Remedial Law Review 1 (Civil Procedure Only) - Doctrines of Cases - Atty. Brondial

DOCTRINES OF SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE ON REMEDIAL LAW
Consolidated by Augustly based on the syllabus of Atty. Henedino Brondial, 2018
JURISDICTION
Duero vs. Court of Appeals
 Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or even cured
by their silence, acquiescence, or even by their express consent.
 It is the duty of the court to dismiss an action 'whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
 A party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings
and even on appeal. XPN: Estoppel (unequivocal and intentional)
 In this case, the parties are estopped from assailing their defenses because of their apparent
and active participation in the court proceedings.
Donato vs. Court of Appeals

 An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and
which error is reviewable only by an appeal.
 An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a
quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which
is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and this error is correctible only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari.
 The subsequent filing of the certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by the petitioner
himself should be deemed substantial compliance.
Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

 A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent
and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
 Jurisdiction by Estoppel: Generally, an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total
nullity and may be assailed at any stage. However, active participation in the proceedings in the
court which rendered the order or decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction.
Escobal vs. Gatchitorena

 For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over crimes committed
by public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate
relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged
in the Information.
 Even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a position
corresponding to a salary grade below 27, the proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial
Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Agan vs. Piatco

 The interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal.
 Public interest demands that we take a more liberal view in determining whether the petitioners
suing as legislators, taxpayers, and citizens have locus standi to file the instant petition, this
Court held in line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers,
members or Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organization were
allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality or
validity of laws.
Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 1 of 34
Disclaimer: The risk of use and misuse of this material shall be solely borne by the user. “Unauthorized reproduction shall be punished by the law of karma and they will
not pass the examinations they shall take or be unsuccessful and unhappy in life.” – Domondon, 2017
 The rule on hierarchy of courts may be relaxed when the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a
remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Courts primary jurisdiction.
Liga ng mga Barangay vs. Atienza

 The hierarchy of courts is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.
 SC does not have the exclusive jurisdiction in issuance of writ of certiorari. It is concurrent with
RTC and CA in certain cases. Hence, hierarchy of courts was violated.
 The principle on the hierarchy of courts may be halted for the following:
1. It would be an imposition of time in court; and
2. It would cause delay.
Manila Bankers vs. Ng Kok Wei

 Complaints for specific performance with damages by a lot or condominium unit buyer against
the owner or developer falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.
 While it may be true that the trial court is without jurisdiction over the case, petitioner’s active
participation in the proceedings estopped it from assailing such lack of it.
OCA vs. Sardillo

 Trial courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of offenses committed by justices of
appellate courts and judges of lower courts.
 The IBP, and not the trial courts, can refer all administrative cases filed against justices of
appellate courts and judges of lower courts to the Supreme Court. This is not applicable to
criminal cases.
 The power to discipline justices and judges of the lower courts is within the Court’s exclusive
power and authority as provided in Section 11, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. As mandated
by the Constitution, the Court exercises the exclusive power to discipline administratively justices
of appellate courts and judges of lower courts.
Katon vs. Palanca

 Residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed
to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is
reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records
on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal.
 Residual prerogative is the general residual powers of the court to dismiss an action motu proprio
in the following instances provided for under Section 1, Rule 9:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Lis pendencia
3. Res judicata
4. Statute of limitations
Figueroa vs. People

 The issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is
not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
 Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the court’s absence or lack of jurisdiction,
only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. (A
party may be barred by laches from invoking lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose
of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the
plea.
Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

 Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to
their office. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that:
(a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D.
No. 1606, as amended, and that
(b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.
 In this case, Serana is considered a public officer based on P.D. 1606 which provides that the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over president, directors, trustees, or managers of government-
owned or –controlled corporations, state universities, educational and charitable institutions and
foundations.
 Estafa being the offense charge against Serana is now included as one of the offenses cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan provided that the abovementioned requirements exist.
Pat-og vs. Civil Service Commission

 Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the
same time by two or more separate tribunals.
 When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be
proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies
have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
 Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of
the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
 GR: Jurisdictional question may be raised at any time; XPN: Estoppel.
Boston Equity vs. Court of Appeals

 The court’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over one’s person is a defense which is personal to the
person claiming it.
 Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of those
defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1, Rule 9, such defense must be invoked
when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of defense.
 If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the
jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue if the
first sentence of the aforementioned provision.
People vs. Henry Go

 The act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief is tantamount
to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
 In case a private individual is charged as co-principal, accomplice, or accessory to the public
officer, he shall be tried jointly with the public officer in the proper court which exercises
jurisdiction over them. Thus, a private individual may be taken cognizance by the
Sandiganbayan.
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo

 The authority of the CTA to take cognizance of petitions for certiorari questioning interlocutory
orders issued by the RTC in a local tax case is included in the powers granted by the Constitution
as well as inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
 A court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction
to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court.
 CTA and not the CA has appellate jurisdiction over tax cases.
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan

 “Regional Director” as expressly listed by law falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
regardless of the salary grade.
 The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction over the cases assigned to it only in
instances where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the positions of
regional director and higher or are otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher by the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity at the time of the commission of the offense. The jurisdiction, therefore, refers to a
certain grade upwards, which shall remain with the Sandiganbayan.
St. Mary Crusade Foundation vs. Riel

 An extraordinary remedy like certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal.
Lomondot vs. Balindog

 The Shari'a Appellate Court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari of
decisions of the Shari'a District Courts.
Regulus Development vs. De La Cruz

 The levy of the respondent’s property was made pursuant to the RTC orders issued in the
exercise of its equity jurisdiction, independent of the ejectment case originally filed with the MTC.
 Equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to
adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility
when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction,
among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Alday vs. FGU Insurance
 Test to determine whether a counterclaim is permissive or compulsory―compelling test of
compulsoriness which requires ―a logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim, that
is, where conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a
substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court.
 Although the payment of the prescribed docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, its non-
payment does not result in the automatic dismissal of the case provided the docket fees are paid
within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
Korea Technologies vs. Lerma

 The counterclaims of PGSMC were incorporated in its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim
dated July 17, 1998 in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 11, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, the rule that was effective at the time the Answer with Counterclaim was filed. Sec.
8 on existing counterclaim or cross-claim states, "A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim
that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein.
 As to the failure to submit a certificate of forum shopping, PGSMC‘s Answer is not an initiatory
pleading which requires a certification against forum shopping under Sec. 524 of Rule 7, 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
 This doctrine is abandoned by Mercado vs. Court of Appeals.
Mercado vs. Court of Appeals

 Prevailing doctrine on counterclaim.
 A counterclaim is compulsory when:
1. Arises out of (or is necessarily connected with) the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party‘s claim;
2. Falls within the jurisdiction of the court and
3. Does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Otherwise, a counterclaim is merely permissive.
Navarro vs. MBTC

 The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an
appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected.
 The appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the
decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.
 In this case, counsels blamed their secretary for the non-payment of the docket fees and court
held that such inadvertence does not warrant the relaxation of the rules for failing to perfect the
petitioners appeal.
Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale

 While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-
payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as
the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party
involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.
 Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention
to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply.”
Bautista vs. Unangst

 the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored
principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their
causes and defenses. For, it is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial
end, rather than on a technicality, if it be the case, that may result in injustice.
 When delay in payment of correct docket fees is due to the inadvertence of the clerk of court
then the rule may be relaxed.
Ruby Shelter Builders vs. Formaran

 To resolve the issue of whether petitioner paid the correct docket fees, it is necessary to
determine the true nature of the complaint. The nature of an action is determined by the
allegations in the body of the pleading or Complaint itself.
 Action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue
of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the
recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for
the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental
and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real
action.
 Considering that the complaint is a real action, the Rule requires that "the assessed value of
the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant
and shall be the basis in computing the fees.
St. Louis University vs. Cobarrubias

 Non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the petition’s
dismissal. Thus, payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory,
but also jurisdictional.
 There are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as:
1. most persuasive and weighty reasons;
2. to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with
the prescribed procedure;
3. good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from
the time of the default;
4. the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
5. the merits of the case;
6. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules;
7. a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
8. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
9. fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the appellant‘s fault;
10. peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
11. in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
12. importance of the issues involved; and
13. exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by all the attendant circumstances.
Thus, there should be an effort, on the part of the party invoking liberality, to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute

 The requirement of paying the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed
period is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. The payment of docket fees within the
prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the
appeal is not perfected.
 The appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the
Decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executor.
Reyes vs. People

 The grant of any extensions for the filing of the petition is discretionary and subject to the
condition that the full amount of the docket and lawful fees are paid before the expiration of the
reglementary period to file the petition.
RULE 2. CAUSE OF ACTION

Dynamic Builders vs. Presbitero
 Rule 2, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] party may not institute more than one
suit for a single cause of action."
 Moreover, Section 4 discusses the splitting of a single cause of action in that "if two or more
suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon
the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others." The splitting of a
cause of action "violate[s] the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective [is] to
avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts.
 The Rules of Court provides for original concurrent jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court, the
Court of Appeals, and this court in entertaining petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.
However, parties must adhere to the principle of hierarchy of courts.
RULE 3. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Relucio vs. Lopez
 A cause of action is an act or omission of one party the defendant in violation of the legal right
of the other.
 The elements of a cause of action are: RRA
1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created;
2. Obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
Sps. De Castro vs. Court of Appeals

 Co-owners are not indispensable parties in a contract of agency. Co-owners are indispensable
parties only when impleaded as defendants in a case but not as plaintiffs.
 If two or more persons have appointed an agent for a common transaction or undertaking, they
shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency.
 When the law expressly provides for solidarity of the obligation, as in the liability of co-principals
in a contract of agency, each obligor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation.
Orquilo vs. Court of Appeals

 Failure to implead proper parties- in-interest, they cannot be reached by decision as no man
shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger who did not have his day in court.
 Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment.
China Bank vs. Oliver

 An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of
an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable
parties is mandatory.
 The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is
the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case. Thus, without the
presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real
finality.
 The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
 Non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
David vs. Paragas

 The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. The
failure to implead an indispensable party is not a mere procedural matter. Rather, it brings to
fore the right of a disregarded party to its constitutional rights to due process.
Land Bank vs. Cacurayan

 It is hornbook principle that a taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds
are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that
there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
 A person suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that the act complained of directly involves
the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. In other words, for a taxpayer’s
suit to prosper, two requisites must be met namely:
1. Public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality
and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed; and
2. Petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act.
Lotte vs. Dela Cruz

 The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action and the
remedy is to implead the non- party claimed to be indispensable.
Carabeo vs. Dingco

 The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and
the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of] affects
primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the
person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental.
Dela Cruz vs. Joaquin

 The Rules require the legal representatives of a dead litigant to be substituted as parties to a
litigation.
Navarro vs. Escobido

 The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party-in-interest, i.e., the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Divinagracia vs. Parilla

 An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation,
and without whom no final determination of the case can be had.
 The party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an
absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties
before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.
 The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void,
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
RULE 4. VENUE OF ACTIONS

Pacific Consultants International vs. Schonfeld
 Absence of qualifying or restrictive words in the Rules on Venue of actions, in a contract, does
not make the venue exclusive.
 If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language
clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be
litigated only at the place named by them.
 Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so, provided, that the
following requisites are met: P3
1. That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
2. That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and
the facts; and,
3. That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
Biaco vs. Countryside Rural Bank

 An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
 An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person.
 An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of
the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
 In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court
to validly try and decide the case.
 In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over
the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either:
1. by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody
of the law; or
2. as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective.
BPI Family Savings vs. Sps. Juico

 In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant
if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court thus expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
 Unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a court despite its being
the improper venue.
RULE 5. UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

A.L. Network vs. Mondejar
 Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule, the
remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its
execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other
proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party
from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
RULE 6. KINDS OF PLEADING

Alba vs. Malapajo
 Whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, we have devised the following tests:
a. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same?
b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants’ claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs’ claim as well as the
defendants’ counterclaim? And
d. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
 A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.
Lim Teck Chuan vs. Uy

 Where the plaintiff moves for the dismissal of his complaint to which a counterclaim has been
interposed, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. Such dismissal shall be without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to either prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action
or to have the same resolved in the same action
Metrobank vs. CPR Promotions

 It is elementary that a defending party's compulsory counterclaim should be interposed at the
time he files his Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar such claim.
Valdez vs. Dabon

 Respondent's denial is a negative pregnant, a denial coupled with the admission of substantial
facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. His denial only pertained as to
the existence of a forced illicit relationship. Without a categorical denial thereof, he is deemed to
have admitted his consensual affair with Sonia
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

 Failure to tender genuine issues in the answer to the petition will makes Summary Judgment
proper recourse.
 A genuine issue is an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished
from an issue which is fictitious and contrived, set up in bad faith or patently lacking in substance
so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.
Caneland Sugar Corporation vs. Alon

 Vague assertions are, in fact, negative pregnants.
 Petitioner‘s bone of contention before the RTC is that “the promissory notes are silent as to
whether they were covered by the Mortgage Trust Indenture and Mortgage Participation on its
property.” It does not categorically deny that these promissory notes are covered by the security
documents. These vague assertions are, in fact, negative pregnant.
RULE 7. PARTS OF THE PLEADING

Alma Jose vs. Javellana
 For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transaction, same essential facts
and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues.
 Clearly, forum shopping does not exist where different orders were questioned, two distinct
causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought
Medado vs. Heirs of Antonio Consuing

 Verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement for assurance that the matters are true
and correct, the court may order correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive
strict compliance as there was substantial compliance when one has ample knowledge.
Commission on Appointments vs. Paler

 In certification of non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed by the
plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by counsel. Failure to show that the signatory was
specifically authorized by the plaintiff shall render the certification of non-forum shopping
defective and, therefore, null.
Basan vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines

 When under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as when all the petitioners share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in
the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the certification requirement.
Uy vs. Court of Appeals

 Non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent submission or
correction.
 The court may exercise leniency and relax the rules on the following grounds: SSC
1. Substantial compliance;
2. Presence of special circumstances; or
3. Compelling reasons.
 The rules on forum-shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate
and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice
as expeditiously as possible.
People vs. Arojado

 In the case of failure of a lawyer to indicate his MCLE number in the Information, leniency and
liberality in the observance of the procedural rules appear to be an afterthought, hence cannot
be granted.
 Under the court’s latest amendatory resolution, failure of a lawyer to state in his pleadings the
number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate will no longer result in the dismissal of
the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records; but will only subject the counsel to
appropriate penalty and disciplinary actions.
 The remedy is to simply re-file the Information containing the required number and date of issue
of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting to the filing
of various petitions in court to stubbornly insist on the position and question the trial court's
dismissal of the subject Information, thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's resources.
RULE 8. MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Fernando Medical Enterprises v. Wesleyan University
 The trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings upon motion of the claiming party when
the defending party's answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations
of the adverse party's pleading. For that purpose, only the pleadings of the parties in the action
are considered.
 It is error for the trial court to deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the
defending party's pleading in another case supposedly tendered an issue of fact.
Go Tong Electrical Supply vs. BPI Savings

 When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding Section, the genuineness and due execution
of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically
denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does
not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when
compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (Sec. 8, Rule 8)
 Petitioners failed to specifically deny the execution of the following written instruments supporting
his claim: credit agreement, promissory notes, and CSA.
Asian Const & Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

 The purpose of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court is to permit a defendant to assert an
independent claim against a third-party which he, otherwise, would assert in another action, thus
preventing multiplicity of suits.
 A prerequisite to the exercise of such right is that some substantive basis for a third-party claim
be found to exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity, subrogation, contribution or other
substantive right. The bringing of a third party defendant is proper if he would be liable to the
plaintiff or to the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff‘s claim against the original
defendant, although the third-party defendant‘s liability arises out of another transaction.
Benquet Exploration Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

 When the law makes use of the phrase 'genuineness and due execution of the instrument' it
means nothing more than that the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of different import
on its face from the one executed.
 It is true that execution can only refer to the actual making and delivery, but it cannot involve
other matters without enlarging its meaning beyond reason.
 The only object of the rule was to enable a plaintiff to make out a prima facie, not a conclusive
case, and it cannot preclude a defendant from introducing any defense on the merits which does
not contradict the execution of the instrument introduced in evidence.
RULE 9. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

Banco de Oro vs. Tansipek
 The remedy against an Order of Default filing of a Motion to Lift Order of Default, and not a
Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
 A Motion to Lift Order of Default is different from an ordinary motion in that the Motion should
be verified; and must show fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and meritorious
defenses. The allegations of (1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and (2) of
meritorious defenses must concur.
 A party declared in default respondent Tansipek in this case is not barred from appealing from
the judgment on the main case, whether or not he had previously filed a Motion to Set Aside
Order of Default, and regardless of the result of the latter and the appeals therefrom. However,
the appeal should be based on the Decisions being contrary to law or the evidence already
presented, and not on the alleged invalidity of the default order.
Salvador vs. Rabaja

 Failure to attend the pre-trial conference does not result in the default of an absent party.
 If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed.
If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to present his evidence ex
parte and the court shall render judgment based on the evidence presented.
 As a result of their inattentiveness, Spouses Salvador could no longer present any evidence in
their favor. Spouses Rabaja, as plaintiffs, were properly allowed by the RTC to present evidence
ex parte against Spouses Salvador as defendants. Considering that Gonzales as co-defendant was
able to attend the pre-trial conference, she was allowed to present her evidence.
Bitte vs. Jonas

 Despite being burdened by the circumstances of default, the petitioners may still use all other
remedies available to question not only the judgment of default but also the judgment on appeal
before this Court. Those remedies necessarily include an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
RULE 10. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Yujuico vs. United Resources Asset Management Corporation
 Allegations (and admissions) in a pleading—even if not shown to be made through palpable
mistake—can still be corrected or amended provided that the amendment is sanctioned under
Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.
 Matters involving the amendment of pleadings are primarily governed by the pertinent provisions
of Rule10 and not by Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rule of Court.
Lisam Enterprises vs. Banco de Oro

 Even if the amendment substantially alters the cause of action or defense, such amendment could
still be allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of substantial justice, prevent delay,
and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and proceedings.
Tiu vs. Philippine Bank of Communications

 Under the new rules, "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or
defense." This should only be true, however, when despite a substantial change or alteration in
the cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher
interests of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of
the rules which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
Remington Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

 The right granted to the plaintiff under procedural law to amend the complaint before an answer
has been served is not precluded by the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other proceeding
contesting its sufficiency.
 Otherwise, the right to amend a pleading under Section 2, Rule 10 will be rendered nugatory and
ineffectual, since all that a defendant has to do to foreclose this remedial right is to challenge the
adequacy of the complaint before he files an answer.
RULE 13. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENT, AND OTHER PAPERS
George Pidlip P. Palileo and Jose De La Cruz vs. Planters Development Bank, 2014
 Service and filing of pleadings by courier service is a mode not provided in the Rules.
Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs. Pablo R. Miranda, 2013

 Filing of the Notice of Appeal via a private courier, is not a mode provided in the Rules although
it is not prohibited. If allowed, it must conform with established jurisprudence which provides that
the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as
the date of filing thereof in court; instead, the date of actual receipt by the court is deemed the
date of filing of that pleading.
Eduardo Fernandez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Jesus Ciocon, et al., 2000
 A notice of lis pendens cannot be ordered cancelled on an ex parte motion, much less without
any motion at all.
 There should be notice to the party who caused the annotation so that he may be heard to object
to the cancellation of his notice and show to the court that the notice of lis pendens is necessary
to protect his rights and is not merely to molest the other party.
 Under Sec. 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, now Sec. 14 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a notice of lis pendens may be canceled only after proper showing that the purpose
of its annotation is for molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights
of the party who caused it to be annotated.
RULE 14. SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, 1996
 If the respondent is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons must
be in accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 or extraterritorial service of summons. To be valid,
such service must be made either:
1. By personal service;
2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as
the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should
be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; Or
3. In any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.
Millenium Industrial Commercial Corporation vs. Jackson Tan, 2000

 Requisites for the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance:
1. there must be actual receipt of the summons by the person served, i.e., transferring
possession of the copy of the summons from the Sheriff to the person served;
2. the person served must sign a receipt or the sheriff's return; and
3. there must be actual receipt of the summons by the corporation through the person on
whom the summons was actually served. The third requisite is the most important for it is
through such receipt that the purpose of the rule on service of summons is attained.
 This doctrine is abandoned by E.B. Villarosa vs. Benito.
E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd., vs. Hon. Judge Herminio I. Benito, 1999
 The Court held that strict compliance with the mode of service is necessary to confer jurisdiction
of the court over a corporation, otherwise, the service is insufficient. Thus, the service of
summons upon the branch manager instead of upon the general manager is improper.
 The 1997 Rules of Court abandons the doctrine laid by Millenium on substantial compliance.
Pedro T. Santos, Jr. vs. PNOC Exploration Corporation, 2008

