1. Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs.

Court of Appeals 241 SCRA

192 , February 09, 1995
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Facts:
Northwest Airlines and C.F. Sharp & Company, through its Japan
branch, entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency
Agreement. Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales
made by SHARP on behalf of the Northwest, it sued the former
in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the
ticket sales, with claim for damages. Summons were issued but
were unsuccessful due to unavailability and refusal. The judge of
the Tokyo District Court decided to have the complaint and the
writs of summons served at the head office of the defendant in
Manila.
Despite receipt of the same, SHARP failed to appear at the
scheduled hearing. Thus, the Tokyo Court proceeded to hear the
Northwest’s complaint and rendered judgment in favor of
Northwest. Northwest was unable to execute the decision in
Japan, hence, a suit for enforcement of the judgment was filed
by plaintiff before the RTC Manila.
RTC ruled that the foreign decision was void; that the service of
summons effected in Manila or beyond the territorial
boundaries of Japan was null and did not confer jurisdiction upon
the Tokyo District Court over the person of SHARP.
Issue: Whether or not the foreign judgment sought to be
enforced is null and void for want of jurisdiction
Held:
No. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in
the country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It
is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
the giving of due notice therein. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation
doing business in the Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its
resident agent designated in accordance with law for that
purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or (3) on
any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a
resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan.
This silence could only mean, or at least create an impression,
that it had none. Hence, service on the designated government
official or on any of SHARP's officers or agents in Japan could be
availed of.
5. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan 204 SCRA 212 , November 21,
1991
Facts:
Issue
Held:
6. Philnabank Employees Association vs. Estanislao 227 SCRA
804 , November 16, 1993
Facts:
Issue
Held:
7. Yang vs. Valdez 177 SCRA 141 August 31, 1989
Ponente: FELICIANO,J.:
Facts:
Respondent spouses Ricardo and Milagros Morante brought an
action in the RTC GenSan against petitioner Thomas Yang and
Manuel Yaphockun, to recover possession of two (2) Isuzu-cargo
trucks. To obtain immediate possession of the trucks,
respondent spouses applied for a writ of replevin and put up a
replevin bond of P560,000.00. The trial court also ordered the
immediate release and delivery of the cargo trucks to
respondent spouses.
Yang now argues before us that, firstly, respondent judge had
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in approving the replevin bond of
respondent spouses. It is contended by petitioner that that
replevin bond was merely an undertaking of the bondsmen; that
no tangible security, such as “cash, property or surety,” was
placed thereby at the disposal and custody of the court
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge had committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
approving the replevin bond of respondent spouses.
Held:
No. A bond that is required to be given by law is commonly
understood to refer to an obligation or undertaking in writing
that is sufficiently secured. It is not indispensably necessary,
however, that the obligation of the bond be secured or
supported by cash or personal property or real property or the
obligation of a surety other than the person giving the bond.
Most generally understood, a “bond” is an obligation reduced to
writing binding the obligor to pay a sum of money to the obligee
under specified conditions. At common law, a bond was merely
a written obligation under seal. A bond is often, as a commercial
matter, secured by a mortgage on real property; the mortgagee
may be the obligee, although the mortgagee may also be a third
party surety whose personal credit is added to that of the
principal obligor under the bond.
8. Yu vs. Court of Appeals 232 SCRA 594 , May 27, 1994
Facts:
Petitioner Yu owned a drugstore in Cebu City. Yu obtained from
the Traders Royal Bank (“TRB”) several loans secured by
promissory notes, a chattel mortgage, letters of credit and trust
receipts. Yu failed to effect payment. TRB filed a complaint
against Yu with the RTC of Cebu (CC No. CEB-1765) for recovery
of personal property, with an alternative prayer for payment of
the due obligation. TRB based its complaint on the promissory
notes and the chattel mortgage; no mention, however, was
made of the trust receipts.
During the pendency of the case, TRB sought possession of the
mortgaged chattels (drugs and medicine) for the purpose of
effecting an extrajudicial foreclosure thereof. In view of the
protracted proceedings on the petition for the issuance of the
writ, most of the drugs and medicine expired and apparently
became valueless. Hence, TRB instituted before the same court
CEB-6035 against Yu for the recovery of sums of money.
Issue: Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the
ground of litis pendentia.
Held:
No. For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an
action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of
parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the
two cases should be such that the judgment that may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res adjudicata to the other.
In the case at bench, there is, except for the identity of parties, a
substantial disparity between CEB-1765 and CEB-7483. In the
former, TRB seeks the recovery of a sum of money from Yu on
account of his unpaid loan obligations. In its complaint, TRB has
not even alleged specifically the existence of the trust receipts.
In CEB-7483, Yu impugns the validity of the trust receipts which
he claims to be null and void. It is clear that a judgment in either
of the two cases will not necessarily foreclose the other on the
mere basis of res adjudicata.
12. Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals 499 SCRA 21 , August 16, 2006
(530 SCRA 454)
Facts:
Issue
Held:
13. Golangco vs. Court of Appeals
283 SCRA 493 , December 22, 1997
Ponente : Romero, J.
Facts:
Lucia Golangco filed a petition for annulment of marriage against
Rene Golangco before the RTC of Makati. The trial court awarded
the two children to Lucia. Nevertheless, Rene was given
visitation rights of at least one week in a month. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Rene Golangco filed a
petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed due to
failure to show that grave abuse of discretion had been
committed by the appellate court.
Lucia filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court with
a prayer for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
against Rene Golangco. Allegedly, Rene physically abused their
son. Justin filed a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries
against his father, Rene Golangco, with the MeTC of Makati. The
trial court granted the writ of preliminary injunction restraining
Rene from seeing his children. Rene, then filed a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging that grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the MeTC in issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition on the ground of forum shopping. According to CA,
there was forum-shopping since the 2 petitions dealt with the
same issue on whether or not Rene should be prohibited from
seeing his children.
Issue: WON petitioner Rene Golangco violated the rule on non-
forum shopping
Held:
No. There is forum-shopping only whenever, as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
from another forum, other than by appeal or certiorari.
In the case at bar, petitioner Rene Golangco, in assailing the
MeTC order, was actually questioning the propriety of the
issuance of the writ of injunction. The said order restrained him
from seeing his children. On the other hand, in assailing the RTC
order, he specifically questioned the award to his wife of the
custody of the children and prayed that he can have more time
to spend with his children. Thus, it is clear from the foregoing
issues raised in the two petitions that they are distinct and
different from one another.
“In sum, two different orders were questioned, two distinct cause
of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought.
Thus, forum shopping cannot be said to exist in the case at bar”.

15. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED)

vs. Republic 663 SCRA 514
Facts:
Issue
Held:
21. Del Monte Fresh Product N.A. vs. Dow Chemical Company
679 SCRA 152
Ponente: Villarama
Facts:
A joint complaint for damages based on quasi-delict was filed
before RTC Panabo, Davao by 1,185 individuals against Del
Monte, Dow Chemical Corporations and other companies
alleging that the companies were negligent in the manufacture,
distribution and sale or in not informing the users of the
hazardous effects of the chemicals. Del Monte filed
motions/oppositions saying that the complaint must be
dismissed because the claimants had been paid, waived,
abandoned and extinguish their rights in effect of their
compromise agreement with the claimants.
The Dow/Occidental defendants argue that the RTC gravely
abused its discretion when it did not dismiss the cross-claims
filed by the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants despite the
following: (1) the cross-claims were already filed beyond the
reglementary period; and (2) the complaint against them and the
Del Monte and Chiquita defendants, including their respective
counterclaims, were already dismissed on the basis of the
compromise agreements they each had with the plaintiffs. CA
reversed RTC decision.
Issues:
(1) Does the dismissal of the civil case against the
Dow/Occidental defendants carry with it the dismissal of cross-
claims against them? (2) Is the Request for Admission by the
Dow/Occidental defendants proper?
Held:
Petition denied
There are two requisites for a court to allow an omitted
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment: (1) there was
oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires; and (2) the amendment is made before judgment.
The CA correctly held that there is basis for allowing the cross-
claims of the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants against
the Dow/Occidental defendants as they complied with the rules.
It is undisputed that the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita
defendants sought to amend their answers to include their
cross-claims before judgment. More importantly, justice
requires that they be allowed to do so in consonance with the
policy against multiplicity of suits.

