I.

Jurisdiction

Republic Act 7691 amending BP 129 Rules on Summary Procedure A. . !o. "2#11#"9#S$ Ouano vs. PGTT International Investment Corporation %A$&S' P(&& )iled a complaint agaisnt *uano )or Reco+ery o) *,ners-ip and Possession o) Property and .amages against Jo+enal *uano. As o,ner/ it alleged t-at it ,as depri+ed o) its use ,-en *uano uprooted t-e concrete monuments o) t-e lot and planted corn t-erein. It also claimed to su))er damages amounting to P1""/""" ,-en *uano re)used to +acate despite t-eir demand. *uano )iled a motion to dismiss on t-e ground t-at it is t-e &$ t-at -as 0urisdiction as t-e assessed +alue o) t-e lot is only P2/91". P(&& opposed and said t-at 0urisdictiction is determined by t-e mar1et +alue instead and t-at t-e R&$ -as 0urisdiction since t-e mar1et +alue o) t-e lot is P29/ 76" and t-e damages claimed amounted to P1""/""". R&$ ruled in )a+or o) P(&&. ISS34' 5-et-er t-e R&$ -as 0urisdiction o+er t-is case6 748.' &-e 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect mater o) t-e claim is determined by t-e assessed +alue and not t-e mar1et +alue since t-e action in+ol+es o,ners-ip and possession o) real property. BP 9 129 pro+ides t-at &$ -as 0urisdiction o+er cases on real property ,-ere t-e assessed +alue o) t-e property or interest t-erein e:clusi+e o) damages does not e:ceed P2"/""" or P;"/""" in ci+il actions in etro anila. t-e R&$ on t-e ot-er -and -as 0urisdiction i) t-e assessed +alue e:ceeds P2"/""" or P;"/""" in ci+il actions in etro anila. &-us/ t-e amount o) damages claimed s-ould not be added in t-e computation as t-e la, e:plicitly e:cludes )rom t-e determination o) 0urisdictional amount t-e demand )or < interest/ damages o) ,-ate+er 1ind/ atorney=s )ees/ litigation e:penses/ and cost. &-e said damages are merely incidental to/ or a conse>uence o)/ t-e real property. 7o,e+er/ Administrati+e $ircular !o. "9#92 pro+ides t-at in cases ,-ere t-e claim )or damages is t-e main cause o) action/ or one o) t-e causes o) action/ t-e amount o) suc- claim s-all be considered in determining t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e court. HERRERA vs. BOLLOS (G.R. No. 1 !"#! $anuar% 1!& "''"( &-e %acts' *n August ;/ 199?/ &eodora Bollos commenced be)ore t-e unicipal $ircuit &rial $ourt o) Baya,an#Basay $i+il $ase !o. 99?/ )or )orcible entry/ solely against 4ddie 7errera alleging t-at t-e latter/ sometime in t-e second ,ee1 o) 199?/ t-roug- stealt- and strategy and ta1ing ad+antage o) t-e absence o) &eodora/ entered and occupied -er Sugarland 1no,n as 8ot !o. 2"/ (SS#61;/ located at $amandagan/ aninyon/ Baya,an/ !egros *riental. &eodora claims to -a+e in-erited said parcel. .e)endant/ 4ddie 7errera/ denied t-e allegations against -im maintaining t-at -e entered and occupied not 8ot !o. 2"/ as claimed by &eodora/ but 8ot !o. 21/ (SS@61;/ ,-ic- is o,ned by $onrado Bollos/ a brot-er o) &eodora=s )at-er/ Al)onso. %urt-er/ 7errera said t-at -is occupation o) t-e property ,as not t-roug- stealt- or strategy but by +irtue o) a contract o) lease e:ecuted bet,een $onrado Bollos/ as lessor/ and 4rnesto &i0ing/ as lessee. 7errera is &i0ing=s o+erseer on t-e land. As a conse>uence/ t-e complaint ,as t,ice amended/ )irst/ on arc- 2?/ 1992 to include 4rnesto &. &i0ing as a party#de)endant and muc- later on *ctober 2/ 199;/ t-is time to implead $onrado Bollos as an additional de)endant. A)ter due proceedings/ t-e )irst le+el court

dismissed t-e case )or )ailure to ma1e#out a )orcible entry case because o) lac1 o) 0urisdiction. Plainti))s= remedy s-ould be rei+endicatory AsicB action be)ore t-e proper )orum.

*n Appeal to t-e Regional &rial $ourt o) .umaguete $ity/ doc1eted as $i+il $ase !o. 12"12/ t-e c-allenged +erdict ,as re+ersed restoring 8ot !o. 2"/ (SS#61; to t-e plainti))s and e0ecting t-e de)endants )rom t-e said parcel o) land and pay damages. Petitioners )iled ,itt-e $A a petition )or re+ie,. t-e $A a))irmed. 7ence/ t-is appeal. &-e Issues AaB Is t-e municipal trial court +ested ,it- 0urisdiction o+er a second amended complaint impleading a ne, de)endant )iled beyond one year )rom dispossession alleging a case o) )orcible entry in t-e original action6 AbB ay t-e regional trial court a,ard moral and e:emplary damages against de)endants in an appeal )rom a dismissal o) t-e case )or )orcible entry by t-e lo,er court6 &-e $ourt=s Ruling' Petition .enied *n t-e 1st issue' ,e emp-asiCe t-e basic rule t-at 0urisdiction o) t-e court o+er t-e sub0ect matter o) t-e action is determined by t-e allegations o) t-e complaint at t-e time o) its )iling/ irrespecti+e o) ,-et-er or not t-e plainti)) is entitled to reco+er upon all or some o) t-e claims asserted t-erein.<5-at determines t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e court is t-e nature o) t-e action pleaded as appearing )rom t-e allegations in t-e complaint. &-e a+erments t-erein and t-e c-aracter o) t-e relie) soug-t are t-e ones to be consulted.< *n t-e 2nd issue' t-e concept o) damages in an action )or )orcible entry and detainer cases is ,ell de)ined in se+eral cases. &-ese damages mean <rents< or <t-e reasonable compensation )or t-e use and occupation o) t-e premises/< or <)air rental +alue o) t-e property.< &emperate/ actual/ moral and e:emplary are neit-er rents nor reasonable compensation )or t-e use and occupation o) t-e premises/ nor )air rental +alue/ and are not reco+erable in suc- cases. $ourt .4!I4S t-e petition. 7o,e+er/ t-e $ourt S4&S ASI.4 t-e decisions o) t-e $ourt o) Appea ls1D and t-e Regional &rial $ourt.19 &-e $ourt remands t-e case to t-e municipal trial court )or )urt-er proceedings. In t-e case at bar/ t-e municipal trial court dismissed t-e case )or lac1 o) 0urisdiction/ and t-e regional trial court re+ersed t-e dismissal but rendered 0udgment e0ecting t-e de)endants )rom t-e parcel o) land in+ol+ed/ and condemning t-em to pay damages and attorney=s )ees. &-is is not correct. In case o) re+ersal/ t-e case s-all be remanded to t-e municipal trial court )or )urt-er proceedings.1; &-e regional trial court in re+ersing an appealed case dismissing t-e action cannot decree t-e e+iction o) t-e de)endants and a,ard damages. A court cannot ta1e 0udicial notice o) a )actual matter in contro+ersy. &-e court may ta1e 0udicial notice o) matters o) public 1no,ledge/ or ,-ic- are capable o) un>uestionable demonstration/ or oug-t to be 1no,n to 0udges because o) t-eir 0udicial )unctions. 16 Be)ore ta1ing suc- 0udicial notice/ t-e court must <allo, t-e parties to be -eard t-ereon.< 7ence/ t-ere can be no 0udicial notice on t-e rental +alue o) t-e premises in >uestion ,it-out supporting e+idence. OCA v. CA

%A$&S' Petitioners *ca brot-ers are co#o,ners o) )is-ponds. Respondent Abalos/ on t-e ot-er -and/ claims to be t-e s-are#tenant careta1er o) t-e said )is-ponds. 7e per)orms all t-e p-ases o) )arm ,or1 needed )or t-e production o) bangus/ ,-ile t-e only contribution o) t-e *ca brot-ers are t-eir )is-ponds. Abalos asserts t-at -e -as peace)ul possession/ culti+ation and care o) t-e )is-ponds until 1992 ,-en -e re>uested )rom t-e *ca brot-ers -is s-are o) t-e -ar+est. Instead o) acceding to -is re>uest/ petitioners demanded t-at -e +acate t-e ponds. Abalos )iled )or a $omplaint )or Peace)ul Possession/ 8ease-old and .amages/ ,it- t-e *))ice o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator/ .epartment o) Agrarian Re)orm Ad0udication Board A.ARABB. Pro+incial Ad0udicator declared Abalos as bona )ide tenant o) t-e parcels o) land/ en)orcing t-e rig-t o) t-e plainti)) to become t-e agricultural lessee in t-e )is-pond. .ecision ,as appealed by t-e *ca brot-ers to t-e .ARAB/ ,-ic- a))irmed Pro+incial Ad0udicatorEs decision in toto. Petitioners soug-t )or relie) ,it- $A. $A modi)ied t-e decision. .eclaring Abalos as bon)ide tenant only ,it- regard to certain )is-ponds Abut not allB. Petitioners ele+ate t-e case be)ore S$ ,it- a ne, argument o) lac1 o) 0urisdiction o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator o+er t-e sub0ect matter o) t-e action ISS34' 5-et-er or not lac1 o) 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect matter can be ob0ected to at any instance 748.' &-e general rule t-at lac1 o) 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect matter can be ob0ected to at any instance is not absolute. 4stoppel or lac-es may operate as a bar s-ield to pre+ent a party )rom belatedly resorting to t-is )orm o) de)ense. &-ey ne+er disputed t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator at any stage o) t-e proceeding/ not,it-standing t-e presence o) numerous opportunities in t-e +arious stages o) t-is case to contest t-e ad0udicator=s e:ercise o) 0urisdiction. !eit-er can t-ey claim t-at t-ey ,ere pre+ented )rom contesting its 0urisdiction during t-e eig-t years t-is case ,as under litigation. &-ey -a+e tendered responsi+e pleadings/ attended con)erences participated in t-e -earings and appealed ad+erse decisions against t-em. By t-eir conduct/ t-ey +oluntarily submitted to t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e ad0udicator. $onse>uently/ t-ey must not be allo,ed to deny -is 0urisdiction a)ter submitting to it. &-e rule is t-at t-e acti+e participation o) t-e party against ,-om t-e action ,as broug-t/ coupled ,it- -is body ,-ere t-e action is pending/ is tantamount to an in+ocation o) t-at 0urisdiction and a ,illingness to abide by t-e resolution o) t-e case and ,ill bar said party )rom later on impugning t-e court or body=s 0urisdiction. Petitioners instituted a counterclaim Aagainst t-e respondent##t-ey prayed not only )or t-e dismissal o) t-e case but li1e,ise as1ed )or t-e payment o) damages based on t-e latter=s purported bad )ait-B. By )iling a counterclaim/ t-ey recogniCed and e:pressly in+o1ed t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator. &-ey cannot no, insist t-e ,ant o) it only a)ter an un)a+orable decision ,as issued against t-em.

)i*ares v. Rana+a %acts' In+o1ing t-e Alien &ort Act/ petitioners i0ares/ et al.F/ all o) ,-om su))ered -uman rig-ts +iolations during t-e arcos era/ obtained a %inal Judgment in t-eir )a+or against t-e 4state o) t-e late %erdinand arcos amounting to roug-ly G1.9B in compensatory and e:emplary

damages )or tortuous +iolations o) international la, in t-e 3S .istrict $ourt o) 7a,aii. &-is %inal Judgment ,as a))irmed by t-e 3S $ourt o) Appeals. As a conse>uence/ Petitioners )iled a $omplaint ,it- t-e R&$ a1ati )or t-e en)orcement o) t-e %inal Judgment/ paying P21" as doc1et and )iling )ees based on Rule 121/ H7AbB ,-ere t-e +alue o) t-e sub0ect matter is incapable o) pecuniary estimation. &-e 4state o) arcos -o,e+er/ )iled a &. alleging t-e non#payment o) t-e correct )iling )ees. R&$ a1ati dismissed t-e $omplaint stating t-at t-e sub0ect matter ,as capable o) pecuniary estimation as it in+ol+ed a 0udgment rendered by a )oreign court ordering t-e payment o) a de)inite sum o) money allo,ing )or t-e easy determination o) t-e +alue o) t-e )oreign 0udgment. As suc-/ t-e proper )iling )ee ,as P272 / ,-ic- Petitioners -ad not paid. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e amount paid by t-e Petitioners is t-e proper )iling )ee. 7eld' Ies/ but on a di))erent basisJamount merely corresponds to t-e same amount re>uired )or Kot-er actions not in+ol+ing propertyL. R&$ a1ati erred in concluding t-at t-e )iling )ee s-ould be computed on t-e basis o) t-e total sum claimed or t-e stated +alue o) t-e property in litigation. &-e PetitionerEs $omplaint ,as lodged against t-e 4state o) arcos but it is clearly based on a 0udgment/ t-e %inal Judgment o) t-e 3S .istrict $ourt. 7o,e+er/ t-e Petitioners err in stating t-at t-e %inal Judgment is incapable o) pecuniary estimation because it is so capable. *n t-is point/ Petitioners state t-at t-is mig-t lead to an instance ,-erein a )irst le+el court A &$/ e&$/ etc.B ,ould -a+e 0urisdiction to en)orce a )oreign 0udgment. 3nder t-e B.P.129/ suc- courts are not +ested ,it- suc- 0urisdiction. H?? o) B.P.129 re)ers to instances ,-erein t-e cause o) action or sub0ect matter pertains to an assertion o) rig-ts o+er property or a sum o) money. But -ere/ t-e sub0ect matter is t-e )oreign 0udgment itsel). H16 o) B.P.129 re+eals t-at t-e complaint )or en)orcement o) 0udgment e+en i) capable o) pecuniary estimation ,ould )all under t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e R&$s. &-us/ t-e $omplaint to en)orce t-e 3S .istrict $ourt 0udgment is one capable o) pecuniary estimations but at t-e same time/ it is also an action based on 0udgment against an estate/ t-us placing it beyond t-e ambit o) H7AaB o) Rule 121. 5-at go+erns t-e proper computation o) t-e )iling )ees o+er $omplaints )or t-e en)orcement o) )oreign 0udgments is H7AbBA?B/ in+ol+ing Kot-er actions not in+ol+ing property.L T,orton v. T,orton - . SCRA ##' ("''-( %acts' Ric-ard Brian &-orton got married to Adel)a %rancisco &-orton in 199D. A year later/ Adel)a ga+e birt- to a c-ild/ Segueira Jenni)er &-orton. A)ter ? years o) marriage/ Adel)a &-orton gre, restless and bored as a plain -ouse,i)e and ,anted to return to -er old 0ob as a <guest relations o))icer< in a nig-tclub. &-erea)ter/ s-e le)t t-e )amily -ome ,it- t-eir daug-ter/ ,it-out noti)ying -er -usband. S-e le)t ,ord t-at s-e ,as bringing Se>uiera to Basilan. Ric-ard )iled case ,it- t-e %amily $ourt in a1ati but t-is ,as dismissed/ because o) t-e allegation t-at t-e c-ild ,as in Basilan. Ric-ard ,ent to Basilan to c-ec1 on t-e ,-ereabouts o) Adel)a and t-eir daug-ter but -e did not )ind t-em t-ere. 7e ga+e up -is searc- ,-en -e got -old o) Adel)a=s cellular p-one bills s-o,ing calls )rom di))erent places suc- as $a+ite/ !ue+a 4ci0a/ etro anila and ot-er pro+inces. Ric-ard t-en )iled anot-er petition )or 7abeas $orpus/ t-is time ,it- t-e $A ,-ic- could issue a ,rit o) -abeas corpus en)orceable in t-e entire country. $A' Petition denied )or lac1 o) 0urisdiction/ ruling t-at t-e %amily $ourt Act o) 1997 ARA

