civ pro digested cases_as of jan 2009

8/12/2019 Civ Pro Digested Cases_as of Jan 2009

1/28

CIV PRO DIGESTED CASES

[G.R. No. 128550. March 16, 2000]

DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs . CO RT O! APPEAL" a#$ A"IAN

%IG% TEC%NOLOG& CORPORATION, respondents .

Facts:

Petitioner initiated a special civil action for certiorari before the Co rt of Appeals! alle"in" "raveab se of discretion on the part of the #lo$er% trial co rt& 'o$ever! the Co rt of Appeals dis(issedthe petition for fail re to co(pl) $ith Revised Circ lar *o& +,-./! as a(ended b) Ad(inistrativeCirc lar *o& 01-.1& Said circ lar re2 ires the petition filed before the Co rt of Appeals to beacco(panied b) a s$orn certification a"ainst for ( shoppin"! si"ned b) petitioner hi(self&

Iss es: 3hether the petitioner co(plies $ith the r les a"ainst for ( shoppin" #Revised Circ lar*o& +,-./% or not4

Wh'(h'r or #o( (h' co)#*'+ o r'cor$ ha* (h' a)(hor-( (o '/'c)(' (h' c'r(- -ca(-o#o# 'ha+ o (h' cor ora(-o#, ar(-c)+ar+ co#*-$'r-# (ha( )#$'r (h' R)+'* o Co)r(,co)#*'+3* a)(hor-( (o r' r'*'#( h-* c+-'#( -* r'*)4'$

R lin":

Revised Circ lar *o& +,-./ provided:

5To avoid 6for ( shoppin"7! ever) petition or co(plaint filed $ith the S pre(e Co rt! the Co rt ofAppeals! or different Divisions thereof! or an) other trib nal or a"enc)! shall co(pl) $ith thefollo$in" re2 ire(ents! aside fro( pertinent provisions of the R les of Co rt and e8istin"circ lars:

Important Principle: Certification . Th' ar( 4)*( c'r(- )#$'r oa(h (ha( h' ha* #o(co44'#c'$ a# o(h'r ac(-o# or roc''$-# -#7o+7-# (h' *a4' -**)'* -# (h' ") r'4'Co)r(, (h' Co)r( o A 'a+*, or $- 'r'#( D-7-*-o#* (h'r'o , or a# o(h'r (r- )#a+ or a '#c ,a#$ (ha( (o (h' '*( o h-* #o9+'$ ', #o *)ch ac(-o# or roc''$-# -* '#$-# -# (h'") r'4' Co)r(, (h' Co)r( o A 'a+*, or $- 'r'#( D-7-*-o#* (h'r'o , or a# o(h'r (r- )#a+or a '#c . I (h'r' -* a# o(h'r ac(-o# '#$-# , h' 4)*( *(a(' (h' *(a()* o (h' *a4'. I h'*ho)+$ +'ar# (ha( a *-4-+ar ac(-o# or roc''$-# ha* ''# -+'$ or -* '#$-# ' or' (h'") r'4' Co)r(, (h' Co)r( o A 'a+*, or $- 'r'#( D-7-*-o#* (h'r'o , or a# o(h'r (r- )#a+or a '#c , h' *ho)+$ #o(- (h' co)r(, (r- )#a+ or a '#c 9-(h-# -7' :5; $a * ro4 *)ch#o(-c'.0 of the Co rt of First Instance of Ceb ! $hich $as a s it forcollection of a s ( of (one)! a $rit of attach(ent $as iss ed a"ainst Sibon"hano)


3/28

2 estion of risdiction ntil after receipt of this Co rt


4/28

The CA did not err in holdin" that the co(plaint $as not dis(issible on its face! si(pl)beca se the person $ho had si"ned the verification and certification of non-for ( shoppin" $asnot the president or the "eneral (ana"er of *PC&

Frit;ie S& =acanaria

R' ) +-c 7*. "a#$- a# a a#

!ac(*

The petition alle"es that the PCGG iss ed the follo$in" co(( nications #/% Order ofSe2 estration directed a"ainst all properties! assets! records and do c (ents of P'I #+% anotherOrder se2 esterin" shares of stoc9 of PTIC re"istered in the boo9s of PTIC in the na(e of P'Iand # % a letter addressed to a la$ fir( that the PCGG resolved to order the se2 estration of allthe shareholdin"s of PRI?E 'O=DI*GS! I*C& #P'I%! $hich o$ns appro8i(atel) 1>H pfP'I=IPPI*E TE=ECO??B*ICATIO*S I*VEST?E*T CORPORATIO* #PTIC%! $hich in t rno$ns appro8i(atel) +>H of P=DT&

The t$o orders $ere si"ned solel) b) the late PCGG Co((issioner ?ar) Conceptiona tista! $hile the letter $as si"ned b) both Co((issioner a tista and then PCGG

Co((issioner Ra l Da;a&

Petitioner filed before the Sandi"anba)an a co(plaint for reconve)ance! reversion!acco ntin"! restit tion and da(a"es a"ainst Spo ses Ferdinand and I(elda ?arcos! et al&!principall) to recover fro( defendants their alle"ed ill-"otten $ealth! consistin" of f nds andpropert) $hich $ere (anifestl) o t of proportion to their salaries and other la$f l inco(e! havin"been alle"edl) ac2 ired d rin" the inc (benc) of the Spo ses ?arcos as p blic officers& A(on"s ch properties (entioned in the co(plained $ere the shares of stoc9 in vario s corporations!incl din" PTIC and P=DT! a list of $hich $as anne8ed to the Co(plaint&

An a(ended co(plaint incl ded parties-defendants herein I(elda Co an"co and Pri(e'oldin"s! Inc& The a(ended co(plaint alle"ed that these ne$ defendants hold shares of stoc9 inP=DT! $hich in tr th and in fact belon" to defendants Ferdinand ?arcos and his fa(il)&

The first assailed resol tion of p blic respondent! $hich "ranted the above-(entioned(otion $as pro( l"ated& The se2 estration orders a"ainst P'I and its shares of stoc9 in PTIC

$ere declared Ja to(aticall) liftedK b) the Sandi"anba)an&

I**)'

3hether or not respondents $ere i(pleaded be)ond the prescribed period&

R)+-#

The petition is $itho t (erit&

In the ori"inal co(plaint for the recover) of ill-"otten $ealth did not i(plead an) of privaterespondents as parties thereto& *either $ere the) incl ded in the anne8ed list of alle"ed ill-"otten

$ealth& It $as onl) on April + ! /..0! via an a(ended co(plaint! that I(elda Co an"co andothers $ere (ade parties-defendants& ) then! three )ears---$ell be)ond the si8 (onths


5/28

prescribed b) the Constit tionLhad passed since the iss ance of the se2 estration ordersa"ainst the P'I and the PTIC shares it o$ned&

Th s! $hether P'I itselfLan entirel) different corporate entit)! tho "h a (a or investor inPTICLhas shareholdin"s nla$f ll) or ano(alo sl) ac2 ired! or $hether it $as or"ani;ed $ithill-"otten $ealth is a different (atter& *otabl)! the individ al respondents are the re"isteredo$ners of P'I and! as earlier stated! the) had not been incl ded as ori"inal defendants& The

dicial action a"ainst the( $as belatedl) instit ted lon" after the lapse of the constit tional ti(efra(e&

P'I is a corporation co(pletel) separate fro( PTIC and P=DT& Indeed it has apersonalit) distinct fro( said entities& The filin" of the a(ended co(plaint for the p rpose ofspecificall) i(pleadin" P'I and others as defendants cannot be dee(ed to date bac9 to the filin"of the ori"inal co(plaint and to thereb) i(pl) co(pliance $ith the constit tional provision& Thefilin" of an a(ended pleadin" does not retroact to the date of the filin" of the ori"inal hence! thestat te of li(itations r ns ntil the s b(ission of the a(end(ent&

3hile it has been held that Jan a(end(ent $hich (erel) s pple(ents and a(plifiesfacts ori"inall) alle"ed in the co(plaint relates bac9 to the date of the co((ence(ent of theaction and is not barred b) the stat te of li(itations $hich e8pired after the service of the ori"inalco(plaint! s ch r le does not appl) to a part) $ho is i(pleaded for the first ti(e in the a(endedco(plaint that $as filed be)ond prescriptive period&

The se2 estration orders iss ed a"ainst private respondents and the shares of PTICre"istered nder the na(e of P'I ( st perforce be dee(ed a to(aticall) lifted d e to #/% theinvalidit) of the alle"ed se2 estration $rits the(selves! o$in" to the non-observance of thePCGG R le re2 irin" the a thorit) of at least t$o co((issioners and in an) event! #+% the fail reof the PCGG to co((ence the proper dicial action! to i(plead private respondents therein!

