civil procedure pals

8/20/2019 Civil Procedure PALS

1/185

CIVIL PROCEDURE

PART I

1.General Principles

1.1 Concept of Remedial Law

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the methods of enforcing rights and obligations created by substantive law in case of invasion of these rights.

at!re of Remedial Law"

Since they (remedial law) are promulgated by authority of law, t#e$#a%e t#e force and e&ect of law if not in conict with substantive law

( Ateneo v. De La Rosa, G.R. No. L-286, March 28, 1946)

1.' (!)stanti%e Law %is a %is Remedial Law

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, denes andregulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to acause of action that part of the law which courts are established toadminister as opposed to ad!ective or remedial law, which prescribes themethod of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. (Bustos v.Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949 Motion or Reconsi!erationReso"ution)

Distinction )etween *Remed$+ and (!)stanti%e ri,#t+"

"he distinction between #remed$# and #s!)stanti%e ri,#t# isincapable of e$act denition. "he di%erence is somewhat a &uestion of degree. 't is dicult to draw a line in any particular case beyond whichlegislative power over remedy and procedure can pass without touchingupon the substantive rights of parties a%ected, as it is impossible to $ thatboundary by general condition. "his being so, it is inevitable that theSupreme ourt in ma*ing rules should step on substantive rights, and theonstitution must be presumed to tolerate if not to e$pect such incursion asdoes not a%ect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner or deprive him

of a defense, but operates only in a limited and unsubstantial manner to hisdisadvantage. +or the ourts power is not merely to compile, revise or codifythe rules of procedure e$isting at the time of the onstitutions approval. "hispower is #to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedurein all courts,# which is a power to adopt a general, complete andcomprehensive system of procedure, adding new and di%erent rules withoutregard to their source and discarding old ones. (Bustos v. Lucero, su#ra)

1.'.1 -eanin, of Proced!ral Laws

-ccording to De "os $antos v. %!a. !e Man&u'at /0rocedural law refers

to the ad!ective law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in orderthat courts may be able to administer !ustice. 0rocedural laws do not come

within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against

the retroactive operation of statues 1 they may be given retroactive e%ect


2/185

on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this

will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely

a%ected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.2

((risci""a A")a *ose, %s. Ra)on +. *ave""ana, t A"., G.R. No. 1829, *anuar/

2, 2012

1.'.' Proced!ral r!les applica)le to actions pendin, at t#e time ofprom!l,ation

Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered

applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage.

0rocedural laws and rules are retroactive in that sense and to that e$tent.

"he e%ect of procedural statutes and rules on the rights of a litigant may not

preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. "his retroactive

application does not violate any right of a person adversely a%ected. 3either

is it constitutionally ob!ectionable. "he reason is that, as a general rule, novested right may attach to or arise from procedural laws and rules. 't has

been held that #a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a

litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil

or criminal, of any other than the e$isting rules of procedure.# 4ore so when,

as in this case, petitioner admits that it was not able to pay the doc*et fees

on time. learly, there were no substantive rights to spea* of when the R"

dismissed the 3otice of -ppeal. (ana/ Rai"a/s nc., %s. 3eva Mana&e)ent

An! Deve"o#)ent +or#oration, (a)#"ona A&ro-n!ustria" +or#oration, An!

$#ouses +an!e"aria Da/ot An! !)un!o Da/ot, G. R. No. 14061, *anuar/ 2, 2012

1.'. Li)eral constr!ction or s!spension of proced!ral r!les

't should be emphasi5ed that the resort to a liberal application, orsuspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as thee$ception to the well6settled principle that rules must be complied with forthe orderly administration of !ustice. Bui"!in& +are +or#oration5Leo#ar!$ecurit/ nvesti&ation A&enc/ An!57r Ru#erto (rotacio, %s. M/rnaMacarae&, G.R. No. 19810 Dece)'er 2012

'n Rura" Baners Association o the (hi"i##ines v. :an&ha"-$a"va;a, thisourt held 7bedience to the re&uirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to e$pect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of therules cannot !ustly be rationali5ed by har*ing on the policy of liberalconstruction. 0rocedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the ad!udicationof cases. ourts and litigants ali*e are thus en!oined to abide strictly by therules. -nd while the ourt, in some instances, allows a rela$ation in theapplication of the rules, this was never intended to forge a bastion for erringlitigants to violate the rules with impunity. "he liberality in the interpretationand application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under !ustiable

causes and circumstances. 8hile it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is e&ually true that every case must be prosecuted inaccordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedyadministration of !ustice. Mca-M' +ount!on +ar!s (hi"i##ines nc., A)a'"e


3/185

R. Gui"u< %, A)a'"e +. A&ui"u< =, +ie"o +. A&ui"u


4/185

"he Supreme ourt shall have the following power> 0romulgate rules

concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,

practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the

integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under6privileged. Such rules shall

provide a simplied and ine$pensive procedure for the speedy disposition of

cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not

diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special

courts and &uasi6!udicial bodies shall remain e%ective unless disapproved by

the Supreme ourt. Artic"e %, $ection , 198 (hi". +onstitution

1..1 Limitations of R!le-a2in, Power of t#e (!preme Co!rt

:. "he rules provide a simplied and ine$pensive procedure for thespeedy disposition of cases

?. "he rules shall be uniform (not di%erent or varying) for all courts of the same grade

@. "he rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.Artic"e %, $ection , 198 (hi". +onstitution

1..' Power of t#e (!preme Co!rt to amend and s!spend proced!ralr!les

"he courts have the power to rela$ or suspend technical or procedural

rules or to e$cept a case from their operation when compelling reasons so

warrant or when the purpose of !ustice re&uires it. 8hat constitutes good and

sucient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is !iscretionar/ u#on the court+o))issioner o nterna" Revenue v. Mi&rant (a&'i"ao

+or#oration, G.R. No. 199. 7cto'er 12, 2006.

'n fact, this ourt has held that even if there was complete non6

compliance with the rule on certication against forum shopping, the ourt

may still proceed to decide the case on the merits, pursuant to its in#erent

power to s!spend its own r!les on ,ro!nds3 as stated a)o%e3of

s!)stantial 4!stice and apparent merit of t#e case. $M Lan!, nc.

?or)er"/ $hoe)art, nc. an! @atsons (ersona" +are $tore, (hi"s., nc. %s.+it/ o Mani"a, Li'ert/ :o"e!o, in her ocia" ca#acit/ as the +it/ :reasurer o

Mani"a, et a". G.R. No. 1911. 7cto'er 22, 2012

1... Power of t#e (!preme Co!rt to prom!l,ate r!les carries wit#

it t#e power to o%ert!rn 4!dicial precedents"

a) "he constitutional power of the Supreme ourt to promulgate rules

of practice and procedure to amend or repeal the same necessaril$ carries

wit# it t#e power to o%ert!rn 4!dicial precedents on points of

remedial law t#ro!,# t#e amendment of t#e R!les of Co!rt .(in&a v.

3eirs o $antia&o, G.R No. 104, *une 0, 2006.

1..5. Power of t#e (!preme Co!rt to prom!l,ate r!les are means

for t#e co!rt to e6ercise 4!risdiction"

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/197151.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/197151.pdf


5/185

"he Ru"es o +ourt does not dene !urisdictional boundaries of thecourts. 'n promulgating the Ru"es o +ourt , the Supreme ourt iscircumscribed by the 5one properly denominated as the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts

conse&uently, t#e Rules of Court can onl$ determine t#e means3 wa$sor manner in w#ic# said 4!risdiction3 as 76ed )$ t#e Constit!tionand acts of Con,ress3 s#all )e e6ercised.Minerva A. Go)eor Genera" Re/na"!o Ma#a&u, +o))an!in& Genera" o the (hi"i##ine Ar)/s10th nantr/ Division, et a".n the Matter o the (etition or the ssuance o a@rit o A)#aro in ?avor o +ar"os sa&ani :. Carate %s. Ma>or Genera"Re/na"!o Ma#a&u, +o))an!in& Genera" o the (hi"i##ine Ar)/s 10thnantr/ Division, et a"., G.R. No. 1896895G.R. No. 1896905G.R. No.189691. Nove)'er 1, 2012

1..9 Power of t#e (!preme Co!rt to amend and s!spend proced!ralr!les

"he courts have the power to rela$ or suspend technical or procedural

rules or to e$cept a case from their operation when compelling reasons so

warrant or when the purpose of !ustice re&uires it. 8hat constitutes good and

sucient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is !iscretionar/

u#on the court+o))issioner o nterna" Revenue v. Mi&rant (a&'i"ao

+or#oration, G.R. No. 199. 7cto'er 12, 2006.

1..:. Primar$ o)4ecti%e of t#e s!spension of t#e r!les

'n the interest of !ust and e$peditious proceedings, the Supreme ourt

may suspend the application of t#e R!les of Co!rt and except a case

from its operation )eca!se t#e R!les were precisel$ adopted wit#

the primary ob!ective of enhancing fair trial and e$peditious !ustice Re#u'"ic

v. +A, et a"., L-10-04, Ma/ 1, 198.

1.5 at!re of P#ilippine Co!rts

1.5.1 /#at is a Co!rt0

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdf


6/185

-n organ of government belonging to the !udicial department thefunction of which is the application of the laws to controversies broughtbefore it as well as the public administration of !ustice B"acs, th !ition,6.