D?69B ga+e )amily courts e:clusi+e original 0urisdiction o+er petitions )or <custody o) c-ildren and -abeas corpus in relation to t-e latter< ASection ; bB. Issue' 5*! t-e $A s-ould ta1e cogniCance o) t-e case 7eld' &-e Supreme $ourt disagreed ,it- t-e $A=s reasoning because it ,ill result in an ini>uitous situation/ lea+ing indi+iduals li1e t-e petitioner ,it-out legal recourse in obtaining custody o) t-eir c-ildren. Indi+iduals ,-o do not 1no, t-e ,-ereabouts o) minors t-ey are loo1ing )or ,ould be -elpless since t-ey cannot see1 redress )rom )amily courts ,-ose ,rits are en)orceable only in t-eir respecti+e territorial 0urisdictions. &-us/ i) a minor is being trans)erred )rom one place to anot-er/ t-e petitioner in a -abeas corpus case ,ill be le)t ,it-out legal remedy. &-e primordial consideration is t-e ,el)are and best interests o) t-e c-ild. &-e $ourt ruled t-ere)ore t-at RA D?69 did not di+est t-e $ourt o) Appeals and t-e Supreme $ourt o) t-eir 0urisdiction o+er -abeas corpus cases in+ol+ing t-e custody o) minors. &-is is not t-e )irst time t-at t-is $ourt construed t-e ,ord Ke:clusi+eL as not )oreclosing resort to anot-er 0urisdiction. As correctly cited by t-e Solicitor (eneral/ in %loresca +s. P-ile: ining $orporation/ t-e -eirs o) miners 1illed in a ,or1#related accident ,ere allo,ed to )ile suit in t-e regular courts e+en i)/ under t-e 5or1menEs $ompensation Act/ t-e 5or1menEs $ompensation $ommissioner -ad e:clusi+e 0urisdiction o+er suc- cases. In t-e said case/ t-e $ourt applied and ga+e e))ect to t-e constitutional guarantee o) social 0ustice in ruling t-at t-e $ommissioner=s e:clusi+e 0urisdiction did not )oreclose resort to t-e regular court )or damages. In t-e case at bar/ a literal interpretation o) t-e ,ord Ke:clusi+eL ,ill result in gra+e in0ustice and negate t-e policy Kto protect t-e rig-ts and promote t-e ,el)are o) c-ildrenL under t-e $onstitution and t-e 3nited !ations $on+ention on t-e Rig-ts o) t-e $-ild. &-is mandate must pre+ail o+er legal tec-nicalities and ser+e as t-e guiding principle in construing t-e pro+isions o) RA D?69. oreo+er/ settled is t-e rule in statutory construction t-at implied repeals are not )a+ored. &-e pro+isions o) RA D?69 re+eal no mani)est intent to re+o1e t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e $ourt o) Appeals and Supreme $ourt to issue ,rits o) -abeas corpus relating to t-e custody o) minors. %urt-er/ it cannot be said t-at t-e pro+isions o) RA D?69/ RA 7"92 and BP 129 are absolutely incompatible since RA D?69 does not pro-ibit t-e $ourt o) Appeals and t-e Supreme $ourt )rom issuing ,rits o) -abeas corpus in cases in+ol+ing t-e custody o) minors. &-us/ t-e pro+isions o) RA D?69 must be read in -armony ,it- RA 7"29 and BP 129 M t-at )amily courts -a+e concurrent 0urisdiction ,it- t-e $ourt o) Appeals and t-e Supreme $ourt in petitions )or -abeas corpus ,-ere t-e custody o) minors is at issue. BPI v. ALS )nst. %acts' BPI In+estment $orporation )iled a complaint )or sum o) money against A8S ngt pursuant to a deed o) sale e:ecuted bet,een t-em )or 1 un)urnis-ed condo unit. BPI ad+anced t-e amount o) P26t-ou )or t-e e:penses in causing t-e issuance and registration o) t-e condo certi)icate o) title ,-ile A8S )ailed and re)used to pay/ not,it-standing repeated demands by t-e BPI. A8S a+erred/ in its counterclaim/ t-at its re)usal to pay is 0usti)ied on t-e ground t-at t-e +endor/ BPI/ did not con)orm to t-e ,arranties and t-at t-e unit purc-ased by +endee ,as de)ecti+e. &-e trial court ordered A8S to pay BPI t-e amount ad+anced )or registration and ,-ile ordering BPI to correct t-e de)ects in t-e unit and to reimburse t-e +endee )or

unearned income since t-e +endee -ad to suspend lease contract until t-e unit ,as )i:ed. &-e appellate court sustained t-e trial court s )inding t-at <,-ile NpetitionerO succeeded in pro+ing its claim against t-e NrespondentO )or e:penses incurred in t-e registration o) Nt-e latter sO title to t-e condominium unit purc-ased/ )or its part NrespondentO in turn succeeded in establis-ing an e+en bigger claim under its counterclaim. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e 7onorable $ourt o) Appeals erred in not -olding t-at t-e trial court -ad no 0urisdiction o+er t-e respondent s counterclaims 7eld' $ontending t-at it ,as t-e 7ousing and 8and 3se Regulatory Board A783RBB ## not t-e R&$ ## t-at -ad 0urisdiction o+er respondent=s counterclaim/ petitioner see1s to nulli)y t-e a,ard o) t-e trial court. Promulgated on July 12/ 1976/ P. !o. 9;7 ## ot-er,ise 1no,n as <&-e Subdi+ision and $ondominium Buyers Protecti+e .ecree< ## pro+ides t-at t-e !ational 7ousing Aut-ority A!7AB s-all -a+e <e:clusi+e aut-ority to regulate t-e real estate trade and business.<12 Promulgated later on April 2/ 197D/ ,as P. !o. 1?22 entitled <4mpo,ering t-e !ational 7ousing Aut-ority to Issue 5rits o) 4:ecution in t-e 4n)orcement o) Its .ecisions 3nder Presidential .ecree !o. 9;7.< It e:panded t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e !7A as )ollo,s' <S4$&I*! 1. In t-e e:ercise o) its )unction to regulate t-e real estate trade and business and in addition to its po,ers pro+ided )or in Presidential .ecree !o. 9;7/ t-e !ational 7ousing Aut-ority s-all -a+e e:clusi+e 0urisdiction to -ear and decide cases o) t-e )ollo,ing nature' A. 3nsound real estate business practicesP B. $laims in+ol+ing re)und and any ot-er claims )iled by subdi+ision lot or condominium unit buyer against t-e pro0ect o,ner/ de+eloper/ dealer/ bro1er or salesmanP and $. $ases in+ol+ing speci)ic per)ormance o) contractual and statutory obligations )iled by buyers o) subdi+ision lot or condominium unit against t-e o,ner/ de+eloper/ bro1er or salesman.< *n %ebruary 7/ 19D1/ by +irtue o) 4:ecuti+e *rder !o. 62D/ t-e regulatory )unctions o) t-e !7A ,ere trans)erred to t-e 7uman Settlements Regulatory $ommission A7SR$B. Section D t-ereo) pro+ides' <S4$&I*! D. &rans)er o) %unctions. # &-e regulatory )unctions o) t-e !ational 7ousing Aut-ority pursuant to Presidential .ecree !os. 9;7/ 1216/ 1?22 and ot-er related la,s are -ereby trans)erred to t-e $ommission A7uman Settlements Regulatory $ommissionB. : : :. Among t-ese regulatory )unctions are' 1B Regulation o) t-e real estate trade and businessP : : : 11B 7ear and decide cases o) unsound real estate business practicesP claims in+ol+ing re)und )iled against pro0ect o,ners/ de+elopers/ dealers/ bro1ers/ or salesmenP and cases o) speci)ic per)ormance.< Pursuant to 4:ecuti+e *rder !o. 9" dated .ecember 17/ 19D6/ t-e )unctions o) t-e 7SR$ ,ere trans)erred to t-e 783RB. As mandated by P. !o. 9;7/ t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e 783RB is encompassing and includes t-e regulation o) real estate trade and business. %urt-ermore/ t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e 783RB o+er cases enumerated in Section 1 o) P. !o. 1?22 is e:clusi+e. !7A li1e,ise -ad t-e competence to a,ard damages as part o) t-e e:clusi+e po,er con)erred upon it ## t-e po,er to -ear and decide <claims in+ol+ing re)und and any ot-er claims )iled by subdi+ision lot or condominium unit buyers against t-e pro0ect o,ner/ de+eloper/ dealer/ bro1er or salesman.< $learly t-en/

respondent=s counterclaim ## being one )or speci)ic per)ormance Acorrection o) de)ectsQde)iciencies in t-e condominium unitB and damages R )alls under t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e 783RB as pro+ided by Section 1 o) P. !o. 1?22. &-e Applicability o) 4stoppel &-e general rule is t-at any decision rendered ,it-out 0urisdiction is a total nullity and may be struc1 do,n at any time/ e+en on appeal be)ore t-is $ourt. Indeed/ t-e >uestion o) 0urisdiction may be raised at any time/ pro+ided t-at sucaction ,ould not result in t-e moc1ery o) t-e tenets o) )air play. As an e:ception to t-e rule/ t-e issue may not be raised i) t-e party is barred by estoppel. In t-e present case/ petitioner proceeded ,it- t-e trial/ and only a)ter a 0udgment un)a+orable to it did it raise t-e issue o) 0urisdiction. &-us/ it may no longer deny t-e trial court s 0urisdiction/ )or estoppel bars it )rom doing so. &-is $ourt cannot countenance t-e inconsistent postures petitioner -as adopted by attac1ing t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e regular court to ,-ic- it -as +oluntarily submitted. petitioner also guilty o) estoppel by lac-es )or )ailing to raise t-e >uestion o) 0urisdiction earlier. %rom t-e time t-at respondent )iled its counterclaim on !o+ember D/ 19D;/ t-e )ormer could -a+e raised suc- issue/ but )ailed or neglected to do so. It ,as only upon )iling its appellant s brie) ,it- t-e $A on ay 27/ 1991/ t-at petitioner raised t-e issue o) 0urisdiction )or t-e )irst time. In &i0am +. Sibong-anoy/it ,as declared t-at t-e )ailure to raise t-e >uestion o) 0urisdiction at an earlier stage barred t-e party )rom >uestioning it later. Applying t-e rule on estoppel by lac-es/ <A party may be estopped or barred )rom raising a >uestion in di))erent ,ays and )or di))erent reasons. &-us/ ,e spea1 o) estoppel in pais/ o) estoppeNlO by deed or by record/ and o) estoppel by lac-es.<8ac-es/ in general sense/ is )ailure or neglect/ )or an unreasonable and une:plained lengt- o) time/ to do t-at ,-ic-/ by e:ercising due diligence/ could or s-ould -a+e been done earlierP it is negligence or omission to assert a rig-t ,it-in a reasonable time/ ,arranting a presumption t-at t-e party entitled to assert it eit-er -as abandoned it or declined to assert it.<&-e doctrine o) lac-es or o) stale demands is based upon grounds o) public policy ,-ic- re>uires/ )or t-e peace o) society/ t-e discouragement o) stale claims and/ unli1e t-e statute o) limitations/ is not a mere >uestion o) time but is principally a >uestion o) t-e ine>uity or un)airness o) permitting a rig-t or claim to be en)orced or asserted.< <Public policy dictates t-at t-is $ourt must strongly condemn any double#dealing by parties ,-o are disposed to tri)le ,it- t-e courts by deliberately ta1ing inconsistent positions/ in utter disregard o) t-e elementary principles o) 0ustice and good )ait-. &-ere is no denying t-at/ in t-is case/ petitioners ne+er raised t-e issue o) 0urisdiction t-roug-out t-e entire proceedings in t-e trial court. Instead/ t-ey +oluntarily and ,illingly submitted t-emsel+es to t-e 0urisdiction o) said court. It is no, too late in t-e day )or t-em to repudiate t-e 0urisdiction t-ey ,ere in+o1ing all along.< II. Actions and Parties

Planters Pro+u/ts& In/. (PPI( vs. 0ertip,il Corporation %A$&S' %ertip-il ,as engaged in t-e importation and distribution o) )ertiliCers and pesticides. In 19D; Pres. arcos issued an 8*I re>uiring )ertiliCer companies to pay P1"."" )or e+ery bag o) )ertiliCer sold to PPI A)or PPI=s re-abilitation.B In 19D6/ a)ter t-e 4dsa Re+olution/ t-e collection ,as stopped. 7ence/ %ertip-il )iled a case as1ing PPI )or a re)und o) P6/69D/122."". PPI ,as declared in de)ault and %ertip-il -ad a 0udgement in t-eir )a+or. %ertip-il )iled a motion )or a ,rit o) e:ecution pending appeal/ ,-ic- ,as granted by t-e

R&$. In 1991/ PPI )iled an appeal ,it- regards to t-e grant o) t-e ,rit o) e:ecution pending appeal. %ertip-il no, assails t-e appeal made by t-e PPI on t-e ground t-at t-ey did not pay t-e doc1et )ees as re>uired by t-e 1997 Rules o) Procedure. ISS34' 5Q! t-e appeal s-ould be dismissed )or non#payment o) doc1et )ees as re>uired by t-e ne, rules. 748.' !*/ appeal s-ould be allo,ed to allo,ed to proceed. As a general rule/ rules o) procedure apply to actions pending and undetermined at t-e time o) t-eir passage/ -ence/ retrospecti+e in nature. 7o,e+er/ t-e general rule is not ,it-out an e:ception. Retrospecti+e application is allo,ed i) no +ested rig-ts are impaired. 5-ile t-e rig-t to appeal is statutory/ t-e mode or manner by ,-ic- t-is rig-t may be e:ercised is a >uestion o) procedure ,-ic- may be altered and modi)ied only ,-en +ested rig-ts are not impaired. &-us/ t-e 1997 Rules o) $i+il Procedure ,-ic- too1 e))ect on July 1/ 1997 and ,-icre>uired t-at appellate doc1et and ot-er la,)ul )ees s-ould be paid ,it-in t-e same period )or ta1ing an appeal/ can not a))ect PPI=s appeal ,-ic- ,as already per)ected in 1992. oreo+er/ ,e -a+e also pre+iously ruled t-at )ailure to pay t-e appellate doc1et )ee does not automatically result in t-e dismissal o) an appeal/ dismissal being discretionary on t-e part o) t-e appellate court. And in determining ,-et-er or not to dismiss an appeal on sucground/ courts -a+e al,ays been guided by t-e peculiar legal and e>uitable circumstances attendant to eac- case. 1IA2 vs )ESIAS& $R %A$&S' Petitioners are t-e o,ners o) a 1.2 -ectare riceland located at Brgy. (uintigi#an/ *rmoc $ity/ being tilled by/ among ot-ers/ $arlos esias/ Sr./ )at-er o) respondent $arlos/ Jr. Respondent re>uested t-at -e be granted a -omelot ,it-in t-e riceland by petitioners and t-at t-e s-are tenancy system be c-anged to lease-old system. Petitioners denied botre>uests. 7ence/ t-e matter ,as broug-t to t-e Barangay Agrarian Re)orm $ommittee )or mediation. !o settlement ,as reac-ed. &-e case ,as ele+ated to t-e unicipal Agrarian Re)orm *))ice A AR*B o) t-e .epartment o) Agrarian Re)orm. AR* concluded t-at t-e respondent is not a bona )ide tenant o) t-e petitioners/ considering t-at -e is a member o) t-e immediate )arm -ouse-old o) -is )at-er/ $arlos/ Sr. A petition ,as )iled ,it- t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator o) 8eyte/ ,-o dismissed t-e petition and declared t-at $arlos/ Jr. is not a tenant de 0ure o) t-e riceland/ rat-er it is -is )at-er/ $arlos/ Sr./ ,-o is t-e tenant t-ereo). Respondent appealed to t-e .epartment o) Agrarian Re)orm Ad0udication Board A.ARABB ,-ic- re+ersed t-e decision o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator. 7ence/ a petition )or re+ie, ,as )iled by t-e petitioners ,it- t-e $A. &-e $A dismissed t-e petition due to de)ecti+e certi)ication against )orum s-opping and )ailure to attac- clearly legible copies o) pertinent portions o) t-e records and ot-er supporting documents. $A reconsidered its decision inso)ar as t-e de)ecti+e certi)ication is concerned/ but maintained t-at petitioners )ailed to comply ,it- t-e procedural re>uirements o) Rule 2? Sec. 6 o) t-e Ro$. ISS34' 5*! t-e petition )or re+ie, )iled by t-e petitioners complies ,it- t-e re>uirements set in Rule 2? Sec.6 o) t-e Ro$. R38I!(' &-e dismissal o) t-e petition on purely tec-nical grounds ,as un,arranted. Sec.6 o) Rule 2? does not re>uire t-at all o) t-e supporting papers or anne:es accompanying t-e petition s-ould be certi)ied true copies or duplicate originals. 5-at is mandatory is t-at clearly legible duplicate originals or certi)ied true copies o) t-e 0udgment or )inal orders o) t-e lo,er courts be attac-ed to t-e petition.

