2016

Civil Procedure Case Doctrines: Dean Jara Although the value of the property is estimated in
monetary terms, for the court must determine the
Hello, this contains the doctrines of the assigned cases for just compensation for it, this is merely incidental to
Civil Procedure under Dean Jara (2016 2017). I would the expropriation suit.
recommend reading the cases to gain a better understanding
of the context of the doctrines. Feel free to make corrections, Gonzales vs GJH Land; Nov. 2015
add more information, etc.
A courts acquisition of jurisdiction over a cases
JURISDICTION subject matter is conferred by law, while a courts
exercise of jurisdiction, unless by provided by the
Sante vs Claravall; February 2010 law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court, or by
orders of the Court.
The exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind
in determining the jurisdictional amount under Sec. VERY IMPORTANT: In this case, the Supreme Court
19 (8) and Sec. 33 (1) of BP 129 applies to cases issued guidelines to be observed by the courts. We
where the damages are merely incidental to or a spent a significant amount of time discussing this
consequence of the main cause of action. during class, and lumabas to sa midterms:
However, where the claim for damages is the main
cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is
amount of such claim shall be considered in wrongly raffled to its regular branch, the proper
determining the jurisdiction. courses of action are as follows:
1.1 If the RTC has only one branch
Sebastian vs Ng; April 2015 designated as a Special Commercial Court,
then the case shall be referred to the
The MTCs have jurisdiction to enforce any Executive Judge for re-docketing as a
settlement or arbitration award issued by the lupon commercial case, and thereafter, assigned
of the barangay. to the sole special branch;
The MTCs also have jurisdiction to enforce the
Kasunduan between the parties, regardless of the 1.2 If the RTC has multiple branches
amount involved. Sec. 417 of the Local Government designated as Special Commercial Courts,
Code made no distinction with respect to the then the case shall be referred to the
amount involved or nature of the issue involved. Executive Judge for re-docketing as a
Thus, there can be no question that it was the commercial case, and thereafter, raffled off
intention of the law to grant jurisdiction over the among those special branches; and
enforcement of settlement/arbitration awards to the
city/municipal courts, regardless of the amount. 1.3 If the RTC has no internal branch
designated as a Special Commercial Court,
Nonato vs Barrido; Oct. 2014 then the case shall be referred to the
nearest RTC with a designated Special
The MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real Commercial Court branch within the judicial
actions affecting title to real property, or for the region. Upon referral, the RTC to which the
recovery of possession, or for the partition or case was referred to should re- docket the
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage of case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if
real property. the said RTC has only one branch
designated as a Special Commercial Court,
assign the case to the sole special branch;
or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches
Brgy. San Roque vs Pastor; June 2000 designated as Special Commercial Courts,
raffle off the case among those special
The subject of an expropriation suit is the branches.
governments exercise of eminent domain, a matter
that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. If an ordinary civil case filed before the proper RTC
The primary consideration in expropriation suits is is wrongly raffled to its branch designated as a
whether or not the government or any of its Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be
instrumentalities has complied with the requisites referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as
for taking the subject property. an ordinary civil case. Thereafter, it shall be raffled
off to all courts of the same RTC (including its

