Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Transcribed Lectures of Dean Riano 2011, Part IV

III. Civil Procedure


A. Actions
1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions
One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
2. Meaning of special civil actions
Generally follow the rules on ordinary civil actions, but there are some special
rules only for it sometimes. Thats why its called special.
What is an action for rescission of a contract? Is it an ordinary civil action or a
special civil action? It is an ordinary civil action. Annulment of a contract is
also an ordinary civil action. Reformation of an instrument (incapable of PE)
falls under declaratory relief and other similar remedies under Rule 63.
Quieting of title falls under Rule 63 not as declaratory relief but other similar
remedies. Consolidation of ownership falls under Rule 63 but not under
declaratory relief but other similar remedies. Read the table of contents.
Saan mo ipafile ang application for preliminary attachment proceeding? Hindi
mo yan pina-file separartely kasi yan ay provisional remedy. Ang titingnan mo
ay principal remedy. Kung saan ang principal remedy, doon ang application
for a writ of preliminary attachment.
Saan mo ipa-file ang support pendent elite? Hindi rin yan pina-file separately
kasi provisional rememdy. Yong action for support ay sa Family Court or sa
RTC kung walang FC.
Meron bang action for preliminary injunction? Theres none. Theres only
action for injunction.
Which court has the jurisdiction to issue a provisional remedy? The court
which has jurisdiction over the main action. Can an MTC issue a provisional
remedy? Yes, if the main action is with the MTC.
3. Meaning of criminal actions
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.
4. Civil actions versus Special proceedings
Special proceedings establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. They are
not there for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. If you want a person to be declared as absent, use a
special proceeding; do not go to an ordinary civil action.
Features:
1. The State is interested in the proceeding
2. Proceedings are in rem
3. Rules are for expediency
4. Usually not adversarial in the traditional sense of 2 contending private
parties.
Special proceedings:
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 patient
8 Habeas corpus
9 Change of name
10 Voluntary dissolution of corporations
11 Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
12 Constitution of family home
13 Declaration of absence and death
14 Cancellation of correction of entries in civil registry
5. Personal actions and real actions
A classification of actions according to foundation.
Real actions are those 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.
The rule does not define personal actions. It says all other actions not falling
under real actions are personal actions. If I file an action for damages, that is
personal action; it has nothing to do with interest or title or possession to any
real property. The same with an action for collection of a sum of money.
But not all action which deals with real property is a real action. Example: you
leased an apartment belonging to me for 30k/month. A small apartment with a
single room. Then after three months, when I came to you to collect the
rental, I realized that it changed a lot, the floors which were made of Italian
marbles are now gravel and sand from Boracay, you changed them. When I
asked you why, you said you wished to have an environment that is as much
close to nature as possible. Then I noticed that you tore down the wall of the
apartment and replaced them with nipa wall. Everything was changed. When
I realized it, I suffered from a mild heart attack. When I was revived I filed an
action for damages for P5 million for destroying my apartment. Is it a real or a
personal action? It is personal action. Its not about title to the property, its
not about possession or interest, its about damages. He did not want to pay,
he resisted so I decided to file an action for unlawful detainer so I could
regain possession of the premises. Real or personal? It is a real action
because the issue is possession of real property. FE is also a real action.
They are real actions in accordance with the nature of the action but they are
not real actions in accordance with the objective of the action. Actions for
UD and FE are real actions but they are in personam. An in personam
action could be real.
An annulment of marriage is a personal action, it has nothing to do with real
property, but it is in rem. No privity of real estate is mentioned or involved. An
action for recognition of myself as a natural child is in personam directed

against a person but it is also personal. An action for declaration of nullity of