Petitioners substantially complied ,it- t-e procedural re>uirements o) t-e Rules. &-e attac-ment o) t-e )inal decisions o) t-e .ARAB and t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator are su))icient in order )or t-e $A to gi+e due course to t-e petition/ instead o) dismissing t-e same on t-e ground o) petitioners= )ailure to attac- copies o) t-e pleadings and ot-er supporting documents. !e+ert-eless/ e+en i) t-e pleadings and ot-er supporting documents ,ere not attac-ed to t-e petition/ t-e dismissal ,as un,arranted because t-e entire records o) t-e case ,ill e+entually be ele+ated to t-e appellate court/ pursuant to Rule 2? Sec.11 o) t-e Ro$. $ases s-ould be determined on t-e merits a)ter all t-e parties -a+e been gi+en )ull opportunity to +entilate t-eir causes and de)enses/ rat-er t-an on tec-nicalities or procedural imper)ections. $ase is remanded to t-e $A )or )urt-er proceedings. ATLANTIC ERECTORS 3S. HERBAL CO3E REALT4 %A$&S' Atlantic 4rectors and 7erbal $o+e Realty entered into a $onstruction $ontract/ ,-ereby Atlantic agreed to construct a )our unit to,n-ouse )or a speci)ied contract price. &-e contract period ,as )or 1D" days. Atlantic claims t-e period ,as not )ollo,ed due to reasons attributable to 7erbal Ai.e. suspension orders/ addEl ,or1sB. 7o,e+er/ 7erbal denied succlaims and pointed to Atlantic as -a+ing e:ceeded t-e 1D" period aggra+ated by de)ecti+e ,or1mans-ip and utiliCation o) materials ,-ic- ,ere not in compliance ,it- speci)ications. Atlantic )iled a complaint )or sum o) money representing cost o) materials and )or labor on t-e -ouses constructed ,it- damages ,it- t-e R&$ o) a1ati. In addition/ t-ey also )iled a notice o) lis pendens )or annotation during t-e pendency o) t-e ci+il case t-ey )iled. 7erbal )iled a otion to .ismiss t-e $omplaint )or lac1 o) 0urisdiction and )or )ailure to state a cause o) action. In addition/ t-ey )iled a otion to $ancel !otice o) 8is Pendens. &-ey argue t-at t-e !otices o) lis pendens are ,it-out basis because t-e action is a purely personal action to collect a sum o) money and reco+er damages and does not directly a))ect title to/ use/ or possession o) real property. R&$ initially granted t-e otion to $ancel !oticeP -o,e+er/ t-ey re+ersed and reinstated t-e !otices a)ter Atlantic )iled a otion )or Reconsideration. $A reinstated t-e initial order o) t-e R&$ granting 7erbalEs otion to $ancel t-e !otice o) 8is Pendens. ISS34' 5-et-er or not money claims representing cost o) materials )or and labor on t-e -ouses constructed on property are a proper lien )or annotation o) lis pendens on t-e property titled. 748.' !o. As a general rule/ t-e only instances in ,-ic- a notice o) lis pendens may be a+ailed o) are as )ollo,s' AaB an action to reco+er possession o) real estateP AbB an action )or partitionP and AcB any ot-er court proceedings t-at directly a))ect t-e title to t-e land or t-e building t-ereon or t-e use or t-e occupation t-ereo). &-e complaint ,as a purely personal action and a simple collection case. It did not contain any material a+erment o) any en)orceable rig-t/ interest or lien in connection ,it- t-e sub0ect matter. &-e annotation o) a notice o) lis pendens on titles is not proper ,-ere t-e proceedings instituted are actions in personam. BRIOSO vs. RILI5)ARIANO %A$&S'

Spouses ariano/ t-roug- t-e 8and Ban1 o) t-e P-ilippines/ repurc-ased t-e property t-at t-ey pre+iously sold to (licerio Brioso A<(licerio< )or bre+ityB ,it-in t-e period speci)ied in t-e parties= pacto de retro sale. .espite repeated demands/ -o,e+er/ (licerio re)used to deli+er t-e entire property to t-e Spouses ariano. &-us/ t-e Spouses ariano )iled a complaint )or reco+ery o) possession o) real property against (licerio. .e)endants/ t-rougt-eir counsels/ Augusto Pardalis A<Atty. Pardalis< )or bre+ityB and Sal+ador/ asserted t-at t-e Spouses ariano -ad no cause o) action against (licerio because t-e latter -ad already lost all interest in t-e land. .e)endants claimed t-at (licerio installed -is son 4rnesto/ -is daug-ter $oncepcion and -is employee 4usebio as tenants o) t-e property be)ore t-e repurc-ase/ t-ere)ore/ t-ey ,ere bona )ide culti+ators#possessors o) t-e land. .e)endants also a+erred t-at t-e titles to t-e Properties -ad already been trans)erred to t-e 8and Ban1. .e)endants added t-at t-e complaint ,as de)ecti+e as it )ailed to implead 8and Ban1 and $oncepcion=s -usband as indispensable parties. As part o) t-eir counterclaim/ de)endants alleged t-at t-e Spouses ariano )ailed to comply ,it- t-eir obligation to replace t-e 8and Ban1 bonds A,-ic- Spouses ariano used to partly pay t-e repurc-ase priceB ,it- cas-. Subse>uently/ Spouses ariano amended t-eir complaint to implead 8and Ban1 and Sps. $oncepcion. &-erea)ter/ (licerio died. Accordingly/ de)endants/ t-roug- Atty. Pardalis/ )iled a !otice o) .eat- o) (licerio Brioso. Subse>uently/ t-e Spouses ariano=s counsel )iled a otion )or Substitution o) .eceased .e)endant ,-ic- Atty. Pardalis recei+ed. &-e motion ,as admitted by t-e trial court. (licerio t-en lost t-e case. ISS34S' 1. 5-et-er t-ere ,as a +alid substitution o) deceased (licerioP and 2. 5-et-er t-e trial court ac>uired 0urisdiction o+er t-e persons o) t-e petitioners. 748.' 1. &-ere ,as no +alid substitution. It must be pointed out t-at/ contrary to t-e Spouses ariano=s +ie,/ t-eir complaint )or reco+ery o) possession o) real property is an action ,-icsur+i+es t-e deat- o) a party. Suc- being t-e case/ t-e rule on substitution o) a deceased party is clearly applicable. 3nder t-e e:press terms o) Section 17 o) t-e old Rules/ in case o) t-e deat- o) a party and due notice is gi+en to t-e trial court/ it is t-e duty o) t-e court to order t-e deceased=s legal representati+e or -eir to appear )or t-e deceased. *t-er,ise/ <t-e trial -eld by t-e court ,it-out appearance o) t-e deceased=s legal representati+e or substitution o) -eirs and t-e 0udgment rendered a)ter trial/ are null and +oid.= 7o,e+er/ despite t-e trial court=s )ailure to ad-ere to t-e rule on substitution o) a deceased party/ its 0udgment remains +alid and binding on t-e )ollo,ing -eirs/ namely/ Sal+ador/ $oncepcion and 4rnesto. %ormal substitution o) -eirs is not necessary ,-en t-e -eirs t-emsel+es +oluntarily appeared/ s-ared in t-e case and presented e+idence in de)ense o) deceased de)endant. 2. &-e proceedings and 0udgment o) t-e trial court are +oid only as to t-e -eirs ,-o did not participate in t-e trial. &-ere is no iota o) proo) t-at t-ey ,ere apprised o) t-e litigation against (licerio. &-ere is no indication t-at t-ey aut-oriCed Atty. Pardalis to represent t-em or any s-o,ing t-at t-ey appeared in t-e proceedings. (i+en t-ese )acts/ t-e trial court clearly did not ac>uire 0urisdiction o+er t-eir persons. Suc- being t-e case/ t-ese -eirs cannot be bound by t-e 0udgment o) t-e trial court Sun)lo,er !eig-bor-ood Soli+6an7 Corporation v Arrieta %acts' $armen Arrieta is a ban1 depositor o) Solidban1 $orporation. S-e issued an S$B c-ec1 in t-e amount o) P??"."" in t-e name o) 8opueEs .epartment Store in payment o) -er

purc-ases )rom said store. 5-en t-e c-ec1 ,as deposited by t-e store to its account/ t-e same ,as dis-onored due to KAccount $losedL despite t-e )act t-at at t-e time t-e c-ec1 ,as presented )or payment/ $armenEs c-ec1ing account ,as still acti+e and bac1ed up by a deposit o) P1.27;.2". $onse>uently/ t-e department store sent a demand letter to $armen t-reatening -er ,it- criminal prosecution unless s-e redeemed t-e c-ec1 ,it-in ; days. &o a+oid criminal prosecution/ $armen paid ??"."" in cas- to t-e store and a surc-arge o) ?? )or t-e bouncing c-ec1. $armen )iled a complaint against Solidban1 $orporation )or damages alleging t-at t-e ban1/ by its carelessness in certi)ying t-at -er account ,as closed/ destroyed -er and -er )amilyEs good name and reputation in t-e )orm o) mental anguis-/ sleepless nig-ts etc.... &-e ban1 claimed t-at $armen +iolated conditions go+erning t-e establis-ment o) operation o) a current account and -er account ,as recommended )or closure. In any case/ t-e ban1 claimed good )ait- in declaring -er account closed because one o) t-e cler1s/ ,-o substituted )or t-e regular cler1/ committed an -onest mista1e ,-en -e t-oug-t t-at t-e sub0ect account ,as already closed ,-en t-e ledger containing t-e said account could not be )ound. &rial $ourt and t-e $A ruled in )a+or o) $armen. Issue' 5-et-er or not respondents are entitled to damages 7eld' Ies. $ase la, lays out t-e )ollo,ing conditions )or t-e a,ard o) moral damages' 1. t-ere is an in0ury R ,-et-er p-ysical/ mental o) psyc-ological R clearly sustained by t-e claimant 2. culpable act or omission is )actually establis-ed. ?. t-e ,rong)ul act or omission o) t-e de)endant is t-e pro:imate cause o) t-e in0ury sustained by t-e claimant 2. t-e a,ard o) damages is predicated on any o) t-e cases stated in Article 2219 o) t-e $i+il $ode. All 2 re>uisites ,ere establis-ed' 1. $armen is a longstanding depositor o) Solidban1/ a department secretary o) $4!4$* Acooperati+eB/ deaconess o) $-ristian Alliance $-urc-. 3nderstandably s-e su))ered anguis- and social -umiliation ,-en people learned and tal1ed about -er bounced c-ec1. 2. it is undisputed t-at sub0ect c-ec1 ,as ,rong)ully dis-onored. ?. t-e ,rong)ul dis-onor ,as t-e pro:imate cause o) -er -umiliation 2. treating t-e account as closed merely because t-e ledger could not be )ound ,as a rec1less act t-at could not be simply be brus-ed o)) as an -onest mista1e. &-e negligence in t-is case ,as so gross as to amount to a ,ill)ul in0ury. Art 21 o) $$ states t-at any person ,-o ,ill)ully causes loss or in0ury to anot-er in a manner t-at is contrary to morals/ good customs or public policy s-all compensate t-e latter )or t-e damages/ Art. 2219 pro+ides )or t-e reco+ery o) moral damages )or act re)erred to in t-e Art 21. 7ence/ t-e ban1 is liable. REP8BLIC 3S. AG8NO4 %acts' (regorio Agunoy )iled -is application )or )ree patent o+er 8ots 1?21 and 1?22/ an 1D#-a. parcel o) land. &-is application ,as granted. &-e )ree patent led to t-e issuance o) *$& P#

2;22. S-ortly a)ter/ t-e -eirs o) PereC caused an annotation o) an ad+erse claim in t-eir )a+or o+er 1;.1 -ectares o) t-e land co+ered by *$& P#2;22. &-e -eirs o) PereC later )iled a )ormal protest. &-e in+estigation o) t-e Bureau o) 8ands s-o, t-at t-e )ree patent in )a+or o) Agunoy ,as indeed )raudulently obtained. .espite t-e protest/ numerous transactions regarding t-e land ,ere made on t-e Agunoy side Asubdi+ision o) t-e lots/ sales/ mortgagesB causing t-e -eirs o) PereC to )ile a supplemental protest. *n in+estigation by t-e Bureau o) 8ands/ it ,as )ound t-at an *$& )or t-e lot co+ered by t-e )ree patent already e:isted at t-e time o) t-e granting o) t-e )ree patent. &-ese )acts broug-t t-e Republic/ t-roug- t-e *S(/ to )ile a case against se+eral de)endants ,-o are successors#in#interest o) Agunoy. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e Republic is a real party#in#interest 7eld' &-e Republic is not t-e real party#in#interest. &o >uali)y a person to be a real party#in# interest in ,-ose name an action must be prosecuted/ -e must appear to be t-e present real o,ner o) t-e rig-t soug-t to be en)orced. As stated in t-e )acts/ t-e land soug-t to be recon+eyed in t-e Republic=s suit belongs to a pri+ate party by +irtue o) t-e *$& pre+iously issued to suc- party and is no longer a disposable public land at t-e time o) t-e )raudulent granting o) )ree patent. &-e Republic t-en no longer -as a rig-t to t-e recon+eyance o) t-e land. Rio9erio v CA %acts' Al)onso *r)inada Jr. died intestate and le)t properties in Angeles/ .agupan and Saloo1an. 7e -ad a ,i)e and se+en legitimate c-ildren. 7e also -ad a paramour/ ,it- ,-om -e -ad ? illegitimate c-ildren. &-e legitimate c-ildren learned t-at t-e paramour/ along ,it- -er c-ildren/ e:ecuted an 4:tra0udicial Settlement o) 4state o) a .ecease Persond in+ol+ing t-e properties o) t-eir )at-er. As a conse>uence/ t-e deceasedEs land in .agupan ,ere trans)erred under t-e name o) t-e illegitimate c-ildren. Al)onso III/ a legitimate c-ild o) t-e deceased/ )iled a Petition )or 8etters o) Administration be)ore t-e R&$ o) Angeles ASP ;11DB. Subse>uently/ t-e legitimate -eirs )ile a complaint to annul t-e e:tra0udicial settlement o) t-e estate o) t-eir deceased )at-er. &-e illegitimate c-ildren assert t-at t-e real party#in#interest in t-e case )or annulment is t-e 4state o) Al)onso *r)inada/ and not -is legitimate c-ildren/ since administration proceedings -a+e already been instituted. &-e R&$ -eld t-at t-e legitimate c-ildren/ as -eirs/ are t-e real parties#in@interest especially since no administrator -as yet been appointed in SP ;11D. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e -eirs -a+e legal standing to prosecute t-e rig-ts belonging to t-e deceased subse>uent to t-e commencement o) t-e administration proceedings. 7eld' 7eirs -a+e legal standing. 4+en i) administration proceedings -a+e already been commenced/ t-e -eirs may still bring t-e suit i) an administrator -as not yet been appointed. &-e $ourt cited (oc-an + Ioung/ stating' !o rule categorically addresses t-e situation in ,-ic- special proceedings )or t-e settlement o) an estate -a+e already been instituted/ yet no administrator -as been appointed. In suc- instances/ t-e -eirs cannot be e:pected to ,ait )or t-e appointment o) an administrator/ t-en ,ait )urt-er to see i) t-e administrator appointed ,ould care enougto )ile a suit to protect t-e rig-ts and t-e interests o) t-e deceasedP and in t-e meantime do not-ing ,-ile t-e rig-ts and t-e properties o) t-e decedent are +iolated or dissipated.

