Remedial Law Cases

University of Santo Tomas
Digested by: DC 2016

Members
Editors:
Tricia Lacuesta
Lorenzo Gayya
Cristopher Reyes
Macky Siazon
Janine Arenas
Ninna Bonsol
Lloyd Javier
CIVIL
PROCEDUR
E
Remedial Law First Semester Cases
Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Cases)
Table of Contents
Effect of estoppels on objections to jurisdction
Over the res or property in litigation
Jurisdiction of Courts 4
Indispensable Party
Class Suit
How to Implead an Unknown Owner7

Counterclaims8
Certification against forum shopping
Manners of making allegations
Failure to plead defenses
10
10
Relief from an order of default, extent of relief

Effect of appeal by default; defendant
Payment of docket fees
15
16
Extraterritorial service when allowed

Service upon Public Corporations
18
Notice and hearing of motions
20
Motion to Dismiss
Grounds
12
13
Amendment as a matter of right

Substituted Service
11
17
21
21
When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses
22
Pre-trial Order 23
Requisites for Intervention
25
Quashing of subpoena; grounds
25
Depositions pending action 26

Depositions before action pending appeal 27
Interrogatories of parties
28
Requisites for admission by adverse party 29

Nature of demurrer to evidence
31
Meaning of genuine issue 32

Judgments and final orders subject to appeal
Matters not appealable
33
35
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC 36

Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC 37
Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial bodies 39
1 | Page

Cases)
Relief from judgment 41
Annulment of judgment
Grounds
42
42
How a judgment is executed 44

By motion or independent action
44
Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons 45

Discharge of attachment and counter-bond46
Preliminary Injunction
47
When Preliminary Injunction improper
48
Receivership 49
Nature of replevin
50
Declaratory Relief treated as prohibition
51
Function of writ of certiorari 52
Mandamus
53
Contempt
54
How contempt proceedings commenced 55
REMEDIAL LAW
2 | Page

Cases)
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
ATTY. CUDIAMAT, et al. v. BATANGAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC., et al.
G.R. No. 182403, March 9, 2010, Carpio Morales, J.
Citing Lozon vs NLRC, the Court ruled that the operation of estoppel on the question
of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or
not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it
had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the
parties or by estoppel. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard
and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal,
to assume an inconsistent position that the lower court had jurisdiction.
Facts:
Atty. Restituto Cudiamat and his brother Perfecto were the registered co-owners of
the disputed property located in Balayan, Batangas. Perfecto mortgaged the said property to
Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (the bank) as security for a loan he obtained there
from but this was made without the knowledge and consent of Atty. & Mrs. Restituto
Cudiamat. Eventually, the same was foreclosed. A complaint for quieting of title with
damages was consequently filed by Restituto, et al with the RTC of Balayan. In its Answer,
the bank alleged that the Balayan RTC had no jurisdiction over the case as the bank had
been placed under receivership and under liquidation by the PDIC to which a petition for
assistance in the liquidation has been filed with the RTC of Nasugbu. Thus, it is the latter
court which jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed claims against it. The Balayan RTC rendered a
judgment in favor of Restituto et al. Upon appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the bank. Hence,
this petition.
Issue:
Whether the Balayan RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of title.
Ruling:
No. Estoppel bars the bank from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Balayan
RTC. In the present case, the Balayan RTC, sitting as a court of general jurisdiction, had
jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of title filed by petitioners in 1999. The Nasugbu
RTC, as a liquidation court, assumed jurisdiction over the claims against the bank only in
2000, when PDICs petition for assistance in the liquidation was raffled thereat and given due
course. While it is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction on the subject matter can be raised at
any time and is not lost by estoppel by laches, the present case is an exception. To compel
petitioners to re-file and relitigate their claims before the Nasugbu RTC when the parties had
already been given the opportunity to present their respective evidence in a full-blown trial
before the Balayan RTC which had, in fact, decided petitioners complaint (about two years
before the appellate court rendered the assailed decision) would be an exercise in futility
and would unjustly burden petitioners.
Over the res or property in litigation
3 | Page

Cases)
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR v. REPUBLIC/ IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v.
REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 189434/ G.R. No. 189505, March 12, 2014, Sereno, J.
In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the
court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient.
There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the
court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.
Facts:
The Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming the decision of Sandiganbayan
declaring all the assets of Arelma, S.S., an entity created by the late Ferdinand Marcos,
forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The anti graft court found that the
totality of assets and the properties acquired by the Marcos spouses was manifestly and
grossly disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials and that the
petitioners were unable to overturn the prima facie presumption of ill-gotten wealth,
pursuant to Sec. 2 of RA 1379 (forfeiture law). Petitioners seek reconsideration of the denial
of their petition, reiterating among others, that the Sandiganbayan does not possess
territorial jurisdiction over the res or the Arelma proceeds which are held by Merill Lynch in
the United States.
Issue:
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the Arelma proceeds.
Ruling:
Yes. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction despite the fact that the Arelma account
and proceeds are held abroad. To rule otherwise contravenes the intent of the forfeiture law,
and indirectly privileges violators who are able to hide public assets abroad: beyond the
reach of the courts and their recovery by the State. Forfeiture proceedings, as we have
already discussed exhaustively in our Decision, are actions considered to be in the nature of
proceedings in rem or quasi in rem, such that Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a)
by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody
of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the
court is recognized and made effective. In the latter condition, the property, though at all
times within the potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court.
The concept of potential jurisdiction over the res, advanced by respondent, is not at
all new. As early as Perkins v. Dizon, deciding a suit against a non-resident, the Court held
that in order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the
court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient.
There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the
court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.
Jurisdiction of Courts
SUPAPO v. SPOUSES DE JESUS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015, Brion, J.
4 | Page

Cases)
That all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the regional
trial courts regardless of the value of the property no longer holds true. As things now stand,
a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is
below P20, 000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within. In this regard, the
complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or
the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.
Facts:
The Spouses Supapo are the registered owners of the disputed property located in
Novaliches, Quezon City over which the Spouses De Jesus, et al. were allegedly squatting.
The land has an assessed value of P39,980.00. Consequently, the former filed a criminal
case against the latter for violation of PD No. 772 (Anti-Squatting Law) in which the trial
court convicted the respondents. While their appeal was pending with the CA, RA 8638
repealed PD 772 which resulted to the dismissal of the criminal case. Notwithstanding the
dismissal, the Spouses Supapo moved for the execution of the respondents civil liability,
praying that the latter vacate the subject lot to which the RTC granted and issued the writ of
execution. The respondents moved for the quashal of the writ but the RTC denied the same.
The respondents thus filed with the CA a petition for certiorari which the CA granted.
However, the CA noted that recourse may be had in court by filing the proper action for
recovery of possession. The Spouses Supapo thus filed the complaint for accion publiciana
with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City in which the said court ruled in
favor of Spouses Supapo. Thereafter, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the
RTC which granted the same. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, this
petition.
Issue:
Whether the MeTC has jurisdiction to try the present case of accion publiciana.
Ruling:
Yes. Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the jurisdiction of the RTC over actions
involving title to or possession of real property is plenary. RA No. 7691, however, divested
the RTC of a portion of its jurisdiction and granted the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear
actions where the assessed value of the property does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00), or Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), if the property is located in Metro
Manila. In view of these amendments, jurisdiction over actions involving title to or
possession of real property is now determined by its assessed value. The assessed value of
real property is its fair market value multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to
taxable value.
In the present case, the Spouses Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the
subject lot, located in Metro Manila, is P39,980.00. This is proven by the tax declaration
issued by the Office of the City Assessor of Caloocan. The respondents do not deny the
genuineness and authenticity of this tax declaration. Given that the Spouses Supapo duly
complied with the jurisdictional requirements, we hold that the MeTC of Caloocan properly
acquired jurisdiction over the complaint for accion publiciana.
Indispensable Party
5 | Page

Cases)
SOCORRO LIMOS, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ODONES
G.R. No. 186979. August 11, 2010, Nachura, J.
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an
action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Facts:
Respondent Spouses Odones filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed, Title and
Damages against Petitioners Socorro Limos, et al. The complaint alleged that spouses
Odones are the owners of the disputed property by virtue of an Extrajudicial Succession of
Estate and Sale executed by the heirs of Donata Lardizabal who is the registered owner
thereof. However, it was later found out that the same had already been cancelled and
registered in the names of Socorro Limos, et al. In their answer, the latter pleaded
affirmative defenses which also constitute grounds for dismissal of the complaint one among
which is the non-joinder of the other heirs of Donata Lardizabal as indispensable parties.
Spouses Ordones, in their reply, denied the foregoing affirmative defenses and insisted that
the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale was valid. Socorro Limos, et al thereafter
served upon the Spouses Ordones a Request for Admission of matters in support of their
defense. Spouses Ordones failed to respond to the Request for Admission, prompting Socorro
Limos, et al to file a Motion to Set for Preliminary Hearing on the Special and Affirmative
Defenses. The RTC denied the Motion which was likewise affirmed by the CA. Hence, this
petition.
Issue:
Whether the non-joinder of the other heirs of Donata Lardizabal as indispensable
parties a ground for the dismissal of the action.
Ruling:
No. It is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the
dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at
any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. It is only when the plaintiff refuses to
implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that the latter may dismiss
the complaint. In this case, no such order was issued by the trial court.
HEIRS OF SPOUSES MESINA v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES FIAN, SR.

G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013, Velasco, Jr., J.
If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the
court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the
order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Facts:
The late spouses Mesina, during their lifetime, bought from the spouses Fian two (2)
parcels of land on installment. Upon the death of the latter, their heirs refused to
acknowledge the sale and remained in the possession of the property despite demands by
the Mesina heirs for them to vacate. Thus, Norman S. Mesina, as attorney-in-fact of his
siblings (Mesina heirs) filed an action for quieting of title and damages naming only Theresa
6 | Page

Cases)
Fian Yray (Theresa) as the representative of the Heirs of Fian. Theresa filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complaint states no cause of action since the names
of all the heirs of the late spouses Mesina and spouses Fian were not individually named,
thus they could not be deemed as the real parties in interest in violation of Sections 1 and 2,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. She claims that the "Heirs of Mesina" could not be considered
as a juridical person or entity authorized by law to file a civil action. Neither could the "Heirs
of Fian" be made as defendant, not being a juridical person as well. That for failure to name
or implead all the heirs of the late spouses Fian who are indispensable parties to the case,
the same warrants the dismissal of the complaint. The RTC dismissed the complaint which
was likewise affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the complaint states a cause of action.
Ruling:
Yes. A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three
essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) The legal right of the plaintiff; (b) The
correlative obligation of the defendant; and (c) The act or omission of the defendant in
violation of said right. By a simple reading of the elements of a failure to state a cause of
action, it can be readily seen that the inclusion of Theresas co-heirs does not fall under any
of the above elements. The infirmity is, in fact, not a failure to state a cause of action but a
non-joinder of an indispensable party. Non-joinder means the "failure to bring a person who
is a necessary party or in this case an indispensable party into a lawsuit." An indispensable
party, on the other hand, is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be
had of the action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. As such, this is
properly a non-joinder of indispensable party, the indispensable parties who were not
included in the complaint being the other heirs of Fian, and not a failure of the complaint to
state a cause of action.
Thus, the dismissal of the case for failure to state a cause of action is improper. What
the trial court should have done is to direct petitioner Norman Mesina to implead all the
heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr. as defendants within a reasonable time from notice with a warning
that his failure to do so shall mean dismissal of the complaint.
Class Suit
BANDA, ET AL. v. ERMITA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 16620, April 20, 2010, Leonardo-De Castro, J.
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.
Facts:
Petitioners filed the present petition challenging the constitutionality of Executive
Order No. 378 (E.O. No. 378) which provides that government agencies and
instrumentalities are allowed to source their printing services from the private sector
through competitive bidding, subject to the condition that the services offered by the
7 | Page

Cases)
private supplier be of superior quality and lower in cost compared to what was offered by
the National Printing Office (NPO). Perceiving E.O. No. 378 as a threat to their security of
tenure as employees of the NPO, petitioners now challenge its constitutionality. They
characterize their action as a class suit filed on their own behalf and on behalf of all their coemployees at the NPO.
Issue:
Whether or not the instant case is a class suit.
Ruling:
No. The requisites of a class suit are: 1) the subject matter of controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons; 2) the parties affected are so numerous that it
is impracticable to bring them all to court; and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are
sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all
concerned. (See Sec 12, Rule 3). Here, the petition failed to state the number of NPO
employees who would be affected by the assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly
represented by petitioners. It was the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, who
pointed out that there were about 549 employees in the NPO. The 67 petitioners undeniably
comprised a small fraction of the NPO employees whom they claimed to
represent. Subsequently, the said number was reduced to 20 as the number of petitioners
who effectively instituted the present case. It is highly doubtful that a sufficient,
representative number of NPO employees have instituted this purported class suit.
Moreover, another element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of
representation. Where the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class
they seek to represent are diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper. The
Manifestation of Desistance was filed by the President of the National Printing Office Workers
Association (NAPOWA) which expressed NAPOWAs opposition to the filing of the instant
petition in any court. There is here an apparent conflict between petitioners interests and
those of the persons whom they claim to represent. Since it cannot be said that petitioners
sufficiently represent the interests of the entire class, the instant case cannot be properly
treated as a class suit.
How to Implead Unknown Owner

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD.,
ET AL. G.R. No. 175409, September 7, 2011, Leonardo-De Castro, J.
Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever the identity or name
of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such
other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the
pleading must be amended accordingly.
Facts:
In 1995, Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) filed with the RTC a
Complaint against respondents: the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Explorer (common
carrier), Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (ship agent), Asian Terminals, Inc. (arrastre), and
Foremost International Port Services, Inc. (broker) to recover from the latter the value of lost
or damaged shipment paid to the insured. The case was raffled to Branch 37. On the same
8 | Page

Cases)
date, PCIC filed a similar case against Wallem Phils, Asian Terminals and Foremost Intl but
this time, the fourth defendant is the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Taygetus. The second
case was raffled to Branch 38. In 2000, the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer, and
Wallem Phils filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that PCIC failed to prosecute its action
for an unreasonable length of time. PCIC filed its Opposition, claiming it was premature for it
to move for the setting of the pre-trial conference before the resolution of the Motion to
Disclose which has not yet been decided for almost three (3) years already. Upon appeal,
PCIC alleged that its Motion to Disclose was inadvertently filed with the RTC Branch 38 and
not with Branch 37, where the present case was pending. However, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Explorer has been properly
impleaded.
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd., which was then referred to as the
Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer, had already been properly impleaded pursuant
to Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which provides that: Whenever the identity or
name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or
by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is
discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly. In the Complaint, PCIC alleged that
defendant Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer is a foreign corporation whose identity
or name or office address are unknown to PCIC but is doing business in the Philippines
through its local agent, co-defendant Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., a domestic
corporation. PCIC then added that both defendants may be served with summons and other
court processes in the address of Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., which was correctly done
pursuant to Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
As all the parties have been properly impleaded, the resolution of the Motion to
Disclose was unnecessary for the purpose of setting the case for pre-trial.
Counterclaims (Compulsory counterclaim, permissive counterclaim, Effect on the

counterclaim when complaint is dismissed, effect if compulsory counterclaim is
not answered)
MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO, SR., represented in this case by his
Attorney-in-fact ROMEL R. BUNGCAYAO v. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS,
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 170483 April 19, 2010, Carpio, J.
The compelling test of compulsoriness characterizes a counterclaim as compulsory if
there should exist a logical relationship between the main claim and the counterclaim.
Facts:
During a luncheon meeting, a counter-offer of P400, 000.00 was made as financial
settlement per claimant in consideration of the improvements introduced in Calayab Baech,
on the condition that the claimants would vacate the area identified as Fort Ilocandias
property. Bungcayao Sr. alleged that his son, Manuel Bungcayao, Jr., who attended the
9 | Page

