Jurisdiction table

Supreme court
 Original and Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against:
exclusive  Court of Appeals
 Commission on Elections
 Commission on Audit
 Court of Tax Appeals
 Sandiganbayan
 Concurrent with Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against:
CA  Regional Trial Courts; and
 NLRC (all should start with CA except for compelling reasons)
 Concurrent with  Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against
CA and RTC courts of the first level bodies and
 Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
 Concurrent with  Actions against ambassadors, other public ministers and
RTC consuls
 Concurrent with  Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas
the Sandiganbayan corpus, injunctions and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto in PCGG cases.
 Concurrent with  Petition for a writ of amparo
CA,  Petition for writ of habeas data
Sandiganbayan,
and RTC
 Appellate  Petition for review on certiorari against
a. Court of Appeals
b. Sandiganbayan
c. RTC in cases involving
i. Constitutionality or validity of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation
ii. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or a
penalty in relation thereto.
iii. Jurisdiction of a lower court; and
iv. Pure error or question of law
v. Court of tax appeal en bacn
vi. Final judgment or order in a writ of amparo or
habeas data case
 Court of Appeals
Original Exclusive  Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts
 Special civil action for certiorari against the RTC order
approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan or any order
issued after the approval of the rehabilitation plan
Original concurrent
 Supreme Court Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against:
 Regional Trial Courts; and
 NLRC (all should start with CA except for compelling reasons)

 SC and RTC  Petition for a writ of amparo

 Petition for writ of habeas data

 SC,  Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data

Sandiganbayan,
and RTC
Appellate Ordinary appeals from
 RTC except in cases exclusively appealable to the SC
 Family Courts
 Special Commercial Courts
Appeal by petition for review R43 from:
 CSC
 SEC
 LRA
 Social Security Commission (SSC)
 OP
 Civil Aeronautics Board
 Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer
 National Electrification Administration
 Energy Regulatory Board
 National Telecommunications Commission
 DA under RA 6657 (CARP)
 GSIS
 ECC
 Agrarian Inventions Board
 Insurance Commission
 Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
 Board of Investments
 Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
 Voluntary Arbitrators authorized by law
Any other quasi-judicial agency, instrumentality, board or commission
in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions
Petitions for review (R42) from the RTC in cases appealed thereto from
the lower courts
Petitions for review (R42) from the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian
 Court

Regional Trial Court

Original and Exclusive  Actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation
 Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand or claim exceeds 300,000 or in metro manila 400,000
 Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where the gross value
of the estate exceeds 300,000 or in Metro Manila 400,000
 Actions involving marriage and marital relations
 Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
 Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, or the value of
the property exceeds 300,000 or in metro manila 400,000
 Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration
agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award,
application for arbitration award and supervision
 Citizen suit under Section 41 of the clean air act
 Petition for assistance in the liquidation of a bank or quasi-bank
filed by a receiver pursuant to S30 of the new central bank act.
Family Courts
 Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas
corpus in relation to the latter
 Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof
 Complaints for annulment or nullification of marriage, those
relating to marital status and property relations of spouses or
those living together under different status and agreements,
and petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains
 Petitions for support and/or acknowledgement
 Summary judicial proceedings brought under the Family Court
Special Commercial Courts
 Cases involving violations of intellectual property rights
 Cases enumerated under section 5 of PD 902-A
 Rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation cases brought under
the Financial Rehabilitation and insolvency act of 2010 and
those emanating from administrative proceedings
Special Agrarian Courts
 Petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners
Concurrent
 With Supreme  Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
Court consuls
 With SC and CA  Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
lower courts and bodies
 Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
  With SC, CA and  Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data
Sandiganbayan
Appellate  All cases decided by the MTCs in their respective territorial
jurisdiction

Municipal Trial Court

Original-Exclusive  Actions involving personal property whose value does not
exceed 300,000 or in Metro Manila 400,000
 Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding 300,000 or in
metro manila 400,000 exclusive of interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost
 Probate proceedings, testate or intestate where the gross value
of the estate does not exceed 300,000 or in metro manila
400,00
 Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
 Actions involving title to or possession of real property or any
interest therein where the assessed value does not exceed
20,000 or in metro manila 50,000 exclusive of interest,
damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs
Delegated  Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where the is
no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the of which
does not exceed 100,000 as may be assigned by the SC
Special  Petitions for Habeas Corpus in the absence of all the Regional
Trial Judges in the province of city
Summary Procedure  Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases irrespective of the
amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered;
 All other court cases except probate proceedings, where the
total claim does not exceed 100,000 or in metro manila 200,000
exclusive of interest and cost

Sandiganbayan
Exclusive Original  Civil cases filed pursuant to EO no 1,2,14, and 14a issued in
1986 (ill gotten wealth)
 Over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petition of similar
nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
cases filed or which may be filed under EO 1,2, 14, and 14-a
issued in 1986; provided that the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC
Concurrent Original with Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data
SC, CA, and RTC

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority and power of the court to hear and determine cases
of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs.
 2. Personal jurisdiction is the power of the court to bind a party or person. It is acquired by the
filing of the complaint or petition (plaintiff) for the defendant, through the service of summons
or his voluntary appearance
3. Jurisdiction over the res is the power of the court to try a case which would bind real or
personal property or determine the status of a party.

Civil actions which subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation

a. Specific Performance
b. Rescission or annulment of contract
c. Injunction
d. Declaratory relief
e. Reformation of contract
f. Action for revival of judgment
g. Citizen suit
h. Abatement of nuisance

Actions capable of pecuniary estimate

1. Action for partition of land

2. Action for foreclosure of real estate
3. Breach of contract
4. Action for quasi-delict
5. Action for consignation
6. Action to compel the assignment of shares of stock

Ultimate objective test

 The supreme court held that even if the action is one for specific performance but the ultimate
objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, the action is a real action and not one
incapable of pecuniary estimation

1. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong
2. A criminal action is one by which the state prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law
3. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact

Cases on Jurisdiction
City of Lapu-Lapu vs PEZA

Facts: Is EPZA exempted from payment of real property tax. The City of lapu-laput demanded the
payment of real property taxes against EPZA

Three modes of appeal from RTC decisions

1. Through an ordinary appeal before the CA where the decision assailed was rendered in the
exercises of the RTC’s original jurisdiction governed by Rule 4, section 3 to 13 of the RC.
(question of fact and law may be raised)
2. Through a petition for review before the CA where the decision assailed was rendered by the
RTC in exercises of its appellate jurisdiction governed by Rule 42 of the ROC (questions of fact, of
law, or mixed questions of fact and law may be raised)
3. Through an appeal by certiorari before the SC under rule 45 where only questions of law shall be
raised.

Notes:

 A question of fact exist when there is doubt as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts
 A question of law if the appeal raises doubt as to the applicable law on a certain set of facts

While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice,
and while the swift unclogging of the dockets of the courts is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must
not be met at the expense of substantial justice.

Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and that strict and
rigid application of rules in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice
must always be avoided.

6 requisites for declaratory relief

1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statue, executive order, or regulation, or ordinance
2. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction
3. There must have been no breach of the documents in question
4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening of seeds of one between persons
whose interest are adverse
5. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding
Aspects of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over subject matter

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law which may either be the
Constitution or a statute.
 The term also refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the class of cases to which a particular
case belongs
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter means the nature of the cause of action and the relief
sought.
 Any decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is
void

Jurisdiction over the person

 Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding
on persons
 It is the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against the party to an action or
proceeding
 It is the power of a court to render a personal judgment and other rulings rendered in the action
 A court automatically acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff upon filing of the
initiatory pleading
 With the defendant, voluntary appearance in court or a valid service of summons vests the court
with jurisdiction over the defendant’s person.
 Necessary in actions in personam
 Proceedings in an action in personam are void if the court had no jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant

Jurisdiction over the res or the thing under litigation

 is acquired either by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into
actual custody of the law; or as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the
power of the court is recognized and made effective.
 Necessary in actions in rem or those actions directed against the thing or property or status of a
person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.
 Void if court had not jurisdiction over the thing under litigation.

Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing
a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as incident in the main
action.

Requisites

1. There must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected

2. The act against which the injunction is directed to constitute a violation of such right
Jurisdiction vs venue

Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in
question belong. It is a matter of substantive law. An action may be filed only with the court or tribunal
where the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. Objection to jurisdiction cannot be waived
and may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. A case filed with a court which has
no jurisdiction over the action can be dismissed motu proprio.

Venue is the place of trail or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought.
Venue is a matter of procedural law. A party’s objection to venue must be brought at the earliest
possible opportunity either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, otherwise the objection shall be
deemed waived. When venue is improperly laid, it cannot be dismissed motu proprio

 Venue of an action depends on whether the action is real or personal action

 Real action – if the action affects title to or possession of real property, or interest therein.
o Should be filed in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved or a portion thereof, is situated.
o Sample of real action: action to quiet title, action for reconveyance of real property,
action for reconveyance of possession of real property, Accion Publiciana, Accion
reinvidicatoria
 Personal action
o The action shall be filed with the proper court where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or
in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff.

Appeal vs Certiorari

Appeal is the remedy to obtain a reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits.

o A judgment on the merits is one which determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based
on the disclosed facts, irrespective of the formal, technical or dilatory objection
o It is not even necessary that the case proceeded to trial, so long as the judgment is general and
the parties had a full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions,
the judgment is on the merits

Certiorari is a special civil action filed to annul or modify a proceeding of a tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

o Means to be more fully informed, an original remedy in common law

o Used in two ways,
o First, appeal to SC raising pure questions of law commenced by filing a petition for
review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of court. Appeal by certiorari which
continues the proceedings commenced before the lower courts is filed to reverse or
 modify judgments or final orders. Must be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment
or final order, or of the denial of the appealant’s motion for new trial or reconsideration.
o Second, Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent and original action filed
to set aside proceedings conducted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. May only be filed if there is
no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, must
be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. (Certiorari
under R65 will not prosper if appeal is available. Appeal is the remedy even if the error,
or one of the errors, raised is grave abused of discretion on the part of the court
rendering judgment)

The liberal spirit of the court treated petitions for certiorari as an appeal:

1. If the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a
petition for review on certiorari
2. When errors of judgment are averred
3. When there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of rules

Note: for relaxation of rules, the accomplishment of substantial justice must outweigh the importance of
predictability of court procedures.

Court of tax appeals have the exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing
interlocutory orders by RTC in a local tax case.

o While the CTA has no express grant of power to issue writs of certiorari under RA 1125 as
amended, the tax’s courts judicial power as defined in the Constitution includes the power to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC issuing an interlocutory order of jurisdiction in cases falling
within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court
o The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction should coexist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by
appeal, the final orders and decisions of the RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the
acts of the latter.

Gonzales vs GJH land

o Procedure to be followed when a commercial case- such as the instant intra-corporate dispute
has been properly filed in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court but is,
however, wrongly assigned by raffle to a regular branch of that station.
o A court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject matter is different from
incidents pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a
case is conferred by law, whereas, a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by law itself
is governed by the Rules of Court or orders issued by Court from time to time.
o The matter whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its
limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with
the question of jurisdiction.
 o Regional Trial Courts are courts of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is
not specifically provide for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the
jurisdiction of the regional trial court.
o Special commercial courts shall have jurisdiction over cases arising within their respective
territorial jurisdiction with respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the
respective provinces with respect to the first to 12 th judicial regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in
the office of the clerk of court in the official station of the designated special commercial court.
o The erroneous raffling to a regular branch instead of to a special commercial court is only a
matter of procedure – that is, an incident related to the exercise of jurisdiction-and, thus, should
not negate the jurisdiction which the RTC of Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such
scenario, the proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed; instead,
branch 276 should have first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a
commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then assign said case to the only
designated special commercial court in the station.
o If there are multiple special commercial courts, the EJ after re-docketing should proceed to
order its re-raffling among the said special branches.
o If the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a special commercial court, then it
should refer the case to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch
within the judicial region.
o Designation as a special commercial court does not shed the RTC’s general jurisdiction over
ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of statutory law. The designation of Special
Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of
commercial cases in line with the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The designation was not made
by statue but only by an internal SC rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing
matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the administration of all courts
and the personnel thereof.
o The designation of special commercial courts is, to stress merely an incident related to the
court’s exercise of jurisdiction, which, as first discussed, is distinct from the concept of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC’s general jurisdiction over ordinary cases is
therefore not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.

Crespo vs Mogul

o A court that grants a motion of the fiscal to dismiss a case commits no error and the fiscal’s view
thereon, in a clash of views with the judge or complainant, should normally prevail. Thus a fiscal
who asks for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so, and
the Courts that grant the same commit no error. The fiscal may re-investigate the case and
subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-investigation show either that the defendant
is innocent or that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt
o A clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did, or between
the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the fiscal’s should normally prevail.
On the other hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or final nor a writ of prohibition may be
issued by the Courts to restrain a criminal prosecution except in the extreme case where it is
necessary for the Courts to do so for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use
of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner.
Landbank vs Corazon Villegas

Can the RTC’s Special Agrarian Court take cognizance of case where the subject matter land is located
outside its territorial jurisdiction, but is within the province of its location?

o Yes, A branch of an RTC designated as a Special Agrarian Court for a province has the original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation in the
province. By special jurisdiction, Special Agrarian Courts exercise power in addition to or over
and above the ordinary jurisdiction of the RTC, such as taking cognizance of suits involving
agricultural lands located outside their regular territorial jurisdiction, so long as they are within
the province where they sit as Special Agrarian Courts.
o A branch of an RTC designated as a Special Agrarian Court for a province has the original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation in that
province.
o SAC have original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases
o All petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners
o Prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657.
o Courts which have not been designated as special agrarian courts cannot hear just
compensation cases just because the lands subject of such cases happen to be within their
territorial jurisdiction.

Tijam vs Sibonghanoy

Is there an exception to the rule that jurisdiction over the subject-matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings?

o Yes, the rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively
by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case,
the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, a party may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for
the time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active
participation of said party invoking the plea.
o Kinds of estoppel: estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches
o Laches – in general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
o Basis: The doctrine of laches or stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy
which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike
the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of
the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
 o A party cannot invoke the court’s jurisdiction and then deny it to escape a penalty. It is not right
for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to
secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction to escape penalty.
o Estoppel by laches because you actively participated in the proceedings rather than question the
jurisdiction of the case

VDA De Herrera vs Bernardo (quasi judicial powers – judicial powers is only incidental to the
administrative function of the agency)

o Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) is an administrative body established

as means of providing a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems among
small settles, landowners and members of the cultural minorities to avoid social unrest.
o The law does not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem: The COSLAP
has only two options in acting on a land dispute or problem lodge before it
o Refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement/resolution
o Assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2a to e of the
law, if such case is critical and explosive in nature, taking into account the large number
of parties involved, the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar critical
situations requiring immediate action.
 Nature or classification of land involved
 Parties to the case
 Nature of the question raised
 Need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons
and damage or destruction to property
o A judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void.
o The fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop
him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction
must arise by law not be mere consent of the parties. Jurisdictional issues may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings even on appeal and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
o Laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy doctrine to apply.