&-ere)ore/ t-e rule t-at -eirs -a+e no legal standing to sue )or t-e reco+er o) t-e property o) t-e estate during t-e pendency o) admin proceedings no, -as t-ree e:ceptions' 1. i) t-e e:ecutor or administrator is un,illing or re)uses to bring suit 2. ,-en t-e administrator is alleged to -a+e participated in t-e act complained o) and -e is made a party de)endant ?. ,-ere t-ere is no appointed administrator. HEIRS O0 BERT8L1O HINOG vs. )ELICOR %A$&S' Balane brot-ers )iled a case against Bertuldo 7inog. &rial on t-e merits proceeded. 7inog died. !e, counsel ,as -ired. 7inogEs ne, la,yer )iled a motion to -a+e t-e complaint against -is client e:punged )rom t-e records and t-e proceedings nulli)ied due to t-e )ailure o) t-e Balane brot-ers to pay t-e prescribed doc1et )ees. $ourt granted t-is motion/ but reinstated t-e case ,-en t-e Balane brot-ers paid t-e de)iciency doc1et )ees. &-erea)ter/ 7inog )iled supplemental pleadings. A )e, mont-s t-erea)ter/ petitioner -eirs )iled ,it- t-e S$ a petition )or certiorari and pro-ibition/ alleging t-at t-e public respondent committed (A. in allo,ing t-e case to be reinstated a)ter t-e Balane brot-ers paid t-e de)iciency doc1et )ees since t-e &$ -ad earlier e:punged t-e complaint )rom t-e records and nulli)ied t-e proceedings and t-e pri+ate respondents did not contest t-is. oreo+er/ t-ey argue t-at t-e &$ committed (A. in allo,ing t-e reinstatement o) t-e case despite t-e de)ect in t-e complaint ,-ic- prayed )or damages ,it-out speci)ying t-e amounts/ in +iolation o) an S$ circular. ISS34S' A1B 5-et-er or not direct resort to t-e S$ in t-is case ,as proper6 A2B 5-et-er or not t-e petitioners ,ere rig-t in c-allenging t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e court to reinstate t-e case upon t-e payment o) t-e de)iciency doc1et )ees6 A?B 5-et-er or not reinstatement o) t-e present case ,as proper6 A2B 5-et-er or not t-ere ,as proper substitution o) parties6 748.' A1B .irect resort to t-e S$ ,as !*& proper. Petitioners must obser+e t-e proper -ierarc-y o) courts. A direct in+ocation o) t-e S$Es original 0urisdiction to issue t-ese ,rits s-ould be allo,ed only ,-en t-ere are special and important reasons t-ere)or/ clearly and speci)ically set out in t-e petition. &-e rationale )or t-is rule is t,o#)old' AaB it ,ould be an imposition upon t-e precious time o) t-is $ourtP and AbB it ,ould cause an ine+itable and resultant delay/ intended or ot-er,ise/ in t-e ad0udication o) cases/ ,-ic- in some instances -ad to be remanded or re)erred to t-e lo,er court as t-e proper )orum under t-e rules o) procedure/ or as better e>uipped to resol+e t-e issues because t-is $ourt is not a trier o) )acts. t-is case/ no special and important reason or e:ceptional and compelling circumstance analogous to any o) t-e abo+e cases -as been adduced by t-e petitioners so as to 0usti)y direct recourse to t-is $ourt. &-e present petition s-ould -a+e been initially )iled in t-e $ourt o) Appeals in strict obser+ance o) t-e doctrine on t-e -ierarc-y o) courts. %ailure to do so is su))icient cause )or t-e dismissal o) t-e petition at bar. A2B Petitioners are estopped )rom c-allenging t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e &$. A)ter recogniCing t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e &$ by see1ing a))irmati+e relie) in t-e motion to ser+e a supplemental pleading upon pri+ate respondents/ petitioners are e))ecti+ely barred by estoppels )rom c-allenging t-is &$Es 0urisdiction. I) a party in+o1ed t-e 0urisdiction o) a court/ -e cannot t-erea)ter c-allenge it in t-e same case. &o rule ot-er,ise ,ould amount to speculating in t-e )ortune o) litigation/ ,-ic- is against t-e policy o) t-e court.

A?B

Reinstatement is proper

Plainly/ ,-ile t-e payment o) t-e prescribed doc1et )ee is a 0urisdictional re>uirement/ e+en its non#payment at t-e time o) )iling does not automatically cause t-e dismissal o) t-e case/ as long as t-e )ee is paid ,it-in t-e applicable prescripti+e or reglementary period/ more so ,-en t-e party in+ol+ed demonstrates a ,illingness to abide by t-e rules prescribing sucpayment. &-us/ ,-en insu))icient )iling )ees ,ere initially paid by t-e plainti))s and t-ere ,as no intention to de)raud t-e go+ernment/ t-e anc-ester rule does not apply. 3nder t-e peculiar circumstances o) t-is case/ t-e reinstatement o) t-e complaint ,as 0ust and proper considering t-at t-e cause o) action o) pri+ate respondents/ being a real action/ prescribes in t-irty years/ and pri+ate respondents did not really intend to e+ade t-e payment o) t-e prescribed doc1et )ee but simply contend t-at t-ey could not be )aulted )or inade>uate assessment because t-e cler1 o) court made no notice o) demand or reassessment. &-ey ,ere in good )ait- and simply relied on t-e assessment o) t-e cler1 o) court. A2B &-ere ,as no proper substitution o) parties.

!o )ormal substitution o) t-e parties ,as e))ected ,it-in t-irty days )rom date o) deat- o) Bertuldo/ as re>uired by Section 16/ Rule ? o) t-e Rules o) $ourt. !eedless to stress/ t-e purpose be-ind t-e rule on substitution is t-e protection o) t-e rig-t o) e+ery party to due process. It is to ensure t-at t-e deceased party ,ould continue to be properly represented in t-e suit t-roug- t-e duly appointed legal representati+e o) -is estate. !on#compliance ,it- t-e rule on substitution ,ould render t-e proceedings and 0udgment o) t-e trial court in)irm because t-e court ac>uires no 0urisdiction o+er t-e persons o) t-e legal representati+es or o) t-e -eirs on ,-om t-e trial and t-e 0udgment ,ould be binding. &-us/ proper substitution o) -eirs must be e))ected )or t-e trial court to ac>uire 0urisdiction o+er t-eir persons and to ob+iate any )uture claim by any -eir t-at -e ,as not apprised o) t-e litigation against Bertuldo or t-at -e did not aut-oriCe Atty. Petalcorin to represent -im. &-e list o) names and addresses o) t-e -eirs ,as submitted si:teen mont-s a)ter t-e deat- o) Bertuldo and only ,-en t-e trial court directed Atty. Petalcorin to comply ,it- t-e pro+isions o) Section 16/ Rule ? o) t-e Rules o) $ourt. Strictly spea1ing t-ere)ore/ be)ore said compliance/ Atty. Petalcorin -ad no standing in t-e court a >uo ,-en -e )iled -is pleadings. Be t-at as it may/ t-e matter -as been duly corrected by t-e *rder o) t-e trial court dated *ctober 1;/ 1999.

III.

Venue - Rule 4

Ben:uet )ana:ement Corporation vs. CA %acts' B $ and SBPI entered into a 8oan Agreement and ortgage &rust Indenture ,-ereby B $ loaned 19" Pesos ,it- a mortgage in )a+or o) SBPI o+er lots in Alaminos/ 8aguna and Iba/ Tambales. B $ )ailed to pay ,-en it became due.SBPI )iled an application )or e:tra0udicial )oreclosure be)ore R&$ Tambales. 8ater anot-er ,as )iled in San Pablo/ 8aguna ,it- a certi)ication t-at )oreclosure )ees ,ere paid by SBPI in Iba/ Tambales already. B $ )iled in San Pablo a re>uest not to gi+e due course to SBPIEs application. It alleged insu))iciency in )orm and substance and because SBPI included unaut-oriCed penalties and did not gi+e t-em a 6"#day grace period. A complaint ,as )iled in Tambales ,it- similar a+erments.&-e )oreclosure in 8aguna pus-ed t-ru. B $ tried to stop t-e registration o) t-e properties. &-e payment o) )oreclosure )ees ,as >uestioned in relation to t-e legality o) t-e auction sale and as to t-e +enue o) t-e sale and more importantly as to )orum s-opping on t-e part o) B $

in )iling se+eral in0unction suits as its remedy against SBPI. Issue' 5-at )ees need t-e applicant in a )oreclosure o) a mortgage pay and ,-ere6 7eld' &-e $ourt -eld t-at an applicant in an e:tra 0udicial )oreclosure o) mortgage under A. . !o. 99#1"#";#" co+ering di))erent properties in di))erent pro+inces is re>uired to pay only one )iling )ee regardless o) t-e number o) properties to be )oreclosed so long as t-e application co+ers only one transaction or indebtedness Apayment o) )ees is J3RIS.I$&I*!A8B. &-e Uenue -o,e+er o) t-e e:tra0udicial proceedings is t-e place ,-ere eac- mortgaged property is located. B $ is not guilty o) )orum s-opping naturally as t-e +enue )or a+ailing a remedy against suc- proceedings is also located in di))erent pro+inces. &-ey ,ere e+en -onest enoug- to certi)y t-e pendency o) similar proceedings in t-e Tambales court. Ban7 o9 Ameri/a NT ; SA v. CA 4duardo and Aurelio 8iton0ua o,ned 2 +essels and ,ere engaged in t-e s-ipping business t-roug- t-eir ,-olly o,ned corporations. &-ey deposited t-eir re+enues ,it- branc-es o) Ban1 o) America in t-e 3S and 7S. &-e ban1s induced t-em to add s-ips in t-eir operation/ o))ering easy loans. It ac>uired/ t-roug- 8iton0uasE corporation as borro,ers/ 2 more s-ips. &-e operation and )unds deri+ed/ as ,ell as possession o) t-e s-ips/ ,ere placed under t-e control o) t-e persons designated by t-e ban1. .ue to t-e ban1sE breac- o) )iduciary duties andQor negligence in t-e operation o) t-e 6 +essels/ t-e re+enues deri+ed )rom t-e operation o) all t-e +essels declined drastically. &-e loans ,ere not paid prompting t-e ban1s to -a+e all 6 +essels )oreclosed. &-e 8iton0uas also lost/ )rom t-eir personal )unds/ e>ui+alent to 1"V o) t-e ac>uisition cost o) t-e 2 +essels and ,ere le)t ,it- t-e unpaid balance o) t-eir loans ,it- t-e ban1s. &-e 8iton0uas claim t-at/ as trustees/ t-e ban1s did not )ully render an account o) t-e income deri+ed )rom t-e business and t-e proceeds o) t-e subse>uent )oreclosure sale. &-ey )iled a complaint ,it- t-e R&$ o) Pasig/ praying )or an accounting o) t-e re+enues deri+ed in t-e operation and o) t-e proceeds o) )oreclosure proceedings/ as ,ell as damages )or breac- o) trust. &-e ban1s )iled a otion to .ismiss on grounds o) )orum non con+eniens. &-e R&$ and $A denied t-e ban1sE motions. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e complaint be dismissed on t-e ground o) )orum non#con+eniens6 7eld' !o/ t-e complaint s-ould not be dismissed. &-e doctrine o) )orum non#con+eniens/ literally meaning Wt-e )orum is incon+enientE/ aims to deter t-e practice o) global )orum s-opping/ t-at is to pre+ent non#resident litigants )rom c-oosing t-e )orum or place ,-erein to bring t-eir suit )or malicious reasons/ suc- as to secure procedural ad+antages/ to annoy and -arass t-e de)endant/ to a+oid o+ercro,ded doc1ets/ or to select a more )riendly +enue. 3nder t-is doctrine/ a court/ in con)licts o) la, cases/ may re)use impositions on its 0urisdiction ,-ere it is not t-e most Kcon+enientL or a+ailable )orum and t-e parties are not precluded )rom see1ing remedies else,-ere. 5-et-er a suit s-ould be entertained or dismissed on t-e basis o) said doctrine depends largely upon t-e )acts o) t-e particular case and is addressed to t-e sound discretion o) t-e trial court. A P-ilippine $ourt may assume 0urisdiction o+er t-e case i) it c-ooses to do so/

pro+ided t-at t-e )ollo,ing re>uisites are met' A1B t-at t-e P-ilippine $ourt is one to ,-ict-e parties may con+eniently resort toP A2B t-at t-e P-ilippine $ourt is in a position to ma1e an intelligent decision as to t-e la, and t-e )actsP and/ A?B t-at t-e P-ilippine $ourt -as or is li1ely to -a+e po,er to en)orce its decision.L All t-ese re>uisites are present in t-e instant case. CAB8TIHAN vs. LAN1CENTER CONSTR8CTION %acts' *n .ecember ?/ 1996/ respondent A8andcenterB entered into a contract ,it- petitioner A$abuti-anB. &-e agreement stipulated t-at t-e petitioner ,ould assist t-e respondent in )acilitating and arranging t-e reco+ery o) certain properties in consideration )or 2"V o) t-e total area o) t-e property t-us reco+ered. &-e respondent breac-ed t-e agreement. Petitioner )iled an action )or speci)ic per)ormance ,it- damages. Respondent )iled a motion to dismiss on t-e ground t-at +enue ,as improperly laid. &-e respondent asserts t-at since t-e present case )iled by t-e petitioner is )or t-e reco+ery o) -er interest in t-e respondent corporationEs land/ t-en t-e action ,as in rem/ t-us according to Rule 2 Section 1/ t-e case s-ould -a+e been )iled in t-e court -a+ing 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect property. &-e respondent also argued t-at t-ere ,as a mis0oinder or non#0oinder o) parties to t-e case and t-at t-e paid )iling )ee ,as insu))icient. Issue' ,as +enue properly laid6 7eld' 5e agree ,it- petitioner. Sections 1 and 2/ Rule 2 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt pro+ide an ans,er to t-e issue o) +enue. Actions a))ecting title to or possession o) real property or an interest t-erein Areal actionsB/ s-all be commenced and tried in t-e proper court t-at -as territorial 0urisdiction o+er t-e area ,-ere t-e real property is situated. *n t-e ot-er -and/ all ot-er actions/ Apersonal actionsB s-all be commenced and tried in t-e proper courts ,-ere t-e plainti)) or any o) t-e principal plainti))s resides or ,-ere t-e de)endant or any o) t-e principal de)endants resides. &-e $ourt reiterated t-e rule t-at a case )or speci)ic per)ormance ,it- damages is a personal action/ ,-ic- may be )iled in a court ,-ere any o) t-e parties reside. In t-e present case/ petitioner see1s payment o) -er ser+ices in accordance ,it- t-e underta1ing t-e parties signed. Breac- o) contract gi+es rise to a cause o) action )or speci)ic per)ormance or )or rescission. I) petitioner -ad )iled an action in rem )or t-e con+eyance o) real property/ t-e dismissal o) t-e case ,ould -a+e been proper on t-e ground o) lac1 o) cause o) action. !eit-er a mis0oinder nor a non#0oinder o) parties is a ground )or t-e dismissal o) an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order o) t-e court/ on motion o) any party or on t-e courtEs o,n initiati+e at any stage o) t-e action. &rue/ Section ;/ Rule 121 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt re>uires t-at t-e assessed +alue o) t-e real estate/ sub0ect o) an action/ s-ould be considered in computing t-e )iling )ees. But t-e $ourt -as already clari)ied t-at t-e Rule does not apply to an action )or speci)ic per)ormance/ ,-ic- is classi)ied as an action not capable o) pecuniary estimation. RO1OL0O 3. $AO 3. CO8RT O0 APPEALS AN1 PERICO 3. $AO %acts' Rodol)o and Perico ,ere t-e sons and -eirs o) Spouses Ignacio Jao &ayag and Andrea +. Jao ,-o died intestate on 19DD and 19D9/ respecti+ely. &-e decedents le)t real estate/ cas-/ s-ares o) stoc1 and ot-er personal properties. Perico t-en instituted a petition in R&$ XueCon $ity AX$B )or t-e issuance o) letters o) administration o+er t-e estate o) t-eir

parents/ alleging among ot-er t-ings/ t-at -is brot-er Roberto ,as dissipating t-e estateEs assets and ,as recei+ing rentals )rom se+eral properties ,it-out rendering t-e necessary accounting and )orcibly opening +aults and disposing o) t-e cas- and +aluables t-erein. Rodol)o mo+ed to dismiss A &.B t-e petition on t-e ground o) improper +enue. 7e alleged t-at t-e petition s-ould -a+e been instituted in Angeles $ity/ Pampanga AA$B ,-ere t-eir mot-er used to run a ba1ery and truly reside. 7e submitted documentary e+idence pre+iously e:ecuted by t-eir parents suc- as income ta: returns/ +oterEs a))ida+its/ statement o) assets and liabilities/ real estate ta: payments/ +e-icle registration and passports/ all indicating t-at t-eir residence ,as in A$. Perico countered t-at t-e residence at t-e time o) deat- ,as in X$/ as t-eir parents ,-o ,ere already undergoing medical treatment in t-e edical $ity in andaluyong -a+e been staying in Rodol)oEs -ouse in X$ )or )our years and t-at in t-eir deat- certi)icates/ Rodol)o -imsel)/ )illed in as place o) residence/ -is address in X$ and t-erea)ter/ a))i:ed -is signature. Rodol)o )iled a re0oinder and asserted t-at -e only put -is address as re)erence and t-at -e did so by mista1e and in good )ait- and )urt-er maintaining t-at it is A$ and not X$ t-at s-ould be t-e proper +enue. 3pon t-e )ailure o) bot- parties to nominate )or t-e estateEs administrator/ t-e court appointed $arlos Sundiam and denied Rodol)oEs &./ )urt-er ruling t-at -e cannot diso,n -is o,n representations by ta1ing an inconsistent position on -is o,n admission. Uia petition )or $ertiorari/ Rodol)o appealed and t-e $A a))irmed t-e denial. %R ,as also denied. ISS34' 574R4 S7*38. &74 S4&&84 4!& PR*$44.I!(S B4 7A.### I! A$/ 574R4 &74 PAR4!&SQ.4$4.4!&S 7A. &74IR P4R A!4!& R4SI.4!$4 *R I! X$/ 574R4 &74I A$&3A88I S&AI4. B4%*R4 &74IR .4 IS46 748.' &-e estate o) an in-abitant o) t-e P-ilippines s-all be settled or letters o) administration granted in t-e proper court located in t-e pro+ince ,-ere t-e decedent resides at t-e time o) -is deat-. ASec. 1/ Rule 7?/ Ro$B. Rodol)oEs contention in+o1ing t-e case o) 4usebio +. 4usebio ,as misplaced as t-e )acts t-erein di))ered )rom t-e case at bar. 3nli1e in 4usebio/ t-ere is substantial proo) t-at t-e decedents -a+e trans)erred to REs X$ residence and ot-er )actors indicate t-at t-eir stay ,as more t-an temporary. Rodol)o )ailed to su))iciently re)ute PericoEs assertion t-at t-eir elderly parents stayed in REs -ouse )or some t-ree to )our years be)ore t-ey died in t-e late 19D"s. %urt-ermore/ t-e decedentsE respecti+e deat- certi)icates state t-at t-ey ,ere botresidents o) XueCon $ity at t-e time o) t-eir demise. Signi)icantly/ it ,as Rodol)o -imsel) ,-o )illed up -is late mot-erEs deat- certi)icate. &o t-e S$/ t-is un>uali)iedly s-o,s t-at at t-at time/ at least/ R recogniCed -is deceased mot-erEs residence to be X$. P,ilippine Ban7 o9 Communi/ations vs. Lim P-ilippine Ban1 o) $ommunications )iled a complaint against 8im et.al/ )or t-e collection o) a de)iciency amounting to P2 e:clusi+e o) interest. PB$ alleged t-at 8im et.al obtained a loan )rom it and e:ecuted a continuing surety agreement in )a+or o) PB$ )or all loans/ credits/ etc./ t-at ,ere e:tended or may be e:tended in t-e )uture to 8im et. It ,as e:pressly stipulated t-erein t-at t-e +enue )or any legal action t-at may arise out o) said promissory note s-all be a1ati $ity/ Wto t-e e:clusion o) all ot-er courts. 8im et )ailed to pay/ -ence t-is case. 8im mo+ed to dismiss t-e complaint on t-e ground o) improper +enueAcase ,as )iled in anilaB/ in+o1ing t-e stipulation contained in t-e last paragrap- o) t-e promissory

note ,it- respect to t-e restricti+eQe:clusi+e +enue. appeals.

