Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
jurisdictional 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.
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and
obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the
person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of,
specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in
accordance with the mandate of the court. Purpose: to impose thru the
judgment of a court some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of
the defendant. No one other than the defendant is sought to be held liable.
Example: an action for a sum of money; an action for damages.
Actions in personam
An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a real
action necessarily an action in rem. An action to recover title, or possession of
real property is a real action but it is an action in personam. It not brought
against a person but against at the person upon whom the claim is made. An
action for specific performance is an action in personam. An action for
specific performance and/or rescission is not an action in rem. An action for
damages is a personal action as well as an action in personam.
Actions quasi in rem
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject
the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An
individual is named defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject
his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. But the
action is one brought against the whole world. The object is the sale or
disposition of the property whether by attachment, foreclosure or any other
form of remedy. Example: action for partition; action for accounting;
attachment; and foreclosure or mortgage.
B. Cause of Action
1. Meaning of cause of action
It is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another. There
is an existence of a right that was violated by someone who has the
obligation to respect that right. In order to have a cause of action, do you
have to prove the damage sustained? No need. Evidence of damage is not
found in the definition. As long as you can establish a right, and that right was
violated, there is damage automatically without need to prove it because you
will be awarded anyway nominal damages for a vindication of a right, for the
recognition of the right. If you want to recover actual damages, you have to
prove the damage. You cannot recover actual or compensatory damages
without evidence of the harm sustained.
Do you need a COA for every civil action? No. Only in ordinary civil
actions are COAs mandatory. The concept of a COA ad defined in Sec.2
of Rule 2 does not always fit a special civil action. A declaratory relief for
example, you want the court to state what your rights are under a law, a
treaty, a statute, a deed, a will, before a violation occurs. In a COA definition,
there is a cause of action. Here in declaratory relief, there is none. Thats why
the definition of a COA does not fit. Also for interpleader where you are asking
the court to decide who between 2 persons is the rightful claimant. It is filed a
person whose rights are not violated. He cannot just determine who among 2
persons is the rightful owner of a property being claimed from me. There is no
violation of my right. Also the definition of a COA does not apply to an
administrative proceeding. You will be charged administratively not because
of a violation of a right of another but because you violated a rule. If you
violated a Civil Service rule, you will be charged administratively. It does not
also apply to a criminal case.
2. Right of Action versus Cause of action
The concept of COA is substantive law. A COA while defined in the ROC is
not coming from the Rules; the essence comes from substantive law. A right
of action is procedural. It is a right to file the case. There cannot be w ROA
without a COA. Article 1156 of the Civil Code enumerates the sources of a
COA: law, contracts, quasi contracts, delicts, quasi delicts, and acts and
omissions punished by law. Thats why when you are asked in civil
procedure, what is the basis of your COA? Your basis will either be the law,
the contract which is breached, a crime etc.
I borrowed money from X. On the due date of the obligation I did not pay.
That he has a COA against me? Not yet because I still have not violated his
right. He has no demand to pay. If he comes to me and demand payment but
I do not pay and just turned my back, I know violate his right to be paid upon
demand. He now has a COA. If on the due date of the obligation, he comes to
me and said I am reminding you of you debt to me. I did not pay. Is there a
violation? No, because it was not a demand, it was just a reminder. The
demand must be clear and unequivocal requirement to comply with an
obligation. If you did not demand from me on the due date of the obligation,
the implication is that you voluntarily extended the obligation with a period.
Thats why 1169 provides, no demand no delay.
3. Failure to state a cause of action
The allegations of a complaint run: the defendant borrowed P1M from the
plaintiff. The defendant under promissory note hereto attached as Exh. A and
forming an integral part of the complaint mentions that the debt is payable on
Aug. 1, 2010. Until now the debt remains unpaid Is there a correct
statement of a COA? No; from the allegations, judgment cannot be rendered
in favor of the plaintiff because there was no allegation of a sufficient COA.
You will notice only the debt was mentioned, and the due date; it did not
mention that there was demand to pay. The complaint was defective. Sa
totoo, nagdemand sha pero hindi lang nya sinabi sa complaint. Actually he
has a COA, but when he made the complaint, he did not state it. Its not a
case of an absence of a COA. Its a case of failure to state a COA. Aside
from the demand, the allegations must also include the fact that the debt is
already due and demandable. These are the elements; if incomplete, failure
to state COA!
Case, Labitoria: there was a case for partition against co-heirs; the one who
filed the partition case already introduced improvements on the property but
since it was owned in common he later on decided to take the part belonging
to him; the court ordered the partition; after partition where the improvements
went to the other heirs, he filed an action to recover the improvements on the
property. The 2nd suit was barred. It should have been included in the 1st suit,
he should have prayed for the recovery of the improvements introduced or its
expenses when he filed the action for partition.
Actions actually have a main part and an incidental part. If you split the
incidental part from the main part, that is splitting.
Sometimes a single act gives rise to distinct COAs. An act of negligence
causing physical injuries is a COA under quasi-delict, culpa criminal, or
independent civil action. A single act gives rise to many COAs because the
sources are different provisions of the law. You can pursue them separately
and there is no splitting of a COA because they are distinct COAs with
different bases.
A split COA filed may be dismissed for litis pendentia. It could also be barred
by res judicata. The rule does not say which case will be dismissed, the 1st
one filed or the second, the rule is silent. It could also be dismissed for forum
shopping, in which all cases will be dismissed.