We also uphold the appellate court’s ruling that the RTC gravely
abused its discretion when it admitted the cross-claims against
the Dow/Occidental defendants without any qualification. The
Del Monte and Chiquita defendants’ cross-claims against the
Dow/Occidental defendants cannot extend to the plaintiffs with
whom they had settled.
22. Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas
513 SCRA 457
Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.
Facts:
Respondent NPC entered into a contract with Westinghouse
Electric S.A. (WESA), an affiliate or subsidiary of WESTING
HOUSE, whereby WESA undertook to construct in favor of the
NPC a nuclear power plant at Morong, Bataan. WESA
subsequently executed a deed of assignment transferring all its
rights and responsibilities in the contract to its construction arm-
agent, respondent Westinghouse International Projects
Company (WIPCO).
Pres. Corazon Aquino issued an EO transferring ownership of the
already constructed power plant, together with its equipment,
materials and facilities, records and uranium fuel to the National
Government or its duly constituted agency. The government
panel and Westinghouse eventually agreed on a settlement
involving a package of more than 100 million dollars. Petitioners
Public Interest Inc., et al., (PICI), as tax payers, filed with the RTC
a complaint for declaration of nullity the contract
with application for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary
injunction. The SolGen moved for the dismissal of the complaint
on the ground that PICI were engaged in forum-shopping, their
counsel Atty. Reyes having previously filed cases with causes of
action identical thereto.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PICI are engaged in forum-shopping and thus
can affect the dismissal of their complaint
HELD:
Yes. Granted the PICI were initially unaware of the existence of
the first set of cases, albeit their counsel was one of the
petitioners therein; such fact was already brought to their
attention during a hearing. They failed to report the pendency of
the petition for mandamus before the appellate court bearing on
the dismissal by the Manila RTC. Thus, the dismissal of PICI‘s
complaint is in order.
PICI violated the requirement to report to the courts the fact that
a similar action had been filed or is already pending before the
courts, regardless of who initiated such similar action. As stated
in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court for Certification against
forum-shopping: The plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting
a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification: c) if he should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
23. Godinez vs. Court of Appeals 516 SCRA 24
Ponente : Sandoval – Guiterrez, J.
Facts:
Private respondent filed with RTC Tagum an amended complaint
for injunction and damages against the Godinezes. The
complaint alleges that petitioners were operating a mineral
processing plant in the annex of their residential house located
within Delfina Village.

The Godinezes filed their answer raising the following

affirmative defenses: a) the complaint states no cause of action;
b) respondent DVSHA has no capacity to sue; c) it is not a real
party in interest; d) the complaint fails to implead the real parties
in interest; and e) respondent failed to refer the case for
conciliation to the barangay before filing its complaint.

RTC issued an Order directing Delfina Village to amend its

complaint and attach thereto proofs showing that it is a juridical
person with capacity to sue and that it is the real party in
interest. Delfina Village complied with it by furnishing the
necessary documents. Godinez filed a motion for
reconsideration which the trial court and appellate court denied.

Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s
April 3, 2001 Order directing respondent to amend its complaint
in Special Case No. 383.
Held:
NO. First, there is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings
and their forms or contents, their sole purpose being to facilitate
the application of justice to the rival claims of contending
parties. Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules should be
construed liberally. Second, the judicial attitude has always been
favorable and liberal in allowing amendments to a pleading in
order to avoid multiplicity of suits and so that the real
controversies between the parties are presented, their rights
determined, and the case decided on the merits without
unnecessary delay.