Ombudsman vs Rodriguez

o Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman vs Sangguniang Bayan

o In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining
authorities, the body which the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take
cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals
exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
o Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues
until the case is terminated. Then herein complainants first filed the complaint in the
ombudsman, jurisdiction was already vested on the latter. Jurisdiction could no longer
be transferred to the Sanguniang Bayan by virtue of a subsequent complaint filed by the
same complainants.
o The primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission of a
public officer or employee applies only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. In
cases cognizable by regular courts, the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with
 other investigative agencies of the government. RA 8249, limits the cases that are
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan to public officials occupying positions corresponding to
salary grade 27 and higher. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over private
respondent who, as punong barangay is occupying a position to SG 14.

Banez vs Concepcion

o Interlocutory Orders are not the proper subject of a certiorari challenge by virtue of its not
terminating the proceedings in which it is issued; but a petition for certiorari may be filed to
assail an interlocutory order if it is issued without jurisdiction, or with excess of jurisdiction, or in
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
o Hierarchy of Courts; Although the SC, the CA and the RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, the petitioner had no unrestrained freedom to choose which among the
several courts might his petition for certiorari be filed in. He must observe the hierarchy of
courts, the policy in relation to which has been explicitly defined in S4, R65
o Hierarchy of Courts in Certiorari
o The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions
of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may
also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by
law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of
Appeals.
o The Supreme Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to
justify an exception to the policy. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the SC from
having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and
thus leave time to the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that
the Constitution has assigned to it.
o There, noting a growing tendency on the part of litigants and lawyers to have their applications
for the so-called extraordinary writs, and sometimes even their appeals, passed upon and
adjudicated directly and immediately by the highest tribunal of the land
o There is after all a hierarchy of courts that hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals,
and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that
petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the
RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA. A direct invocation of the SC original jurisdiction
to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons
therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
o Revival of judgments: article 1144 of the Civil Code requires that an action to revive a judgment
must be brought before it is barred by prescription which was 10 years from the accrual of the
right of action.
Dy vs Bibat-Palamos (exception to the hierarchy of courts)

1. If the right of the party is extremely violated

2. Pending for quite sometime
3. In the interest of justice
o Exceptions to the direct recourse to the SC. Defying the Hierarchy of Courts
o Invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in
such:
 When dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy
 When demanded by the broader interest of justice
 When the challenged orders were patent nullities
 When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and
justifies the immediate and direct handling of the case
o Ordinary appeal vs Petition for Certiorari
o Ordinary Appeal - The remedy for errors of judgment, whether based on law or the facts
of the case or on the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision
o Petition for Certiorari – Under R65 is an original action designed to correct errors of
jurisdiction, defined to be those in which the act complained of was issued by the court,
officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
 A court or tribunal can only be considered to have acted with grave abuse of
discretion if its exercise of judgment was so whimsical and capricious as to be
equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction
 The abuse must be extremely patent and gross that it would amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
o It is a general rule of procedural law that when a party adopts an inappropriate mode of
appeal, his petition may be dismissed outright to prevent the erring party from
benefitting from his neglect and mistakes.
o Immutability of judgments: when a judgment becomes final and executory, it is made
immutable and unalterable, meaning it can no longer be modified in any respect either
by the court which rendered it or even the Supreme Court, As with every rule, however,
this admits of certain exceptions, when a supervening event renders the execution of a
judgment impossible or unjust, the interested party can petition the court to modify the
judgment to harmonize it with justice and the facts.
Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec

o Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all acts of the COMELEC. Rule 65 is applicable especially
to raise objections relating to a grave abuse of discretion resulting in the ouster of jurisdiction.
o The supreme court can review orders and decisions of COMELEC despite not being reviewed by
the COMELC en banc if:
o It will prevent the miscarriage of justice
o The issue involves a principle of social justice
o The issue involves protection of labour
o The decision or resolution sought to be set aside is nullity
o The need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy
remedy available
o The subject matter of Jurisdiction is determined from the allegation in the petition.
o During elections, the SC has the power and the duty to correct any grave abuse of discretion or
any act tainted with unconstitutionality on the part of any government branch or
instrumentality.
o Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of evidence presented before
them. They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include the validity of
an ordinance, statute or even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. In many
instances, the facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the actual
case that makes ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action. There are, however,
some cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering their
decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts, such as the CA.
o The CA is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and
law made by the trial courts. Unlike trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is
competent to determine facts and ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not
necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to determine.
o The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. The SC has full discretionary power to
take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with
it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and
specifically raised in the petition.

Euromed Lab vs Batangas

o The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter
may well be within their proper jurisdiction. In such case, the court in which the claim is sought
to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the
 administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss
the case without prejudice
o Enforcement of a claim against a LGU is within the domain of the COA.
o Liquidated claims or readily determinable vouchers and such other papers within the reach of
accounting officers are within the COA’s jurisdiction.
o The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte (by his own motion) and its
invocation cannot be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it as the doctrine exist for the
proper distribution of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the
convenience of parties.

Heirs of Nisperos vs Nisperos-Ducusin

o Agrarian dispute – any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,

tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmwokers’ associations or representation of person in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
o There must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction
over a case, the following are indispensable elements:
o That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessees
o That the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land
o That there is consent between the parties to the relationship
o That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production
o That there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee
o That the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant of agricultural lessee
o The petitioners did not alleged tenancy relationship, in fact they describe the respondent as
ward of one of the co-owners.

Rule 1

What are special civil actions (QC FID CREEP)

1. Quo Warranto
2. Contempt
3. Foreclosure
4. Interpleader
5. Declaratory Relief
6. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
7. Review of decisions of COA and COMELEC
8. Expropriation
9. Ejectment (Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
10. Partition

Real Action Personal Action

An action which affects title to or possession to a If is not real
real property or an interest therein
 Unlawful detainer, accion publiciana, accion Breach of contract, sum of money, recovery of
reinvidicatoria, action for reconveyance, action to personal property
quiet title

Classification of Civil Actions as to object

Action in personam – is an action to enforce personal rights and obligations against a person and is
based on the jurisdiction of a person. The purpose of action in personam is to impose through a
judgment some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant.

 Action that will impose personal liability on a person with respect to a particular real property is
an action in personam

Action in rem – is an action against the thing (res) itself rather than against a person. It is not just binding
on a particular person, but it is binding against the whole world (land registration cases, declaration of
nullity of marriage, action for recognition)

Action quasi in rem – is an action where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the attachment.

 Complaint with attachment, foreclosure, actions, actions for partition, actions for accounting.

The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
required and consequently the type of summons to be employed

De Pedro vs Romasan Development Corp

 Regardless of the type of action, whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem, the preferred
mode of service of summons is personal service. To avail themselves of substituted service,
courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff’s actions and a showing that the
defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff’s return which
contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and on this bases, the court
may allow substituted service. Should the sheriff’s return to be wanting of these details,
substituted service will be irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was
presented.
 Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant
 The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance.
 Courts may exercise their powers validly and with biding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over
o The cause of action or the subject matter of the case
o The thing or the res
o The parties
o The remedy
 Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the type of action – whether the action is in
personam, in rem, or quasi in rem
 Actions in personam the judgment is for or against a person directly
 Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. Against the thing is a metaphor, it is not the
thing that is the party in an in rem action, only legal and natural persons may be parties even in
rem actions, Against the thing means the resolution of the case affects interest of others
whether direct or indirect.
 Action quasi in rem are not binding upon the whole world, they affect only the interest of
particular parties
 Courts cannot be expected to deny persons their due process rights while at the same time be
considered as acting within their jurisdiction
 An Action for annulment of certificate of title is quasi in rem. It is not an action against a person
on the basis of his personal liability, but an action that subjects a person’s interest over a
property to a burden.
 Service of summons
o If the defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be tendered to
him or her
o If the defendant or respondent is a domestic juridical person, personal service of
summons shall be effected upon its president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in house counsel wherever he or she may be found
o Substituted service is effected
 By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein
 By leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof.
 Service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation is
allowed when the defendant or respondent is designated as an unknown owner
or if his or her whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry. It may only be effected after unsuccessful attempts to serve the
summons personally and after diligent inquiry as to the defendant’s or
respondent’s whereabouts
 Service of summons by extraterritorial service is allowed after leave of court
when the defendant or respondent does not reside or is not found in the court
or is temporarily out of the country.
 If a defendant or respondent voluntarily appears in trial or participates in the
proceedings it is generally construed as sufficient service of summons.
o To avail of substituted service, the facts and circumstances of failure to deliver should
be stated with more particularity and detail on the number of attempts, inquiries to
locate defendant, names of occupants of the alleged residence, and the reasons for
failure should be included in the return to satisfactorily show the efforts undertaken.
 A sherrif’s return enjoys the presumption of regularity in its issuance if it
contains
 The details of the circumstances surrounding the sheriffs attempt to
serve the summons personally upon the defendants or respondents
 The particulars showing the impossibility of serving the summons within
reasonable time.
 It does not enjoy the presumption of regularity if the return was merely
pro-forma
  A petition for annulment of judgment is a recourse that is equitable in character. It is
independent of the case, and is allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available
or adequate remedy.
o Based on two grounds
 Extrinsic fraud
 Lack of jurisdiction
o Annulment of judgment may not be invoked
 Where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition
for relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost
 Where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or
negligence
 Requisites of litis pendentia
o Identity or parties, or interest in both actions
o Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts
o The identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the
other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration.

Gomez vs CA
To resolve whether there was valid service of summons on respondents, the nature of the action filed
against them must first be determined.

Vicenta Pantaleon vs Honorato Asuncion L-13141, May 22, 1959

Facts: Plaintiff Vicenta Panataleon initiated an action for collection of sum of money with interest
against Honorato Asuncion. The summons against Asuncion was unserved and upon motion of the
plaintiff, summon through publication was issued. Asuncion was later declared in default and judgment
was rendered ordering defendant to pay the sum of money with interest. Asuncion after 48 days sought
relief to the court on grounds of excusable negligence.

Issue: Whether or not the relief should be granted

Ruling: Yes, service of summons should be personal. In actions in personam, summons by publication
cannot give jurisdiction to the court over the person of the defendant

Other doctrines:
 It is a well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in personam, like the
one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot – consistently with the
due process clause in the Bill of Rights – confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant.
 Summons by publication, as a general rule will not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.
 Due process of law requires personal service to support a personal judgment, and, when the
proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights and obligations of
the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance in the case is essential
 to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute compliance with the constitutional
requirement of due process.
 Although a state legislature has more control over the form of service on its residents than non-
residents, it has been held that in action in personam service by publication on resident
defendants, who are personally within the state and can be found therein is not due process of
law, and a statute allowing it is unconstitutional.

Rule 2

Cause of action
 a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another
 also called claim
 implies that there is some person in existence who can bring suit and also a person who can
lawfully be sued
Definitions
 Right of action –The remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a party to institute an
action against a person who has violated his right, the legal right to sue
 Relief – the redress or other measure which a plaintiff prays the court to order or adjudicate
in his favour
 Remedy – the form or type of action which the plaintiff may avail of in order to obtain relief
from the court
 Subject matter – the thing, act, contract or property which is directly involved in the action,
concerning which the wrong has been done
1. The right of action springs from the cause of action but does not accrue until all the facts which
constitute the cause of action have accrued.
2. Right of Action is the legal right to sue while cause of action is the facts which give rise to a right
of action
3. There may be a cause of action but with no right of action if the latter is barred by prescription
4. As a general rule, a contract to do several things at several times is divisible, and a judgment for
a single breach of a continuing contract is not a bar to a suit for subsequent breaches. Where
however the obligor manifest refusal to perform not only one prestation but all the other
prestations, the contract is entire and the breach total and constitutes only one cause of action.
a. Anticipatory breach- is the principle wherein in a divisible contract or one contemplating
divisible prestations over a period of time and the there is a breach of one prestation,
the oblige may bring a suit not only for the current prestation but even for the future
prestations if its clear that the obligor can no longer or will no longer perform the future
prestations.
5. Totality rule – it is the rule under joinder of causes of action which states that if the claims in all
the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall
be the test of jurisdiction.

Elements of Cause of Action

  Rights pertaining to plaintiff
 Correlative Obligation of the defendant
 Violation of plaintiff’s right
 Damage suffered by plaintiff
Example
Contract of Loan
Right To collect
Obligation To pay
Violation Non-payment
Damage Cannot get back his money

Culpa Aquilana
Right To be safe
Obligation To be diligent
Violation Due to negligence, plaintiff was injured
Damage Hospitalization expenses

Contract of Sale
Right To paid or demand delivery
Obligation To pay or delivery
Violation Did not pay or deliver
Damage Did not receive the price or the thing
sold

Cause of Action Right of Action

A delict or wrong Refers to the right of the plaintiff to
committed by the institute the action
defendant
Created by substantive law Regulated by procedural law
May not be affected by May be taken away be statute of
estoppel or statute of limitations or estoppel
limitations

Note: if the court can render a valid judgment based on the allegation in the complaint, the complaint
states a cause of action

Secretary Leila M. de Lima vs Magtanggol B. Gatdula. GR No. 204528 February 19, 2013

 A return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. It
should be done prior to the hearing, not after.
 A memorandum, is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually
required before the case is submitted for decisions.
 The privilege of the Writ of Amparo includes the availment of the entire procedure outlined in
AM NO 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
 o Process
 Initiated through a petition to be filed in a RTC, Sandiganbayan, the CA and the
SC
 The judge or justice then makes an immediate evaluation of the facts alleged in
the petition and the affidavits submitted with the attendant circumstances
detailed
 After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ of Amparo or
immediately dismiss the case
 Dismissal – petition and the supporting affidavits do not show that the
petitioner’s right to life, liberty, or security is under threat or acts
complained of are not unlawful
 Issuance – sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for the
petition. The court compels the respondents to appear before a court of
law to show whether the grounds for more permanent protection and
interim relies are necessary.
 The respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the writ
through the clerk of court.
 Summary hearing after the return is filed to determine the merits of the petition
and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the returns is not filed, the hearing
will be done ex parte
 After the hearing, the court will render the judgment within 10 days from the
time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegation are proven with
substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such
reliefs as may be proper and appropriate. The judgment should contain
measures which the judge views as essential to the continued protection of the
petitioner in the Amparo case.

