BASIC PRINCIPLES Difference between substantive and remedial law SUBSTANTIVE LAW It creates, defines and regulates rights

and duties concerning life, li ert! or "ro"ert!, #hich #hen $iolated gi$es rise to a cause of action% REMEDIAL LAW It "rescri es the &ethods of enforcing those rights and o ligations created ! su stanti$e la# ! "ro$iding a "rocedural s!ste& for o taining redress for the in$asion of rights and $iolations of duties and ! "rescri ing rules as to ho# suits are filed, tried and decided u"on ! the courts%

Civil actions, criminal actions, and special proceedin s '() Civil actions* It is one ! #hich a "art! sues another for the "rotection of a right or the "re$ention or redress of a #rong% Its "ri&ar! "ur"ose is co&"ensator!% +i$il actions &a! e, 'a) -rdinar!, or ' ) S"ecial% Both are go$erned ! rules for ordinar! ci$il actions, su .ect to s"ecific rules "rescri ed for s"ecial ci$il actions% '/) Criminal actions* It is one ! #hich the State "rosecutes a "erson for an act or o&ission "unisha le ! la#% Its "ri&ar! "ur"ose is "unish&ent% '0) Special proceedings* It is a re&ed! ! #hich a "art! see1s to esta lish a status, a right or a "articular fact%

!ENERAL PR"#ISI"NS $Rule %& Rule'ma(in power of t)e Supreme Court The Su"re&e +ourt has the constitutional "o#er to "ro&ulgate rules concerning, '() 2leading, '/) 2ractice, and '0) 2rocedure% Three '0) li&itations on the S+3s rule4&a1ing "o#er, '() The rules shall "ro$ide a si&"lified and ine5"ensi$e "rocedure for the s"eed! dis"osition of cases6 '/) shall e unifor& for courts of the sa&e grade6 and '0) shall not di&inish, increase, or &odif! su stanti$e rights% Article 6, Sec. 30, Constitution * No la# shall e "assed increasing the a""ellate .urisdiction of the Su"re&e +ourt as "ro$ided in this +onstitution #ithout its ad$ice and concurrence% Procedural and substantive rules Substantive law creates, defines, regulates, and e5tinguishes rights and o ligations, #hile re&edial or procedural law "ro$ides the "rocedure for the enforce&ent of rights and o ligations% *orce and effect of Rules of Court The Rules of +ourt ha$e the force and effect of la#, unless the! ha""en to e inconsistent #ith "ositi$e la#% Power of Supreme Court to suspend t)e Rules of Court Whene$er de&anded ! .ustice, the Su"re&e +ourt has the inherent power to 'a) sus"end its o#n rules or ' ) e5e&"t a "articular case fro& the o"eration of said rules% +a, parties c)an e t)e rules of procedureGeneral rule: The! &a! not% This is ecause these are &atters of "u lic interest% E ceptions, Matters of "rocedure #hich &a! e Agreed upon b! the parties" Venue &a! e changed ! #ritten agree&ent of the "arties 'Rule 7, Sec% 78 9) S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age (

#aived" Venue &a! e #ai$ed if not o .ected to in a &otion to dis&iss or in the ans#er% 'Rule (=, Sec% =)6 .udg&ent in default &a! e #ai$ed ! failure to ans#er #ithin (> da!s% $all within the discretion o% the court" The "eriod to "lead &a! e e5tended on &otion of a "art!% 'Rule ((, Sec% (()6 rules of "rocedure &a! e rela5ed in the interest of .ustice%

./RISDIC0I"N 4 It is the "o#er and authorit! of a court to hear, tr! and decided a case% 4 2o#er of the court to hear an action or "roceedings, and to render a .udg&ent thereon #hich #ill ind the "arties to such action?"roceeding% 8Regalado9 4 the ca"acit! of "o#er conferred ! the +onstitution or la# to a court or tri unal to entertain, hear, and deter&ine certain contro$ersies, and render .udg&ent thereon 8De Leon9 o deter&ined ! the allegations in the co&"laint and the character of the relief sought, not the defenses raised ! the defendant @ :udicial "o#er includes the dut! of the courts of .ustice, 8Art A, Sec% (, +onsti9 (% To settle actual contro$ersies in$ol$ing rights #hich are legall! de&anda le and enforcea le6 /% To deter&ine W-N there has een a gra$e a use of discretion a&ounting to lac1 or e5cess of .urisdiction on the "art of an! go$ern&ent ranch?instru&entalit!% %1 !enerall, The statute in force at the ti&e of the co&&ence&ent of the action deter&ines the .urisdiction of the court% Before loo1ing into other &atters, it is the dut! of the court to consider the Buestion of .urisdiction without #aiting for it to e raised% If court has .urisdiction, such &ust e e5ercised% -ther#ise, it &a! e enforced ! a mandamus "roceeding% If court has no .urisdiction, the court shall dis&iss the clai& and can do so motu proprio% Doctrine of primary jurisdiction The courts #ill not resol$e a contro$ers! in$ol$ing a Buestion #hich is #ithin the .urisdiction of an ad&inistrati$e tri unal% Doctrine of continuing jurisdiction 2 -nce .urisdiction has attached to a court, it retains that .urisdiction until it finall! dis"oses of the case% Cence, it is not lost ! The "assage of ne# la#s transferring the .urisdiction to another tri unal e cept #hen e5"ressl! "ro$ided ! the statute6 Su seBuent filing of a notice of a""eal6 The &ere fact that a "art! #ho is a "u lic official ceased to e in office6 or Dinalit! of .udg&ent 'the court still has .urisdiction to enforce and e5ecute it) The filing of the co&"laint or a""ro"riate initiator! "leading and the "a!&ent of the "rescri ed doc1et fee $est a trial court #ith .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter or the nature of the action% E5ce"tion, The court &a! allo# "a!&ent of the fee #ithin a reasona le ti&e, ut in no case e!ond the a""lica le "rescri"ti$e "eriod% 8IB2 $% Legasto '/EE=)9

CLASSI*ICA0I"NS "* ./RISDIC0I"N %( FENERAL -R LIMITED?S2E+IAL %a % %/ General jurisdiction < "o#er to ad.udicate all contro$ersies e5ce"t those e5"ressl! #ithheld fro& the "lenar! "o#ers of the court Limited/special jurisdiction < restricts the courts .urisdiction onl! to "articular cases and su .ect to such li&itations as &a! e "ro$ided ! the go$erning la#

-RIFINAL -R A22ELLATE %a % Original jurisdiction < "o#er of the court to ta1e .udicial cogniGance of a case instituted for .udicial action for the first ti&e under conditions "ro$ided ! la# appellate jurisdiction < authorit! of a court higher in ran1 to re4e5a&ine the final order or .udg&ent of a lo#er court #hich tried the case no# ele$ated for .udicial re$ie#

%0

EH+LUSIVE -R +-N+URRENT %a % exclusive jurisdiction < "o#er to ad.udicate a case or "roceeding to the e5clusion of all other courts at that stage concurrent/coordinate jurisdiction < "o#er conferred u"on different courts, #hether of the sa&e or different ran1s, to ta1e cogniGance at the sa&e stage of the sa&e case in the sa&e or different .udicial territories

ELE+EN0S "* A #ALID E3ERCISE "* ./RISDIC0I"N '() :urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter or nature of the case6 '/) the "arties6 '0) the res if .urisdiction o$er the defendant cannot e acBuired6 '7) the issue of the case6 and '>) 2a!&ent of doc1et fees% Note, 4 4

:urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter is a &atter of su stanti$e la#% :urisdiction o$er the "arties, the res and the issues are &atters of "rocedure%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age /

:urisdiction o$er the "arties and the res are co$ered su su&ed under the rule on "leadings%

! the rule on su&&ons, #hile .urisdiction o$er the issues is

$a& As to sub4ect matter 4 :urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter is conferred ! the +onstitution or ! la#% 4 Therefore, .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter cannot e conferred ! '() Ad&inistrati$e "olic! of an! court6 '/) +ourt3s unilateral assu&"tion of .urisdiction6 '0) Erroneous elief ! the court that it has .urisdiction6 '7) B! contract or ! the "arties6 '>) B! agree&ent, or ! an! act or o&ission of the "arties, nor ! acBuiescence of the court6 or '=) B! the "arties3 silence, acBuiescence or consent General &ule: It is deter&ined ! the &aterial allegations of the initiator! "leading 'e%g%, the co&"laint), not the ans#er of the defendant% -nce acBuired, .urisdiction is not lost ecause of the defendant3s contrar! allegation% E ception, In e.ect&ent cases, #here tenanc! is a$erred ! #a! of defense and is "ro$ed to e the real issue, the case should e dis&issed for not eing "ro"erl! filed #ith the DARAB% It is deter&ined ! the cause of action alleged, not ! the a&ount su stantiated and a#arded% E ample, If a co&"laint alleges a reco$era le a&ount of 2(M, RT+ has .urisdiction e$en if e$idence "ro$es the onl! 20EE1 &a! e reco$ered%

'ote, :urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter +ANN-T e #ai$ed, enlarged or di&inished ! sti"ulation of the "arties% $b& As to res or propert, 4 :urisdiction o$er the res refers to the court3s .urisdiction o$er the thing or the "ro"ert! #hich is the su .ect of the action% :urisdiction o$er the res is acBuired ! '() Custodia legis""lacing the "ro"ert! or thing under the court3s custod! 'e%g%, attach&ent) '/) Statutor! authorit!*statute conferring the court #ith "o#er to deal #ith the "ro"ert! or thing #ithin its territorial .urisdiction '0) Su&&ons ! "u lication or other &odes of e5traterritorial ser$ice 'Rule (7, Sec% (>) $c& As to t)e issues ISSUE* a dis"uted "oint or Buestion to #hich "arties to an action ha$e narro#ed do#n their se$eral allegations and u"on #hich the! are desirous of o taining a decision% Thus, #here there is no dis"uted "oint, there is no issue% :urisdiction o$er the issue &a! e conferred or deter&ined ! '() E amination o% the pleadings* Fenerall!, .urisdiction o$er the issues is deter&ined ! the "leadings of the "arties% '/) (re)trial* It &a! e conferred ! sti"ulation of the "arties in the "re4trial, as #hen the! enter into sti"ulations of facts and docu&ents or enter into an agree&ent si&"lif!ing the issues of the case 'Rule (A, Sec% /) '0) #aiver* Dailure to o .ect to "resentation of e$idence on a &atter not raised in the "leadings% Said issues tried shall e treated as if the! had een raised in the "leadings% $d& As to t)e parties The court acBuires .urisdiction o$er the (lainti%%* #hen he files his co&"laint *e%endant* i% Valid ser$ice of su&&ons u"on hi&, or ii% Voluntar! a""earance, IThe defendant3s $oluntar! a""earance in the action shall e eBui$alent to ser$ice of su&&ons% The inclusion in a &otion to dis&iss of other grounds aside fro& lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the defendant shall not e dee&ed a $oluntar! a""earance% 'Rule (7, Sec% /E) E amples, When defendant files The necessar! "leading6 A &otion for reconsideration6 2etition to set aside .udg&ent of default6 An ans#er6 2etition for certiorari #ithout Buestioning the court3s .urisdiction o$er his "erson6 or When the "arties .ointl! su &it a co&"ro&ise agree&ent for a""ro$al

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age 0

BUT the filing of an ans#er should not e treated auto&aticall! as a $oluntar! a""earance #hen such ans#er is "recisel! to o .ect to the court3s .urisdiction o$er the defendant3s "erson% +a 'aval v. CA, A defendant should e allo#ed to "ut u" his o#n defenses alternati$el! or h!"otheticall!% It should not e the in$ocation of a$aila le additional defenses that should e construed as a #ai$er of the defense of lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the "erson, ut the %ailure to raise the defense% 'ote, :urisdiction o$er a non4resident defendant cannot e acBuired if the action is in personam% 51 Estoppel to den, 4urisdiction EI!S O" #E!$ULDO I%OG v& 'ELI(O! )*++ S(!, *-./ 0..+1 Since the deceased defendant "artici"ated in all stages of the case efore the trial court, he is esto""ed fro& den!ing the .urisdiction of the court% The "etitioners &erel! ste""ed into the shoes of their "redecessor and are effecti$el! arred ! DA+TS, Bertuldo Cinog allegedl! occu"ied and uilt a s&all house on a "ortion of a "ro"ert! o#ned ! res"ondents Balane for (E !ears at a no&inal annual rental% After (E !ears, Bertuldo refused to heed de&ands &ade ! res"ondents to return said "ortion and to re&o$e the house constructed thereon% Res"ondents filed a co&"laint against hi&% Bertuldo filed his Ans#er, alleging o#nershi" of the dis"uted "ro"ert! ! $irtue of a Deed of A solute Sale% Bertuldo died #ithout co&"leting his e$idence during the direct e5a&ination% Bertuldo3s original counsel #as re"laced ! Att!% 2etalcorin #ho entered his a""earance as ne# counsel for the heirs of Bertuldo% Att!% 2etalcorin filed a &otion to e5"unge the co&"laint fro& the record and nullif! all court "roceedings on the ground that "ri$ate res"ondents failed to s"ecif! in the co&"laint the a&ount of da&ages clai&ed so as to "a! the correct doc1et fees6 and that under ,anchester doctrine, non4"a!&ent of the correct doc1et fee is .urisdictional% ISSUE, #hether the petitioners are barred b! estoppel %rom -uestioning the .urisdiction o% &/C 6ES1 The "etitioners are arred fro& Buestioning .urisdiction of the trial court% Although the issue of .urisdiction at an! stage of the "roceedings as the sa&e is conferred ! la#, it is nonetheless settled that a "art! &a! e arred fro& raising it on the ground of esto""el% After the deceased Bertuldo "artici"ated in all stages of the case efore the trial court, the "etitioners &erel! ste""ed into the shoes of their "redecessor and are effecti$el! arred ! esto""el fro& challenging RT+3s .urisdiction% 71 .urisdiction at t)e time of filin 2EO2LE v& (,3,LI%G )045 S(!, 0-6/ 74481 FR, The .urisdiction of a court to tr! a cri&inal case is deter&ined ! the la# in force at the ti&e of the institution of the action% -nce the court acBuires .urisdiction, it &a! not e ousted fro& the case ! an! su seBuent e$ents, such as a ne# legislation "lacing such "roceedings under the .urisdiction of another tri unal% E5ce"tions, '() there is an e5"ress "ro$ision in the statute, or DA+TS, Brothers Vicente and Ronie Elisan #ere drin1ing tu a at the 1itchenette of one of the accused, Donta&illa% When the! #ere a out to lea$e, the! #ere #arned ! LuG Venus that the si5 '=) accused consisting of Ma!or +a#aling, four '7) "olice&en and a ci$ilian, had een #atching and #aiting for the& outside the restaurant% Ne$ertheless, the t#o #ent out and #ere chased ! the ar&ed &en% Vicente successfull! ran and hid ehind a coconut tree #hile Ronie unfortunatel! #ent to the ricefield and #as shot to death there% An Infor&ation alleging &urder #as filed in the RT+ against the = accused% RT+ con$icted the& of &urder% -n a""eal, the a""ellants Buestioned the .urisdiction of the RT+ o$er the case, insisting that the Sandigan a!an #as the tri unal #ith .urisdiction since the accused #ere "u lic officers at the ti&e of the 1illing% ISSUE, #hether the Sandiganba!an had .urisdiction N"1 The .urisdiction of a court to tr! a cri&inal case is deter&ined ! the la# in force at the ti&e of the institution of the action% -nce the court acBuires .urisdiction, it &a! not e ousted fro& the case ! an! su seBuent e$ents, such as a ne# legislation "lacing such "roceedings under the .urisdiction of another tri unal% E5ce"tions to this rule arise #hen, '() there is an e5"ress "ro$ision in the statute, or '/) the statute is clearl! intended to a""l! to actions "ending efore its enact&ent% Section 74a4/ of 2D (=E=, as a&ended ! 2D (A=( lists t#o reBuisites that &ust concur efore the Sandigan a!an &a! e5ercise e5clusi$e and original .urisdiction o$er a case, 'a) the offense #as co&&itted ! the accused "u lic officer in relation to his office6 and ' ) the "enalt! "rescri ed ! la# is higher than prision correccional or i&"rison&ent for si5 '=) !ears, or higher than a fine of 2=,EEE% Sanche0 vs. *emetriou clarified that &urder or ho&icide &a! e co&&itted oth ! "u lic officers and ! "ri$ate citiGens, and that "u lic office is not a constituti$e ele&ent of said cri&e% The relation et#een the cri&e and the office conte&"lated should e direct and not accidental% The Infor&ation filed against the a""ellants contains no allegation that a""ellants #ere "u lic officers #ho co&&itted the cri&e in relation to their office% The charge #as onl! for &urder% In the a sence of an! allegation that the offense #as co&&itted in relation to the office of a""ellants or #as necessaril! connected #ith the discharge of their functions, the regional trial court, not the Sandigan a!an, has .urisdiction to hear and decide the case% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 7 of action

RE!/LAR C"/R0S $+0C, R0C, CA, SC& 'See San Beda Re$ie#er) SPECIAL C"/R0S $Sandi anba,an& 'See San Beda Re$ie#er) 8/ASI'./DICIAL B"DIES $SEC, CSC, 9L/RB& %1 Securities and E:c)an e Commission $Sec1 ;15, RA <=>>& The +o&&ission shall retain .urisdiction o$er 2ending cases in$ol$ing intra4cor"orate dis"utes su &itted for final resolution #hich should e resol$ed #ithin one '() !ear fro& the enact&ent of this +ode, and :urisdiction o$er "ending sus"ension of "a!&ents?reha ilitation cases filed as of 0E :une /EEE until finall! dis"osed 1

Civil Service Commission +A!PALE v1 CSC $5%; SCRA 7><, %>>5& Under Section 7J of the Ad&inistrati$e +ode, the +S+ shall decide on a""eal all ad&inistrati$e disci"linar! cases in$ol$ing the i&"osition of IK 'd) re&o$al or dis&issal fro& office%L The M2SB decision did not in$ol$e dis&issal or se"aration fro& office, rather, the decision e5onerated "etitioner and ordered hi& reinstated to his for&er "osition% The MS2B decision #as not a "ro"er su .ect of a""eal to the +S+% DA+TS, Mag"ale, "ort &anager of 2hili""ine 2orts Authorit!42ort Manage&ent Unit '22A42MU) of Taclo an, #as found ! the Secretar! of D-T+ guilt! of Fross Negligence on t#o counts, 'a) for his failure to account for the 77 units of eBui"&ent and ' ) for failing to render the reBuired liBuidation of his cash ad$ances a&ounting to 277,AJJ%EE for a "eriod of 7 !rs% Ce #as also found guilt! of freBuent and unauthoriGed a sences% Ce #as &eted the "enalt! of dis&issal fro& the ser$ice #ith the corres"onding accessor! "enalties% Ce a""ealed to the Merit S!ste& and 2rotection Board 'MS2B) of the +i$il Ser$ice +o&&ission '+S+)% The MS2B re$ersed the decision% 22A filed an a""eal #ith the +i$il Ser$ice Dield -ffice422A, #hich indorsed the a""eal to +S+% Mag"ale &o$ed for the i&"le&entation of the MS2B decision #hich #as o""osed ! the 22A% MS2B ordered the i&&ediate i&"le&entation of its decision, #hich eca&e final and e5ecutor!% Res"ondent +S+ re$ersed M2SB3s decision and held Mag"ale guilt!% ISSUE, #hether the law authori0ed an appeal b! the government %rom an adverse decision o% the ,S1( N"1 Under the Ad&inistrati$e +ode of (MAJ, decisions of the M2SB shall e final, e5ce"t onl! I those in$ol$ing dis&issal or se"aration fro& the ser$ice #hich &a! e a""ealed to the +o&&issionL While it is true that the +S+ does ha$e the "o#er to hear and decide ad&inistrati$e cases instituted ! or rought efore it directl! or on a""eal, the e5ercise of the "o#er is Bualified ! and should e read together #ith Sec% 7M of E5ecuti$e -rder /M/, #hich "rescri es, a&ong others that I'a) the decision &ust e a""eala le%L Under Section 7J of the Ad&inistrati$e +ode, the +S+ shall decide on a""eal all ad&inistrati$e disci"linar! cases in$ol$ing the i&"osition of, 'a) a "enalt! of sus"ension for &ore than 0E da!s6 ' ) fine in an a&ount e5ceeding 0E da!s salar!6 'c) de&otion in ran1 or salar! or transfer6 or 'd) re&o$al or dis&issal fro& office% The M2SB decision did not in$ol$e dis&issal or se"aration fro& office, rather, the decision e5onerated "etitioner and ordered hi& reinstated to his for&er "osition% The MS2B decision #as not a "ro"er su .ect of a""eal to the +S+% Settled is the rule that a tri unal, oard, or officer e5ercising .udicial functions acts #ithout .urisdiction if no authorit! has een conferred ! la# to hear and decide the case% 9ousin and Land /se Re ulator, Board $9L/RB& S,%DO9,L v& (,:E#, )74. S(!, 66/ 74471 It is not the ordinar! courts ut the National Cousing Authorit! 'NCA) #hich has e5clusi$e .urisdiction to hear and decide cases of, 'a) unsound real estate usiness "ractices6 ' ) clai&s in$ol$ing refund and an! other clai&s filed ! su di$ision lot or condo&iniu& unit u!er against the "ro.ect o#ner, de$elo"er, dealer, ro1er or sales&an6 and 'c) cases in$ol$ing s"ecific "erfor&ance of contractual and statutor! o ligations filed ! u!ers of su di$ision lot or condo&iniu& unit against the DA+TS, Estate De$elo"ers and In$estors +or"oration 'Estate) filed a co&"laint against Nestor Sando$al 'Sando$al) in the RT+ for the collection of un"aid install&ents of a su di$ision lot, "ursuant to a "ro&issor! note, "lus interest% Sando$al alleges that he sus"ended "a!&ents thereof ecause of the failure of the de$elo"er to de$elo" the su di$ision "ursuant to their agree&ent% The RT+ ruled in fa$or of Estate, and ordered Sando$al to "a!% A #rit of e5ecution #as issued #hich thereafter eca&e final and e5ecutor!% Sando$al filed a &otion to $acate .udg&ent and to dis&iss the co&"laint on the ground that the RT+ had no .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter% A &otion for reconsideration of the #rit of e5ecution #as also filed ! "etitioner% Estate o""osed oth &otions% RT+ denied the &otion to $acate for the reason that it is no# e!ond the .urisdiction of the court to do so% A ne# #rit of e5ecution #as issued% Sando$al filed a "etition alleging that the RT+ co&&itted gra$e a use of discretion since the e5clusi$e and original .urisdiction o$er the su .ect4&atter thereof is $ested #ith the Cousing and Land Use Regulator! Board 'CLURB) "ursuant to 2D M>J% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >

ISSUE, #hether the ordinar! courts have .urisdiction over the collection o% unpaid installments regarding a subdivision lot N"1 Under Section ( of 2residential Decree No% M>J the National Cousing Authorit! 'NCA) #as gi$en the e5clusi$e .urisdiction to hear and decide certain cases of the follo#ing nature, 'a) Unsound real estate usiness "ractices, ' ) +lai&s in$ol$ing refund and an! other clai&s filed ! su di$ision lot or condo&iniu& unit u!er against the "ro.ect o#ner, de$elo"er, dealer, ro1er or sales&an6 and 'c) +ases in$ol$ing s"ecific "erfor&ance of contractual and statutor! o ligations filed ! u!ers of su di$ision lot or condo&iniu& unit against the o#ner, de$elo"er, dealer, ro1er or sales&an% The e5clusi$e .urisdiction o$er the case et#een the "etitioner and "ri$ate res"ondent is $ested not on the RT+ ut on the NCA% The NCA #as re4na&ed Cu&an Settle&ents Regulator! +o&&ission and thereafter it #as re4na&ed as the Cousing and Land Use Regulator! Board 'CLURB)% ?INDS "* AC0I"N %1 As to cause or foundation $Personal or Real& The distinction et#een a real action and a "ersonal action is i&"ortant for the "ur"ose of deter&ining the $enue of the action% $a& Personal 2ersonal actions are those other than real actions% 'Sec% /, Rule 7) E amples Action Action Action Action

for s"ecific "erfor&ance for da&ages to real "ro"ert! for declaration of the nullit! of &arriage to co&"el &ortgagee to acce"t "a!&ent of the &ortgage de t and release the &ortgage

$b& Real An action is real #hen it affects title to or "ossession of real "ro"ert!, or an interest therein% 'Sec% (, Rule 7) To e a real action, it is not enough that it deals #ith real "ro"ert!% It is i&"ortant that the &atter in litigation &ust also in$ol$e an! of the follo#ing issues, 'a) Title6 ' ) -#nershi"6 'c) 2ossession6 'd) 2artition6 'e) Doreclosure of &ortgage6 or 'f) An! interest in real "ro"ert! E amples Action to reco$er "ossession of real "ro"ert! "lus da&ages 'da&ages is &erel! incidental) Action to annul or rescind a sale of real "ro"ert! 51 As to ob4ect $In rem, In personam, 8uasi in rem& The distinctions are i&"ortant 'a) to deter&ine #hether the .urisdiction of the defendant is reBuired, and ' ) to deter&ine the t!"e of su&&ons to e e&"lo!ed $a& In rem An action is in rem #hen it is directed against the #hole #orld% It is for the deter&ination of the state or condition of a thing% E amples 2ro ate "roceeding +adastral "roceeding $b& In personam A "roceeding in personam is a "roceeding to enforce "ersonal rights and o ligations rought against the "erson and is ased on the .urisdiction of the "erson% Its "ur"ose is to i&"ose so&e res"onsi ilit! or lia ilit! directl! u"on the "erson of the defendant% In an action in personam, no one other than the defendant is sought to e held lia le% E amples Action for su& of &one! Action for da&ages $c& 8uasi in rem An action -uasi in rem is one #herein an indi$idual is na&ed as defendant and the "ur"ose of the "roceeding is to su .ect his interest therein to the o ligation or lien urdening the "ro"ert!% Such action deals #ith the status, o#nershi" or lia ilit! of a "articular "ro"ert!, ut #hich are intended to o"erate on these Buestions onl! as et#een the "articular "arties to the "roceedings, and not to ascertain or cut4off the rights or interests of all "ossi le clai&ants% N-TE, These rules are ina""lica le in the follo#ing cases, '() Election cases6 S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age =

'/) '0) '7) '>) '=)

Land registration6 +adastral6 NaturaliGation6 Insol$enc! "roceedings6 -ther cases not herein "ro$ided for, e cept con$enient% 'Sec% 7, Rule ()

! analog! or in a su""letor! character, and #hene$er "ractica le and

C"++ENCE+EN0 "* AC0I"N $Sec1 ;, Rule %& A ci$il action is co&&enced ! the filing of the original co&"laint in court, or on the date of the filing of the later "leading if an additional defendant is i&"leaded irres"ecti$e of #hether the &otion for its ad&ission, if necessar!, is denied ! the court% '#ith res"ect onl! to the defendant later i&"leaded) %1 Condition precedent * &atters #hich &ust e co&"lied #ith efore a cause of action arises% When a clai& is su .ect to a condition "recedent, compliance &ust e alleged in the "leading% Dailure to co&"l! #ith a condition "recedent is an inde"endent ground %or a motion to dismiss% 'Sec% ( 8.9, Rule (=) E amples, Tender of "a!&ent efore consignation E5haustion of ad&inistrati$e re&edies 2rior resort to aranga! conciliation "roceedings Earnest efforts to#ards a co&"ro&ise Ar itration "roceedings, #hen contract so "ro$ides ?A0AR/N!AN! PA+BARAN!A6 $RA =%@A& (urpose: To reduce the nu& er of court litigations and "re$ent the deterioration of the Bualit! of .ustice #hich has een rought ! the indiscri&inate filing of cases in the courts% -nl! indi$iduals shall e "arties to NB "roceedings, no .uridical entities% 2arties &ust "ersonall! a""ear in all NB "roceedings and #ithout assistance of counsel or re"resentati$es, e cept for &inors and inco&"etents #ho &a! e assisted ! their ne5t4of41in, not la#!ers% +onciliation "roceedings reBuired is not a .urisdictional reBuire&ent% N-TE, Dailure to undergo the aranga! conciliation "roceedings is non4co&"liance of a condition "recedent% Cence, a &otion to dis&iss a ci$il co&"laint &a! e filed% 'Sec% ( 8.9, Rule (=)% BUT the court &a! not &otu "ro"rio dis&iss the case for failure to undergo conciliation% E%%ect: The a&ia le settle&ent and ar itration a#ard shall ha$e the effect of a final .udg&ent of a court u"on e5"iration of (E da!s fro& date thereof, unless, '() Re"udiation of the settle&ent has een &ade, or '/) 2etition to nullif! the a#ard has een filed efore the "ro"er cit! or &unici"al court E5ecution shall issue u"on e5"iration of (E da!s fro& settle&ent% Local !overnment Code $Secs1 7>>'B55& Sec% 0MM% +upong /agapama!apa% 4 'a) There is here ! created in each aranga! a lu"ong taga"a&a!a"a, 555% 'f) In aranga!s #here &a.orit! of the inha itants are &e& ers of indigenous cultural co&&unities, local s!ste&s of settling dis"utes through their councils of datus or elders shall e recogniGed #ithout "re.udice to the a""lica le "ro$isions of this +ode% Sec% 7E7% (ang2at ng /agapag2asundo% 4 'a) There shall e constituted for each dis"ute conciliation "anel to e 1no#n as the "ang1at ng taga"ag1asundo, 555% rought efore the lu"on a

Sec% 7EJ% +egal Advice on ,atters 3nvolving 4uestions o% +aw % 4 The "ro$incial, cit! legal officer or "rosecutor or the &unici"al legal officer shall render legal ad$ice on &atters in$ol$ing Buestions of la# to the "unong aranga! or an! lu"on or "ang1at &e& er #hene$er necessar! in the e5ercise of his functions in the ad&inistration of the 1atarungang "a& aranga!% Sec% 7EA% Sub.ect ,atter %or Amicable Settlement5 E ception /hereto % < 4 The lu"on of each aranga! shall ha$e authorit! to ring together the "arties actuall! residing in the sa&e cit! or &unici"alit! for a&ica le settle&ent of all dis"utes e5ce"t, 555 'co&"iled ! SC AC %B'>7) Sec% 7EM% 6enue% 4 'a) Dis"utes et#een "ersons actuall! residing in the sa&e settle&ent efore the lu"on of said aranga!% aranga! shall e rought for a&ica le e rought in the

' ) Those in$ol$ing actual residents of different aranga!s #ithin the sa&e cit! or &unici"alit! shall aranga! #here the res"ondent or an! of the res"ondents actuall! resides, at the election of the co&"lainant%

'c) All dis"utes in$ol$ing real "ro"ert! or an! interest therein shall e rought in the aranga! #here the real "ro"ert! or the larger "ortion thereof is situated% 'd) Those arising at the #or1"lace #here the contending "arties are e&"lo!ed or at the institution #here such "arties are enrolled for stud!, shall e rought in the aranga! #here such #or1"lace or institution is located% - .ections to $enue shall e raised in the &ediation "roceedings efore the "unong aranga!6 other#ise, the sa&e shall e dee&ed #ai$ed% An! legal S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age J

Buestion #hich &a! confront the "unong aranga! in resol$ing o .ections to $enue herein referred to &a! Secretar! of :ustice, or his dul! designated re"resentati$e, #hose ruling thereon shall e inding% Rules on #enue %( %/ %0 %7

e su &itted to the

li$ing in the sa&e aranga! < said aranga! li$ing in the different aranga!s #ithin the sa&e cit! or &unici"alit! < aranga! #here the?a res"ondent resides, at the o"tion of the co&"lainant in$ol$ing real "ro"ert! or an! interest therein < #here the real "ro"ert! or the larger "ortion thereof is situated arising at the #or1"lace or at the educational institution < #here such #or1"lace or institution is located

Sec% 7(E% (rocedure %or Amicable Settlement % 4 'a) #ho ma! initiate proceeding 4 U"on "a!&ent of the a""ro"riate filing fee, an! indi$idual #ho has a cause of action against another indi$idual in$ol$ing an! &atter #ithin the authorit! of the lu"on &a! co&"lain, orall! or in #riting, to the lu"on chair&an of the aranga!% ' ) 'EDI,$IO% b! lupon chairman 4 U"on recei"t of the co&"laint, the lu"on chair&an shall #ithin the ne5t #or1ing da! su&&on the res"ondent's), #ith notice to the co&"lainant's) for the& and their #itnesses to a""ear efore hi& for a &ediation of their conflicting interests% If he fails in his &ediation effort #ithin fifteen '(>) da!s fro& the first &eeting of the "arties efore hi&, he shall forth#ith set a date for the constitution of the "ang1at in accordance #ith the "ro$isions of this +ha"ter% 'c) Suspension o% prescriptive period o% o%%enses 4 While the dis"ute is under &ediation, conciliation, or ar itration, the "rescri"ti$e "eriods for offenses and cause of action under e5isting la#s shall e interru"ted u"on filing of the co&"laint #ith the "unong aranga!% The "rescri"ti$e "eriods shall resu&e u"on recei"t ! the co&"lainant of the co&"laint or the certificate of re"udiation or of the certification to file action issued ! the lu"on or "ang1at secretar! , 2ro$ided, ho#e$er, That such interru"tion shall not e5ceed si5t! '=E) da!s fro& the filing of the co&"laint #ith the "unong aranga!% 'd) 3ssuance o% summons5 hearing5 grounds %or dis-uali%ication 4 The "ang1at shall con$ene not later than three '0) da!s fro& its constitution, on the da! and hour set ! the lu"on chair&an, to hear oth "arties and their #itnesses, si&"lif! issues, and e5"lore all "ossi ilities for a&ica le settle&ent% Dor this "ur"ose, the "ang1at &a! issue su&&ons for the "ersonal a""earance of "arties and #itnesses efore it% In the e$ent that a "art! &o$es to disBualif! an! &e& er of the "ang1at ! reason of relationshi", ias, interest, or an! other si&ilar grounds disco$ered after the constitution of the "ang1at, the &atter shall e resol$ed ! the affir&ati$e $ote of the &a.orit! of the "ang1at #hose decision shall e final% Should disBualification e decided u"on, the resulting $acanc! shall e filled as herein "ro$ided for% 'e) (eriod to arrive at a settlement 4 The "ang1at shall arri$e at a settle&ent or resolution of the dis"ute #ithin fifteen '(>) da!s fro& the da! it con$enes in accordance #ith this section% This "eriod shall, at the discretion of the "ang1at, e e5tendi le for another "eriod #hich shall not e5ceed fifteen '(>) da!s, e5ce"t in clearl! &eritorious cases% 7772rocedure for ,mica;le Settlement 777 %( %/ %0 %7 %> %= %J +o&"laint 'need not e in #riting) #ith filing fee to the lu"on chair&an of the aranga! 'interru"ts "rescri"tion for at &ost =E da!s) Lu"on chair&an shall #ithin the ne5t #or1ing da! su&&on the res"ondents, #ith notice to the co&"lainants for the& and their #itnesses to a""ear efore hi& for a &ediation if there is failure to &ediate #ithin (> da!s fro& the first &eeting, "ang1at is constituted 2ang1at con$enes not later than 0 da!s fro& constitution, &a! issue su&&ons In the e$ent that a "art! &o$es to disBualif! an! &e& er of the "ang1at on a ground disco$ered after the constitution, the &atter shall e resol$ed ! the affir&ati$e $ote of the &a.orit! of the "ang1at #hose decision shall e final% Should disBualification e decided u"on, the resulting $acanc! shall e filled% The "ang1at shall arri$e at a settle&ent or resolution of the dis"ute #ithin (> da!s fro& the da! it con$enes, e5tendi le for at &ost (> da!s6 &a! e e5tended further onl! in clearl! &eritorious cases% The "rescri"ti$e "eriods shall resu&e %a u"on recei"t ! the co&"lainant of )( the co&"laint )/ the certificate of repudiation issued ! the lu"on or "ang1at secretar! )0 the certification to file action issued ! the lu"on or "ang1at secretar! % la"se of =E da!s fro& filing of co&"laint #ith the arangga! chair&an

Sec% 7((% $orm o% Settlement% 4 All a&ica le settle&ents shall e in #riting, in a language or dialect 1no#n to the "arties, signed ! the&, and attested to ! the lu"on chair&an or the "ang1at chair&an, as the case &a! e% When the "arties to the dis"ute do not use the sa&e language or dialect, the settle&ent shall e #ritten in the language or dialect 1no#n to the&%

%( %/

in #riting in a language or dialect 1no#n to the

"orm settlementOOO
OOO

of

Sec% 7(/% (O%(ILI,$IO%1 4 'a) (re)condition to $iling o% Complaint in Court% 4 No co&"laint, "etition, action, or "roceeding in$ol$ing an! &atter #ithin the authorit! of the lu"on shall e filed or instituted directl! in court or an! other go$ern&ent office for ad.udication, unless there has een a confrontation et#een the "arties efore the lu"on chair&an or the "ang1at, and that no conciliation or settle&ent has een reached as certified ! the lu"on secretar! or "ang1at secretar! as attested to ! the lu"on or "ang1at chair&an or unless the settle&ent has een re"udiated ! the "arties thereto% ' ) #here (arties ,a! Go *irectl! to Court. < 555 'co&"iled ! SC AC %B'>7) 'c) Conciliation among members o% indigenous cultural communities % 4 The custo&s and traditions of indigenous cultural co&&unities shall e a""lied in settling dis"utes et#een &e& ers of the cultural co&&unities% G&: 2reconditions to filing a co&"laint in court #hen the cause of action #ithin the authorit! of the lu"on, either %( There had een 2age A

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

%a % %c %/

confrontation efore the lu"on chair&an or the "ang1at, no conciliation or settle&ent has een reached, and certification ! the lu"on or "ang1at secretar! as attested to settle&ent has een reached ! the lu"on or "ang1at chair&an that no conciliation or

or, settle&ent has een re"udiated ! the "arties thereto

Sec% 7(0% ,!#I$!,$IO%1 4 'a) The "arties &a!, at an! stage of the "roceedings, agree in #riting that the! shall a ide ! the ar itration a#ard of the lu"on chair&an or the "ang1at% Such agree&ent to ar itrate &a! e re"udiated #ithin fi$e '>) da!s fro& the date thereof for the sa&e grounds and in accordance #ith the "rocedure hereinafter "rescri ed% The ar itration a#ard shall e &ade after the la"se of the "eriod for re"udiation and #ithin ten '(E) da!s thereafter% ' ) The ar itration a#ard shall e in #riting in a language or dialect 1no#n to the "arties% When the "arties to the dis"ute do not use the sa&e language or dialect, the a#ard shall e #ritten in the language or dialect 1no#n to the&% Agree&ent to ar itrate &ust e in #riting% &epudiation o% (% /% 0% Agree&ent to ar itrate < #ithin > da!s fro& agree&ent to ar itrate 'Sec% 7(0) Ar itration a#ard < #ithin (E da!s, action for annul&ent of ar itration a#ard #ith the MT+ 'Sec% 7(=) A&ica le settle&ent < #ithin (E da!s ! an affida$it filed #ith the lu"on chair&an 'Sec% 7(A)

Sec% 7(7% (roceedings 8pen to the (ublic5 E ception. 4 All "roceedings for settle&ent shall e "u lic and infor&al, 2ro$ided, ho#e$er, That the lu"on chair&an or the "ang1at chair&an, as the case &a! e, &a! &otu "ro"rio or u"on reBuest of a "art!, e5clude the "u lic fro& the "roceedings in the interest of "ri$ac!, decenc!, or "u lic &orals% Sec% 7(>% Appearance o% (arties in (erson. 4 In all 1atarungang "a& aranga! "roceedings, the "arties &ust a""ear in "erson #ithout the assistance of counsel or re"resentati$e, e5ce"t for &inors and inco&"etents #ho &a! e assisted ! their ne5t4of41in #ho are not la#!ers% Sec% 7(=% E%%ect o% Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. 4 The a&ica le settle&ent and ar itration a#ard shall ha$e the force and effect of a final .udg&ent of a court u"on the e5"iration of ten '(E) da!s fro& the date thereof, unless re"udiation of the settle&ent has een &ade or a "etition to nullif! the a#ard has een filed efore the "ro"er cit! or &unici"al court% Co#e$er, this "ro$ision shall not a""l! to court cases settled ! the lu"on under the last "aragra"h of Section 7EA of this +ode 'non4cri&inal cases not #ithin the lu"on3s authorit! referred ! a court) , in #hich case the co&"ro&ise settle&ent agreed u"on ! the "arties efore the lu"on chair&an or the "ang1at chair&an shall e su &itted to the court and u"on a""ro$al thereof, ha$e the force and effect of a .udg&ent of said court% Sec% 7(J% E ecution% 4 The a&ica le settle&ent or ar itration a#ard &a! e enforced ! e5ecution ! the lu"on #ithin si5 '=) &onths fro& the date of the settle&ent% After the la"se of such ti&e, the settle&ent &a! e enforced ! action in the a""ro"riate cit! or &unici"al court% 777E ecution o% an amicable settlement or arbitration award in 91777 %( %/ ! &otion ! the lu"on < #ithin = &onths fro& date of settle&ent ! action efore the inferior courts < after = &onths fro& date of settle&ent

Sec% 7(A% &epudiation% 4 An! "art! to the dis"ute &a!, #ithin ten '(E) da!s fro& the date of the settle&ent, re"udiate the sa&e ! filing #ith the lu"on chair&an a state&ent to that effect s#orn to efore hi&, #here the consent is $itiated ! fraud, $iolence, or inti&idation% Such re"udiation shall e sufficient asis for the issuance of the certification for filing a co&"laint as hereina o$e "ro$ided% Grounds %or repudiation o% settlement , consent $itiated ! fraud, $iolence, or inti&idation Sec% 7(M% /ransmittal o% Settlement and Arbitration Award to the Court % 4 The secretar! of the lu"on shall trans&it the settle&ent or the ar itration a#ard to the a""ro"riate cit! or &unici"al court #ithin fi$e '>) da!s fro& the date of the a#ard or fro& the la"se of the ten4da! "eriod re"udiating the settle&ent and shall furnish co"ies thereof to each of the "arties to the settle&ent and the lu"on chair&an% Sec% 7/E% (ower to Administer 8aths% 4 The "unong aranga!, as chair&an of the lu"ong taga"a&a!a"a, and the &e& ers of the "ang1at are here ! authoriGed to ad&inister oaths in connection #ith an! &atter relating to all "roceedings in the i&"le&entation of the 1atarungang "a& aranga!%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age M

A1 S/PRE+E C"/R0 AD+INIS0RA0I#E CIRC/LAR N"1 %B'>7 bac(

I% All dis"utes are su .ect to Baranga! conciliation "ursuant to the Re$ised Natarungang 2a& aranga! La# 555, and "rior recourse thereto is a "re4condition efore filing a co&"laint in court or an! go$ern&ent offices, e5ce"t in the follo#ing dis"utes, (% Where one "art! is the go$ern&ent, or an! su di$ision or instru&entalit! thereof6 /% Where one "art! is a "u lic officer or e&"lo!ee, and the dis"ute relates to the "erfor&ance of his official functions6 0% Where the dis"ute in$ol$es real "ro"erties located in different cities and &unici"alities, unless the "arties thereto agree to su &it their difference to a&ica le settle&ent ! an a""ro"riate Lu"on6 7% An! co&"laint ! or against cor"orations, "artnershi" or .uridical entities, since onl! indi$iduals shall e "arties to Baranga! conciliation "roceedings either as co&"lainants or res"ondents 'Sec% (, Rule VI, Natarungang 2a& aranga! Rules)6 >% Dis"utes in$ol$ing "arties #ho actuall! reside in aranga!s of different cities or &unici"alities, e5ce"t #here such aranga! units ad.oin each other and the "arties thereto agree to su &it their differences to a&ica le settle&ent ! an a""ro"riate Lu"on6 =% -ffenses for #hich the la# "rescri es a &a5i&u& "enalt! of i&"rison&ent e5ceeding one '() !ear or a fine o$er fi$e thousand "esos '2>,EEE%EE)6 J% -ffenses #here there is no "ri$ate offended "art!6 A% Dis"utes #here urgent legal action is necessar! to "re$ent in.ustice fro& s"ecificall! the follo#ing, eing co&&itted or further continued,

a% +ri&inal cases #here accused is under "olice custod! or detention 'see Sec% 7(/ ' ) '(), Re$ised Natarungang 2a& aranga! La#)6 % 2etitions for ha eas cor"us ! a "erson illegall! de"ri$ed of his rightful custod! o$er another or a "erson illegall! de"ri$ed or on acting in his ehalf6 c% Actions cou"led #ith "ro$isional re&edies such as "reli&inar! in.unction, attach&ent, deli$er! of "ersonal "ro"ert! and su""ort during the "endenc! of the action6 and d% Actions #hich &a! e arred ! the Statute of Li&itations% M% An! class of dis"utes #hich the 2resident &a! deter&ine in the interest of .ustice or u"on the reco&&endation of the Secretar! of :ustice6 (E% Where the dis"ute arises fro& the +o&"rehensi$e Agrarian Refor& La# '+ARL) 'Sec% 7= P 7J, R%A% ==>J)6 ((% La or dis"utes or contro$ersies arising fro& e&"lo!er4e&"lo!ee relations 'Monto!a $s% Esca!o, et al%, (J( S+RA LU'#U,% v& !O%<UILLO )*84 S(!, -+./ 0..-1 While ad&ittedl! no pang2at #as constituted, the "arties &et at the office of the Baranga! +hair&an for "ossi le settle&ent% The act of Lu& uan in raising the &atter to the 9atarungang (ambaranga! and the su seBuent confrontation of the lessee and lessor efore the +upon +hair&an or the pang2at is sufficient co&"liance #ith the "recondition for filing the case in court% DA+TS, Lu& uan 'lessor) leased a lot to res"ondent RonBuillo 'lessee) for 0 !ears at a rental of 2>EEE?&onth% The! agreed that, 'a) there #ill e an annual (EQ increase in rent for the ne5t / !ears6 and ' ) the leased "re&ises shall e used onl! for lessee3s fastfood usiness% RonBuillo failed to a ide ! the conditions, and refused to "a! or $acate the leased "re&ises des"ite Lu& uan3s re"eated $er al de&ands% Lu& uan referred the &atter to the Baranga! +hair&an3s -ffice ut no a&ica le settle&ent #as reached% The aranga! chair&an issued a +ertificate to Dile Action% Lu& uan filed an action for Unla#ful Detainer #ith MeT+ of Manila #hich ordered res"ondent RonBuillo to $acate the leased "re&ises and to "a! 27=,EEE as un"aid rentals% RT+ set aside the MeT+ decision and directed the "arties to go ac1 to the Lu"on +hair&an or 2unong Baranga! for further "roceedings and to co&"l! strictl! #ith the condition that should the "arties fail to reach an a&ica le settle&ent, the entire case #ill e re&anded to the MeT+ for it to decide the case ane#% The +A re$ersed the RT+ and ordered the dis&issal of the e.ect&ent case, ruling that #hen a co&"laint is "re&aturel! instituted, as #hen the &andator! &ediation and conciliation in the aranga! le$el had not een co&"lied #ith, the court should dis&iss the case and not .ust re&and the records to the court of origin so that the "arties &a! go through the "rereBuisite "roceedings% ISSUE, #hether the CA properl! dismissed complaint %or %ailure o% the parties to compl! with the mandator! mediation and conciliation proceedings in the baranga! level N"1 It should e noted that although no pang2at #as for&ed since no a&ica le settle&ent #as reached ! the "arties efore the Natarungang 2a& aranga!, there #as su stantial co&"liance #ith Section 7(/'a) of R%A% J(=E% While ad&ittedl! no pang2at #as constituted, the "arties &et at the office of the Baranga! +hair&an for "ossi le settle&ent% There !, the act of "etitioner Lu& uan in raising the &atter to the Natarungang 2a& aranga! and the su seBuent confrontation of the lessee and lessor efore the +upon +hair&an or the pang2at is sufficient co&"liance #ith the "recondition for filing the case in court% This is true not#ithstanding the &andate of Section 7(E' ) of the sa&e la# that the Baranga! +hair&an shall constitute a pang2at if he fails in his &ediation efforts% Section 7(E' ) should e construed together #ith Section 7(/, as #ell as the circu&stances o taining in and "eculiar to the case% -n this score, it is significant that the Baranga! +hair&an or (unong Baranga! is herself the +hair&an of the Lu"on under the Local Fo$ern&ent +ode% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age (E

51 Pa,ment of filin fee 2a!&ent of the "rescri ed doc1et fee $ests a trial court #ith .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter or nature of the action% The court acBuires .urisdiction upon pa!ment of the correct doc1et fees% All co&"laints, "etitions, ans#ers, and si&ilar "leadings &ust s"ecif! the a&ount of da&ages eing "ra!ed for, oth in the bod! of the "leadings and in the assessment o% the %iling %ees% ,anchester v. CA, An! defect in the original "leading resulting in under"a!&ent of the doc1et fee cannot e cured ! a&end&ent, and for all legal "ur"oses, the court acBuired no .urisdiction in such case% BUT non"a!&ent of filing fees does not automaticall! cause the dis&issal of the case% The fee &a! e "aid #ithin the a""lica le "rescri"ti$e or regle&entar! "eriod% EI!S O" #E!$ULDO I%OG v& 'ELI(O! )*++ S(!, *-./ 0..+1 Non4"a!&ent at the ti&e of filing does not auto&aticall! cause the dis&issal of the case, as long as the fee is "aid #ithin the a""lica le "rescri"ti$e or regle&entar! "eriod, &ore so #hen the "art! in$ol$ed de&onstrates a #illingness to a ide ! the rules "rescri ing such "a!&ent% Thus, #hen insufficient filing fees #ere initiall! "aid ! the "laintiffs and there #as no DA+TS, Res"ondents filed a co&"laint against Bertuldo for reco$er! of o#nershi" of the "re&ises leased ! the latter% Bertuldo alleged o#nershi" of the "ro"ert! ! $irtue of a Deed of A solute Sale% Bertuldo died #ithout co&"leting his e$idence during the direct e5a&ination% Att!% 2etalcorin re"laced the original counsel and filed a &otion to e5"unge the co&"laint fro& the record and nullif! all court "roceedings on the ground that "ri$ate res"ondents failed to s"ecif! in the co&"laint the a&ount of da&ages clai&ed as needed to "a! the correct doc1et fees, and that under ,anchester doctrine, non4"a!&ent of the correct doc1et fee is .urisdictional% ISSUE, #hether the nonpa!ment o% the correct doc2et %ee is .urisdictional in the present case N"1 While the "a!&ent of the "rescri ed doc1et fee is a .urisdictional reBuire&ent, e$en its non4"a!&ent at the ti&e of filing does not auto&aticall! cause the dis&issal of the case, as long as the fee is "aid #ithin the a""lica le "rescri"ti$e or regle&entar! "eriod, &ore so #hen the "art! in$ol$ed de&onstrates a #illingness to a ide ! the rules "rescri ing such "a!&ent% Thus, #hen insufficient filing fees #ere initiall! "aid ! the "laintiffs and there #as no intention to defraud the go$ern&ent, the ,anchester rule does not a""l!% SU% I%SU!,%(E O""I(E v& ,SU%(IO% )76. S(!, 06*/ 74841 Where the filing of the initiator! "leading is not acco&"anied ! "a!&ent of the doc1et fee, the court &a! allo# "a!&ent of the fee #ithin a reasona le ti&e ut in no case e!ond the a""lica le "rescri"ti$e or regle&entar! "eriod% Where the trial court acBuires .urisdiction o$er a clai& ! the filing of the "leading and "a!&ent of "rescri ed filing fees ut the .udg&ent a#ards a clai& not s"ecified in the "leading, or if s"ecified the sa&e has een left for the court3s deter&ination, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the .udg&ent% It shall e the res"onsi ilit! of the +ler1 of +ourt or his dul! DA+TS Sun Insurance -ffice, Ltd% 'SI-L) filed a co&"laint against U! for the consignation of a "re&iu& refund on a fire insurance "olic! #ith a "ra!er for the .udicial declaration of its nullit!% U! #as declared in default for failure to file the reBuired ans#er #ithin the regle&entar! "eriod% U! filed a co&"laint in the RT+ for the refund of "re&iu&s and the issuance of a #rit of "reli&inar! attach&ent initiall! against "etitioner SI-L, ut thereafter included 2hili""s and War ! as additional defendants% The co&"laint sought the "a!&ent of actual, co&"ensator!, &oral, e5e&"lar! and liBuidated da&ages, attorne!Rs fees, e5"enses of litigation and costs of the suit% Although the "ra!er in the co&"laint did not Buantif! the a&ount of da&ages sought said a&ount &a! e inferred fro& the od! of the co&"laint to e a out 2>E,EEE,EEE% U! "aid onl! 2/(E%EE as doc1et fee, #hich "ro&"ted "etitionersR counsel to raise his o .ection for under4assess&ent of doc1et fees% 2etitioners allege that #hile U! had "aid 2(A/,A/7%ME as doc1et fee, and considering that the total a&ount sought in the a&ended and su""le&ental co&"laint is 2=7,=E(,=/0%JE, the doc1et fee that should e "aid ! "ri$ate res"ondent is 2/>J,A(E%7M, &ore or less% Not ha$ing "aid the sa&e, "etitioners contend that the co&"laint should e dis&issed and all incidents arising therefro& should e annulled% ISSUE, #hether or not a court ac-uires .urisdiction over case when the correct and proper doc2et %ee has not !et been paid 6ES1 Where the filing of the initiator! "leading is not acco&"anied ! "a!&ent of the doc1et fee, the court &a! allo# "a!&ent of the fee #ithin a reasona le ti&e ut in no case e!ond the a""lica le "rescri"ti$e or regle&entar! "eriod% Where the trial court acBuires .urisdiction o$er a clai& ! the filing of the a""ro"riate "leading and "a!&ent of the "rescri ed filing fee ut, su seBuentl!, the .udg&ent a#ards a clai& not s"ecified in the "leading, or if s"ecified the sa&e has een left for deter&ination ! the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the .udg&ent% It shall e the res"onsi ilit! of the +ler1 of +ourt or his dul! authoriGed de"ut! to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee% The sa&e rule a""lies to "er&issi$e counterclai&s, third "art! clai&s and si&ilar "leadings, #hich shall not e considered filed until and unless the filing fee "rescri ed therefore is "aid%

CA/SE "* AC0I"N $R/LE 5& Cause of Action A cause of action is the act or o&ission ! #hich a "art! $iolates the rights of another% 'Sec% /, Rule /) S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age ((

E$er! ordinar! ci$il action &ust e ased on a cause of action% 'Sec% (, Rule /) Ele&ents, '() A legal right in fa$or of the "laintiff6 '/) A correlati$e o ligation on the "art of the na&ed defendant to res"ect or to not $iolate such right6 and '0) Act or o&ission on the "art of defendant in $iolation of the right of the "laintiff, or constituting a reach of the o ligation of the defendant to the "laintiff for #hich the latter &a! &aintain an action for reco$er! of da&ages or other a""ro"riate relief% Distin uis)ed from ri )t of action +ause of action is the reason for ringing an action, the for&al state&ent of o"erati$e facts gi$ing rise to a re&edial right, and is go$erned ! "rocedural la#% A right of action is the re&ed! for ringing an action and is solel! de"endent on su stanti$e la#% Ri )t of action, elements '() There &ust e a good cause6 '/) A co&"liance #ith all the conditions "recedent to the ringing of the action6 and '0) The action &ust e instituted ! the "ro"er "art!% Splittin a cause of action S"litting of cause of action is the act of di$iding a single or indi$isi le cause of action into se$eral "arts or clai&s and ringing se$eral actions thereon% A "art! &a! not institute &ore than one suit for a single cause of action% 'Sec% 0, Rule /) If t#o or &ore suits are instituted on the asis of the sa&e cause of action, the filing of one or a .udg&ent u"on the &erits in an! one is a$aila le as a ground for the dis&issal of the others% 'Sec% 7, Rule /) A""lies also to counterclai&s and cross4clai&s% E amples Single cause o% action :Cannot be %iled separatel!; A suit for the reco$er! of land and a se"arate suit to reco$er the fruits Action to reco$er da&ages to "erson and action for da&ages to sa&e "erson3s car Action for reco$er! of ta5es and action to de&and surcharges resulting fro& delinBuenc! in "a!&ent of said ta5es Action to collect de t and to foreclose &ortgage Action for "artition and action for the reco$er! of co&"ensation on the i&"ro$e&ents Action for annul&ent of sale and action to reco$er di$idends *istinct causes o% action :separate %iling allowed; Action for recon$e!ance of title o$er "ro"ert! and action for forci le entr! or unla#ful detainer Action for da&ages to a car in a $ehicular accident, and another action for da&ages for in.uries to a "assenger other than the o#ner of the car Action to collect loan and action for rescission of &ortgage Action ased on reach of contract of carriage and action ased on Buasi4delict =OSE2 v& #,U$IS$, )76. S(!, +*./ 74841 Where there is onl! one delict or #rong, there is ut a single cause of action regardless of the nu& er of rights that &a! ha$e een $iolated elonging to one "erson% Ne$ertheless, if onl! one in.ur! resulted fro& se$eral #rongful acts, onl! one cause of action arises% DA+TS, :ose"h, "etitioner, oarded 2ereG3s cargo truc1 #ith a load of li$estoc1% At the high#a!, the truc1 dri$er o$ertoo1 a tric!cle ut hit a &ango tree #hen a "ic14u" truc1 tried to o$erta1e hi& at the sa&e ti&e% This resulted to the one fracture of the "etitioner3s leg% 2etitioner filed a co&"laint for da&ages against 2ereG, as o#ner, ased on a reach of contract of carriage, and against Sioson and Villanue$a, the o#ner and dri$er of the "ic14u" truc1, ased on Buasi4delict% 2etitioner i&"leaded 2agarigan and Vargas, since he could not ascertain #ho the real o#ners of the "ic14u" truc1 and the cargo truc1 #ere% 2ereG filed a cross4clai& against the other res"ondents for inde&nit!, in the e$ent that she is ordered to "a!% The other res"ondents "aid "etitionerRs clai& for in.uries, so the! #ere released fro& lia ilit!% The! also "aid 2ereG for her clai& of da&ages% The! thereafter filed a Motion to E5onerate and E5clude the&sel$es since the!3$e alread! "aid :ose"h ! #a! of a&ica le settle&ent and 2ereG3s clai& for da&ages% 2ereG filed an -""osition to the &otion since the release of clai& e5ecuted ! "etitioner in fa$or of the other res"ondents allegedl! inured to his enefit% RT+ dis&issed the case% ISSUE, #hether the .udgment on the compromise agreement under the cause o% action based on -uasi)delict is a bar to the cause o% action %or breach o% contract o% carriage 6ES1 A single act or o&ission can e $iolati$e of $arious rights at the sa&e ti&e, as #hen the act constitutes a .uridical a $iolation of se$eral se"arate and distinct legal o ligations% Co#e$er, #here there is onl! one delict or #rong, there is ut a

