Principle Flashcards
(1719 cards)
1
Q
concept of Rules of Court
A
- The Rules of Court, as a whole, has reference to the body of rules governing pleading, practice and procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making powers under the Constitution. Since such rules do not originate from the legislature, they cannot be called laws in the strict sense of the word. However, since they are promulgated by authority of law, they have the force and effect of law if not in conflict with positive law.
2
Q
2.
A
- The Rules of Court are subordinate to statute, and in case of conflict, the statute will prevail.
3
Q
3.The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal laws and are not to be given retroactive effect.
A
3.The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal laws and are not to be given retroactive effect.
4
Q
4.
A
4.The rules shall govern cases brought after they take effect, and also to pending cases, except if, in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event, the former procedure shall apply.
5
Q
5
A
5.Rules of procedure, may be made applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The rules are retroactive only in this sense.
It need be mentioned that Rule 114 expressly makes the rules under the Rules of Court applicable also to “further proceedings in cases then pending” when the Rules of Court took effect.
6
Q
6
A
6.Being procedural in nature, Neypes is deemed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its effectivity and is thus, retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
7
Q
7
A
- The Neypes Rule is generally prospective in application, being a rule of procedure.j
8
Q
8
A
8.The use of the Rules of Court is not totally prohibited in the cases enumerated hereunder.The Rules may apply to the above cases by (a) analogy, or (b) in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient
1) election cases;
2) land registration cases;
3) cadastral cases;
4) naturalization cases; and
5) insolvency proceedings.
9
Q
9
A
9.It has also been held that rules of procedure imposed in judicial proceedings are unavailing in cases before administrative bodies. Accordingly, administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law.
Even the COMELEC, a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentationof evidence
10
Q
10.
A
10.Jurisprudence has actually long affirmed the principle that the judicial rules of procedure do not apply to non-judicial proceedings,among others, labor disputes.
11
Q
11
A
11.The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that “While administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, are not bound by the technical rules of procedure, this rule cannot be taken as a license to disregard fundamental evidentiary rules; the decision of the administrative agencies and the evidence it relies upon must, at the very least be substantial”
12
Q
12
A
12.The rule-making power of the Court has expanded. The Court for the first time, was given the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
But most important, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
13
Q
13
A
13.In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by the Court with Congress, more so with the executive.
14
Q
14
A
14.The authority of a court to issue injunctive writs is embodied in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and is part of its inherent power to issue all auxiliary writs and other means necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect under Sec. 6 of Rule 135 of the same Rules.
15
Q
15
A
15.Under the Constitution, “No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.”
16
Q
16
A
16.The petition for certiorari under Rule 45 applies only to a review of “judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals, the Sándiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law.” This remedy does not apply to a review of judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the remedy being a Rule 43 appeal to the Court of Appeals.
17
Q
17
A
17.The Court ruled that the Cooperative Code cannot provide for rules on summons and service of processes which are contrary to those provided in the Rules of Court. Service ofsummons in civil, criminal, or special proceedings is a matter of procedure which cannot be replaced by the Cooperative Code.
18
Q
18
A
18.The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case from operation when compelling reasons so warrantor when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts
19
Q
19
A
19.Thus, it is within the power of the Supreme Court to make exceptions to the Rules of Court. It may permit the full and exhaustive ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite the supposed technical infirmities of a petition or its alleged procedural flaws
20
Q
20
A
20.The power to suspend technical rules is observed to be broader and more pervasive when exercised by the Supreme Court. From the point of view of the Court, “The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which the Court itself had already declared to be final.
21
Q
21
A
21.The Court could take cognizance of a petition despite its procedural infirmities, as when the petitioner has no legal standing to file the same. Being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion given the transcendental importance of the constitutional issues it raises as when the petition challenges the constitutionality of the manner by which the President of the Philippines makes appointments to the judiciary.
22
Q
- Pro hac vice rule
A
22.Pro hac vice rule
When the Court, in certain exceptional circumstances, suspends a procedural rule in a particular case, the decision therein cannot be relied on as a precedent since the ruling is for that particular case only or pro hac vice. Jurisprudence has described pro hac vice as a Latin term meaning “for this one only.” When the ruling is qualified as such, the same cannot be used as a precedent to govern other cases.
23
Q
23
A
23.It is vital to remember that judicial review does not only extend to matters that require the duty to settle actual controversies. It also includes the duty to determine whether or not any branch or instrumentality of the government has committed acts constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
24
Q
24
A
24.The government instrumentality subject to judicial review may be one exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, executive or legislative powers. The nature of the functions of the branch or instrumentality of the government, committing acts constituting grave abuse of discretion, is irrelevant .
25
25
25.The rule is that concurrence in jurisdiction does not give a litigant an unbridled freedom of choice of forum. The doctrine of hierarchy of court governs.
26
26
26.A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts may result in the denial of a petition.
27
27
27.The policy on the hierarchy of courts is not to be regarded as an ironclad rule. There were instances when its application has not been absolute and direct resort to a higher court was allowed. The policy may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations.
28
28
28.Civil courts are those which determine controversies between private persons. Criminal courts are those which adjudicate offenses alleged to have been committed against the State.
29
29
29.Philippine courts exercise both civil and criminal jurisdictions because of the principle in Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
30
30
30.The rules of civil procedure in the Rules of Court are not self-executing.It is the act of filing the initiatory pleading called a complaint, that triggers both the practical application of procedural rules and the laws on jurisdiction.
Even a court, vested by law with jurisdiction over certain subject matters, cannot, on its own initiative, take cognizance of a case and try to settle conflicting claims between and among individuals. Without someone going to court to invoke the rules and the jurisdiction of the court, such rules would be nothing but mere dark letters written on a white background.
31
31
31.The complaint is the first document, technically called a pleading, which is filed in court by a party called the plaintiff.
32
32
32.It is the filing of this complaint in court which signifies the commencement of a civil action.
33
33
33.It is the filing of the complaint which enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. This jurisdiction is implied from the fact that by seeking affirmative relief from the court, he recognizes the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, by the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
34
34
34.The litigation process involves much more than the mere mechanical act of drafting the complaint and filing the same with the court. The filing of a complaint requires a prior determination whether or not the plaintiff possesses a legal right to file the desired complaint. This, in turn, requires knowing whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action enforceable against the defendant.
35
35
35.A cause of action arises when someone violates the rights of another. This cause of action has its origins in substantive law.An inquiry into substantive law is imperative because, as it has been previously said, such law is the very foundation of procedural law.
36
36
36.Hence, every cause of action must be predicated upon a provision of substantive law.
37
37
37.The causes of action in civil proceedings actually arise from the traditional sources of a civil obligation, like law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts.
38
38
38.A person victimized by robbery may have a cause of action against the perpetrator of the crime based on the principle that a person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
39
39. !
39.There is no right of action where there is no cause of action.
A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another. Without a violation of this right, there can be no cause of action and, without this cause of action, there would be no right to invoke the rules of procedure and file a suit against the defendant. This right to file a suit is called a right of action. The right of action, which is procedural in character, is the consequence of the violation of the right of the plaintiff. Hence, the rule: There is no right of action where there is no cause of action.
40
40
40.It is not enough that a party has a cause of action. The rules require the plaintiff to sufficiently allege those ultimate facts which, taken together, constitute one's cause of action. In other words, the plaintiff, in his complaint, should state a cause of action against the defendant.
41
41.Accordingly, the test of the sufficiency of the averments in the pleading is whether the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer in the complaint, assuming that the facts, as alleged, are true.
42
42.For a complaint to state a cause of action, the rules emphasize, not the truth of the material allegations of the complaint, but the sufficiency of such allegations. The truth, of the allegations of the complaint, will be tested and determined in the trial and not at the time of the filing of the complaint.
43
43.The failure of the complaint to state the elements of his cause of action supplies a ground for the dismissal of the complaint, even if the actual truth discloses that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
44
44.While a plaintiff may have a legitimate cause of action, as a result of a violation of his rights, he is precluded by the Rules from instituting more than one suit for a single cause of action. He cannot, in other words, split a single cause of action into several parts and make each part the subject of a separate complaint.
He cannot, for instance, sue for a sum of money in one complaint and sue separately for recovery of interest arising from the same cause of action that gave rise to the collection suit. The reason for the rule is the judicial policy of preventing the clogging of the court dockets which normally arises from the filing of multiple of suits based on the same cause of action.
45
45.Following general procedural principles, if a debtor owes à creditor the unpaid amounts of P350,000 and P300,000 under separate promissory notes, the creditor has two causes of action against the debtor. Hence, he may file two separate actions against the debtor to collect the sums owed in his favor.
However, based on the same judicial policy of easing the court dockets, a plaintiff, under certain circumstances, is allowed to assert in one complaint as many causes of action he may have against the same opposing party. Thus, if he so desires, he may join the collection of the amounts of P350,000 and P300,000 in a single complaint. The joining of two causes of action in one complaint is, in procedural jargon, termed” joinder of causes of action."
46
46!
46.Filing the complaint with the wrong court is a ground for dismissal of the complaint either upon proper motion by the adverse party or upon the court's own motion (motu proprio). The dismissal is inevitable because any judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is a nullity.
47
47.The rules on jurisdiction over the subject matter are not found in the Rules of Court, the principles therein being merely procedural. Jurisdiction of this type is a matter of substantive law, not of mere procedure.
A reading of substantive law will also reveal that jurisdiction, likewise, speaks of delegated jurisdiction and special jurisdiction and that there are actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, i.e., where the demand is one other than for a sum of money.
48
48. A complaint filed, even in the court with the appropriate jurisdiction, runs the risk of being dismissed, on motion, if commenced in the wrong place.
49
49.However, unlike the laws on jurisdiction which authorize a dismissal by the court on its own motion, the rules on venue preclude a court from dismissing a complaint motu proprio, except when so authorized by a special rule like the one provided for under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Under the rules governing cases subject to summary procedure, the court may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action.
50
50.Under the rules governing cases subject to summary procedure, the court may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action.
51
51.If the action is real (one that affects title to, possession of, or any interest in real property), the action shall be commenced and tried in the place where the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated.
52
If the action is personal, the action may be commenced and tried in the place where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides, or in the case of a non resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
53
53.If the parties have agreed in writing on the exclusive venue prior to the filing of the action, then the place stipulated is the only venue. This restrictive type of stipulation precludes the filing of the action in some other place.
54
54.Where, however, the parties stipulated on a place not intended to be the exclusive venue for the action, such stipulation is deemed merely permissive.A permissive stipulation operates to provide an additional venue for the action in addition to those set by the rules.
55
55.Not anyone could be a plaintiff. To be a plaintiff, one should be a real party in interest.
56
56.A plaintiff, who claims to be a real party in interest, must sufficiently allege ownership of a right violated by the adverse party. In the words of the Rules, he must be one who "stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."
57
57.As a rule, a suit can be commenced only against one averred to have violated the plaintiff's rights.
58
58.Where the party is indispensable, his joinder is compulsory. Without an indispensable party, no final determination of an action could be had.
59
59.On the contrary, the non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding with the action although, without such party, no complete relief may be accorded as to those already parties.
60
60.If the action is already barred by the statute of limitations, then, the right of action has ceased.It has ceased because it has prescribed.
61
61.Prescription is one of the well-recognized grounds for the dismissal of the complaint, the same being a mode of extinguishment of a legal obligation.
62
62.When it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the action has prescribed, the court is mandated by the Rules to dismiss the claim.
63
63.When dismissed on the ground of prescription, the refiling of the same action or claim is barred.
64
64.There are actions which require the performance of conditions precedent. Compliance with such conditions is - imperative and cannot be conveniently ignored.
65
65.Compliance with conditions precedent is not, however, sufficient. Compliance therewith must be alleged in the complaint for it to sufficiently state a cause of action.
66
66.Actions between members of the same family must be preceded by attempts to have the controversy settled and compromised by virtue of Art. 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
The Family Code declares, in unequivocal language, that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper, unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, and that such efforts have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were made, the case, pursuant to Art. 151 of the Family Code, “must be dismissed."
67
67.The complaint or any other pleading is not designed to be a narration and an exposition of evidentiary matters. Any pleading need only state the ultimate facts which constitute a party's claim or defense. Such facts are to be alleged plainly, concisely, and directly in a methodical and logical form.
68
68.Because the rule requires alleging only the ultimate facts, statements of evidentiary facts are to be omitted. Also to be omitted are conclusions of law. Conclusions are to be made by the court while evidentiary matters are to be presented in the trial.
69
69.There are situations where the suit is predicated upon the alleged fraudulent acts of the defendant. If this be so, the rule requires that the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake be stated with particularity to enable the court to determine the type of fraud committed by the defendant and his subsequent liability, if there be any.
70
70.Under the Civil Code, depending on the kind of fraud committed, fraud may be a cause for the annulment or rescission of a contract. It may also be a ground for liability for damages alone. It may even be a cause for an action for the reformation of an instrument.
71
71.The same rule mandating a particular narration of circumstances of fraud applies to averments of mistake.
72
72.Averments of malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may, however, be averred generally.
73
73.An action filed may, sometimes, be based upon a document, as when a collection suit is based upon a promissory note executed by the defendant. Such document needs to be properly pleaded in the complaint by setting forth the substance of the instrument in the complaint and attaching the original or a copy thereof as an integral part of the complaint.
74
74.The defending party may opt to deny the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note. When he does so, the rule is established that a mere specific denial of such matters would not be a sufficient denial. The rule requires the denial to be under oath; otherwise, the defendant will be deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the note.
75
75.It is also possible that a complaint is filed to recover usurious interest. If the defending party desires to deny the usurious interest, he must do so under oath because a mere specific denial of such interest is not sufficient. The allegations of usury in the complaint are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
76
76.The complaint must specify the relief sought although the rule allows the addition of a general prayer for such other reliefs as the court may deem just or equitable.
77
77.Although part of the complaint, the relief or prayer is not largely determinative of the cause of action. The nature of the cause of action is primarily determined by the allegations in the body of the complaint and not by the prayer alone.
78
78.The complaint must be dated. It must, likewise, be signed by the party or by the counsel representing him.
79
78.The complaint must be dated. It must, likewise, be signed by the party or by the counsel representing him.
80
80.When it is the counsel who signs the pleading, his signature constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there are good grounds to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
81
81.The complaint must designate the address of the party or his counsel. This address should not be a post office box.
82
82.Should every complaint or any other pleading be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit? The general rule on the matter is that a pleading need not be verified, unless specifically mandated by law or a particular rule.
83
82.Should every complaint or any other pleading be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit? The general rule on the matter is that a pleading need not be verified, unless specifically mandated by law or a particular rule.
84
83.All pleadings under the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure have to be verified.
85
84.Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus must, likewise, be verified.
86
85.The complaint and other initiatory pleading must contain or be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping in which the plaintiff or principal party certifies, among others, that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues pending in, or already resolved, in any other tribunal.
87
86.Failure to comply with this (preceding number) requirement is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint upon motion and after hearing.
88
87.Provisional remedies are not permanent or final reliefs. They are, as the name indicates, merely temporary reliefs that may be availed of by a party in the meantime that the main action is being litigated and there is yet no final judgment in the case.
89
88.In an action for forcible entry, for instance, the plaintiff may ask for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in the possession of his land during the pendency of the main case.
90
89.In an action for collection of a sum of money the plaintiff may, at the commencement of the action, apply for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment of the defendant's properties where it is shown that the defendant is about to depart from the Philippines with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff-creditor.
This attachment is obtained to secure the future execution of the judgment and avoid the sad spectacle of a winning party literally holding an empty bag because the sheriff cannot find properties of the losing party to satisfy the judgment.
91
90.In an action for support where the resolution thereof may possibly come only after a protracted litigation, the plaintiff may ask the court to order the defendant to give support to the plaintiff during the pendency of the action.
This remedy is known in the Rules as support pendente lite.
92
91.In an action for damages against an electric company which wrongly cut off the power supply to the plaintiff's factory, the latter may ask the court to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore power in the meantime that litigation on the main action is in progress.
93
92. The filing of the complaint is the act of presenting the same before the clerk of court.
94
93.The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed, the filing must be accompanied by the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees.
95
94.The fees must be paid because, as a rule, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon payment of the prescribed fees. Without payment, the general rule is that the complaint is not considered filed. Payment of the full amount of the docket fee is mandatory and jurisdictional.
96
95.This rule was, however, relaxed by the Supreme Court in some cases in which payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but not beyond the prescriptive period, was permitted. If the fees are not paid at the time of the filing, the court acquires jurisdiction only upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time, as the court may grant, barring prescription.
97
96.Even on appeal, the general rule is that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal although there were instances when the rule had been applied with liberality. It is well-established that, as a general rule, the payment of docket fees within the required period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.
98
97.When the complaint is filed and the prescribed fees are paid, the action is deemed commenced. The court, then, acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff and the running of the prescriptive period for the action is interrupted.
99
98.Dismissal of the complaint by the plaintiff - If the dismissal is made before the adverse party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, he may have his own complaint dismissed by the mere filing of a notice of dismissal. A motion to dismiss is not required.
100
99.Upon such notice, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal.
101
100.The dismissal by notice of dismissal is without prejudice to its being refiled later, unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or when the refiling is barred by, what jurisprudence calls, “the two-dismissal rule” because the action had already been previously dismissed twice by the plaintiff in a competent court in an action based on or including the same claim.
102
101.After service of the answer or a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff can no longer have his action dismissed by mere notice.
103
102.The plaintiff now has to file a motion to dismiss his complaint. The grant or denial of the motion to dismiss is now a matter addressed to sound judicial discretion because this type of dismissal is no longer a matter of right.
104
103.If the court allows the dismissal of the complaint, only the complaint is dismissed. A counterclaim, already pleaded prior to the service upon the defendant of the motion for dismissal, is not affected by the dismissal of the complaint and is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.
105
104.A dismissal, under this rule, is deemed a dismissal without prejudice to the refiling of the complaint, unless otherwise stated in the order dismissal.
106
105.Dismissal by the court — The court shall, on its own motion, dismiss the complaint if it appears from the complaint or the pleadings that the court has no jurisdiction over the a subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute limitations.
107
106.The court may, on its own motion, or upon motion of the adverse party, dismiss a complaint for causes due to the fault of the plaintiff. This happens when the plaintiff, without justifiable cause, fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief, to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with the Rules or any order of the court.
This dismissal will have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless the court declares otherwise. This means that, as a rule, the complaint can no longer be refiled if the dismissal is anchored on any of the grounds mentioned in this paragraph.
108
107.Amendment of the complaint - Instead of dismissing his complaint, as explained in the preceding number, it frequently happens that the plaintiff finds the need to amend his complaint. He may amend his complaint, for example, by correcting a mistaken or an inadequate allegation therein.
109
108.Amendment of the pleading is a matter of right as long as it is made before the other party has served a responsive pleading.
110
108.Amendment of the pleading is a matter of right as long as it is made before the other party has served a responsive pleading.
111
109.If the plaintiff desires to amend his complaint before the defendant serves his answer, the amendment may be done as a matter of right and the court has no discretion on the matter.
112
110.In such a case, the amendment has to be accepted by the court as a ministerial duty, the amendment being made as a matter of right.
113
111.Amendment may even be done to correct an error in jurisdiction or to effect a change in the cause of action provided the amendment is still a matter of right.
114
112.Note that an amendment made as a matter of right may, by the terms of the Rules, be availed of only once.
115
113.It has often been asked whether or not the plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of right even after a motion to dismiss has been served. The logical answer is that, he may do so and this is because a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Hence, his right to amend his complaint is not affected by the service of a motion to dismiss.
116
114.After a responsive pleading has been served, amendment must be with leave of court. This means that after an answer has been served, an amendment may be done only with the approval of the court. The amendment, in this case, is no longer a matter of right and becomes a matter of judicial discretion.
117
115.Although existing jurisprudence adopts a liberal policy on amendments, such amendment may be refused if it appears to the court that the amendment is intended for delay.
118
116.Under current rules, the fact that the amendment substantially alters the cause of action is not a ground for the court to refuse the amendment. It is an amendment with the intent to delay the proceedings which would justifies the court in refusing any motion for leave to amend the pleading.
119
117.Also, when the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint and the amendment is for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the court where the amendment is no longer a matter of right, the amendment shall not be allowed.
120
118.Common reason suggests that, in this case, since the court is without jurisdiction over the complaint, it has no jurisdiction to act on the motion for leave to amend.
121
119.An amendment may also arise by implication when matters not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, as when no objection is interjected on the evidence offered on a matter not in issue in the pleadings.
122
120.When this occurs, the issues tried with the consent of the parties shall be treated as if they had been raised in the pleadings. The pleadings may, then, be amended to conform to the evidence, although an actual amendment need not be made because failure to do so will not affect the result of the trial on said issues.
123
121.For the defendant, the service of summons represents the usual beginning of civil procedure.
124
122.The summons orders the defendant to file an answer to the complaint and also reminds him that, unless he does so, the court may render a judgment against him by default and grant to the plaintiff the relief applied for.
125
123.Attached to the summons is a copy of the complaint.
126
124.The summons and copy of the complaint are to be served upon the defendant in person but, if he cannot be served despite diligent efforts, summons may be served by an alternative mode called substituted service.
127
125.Substituted service consists in serving the summons at the residence of the defendant or his regular place of business with a person qualified to so receive the summons in accordance with the Rules.
128
126.Subject to certain exceptions, the long-standing rule is that summons by publication is not a recognized mode of service for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
129
127.The filing of the complaint enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. This jurisdiction, however, does not extend to the person of the defendant.
130
128.Absent a voluntary appearance, it is the service of summons upon the defendant which enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person in those actions traditionally called actions in personam.
131
129.The summons is a coercive process which places the person, even of the unwilling defendant, under the jurisdiction of the court.
132
130.Service of summons, likewise, represents a compliance with the rule on notice - an essential element of constitutional due process.
133
131.When the defendant is a minor, insane or incompetent,service of summons shall be made upon him personally AND on his legal guardian if he has one, or, if none, upon his guardian ad litem, or, in the case of a minor, upon his father or mother.
134
132.If the defendant is a domestic corporation or partnership, service may be made on certain specific persons only like the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
135
133.When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him (the prisoner) by the officer having management of the jail or institution. Such manager is deemed deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose.
136
134.Service of summons is not the only way by which the court acquires the requisite jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in certain actions. Service of summons may be dispensed with if the defendant makes a a voluntary appearance.
137
135.Under the Rules, the defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.
138
136.Also, in some special civil actions, an order to comment served upon the respondent would enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person.
139
137.Although the summons directs the defendant to file an answer to the complaint, he is procedurally under no obligation to outrightly file an answer since the rule allows him certain procedural options.
140
138.If after reading the complaint, the defendant finds that, because of the ambiguity in certain material allegations in the complaint, he cannot possibly serve an intelligent answer, he need not serve his answer unless and until the alleged ambiguities are clarified by the plaintiff.
141
139.These ambiguities may be sought to be clarified through a bill of particulars submitted by the plaintiff, upon order of the court and upon motion of the other party.
142
!
140.It must be clarified that a motion for bill of particulars is not solely directed to the complaint. Any other pleading may be the object of a motion for bill of particulars.
143
141.Upon being notified of the motion for bill of particulars by the clerk of court, the court may either deny or grant the motion outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be heard.
144
142.The court, therefore, is not obliged to conduct a hearing on the motion for bill of particulars.
145
143.If the order to submit a bill of particulars is not obeyed, or in case compliance is insufficient, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof or make such other order as it may deem just.
146
144.A motion for bill of particulars is not filed in order to discover the evidence of the other party.
For this purpose, the movant should avail of the various modes of discovery under the Rules of Court. The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars is plainly to enable the movant to properly prepare his responsive pleading. (#1743, interrogatories to parties)
147
After the plaintiff submits a bill of particulars which clarifies the ambiguities in the complaint, the defendant may now file his answer. If, however, from the reading of the complaint, a solid basis exists for the immediate dismissal of the action, the defendant, instead of filing his answer, may avail of another option, i.e., to file a motion to dismiss.
148
146.A motion to dismiss need not be preceded by a motion for bill of particulars because the defendant may, forthwith, file a motion to dismiss upon service of the summons upon him.
149
147.Normally, a court will wait for a party to file a motion to dismiss even if the ground for dismissal is known to it.
150
148.For instance, unless the case is covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, the court will, and ought to, refrain from dismissing a complaint on the ground of improper venue even if the venue is blatantly defective. Venue is a matter designed for the convenience of the parties and if no party complains about the venue, it is not for the court to take up the cudgels for any party.
There are, however, grounds for dismissal which the court will recognize on its own motion.
151
149.Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription are reasons for the court to effect a motu proprio dismissal of the complaint, whenever any of these grounds appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record.
152
150.The motion to dismiss is to be heard and after the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading. The court is without authority to defer the motion based on the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
153
151.A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion.
154
152.A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion since it attacks a pleading by seeking its dismissal. As such, when it is filed, it shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived, except certain defenses like lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription.
155
153.If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for the dismissal provided in the rules governing a motion to dismiss may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer, and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had on the defense relied upon as if a timely motion to dismiss had been filed.
156
154.The dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss does not necessarily preclude the refiling of the same.
For instance, where a complaint was dismissed on the ground of improper venue, the plaintiff may refile the complaint, this time, in the proper venue.
Where the dismissal was ordered by the court for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the plaintiff may refile the same in the court with the proper jurisdiction.
157
155.There are, however, certain grounds for dismissal of the complaint which will bar the refiling of the same claim. These grounds are bar by a prior judgment, statute of limitations, the claim or demand has been extinguished, or the claim is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds.
158
156.If there exists no ground for a motion to dismiss or if the motion is rightfully denied, the defendant has to file his answer.
159
157.The answer is the responsive pleading to the complaint. The answer gives notice to the plaintiff as to which allegations in the complaint the defendant decides to contest and put in issue. The answer may invoke both negative and affirmative defenses.
160
158.A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant.
161
159.Not every denial qualifies as a correct denial. The denial is required to be a specific denial.
162
160.The answer must specifically deny the material averments in the other party's pleading because material averments not specifically denied are deemed admitted.
163
161.If the answer, for example, admits all the material averments in the complaint, the answer is deemed to have failed to tender an issue. Since there is no triable issue, a trial is completely unnecessary. The claiming party may then file a motion for a judgment on the pleadings and the court may direct a judgment based on the pleadings already filed.
164
162.An affirmative defense essentially consists of a hypothetical admission of the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant but, nevertheless, prevents or bars recovery by him.
165
163.The filing of an answer is important. Failure of the defending party to file an answer entitles the claiming party to file a motion to declare him in default.
166
164.When he is declared in default, the defending party loses his standing in court and is not allowed to take part in the trial.
167
165.After issuing an order of default, the court may proceed to render judgment granting the claiming party such relief as his complaint may warrant unless, in its discretion, it requires the plaintiff to submit evidence on his claim.
168
An important principle in this regard is the rule that the court's declaration of default should be preceded by a motion to declare the said party in default together with proof of such failure.
169
167.The rule, therefore, precludes the court from declaring the defending party in default on its own motion. (default)
170
168.Although barred from participating in the proceedings, he is, however, still entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings.
171
169.He is also accorded a relief from the order of default. He may, at any time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default. The motion must show that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense.
172
170.The order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.
173
171.It is, likewise, important to emphasize that a default order will not be issued in certain cases like in an action for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, or legal separation, even if the defendant fails to answer. Instead, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not collusion exists between the parties and prevent fabrication of evidence.
174
172.When the order of default ripens into a judgment by default, there is a limit imposed by the Rules on the extent of relief to be awarded in the judgment. A judgment rendered, against a party in default shall not exceed or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.
175
173.It happens frequently enough that the defendant has his own claim against the plaintiff. When the defendant files his answer to the complaint, said answer may be coupled with a counterclaim, which is a pleading in its own right.
176
174.A counterclaim is always directed against an opposing party, not against a co-party.
177
175.The counterclaim may be one that is compulsory or one that is permissive.
178
176.A permissive counterclaim does not have to be raised in the same proceedings because, by its nature, it could be invoked as an independent action.
179
177.It also happens that one defendant has a claim against his co-defendant, arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the complaint.
180
178.The claiming defendant may, then, in his answer, interpose a pleading against his co-defendant. This pleading is known as a cross-claim. This is a pleading containing the claim by one party against a co-party.
181
179.There are also cases when a defendant, named in the complaint, has a cause of action against one who is not a party to the action. This cause of action is a claim against a third person either for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief in respect of the plaintiff's claim.
The defendant may bring in the third person into the suit and implead him as a party by filing, with leave of court, a third-party complaint against him, thus, making him a party to the action.
182
180.Upon receipt of the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may respond to the answer. This response is done through a pleading called a reply.
183
181.The purpose of a reply is to deny or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in the answer.
184
182.A reply is the plaintiff's responsive pleading to the answer of the defendant. A reply, unlike the answer, is not a compulsory pleading.
185
183.While the failure to file an answer may lead to a declaration of default, the failure to file a reply does not have the same consequence.
186
184.The failure to file a reply will not, likewise, result in the implied admission of the material allegations in the answer because allegations of new matters in the answer, even if not replied to, are deemed controverted or denied.
187
185.After the last pleading has been served and filed, it is the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
188
186.A pre-trial is mandatory and failure to appear thereat by either party will result in adverse consequences for the absent party.
189
187.In a pre-trial, the parties shall, among others, consider the possibility of an amicable settlement or submission of the case to alternative modes of dispute resolution. A pre-trial has several purposes. Hence, the mere failure of the parties to effect a compromise is not a ground for the court to terminate the pre-trial.
190
188.During the pre-trial stage and, generally, at any time even before pre-trial or trial, the parties may obtain information from each other through the employment of devices, collectively known as discovery procedures.
191
189.The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party himself if such party has no counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying his client.
192
190.Appearance in the pre-trial is the duty of both the counsel and the parties.
193
191.The unjustified failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. The dismissal is with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court.
194
192.A similar failure of the defendant shall be a cause for the court to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte.The judgment of the court shall be based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff.
195
193.At least three days before the date of the pre-trial, the parties are required to file with the court and serve upon each other their respective pre-trial briefs. Failure to file the same shall be equivalent to failure to appear at the pre-trial.
196
194.After the pre-trial, the court shall issue a pre-trial order. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless the same is modified for reasons of justice.
197
195.Should there be no amicable settlement or compromise forged between the parties, the case will be set for trial.
198
196.However, if the defendant believes that, upon the facts, and the law, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, he may, instead of presenting his own evidence, move for the dismissal of the case. He does so by way of a demurrer to evidence.
199
197.If the demurrer is denied, the defendant still has the right to present his evidence. If the demurrer is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, the defendant is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence.
200
198.A trial is not an indispensable stage of a civil action.
201
199.A judgment may be rendered even without a trial as when a case is permanently dismissed as a consequence of a motion to dismiss on certain grounds like prescription or bar by a prior judgment.
202
200.A judgment may also be rendered based on the pleadings. Here, no trial is required because the basis of the decision would merely be the pleadings of the parties.
203
201.A judgment upon a compromise may also be rendered even without a trial.
204
202.A judgment is rendered after the submission of the evidence of the parties has been concluded.
205
203.There is no oral judgment under the Rules.
206
204.It has to be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.
207
205.The date of entry of the judgment, under current procedure, is also the date of the finality of the judgment.
208
206.The date of entry of the judgment finds relevance when the judgment is to be executed by motion.
209
207. A final and executory judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry.
210
208.The date of the entry of judgment is also relevant when a litigant files a petition for relief from judgment which is filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding, and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered.
211
208.The date of the entry of judgment is also relevant when a litigant files a petition for relief from judgment which is filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding, and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered.
212
209.The judgment is not the end for the losing party because he is afforded remedies against the adverse judgment.
213
210.If the motion for new trial or the motion for reconsideration is denied, the aggrieved party may appeal from the judgment within the period for appeal following the so-called “fresh period” rule,
214
211.After the judgment becomes final and executory, a party may no longer appeal because the period for appeal has already lapsed.
215
212.The judgment has become final and executory and the prevailing party may, at any time within five years from its date of entry, file a motion for the execution of the judgment rendered in his favor.
216
213.When all the remedies available to a party have been exhausted and the case is finally decided, the judgment of the court shall then be subject to execution. This is the remedy afforded by procedural rules for the enforcement of the judgment. It is the fruit, as well as the end of the action.
217
214.Jurisdiction has, traditionally, been referred to as the power and authority of the court to hear, try and determine a case.
This definition has, however, been expanded to include the authority of the court to execute its decisions.
218
215.It was held that the power to control the execution of the decision of the court is an essential aspect of jurisdiction and that the most important part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of decisions.
219
216.Quite recently, the Court explained that the execution of a judgment is incidental to the jurisdiction already acquired by the trial court
220
217.The power of a court to hear and decide a controversy includes the power to determine whether or not it has the authority to hear and determine the controversy presented, and the right to decide whether or not the statement of facts that confer jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that arise in the case legitimately before the court.
221
218.Jurisdiction imports the power and authority to declare the law, to expound or to apply the laws, to hear and determine issues of law and of fact, the power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before the court, and the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce the judgment
222
219.Note: Common usage tells us that, when a legal treatise makes reference to the term “jurisdiction," without it specifying the type or aspect of jurisdiction, the same should be construed as referring to jurisdiction over the subject matter,
223
220.It is the court, not the judge, which by law, is vested with jurisdiction. The judge merely presides over the court. Thus, jurisprudence holds that jurisdiction is not the authority of the judge but of the court. Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court.
224
221.Hence, the continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it.
225
222.Jurisdiction does not refer to the decision itself
Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. The authority of the court to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction.
226
223.Jurisdiction over the subject matter is referred to as the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it. The term also refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs
227
223. the court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs
224. Following this definition, “real actions," "personal actions” or “actions incapable of pecuniary estimation" are to be considered as subject matters.
228
225. That any act that the court performs without jurisdiction shall be null and void, and without any binding legal effect.
229
226.Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
230
227.Even if the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter was not raised by either of the parties, the courts will have to first address such question before delving into the procedural and substantive issues of the case.
231
228.Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and, even if such question is neither raised by the pleadings or suggested by counsel, they may recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying pleadings, dismissing the action, or otherwise noticing the defect, at any stage of the proceedings
232
229.Effect of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
The general rule is that proceedings conducted or decisions made by a court are legally void where there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is true even where the court in good faith believes that the subject matter is within its jurisdiction.
233
230.A court devoid of jurisdiction over the case cannot make a decision in favor of either party. It can only dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
234
231.A decision rendered by a court devoid of jurisdiction may be the subject of a collateral attack, if that jurisdictional defect appears on the face of the record.
235
232.Where lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appears on the face of the record, an appellate court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action
236
233.A void judgment for lack of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right, nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void
237
234.Note: When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is performing the only authority that it has under the circumstances, i.e., to order such dismissal. It would be error for that court to refer or forward the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction.
238
235.Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or authority is called the exercise of jurisdiction and where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.
239
236.Of course, implied from the above distinction is the rule that a valid exercise of jurisdiction presupposes that the court exercising jurisdiction has jurisdiction over the nature of the action.
240
237.An error of jurisdiction is one which occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law. It may also occur when the court or tribunal, although vested with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
241
238.Another instance when the court may be deemed to have acted without jurisdiction is when, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it acted beyond the power conferred upon it, i.e., it acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law
242
239.if during the course of the proceedings, the court with jurisdiction, issued orders clearly contrary to the facts and the law, and whimsically and capriciously refused to reconsider said orders despite having the opportunity of doing so, the court is deemed to have been deprived of the jurisdiction it originally had since its acts are deemed to be tainted with a grave abuse of discretion "amounting to lack of jurisdiction."
243
240.An error of judgment is not to be equated with an error of jurisdiction.
244
241.An error of judgment presupposes that the court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action but, in the process of exercising that jurisdiction, it committed mistakes in the appreciation of the facts and the evidence leading to an erroneous judgment. These mistakes are mere errors of judgment and not errors of jurisdiction because the decision, although erroneous, was rendered by a court vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
245
242.As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion wilI amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment
246
243.It must also be noted that mere fact that the court misapplied the facts and the evidence and made erroneous conclusions, does not necessarily give rise to errors of jurisdiction. Such errors are merely errors of judgment
247
244.Errors of jurisdiction are correctible by certiorari while errors of judgment are correctible by by appeal
248
245.The test of jurisdiction is not whether or not the judgment of the court is legally correct. The test is whether or not, under the law, it has the power or authority to take cognizance of a particular subject matter.
If the court has such authority, then the court has jurisdiction even if its conclusions turn out to be erroneous. The erroneous conclusion of the court would be merely an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction.
249
246.The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the court or tribunal had the power to enter on the inquiry, not whether or not its conclusions, in the course thereof, were correct, for the power to decide necessarily carries with it the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly.
250
247.That the decision is erroneous does not divest the court or tribunal that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case. Hence, if the court or tribunal has jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error may be attributed to it simply one of judgment, not of jurisdiction; appeal, not certiorari, lies to correct the error
251
!
248.An erroneous judgment is not void
Where a court has jurisdiction, an erroneous decision cannot be deemed void, although the error may be the subject of an appeal brought by the aggrieved party.
252
249.If the court has jurisdiction, it is altogether immaterial how grossly irregular or manifestly erroneous its proceedings may have been. The judgment cannot be considered a nullity, and cannot, therefore, be collaterally impeached. Such a judgment is binding on the parties unless it is reversed or annulled in a direct proceeding.
253
250.On the contrary, if there is a total want of jurisdiction in a court, its proceedings are an absolute nullity, confer no right and afford no protection but will be pronounced void when collaterally attacked. The judgment may be struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel .
254
!
251.How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The conferring law may be Constitution, or the statute organizing the court or tribunal, or the special or general statute defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal. That law must be that which is in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
255
252.Since jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law, its existence does not depend upon the regularity of its exercise by the court or tribunal . It is not dependent on the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or anyone of them. (Consequences of the rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law)
256
253.Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties
257
254.Because jurisdiction is conferred by law, it cannot be conferred by the administrative policy of any court.
258
255.Also, it cannot be conferred by a court's unilateral assumption of jurisdiction.
259
256.Jurisdiction may not be changed by the mere agreement of the parties. It cannot be the subject matter of a contract
260
257.It cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties
261
258.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the court's acquiescence
262
258.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the court's acquiescence
263
259.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction
264
260. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the waiver of objections
265
261.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the silence of the parties
266
262.Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied, but must appear clearly from the law or it will not be held to exist, but it may be conferred on a court or tribunal by necessary implication as well as by express terms.
267
!
263.The law applicable to the case
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.
268
!
264.How jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
While jurisdiction is conferred by law, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief sought.
269
265.The allegations in the complaint determine both the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court
270
266.For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the trial court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments or allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the the claims or reliefs sought therein.
271
266.For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the trial court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments or allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the the claims or reliefs sought therein.
272
267.It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over said action are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
273
267.It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over said action are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
274
268.In determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the complaint before it, the court should not inquire into the truth of such allegations. What the court should do is to consider the material allegations in the complaint in relation to the relief sought. The truth shall, later on, be determined during the trial.
275
268.In determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the complaint before it, the court should not inquire into the truth of such allegations. What the court should do is to consider the material allegations in the complaint in relation to the relief sought. The truth shall, later on, be determined during the trial.
276
269.Caption of the case is not controlling
The cause of action in a complaint is not what the title or designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe. The designation or caption is not controlling for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint .
277
270.Jurisdiction does not depend on the complaint's caption. Hence, a complaint merely bearing the caption, "recovery of possession," is actually an unlawful detainer case if it contains the jurisdictional facts of said action
278
270.Jurisdiction does not depend on the complaint's caption. Hence, a complaint merely bearing the caption, "recovery of possession," is actually an unlawful detainer case if it contains the jurisdictional facts of said action
279
271.The defenses and the evidence do not determine jurisdiction
Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration
280
272.The settled rule is that jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the initiatory pleading and the defenses in the answer are deemed irrelevant and immaterial in its determination; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant
281
273.Because jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant in his motion to dismiss or answer, the Municipal Trial Court does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the mere allegation, that the defendant asserts ownership over the litigated property.
282
274.In the same vein, the MTC does not automatically lose its exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases by the mere allegations of a tenancy relationship.
283
275.However, while the Municipal Trial Court does not lose its jurisdiction over an eiectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties, yet if, after hearing, tenancy had in fact been proved to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
284
276.In ejectment cases, where tenancy was the defense, the court went beyond the allegations in the complaint in determining jurisdiction in resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and required the presentation of evidence to prove or disprove the defense of tenancy. After finding the real issue to be tenancy, the cases were dismissed for lack jurisdiction.
285
277.It must be borne in mind, however, that the Municipal Trial Court does not automatically lose its jurisdiction over ejectment cases by the mere allegation of the defense of tenancy relationship between the parties. The court continues to have authority to hear and evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, and if after hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The rule, still, is that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
286
278.The amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction (Bar 2015)
Since it is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction does not depend on the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court
287
279.It is submitted, however, where a complaint for the recovery of a loan of P300,000 is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, but after consideration of the evidence, it is shown that the amount recoverable is P1 million, an amount within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court if originally filed, the Municipal Trial Court cannot render judgment for P1 million for lack of jurisdiction.
288
!
280.Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (primary administrative jurisdiction)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that the courts cannot, and will not, resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact .
288
280.Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (primary administrative jurisdiction)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that the courts cannot, and will not, resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact .
289
281.The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto himself the authority to resolve as controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
290
282.The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court
291
283.The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be considered corollary to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or vice versa. It would be more accurate to state that the doctrines complement each other. The distinction lies on what the doctrines give more emphasis.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction emphasizes the initial conferment of jurisdiction over a particular matter to an administrative body before a court could exercise jurisdiction over the same.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, although may also involve administrative jurisdiction over a specific matter, gives emphasis to procedural requirements which a party should follow before seeking judicial relief.
292
284.The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions.
293
!
285.Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (continuity of jurisdiction)
The doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case
294
286.Otherwise stated, once jurisdiction attaches, it shall not be removed from the court until the termination of the case .
295
287.Because of the doctrine, if, in an action for ejectment, the defendant voluntarily surrenders the premises subject of the action to the plaintiff, the surrender of the property does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
296
288.Also, if the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve the motion continues until the matter is resolved and is not lost by the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal. See queries 105 for explanation
297
289.It was ruled that the jurisdiction which the court had at the time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case.
298
290.It was held that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case involving a public official by the mere fact that said official ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case
299
291. Likewise, the fact that the complainant resigned after the filing of the administrative complaint did not affect the case because jurisdiction had already been acquired over the case upon the filing of the complaint. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by the resignation of the complaining party; it continues until the case is terminated
300
292.Also, the retirement from the service of a public official during the pendency of an administrative case against him, does not render the case moot and academic. Once jurisdiction attaches, “it cannot be defeated by the acts of the respondent, save only when death intervenes and the action does not survive
301
!
