UPDATES /SALIENT

FEATURES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. Payment of docket and

other lawful fees :

A. Payment of docket fees is not
jurisdictional. The rule on no docket
fee, no jurisdiction may be relaxed by
the Court if there are weighty and
compelling reasons. (La Salette College
vs. Pilotin, G.R. No. 149227, December 11,
2003)

B. The payment of docket fees is mandatory.

This does not, however, mean that when the
docket fee is not paid, the Court has no other
recourse than to dismiss the case.
Dismissal is an option but this should not be
resorted to when there are circumstances
demanding the relaxation of the rule (Pulido
vs. CA, 527 SCRA 249, July 2007)

C. It is not mandatory for a court to

dismiss an appeal when appellate docket
fee is not paid. Dismissal is discretionary
depending upon the circumstances
surrounding the appeal (Government of
the Kingdom of Belgium vs. CA, 551 SCRA
223, April 15, 2008)

D. Summary of the Rule on Docket fees :

d.1. if docket fees are not paid, the action of
the Court is either : a.) dismiss the complaint
without prejudice; or b.) allow the plaintiff to
pay the docket fee within a reasonable time
before the lapse of the prescriptive period.

E. Remedies if the Court orders dismissal of

action :
1. Motion for Reconsideration
2. If MR is denied, the plaintiffs remedy is
neither appeal nor certiorari but to refile the
complaint and pay the docket fees.

F. For compulsory counterclaim Per A.M. No.

04-2-04-SC, September 21, 2004- suspending
payment of filing fees for compulsory
counterclaims.
Clarified by OCA
suspension remains.

Circular

No.

096-09-

2. Neypes Doctrine- fresh

15 day period rule.
A. Only upon denial of MR or MNT (Motion for New
Trial)
B. Purpose

C. The Fresh 15 day period rule does not refer to the

period within which to appeal from the Order
denying the MR or MNT but to the period within
which to appeal from the Judgment itself because
an Order denying MR or MNT is not appealable.

D. Neypes doctrine applied in Special proceedings but the

period to appeal is 30 days from notice of the denial of MR or
MNT (Heirs of H. Zayco, et al. vs. Atty. Jesus V. Hinlo, Jr., G.R.
No. 170243, April 16, 2008)

3. Appeal
A. As a rule, no question will be entertained on
appeal unless it has been raised in the Court
below (Canada vs. All Commodities Marketing
Corp., G.R. No. 146141, October 17, 2008)
B. But in criminal cases, appellate court has
wide latitude.

4. Dismissal under Sec. 3,

Rule 17
Dismissal without qualification on the ground of
failure to prosecute under Sec. 3, Rule 17,
amounts to an adjudication on the merits.
The Order of dismissal does not, however,
become final and executory, when copy thereof
not properly served on the adverse party.
Therefore, res judicata cannot attach (Sps.
Ernesto and Vicenta Topacio vs. BF Savings and
Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157644, November 17,
2010)

5. Certification of NonForum Shopping

If the plaintiff is a corporation : As a rule, only a corporate officer duly
authorized by the Board of Directors can sign (A.M. No. 1569905, 2007)
Exceptions given in the case of Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. vs BIR
Commissioner, G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008)
a.1. Chairman of Board of Directors
a.2. President of the Corporation
a.3. General (Industrial Acting) Manager
a.4. Personnel Officer
a.5. Employment Specialist in labor cases

6. Amendments to Rules 41,

45, 58 and 65
A. Former rule in Rule 41- no appeal may be taken from an Order
denying a Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsiderationdeleted from Rule 41 and taken in relation to Neypes Doctrine.
B. Neypes Doctrine or fresh 15 day period rule applied in Rule 42
(from RTC to CA) and Rule 45 (Appeals by Certiorari to SC). Therefore
also applies in criminal cases, Rule 42 and 45 being likewise availed of
in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion temporal
down.

C. Rule 45
Amendment : the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 may include an application for a writ of preliminary
injunction or other provisional remedies and the petitioner
may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion
filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its
pendency.
Observation : Re nature of a preliminary injunction

D. Rule 58, Preliminary Injunction

d.1. The Trial Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan or Court
of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction
against a lower court, board, officer or quasi-judicial agency
shall decide the main case or petition within 6 months from
issuance of the writ.

E. Rule 65
e.1. The amendment removed the Supreme court from the
enumeration of courts where the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition,
Mandamus may be filed.
Observation : Gives the impression that no Petition for Certiorari can
be filed with the Supreme Court.
e.2. Sec. 7- the public respondent shall proceed with the principal case
within 10 days from the filing of a Petition for Certiorari with a higher
court or tribunal, absent a TRO or a writ of Preliminary Injunction or
upon its expiration.
Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case
may be a ground for an administrative charge.
Observation : The provision needs further amendment to avoid
injustice to the lower court.

1. Interruption of period of

prescription of offense
charged
(Last paragraph, Sec. 1, Rule
110; Zaldivia doctrine)

2. Probable

cause

A. Determination of the existence of probable

cause is either an executive function or a

judicial function.
The Trial Court is mandated to immediately
dismiss the case upon finding that no
probable cause exists to issue warrant of
arrest and after having evaluated the
resolution of the Fiscal and supporting
information [(People vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 144159, September 29, 2004; Sec. 5,
Rule 112, Dismissal without prejudice, in
relation to Allado vs. Diokno, G.R. No.
113630, May 5, 1994)].