- court is called upon and authori5ed to administer !ustice. Sometimesit refers to the place where !ustice is administered 20 A) *ur 2!, +ourts, E 1,196F 21 +.*.$., +ourts, E 1.

't is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (3i!a"&o v.

Man&"a#us, 64 7.G. 189)

1.5.'. Co!rt distin,!is#ed as from ;!d,e

:. - co!rt is a tri'una" ocially assembled under authority of law a 4!d,e is simply an ocer of such tribunal @a&en 3orst v. (hi"a!e"#hiansurance +o)#an/ 8#a. , 82! 62.

?. - court is an organ of the government with a personality se#aratean! !istinct from the person or !udge who sits on it.

@. - court is an oce while a !udge is a public ocer.A. ."he circumstances of the court are not a%ected by the circumstance

that would a%ect the !udge. "he continuity of a court and the ecacy of itsproceeding are not a%ected by the death, resignation, or cessation from theservice of the !udge presiding over it. 'n other words the !udge may resign,become incapacitated, or be dis&ualied to hold oce but the court remains.

"he death of the !udge does not mean the death of the court Riano,+ivi" (roce!ureF restate)ent or the 'ar 2009, #.4.

1.5. Classi7cation of P#ilippine Co!rts

Constit!tional Co!rt 6 "hose which owe their creation and e$istence tothe onstitution. 'ts e$istence as well as the deprivation of its !urisdiction andpowers cannot be made a sub!ect of legislation. B$ample T#e (!premeCo!rtArtic"e %, $ection 11, 198 (hi". +onstitution

3ote Supreme ourt is the only onstitutional ourt in the 0hilippines. -llothers are Statutory ourts.

(tat!tor$ Co!rts C - court created by law whose !urisdiction ise$clusively determined by legislation. 't may be abolished by ongress by

simply repealing the law which created them.B$ample ourt of -ppeals, Regional "rial ourts, 4etropolitanD4unicipalourts create! '/ B( 129, "he ourt of "a$ -ppeals create! '/ RA 112+amily ourts, Shari=ah Eistrict ourts, Shari=ah icuit ourts (0.E. :FG@)


7/185

1.5.5. at!re of P#ilippine Co!rts" Law and E

a. Co!rt of law C decides a case according to the #ro)u"&ate! "a

b. Co!rt of Eust without in&uiring into the terms of thestatutes.

0hilippines courts, either original or appellate, e$ercise both the legaland e&uitable !urisdictions .$. v. :a)#aron&, G.R. No. 92, Au&ust 2,191.

1.5.8. /#at is 4!risdiction0

Refers to the power and authority of the court to hear, determine

controversies, and decide a case (eo#"e v. Mariano, G.R. L-402, *une 0,196

1. =inds of 4!risdiction"

a> Ori,inal and Appellate ;!risdiction

a) Ori,inal ;!risdiction C power of the court to ta*e cogni5ance of acase at its inception or commencement.

b) Appellate ;!risdiction C power vested in a superior court to review

and revise the !udicial action of a lower court.

)> General and (pecial ;!risdiction

a) General ;!risdiction C authority of the court to hear and determineall actions and suits.

B$ample Regional "rial ourt is a court of general !urisdiction

b) Special or Limited Hurisdiction C authority of the court to hear anddetermine particular cases only.

E6ample" 4"D4" can entertain petition for habeas corpus if thereis no available R" !udge

1.5.9.Principle of ;!dicial ?ierarc#$"

ia,G.R. No. 16, *u"/


8/185

2, 200F De "os Re/es v. (eo#"e, G.R. No. 1829, *anuar/ 2, 2006)

General rule" - higher court will not entertain a direct resort to it I3LBSSthe redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower court.

Exception 'n cases of national interest and of serious implications,

Supreme ourt does not hesitate to set aside the rule and proceed with thedetermination of the case +7ML+ v. Iui>ano-(a!i""a, G.R. No. 11992,$e#te)'er 18, 2002.

P!rposes of Doctrine of ?ierarc#$ of Co!rts@ E6ception

"his ourt=s original !urisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not

e$clusive. 't is shared by this ourt with Regional "rial ourts and with the

ourt of -ppeals. "his concurrence of !urisdiction is not, however, to be ta*en

as according to parties see*ing any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained

freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. "here is after all a hierarchy of courts. T#at #ierarc#$ is determinati%e of

t#e %en!e of appeals, and also ser%es as a ,eneral determinant of

t#e appropriate for!m for petitions for the e$traordinary writs. -

becoming regard for that !udicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that

petitions for the issuance of e$traordinary writs against rst level (#inferior#)

courts should be led with the Regional "rial ourt, and those against the

latter, with the ourt of -ppeals. - direct invocation of the Supreme ourt=s

original !urisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed onl$ w#en t#ere

are special and important reasons t#erefor3 clearl$ and speci7call$

set o!t in t#e petition.nite! +"ai)ants Association o NA nican %s.

Nationa" "ectriJcation A!)inistration NA, G.R. No. 1810, *anuar/ 1,

2012

Doctrine of Transcendental Importance

Bvidently, the instant petition should have been led with the R".?owe%er3 as an e6ception to t#is ,eneral r!le3 t#e principle of #ierarc#$ of co!rts ma$ )e set aside for special and importantreasons. Such reason e$ists in the instant case involving as it does the

employment of the entire plantilla of 3B-, more than JFF employees all told,who were e%ectively dismissed from employment in one swift stro*e. "his tothe mind of the ourt entails its attention. nite! +"ai)ants Association o NA nican %s. Nationa" "ectriJcation A!)inistration NA, G.R. No.1810, *anuar/ 1, 2012

"he rule on hierarchy of courts does not prevent the Supreme ourtfrom assuming !urisdiction where e$ceptional and compelling circumstances !ustify the resort to such remedy, in which case, the Supreme ourt e$ercisesits primary !urisdiction ( A&an vs. (hi"i##ine nternationa" Air :er)ina" +o.,K(A:+7, G.R. No. 1001, Ma/ , 200).

Doctrine of oninterference or ;!dicial (ta)ilit$

ourts of e&ual and coordinate !urisdiction cannot interfere or reviewwith the orders of each other. - court is barredfrom reviewing !udgments of a


9/185

co6e&ual court over which it has no appellate !urisdiction nor power of review.

Doctrine of oninterference applica)le in administrati%e )odies"

"he doctrine applies with e&ual force to administrative bodies. 8henthe law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to

the S or -, it means that such body is co6e&ual with the R" in terms of ran* and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter +ivi"(roce!ure KA Restate)ent ?or :he Bar, Riano, 200 e!. +itin& $inter +or#oration an! (hivi!ec n!ustria" Authorit/ v. +a&a/an "ectric (oer an!Li&ht +o., nc., G.R. No. 121, 2 A#ri" 2002.

Doctrine of Primar$ ;!risdiction

"he court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a&uestion which is within the !urisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior toresolving the same, where the &uestion demands the e$ercise of sound

administrative discretion re&uiring special *nowledge, e$perience andservices in determining technical or intricate matters of fact. (7)ictin vs.+ourt o A##ea"s, G.R. No. 148004, *anuar/ 22, 200)

E6ceptions"a> where there is estoppel on the part of the party invo*ing the

doctrine)> where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,

amounting to lac* of !urisdictionc> where there is unreasonable delay or ocial inaction that will

irretrievably pre!udice the complainant

d> where the amount involved is relatively small so as to ma*e therule impractical and oppressive

e> where the &uestion involved is purely legal and will ultimately haveto be decided by the courts of !ustice

f> where !udicial intervention is urgent,> when its application may cause great and irreparable damage#> where the controverted acts violate due processi> when the issue of non6e$haustion of administrative remedies has

been rendered moot4> when there is no other plain, speedy and ade&uate remedy2> when strong public interest is involved and,

l> in Huo arranto proceedings.Re#u'"ic v. Laca#, K.R. 3o. :G?@, 4arch ?, ?FFJ, :J SR- ?)

Doctrine of Ad#erence of ;!risdictionBContin!in, ;!risdiction

Hurisdiction, once it attaches, cannot be ousted by the happening of subse&uent events even of such character which should have prevented !urisdiction from attaching in the rst instance. /"he rule of adherence of !urisdiction (e$ists) until a cause is nally resolved or ad!udicated2. A'a!, et.a". v. R:+ o Mani"a, et. a". G.R. No. L-60, 7cto'er 12, 198

Exceptions:

8hen the change in !urisdiction is curative in character A'a! et. a". v.R:+ o Mani"a et. a"., su#ra


10/185

'.?ow 4!risdiction is ac

'.1 O%er t#e Plainti&

"he general rule in this !urisdiction is that a court ac&uires !urisdictionover the person of the plainti% )$ t#e 7lin, of #is complaint. (Di"e& v.(hi""i#s, G.R. L-1996, 7cto'er 0, 1964, citin& Mani"a Rai"roa! +o. vs. Attorne/ Genera", 20 (hi". 2)

'.1.'. O%er t#e defendant"

'n civil cases, !urisdiction over the person of the defendant maybe ac&uired either by service of summons or by the defendant=s voluntaryappearance in court and submission to its authority. 7#ti)a Rea"t/ +or#oration %s. 3ert< (hi"., =c"usive, nc. G.R. No. 180. *anuar/ 9, 201)

Hurisdiction over the defendant is ac&uired either upon a valid serviceof summons or the defendant=s voluntary appearance in court. A!a" A!a"v. +ar"os, G.R. No. 19, Dece)'er 1, 2010

Hurisdiction over the person of the defendant is re&uired only in anaction in #ersona). Hurisdiction over the person of the defendant is 37" aprere&uisite in an action in re) and Huasi in re) Go)e< v. +A, 42 $+RA98.