293.Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify, or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it
302
294.Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any subsequent events such as a new legislation placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal.
The only exception the rule arise when:
(1) there is express provision in the statute, or
(2) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.
303
!
295.Doctrine of ancillary (incidental) jurisdiction
This power refers to the authority of an office or tribunal to do all things necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgment and mandate.
In other words, ancillary jurisdiction refers to the power of every court to adopt such means and perform such acts necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
304
296.Corollary to the above provision is Sec. 5 of Rule 135 which enumerates the inherent powers of a court, among which are: To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes and to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice”
305
!
297.Doctrine of judicial stability
The doctrine of judicial stability is one which precludes a court from interfering by injunction with the regular orders of a co-equal court.
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with that judgment
306
298.If a court violates the law or the rules on the issuance of a writ, the appropriate action is to assail the writ before the issuing court. Upon failure to seek redress from the said court, the remedy is not to resort to a co-equal body but to a higher court with authority to nullify the action of the issuing court.
307
299.Thus, under the doctrine, a Regional Trial Court is precluded from issuing an injunction against a writ issued by another Regional Trial Court. The remedy is to go to a higher court to enjoin the acts of the court if the latter refuses to correct its error and denies any motion assailing the writ it issued.
308
300.The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before the filing of the answer because lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss
309
301.Jurisprudence explains that the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
310
302.Even if the parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction the reviewing court, on appeal, is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case
311
303. Hence, the issue may even be tackled motu propio for the first time on appeal
312
304.Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment.
313
305.The reason for the above rule is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and render judgment on the action .Jurisdiction over the subject matter, being conferred by law, is not for the courts or the parties to conveniently set aside
314
!
306.Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdictions
While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since it is conferred by law, it is, nevertheless, settled that a party may be barred from raising it on the ground of estoppel
315
307.In Tijam u. Sibonghanoy, the Supreme Court barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised by a party only when an adverse decision was rendered by the lower court against it and because it raised the issue only after almost 15 years and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and actively participating in all stages of the proceedings.
The doctrine, is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
316
308.The Court, however, cautioned that estoppel by laches may only be invoked to bar the defense of lack of jurisdiction if the factual milieu is analogous to Tijam u. Sibonghanoy
The contention that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel through active participation in the trial is not the general rule, but an exception, best characterized by the circumstances in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
Where the factual settings attendant in Tijam V. Sibonghanoy are not present, the application of estoppel by laches would not be justified
317
309.The Court invoked estoppel to prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction, where the party actively participated in all stages of a case. This participation includes invoking the authority of the court in seeking affirmative relief, and questioning the court's jurisdiction only after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case, for the purpose of annulling everything done in the trial in which he has actively participated.
318
310.After voluntarily submitting a case and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse
319
311.It is settled that the active participation of a party before court is tantamount to recognition of that court's jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the court's resolution
320
312.A motion to to dismiss is an omnibus motion under Sec. 8 of Rule 15. A motion to dismiss, by seeking for the dismissal of a claim definitely attacks a pleading.
321
313.The same rule requires an omnibus motion to include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.
322
314.Hence, pursuant to the omnibus motion rule, when a motion to dismiss is filed, all the objections or defenses available to the movant, at the time of the filing of the same, shall be invoked. Those not invoked despite their unavailability (?), shall be deemed waived.
323
315.Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, available defenses not invoked are considered waived.
324
316.The omnibus motion rule, however, is, by the terms of Sec. 8 of Rule 15, "Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9."
There are certain defenses which are not waived even if not invoked in the motion to dismiss. Such non-waivable defenses, stated in their simplest terms, are:
1. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. litis pendencia;
3. res judicata; and
4. prescription.
325
317.Hence, if a motion to dismiss was filed and the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter was not raised therein, a party may, when he files an answer, still raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is not barred by the omnibus motion rule.
326
318.Jurisdiction over the person or jurisdiction in personam is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil or criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem”
327
319.Jurisdiction over the person of a litigant is vital for the enforcement of an order or judgment of the court against such person. A person not within the jurisdiction of the court is not bound by the judgment of that court.
328
320.An execution to satisfy a judgment can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court.
329
321.The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.
330
322.Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired as soon as he files his complaint or petition because by the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court
331
323.Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons
332
324.The court may acquire jurisdiction over the of the defendant without service of summons or despite a defective service of summons. This aspect of jurisdiction may be acquired when the defendant voluntarily participates in an action.
333
!
325.The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons
334
326.To constitute voluntary appearance, it must be the kind that amounts to a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Submission to the court's jurisdiction takes the form of an appearance that seeks affirmative relief except when the relief sought is for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant.
335
327.Generally, a person voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction when he or she participates in the trial despite improper service of summons
336
328. As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court like the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file an answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment or to lift the order of default.
337
329.This rule, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.
338
330.The objection, however, must be explicitly made or made in an unequivocal manner, Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution
339
331.If a plaintiff may assert two or more causes of actions, a defendant should also be allowed, under the Rules of Court, to put up his own defenses alternatively or hypothetically. The Court stressed that it should not be the invocation of available additional defenses that should be construed as a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but the failure to raise the defense.
340
332.The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
341
333.The rule, as it now stands, allows the raising of defenses in addition to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, without creating an inference of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court
342
!
334.When jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required
Jurisprudence suggests that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required in an action in personam.
343
335.Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem.
344
336. In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.
345
337.Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis in in rem and quasi in rem actions. Actions in rem or quasi in rem are not directed against the person based on his or her personal liability
346
338.In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res.
347
339. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either
1. by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
2. as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
348
340.Jurisdiction over the person or jurisdiction in personam is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem in.
Hence, a judgment should be executed only against the persons who were parties to the case and not against one not a party and who did not have his day in court. The duty of the sheriff is to levy the property of the judgment debtor, not that of a third person
349
341.An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
350
341.An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
351
342.An action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person.
352
343.An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
353
344.Petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, are actions in rem.
354
345. A petition for adoption is an action in rem
355
346.A petition for annulment of marriage is an action in rem
356
347.A petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate is an action in rem
357
348. Forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem.
These proceedings do not terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely in the forfeiture of the properties either acquired illegally or related to unlawful activities in favor of the State. As an action in rem, it is a proceeding against the thing itself instead of against the person. For this purpose, service may be made by publication as such mode of service is allowed in actions in rem and quasi in rem.
358
349.In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. However, summons must be served upon the defendant, not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process requirements
359
350.The fact that the action is one in rem or quasi in rem does not mean that the persons interested in the subject matter of the action need not be summoned. In order to satisfy the requirements of due process, summons upon persons is required regardless of the nature of the action.
360
351.The summons in actions in rem or quasi is not for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over such persons but to serve the ends of due process.
If, however, they appear in the action, as when the proper pleadings is served and filed, it is as if the action is one in personam. Such appearance enables the court to acquire personal jurisdiction over them.
361
352.An action for annulment of certificate of title is quasi in rem. It is not an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, but an action that subjects a person's interest over a property to a burden.
362
353.The action for annulment of a certificate of title threatens petitioner's interest in the property. Petitioner is entitled to due process with respect to that interest. The court does not have competence or authority to proceed with an action for annulment of certificate of title without giving the person, in whose name the certificate was issued, all the opportunities to be heard.
363
354.Hence, regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is imperative. A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a defect in jurisdiction,
Respondent's institution of a proceeding for annulment of petitioner's certificate of title is sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res, but it is not sufficient for the court to proceed with the case with authority and competence.
364
355.Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons. Thus, as a rule, summons must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be tendered to him or her.
365
356.Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
366
356.Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
367
357.An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision . Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
368
357.An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision . Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
369
!
358.Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue
370
359.How jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and determined
1.Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties. !
The pleadings present the issues to be tried and determine whether or not the issues are of fact or of law.
2. Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts and documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the issues of the case.
3. Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here, the parties try, with their express or implied consent, issues not raised in the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
371
360.An issue arises because a material allegation of a claiming party is specifically denied by the defending party. The denial to be specific, must conform to any of the denials prescribed in Sec. 10 of Rule 8.
372
361.A denial, made not in accordance with said rule, is to be construed as an admission, a circumstance which does not give rise to an issue. Thus, where the defendant admits all the material allegations of fact of the claiming party, there is no controverted issue between the parties.
373
362.Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, a judgment on the pleadings may be rendered by the court upon a motion properly filed.
374
363.The issue in a case may be either one of law or of fact.
375
364.For a question to be one of law,the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.
376
365.Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact
377
366. In short, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is whether the court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating evidence. If there is no need for such evaluation the issue is one of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact
378
367.Thus, where the question disputed by parties is whether or not the debtor has paid the debt, the issue is one of fact. Where the question is whether or not the manner of payment is of the type which produces the legal effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issue becomes one of law.
379
368.Also, when under a given set of facts, the issue is whether or not the law on double sales applies, there is a question of law. When in a case, the issue is the genuineness or due execution of a document, the question is one of fact.
380
369.When in a case, the issue is the genuineness or due execution of a document, the question is one of fact.
381
370. Where the threshold issue is whether certain paragraphs in an agreement are void for being contrary to law or public policy, it is obvious that the issue is a question of law
382
371.While it is a rule that an issue arises from the pleadings of the parties, an issue may arise in the case without it having been raised in the pleadings. This occurs when the parties try an issue with their consent.
Under Sec. 5 of Rule 10, when issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings
383
372.Upon motion of any party, the pleadings may be amended to conform to the evidence but the failure to so amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues because the pleadings are deemed impliedly or constructively amended to embody the issues tried with the consent of the parties.
384
373.The consent of the parties may be inferred from failure to interpose an objection to the presentation of evidence on a matter not alleged in the pleadings. (consent to try a case not raised in the pleadings)
385
374.Where the issue, as determined in the complaint and answer, is one of mere possession of property, any evidence showing ownership must be objected to, ownership not being an issue raised in the pleadings. However, if the evidence is not objected seasonably, the matter of ownership will be deemed to have been raised by the parties in their pleadings and the evidence becomes admissible.
386
375.If the complaint did not allege a claim for salary differential, but no objection was interposed on the evidence presented to prove the claim for salary differential, the Labor Arbiter correctly considered the evidence
387
376.If, in a complaint for a sum of money filed before the Regional Trial Court, the plaintiff did not allege the making of a demand for payment before commencing suit but, during the trial, plaintiff duly offered in evidence a letter of demand to prove the making of an extrajudicial demand on the defendant, and the letter was admitted in evidence without objection of the defendant, it is as if the matter of demand was raised in the pleadings. The court committed no procedural error in admitting the letter of demand in evidence.
388
377.The term, res, includes an object, subject-matter or status. Jurisdiction over the res
389
378.When action is one in personam, jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient to authorize the court to render a judgment against the defendant. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over defendant is required for the court to validly try and decide the case. This is because the action is one brought on the basis of the personal liability of the defendant
390
379.Thus jurisprudence holds that if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required for the court to proceed with the action. What is required is jurisdiction over the res although summons must also be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process
391
380.An action for a sum of money is an action in personam
392
In an action for a sum of money, an action in personam, in order for the court to be vested with the authority to order the defendant to pay the sum demanded by the plaintiff, it imperative for the court to have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. This is achieved by a valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary appearance in the action.Without such authority, the court is devoid of any power to command the defendant to pay.
393
382.When the action is either in rem or quasi in rem, the action is directed against a specific property or “res not against a particular person. Hence, jurisdiction over "res" is sufficient as long as summons is properly served the defendant or persons who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment.
394
383.Where the proceedings is quasi in rem like an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage against a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines, the jurisdiction of the court over the res which is the property mortgaged, is sufficient for the court to order the foreclosure of the mortgage. Summons must be served, however, upon the mortgagor to comply with the demands of due process. If the mortgagor does not appear in the action, the jurisdiction and the subsequent judgment of the court, in this case, will be limited to the foreclosed property or its value since its jurisdiction extends only to the property foreclosed,
395
384.Where the proceeding is the allowance or probate of a will, an in rem proceeding, jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the will and the estate mentioned therein, is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes. Personal jurisdiction over the persons of those interested in the will is not necessary because the proceeding is not intended to impose a personal liability against them. However, the court is mandated to notify the heirs, legatees, devisees of the time and place for proving the will to comply with the requirements of due process.
396
385. How jurisdiction over the res is acquired
1. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court by placing the property or thing under its custody (custodia legis) or constructive seizure.
Example: Attachment of property in which property is placed in the actual custody of the court.
2.It may also be acquired by the court through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with property or thing.
Example: Suits involving the status of parties; suits involving the property in the Philippines of non-resident defendants.
397
386.Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective.
In the latter case, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may never be taken into actual custody at all. An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or some subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide with the final event of the litigation.
An illustration of what the Court terms potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under the system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical control over the property assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world
398
387.A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction over the res, in this case, cannot be acquired, unless there is a constructive seizure of the land through publication and service of notice. The seizure in this case, is not an actual seizure of the land.
399
388.Extent of relief when jurisdiction is only over the res
The court exercising an in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction has limited powers. Its jurisdiction extends only to the value of the property over which its jurisdiction is based. If the proven claim exceeds the value of the property, the court has no authority to render a deficiency judgement.
400
389.Stated in another way, any relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res and the court cannot lawfully render a judgment against the defendant where jurisdiction has not been acquired by the court over the person of the defendant.
Thus, if an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage,where the jurisdiction acquired by the court is only over the res and not over the person of the defendant (because the debtor-mortgagor is a non-resident who is also outside of the Philippines), the relief of the creditor extends only to the property foreclosed or to its value. If in the foreclosure sale, there arises a deficiency, a deficiency judgment, authorized by Sec. 6 of Rule 68 against the debtor-mortgagor would not be feasible. This is because the collection of the deficiency is a proceeding in personam which require jurisdiction over the person of the debtor-mortgagor. There being no personal jurisdiction over his person, a deficiency judgment cannot be rendered against him.
401
390.Remember, that summons to the defendant is required whatever be the nature of the action. The defendant who learns of the attachment of his property is now confronted with two choices – let his property answer for his alleged obligation or personally appear and put up a full-blown defense. If he unequivocally appears in the action or performs acts constituting voluntary appearance in the action, like filing an answer to the complaint, the court will now acquire jurisdiction over his person. In such a case, the action is deemed to reacquire the status of an action in personam. Under the facts, the court has also acquired jurisdiction to render judgment ordering the defendant to pay the difference because it has acquired jurisdiction over the person of said defendant.
402
391.The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law are generally reviewed by the Court. Questions of fact are not entertained
403
392.It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze and weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below since such matters are issues of fact.
404
393.The appreciation and resolution of factual issues are the functions of the lower courts, whose resulting findings are received with respect and binding on the Supreme Court, especially when such findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court as long as such findings are supported by the records, or are based on substantial evidence.
405
394.Also, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by the Court.
406
!
395.Hence, if an appeal by certiorari is taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court raising or submitting issues of fact, such appeal may be referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The Supreme Court does not have to dismiss an improper appeal.
407
396.A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.
408
397.A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses,the existence or relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to whole, and the probability of the the situation
409
398.Where the issue brought is whether or not a lower court has the power or authority to hear and determine a cause of action or where the issue concerns the correct interpretation or application of relevant laws and rules, the question posed is one of law, hence, cognizable by the Supreme Court.
410
399.Jurisprudence, however, has carved out some recognized exceptions to the above rule. For example, when the findings of facts of the trial court and the reviewing court are conflicting, factual issues may be resolved by the Court, as when the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are frontally inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals.
Another exception, among others, is when the findings of the court below are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures.
411
400.As a rule, cases are not filed originally with the Supreme Court. The rule is, however, subject to certain exceptions. see jurisdiction: original cases congnizable by the SC
412
401.An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Sec. 3, Rule 56, Rules of Court).
413
402.The mode of appeal to the Supreme Court referred to under Sec. 3 of Rule 56 is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 (also called petition for review on certiorari).
414
!
403.The appeal is made by filing with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari raising only questions of law. Again, it needs to be remembered that, as a rule, questions of fact are not to be raised in an appeal by way of Rule 45.
415
404.All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law should be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc
416
405.all cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations should be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc
417
406.Contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President should be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc
418
407.Procedure when the opinion of the Supreme Court En Banc is equally divided
Where the opinion of the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on. If after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. On all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied
419
408.Unlike the Supreme Court which could sit En Banc in order to resolve cases, the Court of Appeals may sit En Banc only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions
420
409.The Court of Appeals shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of Regional Trial Courts
421
410.Following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts ,the petition for certiorari against the NLRC must first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
422
411.Note: Under the law, the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes may be exercised whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Previously, the Court of Appeals could issue these writs only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
423
412.The decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
424
413.Note that under R.A. 9282, the judgment and final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals are no longer appealable by way of petition for review to the Court of Appeals. Judgment of he Court of Tax Appeals rendered en banc are appealable to the Supreme Court by way of Rule 45
425
414.The Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction because decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in these cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of Regional Trial Courts.
426
415.Power of the Court of Appeals to try and conduct hearings like a trial court
Even if the Court of Appeals is not basically a trial court, unlike the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court, which are actually trial courts, under the law, it has the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence, and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases falling not only within its original jurisdiction but also in cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction. This authority includes the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings .
427
416.It has been held that the Court of Appeals may pass upon the evidence to factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it. The court may even act like a trial court in resolving motions for new trial, petitions for writ of amparo, habeas data, habeas corpus or, in actions to annul the judgment of the RTC over which the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction.
428
417. The authority granted by law to the Court of Appeals to conduct trials or hearings is subject to the following limitations:
1. trials or hearings must be continuous;
2. trials and hearings must be completed within three months, except when extended by the Chief Justice.
429
418.The basic barometer of the jurisdiction of the MTC is the jurisdictional amount. The jurisdictional amount referred to is the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand involved in the civil action or proceedings
430
419. The MTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed P300,000 outside Metro Manila, or not more than P400,000 within Metro Manila
Where the demand exceeds the amounts mentioned, the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (Sec. 19[8], B.P. 129, as amended).
Note: The amount of P300,000 is the result of adjustments authorized under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7691 as previously discussed.
It was in 2004 when the maximum jurisdictional amount of P300,000 was applied to the MTC outside Metro Manila.
431
420. The jurisdictional amount does not include the following:
1. interest;
2. damages of whatever kind;
3. attorney's fees;
4. litigation expenses; and
5. costs
Although excluded in determining the jurisdiction of the court, the above items, however, shall be included in determining the filing fees
432
421.The exclusion of the term 'damages of whatever kind' in determining the jurisdictional amount, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court."
433
422.An action for damages with a prayer for moral damages in the amount of P300.000; P50,000 as exemplary damages; P50,000 as attorney's fees; P20,000 as litigation expenses and costs of suits, falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC (more than 400,000)
The Court held that based on the allegations of the complaint, it was clear that the action was for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses and costs, were not merely incidental to or consequences of the main action constituted the primary relief prayed for. Since the total amount claimed was P420,000, the RTC has jurisdiction.
434
423.Since the interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto and already determinable at the time of the filing of the Complaint, it must be included in the determination of which court has jurisdiction over petitioner's case. This from a case: an action for sum of money (loan with interest)
435
!
424.Totality Rule
Under the totality rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions or whether they arose from a single cause of action or several causes of action.
436
425.The totality rule presupposes that the various claims of the same or different parties are allowed to be embodied in the same complaint, or that the different causes of action, which are joined, accrue in favor of the same plaintiff's and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. If so, then the total amount of the claims shall be the basis of the court's jurisdiction and not the amount of the individual claims.
437
426.This totality is applied in relation to the rules on permissive joinder of parties and the rules on joinder of causes of action.
438
427.The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to grant provisional remedies in proper cases. This rule presupposes that the MTC has jurisdiction over the principal action. The power to grant provisional remedies depends upon which court has jurisdiction over the principal action.
439
428. The MTC also exercises delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, as may be delegated by the Supreme Court . A delegation of the cases to the MTC need be made by SC.
440
429.The decision of the MTC shall be appealable in the same manner as the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence, the MTC, acting under its delegated jurisdiction, may be deemed to be acting as a Regional Trial Court. The decision of the MTC in cadastral and land registration cases, therefore, shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals following the procedure in Rule 41.
441
430.The jurisdiction of the MTC in cadastral and land registration is only a delegated one because it is the Regional Trial Court which normally has jurisdiction over cadastral and land registration cases. Without such delegation made by the Supreme Court, the MTC cannot exercise jurisdiction over cadastral and land registration cases.
442
431.Presently, jurisdiction over an application for land registration remains with the RTC where the land is situated, except when such jurisdiction is delegated by the Supreme Court to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Courts under certain circumstances.
443
432.The MTC has also been conferred by law a special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the absence of all the Regional Trial Court judges in the province or city .
444
433.The special jurisdiction of the MTC includes the authority to hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Court sit
445
434.The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over cases falling under the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure and the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
446
435.The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases . These are both ejectment cases, otherwise known as accion interdictal.
447
436.The issue in unlawful detainer and forcible entry is possession, not ownership of real property.
448
437.The court, however, may resolve an issue of ownership in either action when the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the issue of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. The court may resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.
449
438.In other words, when the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, the court may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property.
450
439.This means that when the court can resolve the issue of possession without dealing with the issue of ownership, the court will refrain from resolving the issue of ownership.
451
440.The Court explains that any issue on ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining the principal issue of possession. In other words, the adjudication of the issue of ownership is not final and binding. The same is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of ownership.
452
441.Otherwise stated, the adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
453
442.An action for unlawful detainer is one the purpose of which is to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
454
443.In forcible entry, the purpose is recover any land or building by a possessor deprived of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. The possession by the defendant in forcible entry is illegal from its inception.
455
444. "Title" is different from a “certificate of title”.
“Certificate of title” is the document of ownership under the Torrens System of registration issued by the government through the Register of Deeds. While title is the claim,right or interest in real property, a certificate of title is the evidence of such claim.
456
445.Another way of looking at it is that, while "title" gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a “certificate of title,” the holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title to the real property.
457
446.The issuance of a certificate of title does not give the owner any better title than what he actually has in law. Thus, a plaintiff's action for cancellation or nullification of a certificate of title may only be a necessary consequence of the defendant's lack of title to real property.
458
447.Although the certificate of title may have been lost, burned, or destroyed and later on reconstituted, title subsists and remains unaffected unless it is transferred or conveyed to another or subjected to a lien or encumbrance.
459
448.As it stands, under the amendments, jurisdiction over real actions is now shared between the MTC and the RTC depending on the assessed value of the property.
460
449.The RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
461
450.In a number of cases, the Court has held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve 'title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein
462
451.An action for quieting of title over real property, like, an action for reconveyance of or cancellation of title to real property, falls under the classification of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein.
463
452.The mortgage of a property to a Bank, annotated on the TCT, constitutes a cloud on the owner’s title to the subject property which may call for (justify/exact) an action for quieting of title, a real action, the jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of the property. (j)
464
453.In a case involving friar lands, the Court clearly instructed that the original and exclusive jurisdiction over a complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance belongs to either the RTC or the MTC using the assessed value as basis
465
454.An action for declaratory relief falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC\
466
455.An action for declaratory relief result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect
467
456.It is important to note that Section 1. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word may (which means) that an action for quieting of title may be brought under the Rule on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief may bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court. The use of the word may in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word shall and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00
468
457.The basis of jurisdiction in real actions is the assessed value as alleged in the complaint
469
458.It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the complaint based on the allegation that 'the present estimated value of the land is P50,000' The estimated value, commonly referred to as the fair market value is entirely different from the assessed value of the property
470
459.Whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a particular action, is determined by the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.
471
460.When parties disagree on the correct boundary of adjacent lots, the controversy must be treated as one for ownership, not mere possession.
472
461.A boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the property claimed formed part of the plaintiff's property
473
462.A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry.
474
463.Accion reivindicatoria Is an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership. The basic question in such an action is whether the plaintiff, has presented sufficient evidence to prove his ownership of the property in question.
475
464.In real actions,a complaint must allege the assessed value of the property to determine which court has jurisdiction over the same to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.This is because the nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein. (actions involving “TPI”)
476
465.If the assessed value is not alleged in the complaint, the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is not afforded the means of determining from the allegations of the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court. After all. courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands.
477
466.Note: In cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of the property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lot
478
467.Note, however, that the non-inclusion of the assessed value on the face of the complaint is not fatal if attached to the complaint is a tax declaration showing the assessed value of the property.
479
468.Annexes to the complaint have been held to be part of, and should be considered together with the complaint in determining the jurisdiction of the court. The ruling that the court cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value of the land does not apply to a case in which attached to complaint is a tax declaration or some other document showing the assessed value of said land
480
469.Allegation of assessed value is immaterial on appeal
The amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. Cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved.
Sec. 22 of B.P. 129 as amended vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
481
470.It is true that under the prevailing law, in actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein, there is a need to allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the action, or interest therein, for purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction over the action. However, it must be clarified that this requirement applies only if these courts are in the exercise of their original jurisdiction.The assessed value of the disputed lot is immaterial for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction
482
471.Allegation of assessed value is immaterial on appeal
The amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. Cases decided by the MTC generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. Sec. 22 of B.P. 129 as amended vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decide the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
483
472.Hence, it was held that where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed with the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.
484
473.A complaint brought primarily to enforce a contractual right to repurchase a real property previously sold to the buyer, is an action for specific performance and thus, must be filed with the Regional Trial Court.
485
474.The Court ruled that a complaint denominated as one for "Breach of Contract & Damages" is neither an action for specific performance nor a complaint for rescission of a contract where the complaint primarily prays for the payment of damages as a means of enforcing the penal clause embodied in the contract between the parties
486
475.Breach of contract may give rise to an action for specific performance or rescission of contract. It may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages filed pursuant to Art. 1170 of the Civil Code. In the specific performance and rescission of contract cases, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction belongs to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In the case for damages, however, the court that has jurisdiction depends upon the total amount of the damages claimed.
487
476.There is no such thing as an "action for breach of contract." Rather, "breach of contract” is a cause of action, but not the action or relief itself.
488
477.A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation contained in the penal clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation.
489
478. Under the Civil Code the amount the parties stipulated to pay in case of breach are liquidated damages. It is attached to an obligation in order to ensure performance and has a double function:
(1) to provide for liquidated damages, and
(2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.
490
479.True, breach of contract may give rise to a complaint for specific performance or rescission of contract. In which case, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, jurisdiction is lodged with the RTC. However, breach of contract may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages. Thus, it is not correct to immediately conclude, that since the cause of action is breach of contract, the case would only either be specific performance or rescission of contract because it may happen, that the complaint is one for damages.
491
480.In an action for damages, the court which has jurisdiction is determined by the total amount of damages claimed.
492
481.where the complaint primarily seeks to recover damages, all claims for damages should be considered in determining which court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case regardless of whether they arose from a single cause of action or several causes of action.
493
482.In a case, although the action was denominated as one for cancellation of deeds of sale, transfer certificates of title and of the joint venture agreement, since the complaint, based on the allegations therein, actually sought for the recovery of real properties, the complaint, held the Court, involved a real action and, thus, the assessed value should be considered in computing the fees
494
483.In a case, a complaint for rescission or annulment of a contract was held to be one not susceptible of pecuniary estimation even if it may eventually result in the recovery of real property, taking into consideration the allegations and the nature of the relief sought. (this is a complaint for annulment or rescission of the contract of sale of land. Hence, recovery.j)
495
484. Actions for support are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC
496
485.Actions for annulment of a judgment are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC
497
486.Actions to foreclose a mortgage are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC
498
487. Actions that seek for the recovery of real properties are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC (.j)
499
488.In one case, a complaint was filed with the MTC for reconveyance of real property (with an assessed value of P12,400) with declaration of nullity of original certificate of title (OCT), having been allegedly obtained by fraud. On issue of whether or not the case should have been filed with the RTC because it involved a subject matter incapable pecuniary estimation, the Court held that the same was a real action because the primary relief was to recover ownership of real property. Considering its assessed value, the MTO had properly exercised jurisdiction over the action.
500
489.Accion publiciana is a plenary action for recovery of possession in an ordinary civil proceeding, in order to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of title.
501
490.The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property.
This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination of the issue on ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession where the issue on ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession.
The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
502
491.Accion publiciana is also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be an accion publiciana
503
492.An accion reinvindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and possession based on said ownership.
504
493.Accion reivindicatoria
The determining jurisdictional element for accion reinvindicatoria is the assessed value of the property in question.
For properties outside Metro Manila, the RTC has jurisdiction if the assessed value exceeds P20,000, and the MTC, if the assessed value is P20,000 or below.
505
494. An assessed value can have reference only to the tax rolls in the municipality where the property is located, and is contained in the tax declaration. It is elementary that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency.
506
495.It must be emphasized that the jurisdiction of the court, under R.A. 7691, over an action involving title to possession of land is not determined by the market value the property but by the assessed value thereof.
507
496.The assessed value of real property is the fair market value of the real property multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. The fair market value is the price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy
508
497.The law should now be clear at this point. The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila or P50,000 in Metro Manila. The amounts mentioned are exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs. In cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
The above rule excludes the real actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer which are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, regardless of the assessed value of the property involved.
509
498.Real actions (actions involving title to, possession of, or any interest in real property) are also incapable of pecuniary estimation
One must be reminded that jurisprudence does not deny that actions like reconveyance of real property, quieting of title to real property, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, foreclosure of real estate mortgage, partition of real property and similar actions, are also actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. They are, however, also real actions. (hence, the assessed value.j)
510
499.Actions involving title to, possession of or any interest in real property in Sec. 33[3] of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation. However, because of the new law,the assessed value of the property should now be considered in determining jurisdiction if actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are also real actions.
511
500.Thus, it may be gleaned from jurisprudence that if the action is real, based on the allegations in the complaint, even if the same be one incapable of pecuniary estimation, the assessed value of the property becomes determinative of jurisdiction.
512
501.that while civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the court’s jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved.
513
502.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
514
503.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
Note: This jurisdiction is deemed modified by Sec. 5 of R.A. 8369, the law which established the Family Courts. However, under Sec. 17 of RA 8369, in areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases referred to in Sec. 5 of the law shall be adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court.
515
504.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
Note: This jurisdiction is often described as the 'general jurisdiction of the RTC making it a court of ‘general jurisdiction.'
516
505.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
Note: The jurisdiction of the RTC over cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is subject to R.A. 8369, the law establishing Family Courts.
517
506.The decisions of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals. The appeal shall be given due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that would warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
518
507.In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the RTC does not have the authority of the Court of Appeals in Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 as amended, to try cases, conduct hearings or new trials, receive evidence and such other acts to resolve factual issues.
The basis of the decision of the Regional Trial Court in a case appealed to it shall be (1) the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin, and (2) such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the court.
519
508.Special jurisdiction of the RTC to try special cases
Certain branches of the Regional Trial Court may be designated by the Supreme Court to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
520
509.Upon the enactment of R.A. 8799. jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes, including derivative suits, is now vested in the RTC's designated as special commercial courts by the Supreme Court
The jurisdiction of the SEC over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise known as), the proper Regional Trial Courts
521
510.In determining whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy, the Court uses two tests, namely, the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test.
522
511.It is an intracorporate case when the case principally dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by A against B as well as the validity of A's act in preventing B from participating in the election of the corporation's Board of Directors. B contested the alleged unpaid dues and assessments demanded by A.
523
512.The nature of an action involving any dispute as to the validity of the assessment of association dues is purely an intracorporate matter and is, thus, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court.
524
513.Under the relationship test, where the controversy involves shareholders of record of the corporation, even where the ownership of shares by one of them is questioned, the matter is an intra-corporate controversy.
525
514.Under the nature of controversy test, where the purpose of the litigation is to prevent a stockholder from inspecting the corporate books on the ground that he is not the true owner of his alleged his alleged shares, the controversy is intra-corporate.
526
515.There are no intra-corporate relations between the parties where the plaintiff petitioner is neither a stockholder, partner, member or officer of the defendant corporation. Moreover, the questions involved neither pertain to the parties’ rights and obligations under the Corporation Code, if any, nor to matters directly relating to the regulation of the corporation.
The action for a sum of money, specific performance and damages springs from the parties relationship as an investor and a securities broker. The case is not an intra-corporate dispute and, instead, is a mere ordinary civil action.
527
516.Effect on jurisdiction when an intra-corporate case is erroneously assigned by raffle to a regular branch of the Regional Trial Court
The Court ruled that the erroneous raffling of the case to a regular branch was only a matter of procedure. Having filed the intra-corporate case with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is also the official station of the special commercial court, the court had acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action upon the filing of the complaint.
The Court further explained that the objective behind the designation of special commercial courts is promote expediency and efficiency in the exercise of the RTC’s jurisdiction over the cases enumerated under Sec. 5 of PD 902-A. Such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of jurisdiction because the power to define, prescribe and apportion jurisdiction is, as a general rule, a matter of legislative prerogative.
528
517. Where the case was erroneously raffled to a regular court, the proper course of action, ruled the Court, was not for the commercial case to be dismissed but to refer the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case and assigning the same to the designated special commercial court. Docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, refunded.
529
518.RTC is a court of general jurisdiction
Sec. 19[6] of B.P. 129, as amended, includes as part of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, cases "not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions."
530
519.On the basis of the above provision, jurisprudence declares that unlike the Municipal Trial Court, which is a court of limited jurisdiction because it can only take cognizance of cases expressly provided by law, the Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction because all cases, the jurisdiction of which is not specifically provided by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court falls within the jurisdiction the Regional Trial Court
531
520.The designation of certain courts as commercial courts is only to streamline the workloads of Regional Trial Courts. Such courts designated as commercial courts are still considered courts of general jurisdiction, The designation does not, in any way, limit their jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of all nature whether civil, criminal or special proceedings. Such courts still have the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of specific performance
This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the administration of all courts and the personnel thereof. (jurisdiction is conferred by law)
532
521.Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the designation of Special Commercial Courts is merely an incident related to the court's exercise of jurisdiction, which is distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is, therefore, not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
533
522.Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute.
534
523.The RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is, therefore, not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
535
524.The designation of a branch of the RTC as a special commercial court does not diminish its power as a court of general jurisdiction. It could still take cognizance of a petition for injunction.
536
525.It was held that the fact than an action for injunction was raffled to, and heard by, an RTC sitting as a commercial court is more an issue of procedure than one of jurisdiction. Where a party has submitted to the authority of the RTC without objecting procedural impropriety, an objection to the same is deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
537
526. Where a party has submitted to the authority of the RTC without objecting procedural impropriety, an objection to the same is deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
538
527.That the nature of the action is not determined by what is stated in the caption but by the allegations in the complaint and the relief prayed for. The ultimate objective of the complaint must be inquired into.
539
528.an action for reconveyance of real property will not be deemed one incapable of pecuniary estimation where the ultimate objective is to obtain title to the property.
540
529.Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs, is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof
541
530.“Although appellant's complaint is entitled to be one for specific performance, yet the fact that he asked that a deed of sale of a parcel of land situated in Quezon City be issued in his favor and that a transfer certificate of title covering said land be issued to him shows that the primary objective and nature of the action is to recover the parcel of land itself because to execute in favor of appellant the conveyance requested there is need to make a finding that he is the owner of the land which in the last analysis resolves itself into an issue of ownership"
542
531. In other words, in order to determine if an action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of the principal remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction over the action would then depend upon the amount of the claim. Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or the money claim is merely incidental to the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
543
532.Where the main purpose of filing the action is to collect the commission allegedly promised by the defendant should the plaintiffs be able to sell a particular lot, and also for recovery of compensation for services rendered, the action is principally for the collection of a sum of money and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation
544
533.“The Court found that the principal relief sought was the nullification of the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale, a relief that is one other than the recovery of a sum of money hence, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction over which is lodged in the Regional Trial Court”
545
534.An action for declaration of nullity of contracts and documents is incapable of pecuniary estimation"
546
535.A complaint for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of money. Rather it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private property for public use. The subject of the expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
547
536.An action seeking to annul a resolution of a government-owned and controlled corporation is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
548
537.An action for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real property with an assessed value of P50,000 located in Laguna is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
549
538.An action for specific performance is one generally considered incapable of pecuniary estimation.
550
539.The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to the prayer for specific performance is not determinative of jurisdiction, Thus, an action for specific performance and damages of P200,000 is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court even if the amount of damages sought to be recovered is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
551
540.Where however, the demand is in the alternative, as in an action to compel the defendant to deliver the house by completing its construction or to pay a certain sum, the action is one that is capable of pecuniary estimation. Thus, an action for specific performance, or, in the alternative, for damages, in the amount of P18,000 is one capable of pecuniary estimation because of the alternative prayer which is for a sum of money. Here; the amount damages is determinative of jurisdiction.
552
541.If, as gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought is for the court to issue an injunction against the adverse party and his representatives to permanently enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land, the complaint is not a possessory action but one for injunction. As such, the subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by the Regional Trial Court
553
542.An action for a writ of injunction is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. It is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
554
543.An action for the replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150,000 is capable of pecuniary estimation. The basis of jurisdiction is the value of the personal property sought to be recovered. The stated value is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
555
544.An action for interpleader is capable of pecuniary estimation where the subject matter is either real or personal, property. If the subject of interpleader is real property, then the jurisdictional amount is determined by the assessed value of the land. If it be personal property, then value the property.
556
545.In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is imperative to ascertain “the nature of the principal action or remedy sought."
557
546.In a case, although the end result of the plaintiff's claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name the suit was still essentially for specific performance, a personal action, because it sought from the defendant the execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which they had previously made. Here, the action is primarily to enforce the contract to execute a deed of sale.
In a case, although the end result of the plaintiff's claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name the suit was still essentially for specific performance, a personal action, because it sought from the defendant the execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which they had previously made. Here, the action is primarily to enforce the contract to execute a deed of sale.
558
547.An action for specific performance to enforce a right to repurchase lots previously sold to the buyer in accordance with the Public Land Act is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
559
548.Not all actions involving real property are real actions. Where the main objective of the suit, as gleaned from the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, is to compel the adverse party to perform a specific act, like the execution of written instruments pursuant to a previous agreement, the action is one for specific performance.
560
549.An action for specific performance to compel the defendant to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land with an assessed value of P19,000 is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court because the main issue is whether or not the to compel specific performance
561
550.Settled jurisprudence considers some civil actions as incapable of pecuniary estimation, namely:
1. action for specific performance;
2. action for support which will require the determination of the civil status;
3. right to support of the plaintiff;
4. annulment of decisions of lower courts;
5. rescission or reformation of contracts;
6. interpretation of a contractual stipulation.
This ruling presupposes that the enumerated actions are the primary purposes of the complaints based on their material allegations.
562
551.A complaint for collection of an agent's compensation and commission in the sale of a parcel of land is principally for the collection of a sum of money. It is neither an action incapable of pecuniary estimation or a real action. Jurisdiction should, hence, be based on the amount of the claim
563
552."A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. Necessarily, the determination must be done on a case-to-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each"
564
553.Action for partition of real property
The MTC has jurisdiction over an action for partition of real property with an assessed value of P8,080. A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation was correctly denied by the MTCC because contrary to the defendant's contention, “the MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting title to real property, of for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on property.
565
554.Action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage
Foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a real action. Hence, it is the assessed value of the property which determines the court’s jurisdiction.
566
555.Action to enforce the payment of damages under a penal clause
A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation contained in the penal clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation. The argument that the complaint is one incapable of pecuniary estimation cannot be sustained.
567
556.Extent of trial court's jurisdiction when acting as a probate court
Jurisprudence teaches that the jurisdiction of the trial court as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. All that the court could do is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered.
568
557.For the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to a final determination in a separate action
569
558.However, if the interested parties are all heirs, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and third parties are not prejudiced or injured thereby, the probate court may decide questions on ownership.
570
559.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for guardianship,custody of children and habeas corpus involving children
571
560.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof
572
561.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over .Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to a status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreement and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains
573
562.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of E.O. No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines"
574
563.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended
575
564.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Violations of R.A. 7610, otherwise the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, and Exploitation and Discrimination Act"
576
565.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
577
566.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under P.D. 603, E.0.56 (Series of 1986) and other related laws
578
567.The Shari'a courts were created under Art. 137 of PD 1083 dated February 4, 1977.
579
568.The creation of Shari’a courts is a recognition of the legal system of the Muslims in the Philippines as part of the law of the land and seeks to make Islamic institutions more effective
580
569.The Shari'a courts and the personnel thereof are subject to the a supervision of the Supreme Court.
581
570.The Shari'a District judges receive the same compensation and enjoy the same privileges as the Regional Trial Courts. Shari'a Circuit Court judges receive the same compensation same privileges as judges of Municipal Trial Court.
582
571.The Shari’a District court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall govern their relations
583
572.Finality of decisions of Shari’a District Courts
The decisions of the Shari'a District Courts, whether on appeal from the Shari'a Circuit Court or not, shall be final. Nothing herein contained shall affect the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution.
584
573.Venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding be brought. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties as it relates to the place of trial. It does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court
585
574. Venue does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court
586
575.Venue is procedural and not substantive. In civil case, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction. In essence, venue concerns a rule of procedure.
587
576.Venue, however, is treated differently in a criminal case. Jurisprudence holds that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional.
588
577. Because venue, in criminal cases, is an essential element of jurisdiction, where the information is filed in a place where the offense was not committed, the information may be quashed for "lack of jurisdiction" over the offense charged and not merely "improper venue."
589
578.Also, because venue is jurisdictional in a criminal case, it cannot be waived by the parties. This is not so in a civil case where improper venue is not equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Because it is merely procedural, the parties to a civil case can waive the venue of a case.
590
579.In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
591
580.The Rules of Court expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. As it relates to the place of trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than to restrict their access to the courts. In other words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a court despite its being the improper venue.
592
581. A wrong venue is a mere procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional defect
593
582.Venue in a civil case may be waived if not invoked either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
594
583.Venue in a civil case may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties
595
584.The court may dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but not for improper venue (in civil cases).
596
585.Subject to the omnibus motion rule, the objection to an improper venue must be raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer because, as a rule, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
597
586.Where the improper venue was already apparent at the time the motion to dismiss was filed, the objection to venue should be raised in the motion to dismiss pursuant to the omnibus motion rule; otherwise, such objection shall be deemed waived. The defense of improper venue is not one of those defenses which are not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss the answer.
598
587.The defense of improper venue is not one of those defenses which are not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss the answer.
599
588.The rules on venue do not give a plaintiff the freedom to bring suits wherever he chooses.
The venue of a case is circumscribed by specific and definite rules to ensure a fair procedure by preventing undue harassment of a defendant by the plaintiff. Such rules are neither circuitous nor complicated.