$ithin the period prescribed b) Section +>! Article MVIII of the /., Constit tion&


Ra$-o Co44)#-ca(-o#* o (h' Ph-+- -#'*, I#c. 7*. Co)r( o A 'a+*

!ac(*

This is a petition for revie$ of the decision of the Co rt of Appeals and its resol tionden)in" the (otion for reconsideration&

On ne /,! /.. ! private respondent ?an el D la$on filed $ith the Re"ional Trial Co rtof Tab 9! Nalin"a! co(plaint for breach of contract of lease $ith da(a"es a"ainst petitionerRadio Co(( nications of the Philippines! Inc& Petitioner filed a (otion to dis(iss the co(plaintfor lac9 of risdiction contendin" that is the ? nicipal Trial Co rt $hich has risdiction as theco(plaint is basicall) one for collection of npaid rentals in the s ( of P,1!000! $hich does not

e8ceed the risdictional a(o nt of P/00!000&00 for Re"ional Trial Co rts& The trial co rt deniedthe (otion to dis(iss as $ell as petitioner


6/28

R)+-#

The action for specific perfor(ance case! irrespective of the a(o nt of rentals andda(a"es so "ht to be recovered! is incapable of pec niar) esti(ation! hence co"ni;ablee8cl sivel) b) the Re"ional Trial Co rt& The trial co rt! therefore! did not err in den)in"petitioner


7/28

P) +-c E*(a('* A)(hor-( 7*.

!ac(*

Petitioner P blic Estates A thorit) is the "overn(ent a"enc) tas9ed b) the asesConversion Develop(ent A thorit) to develop the first-class (e(orial par9 9no$n as the'erita"e Par9! located in Fort onifacio! Ta" i"! ?etro ?anila& On *ove(ber +0! /..>!petitioner e8ec ted $ith respondent Elpidio S& B)! doin" b siness nder the na(e and st)leEdison Develop(ent @ Constr ction! a =andscapin" and Constr ction a"ree(ent! $hereb)respondent ndertoo9 to perfor( all landscapin" $or9s& D e to the dela)s! the contracted period

$as e8tended& Respondent instit ted $ith the Constr ction Ind str) Arbitration Co((ission anaction see9in" to collect fro( petitioner da(a"es arisin" fro( its dela) in the deliver) of the entirepropert) for landscapin"&

The CIAC rendered a decision directin" the petitioner to pa) the clai(ant& S bse2 entl)!petitioner filed $ith the Co rt of Appeals an Br"ent ?otion for Iss ance of a Te(porar)Restrainin" Order and or 3rit of Preli(inar) In nction! see9in" to en oin the CIAC fro(proceedin" $ith CIAC case $hich respondent filed& Petitioner alle"ed that said case involvedclai(s b) respondent arisin" fro( the sa(e =andscapin" and Constr ction A"ree(ent! s b ect ofthe cases pendin" $ith the Co rt of Appeals&

I**)'

3hether or not the Co rt of Appeals erred in the dis(issal of the case based ontechnicalit)&

R)+-#

The Co rt of Appeals did not err in findin" that! in vie$ of the absence of the a boardresol tion a thori;in" petitioner


8/28

the certification of non-for ( shoppin" re2 ired nder Ad(inistrative Circ lar *o& 01-.1 of thisCo rt $hich too9 effect on April /! /..1& 'o$ever! the follo$in" da)! in co(pliance $ith the saidcirc lar! private respondent s b(itted to the ?CTC his certification of non-for ( shoppin"&

The petitioner filed a (otion to dis(iss the protest of the respondent for fail re to strictl)co(pl) $ith Ad(inistrative Circ lar *o& 01-.1& 'e said that the filin" of the certification $as(erel) the private respondent hearin"! petitioner I"nacio Torres failed to appear pro(ptin" thelo$er co rt to cancel the hearin"& Accordin" to petitioners! Torres $as then detailed in ail d e toa separate pendin" cri(inal case filed a"ainst hi( b) Sa"aral& The case $as re-raffled to ranch

& 3hen the case $as called for hearin" on l) />! /..>! co nsel for petitioners arrived late&Th s! pon (otion of respondent Sa"aral! the trial co rt iss ed the disp ted Order& Thedefendant


9/28

Petitioners so "ht reco rse in the Co rt of Appeals thro "h a petition for certiorari& tin the assailed Resol tion dated Septe(ber + /..> the appellate co rt s ((aril) dis(issedtheir petition on the "ro nd that the affidavit of non-for ( shoppin" $as si"ned and e8ec ted b)co nsel for petitioners and not b) petitioners the(selves! or one of the( as re2 ired b) Circ lar*o& +,-./ of the S pre(e Co rt&


Ch-#a ?a# -# Cor ora(-o# 7*. M'rc'$'* M. O+-7'r

!ac(*

This is a petition for revie$ for the reversal of the decision of the Co rt of Appealsdis(issin" China an9in" Corporation


10/28

F rther! a declaration of the (ort"a"e


11/28

The re2 ire(ent re"ardin" verification of a pleadin" is for(al! not risdictional& S ch re2 ire(entis si(pl) a condition affectin" the for( of pleadin"! the non-co(pliance of $hich does notnecessaril) render the pleadin" fatall) defective& Verification is si(pl) intended to sec re anass rance that the alle"ations in the pleadin" are tr e and correct and not the prod ct of thei(a"ination or a (atter of spec lation! and that the pleadin" is filed in "ood faith& The co rt (a)order the correction of the pleadin" if verification is lac9in" or act on the pleadin" altho "h it is notverified! if the attendin" circ (stances are s ch that strict co(pliance $ith the r les (a) bedispensed $ith in order that the ends of stice (a) thereb) be served&

The lac9 of certification a"ainst for ( shoppin"! on the other hand! is "enerall) not c rable b) thes b(ission thereof after the filin" of the petition& Section ! R le 1 of the R les of Co rt providesthat the fail re of petitioner to s b(it the re2 ired doc (ents that sho ld acco(pan) the petition!incl din" the certification a"ainst for ( shoppin"! shall be s fficient "ro nd for the dis(issalthereof&

In so(e cases! tho "h! this Co rt dee(ed the belated filin" of the certification as s bstantialco(pliance $ith the re2 ire(ent& In Loyola vs. Court of Appeals ! the Co rt held that the filin"of the certification! a da) after the filin" of an election protest and $hile $ithin the re"le(entar)period! constit ted s bstantial co(pliance&

The Co rt considered as s bstantial co(pliance the filin" of the certification /1 da)s before thedis(issal of the petition& The Co rt even cited an instance $here this Co rt allo$ed the filin" ofthe certification even after the dismissal &

The ad(ission of the petition after the belated filin" of the certification! therefore! is notnprecedented& In those cases $here the Co rt e8c sed non-co(pliance $ith the re2 ire(ents!

there $ere special circ (stances or co(pellin" reasons (a9in" the strict application of the r leclearl) n stified& In the case at bar! the apparent (erits of the s bstantive aspects of the casesho ld be dee(ed as a Jspecial circ (stanceK or Jco(pellin" reasonK for the reinstate(ent of thepetition&

That co nsel for petitioner filed the Jverification certificationK before receipt for the resol tion

initiall) den)in" the petition also (iti"ates the oversi"ht&

In an) event! this Co rt has the po$er to s spend its o$n r les $hen! as in this case! the ends of stice $o ld be served thereb)&

3e co(e no$ to the (erits of the petition&

Other Principles:

SEC& & Petitions for Review & 3ithin the period to appeal! the petitioner shall file a verified

petition in seven # % le"ible copies and #/% one cop) thereof shall be served on each of therespondents& Bpon proper (otion presented before the e8piration of the ori"inal re"le(entar)period! the Co rt (a) "rant a non-e8tendible additional period of fifteen #/ % da)s save ine8ceptionall) (eritorio s cases $ithin $hich to file the petition for revie$ Provided! ho$ever! thatsho ld there be no petition filed $ithin the e8tended period! the case shall be dis(issed& Apetition filed after the period shall be denied d e co rse o tri"ht& The Re"ional Trial Co rt shallbe f rnished a cop) of the resol tion to this effect& #As a(ended b) S& Ct& Res&! dated *ove(ber+1! /..+%


12/28

Rep blic of the PhilippinesSBPRE?E COBRT

Er(ita! ?anila

En anc

/.,. Dece(ber +0 G&R& *os& ,,0 -

?AMI?O TACAQ! PO*CIA*O PA*ES and A*TO*IA *OE=! petitioners!

vs&

REGIO*A= TRIA= COBRT OF TAGB?! Davao del *orte! ranches / and +! Presided b) 'on&?arcial Fernande; and 'on& es s ?atas! respectivel)! PATSITA GA?BTA*! Cler9 of Co rt!and GODOFREDO PI*EDA! respondents&

Facts:

In the Re"ional Trial Co rt at Ta" (! Davao del *orte! three # % actions for recover) ofpossession #acciones p blicianas % $ere separatel) instit ted b) Godofredo Pineda a"ainst three# % defendants! doc9eted as follo$s:

/% vs& Antonia *oel----Civil Case *o& ++0.