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age (/

single cause of action regardless of the nu& er of rights that &a! ha$e een $iolated elonging to one "erson% Ne$ertheless, if onl! one in.ur! resulted fro& se$eral #rongful acts, onl! one cause of action arises% There is no Buestion that "etitioner sustained a single in.ur! on his "erson, #hich $ested in hi& a single cause of action, al eit #ith the correlati$e rights of action against the different res"ondents through the a""ro"riate re&edies allo#ed ! la#% -nl! one cause of action #as in$ol$ed although the ases of reco$er! in$o1ed ! "etitioner against the defendants therein #ere not necessaril! identical since the res"ondents #ere not identicall! circu&stanced% DEL !OS,!IO v& "E#$( )+56 S(!, +67/ 0..61 It is #ell esta lished, ho#e$er, that a "art! cannot, ! $ar!ing the for& of action or ado"ting a different &ethod of "resenting his case, or ! "leading .ustifia le circu&stances as herein "etitioners are doing, esca"e the o"eration of the "rinci"le that one and the sa&e cause of action shall not e t#ice litigated% DA+TS, 2D+2 e5tended a 27%7 &illion loan to DATI+-R, #hich that DATI+-R shall "a!, a ser$ice fee of (Q "er annu& 'later increased =Q "er annu&) on the outstanding alance6 (/Q "er annu& interest6 and "enalt! charges /Q "er &onth in case of default% The loans #ere secured ! real estate &ortgages o$er si5 '=) "arcels of land and chattel &ortgages o$er &achiner! and eBui"&ent% DATI+-R "aid a total of 20 &illion to 2D+2, #hich the latter a""lied to interest, ser$ice fees and "enalt! charges% This left the& #ith an outstanding alance of 2(E &illion according to 2D+23s co&"utation% DATI+-R filed a co&"laint against 2D+2 for $iolation of the Usur! La# and annul&ent of contract and da&ages% The +DI dis&issed the co&"laint% The IA+ set aside the dis&issal and declared $oid and of no effect the sti"ulation of interest in the loan agree&ent% 2D+2 a""ealed the IA+Rs decision to S+% In the interi&, 2D+2 assigned a "ortion of its recei$a les fro& DATI+-R to DEBT+ for of 2>%7 M% DEBT+ and DATI+-R, in a M-A, agreed to 2=%7 &illion as full settle&ent of the recei$a les% S+ affir&ed in toto the decision of the IA+, nullif!ing the sti"ulation of interests% DATI+-R thus filed a +o&"laint for su& of &one! against 2D+2 and DEBT+ to reco$er the e5cess "a!&ent #hich the! co&"uted to e 2>%0 &illion% RT+ ordered 2D+2 to "a! "etitioners 27%E0> &illion, to ear interest at (/Q "er annu& until full! "aid6 to release or cancel the &ortgages and to return the corres"onding titles to "etitioners6 and to "a! the costs of the suit% RT+ dis&issed the co&"laint against DEBT+ for lac1 of cause of action since the M-A et#een "etitioners and DEBT+ #as not su .ect to S+ decision, DEBT+ not eing a "art! thereto% 2etitioners and 2D+2 a""ealed to the +A, #hich held that "etitionersR outstanding o ligation 'deter&ined to e onl! 2(%7 &illion) could not e increased or decreased ! an! act of the creditor 2D+2, and held that #hen 2D+2 assigned its recei$a les, the a&ount "a!a le to it ! DATI+-R #as the sa&e a&ount "a!a le to assignee DEBT+, irres"ecti$e of an! sti"ulation that 2D+2 and DEBT+ &ight ha$e "ro$ided in the Deed of Assign&ent, DATI+-R not ha$ing een a "art! thereto, hence, not ound ! its ter&s% B! the "rinci"le of solutio indebiti, the +A held that DEBT+ #as ound to refund DATI+-R the e5cess "a!&ent of 2> &illion it recei$ed6 and that DEBT+ could reco$er fro& 2D+2 the 27%E0> &illion for the o$er"a!&ent for the assigned recei$a les% But since DATI+-R clai&ed in its co&"laint onl! of 2M=>,EEE fro& DEBT+, the latter #as ordered to "a! the& onl! that a&ount% 2etitioners filed efore the RT+ another +o&"laint against DEBT+ to reco$er the alance of the e5cess "a!&ent of 27%00> &illion% The trial court dis&issed "etitionersR co&"laint on the ground of res .udicata and s"litting of cause of action% It recalled that "etitioners had filed an action to reco$er the alleged o$er"a!&ent oth fro& 2D+2 and DEBT+ and that the +A Decision, ordering 2D+2 to release and cancel the &ortgages and DEBT+ to "a! 2M=>,EEE #ith interest eca&e final and e5ecutor!% ISSUE, #hether $E1/C can be held liable %or the balance o% the overpa!ment o% (<.33= million plus interest which petitioners previousl! claimed against (*C( in a previousl! decided case N"1 A cause of action is the delict or the #rongful act or o&ission co&&itted ! the defendant in $iolation of the "ri&ar! rights of the "laintiff% In the t#o cases, "etitioners i&"uted to DEBT+ the sa&e alleged #rongful act of &ista1enl! recei$ing and refusing to return an a&ount in e5cess of #hat #as due it in $iolation of their right to a refund% The sa&e facts and e$idence "resented in the first case #ere the $er! sa&e facts and e$idence that "etitioners "resented in the second case% A "art! cannot, ! $ar!ing the for& of action or ado"ting a different &ethod of "resenting his case, or ! "leading .ustifia le circu&stances as herein "etitioners are doing, esca"e the o"eration of the "rinci"le that one and the sa&e cause of action shall not e t#ice litigated% S+ held that to allo# the re4litigation of an issue that #as finall! settled as et#een "etitioners and DEBT+ in the "rior case is to allo# the s"litting of a cause of action, a ground for dis&issal under Section 7 of Rule / of the Rules of +ourt% This rule "roscri es a "art! fro& di$iding a single or indi$isi le cause of action into se$eral "arts or clai&s and instituting t#o or &ore actions ased on it% Because the "laintiff cannot di$ide the grounds for reco$er!, he is &andated to set forth in his first action e$er! ground for relief #hich he clai&s to e5ist and u"on #hich he relies6 he cannot e "er&itted to rel! u"on the& ! "iece&eal in successi$e actions to reco$er for the sa&e #rong or in.ur!% Both the rules on res .udicata and s"litting of causes of action are ased on the salutar! "u lic "olic! against unnecessar! &ulti"licit! of suits*interest reipublicae ut sit %inis litium% Re4litigation of &atters alread! settled ! a courtRs final .udg&ent &erel! urdens the courts and the ta5"a!ers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and #astes $alua le ti&e and energ! that could e de$oted to #orthier cases% 2!OG!ESSI9E DE9ELO2'E%$ (O!2& v& (, )5.7 S(!, 5-6/ 74471 S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age (0

When a single delict or #rong is co&&itted * li1e the unla#ful ta1ing or detention of the "ro"ert! of another * there is ut one single cause of action regardless of the nu& er of rights that &a! ha$e een $iolated, and all such rights should e alleged in a single co&"laint as constituting one single cause of action% In a forci le entr! case, the real issue is the "h!sical "ossession of the real "ro"ert!% The Buestion of da&ages is &erel! secondar! or incidental, so &uch so that the a&ount thereof does not affect the .urisdiction of the court% In other #ords, the unla#ful act of a deforciant in ta1ing "ossession of a "iece of land ! &eans of force and inti&idation against the rights of the "art! actuall! in "ossession thereof is a delict or #rong, or a cause of action that ives rise to two $5& remedies , na&el!, the reco$er! of "ossession and reco$er! of da&ages arising fro& the loss of "ossession, but onl, to one action% Dor o $ious reasons, bot) remedies cannot be t)e sub4ect of two $5& separate and independent actions , one for reco$er! of "ossession onl!, and the other, for DA+TS, 2D+ leased to Westin a "arcel of land #ith a co&&ercial uilding for M !ears and 0 &onths, #ith a &onthl! rental of a""ro5i&atel! 2=EE,EEE% Westin failed to "a! rentals des"ite se$eral de&ands% The arrearages a&ounted to 2A,=M% 2D+ re"ossessed the leased "re&ises, in$entoried the &o$a le "ro"erties found #ithin and o#ned ! Westin, and scheduled a "u lic auction for the sale of the &o$a les, #ith notice to Westin% Westin filed a forci le entr! case #ith the MeT+ against 2D+ for #ith da&ages and a "ra!er for a te&"orar! restraining order and?or #rit of "reli&inar! in.unction% A TR- en.oined 2D+ fro& selling WestinRs "ro"erties% At the continuation of the hearing, the "arties agreed, a&ong others, that Westin #ould de"osit #ith the 2+IB 'Ban1) 2AM to guarantee "a!&ent of its ac1 rentals% Westin did not co&"l! #ith its underta1ing, and instead, #ith the forci le entr! case still "ending, Westin instituted another action for da&ages against 2D+ #ith the RT+% The forci le entr! case had as its cause of action the alleged unla#ful entr! ! 2D+ into the leased "re&ises out of #hich three '0) reliefs arose, 'a) the restoration ! 2D+ of "ossession of the leased "re&ises to the lessee6 ' ) the clai& for actual da&ages due to losses suffered ! Westin6 and, 'c) the clai& for attorne!3s fees and cost of suit% -n the other hand, the co&"laint for da&ages "ra!s for a &onetar! a#ard consisting of &oral and e5e&"lar! da&ages6 actual da&ages and co&"ensator! da&ages re"resenting unrealiGed "rofits6 and, attorne!Rs fees and costs, all ased on the alleged forci le ta1eo$er of the leased "re&ises ! 2D+% 2D+ filed a &otion to dis&iss the da&age suit on the ground of litis pendencia and foru& sho""ing% The RT+, instead of ruling on the &otion, archi$ed the case "ending the outco&e of the forci le entr! case% Westin filed #ith the RT+ an a&ended co&"laint for da&ages, #hich #as granted% It also filed an Urgent E542arte Motion for the Issuance of a TR- and Motion for the Frant of a 2reli&inar! 2rohi itor! and 2reli&inar! Mandator! In.unction, #hich #ere all granted% 2D+3s &otion to dis&iss #as denied% Thus, 2D+ filed #ith the +A a s"ecial ci$il action for certiorari and "rohi ition% But the +A dis&issed the "etition% It clarified that since the da&ages "ra!ed for in the a&ended co&"laint #ith the RT+ #ere those caused ! the alleged high4 handed &anner #ith #hich 2D+ reacBuired "ossession of the leased "re&ises and the sale of WestinRs &o$a les found therein, the RT+ and not the MeT+ had .urisdiction o$er the action of da&ages% ISSUE, #hether #estin ma! institute a separate suit %or damages with the &/C a%ter having instituted an action %or %orcible entr! with damages with the ,e/C N"1 Sec% ( of Rule JE of the Rules of +ourt "ro$ides that all cases for forci le entr! or unla#ful detainer shall e filed efore the MT+ #hich shall include not onl! the "lea for restoration of "ossession ut also all clai&s for da&ages and costs arising therefro&% -ther#ise e5"ressed, no clai& for da&ages arising out of forci le entr! or unla#ful detainer &a! e filed se"aratel! and inde"endentl! of the clai& for restoration of "ossession% Under Sec1 7 of Rule 5 of the Re$ised Rules of +ourt, as a&ended, a "art! &a! not institute &ore than one suit for a single cause of action% Under Sec1 B of t)e same Rule, if t#o or &ore suits are instituted on the asis of the sa&e cause of action, the filing of one or a .udg&ent u"on the &erits in an! one is a$aila le as a ground for the dis&issal of the other or others% WestinRs cause of action in the forci le entr! case and in the suit for da&ages is the alleged illegal reta1ing of "ossession of the leased "re&ises ! 2D+ fro& #hich all legal reliefs arise% Si&"l! stated, the restoration of "ossession and de&and for actual da&ages in the case efore the MeT+ and the de&and for da&ages #ith the RT+ oth arise fro& the sa&e cause of action, i%e%, the forci le entr! ! 2D+ into the least "re&ises% The other clai&s for &oral and e5e&"lar! da&ages cannot succeed considering that these s"rung fro& the &ain incident eing heard efore the MeT+% :uris"rudence sa!s that #hen a single delict or #rong is co&&itted * li1e the unla#ful ta1ing or detention of the "ro"ert! of the another * there is ut one single cause of action regardless of the nu& er of rights that &a! ha$e een $iolated, and all such rights should e alleged in a single co&"laint as constituting one single cause of action% In a forci le entr! case, the real issue is the "h!sical "ossession of the real "ro"ert!% The Buestion of da&ages is &erel! secondar! or incidental, so &uch so that the a&ount thereof does not affect the .urisdiction of the court% In other #ords, the unla#ful act of a deforciant in ta1ing "ossession of a "iece of land ! &eans of force and inti&idation against the rights of the "art! actuall! in "ossession thereof is a delict or #rong, or a cause of action that gi$es rise to t#o '/) re&edies, na&el!, the reco$er! of "ossession and reco$er! of da&ages arising fro& the loss of "ossession, S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age (7

ut onl! to one action% Dor o $ious reasons, oth re&edies cannot e the su .ect of t#o '/) se"arate and inde"endent actions, one for reco$er! of "ossession onl!, and the other, for the reco$er! of da&ages% That #ould ine$ita l! lead to #hat is ter&ed in la# as s"litting u" a cause of action% What then is the effect of the dis&issal of the other actionS Since the rule is that all such rights should e alleged in a single co&"laint, it goes #ithout sa!ing that those not therein included cannot e the su .ect of su seBuent co&"laints for the! are arred fore$er% If a suit is rought for a "art of a clai&, a .udg&ent o tained in that action "recludes the "laintiff fro& ringing a second action for the residue of the clai&, not#ithstanding that the second for& of action is not identical #ith the first or different grounds for relief are set for the second suit% This "rinci"le not onl! e& races #hat #as actuall! deter&ined, ut also e5tends to e$er! &atter #hich the "arties &ight ha$e litigated in the case% This is #h! the legal asis u"on #hich Westin anchored its second clai& for da&ages, i%e%, Art% (=>M in relation to Art% (=>7 of the +i$il +ode, not other#ise raised and cited ! Westin in the forci le entr! case, cannot e used as .ustification for the second suit for da&ages% (G! (O!2& 9& $!E>ES )+00 S(!, 6-+/ 0..61 2etitioners3 filing of an inde"endent action for da&ages grounded on the alleged destruction of +FR3s "ro"ert!, other than those sustained as a result of dis"ossession in the Dorci le Entr! case could not e considered as s"litting of a cause of action% DA+TS, +FR +or"oration, Cer&an Benedicto and Al erto Benedicto, "etitioners, clai& to ha$e occu"ied 0J ha% of "u lic land in Negros -ccidental, "ursuant to a lease agree&ent granted to the& ! the Secretar! of Agriculture for a "eriod of /> !ears 'to last -cto er /EEE to Dece& er /E/7)% -n No$e& er /EEE, ho#e$er, res"ondent Tre!es allegedl! forci l! and unla#full! entered the leased "re&ises and arricaded the entrance to the fish"onds of the "etitioners% Tre!es and his &en also har$ested tons of &il1fish and fingerlings fro& the "etitioners3 "onds% 2etitioners then filed a co&"laint for $orcible Entr! #ith the MT+% Another complaint to claim %or damages #as also filed ! the "etitioners against the sa&e res"ondent Tre!es grounded on the allegations that Tre!es and his &en also destro!ed and ransac1ed the +ha"el uilt ! "etitioner +FR +or"oration and deca"itated the heads of the religious figures% ISSUE, #hether during the pendenc! o% a separate complaint %or $orcible Entr!, the petitioner can independentl! institute and maintain an action %or damages which the! claim arose %rom incidents occurring a%ter the %orcible entr! o% /re!es and his men 6ES1 The onl! reco$era le da&ages in the forci le entr! and detainer cases instituted first ! the "etitioners #ith the MT+ are the IrentsL or fair rental $alue of the "ro"ert! fro& the ti&e of dis"ossession ! the res"ondent% Cence, other da&ages eing clai&ed ! the "etitioners &ust e clai&ed in another ordinar! ci$il action% It is note#orth! that the second action instituted ! the "etitioners 'co&"laint for da&ages) ha$e N- direct relation to their loss of "ossession of the leased "re&ises < #hich is the &ain issue in the first action the! instituted% The second action for clai& of da&ages had to do #ith the har$esting and carting a#a! of &il1fish and other &arine "roducts, as #ell as the ransac1ing of the cha"el uilt ! +FR +or"% +learl!, the institution of the t#o cases is not a s"litting of a cause of action, since oth are concerned #ith entirel! different issues% E%!I<UE? v& !,'OS )6 S(!, 0-+/ 74-51 An e5a&ination of the first co&"laint filed against a""ellant in +DI sho#ed that it #as ased on a""ellantsR ha$ing unla#full! sto""ed "a!&ent of the chec1 for 2/,>EE%EE she had issued in fa$or of a""ellees6 #hile the co&"laint in the second and "resent action #as for non4 "a!&ent of the alance of 2M=,EEE%EE guaranteed ! the &ortgage% The clai& for 2/,>EE%EE #as, therefore, a distinct de t not co$ered ! the securit!% The t#o causes of action eing different, section 7 of Rule / does not a""l!% DA+TS, Rodrigo EnriBueG and the DiGon s"ouses sold to Socorro Ra&os (( "arcels of land for 2(E(,EEE% Ra&os "aid 2>,EEE do#n"a!&ent, 2/,>EE in cash, and #ith a 2/,>EE%EE chec1 dra#n against 2NB, and agreed to satisf! the alance of 2M=,EEE%EE #ithin ME da!s% To secure the said alance, Ra&os, in the sa&e deed of sale, &ortgaged the (( "arcels in fa$or of the $endors% Ra&os &ortgaged a lot on Malinta Estate as additional securit!, as attorne!4in4fact of her four children and as .udicial guardian of her &inor child% Ra&os failed to co&"l! #ith the conditions of the &ortgage, so an action for foreclosure #as filed ! the $endors4 &ortgagees% Ra&os &o$ed to dis&iss, alleging that the "laintiffs "re$iousl! had filed action against her in the +DI of Manila for the reco$er! of 2/,>EE%EE "aid ! chec1 as "art of the do#n "a!&ent on the "rice of the &ortgaged lands6 that at the ti&e this first suit #as filed, the &ortgage de t #as alread! accrued and de&anda le6 that "laintiffs #ere guilt! of s"litting a single cause of action, and under section 7 of Rule / of the Rules of +ourt, the filing of the first action for 2/,>EE%EE #as a defense that could e "leaded in a ate&ent of the second suit% +DI of TueGon +it! denied the &otion to dis&iss% Defendant Ra&os re4"leaded the a$er&ents as a s"ecial defense in her ans#er% The +DI ruled against defendant Ra&os6 ordered her to "a! 2M=,EEE%EE, #ith (/Q interest, attorne!Rs fees, and the costs S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age (>

of the suit6 and further decreed the foreclosure sale of the &ortgaged "ro"erties in case of non4"a!&ent #ithin ME da!s% Ra&os a""ealed directl! to S+, ISSUE, #hether there was splitting o% cause o% action N", there is no s"litting of cause of action in this case% An e5a&ination of the first co&"laint filed against a""ellant in +DI sho#ed that it #as ased on a""ellantsR ha$ing unla#full! sto""ed "a!&ent of the chec1 for 2/,>EE%EE she had issued in fa$or of a""ellees, #hile the co&"laint in the second and "resent action #as for non4"a!&ent of the alance of 2M=,EEE%EE guaranteed ! the &ortgage% The clai& for 2/,>EE%EE #as, therefore, a distinct de t not co$ered ! the securit!% The t#o causes of action eing different, section 7 of Rule / does not a""l!% Remed, a ainst splittin a sin le cause of action

'a) ,otion to dismiss :Sec > ?e@ or ?%@, &ule >6;* Within the ti&e for ut efore filing the ans#er to the co&"laint or "leading asserting a clai&, a &otion to dis&iss &a! e &ade on an! of the follo#ing grounds, 555 'e) That there is another action "ending et#een the sa&e "arties for the sa&e cause6 'f) That the cause of action is arred ! a "rior .udg&ent or ! the statute of li&itations 555 ' ) Answer alleging a%%irmative de%ense :Sec. 6, &ule >6;* If no &otion to dis&iss has een filed, an! of the grounds for dis&issal "ro$ided for in this Rule &a! e "leaded as an affir&ati$e defense in the ans#er and, in the discretion of the court, a "reli&inar! hearing &a! e had thereon as if a &otion to dis&iss had een filed% N-TE, As to #hich action should circu&stances of the case% e dis&issed 'the first or second one) #ould de"end u"on .udicial discretion and the "re$ailing

.oinder of causes of action Aoinder o% causes o% action is the assertion of as &an! causes of action as a "art! &a! ha$e against another in one "leading% It is the "rocess of uniting t#o or &ore de&ands or rights of action in one action% This is &erel! permissive, N-T co&"ulsor!, ecause of the use of the #ord I&a!L in Sec% >, Rule /% It is su .ect to the follo#ing conditions, 'a) The "art! .oining the causes of action shall co&"l! #ith the rules on .oinder of "arties6 i% The right to relief should arise out of the sa&e transaction or series of transaction, and ii% There e5ists a co&&on Buestion of la# or fact% 'Sec% =, Rule 0) ' ) The .oinder shall not include s"ecial ci$il actions or actions go$erned ! s"ecial rules6 E ample: An action for clai& of &one! cannot e .oined #ith an action for e.ect&ent, or #ith an action for foreclosure% 'c) Where the causes of action are et#een the sa&e "arties ut "ertain to different $enues or .urisdictions, the .oinder &a! e allo#ed in the RT+ "ro$ided i% one of the causes of action falls #ithin the .urisdiction of said court, and ii% the $enue lies therein6 and 'd) Where the clai&s in all the causes of action are "rinci"all! for reco$er! of &one!, the aggregate a&ount clai&ed shall e the test of .urisdiction% 'Sec% >, Rule /) ,is.oinder o% causes o% action Mis.oinder of causes of action is N-T a ground for dis&issal of an action% A &is.oined cause of action &a! "roceeded #ith se"aratel!, 'a) on &otion of a "art!, or ' ) on the initiati$e of the court% 'Sec% =, Rule /)

e se$ered and

"LO!ES v& ',LL,!E@2 ILLI22S )7** S(!, 066/ 748-1 A""lication of the Totalit! Rule under Sect% 00'l) B2(/M and Sect% (( of the Interi& Rules is su .ect to the reBuire&ents for the 2er&issi$e :oinder of 2arties under Sec% = of Rule 0% In cases of "er&issi$e .oinder of "arties, the total of all the clai&s shall e the first .urisdictional test% If instead of a .oinder, se"arate actions are filed ! or against the "arties, the a&ount de&anded in each

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age (=

DA+TS, Binongcal and +alion, in se"arate transactions, "urchased truc1 tires on credit fro& Dlores% The t#o allegedl! refused to "a! their de ts, so Dlores filed a co&"laint #here the first cause of action #as against Binongcal for 2((, =70, and the second #as against +alion for 2(E, /(/% Binongcal filed a Motion to Dis&iss on the ground of lac1 of .urisdiction since under Sec% (M'A) of B2(/M RT+ shall e5ercise e5clusi$e original .urisdiction if the a&ount of the de&and is &ore than 2/E, EEE, and that the clai& against hi& is less than that a&ount% Ce a$erred further that although +alion #as also inde ted to Dlores, his o ligation #as se"arate and distinct fro& the other, so the aggregate of the clai&s cannot e the asis of .urisdiction% +alion .oined in &o$ing for the dis&issal of the co&"laint during the hearing of the &otion% 2etitioner o""osed the Motion to Dis&iss% RT+ dis&issed the co&"laint for lac1 of .urisdiction% ISSUE, #hether &/C has .urisdiction over the case %ollowing the /otalit! &ule 6ES1 The Totalit! Rule 'under Sec% 00 of B2(/M and Sec% (( of the Interi& Rules) a""lies not onl! to cases #here t#o or &ore "laintiffs ha$ing se"arate causes of action against a defendant .oin in a single co&"laint, ut also to cases #here a "laintiff has se"arate causes of action against t#o or &ore defendants .oined in a single co&"laint% Co#e$er, the said causes of action should arise out of the sa&e transaction or series of transactions and there should e a co&&on Buestion of la# or fact, as "ro$ided in Sec% = of Rule 0% In cases of "er&issi$e .oinder of "arties, the total of all the clai&s shall e the first .urisdictional test% If instead of .oining or eing .oined in one co&"laint, se"arate actions are filed ! or against the "arties, the a&ount de&anded in each co&"laint shall e the second .urisdictional test% In the case at ar, the lo#er court correctl! held that the .urisdictional test is su .ect to the Rules on :oinder of 2arties "ursuant to Sec% > of Rule / and Sec% = of Rule 0 of the Rules of +ourt% Moreo$er, after a careful scrutin! of the co&"laint, It a""ears that there is a &is.oinder of "arties for the reason that the clai&s against Binongcal and +alion are se"arate and distinct and neither of #hich falls #ithin its .urisdiction% U%I3IDE OLDI%GS/ I%(& v& (!U? )+04 S(!, --*/ 0..61 E5clusi$e $enue sti"ulation e& odied in a contract restricts or confines "arties thereto #hen the suit relates to reach of said contract% But #here the e5clusi$it! clause does not &a1e it necessaril! enco&"assing, such that e$en those not related to the enforce&ent of the contract should e su .ect to the e5clusi$e $enue, the sti"ulation designating e5clusi$e $enues should e strictl! confined to the s"ecific DA+TS, Uni#ide Coldings, Inc% 'UCI) granted +ruG, a >!r% franchise to ado"t and use the UUni#ide Da&il! Store S!ste&U for the esta lish&ent and o"eration of a UUni#ide Da&il! StoreU in Mari1ina% The agree&ent o liged +ruG to "a! UCI a 2>E,EEE &onthl! ser$ice fee or 0Q of gross &onthl! "urchases, #hiche$er is higher, "a!a le #ithin > da!s after the end of each &onth #ithout need of for&al illing or de&and fro& UCI% In case of an! dela! in the "a!&ent of the &onthl! ser$ice fee, +ruG #ould e lia le to "a! an interest charge of 0Q "er &onth% It a""ears that +ruG had "urchased goods fro& UCI3s affiliated co&"anies D2+ and USW+I% D2+ and USW+I assigned all their rights and interests o$er +ruG3s accounts to UCI% +ruG had outstanding o ligations #ith UCI, D2+, and USW+I in the total a&ount of 2(,0>A,>0(%AM, #hich re&ained unsettled des"ite the de&ands &ade% Thus UCI filed a co&"laint for collection of su& of &one! efore RT+ of 2araVaBue +ruG on the follo#ing causes of action, '() 2(,0/J,==M%A0/ in actual da&ages for failure to "a! the &onthl! ser$ice fee6 '/) 2=7,(=>%M= of actual da&ages for failure to "a! recei$a les assigned ! D2+ to UCI6 '0) 2(,>JM,E=(%0= of actual da&ages for failure to "a! the recei$a les assigned ! USW+I to UCI6 '7) 2/>E,EEE%EE of attorne!3s fees% +ruG filed a &otion to dis&iss on the ground of i&"ro"er $enue, in$o1ing Article /J%> of the agree&ent #hich reads, BC.= 6enue Stipulation < The Dranchisee consents to the e5clusi$e .urisdiction of the courts of TueGon +it!, the Dranchisee #ai$ing an! other $enue% 2araVaBue RT+ granted +ruG3s &otion to dis&iss% Cence, the "resent "etition% ISSUE, #hether a case based on several causes o% action is dismissible on the ground o% improper venue where onl! one o% the causes o% action arises %rom a contract with e clusive venue stipulation N"1 The general rule on $enue of "ersonal actions "ro$ides actions &a! e co&&enced and tried #here the "laintiff or an! of the "rinci"al "laintiffs resides, or #here the defendant or an! of the "rinci"al defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant, #here he &a! e found, at the election of the "laintiff% The "arties &a! also $alidl! agree in #riting on an e5clusi$e $enue% The forging of a #ritten agree&ent on an e5clusi$e $enue of an action does not, ho#e$er, "reclude "arties fro& ringing a case to other $enues% Where there is a .oinder of causes of action et#een the sa&e "arties and one action does not arise out of the contract #here the e5clusi$e $enue #as sti"ulated u"on, the co&"laint, as in the one at ar, &a! e rought efore other $enues "ro$ided that such other cause of action falls #ithin the .urisdiction of the court and the $enue lies therein% Based on the allegations in "etitioner3s co&"laint, the second and third causes of action are ased on the deeds of assign&ent e5ecuted in its fa$or ! D2+ and USW+I% The deeds ear no e5clusi$e $enue sti"ulation #ith res"ect to the causes of action thereunder% Cence, the general rule on $enue a""lies < that the co&"laint &a! e filed in the "lace #here the "laintiff or defendant resides% It ears e&"hasis that the causes of action on the assigned accounts are not ased on a reach of the agree&ent et#een UCI and +ruG% The! are ased on se"arate, distinct and inde"endent contracts*deeds of assign&ent in #hich UCI is the assignee of +ruG3s o ligations to the assignors D2+ and USW+I% Thus, an! action arising fro& the deeds of assign&ent cannot e su .ected to the e5clusi$e $enue sti"ulation e& odied in the agree&ent% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age (J

E5clusi$e $enue sti"ulation e& odied in a contract restricts or confines "arties thereto #hen the suit relates to reach of said contract% But #here the e5clusi$it! clause does not &a1e it necessaril! enco&"assing, such that e$en those not related to the enforce&ent of the contract should e su .ect to the e5clusi$e $enue, the sti"ulation designating e5clusi$e $enues should e strictl! confined to the s"ecific underta1ing or agree&ent% -ther#ise, the asic "rinci"les of freedo& to contract &ight #or1 to the great disad$antage of a #ea1 "art!4suitor #ho ought to e allo#ed free access to courts of .ustice% C)at is t)e totalit, ruleWhere the clai&s in all the causes of action are "rinci"all! for reco$er! of &one!, the aggregate a&ount clai&ed shall e the test of .urisdiction% 'Sec% >, Rule /)

PAR0IES 0" CI#IL AC0I"NS $R/LE 7& Parties $Sec1 %, Rule 7& :>; (lainti%%" The "laintiff is the clai&ing "art! or the original clai&ing "art! and is the one #ho files the co&"laint% It &a! also a""l! to a defendant #ho files a counterclai&, a cross4clai& or a third "art! co&"laint% :B; *e%endant" The defendant refers to the original defending "art!, and also the defendant in a counterclai&, the cross4defendant, or the third "art! defendant% If a counterclai& is filed against the original "laintiff, the latter eco&es the defendant% C)o ma, be parties- $Sec1 %, Rule 7& '() Natural "ersons '/) :uridical "ersons 'a) The State and its "olitical su di$isions6 ' ) -ther cor"orations, institutions and entities for "u lic interest or "ur"ose, created ! la#6 and 'c) +or"orations, "artnershi"s and associations for "ri$ate interest r "ur"ose to #hich the la# grants a .uridical "ersonalit!, se"arate and distinct fro& each shareholder, "artner or &e& er% 'Art% 77, +i$il +ode) '0) Entities authoriGed ! la#, e$en if the! lac1 .uridical "ersonalit! 'a) +or"oration ! esto""el 'Sec% /(, +or"oration +ode)6 ' ) 2artnershi" ha$ing a ca"ital of 20,EEE or &ore ut fails to co&"l! #ith the registration reBuire&ents 'Art% (J=A, +i$il +ode)6 'c) Estate of a deceased "erson 'd) A legiti&ate la or organiGation 'Art% /7/ 8e9, La or +ode)6 'e) The Ra&on +atholic +hurch6 'f) A dissol$ed cor"oration &a! "rosecute and defend in suits #hich, a% -ccur #ithin 0 !ears after dissolution6 and % Are connected #ith the settle&ent and closure of its affairs 'Sec% (//, +or"oration +ode) CLASSI*ICA0I"N "* PAR0IES Real part,'in'interest A real part! in interest is the "art! #ho stands to e enefited or in.ured ! the .udg&ent in the suit, or the "art! entitled to the a$ails of the suit% Dnless other#ise authoriGed ! la# or these Rules, e$er! action &ust e "rosecuted or defended in the na&e of the real "art! in interest% 'Sec% /, Rule 0) &eal interest*a "resent su stantial interest as distinguished fro& a &ere e5"ectanc! or a future, contingent su ordinate or conseBuential interest% It is material and direct, as distinguished fro& a &ere incidental interest% The o#ner of the right of $iolated is the real "art! in interest as "laintiff, and the "erson res"onsi le for the $iolation is the real "art! in interest as defendant% 'ot real part! in interest A "erson #ho has not ta1en "art in a contract Third "art! #ho has not ta1en "art in a co&"ro&ise agree&ent Mere agent in a contract of sale

Lac( of personalit, to sue E9,%GELIS$, v& S,%$I,GO )*6+ S(!, 6**1

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age (A

The ter& Ulac1 of ca"acit! to sueU refers to a "laintiffRs general disa ilit! to sue, such as on account of &inorit!, insanit!, inco&"etence, lac1 of .uridical "ersonalit! or an! other general disBualifications of a "art!% ULac1 of "ersonalit! to sueL refers to the fact that the "laintiff is not the real "art!4 in4interest% The first can e a ground for a &otion to dis&iss ased on the ground of lac1 of legal ca"acit! to sue6 #hereas the second can e used as a ground for a &otion to dis&iss ased on the fact that the co&"laint, on the face thereof, e$identl! states no cause of DA+TS, The Su .ect 2ro"ert! #as "art of a $ast tract of land called ICacienda Tui igaL #hich #as a#arded to Don Cer&ogenes RodrigueG ! the Tueen of S"ain and e$idenced ! a S"anish title% Don Is&ael Da$ila, clai&ing to e one of the heirs and successors4in4interest of RodrigueG, and "ursuant to an S2A e5ecuted ! his I mga 2apatid,L assigned "ortions of the "ro"ert! to the "etitioners in e5change for the la or and #or1 the! and their "redecessors ha$e done on the "ro"ert!% 2etitioners #ere infor&ed that Santiago #as "lanning to e$ict the&6 t#o of the& recei$ed notices to $acate% Their in$estigations re$ealed that the "ro"ert! #as included in T+Ts #hich originated fro& -+T No% =JE, and is no# in the na&e of res"ondent% 2etitioners filed an action for declaration of nullit! of res"ondent3s certificates of title on the asis that -+T No% =JE #as fa1e and s"urious% As an affir&ati$e defense, res"ondent clai&ed that the "etitioners had no legal ca"acit! to file the +o&"laint, and thus, the +o&"laint stated no cause of action% Ce a$erred that since -+T No% =JE #as genuine and authentic on its face, then the -+T and all land titles deri$ed therefro&, are incontro$erti le, indefeasi le and conclusi$e against the "etitioners and the #hole #orld% RT+ dis&issed the co&"laint on the ground that the action filed #as in effect an action for re$ersion, and therefore should ha$e een initiated ! the -SF, not "ri$ate indi$iduals% In the end, it concluded that the "etitioners #ere not the o#ners of the su .ect "ro"ert!% +A affir&ed the RT+, and li1e#ise dis&issed the co&"laint% ISSUE, #hether the respondentEs action is properl! based on petitionersE lac2 o% legal capacit! to sue N"1 The ter& Ulac1 of ca"acit! to sueU should not e confused #ith the ter& Ulac1 of "ersonalit! to sue%U The for&er refers to a "laintiffRs general disa ilit! to sue, such as on account of &inorit!, insanit!, inco&"etence, lac1 of .uridical "ersonalit! or an! other general disBualifications of a "art!, #hile the latter refers to the fact that the "laintiff is not the real "art!4 in4 interest% The first can e a ground for a &otion to dis&iss ased on the ground of lac1 of legal ca"acit! to sue6 #hereas the second can e used as a ground for a &otion to dis&iss ased on the fact that the co&"laint, on the face thereof, e$identl! states no cause of action% In the "resent case, this +ourt &a! assu&e that the res"ondent is raising the affir&ati$e defense that the +o&"laint filed ! the "etitioners efore the trial court stated no cause of action ecause the "etitioners lac1ed the "ersonalit! to sue, not eing the real "art!4in4interest% ISSUE, #hether the complaint stated no cause o% action since petitioners had no personalit! to sue 6ES1 2etitioners had no "ersonalit! to file the said action, not eing the "arties4in4interest, and their +o&"laint should e dis&issed for not stating a cause of action% The action is reall! one for the re&o$al of a cloud on or Buieting of title and according to Article 7JJ of the +i$il +ode, the "laintiff in such an action &ust ha$e legal or eBuita le title to, or interest in, the real "ro"ert! #hich is the su .ect &atter of the action% 2etitioners failed to esta lish an! legal or eBuita le title to, or legiti&ate interest in, the Su .ect 2ro"ert! so as to .ustif! their right to file an action to re&o$e a cloud on or to Buiet title% Also, the title to and "ossession of the Su .ect 2ro"ert! ! "etitioners3 "redecessors4in4interest could e traced onl! as far ac1 as the S"anish title of RodrigueG% 2etitioners, ha$ing acBuired "ortions of the Su .ect 2ro"ert! ! assign&ent, could acBuire no etter title to the said "ortions than their "redecessors4in4interest% Standin to sue

DO'I%GO v& (,!,GUE )*+- S(!, 6**/ 0..+1 :udicial "o#er is the "o#er to hear and decide cases "ending et#een "arties #ho ha$e the right to sue in courts of la# and eBuit!% +orollar! to this dictu& is the "rinci"le of locus standi of a litigant% Ce #ho is directl! affected and #hose interest is i&&ediate and su stantial has the standing to sue% Thus, a "art! &ust sho# a "ersonal sta1e in the outco&e of the case or an in.ur! to hi&self that can e redressed ! a fa$ora le decision in order to #arrant an in$ocation of the court3s .urisdiction and .ustif! the e5ercise of .udicial "o#er on his ehalf%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age (M

DA+TS, 2etitioners Do&ingo, Fangan and Banaria are retired +hair&en, #hile Ursal and +ruG are retired +o&&issioners of +-A '+o&&ission on Audit) and the other "etitioners are incu& ent officers or e&"lo!ees of +-A% All clai& Ito &aintain a dee"4 seated a iding interest in the affairs of +-A,L es"eciall! in its -rganiGational Restructuring 2lan, as concerned ta5"a!ers% These "etitioners clai& that the! #ere di$ested of their designations?ran1s u"on i&"le&entation of the +-A -rganiGational Restructuring 2lan #ithout .ust cause and #ithout due "rocess, in $iolation of +i$il Ser$ice La#% Moreo$er, the! #ere de"ri$ed of their res"ecti$e Re"resentation and Trans"ortation Allo#ances 'RATA), thus causing the& undue financial "re.udice% 2etitioners no# in$o1e this +ourt3s .udicial "o#er to stri1e do#n the +-A -rganiGational Restructuring 2lan for eing unconstitutional or illegal% 2etitioners in$o1e Chave0 v. (ublic Estates Authorit!, Agan, Ar. v. (hilippine 3nternational Air /erminals Co., 3nc % and 3n%ormation /echnolog! $oundation o% the (hilippines v. Commission on Elections #here the court ruled that #here the su .ect &atter of a case is a &atter of "u lic concern and i& ued #ith "u lic interest, then this fact alone gi$es the& legal standing to institute the instant "etition% 2etitioners contend that the +-A -rganiGational Restructuring 2lan is not .ust a &ere reorganiGation ut a re$a&" or o$erhaul of the +-A, #hich #ill ha$e an i&"act u"on the rest of the go$ern&ent odies su .ect to its audit su"er$ision, thus, should e treated as a &atter of transcendental i&"ortance% +onseBuentl!, "etitioners3 legal standing should e recogniGed and u"held% The res"ondents, through the -SF assail the standing of the "etitioners to file the "resent case% A&ong others, the! allege that the "etitioners, '() ha$e not sho#n Ua "ersonal sta1e in the outco&e of the case or an actual or "otential in.ur! that can e redressed ! a fa$ora le decision of the +ourt, '/) failed to sho# an! U"resent su stantial interestU in teh outco&e of the case, nor '0) &a! the "etitioenrs clai& that as ta5"a!ers the! ha$e legal standing ecause no#here in the "etition do the! clai& that "u lic funds are s"ent in $iolation of la#% ISSUE, #hether the petitioners have standing to sue N"1 The 2etitioners ha$e not sho#n an! direct and "ersonal interest in the +-A -rganiGational Restructuring 2lan% There is no indication that the! ha$e sustained or are in i&&inent danger of sustaining so&e direct in.ur! as a result of its i&"le&entation% In fact, the! ad&itted that Ithe! do not see1 an! affir&ati$e relief nor i&"ute an! i&"ro"er or i&"ro$ident act against the res"ondentsL and Iare not &oti$ated ! an! desire to see1 affir&ati$e relief fro& +-A or fro& res"ondents that #ould redound to their "ersonal enefit or gain%L +learl!, the! do not ha$e an! legal standing to file the instant suit% :udicial "o#er is the "o#er to hear and decide cases "ending et#een "arties #ho ha$e the right to sue in courts of la# and eBuit!% +orollar! to this dictu& is the "rinci"le of locus standi of a litigant% Ce #ho is directl! affected and #hose interest is i&&ediate and su stantial has the standing to sue% Thus, a "art! &ust sho# a "ersonal sta1e in the outco&e of the case or an in.ur! to hi&self that can e redressed ! a fa$ora le decision in order to #arrant an in$ocation of the court3s .urisdiction and .ustif! the e5ercise of .udicial "o#er on his ehalf% In Chave0 6. (EA, the +ourt ruled that the "etitioner has legal standing since he is a ta5"a!er and his "ur"ose in filing the "etition is to co&"el the 2u lic Estate Authorit! '2EA) to "erfor& its constitutional duties #ith res"ect to, 'a) the right of the citiGens to infor&ation on &atters of "u lic concern6 and ' ) the a""lication of a constitutional "ro$ision intended to insure the eBuita le distri ution of aliena le lands of the "u lic do&ain a&ong Dili"ino citiGens 4 such #ere &atters of transcendental i&"ortance% In Agan,Ar. 6. (3A/C8, the +ourt held that "etitioners ha$e legal standing as the! ha$e a direct and su stantial interest to "rotect% B! the i&"le&entation of the 2IAT+- contracts, the! stand to lose their source of li$elihood, a "ro"ert! right Gealousl! "rotected ! the +onstitution and such financial "re.udice on their "art is sufficient to confer u"on the& the reBuisite locus standi% In 3n%ormation /echnolog! $oundation 6. C8,E+EC, there #ere t#o reasons #h! "etitioners3 standing #as recogniGed * '() the a#ard for the auto&ation of the electoral "rocess #as a &atter of "u lic concern, i& ued #ith "u lic interest, and '/) the indi$idual "etitioners, as ta5"a!ers, asserted a &aterial interest in seeing to it that "u lic funds are "ro"erl! used% Representative parties Where the action is allo#ed to e "rosecuted or defended ! a re"resentati$e or so&eone acting in a fiduciar! ca"acit!, the bene%iciar! shall e included in the title of the case and shall e dee&ed to e the real "art! in interest% A re"resentati$e &a! e '() a trustee of an e5"ress trust, '/) a guardian, '0) an e5ecutor or ad&inistrator, or '7) a "art! authoriGed ! la# or these Rules% An agent acting in his o#n na&e and for the enefit of an undisclosed "rinci"al &a! sue or e cept #hen the contract in$ol$es things elonging to the "rinci"al% 'Sec% 0, Rule 0) O2OS, v& ",($O!,% )00* S(!, 640/ 74451 2etitioners3 "ersonalit! to sue in ehalf of the succeeding generations can onl! e ased on the conce"t of intergenerational res"onsi ilit! insofar as the right to a alanced and healthful ecolog! is concerned, since the su .ect &atter of the co&"laint is of co&&on and general interest to all citiGens of the 2hili""ines% e sued without .oining the "rinci"al

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age /E

DA+TS, The "etitioners, all &inors, sought the hel" of the Su"re&e +ourt to order the res"ondent, then Secretar! of DENR, to cancel all e5isting Ti& er License Agree&ent 'TLA) in the countr! and to cease and desist fro& recei$ing, acce"ting, "rocessing, rene#ing or a""ro$ing ne# TLAs% The! alleged that the &assi$e co&&ercial logging in the countr! is causing $ast a uses on rainforest% The! furthered the rights of their generation and the rights of the generations !et un orn to a alanced and healthful ecolog!% ISSUE, #hether or not the petitioners have a locus standi 6ES1 +ocus standi &eans the right of the litigant to act or to e heard% Under Section >6, Article 33 o% the >FGC constitution, IThe state shall "rotect and ad$ance the right of the "eo"le to a alanced and healthful ecolog! in accord #ith the rh!th& and har&on! of nature%L 2etitioners, &inors assert that the! re"resent their generation as #ell as generation !et un orn% We find no difficult! in ruling that the! can, for the&sel$es, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit% Their "ersonalit! to sue in ehalf of the succeeding generations can onl! e ased on the conce"t of intergenerational res"onsi ilit! insofar as the right to a alanced and healthful ecolog! is concerned% Such a right, as hereinafter e5"ounded considers the Irh!th& and har&on! of natureL% Nature &eans the created #orld in its entiret!% Such rh!th& and har&on! indis"ensa l! include, inter alia, the .udicious dis"osition, utiliGation, &anage&ent, rene#al and conser$ation of the countr!3s forest, &ineral, land, #aters fisheries, #ildlife, off4 shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their e5"loration, de$elo"&ent and utiliGation e eBuita l! accessi le to the "resent as #ell as future generations% Needless to sa!, e$er! generation has a res"onsi ilit! to the ne5t to "reser$e that rh!th& and har&on! for the full en.o!&ent of a alanced and healthful ecolog!% 2ut a little differentl!, the &inor3s assertion of their right to a sound en$iron&ent constitutes, at the sa&e ti&e, the "erfor&ance of their o ligation to ensure the "rotection of that right for the generations to co&e% This land&ar1 case has een ruled as a class suit ecause the su .ect &atter of the co&"laint is of co&&on and general interest, not .ust for se$eral ut for all citiGens of the 2hili""ines% Indispensable parties An indispensable part! is a "art! in interest #ithout #ho& no final deter&ination can e had of an action% '() The! shall e .oined either as "laintiffs or defendants% 'Sec% J, Rule 0) '/) The "resence of all indis"ensa le "arties is a condition sine Bua non for the e5ercise of .udicial "o#er% '0) When an indis"ensa le "art! is not efore the court, the action should

be

dismissed%

N-TE, The failure to .oin an indis"ensa le "art! does not result in the outright dis&issal of the action% Non4.oinder or &is.oinder of "arties is not a ground for dis&issal of an action% It is #hen the order of the court to i&"lead the indis"ensa le "art! goes unheeded &a! the case e dis&issed% '7) &emed!, 2arties &a! e dro""ed or added ! the court on &otion of an! "art!, or on its o#n initiati$e at an! stage of the action and on such ter&s as are .ust% 'Sec% ((, Rule 0) DO'I%GO v& S( EE! )*07 S(!, 640/ 74451 The .oinder of indis"ensa le "arties under Sec J, Rule 0 is &andator!% Without "resence of indis"ensa le "arties to the suit, the .udg&ent of the court cannot attain real finalit!% Strangers to a case are not ound ! the .udg&ent rendered ! the court% The a sence of an indis"ensa le "art! renders all su seBuent actions of the court null and $oid% There is a lac1 of authorit! to act not onl! as to the a sent "art! ut also as to those "resent% The res"onsi ilit! of i&"leading all the indis"ensa le "arties rest on the "etitioner?"laintiff% Co#e$er, the non4.oinder of indis"ensa le "arties is not a ground for dis&issal DA+TS, Vice +onsul :utta Ci""elein infor&ed the 2hili""ine A& assador to Bonn, Fer&an! that res"ondent E&il Scheer had "olice records and financial lia ilities in Fer&an!% The Board of +o&&issioners 'B-+) therefore cancelled res"ondent3s "er&anent residence $isa, and ordered his su&&ar! de"ortation and "er&anent e5clusion fro& the 2hili""ines and inclusion of his na&e on the Bureaus Blac1list% Res"ondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the order, ut the B-+ did not resol$e the res"ondent3s &otion% The res"ondent #as neither arrested nor de"orted% Mean#hile, the District +ourt of Strau ing dis&issed the cri&inal case against the res"ondent for "h!sical in.uries% The Fer&an E& ass! in Manila, thereafter, issued a te&"orar! "ass"ort to the res"ondent% Res"ondent infor&ed +o&&issioner Verceles that his "ass"ort had een rene#ed follo#ing the dis&issal of the said cri&inal case% Ce reiterated his reBuest for the cancellation of the Su&&ar! De"ortation -rder and the restoration of his "er&anent resident status% The B-+ still failed to resol$e the res"ondents Urgent Motion for Reconsideration% In the &eanti&e, "etitioner I&&igration +o&&issioner Andrea T% Do&ingo assu&ed office, and inBuired #ith Fer&an E& ass! if the res"ondent #as #anted ! the Fer&an "olice% The Fer&an E& ass! re"lied in the negati$e% At a out &idnight on :une =, /EE/, Marine o"erati$es and Bureau of I&&igration and De"ortation 'BID) agents a""rehended the res"ondent in his residence on orders of the "etitioner and #as held in custod! in the BID Manila -ffice #hile a#aiting his de"ortation%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age /(

Res"ondent3s counsel filed #ith the BID a &otion for ail to secure the res"ondents te&"orar! li ert! and filed #ith the +ourt of A""eals a "etition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus #ith a "ra!er for te&"orar! restraining order and #rit of "reli&inar! in.unction, to en.oin the "etitioner fro& "roceeding #ith the res"ondent3s de"ortation% The +A issued a TR-% 2etitioner argues that the res"ondent3s "etition #ith the +A should ha$e een dis&issed for failure to i&"lead the real "art!4in4 interest, #hich is the B-+% ISSUE, #hether the 18C was an indispensable part! to the petition 6ES1 The B-+ #as an indis"ensa le "art! to the "etition, BUT the non4.oinder of indis"ensa le "arties is not a ground for dis&issal of the action% The res"ondent #as arrested and detained on the asis of the Su&&ar! De"ortation -rder of the B-+% The "etitioner caused the arrest of the res"ondent in o edience to the said De"ortation -rder% The res"ondent, in his Me&orandu&, "ra!ed that the +A annul not onl! the Su&&ar! De"ortation -rder of the B-+ ut also the latter3s -&ni us Resolution, and order the res"ondent3s i&&ediate release% The res"ondent also "ra!ed that the +A issue a #rit of &anda&us for the i&&ediate resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration% The said &otion had to e resol$ed ! the B-+ as the order sought to e resol$ed and reconsidered #as issued ! it and not ! the "etitioner alone% The "o#ers and duties of the B-+ &a! not e e5ercised ! the indi$idual &e& ers of the +o&&ission% The .oinder of indis"ensa le "arties is &andator!% Without the "resence of indis"ensa le "arties to the suit, the .udg&ent of the court cannot attain real finalit!% Strangers to a case are not ound ! the .udg&ent rendered ! the court% The a sence of an indis"ensa le "art! renders all su seBuent actions of the court null and $oid% Lac1 of authorit! to act not onl! of the a sent "art! ut also as to those "resent% The res"onsi ilit! of i&"leading all the indis"ensa le "arties rests on the "etitioner?"laintiff% Co#e$er, the non4.oinder of indis"ensa le "arties is not a ground for the dis&issal of an action% 2arties &a! e added ! order of the court on &otion of the "art! or on its o#n initiati$e at an! stage of the action and?or such ti&es as are .ust% If the "etitioner?"laintiff refuses to i&"lead an indis"ensa le "art! des"ite the order of the court, the latter &a! dis&iss the co&"laint?"etition for the "etitioner?"laintiffs failure to co&"l! therefor% The re&ed! is to i&"lead the non4"art! clai&ed to e indis"ensa le% The +ourt &a! e curing the defect in this case ! adding the B-+ as "art! "etitioner% Indeed, it &a! no longer e necessar! to do so ta1ing into account the uniBue ac1dro" in this case, in$ol$ing as it does an issue of "u lic interest% After all, the -ffice of the solicitor Feneral has re"resented the "etitioner in the instant "roceedings, as #ell as the a""ellate court, and &aintained the $alidit! of the de"ortation order and of the B-+3s -&ni us Resolution% It cannot, thus, e clai&ed ! the State that the B-+ #as not afforded its da! in court, si&"l! ecause onl! the "etitioner, the chair"erson of the B-+, #as the res"ondent in the +A, and the "etitioner in the instant recourse% U> v& (, )*4* S(!, +5+/ 0..-1 An indis"ensa le "art! is one #hose interest #ill e affected ! the courtRs action in the litigation, and #ithout #ho& no final deter&ination of the case can e had% The "art!Rs interest in the su .ect &atter of the suit and in the relief sought are so ine5trica l! intert#ined #ith the other "artiesR that his legal "resence as a "art! to the "roceeding is an a solute necessit!% DA+TS, The Ceritage Me&orial 2ar1 is a flagshi" "ro.ect of the Bases +on$ersion De$elo"&ent Authorit! 'B+DA) in Dort Bonifacio% To i&"le&ent the "ro.ect, the B+DA entered into 2ool Dor&ation Trust Agree&ent '2DTA) #ith the 2NB and the 2EA% B+DA #as designated as 2ro.ect -#ner6 2EA, the 2ro.ect Manager6 and 2NB as the Trustee% 2EA, as "ro.ect &anager, is tas1ed to i&"le&ent and co&"lete the $arious engineering #or1s and i&"ro$e&ents of Ceritage 2ar1% 2EA and "etitioner U!, a single "ro"rietorshi" doing usiness under the na&e of Edison De$elo"&ent and +onstruction, e5ecuted a Landsca"ing and +onstruction Agree&ent #here ! the "etitioner undertoo1 to do all the landsca"ing, including the construction of a terrasoleu& of the Ceritage 2ar1% Su seBuentl!, the certificate holders of the "ro.ect organiGed the&sel$es into a non4stoc1, non4"rofit cor"oration, the Ceritage 2ar1 Manage&ent +or"oration 'C2M+), no# the "ri$ate res"ondent herein% The Ceritage 2ar1 E5ecuti$e +o&&ittee, ho#e$er, ter&inated the construction contracts due to dela!s and discre"ancies% 2EA then assu&ed the duties of the ter&inated "art!% 2etitioner filed a co&"laint against the 2EA efore the +onstruction Industr! Ar itration +o&&ission '+IA+) #here it sought to reco$er "a!&ent for its "rogress illings on the said "ro.ects% +IA+ ruled in fa$or of "etitioner% Res"ondent a""ealed to the +A on the ground that +IA+ had no .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter since C2M+ #as not i&"leaded as a "art!, there ! de"ri$ing it of its right to e heard% +A ruled in fa$or of res"ondent% Cence this "etition ISSUE, #hether H(,C is a real part! in interest or an indispensable part! 6ES1 An indis"ensa le "art! is one #hose interest #ill e affected ! the courtRs action in the litigation, and #ithout #ho& no final deter&ination of the case can e had% The "art!Rs interest in the su .ect &atter of the suit and in the relief sought are so ine5trica l! intert#ined #ith the other "artiesR that his legal "resence as a "art! to the "roceeding is an a solute necessit!% Based on the +onstruction Agree&ent, 2EA entered into it in its ca"acit! as 2ro.ect Manager, "ursuant to the 2DTA% According to the "ro$isions of the 2DTA, u"on the for&ation of the C2M+, the 2EA #ould turn o$er to the C2M+ all the contracts relating to the Ceritage 2ar1% At the ti&e of the filing of the +IA+ +ase, 2EA ceased to e the 2ro.ect Manager% Through a Deed of S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age //