600
589.In order to know the venue of a particular action, the basic and initial step is to determine if the action is personal or real. If it is personal, the venue is deemed transitory and thus, generally depends upon the residences of the parties. If it is real, the venue is local and, thus, generally, the venue is the place where the property or any portion of the same is situated
601
590.A real action is one that affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein.In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions.
602
591.Personal actions may include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to person or property
603
592.The venue in personal actions is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
604
593.Personal actions are often referred to as transitory because its venue “moves” depending on the residences of the parties.
605
594.There are cases in which there are several parties and some of them are merely formal or nominal. The Rules instruct that when there is more than one plaintiff or defendant in a personal action, the residences of the principal parties would be the basis for determining the proper venue.
606
595.In personal actions, if the defendant is a non-resident, the venue is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the non-resident defendant may be found, at the election of the plaintiff
607
596.The term “resides” as employed in the rule on venue on personal actions means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or the defendant, as distinguished from “ domicile” which denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning
608
597.Mr. DD was born in Cebu City. It is in the same place where he raised a family. He applied for a job and was hired by a company in Manila where he lives in an apartment adjacent to his place of work. For purposes of venue, in an action for a sum of money, Manila is his residence.
609
598.The residence of a domestic corporation is the place, within the Philippines, where its principal office is located. (in re: venue)
610
599.Jurisprudence holds: “A corporation has no residence in the same sense in which this term is applied to a natural person. But for practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in the articles of incorporation.
611
600.The Corporation Code precisely requires each corporation to specify in its articles of incorporation the “place where the principal office of the corporation is to be located which must be within the Philippines". The purpose of this requirement is to fix the residence of a corporation in a definite place, instead of allowing it to be ambulatory.
Thus, if the principal office of ABC Corporation is located in Makati City, but its branch offices are situated in Manila and Quezon City, the latter two places cannot be proper venues in a suit by or against the corporation. such places not being the locations of the principal office.
612
601.Actions for damages and actions to collect a sum of money must be filed in either the residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant, at the election of the plaintiff. Such actions are personal actions.
613
602.Assume that two cars, Car AA and Car BB, collided in a highway within the territorial jurisdiction of Mandaluyong City.The owner of Car AA, a resident of Makati City wants to file a complaint for damages against the owner of Car BB, a resident of Manila. The complaint may be filed either in Makati City or Manila at the election of the plaintiff. The action cannot be instituted in Mandaluyong City since it is not the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
614
603.Venue in real actions
Actions affecting title to, or possession of , real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
615
604.If the action is real, the action is local, as opposed to transitory, and the venue is the place where the real property involved, or any portion thereof, is situated. In a real action, the residences of the parties are irrelevant to the choice of venue.
616
605.Actions to recover possession or ownership of real property are real actions and must be filed in the place where the real property is located.
617
606.Actions for unlawful detainer, forcible entry, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, and for reconveyance of real property, are real actions and must be filed in the place where the subject property is situated.
The same applies to partition of real property and judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
618
607.An action to recover possession of the leased real property and for the payment of accrued rentals must be filed in Davao, City where the property is located because the action is a real action. The primary purpose of the action is the recovery of possession of the real property and the payment on rentals is merely incidental to the main case. (ejectment case.j)
619
608.Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be con and tried in the municipal court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, os situated.
620
609.In determining venue, one must inquire into the primary purpose of the action, not the title or heading given to such action.
621
610.Thus, where the complaint was captioned as for the "declaration of the nullity” of a deed of absolute sale involving a real property located in Makati City, the venue for such action is unquestionably the proper court of Makati City if the action is instituted primarily for the recovery the subject property. ( MTC;RTC.j)
622
611.However, where the action for the nullification of a deed of sale is not intended for the recovery or reconveyance of real property, since title to the property has not passed to the respondent, but solely for the annulment of a contract, it is a personal action that may be filed in the court where the plaintiff or the defendant resides. (incapable of pecuniary estimation;RTC.j)
623
612.Where the action is for specific performance and does not involve recovery of real property, the action is a personal action. The action, therefore, may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff
624
613.Where, however, a complaint is denominated as one for specific performance but, nonetheless, prays for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of land, to enable the plaintiff to acquire ownership thereof, its primary objective and nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and, thus, is deemed a real action. The venue of the action, therefore, is the place where the real property involved is situated
625
614.An action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property mortgaged is a personal action,for it does not affect title to, possession of or any interest in real property. The action is for the recovery of money, hence, a personal action. The venue is the residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant at the election of the plaintiff.
626
615.In a case, the plaintiff sought the return of the portion of the subject property or its value on the basis of his co-ownership thereof. The Court held that while the complaint of the petitioner was denominated as one for recovery of the property or its value, the said complaint is actually anchored on his claim of ownership over a portion of the subject property. Hence, his alternative claim for the value of the property is still dependent on the determination of ownership, which is an action affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein. Clearly, petitioner's claim is a real action which should be file in the court where the property lies, which in this case, is the RTC of Morong, Rizal.
627
616.In this jurisdiction, emphasized the Court, "we adhere to the principle that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the Complaint itself, rather than by its title or heading. It is also a settled rule that what determines the venue of a case is the primary objective for the filing of the case.
628
!
617.An action to annul a deed of real estate mortgage filed by the mortgagor is a personal action. Since the mortgagor is the owner of the property mortgaged, there is no claim of ownership involved. The venue of the action is the residence of the plaintiff or that of the defendant at the election of the plaintiff.
Where the property has already been sold on foreclosure and there has been a change in the ownership of the land, an action to annul the foreclosure sale is obviously to recover ownership of the property. Hence, the action becomes a real action. The venue to annul the foreclosure sale is the place where the real property is located.
629
618. The rule on venue under Sec. 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court applies when;
1. any of the defendants is a non-resident and at the same time, not found in the Philippines; and
2. the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or
3. The action affects any property of the non-resident defendant located in the Philippines.
630
619.The action in the above situations may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found
631
620.Under Sec. 3 of Rule 4, if an action for partition of real property is filed by the plaintiff, a resident of Manila, naming his co-owner brothers, all residents of Los Angeles, California, as defendants, and involving a property located in Makati City, the plaintiff may file the action in Makati City, the place where the property is situated. However, the tenor of the rule, as written, appears to give the plaintiff a choice of venue. This may be liberally interpreted to allow the plaintiff to commence and have the action tried either in Manila, the place where he resides, or in Makati City, the place where the property is situated.
Comment: Unless the Court declares otherwise, it is submitted that a liberal interpretation of Sec. 3 of Rule 4 - giving the plaintiff a choice of venue in actions affecting any property of a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines — would well serve the interest of a resident plaintiff. rather than of a possible absconding non-resident defendant.
632
621.When the rules on venue do not apply
The rules on venue are not applicable in any of the following cases:
1. Where a specific rule or law provides otherwise
2. where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof
633
622.A quo warranto proceeding commenced by the Solicitor General and filed, not with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, is to be filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This particular rule does not consider the residence of the respondent. (When the rules on venue do not apply)
634
623.A petition for a continuing writ of mandamus if filed with the Regional Trial Court, other than with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred (Sec. 2, Rule 8, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases). (When the rules on venue do not apply)
635
624.Stipulations on venue
The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides.
636
625.In real actions, like unlawful detainer, the parties may stipulate on a venue other than the place where the real property is situated.
637
626.In interpreting stipulations on venue, inquiry must be made as to whether or not the agreement is restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suits not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places fixed by the rules.
638
627.Where the venue stipulated upon is restrictive or mandatory, the complaint is to be filed only in the stipulated venue.
639
628.Where the stipulated venue is merely permissive the complaint may be filed in the place designated by the Rules or in the place stipulated. The latter place, thus, becomes a permissible venue in addition to those provided for by the Rules.
640
629.In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to a specified place.
641
630.“The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them”
642
631.It must be emphasized that the mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum not as limiting venue to the specified place.
643
632.Thus, if the plaintiff, in an action for damages, resides in Quezon City while the defendant resides in Makati City, and the agreed venue is Pasay City which, by the terms of the said agreement, is not exclusive, the venue may be Quezon City, Makati City or Pasay City, at the election of the plaintiff. Pasay City would simply be considered as an additional, not an exclusive, venue. (personal action.j)
644
633.A stipulation that “any suit arising from this contract shall be filed only in Quezon City,” is exclusive in character and clear enough as to preclude the filing of the action in any other place. In this case, the rule that the residences of the parties are to be considered in determining the venue of personal actions will not apply because of the restrictive tenor of the stipulated venue.
645
634.A stipulation that the "parties agree to sue and be sued in the courts of Manila”
This stipulation was held not to be restrictive or exclusive to prevent the filing of the suit in the places provided for by the rules, i.e., in the residence of the plaintiff or of the defendant.
According to the Court, it simply is permissive and the parties did not waive their right to pursue the remedy in the places specifically mentioned in the Rules of Court.
646
635.A stipulation stating that “all suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed within the proper Courts of Quezon City" is only permissive and does not limit the venue to the Quezon City courts.
647
636.The fact that in their agreement the parties specify only one of the venues mentioned in Rule 4, or fix a place for their actions different from those specified by said rule, does not, without more, suffice to characterize the agreement as a restrictive one. There must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them, regardless of the general precepts of Rule 4
648
637.The stipulation "The agreed venue for such action is Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines" was treated as merely permissive and did not limit the venue to the stipulated place:
649
638.The stipulation “In case of litigation hereunder, venue shall be in the City Court or Court of First Instance of Manila as the case may be for determination of any and all questions arising thereunder” was treated as merely permissive and did not limit the venue to the stipulated place
650
639.The stipulation “All court litigation procedures shall be conducted in the appropriate courts of Valenzuela City, Metro Manila" was treated as merely permissive and did not limit the venue to the stipulated place.
651
640.Examples of words with restrictive meanings are: "only," "solely," "exclusively in this court," "in no other court save --," "particularly," "nowhere else but/except___,” or words of equal import.
652
641.Example of restrictive stipulation on venue:
"In the event of suits arising out of or in connection with this mortgage and/or the promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the parties hereto agree to bring their causes of action exclusively in the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue chosen by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor waiving for this purpose any other venue"
653
642.Where the venue stipulated in the deed of real estate mortgage provides for a venue different from a subsequent restructuring agreement of the loan subject of the mortgage, and the subsequent agreement was entered into to modify the entire loan obligation, including the mortgage, the restrictive venue in the restructuring agreement should prevail.
654
!
643.A restrictive stipulation on venue is not binding when the validity of the contract is assailed
655
644.The Court held that in cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue. However, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue.
656
645.Venue in a contract of adhesion
The Court had ruled that contracts of adhesion might be occasionally struck down only if there was a showing that the dominant bargaining party left the weaker party without any choice as to be “completely deprived of an opportunity to bargain effectively"
Venue stipulations in a contract of adhesion follow the above rule.
657
646.The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice.
658
647.Complementary-contracts-construed-together rule
The "complementary-contracts-construed-together” rule is one which mandates that the provisions of an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and together with the principal contract between the parties.
The basis of this rule is Art. 1374 of the Civil Code which provides that, “The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly."
659
648.The provisions of an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and together with the principal contract between the parties.
660
649.Dismissal based on improper venue
A motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue is plain error and patently incorrect.
Unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to be improperly laid because the venue, although technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue have been devised.
661
650.The trial court cannot preempt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.
662
651.Improper venue is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings
663
652."The court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject " litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription. Therefore, the trial court in this case erred when it dismissed the petition motu proprio. It should have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent, raising the objection or affirmative defense of improper venue, before dismissing the petition"
664
653.The court may make a motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue in an action covered by the rules on summary procedure
The court may, however, effect a motu proprio dismissal of the complaint based on improper venue in an action covered by the rules on summary procedure.
In an action covered by the rules on summary procedure , the court may motu proprio dismiss a case, from (a) an examination of the allegations in the complaint, and (b) such evidence as may be attached thereto, on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action.
The dismissal may be made outright, which means that the court may do so without need for waiting for the filing of a motion to dismiss.
665
654.The court may make a motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue in small claims cases
In small claims cases, after the court determines that the action falls under the rules for such cases, it may, from an examination of the allegations in the Statement of Claim and such evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of the case.
666
655.The court may make a motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue in actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
In actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the court may dismiss the case outright after examination of the complaint and such evidence attached thereto. The dismissal may be based on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action, A motion to dismiss is not required.
667
656.Denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue; no appeal
If a motion to dismiss based on improper venue is denied the defendant cannot appeal from the order of denial.
668
657.An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. It is not final. Only final orders or judgments may be appealed from. The normal remedy is to file an answer and interpose the ground as an affirmative defense, go to trial and appeal from the adverse judgment. However, if the denial is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the remedy is certiorari and prohibition.
669
658.Be reminded that if the facts of the problem show that the venue is improper, it would not be procedurally correct to file a motion to dismiss anchored on lack of jurisdiction because venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction in a civil case.
Jurisdiction over the territory is irrelevant in a civil case. Territorial jurisdiction applies only in criminal cases where venue is also jurisdictional. It is important to remember that, in a civil case, the concept of venue is entirely distinct from the concept of jurisdiction.
670
659.Authority of the Supreme Court in relation to venue of cases
To avoid a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court may order a change of venue. Since the constitutional provision does not distinguish, this rule could refer to both civil and criminal cases.
671
660.Importance of a cause of action
In ordinary civil actions, having a cause of action would be vital if one were to seek the aid of the courts. Without a cause of action, one cannot, as a rule, seek judicial relief for a violation of one's rights. This is because Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court requires that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
672
661. As applied to ordinary civil actions, the following are the elements of a cause of action:
1. A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;
2. A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights; and
3. An act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant
Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The last element, as by jurisprudence, is the violation of the right of the plaintiff. Without such a violation, a cause of action in Sec. 1 of Rule 2 will not arise.
673
662.Without a violation of the right of the plaintiff, a cause of action will not arise
674
663.The need to state the cause of action
For a complaint to be procedurally acceptable, merely having a cause of action against the defendant is not sufficient. The complaint must also clearly state that cause of action. This means that all the elements of the cause of action required by substantive law must clearly appear from a reading of the complaint.
To avoid a possible early dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: “If you have a cause of action, then by all means, state it! State all the elements of your cause of action in your complaint!"
675
664.Jurisprudence holds that, “A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action”
676
665.For instance, if in an action for a sum of money arising from a loan,the complaint fails to allege that the debt is due and demandable there is a failure to state a cause of action. Even if it is so alleged that the debt has become due and demandable, if the complaint contains no allegation that there was a prior demand upon the debtor to pay and such demand went unheeded, there is also a failure to state a cause of action. This is so, even if the plain truth is that the debt is due, a demand to pay has been and was not heeded.
677
666. In actions for forcible entry, for instance, three requisites have to be alleged for the complaint to state a cause and for the municipal trial court to acquire jurisdiction.
1. First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property.
2. Second, he must also assert that he was deprived of the possession of the property either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
3. Third, he must file the action within one year from the deprivation of possession or from the time he learned of his deprivation of physical possession of the land or building
678
667. A complaint for unlawful detainer, in order to sufficiently allege a cause of action, should recite the following in the complaint:
1. the defendant's initial possession of the property was lawful, either by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. eventually, such possession became illegal upon the plaintiff's notice to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment of the property; and
4. the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment within one year from the last demand to vacate the property.
679
668.What determines whether the cause of action is one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, is the nature of defendant's entry to the land. If the entry is illegal, then the cause of action is one for forcible entry, on the other hand, if the entry is legal, but thereafter possession becomes illegal, the cause of action is one for unlawful detainer
680
669.The actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry are governed by the rules on summary procedure. Their summary character is designed to quicken the determination of possession de facto. They are not proper to resolve ownership of the property and if an issue on ownership arises in such actions, any pronouncement made on ownership is provisional in nature and only provisionally to resolve the issue of possession.
681
670.If the unlawful detainer case is based on the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement or failure to pay the rentals, the demand should not be "to pay or vacate." but should be to pay and vacate
The first type of demand does not give rise to an unlawful detainer case since it is, in essence, an action for a sum of money.
So if the amount of rentals to be collected is P900.000, the action should be filed with the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the amount demanded. On the other hand, if the demand is “to pay and vacate," the cause of action is one for unlawful detainer and should be filed with the Municipal Trial Court. Thus, even if the complaint is captioned, “Collection of a Sum of Money with Damages," the action is actually for unlawful detainer where the demand made by the complaint is for the defendant "to pay and vacate"
682
671.Similarly, if the unlawful detainer case is anchored upon the failure of the defendant to comply with the conditions of the lease, the demand must not be "to comply... or vacate," but should be "to comply. . . and vacate.” The first type of demand is not one for unlawful detainer but one for specific performance.
683
672.Sec. 2 of Rule 70 (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) declares:
"SEC. 2. ... Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease AND to vacate is made upon the lessee...".
684
673.The test on whether or not the complaint states a cause of action
In determining whether an initiatory pleading states a cause of action, the test is as follows:
Admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer?" To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters aliunde are NOT considered
685
674. In determining whether or not a cause of action is sufficiently stated in the complaint, the statements in the complaint are to be considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or to hold preliminary hearings to determine its existence.
686
675.The sufficiency of the statement of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations in the complaint, consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances not being allowed.
687
676.The principle, that other matters aside from the allegations in the complaint are not to be considered, is not, however, a hard and fast rule.
688
677.So long as attached pleadings are procedurally responsive to the complaint, then they may be considered in evaluating the sufficiency of the cause of action in the complaint.
Strictly limiting the evaluation of the merits of the complaint to its averments or allegations would be too constricting an interpretation of the rule. It must be remembered that the complaint itself is accompanied by documentary evidence attached as annexes. The responsive pleading in addition, though not attachments to the complaint, clarify its merits since they are already part of the records of the case and should, therefore, be considered.”
689
678.A failure to state a cause of action is not the same as an absence or lack of a cause of action; the terms are not interchangeable!
Note that under Rule 16, the ground for dismissal, in relation to a cause of action, is not "lack or absence of a cause of action.” The ground is that "the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action". This provision points merely to a 'failure to state a cause of action' and not a 'lack or absence of a cause of action.'
690
679.The failure of a complaint to state a cause of action does not mean that the plaintiff "lacks a cause of action.” It only means that the complaint’s allegations are insufficient for the court to know that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus, even if it be actually true that the defendant violated the rights of the plaintiff, causing the latter to incur damage or injury, if the elements constituting such violation are not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will state no cause of action.
691
680.Jurisprudence aptly explains that failure to state a cause of action is different from lack of a cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of a cause of action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. It refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action.
692
681.The remedy for failure to state a cause of action is to move for the dismissal of the pleading, while the remedy for lack of a cause of action is to demur to the evidence.
693
682.Lack of a cause of action is not among the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, while failure to state a cause of action is a ground for a motion to dismiss under the same Rule.
694
683.If the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, a motion to dismiss must be made before a responsive pleading is filed; and the issue can be resolved only on the basis of the allegations in the initiatory pleading. On the other hand, if the Complaint lacks a cause of action, the motion to dismiss must be filed after the plaintiff has rested its case.
695
684.If the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, the veracity of the allegations is immaterial; however, if the Complaint lacks a cause of action, the judge must determine the veracity of the allegations based on the evidence presented
696
685.As previously stated, a motion to dismiss grounded on failure to state a cause of action refers only to the insufficiency of the pleading. Hence, when the affirmative defense of dismissal is grounded on failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should be based on the facts alleged in complaint and not based on the truth of the allegations. The veracity of the allegations would be material only when the motion to dismiss is based on lack of a cause of action in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33.
697
686.The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe.
The designation or caption is not controlling for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint
698
687.If the allegations in the complaint make out a case unlawful detainer, the Municipal Trial Court is not divested of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case merely because the defendant claims ownership over the property subject of the action. The nature of the action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on defendant.
699
688.Effect of a finding that the complaint states a cause of action
A finding that the complaint states no cause of action is a ground for the dismissal of the said complaint. However, a finding that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action does not necessarily mean that the complaint is meritorious; it shall only result in the hearing of the case for presentation of evidence by the parties”
In other words, when the court finds that the complaint states a cause of action, this means that the same cannot be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, but the claiming party has the obligation to offer evidence to support the allegations constituting the elements of his cause of action.
700
689.Cause of action as applied to administrative case
While the concept of a cause of action is one that is essential to the existence of an ordinary civil action, in administrative cases, however, the issue is not whether the complaint has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the respondent has breached the norms and standards of the office.
701
690.Cause of action arising from law
A cause of action may arise from the violation of a law or a rule.
702
691.In illegal strikes, the cause of action arises from the failure of the labor organization to comply with the statutory requirements for a legal strike.
In illegal dismissals of employees, the cause of action arises from dismissals without just or valid causes .
703
692.Cause of action based on contracts
Does a cause of action for breach of contract require an allegation and proof of the negligence of the defendant? Jurisprudence consistently answers in the negative.
A cause of action based on breach of contract merely requires the following elements:
1. the existence of a contract, and
2. the breach of the contract.
704
693.In breach of contract of carriage, for instance, the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract, and the fact that the obligor failed to transport the passenger safely to his destination. In other words, the mere proof of the existence of the contract, and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief.
705
694.Thus, if a carrier is sued based on a breach of contract of carriage, negligence need not be proven by the plaintiff, negligence not being an element of the cause of action of a suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage. This is true, whether or not the defendant is a public or private carrier. However, where the defendant is a common carrier there is an additional reason for dispensing with proof of negligence, I.e., negligence of the common carrier is presumed .
706
695.Cause of action based on the vicarious liability of an employer
As a rule, negligence, as an element of a quasi-delict, must be alleged and proved but the negligence of those persons described under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, although based on a quasi-delict, is presumed.
707
696.Under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, following the well-recognized doctrine of vicarious liability, certain persons like the father, mother, guardian, owners and managers an establishment or enterprise, employers, the State, and teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are, under specified conditions, liable for the acts of persons for whom they are responsible.
708
697.Thus, an employer, for instance, is liable for the damage caused by his employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The employer's negligence in the selection and supervision of his employee is presumed, and his liability shall only cease if he successfully proves his observance of the diligence required of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
709
698.Thus, it has been ruled that when an injury is caused to another by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a juris tantum presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection or supervision, or both, of the employee. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it had exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
710
699.Hence, to escape solidary liability for quasi-delict committed by an employee, the employer must adduce sufficient proof that it exercised such degree of care.
711
700.Cause of action in environmental cases
In environmental cases, “The complaint shall state that it is an environmental case, and the law involved”
712
701.Cause of action for partition raising issue of ownership
A cause of action for partition does not preclude the settlement of the issue of ownership. An action for partition is premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. Unless and until the issue of co-ownership is definitely resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of an estate.
713
702.Action distinguished from cause of action
An action is the suit filed in court for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A cause of action is the basis of the action filed. Under the Rules of Court, "every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action"
714
703.Splitting a single cause of action ; reason for prohibition
Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action.
In splittıng a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts and brings a suit for each part.
714
703.Splitting a single cause of action ; reason for prohibition
Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action.
In splittıng a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts and brings a suit for each part.
715
704.Splitting a single cause of action cannot be done because splitting a single cause is expressly prohibited by the Rules of Court which so mandates that, “A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action”.
716
705.“Splitting of a single cause of action violates the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective is to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the court"
717
706.The rule against splitting a single cause of action applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims.
718
707.Thus, it was held that to interpose a cause of action in a counterclaim, and again invoke it in a complaint against the same person or party, would be splitting a cause of action not sanctioned by the Rules.
719
708.A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be filed, not one action for each relief.
720
709.For instance, when one files a complaint for unlawful detainer on the ground of non-payment of rentals, the complaint must include the recovery of the rentals in arrears, such recovery being an integral part of the cause of action for unlawful detainer.
721
710.An action for the recovery of taxes should also include the demand for surcharges resulting from the delinquency in the payment of said taxes. The non-payment of taxes gives rise to two reliefs: (1) the recovery of the unpaid taxes; and (2) the recovery of the surcharges resulting from non-payment of the taxes. These two reliefs are results of a single cause of action which should be pursued in a single complaint
722
711.The act of a defendant in taking possession of the plaintiff's land by means of force and intimidation constitutes a single act of dispossession but but gives rise to two reliefs: (1) recovery of possession, and (2) damages arising from the loss of possession. Both of these reliefs result from a single wrong, hence, constituting but a single cause of action. Each of them cannot be the subject of two separate actions.
723
712.Hence, an action for forcible entry should include not only the plea for restoration of possession, but also claims for damages arising our of the forcible entry. The claim for damages cannot be filed separately. This rule presupposes, however, that the damages claimed directly arose from the act of dispossession such as the deprivation of the use of the property and other consequential damages.
724
713.It must be emphasized that the claim for damages in a forcible entry case refers to the damages sustained by the plaintiff in depriving him of the use and possession of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered by acts which have no direct relation to the loss of material possession.
725
714.In other words, where the claim for damages arose out of separate acts committed by the defendant after the occupancy of the premises subject of the action, such claim constitutes a separate cause of action and not an integral part of a cause of action based on forcible entry.
726
715.A single act may sometimes violate several rights of a person. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has only one cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated.
727
716.If a car owner sustains injuries to his person and damage to his car as a result of the negligent driving of the defendant, two rights of the plaintiffs have been violated, namely, his personal right to be safe in his person, and his property right to have his car intact and free from any damage.
Under the circumstances, may the plaintiff file a complaint for the recovery of damages to his person and another complaint later to recover damages to his car? He could not because to do so would be to split a single cause of action.
If, however, a passenger in the same car was also injured, the injuries to the passenger gives rise to a cause of action separate and distinct from those sustained by the car owner because distinct rights belonging to different persons have been violated. The injured passenger may file a suit against the defendant separate from the suit filed by the car owner.
728
717.A tenant illegally ejected from the land is entitled to two reliefs — one for reinstatement and another for damages. Since both reliefs arose from the same cause of action, they should be alleged in one complaint.
729
718.A cause of action for the reconveyance of title over property does not include a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. They are distinct causes of action.
730
!!
719.Hence, the pendency of an action for reconveyance of title does not divest the Municipal Trial Court of its jurisdiction to try ejectment case of either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. What is involved in an ejectment case is possession de facto or material possession. In an action for reconveyance, the issue is ownership.
731
720.A bank cannot file a civil action against the debtor for the collection of the debt and, then, subsequently file an action to foreclose the mortgage. This would be splitting a single cause of action.
It is important to bear in mind that a loan contract is an agreement separate from the mortgage even if both refer to one and the same obligation. These contracts, however, do not constitute separate causes of action. They are parts of one and the same cause of action. Hence, there is only one of action.
732
!
721.In loan contracts, secured by a real estate mortgage, creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the debtor-mortgagor with two alternative remedies to recover the debt-- to file a personal action to collect a sum of money or to file a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security.
A remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint for foreclosure. If the plaintiff had already instituted foreclosure proceedings, he is now barred from availing of an ordinary action for collection of a sum of money and vice versa
733
722.Thus, if the creditor-mortgee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid debt, except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor. The availment of the remedy of foreclosure bars recourse to the subsequent filing of a personal action for collection of the same debt. The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or successive, and each remedy is complete by itself.
734
723.“Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is grounds for the dismissal of the others.”
735
724.“Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action (also known as the same evidence test), or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.
736
725.In an action for unlawful detainer and thereafter an action for collection of sum of money, the court ruled that “ The filing of a complaint for collection of a sum of money, other than that sustained as a result of the dispossession or that caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, could not be considered as splitting of a cause of action. There is no splitting if the complaint for collection prays for the payment of the differential amount representing the unpaid balance of the rental fees. The complaint to recover the deficiency has no direct relation to the loss or possession of the premises and had nothing to do with the issue of the unlawfulness of the occupancy or possession in the unlawful detainer case. There is, therefore, no identity of causes of action”
In unlawful detainer cases, the recoverable damages are reckoned from the time the possession of the property became unlawful. Prior to the lapse of the period to vacate the property, as stated in the demand letter, the damages sustained by the plaintiff bear no direct relation to the lessee's refusal to vacate the property. Such damages must be claimed in an ordinary action.! In the instant case, the sum sought to be recovered in the second action refers to the deficiency in the amount of rentals prior to the lessee's unlawful detention of the property and has no direct connection to the loss of material possession that gave rise to the action for unlawful detainer.
737
726.Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license? YES.
"Petitioner, however, forgets that he is simply invoking different grounds for the same cause of action. By definition, a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. In both petitions, petitioner has the same cause — the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent. What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated. These grounds cited by petitioner essentially split the various aspects of the pivotal issue that holds the key to the resolution of this controversy, that is, the actual status of petitioner and respondent's marriage.
Note: Instead of relying on the theory of the “ implied admission of the validity of marriage," the dismissal could have been also justified by considering whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. Obviously, the absence of a marriage license supporting the second action for declaration of nullity, is a ground that already existed at the time of the filing of first action. Hence, it should have been invoked when the first action was filed.
738
727.Parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.
739
728.A party cannot evade or avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case.
“In sum, litigants are provided with the options on the course of action to take in order to obtain judicial relief. Once an option has been taken and a case is filed in court, the parties must ventilate all matters and relevant issues therein. The losing party who files another action regarding the same controversy will be needlessly squandering time, effort and financial resources because he is barred by law from litigating the same controversy all over again”
740
729.Anticipatory breach
As a general rule, a contract to do several things at several times is divisible in its nature. This kind of obligation authorizes successive actions and a judgment recovered for a single breach does not bar a suit for a subsequent breach. However, if the obligor manifests an unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract, though the performance of the same is not yet due, and the renunciation goes to the whole contract, it may be treated as a complete breach, which will entitle the injured party to bring his action at once. In this case, the breach is considered a total breach and there can only be on action and the plaintiff must recover all his damages therein.
741
730.Effect of splitting a single cause of action
If two or more suits are instituted for a single cause of action, “the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. The remedy then of the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss.
Hence, if the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on litis pendentia, i.e., there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. If a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on res judicata, i.e., that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.
Note that it need not be the second action filed that should be dismissed. The phraseology of the present rule (Sec. 4, Rule 2, Rules of Court) does not necessarily confine the dismissal to the second action. A defendant may move for the dismissal of the first case and as to which action should be dismissed would depend upon judicial discretion and the prevailing circumstances of the case. !
742
731.Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone. It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action.
743
732. In joinder of causes of action, when the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and against the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, it is NOT necessary to ask whether or not the causes of actions arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions and that there exists a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants. This question is only relevant when there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants (joinder of parties).
744
733.In a case where multiple debts are evidenced by distinct promissory notes and incurred for different reasons, is a party obliged to join the causes of action?
Answer: No. A party is not obliged to do so. He may file a single suit for each of the claims, if he desires, because each debt is a separate cause of action.Joinder of causes of action is not compulsory. It is merely permissive. (see what happens if page 34)
745
!
734.Joinder of causes of action is not compulsory. It is merely permissive.
746
735.Under the Rules, where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for the recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction . This situation follows the so-called totality test for purposes of jurisdiction.
747
736.If aside from money claims from loan agreement the creditor, as lessor, also wants to eject the debtor from the apartment occupied by the debtor as his lessee. May the action be joined with the claims for money?
Answer: No. An action for ejectment is a special civil action. This kind of action cannot be joined with ordinary civil actions. The rule is clear: "The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules".
748
737.An action for injunction and quieting of title to real property cannot be joined in a single complaint. While injunction is an ordinary civil action, quieting of title is governed by Rule 63, making it a special civil action.
749
738.Assume that C has the following causes of action against D: (a) P1 million based on a note; (b) P1 million based on torts; and (c) foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. May the causes of action be joined?
They can be joined except the action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage which is a special civil action.
750
739.An action for collection of a sum of money cannot be properly joined with an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The former is an ordinary civil action requiring a full-blown trial, while the latter two are special civil actions which require a summary procedure.
751
740.Joinder when there are multiple parties
If there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, the rule on joinder of parties does not apply. The reason is simple. There are no parties to be joined. It is when the fact pattern of the case indicates the presence of multiple parties (like two or more plaintiffs or two or more defendants or both) that the joinder of causes of action becomes subject to the rule on joinder of parties under Sec. 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
752
741. Specifically, before causes of action and parties can be joined in a complaint involving multiple parties, the following must be complied with:
1. the right to relief must arise out the same transaction or series of transactions and
2. there must be a question of law or fact common to all parties.
753
742.The existence of a contract relationship does not preclude a suit based on a quasi-delist Owner may be sued under a quasi-delict, as an employer of Driver if Passenger so desires (Art. 2180, Civil Code of the Philippines; vicarious liability). In the same accident, two or more injured passengers in the same mishap, may join as plaintiffs against the driver and the common carrier as joint defendants.
754
743.If A and B both sign a promissory note for P1 million and bind themselves to be jointly liable for the debt in favor of C, there are two distinct obligations within the same promissory note, namely: (a) the obligation of A to C for P500,000; and (b) the obligation of B to C for P500,000.
Under Art. 1208 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, unless otherwise the nature of the obligation or by law, the debt or credit shall be presumed divided into as many equal shares as creditors or debtors. In other words, the obligation under the promissory note in the illustration is presumed to be joint, not solidary.
If the obligation is joint, C may sue A alone or sue B alone. This is because the debts are separate and distinct causes of action.
May C, however, join A and B under one complaint and thereby join the causes of action?
Answer: C may join A and B under one complaint. The debt of A and B arose out of the same transaction, I.e., the same promissory note and would necessarily give rise to a common question of law or fact.
755
744.Joinder of claims in small claims cases
The plaintiff may join, in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interests and costs, does not exceed P300,000.
756
745.Remedy in case of misjoinder of causes of action
When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously joined cause of action can be severed and proceeded with separately upon motion by a party or upon the court's own initiative. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
757
746.Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action
758
747.If an action for forcible entry is joined in one complaint with the causes of actions based on several promissory notes, the complaint should not be dismissed based on the misjoinder of the forcible entry case. Instead, the cause of action predicated on forcible entry merely needs to be severed from the complaint upon motion of a party or by the court motu proprio and proceeded with separately in another action.
759
748.While a misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal, yet if the plaintiff refuses to sever the misjoined cause of action as ordered by the court, the complaint may be dismissed conformably with the mandate of Sec. 3 of Rule 17 which authorizes the dismissal of a complaint for, among others, failure to comply with the order of the court
760
749.In this jurisdiction, it is settled that the terms "action” and “suit” are synonymous but the operative act which converts a claim into an "action" or "suit” is the filing of the same with a court of justice. Filed elsewhere, as with some other body or office not a court of justice, the claim may not be properly categorized under either term.
761
750.A civil action “is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong". A criminal action “is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law"
762
751.It has been ruled that “proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial”
763
752. The purpose of a special proceeding is to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (as distinguished from actions; civil and criminal)
764
753.The determination of who the legal heirs of the deceased are must be made in the proper special proceedings in court and not in an ordinary suit for the recovery of ownership and possession of real property. The court, in such an ordinary action, cannot make a declaration of heirship, because such declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
765
754.Also, matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights.
766
755.The status of an illegitimate child, who claims to be an heir to a decedent's estate, could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action like recovery of property
767
756.The special proceedings under the Rules of Court
Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the following cases under Sec. 1 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court:
1. Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
2. Escheat;
3. Guardianship and custody of children;
4. Trustees;
5. Adoption;
6. Rescission and revocation of adoption;
7. Hospitalization of insane persons;
8. Habeas Corpus;
9. Change of name;
10. Voluntary dissolution of corporation;
11. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
12. Constitution of family home;
13. Declaration of absence and death; and
14. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
The enumeration of special proceedings in the Rules of Court is not exclusive. Special proceedings are also provided for in cases aside from those mentioned in the Rules.
768
757.The rules of ordinary civil actions have suppletory application in special proceedings. The rule is clear: “In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings".
769
!
758.A demurrer to evidence in Rule 33 may apply to special proceedings
770
759.Arbitration, under Sec. 22 of R.A. 876 (The Arbitration Law), is deemed a special proceeding.
771
760.Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or for vacation, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as special proceedings
772
761.A petition for writ of amparo is also a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action. The summary nature of the petition does not make the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure applicable
773
762.A verified petition for approval of the bond filed by a parent to exercise legal guardianship over property of his emancipated children shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding.
774
763.A liquidation proceeding involving a bank is a special proceeding involving the administration an disposition of an insolvent's assets for the benefit of its creditors.
775
764.Special civil actions in the Rules of Court (in re: joinder.j)
The following are the special civil actions as presently embodied in the Rules of Court:
1. Interpleader;
2. Declaratory relief and similar remedies;
3. Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit;
4. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus;
5. Quo warranto;
6. Expropriation;
7. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
8. Partition;
9. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer; and
10. Contempt.
776
765.An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate. That means that realty, or an interest therein, is the subject matter of the action.
777
766.Not every action, however involving a real property is a “real action” because the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit. To be a “real” action, it is not enough that the action must deal with real property. It is important that the matter in litigation must also involve or affect any of the following issues: “title to or possession of real property, or interest therein".
778
767. Sec. 2 of Rule 4 of the 1964 Rules of Court was more specific, and referred to real actions as those “affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage, on real property.”
779
768.Hence, an action for damages to real property, while involving realty, is a personal action because, although it involves real property, it does not involve any of the issues mentioned.
780
769.An action to recover possession of real property plus damages (like accion publiciana and damages) is fundamentally a real action because possession of real property is involved. This is true even if the recovery of damages is, in itself, a personal action. The aspect of damages is merely an incidental part of the main action, i.e., recovery of possession of real property.
Hence, in determining the venue of the action, the rule on venue of real actions shall be applied even if the recovery of damages is included in the recovery of possession of the realty.
781
!
770.However, an action to recover possession of a personal property is a personal action.
782
771.An action for a declaration of the nullity of marriage is a personal action. As such, it may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff .
783
772.An action for specific performance with damages is a personal action as long as it does not involve a claim of or recovery of ownership of or title to real property
784
773.Where a complaint is denominated as one for specific performance but, nonetheless, prays for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of land, to enable the plaintiff to acquire ownership thereof, its primary objective and nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and, thus, is deemed a real action.
785
An action for specific performance to enforce a right to repurchase lots previously sold to the buyer in accordance with the Public Land Act is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. In an earlier case, although the end result of the plaintiff's claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name, the suit was still essentially for specific performance, a personal action, because it sought from the defendant the execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which they had previously made. Here, the action is primarily to enforce the contract to execute a deed of sale
786
775.Where the allegations, as well as the prayer, in the complaint do not claim ownership of the lots in question, or ask for possession of the same, but, instead, merely seeks for the execution of a deed of sale by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff, the action is a personal action.
787
776.Where it is alleged in the complaint that the defendant breached the contract so that the plaintiff prays that the contract be rescinded, and that the defendant be ordered to return possession of the the hacienda to the plaintiff, the ultimate purpose or end of the action is to recover possession of real property, and not mere breach of contract.
788
777.Where the action, captioned as one to annul or rescind a sale of real property has, as its fundamental and prime objective, the recovery of real property, the action is real. The venue, therefore, of the action is where the real property subject of the action is situated.
789
778.An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage is a real action, but an action to compel the mortgagee to accept payment of the mortgage debt and release the mortgage is a personal action.
790
779.An action to annul a contract of loan, and its accessory real estate mortgage, is a personal action.
791
780. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In contrast, in a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property
792
781.Although the main relief sought in the action is the delivery of the certificate of title, said relief, in turn, depends upon who, between the parties, has a better right to the lot in question. It is not possible for the court to decide the main relief without passing upon the claim of the parties with respect to the title to and the possession of the lot in question. The action is a real action.
793
782.Where the sale is fictitious, with absolutely no consideration, it should be regarded as a non-existent contract. There being no contract between the parties, there is nothing in truth to annul by action. The action, therefore, cannot be an action for annulment of a sale of a fishpond but one for the recovery of a fishpond, a real action
794
783.An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is a real action because the action is closely intertwined with the issue of ownership, the recovery of which is the primary objective of the plaintiff.
794
783.An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is a real action because the action is closely intertwined with the issue of ownership, the recovery of which is the primary objective of the plaintiff.
795
784.“The prevalent doctrine is that the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. The case should be construed to operate under the theory that ownership has already been transferred. Hence, the primary purpose of the action becomes the recovery of said ownership.
However, where the action is merely to annul a deed of real estate mortgage, the action is a personal action if ownership has not yet passed to another.
796
785.Significance of the distinction between a personal action and a real action
The distinction between a real action and personal action is important for the purpose of determining the venue of the action. Questions involving the propriety or impropriety of a particular venue are resolved by initially determining the nature of the action, i.e., if the action is personal or real. Knowing whether or not an action is real is also important to know which court has jurisdiction over a complaint. Jurisdiction over real actions will involve determination of the assessed value of the property.
797
786. If the question involves the venue of an action, the analysis will necessarily involve the following steps:
1. a determination whether the action is real or personal; and
2. an application of the rules on venue under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
798
787.If the action is one for forcible entry, the action is real. If it is instituted by a resident of Manila against a resident of Quezon City, the venue of the action is neither of these places if the property subject of the action is located in Makati City, in which case, Makati City is the venue.
799
788.Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated
800
789.An action for the recovery of possession of the leased premises located in Davao City, and the payment of accrued rentals, is a real action. The venue of the action is Davao City.
801
790.An action to annul a sale of a land located in Baguio City, where recovery of ownership is essentially the material issue in the case, must be filed in Baguio City. The action is a real action, and must be filed in the place where the property is situated, regardless of the residence of the parties
802
791.Where an award of a house and lot to the plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled, an action that seeks to annul the cancellation of the award over the said house and lot is a personal action. The action does not involve title to, ownership or possession of real property. The nature of the action is one to compel the recognition of the validity of the previous award by seeking a declaration that the cancellation is null and void. The venue is the residence of the plaintiff or that of the defendant, at the option of the plaintiff
803
792.An action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property mortgage is a personal action because it does not affect title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein . Hence, the venue is the residence of the plaintiff or that of the defendant, at the option of the plaintiff, not the location of the property mortgaged.
804
793.Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. The phrase, "against the thing,” to describe in rem actions is a metaphor. It is not the "thing” that is the party to an action in rem; only legal or natural persons may be parties even in in rem actions.
805
794.Traditional jurisprudence referred to an action in rem as one brought against the whole world
806
795.Thus, it has been held that the probate of a will being a proceeding in rem, with the corresponding publication of the petition, the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent.
807
796.A land registration proceeding is an action in rem. Hence, by virtue of compliance with the publication requirement, all claimants and occupants of the subject property are deemed to be notified of the existence of a cadastral case involving the property
808
797.Since a land registration proceeding is an action in rem, the failure to give a personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land is not a iurisdictional defect. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case, and vests the court with jurisdiction.