Philip turner vs Lorenzo Shipping GR. NO. 157479, November 24, 2010
Facts: Is there a cause of action when the plaintiff commence an action for payment of their share when
there is no declare unrestricted income?

Ruling: No, Now, before an action properly be commenced all the essential elements of the cause of
actions must be in existence, that is, the cause of action must be complete. All valid conditions
precedent to the institution of the particular action, whether prescribed by statute, fixed by agreement
of the parties or implied by law must be performed or complied with before commencing the action,
unless the conduct of the adverse party has been such as to prevent or waive performance or excuse
non-performance of the condition.
Other doctrines:
 It bears restating that a right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause of action consist
of the operative facts which give rise to such right of action. The right of action does not arise
until the performance of all conditions precedent to the action and may be taken away by the
running of statute of limitations, through estoppel, or by other circumstances which do not
affect the cause of action.
 Performance or fulfilment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of action depends must
be sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a right of
action is upon the person initiating the suit.
  Subject to certain qualifications, and except as otherwise provided by law, an action
commenced before the cause of action has accrued is prematurely brought and should be
dismissed. The fact that the cause of action accrues after the action is commenced and while it is
pending is of no moment. It is a rule of law to which there is, perhaps, no exception, either at
law or in equity, that to recover at all there must be some cause of action at the
commencement of the suit. There are reasons of public policy why there should be no needless
haste in bringing up litigation, and why people who are in no default and against whom there is
as yet no cause of action should be summoned before the public tribunals to answer complaints
which are groundless
 An action prematurely brought is a groundless suit. Unless the plaintiff has a valid a subsisting
cause of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by
the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or
an amendment setting up such after-accrued causes of action is not permissible.

Elements of Cause of Action

 Rights pertaining to plaintiff
 Correlative Obligation of the defendant
 Violation of plaintiff’s right
 Damage suffered by plaintiff

 In order to give rise to any obligation to pay on the part of the respondent, the petitioners
should first make a valid demand that the respondent refused to pay despite having
unrestricted retained earnings.
 A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an amended or
supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action during the pendency
of action.
 For only when there is an invasion of primary rights, not before, does the adjective or remedial
law become operative. Verily, a premature invocation of the court’s intervention renders the
complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground.
 An action prematurely brought is a groundless suit, unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting
cause of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by
the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending. A supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible

Leticia N. Aquino vs Cesar B. Quiazon G.R. No. 201248 March 11, 2015

Failure to state a cause of action Lack of cause of action

Refers to the insufficiency of allegation in the Refers to the insufficiency of factual basis for the
pleading action
May be raised in a motion to dismiss under R16 May be raised anytime
Dismissal can be made at the earliest stage of Dismissal is usually made after questions of fact
action have been resolved on the basis of stipulations,
admissions, or evidence presented
Formal in nature: Forms you submitted in the Evidentiary in nature: No evidence is available to
court are concerned, you failed to state the cause prove the cause of action
of action
  Only averments in the complaint must be considered, which pertains to the ground of failure to
state cause of action xxx the factual matters raised by the respondents in their affirmative
defence arguing the nonexistence of a cause of action should have been duly resolved during a
trial on merits of the case.
 The familiar test for determining whether a complaint did or did not state a cause of action
against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of
fact made in the complaint, a judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint.
 In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint may
properly be considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a procedural error and a denial
of the plaintiff’s right to due process
 Exceptions to the general rule that allegations are hypothetically admitted as true and inquiry is
confined to the face of the complaint
o There is no hypothetical admission of
 Veracity of allegations if their falsity is subject to judicial notice
 Allegations that are legally impossible
 Facts inadmissible in evidence
 Facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be
unfounded
o Inquiry is not confined to the complaint culled
 From annexes and other pleadings submitted by the parties
 From documentary evidence admitted by stipulation which disclose facts
sufficient to defeat the claim
 From evidence admitted in course of hearings related to the case
 Affirmative defences in an answer which would not amount to acceptance of the jurisdiction of
the court and the prayer for affirmative reliefs which would be considered acquiescence to the
jurisdiction of the court.
o A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question the
same jurisdiction.
 The insufficient of the cause of action must appear in the face of the complaint in order to
sustain a dismissal on this ground, for in the determination of whether or not a complaint states
a cause of action, only the facts alleged therein and no other matter may be considered, and the
court may not inquire into the truth of the allegations, and find them be false before a hearing is
had on the merits of the case; and it is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint
facts not alleged or proved, and use these as basis for said motion.

NM Rothschild and Sons, Ltd vs Lepanto Consolidate Mining GR 175799, November 28, 2011
 It is basic that a cause of action is that act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. Its elements are the following: 1) a right existing in favour of the plaintiff, 2) a duty on
the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff’s right, and 3) an act or omission of the
defendant in violation of such right. In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of
action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the
claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.
 The rule is that in a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the
material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff’s complaint
o The flaw in the conclusion is that, while conveniently echoing the general rule that
averments in the complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted upon the filing of a
 motion to dismiss grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, it did not take into
account the equally established limitations to such rule
 Motion to dismiss does not admit the truth of mere epithets of fraud
 Allegations of legal conclusions
 An erroneous statement of law
 Mere inferences or conclusions from facts not state
 Mere conclusions of law
 Allegations of fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice
 Matters of evidence
 Surplusage and irrelevant matter
 Scandalous matter inserted merely to insult the opposing party
 Legally impossible facts
 Facts to which appear unfounded by a record incorporated in the pleading
 A document referred to
 General averments contradicted by more specific averments
o A more judicious resolution of a motion to dismiss, therefor, necessitates that the court
be not restricted to the consideration of the facts alleged in the complaint and
inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Courts may considered other facts within the
range of judicial notice as well as relevant laws and jurisprudence which the courts are
bound to take into account, and they are also fairly entitled to examine
records/documents duly incorporated into the complaint by the pleader himself in
ruling on the demurrer of the complaint.
o An issue that requires the contravention of the allegations of the complaint, as well as
the full ventilation, in effect, of the main merits of the case, should not be within the
province of a mere motion to dismiss.

Fidel O. Chua vs Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company GR 182311 August 19, 2009

 Forum shopping exist when a party repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court
o Committed in three ways
 Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (Where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia)
 Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer,
the previous case having been finally resolved (ground for dismissal is res
judicata)
 Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers (splitting of cause of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either
litis pendentia or res judicata)
 Forum shopping occurs although the actions seem to be different, when it can be seen that
there is a splitting of a cause of action
o A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed
by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.
 o It is true that a single act or omission can violate various rights at the same time, as
when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal
obligations. However, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single
cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated
belonging to one person.
 Even if it were assumed that the two cases contain two separate remedies that are both
available to petitioners, these two remedies that arose from one wrongful act cannot be
pursued in two different cases. The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to prevent
repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy, to
protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation, and to avoid the costs and expenses incident
to numerous suit. It comes from the old maxim nemo debet bis vexari, pro una et eadem cause
(no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause)
 If the forum shopping is not considered wilful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be
dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if
the forum shopping is wilful and deliberate, both (or all) actions shall be dismissed with
prejudice.

Rule 3 (parties)

 Plaintiff – the term plaintiff may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant or the third (fourth etc) –party plaintiff
 Defendant – the term defendant may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) – party defendant
Who can be parties?
Natural persons, juridical persons and entities authorized by law (corporation by estoppel, estate of a
deceased person, a legitimate labour union, the Roman Catholic Church, a dissolved corporation)

Parties to a civil action

1. Real parties-in-interest
a. Is the party who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit
b. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest,
unless authorized by law or rules of court
2. Representative parties
a. An action may be prosecuted or defended through a representative
b. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these rules
c. S2R3 requires that a civil action be prosecuted in the name of but not necessarily by the
real party in interest. Hence, an action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity but the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.
3. Permissive parties
4. Indispensable parties
a. The indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can
be had of an action
b. They shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants
 c. Failure to join an indispensable party will not result in the outright dismissal of the
action instead, parties may be dropped or added by the court on motion of any party or
its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
d. Any decision rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction over
indispensable parties is null and void for want of jurisdiction
5. Necessary parties
a. It is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete
relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of the action.
6. Alternative Defendant
a. Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several person he is entitled to relief, he
may join any or all of them as defendants in alternative, although the right of relief
against one may be inconsistent with the right of relief against the other.
7. Class Suit
a. When the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties, a number of
them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully
protect the interest of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all
b. Conditions for a valid class suit
i. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to
many persons
ii. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
court
iii. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against numerous persons
c. A class suit does not require a commonality of interest in the questions involved in the
suit. What is required by the rules is a common or general interest in the subject matter
of the litigation.
i. Subject matter of the litigation meant the physical, the things real or personal,
the money, lands, chattels, and the like.
Death of Party
The claim does not extinguished, the lawyer is duty bound to inform the court of the fact within 30 days
after such death

Examples of actions which survive after death

 Action to recover real or personal property
 Actions to enforce lien thereon
 Action to recover damages for an injury to persons
 Actions arising from delicts
Actions which do not survive
 Nullity of marriage
 Action for support
 Legal separation
 Action for recognition

NLMK-OLALIA-KMU vs Keihin
A petition to review to the CA did not include Helen Valenzuela as a party in the caption, the appeal was
dismissed due to non-inclusion of an indispensable party
 The CA is correct, it is precisely when an indispensable party is not before the court, an action
should be dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of
the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to
those present.
 The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all
issues not only between the parties themselves but also as regard other persons who may be
affected by the judgment.
 A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable
parties.

Cua vs tan
 Indispensable parties, interest and nominal or pro forma party defined
o Under Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, an indispensable party is a party in
interest, without whom no final determination can be had of an action without that
party being impleaded. Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights so that the court
cannot proceed without their presence.
o Interest within the meaning of this rule, should be material, directly in use, and to be
affected by the decree, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question
involved.
o A nominal or pro-forma party is one who is joined as plaintiff or defendant, not because
such party has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded,
but merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party
on the record
o
MIAA vs Rivera Village Lesee Homeowners Association
 The petition is not a class suit, notably because the petition does not allege the existence and
prove the requisites of a class suit.
o That the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to
many persons and the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
before the court, and because it was brought only by one party.
o The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative
character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as
plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed
and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. It must be stressed that
an unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.
 The SC has allowed the consideration of other grounds not raised or assigned as errors
specifically in the following instances
o Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter
o Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within
the contemplation of the law
o Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in
arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of
justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice
 o Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are
matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed
to raise or which the lower court ignored
o Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned
o Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a
question properly assigned is dependent.
 A writ of mandamus can be issued only when petitioner’s legal right to the performance of a
particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. A clear legal right is a right
which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law.
o Principal function of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to
adjudicate.
 Writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are prerogative writs of equity and their granting
is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the courts to be exercised on equitable principles.
Said writs should only be issued when the right to relief is clear.
 The presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the exercise of judicial
power. It is precisely when an indispensable party is not before the court that the action should
be dismissed.
 The plaintiff is mandated to implead all indispensable parties, and the absence of one renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the
absent parties, but even as to those present. One who is a party to a case is not bound by any
decision of the court, otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process.
 Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interest.
o Issued upon satisfaction of two requisites
 The existence of a right to be protected
 Acts which are violative of said right
 Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights.
 It is a matter of law when a party adopts a certain theory in the court below, he will not be
permitted to change his theory on appeal, for to permit him to do so would not only be unfair to
the other party but it would also be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due
process.

Navarro vs Escobido
o There is no law authorizing sole proprietorships to bring suit in court. The law merely recognizes
the existence of sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a
single individual. It does not vest juridical or legal personality upon the sole proprietorship nor
empower it to file or defend an action in court. It should have been filed in the name of the
owner of the sole proprietorship’
o Registration of the trade name in the name of one person-a woman-does not necessarily lead to
the conclusion that the trade name as a property is hers alone, particularly when the woman is
married.
o Sole proprietorships by a spouse is a conjugal property until the contrary is proven. Property
relations of husband and wife are governed by rules on partnership. By the rules on partnership,
each partner is a co-owner with the other partners of specific property of partnership. And in
co-ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the
necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have
been filed for the benefit of his co-owners.
 o Only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-
owned property is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable
parties, not even necessary parties.
o In cases of spouse, the other spouse only needs to impleaded as a pro-forma party to the suit,
based on S4R4 of the RRC
o Misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of
action. The proper remedy when a party is left out is to implead the indispensable party at any
stage of the action.
o If the plaintiff to whom the order to include the indispensable party is directed refuses
to comply with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of
the defendant or upon the court’s own motion. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal
to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed.

Constantino vs Heirs of Pedro Constantino

o In pari delicto means in equal fault, connotes that two or more people are at fault or are guilty
of a crime. Neither courts of law nor equity will interpose to grant relief to the parties, when an
illegal agreement has been made, and both parties stand in pari delicto
o The pari delicto doctrine, the parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they shall
have no action against each other, and it shall leave the parties where it finds them
o Privies is meant those between whom an action is deemed binding although they are not
literally parties to the said action
o privity in estate denotes the privity between assignor and assignee, donor and donee,
grantor and grantee, joint tenant for life and ramainderman or reversioner and the
respective assignees, vendor by deed of warranty and a remote vendee or assigned.
o A privy in estate is one, it has been said, who derives his title to the property in question
by purchase, one who takes by conveyance.
o Parties to a void agreement cannot expect the aid of the law, the court leave them as they are,
because they are deemed in pari delicto or in equal fault. This rule however, is not absolute. Art
1142 of the CC provides an exception, and permits the return of that which may have been
given under a void contract.