Assign&ent, 2EA assigned its interests in all the e5isting contracts it entered into as the 2ro.ect Manager for Ceritage 2ar1 to C2M+% 2EA officiall! turned o$er to C2M+ all the docu&ents and eBui"&ent in its "ossession related to the Ceritage 2ar1 2ro.ect, and "etitioner #as dul! infor&ed of these incidents% A""arentl!, as of the date of the filing of the +IA+ +ase, 2EA is no longer a "art!4in4interest% Instead, it is no# "ri$ate res"ondent C2M+, as the assignee, #ho stands to e enefited or in.ured ! the .udg&ent in the suit% In its a sence, there cannot e a resolution of the dis"ute of the "arties efore the court #hich is effecti$e, co&"lete or eBuita le% Necessar, part, or proper part, A necessar! part! is not indis"ensa le to the action since a final deter&ination of the case can e had e$en #hen a necessar! "art! is not .oined% BUT a necessar! "art! ought to e .oined if co&"lete relief is to e accorded to those alread! "arties% 'Sec% A, Rule 0) 'on).oinder o% necessar! part! Whene$er in an! "leading in #hich a clai& is asserted a necessar! "art! is not .oined, the "leader shall set forth '() his na&e, if 1no#n, and '/) shall state #h! he is o&itted% Should the court find the reason for the o&ission un&eritorious, it &a! order the inclusion of the o&itted necessar! "art! if .urisdiction o$er his "erson &a! e o tained% 'Sec% M, Rule 0) L,2E!,L DE9A$& (O!2& v& (, )005 S(!, 0-7/ 74451 A "ro"er "art! is one #hich ought to e a "art! if co&"lete relief is to e accorded as et#een those alread! "arties% A "art! is indis"ensa le if no final deter&ination can e had of an action unless it is .oined either as "laintiff or defendant% DA+TS, Att!% BanGon sought to reco$er attorne!3s fees for "rofessional ser$ices rendered in se$eral "ending and "ast cases fro& La"eral, La"eral De$3t +or"%, and I&"erial De$3t +or"%, referring to Sun ea&s Inc% onl! as IMr% La"eral3s +or"oration%L This "articular ci$il case #as decided on the asis of a +o&"ro&ise Agree&ent #here BanGon #ai$ed all other &one! clai&s against the defendants% Su seBuentl!, BanGon filed a co&"laint against La"eral, La"eral De$3t, I&"erial De$3t, Sun ea&s +on$enience Doods, Inc%, and Acsa! for '() annul&ent of a "ortion of the +o&"ro&ise Agree&ent6 '/) collection of attorne!3s fees for ser$ices in the cases rendered for I&"erial, Sun ea&s, and La"eral De$3t%6 '0) reco$er! of 2(E1 ad.udged to e "a!a le to hi& as attorne!3s fees ! Ascario Tuason6 and '7) "a!&ent to hi& of no&inal da&ages and attorne!3s fees% RT+ dis&issed the case on the ground that it had no .urisdiction to annul the +o&"ro&ise Agree&ent, as a""ro$ed ! an eBual and coordinate court% It held that the issue #as cogniGa le ! the +A% Moreo$er, it #as held that the +o&"ro&ise Agree&ent alread! co$ered the "laintiff3s "rofessional ser$ices in the Buestioned cases% The +A affir&ed the RT+ on the issue of .urisdiction, ut held Att!% BanGon entitled to attorne!3s fees fro& Sun ea&s Inc% since it #as not su .ect to the co&"ro&ise agree&ent #hich #ai$ed all &one! clai&s against defendants na&ed therein, ha$ing een referred to onl! as IMr% La"eral3s cor"oration%L ISSUE, #hether Sunbeams 3nc., is liable to pa! attorne!s %ees N"1 Sun ea&s Inc%, #hich #as referred to in the co&"laint as IMr% La"eral3s +or"%L #as not na&ed as a "art! defendant% The "ri$ate res"ondent elie$ed that La"eral, eing the 2resident of the said co&"an!, #as directl! o ligated to hi& for attorne!3s fees due hi& for his handling of the case for Sun ea&s% Co#e$er, there is no e$idence that Sun ea&s and La"eral are one and the sa&e "erson% Sun ea&s should ha$e een .oined as "art! defendant in order that the .udg&ent of the lo#er court could legall! affect it% But e$en if it #as not i&"leaded, the court could still $alidl! "roceed #ith the case ecause Sun ea&s #as not an indis"ensa le "art! ut onl! a "ro"er "art!% A "ro"er "art! is one #hich ought to e a "art! if co&"lete relief is to e accorded as et#een those alread! "arties% A "art! is indis"ensa le if no final deter&ination can e had of an action unless it is .oined either as "laintiff or defendant% The +o&"ro&ise Agree&ent u"on #hich the decision of the court #as ased #as et#een "laintiff Att!% BanGon and the defendants re"resented ! La"eral% Thus, since Sun ea&s #as not a "art! to this agree&ent, it could not e affected ! it% Co#e$er, BanGon3s clai& for attorne!3s fees "ertaining to Sun ea&s #as #ai$ed ! hi& not ! $irtue of the +o&"ro&ise Agree&ent, #here ! Sun ea&s #as not a defendant% What &ilitates against his clai& is his o#n .udicial ad&ission that he had #ai$ed his attorne!3s fees for the cases he had handled fro& (MJ74(MA( for La"eral and his cor"orations, including those not i&"leaded in his co&"laint% Permissive 4oinder of parties 2arties &a! e .oined in as "laintiffs or defendants in a single co&"laint #hen '() An! right to relief arises out of the sa&e transaction or series of transactions6 '/) There is a Buestion of la# or fact co&&on to all such "laintiffs or to all such defendants6 '0) Such .oinder is not other#ise "roscri ed ! the Rules on .urisdiction and $enue% BUT the court &a! &a1e such orders as &a! e .ust to "re$ent an! "laintiff or defendant fro& e5"ense in connection #ith an! "roceedings in #hich he &a! ha$e no interest% 'Sec% =, Rule 0) Effects of mis4oinder and non'4oinder of parties A "art! is mis.oined #hen he is &ade a "art! to the action although he should not e i&"leaded% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age /0 eing e& arrassed or "ut to

A "art! is not .oined #hen is su""osed to e .oined ut is not i&"leaded in the actions% Neither &is.oinder nor non4.oinder of "arties is a ground for dis&issal% 2arties &a! e dro""ed or added ! order of the court '() on &otion of an! "art! or on its o#n initiati$e '/) at an! stage of the action and '0) on such ter&s as are .ust% An! clai& against a &is.oined "art! &a! e severed and "roceeded #ith se"aratel!% 'Sec% ((, Rule 0) N-TE, Dailure to o e! the order of the court to dro" or add a "art! is a ground for the dis&issal of the co&"laint% 'Sec% 0, Rule (J) Class suits A class suit is an action #here one or &ore &a! sue for the enefit of all% An action does not eco&e a class suit &erel! ecause it is designated as such in the "leadings% It de"ends u"on the attendant facts% ReBuisites '() The su .ect &atter of the contro$ers! is one of the co&&on or general interest to &an! "ersons '/) The "ersons are so nu&erous that it is i&"ractica le to .oin all as "arties, '0) The "arties ringing the class suit are sufficientl! nu&erous and re"resentati$e as to full! "rotect the interests of all concerned% '7) The re"resentati$e sues or defends for the enefit of all% N-TE, An! "art! in interest shall ha$e the right to inter$ene to "rotect his indi$idual interest% 'Sec% (/, Rule 0) ',$ ,> v& (O%SOLID,$ED #,%B )+8 S(!, ++4/ 746*1 ReBuire&ents of a class suit, (% That the su .ect &atter of the contro$ers! e one of co&&on or general interest to &an! "ersons, and /% That such "ersons e so nu&erous as to &a1e it i&"ractica le to ring the& all to the court% DA+TS, Matha!, Re!es and Dionisio, "laintiffs4a""ellants and stoc1holders in the +onsolidated Mines, Inc% '+MI) alleged that the latter "assed a resolution to organiGe +onsolidated Ban1 P Trust +o% '+BT+), "ro$iding that all +MI stoc1holders are entitled to su scri e to the ca"ital stoc1 of the "ro"osed an1 at "ar $alue, and to the sa&e e5tent and a&ount as their shareholdings in +MI% +ircular letters #ith 2re4Incor"oration Agree&ents to su scri e #ere sent to +MI stoc1holders% 2laintiffs4a"ellants and other stoc1holders acco&"lished and filed their res"ecti$e "re4incor"oration agree&ents and "aid the su scri"tion% Co#e$er, after so&e &onths, the Board of -rganiGers e5ecuted the Articles of Incor"oration of the +BT+ #hich reflected that onl! the si5 '=) indi$idual defendants "aid and su scri ed to the initial >E,EEE shares% When the "aid4in ca"ital stoc1 #as increased, the "laintiff4 a""ellants and other +MI stoc1holders #ere again e5cluded% The "laintiffs4a""ellants filed this co&"laint as a class suit to annul and transfer the su scri"tion and shareholdings of the defendants to the& and other stoc1holders #ho had een denied the right to su scri e% The! alleged as #ell that so&e of the defendants falsel! certified to the calling of a s"ecial stoc1holdersR &eeting, #hen "laintiffs4a""ellants and other +MI stoc1holders #ere not notified thereof% Durther, the defendants increased the nu& er of Directors, illegall! creating the 2osition of Director filled u" ! a defendant, #ho #as inco&"etent% Se$illa, one of the original "laintiffs, #ithdre#% Dour +MI stoc1holders filed a &otion to inter$ene, and to .oin the "laintiffs4a""ellants on record, Defendants filed a &otion to dis&iss on the ground that the "laintiffs had no legal standing or ca"acit! to institute the alleged class suit% So&e su scri ers to the ca"ital stoc1 of the Ban1 filed se"arate &anifestations that the! #ere o""osing and disauthoriGing the suit of "laintiffs4a""ellants% The defendants4a""ellee filed a su""le&ental ground for their &otion to dis&iss for the reason that the stoc1holders #ho had a stained at their regular annual &eeting unani&ousl! ratified and confir&ed all the actuations of the organiGers% +DI granted the &otion to dis&iss, hence the a""eal% ISSUE, #hether the instant action could be maintained as a class suit N"1 An action does not eco&e a class suit &erel! ecause it is designated as such in the "leadings% Whether the suit is or is not a class Buit de"ends u"on the attending facts, and the co&"laint, or other "leading initiating the class action should allege the e5istence of the necessar! facts, to #it, the e5istence of a su .ect &atter of co&&on interest, and the e5istence of a class and the nu& er of "ersons in the alleged class, in order that the court &ight e ena led to deter&ine #hether the &e& ers of the class are so nu&erous as to &a1e it i&"ractica le to ring the& all efore the court, to contrast the nu& er a""earing on the record #ith the nu& er in the class and to deter&ine #hether clai&ants on record adeBuatel! re"resent the class and the su .ect &atter of general or co&&on interest% The co&"laint in the instant case e5"licitl! declared that the "laintiffs4 a""ellants instituted the U"resent class suit under Section (/, Rule 0, of the Rules of +ourt in% ehalf of +MI su scri ing stoc1holdersU ut did not state the nu& er of said +MI su scri ing stoc1holders so that the trial court could not infer, &uch less ma2e sure as e5"licitl! reBuired ! the sufficientl! nu&erous and re"resentati$e in order that all statutor! "ro$ision% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age /7

The interest that ""ellants, "laintiffs and inter$enors, and the +MI stoc1holders had in the su .ect &atter of this suit * the "ortion of stoc1s offering of the Ban1 left unsu scri ed ! +MI stoc1holders #ho failed to e5ercise their right to su scri e on or efore :anuar! (>, (M=0 * #as se$eral, not co&&on or general in the sense reBuired ! the statute% Each one of the a""ellants and the +MI stoc1holders had deter&ina le interest6 each one had a right, if an!, onl! to his res"ecti$e "ortion of the stoc1s% No one of the& had an! right to, or an! interest in, the stoc1 to #hich another #as entitled% E$en if it e assu&ed, for the sa1e of argu&ent, that the a""ellants and the +MI stoc1holders suffered #rongs that had een co&&itted ! si&ilar &eans and e$en "ursuant to a single "lan of the Interi& Board of -rganiGers of the Ban1, the #rong suffered ! each of the& #ould constitute a #rong se"arate fro& those suffered ! the other stoc1holders, and those #rongs alone #ould not create that co&&on or general interest in the su .ect &atter of the contro$ers! as #ould entitle an! one of the& to ring a class suit on ehalf of the others% The right to "ree&"tion, it has een said, is "ersonal to each stoc1holder% B! analog!, the right of each of the a""ellants to su scri e to the #ai$ed stoc1s #as "ersonal, and no one of the& could &aintain on ehalf of others si&ilarl! situated a re"resentati$e suit% Defendants $%& /nwillin co'plaintiff An unwilling co)plainti%% is a "art! #ho is su""osed to e a "laintiff ut #hose consent to o tained, as #hen he refuses to e a "art! to the action% In that case, '() he &a! e &ade a defendant and '/) the reason therefor shall e stated in the co&"laint% 'Sec% (E, Rule 0)

e .oined as a "laintiff cannot

$5& Alternative defendant Where the "laintiff is uncertain against #ho of se$eral "ersons he is entitled to relief, he &a! .oin an! or all of the& as defendants in the alternati$e, although a right to relief against one &a! e inconsistent #ith a right of relief against the other% 'Sec% (0, Rule 0) E ample, A "edestrian in.ured in the collision of t#o $ehicles &a! sue the $ehicle o#ners or dri$ers in the alternati$e if he is uncertain #hose $ehicle caused the in.ur!% $7& /n(nown defendant Whene$er the identit! or na&e of a defendant is un1no#n, he &a! e sued '() as the un1no#n o#ner, heir, de$isee, or '/) ! such other designation as the case &a! reBuire6 When his identit! or true na&e is disco$ered, the "leading &ust e a&ended accordingl!% 'Sec% (7, Rule 0) Service Ser$ice ti&e as '() '/) upon de%endant whose identit! or whereabouts are un2nown. &a!, ! lea$e of court, e effected ! "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation and in such "laces and for such the court &a! order in an! action #here the defendant is designated as an un1no#n o#ner, or the li1e, or #hene$er his #herea outs are un1no#n and cannot e ascertained ! diligent inBuir!% 'Sec% (7, Rule (7)

$B& Entit, wit)out 4uridical personalit, as defendant When t#o or &ore "ersons not organiGed as an entit! #ith .uridical "ersonalit! enter into a transaction, the! &a! e sued under the na&e ! #hich the! are generall! or co&&onl! 1no#n% In the ans#er of such defendant the na&es and addresses of the "ersons co&"osing said entit! must all e re$ealed% 'Sec% (>, Rule 0) Service upon entit! without .uridical personalit!." Ser$ice &a! e effected u"on all the defendants ! ser$ing u"on '() an! one of the&, or '/) u"on the "erson in charge of the office or "lace of usiness &aintained in such na&e% BUT such ser$ice shall not ind indi$iduall! an! "erson #hose connection #ith the entit! has, u"on due notice, be%ore the action #as rought% 'Sec% A, Rule (7) Deat) of part,D dut, of counsel $%& If plaintiff dies durin pendenc, of t)e case Whene$er a "art! to a "ending action dies, and the clai& is not there ! e5tinguished, it shall e the dut! of his counsel '() to infor& the court #ithin thirt! '0E) da!s after such death of the fact thereof, and '/) to gi$e the na&e and address of his legal re"resentati$e or re"resentati$es% N-TE, This dut! is mandator!. Dailure of counsel to co&"l! #ith this dut! shall e a ground for disci"linar! action% Dpon notice o% death, action o% court U"on recei"t of notice of death, the court shall deter&ine #hether the clai& is e5tinguished sur$i$e, the court shall dismiss the case% 3% the claim survives, substitution S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age /> een se$ered

! the death% If the clai& does not

The court shall forth#ith order said legal re"resentati$e or re"resentati$es to a""ear and e su stituted #ithin a "eriod of thirt! '0E) da!s fro& notice% The heirs of the deceased &a! e allo#ed to e su stituted for the deceased, without reBuiring the a""oint&ent of an e5ecutor or ad&inistrator and the court &a! a""oint a guardian ad litem for the &inor heirs% N-TE, The heirs do not need to first secure the a""oint&ent of an ad&inistrator% The court &a! order the o""osing "art!, #ithin a s"ecified ti&e, to "rocure the a""oint&ent of an e5ecutor or ad&inistrator for the estate of the deceased if, i% no legal re"resentati$e is na&ed ! the counsel for the deceased "art! or ii% if the one so na&ed shall fail to a""ear #ithin the s"ecified "eriod, The latter shall i&&ediatel! a""ear for and on ehalf of the deceased% The court charges in "rocuring such a""oint&ent, if defra!ed ! the o""osing "art!, &a! e reco$ered as costs% 'Sec% (=, Rule 0) E amples o% actions which survive the part!Es death Actions arising fro& delict Actions ased on tortuous conduct of the defendant Actions to reco$er real and "ersonal "ro"ert! Actions to enforce a lien on "ro"ert! Actions to Buieting of title #ith da&ages E.ect&ent case Actions for reco$er! of &one! $5& If defendant dies, effect of )is deat) depends upon t)e nature of t)e pendin action

#hen action will not be dismissed The action #ill e allo#ed to continue until entr! of final .udg&ent #hen, i% the action is for reco$er! of &one! arising fro& contract, e5"ress or i&"lied, and ii% the defendant dies be%ore entr! of final .udg&ent in the court in #hich the action #as "ending at the ti&e of such death A fa$ora le .udg&ent o tained ! the "laintiff therein shall e enforced in the &anner es"eciall! "ro$ided in these Rules for "rosecuting clai&s against the estate of a deceased "erson% 'Sec% /E, Rule 0) Effect of non'substitution of deceased part, Non4co&"liance #ith the rules on su stitution of a deceased "art! renders the "roceedings of the trial court infir& ecause it acBuired no .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the legal re"resentati$e of heirs of the deceased% Co#e$er, in an e.ect&ent case, non4su stitution of the deceased does not de"ri$e the court of .urisdiction ' $lorendo Ar. v. Colona) EI!S O" #E!$ULDO I%OG v& 'ELI(O! )*++ S(!, *-./ 0..+1 Non4co&"liance #ith the rule on su stitution #ould render the "roceedings and .udg&ent of the trial court infir& ecause the court acBuires no .urisdiction o$er the "ersons of the legal re"resentati$es or of the heirs on #ho& the trial and the .udg&ent #ould e inding% DA+TS, Res"ondents filed a co&"laint against Bertuldo for reco$er! of o#nershi" of the "re&ises leased ! the latter% Bertuldo alleged o#nershi" of the "ro"ert! ! $irtue of a Deed of A solute Sale% Bertuldo died #ithout co&"leting his e$idence during the direct e5a&ination% Att!% 2etalcorin re"laced the original counsel and filed a &otion to e5"unge the co&"laint fro& the record and nullif! all court "roceedings on the ground that "ri$ate res"ondents failed to s"ecif! in the co&"laint the a&ount of da&ages clai&ed as needed to "a! the correct doc1et fees, and that under ,anchester doctrine, non4"a!&ent of the correct doc1et fee is .urisdictional% ISSUE, #hether the proceedings in the trial court are in%irm 6ES1 No for&al su stitution of the "arties #as effected #ithin thirt! '0E) da!s fro& date of death of Bertuldo, as reBuired ! Sec% (=, Rule 0 of the Rules of +ourt% Needless to stress, the "ur"ose ehind the rule on su stitution is the "rotection of the right of e$er! "art! to due "rocess% It is to ensure that the deceased #ould continue to e "ro"erl! re"resented in the suit through the dul! a""ointed legal re"resentati$e of his estate% Non4co&"liance #ith the rule on su stitution #ould render the "roceedings and .udg&ent of the trial court infir& ecause the court acBuires no .urisdiction o$er the "ersons of the legal re"resentati$es or of the heirs on #ho& the trial and the .udg&ent #ould e inding% DE L, (!U? v& =O,<UI% )*-* S(!, +6-/ 0..+1

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age /=

When due "rocess is not $iolated, as #hen the right of the re"resentati$e or heir is recogniGed and "rotected, nonco&"liance or elated for&al co&"liance #ith the Rules cannot affect the $alidit! of a "ro&ulgated decision% Mere failure to su stitute for a deceased "laintiff is not a sufficient ground to nullif! a trial courtRs decision% The alleging "art! &ust "ro$e that there #as an undenia le $iolation of due "rocess% DA+TS, 2edro :oaBuin alleged that he had o tained a 2M,EEE loan, "a!a le after fi$e '>) !ears, fro& "etitioners, the s"ouses De la +ruG% To secure the "a!&ent of the o ligation, he e5ecuted a Deed of Sale for a "arcel of land in fa$or of "etitioners% The "arties also e5ecuted another docu&ent entitled 9asunduan #hich allegedl! sho#ed the Deed of Sale to e actuall! an eBuita le &ortgage% S"ouses De la +ruG contended that this docu&ent #as &erel! an acco&&odation to allo# the re"urchase of the "ro"ert!, a right that he failed to e5ercise% The RT+ issued a Decision in :oaBuin3s fa$or, declaring that the "arties had entered into a sale #ith a right of re"urchase% It held that res"ondent had &ade a $alid tender of "a!&ent on t#o se"arate occasions to e5ercise his right of re"urchase% Accordingl!, "etitioners #ere reBuired to recon$e! the "ro"ert! u"on his "a!&ent% +A sustained the ruling of the trial court, and denied reconsideration% It further ordered the su stitution ! legal re"resentati$es, in $ie# of :oaBuin3s death% 2etitioner3s assert the RT+ lac1ed .urisdiction since the res"ondent died during the "endenc! of the case and no su stitution #as &ade%

ISSUES, #hether the trial court lost .urisdiction over the case upon the death o% (edro Aoa-uin N"1 Strictl! s"ea1ing, the rule on the su stitution ! heirs is not a &atter of .urisdiction, ut a reBuire&ent of due "rocess% Thus, #hen due "rocess is not $iolated, as #hen the right of the re"resentati$e or heir is recogniGed and "rotected, nonco&"liance or elated for&al co&"liance #ith the Rules cannot affect the $alidit! of a "ro&ulgated decision% Mere failure to su stitute for a deceased "laintiff is not a sufficient ground to nullif! a trial courtRs decision% The alleging "art! &ust "ro$e that there #as an undenia le $iolation of due "rocess% The records of the "resent case contain a Motion for Su stitution of 2art! 2laintiff filed efore the +A% It #as dee&ed granted and the heirs, to ha$e su stituted for the deceased, 2edro :oaBuin% There eing no $iolation of due "rocess, the issue of su stitution cannot e held as a ground of nullif! the court3s decision% LI'#,U,% v& ,(OS$, )0..-1 The instant action for unla#ful detainer, li1e an! action for reco$er! of real "ro"ert!, is a real action and as such sur$i$es the death of Daustino Acosta%

DA+TS, Daustino Acosta too1 "ossession of a "arcel of go$ern&ent land #hich #as originall! intended to e used as a site for a le"rosariu&% Ce su seBuentl! registered the land and uilt a fence around it% 2aulino +alanda! intruded u"on Acosta3s land #ithout the for&er3s "er&ission and uilt a eerhouse on it% Acosta re&onstrated so +alanda! filed a cri&inal case for Un.ust Ve5ation and Malicious Mischief6 it #as ho#e$er, dis&issed% +alanda! then con$e!ed the eerhouse to :uanita Roces #ho agreed to "a! a 2=E &onthl! rental to Acosta% She then con$e!ed the "re&ises to +harles Li& auan, "etitioner in the "resent case% A fe# &onths later, "etitioner sto""ed "a!ing rentals so res"ondent filed a case for unla#ful detainer against res"ondent% 2etitioner reasoned that since the land elonged to the go$ern&ent, res"ondent had no right to collect rentals therefro&% Cence the suit #as ne$er continued% Eight !ears later, the go$ern&ent con$erted the "arcel of land in #hich the "re&ises in dis"ute are included into residential land% Res"ondent then re$i$ed his "re$ious suit of unla#ful detainer against "etitioner% Unfortunatel!, Acosta died #hile the case #as still on a""eal to the +A% 2etitioner a$ers that the case has eco&e &oot and acade&ic since he #as not infor&ed of the death of res"ondent and no "ro"er su stitution of "arties #as instituted% ISSUE, #hether the case has become moot and academic due to the death o% respondent and the %ailure to substitute his heirs as parties to the case N"1 It is #ell settled that the failure of counsel to co&"l! #ith his dut! under Section (= to infor& the court of the death of his client and no su stitution of such "art! is effected, #ill not in$alidate the "roceedings and the .udg&ent thereon if the action sur$i$es the death of such "art!% Moreo$er, the decision rendered shall ind his successor4in4interest% The instant action for unla#ful detainer, li1e an! action for reco$er! of real "ro"ert!, is a real action and as such sur$i$es the death of Daustino Acosta% Cis heirs ha$e ta1en his "lace and no# re"resent his interests in the instant "etition% Cence, the "resent case cannot e rendered &oot des"ite the death of res"ondent% Deat) or separation of part, w)o is a public officer An action &a! e continued ! or against the successor of the deceased "u lic officer #hen '() a "u lic officer is a "art! in an action in his official ca"acit! and '/) dies, resigns, or other#ise ceases to hold office during its "endenc!, '0) it is sho#n #ithin thirt! '0E) da!s after the successor ta1es office or such ti&e as the court &a! grant, that there is a su stantial need for continuing or &aintaining the action, and that '7) the successor ado"ts or continues or threatens to ado"t or continue the action of his "redecessor% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age /J

'>) the "art! or officer to e affected, unless e5"ressl! assenting thereto, has a""lication therefor and accorded an o""ortunit! to e heard% 'Sec% (J, Rule 0)

een gi$en reasona le notice of the

Incompetenc, or incapacit, If a "art! eco&es inco&"etent or inca"acitated, the court, upon motion #ith notice, &a! allo# the action to e continued ! or against the inco&"etent or inca"acitated "erson assisted guardian ad litem% 'Sec% (A, Rule 0) 0ransfer of interest In case of an! transfer of interest, the action &a! e continued directs the "erson to #ho& the interest is transferred '() to e su stituted in the action or '/) .oined #ith the original "art!% 'Sec% (M, Rule 0)

! his legal guardian or

! or against the original "art!, unless the court u"on &otion

Indi ent part, A "art! &a! e authoriGed to litigate his action, clai& or defense as an indigent if the court, u"on an e parte a""lication and hearing, is satisfied that the "art! is one #ho has no &one! or "ro"ert! sufficient and a$aila le for food, shelter and asic necessities for hi&self and his fa&il!% Such authorit! shall include '() an e5e&"tion fro& "a!&ent of doc1et and other la#ful fees, and '/) of transcri"ts of stenogra"hic notes #hich the court &a! order to e furnished hi&% The a&ount of the doc1et and other la#ful fees #hich the indigent #as e5e&"ted fro& "a!ing shall rendered in the case fa$ora le to the indigent, unless the court other#ise "ro$ides%

e a lien on an! .udg&ent

An! ad$erse "art! &a! contest the grant of such authorit! at an! time be%ore .udg&ent is rendered ! the trial court% If the court should deter&ine after hearing that the "art! declared as an indigent is in fact a "erson #ith sufficient inco&e or "ro"ert!, the "ro"er doc1et and other la#ful fees shall e assessed and collected ! the cler1 of court% If the "a!&ent is not &ade #ithin the ti&e fi5ed ! the court, e ecution shall issue or the "a!&ent thereof, #ithout "re.udice to such other sanctions as the court &a! i&"ose% 'Sec% /(, Rule 0) Notice to Solicitor !eneral The court, in its discretion, &a! reBuire the a""earance of the Solicitor Feneral in an! action in$ol$ing the $alidit! of an! '() treat!, '/) la#, '0) ordinance, '7) e5ecuti$e order, '>) "residential decree, '=) rules 'J) or regulations, Ce &a! e heard in "erson or through a re"resentati$e dul! designated ! hi&% 'Sec% //, Rule 0) N-TE, Actions filed in the na&e of the Re"u lic or its agencies and instru&entalities, if not initiated ! the Solicitor Feneral shall e summaril! dismissed%

#EN/E "* AC0I"NS $R/LE B& #enue defined 6enue is the "lace or the geogra"hical area #here an action is to e filed and tried% It relates onl! to the "lace of the suit and not to the .urisdiction of the court% Venue eco&es .urisdiction onl! in a cri&inal case% The "arties can waive the $enue of a case% Distin uis)ed from 4urisdiction VENUE The "lace #here the case is to e heard or tried A &atter of "rocedural la# Esta lishes a relation et#een "laintiff and defendant, or "etitioner :URISDI+TI-N The authorit! to hear and deter&ine a case Matter of su stanti$e la# Esta lishes a relation et#een the court and the su .ect &atter 2age /A

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

and res"ondent Ma! e conferred ! the act or agree&ent of the "arties Not a ground for motu proprio dis&issal, e5ce"t in su&&ar! "rocedure Di5ed ! la# and cannot e conferred ! agree&ent of the "arties Lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter is a ground for a motu proprio dis&issal

#enue of real actions &eal action"action affecting title to or "ossession of real "ro"ert!, or interest therein% Real actions shall e co&&enced and tried in the "ro"er court #hich has .urisdiction o$er the area #herein the real "ro"ert! in$ol$ed, or a "ortion thereof, is situated% Dorci le entr! and detainer actions shall e co&&enced and tried in the &unici"al trial court of the &unici"alit! or cit! #herein the real "ro"ert! in$ol$ed, or a "ortion thereof, is situated% 'Sec% (, Rule 7) #enue of personal actions 2ersonal actions &a! e co&&enced and tried #here the "laintiff or an! of the "rinci"al "laintiffs, or #here the defendant or an! of the "rinci"al defendants resides, at the election of the "laintiff% In the case of a non4resident defendant it &a! 'Sec% /, Rule 7) e co&&enced and tried #here he &a! e found, at the election of the "laintiff%

#enue of actions a ainst non'residents If an! of the defendants '() does not reside and is not found in the 2hili""ines, and '/) the action affects the "ersonal status of the "laintiff, or an! "ro"ert! of said defendant located in the 2hili""ines, the action &a! e co&&enced and tried in the court of the "lace #here the "laintiff resides, or #here the "ro"ert! or an! "ortion thereof is situated or found% 8uasi in rem Actions #hich affect the "ersonal status of the "laintiff are to e filed at the residence of the "laintiff% In rem Actions affecting the "ro"ert! of the defendant in the 2hili""ines shall e filed #here the "ro"ert! is located% C)en rule not applicable This Rule shall not a""l!* 'a) In those cases #here a s"ecific rule or la# "ro$ides other#ise6 or ' ) Where the "arties ha$e $alidl! agreed in #riting efore the filing of the action on the e5clusi$e $enue thereof% 'Sec% 7, Rule 7) $a& C)ere a specific rule or law provides ot)erwise DI,? v& ,DIO%G )074 S(!, -57/ 74451

An offended "art! #ho is at the sa&e ti&e a "u lic official can onl! institute an action arising fro& li el in / $enues, '() the "lace #here he holds office6 or '/) the "lace #here the alleged li elous articles #ere "rinted and first "u lished Venue in an action arising fro& li el is onl! &andator! if it is not #ai$ed ! defendant% Thus, o .ections to $enue in ci$il actions arising fro& li el &a! e #ai$ed6 it does not, after all, in$ol$e a
DA+TS, The ,indanao 9ris, a ne#s"a"er of general circulation in +ota ato +it!, "u lished in its front "age the ne#s article ca"tioned I=42oint +o&"laint Diled $s% Macu& al,L and in its 2u lisher3s Notes the editorial, IToll of +orru"tion,L #hich e5"osed alleged ano&alies ! 1e! officials in the Regional -ffice of the DENR% Su seBuentl!, the "u lic officers alluded to instituted se"arate cri&inal and ci$il co&"laints in the +it! 2rosecutor3s -ffice and RT+ in Mara#i +it!% DiaG, "u lisher4editor, and 2aganda&an, #ho e5ecuted a s#orn state&ent attesting the alleged corru"tion #ere na&ed res"ondents% The +it! 2rosecutor3s -ffice dis&issed the cri&inal case% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age /M

Thereafter, a ci$il co&"laint for da&ages #as filed% DiaG filed an ans#er, then later &o$ed for the dis&issal of the action for da&ages on the ground that the trial court did not ha$e .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter% Ce $ehe&entl! argued that the co&"laint should ha$e een filed in +ota ato +it! and not in Mara#i +it!% The res"ondent .udge denied "etitioner3s Motion to Dis&iss for lac1 of &erit% ISSUE, #hether the venue was improperl! laid N", "etitioner is not correct% 2etition is dis&issed for lac1 of &erit% The case is re&anded to the court of origin for further "roceedings% Not one of the res"ondents held office in +ota ato +it! nor the! held their "rinci"al office in that "ro$ince% It is clear that an offended "art! #ho is at the sa&e ti&e a "u lic official can onl! institute an action arising fro& li el in / $enues, '() the "lace #here he holds office6 or '/) the "lace #here the alleged li elous articles #ere "rinted and first "u lished% 'Art% 0=E, R2+) Venue #as indeed i&"ro"erl! laid% Co#e$er, unless and until the defendant o .ects to the $enue in a &otion to dis&iss "rior to a res"onsi$e "leading, the $enue in a &otion to dis&iss cannot trul! e said to ha$e een i&"ro"erl! laid since, for all "ractical intents and "ur"oses, the $enue though technicall! #rong &a! !et e considered acce"ta le to the "arties for #hose con$enience the rules on $enue had een de$ised% DiaG, then, as defendant should ha$e ti&el! challenged the $enue laid in Mara#i +it! in a &otion to dis&iss, "ursuant to Rule 7, Sec% 7, of the Rules of +ourt% Unfortunatel!, he had alread! su &itted hi&self to the .urisdiction of trial court #hen he filed his Ans#er% Well4settled is the rule that i&"ro"er $enue &a! e #ai$ed and such #ai$er &a! occur ! laches% Moreo$er, $enue in an action arising fro& li el is onl! &andator! if it is not #ai$ed ! defendant% Thus, o .ections to $enue in ci$il actions arising fro& li el &a! e #ai$ed6 it does not, after all, in$ol$e a Buestion of .urisdiction% The la!ing of $enue is "rocedural rather than su stanti$e, relating as it does to .urisdiction of the court o$er the "erson rather than the su .ect &atter% Venue relates to trial and not .urisdiction% Durther&ore, Rule (=, Sec% (, "ro$ides that o .ections to i&"ro"er $enue &ust e &ade in a &otion to dis&iss efore an! res"onsi$e "leading is filed% Res"onsi$e "leadings are those #hich see1 affir&ati$e relief and set u" defenses% Ca$ing alread! su &itted his "erson to the .urisdiction of the court, "etitioner &a! no longer o .ect to the $enue #hich, although &andator! in the instant case, is ne$ertheless #ai$a le% As such, i&"ro"er $enue &ust e seasona l! raised% -ther#ise, it &a! e dee&ed #ai$ed% $b& C)ere parties )ave validl, a reed in writin on t)e e:clusive venue t)ereof before t)e filin of t)e action The "arties &a! agree on a s"ecific $enue #hich could e in a "lace #here neither of the& resides, as long as the agree&ent is, '() In #riting6 '/) Made efore the filing of the action6 and '0) E5clusi$e as to the $enue. LEG,S2I v& !E2U#LI( )++4 S(!, *7./ 0..81

It &ust e sho#n that such sti"ulation as to $enue is e5clusi$e% In the a sence of Bualif!ing or restricti$e #ords, such as Ue5clusi$el!,U U#ai$ing for this "ur"ose an! other $enue,U Ushall onl!U "receding the designation of $enue, Uto the e5clusion of the other courts,U or #ords of si&ilar i&"ort, the sti"ulation should e dee&ed as &erel! an agree&ent on an additional foru&, not as li&iting $enue to the s"ecified
DA+TS, :esusito D% Legas"i, as o#ner and &anager of "etitioner :%D% Legas"i +onstruction, entered into a +onstruction Agree&ent #ith res"ondent Social Securit! S!ste& 'SSS) for the construction of a four4store! uilding in Baguio +it! #hich #ill ser$e as res"ondentRs ranch office% The 2hili""ine "eso colla"sed as against the U%S% Dollar in (MMJ, thus the cost of i&"orted &aterials #hich "etitioner contracted to use and install on the "ro.ect shot u", and "etitioner incurred e5"enses &ore than the original contract "rice% 2etitioner had se$eral &eetings #ith res"ondentRs re"resentati$es during #hich he infor&ed the& of his difficult! in &eeting his o ligations under the contract due to the "eso de$aluation% After se$eral failed &eetings, "etitioner sent a letter to res"ondent reBuesting an ad.ust&ent in the contract "rice, #hich #as denied ! res"ondent% Cence, "etitioner filed a ci$il action #ith the RT+% Instead of filing an ans#er, res"ondent, re"resented ! the -SF, filed a Motion to Dis&iss on the grounds that $enue #as i&"ro"erl! laid and "etitioner had no cause of action% It #as res"ondentRs argu&ent that the +onstruction Agree&ent "ro$ided that all actions &a! e rought efore the "ro"er court in TueGon +it! and that "etitioner #ai$ed an! other $enue% The RT+ denied res"ondentRs Motion to Dis&iss% Res"ondent &o$ed to reconsider the -rder ut this #as denied ! the RT+% The "etition for certiorari #ith the +ourt of A""eals #as granted% Cence, the "resent "etition for re$ie# on certiorari under Rule 7> of the Rules of +ourt% ISSUE, #hether the stipulation as to venue in this case is controlling 6ES1 As regards restrictive sti"ulations on $enue, .uris"rudence instructs that it &ust e sho#n that such sti"ulation is e5clusi$e% In the a sence of Bualif!ing or restricti$e #ords, such as Ue5clusi$el!,U U#ai$ing for this "ur"ose an! other $enue,U Ushall onl!U "receding the designation of $enue, Uto the e5clusion of the other courts,U or #ords of si&ilar i&"ort, the sti"ulation should e dee&ed as &erel! an agree&ent on an additional foru&, not as li&iting $enue to the s"ecified "lace% In the +onstruction Agree&ent, "etitioner agreed to file an! action in TueGon +it! Ie5"ressl! #ai$ing an! other $enue%L This connotes e5clusi$it! of the designated $enue% The ter&s clearl! sti"ulate e5clusi$el! the $enue #here actions arising fro& the +onstruction Agree&ent should e filed% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 0E

2etitioner, ho#e$er, contends that the case does not arise fro& the +onstruction Agree&ent6 hence, it &a! e filed in Ma1ati +it!, #hich is his "lace of residence% +ontrar! to "etitionerRs contention, the allegations in his co&"laint indu ita l! sho# that his cause of action arose fro& the +onstruction Agree&ent%

Caiver of improper venue $%& E:press waiver Made through #ritten agree&ent $5& Implied waiver Made through failure to seasona l! o .ect to i&"ro"er $enue in a &otion to dis&iss or in the ans#er D,(O>(O> v& I,( )74+ S(!, -*7/ 74451

Where defendant fails to challenge ti&el! the $enue in a &otion to dis&iss as "ro$ided ! Section 7 of Rule 7 of the Rules of +ourt, and allo#s the trial to e held and a decision to e rendered, he cannot on a""eal or in a s"ecial action e "er&itted to challenge elatedl! the #rong $enue, #hich is dee&ed #ai$ed%
DA+TS, 2etitioner :esus Daco!co!, filed efore the RT+, Anti"olo, RiGal, a co&"laint against "ri$ate res"ondent Rufino de FuG&an for the annul&ent of t#o deeds of sale in$ol$ing a "arcel of riceland situated in Barrio EstanGa, Linga!en, 2angasinan, the surrender of the "roduce thereof, and da&ages due to "ri$ate res"ondentRs refusal to ha$e said deeds of sale set aside u"on "etitionerRs de&and% Before su&&ons could e ser$ed on "ri$ate res"ondent as defendant therein, the RT+ issued an order reBuiring counsel for "etitioner to confer #ith res"ondent trial .udge on the &atter of $enue% After said conference, the trial court dis&issed the co&"laint on the ground of i&"ro"er $enue% It found, ased on the allegations of the co&"laint, that "etitionerRs action is a real action as it sought not onl! the annul&ent of the deeds of sale ut also the reco$er! of o#nershi" of the su .ect "arcel of riceland located in EstanGa, Linga!en, 2angasinan, #hich is outside the territorial .urisdiction of the trial court% 2etitioner a""ealed to the Inter&ediate A""ellate +ourt, no# +ourt of A""eals, #hich in its decision of A"ril ((, (MA=, affir&ed the order of dis&issal of his co&"laint% ISSUE, #hether or not the trial court can pre)empt the de%endantEs prerogative to ob.ect to improper venue b! motu propio dismissing the case N"1 The motu proprio dis&issal of "etitionerRs co&"laint ! res"ondent trial court on the ground of i&"ro"er $enue is "lain error, o $iousl! attri uta le to its ina ilit! to distinguish et#een .urisdiction and $enue% Venue is "rocedural rather than su stanti$e% It relates to the .urisdiction of the court o$er the "erson rather than the su .ect &atter% 2ro$isions relating to $enue esta lish a relation et#een the "laintiff and the defendant and not et#een the court and the su .ect &atter% Venue relates to trial not to .urisdiction, touches &ore of the con$enience of the "arties rather than the su stance of the case% :urisdiction treats of the "o#er of the court to decide a case on the &erits6 #hile $enue deals on the localit!, the "lace #here the suit &a! e had% Dis&issing the co&"laint on the ground of i&"ro"er $enue is certainl! not the a""ro"riate course of action at this stage of the "roceeding, "articularl! as $enue, in inferior courts as #ell as in the courts of first instance 'no# RT+), &a! e #ai$ed e5"ressl! or i&"liedl!% Where defendant fails to challenge ti&el! the $enue in a &otion to dis&iss as "ro$ided ! Section 7 of Rule 7 of the Rules of +ourt, and allo#s the trial to e held and a decision to e rendered, he cannot on a""eal or in a s"ecial action e "er&itted to challenge elatedl! the #rong $enue, #hich is dee&ed #ai$ed% Indeed, it #as grossl! erroneous for the trial court to ha$e ta1en a "rocedural short4cut ! dis&issing motu proprio the co&"laint on the ground of i&"ro"er $enue #ithout first allo#ing the "rocedure outlined in the Rules of +ourt to ta1e its "ro"er course% 9ow to Euestion improper venue '() ,otion to dismiss" B! filing a &otion to dis&iss efore a res"onsi$e "leading 'ans#er) on the ground of i&"ro"er $enue 'Sec% (8c9, Rule (=) '/) A%%irmative de%ense in answer" B! i&"leading i&"ro"er $enue as an affir&ati$e defense in the ans#er 'Sec% =, Rule (=)

PLEADIN!S $Substantial ReEuirements& S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 0(

In

eneral

Pleadin s defined (leadings are the #ritten state&ents of the res"ecti$e clai&s and defenses of the "arties su &itted to the court for a""ro"riate .udg&ent% 'Sec% (, Rule =) 2leadings are not su""osed to allege conclusions% It &ust onl! a$er ulti&ate facts, or the facts essential to a "art!3s cause of action or defense% E$identiar! &atters are to e "resented during the trial of the case, not in the "leadings% These and conclusions &a! e su .ect of a &otion to stri1e% All "leadings shall e li erall! construed% The intention of the "leader is the controlling factor in construing a "leading and should e read in accordance #ith its su stance, not its for&% 2arties are strictl! ! the allegations, state&ents or ad&issions &ade in his "leadings and cannot e "er&itted to ta1e a contradictor! "osition% Distin uis)ed from motion A motion is an a""lication for relief other than ! a "leading% 'Sec% (, Rule (>) C)at allowed The clai&s of a "art! are asserted in a '() co&"laint, '/) counterclai&, '0) cross4clai&, '7) third 'fourth, etc%)*"art! co&"laint, or '>) co&"laint4in4inter$ention% The defenses of a "art! are alleged in the ans#er to the "leading asserting a clai& against hi&% An ans#er &a! e res"onded to ! a re"l!% 'Sec%/, Rule =) (leadings allowed under Summar! (rocedure The onl! "leadings under the Rules on Su&&ar! 2rocedure are, '() co&"laint6 '/) co&"ulsor! counterclai&6 '0) cross4clai& "leaded in the ans#er6 and '7) ans#ers% (leadings not allowed in a petition %or writ o% amparo or habeas data The follo#ing are "rohi ited &otions in the &entioned "etitions, '() counterclai&6 '/) cross4clai&6 '0) third4"art! co&"laint6 '7) re"l!6 and '>) "leadings in inter$ention Parts of a pleadin $%& Caption* The ca"tion sets forth '() The na&e of the court6 '/) The title of the action6 The title of the action indicates the na&es of the "arties% The! shall all e na&ed in the original co&"laint or "etition6 ut in subse-uent pleadings, it shall e sufficient if the na&e of the first "art! on each side e stated #ith an a""ro"riate indication when there are other parties. Their res"ecti$e "artici"ation in the case shall e indicated% '0) The doc1et nu& er if assigned% N-TE, It is N-T the ca"tion, ut the allegations #hich deter&ine the nature of the action% $5& 0)e Bod,* The od! of the "leading sets forth '() its designation, '/) the allegations of the "art!3s clai&s or defenses, '0) the relief "ra!ed for, and '7) the date of the "leading% 'a) (aragraphs%*The allegations in the od! of a "leading shall e i% di$ided into "aragra"hs so nu& ered as to e readil! identified, ii% each of #hich shall contain a state&ent of a single set of circu&stances so far as that can con$enience% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

e done #ith

2age 0/

A "aragra"h &a! e referred to ! its nu& er in all succeeding "leadings% ' ) Headings" Dor .oined actions, The state&ent of the first shall e "refaced ! the #ords Ifirst cause of action,L of the second ! Isecond cause of action,L and so on for the others% 2aragra"hs in the ans#er addressed to one of se$eral causes of action in the co&"laint shall e "refaced ! the #ords Ians#er to the first cause of actionL or Ians#er to the second cause of actionL and so on6 2aragra"hs of the ans#er addressed to se$eral causes of action, the! shall e "refaced ! #ords to that effect% 'c) &elie%."/he "leading shall speci%! the relie% sought, BUT it &a! add a general "ra!er for such further or other relief as &a! e dee&ed .ust or eBuita le% The relief or "ra!er does not constitute a "art of the state&ent of the cause of action% The court &a! grant a relief not "ra!ed for as long as the relief is warranted b! the allegations of the co&"laint and the "roof% 'd) *ate."E$er! "leading shall e dated% 'Sec% /, Rule J) $7& Si nature and address" Ever! pleading &ust e '() signed ! the "art! or counsel re"resenting hi&, and '/) state in either case his address #hich should not e a "ost office o5% The signature of counsel constitutes a certification '() that he has read the "leading6 '/) that to the est of his 1no#ledge, infor&ation, and elief there is good ground to su""ort it6 and '0) that it is not inter"osed for dela!% An unsigned "leading "roduces N- legal effect% Co#e$er, the court &a!, in its discretion, allo# such deficienc! to e re&edied if it shall a""ear that the sa&e #as due to &ere inad$ertence and not intended for dela!% +ounsel '() '/) '0) '7) shall e su .ect to a""ro"riate disci"linar! action if, he deli eratel! files an unsigned "leading, signs a "leading in $iolation of this Rule, alleges scandalous or indecent &atter therein, or fails to "ro&"tl! re"ort to the court a change of his address% 'Sec 0, Rule J)

N-TE, +ounsel3s authorit! and dut! to sign a "leading are "ersonal to hi&% Cence, he MAW N-T delegate it to .ust an! "erson% A lan1et authorit! entrusted to .ust an!one is $oid since it #ill a&ount to signing ! unBualified "ersons% $B& #erification" General &ule: 2leadings NEED N-T e under oath, $erified or acco&"anied ! affida$it% E ception: #hen other#ise s"ecificall! reBuired ! la# or rule% The follo# "leadings &ust e $erified, 2etition to ta1e de"osition efore action6 2etition for relief fro& .udg&ent6 A""eal ! Certiorari fro& +A to S+6 A""lication for 2reli&inar! In.unction or Te&"orar! Restraining -rder6 A""lication for A""oint&ent of a Recei$er6 2etition for Certiorari, 2rohi ition, or ,andamus6 All "leadings of forci le entr! and unla#ful detainer6 2etition for a""oint&ent of general guardian6 2etition of guardian for lea$e to sell or encu& er "ro"ert! of estate6 2etition to declare co&"etenc! of #ard6 A""lication for Writ of habeas corpus6 2etition for change of na&e6 2etition for $oluntar! dissolution of cor"oration6 2etition to correct entries in ci$il registr!6 2leadings in Su&&ar! 2rocedure% The follo#ing need not e $erified ut &ust e under oath, Denial of genuineness and dues e5ecution of actiona le docu&ent6 Denial of allegations of usur!6 Motion to set aside order of default6 Ans#er to #ritten interrogatories6 Ans#er to reBuest for ad&ission%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age 00

Affida$it

of &erit or su""orting affida$it is reBuired in the follo#ing, Motion for su&&ar! .udg&ent or o""osition thereto6 Motion for ne# trial6 Affida$it of third4"art! clai& on le$ied "ro"ert!6 2roof reBuired of rede&"tioner6 +o&"laint #ith "ra!er for "reli&inar! attach&ent6 Affida$it of third4"art! clai& on attached "ro"ert!6 Motion to dissol$e "reli&inar! in.unction on ground of irre"ara le da&age to &o$ant #hile ad$erse "art! can co&"ensated +o&"laint for re"le$in, +lai& against estate of decedent%

e full!