 Service of summons by publication is proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal
clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager of the newspaper which published the
summons.
 The rules do not require that the affidavit of complementary service be executed by the clerk of
court. While the trial court ordinarily does the mailing of copies of its orders and processes, the
duty to make the complementary service by registered mail is imposed on the party who resorts
to service by publication.
 To acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, there must be a valid service of summons.
Sps. Patrick Jose and Rafaela Jose vs. Sps. Helen Boyon and Romeo Boyon, 2003
 Personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service. Only if the former cannot be
made promptly can the process server resort to the latter.
 The proof of service of summons must: IES
a. Indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time;
b. Specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and
c. State that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is
residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business, of
the defendant.
 The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted
service renders the service of summons ineffective.
Ma. Imelda M. Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, 2006

 The court’s jurisdiction over a defendant is founded on a valid service of summons. Without a
valid service, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless the defendant
voluntarily submits to it. Due to non-compliance with the prerequisites for valid substituted
service, the proceedings held before the trial court perforce must be annulled.
 Requirements of a substituted service of summons:
1. Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service
2. Specific Details in the Return
3. A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion
4. A Competent Person in Charge
Yuk Ling Ong vs. Benjamin Co, 2015

 Requirements of a substituted service of summons:
1. Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service
2. Specific Details in the Return
3. A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion
 If the server falls short of the rigorous requirements for substituted service of summons, then the
Court has no other option but to strike down a void judgment, regardless of the consequences.
Filomena Domagas vs. Vivian Layno Jensen, 2005

 The service of the summons on a person at a place where he was a visitor is not considered to
have been left at the residence or place or abode, where he has another place at which he
ordinarily stays and to which he intends to return.
DOLE Phl, Inc. vs. Hon. Judge Quilala and All Season Farm, Corp., 2008
 Well-settled is the rule that service of summons on a domestic corporation is restricted, limited
and exclusive to the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14. However, under Section 20, Rule
14, a defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action is equivalent to service of summons.
Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corp. and Nissin Universal Robina Corp.
 Rules on the service of summons upon a domestic corporation should only be served to the
president, general manager, managing partners, corporate secretary, treasurer, and in-house
counsel. This is in view of the strict compliance with S11 R14 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise,
there will be an improper service of summons which will render the subsequent proceedings court
null and void.
Michael C. Guy vs. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, 2016

 Under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, when the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical
personality, the service of summons may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Jurisprudence is replete with
pronouncements that such provision provides an exclusive enumeration of the persons authorized
to receive summons for juridical entities.
 While proper service of summons is necessary to vest the court jurisdiction over the defendant,
the same is merely procedural in nature and the lack of or defect in the service of summons may
be cured by the defendant's subsequent voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction through
his filing a responsive pleading such as an answer.
 The effect of a judgment could not be extended to non-parties by simply issuing an alias writ of
execution against them, for no man should be prejudiced by any proceeding to which he was a
stranger. A partner must be separately and distinctly impleaded before he can be bound by a
judgment.
Sunrise Garden Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 2015

 As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the
filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a
default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered
voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.
 This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who
makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person
cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.
RULE 15. MOTIONS

Acampado vs. Sps. Lourdes and Felimon Cosmilla, 2015
 A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 (Hearing of Motion) and 5
(10-day Setting Rule) of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the
clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon.
Marilou Laude vs. Hon. Judge Roline M. Ginez-Habalde, 2015

 Failure to meet the three-day notice rule for filing motions and to obtain the concurrence of the
Public Prosecutor to move for an interlocutory relief in a criminal prosecution cannot be excused
by general exhortations of human rights.
 The petition in this case fails to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court
judge. Furthermore, the accused, while undergoing trial and before conviction, is already detained
in the Philippines in compliance with the obligations contained in the Visiting Forces Agreement.
Sps. Francisco and Amparo De Guzman vs. Cesar Ochoa, 2011

 Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court defines an omnibus motion as a motion attacking a
pleading, judgment or proceeding.
 A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint.
For this reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must raise and include all
objections available at the time of the filing of the motion because under Section 8, "all objections
not so included shall be deemed waived."
RULE 16. MOTION TO DISMISS

Sps. Francisco and Amparo De Guzman vs. Cesar Ochoa, 2011
 An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates the case
nor finally disposes of it, as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally
decided on the merits.
 The general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil
action for certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment.
 An order denying a motion to dismiss may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an
appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in such cases is to
file an answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the
final judgment.
 Only in exceptional cases where the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse
of discretion that the Court allows the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. By "grave abuse of
discretion," we mean such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.
RULE 17. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

Ramon Ching and Powing Properties, Inc. vs. Joseph Cheng, et al, 2014
 Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissals of actions at the instance of the plaintiff.
Hence, the "two-dismissal rule" under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure will not
apply if the prior dismissal was done at the instance of the defendant.
RULE 19. INTERVENTION

Office of The Ombudsman vs. Maximo D. Sison, 2010
 The government party that can appeal is not the disciplining authority or tribunal which previously
heard the case and imposed the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The
government party appealing must be the one that is prosecuting the administrative case against
the respondent.
 No intervention is permitted after a decision has already been rendered.
May D. Añonuevo, et al. vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, 2010

 A court’s power to allow or deny intervention, albeit discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by
the basic demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in an action or
proceeding may be allowed to intervene. Otherwise stated, a court has no authority to allow a
person, who has no interest in an action or proceeding, to intervene therein.
 Consequently, when a court commits a mistake and allows an uninterested person to intervene
in a case—the mistake is not simply an error of judgment, but an error in jurisdiction, which can
only be reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari.
Deogenes Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals and Phil. Chinese Charitable Association, 2013
 Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene may be filed, the Court
allowed exceptions.
 Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded
by the higher interest of justice. In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention
rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances.
Lincoln L. Yao vs. Hon. Judge Norma C. Perello, et al., 2003

 Requisites for intervention to be valid:
1. The movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified; and
2. Consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor’s rights may be protected
in a separate proceeding or not.
Both requirements must concur as the first is not more important than the second.
 No intervention is permitted after a decision has already been rendered.
Alberto G. Pinlac, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Atty. Corazon A. Merrera, et al., 2003
 The intervention of the Republic is necessary when it aims to protect public interest as well as
government properties. The Constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law can certainly be invoked by the Republic. While
the Rule is intended as a protection of individuals against arbitrary action of the State, it may also
be invoked by the Republic to protect its properties.
Nilo V. Chipongian vs. Victoria Benitez-Lirio, et al., 2015

 Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings,
becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which
may be affected by such proceedings.
 If an intervention makes a third party a litigant in the main proceedings, his pleading-in-
intervention should form part of the main case.
RULE 23. DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION

Dasmarinas Garments vs. Hon. Ruben Reyes, 1993
 Where the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines has no "secretary
or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent," then obviously it
may be taken only" before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under
letters rogatory.
 A commission may be defined as "(a)n instrument issued by a court of justice, or other competent
tribunal, to authorize a person to take depositions, or do any other act by authority of such court
or tribunal."
 Letters rogatory, on the other hand, may be defined as "(a)n instrument sent in the name and
by the authority of a judge or court to another, requesting the latter to cause to be examined,
upon interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the former, a witness who is within the
jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are addressed."
Harry L. Go, Tonny Go, Jerry Ngo, and Jane Go vs. People, 2012
 For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness
who would foreseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made
before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by the clear
mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is in view of
the Constitution which secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witness
against him face to face.
Vda. De Manguerra vs. Risos, 2008

 Rule 119, which provides for the trial in criminal cases, specifically states that a witness may be
conditionally examined: SL
1. If the witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial; or
2. If the witness has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning.
 Also, it is required that the conditional examination be made before the court where the case is
pending, and not anywhere else.
Allied Agri-Business Development Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 1998

 Upon service of request for admission, the party served may do any of the following acts:
a. Admit each of the matters of which an admission is requested, in which case, he need not
file an answer;
b. Admit the truth of the matters of which admission is requested by serving upon the party
requesting a written admission of such matters within the period stated in the request,
which must not be less than ten (10) days after service, or within such further time as the
court may allow on motion and notice;
c. File a sworn statement denying specifically the matter which an admission is requested;
or,
d. File a sworn statement setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either
admit or deny the matters of which an admission is requested.
 Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless within
a period designated in the request which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service
thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the
request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement
either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail
the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. (Section 1, Rule 26)
People of the Philippines vs. Hubert Webb, 1999

 Rule 23 is not applicable in criminal cases. A deposition, in keeping with its nature as a mode of
discovery, should be taken before and not during trial.
 A deposition is "the testimony of a witness taken upon oral question or written interrogatories,
not in open court, but in pursuance of a commission to take testimony issued by a court, or under
a general law or court rule on the subject, and reduced to writing and duly authenticated, and
intended to be used in preparation and upon the trial of a civil or criminal prosecution. A pretrial
discovery device by which one party (through his or her attorney) asks oral questions of the other
party or of a witness for the other party.
 The person who is deposed is called the deponent.
 The deposition is conducted under oath outside of the court room, usually in one of the lawyer’s
offices. A transcript - word for word account - is made of the deposition. Testimony of a witness,
taken in writing, under oath or affirmation, before some judicial officer in answer to questions or
interrogatories”
 The purposes of taking depositions, among others, are to:
1. Give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and
preventing perjury;
2. Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses
thereby encouraging settlements;
3. Expedite litigation;
4. Prevent delay;
5. Simplify and narrow the issues; and
6. Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial.
Herminio T. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, 2010

 There are two instances when the defendant can take depositions under Section 1, Rule 23:
1. After the court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or the property subject of the
action; and
2. After an answer has been served.
RULE 25. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

Afulugencia vs. Metrobank, 2014
 As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not
allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. (Section 6, Rule 25)
People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Bustamante y Aliganga, 2013

 Jurisprudence is likewise instructive that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal. (Child Witness Rule)
RULE 30. TRIAL

Metrobank vs. Sandoval, 2013
 A lawsuit should not be tried piecemeal, or at least such a trial should be undertaken only with
great caution and sparingly. There should be one full and comprehensive trial covering all
disputed matters and parties cannot, as of right, have a trial divided. It is the policy of the law to
limit the number of trials as far as possible, and separate trials are granted only in exceptional
cases.
RULE 31. CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE

Republic vs. Heirs of Enrique Oribello Jr., 2013
 Consolidation is a procedural device to aid the court in deciding how cases in its docket are to be
tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while
providing justice to the parties.
 Kinds of consolidation:
1. Quasi consolidation
2. Actual consolidation
3. Consolidation for trial
 Severance is within the sound discretion of the court for convenience or to avoid prejudice. It is
not mandatory under the Rules that the court sever one case from the other cases before a party
can appeal an adverse ruling on such case. There is no rule or law prohibiting the appeal of a
judgment or part of a judgment in one case which is consolidated with other cases.
Marano vs. Pryce Gases Inc., 2016

 Consolidation is proper when two or more actions pending, not necessarily, before the same court
involve a common question of law or fact. In such cases, the court may order the joint hearing
or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions, order all the actions consolidated, and
make such orders concerning the proceedings therein for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary
costs and delay.
 In this case, the consolidation of the accion reivindicatoria and the cancellation of certificate of
title case is an appropriate remedy.
Metrobank vs. Sandoval, 2013

 Separate trial in civil actions is found in Section 2, Rule 31.
General rule: All issues in every case are tried at one time in view of the dictum that a single trial
will generally lessen the delay, expense, and inconvenience to the parties and the courts.
Exceptions:
1. There are extraordinary grounds for conducting separate trials on different issues raised in
the same case;
2. When separate trials for the issues will avoid prejudice;
3. When separate trials of the issues will further convenience;
4. When separate trials of the issues will promote justice; or
5. When separate trials of the issues will give fair trial to all parties.
RULE 32. TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

Philippine Health Insurance Corporation vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, 2015
 The purpose of written interrogatories is to assist the parties in clarifying the issues and in
ascertaining the facts involved in a case. On the other hand, the provision on the production and
inspection of documents is to enable not only the parties but also the court to discover all the
relevant and material facts in connection with the case pending before it.
 If the Arbiter deemed it necessary, based on the required pleadings already submitted, a formal
hearing may be conducted wherein witnesses who testify may be subjected to clarificatory
questions. The Arbiter has the power to issues subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum; and
subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of documents and
other materials necessary. This is consistent with the summary nature of the administrative
proceedings.
RULE 33. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Republic of the Philippines vs. Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez, 2016
 In case of doubt, courts should proceed with caution in granting motion to dismiss based on
demurrer to evidence. An order granting demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits. This
is because while demurrer is an “aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of an action,”
it specifically pertains to the “merits of the case.”
 Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant
having to submit evidence on his part would ordinarily have to do if plaintiff’s evidence shows
that he is not entitled to the relief sought. The order of dismissal must be clearly supported by
facts and law since an order granting demurrer is a judgment on the merits.
 To erroneously grant a dismissal simply based on the delay to formally offer documentary
evidence essentially deprives one party of due process.
Paz Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 1997

 The accused can file a demurrer only if he is granted prior leave of court. If leave is denied but
the accused still files a demurrer, then there is already a waiver of his right to present evidence.
 If the motion for demurrer with leave of court is denied, the right of the accused to present
evidence is not waived and he may proceed with the presentation.
 If motion for demurrer without leave is denied, the right of the accused to present evidence is
waived.
Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Del Rosario