'.' O%er (!)4ect -atter"

-eanin, of ;!risdiction o%er (!)4ect -atter

Hurisdiction over the sub!ect6matter is the power to hear and determinecases of the general class to which the proceedings in &uestion belong (. H.S., p. @9) and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organi5es thecourt and denes its powers (;anco BspaMol +ilipino vs. 0alanca, @J 0hil. N?:0er*ins vs. Ei5on, AF 7%. Ka5. 3o. J, @d Sup. p. ?:9 3g Si ho* vs. Oera,K.R. 3o. A9JA). Re/es v. Dia Hurisdiction over the sub!ect matter is the power to hear and determine

the general class to which the proceedings in &uestion belong. ;!risdiction

o%er t#e s!)4ect matter is conferred )$ law and not by the consent or

ac&uiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court

that it e$ists. ;asic is the rule that !urisdiction over the sub!ect matter is

determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint.

G.R. No. 1819, Dani"o $. rsua %s. Re#u'"ic o the (hi"i##ines

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdf


11/185

?ow ;!risdiction is conferred and determined

It is an elementar$ r!le of proced!ral law t#at 4!risdictiono%er t#e s!)4ect matter of t#e case is conferred )$ law and is

determined )$ t#e alle,ations of t#e complaint irrespective of whetherthe plainti% is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims assertedtherein. -s a necessary conse&uence, the !urisdiction of the court cannot bemade to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motionto dismiss, for otherwise, the &uestion of !urisdiction would almost entirelydepend upon the defendant. 8hat determines the !urisdiction of the court isthe nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in thecomplaint. "he averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.?e %. Ra#sin&, :ita +. %i""anueva an! Annie ?. A#are>a!o, re#resente! '/ !&ar A#are>a!o %s. 3on. *u!&eMa=i)ino R. A'"es, o R:+-Branch 4, Mas'ate +it/F $$G:. !ison Rura", et

a". G.R. No. 118. 7cto'er 1, 2012

It is a )asic r!le t#at 4!risdiction o%er t#e s!)4ect matter isdetermined )$ t#e alle,ations in t#e complaint. 't is determinede$clusively by the onstitution and the law. 't cannot be conferred by thevoluntary act or agreement of the parties, or ac&uired through or waived,enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by theac&uiescence of the court. 8ell to emphasi5e, it is neither for the court northe parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative incharacter. Men!o


12/185

E&ects of Estoppel on o)4ections to 4!risdiction

"he defense of lac* of !urisdiction cannot be waived and may be raisedat any stage of the proceeding even on appeal since it is conferred bylawDe Leon vs. +ourt o A##ea"s, 24 $+RA 166, 199.

- party may be barred from raising the defense of lac* of !urisdiction or !urisdiction may be waived on the ground of estoppel by laches. - partycannot invo*e the !urisdiction of a court to secure armative relief againsthis opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or&uestion that same !urisdiction :i>a) v. $i'on&hano/, G.R. No. L-2140, A#ri"1, 1968.

Lac2 of 4!risdiction o%er s!)4ect matter %s. lac2 of 4!risdiction o%er

person of t#e petitioner

Lac* of !urisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the

!udgment or nal order is either lac* of !urisdiction over the sub!ect matter or

nature of the action, or lac* of !urisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

"he former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law denes the

!urisdiction of the courts over the sub!ect matter or nature of the action. "he

latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or

other process on the petitioner. - !udgment or nal order issued by the trial

court without !urisdiction over the sub!ect matter or nature of the action is

always void, and, in the words of Hustice Street in ;anco BspaMol6+ilipino v.

0alanca (@J 0hil NAN P:N:GQ), /in this sense it may be said to be a lawless

thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored

wherever and whenever it e$hibits its head.2 ;ut the defect of lac* of

!urisdiction over the person, being a matter of procedural law, may be

waived by the party concerned either e$pressly or impliedly. ((inausuan

$eaoo! 3ouse-Ro=as B"v!., nc. v. ?ar ast Ban an! :rust +#., no Ban o

the (hi"i##ine s"an!s, et a"., K.R. 3o. :NN?9, Hanuary ?F, ?F:A.)

'. O%er t#e Iss!es

"his is determined and conferred by the pleadings led in the case bythe parties, or by their agreement in a pre6trial order or stipulation, or, attimes by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to ob!ect toevidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. ,Rule :F. De *o/a v. MarHue


13/185

'.5 O%er t#e Res or Propert$ In%ol%ed in Liti,ation

"his is ac&uired by the actual or constructive sei5ure by the court of the thing in &uestion, thus placing it in custo!ia "e&is, as in attachment or

garnishment or by provision of law which recogni5es in the court the powerto deal with the property or sub!ect matter within its territorial !urisdiction, asin land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real propertyin the 0hilippines of a non6resident defendant. De *o/a v. MarHue


14/185

)an!a)us pursuant to the Ru"es o (roce!ure or nviron)enta" +ases ( A.M. No. 09-6-8-$+,eOective 29 A#ri" 2010)

). wit# t#e CA3(ADIGAAAand RTC

:. 0etitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamusagainst courts of the rst level and other bodiesand

?. 0etitions for


15/185

a. with the SC

-ssessment -ppeals, 7ther &uasi6!udicialagencies 3LR

?. 0etition for 8rit of a"iasan an!continuin& )an!a)us pursuant to theRu"es o (roce!ure or nviron)enta"

+ases ( A.M. No. 09-6-8-$+, eOective 29 A#ri" 2010)

). with SC,Sandiganbayan and RTC

:. 0etitions for certiorari, prohibition ormandamus against courts of the rstlevel and other bodies and

?. 0etitions for


16/185

APPELLATE:. 'n criminal o%enses (:) over appeals from the

!udgments, resolutions, or orders of the R" inta$ cases originally decided by them, in theirrespective territorial !urisdiction and (?) over

petitions for review of the !udgments, resolutionsor orders of the R" in the e$ercise of theirappellate !urisdiction over ta$ cases originallydecided by the 4e"s, 4"s,and 4"s in theirrespective !urisdiction

?. 'n ta$ collection cases (:) over appeals from the !udgments, resolutions, or orders of the R" inta$ collection cases originally decided by them,in their respective territorial !urisdiction and (?)over petitions for review of the !udgments,resolutions or orders of the R" in the the

e$ercise of their appellate !urisdiction over ta$collection cases originally decided by the 4e"s,4"s,and 4"s in their respective !urisdiction.

E6cl!si%e ori,inalor appellate to

re%iew )$ appeal

:. Eecisions of 'R in cases involving disputedassessment, refunds of internal revenue ta$es,fees or other charges, penalties in relationthereto, or other matters arising under the 3'Ror other laws administered by the ;'R

?. 'naction by the 'R in cases involving disputedassessment, refunds of internal revenue ta$es,fees or other charges, penalties in relation

thereto, or other matters arising under the 3'Ror other laws administered by the ;'R where the3'R or other applicable law provides s speciedperiod of action, in which case the inaction shallbe deemed an implied denial

@. Eecisions, orders or resolutions of the R"s inlocal ta$es originally decided by them in thee$ercise of their original and appellate !urisdiction

A. Eecisions of the ommissioner of ustoms (:) incases involving liability for customs duties, fees

or other charges, sei5ure, detention or release of property a%ected, nes, forfeiture, or otherpenalties in relation thereto, or (?) other mattersarising under the ustoms law, or other laws,part of laws or special laws administered by ;7

. Eecisions of the entral ;oard of -ssessment-ppeals in the e$ercise of appellate !urisdictionover cases involving assessment and ta$ation of real property originally decided by the provincialor city board of assessment appeals

9. Eecision of the Secretary of +inance on custom

cases elevated to him automatically for reviewfrom the decisions of the ommissioner of ustoms which are adverse to the governmentunder section ?@: of the "


17/185

J. Eecisions of the Secretary of "rade and 'ndustry 'the case of non6 agricultural product, commodityor article and the secretary of -griculture in thecase of agricultural product, commodity orarticle, involving dumping duties and

counterveiling duties under Secs. @F: and @F? of " and safeguard measures under R- TT)),where the party may appeal the decision toimpose or not to impose said duties.RA 9282 an! Ru"e , AM 0-11-0-+:A

'.8.5. Sandiganbayan

ORIGIAL

1. E6cl!si%e

ivil cases led pursuant to B. 7. 3os. :, ?, :A and:A6- (0KK cases for recovery of ill6gotten wealth)

T#ree conditions

:. 8hat o%enses o%enses must be cogni5able bythe Sandiganbayan 3annah $erana vs.$an!i&an'a/an, G.R. No. 16209, *anuar/ 22,2008.

?. 7%ender o%ender must be a public ocersco'a" vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 124644,?e'ruar/ , 2004.

@.