How pleading is veri%ied A "leading is $erified ! an affida$it '() that the affiant has read the "leading and '/) that the allegations therein are true and correct of his "ersonal 1no#ledge or ased on authentic records% N-TE, A "leading reBuired to e $erified shall e treated as an unsigned "leading if it contains a $erification '() ased on Iinfor&ation and elief,L '/) u"on I1no#ledge, infor&ation and elief,L or '0) lac1s a "ro"er $erification &emedies The court &a! order the correction of the "leading if lac1ing $erification The court &a! also acct on the "leading des"ite failure to "ro"erl! $erif! if under the circu&stances, strict co&"liance #ith the rules &a! e dis"ensed #ith The a sence of $erification &a! e corrected ! reBuiring an oath% $;& Certification a ainst forum s)oppin 2 $orum shopping is the filing of &ulti"le suits in different courts, either si&ultaneousl! or successi$el!, in$ol$ing the sa&e "arties, to as1 the courts to rule on the sa&e or related causes and?or to grant the sa&e or su stantiall! the sa&e relief% It is an act of &al"ractice The sa&e shall constitute direct conte&"t, a cause for ad&inistrati$e sanctions, as #ell as a ground for the su&&ar! dis&issal of the case #ith "re.udice% The certi%ication against %orum shopping is a s#orn state&ent ! the "laintiff or "rinci"al "art! certif!ing in an initiator! "leading, 'a) that he has not co&&enced an! action or filed an! clai& in$ol$ing the sa&e issues in an! court, tri unal or Buasi4 .udicial agenc! and, to the est of his 1no#ledge, no such other action or clai& is "ending therein6 ' ) if there is such other "ending action or clai&, a co&"lete state&ent of the "resent status thereof6 and 'c) if he should thereafter learn that the sa&e or si&ilar action or clai& has een filed or is "ending, he shall re"ort that fact #ithin fi$e '>) da!s therefro& to the court #herein his aforesaid co&"laint or initiator! "leading has een filed% N-TE, The certification &ust e e5ecuted ! the "art! N-T the counsel, unless the latter is authoriGed s"ecificall! to do so% A certification signed ! the counsel is a defecti$e certification and is a $alid cause for dis&issal% BUT This rule &ust e li erall! inter"reted, Dailure of "arties to sign ecause the! #ere a road &a! e a reasona le cause to e5e&"t the "arties fro& co&"liance #ith the reBuire&ent Signing ! one of the "etitioners #as held to e su stantial co&"liance #hen plainti%% is a .uridical person*this &a! e signed ! the "ro"erl! authoriGed "ersons% This reBuire&ent is &andator! in the filing of a co&"laint and other initiator! "leading, a""lies also to s"ecial ci$il actions% 3nitiator! pleadings include '() -riginal co&"laint6 '/) 2er&issi$e counterclai&6 '0) +ross4clai&6 '7) Third 'fourth, etc%)4"art! co&"laint6 '>) +o&"laint in inter$ention6 and '=) 2etition or a""lication #herein the "art! asserts his clai& or relief% N-TE, No certification reBuired for a co&"ulsor! counterclai& since it is N-T an initiator! "leading% E%%ect o% %ailure to compl! '() It shall N-T e cura le ! &ere a&end&ent of the co&"laint or other initiator! "leading% '/) BUT it shall e cause for the dis&issal of the case without "re.udice, unless other#ise "ro$ided, u"on &otion and after hearing% Effect of the su &ission of a false certification or non4co&"liance #ith an! of the underta1ings therein, '() Indirect conte&"t6 S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 07 ut it is N-T .urisdictional% The rule

'/) Effect of '() '/) '0)

Ad&inistrati$e and cri&inal actions% #illful and deli erate foru& sho""ing ! the "art! or his counsel, ground for su&&ar! dis&issal #ith "re.udice direct conte&"t, and a cause for ad&inistrati$e sanctions% 'Sec% >, Rule J)

How to determine e istence o% %orum shopping The &ost i&"ortant Buestion is #hether the ele&ents of litis pendentia are "resent -R #hether a final .udg&ent in one case #ill result to res .udicata% The TEST is #hether in the t#o or &ore cases "ending, there is, 'a) identit! of "arties6 ' ) identit! of rights or causes of action, and 'c) identit! of reliefs sought%

9"C ALLE!A0I"NS +ADE In eneral E$er! "leading shall contain in a &ethodical and logical for&, a "lain, concise and direct state&ent of the ulti&ate facts on #hich the "art! "leading relies for his clai& or defense, as the case &a! e, o&itting the state&ent of &ere e$identiar! facts% If a de%ense relief on is ased on la#, the "ertinent "ro$isions thereof and their a""lica ilit! to hi& shall e clearl! and concisel! stated% 'Sec% (, Rule A) Dltimate %acts are those #hich directl! for& the asis of the right sought to e enforced, or the defense relied u"on% The! are the $er! facts #ithout #hich, for e5a&"le, the cause of action stated in a co&"laint #ould e insufficient% /est o% su%%icienc!" If fro& the facts alleged, a $alid .udg&ent &a! e rendered for the "laintiff, the co&"laint is prima %acie sufficient% 'o need '() '/) '0) '7) to allege the %ollowing in the pleadings, e$identiar! or "ro ati$e facts those "resu&ed ! la# facts of .udicial notice inferences, argu&ents and conclusions of la# deri$ed or inferred fro& the stated ulti&ate facts

Capacit, The follo#ing &ust e a$erred, '() Dacts sho#ing the ca"acit! of a "art! to sue or e sued, '/) The authorit! of a "art! to sue or e sued in a re"resentati$e ca"acit!6 or '0) The legal e5istence of an organiGed association of "ersons that is &ade a "art!% Contesting the capacit! o% a part! A "art! desiring to raise an issue as to the legal e5istence of an! "art! or the ca"acit! of an! "art! to sue or e sued in a re"resentati$e ca"acit!, shall do so ! s"ecific denial, #hich shall include such su""orting "articulars as are "eculiarl! #ithin the "leader3s 1no#ledge% 'Sec% 7, Rule A) Speci%ic denial Co# to &a1e a s"ecific denial, '() Absolute denial"s"ecif! each &aterial allegation of fact the truth of #hich he does not ad&it and, #hene$er "ractica le, set forth the su stance of the &atters u"on #hich he relies to su""ort his denial% '/) (artial denial"#here onl! a "art of an a$er&ent is denied, he s"ecif! so &uch of it as is true and &aterial and den! onl! the re&ainder% '0) *enial b! disavowal o% 2nowledge"#here defendant is #ithout 1no#ledge or infor&ation sufficient to for& a elief as to the truth of a &aterial a$er&ent in the co&"laint, he shall so state, and this shall ha$e the effect of a denial% 'Sec% (E, Rule A) N-TE, Allegations not s"ecificall! denied are dee&ed ad&itted% E ception, a&ount of unliBuidated da&ages, #hich &ust al#a!s e "ro$ed6 allegations of usur! in a co&"laint to reco$er usurious interest are ad&itted i% not denied under oath% 'Sec% ((, Rule A) Alternative claims and defenses A "art! &a! set forth t#o or &ore state&ents of a clai& or defense alternati$el! or h!"otheticall!, either in one cause of action or defense or in se"arate causes of action or defenses% When t#o or &ore state&ents are &ade in the alternati$e and one of the& if made independentl! #ould e sufficient, the "leading is N-T &ade insufficient ! the insufficienc! of one or &ore of the alternati$e state&ents% 'Sec% /, Rule A) E amples Alternative cause o% action: Breach of contract of carriage or tort S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 0>

Alternative de%ense: 2a!&ent6 e$en if not "aid, action has "rescri ed Conditions precedent In an! "leading a general a$er&ent of the "erfor&ance or occurrence of all conditions "recedent shall e sufficient% 'Sec% 0, Rule A) E ample, E5haustion of ad&inistrati$e re&edies% *raud and mista(e, condition of mind In all a$er&ents, the circu&stances constituting the follo#ing &ust e stated #ith "articularit!, '() fraud or '/) &ista1e N-TE, If the a o$e rule is not co&"lied #ith, the co&"laint &a! e dis&issed, or the ans#er &a! e stric1en off the records and he #ill e declared in default% The follo#ing &a! e a$erred generall!, '() &alice, '/) intent, '0) 1no#ledge or '7) other condition of the &ind of a "erson% 'Sec% >, Rule A) .ud ments In "leading a .udg&ent or decision of a do&estic or foreign court, .udicial or Buasi4.udicial tri unal, or of a oard or officer, it is su%%icient to a$er the .udg&ent or decision without setting forth &atter showing .urisdiction to render it% 'Sec% =, Rule A) "fficial documents In "leading an o%%icial document or o%%icial act, it is sufficient to a$er, that the docu&ent #as issued or the act done in co&"liance #ith la#% 'Sec% M, Rule A) Need to brin in new parties When the "resence of "arties other than those to the original action is reBuired for the granting of co&"lete relief in the deter&ination of a counterclaim or cross)claim, the court shall -RDER the& to e rought in as defendants, i% .urisdiction o$er the& can be obtained% 'Sec% (/, Rule =)

C"+PLAIN0 Defined and in eneral The complaint is the "leading alleging the "laintiff3s cause or causes of action% The na&es and residences of the "laintiff and defendant &ust e stated in the co&"laint% 'Sec% 0, Rule =) It is the first "leading a "art! filed in court% It &ust e in #riting% Alle ations In eneral E$er! "leading shall contain in a &ethodical and logical for&, a "lain, concise and direct state&ent of the ulti&ate facts on #hich the "art! "leading relies for his clai& or defense, as the case &a! e, o&itting the state&ent of &ere e$identiar! facts% If a de%ense relief on is ased on la#, the "ertinent "ro$isions thereof and their a""lica ilit! to hi& shall e clearl! and concisel! stated%

!E>ES v& !$( ',B,$I )0..81

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age 0=

Allegations of deceit, &achination, false "retenses, &isre"resentation, and threats are largel! conclusions of la# that, #ithout su""orting state&ents of the facts to #hich the allegations of fraud refer, do not sufficientl! state an effecti$e cause of action%
DA+TS, 2edro and Anastacia Re!es, along #ith their t#o children -scar, Rodrigo, o#ned shares of stoc1 in Xenith Insurance +or"oration 'Xenith)% When 2edro and Anastacia died, Rodrigo o#ned 7,/>E shares #hile -scar o#ned A,J(>,=0J shares% 2edro3s estate #as "ro"erl! "artitioned in the JE3s ut Anastacia3s estate #as not "artitioned '#hich includes her shares in Xenith)% Xenith and Rodrigo filed a co&"laint designated as a deri$ati$e suit #ith the SE+ against -scar to o tain an accounting of the funds and assets of Xenith #hich are no# or for&erl! in the control, custod!, and?or "ossession of "etitioner -scar and to deter&ine the shares of stoc1 of deceased Re!es s"ouses that #ere Iar itraril! and fraudulentl!L a""ro"riated ! -scar for hi&self and #hich #ere not collated and ta1en into account in the "artition, distri ution, and?or settle&ent of the estate of the deceased s"ouses% The co&"laint "ra!ed that -scar e ordered to account for all the inco&e fro& the ti&e he too1 these shares, and deli$er to his rothers and sisters their .ust and res"ecti$e shares% In his Ans#er #ith +ounterclai&, -scar denied the charge that he illegall! acBuired the shares of Anastacia, asserting that he "urchased the shares #ith his o#n funds fro& Xenith3s unissued stoc1s, and that the suit is not a bona %ide deri$ati$e suit ecause the reBuisites ha$e not een co&"lied #ith% Ce Buestioned the SE+Rs .urisdiction to entertain the co&"laint ecause it "ertains to the settle&ent of the estate of Anastacia Re!es% The RT+ #as later conferred #ith .urisdiction o$er the &atter due to a "residential declaration confir&ing the for&er as a s"ecial co&&ercial court% -scar filed a Motion to Declare +o&"laint as Nuisance or Carass&ent Suit% The RT+ denied the &otion and the +A affir&ed% Cence this "etition ISSUE, #hether the allegations against 8scar were su%%icient to hold him guilt! o% %raud N"1 The rule is that a co&"laint &ust contain a "lain, concise, and direct state&ent of the ulti&ate facts constituting the "laintiffRs cause of action and &ust s"ecif! the relief sought% Section >, Rule A of the Re$ised Rules of +ourt "ro$ides that in all a$er&ents of fraud or &ista1e, the circu&stances constituting fraud or &ista1e &ust e stated #ith "articularit! % These rules find s"ecific a""lication to Section >'a) of 2%D% No% ME/4A #hich s"ea1s of cor"orate de$ices or sche&es that a&ount to fraud or &isre"resentation detri&ental to the "u lic and?or to the stoc1holders% Allegations of deceit, &achination, false "retenses, &isre"resentation, and threats are largel! conclusions of la# that, #ithout su""orting state&ents of the facts to #hich the allegations of fraud refer, do not sufficientl! state an effecti$e cause of action% Draud and &ista1e are reBuired to e a$erred #ith "articularit! to ena le the o""osing "art! to contro$ert the "articular facts allegedl! constituting such fraud or &ista1e% The charges of fraud against -scar #ere not "ro"erl! su""orted ! the reBuired factual allegations% While the co&"laint contained allegations of fraud "ur"ortedl! co&&itted ! hi&, these allegations are not "articular enough to ring the contro$ers! #ithin the s"ecial co&&ercial courtRs .urisdiction6 the! are not state&ents of ulti&ate facts, ut are &ere conclusions of la#, ho# and #h! the alleged a""ro"riation of shares can e characteriGed as Uillegal and fraudulentU #ere not e5"lained nor ela orated on% Capacit, of parties The follo#ing &ust e a$erred, '() Dacts sho#ing the ca"acit! of a "art! to sue or e sued, '/) The authorit! of a "art! to sue or e sued in a re"resentati$e ca"acit!6 or '0) The legal e5istence of an organiGed association of "ersons that is &ade a "art!% Contesting the capacit! o% a part! A "art! desiring to raise an issue as to the legal e5istence of an! "art! or the ca"acit! of an! "art! to sue or e sued in a re"resentati$e ca"acit!, shall do so ! s"ecific denial, #hich shall include such su""orting "articulars as are "eculiarl! #ithin the "leader3s 1no#ledge% 'Sec% 7, Rule A) Actions based upon a document Whene$er an action or defense is ased u"on a written instrument or document, the "art! shall, '() set forth in the "leading the su stance of such instru&ent or docu&ent , and '/) attach the original or a co"! thereof an e5hi it, #hich shall e dee&ed to e a "art of the "leading, or '0) set forth said co"! e in the "leading #ith li1e effect% 'Sec% J, Rule A) Actionable document is one #hich is the asis of the clai& or defense% E amples, "ro&issor! note deed of sale contract N-TE, Letters ! "arties regarding the actiona le docu&ent are not actiona le docu&ents, ut &ere e$idence of the e5istence of the actiona le docu&ent%

/o contest an actionable document The "art! &ust '() s"ecificall! den! the genuineness and due e5ecution of the docu&ent under oath6 and S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 0J

'/) set forth #hat he clai&s to e the facts% N-TE, A &ere s"ecific denial is insufficient% The denial must e cou"led #ith an oath6 the denial &ust e $erified% A sence of an oath #ill e dee&ed an i&"lied ad&ission of the due e5ecution and genuineness of the docu&ent% When a "art! is dee&ed to ha$e ad&itted genuineness and due e5ecution of an actiona le docu&ent, defenses i&"lied fro& said ad&ission are #ai$ed 'forger!, lac1 of authorit! to e5ecute the docu&ent, no ca"acit! to sign, non4deli$er! of the docu&ent, defense that the docu&ent #as not in #ords and figures as set out in the "leadings) The follo#ing are N-T cut4off ! the i&"lied ad&ission since the! are unrelated to the genuineness and due e5ecution of the docu&ent, '() 2a!&ent6 '/) Want of consideration6 '0) Illegalit! of consideration6 '7) Usur!6 '>) Draud6 '=) 2rescri"tion, 'J) Release6 'A) Wai$er6 'M) Statute of frauds6 '(E) Esto""el6 '(() Dor&er reco$er! or discharge in an1ru"tc!, etc% #hen an oath is not re-uired A s"ecific denial under oath #ill not a""l! in the follo#ing cases, '() When the ad$erse "art! does not a""ear to e a "art! to the docu&ent, or '/) When co&"liance #ith an order for an ins"ection of the original instru&ent is refused% 'Sec% A, Rule A) ANSCER Defined and in eneral An ans#er is a "leading in #hich a defending "art! sets forth his defenses% 'Sec% 7, Rule =) This "leading &a! e an ans#er to the co&"laint, to a counterclai&, or an ans#er to a cross4clai&% There is N- ans#er to a re"l!% There &a! e an ans#er to a third4"art! co&"laint or co&"laint4in4inter$ention%

0,pes of defenses Ne ative A negative de%ense is the s"ecific denial of the &aterial fact or facts alleged in the "leading of the clai&ant essential to his cause or causes of action% 'Sec% >8a9, Rule =) A defense is negative #hen the &aterial a$er&ents alleged in the "leading of the clai&ant are speci%icall! denied% 'Sec% >, Rule 0) 9ow alle ed, enerall, It is alleged in the for& of a s"ecific denial% If the denial is not under Sec% (E, Rule A, it is dee&ed a general denial% A general denial is an ad&ission% Speci%ic denial Co# to &a1e a s"ecific denial, '() Absolute denial"s"ecif! each &aterial allegation of fact the truth of #hich he does not ad&it and, #hene$er "ractica le, set forth the su stance of the &atters u"on #hich he relies to su""ort his denial% '/) (artial denial"#here onl! a "art of an a$er&ent is denied, he s"ecif! so &uch of it as is true and &aterial and den! onl! the re&ainder% '0) *enial b! disavowal o% 2nowledge"#here defendant is #ithout 1no#ledge or infor&ation sufficient to for& a elief as to the truth of a &aterial a$er&ent in the co&"laint, he shall so state, and this shall ha$e the effect of a denial% 'Sec% (E, Rule A) Capacit, of parties The follo#ing &ust e a$erred, '() Dacts sho#ing the ca"acit! of a "art! to sue or e sued, '/) The authorit! of a "art! to sue or e sued in a re"resentati$e ca"acit!6 or '0) The legal e5istence of an organiGed association of "ersons that is &ade a "art!% Contesting the capacit! o% a part! A "art! desiring to raise an issue as to the legal e5istence of an! "art! or the ca"acit! of an! "art! to sue or e sued in a re"resentati$e ca"acit!, shall do so ! s"ecific denial, #hich shall include such su""orting "articulars as are "eculiarl! #ithin the "leader3s 1no#ledge% 'Sec% 7, Rule A) !enuineness of documents S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 0A

Whene$er an action or defense is ased u"on a written instrument or document, the "art! shall, '() set forth in the "leading the su stance of such instru&ent or docu&ent , and '/) attach the original or a co"! thereof an e5hi it, #hich shall e dee&ed to e a "art of the "leading, or '0) set forth said co"! e in the "leading #ith li1e effect% 'Sec% J, Rule A) Actionable document is one #hich is the asis of the clai& or defense% E amples, "ro&issor! note deed of sale contract N-TE, Letters ! "arties regarding the actiona le docu&ent are not actiona le docu&ents, e5istence of the actiona le docu&ent% /o contest an actionable document The "art! &ust '() s"ecificall! den! the genuineness and due e5ecution of the docu&ent under oath6 and '/) set forth #hat he clai&s to e the facts% N-TE, A &ere s"ecific denial is insufficient% The denial must e cou"led #ith an oath6 the denial &ust e $erified% A sence of an oath #ill e dee&ed an i&"lied ad&ission of the due e5ecution and genuineness of the docu&ent% When a "art! is dee&ed to ha$e ad&itted genuineness and due e5ecution of an actiona le docu&ent, defenses i&"lied fro& said ad&ission are #ai$ed 'forger!, lac1 of authorit! to e5ecute the docu&ent, no ca"acit! to sign, non4deli$er! of the docu&ent, defense that the docu&ent #as not in #ords and figures as set out in the "leadings) The follo#ing are N-T cut4off ! the i&"lied ad&ission since the! are unrelated to the genuineness and due e5ecution of the docu&ent, '() 2a!&ent6 '/) Want of consideration6 '0) Illegalit! of consideration6 '7) Usur!6 '>) Draud6 '=) 2rescri"tion, 'J) Release6 'A) Wai$er6 'M) Statute of frauds6 '(E) Esto""el6 '(() Dor&er reco$er! or discharge in an1ru"tc!, etc% #hen an oath is not re-uired A s"ecific denial under oath #ill not a""l! in the follo#ing cases, '0) When the ad$erse "art! does not a""ear to e a "art! to the docu&ent, or '7) When co&"liance #ith an order for an ins"ection of the original instru&ent is refused% 'Sec% A, Rule A) 'E'I$, v& ',SO%GSO%G )0..61 ut &ere e$idence of the

The genuineness and due e5ecution of the instru&ent shall e dee&ed ad&itted unless the ad$erse "art!, under oath, s"ecificall! denies the&, and sets forth #hat he clai&s to e the facts% A defendant &ust s"ecif! each &aterial allegation of fact the truth of #hich he does not ad&it and, #hene$er "ractica le, shall set forth the su stance of the &atters u"on #hich he relies to su""ort his denial%
DA+TS, Masongsong, under the usiness na&e of RM Integrated Ser$ices, #as the distri utor of San Miguel Doods, Inc%3s Magnolia chic1en "roducts% Ce su""lied said "roducts on a />4da! "a!&ent credit to Me&ita3s Vicor Store% Masongsong filed a co&"laint efore the RT+, alleging that Me&ita3s 2=E0,>/E%>E credit on goods "urchased re&ain un"aid des"ite his se$eral de&ands% Ce also "ra!ed for the issuance of a #rit of attach&ent against Me&ita% Thereafter, the RT+ ordered the issuance of a #rit of attach&ent against Me&ita, ta1ing into account, '() the allegations of the $erified co&"laint6 '/) the testi&onies of Masongsong and :oel Fo, his sales "erson6 and '0) Masongsong3s ond% According to the sheriff3s return of ser$ice, the 2ro$incial Sheriff issued a notice of le$! on attach&ent to the Registrar of the T- and a notice of e& argo to the Register of Deeds of Bacolod +it!% Me&ita did not den! that he "urchased goods on credit fro& Masongsong, ut ased his refusal to "a! on the follo#ing grounds, '() Buestiona le deli$eries6 '/) short deli$eries and discre"ancies6 and '0) "ossi le &ani"ulation of deli$er! recei"ts% Ce &ade a counterclai& and as1ed for 20EE,EEE in actual da&ages for the seiGure of t#o of his $ehicles6 2>EE,EEE as &oral da&ages6 at least 2/EE,EEE as e5e&"lar! da&ages6 and 2(>E,EEE as attorne!3s fees% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 0M

The RT+ ruled that Masongsong #as entitled to the reliefs "ra!ed for% Co#e$er, Me&ita filed a notice of a""eal #ith the trial court% In his rief, Me&ita a$erred that the trial court erroneousl! ad&itted as e$idence the &achine co"ies of the se$ent!4 t#o 'J/) sales in$oices des"ite the "atent lac1 of "roof of due e5ecution and authenticit!6 and in holding that Me&ita ac1no#ledged recei"t of the deli$eries &ade ! Masongsong% The a""ellate court u"held the trial court3s decision% The! said Me&ita failed to e5"licitl! den! or contest the genuineness and due e5ecution of the recei"ts or an! signatures on the recei"ts% ISSUES, #hether ,emita was able to contest the genuineness and due e ecution o% the CB sales invoices N"% Without s"ecif!ing the date of "urchase or the recei"t nu& er, Me&ita denied the Buantities and $alue of his "urchases% Ce alleged that there #ere Buestiona le deli$eries and Buestiona le nu& er of 1ilos "er crate, and concluded that Masongsong &ight ha$e &ani"ulated the deli$er! recei"ts% Co#e$er, he failed to "oint out an! "articular Sales In$oice #hich su stantiates his clai& of short deli$eries or Buestiona le deli$eries% The a""ellate court reiterated the trial court3s "osition and stated that Me&ita3s The Ans#er failed to e5"licitl! den! or contest the genuineness and due e5ecution of an! of the recei"ts nor an! of his signatures or that of his authoriGed re"resentati$e a""earing therein% Section A of Rule A "ro$ides that the genuineness and due e5ecution of the instru&ent shall e dee&ed ad&itted unless the ad$erse "art!, under oath, s"ecificall! denies the&, and sets forth #hat he clai&s to e the facts% Me&ita, in alleging UBuestiona leU and UshortU deli$eries, in effect alleges that Masongsong co&&itted fraud% Whoe$er alleges fraud or &ista1e affecting a transaction &ust su stantiate his allegation, since it is "resu&ed that a "erson ta1es ordinar! care of his concerns and "ri$ate concerns ha$e een fair and regular% Me&ita chose to "resent e$idence #hich did not Uset forth the factsU nor the Usu stance of the &atters u"on #hich he relies to su""ort his denial%L Ne ative pre nant *enial in the %orm o% a negative pregnant" It is a denial #hich at the sa&e ti&e in$ol$es an affir&ati$e i&"lication fa$ora le to the o""osing "art!, and is thus an ad&ission of an a$er&ent to #hich it is directed% It is a literal denial "regnant #ith ad&ission% It does not Bualif! as a s"ecific denial% It is conceded to e actuall! an ad&ission% It is a negati$e i&"l!ing also an affir&ati$e and #hich although stated in a negati$e for& reall! ad&its the allegations to #hich it relates%

2 ILI22I%E ,'E!I(,% GE%E!,L I%SU!,%(E (O&/ I%(& v& S3EE$ LI%ES )070 S(!, 74*/ 74451

E$en granting that "etitioner3s a$er&ent in their re"l! a&ounts to a denial, it has the "rocedural ear&ar1s a negati$e "regnant, that is, a denial "regnant #ith the ad&ission of the su stantial facts in the "leadings res"onded to #hich are not sBuarel! denied% While the "etitioners o .ected to the $alidit! of such agree&ent for eing contrar! to "u lic "olic!, the e5istence of the ills of lading and said sti"ulations #ere i&"liedl! ad&itted ! the&
DA+TS, In March (MJJ, the $essel SS UVISCVA WASCU a foreign co&&on carrier, too1 on oard at Baton Rouge, LA, t#o '/) consign&ents of cargoes for shi"&ent to Manila and later for transshi"&ent to Da$ao +it!, consisting of ags of Lo# Densit! 2ol!eth!lene oth consigned to the order of DEBT+ Manila, #ith arri$al notice to T2I in Da$ao +it!% The said $essel arri$ed at Manila and discharged its cargoes in the 2ort of Manila% Dor transshi"&ent to Da$ao, the carrier a#aited and &ade use of the ser$ices of M?V US#eet Lo$eU o#ned and o"erated ! SLI interisland carrier% Su .ect cargoes #ere loaded and #ere co&&ingled #ith si&ilar cargoes elonging o other t#o other co&"anies% The shi"&ents #ere discharged fro& the interisland carrier into the custod! of the consignee% Co#e$er, of the J,EEE ags originall! contained in (J> "allets, onl! a total of >,A/E ags #ere deli$ered to the consignee in good order condition, lea$ing a alance of (,EAE ags% Defendants #ere sued for such losses% Before trial, a co&"ro&ise agree&ent #as entered into et#een "etitioners, as "laintiffs, and defendants S%+%I% Line and D%E% Xuellig% The trial court granted "etitioners &otion to dis&iss on the ground of said a&ica le settle&ent and the case as to S%+%I% Line and D%E% Xuellig #as conseBuentl! dis&issed% +A re$ersed the RT+ on su""osed ground of "rescri"tion #hen SLI failed to adduce an! e$idence in su""ort thereof and that the ills of lading said to contain the shortened "eriods for filing a clai& and for instituting a court action against the carrier #ere ne$er offered in e$idence% ISSUE, #hether the non)inclusion o% the controverted bills o% lading in the %ormal o%%er o% evidence would bar respondent %rom raising the de%ense o% prescription N"1 In the case at ar, "rescri"tion as an affir&ati$e defense #as seasona l! raised ! SLI in its ans#er, e5ce"t that the ills of lading e& od!ing the sa&e #ere not for&all! offered in e$idence% As "etitioners are suing u"on SLIRs contractual o ligation under the contract of carriage as contained in the ills of lading, such ills of lading can e categoriGed as actiona le docu&ents #hich under the Rules &ust e "ro"erl! "leaded either as S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 7E

causes of action or defenses, and the genuineness and due e5ecution of #hich are dee&ed ad&itted unless s"ecificall! denied under oath ! the ad$erse "art!% 2etitioners failed to contro$ert the e5istence of the ills of lading6 hence, the! i&"liedl! ad&itted the sa&e #hen the! &erel! assailed the $alidit! of su .ect sti"ulations% 2etitionersR failure to s"ecificall! den! the e5istence, &uch less the genuineness and due e5ecution, of the instru&ents in Buestion a&ounts to an ad&ission% :udicial ad&issions, $er al or #ritten, &ade ! the "arties in the "leadings or in the course of the trial or other "roceedings in the sa&e case are conclusi$e, no e$idence eing reBuired to "ro$e the sa&e, and cannot e contradicted unless sho#n to ha$e een &ade through "al"a le &ista1e or that no such ad&ission #as &ade% Moreo$er, #hen the due e5ecution and genuineness of an instru&ent are dee&ed ad&itted ecause of the ad$erse "art!Rs failure to &a1e a s"ecific $erified denial thereof, the instru&ent need not e "resented for&all! in e$idence for it &a! e considered an ad&itted fact% 2etitioners failed to touch on the &atter of the non4"resentation of the ills of lading in their rief and earlier on in the a""ellate "roceedings in this case% 2etitioners ac1no#ledged the e5istence of said ills of lading% B! ha$ing the cargo shi""ed on res"ondent carrierRs $essel and later &a1ing a clai& for loss on the asis of the ills of lading, "etitioners for all intents and "ur"oses acce"ted said ills% Affirmative An a%%irmative de%ense is an allegation of a ne# &atter #hich, #hile h!potheticall! admitting the &aterial allegations in the "leading of the clai&ant #ould ne$ertheless "re$ent or ar reco$er! ! hi&% It is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the "laintiff3s cause of action, ut one #hich, if esta lished, #ill e a good defense, an a$oidance of the clai&% It &ust e of such nature as to ar the "laintiff fro& clai&ing on his cause of action% The "laintiff &a! den! or contro$ert it ! filing a re"l!% If no re"l! is, affir&ati$e defenses are dee&ed contro$erted e cept those #hich are reBuired to e under oath% The affir&ati$e defenses include '() fraud, '/) statute of li&itations, '0) release, '7) "a!&ent, '>) illegalit!, '=) statute of frauds, 'J) esto""el, 'A) for&er reco$er!, 'M) discharge in an1ru"tc!, and '(E) an! other &atter ! #a! of confession and a$oidance

Implied admissions General rule: Defenses and o .ections not "leaded either in a &otion to dis&iss or in the ans#er are dee&ed #ai$ed% E ception: The grounds of '() Lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter6 '/) Litis "endentia 'that there is another action "ending et#een the sa&e "arties for the sa&e cause)6 '0) Res .udicata 'that the action is arred ! a "rior .udg&ent), and '7) 2rescri"tion Periods to plead Answer to the complaint" Within (> da!s after ser$ice of su&&ons, unless a different "eriod is fi5ed ! the court 'Sec% (, Rule (() Answer o% a de%endant %oreign private .uridical entit!%* Within 0E da!s after recei"t of su&&ons #here the defendant is '() a foreign "ri$ate .uridical entit! and '/) ser$ice of su&&ons is &ade on the go$ern&ent official designated ! la# to recei$e the sa&e% 'Sec% /, Rule (() Answer to amended complaint: $iled as a matter o% right" Within (> da!s after eing ser$ed #ith a co"! of the a&ended co&"laint% 'ot a matter o% right" Within (E da!s fro& notice of the -rder ad&itting the sa&e An ans#er earlier filed &a! ser$e as the ans#er to the a&ended co&"laint, if no ne# ans#er is filed% N-TE, This Rule a""lies to ans#ers to '() an a&ended counterclai&, '/) a&ended cross4clai&, '0) a&ended third 'fourth, etc%)* "art! co&"laint, and '7) a&ended co&"laint4in4inter$ention% 'Sec% 0, Rule (() S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 7(

Caiver of defenses A co&"ulsor! counterclai&, or a cross4clai&, not set u" shall e arred% 'Sec% /, Rule M) C"/N0ERCLAI+S Defined and in eneral A counterclaim is an! clai& #hich a defending "art! &a! ha$e against an o""osing "art!% 'Sec% =, Rule =) It "arta1es of a co&"laint ! the defendant against the "laintiff Iclai&L &a! refer to a clai& for 'a) Mone!6 or ' ) So&e other relief against an o""osing "art! U"on filing of the counterclai&, the defendant eco&es the "laintiff, #hile the original "laintiff eco&es the defendant% It gi$es rise to t#o co&"laints, the original co&"laint and the counterclai&% 9ow raised Included in answer A counterclai& &a! e asserted against an original counter4clai&ant% 'Sec% M, Rule =) A co&"ulsor!, counterclai& or a cross4clai& that a defending "art! has at the time he %iles his answer shall e contained therein% 'Sec% A, Rule (() After answer A counterclai& &a! e asserted against an original counter4clai&ant% 'Sec% M, Rule =) A counterclai& or a cross4clai& #hich either '() &atured or '/) #as acBuired ! a "art! after ser$ing his "leading &a!, #ith the "er&ission of the court, e "resented as a counterclaim or a cross)claim .udg&ent% 'Sec% M, Rule (() ?inds of counterclaims Compulsor, A compulsor! counterclaim is one #hich, eing cogniGa le ! the regular courts of .ustice, '() Arises out of or is connected #ith the transaction or occurrence constituting the su .ect &atter of the o""osing "art!3s clai& and '/) Does not reBuire for its ad.udication the "resence of third "arties of #ho& the court cannot acBuire .urisdiction% '0) Such a counterclai& &ust e #ithin the .urisdiction of the court oth as to the amount and the nature thereof, e cept that in an original action efore the RT+, the counterclai& &a! e considered co&"ulsor! regardless of the a&ount% 'Sec% J, Rule =) N-TE, A co&"ulsor! counterclai&, or a cross4clai&, not set u" shall e barred% 'Sec% /, Rule M)

! su""le&ental "leading be%ore

'It cannot be independentl, ad4udicated #, "I%,%(E (O!2 v& (O )00* S(!, 7-5/ 74451

+o&"ulsor! counterclai&, eing ancillar! to the "rinci"al contro$ers!, cannot Ure&ain "ending for inde"endent ad.udication ! the court%U Dis&issal of the co&"laint carries #ith it the dis&issal of the co&"ulsor! counterclai&%
DA+TS, BA Dinance rought an action reco$er a su& of &one! fro& a credit acco&&odation in the for& of a discounting line #hich it granted to Rufino +o, and fro& certain suret!shi" agree&ents e5ecuted in its fa$or ! his co4res"ondents% As their counterclai&, res"ondents alleged o$er"a!&ents and da&ages% The! asserted that the! are no longer inde ted to "etitioner and

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age 7/

are in fact entitled to rei& urse&ent for o$er"a!&ents% The! as1ed for da&ages for e5"enses incurred and incon$eniences suffered ! the& as a result of the filing of the "resent action% After res"ondentsR A&ended Ans#er to +o&"laint #ith +o&"ulsor! +ounterclai& #as ad&itted, the case #as set for 2re4Trial +onference% The conference #as re"eatedl! reset% +ounsel for BA Dinance failed to attend the 2re4Trial +onference% +onseBuentl!, +o &o$ed for dis&issal of the case #ithout "re.udice% The &otion #as granted% Res"ondents &o$ed to set the rece"tion of their e$idence in su""ort of their counterclai&% Trial court denied the &otion% +A re$ersed the lo#er court3s order and directed it to set the rece"tion of their e$idence on their counterclai&% Motion for reconsideration #as denied, hence the instant "etition alleging that the dis&issal of the co&"laint carried #ith it the dis&issal of res"ondent3s counterclai&% ISSUE, #hether the dismissal o% the complaint carries with it the dismissal o% the counterclaim 6ES1 A co&"ulsor! counterclai& cannot Ure&ain "ending for inde"endent ad.udication ! the court%U This is ecause it is au5iliar! to the "roceeding in the original suit and &erel! deri$es its .urisdictional su""ort therefro&% Thus, if the trial court no longer "ossesses .urisdiction to entertain the &ain action of the case, an #hen it dis&isses the sa&e, then the co&"ulsor! counterclai& eing ancillar! to the "rinci"al contro$ers!, &ust li1e#ise e si&ilarl! dis&issed since no .urisdiction re&ains for the grant of an! relief under the counterclai&% In the case at ar, the sa&e e$idence needed to sustain the counterclai& of res"ondents #ould also refute the cause of action in "etitionerRs co&"laint% If "ri$ate res"ondents could successfull! sho# that the! actuall! &ade o$er"a!&ents on the credit acco&&odations e5tended ! "etitioner, then the co&"laint &ust fail% Therefore the counterclai& is co&"ulsor!% Co#e$er, #ith the dis&issal of the co&"laint on defendantRs o#n &otion, it li1e#ise dis&issed the counterclai& Buestioning the co&"laint% What the defendants could ha$e done instead of &o$ing for dis&issal #as to as1 the trial court to declare "etitioners to e Unon4suitedU on their co&"laint so that the latter can no longer "resent his e$idence thereon, and si&ultaneousl! &o$e that he e declared as in default on the co&"ulsor! counterclai&, and reser$e the right to "resent e$idence e5 "arte on his counterclai&% This #ill ena le defendant #ho #as un.ustl! haled to court to "ro$e his co&"ulsor! counterclai&, #hich is intert#ined #ith the co&"laint, ecause the trial court retains .urisdiction o$er the co&"laint and of the #hole case% The non4 dis&issal of the co&"laint, the non4suit not#ithstanding, "ro$ides the asis for the co&"ulsor! counterclai& to re&ain acti$e and su sisting% '.urisdiction $bot) as to amount and natureD e:ception& ',(ED, v& (, )74841

The MT+ does not ha$e original .urisdiction o$er the counterclai& as it e5ceeds 2/E,EEE, hence the RT+ did not ha$e a""ellate .urisdiction o$er the clai&%
DA+TS, S"ouses Arturo and Ma5i&a e&igrated to the U%S% and leased their house and lot to their ne"he#, Maceda, for 2/EE "er &onth% With the s"ouses3 "er&ission, "etitioner re"aired and reno$ated the house su .ect to rei& urse&ent for e5"enses% The re&odeling .o cost 27E,EEE% The s"ouses &ade "lans to rei& urse hi&% Maceda introduced &ore i&"ro$e&ents% When Arturo "assed a#a! in the US, his attorne!4in4fact "ro&ised to sell to Maceda the "ro"ert! for 2(/>,EEE after the transfer of title to his #ido#ed aunt% Co#e$er, it #as later sold ! the aunt to Mr% Fo&eG, and the latter to 2a lo Xu iri% E.ect&ent cases #ere filed against Maceda, ut all #ere dis&issed% Ma5i&a died in the US% Xu iri sold the "ro"ert! to +e&ent +enter, Inc%, #ho as1ed "etitioner to $acate ecause of a housing "ro.ect it had for its e&"lo!ees% Maceda insisted on eing rei& ursed for his i&"ro$e&ents as the original o#ners had "ro&ised to do% Dor&al de&ands to $acate and for "a!&ent of 27,EEE &onthl! rental fro& A"ril (>, (MA/ #ere sent to hi& ! the co&"an!% Another e.ect&ent suit #as filed against hi& in the MT+% In his ans#er to the co&"laint, Maceda set u" a 2/7E,EEE counterclai&, the alleged $alue of his i&"ro$e&ents% The MT+ ordered hi& to $acate the "re&ises and "a! +e&ent +enter rent% The latter #as ordered to rei& urse hi& for the i&"ro$e&ents% The RT+ set aside the decision and ordered +e&ent +enter to "a! Maceda 2(A/,EEE as necessar! and useful i&"ro$e&ents% The +A re$ersed the decision ecause of MT+3s lac1 of .urisdiction, and, in conseBuence the RT+ decision3s lac1 of legal asis% ISSUE, #hether the ,/C had .urisdiction over an e.ectment case where the lesseeIs counterclaim e ceeds the courtIs .urisdictional limit N"1 The MT+ did not ha$e original .urisdiction o$er his counterclai& as it e5ceeds 2/E,EEE% +orres"ondingl!, the RT+ did not ha$e a""ellate .urisdiction o$er the clai&% The decision of the MT+ a#arding Maceda 2(>A,EEE on his counterclai&, and that of the RT+ raising the a#ard to 2(A/,/EE, #ere in$alid for lac1 of .urisdiction% The .urisdiction of the MT+ in a ci$il action for su& of &one! is li&ited to a de&and that Udoes not e5ceed 2/E,EEE e5clusi$e of interest and costs ut inclusi$e of da&ages of #hate$er 1ind%U 'Sec% 00, su "ar% (, B%2% Blg% (/M%) A counterclai& in the &unici"al or cit! court e!ond that .urisdictional li&it &a! e "leaded onl! ! #a! of defense to #ea1en the "laintiffs clai&, ut not to o tain affir&ati$e relief% @*ilin fees and non'forum certification not reEuired

Permissive A permissive counterclaim is one #hich does not arise out of the o""osing "art!3s clai& or necessaril! connected #ith the transaction or occurrence constituting the su .ect &atter of the o""osing "art!3s clai&% It is not connected #ith the "laintiff3s cause of action% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 70

It is N-T arred e$en if not "leaded in the ans#er% It &a! e filed as an inde"endent action ! the defendant as "laintiff%

E amples +ounterclai& for da&ages ased on culpa a-uiliana in a co&"laint for collection of a loan +ounterclai& for da&ages ased on Buasi4delict +ounterclai& for the "a!&ent of the "rice of a car in an action to reco$er a "iece of land *istinctions between compulsor! and permissive counterclaim 2ERMISSIVE Ma! e set u" as an inde"endent action and #ill not e arred if not in the ans#er An initiator! "leading Should e acco&"anied ! a certification against foru& sho""ing and #hen legall! reBuired, a certificate to file action ! the +upong /agapama!apa +-M2ULS-RW Must e contained in the ans#er6 if it is not set u", it shall e arred Not an initiator! "leading

Does not reBuire certifications

Must e ans#ered ! the "art! against #ho& it is inter"osed, other#ise, he &a! e declared in default

Dailure to ans#er this is N-T a cause for a default declaration% +o&"ulsor! counterclai&s &erel! reiterating s"ecial defenses are dee&ed contro$erted e$en #ithout a re"l! No need to "a! doc1et fees BUT N-TE, AM 74/4E7 no# reBuires "a!&ent of fees for co&"ulsor! counterclai&s 'Riano)

Doc1et and other la#ful fees should e "aid

BO!E, EC( ,%GE #,%B v& GO%?,LES )*+- S(!, 00*/ 0..+1

Doru& sho""ing is a ground for su&&ar! dis&issal of oth initiator! "leadings #ithout "re.udice to the ta1ing of a""ro"riate action against the counsel or "art! concerned% The counterclai&s of the 2CDI, et al%, for &oral and e5e&"lar! da&ages #ere &erel! "er&issi$e6 hence, the! #ere &andated to a""end thereto a certification of non4foru& sho""ing%
DA+TS, 2CDI and Magno et al, filed a co&"laint in the RT+ against Au&, a Norean National and "resident of 2CDI, and the Norea E5change Ban1 'NEB)% The! alleged that through the &achination of Au&, NEB granted a Y>EE,EEE%EE loan to the 2CDI #ith the condition that the said loan e de"osited #ith the NEB in the na&e of 2CDI% Thereafter, the "laintiffs e5ecuted a real estate &ortgage o$er their "ro"erties as securit! for the said loan% Under 2CDI3s oard resolution, onl! Au& and MendoGa #ere authoriGed signatories to all a""lications for #ithdra#als fro& the said accounts% Au& #ithdre# Y(=E,EEE%EE fro& the account ! forging MendoGa3s signature% Ce #as &ade another #ithdra#al, lea$ing a alance of Y(=0,EEE%EE% Au& allegedl! could not ha$e #ithdra#n said de"osits #ithout the NEB3s conni$ance% Au&Rs failure to heed de&ands for an accounting of the said #ithdra#als and for the restitution of the said a&ounts constituted large scale estafa for #hich the! are lia le for e5e&"lar! and &oral da&ages% The NEB filed a Motion to Dis&iss the co&"laint, #hich the trial court denied% The NEB filed a "etition for certiorari and "rohi ition #ith the +A for the nullification of the orders of the RT+% Mean#hile, in another case, NEB filed a +o&"laint against Magno et al and 2CDI efore the RT+ for su& of &one! and refor&ation of the real estate &ortgage e5ecuted ! 2CDI% 2CDI and Magno, et al% filed a &otion to dis&iss on the ground of foru& sho""ing, asserting that the NEB should ha$e filed its counterclai& for collection and the refor&ation of the &ortgage in S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 77

the first ci$il case% The! a$erred that the essential ele&ents of litis pendentia #ere "resent% Co#e$er, the RT+ denied the &otion to dis&iss% 2CDI and Magno, et al% therefore filed their ans#er #ith counterclai&s in the second case #here the! denied inde tedness to the NEB, alleging the sa&e facts in their co&"laint in the first ci$il case% NEB filed a &otion to dis&iss these counterclai&s, alleging that the causes of action for 2CDI3s co&"laint for collection of Y(=E,EEE%EE and da&ages, and for the counterclai&s in this second case for the set4off of the said a&ount against its clai& of Y>EE,EEE%EE #ere identical6 hence, their counterclai&s should e dis&issed for foru& sho""ing% 2CDI, et al% o""osed the &otion to dis&iss the co&"laint, alleging that NEB failed to include foru& sho""ing as a ground in its &otion to dis&iss their co&"laint in the first case6 hence, it is ound ! the o&ni us &otion rule% 2CDI, et al% also o""osed the &otion to dis&iss their counterclai&s on the ground that the causes of action in the t#o cases #ere unrelated% The! asserted that the su .ect &atter, causes of action and the issues in the t#o cases #ere different% The RT+ denied NEBRs &otion to dis&iss the co&"laint and &otion to dis&iss the counterclai&s%NEB filed its ans#er to the counterclai&s of the 2CDI, et al%, in the second case% +A, in a .oint decision, affir&ed the RT+ #ith res"ect to the first case, ut dis&issed res"ondents3 counterclai&s in the second case for foru&4sho""ing% The +A declared that the counterclai&s of the 2CDI, et al%, for &oral and e5e&"lar! da&ages #ere &erel! "er&issi$e6 hence, the! #ere &andated to a""end thereto a certification of non4foru& sho""ing% ISSUE, #hether the counterclaim in the second case should be dismissed %or the absence o% a certi%icate o% non)%orum shopping, and whether the %irst case should be dismissed %or %orum shopping 6ES1 In inter"osing their counterclai& for set4off of the Y(=E,EEE%EE against their loan of Y>EE,EEE%EE in the second case, as #ell as the counterclai&s for &oral da&ages, and e5e&"lar! da&ages, the res"ondents there ! engaged in foru& sho""ing% The general rule is that co&"liance #ith the certificate of foru& sho""ing is se"arate fro& and inde"endent of the a$oidance of the act of foru& sho""ing itself% Doru& sho""ing is a ground for su&&ar! dis&issal of oth initiator! "leadings #ithout "re.udice to the ta1ing of a""ro"riate action against the counsel or "art! concerned% There is foru& sho""ing #hen, et#een an action "ending efore the court and another one, there e5ist,'a) identit! of "arties, or at least such "arties as re"resent the sa&e interests in oth actions6 ' ) identit! of rights asserted and relief "ra!ed for, the relief eing founded on the sa&e facts6 and 'c) the identit! of the t#o "receding "articulars is such that an! .udg&ent rendered in the other action #ill, regardless of #hich "art! is successful, a&ount to res .udicata in the action under consideration% There is foru& sho""ing #here a litigant sues the sa&e "art! against #ho& another action or actions for the alleged $iolation of the sa&e right and the enforce&ent of the sa&e relief is?are still "ending% The defense of litis pendentia in one case is a ar to the other?others6 and, a final .udg&ent is one that #ould constitute res .udicata and thus #ould cause the dis&issal of the rest% A solute identit! of "arties is not reBuired% It is enough that there is su stantial identit! of "arties% Remedies *or failure to raise compulsor, counterclaim A co&"ulsor! counterclai&, or a cross4clai&, not set u" shall e arred% 'Sec% /, Rule M) This refers to a counterclai& defendant has at the ti&e of filing of the ans#er "versi When a '() '/) '0) '7) )t, inadvertence, e:cusable ne lect "leader fails to set u" a counterclai& or a cross4clai& through o$ersight, inad$ertence, e5cusa le neglect, or #hen .ustice reBuires,

Ce &a!, ! lea$e of court, set u" the counterclai& or cross4clai& ! a&end&ent be%ore .udg&ent% 'Sec% (E, Rule (() ANSCER 0" C"/N0ERCLAI+ In eneral An answer is a "leading in #hich a defending "art! sets forth his defenses% 'Sec% 7, Rule =) Period to plead A counterclai& or cross4clai& &ust e ans#ered #ithin (E da!s fro& service% 'Sec% 7, Rule (() REPL6 Defined and in eneral A repl! is a "leading, the office or function of #hich is to den!, or allege facts in denial or a$oidance of ne# &atters alleged ! #a! of defense in the ans#er and there ! .oin or &a1e issue as to such ne# &atters% A re"l! is the res"onsi$e "leading to an ans#er, not to counterclai& or cross4clai&% 'ot mandator!*If a "art! does not file such re"l!, all the ne# &atters alleged in the ans#er are dee&ed contro$erted% If the "laintiff #ishes to inter"ose an! clai&s arising out of the ne# &atters so alleged such clai&s shall e set forth in an a&ended or su""le&ental co&"laint% 'Sec% (E, Rule =) C)en reEuired C)allen e due to aut)enticit, of documents

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age 7>

When an action or defense is founded u"on a #ritten instru&ent, co"ied in or attached to the corres"onding "leading, the genuineness and due e5ecution of the instru&ent shall e dee&ed ad&itted unless the ad$erse "art! '() s"ecificall! denies the&, and '/) sets forth #hat he clai&s to e the facts6 '0) under oath% BUT the reBuire&ent of an oath does not a""l! #hen '() the ad$erse "art! does not a""ear to e a "art! to the instru&ent or '/) #hen co&"liance #ith an order for an ins"ection of the original instru&ent is refused% 'Sec% A, Rule A) (,SE%$ !E,L$> DE9A$ (O!2 v& 2 IL#,%BI%G (O!2O!,$IO% )0..61

When the defense in the ans#er is ased on an actiona le docu&ent, a Re"l! s"ecificall! den!ing it under oath &ust e &ade6 other#ise the genuineness and due e5ecution of the docu&ent #ill e dee&ed ad&itted%
DA+TS, 2hil an1ing +or"oration '2hilBan1ing) filed a co&"laint against +asent Realt! +or"oration '+asent) efore the RT+ for collection on t#o "ro&issor! notes assigned ! Rare Realt! +or"oration% In its Ans#er, +asent raised, a&ong others, as defenses the Dacion en 2ago 'Dacion) e5ecuted et#een "etitioner and res"ondent, and the +onfir&ation State&ent issued ! res"ondent stating that "etitioner had no loans #ith the an1 as of Dece& er 0(, (MAA% 2etitioner then filed a Motion for :udg&ent on De&urrer to the E$idence, "ointing out that the 2hilBan1ing3s failure to file a Re"l! to the Ans#er constituted an ad&ission of the genuineness and e5ecution of said docu&ents6 and that since the Dacion o literated "etitioner3s o ligation co$ered ! the "ro&issor! notes, the an1 had no right to collect an!&ore% The RT+ ruled in fa$or of +asent and dis&issed the co&"laint% -n a""eal, the +A found that under the Deed of Assign&ent, res"ondent 2hilBan1ing clearl! had the right to "roceed against the "ro&issor! notes assigned ! Rare Realt!% ISSUE, #hether respondentEs %ailure to %ile a &epl! and den! the *acion and Con%irmation Statement under oath constituted a .udicial admission o% the genuineness and due e ecution o% these documents 6ES1 When an action or defense is founded u"on a #ritten instru&ent, co"ied in or attached to the corres"onding "leading as "ro$ided in the "receding section, the genuineness and due e5ecution of the instru&ent shall e dee&ed ad&itted unless the ad$erse "art!, under oath, s"ecificall! denies the&, and sets forth, #hat he clai&s to e the facts6 ut the reBuire&ent of an oath does not a""l! #hen the ad$erse "art! does not a""ear to e a "art! to the instru&ent or #hen co&"liance #ith an order for an ins"ection of the original instru&ent is refused% Since res"ondent failed to file a Re"l!, in effect, res"ondent ad&itted the genuineness and due e5ecution of said docu&ents% This .udicial ad&ission should ha$e een considered ! the a""ellate court in resol$ing the de&urrer to e$idence% Rule A, Section A s"ecificall! a""lies to actions or defenses founded u"on a #ritten instru&ent, and "ro$ide the &anner of den!ing it% It is &ore controlling than Rule =, Section (E #hich &erel! "ro$ides the effect of failure to file a Re"l!% Thus, #here the defense in the Ans#er is ased on an actiona le docu&ent, a Re"l! s"ecificall! den!ing it under oath &ust e &ade6 other#ise, the genuineness and due e5ecution of the docu&ent #ill e dee&ed ad&itted% Since res"ondent failed to den! the genuineness and due e5ecution of the Dacion and +onfir&ation State&ent under oath, then these are dee&ed ad&itted and &ust e considered ! the court in resol$ing the de&urrer to e$idence% It &ust e noted, ho#e$er, that ad&ission of the genuineness and due e5ecution of the Dacion and +onfir&ation State&ent does not "re$ent the introduction of e$idence sho#ing that the Dacion e5cludes the "ro&issor! notes% 2etitioner, ! #a! of defense, should ha$e "resented e$idence to sho# that the Dacion includes the "ro&issor! notes% 09IRDF*"/R09'PAR06 C"+PLAIN0 Defined A third :%ourth, etc.;)part! complaint is a clai& that a defending "art! &a!, #ith lea$e of court, file against a "erson not a "art! to the action, called the third 'fourth, etc%)*"art! defendant, for '() contri ution, '/) inde&nit!, '0) su rogation or '7) an! other relief, in res"ect of his o""onent3s clai&% 'Sec% ((, Rule =) N-TE, It is N-T "ro"er to file a third4"art! co&"laint against one #ho is alread! a "art! to the action, such as against a "laintiff or a co4defendant% But a cross4clai& &a! e filed against the&% Remedies w)en denied When a co&"laint is dis&issed, the third4"art! co&"laint is also dis&issed% But if the "laintiff a""eals the dis&issal, the defendant4third4"art! "laintiff must also a""eal to o tain affir&ati$e relief% ANSCER 0" 09IRDF*"/R09'PAR06 C"+PLAIN0 In eneral A third 'fourth, etc%)*"art! defendant &a! allege in his ans#er S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 7=

'() '/) '0) '7) '>)

his defenses, counterclai&s, cross4clai&s, defenses that the third 'fourth, etc%)*"art! "laintiff &a! ha$e against the original "laintiff3s clai&, or a counterclai& against the original "laintiff in res"ect of the latter3s clai& against the third4"art! "laintiff, in "ro"er cases% 'Sec% (0, Rule =)

0ime to plead The sa&e "eriod as the ans#er to the co&"laint 'Sec% >, Rule ((), #ithin (> da!s fro& ser$ice of su&&ons%

E30ENSI"N "* 0I+E 0" PLEAD The court &a! e5tend the ti&e to "lead "ro$ided in these Rules, '() U"on &otion and '/) on such ter&s as &a! e .ust% ,otion to e tend period to plead Must e in #riting, and efore filed efore the la"se of "eriod Ti&e to "lead can onl! e e5tended, no shortened The court &a! also, u"on li2e terms, allo# an ans#er or other "leading to e filed a%ter the ti&e fi5ed ! these Rules% 'Sec% ((, Rule (() An order allo#ing the filing of a late ans#er or other "leading is interlocutor!, and therefore, una""eala le% $*ormal ReEuirements& *ILIN! AND SER#ICE "* PLEADIN!S, +"0I"NS AND "RDERS #erification General &ule: 2leadings NEED N-T e under oath, $erified or acco&"anied ! affida$it% E ception: #hen other#ise s"ecificall! reBuired ! la# or rule% The follo# "leadings &ust e $erified, 2etition to ta1e de"osition efore action6 2etition for relief fro& .udg&ent6 A""eal ! Certiorari fro& +A to S+6 A""lication for 2reli&inar! In.unction or Te&"orar! Restraining -rder6 A""lication for A""oint&ent of a Recei$er6 2etition for Certiorari, 2rohi ition, or ,andamus6 All "leadings of forci le entr! and unla#ful detainer6 2etition for a""oint&ent of general guardian6 2etition of guardian for lea$e to sell or encu& er "ro"ert! of estate6 2etition to declare co&"etenc! of #ard6 A""lication for Writ of habeas corpus6 2etition for change of na&e6 2etition for $oluntar! dissolution of cor"oration6 2etition to correct entries in ci$il registr!6 2leadings in Su&&ar! 2rocedure% The follo#ing need not e $erified ut &ust e under oath, Denial of genuineness and dues e5ecution of actiona le docu&ent6 Denial of allegations of usur!6 Motion to set aside order of default6 Ans#er to #ritten interrogatories6 Ans#er to reBuest for ad&ission% Affida$it of &erit or su""orting affida$it is reBuired in the follo#ing, Motion for su&&ar! .udg&ent or o""osition thereto6 Motion for ne# trial6 Affida$it of third4"art! clai& on le$ied "ro"ert!6 2roof reBuired of rede&"tioner6 +o&"laint #ith "ra!er for "reli&inar! attach&ent6 Affida$it of third4"art! clai& on attached "ro"ert!6 Motion to dissol$e "reli&inar! in.unction on ground of irre"ara le da&age to &o$ant #hile ad$erse "art! can co&"ensated +o&"laint for re"le$in, +lai& against estate of decedent%

e full!

