2 Or wose ri!ts are affected %y a statute, e=ecuti&e order, or re!ulation or ordinance,%efore %reac or &iolation of suc interest or ri!ts comes to court see4in! determination of any Cuestion of construction or &alidity arisin! under suc instrument or statute and see4in! a declaration of wat are is ri!ts or duties tereunder. ;PB vs. Estanislao, ov. /, /00=:
RE:;E( OG ?"D64E%5D G;5L ORDER OR REOL"%;OOG %
43
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
period and in case of denial ele&ate te matter directly to te S# witin te remainin! period %ut in no case %e less tan ( days.
In all te remedies, tere is no oter plain, speedy or adeCuate remedy in law a&aila%le to te a!!rie&ed party. A to P4rpoe: #ertiorari ? To annul or modify te proceedin!s< $roi%ition? To a&e respondent desist from furter proceedin! wit an act< Dandamus?To a&e respondent to do te act reCuired %y law and pay dama!es suffered, if any. #ertiorari is to correct errors of law or 9urisdiction< $roi%ition is pre&enti&e in nature< Dandamus is eiter positi&e or ne!ati&e, tat is as wen a person is directed to perform a lawful act or wen a person is directed to desist from usurpin! or e=cludin! anoter from a ri!t to an office.
Note owe&er, tat te filin! of te motion for reconsideration interrupts te period witin wic to file te petition. But te filin! of te petition for certiorari itself does not stay te e=ecution of te 9ud!ment, order or resolution of te said %odies unless so declared %y te S#. Te petition sall %e deemed su%mitted for resolution upon te filin! of te comments tereon %y te ad&erse party or upon te e=piration of te period witin wic te party is allowed to comment. Te e=ception is wen te parties were allowed to su%mit memorandum or oral ar!uments. In suc case, te petition is deemed su%mitted for resolution upon su%mission of te said memorandum or oral ar!ument.
Note tat te !rounds for te filin! of a petition for certiorari and proi%ition are te same, tat is, e=cess of 9urisdiction, witout 9urisdiction or wit !ra&e a%use of discretion. Tese !rounds must %e properly alle!ed in te petition. Kailure on te part of te petitioner to do so would %e fatal to te case. It means tat tere must %e facts alle!ed in te petition sowin! tat te court committed said acts. 18Dar4s &s. Buendia, 5uly +-, -0/2
RULE 65 1#ERTIOR"RI, $ROGIBITION D"N8"DUS2
" petition for certiorari must %e filed witin 7/ days from te receipt of te notice of denial of te motion for reconsideration, if one is filed. If no suc motion is filed te 7/?day period commences to run from receipt of te order su%9ect matter of te petition. 1"dm. Datter No. //?*? /+?S#, Sept. *///2
;n general ; Certiorari is a writ emanatin! from a superior court directed a!ainst any lower tri%unal, %oard or officer e=ercisin! 9udicial functions for te purpose of correctin! errors of 9urisdiction. Prohibition is a writ issued %y a superior court directed a!ainst a lower tri%unal, corporation, %oard or person for te purpose of pre&entin! te latter from usurpin! a 9urisdiction wit wic it is not le!ally &ested.
Tis period sall %e made to apply to all pendin! cases. 1San Luis &s. #a Sept. -+, *//-, Repu%lic &s. 8esierto "u!ust *+, *//-2 It must %e noted tat te filin! of a timely motion for reconsideration stops te runnin! of te 7/?day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 7(. In case of denial, te petitioner is !i&en a new 7/?day period to file te petition. 1Systems Kactors &s. NLR#, No&. *0, *///2 O WARRANTO
Compare and contrast' certiorari, pro$ibition and mandamus #ERTIOR"RI $ROGIBITION D"N8"DUS
It is a demand made %y te state upon some indi&idual or corporation to sow %y wat ri!t tey e=ercise some francise or pri&ile!e appertainin! to te state wic accordin! to te constitution and law of te land, tey cannot le!ally e=ercise %y &irtue of a !rant or autority from te state. It is %rou!t !enerally in te name of te state a!ainst a usurper to a pu%lic office or a!ainst a corporation to callen!e te e=ercise of a francise 1primary francise2 It may also %e %rou!t %y an indi&idual in is own name a!ainst an indi&idual wo usurps is pu%lic position or office.
"!ainst wom directed; Certiorari is directed a!ainst a tri%unal, %oard or officer exerciin ;4dicia& or 84ai3;4dicia& 94nction< Pro$ibition is directed a!ainst proceedin!s %efore a tri%unal, corporation, %oard officer or person e=ercisin! ;4dicia&" 84ai3;4dicia& or -initeria& 94nction< 4andamus is directed a!ainst a tri%unal, %oard, person or officer e=ercisin! -initeria& 94nction.