otion denied. $A re+ersed R&$. PB$

Issue' 5*! a restricti+e stipulation on t-e +enue o) actions contained in a promissory note applies to t-e surety agreement supporting it Ruling' It s-ould. A restricti+e stipulation on t-e +enue o) actions contained in a promissory note applies to t-e surety agreement supporting it/ because t-e nature o) t-e t,o contracts and t-e )actual circumstances surrounding t-eir e:ecution are intert,ined or interconnected. &-e surety agreement is merely an accessory to t-e principal loan agreement embodied in t-e promissory note. 7ence/ t-e en)orcement o) t-e )ormer depends upon t-e latter. Suretys-ip arises upon t-e solidary binding o) a person ## deemed t-e surety ## ,it- t-e principal debtor/ )or t-e purpose o) )ul)illing an obligation. &-e prestation is not an original and direct obligation )or t-e per)ormance o) t-e suretyEs o,n act/ but merely accessory or collateral to t-e obligation contracted by t-e principal. Alt-oug- t-e surety contract is secondary to t-e principal obligation/ t-e surety assumes liability as a regular party to t-e underta1ing. In en)orcing a surety contract/ t-e Kcomplementary#contracts#construed@toget-erL doctrine )inds application. F2?Y According to t-is principle/ an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and toget-er ,it- t-e principal agreement.N22O &-is principle is used in construing contractual stipulations in order to arri+e at t-eir true meaningP certain stipulations cannot be segregated and t-en made to control.N2;O &-is no#segregation principle is based on Article 1?72 o) t-e $i+il $ode/ ,-ic- ,e >uote' KArt. 1?72. &-e +arious stipulations o) a contract s-all be interpreted toget-er/ attributing to t-e doubt)ul ones t-at sense ,-ic- may result )rom all o) t-em ta1en 0ointly.L &-e a)orementioned doctrine is applicable to t-e present case. Incapable o) standing by itsel)/ t-e SA can be en)orced only in con0unction ,it- t-e P!. &-e latter documents t-e debt t-at is soug-t to be collected in t-e action against t-e sureties. PB$ argues based on Section ; o) Rule 2 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt. 7o,e+er/ t-e cause o) action/ -o,e+er/ does not a))ect t-e +enue o) t-e action. Pilipino Telep,one Corporation vs. Te/son %acts' &ecson applied )or si: A6B cellular p-one subscriptions ,it- Pilipino &elep-one/ ,-ic- ,ere appro+ed by si: A6B mobile ser+ice agreements. A)ter a )e, years/ &ecson )iled a complaint against Pilipino &elep-one )or A Sum *) oney in R&$ 8anao del !orte. Pilipino &elep-one mo+ed )or t-e dismissal o) t-e complaint on t-e ground o) improper +enue/ citing a pro+ision in t-e mobile ser+ice agreement t-at all +enue o) suits arising )rom sucAgreement s-all be broug-t to t-e a1ati $ourts/ ,it- t-e subscriber e:pressly ,ai+ing all ot-er +enues. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e case s-ould be litigated in 8anao del !orte despite pro+ision in t-e mobile ser+ice agreement t-at suits bet,een suc- parties be litigated in a1ati $ity6 7eld' &-e suit in 8anao s-ould be dismissed )or improper +enue. Section 2/ Rule 2 o) t-e Re+ised Rules o) $i+il Procedure allo,s parties to agree and stipulate in ,riting/ be)ore t-e )iling o) an action/ on t-e e:clusi+e +enue o) any litigation bet,een t-em. Suc- an agreement ,ould be +alid and binding pro+ided t-at t-e stipulation on t-e c-osen +enue is e:clusi+e in nature or in intent/ t-at it is e:pressed in ,riting by t-e parties t-ereto/ and t-at it is entered into

be)ore t-e )iling o) t-e suit. &-e pro+ision in t-e obile Ser+ice Agreement concerning a1ati $ourts as to t-e +enue o) suits complies ,it- t-e a)orementioned re>uisites. &-e lo,er courtEs ruling on t-e agreement Aas to +enueB as not binding on &ecson because it is a contract o) ad-esion is o) no moment. $ontracts o) ad-esion are not per se ine))icacious. It is only struc1 do,n ,-en suc- contracts lea+e t-e ,ea1er party ,it- no c-oice by t-e dominant bargaining party. Suc- is not present in t-is case. Respondent secured si: A6B subscription contracts )or cellular p-ones. &ecson -ad su))icient opportunity to read and go o+er t-e terms and conditions embodied in t-e agreements. Suit is dismissed )or improper +enue.

IV.

Summary Procedure - Rule 5

$ALI<8E 3s 1AN1AN %A$&S' Spouses Jali>ue )iled a complaint )or unla,)ul detainer against respondents be)ore t-e e&$ o) Pasig $ity. &-e Jali>ues alleged t-at t-ey are t-e registered o,ners o) t-e lot and t-e respondents are t-e tenants o) a portion o) t-e lot based on a mont- to mont- +erbal agreement. &-e Jali>ues a+erred t-at t-e respondents re)used to )ormaliCe t-eir lease agreement and t-ere)ore t-ey ,ere le)t ,it- no c-oice but to terminate t-e lease agreement. &-e respondents re)used to +acate despite demands made by t-e Jali>ues. Respondents did not )ile an Ans,er to t-e complaint/ but )iled a Joint $ounter A))ida+it/ disputing t-e material allegations o) t-e $omplaint and presenting +alid issues. &-e Jali>ues )iled a otion )or Judgment on t-e $omplaint. &-e e&$ / )inding t-at t-e respondents )ailed to )ile an Ans,er/ rendered 0udgment Ain )a+or o) t-e Jali>uesB on t-e $omplaint pursuant to Sec. 6 o) t-e Re+ised Rule on Summary Procedure. Respondents appealed. R&$ a))irmed t-e decision o) t-e e&$. $A annulled t-e R&$ decision and decreed t-at t-e case be remanded to t-e e&$ )or -earing on t-e merits. ISS34' 5-et-er or not t-e $A erred in annulling and setting aside t-e decisions o) t-e e&$ and t-e R&$ and ordering t-e case be remanded to t-e e&$ )or -earing on t-e merits. 748.' !o. &-e $A did not err in remanding t-e case to t-e e&$ )or -earing on t-e merits. &-e rules on Summary Procedure ,ere promulgated to ac-ie+e an e:peditious and ine:pensi+e determination o) cases specially in unla,)ul detainer cases because t-ey in+ol+e possession o) property posing a t-reat to t-e peace o) t-e society. 7o,e+er/ in t-is case/ t-e situation calls )or a liberal/ not tec-nical and rigid/ interpretation o) t-e rule on Summary Procedure in t-e lig-t o) t-e presence rat-er t-an a total absence o) a responsi+e pleading. &-e Joint $ounter A))ida+it s-o,s t-at it disputed t-e material allegations o) t-e $omplaint and presented +alid issues )or t-e lo,er courtEs resolution/ suc- as t-e o,ners-ip o) t-e sub0ect lot/ t-e period o) lease/ rig-t o) reimbursement )or impro+ements and t-e rig-t to e0ect. !ot all la,yers are gi)ted ,it- t-e s1ill to cra)t pleadings t-at )ully meet t-e re>uirements as to substance and )orm. But ,-at matters is t-e substance and not t-e )orm. In addition/ ,-at is important is t-at t-e case be decided upon merits and t-at it s-ould not be allo,ed to go o)) on procedural points. Siasat vs. CA $ase )or e0ectment. Summons ,ere duly issued on .ecember 1D/ 1991. *n January 2/ 1992/ reglementary period e:pired ,it-out t-e petitioners )iling an

ans,er. &-us/ t-ey ,ere declared in de)ault. *n January 2"/ 1992/ 2D days a)ter t-e e:piration o) t-e period to ans,er/ Atty. Uitan/ counsel )or petitioners/ )iled a K otion to 8i)t *rder o) .e)ault.L &-e motion ,as denied. *n 2? arc- 1992/ a decision ,as rendered by t-e &$ against petitioners. !o appeal ,as )iled resulting in t-e issuance o) a ,rit o) e:ecution. S-eri)) ser+ed t-e ,rit o) e:ecution ,it- respect to t-e e0ectment aspect o) t-e case. Relati+e to t-e monetary aspect/ s-eri)) le+ied upon se,ing mac-ines and ot-er personal properties. Sale did not materialiCe due to an order sc-eduled sale did not materialiCe due to an order o) 4:ecuti+e Judge in connection ,it- t-e Petition )or Relie) )rom Judgment Ao) t-e &$ decisionB ,it- preliminary in0unction and restraining order )iled by petitioners ,it- t-e a1ati Regional &rial $ourt. In t-e petition )or relie) )rom 0udgment/ petitioners Siasat and *ng blamed Atty. Uitan )or t-e alleged negligence and bad )ait- in causing t-em to be in de)ault and in )ailing to appeal. *n 2; ay 1992/ t-e R&$ issued t-e ,rit o) preliminary in0unction/ en0oining t-e s-eri)) )rom proceeding ,it- t-e auction sale o) t-e personal properties o) Siasat.

Issue' 5-et-er t-ere e:ist genuine issues o) material )acts constituti+e o) petitionersE substantial and meritorious claim. 7eld' &-e case at bar arose )rom Ka simple e0ectmentL o) petitioners )rom t-e leased premises initiated in t-e etropolitan &rial $ourt/ a1ati. &-e Re+ised Rule on Summary Procedure co+ers all e0ectment cases/ regardless o) ,-et-er t-ey in+ol+e >uestions o) o,ners-ip. 3nder t-at Rule/ a petition )or relie) )rom 0udgment is a pro-ibited pleading. 7ence/ a party to an e0ectment suit in t-e municipal trial court may not )ile suc- pleading in t-e regional trial court. Boni9a/io La= O99i/e vs. Bellosillo %acts' Atty. Salomon o) t-e Boni)acio 8a, *))ice c-arged t-en acting Judge Bellosillo ,itignorance o) t-e la,/ gra+e abuse o) discretion/ and ob+ious partiality. &-e respondent issued an *rder re)erring t-e e0ectment case bac1 to t-e barangay )or conciliation proceedings despite t-e copy o) t-e $erti)ication to %ile otion attac-ed to t-e +eri)ied complaint. $omplainant assailed t-e said *rder. &-e $ourt insisted t-at t-e case be re)erred bac1 to t-e barangay and -ence/ t-e complainant decided to 0ust )ile a notice to ,it-dra, complaint. 7o,e+er/ t-e said dismissal ,as denied. It ,as only a)ter a year )rom t-e time t-e complaint ,as )iled t-at respondent ordered t-e summons be ser+ed on de)endants. 5-en de)endants )ailed to )ile an Ans,er/ -e )iled a otion to Render Judgment in accordance ,it- t-e pro+isions o) Sec. ; o) t-e Rules on Summary Procedure. 7o,e+er/ instead o) rendering 0udgment/ respondent merely re>uired de)endants to comment on t-e motion to render 0udgment. A)ter de)endants )iled t-eir comment/ respondent still did not act on t-e said motion. Issue' S-ould t-e 0udge be -eld administrati+ely liable )or ignorance o) t-e la,/ gra+e abuse o) discretion/ and ob+ious partiality6 7eld' &-e records s-o, t-at t-e $erti)ication to %ile Action ,as improperly and

prematurely issued as t-ere ,as no personal con)rontation be)ore a duly constituted Pang1at ng &agapag1asndo. 7ence/ respondent ,as not incorrect in remanding t-e case to t-e barangay )or completion o) t-e mandated proceedings. 7is act cannot be e>uated ,itgross ignorance o) t-e la,. &-e 0udge issued summons and opted to continue ,it- t-e court proceedings ,it-out insisting on strict compliance ,it- t-e mandated barangay proceedings. 7e did so a)ter noting t-at t-e case )ell under t-e Rules on Summary Proceedure. Suc- act o) t-e 0udge is a 0udicial error and cannot be corrected in administrati+e proceedings. Because -e c-ose to continue ,it- t-e proceedings o) t-e case/ and because respondents )ailed to ans,er t-e e0ectment $omplaint on time/ -e s-ould -a+e rendered 0udgment ,it-in ?" days )rom t-e e:piration o) t-e period to )ile an ans,er. ASec. 6 and 1"/ Rules on Summary ProceedingsB 7e rendered 0udgment almost a year )rom t-e time t-e case -ad been deemed submitted )or resolution. %ailure o) 0udges to decide cases ,it- dispatc- constitutes gross ine))iciency and ,arrants t-e imposition o) administrati+e sanctions on t-em. &-e respondent ,as )ound guilty o) undue delay in rendering a decision. 0RANCISCA PASC8AL vs. $81GE E18AR1O $O3ELLANOS %acts' &-e complainant/ %rancisca Pascual/ )iled a complaint )or )orcible entry against 8orenCo anaois. At )irst/ it ,as dismissed )or being insu))icient in some material allegations. A)ter )iling a corrected complaint/ t-e de)endant instead o) )iling an ans,er )iled a otion to Stri1e *ut saying t-at t-e ne, allegations ,ere )alse. As t-e period to ans,er lapsed ,it-out t-e de)endant -a+ing )iled one/ Pascual )iled a otion )or Summary Judgment o) ,-ic- t-e de)endant opposed. Judge Jo+ellanos granted t-e otion to Stri1e *ut o) t-e de)endant. Pascual )iled a otion )or Reconsideration. &-is led to t-e )iling o) t-e administrati+e complaint c-arging t-e 0udge ,it- gross ignorance o) t-e la,/ bias and partiality/ abuse o) discretion and neglect o) duty. ean,-ile/ t-e de)endant too1 ad+antage o) t-e situation by starting t-e construction o) a building. Pascual )iled an Application o) Preliminary In0unction ,-ic- ,as granted by t-e Judge. *n t-e last day o) t-e e))ecti+ity o) t-e &R*/ s-e )iled an 4:tremely 3rgent 4:#Parte otion to grant -er application )or in0unction ,-ic- ,as -o,e+er until t-e promulgation o) t-is S$ decision -as not been ruled upon by t-e Judge. Issue' 5*! t-e Judge may be -eld liable )or t-e c-arges mentioned in t-e administrati+e complaint )iled against -im. 7eld' *$A/ a)ter its in+estigation/ )ound t-at t-e respondent Judge indeed )ailed to apply t-e Rule on Summary Procedure and recommended t-at -e be )ined P1"/"""."" and be ,arned. 7o,e+er/ t-e S$/ not,it-standing its agreement ,it- t-e )indings o) t-e *$A/ increased t-e penalty as t-is ,as t-e respondentEs second in)raction. &-e S$ )ound t-at Judge Jo+ellanos lac1s t-e a,areness o) t-e rele+ant pro+isions on e0ectment. 7e -as e+idently been remiss in resol+ing t-e )orcible entry case/ pursuant to t-e Re+ised Rules on Summary Procedure. &-e 0udgment s-ould -a+e bee rendered based on t-e allegations o) t-e $omplaint an t-e e+idence presented t-erein/inasmuc- as t-e de)endant )ailed to )ile -is ans,er a)ter t-e lapse o) 1" days )rom t-e ser+ice o) t-e summons. Sec. 6 allo,s t-e $ourt to render 0udgment/ e+en motu propio/ upon )ailure o)