How pleading is veri%ied A "leading is $erified ! an affida$it S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 7J

'0) that the affiant has read the "leading and '7) that the allegations therein are true and correct of his "ersonal 1no#ledge or ased on authentic records% N-TE, A "leading reBuired to e $erified shall e treated as an unsigned "leading if it contains a $erification '7) ased on Iinfor&ation and elief,L '>) u"on I1no#ledge, infor&ation and elief,L or '=) lac1s a "ro"er $erification &emedies The court &a! order the correction of the "leading if lac1ing $erification The court &a! also acct on the "leading des"ite failure to "ro"erl! $erif! if under the circu&stances, strict co&"liance #ith the rules &a! e dis"ensed #ith The a sence of $erification &a! e corrected ! reBuiring an oath% Certification a ainst forum s)oppin $orum shopping is the filing of &ulti"le suits in different courts, either si&ultaneousl! or successi$el!, in$ol$ing the sa&e "arties, to as1 the courts to rule on the sa&e or related causes and?or to grant the sa&e or su stantiall! the sa&e relief% It is an act of &al"ractice The sa&e shall constitute direct conte&"t, a cause for ad&inistrati$e sanctions, as #ell as a ground for the su&&ar! dis&issal of the case #ith "re.udice% The certi%ication against %orum shopping is a s#orn state&ent ! the "laintiff or "rinci"al "art! certif!ing in an initiator! "leading, 'd) that he has not co&&enced an! action or filed an! clai& in$ol$ing the sa&e issues in an! court, tri unal or Buasi4 .udicial agenc! and, to the est of his 1no#ledge, no such other action or clai& is "ending therein6 'e) if there is such other "ending action or clai&, a co&"lete state&ent of the "resent status thereof6 and 'f) if he should thereafter learn that the sa&e or si&ilar action or clai& has een filed or is "ending, he shall re"ort that fact #ithin fi$e '>) da!s therefro& to the court #herein his aforesaid co&"laint or initiator! "leading has een filed% N-TE, The certification &ust e e5ecuted ! the "art! N-T the counsel, unless the latter is authoriGed s"ecificall! to do so% A certification signed ! the counsel is a defecti$e certification and is a $alid cause for dis&issal% BUT This rule &ust e li erall! inter"reted, Dailure of "arties to sign ecause the! #ere a road &a! e a reasona le cause to e5e&"t the "arties fro& co&"liance #ith the reBuire&ent Signing ! one of the "etitioners #as held to e su stantial co&"liance This reBuire&ent is &andator! in the filing of a co&"laint and other initiator! "leading, a""lies also to s"ecial ci$il actions% 3nitiator! pleadings include 'J) -riginal co&"laint6 'A) 2er&issi$e counterclai&6 'M) +ross4clai&6 '(E) Third 'fourth, etc%)4"art! co&"laint6 '(() +o&"laint in inter$ention6 and '(/) 2etition or a""lication #herein the "art! asserts his clai& or relief% N-TE, No certification reBuired for a co&"ulsor! counterclai& since it is N-T an initiator! "leading% E%%ect o% %ailure to compl! '() It shall N-T e cura le ! &ere a&end&ent of the co&"laint or other initiator! "leading% '/) BUT it shall e cause for the dis&issal of the case without "re.udice, unless other#ise "ro$ided, u"on &otion and after hearing% Effect of the su &ission of a false certification or non4co&"liance #ith an! of the underta1ings therein, '() Indirect conte&"t6 '/) Ad&inistrati$e and cri&inal actions% Effect of '() '/) '0) #illful and deli erate foru& sho""ing ! the "art! or his counsel, ground for su&&ar! dis&issal #ith "re.udice direct conte&"t, and a cause for ad&inistrati$e sanctions% 'Sec% >, Rule J) ut it is N-T .urisdictional% The rule

How to determine e istence o% %orum shopping The &ost i&"ortant Buestion is #hether the ele&ents of litis pendentia are "resent -R #hether a final .udg&ent in one case #ill result to res .udicata% The TEST is #hether in the t#o or &ore cases "ending, there is, 'd) identit! of "arties6 'e) identit! of rights or causes of action, and 'f) identit! of reliefs sought% ,O@,S v& (, S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age 7A

)*47 S(!, 5+5/ 0..-1

If the foru& sho""ing is not considered #illful and deli erate, the su seBuent cases shall e dis&issed #ithout "re.udice on one of the t#o grounds &entioned a o$e% Co#e$er, if the foru& sho""ing is #illful and deli erate, oth 'or all, if there are &ore than t#o) actions shall e dis&issed #ith "re.udice%
DA+TS, The Lutheran +hurch in the 2hili""ines 'L+2) has local Lutheran congregations in three districts, &anaged ! se$en directors*t#o for each district, and one as the national "resident% Three districts #ere added, thus a total of ele$en '(() directors &anaged the L+2% +ontro$ersies arose #hen the oard of directors ter&inated the ser$ices of Eclesio Ci"e, usiness &ana7>ger and cor"orate secretar!% The Ao4As grou", for&er L+2 directors and officers, filed SE+4SI+D +ase No% 0>AJ against the Batong grou", the L+2 directors at that ti&e% The case sought accounting and da&ages, and a""oint&ent of a &anage&ent co&&ittee% Its causes of action are, 'a) non4liBuidation and?or non4accounting of the 2=7,EEE "roceeds of the La Trinidad land transaction6 ' ) on4 liBuidation and?or unaccounting of 20/0,J>E #orth of cash ad$ances6 'c) dissi"ation of the 27%AM general fund6 'd) non4 registration of L+23s land in Le!te6 'e) se$erance of church4"artnershi" #ith Lutheran +hurch4Missouri S!nod6 and 'f) transfer of cor"orate oo1s% Se$eral other cases #ere also instituted against the Batong grou"% An NLR+ case Buestioned the oard resolutions #hich ter&inated e&"lo!ees, a +i$il +ase Buestioned another oard resolution authoriGing the transfer of cor"orate records, and another SE+4SI+D +ase 'No% 0>/7) Buestioned the legalit! of the (( &e& ers of the L+2 Board% Also, in another SE+ +ase 'No% 0>>=), a &otion #as &ade to a""oint a &anage&ent co&&ittee% This &otion #as denied since the sa&e is an incident of SE+ +ase 0>AJ% After hearing in SE+ +ase 0>AJ, the SE+4SI+D ordered the creation of a &anage&ent co&&ittee and declared all oard resolutions "assed ! the L+2 oard $oid ab initio% The +A, ho#e$er, ruled that the Ao4As grou" #ere guilt! of foru& sho""ing% ISSUE, #hether the Ao)As group is guilt! o% %orum shopping N"1 The si5 grounds originall! relied u"on ! the Ao4As grou" in SE+ +ase 0>AJ are entirel! different fro& the causes of action in the NRL+, +i$il, and the t#o other SE+ cases% It is true that the causes of action in the latter cases #ere included as additional grounds in +ase 0>AJ for the a""oint&ent of "ro"erties and assets of L+2 #hich &a! ha$e co&e into their "ossession during their incu& enc! as officers and?or directors of L+2% Co#e$er, the creation of a &anage&ent co&&ittee and the "ra!er for accounting could not ha$e een as1ed for in the la or and forci le entr! cases% As regards the other SE+ +ases, though, the Ao4As grou" could ha$e indeed "ra!ed for the creation of the &anage&ent co&&ittee and the accounting of the funds of the L+2% In fact, the "etitioner in SE+4SI+D +ase No% 0>>= had "ra!ed for the a""oint&ent of a &anage&ent co&&ittee in a &otion #hich #as su seBuent to the filing of SE+4SI+D +ase No% 0A>J% SE+ dis&issed +ase No% 0>>= considering that it #as one of the incidents of +ase No% 0A>J% In effect, it #as denied on the ground of litis "endentia% Co#e$er, this is not a case of #illful and deli erate foru& sho""ing and, hence, the +ase No% 0A>J should not e dis&issed% The reason for this is the strict e$identiar! reBuire&ent needed to grant a "ra!er to create a &anage&ent co&&ittee% The SE+ has the "o#er to create a &anage&ent co&&ittee #hen there is Ii&&inent danger of dissi"ation, loss, #astage or destruction of assets or other "ro"erties or "araliGation of usiness o"erationsL It should e difficult to deduce the Ui&&inent danger of dissi"ation, loss, #astage or destruction of assets or other "ro"ertiesU fro& an allegation of a single act of "re$ious &isa""ro"riation or dissi"ation on the "art of the Batong grou"% It is often onl! #hen the "re$ious &isa""ro"riations and dissi"ations ha$e eco&e e5tensi$e and out of control that it can e candidl! said that there is an i&&inent danger of further dissi"ation% The Ao4As grou" cannot e faulted therefore for not "ra!ing for the creation of a &anage&ent co&&ittee in the first cou"le of cases it filed #ith the SE+, and neither can the! e faulted for using the causes of action in "re$iousl! filed cases to "ro$e their allegation of i&&inent dissi"ation% We cannot rule out the "ossi ilit! that the danger of i&&inent dissi"ation of the cor"orate assets eca&e a""arent onl! in the acts of the res"ondents su seBuent to the filing of the first t#o SE+ cases% As the "resent .uris"rudence no# stands, foru& sho""ing can e co&&itted in three #a!s, '() filing &ulti"le cases ased on the sa&e cause of action and #ith the sa&e "ra!er, the "re$ious case not ha$ing een resol$ed !et 'litis "endentia)6 '/) filing &ulti"le cases ased on the sa&e cause of action and the sa&e "ra!er, the "re$ious case ha$ing een finall! resol$ed 'res .udicata)6 and '0) filing &ulti"le cases ased on the sa&e cause of action ut #ith different "ra!ers 's"litting of causes of action, #here the ground for dis&issal is also either litis "endentia or res .udicata)% If the foru& sho""ing is not considered #illful and deli erate, the su seBuent cases shall e dis&issed #ithout "re.udice on one of the t#o grounds &entioned a o$e% Co#e$er, if the foru& sho""ing is #illful and deli erate, oth 'or all, if there are &ore than t#o) actions shall e dis&issed #ith "re.udice% *orum s)oppin certificate for a corporation #hen plainti%% is a .uridical person*this &a! e signed ! the "ro"erl! authoriGed "ersons% 2,L v& ",S,2 )*64 S(!, -.+/ 0..-1

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age 7M

-nl! indi$iduals $ested #ith authorit! ! a $alid oard resolution &a! sign the certificate of non4foru& sho""ing in ehalf of a cor"oration% In addition, "roof of said authorit! &ust e attached% Dailure to "ro$ide a certificate of non4foru& sho""ing is sufficient ground to dis&iss the "etition% Li1e#ise, the "etition is su .ect to dis&issal if a certification #as su &itted unacco&"anied ! "roof of the signator!3s authorit!%
DA+TS, Dlight Attendants and Ste#ards Association of the 2hili""ines 'DASA2) and Bhag#ani filed a co&"laint for unfair la or "ractice, illegal sus"ension and illegal dis&issal against 2AL and so&e of its officers efore the NLR+ La or Ar iter The La or Ar iter u"held DASA2 and Bhag#ani and, ordered 2AL to "a! the& da&ages% The NLR+ &odified the decision, setting aside the finding that 2AL #as guilt! of unfair la or "ractice, ut affir&ing the rest of the decision% 2AL filed a "etition for certiorari #ith the +A, acco&"anied ! a +ertification of Non4Doru& Sho""ing e5ecuted ! +esar La& erte and Susan Del +ar&en, V2 Cu&an Resources and Asst% V2 +a in Ser$ices of 2AL, res"ecti$el!, #ho are not "arties to the case% The certification #as #ithout "roof that the t#o affiants had authorit! to sign in ehalf of "etitioners% The +A dis&issed the case for failure to sho# the affiants3 authorit! to sign for 2AL and for failure of the other "etitioners to .oin in the e5ecution of the certification% A &otion for reconsideration #as filed #ith a Secretar!3s +ertificate attached e$idencing that affiants La& erte and Del +ar&en ha$e een authoriGed ! oard resolution to initiate and?or cause to e filed on ehalf of 2AL "etitions and "leadings in all la or4related cases% A "erusal of the Secretar!3s +ertificate su &itted re$eals that the authorit! to cause the filing of the "etition #as granted on De ruar! (>, /EEE% The "etition, on the other hand, #as filed on :anuar! /7, /EEE and #as dis&issed ! the +A on :anuar! 0(, /EEE% As to the other "etitioners, it #as argued that the! are &ere no&inal "arties so that their failure to e5ecute the certification does not .ustif! dis&issal of the "etition% +A denied the &otion% ISSUE, #hether the certi%ication o% non)%orum shopping was properl! e ecuted N"1 The certification of non4foru& sho""ing attached #as #ithout "roof of authorit! to sign% When a &otion for reconsideration #as filed, a Secretar!3s +ertificate #as su &itted as "roof that the oard of directors of 2AL had authoriGed the t#o to e5ecute the certificate% Nonetheless, the +ourt finds that this elated su &ission is an insufficient co&"liance #ith the certification reBuire&ent% The reBuired certification &ust e $alid at the ti&e of filing of the "etition% An in$alid certificate cannot e re&edied ! the su seBuent su &ission of a Secretar!3s +ertificate that $ests authorit! onl! after the "etition had een filed% At the ti&e the certification #as signed, La& erte and Del +ar&en #ere not dul! authoriGed and, conseBuentl!, their signing and attestations #ere not in re"resentation of 2AL% This effecti$el! translates to a "etition that #as filed #ithout a certification at all as none #as issued ! 2AL, the "rinci"al "art! to the case% Rule =>, Section (, in relation to Rule 7=, Section 0 of the Rules of +ourt reBuires the certification of non4foru& sho""ing to e e5ecuted ! the corres"onding "etitioner or "etitioners% As no distinction is &ade as to #hich "art! &ust e5ecute the certificate, this reBuire&ent is &ade to a""l! to oth natural and .uridical entities% When the "etitioner is a cor"oration, the certification should e e5ecuted ! a natural "erson% Durther&ore, not .ust an! "erson can e called u"on to e5ecute the certification, although such a "erson &a! ha$e "ersonal 1no#ledge of the facts to e attested to% The "o#er of a cor"oration to sue in an! court is generall! lodged #ith the oard of directors, #ho can delegate the "h!sical acts needed to sue, #hich &a! e "erfor&ed onl! ! natural "ersons, to its attorne!s4in4fact ! a oard resolution, if not alread! authoriGed under the cor"orate !4la#s% Thus, onl! indi$iduals $ested #ith authorit! ! a $alid oard resolution &a! sign the certificate of non4foru& sho""ing in ehalf of a cor"oration% In addition, "roof of said authorit! &ust e attached% Dailure to "ro$ide a certificate of non4foru& sho""ing is sufficient ground to dis&iss the "etition% Li1e#ise, the "etition is su .ect to dis&issal if a certification #as su &itted unacco&"anied ! "roof of the signator!3s authorit!% *ilin and service defined $iling*the act of "resenting the "leading or other "a"er to the cler1 of court Service*the act of "ro$iding a "art! #ith a co"! of the "leading or "a"er concerned% If an! "art! has a""eared ! counsel, ser$ice u"on hi& shall e &ade u"on his counsel or one of the&, unless ser$ice u"on the "art! hi&self is ordered ! the court% Where one counsel a""ears %or several parties, he shall onl! e entitled to one co"! of an! "a"er ser$ed u"on hi& ! the o""osite side% 'Sec% /, Rule 0) Covera e This Rule go$erns '() the filing of all "leadings and other "a"ers, and '/) the ser$ice thereof EH+E2T those for #hich a different &ode of ser$ice is "rescri ed 'Sec% (, Rule (0) (apers re-uired to be %iled and served* '() .udg&ents, '/) resolutions, S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >E

'0) orders, '7) "leading su seBuent to the co&"laint, '>) #ritten &otions, '=) notices, 'J) a""earances, 'A) de&ands, 'M) offers of .udg&ent, or '(E) si&ilar "a"ers shall e filed #ith the court, and ser$ed u"on the "arties affected 'Sec% 7, Rule (0) +odes of service There are t#o &odes of ser$ice of "leadings, &otions, orders, .udg&ents and other "a"ers, '() "ersonall!, or '/) ! &ail In eneral, filin The filing of "leadings, a""earances, &otions, notices, orders, .udg&ents and all other "a"ers shall e &ade :>; (ersonall!" B! "resenting the original co"ies thereof, "lainl! indicated as such, "ersonall! to the cler1 of court the cler1 of court shall endorse on the "leading the date and hour of filing% :B; 1! mail" B! sending the& ! registered &ail% The date of the &ailing of &otions, "leadings, or an! other "a"ers or "a!&ents or de"osits, as sho#n ! the "ost office sta&" on the en$elo"e or the registr! recei"t, shall e considered as the date of their filing, "a!&ent, or de"osit in court% The en$elo"e shall e attached to the record of the case% 'Sec% 0, Rule (0) In eneral, service Ser$ice of "leadings, &otions, notices, orders, .udg&ents and other "a"ers shall e &ade either '() "ersonall! or '/) ! &ail% 'Sec% >, Rule (0) Service o% .udgments, %inal orders, or resolutions.":udg&ents, final orders or resolutions shall e ser$ed '() "ersonall! '/) ! registered &ail, or '0) ! "u lication, at the e5"ense of the "re$ailing "art!, in cases #here a "art! #as a% su&&oned ! "u lication, and % has failed to a""ear in the action% 'Sec% M, Rule (0) Personal 2ersonal ser$ice of the "a"ers &a! e &ade '() ! deli$ering "ersonall! a co"! to the "art! or his counsel, '/) ! lea$ing it in his office #ith his cler1 or #ith a "erson ha$ing charge thereof, or '0) ! lea$ing the co"!, et#een Aa& and ="&, at the "art!3s or counsel3s residence, if 1no#n, #ith a "erson of sufficient age and discretion then residing therein, in cases #here a% no "erson is found in his office, % his office is not 1no#n, or c% he has no office, then% 'Sec% =, Rule (0) +ail Ser$ice '() '/) '0) '7) '>)

! registered mail shall e &ade ! de"ositing the co"! in the office, in a sealed en$elo"e, "lainl! addressed to the "art! or his counsel at his office, if 1no#n, other#ise at his residence, if 1no#n, #ith "ostage full! "re"aid, and #ith instructions to the "ost&aster to return the &ail to the sender after ten '(E) da!s if undeli$ered%

Ser$ice ! ordinar! mail &a! e done if no registr! ser$ice is a$aila le in the localit! of either the sender or the addressee 'Sec% J, Rule (0) Substituted service Su stituted ser$ice is &ade if ser$ice of "leadings, &otions, notices, resolutions, orders and other "a"ers cannot e &ade under the two preceding sections, the office and "lace of residence of the "art! or his counsel eing un1no#n% Su stituted ser$ice is done '() ! deli$ering the co"! to the cler1 of court, #ith "roof of failure of oth "ersonal ser$ice and '/) ser$ice ! &ail% The ser$ice is co&"lete at the time o% such deliver! % 'Sec% A, Rule (0) Priorit, Whene$er "ractica le, the ser$ice and filing of "leadings and other "a"ers shall e done "ersonall!% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >(

A resort to other &odes &ust e acco&"anied ! a written e planation #h! the ser$ice or filing #as not done "ersonall!% E ception: 2a"ers e&anating fro& the court% A violation of this Rule &a! e cause to consider the "a"er as not filed% 'Sec% ((, Rule (0)

/pon part, in default $Sec1 7, Rule >& A defending "art! shall e declared in default #hen '() Ground: Ce fails to ans#er #ithin the ti&e allo#ed therefor, the court shall, '/) The clai&ing "art! files a &otion to declare the defending "art! in default, furnishing "roof of failure to ans#er '0) Said "art! gi$es notice of such &otion to the defending "art!, The court shall "roceed to render .udg&ent granting the clai&ant such relief as his "leading &a! #arrant, unless the court in its discretion reBuires the clai&ant to su &it e$idence% Such rece"tion of e$idence &a! e delegated to the cler1 of court% '(a, R(A) 'a) E%%ect o% order o% de%ault."A "art! in default shall e entitled to notice of su seBuent "roceedings trial% ut N-T to ta1e "art in the

' ) &elie% %rom order o% de%ault." A "art! declared in default &a! at an! ti&e after notice thereof and efore .udg&ent file a &otion under oath to set aside the order of default u"on "ro"er sho#ing that his failure to ans#er #as due to fraud, accident, &ista1e or e5cusa le negligence and that he has a &eritorious defense% In such case, the order of default &a! e set aside on such ter&s and conditions as the .udge &a! i&"ose in the interest of .ustice% 'c) E%%ect o% partial de%ault."When a "leading asserting a clai& states a co&&on cause of action against se$eral defending "arties, so&e of #ho& ans#er and the others fail to do so, the court shall tr! the case against all u"on the ans#ers thus filed and render .udg&ent u"on the e$idence "resented% 'd) E tent o% relie% to be awarded." A .udg&ent rendered against a "art! in default shall not e5ceed the a&ount or e different in 1ind fro& that "ra!ed for nor a#ard unliBuidated da&ages% 'e) #here no de%aults allowed." If the defending "art! in an action for annul&ent or declaration of nullit! of &arriage or for legal se"aration fails to ans#er, the court shall order the "rosecuting attorne! to in$estigate #hether or not a collusion et#een the "arties e5ists, and if there is no collusion, to inter$ene for the State in order to see to it that the e$idence su &itted is not fa ricated% 'Sec% 0, Rule M) Completion of service (ersonal service* u"on actual deli$er! Service b! ordinar! mail* u"on the e5"iration of ten '(E) da!s after &ailing, unless the court other#ise "ro$ides% Service b! registered mail* u"on actual recei"t ! the addressee, or after fi$e '>) da!s fro& the date he recei$ed the first notice of the "ost&aster, #hiche$er date is earlier% 'Sec% (E, Rule (0) Proof of filin and service The filing of a "leading or "a"er shall e "ro$ed ! (ersonal service '() its e5istence in the record of the case6 '/) the #ritten or sta&"ed ac1no#ledg&ent of its filing ! the cler1 of court on a co"! of the sa&e, if it is not in the record, ut is clai&ed to ha$e een filed "ersonall!6 &egistered mail '() ! the registr! recei"t and '/) ! the affida$it of the "erson #ho did the &ailing, containing a% a full state&ent of the date and "lace of de"ositing the &ail in the "ost office in a sealed en$elo"e addressed to the court, % #ith "ostage full! "re"aid, and c% #ith instructions to the "ost&aster to return the &ail to the sender after ten '(E) da!s if not deli$ered% 'Sec% (/, Rule (0) The ser$ice of a "leading or "a"er shall e "ro$ed ! (ersonal service '() #ritten ad&ission of the "art! ser$ed, '/) the official return of the ser$er, or '0) the affida$it of the "art! ser$ing, containing a full state&ent of the date, "lace and &anner of ser$ice% 8rdinar! mail S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >/

'() affida$it of the "erson &ailing of facts sho#ing co&"liance #ith section J of this Rule% Ser$ice ! ordinar! mail &a! e done if no registr! ser$ice is a$aila le in the localit! of either the sender or the addressee 'Sec% J, Rule (0) &egistered ,ail" '() such affida$it and '/) the registr! recei"t issued ! the &ailing office% N-TE, The registr! return card shall e filed i&&ediatel! u"on its recei"t ! the sender, or in lieu thereof of the unclai&ed letter together #ith the certified or s#orn co"! of the notice gi$en ! the "ost&aster to the addressee% 'Sec% (0, Rule (0)

Lis pendens A notice o% lis pendens &a! e recorded in the office of the registr! of deeds of the "ro$ince in #hich the "ro"ert! is situated '() ! the "laintiff and the defendant6 '/) in an action affecting the title or the right of "ossession of real "ro"ert!, '0) #hen affir&ati$e relief is clai&ed in the ans#er, Said notice shall contain '() the na&es of the "arties '/) the o .ect of the action or defense, and '0) a descri"tion of the "ro"ert! in that "ro$ince affected there !% Effects '() Constructive notice to a "urchaser or encu& rancer fro& the ti&e of filing such notice for record% '/) Is notice onl! against the "arties designated ! their real na&es% Cancellation The notice of lis pendens hereina o$e &entioned &a! e cancelled '() onl! u"on order of the court, '/) after "ro"er sho#ing that a% the notice is for the "ur"ose of &olesting the ad$erse "art!, or % that it is not necessar! to "rotect the rights of the "art! #ho caused it to e recorded% 'Sec% (7, Rule (0)

A+ENDED AND S/PPLE+EN0AL PLEADIN!S Amendments In eneral 2leadings &a! e a&ended '() ! adding or stri1ing out an allegation or the na&e of an! "art!, or '/) ! correcting a &ista1e in the na&e of a "art! or a &ista1en or inadeBuate allegation or descri"tion in an! other res"ect (urpose, So that the actual &erits of the contro$ers! &a! s"eedil! &ost e5"editious and ine5"ensi$e &anner% Liberalit, #,!"EL DE9A$& (O!2 v& (, )005 S(!, 0-81 e deter&ined, #ithout regard to technicalities, and in the

As a general "olic!, li eralit! in allo#ing a&end&ents is greatest in the earl! stages of a la# suit, decreases as it "rogresses and changes at ti&es to a strictness a&ounting to a "rohi ition% This is further restricted ! the condition that the a&end&ent should not "re.udice the ad$erse "art! or "lace hi& at a disad$antage%
DA+TS, Barfel sold to Reginas t#o "arcels of land #ith t#o houses erected thereon in A!ala Ala ang, sti"ulating that the Barfel #ill a""l! the "a!&ent of the cash "ortion of the "urchase "rice to the re&o$al of an! and all liens on the "ro"erties% The contract stated that a"art fro& a B2I &ortgage and the Deed of Restrictions annotated at the ac1 of the title, the su .ect "ro"ert! #as free fro& all liens% Reginas &ade the do#n"a!&ent u"on signing the agree&ent% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >0

It #as later disco$ered that there #as a""arentl! a second &ortgage #ith the 2IS-?+entral Ban1% U"on this infor&ation, Victor Barrios assured the u!er that the second &ortgage has een reduced and that he #ill su &it the necessar! docu&ents to su""ort a legal and $alid acce"ta le arrange&ent for the release of such &ortgage% Thereafter, the 2SB granted Reginas loan, #hich again su .ected aforesaid "ro"erties to a &ortgage% 2SB no# "ro&ises to "a! directl! to B2I fro& the "roceeds of the loan and "a! the sellers the "urchase "rice% The latter confor&ed to the arrange&ent% Fi$en the "rior assurance of a #or1a le arrange&ent regarding the +entral Ban1 &ortgage, the u!ers no# &anifested its #illingness to "a! 2/M ahead of the "roceeds for the 2SB loan% Not#ithstanding such negotiations ho#e$er, the sellers here are in gross and e$ident ad faith and &alicious reach of contract for the! ha$e failed to co&"l! #ith the o ligation to release the second &ortgage% B2I further a$erred that the sellers actuall! disauthoriGed the& to consu&&ate the transaction des"ite "re$ious arrange&ents% Reginas and XaragoGa filed a co&"laint for s"ecific "erfor&ance and da&ages against Barfel and the S"ouses Barrios% 2re4trial #as conducted and oth "arties "resented e$idence% During Barfel3s "resentation, Reginas filed a &otion for lea$e to file an a&ended co&"laint and &otion to ad&it the sa&e% The a&end&ent sought to i&"lead 2IS- an1 as additional "art! defendant and co&"el it to acce"t "a!&ent of the e5isting second &ortgage fro& Reginas, since no co&"lete relief can e had unless the second &ortgage is released% Barfel o""osed% The RT+ ad&itted the a&ended co&"laint% The +A sustained the lo#er court3s order sa!ing that the a&end&ent #as &ade #ithout intent to dela! the action% The essence of li eral construction #as accorded ! the courts% ISSUE, #hether the amended complaint should be allowed N"1 The a&end&ent #as &ade #ith intent to dela! the action and su stantiall! alters the cause of action of Reginas and the defense of Barfel% After the case is set for hearing, su stantial a&end&ents &a! e &ade onl! u"on lea$e of court% Such lea$e &a! e refused if it a""ears that the &otion #as &ade #ith intent to dela! the action or that the cause of action or defense is su stantiall! altered% 'Sec% 0, Rule (E) The a&end&ent sought ! "ri$ate res"ondents, #hich is to include a ne# "art! defendant at a late stage in the "roceeding, is not a for&al ut a su stantial one% 2ri$ate res"ondents #ill ha$e to "resent additional e$idence on the 2ISsecond &ortgage% The effect #ould e to start trial ane# #ith the "arties recasting their theories of the case% The correct a&ount of the second &ortgage o#ed ! "etitioners to 2IS- an1 'a""arentl! a contro$erted "oint), #ould ha$e to e litigated and this could e ti&e consu&ing% As a general "olic!, li eralit! in allo#ing a&end&ents is greatest in the earl! stages of a la# suit, decreases as it "rogresses and changes at ti&es to a strictness a&ounting to a "rohi ition% This is further restricted ! the condition that the a&end&ent should not "re.udice the ad$erse "art! or "lace hi& at a disad$antage% *orm When an! "leading is a&ended, the follo#ing shall e filed, '() a ne# co"! of the entire "leading, '/) incor"orating the a&end&ents, #hich shall e indicated ! a""ro"riate &ar1s,% 'Sec% J, Rule (0) Effect An a&ended "leading su"ersedes the "leading it a&ends% Co#e$er, ad&issions in su"erseded "leadings ma! be received in evidence against the "leader6 and Claims or de%enses alleged therein not incorporated in the a&ended "leading shall e dee&ed #ai$ed% 'Sec% A, Rule (E) ?inds *ormal amendment A defect in the designation of the "arties and other clearl! clerical or t!"ogra"hical errors &a! court at an! stage of the action, at its initiati$e or on &otion, "ro$ided so no "re.udice is caused there ! to the ad$erse "art!% 'Sec% 7, Rule (E) Substantial amendments +atter of ri )t A "art! &a! a&end his "leading once as a &atter of right at an! ti&e be%ore a responsive pleading is ser$ed or, in the case of a re"l!, at an! ti&e #ithin ten '(E) da!s after it is ser$ed% 'Sec% /, Rule (E) +atter of discretion E5ce"t as "ro$ided in the ne5t "receding section, Substantial amendments &a! e &ade onl! u"on lea$e of court% But such leave ma! be re%used if it a""ears to the court that the &otion #as &ade #ith intent to dela!% Su stantial a&end&ents &a! e &ade onl! '() u"on &otion filed in court, and '/) after notice to the ad$erse "art!, and an o""ortunit! to e heard% 'Sec% 0, Rule (E) 0o conform to evidence Amendment to con%orm to evidence Issues not raised ! "leadings &a! e dee&ed as if the! #ere raised, '() When issues are not raised ! the "leadings, and '/) The! are tried #ith the e5"ress or i&"lied consent of the "arties Such a&end&ent of the "leadings as &a! e necessar! S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >7

e su&&aril! corrected

! the

to cause the& to confor& to the e$idence and to raise these issues &a! e &ade '() u"on &otion of an! "art! '/) at an! ti&e, e$en after .udg&ent6 $ailure to amend Dailure to a&end does not affect the result of the trial of these issues% Amendment to authori0e presentation o% evidence This a&end&ent &a! e &ade if e$idence is o .ected to at the trial on the ground that it is not #ithin the issues &ade ! the "leadings, the court &a! allo# the "leadings to e a&ended and shall do so #ith li eralit! if the "resentation of the &erits of the action and the ends of su stantial .ustice #ill e ser$ed there !% The court &a! grant a continuance to ena le the a&end&ent to e &ade% 'Sec% >, Rule (E) S3,G',% )0..81 O$ELS D $!,9EL/ I%(& v& (,

The curing effect under Section > of Rule (E of the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure is a""lica le onl! if a cause of action e5ists at the ti&e the co&"laint is filed, ut the co&"laint is defecti$e for failure to allege the essential facts% A co&"laint #hose cause of action has not !et accrued cannot e cured or re&edied ! an a&ended or su""le&ental "leading alleging the e5istence or accrual of a cause of action #hile the case is "ending%
DA+TS, S#ag&an Cotels and Tra$el, Inc%, o tained fro& res"ondent Neal B% +hristian loans e$idenced ! three "ro&issor! notes dated (MMJ, each in the a&ount of Y>E,EEE "a!a le after three !ears '/EE) fro& its date #ith a (>Q interest "er annu& "a!a le e$er! three &onths% Later on, +hristian infor&ed the S#ag&an that he #as ter&inating the loans and de&anded fro& the latter "a!&ent in the total a&ount of Y(>E,EEE "lus the un"aid interests of Y(0,>EE% In (MMM, +hristian filed a co&"laint for the un"aid loans, alleging that "etitioner, instead of "a!ing the (>Q &onthl! interest, started "a!ing onl! =Q% S#ag&an filed an Ans#er, raising as defense the lac1 of cause of action of the "rinci"al o ligations ecause the three "ro&issor! notes #ere not !et due and de&anda le% The trial court ruled that the first t#o "ro&issor! notes #ere alread! due and de&anda le and ordered S#ag&an to "a! the a&ount of the chec1s "lus =Q interest% It ruled that although at the ti&e of the co&"laint, the notes #ere not !et due and de&anda le, it #as cured #hen the! eca&e due during the trial% ISSUE, #hether or not lac2 o% cause o% action ma! be cured b! evidence presented during the trial and amendments to con%orm to the evidence N"1 A&end&ents of "leadings are allo#ed under Rule (E in order that the actual &erits of a case &a! e deter&ined in the &ost e5"editious and ine5"ensi$e &anner #ithout regard to technicalities, and that all other &atters included in the case &a! e deter&ined in a single "roceeding, there ! a$oiding &ulti"licit! of suits% Section > thereof a""lies to situations #herein e$idence not #ithin the issues raised in the "leadings is "resented ! the "arties during the trial, and to confor& to such e$idence the "leadings are su seBuentl! a&ended on &otion of a "art!% The curing effect under Section > is a""lica le onl! if a cause of action in fact e5ists at the ti&e the co&"laint is filed, ut the co&"laint is defecti$e for failure to allege the essential facts% It thus follo#s that a co&"laint #hose cause of action has not !et accrued cannot e cured or re&edied ! an a&ended or su""le&ental "leading alleging the e5istence or accrual of a cause of action #hile the case is "ending% Such an action is "re&aturel! rought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, #hich should e dis&issed ! the court u"on "ro"er &otion seasona l! filed ! the defendant% The underl!ing reason for this rule is that a "erson should not e su&&oned efore the "u lic tri unals to ans#er for co&"laints #hich are i&&ature% Remedies Periods to answer Amendments Amendment as a matter o% right* The defendant shall ans#er the sa&e #ithin fifteen '(>) da!s after eing ser$ed #ith a co"! thereof% Amendment not a matter o% right* The defendant shall ans#er #ithin ten '(E) da!s fro& notice of the -rder ad&itting the sa&e% An ans#er earlier filed &a! ser$e as the ans#er to the a&ended co&"laint, if no ne# ans#er is filed% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >>

Applicabilit! This Rule shall a""l! to the ans#er to '() an a&ended counterclai&, '/) a&ended cross4clai&, '0) a&ended third 'fourth, etc%)* "art! co&"laint, and '7) a&ended co&"laint4in4inter$ention% 'Sec% 0, Rule (() Supplemental complaint This &a! e ans#ered #ithin ten '(E) da!s fro& notice of the order ad&itting the sa&e, unless a different "eriod is fi5ed court% 3% no new or supplemental answer is %iled * The ans#er to the co&"laint shall ser$e as the ans#er to the su""le&ental co&"laint% 'Sec% J, Rule (()

! the

Supplemental pleadin s A su""le&ental "leading setting forth transactions, occurrences or e$ents #hich ha$e ha""ened since the date of the "leading sought to e su""le&ented &a! e "er&itted '() u"on &otion of a "art! '/) reasona le notice and '0) u"on such ter&s as are .ust (eriod to answer The ad$erse "art! &a! "lead thereto #ithin ten '(E) da!s fro& notice of the order ad&itting the su""le&ental "leading% 'Sec% =, Rule (() Distin uis)ed from amended pleadin s S OE',!$/ I%(& v& (, )74. S(!, 784/ 744.1

A su""le&ental "leading su""lies deficiencies in aid of an original "leading not to entirel! su stitute the latter%
DA+TS, Anson E&"oriu& +or"% 'Anson) leased fro& Shoe&art "ortion of a uilding for t#o !ears% The lease sti"ulated that if after ter&ination of the lease, Shoe&art "er&its Anson to re&ain, the lease shall e understood to e on a &onth to &onth asis in the a sence of a contrar! #ritten agree&ent% Anson re&ained in "ossession after the t#o4!ear "eriod ut on an increased rental% Dour !ears later, Shoe&art ter&inated the lease and ga$e notice to Anson to $acate, #hich the latter refused% A co&"laint for e.ect&ent #as filed against hi& #ith the MT+% Shoe&art as1ed for, and #as granted, lea$e to file su""le&ental co&"laint #hich alleged that the rental of all tenants of the "re&ises had een increased to 27>,(7/%EE, #hich Anson refused to "a!% Anson alleged that Shoe&art3s clai& for increased rentals has een arred% MT+ ruled for Anson% The RT+ re$ersed the .udg&ent and ordered Anson to $acate the "re&ises and to "a! 207,=// and 27>,(7/ res"ecti$el! for the t#o lease agree&ents, #ith (Q interest fro& -cto er (MJJ% Shoe&art filed a &otion for reconsideration of the a#ard of da&ages, sa!ing it is less than #hat is reall! due% RT+ granted this &otion% +A affir&ed the e.ect&ent of res"ondent ut reduced the da&ages a#arded ! stating that the (Q interest #ill start to run fro& -cto er (MGC% 2ri$ate res"ondent sought the correction of the clerical error regarding date of the effecti$it! of the "a!&ent for da&ages% Said &otion #as granted 2etitionerRs &otion for reconsideration see1ing the reinstate&ent of the RT+3s decision #as denied% +A ruled that "etitioner3s clai& for da&ages is li&ited to the 27>,(7/ alleged in the su""le&ental co&"laint% ISSUE, #hether the subse-uentl! amended complaint in the case at bar renders the original complaint abandoned or ine istent N"1 2etitionerRs reco$er! is not li&ited ! the a&ount of 27>,(7/%EE "ra!ed for in the su""le&ental co&"laint as increased rental% This is not a case of a co&"laint su seBuentl! a&ended, the effect of #hich is to render the original co&"laint a andoned or ine5istent and let the a&end&ent ta1e for& as the sole su stitute u"on #hich the case stands for trial% A su""le&ental co&"laint or "leading su""lies deficiencies in aid of an original "leading, not to entirel! su stitute the latter% A "erusal of the original co&"laint sho#s that it "ra!ed, a&ong others, that the "ri$ate res"ondent e ordered to "a! "etitioner 207,=//%EE and all other rentals and charges that &a! e due until res"ondent $acates the "re&ises% 2etitioner, therefore, did not foreclose its right to de&and increased rentals that &a! e reco$ered e5"ressed in ter&s of the fair rental $alue or the reasona le co&"ensation for the use and occu"ation of the real "ro"ert!% Unli1e in an a&ended co&"laint, the original co&"laint e5ists side ! side #ith the su""le&ental co&"laint% The su""le&ental "leading &erel! ser$ed to a$er su"er$ening facts #hich #ere then not ri"e for .udicial relief #hen the original "leading #as filed% Su""le&ental "leadings are &eant to su""l! deficiencies in aid of the original "leading and not to dis"ense #ith the latter% The failure of "etitioner to a&end its co&"laint or file additional su""le&ental "leadings to allege su seBuent rental increases is of no &o&ent% In $ie# of the failure of "ri$ate res"ondent to o .ect to the "resentation of e$idence sho#ing that there #ere four '7) rental increases on the su .ect "re&ises although three '0) of said increases are not alleged in the "leadings, .udg&ent &a! e rendered $alidl! as regards the said increases or issues #hich shall e considered as if the! ha$e een raised in the "leadings% As found ! the RT+, "ri$ate res"ondent did not contro$ert the e$idence su &itted ! "etitioner in deter&ining the fair rental $alue of the "re&ises including those i&"osed on all other tenants of "etitioner occu"!ing the Ma1ati Arcade% If, indeed, the rental S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >=

increases #ere unconsciona le, res"ondent should ha$e at least "resented e$idence to su stantiate its clai&% The urden of "roof to sho# that the rental de&anded is unconsciona le or e5or itant rests u"on "ri$ate res"ondent as the lessee% 2ri$ate res"ondent failed to discharge its urden #hen it o&itted to "resent an! e$idence at all on #hat it considers is the fair rental $alue other than #hat #ere su &itted ! "etitioner% As a &atter of fact, all the other tenants did not Buestion the reasona leness of the rental increases BILL "* PAR0IC/LARSFIN0ER#EN0I"N Bill of particulars Also called ill of definite state&ent It is a &otion that a""lies to an! "leading #hich in the "erce"tion of the &o$ant contains a& iguous allegations 'Riano) If a co&"laint &a1es out a cause of action, the a& iguit! in so&e allegations or failure to allege facts #ith sufficient "articularit! does not .ustif! the filing of a &otion to dis&iss% The "ro"er re&ed! is to file a motion %or bill o% particulars% "ffice and Purpose To see1 an order fro& court directing the "leader to su &it a ill of "articulars #hich a$ers &atters #ith Isufficient definiteness or "articularit!L to ena le the &o$ant to file his res"onsi$e "leading% 'Sec% (, Rule (/) IThe "ro"er "re"aration of an intelligent ans#er reBuires infor&ation as to the "recise nature, character, sco"e and e5tent of the cause of action in order that the "leader &a! e a le to sBuarel! &eet the issues raised, there ! circu&scri ing the& #ithin deter&ined confines and "re$enting sur"rises during trial, and in order that he &a! set forth his defenses #hich &a! not e so readil! a$ailed of if the allegation contro$erted are $ague, indefinite, uncertain or are &ere general conclusionsL 'Virata $% Sandigan a!an) IThe "ro"er office of a ill of "articulars is to infor& the o""osite "art! and the court of the "recise nature and character of the ccause of action%L 'Tan $% Sandigan a!an)

9I!,$, v& S,%DIG,%#,>,% )007 S(!, +0/ 74451

- .ect and "ur"ose of a Bill of "articular, '() A&"lif! or li&it a "leading '/) S"ecif! &ore &inutel! and "articularl! a clai& or defense set u" and "leaded in general ter&s '0) Fi$e infor&ation, not contained in the "leading, to the o""osite "art! and the court as to the "recise nature, character, sco"e, and e5tent of the cause of action or defense relied on ! the "leader '7) A""rise the o""osite "art! of the case #hich he has to &eet '>) Define, clarif!, "articulariGe, and li&it or circu&scri e the issues in the case '=) E5"edite the trial, and assist the court 'J) 2re$ent in.ustice or do .ustice in the case #hen that cannot e acco&"lished #ithout the aid of such a ill% 'A) 2ro"er "re"aration of a res"onsi$e "leading 'M) 2ro"er "re"aration of an intelligent ans#er%
DA+TS, +esar Virata #as a&ong the fort!4four co4defendants of Ben.a&in 'No1o!) Ro&ualdeG in a co&"laint filed ! the Sandigan a!an% The co&"laint #as a&ended thrice, the last a&end&ent thereto is deno&inated as Second A&ended +o&"laint% The "laintiff alleged four actiona le #rongs against "etitioner, '() his "artici"ation in the reduction of the electric franchise ta5 and the tariff dut! of fuel oil i&"orts ! all "u lic utilities '/) his "artici"ation in the the a""ro$al of the R04Wear 2rogra& for the E5tension of MERAL+-Rs Ser$ices to Areas3 '0) his "artici"ation in the for&ation of Erectors Coldings, Inc% and '7) his acting as a du&&! of cor"orations controlled ! Ro&ualdeG and Marcos% 2etitioner &o$ed to dis&iss the case on $arious grounds including the failure of the e5"anded Second A&ended +o&"laint to state a cause of action% The &otion #as denied ! Sandigan a!an% S+ affir&ed the Sandigan a!an, and ad$ised "etitioner that if he "ercei$e so&e a& iguit! or $agueness therein, the re&ed! is not a &otion to dis&iss, ut rather for a ill of "articulars% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >J

2etitioner filed a &otion for ill of "articulars, clai&ing that the general and s#ee"ing allegations of the Second A&ended +o&"laint and the "ur"orted illegal acts i&"uted to the& as #ell as the alleged causes of actions are $ague and a& iguous% The! are not a$erred #ith sufficient definiteness or "articularit! as #ould ena le defendant Virata to "ro"erl! "re"are his ans#er or res"onsi$e "leading% Sandigan a!an "artiall! granted the &otion6 of the four actiona le #rongs, it granted the &otion #ith res"ect onl! to the fourth, since the other three actiona le #rongs are not sBuarel! under the /antuico case% Not satisfied #ith the "artial grant of the &otion, "etitioner filed the instant "etition under Rule => of the Re$ised Rules of +ourt% ISSUE, #hether the ,otion %or 1ill o% (articulars should be granted totall! 6ES% It #as gra$e error for the Sandigan a!an to state that U8a9lleging the s"ecific nature, character, ti&e and e5tent of the "hrase Racti$e colla orationR #ould e a &ere sur"lus age and #ould not ser$e an! useful "ur"oseU for "recisel!, #ithout an! a&"lification or "articulariGation thereof, the "etitioner #ould e hard "ut in &eeting the charges sBuarel! and in "leading a""ro"riate defenses% Nor can We acce"t the "u lic res"ondentRs "ostulation that Uan! Buestion as to the $alidit! or legalit! of the transactions in$ol$ed in the charges against defendant4&o$ant is irrele$ant and i&&aterial in the resolution of the instant incident, inas&uch as the sa&e is a &atter of defense #hich shall ha$e its "ro"er "lace during the trial on the &erits, and on the deter&ination of the lia ilit! of defendant4&o$ant after the trial "ro"er%U This is a surd, for ho# &a! the "etitioner set u" a defense at the ti&e of trial if in his o#n ans#er he #as not a le to "lead such a defense "recisel! ecause of the $agueness or indefiniteness of the allegations in the co&"laintS Unless he "leads the defense in his ans#er, he &a! e de"ri$ed of the right to "resent the sa&e during the trial ecause of his #ai$er thereof% Since the issues ha$e not as !et een .oined and no e$idence has so far een adduced ! the "arties the Sandigan a!an #as in no "osition to conclude that the &atters #hich the% "etitioner see1s are U#ithin his inti&ate or "ersonal 1no#ledge%U It is the office or function, as #ell as o .ect or "ur"ose, of a ill of "articulars to '() a&"lif! or li&it a "leading, '/) s"ecif! &ore &inutel! and "articularl! a clai& or defense set u" and "leaded in general ter&s, '0) gi$e infor&ation, not contained in the "leading, to the o""osite "art! and the court as to the "recise nature, character, sco"e, and e5tent of the cause of action or defense relied on ! the "leader, and '7) a""rise the o""osite "art! of the case #hich he has to &eet, 'a) to the end that the "roof at the trial &a! e li&ited to the &atters s"ecified, and ' ) in order that sur"rise at, and needless "re"aration for, the trial &a! e a$oided, and 'c) that the o""osite "art! &a! e aided in fra&ing his ans#ering "leading and "re"aring for trial% It has also een stated that it is the function or "ur"ose of a ill of "articulars to '>) define, clarif!, "articulariGe, and li&it or circu&scri e the issues in the case, to '=) e5"edite the trial, and assist the court% A general function or "ur"ose of a ill of "articulars is to 'J) "re$ent in.ustice or do .ustice in the case #hen that cannot e acco&"lished #ithout the aid of such a ill% Moreo$er, the "hrase Uto ena le hi& "ro"erl! to "re"are his res"onsi$e "leading % % %U in Section ( of Rule (/ i&"lies not .ust the o""ortunit! to 'A) "ro"erl! "re"are a res"onsi$e "leading ut also to 'M) "re"are an intelligent answer% The "ro"er "re"aration of an intelligent ans#er reBuires infor&ation as to the "recise nature, character, sco"e and e5tent of the cause of action in order that the "leader &a! e a le to sBuarel! &eet the issues raised, there ! circu&scri ing the& #ithin deter&ined confines and, "re$enting sur"rises during the trial, and in order that he &a! set forth his defenses #hich &a! not e so readil! a$ailed of if the allegations contro$erted are $ague, indefinite, uncertain or are &ere general conclusions% C)at is be,ond its scope IThe co&"laint for #hich a ill for a &ore definite state&ent is sought need onl! infor& the defendant of the essential 'or ulti&ate) facts to ena le hi&, the defendant, to "re"are his ans#erK An! &ore ;"articulars3 in that e$ent #ould e e$identiar! in character, #hich &ust e adduced at the trial "ro"er%L 'Tan $% Sandigan a!an) 'otes,

If the "ur"ose is for "re"aration for trial, the a""ro"riate re&ed! is to a$ail discover! procedures or pre)trial% It is erroneous to reBuire disclosure of e$idence relied u"on ! the ad$erse "art! in a &otion for ill of "articulars% A &otion for ill of "articulars to reBuire a "leader to set forth &atters sho#ing .urisdiction of a court to render its .udg&ent is not "ro"er%

To clarif! allegations in the "leading

$,% v& S,%DIG,%#,>,% )78. S(!, 5*/ 74841

The co&"laint for #hich a ill for a &ore definite state&ent is sought, need onl! infor& the defendant of the essential 'or ulti&ate) facts to ena le the defendant to "re"are an intelligent ans#er%
DA+TS, The 2+FF filed a co&"laint against the t#ent!4t#o "etitioners, together #ith the late Derdinand Marcos, Mrs% I&elda Marcos, Don Derr!, and Dederico Moreno, "ra!ing, a&ong others, for the return and recon$e!ance of all funds and other "ro"ert! i&"ressed #ith constructi$e trust in fa$or of 2+FF and the Dili"ino "eo"le, as #ell as funds and other "ro"ert! acBuired ! Defendants ! a use of right and "o#er and through un.ust enrich&ent% Su seBuentl!, the 2+FF filed an E5"anded +o&"laint% In essence, these are #hat the 2+FF sa!s, (% The "etitioner Lucio Tan #as Mr% MarcosR usiness "artner6 /% Through undue influence, coercion, and a use of light the! acBuired shareholdings fro& $arious fir&s, and uilt a usiness e&"ire therefro&6 S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >A

The re&aining "etitioners acted as their Udu&&ies, no&inees, or agentsU6 Together #ith the Marcoses, the! &aneu$ered their #a! into these fir&s and acBuired control thereof6 The sa&e #ere acco&"lished through unacce"ta le &achinations such as insider trading and si&ilar acts, in $iolation of e5isting la#s6 =% The! also un.ustl! enriched the "etitioners at the e5"ense of the Re"u lic of the 2hili""ines and the Dili"ino "eo"le% Not#ithstanding this, the t#ent!4t#o "etitioners &o$ed for a ill of "articulars%The res"ondent +ourt denied the "etitionersR &otion, and denied reconsideration% The "etitioners su &it that the 2+FFRs a$er&ents are &ade u" of are generaliGations, "resu&"tuous conclusions of fact and la#, and "lain s"eculations, for #hich a &otion for a &ore definite state&ent or for a ill of "articulars allegedl! lies% The Sandigan a!anRs decided that 2aragra"hs (7 to (>, inclusi$e of the E5"anded +o&"laint, had alread! su""lied or "ro$ided the s"ecifications and "articulars theretofore lac1ing in the original +o&"laint% ISSUE, #hether the ,otion %or 1ill o% (articulars should be granted N"1 The foregoing allegations of the 2+FF are actiona le #rongs that are "ro"er for a co&"laint% The 2+FFRs +o&"laint?E5"anded +o&"laint is gar led in &an! res"ects, ut this is no e5cuse for sloth on the "art of the "etitioners% The +o&"laint?E5"anded +o&"laint is co&"lete enough to "erish fears of the 2+FF "ulling a sur"rise su seBuentl!% It is not the office of a ill of "articulars to su""l! &aterial allegations necessar! to the $alidit! of a "leading, or to change a cause of action or defense stated in the "leading, or to state a cause of action or defense other than the one stated% Also it is not the office or function, or a "ro"er o .ect, of a ill of "articulars to set forth the "leaderRs theor! of his cause of action or a rule of e$idence on #hich he intends to rel!, or to furnish e$idential infor&ation #hether such infor&ation consists of e$idence #hich the "leader "ro"oses to introduce or of facts #hich constitute a defense or offset for the other "art! or #hich #ill ena le the o""osite "art! to esta lish an affir&ati$e defense not !et "leaded% The 2+FFRs co&"laint 'as a&ended) does set out allegations, ho#e$er confusingl! "ut in "rint, #hich, interrelated to one another, are enough to su""ort a for&al ci$il charge% If the "etitioners are not a#are of the 2+FFRs asse$erations, the re&ed! is to den! the sa&e in their ans#er for lac1 of U1no#ledge or infor&ation sufficient to for& a elief as to the truth of the said a$er&ents% The! cannot, ho#e$er, de&and for an! &ore "articulars #ithout actuall! &a1ing the 2+FF e5"ose its e$idence unnecessaril! efore the trial stage% C)en to file It should e filed be%ore a res"onsi$e "leading% If directed to a co&"laint, (> da!s after ser$ice of su&&ons If directed to a counterclai&, (E da!s fro& ser$ice of the counterclai& If directed to a re"l!, (E da!s fro& the ser$ice of said re"l! ReEuisites The &otion shall "oint out 'a) defects co&"lained of6 ' ) "aragra"hs #herein the! are contained6 and 'c) the details desired% Action of t)e court $Sec1 5, Rule %5& U"on recei"t of the &otion, #hich the cler1 &ust i&&ediatel! ring to the court3s attention, the court &a! 'a) den! the &otion outright6 ' ) grant the &otion outright6 or 'c) hold a hearing on the &otion% Compliance wit) order $Sec1 7, Rule %5& If the &otion is granted, in #hole or in "art, #ithin (E da!s fro& notice of the order, unless court fi5es a different "eriod If order is not o e!ed, or in case of insufficient co&"liance, the court &a! 'a) order the stri1ing out of a% the "leading, or % "ortions thereof, or ' ) &a1e such orders as it dee&s .ust

0% 7% >%

IN0ER#EN0I"N 3ntervention is the legal "roceeding ! #hich a "erson #ho is not a "art! to the action is "er&itted ! the court to eco&e a "art! ! inter$ening in a "ending action a%ter &eeting the conditions and reBuire&ents set ! the Rules of +ourt% It is a re&ed! ! #hich a third "art! eco&es a litigant therein to ena le hi& to "rotect or "reser$e a right or interest #hich &a! e affected ! such "roceeding% It is never and inde"endent "roceeding, ut is ancillar! and su""le&ental to an e5isting litigation% It cannot alter the nature of the action and the issues alread! .oined% It is neither co&"ulsor! nor &andator! ut onl! o"tional and "er&issi$e +egal interest" -ne that is actual and &aterial, direct and of an i&&ediate character, not &erel! contingent or e5"ectant so that the inter$enor #ill either gain or lose ! the direct legal o"eration of the .udg&ent &e-uisites5 #ho ma! intervene" S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age >M

'() There &ust e a &otion for inter$ention filed be%ore rendition of .udg&ent ! the trial court6 and '/) The &o$ant &ust e a "erson #ho has a legal interest a% in the &atter in litigation, % in the success of either of the "arties, or an interest against oth, or c% is so situated as to e ad$ersel! affected ! a distri ution or other dis"osition of "ro"ert! in the custod! of the court or of an officer thereof% '0) The inter$ention must not undul! dela! or "re.udice the ad.udication of the rights of the original "arties and that the inter$enor3s rights &a! not e full! "rotected in a se"arate "roceeding% 'Sec% (, Rule (M) Ce &a!, #ith lea$e of court, e allo#ed to inter$ene in the action% The court shall consider '() #hether or not the inter$ention #ill undul! dela! or "re.udice the ad.udication of the rights of the original "arties, and '/) #hether or not the inter$enor3s rights &a! e full! "rotected in a se"arate "roceeding% 'Sec% (, Rule (M) /ime to intervene* The &otion to inter$ene &a! e filed at an! ti&e be%ore rendition of .udgment b! the trial court% A co"! of the "leading4in4inter$ention shall e attached to the &otion and ser$ed on the original "arties% 'Sec% /, Rule (M) (leadings)in)intervention* The inter$enor shall file a co&"laint4in4inter$ention if he asserts a claim against either or all of the original "arties% Ce shall file an ans#er4in4inter$ention if he unites #ith the defending "art! in resisting a claim against the latter% 'Sec% 0, Rule (M) Answer to complaint)in)intervention * The ans#er to the co&"laint4in4inter$ention shall e filed #ithin fifteen '(>) da!s fro& notice of the order ad&itting the sa&e, unless a different "eriod is fi5ed ! the court% 'Sec% 7, Rule (M)

Ancillar, to pendin S,3 v& (, )74+ S(!, 6*.1

action

Inter$ention is Uan act or "roceeding ! #hich a third "erson is "er&itted to eco&e a "art! to an action or "roceeding et#een other "ersons, and #hich results &erel! in the addition of a ne# "art! or "arties to an original action, for the "ur"ose of hearing and deter&ining at the sa&e ti&e all conflicting clai&s #hich &a! e &ade to the su .ect &atter in litigation% It is not an inde"endent "roceeding, ut an ancillar! and su""le&ental one #hich, in the nature of things, unless other#ise "ro$ided for ! the statute or Rules of +ourt, &ust e in su ordination to the &ain "roceeding% It &a! e laid do#n as a general rule that an inter$enor is li&ited to the field of litigation o"en to the original "arties%
DA+TS, EBuita le Ban1ing +or"oration 'EBuita le) filed a collection suit #ith "reli&inar! attach&ent against Dree&an, Inc% 'Dree&an) and Sa# +hiao Lian, its 2resident and Feneral Manager% The "etitioners 'Ru en Sa#, et al%) &o$ed to inter$ene, alleging that '() the loan transactions et#een +hiao Lian and EBuita le #ere not a""ro$ed ! the stoc1holders re"resenting at least /?0 of cor"orate ca"ital6 '/) +hiao Lian had no authorit! to contract such loans6 and '0) there #as collusion et#een the officials of Dree&an and EBuita le in securing the loans% The &otion to inter$ene #as denied, and the "etitioners a""ealed to the +ourt of A""eals% Mean#hile, EBuita le and +hiao Lian entered into a co&"ro&ise agree&ent #hich #as a""ro$ed ! the lo#er court% Co#e$er, it #as not co&"lied #ith, so EBuita le secured a #rit of e5ecution, and t#o lots o#ned ! Dree&an, Inc% #ere le$ied u"on and sold at "u lic auction% The +A sustained the denial of the &otion for inter$ention, holding that the co&"ro&ise agree&ent #ill not necessaril! "re.udice "etitioners #hose rights to cor"orate assets are at &ost inchoate, "rior to the dissolution of Dree&an, and that inter$ention under Sec% /, Rule (/ of the Re$ised Rules of +ourt is "ro"er onl! #hen oneRs right is actual, &aterial, direct and i&&ediate and not si&"l! contingent or e5"ectant%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age =E

ISSUE, #hether petitioners ma! be allowed to intervene in the action N"1 To allo# inter$ention, 8a9 it &ust e sho#n that the &o$ant has legal interest in the &atter in litigation, or other#ise Bualified6 and 8 9 consideration &ust e gi$en as to #hether the ad.udication of the rights of the original "arties &a! e dela!ed or "re.udiced, or #hether the inter$enorRs rights &a! e "rotected in a se"arate "roceeding or not% Both reBuire&ents &ust concur as the first is not &ore i&"ortant than the second% The interest #hich entitles a "erson to inter$ene in a suit et#een other "arties &ust e in the &atter in litigation and of such direct and i&&ediate character that the inter$enor #ill either gain or lose ! the direct legal o"eration and effect of the .udg&ent% Cere, the interest, if it e5ists at all, of "etitioners4&o$ants is indirect, contingent, re&ote, con.ectural, conseBuential and collateral% While a share of stoc1 re"resents a "ro"ortionate or aliBuot interest in the "ro"ert! of the cor"oration, it does not $est the o#ner thereof #ith an! legal right or title to an! of the "ro"ert!, his interest in the cor"orate "ro"ert! eing eBuita le or eneficial in nature% Shareholders are in no legal sense the o#ners of cor"orate "ro"ert!, #hich is o#ned ! the cor"oration as a distinct legal "erson% Inter$ention is Uan act or "roceeding ! #hich a third "erson is "er&itted to eco&e a "art! to an action or "roceeding et#een other "ersons, and #hich results &erel! in the addition of a ne# "art! or "arties to an original action, for the "ur"ose of hearing and deter&ining at the sa&e ti&e all conflicting clai&s #hich &a! e &ade to the su .ect &atter in litigation% It is not an inde"endent "roceeding, ut an ancillar! and su""le&ental one #hich, in the nature of things, unless other#ise "ro$ided for ! the statute or Rules of +ourt, &ust e in su ordination to the &ain "roceeding% It &a! e laid do#n as a general rule that an inter$enor is li&ited to the field of litigation o"en to the original "arties% In the case at ar, there is no &ore "rinci"al action to e resol$ed as a #rit of e5ecution had alread! een issued ! the lo#er court and the clai& of EBuita le had alread! een satisfied% The decision of the lo#er court had alread! eco&e final and in fact had alread! een enforced% There is therefore no &ore "rinci"al "roceeding in #hich the "etitioners &a! inter$ene% E:ception 'E$!O2OLI$,% #,%B D $!US$ (O& v& 2!ESIDI%G =UDGE )780 S(!, 80./ 744.1