+% vs& Ponciano Panes----Civil Case *o& ++/0

% vs& ?a8i(o Taca)----Civil Case *o& ++//&

The co(plaints all alle"ed the sa(e essential facts: #/% Pineda $as the o$ner of a parcel of land(eas rin" .0 s2 are (eters! his o$nership bein" evidenced b) TCT *o& T-1> >0 #+% theprevio s o$ner had allo$ed the defendants to occ p) portions of the land b) (ere tolerance # %havin" hi(self need to se the propert)! Pineda had (ade de(ands on the defendants to vacatethe propert) and pa) reasonable rentals therefor! b t these de(ands had been ref sed and #1%the last de(and had been (ade (ore than a )ear prior to the co((ence(ent of s it& Theco(plaints pra)ed for the sa(e reliefs&

?otions to dis(iss $ere filed in behalf of each of the defendants b) co((on co nsel& Ever)(otion alle"ed that the Trial Co rt had not ac2 ired risdiction of the case

5& & & for the reason that the & & & co(plaint violates the (andator) and clear provision of Circ lar*o& of the & & & S pre(e Co rt dated ?arch +1! /.,,! b) failin" to specif) all the a(o nts ofda(a"es $hich plaintiff is clai(in" fro( defendant 5 and&


13/28

5& & & for & & & fail re #of the co(plaint% to even alle"e the basic re2 ire(ent as to the assessedval e of the s b ect lot in disp te&5

d"e ?atas denied the (otion to dis(iss filed in Civil Case *o& ++/0 b t ordered the e8p nctionof the 5alle"ations in para"raph // of the & & & co(plaint re"ardin" (oral as $ell as no(inalda(a"es&5 On (otion of defendant Panes! d"e ?atas later ordered the stri9in" o t! too! of the5hand$ritten a(o nt of P !000&00 as and for! incl din" the t)pe$ritten $ords act al da(a"esas proven & & & in s b-para"raph b of para"raph 1 in the concl sion and pra)er of theco(plaint & & &&5

The (otions to dis(iss s b(itted in Civil Cases * (bered ++// and ++0. $ere also denied inseparate orders pro( l"ated b) d"e ?arcial Fernande;& 'is Order in Case *o& ++0. dated?arch / ! /.,. #a% declared that since the 5action at bar is for Reivindicatoria! Da(a"es andAttorne) s fees & & & #d%efinitel) this Co rt has the e8cl sive risdiction!5 #b% that the clai(s foract al! (oral and no(inal da(a"es 5are onl) one aspect of the ca se of action!5 and #c% beca seof absence of specification of the a(o nts clai(ed as (oral! no(inal and act al da(a"es! the)sho ld be 5e8p n"ed fro( the records&5

Ascribin" "rave ab se of discretion to both d"es ?atas and Fernande; in the rendition of theOrders above described! the defendants in all three # % actions have filed $ith this Co rt a 5 ointPetition5 for certiorari! prohibition and (anda( s! $ith pra)er for te(porar) restrainin" orderand or $rit of preli(inar) prohibitor) in nction!5 pra)in" essentiall) that said orders be ann lledand respondent d"es directed to dis(iss all the co(plaints 5$itho t pre dice to privaterespondent Pineda s re-filin" a si(ilar co(plaint that co(plies $ith Circ lar *o& &5 The ointpetition #a% re-asserted the proposition that beca se the co(plaints had failed to state thea(o nts bein" clai(ed as act al! (oral and no(inal da(a"es! the Trial Co rts a 2 o had notac2 ired risdiction over the three # % actions in 2 estion ---- indeed! the respondent Cler9 ofCo rt sho ld not have accepted the co(plaints $hich initiated said s its! and #b% it $as notproper (erel) to e8p n"e the clai(s for da(a"es and allo$ 5the so-called ca se of action for

reivindicatoria to re(ain for trial5 b) itself&

Iss es:

3hether the co(plaint a"ainst the petitioners follo$ the Co rt


14/28

It is tr e that the co(plaints do not state the a(o nts bein" clai(ed as act al! (oral and no(inalda(a"es& It is also tr e! ho$ever! that the actions are not basicall) for the recover) of s (s of(one)& The) are principall) for recover) of possession of real propert)! in the nat re of an accionp bliciana& Deter(inative of the co rt s risdiction in this t)pe of actions is the nat re thereof! notthe a(o nt of the da(a"es alle"edl) arisin" fro( or connected $ith the iss e of title orpossession! and re"ardless of the val e of the propert)& ite obvio sl)! an action for recover) ofpossession of real propert) #s ch as an accion plenaria de posesion% or the title thereof! or forpartition or conde(nation of! or the foreclos re of a (ort"a"e on! said real propert) ---- in other

$ords! a real action ---- (a) be co((enced and prosec ted $itho t an acco(pan)in" clai( foract al! (oral! no(inal or e8e(plar) da(a"es and s ch an action $o ld fall $ithin the e8cl sive!ori"inal risdiction of the Re"ional Trial Co rt&

atas Pa(bansa ilan" /+. provides that Re"ional Trial Co rts shall e8ercise e8cl sive ori"inal risdiction inter alia over 5all civil actions $hich involve the title to! or possession of! real propert)!or an) interest therein! e8cept actions for forcible entr) into and nla$f l detainer of lands orb ildin"s! ori"inal risdiction over $hich is conferred pon ?etropolitan Trial Co rts! ? nicipalTrial Co rts! and ? nicipal Circ it Trial Co rts&5 The r le applies re"ardless of the val e of thereal propert) involved! $hether it be $orth (ore than P+0!000&00 or not& The r le also applieseven $here the co(plaint involvin" realt) also pra)s for an a$ard of da(a"es the a(o nt ofthose da(a"es $o ld be i((aterial to the 2 estion of the Co rt s risdiction& The r le is nli9ethat in other cases ---- e&"&! actions si(pl) for recover) of (one) or of personal propert)! oractions in ad(iralt) and (ariti(e risdiction ----- in $hich the a(o nt clai(ed! or the val e of thepersonal propert)! is deter(inative of risdiction i&e&! the val e of the personal propert) or thea(o nt clai(ed sho ld e8ceed t$ent) tho sand pesos #P+0!000&00% in order to be co"ni;able b)the Re"ional Trial Co rt&

Circ lar *o& of this Co rt! dated ?arch +1! /.,,! cannot th s be invo9ed! as the petitionerdoes! as a thorit) for the dis(issal of the actions at bar& That circ lar! avo$edl) inspired b) thedoctrine laid do$n in ?anchester Develop(ent Corporation v& Co rt of Appeals! /1. SCRA >+#?a) ! /., %! has b t li(ited application to said actions! as shall presentl) be disc ssed&?oreover! the r les therein laid do$n have since been clarified and a(plified b) the Co rt ss bse2 ent decision in S n Ins rance Office! =td& #SIO=% v& As ncion! et al&! G&R& *os& .. - ,!Febr ar) / ! /.,.&

Circ lar *o& $as ai(ed at the practice of certain parties $ho o(it fro( the pra)er of theirco(plaints 5an) specification of the a(o nt of da(a"es!5 the o(ission bein" 5clearl) intended forno other p rposes than to evade the pa)(ent of the correct filin" fees if not to (islead the doc9etcler9! in the assess(ent of the filin" fee&5 The follo$in" r les $ere therefore set do$n:

/& All co(plaints! petitions! ans$ers! and si(ilar pleadin"s sho ld specif) the a(o nt ofda(a"es bein" pra)ed for not onl) in the bod) of the pleadin" b t also in the pra)er! and saidda(a"es shall be considered in the assess(ent of the filin" fees in an) case&

+& An) pleadin" that fails to co(pl) $ith this re2 ire(ent shall not be accepted nor ad(itted! orshall other$ise be e8p n"ed fro( the record&

& The Co rt ac2 ires risdiction over an) case onl) pon the pa)(ent of the prescribeddoc9et fee& An a(end(ent of the co(plaint or si(ilar pleadin" $ill not thereb) vest risdiction inthe Co rt! ( ch less the pa)(ent of the doc9et fee based on the a(o nt so "ht in the a(endedpleadin"&

The clarificator) and additional r les laid do$n in S n Ins rance Office! =td v& As ncion! s pra!read as follo$s:

/& It is not si(pl) the filin" of the co(plaint or appropriate initiator) pleadin"! b t #also% thepa)(ent of the prescribed doc9et fee that vests a trial co rt $ith risdiction over the s b ect-


15/28

(atter or nat re of the action& 3here the filin" of the initiator) pleadin" is not acco(panied b)pa)(ent of the doc9et fee! the co rt (a) allo$ pa)(ent of the fee $ithin a reasonable ti(e b t inno case be)ond the applicable prescriptive or re"le(entar) period&

+& The sa(e r le applies to per(issive co nterclai(s! third-part) clai(s and si(ilar pleadin"s! $hich shall not be considered filed ntil and nless the filin" fee prescribed therefor is paid& Theco rt (a) also allo$ pa)(ent of said fee $ithin a reasonable ti(e b t also in no case be)ond itsapplicable prescriptive or re"le(entar) period&