:en te action is commenced %y te State; Te action for usurpation is commenced a!ainst an indi&idual wo; a2 Usurps intrudes into or unlawfully olds or e=ercises a pu%lic office, position or francise< %2 Is a pu%lic officer wo does or suffers an act wic, %y te pro&ision of law, constitutes a !round for forfeiture of is office< c2 Is an association wic acts as a corporation witin te $ilippines witout %ein! le!ally
#ertiorari and proi%ition are applied wen suc officer, tri%unal, %oard or person acted witout 9urisdiction, or in e=cess of 9urisdiction or wit !ra&e a%use of discretion amountin! to lac4 of 9urisdiction< wile mandamus is applied wen suc person, %oard, officer or tri%unal unlawfully ne!lects te performance of an act or unlawfully refuses to perform an act reCuired %y law< or unlawfully e=cludes anoter from te en9oyment of a ri!t to an office<
44
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
incorporated or witout lawful autority to do so.
property. 18idipio, et al. &s.Ramos, et al., '.R. No. -(0))*, *//7 Dar +/2
Te filin! of Cuo warranto proceedin! is compulsory wen te OS' is directed %y te $resident to do so %y reason of te fact tat any of te a%o&e circumstances are pro&en to e=ist. It is discretionary wen te OS' or pu%lic prosecutor is allowed to commence te action %y lea&e of court at te instance of a pri&ate indi&idual. "n indi&idual in is pri&ate capacity may also commence suc action wen e is unlawfully depri&e of te e=ercise of a lawful office %y anoter wo is a usurper or a person wo does not a&e any ri!t to e said office.
E=propriation of lands consists of two sta!es, to wit; Te first is concerned wit% t%e deter-ination o9 t%e a4t%orit0 o9 t%e p&ainti99 to exercie t%e power o9 e-inent do-ain and t%e propriet0 o9 it exercie in te conte=t of te facts in&ol&ed in te suit. It ends wit an order, if not of dismissal of te action, Aof condemnation declarin! tat te plaintiff as a lawful ri!t to ta4e te property sou!t to %e condemned, for te pu%lic use or purpose descri%ed in te complaint, upon te payment of 9ust compensation to %e determined as of te date of te filin! of te complaint.
In any of te a%o&e?circumstances, te proceedin! may %e filed in te Supreme #ourt, #ourt of "ppeals or Re!ional Trial #ourt e=ercisin! 9urisdiction o&er te territorial area were te respondent or any of te respondents resides. " proceedin! filed %y te OS' may%e %rou!t in te #ity of Danila, #ourt of "ppeals or Supreme #ourt.
Te second pase of te eminent domain action is concerned wit te deter-ination 10 t%e co4rt o9 t%e ;4t co-penation 9or t%e propert0 o4%t to 1e ta@en. It is only upon te completion of tese two sta!es tat e=propriation is said to a&e %een completed. Te process is not completed until payment of 9ust compensation.1Repu%lic &s. Lim, '.R. No. -7-7(7, *//( 5un *2
Time to plead; Tis is !o&erned %y te !eneral rules on filin! and periods of pleadin!s. 4o Warranto v.
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE 1Rule 7)2 Note; Te ri!t of redemption is not reco!ni>ed in a 9udicial foreclosure under Rule 7). Te ri!t of redemption in relation to a mort!a!e?understood in te sense of a prero!ati&e to re?acCuire mort!a!ed property after re!istration of te foreclosure sale?e=ists only in te case of te e=tra9udicial foreclosure of te mort!a!e. No suc ri!t is reco!ni>ed in a 9udicial foreclosure e=cept only were te mort!a!ee is te $ilippine National %an4 or a %an4 or a %an4in! institution. Tere ten e=ists only wat is 4nown as te e84it0 o9 rede-ption. E84it0 o9 rede-ption is simply te ri!t of te defendant mort!a!or to e=tin!uis te mort!a!e and retain ownersip of te property %y payin! te secured de%t witin te /?day period after te 9ud!ment %ecomes final, in accordance wit Rule 7), or e&en after te foreclosure sale %ut prior to its confirmation.
$etition for 84o warranto must %e commenced wit%in one 0ear a9ter t%e ca4e o9 t%e o4ter or ri%t o9 t%e petitioner to %o&d 4c% o99ice or poition. "ny action 9or da-ae arisin! from a 9ud!ment in Cuo warranto -4t 1e intit4ted wit%in one 0ear a9ter t%e entr0 o9 t%e ;4d-ent esta%lisin! te petitioners ri!t to te office in Cuestion. E-inent do-ain It is te ta4in! of pri&ate property for pu%lic use upon payment of 9ust compensation. Te power of eminent domain results in te ta4in! or appropriation of title to, and possession of, te e=propriated property.
:ere a mort!a!e is foreclosed e=tra9udicially, "ct +-+( !rants to te mort!a!or te ri!t of redemption witin one 1-2 year from te re!istration of te seriffs certificate of foreclosure sale. :ere te foreclosure is 9udicially effected, owe&er, no eCui&alent ri!t of redemption e=ists. Te law declares tat a 9udicial foreclosure sale, wen confirmed %y an order of te court, sall operate to di&est te ri!ts of all te parties to te action and to &est teir ri!ts in te purcaser, su%9ect to suc ri!ts of redemption as may %e allowed %y law. Suc ri!ts e=ceptionally allowed %y law 1i.e., e&en after te confirmation %y an order of te court2 are tose !ranted %y te carter of te $ilippine National Ban4 1"ct Nos. *060 and *+)2, and te 'eneral Ban4in! "ct 1R.".++02. Tese laws confer on te mort!a!or, is successors in interest or any 9ud!ment creditor of te mort!a!or, te ri!t to redeem te property sold on foreclosure?after confirmation
ReCuisites of ta4in! in Eminent 8omain; 1-2 te e=propriator must enter a pri&ate property< 1*2 te entry must %e for more tan a momentary period< 1+2 te entry must %e under warrant or color of le!al autority< 162 te property must %e de&oted to pu%lic use or oterwise informally appropriated or in9uriously affected< 1(2 te utili>ation of te property for pu%lic use must %e in suc a way as to oust te owner and depri&e im of %eneficial en9oyment of te
45
Copyright © 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