marriage is in rem but it is personal.
An action to collect a sum of money is personal and also in personam. Kasi
nga directed to or against a particular defendant. An action for damages,
personal and in personam. Cadastral and land registration case is real action
and also in rem.
When the issue in the Bar exams is the venue of a complaint or an action, do
not ask yourself this way: is it personam, in rem or quasi in rem? The
question is, is it real or personal? It is the analysis for purposes of venue.
Pag ang tanong ay what kind of summons will be proper against this nonresident? O di itatanong mo, is it in personam, in rem or quasi in rem? What
summons will be used? The clerk of court will ask if its in personam, in rem or
quasi in rem.
If you want to know whether in that particular case jurisdiction is necessary
over the defendant, your question will be is it in rem, in personam, or quasi in
rem. These principles have not been exploited in the Bar exam because they
are difficult to understand. It was only asked in 2008 about partition, partition
is quasi in rem. But there was a question there: how do you acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant? Holy smoke! It should not be asked
because in an action quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the defendant is not
required.
Why do you need to know if an action is real or personal? In order to
determine the venue. Why do you need to know if an action is in personam, in
rem or quasi in rem? So that you will know if jurisdiction over the defendant is
necessary and to determine what kind of summons will be served.
Example. Kapag ang action ay in personam, hindi ka pwede magpadala ng
summons thru publication. This is the general rule. Because this action is
directed to a particular person, and a summons by publication is directed to
the whole world. If the defendant was not able to read such publication, then
you still havent reached him/her. But if its an action in rem or quasi in rem,
then publication is allowed.
6. Local and transitory actions
A real action is local, its venue depends upon the location of the property
involved in the litigation. A personal action is transitory, its venue depends
upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the
plaintiff.
7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem
A classification of actions according to the object of the actions.
Actions in rem
It is in rem when it is directed against the whole world. An action for the
declaration of nullity of marriage is a personal action because it is not
founded on real estate. It is also in rem because the issue of the status of a
person is one directed against the whole world. A cadastral proceeding is an
action in rem. A land registration proceeding is an action in rem. Hence,
failure to give a personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land is not a

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!

Absence of a COA is not a ground for a motion to dismiss; it is a ground for


demurrer to evidence according to the SC. Meaning there is no evidence that
you do have a COA, demurrer to evidence is anchored on insufficiency of
evidence.
4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action
Assuming that the allegations of the plaintiff are true, will the court be able to
render judgment on the basis of the allegations of the plaintiff? If the answer
is yes, it is sufficient.
But when can the court not be able to render a judgment? If the elements of
the COA are not present. Example: you sued me for breach of contract; what
are the 2 essential elements that must be found in the complaint? 1. The
existence of the contract; 2. The violation of the contract. It is sufficient.
The test for sufficiency of a COA is the same with the test for the validity of an
information. Are the elements of a felony mentioned in an information? If not,
you cannot convict him on the basis of that information.
5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
If you have 1 COA, do not divide it into several parts making each part the
subject of a separate complaint. Example: Dean Riano was hit by a running
Mr. Javier along Recto. The latter slammed into his frail 60-year old body. He
laid unconscious for several minutes. The doctor told him that his left and
right legs, as well as his right and left arms were broken; also 3 of his ribs
were broken, and the strands of his hair were removed. Can Dean Riano file
separate complaints for each broken part? No; that would be splitting.
In every COA, there is a primary relief sought and the others are incidental
reliefs. Example: you file an action for collection for a sum of money
P500,000; this is the main claim, the payment of the principal; but then there
was a stipulation to the interest; there was no payment of the interest; so
there was a claim for the interest; if you file for the recovery of P500,000 and
another for the interests, theres a clear case of splitting of a COA. You only
have to file a single complaint for this.
Bar: An action to recover shares of stock was filed. After it was recovered thru
a final judgment, an action for the recovery of dividends received by the
defendant was also filed. Was there splitting of a single COA? Yes; the 1st
action should have included the recovery of dividends on the shares.
City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery: the city filed an action to recover
from SMB unpaid local taxes which have not been paid for a long time
despite assessments sent; the court decided in favor of the city; SMB, when it
received the decision, paid the taxes; 3 months after, the wise boys of the city
remembered something: that SMB did not pay the surcharges and the
penalties of the overdue taxes; the reason is they did not include in their
prayer such recovery; so they filed an action to recover those surcharges on
the taxes paid; the issue that went to the SC is very simple: was the 2nd suit
already barred by the judgment on the 1st suit? The answer is yes. Kung
nagclaim ka ng recovery of taxes dapat pati surcharges isinama mo na sa
pag claim sa 1st case, they belong to a single 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;