809
798.A petition for the correction of an entry in the birth certificate, like date of birth, is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The proceeding is validated essentially by publication of the proceeding to give notice to the whole world and to those who might be minded to make objections of any sort to the right sought to be established. It is this publication which brings in the whole world as a party. The decision of the court, after having attained finality, binds not only the parties, but the whole world. Everyone is now legally bound to acknowledge and give effect to the judgment. Thus, when the order to correct an entry in the birth certificate is ordered under a final judgment, a government agency is bound to give effect to the said judgment
810
799.The petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the right sought to be established. Through publication, all interested parties are deemed notified of the petition.”
811
800.A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons in the discharge of claims. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as a defendant and the purpose of the proceedings is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property.
812
801.Unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties.
813
802.The following are some of the examples of actions quasi in rem:
1. suits to quiet title,
2. actions for foreclosure; and
3. attachment proceedings.
814
803.In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as a defendant
815
804.Additional examples of actions quasi in rem are: action for partition and action for accounting.
Such actions are essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant's interest in the property and not to render a judgment against him
816
805.In a case, the Court similarly held that attachment and foreclosure proceedings are both actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. Service of summons on a non resident defendant who is not found in the country is required, not for the purpose of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his person, but simply in pursuance of the requirements of fair play, so that he may be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of a resident, and that he may thereby be accorded an opportunity to defend in the action, should he be so minded.
817
806.An action for annulment of certificate of title is quasi in rem. It is not an action “against a person on the basis of his personal liability,” but an action that subjects a person's interest over a property to a burden. The action for annulment of a certificate of title threatens petitioner's interest in the property.
818
807.An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of actions according to the object of the action. A personal and real action is a classification according to foundation. It is in rem when directed against the whole world, and in personam when directed against a particular person.
819
!
808.Hence, an action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a real action, necessarily an action in rem.
820
809.For instance, an action to recover title to or possession of real property is a real action, but it is an action in personam. It is not brought against the whole world, but against the person upon whom the claim is made.
821
!
810.An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action, but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only, although it concerns the right to a tangible thing
822
811. The rule is that:
1. a judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate of a will; and
2. a judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon strangers.
823
812.A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam it is binding only against the parties and their successors- in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.
824
813.An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or reconveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded
825
814.An action for the declaration of nullity of a marriage is a personal action because it is not founded on real estate. It is, at the same time, an in rem action because the issue of the status of a person is one directed against the whole world. One's status is a matter that can be set up against anyone in the world.
826
815. An action for damages is both a personal action and an action in personam.
827
816.An action for specific performance is an action in personam. It is not an action in rem
828
817.Cases involving an auction sale of land for the collection of delinquent taxes are actions in personam. Mere publication of the notice of delinquency does not suffice. Notice by publication, although sufficient in proceedings in rem, does not satisfy the requirements of proceedings in personam. Because it is in personam, it is still necessary to send the notice of tax delinquency directly to the taxpayer in order to protect his interests.
829
818.Notice by publication, although sufficient in proceedings in rem, does not satisfy the requirements of proceedings in personam.
830
819.An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name
831
820.An action for injunction is a personal action, as well is an action in personam, not an action in rem or quasi in rem.
832
821.The proceedings under the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure of 2013 are proceedings in rem as provided for under Sec. 4 thereof.
Examples of the proceedings under the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure are petitions for rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships as well as proceedings in suspension of payment.
833
822.A petition for annulment of a judgment is in personam. The court's decision in this petition will not be enforceable against the whole world. Any judgment therein will eventually bind only the parties properly impleaded.
834
823."To resolve whether there was valid service of summons on respondents, the nature of the action filed against them must first be determined. As the Court explained it will be helpful to determine first whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to the nature of the action."
835
824.Against a resident defendant in an action in personam, jurisdiction is acquired by service in person on the defendant or, in case he cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, by substituted service of summons . Without a valid service of the summons, the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, unless he voluntarily appears in the action. This voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons
836
825.Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. If the defendant does not voluntarily appear in court, jurisdiction can be acquired by personal or substituted service of summons as laid out under the Rules
837
826.In an action in personam against a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person.
This method, is possible, if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and, therefore, cannot validly try the case against him.
838
827.Because an action for specific performance is in personam, service of summons upon him in person, while he is within the territory, is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over him. In an action for specific performance against a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines, summons by publication will not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over him.
839
828."The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, likewise, apply according to the nature of the action.
"In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. !
“Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. !
840
829."A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court, must be personally served with summons as provided under the Rules of Court. If she cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (2) by leaving the copies at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof in accordance with the Rules”
841
830.In proceeding in rem and quasi in rem, due process requires that those with interests in the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. Their rights to be heard cannot be denied. This means that jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient for a valid judgment. Such judgment also requires notice or service of summons to all interested parties to satisfy the due process requirement of the fundamental law.
842
831.In proceeding in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient for a valid judgment. Such judgment also requires notice or service of summons to all interested parties to satisfy the due process requirement of the fundamental law.
843
832.In in rem or quasi in rem actions, where the defendant is a non-resident and is not found in the Philippines, this notice is effected through extraterritorial service of summons. In actions against residents of the Philippines, the rule mandates the use of service in person on the defendant , and in default thereof, substituted service of summons under Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
844
833.In probate of a will, a proceeding in rem, while no person is sought to be held liable by the proceeding and the rule does not mention the term, ‘summon,' the rule requires that the heirs, devisees, legatees and executors be notified by mail or personally. If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.
845
834.An action in rem or quasi in rem is treated as an action in personam if the defendant presents himself in the action.
846
!
835.When summons by publication may be made in action in personam
Summons by publication, as a general rule, will not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. This jurisprudential rule is , however, subject to the exceptions laid down under the amended rules which took effect on July 1, 1997.
1. In Sec. 14 of Rule 14, if the identity of the defendant is unknown or whose whereabouts are unknown, service may, with leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Note the words “in any action” in Sec. 14 of Rule 14.
2. In Sec. 16 of Rule 14, if the resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, he may be served by publication with leave of court.
847
836.Parties to a civil action
The rule gives two main categories of parties to a civil action namely, the plaintiff and the defendant.
848
837.The plaintiff is the claiming party and is the one who files the complaint. The term, however, does not exclusively apply to the original plaintiff. It may also apply to a defendant who files a counterclaim, a cross-claim or a third party complaint. The rule defines the term ‘plaintiff.' as the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the Cross-claimant or the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff.
849
838.The defendant does not only refer to the original defending party. If a counterclaim is filed against the original plaintiff, he becomes a defendant and the original defendant, a plaintiff in the counterclaim. Under the Rules , the term 'defendant' refers also to a defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
850
839.Who may be parties
The following may be parties to a civil action:
1. natural persons,
2. juridical persons, and
3. entities authorized by law .
851
840.Where the complaint is commenced by a plaintiff not authorized to be a party to a case, because it is not a natural person or a juridical person or any entity authorized by law it becomes dismissible on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue.
852
841.Juridical persons have personalities separate and distinct from those of the natural persons that compose them.
853
842.Thus, a suit against a stockholder of corporation is not a suit against the corporation.
854
843.A judgment in a suit for recovery of ill-gotten wealth against a corporate shareholder is not a judgment against the corporation and the enforcement of the judgment against the latter is a violation of its right to due process and a disregard of its distinct and separate personality. The converse is also true. A judgment rendered against the corporation is not a judgment rendered against a corporate stockholder.
855
844.When the corporate offices have been illegally searched, the right to contest the transgression does not belong to any corporate officer. It belongs to the corporation alone which has a personality of its own separate and distinct from that of an officer or a stockholder. The objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third persons.
856
845.The Court rules that while a share of stock represents a proportionate or aliquot interest in the corporation, it does not vest the owner thereof with any legal right or title to any of the corporate property. This is because shareholders are not the owners of such property which is owned by the corporation as a distinct legal person .
However, even if the cause of action belongs to the corporation, if the board refuses to sue despite demand by the stockholders to sue and protect or vindicate corporate rights, a stockholder is allowed by law to file a derivative suit in the corporate name. In such a suit, the real party in interest is actually the corporation and the stockholder filing the action is a mere nominal party .
857
846.“The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit, between other parties, must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.”
858
847.One need not be a natural or juridical person to be a party to a civil action. The Rules adds a third possible party to a civil action aside from natural persons and juridical persons. The Rules recognizes “entities authorized by law.” As long as an entity is authorized by law to be a party, such entity may sue or be sued or both.
Examples:
1. Under the Corporation Code of the Philippines, a corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence and the members thereof can be sued and be held liable as general partners.
2. A contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more but which fails to comply with the registration requirements is, nevertheless, liable as a partnership to third persons
3. The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality of its own. Since it has a personality of its own, it may be a party to an action.
4. A legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued in its registered name .
5. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as to its properties, the archbishop or diocese, to which they belong, may be a party
6. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it provided that the suits
(i )occur within three years after its dissolution, and
(ii) the suits are in connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs
7. ”A partnership for the practice of law, constituted in accordance with the Civil Code of the Philippines acquires a juridical personality by operation of law.
859
848.A partnership for the practice of law, constituted in accordance with the Civil Code of the Philippines,having a juridical personality distinct and separate from its partners, such partnership is the real-party-in-interest in connection with a contract entered into in its name and by a person authorized to act in its behalf
Our law on partnership does not exclude partnerships for the practice of law from its coverage. Under Article 1771, a partnership may be constituted in any form.
860
849.Entity without a juridical personality as a defendant
An example of an entity that is neither a natural nor juridical person but is allowed by the Rules of Court to be a party to an action, although as a defendant, is the one treated in Sec. 15 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
Under Sec. 15, "when two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known." Under the same provision, the responsive pleading of the entity sued must disclose the names and addresses of its members since they are the persons ultimately liable to the plaintiff.
Note, however, that the authority to be a party under this section is confined only to being a defendant and not as a plaintiff. This is evident from the words, they may be sued.!
861
850.Effect when a party impleaded is not authorized to be a party
Where the plaintiff is not a natural or a juridical person or an entity authorized by law, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that "the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue”.
Where the plaintiff has a legal capacity to sue but is not the person who should sue because he is not the real party in interest, the complaint is dismissible on the ground that the complaint "states no cause of action.”
862
851.Where it is the defendant who is not a natural or a juridical person or an entity authorized by law, the complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the “pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action" or "failure to state a cause of action”, because a complaint cannot possibly state a cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action.
863
852.Averment of capacity to sue or be sued
Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred
864
!
853.Minor or incompetent as a party
A minor or an incompetent may sue or be sued. He can be a party, not through, but with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem
865
854.To be a real party in interest, the interest must be ‘real.' which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest. It is an interest that is material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest
866
855.Unless otherwise authorized by law or by the Rules, "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest"
867
856.If a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.
Like the need for a cause of action in ordinary civil actions, this requirement is not a mere technical matter because it goes into the very substance of the suit.
If either of the parties is not the real party in interest, the court cannot grant the relief prayed for because that party has no legal right or duty with respect to the other. Litigation then becomes a mere academic exercise that eventually settles nothing and thus, a waste of time.
868
857.Determining the real party in interest
The determination of who the real party in interest is, requires going back to the elements of a cause of action.
A cause of action involves the existence of a right and a violation of such right. Evidently, the owner of the right violated stands to be the real party in interest as plaintiff and the person responsible for the violation is the real party in interest as defendant.
869
858.Thus, in a suit for violation of a contract, the parties in interest would be those covered by the operation of the doctrine of relativity of contracts under Art. 1311 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, namely, the parties, their assignees and heirs.
870
!
859.The basic principle of relativity of contracts is that contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it, and cannot favor or prejudice a third person. Hence, one who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it”
871
860.In a suit for annulment of a contract, the real parties in interest would be those who are principally or subsidiarily bound by the contract.
872
861.A third party, who has not taken part in a compromise agreement, has no right to ask for the enforcement of the agreement. Neither can such person seek the amendment or modification of the same.
873
862.While, ordinarily, one who is not privy to a contract may not bring an action to enforce it, there are recognized exceptions to this rule.
For example, if a contract contains a stipulation pour autrui (a stipulation expressly conferring benefits to a third person), such person, in whose benefit the stipulation was conferred by the parties, may demand the fulfillment of the contract, and even sue under such contract provided he accepted and communicated his acceptance of the beneficial stipulation prior to its revocation.
874
!
863.A mere agent, who is not an assignee of the principal, cannot bring suit under a deed of sale entered into in behalf of his principal because it is the principal, not the agent, who is the real party in interest. If a complaint is filed by an agent for and in behalf of the principal, the agent is not the real party in interest.
875
864.Where an agent acts in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal, the agent may sue or be sued in his own name, without joining the principal, except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
876
865."The power to collect and receive payments on behalf of the principal is an ordinary act of administration covered by the general powers of an agent. On the other hand, the filing of suits is an act of strict dominion. Under the Civil Code, a duly appointed agent has no power to exercise any act of strict dominion on behalf of the principal unless authorized by a special power of attorney. An agent's authority to file suit cannot be inferred from his authority to collect or receive payments; the grant of special powers cannot be presumed from the grant of general powers. Moreover, the authority to exercise special powers must be duly established by evidence, even though it need not be in writing"
877
!
866.Should a lawful possessor be disturbed in his possession, it is the possessor, not necessarily the owner of the property, who can bring the action to recover the possession. The argument that the complaint states no cause of action because the suit was filed by a mere possessor and not by the owner is not correct
878
867.In an action for forcible entry, the possessor/lessee is the real party in interest as plaintiff and not the owner/lessor. The issue in an action for forcible entry is mere possession. But in an action to recover damages for injury caused by the deforciant on the property, the owner/lessor is the real party in interest as plaintiff.
879
868.In an action for ejectment, any one of the co-owners may bring the action.
880
869.Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a partnership has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners. Hence, if the contract was entered into by the partnership in its name, it is the partnership, not its officers or agents, which should be impleaded in any litigation involving property registered in its name. A violation of this rule will result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
881
870.The real party in interest in a criminal prosecution is the "People of the Philippines.” The interest of the private offended party is only in the civil aspect of the case.
882
871.The condominium unit owners and residents of a condominium building, affected by an oil leak in the pipelines of the defendant, which made the place inhabitable for them, are real parties in interest
883
872.Where the cause of action is based on a breach of contract of carriage, the liability of the common carrier is direct and primary since the contract is between the carrier and the passenger. The driver of the carrier cannot be made liable since he is not a party to the contract of carriage. It is erroneous to hold the carrier and the driver jointly and severally liable.
884
!
873.Doctrine of locus standi
The doctrine of locus standi or legal standing refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act .
885
874.When a quo warranto proceeding is brought by a private person to question the constitutionality of the appointment made by the President of the Philippines and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, the petitioner must show a clear right to the contested office. The right to the office must be clear. A mere preferential right to be appointed does not lend a legal ground to proceed with the action.
Hence, a mere nominee to a position in the judiciary cannot claim a clear legal right to the position. Being included in the list of nominees, submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council, only gives the petitioner a possibility, not certainty, of being appointed to the position, considering the discretionary power of the appointing power of the President of the Philippines. The petitioner, hence, has no legal standing to file the petition. (locus standi)
886
875.The same principle as above applies to a quo warranco petition filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to oust certain appointees of the President to the Judiciary. The IBP does not qualify under the Rules of Court as an individual claiming to be entitled to the positions in question.
887
876.As a rule, locus standi requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
Hence, a party will be allowed to litigate only when he can demonstrate that
1. he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government;
2. the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
3. the injury is likely to be redressed by the remedy being sought. Otherwise he/she would not be allowed to litigate
888
877.The rule on locus standi is a mere procedural technicality, hence, the Court, in a catena of cases, has waived or relaxed the same rule, allowing persons who may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any governmental act.
889
878. The Court, therefore, has laid out the bare minimum norm to extend the standing to sue to the so-called “non-traditional suitors,” thus:
1. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
2. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the law in question;
3. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and
4. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes on their prerogatives as legislators"
890
879. “Otherwise stated, whenever the acts affects the powers, prerogatives and privileges of Congress, anyone of its members may validly bring an action to challenge the same to safeguard and maintain the sanctity thereof”
891
880.The concept of legal standing or locus standi has been broadened more by recent Court pronouncements. One case instructs:
“Every citizen has the right, if not the duty, to interfere and see that a public offense be properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied. When a citizen exercises this “public right” and challenges a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional executive or legislative action, he represents the public at large, thus, clothing him with the requisite locus standi. He may not sustain an injury as direct and adverse as compared to others but it is enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the vindication of a public right.
"Verily, legal standing is grounded on the petitioner's personal interest in the controversy. A citizen who files a petition before the court asserting a public right satisfies the requirement of personal interest simply because the petitioner is a member of the general public upon which the right is vested. A citizen's personal interest in a case challenging an allegedly unconstitutional act lies in his interest and duty to uphold and ensure the proper execution of the law.
892
881.The concept of 'standing,' because of its constitutional underpinnings, is very different from questions relating to whether or not a particular party is a real party in interest. !
Although both are directed towards ensuring that only certain parties can maintain an action, the concept of standing requires an analysis of broader policy concerns. The question, as to who the real party in interest is, involves a question on whether a person would be benefited or injured by the judgment or whether or not he is entitled to the avails of the suit. While standing is a constitutional law concept, in private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a “real party-in-interest”. In other words, in private suits, standing is governed by the real “parties in interest” rule found the Rules of Court.
893
882.Plaintiff in environmental cases
Any real party in interest, including the government and juridical entities authorized by law, may file a civil action involving the enforcement or violation of any environmental law
894
883.Ground for dismissal when a party is not the real party in interest
It will be observed that Rule 16 does not provide for a ground for a motion to dismiss which directly states that 'the plaintiff or the defendant is not the real party in interest.' Instead, the ground provided for in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16 is:
"g. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.”
895
884.It is the failure to state the cause of action, not its absence or lack, which could be invoked for the dismissal of the claim.
896
885.If the plaintiff, has capacity to sue but he is not the ‘real party-in-interest,’ the ground for dismissal is a ‘failure to state a cause of action’ or that the complaint ‘states no cause of action.’
897
886.“Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party-in-interest in the case cannot be executed. Hence, a complaint filed against such person should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.”
898
887.Representative parties
Some actions may be allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity like a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or by the Rules.
899
887.Representative parties
Some actions may be allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity like a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or by the Rules.
900
888.Even where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative party or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.
Impleading the beneficiary as a party is mandatory since said beneficiary is deemed to be the real party in interest.
901
889.For example, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) may prosecute or defend the case by or against a bank as a representative party while the bank, which is under conservatorship, will remain as the real party in interest
902
890.In derivative suits, the corporation concerned must be impleaded. It is actually its cause of action that is being litigated.
903
891.Citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
A citizen suit may be filed by any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. This is a unique rule which authorizes a suit in representation of generations yet unborn even if those represented are, at the time of the filing of the suit, neither conceived nor born.
904
892. When the citizen’s suit is filed, the court shall issue an order which shall contain the following:
1. a brief description of the cause of action;
2. a brief description of the reliefs prayed for, and
3. an order requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within 15 days from notice thereof.
905
893.Note that under the Rules of Court, in ordinary civil actions, the court does not issue an order requiring interested parties to manifest their intention to intervene. Instead, it is the intervenor who asks for leave of court to intervene and his intervention rests on judicial discretion.
906
894.The order mentioned in the preceding number (893) may be published, by the plaintiff, once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines or copies of said order may be furnished to all affected barangays
906
894.The order mentioned in the preceding number (893) may be published, by the plaintiff, once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines or copies of said order may be furnished to all affected barangays
907
895.Standing of marine animals
An interesting case had the occasion to rule on the legal standing of marine mammals being represented in a suit.
The Court explained that, the need to give the resident marine mammals legal standing has been eliminated by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases which allow any Filipino citizen, to bring a suit to enforce environmental laws through the filing of a "citizen's suit"
Note: although the Court did not rule in favor of the legal standing of the marine mammals, the petition was, nevertheless, not dismissed on procedural grounds because the Stewards (representatives), in their personal capacities, joined in the suit and were declared to have the required standing.
908
896.An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
909
897.On the contrary, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court
910
898.In a suit based on breach of contract, the contracting parties are indispensable parties
911
899.The registered owner of a lot whose title the plaintiff seeks to nullify is an indispensable party.
912
900.The one who holds legal title to the property is not an indispensable party in a suit between parties to an unlawful detainer suit where the issue is mere possession and not ownership.
913
901.Where the persons who built a structure, like a church, are sought to be prohibited to use the same, the builders are indispensable parties. They will be affected by the judgment and without them, no final determination of the case can be had
914
902.In a petition for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby be made respondents because they are indispensable parties.
915
903.In action for partition of real property, all persons who are co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties. An action for partition will not lie without their joinder.
916
903.In action for partition of real property, all persons who are co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties. An action for partition will not lie without their joinder.
917
904.A transferee of a property pendente lite is not an indispensable party, as he would, in any event, be bound by the judgment against his predecessor
918
906. In an action for reconveyance of a property, the persons against whom reconveyance is asserted are indispensable parties.
919
907.From jurisprudence, it may be inferred that a person is not an indispensable party (he is dispensable) if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties.
920
!
908.In a joint obligation, for instance, the interest of one debtor is separate and distinct from that of his co-debtor. This is because the credit or debt is presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors. Hence, a suit against one debtor does not make the other an indispensable party to the suit.
921
909.Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties
"The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and the responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the plaintiff.
922
910.Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
923
911.Otherwise stated, the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent party but even as to those present.
924
!
912.It is only the joinder of indispensable parties which is mandatory. Clearly, the rule directs a compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. The joinder of other parties is merely permissive.
925
913.One decision of the Court declares that whenever it appears to the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such party. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present. Accordingly, the responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the plaintiff. The defendant does not have the right to compel the plaintiff to prosecute the action against a party if he does not wish to do so, but the plaintiff will have to suffer the consequences of any error he might commit in exercising his option.
926
914.Effect of non-joinder of indispensable parties
The inclusion of indispensable parties is a jurisdictional requirement. !
Any decision rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction over indispensable parties is null and void for want of jurisdiction, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. The reason is not difficult to see. Indispensable parties are those without whom no final determination can be had of an action.
927
915.Failure to implead an indispensable party; not a ground for dismissal
If a complaint or petition is not brought in the name of or against an indispensable party, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.
However, an outright dismissal is not the immediate remedy authorized by the Rules because, under the Rules, the non-joinder (or misjoinder) of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. Instead, parties may be dropped or added by the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
928
!
916.The rule is consistent with the options available to the court when faced with a motion to dismiss. Aside from dismissing the complaint or denying the motion, it may order the amendment of the pleading.
It is when the order of the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded may the case be dismissed.
929
917.The court is fully clothed with the authority to dismiss a complaint due to the fault of the plaintiff as when, among others, he does not comply with any order of the court
930
918.Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal of an action, as the remedy in such a case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable, considering that parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action. It is error for the court to order the dismissal case. The Court definitively explained that in instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the case. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order .
931
919.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although he should not be impleaded. A party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action.
932
920.To reiterate, neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. If there is any claim against a party misjoined, the same may be severed and proceeded with separately.
933
921.Even if neither misjoinder nor non-joinder is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint under the Rules of Court.
934
922.The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action. Hence, a final determination of the case can be had but only among the parties already impleaded even if a necessary party, for some justifiable reason, is not joined. But it would be better that all necessary parties are joined so the parties may obtain complete relief.
935
!
923. An indispensable party must be joined under any and all conditions while a necessary party should be joined whenever possible .
936
924.An indispensable party must be joined because the court cannot proceed without him. Hence, his presence is mandatory. The presence of a necessary party is not mandatory because his interest is separable from that of the indispensable party. He has to be joined only whenever possible to afford complete relief to the parties and to avoid multiple litigations.
937
925.A final decree can be had in a case even without a necessary party because his interests are separable from the interest litigated in the case.
938
926.A joint debtor is merely a necessary party.
939
927.Duty of pleader if a necessary party is not joined
Whenever, in any pleading in which a claim is asserted, a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth the name of the necessary party, if his name is known, and state why such party is omitted.
940
928.When court may order joinder of a necessary party
If the reason given for the non-joinder of the necessary party is found by the court to be unmeritorious, it may order the pleader to join the omitted party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
941
929.Effect of failure to comply with the order of the court
The failure to comply with the order of the court to include a necessary party, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
942
930.Effect of a justified non-inclusion of a necessary party
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party
943
931.Unwilling co-plaintiff
An unwilling co-plaintiff is a party who is supposed to be a plaintiff but whose consent to be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained as when he refuses to be a party to the action.
944
932.Under the Rules, an unwilling co-plaintiff may be made a defendant, and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
945
933.Alternative defendants
Where the plaintiff cannot definitely identify who among two or more persons should be impleaded as a defendant, he may join all of them as defendants in the alternative.
946
934.Under the Rules, “where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other”.
947
935.Just as the rule allows a suit against defendants in the alternative, the rule also allows alternative causes of action and alternative defenses
948
936.A Plaintiff may sue the shipping company and the arrastre operator alternatively for the recovery of damages to goods shipped through a maritime vessel
949
937.Unknown identity or name of the defendant
Whenever the identity or name of the defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly.
950
938.Effect of death of a party on the attorney-client relationship
The death of the client extinguishes the attorney client relationship and divests the counsel of his authority to represent the client. Accordingly, a dead client has no personality and cannot be represented by an attorney. Neither does he become the counsel of the heirs of the deceased unless his services are engaged by said heirs.
951
939.Whenever a party to a pending action dies, it is the duty of the counsel of the deceased party to inform the court of such fact within 30 days after such death. The counsel has also the obligation to give the name and address of the legal representative of the deceased. This duty is mandatory and failure to comply therewith is a ground for disciplinary action.
Note that this duty is imposed upon the Counsel of the deceased party, not upon the counsel of the surviving party.
952
940.Action of court upon notice of death
Upon receipt of the notice of death, the court shall determine whether or not the claim is extinguished by such death. If the claim survives, the court shall order the legal representative or representatives of the deceased, named in the information given by counsel, to appear and be substituted for the deceased within 30 days from notice.
The substitution of the deceased would not be ordered by the court in cases where the death of the party would extinguish the action because substitution is proper only when the action survives
953
941.Under the present rule, the heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs
954
942.The rule is plain and explicit. The heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. Where an heir appears as substitute for the deceased, there is no more need to first secure the appointment of an executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased because, from the very moment of death, he steps into the shoes of the deceased and acquires his rights as devisee/legatee.
955
943.It is, however, possible that any of the following may occur: (a) the counsel for the deceased does not name a legal representative, or (b) there is a representative named but fails to appear within the specified period.
When any of the above happens, the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased, within a specified time. All court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
956
944.Importance of substitution of the deceased
The purpose of the rule on substitution, when proper, is to apprise the heir or substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of the court in lieu of the deceased party by operation of law. It is to ensure that the deceased would continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of the estate It is for the protection of the right of every party to due process. Prior substitution is effected for the trial court to obtain jurisdiction over the persons and to obviate any future claim that he or she was not apprised of the litigation
957
945.No requirement for amendment of complaint or service of summons
The court is not required to issue an order to amend the complaint upon being notified of the death of a party but to issue an order requiring the legal representative to appear and be substituted for the deceased.
958
946.It is not the amendment of the pleading, but the order of substitution and its service, that are the steps towards the substitution of the deceased by his representative or heir. Neither is the issuance and the service of summons required.
It is the service of the order of substitution upon the substitute that enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over said substitute !
959
947.Non-compliance with the rules on substitution of a deceased party renders the proceedings of the trial court infirm because the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the legal representative or heirs of the deceased. A party to be affected by a personal judgment must have a day in court and an opportunity to be heard.
960
948.However, in a case involving ejectment, it was ruled that the non-substitution of the deceased by his legal representatives, because of the failure of counsel to inform the court of the death of his client, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The decision of the court is, nevertheless, binding upon the successors-in-interest of the deceased. A judgment in an ejectment case may be enforced not only against defendants therein but also against the members of their family, their relatives, or privies who derived their right of possession from the deceased defendant
961
949.Formal substitution is, however, not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared in the action, participated therein and presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant.
In the absence of a formal substitution, the court can acquire jurisdiction over the person of the decedent's representative if he voluntarily submits himself to said jurisdiction
962
950.Examples of actions which survive the death of a party
Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors or administrators, and they are:
1. actions to recover real and personal property from the estate;
2. actions to enforce a lien thereon; and
3. actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.
963
951.An action for damages filed against the defendant should not be dismissed upon his death. The action against such defendant survives since it is one to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff.
964
952.Actions to recover personal property like replevin and actions to recover real property like forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, are examples of actions that survive.
965
953.So are actions to enforce a lien on the property, like foreclosure of mortgages survives and the claim is not extinguished by the death of a party
966
954.Also, an action for quieting of title with damages is an action involving real property. It survives and the claim is not extinguished by the death of a party
967
955.An ejectment case survives the death of a party. It continues until judgment because the issue concerning the illegality of the defendant's possession is still alive, and upon its resolution depends the corollary issue of whether and much damages may be recovered
968
956."An ejectment case is a real action that is not extinguished by the death of a party. The judgment in an ejectment case is conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. Hence, it is enforceable by or against the heirs of the deceased.
The judgment entitles the winning party to: (a) the restitution of the premises, (b) the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, and (c) attorney's fees and costs”
969
957.The action to recover damages arising from delicts also survives. Under the Rules, if the accused dies before arraignment, while the criminal case shall be dismissed, such dismissal is without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.
If the accused dies after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action, the civil liability arising from the crime is extinguished but any independent civil action (that action arising from other sources of obligations) may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused upon proper substitution, or against said estate, as the case may be.
970
958.Actions based on the tortious conduct of the defendant survive the death of the latter
971
959.If the action does not survive like legal separation, the proper action of the court is to simply dismiss the case. It follows then that substitution will not be required.
972
960.When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, the court shall not dismiss the suit. The case shall be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. 'Before entry of final judgment' means the case is on trial or on appeal. In any of these situations, there is yet no final judgment to be entered.
If the plaintiff obtains a favorable judgment, said judgment shall be enforced following the procedure provided for in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
Because of the rule mandating compliance with the rule for prosecuting claims against the estate, the prevailing plaintiff is not supposed to file a motion for the issuance of an order and writ of execution of the judgment. Since the action is a claim for money, the judgment for money favorable to the plaintiff shall be filed as a money claim against the estate of the decedent
The action need not literally arise from contracts. The term,"implied” accordingly, may mean a claim arising from law or a quasi contract. The term does not include money claims arising from a crime or a quasi-delict.
973
961.Incompetency or Incapacity of a party during the pendency of the action
In case a party becomes incapacitated or incompetent during the pendency of the action, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated party with the assistance of his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
974
962.Transfer of interest
In case of transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court, upon motion, directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. A transferee pendente lite is a proper party that stands exactly in the shoes of the transferor, the original party.
975
963.Transferees are bound by the proceedings and judgment in the case, such that there is no need for them to be included or impleaded by name.
976
964.Transferee is joined or substituted in the pending action by operation of law from the exact moment when the transfer of interest is perfected between the original party and the transferee. The trial court is given wide discretion and enough leeway to determine who may be joined in a proceeding, or whether a party may properly be substituted by another due to a transfer of interest
977
965.Indigent parties
A party may be authorized to litigate as an indigent if the court is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
978
966.The application and hearing to litigate as an indigent litigant is made ex parte.
979
966.The application and hearing to litigate as an indigent litigant is made ex parte.
980
967. If one is authorized to litigate as an indigent, such authority shall include an exemption from the payment of
1. docket fees;
2. other lawful fees; and
3. transcripts of stenographic notes, which the court may order to be furnished him
981
968.However, the amount of the docket and other lawful fees, which the indigent was exempted from paying, shall be a lien on the judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent. A lien on the judgment shall not arise if the court provides otherwise
982
969.While the rule allows an ex parte application hearing to litigate as an indigent, at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, any adverse party may contest the grant of the authority to a party to litigate as an indigent. If the court should determine that the party, declared an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income and property, the proper docket and lawful fees shall be and collected by the clerk of court
983
970.In case the grant of the authority to litigate as an indigent is contested by any party, the determination of the court on whether or not the grant of the earlier authority is proper is to be made after hearing, not ex parte.
984
971.Role of the 'Solicitor General'
The rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring and defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and that actions filed in the name of the Republic or its agencies and instrumentalities, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed.
985
972.The authority of the Solicitor General is embodied in Sec. 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, and Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
986
973.In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decrees, rule or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or through a representative duly designated by him
987
!
974.In criminal actions brought before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is solely vested in the OSG.
988
975.The OSG shall represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. Only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines once such actions are brought before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court
989
!
976.Suit by or against spouses
Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
990
977.An instance when a spouse need not be joined in a suit involving the other is when the litigation pertains to an exclusive property of a spouse. In such a case, the owner-spouse may appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same.
991
978.There may be instances when, despite the separation of property, one spouse may end up being sued and held answerable for the liabilities incurred by the other spouse because “The liability of the spouses to creditors for family expenses shall, however, be solidary”. Under a solidarity liability, each one of the spouses is bound to render entire compliance with the obligation.
992
979.A class suit is an action where one or more may sue for the benefit of all if the requisites for said action are complied with.
993
980.An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attendant facts (See requisites)
994
!
981.Commonality of interest in the subject matter
A class suit does not require a commonality of interest in the questions involved in the suit. What is required by the Rules is a common or general interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The 'subject matter of the action is meant the physical, the things real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to the suit which is prosecuted and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant. It is not also a common question of law that sustains a class suit but a common interest in the subject matter of the controversy .
995
982.There is no class suit in an action filed by 400 residents, initiated through a former mayor, to recover damages sustained due to their exposure to toxic wastes and fumes emitted by the cooking gas plant of a corporation located in the town. Each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct injury not shared by other members of the class. Each supposed plaintiff has to prove his own injury. There is no common or general interest in the injuries allegedly suffered by the members of the class.
996
983.There is no class suit in an action for damages filed by the relatives of the fatalities in a plane crash. There is no common or general interest in the injuries or death of all passengers in the plane. Each has a distinct and separate interest which must be proven individually.
997
984.There could possibly be a class suit in the closure of a road, against a developer and its affiliates. Accordingly, the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters and motorists who use the road and the closure affected all those who use the same
998
985.No class suit when interests are conflicting
When the interests of the parties in the subject matter are conflicting, a class suit will not prosper.
999
986.An action brought by 17 residents of a town with a population of 2,460 persons to recover possession of a holy image was held not to qualify as a class suit because the plaintiffs did not represent membership of the churches they purport to represent and that the interests of the plaintiffs conflict with those of the other inhabitants who were opposed to the recovery
1000
987.No class suit by a corporation to recover property of its members
A non-stock corporation may not institute an action in behalf of its individual members, for the recovery of certain parcels of land allegedly owned by its members and for the nullification of the transfer of certificates of title issues in favor of defendants. The corporation, being an entity separate and distinct from its members, has no interest in the individual property of its members, unless transferred to the corporation.
Absent any showing of interests, a corporation has no personality to bring an action for the purpose of recovering property, which belongs to the members, in their personal capacities.
Moreover, "a class suit does not lie in actions for the recovery of property where several persons claim ownership of their respective portions of property, as each one could allege and prove his respective right in a different way for each portion of the land, so that they cannot all be held to have identical title through acquisitive prescription"
1001
!
988."a class suit does not lie in actions for the recovery of property where several persons claim ownership of their respective portions of property, as each one could allege and prove his respective right in a different way for each portion of the land, so that they cannot all be held to have identical title through acquisitive prescription"
1002
989.No class suit to recover real property individually held
A class suit would not lie where each of the parties has an interest only in the particular portion of the land he is occupying and not in the portions individually occupied by the other defendants .
1003
990.A class suit does not lie in an action for recovery of real property where separate portions of the same of land were occupied and claimed individually by different parties to the exclusion of each other, such that the different parties had determinable, though undivided, interest in the property in question since they do not have a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy
1004
991.No class suit to recover damages for personal reputation
There is no class suit in an action filed by associations of sugar planters to recover damages in behalf of individual sugar planters for an allegedly libelous article in an international magazine. There is no common or general interest in the reputation of a specific individual. Each of the sugar planters has a separate and distinct reputation in the community not shared by the others.
1005
992.Common or general interest in the environment and natural resources
There is a class suit in an action filed by minors, represented by their parents, in behalf of themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of the country's resources, their generation, as well as generations yet unborn, to compel the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to: (1) cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; and (2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. The Court agreed that the subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. Hence, the Court found that all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under the Rules are present in the action
This could be deemed a novel ruling, which recognized that even minors and generations yet unborn may be represented in a class suit
1006
993.“The Court finds no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of inter-generational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come”.
1007
994.Dismissal or compromise of a class suit
A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court. This provision is obviously intended to protect the common interests of all those who initiated the class suit.
1008
995.Class suit distinguished from representative suit
Representative suits are not the same as class suits.
A class suit is a representative suit only insofar as the persons who institute it represent the entire class of persons who have the same interest or who suffered the same injury. However, unlike representative suits, the persons instituting a class suit are not suing merely as representatives. They themselves are real parties in interest directly injured by the acts or omissions complained of.
There is a common cause of action a class. The group collectively — not individually — enjoys the right sought to be enforced. In representative suits, the beneficiary is
1009
996.In representative suits, the beneficiary is deemed to be the real party in interest, not the representative.
1010
997.Under the Rules of Court, pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
1011
!
998.Since pleadings are described as “written statements,” it is obvious, that in this jurisdiction, there can be no oral pleadings. Equally clear in the definition is what pleadings are supposed to contain, i.e., the "claims” and “defenses" of the parties.
1012
999.Purpose of pleadings
Pleadings are designed to develop and present the precise points in dispute between the parties. Their office is to inform the court and the parties of the facts in issue. The object of pleadings is to notify the opposite party of the facts which the pleader expects to prove, so that he may not be misled in the preparation of his case.
1013
1000.The actions of the court primarily depend upon the parties allegations in their pleadings. When, for example, objections to the materiality of evidence are raised by one party, the court inevitably has to refer to the pleadings to determine whether or not the evidence objected to has relevance to the issues raised in the pleadings.
1014
1001.Construction of pleadings
In this jurisdiction, all pleadings shall be liberally construed so as to do substantial justice
Pleadings should receive a fair and reasonable construction in accordance with the natural intendment of the words and language used and the subject matter involved. The intention of the pleader is the controlling factor in construing a pleading and should be read in accordance with its substance, not its form.
1015
1002.While it is the rule that pleadings should be liberally construed, it is also a rule that a party is strictly bound by the allegations, statements or admissions made in his pleadings and cannot be permitted to take a contradictory position.
1016
1003.Thus, it has been held that an admission in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed or not.
1017
1004.Construction of ambiguous allegations in pleadings
In case there are ambiguities in the pleadings, the same must be construed most strongly against the pleader and that no presumptions in his favor are to be indulged in.
This rule proceeds from the theory that it is the pleader who selects the language used and if his pleading is open to different constructions, such ambiguities must be at the pleader's peril.
1018
1005.Pleadings allowed under the Rules on Summary Procedure
When a case falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the only pleadings allowed to be filed are:
1. complaint;
2. compulsory counterclaim pleaded in the answer;
3. cross-claim pleaded in the answer; and
4. answers thereto
1019
1006.The same are the only pleadings allowed in actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, such actions being governed by the rule on summary procedure, irrespective of the amount of damages and rentals sought to be recovered.
1020
!
1007.A permissive counterclaim, third-party complaint, reply and pleading-in-intervention are prohibited under the Rules on Summary Procedure and also in actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
1021
1008.Pleadings in the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
Following the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, the pleadings are expressed in specific forms described therein.
1022
!
1009.For instance, instead of filing a complaint, as in an ordinary civil action, a small claims action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim. No other formal pleading is necessary to initiate a small claims action
1023
1010.Instead of filing an answer, the defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified Response. Any claim, which the defendant has against the plaintiff, shall be filed as a counterclaim in the Response where the counterclaim is compulsory as described in the Rule of Procedure For Small Claims Cases. The defendant may, however, elect to file a counterclaim (permissive) against the plaintiff even if it does not arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the plaintiff's claim provided its amount and nature are covered by the Rule
1024
1011. The following pleadings or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases:
1. Petition for relief from judgment;
2. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
3. Reply;
4. Third-party complaints; and
5. Interventions
1025
1012.Pleadings not allowed in a petition for a Writ of Amparo or Habeas Data
In a petition for a writ of amparo or habeas data, the following pleadings and petitions are not allowed:
1. Counterclaim;
2. Cross-claim;
3. Third-party complaint;
4. Reply; and
5. Intervention
1026
1013.The filing of a petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition against any interlocutory order is prohibited
1027
1014.Pleadings in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
The pleadings that may be filed are the
1. complaint;
2. answer which may include a compulsory counter and cross-claim
A reply and rejoinder and a third-party complaint are prohibited pleadings
1028
1015.A pleading in intervention may also be filed in citizen suit. Under the Rules of Procedure For Environmental Cases, upon the filing of a citizen suit, court shall issue an order requiring all interested parties to manifest their intention to intervene in the case within (fifteen)15 days from notice.
1029
1016.Nature of a pleading; how determined
It is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought an not its title
1030
1017.If the petitioner filed before the Supreme Court a petition captioned “Petition for Certiorari” based on Rule 65, but the allegations state that the issues raised are pure questions of law, the cause of action is not one based on Rule 65 which raises issues of jurisdiction, but on Rule 45 which raises pure questions of law.
1031
1018.Be reminded that it is not only the nature of a cause of action that is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Such allegations and relief also determine the body or court which has jurisdiction over the action.
Thus, where the allegations of the complaint clearly indicate the desire of the plaintiff to eject the lessee from the premises, the action is one for unlawful detainer cognizable by the MTC and not one for collection of the amount of more than P900,000 filed in the RTC
1032
1019.Allegations of ultimate facts
Every pleading, including the complaint, is not supposed to allege conclusions. A pleading must only aver facts because conclusions are for the courts to make.
Thus, it was clearly declared by the Court that "a bare allegation that one is entitled to something is not an allegation but conclusion”
1033
1020.The rule requires that a pleading need only contain the allegations of 'ultimate facts," i.e., the facts essential to a party's cause of action or defense, or such facts as are so essential that they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.
1034
1021.Not all facts may be allowed as averments in a pleading. Under the Rules, every pleading shall omit from its allegations statements of mere evidentiary facts. Evidentiary matters are to be presented during the trial of the case, not in the pleadings of the parties.
1035
1022. The above paragraphs merely state general rules.
1. A complaint in an environmental case, for example, appears to be governed by a different rule. In addition, to the requirement that the complaint must state that it is an environmental case, and the law involved, the rule requires also that all evidence proving the cause of action consisting of affidavits, documents, and if possible, object evidence, shall be attached to the verified complaint. If this is so, one cannot avoid making statements or allegations of evidentiary facts.