Banda vs Ermita
o Courts must exercise utmost caution before allowing a class suit, which is the exception to the
requirement of joinder of all indispensable parties. For while no difficulty may arise if the
decision secured is favourable to the plaintiffs, a quandary would result if the decision were
otherwise as those who were deemed impleaded by their self-appointed representatives would
certainly claim denial of due process
o Class suit requisites
o The subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons
o The parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court
o The parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representatives of the
class and can fully protect the interest of all concerned
 o An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings.
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending facts, and the complaint, or
other pleading initiating the class action should allege the existence of the necessary facts, to
wit, the existence of the requisites.
o An element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation.
o Fair and adequate representation of members of a class is determined
 Whether the interest of the name party is coextensive with the interest
of the other members of the class
 The proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total
membership of the class
 Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for
the rest of the class
Legaspi Towers 300, Inc vs Muer

o The courts have the inherent power to amend and control their processes and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice. A judge has an inherent right, while his judgment is
still under his control, to correct errors, mistakes or injustices.
o Suits by stockholders or members of a corporation based on wrongful or fraudulent acts of
directors or other persons may be classified into individual suits, class suits, and derivative suits.
o Where a stockholder or member is denied the right of inspection, his suit would be
individual because the wrong done to him personally and not to the other stockholders
or the corporation
o Where the wrong is done to a group of stockholders, as where preferred stockholders
rights are violated, a class or representative will be proper for the protection of all
stockholders belonging to the same group
o Where the acts complained constitute a wrong to the corporation itself, the cause of
action belongs to the corporation and not to the individual stockholder or member.
o Where mismanagement is caused by wrongful acts committed by the directors or
trustees themselves, the right of a stockholder to sue on behalf of a corporation is a
derivative suit.
 An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of
the corporation wherein he holds stock in order to protect or vindicate
corporate rights, whenever officials of the corporation refuse to sue or are the
ones to be sued or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing
stockholder is regarded as the nominal party, with the corporation as the party-
in-interest.
 Requisites of derivative suit
 The party bringing the suit should be a shareholder as of the time of the
act or transaction complained of, the number of his shares not being
material
 He has tried to exhaust intra-corporate remedies.
 The cause of action actually devolves on the corporation, the
wrongdoing or harm having been or being cause to the corporation and
not to the particular stockholder bringing the suit.
 A derivative action is a suit by a stockholder to enforce a corporate cause of
action – an individual stockholder may file a derivative suit on behalf of the
corporation to protect or vindicate corporate rights whenever the officials of the
 corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued, or hold control of the
corporation
 In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as the nominal party with the
corporation as the party in interest.

Algura vs The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga

o Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor
o Filing fees, though one of the essential elements in court procedures, should not be an obstacle
to poor litigants’ opportunity to seek redress for their grievances before the courts.
o When an application to litigate as an indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the
affidavits and supporting documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant
complies with the income and property standards prescribed in S9 R141, the is the applications
gross income and that of the applicant’s immediate family do not exceed an amount double the
monthly minimum wage of an employee, and the applicant does not own real property with a
fair market value of more than 300,000. If the trial court finds that the applicant meets the
income and property requirements, the authority to litigate as indigent litigant is automatically
granted and the grant is a matter of right
o If the trial court finds that on or both requirements have not been met, then it would set a
hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has “no money or property sufficient
and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for himself and his family” in that hearing,
the adverse party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented by
the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on the application depending on the evidence
adduced.
o In short saying, if the applicant meets the salary and property requirements under S19R141 the
grant of the application if mandatory, if the application does not satisfy one or both
requirements, then the application should not be denied outright, instead the court should
apply the indigency test and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for
exemption.
o A party cannot invoke the 3 rd paragraph of S16R 141 of the RRC which allows that the legal fees
shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment that may be rendered in favour of such
party if he is not a pauper-litigant.

Filing Fees
Filing fees are determined from the allegation in the complaint, depending from the amount the plaintiff
claims from the defendant. Generally 7k for every million.

Manchester Development vs CA (with intention to defraud the government, dimissed)

1. Even if they are asking for two different things they arose from the same set of facts.
Is the basis for the filing of the case, based on the same transaction?
2. Seeking different remedies splitting from the same set of facts is splitting cause of action.

Petitioners in support of their contention that the filing fee must be asses on the basis of the amended
complaint. They content that the CA erred in ruling that the filing fee should be levied by considering the
amount of damages sought in the original complaint.
o That a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of
filing in court.
 o To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar
pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayers, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the
filing fees in any case. Any pleading the fails to comply with this requirement shall not be
accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.
o The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the
Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended
pleading. Magaspi is overturned and reversed.

Sun Insurance Office vs Asuncion (in good faith mistake, you will be asked to pay correct fees)
Whether or not a court acquires jurisdiction over a case when the correct and proper docket fee has not
been paid.
o The contention that Manchester cannot apply retroactively to this case in untenable. Statutes
regulation the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in the sense and to
that extent.
o Payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an
appeal
o The date of payment of docket fees must be deemed to be the real date of filing of aforesaid
petition and not the date when it was mailed.
o Docket fee must be paid before a court will act on a petition or complaint, however, the rule is
not applicable when petitioner seeks the probate of several wills of the same decedent as he is
not required to file a separate action for each will but instead he may have other wills probated
in the same special proceeding then pending before the same court.
o Rules
o It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within the reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period
o The same rules applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time
but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period
o Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on
the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk of court or his duly authorized
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

Ruby Shelter vs Fomaran

o Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee;
payment of docket fees is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional
 o Docket fees under Section 7(b)(1) rule 141 in cases involving real property depend on the fair
market value of the same: the higher the value of the real property, the higher the docket fees
due. In contrast, section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 imposes a fixed or flat rate of docket fees on actions
incapable of pecuniary estimation
o In computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead of relying on
the asses or estimated value, would now be using the fair market value of the real properties (as
stated in the tax declaration or the zonal valuation of the BIR whichever is higher) or in the
absence thereof, the state value of the same.

Rizal vs Naredo

Facts: The Rizal petitioned for the acquisition of Accretion of two (2) hectares of land the CFI ruled in
favour of the petitioners. The defendants were ordered to vacate said land and pay 500.0 from year
1943 as reasonable rent. The sheriff levied the lot and house which is subject to the controversy to
satisfy the money judgment. The properties were eventually subjected to auction sale and sold to the
highest bidder.

Herein petitioners, Marcela, Leoncia, Matias, Valentin and Juana instituted a case before the CFI
questioning the validity of the execution. They claimed that these properties were exempt from
execution. The CFI declared valid the execution sale with a qualification that the petitioners only
acquired whatever rights, title or interest Matias, Valentin, and Juana had. Despite the order, Marcela
and Leoncia were not ejected to the land since they were not parties to the case. Hence, petitioners
filed a civil case against Marcela and Leoncia for partition, accounting, and recovery of possession which
the parties entered in a compromise agreement approved by the court. 10 years after, marcel and
leoncia assailed the compromise agreement due to forgery and that their lawyer was not duly
authorized for the purpose. The Court dismissed the petition. Marcela and Leoncia file for partition and
segregation but was dismissed on ground of prescription. They again filed a complaint for segregation,
partition and recovery of shares and ownership but was dismissed due to res judicata. They filed appeal
to CA, but dismissed the same, one of the reasons is that both in the prayer and in the body of the
complaint, the specific amounts of the petitioner’s claim for actual, moral, exemplary, and
compensatory damages enunciated in the Manchester case was not specified.

Issue: whether or not the CA erred in applying the ruling in the Manchester case regarding docket fees.

Ruling: Although it is settled that technical rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application should be relaxed when they hinder rather than
promote substantial justice. Cases should as much as possible be resolved on the merits and not on
mere technicalities. However, while the Court may be lenient in some instances on formal defects of the
pleadings filed with the court, it could not close its eyes when a litigant continuously ignores technical
rules to the point of wanton disregard of the rationale behind those rules.

Petitioners also failed to pay the correct docket fees, in which case, jurisdiction did not vest in the trial
court. Any complaint, petition, answer and other similar pleading, which does not specify both in its
body and prayer the amount of damages being claimed, should not be accepted or admitted, or should
be expunged from the records, as may be the case. This rule-requiring the amount of damages claimed
to be specified not only in the body of the pleading but also in its prayed portion, was intended to put an
end to the then prevailing practice of lawyers where the damages prayed for were recited only in the
body of the complaint, but not in the prayer, in order to evade payment of the correct filing fees.
 o Manchester: ruling
o Sun Insurance vs Judge Assuncion rules
o It cannot be gainsaid from the above guidelines that, with the exception of pauper litigants,
without the payment of correct docket or filing fees within the reglementary period, jurisdiction
over the subject-matter or nature of the action will not vest in the trial court. In fact, a pauper
litigant may still have to pay the docket fees later, by way of lien on the monetary or property
judgment that may accrue to him
o Only natural party litigant may be regarded as an indigent litigant

Home Guaranty Corporation vs R-II Builders

o Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the RRC which provides that the prescribed fees shall be
paid in full upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or
proceeding. The well-entrenched rules is to the effect that a court acquires jurisdiction over a
case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.
o A claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation if the action is primarily for recovery of a
sum of money. Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recovery a sum of
money, the money claim being only incidental to or merely a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, to our mind, the application foregoing test does not, however, preclude the further
classification of actions into personal actions and real action, for which appropriate docket fees
are prescribed.
o The importance of filing fees cannot be over-emphasized for they are intended to take care of
court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries
and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of
each case. The payment of said fees, therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the
action taken without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in
particular.
o The payment of docket fees within the prescribe period is mandatory for the perfection of an
appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appeal from becomes final and
executory.

Do all metal industries vs Security Bank

o A case about the propriety of awarding damages based on claims embodied in the plaintiff’s
supplemental complaint without prior payment of the corresponding filing fees.
o On the issue of jurisdiction, respondent Bank argues that plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fees
on their supplemental complaint is fatal to their action. But what the plaintiffs failed to pay was
merely the filing fees for their supplemental complaint. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
plaintiff’s action from the moment they filed their original complaint accompanied by the
payment of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiff’s non-payment of the additional filing
fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over
the case
o A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on the
complaint need to be paid upon its filing – the rules do not require the court to make special
assessments in cases of supplemental complaints.
o It is not for a party to a case, or even for the trial court, to waive the payment of the additional
filing fees due on the supplemental complaint – only the SC can grant exemptions to the
payment of the fees due the courts and these exemptions are embodied in its rules.
Proton vs Bance Nationale de Paris
o Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court
may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time within the
expiration of applicable prescription or reglementary period. If the plaintiffs fails to comply with
this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be
considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between appropriate docket fees and the
amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien or any award he may obtain in his
favour
o While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-
payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as
the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the
party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus,
when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to
defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply

Rule 4: Venue refers to the possible or proper place or places for the trial of a suit, as among several
places where jurisdiction could be established
Venue in civil cases is procedural and not substantive, thus, it may be waived or can be subject
to agreement of the parties

Jurisdiction Venue
Deals with the authority of the court to Deals with the place where it should be
exercise judicial power exercised

Section 1: Title, Interest or possession in real property shall be commenced and tried by the trial court
which have jurisdiction where the property is situated.

Forcible Entry and Unlawful detainer shall be commenced in the Municipal trial court wherein the
property involved is located

Section 2: personal actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiff resides
Where the defendants or any principal defendants resides
If non-resident defendant, where he may be found at the election of the plaintiff

Section 3: In case of foreign defendant

Type of Action NRD Found in the PH NRD not found in the Ph
Personal Action Plaintiff’s resident or where If action #3 see below
defendant is found
Real Action Where property is situated If action #3 see below
Action affecting personal status See columns above Plaintiff’s residence or where
of plaintiff or property of property is situated or found
defendant in the Ph

Section 4: Non-applicability of the rules

  Where a specific rule provides otherwise
 Valid agreement of the parties when it comes to venue

Cases: San Miguel vs Monasterio (GR 151037)

Facts: San Miguel Corporation entered into an Exclusive Warehouse Agreement (EWA) with SBM
Warehousing Services represented by its manager, Troy Francis L. Monasterio. It include a stipulation on
the venue of actions that ‘the propert court should be in the courts of Makati or Pasig, Metro Manila, to
the exclusion of the other courts at the option of the COMPANY.

Monasterio filed a complaint in the RTC of Naga City, SMC filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
improper venue. Monasterio responded that the cashiering service he rendered for the petitioner was
separate and distinct from the services under the EWA.

The RTC favoured Monastery citing that the services agreed upon in said contract is limited to
warehousing services not cashiering services. The CA reversed the RTC citing that cashiering services was
inseparable from warehousing services.

Issue: Whether or not the complaint was filed in the wrong venue

Ruling: No, the venue stipulation in the EWA should be construed as mandatory, nothing therein being
contrary to law, morals, good custom, or public policy, this provision is binding upon the parties. The
EWA stipulation on venue is clear and unequivocal, thus it ought to be respected.
However, the cause of action in the RTC Naga complaint was not based on the EWA and concerns
services not on the EWA. Hence, with other considerations, RTC Naga is the proper venue for the
collection of sum of money.

Other doctrines:
 Exclusive venue stipulations embodied in a contract restricts or confines parties thereto
when the suit relates to breach of the said contract. But where the exclusivity clause
does not make it necessarily all encompassing, such that even those not related to the
enforcement of the contract should be subject to the exclusive venue, the stipulation
designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined to the specific undertaking or
agreement. Otherwise, the basic principles of freedom of contract might work to the
great disadvantage of a weak party-suitor who ought to be allowed free access to courts
of justice.
 Restrictive stipulations are in derogation of the general policy of making it more
convenient for the parties to institute actions arising from or in relation to their
agreements. Thus, the restriction should be strictly construed as relating solely to the
agreement for which the exclusive venue stipulation is embodied. Expanding the scope
of such limitation on a contracting party will create unwarranted restrictions which the
parties might find unintended or worse, arbitrary and oppressive.
 Moreover, since convenience is the raison d’etre of the rules on venue, venue
stipulation should be deemed merely permissive, and that interpretation should be
adopted which most serves the parties convenience. Contrawise, the rules mandated by
the Rules of Court should govern.

Rule 5: Uniform Rules

Section 1: Same procedure of MTC and RTC except in:
 Where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of the said courts
 In civil cases governed by the rules on Summary Procedure
Section 2: Municipal Trial Court includes Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

Prohibited pleadings in summary procedures

1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding section
(lupon)
2. Motion for a bill of particulars
3. Motion for new trial, reconsideration or for opening of trial
4. Petition for relief from judgment
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper
6. Memoranda
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court (interlocutory orders – orders that does not deal with the merits of the case)
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default
9. Dilatory motions for postponement
10. Reply
11. Third party complaints
12. Intervention

Estate of Felomina G. Macadangdang vs Lucia Gaviola

GR. No. 156809, March 4, 2009
(Rule on Summary Procedure governs in MTC not in the RTC)
Facts: the Estate of Macadandang filed for unlawful detainer against Gaviola and others. The MTC ruled
in favour of the estate basing on the rule on summary procedure. The Respondents appeal on the Trial
Court where the plaintiff argued that Motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading in Summary
Proceedings.