18/185

ocers below SK ?J


19/185

'.8.8. Re,ional Trial Co!rt RTC>

ORIGIAL

1. E6cl!si%e

:. -ctions in which the sub!ect of litigation isincapa)le of pec!niar$ estimation

?. -ctions involving title to or possession of realpropert$ or an interest therein, where theassessed value of such property e$ceeds 0F,FFFin 4etro 4anila, or 0?F,FFF outside 4etro 4anila,e$cept forcible entry and unlawful detainer

@. -ctions involving marria,e and maritalrelations

A. Cases not wit#in t#e e6cl!si%e 4!risdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body e$ercising !udicial or &uasi6!udicial functions

. 7ther cases where the demand, e$clusive of interest, damages, attorney=s fees, litigatione$penses and costs, or the value of the propertye$ceeds 0AFF,FFF in 4etro 4anila, or 0@FF,FFFoutside 4etro 4anila $+ +ircu"ar No. 09-94F

9. -ctions for ann!lment of -TC 4!d,ments

J. -ctions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreement, vacation or modication of

arbitration award, application for ar)itrationaward and s!per%ision$ec. 4, ADR Act o 2004F

G. CitiFen s!it$ec. 41 o the +"ean Air Act.

N. Admiralt$ and maritime cases where thedemand or claim e$ceeds 0AFF,FFF in 4etro4anila, or 0@FF,FFF outside 4etro 4anila,e$clusive of interest, damages, attorney=s fees,litigation e$penses, and costs (L-'E)

:F.Pro)ate proceedin,s, testate or intestate,where gross value of estate e$ceeds 0AFF,FFF in4etro 4anila, or 0@FF,FFF outside 4etro 4anila

As a (PECIALCO--ERCIAL

COURT

:. ases involving violations of Intellect!alPropert$ Ri,#ts

?. ases enumerated under (ec. 83 PD H'A('ntra6corporate disputes, fraud scheme cases,election cases, petitions for suspension of

payments andDor rehabilitation proceedings).

'. Conc!rrent

a. wit# t#e (C

-ctions a%ecting am)assadors, other p!)licministers and cons!ls.

). wit# t#e (C:. Petitions for certiorari3 pro#i)ition and


20/185

'.8.9. amil$ Co!rts

ECLU(IVEORIGIAL

:. 0etitions for ,!ardians#ip3 c!stod$ of c#ildren3 #a)eas corp!s in relation to the

latter?. 0etitions for adoption of children and the

revocation thereof@. omplaints for ann!lment of marria,e3

declaration of n!llit$ of marria,e and thoserelating to marital stat!s and propert$relations of husband and wife or those livingtogether under di%erent status and agreements,and petitions for dissol!tion of con!ugalpartnership of gains

A. 0etitions for s!pport andDor ac*nowledgment. (!mmar$ 4!dicial proceedin,s brought under

the provisions of B.7. 3o. ?FN or the ?a)i"/ +o!e9. 0etitions for declaration of stat!s of c#ildren

as abandoned, dependent o neglected children,petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitmentof children the suspension, termination, orrestoration of parental authority and other casescogni5able under 0.E. 3o. 9F@, B.7. 3o. 9, (Seriesof :NG9), and other related laws

J. 0etitions for the constitution of the famil$ #omeand

G. ases of domestic %iolence a,ainst womenand c#ildren, as dened in sec. (*), R.-. G@9N,but which do not constitute criminal o%ensessub!ect to criminal prosecution and penalties

N. ases covered by Huvenile Hustice and 8elfare -ct(RA 944)

'.8.:. -etropolitan Trial Co!rts -eTC>3 -!nicipal Trial Co!rts-TC>

and -!nicipal Circ!it Trial Co!rts -CTC>

ORIGIAL

1. E6cl!si%e

OTE" "he !urisdictionalamount wasad!usted pursuantto Sec. , R- J9N:,

:. -ctions involving personal propert$ valued atnot more than 0AFF,FFF in 4etro 4anila and0@FF,FFF outside 4etro 4anila

?. "he following cases or actions where the value inconsideration does not e$ceed 0AFF,FFF in 4etro4anila and 0@FF,FFF outside 4etro 4anila, in

both cases, e$clusive of interest, damages,attorney=s fees, litigation e$penses and costs(L-'E)

a. -ctions demanding s!ms of mone$@


21/185

now being the ?nd 6year period from thedate of e%ectivity of said act.

). Eemand or claim in admiralt$ andmaritime cases@

c. "he estate value in pro)ateproceedin,s3 interstate or estate@

@. -ctions involving title or possession of realpropert$ where the assessed value does note$ceed 0F,FFF in 4etro 4anila, or 0?F,FFFoutside 4etro 4anila, e$clusive of interest,damages, attorney=s fees, litigation e$penses,and costs (L-'E)

A. orci)le entr$ and !nlawf!l detainer,provided that in cases where the defendantraises the &uestion of ownership and the

&uestion of possession cannot be resolvedwithout deciding on the issue of ownership, theissue of ownership shall be resolved only todetermine the issue of possession

'. Conc!rrent

a. with RTC

. Dele,atedCadastral and land re,istration casesassi,ned)$ t#e (C where there is a). no controversy oropposition, or b). where there is controversy, the

contested lot valued at not more than 0:FF,FFF.

5. (pecialPetition for habeas corpus or application for)ail in criminal cases in the absence of all R" Hudges in a province or city B( 129, as a)en!e!,+ha#ter , $ec

8. (!mmar$Proced!re

:. orci)le entr$ and !nlawf!l detainer,irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaidrentals sought to be recovered but attorney=sfees shall not e$ceed 0?F,FFF

?. -ll other cases, e$cept probate proceedings,where total claim does not e$ceed 0?FF,FFF.FFin 4etro 4anila, or 0:FF,FFF outside 4etro4anila, e$clusive of interest and costs.

@. (mall claims cases where the amount of theclaim for payment or reimbursement of moneydoes not e$ceed 0:FF,FFF.FF

'.8.J. (#ariKa Co!rt P.D. o. 1HJ>

:. -ll cases involving c!stod$3 ,!ardians#ip3


22/185

ORIGIAL

1. E6cl!si%e

OTE" "he Shari=aEistrict ourts aree&uivalent to theR" in ran* whichwere established incertain provinces of4indanao where theode of 4uslim0ersonal Laws of the

0hilippines isenforced.

!".#. $o. %&'()

le,itimac$3 paternit$ and 7liation arisingunder 0E 3o. :FG@

?. -ll cases involving disposition, distribution andsettlement of t#e estate of a deceased 4uslim,

probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment of administratorsor e$ecutors regardless of the nature or theaggregate value of the property

@. 0etitions for declaration of a)sence and deat#and for cancellation and correction of entries inthe 4uslim Registries mentioned in "itle O', ;oo* "wo of 0.E. 3o. :FG@

A. -ll actions arising from c!stomar$ contracts inwhich the parties are 4uslims, if they have notspecied which law shall govern their relations

. -ll petitions for mandam!s3 pro#i)ition3in4!nction3 certiorari3 #a)eas corp!s3 and alla!6iliar$ writs and processes in aid of itsappellate !urisdiction Art. 14K1.

'. Conc!rrentwit# EI(TIGCIVIL COURT(

1. 0etitions by 4uslim for the constitution of thefamily home, change of name and commitment of

insane person to any asylum

2. -ll other personal and real actions not mentionedin paragraph :(d) wherein the parties involvedare 4uslims e$cept those for forcible entry andunlawful detainer which shall fall under thee$clusive original !urisdiction of the 4unicipalircuit ourts and

. -ll special civil actions for interpleader ordeclaratory relief where the parties are 4uslims

or the property involved belong e$clusively to a4uslim Art. 14K2.

APPELLATE

-ll cases tried in the Shari=a ircuit ourt withintheir territorial !urisdiction.

37"B "he Shari=a Eistrict ourt shall decide everycase appealed to it on the basis of the evidence andrecords transmitted as well as such memoranda,

briefs or oral arguments as the parties may submitArt. 144K2.


23/185

OTE" "he decisions of the Shari=a Eistrict ourts whether on appeal fromthe Shari=a ircuit ourts or not, shall be nal. "he Supreme ourt shall,however, continue to e$ercise original and appellate !urisdiction over certainissues as provided by the onstitution Art. 14.

'.:. ;!risdiction o%er (mall Claims cases"

7ver all actions which are

a. purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plainti% is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and

b. the civil aspect of criminal action, or reserved upon the ling of thecriminal action in court, pursuant to Rule of :::.

Co!rt w#ic# #as 4!risdiction.

"o be tried before the 4etropolitan trial ourts, 4unicipal "rial ourts inities, 4unicipal "rial ourts and 4unicipal ircuit "rial ourts for #a/)ent o )one/ where the value of the claim does OT e$ceed 7ne ar, acco)#anie! '/ her hus'an!,

ren Mon!e>ar,G.R. No. 200804. *anuar/ 22, 2014.

R!le on (!mmar$ Proced!re

A. Ci%il Cases"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804


24/185

:. -ll cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of theamount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered butattorneys fees shall not e$ceed 0?F,FFF.FF.