2. In small claims cases, the statement of claim (complaint) is required to be accompanied by the affidavits of witness and other evidence to support the claim, aside from photocopies of the actionable document to support the claim.
3. Similarly, a statement of evidentiary facts may not be avoided in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases since under the Rules, matters of evidence are allowed to be attached to the complaint.
1036
1023.The Rules requires that the pleading shall specify the relief sought. It is a settled rule that a court cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of that being sought.
1037
1024.However, although the rule mandates that the relief prayed for be specified, the same rule allows a pleader to include a "general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
Because of the rule allowing the inclusion of a general prayer, it was ruled that, “ a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the proof even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant” !
1038
1025.Every pleading must be signed by the plaintiff or counsel representing him stating in either case his address. This address should not be a post office box.
In the absence of a proper notice to the court of a change of address, service upon the parties must be made at the last address of their counsel of record.
1039
1026.A signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party himself or his counsel. The Rules require that a pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Therefore, only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed.
1040
1027.Effect of an unsigned pleading
The signature in a pleading is important for it to have legal effect. Under the Rules of Court “an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.”
The court, however, is authorized to allow the pleader to correct the deficiency if he shows to the satisfaction of the court, that the failure to sign the pleading was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay.
1041
!
1028.“An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.”
1042
1029.Significance of the signature of counsel
The signature of a counsel in a pleading is significant. His signature constitutes a certificate by him that
1. he has read the pleading,
2. that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to support it, and
3. that it is not interposed for delay
1043
1030.A counsel's signature is such an integral part of a pleading that failure to comply with this requirement reduces a pleading to a mere scrap of paper totally bereft of legal effect
1044
1031.A counsel's signature on a pleading is neither an empty formality nor even a mere means of identification. Through the counsel's signature, a lawyer asserts his competence, credibility, and ethics. Signing a pleading is such a solemn component of legal practice that the Court had, on occasions, decried the delegation of this task to nonlawyers as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
1045
1032. It has been held that counsel's authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. "The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Accordingly, however, counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not.
1046
!
1033.Accordingly, however, counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not.
1047
1034.When counsel is subject to disciplinary action in connection with pleadings
A counsel shall be subject to disciplinary actions in the following cases:
1. when he deliberately files an unsigned pleading;
2. when he signs a pleading in violation of the Rules
3. when he alleges in the pleading scandalous or indecent matter; or
4. when he fails to promptly report to the change of his address
1048
1035.Verification in a pleading
Pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit, except when so required by law or rule
1049
1036.The statement of claim in small claims requires a verification.
1050
1037.All pleadings in forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions need to be verified
1051
1038.Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus require a verification. So does a petition for quo warranto.
1052
1039.A complaint in an environmental case must also ha verified.
1053
1040.How a pleading is verified
A pleading is verified by an affidavit. This affidavit declares that:
1. the affiant has read the pleading; and
2. the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records
1054
1041.A verification cannot be based on mere "belief." Thus, a verification based on "information and belief" or upon "knowledge, information and belief," shall be treated as an unsigned pleading .
1055
1042.The verification requirement is “deemed substantially complied with when one who has an ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct"
1056
1043.Significance of a verification
The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith
1057
1044.Effect of lack of a verification or of a defective verification
A pleading required to be verified but lacks the proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. Hence, it produces no legal effect
It has, however, been held that the absence of a verification, or the non-compliance with the verification requirement, does not necessarily render the pleading defective. It is only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. The requirement is a condition affecting only the form of the pleading. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served. The rule is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial justice and that technical requirements may be dispensed with in meritorious cases
1058
1045.The Court emphasized that a defective verification amounts to a formal defect which is neither jurisdictional or fatal and for which the court may order a correction
1059
1046. Other requirements
1. All pleadings, motions, and papers filed in court by counsel shall bear, in addition to his current Professional Tax Receipt Number (PTR), his current IBP Official Receipt Number indicating its date of issue, and Roll of Attorneys Number
Pleadings, motions, and papers which do not comply with this requirement may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel, who shall, likewise, be required to comply with the requirement within five days from notice. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction and contempt of court
This requirement is directed only to lawyers and not to be construed as precluding a party, who is not a lawyer, from signing a pleading himself. The requirement is intended to protect the integrity of legal practice.
2.All practicing members of the bar are also required to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption.
Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.
1060
1047.Certification against forum shopping
The certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement in which the plaintiff or principal party certifies in a complaint or initiatory pleading the the following matters:
1. that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
2. that if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;and
3. that if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed
1061
!
1048.The requirements involving the certification against forum shopping apply both to natural and juridical persons since no distinction is made between natural and juridical persons by the Rules of Court
1062
1049.Purpose of the certification
The certification constitutes an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action.
The purpose of prohibiting forum shopping is also to prevent contradictory decisions of two or more courts on the same controversy.
1063
!
1050.The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora.
Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
1064
1051.Meaning of forum shopping
Forum shopping is the act by a party of repetitively availing of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts or circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending or already resolved adversely by some other court
1065
1052. Specifically, there is forum shopping where there exist:
1. identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
2. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case
1066
!
1053.The act of splitting a single cause of action is a mode of forum shopping
1067
!
1054.The certification is not a jurisdictional requirement
The certification is mandatory under the Rules but not jurisdictional since jurisdiction over the subject of the action is conferred by law. The absence of the certification would not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the action.
1068
!
1055.Three ways of committing forum shopping
The Supreme Court enumerated the ways forum shopping may be committed, thus:
1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia);
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).
1069
1056.Determination of the existence of forum shopping
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important question to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will result to res judicata in another.
Otherwise stated, to determine the existence of Forum shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or more cases pending, there is:
1. identity of parties;
2. identity of rights or causes of action; and
3. identity of reliefs sought
1070
!
1057.Where the reliefs sought in the two actions are different, there is no forum shopping even if the parties in the actions are the same. Where one action is for a permanent injunction and the other is a petition for certiorari, there is no identity of reliefs.
1071
1058.Where the reliefs sought in two courts involving the same parties is to restrain a government official from implementing the same order, there is forum shopping because there is identity of reliefs
1072
1059.The filing of six appeals, complaints or petitions for the same purpose of frustrating the execution of a judgment is a clear case of forum shopping
1073
1060.To file an ordinary appeal and petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals is to engage in forum shopping.
When the petitioner commenced the appeal, only four months had elapsed prior to her filing of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The elements of litis pendentia are present between the two suits.
1074
1061.Where a party's petition for certiorari and subsequent appeal seek to achieve one and the same purpose, there is forum shopping which is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the certiorari petition.
1075
1062.In a case, the plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer case against the defendant based on violations of terms of the lease contract which, at that time, had not expired. During the pendency of the case and after the lease contract had expired, a second case for unlawful detainer was filed by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. The second complaint disclosed the existence of the first case. The second suit was based on the expiration of the lease contract. The Court found no forum shopping under the facts since suits were based on different grounds. At the time these complaint was filed, the ground of expiration of the lease was not yet available
1076
There is no forum shopping in a case where the subsequent purchaser of foreclosed property filed a petition for issuance of a writ of possession after previously filing an action for ejectment against the same defendant where the latter action was dismissed for being the wrong remedy and the appeal from its dismissal having been withdrawn. There is no identity or similarity of actions between the two proceeding, the petition being just an incident to the transfer of title. The Court also explained that having realized the erroneous resort to the wrong remedy, an error having been committed in good faith, the raising of a matter to the correct forum by
1077
!
1064.Raising a matter to the correct forum,employing the wrong mode or remedy, and then later resorting to the correct one, does not make an instance of forum shopping
1078
!
1065. There may be situations where a landowner, whose land is subject to land reform, has a pending case before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for determination of just compensation. Still, he files a petition before the RTC, designated as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), for the same purpose. Such recourse is not strictly a case of forum shopping, since the administrative determination is not binding on the Special Agrarian Court.
1079
!
1066.There is no forum shopping in simultaneously filing a quo warranto petition and a complaint for impeachment
Quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of each other as these remedies are distinct as to
(1) jurisdiction
(2) grounds,
(3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and
(4) limitations.
1080
1067.The crux of the controversy, a quo warranto petition, is the determination of whether or not the respondent legally holds the position. On the other hand, impeachment is for respondent's prosecution for certain impeachable offenses. Simply put, while the respondent's title to hold a public office is the issue in quo warranto petition, impeachment necessarily presupposes that the respondent legally holds the public office. The only issue in impeachment is whether or not the respondent committed impeachable offenses to warrant removal from office.
The reliefs sought are different. The respondent in a quo warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease from holding a public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. A conviction for the charges of impeachable offenses shall result to the removal of the respondent from the public office that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally possible to impeach or remove a person from an office that he/she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or occupy.
Also, there can be no forum shopping because the impeachment proceedings before the House is not the impeachment case proper, since it is only a determination of probable cause. The process before the House is merely inquisitorial and is merely a means of discovering if a person may be reasonably charged with a crime
1081
1068.It is not legally possible to impeach or remove a person from an office that he/she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or occupy.
1082
1069.Who executes the certification against forum shopping; exception
It is the plaintiff or principal party who the certification under oath
It must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a special power of attorney designating his counsel of record to sign in his behalf
1083
1070.Reason: It is the petitioner and not the counsel who is in the best position to know whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. A certification signed by counsel is a defective certification and a valid cause for dismissal. This is the general rule and the prevailing rule.
1084
1071.The Court emphatically stressed that a certification by counsel, and not by the principal party himself, is no certification at all. The reason for requiring that it must be signed by the principal party himself is that he has actual knowledge whether he has initiated similar action/s in other courts, agencies or tribunals.
1085
1072.Signing the certification when the plaintiff is a juridical entity
A juridical entity, unlike a natural person, can only perform physical acts through properly delegated individuals. A corporation can exercise its power to sue only upon authority of its board of directors or trustees, the latter being the body which exercises corporate powers. The corporate officers and agents, therefore, cannot exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation without any authority from the board of directors.
Corollarily, in order for a person to represent a corporation in a suit, a board resolution authorizing the former to represent the latter is necessary. Therefore, a board resolution authorizing a corporate officer to execute the certification against forum shopping is a necessary requirement under the Rules; otherwise, the complaint will have to be dismissed.
1086
1073.A certification signed by a person who was not authorized by the board of directors renders a petition subject to dismissal. The exercise of corporate powers including the power to sue is lodged with the board of directors which acts as a body representing the stockholders. For corporations, the authorized representative to sign the certification against forum shopping must be selected or authorized collectively by the board of directors
1087
1074.The above rule is perfectly consistent with the fundamental tenets of corporation law. However, the rule has been liberally interpreted by the Court in several cases.
"In several instances, the Court has considered a Secretary's Certificate sufficient proof of authority for a person named to represent a corporation in a suit"
In a more liberal interpretation of the rule, the Court ruled that the following officials or employees of a company can sign verification and certification against forum shopping without need of a board resolution:
1. Chairperson of the of Directors
2. President of the corporation,
3. General Manager or Acting General Manager,
4. Personnel Officer and
5. Employment Specialist in a labor case.
Accordingly, the rationale behind this rule is that the officers mentioned are in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness the allegations in the petition. The same case, however, clarified that appending the board resolution to the complaint or petition is the better procedure to obviate any question on the authority of the signatory to the verification and certification.
1088
1075.The required submission of the board resolution is grounded on the basic precept that corporate powers are exercised by the board of directors and not solely by an officer of the corporation. Hence, the power to sue and be sued in any court or quasi-judicial tribunal is necessarily lodged with the said board
1089
1076.A corporation exercises its powers and transacts its business through its board of directors or trustees. Accordingly, unless authorized by the board of directors or trustees, corporate officers and agents cannot exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation. A board resolution authorizing the corporate officers and agents is, therefore, required.
1090
1077.A liberal interpretation of the rule was made in another case, where the Court allowed the signature of an academic dean in a case involving a faculty member in his college.While the Court recognized that as a general rule, Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of a corporation must authorize the person who signs the verification and certification against forum shopping, such authorization, ruled the Court, is not necessary when it is self-evident that the signatory is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition
1091
1078.Also, even a belated submission of the written authority of the board was found to be a substantial compliance with Rules on certification against forum shopping especially when the acts of the officer in filing the petition were also ratified by the boar.
1091
1078.Also, even a belated submission of the written authority of the board was found to be a substantial compliance with Rules on certification against forum shopping especially when the acts of the officer in filing the petition were also ratified by the boar.
1092
1079.Procedural lapses, in relation to the certification against forum shopping, have, in some cases, been disregarded by the Court for compelling reasons, such as the prima facie merits of the petition. Accordingly, the rules on forum shopping are not to be interpreted with “absolute literalness” as to subvert the ultimate purpose of achieving substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.
1093
1080.Despite the liberal interpretation of the rule in some cases, one must not lose sight of the general rule consistent with the general principles of corporate law.
“In case the petitioner is a private corporation, the verification and certification may be signed, for and in behalf of this corporation, by a specifically authorized person, including its retained counsel, who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be established by the documents. The reason is that: A corporation has no powers except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied by or are incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises corporate powers, through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by laws or by a specific act of the board of directors” .
1094
1081.Rule if there are several plaintiffs or petitioners: exception
The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.
Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the Rule
1095
1082.In a case involving co-owners of property where the said property is the subject matter of the suit, the failure of the other co-owners to sign the verification and certificate of forum shopping is not fatal, as the signing by only one or some of them constitutes substantial compliance of the rule.
1096
1083.The above rule will not be applied if dishonesty attended the signing of the certification as when it was made to appear that one of the petitioners had signed the certification against forum shopping despite his having passed away seven years before. (meaning, such person will be dropped as party to the case)
1097
1084.Pleadings requiring a certification against forum shopping
The certification against forum shopping applies to the complaint and other initiatory pleadings asserting a clam for relief. These initiatory pleadings include not only the original complaint but also permissive counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-complaint, complaint-in-intervention, petition or any application in which a party asserts his claim for relief.
1098
1085.It bears stressing that the Rule distinctly provides that the required certification against forum shopping is intended to cover an initiatory pleading, meaning an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for relief. If the answer with a counterclaim is filed merely to counter petitioners' complaint, and is a claim for relief that is derived only from, or is necessarily connected with, the main action or complaint, it is not an initiatory pleading
1099
1086.A comment is not an initiatory pleading. A comment required by an appellate tribunal is merely an expression of the views and observations of a respondent for the purpose of giving the court sufficient information as to whether the petition is legally proper as a remedy to the acts complained of. It does not require a certification against forum shopping.
1100
!
1087.The rule does not require a certification against forum shopping for a compulsory counterclaim because it cannot be the subject of a separate and independent adjudication, as when the counterclaim is for damages, moral, exemplary or attorney's fees, by reason of the alleged malicious and unfounded suit filed against the defendant. It is, therefore, not an initiatory pleading.
1101
1088.An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading. Although denominated as a petition, it does not aim to initiate a litigation but is an incident to or a consequence of certain proceedings like foreclosure cases.
1102
1089.Applicability to special civil actions
The Court held that the rule requiring a certification against forum shopping applies as well to special civil actions since a special civil action is governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
1103
1090.Every certiorari must be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
1104
1091.Effects of non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping
A violation of the rule requiring the certification against forum shopping does not authorize the court to dismiss a case on its own motion or on initiative. The rule requires that the dismissal be upon motion and after hearing.
1105
!
1092.If the case is dismissed for failure to comply with the certification requirement, the dismissal is, as a rule, "without prejudice," unless the order of dismissal otherwise provides. Hence, where the dismissal is silent as to the character of the dismissal, the dismissal is presumed to be without prejudice to the refiling of the complaint.
1106
1093.If a complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the required certification against forum shopping, may the plaintiff appeal from the order of dismissal where such dismissal is one without prejudice?
Answer: He cannot appeal from the order.
This is because an order dismissing an action without prejudice is, as a rule, not appealable. The remedy provided for under the Rules is to avail of the appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. !
1107
!
1094.The failure to submit a certification against forum shopping is a ground for dismissal, separate and distinct from forum shopping as a ground for dismissal.
1108
!
1095.A complaint may be dismissed for forum shopping even if there is a certification attached and, conversely, a complaint may be dismissed for lack of the required certification even if the party has not committed forum shopping. Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping itself.
1109
1096.The general rule is that non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent submission or correction. However, there were cases when the Court exercised leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
1110
1097.If there are objections relating to noncompliance with the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, the same should be raised in the proceedings below, and not for the first time on appeal
1111
1098.Effect of willful and deliberate forum shopping; dismissal of all pending claims
If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be a ground for summary dismissal. Here, no motion to dismiss and hearing are required. The dismissal in this case is with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as cause for administrative sanctions.
1112
1099.Jurisprudence holds that if the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. This is so because the twin dismissal is the punitive measure to those who trifle with orderly administration of justice.
1113
1100.Effect of submission of a false certification
It may happen that the pleading has been filed with the required certification against forum shopping but the allegations therein or the matters certified to therein are false. Under the Rules, the submission of a false certification shall constitute indirect contempt of court without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal sanctions.
1114
1101.Effect of non-compliance with the undertakings
Failure to comply with the undertakings in the certification against forum shopping has the same effect as the submission of a false certification. Hence, such failure shall constitute indirect contempt of court without prejudice to the corresponding sanctions. The criminal sanction would apply to the submission of a false certification.
1115
1102.Summary of guidelines respecting non-compliance with the requirements of or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping
"For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
1. A distinction must be made between non compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance” or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."
5. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6. Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf"
1116
1103.Allegations of conditions precedent
Common usage refers to conditions precedent as matters which must be complied with before a cause of action arises. When a claim is subject to a condition precedent, its compliance or performance is not sufficient. The compliance of the same must be alleged in the complaint or petition
1117
1104. The following are examples of conditions precedent.
1. A tender of payment is required before making a consignation.
2. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in certain cases before resorting to judicial action
3. Prior resort to barangay conciliation proceedings is necessary in certain cases.
4. Earnest efforts toward a compromise must be undertaken when the suit is between members of the same family and if no efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed.
5. Arbitration may be a condition precedent when the contract between the parties provides for arbitration first before recourse is made to judicial remedies.
1118
1105.Effect of failure to comply with a condition precedent
The failure to comply with a condition precedent is an independent ground for a motion to dismiss: that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. To reiterate, such compliance must be alleged in the pleading.
1119
1106.Pleading a judgment
In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision. There is no need to allege matters showing the jurisdiction to render the judgment or decision.
The above rule is consistent with the evidentiary presumption that “a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction”.
1120
1107.That jurisdiction is presumed is, however, only a disputable, not a conclusive presumption. Hence, not being a conclusive presumption, a defending party is allowed to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. Even the court, on its own motion, is authorized to dismiss the claim on the same ground.
1121
1108.Pleading an official document or act
In pleading an official document, it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued in compliance with law. With respect to an official act, it is, likewise, sufficient to allege that the act was done also in compliance with law.
Note that under the Rules on Evidence, "the written official acts, or records of official acts, of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country are, for the purpose of their presentation in evidence, considered public documents. Public documents are admissible in evidence without further proof of their due execution and genuineness, and has in their favor the presumption of regularity
1122
1109.Pleading capacity to sue or be sued
Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued must be averred. If a party is suing or sued in a representative capacity, his authority must also be averred. If a party is an organized association of persons, its legal existence must likewise be averred.
For instance, if PP is suing as an agent of 00, his being an agent has to be alleged; otherwise, he shall be deemed to be suing in his personal capacity. If it is a corporation that is suing, its having been legally organized in accordance with law has be alleged in order to leave no doubt as to its legal existence.
1123
1110.Pleading fraud, mistake or condition of the minds
When making averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting such fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.
1124
1111.The provision clearly suggests that it is not enough therefore, for the complaint to allege that the plaintiff was defrauded by the defendant. Under this provision, the complaint must state with particularity the fraudulent acts of the adverse party. These particulars which would necessarily include the specific acts of fraud committed against the plaintiff would help apprise the judge of the kind of fraud involved in the complaint. Note that under the Civil Code of the Philippines, there are various types of frauds, each of which has its own legal effects . The same is true with acts constituting mistake
1125
1112.The mere failure to comply with one’s obligation to pay the storage fees agreed upon, does not necessarily amount to fraud, absent any showing that such failure was due to insidious machinations and intent on his part to defraud the other party of the amount due it.
1126
!
1113.Malice, intent, knowledge or other conditions of the mind of a person may be averred generally. Unlike in fraud or mistake, they need not be stated with particularity. The rule is borne out of human experience. It is difficult to state the particulars constituting these matters. Hence, a general averment is sufficient.
1127
1114.Pleading alternative causes of actions or defenses
Under the Rules, a party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense, alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. !
The same provision has affinity to the rule which authorizes suing two or more defendants in the alternative.
1128
1115.In a case, the plaintiffs were allowed to sue based upon a quasi delict theory and in the alternative, upon a breach of contract, where the death of their child occurred when they were no longer on board the bus of the common carrier but at the time the father was in the process of retrieving the family's personal belongings from the bus.
1129
1116.For instance, the plaintiff insurance company, which paid for the loss of the goods insured, may sue, in the alternative, the shipping company that transported the goods and the warehouse company that stored the goods if the plaintiff is uncertain which between the defendants is responsible for the loss.
1130
1117.In a case, the court allowed the alternative suit, against the arrastre operator and the owners and agents of the carrying vessels filed by the insurance company which paid the consignee for the lost merchandise. The joinder of the two causes of action action against the alternative defendants, according to the Court avoids unnecessary multiplicity of suits and, without sacrificing any substantial rights of the parties, removes the undue disadvantage in which plaintiff would be placed by having to prove its case in different courts by means of evidence that is within the exclusive knowledge of said defendants.
1131
1118.Pleading alternative causes of action normally leads to inconsistent claims. For instance, the elements of cause of action based on a contractual theory are inconsistent with those of a cause of action based on a quasi-delict. As previously discussed, a suit based on a breach of contract of carriage, for example, does not require an allegation and proof of negligence because it is not an element of a breach of contract suit. On the other hand, negligence, as a rule, is an essential element of a suit based on a quasi-delict
Under the Rules, this situation is permissible as long as the allegations pleaded within a particular cause of action are consistent with the cause of action relied upon as an alternative. Thus, if the alternative cause of action is a breach of contract, the allegations therein must support the facts constituting the breach of the contract.
1132
1119.The pleading which contains alternative causes of action is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements as long as one of them, if made independently, would be sufficient.
This means that the rule does not require that all of the alternative causes of action be sufficient for the plaintiff to be entitled to relief. It is enough that one of them, if made independently, would be sufficient to support a cause of action,
The relevant rule provides: “When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements”.
1133
1120.The Rules authorizes not only alternative causes of action. The rule, likewise, permits alternative defenses. Under said rule, a party may set forth two or more defenses alternatively or hypothetically. Thus, a defendant may assert the defense of payment of the debt or prescription thereof.
1134
!
1121.The rule allowing alternative defenses is consistent with even the Omnibus Motion Rule which requires that all motions attacking a pleading shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.
1135
1122.Pleading actionable documents
A substantial number of cases reaching the courts show that the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defense is based upon a written instrument or document. The document used in such cases is what is commonly termed an "actionable document” which, in current usage, is an instrument or document on which an action or defense is founded .
1136
1123.For example, in an action for collection of money, the actionable document would be the promissory note executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. In an action for foreclosure of a mortgage, the actionable document would be the deed of mortgage. On the other hand, if the defendant alleges that the debt has been paid, the receipt of payment issued by the plaintiff would be the actionable document,
1137
1124. Whenever an actionable document is the basis of a pleading, the rule specifically directs the pleader to:
1. set forth in the pleading the substance of the instrument or document, and attach the original or the copy of the document to the pleading as an exhibit and which shall form pleading; or
2. with like effect, to set forth in the pleading said copy of the instrument or document
This manner of pleading a document applies only to actionable document. Hence, if the document does not have the character of an actionable document, it need not be pleaded strictly in the manner prescribed by the Rules.
1138
1125.How to contest an actionable document; oath required
When the action is founded upon a document pleaded in the manner required by the Rules, the party, who has no intent of admitting the genuineness and due execution of the document, must contest the same by
1. specifically denying the genuineness and due execution of the document under oath; and !
2. setting forth what he claims to be the facts.
1139
!
1126.A mere specific denial of the actionable document is insufficient. The denial must be coupled with an oath. In current usage, this means that the denial must be verified.The absence of an oath will result in the implied admission of the due execution and genuineness of the document.
1140
1127.In a complaint for a sum of money based on a promissory note duly pleaded in the complaint by the plaintiff in accordance with the Rules, the defendant will be deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note even if he makes a specific denial of such matters in his answer if the denial is not under oath.
Hence, during the trial, the defendant will not be allowed to prove the forgery of the promissory note over the objection of the plaintiff, its genuineness and due execution having been previously admitted due to his failure to make a denial under oath.
1141
1128.Note also that the oath is necessary only when the pleader questions and specifically denies the genuineness and due execution of the document. Such oath is not required if what he denies is the truth of a particular part or stipulation in the document.
1142
1129.When an oath is not required
The requirement of a specific denial under oath will not apply in either of the following cases, even if it is the genuineness and due execution of the document that is sought to be denied.
1. When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument, or
2. When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
1143
1130.Thus, if a son is sued as a substitute party under a document signed by his deceased father, a specific denial made by the son is sufficient without the same being under oath because the son is not a party to the document.
1144
1131.Also, if the court grants a motion filed by a party (A) for the inspection of the original document in the possession of the adverse party, and the latter refuses to comply with the order, the former (A) may deny the genuineness of the document without an oath.
1145
1132.Meaning of admission of the genuineness and due execution of an instrument
By the admission of the genuineness and due execution of an instrument is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; that, at the time it was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleadings of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him.
1146
1133.Defenses cut off by the admission of genuineness and due execution
When a party is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, defenses that are implied from said admission are necessarily waived like
1. the defenses of forgery of the document,
2. lack of authority to execute the document,
3. that the party charged signed the document in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading,
4. that the document was never delivered; or
5. that the document was not in words and figures as set out in the pleadings.
1147
1134.Defenses not cut off by the admission of genuineness and due execution
The following defenses, among others, may be interposed despite the implied admission of the genuineness and due execution of the document:
1. payment or non-payment;
2. want of consideration;
3. illegality of consideration;
4. usury; and
5. fraud.
These defenses are not inconsistent with the admission of the genuineness and due execution of the instrument and are not, therefore, barred.
1148
1135.It is submitted that prescription, release, waiver, statute of frauds, estoppel and former recovery or discharge in bankruptcy are not, likewise, barred, these defenses having no direct relationship to the concepts of 'genuineness and due execution.'
1149
1136.Upon whom service shall be made
If a party has not appeared by counsel, then service must be made upon him. If a party has appeared by counsel, then service upon said party shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court
1150
1137.The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions, pleadings, and orders must be served on said counsel and notice to him is notice to the client.
1151
1138.Notice to the counsel is effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not his counsel is not notice in law, unless, for instance, when the court or tribunal orders service upon the party or when the technical defect in the manner of notice is waived
1152
1139.Subject to compelling reasons involving substantial justice, service of a petition upon a party, when that party is represented by counsel of record, is a patent nullity and is not binding upon the party wrongfully served.
The reason is simple - the parties, generally, have no formal education or knowledge of the rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment of legal remedies: they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of a litigant relative to the receipt of a decision. More importantly it is best for the courts to deal only with one person in the interest of orderly procedure - either the lawyer retained by the party or the party himself if he does not intend to hire a lawyer.
1153
1140.Service upon counsel representing several parties (in the same case)
Where one counsel appears for several parties, service shall be made upon said counsel but he shall be entitled only to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side. Hence, if he represents three parties in the same case, he cannot insist on being served with three copies of the paper served upon him.
1154
1141.Manner of filing
There are two modes of filing, to wit:
1. by presenting the original copy of the pleading, notice, appearance, motion, order or judgment personally to the clerk of court; or
2. by registered mail
In the first mode, the clerk of court shall indicate or endorse on the pleading or paper filed, the date and hour of filing.
In the second mode, the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing, payment or deposit in court. The rule also requires that the envelope be attached to the record of the case.
1155
1142.Under the Rules, where the filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal is made by registered mail, the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing, payment, or deposit in court.
1156
1143.Thus, the date of filing is determinable from two sources: from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. If the date stamped on one is earlier than the other, the former (earlier) may be accepted as the date of filing.
This presupposes, however, that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented.
1157
1144.How to prove filing
The filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of the case. If it is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court on a copy of the same.
1158
1145.If the pleading or paper is filed by registered mail, proof of filing is by the registry receipt and the affidavit of the person who did the mailing, containing a full statement of the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after 10 days if not delivered.
1159
1146.Papers required to be filed and served
The following papers are required to be filed with the court and served upon the parties affected:
1. judgments,
2. resolutions,
3. orders,
4. pleadings subsequent to the complaint,
5. written motions,
6. notices,
7. appearances,
8. demands,
9. offers of judgment, or
10. similar papers
1160
1147.Modes of service
There are two modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers:
1. personally or
2. by mail
1161
!
1148.However, if personal service and service by mail cannot be made, service shall be done by 'substituted service’.
1162
1149.Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions
Specifically, when what is to be served are judgments, final orders or resolutions, the same shall be served either (a) personally, or (b) by registered mail.
1163
1150.When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also by publication
1164
1151.Personal service; priority in modes of service and filing
There are priorities to be followed in the modes of service and filing.
The service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally, whenever practicable. This is the preferred mode of service.
If another mode of service is used other than personal service, it must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. Exempt from this explanation are the service of papers emanating from the court. A violation of this explanation requirement may be cause for the paper to be considered as not having been filed.
1165
1152.When personal service is deemed complete
Upon actual delivery, personal service is deemed complete
1166
1153.Preferred service by mall
The preferred service by mail is by registered mail. Service by ordinary mail may be done only if no registry service is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee.
1167
1154.Service by registered mail shall be done by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, or otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after 10 days if not delivered.
1168
1155.Service by registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with the rule. Both the affidavit and the receipt need to be appended to the paper being served.
1169
1156.When service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with the Rules.
1170
1157. When service by mail is deemed complete
1. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides.
2. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier.
1171
1158.Substituted service
This mode is availed of only when there is failure to effect service personally or by mail. This failure occurs when the office and residence of the party or counsel are unknown.
Substituted service is effected by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail .
1172
1159.When substituted service is complete
Substituted service is complete at the time of delivery of the copy to the clerk of court
1173
1160. How to prove service
1. Proof of personal service shall consist of the written admission of the party served. It may also be proven by the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing full information of the date, place and manner of service.
2. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of the affidavit of the person mailing of the facts showing compliance with the Rules
3. If service is by registered mail, the proof shall consist of such affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card is to be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or, in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee
1174
1161.Absent any proof of service of the decision, the period of 15 days within which a party may file its motion for new trial does not begin to run against such party. If it admits, however, that it received the copy of the decision on a certain date despite absence of proof of service, that date would be the reckoning date of the 15-day period
1175
1162.The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The rule requires that the complaint need only allege the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action
1176
1163.The filing of the complaint is the act of presenting the said complaint to the clerk of court. For the purpose of filing, the original must be presented personally to the clerk of court or sent by registered mail.
1177
!
1164.Significance of filing the complaint
The filing of the original complaint in court signifies the commencement of the civil action.
By the filing of the complaint, the court also acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. Submission to the jurisdiction of the court is implied from the very filing of the complaint where affirmative relief is prayed for by the plaintiff.
It also has the effect of interrupting the prescription of actions. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, " the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court”
1178
!
1165.Payment of docket fees and acquisition of jurisdiction
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees. This is the general rule.
1179
1166.The rule on payment of docket fee has, in some instances, been made subject to the to the rule on liberal interpretation. Thus, in a case, it was held that while the payment of the required docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Also, if the amount of docket fees is insufficient considering the amount of the claim, the party filing the case will be required to pay the deficiency, but jurisdiction is not automatically lost.
1180
1167."The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. It was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. This strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed. The Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
The Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal doctrine and
1181
1168.It has been on record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits.
1182
1169."Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, the Court also recognizes that its strict application is qualified by the following:
first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal;
second, such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances."
1183
1170.Effect of failure to pay docket fee on supplemental complaint
In a case, the respondent argued that the failure of the plaintiff to pay the filing fees on their supplemental complaint is fatal to their action.
The Court ruled that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over plaintiffs' action from the moment they filed their original complaint accompanied by payment of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiff’s nonpayment of the additional filing fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the case !
1184
1171.Payment of docket fees for cases on appeal
The Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, now requires that appellate docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same period for taking an appeal.
“Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees”.
Note that the appellate docket fee is not paid in the appellate court but in the court which rendered the judgment or final order. !
1185
1172.The Supreme Court has consistently held that payment of the docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.
Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. Hence, non-payment is a valid ground for the dismissal of an appeal. However, delay in the payment of the docket fees confers upon the court a discretionary, not mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal.
1186
1173.The defendant, upon the service of summons upon him, may avail of certain options depending on the situation. He may file a motion for bill of particulars if there are allegations in the complaint that require clarification or details so he may be able to intelligently respond to the complaint. He may also file a motion to dismiss if a ground exists for the immediate dismissal of the complaint. If no ground for either motion exists, the wiser move is to serve and file his answer to the complaint to prevent his being declared in default.
1187
1174.Nature of an answer
The answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses. This pleading may be an answer to the complaint, counterclaim or a cross-claim. There is no answer to a reply but there could be an answer to a third-party complaint or complaint-in intervention. Since the answer merely responds to a claim, an answer is called a "responsive" pleading.
1188
1175.Kinds of defenses in the answer
An answer contains the defenses of the answering party. These defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
1189
1176.A defense is negative when its purpose is to specifically deny the material averments in the pleading of the claiming party.
Under the Rules, a negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause of action or defense. A negative defense is stated in the form of a specific denial. If the denial is not one of those described under the Rules enumerating the kinds of specific denial, the denial is deemed to be general. A general denial is considered an admission.
1190
!
1177. A general denial is considered an admission.
1191
1178.A defense is affirmative when its purpose is to prevent or bar recovery by the claiming party even if it hypothetically admits the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant. It is, therefore, a defense by way of confession and avoidance
Example: The defendant admits his debt in favor of the defendant but he denies his legal liability because the debt has already prescribed or that the court, before which the complaint has been filed, has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
1192
1179.The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
1193
1180.Effect of absence of a specific denial
Material averments in the complaint not specifically denied shall be deemed admitted, except averments of the amount of unliquidated damages.
1194
1181.If the allegations are deemed admitted, there is no more triable issue between the parties and if the admissions appear in the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
1195
1182.The trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings upon motion of the claiming party when the defending party's answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. For that purpose, only the pleadings of the parties are to be generally considered. A party admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading not only when he expressly confesses the truth of such allegations, but also when he does not controvert the same by specific denials.
1196
1183.Purpose of a specific denial
It is the specific denial of the material allegations in the complaint which creates the issues in civil litigation. These issues are to be proven and are the matters to which every evidence in a case is directed. Without such issues, there is no necessity for a trial since nothing is to be proven. In evidentiary terms, there is no factum probandum (the matter or proposition to be proven).
1197
1184.Jurisprudentially, the purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint which he succinctly intends to disprove at the trial, together with the matter which he relied upon to support the denial. The parties are compelled to lay their cards on the table
1198
1185. A general denial does not become specific by the use of the word “specifically.” Merely uttering "specific denial” is ineffective if the denial does not conform to the methods of denial provided for by the Rules of Court. It still amounts to an admission under the Rules. Using “specifically” in a general denial does not automatically convert that denial to a specific one
1199
1186.The denial in the answer must be definite as to what is admitted and what is denied, such that the adverse party will not have to resort to guesswork over what is admitted and what is denied.
1200
1187. There are three types of specific denials mentioned in Sec. 10 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, namely:
1. Absolute denial
The defendant specifies each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, sets forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. This kind of denial is an absolute denial
Example: “Defendant denies the truth of the allegations in par. 7 of the complaint alleging that he owes the plaintiff P450,000, the truth of the matter being that it is the plaintiff who owes the defendant the same amount."
Here, the defendant absolutely denies his liability and alleges what to him are the actual facts. In making a specific denial, reference must be made to the paragraph sought to be denied. Since the rule requires that the defendant must "specify each material allegation of fact," a denial of the allegations in each paragraph is required.
A blanket denial, which reads: “Defendant specifically denies all the material allegations in the complaint," is not a specific denial. The use of the word “specific" does not make the denial specific. The blanket denial is actually a general denial which, in effect, is an admission.
2.Partial denial
Another type of a specific denial is where the defendant does not make a total denial of the material allegations in a specific paragraph. In this type of denial, he denies only a part of the averment. If he chooses this type of denial, he specifies that part the truth of which he admits and denies only the remainder. This denial known as a partial denial.
Example: In an action for damages, the defendant avers: "Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of the complaint, that Plaintiff sustained injuries when his car collided with the herein Defendant's car, but denies the allegation that the collision occurred through Defendant's fault.”
3. Denial by disavowal of knowledge
One type of a specific denial is where the defendant alleges that he “is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint." This type of specific denial, called a denial by disavowal of knowledge, must be made sincerely and in good faith .
Example: Mr. D signs a promissory note in favor of Mr. P. Since Mr. D failed to pay despite demand, suit was brought against him. The complaint duly pleaded the promissory note as an actionable document. Mr. D denies the alleged promissory note by averring lack of knowledge of the note. This averment appears to be one in bad faith and shall be considered as an admission because it is absurd for Mr. D not to know of the promissory note he himself signed.
1201
1188.In an action to foreclose a mortgage, a denial that the defendant is without any knowledge of his having signed a deed of mortgage, when the facts and the actionable document forming the basis of the claim incontrovertibly show that he so executed the document denied, is a denial in bad faith. This denial amounts to an admission.
1202
!
1189.When the defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the other party but such matters are plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge, a claim of “ignorance or lack of information” will not be considered as a specific denial.
1203
1190.In making a specific denial, reference must be made to the paragraph sought to be denied. Since the rule requires that the defendant must "specify each material allegation of fact," a denial of the allegations in each paragraph is required.
1204
!
1191.A blanket denial, which reads: “Defendant specifically denies all the material allegations in the complaint," is not a specific denial. The use of the word “specific" does not make the denial specific. The blanket denial is actually a general denial which, in effect, is an admission.
1205
1192.Negative pregnant
In a pleading, a negative pregnant is a negative implying also an affirmative and which, although stated in a negative form, really admits the allegations to which it relates. It is a form of a negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party.
Examples:
(a) The defense alleges: "I had never borrowed money from the plaintiff from 2011 to 2013." may imply that the pleader had borrowed money at some other time and was only denying that he did so during the years mentioned.
(b) A complaint alleges: “Plaintiff extended a loan to Defendant in the amount of P500,000 on July 27, 2016 in Baguio City." The defendant, in his answer, alleges: “Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff extended a loan to Defendant in the amount of P500,000 in Baguio City.”
Notice that the answer is a mere repetition of the allegations made in the complaint. The answer is vague as to what it really denies. Is it the existence of a loan that is denied? Is it the amount? The place? The effect of this kind of denial may be an admission that he borrowed the amount alleged although he may be denying the place where the loan was contracted.
(c) The plaintiff alleged that the defendant evicted him and the other lawful occupants of the property by intimidating them with an assault rifle. The defendant alleged in his answer: "Defendant denies vigorously that he used or brandished an assault rifle against the plaintiffs." The answer could be an admission of having intimidated the plaintiffs but not through the use of an assault rifle.
1206
1193.In one case, the respondent, in a disbarment case, charged with having extramarital affairs with a married woman, alleged that the affair did not amount to gross immoral conduct and that no sexual abuse, threat or intimidation was exerted upon the woman. The Court interpreted the defense as admission of the existence of the affair and that his denial only pertained to the existence of a forced illicit relationship. In other words, the denial, ruled the Court, constitutes a negative pregnant.
1207
1194.When a specific denial must be coupled with an oath
As a rule, a negative defense is sufficient if made in the form of a specific denial of the material allegations alleged in the pleading of the claimant. There are, however, instances when a mere specific denial is not sufficient for a negative defense. In certain cases, the specific denial must be made under oath and, in these instances, a mere specific denial is not enough to produce the kind of denial required by the Rules. These are:
1. a denial of an actionable document; and
2. a denial of allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest
1208
1195.Whenever an action or defense is based or founded upon a written instrument or document, said instrument or document is deemed an actionable document.
1209
1196.If adverse party does not specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the document under oath, he is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of that document. Because of this admission, he can no longer deny that the note was forged or that the one who executed the same was not authorized to do so. These defenses are barred by the admission. May he, however, still defend by showing fraud in the execution of the note, payment or prescription of the same? Answer: Yes, he can, because these defenses are not barred by the admission.
1210
!
1197.It was ruled that the failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration
1211
1198. Allegations of usury will be deemed admitted if not denied under oath. However, not every allegation of usury requires a denial under oath. The allegations of uşury that requires a specific denial under oath must be:
1. allegations of usury in a complaint (not allegations of usury in the answer), and
2. the complaint is filed to recover usurious interests
1212
1199.Matters not deemed admitted by the failure to make a specific denial
The Rule is that material allegations in the complaint not specifically denied are deemed admitted. The following are nevertheless, not deemed admitted by the failure to make a specific denial in a party's responsive pleading:
1. Amount of unliquidated damages
2. Conclusions in a pleading because it is for the court to make conclusions.
3. Non-material averments or allegations because only material allegations have to be denied
1213
1200.The allegation of the plaintiff concerning the prescription of the right to foreclose is a conclusion of law. Conclusions of law and fact in the complaint are not deemed admitted by the failure to make a specific denial. Only material allegations of facts need to be specifically denied.
In the same vein, the characterization of a contract as void or voidable is a conclusion of law.
1214
1201.Affirmative defenses
A defense is affirmative when it alleges new matters which, while hypothetically admitting pleading of the claimant, would, nevertheless, prevent or bar recovery by the claiming party.
An affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff's cause of action, but one which if established, will be a good defense, l.e., an "avoidance" of the claim.
1215
1202.Allegations presented in the answer as affirmative defenses are not automatically characterized as such. Before an allegation qualifies as an affirmative defense, it must be of such nature as to bar the plaintiff from claiming on his cause of action.
1216
!
1203.When the answer asserts affirmative defenses, there is proper joinder of issues which must be ventilated in a full blown trial on the merits and cannot be resolved by mere judgment on the pleadings .
1217
1204. Periods to file an answer to a complaint
1. The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint 15 days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
2. Where the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the same within 15 days after being served with a copy thereof.
3. Where the filing of the amended complaint is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint within 10 days from notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended Complaint if no new answer is filed.