 If the motion for demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed,
he (defendant) shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. (Section 1 last
sentence, Rule 33)
Cabador vs. People of the Philippines

 To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurrer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the
Court must consider the following: SAP
1. The stage of the proceeding at which it is filed;
2. The allegations made in good faith; and
3. The primary objective of the party filing it.
 In this case, the accused filed a motion for demurrer to evidence but did not state what evidence
the prosecution had presented against him to show in what respects such evidence failed to meet
the elements crime charged. It turned out that the accused indeed filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial and not a demurrer to evidence. Thus, he
cannot be declared to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense.
Claudio vs. Saraza

 A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is
filed after the plaintiff rests his case.
 In the case at bench, the petitioner’s evidence, together with such inferences and conclusions as
may be reasonably drawn therefrom, amply supports the allegations in their complaint necessary
to the claims against the accused. Thus, demurrer to evidence is denied because petitioner’s
evidence, standing alone and in the absence of controverting evidence, would afford sufficient
basis for judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Felipe vs. MGM Motor Trading Corporation

 The essential question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff has been
able to show that he is entitled to his claim; and it is incumbent upon the trial court judge to
make such a determination.
 In this case, the petitioner did not present any document to prove his allegations that the
purchase was made on an installment basis while the respondent (MGM Motors) produced sales
invoice stating that the mode of payment is cash on delivery and not installment. Well-established
is the rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations.
RULE 34. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

RULE 35. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Comglass Corporation vs. Santos Check Car Center
 A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, and is based exclusively upon
the allegations appearing on the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying annexes.
 The court has discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there
is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed.
Republic vs. Shell Petroleum Corporation

 The determinative factor in a motion for summary judgment is the presence or absence of a
genuine issue as to any material fact.
 When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules
allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment; that is when the facts are
not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the
material facts.
 Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions, and
admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the
Rules must ensue as a matter of law.
Philippine Bank of Communication vs. Go

 If on motion of a party and after hearing, the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and
admissions on file show that except as to the amount of damages there is no genuine issues as
to any material fact [and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law],
summary judgment may be rendered.
 Summary of judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the
presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial.
 Genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished
from a sham, fictitious, contrived, or false claim.
 The party who moves for the summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the
absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently
unsubstantial so as not to constitute as genuine issue for trial.
Adolfo vs. Adolfo

 Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits
the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.
 Summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, supporting affidavit, and admissions on file,
show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
 An answer would fail to tender an issue if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint
or admits the said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.
REMEDIES AGAINST FINAL JUDGMENT

RULE 37. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
Napoleon Senit vs. People of the Philippines, 2016
People of the Philippines vs. Li Ka Kim, 2004
Maria Mendezona, et al. vs. Julio Ozamis, et al., 2002
 A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following
requisites are met:
1. That the evidence was discovered after trial;
2. That said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence
3. That it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching
4. That the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would probably change the
judgment
 A new trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was available during trial but was not
presented due to negligence.
Robert Chua vs. People of the Philippines, 2015

 Aspects determining an evidence as newly discovered:
1. Temporal – when was the evidence discovered
2. Predictive – when should or could it have been discovered
 In order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to
justify new trial, what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang
into existence neither the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party submitting it, but
the exercise of the offering party of reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before
or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure the evidence.
 The Rules do not give an exact definition of “due diligence”. Whether the movant has exercised
due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. However, due diligence
contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light
of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.
Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua vs. Edward Rumbaua, 2009

 The aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside a judgment or final order already
rendered and to grant a new trial within the period for taking an appeal.
 Grounds for new trial in civil cases:
1. Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that could not have been guarded
against by ordinary prudence and by reason of which the aggrieved party’s rights have
probably been impaired; or
2. Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, the aggrieved party could not
have discovered and produced at the trial and that would probably alter the result if
presented.
 In this case, the petitioner cites inadequacy of evidence presented by her former counsel as basis
for a remand but did not specify the inadequacy. The Court held that blunders and mistakes in
the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience, or
incompetence of the counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial.
REMEDIES AGAINST FINAL JUDGMENTS

RULE 40. ORDINARY APPEAL FROM THE MTC TO THE RTC
RULES 41 & 44. ORDINARY APPEAL FROM THE RTC TO THE CA
RULE 42. PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE RTC TO THE CA
RULE 43. APPEALS FROM THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES TO THE CA
RULE 45. APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
Cecilia Estinozo vs. Court of Appeals, 2008
 Section 1 of Rule 45 expressly provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
judgment or final order or resolution of the CA may file a verified petition for review on certiorari.
 Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment
when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or to a mistaken mode of
procedure.
 In this case, appeal by certiorari was available to petitioner, she effectively foreclosed her right
to resort to a special civil action for certiorari, a limited form of review and a remedy of last
recourse, which lies only where there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
Heirs of Spouses Reterta vs. Spouses Mores, 2011

 The order that the petitioners really wanted to obtain relief from was the order granting the
respondent’s motion to dismiss not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The fact that the
order granting the motion to dismiss was a final order, thereby completely disposing of the case,
leaves nothing more for the trial court to do in the action, truly called for an appeal, instead
of certiorari, as the correct remedy.
Ermelinda Manaloto, et al. vs. Ismael Veloso III, 2010

 By virtue of the power of the Supreme Court to amend, repeal and create new procedural rules
in all courts, the Court is allowing a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal
in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing or denying a motion for
new trial or motion for reconsideration.
 As early as 2005 in the case of Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court standardize the
appeal periods provided in the Rules and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day
appeal period should be counted.
Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. Luis Esteban Latorre, 2010

 Three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC:
1. Ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or
criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction;
2. Petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction; and
3. Petition for review to the Supreme Court.
The first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) on
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal, covered by
Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
The third mode of appeal, provided in Rule 45, is filed with the Supreme Court only on
questions of law.
 It is clear that the filing of the case directly with the Supreme Court ran afoul of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine of hierarchy of courts, direct resort from the lower
courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy sought cannot
be obtained in the lower tribunals. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort, and must so
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and by
immemorial tradition.
Spouses Godofredo Alfredo, et al. vs. Spouses Armando and Adelia Borras, 2003
 In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, this Court reviews only errors of law and not
errors of facts. The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court.
This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are in complete
agreement on their factual findings.
People of the Philippines vs. Elizabeth Corpuz, 2003

 The principle that “findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies
of witnesses and probative weight thereof, and its conclusions culled from said findings are
accorded by the court great respect if not conclusive effect” does not apply if the trial court
ignored, misunderstood, or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if
considered would alter the outcome of the case.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, 2003