There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs and


defendants;
3 Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules
on jurisdiction and venue.
The above are separate PNs executed by different people, these are
transactions totally unrelated to each other, therefore they cannot be joined.
You have to file separate complaints against the defendants.
The perfect example would be: 2 injured passengers of a bus filing 1
complaint for quasi-delict against the driver. There are 2 distinct COAs,
passenger 1 can sue the driver under his own complaint, and passenger 1
can sue the driver under his own complaint. But they can join as plaintiffs
under 1 complaint against the driver. You have now to comply with the rule on
joinder of parties because this is no longer a non-on-one situation. There are
now 2 plaintiffs against 1 defendant. The rule says the plaintiffs must be
related under a single transaction or a series of transactions, and there
must be a common question of law or of fact. Where they injured under a
single accident? Yes. Same transaction. Could there be a common question
of law or of fact? Yes- whether the driver was negligent. So, there can be a
joinder.
But in the course of the action where he hit an electric post, he hit another
car with passenger C who was injured; the circumstances of C are not the
same with the circumstances of the 2 earlier passengers; the joinder is not
clear.
Another example is recovery of money under a PN signed by 4 joint
debtors. The plaintiff ,ay file a separate complaint against each debtor but he
can only recover as to that debtors art of the debt. He can also join all COA
in a single complaint against all joint debtors.
Can you join an action for rescission of a contract with an action to collect a
sum of money? Say rescission of a contract of a sale of a car. Yes. They are
on ordinary actions. Nothing there is a special civil action. What are the
special civil actions
Types of Special Civil Actions :
1 Mandamus
2 Interpleader
3 Certiorari
4 Contempt
5 Prohibition
6 Eminent Domain
7 Declaratory Relief
8 Quo warranto
9 Partition of real estate
10 Foreclosure of mortgage
11 Unlawful detainer
l. Forcible Entry

If it is a one-on-one case, do not anymore look at the rule on joinder of


parties, look if there is a special civil action. If there is, then it must be
severed.
A joinder of COA and of parties is not compulsory. It is permissive.
C. Parties to Civil Actions
Is the word plaintiff always the original plaintiff? No. can the original
defendant become the plaintiff in the same proceeding? Yes; when he file a
counterclaim, a cross-claim, a third-party complaint, he is a plaintiff in that
sense. The original plaintiff also becomes a defendant in these instances.
Who may be parties to a civil action? Can a natural person be a party? Yes.
Can a juridical person be a party? Yes. Can some neither natural nor juridical
person be a party? Only natural persons, or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties to a civil action. Under the Labor Code, a
labor organization duly registered in accordance by the Code can file suits.
Know the concept of real parties in interest, their definition will be in the
exams, Dean Riano can feel it.
1. Real Parties in interest; Indispensable parties; Representatives as
parties; Necessary parties; Indigent Parties; Alternative defendants
Real parties in interest
Parties who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
parties entitled to the avails of the suit.
Its not enough to be a natural person, its not enough to be a juridical person,
its not enough to be an entity authorized by law, in order to sue or be sued or
be a party to a civil action. What is important is you have to be a real party in
interest.
There are 2 general types of real parties in interest:
i.) The indispensable parties
Ang indispensable party hindi pwedeng wala; kung wala sya, there will never
be a final determination of the case. The keywords there will be final
determination. When the party is indispensable there is a compulsory
joinder.
ii.) The necessary parties.
Pwedeng matuloy ang kaso kahit walang necessary parties. kaya lang wala
kang complete relief and full recovery kapag hindi mo isinali ang ibang
necessary party. Pero kapag indispensable party, hindi pwedeng wala sha sa
suit.
Alternative Defendants
Nasaktan ka, hindi mo alam kung sino sa 2 tao ang nag cause og iyong harm
or loss or damage. Anong remedy mo? Idemanda mo silang 2 in the
alternative. Alternative plaintiffs, yes theoretically. In whom..in the alternative
plaintiffs. Against whom in the alternative defendants. There are also
alternative COAs and alternative defenses.
2. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties
A joinder of COA and of parties is not compulsory. It is permissive. There is
only 1 instance where a joinder of parties is compulsory, its in Sec. 7 of Rule

3. Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an


action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. When the party is
indispensable there is a compulsory joinder.
Remember the example on the joint obligation where the debt of each debtor
is P250,000 each. Can the plaintiff sue 1 debtor alone without including the
others? Yes. But he will only recover 250,000. The other debtors are
necessary parties because without them, there will be no full recovery of 1
million.
But Sec. 9 imposes an obligation upon the plaintiff to state the names of the
necessary parties and the reasons why they are not included in the suit.
Absent this requirement, there could be a waiver of your right against the
other parties.
If P sues 1 debtor alone under a solidary obligation, the debtor is an
indispensable party because P cannot collect without suing him. What about
the other debtors, are they necessary or indispensable? Neither because P
can collect everything from that 1 debtor alone under that solidary obligation.
P can collect from any of the debtors.
3. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of an
action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of a court on motion of any
party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as
are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately (Sec. 11 Rule 3).
When an indispensable party is not impleaded, the courts 1st option is not to
dismiss but to order that that party be joined thru a proper amendment of the
pleading. If the order was not followed or complied with, the court can now
dismiss the complaint not on the basis of non-joinder but on the basis of Sec.
3 of Rule 17, failure to obey the order of the court, fault of the plaintiff.
Should an action be prosecuted and defended by the real party in interest?
No. In the name of the real party in interest, not by, but in his name.
Example: minors sue with the assistance of parents or guardians, not thru
their parents or guardians.
4. Class Suit
You will be asked to determine if a class suit exists. You go by definitions.
Sec. 13 of Rule 3. When the subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons so numerous that is it
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of
all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest
shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
Requisites of a Class Suit:
1 Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons; (this will be the focal point of the Bar)
2 Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them
all to the court;

Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or


representative of the class and have the legal capacity to file the
action.
Example: Wowowee stampede some years ago where more than 70 people
died. Assuming there is an average of 20 heirs per person who died, then it
would be 20x70 plus, they would be numerous. The heirs of those who died,
assuming they filed a class suit against ABS-CBN; is there a class suit? No.
The law says common or general interest in the subject matter, not the issue
or the question or the facts. Each person who died is a separate SM. Each
lola who died is not a common or general lola to the other heirs.
Example: Each fisherman in Guimaras affected by the oil spill in the area has
a separate interest as to his income. He is not interested in the income of
other fishermen. A class suit is not possible. Remedy is to file individual suits
and have them consolidated.
Example: Princess of the Stars, June 2008. There is no class suit.
Case: A barrio that put up a big wooden coin bank for the common fund of
everyone. Each person who has extra coins will drop them in that wooden
bank. It has been there for 7 years that each depositor can no longer identify
his contribution and how much. One day, the coin bank disappeared. The
treasurer also disappeared. When he was found, the entire barrio filed a class
suit against him for an action to recover the giant coin bank. Is it proper? Yes.
There is a common interest; each barrio folk can no longer identify his share
in the coin bank. The keyword is if you can no longer identify what is
yours. Your interest is merged with the interests of others, then there is
common or general interest.
Opposa vs. Factoran: the basis of the class suit is the protection of the
environment. There is a class suit even in the name of future generations,
there is intergenerational responsibility. The plaintiffs, in behalf of the
generations yet to come, filed a class suit against then DENR Secretary
Fulgencio Factoran to prevent the rape of the forests and the environment
and recall all timber licenses issued before and to prevent issuance of more
licenses. The issue that went to court is, is there class suit? The SC, thru
Justice Davide, said yes because there was a common or general interest in
the SM which is the environment and the natural resources. Can you identify
which is yours in the environment and the natural resources? No.
Newsweek vs. IAC: a case involving the sugar planters and barons in Negros
Occidental. Several writers of Newsweek Asia visited the place and they
wrote an article about the exploitation of the plantation workers. It was written
in such a fashion that every sugar planter would really shrink in shame and
would feel like fading in a wall. The title of the article is Island of Fear. It
showed how the sakada were living in a very pitiful condition. They would
earn 1 peso a day but 45 cents of that 1 peso would go back to the
landowners as payment of their debts. It was outlined in the article which hurt
the feelings of the sugar planters and their families. They came together to
file a class suit against Newsweek Asia. Was there a class suit? No problem

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

against property survives even claims against UD cases survive. If the


plaintiff wants to continue it, it can be continued because once jurisdiction has
attached, it remains with the court until the termination of the proceedings,
adherence of jurisdiction. So if it is a money claim against the defendant, the
court will call the lawyer of the deceased and ask for a substitute such as the
heir. But you cannot force the heir to substitute the deceased, in this case the
lawyer must get an administrator for purposes of that suit. If the defendant
cannot produce an administrator, the plaintiff can procure it. Pwedeng
masingil later on sa judgment. Tuloy ang kaso. Judgment against the
deceased thru a substitute. Can you file a motion for the execution of the
judgment if you were the plaintiff who won the case? No. the judgment should
be presented as a claim against the estate. Special proceedings will come
in. do not ask for a writ of execution. Rule 86.
A claim of real property will not be extinguished. Thats why the next step is
substitution. The substitute will fall under the jurisdiction of the court not thru
summons, but thru the order of substitution. This is an instance where
jurisdiction over the person will apply even if there is no summons- when the
defendant dies.
It is the same if it was the plaintiff who died. The rules work both ways.
Example: the plaintiff dies in an action to recover a sum of money, the
defendant cannot rejoice because he has no debt anymore.

Вам также может понравиться