& 3here the trial co rt ac2 ires risdiction over a clai( b) the filin" of the appropriatepleadin" and pa)(ent of the prescribed filin" fee b t! s bse2 entl)! the d"(ent a$ards a clai(not specified in the pleadin"! or if specified! the sa(e has been left for deter(ination b) the co rt!the additional filin" fee therefor shall constit te a lien on the d"(ent& It shall be theresponsibilit) of the Cler9 of Co rt or his d l) a thori;ed dep t) to enforce said lien and assessand collect the additional fee&5

As $ill be noted! the re2 ire(ent in Circ lar *o& that co(plaints! petitions! ans$ers! and si(ilarpleadin"s sho ld specif) the a(o nt of da(a"es bein" pra)ed for not onl) in the bod) of thepleadin" b t also in the pra)er! has not been altered& 3hat has been revised is the r le thats bse2 ent 5a(end(ent of the co(plaint or si(ilar pleadin" $ill not thereb) vest risdiction inthe Co rt! ( ch less the pa)(ent of the doc9et fee based on the a(o nt so "ht in the a(endedpleadin"!5 the trial co rt no$ bein" a thori;ed to allo$ pa)(ent of the fee $ithin a reasonableti(e b t in no case be)ond the applicable prescriptive or re"le(entar) period& ?oreover! a ne$r le has been added! "overnin" a$ards of clai(s not specified in the pleadin" ---- i&e&! da(a"esarisin" after the filin" of the co(plaint or si(ilar pleadin" ---- as to $hich the additional filin" feetherefor shall constit te a lien on the d"(ent&

*o$! nder the R les of Co rt! doc9et or filin" fees are assessed on the basis of the 5s (clai(ed!5 on the one hand! or the 5val e of the propert) in liti"ation or the val e of the estate!5 onthe other& There are! in other $ords! as alread) above inti(ated! actions or proceedin"s involvin"real propert)! in $hich the val e of the propert) is i((aterial to the co rt s risdiction! acco ntthereof bein" ta9en (erel) for assess(ent of the le"al fees and there are actions orproceedin"s! involvin" personal propert) or the recover) of (one) and or da(a"es! in $hich the

val e of the propert) or the a(o nt of the de(and is decisive of the trial co rt s co(petence#aside fro( bein" the basis for fi8in" the correspondin" doc9et fees%&

3here the action is p rel) for the recover) of (one) or da(a"es! the doc9et fees are assessedon the basis of the a""re"ate a(o nt clai(ed! e8cl sive onl) of interests and costs& In this case!the co(plaint or si(ilar pleadin" sho ld! accordin" to Circ lar *o& of this Co rt! 5specif) thea(o nt of da(a"es bein" pra)ed for not onl) in the bod) of the pleadin" b t also in the pra)er!and said da(a"es shall be considered in the assess(ent of the filin" fees in an) case&5

T$o sit ations (a) arise& One is $here the co(plaint or si(ilar pleadin" sets o t a clai( p rel)for (one) or da(a"es and there is no precise state(ent of the a(o nts bein" clai(ed& In thisevent the r le is that the pleadin" $ill 5not be accepted nor ad(itted! or shall other$ise bee8p n"ed fro( the record&5 In other $ords! the co(plaint or pleadin" (a) be dis(issed! or the

clai(s as to $hich the a(o nts are nspecified (a) be e8p n"ed! altho "h as aforestated theCo rt (a)! on (otion! per(it a(end(ent of the co(plaint and pa)(ent of the fees provided theclai( has not in the (eanti(e beco(e ti(e-barred& The other is $here the pleadin" does specif)the a(o nt of ever) clai(! b t the fees paid are ins fficient and here a"ain! the r le no$ is thatthe co rt (a) allo$ a reasonable ti(e for the pa)(ent of the prescribed fees! or the balancethereof! and pon s ch pa)(ent! the defect is c red and the co rt (a) properl) ta9e co"ni;anceof the action! nless in the (eanti(e prescription has set in and conse2 entl) barred the ri"ht ofaction&


16/28

3here the action involves real propert) and a related clai( for da(a"es as $ell! the le"al feesshall be assessed on the basis of both #a% the val e of the propert) and #b% the total a(o nt ofrelated da(a"es so "ht& The Co rt ac2 ires risdiction over the action if the filin" of the initiator)pleadin" is acco(panied b) the pa)(ent of the re2 isite fees! or! if the fees are not paid at theti(e of the filin" of the pleadin"! as of the ti(e of f ll pa)(ent of the fees $ithin s ch reasonableti(e as the co rt (a) "rant! nless! of co rse! prescription has set in the (eanti(e& t $here---- as in the case at bar ---- the fees prescribed for an action involvin" real propert) have beenpaid! b t the a(o nts of certain of the related da(a"es #act al! (oral and no(inal% bein"de(anded are nspecified! the action (a) not be dis(issed& The Co rt ndeniabl) has

risdiction over the action involvin" the real propert)! ac2 irin" it pon the filin" of the co(plaintor si(ilar pleadin" and pa)(ent of the prescribed fee& And it is not divested of that a thorit) b)the circ (stance that it (a) not have ac2 ired risdiction over the acco(pan)in" clai(s orda(a"es beca se of lac9 of specification thereof& 3hat sho ld be done is si(pl) to e8p n"ethose clai(s for da(a"es as to $hich no a(o nts are stated! $hich is $hat the respondentCo rts did! or allo$! on (otion! a reasonable ti(e for the a(end(ent of the co(plaints so as toalle"e the precise a(o nt of each ite( of da(a"es and accept pa)(ent of the re2 isite feestherefor $ithin the relevant prescriptive period&

3'EREFORE! the petition is DIS?ISSED! $itho t prono nce(ent as to costs&

ep blic of the PhilippinesSBPRE?E COBRTEr(ita! ?anila

En anc

/.,. Febr ar) / G&R& *os& .. - ,

SB* I*SBRA*CE OFFICE! =TD&! #SIO=%! E& & P'I=IPPS A*D D& & 3AR Q! petitioners!

vs&

'O*& ?AMI?IA*O C& ASB*CIO*! Presidin" d"e! ranch /01! Re"ional Trial Co rt! e;onCit) and ?A*BE= C'BA BQ PO TIO*G! respondents&

Facts:

The (ain thr st of the petition is that the Co rt of Appeals erred in not findin" that the lo$er co rtdid not ac2 ire risdiction over Civil Case *o& -1// based on the "ro nd of non-pa)(ent ofthe correct and proper doc9et fee& *ot havin" paid the sa(e! petitioners contend that theco(plaint sho ld be dis(issed and all incidents arisin" therefro( sho ld be ann lled&

Iss e:The Co rt is as9ed to resolve the iss e of $hether or not a co rt ac2 ires risdiction over a case

$hen the correct and proper doc9et fee has not been paid&

R lin"s:

Th s! the Co rt r les as follo$s:


17/28

/& It is not si(pl) the filin" of the co(plaint or appropriate initiator) pleadin"! b t the pa)(entof the prescribed doc9et fee! that vests a trial co rt $ith risdiction over the s b ect (atter ornat re of the action& 3here the filin" of the initiator) pleadin" is not acco(panied b) pa)(ent ofthe doc9et fee! the co rt (a) allo$ pa)(ent of the fee $ithin a reasonable ti(e b t in no casebe)ond the applicable prescriptive or re"le(entar) period&

+& The sa(e r le applies to per(issive co nterclai(s! third part) clai(s and si(ilar pleadin"s! $hich shall not be considered filed ntil and nless the filin" fee prescribed therefore is paid& Theco rt (a) also allo$ pa)(ent of said fee $ithin a reasonable ti(e b t also in no case be)ond itsapplicable prescriptive or re"le(entar) period&

& 3here the trial co rt ac2 ires risdiction over a clai( b) the filin" of the appropriatepleadin" and pa)(ent of the prescribed filin" fee b t! s bse2 entl)! the d"(ent a$ards a clai(not specified in the pleadin"! or if specified the sa(e has been left for deter(ination b) the co rt!the additional filin" fee therefore shall constit te a lien on the d"(ent& It shall be theresponsibilit) of the Cler9 of Co rt or his d l) a thori;ed dep t) to enforce said lien and assessand collect the additional fee&

3'EREFORE! the petition is DIS?ISSED for lac9 of (erit& The Cler9 of Co rt of the co rt a 2 ois hereb) instr cted to reassess and deter(ine the additional filin" fee that sho ld be paid b)private respondent considerin" the total a(o nt of the clai( so "ht in the ori"inal co(plaint andthe s pple(ental co(plaint as (a) be "leaned fro( the alle"ations and the pra)er thereof and tore2 ire private respondent to pa) the deficienc)! if an)! $itho t prono nce(ent as to costs&

Rep blic of the Philippines" PREME CO RT?anila

G.R. No. 1@ 88B !' r)ar 15, 2001

"PO "E" OCTAVIO a#$ EPI!ANIA LOR?E", petitioners!vs&CO RT O! APPEAL", RICARDO DELO" RE&E" a#$ O"E!INA CR , respondents&

GON AGA RE&E", J .