4. Where the defendant is a private foreign juridical entity and service of summons is made on the government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall be filed within 30 days after receipt of summons by such entity. In cases where summons had been served through extraterritorial service under Sec. 15 of Rule 14, the period to answer is 60 days from service of summons.
5. A supplemental complaint may be answered within 10 days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
1218
1205.Nature of default
Default is a procedural concept that occurs when the defending party fails to file his answer within the reglementary period. A declaration or order of default is issued as a punishment for unnecessary delay in joining issues.
1219
1206.The rule on default clearly establishes the "failure to answer within the time allowed therefor” as the ground for a declaration of default. From the tenor of the Rules, default does not technically occur from the failure of the defendant to attend either the pre-trial or the trial.
1220
1207.Failure of the defendant to appear at the pre-trial is a cause to order the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and for the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
1221
1208.The Court has clarified that failure to attend the pre-trial does not result in the "default” of the defendant. Instead, the failure of the defendant to attend shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. The term “default,”, is not identified with the failure to appear in court, but with the failure of the defending party to answer within the reglementary period.
1222
1209.The defendant's non-appearance in the hearing and failure to adduce evidence do not constitute default when an answer has been filed within the reglementary period. The failure of the defendant to attend the hearings for the presentation of the evidence of the adverse party amounts not to a default, but to a waiver of the defendant's right to object to the evidence presented during such hearings and cross examine the witnesses presented
1223
1210.No motu proprio declaration of default.
The present rule on default requires the filing of a motion and notice of such motion to the defending party, it is not enough that the defendant failed to answer the complaint within the reglementary period to be a sufficient ground for declaration in default. It is plain, therefore, that the default of a defending party cannot be declared motu proprio.
1224
1211. A different rule is followed in environmental cases. Should the defendant fail to answer within the period provided, the court shall declare the defendant in default and upon motion of the plaintiff, shall receive evidence ex parte and render judgment based thereon and the reliefs prayed for.
It is to be noted that under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it is the court which shall, on its own motion, declare the defendant in default. No motion is required of the plaintiff. The motion of the plaintiff, however, is required before the court orders the reception of evidence ex parte.
1225
1212.In ordinary civil actions, a motion to declare the defendant in default is required before the court declares the defendant in default. Where there is no motion, there can be no declaration of default. Also, when the court, in the exercise of its discretion, requires the claimant to submit evidence, a prior motion from the claiming party is not required.
1226
!
1213.Failure to serve the answer to the adverse party
It was held that the defendant who files his answer in time, but failed to serve a copy thereof upon the adverse party, may validly be declared in default. This failure is not, however, fatal because the declaration of default may be set aside by a timely and proper motion with the requisite affidavit of merit and provided no loss of time occurs.
1227
1214.Effect of a declaration/order of default
The party declared in default loses his standing in court. The loss of such standing prevents him from taking part in the trial. He forfeits his rights as a party litigant, has no right to present evidence supporting his allegations, to control the proceedings or cross examine witnesses !
While the defendant can no longer take part in the trial, he is, nevertheless, entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings. It is submitted that he may participate in the trial not as a party, but as a witness.
1228
1215.In a complaint for interpleader, the failure of a claimant to answer within the time fixed, may, on motion, be declared in default and thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to the subject matter.
1229
1216. In an expropriation proceeding, the defendant who fails to answer may still present his evidence as to the amount of compensation to be paid for his property. He may also share in the distribution of the award
1230
!
1217.A declaration of default is not tantamount to an admission of the truth or the validity of the plaintiff's claims
1231
!
1218."A judgment of default does not imply a waiver of rights except that of being heard and presenting evidence in defendant's favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff. Nor could it be interpreted as an admission by the defendant that the plaintiff's causes of action find support in the law or that the latter is entitled to the relief prayed for”
1232
!
1219.It should be emphasized that the mere fact that the defendant was not able to answer the complaint does not automatically mean that the trial court will render a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court must still determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
1233
1220.Effect of partial default
When a pleading asserts a claim against several defending parties and some file and serve their answers but the others do not, the court shall try the case against all the defending parties based on the answers filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented where the claim states a common cause of action against them.
Because there is a common cause of action against the defending parties, where one of them fails to answer, the non-answering defendant may be declared in default but the court shall refrain from rendering a judgment by default against such party because the case shall be tried based on the answers of the other defending parties.
1234
1221.Action of the court after the declaration/order of default
Under the Rules, when a party is declared in default, the court may do either of two things:
1. proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant; or
2. require the claimant to submit evidence ex parte.
The choice of which action to take is a matter of judicial discretion. !
1235
!
1222.Court not required to receive evidence personally; default
The court need not personally receive the evidence if it decides to hear the evidence of the claiming party. The reception of the evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court
1236
1223.Admission of answer filed out of time
It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file his answer and be heard on the merits even after the reglementary period for filing the answer expires. The Rules of Court provides for discretion on the part of the trial court not only to extend the time for filing an answer but also to allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period
Under the Rules, the court may extend the time to plead upon motion and upon such terms as are just. The court may also allow an answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by the Rules
1237
!
1224.It is not correct to say that a trial court has no recourse but to declare a defending party in default when he fails to file an answer within the required period. The rules is that the defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.
1238
1225.Where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is declared in default and there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be admitted.
1239
1226.The hornbook rule is that default judgment are generally disfavored.
1240
1227.Extension of time to answer
The trial court has the discretion not only to extend the time for filing an answer but also allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period. Hence, it is erroneous for the appellate court to rule that the trial court has no recourse but to declare the defending party in default for failure to file a timely answer.
1241
1228. Remedies of a defending party declared in default
1. Remedy after notice of order and before judgment
A party declared in default may, at any time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default and properly show that (a) the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (FAMEN), and (b) he has a meritorious defense contained in an affidavit of merit
2. Remedy after judgment and before judgment becomes final and executory
If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Rule 37.
He may also appeal from the judgment as being contrary to the evidence or the law. The right to appeal from a judgment by default is not to be denied the party aggrieved.
3. Remedy after the judgment becomes final and executory
The defendant may file a petition for relief from Judgment under Rule 38
Note: The above remedies presuppose that the defending party was properly declared in default. It is submitted however, that certiorari will lie when said party was improperly declared in default because this would tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
1242
1229.A declaration of default by the court before the defendant's period to file his answer had expired clearly is in excess of and/or without jurisdiction and, therefore, properly correctible by a writ of certiorari. The premature declaration of default of defendant or the rendering of judgment before the expiration of the time for the filing of answer deprives the defendant of his day in court and the judgment so rendered may, consequently, be vacated.
1243
1230.The remedy of certiorari may also be available where the defendant has been wrongly or improvidently declared in default, as when a timely answer has been properly filed and served. Under such a situation, the court can be considered to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
1244
1231.It is error to declare a defendant in default after the answer was filed, It would be grave abuse of discretion to declare a defending party in default despite his filing of an answer
1245
1232.Current judicial trend on defaults
The current judicial trend is to avoid defaults and thus, courts are enjoined to be liberal in setting aside orders of default. Default orders shall be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court because suits should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Hence, judgments by default are frowned upon. A case is best decided when all contending parties are able to ventilate their respective claims, present their arguments and adduce evidence in support thereof
The issuance of orders of default should be the exception rather than the rule.
1246
1233.Thus, in practice, an answer under oath containing the defenses of the defendant, may, under the rules on liberal interpretation, be deemed as the equivalent of an affidavit of merit.
1247
1234.Implied lifting of the order of default
May a default order be impliedly lifted?
In one case, former President Marcos was declared in default for failure to file an answer. He died in Hawaii as an exile while his case was pending. His representatives failed to file a motion to lift the order of default. Nevertheless, his son, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., the respondent in this case, and as executor of his father's estate, filed a motion for leave to file a responsive pleading and three motions for extensions to file an answer, all of which were granted by the anti-graft court. Instead of filing a responsive pleading, respondent later filed a motion for bill of particulars which was also granted.
"Given the existence of the default order then, what is the legal effect of the granting of the motions to file a responsive pleading and bill of particulars? In the Court's view, the effect is that the default order against the former president is deemed lifted.
While it is true that there was no positive act on the part of the court to lift the default order because there was no motion nor order to that effect, the anti-graft court's act of granting respondent the opportunity to file a responsive pleading meant the lifting of the default order on terms the court deemed proper in the interest of justice. It was the operative act lifting the default order and thereby reinstating the position of the original defendant whom respondent is representing, founded on the court's discretionary power to set aside orders of default.
1248
1235.Extent of relief in a judgment by default
The reliefs that may be granted in default situations are restricted by Sec. 3(d) of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, if the complaint seeks to recover P1 million but the evidence of the plaintiff shows a right to recover P1.5 million, the court has no authority to grant the latter amount despite the evidence. This is because, under the Rules, "A judgment rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages”!
1249
1236.Cases where a declaration/order of default cannot be made
Default is not allowed in the following actions:
1. annulment of marriage;
2. declaration of nullity of marriage; and
3. legal separation
If no answer is filed in any of the above actions, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not collusion exists between the parties. If there is collusion, the court shall order said prosecuting attorney to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
1250
1237.Judgment by default for refusal to comply with the modes of discovery
The rule is that a default order and, consequently, a default judgment is triggered by the failure of the defending party to file the required answer. By way of exception, a judgment by default may be rendered in the following cases despite an answer having been filed:
1. If a disobedient party refuses to obey an order requiring him to comply with the various modes of discovery; or
2. If a party or officer or managing agent of a party willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, or a party fails to serve answers to interrogatories
(a judgement rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount of be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.j)
1251
1238.Failure to file response under the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Case
A motion to declare the defendant in default is a prohibited motion under the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
"SEC. 14. Effect of Failure to File Response. - Should the defendant fail to file his/her/its Response within the required period, and likewise fail to appear on the date set for hearing, the court shall render judgment on the same day, as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim/s. Should the defendant fail to file his/ her its Response within the required period but appears on the date set for hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he/she/it has to offer which shall constitute his/ her its Response, and proceed to hear or adjudicate the case on the same day as if a Response has been filed" .
1252
1239.Failure to file a return under the Rules on the Writ of Amparo
The Rules on the Writ of Amparo prohibits, a motion to declare the respondent in default.
Upon the service of the writ of amparo, the respondent is required to file a verified written return which, among others, contains his lawful defenses. In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte. Obviously, no motion from the petitioner is required before hearing the petition.
1253
1240.Failure to file a return under the Rules on the Writ of Habeas Data
The Rules on the Writ of Habeas Data, does not allow the filing of a motion to declare the respondent in default.
If the respondent fails to file his return which "contains, among others, his lawful defenses, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant, unless the court, in its discretion, requires the petitioner to submit evidence
1254
1241.Fallure to file an answer under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
A motion to declare the defendant in default is a prohibited motion under Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the defendant who fails to file an answer within the reglementary period of 10 days from service of summons is not supposed to be declared in default. Instead, the court motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment (not declare the defendant in default) as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. This rule represents a principal distinction between the effect of failure to answer in ordinary civil proceedings and in the rules on summary procedure.
1255
1242.Nature of a counterclaim
A counterclaim partakes of a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff. A counterclaim is described by the Rules of Court as any claim. Hence, this claim may be a claim for
1. money, or
2. some other relief against an opposing party.
1256
1243.A counterclaim is in itself a distinct and independent cause of action and when filed, there are two simultaneous actions between the same parties.
When the defendant files a counterclaim against the plaintiff, the former becomes the plaintiff in the counterclaim while the original plaintiff becomes the defendant. The filing of a counterclaim gives rise to two complaints, namely, the one filed by the plaintiff by way of an original complaint and the one filed by the defendant by way of a counterclaim.
1257
!
1244.A counterclaim is not intrinsically a part of the answer because it is a separate pleading. It may, however, be included in the answer. This inclusion is merely a matter of form and does not have the effect of fusing the two separate pleadings into a single pleading. Thus, it is not uncommon to denominate these two pleadings as: "Answer With A Counterclaim."
1258
!
1245.Note, however, that a "Motion to Dismiss With A Counterclaim” is not an accepted way of pleading a counterclaim. It is sanctioned neither by the Rules nor common usage.
1259
1246. A compulsory counterclaim is one that
1. arises out of (or is necessarily connected with) the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim;
2. falls within the jurisdiction of the court; and
3. does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Such counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof.
1260
1247.On the other hand, a counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case.
1261
1248.Compulsory counterclaim; tests
To be compulsory, the counterclaim, according to the Rules, must have the following elements:
1. It arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim;
2. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and
3. It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice and such courts have jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim both as to the amount and nature.
1262
1249. Based on the Rules, the Court has devised a more complete test, thus:
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim?
4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
A positive answer to all questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory. Of the four, the one compelling test is the logical relation between the claim in the complaint and that in the counterclaim.
1263
1250.A counterclaim is compulsory under the following facts: Aya sues Lea for recovery of a tract of land. Lea seeks in turn to be reimbursed the value of the improvements she has introduced in the same land and the payment of damages he has sustained as a consequence of the suit. The claim of Lea arises out of or is necessarily connected with the subject matter of the complaint.
1264
1251.In actions to recover possession of real property, it has been held that a claim for compensation for improvements on land partakes of the nature of a compulsory counterclaim
1265
!
1252.The most common compulsory counterclaim filed by the defendant, in the absence of any other counterclaim, is to claim in the same suit his expenses for being forced to litigate in the face of an allegedly unfounded and baseless complaint. Added to these expenses are the alleged damages he sustained as a consequence of the unfounded complaint.
1266
!
1253.The mere logical connection between the complaint and the counterclaim will not give rise to a compulsory counterclaim where the counterclaim is not within the jurisdiction of the court.
1267
!
1254.If the amount of the counterclaim exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, the counterclaim should be deemed permissive, not compulsory.
1268
1255.Thus, a counterclaim for P500,000 in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila cannot be considered a compulsory counterclaim since the amount exceeds the court's jurisdiction even if, assuming, it is intimately connected with the subject matter of the complaint. (MTC: 300,000 outside MM, 400,000 MM)
1269
!
1256.If the counterclaim in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the court is interposed in the same action, and the court finds both the complaint and counterclaim meritorious, it will not grant the relief in the complaint on the ground that the defendant has a bigger credit. It is submitted that if the defendant desires to have affirmative relief on his counterclaim, he may waive the amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the court.
1270
1257.There may be instances when the court has to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
If, for instance, the counterclaim interposed in the Regional Trial Court is one for unlawful detainer, the same cannot be invoked as a counterclaim in the same action even if the amount of rentals or damages is within the jurisdiction of such court. A Regional Trial Court cannot adjudicate upon an unlawful detainer case.
Also, a counterclaim for illegal dismissal cannot be entertained by regular courts for want of jurisdiction. The subject matter of the counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.
1271
1258.The absence of jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim because of the amount thereof appropriately applies to a Municipal Trial Court and equivalent courts. The rule requires that the counterclaim “must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof"
1272
1259.The result will differ, however, when the original action is filed with the Regional Trial Court. In this court, the counterclaim may be deemed compulsory regardless of the amount. !
Hence, a counterclaim of P350,000 filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila is still a compulsory counterclaim even if the court would have no jurisdiction over the amount claimed if it is filed as an original complaint. (RTC: in excess of 400,000 MM)
1273
!
1260. “In an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.”
1274
!
1261.The need to set up a compulsory counterclaim In the same action
A compulsory counterclaim should be interposed at the time the defending party files his answer; otherwise, it will be effectively barred.
Another case similarly declares that a compulsory counterclaim must be set up in the same action; otherwise, it would be barred forever. If it is filed concurrently with the main action but under a separate complaint, it would be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia; if it is subsequently filed after the main action, it would also be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.
1275
!
1262.Incompatibility between a compulsory counterclaim and a motion to dismiss
A party who desires to plead a compulsory counterclaim should not file a motion to dismiss. If he files a motion to dismiss and the complaint is dismissed, there will be no chance to invoke the counterclaim. The better move is to file an answer with a counterclaim and plead the ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense.
1276
1263."A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support therefrom. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. Hence, where there is no claim against the counterclaimant, the counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed, more so where the complaint is dismissed at the instance of the counterclaimant. In other words, if the dismissal of the main action results in the dismissal of the counterclaim already filed, it stands to reason that the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the counterclaim.
1277
1264.Thus, the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. In the event that a defending party has a grounds for dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same time, he must choose only one remedy. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his compulsory counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer
1278
!
1265.the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the counterclaim.
1279
1266.Permissive counterclaim
Generally, a counterclaim is permissive if any of the elements of a compulsory counterclaim discussed previously is absent. But the most commonly treated feature of a permissive counterclaim is its absence of a logical connection with the subject matter of the complaint, i.e., it does not arise out of or is not connected with the plaintiff's cause of action.
1280
1267.A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case.
1281
1268.A counterclaim for damages based on culpa aquiliana in a complaint for collection of a loan is a permissive counterclaim for not having a connection with the plaintiff's claim. Such counterclaim may even be made the subject of an independent action.
1282
1269.A counterclaim for damages based on a quasi-delict cannot be pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim in an action for unlawful detainer. The counterclaim is permissive.
1283
1270.A counterclaim for the payment of the price of the car is not a compulsory counterclaim in an action to recover a piece of land.
1284
1271.One case demonstrates the existence of a compulsory counterclaim. Here, the plaintiff filed an action to annul a deed of sale and recover ownership of a real property from the defendants. He alleged that the deed of sale in favor of the defendants was a forgery. The defendants, who denied the forgery, filed their answer with a counterclaim that, in case the deed of sale is declared null and void, they be paid by the plaintiff the amount of the loan extended to the latter and which were secured by a real estate mortgage covering the subject property. The plaintiff, who contended that the counterclaim was permissive, filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for the failure of defendants to pay the required docket fees and to attach a certification against forum shopping.
The Court held the counterclaim to be connected with transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. There is a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim. It is, hence, a compulsory counterclaim. The same evidence to sustain the counterclaim would disprove the case of the plaintiff. There is therefore, no need for respondents to pay docket fees and to file a certification against forum shopping for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim.
1285
1272.Distinctions between a compulsory and a permissive counterclaim
The following are the most significant distinctions between a compulsory and permissive counterclaims:
1.A compulsory counterclaim, which a party has at the time the answer is filed, shall be contained in the answer because a compulsory counterclaim not set up shall be barred
A permissive counterclaim is not subject to the above rule. Hence, it may be set up as an independent action and will not be barred if not contained in the answer to the complaint
2. A compulsory counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading. A permissive counterclaim is considered an initiatory pleading.
3. A permissive counterclaim should be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping and, whenever required, also a certificate to file action issued by the Lupong Tagapamayapa. A compulsory counterclaim which cannot be independently set up, does not require the certificates mentioned because it is not initiatory in character. The certificates mentioned are required to be attached in a permissive counterclaim because it is an initiatory pleading.
4. A permissive counterclaim must be answered by the party against whom it is interposed; otherwise, he may be declared in default as to the counterclaim.This is because “Any pleading asserting a claim must be answered and the failure to do so by the party against whom the claim is asserted renders him to be declared in default in respect of such claim"
Failure to answer a compulsory counterclaim is not a cause for a default declaration. A compulsory counterclaim that merely reiterates special defenses are deemed controverted even without a reply, or raises issues, which are deemed automatically joined by the allegations in the complaint, need not be answered. In such a case, failure to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be a cause for a declaration of default.
5. The docket and other lawful fees should be paid for a permissive counterclaim. The rule in a permissive counterclaim is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees. If a party does not pay the docket fees, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over his permissive counterclaim, and any order in favor of the counterclaimant arising from the counterclaim is considered null and void, and may be struck down even on appeal.
1286
1273.Thus, if the plaintiff files an action to recover possession of real property against the defendant who interposed a counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees arising from the filing of the complaint, the counterclaim need not be answered by the plaintiff. A motion to declare him in default for failure to answer the counterclaim must be denied because the counterclaim is compulsory.
1287
1274.On the other hand, if the counterclaim is for damages arising from the alleged tortious conduct of the plaintiff in a complaint to collect a sum of money, the defendant may file a motion to declare the plaintiff in default if he fails to file an answer to the counterclaim which is permissive.
1288
!
1275.Traditional jurisprudence has consistently held that docket fees are not paid for a compulsory counterclaim
"The prevailing rule with respect to compulsory counterclaims is that no filing fees are required for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter."
1289
1276.How to set up an omitted counterclaim
A counterclaim not initially set up because of the pleader's oversight, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or when justice requires, may be set up, by leave of court, by amendment before judgment. If not set up in the action, the compulsory counterclaim shall be barred. A permissive counterclaim. however, will not be barred.
1290
1277.How to set up a counterclaim arising after the answer
A counterclaim, which either matured or acquired by a party after serving his pleading, may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim by supplemental pleading before judgment.
1291
1278.Period to answer a counterclaim
If a counterclaim is to be answered, the same must be made within 10 days from service. This rule has more relevance to a permissive counterclaim which has to be answered.
1292
1279.Effect of the dismissal of a complaint on the counterclaim already set up
There are three significant situations involving the dismissal of a complaint and the effect of such dismissal on the counterclaim already pleaded by the defending party.
1. The first is the situation contemplated under the last paragraph of Sec. 6 of Rule 16. Here, the defendant does not file a motion to dismiss. Instead, he files an answer and utilizes certain grounds for a motion to dismiss as affirmative defenses. Included in the answer is a counterclaim. He then asks for a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses set up, which is granted by the court. During the hearing on the affirmative defenses, the court decides to dismiss the complaint. If the complaint is dismissed, the counterclaim, compulsory or permissive, is not dismissed.
"The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.”
2. The second situation is covered by Sec. 2 of Rule 17. Under this provision, the plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant has pleaded an answer with a counterclaim. The motion is granted by the court. The rule in this regard is unequivocal:
"... The dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action"
3. The third situation is covered by Sec. 3 of Rule 17. Here, the complaint is dismissed through the a plaintiff's fault and at a time when a counterclaim has already been set up. Like the first two situations, the dismissal is "without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action."
The above-described situations have a common thread running through them. The rules cited recognize the right of the defending party to prosecute the counterclaim in the same or separate action notwithstanding the dismissal of the complaint, and without regard as to permissive or compulsory nature of the counterclaim.
1293
!
1280.As the rule now stands, the nature of the counterclaim notwithstanding, the dismissal of the complaint does not ipso jure result in the dismissal of the counterclaim.
1294
1281.There is a difference between a dismissal of an action and a dismissal of the complaint. If only the complaint is dismissed, not the action, the defendant may still prosecute his counterclaim.
1295
1282.Options of the defendant who has pleaded a counterclaim
Where the plaintiff moves for the dismissal of the complaint to which a counterclaim has been interposed, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. Such dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to either prosecute his action in a separate action or to have the same resolved in the same action. Should he opt for the first alternative, the court should render the corresponding order granting and reserving his right to prosecute his claim in a separate action. Should he choose to have his counterclaim disposed of in the same action wherein the complaint had been dismissed, he must manifest to the court his preference to that effect within 15 days from notice to him of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss.
If he makes no such manifestation, the counterclaim shall be prosecuted in a separate action
1296
1283.The rule instructs that the dismissal of the complaint will not automatically result in the prosecution of the counterclaim in the same action because the rule requires the defendant to make the proper manifestation of his desire to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action in which the complaint was dismissed.
1297
1284.Nature of a cross-claim
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or a counterclaim therein. The cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is liable, or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant
1298
1285.While a counterclaim is asserted by a defending party against a claimant, a cross-claim is asserted by a defending party against a co-defending party so that the latter may be held liable for the claim which the claimant seeks to recover from the cross-claimant.
1299
1286.If XYZ Bank sues A and B for the collection of a loan, A, who merely acted as an accommodation party, may file a cross-claim against his co-defendant, B, by asserting that it is B who is the actual and true debtor and, hence, should be ultimately liable for the payment of the loan.
1300
!
1287.A cross-claim that a party has at the time the answer is filed shall be contained in said answer.
1301
!
1288.The cross-claim must be set up in the action because, if not set up, it shall be barred.
1302
!
1289.Note, however, that the cross-claim that shall be barred, if not asserted, is the cross-claim already existing at the time the answer is filed, not the cross-claim that may mature or may be acquired after service of the answer. As to the latter, the Rules declare that it may, by permission of the court, be presented by supplemental pleading before judgment.
1303
1290.No cross-claim for the first time on appeal
While a defendant may have a definite cause of action against a co-defendant, it cannot succeed in seeking judicial sanction against the latter if the records disclose that no cross-claim was interposed, nor was there a prayer that the co-defendant should be liable for all claims that may be adjudged in favor of the plaintiff. Under the Rules, a cross-claim not set up shall be barred. Thus, a cross-claim cannot be set up for the first time on appeal.
1304
1291. Distinctions between a counterclaim and a cross-claim
1. A cross-claim is a claim against a co-party; a counterclaim is a claim against an opposing party; and
2. A cross-claim must arise from the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original complaint or counterclaim. A counterclaim may or may not arise out of the subject matter of the complaint. It may be compulsory or permissive.
1305
1292.How to set up a cross-claim arising after the answer
A cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment.
1306
1293.How to set up an omitted cross-claim
When a pleader fails to set up a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
1307
1294.Period to answer a cross-claim
The cross-claim must answered within 10 days from service
1308
1295.Nature of a third-party complaint
A third-party complaint is actually a complaint independent of, and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. Were it not for the above rule, such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint. The purpose is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits and dispose expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts.
1309
!
1296.Trial courts are not especially enjoined by law to admit a third-party complaint. They are vested with discretion to allow or disallow a party to an action to implead an additional party. Thus, a defendant has no vested right to file a third party complaint
1310
1297.It is not proper to file a third-party complaint against one who is already a party to the action such as against the plaintiff or a co-defendant. A claim against the plaintiff is asserted by way of a counterclaim. A claim by the defendant against his co-defendant is set up by way of a cross-claim.
1311
1298.Thus, if Mr. S sells a car to Mr. B, and later, the real owner files an action against Mr. B to recover the car, Mr. B may file a third-party complaint against Mr. S to require the latter to answer for the breach of warranty against eviction
1312
1299.Also, if the passenger of a taxicab sues the operator for breach of contract of carriage because of injuries he sustained in a mishap, the operator may file a third-party complaint against the negligent driver for reimbursement.
1313
1300.B and C borrowed P400,000 from A. B, who received the money from A, gave C P200,000. C, in turn, gave by way of loan, P100,000 to D. C, if sued, can file a third-party complaint against D.
1314
1301.A assembles an owner-type jeep for B who, in turn, rents it to X. Due to faulty brakes, X figures in a vehicular accident causing him severe injuries. If X files an action for damages against A and B, B cannot file a third-party complaint against A because both are already parties to the action. B should instead file a cross-claim against A.
1315
1302.Leave of court; third-party complaint
The filing of a third-party complaint requires leave of court and, hence, its admission is subject to judicial discretion. Leave of court is not required in filing a counterclaim or a cross-claim because the parties involved are already parties to the action.
1316
1303.Period to answer a third-party complaint
The time to answer a third-party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the answer to the complaint; hence, within 15 days from service of summons.
1317
1304.Nature of intervention
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings.
It is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or demanding something adverse to both of them.
1318
1305.Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing intervention. The allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. It is not an absolute right.
1319
!
1306.Intervention is never an independent proceeding but ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation and in subordination to the main proceeding
1320
!
1307.An intervention cannot alter the nature of the action and the issues already joined
1321
1308.In general, an independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention; hence, such intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies. Simply put, the intervenor is not allowed to raise issues that are not within the mainstream of the original action.
1322
1309.Requisites for intervention
"SECTION 1. Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding."
1323
1310. Under above Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a person has
1. a legal interest in the matter in litigation; or
2. a legal interest in the success of any of the parties; or
3. an interest against both parties; or
4. when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof
1324
1311. Notice that intervention is not a matter of right. It is subject to judicial discretion. In granting or denying the intervention, the court is required to balance certain considerations:
1. whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties; and
2. whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
1325
1312.Meaning of legal interest in intervention
The legal interest must be one that is actual, material, direct and of an immediate character, not merely contingent or expectant, so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if persons not parties to the action were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable
1326
1313.Thus, it was ruled that when the title to the property had been already declared void by final judgment, intervention will not revive or reinstate the movant's title derived from the title declared void because there is no more legal interest in the matter in litigation.
1327
1314.In an action for foreclosure of mortgage, the alleged owners of the land sought to be foreclosed may intervene. They have an interest in the matter in litigation of such direct and immediate character that they stand to gain or loss by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment
1328
1315."A corporate stockholder cannot, merely on the basis of being a stockholder, have a legal right to intervene in cases involving corporate assets. A shareholder is not an owner of corporate property, which is owned by the corporation as an entity with a separate personality of its own. While a share of stock represents a proportionate interest of a shareholder in the property of the corporation, it does not vest upon him any legal right or title to any of the property of the corporation.
The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be of such direct and immediate character that the in intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment . However, the interest of a stockholder in corporate property is indirect, contingent, remote, conjectural, consequential and collateral. At the very least, the interest is purely inchoate or in sheer expectancy of a right in the management of the corporation and to share in the profits thereof and in the properties and assets thereof on dissolution, after payment of the corporate debts and obligations”
1329
!
1316.The justification of one's "sense of patriotism and a common desire to protect and uphold the Philippine Constitution" is not sufficient. This is true even if the intervenors in a quo warranto petition against a sitting justice of the Supreme Court are Senators of the Republic who would be sitting in the impeachment trial as Senators-judges if the articles of impeachment will be filed before the Senate. The interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant. Moreover, the petition of quo warranto is brought in the name of the Republic. It is vested in the people, and not in any private individual or group. Disputes over title to public office are viewed as a public question of governmental legitimacy and not merely a private quarrel among rival claimants
1330
1317. Procedure for intervention
1. The motion and pleading shall be served upon the original parties.
2. The intervenor shall file a motion for intervention attaching thereto his pleading-in-intervention. The pleading to be filed depends upon the purpose of the intervention. If the purpose is to assert a claim against either or all of the original parties, the pleading shall be called a complaint-in-intervention. If the pleadings seek to unite with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter, he shall file an answer-in-intervention.
3. The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the order admitting the same unless a different period is fixed by the courts.
1331
1318.Time for intervention
The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. Hence, intervention after trial and decision can no longer be permitted.
1332
1319.Nature of a reply
A reply is a pleading, the function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters.
1333
1320.A reply is the responsive pleading to an answer. It is not a responsive pleading to a counterclaim or a cross-claim. The proper response to a counterclaim or cross-claim is an answer to the counterclaim or answer to the cross-claim.
1334
!
1321.Filing of reply, not mandatory
As a rule, the filing of a reply to the answer is not mandatory and will not have an adverse effect on the plaintiff. Under the Rules, if a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted or denied. No admission follows from the failure to file a reply
1335
1322.Hence, if the answer to the complaint alleges as a defense the prescription of the action, the failure of the plaintiff to specifically deny the prescription will not amount to an admission that the debt has prescribed because the rule already denies the matter of prescription without the plaintiff making a specific denial. It is already, as the rule says, " deemed controverted”
1336
!
1323.Contrast this with the rule that the failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the complaint shall mean the implied admission of such material allegations. Thus, the gist of the rule is: The material allegations in the complaint must be specifically denied but the allegations of new matters or material allegations in the answer need not be denied because they are deemed denied by the Rules for the plaintiff.
1337
!
1324.When filing of reply is advisable
When the defense in the answer is based upon a written instrument or document, said instrument is considered an actionable document. Hence, the plaintiff has to file a reply under oath if he desires to deny specifically the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document, and avoid an admission of such matters. Sec. 8 of Rule 8 clearly provides:
"the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts ".
1338
1325.Period to file a reply
A reply may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to
1339
1326.How pleadings are amended
Pleadings may be amended in the following manner:
1. by adding or striking out an allegation;
2. by adding or striking out the name of any party;
3. by correcting a mistake in the name of a party;
4. by correcting a mistaken or inadequate allegation;
5. by correcting a mistaken or inadequate description in any other respect
1340
1327.Reason for allowing amendment
Amendments are allowed so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner .
1341
1328.Amendment as a matter of right
A party has the right to amend his pleading as a matter of right, so long as the pleading is amended only once and before a responsive pleading is served.
In case of a reply to which there is no responsive pleading, it may be amended as a matter of right at any time within 10 days after it is served.
Thus, before an answer is served on the plaintiff, the latter may amend his complaint as a matter of right. !
The defendant may also amend his answer as a matter of right, before a reply is served upon him. !
In either case, there is no need to file a motion for leave to amend the pleading. !
After the service of a responsive pleading, a party can amend his pleading only upon prior leave of court.
1342
!
1329.Sec. 10 refers to an amendment made before the trial court, not to amendments before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is vested with discretion to admit or deny amended petitions filed before it
1343
!
1330.The right to amend a pleading as a matter of right may, according to the Rules, be exercised only once. Hence, even if no responsive pleading has yet been served, if the amendment is subsequent to a previous amendment made as a matter of right, the subsequent amendment must be with leave of court. (hence, grant or denial of amendment is now discretionary.j)
1344
!
1331.Before the service of a responsive pleading, a party has the absolute right to amend his pleading, regardless of whether a new cause of action or change in theory is introduced
1345
!
1332.Applicability of mandamus in amendments as a matter of right
The court would be in error if it refuses to admit an amended pleading when its exercise is a matter of right. This error is correctible by mandamus because the trial court's duty to admit an amended complaint made as a matter of right is purely ministerial.
1346
!
1333.Amendment made during the pendency of a motion to dismiss
If a motion to dismiss is filed, an amendment to the complaint would still be a matter of right during the pendency of the motion to dismiss. Such a motion is not a responsive pleading and its filing does not preclude the exercise of the plaintiff's right to amend his complaint.
1347
1334.The duty of the court to admit an amended complaint is a ministerial one if the amendment is a matter of right. In fact, the plaintiff should not file a motion to admit the amended complaint.
1348
1335.Assume that PP filed an action based on an oral loan against DD, who filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, because the allegations in the complaint do not indicate that the debt is already due and demandable at the time the complaint was filed. Instead of opposing the motion, PP filed an amendment to the complaint to correct the deficiencies in its allegations. The amendment is a matter of right and, hence, cannot be refused by the court,
1349
!
1336.Even if the motion to dismiss is granted by the court, the plaintiff may still amend his complaint as a matter of right before the dismissal becomes final as long as no answer has yet been served. In the words of the Court, the plaintiff, “may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final”
1350
!
1337.Following the above rule, an amendment to the complaint sought to be made one month after notice of the order dismissing the complaint can no longer be allowed because the order of dismissal has already become final due to the failure to perfect an appeal. As a rule, the aggrieved party must perfect his appeal within the period as provided by the rule. The rule is mandatory in character. A party’s failure to comply with the rule will result in the decision becoming final and executory and, as such, can no longer be modified or reversed. Thus, it is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered the decision or order to amend or revoke the same after the lapse of the fifteen-day reglementary period to file an appeal.
1351
!
1338.Amendment by leave of court
Leave of court is required for an amendment made after service of a responsive pleading. This rule assumes more force and effect especially when the amendment is substantial since substantial amendments, after the service of a responsive pleading, may be made only upon leave of court.
1352
!
1339.The present rules allow substantial amendments provided the pleader obtains leave of court and provided the amendment is not made with intent to delay the proceedings.
1353
!
1340.Under the Rules, “substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court." The rule continues: “But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay". Hence, a substantial amendment cannot be made without leave of court. Even if the amendment be with leave of court, it still stands to be eventually rejected where such amendment appears to the court to have been made with the intent to delay the proceedings.
1354
1341.As it stands now, a substantial alteration in the cause of action or defense is not a bar to the amendment of the original complaint so long as the amendment is not meant for delay.
1355
1342.Amendment to cure a failure to state a cause of action
Under the Rules, “When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings"
The first part of the rule applies to situations wherein evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings, is offered by the parties during the trial and not objected to. In which a case, said issues not found in the pleadings are deemed to have been tried with the consent of the parties. That being so,the rule treats the issues as having been raised in the pleadings even if not actually raised.
The rule also covers situations where a complaint insufficiently states the cause of action. Such insufficiency may be cured by evidence presented during the trial without objection. !
Also, if a complaint failed to aver the fact that certain conditions precedent were undertaken and and complied with, the failure to so allege the same may be corrected by evidence of compliance with said conditions without objection from the other part.!
1356
1343.If a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during the trial, and the complaint may accordingly be amended thereafter
1357
1344.Amendments of pleadings are allowed under the Rules in order that the actual merits of a case may be determined in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner without regard to technicalities, and that all other matters included in the case may be determined in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits. Section 5 thereof applies to situations wherein evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings is presented by the parties during the trial, and to conform to such evidence the pleadings are subsequently amended on motion of a party. Thus, a complaint which fails to state a cause of action may be cured by evidence presented during the trial.
1358
1345. A complaint filed by a guarantor to collect a sum of money from the debtor fails to state a cause of action if the complaint does not allege that the creditor of the debtor has been paid by the guarantor even if in fact there was payment. However, if, during the course of the proceedings, evidence is offered on the fact of payment without objection from the debtor, the defect in the complaint was cured by the evidence. The plaintiff may, if he desires, then move for the amendment of his complaint to conform to the evidence
1359
1346.Where the pleadings of the parties disclose that the only issue presented before the court is merely the right of ownership over a certain property, any evidence to show right of possession may be objected to as irrelevant to the issue of the case, the concept of ownership being different from the concept of possession. An owner may not have the right of possession as when the property owned is the object of a lease contract. However, where evidence of right to possession was offered without objection, the issue of possession shall now be treated as if the same was raised in the pleadings.
1360
1347.Amendment to conform to the evidence
In the event that a party presents evidence on a matter not in issue, the adverse party has a reason to object. Common reason dictates that a party cannot breach the basic procedural rule that the trial court can deal only with matters raised by the parties in their pleadings. Neither can a court render judgment on a matter not in issue because a judgment must conform to the pleadings and the theory of the action under which the case was tried. But when issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, such as when no objection is made by either, such issues not raised shall be treated as if they had been put in issue in the pleadings.
1361
1348.In a situation where issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties,the Rules authorize the amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence upon motion of a party at any time, even after judgment. This is because the issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings even if not actually previously raised in the pleadings.
1362
!
1349.If the parties fail to amend the pleadings, such failure will not affect the trial of these issues because such issues are deemed to have been raised in the pleadings of the parties. This provision under the Rules virtually authorizes an implied amendment of the pleadings.
1363
1350. "If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended" Under the same rule, the court "may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby"
1364
!
1351.It was ruled that the failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence does not preclude an adjudication on the basis of such evidence which have embodied issues not in the pleadings. The the failure to amend does not affect the trial of these issues”
1365
!
1352. The rule is that when evidence is offered on an issue not raised in the pleadings but an objection was interjected the court may, nevertheless, admit the evidence where the objecting party fails to show that the admission of the evidence would prejudice him in his defense. The court must, however, give him a continuance to enable him to meet the new situation.
1366
1353.No amendment where no cause of action exists
May a complaint that has no cause of action at the time it was filed, be cured by the accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the case?
When the case was filed, none of the promissory notes subject of the action was due and demandable but two of the notes became due during the pendency of the action.
“The curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts.A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably by the defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a person should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature"!
1367
!
1354.An action that is prematurely brought is a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably by the defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a person should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature
1368
!
1355.The Court held that “If no right of action existed at the time the action was commenced, the suit cannot be maintained, even if the of action may have accrued thereafter.
1369
!
1356.Amendment to correct a jurisdictional defect before a responsive pleading is served
A fair reading of jurisprudence recognizes the right of a pleader to amend his complaint before a responsive leading is served even if its effect is to correct a jurisdictional defect. The argument that the court cannot allow such type of amendment since the court must first possess jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint before it can act on any amendment has no application upon an amendment that is made as a matter of right.
1370
1357.In one case involving a litigation over a parcel of land, the complaint filed with the RTC alleged forcible entry. The defendants filed a 'motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over an action for forcible entry. Without waiting for the resolution of the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which transformed the original allegations of forcible entry into an action for quieting of title, an action which, at that time, was solely cognizable by the RTC. The trial court admitted the amended complaint, ordered the defendants to answer it, and denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s order as being consistent with the purpose and spirit of the Rules
1371
1358.Amendment to correct a jurisdictional defect after a responsive pleading is served
An amendment of the complaint to correct a jurisdictional error cannot be validly done after a responsive pleading is served. The amendment, this time, would require leave of court, a matter which requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The exercise of this discretion requires the performance of a positive act by the court. If it grants the amendment, it would be acting on a complaint over which it has no jurisdiction. Hence, its action would be one performed without jurisdiction.
1372
!
1359.The situation is vastly different from an amendment made as a matter of right. Here, the court does not act. The admission of the amended pleading is a ministerial duty of the court. It requires no positive action from the court. Since it would not be acting in this regard, it could not be deemed as acting without jurisdiction.
1373
1360.The amendment made before the answer had been served could supersede the original pleading, as of right, without leave of court.
1374
1361.The Supreme Court held that it was error to admit the amendment to correct jurisdictional error after a responsive pleading is served because the court must first acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint in order to act validly on the same including its amendment.
1375
1362.Effect of the amendment on the original pleading
When a pleading is amended, the original pleading is deemed to have been abandoned. The original ceases to perform any further function as a pleading. The case stands for trial on the amended pleading only. As the Rules put it: "An amended pleading supersedes the original one which it amends"
1376
1363.Effect of the amendment on admissions made in the original pleading
Admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader. !
Be it noted, however, that the admission made in the original pleadings cease to be judicial admissions. This time, they are now to be considered as extrajudicial admissions. In order to be utilized against the party making the admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence. The original pleadings can have no effect unless offered in evidence.
1377
!
1364.Summons after complaint is amended; when not required
Although the original complaint is deemed superseded by the pleading that amends it, it does not ipso facto follow that service of new summons is required. Where the defendants have already appeared before the trial court by virtue of a summons in the original complaint, the amended complaint may be served upon them without need of another summons, even if new causes of action are alleged. A court's jurisdiction, once it is acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated.
1378
!
1365.Summons after complaint is amended; when required
When the defendants have not yet appeared in court, new summons for the amended complaint must be served on them. It is not the change of a cause of action that gives rise to the need to serve another summons for the amended complaint but rather the acquisition of jurisdiction over persons of the defendants. If the trial court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over them, a new summons for the amended complaint is required
1379
1366.However, where a new defendant is impleaded, summons must be served upon him so that the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person because, logically, the new defendant cannot be deemed to have already appeared by virtue of summons under the original complaint in which he was not yet a party.
1379
1366.However, where a new defendant is impleaded, summons must be served upon him so that the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person because, logically, the new defendant cannot be deemed to have already appeared by virtue of summons under the original complaint in which he was not yet a party.