Cases)
meeting, manifested that he still had to consult his parents about the offer but upon the
undue pressure exerted by the mediator, he accepted the payment and signed the Deed of
Assignment, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. Bungcayao Sr. filed an action for declaration of
nullity of contract. As a counterclaim, Fort Ilocandia prayed that Bungcayao Sr. be required
to return the amount of P400, 000.00, to vacate the portion of the Fort Ilocandias property
he was occupying, and to pay damages. RTC confirmed the agreement of the parties to
cancel the Deed of Assignment, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. It dismissed Bungcayaos
claim for damages and granted the counterclaim of Fort Ilocandia for recovery of possession
of the lot. CA affirmed the trial courts decision in toto.
Issue:
Whether Fort Ilocandias counterclaim is compulsory.
Ruling:
No. The criteria to determine whether the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive
are as follows: (a) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim
largely the same?; (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claim, absent
the compulsory rule?; (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs
claim as well as defendants counterclaim?; (d) Is there any logical relations between the
claim and the counterclaim? A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the
counterclaim is compulsory.
Respondent filed three counterclaims. The first was for recovery of the P400,000
given to Manuel, Jr.; the second was for recovery of possession of the subject property; and
the third was for damages. The first counterclaim was rendered moot with the issuance of
the 6 November 2003 Order confirming the agreement of the parties to cancel the Deed of
Assignment, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and to return the P400,000 to
respondent. Respondent waived and renounced the third counterclaim for damages. The
only counterclaim that remained was for the recovery of possession of the subject
property. While this counterclaim was an offshoot of the same basic controversy between the
parties, it is very clear that it will not be barred if not set up in the answer to the complaint
in the same case. Respondents second counterclaim, contrary to the findings of the trial
court and the Court of Appeals, is only a permissive counterclaim. It is not a compulsory
counterclaim. It is capable of proceeding independently of the main case.
Hence, respondents permissive counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice to
filing a separate action against petitioner.
Certification against forum shopping

ATTY. EMMANUEL D. AGUSTIN, JOSEPHINE SOLANO, ADELAIDA FERNANDEZ,
ALEJANDRO YUAN, JOCELYN LAVARES, MARY JANE OLASO, MELANIE BRIONES,
ROWENA PATRON, MA. LUISA CRUZ, SUSAN TAPALES, RUSTY BAUTISTA, AND JANET
YUAN v. ALEJANDRO CRUZHERRERA
G.R. No. 174564, February 12, 2014, Reyes, J.
In the case of natural persons, the certification against forum shopping must be
signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the attorney.
Facts:
10 | P a g e

Cases)
The complainants, assemblers and/or line leader assigned at the production
department, filed illegal dismissal case, monetary claims and damages against Podden and
its President, Alejandro Cruz-Herrera. They engaged the services of Atty. Emmanuel Agustin
upon the verbal agreement that he will be paid on a contingency basis. The LA ruled in favor
of the complainants. Thereafter, a writ of execution was filed but was opposed by Herrera
because some of the employees already executed Waivers and Quitclaims. LA denied the
issuance of writ. On appeal, NLRC reversed the judgment and denied the MR of Herrera.
During pendency of appeal before the CA, the parties entered into a joint compromise
agreement. This was admitted by the CA and dismissed the case with prejudice. Atty.
Agustin filed MR but was denied. Displeased, he, with the complainants named as his co
petitioners, interposed the present case.
Issue:
Whether the appeal must be taken cognizance.
Ruling:
No. The petition is dismissible outright for being accompanied by a defective
certification of nonforum shopping having been signed by Atty. Agustin instead of the
complainants
as
the
principal
parties.
It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the case of natural persons, the certification
against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the
attorney. The purpose of the rule rests mainly on practical sensibility. As explained
in Clavecilla v. Quitain:
x x x [T]he certification (against forum shopping) must be signed by the
plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the attorney. For such
certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal
party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other
pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of
action.
x x x 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 caused the filing of a
petition in that case. Hence, a certification against forum shopping by counsel
is a defective certification.
The Court has espoused leniency and overlooked such procedural misstep in cases
bearing substantial merit complemented by the written authority or general power of
attorney granted by the parties to the actual signatory. However, no analogous justifiable
reasons exist in the case at bar neither do the claims of Atty. Agustin merit substantial
consideration to justify a relaxation of the rule.
Manner of making allegations

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. LOURDES K.
MENDOZA
G.R. No. 176949 June 27, 2012, Del Castillo, J.
11 | P a g e

Cases)
Charge Invoices are not actionable documents per se as these only provide details on the
alleged transaction.
Facts:
Lourdes K. Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett), filed before the
RTC of Caloocan City, a Complaint for a sum of money against Asian Construction and Development
Corporation (ASDC). ASDC moved for a bill of particulars on the ground that no copies of the
purchase orders and invoices were attached, but it was denied. Later, the RTC ruled in favor of
Mendoza. This was affirmed with modification by the CA.
Issue:
Whether the charge invoices are actionable document.
Ruling:
No. A document is actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon such written
instrument or document. In the instant case, the Charge Invoices are not actionable documents per
se as these only provide details on the alleged transactions. These documents need not be attached
to or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature. In fact, respondents cause of action
is not based on these documents but on the contract of sale between the parties. Hence, the
petition was partly granted.
Failure to plead defenses and objections

BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G. TOLEDO
G.R. No. 173946 June 19, 2013, Perez, J.
Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not
one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such
defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent
a waiver of the defense.
Facts:
Boston Equity Resources Inc. (BERI) filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita
Toledo. Lolita filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged,
among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel is already dead. BERI then filed a
Motion for Substitution which was granted. About four years thereafter, Lolita filed a motion
to dismiss on the following grounds: that the complaint fails to state a cause of action; that
the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel; that the trial court
erred in ordering the substitution of the deceased Manuel by his heirs; and that the court
must also dismiss the case against Lolita Toledo in accordance with Section 6, Rule 86 of the
Rules of Court. The motion and MR of Lolita were denied by the trial court. On appeal, the CA
granted the petition.
Issue:
Whether Lolita is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court.
12 | P a g e

Cases)
Ruling:
No. Here, what respondent was questioning in her motion to dismiss before the trial
court was that courts jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel. Thus, the principle
of estoppel by laches finds no application in this case. Instead, the principles relating to
jurisdiction over the person of the parties are pertinent herein.
Based on the foregoing provisions (Sec. 1 Rule 9 and Sec. 8 Rule 15), the "objection
on jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even if not alleged in a motion to dismiss or
the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. x x x Lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since
jurisdictional issues cannot be waived x x x subject, however, to the principle of estoppel by
laches."
Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not
one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense
must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver
of the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer,
the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed
waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of
Court.
Relief from an order of default, extent of relief

SPOUSES BENEDICT AND SANDRA MANUEL v. RAMON ONG
G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014 LEONEN, J.
To the motion to lift order, of default must be appended an affidavit showing the
invoked ground, and another, denominated affidavit of merit, setting forth facts constituting
the party's meritorious defense or defenses.
Facts:
Ramon Ong filed with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, a complaint for
accion reivindicatoria against Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel. Later, the motion to
declare the Spouses Manuel in default was granted. Consequently, Ong moved for the ex
parte presentation of evidence, which was granted. Spouses Manuel filed a motion to lift the
order of default but was denied. Their MR was likewise denied. On appeal, CA dismissed the
Spouses Manuel's Rule 65 petition for lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether Spouses Manuel may be granted relief from the RTCs order of default.
Ruling:
No. As explained in Spouses Delos Santos v. Carpio, "there are three requirements
which must be complied with by the claiming party before the court may declare the
defending party in default:
13 | P a g e

Cases)
(1)
the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party
in default;
(2)
the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default;
(3)
the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within
the period provided by the Rule."
All these requisites were complied with by respondent Ramon Ong. Not only were
the requisites for declaring a party in default satisfied, the Spouses Manuel's motion to lift
order of default was also shown to be procedurally infirm. Consistent with Rule 9, Section
3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "the remedy against an order of default is a motion
to set it aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence." However,
it is not only the motion to lift order of default which a defendant must file. As this court
emphasized in Agravante v. Patriarca, to the motion to lift order, of default must "be
appended an affidavit showing the invoked ground, and another, denominated affidavit of
merit, setting forth facts constituting the party's meritorious defense or defenses."
We do not lose sight of the admonitions that have been made in jurisprudence that,
as a rule, courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default and that default
judgments are frowned upon. Indeed, apart from a motion to lift order of default, other
remedies are available to a defaulted defendant even after judgment has been rendered.
Thus, if judgment had already been rendered but has not yet become final and executory, an
appeal asserting that the judgment was contrary to the law or to the evidence, or a motion
for new trial under Rule 37, may be filed. In the case of the latter, the same affidavits as are
required in a motion to lift order of default must be attached. If judgment has become final
and executory, a defaulted defendant may file a petition for relief from judgment under Rule
38. Still, should the defaulted defendant fail to file a petition for relief, a petition for
annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud remains
available.
Effect of appeal by defaulted defendant

REBECCA T. ARQUERO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Former Thirteenth Division);
EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Education; DR. PARALUMAN GIRON, Director, Regional Office IV-MIMAROPA,
Department of Education; DR. EDUARDO LOPEZ, Schools Division Superintendent,
Puerto Princesa City; and NORMA BRILLANTES,
G.R. No. 168053 September 21, 2011, Peralta, J.
Undoubtedly, a defendant declared in default retains the right to appeal from the
judgment by default on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations
of the complaint, or that the decision is contrary to law, even without need of the prior filing
of a motion to set aside the order of default except that he does not regain his right to
adduce evidence.
Facts:
Rebecca T. Arquero filed the Petition for Quo Warranto with Prayer for Issuance of
TRO and/or Injunctive Writ before the RTC of Palawan against public and private
respondents. The Executive Judge issued a 72-Hour TRO. The RTC later issued the writ of
preliminary injunction. Respondents failed to file their Answer. Hence, on motion of Arquero,
the Court declared respondents in default. In the same order, Arquero was allowed to
present her evidence ex parte. RTC rendered a Judgment by Default in favor of Arquero. On
14 | P a g e

Cases)
appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Arquero insists that respondents
could not have appealed the RTC decision having been declared in default.
Issue:
Whether the respondents can appeal the RTC decision despite having been declared
in default.
Ruling:
Yes. In Rural Bank of Sta. Catalina v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court provided
a comprehensive restatement of the remedies of the defending party declared in default:
It bears stressing that a defending party declared in default loses his
standing in court and his right to adduce evidence and to present his defense.
He, however, has the right to appeal from the judgment by default and assail
said judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the amount of the judgment is
excessive or is different in kind from that prayed for, or that the plaintiff failed
to prove the material allegations of his complaint, or that the decision is
contrary to law. Such party declared in default is proscribed from seeking a
modification or reversal of the assailed decision on the basis of the evidence
submitted by him in the Court of Appeals, for if it were otherwise, he would
thereby be allowed to regain his right to adduce evidence, a right which he
lost in the trial court when he was declared in default, and which he failed to
have vacated. In this case, the petitioner sought the modification of the
decision of the trial court based on the evidence submitted by it only in the
Court of Appeals.
Payment of docket fees

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., represented by Ruben Reinoso Jr. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, and
FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION
G.R. No. 116121 July 18, 2011, Mendoza, J.
The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory.
Facts:
A collision of a passenger jeepney and a truck occurred. As a result, a passenger of
the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. died. The passenger jeepney was owned by Ponciano
Tapales, while the truck was owned by Jose Guballa. The heirs of Reinoso filed a complaint
for damages against Tapales and Guballa. In turn, Guballa filed a third party complaint
against Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (FGAC). RTC ruled against Guballa. On
appeal, the CA reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-payment of
docket fees pursuant to the doctrine laid down in Manchester v. CA. They filed MR but was
denied.
Issue:
Whether the CA misapplied the ruling in Manchester v. CA.
15 | P a g e

Cases)
Ruling:
Yes. The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory. In the more recent case of United Overseas Bank v. Ros, the Court explained that
where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees,
and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when
required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not
the strict regulations set in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in
several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order
to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In the case
of La Salette College v. Pilotin, the Court stated:
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of
appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified
by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period
allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should
be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal
of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.
The petitioners, however, are liable for the difference between the actual fees paid
and the correct payable docket fees to be assessed by the clerk of court which shall
constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 141.
RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL

COURT AND SHERIFFS FEES OF COOPERATIVES DULY REGISTERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9520 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008, PERPETUAL HELP COMMUNITY
COOPERATIVE (PHCCI)
March 13, 2012 A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, Perez, J.
Cooperatives can no longer invoke Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9520, as basis for exemption from the payment of legal fees.
Facts:
Perpetual Help Community Cooperative (PHCCI) requests for the issuance of a court
order to clarify and implement the exemption of cooperatives from the payment of court and
sheriffs fees pursuant to RA 6938, as amended by RA 9520, otherwise known as
the Philippine Cooperative Act of 2008. PHCCI contends that as a cooperative it enjoys the
exemption provided for under Section 6, Article 61 of RA 9520.
Issue:
Whether cooperatives are exempt from the payment of court and sheriffs fees.
Ruling:
No. On 11 February 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Resolution in A.M. No.
08-2-01-0, which denied the petition of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for
recognition of its exemption from payment of legal fees imposed under Section 22 of Rule
16 | P a g e

Cases)
141 of the Rules of Court. In the GSIS case, the Court citing Echegaray v. Secretary of
Justice, stressed that the 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent
judiciary; took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure; and held that the power to promulgate these Rules is no
longer shared by the Court with Congress, more so, with the Executive, thus:
Congress could not have carved out an exemption for the GSIS from the
payment of legal fees without transgressing another equally important
institutional safeguard of the Courts independence - fiscal autonomy. Fiscal
autonomy recognizes the power and authority of the Court to levy, assess and
collect fees, including legal fees. Moreover, legal fees under Rule 141 have two
basic components, the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). The laws which established the JDF and
SAJF expressly declare the identical purpose of these funds to guarantee the
independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public
policy. Legal fees therefore do not only constitute a vital source of the Courts
financial resources but also comprise an essential element of the Courts fiscal
independence. Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by
Congress to government-owned or controlled corporations and local
government units will necessarily reduce the JDF and the SAJF. Undoubtedly,
such situation is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Courts guaranteed
fiscal autonomy and erodes its independence.
With the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the
exemption of cooperatives from payment of court and sheriffs fees no longer stands.
Amendment as a matter of right

LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. represented by LOLITA A. SORIANO, and LOLITA A.
SORIANO v.
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. (formerly PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL
BANK),*
LILIAN S. SORIANO, ESTATE OF LEANDRO A. SORIANO, JR., REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
LEGASPI CITY, and JESUS L. SARTE
G.R. No. 143264 April 23, 2012, Peralta, J.
Even if the amendment substantially alters the cause of action or defense, such
amendment could still be allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of
substantial justice, prevent delay, and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
actions and proceedings.
Facts:
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LEI), represented by Lolita A. Soriano filed a Complaint
against BDO Unibank, Lilian S. Soriano, Estate Of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr., Register Of Deeds
of Legaspi City, and Jesus L. Sarte for Annulment of Mortgage with Prayer for TRO &
Preliminary Injunction with Damages with the RTC of Legaspi City. RTC issued a TRO. Lilian S.
Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. filed an Answer. Thereafter, RTC dismissed
LEI and Lolitas Complaint. The latter then filed a MR. While awaiting resolution of the MR,
they also filed a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint. RTC denied both the MR and the
Motion to Admit Amended Complaint.
17 | P a g e

Cases)
Issue:
Whether RTC committed a reversible error when it denied the admission of LEI's
amended complaint filed as a matter of right, after the order of dismissal was issued but
before its finality.
Ruling:
Yes. It should be noted that respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A.
Soriano, Jr. already filed their Answer, to petitioners' complaint, and the claims being
asserted were made against said parties. A responsive pleading having been filed,
amendments to the complaint may, therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer
as a matter of right.
The granting of leave to file amended pleading is a matter particularly
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; and that discretion is broad,
subject only to the limitations that the amendments should not substantially change
the cause of action or alter the theory of the case, or that it was not made to delay
the action. Nevertheless, as enunciated in Valenzuela, even if the amendment
substantially alters the cause of action or defense, such amendment could still be
allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of substantial justice, prevent
delay, and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and
proceedings.
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid a
multiplicity of suits and in order that the real controversies between the parties are
presented, their rights determined, and the case decided on the merits without
unnecessary delay. This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit,
especially in this case where the amendment was made before the trial of the case,
thereby giving the petitioners all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare
for trial. Hence, the RTC of Legaspi City, Branch 4, was directed to admit the
Amended Complaint.
Substituted service
SIXTO N. CHU v. MACH ASIA TRADING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 184333 April 1, 2013 Peralta, J.
The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully
and full.
Facts:
Mach Asia Trading Corp. (MATC) filed a complaint before the RTC of Cebu City for sum
of money, replevin, attorneys fees and damages against Sixto N, Chu. Sheriff Doroteo P.
Cortes failed to serve the summons personally upon Chu, since the latter was not there. The
Sheriff then resorted to substituted service by having the summons and the complaint
received by Rolando Bonayon, a security guard of Chu. Chu failed to file any responsive
pleading and was declared in default upon motion of MATC. RTC ruled in favor of MATC and
was affirmed by the CA.
18 | P a g e

Cases)
Issue:
Whether there was a valid substituted service of summons.
Ruling:
No. As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when
summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted
service may be resorted to.
It is to be noted that in case of substituted service, there should be a report
indicating that the person who received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one
with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence, ensuring that the latter would
actually receive the summons. Also, impossibility of prompt personal service must be shown
by stating that efforts have been made to find the defendant personally and that such
efforts have failed. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the
usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character, hence, may be used only
as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. The statutory requirements of
substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service
other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective.
Clearly, it was not shown that the security guard who received the summons in behalf
of the petitioner was authorized and possessed a relation of confidence that petitioner would
definitely receive the summons. This is not the kind of service contemplated by law. Thus,
service on the security guard could not be considered as substantial compliance with the
requirements of substituted service.
Hence, the petition was granted.
Extraterritorial service, when allowed

MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO LICAROS
G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003, Carpio, J.
Extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three modes: (1)
by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a
copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendants last
known address, with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may consider
sufficient.
Facts:
Abelardo and Margarita were married and had two children namely Maria Concepcion
and Abelardo, Jr. However, the spouses decided to separate from bed and board. Margarita
went to the U.S. with her children. Margarita applied for divorce and was granted such
decree with a distribution of properties between her and Abelardo. Abelardo and Margarita
executed an Agreement of Separation of Properties and later a petition was filed for the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the spouses and for the approval of the
agreement of separation of their properties which was granted. Abelardo filed for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage and during which, Margarita was still residing at the
U.S. Abelardo moved that summons be served through the International Express Courier
Service but the court denied it and ordered that summons be served by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks, at the same time
19 | P a g e

Cases)
furnishing Margarita a copy of the order, summons and the petition at her address in the
U.S. through the DFA. Process Server, Maximo Dela Rosa, submitted his Officers Return
stating that he served the summons and complaint case upon Margarita c/o DFA (sent by
Mail). The case was referred to Prosecutor Bruselas, Jr. to find out any possible collusion
between the parties and with the negative report of collusion, Abelardo was allowed to
present his evidence ex parte. Later, the marriage between Abelardo and Margarita was
declared null and void. Nine years later, Margarita received a letter from Atty. Valencia
informing her that she no longer has the right to use the family name Licaros since her
marriage was already dissolved.
Issue:
Whether or not the service of summons on Margarita was valid; hence, the court has
jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Yes. Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found
in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the action relates to,
or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or
claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines;
or (4) when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.
In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of
three modes: (1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by
publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to
the defendants last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the
judge may consider sufficient.
The trial courts prescribed mode of extraterritorial service does not fall under the
first or second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third mode. This refers
to any other means that the judge may consider sufficient. The Process Servers Return of
15 July 1991 shows that the summons addressed to Margarita together with the complaint
and its annexes were sent by mail to the Department of Foreign Affairs with
acknowledgment of receipt. The Process Servers certificate of service of summons is prima
facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate. Before proceeding to declare the
marriage between Margarita and Abelardo null and void, the trial court stated in its Decision
dated 8 November 1991 that compliance with the jurisdictional requirements have been
duly established. The Court holds that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was
sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is exactly what the trial court required and
considered as sufficient to effect service of summons under the third mode of extraterritorial
service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14.
Service Upon Public Corporations

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALBERTO DOMINGO
G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011, Leonardo-De Castro, J.
20 | P a g e

Cases)
When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on
the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations,
service may be effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law
or the court may direct.
Facts:
Domingo entered into seven contracts for the lease of his construction equipment to
implement the projects of the DPWH to control the flow of lahar from Mt. Pinatubo. Domingo
claimed that the unpaid rentals amounted to P6,320,163.05 but DPWH Region III failed to
pay its obligations despite demands. Hence, Domingo filed a complaint for Specific
Performance with Damages against DPWH, Region III. Summons was issued by the RTC with
the Proof of Service of the Sheriff. Domingo filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default
for failure of the DPWH Region III to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary
period. The RTC declared the DPWH Region III in default and set the date for the reception of
Domingo's evidence ex parte and later decided that Domingo is entitled to the reliefs prayed
for. Domingo filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution which was granted. The
Republic, represented by the OSG, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for
the Issuance of a TRO and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction arguing that it was not
impleaded as an indispensable party and that since no summons was issued to its
representatives, the court never acquired jurisdiction over the Republic.
Issue:
Whether or not the service of summons upon the DPWH Region III alone was
sufficient.
Ruling:
No. Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court states that: When the defendant is the
Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a
province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its
executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.
Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated
government agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality
of its own, the suit is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State.
In the instant case, the Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages filed by
Domingo specifically named as defendant the DPWH Region III. As correctly argued by the
Republic, the DPWH and its regional office are merely the agents of the former (the
Republic), which is the real party in interest in Civil Case No. 333-M-2002. Thus, as
mandated by Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, the summons in this case should
have been served on the OSG.
Quite inexplicably, the Court of Appeals failed to apply, nay, to even consider, the
provisions of Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court in rendering its assailed Decision. A
perusal of the Decision dated May 19, 2006 shows that the appellate court mainly
dissertated regarding the functions and organizational structures of the DPWH and the OSG,
as provided for in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, in an attempt to demonstrate
the relationship between the DPWH and its regional offices, as well as to refute the claim
that the service of summons upon the Republic should be made exclusively upon the OSG.
Such an oversight on the part of the Court of Appeals is most unfortunate given the
relevance and materiality of Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to the instant case, in
21 | P a g e

Cases)
addition to the fact that the Republic itself quoted the aforesaid provision in its petition
before the appellate court.
Notice and hearing of motions

DR. ROGER POSADAS and DR. ROLANDO DAYCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013, Villarama, Jr., J.
The 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan requires a motion for
reconsideration to be set for hearing. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the
motion defective.
Facts:
Dr. Posadas was the UP Diliman Chancellor and was nominated as director of the
Technology Management Center (TMC) but he declined and designated Prof. Tabbada as
Acting Director. Dr. Posadas submitted to NEDA an Application for Funding of his proposed
project Institutionalization of Technology Management at UP which is to be funded by the
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). A MOA was executed between Dr.
Posadas and the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) as the Local Executing
Agency of the Policy, Training and Technical Assistance Facility (PTTAF) of CIDA. Then, the
President of Hua Qiao University in China invited Dr. Posadas and a delegation from UP
Diliman to visit. Dr. Posadas designated Dr. Dayco, Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs,
as OIC of UP Diliman. Later, Dr. Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas as Project Director of UP TMC
and later hired Dr. Posadas as Consultant for the TMC Project. Dr. Posadas received his
P30,000 per month honoraria and P100,000 consultancy fees, the legality of which was
questioned and later on suspended by COA.
However, even before the issuance of the suspension notices, UP President Dr. Javier,
ordered an investigation on the basis of an administrative complaint. Javier created a FactFinding Committee which conducted a preliminary investigation and finding a prima
facie case against the Dr. Posadas and Dr. Dayco, President Javier issued the formal
charges for Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority. An Administrative Disciplinary
Tribunal (ADT) was constituted by the Board of Regents which found Dr. Posadas and Dayco
guilty and endorsed the case to the Ombudsman which ordered that they be indicted for
violation of R.A. 3019 and R.A. 6713. Hence, informations were filed before the
Sandiganbayan which found them guilty. Dr. Posadas and Dayco filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied since it has not been set for hearing as required by the rules,
rendering the motion pro forma.
Issue:
Whether or not notice of hearing in motions for reconsideration is mandatory.
Ruling:
Yes. Contrary to petitioners stance, the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan requires a motion for reconsideration to be set for hearing, as it provides
22 | P a g e

Cases)
under Rule VII: SECTION 1. Motion Day. - Except for motions which may be acted upon ex
parte, all motions shall be scheduled for hearings on a Friday, or if that day is a non-working
holiday, on the next working day. Motions requiring immediate action may be acted upon on
shorter notice. In appealed cases, the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, on Motions shall apply.
In any event, the mandatory setting for hearing a motion for reconsideration to
reverse or modify a judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan is already settled. The
Court categorically ruled in the recent case of Flores v. People (G.R. No. 181354, February
27, 2013): Flores filed a motion for the reconsideration. As the motion did not contain any
notice of hearing, the Prosecution filed its Motion to Expunge from the Records Accuseds
Motion for Reconsideration. In its Resolution, dated November 29, 2007, the Sandiganbayan
denied the motion for being a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing
and disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for
Reconsideration of accused Flores is considered pro forma which did not toll the running of
the period to appeal, and thus, the assailed judgment of this Court has
become FINAL and EXECUTORY. SO ORDERED.
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary
period of appeal. Section 4, Rule 121 states: The motion for a new trial or reconsideration
shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. Notice of the motion for
new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor. The Court has indeed held, time
and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the requirement is
mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. As a rule,
a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the
reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading.
Motion to Dismiss
Grounds
CATALINA CHU, et al. v. SPOUSES FERNANDO CUNANAN and TRINIDAD CUNANAN,
et al.
G.R. No. 156185, September 12, 2011, Bersamin, J.
The following are the requisites of res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent
action: (a) final former judgment; (b) judgment is rendered by a court having jurisdiction; (c)
judgment on the merits; and (d) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action in
the first and second action.
Facts:
Spouses Chu executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage involving their
five parcels of land in favor of Trinidad Cunanan. They also executed a side
agreement, clarifying that Cunanan paid only P1 million despite the Chus having
acknowledged receiving P5,161,090; that the amount of P1.6 million was to be paid to
Benito Co and Security Bank; and that Cunanan would pay the balance within three months.
The ownership would only be transferred to Cunanan upon complete payment and
compliance with the terms of the deed. However, Cunanan was able to transfer the title to
her name without the knowledge of the Chus, and to borrow money with the lots as security
without paying the balance. She later transferred two of the lots to Spouses Carlos. Hence,
23 | P a g e

Cases)
the Chus caused the annotation of an unpaid vendor's lien on three of the lots but Cunanan
still assigned the lots to Cool Town Realty. The Chus filed a complaint to recover the unpaid
balance from the Cunanans and later amended the complaint to seek the annulment of the
deed and the TCTs issued and recover damages. They impleaded Cool Town Realty and the
Office of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga. Meanwhile, the Carloses sold the two lots to
Benelda Estate thus, the Chus impleaded Benelda Estate. Benelda Estate filed its answer
with a motion to dismiss, claiming there is no cause of action because it acted in good faith
in buying the lots which was denied. Benelda Estate assailed the denial on certiorari in the
CA but the court upheld the dismissal.
The Chus, Cunanans, and Cool Town Realty entered into a compromise
agreement, whereby the Cunanans transferred to the Chus their 50% share in all the parcels
of land registered in the name of Cool Town Realty "for and in consideration of the full
settlement of their case." Thereafter, the Chus brought another suit against the Carloses
and Benelda Estate, seeking the cancellation of the TCTs of the two lots in the name of
Benelda Estate and impleaded the Cunanans. The Cunanans moved to dismiss on the
ground of bar by prior judgment, and the claim or demand had been paid, waived, and
abandoned. Benelda Estate also moved to dismiss citing as grounds: (a) forum shopping;
(b) bar by prior judgment, and (c) failure to state a cause of action. On their part, the
Carloses raised affirmative defenses in their answer, namely: (a) the failure to state a cause
of action; (b) res judicata or bar by prior judgment; and (c) bar by statute of limitations.
Issue:
Whether or not the case is barred by res judicata although the compromise
agreement did not expressly include Benelda Estate as a party and it made no reference to
the lots.
Ruling:
Yes. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits
rendered 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. Yet, in order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action, the
following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (c) it
must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second
actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of the subject matter, and (iii) identity of cause of
action.
The first requisite was attendant. Civil Case No. G-1936 was already terminated
under the compromise agreement, for the judgment, being upon a compromise, was
immediately final and unappealable. As to the second requisite, the RTC had jurisdiction over
the cause of action in Civil Case No. G-1936 for the enforcement or rescission of the deed of
sale with assumption of mortgage, which was an action whose subject matter was not
capable of pecuniary estimation. That the compromise agreement explicitly settled the
entirety of Civil Case No. G-1936 by resolving all the claims of the parties against each other
indicated that the third requisite was also satisfied. There is identity of parties when the
parties in both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are
successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action litigating for
the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. The requirement of the
identity of parties was fully met, because the Chus, on the one hand, and the Cunanans, on
the other hand, were the parties in both cases along with their respective privies. As to
24 | P a g e

Cases)
identity of the subject matter, both actions dealt with the properties involved in the deed of
sale with assumption of mortgage. Identity of the causes of action was also met, because
Case No. G-1936 and Civil Case No. 12251 were rooted in one and the same cause of action
- the failure of Cunanan to pay in full the purchase price of the five lots subject of the deed
of sale with assumption of mortgage.
When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses

LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO, et al. v. CESAR QUIAZON, et al.
G.R. No. 201248, March 11, 2015, Mendoza, J.
The trial court may hold a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. However,
such hearing is not necessary when the affirmative defense is failure to state a cause of
action. The reception and the consideration of evidence on the said ground, has been held
to be improper and impermissible.
Facts:
A complaint for Annulment and Quieting of Title was filed by the petitioners alleging
that they were the heirs of Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, who acquired a house
and lot by virtue of a Deed of Sale and since then, they had been in open, continuous,
adverse, and notorious possession for more than a hundred years. Later, they received
demand letters from the respondents claiming ownership over the subject property and
demanding that they vacate the same. Upon inquiry with the RD, it confirmed that the
property had been titled in the name of respondents and they claim that the title was
invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable and that they were the true owners of the
property. The respondents asserted that they were the absolute owners of the subject land
and they had inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest and that petitioners had
been occupying the property by mere tolerance. They denied the allegations in the
complaint and proffered affirmative defenses with counterclaims. They argued that: First, the
petitioners "have no valid, legal and sufficient cause of action" against them, because their
deed of sale was spurious. Second, the action was barred by prescription and that
petitioners were guilty of laches in asserting their interest over the subject lot. Third, the
action was also barred by res judicata and violated the prohibition against forum shopping,
considering that petitioners had earlier filed a similar case for quieting of title against
respondents. The RTC set a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses.
Issue:
Whether or not it is within the trial courts discretion to receive other evidence in
resolving an affirmative defense on the ground of failure to state cause of action.
Ruling:
No. The Court does not discount, however, that there are exceptions to the general
rule that allegations are hypothetically admitted as true and inquiry is confined to the face
of the complaint. First, there is no hypothetical admission of (a) the veracity of allegations if
their falsity is subject to judicial notice; (b) allegations that are legally impossible; (c) facts
inadmissible in evidence; and (d) facts which appear, by record or document included in the
pleadings, to be unfounded. Second, inquiry is not confined to the complaint if culled (a)
from annexes and other pleadings submitted by the parties; (b) from documentary evidence
25 | P a g e

Cases)
admitted by stipulation which disclose facts sufficient to defeat the claim; or (c) from
evidence admitted in the course of hearings related to the case.
Pointing to the exception that inquiry was not confined to the complaint if evidence
had been presented in the course of hearings related to the case, the CA ruled that it was
within the trial court's discretion to receive and consider other evidence aside from the
allegations in the complaint in resolving a party's affirmative defense. It held that this
discretion was recognized under Section 6 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which allowed
the court to conduct a preliminary hearing, motu proprio, on the defendant's affirmative
defense if no corresponding motion to dismiss was filed.
The trial court may indeed elect to hold a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses
as raised in the answer under Section 6 of Rules 16 of the Rules of Court. It has been held,
however, that such a hearing is not necessary when the affirmative defense is failure to
state a cause of action, and that it is, in fact, error for the court to hold a preliminary hearing
to determine the existence of external facts outside the complaint. The reception and the
consideration of evidence on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,
has been held to be improper and impermissible. Thus, in a preliminary hearing on a motion
to dismiss or on the affirmative defenses raised in an answer, the parties are allowed to
present evidence except when the motion is based on the ground of insufficiency of the
statement of the cause of action which must be determined on the basis only of the facts
alleged in the complaint and no other. Section 6, therefore, does not apply to the ground
that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The trial court, thus, erred in receiving and
considering evidence in connection with this ground.
Pre-trial Order
PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION v.
AMALGAMATED MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al.
G.R. No. 177729, September 28, 2011, Bersamin, J.
The issues to be tried between the parties shall be limited to those defined in the
pre-trial order. However, it is unavoidable that there are issues that are impliedly included or
that may be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as much integral
as those expressly listed.
Facts:
Amalgamated Management and Development Corporation (AMDC) obtained from the
National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia (NCBSA) a loan amounting to SR3.3 million to
finance the working capital requirements and the down payment for the trucks to be used in
AMDC's hauling project in the Middle East. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee
Corporation (PEFLGC), a GOCC which guarantees foreign loans granted to any domestic
entity, issued a letter of guaranty in favor of NCBSA as the lending bank upon the request of
AMDC. As the security for the guaranty, Amalgamated Motors Philippines Incorporated
(AMPI), a sister company of AMDC, acted as an accommodation mortgagor, and executed in
favor of PEFLGC a real estate mortgage. AMDC also executed a deed of undertaking with
Cuevas and Saddul, its President and Vice-President respectively, as its co-obligors in which
they were jointly and severally bound to pay PEFLGC whatever damages or liabilities that
PEFLGC would incur by reason of the guaranty. AMDC defaulted and upon demand, PEFLGC
paid the obligation to NCBSA. Hence, PEFLGC demanded that AMDC, Cuevas and Saddul
26 | P a g e

Cases)
should pay the obligation, but did not comply. Hence, it extra-judicially foreclosed the real
estate mortgage. The sheriff conducted a public auction and PEFLGC acquired the
mortgaged properties as the highest bidder. However, PEFLGC sued AMDC, Cuevas and
Saddul to recover for the deficiency since the proceeds of the foreclosure sale were not
sufficient to cover the guaranty. AMDC, Cuevas, and Saddul all sought the dismissal of the
complaint.
Issue:
Whether or not the liability of Cuevas and Saddul on the deficiency claim was already
an admitted fact under the pre-trial order.
Ruling:
No. The pre-trial order nowhere stated that Cuevas and Saddul already admitted their
liability on the petitioner's deficiency claim. Their admission appearing in the pre-trial order
referred only to the fact that they and AMDC had received advances in large amounts from
the petitioner, and that the real estate mortgage securing the loan had already been
foreclosed. Whether Cuevas and Saddul were liable on the deficiency claim was proper for
the ascertainment and determination by the RTC as the trial court and the CA as the
appellate tribunal, notwithstanding the silence of the pre-trial order on it, because such issue
was deemed necessarily included in or inferred from the stated issue of whether there was a
deficiency still to be paid by AMDC, Cuevas and Saddul.
It is true that the issues to be tried between the parties in a case shall be limited to
those defined in the pre-trial order. However, a pre-trial order is not intended to be a
detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be taken during the trial, for it is
unavoidable that there are issues that are impliedly included among those listed or that may
be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as much integral parts of
the pre-trial order as those expressly listed.
At any rate, it remains that the petitioner impleaded Cuevas and Saddul as
defendants, and adduced against them evidence to prove their liabilities. With Cuevas and
Saddul being parties to be affected by the judgment, it was only appropriate for the RTC to
inquire into and determine their liability for the purpose of arriving at a complete
determination of the suit. Thereby, the RTC acted in conformity with the avowed reason for
which the courts are organized, which was to put an end to controversies, to decide the
questions submitted by the litigants, and to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.
Requisites for intervention

LORENZA ONGCO v. VALERIANA UNGCO DALISAY
G.R. No. 190810, July 18, 2012, Sereno, J.
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the
proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to
protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those
proceedings. Intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the court's sound discretion.
27 | P a g e

Cases)
Facts:
Dalisay applied for registration of a parcel of land before the MTC. No oppositor aside
from the Republic came. The court found Dalisay to have clearly shown a registrable right
over the subject property and ordered that a decree of registration be issued by the
LRA. Ongco never intervened in the proceedings in the trial court. The Republic filed an
appeal and while the case was pending appeal, Ongco filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene"
with an attached Answer-in-Intervention seeking the dismissal of Dalisay's application on the
ground that the property was not free from any adverse claim. Ongco had allegedly been
previously found to be in actual possession of the subject land in an earlier case filed before
when she applied for a free patent on the land. Dalisay contended that Ongco did not have a
legal interest over the property and the intervention would unduly delay the registration
proceeding. Dalisay pointed out that intervention may be filed at any time before rendition
of judgment by the trial court, but not at any other time. The CA denied the Motion for
Intervention for having been filed beyond the period allowed by law.
Issue:
Whether or not Ongco may be allowed to intervene.
Ruling:
No. Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the
proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to
protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. This
remedy, however, is not a right. It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of
right, but is left to the trial court's sound discretion. The trial court must not only determine
if the requisite legal interest is present, but also take into consideration the delay and the
consequent prejudice to the original parties that the intervention will cause. Both
requirements must concur, as the first requirement on legal interest is not more important
than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result. To help ensure that
delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene, the Rules also explicitly say
that intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
Petitioner has not shown any legal interest of such nature that she "will either gain or
lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment." On the contrary, her interest is indirect
and contingent. She has not been granted a free patent over the subject land, as she in fact
admits being only in the process of applying for one. Her interest is at best inchoate.
In Firestone Ceramics v. CA (G.R. No. 127022, September 2, 1999), the Court held that the
petitioner who anchored his motion to intervene on his legal interest arising from his
pending application for a free patent over a portion of the subject land merely had a
collateral interest in the subject matter of the litigation. His collateral interest could not have
justified intervention.
Quashing of subpoena; grounds
28 | P a g e

Cases)
IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE
RECORD OF BIRTH, EMMA LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010, Abad, J.
The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in
any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the
relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person in whose
behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.
Facts:
Spouses Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng entered the Philippines in the 1930s as
immigrants from China and had 11 children. Lee brought from China a young woman named
Tiu Chuan to serve as housemaid. The Lee-Keh children believe that Tiu moved into another
property of Lee nearby, and had a relation with him. The Lee-Keh children learned that Tiu's
children with Lee claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and Keh. This prompted the
Lee-Keh children to request the NBI to investigate the matter and stated in the report that It
is very obvious that the mother of these 8 children is certainly not KEH SHIOK CHENG, but a
much younger woman, most probably TIU CHUAN. Hence, the Lee-Keh children filed the
deletion from the certificate of live birth of Emma Lee, one of Lee's other children, the name
Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her true mother's name. The LeeKeh children filed with the RTC an ex parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum to compel Tiu to testify in the case. The RTC granted the motion but Tiu
moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that it was oppressive and violated the rule on
parental privilege. The RTC quashed the subpoena it issued for being unreasonable and
oppressive considering that Tiu was already very old and that the obvious object of the
subpoena was to badge her into admitting that she was Emma Lee's mother.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court may compel Tiu to testify in the correction of entry case
that the Lee-Keh children filed for the correction of Emmas birth certificate.
Ruling:
Yes. As the CA correctly ruled, the grounds cited--unreasonable and oppressive--are
proper for quashing subpoena ad duces tecum or for the production of documents and
things in the possession of the witness, a command that has a tendency to infringe on the
right against invasion of privacy. Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, thus
provides: The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and,
in any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or
the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person in whose
behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.
Regarding the physical and emotional punishment that would be inflicted on Tiu if
she were compelled at her age and condition to come to court to testify, petitioner Emma
Lee must establish this claim to the satisfaction of the trial court. About five years have
passed from the time the Lee-Keh children sought the issuance of a subpoena for Tiu to
appear before the trial court. The RTC would have to update itself and determine if Tiu's
current physical condition makes her fit to undergo the ordeal of coming to court and being
questioned. If she is fit, she must obey the subpoena issued to her. Tiu has no need to worry
that the oral examination might subject her to badgering by adverse counsel. The trial
29 | P a g e

Cases)
court's duty is to protect every witness against oppressive behavior of an examiner and this
is especially true where the witness is of advanced age.
Tiu claimed before the trial court the right not to testify against her stepdaughter,
petitioner Emma Lee, invoking Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence. But here Tiu,
who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee.
The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to "direct" ascendants and
descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common
ancestry by her stepmother.
Depositions pending action

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.
G.R. No. 152375, December 13, 2011, Brion, J.
Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending action,
Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its subparagraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a condition for admissibility, compliance with the
rules on evidence.
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, through the PCGG, filed Civil Case No. 0009 against the
respondents for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages before the
Sandiganbayan. The Republic alleged that the respondents illegally manipulated the
purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which shareholdings Africa and Nieto, Jr. held for
themselves and beneficially for the Marcoses. In Civil Case 0130, two sets of ETPI board and
officers were elected one which is a PCGG-controlled board and another is the board
elected by the registered ETPI stockholders. Africa prayed for the issuance of an order for
the calling and holding of ETPI annual stockholders meeting for 1992 under the courts
control and supervision and prescribed guidelines which was granted. Hence, PCGG
assailed this resolution. In the meantime, Civil Case No. 0130 and Civil Case No. 0009 was
consolidated. The testimony of Maurice Bane (former director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI)
was taken by way of deposition upon oral examination. Invoking Section 1, Rule 24, the
notice stated that the purpose of the deposition is for Bane to identify and testify on the
facts set forth in his affidavit to prove the ownership issue in favor of the Republic and/or
establish the prima facie factual foundation for sequestration of ETPIs Class A stock in
support of the Urgent Petition. The notice also states that the Republic shall use the Bane
deposition in evidence in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009. On the scheduled
deposition date, only Africa was present and he cross-examined Bane. In Civil Case No. 0009
the Republic offered to present its witnesses including Bane and wishes to adopt their
testimonies and the documentary exhibits. However, the Sandiganbayan denied it for the
reason that the deponents are not available for cross-examination. Hence, the Republic filed
motions seeking the admission of the Banes deposition but was again denied.
Issue:
Whether or not Banes deposition is admissible.
Ruling:
30 | P a g e

Cases)
No. Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on Deposition Pending Action provides
for the circumstances when depositions may be used in the trial, or at the hearing of a
motion or an interlocutory proceeding. On the other hand, Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court provides The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify,
given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties
and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him. A plain reading of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court readily
rejects the petitioners position that Banes deposition can be admitted into evidence
without observing the requirements of Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending action,
Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its subparagraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a condition for admissibility, compliance with the
rules on evidence. Thus, even Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court makes an implied
reference to Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court before the deposition may be used in
evidence. By reading Rule 23 in isolation, the petitioner failed to recognize that the principle
conceding admissibility to a deposition under Rule 23 should be consistent with the rules on
evidence under Section 47, Rule 130. In determining the admissibility of Banes deposition,
therefore, reliance cannot be given on one provision to the exclusion of the other; both
provisions must be considered. This is particularly true in this case where the evidence in
the prior proceeding does not simply refer to a witness testimony in open court but to a
deposition taken under another and farther jurisdiction.
Although the testimony of a witness has been given in the course of a former
proceeding between the parties to a case on trial, this testimony alone is not a ground for its
admission in evidence. The witness himself, if available, must be produced in court as if he
were testifying de novo since his testimony given at the former trial is mere hearsay. The
deposition of a witness, otherwise available, is also inadmissible for the same reason.
Indeed, the Sandiganbayans reliance on Banes deposition in the other case (Civil
Case No. 0130) is an argument in favor of the requisite unavailability of the witness. For
purposes of the present case (Civil Case No. 0009), however, the Sandiganbayan would have
no basis to presume, and neither can or should the Court, that the previous condition, which
previously allowed the use of the deposition, remains and would thereby justify the use of
the same deposition in another case or proceeding, even if the other case or proceeding is
before the same court. Since the basis for the admission of Banes deposition, in principle,
being necessity, the burden of establishing its existence rests on the party who seeks the
admission of the evidence. This burden cannot be supplanted by assuming the continuity of
the previous condition or conditions in light of the general rule against the non-presentation
of the deponent in court.
Depositions before action pending appeal

HARRY GO, et al. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD.,
et al.
G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Section 17, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on the taking of depositions of witnesses in
civil cases cannot apply suppletorily to criminal cases since there is a specific provision in
the Rules of Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in
31 | P a g e