Here, the amendment of respondent’s complaint at the instance

of the trial court merely involves the designation of respondent
as a proper party, i.e., whether it has a juridical personality and,
therefore, can sue or be sued. We note that when respondent
amended its complaint by attaching the required supporting
documents, such amendment did not change its cause of action.
Nor was its action intended to prejudice petitioners. Verily, the
Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely
abuse its discretion when it ordered the amendment of the
complaint.
25. Saludo, Jr. vs. American Express International, Inc. 487 SCRA
462
Facts:
Issue
Held:
27. Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. vs. Tangco 511 SCRA 67
Facts:
Issue
Held:
29. Abines vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands 482 SCRA 421
Facts:
Issue
Held:
30. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Espinosa, Jr.
513 SCRA 592
Facts:
Issue
Held:
31. Yang vs. Valdez 177 SCRA 141
Facts:
Issue
Held:

32. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan 204 SCRA 212

Facts:
Issue
Held:

33. Caina vs. CA GR No. 114393 Dec. 15, 1994

Facts:
Issue
Held:
35. De Leon vs. CA
GR No. 96107 June 19, 1995
Ponente: Romero, J.
Facts:
This case involves two parcels of irrigated riceland covering an
area of 117,785 square meters located in Barangays Guintas and
Bingke, Napnod, Leganes, Iloilo.
Respondent Inayan ceased paying the agreed rental and instead,
asserted dominion over the land. He refused to vacate despite
petitioner de Leon’s demands. De Leon filed complaint against
Inayan before the RTC- Iloilo City for “Termination of Civil Law
Lease; Recovery of Possession; Recovery of Unpaid Rentals and
Damages.”
RTC issued an order adopting the procedure in agrarian cases,
ordered Inayan to vacate the land and pay corresponding rents.
CA first ruled that Inayan’s attack on the jurisdiction of the lower
court must fail for he is guilty of estoppel. Despite several
opportunities to question the jurisdiction of the lower court, he
failed to do so. But on MR, it reversed itself and dismissed de
Leon’s case for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether the RTC, then acting as a court of agrarian relations
employing agrarian procedure, has jurisdiction to try the suit
filed by De Leon.
Held:
YES. Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is
conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It is determinable
on the basis of allegations in the complaint. An error in
jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time
on appeal. Barring highly meritorious and exceptional
circumstances, neither estoppel nor waiver may be raised as
defenses to such an error.
The case involves more than just the issue of possession. It was
necessary for the trial court below to determine whether the
lease was civil and not an agricultural or tenancy relationship and
whether its termination was in order. Moreover, where the
issues of the case extend beyond those commonly involved in
unlawful detainer suits, such as the respective rights of parties
under various contractual arrangements and the validity thereof,
the case is converted from a mere detainer suit to one
“incapable of pecuniary estimation,” thereby placing it under
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.

37. Mapa vs. CA 214 SCRA 417

Facts:
Issue
Held:
45. Home Guaranty Corp. vs. R-II Builders Inc.,
652 SCRA 649
Ponente: Perez, J.
Facts:
R-II Builders sought the nullification of the Deed of Assignment
and Conveyance (DAC) in favor of Home Guaranty Corporation
(HGC) and prayed for the transfer of possession of and/or control
of the properties in the Asset Pool. This is Resolution of the MR
filed by R-II Builders.

R-II Builders argued that it filed its complaint with the Manila RTC
which is undoubtedly vested with jurisdiction over actions where
the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation; that the
re-raffle and/or amendment of pleadings do not affect a court's
jurisdiction which, once acquired, continues until the case is
finally terminated; that since its original Complaint, Amended
and Supplemental Complaint and Second Amended Complaint
all primarily sought the nullification of the DAC transferring the
Asset Pool in favor of petitioner HGC, the subject matter of the
case is clearly one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
and, that the court erred in holding that the case was a real
action and that it evaded the payment of the correct docket fees
computed on the basis of the assessed value of the realties in the
Asset Pool.
Issue: Whether the subject matter of the case is one which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation
Held:
No. The action is a real action, hence, payment of docket fees
must apply before jurisdiction is acquired. In determining
whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the
criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or
remedy sought." Necessarily, the determination must be done
on a case-to-case basis, depending on the facts and
circumstances of each.