1
 designated special branches which, by statute, are BASICALLY: Unless the plaintiff has a valid and
equally capable of exercising general jurisdiction subsisting cause of action at the time the action is
same as regular branches), as provided for under commenced, the defect cannot be cured or
existing rules. remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while
the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint
All transfer/raffle of cases is subject to the payment or an amendment setting up such after-accrued
of the appropriate docket fees in case of any cause of action is not permissible.
difference. On the other hand, all docket fees
already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION:
refunded. o A right in favor of plaintiff by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or
Finally, to avert any future confusion, the Court is created;
requires that all initiatory pleadings state the o An obligation on the part of the defendant
action's nature both in its caption and body. to respect or not violate such right; and
Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, upon o Act or omission on the part of the
motion or by order of the court motu proprio, be defendant in violation of the right of the
dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing after due plaintiff or constituting a breach of
rectification. This last procedural rule is prospective obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff,
in application. for which the latter may maintain an action
for recovery of damages or other
5. All existing rules inconsistent with the foregoing appropriate relief.
are deemed superseded.
Ada vs Baylon; Aug. 2012
RULE 2
Parties to an action may assert in one pleading, in
Larena vs Villanueva; Nov. 1928 the laternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as they may have against the opposing party,
When a lease provides for the payment of rent in subject to the condition that such joinder shall not
separate installments, each installment is an include special civil actions governed by special
independent cause of action. However, in an action rules.
upon such lease for the recovery of rent, the However, if there is no objection to the improper
installments due at the time the action was brought joinder or the court did not motu propio direct a
must be included in the complaint and that failure to severance, then there exists no bar in the
do so will constitute a bar to a subsequent action for simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously
payment of that rent. joined causes of action.
It should be emphasized that the foregoing rule only
Blossom and Company, Inc. vs Manila Gas Corporation; Nov. applies if the court trying the case has jurisdiction
1930 over all of the causes of action therein
notwithstanding the misjoinder of the same. If the
Where there is a complete and total breach of a court trying the case has no jurisdiction over a
continuous contract for a term of years, the recovery misjoined cause of action, then such misjoined cause
of a judgment for damages by reason of the breach of action has to be severed from the other causes of
is a bar to another action on the same contract for action, and if not so severed, any adjudication
and on account of the continuous breach. rendered by the court with respect to the same
would be a nullity.
Swagman vs CA; April 2005
Marilag vs Martinez; June 2015
A complaint whose cause of action has not accrued
cannot be cured or remedied by an amendment or A creditor mortgagee has a single cause of action
supplemental pleading alleging the existence or against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e. to recover the
accrual of a cause of action while the case is debt, through the filing of a personal action for
pending. collection of sum of money, or the institution of a
The curing effect of Sec. 5, Rule 10 is applicable only real action to foreclose on the mortgage security.
if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or
complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for successive, and each remedy is complete in itself.
failure to allege the essential facts.
ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA:

2
 o The judgment sought to bar the new action conclusion that the trade name as a property is hers
must be final; alone, particularly when she is married. By law, all
o The decision must be rendered by a court property acquired during the marriage is presumed
having jurisdiction over the subject matter to be conjugal unless the contrary is proven.
and parties; In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real
o The disposition of the ase must be a parties in interest; anyone of them may bring action.
judgment on the merits; Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the
o Identity of parties, subject matter, and co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the
causes of action co-owned property, is an indispensible party
thereto.
REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENCIA: o Other co-owners are not necessary parties
o Identity of parties, or at least such parties either since complete relief can be accorded
as representing the same interests in both in the suit even without their participation,
actions; since the suit is presumed to have been
o Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
for, the relief being founded on the same
facts;
o Identity of the two preceding particulars in Bacalso vs Padigos; March 2008
such that any judgment rendered in the
pending case, regardless of which party is Sec. 7, Rule 3: Parties-in-interest without whom
successful would amount to res judicata in there can be no final determination of an action. As
the other. such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as
defendants. The general rule with reference to the
RULE 3 making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder
of all necessary parties where possible, and the
Banda vs Ermita; April 2010 joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all
conditions.
The complaint or pleading initiating the class action It is precisely when an indispensable party is not
should allege the existence of necessary facts: before the court (that) the action should be
o Subject matter of common interest dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party
o Existence of a class and the number of renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
persons in alleged class (Bakit? Para saan void for want of authority to act, not only as to the
ba yang number of persons na yan? For the absent parties but even as to those present.
court to determine whether the members
of the class are so numerous as to make it Tallorin vs Tarona; Nov. 2009
impracticable to bring them all before the
court; also, to determine whether the The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
claimant adequately represents the class) ground for dismissal; it allows the amendment of the
complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through a
Principle of Adequacy of Representation: The Court motion or order of the court on its own initiative.
must consider: Only if the plaintiff refuses to implead an
o Whether the interest of the named party is indispensable party, despite the order of the court,
co-extensive with the other members of the may it dismiss the action.
class;
o The proportion of those named as a party Crisologo vs JEWM Agro; March 2014
to the total membership of the class;
o Any other factor bearing on the ability of In an action for cancellation of memorandum
the named party to speak for the rest of the annotated at the back of a certificate of title, the
class. persons considered as indispensable include those
whose liens appear as annotations. The cancellation
Navarro vs Escobido; Nov. 2009 of the annotation of an encumbrance cannot be
ordered without giving notice to the parties
As the registered owner of Kargo Enterprises, Karen annotated in the certificate of title itself.
Go is the party who will directly benefit from or be
injured by a judgment in the case. Macawadib vs PNP; July 2013
The registration of a trade name in the name of one
person a woman does not necessarily lead to the