1380
1367.Supplemental pleadings
A supplemental pleading is one which sets forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented
1381
1368.The filing of supplemental pleadings requires leave of court. The court may allow the pleading only upon such terms as are just. This leave is sought by the filing of a motion with notice to all parties.
1382
!
1369.Cause of action in supplemental pleadings
When the cause of action in the supplemental complaint is different from the cause of action mentioned in the original complaint, the court should not admit the supplemental complaint
1383
1370.A supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading. A supplemental pleading exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements. Moreover, a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined with the original pleading remain as issues to be to tried in the action. It is but a continuation of the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original complaint.
1384
1371.If the supplemental pleading states a new cause of action, it may be allowed provided that the matter stated in the supplemental complaint must have a relation to the cause of action set forth in the original pleading. This means that the matter must be germane and intertwined with the cause of action stated in the original complaint so that the principal and core issues raised by the parties in their original pleadings remain the same
1385
1372.Answer to a supplemental pleading; not mandatory
Must an answer to a supplemental complaint be filed?
“Sec. 7. Answer to supplemental complaint. – A supplemental complaint may be answered within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
1386
!
1373.Thus, the Court cannot declare the respondents in default simply because the latter opted not to file their answer to the supplemental petition
1387
1374.Definition of a motion
A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading
1388
1375.Form of motions
All motions shall be in writing.
Excepted from this written requirement are those:
1. motions made in open court; and
2. motions made in the course of a hearing or trial
The rules that apply to pleadings shall also apply to written motions with respect to caption, designation, signature, and other matters of form
1389
1376.Contents of a motion
Motions are to contain the following:
1. a statement of the relief sought to be obtained;
2. the grounds upon which the motion is based; and
3. the supporting affidavits and other papers.
The last requirement applies only when so mandated by the Rules or when necessary to prove facts stated in the motion.
1390
1377.Hearing of motion; litigated and ex parte motions
As a rule, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party.
1391
1378.The general rule is that, with the exceptions of some motions, every written motion is deemed a litigated motion, i.e., one which requires the parties to be heard before a ruling on the motion is made by the court.
1392
1379.Generally, all written motions are required to include a notice of hearing and must be addressed to all parties and served upon them at least three days before the date of the hearing. It has, however, been ruled, that the three-day notice rule is not an absolute requirement provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the other party nor violate his or her due process rights
1393
1380.Jurisprudence holds that this requirement of notice of hearing applies to a motion for reconsideration. The requirement of notice is an integral component of procedural due process that seeks to avoid surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party who must be given time to study and meet the motion before a resolution by the court. A motion unaccompanied by a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal.
1394
1381.A motion for reconsideration is a contentious motion that needs to comply with the required notice and hearing and a motion which does not comply with the rule is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon.
1395
1382.It has however, been held that the failure to include a notice of hearing in a motion for reconsideration is not fatal where the other party was given the opportunity to be heard as when such party was allowed to file a comment/opposition to the motion.
1396
1383.An ex parte motion, on the contrary, is one which does not require that the parties be heard and which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party. This kind of motion is not covered by the hearing requirement of the Rules. !
An example of an ex parte motion is that one filed by the plaintiff pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 18 in which he moves promptly that the case be set for pre-trial.
1397
1384. A motion for extension of time is not a litigated motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter an opportunity to resist the application. It is an ex parte motion made to the court in behalf of one or the other of the parties to the action, in the absence and usually without the knowledge of the other party or parties.
1398
1385.It has been said that “ex parte motions are frequently permissible in procedural and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency; and an exception to a rule requiring notice is sometimes made where notice or the resulting delay might defeat the objective of the motion”
1399
1386.A motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment are examples of litigated motions.
1400
1387.Notice of hearing
The written motion, which is required to be heard, and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. This is a mandatory rule
The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all the parties concerned. It shall also specify the time and date of the hearing which shall not be later than 10 days after the filing of the motion.
1401
1388.Proof of services
Proof of service of the motion is required. No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.
1402
1389.Motion day
All litigated motions shall be scheduled for hearing on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working holiday, in the afternoon of the next working day. This rule does not apply to motions requiring immediate action.
1403
1390.Effect of failure to set the motion for hearing, to include a notice of hearing and serve the motion
A motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading, a mere scrap of paper that cannot be acted by the court. It presents no question that the court can decide. The court has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it. Indisputably, any motion that does not contain proof of service and notice to the adverse party is not entitled to judicial cognizance.
1404
1391.Summary of the requirements in filing a motion
The Court has summarized the requirements embodied as follows:
1. Every motion which cannot be acted upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party must be set for hearing; (it is prejudicial, hence hearing.j)
2. The adverse party must be given (i) a copy of such written motion, and (ii) notice of the corresponding hearing date;
3. The copy of the written motion and the notice of hearing described in (2) must be furnished to the adverse party at least three (3) days before the hearing date, unless otherwise ordered by the court; and
4. No written motion that is required to be heard shall be acted upon by the receiving court without proof of service done in the manner prescribed in (3)
1405
1392.Motion for leave to file a motion
A motion for leave to file a motion shall be accompanied by the motion sought to be admitted. The same rule applies to pleadings.
1406
1393.The Omnibus motion rule (Sec. 1, Rule 9, ROC)
The omnibus motion rule requires that a motion that attacks a pleading, judgment, order or proceeding shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived
1407
1394.These objections are not deemed waived even if not included in the motion
(Sec. 1, 2nd sentence, Rule 9, Rules of Court).
1. the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia);
3. the action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata); and
4. the action is barred by the statute of limitations or prescription
1408
1395.A motion to dismiss is a typical example of a motion subject to the omnibus motion rule, since a motion to dismiss attacks a complaint, which is a pleading. Following the omnibus motion rule, if a motion to dismiss is filed, it must invoke all objections which are available at the time of the filing of said motion. If the objection which is available at the time is not included in the motion, that ground is deemed waived. It can no longer be invoked as an affirmative defense in the answer which the movant may file following the denial of his motion to dismiss.
1409
1396.In a case filed with the RTC, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss invoking the following as objections: (a) failure to state a cause of action, (b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and (c) violation of the statute of frauds. Two objections available at the time the motion was filed, namely, improper venue and prescription were not included in the motion. The motion to dismiss was denied.
May the defendant, in his answer filed after the denial of his motion to dismiss, invoke the affirmative defenses of improper venue and prescription?
Answer: Improper venue is deemed waived. It was available as a defense at the time the motion was filed and should have been invoked. Failure to so include the same in the motion is to be construed as waiver of the objection. Prescription, on the other hand, is not waived and can still be interposed as an affirmative defense in the answer. It is a defense that is not deemed waived under the explicit provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 9.
1410
1397.Prohibited motions under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
The following motions shall not be allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash a criminal complaint or information; Exception: If the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with the rule requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation.
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial;
4. Motion for reconsideration of a judgment;
5. Motion for reopening of trial;
6. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
7. Motion to declare the defendant in default; and
8. Dilatory motions for postponement
1411
1398.Prohibited motions in the Rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
The following motions are prohibited:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file opposition, affidavit, position paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Motion to declare respondent in default; and
6. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders
1412
1399.Prohibited motions under the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended
The following motions shall not be allowed in the case covered by the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial;
4. Motion for reconsideration of a judgment;
5. Motion for reopening of trial;
6. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
7. Motion to declare the defendant in default; and
8. Dilatory motions for postponements
1413
1400. Prohibited motions under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except to file answer, the extension not to exceed 15 days; and
4. Motion to declare the defendant in default
1414
1401.Purpose and importance of summons
Service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process and compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is not only a requirement of due process but also of jurisdiction.
1415
1402."Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. Its purpose is two-fold: to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and to notify the defendant that an action has been commenced so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.
1416
1403.It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should first be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised” . This means that any person with interest in the thing in litigation must be given an opportunity to defend that interest. Since the essence of due process lies in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence the defendant may have in support of his defense, he must be properly served with summons. The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process and compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much an issue of due process as it is of jurisdiction .
1417
!
1404.Without service of summons, or when summons are improperly made, both the trial and the judgment being in violation of due process, are null and void, unless the defendant waives the service of summons by voluntarily appearing and answering the suit”
1418
1405.A previous case similarly holds that if a defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is void.
1419
1406.An integral part of the summons is a direction that the defendant should answer the complaint within the period fixed by the Rules and that, unless he so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for.
1420
1407.Service of summons applies to any action
Regardless of the type of action – whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem – proper service of summons is imperative.
1421
1408.Summons in actions in personam
In an action in personam, the purpose of summons is not only to comply with due process but also to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
The mere filing of the complaint does not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. By the filing of the complaint and the payment of the required filing and docket fees, the court acquires jurisdiction only over the person of the plaintiff, not over the person of the defendant. To have jurisdiction over the person of defendant, where he does not appear voluntarily in the action, a valid service of summons upon him is required.
1422
1409.The principle is plain and simple. "Where the action is in personam, that is, one brought against a person on the basis of her personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
1423
1410.Without acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an in personam action, such as an action for damages the court would be without authority to order said defendant to pay damages in favor of the plaintiff.
1424
1411.In an action for a sum of money, also an in personam action, any judgment against the defendant rendered without jurisdiction over his person would not be binding upon him. Common reason suggest that the court would be devoid of authority to hold a person liable for the relief prayed for by the plaintiff without first vesting upon said court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
1425
1412.A judgment rendered against a corporation, ordering it to pay the plaintiff, is not a valid judgment, where the corporation was not summoned to the suit, even if its president knew of the action in his capacity as counsel for the other defendant. Basic is the rule that the corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the people who compose it.
1426
!
1413. “The general rule is that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger and strangers in a case are not bound by a judgment of the court”
1427
!
1414.Effect of knowledge of the filing of the action
Knowledge by the defendant of an action filed against him does not dispense with the need for summons. Summons must still be issued and served.
1428
!
1415.Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant cannot be acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him, unless he was validly served with summons
1429
1416.Purpose of summons in actions in rem and quasi in rem
In an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. This does not, however, mean that the service of summons may be dispensed with. The Court explained that summons must still be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the due process requirements
1430
1417.While attachment is a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, this classification becomes significant only when the defendant does not appear in the action as when he is a non-resident who is at the same outside of the Philippines. Where the defendant does not voluntarily appear in the action, the need for acquiring jurisdiction over the property or res becomes imperative so the court may have the authority to order that the property be made to answer for the liability of the non-appearing defendant.
However, if the defendant appears, the cause becomes mainly a suit in personam, with the added incident, that the property attached remains liable, under the control of the court, to answer to any demand which may be established against the defendant by the final judgment of the court.When the defendant appears in the action, even an in rem and a quasi in rem action are to be treated as actions in personam. But, if there is no appearance of the defendant, and no service of process on him, the case becomes, in its essential nature, a proceeding in rem, the only effect of which is to subject the property attached to the payment of the defendant which the court may find to be due to the plaintiff”.
1431
1418.Voluntary appearance by the defendant
Without a valid service of summons, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, unless he voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court
1432
1419."The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance."
1433
1420.The provision is clear. The effects of a valid service of summons will necessarily flow from the voluntary appearance of the defendant, such appearance being equivalent to service of summons.
1434
1421.Because of the “principle of voluntary appearance" an absence of service of summons or even an invalid service of summons will not prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant as long as he performs acts that could be construed as a voluntary appearance.
1435
1422. "While proper service of summons is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the lack or defect in the service of summons may be cured by the defendant's subsequent voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court”
1436
1423.When is a defendant deemed to have made a voluntary appearance?
The court in one case held that the defendant is deemed to have made a voluntary appearance when he filed an answer to the complaint or actively participated in the case. It is settled that active participation of a party against whom the action was brought, is tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and such will bar said party from later on impugning the court’s jurisdiction.
1437
1424.In a case, the trial court was held to have acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant when he filed the “Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer”.This was equivalent to service of summons and vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
1438
1425.By seeking affirmative relief from the court, like moving for the discharge of a writ of attachment, the defendant is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
1439
1426.“As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.
1440
!
1427.Jurisprudence clearly explains that seeking affirmative relief from the court is equivalent to voluntary appearance. However, the act of making a conditional or special appearance in court to object to the jurisdiction of that court over his person, is not to be deemed a voluntary appearance or a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
1441
1428.Hence, if the defendant, without having been served with summons, files a motion to dismiss the complaint grounded on the court's alleged lack of jurisdiction over his person, the filing of the motion is not to be construed as a voluntary appearance. Here, the defendant's appearance is not to seek for any affirmative relief from the court but to seek the dismissal of the complaint on the ground stated.
Jurisprudence referred to this appearance as a “special appearance", one made for the purpose of objecting to the court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
1442
1429.Under existing rules, a defending party may file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over his person and add to such ground other grounds for dismissal.The addition of such grounds, aside from jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, shall not be considered a voluntary appearance.
1443
1430.The Rules which allows the defending party to include in his motion to dismiss other grounds other than lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, without him running the risk of being considered to have made a voluntary appearance.
1444
1431.This is because under the Rules, the defendant is allowed to raise alternative defenses. Accordingly, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived. Thus, held the Court: "It thus appears that it is not the invocation of any of such defenses, but the failure to so raise them, that can result in waiver”
1445
1432.Who issues the summons
The clerk of court issues the summons who shall sign the same under seal
1446
1433.When summons is issued
Summons shall be issued upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees (this is not the date of service.j)
1447
1434.To whom summons is directed
The summons is a writ that is directed to the defendant, not the plaintiff
1448
1435.Who serves summons
The summons may be served by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons.
1449
1436.Contents of the summons
The summons shall contain the following matters:
1. the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action;
2. a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by the Rules; and
3. a notice that, unless the defendant so answers, the plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief prayed for
A copy of the complaint (including a copy of an order for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, if necessary) shall be attached to the original and each copy of the summons.
1450
1437.Return and proof of service
When the service has been completed, the server shall, within five days therefrom, serve a copy of the return, personally or by registered mail, to the plaintiff's counsel, and shall return the summons to the clerk who issued it, accompanied by proof of service (service of summons is within a reasonable time.j)
1451
1438.After the completion of the service, a proof of service is required to be filed by the server of the summons. The proof of service of summons shall be made in writing and shall set forth the manner, place, and date of service; specify any papers which have been served with the process and the name of the person who received the same; and be sworn to when made by person other than a sheriff or his deputy.
1452
1439.Uniformity of the rules on summons
The rules on summons apply with equal force in actions before the Regional Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Courts. This is because the procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (1)where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, (2) or in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure
1453
1440.Service upon an entity without a juridical personality
When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known
How, then, may summons be served upon the non-existent corporation or upon those who compose the "corporation"?
Under the Rules, service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving summons upon (1) any one of them or (2) upon the person in charge of the office or of the place of business maintained in such name. This service shall not however, bind individually any person whose connection with the entity, upon due notice, had been severed before the action was brought.
1454
1441.Service upon a prisoners
When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him (the prisoner) by the officer having the management of such jail or institution. For this purpose, the jail manager is deemed deputized as a special sheriff.
1455
1442.Service upon a minor and an incompetent
When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent, service shall be made (1) upon him personally AND (2) on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem.
The appointment of the guardian ad litem shall be applied for by the plaintiff. If the defendant is a minor, service may be made also upon his father or mother. Notice that service upon the legal guardian, father, or mother is not a sufficient compliance of the rule. Service should be made also upon the defendant even if he is a minor, insane or an incompetent.
1456
1443.Service upon a domestic private juridical entity
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made upon the following persons:
1. president,
2. managing partner
3. general or
4. corporate secretary
5. treasurer, or
6. in-house counsel
The above enumeration has been held to be limited to the persons enumerated and summons cannot be served upon any other person. The enumeration is “restricted, limited and exclusive" following the rule on statutory construction expressio unios est exclusio alterus.
Service of summons on an officer other than those enumerated is invalid
1457
1444.Following the rule in statutory construction that the express mention of one person excludes all others, or expressio unions est exclusio alterius, service must be made only on the person expressly listed in the rules. If the revision committee intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it could have easily done so by clear and concise language
1458
1445.Under the new Rules, service of summons upon an agent of the corporation is no longer authorized.” Hence, the Court in a case, ruled against the validity of service of summons made on a mere branch manager of the defendant corporation.
1459
1446.The Court further emphasized that the argument of substantial compliance is no longer compelling (old rule)
1460
1447.Substantial compliance cannot be invoked. Service of summons upon persons other than officers specifically mentioned under the enumeration in the Rules is void, defective and not binding to said corporation
1461
1448.Service upon a foreign private juridical entity
Service upon a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines may be made on (1) its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, (2) on the government official designated by law to that effect, or (3) on any of the officers or agents of said foreign entity within the Philippines
1462
1449.It has been held that when a foreign corporation has designated a person to receive summons on its behalf pursuant to the Corporation Code, that designation is exclusive and service of summons on any other person is inefficacious. (see queries 248)
1463
1450.A foreign corporation may be allowed to transact business in the Philippines after it shall have obtained a license to transact business in the country and a certificate of authority from the appropriate government agency. It may, however, be granted a license under the principle of reciprocity. This means that the country under whose laws it was formed or organized allows Filipino citizens and corporations to do business in its own country or state.
Also, as a condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact business in the Philippines, the foreign corporation shall file with the Securities and Commission a written power of attorney designating some person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom any summons and other legal processes may be served in all actions or proceedings against such corporation
1464
!
1451.A foreign corporation with a license to do business in the Philippines may sue or be sued in the country.
1465
1452.If a foreign corporation transacts business in the Philippines without the required license, it cannot, however, be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or agency in the Philippines. Such corporation, may however, be sued or proceeded against before Philippine Courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippines laws.
1466
1453.In other words, a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license, cannot sue in the Philippines but it can be sued. (there is an exception to this below.j)
1467
1454.An unlicensed foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may also bring suit in Philippine courts against a Philippine citizen or entity who had contracted with and benefited from said corporation. !
Such a suit is premised on the doctrine of estoppel. A party is estopped from challenging the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. This doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence and capacity applies to foreign as well as domestic corporations. !
The application of this principle prevents a person contracting with a foreign corporation from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes chiefly in cases where such person has received the benefits of the contract
1468
!
1455.Only a foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines is required to obtain a license to do business in the country.
1469
1456.A foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines does not need to secure a license. This should not, however, be taken to mean that foreign corporations not engaging in business in the Philippines are not allowed to sue in the country. Jurisprudence allows such corporation to sue in the country when it is suing under an isolated transaction or to protect its trade name or goodwill which has been infringed .
1470
1457.Foreign private juridical entities not registered in the Philippines or have no resident agents
Sec. 12. Rule 14 has been amended with respect to foreign private juridical entities not registered in the Philippines or have no resident agents. As to these juridical entities, service may be effected out of the Philippines, with leave of court, through any of the following means:
1. By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
2. By publication in a newspaper of general a circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known address of the defendant:
3. By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
4. By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. This amendment may be construed as another type of extraterritorial service distinct from Sec. 14 of Rule 14
1471
1458.Service upon the Republic of the Philippines
When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General.
1472
1459.Service upon public corporations
When the defendant is a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.
1473
1460.Service upon an unincorporated government agency
Jurisprudence instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality of its own, the suit is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State.
It is clear under the Rules that where the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service of summons must be made on the Solicitor General.”
1474
1461.Thus, where the complaint for specific performance with damages was filed against DPWH Region III which is a mere agent of the Republic, the summons in this case should have been served upon the OSG
1475
1462.Service in person on defendant (formerly personal service of summons)
Service in person on defendant is embodied in Sec. 6 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
Note that, under the present rule, Sec. 6 of Rule 14 refers to the mode of service as "Service in person on defendant, not “personal service."
The latter is a mode by which pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers are served under Sec. 6 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. In short, ‘personal service' is primarily a concept actually found in Rule 13 and not in Rule 14.
The terms are often inaccurately used interchangeably because the mode of service in Sec. 6 of Rule 14 used to be referred to in Sec. 7 of Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules as ‘personal service of summons.'
1476
1463.The plaintiff does not have a free choice on the mode of service of summons. Jurisrudence considers service in person as "the preferred mode of service of summons”. Service of summons other than service in person may be used only as prescribed and under the circumstances authorized by the Rules.
1477
!
1464.Thus, it was held that Secs. 6 and 7 (substituted service) of Rule 14 cannot be construed to apply simultaneously and do not provide for alternative modes of service of summons which can be resorted to on the mere basis of convenience to the parties.
1478
!
1465.Service of summons in the person of the defendant is generally preferred over substituted service. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to
1479
!
1466.The impossibility of a prompt service in person must be shown by stating in the proof of service that efforts have failed before availing of other modes of service. The rules on service of summons must be followed "strictly, faithfully and fully" since other modes are considered in derogation of the usual method of service.
1480
!
1467.Service in person is effected by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If he refuses to receive for it, the remedy of the server is to tender the summons to the defendant
1481
1468.If the defendant refuses the service, the sheriff is NOT supposed to resort to substituted service immediately. The sheriff or the appropriate officer is required by the Rules to tender the summons to the defendant. Tender of summons is not a separate mode of service. It is a part of service in person and applies when the defendant refuses to receive and sign for the summons
1482
1469.Only if service in person cannot be made promptly can process server resort to substituted service. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective.
1483
1470.The failure to find the defendants in their residence on the first and only attempt to effect service in person does not justify the availment of substituted service. There was no attempt by the sheriff to faithfully comply with the requirements of service in person on the defendant.
1484
1471.Substituted service of summons
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons must be served on the defendant in person. Only for justifiable reasons may other modes of serving summons be resorted to
As earlier mentioned, substituted service is not the preferred mode of service of summons. Resort to substituted service is permitted only when the summons cannot be promptly served on the defendant after stringent formal and substantive requirements have been complied with.
1485
1472. Case law has established the hierarchy and rules in the service of summons as follows:
1. Personal service;
2. Substituted service, if for justifiable causes the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time; and
3. Service by publication, whenever the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.
1486
1473.The sheriff's return must show the details of the efforts exerted to personally serve summons upon the defendant before substituted service is availed of. The return must contain a narration of the circumstances showing efforts to personally serve summons to the defendant and the impossibility of personal service of summons
1487
1474.A return which merely states the alleged whereabouts of the defendants, without indicating that such information was verified and without specifying the efforts exerted to serve the summons, is not enough for compliance. So is a mere general statement that such efforts were made.
1488
1475.The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court provides that substituted service may be availed of if "for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time.” What exactly is a reasonable time?
“Within a reasonable time" contemplates a period of time longer than that demarcated by the word "prompt," and presupposes that a prior attempt at personal service within a justifiable time frame, as would be necessary to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court, had failed”
1489
1476.Reasonable time is defined as so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be done.
1490
1477.Under the Rules, the service of summons has no set period
To the plaintiff, “reasonable time” means no more than seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of the complaint is what the party wants. To the sheriff “reasonable time means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month, it is a practice for the branch clerk to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for service. The Sheriff's Return provides data to the clerk of court, which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month.
Thus one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable" with regard to personal service on the defendant.!
1491
1478.The Court has set stringent conditions prior to the availment of substituted service. A mere general claim or statement in the sheriff's return that the server had made "several attempts" to serve the summons, without making reference to the details of facts and circumstances surrounding such attempts, does not comply with the rules on substituted service.
1492
1479.For substituted service to be available there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period (of one month) which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. Several attempts” means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates.
In addition the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted
1493
1480. By way of summary, the sheriff should perform the following acts before he can effect a valid service of summons other than by service in person on the defendant:
1. Establish the impossibility of personal service; and
2. Describe in the return of summons the facts and circumstances surrounding his attempts to effect service in person. A single attempt to serve the defendant in person does not justify the availment of another mode of service;
3. After the service, the sheriff must state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant.
1494
1481.Hence, parties have no unbridled right to resort to substituted service
1495
1482.How substituted service is made
On the assumption that substituted service is now justified, how then may summons be served by substituted service?
The rule provides the server with options, to wit:
1. leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence, or
2. leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular place of business.
1496
1483.The rule does not, however, allow leaving the summons with anyone else other than those mentioned therein. Thus, if the summons is left at the defendant's residence, the summons must be served by leaving the same with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. If served in the defendant’s office or regular place of business, the summons must be left with some competent person in charge thereof
1497
1484.A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of summons.
1498
1485.Discretion is defined as the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed.
1499
1486.Thus, to be of sufficient age and discretion, such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action.Thus, the person must have a “ relation of confidence” to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would receive of at least be notified of the receipt of summons.
1500
1487.The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipient’s relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons”
1501
1488.A competent person in charge of the office or regular place of business must be one managing the office of business of defendant, such as the president or manager; and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligations of the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons. Again, the details must be contain the Return.
It is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendant's regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appear to be in charge.
1502
!
1489.It must be noted too that substituted service presupposes that the place where the summons is served is the defendant's current address or office/regular place of business, Thus, where the defendant neither resides nor holds office in the address stated in the summons, substituted service cannot be resorted to. The last known address cannot be the place of service of summons because it is not the address of the defendant.
1503
!
1490.Where the defendant's residence or place of business is unknown and cannot be ascertained with diligent inquiry, substituted service is not the appropriate mode of service. The correct mode of service is summons by publication under Sec. 14 of Rule 14, a mode which applies “in any action.”
1504
But if it is known that he is already a permanent resident of another country and is no longer found in the Philippines, substituted service will also no longer apply since he has neither a residence or office/regular place of business in the country. Neither will Sec. 14 of Rule 14 apply since his identity and whereabouts are known. The plaintiff will have to check on whether or not Sec. 15 of Rule 14 will apply. This would necessitate determining the nature of the action. If the action is any of those enumerated in Sec. 15, then said provision may be availed of where the case is in rem or quasi in rem. (extraterritorial service.j)
1505
1492.Effect if defendant does not actually receive the summons
Where the substituted service has been validly served, its validity is not affected by the defendant's failure to actually receive the summons from the person with whom the summons had been left. It is immaterial that the defendant does not in fact receive actual notice. The rule does not require the sheriff or any authorized server to verify that the summons left in the defendant’s residence of office was actually delivered to the defendant
1506
1493.“ It is immaterial then that defendant does not in fact receive actual notice. This will not affect the validity of the service.
Accordingly, the defendant may be charged by a judgment in personam as a result of legal proceedings upon a method of service which is not personal, “which in fact may not become actual notice to him,” and which may be accomplished in his lawful absence from the country. For the rules do not require that papers be served on defendant personally or a showing that the papers were delivered to defendant by the person with whom they were left.”
1507
1494.When defendant prevents service of summons
What if diligent efforts were undertaken by the sheriff to serve summons upon the defendant but he was prevented from effecting such service by the defendant himself?
It is well settled that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective. However, the courts frown upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs. (the ruling: the summons has been properly served upon petitioner and the court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.j)
1508
1495.Summons by publication
As a general proposition, summons by publication is not available as a means of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an action in personam.
Against a resident, the recognized mode of service is service in person on the defendant. In a case where the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time, substituted service will apply, but not summons by publication.
Summons by publication against a resident in an action in personam is, however, permissible under the conditions set forth in the following rules:
1. Where the identity or whereabouts of the defendant are unknown, Section 14 of Rule 14;
2. When the defendant is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines, Section 16 of Rule 14.
Both provisions apply to “ any action” which necessarily includes an action in personam.
1509
1496.Against a nonresident, in an action in personam, jurisdiction is acquired over the defendant by service upon his person while he is within the Philippines. It is a long-standing rule that when the defendant is a nonresident, personal service of summons in the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person. This is, in fact, the only way of acquiring jurisdiction over his person if he does not voluntarily appear in the action.
1510
!
1497.Summons by publication against a non-resident in an action in personam is not a proper mode of service.
Possible exception: When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity not registered or with no resident agent in the Philippines
1511
1498.Service upon a defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown (resident.j)
Where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained despite a diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order
1512
!
1499.The rule in Sec. 14 of Rule 14 authorizes summons by publication in any action and the rule obviously does not distinguish whether the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. The tenor of the rule authorizes summons by publication whatever the action may be as long as the identity of the defendant is unknown or his whereabouts are unknown
1513
!
1500.Remember, however, that it is not correct to use summons by publication outright. There is a hierarchy of rules in the service of summons. First, diligent efforts to serve the defendant in person must be resorted to. Second, when summons cannot be served in person on the defendant within a reasonable period of time, then substituted service of summons may be availed of. Third, if the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained with diligent inquiry, summons by publication may now be availed of
1514
!
1501.Under a previous ruling, if the if the defendant cannot be served with summons, the remedy is not to dismiss the case, but hold the case in the archives
1515
1502.Archiving of cases is a procedural measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases in which no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist for their outright dismissal. Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance until the situation obtains in which action thereon can be taken.
1516
1503.A case may be archived, not only when a party cannot be served with summons, but also for other valid causes as when a party or a witness cannot appear in court because of threats to his life
1517
1504.Service upon a resident temporarily out of the Philippines
Under the Rules, "When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.
The 'preceding section referred to in Sec. 16 is necessarily Sec. 15 on extraterritorial service of summons. Significantly, one of the modes of service of summons under Sec. 15 is "by publication in a newspaper of general circulation"
Summons by publication, therefore, applies to a resident of the Philippines who is temporarily out of the country. !
1518
1505. This suggests that, from the phraseology of the rule, the service of summons may possibly be any of the following modes, unless ruled otherwise:
1. by personal service (service in person) as in Sec. 6 of Rule 14;
2. by publication in a newspaper of general circulation together with a registered mailing of a copy of the summons and the order of the court to the last known address of the defendant; or
3. by any manner the court may deem sufficient
1519
1506.Like in the case of an unknown defendant or one whose whereabouts are unknown, the rule affecting residents who are temporarily out of the Philippines applies in any action.
1520
1507. Let it be noticed that summons by publication may be effected against the defendant because publication is one of the modes of service of summons under Sec. 15 of Rule 14. But this rule authorizing summons by publication appears superfluous and unnecessary. Even without such provision, a resident defendant temporarily outside of the Philippines may still be served through substituted service under Sec. 7 of Rule 14.
If a resident defendant is out of the country temporarily, he cannot be expectedly served within a reasonable time. The fact that "for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time,” constitutes the operative fact that triggers the application of substituted service aside from the modes of service provided for in Sec. 16 of Rule 14.
It was thus, ruled that in a suit in personam against a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent from the country, the defendant may be served by substituted service because a man temporarily out of the country leaves a definite place of residence or dwelling where he is bound to return. He also leaves his affairs to someone who protects his interests and communicates with him on matters affecting his affairs or business
1521
1508.Substituted service to be effective against a resident temporarily out of the Philippines assumes that the absence of the defendant is only temporary and that he has a residence or office or regular place of business in the Philippines. Thus. where the defendant is already a permanent resident of another country and is no longer found in the Philippines, he is no longer a resident defendant temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus, substituted service of summons upon him is ineffective. Section 15 of Rule 14 may apply where the case against him is one in rem or quasi in rem. (extraterritorial service)
1522
1509.Extraterritorial service of summons
Extraterritorial service of summons under Sec. 15 of Rule 14 applies when the following requisites concur:
1. the defendant is a nonresident;
2. he is not found in the Philippines; and
3. the action against him is either in rem or quasi in rem
1523
1510.A fundamental concept to be remembered in extraterritorial service of summons is that it does not apply to a defendant who is a resident of the Philippines. It does not also apply to an action in personam!
A possible exception to this rule is provided for under See 16 of Rule 14 (Residents temporarily out of the Philippines) where service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines as under the preceding section. The preceding section is Sec. 15 of Rule 14. Note also that Sec. 16 of Rule 14 refers to any action,” hence, either an action in rem, quasi in rem or in personam.
1524
1511.Actions involved in extraterritorial service of summons
The specific actions, which are either in rem or quasi in rem, that will justify the application of extraterritorial service of summons in actions involving a nonresident are:
1. actions that affect the personal status of the plaintiff;
2. actions which relate to, or the subject matter of which is property within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent;
3. actions in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from an interest in property located in the Philippines, and
4. when the defendant's property has been attached in the Philippines
1525
1512.Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem, an action against the thing itself instead of against the person, or in an action quasi in rem, where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. This is so inasmuch as, in in rem and quasi in rem actions, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res
1526
1513."Thus, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or in an action quasi in rem. The rationale for this is that in in rem and quasi in rem actions, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
Where the action is in personam, that is, one brought against a person on the basis of her personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. Summons on the defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him”.
1527
1514.If the action is in personam, extraterritorial service of summons will not be available. Hence, extraterritorial service upon a nonresident in an action for injunction, which is in personam, is not proper. Where the action is in personam, one brought against a person on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case. However, when the defendant is a nonresident, personal service of summons in the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over him.
Note: See amendment to Sec. 12 of Rule 14, authorizing, summons by publication, facsimile, and other electronic means on defendants which are foreign private juridical entities.
1528
1515.An action for injunction is a personal action, as well as an action in personam, not an action in rem or quasi in rem. As a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants, not extraterritorial service is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. In an action for injunction, the extraterritorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority
1529
1516.Modes of extraterritorial service
When the conditions for the applicability of extraterritorial service of summons are complied with, the following are the alternative modes of extraterritorial service, all of which require a prior leave of court:
1. By personal service as provided for in Sec. 6 of Rule 14 governing 'service in person on defendant';
2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; or
4. In any manner the court may deem sufficient
1530
1517.The last known address of the defendant is the actual address.
1531
1518. In an action for declaration of nullity for marriage, for example, if the respondent spouse had already actually left or abandoned the conjugal home, and is now a resident of another country, the petitioner cannot, in good faith, claim that the conjugal home is still the last known address of the respondent .
1532
1519.The personal service ( now service in person on defendant), will not have the effect of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the nonresident defendant even if the summons and the copy of the complaint are personally received by him in the country where he may be found and served. The service, in this case, is made in compliance with the requirement of due process, not for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
1533
1520.There is a settled rule that a nonresident defendant who refuses to come to the country voluntarily remains beyond the personal processes of the court which, therefore, cannot acquire jurisdiction over him.
1534
!
1521."Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if acquired at all in such an action, is obtained by the voluntary submission of the defendant or by the personal service of process upon him within the territory where the process is valid. If however, the defendant is a non resident and, remaining beyond the range of the personal process of the court, refuses to come in voluntarily, the court never acquires jurisdiction over the person at all."
1535
!
1522."When the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntary, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person even if the summons be served by publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process. No tribunal established by one State can extend its process beyond its territory so as to subject to its decisions either persons or property located in another State."
1536
1523.Be reminded that, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not pre-requisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided the the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Nevertheless summons must be served upon the defendant, not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but merely for satisfying the due process requirement. Compliance with due process is actually the underlying purpose of all modes of extraterritorial service. !
1537
1524.Application of principles
Example No. 1: An American tourist, while in the Philippines, incurred hotel bills of P2 million. Without paving his bills, he surreptitiously left the country. The hotel filed an action for a sum of money and, with leave of court, effected summons by publication. The defendant made no appearance in any form and judgment by default was rendered against him. Is he bound by the judgment?
Answer: He is not bound by the judgment because the same was rendered by the court without jurisdiction over his person. The summons by publication did not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over him. Here, the action is one in personam.
Example No. 2: Mr. D is a balikbayan, a former Filipino, and a naturalized Canadian citizen. He visited the country to attend the funeral of his father from whom he inherited a parcel of land. He obtained a loan while in the Philippines and executed a real estate mortgage on his inherited land. He left without paying the debt. An action to foreclose the mortgage was filed. How may the court obtain jurisdiction over the person of Mr. X?
Answer: There is no way. He is already out of the country. However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary and, hence, irrelevant under the facts of the case because the action for foreclosure is not an action in personam. A foreclosure suit is a quasi in rem action. In this kind of action, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required. Summons by publication or other modes of extraterritorial service under Sec. 15 of Rule 14 is enough to acquire jurisdiction over the res.
May the court, therefore, validly render a judgment in the foreclosure proceedings?
The court can. It has jurisdiction over the res as long as summons by any of the means allowed under the rules on extraterritorial service is effected. If however, upon learning of the suit he appears in the action, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. The suit, in effect, becomes one in personam
Example No. 3: Mexicano, a tourist in the Philippines, by his employment of force and intimidation, contracted a marriage with Filipina, a hotel receptionist. When Mexicano left for Mexico to visit his parents, Filipina filed an action for annulment of the marriage with damages of P3 million. With leave of court, extraterritorial service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation was effected. À copy of the summons and order of the court were also sent by registered mail to the last known address of Mexicano. The manner of summons was determined by the court to be the most sufficient under the circumstances. Mexicano did not appear in the action. The court later decreed the annulment of the marriage and awarded damages after all procedural and substantive requirements were complied with. Was the judgment validly rendered?
Answer: The judgment was validly rendered in so far as the decree of annulment is concerned. The action is one in rem since it affects the personal status of the plaintiff. In this kind of action, jurisdiction over the res is sufficient. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential in this case so, whether or not there was jurisdiction over the person of Mexicano, this fact did not affect the authority of the court to decide on the issue of annulment. !
However, the judgment of the court awarding damages to Filipina is void as to the defendant. By its nature, a claim for damages is in personam. The court is without jurisdiction to award damages unless it has first acquired jurisdiction over the person of Mexicano. The only way by which this type of jurisdiction may be acquired in the case at bar is either through service in person upon Mexicano in the Philippines or by his voluntary appearance in the action. Neither of these occurred in the case under consideration. !
1538
1525.Suits against non-resident defendants who have properties in the Philippines but are outside of the country
There are situations where a non-resident defendant has properties in the Philippines probably because he used to be either a citizen or a resident of the country. If the suit is in personam, as when the suit is for a sum of money, and the non-resident defendant is no longer found in the Philippines. summons by publication and other modes provided for in Sec 15 of Rule 14, would be ineffective to acquire jurisdiction over his person. The modes of summons under the said provision of the Rules would be available only in an action in rem or quasi in rem
Being an action in personam, the remedy is to file the suit and, at the same time, avail of the provisional remedy of attachment. Under the Rules, one ground upon which the writ of preliminary attachment may issue is in "an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines.” !
Following established principles, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant would no longer be required when the court issues a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant's properties and such properties are actually attached pursuant to the writ. The suit has assumed the character of an action quasi in rem. In this type of action, jurisdiction over the res is what is required for the court to validly try the case. After availing of extraterritorial service of summons, the suit can then proceed despite the absence of the defendant because, in this case, the property of the defendant would now be the object of judicial power.
1539
!
1526."In case the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, the remedy of the plaintiff, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction to try the case is to convert the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem by attaching the property of the defendant.The service of summons in this case (which may be by publication coupled with the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons and the court order to the last known address of the defendant), is no longer for the purposes of acquiring jurisdiction but for the compliance with the requirements of due process”
1540
1527.Attachment is not always needed where the defendant, in an action in personam, is not found in the Philippines.
Example: Where the defendant is a resident, who is temporarily out of the Philippines, attachment of his/her property in an action in personam is not necessary in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction to hear the case because the defendant may be served by substituted service. Substituted service of summons is the normal mode of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over the person of residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
Meaning, service of summons may be effected by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's (1) residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or (2) office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. Hence, the court may acquire jurisdiction over an action in personam by mere substituted service without need of attaching the property of the defendant.
1541
1528.Proceedings after service of summons
The filing of a complaint is not, in all cases, followed by the filing of an answer. There are options available to the defendant other than the filing of an answer to the complaint.
1542
1529.If there are allegations or claims in the complaint that are not spelled out with sufficient clarity or particularity, the preparation of a reasonably intelligent responsive pleading is not possible. The more viable option of the defendant in this case is not to serve and file either an answer or a motion to dismiss but to file a motion for bill of particulars. Under the Rules, a party may move for a definite statement, or for a bill of particulars of “any matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity.” The purpose of the motion is to enable the movant "properly to prepare his responsive pleading."
1543
1530.Even if the complaint's averments are clear and definite enough to allow the filing of an answer, the defendant may elect not to file an answer. He may, instead, opt to file a motion to dismiss the complaint if a ground for the dismissal exists.
1544
1531.Hence, three options are available to the defendant upon receipt of the complaint, to wit:
1. Filing of a motion for bill of particulars;
2. Filing of a motion to dismiss; or
3. Filing of an answer to the complaint.
1545
1532.Motion for Bill of Particulars
Although, under the Rules, the defendant is required to answer the complaint within 15 days from service of summons, the defendant need not file his answer to the complaint within the required period if there are matters in the complaint, which are vague or ambiguous or not averred with sufficient definiteness. Instead, he may file a motion for bill of particulars .
1546
!
1533.As long as the allegations in a complaint make out a cause of action, the ambiguity in some allegations of complaint or the failure to allege facts with sufficient particularity does not justify the filing of a motion to dismiss. The proper remedy is to file a motion for bill of particulars.
1547
1534.It must be made clear that a motion for bill of particulars is not directed only to a complaint. It is a motion that may be addressed to any pleading which, in the perception of the movant, contains matters which are not alleged with sufficient definiteness or particularity.
1548
1535.When to file the motion
A motion for bill of particulars is to be filed before responding to a pleading. The period to file the motion refers to the period for filing the responsive pleading in the Rules. Thus, where the motion for bill of particulars is directed to a complaint, the motion should be generally filed within 15 days after service of summons. If the motion is directed to a counterclaim or cross-claim, then the same must be filed within 10 days from service of the counterclaim or cross-claim.
1549
1536.In case of a reply to which no responsive pleading is provided for by the Rules, the motion for bill of particulars must be filed within 10 days from the service of said reply.
1550
1537.Purpose of the motion for Bill of Particulars
The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars is to seek an order from the court directing the pleader to submit a bill of particulars which avers matters with “sufficient definiteness or particularity” to enable the movant to properly prepare his responsive pleading.
1551
1538.The motion is not availed of to enable the movant to prepare for trial or to discover the evidence of the adverse party. For such purpose, the appropriate tools are the discovery procedures from Rules 23 to 29 and the mandatory pre-trial under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. (#1743, interrogatories to parties)
1552
1539.In less technical terms, a function of a bill of particulars is to clarify the allegations in the pleading so an adverse party may be informed with certainty of the exact character of the cause of action or defense. Without the clarifications sought by the motion, the movant may be deprived of the opportunity to submit an intelligent responsive pleading
1553
!
1540.It would not be proper for a motion for bill of particulars to call for the production of the particulars constituting malice, intent, knowledge or condition of the mind. Under the Rules, such matters may be averred generally. To require a pleader to do so would be to require the statement of evidentiary facts in a pleading. The Rules mandates the omission of statements of mere evidentiary facts.
1554
!
1541.It would not, however, be incorrect to move for a bill of particulars to require the averment of the particular circumstances of fraud or mistake. Under the Rules, such matters must be alleged with particularity. It is submitted, however, that when the omission of the particulars constituting fraud results into an absence of one or more elements of the cause of action involving fraud, omission could give rise to a failure to state a cause of action.