t-e de)endant to )ile an ans,er ,it-in t-e reglementary period. oreo+er/ under Sec. 1"/ respondent ,as duty#bound to render -is decision ,it-in ?" days )rom receipt o) t-e last a))ida+its and position papers/ or t-e e:piration o) t-e period )or )iling t-em. %urt-er/ respondent )ailed to apply t-ese +ery basic rules ,-en -e granted t-e de)endantEs otion to Stri1e *ut ,-ic- ,as in reality a otion to .ismiss/ a pro-ibited pleading. 8i1e,ise in t-e *rder -e issued ,-en -e ruled t-at t-e complaint in $i+il $ase !o. 72" ,as a mere re-aso) t-e dismissed complaint in $i+il $ase !o. 7?"/ -e cited t-at Sec. 12 o) Rule D as -is basis. &-is is an ob+ious mista1e s-o,ing gross ignorance o) t-e la, because )orcible entry is a ci+il case go+erned by t-e Rules on Summary Procedure. 8ac1 o) 1no,ledge o) t-e Rules on Summary Procedure re)lects a serious degree o) incompetence. Bo% vs. Court o9 Appeals (ROBLES( %acts' 8agrimas Boy A8agrimasB sold -er -ouse and lot to t-e Ramos Spouses. &-ey agreed t-at 8agrimas be gi+en time to +acate t-e premises/ but ,-en time came t-e Ramos spouses needed t-e -ouse/ t-ey demanded 8agrimas to +acate t-e premises/ but s-e re)used to do so. 7ence/ t-e Ramos spouses initiated an action )or e0ectment against 8agrimas in t-e etropolitan &rial $ourt A e&$B. 8agrimas de)ense ,as t-at s-e still o,ned t-e sub0ect property because t-e Ramos spouses allegedly -ad not yet paid t-e remaining balance. S-e contends t-at because o) t-e issue o) o,ners-ip/ t-e e&$ is ,it-out 0urisdiction to -ear t-e e0ectment case. Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e 8agrimas= de)ense o) o,ners-ip di+ests t-e 0urisdiction to -ear t-e e0ectment case. 7eld' !o. Prior to t-e e))ecti+ity o) B.P. Blg. 129 A&-e Judiciary ReorganiCation ActB/ t-e 0urisdiction o) in)erior courts ,as con)ined to recei+ing e+idence o) o,ners-ip in order to determine only t-e nature and e:tent o) possession/ by reason o) ,-ic- suc- 0urisdiction ,as lost t-e moment t-at it became apparent t-at t-e issue o) possession ,as ,o+en ,itt-at o) o,ners-ip. 5it- t-e enactment o) B.P. Blg. 129/ in)erior courts ,ere granted 0urisdiction to resol+e >uestions o) o,nders-ip pro+isionally in order to determine t-e issue o) possession. &-us/ in )orcible entry and unla,)ul detainer cases/ i) t-e de)endant raises t-e >uestion o) o,ners-ip in -is pleadings and t-e >uestion o) possession cannot be resol+ed ,it-out deciding t-e isssue o) o,ners-ip/ t-e in)erior courts may pro+isionally resol+e t-e issue o) o,ners-ip )or t-e sole purpose o) determining t-e issue o) possession. &-e &$ did not/ t-ere)ore/ err in ta1ing cogniCance o) t-e instant case. <uiros v. Ar*ona (SEE( -"# SCRA #> %acts' Petitioners Xuiros and Uillegas )iled ,it- t-e o))ice o) t-e barangay captain o) 8abney/ Pangasinan a complaint )or reco+ery o) o,ners-ip and possession o) a parcel o) land. Botsoug-t to reco+er )rom t-eir uncle Ar0ona t-eir late grandmot-er. *n January ;/ 1997/ an amicable settlement ,as reac-ed by t-e parties. In said agreement/ respondent Ar0ona undertoo1 to <gi+e a land consisting o) more or less one -ectare< to Xuiros and Uillegas. Petitioners rely on Section 216 o) t-e 8($ ,-ic- pro+ides t-at an amicable settlement s-all -a+e t-e )orce and e))ect o) a )inal 0udgment upon t-e e:piration o) 1" days )rom t-e date t-ereo)/ unless repudiated or nulli)ied by t-e proper court. &$ o) t-e

Petitioners )iled a complaint ,it- t-e $&$ ,it- prayer )or t-e issuance o) a ,rit o) e:ecution o) t-e compromise agreement ,-ic- ,as denied because t-e sub0ect property cannot be determined ,it- certainty. R&$ re+ersed t-e decision and ordered t-e issuance o) t-e ,rit o) e:ecution. $A re+ersed t-e decision o) t-e R&$ and reinstated t-e decision o) t-e $&$. Issue' A1B 5-et-er t-e amicable settlement bet,een t-e parties is +alid and en)orceable. A2B 5-et-er a ,rit o) e:ecution may issue on t-e basis o) t-e amicable settlement. 7eld' A1B I4S. &-ere ,as meeting o) t-e minds bet,een t-e contracting parties. In e:ecuting t-e Agreement/ t-e respondent undertoo1 to con+ey 1 -ectare o) land to petitioners ,-o accepted. &-e ob0ect is a 1 -ectare parcel o) land representing petitioners= in-eritance )rom t-eir deceased grandmot-er. &-e cause o) t-e contract is t-e deli+ery o) petitioners= s-are in t-e in-eritance. &-e inability o) t-e municipal court to identi)y t-e e:act location o) t-e in-erited property did not negate t-e principal ob0ect o) t-e contract. &-is is merely an error occationed by t-e )ailure o) t-e parties to de:cribe t-e sub0ect ptoperty/ ,-ic- is correctible by re)ormation and does not indicate t-e absence o) t-e principal ob0ect as to render t-e contract +oid. A2B !*. (enerally/ ,-ere no repudiation ,as made during t-e 1"#day period/ t-e amicable settlement attains t-e status o) )inality and it becomes t-e ministerial duty o) t-e court to implement and en)orce it. 7o,e+er/ suc- rule is not in)le:ible. &-e imperati+es o) substantial 0ustice/ or )acts t-at may -a+e transpired a)ter t-e )inality o) 0udgment ,-ic,ould render its e:ecution un0ust/ may ,arrant t-e suspension o) e:ecution o) a decision t-at -as become )inal and e:ecutory. In t-e case at bar/ t-e ends o) 0ustice ,ould be )rustrated i) a ,rit o) e:ecution is issued considering t-e uncertainty o) t-e ob0ect o) t-e agreement. &o do so ,ould open t-e possibility o) error and )uture litigations. &-e Agreement e:ecuted by Ar0ona purports to con+ey a parcel o) land consisting o) more or less 1 -ectare to petitioners. Anot-er Agreement/ prepared on t-e same date and e:ecuted by Banda ,-o signi)ied -is intention to +acate t-e parcel o) land -e ,as tilling located at &orrod/ 8abney/ Pangasinan/ )or and in be-al) o) t-e Ar0ona )amily. *n ocular inspection -o,e+er/ t-e municipal trial court )ound t-at t-e land re)erred to in t-e second Agreement ,as di))erent )rom t-e land being occupied by t-e petitioners. 7ence/ no ,rit o) e:ecution could be issued )or )ailure to determine ,it- certainty ,-at parcel o) land Ar0ona intended to con+ey.

V.

Preliminary Conference

Macasaet v.Macasaet, G.R.Nos. 154391-92, September 30, 2004

%A$&S' &-e present case in+ol+es a dispute bet,een parents Arespondents Uicente and Rosario acasaetB and c-ildren Apetitioners Ismael and &eresita acasaetB. &-e c-ildren ,ere in+ited by t-e parents to occupy t-e latterEs t,o lots/ out o) parental lo+e and a desire to )oster )amily solidarity. 3n)ortunately/ an unresol+ed con)lict terminated t-is situation. *ut o) pi>ue/ t-e parents as1ed t-em to +acate t-e premises and )iled an e0ectment suit ,itt-e &$$. &-e &$$ ruled in )a+or o) respondents/ t-us t-e c-ildren lost t-eir rig-t to remain on t-e property. *n appeal/ t-e R&$ up-eld t-e )indings o) t-e &$$/ but applied Article 22D o) t-e $i+il $ode Apetitioners -a+e t-e rig-t to be indemni)ied )or t-e usual

impro+ements t-at t-ey constructed in good )ait-B. 3pon denial o) t-eir indi+idual rs/ t-e parties )iled ,it- t-e $A separate Petitions )or Re+ie,/ ,-ic- ,ere later consolidated. Petitioners claim t-at t-e &$$ s-ould -a+e dismissed t-e case upon t-e )ailure o) respondents to attend t-e con)erence. 7o,e+er/ petitioners do not dispute t-at an attorney# in#)act ,it- a ,ritten aut-oriCation )rom respondents appeared during t-e preliminary con)erence. ISS34' 5-et-er or not t-e rule on appearance o) parties during t-e Pretrial s-ould apply on appearance o) parties during Preliminary $on)erence in an unla,)ul detainer suit. A5-et-er t-e rules on e0ectment allo, a representati+e to substitute )or a partyEs personal appearance.B 748.' Ies/ it s-ould apply. Section D o) Rule 7" o) t-e R*$ re>uires t-e appearance o) t-e plainti)) and t-e de)endant during t-e preliminary con)erence. 3nless inconsistent ,it- Rule 7"/ t-e pro+isions o) Rule 1D on pretrial applies to t-e preliminary con)erence. 3nder Sec 2 o) t-is Rule/ t-e non#appearance o) a party may be e:cused by t-e s-o,ing o) a +alid causeP or by t-e appearance o) a representati+e/ ,-o -as been )ully aut-oriCed in ,riting to enter into an amicable settlement/ to submit to alternati+e modes o) dispute resolution/ and to enter into stipulations or admissions o) )acts and o) documents. Section 2 o) Rule 1D may supplement Section D o) Rule 7". &-us/ t-e spirit be-ind t-e e:ception to personal appearance under t-e rules on pretrial is applicable to t-e preliminary con)erence. I) t-ere are +alid reasons o) i) a representati+e -as a Kspecial aut-ority/L a partyEs appearance may be ,ai+ed. As petitioners are c-allenging only t-e applicability o) t-e rules on pretrial to t-e rule on preliminary con)erence/ t-e ,ritten aut-oriCation )rom respondents can indeed be really considered as a Kspecial aut-oriCation.L Tu:ot vs. Coli9lores -" %acts' &-is case is rooted in an administrati+e case against Judge Rodrigo &ugot/ plainti)) in an e0ectment case. amerto $oli)lores )iled by one SCRA 1 (3ILLA)OR(

Among t-e c-arges against t-e 0udge ,as t-at $oli)lores )ailed to conduct t-e preliminary con)erence ,it-in t-e period mandated by t-e Rules o) $ourt. %or ,-ile in -is August 2D/ 199; order -e ac1no,ledged t-e )iling o) t-e last pleading/ sc-eduled t-e Kpre#trial con)erenceL )or September 26/ 199; and directed t-e parties to submit t-eir KPre#&rial Brie)sL t-ree days be)ore t-e -earing/ -e/ -o,e+er/ noted t-e )iling o) de)endantEs Pre#&rial Brie)/ only in -is *rder dated !o+ember 11/ 1997 R a period o) o+er t,o years. Judge $oli)lores based t-e delayed setting o) t-e preliminary con)erence on t-e pro+isions o) Rule 1D on pre#trial stating t-at suc- s-ould be conducted a)ter t-e last pleading -as been ser+ed and )iled and upon e: parte motion o) t-e plainti)) t-at t-e case be set )or pre#trial. Plainti)) &ugot/ on t-e ot-er -and/ culled upon Section D o) Rule 7". Issue' 5-et-er or not Judge $oli)lores is liable )or administrati+e c-arges )or )ailure to demonstrate t-e re>uired competence in administrating t-e e0ectment case +is#Z#+is t-e conduct o) preliminary con)erence6 7eld'

Ies. It must be noted t-at unla,)ul detainer and )orcible entry cases are co+ered by summary procedure. Accordingly/ tec-nicalities or details o) procedure s-ould be care)ully a+oided. Judge $oli)lores )ailed to obser+e t-e period ,it-in ,-ic- to conduct preliminary con)erence ,-ic-/ according to Section D o) Rule 7"/ s-all be -eld KFnYot later t-an t-irty A?"B days a)ter t-e last ans,er is )iled.L In t-e present case/ t-e preliminary con)erence ,as conducted more t-an t,o years a)ter t-e )iling o) t-e last ans,er. &-e respondent 0udge ,as mista1en in Kt-in1ingL t-at Rule 1D on pre#trial ,as t-e pro+ision applicable to e0ectment cases. Section D o) Rule 7" allo,s t-e application o) Rule 1D/ but only ,-ere t-e pro+isions o) t-e latter are consistent ,it- t-ose o) t-e )ormer/ being merely secondary t-ereto. It must be emp-asiCed t-at t-e adoption o) t-e Rule on Summary Procedure is part o) t-e commitment o) t-e 0udiciary to en)orce t-e constitutional rig-t o) litigants to a speedy disposition o) t-eir cases. It ,as promulgated )or t-e purpose o) ac-ie+ing Kan e:peditious and ine:pensi+e determination o) casesL. Any member o) t-e 0udiciary ,-o causes t-e delay soug-t to be pre+ented by t-e Rule is sanctionable.

VI.

PLEADINGS - Rules 6 to

BPI vs. CA& NLRC %acts' 29 ,or1ers )iled a $omplaint against BPI and .iarEs Assistance/ Inc. AagencyB )or t-e regulariCation o) t-eir ,or1 status. .uring t-e pendency o) t-e case/ t-e 29 ,or1ers prayed )or t-e inclusion o) 121 more as complainants a)ter t-e latter -ad signi)ied t-eir intention to 0oin t-e union. &-erea)ter/ t-e $omplaint ,as amended and t-e name o) t-e complainant c-anged to t-at o) t-e organiCation/ .iarEs 4mployees 8abor 3nion A3nionB and prayed t-at t-e employment status o) t-eir members be regulariCed by BPI. 8abor Arbiter dismissed t-e $omplaint. !8R$ a))irms. &-e 3nion )iled a ne, $omplaint )or t-e declaration o) its members as regular employees o) BPI. A)ter 8abor Arbiter dismissed t-e case )or lac1 o) merit/ t-e union appealed to t-e !8R$. BPI and t-e agency opposed t-e appeal and interposed )orum s-opping as one o) t-eir de)enses. &-e !8R$ set aside t-e labor arbiterEs .ecision and declared complainants as regular employees o) BPI and on t-e issue o) )orum s-opping/ it ruled t-at t-e complainants in t-e )irst case are not t-e same complainants in t-is t-ird case. Alt-oug- t-e causes o) action in t-e )irst case and t-is t-ird case are t-e same R )or t-e regulariCation o) t-e members o) complainant union R t-ere is no identity o) t-e parties in+ol+ed. &-e second case is )or in0unction and t-e same is/ t-ere)ore/ not similar to t-is case.L BPI )iled ,it- t-e $A a Petition )or $ertiorari under Rule 6;/ assailing t-e !8R$ .ecision. &-e $A dismissed t-e recourse on t-e ground t-at t-e +eri)ication -as been signed only by petitionerEs +ice president/ ,it-out e:press aut-ority )rom any board resolution or po,er o) attorney. 7ence t-is appeal. Issues A1B ,-et-er BPIEs Petition s-ould be dismissed due to irregularity o) its +eri)ication A2B ,-et-er t-e second regulariCation case is barred by res 0udicata. Ruling %irst Issue' .ismissal o) t-e Appeal on &ec-nicality A&-e rules on +eri)ication and )orum s-opping are in Sec 2 [ ; o) Rule 7 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt.B 5e -old t-at a liberal construction o) t-e rules on +eri)ication and )orum s-opping are in order. Ueri)ication is simply intended to secure an assurance t-at t-e allegations in t-e pleading are true and correct and not t-e product o) t-e imagination or a matter o) speculation/ and t-at t-e pleading is )iled in good )ait-.L ean,-ile/ t-e purpose o) t-e