3
 The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensible RULE 7
parties is a complete determination of all issues not
only between the parties themselves, but also as Traveno vs Banana Growers; Sept. 2009
regards others who may be affected by the
judgment. All the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case must sign the
The burden of procuring the presence of all certification of non-forum shopping; otherwise,
indispensible parties is on the plaintiff. those who did not sign will be dropped as parties.
Under reasonable and justifiable circumstances,
Republic vs Uy; Aug. 2013 however, when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share
a common interest and invoke a common cause of
When a petition for cancellation or correction of an action or defense, the signature of only one of them
entry in the civil register includes substantial and in the certification substantially complies with the
controversial alterations, including those on Rules.
citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the RULE 10
requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules is mandated.
PPA vs Gothong; Jan 2008
Resident Marine Mammals vs Reyes; April 2015
Sec. 3, Rule 10 amended the former rule such that
To further encourage the protection of the the phrase or that the cause of action or defense is
environment, the Rules of Procedure for substantially altered was stricken off. The clear
Environmental Cases enable litigants enforcing import of the amendment is that under the new
environmental rights to file their cases as citizen rules, the amendment may now substantially alter
suits. This collapses the traditional rule on personal the cause of action or defense.
and direct interest, on the principle that humans are
the stewards of nature. Swagman vs CA; April 2005

RULE 5 A complaint whose cause of action has not accrued
cannot be cured or remedied by an amendment or
Miguel vs Montanez; Jan. 2012 supplemental pleading alleging the existence or
accrual of a cause of action while the case is
An amicable settlement reached at barangay pending.
conciliation proceedings is binding between the The curing effect of Sec. 5, Rule 10 is applicable only
parties and upon its perfection, is immediately if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the
executor insofar as it is not contrary to law, good complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for
morals, good customs, public order and public failure to allege the essential facts.
policy.
Such amicable settlement may be enforced by RULE 14
execution by the barangay lupon within 6 months
from the date of settlement, or by filing an action to Villarosa & Partners vs Hon. Benito; Aug. 1999
enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or
municipal court. The designation of persons or officers who are
(Please refer to the Local Government Code for the authorized to accept summons for a domestic
rules on enforcement of an amicable settlement in corporation or partnership is limited to Rule 14, Sec.
the barangay. Medyo mahaba kasi) 11; the rule must be strictly observed.
Saray vs People; Oct. 2014 The purpose is to ascertain that the corporation will
receive prompt and proper notice in an action
The office of the barangay captain cannot be against it; or o insure summons is served upon
precluded from issuing a certification to file an someone so integrated with the corporation that
action where no actual settlement was reached. said person will know what to do with the legal
The conciliation procedure required under PD 1508 papers.
is not a jurisdictional requirement; non-compliance Service upon the general manager of the firms
with which would not deprive a court of its branch is improper. Summons should be served at
jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the principal office.
the person of the defendant. If at all, it merely Principle of Special Appearance: The inclusion in a
affected the parties cause of action. motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack

4
 of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem,
not be deemed voluntary appearance. or quasi-in-rem.
Sec. 20: The defendants voluntary appearance in
Sps. Galura vs Math Agro-Corp.; Aug. 2009 the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of
Whenever practicable, the summons must be served other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
on the defendant in person. Impossibility of prompt person of the defendant shall not be deemed a
service must appear in the return service, the efforts voluntary appearance.
to find the defendant, and the fact that such effort The duty to make the complementary service by
failed. registered mail is imposed upon the party who
resorts to service by publication, not upon the clerk
Requisites of a Valid Substituted Service: of court.
o Service within a reasonable time is
impossible Rapid City Realty vs Sps. Villa; Feb. 2010
o Person serving exerted efforts to locate the
defendant If there is no valid service of summons, the court can
o Person served is of sufficient age and still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
discretion defendant by the latters voluntary appearance.
o Person served resides in the defendants General Rule: One who seeks affirmative relief is
place of residence deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
o Pertinent facts showing the enumerated are court. The filing of:
stated in the return service o Motion to Admit Answer
o Additional Time to Submit Answer
A petition for annulment of judgment or final order o Reconsideration of a Default Judgment
under Rule 47 is grounded on lack of jurisdiction o Motion to Lift Order of Default with Motion
over the person of the defendant; the petitioner for Reconsideration
does not need to allege that the ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no is considered voluntary submission.
longer available through no fault of his or her own.
Exception: Conditional Appearance when such
Citizens Surety vs Herrera; March 1971 party appears to challenge, among others, the courts
jurisdiction over his person.
In an action that is strictly in personam, personal
service of summons is essential to the acquisition of So ano ang rules?
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. o Special appearance = exception to the
The proper recourse for a creditor is to locate general rule
properties, real or personal, of the defendant debtor o Objections to the jurisdiction of the court
with unknown address and cause them to be over the person of the defendant must be
attached under Rule 57. The attachment converts EXPRESSLY made
the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi-in-rem o Failure to do the above-mentioned is equal
and the summons by publication may then be to voluntary submission; especially when a
deemed valid and effective. pleading asserting affirmative relief is filed.
If there are no properties found, dismissal shall be
set aside and the case be held pending in the courts Palma vs Galvez; March 2010
archives until petitioner finds the whereabouts of
the defendants or his properties. Prescription will When the defendant is a Filipino resident who is
not run. temporarily out of the country at the time of service
of summons, other modes of summons under the
Santos vs PNOC Exploration; Sept. 2008 Rules may be availed of:
o Substituted service under Rule 7;
The old rule, which provides that substituted service o Personal service outside the country (with
may be availed of only in an action in rem, has been leave of court)
change. The present rule (Sec. 14) expressly states o Service by publication (with leave of court)
that in any action where the defendant is o Any other manner which the court may
designated as an unknown owner, etc., or his deem sufficient
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief is,
ascertained by diligent inquiry. The new rule now such as, a Motion to Admit Answer, Motion for