?. -ll other civil cases, BUB0" probate proceedings, where the totalamount of the plainti%s claim does not e$ceed 0:FF, FFF.FF or

0?FF,FFF.FF in 4etro 4anila, e$clusive of interest and costs. asa)en!e! '/ A.M. 02-11-09-$+, eOective Nove)'er 2, 2002

Criminal Cases"

:. Oiolations of trac laws, rules and regulations?. Oiolations of the rental law@. Oiolations of 4unicipal or city ordinancesA. -ll other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the

o%ense charged is imprisonment not e$ceeding 9 months, or a ne note$ceeding 0:,FFF.FF, or both, irrespective of other imposable

penalties,. 7%enses involving damage to property through criminal negligence,this Rule shall govern where the imposable ne does not e$ceed0:F,FFF.FF

ote"

"his Rule shall 37" apply to a civil case where the plainti%=s cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action sub!ectto the ordinary procedure nor to a criminal case where the o%ense chargedis necessarily related to another criminal case sub!ect to the ordinary

procedure.

orci)le entr$ and !nlawf!l detainer s!mmar$ proceedin,s"

-n action for forcible entry is led in the municipal trial court andis a summary action, while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the R". $$ $ ;ecause they only resolve issues of possession de facto, e!ectmentactions are summary in nature, while accion publiciana (for the recovery of possession) and accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) areplenary actions.AG "he purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry andunlawful detainer to be decided in summary proceedings is to provide for a

peaceful, speedy and e$peditious means of preventing an alleged illegalpossessor of property from un!ustly ta*ing and continuing his possessionduring the long period it would ta*e to properly resolve the issue of possession de !ure or ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peaceand order in the community otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might ta*e the law in his hands and sei5e the property by forceand violence. -n e!ectment case cannot be a substitute for a full blown trialfor the purpose of determining rights of possession or ownership. ?iore""o R. *ose %s. Ro'erto A"uerto, et a". G.R. No. 6980. Nove)'er 26, 2012

aran,a$ Conciliation"

General r!le"

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/169380.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/169380.pdf


25/185

"he lupon tagapamayapa of each barangay shall have authority tobring together the parties residing in the same city or municipality foramicable settlement of ALL disputes

ECEPT

a. 8here one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentalitythereof however, when it is only one of the contending parties, aconfrontation should still be underta*en among the other parties (Ge&arev. +A, G.R. No. 890. $e#te)'er 1, 1989)

b. 8here one party is a public ocer or employee, and the dispute relates tothe performance of his ocial functions

c. 7%enses punishable by imprisonment e$ceeding : year or a nee$ceeding 0,FFF

d. 7%enses where there is no private o%ended partye. 8here the dispute involves real properties located in di%erent cities or

municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their di%erencesto amicable settlement by an appropriate luponf. Eisputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of di%erent

cities or municipalities, e$cept where such barangay units ad!oin eachother and the parties thereto agree to submit their di%erences toamicable settlement by an appropriate lupon

g. Such other classes of disputes which the 0resident may determine in theinterest of !ustice or upon the recommendation of the Sec. of Hustice and

h. 8here one of the parties is a !uridical entity $ec. 408, R.A. 160i. 8here the dispute arises from the omprehensive -grarian Reform Law !. "he submission of disputes before the Lupon prior to their ling with the

court or other government oces are not applicable to labor cases.(Monto/a v. sca/o, G.R. No. 82211-12 March 21, 1989)

*. -n action for annulment of a compromise !udgment which as a generalrule is immediately e$ecutory and accordingly, beyond the authority of the ;arangay ourt to change or modify.($anche< v. :u#a


26/185

at!re and e&ects of noncompliance wit# )aran,a$ conciliation"

-s cited in the case Sanche5 v. "upa5, referral to the Lupon iscomp!lsor$ (as ruled in the cited case of Morato vs. Go, 12 $+RA 444),

P:NG@Q and non6compliance of the same could a%ect the suciency of thecause of action and ma*e the complaint vulnerable to dismissal on t#e,ro!nd of lac2 of ca!se of action or premat!rit$ ((ere&rina vs. (anis,1 $+RA ).

Ven!e of )aran,a$ conciliation.

:. Eisputes between or among persons actually residing in the samebarangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of saidbarangay.

?. -ctual residents of di%erent barangays within the same city ormunicipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant

@. -ll disputes which involved real property or any interest therein shallbe brought in the barangay where the real property or any part thereof issituated.

A. Eisputes arising at the wor*place where the contending parties areemployed or at the institution where the contending parties are enrolled tostudy, the barangay where such wor*place or institution is located. ($ec.

409, LG+).

at!re of Amica)le (ettlement

P-Qn amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation

proceedings, li*e the Vasunduang 0ag6aayos in this case, is binding between

the contracting parties and, upon its perfection, is immediatel$ e6ec!tor$

insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public order

and public policy. "his is in accord with the broad precept of -rticle ?F@J of the ivil ode. +risanta A"cara< Mi&ue" vs. *err/ D. Montane


27/185

e$ecution in accordance with the Rules. +risanta A"cara< Mi&ue" vs. *err/ D.

Montane E6ec!tion )$ t#e aran,a$ L!pon wit#in si6 9> mont#s

from t#e date of settlement3 or

!*) )$ 7lin, an action to enforce s!c# settlement in t#e

appropriate cit$ or m!nicipal co!rt3 if )e$ond t#e si6mont# period.

E6ec!tion )efore t#e )aran,a$"

Inder the rst remedy, the proceedings are covered by the Local

Kovernment ode and the Vatarungang 0ambarangay 'mplementing Rules

and Regulations. "he 0unong ;arangay is called upon during the hearing to

determine solely the fact of non6compliance of the terms of the settlement

and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying withhis obligation under the settlement.

E6ec!tion )efore t#e co!rt"

Inder the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules

of ourt, as amended. "he cause of action is the amicable settlement itself,which, by operation of law, has the force and e%ect of a nal !udgment.


28/185

E6ec!tion is a%aila)le onl$ w#en t#ere is no rep!diation of t#e

amica)le settlement"

't must be emphasi5ed, however, that enforcement by e$ecution of theamicable settlement, either under the rst or the second remedy3 is onl$

applica)le if t#e contractin, parties #a%e not rep!diated s!c#

settlement wit#in ten 1H> da$s from t#e date t#ereof in accordance

wit# (ection 519 of t#e Local Go%ernment Code.

Remedies if a part$ rep!diated t#e settlement

'f the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either e$pressly

or impliedly, the other party has two options, namely, 1> to enforce t#e

compromise in accordance wit# t#e Local Go%ernment Code or R!les

of Co!rt as t#e case ma$ )e3 or '> to consider it rescinded and

insist !pon #is ori,inal demand. "his is in accord with -rticle ?FA: of the

ivil ode, which &ualies the broad application of -rticle ?F@J, vi5 /'f one

of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party

may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist uponhis original demand.2

'n the case at bar, the Revised Vatarungang 0ambarangay Lawprovides for a two6tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, towit

(a) by e$ecution by the 0unong ;arangay which is &uasi6!udicial andsummary in nature on mere motion of the party entitled thereto and

(b) an action in regular form, which remedy is !udicial.


29/185

"he - too* o% on the wrong premise that enforcement of theVasunduang 0ag6aayos is the proper remedy, and therefore erred in itsconclusion that the case should be remanded to the trial court. "he fact thatthe petitioner opted to rescind the Vasunduang 0ag6aayos means that she isinsisting upon the underta*ing of the respondent under the original loan

contract. "hus, the - should have decided the case on the merits, as anappeal before it, and not prolong the determination of the issues byremanding it to the trial court. 0ertinently, evidence abounds that therespondent has failed to comply with his loan obligation. 'n fact, theVasunduang 0ag6aayos is the well nigh incontrovertible proof of therespondent=s indebtedness with the petitioner as it was e$ecuted precisely togive the respondent a second chance to ma*e good on his underta*ing. -ndsince the respondent still reneged in paying his indebtedness, !usticedemands that he must be held answerable therefor. +risanta A"cara< Mi&ue"vs. *err/ D. Montane


30/185

.1.5. Ci%il Actions %ers!s (pecial Proceedin,s

- special proceedin, is a remedy by which a party see*s to establish astatus, a right, or a particular fact. 't is distinguished from an ordinar$ ci%ilaction where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a

right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. "o initiate a specialproceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be led. Ra)on +hin&an! (o @in& +or#. v. Ro!ri&ue


31/185

In Rem"

7ne which is not directed against a particular person but on the thingor res itself and the relief sought is binding upon the whole world.

"he thing or res maybe personal or real property or it may be a status,right, or a particular fact (ri)er-Revieer on Re)e!ia" La, %o"., +ivi"(roce!ure, Ri&uera, 1st e!., 2009.

"he ob!ect is to bar indi%erently all who might be minded to ma*e anyob!ection against the right sought to be enforced, hence the !udgmenttherein is binding theoretically upon the whole world, e.g., e$propriation(Re&a"a!o).

In Personam

7ne which is directed against a particular person and the relief soughtis binding upon such person e.g.3 action for sum of money or for specicperformance.

(er%ice of s!mmons in actions in personam

8here the action is in #ersona) Pfootnote -n action inpersonam is one which see*s to enforce personal rights and obligationsagainst a defendant and is based on the !urisdiction of the person, althoughit may involve his right to, or the e$ercise of ownership of, specic property,or see* to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with themandate of the court. (See ;elen v. have5 , K.R. 3o. :J@@A, 4arch ?9,?FFG, AN SR- AJN, AG:.)Q and the defendant is in the 0hilippines, serviceof summons may be made through personal service, that is, summons shallbe served by handing to the defendant in person a copy thereof, or if herefuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. 'f the defendantcannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, it isthen that substituted service may be made. 0ersonal service of summonsshould and always be the rst option, and it is only when the said summonscannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort tosubstituted service. ("anters Deve"o#)ent Ban, %s. *u"ie +han!u)a", G.R.No. 196190 $e#te)'er 2012

!asi in Rem"

't is a proceeding where an individual is named as defendant, and thepurpose of the proceeding is to sub!ect his interest therein to the obligationor lien burdening the property e.g., uieting of "itle where the ob!ect is inre) (real property) and the sub!ect is in #ersona) (defendant). "he !udgment entered in this proceeding is conclusive only between the parties?eria Noche, +ivi" (roce!ure, %o".