a)oresaid certi)ication is to pro-ibit and penaliCe t-e e+ils o) )orum s-opping. 5e see no circum+ention o) t-ese ob0ecti+es by t-e +ice presidentEs signing t-e +eri)ication and certi)ication ,it-out e:press aut-oriCation )rom any e:isting board resolution. BPI is an indispensable party to t-e contro+ersy/ considering t-at its inclusion is necessary )or t-e e))ecti+e and complete resolution o) t-e case.&-e )act t-at respondent union commenced t-e case against BPI and .iar in a single $omplaint is an indication o) t-e indispensability o) bot- parties to t-e action. Second Issue' Res Judicata 3n>uestionably/ any ruling on t-e issue o) res 0udicata ,ould a))ect t-e )inal determination on t-e merits o) t-e $omplaint. &-is determination ,ill/ in turn/ a))ect .iar/ ,-ic- is not impleaded as a party in t-e present appeal. 7ence/ it ,ould not be proper )or t-is $ourt to resol+e t-e issue o) res 0udicata ,it-out .iar as a party be)ore it/ in +ie, o) t-e pendency o) t-e appeal. $ase remanded 1onato v. CA Petitioner .onato )iled a complaint )or )orcible entry and unla,)ul detainer against 2? named de)endants and <all un1no,n occupants<. &-e lo,er court ruled in )a+or o) t-e 2" de)endants ,-o contended t-at t-ey are protected by t-e 3rban 8and Re)orm 8a,. Petitioner t-en appealed to t-e $A but ,as not granted due to t,o grounds' AaB t-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping ,as signed by petitioner=s counsel and not by petitioner -imsel)/ in +iolation o) Re+ised $ircular !o. 2D#91P and/ AbB t-e only anne: to t-e petition is a certi)ied copy o) t-e >uestioned decision but copies o) t-e pleadings and ot-er material portions o) t-e record as ,ould support t-e allegations o) t-e petition are not anne:ed/ contrary to Section ?/ paragrap- b/ Rule 6 o) t-e Re+ised Internal Rules o) t-e $ourt o) Appeals ARIR$AB.So Petitioner )iled an R attac-ing t-ereto a p-otocopy o) t-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping duly signed by t-e petitioner -imsel) and t-e rele+ant records o) t-e e&$ and t-e R&$. ; days later/ petitioner )iled a Supplemental to -is motion )or reconsideration submitting t-e duly aut-enticated original o) t-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping signed by t-e petitioner. Issue' 5-et-er or not petitioner -as substantially complied ,it- S$ $ircular !o. 2D#916 7eld' &-is circular pro+ides t-at t-e petitioner -imsel) must ma1e t-e certi)ication against )orum s-opping and a +iolation t-ereo) s-all be a cause )or t-e summary dismissal o) t-e multiple petition or complaint. &-e rationale )or t-e rule o) personal e:ecution o) t-e certi)ication by t-e petitioner -imsel) is t-at it is only t-e petitioner ,-o -as actual 1no,ledge o) ,-et-er or not -e -as initiated similar actions or proceedings in ot-er courts or tribunalsP e+en counsel o) record may be una,are o) suc- )act.N2?O &-e $ourt -as ruled t-at ,it- respect to t-e contents o) t-e certi)ication/ t-e rule on substantial compliance may be a+ailed o). &-is is so because t-e re>uirement o) strict compliance ,it- t-e rule regarding t-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping simply underscores its mandatory nature in t-at t-e certi)ication cannot be altoget-er dispensed ,it- or its re>uirements completely disregarded/ but it does not t-ereby interdict substantial compliance ,it- its pro+isions under 0usti)iable circumstances. N22O &-e petition )or re+ie, )iled be)ore t-e $A contains a certi)ication against )orum s-opping but said certi)ication ,as signed by petitioner=s counsel. In submitting t-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping duly signed by -imsel) in -is motion )or reconsideration/ N2;O petitioner -as aptly dra,n t-e $ourt=s attention to t-e p-ysical impossibility o) )iling t-e petition )or re+ie, ,it-in t-e 1;#day reglementary period to appeal considering t-at -e

is a resident o) 112; Sout- Je))erson Street/ Roano1e/ Uirginia/ 3.S.A. ,ere -e to personally accomplis- and sign t-e certi)ication.5e )ully agree ,it- petitioner t-at it ,as p-ysically impossible )or t-e petition to -a+e been prepared and sent to t-e petitioner in t-e 3nited States/ )or -im to tra+el )rom Uirginia/ 3.S.A. to t-e nearest P-ilippine $onsulate in 5as-ington/ ..$./ 3.S.A./ in order to sign t-e certi)ication be)ore t-e P-ilippine $onsul/ and )or -im to send bac1 t-e petition to t-e P-ilippines ,it-in t-e 1;#day reglementary period. &-us/ ,e )ind t-at petitioner -as ade>uately e:plained -is )ailure to personally sign t-e certi)ication ,-ic- 0usti)ies rela:ation o) t-e rule. 4O8NG 3S. SENG %acts' Respondent Jo-n Seng Seng Aa.1.a. Jo-n SyB )iled a complaint )or Waccounting o) general agency/ in0unction/ turning o+er o) properties/ and damages/E ,it- t-e Regional &rial $ourt o) Bacolod $ity ABranc- ;?B/ against petitioner 4milio Ioung and -is ,i)e. &-e pri+ate respondent subse>uently )iled an Amended $omplaint ,it- t-e same $ourt. &-e spouses Ioung/ )or t-eir part/ )iled a otion to .ismiss t-e case )or lac1 o) cause o) action. $onse>uently/ R&$ issued an order dismissing t-e case. Respondent )iled an R o) t-e order o) dismissal. R&$ denied said R. Jo-n Seng Seng )iled anot-er complaint )or accounting and damages ,it- t-e Regional &rial $ourt o) Bacolod $ity ABranc- 22B against t-e -erein petitioner 4milio Ioung. Ioung )iled a otion to .ismiss t-e case on t-e ground t-at t-e Kcomplaint )ails to state a good/ +alid andQor ,ort-,-ile cause o) action against t-e de)endant.L R&$ denied t-e otion to .ismiss. &-e petitioner )iled a otion )or Reconsideration o) t-e a)oresaid order based on t-e )ollo,ing grounds' A1B t-at t-e complainant )ailed to state a good/ +alid andQor ,ort-,-ile cause o) action as against t-e de)endantP and A2B t-at t-e plainti)) -ad )atally )ailed to comply ,it- t-e rule against )orum s-opping/ as -e -as in )act deliberately submitted a )alse certi)ication under oat- as contained in t-e complaint in t-e present suit. Branc- 22 granted R/ dismissing case. Petitioner contends t-at t-e $A s-ould -a+e ordered t-e dismissal o) t-e Second $ase. Allegedly/ respondent ,as guilty o) )orum s-opping ,-en -e deliberately and ,ill)ully certi)ied )alsely under oat- t-at -e -ad not commenced any ot-er action or petition be)ore any court/ tribunal or agency in+ol+ing t-e same issue. *n t-e ot-er -and/ respondent claims t-at petitioner ,ai+ed t-is ground by )ailing to raise it in -is otion to .ismiss be)ore t-e trial court. Issues' 5-et-er petitioner can still raise t-e alleged +iolation o) t-e rule on non#)orum s-opping/ e+en i) -e )ailed to cite it as a ground in -is otion to .ismiss t-e Second $ase A,ai+erB 7eld' Section 1 o) Rule 9 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt pro+ides t-at de)enses and ob0ections not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in an ans,er are deemed ,ai+ed. 7o,e+er/ courts s-all nonet-eless dismiss t-e claim ,-en it appears )rom t-e pleadings or t-e e+idence on record t-at A1B t-e court -as no 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect matter/ A2B t-ere is anot-er action pending bet,een t-e same parties )or t-e same cause/ A?B t-e action is barred by prior 0udgment/ or A2B t-e statute o) limitations -as been crossed. &o determine ,-et-er a party +iolated t-e rule against )orum s-opping/ t-e most important )actor to as1 is ,-et-er t-e elements o) litis pendentia are present/ or ,-et-er a )inal 0udgment in one case ,ill amount to res 0udicata in anot-er. *t-er,ise stated/ t-e test )or determining )orum s-opping is ,-et-er in t-e t,o Aor moreB cases pending/ t-ere is identity o) parties/ rig-ts or causes o) action/ and relie)s soug-t. &-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping made in t-is case is inaccurate because it does not disclose t-e )iling o) t-e )irst case A,it- Branc- ;?B. 7ad t-is

+iolation been appropriately broug-t up in t-e otion to .ismiss/ it could -a+e resulted in t-e abatement o) t-e second case A,it- Branc- 22B. 7*54U4R/ t-e )irst case ,as dismissed because o) lac1 o) cause o) action. It ,as t-us a dismissal ,it-out pre0udiceP respondent ,as not barred )rom )iling a ne, suit against petitioner in+ol+ing t-e same )acts/ but raising a cause o) action arising t-ere)rom. In )act/ respondent actually )iled t-e Second $ase/ e+en i) -e )ailed to disclose in -is certi)ication t-at -e -ad commenced t-e %irst $ase against t-e same de)endant/ -erein petitioner. %urt-ermore/ ,e must bear in mind t-at/ ,-ene+er possible and )easible/ procedural rules s-ould be liberally construed to ensure t-e 0ust/ speedy and ine:pensi+e disposition o) actions and proceedings on t-eir merits. OS) S,ippin: P,ilippines& In/. vs. NLRC %acts' %ermin (uerrerro )iled a complaint be)ore t-e !8R$ against *S and its principal P-ilippine $arrier S-ipping Agency Ser+ices $o. AP$#SAS$*B )or illegal dismissal and non#payment o) salaries/ o+ertime pay and +acation pay. 7e ,as -ired by *S in be-al) o) -is principal/ P$# SAS$* as a aster ariner )or a contract period o) 1" mont-s. 7o,e+er/ -e ,as not paid any compensation at all and ,as )orced to disembar1 t-e +essel. .espite t-e ser+ices -e rendered/ no compensation or remuneration ,as e+er paid to -im. &-e 8abor Arbiter rendered a decision in )a+or o) (uerrero and ordered *S and P$#SAS$* to pay (uerrero -is unpaid salaries and allo,ances/ accrued )i:ed o+ertime pay/ +acation lea+e pay and termination pay. &-e !8R$ &-ird .i+ision a))irmed t-e 8AEs decision ,it- a modi)ication o) t-e amount o) liability. *S )iled a Petition )or $ertiorari ,it- t-e $A but ,as dismissed )or )ailure to comply ,it- t-e re>uirements o) Section ? Rule 26 )or *S only attac-ed a mere mac-ine copy o) t-e 8AEs decision and not a duplicate original or certi)ied true copy. Issue' 5Q! t-e $A erred in dismissing *S Es Petition. 7eld' Section ? Rule 2; does not re>uire t-at all supporting papers and documents accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certi)ied true copies. 4+en under Rule 6; on certiorari and pro-ibition/ petitions need to be accompanied only by duplicate originals or certi)ied true copies o) t-e >uestioned 0udgment/ order or resolution. *t-er rele+ant documents and pleadings attac-ed to it may be mere mac-ine copies t-ereo). Since t-e 8AEs decision ,as not t-e >uestioned ruling/ it did not -a+e to be certi)ied. 5-at -as to be certi)ied ,as t-e !8R$ decision. And indeed it ,as. But since t-e case is no, in its nint- year since its inception/ its remand to t-e $A ,ill only unduly delay its disposition. In t-e interest o) substantial 0ustice/ t-e S$ ,ill determine 5Q! petitioner is liable )or t-e unpaid salaries o) (uerrero. Petitioner ,as liable. *n be-al) o) its principal/ P$#SAS$*/ petitioner does not deny -iring Pri+ate Respondent (uerrero as master mariner. 7o,e+er/ it argues t-at since -e ,as not deployed o+erseas/ -is employment contract became ine))ecti+e/ because its ob0ect ,as allegedly absent. Petitioner contends t-at using t-e +essel in coast,ise trade and subse>uently c-artering it to anot-er principal -ad t-e e))ect o) no+ating t-e employment contract. 5e are not persuaded. An employment contract/ li1e any ot-er contract/ is per)ected at t-e moment A1B t-e parties come to agree upon its termsP and A2B concur in t-e essential elements t-ereo)' AaB consent o) t-e contracting parties/ AbB ob0ect certain ,-ic- is t-e sub0ect matter o) t-e contract and AcB cause o) t-e obligation .2? Based on t-e per)ected contract/ Pri+ate Respondent (uerrero complied ,it- -is obligations t-ereunder and rendered -is ser+ices on

board t-e +essel. $ontrary to petitioner=s contention/ t-e contract -ad an ob0ect/ ,-ic- ,as t-e rendition o) ser+ice by pri+ate respondent on board t-e +essel. &-e non#deployment o) t-e s-ip o+erseas did not a))ect t-e +alidity o) t-e per)ected employment contract. L) PO?ER ENGINEERING CO. v. CAPITOL IN18STRIAL CONSTR8CTION GRO8PS %A$&S' Petitioner 8 Po,er and Respondent $apitol entered into a Subcontract Agreement NSAO ,it- an arbitration clause in+ol+ing electrical ,or1 at t-e &-ird Port o) Tamboanga. &-e SA -as t-e )ollo,ing arbitral clause' <6. &-e Parties -ereto agree t-at any dispute or con)lict as regards to interpretation and implementation o) t-is Agreement ,-ic- cannot be settled bet,een NrespondentO and NpetitionerO amicably s-all be settled by means o) arbitration : : :.< $apitol too1 o+er some o) t-e ,or1 contracted to 8 Po,er. Allegedly/ t-e 8 Po,er -ad )ailed to )inis- it because o) its inability to procure materials. 3pon completing its tas1 under t-e SA/ 8 Po,er billed $apitol about P6 . $ontesting t-e accuracy o) t-e amount o) ad+ances and billable accomplis-ments listed by t-e 8 Po,er/ $apitol re)used to pay. $apitol also too1 re)uge in t-e termination clause o) t-e SA. &-at clause allo,ed it to set o)) t-e cost o) t-e ,or1 t-at 8 Po,er -ad )ailed to underta1e ## due to termination or ta1e# o+er ## against t-e amount it o,ed t-e latter. Because o) t-e dispute/ 8 Po,er )iled ,it- t-e R&$ a1ati a $omplaint )or t-e collection o) t-e amount representing t-e alleged balance due it under t-e SA. Instead o) submitting an Ans,er/ respondent )iled a otion to .ismiss/ alleging t-at t-e $omplaint ,as premature/ because t-ere ,as no prior recourse to arbitration. R&$ denied t-e otion on t-e ground t-at dispute did not in+ol+e t-e interpretation or t-e implementation o) t-e Agreement and ,as/ t-ere)ore/ not co+ered by t-e arbitral clause. ISS34S' 5-et-er or not t-ere e:ists a dispute bet,een 8 Po,er and $apitol regarding t-e interpretation and implementation o) t-e Sub#$ontract Agreement dated t-at re>uires prior recourse to +oluntary arbitrationP 748.' 8 Po,er claims t-at t-ere is no con)lict regarding t-e interpretation or t-e implementation o) t-e Agreement. &-us/ ,it-out -a+ing to resort to prior arbitration/ it is entitled to collect t-e +alue o) t-e ser+ices it rendered t-roug- an ordinary action )or t-e collection o) a sum o) money )rom $apitol. *n t-e ot-er -and/ t-e latter contends t-at t-ere is a need )or prior arbitration as pro+ided in t-e Agreement because t-ere are some disparities bet,een t-e parties positions regarding t-e e:tent o) t-e ,or1 done/ t-e amount o) ad+ances and billable accomplis-ments/ and t-e set o)) o) e:penses incurred by respondent in its ta1e#o+er o) 8 Po,erEs ,or1. 5e side ,it- $apitol. &-e dispute arose )rom t-e partiesE incongruent positions on ,-et-er certain pro+isions o) t-eir Agreement could be applied to t-e )acts. &-e instant case in+ol+es tec-nical discrepancies t-at are better le)t to an arbitral body t-at -as e:pertise in t-ose areas. In any e+ent/ t-e inclusion o) an arbitration clause in a contract does not ipso )acto di+est t-e courts o) 0urisdiction to pass upon t-e )indings o) arbitral bodies/ because t-e a,ards are still 0udicially re+ie,able under certain conditions.