Issue: Whether or not the appeal is a prohibited pleading in summary procedure.

Ruling: Yes, but the appeal must not be denied since it was filed in the RTC. Jurisdiction over forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases falls on the MTC and MTCC and MTC and MCTC. Since the case before
the MTCC was an unlawful detainer case, it was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. The
purpose of the Rules is to prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases and to achieve this, the filing
of certain pleadings is prohibited, including the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
However, in this case, the motion for reconsideration was filed before the RTC acting as an appellate
court, the appeal before the RTC is no longer covered by the Rules.

Republic and NDC vs Sunvar Realty Dev’t Corpo (194880).

Facts: The Republic and NDC are owners of parcels of land which was subleased to Sunvar Realty dev’t
Corporation. Upon expiration of the sublease, Sunvar failed to vacate the premises, prompting the
plaintiff’s to file unlawful detainer against the respondents. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss
alleging a wrong cause of action against the plaintiffs which the MeTC denied. They filed under rule 65 a
petition for certiorari with the RTC of Makati on the propriety of the denial of their motion to dismiss.

In answer to the Rule 65 petition, petitioner’s place in issue the jurisdiction of the RTC and reasoned that
the Rules on Summary Procedure expressly prohibited the filing of a petition for certiorari against
interlocutory orders of the MeTC.

Issue: Where or not Rule 65 Petition in Summary Proceedings is correct

Ruling: No, under the rules on summary procedure, a certiorari petition under Rule 65 against an
interlocutory order issued by the court in a summary proceeding is a prohibited pleading. The
prohibition is plain enough, and its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage. The RTC should have
dismissed outright respondent Sunvar’s Rule 65 Petition, considering that it is a prohibited pleading.

Interlocutory orders – orders from the court that does not deal with the merits of the case

Excemptions:

Bayog vs Natino
In resolving the rule 65 petition, we ruled that although a petition for relief from judgment was a
prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the Court nevertheless
allowed the filing of the Petition Pro Hac Vice, since Magdato would otherwise suffer grave
injustice and irreparable injury.
Go vs CA
Indisputably, the appeal order is interlocutory for it does not dispose of the case but leaves
something else to be done by the trial court on the merits of the case. It is axiomatic that an
interlocutory order cannot be challenged by an appeal. Thus, it has been held that the proper
remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment on the merits
incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Allowing appeals
from interlocutory orders would result in the sorry spectacle of a case being subject of a
counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is
perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings. However, where the assailed
interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford
adequate and expeditious relief, the court may allow certiorari as mode of redress.

Fairland Knitcraft Corporation vs Arturo Loo Po (217694)

Facts: Petitioner Fairland leased a condominium unit to respondent Arturo Loo Poo under an oral
contract for 20,000 a month. Po continuously failed to pay rent prompting Fairland to file unlawful
detainer to MeTC. Po failed to file an answer.

MeTC dismissed Fairland’s unlawful detainer as it failed to prove its claim that it is entitled to possession
of the subject property as there was no evidence presented to support this claim. Fairland argued that
an unlawful detainer case was a special civil action governed by summary procedure. In cases where a
defendant failed to file his answer, there was no need for a declaration of default. And judgment shall
be based on the facts alleged in the complaint and that there was no requirement that judgment must
be based on facts proved by preponderance of evidence. The RTC and CA affirmed the MeTC for the
same reasons.

Issue: Whether or not in an ejectment case if no answer was seasonably filed, it is an error of law to
base judgment on preponderance of evidence.

Ruling: No, the complaint of Fairland sufficiently alleged that it was the owner of the subject property
being leased to Po by virtue of an oral agreement. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the right of
evidence is not considered when a judgment is rendered based on the complaint. Po’s failure to file his
answer on time, the Metc should have render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the
complaint and limited to what is prayed therein. As Sec. 6 of the RRSP provides, should the defendant
fail to answer the complaint with the period provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the
plaintiff, based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. The failure
of the defendant to timely file his answer and to controvert the claim against him constitutes his
acquiescence to every allegation stated in the complaint. Logically, there is nothing to be done in this
situation except to render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.

Under section 7, rule 70. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer – if the defendant fails to answer the
complaint within the period provided, the court has no authority to declare the defendant in default.
Instead, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for.

On the question on attachment for proof of ownership

The rules do not compel the plaintiff to attach his evidence to the complaint because, at this inception
stage, he only has to file his complaint to establish his cause of action. Here, the court was only tasked
to determine whether the complaint of Fairland alleged a sufficient cause of action and to render
judgment thereon. There was no need to attach proof of ownership because the allegations therein
constituted a sufficient cause of action for unlawful detainer. Only when the allegation in the complaint
are insufficient to form a cause of action shall the attachment become material in the determination
thereof – it is not mandatory to attach annexes to the complaint.

We emphasize, however, that the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material
allegations in the complaint. Thus, consideration of the annexed document should only be taken
in the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an
expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. It
does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a time procedure designed to remedy the
situation. Thus, as a consequence of the defendant’s failure to file an answer, the court is simply tasked
to render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is
prayed for.

In the case, there is no more need to present evidence to establish the allegation of fairland of its
ownership and superior right of possession over the subject property. Po’s failure to file an answer
constitutes an admission of his illegal occupation due to his non-payment of rentals, and of Fairland’s
rightful claim of material possession. Thus, judgment must be rendered finding that fairland has the righ
to eject PO from the subject property
Other doctrine:
Sufficiency of a cause of action for unlawful detainer, if it recites the followings:
1. Initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the
defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property, and deprived
the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
4. Within one (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property,
the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

Angelina Soriente vs Estate of Arsenio Concepcion (160239)

Facts: Respondent Nenita S. Concepcion established that she was the registered owner of the lot
occupied by petitioner Angelina Soriente. The petitioners were allowed to occupy the land by tolerance
by the Respondent’s Father. After peaceful demands to vacate the land, petitioner failed to vacate,
prompting the respondents to file for an unlawful detainer.

Petitioner Soriente failed to file a separate answer but affixed her signature to the Answer filed by
another defendant. Respondent filed a motion to render judgment for Soriente’s failure to answer to
the Complaint. The Trial court denied the motion as it considered the signature of Soriente as an
answer. In the Preliminary Conference, a representative for Soriente appeared but failed to submit an
SPA authorizing her to enter into a compromise agreement. Thus, respondent moved that the case be
submitted for decision.

The Trial Court rendered judgment against Soriente ordering her to vacate the land and pay rental fees.
The RTC affirmed the decision.

Issue: whether or not the RTC erred in holding that the instant case to be decided in accordance with
section 7 of the rules on summary procedure.

Ruling: NO, the RTC is correct. Section 7 of the rules on summary procedure provides that the failure of
the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be a cause for the dismissal of his complaint.
The Defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his
counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.

If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in accordance with
Section 6 hereof. This Rule shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common
cause of action who had pleaded a common defence shall appear at the preliminary conference.

When the petitioner asserted that the cases against here were consolidated with other defendants, thus
the last paragraph of Section 7 shall apply to here is erroneous. Since, Soriente and other defendants
were not co-defendants in the same case. The ejectment case filed against petitioner was distinct from
that of the others. Considering that petitioner was sued in a separate case for ejectment from that of
Caballero and Sadol, petitioner’s failure to appear in the Preliminary Conference entitled respondent to
the rendition of judgment by the trial court on the ejectment case filed against petitioner under Section
7 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

Chapter 7 – Katarungang Pambarangay

Baranggay concialiation is Condition sine qua non before filing to the MTC

Section 399:

a) Composition of the Lupong Tagapamayapa composed of the Punong Baranggay as the Chariman
with 10 to 20 members constituted every 3 years.
b) Any person actually residing or working in the Baranggay not disqualified by law and possessing
integrity, impartiality, independence of mind, sense of fairness, and reputation of probity may
be appointed in the Lupon.
c) Notice to constitute a lupon must be posted by the Punong Baranggay within the first 15 days
from the start of his term and shall be pointed in 3 conspicuous places for a continuous period
of not less than 3 weeks.
d) Within 10 days upon consideration of opposition to the proposed appointment of the lupon,
may appoint members those whom he determines to be suitable thereof. Appointments shall be
in writing, signed by the Punong Baranggay and attested to by the Baranggay Secretary
e) The list of appointed members shall be posted in 3 conspicuous places in the barangay for the
entire duration of their term of office
f) In barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of the indigenous cultural
communities, local system through their council of datus or elders shall be recognized without
prejudice to the application of provisions of this code

Section 400: Oath and term of office. Appointment may be terminated by resignation, transfer of
residence or place of work, or withdrawal of appointment by the Punong Baranggay with the
concurrence of the majority of all the members of the lupon.

Section 401: Vacancies: The Punong barangay shall immediately appoint a qualified person who shall
hold office for the unexpired portion of the term.

Section 402: Functions:

a) Administrative supervision over the conciliation panels
b) Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and
the public on matters relevant to the amicable settlement of disputes and to enable various
conciliation panel members to share with one another their observation and experiences in
effecting speedy resolution of disputes
c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed
by law or ordinance.
Section 403: Secretary of the Lupon
 The Barangay secretary is the secretary of the Lupon
 Record the results of mediation proceedings
 Shall submit report thereon to the proper city or municipal courts

Section 404: Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo

 A conciliation panel consisting of 3 members who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute
from the list of the members of the lupon. If parties fail Punong Barangay will draw lots.
  The 3 members of the Pangkat shall elect among themselves the chairman and a secretary.
 The lupon secretary shall issue certified true copies of any public record in his custory that is not
by law otherwise declared confidential
Section 405: Vacancy to the pangkat shall be chosen by the parties to the lupon, if it cannot be agreed
the PB will draw lots.

Section 406: Character of office and service of lupon members

 Lupon members while in the performance of the duties or on the occasion thereof shall be
deemed person in authority as defined by the RPC
 Shall serve without compensation

Section 407: Legal Advice on Matters involving questions of Law

a) The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or the municipal legal officer shall render legal
advice

Section 408: The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:
a) Where one party is the government
b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates performance of his
official functions
c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding 5k
d) Offenses where there is no private offended party
e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities. Unless
parties agree to settle in an appropriate lupon
f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in Barangays of different cities or municipalities,
except where such Barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit
their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.
g) Such other classes of disputes which the president may determine in the interest of justice or
upon the recommendation of the secretary of justice.
The court in which non-criminal case not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are
filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable
settlement.

Section 409: Venue

Persons actually residing in the same barangay The lupon of the said barangay
Involving actual residents of different barangays Barangay where the respondent or any of the
within the same city or municipality respondent actually resides, at the election of the
complainant
All disputes involving real property or any Barangay where the real property or the larger
interest therein portion thereof is situated
Those arising at the workplace where the Barangay where such workplace or institution is
contending parties are employed or at the located
institution where such parties are enrolled for
study

Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings otherwise deemed waived.
Section 410: Procedure for amicable settlement

a) Upon payment of appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another
individual involving any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in
writing to the lupon chairman of the Barangay.
b) Mediation by Lupon Chairman – Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman shall within
the next working day summon the respondent. If he fails in his mediation effort within 15 days
from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the
constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
c) Suspension of the prescriptive period of offenses – While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive period for offenses and cause of action under
existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the Punong Barangay.
The prescriptive period shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the
certificate of repudiation or of the certificate to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat
secretary.

d) Issuance of summons, hearings, grounds for disqualification

a. Pangkat shall convene not later than 3 days from its constitution
b. Pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of the parties and the
witnesses before it
c. The party may move to disqualify any members of the pangkat by reason of
relationship, bias, interest or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution
of the pangkat.
e) Period to arrive at a settlement – within 15 days from the day it convenes extendible for another
period which shall not exceed 15 dyas. Except in clearly meritorious cases.

Section 411. Form of settlement – all amicable settlements shall be in writing

Section 412. Conciliation

a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in court. No complaint, petition, action or proceeding
involving an matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court
or any other government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between
the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has
been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or been repudiated by the parties thereto.
b) Where parties may go directly to Court
a. Where the accused in under detention
b. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty, calling for habeas
corpus proceedings
c. Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, delivery of personal property, and support pendent lite; and
d. Where the action may otherwise be barred by statute of limitations
c) Customs and traditions of the ICCs/IPs shall be applied in the conciliation among members of
the indigenous cultural communities
Section 413: Arbitration
a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings agree in writing that they shall abide by the
arbitration award of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. It may be repudiated within 5 days
from the date thereof for the same grounds an in accordance with the procedure herein
 prescribed. The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation and
within 10 days thereafter
b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties.

Section 414: Proceedings open to the Public

Exception: by motu proprio or upon request of the party exclude the public from the
proceedings in the interest of privacy, decency or public morals

Section 415: Appearance of Parties in Persons – parties must appear in person without the assistance of
counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by the next of kin
who are not lawyers

Section 416: Effect of amicable settlement and arbitration award.

Shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of 10 days
thereof unless repudiation of the settlement has been made of a petition to nullify the award
has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.

Section 417: Execution: may be enforced by execution by the lupon within 6 months from the date of
the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court

Section 418: Repudiation

Any party to the dispute may within 10 days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the
same by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the
consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the
issuance of the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.