Facts:

This petition for revie$ on certiorari arose fro( an action for refor(ation of instr (ent andda(a"es ori"inall) filed $ith the Re"ional Trial Co rt of Antipolo! Ri;al! ranch 1! the decisionon $hich $as revie$ed and reversed b) the Third Division of the Co rt of Appeals&

It is alle"ed that the Co rt of Appeals fo nd petitioners< action for refor(ation n(eritorio sbeca se there $as no sho$in" that the fail re of the deed of sale to e8press the parties< tr eintention $as beca se of (ista9e! fra d! ine2 itable cond ct! or accident&

Iss es:

This petition raises three iss es before the Co rt: #/% $hether respondent co rt erred in r lin"that the Deed of Absol te Sale dated October +/! /..+ $as an e2 itable (ort"a"e! #+% $hether


18/28

respondent co rt erred in r lin" that b) declarin" private respondents in defa lt the) $ere deniedd e process of la$! and # % $hether respondent co rt erred in r lin" that the trial co rt


19/28

The conditions $hich "ive $a) to a pres (ption of e2 itable (ort"a"e! as set o t in Article />0+of the Civil Code! appl) $ith e2 al force to a contract p rportin" to be one of absol tesale&?oreover! the presence of even one of the circ (stances laid o t in Article />0+! and not aconc rrence of the circ (stances therein en (erated! s ffices to constr e a contract of sale tobe one of e2 itable (ort"a"e&This is si(pl) in consonance $ith the r le that the la$ favors theleast trans(ission of propert) ri"hts&

Th s! nder Article />0+ of the Civil Code! a contract shall be pres (ed to be an e2 itable(ort"a"e $hen --- #a% the price of a sale $ith ri"ht to rep rchase is n s all) inade2 ate #b% thevendor re(ains in possession as lessee or other$ise #c% pon or after the e8piration of the ri"htof rep rchase another instr (ent e8tendin" the period of rede(ption or "rantin" a ne$ period ise8ec ted #d% the p rchaser retains for hi(self a part of the p rchase price #e% the vendor bindshi(self to pa) the ta8es on the thin" sold and! #f% in an) other case $here it (a) be fairl) inferredthat the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall sec re the pa)(ent of a debt orthe perfor(ance of an) other obli"ation&

Appl)in" the fore"oin" considerations to the instant case! the Co rt finds that the tr e intentionbet$een the parties for e8ec tin" the Deed of Absol te Sale $as not to conve) o$nership of thepropert) in 2 estion b t (erel) to sec re the ho sin" loan of Cr ;! in $hich petitioners had a

direct interest since the proceeds thereof $ere to be i((ediatel) applied to their o tstandin"(ort"a"e obli"ation to the Carloses&

It is not disp ted that before the e8ec tion of the Deed of Absol te Sale petitioners< (ort"a"eobli"ation to the Carloses as nearin" (at rit) and the) $ere in dire need of (one) to (eet thesa(e& 'ence! the) as9ed for the help of their son-in-la$ delos Re)es $ho in t rn re2 ested Cr ;to ta9e o t a ho sin" loan $ith =and an9& Since collateral is a standard re2 ire(ent of ban9s in"ivin" o t loans! it $as (ade to appear that the s b ect propert) $as sold to Cr ; so she candeclare the sa(e as collateral for the ho sin" loan& This $as si(pl) in line $ith the basicre2 ire(ent in o r la$s that the (ort"a"or be the absol te o$ner of the propert) so "ht to be(ort"a"ed& /> Consistent $ith their a"ree(ent! as soon as the ho sin" loan $as approved! the f lla(o nt of the proceeds $ere i((ediatel) t rned over to petitioners! $ho pro(ptl) paidP 00!000&00 therefro( to the Carloses in f ll satisfaction of their (ort"a"e obli"ation& The

balance $as spent b) petitioners in transferrin" title to the propert) to Cr ; and re"isterin" thene$ (ort"a"e $ith =and an9&

Bnderstandabl)! the Deed of Absol te Sale and its s pportin" doc (ents do not reflect the tr earran"e(ent bet$een the parties as to ho$ the loan proceeds are to be act all) applied beca seit $as not the intention of the parties for these doc (ents to do so& The sole p rpose forpreparin" these doc (ents $as to satisf) =and an9 that the re2 ire(ent of collateral relative toCr ;


20/28

free men but to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty mayimpose upon them.

The facts f rther bear o t that petitioners re(ained in possession of the disp ted propert) afterthe e8ec tion of the Deed of Absol te Sale and the transfer of re"istered title to Cr ; in October/..+& Cr ; (ade no de(and on petitioners to vacate the s b ect pre(ises ntil ?arch /.! /..1

interestin"l)! this $as t$o da)s after petitioners si"nified their intention to redee( the propert) b)pa)in" the f ll a(o nt of P>00!000&00&On this basis! the findin" of respondent co rt thatpetitioners re(ained in possession of the propert) onl) beca se the) ref sed to vacate on Cr ;0+ ofthe Civil Code are attendant in the instant case! as to sho$ that the tr e arran"e(ent bet$eenpetitioners and private respondent Cr ; $as an e2 itable (ort"a"e&

That a transfer certificate of title $as iss ed in favor of private respondent Cr ; also doesnot i(port concl sive evidence of o$nership or that the a"ree(ent bet$een the parties

$as one of sale&

Considerin" the d e process fla$s that attended the defa lt d"(ent of the RTC! and appl)in"the r le adopted b) this Co rt that in instances $here no act al da(a"es are ad dicated thea$ards for (oral and e8e(plar) da(a"es (a) be red ced! $e red ce the a$ard for (oralda(a"es in the instant case fro( P 0!000&00 to P 0!000&00& At the sa(e ti(e! $e s stain thea$ard of attorne)


21/28

of stice& 'o$ever! the petitioners did not "ive an) e8planation to $arrant their e8e(ption fro(the strict application of the r le tter disre"ard of the r les cannot stl) be rationali;ed b) har9in"on the polic) of liberal constr ction&

Rep blic of the PhilippinesSBPRE?E COBRTEr(ita! ?anila

/.. Febr ar) 0> G&R& *o& //0>>,

S?IT'! E== @ CO&! I*C&! petitioner

vs&

COBRT OF APPEA=S and OSEP' E*G O* C'BA! / respondents&

This is a petition for revie$ on certiorari of the Decision of respondent Co rt pro( l"ated onan ar) +0! /.. in CA-G&R& CV *o& /,/+ affir(in" the decision of the trial co rt&

The Facts

In l) /.,+! the plaintiffs! doin" b siness nder the st)le of Tic 'in Chion"! I(porter! bo "ht andi(ported to the Philippines fro( the fir( Chin Gact Co&! =td& of Taipei Tai$an! 0 (etric tons ofDicalci ( Phosphate! Feed Grade F-/ H val ed at BSU/ !000&00 CIF ?anila&

On l) + ! /.,+! this ship(ent $as ins red b) the defendant First Ins rance Co& for

BSU/.! 00&00 5a"ainst all ris9s5 at port of depart re nder ?arine Polic) *o&/000?,+0 00 +/.! $ith the note 5Clai(! if an)! pa)able in B&S& c rrenc) at ?anila #E8h& 5/5!

D5 for the plaintiff% and $ith defendant S(ith! ell! and Co& sta(ped at the lo$er left side of thepolic) as 5Clai( A"ent&5

The car"o arrived at the Port of ?anila on Septe(ber /! /.,+ aboard the above-(entionedcarr)in" vessel and landed at port on Septe(ber +! /.,+& Thereafter! the entire car"o $asdischar"ed to the local arrastre contractor! ?etroport Services Inc& $ith a n (ber of the car"o inapparent bad order condition& On Septe(ber + ! /.,+! the plaintiff sec red the services of acar"o s rve)or to cond ct a s rve) of the da(a"ed car"o $hich $ere #sic% delivered b) plaintiff sbro9er on said date to the plaintiffs pre(ises at /+th Aven e! Grace Par9! Caloocan Cit)& Thes rve)or s report #E8h& 5E5% sho$ed that of the /!+ 0 ba"s of the i(ported (aterial! >00 $ereda(a"ed b) tearin" at the sides of the container ba"s and the contents partl) e(pt)& Bpon

$ei"hin"! the contents of the da(a"ed ba"s $ere fo nd to be /,! 1>&0 9" short& Accordin"l)! onOctober /> follo$in"! the plaintiff filed $ith S(ith! ell! and Co&! Inc& a for(al state(ent of clai(#E8h& 5G5% $ith proof of loss and a de(and for settle(ent of the correspondin" val e of thelosses! in the s ( of BSU ! & ,&00& #sic% After p rportedl) conve)in" the clai( to its principal!S(ith! ell! and Co&! Inc& infor(ed the plaintiff b) letter dated Febr ar) / ! /., #E8h&5G-+5% thatits principal offered onl) 0H of the clai( or BSU !>/>&/ as redress! on the alle"ed "ro nd ofdiscrepanc) bet$een the a(o nts contained in the shippin" a"ent s repl) to the clai(ant of onl)BSU.0&1, $ith that of ?etroport s& The offer not bein" acceptable to the plaintiff! the latter $roteS(ith! ell! @ Co& e8pressin" his ref sal to the 5redress5 offer contendin" that the discrepanc)