 In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
General rule: Only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by the Supreme
Court. The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on the Supreme Court
especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court because it is not the function
of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.
Exceptions:
a. Where there is grave abuse of discretion;
b. When the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;

c. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
d. When the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts;
e. When the factual findings are conflicting;
f. When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and
the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
g. When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and,
h. Where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court,
or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth
by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.
Ruben Augusto and Atty. Noel Archival vs. Hon. Judge Teodoro Risos, 2003
 Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final
order, and not from an interlocutory one.
 A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular
proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been
determined. Where no issue is left for future consideration, except the fact of compliance with
the terms of the order, such order is final and appealable.
 An order is interlocutory if it does not finally dispose of the case.
Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. and Heirs of Petra Capistrano Piit vs. Hon.
Judge of RTC-Misamis Oriental, et al., 2007
 Note: In this case, the petition for annulment of the DARAB decision was filed with the RTC on
June 13, 1997, before the advent of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July
1, 1997. The law applied was B.P. Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, enacted
in 1981.
 The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over decisions of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) as they are co-equal bodies. Decisions thereof are appealable only
by certiorari to the Court of Appeals (Section 1, DARAB Revised Rules and Procedure effective
December 26, 1988; Rule 43 of the Rules of Court).
 The Court of Appeals has exclusive and original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of final
and executory judgments but only those rendered by the Regional Trial Courts and not those
rendered by the quasi-judicial bodies (i.e., DARAB, NLRC, SEC, HLURB, Office of the President).
Teddy Maravilla vs. Joseph Rios, 2015

 Under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review shall be
accompanied by, among others, copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record
as would support the allegations of the petition. Section 3 of the same rule states that failure of
the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
thereof.
 Three guideposts in determining the necessity of attaching pleadings and portions of the record
to petitions under Rules 42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court:
1. Not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition; only
those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether
the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said
document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the
court to give due course to the petition.
2. Even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it
is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached
to the petition.
3. A petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the
documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be
decided on the merits.
REMEDIES AGAINST EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS

RULE 38. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
Corazon Escueta, et al. vs. Rufina Lim, 2007
 A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within
sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be
set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or
such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioners
good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. (Section 3, Rule 38)
 The 60-day period is reckoned from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment
or proceedings and not from the date the party recipient actually read the same.
Spouses Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. Humberto Meer, 2002

 Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances
and only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence is present. Where the defendant
has other available or adequate remedy such as a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse
decision, he cannot avail himself of this remedy.
 Petition for relief must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final
order, or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.
 Petition for relief under Rule 38 should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision.
 Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment
when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or a mistaken mode of
procedure. When the mistake of counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, the
Supreme Court affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right only in exceptional
cases.
The Provincial Government of Aurora vs. Hilario Marco, 2015

 The doctrine of immutability of final judgments provides that a final and executory judgment is
removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend
it much less revoke it. This doctrine is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public
policy and sound practice that judgments of the courts must become final at some definite date
fixed by law.
 The doctrine of immutability of final judgments applies to decisions of the Civil Service
Commissions. A CSC decision becomes final and executory if not motion for reconsideration is
filed within the 15-day reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
 Rule 50 allows the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal where the order appealed from is not
appealable.
 In this case, the Province of Aurora erred in filing an appeal before the Court of Appeals as no
appeal may be taken from an order of execution. Instead, it should have filed a petition for special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 as the appropriate remedy.
Thomasites Center for International Studies vs. Ruth Rodriguez, et al., 2016
 Filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with two reglementary periods:
1. It must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment, order, or other
proceeding to be set aside; and
2. Within a fixed period of six (6) months from entry of such judgment, order or other
proceeding.
 In this case, the petition for relief was filed beyond the period provided under Rule 38. The earliest
that the petitioner could have learned of the judgment was on June 21, 2006 when it received a
copy thereof through its academic dean who hired the respondents; and the latest was during
the pre-execution conference held on September 22, 2006, when the counsel of the petitioner
formally entered her appearance. The petition for relief was filed only on February 13, 2007, well
beyond the 60-day period allowed.
REMEDIES AGAINST EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS

RULE 47. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
Aurora De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corporation, 2014
 A petition for annulment of judgment an extraordinary remedy and is a recourse that is equitable
in character. It is independent of the case and is allowed only in exceptional cases as where there
is no available or other adequate remedy.
 An action for annulment of judgment may be filed to assail Regional Trial Court judgments when
resort to other remedies can no longer be had through no fault of petitioner. (Section 1, Rule 47)
 Only grounds for an action for annulment of judgment: (Section 2 of Rule 47)
1. Extrinsic fraud
2. Lack of jurisdiction
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motion for new trial or petition for relief. Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment
of judgments, circumstances that negate the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction— including
defective service of summons—are causes for an action for annulment of judgments.
 An action for annulment of judgment may no longer be invoked in the following instances:
1. Where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief,
or other appropriate remedy and lost; or
2. Where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.
Thus, an action for annulment of judgment is not always readily available even if there are
causes for annulling a judgment.
Leticia Diona vs. Romeo Balangue, et al., 2013

 While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may
be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes
lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. This applies if, upon mere
inspection thereof, patent nullity in the decision can be shown for having been issued without
jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law.
Celerina Santos vs. Ricardo Santos, 2014

 The proper remedy for a judicial declaration of presumptive death obtained by extrinsic fraud is
an action to annul the judgment. An affidavit of reappearance is not the proper remedy when the
person declared presumptively death has never been absent.
Yuk Ling Ong vs. Benjamin Co, 2015

 Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a party-litigant another
opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him to
be discharged from the burden of being bound to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin
with.
 In this case, the Court granted the annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
for an invalid service of summons. (See also the doctrine of this case under Rule 14)
Thunder Security Investigation Agency/Lourdes Lasala vs. NFA-Region I, 2011

Abner Mangubat vs. Belen Morga-Seva, 2015
 The prior filing of a petition for relief does not per se bar the filing of a petition for annulment of
judgment. Annulment for judgment may only be resorted to if the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies, are no longer available without the
petitioner’s fault.
 Only two grounds may be recognized in a petition for annulment: extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. (Additional ground––lack of due process––is provided for in Diona vs. Balangue)
Camilo Sibal vs. Pedro, Santiago, and Rosalinda Buquel, 2016

 Safeguards limiting the petition for annulment of final judgments, orders, or resolutions:
1. Ground for the petition may only be lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud (Section 2);
2. The petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available without fault on the part of the
petitioner (Section 1).
 Fraud is extrinsic in the following instances:
a. When the unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting his case, by fraud
or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away, from court, a
false promise of a compromise; or
b. Where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts
of the plaintiff; or
c. Where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat; or
d. Similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of
the case are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the
former judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing
 Extrinsic fraud, as a ground for annulment of judgment, must arise from an act of the adverse
party, and the fraud must be of such nature as to have deprived the petitioner of its day in court.
The fraud is not extrinsic if the act was committed by the petitioner's own counsel.
RULE 39. EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

Fajardo vs. Quitalig
 As frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in
the performance of their duties. Hence, they must see to it that the final stage in the litigation
process is completed without unnecessary delay.
 The sheriff is primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and
writs originating from the court and its branches, including such as may be properly delegated to
him by other courts.
 In this case, the sheriff is guilty of dereliction of his duty for the inability to enforce the writ of
execution because another court has issued a temporary restraining order, which he failed to
report to the court. His failure to make a return of a writ within the required period of 30 days
(Section 14 of Rule 39) is non-feasance.
FEBTC vs. Toh, Sr.