Section 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration Award to the Court – the secretary of the lupon
shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the appropriate city or municipal court within 5
days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the 10 day period repudiating the settlement and
shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon chairman

Small Claims

Small claims is an action purely civil in nature where the claim prayed for is solely for the payment or
reimbursement of sum of money

Examples:
a) Unpaid rental in a contract of lease (whether verbal or written)
b) Unpaid loan (whether the contract is verbal or written)
c) Unpaid compensation for contract of services (repairs of gadget, carpentry work, web design)
d) Unpaid purchase prices in a contract of sale (verbal or written)
e) Unpaid amortization in a contract of mortgage
f) Unpaid penalties or liquidated damages as stipulated in the contract
g) Unpaid monetary obligation arising from a barangay settlement or arbitration award
Claims not covered
a) Criminal cases
b) Money claims arising from or incorporated in a criminal action
 c) Moral, exemplary, temperate and nominal damages
d) Ejectment (unless it is for claim of unpaid rent)

Limit of small claims

 Metro Manila – 400,000 and below
 Outside MM – 300,000 and below

Steps in prosecution of Small Claims

1) Prepare and photocopy your documents like contracts, promissory notes, receipts, demand
letter, and the screen shots of messages
2) Prepare affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the transaction and the fact of
non-payment
3) Fill out the State of Claim and the Certification (SC website)
4) Go to the MTC of the place where you are residing to file your filled-out forms and supporting
documents and to pay the filing fees
5) Wait for the notice of hearing to be issued by the court
6) Appear in court on the designated date of hearing

Note:
1) You do not need a lawyer in the hearing, but you need to appear personality (lawyers are not
allowed)
2) You need to demand first before a debtor to put him in default
3) You need to go to barangay to file your claim (Katarungang Pambarangay)
4) No appeal can be made

Rationale for the Rule

To achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases

Applicability: the summary procedure in the MTC in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction

Scope:
 Civil Cases
 All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of damages or
unpaid rentals. Where attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed 20,000
 All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff claims does
not exceed 200,000 exclusive of interest and cost
Claim and demand from:
Money owed under the following:
1) Contract of lease, loan, services, sale, or mortgage
For liquidated damages arising from contract
Enforcement of Barangay amicable settlement or arbitration award under the Local Government Code

Does not apply to civil case where the plaintiff’s cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with
another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense
charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure

 Court determines the applicability of RRSP, erroneous determination to avoid application of

RRSP is a ground for disciplinary action
Pleadings allowed: Complaints, Compulsory Counterclaims, Cross-claims pleaded in the answer, and the
answers thereto

Rule 6
Pleadings: written statements of the respective claims and defences of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgement

Pleadings allowed: Complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint, complaint-in-

intervention, answer, reply

Upon filing of the complaint

1. the filing of the complaint in court signifies the commencement of the civil actions
2. Court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff
3. Interrupts the prescription of action
Answer
It is one which the defending party sets forth his or her defences
Kinds of Defences
1) Negative – it is a specific denial of a material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant
essential to his cause or causes of action
2) Affirmative – it is an allegation of new matter, which while hypothetically admitting the material
allegations in the pleading of the claimant would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery from him
a. May also include that: a) court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, b) that there
is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or c) that the
action is barred by a prior judgment (section 12, Rule 8)

Counterclaim
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party
1) Compulsory (elements in Alba vs Malapajo)
a. It arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is
the subject matter of the opposing’s party claim (necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing party)
b. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction (does not need the presence of third parties for
adjudication)
c. Such counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to amount and
nature thereof (must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to amount and
nature, except if original from RTC as to the amount)
Test to determine compulsory counterclaim (NAMARCO Doctrine)
 Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
( fact and law the same)
 Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim about the compulsory
counterclaim? (Res judicata)
 Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as
defendant’s counterclaim? (same evidence)
 Is there any logical relation between the claim or counterclaim (logical relation)
 If all yes, the counterclaim is compulsory
1) Permissive if it does not arise out or is not necessarily connected with the Subject matter of the
opposing party’s claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another
case – to avoid multiplicity of suits
Cross-claim
Any claim by one party-against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may cover all or part of
the original claim
 A cross-claim must be related to the original action or counter-claim therein. The rules says the
cross-claim must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of
the original action or of a counterclaim therein.

Reply
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of
new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document
 General Rule, Reply is not required, because all new matters alleged in the answers are deemed
controverted
 Necessary, when the defendant attached an actionable document to his or her answer.

Third-party complaint etc

Is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court file against a person not a party to the
action, called the third party defendant, or any other relief, in respect of his opponents claim?

Intervention
A proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the Court to make
himself a party, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint or
uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff. (Mactan-Cebu International vs
Heirs of Minoza)

Who may intervene?

 A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation
 Or in the success of either of the parties
 Or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or
other disposition of property in the custody of the court
Sy Chim vs Sy Tiong Shiou

Facts: Junaita Tan Corporate treasurer wrote the Board of Directors that the control, supervision and
administration of all corporate funds were exercised by Sy Chim and Felicidad Chan SY (Spouse SY).
Further, Felicidad Chan Sy did not make cash deposits to any of the Corporations Banks. A third party
accounting was made and a 67M unaccounted receipts and disbursements were attributed to the
Spouses Sy. Spouses Sy allegedly transferred residence and ceased reporting to the corporation. The
corporation filed a criminal complaint.

Meaning, Sy Tiong Shiou, VP and GM, called a special meeting to fill up the positions of the spouses. He
was elected as new president and his wife Juanita Tan the new VP. Sy Chim however, caused the
issuance of a notice of stockholders meeting as corporate president.

The corporation amended its complaint against the Spouses Sy. By way of answer, the Spouses assailed
the meetings called by Sy Tiong Shiou and pursued a counter-claim. They also filed a motion for leave to
file Third-party complaint against Sy Tiong Shiou and his spouse, accusing them of misappropriation of
corporate funds. The Trial court granted. Sy Tiong Shiou filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, the
CA granted the petition and declared that a third-party complaint is not allowed under the Interim Rules
of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporation Controversies.

Spouses Sy averred before the SC, that third party complaint shall be allowed as 1) it is not prohibited by
the rules, 2) CA’s error that their third-party complaint is not actionable because their action is not in
respect of the corporation’s claims and 3) the disallowance of the 3 rd party complaint will result in
multiplicity of suits

Issue: whether or not the third-party complaint should be allowed

Ruling: Yes, the rules by way of statutory construction allows third-party complaints. Further:
 A third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party in the action, called the third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation and distinct from the plantiff’s complaint. Jurisprudence is consistent in declaring
that the purpose of a third-party complaint is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary
proliferation of law suit and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising
from one particular set of facts.
 It is for the expeditious disposition of cases
 In this case, the logic and justness of this conclusion are rendered beyond question when it is
considered that Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan are not complete strangers to the litigation as in
fact they are the moving spirit behind the filing of the principal complaint for accounting and
damages against the Spouse Sy.
Other doctrines:
 A perquisite to the exercise of such rights is that some substantive basis for a third-party claim
be found to exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity, subrogation, contribution or other
substantive right.
 Bringing of third-party defendant is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the
defendant or both for all or party of the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant, although
the third-party’s defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction.
 The defendant may implead another as third-party defendant: a) on an allegation of liability of
the latter to the defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief; b) on
the ground of direct liability of the third-party defendant to the plaintiff, or c) the liability of the
third-party defendant to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

Rule 7: Parts of Pleading

Caption Body Signature and Address Verification and
Certification against
forum Shopping
Name of Court Claims and Defences
Title of Action Relief prayed for
Docket Date

Signature – it certifies that the counsel has read the pleading and document; that to the best of his or
her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
1. It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
 2. delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation
3. The claims, defences, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or
jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing
jurisprudence
4. The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after availment of modes of discovery under these rules;
5. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or so, if specifically so
identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information
If violated, the lawyer may receive sanctions

Verification – Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit
 A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The
authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
 The court consistently held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the
principal parties. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing
on his behalf must have been duly authorized

Attestation in the Verification

1. The allegation in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge,
or based on authentic documents
2. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause, unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation; and
3. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity for
discovery.
A pleading the lacks proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. However, defect in
verification does not necessarily render the pleading defective. It is only a formal defect and not
jurisdictional requirement. It only affects the form of the pleading

Certification against forum shopping

1. The he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues
in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein’
2. If there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and
3. If he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending,
he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed

Who executes the certification?

1. The plaintiff or principal party who executes a certification under oath
2. Must be executed by the party pleader not his counsel, or if unable to sign, an SPA designating
his counsel of record to sign in his behalf
3. For corporations, must be authorized by the board and secretary’s certificate or SPA should be
attached to the pleading
4. If multiple parties, all parties must sign, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the
case. Except when plaintiffs share a common interest and invoke a common cause
Effects of non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping
1. A ground for dismissal
2. Dismissal is without prejudice, unless otherwise provided
3. Not curable by amendment
4. False certification and non-compliance with undertaking constitute direct contempt
5. If forum shopping is wilful or deliberate - a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
would constitute direct contempt

Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

General Rule: Every pleading shall contain a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or
her claim or defence, as the case may be

If a cause of action or defence relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him or her shall be clearly and concisely stated

Matters which can be averred generally:

1. Condition precedent (S3R8)
2. Capacity to sue or be sued (S4R8)
3. Judgment (S6R8)
4. Malice, intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind (S5R8)
5. Official document or act (S9R8)

Metter which must be specifically averred

1. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be
stated with particularity
2. It is not enough for the complaint to allege that he was defrauded by the defendant. Under the
provision, the complaint must state with particularity the fraudulent acts of the adverse party

Defences that are cut-off by the implied admission

1. Forgery of document
2. Lack of authority to execute document
3. The party charge signed the document in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading
4. The document was never delivered
5. Document was not in the words and figures as set out in the pleading

Manner of denying an allegation

1. By specifically denying the allegation and setting forth the substance upon which one relies his
denial
2. By specifically denying some part of the allegation and admitting the rest
3. By specifically denying the allegation for lack of knowledge sufficient to forma belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegation
Failure to deny allegation shall be deemed admitted, except those amount of unliquidated damages
Negative pregnant – a negative implying also an affirmative and which, although stated in a negative
form, really admits the allegations to which it related.
 1. It is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication
of some kind favourable to the adverse party
2. Negative pregnant is not a specific denial, it is an admission

Fidel O Chua and Filiden Realty and Development Corporation vs Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, Atty. Celestra, Atty. Viray, Atty. Mirandan and Atty. Maynigo (2009)
(Forum shopping)

Facts: Chua is the president of co-petitioner Filiden a domestic Corporation. Metro Bank is a domestic
banking corporation. Filiden obtained a loan from metrobank, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage.
Filiden failed to pay that Metrobank extrad-judicially foreclose the REM.

Chua in his personal capacity and acting on behalf of petitioner Filiden a Complaitn for Injunction as Civil
CV-01-0207. Metrobank and Atty. Celestra eventually proceeded to the auction sale.

Petitioners then filed with RTC a complaint for damages against Metrobank and its lawyers as CV-05-
0402. Petitioners filed for motion to consolidated, while respondents oppose the motion to consolidated
and dismissal of the 2nd case on the ground of forum shopping

Issue: Whether or not successively filing the civil cases amounts to forum shopping

Ruling: Yes, Section 5, Rule 7 sets the rule against forum shopping. It states that he shall certify under
oath that a) he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues
in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within 5 days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Forum shopping exist when a party repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or
already resolved adversely by some other court

Ultimately, what is truly important in determining whether it exist is the vexation caused the courts and
party-litigant by a party who ask different courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant
the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions
being rendered by the different for a upon the same issue.

It can be committed in there ways:

1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayers, the previous
case not having been resolved yet (litis pendencia)
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case
having been finally resolved (res judicata)
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (Splitting of
causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendencia or res judicata
In the present case, petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple cases bases on the same
cause of action, although with different prayers.

Forum shopping occurs although the actions seems to be different, when it can be seen that there is a
splitting of a cause of action.

If the forum shopping is not considered wilful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed
with prejudice on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is
wilful and deliberate, both or all actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. In this case it is not
deliberate.

Republic represented by DECS vs Carmel Development Inc. (2002)

Facts: Carmel Development filed a complaint for recovery of possession against DECS for recovery of
possession of a parcel of land. On April 16, 1998 DECS filed a motion for extension of time to file answer
and Manifestation with motion to dismiss. On April 27, 1998 filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in
Default which was granted. On May 14, 1998 DECS filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Lift Order of
default and sought the dismissal of the case for violations of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
04-94 on Forum Shopping. The Court granted the Lifting of Default but dismissing the motion to dismiss
finding there is substantial compliance to the circular.

On an MR, DECS asserted that, Carmel is engaged in forum shopping, which Carmel replied that the
issues in the other pending cases are different.

DECS filed certiorari to CA, which affirmed the dismissal stating: First, the existence of two civil cases
pending before another court. The CA does not find fault on the part of the respondent Judge
considering that the petitioner did not attach to its motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration
the proper pleadings in said civil cases to show that the civil cases and the complaint filed before
respondent Judge involve the same issues of ownership and possession.
Second, Said issue for signature by counsel was only raised for the first time in the present petition for
certiorari.

Issues:
 Whether or not there is forum shopping through Litis Pendencia
 Whether or not there is compliance with SC administrative order on forum shopping

Ruling: The court should have tried the allegation on Litis Pendentia
DECS alleged that Carmel is engaged in forum shopping and did not inform the court that plaintiff and
defendant are parties in two other civil cases pending before Branch 126 of the RTC of Caloocan
involving the same issues of ownership and possession of the subject land because there was no proof
attached to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration to support the allegation.

If the case goes to trial, the evidence presented shall automatically constitute part of the evidence of the
party who presented the same. Thus, it is not necessary to attach to the motion to dismiss the evidence
required to establish the movant’s cause and failure to do so is not fatal to his case
The requisites in order that an action may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendecia are:
1. The identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions;
 2. The identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
3. The identity of the two cases that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in other.
Forum shipping exist where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other.

An important issue of fact exists- whether there are two other similar cases pending in another court as
alleged in the motion to dismiss. Since resolution of this issue requires presentation of proof, the trial
court should not have decided the issue without giving the parties an opportunity to present proof of
their respective stand in a hearing duly held for that purpose.

Verily, the chare of forum shopping or litis pendentia, which works havoc upon orderly judicial
procedure, requires the presentation of proof and the DECS should have been given an opportunity to
do so.

On the issue of certification of forum shopping:

 The certification must be by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the attorney.
It is mandatory that the certification be executed by the petitioner itself, and not by the
attorney. A certification against forums shopping executed by counsel is cause for dismissal of
the case. Because, obviously, it is the petitioner, and not always the counsel whose professional
services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether he
or it actually filed or cause the filing of a petition in that case.
 The mandatory character of the requirement that the certification be signed by the party and
not merely by the retained counsel. The rationale for this requirement assumes greater
importance considering that the retained counsel may be unaware of the other pending cases
which he may not be handling. Surely, the policy of the rule to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice will be undermined if certification by the retained counsel will be
deemed substantial compliance with the rule.
 A certification against forum shopping executed by retained counsel should not pass muster in
this case lest the objectives of the rule be subverted.

Iglesia ni Cristo vs Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada and Heirs of Enrique G. Santos (Substantial compliance
when there is commonality of action)

Facts: Alicia, Alfredo, Roberto, Enrique and Susan all surnamed Santos and Sonia Santos-Wallin
represented by Enrique G. Santos filed complaint, for Quieting of Title and/or Accion Reinvidicatoria
Against INC.