8hether a proceeding is in rem, or in #ersona) or &uasi in re) isdetermined by its nat!re and p!rpose (Qu v. (ac"e', etc., G.R. No. 1212,24 ?e'. 2009).

.1.J. Independent Ci%il Actions


32/185

R!les on independent ci%il actions" at!re"

'n the cases provided in -rticles @?, @@, @A and ?:J9 of the ivil odeof the 0hilippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the

o%ended party. 't shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shallre&uire only a preponderance of evidence. 'n no case, however, may theo%ended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission chargedin the criminal action. Ru"e 111, $ection

Cases w#ic# are considered as an independent ci%il action"

-ny public ocer or employee, or any private individual, who directlyor indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairsany of the following constitutiona" rights and liberties of another personshall be liable to the latter for damages> $ $ $ C Artic"e 2, +ivi" +o!e in

ita"ics a!!e! or c"ariJcation

'n cases of defamation, fraud, and physical in!uries a civil action fordamages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may bebrought by the in!ured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall re&uire only a preponderance of evidence.C Artic"e , +ivi" +o!e

8hen a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails torender aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property,such peace ocer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or

municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. "he civil action hereinrecogni5ed shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and apreponderance of evidence shall suce to support such action. C Artic"e 4,+ivi" +o!e8hoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault ornegligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,if there is no pre6e$isting contractual relation between the parties, is called a&uasi6delict and is governed by the provisions of this hapter. C Artic"e 216,+ivi" +o!e

.'. Ca!se of Action

.'.1 -eanin, of Ca!se of Action

't is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another(Ru"e 2, $ec. 2).

- ca!se of action is dened in Section ?, Rule ? of the Rules of ourt asthe act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. Goo!"an!+o)#an/, nc., vs. Asia nite! Ban, A'raha) +o, Att/. *oe" :. (e"icano An!:he Re&ister 7 Dee!s 7 Maati +it/, G.R. No. 1961, March 14, 2012

Elements of Ca!se of Action"

:) - legal right of the plainti%?) - correlative duty of the defendant to respect plainti%=s right and@) -n act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plainti%=s


33/185

right with conse&uential in!ury or damage to the plainti% for which he maymaintain an action for recovery or other relief Re"ucio vs. Lo#e


34/185

( *uana +o)#"e= 3o)eoners Association, nc., et a". vs. ?i"-state Lan!,nc., G.R. No. 1222, March , 2012

.'.8. (plittin, a (in,le Ca!se of Action and its E&ects

(plittin, a sin,le ca!se of Action

"he act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into twoor more parts, and bringing the suit for one of such parts only, intending toreserve the rest for another separate action is the prohibited act of splitting asingle cause of action (Re&a"a!o).

E&ects

'f two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the ling of one or a !udgment upon the merits in any one is available

as a ground for the dismissal of the others (Ru"e 2, $ec. 4).

8hen a single cause of action is split, the remedy of the defendant isto mo%e for its dismissal under Rule :9 on the ground that

:) "here is another action pending between the same parties for thesame cause, or "itis #en!entia (Sec. :PeQ) or

?) 'f the rst action has already been nally terminated, on the groundof res >u!icata ($ec. 1K Q).

"he well6entrenched rule is that #a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a di%erent method of presenting his case, escape theoperation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not betwice litigated. "his ourt has laid down the test in determining whether ornot the causes of action in the rst and second cases are identical, to witwould the same evidence support and establish both the present and formercause of actionW 'f so, the former recovery is a bar if otherwise, it does notstand in the way of the former action. Goo!"an! +o)#an/, nc., vs. Asianite! Ban, A'raha) +o, Att/. *oe" :. (e"icano An! :he Re&ister 7 Dee!s7 Maati +it/, G.R. No. 1961, March 14, 2012

/#at is litis pendentia0

Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means Na pendin, s!it#and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter actionpendant. -s a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to thesituation where two actions are pending between the same parties for thesame cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary andve$atious. 't is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. (hi"i##ineNationa" Ban vs. Gatea/ (ro#ert/ 3o"!in&s, nc., G.R. No. 18148,?e'ruar/ 1, 2012

.'.9. ;oinder and -is4oinder of Ca!ses of Action.

*oin!er o +auses o Action"


35/185

"he assertion, in the alternative or otherwise, of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone is valid.(Ru"e 2, $ection )

Re

b) "he !oinder shall 37" include special civil action or actions governedby special rules

c) 8here the causes of action are between the same parties butpertain to di%erent venues or !urisdiction, the !oinder may be allowed inthe R" provided that

:) one of the causes of action falls within the !urisdiction of theR" and

?) the venue lies therein.

d) 8here the claims in all the causes of action are principally forrecovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of !urisdiction :ota"it/ Ru"e, $ec. K1, B.(. 129.

Elements for ;oinder of Parties

a) "here must be a right to relief in respect to or arising from the sametransaction or series of transaction

b) "here is a &uestion of fact or law common to all the plainti%s or

defendants andc) Such !oinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the

Rules on !urisdiction and venue $ec. 6, Ru"e .

at!re of 4oinder of ca!ses of action"

"he rule on !oinder of causes of action is purely permissi%e and theplainti% can always le separate actions for each cause of action (Ba"!ovir v.$arte, 6 (hi". 0).

Conditions of ca!ses of action"

"he rule on permissive !oinder of causes of action is sub!ect to therules regarding !urisdiction, venue and !oinder of parties.

3ote 8hen the !oinder refers to >oin!er oJn!is#ensa'"e #arties, !oinder is740ILS7RX ($ec. , Ru"e ).

"he provision allowing !oinder of causes of action which pertains todi%erent !urisdictions under Section (c) of Rule ? applies only if the !oinderis in the R".

-is4oinder of Ca!ses of Action

"wo or more causes of action are !oined in one complaint when theyshould not have been !oined. (Ru"e 2, $ection 6)

4is!oinder of causes of action is OT a ground for dismissal of an action.


36/185

- mis!oined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately (Ru"e 2, $ection 6)

.. Parties to Ci%il Actions"

..1. Real partiesininterest@ indispensa)le parties@representati%es as parties@ necessar$ parties@ indi,ent parties@alternati%e defendants

Real Part$ in Interest R!le 3 (ec. '>

"he party who stands to be beneted or in!ured by the !udgment in thesuit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

General R!le"Inless otherwise authori5ed by law or these Rules, everyaction must be prosecuted and defended in the na)e o the real party in

interest.E6ception -n e$ception to the rule that every action must be prosecuted ordefended in the name of the real party in interest is in the case of representatives as parties Ru"e , $ection

"o be a real party6in6interest, the interest must be Yreal=, which is a #resent

su'stantia" interest as distinguished from a mere e$pectancy or a future,

contingent subordinate or conse&uential interest (?ortich v. +orona, 289

$+RA 624). 't is an interest that is )ateria" an! !irect , as distinguished from

a mere incidental interest in the &uestion ($a)anie&o v. A&ui"a, 4 $+RA

48).

-eanin, of *interest+.

'nterest within the meaning of the Rules of ourt means materialinterest or an interest in iss!e to be a%ected by the decree or !udgmentof the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the &uestioninvolved. - real party in interest is the party who, by the substantive law, hasthe right sought to be enforced.

-pplying the foregoing rule, it is clear that -tty. -ceron is not a realparty in interest in the case below as he does not stand to be beneted orin!ured by any !udgment therein.


37/185

Real part$ in interestapplies both to the plainti% and defendant. "hesuit may be dismissed if neither of them is a Real party in interestRE-ED w#ere Real Part$ in Interest is OT impleaded"

Amendment of t#e pleadin,s or t#e complaint may be deemed

amended to include the R0''.

'f the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in

interest, a motion to dismiss may be led on the ground that the complaint

states no cause of action $ec. 1K&, Ru"e 16F Re&a"a!o, 2010.

7nly parties to the contract may sue.