Cases)
criminal cases, which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the
accused to meet the witness against him face to face.
Facts:
Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged for Other Deceits for
conspiring in defrauding Highdone Company Ltd. represented by Li Luen Ping. All accused
said to Li Luen Ping that they have chattels such as machinery, spare parts, equipment and
raw materials installed and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory, and
executed a Deed of Mortgage for a consideration of the amount of $464,266.90 in favor of
ML Resources and Highdone Company Ltd. The accused represented that the deed is a first
mortgage when in fact it had been mortgaged and foreclosed by China Bank. Li Luen Ping,
prosecutions complaining witness, is from Laos, Cambodia, who traveled from his home
country back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing. However, trial dates were
postponed due to his unavailability. The private prosecutor filed a Motion to Take Oral
Deposition of Li Luen Ping, alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the
Cambodia Charity Hospital and that he could not travel to the Philippines by reason of ill
health which the court granted. Hence, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari which the
RTC granted stating that Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking of depositions of witnesses in civil
cases cannot apply suppletorily to the case since there is a specific provision in the Rules of
Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases,
which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet the
witness against him face to face.
Issue:
Whether or not the taking of the deposition of Li Luen Ping infringed the right of the
petitioners to a public trial.
Ruling:
Yes. The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court.
This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his
right to a public trial and to meet the witnessess against him face to face. The requirement
is the safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts as it enables the judge to
test the witness' credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying. It is not
without exceptions, however, as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of
witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court
testimony.
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a
prosecution witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial
examination should be made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is
pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at no
other place than the court where the case is pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's
orders granting the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine
consular official in Laos, Cambodia. The condition of the private complainant being sick and
of advanced age falls within the provision of Section 15 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.
However, said rule substantially provides that he should be conditionally examined before
the court where the case is pending. Thus, the Court concludes that the language of Section
32 | P a g e

Cases)
15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony at the hearing
through live witnesses, whose demeanor and credibility can be evaluated by the judge
presiding at the hearing, rather than by means of deposition. Nowhere in the said rule
permits the taking of deposition outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.
Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before
the very same court where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained accused of
his right to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to
observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his credibility, which is
especially intolerable when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case
against the accused.
Interrogatories to parties
SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA v. METROPOLITAN
BANK & TRUST CO. and EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA, Clerk of Court, RTC and Ex Officio
Sheriff, Province of Bulacan
G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014, Del Castillo, J.
One of the purposes of requiring written interrogatories to the adverse party is to
prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate
the conduct of trial. Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written
interrogatories, the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant.
Facts:
Spouses Afulugencia filed a complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure,
auction sale, certificate of sale, and other documents, with damages against respondent
Metrobank and Emmanuel Ortega. After filing the parties pleadings and with the conclusion
of pre-trial, the Spouses filed a motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum ad
testificandum to require Metrobanks officers to appear and testify as the spouses initial
witnesses and to bring the documents relative to their loan, as well as those covering the
extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of their mortgaged property.
Metrobank filed an
Opposition arguing among others, that the Motion must be denied for lack of proper notice
and hearing, and that pursuant to Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules, Metrobanks
officers who are considered adverse parties may not be compelled to appear and testify
in court for the petitioners since they were not initially served with written interrogatories.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners must first serve written interrogatories to respondent
banks officers before they can be subpoenaed.
Ruling:
Yes. As a rule in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness
stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. This is
embodied in Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules.
One of the purposes of the said rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless
delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed
that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will
33 | P a g e

Cases)
most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party
to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing
expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a
prior written interrogatories might bring. Besides, since the calling party is deemed bound
by the adverse partys testimony, compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand
may result in the calling party damaging its own case.
Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court
may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party from straying or
harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand.
Request for admission by adverse party

REY LAADA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ROGELIO and ELIZA HEMEDEZ
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. and FRANCIS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS and
SPOUSES ROGELIO and ELIZA HEMEDEZ
G.R. No. 102390 & 102404, February 1, 2002, De Leon, Jr., J.
When Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request for admission, it should
not be restrictively construed to mean that a party may not engage the services of counsel
to make the response in his behalf.
Facts:
Spouses Hemedez filed a civil case against Nestle, Jesus Alimagno, Francis Santos,
Pacifico Galasao, and Capt. Rey Laada, praying for indemnity for the death of their son,
actual compensation for the destruction of the car, moral and exemplary damages. The
defendants filed their respective Answers denying liability.
Thereafter, the
spouses Hemedez served the defendants a request for admission of the truth of the facts set
forth in their complaint and the genuineness of each of the documents appended thereto.
Through
their
respective
counsel,
Nestle
and Santos,
Capt. Laada,
and Alimagno and Galasao filed their verified answer to the request for admission. Spouses
Hemedez sought the striking out of said answers contending that under Section 2 of Rule 26
of the Rules of Court the parties themselves and not their counsel should personally answer
the request for admission and hence the answer filed by their counsel in their behalf was by
nature based on hearsay. On the other hand, the defendants asserted that they observed
the rules in filing their answers, through their lawyers, to the request for admission.
Issue:
Whether or not an answer to a request for admission signed and sworn to by the
counsel of the party so requested is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of
the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
Yes. The issue in this case may be stated in this wise: should a person to whom a
request for admission is addressed personally answer the request?
It calls for an
interpretation of the phrase the party to whom the request is directed. This is not the first
34 | P a g e

Cases)
time that the Court is faced with the said issue. In PSCFC Financial Corporation v. CA, the
following has been cited:
Section 21 of Rule 138 states that an attorney is presumed to be properly
authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power
of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client x x x
Furthermore, Section 23 of Rule 138 provides that attorneys have authority
to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in
writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure
x x x . Thus, when Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request
for admission, it should not be restrictively construed to mean that a party
may not engage the services of counsel to make the response in his behalf.
In the case at bar, neither is there a showing that petitioners Nestle and Santos did
not authorize their respective counsel to file in their behalf the respective answers requested
of them by private respondents in the latters written request for admission. As the Court
has said, there is no reason to strictly construe the phrase the party to whom the request is
directed to refer solely or personally to the petitioners themselves.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and

ROSALINDA CANADALLA-GO, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, BENITO A.
CANADALLA
G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005, Davide, Jr., J.
A party cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the
Request for Admission for the mere reason that its Comment was not under oath. That the
Comment was not under oath is not a substantive, but merely a formal defect which can be
excused in the interest of justice.
Facts:
Rosalinda Canadalla-Go filed a Supplemental Complaint for the Exercise of Right of
Redemption and Determination of Redemption Price, Nullification of Consolidation,
Annulment of Titles, with Damages, Plus Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. After
the DBP filed its Answer but before the parties could proceed to trial, Go filed a Request for
Admission by Adverse Party. Thereafter, the DBP filed its Comment. Go objected to the
Comment reasoning that it was not under oath as required by Section 2, Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court, and that it failed to state the reasons for the admission or denial of matters for
which an admission was requested. For its part, the DBP manifested that, first, the
statements, allegations, and documents contained in the Request for Admission are
substantially the same as those in the Supplemental Complaint; second, they had already
been either specifically denied or admitted by the DBP in its Answer; and third, the reasons
for the denial or admission had already been specifically stated therein.
Issue:
Whether or not matters requested to be admitted under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court
which are mere reiterations of the allegations in the complaint and are specifically denied in
the answer may be deemed impliedly admitted on the ground that the response thereto is
not under oath.
35 | P a g e

Cases)
Ruling:
No. DBP cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the
Request for Admission for the mere reason that its Comment was not under oath. As held
in Po v. Court of Appeals [a] party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already
admitted by his pleading and to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer
to the complaint. The Po doctrine was brought a step further in Concrete Aggregates Co. v.
Court of Appeals, where it is ruled that if the factual allegations in the complaint are the very
same allegations set forth in the request for admission and have already been specifically
denied or otherwise dealt with in the answer, a response to the request is no longer
required. It becomes unnecessary to dwell on the issue of the propriety of an unsworn
response to the request for admission. A request for admission that merely reiterates the
allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which,
as a mode of discovery, contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed
light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in the pleading. Rule 26 does not refer to a
mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings.
That the Comment was not under oath is not a substantive, but merely a formal
defect which can be excused in the interest of justice conformably to the well-entrenched
doctrine that all pleadings should be liberally construed as to do substantial justice. The
filing of such Comment substantially complied with Rule 26.
Nature of demurrer to evidence

FREDERICK F. FELIPE v. MGM MOTOR TRADING CORPORATION, doing business
under the name and style NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS, and AYALA GENERAL
INSURANCE CORPORATION
G.R. No. 191849, September 23, 2015, Perez, J.
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the
parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.
Facts:
Frederick Felipe filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against
respondent MGM Motors and Ayala Insurance. Felipes Nissan Terano Wagon was reportedly
lost. He tried to claim from Ayala Insurance but the latter refused to pay its liability. On the
other hand, MGM Motors refused to produce, despite repeated demands, the document of
sale by installment covering the vehicle. Petitioner allegedly paid additional P200,000.00 as
partial payment for the vehicle. MGM Motors denied receiving the down payment of
P200,000.00 and P5,000.00 reservation fee paid through Sarmiento. Trial proceeded and
only two pieces of evidence were admitted by the court: (1) the Official Receipt issued by
MGM Motors wherein it acknowledged receipt of P200,000 from petitioner; and (2) the
testimony of his father Alberto that he was present when petitioner paid P200,000 to MGM
Motors. Defendants filed their respective Motions to Dismiss on demurrer to evidence which
was granted by the trial court.
Issue:
36 | P a g e

Cases)
Whether or not the trial court correctly granted the demurrer to evidence and
dismissed the complaint.
Held:
Yes. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the
parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.
Well-established is the rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the
allegations. There is no dispute that the only pieces of evidence admitted in court are the
testimony of Alberto and the receipt showing MGM Motors receiving P200,000.00 from
petitioner as partial payment of the subject car. The allegation that the purchase of the
vehicle was on an installment basis was not supported by any evidence. The receipt of a
partial payment does not suffice to prove that the purchase was made on an installment
basis. Petitioner did not present any document to prove said allegation while MGM Motors
produced a sales invoice wherein it was stated that the mode of payment is "COD" or cash
on delivery.
In the same vein, petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation against Ayala
Insurance. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show that a loss occurred and said loss was
covered by his insurance policy. Considering that the trial court only admitted two pieces of
evidence in petitioner's favor and none of those tend to prove loss of the subject car and
coverage thereof under the insurance policy, petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs he had
prayed for.
Meaning of genuine issue

THE HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS v. MELBA LIMBACO, LINDA LOGARTA, RAMON
LOGARTA, HENRY SEE, FREDDIE GO, BENEDICT QUE, AWG DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, PETROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and UNIVERSITY OF CEBU
BANILAD, INC.
G.R. No. 175291, July 27, 2011, Brion, J.
There is no genuine issue of fact where a party does not have any legally enforceable
right to the properties in question, as their predecessors-in-interest are not buyers in good
faith.
Facts:
Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of titles of various parcels of land
registered in the names of respondents. Lolita Cabigas and her late husband, Nicolas
Cabigas purchased two lots from Salvador Cobarde, who in turn had purchased the same
from Ines Ouano. Notwithstanding the sale between Ouano and Cobarde, the lots remained
registered in the formers name and she was able to sell these lots to National Airports
Corporation for its airport expansion project. When the airport expansion project fell
through, respondents Melba Limbaco, Ramon Logarta, and Linda Logarta, who are the legal
heirs of Ouano, succeeded in reclaiming title to the two lots through an action for
reconveyance. They subdivided the lots and sold them to the other respondents in this
case. RTC issued a resolution granting respondents AWG, Petrosa, and UCBs motion for
37 | P a g e

Cases)
summary judgment. According to the RTC, while the petitioners alleged bad faith and malice
on the part of Ouano when she sold the same properties to the National Airports
Corporation, they never alleged bad faith on the part of the buyer, the National Airports
Corporation. Since good faith is always presumed, the RTC concluded that the National
Airports Corporation was a buyer in good faith and its registration of the properties in its
name effectively transferred ownership, free from all the unrecorded prior transactions
involving these properties, including the prior sale to Cobarde.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment.
Ruling:
No. Under the Rules of Court, a summary judgment may be rendered where, on
motion of a party and after hearing, the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and
admissions on file show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.
As astutely observed by the CA, the RTC resolution merely collated from the
pleadings the facts that were undisputed, admitted, and stipulated upon by the parties, and
thereafter ruled on the legal issues raised by applying the pertinent laws and jurisprudence
on the matter. In other words, the RTC did not resolve any factual issues, only legal ones.
When there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusion
drawn from these facts is correct is a question of law.
At the outset, it is noted from the respondents pleadings that several
respondents denied that the sale between Ouano and Cobarde ever occurred. It would,
therefore, appear that a factual issue existed that required resolution through a formal trial,
and the RTC erred in rendering summary judgment. However, a closer examination of the
parties submissions makes it apparent that this is not a genuine issue of fact because the
petitioners do not have any legally enforceable right to the properties in question, as their
predecessors-in-interest are not buyers in good faith.
Judgments and final orders subject to appeal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
G.R. No. 171496, 3 March 2014, Leonen, J.
Orders denying a motion for reconsideration are not always interlocutory orders. A
motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision, subject to an appeal, if "it
puts an end to a particular matter," leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute
the decision.
Facts:
Respondent Ortigas and Co. Ltd. filed with the RTC a petition for authority to sell to
the government one of their lots. Ortigas alleged that the DPWH requested the conveyance
of the property for road widening purposes. Finding merit in respondent Ortigas' petition,
38 | P a g e

Cases)
the Regional Trial Court issued an order authorizing the sale of the lot to petitioner. The
Republic filed an Opposition alleging that the subject property can only be conveyed by way
of donation to the government, citing Section 50 of P.D. No. 1529. Subsequently, the
Republic filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating its opposition, which was however
denied by the RTC. Consequently, the Republic filed a notice of appeal to the CA which was
dismissed on the ground that an order of judgment denying a motion for reconsideration is
not appealable.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing petitioners appeal on
the ground that a motion for reconsideration is not appealable.
Ruling:
No. Rule 41, Section 1, paragraph (a) of the Rules of Court, provides that "[n]o appeal
may be taken from [a]n order denying a x x x motion for reconsideration," is based on the
implied premise in the same section that the judgment or order does not completely dispose
of the case. What Section 1 of Rule 41 prohibits is an appeal taken from an interlocutory
order. An interlocutory order or judgment, unlike a final order or judgment, does "not
completely dispose of the case [because it leaves to the court] something else to be decided
upon. Appeals from interlocutory orders are generally prohibited to prevent delay in the
administration of justice and to prevent "undue burden upon the courts."
Orders denying motions for reconsideration are not always interlocutory orders. A
motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision, subject to an appeal, if "it
puts an end to a particular matter," leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute
the decision. "An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of
dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself." It is an
appeal from a final decision or order.
The trial courts order denying petitioner Republic of the Philippines motion for
reconsideration of the decision granting respondent Ortigas the authority to sell its property
to the government was not an interlocutory order because it completely disposed of a
particular matter. An appeal from it would not cause delay in the administration of justice.
Nevertheless, petitioner Republic of the Philippines appeal to the CA was properly dismissed
because the former used the wrong mode of appeal. Instead of appealing through a petition
for review under Rule 45, since the issue involves a question purely of law, the Republic
appealed under Rule 41.
TONGONAN HOLDING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ATTY. FRANCISCO