Plaintiffs appear to be heirs of Enrique Santos represented by Enrique Santos who signed solely the
verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.

Defendant, INC moved for motion to dismiss on the ground the plaintiffs failed to faithfully comply with
the procedural requirements in S5R7. Which as in this case, when a case involved more than one
plaintiff but the verification and certification against forum shopping incorporated in the complaint was
signed only by Enrique Santos. Although the complaint alleges that plaintiffs are represented by Enrique
Santos, there is no showing that he was, indeed authorized to so represent the other plaintiffs. And this
defect is fatal and cannot be amendment.
Petitioner answered that the relationship of the plaintiffs are co-owners, and any of the co-owners could
effectively act for another for the benefit of the property without need for authorization.

Issue: Whether or not the single signature of Enrique Santos on the verification and certification against
forum shopping warrants the dismissal of the case

Ruling: No, The purpose of verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegation of the
petitions have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculation. The
requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith does
not necessarily render it fatally defective. It is only formal not jurisdictional requirement.

In the present case, there is no lack of verification, but the sufficiency of one executed by only one of the
plaintiffs when there is multiple plaintiffs. The court in previous cases held, that the verification
requirement is deemed substantially complied when, only one of the heir-plaintiffs who has sufficient
knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegation in the petition, signed the verification
attached that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct,
not merely speculative. The same liberality should likewise be applied to the certification against forum
shopping.

The general rule is the certification must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one
of them is insufficient. The Exception is the substantial compliance rule, which up held the validity of the
certification signed by only of the petitioners because he is a relative of the other petitioners and co-
owners of the properties in dispute or in other words, there should be commonality of interest of all the
parties with respect to the subject of the controversy.

Hence, there is substantial compliance by Enrique Santos. As the respondents herein have commonality
of interest with respect to the subject land. They are heirs and co-owners pro-indiviso of the whole
property. The lone signature of Santos in the verification and certification is sufficient.

COSCO Philippines Shipping Inc vs Kemper Insurance Company

Facts: Philippine Shipping filed a motion to dismiss on a case field against it by Kemper Insurance
Company. They aver that the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by Atty.
Rodolfo Lat who failed to show his authority to sue and sign the corresponding verification and
certification in violation of the Rules of Court.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Lat has sufficient authority

Ruling: None. Certification against forum shipping must be signed by the principal parties, in case the
principal party cannot sign, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorize. With respect to
corporation, the certification may be signed for an on its behalf by a specifically authorized lawyer with
personal knowledge of the facts requires to be disclosed in such document.

Further, the power of the corporation to sue or be sued in any court is lodge with the board of directors
that exercises its corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of
documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-
laws or by specific act of the Board of directors. Without this authorization the complaint will be
dismissed. And the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by mere
amendment of the complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The
same is true to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation
which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file the complaint on behalf of
the corporation.

Fuji Television Network Inc vs Arlene S. Espiritu

Facts: Arlene was employed by Fuji, whom she alleged of illegal dismissal. On a petition for certiorari
under Rule 45, Arlene filed a manifestation stating that the court may not take jurisdiction over the case
since Fuji failed to authorize Corazon E. Acerden to sign the verification.

Issue: Whether or not the petition for review should be dismissed as Corazon E. Acerden, the signatory
of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping had no authority to sign on behalf of Fuji.

Ruling: No, Arlene points out that the authority given to Mr. Shuji and Mr. Eto in the Secretary’s
certificate is only for the petition for certiorari before the CA. Fuji did not attach any board resolution
authorizing Corazon or any other person to file a petition for review on certiorari with this court. The
court requires the submission of verification and certification against forum shopping, and Non-
compliance for verification is formal and not jurisdictional, the court may order the correction of the
pleading if the verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, in order that the
ends of justice may thereby serve.

Non-compliance to certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission
thereof after the filing of petitions and shall be sufficient ground for dismissal thereof. The same rule
shall apply to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which
are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the
corporation.

Substantial Compliance
1. Filing one day after the filing of electoral protest, subsequent filing is substantial
2. Corporation filed late the board resolution indicating the authority to sign. The belated
submission is considered substantial compliance

Altres vs Empleo rules on verification and certification against forum shopping:

1. There is a distinction between noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of
defective verification and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping
2. As to verification, non-compliance or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading
fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in
order that the ends of justice may be served thereby
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to
swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct
4. As to certification against forum shopping, noncompliance therewith or a defect therein is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need
 to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances
or compelling reasons
5. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioner in a
case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable
or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioner share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defence, the signature of only one of them in
the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule
6. The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he
must execute an SPA designating his counsel of record to sign on high behalf.

S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation vs Parada

Facts: On a petition for review in the Supreme Court, the petitioner insist for the first time in appeal,
that the complaint should have been dismissed outright by the trial court for an invalid non-forum
shopping certification

Issue: whether or not defect in certification of non-forum shopping can be raised first time in appeal

Ruling: No, any objection as to non-compliance to the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping should be raised in the proceedings below and no for the first time in appeal.

It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the
proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the
lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court,
as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic consideration of fairness and due
process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.

Since verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite. It was also held that the question of forum
shopping cannot be raised in the CA in the Supreme Court, since such an issue must be raised at the
earliest opportunity in a motion to dismiss or a similar pleading. Invoking it in the later stages of the
proceedings or on appeal may result in the dismissal of the action. Further, the verification need not be
based on the verifier’s personal knowledge but even only on authentic records. Sales invoices,
statements of accounts, receipts and collection letters for the balance of the amount still due to the
respondent from the petitioner are such records. There is substantial compliance by the respondent’s
attorney-in-fact with the requirement of verification.

Narciso vs Pacific Traders

Facts: Petitioners are workers of PTMC which was transferred to TWMPC. They complained of illegal
dismissal which was ruled out by the LA but ordered the payment of separation pay by the TWMPC. The
workers and TWMPC appealed to the NLRC but was dismissed for failure to attach the requisite
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, further reasoning that appeal is a mere statutory privilege and the
period and manner for its perfection are not only mandatory but also jurisdiction

Issue: Whether or not the NLRC is correct

Ruling: Yes. A certificate of non - forum shopping is a requisite for the perfection of an appeal as clearly
set forth by the Rules of Court. Although the court in previous cases relaxed the rules on technicality, it
is because it is grounded on special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the strict
application of the rule clearly unjustified or inequitable.

Hence, in absence of justifiable and compelling reasons, a liberal application of procedural rules ins not
warranted in this case.

Altres vs Empleo

Facts: Petitioners filed with the RTC a petition of mandamus to compel the city accountant to release
the certification of availability of funds for their positions in the Municipal Hall. This was denied and
petitioners field an MR which was also denied. On appeal to the SC, respondents alleged technical flaws
in the petitioner’s petition among others are the defective verification and certification against forum
shopping attached to the petition as it bears the signature of only 11 out of the 59 petitioners and move
for the dismissal of the petition. According to the respondents, the rules of court requires that the
certification must be signed by all the petitioners and that signing by only one of them is insufficient as
the attestation requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same. Petitioners argued to the
substantial compliance rule

Issue: Whether or not there is substantial compliance

Ruling: On the issue of verification, the court finds that the 11 signatures out of 59 are already sufficient
to assure the court that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of
imagination or a product of speculation. The pleading is filed in good faith, and that the signatories are
unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the petition.

On the issue of the petitioners’ certification against forum shopping, the failure of other petitioners to
sign as they could no longer be found or have lost interest will not merit the outright dismissal of the
case but the non-signing petitioners will be dropped as parties to the case.

As a general rule, all petitioners must sign the certification of non-forum shopping. The reason for this is
that the person who have signed the certification cannot be presumed to have the personal knowledge
of the other non-signing petitioners with respect to the filing or non-filing of any action or claim the
same as or similar to the current petition. The rule however, admits exception, if the petitioners can
show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification and convince the court that the
outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.
Rule 8. Manner of making allegations in Pleadings
General Rule: Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her
claim or defence, as the case may be

If a cause of action or defence relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him or her shall be clearly and concisely stated

Matters which can be averred generally:

 Condition precedent (Sec. 3 Rule 8)
 Capacity to sue or be sued (Sec. 4. Rule 8)
 Judgment (Se 6, Rule 8)
 Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind (Sec. 5, Rule 8)
 Official document or act (sec 9, Rule 8)

Specific averments
 Party’s capacity to sue, it must be denied specifically with supporting particulars
 In pleading judgment, certified true copy must be attached
 Fraud, mistake and circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be specifically averred

Defence based on actionable document

 The substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading and the original
or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a
part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading
 Contest: The adverse party, under oath, shall specifically denied them, and set forth what the
claims to be the facts, if not done, it is deemed admitted – but, this requirement is not needed
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument, or when compliance
with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.

Defences that are cut off by implied admission

 Forgery of document
 Lack of authority to execute the document
 The party charge signed the document in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading
 The document was never delivered
 Document was not in the words and figures as set out in the pleading (183 SCRA 584)

Denying an allegation
 By specifically denying the allegation and setting forth the substance upon which one relies his
denial
 By specifically denying some part of the allegation and admitting the rest
 By specifically denying the allegation for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegation
o When the defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of the other party but such matters are plainly
and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge, a claim of ignorance or lack of
information will not be considered a specific denial, hence, implied admission
  Negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at
least an implication of some kind favourable to the adverse party – it is not a specific denial, it is
an admission

Rule 8, Section 12 includes the affirmative defence grounds for a motion to dismiss.

What are the other grounds which must be alleged as affirmative defences?

1. Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party (jurisdiction)
2. The venue is improperly laid (venue)
3. The plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue (legal capacity)
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and (cause of action)
5. That the condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (Conditio sine qua
non
 Failure to plead affirmative defences is waiver
 Court will motu proprio resolve the affirmative defences within 30 days from the filing of
answer. No hearing Necessary,
 BUT, with affirmative defences under Section 5 (b), Rule 6, (hypothetical admission) it shall be
resolved by the court within 30 days from the termination of the summary hearing. Court may
be required a hearing which is summary
 The affirmative defences if denied shall not be subject of a motion for reconsideration or
petition for CPM, but may be appealed after a judgment of merits

Amendment and supplemental pleadings

As a matter of right
 Any time before a responsive pleading is serve
 If reply, 10 calendar days after it is served
With leave of court
 Those filed after responsive pleading and in reply after 10 calendar days after it is served
 Except, when it has 1. The intent to delay, 2) confer jurisdiction on the court 3) stated no cause
of action from the beginning which could be amended
No need to file motion to amend to conform to evidence
 When the issues are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be
treated as if they had been raised in the pleadings even if they are not.
Amendment supersedes the previous pleading, however, the admissions made in the superseded
pleading may be used as evidence against the pleader

Supplemental Pleading
 One which set forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of
the pleading sought to be supplemented
o If the supplemental pleading has a different cause of action from the original complaint
the court should not admit the supplemental complaint.
 o Supplemental complaint is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind
of relief with respect to the same subject matters as the controversy referred to in the
original complaint.

Effect of Failure to Plead

Defences and objections

They are deemed waived except:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
2. Litis pendicia
3. Res Judicata
4. Prescription

Compulsory and cross-claims = barred

Default is when the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed thereof
 Upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party and proof of such failure,
declare the defending party in default
Requisites before the defending party may be declared in default
o Jurisdiction over the person
o Filing of motion
o Proof that defending party failed to answer within the period
o Must be notified of the motion
o There must be a hearing
Effect
o Party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take
part in the trial
o Plaintiff will be allowed to present evidence ex-parte
o Court shall render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may
warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court
o A judgment rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be
different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages
Note:
Where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant was declare in
default. The court may still admit the answer, provided there is no showing that defendant intends to
delay the case.

Remedies of defending party declared in default

Remedy after notice of order of Motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon
default but before judgment proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense
Remedy after judgment and before New trial under 37 or appeal the judgment if contrary to
judgment becomes final and evidence or law
executory
Remedy after judgment becomes Petition for relief under Rule 38
 final and executory

Responsive Pleading
Answer to complaint 30 days after service of summons
Answer of a defendant foreign 60 days from receipt of summons
Answer to amended complaint 30 days if matter or right
15 if with leave of court
Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim 20 days from service
Answer to third party etc 30 days
Reply under section 10, rule 6 15 days from service
Answer to supplemental complaint 20 days from notice of the order admitting

Extension of time may be granted for a period not more than 30 days, and a defendant is only allowed
to file once.

Filing and service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other papers

Definitions
Filing is the act of submitting the pleading or other documents to the court
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or any other court submissions.

Rules:

If a party is represented by a counsel, it shall be served to his counsel

 Subject to reasons involving substantial justice, service of a petition upon a party, when the
party is represented by counsel of record, is a patent nullity and is not binding upon the party
wrongfully served

Four ways of filing:

1. Personal filing
2. By registered mail
3. By accredited courier
4. Or electronic as may be authorized by the court

When is it considered filed?

1. Personally, upon receipt of the court
2. Registered mail or accredited courier – date of mailing
 3. Email – date of electronic transmission
Note
Under the new rule, personal service may be made not only to party or the party’s counsel, but
also to party’s authorized representatives named in the appropriate pleading or motion

Section 10, rule 13

Presumption notice of court setting – if the same has been mailed at least 20 calendar days if within
judicial region and 30 calendar if outside judicial region

Section 13,

General rule, judgments, final orders, or resolutions shall be server either personally or by registered
mail.
Except: upon ex parte motion of any party in the case, a copy may be delivered by accredited
courier at the expense of such party

Section 14: Pleadings and documents which must be filed or served personally or by registered mail
1. Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings
2. Subpoena, protection orders and writs
3. Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not readily amenable to
electronic scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be filed and served conventionally
4. Sealed and confidential documents or records
They may be filed or served through other means, upon express permission from the court

Section 15: When is service considered complete

1. If ordinary mail, upon expiration of 10 calendar days after mailing

2. Register mail, upon actual receipt by the addresses, or after 5 calendar days from the date he
received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier
3. If accredited courier, upon actual receipt by the addressee or after at least 2 attempts to
delivery by the courier service, or upon the expiration of 5 calendar days after the first attempt
to delivery, whichever is earlier
4. Email, is complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the document, or when available
at the time that the electronic notification of service of the document is sent

Permanent Savings and Loan Bank vs Velarde

Facts: Permanent Savings seeks to recovery from Mariano Velarde the sum of 1M plus interest and
penalties based on a loan evidence by a promissory noted, loan release sheet and loan disclosure
statement. Upon collection, Velarde disclaims the genuineness of the instrument and filed a demurrer of
evidence. The trial court demurred the evidence and dismissed the complaint, the CA agreed

Issue: whether or not the loan documents are genuine

Ruling: The pertinent rule on actionable documents is found on R8S7 of the ROC which provides that
when the cause of action is anchored on a document, the genuineness or due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed impliedly admitted unless the defendant under oath, specifically denies
them, and set forth what the claims to be the facts.