$as a res lt of loss fro( vessel to arrastre to consi"nees $areho se $hich losses $ere still


22/28

$ithin the 5all ris95 ins rance cover& *o settle(ent of the clai( havin" been (ade! the plaintiffthen ca sed the instant case to be filed& #p& +! RTC Decision p& /1+! Record%&

Den)in" an) liabilit)! defendant-appellant averred in its ans$er that it is (erel) a settlin" or clai(a"ent of defendant ins rance co(pan) and as SBC' a"ent! it is not personall) liable nder thepolic) in $hich it has not even ta9en part of& It then alle"ed that plaintiff-appellee has no ca se ofaction a"ainst it&

Defendant The First Ins rance Co& =td& did not file an Ans$er! hence it $as declared in defa lt&

After d e trial and proceedin"! the lo$er co rt rendered a decision favorable to plaintiff-appellee&It r led that plaintiff-appellee has f ll) established the liabilit) of the ins rance fir( on the s b ectins rance contract as the for(er presented concrete evidence of the a(o nt of losses res ltin"fro( the ris9s ins red a"ainst $hich $ere s pported! b) reliable report and assess(ent ofprofessional car"o s rve)or& As re"ards defendant-appellant! the lo$er co rt held that since it isad(ittedl) a clai( a"ent of the forei"n ins rance fir( doin" b siness in the Philippines stice isbetter served if said a"ent is (ade liable $itho t pre dice to its ri"ht of action a"ainst itsprincipal! the ins rance fir(&

The Iss e

53hether or not a local settlin" or clai( a"ent of a disclosed principal a forei"n ins ranceco(pan) can be held ointl) and severall) liable $ith said principal nder the latter s (arinecar"o ins rance polic)! "iven that the a"ent is not a part) to the ins rance contract5 is the soleiss e-raised b) petitioner&

The Co rt s R lin"

There are three reasons $h) $e find for petitioner&

First Reason: E8istin" rispr dence

Petitioner! ndisp tedl) a settlin" a"ent actin" $ithin the scope of its a thorit)! cannot be heldpersonall) and or solidaril) liable for the obli"ations of its disclosed principal (erel) beca sethere is alle"edl) a need for a speed) settle(ent of the clai( of private respondent& In the leadin"case of Salon"a vs& 3arner! arnes @ Co&! =td& this Co rt r led in this $ise:

3e a"ree $ith co nsel for the appellee that the defendant is a settle(ent and ad st(ent a"entof the forei"n ins rance co(pan) and that as s ch a"ent it has the a thorit) to settle all thelosses and clai(s that (a) arise nder the policies that (a) be iss ed b) or in behalf of saidco(pan) in accordance $ith the instr ctions it (a) receive fro( ti(e to ti(e fro( its principal!b t $e disa"ree $ith co nsel in his contention that as s ch ad st(ent and settle(ent a"ent! thedefendant has ass (ed personal liabilit) nder said policies! and! therefore! it can be s ed in itso$n ri"ht& An ad st(ent and settle(ent a"ent is no different fro( an) other a"ent fro( the pointof vie$ of his responsibilit) #sic%! for he also acts in a representative capacit)& 3henever he

ad sts or settles a clai(! he does it in behalf of his principal! and his action is bindin" not ponhi(self b t pon his principal& And here a"ain! the ordinar) r le of a"enc) applies& The follo$in"a thorities bear this o t:

An ins rance ad ster is ordinaril) a special a"ent for the person or co(pan) for $ho( he acts!and his a thorit) is pri(a facie coe8tensive $ith the b siness entr sted to hi(&

5An ad ster does not dischar"e f nctions of a 2 asi- dicial nat re! b t represents his e(plo)er!to $ho( he o$es faithf l service! and for his acts! in the e(plo)er s interest! the e(plo)er is


23/28

responsible so lon" as the acts are done $hile the a"ent is actin" $ithin the scope of hise(plo)(ent&5 #1 C& &S&! / ,- / 10&%

It! therefore! clearl) appears that the scope and e8tent of the f nctions of an ad st(ent andsettle(ent a"ent do not incl de personal liabilit)& 'is f nctions are (erel) to settle and ad stsclai(s in behalf of his principal if those clai(s are proven and ndisp ted! and if the clai( isdisp ted or is disapproved b) the principal! li9e in the instant case! the a"ent does not ass (ean) personal liabilit)& The reco rse of the ins red is to press his clai( a"ainst the principal&

The fore"oin" doctrine (a) have been en nciated b) this Co rt in /. /! b t the passa"e of ti(ehas not eroded its val e or (erit& It still applies $ith e2 al force and vi"or&

The a"ent can not be s ed nor held liable $hether sin"l) or solidaril) $ith its principal as lon" ashe acts $ithin his scope or a thorit)&

Bnder Article / // of the Civil Code! contracts are bindin" onl) pon the parties #and theirassi"ns and heirs% $ho e8ec te the(& The s b ect car"o ins rance $as bet$een the FirstIns rance Co(pan)! =td& and the Chin Gact Co&! =td&! both of Tai$an! and $as si"ned in Taipei!Tai$an b) the president of the First Ins rance Co(pan)! =td& and the president of the Chin GactCo&! =td& There is absol tel) nothin" in the contract $hich (entions the personal liabilit) ofpetitioner&

Second Reason: Absence of Solidarit) =iabilit)

?a) then petitioner! in its capacit) as resident a"ent #as fo nd in the case cited b) therespondent Co rt % be held solidaril) liable $ith the forei"n ins rer4 Article /+0 of the Civil Codeclearl) provides that 5#t%here is a solidar) liabilit) onl) $hen the obli"ation e8pressl) so states! or

$hen the la$ or the nat re of the obli"ation re2 ires solidarit)&5 The $ell-entrenched r le is thatsolidar) obli"ation cannot li"htl) be inferred& It ( st be positivel) and clearl) e8pressed& Thecontention that! in the end! it $o ld reall) be First Ins rance Co(pan)! =td& $hich $o ld be heldliable is specio s and cannot be accepted& S ch a stance $o ld inflict in stice pon petitioner

$hich $o ld be (ade to advance the f nds to settle the clai( $itho t an) ass rance that it cancollect fro( the principal $hich disapproved s ch clai(! in the first place& ?ore i(portantl)! s ch

position $o ld have absol tel) no le"al basis&

The Ins rance Code is 2 ite clear as to the P rpose and role of a resident a"ent& S ch a"ent! asa representative of the forei"n ins rance co(pan)! is tas9ed onl) to receive le"al processes onbehalf of its principal and not to ans$er personall) for an) ins rance clai(s& 3e 2 ote:

"'c. 1 0. Th' Co44-**-o#'r 4)*( r'F)-r' a* a co#$-(-o# r'c'$'#( (o (h' (ra#*ac(-o# o-#*)ra#c' )*-#'** -# (h' Ph-+- -#'* a# or'- # -#*)ra#c' co4 a# , (ha( *)chco4 a# -+' -# h-* o -c' a 9r-(('# o9'r o a((or#' $'*- #a(-# *o4' 'r*o# 9ho *ha++

' a r'*-$'#( o (h' Ph-+- -#'* a* -(* '#'ra+ a '#(, o# 9ho4 a# #o(-c' ro7-$'$ +a9or a# -#*)ra#c' o+-c , roo *)44o#* a#$ o(h'r +' a+ roc'**'* 4a ' *'r7'$ -# a++ac(-o#* or o(h'r +' a+ roc''$-# * a a-#*( *)ch co4 a# , a#$ co#*'#(-# (ha( *'r7-c') o# *)ch '#'ra+ a '#( *ha++ ' a$4-(('$ a#$ h'+$ a* 7a+-$ a* - *'r7'$ ) o# (h' or'- #

co4 a# a( -(* ho4' o -c'. A# *)ch or'- # co4 a# *ha++, a* )r(h'r co#$-(-o#r'c'$'#( (o (h' (ra#*ac(-o# o -#*)ra#c' )*-#'** -# (h' Ph-+- -#'*, 4a ' a#$ -+' 9-(h(h' Co44-**-o#'r a# a r''4'#( or *(- )+a(-o#, '/'c)('$ (h' ro 'r a)(hor-(-'* o *a-$co4 a# -# or4 a#$ *) *(a#c' a* o++o9*

Th' :#a4' o co4 a# ; $o'* h'r' *(- )+a(' a#$ a r'' -# co#*-$'ra(-o# o (h''r4-**-o# ra#('$ (h' I#*)ra#c' Co44-**-o#'r (o (ra#*ac( )*-#'** -# (h'

Ph-+- -#'*, (ha( - a( a# (-4' *)ch co4 a# *ha++ +'a7' (h' Ph-+- -#'*, or c'a*' (o(ra#*ac( )*-#'** (h'r'-#, or *ha++ ' 9-(ho)( a# a '#( -# (h' Ph-+- -#'* o# 9ho4 a##o(-c', roo o +o**, *)44o#*, or +' a+ roc'** 4a ' *'r7'$, (h'# -# a# ac(-o# or


24/28

roc''$-# ar-*-# o)( o a# )*-#'** or (ra#*ac(-o# 9h-ch occ)rr'$ -# (h' Ph-+- -#'*,*'r7-c' o a# #o(-c' ro7-$'$ +a9, or -#*)ra#c' o+-c , roo o +o**, *)44o#*, oro(h'r +' a+ roc'** 4a ' 4a$' ) o# (h' I#*)ra#c' Co44-**-o#'r *ha++ ha7' (h' *a4'

orc' a#$ ' 'c( a* - 4a$' ) o# (h' co4 a# .