ESCANO, JR.
G.R. No. 190994, September 7, 2011, Mendoza, J.
An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending
action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court.
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Francisco Escano was the counsel of petitioner THDC in a case for
eminent domain. Atty. Escano sought the entry of his attorneys liens on the basis of the
Memorandum of Agreement contracted between him and THDC.
Eventually, THDC
39 | P a g e

Cases)
terminated the services of Atty. Escano on the ground of loss of confidence, which was
approved by the RTC. Afterwards, Atty. Escano filed a Motion to Enter into the Records
Attorneys Lien for additional Attorneys fees. The RTC denied the motion and approved only
the 15% Attorneys Lien on the money judgment in favor of Atty. Escao and his former
partners. After his motion for reconsideration was denied on January 26, 2006, Atty. Escao
filed a Notice of Appeal. THDC then filed its Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to
Dismiss Appeal arguing that the Notice of Appeal was not the proper remedy as the order
being questioned was interlocutory which could not be the subject of an appeal. THDC
contends that it was merely interlocutory because the issue was only collateral to the main
issue of eminent domain. Atty. Escao, on the other hand, counters that the Orders are not
interlocutory, but final orders and, therefore, appealable. He reasons that both orders finally
disposed the issue of his attorneys fees before the RTC and there was nothing more to be
done pertaining to the same matter.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTCs order of denial of the motion for entry for additional
attorneys fees was interlocutory.
Ruling:
No. An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a
pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words,
the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. On the other hand, an order
which does not dispose of the case completely and indicates that other things remain to be
done by the court as regards the merits, is interlocutory.
In Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that the order of the
respondent trial court awarding attorney's fees in favor of a claimant-lawyer is a final order
and not interlocutory. The Court is of the view that the RTC orders denying the claim for
additional attorneys fees were final considering that the main action for eminent domain,
was already final. In fact, it was the subject of several motions for execution. Thus, the RTC
had nothing more to do with respect to the relative rights of the parties therein. There is
nothing left for the judge to perform except to enforce the judgment.
Moreover, as correctly noted by the CA, the RTC ended with finality the issue of Atty.
Escaos attorneys fees when it rendered the aforementioned orders, having ruled that he
was not entitled to it. The RTC need not resolve anything else thereby making the said
orders final.
Matters not appealable

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR & HONORE R. HERNANDEZ v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, represented by HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO; and PNP-CIDG
represented by DIR. EDUARDO MATILLANO
G.R. No. 197307, February 16, 2014, Velasco, Jr., J.
Appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
should be taken to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43.
Facts:
40 | P a g e

Cases)
The PNP-CIDG, after conducting an investigation on the lavish lifestyle and alleged
nefarious activities of certain Bureau of Customs personnel, found wide variances with Flor
Gupilan-Aguilars acquired assets and overseas travels in relation to her income.
Consequently, a complaint was filed against her for violation of R.A. No. 1479 (in relation to
R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713) and for grave misconduct and dishonesty. Honore
Hernandez, Customs Officer III of the BOC was likewise charged. The Ombudsman found
Aguilar and Hernandez guilty of the offenses charged. The petitioners moved for but were
denied reconsideration. Thereafter, they went to the CA on a petition for review under Rule
43 asserting among others the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations in
the complaint. The CA denied their petition and declared that petitioners remedy under the
premises is an appeal to the Supreme Court by force of Section 14 in relation to Sec. 27 of
RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 which provides that no court shall hear any appeal
or application for remedy against the decisions or findings of the Ombudsman, except the
Supreme Court on pure questions of law, while Sec. 27 states that findings of fact by the
[OMB] when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive.
Issue:
Whether or not a Rule 43 petition to assail the findings or decisions of the
Ombudsman in an administrative case is proper.
Ruling:
Yes. In the case at bar, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of his administrative
disciplinary jurisdiction had, after due investigation, adjudged petitioners guilty of grave
misconduct and dishonesty and meted the corresponding penalty. Recourse to the CA via a
Rule 43 petition is the proper mode of appeal. Rule 43 governs appeals to the CA from
decisions or final orders of quasijudicial agencies.
Reliance by the CA on Sec. 14 in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770 to support its position
as to which court a party may repair to assail the OMBs decision in disciplinary cases is
misinformed. As has been held, those portions of said Sec. 27 and any other provisions
implementing RA 6770, insofar as they expanded the appellate jurisdiction of this Court
without its concurrence, violate Article VI, Sec. 30 of the 1987 Constitution. The Court held
in the landmark case of Fabian v. Desierto: wherefore, Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 x x x
insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the OMB to the
Supreme Court, are hereby declared INVALID and of no further force and effect.
As a consequence and in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from
quasijudicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions
of the OMB in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under the
provisions of Rule 43.
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC

RUBEN MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION GONZALES and LUIS
MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO and MERCEDES BACANI
G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015, Bersamin, J.
41 | P a g e

Cases)
In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the RTC shall decide the appeal of the
judgment of the MTC in unlawful detainer or forcible entry cases on the basis of the entire
record of the proceedings in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may
be required by the RTC. There is no trial de novo of the case.
Facts:
Petitioners caused the relocation and verification survey of their lot and the adjoining
lots, the result of which showed that the respondents had encroached on their lot. When the
respondents refused to vacate the encroached portion and to surrender peaceful possession
thereof despite demands, the petitioners commenced an action for unlawful detainer. The
MTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction based on its finding that the action involved
an essentially boundary dispute that should be properly resolved in an accion
reinvindicatoria. On appeal, however, the RTC reversed the MTCs decision and remanded
the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the MTC ultimately dismissed the complaint
for lack of merit. Once more, the petitioners appealed to the RTC. The RTC, after ordering
another relocation and verification survey, reversed and set aside the MTCs decision. The
respondents thereafter appealed to the CA, which promulgated a ruling reversing and
setting aside the RTCs decision and reinstating the MTCs decision. The CA concluded that
the RTC, by ordering the relocation and verification survey in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction upon motion of the petitioners and over the objection of the respondents, and
making a determination of whether there was an encroachment based on such survey and
testimony of the surveyor, had acted as a trial court in complete disregard of the second
paragraph of Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. It declared such action by the RTC as
unwarranted because it amounted to the reopening of the trial, which was not allowed.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC essentially conducted a trial de novo when it ordered another
relocation and verification survey.
Held:
Yes. The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case, shall not conduct a
rehearing or trial de novo. In this connection, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
clearly provides: x x x The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate
Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court.
The RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the relocation and
verification survey in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and by hearing the testimony of the
surveyor, for its doing so was tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. The RTCs
violation of the said rule was accented by the fact that the RTC ultimately decided the
appeal based on the survey and the surveyors testimony instead of the record of the
proceedings in the court of origin.
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC

DARMA MASLAG v. ELIZABETH MONZON, WILLIAM GESTON, and REGISTRY OF
DEEDS OF BENGUET
42 | P a g e

Cases)
G.R. No. 174908, June 17, 2013, Del Castillo, J.
There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact and
law. The distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction
exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed.
Facts:
Darma Maslag filed before the MTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, a petition for
reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of OCT against respondents. The
MTC found respondent Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT over petitioners property
and ordered her to reconvey the property. Respondents appealed to the RTC which issued
an Order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over petitioners cause of action. The RTC
further held, in its October 22, 2003 Resolution, that it will take cognizance of the case
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Both parties acknowledged the Order
but neither presented additional evidence. The RTC Judge issued its May 4, 2004 Resolution
reversing the MTC decision and remanded the case to the court a quo. Maslag thereafter
filed a notice of appeal from the RTCs decision. The respondents moved to dismiss Maslags
ordinary appeal for being the improper remedy. They asserted that the proper mode of
appeal is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 because the RTC rendered its Resolution in its
appellate jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the appeal and observed that the RTC in its decision
set aside an MTC judgment, hence, the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 42.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA decided the case on its appellate jurisdiction.
Held:
Yes. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact
and law. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC
exercised its original jurisdiction. It is done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The
second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its
appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. It is done by filing a Petition for Review with the
CA. Simply put, the distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of
jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed.
Since the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case, there is no other way the RTC could have taken cognizance of the case and review the
court a quos judgment except in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Besides, the new
RTC Judge actually treated the case as an appeal despite the October 22, 2003 Order. With
regard to the RTCs earlier October 22, 2003 Order, the same should be disregarded for it
produces no effect (other than to confuse the parties whether the RTC was invested with
original or appellate jurisdiction). It cannot be overemphasized that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred only by law and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties,
to themselves determine or conveniently set aside. Thus, the CA is correct in holding that
the proper mode of appeal should have been a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules
of Court, and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
BOARDWALK BUSINESS VENTURES, INC. v. ELVIRA A. VILLAREAL (deceased)

substituted by Reynaldo P. Villareal, Jr.-spouse, Shekinah Marie Villareal-Azugue-
43 | P a g e

Cases)
daughter, Reynaldo A. Villareal-son, Shahani A. Villareal-daughter, and Billy Ray A.
Villareal-son
G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013, Del Castillo, J.
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It
is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within
the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. Hence, failure to
perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory.
Facts:
Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. is a duly organized and existing domestic
corporation engaged in the selling of ready-to- wear merchandise while Elvira A. Villareal is
one of Boardwalks distributors. Boardwalk filed a Complaint for replevin against Villareal
covering a 1995 Toyota Tamaraw FX, for the latters alleged failure to pay a car loan
obtained from the former. The MTC ruled in favor of Boardwalk but it was reversed by the
RTC.
Consequently, Boardwalk filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. It filed
a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review and thereafter filed a Notice of
Appeal with the RTC which the said court denied for being a wrong mode of appeal. Thus, it
filed a Petition for Review with the CA which the said appellate court dismissed outright. The
CA held that Boardwalk erred in filing its Motion for Extension with the RTC, instead it should
have done so with the CA. Consequently, it was as if no Motion for Extension was filed and
the subsequent filing of its Petition with the appellate court was thus late and beyond the
reglementary 15-day period. Hence, this petition in which Boardwalk is invoking the liberal
application of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the liberal construction of the Rules of Court should be applied in this
case.
Ruling:
No. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process.
It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. This being so an appealing party must strictly comply with the
requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. More significantly, Section 8 of Rule 42 provides
that the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely filing of a petition
for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees. The
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory
but jurisdictional as well; hence, failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and
executory.
In this case, it was grave error on the part of the petitioner to have misinterpreted
the Rules of Court and consequently mistakenly remitted its payment to the RTC clerk.
Unfortunately, Boardwalks subsequent payment to the clerk of the CA of the docket fees
and other lawful fees did not cure such defect. Its appeal was not perfected because of its
failure to timely file the Petition and to pay the docket and other lawful fees before the
proper court which is the CA. Consequently, the CA properly dismissed outright the Petition
44 | P a g e

Cases)
because it never acquired jurisdiction over the same. As a result, the RTCs Decision had
long become final and executory.
Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial bodies

AMANDO P. CONTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), VICTORY M.
FERNANDEZ, JULIO E. SUCGANG and NILO IGTANLOC
G.R. Nos. 187896-97, June 10, 2013, Perez, J.
Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should
be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, in line with the regulatory
philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure. On the other hand, an appeal in a criminal case filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman should be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule
65.
Facts:
Amado Contes filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of
Ombudsman against Victory M. Ferrnandez, Julio E. Sucgang, and Nilo Igtanloc, who were
sued in their capacity as Provincial Engineer, Barangay Captain of Barangay Soncolan and
Grader Operator, respectively, of the Province of Aklan.
In a Consolidated Evaluation Report, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended the
dismissal of the cases. Contes took the appeal directly to the Supreme Court, via a petition
for review on certiorari, pursuant to Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, after his motion
reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman. In their Comment, the Office of the Solicitor
General sought the dismissal of the petition because petitioner availed of the wrong remedy.
Issue:
Whether or not the appeal of Contes should be dismissed.
Ruling:
Yes. Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, in line with the
regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, an appeal in a criminal case filed with the Office
of the Ombudsman should be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.
Considering that the case at bar was a consolidation of an administrative and a
criminal complaint, petitioner had the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43
with the Court of Appeals or directly file a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before this Court.
Neither of these two remedies was resorted to by petitioner, thus, this petition merits an
outright dismissal.
Relief from judgment
45 | P a g e

Cases)
JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME, represented by his attorneysin-fact and acting in their personal capacities, RODOLFO and RUBY BARTOLOME v.
SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES and CAROLINA N. MORALES
G.R. No. 199283, June 9, 2014, Leonen, J.
A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under
exceptional circumstances. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, parties
must file the petition within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months
after the judgment or final order was entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed
outright.
Facts:
Respondent spouses Morales filed with the RTC a complaint for judicial foreclosure of
a house and lot owned by spouses Bartolome, which the latter mortgaged as a security for
the loan they obtained from the former. The RTC ruled in favor of spouses Morales.
Thereupon, spouses Bartolome filed a notice of appeal but it was denied for having been
filed out of time.
Spouses Bartolome filed a petition for relief from judgment blaming their 80-year-old
lawyer who failed to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period. They argued
that Atty. Tugonons failure to appeal within the reglementary period was a mistake and an
excusable negligence due to their former lawyers old age but the RTC denied the petition
for relief from judgment on the ground that it was filed beyond 60 days from the finality of
the trial courts decision, contrary to Section 3, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petition for relief was filed beyond the reglementary period.
2. Whether or not the failure to appeal within the period was due to an excusable
negligence on the part of the petitioners age.
Ruling:
1. Yes. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under
exceptional circumstances. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, parties must
file the petition within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months after
the judgment or final order was entered. The double period required under Section 3, Rule
38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied with. A petition for relief from judgment
filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright.
In this case, petitioners, through counsel, received a copy of the trial courts decision
on January 29, 2010. Thus, the decision became final 15 days after January 29, 2010, or on
February 13, 2010. Petitioners had six (6) months from February 13, 2010, or until August
12, 2010, to file a petition for relief from judgment. Since petitioners filed their petition for
relief from judgment on September 24, 2010, the petition for relief from judgment was filed
beyond six (6) months from finality of judgment.
2. No. If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable negligence of
counsel, parties must show that their counsels negligence could not have been prevented
using ordinary diligence and prudence.
46 | P a g e

Cases)
In this case, petitioners argue that their former counsels failure to file a notice of
appeal within the reglementary period was a mistake and an excusable negligence due to
their former counsels age. This argument stereotypes and demeans senior citizens. It asks
the Court to assume that a person with advanced age is prone to incompetence. It is based
on an unwarranted stereotype of people in their advanced years. It is as empty as the
bigotry that supports it.
Annulment of judgment
Grounds
SPOUSES EULOGIA MANILA and RAMON MANILA v. SPOUSES EDERLINDA
GALLARDO-MANZO and DANIEL MANZO
G.R. No. 163602, September 7, 2011, Villarama, Jr., J.
A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of the RTC in civil actions can
only be availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
In a petition for annulment of judgment, lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no
jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the
law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Facts:
Respondent spouses Manzo filed an ejectment case against spouses Manila before
the MeTC, to which the said court ruled in their favor. However, the RTC reversed the
decision of the MeTC and ordered the spouses Manzo to execute a deed of absolute sale in
favor spouses Manila and this decision became final and executory.
Consequently, spouses Manzo filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision in the
CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. First, they alleged that ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available due to
the negligence of their former counsel. Second, they alleged that the RTC is without
jurisdiction to order the sale of the property since the subject of the appeal is one for
ejectment. The CA granted the petition, it annulled the RTC decision and reinstated MeTC
decision.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available to spouses Manzo due to the negligence
of their former counsel.
2. Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction is a proper remedy for spouses Manzo.
Ruling:
1. No. A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court
in civil actions can only be availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
47 | P a g e