Trial court “ the documents standing alone, unsupported by independent evidence of their existence,
have no legal basis to stand on.

CA: it is not true that there is no need to prove the loan and its supporting papers as Velarde has already
admitted these. Velarde in fact denied it.

However, in the respondent’s answer, there was no specific denial, he merely states that the signature
appearing at the back of the PN seems to be his, this denial do not constitute an effective specific denial
as contemplated by law. To merit an effective specific denial, the defendant must declare under oath
that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. A statement of the answer
to the effect that the instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its
genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of the genuineness and
due execution thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.

Admission of the due execution of the genuineness and due execution of a document means that the
party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document or it was signed by
another for him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as
set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any
formalities required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgement or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are
waived by him.

Republic (PCGG) vs Sandiganbayan and Marcos estate

Facts: Roman A. Cruz was impleaded in the PCGG case against Marcos for the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth. Cruz filed for a bill of particulars which was denied by the court. The Marcoses also filed for a
motion for Bill of Particulars, praying for a clearer statements of the allegations which he called mere
conclusions of law, too vague, and general to enable defendant to intelligently answer. The anti-graft
court upheld the Marcoses and granted the bill of particulars. The PCGG seeks to nullify the resolutions
arguing that it is against the ROC and it is patently dilatory and bereft of any basis. PCGG further argue
that since there is an order of default, they cannot file a motion for a bill of particulars

Issue: Whether or not the granting of bill of particulars is proper, considering that the deceased
defendant was then a defaulting defendant when the motion was filed.

Ruling: No, under the Rules of Court, a defending party may be declared in default upon motion and
notice, for failure to file answer within the allowable period. As a result, the defaulting party cannot take
part in the trial albeit he is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings.
The remedies against a default are:
 1. A motion to set aside the order of default at any time after discovery therefore and before
judgment on the ground that the defendant’s failure to file an answer was due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable neglect and that the defendant has meritorious defence
2. A motion for new trial within 15 days from receipt of judgment of defeault
3. An appeal within 15 days from receipt of judgment of default
4. Petition for relief from judgment within 60 days from notice of judgment and within 6 months
from entry thereof
5. A petition for certiorari in exceptional circumstances

In this case, the legal effect of granting the motions to file a responsive pleading and bill of particulars is
the lifting of the default order. While it is true that there was no positive act on the part of the court to
lift the default order because there was no motion nor order to that effect, the anti-graft court’s act of
granting respondent the opportunity to file a responsive pleading meant the lifting of the default order
on terms that court deemed proper in the interest of justice. It was the operative act lifting the default
order founded on the court’s discretionary power to set aside orders of default.

Motion to lift order of default requires no hearing

Lui Enterprises Inc vs Zuellig Pharma Corporation and the PBCOM

There should be no inexplicable delay in the filing of a motion to set aside order of default. Even when a
motion is filed within the required period, excusable negligence must be properly alleged and proven

Facts: in a case, Zuellig Pharma filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss of Lui Enterprises, alleging
that it was filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days from service of summons. Lui Enterprise was
served summons on Julry 4, 2003. But filied the motion only on July 23, 2003. Zuelig move that Lui
Enterprise be declared in default, the other party PBCOM joined Zuellig to declare LUI in default

RTC declared Lui in default which Lui did not file for reconsideration. Despite being in default LUI filed a
manifestation. 1 year after the order of default, LUI filed a motion to set aside the motion of default on
the ground of excusable negligence.
CA affirmed the Trial Court order of default and found no excusable negligence to lift default

Issue: whether or not the order of default should be lifted due to excusable negligence

Ruling: No, Lui failure is inexcusable. in the case, Lui discovered its default before the RTC rendered
judgment, it timely filed a motion to set aside motion of default due to excusable negligence.
Excusable negligence is one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guard against.
However, Lui never explained why its counsel failed to file the motion to dismiss on time, it just argued
for the liberality of the court.

When a defendant is served with summons and a copy of the complaint, he or she is required to answer
within 15 days from the day he or she was served with summons. The defendant may also move to
dismiss the complaint within the time for but before filing the answer
15 days is sufficient time for a defendant to answer with good defences against the plaintiff’s allegations
in the complaint. Thus, a defendant who fails to answer within 15 days from service of summons either
presents no defences against the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint or was prevented from filing his
or her answer within the required period due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
A defendant declared in default:
 Losses his or her standing in court
 Deprived of the rights to take part in the trial and forfeits his rights as a party litigant
 No right to present evidence
 No right to control proceedings or cross examine witnesses
 He or she has no right to expect that the court would act upon his or her pleading
 He or she has no right to oppose motions filed against him

However, he or she has the right to receive notice of subsequent proceedings

Default is not meant to punish the defendant but to enforce the prompt filing of the answer to the
complaint. For a defendant without good defences, default saves him or her the embarrassment of
openly appearing to defend the indefensible

If the defendant has good defences, it would be unnatural for him not to set up his or her defences
properly and timely, thus, it must be presumed that some insuperable cause prevent him from
answering. In which case, the proper remedy depend on when he or she discovered the default and
whether the default judgment was already rendered by the trial court
 If notice of declaration but before default judgment – motion under oath to set aside order of
default, due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
 After judgment but before final and executory – motion for new trial
 After judgment becomes final and executory – petition for relief of judgment
 Appeal is also available under Rule 41
 Certiorari for GAD
Motion to set aside order of default and motion for new trial, and petition for relief from judgment are
mutually exclusive, not alternative or cumulative to compel defendants to remedy their default at the
earliest possible opportunity.

AS a general rule, court should proceed with deciding cases on the merits and set aside orders of default
as default judgments are frowned upon. However, the basis requirements of the ROC must first be
complied:
1. The time element, defendant must challenge the default order before judgment
2. The defendant must have been prevent from filing his answers due to fraud, accident, mistake
or excusable negligence
3. He must have a meritorious defence.

Munoz vs Relova

Facts: In a case, Munoz failed to attend a hearing against Relova, on an ex parte motion, which the court
granted, Relova was allowed to present evidence while Munoz because of his absence was denied. A
judgment was made against Munoz. He now appeal that he has been denied due process.

Issue: Whether or not the action of the Trial Court is proper

Ruling, No, the court, without and order of default implement against Munoz a status similar to default.
It must be remembered that the failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period and
not the failure to appear at the hearing is the sole ground for an order of default. Except the failure to
appear at a pre-trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are
followed. The effect of default are followed only in three instances: 1) when there is an actual default for
failure to file a responsive pleading, 2) failure to appear in the pre-trial conference, and 3) refusal to
comply with modes of discovery under the circumstances in Sec 3©, Rule 29

However, failure to attend when committed during hearing dates for presentation of evidence of the
complainant, would amount to the defendant’s waive of such defendant’s right to object to the
evidence presented during such hearing and to cross-examine the witnesses presented. But, it will not
amount to a waiver of the defendant’s right to present evidence during the trial dates scheduled for the
reception of evidence for the defence.

Case remanded to the trial court

PAGCOR vs LOPEZ

Facts: FILGAME and BELLE entered in Partnership with PAGCOR for the operation of Jai Alai. Jai Alai was
then prohibited by government policy, that the DILG closed its operations. FILGAME and BELLE filed for
specific performance against PAGCOR. Subsequently, a decision by the Supreme Court stated that
FILGAME and BELLE could not enter into partnership with PAGCOR. FILGAM and BELLE amended their
complaint and change the relief to recovery of payment of money, which was accepted by Judge Lopez.
This was opposed by PAGCOR and cause the administrative complaint against the judge, due to among
other, the admission of the amended complaint which substantially change the cause of action and
theory of the complaint.

Issue: Whether or not the judge is correct in admitting the amended complaint

Ruling: Yes, there is no gross ignorance of the law when the judge admitted the amended complaint.
The clear import of the amendment in Section 3, Rule 10 is that under the new rules, the amendment
may now substantially alter the cause of action or defence. However, the substantial change or
alteration is made to serve the higher interest of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally
promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. In the case, the amendment complaint was made after the
SC decision, the amendment was made to give substantial justice. Hence, it should be admitted as
allowed under Section 3, Rule 10 and jurisprudence.

SWAGMAN Hotels VS CA

May a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual of a cause of
action during the pendency of the case?

Facts: Swagman Hotels, its president and vice-president received loans from Neal B. Christian evidenced
by promissory notes that will mature three years from August 1996, March and July 1997. Christian
terminated the loans and filed against the Hotel for recovery of sum of money. Swagman filed a motion
to dismiss arguing that there is no cause of action since the motion was filed February 1999 when the
instruments is not yet matured. However, during the hearing in May 2000, the trial court declared that 2
instruments is due and demandable, hence there is cause of action. They defended that Section 5, Rule
10 of the Rules allows issues not raised by the pleading but during trial was expressly or impliedly
consented by the parties are considered raised in the pleadings.

Issue: Whether or not the lack of a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual of a
cause of action during the pendency of the case

Ruling: No. Although amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule 10, Section 5 the specifically
applies to situations wherein evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings is presented by the
parties during the trial, to conform to such evidence the pleadings are subsequently amended on
motion of a party . Thus, complaint which fails to state a cause of action may be cured by evidence
presented during trial. However, it is only applicable if a cause of action in fact exist at the time the
complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts.

To be clear, no cause of action whatsoever cannot by amendment or supplemental pleading be

converted into a cause of action (Nihil de re accrecit eit qui nihil in re quando jus accresceret habet)

Ultimately, that unless that plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is
commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the
action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued cause
of action is not permissible.

In this case, Christian has no cause of action at the time of his filing. The case should have immediately
be dismissed.

Aberca et al. v. Ver, et al

Facts: Aberca with other human rights victims filed a claim against General Fabian Ver and
other law enforcement officials. Ver et al was first represented by the OSG, but after EDSA
revolution, they were left with no counsel.

After EDSA, Aberca filed a motion to require defendants to file an answer, however, the Court
ordered them to produce the addresses of the defendant. But instead, petitioners filed a
motion to declare them in default. Eventually, the court approved the petitioner’s motion to
serve notice to file answer or responsive pleading by publication. The defendants still failed to
file answer, hence, the RTC declared them in default and granted a judgment in favour of the
petitioners. The defendants appealed in the CA, which reversed the RTA citing four errors:
1. When the RTC abandoned the proper mode of service of notices, orders, resolutions, or
judgments as the petitioners failed to produce the whereabouts of defendants
2. RTC failed to avail the substituted service after failing to effect personal service or
service by mail
3. When it authorized service by publication, this cannot be found in the rules
4. When the RTC declared defendants in default thereby depriving them of due process.

Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct

Ruling: Yes, primarily the rules prescribe the modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices,
orders, judgments, and other papers, namely: 1) personal service, 2) service by mail, and 3)
substituted service in case the first two cannot be effected. Strictest compliance with this rule
(S11R13) is mandated

In the present case, the court did not try to effect the modes of service required by law, in fact
it ordered an unknown and unrecognized mode of service of pleadings, motions, notices,
orders, judgments and other papers by publication. Service by publication is only authorized in
summons and final orders and judgments (R14).

Hence it should be remembered, whenever practicable, personal service and personal filing of
pleadings are always preferred modes of service; should one deviate from the general rule, it is
mandatory for him/her to submit a written explanation why the pleading was not personally
filed/served

The petition is denied

DOMINGO VS CA

Facts: In a land dispute case, Marcelino was defeated in RTC and he appealed to the CA through
mail without a written explanation that justifies the service by mail. This was immediately
dismissed by the CA in violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court

Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct

Ruling: Yes, Section 11 of rule 13 is mandatory. Service and filing of pleadings and other papers
must, whenever practicable be done personally; and if made through other modes, the party
concerned must provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was not done
personally. In fact, to underscore its mandatory nature, section 11 of rule 13 gives the court the
discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing
were resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not
done in the first place.

It should be noted that personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes
of service and filing is the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is
mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes
be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service
or filing was not practicable to begin with.

Spouses Topacio vs Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage bank

Facts: Spouses Topacio obtained a loan from the bank secured by REM. They failed to pay their
loans that the bank was prompted to extra judicially foreclose the REM, on the auction sale the
Bank was the highest bidder. A writ of possession was issued but was not implemented because
of the motion of the spouses which was opposed by the Banks. More than two years, in
December 16, 1986, issued an order dismissing the Bank’s petition on the ground of failure to
prosecute. No copy of the order was served on the bank because its operations was shut down
by the monetary board.

After its reconstitution and reorganization, the Bank clarified the Order of December 16, 1986,
which the court said refers to the dismissal of the main case for issuance of writ of possession.
The Bank/respondent moved for reconsideration which the RTC ruled in favour stating that the
order of dismissal was granted, among others, on technically and not merits. The CA affirmed,
hence the petitioners contends in the SC that December 16, 1986 order is an adjudication on
merits which has already attained finality and re judicata has set in and that the RTC had no
more jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not there is res judicata

Ruling: None, Res judicata is the rule where a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court
of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all later
suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit. It embraces two concepts:
The first is bar by prior judgment under S47(b)R39 and second conclusiveness of judgment
under S47(c)R39. The requisites of Res Judicata are 1) the former judgment or order must be
final, 2) the judgment or order must be on the merits, 3) the decision must have been rendered
by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, and 4) there must be,
between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of
actions.

In the present case, there is no res judicata because the first element is not present. The
December Order was not properly served. There was no record of valid service whether
personally or via registered mail on the respondent’s counsel. This was not disputed by the
petitioners, hence, the Dismissal Order never attained finality.

Petition denied.

Rule 14
Summons – a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him

Two fold purpose

1. To acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
2. To notify the defendant that an action has been commenced against him
Summons in action in personam is to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
while in action in rem or quasi in rem is not to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant but to
satisfy the element of due process

How jurisdiction is acquired over the person?

1. service of summons or
2. through defendant’s voluntary appearance of submission to the court
 Ex abudanti Ad cautelam – appearance in court to question jurisdiction
Voluntary appearance
 By filing an answer (Guy vs Gacott)
 By asking an affirmative relief from the court

Rule 23: Deposition pending action

Section 1: Upon ex parte motion of one party