While it is true that jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be easily

ousted, it is equally settled that a court acquires jurisdiction over
a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket
fees. No less than R-II Builders - in its opposition to HGC's motion
to dismiss - admitted that the case is a real action as it affects
title to or possession of real property or an interest therein.
Having only paid docket fees corresponding to an action where
the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, R-II
Builders cannot expediently claim that jurisdiction over the case
had already attached.

49. NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd, v. Lepanto

Consolidated Mining Co., 661 SCRA 328
Facts:
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company filed with the RTC of
Makati City a Complaint against NM Rothschild & Sons
(Australia) Limited praying for a judgment declaring the loan and
hedging contracts between the parties void for being contrary to
Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and for damages.
Upon motion, the RTC authorized Lepanto’s counsel to
personally bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine
Consulate General in Sydney, Australia for the latter office to
effect service of summons on NM Rothschild. The latter filed a
Special Appearance With Motion to Dismiss praying for the
dismissal of the Complaint on the ground, among others: the
Complaint failed to state a cause of action and it is barred by
estoppel. NM Rothschild also filed two Motions: (1) a Motion for
Leave to take the deposition of Mr. Paul Murray (Director, Risk
Management) before the Philippine Consul General; and (2) a
Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on Lepanto. RTC
dismissed the MTD and the subsequent MR. The petitioners filed
petition for certiorari with CA, which it dismissed.

Issue
Whether there is a cause of action
Held:
Yes. "[A] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another." Its elements are the following: (1) a
right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the
defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or
omission of the defendant in violation of such right.
To sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the
complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and
not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous,
indefinite or uncertain. The RTC held that the Complaint in the
case at bar contains all the three elements of a cause of action.
Indeed, NM Rothschild’s defense against the charge of nullity of
the Hedging Contracts is the purported intent of the parties that
actual deliveries of gold be made pursuant thereto. Such a
defense requires the presentation of evidence on the merits of
the case. An issue that "requires the contravention of the
allegations of the complaint, as well as the full ventilation, in
effect, of the main merits of the case, should not be within the
province of a mere Motion to Dismiss."
The trial court, therefore, correctly denied the Motion to
Dismiss.

50. Ching v. Rodriguez, 661 SCRA 449

Facts:
Respondents filed a Complaint against the Ramon Ching and
other petitioners claiming rights or titles over a parcel of land.
Another parcel of land, which was part of Antonio's estate, was
sold by Ramon to co-defendant Elena Tiu Del Pilar at an
unreasonably low price.
Respondents thus prayed for the (1) issuance of a TRO to restrain
Ramon or his representatives from disposing or selling any
property that belongs to the estate of Antonio; (2) that Ramon
be declared as disqualified from inheriting from Antonio Ching;
and (3) declaring null the unauthorized transfers made by
Ramon. The RTC denied the Ramon’s MTD and MR.
Issue: Whether the RTC should have granted the MTD with
regard to the issues which could only be resolved in a special
proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action
Held:
NO. An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement
of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of
property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the nullification of the documents executed by
Ramon subject of the civil case could be achieved in an ordinary
civil action, which in this specific case was instituted to protect
the Rodriguez from the supposedly fraudulent acts of Ramon.
Rodriguez’s resort to an ordinary civil action before the RTC may
not be strategically sound, because a settlement proceeding
should thereafter still follow, if their intent is to recover from
Ramon the properties alleged to have been illegally transferred
in his name. Be that as it may, the RTC, in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction, cannot be restrained from taking cognizance
of respondents’ Complaint and Amended Complaint as the
issues raised and the prayers indicated therein are matters
which need not be threshed out in a special proceeding.