Cases)
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of
the petitioner. It is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and such action
is never resorted to as a substitute for a partys own neglect in not promptly availing of the
ordinary or other appropriate remedies. The only grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 47 are
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, spouses Manzo is at fault when their counsel failed to file the necessary
appeal. As party litigants, they should have constantly monitored the progress of their case
by directly inquiring the status of their case with the RTC. Having completely entrusted their
case to their former counsel and believing his word that everything is alright, they have no
one to blame but themselves when it turned out that their opportunity to appeal and other
remedies from the adverse ruling of the RTC could no longer be availed of due to their
counsels neglect. Consequently, due to failure to appeal, an action for annulment of
judgment is not available to spouses Manzo in consonance with the principle that an action
for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
2. No. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.
In a petition for annulment of judgment, lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no
jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the
law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of
the action or subject matter is conferred by law.
There is no dispute that the RTC is vested with appellate jurisdiction over ejectment
cases decided by the MeTC, MTC or MCTC. In this case, spouses Manzos attack on the
validity of the RTC decision pertains to a relief erroneously granted on appeal, and beyond
the scope of judgment, such erroneous grant of relief on appeal, however, is but an exercise
of jurisdiction by the RTC. Thus, while respondents assailed the content of the RTC decision,
they failed to show that the RTC did not have the authority to decide the case on appeal.
LETICIA DIONA, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, MARCELINA DIONA v. ROMEO

A. BALANGUE, SONNY A. BALANGUE, REYNALDO A. BALANGUE, and ESTEBAN A.
BALANGUE, JR.
G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013, Del Castillo, J.
While under Section 2, Rule 4733 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. The
grant of a relief neither sought by the party in whose favor it was given nor supported by
the evidence presented violates the opposing partys right to due process and may be
declared void ab initio in a proper proceeding.
Facts:
Respondents Romeo, Sonny, Reynaldo and Esteban Balangue obtained a loan from
Leticia Diona which was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage. When the debt became due,
respondents failed to pay and thus, Diona filed with the RTC a Complaint praying that
respondents be ordered, among others, to pay the principal obligation with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum.The RTC ruled in Dionas favor and ordered the respondents, among
others, to pay the principal obligation plus interest rate of 5% per month.
48 | P a g e

Cases)
Respondents filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment contending that
the portion of the RTC Decision granting petitioner 5% monthly interest rate is in gross
violation of Section 3(d) of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and of their right to due process as
the loan did not carry any interest. The CA ruled in favor of the respondents and concluded
that the awarded rate of interest is void for being in excess of the relief sought in the
Complaint. Hence, this petition in which Diona argues that the remedy of Petition for
Annulment of Judgment shall be based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction and that since
the allegation of the respondents was not anchored on either of such ground, then the said
remedy is not proper.
Issue:
Whether or not the remedy of Petition for Annulment of Judgment is available to the
respondents.
Ruling:
Yes. While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. A
final and executory judgment may still be set aside if, upon mere inspection thereof, its
patent nullity can be shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due
process of law (See: Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250, 264 (1997). Furthermore, it
is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of
what is being sought by the party. They cannot also grant a relief without first ascertaining
the evidence presented in support thereof. Due process considerations require that
judgments must conform to and be supported by the pleadings and evidence presented in
court.
In the case at bench, the grant of 5% monthly interest is way beyond the 12% per
annum interest sought in the Complaint and smacks of violation of due process. It is not
supported both by the allegations in the pleadings and the evidence on record. The Real
Estate Mortgage executed by the parties does not include any provision on interest and the
Complaint before the RTC includes the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Clearly, the
RTCs award of 5% monthly interest or 60% per annum lacks basis and disregards due
process.
How a judgment is executed

By motion or independent action
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. FEDERICO A. SERRA
G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013, Carpio, J.
A final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from
the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets
in. However, as an exception, an execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of
five years when the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or
is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
Facts:
49 | P a g e

Cases)
Respondent Federico Serra and petitioner RCBC entered into a Contract of Lease with
Option to Buy, wherein Serra agreed to lease his land to RCBC for 25 years. Serra further
granted RCBC the option to buy the land and improvement within 10 years from the signing
of the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. Accordingly, RCBC informed Serra of its decision
to exercise its option to buy the property. However, Serra replied that he was no longer
interested in selling the property. Thus, RCBC filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and
Damages against Serra. The RTC ordered Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of
sale in favor of RCBC.
However, it appears that Serra donated the property to his mother, who in turn sold
the property. Thus, RCBC filed a Complaint for Nullification of Deed of Donation and Deed of
Sale with Reconveyance and Damages before the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of RCBC
declaring the donation and the subsequent sale null and void, this was affirmed by the CA.
RCBC moved for the execution of the decision in the Specific Performance case which was
opposed by Serra on grounds of prescription and laches. The RTC denied RCBCs motion for
execution. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the motion for execution filed by RCBC has prescribed.
Ruling:
No. The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory judgment may be executed
by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five
years and before prescription sets in. The Court, however, allows exceptions when execution
may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years when the delay is caused or
occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or
advantage.
In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeks to enforce the decision which
became final and executory on 15 April 1994. However, to evade obligation to RCBC, Serra
transferred the property to his mother, who then sold it. Serras action prompted RCBC to file
the Annulment case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra
for his own advantage. Thus, the pendency of the Annulment case effectively suspended the
five-year period to enforce through a motion the decision in the Specific Performance case.
Since the decision in the Annulment case attained finality on 3 March 2009 and RCBCs
motion for execution was filed on 25 August 2011, RCBCs motion is deemed filed within the
five-year period for enforcement of a decision through a motion.
Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons

MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. FILOMENO GARCIA, substituted by his heirs, namely,
ERMELINDA H. GARCIA, LIZA GARCIA-GONZALEZ, THERESA GARCIA-TIANGSON,
MARIVIC H. GARCIA, MARLENE GARCIA-MOMIN, GERARDO H. GARCIA, GIDEON H.
GARCIA and GENEROSO H. GARCIA, and ERMELINDA H. GARCIA
G.R. No. 190106, January 15, 2014, Perez, J.
50 | P a g e

Cases)
The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of
possession. Thus, the claimant must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of
possession thereon before the court can direct the release of the property mistakenly levied.
Facts:
Petitioner Magdalena Villasi engaged the services of Fil-Garcia Construction, Inc. to
construct a seven-storey condominium building. For failure of Villasi to fully pay the contract
price, FGCI initiated a suit for collection of sum of money before the RTC to which the said
court ruled in its favor. This judgment became final and executory after the Supreme Court
ruled on its finality. Accordingly, Villasi filed a Motion for Execution which was favorably
acted upon by the RTC. A Writ of Execution was issued commanding the Sheriff to execute
and make effective the Decision.
To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied on a building which was declared for
taxation purposes in the name of FGCI. However, the lots in which it was erected were
registered in the names of the respondent spouses Garcia. Thus, spouses Garcia filed an
Affidavit of Third Party Claim claiming that they are the lawful owners of the property which
was erroneously levied upon by the sheriff. They argued that the building covered by the
levy was mistakenly assessed by the City Assessor in the name of FGCI. The motion was
opposed by Villasi who insisted that its ownership belongs to FGCI and not to the Spouses
Garcia as shown by the tax declaration. The RTC issued an Order directing the Sheriff to hold
in abeyance the conduct of the sale on execution. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred suspending the sale on execution of the building on
the basis of the respondent spouses Garcias Affidavit of third-party claim.
Ruling:
Yes. Section 16, Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of
the remedies of either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken
hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent
separate action to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed
property. However, the person other than the judgment debtor who claims ownership or
right over levied properties is not precluded from taking other legal remedies to prosecute
his claim.
The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of
possession. Thus, the claimant must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of
possession thereon before the court can direct the release of the property mistakenly levied.
In this case, claiming that the sheriff mistakenly levied the building that lawfully belongs to
them, the Spouses Garcia availed themselves of the remedy of terceria. However, they failed
to prove that they have a bona fide title to the building in question. Aside from their
postulation that as titleholders of the land, the law presumes them to be owners of the
improvements built thereon, they were unable to adduce credible evidence to prove their
ownership of the property. In contrast, Villasi was able to satisfactorily establish the
ownership of FGCI thru a tax declaration which shows that the building in litigation was
declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI and not in the Spouses Garcias. While it
is true that tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership,
they constitute credible proof of claim of title over the property.
51 | P a g e

Cases)
Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond

PEROXIDE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, EASTMAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
EDMUNDO O. MAPUA and ROSE U. MAPUA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
G.R. No. 92813, July 31, 1991, Regalado, J.
When the attachment is challenged for having been illegally or improperly issued,
there must be a hearing with the burden of proof to sustain the writ being on the attaching
creditor. That hearing embraces not only the right to present evidence but also a
reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing parties and meet them.
Facts:
Private respondent BPI sued petitioners Peroxide Philippines Corporation, Eastman
Chemical Industries, Inc., and the spouses Mapua before the CFI for the collection of an
indebtedness of Peroxide wherein Eastman and spouses Mapua bound themselves to be
solidarily liable. Upon the filing of said action after BPI filed an attachment bond, Judge
Pineda of the said the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on
the properties of the petitioners. Eastman and spouses Mapua moved to lift the attachment.
Consequently, BPI filed the a motion to set for hearing for the motion to lift attachment and
its opposition. Judge Pineda denied the motion to set for hearing filed by BPI and granted the
lifting of the attachment. The motion for reconsideration for such decision filed by BPI was
re-assigned to Judge Reyes, to which the said Judge ruled upholding the writ of attachment.
However, it appears that in the course of the appeal of Peroxide before the CA, the
RTC issued an order suspending the writ of preliminary attachment pursuant to the an ex
parte motion filed by it. The CA and SC thereafter ruled affirming the issuance of the
preliminary attachment.
Issue:
Whether or not the writ of attachment was validly lifted and suspended.
Ruling:
No. When the attachment is challenged for having been illegally or improperly issued,
there must be a hearing with the burden of proof to sustain the writ being on the attaching
creditor. That hearing embraces not only the right to present evidence but also a reasonable
opportunity to know the claims of the opposing parties and meet them. The right to submit
arguments implies that opportunity, otherwise the right would be a barren one. And, as
provided by Section 13 of Rule 57, the attaching creditor should be allowed to oppose the
application for the discharge of the attachment by counter-affidavit or other evidence, in
addition to that on which the attachment was made.
Respondent court was, therefore, correct in holding that the attachment of the
properties of Eastman and the Mapuas remained valid from its issuance since the judgment
had not been satisfied, nor has the writ been validly discharged either by the filing of a
counter-bond or for improper or irregular issuance. The ex parte discharge or suspension of
the attachment is a disservice to the orderly administration of justice and nullifies the
52 | P a g e

Cases)
underlying role and purpose of preliminary attachment in preserving the rights of the parties
pendente lite as an ancillary remedy. Thus, the order of suspension of the trial court was
void.
Preliminary Injunction
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, v. COURT OF
APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) and JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.
G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
The issuances of TRO and WPI, which are, by nature, provisional reliefs and auxiliary
writs created under the provisions of the Rules of Court, are matters of procedure which
belong exclusively within the province of the Court.
Facts:
A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and
other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati, accusing them of
Plunder and violation of RA No. 3019. Pursuant to this, the Ombudsman issued a preventive
suspension order, placing Binay, Jr., et al. under preventive suspension for not more than six
(6) months without pay. Consequently, Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA
seeking the nullification of the preventive suspension order, and praying for the issuance of
a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin its implementation. The CA granted the application for TRO, and
subsequently issued a WPI.
Hence, the Ombudsman filed this present petition assailing the issuance of the TRO
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. First, the Ombudsman argues that Section 14 of RA
6770, or "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," states that no injunctive writ could be issued to
delay the Ombudsman's investigation unless there is prima facie evidence that the subject
matter thereof is outside the latter's jurisdiction. Second, it contends that it was
inappropriate for the CA to have considered the condonation doctrine in the issuance of the
injunctive writ since it was a matter of defense which should have been raised and passed
upon by her office during the administrative disciplinary proceedings.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the CA can not issue a TRO and/or WPI against the Ombudsman on
the ground of Section 14 of RA 6770.
2. Whether or not the CA is correct in considering the condonation doctrine in issuing
the injunctive relief.
3. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in applying the condonation
doctrine in issuing the injunctive writ.
Ruling:
1. No. The power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to
the Supreme Court. Pursuant to this, Section 9(1), Chapter I of BP 129 provides that the
Court of Appeals shall exercise original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not
53 | P a g e

Cases)
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is not only original but also concurrent
with the RTC and the SC.
With these considerations in mind, when Congress passed Section 14 of RA 6770, it
took away from the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an investigation
conducted by the Ombudsman. This encroached upon the Court's constitutional rule-making
authority. Clearly, these issuances, which are, by nature, provisional reliefs and auxiliary
writs created under the provisions of the Rules of Court, are matters of procedure which
belong exclusively within the province of the Court.
2. Yes. The CA was not precluded from considering condonation doctrine given that it
was material to the propriety of according provisional injunctive relief. Thus, since
condonation was duly raised by Binay, Jr. in his petition, the CA did not err in passing upon
the same at least for the purpose of issuing the subject injunctive writs.
3. No. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The CA's resolutions directing the issuance of the assailed injunctive writs were all
hinged on cases enunciating the condonation doctrine. Thus, by merely following settled
precedents on the condonation doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained good law,
it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal
attribution above. Accordingly, the WPI against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension
order was correctly issued.
When preliminary injunction improper

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. HON. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS, JR.,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cebu City, SILVERIO BORBON, SPOUSES XERXES
and ERLINDA FACULTAD, and XM FACULTAD & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014, Bersamin, J.
Injunction should not issue except upon a clear showing that the applicant has a right
in esse to be protected, and that the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of such right. A
preliminary injunction should not determine the merits of a case, or decide controverted
facts, for, being a preventive remedy, it only seeks to prevent threatened wrong, further
injury, and irreparable harm or injustice until the rights of the parties can be settled.
Facts:
Respondents Spouses Borbon, Spouses Xerxes and Erlinda Facultad,and XM Facultad
and Development Corporation commenced a case to seek the declaration of the nullity of
the promissory notes,real estate and chattel mortgages and continuing surety agreement
they had executed in favor of the petitioner. They further applied for a writ of preliminary
injunction to prevent the petitioner BPI from foreclosing on the mortgages against their
properties. BPI filed its opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
contending that the foreclosure of the mortgages was within its legal right to do. However,
the RTC issued the writ of preliminary injunction. This was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
54 | P a g e