5
 Additional Time to Answer, Motion for Laches: Failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
Reconsideration of a Default Judgment, and Motion unexplained length of time to do that which, by
to Lift Order of Default, etc., are considered exercising due diligence, could or should have been
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. done earlier.

Chu vs Mach Asia Trading; April 2013 Soliven vs Fastforms Phil, Inc.; Oct. 2004

In the case of substituted service, there should be a While jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a
report indicating that the person who received the litigants participation in all stages of the case before
summons in the defendants behalf was one with the trial court, including invocation of its authority in
whom the defendant had a relation of confidence, asking for affirmative relief, bars the party from
ensuring that the latter would actually receive the challenging the courts jurisdiction.
summons. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to
Impossibility of prompt personal service must be secure affirmative relief against his opponent and
shown by stating that efforts have been made to find after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
the defendant personally and that such efforts have repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
failed.
HSBC vs Aldecoa; March 1915
Reicon Realty vs Diamond; Feb. 2015
A plea of the pendency of a prior action is not
The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person available unless the prior action is of such character
of the respondent by the service on him of its order that had a judgment been rendered therein on the
or resolution indicating its initial action on the merits, such a judgment would be conclusive
petition or by his voluntary submission to such between the parties and could be pleaded in bar of a
jurisdiction. second action.
The requirement under Rule 13, Sec. 2, which It is applicable only, between the same parties, when
provides that if any party has appeared by counsel, the judgment to be rendered in the action first
service upon him shall be made upon his counsel, constituted will be such that, regardless of which
should not apply to certiorari proceedings. party is successful, it will amount to res judicata
against the second action.
Manotoc vs CA; Aug. 2006
Tijam vs Sibonghanoy; April 1968
The party relying on the substituted service or the
sheriff must show that the defendant cannot be A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt secure affirmative relief against his opponent and,
service after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
Reasonable Time: one month from the issuance of repudiate or question the same jurisdiction.
summons It is not right for a party who has affirmed and
Several Attempts: At least three tries, preferably on invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular
at least two different dates. matter to secure affirmative relief, to afterwards
deny the same jurisdiction to escape penalty.
RULE 16 NOTE: This case has already been overturned by
Cervantes vs People
Cervantes y Figueroa vs People; July 2008
Zuniga-Santos vs Santos-Gram; Oct. 2014
The ruling in Tijam vs Sibonghanoy is the exception,
not the general rule. Failure to state a cause of action: refers to the
The issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading
of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost Lack of cause of action: refers to the insufficiency of
by waiver or by estoppel. the factual basis for the action.
Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may
the courts absence or lack of jurisdiction, only be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings
supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the facts through a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the
of Sibonghanoy. Rules of Court
Estoppel is not favored by law; being in the nature of Dismissal for lack of cause of action may be raised
forfeiture. It must be applied only from necessity, any time after the questions of fact have been
and only in extraordinary circumstances.
6
 resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or dismissal rests on the prerogative of the trial court,
evidence presented by the plaintiff. it must soundly be exercised and not be abused, as
there must be sufficient reason to justify its
RULE 17 & RULE 36 extinctive effect on the plaintiffs cause of action.