Wh'#'7'r *)ch *'r7-c' o #o(-c', roo o +o**, *)44o#* or o(h'r +' a+ roc'** *ha++ '4a$' ) o# (h' Co44-**-o#'r h' 4)*(, 9-(h-# ('# $a * (h'r'a ('r, (ra#*4-( 4a-+,

o*(a ' a-$, a co o *)ch #o(-c', roo o +o**, *)44o#*, or o(h'r +' a+ roc'** (o (h'co4 a# a( -(* ho4' or r-#c- a+ o -c'. Th' *'#$-# o *)ch co o (h' Co44-**-o#'r*ha++ ' #'c'**ar ar( o (h' *'r7-c' o (h' #o(-c', roo o +o**, or o(h'r +' a+ roc'**.

!)r(h'r, 9' #o(' (ha( -# (h' ca*' c-('$ r'* o#$'#( Co)r(, '(-(-o#'r 9a* o)#$ (o ' ar'*-$'#( a '#( o !-r*( I#*)ra#c' Co. L($. I# (h' -#*(a#( ca*' ho9'7'r, (h' (r-a+ co)r( ha$ (oor$'r (h' *'r7-c' o *)44o#* ) o# !-r*( I#*)ra#c' Co., L($. 9h-ch 9o)+$ #o( ha7' ''##'c'**ar - '(-(-o#'r 9a* -(* r'*-$'#( a '#(. I#$''$, ro4 o)r r'a$-# o (h' r'cor$* o(h-* ca*', 9' -#$ #o ac()a+ a#$ +' a+ a*'* or (h' -#$-# o r'* o#$'#( Co)r( (ha(

'(-(-o#'r -* (h' r'*-$'#( a '#( o !-r*( I#*)ra#c' Co., L($.

Third Reason: *ot Real Part)-In-Interest

=astl)! bein" a (ere a"ent and representative! petitioner is also not the real part)-in-interest inthis case& An action is bro "ht for a practical p rpose! that is! to obtain act al and positive relief&If the part) s ed is not the proper part)! an) decision that (a) be rendered a"ainst hi( $o ld bef tile! for the decision cannot be enforced or e8ec ted& Section +! R le of the R les of Co rtidentifies $ho the real parties-in-interest are! th s:

Sec& +& Parties in interest& Ever) action ( st be prosec ted and defended in the na(e of thereal part) in interest& All persons havin" an interest in the s b ect of the action and in obtainin"the relief de(anded shall be oined as plaintiffs& All persons $ho clai( an interest in thecontrovers) or the s b ect thereof adverse to the! plaintiff! or $ho are necessar) to a co(pletedeter(ination or settle(ent of the 2 estions involved therein shall be oined as defendants&

The ca se of action of private respondent is based on a contract of ins rance $hich as alread)

sho$n $as not participated in b) petitioner& It is not a 5person $ho clai(#s% an interest adverse tothe plaintiff5 nor is said respondent 5necessar) to a co(plete deter(ination or settle(ent of the2 estions involved5 in the controvers)& Petitioner is i(properl) i(pleaded for not bein" a real-part)-interest& It $ill not benefit or s ffer in case the action prospers& +0

Resort to E2 it) ?isplaced

Finall)! respondent Co rt also contends that 5the interest of stice is better served b) holdin" thesettlin" a"ent ointl) and severall) liable $ith its principal&5 As no la$ bac9s p s chprono nce(ent! the appellate Co rt is th s resortin" to e2 it)& 'o$ever! e2 it) $hich has beenaptl) described as 5 stice o tside le"alit)!5 is availed of onl) in the absence of! and nevera"ainst! stat tor) la$ or dicial prono nce(ents& Bpon the other hand the liabilit) of a"ents isclearl) provided for b) o r la$s and e8istin" rispr dence&

3'EREFORE! in vie$ of the fore"oin" considerations! the Petition is GRA*TED and theDecision appealed fro( is REVERSED and SET ASIDE&

*o costs&

Rep blic of the PhilippinesSBPRE?E COBRTEr(ita! ?anila


25/28

/... ?arch / G&R& *o& //. 1

EB=A=IA RBSSE==! RBPERTO TABT'O! FRA*CISCO TABT'O! SBSA*A T& REA=ES!APITACIO TABT'O! DA*I=O TABT'O! BDIT'A PROS! GREGORIO TABT'O! DEODITA T&

BDI==A! AGRIPI*O TABT'O! FE=IM TABT'O! 3I==IA? TABT'O! A*D ?ARI=Q* PERA=ES!petitioners!

vs&

'O*ORA =E ABGBSTI*E A& VESTI=! ADRIA*O TAGA=OG! ?ARCE=O TABT'O! BA*ITA?E*DO A! DO?I*GO A*TI=A*! RAB= ATA=B*A A*D ARTE?IO CA ATI*GA*!respondents&

Facts:

This is a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the Order dated an ar) /+! /.. iss ed b)respondent d"e A " stine A& Vestil of the Re"ional Trial Co rt of ?anda e Cit)! ranch >!dis(issin" the co(plaint filed b) petitioners on "ro nd of lac9 of risdiction! as $ell as his Orderdated Febr ar) / ! /.. den)in" petitioners ?otion for Reconsideration of the order of dis(issal&

On Septe(ber +,! /..1! petitioners filed a co(plaint a"ainst private respondents! deno(inated5DEC=ARATIO* OF *B==ITQ A*D PARTITIO*!5 $ith the Re"ional Trial Co rt of ?anda e Cit)!

ranch >! doc9eted as Civil Case *o& ?A* ++ & The co(plaint! in s bstance! alle"ed thatpetitioners are co-o$ners of that parcel of land! =ot >/1. sit ated in =iloan! Ceb and containin"an area of >!. &10 s2 are (eters! (ore or less& The land $as previo sl) o$ned b) thespo ses Casi(ero Ta tho and Cesaria Ta tho& Bpon the death of said spo ses! the propert)

$as inherited b) their le"al heirs! herein petitioners and private respondents& Since then! the lothad re(ained ndivided ntil petitioners discovered a p blic doc (ent deno(inated5DEC=ARATIO* OF 'EIRS A*D DEED OF CO*FIR?ATIO* OF A PREVIOBS ORA=AGREE?E*T OF PARTITIO*!5 e8ec ted on ne >! /..0& ) virt e of this deed! private

respondents divided the propert) a(on" the(selves to the e8cl sion of petitioners $ho are alsoentitled to the said lot as heirs of the late spo ses Casi(ero Ta tho and Cesaria Ta tho&Petitioners clai(ed that the doc (ent $as false and per rio s as the private respondents $erenot the onl) heirs and that no oral partition of the propert) $hatsoever had been (ade bet$eenthe heirs& The co(plaint pra)ed that the doc (ent be declared n ll and void and an order beiss ed to partition the land a(on" all the heirs

Petitioners (aintain the vie$ that the co(plaint filed before the Re"ional Trial Co rt is for theann l(ent of a doc (ent deno(inated as 5DEC=ARATIO* OF 'EIRS A*D DEED OFCO*FIR?ATIO* OF PREVIOBS ORA= PARTITIO*!5 $hich is clearl) one incapable ofpec niar) esti(ation! th s! co"ni;able b) the Re"ional Trial Co rt&

Private respondents! on the other hand! insists that the action is one for re-partition and since the

assessed val e of the propert) as stated in the co(plaint is P !000&00! then! the case falls $ithinthe risdiction of the ? nicipal Circ it Trial Co rt of =iloan! Co(postela! Ceb &

Iss e:

/% risdiction

R lin":


26/28

The co(plaint filed before the Re"ional Trial Co rt is do btless one incapable of pec niar)esti(ation and therefore $ithin the risdiction of said co rt&

In Sin"son" vs& Isabela Sa$(ill!/+ 6,, SCRA >+ #/. .%7 $e had the occasion to r le that:

#I%n deter(inin" $hether an action is one the s b ect (atter of $hich is not capable of pec niar)esti(ation this Co rt has adopted the criterion of first ascertainin" the nat re of the principalaction or re(ed) so "ht& If it is pri(aril) for the recover) of a s ( of (one)! the clai( isconsidered capable of pec niar) esti(ation! and $hether risdiction is in the ( nicipal co rts orin the co rts of first instance $o ld depend on the a(o nt of the clai(& 'o$ever! $here the basiciss e is so(ethin" other than the ri"ht to recover a s ( of (one)! $here the (one) clai( isp rel) incidental to! or a conse2 ence of! the principal relief so "ht! this Co rt has considereds ch actions as cases $here the s b ect of the liti"ation (a) not be esti(ated in ter(s of (one)!and are co"ni;able e8cl sivel) b) co rts of first instance #no$ Re"ional Trial Co rts%&6See also:Ra)( ndo v& Co rt of Appeals! +/ SCRA 1 #/..+%7

E8a(ples of actions incapable of pec niar) esti(ation are those for specific perfor(ance!s pport! or foreclos re of (ort"a"e or ann l(ent of d"(ent /1 6A(or"anda v& Co rt ofAppeals! />> SCRA +0 De es s v& Garcia! /. SCRA 1&7 also actions 2 estionin" the validit)of a (ort"a"e!/ 6 na)o" v& T nos! /0> Phil& / &7 ann llin" a deed of sale or conve)ance andto recover the price paid6Philippine Far(in" Corporation! =td& v& =ianos! /1 SCRA .1. Arro; v&Alo ada! /. SCRA //&7 and for rescession! $hich is a co nterpart of specific perfor(ance&/6=apitan v& Scandia! +1 SCRA 1 .&7

3hile actions nder Sec& # % of &P& /+. are also incapable of pec niar) esti(ation! the la$specificall) (andates that the) are co"ni;able b) the ?TC! ?ETC! or ?CTC $here the assessedval e of the real propert) involved does not e8ceed P+0!000&00 in ?etro ?anila! or P 0!000&00! iflocated else$here& If the val e e8ceeds P+0!000&00 or P 0!000&00 as the case (a) be! it is theRe"ional Trial Co rts $hich have risdiction nder Sec& /.#+%&/, 6Sec& /.& risdiction in civilcases&- Re"ional Trial Co rts shall e8ercise e8cl sive ori"inal risdiction:

#+% In all civil actions $hich involve title to! or possession of real propert)! or an) interest therein!

$here the assessed val e of the propert) involved e8ceeds T$ent) tho sand pesos #P+0!000&00%or! for civil actions in ?etro ?anila! $here s ch val e e8ceeds Fift) tho sand pesos #P 0!000&00%e8cept actions for forcible entr) into and nla$f l detainer of lands or b ildin"s! ori"inal

risdiction over $hich is conferred pon the ?etropolitan Trial Co rts! ? nicipal Trial Co rts and? nicipal Circ it Trial Co rts

'o$ever! the s b ect (atter of the co(plaint in this case is ann l(ent of a doc (entdeno(inated as 5DEC=ARATIO* OF 'EIRS A*D DEED OF CO*FIR?ATIO* OF PREVIOBSORA= PARTITIO*&5

The (ain p rpose of petitioners in filin" the co(plaint is to declare n ll and void the doc (ent in $hich private respondents declared the(selves as the onl) heirs of the late spo ses Casi(eroTa tho and Cesaria Ta tho and divided his propert) a(on" the(selves to the e8cl sion of

petitioners $ho also clai( to be le"al heirs and entitled to the propert)& 3hile the co(plaint alsopra)s for the partition of the propert)! this is st incidental to the (ain action! $hich is thedeclaration of n llit) of the doc (ent above-described& It is a8io(atic that risdiction over thes b ect (atter of a case is conferred b) la$ and is deter(ined b) the alle"ations in the co(plaintand the character of the relief so "ht! irrespective of $hether the plaintiff is entitled to all or so(eof the clai(s asserted therein&/. 6Garcia v& Co rt of Appeals! + SCRA + . Cani;a v& Co rt ofAppeals! +>, SCRA >10&7


27/28

3'EREFORE! pre(ises considered! the petition is hereb) GRA*TED& The Order dis(issin"Civil Case *o& ?A*-++ ! as $ell as the Order den)in" the (otion for reconsideration of saidOrder! is SET ASIDE&

A& GA=EO*

SECO*D DIVISIO*

6G&R& *o& / 11+& A " st /! +0007

?A& =OBISA T& BE! petitioner, vs. COBRT OF APPEA=S! RTC- r& / ,! PASIG CITQ! and*ICO=AAS & N=AVER! respondents.

Facts:

*icolaas Nlaver lod"ed a co(plaint a"ainst ?a& =o isa e for alle"ed violation of the provisionsof their contract! referrin" pri(aril) to her fail re to pa) the f ll p rchase price and her ta9in"possession of the propert) $itho t his consent&

=ater! Nlaver a(ended his Co(plaint b) i(pleadin" Golden Dra"on Real Estate Corporation#GDREC% and its officers an ?i" el Vas2 e; and ?ariel R& Cr ;& As a(ended! he also so "htto recover da(a"es fro( the( and for e to s rrender possession of the nit to GDREC $hich!in t rn! sho ld e8ec te an Absol te Deed of Sale in his favor&

e alle"es that $hen Nlaver a(ended his Co(plaint for the first ti(e! his ori"inal Co(plaint $asdee(ed s perseded& It disappeared fro( the records of the case& She th s ar" es that Nlaver sca se of action in his first A(ended Co(plaint! bein" one for specific perfor(ance a"ainstGDREC! $as be)ond the risdiction of the trial co rt b t vested in the '=BR & The trial co rtco ld not have validl) ac2 ired risdiction over her alone to the e8cl sion of GDREC beca seboth parties are indispensable for a co(plete resol tion of the case& She f rther ar" es that

$hen Nlaver a(ended his Co(plaint the second ti(e! his evident p rpose $as to confer

risdiction ane$ on the trial co rt over his ca se of action a"ainst her&

Iss es:

Is the trial co rt vested $ith risdiction over the case filed b) Nlaver a"ainst e despite theincl sion of GDREC and its officers in the A(ended Co(plaint4

3hether or not a different ca se of action is introd ced b) a(end(ents #as (ade b) Nlaver% tothe co(plaint4

R lin":

In deter(inin" $hether a different ca se of action is introd ced b) a(end(ents to the co(plaint! $hat ( st be ascertained is $hether the defendants shall be re2 ired to ans$er for a liabilit) orle"al obli"ation $holl) different fro( that stated in the ori"inal co(plaint& An a(end(ent $ill notbe considered as statin" a ne$ ca se of action if the fact alle"ed in the a(ended co(plaintsho$s s bstantiall) the sa(e $ron" $ith respect to the sa(e (atter b t is (ore f ll) anddifferentl) stated! or $here aver(ents $hich $ere i(plied are (ade e8press! or the s b ect of thecontrovers) or the liabilit) so "ht to be enforced re(ains the sa(e


28/28

It is settled that risdiction of co rts over the s b ect (atter of the liti"ation is conferred b) la$and deter(ined b) the alle"ations in the co(plaint& risdiction once ac2 ired is not lost pon theinstance of the parties b t contin es ntil the case is ter(inated&

At an) rate! the filin" of the first a(ended Co(plaint did not res lt in o stin" the trial co rt of its risdiction over the entire case beca se it retained risdiction over the ca se of action filed

a"ainst e&

The trial co rt havin" ac2 ired risdiction over the s b ect (atter as $ell as over the nat re ofthe action on the ori"inal co(plaint! it co ld validl) iss e an order to a(end the ori"inalco(plaint&

There is no 2 estion that the case still bein" liti"ated before the Co rt of Appeals fro( thedecision of the '=BR and the Office of the President is pre dicial to the case pendin" beforethe trial co rt& An affir(ance b) the appellate co rt or b) this Co rt of the '=BR r lin" $ithrespect specificall) to the ri"ht of e to possess and o$n Bnit /.0+-A $o ld $arrant thedis(issal of the case before the trial co rt& t if the final r lin" in the '=BR case $ereother$ise! the trial co rt co ld then proceed to resolve Nlaver s pra)ers therein& Th s! altho "h

$e affir( the r lin" of the Co rt of Appeals on the risdiction of the trial co rt over the case filed

b) Nlaver a"ainst e! resol tion thereon b) the trial co rt on the (erits sho ld be held inabe)ance ntil the iss es presented in the '=BR case shall have been finall) settled&

W%ERE!ORE ! the petition is DE*IED . The #ecision of the Co rt of Appeals of +. ?a) /.., $hich affir(ed the $rder of the Re"ional Trial Co rt of Pasi" Cit)- r& / , dis(issin" $itho tpre dice the Amended Complaint a"ainst Golden Dra"on Real Estate Corporation and itsofficers den)in" petitioner ?a& =o isa T& e

civ pro digested cases_as of jan 2009

Documents