Bar: While cruising on a highway, a taxi cab driven by Miles hit an electric
post. As a result thereof, its passenger Joey suffered serious injuries. Miles,
the driver, was subsequently charged before the MTC with reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. Thereafter, Joey filed a civil
action against Lourdes, the owner of the taxi cab for breach of contract of
carriage and also against Miles for quasi-delict. Lourdes and Miles filed a
motion to dismiss the civil actions on the ground of litis pendentia, that is the
pendency of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action for
reckless imprudence. Is there litis pendentia? None. The action for breach of
contract against the taxi owner cannot be barred by the criminal action
against the driver. The civil action for quasi-delict against the driver is a
separate civil action under Art. 33 of the CC. They can be filed separately and
may proceed independently of the criminal action and regardless of the
results of the latter.
An obligation that is divisible gives rise to separate causes of actions.
Example: an obligation payable in installments; each installments that will not
be paid can be a source of a distinct COA. But if you wait for 5 defaults before
filing the action on the 6th default, then you can no longer file an action for
each, you have to lump in one action all the previous defaults.
The doctrine of anticipatory breach: if there are 12 installments and on the
1st installment the debtor already said that he can never ever pay any
installment, you cannot file an action for all 12 installments, only 1 installment
because of the doctrine of anticipatory breach. Only 1 action can be filed
even if there are divisible obligations. The rationale being to avoid court
dockets to be clogged. Ang marami pwedeng pag-isahin pero ang isa hindi
pwedeng paramihin.
6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
Presupposes there are several COAs that you could combine in 1 complaint.
It is different from consolidation, you dont call it consolidation.
Requisites of Joinder of Causes of Action:
a. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties; (applicable only if there are several plaintiffs or several
defendants; example: 1 plaintiff vs. several defendants or several plaintiffs vs.
1 defendant; several plaintiffs vs. several defendants)
b. The joinder shall NOT include special civil action or actions governed by
special rules;
c. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to
different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC
provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
and the venue lies therein;
d. Where the claims in all the COA are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
If given a problem on joinder, immediately look at the number of parties.
if there is only 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant, go to the 2nd requirement of the
Rule. Skip the first. The keyword is a one-on-one situation. Example: Pedro
filed an action against D. This is one-on-one, dont look at joinder of parties.
But if it says: several plaintiffs vs. 1 defendant or 1 plaintiff vs. several
defendants, look at joinder of parties (ramble situation).
Plaintiff vs. Defendant. Defendant owes P P350,000 on a separate
promissory note. He also have another PN in favor of P for P375,000. And
another separate PN for P200,000. And another for P100,000. How many
COA are there if all the debts fall due and demands have been made but
unable to pay? Four because each PN is a separate obligation. Can P file
separate suits? Yes. But there can be also only 1 action filed against the
defendant; this is a proper subject of joinder. Whether or not they come from
different transactions is totally immaterial because this is a one-on-one
situation. If filed under 1 complaint, you follow the totality rule so RTC will
have jurisdiction.
Suppose that the defendant is also a lessee of P who has failed to pay
rentals and there has already been a demand to pay and vacate, can this
action be joined with the action above? No. There is now UD which is a
special civil action expressly prohibited by the 2nd rule on joinder of COAs.
Suppose there are 4 defendants, all neighbors who owe P amounts of
money; demand has been made, but still did not pay. Can P join them in one
complaint? Now you look at the rule on joinder of parties, Sec. 6 of Rule 3.
Requisites of Permissive Joinder of Parties:
1 Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
with their number, what about the common or general interest? The SC said
none. Each sugar planter is only considered with his own reputation, he is not
concerned with the reputation of the other planters. There is no common or
general interest in eachs reputation. No class suit.
Mathay vs. Consolidated Corporation: this has not yet come out in the exams.
There was a wide tract of land divided into lets say 1,000 equal squares at
100sm each. Each square is occupied by a family composed of ten. They
have been living there for many years to wake up 1 day to find each of them
given a note to vacate because the land and the parcels of land were already
titled in the name of a corporation named Land Grabbing Corporation with a
primary purpose of land grabbing. They filed a suit for reconveyance. Is there
a class suit? None. Each family has interest only on the land it occupies.
There is no common or general interest.
Bar: an airplane carrying 200 passengers crashed somewhere in the jungles
of Agusan. All the passengers and crew perished. The relatives of the
fatalities filed for themselves and in behalf of all the relatives in the mishap a
class suit for damages totaling 5M pesos against the airline. The propriety of
the class suit is questioned by the defendant. Is there a class suit? None.
Because there is no common or general interest in the SM of the controversy.
Each of the plaintiffs has a separate claims for damages.
Bar, 1994: 400 residents of Barrio Ramos initiated a class action suit thru
Albert, a former mayor of the town, to recover damages sustained due to their
exposure to toxic wastes and fumes emitted by the cooking gas plant of a top
fuel corporation located at the town. Is the class suit proper? None. No
common general interest in each others illness.
5. Suits against entities without juridical personality
There are friends, A, B and C who owns a motor shop operating under the
name Macho Boys Corporation. The truth is the latter is not registered with
the SEC, no such corporation, it has not juridical personality. They were able
to borrow 2M from XYZ Bank. They were not able to pay the loan so the bank
sued them as Macho Boys Corp. Their defense was that the complaint cannot
state a COA because it cannot sue somebody which has no legal capacity.
Can they be sued under the name MBC? Yes (Sec. 15). But if it was
somebody who borrowed money from them, can they sue under the name
MBC? No because they have no legal capacity to sue. Who will be eventually
liable? The 3 of them thats why when they file their answer, they must state
their names and addresses because they will be the ones liable.
6. Effect of death of party litigant
Let us assume that there is a case going on and the defendant died during
the pre-trial. First, the court will be notified, within 30 days from the death, by
the counsel of the deceased, it is his duty. What will the court do? The court
will ask itself: is this an action that survives the death of a party? Or is this an
action that is extinguished by the death of a party? Then the court will look at
the nature of the case. If it is say an action for legal separation, the court will
dismiss it, no need to go on. If it is say money claim, it survives. Claims