B. Jurisdiction of the court over

a case once or after Information
is filed (Cerezo vs. People, June
1, 2011, reiterating Crespo ruling
that once a case is filed with the
Court, any disposition of it rests
on the sound discretion of the
Court.

3. To be appreciated against the

accused,
the
qualifying
and
aggravating circumstance must be
both alleged in the Information
and proved during the trial
(People vs. Edgar L. Legaspi, G.R.
Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001;
People vs. Castanito S. Gano, G.R.
No. 134373, February 28, 2001).
Exception : People vs. Dalisay,
G.R. No. 188106. November 25,
2009

5. Warrantless Search
incidental to a lawful
warrantless arrest
The arrest must precede the search and
generally, the process cannot be reversed.
Exception when the search can precede the arrest
of the police have probable cause to arrest the
accused at the outset of the search.

A reliable information or tip alone is not

sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule
requires, in addition, that the accused performs
same overt act that would indicate that he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense (People vs. Racho, August,
2010)

6. Bail Rule 114

A. Accused must be in custody
B. The Court cannot impose as a condition for
bail the arraignment of the accused (Lavides vs.
CA, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000).
It would place accused in a position where he
has to choose between : 1.) filing Motion to
Quash and thus delay his release on bail because
until his Motion to Quash can be resolved, his
Arraignment cannot be had, and, 2.) foregoing
the filing of a Motion to Quash so he can be
arraigned at once and thereafter be released on
bail.

C. Where filed?

1. With the Court where the case is pending

or in the absence or unavailability of the
Judge thereof, with any RTC, MeTC, MTC or
MCTC in the province, City or Municipality.
2. If arrested in a place other than where
the case is pending, the bail may also be
filed with any RTC of said place, or if no
Judge thereof is available, with any MeTC,
MTC or MCTC trial judge therein:
Therefore, not a question of whether or not

the case falls within the jurisdiction of RTC

or MTC.

D. Right to Bail after conviction by the Trial

Court

After conviction by the Trial Court, the presumption

of innocence terminates, and the constitutional
right to bail ends. From then on, the grant of bail is
subject to judicial discretion (Leviste vs. CA, March
17, 2010).

E. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, RA

No. 9344

If child is above 15 and below 18 acting with

discernment and is detained- may be released on
recognizance or on bail. For purposes of
recommending the amount of bail, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority should be
considered (Sec. 34, RA 9344).

7. Speedy Trial
A. Not to exceed 180 days from the 1st date of trial
B. Time limitation not applicable to :
- criminal cases covered by Rule on Summary Procedure
- RA No. 4908- cases where the offended party is a person
about to depart from the Philippines with no definite date of
return.
- child abuse cases to take precedence over all other cases
before the Court except election and habeas corpus cases. Trial to
commence 3 days from date accused is arranged, and no
postponement of initial hearing.
- Violation of Dangerous drugs Law
- Kidnapping, Robbery in Band, Robbery committed against a
Banking Financial Institution, RA 9165, Carnapping and other
Heinous Crimes under RA 7659
Mandatory continuous trial for 60 days from
commencement . Judgment rendered within 30 days from
submission for decision.

C. Remedy against denial of the Right to

Speedy Trial
1. Motion to Dismiss the dismissal
would be tantamount to an acquittal
2. Where the Fiscal, without good cause,
secure postponement of trial beyond a
reasonable period of time, over the
objection of the accused.
a). Mandamus to compel dismissal of
the information (Lumarlaw vs. Peralta,
Jr., February 13, 2006)
b). If accused is restrained of liberty,
remedy is Habeas Corpus (Vide Abadia
vs. CA, 230 SCRA 676).

8. Prosecution of Civil Action

Rule 111
A. Implied institution of civil action with the
criminal action
B. Effect of death of accused on his civil
liability
People

vs. Binay, September 14, 2010 the death of

the accused likewise extinguishes the civil liability
that was based exclusively on the crime for which the
accused was convicted because no final judgment of
conviction was yet rendered at the time of his death.
Only civil liability predicated on a source of obligation
other than the delict survived the death of accused
which the offended party can recover in a separate
civil action.

C. Prejudicial Question
Tenebro vs. CA, 423 SCRA 272 (2006) Declaration
nullity of marriage on ground of psychological
incapacity is not prejudicial to Bigamy

9. Demurrer to Evidence
People

vs. Tan, July 2010, citing People vs.

Sandiganbayan : The general rule is that
the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence
operates as an acquittal, hence, final and
unappealable. Double jeopardy will attach.
The only instance that double jeopardy will
not attach is when the Trial Court acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction like where the
Prosecution was denied opportunity to
present its case or where the Trial was a
sham.

10. Neypes Doctrine may be applied

in criminal cases.

(Judith

Yu vs. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad,

Presiding Judge, RTC, Quezon City and the
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170979,
February 9, 2011)

11. Motion to QuashDouble Jeopardy

Jason Ivler y Aguilar vs. Hon.

Maria Rowena Modesto-San

Pedro, et al., G.R. No. 172716
November 17, 2010.