 Old age is a “good reason” for the issuance of a writ of execution.
 Good reasons are compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment
becomes illusory, or the prevailing party, may, after lapse of time, become unable to enjoy it,
considering the tactics of the adverse party who may apparently have no cause except to delay.
 The Rules does not state, enumerate, or give examples of “good reasons” to justify execution.
The determination is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Banes vs. Banes

 Executing pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh
the damages that may result from the issuance of writ.
 In this case, the Court held that there is no “good reason” to issue a writ of execution immediately
because the appeal may be meritorious as far as the distribution of property is concerned since
the husband was totally disinherited. There is no circumstance that outweigh the damages which
the respondent husband would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house.
Edgar Santos vs. Commission on Elections

 In election cases, shortness of the term alone is not a “good reason” to validly issue a writ of
execution of judgment but it is due to public interest or will of the electorate that judgment must
be executed immediately.
 In this case, the Municipality needed the services of a Mayor even while the election protest was
pending and it had to be the candidate chosen by the plurality so as not to deprive their political
representation.
Stronghold Insurance vs. Felix

 Execution pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy, being more of the exception rather than
the rule. This rule is strictly construed against the movant because the courts look with disfavor
upon any attempt to execute a judgment which has not acquired finality. Such execution affects
the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal.
 The exercise of the power to grant or deny a motion for execution pending appeal is addressed
to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, the existence of good reasons is indispensable
to the grant of execution pending appeal.
 In this case, the illness and needs of the husband, who is not a party to the case, is not a “good
reason” to justify execution pending appeal of the case of the petitioner wife.
 The posting of the bond absent the good reasons required by the Rule is not enough to allow
execution pending appeal. The bond is only an additional protection to the defendant’s creditor.
City of Iligan vs. Land Bank Realty Development Corporation and Principal Mgmt. GI
 Requisites for the execution of judgment pending appeal:
1. A motion must be filed by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
2. There must be a “good reason” for the execution pending appeal; and
3. The good reason/s must be stated in a special order.
 Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule. Normally, execution cannot be
obtained until and unless:
a. The judgment has become final and executory;
b. The right of appeal has been renounced or waived;
c. The period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been filed; and
d. Having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been
returned to the court of origin—in which case, execution shall issue as a matter of right.
 When the period of appeal has not yet lapsed, the execution of judgment should not be allowed
except if, in the court’s discretion, there are good reasons therefor.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. PAL Employees Association

 The satisfaction of judgment by payment of money on demand must be done by the obligor
directly handing the money in cash over the judgment obligee. If the money was handed over to
the sheriff with authority from the judgment obligee, the sheriff must remit the money within 24
hours to the court or judgment obligee.
D’Armoured Security Agency vs. Orpia

 The exemption under Section 13(i), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and Article 1708 of the Civil
Code is meant to favor only laboring men and women whose works are manual. Persons
belonging to this class usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present
support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other.
Section 13 (i), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court exempts salaries, wages, or earnings of the
judgment obligor for his “personal services” within the four months preceding the levy as
are necessary for the “support of his family”.
Article 1708 of the Civil Code provides that laborer’s wage shall not be subject to execution
or attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing, and medical
attendance.
Panotes vs. Townhouse Development Corporation

 An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution
of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without being
executed upon motion of the prevailing party.
RCBC vs. Serra

 Where the delays were occasioned by the judgment debtor’s own initiatives and for her advantage
as well as beyond the judgment creditor’s control, the five-year period allowed for enforcement
of the judgment by motion is deemed to have been effectively interrupted or suspended.
Perez vs. Court of Appeals

 Section 47(b) enunciates the first concept of res judicata known as “bar by prior judgment” or
“estoppel by judgment” which refers to a theory or matter that has been definitely and finally
settled on its merits by a court of competent jurisdiction without fraud or collusion.
 Requisites for the application of res judicata by prior judgment or estoppel:
1. Finality of the former judgment;
2. The court which rendered the judgment had competent jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties;
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of the parties, subject matter,
and causes of action.
 Section47(c) enunciates the concept of “conclusiveness of judgment” also known as the
“collateral estoppel” or “estoppel by verdict”. This applies where, between the first case wherein
judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment is involved, there is no identity
of causes of action.
City of Cebu vs. Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

 Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, when a right or fact has been judicially tried
and determined by a court of a competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has
been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive
upon the parties and those in privity with them. Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment
bars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case.
Fujiki vs. Marinay

 For the Philippine Courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of the marriage
where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the
foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.
 Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proved in a Philippine court, it can only be repelled on
the grounds external to its merits, i.e., want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Remedial Law Review 1 (Civil Procedure Only) - Doctrines of Cases - Atty. Brondial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Review 1 (Civil Procedure Only) - Doctrines of Cases - Atty. Brondial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCTRINES OF SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE ON REMEDIAL LAW

Consolidated by Augustly based on the syllabus of Atty. Henedino Brondial, 2018

Donato vs. Court of Appeals

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

Escobal vs. Gatchitorena

Agan vs. Piatco

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 1 of 34

Liga ng mga Barangay vs. Atienza

Manila Bankers vs. Ng Kok Wei

OCA vs. Sardillo

Katon vs. Palanca

Figueroa vs. People

Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

Pat-og vs. Civil Service Commission

Boston Equity vs. Court of Appeals

People vs. Henry Go

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 3 of 34

City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo

Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan

St. Mary Crusade Foundation vs. Riel

Lomondot vs. Balindog

Regulus Development vs. De La Cruz

RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 4 of 34

Korea Technologies vs. Lerma

Mercado vs. Court of Appeals

Otherwise, a counterclaim is merely permissive.

Navarro vs. MBTC

Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale

Bautista vs. Unangst

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 5 of 34

Ruby Shelter Builders vs. Formaran

St. Louis University vs. Cobarrubias

Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 6 of 34

Reyes vs. People

RULE 2. CAUSE OF ACTION

RULE 3. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Sps. De Castro vs. Court of Appeals

Orquilo vs. Court of Appeals

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 7 of 34

China Bank vs. Oliver

David vs. Paragas

Land Bank vs. Cacurayan

Lotte vs. Dela Cruz

Carabeo vs. Dingco

Dela Cruz vs. Joaquin

Navarro vs. Escobido

Divinagracia vs. Parilla

RULE 4. VENUE OF ACTIONS

Biaco vs. Countryside Rural Bank

BPI Family Savings vs. Sps. Juico

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 9 of 34

RULE 5. UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

RULE 6. KINDS OF PLEADING

Lim Teck Chuan vs. Uy

Metrobank vs. CPR Promotions

Valdez vs. Dabon

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Remedial Law Doctrines by Augustly | Page 10 of 34

Caneland Sugar Corporation vs. Alon

RULE 7. PARTS OF THE PLEADING

Medado vs. Heirs of Antonio Consuing