Shimizu vs Magsalin; June 2012 RULE 34

Dismissal of actions under Rule 17, Sec. 3, which do Asian Construction vs Sannaedle; June 2014
not expressly state whether they are or without are
held to be with prejudice. This amounts to an Rule 34 is proper when an answer fails to tender an
adjudication on the merits. Thus, it must comply issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of
with Rule 36, Sec. 1: Judgment/Final Order shall: the adverse partys pleading.
o Be in writing; An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not deny
o Be personally and directly prepared by the the allegations in the complaint or admits said
judge; material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings
o Be signed by the judge; by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or
o State clearly and distinctly the facts or law omitting to deal with them all.
on which it is based;
o Be filed with the clerk of court
Grounds for Failure to Prosecute:
o Failure of the plaintiff, without justifiable
reason, to appear on the date of the RULE 37
presentation of evidence in chief;
o Failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his Neypes vs Ca; Sept. 2005
action for an unreasonable length of time;
o Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Fresh Period Rule: To standardize the appeal periods
Rules of Court; provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair
o Failure of the plaintiff to obey an order of opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it
the Court practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional
The fundamental test for non-prosequitur is Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order
whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to reconsideration.
proceed with reasonable promptitude; there must This rule applies to:
be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to o Rule 40: Appeal from MTCs to RTCs
prosecute. o Rule 42: Petition for Review to the CA
o Rule 43: Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Bodies
RULE 18 o Rule 45: Appeals by Certiorari to the SC

Soliman vs Fernandez; June 2014 Dinglasan vs CA; Sept. 2006

Within 5 days from the date of filing of reply, the To rule that finality of judgment shall be reckoned
plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case from the receipt of the resolution or order denying
be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to the second motion for reconsideration would result
file said motion within the given period, the Branch to an absurd situation whereby courts will be obliged
Clerk of Court shall issue a notice of pre-trial to issue orders or resolutions denying what is a
(Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and prohibited motion in the first place, in order that the
Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of period for the finality of judgments shall run,
Deposition-Discovery Measures) thereby, prolonging the disposition of cases.
Moreover, such a ruling would allow a party to
The power of the trial court to dismiss an action for forestall the running of the period of finality of
non - prosequitur is not without its limits. If a judgments by virtue of filing a prohibited pleading;
pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the such a situation is not only illogical but also unjust to
case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory the winning party.
requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff
is not present, as in this case, courts should not SLR Builders vs Bayang; April 2015
wield their authority to dismiss. Indeed, while the

7
 The "fresh period rule" in Neypes applies only to or the value of the property to be attached as stated
judicial appeals and not to administrative appeals. by the applicant, exclusive of costs."
In this case, the subject appeal, i.e., appeal from a From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that once the
decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners to writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy
the OP, is not judicial but administrative in nature; of the petitioners in lifting the same is through a
thus, the "fresh period rule" in Neypes does not cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond. Thus,
apply. the Court holds that petitioners argument that it
has the option to deposit real property instead of
RULE 47 depositing cash or filing a counter-bond to discharge
the attachment or stay the implementation thereof
Islamic Dawah vs CA; Sept. 1989 is unmeritorious.

Annulment of judgment is a remedy Lim vs Lazaro; July 2013
independent of the case where the judgment
sought to be annulled was rendered. While the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the
Jurisdiction over such has been clarified by length of time within which an attachment lien shall
BP129. The CA has exclusive jurisdiction over continue to subsist after the rendition of a final
actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs. judgment, jurisprudence dictates that the said
A person need not be a party to the judgment lien continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is
sought to be annulled. What is essential is that had under execution issued on the judgment or until
he can prove his allegation that the judgment the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment
was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion discharged or vacated in the same manner provided
and he would be adversely affected thereby. by law.
The remedy may be availed of even if the
judgment has already been fully executed and
implemented.

Strategic Alliance vs Radstock; Dec. 2009
Hindi ko to mahanap L

Fraginal vs Martinez; Feb. 2007

Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals
and administrative bodies such as the NLRC, the
Ombudsman, the CSC, the OP, and in the present
case, the PARAD, are not susceptible to Rule 47.
PARAD rules do not allow for petition for annulment
of judgment.

RULES 57 61

Luzon Dev. Bank vs Krishman; April 2015

Section 2, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court explicitly
states that "an order of attachment may be issued
either ex parte or upon motion with notice and
hearing by the court in which the action is pending,
or by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court,
and must require the sheriff of the court to attach so
much of the property in the Philippines of the party
against whom it is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the
applicants demand, unless such party makes deposit
or gives a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount
equal to that fixed in the order, which may be the
amount sufficient to satisfy the applicants demand