$learly/ t-e resolution o) t-e dispute bet,een t-e parties re>uires a re)erral to t-e pro+isions o) t-eir SA. 5it-in t-e scope o) t-e arbitration clause are discrepancies as to t-e amount o) ad+ances and billable accomplis-ments/ t-e application o) t-e pro+ision on termination/ and t-e conse>uent set#o)) o) e:penses. &-e resolution o) t-e issues disputed by parties lies in t-e interpretation o) t-e pro+isions o) t-e SA. Being an ine:pensi+e/ speedy and amicable met-od o) settling disputes/ arbitration ## along ,it- mediation/ conciliation and negotiation ## is encouraged by t-e Supreme $ourt. $onsistent ,it- t-e policy o) encouraging alternati+e dispute resolution met-ods/ courts s-ould liberally construe arbitration clauses. Pro+ided suc- clause is susceptible o) an interpretation t-at co+ers t-e asserted dispute/ an order to arbitrate s-ould be granted. Any doubt s-ould be resol+ed in )a+or o) arbitration. Tan vs. @aa76a% 0inan/e Corporation (BA11IRI( -'- SCRA #1! %acts' Petitioner &an ,as granted a loan o) P2/"""/"""."" by pri+ate respondent Saa1bay. As collateral/ a real estate mortgage on &anEs parcel o) land ,it- t-e impro+ements t-erein ,as e:ecuted. Petitioner )ailed to pay -is obligation. *n January ;/ 2"""/ petitioner )iled a complaint )or .eclaration o) !ullity/ In+alidity and 3nen)orceability or Annulment o) t-e Promissory !otes purportedly attac-ed to t-e Real 4state ortgage/ t-e usurious and +oid rates o) interest and ot-er )ees t-erein appearing/ and t-e .eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto .e Retro/ and damages/ ,it- prayer )or Preliminary In0unction andQor &emporary Restraining *rder against t-e pri+ate respondents. Petitioner t-en also )iled a !otice o) 8is Pendens ,itt-e Registry o) .eeds o) $alamba/ 8aguna. Respondents/ t-roug- t-eir ne, counsel/ )iled t-eir Ans,er 5it- $ounterclaim. &-ey also )iled a otion )or Admission o) $ounterclaim 5it-out Payment o) %ees/ on t-e ground t-at t-eir counterclaim is compulsory in nature/ -ence it may be admitted ,it-out payment o) )ees. &rial court granted t-e respondentsE motion )or admission o) counterclaim ,it-out payment o) )ees. &-e $ourt o) Appeals up-eld t-e lo,er courtEs decision. Petitioner alleged t-at -is complaint is based on t-e unaut-oriCed application o) usurious/ unconscionable and e:orbitant rates o) interest and ot-er )ees by respondents Saa1bay and 8aCaro to petitionerEs loan ,it-out t-e latterEs 1no,ledge/ as ,ell as t-e appro+al and t-e )alsi)ication o) t-e promissory note supposed to be attac-ed to t-e Real 4state ortgage and t-e .eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto de Retro. Since t-e e+idence to be presented by t-e respondents to support t-e genuineness and due e:ecution o) t-e >uestioned promissory note and t-e .eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto de Retro as a ground )or t-e speci)ic per)ormance t-ereo)/ is not t-e same as t-e e+idence to be presented by t-e petitioner as plainti)) in t-e case belo, to support -is claim o) )raud employed by respondents/ petitioner asserts t-e counterclaim cannot be deemed compulsory. 7e adds t-at since t-e respondents demand t-e payment o) t-e loan and t-e interests pursuant to t-e contract o) loan/ completely inconsistent ,it- -is claim t-at sub0ect documents ,ere a nullity/ ,-at respondents -ad )iled is not a compulsory counterclaim. *n t-e ot-er -and/ respondents contend t-at t-eir counterclaims are )or payment o) t-e unpaid loan o) t-e petitioner/ t-e compounded interest ,it- annual penalty litigation e:penses and attorneyEs )ees. &-e respondents say t-ese are all compulsory and not permissi+e counterclaims. Issue'5-et-er t-e counterclaim o) respondents is compulsory or permissi+e in nature 7eld'

&-e respondentsE counterclaims are compulsory in nature. A counterclaim is compulsory ,-ere' A1B it arises out o)/ or is necessarily connected ,itt-e transaction or occurrence t-at is t-e sub0ect matter o) t-e opposing partyEs claimP A2B it does not re>uire t-e presence o) t-ird parties o) ,-om t-e court cannot ac>uire 0urisdictionP and A?B t-e trial court -as 0urisdiction to entertain t-e claim. &o determine ,-et-er a counterclaim is compulsory or not/ t-e tests are t-e )ollo,ing' Are t-e issues o) )act or la, raised by t-e claim and t-e counterclaim largely t-e same6 5ould res 0udicata bar a subse>uent suit on de)endantEs claims absent t-e compulsory counterclaim rule6 5ill substantially t-e same e+idence support or re)ute plainti))Es claim as ,ell as t-e de)endantEs counterclaim6 and Is t-ere any logical relation bet,een t-e claim and t-e counterclaim6 &-e Kcompelling test o) compulsorinessL is ,-et-er t-ere is Ka logical relations-ip bet,een t-e claim and counterclaim/ t-at is/ ,-ere conducting separate trials o) t-e respecti+e claims o) t-e parties ,ould entail a substantial duplication o) e))ort and time by t-e parties and t-e court.L PetitionerEs complaint ,as )or declaration o) nullity/ in+alidity or annulment o) t-e promissory notes and t-e usurious and +oid interest rates appearing t-erein and t-e .eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto .e Retro. RespondentsE counterclaim ,as )or t-e payment o) t-e principal amount o) t-e loan/ compounded mont-ly interest and annual penalty interest arising out o) t-e non#payment o) t-e principal loan/ litigation e:penses and attorneyEs )ees. &-ere is no dispute as to t-e principal obligation/ but t-ere is a dispute as to t-e rate and amount o) interest. It t-us appears t-at t-e e+idence re>uired to pro+e petitionerEs claims is similar or identical to t-at needed to establis- respondentsE demands )or t-e payment o) unpaid loan )rom petitioner suc- as amount o) interest rates. $onducting separate trials )or t-e claim and t-e counterclaim ,ould result in t-e substantial duplication o) t-e time and e))ort o) t-e court and t-e parties. $learly/ t-is is t-e situation contemplated under t-e Kcompelling test o) compulsoriness.L &-e issues o) )act and la, raised by bot- t-e claim and counterclaim are largely t-e same/ ,it- a logical relation/ considering t-at t-e t,o claims arose out o) t-e same circumstances re>uiring substantially t-e same e+idence. $onsidering t-at t-e counterclaims o) respondents are compulsory in nature/ payment o) doc1et )ees is not re>uired. Ne= Sampa:uita Buil+ers v. Estate o9 Canoso G.R. No. 1#1-->& 0e6ruar% 1-& "'' %acts' 4state o) $anoso )iled an action to rescind a contract o) sale o) a parcel o) land against !e, Sampaguita Builders. .uring trial/ an amicable settlement ,as reac-ed and t-ey )iled a 0oint motion to dismiss. Alt-oug- t-e terms o) t-e settlement ,as attac-ed to t-e 0oint motion to dismiss/ t-e parties prayed t-at an order be issued dismissing t-e case. R&$' Joint otion to .ismiss granted.

&-erea)ter/ t-e 4state o) $anoso )iled a motion to en)orce t-e compromise agreement on ground t-at !e, Sampaguita Builders +iolated its terms. !e, Sampanuita Builders did not appear during t-e -earing on t-e motion and no opposition to t-e motion ,as )iled. R&$ granted motion and ordered t-at a ,rit o) e:ecution be issued against !e, Sampaguita Builders. A ay 22/ 2""" orderB !e, Sampaguita builders/ a)ter its R ,as denied/ ele+ated

matter to t-e $A on a petition )or certiorari. 5-ile t-e case ,as pending be)ore t-e $A/ 4state o) $anoso )iled an 4:#parte ani)estation be)ore t-e R&$ alleging t-at t-e intention o) t-e parties in submitting t-e settlement in t-eir motion to dismiss ,as to -a+e t-e said terms appro+ed by t-e court. &-e R&$ realiCed t-at it ne+er issued an order appro+ing t-e compromise agreement bet,een t-e parties and re+ersed itsel) and set#aside t-e ay 22/ 2""" order. A*ctober 26/ 2""" *rderB 4state mo+ed )or reconsideration but same ,as denied. 4state t-en )iled t-eir o,n petition )or certiorari assailing t-e re+ersal o) t-e R&$Es earlier order. $A' ay 22/ 2""" order o) t-e trial court is Reinstated. Issue 1' %orum S-opping N5*! t-ere ,as )orum s-oppingO 7eld' At )irst glance/ t-e issues in t-e 2 cases appear to be similar/ primarily because t-e +alidity o) t-e ,rit o) e:ecution is in >uestion. 7o,e+er/ t-e issues raised in t-e 2 petitions are not t-e same. &-e issues raised in $A (.R. !o. 6"916 are ,-et-er t-e Regional &rial $ourt properly issued t-e ,rit o) e:ecution despite t-e )inal order o) dismissal o) $i+il $ase !o. $#11;/ and ,-et-er t-ere ,as indeed a +iolation o) t-e compromise agreement. &-e issue in $A (.R. !o. 62672 is ,-et-er or not t-e Regional &rial $ourt -ad appro+ed t-e compromise agreement ,-en it dismissed $i+il $ase !o. $#11;. In s-ort/ t-e )irst petition/ $A (.R. !o. 6"916/ ,as not concerned ,it- t-e appro+al o) t-e compromise agreement since t-e parties started ,it- t-e premise t-at it ,as appro+ed and ,ent directly to t-e issue o) t-e e))ect o) t-e )inal order o) dismissal and t-e )actual basis )or its en)orcement. &-e >uestion o) appro+al o) t-e compromise agreement became an issue only a)ter t-e Regional &rial $ourt issued its *ctober 26/ 2""" order/ re+ersing t-e ay 22/ 2""" order granting t-e motion to en)orce compromise agreement/ an action it too1 not,it-standing t-e pendency o) $A (.R. !o. 6"916. It bears stressing t-at )orum s-opping is t-e institution o) t,o or more actions or proceedings grounded on t-e same cause on t-e supposition t-at one or t-e ot-er court ,ould ma1e a )a+orable disposition. &-is is not ,-at -appened -ere/ ,-ere ,e -a+e t,o parties/ eac- )iling t-eir o,n separate petitions/ against t,o di))erent orders. Issue 2' Propriety o) Issuance o) *ctober 26/ 2""" *rder N5*! t-e R&$ may still continue to -ear t-e matter and issue orders concerning t-e ay 22/ 2""" order/ despite t-e )act t-at t-e $A -ad already ta1en cogniCance o) t-e issueO 7eld' *nce >uestions on t-e )orce and e))ect o) t-e ay 22/ 2""" order -ad been ele+ated to t-e $ourt o) Appeals/ t-e Regional &rial $ourt e))ecti+ely lost 0urisdiction to act on t-e same matter. As along as t-e issues are pending be)ore t-e $ourt o) Appeals/ t-e Regional &rial $ourt cannot inter)ere ,it- or preempt ,-ate+er action or decision t-e $ourt o) Appeals may ta1e. &-e $ourt o) Appeals properly set aside t-e *ctober 26/ 2""" order since t-e R&$ no longer -ad 0urisdiction to reconsider t-e ay 22/ 2""" order/ a)ter t-e same ,as ele+ated to t-e $ourt o) Appeals. GENERAL )ILLING v. NLRC %acts' $omplaint )or illegal dismissal ,as )iled by $ac-o against t-e $orporation. &-e 8abor Arbiter )ound )or t-e petitioner and t-e !8R$ a))irmed t-e ArbiterEs decision. 3pon appeal to t-e $A/ t-e petition ,as denied )or t-e )ailure o) t-e petitioner to attac- t-e board resolution to pro+e t-at t-e person ,-o signed t-e $erti)ication o) non#)orum s-opping ,as duly aut-oriCed by t-e board o) directors o) t-e corporation. $orporation )iled an R/ attac-ed

t-e corresponding board resolution. R denied. $orporation )iled t-e instant petition )or re+ie,. Issue' 5*! t-e $A erred in dismissing its appeal )or t-e corporationEs )ailure to comply ,it- t-e certi)ication re>uirement 7eld' S$ granted t-e petition )or re+ie,. In t-is case/ petitioner#corporation complied ,it- t-e procedural re>uirement e:cept t-at it ,as not accompanied by a board resolution or a secretaryEs certi)icate t-at t-e person ,-o signed it ,as duly aut-oriCed to represent petitioner in t-e case. &-e attac-ing o) t-e board resolution ,it- t-e R ,as substantial compliance ,it- t-e procedural re>uirements. Rules o) procedure are intended to promote/ rat-er t-an )rustrate/ t-e ends o) 0ustice. &ec-nical and procedural rules are intended to -elp secure/ not suppress/ t-e cause o) 0ustice and de+iation )rom t-e rigid en)orcement o) t-e rules may be allo,ed to attain t-at prime ob0ecti+e )or t-e dispensation o) 0ustice is t-e core reason )or t-e e:istence o) courts. Heirs o9 Amro/io @ionisala vs. Heirs o9 Honorio 1a/ut %acts' &-e -eirs o) 7onorio .acut )iled a complant )or declaration o) nullity o) titles/ recon+eyance amd damages against t-e -eirs o) Sionisala. &-is complaint in+ol+ed 2 parcels o) land located in Pongol/ 8ibona/ Bu1idnon. 4ac- party ,as issued )ree patents and certi)icates o) titles. 7o,e+er/ 7eirs o) .acut claimed absolute o,ners-ip o+er t-e t,o lands e+en prior to t-e issuance o) t-e corresponding )ree patends and certi)icates o) title. .acut -eirs claimed t-at t-eir late )at-er 7onorio .acut ac>uired t-e said parcels o) land )rom a certain Blasito Iacapin and )rom t-en on ,as in possession t-ereo) e:clusi+ely/ ad+ersely and in t-e concept o) o,ner )or more t-an ?" years. &-ey alleged t-at t-eir )at-er e+en rented t-e same to P-ilippine Pac1ing $orporation )or more t-an 2" years. &-at t-ey disco+ered t-at Sionisala -eirs )raudulently applied )ree patent t-e said parcels o) land and as a result t-ereo) certi)icates o) titles -ad been issued to t-em. &-us/ t-e patents issued to Sionisala -eris are null and +oid/ t-e same -a+ing been issued )raudulently. %urt-er/ t-ey alleged t-at t-e .4!R not -a+ing any 0urisdiction on t-e properties t-e same not being anymore public but already a pri+ate property. &-e trial court dismissed t-e complaint on t-e ground t-at t-e cause o) action o) pri+ate respondents ,as truly )or re+ersion so t-at only t-e .irector o) 8ands could -a+e )iled t-at complaint. &-e $A re+ersed t-e &$ ruling t-at t-e allegations ,ere compre-ensi+e enougto constitute a cause o) action )or recon+eyance. ISS34' 5-et-er oor not t-e complaint is su))icient to allege an action )or re+ersion. 748.' &-e test o) t-e su))iciency o) t-e )acts to constitute a cause o) action is ,-et-er admitting t-e )acts alleged t-e court could render a +alid 0udgment upon t-e same in accordance ,itt-e prayer o) t-e complaint. In ans,ering t-is >uery/ only t-e )acts asserted in t-e complaint must be ta1en into account ,it-out modi)ication alt-oug- ,it- reasonable in)erences t-ere)rom. Applying t-e test to t-e case at bar/ ,e rule t-at t-e complaint does not allege an action )or re+ersion ,-ic- pri+ate respondents ,ould ob+iously -a+e no rig-t to initiate/ but t-at it su))iciently states eit-er a cause o) action )or declaration o) nullity o) )ree patents and certi)icates o) title o+er 8ot 1"1; and 8ot 1"17 or alternati+ely a cause o)

action )or recon+eyance o) t-ese t,o pieces o) realty/ ,-erein in eit-er case pri+ate respondents are t-e real parties in interest. An ordinary ci+il action )or declaration o) nullity o) )ree patents and certi)icates o) title is not t-e same as an action )or re+ersion.&-e di))erence bet,een t-em lies in t-e allegations as to t-e c-aracter o) o,ners-ip o) t-e realty ,-ose title is soug-t to be nulli)ied. In an action )or re+ersion/ t-e pertinent allegations in t-e complaint ,ould admit State o,ners-ip o) t-e disputed land. 7ence in (abila +. Barriga ,-ere t-e plainti)) in -is complaint admits t-at -e -as no rig-t to demand t-e cancellation or amendment o) t-e de)endantEs title because e+en i) t-e title ,ere canceled or amended t-e o,ners-ip o) t-e land embraced t-erein or o) t-e portion a))ected by t-e amendment ,ould re+ert to t-e public domain/ ,e ruled t-at t-e action ,as )or re+ersion and t-at t-e only person or entity entitled to relie) ,ould be t-e .irector o) 8ands. *n t-e ot-er -and/ a cause o) action )or declaration o) nullity o) )ree patent and certi)icate o) title ,ould re>uire allegations o) t-e plainti))Es o,ners-ip o) t-e contested lot prior to t-e issuance o) suc- )ree patent and certi)icate o) title as ,ell as t-e de)endantEs )raud or mista1eP as t-e case may be/ in success)ully obtaining t-ese documents o) title o+er t-e parcel o) land claimed by plainti)). In suc- a case/ t-e nullity arises strictly not )rom t-e )raud or deceit but )rom t-e )act t-at t-e land is beyond t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e Bureau o) 8ands to besto, and ,-ate+er patent or certi)icate o) title obtained t-ere)or is conse>uently +oid ab initio.