The inter$enor in a "ending case is entitled to e heard li1e an! other "art!% An inter$enor3s "etition sho#ing it to e entitled to affir&ati$e relief #ill e "reser$ed and heard regardless of the dis"osition of the "rinci"al action%
DA+TS, Metro an1 loaned Food Earth E&"oriu& 'FEE) 27%MM, and the latter &ortgaged its air conditioning units as securit!% Said units #ere "urchased fro& Ra!cor Air +ontrol s!ste&s% Co#e$er, Ra!cor #as not co&"letel! "aid ! FEE on the installation costs to the e5tent of 2(>E,EEE% When FEE #as foreclosed ! B2I +onsortiu&, Metro an1 filed a co&"laint for re"le$in to reco$er the units% The defendants consortiu& filed their ans#er% Su seBuentl!, Ra!cor filed a &otion for lea$e to inter$ene, #hich #as granted% The co&"laint #as later dis&issed #ith "re.udice #hen the "arties agreed to a co&"ro&ise settle&ent, #ithout infor&ing the inter$enor Ra!cor% ISSUE, #hether or not the intervenor in a pending case is entitled to be heard li2e an! other part! 6ES1 There is here no final dis&issal of the &ain case% The afore&entioned order of the lo#er court has the effect not onl! of allo#ing the inter$ention suit to "roceed ut also of $acating its "re$ious order of dis&issal% The reinstate&ent of the case in order to tr! and deter&ine the clai&s and rights of the inter$enor is "ro"er% The .oint &otion of therein "laintiff and the original defendants to dis&iss the case, #ithout notice to and consent of the inter$enor, has the effect of "utting to rest onl! the res"ecti$e clai&s of the said original "arties inter se ut the sa&e cannot in an! #a! affect the clai& of "ri$ate res"ondent #hich #as allo#ed ! the court to inter$ene #ithout o""osition fro& the original "arties% After the inter$enor has a""eared in the action, the "laintiff has no a solute right to "ut the inter$enor out of court ! the dis&issal of the action% The "arties to the original suit ha$e no "o#er to #ai$e or other#ise annul the su stantial rights of the inter$enor% When an inter$ening "etition has een filed, a "laintiff &a! not dis&iss the action in an! res"ect to the "re.udice of the inter$enor% It has e$en een held that the si&"le fact that the trial court "ro"erl! dis&issed "laintiff s action does not reBuire dis&issal of the action of the inter$enor% An inter$enor has the right to clai& the enefit of the original suit and to "rosecute it to .udg&ent% The right cannot e defeated ! dis&issal of the suit ! the "laintiff after the filing of the "etition and notice thereof to the other "arties% A "erson #ho has an interest in the su .ect &atter of the action has the right, on his o#n &otion, to inter$ene and eco&e a "art! to the suit, and e$en after the co&"laint has een dis&issed, &a! "roceed to ha$e an! actual contro$ers! esta lished ! the "leadings deter&ined in such action% The trial courtRs dis&issal of "laintiff3s action does not reBuire dis&issal of the action of the inter$enor% The inter$enor in a "ending case is entitled to e heard li1e an! other "art!% A clai&4in4inter$ention that see1s affir&ati$e relief "re$ents a "laintiff fro& ta1ing a $oluntar! dis&issal of the &ain action% Where a co&"laint in inter$ention #as filed efore "laintiffRs action had een e5"ressl! dis&issed, the inter$enorRs co&"laint #as not su .ect to dis&issal on the ground that no action #as "ending, since dis&issal of "laintiffs action did not affect the rights of the inter$enor or affect the dis&issal of inter$enorRs co&"laint% An inter$enorRs "etition sho#ing it to e entitled to affir&ati$e relief #ill e "reser$ed and heard regardless of the dis"osition of the "rinci"al action%

S/++"NS $R/LE %B& Definition and purpose S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age =(

Summons is the #rit ! #hich the defendant is notified of the action rought against hi&% The issuance of su&&ons is mandator! on the "art of the court% In an action in personam, the "ur"ose of su&&ons is not onl! to notif! the defendant of the action, ut also to acBuire .urisdiction o$er his "erson% Ser$ice of su&&ons is reBuired even i% the defendant is a#are of the filing of the action against hi&% In an action in rem or Buasi in rem, the "ur"ose of su&&ons is &ainl! to satisf! the constitutional reBuire&ents of due "rocess% Dut, to issue The cler1 of court shall issue the corres"onding su&&ons to the defendants '() u"on the filing of the co&"laint and '/) "a!&ent of the reBuisite legal fees% 'Sec% (, Rule (7) 3ssuance o% alias summons" If a su&&ons is returned #ithout eing ser$ed on an! or all of the defendants, the ser$er, '() shall also ser$e a co"! of the return on the "laintiff3s counsel, '/) stating the reasons for the failure of ser$ice, '0) #ithin fi$e '>) da!s fro& such failure% The cler1 &a! issue an alias su&&ons '() on de&and of the "laintiff, '/) if the su&&ons has een lost, or '0) if the su&&ons has een returned #ithout eing ser$ed 'Sec% >, Rule (7) *orm Content The su&&ons shall e '() directed to the defendant, '/) signed ! the cler1 of court, and '0) under seal% The su&&ons shall contain, 'a) the na&e of the court and the na&es of the "arties to the action6 ' ) a direction that the defendant ans#er #ithin the ti&e fi5ed ! these Rules6 and 'c) a notice that unless the defendant so ans#ers, "laintiff #ill ta1e .udg&ent ! default and &a! a""lied for%

e granted the relief

A co"! of the co&"laint and order for a""oint&ent of guardian ad litem, if an!, shall e attached to the original and each co"! of the su&&ons% '0a) If wit) leave of court It shall e &ade '() ! &otion, '/) in #riting, '0) su""orted ! affida$it of the "laintiff or so&e "erson on his ehalf, and '7) setting forth the grounds for the a""lication% 'Sec% (J, Rule (7) C)o serves The su&&ons &a! e ser$ed ! '() the sheriff, '/) his de"ut!, '0) other "ro"er court officer, or '7) an! suita le "erson authoriGed ! the court issuing the su&&ons, for .ustifia le reasons% 'Sec% 0, Rule (7) "n w)om In eneral The cler1 of court shall issue the corres"onding su&&ons to the defendants% 'Sec% (, Rule (7) Service in person on de%endant" Whene$er "ractica le, the su&&ons shall e ser$ed '() ! handing a co"! thereof to the defendant in "erson, or '/) ! tendering it to hi&, if he refuses to recei$e and sign for it% 'Sec% =, Rule (7) Entit, wit)out 4uridical personalit, When "ersons associated in an entit! #ithout .uridical "ersonalit! are sued under the na&e co&&onl! 1no#n, ser$ice &a! e effected '() u"on all the defendants ! ser$ing u"on an! one of the&, or '/) u"on the "erson in charge of the office or "lace of usiness &aintained in such na&e%

! #hich the! are generall! or

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age =/

BUT such ser$ice shall not ind indi$iduall! an! "erson #hose connection #ith the entit! has, u"on due notice, be%ore the action #as rought% 'Sec% A, Rule (7) Associations Domestic Service upon domestic private .uridical entit!" Ser$ice &a! e &ade on '() the "resident, '/) &anaging "artner, '0) general &anager, '7) cor"orate secretar!, '>) treasurer, or '=) in4house counsel% 'Sec% ((, Rule (7) List e:clusive E&#& 9ILL,!OS, D 2,!$%E! (O&/ L$D& 9& #E%I$O )570 S(!, -+/ 74441

een se$ered

The li eral construction rule cannot e in$o1ed and utiliGed as a su stitute for the "lain legal reBuire&ents as to the &anner in #hich su&&ons should e ser$ed on a do&estic cor"oration% The officer u"on #ho& ser$ice is &ade &ust e the one stated in the statute other#ise the ser$ice is insufficient%
DA+TS, 2etitioner E%B% Villarosa, a li&ited "artnershi", and "ri$ate res"ondent Benita e5ecuted a deed of sale #ith de$elo"&ent agree&ent #herein Villarosa agreed to de$elo" certain "arcels of land elonging to Benito into a housing su di$ision for the construction of lo# cost housing units% The! further agreed that in case of litigation arising fro& an! dis"ute, the $enue shall e in the "ro"er courts of Ma1ati% The "ri$ate res"ondent su seBuentl! filed a +o&"laint for Breach of +ontract and Da&ages against the "etitioner efore the Trial +ourt of Ma1ati for lac1 of de$elo"&ents #ithin the aforesaid "ro"erties% The Ser$ice of Su&&ons as #ell as the co&"laint #as ser$ed u"on the ranch &anager in +aga!an de -ro% 2laintiff filed a S"ecial Motion to Dis&iss alleging that the su&&ons #as i&"ro"erl! ser$ed and for lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the defendant% Res"ondent sa!s that the Ser$ice #as i&"ro"erl! ser$ed since it #as gi$en to an e&"lo!ee in its ranch office and not to one of the "ersons enunciated in Rule (7 section (( of the R-+% The trial court ruled in fa$or of res"ondent hence this "etition% ISSUE, #hether the service o% summons on the branch manager was proper N"1 Section ((, Rule (7 allo#s ser$ice to the general manager, not the ranch &anager% The &a5i& e5"ression unios est e5clusion alterius a""lies in this case% The enu&eration of "ersons #ho& su&&ons &a! e ser$ed is restricted, li&ited and e5clusi$e% The ne# rule s"ecificall! changed the "ro"er reci"ient of a ser$ice fro& a &ere &anager to a general &anager in order to "re$ent a& iguous and illogical inter"retations in the future% The court therefore acBuires no .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the defendant% In the case at ar, since the ser$ice #as gi$en to a &ere ranch &anager in one of "etitioner3s ranches instead of the general &anager in its &ain office in Da$ao, such ser$ice is dee&ed insufficient% The courts therefore did not acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the "etitioner% Public corporation When the defendant is the &epublic o% the (hilippines, ser$ice &a! e effected on the Solicitor Feneral% In case of a province, cit! or municipalit!, or li1e "u lic cor"orations, ser$ice &a! e effected on '() its e5ecuti$e head, or '/) on such other officer or officers as the la# or the court &a! direct% 'Sec% (0, Rule (7) +inors When the defendant is a &inor, ser$ice shall e &ade '() u"on hi& "ersonall! and '/) on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, u"on his guardian ad litem #hose a""oint&ent shall e a""lied for ! the "laintiff, or '0) on his father or &other, In the case of a &inor, ser$ice &a! also e &ade% 'Sec% (E, Rule (7) Insane, incompetents When the defendant is insane or other#ise an inco&"etent, ser$ice shall e &ade '() u"on hi& "ersonall! and '/) on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, u"on his guardian ad litem #hose a""oint&ent shall e a""lied for ! the "laintiff% 'Sec% (E, Rule (7) S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age =0

Prisoners When the defendant is a "risoner confined in a .ail or institution, ser$ice shall e effected u"on hi& ! the officer ha$ing the &anage&ent of such .ail or institution #ho is dee&ed de"utiGed as a s"ecial sheriff for said "ur"ose% 'Sec% M, Rule (7) /n(nown defendant or w)ereabouts un(nown Where the defendant is '() designated as an un1no#n o#ner, or the li1e, or '/) #hene$er his #herea outs are un1no#n and cannot e ascertained ! diligent inBuir!, Ser$ice &a!, b! leave o% court, e effected u"on hi& ! '() "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation and '/) in such "laces and for such ti&e as the court &a! order% 'Sec% (7, Rule (7) C)et)er in rem, Euasi in rem or personal Residents temporaril, out When an! action is co&&enced against a defendant #ho ordinaril! resides #ithin the 2hili""ines, ut #ho is te&"oraril! out of it, ser$ice &a!, ! lea$e of court, e also effected out of the 2hili""ines ! e5traterritorial ser$ice% 'Sec% (=, Rule (7) 'O%$E",L(O% v& 9,S<UE? )++* S(!, +75/ 0..81

The nor&al &ethod of ser$ice of su&&ons on one te&"oraril! a sent is ! su stituted ser$ice ecause "ersonal ser$ice a road and ser$ice ! "u lication are not ordinar! &eans of su&&oning defendants% Su&&ons in a suit in personam against a te&"oraril! a sent resident &a! e ! su stituted ser$ice as do&iciliaries of a State are al#a!s a&ena le to suits in personam therein%
DA+TS, Dolores 2% Montefalcon filed a +o&"laint for ac1no#ledg&ent and su""ort against Ronnie S% VasBueG efore the RT+, alleging that her son Laurence Montefalcon is the illegiti&ate child of VasBueG% She "ra!ed that VasBueG e o liged to gi$e su""ort to Laurence, #hose certificate of li$e irth he signed as father% A sheriff tried to ser$e the su&&ons and co&"laint on VasBueG in Aro4aldao, Na ua, +a&arines Sur% VasBueGRs grandfather recei$ed the& as VasBueG #as in Manila% VasBueGRs &other returned the docu&ents to the cler1 of court, #ho infor&ed the court of the non4ser$ice of su&&ons% 2etitioners then filed a &otion to declare VasBueG in default, #hich #as denied for lac1 of "ro"er ser$ice of su&&ons% The court issued an alias su&&ons on VasBueG at Taguigu"on "etitionersR &otion% A Taguig de"ut! sheriff ser$ed it ! su stituted ser$ice on VasBueGRs careta1er% Another alias su&&ons #as issued, also recei$ed ! the careta1er% -n "etitionersR &otion, the trial court declared VasBueG in default for failure to file an ans#er des"ite the su stituted ser$ice of su&&ons% VasBueG #as furnished #ith court orders and notices of the "roceedings at his last 1no#n address, ut these #ere returned as he had allegedl! &o$ed to another "lace and left no ne# address% In /EE(, the court granted "etitionersR "ra!ers% The court added that VasBueG ad&itted the truth of the allegations ! his silence% In the sa&e !ear, VasBueG surfaced and filed a notice of a""eal #hich "etitioners o""osed% A""eal #as granted% Before the a""ellate court, he argued that the trial court ne$er acBuired .urisdiction o$er his "erson% The a""ellate court noted that the ser$ice of su&&ons on VasBueG #as Udefecti$eU as there #as no e5"lanation of i&"ossi ilit! of "ersonal ser$ice and an atte&"t to effect "ersonal ser$ice% 2etitioners argued that an! atte&"t at "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #as needless as VasBueG alread! left for a road as an o$erseas seafarer #hen the sheriff ser$ed the su&&ons in Taguig% The a""ellate court, ho#e$er, denied the &otion% ISSUE, #hether there was a valid substituted service o% summons 6ES1 To acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of a defendant, ser$ice of su&&ons &ust e "ersonal, or if this is not feasi le #ithin a reasona le ti&e, then ! su stituted ser$ice% It is of .udicial notice that o$erseas Dili"ino seafarers are contractual e&"lo!ees% As an o$erseas seafarer, VasBueG #as a Dili"ino resident te&"oraril! out of the countr!% Cence, ser$ice of su&&ons on hi& is go$erned ! Rule (7, Section (=, #hich referred to e5traterritorial ser$ice% Because Section (= of Rule (7 uses the #ords U&a!U and Ualso,U it is not &andator!% -ther &ethods of ser$ice of su&&ons allo#ed under the Rules &a! also e a$ailed of ! the ser$ing officer on a defendant4sea&an% - $iousl!, "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #as not "ractica le since the defendant #as te&"oraril! out of the countr!% To "roceed #ith "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons on a defendant4sea&an #ho #ent on o$erseas contract #or1 #ould not onl! e i&"ractical and futile, it #ould also e a surd% The su stituted ser$ice in Taguig #as $alid and .ustified ecause "re$ious atte&"ts #ere &ade ! the sheriffs to ser$e the su&&ons, ut to no a$ail% Also, the careta1er #ho recei$ed the alias su&&ons #as of suita le age and discretion, then residing at VasBueGRs d#elling% There is no Buarrel that it #as reall! VasBueGRs residence, as e$idenced ! his e&"lo!&ent

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age =7

contract, e5ecuted under the su"er$ision and authorit! of the 2-EA% It can e "resu&ed that the careta1er &ust ha$e infor&ed hi& one #a! or another of the suit u"on his return after finishing his nine4&onth contract #ith Datho& Shi" Manage&ent% In ,ontalban v. ,a imo, #e held that the nor&al &ethod of ser$ice of su&&ons on one te&"oraril! a sent is ! su stituted ser$ice ecause "ersonal ser$ice a road and ser$ice ! "u lication are not ordinar! &eans of su&&oning defendants% Su&&ons in a suit in personam against a te&"oraril! a sent resident &a! e ! su stituted ser$ice as do&iciliaries of a State are al#a!s a&ena le to suits in personam therein% More i&"ortantl!, the a sence in the final sheriffRs return of a state&ent a out the i&"ossi ilit! of "ersonal ser$ice does not conclusi$el! "ro$e that the ser$ice is in$alid% Such failure should not undul! "re.udice "etitioners if #hat #as undisclosed #as in fact done% The sheriffRs certificate of ser$ice of su&&ons is prima %acie e$idence of the facts set out in it% -nl! clear and con$incing e$idence &a! o$erco&e its "resu&"tion of regularit!% Fi$en the circu&stances in the "resent case, #e agree that the "resu&"tion of regularit! in the "erfor&ance of dut! on the "art of the sheriff stands% Non'resident When the defendant '() does not reside and is not found in the 2hili""ines, and '/) the action affects a% the "ersonal status of the "laintiff or % relates to, or the su .ect of #hich is, "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines, in #hich the defendant has or clai&s a lien or interest, actual or contingent6 or c% in #hich the relief de&anded consists, #holl! or in "art, in e5cluding the defendant fro& an! interest therein, or d% the "ro"ert! of the defendant has een attached #ithin the 2hili""ines, Ser$ice &a!, ! lea$e of court, e effected out of the 2hili""ines '() ! "ersonal ser$ice as under section =6 or '/) ! "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation in such "laces and for such ti&e as the court &a! order, in #hich case a co"! of the su&&ons and order of the court shall e sent ! registered &ail to the last 1no#n address of the defendant, '0) or in an! other &anner the court &a! dee& sufficient% An! order granting such lea$e shall s"ecif! a reasona le ti&e, #hich shall not #hich the defendant &ust ans#er% 'Sec% (>, Rule (7) in rem, Euasi in rem S,%$OS v& 2%O( )++- S(!, 060/ 0..81 e less than si5t! '=E) da!s after notice, #ithin

Where the defendant could not e "ersonall! ser$ed #ith su&&ons des"ite diligent efforts to locate his #herea outs, he &a! "ro"erl! e ser$ed #ith su&&ons of "u lication%
DA+TS, 2N-+ E5"loration +or"% 'res"ondent) filed a co&"laint for a su& of &one! against 2edro T% Santos, :r% '"etitioner), see1ing to collect the 2=MA,>E/%(E un"aid alance of the car loan ad$anced to Santos #hen he #as still &e& er of the oard of directors% 2ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons to Santos failed ecause he could not e located in his last 1no#n address des"ite earnest efforts to do so% -n 2N-+3s &otion, the trial court allo#ed ser$ice of su&&ons ! "u lication% 2N-+ then caused the "u lication of the su&&ons in &emate, a ne#s"a"er of general circulation in the 2hili""ines% Thereafter, 2N-+ su &itted the affida$it of "u lication of the ad$ertising &anager of &emate and an affida$it of ser$ice of the 2N-+3s e&"lo!ee to the effect that he sent a co"! of the su&&ons ! registered &ail to Santos3 last 1no#n address% When Santos failed to file his ans#er, 2N-+ &o$ed the case e set for the rece"tion of its e$idence e parte% The trial court granted the &otion% An o&ni us &otion for reconsideration #as then sought ! Santos, alleging that the affida$it of ser$ice su &itted ! 2N-+ failed to co&"l! #ith Sec% (M, Rule (7, as it #as not e5ecuted ! the +ler1 of +ourt% Ce also clai&ed denial of due "rocess for he #as not notified of the trial court3s order% 2N-+ o""osed the &otion and insisted that it co&"lied #ith the rules on ser$ice ! "u lication% The trial court denied Santos3 &otion% ISSUE, #hether there is improper service o% summons because summons b! publication onl! applies to actions in rem, and not in personam N"1 Since "etitioner could not e "ersonall! ser$ed #ith su&&ons des"ite diligent efforts to locate his #herea outs, res"ondent sought and #as granted lea$e of court to effect ser$ice of su&&ons u"on hi& ! "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation% Thus, "etitioner #as "ro"erl! ser$ed #ith su&&ons ! "u lication% The in re&?in "ersona& distinction #as significant under the old rule ecause it #as silent as to the 1ind of action to #hich the rule #as a""lica le% Because of this silence, the +ourt li&ited the a""lication of the old rule to in re& actions onl!% This has een changed% The "resent rule e5"ressl! states that it a""lies U8i9n an! action #here the defendant is designated as an un1no#n o#ner, or the li1e, or #hene$er his #herea outs are un1no#n and cannot e ascertained ! diligent inBuir!%U Thus, it no# a""lies to an! action, #hether in "ersona&, in re& or Buasi in re&% Ser$ice of su&&ons ! "u lication is "ro$ed ! the affida$it of the "rinter, his fore&an or "rinci"al cler1, or of the editor, usiness or ad$ertising &anager of the ne#s"a"er #hich "u lished the su&&ons% The ser$ice of su&&ons ! "u lication is co&"le&ented ! ser$ice of su&&ons ! registered &ail to the defendantRs last 1no#n address% This co&"le&entar! ser$ice is S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age =>

e$idenced ! an affida$it Usho#ing the de"osit of a co"! of the su&&ons and order for "u lication in the "ost office, "ostage "re"aid, directed to the defendant ! registered &ail to his last 1no#n address%U The rules, ho#e$er, do not reBuire that the affida$it of co&"le&entar! ser$ice e e5ecuted ! the cler1 of court% While the trial court ordinaril! does the &ailing of co"ies of its orders and "rocesses, the dut! to &a1e the co&"le&entar! ser$ice ! registered &ail is i&"osed on the "art! #ho resorts to ser$ice ! "u lication% The trial court acBuired .urisdiction o$er the "erson of "etitioner ! his o#n $oluntar! a""earance in the action against hi&% This #as eBui$alent to ser$ice of su&&ons and $ested the trial court #ith .urisdiction o$er the "erson of "etitioner% +odes of service Personal Whene$er "ractica le, the su&&ons shall e ser$ed '() ! handing a co"! thereof to the defendant in "erson, or '/) ! tendering it to hi&, if he refuses to recei$e and sign for it% 'Sec% =, Rule (7) Substituted If, for .ustifia le causes, the defendant cannot e ser$ed #ithin a reasona le ti&e as "ro$ided in the "receding section, ser$ice &a! e effected 'a) ! lea$ing co"ies of the su&&ons at the defendant3s residence #ith so&e "erson of suita le age and discretion then residing therein, or ' ) ! lea$ing the co"ies at defendant3s office or regular "lace of usiness #ith so&e co&"etent "erson in charge thereof% 'Sec% J, Rule (7) !O#I%SO% v& 'I!,LLES )+7. S(!, -68/ 0..-1

Under our "rocedural rules, "ersonal ser$ice is generall! "referred o$er su stituted ser$ice, the latter &ode of ser$ice eing a &ethod e5traordinar! in character% Dor su stituted ser$ice to e .ustified, the follo#ing circu&stances &ust e clearl! esta lished, 'a) "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #ithin a reasona le ti&e #as i&"ossi le6 ' ) efforts #ere e5erted to locate the "art!6 and 'c) the su&&ons #as ser$ed u"on a "erson of sufficient age and discretion residing at the "art!3s residence or u"on a co&"etent "erson in charge of the "art!3s office or "lace of usiness% Dailure to do so #ould in$alidate all
DA+TS, Res"ondent +elita Miralles filed a co&"laint for collection of su& of &one! against "etitioner Re&elita Ro inson, alleging that Y/E,E>7 #as orro#ed ! Ro inson, as sho#n in the M-A the! oth e5ecuted% Su&&ons #as ser$ed on Ro inson at her gi$en address% Co#e$er, "er return of ser$ice of the Sheriif, "etitioner no longer resides there% Thus, the trial court issued an alias su&&ons to e ser$ed at Muntinlu"a +it!, "etitioner3s ne# address% Again, the Sheriff re"orted t#ice thereafter that the su&&ons could not e ser$ed on "etitioner% Sheriff 2ontente, #ho #as to ser$e the su&&ons inter"osed that he #as sto""ed ! the Securit! Fuard of Ala ang Cills Village ecause the! #ere allegedl! told ! Ro inson not to let an!one "roceed to her house if she is not around% Des"ite the e5"lanations of the Sheriff, the guards didn3t let hi& in% Thereafter, the Sheriff .ust left a co"! of the co&"laint to a guard, #ho refused to affi5 his signature on the original co"!, so he #ill e the one to gi$e the su&&ons to "etitioner Ro inson% E$entuall!, "etitioner Ro inson #as declared in default for her failure to file an ans#er seasona l! des"ite ser$ice of su&&ons% The trial court rendered its decision in fa$or of Miralles ordering Ro inson to "a! her o ligations "lus cost of da&ages% A co"! of the court -rder #as sent to "etitioner ! registered &ail at her ne# address and a #rit of e5ecution #as also issued% Ro inson filed a "etition for relief fro& the .udg&ent ! default% She clai&ed that su&&ons #as i&"ro"erl! ser$ed u"on her, thus, the trial court ne$er acBuired .urisdiction o$er her and that all its "roceedings are $oid% 2etitioner Ro inson contends that the ser$ice of the su&&ons u"on the su di$ision guard is not in co&"liance #ith Section J, Rule (7 since he is not related to her or sta!ing at her residence, as reBuired ! the rule% ISSUE, #hether the substituted service o% summons e%%ected is valid 6ES1 Although the S+ ha$e ruled that the statutor! reBuire&ents of su stituted ser$ice &ust e follo#ed strictl!, faithfull!, and full! and an! su stituted ser$ice other than that authoriGed ! the Rules is considered ineffecti$e, the +ourt fro#ns u"on an o$erl! strict a""lication of the Rules% It is the s"irit, rather than the letter of the "rocedural rules, that go$erns% - $iousl!, it #as i&"ossi le for the sheriff to effect "ersonal or su stituted ser$ice of su&&ons u"on "etitioner% We note that she failed to contro$ert the sheriff3s declaration% Nor did she den! ha$ing recei$ed the su&&ons through the securit! S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age ==

guard% +onsidering her strict instruction to the securit! guard, she &ust ear its conseBuences% Thus, #e agree #ith the trial court that su&&ons has een "ro"erl! ser$ed u"on "etitioner and that it has acBuired .urisdiction o$er her% Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the 2hili""ines, the ser$ice of su&&ons &a! e &ade through "ersonal or su stituted ser$ice in the &anner "ro$ided for in Sections = and J, Rule (7 of the (MMJ Rules of 2rocedure, as a&ended% Under our "rocedural rules, "ersonal ser$ice is generall! "referred o$er su stituted ser$ice, the latter &ode of ser$ice eing a &ethod e5traordinar! in character% Dor su stituted ser$ice to e .ustified, the follo#ing circu&stances &ust e clearl! esta lished, 'a) "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #ithin a reasona le ti&e #as i&"ossi le6 ' ) efforts #ere e5erted to locate the "art!6 and 'c) the su&&ons #as ser$ed u"on a "erson of sufficient age and discretion residing at the "art!3s residence or u"on a co&"etent "erson in charge of the "art!3s office or "lace of usiness% Dailure to do so #ould in$alidate all su seBuent "roceedings on .urisdictional grounds% Publication Where the defendant is '() designated as an un1no#n o#ner, or the li1e, or '/) #hene$er his #herea outs are un1no#n and cannot e ascertained ! diligent inBuir!, Ser$ice &a!, b! leave o% court, e effected u"on hi& ! '() "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation and '/) in such "laces and for such ti&e as the court &a! order% 'Sec% (7, Rule (7) E:traterritorial When the defendant '() does not reside and is not found in the 2hili""ines, and '/) the action affects a% the "ersonal status of the "laintiff or % relates to, or the su .ect of #hich is, "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines, in #hich the defendant has or clai&s a lien or interest, actual or contingent6 or c% in #hich the relief de&anded consists, #holl! or in "art, in e5cluding the defendant fro& an! interest therein, or d% the "ro"ert! of the defendant has een attached #ithin the 2hili""ines, Ser$ice &a!, ! lea$e of court, e effected out of the 2hili""ines '7) ! "ersonal ser$ice as under section =6 or '>) ! "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation in such "laces and for such ti&e as the court &a! order, in #hich case a co"! of the su&&ons and order of the court shall e sent ! registered &ail to the last 1no#n address of the defendant, '=) or in an! other &anner the court &a! dee& sufficient% An! order granting such lea$e shall s"ecif! a reasona le ti&e, #hich shall not #hich the defendant &ust ans#er% 'Sec% (>, Rule (7) e less than si5t! '=E) da!s after notice, #ithin

&esidents temporaril! out o% the (hilippines& When an! action is co&&enced against a defendant #ho ordinaril! resides #ithin the 2hili""ines, ut #ho is te&"oraril! out of it, ser$ice &a!, ! lea$e of court, e also effected out of the 2hili""ines ! e5traterritorial ser$ice% 'Sec% (=, Rule (7) 9,L'O%$E v& (, )0+0 S(!, 40/ 744-1

DA+TS, Rosita Di&alanta, sister of "etitioner Lourdes Val&onte, filed a co&"laint for "artition of real "ro"ert! and accounting of rentals against "etitioners Val&onte s"ouses% Lourdes Val&onte is a foreign resident% The RT+ denied "ri$ate res"ondentRs &otion to declare "etitioner Lourdes A% Val&onte in default% A &otion for reconsideration #as si&ilarl! denied% 2ri$ate res"ondent filed a "etition for certiorari, "rohi ition and mandamus #ith the +ourt of A""eals% The +ourt of A""eals rendered a decision granting the "etition and declaring Lourdes in default% A co"! of the a""ellate courtRs decision #as recei$ed ! "etitioner Lourdes3 hus and at his Manila la# office and in Seattle, Washington%

As "etitioner Lourdes Val&onte is a nonresident #ho is not found in the 2hili""ines, ser$ice of su&&ons on her &ust e in accordance #ith Rule (7, Z(J% Such ser$ice, to e effecti$e outside the 2hili""ines, &ust e &ade either '() ! "ersonal ser$ice6 '/) ! "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation in such "laces and for such ti&e as the court &a! order, in #hich case a co"! of the su&&ons and order of the court should e sent ! registered &ail to the last 1no#n address of the defendant6 or '0) in an!

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age =J

ISSUE, #hether in an action %or partition %iled against her and her husband, who is also her attorne!, summons intended %or her ma! be served on her husband, who has a law o%%ice in the (hilippines N"1 2ri$ate res"ondentRs action, #hich is for "artition and accounting under Rule =M, is in the nature of an action -uasi in rem% Such an action is essentiall! for the "ur"ose of affecting the defendantRs interest in a s"ecific "ro"ert! and not to render a .udg&ent against hi&% As "etitioner Lourdes Val&onte is a nonresident #ho is not found in the 2hili""ines, ser$ice of su&&ons on her &ust e in accordance #ith Rule (7, Z(J% Such ser$ice, to e effecti$e outside the 2hili""ines, &ust e &ade either '() ! "ersonal ser$ice6 '/) ! "u lication in a ne#s"a"er of general circulation in such "laces and for such ti&e as the court &a! order, in #hich case a co"! of the su&&ons and order of the court should e sent ! registered &ail to the last 1no#n address of the defendant6 or '0) in an! other &anner #hich the court &a! dee& sufficient%

2E!BI% EL'E! SI%G,2O!E v& D,BIL, $!,DI%G )+5. S(!, 76.1

E5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons a""lies onl! #here the action is in rem or Buasi in rem, ut not if an action is in personam%
DA+TS, Da1ila Trading +or" 'Da1ila) entered into a Distri ution Agree&ent #ith 2er1in4El&er Singa"ore 2te% Ltd% '2ES) #hich a""ointed Da1ila as sole distri utor of its "roducts in the 2hili""ines% 2ES #as o ligated to gi$e Da1ila a co&&ission for the sale of its "roducts in the 2hili""ines% Da1ila #as granted the right to "urchase and sell the "roducts of 2ES% The agree&ent further sti"ulated that Da1ila shall order the "roducts of 2ES, #hich it shall sell in the 2hili""ines, either fro& 2ES itself or fro& 2EI2% Co#e$er, 2ES unilaterall! ter&inated the Distri ution Agree&ent, "ro&"ting Da1ila to file efore the RT+ a +o&"laint for +ollection of Su& of Mone! and Da&ages #ith 2ra!er for Issuance of a Writ of Attach&ent against 2ES and its affiliate, 2er1in4 El&er Instru&ents 2hili""ines +or"oration '2EI2)% RT+ denied res"ondent3s "ra!er% Da1ila filed E542arte Motions for Issuance of Su&&ons and for Lea$e of +ourt to De"utiGe Da1ila3s Feneral Manager 'DFM) to Ser$e Su&&ons -utside of the 2hili""ines% RT+ granted this &otion% Thus, an Alias Su&&ons #as issued ! the RT+ to 2ES% But the said Alias Su&&ons #as ser$ed and recei$ed ! 2er1in4El&er Asia '2EA), a cor"oration allegedl! unrelated to 2ES% 2EI2 &o$ed to dis&iss the +o&"laint filed ! Da1ila% 2EA, on the other hand, sent letters to Da1ila and RT+ to infor& the& of the #rongful ser$ice of su&&ons% Accordingl!, Da1ila filed an E542arte Motion to Ad&it A&ended +o&"laint, together #ith the A&ended +o&"laint clai&ing that '() 2EA had eco&e a sole "ro"rietorshi" o#ned ! the 2ES, '/) 2ES changed its na&e to 2EA, '0) such changes did not a$oid its due and outstanding o ligations to Da1ila, and '7) the na&e of 2ES in the co&"laint should e changed to 2EA% RT+ ad&itted the A&ended +o&"laint% Da1ila filed another Motion for the Issuance of Su&&ons and for Lea$e of +ourt to De"utiGe DFM to ser$e su&&ons outside the 2hili""ines% RT+ granted the &otion% RT+ thus issued su&&ons and the DFM #ent to Singa"ore and ser$ed su&&ons on 2ES% Mean#hile, RT+ denied the Motion to Dis&iss filed ! 2EI2, co&"elling the latter to file its Ans#er to the A&ended +o&"laint% 2ES filed #ith the RT+ a S"ecial A""earance and Motion to Dis&iss the A&ended +o&"laint, #hich #ere denied% It held that e$en though the A&ended +o&"laint is "ri&aril! for da&ages, it does relate to a "ro"ert! of 2ES, to #hich the latter has a clai& interest, or an actual or contingent lien, #hich #ill &a1e it fall under one of the reBuisites for e5traterritorial ser$ice% 2ES filed a 2etition for +ertiorari under Rule => #ith a""lication for te&"orar! restraining order and?or "reli&inar! in.unction efore the +A% The +A affir&ed the RT+ -rders% ISSUE, #hether summons were properl! served under the Bnd or <th instance o% e tra)territorial service N"1 E5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons a""lies onl! #here the action is in re& or Buasi in re&, ut not if an action is in personam% In the case at ar, there can ne$er e a $alid e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on it, ecause the case in$ol$ing collection of a su& of &one! and da&ages is an action in personam, as it deals #ith the "ersonal lia ilit! of 2ES ! reason of the alleged unilateral ter&ination of the Distri ution Agree&ent% The o .ecti$e sought in Da1ila3s +o&"laint #as to esta lish a clai& against 2ES% Moreo$er, The action instituted ! Da1ila affects the "arties alone, not the #hole #orld% Thus, eing an action in "ersona&, "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #ithin the 2hili""ines is necessar! in order for the RT+ to $alidl! acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of 2ES, and this is not "ossi le in the "resent case ecause the 2ES is a non4 resident and is not found #ithin the 2hili""ines% Da1ila3s allegation in its A&ended +o&"laint that 2ES had "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2 did not &a1e the case fall under an! of the four instances &entioned in Section (>, Rule (7 of the Rules of +ourt, as to con$ert the action in personam to an action in rem or Buasi in rem and, su seBuentl!, &a1e the e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on the "etitioner $alid% The /nd instance for e5tra4territorial ser$ice has no a""lication in the case% The action for collection of a su& of &one! and da&ages #as "urel! ased on the "ersonal lia ilit! of the 2ES% Dor the action to e one falling under the / nd instance, the &ain su .ect &atter of the action &ust e the "ro"ert! itself of the 2ES in the 2hili""ines and in such instance, .udg&ent #ill e li&ited to the res% Co#e$er, the allegations &ade ! the res"ondent that the "etitioner has "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in su""ort of its a""lication for the issuance of a #rit of attach&ent #as actuall! denied ! the RT+% Neither does the allegation that 2ES had "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2 con$ert the case fro& an action in personam to one Buasi in rem, so as to Bualif! said case under the 7 th instance of e5tra4 territorial ser$ice% What is reBuired is not a &ere allegation of the e5istence of "ersonal "ro"ert! elonging to the non4resident defendant #ithin the 2hili""ines ut that the non4resident defendant3s "ersonal "ro"ert! located #ithin the 2hili""ines &ust ha$e

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age =A

een actuall! attached% E$identl!, 2ES3s "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines, in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2, had not een attached6 hence, the case for collection of su& of &one! and da&ages re&ains an action in "ersona&% In the case at ar, there can ne$er e a $alid e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on it, ecause the case in$ol$ing collection of a su& of &one! and da&ages is an action in personam, as it deals #ith the "ersonal lia ilit! of 2ES ! reason of the alleged unilateral ter&ination of the Distri ution Agree&ent% The o .ecti$e sought in Da1ila3s +o&"laint #as to esta lish a clai& against 2ES% Moreo$er, The action instituted ! Da1ila affects the "arties alone, not the #hole #orld% Thus, eing an action in "ersona&, "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #ithin the 2hili""ines is necessar! in order for the RT+ to $alidl! acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of 2ES, and this is not "ossi le in the "resent case ecause the 2ES is a non4 resident and is not found #ithin the 2hili""ines% Da1ila3s allegation in its A&ended +o&"laint that 2ES had "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2 did not &a1e the case fall under an! of the four instances &entioned in Section (>, Rule (7 of the Rules of +ourt, as to con$ert the action in personam to an action in rem or Buasi in rem and, su seBuentl!, &a1e the e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on the "etitioner $alid% Re istered mail invalid service of summons #oluntar, appearance The defendant3s $oluntar! a""earance in the action shall e eBui$alent to ser$ice of su&&ons% The inclusion in a &otion to dis&iss of other grounds aside %rom lac2 o% .urisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not e dee&ed a $oluntar! a""earance% 'Sec% /E, Rule (7) (E?,! v& !I(,"O!$@#,U$IS$, )+.- S(!, 500/ 0..-1

The S+ still holds that .urisdiction #as $alidl! acBuired ! the trial court% Although the su stituted ser$ice u"on hi& of su&&ons #as defecti$e, said defect #as cured ! his $oluntar! a""earance%
DA+TS, 2ri$ate res"ondent S"ecified Materials +or"oration filed a +o&"laint for collection of su& of &one! against "etitioner +eGar due to the latter3s failure to "a! the construction &aterials it "ur"ortedl! "urchased under a credit line e5tended ! "ri$ate res"ondent% At the ti&e of the institution of the action, "etitioner3s o ligation stood at 2(,A=E,EEE%EE, and under the ter&s of the credit arrange&ent, &aterials sold to "etitioner #ere su""osed to e "aid #ithin 0E da!s fro& date of deli$er!, su .ect to a 0Q interest "er &onth for dela!ed "a!&ents% After the filing of the co&"laint, su&&ons #as issued, and this #as recei$ed ! a certain Ro les% As "etitioner failed to file his ans#er to the co&"laint, "ri$ate res"ondent &o$ed that he e declared in default% This &otion #as granted% 2ri$ate res"ondent filed a Motion to Ad&it A&ended +o&"laint alleging that it erroneousl! co&"uted "etitioner3s o ligation to e 2(,A=E,EEE%EE, #hen it should ha$e a&ounted to 2/,EE>,EEE%EE% A co"! of the &otion and the A&ended +o&"laint #ere "ersonall! recei$ed ! "etitioner as e$idenced ! his signatures thereon% The A&ended +o&"laint #as ordered ad&itted% The court ruled in fa$or of "laintiff% 2etitioner, ! #a! of s"ecial a""earance, argued that the trial court did not acBuire .urisdiction o$er his "erson% This &otion #as denied% 2etitioner filed efore the +A a 2etition for Annul&ent of :udg&ent, 2reli&inar! In.unction #ith 2ra!er for Te&"orar! Restraining -rder% This "etition #as dis&issed for Ifailure to attach an affida$it of &erit alleging the facts su""orting the good and su stantial defense, as #ell as the affida$its of #itnesses or docu&ent su""orting the defense%L 2etitioner filed a &otion for reconsideration ut this #as denied% Dollo#ing this set4 ac1, "etitioner filed efore this +ourt a 2etition for Re$ie# on Certiorari of the resolutions of the +A, #hich #as also denied for failure to co&"l! #ith "rocedural reBuire&ents% -ur resolution eca&e final and e5ecutor!% 2ri$ate res"ondent filed a Motion for E5ecution efore the trial court% ISSUE, #hether the court ac-uired .urisdiction over the person o% the petitioner b! virtue o% the substituted service o% summons e%%ected b! the sheri%% N"1 The "erson #ho allegedl! recei$ed the su&&ons #as identified in the sheriff3s return as Arsenio Ro les, #as not "etitioner3s e&"lo!ee, #as a nati$e of Batangas and #as &erel! "eddling &ango seedlings #ithin the $icinit! of his office #hen the su&&ons #as ser$ed% In the e$ent that su&&ons cannot e ser$ed #ithin a reasona le ti&e, the Rules "er&it that su stituted ser$ice &a! e resorted to% In this case, the sheriff e&"lo!ed the su stituted ser$ice of su&&ons% The defect, ho#e$er, in the &anner in #hich he i&"le&ented this &ode of ser$ice of su&&ons is readil! a""arent on the face of the return% It &ust e e&"hasiGed that la#s "ro$iding for &odes other than the "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons &ust e strictl! follo#ed in order for the court to acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of res"ondent or defendant% As the sheriff3s return in the "resent case does not contain an! state&ent #ith regard to the i&"ossi ilit! of "ersonal ser$ice the sa&e is "atentl! defecti$e and so the "resu&"tion of regularit! in the "erfor&ance of official functions #ill not lie% ISSUE, #hether petitionerEs voluntar! appearance cured the de%ect in service o% summons. 6ES1 In $lores v. Jurbito, #e held that an a""earance in #hate$er for& #ithout e5"ressl! o .ecting to the .urisdiction of the court o$er the "erson, is a su &ission to the .urisdiction of the court o$er the "erson of the defendant or res"ondent, thus, Ce &a! a""ear #ithout such for&al a""earance and thus su &it hi&self to the .urisdiction of the court% Ce &a! a""ear ! "resenting a &otion, for e5a&"le, and unless ! such a""earance he s"ecificall! o .ects to the .urisdiction of the court, he there ! gi$es his assent to the .urisdiction of the court o$er his "erson% Cence, in this case, "etitioner3s filing of a Motion for Re4setting of the Cearing effecti$el! cured the defect of the su stituted ser$ice of su&&ons% 2etitioner3s insistence of lac1 of .urisdiction o$er his "erson is utterl! lac1ing in an! legal asis% L UILLE! v& #!I$IS ,I!3,>S 2age =M

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

)-7+ S(!, 58./ 0.7.1

A defendant #ho files a &otion to dis&iss, assailing the .urisdiction of the court o$er his "erson, together #ith other grounds raised therein, is not dee&ed to ha$e a""eared $oluntaril! efore the court
DA+TS, Lhuillier too1 res"ondent British Air#a!3s flight >7A fro& London, United Ningdo& to Ro&e, Ital!% -nce on oard, she allegedl! reBuested Callida!, one of the res"ondent3s flight attendants, to assist her in "lacing her hand4carried luggage in the o$erhead in% Co#e$er, Callida! allegedl! refused to hel" and assist her, and e$en sarcasticall! re&ar1ed that UIf I #ere to hel" all 0EE "assengers in this flight, I #ould ha$e a ro1en ac1[U 2etitioner further alleged that #hen the "lane #as a out to land in Ro&e, Ital!, another flight attendant, Nerrigan, singled her out fro& a&ong all the "assengers in the usiness class section to lecture on "lane safet!% Allegedl!, Nerrigan &ade her a""ear to the other "assengers to e ignorant, uneducated, stu"id, and in need of lecturing on the safet! rules and regulations of the "lane% Affronted, "etitioner assured Nerrigan that she 1ne# the "lane3s safet! regulations eing a freBuent tra$eler% Thereu"on, Nerrigan allegedl! thrust his face a &ere fe# centi&eters a#a! fro& that of the "etitioner and &enacingl! told her that UWe don3t li1e !our attitude%U U"on arri$al in Ro&e, "etitioner co&"lained to res"ondent3s ground &anager and de&anded an a"olog!% Co#e$er, the latter declared that the flight ste#ards #ere Uonl! doing their .o %U Thus, "etitioner filed the co&"laint for da&ages% Su&&ons, together #ith a co"! of the co&"laint, #as ser$ed on the res"ondent through Eche$arria, Feneral Manager of Euro42hili""ine Airline Ser$ices, Inc% Res"ondent, ! #a! of s"ecial a""earance through counsel, filed a Motion to Dis&iss on grounds of lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the case and o$er the "erson of the res"ondent% Res"ondent alleged that onl! the courts of London, United Ningdo& or Ro&e, Ital!, ha$e .urisdiction o$er the co&"laint for da&ages "ursuant to the Warsa# +on$ention% Thus, since res"ondent is do&iciled in London6 res"ondent3s "rinci"al "lace of usiness is in London6 "etitioner ought her tic1et in Ital! 'through :ee"ne! Tra$el S%A%S, in Ro&e)6 and Ro&e, Ital! is "etitioner3s "lace of destination, then it follo#s that the co&"laint should onl! e filed in the "ro"er courts of London, United Ningdo& or Ro&e, Ital!% Li1e#ise, it #as alleged that the case &ust e dis&issed for lac1 of .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the res"ondent ecause the su&&ons #as erroneousl! ser$ed on Euro42hili""ine Airline Ser$ices, Inc% #hich is not its resident agent in the 2hili""ines% Instead of filing a +o&&ent?-""osition, "etitioner filed an Urgent E542arte Motion to Ad&it Dor&al A&end&ent to the +o&"laint and Issuance of Alias Su&&ons% 2etitioner alleged that u"on $erification #ith the SE+, she found out that the resident agent of res"ondent in the 2hili""ines is AlonGo T% Ancheta% Su seBuentl!, "etitioner filed a Motion to Resol$e 2ending Incident and -""osition to Motion to Dis&iss% ISSUE, #hether 1ritish Airwa!s, in %iling its motion to dismiss ma! be deemed as having in %act and in law submitted itsel% to the .urisdiction o% the lower court, N"1 The Warsa# +on$ention has the force and effect of la# in this countr!% The Warsa# +on$ention a""lies ecause the air tra$el, #here the alleged tortious conduct occurred, #as et#een the United Ningdo& and Ital!, #hich are oth signatories to the Warsa# +on$ention% Since the Warsa# +on$ention a""lies in the instant case, then the .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter of the action is go$erned ! the "ro$isions of the Warsa# +on$ention% Res"ondent, in see1ing re&edies fro& the trial court through s"ecial a""earance of counsel, is not dee&ed to ha$e $oluntaril! su &itted itself to the .urisdiction of the trial court% Thus, a defendant #ho files a &otion to dis&iss, assailing the .urisdiction of the court o$er his "erson, together #ith other grounds raised therein, is not dee&ed to ha$e a""eared $oluntaril! efore the court% What the rule on $oluntar! a""earance &eans is that the $oluntar! a""earance of the defendant in court is #ithout Bualification, in #hich case he is dee&ed to ha$e #ai$ed his defense of lac1 of .urisdiction o$er his "erson due to i&"ro"er ser$ice of su&&ons% A s"ecial a""earance efore the court<<challenging its .urisdiction o$er the "erson through a &otion to dis&iss e$en if the &o$ant in$o1es other grounds<<is not tanta&ount to esto""el or a #ai$er ! the &o$ant of his o .ection to .urisdiction o$er his "erson6 and such is not constituti$e of a $oluntar! su &ission to the .urisdiction of the court% In this case, the s"ecial a""earance of the counsel of res"ondent in filing the Motion to Dis&iss and other "leadings efore the trial court cannot e dee&ed to e $oluntar! su &ission to the .urisdiction of the said trial court% Return of service When the ser$ice has een co&"leted, the ser$er shall, '() #ithin fi$e '>) da!s therefro&, '/) ser$e a co"! of the return, "ersonall! or ! registered &ail, to the "laintiff3s counsel, and '0) shall return the su&&ons to the cler1 #ho issued it, '7) acco&"anied ! "roof of ser$ice% 'Sec% 7, Rule (7) Proof of service The "roof of ser$ice of a su&&ons shall e '() &ade in #riting ! the ser$er and '/) shall set forth the &anner, "lace, and date of ser$ice6 '0) shall s"ecif! an! "a"ers #hich ha$e een ser$ed #ith the "rocess and '7) the na&e of the "erson #ho recei$ed the sa&e6 and '>) shall e s#orn to #hen &ade ! a "erson other than a sheriff or his de"ut!% 'Sec% (A, Rule (7) Publication If the ser$ice has een &ade ! "u lication, ser$ice &a! e "ro$ed ! '() the affida$it of the "rinter, his fore&an or "rinci"al cler1, or of the editor, usiness or ad$ertising &anager, S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age JE

'/) an attached co"! of the "u lication, and '0) an affida$it sho#ing the de"osit of a co"! of the su&&ons and order for "u lication in the "ost office, "ostage "re"aid, directed to the defendant ! registered &ail to his last 1no#n address% 'Sec% (M, Rule (7)

+"0I"NS $R/LE %;& In eneral A motion is an a""lication for relief other than ! a "leading% 'Sec% (, Rule (>) *orm General rule: All &otions shall e in #riting% E ceptions: '() Motions &ade in o"en court or '/) Motions &ade in the course of a hearing or trial% 'Sec% /, Rule (>) !enerall, The Rules a""lica le to "leadings shall appl! to #ritten &otions so far as concerns '() ca"tion, '/) designation, '0) signature, and '7) other &atters of for&% 'Sec% (E, Rule (>) +a, be oral General rule: All &otions shall e in #riting% E ception Motions &ade in o"en court or in the course of a hearing or trial% 'Sec% /, Rule (>)

+otion for leave A motion %or leave to file a "leading or &otion shall Rule (>)

e acco&"anied

! the "leading or &otion sought to

e ad&itted% 'Sec% M,

Pro)ibited motion The follo#ing "leadings and &otions are "rohi ited in a su&&ar! "rocedure, '() Motion to dis&iss e5ce"t on the ground of lac1 of .urisdiction o$er su .ect &atter and failure to co&"l! #ith conciliation "roceedings6 '/) Motion for ne# trial, or for reconsideration of a .udg&ent, or for reo"ening of trial6 '0) 2etition for relief fro& .udg&ent6 '7) Motion for e5tension of ti&e to file "leadings, affida$its and other "a"ers6 '>) Me&oranda6 '=) 2etition for certiorari, and mandamus or "rohi ition against an interlocutor! order of the court6 'J) Motion to declare the defendant in default6 'A) Dilator! &otions for "ost"one&ent 'M) Re"l!6 '(E) Third4"art! co&"laints6 '(() Inter$entions% The follo#ing are "rohi ited in S&all +lai&s +ases, '() Motion to dis&iss the co&"laint, e5ce"t on ground of lac1 of .urisdiction3 '/) Motion for ill of "articulars6 '0) Motion for ne# trial, or for reconsideration of a .udg&ent, or for reo"ening of trial6 '7) 2etition for relief fro& .udg&ent6 '>) Motion for e5tension of ti&e to file "leadings, affida$its and other "a"ers6 '=) Me&oranda6 'J) 2etition for certiorari, and mandamus or "rohi ition against an interlocutor! order of the court6 'A) Motion to declare the defendant in default6 'M) Dilator! &otions for "ost"one&ent '(E) Re"l!6 '(() Third4"art! co&"laints6 '(/) Inter$entions% Contents A &otion shall '() state the relief sought to e o tained '/) the grounds u"on #hich it is ased, and '0) shall e acco&"anied ! su""orting affida$its and other "a"ers, if reBuired alleged therein% 'Sec% 0, Rule (>)

aranga!