1555
1542.A motion for bill of particulars to require a pleader to set forth matters showing the jurisdiction of a court to render judgment is not proper. The Rule is clear: In pleading a judgment or decision, it is sufficient to aver the same without setting forth matters showing jurisdiction to render it.
The rule applies in pleading a judgment or decision, not only of a domestic court, but also of a foreign court. It, likewise, applies to a judgment or decision of a quasi-judicial tribunal, or a board or officer.
1556
1543.A motion for bill of particulars filed for the purpose requiring the pleader to specify the details leading to the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent is not proper because under the Rules, a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
1557
1544.The Court ruled that an allegation that the “defendant acted ‘in unlawful concert’ with the other defendant in illegally amassing assets, property and funds in amounts disproportionate to the latter's income,” is a proper subject of a motion for bill of particulars.
Plaintiff is bound to clarify the specific nature, manner and extent of the alleged collaboration between the defendants. The allegation in the complaint does not actually state the ultimate facts to show the alleged "unlawful concert.” Allegations couched in general terms are not statements of ultimate facts.
1558
!
1545.Allegations couched in general terms are not statements of ultimate facts.
1559
1546.Purpose of a motion for bill of particulars in a criminal case
In a criminal case, the purposes of a motion for bill of particulars are to enable the movant to (1) properly plead, and (2) prepare for trial.
1560
1547.Requirements for the motion
Aside from the requirements for a motion as set forth in Rule 15, the motion shall point out or specify the
1. defects complained of,
2. paragraphs wherein they are contained. and
3. details desired.
1561
1548. Action of the court
1. Upon receipt of the motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring the same to the attention of the court.
2. The motion having been brought to the attention of the court, it has three possible options, namely,
1. to deny the motion outright,
2. to grant the motion outright, or
3. to hold a hearing on the motion or allow the parties the opportunity to be heard.
1562
!
1549.The options available to the court disclose that a hearing is not mandatory before it denies or grants the motion, the holding of a hearing being one that is addressed to judicial discretion.
1563
1550.Compliance with the order
If the motion for bill of particulars is granted, in whole or in part, the court shall order the pleader to submit a bill of particulars to the pleading to which the motion is directed.
The compliance must be effected within 10 days from notice of the order, unless a different period is fixed by the court. Compliance with the order is not necessarily within 10 days from notice of the order if the court fixes a different period for compliance.
1564
1551. In complying with the order, the pleader may file the bill of particulars or a more definite statement either in
1. a separate pleading, or
2. in the form of an amended pleading.
In either case, a copy thereof is required to be served upon the adverse party
1565
!
1552.Bill of particulars as part of the pleading
The bill of particulars submitted becomes part of pleading for which it is intended
1566
1553.Effect of non-compliance or insufficient compliance with the order of the court
If the order is not obeyed or if there is an insufficient compliance of the order, the court has the following options:
1. to order the striking out of the pleading,
2. to order the striking out of the portions of the pleading to which the order was directed, or
3. to make such other order it may deem just .
1567
!
1554.Stay of period to file responsive pleading
A motion for bill of particulars is a mere motion and not a pleading. Whether or not the motion of the movant is granted,he may still file his responsive pleading. When he files a motion for bill of particulars, the period to file the responsive pleading is stayed or interrupted.
1568
1555.After service of the bill of particulars or after notice of the denial of his motion, the movant may file his responsive pleading within the period to which he was entitled at the time the motion for bill of particulars was filed. !
If he has still 11 days to file his responsive pleading at the time the motion for bill of particulars was filed, then he has the same number of days to file his responsive pleading from the notice of the denial of his motion. This is because under the Rules, the filing of a motion for bill of particulars stays the period to file a responsive pleading.
1569
1556.If the movant has less than five days to file his pleading after service of the bill of particulars or after notice of the denial of his motion, the period to file his pleading shall, nevertheless, be not less than five days in any event.
Thus, from notice of the denial of his motion, the minimum period he has to serve and file his responsive pleading is five days even if only one day is left for him to file his pleading at the time the motion for bill of particulars is filed.
1570
1557.Motion to dismiss
Assuming that the allegations in the complaint have been made clear and particularized by the filing of a bill of particulars, the defendant may elect not to file his answer immediately. He may first explore the possibility of filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 16. If there is no ground for a motion to dismiss, he has to file his answer.
1571
1558.While the filing of a motion to dismiss is not prohibited, the remedy being an integral part of the Rules of Court, the current policy of the Supreme Court is not to encourage the filing of a motion to dismiss but, to file an answer to the complaint.
1572
!
1559.Thus, within one day from receipt of the complaint, summons shall be prepared which shall contain a reminder to the defendant to observe restraint in filing a motion to dismiss and instead allege the grounds thereof as defenses in the answer.
1573
1560.A motion to dismiss is not a pleading
A motion to dismiss is not a pleading. It is merely a motion. Under the Rules, a motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading.
1574
1561. A motion is not one of those specifically designated as a pleading under the Rules of Court.
1575
!
1562.Hypothetical admissions of a motion to dismiss
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint
1576
1563.A claim that a complaint fails to state a cause of action asserts that even if the complaint's allegations were true, the plaintiff would still be in no position to proceed against the defendant.
1577
1564.However, the hypothetical admission extends only to such matters of fact that have been sufficiently pleaded and not to mere epithets charging fraud, allegations of legal conclusions or erroneous statements of law, inferences from facts not stated, matters of evidence or irrelevant matters.
1578
!
1565.Only deemed hypothetically admitted are material allegations, not conclusions.
1579
1566.An allegation that a contract is an "equitable mortgage" is a conclusion and not a material allegation.Hence, it is not deemed admitted by the motion to dismiss.
1580
1567.A hypothetical admission could be illustrated, Thus: If the plaintiff files an action for damages against the defendant who files a motion to dismiss, the defendant, in effect says that even assuming the facts to be true as alleged by the plaintiff, the latter has failed to show that he has a right to relief because his action has prescribed or that the court, where the action was filed, has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.
1581
!
1568.The filing of a motion to dismiss does not amount to an actual admission of the material allegations in the complaint. The admission is not the judicial admission contemplated in the Rules of Court. As the jurisprudence puts it, the admission is merely "hypothetical."
1582
1569.Omnibus motion
When a motion to dismiss is filed, all grounds for objection available at the time the motion is filed must be invoked in the motion. This is required under the “Omnibus Motion Rule.” The objections which are not invoked are deemed waived.
1583
1570.The Rules provides that "a motion attacking a Pleading, order, judgment or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived." A motion to dismiss is an "Omnibus Motion" and, thus, covered by the "Omnibus Motion Rule” because, by its nature, it attacks a pleading by praying for its dismissal.
1584
1571.The 'Omnibus Motion Rule' applies only when a motion to dismiss is filed. If no motion to dismiss is filed, any of the grounds for dismissal under Rule 16 may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer. No defense is waived in this case because no motion to dismiss was filed. (Q258)
In relation to the waiver of defenses, there is indeed an unmistakable difference in the legal eff between filing and not filing a motion to dismiss.
1585
!
1572.Thus, it has been held that if no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided in the Rules may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. (Q259)
1586
!
1573.A preliminary hearing undeniably is subject to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court's order granting or dispensing with the need for a preliminary hearing may not be corrected by certiorari absent any showing that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or in excess thereof or with such grave abuse of discretion as would amount to lack of jurisdiction.
1587
!
1574.While the court may elect to hold a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses raised in the answer, such a hearing is not necessary when the affirmative defense is failure to state a cause of action, and that it is, in fact, error for the court to hold a preliminary hearing to determine the existence of external facts outside the complaint. This is because the sufficiency of the statement of the cause of action is determined on the basis only of the facts alleged in the complaint. (hence an exception) (Q259)
1588
1575.A preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses may be allowed only when no motion to dismiss has been filed. (Q259)
Section 6, however, must be construed in the light of Sec. 3 of the same Rule, which requires courts to resolve a motion to dismiss and prohibits deferment of such resolution on the ground of indubitability.
1589
!
1576.Thus, Sec. 6 disallows a preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses once a motion to dismiss has been filed (one cannot avail both.j) (Q259)
1590
1577.Contents and form of the motion to dismiss
The motion to dismiss, like any other motion, shall, state the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is based and, if required by the Rules or necessary to prove the facts alleged therein, it shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and papers
The motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant and shall contain a notice of hearing addressed to all parties concerned. Such notice shall verify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than 10 days after the filing of the motion
1591
!
1578.The notice requirement in a motion is mandatory and its absence renders the motion defective. As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the filing of the requisite pleading
1592
1579.Time to file the motion to dismiss
Within the time for filing the answer but before filing said answer, a motion to dismiss may be filed on any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 16.
1593
1580. A motion to dismiss that is submitted after the answer has been filed, is considered filed out of time and the defending party is deemed estopped from filing the motion to dismiss. As a rule, a motion to dismiss is not to be entertained after an answer has been filed
1594
1581.When a motion to dismiss may be filed even after the answer has been served and filed
The rule, that a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 should be filed within the time for the filing of an answer, is not absolute. A motion to dismiss may be filed even after the filing of the answer, and will not be considered filed out of time if the ground raised in the motion is either of the following and such ground appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record: (Q271)!
1. that there is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
3. that the action is barred by a prior judgment; or
4. that the action is barred by the statute of limitations
1595
1582.Any of the above grounds for dismissal which supplies a justification for the court to dismiss a complaint or for filing a motion to dismiss after an answer has been filed, must appear either from the pleadings or the evidence on record.
This rule implies than an action may still be dismissed on a ground which only became known after the filing of an answer as when the evidence discloses that the action has already prescribed. (Q261)!
1596
1583. Under the Rules, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. The above grounds (1582) do not only supply exceptions to the rule that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived. They are also the grounds which allow courts to dismiss cases motu proprio provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record (Q271)
1597
!
1584.Note again that the ground for dismissal must be evident from the pleadings or evidence on record before a dismissal may be effected by the court on its own motion (262)
1598
1585.Grounds for motion to dismiss
A motion to dismiss may be filed on any of the following grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
3. That the venue is improperly laid;
4. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
5. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
6. That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
7. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
8. That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished;
9. That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and
10. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
1599
1586.Laches as a ground for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16
Under paragraph (h) (8 above) of Sec 1 of Rule 16, one of the grounds for the dismissal of an action is where a claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished. The Court declared: The language of the rule, particularly on the relation of the words "abandoned" and "otherwise extinguished” to the phrase "claim or demand deemed set forth in the plaintiff's pleading," is broad enough to include, within its ambit, the defense of bar by laches.
However, when a party moves for the dismissal of the complaint based on laches, the trial court must set a hearing on the motion where the parties shall submit, not only their arguments on the questions of law, but also their evidence on the questions of fact involved. Thus, being factual in nature, the elements of laches must be proved or disproved through the presentation of evidence by the parties.
1600
1587.Being factual in nature, the elements of laches must be proved or disproved through the presentation of evidence by the parties.
1601
1588.Res judicata as a ground for a motion to dismiss
In its literal meaning, res judicata refers to a matter adjudged.
This doctrine bars the relitigation of the same claim between the parties (claim preclusion or bar by a prior judgment).
It also bars the relitigation of the same issue on a different claim between the same parties (issue preclusion or conclusiveness of judgment).
It is applicable in civil cases and recognized in criminal proceedings
1602
1589.Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit. The principle upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them .
1603
1590.The public at large also has an interest in seeing that rights and liabilities once established remain fixed. If a court quiets title to land, for example, everyone should be able to rely on the finality of that determination. Otherwise, many business transactions would be clouded by uncertainty. Thus, the most important purpose of res judicata is to provide repose for both the party litigants and the public. As the Supreme Court has observed, “res judicata thus encourages reliance on judicial decision, bars vexatious litigation, and frees the courts to resolve other disputes”
1604
1591.Thus, the most important purpose of res judicata is to provide repose for both the party litigants and the public.
1605
1592.The doctrine of res judicata is set forth in Sec. 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This provision comprehends two distinct aspects:
1. bar by former or prior judgment (claim preclusion), and
2. conclusiveness of judgment (issue preclusion).
1606
1593.Elements of res judicata (in relation to the concept of “bar by a prior judgment")
The concept of res judicata has the following elements:
1. the former judgment must be final;
2. the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
3. the judgment must be on the merits; and
4. there must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action
1607
!
1594.The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties.
1608
1595.There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.
1609
1596.Elements of res judicata (in relation to "conclusiveness of judgment")
The elements of res judicata in relation to the concept of conclusiveness of judgment are the following:
1. The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
2. The decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter;
3. The disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and the
4. There must be, as between the first and second action, identity of parties and subject matter but no identity of causes of action.
1610
1597.Distinctions between the two types of res judicata
Jurisprudentially, res judicata by "bar by a prior judgment" operates as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. It does not primarily refer to the issues already determined but to the claim or cause of action which is the same in the first and second action. In traditional terminology, this aspect is known as merger or bar; in modern terminology, it is called claim preclusion.
On the other hand, res judicata by "conclusiveness of judgment” precludes the relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. This is traditionally known as collateral estoppel; in modern terminology, it is called issue preclusion. It does not bar a different case between the same parties since there is no required identity of causes of action in this type of res judicata. What it bars is the relitigation of an issue already resolved with finality in a previous case between the same parties.
1611
!
1598.There is only identity of parties and subject matter in res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment but there is no identity of causes of action. Since there is no identity of causes of action, the judgment in the first case is conclusive only as to those matters actually and contravened and determined.
1612
1599. Conclusiveness of judgment applies where there is a substantial identity of parties in the first and second cases, but there is no identity of causes of action. Simply put conclusiveness of judgments bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. Thus, if in a previous case between the parties, it has already been determined who participated in the illegal strike and defied the return-to-work order, such fact can no longer be relitigated in a subsequent case between the parties
1613
1600.Hence, where in a previous action to collect a sum of money, the court had already finally resolved the action in favor of the defendant, a subsequent complaint based on the same cause of action between the same parties shall be barred by a prior judgment. Also, if the court has resolved the case of an accion reivindicatoria in favor of the defendant with finality the same case of accion reivindicatoria between the same parties, if brought later by the losing party, shall be barred by a prior judgment.
1614
!
1601.Thus, if AA files an action for forcible entry, involving the same land, against BB, the latter can no longer invoke ownership of the land as a defense, if the issue of ownership has already been finally determined in a prior case of accion reivindicatoria between the parties. The judgment on the issue of ownership is already conclusive between them. Note that in this illustration, there is no identity of causes of action but the matter of ownership can no longer be relitigated in a subsequent case between the parties even if such case rests on a different cause of action.
1615
1602.Application of res judicata to quasi-judicial proceedings
It has been held that the rule on res judicata, which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority, applies as well to the judicial and quasi judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers.
1616
1603.The Director of Lands is a quasi-judicial officer. As such officer, his decisions and orders rendered pursuant to his quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the Doctrine of Res Judicata
1617
1604.No res judicata in criminal proceedings
Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and, thus, has no bearing on criminal proceedings.
Hence, the argument that the dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation bars further reinvestigation because of the doctrine of res judicata is untenable. Even if the argument were to be expanded to contemplate “ res judicata in prison grey”, or the criminal law concept of double jeopardy. The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being part of the trial
1618
1605.Dismissal on the ground of litis pendentia
Litis pendencia is a Latin term, which literally means “ a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decision as lis pendens and auter action pendant.
As a ground for dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits
1619
!
1606. The requisites in order that an action may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia are:
1. the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions;
2. the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other
1620
1607.Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses
If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds provided for dismissal, under Rule 16, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
1621
!
1608.Implied under Sec. 6 of Rule 16 is the rule that the grounds for a motion to dismiss are not waived, if the defendant fails to file a motion to dismiss, because he may still avail of the defenses under Rule 16 as affirmative defenses in his Answer.
1622
!
1609.From the very tenor of the rule, it appears that the preliminary hearing authorized on the affirmative defense raised in the answer applies only if no motion to dismiss has been filed. As a rule, a preliminary hearing is not authorized when a motion to dismiss has been filed.When filed, the hearing to be conducted would be the regular hearing of the motion under Sec. 4 of Rule 15 and Sec. 2, Rule 16, and not a preliminary hearing under Sec. 6 of Rule 16.
1623
1610.Remedy of the defendant if the motion to dismiss is denied
If the motion to dismiss is denied, the movant shall file his answer within the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled, at the time of serving his motion, but not less than five days in any event. This period shall be computed from the receipt of the notice of denial.
1624
!
1611." As a rule, the filing of an answer and going through the usual trial process, and later, the filing of a timely appeal from an adverse judgment are the proper remedies against a denial of a motion to dismiss. The filing of an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss is not the remedy prescribed by existing rules. The order of denial, being interlocutory, is not appealable by express provision of Sec. 1(b), Rule 41.
1625
1612.When certiorari is available
The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss is not a license for the defendant to file a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals. An order denying a motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari as the defendant still has an adequate remedy before the trial court - i.e., to file an answer and to subsequently appeal the case if he loses the case. This is, however, only a general rule.
In order to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the denial of the motion to dismiss must have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
1626
1613.Remedies of the plaintiff if the motion to dismiss is granted
If the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed. The plaintiff, then, has several options.
1. Depending upon the ground for the dismissal of the action, the plaintiff may simply refile the complaint.
For instance, if the ground for dismissal was anchored on improper venue, the plaintiff may file the action in the proper venue.
2. He may appeal from the order of dismissal where the ground relied upon is one which bars the refiling of the complaint like res judicata, prescription, extinguishment of the obligation or violation of the statute of frauds. (Q266)
Since the complaint cannot be refiled, the dismissal is with prejudice. Under the Rules, it is the order dismissing an action without prejudice which cannot be appealed from. Conversely, where the dismissal is with prejudice, an appeal from the order of dismissal is not precluded.
However, where the ground for dismissal, for instance, is the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, the plaintiff may simply file the complaint anew but since the dismissal is without prejudice to its refiling, the order of dismissal cannot be appealed from under the terms of Sec. 1(g) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Where the ground for dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the dismissal is without prejudice to the refiling of the complaint. Following the tenor of Sec. 1(g) of Rule 41, an order dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a dismissal without prejudice and, hence, no appeal may be had from the order of dismissal.
Despite Sec. 1 of Rule 41, appeal may, nevertheless, be taken from the order dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in a situation contemplated under Sec. 8 of Rule 40. This provision specifically allows, by necessary implication, an appeal from orders dismissing cases on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The tenor of Sec. 8 of Rule 40, therefore, operates to furnish an exception to the general rule enunciated in Sec. 1 of Rule 41. This situation, it must be noted, applies in a dismissal made in the Municipal Trial Court and not to a dismissal in the Regional Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff may also avail of a petition for certiorari. This remedy is available if the court gravely abuses its discretion in a manner amounting to lack of jurisdiction and is the appropriate remedy in those instances when the dismissal is without prejudice (since the remedy of appeal cannot be availed of.j)
1627
1614.Under the Rules, it is the order dismissing an action without prejudice which cannot be appealed from. Conversely, where the dismissal is with prejudice, an appeal from the order of dismissal is not precluded.
1628
!
1615.When complaint cannot be refiled after an order granting motion to dismiss
An order granting a motion to dismiss shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim if the dismissal is based on any of the following grounds
1. The cause of action is barred by a prior judgment;
2. The cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations;
3. The claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and
4. The claim, on which the action is founded, is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds .
1629
!
1616.Where the defendant is barred from refiling the the action, the remedy, under the circumstances, is to file an appeal because. Since the dismissal bars the refiling of the same action or claim, such dismissal is one with prejudice, which under the Rules, is subject to the right of appeal. It is an order dismissing an action without prejudice which is not appealable.
1630
!
1617.Effect of dismissal of complaint on the counterclaim
The dismissal of a complaint shall not prevent the prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer of the defendant.
1631
1618.Thus, where the defendant pleads a counterclaim in his answer, and after the preliminary hearing on his affirmative defenses, the court dismisses the complaint, it would be error for the court to dismiss the counterclaim.
1632
1619.Hearing of the motion to dismiss
A motion to dismiss is a litigated motion and, hence, should be heard. In the hearing, the parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved if such evidence is available at the time of the hearing. If the case goes to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing of the motion to dismiss shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same
1633
1620.The need for a formal/trial-type hearing on a motion to dismiss
Insofar as hearings on a motion to dismiss are concerned, the Rules of Court sanctions trial-type proceedings in the sense that the parties are allowed to present evidence and argue their respective positions before the court. The Court ruled that the issues raised in a motion to dismiss have to be determined in accordance with the evidence and facts presented, not on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, and that the courts could not afford to dismiss a litigant's complaint on the basis of half-baked conclusions with no evidence to show for it. In emphasizing the need for a formal hearing, the Court held that the demand for a clear factual finding to justify the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be dispensed with. The Rules allows, not only a hearing on the motion to dismiss, but also for the parties to submit their evidence on the questions of fact involved, which may be litigated extensively at the hearing or hearings on the motion. The parties are even to allowed rebut the opposing parties' evidence. The hearings should provide the parties the forum for full presentation of their sides. Moreover, the extent of such hearings would depend on its satisfaction that the ground in filing the motion to dismiss has been established or not established.
1634
1621.Dismissal by the plaintiff; Dismissal by mere notice of dismissal
Before the service of an answer or motion for summary judgment, a complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal.
Upon the filing of the notice of dismissal, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal.
1635
!
1622.It is not the order confirming the dismissal which operates to dismiss the complaint. The order merely confirms a dismissal already effected by the filing of the notice of dismissal. Since the order issued by the court merely confirms the dismissal, it follows that the Court does not have to approve the dismissal because it has no discretion on the matter. Before an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served upon the plaintiff, the dismissal by the plaintiff by the filing of a notice is a matter of right.
It is submitted that the dismissal should occur as of the date the notice is filed by the plaintiff and, not as of the date the court issues the order confirming the dismissal.
1636
1623.Note that if the action is a class suit, the rule appears to be different. Its dismissal must be with the approval of the court even if the defendant has not yet served a responsive pleading or a motion for summary judgment.
1637
1624.Dismissal without prejudice; exceptions
A dismissal made by the filing of a notice of dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice, i.e., the complaint can be refiled. This is the general rule.
The dismissal will, however, be one with prejudice in any of the following situations:
1. the notice of dismissal by the plaintiff provides that the dismissal is with prejudice; or
2. the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same case in a court of competent jurisdiction based on or including the same claim
1638
1625.If the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal providing therein a reason that prevents the refiling of the complaint, the dismissal must be deemed one with prejudice even if the notice does not state that the dismissal is with prejudice. !
This happens when, for instance, the notice provides that the plaintiff recognizes the fact of prescription or extinguishment of the obligation of the defendant or for reasons stated in Sec. 5 of Rule 16 as when the action is barred by res judicata, statute of limitations or that the claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished.
1639
1626.Two-dismissal rule
The 'two-dismissal rule applies when the plaintiff has
1. twice dismissed actions,
2. based on or including the same claim,
3. in a court of competent jurisdiction.
1640
1627.The second notice of dismissal will bar the refiling of the action because it will operate as an adjudication of the claim upon the merits. In other words, the claim may only be filed twice, the first being the claim embodied in the original complaint.
1641
1628.As a rule, the dismissal by mere notice is without prejudice, the same claim may be refiled. However, if the refiled claim or complaint is dismissed again through a second notice of dismissal, that second notice triggers the application of the two-dismissal rule and the dismissal is to be deemed one with prejudice because it is considered as an adjudication upon the merits.
For the above rule to apply, the complaints must have been dismissed in a court of competent jurisdiction.
1642
!
1629.To illustrate: PP files, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, an action to collect P300,000 from DD. The complaint was dismissed when PP immediately filed a notice of dismissal. The same claim was again filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Before DD served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, PP filed a notice of dismissal.
Does the two-dismissal rule apply? It does not. The first court, the RTC was not a court of competent jurisdiction because the claim was below its jurisdictional amount.
1643
1630.The "two-dismissal rule" under the Rules of Civil Procedure will not apply if the dismissal was done at the instance of the defendant.
1644
!
1631.Dismissal by the plaintiff by filing a motion to dismiss
Once either an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served on the plaintiff, the dismissal is no longer a matter of right and will require the filing of a motion to dismiss, not a mere notice of dismissal. The motion to dismiss will now be subject to the approval of the court which will decide on the motion upon such terms and conditions as are just. The dismissal under the Rules is no longer a matter of right on the part of the plaintiff but a matter of judicial discretion.
The dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice except if the order of dismissal specifies that it is with prejudice
1645
1632.Dismissal due to the fault of plaintiff
A complaint may be dismissed even if the plaintiff has no desire to have the same be dismissed. The dismissal in this case will be through reasons attributed to his fault.
Sec. 3 of Rule 17 provides the following grounds for dismissal:
1. the failure of plaintiff, without justifiable reasons, to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief;
2. the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, also called non prosequitur;
3. the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Rules of Court; or
4. the failure of the plaintiff to comply with any order of the court.
1646
1633.The dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff may be done by the court on its own motion (motu proprio) or upon a motion filed by the defendant
1647
1634. A dismissal on the basis of non prosequitur means that the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptness or unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute.
1648
!
1635.Note that the failure to prosecute must be for an "unreasonable length of time." If the delay or the continuance sought is not for an unreasonable length of time a dismissal on the basis of non prosequitur is not proper
1649
!
1636.The failure to prosecute is called non prosequitur. "The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute”.
1650
!
1637.When there are no justifiable reasons that explain the plaintiff's absence during the presentation of his evidence in chief, the court may dismiss the complaint. The use of the word, "may" denotes its directory nature and operates to confer upon the court the discretion to decide between the dismissal of the case on this technicality
1651
1638.Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff is with prejudice
The dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff shall have the effect of an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise, declared by the court. Hence, as a rule, it is a dismissal with prejudice. The dismissal under this provision bars the refiling of the case.
1652
!
1639.Hence, if the case was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the same, the order of dismissal is deemed a final order. Since the order is a final one, the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal from the order of dismissal and not to file a petition for certiorari
1653
!
1640.Effect of dismissal upon a counterclaim already pleaded
If a counterclaim has already been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, and the court grants the said motion to dismiss, the is the dismissal "shall be limited to the complaint”.
The phraseology of the provision is clear: the counterclaim is not dismissed, whether it is a compulsory or a permissive counterclaim because the rule makes no distinction.
1654
1641.The defendant, if he so desires, may prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action. If he wants the counterclaim to be prosecuted in the same action, he should manifest his preference to the court within 15 days from notice of the motion to dismiss served by the plaintiff .
1655
1642.Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
Rule 17 shall apply also to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint . A voluntary dismissal by the claimant by notice of dismissal, shall be made before a responsive pleading or a motion for summary judgment is served, or, if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing
1656
1643.Concept, nature, and purpose of a pre-trial
Specifically, under the Rules, a pre-trial is a procedural device held prior to the trial for the court to consider the following purposes:
1. The possibility of an amicable settlement or a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;
2. The simplification of the issues;
3. The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleading;
4. The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
5. The limitation of the number of witnesses;
6. The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
7. The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist
8. The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
9. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of action
1657
1644.Under the current rule, the court’s authority is confined to a mere determination of the propriety of rendering a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment. It is submitted that the requisite motion be filed and heard pursuant to Rule 34 (Judgment on the Pleadings) and Rule 35 (Summary Judgments) before judgment is to be rendered.
1658
1645.From the above, it may be inferred that a pre-trial is a procedural device which ultimately aims to relieve congested court dockets by encouraging settlement of cases.
After the disclosure and marking of evidence during the pre-trial, parties become aware of the strength and weaknesses of their cases.This awareness may make parties feel that settlement is the only alternative.
Even in those cases where parties refuse to reach an amicable settlement, the pre-trial serves to facilitate the proceedings by limiting and simplifying the issues in controversy, limiting the number of witnesses and dispensing with unnecessary proof through admissions and stipulations of facts and of documents.
1659
1646.Jurisprudence considers a pre-trial is one designed to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, ascertain the facts relative to the issues and enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and, thus, prevent the said trials to be carried on in the dark. It is intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised.
Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact that they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters. A pre-trial is not only intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties. It also takes the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.
1660
!
1647.The pre-trial is mandatory in civil cases. It is mandatory in order to realize the objective of simplifying, abbreviating, and expediting trial
1661
!
1648.A pre-trial is also held in criminal cases. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, pre-trial is also mandatory
1662
!
1649.Preliminary conference
A preliminary conference, the equivalent of a pre-trial in proceedings where no trial is conducted, is, likewise, mandatory in both civil and criminal cases under the Rules on Procedure.
1663
!
1650.A preliminary conference may be held in the Court of Appeals, but such conference is not mandatory. It may even apply to the Supreme Court whenever the Court decides to do so. Rule 48 (Preliminary Conference) is one of the provisions applicable to the Supreme Court in original cases.
1664
1651.Effect of failure to conduct a pre-trial
The failure of a judge to conduct a pre-trial conference in a civil case is contrary to elementary rules of procedure. The Rules imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
“It is elementary and plain that the holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Such ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty”
1665
1652.Referral to the Philippine Mediation Center
At the start of the preliminary conference, the judge is mandated to refer the parties and/or their counsels to the mediation unit of the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for purposes of mediation. If mediation fails, the judge will schedule the continuance of the preliminary conference. This rule applies to Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao City, and other places where Philippine Mediation Center Units may be further organized and designated
1666
1653.How pre-trial is called; filing of motion by plaintiff
In a civil case, it is not the court which initiates the setting of the case for a pre-trial. It is set at the instance of the plaintiff.
Under the Rules, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff, not of the defendant, to promptly file a motion to set the case for pre-trial. This motion is an ex parte motion. This means that the motion is not a litigated motion, i.e., it need not be the subject of a hearing.
1667
1654.When motion is to be filed by plaintiff
The ex parte motion to set the case for pre-trial is to be made by the plaintiff after the last pleading has been served and filed. Specifically, the motion is to be filed within five days after the last pleading joining the issues has been served and filed.
1668
!
1655.Role of the branch clerk of court
If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of pre-trial.
1669
1656.The meaning of 'last pleading'
The last permissible pleading that a party can file is the reply to the answer to the last pleading asserting a claim.
The claim could be the original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint. If an answer is filed and served in response to these claims, the pleading in response to these answer is the reply which is to be filed within 10 days from the service of the pleading responded to.
1670
1657.Where the last pleading has not yet been served and filed, the case is not yet ready for pre-trial. However, the 'last pleading’ need not be literally construed as one having been served and filed. For purposes of the pre-trial, the expiration of the period for filing the last pleading, without it having been served and filed, is sufficient (Q274)
1671
1658.Notice of pre-trial
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on the counsel of the party, if the latter is represented by counsel. Otherwise, the notice shall be served on the party himself. The counsel is charged with the duty of notifying his client of the date, time and place of the pre-trial.
1672
1659.The present rule simplifies the procedure since the notice of pre-trial is now served on the counsel, and service is made on the party only if he has no counsel.
1673
1660.Notice is so important that it would be grave abuse of discretion for the court to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte for failure of the defendant to appear before the pre-trial who did not receive, through his counsel, a notice of pre-trial. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for a court to consider a party notified of the pre-trial and that there is no longer a need to send notice of pre-trial merely because it was his counsel who suggested the date of pre-trial. (hence, even if the counsel suggested the date of the pre-trial, notice is still required to be served.j)
1674
1661.Appearance of parties and counsels in the pre-trial
It shall be the duty of both the parties and their counsels to appear at the pre-trial
Mediation is a part of pre-trial and failure of the plaintiff to appear therein merits sanction on the part of the absent party.
1675
!
1662.Effect of failure to appear by the plaintiff
The failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. This dismissal shall be with prejudice except when the court orders otherwise
1676
!
1663.Since the dismissal of the action shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise provided, the same shall have the effect of an adjudication on the merits, thus, final. The remedy of the plaintiff, therefore, is to appeal from the order of dismissal . An order dismissing an action with prejudice is appealable.
1677
!
1664.Since appeal is available, certiorari is not the remedy because the application of a petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is conditioned upon the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
1678
1665.Jurisprudence affirms that an order of dismissal based on failure to appear at the pre-trial is with prejudice unless the order itself states otherwise. In fact, the trial court is not required to explicitly state that the dismissal is with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is to be considered an adjudication on the merits of the case, where the proper remedy is appeal under Rule 41, not a petition for certiorari
1679
1666.Effect of failure to appear by the defendant
The failure of the defendant to appear in the pre-trial shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and for the court to render judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by the plaintiff !
The former rule provided that the defendant who fails to appear in the pre-trial may be considered "as in default." These terms are no longer used under the current Rules. As it is now, there is no default for failure to appear in a pre-trial.
1680
!
1667.There is no default for failure to appear in a pre-trial. The term "default" is identified with the failure to file an answer and not failure to appear in court.
1681
!
1668.The order of the court allowing the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte does not dispose of the case with finality. The order is, therefore, merely interlocutory; hence, not appealable. Under the Rules, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. The defendant who feels aggrieved by the order may move for the reconsideration of the order, and if the denial (of the MR) is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, he may file a petition for certiorari.
1682
1669.How non-appearance is excused
The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown for such non-appearance or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into any of the following matters:
1. an amicable settlement,
2. alternative modes of dispute resolution, and
3. stipulations or admissions of facts and documents
1683
1670.The phraseology of the provision suggests that it is not sufficient for the written authority to give the representative the power to enter into only one of the matters mentioned in Rule 18, as when the only authority granted is to enter amicable settlement. The authority must also confer upon the representative the power to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and enter into stipulations or admissions of facts. An incomplete authority does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules and should be deemed the equivalent of having no authority at all.
1684
1671.The logical meaning of the rule dictates that the written authority given to the representative be coupled with an explanation showing cause for a party's non-appearance. Common reason suggests that having a written authority but without a justification for a party's absence or vice versa would not be in accord with the spirit of Rules.
1685
1672.The written authority must be in the form of a special power of attorney. Entering into an amicable settlement for a client, who is the principal in the attorney-client relationship, involves entering into a compromise. Substantive law is explicit: “Special power of attorney are necessary to compromise, to submit questions to arbitration
1686
1673.Procedural rules, likewise, prohibit an attorney to compromise his client's litigation or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim, but the full amount in cash, without a “special authority.”
1687
1674.Appearance of parties and their counsel at the pre-trial conference, along with the filing of a corresponding pre-trial brief, is mandatory. It is a duty. Non-appearance cannot be excused.!
The Rules, allows only two exceptions:
(1) a valid excuse; and
(2) appearance of a representative on behalf of party, who is fully authorized in writing, to enter an amicable settlement, submit to alternative m of dispute resolution, and enter into stipulation admissions of facts and documents
1688
1675.Pre-trial brief; filing
The parties shall file with the court their respective pre-trial briefs which should be received at least three day before the date of the pre-trial. This pre-trial brief shall be served on the adverse party in such manner that will ensure his receipt also at least three days before the date of the pre-trial.
1689
1676. The pre-trial brief shall contain the following matters:
1. A statement of their willingness to enter into an amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;
2. A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
3. The issues to be tried or resolved;
4. The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purposes thereof;
5. A manifestation of their having availed of or their intention to avail of the discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
6. The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies.
The pre-trial brief shall include a manifestation of a party's having availed of or the intention to avail of discovery procedures.
1690
1677.Identification and marking of evidence
It is vital to have the documents and exhibits identified and marked during the pre-trial.
The current rule establishes the policy that no evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of the party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown. !
1691
!
1678.Note that the same rule confers upon the trial court the discretion to allow the introduction of additional evidence during the trial other than those that had been previously marked and identified during the pre-trial provided there are valid grounds.
1692
1679.Legal effect of representations and statements in the pre-trial brief
The parties are bound by the representations and statements in their respective pre-trial briefs. Such representations and statements are in the nature of judicial admissions. (#1364)
1693
1680.Effect of failure to file a pre-trial brief
The failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
Hence, if it is the plaintiff who fails to file a pre-trial brief, such failure shall be cause for dismissal of the action. If it is the defendant who fails to do so, such failure shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte.
1694
1681.The dismissal of a complaint for failure to file a pre-trial brief is discretionary on the part of the trial court.
1695
!
1682.No termination of pre-trial for failure to settle
The judge should not allow the termination of pre-trial simply because of the manifestation of the parties that they cannot settle the case. Instead, he should expose the parties to the advantages of pre-trial. He must also be mindful that there are important aspects of the pre-trial that ought to be taken up to expedite the disposition of the case.
1696
1683.If all efforts to settle fail, the trial judge shall endeavor to achieve other purposes of a pre-trial like, among others, obtaining admissions or stipulations of fact.
To obtain admissions, the judge shall ask the parties to submit whatever depositions that have been taken under the Rules, the answers to written interrogatories and the answers to request for admissions by the adverse party. He may, also require the production of documents or things requested by a party and the results of the physical and mental examination of persons .
1697
1684.One Day Examination of Witness Rule
The court shall ask the parties to agree on the specific dates for continuous trial, adhere to the case flow chart determined by the court, and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates.
Adherence to the One Day Examination of Witness Rule shall be required where the witness shall be fully examined in one day only, subject to the court's discretion during the trial on whether or not to extend the examination for justifiable reasons
1698
1685.Most Important Witness Rule
Where no settlement has been effected, the court shall follow the Most Important Witness Rule, where the court shall determine the most important witnesses, limit the number of such witnesses and require the parties and/or counsels to submit to the branch clerk of court the names, addresses, contact numbers of the witnesses to be summoned by subpoena.
Note, however, that the court may also refer the case to trial by commissioner under Rule 32.
1699
!
1686.Questions are to be asked by the judge
During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised by the parties, and all questions or comments by counsel or parties must be directed to the judge to avoid hostilities between the parties
1700
1687. Pre-trial order
The pre-trial order of the court is issued upon the termination of the pre-trial. The pre-trial order shall be issued within 10 days after the termination of the pre-trial.
This order recites, in detail, the following:
1. The matters taken up in the conference;
2. The action taken thereon;
3. The amendments allowed to the pleadings; and
4. The agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. These admissions embodied in the pre-trial order are binding upon the parties and conclusive upon them
1701
1688.Should the action proceed to trial, the pre-trial order (1) defines and limits the issues to be tried, and (2) controls the subsequent course of the action, except if it is modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.
1702
1689.Implied issues are deemed included in the pre-trial order
It is true that the issues to be tried between the parties in a case shall be limited to those defined in the pre-trial order. This rule should not, however, be construed to refer only to those issues mentioned in the pre-trial order. It also includes issues that are implied from those written in the order.!
It was, thus, held that a pre-trial order is not intended to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be taken during the trial, for it is unavoidable that there are issues that are impliedly included among those listed or that may be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as much integral parts of the pre-trial order as those expressly listed
1703
1690. Distinctions between pre-trial in civil cases and pre-trial in criminal cases
1. The pre-trial in a civil case is set when the plaintiff moves ex parte to set the case for pre-trial. The pre-trial in a criminal case is ordered by the court and no motion to set the case for pre-trial is required from either the prosecution or the defense.
2. The motion to set the case for pre-trial in a civil case is made after the last pleading has been served and filed. In a criminal case, the pre-trial is ordered by the court after arraignment and within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
3. The pre-trial in a civil case considers the possibility of an amicable settlement as an important objective. The pre-trial in a criminal case does not include considering the possibility of amicable settlement of the criminal liability as one of its purposes .
4. In a civil case, the agreements and admissions made in the pre-trial are not required to be signed by both parties and their counsels. Under the Rules of Court, they are, instead, to be contained in the record of pre-trial and pre-trial order. However, it is now required that the proceedings during the preliminary conference be recorded in the “Minutes of Preliminary Conference" and signed by both parties and/or counsel. The rule allows either the party or his counsel to sign the minutes.
In a criminal case, there is a stricter procedure required. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by both the accused and counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
5. The sanctions for non-appearance in a pre-trial in a civil case are imposed upon the plaintiff and the defendant. The sanctions in a criminal cases are imposed upon the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor.
6. A pre-trial brief is specifically required to be submitted in a civil case. A pre-trial brief is not specifically required in a criminal case.
1704
1691.Preliminary conference under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Under the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, a preliminary conference shall be held not later than 30 days after the last answer is filed.
Here, the rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall apply except when inconsistent with the rules on summary procedure. The tenor of the rule indicates the mandatory nature of preliminary conference in cases subject to summary procedure. !
1705
!
1692.The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be cause for dismissal and the defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
1706
1693.If a sole defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment. This rule shall be inapplicable if one of several defendants, who are sued under a common cause of action and pleaded a common defense, shall appear at the preliminary conference. (Q277)
1707
1694.Within five days from the termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall issue an order stating the matters taken up in the conference.
1708
1695.Preliminary conference in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
A preliminary conference may be conducted in the Court of Appeals, but the same is not mandatory.
The Rules provide that at anytime during the pendency of the case, the court may call the parties and their counsels to a preliminary conference for the following purposes:
1. To consider the possibility of an amicable settlement, except when the case is not allowed by law to be compromised;
2. To define, simplify and clarify the issues for determination;
3. To formulate stipulations of facts and admissions of documentary exhibits, limit the number of witnesses to be presented in cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the court, or those within its appellate jurisdiction where a motion for new trial is granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence; and
4. To take up such other matters which may aid court in the prompt disposition of the case."
1709
!
1696.Preliminary Conference is also made applicable to the Supreme Court by the Rules in original cases for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus
1710
1697.Meaning and purpose of "discovery"
In general, a discovery is a device employed by a party to obtain from the adverse party, information about relevant matters on the case in preparation for the trial.
The rules of procedure have evolved to their present state in which litigation has ceased to be a game of surprises. Now, parties are allowed to have knowledge of relevant facts in the possession of the adverse party and to require the disclosure of evidence even prior to trial. !
1711
1698.The broad purpose of discovery procedures is to permit mutual knowledge before trial of all relevant facts gathered by both parties so that either party may compel the other to disgorge facts whatever he has in his possession.
In the practical sense, the modes of discovery are designed to serve as an additional device for settlement aside from a pre-trial. The disclosure of relevant facts in possession of the adverse party may possibly encourage amicable settlement of the case after a party realizes the weakness of his position. !
1712
1699.The Court explained that "The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark
1713
1700.Duty of the court in relation to the modes of discovery
The modes of discovery are considered by the Supreme Court as vital components of case management in pre-trial courts. Hence, aside from preparing the summons within one day from the receipt of the complaint, the court is required to issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories to parties and request for admission by adverse party, or, at their discretion, make use of depositions, or other measures under Rules 27 and 28 within five days from the filing of the answer. (Q278)
A copy of this order shall be served upon the defendant together with the summons. A copy of the order shall also be served upon the plaintiff.
The use of interrogatories to parties and request for admission is mandatory while the availment of other modes of discovery are merely discretionary on the parties.!