38/185

"he denition in the Rules of ourt, Section J, Rule @ thereof, of indispensable parties as #parties in interest without whom no naldetermination can be had of an action# has been !urisprudentially amplied.'n Sps. Karcia v. Karcia, et.al., this ourt held that

-n indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in thecontroversy or sub!ect matter that a nal ad!udication cannot be made, in hisabsence, without in!uring or a%ecting that interest, a party who has not onlyan interest in the sub!ect matter of the controversy, but also has an interestof such nature that a nal decree cannot be made without a%ecting hisinterest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its naldetermination may be wholly inconsistent with e&uity and good conscience.'t has also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whoseabsence there cannot be a determination between the parties already beforethe court which is e%ective, complete, or e&uitable. +urther, an indispensable

party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly goforward. $i)n/ G. Gu/, Gera"!ine G. Gu/, G"a!/s G. Qao, An! :he 3eirs o the Late Grace G. +heu %s. Gi"'ert G. Gu/, G.R. No. 189486, $e#te)'er 0,2012

"he nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not ma*eone an indispensable party. -n indispensable party is a party6in6interestwithout whom no nal determination can be had of an action, and who shallbe !oined mandatorily either as plainti%s or defendants. "he presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with !urisdiction, thus,without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the !udgment of a courtcannot attain real nality. "he absence of an indispensable party renders allsubse&uent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, notonly as to the absent parties but even as to those present.Livin& S $ense,nc. %s. Ma"a/an nsurance +o)#an/, nc. G.R. No. 19. $e#te)'er 26,2012

P!rpose of t#e r!les

"he purpose of the rules on !oinder of indispensable parties is acomplete determination of all issues not only between the partiesthemselves, but also as regards other persons who may be a%ected by the !udgment. - decision valid on its face cannot attain real nality where thereis want of indispensable parties. (hi"i# L. Go, (aciJco I. Li) An! An!re I.Li), %s. Distinction (ro#erties Deve"o#)ent An! +onstruction, nc. G.R. No.194024, A#ri" 2, 2012

!rden of proc!rin, indispensa)le parties lis wit# t#e plainti&"

"he burden of procuring the presence of all indispensable parties is onthe plainti%. (@N -m!ur PsicQ GG). "he evident purpose of the rule is toprevent the multiplicity of suits by re&uiring the person arresting a right

against the defendant to include with him, either as co6plainti%s or as co6defendants, all persons standing in the same position, so that the wholematter in dispute may be determined once and for all in one litigation.(a"arca v. Ba&insi, 8 (hi". 1, 18.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/193753.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/193753.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/193753.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/193753.pdf


39/185

E&ects of non4oinder of indispensa)le parties

"he presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine &ua non forthe e$ercise of !udicial power. 't is precisely when an indispensable party isnot before the court that the action should be dismissed ($e#u"ve!a, $r. v.

(e"ae

G. Gu/, G"a!/s G. Qao, An! :he 3eirs o the Late Grace G. +heu %s. Gi"'ert G.Gu/, G.R. No. 189486, $e#te)'er 0, 2012

Representati%e as parties

Someone acting in a duciary capacity (i.e. trustees of an e$presstrust, guardians, e$ecutors or administrators). 'n this case, the rule re&uiresthat the name of the beneciary shall be included in the title of the case andshall be deemed as the real party in interest Ru"e , $ec. .

"he petitioner=s reliance on Section @, Rule @ of the Rules of ourt tosupport their conclusion that -tty. -ceron is li*ewise a party in interest in thecase below is misplaced. Section @, Rule @ of the Rules of ourt providesthat

Sec. @. Re#resentatives as #arties. C 8here the action is allowed to beprosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in aduciary capacity, the beneciary shall be included in the title of the caseand shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. - representative maybe a trustee of an e$pert trust, a guardian, an e$ecutor or administrator, or a

party authori5ed by law or these Rules. -n agent acting in his own name andfor the benet of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without !oiningthe principal e$cept when the contract involves things belonging to theprincipal. (Bmphasis ours)

3owhere in the rule cited above is it stated or, at the very leastimplied, that the representative is li*ewise deemed as the real party ininterest. "he said rule simply states that, in actions which are allowed to beprosecuted or defended by a representative, the beneciary shall be deemedthe real party in interest and, hence, should be included in the title of thecase.

'ndeed, to construe the e$press re&uirement of residence under therules on venue as applicable to the attorney6in6fact of the plainti% wouldabrogate the meaning of a #real party in interest#, as dened in Section ? of


40/185

Rule @ of the :NNJ Rules of ourt vis6Z6vis Section @ of the same Rule.:heo!ore An! Nanc/ An&, Re#resente! B/ "!ri&e Marvin B. +eron, %s.$#ouses A"an An! ) An&, Res#on!ents. G.R. No. 18699, Au&ust 22, 2012

ecessar$ Parties

"hose who are not indispensable but who ought to be !oined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for acomplete determination or settlement of the claim sub!ect of the action mayor may not be !oined (i.e. !oint debtor is a necessary party in a suit againsthis co6debtor) Ru"e , $ec. 8.

Indi,ent Parties

- party may be authori5ed to litigate his action, claim or defense as anindigent if the court, upon an e= #arte application and hearing, is satised

that the party is one who has no money or property sucient and availablefor food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

E&ects of declaration of indi,enc$"

Such authority shall include an e$emption from payment of doc*et andother lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the courtmay order to be furnished him. "he amount of the doc*et and other lawfulfees which the indigent was e$empted from paying shall be a lien on any !udgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the courtotherwise provides. Ru"e , $ec. 21

E6emption from Pa$ment of Le,al fees(ec.1. R!le 151>

Re

Alternati%e Defendants


41/185

8here the plainti% is uncertain against who of several persons he isentitled to relief, he may !oin any or all of them as defendants in thealternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with aright to relief against the other. Ru"e , $ection 1

..'. Comp!lsor$ and Permissi%e ;oinder of Parties

Comp!lsor$ ;oinder of Parties

"hose without whom no Jna" !eter)ination can 'e ha! of an actionthey must be !oined under all conditions Ru"e , $ec.. (indispensableparties must be !oined compulsorily)

Permissi%e ;oinder of Parties R!le 3 (ec. 9>

Re

b) "here is a &uestion of law or fact common to all the plainti%s or allthe defendants and

c) Such !oinder is not proscribed by the provisions of the rules on !urisdiction and venue.

/#at is series of transaction0

/(eries of transaction2 means separate dealings with the parties butall of which dealings are directly connected with the same type of sub!ect6matter of the suit (Re&a"a!o).

... -is4oinder and on4oinder of Parties

;oth are OT grounds for the dismissal of the action. 0arties may bedropped or added by order of the court motu proprio or on motion of anyparty at any stage of the action and on such terms as are !ust. (Ru"e ,$ection 11)

..5. Class (!it

- suit brought by or defended by a representative member ormembers of a large group of persons on behalf of all the members of thegroup. Ru"e , $ection 12

Re

?) 0ersons are so numerous that it is impracticable to !oin all asparties


42/185

@) 0arties actually before the court are suciently numerous andrepresentative so that all interests concerned are fully protected

A) "he representatives sue or defend for the benet of all. Ru"e ,$ection 12

"he complaint must specially state that the same is being brought inbehalf of others with whom parties share a common interest (Bor"asa v.(o"istico, 4 (hi". 4).

In case of conict no class s!it"

'f there is a conict of interest between those sought to be representedand those who led the action, the class suit will OT prosper ('a;e< v.Ro)an +atho"ic +hurch, 12 (hi". 22).

Le,al capacit$ is a re

'n this case, the suit is clearly one that benets all commuters andmotorists who use La 0a5Road. -s succinctly stated by the - "he sub!ectmatter of the instant case, i.e., the closure and e$cavation of the La 0a5Road, is initially shown to be of common or general interest to many persons. "he records reveal that numerous individuals have led manifestations withthe lower court, conveying their intention to !oin private respondents in thesuit and claiming that they are similarly situated with private respondents forthey were also pre!udiced by the acts of petitioners in closing and e$cavatingthe La 0a5 Road. 4oreover, the individuals sought to be represented byprivate respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to !oin them all as parties and be named individually as plainti%s in thecomplaint. "hese individuals claim to be residents of various barangays in;iMan, Laguna and other barangays in San 0edro, Laguna. ( *uana +o)#"e= 3o)eoners Association, nc., et a". vs. ?i"-state Lan!, nc., G.R. No.1222, March , 2012

..8. (!its a,ainst entities wit#o!t 4!ridical personalit$($ection 1

)

Inder $ection 1 o Ru"e , only natural or !uridical persons or entitiesauthori5ed by law may be parties in a civil action.


43/185

transaction with the plainti%.

"wo or more persons not organi5ed as an entity with !uridicalpersonality to enter into a transaction may be s!ed !nder t#e name )$w#ic# t#e$ are ,enerall$ or commonl$ 2nown but they cannot sue

under such name.

'n the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of thepersons composing said entity must all be revealed $ee $ec. 8, Ru"e 14 asto the manner of the service of summons of such entities).

8ith respect to !udgments to be rendered in this situation, Sec. 9 of Rule @9 provides that when !udgment is rendered against two or morepersons associated in an entity without !uridical personality, the !udgmentshall set out their individual or proper names if *nown Re&a"a!o, 2010.

..9. E&ect of deat# of part$liti,ant

8henever a party to a pending action dies -3E the claim is notthereby e$tinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel

:) "o inform the court within @F days after such death of the factthereof and

?) "o give the name and address of the deceased party=s legalrepresentativeDs.

Ru"e , $ec.16

ail!re to compl$ is a ,ro!nd for disciplinar$ action"

+ailure to comply by counsel shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

D!t$ of t#e co!nsel to inform t#e co!rt applies on appeal

"he duty of counsel also applies to death of a party in cases pendingappeal Riviera ?i"i#ina v. +A, G.R. No. 11, A#ri" , 2002.

o s!mmons is re

"he rule is that in the substitution of the deceased, priority is given to

his legal representatives, i.e., the e$ecutor or administrator of his estate. "hecourt may allow the substitution by the heirs instead I there isunreasonable delay in the appointment of an e$ecutor or administrator orwhen the estate was e$tra!udicially settled Re&a"a!o, 201.