! these Rules or necessar! to "ro$e facts

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age J(

"mnibus motion rule A &otion attac1ing a "leading, order, .udg&ent, or "roceeding shall include all ob.ections then a$aila le, and all ob.ections not so included shall e dee&ed #ai$ed% 'Sec% A, Rule (>)

E:ceptions The court shall dis&iss the clai& #hen it a""ears fro& the "leadings or the e$idence on record that '() the court has no .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter, '/) there is another action "ending et#een the sa&e "arties for the sa&e cause, or that '0) the action is arred ! a "rior .udg&ent or '7) arred ! the statute of li&itations% 'Sec% (, Rule M) Notice of )earin General &ule: E$er! #ritten &otion shall e set for hearing ! the a""licant% E ception, Motions #hich the court &a! act u"on #ithout "re.udicing the rights of the ad$erse "art!% 'Sec% 7, Rule (>) N-TE, E$er! #ritten &otion reBuired to e heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall e ser$ed '() in such a &anner as to ensure its recei"t ! the other "art! '/) at least three '0) da!s efore the date of hearing, unless the court %or good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice% 'otice o% hearing" The notice o% hearing shall e '() addressed to all "arties concerned, and '/) shall s"ecif! the ti&e and date of the hearing #hich &ust not 'Sec% >, Rule (>)

e later than ten '(E) da!s a%ter the %iling of the &otion%

!eneral ruleG wit)out compliance 2 scrap of paper A &otion #hich does not &eet the reBuire&ents of Sections 7 and > of Rule (> is a &ere scra" of "a"er #hich the cler1 of court has not right to recei$e and the trial court has no authorit! to act u"on% Defective notice of )earin 9I($O!> LI%E!/ I%(& v& ',LI%I,S )0..61

Under Sections > and = of Rule (>, the notice of hearing shall e addressed to the "arties concerned and shall s"ecif! the ti&e and date of the hearing of the &otion6 no &otion shall e acted u"on ! the court #ithout "roof of ser$ice of the notice thereof, e5ce"t #hen the court is satisfied that the rights of the ad$erse "art! are not affected%
DA+TS, A $ehicular collision ha""ened et#een "etitioner Victor! Liner, Inc% 'VLI) and an IsuGu Truc1 used ! res"ondent Michael Malinias% No one died, ut oth $ehicles #ere da&aged% Malinias filed a co&"laint for da&ages against "etitioner and the us dri$er, Leoncio Bulaong #ith the MT+, alleging "ecuniar! da&age to the truc1 #orth 27J,(AE re"resenting lost inco&e for the non4use of the truc1% After "re4trial, the us dri$er #as dro""ed as defendant in the case% During trial, res"ondent finished "resenting his e$idence and rested his case% +ounsel for "etitioner VLI filed a &otion to #ithdra# as counsel, ut the sa&e #as denied% When the case #as called for rece"tion of "etitioner3s e$idence, no a""earance #as &ade for the us co&"an!% Res"ondent thus &o$ed that "etitioner e declared to ha$e #ai$ed its right to adduce e$idence in its fa$or% The case #as dee&ed su &itted for .udg&ent and the MT+ ruled in fa$or of res"ondent Malinias, ordering VLI to "a! hi&% VLI3s ne# counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration% The Notice of Cearing therein stated, U2lease su &it the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration for hearing efore the +A at a schedule and ti&e con$enient to the +ourt and the "arties%L The MT+ ruled that the notice did not confor& #ith the &andator! reBuire&ents of Section >, Rule (>, and that the &otion #as thus a &ere scra" of "a"er #hich did not sus"end the "eriod to a""eal% 2etitioner VLI thereafter filed a Notice of A""eal and a &otion for the inhi ition ! the MT+, #hich #as granted% The case #as assigned to a ne# MT+ .udge, #ho #as tas1ed to rule on the Notice of A""eal% The MT+ ruled that it had een filed e!ond the regle&entar! "eriod% Again, the MT+ reiterated its initial .udg&ent in fa$or of Malinias since the fatall! defecti$e MR did not toll the regle&entar! "eriod for a""eal% The RT+ affir&ed the .udg&ent of the MT+ and held the decision final and e5ecutor!% ISSUE, #hether the 'otice o% Hearing %iled was de%ective 6ES1 The &ost crucial failure on the "art of "etitioner #as to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the MT+ :udg&ent #hich contained a defecti$e Notice of Cearing, failing as it did to set a date for hearing% Under Sections > and = of Rule (>, the notice of hearing shall e addressed to the "arties concerned and shall s"ecif! the ti&e and date of the hearing of the &otion6 no S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age J/

&otion shall e acted u"on ! the court #ithout "roof of ser$ice of the notice thereof, e5ce"t #hen the court is satisfied that the rights of the ad$erse "art! are not affected% Unless the &o$ant sets the ti&e and "lace of hearing, the court #ill e una le to deter&ine #hether the ad$erse "art! agrees or o .ects to the &otion, and if he o .ects, to hear hi& on his o .ection, since the rules the&sel$es do not fi5 an! "eriod #ithin #hich he &a! file his re"l! or o""osition% Not onl! did the defect render the &otion for reconsideration itself un#orth! of consideration, it &ore cruciall! failed to toll the "eriod to a""eal% A &otion #ithout a notice of hearing is pro %orma, a &ere scra" of "a"er that does not toll the "eriod to a""eal, and u"on the e5"iration of the (>4da! "eriod, the Buestioned order or decision eco&es final and e5ecutor!% That did not &ean that "etitioner #as left ereft of further re&edies under our Rules% Dor one, "etitioner could ha$e assailed the MT+3s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration through a s"ecial ci$il action for certiorari under Rule => alleging gra$e a use of discretion a&ounting to lac1 of .urisdiction on the "art of the MT+ in den!ing the &otion% If that re&ed! #ere successful, the effect #ould ha$e een to $oid the MT+3s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, thus allo#ing "etitioner to again "ursue such &otion as a &eans to#ards the filing of a ti&el! a""eal% Another re&ed! for the "etitioner is found under Rule 0A, #hich go$erns "etitions for relief fro& .udg&ent% Indeed, Section /, Rule 0A finds s"ecific a""lication in this case, as it "ro$ides that U8#9hen a .udg&ent or final order is rendered ! an! court in a case, and a "art! thereto, ! fraud, accident, &ista1e, or e5cusa le negligence, has een "re$ented fro& ta1ing an a""eal, he &a! file a "etition 8for relief fro& denial of a""eal9 in such court and in the sa&e case "ra!ing that the a""eal e gi$en due course%U0= Such "etition should e filed #ithin si5t! '=E) da!s after the "etitioner learns of the .udg&ent or final order, and not &ore than si5 '=) &onths after such .udg&ent or final order #as entered% The facts of this case indicate that "etitioner could ha$e ti&el! resorted to this re&ed!% E:ceptions +otions w)ic) ma, be ranted ex parte An e parte motion does not reBuire that "arties e hard% An e5a&"le is a &otion to set the case for "re4trial% N-TE, A &otion to dis&iss, a &otion for .udg&ent on the "leadings, and a su&&ar! .udg&ent are litigated &otions% C)ere adverse part, )ad opportunit, to oppose L,%$O v& DI',2O!O )7- S(!, +44/ 74--1

E5istence of a cause of action or lac1 of it is deter&ined ! a reference to the facts a$erred in the challenged "leading% The Buestion raised in the &otion is "urel! one of la#% In this "osture, oral argu&ents on the &otion are reduced to an unnecessar! cere&on! and should e o$erloo1ed%
DA+TS, Resolution No% J, ado"ted ! the 2ro$incial Board of Lanao del Norte, re$erted a "re$ious salar! a""ro"riation for the "osition of Assistant 2ro$incial Assessor to the general fund% In effect, that "osition then held ! "etitioner #as then a olished% Ce sought relief to $arious go$ern&ent officials, including the 2resident ut #as disa""ointed% Ce then #ent to the court see1ing &anda&us "ra!ing for annul&ent of the resolution, "a!&ent of ac1#ages, restate&ent of salar! a""ro"riations as #ell as reinstate&ent% Res"ondents &o$ed to dis&iss stating lac1 of cause of action% 2etitioner3s counsel &o$ed to "ost"one the hearing, ut failed to a""ear% The court elo# granted such &otion and dis&issed said "etition% Cence this a""eal% ISSUE, #hether the dismissal order issued without an! hearing on the motion to dismiss is void N"1 2etitioner #as gi$en the chance to adduce his case, !et it is ecause of his constant a sences that he #as una le to "resent his argu&ents% -ne good reason for the statutor! reBuire&ent of hearing on a &otion is to ena le the suitors to adduce e$idence to su""ort their clai&s% But here the Motion to Dis&iss is grounded on the lac1 of cause of action% E5istence of a cause of action or lac1 of it is deter&ined ! a reference to the facts a$erred in the challenged "leading% The Buestion raised in the &otion is "urel! one of la#% In this "osture, oral argu&ents on the &otion are reduced to an unnecessar! cere&on! and should e o$erloo1ed% The hearing for the Motion to Dis&iss #as set, !et the "etitioner failed to a""ear 'onl! his counsel sho#ed u")% Moreo$er, #ithout an! clear sho#ing to the contrar!, there is a "resu&"tion of regularit! #ithin the actions of the court #ith regard to entertaining &otions% In the case at ar, "etitioner failed to sho# irregularit! #ithin the courts% 9L,SO% E%$E!2!ISES (O!2 v& (, )55. S(!, 0-/ 74441

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age J0

'() Where the counsel failed o .ect on the ground of lac1 of notice to a Motion addressed to a for&er counsel, and #as granted ! the trial court 0E da!s to file his o""osition to it, the circu&stances clearl! .ustif! a de"arture fro& the literal a""lication of the notice of hearing rule% '/) The issuance of an order of default is a condition sine -ua non in order that a .udg&ent ! default e clothed #ith $alidit!% Durther&ore, it is a legal i&"ossi ilit! to declare a "art!4defendant to e in default efore it #as $alidl! ser$ed su&&ons%
DA+TS, Dura"roof sought to enforce its "referred sal$ors lien ! filing #ith the RT+ a "etition for certiorari, "rohi ition and mandamus assailing the actions of the +usto&s -fficers in forfeiting the $essel and cargo o#ned ! -&ega, #hich Dura"roof contracted to re"air% It i&"leaded 22A and Med Line 2hili""ines, Inc% as res"ondents% Dura"roof a&ended its "etition to include the for&er District +ollector, and other co&"anies in$ol$ed, including Vlason Enter"rises% In oth 2etitions, Dura"roof failed to allege an!thing "ertaining to Vlason Enter"rises, or an! "ra!er for relief against it% Su&&onses for the a&ended 2etition #ere ser$ed% Dura"roof &o$ed se$eral ti&es to declare the res"ondents it i&"leaded in default% -ut of those res"ondents, onl! the follo#ing #ere declared ! RT+ in default, the Sing1ong Trading +o%, +o&&issioner Mison, ,K6 Star Ace and -&ega% Dura"roof filed an e parte Motion to "resent e$idence against the defaulting res"ondents, #hich #as granted% Dura"roof alleged that Vlason Enter"rises, through constant inti&idation and harass&ent in utiliGing the 22A Manage&ent of La Union, caused Dura"roof to incur hea$! o$erhead e5"enses, causing irre"ara le da&ages of a out 20 Million #orth of shi" tac1les, rigs, and a""urtenances including radar antennas and a""aratuses, #hich #ere ta1en surre"titiousl! ! "ersons #or1ing for Vlason Enter"rises or its agents% The RT+ ruled that in fa$or of Dura"roof and ordered Vlason to "a! 20 Million #orth of da&ages% Dura"roof and the other co&"anies entered into a co&"ro&ise agree&ent, e5ce"t Vlason% Dura"roof &o$ed for the e5ecution of .udg&ent% The Motion #as granted and a Writ of E5ecution #as issued% Vlason Enter"rises filed a Motion for Reconsideration addressed to Dura"roof3s counsel, Att!% +once"cion, on the ground that it #as allegedl! not i&"leaded as a defendant, ser$ed su&&ons or declared in default, and hence Dura"roof &a! not "resent e$idence against it in default% Dura"roof o""osed the Motion, arguing that it #as a &ere scra" of "a"er due to its defecti$e notice of hearing% RT+ re$ersed its Decision, finding that there ne$er #as issued an order of default against Vlason Enter"rises, so there could not ha$e een an! $alid default4.udg&ent rendered against it% The +A ruled that there #as no need to ser$e su&&ons ane# on Vlason Enter"rises, since it had een ser$ed su&&ons #hen the second a&ended "etition #as filed6 and that Vlason Enter"risess Motion for Reconsideration #as defecti$e and $oid, ecause it contained no notice of hearing addressed to the counsel of Dura"roof in $iolation of Rule (=, Section 7 of the Rules of +ourt% ISSUE, #hether the motion %or reconsideration %iled b! 6lason was void %or not containing a notice o% hearing to *uraproo%Es counsel N"1 The Motion contained a notice of hearing sent to Att!% +once"cion #ho had alread! died and had since een su stituted ! Dura"roof3s ne# counsel, Att!% Desierto% Although Rule (> of the Rules of +ourt reBuires Vlason Enter"rises to address and to ser$e on the counsel of Dura"roof the notice of hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration, the case at ar, ho#e$er, is far fro& ideal% $irst, Vlason Enter"rises #as not $alidl! su&&oned and it did not "artici"ate in the trial of the case in the lo#er court6 thus, it #as understanda le that Vlason Enter"rises #ould not e fa&iliar #ith the "arties and their counsels% Second, Att!% Desierto entered his a""earance onl! as colla orating counsel, #ho is nor&all! not entitled to notices e$en fro& this +ourt% /hird, Dura"roof &ade no &anifestation on record that Att!% +once"cion #as alread! dead% Besides, it #as Att!% +once"cion #ho signed the A&ended 2etition, #herein Vlason Enter"rises #as first i&"leaded as res"ondent and ser$ed a co"! thereof% Naturall!, Vlason Enter"risess attention #as focused on this "leading, and it #as #ithin its rights to assu&e that the signator! to such "leading #as the counsel for Dura"roof% The +ourt has consistentl! held that a &otion #hich does not &eet the reBuire&ents of Sections 7 and > of Rule (> of the Rules of +ourt is considered a #orthless "iece of "a"er, #hich the cler1 of court has no right to recei$e and the trial court has no authorit! to act u"on% Co#e$er, there are e5ce"tions to the strict a""lication of this rule% These e5ce"tions include, I'() #here a rigid a""lication #ill result in a &anifest failure or &iscarriage of .ustice6 es"eciall! if a "art! successfull! sho#s that the alleged defect in the Buestioned final and e5ecutor! .udg&ent is not a""arent on its face or fro& the recitals contained therein%L The "resent case falls under such e5ce"tion since Vlason Enter"rises #as not infor&ed of an! cause of action or clai& against it% All of a sudden, the $essels #hich Vlason Enter"rises used in its sal$aging usiness #ere le$ied u"on and sold in e5ecution to satisf! a su""osed .udg&ent against it% To allo# this to ha""en si&"l! ecause of a la"se in fulfilling the notice reBuire&ent #hich, as alread! said, #as satisfactoril! e5"lained #ould e a &anifest failure or &iscarriage of .ustice% +ircu&stances in the case at ar sho# that Dura"roof #as not denied "rocedural due "rocess, and that the $er! "ur"ose of a notice of hearing had een ser$ed% -n the da! of the hearing, Att!% Desierto did not o .ect to the said Motion for S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age J7

lac1 of notice to hi&6 in fact, he #as furnished in o"en court #ith a co"! of the &otion and #as granted ! the trial court thirt! da!s to file his o""osition to it% These circu&stances clearl! .ustif! a de"arture fro& the literal a""lication of the notice of hearing rule% In other cases, after the trial court learns that a &otion lac1s such notice, the "ro&"t resetting of the hearing #ith due notice to all the "arties is held to ha$e cured the defect% Proof of service No #ritten &otion set for hearing shall e acted u"on ! the court #ithout "roof of ser$ice thereof% 'Sec% =, Rule (>) 9earin of motion General rule: All &otions shall e scheduled for hearing on Drida! afternoons, or if Drida! is a non4#or1ing da!, in the afternoon of the ne5t #or1ing da! E ception, Motions reBuiring i&&ediate action% 'Sec% J, Rule (>)

+"0I"N 0" DIS+ISS $R/LE %@& *our eneral t,pes of motion to dismiss under t)e Rules $%& +otion to dismiss before answer $Rule %@& $5& +otion to dismiss b, plaintiff $Rule %=& $7& +otion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence after plaintiff )as rested )is case $Rule 77& $B& +otion to dismiss appeal eit)er in R0C $Sec1 7%, Rule B%&, CA $Sec1 %, Rule ;A& or SC $Sec1 ;, Rule ;@& !rounds A &otion to dis&iss &a! e &ade on an! of the follo#ing grounds, 'a) That the court has no .urisdiction o$er the "erson of the defending "art!6 ' ) That the court has no .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter of the clai&6 'c) That $enue is i&"ro"erl! laid6 'd) That the "laintiff has no legal ca"acit! to sue6 'e) That there is another action "ending et#een the sa&e "arties for the sa&e cause6 'f) That the cause of action is arred ! a "rior .udg&ent or ! the statute of li&itations6 'g) That the "leading asserting the clai& states no cause of action6 'h) That the clai& or de&and set forth in the "laintiff3s "leading has een "aid, #ai$ed, a andoned, or other#ise e5tinguished6 'i) That the clai& on #hich the action is founded is unenforcea le under the "ro$isions of the statute of frauds6 and '.) That a condition "recedent for filing the clai& has not een co&"lied #ith% Lac( of 4urisdiction #O$I(,%O v& ( U )7*8 S(!, +*7/ 74861

Defect in ser$ice of su&&ons cannot e raised for the first ti&e on a""eal% Defects in .urisdiction arising fro& irregularities in the co&&ence&ent of the "roceedings, defecti$e "rocess or e$en a sence of "rocess &a! e #ai$ed ! a failure to &a1e seasona le o .ections%
DA+TS, While loaded #ith logs, and "ro"erl! "ar1ed ! its dri$er Ma5i&o Dalangin at the shoulder of the national high#a! in Nue$a Eci.a, Boticano3s Bedford truc1 #as hit and u&"ed at the rear ! another Bedford truc1 o#ned ! "ri$ate res"ondent +hu, :r% and dri$en ! Sigua, the for&er3s co4defendant in the case% +hu agreed to shoulder the e5"enses of the re"air of the da&aged truc1 of the latter, ut he failed to "a! the sa&e% Su&&ons #as issued ut #as returned unser$ed ecause Sigua #as no longer connected #ith San 2edro Sa# Mill, #hile +hu #as "ro"erl! ser$ed through the recei"t ! his #ife of such su&&ons% Boticano &o$ed to dis&iss the case against Sigua and to declare +hu in default for failure to file res"onsi$e "leadings #ithin the regle&entar! "eriod% The &otion #as granted ! the lo#er court allo#ing "etitioner to adduce his e$idence e parte% The RT+ found +hu res"onsi le for the fault of his dri$er% +hu filed a notice of a""eal and a &otion to e5tend to file his record on a""eal% Boticano &otioned to dis&iss the a""eal, #hich +hu3s counsel o""osed% In the end, +hu3s record on a""eal #as a""ro$ed% The case #as rought to the +A, #hich set aside the RT+ and re&anded the case to the court of origin for su&&ons to e "ro"erl! ser$ed on +hu and for "roceedings to e ta1en% -n a""eal, Boticano Buestioned the +A3s ruling that .urisdiction o$er +hu3s "erson #as not acBuired% ISSUE, #hether the -uestion o% .urisdiction over the person o% the de%endant can be raised %or the %irst time on appeal N"1 Co#e$er, one of the circu&stances considered ! the +ourt as indicati$e of #ai$er ! defendant4a""ellant of an! alleged defect if .urisdiction o$er his "erson arising fro& defecti$e or e$en #ant of "rocess, is his failure to raise the Buestion of .urisdiction in the +DI and at the first o""ortunit!% Defects in .urisdiction arising fro& irregularities in the co&&ence&ent of the "roceedings, defecti$e "rocess or e$en a sence of "rocess &a! e #ai$ed ! a failure to &a1e seasona le o .ections% During the S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age J>

stages of the "roceedings, in the case at ar, defendant4a""ellant could ha$e Buestioned the .urisdiction of the lo#er court% But he did not% +hu here had $oluntaril! su &itted hi&self to the court3s .urisdiction% Thus, .urisdiction #as "ro"erl! acBuired ! the trial court o$er the "erson of res"ondent thru oth ser$ice of su&&ons and $oluntar! a""earance in court6 he #as "ro"erl! declared in default for not ha$ing filed an! ans#er6 des"ite res"ondent3s failure to file a &otion to set aside the declaration of default, he has the right to a""eal the default of .udg&ent ut in the a""eal onl! the e$idence of the "etitioner &a! e considered, res"ondent not ha$ing adduced an! defense e$idence% Res 4udicata DEL !OS,!IO v& "E#$( )+56 S(!, +67/ 0..61

Res .udicata I ar ! "rior .udg&ent,L as a ground to dis&iss the case has four essential reBuisites, a) finalit! of the for&er .udg&ent6 ) the court #hich rendered it had .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter and the "arties6 c) it &ust e a .udg&ent on the &erits6 and d) there &ust e, et#een the first and second actions, identit! of "arties, su .ect &atter and causes of action%
DA+TS, 2D+2 e5tended a 27%7 &illion loan to DATI+-R, #hich sti"ulated that DATI+-R shall "a!, a ser$ice fee of (Q "er annu& 'later increased =Q "er annu&) on the outstanding alance6 (/Q "er annu& interest6 and "enalt! charges /Q "er &onth in case of default% The loans #ere secured ! real estate &ortgages o$er si5 '=) "arcels of land and chattel &ortgages o$er &achiner! and eBui"&ent% DATI+-R "aid a total of 20 &illion to 2D+2, #hich the latter a""lied to interest, ser$ice fees and "enalt! charges% This left the& #ith an outstanding alance of 2(E &illion, according to 2D+23s co&"utation% DATI+-R filed a co&"laint against 2D+2 for $iolation of the Usur! La# and annul&ent of contract and da&ages% The +DI dis&issed the co&"laint% The IA+ set aside the dis&issal and declared $oid and of no effect the sti"ulation of interest in the loan agree&ent% 2D+2 a""ealed the IA+Rs decision to S+% In the interi&, 2D+2 assigned a "ortion of its recei$a les fro& DATI+-R to DEBT+ for of 2>%7 M% DEBT+ and DATI+-R, in a M-A, agreed to 2=%7 &illion as full settle&ent of the recei$a les% S+ affir&ed in toto the decision of the IA+, nullif!ing the sti"ulation of interests% DATI+-R thus filed a +o&"laint for su& of &one! against 2D+2 and DEBT+ to reco$er the e5cess "a!&ent #hich the! co&"uted to e 2>%0 &illion% RT+ ordered 2D+2 to "a! "etitioners 27%E0> &illion, to ear interest at (/Q "er annu& until full! "aid6 to release or cancel the &ortgages and to return the corres"onding titles to "etitioners6 and to "a! the costs of the suit% RT+ dis&issed the co&"laint against DEBT+ for lac1 of cause of action since the M-A et#een "etitioners and DEBT+ #as not su .ect to S+ decision, DEBT+ not eing a "art! thereto% 2etitioners and 2D+2 a""ealed to the +A, #hich held that "etitionersR outstanding o ligation 'deter&ined to e onl! 2(%7 &illion) could not e increased or decreased ! an! act of the creditor 2D+2, and held that #hen 2D+2 assigned its recei$a les, the a&ount "a!a le to it ! DATI+-R #as the sa&e a&ount "a!a le to assignee DEBT+, irres"ecti$e of an! sti"ulation that 2D+2 and DEBT+ &ight ha$e "ro$ided in the Deed of Assign&ent, DATI+-R not ha$ing een a "art! thereto, hence, not ound ! its ter&s% B! the "rinci"le of solutio indebiti, the +A held that DEBT+ #as ound to refund DATI+-R the e5cess "a!&ent of 2> &illion it recei$ed6 and that DEBT+ could reco$er fro& 2D+2 the 27%E0> &illion for the o$er"a!&ent for the assigned recei$a les% But since DATI+-R clai&ed in its co&"laint onl! of 2M=>,EEE fro& DEBT+, the latter #as ordered to "a! the& onl! that a&ount% 2etitioners filed efore the RT+ another +o&"laint against DEBT+ to reco$er the alance of the e5cess "a!&ent of 27%00> &illion% The trial court dis&issed "etitionersR co&"laint on the ground of res .udicata and s"litting of cause of action% It recalled that "etitioners had filed an action to reco$er the alleged o$er"a!&ent oth fro& 2D+2 and DEBT+ and that the +A Decision, ordering 2D+2 to release and cancel the &ortgages and DEBT+ to "a! 2M=>,EEE #ith interest eca&e final and e5ecutor!% ISSUE, #hether the action should be dismissed on the ground o% res .udicata 6ES1 There is no dou t that the .udg&ent on a""eal relati$e to the first ci$il case #as a final .udg&ent% Not onl! did it dis"ose of the case on the &erits, it also eca&e e5ecutor! as a conseBuence of the denial of DEBT+3s &otion for reconsideration and a""eal% In fact, authorities tend to #iden rather than restrict the doctrine of res .udicata on the ground that "u lic as #ell as "ri$ate interest de&ands the ending of suits ! reBuiring the "arties to sue once and for all in the sa&e case all the s"ecial "roceedings and re&edies to #hich the! are entitled% Section 7J of Rule 0M la!s do#n t#o &ain rules% Section 7M' ) enunciates the first rule of res .udicata 1no#n as I ar ! "rior .udg&entL or Iesto""el ! .udg&ent,L #hich states that the .udg&ent or decree of a court of co&"etent .urisdiction on the &erits concludes the "arties and their "ri$ies to the litigation and constitutes a ar to a ne# action or suit in$ol$ing the sa&e cause of action either efore the sa&e or an! other tri unal% Stated other#ise, I ar ! for&er .udg&entL &a1es the .udg&ent rendered in the first case an a solute ar to the su seBuent action since that .udg&ent is conclusi$e not onl! as to the &atters offered and recei$ed to sustain it ut also as to S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age J=

an! other &atter #hich &ight ha$e een offered for that "ur"ose and #hich could ha$e een ad.udged therein% It is in this conce"t that the ter& res .udicata is &ore co&&onl! and generall! used as a ground for a &otion to dis&iss in ci$il cases% The second rule of res .udicata e& odied in Section 7J'c), Rule 0M is Iconclusi$eness of .udg&ent%L This rule "ro$ides that an! right, fact, or &atter in issue directl! ad.udicated or necessaril! in$ol$ed in the deter&ination of an action efore a co&"etent court in #hich a .udg&ent or decree is rendered on the &erits is conclusi$el! settled ! the .udg&ent therein and cannot again e litigated et#een the "arties and their "ri$ies #hether or not the clai& or de&and, "ur"ose, or su .ect &atter of the t#o suits is the sa&e% It refers to a situation #here the .udg&ent in the "rior action o"erates as an esto""el onl! as to the &atters actuall! deter&ined or #hich #ere necessaril! included therein% The case at ar satisfies the four essential reBuisites of I ar ! "rior .udg&ent,L vi0: a) finalit! of the for&er .udg&ent6 ) the court #hich rendered it had .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter and the "arties6 c) it &ust e a .udg&ent on the &erits6 and d) there &ust e, et#een the first and second actions, identit! of "arties, su .ect &atter and causes of action%

*ailure to state a cause of action ,LI',O v& 9ILL,%UE9, )0+5 S(!, 7/ 744-1

The rule that a &otion to dis&iss is to e considered as a h!"othetical ad&ission of the facts alleged in the co&"laint a""lies &ore "articularl! to cases in #hich the ground for dis&issal is the failure of the co&"laint to state a cause of action%
DA+TS, Re!naldo Cali&ao #rote a letter to the +hief :ustice, alleging that res"ondents, #ithout la#ful authorit! and ar&ed #ith ar&alites and handguns, forci l! entered the -o Nian Tio1 +o&"ound in +ainta, RiGal, of #hich co&"lainant #as careta1er% +o&"lainant "ra!ed that an in$estigation e conducted and that res"ondents e dis arred% Res"ondents Villanue$a et% al% filed a co&&ent, clai&ing that the co&"laint is a &ere du"lication of the co&"laint filed ! Danilo CernandeG in Ad&inistrati$e +ase No% 0A0>, #hich this +ourt had alread! dis&issed for lac1 of &erit% The! "ointed out that oth co&"laints arose fro& the sa&e incident and the sa&e acts co&"lained of and that Danilo CernandeG, #ho filed the "rior case, is the sa&e "erson #hose affida$it is attached to the co&"laint in this case% +o4res"ondent Derrer clai&ed that the t#o co&"laints #ere filed for the "ur"ose of harassing hi& ecause he #as the "rinci"al la#!er of Att!% Daniel Villanue$a in t#o cases efore the SE+% This case #as referred to the IB2, #hose Board of Fo$ernors dis&issed the case% The In$estigating +o&&issioner found that the co&"laint is arred ! the decision in Ad&inistrati$e +ase No% 0A0> #hich in$ol$ed the sa&e incident% The co&"laints in the t#o cases #ere si&ilarl! #orded% +o&"lainant filed a &otion for reconsideration of the resolution of the IB2 Board of Fo$ernors, alleging that the co&&issioner erroneousl! dis&issed the co&"laint since the res"ondents are dee&ed to ha$e ad&itted the allegations of the co&"laint against the& ! filing a &otion to dis&iss ISSUE, #hether the respondents h!potheticall! admitted petitionerEs allegations b! %iling a motion to dismiss N"1 The rule that a &otion to dis&iss is to e considered as a h!"othetical ad&ission of the facts alleged in the co&"laint a""lies &ore "articularl! to cases in #hich the ground for dis&issal is the failure of the co&"laint to state a cause of action% This rule does not a""l! to other grounds for dis&issal% In such cases, the h!"othetical ad&ission is li&ited to the facts alleged in the co&"laint #hich relate to and are necessar! for the resolution of these grounds as "reli&inar! &atters in$ol$ing su stanti$e or "rocedural la#s, ut not to the other facts of the case% T#o &otions for reconsideration of this resolution #ere filed ! the co&"lainant therein, oth of #hich #ere denied% While the co&"lainant 'Danilo CernandeG) in Ad&inistrati$e +ase No% 0A0> is different fro& the co&"lainant in the "resent case, the fact is that the! ha$e an identit! of interest, as the In$estigating +o&&issioner ruled% Both co&"lainants #ere e&"lo!ed at the -o Nian Tio1 +o&"ound at the ti&e of the alleged incident% Both co&"lain of the sa&e act allegedl! co&&itted ! res"ondents% The resolution of this +ourt in Ad&inistrati$e +ase No% 0A0> is thus conclusi$e in this case, it a""earing that the co&"laint in this case is nothing ut a du"lication of the co&"laint of Danilo CernandeG in the "rior case% $,% v& (, )04+ S(!, 0*6/ 74481

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age JJ

General rule, A$er&ents in the co&"laint are dee&ed h!"otheticall! ad&itted u"on filing of a Motion to Dis&iss grounded on failure to state a cause of action E ceptions, Motion to Dis&iss does not ad&it the follo#ing, () E"ithets of fraud /) Allegations of legal conclusions 0) Erroneous state&ents of la# 7) Inferences or conclusions fro& facts not stated >) +onclusions of la# =) Allegations of fact, falsit! of #hich is su .ect to .udicial notice J) Matters of e$idence A) Sur"lusage and irrele$ant &atter M) Scandalous or insulting &atter (E) Legall! i&"ossi le facts (() Unfounded facts ! record incor"orated in "leading or docu&ent Feneral a$er&ents contradicted
DA+TS, Tan Neh sold t#o "arcels of land to Tan Niat, ut failed to effect the i&&ediate transfer of the "ro"erties since Tan Niat #as still a foreign national at the ti&e of the sale% Ne$ertheless Tan Neh secured the sale ! e5ecuting a lease contract of 7E !ears in fa$or of Tan Niat% Dour !ears later, Tan Neh sold the "ro"erties to his rother, Tan% Tan 1no#ingl! held the "ro"ert! in trust for Tan Niat until the latter acBuires Dili"ino citiGenshi"% The ne# T+Ts #ere issued in the na&e of Tan as trustee of Tan Niat% Tan1 Neh and Tan e5ecuted another lease contract to secure the con$e!ance of the "ro"ert! to Tan Niat% Tan Niat ne$er "aid rental and no de&and for rentals #as &ade on hi&% Tan Died% Tan Niat thereafter de&anded for the con$e!ance of the "ro"ert! as he #as finall! a naturaliGed Dili"ino% 2etitioners failed to con$e! the&% Tan Niat filed a co&"laint for reco$er! of "ro"ert!% 2etitioners &o$ed for its dis&issal ased, a&ong others, on failure to state a cause of action% RT+ dis&issed co&"laint acceding to all grounds set forth ! the "etitioners% +A re$ersed and ordered that case e re&anded for further "roceedings% ISSUE, #hether the complaint stated no cause o% action 6ES% A$er&ents in the co&"laint are dee&ed h!"otheticall! ad&itted u"on filing of a Motion to Dis&iss grounded on failure to state a cause of action% But there are also li&itations to such rule% In the case at ar, the Itrust theor!L clai&ed ! Tan Niat does not hold #ater% The lease contract as e$idenced ! docu&ent attached #ith the Motion to Dis&iss and ad&itted ! Tan Niat alread! elies the latter3s clai& of o#nershi"% There is an a""arent lessor4lessee relationshi"% -#nershi" of Tan is further su""orted ! the annotated &ortgage on the ac1 of the T+T #hich Tan e5ecuted in fa$or of a an1 so as to secure a loan% In truth, B! the $er! nature of a &ortgage contract, Tan could not ha$e &ortgage the "ro"ert! if he #as not the real o#ner% Ca$ing failed to "ro$e the trust relationshi", it &a! e gleaned fro& the allegations that the transaction #as a dou le sale instead% Since Tan had the T+T in his na&e, he is "resu&ed to ha$e the etter right% Statute of *rauds ,SI, 2!ODU($IO% (O&/ I%(& v& 2,%O )0.+ S(!, *+8/ 74401

Under Article (7E0, the contracts concerned are si&"l! Uunenforcea leU and the reBuire&ent that the!*or so&e note or &e&orandu& thereof * e in #riting refers onl! to the &anner the! are to e "ro$ed% It goes #ithout sa!ing then, that the statute #ill a""l! onl! to e5ecutor! rather than e5ecuted contracts% 2artial e5ecution is e$en enough to ar the a""lication of the statute%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age JA

DA+TS, Res"ondents Cua and D!, o#ners of a uilding constructed on a lot leased fro& Lucio San Andres and located in Bulacan, sold the uilding to the "etitioners for 2(JE,EEE%EE, #ith the assurance that res"ondents #ill also assign to the& the contract of lease o$er the land% The a o$e agree&ent and "ro&ise #ere not reduced to #riting% 2ri$ate res"ondents undertoo1 to deli$er the deed of con$e!ance o$er the uilding and the deed of assign&ent of the contract of lease #ithin si5t! '=E) da!s u"on the 2/E,EEE do#n"a!&ent% The alance #as to e "aid in &onthl! install&ents% 2etitioners "aid the do#n"a!&ent and issued eight 'A) "ostdated chec1s for the "a!&ent of the eight 'A) &onthl! install&ents% 2etitioners constructed a #ea$ing factor! on the leased lot% Unfortunatel!, "ri$ate res"ondents, des"ite e5tensions granted, failed to co&"l! #ith their underta1ing to e5ecute the deed of sale and to assign the contract des"ite the fact that the! #ere a le to encash the chec1s in the total a&ount of 20E,EEE% Worse, the lot o#ner &ade it "lain to "etitioners that he #as un#illing to gi$e consent to the assign&ent of the lease unless "etitioners agreed to certain onerous ter&s, such as an increase in rental, or the "urchase of the land at a $er! unconsciona le "rice% 2etitioners re&o$ed all their "ro"ert!, &achiner! and eBui"&ent fro& the uilding, $acated the sa&e and returned its "ossession to "ri$ate res"ondents% The! de&anded fro& the latter the return of their "artial "a!&ent for the "urchase "rice of the uilding in the total su& of 2>E,EEE, #hich res"ondents refused to return% 2etitioner filed a co&"laint for reco$er! and of actual, &oral and e5e&"lar! da&ages and attorne!Rs fees #ith the +DI% Cua #as declared in default% D! filed a &otion to dis&iss the co&"laint on the ground that the clai& on #hich the action is ased * an alleged "urchase of a uilding #hich is not e$idenced ! an! #riting * cannot e "ro$ed ! "arol e$idence since Article (0>= in relation to Article (0>A of the +i$il +ode reBuires that it should e in #riting% The RT+ granted the &otion to dis&iss on the ground that the co&"laint is arred ! the Statute of Drauds% Their &otion for reconsideration #as denied for the reason that the oral contract in this case #as not re&o$ed fro& the o"eration of the Statute of Drauds ecause there #as no full or co&"lete "erfor&ance ! the "etitioners of the contract as reBuired ! :uris"rudence% ISSUE, #hether petitionerEs action is barred b! the Statute o% $rauds N"1 Article (7E0 of the +i$il +ode declares the follo#ing contracts, a&ong others, as unen%orceable, unless the! are ratified, The "ur"ose of the statute is to "re$ent fraud and "er.ur! in the enforce&ent of o ligations de"ending for their e$idence on the unassisted &e&or! of #itnesses ! reBuiring certain enu&erated contracts and transactions to e e$idenced ! a #riting signed ! the "art! to e charged% It #as not designed to further or "er"etuate fraud% Under Article (7E0, the contracts concerned are si&"l! Uunenforcea leU and the reBuire&ent that the!*or so&e note or &e&orandu& thereof * e in #riting refers onl! to the &anner the! are to e "ro$ed% It goes #ithout sa!ing then, that the statute #ill a""l! onl! to e5ecutor! rather than e5ecuted contracts% 2artial e5ecution is e$en enough to ar the a""lication of the statute% The instant case is not for s"ecific "erfor&ance of the agree&ent to sell the uilding and to assign the leasehold right, ut to reco$er the "artial "a!&ent for the agreed "urchase "rice of the uilding% B! their &otion to dis&iss, "ri$ate res"ondents theoreticall! or h!"otheticall! ad&itted the truth of the allegations of fact in the co&"laint% The action is definitel! not one for s"ecific "erfor&ance6 hence the Statute of Drauds does not a""l!% And e$en if it #ere for s"ecific "erfor&ance, "artial e5ecution thereof ! "etitioners effecti$el! ars the "ri$ate res"ondents fro& in$o1ing it% Condition precedent SU%9ILLE $I'#E! 2!ODU($S/ I%(& v& ,#,D )0.- S(!, *80/ 74401

The doctrine of e5haustion of ad&inistrati$e re&edies calls for resort first to the a""ro"riate ad&inistrati$e authorities in the resolution of a contro$ers! falling under their .urisdiction efore the sa&e &a! e ele$ated to the courts of .ustice for re$ie#%
DA+TS, Sun$ille Ti& er 2roducts 'Sun$ille) #as granted a Ti& er License Agree&ent 'TLA), authoriGing it to cut, re&o$e and utiliGe ti& er #ithin the concession area co$ering /M,>EE hectares of forest land in Xa& oanga del Sur, for a "eriod of (E !ears% The res"ondents filed a "etition #ith the DENR for the cancellation of the TLA and #ith the RT+ for in.unction in a ci$il case, oth on the ground of serious $iolations of its conditions and the "ro$isions of forestr! la#s% Sun$ille &o$ed to dis&iss this case on the ground that the "laintiffs had not !et e5hausted ad&inistrati$e re&edies, a&ong others% The &otion to dis&iss and the &otion for reconsideration #ere denied% The +A sustained the RT+3s decision% +A held that the doctrine of e5haustion of ad&inistrati$e re&edies #as not #ithout e5ce"tion and "ointed to the se$eral instances a""ro$ed ! this +ourt #here it could e dis"ensed #ith% The a""lica le e5ce"tion #as the urgent need for .udicial inter$ention ecause +it! +ouncil of 2agadian reBuested the Bureau of Dorest De$elo"&ent to reser$e (,EEE hectares in Lison Valle!% This reBuest re&ained unacted u"on% Instead a TLA co$ering /M,>EE hectares, including the area reBuested, #as gi$en to "etitioner Sun$ille% Due to the erosion caused ! Sun$ille3s logging o"erations hea$! floods ha$e occurred in areas ad.oining the logging concessions% Thus, it is urgent that indiscri&inate logging e sto""ed% Sun$ille contends that the doctrine of e5haustion of ad&inistrati$e re&edies #as not correctl! a""lied ISSUE, #hether the application o% the doctrine o% e haustion o% administrative remedies is correct N"1 The doctrine of e5haustion of ad&inistrati$e re&edies calls for resort first to the a""ro"riate ad&inistrati$e authorities in the resolution of a contro$ers! falling under their .urisdiction efore the sa&e &a! e ele$ated to the courts of .ustice for re$ie#% There is the e5"licit language of "ertinent la#s $esting in the DENR the "o#er and function Uto regulate the de$elo"&ent, dis"osition, e5traction, e5"loration and use of the countr!Rs forestsU and Uto e5ercise e5clusi$e .urisdictionU in the S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age JM

U&anage&ent and dis"osition of all lands of the "u lic do&ain,U and in the Dorest Manage&ent Bureau the res"onsi ilit! for the enforce&ent of the forestr! la#s aid regulations here clai&ed to ha$e een $iolated% This co&"rehensi$e confer&ent clearl! implies at the $er! least that the DENR should e allo#ed to rule in the first instance on an! contro$ers! co&ing under its e5"ress "o#ers efore the courts of .ustice &a! inter$ene% The charge in$ol$es factual issues calling for the "resentation of su""orting e$idence% Such e$idence is est e$aluated first ! the ad&inistrati$e authorities, e&"lo!ing their s"ecialiGed 1no#ledge of the agree&ent and the rules allegedl! $iolated, efore the courts &a! ste" in to e5ercise their "o#ers of re$ie#% C)o files 9ow pleaded Period A &otion to dis&iss &a! 'Sec% (, Rule (=)

e filed within the time %or

ut

efore filing the ans#er to the co&"laint or "leading asserting a clai&%

As affirmative defense If no &otion to dis&iss has een filed, '() an! of the grounds for dis&issal "ro$ided for in this Rule &a! e "leaded as an affir&ati$e defense in the ans#er, and '/) a "reli&inar! hearing &a! e had thereon as if a &otion to dis&iss had een filed, in the discretion of the court, 'Sec% =, Rule (=) 'counterclaim w)ic) ma, be prosecuted in same or separate action refers to permissive counterclaim 9earin and resolution Hearing At the hearing of the &otion, the "arties shall su &it '() their argu&ents on the Buestions of la# and '/) their e$idence on the Buestions of fact in$ol$ed e cept those not a$aila le at that ti&e% N-TE, Should the case go to trial, the e$idence "resented during the hearing shall automaticall! "art! "resenting the sa&e% 'Sec% /, Rule (=) e "art of the e$idence of the

&esolution o% motion After the hearing, the court &a! '() dis&iss the action or clai&, '/) den! the &otion, or '0) order the a&end&ent of the "leading% The court shall not defer the resolution of the &otion for the reason that the ground relied u"on is not indu ita le% In e$er! case, the resolution shall state clearl! and distinctl! the reasons therefor% 'Sec% 0, Rule =)

'U%I(I2,LI$> O" #I%,% v& (, )074 S(!, -4/ 74451

2reli&inar! Cearing under Sec >, Rule (= is not &andator! e$en #hen the sa&e is "ra!ed for, It rests largel! on the sound discretion of the trial court% A "reli&inar! hearing on an affir&ati$e defense for failure to state a cause of action is not necessar!%
DA+TS, 2etitioner Munici"alit! of Binan filed for unla#ful detainer against "ri$ate res"ondent Farcia, stating that it #as no longer a&ena le to the rene#al of its />4!ear lease contract #ith "ri$ate res"ondent o$er the "re&ises in$ol$ed ecause of its "ressing need to use the sa&e for national and "ro$incial offices% Farcia filed his ans#er to the co&"laint sa!ing that the contract of lease had not !et e5"ired and, assu&ing that it had e5"ired, he has e5ercised his o"tion to sta! in the "re&ises for another /> !ears as e5"ressl! "ro$ided in the said contract% 2etitioner filed its re"l!% Su seBuentl! "ri$ate res"ondent filed a UMotion for 2reli&inar! Cearing as if a Motion to Dis&iss Cas Been DiledU on the ground that the co&"laint states no cause of action, reiterating his "re$ious argu&ent% The MT+ ordered "ri$ate res"ondent to $acate the "re&ises% 2ri$ate res"ondent filed a UManifestation?MotionU in the nature of a &otion to dis&iss, "ra!ing that the sa&e e first resol$ed instead of rendering .udg&ent on the "leadings% Also, "ri$ate res"ondent filed a notice of a""eal to the RT+% 2etitioner filed a &otion for discretionar! e5ecution, #hich #as granted% A #rit of e5ecution #as issued directing the de"ut! sheriff to enforce the ter&s% 2ri$ate res"ondent filed #ith the +A an a""eal on the ground that the lo#er court failed to conduct a "reli&inar! hearing as "ra!ed ! his "re$ious &otion% +A granted "ri$ate res"ondent3s a""eal

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age AE

ISSUE, #hether or not a preliminar! hearing %or a ,otion to *ismiss is mandator! N"1 It cannot e said that the lo#er court co&&itted a gra$e a use of discretion or e5ceeded its .urisdiction #hen it failed to conduct a "reli&inar! hearing, as "ra!ed for in "ri$ate res"ondentRs UMotion for 2reli&inar! Cearing as if a Motion to Dis&iss Cas Been Diled,U efore rendering .udg&ent on the &erits of the case% The &otion of "ri$ate res"ondent is anchored on the ground that the co&"laint states no cause of action since the original ter& of /> !ears sti"ulated in the contract of lease had not !et e5"ired and assu&ing that it had e5"ired, "ri$ate res"ondent had &ade 1no#n to "etitioner his e5clusi$e o"tion to rene# it for another /> !ears% Section >, Rule (= allo#s the grounds for a &otion to dis&iss to e set u" as affir&ati$e defenses in the ans#er if no &otion to dis&iss has een filed% Co#e$er, contrar! to the clai& of "ri$ate res"ondent, the "reli&inar! hearing "er&itted under the said "ro$ision is not &andator! e$en #hen the sa&e is "ra!ed for% It rests largel! on the discretion of the trial court% The use of the #ord U&a!U in said "ro$ision sho#s that such a hearing is not a &atter of right de&anda le fro& the trial court% Where the "ro$ision reads U&a!,U this #ord sho#s that it is not &andator! ut discretional% It is an au5iliar! $er indicating li ert!, o""ortunit!, "er&ission and "ossi ilit!% Moreo$er, a "reli&inar! hearing on an affir&ati$e defense for failure to state a cause of action is not necessar!% It is a #ell4settled rule that in a &otion to dis&iss ased on the ground that the co&"laint fails to state a cause of action, the Buestion su &itted to the court for deter&ination is the sufficienc! of the allegations in the co&"laint itself% Whether those allegations are true or not is eside the "oint, for their truth is h!"otheticall! ad&itted ! the &otion% In other #ords, to deter&ine sufficienc! of the cause of action, onl! the facts alleged in the co&"laint, and no other should e considered% ' preliminar, )earin ' preliminar, )earin Effects "f dismissal An order granting a &otion to dis&iss ased on the follo#ing shall ar the refiling of the sa&e action or clai&, '() That the cause of action is arred ! a "rior .udg&ent or ! the statute of li&itations6 '/) That the clai& or de&and set forth in the "laintiff3s "leading has een "aid, #ai$ed, a andoned, or other#ise e5tinguished6 '0) That the clai& on #hich the action is founded is unenforcea le under the "ro$isions of the statute of frauds6 and N-TE, The! are still su .ect to the right of a""eal % 'Sec% >, Rule (=) 'appealableD refilin barred if motion based on Sec1 % $f&, $)&, and $i& not mandator, on an affirmative defense or failure to state a cause of action not necessar,

"n periods for pleadin 3% the motion is denied* the &o$ant shall file his ans#er #ithin the alance of the "eriod "rescri ed ! Rule (( to #hich he #as entitled at the ti&e of ser$ing his &otion, BUT not less than fi$e '>) da!s in an! e$ent, %rom his receipt o% the notice o% the denial % 3% the pleading is ordered to be amended" Ce shall file his ans#er #ithin the "eriod "rescri ed "ro$ides a longer "eriod% 'Sec% 7, Rule (=)

! Rule (( counted %rom service o% the amended pleading, unless the court

"n ot)er rounds and omnibus motion rule A &otion attac1ing a "leading, order, .udg&ent, or "roceeding shall include all ob.ections then a$aila le, and all ob.ections not so included shall e dee&ed #ai$ed% 'Sec% A, Rule (>) E ceptions The court shall dis&iss the clai& #hen it a""ears fro& the "leadings or the e$idence on record that '() the court has no .urisdiction o$er the su .ect &atter, '/) there is another action "ending et#een the sa&e "arties for the sa&e cause, or that '0) the action is arred ! a "rior .udg&ent or '7) arred ! the statute of li&itations% 'Sec% (, Rule M) Remedies If motion ranted H appeal or refile complaint If motion denied H file answer, unless wit)out 4urisdiction, in w)ic) case, Rule @; petition %2( v& (, )78+ S(!, 7-4/ 744.1

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age A(

As a general rule, #hene$er a &otion is denied, the "etitioner should file an ans#er, go to trial and if the decision is ad$erse, reiterate the issue on a""eal% Co#e$er, if the court #ho denies the &otion acts #ithout or in e5cess of .urisdiction or #ith gra$e a use of discretion the "ro"er &o$e is to "roceed to a higher court for relief%
DA+TS, DINE +he&icals, a co&"an! engaged in the &anufacturing of "lastics a""lied #ith the N2+ for direct "o#er connection% Meralco assured that it had the ca"a ilities to ser$e DINE ut that to allo# direct connections #ill e detri&ental to other consu&ers since the!3ll shoulder the additional su sid! urden% Co#e$er, N2+ #ent on #ith the "lan an!#a! and "ro$ided its ser$ices #ith DINE% Because of this, Meralco filed a "etition for 2rohi ition, Manda&us and Da&ages #ith 2reli&inar! In.unction #ith the RT+% DINE countered sa!ing that In.uction #ould e &oot since the ser$ice has alread! een consu&&ated and the facilities ha$e een installed and are functional% Meralco a&ended its "etition ! incor"orating an a""lication for a #rit of "reli&inar! &andator! in.unction% DINE &o$ed to dis&iss the a&ended "etition on the ground of insufficienc! of the allegations in the "etition to "lead a cause of action% The trial .udge allo#ed Meralco to adduce e$idence o$er DINE3s o .ection% DINE then filed a &anifestation ado"ting its Motion to Dis&iss ut #as denied% Undaunted, DINE "roceeded directl! to the +A and filed a "etition for +ertiorari, 2rohi ition and Manda&us% +A dis&issed% Cence this "etition% ISSUE, #hether ,eralcoEs petition in the lower court should be dismissed 6ES1 As a general rule, #hene$er a &otion is denied, the "etitioner should file an ans#er, go to trial and if the decision is ad$erse, reiterate the issue on a""eal% Co#e$er, if the court #ho denies the &otion acts #ithout or in e5cess of .urisdiction or #ith gra$e a use of discretion the "ro"er &o$e is to "roceed to a higher court for relief% It #ould e unfair to reBuire the defendant to undergo the ordeal and e5"ense of trial under such circu&stances as the re&ed! of a""eal #ould not e "lain and adeBuate% More i&"ortantl!, "etitioner3s &otion to dis&iss is ased on the ground that the co&"laint states no cause of action, so that there is no need for a full lo#n trial% It is also i&"ortant to note that the courts #ill stri$e to settle the contro$ers! in a single "roceeding lea$ing no root or ranch to ear the seeds of future litigation%

DIS+ISSAL "* AC0I"NS $R/LE %=& /pon notice b, plaintiff2before answer A co&"laint &a! e dis&issed ! the "laintiff '() ! filing a notice of dis&issal '/) at an! ti&e be%ore ser$ice of the ans#er or of a &otion for su&&ar! .udg&ent% U"on such notice eing filed, the court shall issue an order confir&ing the dis&issal% The court does not ha$e to a""ro$e the dis&issal ecause it has no discretion on the &atter% Before an ans#er or &otion for su&&ar! .udg&ent has een ser$ed u"on "laintiff, dis&issal ! the "laintiff is a &atter of right% It occurs as of the filing of the notice, not u"on court3s confir&ation% General rule: The dis&issal &ade ! filing a notice of dis&issal is #ithout "re.udice% E ceptions: '() The notice other#ise states6 and '/) When filed ! a "laintiff #ho has once dis&issed in a co&"etent court an action ased on or including the sa&e clai&, in #hich case the notice o"erates as an ad.udication u"on the &erits% 'Sec% (, Rule (J)

O&#& =O9E%I! v& ',(,'I! !E,L$> )0..-1

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age A/

The trial court has no discretion or o"tion to den! the &otion, since dis&issal ! the "laintiff under Section (, Rule (J is guaranteed as a &atter of right to the "laintiffs% E$en if the &otion cites the &ost ridiculous of grounds for dis&issal, the trial court has no choice ut to consider the co&"laint as dis&issed, since the "laintiff &a! o"t for such dis&issal as a &atter of right, regardless of ground%
DA+TS, Maca&ir Realt! and the Miranda S"ouses '"rinci"al stoc1holders) filed a co&"laint against :o$enir +onstruction, see1ing the annul&ent of the construction "ro.ect entered into ! "ri$ate res"ondents #ith :o$enir, as #ell as for da&ages% :o$enir n allegedl! &isre"resented itself as a legiti&ate contractor% Made.a and Mangro ang, :r%, the i&"leaded defendants, filed their res"ecti$e &otions to dis&iss% Made.a alleged that #hile the s"ouses Miranda had initiated the co&"laint on ehalf of Maca&ir Realt!, the real "art!4in4interest, the! failed to attach an! Board Resolution authoriGing the& to file suit on ehalf of the cor"oration% Made.a, a &e& er of the Board of Directors of Maca&ir Realt!, a$erred as a fact that said Board had not authoriGed the s"ouses Miranda to initiate the co&"laint against :o$enir Realt!% Ten '(E) da!s after the filing of the co&"laint, "ri$ate res"ondents filed a Motion to Withdra# +o&"laint, alleging that during the initial hearing on the "ra!er for "reli&inar! in.unction their counsel disco$ered a su""osed technical defect in the co&"laint that &a! e a ground for the dis&issal of this case% Thus, the! "ra!ed to e allo#ed to #ithdra# the co&"laint #ithout "re.udice% :o$enir +onstruction filed an o""osition% Co#e$er, .ust one da! earlier, "ri$ate res"ondents filed another co&"laint against the sa&e defendants sa$e for Made.a, and see1ing the sa&e reliefs as the first co&"laint% This ti&e, a Board Resolution authoriGing the s"ouses to file the +o&"laint on ehalf of Maca&ir Realt! #as attached to the co&"laint% This second co&"laint #as also filed #ith the Ma1ati RT+% The Verification and +ertification of Non4Doru& Sho""ing in the second co&"laint #as acco&"lished ! Rosauro Miranda% Ele$en '(() da!s after the filing of the Motion to Withdra# +o&"laint and se$en 'J) da!s after the filing of the second +o&"laint, the Ma1ati RT+ granted the Motion to Withdra# +o&"laint% The RT+ noted an action &a! e dis&issed ! the "laintiffs e$en #ithout -rder of the +ourt ! filing a notice of dis&issal at an!ti&e efore the ser$ice of the ans#er under Rule (J, Section ( of the Rules of +ourt, and accordingl! considered the co&"laint #ithdra#n #ithout "re.udice% :o$enir filed a Motion to Dis&iss the second co&"laint on the ground of foru&4sho""ing% The! "ointed out that at the ti&e of the filing of the second co&"laint, the first co&"laint #as still "ending% The Ma1ati RT+ denied the Motion to Dis&iss% This -rder #as affir&ed ! the +A ISSUE, #hether the dismissal was improper since ,acamir %iled a ,otion %or #ithdrawal instead o% the re-uired 'otice o% *ismissal N"1 Section (, Rule (J of the (M=7 Rules of +i$il 2rocedure stated, *ismissal b! the plainti%% * An action ma, be dismissed b, t)e plaintiff wit)out order of court b, filin a notice of dismissal at an, time before service of t)e answer or of a motion for summar, 4ud ment1 /nless ot)erwise stated in t)e notice, t)e dismissal is wit)out pre4udice, e5ce"t that a notice o"erates as an ad.udication u"on the &erits #hen filed ! a "laintiff #ho has once dis&issed in a co&"etent court an action ased on or including the sa&e clai&% A class suit shall not e dis&issed or co&"ro&ised #ithout the a""ro$al of the court% Indu ita l!, the "ro$ision ordained the dis&issal of the co&"laint ! the "laintiff as a &atter of right at an! ti&e efore ser$ice of the ans#er% The "laintiff #as accorded the right to dis&iss the co&"laint #ithout the necessit! of alleging in the notice of dis&issal an! ground nor of &a1ing an! reser$ation% E$identl!, res"ondents had the right to dis&iss their co&"laint ! &ere notice #hen :o$enir had not !et ser$ed their ans#er on res"ondents% The Motion to Withdra# +o&"laint &a1es clear res"ondents3 Udesire to #ithdra# the co&"laint #ithout "re.udice%U That res"ondents resorted to a &otion to effect #hat the! could ha$e instead ! &ere notice &a! e indicati$e of a certain degree of ignorance of "rocedural rules on the "art of res"ondents3 counsel% Wet such Uerror,U if it could e called as such, should hardl! e of fatal conseBuence% 2etitioners "osit that the Ure&ed!U of filing a notice of dis&issal is not e5clusi$e, res"ondents ha$ing the Uo"tionU of securing the court3s a""ro$al to the dis&issal% -n the contrar!, the trial court has no discretion or o"tion to den! the &otion, since dis&issal ! the "laintiff under Section (, Rule (J is guaranteed as a &atter of right to the "laintiffs% E$en if the &otion cites the &ost ridiculous of grounds for dis&issal, the trial court has no choice ut to consider the co&"laint as dis&issed, since the "laintiff &a! o"t for such dis&issal as a &atter of right, regardless of ground% While the Motion to Withdra# +o&"laint is st!led as a U&otionU and contains a U"ra!erU, these are innocuous errors and su"erfluities that do not detract fro& its eing a notice of dis&issal &ade under said Section ( of Rule (J and #hich i"so facto dis&issed the case% It is a horn oo1 rule that it is not the ca"tion of a "leading ut the allegations thereat that deter&ines its nature% Thus, the co&"laint could e "ro"erl! considered as ha$ing een dis&issed or #ithdra#n as of the filing of the Motion to Withdra# +o&"laint% Accordingl!, #hen res"ondents filed their ne# co&"laint relating to the sa&e cause of action on, the old co&"laint #as no longer "ending% As noted at the onset, the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure no# reBuires that u"on the filing of such notice, the court issue an order confir&ing the dis&issal% The ne# reBuire&ent is intended to Bualif! the right of a "art! to dis&iss the action efore the ad$erse "art! files an ans#er or as1s for su&&ar! .udg&ent% Still, there is no cause to a""l! the (MMJ Rules retroacti$el! to this case% A "laintiff3s right to cause the dis&issal of his co&"laint under the (M=7 rules #as unBualified% 2rocedural rules &a! not e gi$en retroacti$e effect if $ested rights #ould e distur ed, or if their a""lication #ould not e feasi le or #ould #or1 in.ustice% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age A0

/pon motion of plaintiff2after answer SE+% /% *ismissal upon motion o% plainti%%."E cept as "ro$ided in the "receding section, a co&"laint shall not e dis&issed at the "laintiff3s instance sa$e u"on a""ro$al of the court and u"on such ter&s and conditions as the court dee&s "ro"er% If a counterclai& has een "leaded ! a defendant "rior to the ser$ice u"on hi& of the "laintiff3s &otion for dis&issal, the dis&issal shall e li&ited to the co&"laint% The dis&issal shall e #ithout "re.udice to the right of the defendant to "rosecute his counter 4 clai& in a se"arate action unless #ithin fifteen '(>) da!s fro& notice of the &otion he &anifests his "reference to ha$e his counterclai& resol$ed in the sa&e action% Unless other#ise s"ecified in the order, a dis&issal under this "aragra"h shall e #ithout "re.udice% A class suit shall not e dis&issed or co&"ro&ised #ithout the a""ro$al of the court% '/a) Effect of counterclaim Due to fault of plaintiff SE+% 0% *ismissal due to %ault o% plainti%%." If, for no .ustifia le cause, the "laintiff fails to a""ear on the date of the "resentation of his e$idence in chief on the co&"laint, or to "rosecute his action for an unreasona le length of ti&e, or to co&"l! #ith these Rules or an! order of the court, the co&"laint &a! e dis&issed u"on &otion of the defendant or u"on the court3s o#n &otion, #ithout "re.udice to the right of the defendant to "rosecute his counterclai& in the sa&e or in a se"arate action% This dis&issal shall ha$e the effect of an ad.udication u"on the &erits, unless other#ise declared ! the court% '0a) (!U? v& (, )0..-1