Cases)
Whether or not the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against BPI was in
order.
Ruling:
No. The conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are: (a) that the right to be
protected exists prima facie; (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right;
and (c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely
contingent and may never arise; or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of
action; or to prevent the perpetration of an act prohibited by statute. Indeed, a right, to be
protected by injunction, means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable
as a matter of law.
In this case, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of
the respondents was improper. The respondents had admittedly constituted the real estate
and chattel mortgages to secure the performance of their loan obligation, as such, they were
fully aware of the consequences on their rights in the properties given as collaterals should
the loan secured be unpaid. Thus, the foreclosure of the mortgages would be the remedy
provided by law for the mortgagee to exact payment.
Receivership
MILA CABOVERDE TANTANO and ROSELLER CABOVERDE v. DOMINALDA ESPINACABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR, and JOSEPHINE E.
CABOVERDE
G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013, Velasco, Jr., J.
Even in cases falling Sec. 1(d) of Rule 59 on receivership, it is essential that there is a
clear showing that there is imminent danger that the properties sought to be placed under
receivership will be lost, wasted or injured.
Facts:
Eve and Fe Caboverde sought to annul the deed of sale allegedly executed by their
parents in favor of two of their siblings, Mila and Roseller. Their mother, Dominalda declared
that there was never a sale of parcels of land and that she intended to divide all their
properties equally among their children.
The lower court approved the Partial Settlement Agreement, leaving three contested
properties for further proceedings in the main case. Fearing that the contested properties
would be squandered, Dominalda filed an application for receivership. She insisted that
unless a receiver is appointed by the court, the income or produce from these properties is
in grave danger of being totally dissipated, lost and entirely spent solely by Mila. The RTC
approved the application for receivership. It held that placing the disputed properties under
receivership would ensure that Dominalda would receive her share in the income which she
supposedly needed in order to pay for her medicines.
Issue:
55 | P a g e

Cases)
Whether or not the application for Receivership must be sustained.
Ruling:
No. Based on the allegations in her application, it appears that Dominalda sought
receivership mainly because she considers this the best remedy to ensure that she would
receive her share in the income of the disputed properties. Much emphasis has been placed
on the fact that she needed this income for her medical expenses and daily sustenance. But
it can be gleaned from her application that, aside from her bare assertion that petitioner Mila
solely appropriated the fruits and rentals earned from the disputed properties in connivance
with some of her siblings, Dominalda has not presented or alleged anything else to prove
that the disputed properties were in danger of being wasted or materially injured and that
the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means to preserve their
integrity.
Nature of replevin
ADVENT CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION v. NICASIO I. ALCANTARA and
EDITHA I. ALCANTARA
G.R. No. 183050, January 25, 2012, Abad, J.
Upon the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute, the writ of seizure,
which is merely ancillary in nature, becomes functus officio and should be lifted.
Facts:
Advent filed for corporate rehabilitation with the RTC. The rehabilitation court
approved the rehabilitation plan submitted by Advent. The car which was in possession of
Advents former president, Young, was included in the inventory of the assets of Advent.
The trial court issued a writ of seizure when Advent filed a replevin case. Upon receipt
of the Writ of Seizure, Young turned over the car to Advent, which delivered the same to the
rehabilitation receiver. However, the trial court dismissed the replevin case for Advents
failure to prosecute.
Young prayed that Advent return the subject car and pay him P1.2 million in damages
or the improper and irregular seizure of the subject car, to be charged against
the replevin bond posted by Advent.
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Young. It held that upon dismissal of the case
by the trial court, the writ of seizure issued as an incident of the main action (for replevin)
became functus officio and should have been recalled or lifted. Since there was no
adjudication on the merits of the case, the issue of who between has the better right to
possess the car was not determined. As such, the parties should be restored to their status
immediately before the institution of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the seized car must be returned to Young.
Ruling:
56 | P a g e

Cases)
Yes. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in directing the trial court to return
the seized car to Young since this is the necessary consequence of the dismissal of
the replevin case for failure to prosecute without prejudice. Upon the dismissal of
the replevin case for failure to prosecute, the writ of seizure, which is merely ancillary in
nature, became functus officio and should have been lifted. There was no adjudication on
the merits, which means that there was no determination of the issue who has the better
right to possess the subject car. Advent cannot therefore retain possession of the subject car
considering that it was not adjudged as the prevailing party entitled to the remedy
of replevin.
Contrary to Advent's view, Olympia International Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to
this case. The dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration
of the parties status prior to litigation, as if no complaint was filed at all. To let the writ of
seizure stand after the dismissal of the complaint would be adjudging Advent as the
prevailing party, when precisely no decision on the merits had been rendered. Accordingly,
the parties must be reverted to their status quo ante. Since Young possessed the subject car
before the filing of the replevin case, the same must be returned to him, as if no complaint
was filed at all.
Declaratory relief treated as prohibition

RENATO V. DIAZ and AURORA MA. F. TIMBOL v. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 193007, July 19, 2011, Abad, J.
There are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for
prohibition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be
resolved for the public good.
Facts:
Diaz and Timbol filed a petition for declaratory relief assailing the impending
imposition of VAT on the collection of tollway operators.
The Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the
VAT. Later, the Court issued another resolution treating the petition as one for prohibition.
The government contends that the petition does not meet the requirements of Rule
65 for actions for prohibition since the BIR did not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or
ministerial functions when it sought to impose VAT on toll fees. Besides, petitioners Diaz and
Timbol has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the
BIR action in the form of an appeal to the Secretary of Finance.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court may treat the petition for declaratory relief as one for
prohibition
Ruling:
57 | P a g e

Cases)
Yes. There are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for
prohibition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be
resolved for the public good. The Court has also held that a petition for prohibition is a
proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that amount to usurpation of
legislative authority.
Here, the imposition of VAT on toll fees has far-reaching implications. Its imposition
would impact, not only on the more than half a million motorists who use the tollways
everyday, but more so on the governments effort to raise revenue for funding various
projects and for reducing budgetary deficits. To dismiss the petition and resolve the issues
later, after the challenged VAT has been imposed, could cause more mischief both to the
tax-paying public and the government. A belated declaration of nullity of the BIR action
would make any attempt to refund to the motorists what they paid an administrative
nightmare with no solution. Consequently, it is not only the right, but the duty of the Court
to take cognizance of and resolve the issues that the petition raises.
Function of writ of certiorari

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. and JOSE MA. O. HIZON v. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD
G.R. No. 166910, October 19, 2010, Velasco, Jr., J.
Verily, when an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed
the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle
the dispute.
Facts:
To attract private sector involvement
allowed the collection of toll fees for the
Regulatory Board (TRB) was established to
other hand, Philippine National Construction
construct toll facilities.
in the establishment of toll facilities, P.D. 1112

use of certain public improvements. The Toll
fix initial toll rates from time to time. On the
Corporation (PNCC) was granted a franchise to
The Government Corporate Counsel then allowed PNCC to enter into a joint venture
agreements with private entities without going into public bidding. They executed a
Memorandum of Understanding aimed at infusing private capital in the expansion of the
expressways. The Memorandum states that the TRB prescribes the periodic toll rate
adjustment. The Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement (STOA) includes provisions on
initial toll rate and a built-in formula for adjustment of toll rates.
Petitioners Francisco and Hizon, as taxpayers and expressway users, seek to nullify
the various STOAs and the corresponding TRB resolutions, fixing initial rates and/or
approving periodic toll rate adjustments. To the petitioners, the STOAs and the toll rate-fixing
resolutions violate the Constitution in that they veritably impose on the public the burden of
financing tollways by way of exorbitant fees and thus depriving the public of property
without due process.
Additionally, petitioners also seek to nullify certain provisions of P.D. 1113 and P.D.
1894, which uniformly grant the President the power to approve the transfer or assignment
of usufruct or the rights and privileges thereunder by the tollway operator to third parties,
58 | P a g e

Cases)
particularly the transfer effected by PNCC to MNTC. As argued, the authority to approve
partakes of an exercise of legislative power under Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not petitions for certiorari and prohibitions are proper remedies to nullify
the aforementioned acts.
Ruling:
Yes. Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are, as here, appropriate remedies to raise
constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify, when proper, acts of legislative
and executive officials. The present petitions allege that then President Ramos had exercised
an assignment of franchise, a function legislative in character. As alleged, too, the TRB, in
the guise of entering into contracts or agreements with PNCC and other juridical entities,
virtually enlarged, modified to the core and/or extended the statutory franchise of PNCC,
thereby usurping a legislative prerogative. The usurpation came in the form of executing the
assailed STOAs and the issuance of TOCs. Grave abuse of discretion is also laid on the
doorstep of the TRB for its act of entering into these same contracts or agreements without
the required public bidding mandated by law, specifically the BOT Law (R.A. 6957, as
amended) and the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.A. 9184).
In fine, the certiorari petitions impute on then President Ramos and the TRB, the
commission of acts that translate inter alia into usurpation of the congressional authority to
grant franchises and violation of extant statutes. The petitions make a prima facie case for
certiorari and prohibition; an actual case or controversy ripe for judicial review exists. Verily,
when an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the
dispute. In doing so, the judiciary merely defends the sanctity of its duties and powers under
the Constitution.
Mandamus
DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. v. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the
Department of Justice, CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as Chief State Prosecutor, National
Prosecution Service, and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE MAGUINDANAO
MASSACRE, headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE
G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013, Bersamin, J.
In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus cannot be
used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment and discretion are to be
exercised.
Facts:
The Department of Justice charged Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr. of the crime of murder in
relation to the Maguindanao Massacre. The Panel of Prosecutors also charged some 196
individuals with multiple murder. The panel partly relied on the twin affidavits of one Kenny
Dalandag in charging the said individuals. Dalandag was admitted to the Witness Protection
Program and thereafter listed as one of the witnesses of the prosecution.
59 | P a g e

Cases)
Ampatuan wrote a letter to Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief
State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon requesting the inclusion of Dalandag in the informations
for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed his participation in the
massacre through his two sworn declarations. However, Secretary De Lima denied
petitioners request.
Ampatuan brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC seeking to compel
respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the various murder cases
undergoing trial.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge
Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder despite his admission to the Witness Protection
Program of the DOJ.
Ruling:
No. The records herein are bereft of any showing that the Panel of Prosecutors
committed grave abuse of discretion in identifying the 196 individuals to be indicted for the
Maguindanao massacre. It is notable in this regard that petitioner does not assail the joint
resolution recommending such number of individuals to be charged with multiple murder,
but only seeks to have Dalandag be also investigated and charged as one of the accused
based because of his own admissions in his sworn declarations. However, his exclusion as an
accused from the informations did not at all amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the Panel of Prosecutors whose procedure in excluding Dalandag as an accused was far
from arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic.
As such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letterrequest of petitioner, but may not be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny
such letter-request. Considering that respondent Secretary of Justice already denied the
letter-request, mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's recourse.
Contempt
P/SUPT. HANSEL M. MARANTAN v. ATTY JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO, MONIQUE CUUNJIENG LA'O
G.R. No. 205956, February 12, 2014, Mendoza, J.
The power to punish for contempt, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature,
should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.
Facts:
Marantan was charged with homicide in relation to the murder of Anton Cu-Unjieng.
Antons murder by police officers was captured by a television crew. Monique LaO, mother
of Anton, pushed for the upgrade of the charge from homicide to murder.
LaO and her counsel, Atty. Diokno, during a press conference, uttered comments on
the conduct of the Supreme Court in handling the case. Atty. Diokno allegedly said, "Ang
problema po e hangang ngayon, we filed a Petition in the Supreme Court December 6, 2011,
60 | P a g e

Cases)
humihingi po kami noon ng Temporary Restraining Order, etc. hangang ngayon wala pa
pong action ang Supreme Court yong charge kung tama ba yong pag charge ng homicide
lamang e subalit kitang kita naman na they were killed indiscriminately and maliciously."
Marantan submits that the respondents violated the sub judice rule, making them
liable for indirect contempt, for their contemptuous statements and improper conduct
tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents are liable for indirect contempt.
Ruling:
No. The contemptuous statements made by the respondents allegedly relate to the
merits of the case, particularly the guilt of petitioner, and the conduct of the Court as to its
failure to decide G.R. No. 199462.
As to the merits, the comments seem to be what the respondents claim to be an
expression of their opinion that their loved ones were murdered by Marantan. This is merely
a reiteration of their position in G.R. No. 199462, which precisely calls the Court to upgrade
the charges from homicide to murder. The Court detects no malice on the face of the said
statements. The mere restatement of their argument in their petition cannot actually, or
does not even tend to, influence the Court.
As to the conduct of the Court, a review of the respondents' comments reveals that
they were simply stating that it had not yet resolved their petition. There was no complaint,
express or implied, that an inordinate amount of time had passed since the petition was filed
without any action from the Court. There appears no attack or insult on the dignity of the
Court either.
"A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of
freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still pending
in the courts, upon the theory that in such a case, it must necessarily tend to obstruct the
orderly and fair administration of justice." By no stretch of the imagination could the
respondents' comments pose a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
No criminal intent to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice can be
inferred from the comments of the respondents.
How contempt proceedings commenced

CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and PABLO B. ROMAN, JR. v. MANUEL
O. SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 182738, February 24, 2014, Peralta, J.
A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or
commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt.
Facts:
61 | P a g e

Cases)
Sanchez, a stockholder of Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. filed a petition for the
nullification of the annual and special meeting of stockholders. Sanchez likewise filed a
Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents. This was granted by the court ordering
Capitol Hills to produce and make available for inspection certain documents. During the
inspection, the only document that was produced was the Stock and Transfer Book of the
Corporation.
The court orders Capitol Hills to strictly comply with the inspection order stating that
in case of failure to comply, the latter will be cited in contempt of court. Further, the order
stated that in case of non-compliance, Capitol Hills shall pay a fine of P10, 000.00 for every
day of delay until it shall have fully and completely complied with the said order. Capitol Hills
claim that the threatened citation for contempt is not in line with the policy that there should
be willfulness or that the contumacious act be done deliberately in disregard of the authority
of the court.
Issue:
Whether or not the imposition of the threatened imminent action of 10,000 fine and
contempt issued by the RTC is proper.
Ruling:
Yes. A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or
commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt.
In contempt proceedings, the respondent must be given the right to defend himself or
herself and have a day in court a basic requirement of due process. This is especially so in
indirect contempt proceedings, as the court cannot decide them summarily pursuant to the
Rules of Court. In indirect contempt proceedings, the respondent must be given the
opportunity to comment on the charge against him or her, and there must be a hearing, and
the court must investigate the charge and consider the respondents answer. In this case,
the proceedings for indirect contempt have not been initiated. To the Courts mind, the
Resolution issued by the RTC could be treated as a mere reiteration of the inspection order. It
is not yet a judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt as
contemplated under the Rules. The penalty mentioned therein only serves as a reminder to
caution Capitol Hills of the consequence of possible nonobservance of the longoverdue
order to produce and make available for inspection and photocopying of the requested
records/documents. In case of another failure or refusal to comply with the directive, the
court or respondent could formally initiate the indirect contempt proceedings pursuant to
the mandatory requirements of the Rules and existing jurisprudence.
62 | P a g e

Remedial Law Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Santo Tomas

Digested by: DC 2016

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

How to Implead an Unknown Owner7

Relief from an order of default, extent of relief

Extraterritorial service when allowed

Notice and hearing of motions

Amendment as a matter of right

When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses

Quashing of subpoena; grounds

Depositions pending action 26

Requisites for admission by adverse party 29

Meaning of genuine issue 32

Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC 36

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

How a judgment is executed 44

Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons 45

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Over the res or property in litigation

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

HEIRS OF SPOUSES MESINA v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES FIAN, SR.

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

How to Implead Unknown Owner

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Counterclaims (Compulsory counterclaim, permissive counterclaim, Effect on the

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Certification against forum shopping

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Manner of making allegations

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Failure to plead defenses and objections

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Relief from an order of default, extent of relief

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Effect of appeal by defaulted defendant

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Payment of docket fees

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Amendment as a matter of right

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Extraterritorial service, when allowed

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Service Upon Public Corporations

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Notice and hearing of motions

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Civil Procedure (Remedial Law, First Semester

Requisites for intervention