44/185

.5. Ven!e

.5.1. Ven!e %ers!s ;!risdiction

/(a) Hurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case venue is

the place where the case is to be heard or tried (b) Hurisdiction is a matter of substantive law venue, of procedural law (c) Hurisdiction establishes arelation between the court and the sub!ect matter venue, a relation betweenplainti% and defendant, or petitioner and respondent and, (d) Hurisdiction is$ed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties venue may be conferredby the act or agreement of the parties.2 Nocu) an! (hi"i##ine Dai"/ nHuirer v. :an, G.R. No. 14022, $e#te)'er 2, 200

.5.'. Ven!e of real actions(Ru"e 4, $ection 1)

'n the proper court which has !urisdiction over the area where the rea"

#ro#ert/ invo"ve! or a #ortion thereo is situate!.

+orcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried inthe 4unicipal "rial ourt of the municipality or city where the real propertyinvolved or a portion thereof is situated.

R!le in case if t#ere are two )o!ndaries"

'f the property is located at the boundaries of two places, le the casein B'"
ares, et a". v.(iccio, et a"., L-1048 A#ri" 22,19 Regalado, ?F:F).

Location of t#e propert$ %en!e in real propert$"

-ccording to the Rules, real actions shall be commenced and tried inthe court that has !urisdiction over the area where the property is situated. 'nthis case, all the mortgaged properties are located in the 0rovince of ebu. "hus, following the general rule, 0-KL-I4 and


45/185

.5.. Ven!e of personal actions(Ru"e 4, $ection 2

:) 8here the plainti% or any of the principal plainti%s resides?) 8here the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides or@) 'n the case of non6resident defendants, where the non6resident

defendant may be found.

37"B -ll of the abovementioned venues shall be at the election of theplainti% .

P!rpose of t#e r!les on %en!e in personal actions"'t is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are

$ed for the convenience of the plainti%s and their witnesses. B&uallysettled, however, is the principle that choosing the venue of an action is notleft to a plainti%=s caprice the matter is regulated by the Rules of ourt.

"he petitioners= complaint for collection of sum of money against therespondents is a personal action as it primarily see*s the enforcement of acontract. "he Rules give the plainti% the option of choosing where to le hiscomplaint.


46/185

?) B$ecuted by the parties before the ling of the action.

.5.9. E&ects of stip!lations on %en!e

'n $#s. Lantin v. Lantion, this ourt e$plained that a venue stipulationmust contain words that show e$clusivity or restrictiveness, as follows


47/185

-t the outset, we must ma*e clear that under Section A (b) of Rule A of the :NNJ Rules of ivil 0rocedure, the general rules on venue of actionsshall not apply where the parties, before the ling of the action, havevalidly agreed in writing on an e$clusive venue. "he mere stipulation

on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude partiesfrom bringing a case in other venues. "he parties must be able to showthat such stipulation is e$clusive. 'n the absence of &ualifying orrestrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely anagreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to thespecied place. $ $ $

learly, the words #e$clusively# and #waiving for this purpose any othervenue# are restrictive and used advisedly to meet the re&uirements.(a&"au) Mana&e)ent Deve"o#)ent +or#. An! 3ea"th Maretin&:echno"o&ies, nc., %s. nion Ban 7 :he (hi"i##ines, Notar/ (u'"ic *ohn Doe,

An! Re&ister 7 Dee!s 7 +e'u +it/ An! +e'u (rovince, P*. in& $ons +o.,nc. ntervenor, G.R. No. 19018, *une 18, 2012

E&ect of a)sence of e6cl!si%e words.

'n the absence of &ualifying or restrictive words (e.&. on"/, so"e"/,

e=c"usive"/ in this court, in no other court save, #articu"ar"/, nohere e"se

'ut5e=ce#t ) venue stipulation is merel$ permissi%e and not e6cl!si%e

which means that the stipulated venue is in addition to the venue provided

for in the rules (o"/tra!e +or#. v. B"anco, G.R. No. L-20, 1969.

E&ect if t#e stip!lation is contrar$ to p!)lic polic$"

8hen the stipulation as to venue in a passenger tic*et of a vessel

would be contrary to public policy of ma*ing courts accessible to all who may

have need of their service, the stipulation is void and unenforceable $eet

Lines v. :eves, G.R. No. 2824, Ma/19, 192.

Ven!e )ased on tort!o!s acts

8hen the action is no longer based on the agreement but 73 "


48/185

stipulation but at the BLB"'73 7+ " Answer 6 -n answer is a pleading in which a defending party setsforth his defenses. Ru"e 6, $ec. 4

=inds of defenses"

1> e,ati%e Defenses "he specic denial $ec. 10, Ru"e 9 of the

material factDs alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his causeDsof action. $ec. Ka

=inds of denial"


49/185

:) A)sol!te denial the defendant must specify each materialallegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and setting forth thesubstance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial,whenever practicable.

?) Partial denial the defendant shall specify so much of it as is trueand material and shall deny the remainder.

@) Disa%owal of 2nowled,e the defendant shall state in hispleading that he does not have *nowledge or information sucient to form abelief as to the truth of a material averment.

"he defendant must positively state how it is that he is ignorant of thefacts as alleged.

"his denial does not apply where the facts as to which want of *nowledge isasserted, is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant=s *nowledge, thathis averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue. 't is as if that no denialat all has been made.

e,ati%e Pre,nant C a form of negative e$pression which carries with it anarmation or at least an implication of some *ind favorable to the adverseparty. 't is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial factsalleged in the pleading.

8here a fact is alleged with &ualifying or modifying language and the words

of the allegation are so &ualied or modied are literally denied, has beenheld that the &ualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself isadmitted Re#u'"ic vs. $an!i&an'a/an, G.R. No. 1214, *u"/ 1, 200.

B$ample 'n Re#u'"ic vs. $an!i&an'a/an, it was alleged that it was clearlyand overwhelmingly showed how the respondents stashed away thecountry=s wealth to Swit5erland amounting to \@94 and hid the same underlayers of foundations and corporate entities to prevent detection.

3egative 0regnant "he respondents specically denies the allegations for itwas false, the truth being that respondent=s properties in the ban* were

lawfully ac&uired. "hus, it was implied that they admit that it was stashed toSwit5erland.

AMrmati%e Defenses an allegation of a new matter which whilehypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of theclaimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him.

=inds of aMrmati%e defenses"

-rmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in

ban*ruptcy and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance. $ec.K'

Co!nterclaim C 't is any claim which a defending party may have against anopposing party Ru"e 6, $ec. 6.


50/185

at!re of a co!nterclaim

- counterclaim is in the nature of a cross complaint such that it mustbe answered within :F days from service. 't is a cause of action againstplainti%.

Co!nterclaim m!st )e wit#in t#e 4!risdiction of t#e co!rt

/#ere to 7le" - counterclaim which is led before the 4" must bewithin the !urisdiction of said court as to the amount and the nature thereof.

- court (if 4") has no !urisdiction to hear and determine a set6o% orcounterclaim in e$cess of its !urisdiction. - counterclaim beyond the court=s !urisdiction may only be pleaded by way of defense, the purpose of which isto defeat or wea*en the plainti%=s claim, but OT to obtain armative relief.

Co!nterclaim cannot e6ceed t#e 4!risdiction of t#e co!rt

47RB7OBR, the amount of !udgment obtained by the defendant ona##ea" cannot e$ceed the !urisdiction of the court in which the action began.Since the trial court did not ac&uire !urisdiction over the counterclaim ine$cess of the !urisdictional amount, the appellate court li*ewise did not have !urisdiction over the same. 'n such a case, the award in e$cess of the !urisdiction of the trial court is void A&ustin v. Baca"an, L-16000 March 18,198.

E&ect if co!nterclaim in e6cess of t#e 4!risdiction of t#e co!rt

- counterclaim, even if otherwise compulsory, but the amount e$ceedsthe !urisdiction of the inferior court, will only be considered permissive.- counterclaim may be entertained by the R" regardless of theamount involved provided that, in addition to the other re&uirements, it is

cogni5able by the regular courts of !ustice Re&a"a!o, 2010.

i> Comp!lsor$ Co!nterclaim $ec.

Re

) 't must be e$isting at the time the defendant les his answer $ec.


51/185

8, Ru"e 11.

Test of Comp!lsoriness" "he logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim.

ii > Permissi%e Co!nterclaim

't is a counterclaim which does not arise out of or is necessarilyconnected with the sub!ect matter of the opposing party=s claim. 't is notbarred even of it is not set up in the original action.

E&ect if co!nterclaim co!nterclaim is not raised"

General r!le"

- compulsory counterclaim not set up in the answer is deemed barred.

E6ceptions"

a) 'f it is a counterclaim which either matured or was ac&uired by a

party after serving his answer. 'n this case, it may be pleaded by ling a

supplemental answer or pleading before !udgment.

b) 8hen a pleader fails to set6up a counterclaim through oversight,

inadvertence, e$cusable negligence, or when !ustice re&uires, he may, byleave of court, set6up the counterclaim by amendment of the pleadings

before !udgment $ec. 10, Ru"e 11.

E&ect if comp!lsor$ co!nterclaim is not answered

- plainti% who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsorycounterclaim may not be declared in default principally because the issuesraised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically !oined by the

allegations of the complaint Go>o v. Go/a"a, G.R. No. 2668, 7ct. 0, 190.

-otion to dismiss wit# comp!lsor$ co!nterclaim is incompati)le

T#e 7lin, of a motion to dismiss and t#e settin, !p of a


52/185

comp!lsor$ co!nterclaim are incompati)le remedi

civil procedure pals

Documents