Rule (J, Sec% 0 enu&erates the instances #here the co&"laint &a! e dis&issed due to "laintiffRs fault, '() if he fails to a""ear on the date for the "resentation of his e$idence in chief6 '/) if he fails to "rosecute his action for an unreasona le length of ti&e6 or '0) if he fails to co&"l! #ith the rules or an! order of the court% -nce a case is dis&issed for failure to "rosecute, this has the effect of an ad.udication on the &erits and is understood to e #ith "re.udice to the filing of another action unless other#ise "ro$ided in the order of dis&issal% In other #ords, unless there e a Bualification in the order of dis&issal that it is #ithout "re.udice, the dis&issal
DA+TS, There are 7 cases in$ol$ed in this contro$ers!% (st case, Unla#ful Detainer efore the MT+ of Fa"an, Nue$a Eci.a, decided in (MMA in favor of petitioner CruI and Concepcion % /nd case, Tuieting of Title efore the RT+ of Fa"an, Nue$a Eci.a #hich #as dismissed for failure to "rosecute as e$idenced ! the RT+ in /EEE% '+i$il +ase (=EE) 0rd case, Suit for In.unction filed efore the RT+ of Fa"an +it!, #hich #as dismissed on round of res judicata < ecause there #as su stantial identit! of "arties #ith the / nd case% 7th case, Annulment o% /itle #ith *amages filed #ith RT+ of Fa"an +it!, #here "etitioners inter"osed a ,otion %or 8utright *ismissal o% Civil Case, where the court granted the ,otion %or 8utright dismissal on g reasoned that:ounds o% res .udicata and accion pendente lite, a%ter %inding that L :>; the 0rd case in$ol$e the sa&e "arties, su .ect &atter and issue as that in the (st case and /nd case6 '/) in all 0 cases, Mariano Bunag #as included as "art!4"laintiff and Ernestina +once"cion as "art!4 defendant6 '0) the su .ect &atter is a (,(=E sB%& "arcel of land in San Nicolas, Fa"an +it!6l '7) and the issue is #ho et#een the / "arties has the la#ful title o$er the sa&e% The court here ! sentenced guilt! of indirect +onte&"t of +ourt ! reason of non4disclosure of +ases ( and / in the +ertificate?Verification of their co&"laint < as reBuired ! Section >, Rule J of the R-+% The res"ondents filed a ,$& which the Court granted b! setting aside the order which granted the de%endantEs Motion for the -utright Dis&issal and the order citing the "laintiffs and counsel guilt! for conte&"t of court% The court there ! ordered the defendants to file their ans#er?res"onsi$e "leading #ithin (> da!s fro& recei"t of the +ourt order% 2etitioners then a""ealed in the +A and the +A dis&issed the "etition for lac1 of &erit, reasoning that there is no identit! of "arties et#een +ase ( and the instant case for the si&"le reason that "laintiffs in the case at ar #ere not "arties in +ase (% Also, the "laintiffs and their counsel can not e said to ha$e $iolated the rule against foru& sho""ing% 2laintiffs and their counsel did not file +ase ( and therefore the! are not o ligated to infor& this +ourt that the! ha$e filed a si&ilar action in$ol$ing the sa&e issue #ith other court% In their co&&ent, res"ondents Bunag and Vda% de Bunag &aintain that the +A did not err #hen it held that there #as no res .udicata in the case at ar% 2etitioners clai& that res .udicata a""lies in this case ecause all the ele&ents thereof are "resent, #hich are 4 '() there &ust e a final .udg&ent or order6 '/) said .udg&ent or order &ust e on the &erits6 '0) the +ourt rendering the sa&e &ust ha$e .urisdiction on the su .ect &atter and the "arties6 and '7) there &ust e et#een the t#o cases identit! of "arties, identit! of su .ect &atter, and identit! of causes of action% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age A7

-n the other hand, "ri$ate res"ondents argue the contrar! alleging that the /nd and 7 th ele&ents are lac1ing% ISSUE, Whether there #as a "ro"er dis&issal of the +i$il +ase (=EE 'a case "rior to the case at ar) 4 #hich is a necessar! ele&ent for res .udicata to attach% 6ES1 Under the rule of res .udicata, also 1no#n as I ar ! "rior .udg&ent,L a final .udg&ent rendered ! a +ourt ha$ing .urisdiction of the su .ect &atter and of the "arties, is conclusi$e in a su seBuent case et#een the sa&e "arties and their successor4in4interest, litigating for the sa&e thing and under the sa&e title and in the sa&e ca"acit!% -n the /nd ele&ent of res .udicata < that $5& said 4ud ment or order must be on t)e merits , the "ri$ate res"ondents argue that the dis&issal of +ASE / 'Tuieting of Title) #as not a dis&issal on the &erits% The dis&issal of this case, the! clai&, #ill not ar the filing of the instant case, +ase 7 'for Annul&ent of Title) ecause there #as neither litigious consideration of the e$idence nor an! sti"ulations su &itted ! the "arties at the trial% In fact, there #as no "re4trial conference and t)at after four ,ears of court inactivit,, t)e case was dismissed for failure to prosecute1 The S+ ruled that the argu&ent raised ! the res"ondents is UNTENABLE% Section 0 of Rule (J of the R-+ "ro$ides, Section 3. *ismissal due to %ault o% plainti%%. L 3%, %or no .usti%iable cause, the plainti%% %ails to appear on the date o% the presentation o% his evidence in chie% on the complaint, or to prosecute his action %or an unreasonable length o% time, or to compl! with these &ules or an! order o% the court, the complaint ma! be dismissed upon motion o% the de%endant or upon the courtIs own motion, without pre.udice to the right o% the de%endant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. /his dismissal shall have the e%%ect o% an ad.udication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared b! the court. 0)e rule enumerates t)e instances w)ere t)e complaint ma, be dismissed due to plaintiffJs faultG '() if he fails to a""ear on the date for the "resentation of his e$idence in chief6 '/) if he fails to "rosecute his action for an unreasona le length of ti&e6 or '0) if he fails to co&"l! #ith the rules or an! order of the court% -nce a case is dis&issed for failure to "rosecute, this has the effect of an ad.udication on the &erits and is understood to e #ith "re.udice to the filing of another action unless other#ise "ro$ided in the order of dis&issal% In other #ords, unless there e a Bualification in the order of dis&issal that it is #ithout "re.udice, the dis&issal should e regarded as an ad.udication on the &erits and is #ith "re.udice% In the case at ar, the order dis&issing +ase / ? +i$il +ase No% (=EE is ased on the failure of the "laintiffs as #ell as counsel to a""ear on se$eral settings des"ite due notices, "recisel! for the rece"tion of "laintiffs3 e$idence, u"on &otion of the defendant through Att!% Mar1 Arcilla, this case is dis&issed for failure to "rosecute% It is clear from t)e afore'mentioned order t)at said case was dismissed, upon petitionersK motion, for failure of private respondents and t)eir counsel to attend several sc)eduled )earin s for t)e presentation of t)eir evidence1 Since the order did not contain a Bualification #hether sa&e is #ith or #ithout "re.udice, follo#ing Section 0, it is dee&ed to e #ith "re.udice and shall ha$e the effect of an ad.udication on the &erits% A ruling ased on a &otion to dis&iss, #ithout an! trial on the &erits or for&al "resentation of e$idence, can still e a .udg&ent on the &erits% Effect on counterclaim 2I%G, v& S,%$I,GO )0..-1

Under Section 0, Rule (J of the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure, the dis&issal of the co&"laint due to the fault of "laintiff does not necessaril! carr! #ith it the dis&issal of the counterclai&, co&"ulsor! or other#ise% In fact, the dis&issal of the co&"laint is #ithout "re.udice to the right of defendants to "rosecute the counterclai&%
DA+TS, 2etitioner Eduardo 2inga #as na&ed as one of t#o defendants in a co&"laint for in.unction filed in RT+ Xa& oanga del Sur, ! res"ondent Ceirs of Fer&an Santiago, re"resented ! Dernando Santiago% The +o&"laint alleged in essence that "etitioner 2inga and co4defendant Saa$edra had een unla#full! entering the coco lands of the res"ondent, cutting #ood and a& oos and har$esting the fruits of the coconut trees therein% Res"ondents "ra!ed that "etitioner 2inga and Saa$edra e en.oined fro& co&&itting Uacts of de"redationU on their "ro"erties, and ordered to "a! da&ages% In their A&ended Ans#er #ith +ounterclai&, "etitioner and his co4defendant dis"uted res"ondents3 o#nershi" of the "ro"erties in Buestion, asserting that "etitioner3s father, Ed&undo, fro& #ho& defendants deri$ed their interest in the "ro"erties, had een in "ossession thereof since the (M0Es% B! :ul! of /EE>, the trial of the case had not !et een co&"leted% Moreo$er, res"ondents, as "laintiffs, had failed to "resent their e$idence% It a""ears that the RT+ alread! ordered the dis&issal of the co&"laint after res"ondents3 counsel had sought the "ost"one&ent of the hearing scheduled then% Co#e$er, the order of dis&issal #as su seBuentl! reconsidered ! the RT+ in an -rder dated M :une /EE>, #hich too1 into account the assurance of res"ondents3 counsel that he #ould gi$e "riorit! to that case% At the hearing, "laintiffs3 counsel on record failed to a""ear, sending in his stead a re"resentati$e #ho sought the "ost"one&ent of the hearing% +ounsel for defendants '#ho include herein "etitioner) o""osed the &o$e for "ost"one&ent and &o$ed instead for the dis&issal of the case% The RT+ noted that it #as o $ious that res"ondents had failed to "rosecute the case for an unreasona le length of ti&e, in fact not ha$ing "resented their e$idence !et% -n that ground, the co&"laint #as dis&issed% At the sa&e ti&e, the RT+ allo#ed defendants Uto "resent their e$idence e54"arte%U Res"ondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration % RT+ granted res"ondents3 Motion for Reconsideration and dis&issing the counterclai&% 2etitioner 2inga filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ut the sa&e #as denied ! the RT+% Res"ondents filed an -""osition to Defendants3 Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, #herein the! argued that that Uco&"ulsor! counterclai&s cannot S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age A>

e ad.udicated inde"endentl! of "laintiff3s cause of action,U and U a conversu, the dis&issal of the co&"laint carries #ith it the dis&issal of the co&"ulsor! counterclai&s%U ( The &atter #as ele$ated to this +ourt directl! ! #a! of a 2etition for Re$ie# under Rule 7> on a "ure Buestion of la# ISSUE, Whether the dis&issal of the co&"laint necessaril! carries the dis&issal of the co&"ulsor! counterclai& N"1 Under Section 0, Rule (J of the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure, the dis&issal of the co&"laint due to the fault of "laintiff does not necessaril! carr! #ith it the dis&issal of the counterclai&, co&"ulsor! or other#ise% In fact, the dis&issal of the co&"laint is #ithout "re.udice to the right of defendants to "rosecute the counterclai&% -n a "refator! note, the RT+, in dis&issing the counterclai&, did not e5"ressl! ado"t res"ondents3 argu&ent that the dis&issal of their co&"laint e5tended as #ell to the counterclai&% Instead, the RT+ .ustified the dis&issal of the counterclai& on the ground that Uthere is no o""osition to 8"laintiff3s9 Motion for Reconsideration 8see1ing the dis&issal of the counterclai&9%U This e5"lanation is hollo#, considering that there is no &andator! rule reBuiring that an o""osition e filed to a &otion for reconsideration #ithout need for a court order to that effect6 and, as "osited ! "etitioner, the Ufailure to file an o""osition to the 2laintiff3s Motion for Reconsideration is definitel! not one a&ong the esta lished grounds for dis&issal 8of the counterclai&9%U Still, the dis&issal of the counterclai& ! the RT+ etra!s at $er! least a tacit recognition of res"ondents3 argu&ent that the counterclai& did not sur$i$e the dis&issal of the co&"laint% At &ost, the dis&issal of the counterclai& o$er the o .ection of the defendant 'herein "etitioner) on grounds other than the &erits of the counterclai&, des"ite the "ro$isions under Rule (J of the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure, constitutes a de ata le Buestion of la#, "resentl! &eriting .usticia ilit! through the instant action% 0)e doctrine t)at t)e complaint ma, not be dismissed if t)e counterclaim cannot be independentl, ad4udicated is not available to, and was not intended for t)e benefit of, a plaintiff w)o prevents or dela,s t)e prosecution of )is own complaint % -ther#ise, the trial of counterclai&s #ould e &ade to de"end u"on the &aneu$ers of the "laintiff, and the rule #ould offer a "re&iu& to $e5ing or dela!ing tactics to the "re.udice of the counterclai&ants% It is in the sa&e s"irit that #e ha$e ruled that a co&"laint &a! not e #ithdra#n o$er the o""osition of the defendant #here the counterclai& is one that arises fro&, or is necessaril! connected #ith, the "laintiff3s action and cannot re&ain "ending for inde"endent ad.udication% Accordingl!, the RT+ clearl! erred #hen it ordered the dis&issal of the counterclai&, since Section 0, Rule (J &andates that the dis&issal of the co&"laint is #ithout "re.udice to the right of the defendant to "rosecute the counterclai& in the sa&e or se"arate action% If the RT+ #ere to dis&iss the counterclai&, it should e on the &erits of such counterclai&% Re$ersal of the RT+ is in order, and a re&and is necessar! for trial on the &erits of the counterclai&% 2E!BI% EL'E! v& D,BIL, $!,DI%G )0..61

E5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons a""lies onl! #here the action is in rem or Buasi in rem, ut not if an action is in personam%
DA+TS, Da1ila Trading +or" 'Da1ila) entered into a Distri ution Agree&ent #ith 2er1in4El&er Singa"ore 2te% Ltd% '2ES) #hich a""ointed Da1ila as sole distri utor of its "roducts in the 2hili""ines% 2ES #as o ligated to gi$e Da1ila a co&&ission for the sale of its "roducts in the 2hili""ines% Da1ila #as granted the right to "urchase and sell the "roducts of 2ES% The agree&ent further sti"ulated that Da1ila shall order the "roducts of 2ES, #hich it shall sell in the 2hili""ines, either fro& 2ES itself or fro& 2EI2% Co#e$er, 2ES unilaterall! ter&inated the Distri ution Agree&ent, "ro&"ting Da1ila to file efore the RT+ a +o&"laint for +ollection of Su& of Mone! and Da&ages #ith 2ra!er for Issuance of a Writ of Attach&ent against 2ES and its affiliate, 2er1in4 El&er Instru&ents 2hili""ines +or"oration '2EI2)% RT+ denied res"ondent3s "ra!er% Da1ila filed E542arte Motions for Issuance of Su&&ons and for Lea$e of +ourt to De"utiGe Da1ila3s Feneral Manager 'DFM) to Ser$e Su&&ons -utside of the 2hili""ines% RT+ granted this &otion% Thus, an Alias Su&&ons #as issued ! the RT+ to 2ES% But the said Alias Su&&ons #as ser$ed and recei$ed ! 2er1in4El&er Asia '2EA), a cor"oration allegedl! unrelated to 2ES% 2EI2 &o$ed to dis&iss the +o&"laint filed ! Da1ila% 2EA, on the other hand, sent letters to Da1ila and RT+ to infor& the& of the #rongful ser$ice of su&&ons% Accordingl!, Da1ila filed an E542arte Motion to Ad&it A&ended +o&"laint, together #ith the A&ended +o&"laint clai&ing that '() 2EA had eco&e a sole "ro"rietorshi" o#ned ! the 2ES, '/) 2ES changed its na&e to 2EA, '0) such changes did not a$oid its due and outstanding o ligations to Da1ila, and '7) the na&e of 2ES in the co&"laint should e changed to 2EA% RT+ ad&itted the A&ended +o&"laint% Da1ila filed another Motion for the Issuance of Su&&ons and for Lea$e of +ourt to De"utiGe DFM to ser$e su&&ons outside the 2hili""ines% RT+ granted the &otion% RT+ thus issued su&&ons and the DFM #ent to Singa"ore and ser$ed su&&ons on 2ES% Mean#hile, RT+ denied the Motion to Dis&iss filed ! 2EI2, co&"elling the latter to file its Ans#er to the A&ended +o&"laint% 2ES filed #ith the RT+ a S"ecial A""earance and Motion to Dis&iss the A&ended +o&"laint, #hich #ere denied% It held that e$en though the A&ended +o&"laint is "ri&aril! for da&ages, it does relate to a "ro"ert! of 2ES, to #hich the latter has a clai& interest, or an actual or contingent lien, #hich #ill &a1e it fall under one of the reBuisites for e5traterritorial ser$ice% 2ES filed a 2etition for +ertiorari under Rule => #ith a""lication for te&"orar! restraining order and?or "reli&inar! in.unction efore the +A% The +A affir&ed the RT+ -rders% ISSUE, #hether summons were properl! served under the Bnd or <th instance o% e tra)territorial service N"1 E5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons a""lies onl! #here the action is in re& or Buasi in re&, ut not if an action is in personam% In the case at ar, there can ne$er e a $alid e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on it, ecause the case in$ol$ing collection of a su& of &one! and da&ages is an action in personam, as it deals #ith the "ersonal lia ilit! of 2ES ! reason of the alleged unilateral ter&ination of the Distri ution Agree&ent% The o .ecti$e sought in Da1ila3s +o&"laint #as to esta lish a clai& against 2ES% Moreo$er, The action instituted ! Da1ila affects the "arties alone, not the #hole #orld% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age A=

Thus, eing an action in "ersona&, "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #ithin the 2hili""ines is necessar! in order for the RT+ to $alidl! acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of 2ES, and this is not "ossi le in the "resent case ecause the 2ES is a non4 resident and is not found #ithin the 2hili""ines% Da1ila3s allegation in its A&ended +o&"laint that 2ES had "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2 did not &a1e the case fall under an! of the four instances &entioned in Section (>, Rule (7 of the Rules of +ourt, as to con$ert the action in personam to an action in rem or Buasi in rem and, su seBuentl!, &a1e the e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on the "etitioner $alid% The /nd instance for e5tra4territorial ser$ice has no a""lication in the case% The action for collection of a su& of &one! and da&ages #as "urel! ased on the "ersonal lia ilit! of the 2ES% Dor the action to e one falling under the / nd instance, the &ain su .ect &atter of the action &ust e the "ro"ert! itself of the 2ES in the 2hili""ines and in such instance, .udg&ent #ill e li&ited to the res% Co#e$er, the allegations &ade ! the res"ondent that the "etitioner has "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in su""ort of its a""lication for the issuance of a #rit of attach&ent #as actuall! denied ! the RT+% Neither does the allegation that 2ES had "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2 con$ert the case fro& an action in personam to one Buasi in rem, so as to Bualif! said case under the 7 th instance of e5tra4 territorial ser$ice% What is reBuired is not a &ere allegation of the e5istence of "ersonal "ro"ert! elonging to the non4resident defendant #ithin the 2hili""ines ut that the non4resident defendant3s "ersonal "ro"ert! located #ithin the 2hili""ines &ust ha$e een actuall! attached% E$identl!, 2ES3s "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines, in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2, had not een attached6 hence, the case for collection of su& of &one! and da&ages re&ains an action in "ersona&% In the case at ar, there can ne$er e a $alid e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on it, ecause the case in$ol$ing collection of a su& of &one! and da&ages is an action in personam, as it deals #ith the "ersonal lia ilit! of 2ES ! reason of the alleged unilateral ter&ination of the Distri ution Agree&ent% The o .ecti$e sought in Da1ila3s +o&"laint #as to esta lish a clai& against 2ES% Moreo$er, The action instituted ! Da1ila affects the "arties alone, not the #hole #orld% Thus, eing an action in "ersona&, "ersonal ser$ice of su&&ons #ithin the 2hili""ines is necessar! in order for the RT+ to $alidl! acBuire .urisdiction o$er the "erson of 2ES, and this is not "ossi le in the "resent case ecause the 2ES is a non4 resident and is not found #ithin the 2hili""ines% Da1ila3s allegation in its A&ended +o&"laint that 2ES had "ersonal "ro"ert! #ithin the 2hili""ines in the for& of shares of stoc1 in 2EI2 did not &a1e the case fall under an! of the four instances &entioned in Section (>, Rule (7 of the Rules of +ourt, as to con$ert the action in personam to an action in rem or Buasi in rem and, su seBuentl!, &a1e the e5traterritorial ser$ice of su&&ons u"on the "etitioner $alid% Remed, of plaintiff BO v& 2%# )*74 S(!, 048/ 0..-1

+onsidering that an order of dis&issal for failure to "rosecute has the effect of an ad.udication on the &erits, "etitioners3 counsel should ha$e filed a notice of a""eal #ith the a""ellate court #ithin the regle&entar! "eriod% Instead of filing a "etition under Rule 7> of the Rules of +ourt, the "ro"er recourse #as an ordinar! a""eal #ith the +ourt of A""eals under Rule 7(%
DA+TS, This is a "etition for re$ie# on certiorari assailing the -rder of the Regional Trial +ourt of Laoag +it!%The case ste&&ed fro& an action filed ! "etitioners in the trial court for Annul&ent of Mortgage, E5tra4.udicial Doreclosure Sale, Annul&ent of Transfer +ertificate and Deed of Sale #ith a 2ra!er for 2reli&inar! In.unction and Restraining -rder% The co&"laint alleged that the assailed &ortgage and the foreclosure "roceedings #ere null and $oid since the #ritten consent of "etitioners, as eneficiaries of the &ortgaged "ro"ert!, #ere not secured% Res"ondent an1 denied the clai& and alleged that in the e5ecution of the &ortgage, "etitioners in fact ga$e their consent% Durin t)e course of t)e proceedin s, petitioners and t)eir counsel failed to attend a sc)eduled trial1 U"on &otion of res"ondent an1, the co&"laint #as dis&issed% When the case #as called, Att!% LorenGo +astillo, counsel for the "laintiffs did not a""ear des"ite "ro"er notice% No "laintiff a""eared% Att!% Eduardo Alcantara, counsel for defendant an1 a""eared% Att!% Alcantara &anifested that there #ere nu&erous occasions in the "ast #hen "laintiffs and counsel did not attend% Ce "ointed out that there is an a""arent lac1 of interest on the "art of "laintiff to "rosecute the action% Ce &o$ed to dis&iss the case on that legal ground% 2etitioners filed a &otion for reconsideration clai&ing that the! ha$e een continuousl! "ursuing negotiations #ith res"ondent an1 to "urchase ac1 the "ro"ert! and ha$e gained "ositi$e results% Res"ondent an1 countered that fro& the ti&e the co&"laint #as filed, a "eriod of three !ears had ela"sed ut "etitioners failed to "rosecute their case, sho#ing lac1 of interest in the earl! resolution thereof% The trial court denied the &otion for reconsideration% ISSUE, #hether the petitioners, who %ailed to attend a scheduled trial and dismissed b! the court, ma! %ile a petition %or review on certiorari under &ule <= N"1 -n the "rocedural as"ect, #e find that "etitioners erred in filing a "etition for re$ie# on certiorari under Rule 7> of the Rules of +ourt instead of filing an a""eal #ith the +ourt of A""eals% Section 0, Rule (J of the Rules of +ourt "ro$ides, SE+% 0% *ismissal due to %ault o% plainti%%."If, for no .ustifia le cause, the "laintiff fails to a""ear on the date of the "resentation of his e$idence in chief on the co&"laint, or to "rosecute his action for an unreasona le length of ti&e, or to co&"l! #ith these Rules or an! order of the court, the co&"laint &a! e dis&issed u"on the &otion of the defendant S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age AJ

or u"on the court3s o#n &otion, #ithout "re.udice to the right of the defendant to "rosecute his counterclai& in the sa&e or in a se"arate action% 0)is dismissal s)all )ave t)e effect of an ad4udication upon t)e merits, unless ot)erwise declared b, t)e court1 U"on the order of dis&issal, "etitioners3 counsel filed a ti&el! &otion for reconsideration #hich #as denied court% The rule is clear% In order to "erfect an a""eal all that is reBuired is a "ro for&a notice of a""eal% 2erha"s due to failure to file a notice of a""eal #ithin the re&aining t#o da!s of the a""eal "eriod, "etitioners3 counsel instead filed the instant "etition% The rules of "rocedure, ho#e$er, do not e5ist for the con$enience of the litigants% These rules are esta lished to "ro$ide order to and enhance the efficienc! of our .udicial s!ste&% The! are not to e trifled #ith lightl! or o$erloo1ed ! &ere e5"edience of in$o1ing Usu stantial .ustice%U Procedural law )as its own rationale in t)e orderl, administration of 4ustice, namel,, to ensure t)e effective enforcement of substantive ri )ts b, providin for a s,stem t)at obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism or w)imsicalit, in t)e settlement of disputes1 0)e enforcement of procedural rules is not antit)etical to t)e substantive ri )ts of t)e liti ants1 The e5"editious dis"osition of cases is as &uch the dut! of the "laintiff as the court% It &ust e re&e& ered that a defendant in a case li1e#ise has the right to the s"eed! dis"osition of the action filed against hi& J considering that an! dela! in the "roceedings entail "rolonged an5iet! and $alua le ti&e #asted% In the case at ar, three !ears ha$e since la"sed fro& the filing of the co&"laint on Ma! 0, /EE/ and the order of dis&issal on A"ril /J, /EE>% 2etitioners3 failure to "rosecute their case and "roceed #ith the trial during the s"an of three !ears leads to no other conclusion than that "etitioners ha$e no interest in seeing their case ter&inated at the earliest "ossi le ti&e6 or that "etitioners3 case is un&eritorious fro& ince"tion% Whiche$er the case &a! e, the dis&issal order of the trial court stand and is no# i&&uta le% 2etitioners cannot clai& that the! #ere de"ri$ed of due "rocess% True, the right to due "rocess safeguards the o""ortunit! to e heard and to su &it an! e$idence one &a! ha$e in su""ort of his clai& or defense% Nonetheless, #e ha$e ti&e and again held that #here the o""ortunit! to e heard, either through $er al argu&ents or "leadings, is accorded, and the "art! can U"resent its sideU or defend its Uinterest in due course,U there is no denial of due "rocess% What the la# "roscri es is the lac1 of o""ortunit! to e heard% 2etitioners had the o""ortunit! to "resent their case and clai& the relief the! see1% But their inad$ertence and lac1 of circu&s"ect renders the trial court3s order dis&issing their case final and e5ecutor!% Dismissal of counterclaim SE+% 7% *ismissal o% counterclaim, cross)claim, or third)part! complaint." The "ro$isions of this Rule shall a""l!% to the dis&issal of an! counterclai&, cross4clai&, or third4"art! co&"laint% A $oluntar! dis&issal ! the clai&ant ! notice as in section ( of this Rule, shall e &ade efore a res"onsi$e "leading or a &otion for su&&ar! .udg&ent is ser$ed or, if there is none, efore the introduction of e$idence at the trial or hearing% '7n) ! the trial

DE*A/L0 $Rule >, Sec1 7& Nature in eneral A defending "art! shall e declared in default #hen '() Ground: Ce fails to ans#er #ithin the ti&e allo#ed therefor, the court shall, '/) The clai&ing "art! files a &otion to declare the defending "art! in default, furnishing "roof of failure to ans#er '0) Said "art! gi$es notice of such &otion to the defending "art!, The court shall "roceed to render .udg&ent granting the clai&ant such relief as his "leading &a! #arrant, unless the court in its discretion reBuires the clai&ant to su &it e$idence% Such rece"tion of e$idence &a! e delegated to the cler1 of court% '(a, R(A) 'a) E%%ect o% order o% de%ault."A "art! in default shall e entitled to notice of su seBuent "roceedings trial% ut N-T to ta1e "art in the

' ) &elie% %rom order o% de%ault." A "art! declared in default &a! at an! ti&e after notice thereof and efore .udg&ent file a &otion under oath to set aside the order of default u"on "ro"er sho#ing that his failure to ans#er #as due to fraud, accident, &ista1e or e5cusa le negligence and that he has a &eritorious defense% In such case, the order of default &a! e set aside on such ter&s and conditions as the .udge &a! i&"ose in the interest of .ustice% 'c) E%%ect o% partial de%ault."When a "leading asserting a clai& states a co&&on cause of action against se$eral defending "arties, so&e of #ho& ans#er and the others fail to do so, the court shall tr! the case against all u"on the ans#ers thus filed and render .udg&ent u"on the e$idence "resented% 'd) E tent o% relie% to be awarded." A .udg&ent rendered against a "art! in default shall not e5ceed the a&ount or e different in 1ind fro& that "ra!ed for nor a#ard unliBuidated da&ages% 'e) #here no de%aults allowed." If the defending "art! in an action for annul&ent or declaration of nullit! of &arriage or for legal se"aration fails to ans#er, the court shall order the "rosecuting attorne! to in$estigate #hether or not a collusion et#een the "arties e5ists, and if there is no collusion, to inter$ene for the State in order to see to it that the e$idence su &itted is not fa ricated% 'Sec% 0, Rule M) C)en ma, a defendant be declared in default$%& *ailure to file answer $5& *ailure to furnis) cop, of answer S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age AA

$7& *ailure to appear at pre'trial $B& *ailure to compl, wit) modes of discover, C)en allowed Effect G,=UDO v& $!# )0..-1

No inco&"ati ilit! et% Section 0, Rule M of the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure and the rule on "re"onderance of e$idence under Section (, Rule (00 of the Rules of +ourt
DA+TS, 2s filed a co&"laint efore RT+ of T+ against R see1ing for annul&ent of the e5tra4.udicial foreclosure and auction sale &ade ! cit! sheriff of "arcel of land co$ered ! T+T No% (=J(( of the RD of T+ the con$entional rede&"tion thereof, and "ra!ed for da&ages and the issuance of a #rit of "reli&inar! in.unction% +o&"laint alleged that, 2 +hua o tained a loan fro& R an1 in the a&ount of 2J>1 secured ! a real estate &ortgage o$er a "arcel of land, and o#ned in co&&on ! 2s% the loan #as not "aid, R co&&enced e5tra4.udicial foreclosure, "ro"ert! #as sold in the auction sale to R for the su& of 2/7%M1 Such sale #as tainted #ith irregularit! ecause, the id "rice #as shoc1ingl! or unconsciona l!, lo#6 that the other 2s 'Fa.udos) failed to redee& the "ro"ert! due to their lac1 of 1no#ledge of their right of rede&"tion, and #ant of sufficient education6 that +hua offered to u! ac1, and R also agreed to sell ac1, the foreclosed "ro"ert!, on the understanding that +hua #ould "a! Rthe a&ount of 27E1, the su& that the an1 "aid at the auction sale, "lus interest6 that +hua &ade an initial "a!&ent 271,6 that, in a sudden change of "osition, R #rote +hua as1ing that he could re"urchase the "ro"ert!, ut ased on the current &ar1et $alue thereof6 R #rote +hua reBuiring hi& to tender a ne# offer% R filed its ans#er #ith counterclai&, asserting that the foreclosure sale of the &ortgaged "ro"ert! #as done in accordance #ith la#6 and that the id "rice #as neither unconsciona le, nor shoc1ingl! lo#6 that 2s sle"t on their rights #hen the! failed to redee& the "ro"ert! #ithin the one !ear statutor! "eriod% U2re4trial ha$ing een concluded, the "arties entered u"on trial, a ig conflagration hit the +it! Call of T+ 'a&aGing[) #hich destro!edthe records of the case% After the records #ere reconstituted, the foreclosed "ro"ert! #as sold ! R to the +eroferr Realt! +or"oration, and that the notice of lis "endens annotated on the certificate of title had alread! een cancelled% 2 #ith lea$e of court, a&ended their co&"laint, ut the Trial +ourt dis&issed the case ;#ithout "re.udice3 due to 23s failure to "a! additional filing fees% 2 re4filed the co&"laint #ith the sa&e +ourt, i&"leading as additional defendants the +eroferr Realt! +or"oration and additional cause of action, that ne# defendants cons"ired #ith R in canceling the notice of lis "endens% Su&&ons #as ser$ed on R,2 filed a &otion to set case for "re4trial, #hich &otion #as denied ! the T+ in its -rder of on the ground that R an1 has not !et filed its ans#er% 2 filed a &otion to declare R in default, alleging that no ans#er has een filed des"ite the ser$ice of su&&ons% T+ declared the &otion su &itted for resolution u"on su &ission ! 2s of "roof of ser$ice of the &otion on R% U"on gi$ing "roof, R #as declared in default% 2 #ere allo#ed ! the +ourt allo#ed to "resent e$idence e5 "arte% A "artial decision #as &ade% R filed a &otion to set aside "artial decision ! default and ad&it that their Ans#er #ith counterclai&, a$erred that the erroneous filing of said ans#er #as due to an honest &ista1e of the t!"ist and inad$ertence of its counsel%Motion #as denied% Res"ondent an1 a""ealed the 2artial Decision to the +A #hich ruled in fa$or of R% ISSUE, Whether +A erred in failing to a""l! the "ro$isions of Section 0, Rule M of the (MMJ Rules of +i$il 2rocedure and in a""l!ing instead the rule on "re"onderance of e$idence under Section (, Rule (00 of the Rules of +ourt% N"1 The 2etition has no &erit% 2s argue that the Buantu& of e$idence for .udg&ents flo#ing fro& a default order under Section 0 of Rule M is not the sa&e as that "ro$ided for in Section ( of Rule (00% Bet#een the t#o rules, there is no inco&"ati ilit! that #ould "reclude the a""lication of either one of the&% To egin #ith, Section 0 of Rule M go$erns the "rocedure #hich the trial court is directed to ta1e #hen a defendant fails to file an ans#er% According to this "ro$ision, the court Ushall "roceed to render .udg&ent granting the clai&ant such relief as his "leading &a! #arrant,U su .ect to the court3s discretion on #hether to reBuire the "resentation of e$idence e5 "arte% The sa&e "ro$ision also sets do#n guidelines on the nature and e5tent of the relief that &a! e granted% In "articular, the court3s .udg&ent Ushall not e5ceed the a&ount or e different in 1ind fro& that "ra!ed for nor a#ard unliBuidated da&ages%U "arties &ust rel! on the strength of their o#n e$idence, not u"on the #ea1ness of the defense offered ! their o""onent% This "rinci"le holds true, es"eciall! #hen the latter has had no o""ortunit! to "resent e$idence ecause of a default order% A defaulted defendant is not actuall! thro#n out of court% While in a sense it &a! e said that ! defaulting he lea$es hi&self at the &erc! of the court, the rules see to it that an! .udg&ent against hi& &ust e in accordance #ith la#% The e$idence to su""ort the "laintiff3s cause is, of course, "resented in his a sence, ut the court is not su""osed to ad&it that #hich is asicall! inco&"etent% Although the defendant #ould not e in a "osition to o .ect, ele&entar! .ustice reBuires that onl! legal e$idence should e considered against hi&% If the e$idence "resented should not e sufficient to .ustif! a .udg&ent for the "laintiff, the co&"laint &ust e dis&issed% And if an unfa$ora le .udg&ent should e .ustifia le, it cannot e5ceed in a&ount or e different in 1ind fro& #hat is "ra!ed for in the co&"laint% In su&, #hile "etitioners #ere allo#ed to "resent e$idence e5 "arte under Section 0 of Rule M, the! #ere not e5cused fro& esta lishing their clai&s for da&ages ! the reBuired Buantu& of "roof under Section ( of Rule (00% Stated differentl!, an! ad$antage the! &a! ha$e gained fro& the e5 "arte "resentation of e$idence does not lo#er the degree of "roof reBuired% +learl! then, there is no inco&"ati ilit! et#een the t#o rules% S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age AM

9L,SO% E%$E!2!ISES v& (, )57. S(!, 0-/ 74441

'() Where the counsel failed o .ect on the ground of lac1 of notice to a Motion addressed to a for&er counsel, and #as granted ! the trial court 0E da!s to file his o""osition to it, the circu&stances clearl! .ustif! a de"arture fro& the literal a""lication of the notice of hearing rule% '/) The issuance of an order of default is a condition sine Bua non in order that a .udg&ent ! default e clothed #ith $alidit!% Durther&ore, it is a legal i&"ossi ilit! to declare a "art!4defendant to e in default efore it #as $alidl! ser$ed su&&ons%
DA+TS, SeiGure "roceedings #ere held o$er the cargo of -&ega3s $essel, ,K6 Star Ace, #hile it #as doc1ed in the 22A co&"ound at La Union% La Union #as hit ! 0 t!"hoons, #hich da&aged the $essel% Because of this, -&ega entered into a sal$age agree&ent #ith Dura"roof Ser$ices to secure and re"air the $essel for Y( &illion and fift! "ercent '>EQ) of the cargo after all e5"enses, cost and ta5es% The District +ollector of +usto&s lifted the #arrant of seiGure, ut the +usto&s +o&&issioner declined to issue a clearance6 instead, he forfeited the $essel and its cargo% This "ro&"ted Dura"roof to enforce its "referred sal$ors lien ! filing #ith the RT+ a "etition for certiorari, "rohi ition and mandamus assailing the actions of the +usto&s -fficers, and i&"leading 22A and Med Line 2hili""ines, Inc% as res"ondents% Dura"roof a&ended its "etition to include the for&er District +ollector, and other co&"anies in$ol$ed, including Vlason Enter"rises% In oth 2etitions, Dura"roof failed to allege an!thing "ertaining to Vlason Enter"rises, or an! "ra!er for relief against it% Su&&onses for the a&ended 2etition #ere ser$ed% Dura"roof &o$ed se$eral ti&es to declare the res"ondents it i&"leaded in default% -ut of those res"ondents, onl! the follo#ing #ere declared ! RT+ in default, the Sing1ong Trading +o%, +o&&issioner Mison, ,K6 Star Ace and -&ega% Dura"roof filed an e parte Motion to "resent e$idence against the defaulting res"ondents, #hich #as granted% Dura"roof alleged that Vlason Enter"rises, through constant inti&idation and harass&ent in utiliGing the 22A Manage&ent of La Union, caused Dura"roof to incur hea$! o$erhead e5"enses, causing irre"ara le da&ages of a out 20 Million #orth of shi" tac1les, rigs, and a""urtenances including radar antennas and a""aratuses, #hich #ere ta1en surre"titiousl! ! "ersons #or1ing for Vlason Enter"rises or its agents% The RT+ ruled that in fa$or of Dura"roof and ordered Vlason to "a! 20 Million #orth of da&ages% Dura"roof and the other co&"anies entered into a co&"ro&ise agree&ent, e5ce"t Vlason% Dura"roof &o$ed for the e5ecution of .udg&ent% The Motion #as granted and a Writ of E5ecution #as issued% Vlason Enter"rises filed a Motion for Reconsideration addressed to Dura"roof3s counsel, Att!% +once"cion, on the ground that it #as allegedl! not i&"leaded as a defendant, ser$ed su&&ons or declared in default, and hence Dura"roof &a! not "resent e$idence against it in default% Dura"roof o""osed the Motion, arguing that it #as a &ere scra" of "a"er due to its defecti$e notice of hearing% Des"ite this Motion, the auction sale #as conducted% The trial court ordered the de"ut! sheriffs to cease and desist fro& i&"le&enting the Writ of E5ecution and fro& le$!ing on the "ersonal "ro"ert! of the defendants% The order #as unheeded% Dura"roof filed #ith the +A a 2etition for Certiorari and 2rohi ition to nullif! the cease and desist orders of the trial court% +A issued a TR- against the RT+ order% Vlason recei$ed fro& a notice to "a! Dura"roof 20 &illion% Not ha$ing an! 1no#ledge of the +A case to #hich it #as not i&"leaded, Vlason filed #ith the RT+ a Motion to Dis&iss% The sheriff le$ied Vlason Enter"rises3 "ro"erties, so the latter filed a s"ecial a""earance efore the +A, "ra!ing for the lifting of the le$! on its "ro"erties or, alternati$el!, for a te&"orar! restraining order against their auction until its Motion for Reconsideration #as resol$ed ! the trial court% RT+ re$ersed its Decision, finding that there ne$er #as issued an order of default against Vlason Enter"rises, so there could not ha$e een an! $alid default4.udg&ent rendered against it% The +A allo#ed Dura"roof to i&"lead Vlason in the +A case% Thereafter, the +A rendered the assailed Decision, stating that the decision of the RT+ had eco&e final and e5ecutor!, ne$er ha$ing een dis"uted or a""ealed to a higher court, and that the lo#er court &a! no# ta1e a""ro"riate action on the urgent e54"arte &otion for issuance of a #rit of e5ecution% The +A clarified that there #as no need to ser$e su&&ons ane# on Vlason Enter"rises, since it had een ser$ed su&&ons #hen the second a&ended "etition #as filed6 and that Vlason Enter"risess Motion for Reconsideration #as defecti$e and $oid, ecause it contained no notice of hearing addressed to the counsel of Dura"roof in $iolation of Rule (=, Section 7 of the Rules of +ourt% Vlason Enter"rises filed '() a Motion for +larification, "ra!ing for a declaration that the trial court Decision against it #as not $alid6 and '/) a "artial Motion for Reconsideration, see1ing to set aside the assailed Decision insofar as the latter affected it% The RT+ issued a Writ of 2ossession ! $irtue of #hich Dura"roof too1 "ossession of Vlason3s arge +awin% Cence, this 2etition% ISSUE, #hether the &/C de%ault .udgment was binding on 6lason N"1 Vlason #as ne$er declared in default% The trial court denied Motion of Dura"roof to declare all the defendants in default, ut it ne$er acted on the latters su seBuent Motion to declare Vlason Enter"rises li1e#ise%The RT+ declared in default S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age ME

onl! Att!% Eddie Ta&ondong, as #ell as the other defendants Con% Sal$ador Mison, ,K6 Star Ace, -&ega Sea Trans"ort +o%, Inc% of 2ana&a and Sin1ong Trading +o%, ut des"ite due notice to the&, the! failed to a""ear% E$en Dura"roof cannot "in"oint #hich trial court order held "etitioner in default% More i&"ortant, the trial court ad&itted that it ne$er declared "etitioner in default% There could not ha$e een an! $alid default4.udg&ent rendered against it% The issuance of an order of default is a condition sine Bua non in order that a .udg&ent ! default e clothed #ith $alidit!% Durther&ore, it is a legal i&"ossi ilit! to declare a "art!4defendant to e in default efore it #as $alidl! ser$ed su&&ons% "rder of default C)en some answer and ot)ers default E:tent of relief to be awarded C)ere not allowed Procedure after order of default 'render 4ud ment ')earin e: parte Remed, from order of default +otion to set aside !,'%,%I v& (, )007 S(!, +80/ 74451

A satisfactor! sho#ing ! the &o$ant the e5istence of fraud, accident, &ista1e e5cusa le neglect is an indis"ensa reBuire&ent for the setting aside of .udg&ent of default or order of default%

of or le a

DA+TS, The DiGons filed a case for a su& of &one! against the Ra&nanis3 failure to re&it the $alue of .e#elr! that the latter recei$ed fro& the for&er on a consign&ent asis% :ose"hine Ra&nani su &itted an ans#er #ith counterclai& stating the fact that it #as the DiGons #ho o#ed the& &one!% 2re4Trial #as set ut the Ra&nanis did not sho# u" hence the! #ere declared in default% The court later recei$ed the e$idence of the DiGons e5 "arte due to the Ra&nanis status of default% Lo#er court ruled in fa$or of the DiGons% Ra&nanis stated a &eritorious defense as an e5cuse to set aside their order of default% The! stated that the o ligation #as entered into ! Mrs DiGon #ithout Mr% DiGon3s consent ergo $oid% It #as, ho#e$er, denied% A 2etition for +ertiorari #as filed #ith the +A i&"uting error des"ite their &eritorious defense% Denied since the +A ruled that certiorari is a re&ed! onl! for errors of .urisdiction, not errors in .udge&ent% ISSUE, #hether the order o% de%ault against the petitioners should be set aside N"1 Re&edies for a "art! held in default, (%) An!ti&e after disco$er! thereof P efore .udge&ent, DAME \&eritorious defense /%) If .udg&ent alread! rendered u"on disco$er! ut efore it eco&es final and e5ecutor!, &otion for ne# trial% 0%) After it eco&es final and e5ecutor!, "etition for relief under Section / of rule A 7%) A""eal fro& .udg&ent as contrar! to the e$idence or to the la#% In the case at ar, the "etitioner failed to "ro$e that the! #ere una le to attend the "re4trial hearing due to DAME%

Remedies from 4ud ment b, default Before finall, +otion for reconsideration or new trial Appeal ',!$I%E? v& !E2U#LI( )0..-1

A defendant "art! declared in default retains the right to a""eal fro& the .udg&ent ! default on the ground that the "laintiff failed to "ro$e the &aterial allegations of the co&"laint, or that the decision is contrar! to la#, e$en #ithout need of the "rior filing of a &otion to set aside the order of default%

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age M(

DA+TS, :ose R% MartineG filed a "etition for the registration in his na&e of three '0) "arcels of land he allegedl! "urchased fro& his uncle% Ce clai&ed continuous "ossession of the lots6 that the lots had re&ained unencu& ered6 and that the! eca&e "ri$ate "ro"ert! through "rescri"tion "ursuant to Section 7A' ) of +A No% (7(% The -SF #as furnished a co"! of the "etition% The trial court set the case for hearing and directed the "u lication of the corres"onding Notice of Cearing in the -fficial FaGette% The -SF, in ehalf of the Re"u lic of the 2hili""ines, o""osed the "etition% Des"ite the o""osition filed ! the -SF, the RT+ issued an order of general default, e$en against the Re"u lic of the 2hili""ines% This ensued #hen during the hearing of e$en date, no "art! a""eared efore the +ourt to o""ose MartineG3s "etition% RT+ recei$ed MartineG3s oral and docu&entar! e$idence and concluded that MartineG and his "redecessors4in4interest had een for o$er (EE !ears in "ossession characteriGed as continuous, o"en, "u lic, and in the conce"t of an o#ner% The RT+ thus decreed the registration of the three '0) lots in the na&e of MartineG% Dro& this Decision, the -SF filed a Notice of A""eal, #hich #as a""ro$ed ! the RT+% Co#e$er, after the records had een trans&itted to the +A, the RT+ recei$ed a letter fro& the LRA stating that onl! t#o of the lots sought to e registered #ere referred to in the Notice of Cearing "u lished in the -fficial FaGette, and that the third lot #as o&itted due to the lac1 of an a""ro$ed sur$e! "lan for that "ro"ert!% LRA &anifested that this lot should not ha$e een ad.udicated to MartineG for lac1 of .urisdiction% This letter #as referred ! the RT+ to the +ourt of A""eals for a""ro"riate action% The +A re$ersed the RT+ and ordered the dis&issal of the "etition for registration% It found the e$idence "resented ! MartineG as insufficient to su""ort the registration of the su .ect lots% MartineG directl! assailed the +A decision efore the S+, clai&ing that the -SF no longer had "ersonalit! to o""ose the "etition, or a""eal its allo#ance ! the RT+, follo#ing the order of general default% ISSUE, #hether an order o% general de%ault bars the &epublic %rom interposing an appeal %rom the trial courtEs subse-uent decision N"1 We hold that a defendant "art! declared in default retains the right to a""eal fro& the .udg&ent ! default on the ground that the "laintiff failed to "ro$e the &aterial allegations of the co&"laint, or that the decision is contrar! to la#, e$en #ithout need of the "rior filing of a &otion to set aside the order of default% B! (MMJ, the doctrinal rule concerning the re&edies of a "art! declared in default had e$ol$ed into a fairl! co&"rehensi$e restate&ent as offered in +ina v. Court o% Appeals, a) The defendant in default &a!, at an! ti&e after disco$er! thereof and efore .udg&ent, file a &otion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to ans#er #as due to fraud, accident, &ista1e or e5cusa le neglect, and that he has &eritorious defenses6 'Sec 0, Rule (A) ) If the .udg&ent has alread! een rendered #hen the defendant disco$ered the default, ut efore the sa&e has eco&e final and e5ecutor!, he &a! file a &otion for ne# trial under Section ('a) of Rule 0J6 c) If the defendant disco$ered the default after the .udg&ent has eco&e final and e5ecutor!, he &a! file a "etition for relief under Section / of Rule 0A6 and d) Ce &a! also a""eal fro& the .udg&ent rendered against hi& as contrar! to the e$idence or to the la#, e$en if no "etition to set aside the order of default has een "resented ! hi&% 'Sec% /, Rule 7() The fourth re&ed!, that of a""eal, is anchored on Section /, Rule 7( of the (M=7 Rules% Wet e$en after that "ro$ision3s deletion under the (MMJ Rules, the +ourt did not hesitate to e5"ressl! rel! again on the +ina doctrine, including the "ronounce&ent that a defaulted defendant &a! a""eal fro& the .udg&ent rendered against hi&% Wet e$en if it #ere to assu&e the dou tful "ro"osition that this contested right of a""eal finds no anchor in the (MMJ Rules, the doctrine still e5ists, a""l!ing the "rinci"le of stare decisis% :uris"rudence a""l!ing the (MMJ Rules has continued to ac1no#ledge the Lina doctrine #hich e& odies this right to a""eal as a&ong the re&edies of a defendant, and no argu&ent in this "etition "ersuades the +ourt to rule other#ise% N-TE, The RT+ a""ears to ha$e issued the order of general default si&"l! on the "re&ise that no o""ositor a""eared efore it on the hearing% But it cannot e denied that the -SF had alread! dul! filed its -""osition to MartineG3s "etition long efore the said hearing% It #as i&"ro"er to declare the o""ositor in default si&"l! ecause he failed to a""ear on the da! set for the initial healing% Strangel!, the -SF did not challenge the "ro"riet! of the default order% It #ould thus e i&"ro"er for the +ourt to &a1e a "ronounce&ent on the $alidit! of the default order since the sa&e has not een "ut into issue%

After finalit, Petition for relief from 4ud ment Annulment of 4ud ment Is certiorari a proper remed,=,O v& (, )0+7 S(!, 547/ 744+1

The "ro"er re&ed! of a "art! #rongl! declared in default is either to a""eal fro& the .udg&ent ! default or to file a "etition for relief fro& .udg&ent, and not certiorari%
DA+TS, Due to the non4a""earance of the "etitioner :ao P +o&"an!, Inc%, during the hearing on the &erits, the Regional Trial +ourt of Manila, Branch >( * u"on &otion of herein "ri$ate res"ondent To" Ser$ice, Inc% * issued an order dated A"ril (7, (MAM declaring said "etitioner in default and allo#ed e$idence to e "resented e54"arte% The "etitioner ho#e$er filed an ans#er% -n Ma! /=, (MAM, the trial court rendered a decision ordering :ao to "a! To" Ser$ice the agreed rentals #ith (/Q interest% A #rit of "reli&inar! in.unction #as issued ! the RT+% B! $irtue of such decision, To" Ser$ice stated that :ao3s counsel had #ithdra#n his S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age M/

a""earance in the trial court and left no for#arding address% No notice of the said order of default and the decision could gi$en it% The for&er contends that the latter3s re&ed! #as ti&el! a""eal, #hich the latter failed to "erfect%

ISSUE, #hether the decision o% the trial court, promulgated on ,a! B6, >FGF, became %inal 6ES1 /nder ordinar, circumstances, t)e proper remed, of a part, wron l, declared in default is eit)er to appeal from t)e 4ud ment b, default or to file a petition for relief from 4ud ment, and not certiorari1 A default .udg&ent is an ad.udication on the &erits and is, thus, a""eala le% Since a""eal is the "ro"er re&ed!, the e5traordinar! #rit of certiorari #ill not lie% 2etitioner contends that it could not e ound ! the Buestioned -rder of A"ril (7, (MAM declaring it in default and the su seBuent Decision of Ma! /E, (MAM ecause it did not recei$e co"ies thereof% Res"ondents counter that such non4ser$ice #as due to "etitionerRs fault in not furnishing the trial court #ith its Ufor#arding addressU after its counsel #ithdre# his a""earance% This +ourt is not in a "osition to settle this issue of fact * as indeed the Su"re&e +ourt does not decide such Buestions% But it is not dis"uted that after recei"t of the decision, "etitioner filed a &otion for reconsideration% Thus, #hate$er defects * if indeed there #as an! * &a! ha$e een co&&itted ! the trial court in failing to gi$e constructi$e notice of its erroneous default order #as cured ! "etitionerRs $oluntar! filing of the said &otion for reconsideration% U"on denial thereof, "etitioner should ha$e a""ealed% But instead of doing that, it o"ted for the #rong re&ed! of certior

I%DI,%, ,E!OS2,(E U%I9E!SI$> v& ( ED )5+- S(!, 5-6/ 0..71

The re&edies a$aila le to a defendant VALIDLW declared in default are as follo#s, '() a &otion to set aside the order of default under Section 0' ), Rule M of the Rules of +ourt, if the default #as disco$ered efore .udg&ent could e rendered6 '/) a &otion for ne# trial under Section ('a) of Rule 0J, if the default #as disco$ered after .udg&ent ut #hile a""eal is still a$aila le6 '0) a "etition for relief under Rule 0A, if .udg&ent has eco&e final and e5ecutor!6 and '7) an a""eal fro& the .udg&ent under Section (, Rule 7(, e$en if no "etition to set aside the order of default has een resorted to%
DA+TS, In (MM=, the +hair&an of the Technical 2anel for Engineering, Architecture, and Mariti&e Education 'T2RAM) of +CED, recei$ed a letter fro& Douglas Macias <+hair&an of the Board of Aeronautical Engineering, 2R+ inBuiring #hether "etitioner Indiana Aeros"ace Uni$ersit! had alread! acBuired uni$ersit! status in $ie# of their re"resentation in the ad$ertise&ent in the Manila Bulletin% After in$estigation, it #as found that there #as a $iolation co&&itted ! the IAU #hen it used the ter& Iuni$ersit!L #hen it had not !et co&"lied #ith the asic reBuire&ent of eing a uni$ersit! as "rescri ed in +CED Me&oradu&% Res"ondent +CED inBuired fro& the SE+ as to the status of the registered na&e of "etitioner and it #as affir&ed that IAU 'registered as Indiana School of Aeronautics, Inc%) had not a&ended its Articles of Incor"oration to change its na&e to a Iuni$ersit!%L +CED ordered IAU to desist fro& using the #ord Iuni$ersit!%L IAU through its chair&an and founder a""ealed to the -rder of +CED a$erring that the school #ill encounter difficulties and suffer da&ages if it #ill not e allo#ed to use the #ord Iuni$ersit!L in its school na&e% 2rior to the court decision granting the +ease and Desist -rder filed ! +CED, "etitioner IAU filed +o&"laint for Da&ages efore the +ourt% Res"ondent +CED then filed a S"ecial A""earance #ith Motion to Dis&iss the +o&"laint for da&ages% 2etitioner IAU filed -""osition to the Motion to Dis&iss% The T+ :udge denied res"ondent +CED3s &otion to dis&iss and issued a #rit of "reli&inar! in.unction in fa$or of IAU% The T+ :udge also directed +CED to file its Ans#er to the decision #ithin (> da!s fro& the recei"t of the +ourt -rder < #hich #as August (>, (MMA% -n Se"te& er //, (MMA, "etitioner IAU filed Motion to Declare Res"ondent in Default "ursuant to Section M, Section 0 of RR-+% -n the sa&e da!, res"ondent +CED filed for Motion for E5tension of Ti&e to Dile its Ans#er until No$e& er (A, (MMA, ut +CED su &itted its Ans#er ho#e$er on No$e& er (J, (MMA% -n No$e& er ((, "etitioner IAU filed its -""osition to the Motion for E5tension of Ti&e to Dile res"ondent3s Ans#er% Trial :udge rendered its Decision and granted "etitioner3s &otion to declare res"ondent +CED in Default% Res"ondent +CED conseBuentl! filed #ith the +A a "etition for certiorari arguing that the RT+ had co&&itted gra$e a use of discretion in declaring res"ondent +CED in default des"ite its Diling of an Ans#er% The +A ruled that res"ondent +CED should N-T ha$e een declared in default, ecause its ans#er had een filed long efore the RT+ ruled u"on "etitioner3s Motion to declare res"ondent in default% Thus, res"ondent had not o stinatel! refused to file an Ans#er6 on the contrar!, its failure to do so on ti&e #as due to e5cusa le negligence% 'an e5"ress e5ce"tion to eing declared in default under Rule M, SecTion 0)% Thus, IAU instituted case at ar to a""eal the +A decision% ISSUE, #hether respondent CHE* should be declared in de%ault despite its %iling o% an answer, and whether its %ailure to %ile answer on time be e cused on ground that it was due to e cusable negligence S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er 2age M0

N"1 The S+ agreed #ith res"ondent +CED that certiorari #as the onl! "lain, s"eed! and adeBuate re&ed! in the ordinar! course of la#, ecause the default -rder had i&"ro$identl! een issued% The re&edies a$aila le to a defendant declared in default are as follo#s, '() a &otion to set aside the order of default under Section 0' ), Rule M of the Rules of +ourt, if the default #as disco$ered efore .udg&ent could e rendered6 '/) a &otion for ne# trial under Section ('a) of Rule 0J, if the default #as disco$ered after .udg&ent ut #hile a""eal is still a$aila le6 '0) a "etition for relief under Rule 0A, if .udg&ent has eco&e final and e5ecutor!6 and '7) an a""eal fro& the .udg&ent under Section (, Rule 7(, e$en if no "etition to set aside the order of default has een resorted to% These re&edies, ho#e$er, are a$aila le onl! to a defendant #ho has een $alidl! declared in default% Such defendant irre"ara l! loses the right to "artici"ate in the trial% -n the other hand, a defendant i&"ro$identl! declared in default &a! retain and e5ercise such right after the order of default and the su seBuent .udg&ent ! default are annulled, and the case re&anded to the court of origin% The for&er is li&ited to the re&ed! set forth in section /, "aragra"h 0 of Rule 7( of the "re (MMJ Rules of +ourt, and can therefore contest onl! the .udg&ent ! default on the designated ground that it is contrar! to e$idence or la#% The latter, ho#e$er, has the follo#ing o"tions, to resort to this sa&e re&ed!6 to inter"ose a "etition for certiorari see1ing the nullification of the order of default, e$en efore the "ro&ulgation of a .udg&ent ! default6 or in the e$ent that .udg&ent has een rendered, to ha$e such order and .udg&ent declared $oid% In pro)ibitin appeals from interlocutor, orders, t)e law does not intend to accord e:ecutor, force to suc) writs, particularl, w)en t)e effect would be to cause irreparable dama e1 If in t)e course of trial, a 4ud e proceeds wit)out or in e:cess of 4urisdiction, t)is rule pro)ibitin an appeal does not leave t)e a rieved part, wit)out an, remed,1 In a case li(e t)is, a special civil action of certiorari is t)e plain, speed, and adeEuate remed,1 $as suc) as w)at C9ED )ad done&1 9erein respondent C9ED controverts t)e 4ud ment b, default, not on t)e round t)at it is unsubstantiated b, evidence or t)at it is contrar, to law, but on t)e round t)at it is intrinsicall, void for )avin been rendered pursuant to a patentl, invalid order of default1

S:S ;(0 < +o&"rehensi$e Re$ie#er

2age M7